CAR_Public/170825.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Friday, August 25, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 168



                            Headlines

ACE HARDWARE: Court Dismisses "Dragoslavic" Without Prejudice
ADVANCE STORES: La. App. Affirms Trial Court's Ruling in "Bradix"
ADVISORY BOARD: Monroe Retirement System Files Securities Suit
AKORN INC: To Defend Against Shannon, Ochoa and Glaubach Actions
ALAMO DRAFTHOUSE: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages

ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Appeal in Malware Class Suit Underway
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Bids to Dismiss 401(k) Plan Suit Underway
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Oral Arguments Heard in "Rodman" Appeal
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Henriquez" Suit Says
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Morrow" Suit

ALLY FINANCIAL: Consolidation of 3 Securities Cases Mulled
ALTABA INC: Cost of Resolution of "Buch" Case Estimated at $2.3M
ALTABA INC: Consolidated Suit Filed in Madrack & Talukder Cases
ALTABA INC: Delaware Case Stayed in Favor of "Spain" Action
ALTABA INC: Responsible for 50% of Consumer Case Liabilities

AMAZON.COM LLC: Makenna, et al. Seek to Stop "False" Advertising
AMERICAN VANGUARD: Delaware Supreme Court Asked to Weigh In
APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Sends "Frlekin" to Calif. Supreme Court
ARC TRADING: Faces "Hernandez" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
ASKINS & MILLER: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

AVANGRID INC: Shareholder Class Action Dismissed
BED BATH: Faces "Rendon" Suit in S. Dist. of Fla.
BEST BUY: Granted 7 Hours to Depose Plaintiff in "Harris" Suit
BMW BANK: 3d Cir. Reverses Denial of Car Dealers' Class Cert.
BORNSTEIN SEAFOODS: "Jimenez" Sues Over 401K Plan Contributions

BRIXMOR PROPERTY: Settles Westchester Putnam's Securities Action
CALIBER HOME: Hunt Files Suit in S. Dist. of Florida
CAPE MAY COUNTY, NJ: Court Vacates Default Judgment in "Docherty"
CHEMED CORP: Consolidation of Seper and Chhina Cases Pending
CLEVELAND INTEGRITY: Amended "Gundrum" Class Notice Due in 2Weeks

CLINICAL CARE: Faces "Diaz" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
CNA FINANCIAL: Mediation in 401(k) Plus Plan Case Next Month
COLD SPRING: $500K Settlement in "Avila" Gets Prelim. Approval
CONSOL ENERGY: "Hale" Litigation Back in Trial Court
CONSOL ENERGY: "Addison" Litigation Remains Pending

CONSOL ENERGY: Defending Against Fitzwater Litigation
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: 6th Cir. Affirms Judgment Trimming "Gerboc"
DIGCO UTILITY: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in "Contis"
DOTY BROS: Cal. App. Grants in Part Appeal in "Cortez" Labor Suit
DUPONT FABROS: McCullough Sues Over Sale to Digital Realty

E.T. ZACAPA: "Aguinaga" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
EDISON INT'L: Liable for Charging Higher Fees, Court Says
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Napolitano" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
EROS INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Pending
EXCALIBUR VAN: No Meal Breaks, Overtime Pay, Guerrero Suit Says

EXPAND INC: Faces "Hilton" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation
EZCORP INC: $5.9M Settlement of "Close" Litigation Approved
EZCORP INC: Federal Securities Litigation Now in Discovery Stage
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: "Stineman" Hits Illegal Collection Letter
FREDDIE MAC: Motions for Class Certification Underway

FREDDIE MAC: Motion to Dismiss Jacobs and Hindes Suit Underway
FRESH DEL MONTE: DBCP Issues Sent to Delaware Supreme Court
GENPACT SERVICES: Faces "Tolbayeva" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
GENPACT SERVICES: Faces "Guiffreda" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
GIGAMON INC: To Defend Against California Shareholder Action

GLAZER-KENNEDY: Hormozdi Challenges Faxed Ads, Invokes TCPA
HABITAT COMPANY: Faces "Johnson" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
HARBOR INTERFAITH: "Verduzco" Suit Alleges No OT Pay, Breaks
HARRISON GLOBAL: Court Denies Bid to Stay "Benson" Labor Suit
HESS CORP: Thornhill Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums

HIGHMARK INC: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Monopoly Suit
HOME DEPOT: Parties in "Utne" Directed to Confer on TAC Filing
HOMEADVISOR INC: Court Denies Intervention Notice in "Airquip"
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Oral Arguments in Appeal Set for October
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Overdraft Case Deal Received Final Okay

INSPERITY INC: Retirement Plan Class Action Litigation Pending
JUDICIAL SECURITY: Faces "Maxwell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Court Dismisses FAC in "Winner"
LASERSHIP INC: Faces "Klatte" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Wage Law
LEE HEALTH: Faces "Gil" Suit in M.D. of Fla.

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "McMurray" Suit Over Chinese Flooring
MARKWORT SPORTING: Piland Files Suit Over "Made in USA" Label
MDL 2067: Court Denies Certification in Sales Practices Suit
MILLIKAN LAW: Faces "Askett" Lawsuit Alleging FDCPA Violations
MIRAMAR LABS: Shareholder Sues Board Over Sale to Sientra Unit

MOSAIC FERTILIZER: Claims in Bohn et al. Class Action Dismissed
MYLAN INC: Local 282 Fund Sues Over EpiPen Auto-Injector Monopoly
NR GROUP: "Depillars" Hits Inadequate Parking, Restrooms Doors
OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Faces "Kim" Securities Suit Over DEXTENZA
ODYSSEY MEDIA: Issued No Termination Notice, "Luciano" Asserts

OHIO RENTAL: "Myers" Suit Alleges FLSA, Ohio Wage Law Violations
OS RESTAURANT: Destra Sues Over Withheld Tips, No OT Pay
PANDORA MEDIA: Appeal in Pre-1972 Copyright Litigation Underway
PANDORA MEDIA: "Sheridan" Class Action Stayed
PERCEPTA: Faces "Layton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

PETMED EXPRESS: To Defend Against Animal Medical Center Suit
PETRO RIVER: Plaintiffs' 10th Circuit Appeal Underway
PROGRESSIVE CLASSIC: Faces Suit for Invasion of Privacy
REAL MONARCA: Server, Bartender Files Suit Over FLSA Violation
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,694 Engle Progeny Cases Pending at June 30

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,346 Broin II Lawsuits Pending at June 30
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 25 Personal Injury Class Actions Ongoing
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference in "Turner" Not Rescheduled
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Howard" Case Remains Dormant
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Jan. 2018 Status Conference in "Collora" Suit

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference in "Black" Suit in Jan. 2018
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motion to Dismiss "Harris" Case Underway
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: July 2018 Class Cert. Hearing in Suit v SFNTC
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing in Breathe DC Suit to End by Aug. 29
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 3 Class Action Cases Remain Dormant

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Tatum" ERISA Lawsuit Ends
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: BAT Petition for Review Accepted
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Class Suit over BAT Merger Pending
RICE ENERGY: Wilson Files Suit Over Sale to EQT Corp.
RICE ENERGY: Faces "Gordon" Suit Over Merger With EQT Corp.

RUANE CUNNIFF: Can Compel Arbitration in DST ERISA Suit
SEATTLE GENETICS: Defending Against Securities Class Action
SOS SECURITY: Faces "Musa" Lawsuit Alleging FCRA Violation
SOUTHERN HEALTH: Court Denies Conditional Class Cert. in "Medley"
SSA BONDS: $65M Settlement Reached with BofA, Deutsche Bank

STAR GAS: No Class Has Yet Been Certified in New Jersey Action
STATE FARM: Faces "Castenada" Suit in C. Dist. of Ill.
SWAMI LLC: Faces "Mughal" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
THRESHOLD PHARMACEUTICALS: Stipulation to Dismiss Suit Denied
TRENDY COLLECTIONS: "Hernandez" Lawsuit Alleges FLSA Violation

TRI-MED HOME: "Wallace" Hits Contract Breach, Seek OT Pay
TRINITY REVERSE: Faces "Brailsford" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
US BANK: Faces "Moseman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
WAL-MART: Johnson Sues Over Negligent Bike Assembly Policies
WATERSTONE MORTGAGE: Liable for Unpaid Wages in "Herrington" Case

WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Recovered $4 Mil. from Insurers
WELLS FARGO: Faces "Heiman" Suit Over Auto Insurance Policies
WILKES-BARRE, PA: Slavish Files Suit v. Housing Authority
YINGLI GREEN: Court Dismisses Third Amended Complaint in "Knox"
YORK HEALTHCARE: "Wallace" Hits Contract Breach, Seeks OT Pay

ZTO EXPRESS: Jian Files Suit Over Share Price Drop


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belluck & Fox Awarded Best Lawyers in America(R)
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Greater Hume Shire Says Pay Falls Short
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Negligence Could Result in Stop Orders
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Witness Permitted to Testify
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Couple Says Corps. Failed to Warn of Effects

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hillshire Owes $13MM Over Asbestos Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed from Vacant Keokuk Church
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found During Melbourne Roadworks
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Contaminated Schools Pose Risk for Kids
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4250 Corp. Named in Asbestos Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Claims Lung Cancer Caused by Alfa Laval
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sen. Kennedy Proposes Bill to Help Veterans
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Highway Project Shut After Asbestos Report
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BASF Alleges Conflict with Special Master
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Could Delay Shaftsbury Start of School

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-contaminated Rubbish Found in Backyard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Officials Fine County for Asbestos Issue
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carisbrook CFA Crew May be Exposed to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Haw. Firefigters Union Raises Asbestos Concerns
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Automatic Pay for GE Retirees Remains Goal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.4BB Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has 15,910 PI Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Still Defends Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Unit Still Faces Suits at Jun30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 609 Pending Cases at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Had 9,292 Claims Pending at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Had $852.7MM Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UTC Had $370.0MM Asbestos Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Had $26.8MM Libby Costs at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Subsidiaries Still Face Claims at June30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 56,000 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $331.0MM Accrual at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 18,037 Pending Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $53.3MM Accrued Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Had 61,400 Claims at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Longhorn Claims Fall Under Pollution Exclusion
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Review "Hodjera" Ruling Set for Sept. 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Review Imerys Dismissal Set for Sept. 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Fisher Controls Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Union Carbide Dismissed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Mayeaux" Remanded to Louisiana State Court


                            *********


ACE HARDWARE: Court Dismisses "Dragoslavic" Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Marwill Division, dismissed without prejudice
the case captioned SAM DRAGOSLAVIC on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-00141-JRG (E.D. Tex.).

On Feb. 17, 2017, the Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, on behalf of
himself and a proposed class of others similarly situated,
alleging that the Defendant made false or misleading statements
about its products.  Specifically, he argues that Ace Hardware
labeled certain products as Solid Brass even though these products
are not entirely made of brass.  The Complaint includes no further
description of the products at issue except for mention of two
examples.

The Plaintiff has sought relief on behalf of himself and putative
class members under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer
Protection Act and the laws of 44 other states and the District of
Columbia.  He does not allege that he purchased products or
resides in any of these states, except Texas.

The Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and has its primary
place of business in Illinois.  It operates as a nationwide
cooperative in which stores in various communities, including
throughout Texas, operate under the same name.  On April 25, 2017,
it filed the instant Motion seeking to dismiss the Plaintiff's
claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to
state a claim.

Judge Gilstrap finds that the Plaintiff (i) does have standing
under Article III to bring his fraud claims against Ace Hardware;
and (ii) lacks standing to pursue injunctive relief based on the
allegations in the Complaint.  He also finds that the Defendant's
reliance on Article III to attack whether Dragoslavic can or
should represent putative class members from other states is
misplaced.  Said another way, standing is the wrong conceptual
framework for this purpose.  Dragoslavic has been injured and he
seeks to bring claims on behalf of himself and others who have
purportedly suffered a similar injury at the hands of the same
defendant based on the same allegedly misleading statements.  This
clearly presents a case or controversy between the Plaintiff, the
putative class members, and the Defendant.  As to the Defendant's
remaining arguments, such as the propriety of certifying a
nationwide class or permitting the Plaintiff to proceed with
classwide fraud claims, also do not implicate standing.

With respect to the Plaintiff's argument that his negligent
misrepresentation claim is not subject to the requirements of Rule
9(b), the Judge applies the heightened pleading standard
established by Rule 9(b) to all of the Plaintiff's claims in light
of Lone Star Fund and because the gravamen of the Plaintiff's
allegations is fraud.

Judge Gilstrap further finds that the Complaint contains at least
two fatal defects.  First, the "Falsely Marked Products" at issue
in the case are described in the Complaint only as "certain
products" that were at some point allegedly marked as "Solid
Brass."  However, Rule 9(b) does not permit a plaintiff to proceed
to discovery based on allegations against an entirely open-ended
category of products without some additional specificity.  Second,
the Complaint does not identify when or where the Plaintiff
purchased any of the "Falsely Marked Products."  Rule 9(b)
requires these details to be set forth with particularity in the
Complaint.  Accordingly, the Judge is persuaded that the Plaintiff
has not satisfied Rule 9(b).

For these reasons, Judge Gilstrap granted the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss.  Clarifying that the dismissal is without prejudice,
the he granted the Plaintiff leave to amend its Complaint within
14 days of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/y0lIBU from Leagle.com.

Sam Dragoslavic, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony L. Giacomini --
agiacomini@zonieslaw.com -- Zonies Law LLC.

Sam Dragoslavic, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph J. Zonies --
jzonies@zonieslaw.com -- Zonies Law LLC, Benjamin B. Lieb, Talus
Law Group, LLC, Gregory Bentley -- gbentley@zonieslaw.com --
Zonies Law LLC & Michael Charles Smith, Siebman Burg Phillips &
Smith, LLP.

Ace Hardware Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ryan K. Yagura
-- ryagura@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, Scott Michael Voelz --
svoelz@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, Daniel J. Faria --
dfaria@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, Earl Glenn Thames, Jr. --
glennthames@potterminton.com -- Potter Minton, a Professional
Corporation & Michael E. Jones -- mikejones@potterminton.com --
Potter Minton, a Professional Corporation.


ADVANCE STORES: La. App. Affirms Trial Court's Ruling in "Bradix"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Terri F. Love of the U.S. Court of Appeal of Louisiana for
the Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment granting
the Defendant's Peremptory Exceptions of No Right and Action and
No Cause of Action in the case captioned WALTER BRADIX, IV, v.
ADVANCE STORES COMPANY, INC. D/B/A ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, No. 2017-
CA-0166 (La. App.).

The Plaintiff was employed by Advance.  In March 2016, Mr. Bradix
received a letter notifying him of a data breach of the employee
information to an unauthorized third party.  The information
included employees' names, social security numbers, 2015 gross
wages, and the state where each employee paid income tax.  Advance
advised the former and current employees affected to review the
information contained in the letter and remain vigilant.
Additionally, Advance provided free identity protection services
for two years.

Mr. Bradix noticed two as-yet unidentified inquiries on his
consumer credit monitoring and suffered anxiety worrying about a
third party stealing his identity.  As a result, Mr. Bradix filed
a Class Action Petition and Demand for Jury Trial ("Petition")
against Advance for himself and similarly situated employees.  The
Petition alleged that Advance: (i) was negligent by permitting the
information to be stolen, (ii) was grossly negligent in the
handling of the information, (iii) breached its fiduciary duties,
and (iv) was liable for an invasion of privacy.

Mr. Bradix's Petition was removed to the U.S. District Court of
the Eastern District of Louisiana ("EDLA").  Advance filed a
Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a
claim pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  The EDLA issued
an order partially granting Advance's motion and found that Mr.
Bradix lacked standing pursuant to Article III of the United
States Constitution in federal court.

Once remanded to the trial court, Advance filed Peremptory
Exceptions of No Right and Action and No Cause of Action.
Following the submission of memoranda and a hearing, the trial
court sustained Advance's exceptions and dismissed Mr. Bradix's
Petition with prejudice.  Mr. Bradix's Motion for Order of Appeal
followed.  He contends that the trial court erred by granting
Advance's exceptions because standing was not lacking, and he
suffered harm.

As Mr. Bradix failed to allege a particular injury, Judge Love
finds that his injury is too abstract such that her opinion on the
matter would be advisory.  As such, Mr. Bradix's theoretical
injuries are based upon the contingency of a third party using his
information in the future.  She finds he lacks a justiciable
controversy and standing.  Therefore, the trial court did not err
by sustaining Advance's exception of no right of action.

Mr. Bradix cannot prove that he suffered actual damages.  His
alleged damages are too speculative in nature.  Therefore, Judge
Love finds that Mr. Bradix did not possess a valid negligence,
ordinary or gross, cause of action.  Moreover, as Mr. Bradix
failed to show that he suffered any harm or attributed damages to
Advance's alleged breach of fiduciary duty.  She finds that he did
not possess a valid cause of action for a breach of fiduciary
duty.  In addition, in the present matter, Mr. Bradix did not show
damages as a result of the alleged invasion of privacy because
there was only speculative resulting harm.  He also failed to
demonstrate that his information was publicly disclosed.  Further,
with no resulting harm, he cannot prove that the alleged data
breach "seriously" interfered with his privacy interests.
Therefore, Judge Love finds that Mr. Bradix did not possess a
valid cause of action for the tort of invasion of privacy, and the
exception of no cause of action was properly maintained.

For these reasons, Judge Love finds that the trial court correctly
sustained Advance's exception of no right of action because Mr.
Bradix only pled speculative future harm.  Additionally, the trial
court did not err by maintaining Advance's exception of no right
of action because an element from each theory of recovery was
lacking.  As such, she affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

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

Marc R. Michaud -- mmichaud@patrickmillerlaw.com -- PATRICK
MILLER, LLC, 400 Poydras Street, Suite 1680, New Orleans, LA
70130, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant, Walter Bradix, IV.

R. Patrick Vance, Tyler J. Rench -- trench@joneswalker.com --
JONES WALKER LLP, 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 5100, New Orleans,
LA 70170-5100, AND Michael B. Miller -- Michael B. Miller --
Robert J. Baehr -- Robert J. Baehr -- MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP,
250 West 55th Street, New York, NY 10019, Counsel for
Defendant/Appellee, Advance Stores, Co., Inc.


ADVISORY BOARD: Monroe Retirement System Files Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
MONROE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. THE
ADVISORY BOARD COMPANY, ROBERT W. MUSSLEWHITE, and MICHAEL T.
KIRSHBAUM, Defendants, Case No: 1:17-cv-05886 (S.D.N.Y., August 3,
2017) is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of
the common stock of Advisory Board between January 21, 2015 and
February 23, 2016, inclusive.

On January 9, 2015, Advisory Board completed the acquisition of
Royall & Company. The purchase price for the acquisition, before
taking into account specified adjustments, was approximately $871
million.

The Defendants allegedly issued statements in connection with the
acquisition that were materially false and misleading when made
because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
adverse facts that Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded at
the time the statements were made:

(a) that Advisory Board's depiction of Royall's reported revenue
for prior years was materially misleading because the Registration
Statement failed to disclose that, as a private company, Royall
could take longer to close its books than as a subsidiary of
Advisory Board. With its books open longer, Royall had been able
to recognize revenue in prior years that it otherwise could not
recognize once it became a part of Advisory Board; and

(b) that the amount of goodwill that Advisory Board allocated to
Royall was lacking in a reasonable basis.

Defendant Advisory Board is a publicly traded consulting company
that provides performance-improvement software and solutions to
the healthcare and education industries.  Plaintiff Monroe County
Employees' Retirement System is a stockholder.

Royall & Company is in the higher-education strategic, data-driven
student engagement and enrollment management solutions, financial
aid optimization, and alumni fundraising.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
     Alan I. Ellman, Esq.
     Robert D. Gerson, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     58 S. Service Road, Suite 200
     Melville, NY 11747
     Phone: 631/367-7100
     Fax: 631/367-1173
     Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
            aellman@rgrdlaw.com
            rgerson@rgrdlaw.com

        - and -

     Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
     VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY, PC.
     79 Alfred Street
     Detroit, MI 48201
     Phone: 313/578-1200
     Fax: 313/578-1201


AKORN INC: To Defend Against Shannon, Ochoa and Glaubach Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Akorn, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that the Company intends to vigorously defend
against the Shannon Action, Ochoa Action and the Glaubach Action.

On April 24, 2017, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Fresenius Kabi AG, a
German stock corporation ("Parent"), Quercus Acquisition, Inc., a
Louisiana corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
("Merger Sub") and, solely for purposes of Article VIII thereof,
Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA, a German partnership limited by shares.
The Merger Agreement, which has been adopted by the Board of
Directors of the Company, provides for the merger of Merger Sub
with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company
surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.

On May 2, 2017, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
complaint in a putative class and derivative action in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery
Division, captioned Robert J. Shannon, Jr. v. Fresenius Kabi AG,
et al., Case No. 2017-CH-06322.

On May 16, 2017, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
complaint in a putative class and derivative action in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery
Division, captioned Daniel Ochoa v. John N. Kapoor, et al., Case
No. 2017-CH-06928.

On June 27, 2017, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
complaint in a putative class and derivative action in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery
Division, captioned Glaubach v. Fresenius Kabi AG et al., Cash No.
2017-CH-08916.

The Shannon Action, Ochoa Action and Glaubach Action allege, among
other things, that in pursuing the merger, the directors of the
Company breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its
shareholders by, among other things, agreeing to enter into the
merger agreement for an allegedly unfair price and as the result
of an allegedly deficient process. The Shannon Action, the Ochoa
Action and the Glaubach Action also allege that Fresenius Kabi,
Fresenius Parent and Merger Sub aided and abetted the other
defendants' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The
Shannon Action, the Ochoa Action and Glaubach Action seek, among
other things, to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the
merger agreement or, in the alternative, to recover monetary
damages.

On July 12, 2017, Akorn was informed by counsel for the plaintiff
in the Ochoa Action that the plaintiff plans to voluntarily
dismiss the action without prejudice.

On June 2, 2017, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
complaint in a putative class action in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, captioned Robert Berg
v. Akorn, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00350.

On June 7, 2017, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
complaint in a putative class action in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, captioned Jorge
Alcarez v. Akorn, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00359. The Berg
Action and the Alcarez Action alleged that the Company's
preliminary proxy statement, filed with the SEC on May 22, 2017,
omits material information with respect to the merger, rendering
it false and misleading and thus that the Company, the directors
of the Company and the CEO of the Company violated Section 14(a)
of the Exchange Act as well as SEC Rule 14a-9.

The Berg Action further alleged that Fresenius Kabi, the directors
of the Company and the CEO of the Company violated Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act. Similarly, the Alcarez Action also alleged
that the directors of the Company and the CEO of the Company
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Berg Action and
Alcarez Action sought, among other things, an order requiring the
dissemination of a proxy statement that does not contain allegedly
untrue statements of material fact and that states all material
facts allegedly required or necessary to make the proxy statement
not misleading; an order enjoining the transactions contemplated
by the merger agreement; an award of rescissory damages should the
merger be consummated; and an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses.

On June 12, 2017, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
complaint in a putative class action in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, captioned Shaun A.
House v. Akorn, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00367.

On June 13, 2017, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
complaint in a putative class action in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Robert
Carlyle v. Akorn, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-04455.

On June 14, 2017, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
complaint in a putative class action in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, captioned Sean Harris
v. Akorn, Inc. et at., Case No. 3:17-cv-00373.

On June 22, 2017, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
complaint in a putative class action in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, captioned Demetrios
Pullos v. Akorn, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00395.

The House Action, the Carlyle Action, the Harris Action and the
Pullos Action alleged that the Company's preliminary proxy
statement, filed with the SEC on May 22, 2017, omits material
information with respect to the merger, rendering it false and
misleading and thus that the Company and the directors of the
Company violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act as well as SEC
Rule 14a-9. The House Action, the Carlyle Action, the Harris
Action and the Pullos Action further alleged that the directors of
the Company violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The House Action, the Harris Action and the Pullos Action sought,
among other things, to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the
merger agreement unless the Company discloses the allegedly
material information that was allegedly omitted from the proxy
statement, an award of damages and an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses. The Carlyle Action sought, among other things, to enjoin
the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement unless the
Company adopts and implements a procedure or process to obtain
certain unspecified terms for shareholders and discloses the
allegedly material information that was allegedly omitted from the
proxy statement, rescission, to the extent already implemented, of
the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement or of the
terms thereof, an award of damages and an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses.

On July 5, 2017, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana ordered that the Berg Action, Alcarez
Action, House Action, Carlyle Action, Harris Action and Pullos
Action be transferred to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

On July 14, 2017, the plaintiffs in the Berg Action, Alcarez
Action, House Action, Harris Action, Carlyle Action and Pullos
Action filed stipulations of voluntary dismissal without prejudice
in their respective actions. On July 17, 2017, the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the
Alcarez Action, the Harris Action and the Pullos Action without
prejudice pursuant to the parties' respective stipulations of
voluntary dismissal. Also on July 17, 2017, the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the
voluntary dismissal of the Carlyle Action without prejudice
pursuant to the parties' stipulation of voluntary dismissal.

On July 19, 2017, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois granted the voluntary dismissal
without prejudice of the Berg Action pursuant to the parties'
stipulation of voluntary dismissal.

The Company believes that the Shannon Action, Ochoa Action and the
Glaubach Action are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
them.

Akorn, Inc., together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries, is a
specialty generic pharmaceutical company that 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.


ALAMO DRAFTHOUSE: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Mechler, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Alamo Drafthouse Cinemas, LLC, d/b/a Alamo Drafthouse South
Lamar, Case No. 1:17-cv-00786 (W.D. Tex., August 14, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage for
all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Alamo Drafthouse Cinemas, LLC owns and operates a movie theatre
located at 612 E. 6th Street, Austin, Texas, 78701. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Zimmer, Esq.
      ZIMMER & ASSOCIATES
      707 West Tenth Street
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 434-0306
      Facsimile: (310) 943-6954
      E-mail: zimmerlawTX@gmail.com


ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Appeal in Malware Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Albertsons Companies, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 17, 2017, that an appeal is pending in
the appeal in class action lawsuits related to a security
incident.

On August 14, 2014, the Company announced that it had experienced
a criminal intrusion by installation of malware on a portion of
its computer network that processes payment card transactions for
its retail store locations, including the Company's Shaw's, Star
Market, Acme, Jewel-Osco and Albertsons retail banners. On
September 29, 2014, the Company announced that it had experienced
a second and separate criminal intrusion. The Company believes
these were attempts to collect payment card data. Relying on its
IT service provider, SuperValu, the Company took immediate steps
to secure the affected part of the network. The Company believes
that it has eradicated the malware used in each intrusion. The
Company notified federal law enforcement authorities, the major
payment card networks and its insurance carriers and is
cooperating in their efforts to investigate these intrusions. As
required by the payment card brands, the Company retained a firm
to conduct a forensic investigation into the intrusions. The
forensic firm has issued separate reports for each intrusion
(copies of which have been provided to the card networks).
Although the Company's network had previously been found to be
compliant with the Payment Card Industry (PCI) Data Security
Standard issued by the PCI Council, in both reports the forensic
firm found that not all of these standards had been met at the
time of the intrusions, and some of this non-compliance may have
contributed to or caused at least some portion of the compromise
that occurred during the intrusions.

On August 5, 2016, the Company was notified that MasterCard had
asserted its initial assessment for incremental counterfeit fraud
losses and non-ordinary course expenses (such as card reissuance
costs) as well as a case management assessment. The Company
believes it is probable that other payment card networks will make
similar claims against the Company. If other payment card networks
assert claims against the Company, the Company currently intends
to dispute those claims and assert available defenses. At the
present time, the Company believes that it is probable that the
Company will incur a loss in connection with the claims or
potential claims from the payment card networks.

On December 5, 2016, the Company was further notified that
MasterCard had asserted its final assessment of approximately $6.0
million, which the Company paid on December 9, 2016; however, the
Company disputes the MasterCard assessment and on March 10, 2017,
filed a lawsuit against MasterCard seeking recovery of the
assessment. On May 5, 2017, MasterCard filed a motion to dismiss.

The parties are in the process of briefing this motion. The
Company has recorded an estimated liability for probable losses
that it expects to incur in connection with the claims or
potential claims to be made by the payment card networks. The
estimated liability is based on information currently available to
the Company and may change as new information becomes available or
if other payment card networks assert claims against the Company.
The Company will continue to evaluate information as it becomes
available and will record an estimate of additional losses, if
any, when it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and
the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable. Currently, the
potential range of any loss above the Company's currently recorded
amount cannot be reasonably estimated given no claims have been
asserted to date by the payment card networks other than
MasterCard and because significant factual and legal issues remain
unresolved. On October 20, 2015, the Company agreed with one of
its third party payment administrators to provide a $15.0 million
LOC to cover any claims from the payment card networks and to
maintain a minimum level of card processing until the potential
claims from the payment card networks are resolved.

As a result of the criminal intrusions, two class action
complaints were filed against the Company by consumers, Mertz v.
SuperValu Inc. et al. filed in federal court in the state of
Minnesota and Rocke v. SuperValu Inc. et al. filed in federal
court in the state of Idaho, alleging deceptive trade practices,
negligence and invasion of privacy. The Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has consolidated the class actions and transferred the
cases to the District of Minnesota. On August 10, 2015, the
Company and SuperValu filed a motion to dismiss the class actions,
which was granted without prejudice on January 7, 2016. The
plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the court's judgment,
which was denied on April 20, 2016. The court also denied leave to
amend the complaint.

On May 18, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Eighth Circuit and defendants filed a cross-appeal. The filing of
appellate briefs was completed by both parties on September 29,
2016 and oral argument was held on May 10, 2017.

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

Albertsons provides customers with a service-oriented shopping
experience, including convenient and personalized value-added
services, through 1,784 pharmacies, 393 adjacent fuel centers, and
home delivery via online and mobile applications.


ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Bids to Dismiss 401(k) Plan Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albertsons Companies, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 17, 2017, that the Safeway Benefits
Plans Defendants' motions to dismiss both Terraza and Lorenz cases
remain pending.

Two lawsuits have been brought against Safeway and the Safeway
Benefits Plan Committee (the "Benefit Plans Committee," and
together with Safeway, the "Safeway Benefits Plans Defendants")
and other third parties alleging breaches of fiduciary duty under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
("ERISA") with respect to Safeway's 401(k) Plan (the "Safeway
401(k) Plan"). On July 14, 2016, a complaint ("Terraza") was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California by a participant in the Safeway 401(k) Plan
individually and on behalf of the Safeway 401(k) Plan. An amended
complaint was filed on November 18, 2016.

On August 25, 2016, a second complaint ("Lorenz") was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California by another participant in the Safeway 401(k) Plan
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
against the Safeway Benefits Plans Defendants and against the
Safeway 401(k) Plan's former recordkeepers.

An amended complaint was filed on September 16, 2016 and a second
amended complaint was filed on November 21, 2016. In general, both
lawsuits allege that the Safeway Benefits Plans Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA regarding the
selection of investments offered under the Safeway 401(k) Plan and
the fees and expenses related to those investments.

The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit, and intends
to contest each of them vigorously. The Safeway Benefits Plans
Defendants have filed motions to dismiss both cases. Defendants
have answered the complaints, and the parties are in the initial
stages of discovery. The Company is currently unable to estimate
the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters due
to the early procedural status of the cases.

Albertsons provides customers with a service-oriented shopping
experience, including convenient and personalized value-added
services, through 1,784 pharmacies, 393 adjacent fuel centers, and
home delivery via online and mobile applications.


ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Oral Arguments Heard in "Rodman" Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Albertsons Companies, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 17, 2017, that the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals heard oral arguments on the appeal in the "Rodman"
class action lawsuit.

On June 17, 2011, a customer of Safeway's home delivery business
(safeway.com) filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California entitled
Rodman v. Safeway Inc., alleging that Safeway had inaccurately
represented on its home delivery website that the prices paid
there were the same as the prices in the brick-and-mortar retail
store. Rodman asserted claims for breach of contract and unfair
business practices under California law. The court certified a
class for the breach of contract claim, but denied class treatment
for the California business practices claims.

On December 10, 2014, the court ruled that the terms and
conditions on Safeway's website should be construed as creating a
contractual promise that prices on the website would be the same
as in the stores and that Safeway had breached the contract by
charging more on the website.

On August 31, 2015, the court denied Safeway's affirmative
defenses and arguments for limiting liability, and determined that
website registrants since 2006 were entitled to approximately
$31.0 million in damages (which amount was reduced to $23.2
million to correct an error in the court's calculation), plus
prejudgment interest.

The court then set a trial date of December 7, 2015 to determine
whether pre-2006 registrants were entitled to any recovery. The
parties thereafter stipulated to facts regarding the pre-2006
registration process, whereupon the court vacated the December
trial date and extended its prior liability and damages rulings to
class members who registered before 2006. Consequently, on
November 30, 2015, the court entered a final judgment in favor of
the plaintiff class in the amount of $41.9 million (comprised of
$31.0 million in damages and $10.9 million in prejudgment
interest). Safeway filed a Notice of Appeal from that judgment to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 4, 2015 contesting
both liability and damages. On April 6, 2016, Plaintiff moved for
discovery sanctions against Safeway in the district court, seeking
an additional $2.0 million. A hearing on the sanctions motion was
held on August 25, 2016, and the court awarded sanctions against
the Company in an amount under $1.0 million. The Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the appeal on June 12,
2017. The Company has established an estimated liability for these
claims.

Albertsons provides customers with a service-oriented shopping
experience, including convenient and personalized value-added
services, through 1,784 pharmacies, 393 adjacent fuel centers, and
home delivery via online and mobile applications.


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Henriquez" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Henriquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Allied Interstate LLC; LVNV Funding, LLC; John Does 1-
25, Case No. 2:17-cv-06122 (D.N.Y., August 14, 2017), seeks to
stop the Defendants' abusive, deceptive and unfair practices of
collecting debt.

The Defendants are engaged in business that attempts to collect
debts alleged to be due another. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (973) 227-5900
      Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Morrow" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BARBARA MORROW and BENNY MORROW,
individually and on behalf of those similar situated, Plaintiffs,
v. ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 5:16-
CV-137 (HL)(M.D. Ga.), Judge Hugh Lawson of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division, denied
the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiffs seek relief for Allstate's alleged refusal to
assess and pay damages for diminished value for claims made under
their homeowners' insurance policies.  This case is part of a
series of cases seeking to certify in this district a class-action
for diminished value in the real-property-insurance context.

On March 29, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Allstate's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' original complaint.

Specifically, the Court held that the Plaintiffs failed to state a
claim for declaratory relief, and also dismissed certain Allstate
entities from the action because they had no contractual
relationship with the Plaintiffs.  As to the remaining Defendant,
Allstate Indemnity Co., the Court found that Allstate's one-year
contractual limitations period was applicable and enforceable, and
that the Plaintiffs had failed to allege facts sufficient to
constitute a waiver of the limitations period with respect to the
2010 loss.  The Court granted the Plaintiffs an opportunity to
amend their complaint to state allegations of waiver.

The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on April 18, 2017 which
contains three counts: Count 1, breach of contract for failure to
assess diminished value; Count 2, breach of contract for failure
to pay diminished value; and Count 3, attorneys' fees and costs.

Allstate filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
on May 2, 2017, arguing that the new allegations still fail to
establish Allstate's waiver of the contractual limitations period,
and thus that the Plaintiffs' claims relating to the 2010 loss
should be dismissed.

Judge Lawson finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged
facts to support their claim that Allstate waived the contractual
limitations period.  Accordingly, he denied the Allstate's Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ebWi21 from Leagle.com.

BARBARA MORROW, Plaintiff, represented by Adam P. Princenthal --
aprincenthal@akpfirm.com -- Princenthal & May, LLC.

BARBARA MORROW, Plaintiff, represented by C. COOPER KNOWLES --
cknowles@cckfirm.com -- Law Office of C. Cooper Knowles, LLC,
CLINTON W. SITTON -- clint@kopelmansitton.com -- JAMES C. BRADLEY
-- jbradley@rpwb.com -- MICHAEL J. BRICKMAN -- mbrickman@rpwb.com
-- NINA FIELDS BRITT -- nfields@rpwb.com -- & RICHARD KOPELMAN --
richard@kopelmansitton.com.

BENNY MORROW, Plaintiff, represented by Adam P. Princenthal,
Princenthal & May, LLC, C. COOPER KNOWLES, Law Office of C. Cooper
Knowles, LLC, CLINTON W. SITTON, JAMES C. BRADLEY, MICHAEL J.
BRICKMAN, NINA FIELDS BRITT & RICHARD KOPELMAN.

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JACQUELINE
A. GIANNINI -- jacqui.giannini@dentons.com -- MARK L. HANOVER --
mark.hanover@dentons.com -- RICHARD L. FENTON --
richard.fenton@dentons.com -- JEFFREY A. ZACHMAN --
jeffrey.zachman@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP & Nathan Lewis
Garroway -- nathan.garroway@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JACQUELINE
A. GIANNINI, MARK L. HANOVER, RICHARD L. FENTON, JEFFREY A.
ZACHMAN, Dentons US LLP & Nathan Lewis Garroway, Dentons US LLP.

ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
represented by JACQUELINE A. GIANNINI, MARK L. HANOVER, RICHARD L.
FENTON, JEFFREY A. ZACHMAN, Dentons US LLP & Nathan Lewis
Garroway, Dentons US LLP.

ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
represented by JACQUELINE A. GIANNINI, MARK L. HANOVER, RICHARD L.
FENTON, JEFFREY A. ZACHMAN, Dentons US LLP & Nathan Lewis
Garroway, Dentons US LLP.


ALLY FINANCIAL: Consolidation of 3 Securities Cases Mulled
----------------------------------------------------------
Ally Financial Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the parties in the
securities litigation have agreed to take steps to consolidate the
three matters in Wayne County Circuit Court.

In October 2016, a purported class action -- Bucks County
Employees Retirement Fund v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. -- was
filed in the Circuit Court for Wayne County in the State of
Michigan (Case No. 16-013616-CZ). This matter was removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on
November 18, 2016. The complaint alleges material misstatements
and omissions in connection with Ally's initial public offering in
April 2014, including a failure to adequately disclose the
severity of rising subprime automotive loan delinquency rates,
deficient underwriting measures employed in the origination of
subprime automotive loans, and aggressive tactics used with low-
income borrowers. The request for relief includes an indeterminate
amount of damages, fees, and costs and other remedies. In January
2017, another purported class action -- National Shopmen Pension
Fund v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. -- was filed in the Circuit
Court for Oakland County in the State of Michigan (Case No. 2017-
156719-CB). This matter was removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan on January 30, 2017.

In March 2017, a third purported class action -- James McIntire v.
Ally Financial Inc. et al. -- was filed in the Circuit Court for
Wayne County in the State of Michigan (Case No. 17-003811-CZ).
This matter was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan on March 15, 2017. The allegations and
requested relief in the National Shopmen Pension Fund and James
McIntire complaints are substantially similar to those included in
the complaint filed by Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund. All
three matters were remanded from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan to the state circuit courts on May
26, 2017. The parties have agreed to take steps to consolidate the
three matters in Wayne County Circuit Court.

"We intend to vigorously defend against each of these actions,"
the Company said.

Ally Financial Inc. is a digital financial services company
offering diversified financial products for consumers, businesses,
automotive dealers and corporate clients.


ALTABA INC: Cost of Resolution of "Buch" Case Estimated at $2.3M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altaba Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2017, that the
cost of resolution of the case, Cathy Buch v. David Filo, et al.,
C.A. No. 10933-VCL, has been estimated to be at $2,385,000.

On April 22, 2015, a stockholder action captioned Cathy Buch v.
David Filo, et al., C.A. No. 10933-VCL, was filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery against Yahoo and certain of its then-current
and former directors. The complaint asserts both derivative
claims, purportedly on behalf of Yahoo, and class action claims,
purportedly on behalf of the plaintiff and all similarly situated
stockholders, relating to the termination of, and severance
payments made to, Yahoo's former chief operating officer, Henrique
de Castro.

The plaintiff claims that certain former board members allegedly
violated or acquiesced in the violation of Yahoo's Bylaws when Mr.
de Castro was terminated without cause, and breached fiduciary
duties by allowing Yahoo to make allegedly false and misleading
statements regarding the value of his severance. The plaintiff has
also asserted claims against Mr. de Castro. The plaintiff seeks to
have the full Board reassess the propriety of terminating Mr. de
Castro without cause, potentially leading to disgorgement in favor
of Yahoo of the severance paid to Mr. de Castro, an equitable
accounting, monetary damages, declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

Yahoo and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
action, which the Court denied in part and granted in part on July
27, 2016. On April 5, 2017, the Court denied Yahoo's motion for
partial judgment on the pleadings.

On May 19, 2017, a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's derivative
claims was filed by a Special Litigation Committee that was formed
by Yahoo's board of directors.

Altaba Inc. ("Altaba" or the "Fund") is a publicly traded, non-
diversified, closed-end management investment company registered
under the Investment Company Act of 1940 ("1940 Act"). The Fund's
common stock is listed on NASDAQ Global Select Market ("Nasdaq")
under the ticker symbol "AABA".

On June 13, 2017, Yahoo! Inc. ("Yahoo") completed the sale of its
operating business to Verizon Communications Inc. On June 16,
2017, Yahoo changed its name to "Altaba Inc." and filed a
Notification of Registration on Form N-8A and a Registration
Statement on Form N-2 with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "SEC") in order to register as an investment company under
the 1940 Act.


ALTABA INC: Consolidated Suit Filed in Madrack & Talukder Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altaba Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2017, that a
consolidated complaint has been filed in the cases, Madrack v.
Yahoo! Inc., and Talukder v. Yahoo! Inc.

In January 2017, a stockholder action captioned Madrack v. Yahoo!
Inc., et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-00373-LHK, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
Yahoo and certain of its former officers.

In March 2017, a similar stockholder action captioned Talukder v.
Yahoo! Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

In April 2017, the Court consolidated the two cases.

In June, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint purporting
to represent a class of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Yahoo's stock between April 30, 2013 and December 14,
2016. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that
Yahoo's public disclosures about its business, operations, and
compliance policies were materially misleading in light of the
Security Incidents. The complaint seeks class certification,
damages, interest, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 22, 2016, Yahoo disclosed that a copy of certain user
account information for approximately 500 million user accounts
was stolen from Yahoo's network in late 2014 (the "2014 Security
Incident"). On December 14, 2016, Yahoo disclosed that, based on
its outside forensic expert's analysis of data files provided to
Yahoo in November 2016 by law enforcement, Yahoo believes an
unauthorized third party stole data associated with more than one
billion user accounts in August 2013 (the "2013 Security
Incident").

In November and December 2016, Yahoo disclosed that based on an
investigation by its outside forensic experts, it believes an
unauthorized third party accessed Yahoo's proprietary code to
learn how to forge certain cookies. The outside forensic experts
have identified approximately 32 million user accounts for which
they believe forged cookies were used or taken in 2015 and 2016
(the "Cookie Forging Activity"). The 2013 Security Incident, the
2014 Security Incident, and the Cookie Forging Activity are
collectively referred to as the "Security Incidents."

Altaba Inc. ("Altaba" or the "Fund") is a publicly traded, non-
diversified, closed-end management investment company registered
under the Investment Company Act of 1940 ("1940 Act"). The Fund's
common stock is listed on NASDAQ Global Select Market ("Nasdaq")
under the ticker symbol "AABA".

On June 13, 2017, Yahoo! Inc. ("Yahoo") completed the sale of its
operating business to Verizon Communications Inc. On June 16,
2017, Yahoo changed its name to "Altaba Inc." and filed a
Notification of Registration on Form N-8A and a Registration
Statement on Form N-2 with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "SEC") in order to register as an investment company under
the 1940 Act.


ALTABA INC: Delaware Case Stayed in Favor of "Spain" Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Altaba Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2017, that a
stockholder derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery
has been stayed in favor of the Spain action pending in
California.

In March 2017, a stockholder derivative and class action captioned
Spain v. Marissa Mayer, et al., Case No. 17CV207054, was filed in
the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara. In
May, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
purportedly on behalf of Yahoo, against certain of Yahoo's then-
current and former directors and officers. The complaint alleges
that defendants failed to prevent and disclose the Security
Incidents and caused or allowed Yahoo to issue materially false
and misleading statements in its public filings and other public
statements.

The complaint also asserts claims of insider trading, purportedly
on behalf of Yahoo, against certain defendants under California
Corporations Code sections 25402 and 25403. The complaint also
asserts direct claims, purportedly on behalf of then-current Yahoo
stockholders, against the individual defendants for breach of
fiduciary duty relating to disclosures in the proxy statement
relating to the Sale Transaction concerning the negotiation and
approval of the Stock Purchase Agreement and against Verizon for
aiding and abetting the individual defendants' alleged breach of
fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks class certification,
unspecified damages, an award of attorneys' fees and costs, and
other related injunctive and equitable forms of relief.

Multiple shareholder plaintiffs have filed stockholder derivative
actions making similar claims, including: The LR Trust, et al. v.
Marissa Mayer, et al., Case No. 17CV306525 (Cal. Sup. Ct.);
Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund v. Marissa Mayer,
et al., Case No. 17CV310992 (Cal. Sup. Ct.). A similar stockholder
derivative action has also been filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, captioned Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System v. Eric Brandt, et al., Case No. 2017-0133-SG. In May, the
Court issued an order staying this action in favor of the Spain
action pending in California Superior Court for the County of
Santa Clara.

Altaba Inc. ("Altaba" or the "Fund") is a publicly traded, non-
diversified, closed-end management investment company registered
under the Investment Company Act of 1940 ("1940 Act"). The Fund's
common stock is listed on NASDAQ Global Select Market ("Nasdaq")
under the ticker symbol "AABA".

On June 13, 2017, Yahoo! Inc. ("Yahoo") completed the sale of its
operating business to Verizon Communications Inc. On June 16,
2017, Yahoo changed its name to "Altaba Inc." and filed a
Notification of Registration on Form N-8A and a Registration
Statement on Form N-2 with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "SEC") in order to register as an investment company under
the 1940 Act.


ALTABA INC: Responsible for 50% of Consumer Case Liabilities
------------------------------------------------------------
Altaba Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2017, that it
continues to be responsible for 50% of certain post-closing cash
liabilities under consumer class action cases related to the
security incidents.

On September 22, 2016, Yahoo disclosed that a copy of certain user
account information for approximately 500 million user accounts
was stolen from Yahoo's network in late 2014 (the "2014 Security
Incident"). On December 14, 2016, Yahoo disclosed that, based on
its outside forensic expert's analysis of data files provided to
Yahoo in November 2016 by law enforcement, Yahoo believes an
unauthorized third party stole data associated with more than one
billion user accounts in August 2013 (the "2013 Security
Incident").

In November and December 2016, Yahoo disclosed that based on an
investigation by its outside forensic experts, it believes an
unauthorized third party accessed Yahoo's proprietary code to
learn how to forge certain cookies. The outside forensic experts
have identified approximately 32 million user accounts for which
they believe forged cookies were used or taken in 2015 and 2016
(the "Cookie Forging Activity"). The 2013 Security Incident, the
2014 Security Incident, and the Cookie Forging Activity are
collectively referred to as the "Security Incidents."

Numerous putative consumer class action lawsuits were filed
against Yahoo in U.S. federal and state courts, and in foreign
courts, relating to the Security Incidents, including the
following: (1) In Re: Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California Case No. 5:16-md-02752-LHK; (2) Yahoo! Inc. Private
Information Disclosure Cases, Superior Court of California, County
of Orange Case No. JCCP 4895; (3) Demers v. Yahoo! Inc., et al. ,
Province of Quebec, District of Montreal Superior Court Case Nos.
500-06-000841-177 and 500-06-000842-175; (4) Gill v. Yahoo! Canada
Co., et al., Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry
Case No. S-168873; (5) Karasik v. Yahoo! Inc., et al., Ontario
Superior Court of Justice Case No. CV-16-566248-00CP; (6) Larocque
v. Yahoo! Inc., et al., Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
Case No. QBG 1242 of 2017; and (7) Lahav v. Yahoo! Inc., Tel Aviv-
Jaffa District Court Case No. 61020-09-16. Plaintiffs, who purport
to represent various classes of users, generally claim to have
been harmed by Yahoo's alleged actions and/or omissions in
connection with the Security Incidents and assert a variety of
common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages or other
related relief.

In addition, putative stockholder class actions have been filed
against Yahoo and certain current officers of Yahoo on behalf of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Yahoo's stock between
April 30, 2013 and December 14, 2016, an additional putative class
action was filed against certain former directors and officers of
Yahoo on behalf of stockholders of Yahoo, and six stockholder
derivative actions have been filed purportedly on behalf of Yahoo
against its former directors and officers, each asserting claims
related to the Security Incidents.

Additional lawsuits and claims related to the Security Incidents
may be asserted by or on behalf of users, partners, shareholders,
or others seeking damages or other related relief.

Following the consummation of the Sale Transaction, pursuant to
the Reorganization Agreement, the Fund continues to be responsible
for 50 percent of certain post-closing cash liabilities under
consumer class action cases related to the Security Incidents.

The Fund cannot reasonably estimate a range of possible losses
related to these legal proceedings at this time because the legal
proceedings remain in the early stages, alleged damages have not
been specified, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a
class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class
if certified, and there are significant factual and legal issues
to be resolved. The Fund has not made a determination that a loss
from these matters is probable and has determined that the amount
of any such loss is not estimable at such time and therefore has
not recorded an accrual for litigation or other contingencies
relating to the Security Incidents. The Fund will continue to
evaluate information as it becomes known and will record an
accrual for estimated losses at the time or times it is determined
that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable.

Altaba Inc. ("Altaba" or the "Fund") is a publicly traded, non-
diversified, closed-end management investment company registered
under the Investment Company Act of 1940 ("1940 Act"). The Fund's
common stock is listed on NASDAQ Global Select Market ("Nasdaq")
under the ticker symbol "AABA".

On June 13, 2017, Yahoo! Inc. ("Yahoo") completed the sale of its
operating business to Verizon Communications Inc. On June 16,
2017, Yahoo changed its name to "Altaba Inc." and filed a
Notification of Registration on Form N-8A and a Registration
Statement on Form N-2 with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "SEC") in order to register as an investment company under
the 1940 Act.


AMAZON.COM LLC: Makenna, et al. Seek to Stop "False" Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA MAKENNA, REGINALD SCOTT, LORI MARIE WEAVER, MARK CASTRO, and
DRESSTIN WAGONER, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. AMAZON.COM,
LLC, Defendant, Case No: 3:17-cv-04412 (N.D. Cal., August 03,
2017), seeks to stop Defendant's alleged practice of falsely
advertising its services.

According to the case, Defendant represents to its consumers that
they could use its services to purchase products directly from its
website at no cost to the consumer in addition to the cost of the
product. However, despite these representations, Defendant charged
Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers additional fees.
Specifically, when consumers purchased products from Defendant,
they were also charged an additional "Amazon Prime" membership
fee.

The case was filed under the California Business & Professional
Code, California Civil Code, and the Electronic Funds Transfer
Act.

Defendant is an online company that is engaged in the sale of many
different kinds of products through facilitating sales by third
party retailers.  Plaintiffs are customers.[BN]

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
     Phone: 877-206-4741
     Fax: 866-633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
            abacon@toddflaw.com
            mgeorge@toddflaw.com
            twheeler@toddflaw.com


AMERICAN VANGUARD: Delaware Supreme Court Asked to Weigh In
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Vanguard Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that in the Delaware
DBCP Cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has
submitted a certified question of law to the Delaware Supreme
Court on the question of when the class action tolling period
ended.

On or about May 31, 2012, two cases (captioned Abad Castillo and
Marquinez) were filed with the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware (USDC DE No. 1:12-CV-00695-LPS) involving
claims for physical injury arising from alleged exposure to DBCP
(a nematicide that had been manufactured and sold by the Company
for a brief period of time in the late 1970's and early 1980's) on
behalf of 2,700 banana plantation workers over the course of the
late 1960's through the mid-1980's in Costa Rica, Ecuador,
Guatemala, and Panama.

Defendant Dole brought a motion to dismiss 22 plaintiffs from Abad
Castillo on the ground that they were parties in cases that had
been previously filed by HendlerLaw, P.C. in Louisiana.

On September 19, 2013, the appeals court affirmed, in part, and
reversed, in part, the motion to dismiss, holding that 14 of the
22 plaintiffs should be dismissed.  On May 27, 2014, the district
court granted Dole's motion to dismiss the matter without
prejudice on the ground that the applicable statute of limitations
had expired in 1995.

Then, on August 5, 2014, the parties stipulated to summary
judgment in favor of defendants (on the same ground as the earlier
motion) and the court entered judgment in the matter.  Plaintiffs
were given an opportunity to appeal; however, only 57 of the 2,700
actually entered an appeal.  Thus, at this stage, only 57
plaintiffs remain in the action.

On or about June 18, 2017, the Third Circuit Court submitted a
certified question of law to the Delaware Supreme Court on the
question of when the class action tolling period ended.  During
the pendency of this question, these matters will be effectively
stayed.  At any rate, the Company believes that a loss is neither
probable nor reasonably estimable in these matters and has not
recorded a loss contingency.


APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Sends "Frlekin" to Calif. Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned AMANDA FRLEKIN; TAYLOR KALIN; AARON
GREGOROFF; SETH DOWLING; DEBRA SPEICHER, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
APPLE, INC., a California corporation, Defendant-Appellee, No. 15-
17382(9th Cir.), Judge Consuelo B. Marwill of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asked the Supreme Court of
California to exercise its discretion to decide the certified
question on whether the time spent on the employer's premises
waiting for, and undergoing, required exit searches of packages or
bags voluntarily brought to work purely for personal convenience
by employees is compensable as hours worked within the meaning of
California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7.

The Plaintiffs brought this wage-and-hour class action on behalf
of current and former non-exempt employees who have worked in the
Defendant Apple's retail stores in California since July 25, 2009.
They seek compensation for time spent waiting for and undergoing
exit searches pursuant to the Defendant's "Employee Package and
Bag Searches" policy.

Employees receive no compensation for the time spent waiting for
and undergoing exit searches, because they must clock out before
undergoing a search.  Employees who fail to comply with the Policy
are subject to disciplinary action, up to and including
termination.

On July 16, 2015, the district court certified a class defined as
all Apple California non-exempt employees who were subject to the
bag-search policy from July 25, 2009, to the present.  Because of
concerns that individual issues regarding the different reasons
why employees brought bags to work, ranging from personal
convenience to necessity, would predominate in a class-wide
adjudication, the district court (with the Plaintiffs' consent)
made clear in its certification order that "bag searches" would be
adjudicated as compensable or not based on the most common
scenario, that is, an employee who voluntarily brought a bag to
work purely for personal convenience.

On Nov. 7, 2015, the district court granted the Defendant's motion
for summary judgment and denied the Plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment.  The district court ruled that time spent by class
members waiting for and undergoing exit searches pursuant to the
Policy is not compensable as "hours worked" under California law
because such time was neither "subject to the control" of the
employer nor time during which class members were "suffered or
permitted to work."  The Plaintiffs timely appealed.

The policy at issue, falls somewhere between the two ends of the
spectrum.  The case at issue involves only those employees who
voluntarily brought bags to work purely for personal convenience.
It is thus certainly feasible for a person to avoid the search by
leaving bags at home.  But, as a practical matter, many persons
routinely carry bags, purses, and satchels to work, for all sorts
of reasons.  Although not "required" in a strict, formal sense,
many employees may feel that they have little true choice when it
comes to the search policy, especially given that the policy
applies day in and day out.  Because the Court has little guidance
on determining where to draw the line between purely voluntary
actions and strictly mandatory actions, it is uncertain on which
side of the line the Plaintiffs' claim falls.

Therefore, Judge Marwill submits that the question is worthy of
decision by the California Supreme Court.  Because the outcome of
the case depends on the answer, she also submits that this case
presents a suitable vehicle for the California Supreme Court to
address the question.  The consequences of any interpretation of
the Wage Order will have significant legal, economic, and
practical consequences for employers and employees throughout the
state of California, and it will govern the outcome of many
disputes in both state and federal courts in the Ninth Circuit.
Many cases, in addition to the case, have raised the issue of the
applicability of California Wage Orders to a variety of employment
security checks.

Judge Marwill directed the clerk of the Ninth Circuit to file in
the California Supreme Court, under official seal of the Ninth
Circuit, copies of all relevant briefs and excerpts of the record,
and an original and ten copies of the order and request for
certification, along with a certification of service on the
parties, pursuant to California Rule of Court 8.548(c), (d).

The case is withdrawn from submission, and the clerk is directed
to administratively close the docket, pending further order from
the Court.  The parties will notify the clerk of the Court within
seven days after the California Supreme Court accepts or rejects
certification.  If an opinion is rendered by that court, the
parties will again notify the clerk of the Ninth Circuit within
seven days of the issuance of the opinion.  The panel retains
jurisdiction over further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/4V58MJ from Leagle.com.


ARC TRADING: Faces "Hernandez" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS MANUEL HERNANDEZ and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b), Plaintiff, V. ARC TRADING COMPANY, WENRU
YOU, and ANN YOU Defendants, Case No: 3:17-cv-02057-L (N.D. Tex.,
August 3, 2017), alleges that the Defendants have employed several
other similarly situated employees like the Plaintiff who have not
been paid overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours
weekly from the filing of this complaint back three years.  The
case alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Arc Trading Company offers a wide variety of beautiful antiques
and hard to find collectables.

Plaintiff, LUIS MANUEL HERNANDEZ, worked for Defendants as a
warehouse worker and driver.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq.
     Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
     6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112
     Dallas, TX 75240
     Phone: (972) 233-2264
     Fax: (972) 386-7610
     Email: zabogado@aol.com
            rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
            josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


ASKINS & MILLER: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Driana Martinez, on her own and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Askins & Miller Orthopaedics, Roland Vance Askins,
III, Daryl Miller, and Chris Klingensmith, Case No. 8:17-cv-01923-
EAK-TGW (M.D. Fla., August 14, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an orthopedic care facility in
Sarasota County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christine R. Sensenig, Esq.
      HULTMAN SENSENIG + JOSHI
      2055 Wood Street, Suite 208
      Sarasota, FL 34237
      Telephone: (941) 953-2828
      Facsimile: (941) 953-3018
      E-mail: csensenig@hsjlawfirm.com


AVANGRID INC: Shareholder Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
Avangrid, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Court has entered a
final dismissal order, terminating a shareholder class action
litigation.

The Company said, "On February 27, 2015, a complaint was filed in
Connecticut state court, or the Court, against us, UIL, its board
of directors and others related to our acquisition of UIL. The
complaint is a class action filed on behalf of all UIL
shareowners.  The complaint generally alleges that UIL's directors
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareowner
value in negotiating and approving the acquisition, and that we,
UIL, and/or Morgan Stanley aided and abetted the UIL Board's
alleged breaches."

"On November 30, 2015, the plaintiffs and the defendants executed
a binding Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU, that sets forth the
terms on which the parties have agreed to settle the consolidated
action. The settlement terms do not include any change in the
acquisition consideration but only additional disclosures relating
to information included in our Registration Statement on Form S-4
filed with the SEC, which was declared effective on November 12,
2015, additional confirmatory discovery, and plaintiffs' counsel
fees. The parties have agreed on the fees and submitted the
unopposed settlement and dismissal to the Court on August 26,
2016. On November 4, 2016, the Court issued its preliminary
approval of the settlement, there were no objections to the
settlement, and on January 30, 2017, the Court held a final
settlement hearing.

"On April 10, 2017, the Court issued an order denying the
unopposed settlement and petition for plaintiffs' counsel fees. On
May 10, 2017, the parties reached an agreement on a revised
settlement that reduced the plaintiffs' counsel fees and
dismissed, with prejudice, the plaintiffs' claims. On May 16,
2017, the Court entered the final dismissal terminating the
litigation."

AVANGRID is a diversified energy and utility company with more
than $31 billion in assets and operations in 27 states. The
company operates regulated utilities and electricity generation
through two primary lines of business.


BED BATH: Faces "Rendon" Suit in S. Dist. of Fla.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bed Bath & Beyond,
Inc. The case is styled as Marta Rendon, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bed Bath &
Beyond, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, Defendant, Case No. 9:17-
cv-80960-DMM (S.D. Fla., August 17, 2017).

Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. is a national chain of domestic
merchandise retail stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Angela Valentina Arango-Chaffin, Esq.
   The Chaffin Law Firm
   540 West Ave, Suite 1113
   Miami Beach, FL 33139
   Tel: (713) 818-2515
   Fax: (713) 952-5972
   Email: Angela@ChaffinLawFirm.com


BEST BUY: Granted 7 Hours to Depose Plaintiff in "Harris" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned STARVONA HARRIS, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. BEST
BUY STORES, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00446-HSG (KAW)(N.D.
Cal.), Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California denied Ms. Harris' motion for
protective order.

On July 28, 2017, the parties filed a joint letter concerning the
Defendant's request to depose Plaintiff Harris in the instant
lawsuit.  This is the third class action lawsuit Ms. Harris has
filed against Best Buy, and she has twice undergone deposition in
the original 2015 action, which totaled 7.5 hours.

The Plaintiffs seek a protective order to preclude a third
deposition and seeking other duplicative written discovery on the
grounds that this creates an undue burden and expense for Ms.
Harris.  Ms. Harris is a single mother who works a "slightly more"
than minimum wage job in the Bay Area, and she would not be paid
for her day off.

In opposition, the Defendant argues that Ms. Harris decided to
file multiple lawsuits, and that does not excuse her from her
discovery obligations.  Best Buy represents that Ms. Harris's 2015
lawsuit was dismissed after her federal claim was dismissed and
she declined to amend to assert continued jurisdiction under CAFA.
Instead, Ms. Harris filed two additional lawsuits.  Best Buy
contends that the instant lawsuit adds a new co-plaintiff,
redefines all of the classes and subclasses, and splits claims
between this lawsuit and the other pending lawsuit.

Ms. Harris decided to file three lawsuits, and the instant case
involves an additional co-plaintiff, different claims, and the
redefinition of the classes and subclasses.  The Defendant,
therefore, is entitled to take her deposition for 7 hours.
Accordingly, Judge Westmore denied Ms. Harris' motion for
protective order.  The parties will meet and confer regarding the
scheduling of her deposition.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/pFW8v5 from Leagle.com.

Starvonna Harris, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Francis Woodall
-- kevin@kwoodalllaw.com -- Woodall Law Offices.

Starvonna Harris, Plaintiff, represented by Page R. Barnes, Barnes
Law Offices.

Jonathan Strickland, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Francis
Woodall, Woodall Law Offices & Page R. Barnes, Barnes Law Offices.

Best Buy Stores, L.P., Defendant, represented by Barbara Jean
Miller -- barbara.miller@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis &
Bockius, LLP, Bryan Jarrett -- bryan.jarrett@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Sarah Jane Allen --
sarah.allen@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP.


BMW BANK: 3d Cir. Reverses Denial of Car Dealers' Class Cert.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CITY SELECT AUTO SALES INC., a New Jersey
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class
similarly situated persons, Appellant, v. BMW BANK OF NORTH
AMERICA INC.; BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA LLC; CREDITSMARTS CORP,
No. 15-3931(3d Cir.), Judge Anthony Joseph Scirica of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the District
Court's order denying class certification on the sole ground that
there was no reliable and administratively feasible means of
determining whether putative class members fell within the class
definition and remanded for further consideration in accordance
with his Opinion.

The Defendant operates an internet-based "indirect business-to-
business lending tree" that helps independent car dealers connect
customers with various lenders.  Defendants BMW Bank and BMW
Financial ("BMW") offer direct automotive financing to customers
through a division called "up2drive," which provides financing to
borrowers at independent car dealers for all makes and models of
cars.

In 2012, BMW and Creditsmarts entered into a contract,
memorialized in a Master Professional Services Agreement and a
Marketing Agreement, under which BMW would offer up2drive loans to
borrowers at participating independent car dealers through the
Creditsmarts system.  As part of the marketing agreement, BMW
agreed to provide general institution information to be published
on the Vendor web site (Creditsmarts.com).  On a number of
occasions in late 2012, Creditsmarts used the services of a fax
broadcaster, WestFax, Inc., to fax advertisements to independent
car dealers.  A Creditsmarts employee used WestFax to successfully
send 5,480 faxes on Nov.r 29, 2012; 5,107 faxes on Dec. 4, 2012;
and 10,402 faxes on Dec. 27, 2012.  To send each fax, the employee
generated a list of recipients from Creditsmarts' customer
database.

Plaintiff City Select received one of the faxes sent on Dec. 27,
2012.  It alleges that it had no preexisting business relationship
with Creditsmarts or BMW and that the fax was unsolicited.

On July 30, 2013, City Select filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting, inter
alia, a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and a
state law claim for conversion based on the BMW fax.  In addition
to its individual claim, City Select asserted claims under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of a class of other car
dealers who received the BMW faxes.

City Select sought certification of a class defined as all auto
dealerships that were included in the Creditsmarts database on or
before Dec. 27, 2012, with fax numbers identified in the database
who were sent one or more telephone facsimile messages between
Nov. 20, 2012 and Jan. 1, 2013, that advertised the commercial
availability of property, goods or services offered by BMW Bank of
North America.

During class certification discovery, City Select sought to compel
production of the Creditsmarts database but it was denied.

The District Court denied City Select's motion for class
certification on the sole ground that the proposed class failed to
meet the Circuit's ascertainability standard because there was no
reliable and administratively feasible means of determining
whether putative class members fell within the class definition.
It concluded that even though the Plaintiff may be able to
identify the potential universe of fax recipients, there is no
objective way of determining which customers were actually sent
the BMW fax.  City Select appealed.

Judge Scirica vacated and remanded for two reasons.  First, his
ascertainability precedents do not categorically preclude
affidavits from potential class members, in combination with the
Creditsmarts database, from satisfying the ascertainability
standard.  Second, because the Creditsmarts database was not
produced during discovery, the Plaintiff was denied the
opportunity to demonstrate whether a reliable, administratively
feasible method of ascertaining the class exists based, in whole
or in part, on that database.  Without further information about
the Creditsmarts database, there was not an adequate record on
which to base the conclusion that the class was not ascertainable
based on a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism.  The
Judge remanded so that the Creditsmarts database can be produced,
subject, if appropriate, to a protective order and any other
necessary provisions for confidentiality of Creditsmarts's
business information.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/X8d0zJ from Leagle.com.

Phillip A. Bock, Esq. -- phil@classlawyers.com -- [ARGUED],
Jonathan B. Piper, Esq. --  jon@classlawyers.com -- Bock, Hatch,
Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC, 134 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1000,
Chicago, IL 60602.

Alan C. Milstein, Esq. -- amilstein@shermansilverstein.com --
Sherman, Silverstein, Kohl, Rose & Podolsky, P.A., 308 Harper
Drive, Suite 200, Eastgate Corporate Center, Moorestown, NJ 08057,
Counsel for Appellant City Select Auto Sales, Inc.

Ryan L. DiClemente, Esq. -- rdiclemente@saul.com -- Saul Ewing
LLP, 650 College Road East, Suite 4000, Princeton, NJ 08540.

Raymond A. Garcia, Esq. -- rgarcia@stroock.com -- Stroock &
Stroock & Lavan LLP, 180 Maiden Lane, 38th Floor, New York, NY
10038.

Julia B. Strickland, Esq. -- jstrickland@stroock.com -- Stroock &
Stroock & Lavan LLP, 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1800, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, Counsel for Appellees BMW Bank of North
America, Inc., and BMW Financial Services NA, LLC.

Thomas J. Gaynor, Jr. Esq., Robert A. Smith, Esq., Smith & Doran,
60 Washington Street, Courthouse Plaza, Morristown, NJ 07960.

William B. Hayes, III, Esq. [ARGUED], 257 Jackson Street, Denver,
CO 80206, Counsel for Appellee Creditsmarts Corp.

Jonathan D. Hacker, Esq. -- jhacker@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers,
1625 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, Hannah Y.S. Chanoine, Esq.
-- hchanoine@omm.com -- Anton Metlitsky, Esq. --
ametlitsky@omm.com -- 7 Times Square, Time Square Tower, 33rd
Floor, New York, NY 10036, Counsel for Amicus Curiae The Chamber
of, Commerce of the United States of America and the, Grocery
Manufacturers Association.


BORNSTEIN SEAFOODS: "Jimenez" Sues Over 401K Plan Contributions
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA JIMENEZ, an individual, MUOI T. TRINH, an individual and all
similarly situated current and former employees of Defendants,
Plaintiffs, v. BORNSTEIN SEAFOODS, INC., a Washington State
corporation; RICHARD GRIFFITH, an individual and COLIN BORNSTEIN,
an individual, Defendants, Case No: 2:17-cv-01177 (W.D. Wash.,
August 3, 2017), alleges that to date none of the Defendants have
taken any action to collect the employer contributions due and
owing to their 401K Plan.

According to the complaint, until on or about June 16, 2017, none
of the Defendants took any action that would allow Plaintiffs or
any other employee covered by the collective bargaining agreement
(CBA) with the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 21
to make salary deferrals as provided under the 401K Plan.  To
date, none of the Defendants have established individual accounts
in the name of each Plaintiff eligible for the mandatory employer
contribution.

Moreover, none of the Defendants provided the required information
to Plaintiffs concerning the investment options available to
invest Employer contributions or salary deferrals in an individual
account for the benefit of Plaintiffs or any other employee
covered by the CBA.  The Defendants also did not provide benefit
statements or plan documents to the Plaintiffs or any other
employee covered by the CBA.

The Employer operates a fish processing plant in Bellingham,
Washington. The Employer is also the named fiduciary, Trustee and
Plan Administrator of a 401K Plan known as Bornstein Seafood,
Inc.-Union Employee 401 K Plan.  The Plaintiffs are current
employees of the Employer working at its plant in Bellingham,
Washington. They are also participants in the 401K Plan that is
the subject of this Complaint. Plaintiff, Muoi T. Trinh works for
the Employer as a "Packer." BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James G. McGuinness, Esq.
     Aaron Streepy, Esq.
     STREEPY LAW PLLC
     5030 First Avenue South, Suite 101
     Seattle, WA 98134
     Phone: (253) 528-0278
     Fax: (253) 528-0276
     Email: jim@mcguinnessstreepy.com
            aaron@mcguinnessstreepy.com


BRIXMOR PROPERTY: Settles Westchester Putnam's Securities Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brixmor Property Group Inc. and Brixmor Operating Partnership LP
said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 31, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that during the three months ended June 30,
2017, the Company entered into a preliminary agreement to settle
the putative securities class action complaint filed in March 2016
by the Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local
60 Benefit Funds related to the previously disclosed review
conducted by the Company's Audit Committee for $28.0 million.

The settlement amount is within the coverage amount of the
Company's applicable insurance policies. There can be no assurance
that a final settlement agreement will be reached or that any such
settlement will be approved by the Court.

Based on current information, the Company accrued $28.0 million as
of June 30, 2017 with respect to the settlement agreement. This
amount is included in Accounts payable, accrued expenses and other
liabilities in the Company's unaudited Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets. Because the settlement amount is within the
coverage amount of the Company's applicable insurance policies,
the Company has accrued a receivable of $28.0 million as of June
30, 2017.

The Parent Company is a real estate investment trust ("REIT")
which owns 100% of the common stock of BPG Subsidiary Inc. ("BPG
Sub"), which, in turn, is the sole owner of Brixmor OP GP LLC (the
"General Partner"), the sole general partner of the Operating
Partnership. As of June 30, 2017, the Parent Company beneficially
owned, through its direct and indirect interest in BPG Sub and the
General Partner, 100% of the outstanding partnership common units
of interest (the "OP Units") in the Operating Partnership.


CALIBER HOME: Hunt Files Suit in S. Dist. of Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caliber Home Loans,
Inc.  The case is styled as Mark Donald Hunt, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Caliber Home
Loans, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-61658-UU (S.D. Fla.,
August 17, 2017).

Caliber Home is an Irving, Texas-based home mortgage originator
and servicer established in 2013 by the merger of Caliber Funding
and Vericrest Financial. The firm is owned by affiliates of
private equity fund manager Lone Star Funds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Harris Kline, Esq.
   2761 Executive Park Drive
   Weston, FL 33331
   (954) 888-4646
   Fax: (954) 888-4647
   Email: emailservice@jklawfl.com


CAPE MAY COUNTY, NJ: Court Vacates Default Judgment in "Docherty"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned EMILY DOCHERTY, JOSEPH SMALL, JERMAINE
MILLS, AND FREDERICK SCHARTNER individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. CAPE MAY COUNTY, et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-8785 (RMB)(D. N.J.), Judge
Renee Marie Bumb of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, granted Lanigan's motion to vacate
default and dismissed the Section 1983 and NJCRA claims against
him.

Plaintiff Docherty was an inmate at Cape May County Correctional
Center ("CMCCC") at the time she filed this putative class action
on Dec. 21, 2015.  On Oct. 7, 2016, Plaintiffs Docherty, Small,
Mills, and Schartner filed a Second Amended Putative Class Action
Complaint against Cape May County, Cape May County Sheriff's
Dept., Cape May County Sheriff Gary Schaffer, Warden Donald J.
Lombardo, Commissioner Gary M. Lanigan, and unknown Corrections
Officers.  Schaffer, Lombardo and Lanigan were sued in their
official and individual capacities.

The Plaintiffs allege that overcrowded and unsanitary conditions
at CMCCC violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of pretrial
detainees (Count I) and the Eighth Amendment rights of sentenced
inmates (Count II).  On behalf of female sentenced inmates and
pretrial detainees, Plaintiff Docherty alleges inmates are not
provided adequate feminine hygiene products or toilet paper,
resulting in the inmates being forced to wear dirty clothing until
clean laundry is provided (Count III).  On behalf of Muslim
sentenced inmates and pretrial detainees, Plaintiff Mills alleges
denial of the First Amendment right to practice the essential
elements of their religion (Count IV), and denial of the
Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law
(Count V). The Plaintiffs allege violation of the right of access
to the courts (Count VI) due to the unavailability of the
grievance procedure in CMCCC.  On behalf of similarly situated
sentenced prisoners and pretrial detainees, Plaintiff Schartner
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Count
VII) and the Rehabilitation Act (Count VIII).  All Plaintiffs
allege violations of the New Jersey State Constitution and the New
Jersey Civil Rights Act on behalf of all similarly situated
inmates (Count IX).  Plaintiff Mills also alleges a violation of
the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination on behalf of himself all
similarly situated persons (Count X).  For relief, the Plaintiffs
seek damages, costs, attorney's fees, injunctive and equitable
relief.

Service was executed upon Lanigan on Oct. 19, 2016.  Lanigan's
Answer was due on Nov. 9, 2016.  The Plaintiffs requested entry of
default against Lanigan on Nov. 11, 2016, and the Clerk of the
Court entered default on Nov. 14, 2016.  Lanigan filed the present
motion to vacate default and to dismiss the Complaint on Dec. 1,
2016.

On June 29, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Defendants Cape May County, Cape May County Sheriff's Dep't,
Sheriff Gary Schaffer, and Warden Donald J. Lombardo's motion to
dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  The
Court dismissed Counts VI, VII and VIII as to all moving
Defendants with prejudice; dismissed Count III and the coextensive
claims in Count IX without prejudice as to all moving defendants;
dismissed Counts IV, V, X and the coextensive claims in Count IX,
only as to Defendants Schaffer and Lombardo, without prejudice;
and denied the remainder of the motion to dismiss.  Defendant
Lanigan filed Motion to Vacate Default and to Dismiss the
Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

First, Judge Bumb finds no prejudice to the Plaintiffs by setting
aside default because the case has not proceeded beyond the
responsive pleading stage.  Second, Lanigan has set forth a
potentially meritorious defense of failure to plead his personal
involvement in the misconduct alleged in the Second Amended
Complaint.  Third, Lanigan's conduct of filing a responsive
pleading two days after the deadline is not culpable, in light of
his counsel's heavy caseload in providing legal representation to
the Commissioner.  Therefore, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c)
and for good cause, the Judge sets aside the entry of default
against Lanigan.

Lanigan contends that the Section 1983 and NJCRA claims against
him in his individual capacity should be dismissed because the
Plaintiffs have failed to allege his personal involvement in any
constitutional violation.  Judge Bulb finds that the Second
Amended Complaint does not allege any specific supervisory
practice or procedure that Lanigan failed to employ or that he was
aware of an unreasonable risk of any constitutional violation
based on the existing customs and practices.  Therefore,
Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to state a
supervisory liability claim under Section 1983 against Lanigan.
Count VI of the Second Amended Complaint will be dismissed with
prejudice as to Lanigan because amendment is futile.  Even if the
Plaintiffs could plead facts to establish Lanigan's supervisory
liability, they cannot establish actual injury to state a First
Amendment access to courts claim.  Therefore, amendment of Count
VI is futile, and Count VI will be dismissed with prejudice.

For the reasons, Judge Bumb granted Lanigan's motion to dismiss
and dismissed Counts I, II, III, IV, V and IX without prejudice.
She dismissed Count VI with prejudice.  The Plaintiffs' claim for
prospective injunctive relief against Lanigan is dismissed without
prejudice because they have not alleged a colorable Section 1983
claim against him.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/vaodEI from Leagle.com.

EMILY DOCHERTY, Plaintiff, represented by TIMOTHY J. MCILWAIN,
MCILWAIN, LLC.

EMILY DOCHERTY, Plaintiff, represented by ROBERT A. MORLEY, Morley
Law, LLC.

JOSEPH SMALL, Plaintiff, represented by SURINDER K. AGGARWAL, LAW
OFFICES OF SURINDER K. AGGARWAL.

JERMAINE MILLS, Plaintiff, represented by TIMOTHY J. MCILWAIN,
MCILWAIN, LLC & ROBERT A. MORLEY, Morley Law, LLC.

FREDERICK SCHARTNER, Plaintiff, represented by TIMOTHY J.
MCILWAIN, MCILWAIN, LLC & ROBERT A. MORLEY, Morley Law, LLC.

CAPE MAY COUNTY, Defendant, represented by RICHARD L. GOLDSTEIN --
rlgoldstein@mdwcg.com -- MARWILL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN &
GOGGIN, PA.

GARY SCHAFFER, Defendant, represented by RICHARD L. GOLDSTEIN,
MARWILL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PA.

CAPE MAY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendant, represented by
RICHARD L. GOLDSTEIN, MARWILL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN,
PA.

DONALD LOMBARDO, Defendant, represented by RICHARD L. GOLDSTEIN,
MARWILL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PA.

GARY LANIGAN, Defendant, represented by MARVIN L. FREEMAN, STATE
OF NEW JERSEY.


CHEMED CORP: Consolidation of Seper and Chhina Cases Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
CHEMED Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the parties in the
Seper and Chhina lawsuits have agreed to stay further discovery
efforts pending the issue of consolidation of the two cases.

Jordan Seper, ("Seper") a Registered Nurse at VITAS' Inland Empire
program from May 12, 2014 to March 21, 2015, filed a lawsuit in
San Francisco Superior Court on September 26, 2016.  She alleged
VITAS Healthcare Corp of CA ("VITAS CA") (1) failed to provide
minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failed to provide overtime
for all hours worked; (3) failed to provide a second meal period;
(4) failed to provide rest breaks; (5) failed to indemnify for
necessary expenditures; (6) failed to timely pay wages due at time
of separation; and (7) engaged in unfair business practices.
Seper seeks a state-wide class action of current and former non-
exempt employees employed with VITAS in California within the four
years preceding the filing of the lawsuit.  She seeks court
determination that this action may be maintained as a class action
for the entire California class and subclasses, designation as
class representative, declaratory relief, injunctive relief,
damages (including wages for regular or overtime hours allegedly
worked but not paid, premium payments for missed meal or rest
periods, and unreimbursed expenses), all applicable penalties
associated with each claim, pre and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  Seper served VITAS CA with the
lawsuit,  Jordan A. Seper on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California,
a Delaware corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corp of CA, a business
entity unknown; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive; Los Angeles Superior
Court Case Number BC 642857 on October 13, 2016.

On November 14, 2016, the Parties filed a Stipulation to transfer
the venue of the lawsuit from San Francisco to Los Angeles.  The
Los Angeles Superior Court Complex Division accepted transfer of
the case on December 6, 2016 and stayed the case.  On December 16,
2016, VITAS CA filed its Answer and served written discovery on
Seper.

Jiwan Chhina ("Chhina"), hired by VITAS as a Home Health Aide on
February 5, 2002, is currently a Licensed Vocational Nurse for
VITAS' San Diego program.  On September 27, 2016, Chhina filed a
lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court, alleging (1) failure to pay
minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failure to provide overtime
for all hours worked; (3) failure to pay wages for all hours at
the regular rate; (4) failure to provide meal periods; (5) failure
to provide rest breaks; (6) failure to provide complete and
accurate wage statements; (7) failure to pay for all reimbursement
expenses; (8) unfair business practices; and (9) violation of the
California Private Attorneys General Act.  Chhina seeks to pursue
these claims in the form of a state-wide class action of current
and former non-exempt employees employed with VITAS in California
within the four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit.  He
seeks court determination that this action may be maintained as a
class action for the entire California class and subclasses,
designation as class representative, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, damages (including wages for regular or
overtime hours allegedly worked but not paid, premium payments for
missed meal or rest periods, and unreimbursed expenses), all
applicable penalties associated with each claim, pre-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.  Chhina served VITAS CA
with the lawsuit, Jiwann Chhina v. VITAS Health Services of
California, Inc., a California corporation; VITAS Healthcare
Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation; VITAS
Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation dba
VITAS Healthcare, Inc.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive; San Diego
Superior Court Case Number 37-2015-00033978-CU-OE-CTL on November
3, 2016.  On December 1, 2016, VITAS filed its Answer and served
written discovery on Chhina.

The Court in Seper lifted the stay at the Initial Status
Conference on May 11, 2017.  At the Conference, Seper's counsel
informed the Court that he was in contact with Jiwan Chhina's
counsel to consolidate the two cases.  The Court set a Further
Status Conference for July 13, 2017 expressly to receive a status
update on the consolidation efforts.  If the cases are
consolidated and proceed under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles
Superior Court Complex Division,  the Chhina case in the San Diego
Superior Court would then be dismissed.  The Parties have agreed
to stay further discovery efforts pending the issue of
consolidation of the two cases.  Counsel for Seper and counsel for
Chhina are currently preparing a joint Amended Complaint.

The Company is not able to reasonably estimate the probability of
loss or range of loss for either of these lawsuits at this time.

The Company intends to defend vigorously against the allegations
in each of the above lawsuits.  Regardless of the outcome of any
of the preceding matters, dealing with the various regulatory
agencies and opposing parties can adversely affect us through
defense costs, potential payments, diversion of management time,
and related publicity.  Although the Company intends to defend
them vigorously, there can be no assurance that those suits will
not have a material adverse effect on the Company.

CHEMED operates through two wholly-owned subsidiaries, VITAS
Healthcare Corporation and Roto-Rooter Group, Inc.  VITAS focuses
on hospice care that helps make terminally ill patients' final
days as comfortable as possible.  Through its teams of doctors,
nurses, home health aides, social workers, clergy and volunteers,
VITAS provides direct medical services to patients, as well as
spiritual and emotional counseling to both patients and their
families.  Roto-Rooter's services are focused on providing
plumbing, drain cleaning, water restoration and other related
services to both residential and commercial customers.  Through
its network of company-owned branches, independent contractors and
franchisees, Roto-Rooter offers plumbing and drain cleaning
service to over 90% of the U.S. population.


CLEVELAND INTEGRITY: Amended "Gundrum" Class Notice Due in 2Weeks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ERIC GUNDRUM and MICHAEL KING, individually
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
CLEVELAND INTEGRITY SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-55-
TCK-tlw (N.D. Okla.), Judge Terence Kern of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma granted the parties
leave to submit an amended Class Notice in conformance with his
Order, accompanied by a renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
the Settlement Agreement, no later than two weeks from the date of
the Order.

The Named Plaintiffs worked as pipeline inspectors for Defendant
Cleveland Integrity Services, Inc. ("CIS") for various periods
between 2013 and 2015.  They describe themselves as blue-collar
workers and allege that their work primarily entails manual
duties.  CIS paid them a specific amount per day that they worked.
The Plaintiffs allege that they routinely worked more than 40
hours per week but that CIS did not pay them overtime compensation
for hours worked over forty per week.  They brought a putative
collective action against CIS under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
The parties briefed several issues before the case was transferred
to this Court.  Subsequently, the parties agreed to participate in
an Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") process, during which
they exchanged settlement-related discovery, engaged in settlement
negotiations, and participated in an in-person mediation session
with retired U.S. District Judge Wayne R. Andersen.  After further
negotiations, the parties agreed to settlement terms on behalf of
a proposed settlement class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23 based on state law claims of unjust enrichment.

As set forth in the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion, the parties seek
the following forms of relief: (i) preliminary approval of the
Settlement Agreement; (ii) preliminary certification of a Rule 23
class for settlement purposes, based on state law claims of unjust
enrichment; (iii) preliminary approval of Plaintiffs Gundrum and
King as the representatives of the settlement class; (iv)
preliminary approval of Berger & Montague, P.C., as the Class
Counsel for the settlement class; (v) preliminary approval of Dahl
Administration, LLC as the Settlement Administrator and the costs
of claims administration; (vi) approval of the Class Notice and
Claim Form attached to the parties' Settlement Agreement; and
(vii) approval of the proposed schedule and procedure for
completing the process for final approval of a class-wide
settlement.

The proposed class includes approximately 2,300 individuals and is
defined as all employees who worked for CIS in the job title of
inspector and who were paid on a daily rate basis in any workweeks
between Jan. 1, 2015 and March 31, 2017, except for individuals
who held only jobs containing the word Chief.

Under the Settlement Agreement, CIS will provide the Settlement
Administrator with a list of all Class Members and their last
known addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and social
security numbers.  If the Settlement Agreement is preliminarily
approved, the Settlement Administrator will run the list of Class
Members through the U.S. Postal Service's national change of
address database and mail and email the Class Notice and Claim
Form to the Class Members.  The Class Members will then have 60
days to submit a Claim Form, opt out of the settlement, or object
to the settlement.  The Settlement Administrator will send a
reminder notice by mail and email 30 days before the end of the
claim period.

The Settlement Agreement includes a Gross Settlement Amount
("GSA") of $4,500,000 to be paid by CIS.  In addition to
compensation to the Class Members, the GSA is to cover (i) service
awards of $20,000 to each of the two named Plaintiffs; (ii)
service awards of $2,500 to each of five individuals who have
consented in writing to participate as Plaintiffs in this case
("Opt-In Plaintiffs"); (iii) attorneys' fees of up to one-third of
the GSA; (iv) reimbursement of costs to the Class Counsel,
anticipated not to exceed $25,000; (v) payment for the Settlement
Administrator's services; and (vi) CIS's share of payroll taxes
applicable to any amount of the funds attributable to wages.  The
balance of the GSA is the Net Settlement Amount and will be
distributed to the Class Members who do not opt out of the
settlement.

Each Class Member will receive a minimum settlement payment of
between $350 and $600, depending on the percentage of eligible
Class Members who return claim forms.  Those who submit timely
claim forms will also receive shares of the Net Settlement Amount
corresponding to the number of weeks worked in a qualifying
position for CIS during the relevant time period and ultimately
receive a payment based on the number of shares.  The Class
Members who do not submit a Claim Form or opt out will receive
only the minimum settlement payment.

All settlement payments are allocated 40% as back wages subject to
withholding taxes and reported on a W-2, and 60% as non-wage
interest and/or damages or liquidated damages and not subject to
withholding taxes.  Settlement checks will be negotiable for 180
days from the date they are issued.  The Settlement Administrator
will mail and email a reminder to any Class Member who has not
cashed his or her check after 90 days and will call those who have
not cashed their checks when less than 45 days of the 180-day
window remain.

The Settlement Administrator will maintain copies of all
negotiated checks and will file a declaration with the Court
listing the names of all Class Members who signed and deposited or
cashed settlement checks.  The amount of any uncashed settlement
checks will be remitted by the Settlement Administrator to CIS in
recognition that CIS will not receive any release of claims from
those class members.

The release applies to CIS and its past and present parent
companies, investors in any of those companies, owners,
controlling persons, subsidiaries, affiliates, shareholders,
directors, officers, employees, insurers, reinsurers, attorneys
and agents ("Released Parties").  The Named Plaintiffs and the
Opt-In Plaintiffs will also provide a general release to the
Released Parties in consideration for their enhanced service
awards.

Judge Kern finds that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they
undertook personal risks by representing the proposed collective
class in the case.  Accordingly, the service awards appear to fall
within reasonable bounds.  He also finds that the proposed
attorneys' fees in the Settlement Agreement satisfy the
requirements for preliminary approval.  Based on the factors
discussed, for the purpose of preliminary approval of the
settlement of FLSA claims, he finds sufficient reasons to conclude
that the Settlement Agreement overall is fair and the proposed
class should be preliminarily certified for settlement purposes.

The Judge further finds that absent from the Class Notice is any
language informing Class Members of their right to enter an
appearance through attorney if desired, which is required under
Rule 23 (c)(2)(b)(iv).  Therefore, the proposed Class Notice is
inadequate as drafted.

Accordingly, Judge Kern granted the parties leave to submit an
amended Class Notice in conformance with the Order, accompanied by
a renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement
Agreement, no later than two weeks from the date of the Order.
Rather than setting forth the same contents as the present motion,
he ordered that the renewed motion may incorporate the present
motion by reference and attach the amended Class Notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/mQpVmU from Leagle.com.

Eric Gundrum, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra K. Piazza --
apiazza@bm.net -- Berger & Montague PC.

Eric Gundrum, Plaintiff, represented by Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen -
- sschalman-bergen@bm.net -- Berger & Montague PC, Shanon Jude
Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- Berger & Montague PC & Steven Thomas
Horton, Horton & Neighbors PC.

Michael King, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra K. Piazza,
Berger & Montague PC, Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Berger & Montague
PC, Shanon Jude Carson, Berger & Montague PC & Steven Thomas
Horton, Horton & Neighbors PC.

Cleveland Integrity Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by R.
Richard Love, III -- rlove@cwlaw.com -- Conner & Winters, LLP,
Rachel Beth Cowen -- rachel.cowen@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US LLP
& Brian Alan Mead -- brian.mead@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US LLP.


CLINICAL CARE: Faces "Diaz" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
ERNESTO HIDALGO DIAZ, and all others similarly situated Plaintiff,
vs. CLINICAL CARE NETWORK, INC., a Florida Corporation, Defendant,
Case No: 1:17-cv-22934-RNS (S.D. Fla., August 3, 2017), alleges
that Plaintiff was generally paid for hours worked when delivering
patients, and was paid partial overtime during the time he
delivered patients. However, Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages
for time spent calling patients and coordinating schedules.
Plaintiff was also not paid overtime wages during the regular
scheduled shifts when Defendant automatically deducted a lunch
break, without regard as to whether Plaintiff actually took the
lunch break. Plaintiff estimates he worked approximately 15
overtime hours which were not compensated at all, and is owed
these hours at a rate of time and one-half the regular rate.  The
case alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant operates medical clinics.  Plaintiff was employed by the
Defendant as a patient driver for the medical clinics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
     2847 Hollywood Blvd.
     Hollywood, FL 33020
     Phone: (305) 308 - 5619
     Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

        - and -

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


CNA FINANCIAL: Mediation in 401(k) Plus Plan Case Next Month
------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the parties in the CNA
401(k) Plus Plan Litigation are scheduled to attend a mediation in
September 2017.

In September 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against CCC,
Continental Assurance Company (CAC) (a former subsidiary of CCC),
CNAF, the Investment Committee of the CNA 401(k) Plus Plan (Plan),
The Northern Trust Company and John Does 1-10 (collectively
Defendants) related to the Plan. The complaint alleges that
Defendants breached fiduciary duties to the Plan and caused
prohibited transactions in violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 when the Plan's Fixed Income Fund's
annuity contract with CAC was canceled. The plaintiff alleges he
and a proposed class of Plan participants who had invested in the
Fixed Income Fund suffered lower returns in their Plan investments
as a consequence of these alleged violations and seeks relief on
behalf of the putative class. This litigation is in its early
stages, and as of yet no class has been certified. CCC and the
other defendants are contesting the case. The parties are
scheduled to attend a mediation in September 2017.

Management believes the likelihood of loss is reasonably possible;
however, given the status of the litigation, the novel issues
raised by the allegations and the uncertainty as to how to assess
potential damages, management is currently unable to predict the
final outcome. The Plan trustees have provided notice to their
fiduciary coverage insurance carriers. Based on management's
current assessment and consideration of available insurance
coverage, management does not believe that the ultimate resolution
of this matter will have a material impact on the Company's
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements; however, the timing
of recognition of loss, if any, and insurance recovery, if any,
may differ.


COLD SPRING: $500K Settlement in "Avila" Gets Prelim. Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval
of Class Settlement in the case captioned JOSEPH AVILA, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COLD
SPRING GRANITE COMPANY, a Minnesota Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-01533-AWI-SKO(E.D. Cal.).

The Defendant is a natural stone manufacturer that operates
quarries in the United States and Canada.  The Plaintiff and the
87 absent class members are or were the Defendant's employees
working at quarries in Raymond, California and Clovis, California.
The Plaintiff and the absent class members are or were all
employed as non-exempt hourly employees.  The Defendant instituted
an Alternative Workweek Schedule ("AWS"), whereby it scheduled
class members to work four 10-hour shifts per week, from 6:00 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m.  The Plaintiffs were not paid at an overtime rate
when they worked more than eight hours per day.  The Defendant
also failed to provide the class members with off-duty meal
periods prior to the end of their fifth hour of work.

The parties seek conditional certification for all non-exempt
positions at Cold Spring facilities in Raymond, California and
Clovis, California from Oct. 11, 2012 through the date of the
Order.  The settlement class includes 87 employees.

The parties have agreed to a total maximum settlement amount of
$500,000 to be paid by the Defendant.  That settlement amount
includes the class counsel's attorney fees, costs, and any
expenses related to the suit.  It provides that the attorney fees
will not exceed $166,666.66 (i.e., 33.33% of the gross fund).  Of
the remaining $333,333.34, up to $15,000 is allocated to reimburse
for costs, up to $5,000 is allocated to pay a representative
service award to the Named Plaintiff, $7,500 is allocated as a
PAGA payment to the LWDA, and $8,500 is allocated to pay the
settlement administrator's fees and costs.

The remaining balance, assuming the maximum of each allocated
amount is paid, will be $297,333.34.  That net settlement amount
will be distributed to class members in proportion to the weeks
each worked during the class period.  More precisely, each class
member's settlement payment will be calculated by dividing the
class member's weeks worked during the class period by the total
weeks worked by all class members during the class period then
multiplied by the net settlement amount.  In that way, all of the
net settlement amount will be paid to class members.

Notice of class settlement will be given by the class
administrator after the court preliminarily approves the
settlement agreement.  That notice will contain a preliminary
calculation of the class member's weeks worked.  The Class members
will be afforded an opportunity to challenge the calculation of
weeks worked if they disagree with the Defendant's calculation.
The Class members will also be given instruction regarding the
option to opt out or object and outlining the claims released if
they do not opt out. Any class member who does not validly opt out
will be mailed or wired a settlement payment.  Any unclaimed funds
will escheat to the State of California unclaimed wages fund.

Judge Ishiii granted the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class
action certification and preliminary approval of class action
settlement.  The class is conditionally certified and defined as
all individuals who work or worked in a Covered Position during
the Covered Time Frame and who do not validly exclude themselves
from the settlement.  He authorized the retention of CPT Group as
the Settlement Administrator for the purpose of the Settlement
with reasonable administration costs estimated not to exceed
$8,500.  He conditionally appointed Hoyer & Hicks, and United
Employees Law Group, P.C. as the counsel for the class, and the
Plaintiff as the class representative for the class.

Judge Ishii approved the Class Notice Package.  The parties will
implement the notice schedule as set forth in Section III.  The
Class counsel WILL file a motion for Final Approval of the
Settlement and for approval of the Fee and Costs Award and the
Service Payment, with the appropriate declarations, supporting
evidence, any objections, and any requests for exclusion by Nov.
20, 2017.

The parties will appear on Dec. 11, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom
2 of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Fresno Division,
before the Judge for a final settlement approval hearing, which
may include consideration of the following:

     a. Objections to the proposed settlement by class members
mailed to the Claims Administrator with a postmark of no later
than 45 days from the date the Notices are first mailed;

     b. Responses by the class counsel and the counsel for the
Defendant to any objections timely filed by the class members and
to provide other information, as appropriate, bearing on whether
or not the settlement should be approved;

     c. Responses by the class counsel to any questions regarding
its request for fees and costs, as well as the application for the
class representative service award.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/67ssEd from Leagle.com.

Joseph Avila, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Elizabeth McGuire
-- jennifer@mlfprobate.com -- Hoyer & Hicks.

Joseph Avila, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan Lee Hicks --
rhicks@hoyerlaw.com -- Hoyer & Hicks, Richard Anderson Hoyer --
rhoyer@hoyerlaw.com -- Hoyer & Hicks & Walter L. Haines --
walter@whaines.com -- United Employees Law Group, PC.

Cold Spring Granite Corporation, Defendant, represented by Stephen
L. Berry -- stephenberry@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP.


CONSOL ENERGY: "Hale" Litigation Back in Trial Court
----------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Hale class action
litigation is now back in the trial court for further proceedings.

This class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010 in the
U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia. The putative class
consists of force-pooled unleased gas owners whose ownership of
the coalbed methane (CBM) gas was declared to be in conflict with
rights of others. The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of
ownership of the CBM and damages based on allegations CNX Gas
Company failed to either pay royalties due to conflicting
claimants or deemed lessors or paid them less than required
because of the alleged practice of improper below market sales
and/or taking alleged improper post-production deductions.

On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order
certifying the class, and CNX Gas Company appealed the Order to
the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 19, 2014, the
Fourth Circuit agreed with CNX Gas Company, reversed the Order
certifying the class and remanded the case to the trial court for
further proceedings consistent with the decision.

On April 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class
Certification, which CNX opposed. On March 29, 2017, the Court
issued an Order certifying four issues for class treatment: (1)
allegedly excessive deductions; (2) royalties based on purported
improperly low prices; (3) deduction of severance taxes; and (4)
Plaintiffs' request for an accounting.

On April 13, 2017, CNX filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal
with the Fourth Circuit, and on May 22, 2017 the Petition was
denied. The case is now back in the trial court for further
proceedings.

CONSOL Energy continues to believe this action cannot properly
proceed as a class action in any form, believes the case has
meritorious defenses, and intends to defend it vigorously. The
Company has established an accrual to cover its estimated
liability for this case. This accrual is immaterial to the overall
financial position of CONSOL Energy.


CONSOL ENERGY: "Addison" Litigation Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend against the Addison class action litigation.

This class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010 in the U.S.
District Court in Abingdon, Virginia. The putative class consists
of gas lessors whose gas ownership is in conflict. The lawsuit
seeks a judicial declaration of ownership of the CBM and damages
based on the allegations that CNX Gas Company failed to either pay
royalties due to these conflicting claimant lessors or paid them
less than required because of the alleged practice of improper
below market sales and/or taking alleged improper post-production
deductions.

On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order
certifying the class, and CNX Gas Company appealed the Order to
the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On August 19, 2014, the Fourth Circuit agreed with CNX Gas
Company, reversed the Order certifying the class and remanded the
case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with
the decision.

On April 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class
Certification, which CNX opposed. On March 29, 2017, the Court
issued an Order denying class certification in this matter.

CONSOL Energy believes the case has meritorious defenses, and
intends to defend it vigorously. The Company has established an
accrual to cover its estimated liability for this case. This
accrual is immaterial to the overall financial position of CONSOL
Energy.


CONSOL ENERGY: Defending Against Fitzwater Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. is defending against the Fitzwater class action
litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

Three nonunion retired coal miners have sued CONSOL Energy Inc.,
Fola Coal Company (AMVEST), Consolidation Coal Company and CONSOL
of Kentucky Inc. (COK) in West Virginia Federal Court alleging
ERISA violations in the termination of retiree health care
benefits.  The Plaintiffs contend they relied to their detriment
on oral statements and promises of "lifetime health benefits"
allegedly made by various members of management during Plaintiffs'
employment and that they were allegedly denied access to Summary
Plan Documents that clearly reserved to the Company the right to
modify or terminate the CONSOL Energy Inc. Retiree Health and
Welfare Plan.

Pursuant to plaintiffs amended complaint filed on April 24, 2017,
plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated and
seek to represent a class of all nonunion retirees who were
associated with AMVEST and COK areas of operation.

The Company believes it has meritorious defense and intends to
vigorously defend this suit.


CONTEXTLOGIC INC: 6th Cir. Affirms Judgment Trimming "Gerboc"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MAX GERBOC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
CONTEXTLOGIC, INC., Defendant-Appellee, No. 16-4734(6th Cir.),
Judge Amul Thapar of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the
Plaintiff's unjust enrichment, fraud, and class Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act ("OCSPA") claims -- while allowing his
individual OCSPA claim to proceed.

Gerboc is happy with the $27 speakers he bought from Wish.com.
Yet he wants back 90% of what he paid for them.  He does not say
that they sound bad, that they are worth less than what he paid,
or that he was tricked into buying them.  Rather, he thinks that
Wish used an unfair advertising ploy to sell them.  On the
website, the speakers' purchase price was juxtaposed with a
different price: $300.

But that number was crossed out, implying that Gerboc was getting
a good deal.  Gerboc now argues that the deal was an illusion,
that Wish's ploy violated principles of equity and Ohio law, and
that he was entitled to buy the speakers at 90% off their purchase
price -- or, for about $3.

Gerboc sued ContextLogic in Ohio state court on behalf of himself
and a class of similarly situated buyers.  Arguing that Wish
Marketplac's price visuals are deceptive, he alleged breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, and violations of the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act ("OCSPA").  ContextLogic removed to
federal district court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d) and moved
to dismiss.

Gerboc abandoned his contract claim, and the court dismissed his
unjust enrichment, fraud, and class OCSPA claims -- while allowing
his individual OCSPA claim to proceed.  At Gerboc's request, the
court certified its decision for interlocutory appeal.  Just to be
safe, Gerboc has also filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal,
explaining why the Court should accept the certification.

Judge Thapar explains that the OCSPA prohibits unfair or deceptive
sales tactics, like representing that a specific price advantage
exists, if it does not.  But not every consumer who has been
deceived may bring a class action; first he must prove two
elements: notice and injury.  Notice is defendant-focused: The
consumer must show either that the Ohio Attorney General had
already declared the seller's practice to be deceptive or
unconscionable or that an Ohio court had already determined the
practice violates the OCSPA before the seller engaged in it.
Injury is plaintiff-focused: The consumer must "allege and prove"
that he suffered "actual damages" proximately caused by the
defendant's deceptive practice.

Gerboc has shown neither, Judge Thapar finds.  Gerboc failed even
to mention the notice rule in his merits brief.  In any event,
Gerboc also fails to show damages.  He suffered no loss for the
same reason that he did not unjustly enrich ContextLogic.  Thus,
the claim fails just as it failed when Gerboc's counsel brought it
for another plaintiff.  As to Gerboc's fraud claim, the Judge
notes that the Plaintiff mentioned it to the Court just three
times in his merits brief and then only in passing.  This
perfunctory attempt at argument waives the claim.  For these
reasons, Judge Thapar affirmed the judgment of the district court.

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

Nicole T. Fiorelli -- nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com -- DWORKEN &
BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A., Painesville, Ohio, for Appellant.

Jeffrey S. Jacobson -- jjacobson@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY DRYE &
WARREN LLP, New York, New York, for Appellee.

Nicole T. Fiorelli, Patrick J. Perotti -- pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
-- DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A., Painesville, Ohio, for
Appellant.

Jeffrey S. Jacobson, James B. Saylor -- jsaylor@kelleydrye.com --
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP, New York, New York, Michael J. Zbiegien
Jr. -- mzbiegien@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP,
Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.


DIGCO UTILITY: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in "Contis"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GREG CONTIS, et al, Plaintiffs, v. DIGCO
UTILITY CONSTRUCTION, L.P., Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-
00589(S.D. Tex.), Judge Melinda Harmon of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, granted the
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification and Notice.

The Plaintiffs filed the case alleging that Defendant violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by failing to pay overtime as
mandated by the Act.  The Plaintiffs were employed by the
Defendant as "Field Service Representatives" or "Service
Technicians."  They allege the existence of several policies that
caused workers to underreport their hours, causing some of the
hours they worked not to be reflected in their final paychecks.
First, the Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant's policy caused
them to not clock in until after they had completed their first
job of the day.  Second, because of this policy, they were also
not paid for the time spent rounding up supplies before their
first job of the day.  Third, they assert that lunch breaks were
automatically docked even when they did not stop for lunch, and
instead ate on the run or on the job.  Fourth, they claim that
they were not always paid for mandatory weekly work meetings.
Fifth, they aver that they were required to maintain the vehicles
and were instructed not to count hours spent waiting for the
vehicles to be serviced.

The Defendant uses a computer system called "Mobile Data" to
record when each job is started, in progress, and completed.  It
contends that this system is not used for the purposes of
measuring weekly work hours and all of the hours are calculated
based on written timesheets submitted by the employees.  The
Plaintiffs counter that time was generally kept using the Mobile
Data computer system, and that timesheets were only used when the
computer system was down.

In their Motion, the Plaintiffs seek to certify the conditional
class under the FLSA described as all field service
representatives and/or service technicians employed by Digco at
any time during the three years preceding the Court's entry of an
order granting conditional certification and notice.  The
Defendant opposes the Plaintiffs' Motion.

Judge Harmon held finds that because the Defendant does not
dispute that figure, and because of the interstate nature of the
Defendants' operations, it is reasonable to credit the Plaintiffs'
assertion that there were many people who were compensated
according to the same policies as the Plaintiffs.  She also finds
that the putative class members share the same duties, management,
pay structure, and time keeping method, and are, therefore,
similarly situated.  She is satisfied that there are likely others
among the current and former Gas Field Service Representatives who
would want to join this lawsuit if notified.

For these reasons, Judge Harmon granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification and Issuance of Notice to Potential
Class Members.  Accordingly, she conditionally certified the class
of all Gas Field Service Representatives or Service Technicians
employed by Digco at any time during the three years preceding the
Court's entry of the Order.

Within 10 days of the entry of the Order, the Defendant must
disclose to the Plaintiffs the names, last known addresses, email
addresses and mobile phone numbers of putative class members in a
usable electronic format.  Within 10 days of the Defendant
providing this information, the Plaintiffs will send copies of the
notice and consent forms to putative class members, and may send a
second copy 30 days after the first copy is sent in order to
confirm receipt.  Sixty days from the first mailing of notice will
be the deadline for putative class members to file their notice
and consent forms.  The Class members who have not submitted their
notice and consent forms by this date may not join the lawsuit
unless stipulated to by the parties or good cause is shown.  Judge
Harmon has read the proposed notice and consent form and finds it
acceptable, and the Defendant has not argued that the notice form
or the notice schedule is improper.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/ELUyvu from Leagle.com.

Greg Contis, Plaintiff, represented by Vijay Anand Pattisapu, The
Buenker Law Firm.

Greg Contis, Plaintiff, represented by Josef Franz Buenker,
Attorney at Law.

Ernesto Galarza, Plaintiff, represented by Vijay Anand Pattisapu,
The Buenker Law Firm & Josef Franz Buenker, Attorney at Law.

Austin Jolley, Plaintiff, represented by Vijay Anand Pattisapu,
The Buenker Law Firm & Josef Franz Buenker, Attorney at Law.

Digco Utility Construction, L.P., Defendant, represented by Monica
Fitzgerald Oathout -- moathout@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour
and Pease, LLP.


DOTY BROS: Cal. App. Grants in Part Appeal in "Cortez" Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GABRIEL CORTEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
DOTY BROS. EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent, No.
B275255 (Cal. App.), Judge Dennis M. Perluss of the U.S. Court of
Appeals of California for the Second District, Division Seven,
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's appeal on both
the superior court's Sept. 19, 2014 order compelling arbitration
of his individual claims and the March 23, 2015 order dismissing
his putative class claims.

Cortez sued Doty Bros. for Labor Code and wage and hour violations
on behalf of himself and all individuals who hold or held the
position of non-supervisory hourly employees in the following
divisions: water, underground, and oil currently employed by or
formerly employed by Doty Bros. or its subsidiaries or affiliated
companies.  Cortez's complaint included a related representative
claim under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
("PAGA").  On Sept. 19, 2014 the superior court granted Doty
Bros.' petition to compel arbitration of Cortez's individual
claims pursuant to an arbitration provision in the collective
bargaining agreement ("CBA") governing his employment and severed
and stayed his PAGA claim, which was not subject to arbitration.
The Court reserved questions concerning the arbitrability of the
class claims for the arbitrator.  On Nov. 19, 2014, it summarily
denied Cortez's petition for a writ of mandate challenging the
superior court's order compelling arbitration.

Cortez and Doty Bros. then stipulated to allow the superior court,
rather than the arbitrator, to determine the arbitrability of the
class claims.  On March 23, 2015, the court dismissed the class
claims as unauthorized under the CBA.  On April 1, 2015, Cortez
filed a notice of appeal purporting to appeal from the March 23,
2015 order dismissing his class claims and the Sept. 19, 2014
order compelling arbitration of his individual claims.

While Cortez's appeal was pending, the appellate courts in Munoz
v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (2015) and Miranda v. Anderson
Enterprises, Inc. (2015) held the death knell doctrine did not
apply to the denial of class certification or dismissal of class
claims while a plaintiff's PAGA claim remained pending in the
trial court.  Concerned about the viability of his initial appeal,
Cortez voluntarily dismissed his PAGA claim with prejudice on
March 30, 2016 and filed a second notice of appeal on May 20,
2016, again identifying the Sept. 19, 2014 order compelling
arbitration and the March 23, 2015 order dismissing all class
claims as the orders subject to appellate review.  The Court
consolidated the two appeals.

Cortez contends the Court has jurisdiction under the death knell
doctrine to review the March 2015 dismissal of his class claims
either because the outstanding PAGA claim did not defeat that
order's appealability under the death knell doctrine or because he
removed any bar to appellate jurisdiction when he dismissed his
PAGA claim in March 2016 and filed a new notice of appeal.  He
also contends the September 2014 order compelling arbitration is
an interim order affecting the class' substantial rights and thus
is reviewable on appeal from the order dismissing the class claims
under Code of Civil Procedure section 906.  Alternatively, he
requests the Court treats his consolidated appeal as a petition
for writ of mandate, revisit its summary denial of his prior writ
petition and address the merits of both the superior court's order
compelling arbitration of his individual claims and the dismissal
of his class claims.

Judge Perluss finds that although not fully identified by the
parties in their briefs, Cortez's appeal poses several difficult
jurisdictional questions, in particular, the effect of Cortez's
dismissal of his PAGA claim on the appealability of the earlier
order dismissing the class claims, including whether a plaintiff's
voluntary action can create an appealable order under the death
knell doctrine and whether the second notice of appeal from an
order entered more than a year before was timely; and the
applicability of Code of Civil Procedure section 906 to an order
made appealable under the judicially created death knell doctrine
rather than pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1.
The Court resolves none of those issues.  Rather, in light of the
uncertainty of the appealability of the orders challenged by
Cortez and the absence of any delay or prejudice his intervention
at this stage would cause, he finds this an appropriate case in
which to exercise his discretion to treat the consolidated appeal
as a petition for writ of mandate and reach the merits of the
superior court's orders compelling arbitration of Cortez's
individual claims and terminating the class claims.

He granted Cortez's petition in part, finding Cortez's cause of
action under the Labor Code for Doty Bros.' failure to timely pay
wages upon his separation from employment and his unfair
competition action based on that alleged statutory violation are
not encompassed by the arbitration provision in the CBA.  In all
other respects, Judge Purlass denied the petition, concluding the
remaining causes of action are subject to arbitration, and the
court's termination of class claims proper on the ground the CBA
does not authorize classwide arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/9CqQQp from Leagle.com.

Kingsley & Kingsley, Eric B. Kingsley, Liane Katzenstein Ly,
Kelsey M. Szamet and Ari J. Stiller; DesJardins & Panitz, Michael
A. DesJardins -- pb@desjardinslaw.com -- and Eric A. Panitz for
Plaintiff and Appellant.

Call & Jensen, John T. Egley, Joshua G. Simon and Delavan J.
Dickson -- ddickson@calljensen.com -- for Defendant and
Respondent.


DUPONT FABROS: McCullough Sues Over Sale to Digital Realty
----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT McCULLOUGH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DUPONT FABROS TECHNOLOGY, INC., LAMMOT J.
DUPONT, CHRISTOPHER P. ELDREDGE, MICHAEL A. COKE, THOMAS D.
ECKERT, FREDERIC V. MALEK, JOHN H. TOOLE, JOHN T. ROBERTS, JR.,
and MARY M. STYER, Defendants, Case 1:17-cv-01563 (D.C. App.,
August 2, 2017), alleges violation of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act in connection with the proposed acquisition of DuPont
by Digital Realty Trust, Inc.

Based on the closing price on the last day of trading prior to the
announcement of the Proposed Transaction on April 23, 2017, the
Common Merger Consideration is impliedly valued at $64.32 per
share.

According to the case, the Board authorized the filing of a Form
S-4 Registration Statement that contains incomplete and materially
misleading information regarding: (i) the process leading to the
Proposed Transaction; (ii) the financial analyses conducted by the
Company's financial advisor, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, in
connection with the Proposed Transaction; and (iii) the
projections relied upon Goldman Sachs in performing its valuation
analyses.

DUPONT FABROS TECHNOLOGY, INC. is a real estate investment trust
headquartered in Washington D.C. that owns, develops, operates,
and manages large, multi-tenant data centers.  Plaintiff is, and
at all relevant times was, a continuous owner of DuPont common
stock.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Donald J. Enright, Esq.
     Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: (202) 524-4290
     Fax: (202) 333-2121

        - and -

     Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
     Christopher Tillotson, Esq.
     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
     206 Covington Street
     Madisonville, LA 70447
     Phone: (504) 455-1400
     Fax: (504) 455-1498
     Email: Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com


E.T. ZACAPA: "Aguinaga" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Rafael Sandigo Aguinaga, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. E.T. Zacapa Group Corp, Canche Carpentry Inc., Cesar
Turcios, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-23052 (S.D. Fla., August 11,
2017), requests double damages and reasonable attorney fees from
Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing from Plaintiffs'
entire employment period along with court costs, interest and any
other relief.

Aguinaga worked for Defendants as a carpenter from January 7,
2016, through March 28, 2017. He claims to have worked an average
of 58 hours a week without overtime premium for hours in excess of
40. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: zabogado@aol.com


EDISON INT'L: Liable for Charging Higher Fees, Court Says
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GLEN TIBBLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EDISON
INTERNATIONAL, et al., Defendants, No. CV 07-5359 SVW (AGRx)(C.D.
Cal.), Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California held that the Defendants are liable
for breaching their fiduciary obligations and are liable beginning
on Aug. 16, 2001 for the actual loss in excessive fees paid and
for the lost of investment opportunity of this breach.

The Plaintiffs filed this class action on Aug. 16, 2007 on behalf
of Edison 401(k) Savings Plan and all similarly-situated
participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, against Defendants
Edison, Southern California Edison Co. ("SCE"), the Southern
California Edison Co. Benefits Committee ("Benefits Committee"),
the Edison International Trust Investment Committee, the Secretary
of the SCE Benefits Committee, SCE's Vice President of Human
Resources, and the Manager of SCE's Human Resources Service
Center.  The Plaintiffs sought recovery under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act for alleged financial losses
suffered by the Plan, injunctive and other equitable relief based
on alleged breaches of the Defendants' fiduciary duties.

The Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
on June 30, 2009.  At this time, the Court also appointed
Plaintiffs William Bauer, Tibble and Frederik Sohadolc as the
class representatives.  In August 2009, the Court granted the
Plaintiffs' request to amend the class certification to name
Plaintiffs William Izral, Henry Runowiecki, and Hugh Tinman, Jr.
as the class representatives.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of Midwest Generation, LLC, an
indirect subsidiary of Edison Mission Group, Inc., which in turn
is a subsidiary of Edison.  Edison is the parent company of SCE.
SCE is a utility that provides electricity to retail customers in
California.  SCE is the sponsor of the Plan, which was created in
1982 and is maintained for all employees of Edison-affiliated
companies.  During the relevant time period, Edison employees were
able to contribute from 1% to 85% of their eligible earnings to
the Plan on a pre-tax basis, up to annual limits of the Internal
Revenue Code, and Edison was able to match some contributions to
the Plan. Plaintiffs were participants in the Plan during the
relevant time period.

At issue in the instant case are 17 mutual funds that the
Defendants selected as Plan investment options in March 1999.  For
each of the 17 funds, the Defendants initially selected the retail
shares instead of the institutional shares, or failed to switch to
institutional share classes once one became available.  In
general, institutional share classes are available to
institutional investors, such as 401(k) plans, and may require a
certain minimum investment.  Institutional share classes often
charge lower fees (i.e., a lower expense ratio) because the amount
of assets invested is far greater than the typical individual
investor.  The investment management of all share classes within a
single mutual fund is identical, and managed within the same pool
of assets.  The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants breached
their duty of prudence by not switching the retail shares of the
17 funds at issue to institutional shares.

The Court found in the first trial that SCE's decision to invest
in retail-class shares instead of institutional-class shares of
the same fund violated its duty of prudence.  The Ninth Circuit
upheld this finding.

Judge Wilson finds that SCE provides no reason to reconsider this
finding for the 17 mutual funds at issue on remand.  He finds that
no prudent fiduciary would purposefully invest in higher cost
retail shares out of an unsubstantiated and speculative fear that
if the Plan settlor were to pay more administrative costs it may
reallocate all such costs to the Plan participants.  For all 17
mutual funds at issue, a prudent fiduciary would have invested in
the lower-cost institutional-class shares.

Judge Wilson concludes that the Defendants are liable for
breaching their fiduciary obligations and are liable beginning on
Aug. 16, 2001 -- or for three funds the later date institutional
share classes become available -- for the actual loss in excessive
fees paid and for the lost of investment opportunity of this
breach.

He directed the Plaintiffs to submit a proposed judgment
consistent with his Order that includes a calculation of the
overall damages award within 20 days of the date of the Order.  He
accepted the parties' stipulation that damages equal $7,524,424
from 2001 to January 2011.  Further, the Judge finds that from
2011 to present the Plan's overall returns will be used to
calculate damages -- including the brokerage window.  The Court is
unaware if the parties stipulate as to that amount.  If so, the
Plaintiff can include the amount in their proposed judgment.  If
the parties cannot stipulate to a number, they will each file a
five-page brief explaining the discrepancy in their calculations
contemporaneous with the proposed judgment.  This is only if there
is a dispute in actual calculations and is not an opportunity to
re-litigate any issues decided in this case -- doing so will
result in sanctions.

Lastly, as recommended by the Ninth Circuit, Judge Wilson will
reconsider a motion for attorney's fees.  The Plaintiffs will file
their motion within 60 days of the date of the Order.

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

Glenn Tibble, Plaintiff, represented by G. Cresswell Templeton,
III -- ctempleton@hillfarrer.com -- Hill Farrer and Burrill LLP.

Glenn Tibble, Plaintiff, represented by Jerome J. Schlichter --
jschlichter@uselaws.com -- Schlichter Bogard and Denton, Nelson G.
Wolff -- nwolff@uselaws.com -- Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP,
pro hac vice, Sean E. Soyars, Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP,
pro hac vice, Troy A. Doles, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, pro hac
vice, William A. White -- wwhite@hillfarrer.com -- Hill Farrer and
Burrill LLP, Ethan D. Hatch, Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP, pro
hac vice, Kurt C. Struckhoff, Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP,
pro hac vice & Michael A. Wolff -- mwolff@uselaws.com --
Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP, pro hac vice.

William Bauer, Plaintiff, represented by G. Cresswell Templeton,
III, Hill Farrer and Burrill LLP, Jerome J. Schlichter, Schlichter
Bogard and Denton, Nelson G. Wolff, Schlichter Bogard and Denton
LLP, pro hac vice, Sean E. Soyars, Schlichter Bogard and Denton
LLP, pro hac vice, Troy A. Doles, Schlichter Bogard and Denton,
pro hac vice, William A. White, Hill Farrer and Burrill LLP, Ethan
D. Hatch, Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP, pro hac vice, Kurt C.
Struckhoff, Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP, pro hac vice &
Michael A. Wolff, Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP, pro hac vice.

William Izral, Plaintiff, represented by G. Cresswell Templeton,
III, Hill Farrer and Burrill LLP, Jerome J. Schlichter, Schlichter
Bogard and Denton, Nelson G. Wolff, Schlichter Bogard and Denton
LLP, pro hac vice, Sean E. Soyars, Schlichter Bogard and Denton
LLP, pro hac vice, William A. White, Hill Farrer and Burrill LLP,
Ethan D. Hatch, Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP, pro hac vice,
Kurt C. Struckhoff, Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP, pro hac vice
& Michael A. Wolff, Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP, pro hac
vice.

Henry Runowiecki, Plaintiff, represented by G. Cresswell
Templeton, III, Hill Farrer and Burrill LLP, Jerome J. Schlichter,
Schlichter Bogard and Denton, Nelson G. Wolff, Schlichter Bogard
and Denton LLP, pro hac vice, Sean E. Soyars, Schlichter Bogard
and Denton LLP,

pro hac vice, Troy A. Doles, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, pro hac
vice, William A. White, Hill Farrer and Burrill LLP, Ethan D.
Hatch, Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP, pro hac vice, Kurt C.
Struckhoff, Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP, pro hac vice &
Michael A. Wolff, Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP, pro hac vice.

Frederick Suhadolc, Plaintiff, represented by G. Cresswell
Templeton, III, Hill Farrer and Burrill LLP, Jerome J. Schlichter,
Schlichter Bogard and Denton, Nelson G. Wolff, Schlichter Bogard
and Denton LLP, pro hac vice, Sean E. Soyars, Schlichter Bogard
and Denton LLP, pro hac vice, Troy A. Doles, Schlichter Bogard and
Denton, pro hac vice, William A. White, Hill Farrer and Burrill
LLP,
Ethan D. Hatch, Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP, pro hac vice,
Kurt C. Struckhoff, Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP, pro hac vice
& Michael A. Wolff, Schlichter Bogard and Denton LLP, pro hac
vice.

Edison International, Defendant, represented by Brian David Boyle
-- bboyle@omm.com -- O Melveny and Myers LLP, Catalina J. Vergara
-- cvergara@omm.com -- O Melveny and Myers LLP, Matthew P. Eastus,
Southern California Edison Company Law Department, Robert N.
Eccles -- beccles@omm.com -- O Melveny and Myers, Christopher
Brendan Craig -- christophercraig@omm.com -- O Melveny and Myers
LLP & Stella Dahye Kim -- skim@omm.com -- O Melveny and Meyers
LLP.

The Edison International Benefits Committee, Defendant,
represented by Brian David Boyle, O Melveny and Myers LLP,
Catalina J. Vergara, O Melveny and Myers LLP, Matthew P. Eastus,
Southern California Edison Company Law Department, Robert N.
Eccles, O Melveny and Myers, Christopher Brendan Craig, O Melveny
and Myers LLP & Stella Dahye Kim, O Melveny and Meyers LLP.

Edison International Trust Investment Committee, Defendant,
represented by Brian David Boyle, O Melveny and Myers LLP,
Catalina J. Vergara, O Melveny and Myers LLP, Matthew P. Eastus,
Southern California Edison Company Law Department, Robert N.
Eccles, O Melveny and Myers, Christopher Brendan Craig, O Melveny
and Myers LLP & Stella Dahye Kim, O Melveny and Meyers LLP.

Secretary of the Edison International Benefits Committee,
Defendant, represented by Brian David Boyle, O Melveny and Myers
LLP, Catalina J. Vergara, O Melveny and Myers LLP, Matthew P.
Eastus, Southern California Edison Company Law Department, Robert
N. Eccles, O Melveny and Myers, Christopher Brendan Craig, O
Melveny and Myers LLP & Stella Dahye Kim, O Melveny and Meyers
LLP.

Southern California Edison's Vice President of Human Resources,
Defendant, represented by Brian David Boyle, O Melveny and Myers
LLP, Catalina J. Vergara, O Melveny and Myers LLP, Matthew P.
Eastus, Southern California Edison Company Law Department, Robert
N. Eccles, O Melveny and Myers, Christopher Brendan Craig, O
Melveny and Myers LLP & Stella Dahye Kim, O Melveny and Meyers
LLP.

Manager of Southern California Edison's HR Service Center,
Defendant, represented by Brian David Boyle, O Melveny and Myers
LLP, Catalina J. Vergara, O Melveny and Myers LLP, Matthew P.
Eastus, Southern California Edison Company Law Department, Robert
N. Eccles, O Melveny and Myers, Christopher Brendan Craig, O
Melveny and Myers LLP & Stella Dahye Kim, O Melveny and Meyers
LLP.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Napolitano" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Michael Napolitano, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04840
(E.D. N.Y., August 17, 2017).

Enhanced Recovery provides business process outsourcing services
that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


EROS INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Eros International PLC said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2017, that the Court has not scheduled
oral argument or indicated when it will rule on the Company's
motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.

Beginning on November 13, 2015, the Company was named a defendant
in five substantially similar putative class action lawsuits filed
in federal court in New Jersey and New York by purported
shareholders of the Company. The three actions in New Jersey were
consolidated, and, on May 17, 2016, were transferred to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York where
they were then consolidated with the other two actions on May 27,
2016. In general, the plaintiffs alleged that the Company, and in
some cases also Company's management, violated federal securities
laws by overstating Company's financial and business results,
enriching the Company's controlling owners at the expense of other
stockholders, and engaging in improper accounting practices.

On April 5, 2016, a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed
in the now-consolidated New York action. A single consolidated
amended complaint was filed on July 14, 2016 and amended on
October 10, 2016. The plaintiffs have alleged that the Company and
certain individual defendants -- Kishore Lulla, Jyoti Deshpande,
Andrew Heffernan, and Prem Parameswaran -- have violated the
federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act. The amended consolidated complaint has narrowed
in scope significantly and does not assert certain claims that had
been asserted in prior complaints, including (i) claims arising
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, (ii) accounting
and GAAP allegations, and (iii) claims against certain individual
defendants, who are not now named defendants. The remaining claims
are primarily focused on whether the Company and individual
defendants made material misrepresentations concerning the
Company's film library and materially misstated the usage and
functionality of Eros Now.

The Company's most recent motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint was filed on November 11, 2016 and its
reply brief was filed on January 6, 2017. The Court has not
scheduled oral argument or indicated when it will rule on this
motion.


EXCALIBUR VAN: No Meal Breaks, Overtime Pay, Guerrero Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ramses Guerrero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Excalibur Van Lines, LLC, a California
corporation, Tal Amar, an individual; and Does 1 to 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC671667 (Cal. Super., August 11,
2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest thereon, redress
for failure to authorize or permit required meal periods,
statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, failure to maintain time-keeping records, injunctive
relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees,
costs and interest resulting from Unfair Business Practices, and
for violation of the California Business and Professions Code,
California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Wage Orders.

Excalibur Van Lines, operates a transportation business where
Plaintiff worked as a driver, helper and or mover. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
      Gregg Lander, Esq. (#194018)
      LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
      5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460
      Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664
      Tel: (323) 549-9100
      Fax: (323) 549-0101
      Email: Barnes@kbarnes.com


EXPAND INC: Faces "Hilton" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
LAURA HILTON and DANIEL METZGER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EXPAND INCORPORATED dba
GIGATS, also dba SOFTROCK, INC., an Illinois corporation,
Defendant, Case No: 6:17-cv-01427-RBD-TBS (M.D. Fla., August 2,
2017), seeks to stop Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited
text messages to cellular telephones.

The case alleges that in an attempt to promote its business,
Gigats conducted (and continues to conduct) a wide-scale
telemarketing campaign that features the sending of repeated
unsolicited text messages to consumers' cellular telephones,
including the Plaintitffs -- without consent, and to those on the
National Do Not Call Registry -- all in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Gigats created a job-matching program that can be utilized by any
consumer seeking employment. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Stefan Coleman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
     201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (877) 33-9427
     Fax: (888) 498-8946
     Email: law@stefancoleman.com

        - and -

     Blake J. Dugger, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
     1011 W. Colter St., #236
     Phoenix, AZ 85013
     Phone: (602) 441-3704
     Fax: (888) 498-8946
     Email: blake@stefancoleman.com


EZCORP INC: $5.9M Settlement of "Close" Litigation Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------
EZCORP, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Court has entered
an order to approve the settlement and dismiss the federal
securities litigation (SDNY) by Jason Close.

On August 22, 2014, Jason Close, a purported holder of Class A
Common Stock, for himself and on behalf of other similarly
situated holders of Class A Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
styled Close v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:14-cv-06834-ALC).
That lawsuit named as defendants EZCORP, Inc., Paul. E. Rothamel
(the Company's former Chief Executive Officer) and Mark
Kuchenrither (the Company's former Chief Financial Officer). That
lawsuit was consolidated with a similar lawsuit filed in the same
court on October 17, 2014 by the Automotive Machinists Pension
Plan and styled Automotive Machinists Pension Plan v. EZCORP,
Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:14-cv-8349-ALC). On November 18, 2014,
the court consolidated the two lawsuits under the caption In Re
EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 1:14-cv-06834-ALC).
The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint asserted certain
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On March 31, 2016, the Court, in response to the defendants'
motions to dismiss, dismissed certain of the claims, but other
claims survived the motions to dismiss.

On November 23, 2016, the parties agreed to a mediated settlement
of all remaining claims. The settlement provides for the payment
of $5.9 million by the defendants, which was covered by applicable
directors' and officers' liability insurance. Following a
Settlement Hearing on April 25, 2017, the Court entered an order
to approve the settlement and dismiss the case.

EZCORP is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Austin, Texas.
It is a provider of pawn loans in the United States and Mexico.


EZCORP INC: Federal Securities Litigation Now in Discovery Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
EZCORP, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Federal Securities
Litigation (WDT) is now in the discovery stage.

On July 20, 2015, Wu Winfred Huang, a purported holder of Class A
Common Stock, for himself and on behalf of other similarly
situated holders of Class A Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
styled Huang v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS).
The complaint names as defendants EZCORP, Inc., Stuart I. Grimshaw
(our chief executive officer) and Mark E. Kuchenrither (our former
chief financial officer) and asserts violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The original complaint related to the
Company's announcement on July 17, 2015 that it will restate the
financial statements for fiscal 2014 and the first quarter of
fiscal 2015, and alleged generally that the Company issued
materially false or misleading statements concerning the Company,
its finances, business operations and prospects and that the
Company misrepresented the financial performance of the Grupo
Finmart business.

On August 14, 2015, a substantially identical lawsuit, styled
Rooney v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00700-SS) was
also filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas. On September 28, 2015, the plaintiffs in these
two lawsuits filed an agreed stipulation to be appointed co-lead
plaintiffs and agreed that their two actions should be
consolidated. On November 3, 2015, the Court entered an order
consolidating the two actions under the caption In re EZCORP, Inc.
Securities Litigation (Master File No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS), and
appointed the two plaintiffs as co-lead plaintiffs, with their
respective counsel appointed as co-lead counsel.

On January 11, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). In the Amended Complaint, the
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of our Class A
Common Stock between November 6, 2012 and October 20, 2015. The
Amended Complaint asserts that the Company and Mr. Kuchenrither
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5, issued materially false or misleading statements throughout
the proposed class period concerning the Company and its internal
controls, specifically regarding the financial performance of
Grupo Finmart. The plaintiffs also allege that Mr. Kuchenrither,
as a controlling person of the Company, violated Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint does not assert
any claims against Mr. Grimshaw.

On February 25, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit. The plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss on April 11, 2016, and the defendants filed their reply on
May 11, 2016. The Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss on
June 22, 2016.

On October 18, 2016, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint without prejudice. The
Court gave the plaintiffs 20 days (until November 7, 2016) to file
a further amended complaint. On November 4, 2016, the plaintiffs
filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
("Second Amended Complaint"). The Second Amended Complaint raises
the same claims dismissed by the Court on October 18, 2016, except
plaintiffs now seek to represent a class of purchasers of EZCORP's
Class A Common Stock between November 7, 2013 and October 20, 2015
(instead of between November 6, 2012 and October 20, 2015). On
December 5, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Compliant. The plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
motion to dismiss on January 6, 2017, and the defendants filed
their reply brief on January 20, 2017.

On May 8, 2017, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss with regard to claims related to accounting errors
relating to Grupo Finmart's bad debt reserve calculations for
"nonperforming" loans, but denied the motion to dismiss with
regard to claims relating to accounting errors related to certain
sales of loan portfolios to third parties. The case is now in the
discovery stage.

"We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation, but we intend to
defend vigorously against all allegations and claims," the Company
said.

EZCORP is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Austin, Texas.
It is a provider of pawn loans in the United States and Mexico.


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: "Stineman" Hits Illegal Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Stineman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, a New York
limited liability company and LVNV Funding, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-01351
(N.D. Ala., August 11, 2017), seeks to recover damages under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

LVNV operates a nationwide debt collection business operating in
every state, including in the State of Alabama. It is a bad debt
buyer that buys large portfolios of defaulted consumer debts for
pennies on the dollar, which it then collects upon through other
collection agencies.

Stineman fell behind on paying a debt he allegedly owed for a
First Premier Bank credit card account. Debt was allegedly
obtained by LVNV, and tried to collect it. Defendants' letter,
however, failed to state that Firstsource could not also sue on
the debt and that Firstsource could not also make a credit report
about the debt because it was time-barred by the statute of
limitations in the State of Alabama, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
      PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
      9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
      Palos Hills, IL 60465
      Tel: (708) 974-2900
      Fax: (708) 974-2907
      Email: davephilipps@aol.com
             mephilipps@aol.com

             - and -

      Ronald C. Sykstus, Esq.
      BOND, BOTES, SYKSTUS, TANNER & EZZELL, P.C.
      225 Pratt Avenue
      Huntsville, AL 35801
      Tel: (256) 539-9899
      Fax: (256) 713-0237
      Email: Rsykstus@bondnbotes.com


FREDDIE MAC: Motions for Class Certification Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 1, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that
the District Court has not yet ruled upon motions for class
certification or summary judgment in the putative securities class
action lawsuit, OHIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM VS.
FREDDIE MAC, SYRON, ET AL.

This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from
August 1, 2006 through November 20, 2007. FHFA later intervened as
Conservator, and the plaintiff amended its complaint on several
occasions. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by making false and
misleading statements concerning our business, risk management,
and the procedures we put into place to protect the company from
problems in the mortgage industry. The plaintiff seeks unspecified
damages and interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorney and expert fees.

In October 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint. In October 2014, the District Court granted defendants'
motions and dismissed the case in its entirety against all
defendants, with prejudice. In November 2014, plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit. On July 20, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed the
District Court's dismissal and remanded the case to the District
Court for further proceedings.

"At present, it is not possible for us to predict the probable
outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on our business,
financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations. In
addition, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse judgment in
the foregoing matter due to the following factors, among others:
the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial litigation and the fact that
the District Court has not yet ruled upon motions for class
certification or summary judgment. In particular, absent the
certification of a class, the identification of a class period,
and the identification of the alleged statement or statements that
survive dispositive motions, we cannot reasonably estimate any
possible loss or range of possible loss," the Company said.


FREDDIE MAC: Motion to Dismiss Jacobs and Hindes Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 1, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that
in the case, Jacobs and Hindes vs. FHFA and Treasury, Plaintiffs
have opposed the motion of FHFA, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and
Treasury to dismiss the amended complaint.

This case was filed on August 17, 2015 as a putative class action
lawsuit purportedly on behalf of a class of holders of preferred
stock or common stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. The
case was also filed as a shareholder derivative lawsuit,
purportedly on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as "nominal"
defendants. The complaint alleges, among other items, that the
August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement violated
applicable state law and constituted a breach of contract, as well
as a breach of covenants of good faith and fair dealing.

Plaintiffs seek equitable and injunctive relief (including
restitution of the monies paid by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to
Treasury under the net worth sweep dividend), compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.

The case was stayed pending resolution of FHFA's motion to the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer this
case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. This
motion was denied on June 2, 2016, and the stay was lifted on July
13, 2016.

Plaintiffs filed an application for certification of a question to
the Delaware and Virginia Supreme Courts, which was denied on
September 12, 2016. On September 7, 2016, plaintiffs filed a
motion to amend the complaint, which the Court granted on February
24, 2017.

On April 17, 2017, FHFA, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and Treasury
each moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs have
opposed that motion.

"At present, it is not possible for us to predict the probable
outcome of the lawsuits discussed above in the U.S. District
Courts and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (including the outcome
of any appeal) or any potential effect on our business, financial
condition, liquidity, or results of operations. In addition, we
are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
possible loss in the event of an adverse judgment in the foregoing
matters due to a number of factors, including the inherent
uncertainty of pre-trial litigation. In addition, with respect to
the In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase
Agreement Class Action Litigations case, the plaintiffs have not
demanded a stated amount of damages they believe are due, and the
Court has not certified a class."


FRESH DEL MONTE: DBCP Issues Sent to Delaware Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that in the DBCP
Litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has
issued a Petition for Certification of State Law to the Delaware
Supreme Court to resolve the complex procedural question pending
on appeal regarding the applicability of the first-filed doctrine
for tolling the statute of limitations on class actions claims.
The Delaware Supreme Court has accepted certification of the
pending question of law.

The Company said, "Beginning in December 1993, certain of our U.S.
subsidiaries were named among the defendants in a number of
actions in courts in Texas, Louisiana, Hawaii, California and the
Philippines involving claims by numerous non-U.S. plaintiffs
alleging that they were injured as a result of exposure to a
nematocide containing the chemical dibromochloropropane ("DBCP")
during the period 1965 to 1990. As a result of a settlement
entered into in December 1998, the remaining unresolved DBCP
claims against our U.S. subsidiaries are pending or subject to
appeal in Hawaii, Delaware and the Philippines."

"On October 14, 2004, two of our subsidiaries were served with a
complaint in an action styled Angel Abarca, et al. v. Dole Food
Co., et al. filed in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of more than 2,600 Costa
Rican banana workers who claim injury from exposure to DBCP. On
January 2, 2009, three of our subsidiaries were served with
multiple complaints in related actions styled Jorge Acosta Cortes,
et al. v. Dole Food Company, et al. filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of
461 Costa Rican residents. An initial review of the plaintiffs in
the Abarca and Cortes actions found that a substantial number of
the plaintiffs were claimants in prior DBCP actions in Texas and
may have participated in the settlement of those actions. On June
27, 2008, the court dismissed the claims of 1,329 plaintiffs who
were parties to prior DBCP actions. On June 30, 2008, our
subsidiaries moved to dismiss the claims of the remaining Abarca
plaintiffs on grounds of forum non conveniens in favor of the
courts of Costa Rica. On September 22, 2009, the court granted the
motion to dismiss and on November 16, 2009 entered an order
conditionally dismissing the claims of those remaining plaintiffs
who allege employment on farms in Costa Rica exclusively
affiliated with our subsidiaries. Those dismissed plaintiffs re-
filed their claim in Costa Rica on May 17, 2012. On January 18,
2013, all remaining plaintiffs in California filed Requests for
Dismissal effecting the dismissal of their claims without
prejudice. On September 25, 2013, our subsidiaries filed an answer
to the claim re-filed with the courts of Costa Rica. Two
additional DBCP-related lawsuit were filed in Costa Rica in 2015,
as to which the Company has not yet been served.

"On May 31 and June 1, 2012, eight actions were filed against one
of our subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of approximately 3,000 plaintiffs
alleging exposure to DBCP on or near banana farms in Costa Rica,
Ecuador, Panama, and Guatemala. We and our subsidiaries have never
owned, managed or otherwise been involved with any banana growing
operations in Panama and were not involved with any banana growing
operations in Ecuador during the period when DBCP was in use. The
plaintiffs include 229 claimants who had cases pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
which were dismissed on September 17, 2012. On August 30, 2012,
our subsidiary joined a motion to dismiss the claims of those
plaintiffs on the grounds that they have first-filed claims
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana. The motion was granted on March 29, 2013
and appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. On September 21, 2012, our subsidiary filed an answer
with respect to the claims of those plaintiffs who had not already
filed in Louisiana. On May 27, 2014, the court granted a motion
made by a co-defendant and entered summary judgment against all
remaining plaintiffs based on the September 19, 2013 affirmance by
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the
dismissal on statute of limitations grounds of related cases by
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana. On July 7, 2014, our subsidiary joined in a motion for
summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds as to all
remaining plaintiffs on the basis of the court's May 27, 2014
ruling. Plaintiffs agreed that judgment be entered in favor of all
defendants for the claims still pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware on the basis of the
summary judgment granted on May 27, 2014 and the district court
entered judgment dismissing all plaintiffs' claims on September
22, 2014.

"On October 21, 2014, a notice of appeal was filed with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit expressly limited
the appeal to the claims of 57 (out of the more than 2,600)
plaintiffs who had not previously filed claims in Louisiana. On
August 11, 2015, a panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal of the claims of these plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Rehearing en Banc with the Third Circuit, which was
granted on September 22, 2015. On September 2, 2016, the Third
Circuit en banc reversed the District Court's dismissal on first-
filed doctrine grounds of the claims of approximately 229 of the
plaintiffs and remanded the case back to the District Court for
further proceedings. The United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit has canceled the hearing previously scheduled for
March 9, 2017 to hear oral argument in the appeal from the grant
of summary judgment to defendants on the statute of limitations
issue and has advised the parties that its decision on the appeal,
which remains pending, will be issued on the basis of the written
pleadings filed by the parties. On June 2, 2017, the Third Circuit
issued a Petition for Certification of State Law to the Delaware
Supreme Court to resolve the complex procedural question pending
on appeal regarding the applicability of the first-filed doctrine
for tolling the statute of limitations on class actions claims.
The Delaware Supreme Court has accepted certification of the
pending question of law."

Fresh Del Monte is one of the world's leading vertically
integrated producers, marketers and distributors of high-quality
fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as a leading
producer and marketer of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices,
beverages and snacks in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and
countries formerly part of the Soviet Union.


GENPACT SERVICES: Faces "Tolbayeva" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Genpact Services
LLC. The case is styled as Rauza Tolbayeva, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Genpact Services
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04838-DLI-JO (E.D. N.Y., August
17, 2017).

Genpact is a global professional services firm delivering digital
transformation by putting digital and data to work to create
competitive advantage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
   Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C.
   337 Avenue W, Suite 2f
   Brooklyn, NY 11223
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com


GENPACT SERVICES: Faces "Guiffreda" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Genpact Services
LLC. The case is styled as Anthony V. Guiffreda, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Genpact
Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04848 (E.D. N.Y., August
17, 2017).

Genpact is a global professional services firm delivering digital
transformation by putting digital and data to work to create
competitive advantage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Sanders Law, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


GIGAMON INC: To Defend Against California Shareholder Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Gigamon Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended July 1, 2017, that the Company intends to
defend against a shareholder class action lawsuit.

On January 27, 2017, a purported shareholder class action was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and three of its
current and former officers. The plaintiff alleges that the
Company made false and misleading statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, including statements about
the Company's guidance, for the fourth quarter of 2016. The
complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees and
costs and other relief.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend against it vigorously. The matter is still in the very
early stages and the Company will defend against the allegations
accordingly. Due to the current early stage of the proceedings,
the Company cannot reasonably estimate the loss or the range of
possible losses, if any.

Gigamon Inc. designs, develops and sells products and services
that together provide customers visibility and control of network
traffic. The Company serves global enterprises, governments and
service providers that seek to maintain and improve the security,
reliability and performance of their network infrastructure.


GLAZER-KENNEDY: Hormozdi Challenges Faxed Ads, Invokes TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
HORMOZDI LAW FIRM, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
GLAZER-KENNEDY INSIDER'S CIRCLE, LLC d/b/a GKIC, Defendant, Case
No: 1:17-cv-02906-CAP (N.D. Ga., August 2, 2017), challenges
Defendant's policy and practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles
containing "Info-SUMMIT," an information marketing program offered
by Defendant.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits a person or entity
from faxing or having an agent fax advertisements without the
recipient's prior express invitation or permission, assert the
Plaintiff.

Defendant, GLAZER-KENNEDY INSIDER'S CIRCLE, LLC d/b/a GKIC, is a
limited liability company that specializes in small business
marketing.  Plaintiff is a law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Charles M. Clapp, Esq.
     5 Concourse Parkway NE, Suite 3000
     Atlanta, GA 30328
     Phone: 404.585.0040
     Fax: 404.393.8893
     Email: charles@lawcmc.com


HABITAT COMPANY: Faces "Johnson" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
DONNELL JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, vs. THE HABITAT COMPANY OF ALABAMA, LLC And
THE HABITAT COMPANY LLC, Defendants, Case No: 2:17-cv-01298-JHE
(N.D. Ala., August 2, 2017), alleges that the Defendants
illegally, willfully and unlawfully classified the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees as "exempt" employees and paid
them all a "salary."  The Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees were working 60 to 70 hours per week but were not paid
for overtime work in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant managed several apartment properties in Jefferson
and/or Shelby County, Alabama. The Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees worked at one of the properties located in
Jefferson and/or Shelby County, Alabama.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott Harwell, Esq.
     HARWELL LAW FIRM LLC
     109 Foothills Parkway #112
     Chelsea, AL 35043
     Phone: (205) 999-1099
     Email: Scott@HarwellLaw.com


HARBOR INTERFAITH: "Verduzco" Suit Alleges No OT Pay, Breaks
------------------------------------------------------------
Dona Verduzco, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated and on behalf of the general public as private attorneys
general, Plaintiff, v. Harbor Interfaith Services, Inc., a
California corporation and Does 1 through 250, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC672184 (Cal. Super., August 11, 2017),
seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest thereon, redress for
failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory
penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting
time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to
timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment
and failure to maintain time-keeping records, injunctive relief
and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
interest resulting from Unfair Business Practices in violation of
California Business and Professions Code, California Labor Code
and applicable Industrial Wage Orders.

Verduzco was employed by Harbor on October 1, 2014 as a teacher
until she was terminated on March 15, 2017.

Harbor provides support services including shelter, transitional
housing, food, job placement, advocacy, childcare, education and
life-skills training for the homeless and working poor to achieve
self-sufficiency. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
      Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
      Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
      Jean P. Buchanan, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP
      555 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 818
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562)432-8933
      Facsimile: (562)435-1656
      Email: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
             brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
             laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
             jean@carlinbuchsbaum.com


HARRISON GLOBAL: Court Denies Bid to Stay "Benson" Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ROBERT BENSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HARRISON GLOBAL, LLC,
dba BOSTON COACH, Defendant, No. C 17-01894 WHA(N.D. Cal.), Judge
William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California denied the Defendant's administrative motion to stay
proceedings.

In the event that Huddlestun is resolved on a class-wide basis in
such a way as to eliminate some part of the instant putative class
action, a new motion to limit the proceedings may be entertained.
Judge Alsup also takes note of the Plaintiff's counsel's suspicion
that the Movant and the Plaintiff's counsel in Huddlestun are
drawing up a collusive settlement based on inadequate discovery.
If it so develops, the Plaintiff's counsel will have the
opportunity to present their arguments on the issue to Judge
Sabraw.

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

Robert Benson, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Francis Barrett --
kbarrett@scalaw.com -- Scott Cole and Associates, APC.

Robert Benson, Plaintiff, represented by Scott Edward Cole --
scole@scalaw.com -- Scott Cole & Associates, APC & Teresa Denise
Allen -- tallen@scalaw.com -- Scott Cole & Associates, APC.

Harrison Global, LLC, Defendant, represented by Ayse Kuzucuoglu --
akuzucuoglu@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price, LLP, Brittany A.
Sachs, Vedder Price, LLP & Heather Murray Sager --
hsager@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price, LLP.


HESS CORP: Thornhill Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums
-------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Thornhill, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Hess Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-06060 (S.D. N.Y., August 11, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
wages and other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and North Dakota Wage Laws.

Hess employed Thornhill as a rig clerk from approximately January
2014 to April 2015, coordinating deliveries, ordering supplies and
checking on the status of supplies. Hess allegedly failed to pay
overtime for hours in excess of 40 hours a week.

Hess is an independent energy company engaged in the exploration
and production of crude oil and natural gas. It operates in
several different oil and gas fields, including the Utica, Bakken
and Permian Basins. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
     Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
     FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
     28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Telephone: (212) 300-0375

            - and -

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: (713) 352-1100
     Fax: (713) 352-3300
     Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com

            - and -

     Richard J. Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: (713) 877-8788
     Fax: (713) 877-8065
     Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


HIGHMARK INC: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Monopoly Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned COLE'S WEXFORD HOTEL, INC., on its own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. HIGHMARK, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 10-1609(W.D.
Penn.), Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania denied the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment.

This contentious and litigious case has been pending for nearly
seven years.  On Oct. 1, 2014, Cole's filed a third amended
complaint against Highmark and then-defendant UPMC.  Cole's
Wexford set forth the following counts against Highmark: (i)
(Count I) violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (ii) (Count
II) Conspiracy to Monopolize in Violation of Section 2 of the
Sherman Act; (iii) (Count IV) Willful Acquisition and Maintenance
of a Monopoly in the Relevant Market for Private Health Insurance
in Violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; and (iv) (Count VI)
Willful Attempted Monopolization in Violation of Section 2 of the
Sherman Act.

Highmark and UPMC each filed a motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint.  On Sept. 1, 2015, the Court denied the motion to
dismiss filed by Highmark and granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss filed by UPMC.  It permitted all claims
against Highmark to proceed and denied the request to strike the
class allegations from the third amended complaint.  On Nov. 16,
2015, Highmark filed an answer to the third amended complaint.

On Aug. 22, 2016, Highmark filed a motion for hearing and
scheduling order for its motion for summary judgment.  The Court
directed the parties to meet and confer with the special master
appointed in this case to oversee, among other things, discovery,
in order to develop a discovery plan with respect to Highmark's
proposed motion for summary judgment.  On Nov. 17, 2016, Cole's
and Highmark filed a joint notice of a proposed discovery schedule
for summary judgment briefing.

On Jan. 25, 2017, Highmark filed a motion for summary judgment, a
brief in support of the motion, a statement of undisputed material
facts, and exhibits in support of the motion.  On Feb. 24, 2017,
Cole's filed a brief in opposition to Highmark's motion, a
response to Highmark's statement of undisputed material facts, its
own statement of undisputed material facts, and exhibits in
support of its response.  On March 10, 2017, Highmark filed a
reply brief in support of its motion for summary judgment.  On
March 20, 2017, the parties filed a combined concise statement of
material facts.

Judhe Conti finds that the Plaintiff does not complain that
Highmark's constitutionally-protected conduct in connection with
the PPO applications caused it injury; rather, it alleges it was
harmed by Highmark's action -- as opposed to any action by the PID
or the DOH -- of having HHIC charge it allegedly supracompetitive
rates, pursuant to the alleged UPMC-Highmark conspiracy.  The
Judge under those circumstances cannot conclude that Highmark is
entitled to Noerr-Pennington-immunity in this case.

There is no evidence of record to show that the PID had rate-
making authority with respect to the rates charged by HHIC during
the relevant time period.  Under those circumstances, the filed
rate doctrine is not implicated, and she cannot grant summary
judgment to Highmark based upon application of the filed rate
doctrine.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Conti held that Highmark is not
entitled to summary judgment on any of the Plaintiff's claims set
forth in the third amended complaint.  Accordingly, she denied
Highmark's motion for summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/YFaVJw from Leagle.com.

RICHARD A. LEVIE, Special Master, Pro Se.

ROBERT J. TOWN, Special Master, Pro Se.

ROYAL MILE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M.
Stone -- astone@stone-law-firm.com -- Stone Law Firm, LLC,
Kathleen S. Kiernan, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice,
Scott Michael Hare, Arthur H. Stroyd, Jr., Del Sole Cavanaugh
Stroyd LLC, David S. Stone -- DStone@stonemagnalaw.com -- Stone
and Magnanini, Evan E. Nor -- enorth@bsfllp.com -- Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Hamish Hume -- hhume@bsfllp.com --
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Joshua P. Riley --
jriley@bsfllp.com -- Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, pro hac vice,
Melissa Felder Zappala -- mfelder@bsfllp.com -- Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, Patrick K. Cavanaugh, Del Sole Cavanaugh & Stephen J.
Del Sole, Del Sole Cavanaugh Stroyd LLC.

PAMELA LANG, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M. Stone, Stone Law
Firm, LLC, Kathleen S. Kiernan, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro
hac vice, Scott Michael Hare, Arthur H. Stroyd, Jr., Del Sole
Cavanaugh Stroyd LLC, David S. Stone, Stone and Magnanini, Evan E.
North, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Hamish Hume,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Joshua P. Riley, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, pro hac vice, Melissa Felder Zappala, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Patrick K. Cavanaugh, Del Sole Cavanaugh &
Stephen J. Del Sole, Del Sole Cavanaugh Stroyd LLC.

COLE'S WEXFORD HOTEL, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M.
Stone, Stone Law Firm, LLC, Patrick K. Cavanaugh, Del Sole
Cavanaugh, Arthur H. Stroyd, Jr., Del Sole Cavanaugh Stroyd LLC,
David S. Stone, Stone and Magnanini, Evan E. North, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Hamish Hume, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, Joshua P. Riley, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
pro hac vice, Melissa Felder Zappala, Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP & Scott Michael Hare.

UPMC, Defendant, represented by Keith E. Whitson --
kwhitson@schnader.com -- Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Paul
M. Pohl -- pmpohl@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Anderson T. Bailey --
atbailey@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Emily Ayoub Spanovich,
Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, George E. McGrann --
gmcgrann@schnader.com -- Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis,
Kathryn M. Fenton -- kmfenton@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac
vice, Leon F. DeJulius -- lfdejulius@jonesday.com -- Jones Day,
Paul H. Titus -- ptitus@schnader.com -- Schnader, Harrison, Segal
& Lewis & Rebekah B. Kcehowski -- rbkcehowski@jonesday.com --
Jones Day.

HIGHMARK, INC., Defendant, represented by Alexander W. Saksen --
asaksen@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees, John G. Ebken --
jebken@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees, LLP, Alfred C. Pfeiffer --
al.pfeiffer@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer
L. Giordano -- jennifer.giordano@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP,
pro hac vice, Margaret M. Zwisler -- margaret.zwisler@lw.com --
Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice & Richard T. Victoria --
rvictoria@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP.

PG PUBLISHING CO., Intervenor, represented by Frederick N. Frank,
Frank, Gale, Bails, Murcko, & Pocrass, P.C., Ellis W. Kunka,
Frank, Gale, Bails, Murcko & Pocrass, P.C. & John M. Schaffranek.


HOME DEPOT: Parties in "Utne" Directed to Confer on TAC Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOHN UTNE, Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A.,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-01854-RS(N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard
Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California ordered the parties to immediately meet and confer in
order to attempt to stipulate to the Plaintiff's filing a third
amended complaint ("TAC"), and to attempt to stipulate to new
briefing schedules and hearing dates for the motions for partial
summary judgment and class certification (and for the motion for
leave to file a TAC, should the parties fail to stipulate to its
filing).

Plaintiff Utne moves for leave to file a TAC, to shorten time on
that motion, and to modify various case scheduling deadlines
applicable to the Defendant's pending motion for partial summary
judgment and the Plaintiff's impending motion for class
certification.  Judge Seeborg vacated all case scheduling
deadlines, as is the scheduled hearing on the Defendant's pending
motion for partial summary judgment.  He temporarily relieved the
Plaintiff of his obligation to file opposition to that motion.

In a joint letter, the parties must promptly inform the Court of
the fruits of their efforts.  If a TAC is filed and the Defendant
seeks to challenge any new claim it raises, the Defendant may
voluntarily withdraw its motion for partial summary judgment
without prejudice and re-file a more expansive motion, or else
file a motion to dismiss any new claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 16, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/XYTY3g from Leagle.com.

John Utne, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Alistair Segal --
thomas@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

John Utne, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group & Howard Scott Leviant -
- scott@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by Donna Marie
Mezias -- dmezias@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
LLP, Ashley J. Keapproth -- akeapproth@akingump.com -- Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer Feld LLP & Liz Kathryn Bertko --
lbertko@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld LLP.

HOMEADVISOR INC: Court Denies Intervention Notice in "Airquip"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned AIRQUIP, INC., KELLY DASILVA, and NICOLE
GRAY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. HOMEADVISOR, INC., IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, DOES 1
THROUGH 10, Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-cv-01849-PAB-KLM(D.
Colo.), Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado denied Tim Davidson's Notice of
Intervention/Brief, which construed as a motion to intervene.

On July 19, 2016, Plaintiff Airquip filed its class action
complaint against the Defendants.  On Nov. 14, 2016, the
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding DaSilva and Gray as
the Named Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
engaged in fraudulent practices related to the sale of leads for
business services.  As a result of this alleged conduct,
plaintiffs present five claims against the Defendants:
racketeering, violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act,
fraud or fraudulent concealment, breach of implied contract, and
unjust enrichment or restitution.  Mr. Davidson has filed a motion
to intervene in the lawsuit.

Mr. Davidson states that he was sold 230 leads by Defendant
HomeAdvisor from July 2016 to March, 2017.  He does not allege
that his interest in the matter may be impaired or that the
existing parties do not represent his interests.  Mr. Davidson
does not explain why he is now unable to proceed independent of
the class action.  While he conclusorily states that he is
adversely affected, he does not explain how he will be prejudiced
if the class action is allowed to proceed.  Mr. Davidson appears
to be raising nearly identical claims to those of the Named
Plaintiffs, which strongly suggests that the existing parties
adequately represent his interests.  In the event that a class is
certified, Mr. Davidson is free to opt out if he feels that his
interests are inadequately represented by the Named Plaintiffs.

Judge Brimmer finds that Mr. Davidson has not shown that his
interests will be impaired if he is not allowed to intervene or
that the Named Plaintiffs do not adequately represent his
interests.  Therefore, the denied Mr. Davidson's Notice of
Intervention/Brief, construed as a motion to intervene.

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

Airquip, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Carla R. Martin --
cmartin@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C..

Airquip, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Kimberly M. Donaldson
Smith -- KimDonaldsonSmith@chimicles.com -- Chimicles & Tikellis,
L.L.P., Mark Wilson Williams -- dwilson@shermanhoward.com --
Sherman & Howard, L.L.C., Nicholas E. Chimicles --
Nick@chimicles.com -- Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, Scott M. Tucker -
- ScottTucker@chimicles.com -- Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP,
Stephanie Elena Saunders -- SES@chimicles.com -- Chimicles &
Tikellis, L.L.P. & Gordon W. Netzorg -- gnetzorg@shermanhoward.com
-- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C..

Kelly DaSilva, Plaintiff, represented by Carla R. Martin, Sherman
& Howard, L.L.C., Gordon W. Netzorg, Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.,
Kimberly M. Donaldson Smith, Chimicles & Tikellis, L.L.P., Mark
Wilson Williams, Sherman & Howard, L.L.C., Nicholas E. Chimicles,
Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, Scott M. Tucker, Chimicles & Tikellis,
LLP & Stephanie Elena Saunders, Chimicles & Tikellis, L.L.P..

Nicole Gray, Plaintiff, represented by Carla R. Martin, Sherman &
Howard, L.L.C., Gordon W. Netzorg, Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.,
Kimberly M. Donaldson Smith, Chimicles & Tikellis, L.L.P., Mark
Wilson Williams, Sherman & Howard, L.L.C., Nicholas E. Chimicles,
Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, Scott M. Tucker, Chimicles & Tikellis,
LLP & Stephanie Elena Saunders, Chimicles & Tikellis, L.L.P..

HomeAdvisor, Inc, Defendant, represented by Alexander Christian
Clayden -- aclayden@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop & Gage, LLP, Brian
C. Fries -- bfries@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop & Gage, LLP &
Stephen J. Horace -- shorace@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop & Gage,
LLP.

IAC/Interactivecorp, Defendant, represented by Alexander Christian
Clayden, Lathrop & Gage, LLP, Brian C. Fries, Lathrop & Gage, LLP
& Stephen J. Horace, Lathrop & Gage, LLP.


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Oral Arguments in Appeal Set for October
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31,
2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that in the
appeal in the case, Powell v. Huntington National Bank, oral
arguments are scheduled for October 2017.

Huntington is a defendant in a class action filed on October 15,
2013 alleging Huntington charged late fees on mortgage loans in a
method that violated West Virginia law and the loan documents.
Plaintiffs seek statutory civil penalties, compensatory damages
and attorney's fees. Huntington filed a motion for summary
judgment on the plaintiffs' claims, which was granted by the U.S.
District Court on December 28, 2016.  Plaintiffs have filed a
notice of appeal to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and
the appeal has been briefed. Oral arguments are scheduled for
October 2017.


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Overdraft Case Deal Received Final Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31,
2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the
settlement of the FirstMerit Overdraft Litigation received final
approval.

Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed in
the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court
of Common Pleas against FirstMerit. The complaints were brought as
class actions on behalf of Ohio residents who maintained a
checking account at FirstMerit and who incurred one or more
overdraft fees as a result of the alleged re-sequencing of debit
transactions.

The parties have reached a global settlement for approximately
$9 million cash to a common fund plus an additional $7 million in
debt forgiveness. Attorneys' fees will be paid from the fund, with
any remaining funds going to charity. FirstMerit's insurer has
reimbursed Huntington 49% of the approximately $9 million, which
totals approximately $4.4 million.

The court preliminarily approved the settlement on December 5,
2016 and the cash portion of the settlement was funded on December
12, 2016. The settlement received final approval on June 2, 2017
and there has been no appeal, so the settlement is final.

The settlement administrator is in the process of assessing claims
and it is anticipated claims will be paid from the settlement fund
in the third quarter of 2017.


INSPERITY INC: Retirement Plan Class Action Litigation Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Insperity, Inc. continues to defend against the Worksite Employee
401(k) Retirement Plan Class Action Litigation, the Company said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 1, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2017.

The Company said, "In December 2015, a class action lawsuit was
filed against us and the third party discretionary trustee of the
Insperity 401(k) retirement plan available to eligible worksite
employees (the "Plan") in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on behalf of Plan
participants. This suit generally alleges that Insperity's third-
party discretionary trustee of the Plan and Insperity breached
their fiduciary duties to plan participants by selecting an
Insperity subsidiary to serve as the recordkeeper for the Plan, by
causing participants in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping
fees to the Insperity subsidiary, by failing to monitor other
fiduciaries and by making imprudent investment choices. We believe
we have meritorious defenses, and we intend to vigorously defend
this litigation. As a result of uncertainty regarding the outcome
of this matter, no provision has been made in the accompanying
consolidated financial statements."


JUDICIAL SECURITY: Faces "Maxwell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Maxwell, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Judicial Security Service Inc. and Othniel Xodus Penn,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02585-SHL-cgc (W.D. Tenn., August 14, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a security guard service business in
Memphis, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Emily S. Emmons, Esq.
      GILBERT MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
      341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
      Franklin, TN 37067
      Telephone: (615) 354-1144
      E-mail: eemmons@gilbertfirm.com


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Court Dismisses FAC in "Winner"
--------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LYNNE WINNER and DESTINY JENNINGS, on their
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., Civil Action No. 16-1541(E.D.
Pa.), Judge John R. Padova of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") filed by the Winer and
Jennings.

In the four years prior to the filing of Winner's and Jennings's
initial Complaint, Kohl's began sending both the Plaintiffs
telemarketing text messages to their cellular telephones. Kohl's
had advertised to consumers the ability to earn frequent-shopper
"points" by downloading its mobile application and texting the
word "APP" to receive instructions regarding the application.  The
bottom of the advertisement contained a "disclaimer" which the
Plaintiffs characterize as barely visible and unreadable.

The Plaintiffs allege that the text messages Kohl's sent them
constituted telemarketing as they advertised sales and promotions
available at its retail stores and on its website.  The Plaintiffs
assert that they were annoyed by the Defendant's messages and
considered them spam.  They further allege they were never clearly
and conspicuously informed that they were enrolling to receive
automated telemarketing text messages to their cellular
telephones.  Neither the Plaintiff intentionally signed up for the
Defendant's telemarketing text messages, the messages came as a
surprise and inconvenience, and became a concern to them.  They
assert that Kohl's never obtained either the Plaintiff's signed,
written consent to receive telemarketing text messages, and never
provided them with any disclosures required for a valid electronic
signature.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the FAC filed by Winner and
Jennings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim.  The case is filed as a class action
alleging that Kohl's sent unauthorized autodialed telemarketing
text messages to the Plaintiffs' cellular telephones in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and its
implementing regulations.

Judge Padova finds that that Plaintiffs Winner and Jennings
expressly consented to receive the Defendant's autodialed calls to
action telemarketing texts.  The facts contained in the
Stipulation establish that both Winner and Jennings gave prior
express consent under the TCPA through a method made permissible
by the E-Sign Act.  Because they consented to receiving the texts,
they can show no concrete and particularized injury-in-fact and
thus have not established that they have standing to pursue the
claims asserted in the FAC.  He concludes, accordingly, that
Winner and Jennings have failed to satisfy their burden of showing
that they have standing because each suffered an injury-in-fact as
a result of the Defendant's actions that is likely to be redressed
by a favorable judicial decision.  Consequently, he granted the
Defendant's Motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.  Since the Plaintiffs have already had a full
opportunity to amend their pleading to attempt to establish
standing, and have stipulated to the facts relevant to standing,
the Judge finds that any further amendment would be futile.  The
Defendant's alternative request to strike the class allegations in
the FAC is dismissed as moot.

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

LYNNE WINNER, Plaintiff, represented by SERGEI LEMBERG --
slemberg@lemberglaw.com -- LEMBERG LAW LLC.

LYNNE WINNER, Plaintiff, represented by STEPHEN F. TAYLOR, LEMBERG
LAW LLC.

DESTINY JENNINGS, Plaintiff, represented by SERGEI LEMBERG,
LEMBERG LAW LLC & STEPHEN F. TAYLOR, LEMBERG LAW LLC.

KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., Defendant, represented by JEFFREY
S. JACOBSON -- jjacobson@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY DRYE & WARREN
LLP & LAURI A. MAZZUCHETTI -- lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com --
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP.


LASERSHIP INC: Faces "Klatte" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Wage Law
------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN KLATTE, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. LASERSHIP, INC. Defendant, Case No: 1:17-cv-00516-
MRB (S.D. Ohio, August 3, 2017), alleges Plaintiff and other
courier drivers were misclassified as independent contractors by
Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio law.

As a result of this misclassification, these drivers are not paid
overtime wages nor are they guaranteed appropriate minimum wages
for their work performed in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Ohio law, says the complaint. Each of these similarly
situated drivers are paid under a uniform system and misclassified
as independent contractors. As a result of this pay practice,
these misclassified drivers have not been paid any overtime wages
whatsoever for their overtime hours worked and also have not been
paid the appropriate minimum wages in some weeks worked by them.

Defendant operates a delivery/courier service.  Plaintiff is a
delivery driver.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
     P.O. Box 4979
     Orlando, FL 32802-4979
     Phone: (407) 420-1414
     Fax: (407) 425-8171
     Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com

        - and -

     Michael N. Hanna, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Phone: (954) 318-0268
     Fax: (954) 327-3016
     Email: MHanna@forthepeople.com

        - and -

     Andrew Biller, Esq.
     MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC
     Easton Town Center
     4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
     Columbus, OH 43219
     Phone: (614) 604-8759
     Fax: (614) 583-8107
     Email: abiller@msdlegal.com

        - and -

     Andrew Kimble, Esq.
     MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC
     3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
     Cincinnati, OH 45209
     Phone: (513) 665-0213
     Fax: (513) 665-0219
     Email: akimble@msdlegal.com


LEE HEALTH: Faces "Gil" Suit in M.D. of Fla.
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lee Health. The case
is styled as Juan Carlos Gil, on his own behalf and on behalf of
all other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lee Health
doing business as Lee Memorial Health System, Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-00464-SPC-CM (M.D. Fla., August 17, 2017).

Lee Health is the largest healthcare system in Southwest Florida
with over 100 locations and offering doctors and medical services
throughout Lee County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Scott R. Dinin, Esq.
   Scott R. Dinin, P.A
   4200 NW 7th Avenue
   Miami, Fl 33127
   Tel: (786) 431-1333
   Fax: (786) 513-7700
   Email: srd@DininLaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "McMurray" Suit Over Chinese Flooring
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN AND AMANDA McMURRAY individually, and on behalf of their
minor daughter ANALEE MCMURRAY, Plaintiffs, v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS,
INC., LUMBER LIQUIDATORS LEASING, LLC, LUMBER LIQUIDATORS
HOLDINGS, INC., and LUMBER LIQUIDATORS SERVICES, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-07467 (E.D. La., August 3, 2017), alleges that
Defendants falsely labeled and sold its Chinese Flooring as being
compliant with "CARB [California Air Resources Board] regulations
in the State of California."

Contrary to these representations, Lumber Liquidators' Chinese
Flooring is not CARB compliant. Rather, the Chinese Flooring
contains a dangerous level of formaldehyde gas, which exceeds the
"CARB regulations in the State of California" and the federal
standards promulgated in the Toxic Substances Control Act, says
the complaint.

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC. is a retailer of hardwood flooring in the
United States.  Plaintiffs are buyers of the hardwood
flooring.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ronnie G. Penton, Esq.
     MaryAnna Penton Holley, Esq.
     THE PENTON LAW FIRM
     503 Georgia Avenue
     Bogalusa, LA 70427
     Phone: 985-732-5651
     Fax: 985-735-5579
     Email: fedcourtmail@thepentonlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Shawn C. Reed, Esq.
     HOWARD & REED
     516 North Columbia Street
     Covington, LA 70433
     Phone: 985-893-3607
     Fax: 985-893-3478
     Email: sreed@howardandreed.com


MARKWORT SPORTING: Piland Files Suit Over "Made in USA" Label
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Piland, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Markwort Sporting Goods Company,
Defendants, Case No. 17CV02311 (Cal. Super., August 11, 2017),
seeks treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees
pursuant to Unfair Practices Act of the California Business and
Professions Code.

Markwort produces and markets the Game Face Softball Safety Mask
and the packaging included indicates "Made in St. Louis, Missouri
USA." Plaintiffs disputes this and allege that the said masks are
manufactured largely outside of the USA. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David P. Mastagni, Esq.
     Phillip R. A. Mastagni, Esq.
     Phillip J. Ebsworth, Esq.
     MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT, APC
     1912 "I" Street
     Sacramento, CA 95811
     Telephone: (916) 446-4692
     Facsimile: (916) 447-4614


MDL 2067: Court Denies Certification in Sales Practices Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court, D.
Massachusetts, denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the case captioned IN RE CELEXA AND LEXAPRO
MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION. DELANA S. KIOSSOVSKI and
RENEE RAMIREZ, Plaintiffs, v. FOREST LABORATORIES, INC., FOREST
LABORATORIES, LLC and FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants,
MDL No. 09-02067-NMG, Civil Action No. 14-13848-NMG(D. Mass.).

In August, 2014, former plaintiff Marlene LoConte and Kiossovski
commenced this action in the Western District of Washington by
filing a complaint on behalf of themselves and putative consumer
classes.  They alleged that Forest fraudulently promoted the
pediatric use of Celexa and Lexapro despite knowing that the drugs
did not provide any clinically significant benefit over placebos
in treating MDD.  The case was transferred to this Court pursuant
to a multi-district litigation assignment in October 2014.

In June, 2015, the Court (i) allowed the Defendants' motion to
dismiss with respect to the RICO, Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act, M.G.L. c. 93A and unjust enrichment claims brought
by LoConte; and (ii) denied the motion with respect to the RICO,
Washington Consumer Protection Act and unjust enrichment claims
brought by Kiossovski.  The Plaintiffs amended the complaint in
January 2016 by replacing LoConte with Ramirez as the second
putative class representative.  The amended complaint raises two
RICO claims by Kiossovski and Ramirez, an unjust enrichment claim
by both Plaintiffs and a Washington Consumer Protection Act claim
by Kiossovski.

In February 2016, the Defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint which this Court denied in June 2016.  In March, 2017,
Plaintiffs moved for class certification which the Defendants
opposed.  They request the certification of these nationwide RICO
classes and subclasses:

     a. Damages Class: All persons, in the United States of
America and its territories, who, for purposes other than resale,
(i) paid or incurred costs for the drug Celexa prescribed for use
by an individual under 18 years of age; and/or (ii) paid or
incurred costs on or before March 19, 2009, for the drug Lexapro
prescribed for use by an individual under 18 years of age.

     b. Child Subclass: All persons, in the United States of
America and its territories, who, for purposes other than resale,
(i) paid or incurred costs for the drug Celexa prescribed for use
by an individual under 13 years of age; and/or (ii) paid or
incurred costs on or before March 19, 2009, for the drug Lexapro
prescribed for use by an individual under 13 years of age.

     c. MD-32 Subclass: All persons, in the United States of
America and its territories, who, for purposes other than resale,
(i) paid or incurred costs for the drug Celexa prescribed for use
by an individual under 18 years of age; and/or (ii) paid or
incurred costs on or before March 11, 2008, for the drug Lexapro
prescribed for use by an individual under 18 years of age.

The Plaintiffs further request certification of classes of
Washington residents for the unjust enrichment and Washington
Consumer Protection Act claims ("WCPA").  Kiossovski is the
putative class representative for those claims.

They alternatively seek to certify a "liability-only class" that
is the same as the proposed damages class under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(c)(4).  They also move for the designation of Kiossovski and
Ramirez as the class representatives and to appoint Christopher L.
Coffin of Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P. and Michael Baum of
Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, P.C., along with their
respective law firms, as the class counsel.

The Court convened a hearing on the motion for class
certification.

Judge Gorton denied to certify the nationwide RICO class and
subclasses because the Plaintiffs have not satisfied the Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(b)(3) requirements of predominance with respect to but-
for causation, injury, damages and the statute of limitations
defenses or superiority.  He finds that the Plaintiffs have failed
to show that common issues predominate with respect to but-for
causation.  He explains that because the class-wide evidence in
this action is "equivocal," adjudication of the efficacy issues
will likely require individualized assessments of the utility of
Celexa and/or Lexapro for each patient.  As to damages, he says
given the individualized questions that predominate with respect
to but-for causation and injury, individualized questions also
overwhelm the question of damages.  The Plaintiffs have also not
shown that common issues predominate with respect the statute of
limitations defenses.

The Defendants maintain that the certification of an issues class
is inappropriate because liability issues, such as whether the
drugs were promoted for pediatric use and whether they were
effective, require individual analyses.  Judge Gorton agrees.
Thus, he denied the motion to certify an issue class.  And because
individual issues as to but-for causation persist, the
predominance requirement is not satisfied.  Thus, the Judge denied
to certify the WCPA class.

For these reasons, Judge Gorton denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/vjoia4 from Leagle.com.

In re Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation,
represented by Christopher L. Coffin -- ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com --
Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP.

In re Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation,
represented by John G. O'Neill -- oneill@sugarmanrogers.com --
Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen.

Martha Palumbo, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Harris L.
Pogust -- hpogust@pbmattorneys.com -- Cuneo, Pogust & Mason LLP,
Nicholas R. Rockforte -- nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley,
Baudin & Coffin, LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick W. Pendley --
pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP,
Christopher L. Coffin, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, Michael L.
Baum -- MBaum@BaumHedlundLaw.com -- Baum, Hedlund, Aristei &
Goldman, P.C. & Robert Brent Wisner -- RBWisner@BaumHedlundLaw.com
-- Baum Hedlund Aristei and Goldman PC.

Peter Palumbo, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Harris L.
Pogust, Cuneo, Pogust & Mason LLP, Nicholas R. Rockforte, Pendley,
Baudin & Coffin, LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick W. Pendley, Pendley,
Baudin & Coffin, LLP, Christopher L. Coffin, Pendley, Baudin &
Coffin, LLP, Michael L. Baum, Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman,
P.C. & Robert Brent Wisner, Baum Hedlund Aristei and Goldman PC.

Jayne Ehrlich, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Harris L.
Pogust, Cuneo, Pogust & Mason LLP, Patrick W. Pendley, Pendley,
Baudin & Coffin, LLP & Christopher L. Coffin, Pendley, Baudin &
Coffin, LLP.

Anna Murret, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Harris L.
Pogust, Cuneo, Pogust & Mason LLP, Nicholas R. Rockforte, Pendley,
Baudin & Coffin, LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick W. Pendley, Pendley,
Baudin & Coffin, LLP & Christopher L. Coffin, Pendley, Baudin &
Coffin, LLP.

Universal Care, Inc., Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by
Douglas R. Sprong -- dsprong@koreintillery.com -- KOREIN TILLERY,
LLC, Roger D. Drake, Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, P.C. &
Michael L. Baum, Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, P.C., pro hac
vice.

Angela Jaeckel, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Douglas R.
Sprong, KOREIN TILLERY, LLC, Nicholas R. Rockforte, Pendley,
Baudin & Coffin, LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher L. Coffin,
Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, Michael L. Baum, Baum, Hedlund,
Aristei & Goldman, P.C. & Robert Brent Wisner, Baum Hedlund
Aristei and Goldman PC.

Melvin M. Fullmer, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Douglas
R. Sprong, KOREIN TILLERY, LLC, Nicholas R. Rockforte, Pendley,
Baudin & Coffin, LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher L. Coffin,
Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, Michael L. Baum, Baum, Hedlund,
Aristei & Goldman, P.C. & Robert Brent Wisner, Baum Hedlund
Aristei and Goldman PC.

New Mexico UFCW Union's and Employer's Health and Welfare Trust
Fund, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by David R. Buchanan --
dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice,
Douglas R. Plymale, The Dugan Law Firm, James R. Dugan, II, The
Dugan Law Firm, Justin Bloom, Justin Bloom, Esq., Shane Youtz,
Youtz and Valdez, P.C., Adam M. Stewart -- astewart@shulaw.com --
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, David B. Franco, The Dugan Law Firm,
APLC & Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP.

Forest Laboratories Inc., Consolidated Defendant, represented by
Cicely I. Lubben, Stinson, Morrison et al., Danielle E. Thorne --
dethorne@debevoise.com -- Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, pro hac vice,
Edwin G. Schallert -- egschallert@debevoise.com -- Debevoise &
Plimpton, J. Robert Abraham, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, Kristin D.
Kiehn -- kdkiehn@debevoise.com -- Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP, pro
hac vice, Sandra J. Wunderlich, Stinson, Morrison et al., John G.
O'Neill -- oneill@sugarmanrogers.com -- Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak
& Cohen, Joshua E. Roberts -- jerober1@debevoise.com -- Debevoise
& Plimpton LLP, pro hac vice, Nathan S. Richards --
nsrichar@debevoise.com -- Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, pro hac vice &
Noelle E. Lyle -- nelyle@debevoise.com -- Debevoise & Plimpton
LLP.

Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Consolidated Defendant, represented
by Cicely I. Lubben, Stinson, Morrison et al., Danielle E. Thorne,
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, pro hac vice, Edwin G. Schallert,
Debevoise & Plimpton, J. Robert Abraham, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP,
Kristin D. Kiehn, Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP, pro hac vice, Peter
Simpson Ross, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, pro hac vice, Sandra J.
Wunderlich, Stinson, Morrison et al., John G. O'Neill, Sugarman,
Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, Joshua E. Roberts, Debevoise & Plimpton
LLP, pro hac vice, Nathan S. Richards, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP,
pro hac vice & Noelle E. Lyle, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.

Warner Lambert Company, Consolidated Defendant, represented by
Barbara Wrubel -- barbara.wrubel@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Mark S. Cheffo --
markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
LLP, pro hac vice.

Forest Laboratories, LLC, Defendant, represented by Edwin G.
Schallert, Debevoise & Plimpton, Peter Simpson Ross, Debevoise &
Plimpton LLP, pro hac vice, J. Robert Abraham, Debevoise &
Plimpton LLP, John G. O'Neill, Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen,
Joshua E. Roberts, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, pro hac vice, Kristin
D. Kiehn, Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP & Nathan S. Richards,
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, pro hac vice.

Natalie Luster, Interested Party, represented by Alex Lumaghi --
alex@dowdlaw.net -- Dowd & Dowd, P.C., pro hac vice, Christopher
J. Quinn, The Driscoll Firm, P.C, pro hac vice, Douglas P. Dowd --
-- Dowd & Dowd, P.C., pro hac vice, William T. Dowd --
bill@dowdlaw.net -- DOWD AND DOWD, pro hac vice, John J. Driscoll,
The Driscoll Firm, P.C. & Ryan P. McManus -- rmcmanus@hembar.com -
-  Hemenway & Barnes.


MILLIKAN LAW: Faces "Askett" Lawsuit Alleging FDCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
TONYA HASKETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MILLIKAN LAW OFFICE, PC, an Indiana
professional corporation, and ATLAS COLLECTIONS, INC., an Indiana
corporation, Defendants, Case No: 1:17-cv-02605-JMS-MPB (S.D.
Ind., August 2, 2017), alleges that Defendants committed
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff, Tonya Haskett, is a citizen of the State of Indiana,
residing in the Southern District of Indiana, from whom Defendants
attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt, which she
allegedly owed for multiple medical debts.

Defendant Millikan operates a nationwide debt collection business
and attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every
state, including consumers in the State of Indiana.

The case alleges that Defendants violated the FDCPA because its
debt collection letter could lead a consumer to alter his or her
course of action as to whether to pay or whether to dispute a
debt, or which would be a factor in the consumer's decision making
process.

Allegedly, nowhere in Defendants' letter did they advise Ms.
Haskett that, in order to require Defendants to provide
verification of the debt and/or the name of the original creditor,
disputes had to be in writing. Moreover, Defendants' letter also
wrongly stated that disputes must be directed to the debt buyer,
Defendant Atlas, when, in fact, in order to obtain verification,
the dispute needed to be made to Defendant Millikan, says the
complaint.[BN]

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
     Phone: (708) 974-2900
     Fax: (708) 974-2907
     Email: davephilipps@aol.com
            mephilipps@aol.com
            angiekrobertson@aol.com

        - and -

     John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
     5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
     Indianapolis, IN 46227
     Phone: (317) 780-8300
     Fax: (317) 217-1320
     Email: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com


MIRAMAR LABS: Shareholder Sues Board Over Sale to Sientra Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW STEVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PATRICK F. WILLIAMS, ROBERT MICHAEL
KLEINE, HENRY A. PLAIN, JR., BRIAN H. DOVEY, STACEY D. SELTZER,
MAXIM GORBACHEV, MARK E. DEEM, and HANSON S. GIFFORD III,
Defendants, Case No: 2017-563 (Del. Ch., August 3, 2017), accuses
the Board of Directors of Miramar Labs, Inc. of breaching their
fiduciary duties in connection with the then proposed acquisition
of all the outstanding shares of Miramar by Desert Acquisition
Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sientra, Inc. via a
tender offer.

The complaint says the Maximum Potential Merger Consideration
consisted of $20 million in upfront cash plus contractual rights
for potential contingent payments of up to $14 million in cash
upon the achievement of certain milestones, payable to holders of
Miramar equity, debt and other obligations.

However, the Merger was not approved by a majority of
disinterested stockholders. The Recommendation Statement omitted
material information regarding the Merger, and the Company's
unaffiliated stockholders were therefore not adequately informed
regarding the transactions at issue, it adds.

According to the case, concurrently with the strategic review and
sales process, the Defendants negotiated and/or approved revisions
to existing contracts with amended terms that provide them each
with unique personal financial benefits in connection with the
Merger. The Defendants' actions constitute a breach of their
fiduciary duties, and render the strategic review and sales
process unfair.

The Defendants further failed to negotiate for, and ensure the
Merger Agreement contained, a provision that would require a
majority of the Company's unaffiliated stockholders to tender
their shares in order for the Merger to go forward, says the
complaint.  Instead, the Defendants and the Director-Affiliated
Firms each entered into the Tender and Support Agreements, and
then agreed to amend the Merger Agreement on June 25, 2017,
thereby granting Sientra an irrevocable "top-up" right to ensure
the Merger could be effectuated as a "short-form" merger.

Defendants further breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to
various deal protection provisions in the Merger Agreement that
deterred other bidders from making a competing offer for the
Company, it adds.

Miramar Labs, Inc. is a medical device company that has developed
a treatment to reduce underarm sweat.  Plaintiff was, at all
relevant times, a Miramar stockholder.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
     COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
     The Brandywine Building
     1000 West Street, 10th Floor
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 984-3800

        - and -

     Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
     Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
     New York, NY 10118
     Phone: (212) 971-1341
     Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
            mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com


MOSAIC FERTILIZER: Claims in Bohn et al. Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that plaintiffs have
dismissed all claims against Mosaic Fertilizer in a class action
lawsuit.

In connection with the water loss incident, on September 22, 2016,
Nicholas Bohn, Natasha McCormick and Eric Weckman, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative
class action complaint against Mosaic and Mosaic Fertilizer in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
(the "Florida District Court"), alleging that defendants' storage,
management and operation of the phosphogypsum stack at the New
Wales facility gives rise to actionable claims by the plaintiffs
and the putative plaintiff class based on theories of negligence,
nuisance and strict liability.  Plaintiffs intended to seek class
certification, damages for alleged diminution in real property
values, unspecified punitive damages and attorney's fees and
costs, and injunctive relief including implementation of a
mandatory water well testing protocol and installation or funding
of permanent filtration devices on any private water well testing
positive for constituents associated with the New Wales water loss
incident.

On February 17, 2017, the parties agreed to, and the court
approved, a 90-day stay of the matter.

"During that time, we agreed to provide certain information to the
plaintiffs informally in response to their requests," the Company
said.

On May 23, 2017 the plaintiffs filed a motion with the Florida
District Court to dismiss all claims against Mosaic, with
prejudice, and the motion was granted on May 25, 2017.

On June 12, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the Florida
District Court to dismiss all claims in this matter against Mosaic
Fertilizer without prejudice and the motion was granted on June
13, 2017, concluding this matter.

The Mosaic Company produces and markets concentrated phosphate and
potash crop nutrients.


MYLAN INC: Local 282 Fund Sues Over EpiPen Auto-Injector Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Mylan Inc., Mylan Specialty L.P.,
Pfizer, Inc., King Pharmaceuticals LLC and Meridian Medical
Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-06110-MCA-MAH (D.N.J., August
14, 2017), arises out of the Defendants' unlawful maintenance of
monopoly power designed to block and delay entry of competing
epinephrine auto-injectors.

The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company in the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      CARELLA, BRYNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & ANGELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 994-1700
      Facsimile: (973) 994-1744

         - and -

      Brian O. O'Mara, Esq.
      Arthur L. Shingler III, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: bomara@rgrdlaw.com
              ashingler@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Damien J. Marshall, Esq.
      Duane L. Loft, Esq.
      BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      575 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 446-2300
      Facsimile: (212) 446-2350
      E-mail: dmarshall@bsfllp.com
              dloft@bsfllp.com

         - and -

      Brian D. Penny, Esq.
      GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C.
      161 Washington Street, Suite 1025
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Telephone: (484) 342-0700
      Facsimile: (484) 580-8747


NR GROUP: "Depillars" Hits Inadequate Parking, Restrooms Doors
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Depillars, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NR Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
BC672091 (Cal. Super., August 11, 2017), seeks statutory damages
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and injunctive relief on
behalf of himself, and mobility impaired/wheelchair bound persons
for violation of the anti-discrimination state statutes of the
Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Code and California Civil Code.

Plaintiff is a C5-C7 quadriplegic and requires a wheelchair to
move about. Depillars has visited and patronized Norms, a chain of
diner-style restaurants in Southern California. Said facilities
did not have an adequate number of handicapped parking spaces, and
have heavy restroom doors whose door closer is not adjusted to
allow the bathroom door to remain open to allow a wheelchair to
get in, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Faces "Kim" Securities Suit Over DEXTENZA
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWNA KIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. OCULAR THERAPEUTIX, INC., AMARPREET
SAWHNEY, GEORGE MIGAUSKY, ANDREW HURLEY, and ERIC ANKERUD,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-05704 (D.N.J., August 3, 2017), is a
federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Ocular securities between March
10, 2016 and July 11, 2017, inclusive.

Ocular's lead product is DEXTENZA, which is in Phase III clinical
trial for the treatment of post-surgical pain and inflammation,
allergic conjunctivitis; and in Phase II clinical trial for the
treatment of inflammatory dry eye disease.

The case alleges damages to investors in relation to Defendant's
statements regarding Form 483, a form used by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration to document and communicate concerns
discovered during inspection.  Specifically, Defendants allegedly
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Ocular failed to adequately address the issues
identified in the First Form 483; (ii) Ocular's re-submitted New
Drug Application (NDA) would not be approved by July 19, 2017, the
Prescription Drug User Fee Act date, because the Company could not
timely and adequately address the FDA-identified manufacturing and
control issues; (iii) Ocular's continued manufacturing issues
imperil the approval of DEXTENZA; and (v) as a result, Defendants'
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times., Ocular's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

Ocular focuses on the development and commercialization of
therapies for diseases and conditions of the eye using its
proprietary hydrogel platform technology in the United States.
Plaintiff is a stockholder of Ocular.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: 212-363-7500
     Fax: 212-363-7171
     Email: ek@zlk.com

        - and -

     Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
     Adam M. Apton, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: (202) 524-4290
     Fax: (202) 333-2121
     Email: nporritt@zlk.com
     Email: aapton@zlk.com


ODYSSEY MEDIA: Issued No Termination Notice, "Luciano" Asserts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Luciano on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Odyssey Media Group, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 655328/2017 (N.Y. Sup., August 11, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and benefits for sixty calendar days pursuant to the
New York Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and New
York Labor Law.

On January 15, 2017 through February 1, 2017 and thereafter, the
Defendant ordered a mass layoff at their facility without the
mandated ninety days prior notice to their employees, says the
complaint. [BN]

Odyssey Media Group -- http://www.odysseymediagroup.com--
provides news and content resources for its clients with four
regional news archive websites, multiple editorial departments and
in-depth news coverage.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
     LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
     132 Nassau Street, Suite ll00
     New York, NY 10038
     Tel: (212) 581-5005
     Fax: (212) 581-2122

            - and -

     Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
     M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
     THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
     210 S. Washington Ave.
     Mobile, AL 36602
     Tel: (251)433-8100
     Fax: (251)433-8181


OHIO RENTAL: "Myers" Suit Alleges FLSA, Ohio Wage Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
KALEB MYERS, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OHIO RENTAL MT.
VERNON, INC., ANGELINA MANERS, and JAY MANERS, Defendants, Case
No: 2:17-cv-00679-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, August 2, 2017), alleges
that Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but
was not paid one and one-half his regular rate for all of hours
worked over 40 in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

OHIO RENTAL MT. VERNON, INC. is an equipment rental shop.
Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt front counter retail
associate at Ohio Rental.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
     COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
     1457 S. High St.
     Columbus, OH 43207
     Phone: 614-949-1181
     Fax: 614-386-9964
     Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

        - and -

     Peter Contreras, Esq.
     CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
     PO Box 215
     Amlin, OH 43002
     Phone: 614-787-4878
     Fax: 614-923-7369
     Email: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com


OS RESTAURANT: Destra Sues Over Withheld Tips, No OT Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Myslande Destra, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. OS Restaurant Services, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 515616/2017 (N.Y. Sup., August 11, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages, an additional equal
amount as liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law.

Destra performed as a server at Defendant's New York restaurant.
Defendant applied an illegal tip credit to Plaintiff's wages
resulting in a lower-than-mandated wage rate. OS also failed to
furnish Destra with accurate statements with every payment of
wages, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
     Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
     FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
     28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Telephone: (212) 300-0375


PANDORA MEDIA: Appeal in Pre-1972 Copyright Litigation Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that in the Pre-1972
copyright litigation, the California Supreme Court has accepted
certification and opening briefs were due on August 4, 2017.

On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit
against Pandora Media Inc. in the federal district court for the
Central District of California. The complaint alleges
misappropriation and conversion in connection with the public
performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15,
1972. On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the
complaint pursuant to California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against
Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute, which was appealed to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The district court litigation
is currently stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's decision.

On December 8, 2016, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on the
Anti-SLAPP motion. On March 15, 2017, the Ninth Circuit requested
certification to the California Supreme Court on the substantive
legal questions. The California Supreme Court has accepted
certification and opening briefs were due on August 4, 2017.

Pandora is the world's most powerful music discovery platform,
offering a personalized experience for each of our listeners
wherever and whenever they want to listen to music -- whether
through earbuds, car speakers or live on stage.


PANDORA MEDIA: "Sheridan" Class Action Stayed
---------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that a lawsuit by Arthur and
Barbara Sheridan is stayed in the Northern District of California
pending the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in the case, Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc.

Between September 14, 2015 and October 19, 2015, Arthur and
Barbara Sheridan filed separate class action suits against the
Company in the federal district courts for the Northern District
of California, District of New Jersey and Northern District of
Illinois. The complaints allege a variety of violations of common
law and state copyright statutes, common law misappropriation,
unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of
rights of publicity arising from allegations that we owe royalties
for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to
February 15, 1972. The action in Illinois was dismissed by the
court in June 2017. The actions in California and New Jersey are
currently stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Flo &
Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc.

On September 7, 2016, Ponderosa Twins Plus One et al. filed a
class action suit against the Company alleging claims similar to
that of Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media Inc.  The action is
currently stayed in the Northern District of California pending
the Ninth Circuit's decision in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora
Media, Inc.

The outcome of any litigation is inherently uncertain.

"We do not believe it is probable that the final outcome of the
matters discussed above will, individually or in the aggregate,
have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
position, results of operations or cash flows; however, in light
of the uncertainties involved in such matters, there can be no
assurance that the outcome of each case or the costs of
litigation, regardless of outcome, will not have a material
adverse effect on our business," the Company said.

Pandora is the world's most powerful music discovery platform,
offering a personalized experience for each of our listeners
wherever and whenever they want to listen to music -- whether
through earbuds, car speakers or live on stage.


PERCEPTA: Faces "Layton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Layton and all others similarly situated v. Percepta, LLC,
Case No. 6:17-cv-01488-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla., August 14, 2017), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Percepta, LLC operates a customer service call center located at
1320 South Babcock St., NE, Melbourne, FL 32901. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maurice Arcadier, Esq.
      Stephen Biggie, Esq.
      Joseph C. Wood, Esq.
      Ethan B. Babb, Esq.
      ARCADIER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      2815 W. New Haven, Suite 304
      Melbourne, FL 32904
      Telephone: (321) 953-5998
      Facsimile: (321) 953-6075
      E-mail: office@wamalaw.com
              arcadier@wamalaw.com

PETMED EXPRESS: To Defend Against Animal Medical Center Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
PetMed Express, Inc. said it will defend itself against the class
action lawsuit by Animal Medical Center of Orland Park, Inc.,
PetMed said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 31, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017.

In June 2017, the Company was served with a lawsuit by a
veterinary clinic, styled Animal Medical Center of Orland Park,
Inc. v. PetMed Express, Inc., d/b/a 1-800-PetMeds, and John Does
1-10, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division,
2017-CH-07347. The plaintiff alleges that the Company was sending
unsolicited advertisements via facsimile in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and also seeks class action
status.

The Company will defend itself vigorously against what it contends
are baseless allegations. Legal counsel has been retained, but at
this stage however, it is difficult to assess any possible outcome
or estimate any potential loss in the event of an adverse outcome.

PetMed Express, Inc. and subsidiaries, d/b/a 1-800-PetMeds, is a
nationwide pet pharmacy. The Company markets prescription and non-
prescription pet medications, health products, and supplies for
dogs and cats, direct to the consumer.


PETRO RIVER: Plaintiffs' 10th Circuit Appeal Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Petro River Oil Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended April 30, 2017, that the class action
plaintiffs' appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals remains
pending.

On November 23, 2016, the Court denied all three of Plaintiffs'
motions.  On December 6, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal
to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.  That appeal is pending as
of the effective date of this response.

On August 11, 2014, Martha Donelson and John Friend amended their
complaint in an existing lawsuit by filing a class action
complaint styled: Martha Donelson and John Friend, et al. v.
United States of America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs and Devon Energy Production, LP, et al., Case No.
14-CV-316-JHP-TLW, United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma (the "Proceeding").  The plaintiffs added as
defendants twenty-seven specifically named operators, including
Spyglass, a wholly owned Subsidiary of Bandolier Energy, LLC, as
well as all Osage County lessees and operators who have obtained a
concession agreement, lease or drilling permit approved by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA") in Osage County allegedly in
violation of National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA").
Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the BIA improperly
approved oil and gas leases, concession agreements and drilling
permits prior to August 12, 2014, without satisfying the BIA's
obligations under federal regulations or NEPA, and seek a
determination that such oil and gas leases, concession agreements
and drilling permits are void ab initio.  Plaintiffs are seeking
damages against the defendants for alleged nuisance, trespass,
negligence and unjust enrichment.  The potential consequences of
such complaint could jeopardize the corresponding leases.

On October 7, 2014, Spyglass, along with other defendants, filed a
Motion to Dismiss the August 11, 2014 Amended Complaint on various
procedural and legal grounds. Following the significant briefing,
the Court, on March 31, 2016, granted the Motion to Dismiss as to
all defendants and entered a judgment in favor of the defendants
against the plaintiffs.

On April 14, 2016, Spyglass with the other defendants, filed a
Motion seeking its attorneys' fees and costs. Said motion remains
pending. On April 28, 2016, the plaintiffs filed three motions: a
Motion to Amend or Alter the Judgment; a Motion to Amend the
Complaint; and a Motion to Vacate Order.

On November 23, 2016, the Court denied all three of Plaintiffs'
motions.  On December 6, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal
to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.  That appeal is pending as
of the effective date of this response. There is no specific
timeline by which the Court of Appeals must render a ruling.
Spyglass intends to continue to vigorously defend its interest in
this matter.

Petro River Oil Corp. is an independent energy company focused on
the exploration and development of conventional oil and gas assets
with low discovery and development costs. The Company is currently
focused on moving forward with drilling wells on several of its
properties owned directly and indirectly through its interest in
Horizon Energy Partners, LLC ("Horizon Energy"), as well as taking
advantage of the relative depressed market in oil prices to enter
highly prospective plays with Horizon Energy and other industry-
leading partners. Diversification over a number of projects, each
with low initial capital expenditures and strong risk reward
characteristics, reduces risk and provides cross-functional
exposure to a number of attractive risk adjusted opportunities.


PROGRESSIVE CLASSIC: Faces Suit for Invasion of Privacy
-------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey George, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Progressive Classic Insurance Company and Kohn Law
Firm, S.C., Case No. 3:17-cv-00626-slc (W.D. Wis., August 14,
2017), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's
alleged invasion of privacy, specifically by disclosing and
publishing the Plaintiff's driver's license number without any
permissible reason to do so.

Progressive Classic Insurance Company operates an insurance
company located at 6300 Wilson Mills Road, Cleveland, OH 44143.

Kohn Law Firm operates a law firm that is engaged in the
collection of debt on behalf of others. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
      CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
      367 Commerce Court
      Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
      Telephone: (651) 770-9707
      Facsimile: (651) 704-0907
      E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com

         - and -

      Thomas J. Lyons, Sr., Esq.
      LYONS LAW FIRM, P.A.
      367 Commerce Court
      Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
      Telephone: (651) 770-9707
      E-mail: tlyons@lyonslawfirm.com

         - and -

      Eric L. Crandall, Esq.
      CRANDALL LAW FIRM
      421 West Second Street, PO Box 27
      New Richmond, WI 54017
      Telephone: (715) 246-1010
      Facsimile: (715) 246-3793
      E-mail: consumerlaw@frontiernet.net


REAL MONARCA: Server, Bartender Files Suit Over FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO LOPEZ, for himself and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. REAL MONARCA INC., a Florida Profit
Corporation, d/b/a MONARCA'S AUTHENTIC MEXICAN CUISINE BAR &
GRILL, and GUILLERMO CUEVAS, individually, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-00442-SPC-CM (M.D. Fla.,  August 2, 2017), alleges that
Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated servers and bartender the
proper minimum wage and overtime compensation for all hours
worked.

The Plaintiff is a server/bartender.  The Defendant operates a
restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Angel Murthy, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Phone: (954) 318-0268
     Fax: (954) 327-3016
     Email: Amurthy@forthepeople.com


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,694 Engle Progeny Cases Pending at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Florida state court
class-action case, Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., and the
related cases commonly referred to as Engle Progeny cases have
attracted significant attention. After the Florida Supreme Court's
2006 ruling that members of the formerly certified class could
file individual actions, roughly 10,000 claims or actions were
filed in Florida state or federal courts before the deadline set
by the Florida Supreme Court. No new or additional such claims may
be filed.  About 2,694 Engle Progeny cases were pending as of June
30, 2017, that included claims asserted on behalf of 3,492
plaintiffs. Following an agreement to settle most Engle Progeny
cases that remained pending in federal courts in the first quarter
of 2015, nearly all Engle Progeny cases currently pending are in
Florida state courts.

Since 2009, there have been over 200 Engle Progeny trials in
Florida state or federal courts involving RJR Tobacco or Lorillard
Tobacco.  Additional Engle Progeny cases involving RJR Tobacco are
being tried and set for trial on an ongoing basis. Juries in Engle
Progeny cases have awarded substantial amounts in compensatory and
punitive damage awards, many of which currently are at various
stages in the appellate process. RJR Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco
also have paid substantial amounts in compensatory and punitive
damage awards in Engle Progeny cases.

Reynolds American, Inc. is an American tobacco company.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,346 Broin II Lawsuits Pending at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that there were 2,346 Broin
II lawsuits pending in Florida as of June 30, 2017.

Broin v. Philip Morris, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Miami-Dade County, Fla.,
filed 1991), was a class action brought on behalf of flight
attendants alleged to have suffered from diseases or ailments
caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins. In October 1997, RJR
Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, B&W and other cigarette manufacturer
defendants settled Broin, agreeing to pay a total of $300 million
in three annual $100 million installments, allocated among the
companies by market share, to fund research on the early detection
and cure of diseases associated with tobacco smoke. It also
required those companies to pay a total of $49 million for the
plaintiffs' counsel's fees and expenses. RJR Tobacco's portion of
these payments was approximately $86 million; Lorillard Tobacco's
was approximately $57 million; and B&W's was approximately $31
million. The settlement agreement, among other things, limits the
types of claims class members may bring and eliminates claims for
punitive damages. The settlement agreement also provides that, in
individual cases by class members that are referred to as Broin II
lawsuits, the defendant will bear the burden of proof with respect
to whether ETS can cause certain specifically enumerated diseases,
referred to as "general causation." With respect to all other
liability issues, including whether an individual plaintiff's
disease was caused by his or her exposure to ETS in airplane
cabins, referred to as "specific causation," individual plaintiffs
will bear the burden of proof. On September 7, 1999, the Florida
Supreme Court approved the settlement.

There have been no Broin II trials since 2007.

Reynolds American, Inc. is an American tobacco company.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 25 Personal Injury Class Actions Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that 25 class-action cases,
excluding shareholder cases, were pending in the United States
against Reynolds Defendants as of June 30, 2017. These class
actions seek recovery for personal injuries allegedly caused by
cigarette smoking or, in some cases, for economic damages
allegedly incurred by cigarette or e-cigarette purchasers.

In 1996, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Castano v. American
Tobacco Co. overturned the certification of a nation-wide class of
persons whose claims related to alleged addiction to tobacco
products, finding that the district court failed to properly
assess variations in the governing state laws and whether common
issues predominated over individual issues. Since the Fifth
Circuit's ruling in Castano, few smoker class-action complaints
have been certified or, if certified, have survived on appeal.
Eighteen federal courts, including two courts of appeals, and most
state courts that have considered the issue have rejected class
certification in such cases. Apart from Castano, only two smoker
class actions have been certified by a federal court -- In re
Simon (II) Litigation and Schwab [McLaughlin] v. Philip Morris USA
Inc., both of which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York and were later decertified.

Class-action suits based on claims that class members are at a
greater risk of injury or injured by the use of tobacco or
exposure to ETS, or claims that seek primarily economic damages
are pending against RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, or their
affiliates or indemnitees in state or federal courts in
California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico,
New York, North Carolina and West Virginia.

The pending class actions against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or
indemnitees include four cases alleging that the use of the term
"lights" constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practices under
state law or violates federal RICO. Such suits are pending in
state courts in Illinois and Missouri.

E-cigarette class-action cases are pending against RJR Vapor, RAI,
and other RAI affiliates in California state and federal courts.
In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Vapor, Lorillard
Tobacco, and other RAI affiliates made false and misleading claims
that e-cigarettes are less hazardous than other cigarette products
or failed to disclose that e-cigarettes expose users to certain
substances. The cases are typically filed pursuant to state
consumer protection and related statutes and seek recovery of
economic damages.

Several class actions relating to claims in advertising and
promotional materials for SFNTC's NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand
cigarettes are pending in federal courts. In general, these
plaintiffs allege that use of the words "natural," "additive-
free," or "organic" in NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT advertising and
promotional materials suggests that those cigarettes are less
harmful than other cigarettes and, for that reason, violated state
consumer protection statutes or amounted to fraud or a negligent
or intentional misrepresentation.

Additional class actions relating to alleged personal injuries
purportedly caused by use of cigarettes or exposure to ETS are
pending.

Finally, certain third-party payers have filed health-care cost
recovery actions in the form of class actions.

Reynolds American, Inc. is an American tobacco company.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference in "Turner" Not Rescheduled
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that in Turner v. R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Cir. Ct. Madison County, Ill., filed 2000),
the trial court certified a class of purchasers of RJR Tobacco
"lights" cigarettes in November 2001. In November 2003, the
Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR Tobacco's motion for a stay
pending the court's final appeal decision in the Price case
described above. The stay subsequently expired, and the court
accordingly scheduled a series of status conferences, all of which
were continued by agreement of the parties. The status conference
scheduled for March 29, 2017 did not occur and has not been
rescheduled.

Reynolds American, Inc. is an American tobacco company.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Howard" Case Remains Dormant
------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that in the case, Howard v.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (Cir. Ct. Madison County, Ill.,
filed 2000), the trial court certified a class of purchasers of
B&W "lights" cigarettes in December 2001. In June 2003, the trial
judge issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolution
of the Price case. In August 2005, the Illinois Fifth District
Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court's stay order. There is
currently no activity in the case.

Reynolds American, Inc. is an American tobacco company.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Jan. 2018 Status Conference in "Collora" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that in the case, Collora v.
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Cir. Ct. City of St. Louis, Mo., filed
2000), the trial court certified a class of purchasers of RJR
Tobacco "lights" cigarettes in December 2003. A status conference
is scheduled for January 8, 2018.

Reynolds American, Inc. is an American tobacco company.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference in "Black" Suit in Jan. 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that in the case, Black v.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (Cir. Ct. City of St. Louis, Mo.,
filed 2000), a putative class action filed on behalf of a class of
purchasers of B&W "lights" cigarettes, a status conference is
scheduled for January 8, 2018.

In the event RJR Tobacco and its affiliates or indemnitees lose
one or more of the pending "lights" class-action suits, RJR
Tobacco, depending upon the amount of any damages ordered, could
face difficulties in its ability to pay the judgment or obtain any
bond required to stay execution of the judgment which could have a
material adverse effect on RJR Tobacco's, and consequently RAI's,
results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Reynolds American, Inc. is an American tobacco company.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motion to Dismiss "Harris" Case Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that a decision is pending
on defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in
the "Harris" E-Cigarette class action.

In Harris v. R. J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal., filed
2015), the plaintiff brought a class action against RJR Vapor on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of VUSE e-cigarettes. The
plaintiff alleges that RJR Vapor failed to advise users that they
potentially could be exposed to formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. The
plaintiff asserts failure to warn claims under California's
Proposition 65, as well as California Business & Professions Code
Sec. 17,200 et seq. and California Civil Code Sec. 1,750 et seq.
and seeks declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement,
injunctive relief and damages.

RJR Vapor moved to dismiss contending, among other things, that
plaintiff's action was governed in its entirety by Proposition 65
and that the plaintiff failed to give the 60-day pre-suit notice
required by Proposition 65, requiring that the entire case be
dismissed with prejudice. The motion to dismiss was argued on
March 2, 2016.

On September 30, 2016, the court granted RJR Vapor's motion to
dismiss but provided the plaintiff leave to amend. The plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint on October 31, 2016, and RJR
Vapor has again moved to dismiss. Oral argument occurred on
January 19, 2017. A decision is pending.

Reynolds American, Inc. is an American tobacco company.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: July 2018 Class Cert. Hearing in Suit v SFNTC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that a hearing is set for
July 2018 on the motion to certify a class in the lawsuits against
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. et al., over the "No
Additive/Natural/Organic" claims.

Following the FDA's August 27, 2015, warning letter to SFNTC
relating to the use of the words "natural" and "additive-free" in
the labeling, advertising and promotional materials for NATURAL
AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes, plaintiffs purporting to bring
claims on behalf of themselves and others have filed putative
nationwide and/or state-specific class actions against SFNTC and,
in some instances, RAI. A total of 16 such actions have been filed
in nine U.S. district courts.

In various combinations, plaintiffs in these cases generally
allege violations of state deceptive and unfair trade practice
statutes, and claim state common law fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment based on the use of
descriptors such as "natural," "organic" and "100% additive-free"
in the marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of SFNTC's
NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. The actions seek various
categories of recovery, including economic damages, injunctive
relief (including medical monitoring and cessation programs),
interest, restitution, disgorgement, treble and punitive damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 6, 2016, the plaintiffs in one action filed a motion
before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") to consolidate these actions before one district court
for pre-trial purposes. On April 11, 2016, the JPML ordered that
these cases be consolidated for pre-trial purposes before Judge
James O. Browning in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Mexico, referred to as the transferee court, and the then-
pending and later-filed cases now are consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in that court. The cases that were filed in or
transferred for pre-trial purposes to the transferee court are as
follows:

     * Sproule v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
       S.D. Fla., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and
       RAI on behalf of a putative nationwide class of purchasers
       of Natural American Spirit brand cigarettes.

     * Brattain v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
       N.D. Cal., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI
       on behalf of a putative class of California purchasers of
       Natural American Spirit brand cigarettes.

     * Rothman v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
       S.D.N.Y., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI
       on behalf of a putative class of New York purchasers of
       NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     * Dunn v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
       D.N.M., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC on behalf
       of a putative nationwide class (and Minnesota subclass) of
       purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     * Haksal v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
       D.N.M., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on
       behalf of a putative nationwide class (and California,
       Illinois, Minnesota, and New Mexico subclasses) of
       purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     * Cuebas v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
       S.D.N.Y., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI
       on behalf of a putative nationwide class (and New York
       subclass) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand
       cigarettes.

     * Okstad v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. M.D.
       Fla., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on
       behalf of a putative nationwide class and sixteen putative
       state-based subclasses (Alabama, California, Colorado,
       Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, North
       Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and
       Wisconsin subclasses) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN
       SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     * Ruggiero v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
       D.D.C., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on
       behalf of a putative nationwide class (and Maryland
       subclass) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand
       cigarettes.

     * Waldo v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. M.D.
       Fla., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on
       behalf of a putative nationwide class (and Florida
       subclass) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand
       cigarettes.

     * Grandison v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
       E.D.N.Y., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI
       on behalf of a putative nationwide class (and California,
       Florida and New York subclasses) of purchasers of NATURAL
       AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     * Gudmundson v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
       V.I., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on
       behalf of a putative class of U.S. Virgin Islands
       purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     * LeCompte v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
       D.N.M., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on
       behalf of a putative class of California purchasers of
       NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     * White v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
       D.N.M., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC on behalf
       of a putative nationwide class of purchasers of NATURAL
       AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

     * Johnston v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
       S.D Fla., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI
       on behalf of a putative nationwide class (and Florida
       subclass) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand
       cigarettes.

     * Cole v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. M.D.
       N.C., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on
       behalf of a putative nationwide class (and North Carolina
       subclass) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand
       cigarettes.

     * Hebert v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. M.D.
       N.C., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC, RAI and RJR
       Tobacco on behalf of a putative class of purchasers in
       California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts,
       Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio and
       Washington of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT cigarettes, and a
       nationwide putative class of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand
       menthol cigarette purchasers (and subclass of such
       purchasers in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois and
       New Mexico).

The transferee court entered a scheduling order requiring the
plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint. On September
19, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
naming SFNTC, RAI, and RJR Tobacco as defendants. That complaint
alleges violations of 12 states' deceptive and unfair trade
practices statutes -- California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico,
New York, Ohio, and West Virginia -- based on the use of
descriptors such as "natural," "organic" and "100% additive-free"
in the marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of SFNTC's
NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. It also asserts unjust
enrichment claims under those 12 states' laws and asserts breach
of express warranty claims on behalf of a national class of
NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT menthol purchasers.

The state deceptive and unfair trade practice statutory and unjust
enrichment claims are brought on behalf of state-specific classes
in the 12 states listed above and, in some instances, state-
specific subclasses. The consolidated amended complaint seeks
class certification, payment for class notice, injunctive relief,
monetary damages, prejudgment interest, statutory damages,
restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On November 18, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
Before responding to the motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed a
second amended class action complaint on January 12, 2017. On
February 23, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. Oral argument on the defendants' motion to
dismiss commenced on June 9, 2017 and is now completed.  A
decision is pending. The transferee court's scheduling order, as
amended, provides for the plaintiffs to file a motion for class
certification by April 3, 2018, and a hearing on the class
certification motion on July 13-14, 2018.

Reynolds American, Inc. is an American tobacco company.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing in Breathe DC Suit to End by Aug. 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that briefing on defendants'
motion to dismiss a lawsuit by a public health advocacy
organization will conclude by August 29, 2017.

On November 7, 2016, a public health advocacy organization filed
Breathe DC v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (D.C. Super.
Ct.), an action against SFNTC, RAI and RJR Tobacco based on
allegations relating to the labeling, advertising and promotional
materials for NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes that are
similar to the allegations in the actions consolidated for pre-
trial purposes in the transferee court described immediately
above. The complaint seeks injunctive and other non-monetary
relief, but does not seek monetary damages.

On December 6, 2016, the defendants removed the action to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia and, on December 7,
2016, filed a notice with the JPML to have the action transferred
to the transferee court. On December 7, 2016, the plaintiff moved
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to remand
the action to the Superior Court for the District of Columbia.

On February 14, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, and the case
was remanded to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. On
June 9, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss, and the court
entered an order providing for briefing on that motion to conclude
by August 29, 2017.

Reynolds American, Inc. is an American tobacco company.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 3 Class Action Cases Remain Dormant
------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that three class action
cases remain dormant.

In Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc. (Cir. Ct. Orleans Parish,
La., filed 1997), the plaintiff brought a class action against
U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and
parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR,
on behalf of a putative class of Louisiana residents who, though
not themselves cigarette smokers, allegedly suffered injury as a
result of exposure to ETS from cigarettes manufactured by
defendants. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount
of compensatory and punitive damages. In March 2016, the court
entered an order staying the case, including all discovery,
pending the completion of the smoking cessation program ordered by
the court in Scott v. The American Tobacco Co.

In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Ohio County, W. Va., filed
1998), the plaintiff brought a class action against asbestos
manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR
Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco, and parent companies of U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR and Lorillard, on behalf of
a putative class of persons who allegedly have personal injury
claims arising from their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers
and cigarette smoke. The plaintiff seeks to recover $1 million in
compensatory and punitive damages individually for her purported
injuries and an unspecified amount for the class in compensatory
and punitive damages. In December 2000, three defendants, Nitral
Liquidators, Inc., Desseaux Corporation of North America and
Armstrong World Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong
World Industries, Inc. Pursuant to section 362(a) of the
Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to
all defendants who filed for bankruptcy. The case remains pending
against the other defendants, including RJR Tobacco and Lorillard
Tobacco, but it has long been dormant.

In Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc. (Cir. Ct., Jackson County,
Mo., filed 1998), the plaintiff filed a class action against the
major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, B&W,
Lorillard Tobacco, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR and Lorillard, on behalf of a
putative class of Missouri tobacco product users and purchasers
who allegedly became addicted to nicotine. The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. There is
currently no activity in this case.

Reynolds American, Inc. is an American tobacco company.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Tatum" ERISA Lawsuit Ends
---------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that an ERISA litigation has
concluded.

In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee
of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an
employee of RJR Tobacco filed a class-action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging
that the defendants, RJR, RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits
Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee, violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, referred to as
ERISA.

The actions about which the plaintiff complains stem from a
decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently
renamed Nabisco Group Holdings Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin
off RJR, thereby separating NGH's tobacco business and food
business. As part of the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the
previously related entities had to be divided into two separate
plans for the now separate tobacco and food businesses. The
plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to participants of the RJR 401(k) plan when the defendants
removed the stock funds of the companies involved in the food
business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred to as Nabisco,
as investment options from the RJR 401(k) plan approximately six
months after the spin-off.

The plaintiff asserts that a November 1999 amendment (the "1999
Amendment") that eliminated the NGH and Nabisco funds from the RJR
401(k) plan on January 31, 2000, contained sufficient discretion
for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds
after January 31, 2000, and that the failure to exercise such
discretion was a breach of fiduciary duty. In his complaint, the
plaintiff requests, among other things, that the court require the
defendants to pay as damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount
equal to the subsequent appreciation that was purportedly lost as
a result of the liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds.

In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the
court granted in December 2003. In December 2004, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient
discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco
funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further
proceedings. The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot. In April
2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The
court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing
all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR
Pension Investment Committee. The plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification, which the court granted in September 2008.

A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010. On
February 25, 2013, the district court dismissed the case with
prejudice, finding that a hypothetical prudent fiduciary could
have made the same decision and thus the plan's loss was not
caused by the procedural prudence which the court found to have
existed. On August 4, 2014, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals,
referred to as Fourth Circuit, reversed, holding that the district
court applied the wrong standard when it held that the defendants
did not cause any loss to the plan, determined the test was
whether a hypothetical prudent fiduciary would have made the same
decision and remanded the case back to the district court to apply
the "would have standard."

On February 18, 2016, the district court dismissed the case with
prejudice, finding that the defendants have shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that a fiduciary acting with
prudence would have divested the NGH and Nabisco Funds at the time
and in the manner that the defendants did. On March 17, 2016, the
plaintiff appealed arguing that the district court erred in
finding that a hypothetical prudent fiduciary would have divested
the NGH and Nabisco Funds at the same time and in the same manner
as RJR.

On April 28, 2017, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district
court's judgment in favor of RJR. The plaintiff filed a petition
for rehearing en banc on May 12, 2017, which was denied on May 26,
2017. The plaintiff agreed to forgo filing a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in exchange for RJR
withdrawing its motion for costs in the district court. Therefore,
the matter has concluded.

Reynolds American, Inc. is an American tobacco company.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: BAT Petition for Review Accepted
---------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that British American
Tobacco p.l.c.'s petition to the North Carolina Supreme Court for
review of a Court of Appeals' decision has been accepted.

RAI, the members of the RAI board of directors and BAT have been
named as defendants in a putative class-action lawsuit captioned
Corwin v. British American Tobacco PLC, brought in North Carolina
state court, referred to as Corwin, by a person identifying
himself as a shareholder of RAI. Corwin was initiated on August 8,
2014, and an amended complaint was filed on November 7, 2014. The
amended complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the
members of the RAI board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to RAI shareholders by approving the share purchase by BAT
and the sharing of technology with BAT, as well as that there were
various conflicts of interest in the transaction. More
specifically, the amended complaint alleges that (1) RAI aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by its board of
directors and (2) BAT was a controlling shareholder of RAI and, as
a consequence, owed other RAI shareholders fiduciary duties in
connection with the BAT Share Purchase. Corwin seeks injunctive
relief, damages and reimbursement of costs, among other remedies.

On January 2, 2015, the plaintiff in Corwin filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin temporarily the RAI
shareholder meeting and votes scheduled for January 28, 2015. RAI
and the RAI board of directors timely opposed that motion prior to
a hearing that was scheduled to occur on January 16, 2015.

RAI believed that Corwin was without merit and that no further
disclosure was necessary to supplement the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus under applicable laws. However, to eliminate
certain burdens, expenses and uncertainties, on January 17, 2015,
RAI and the director defendants in Corwin entered into the North
Carolina Memorandum of Understanding regarding the settlement of
the disclosure claims asserted in that lawsuit. The North Carolina
Memorandum of Understanding outlines the terms of the parties'
agreement in principle to settle and release the disclosure claims
which were or could have been asserted in Corwin. In consideration
of the partial settlement and release, RAI agreed to make certain
supplemental disclosures to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus,
which it did on January 20, 2015.

On August 4, 2015, the trial court granted the defendants' motions
to dismiss all of the remaining non-disclosure claims. The
plaintiff appealed. On February 17, 2016, the trial court approved
the partial settlement, including the plaintiff's unopposed
request for $415,000 in attorneys' fees and costs. The partial
settlement did not affect the consideration paid to Lorillard
shareholders in connection with the Lorillard Merger.

On December 20, 2016, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed
the trial court's dismissal of the claims against RAI and RAI's
Board of Directors on the grounds that the plaintiff could not
state a direct claim against RAI's Board of Directors for breach
of fiduciary duties. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal
of the claims against BAT.

On January 4, 2017, BAT filed a motion for rehearing en banc of
the Court of Appeals' opinion, which was denied on February 2,
2017. BAT petitioned the North Carolina Supreme Court for review
of the Court of Appeals' decision, which was accepted on June 9,
2017.

Reynolds American, Inc. is an American tobacco company.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Class Suit over BAT Merger Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company is
defending against a class action lawsuit involing its merger with
British American Tobacco p.l.c.

On January 16, 2017, Reynolds American Inc., referred to as RAI,
British American Tobacco p.l.c., referred to as BAT, BATUS
Holdings Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of BAT, and Flight
Acquisition Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of BAT,
referred to as Merger Sub, entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, as it and the plan of merger contained therein were
amended on June 8, 2017, referred to as the Merger Agreement,
pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of
certain conditions, Merger Sub would merge with and into RAI,
referred to as the BAT Merger, with RAI surviving as a wholly
owned subsidiary of BAT.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, the BAT Merger was completed on July 25, 2017.

In connection with the Merger Agreement, two putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina against RAI and the members of the RAI
board of directors, which are captioned Drew v. Reynolds American
Inc., et al. (filed June 16, 2017), and Sneed v. Reynolds American
Inc., et al. (filed June 26, 2017), referred to as the Merger
Litigation. The complaints, which were filed by alleged RAI
shareholders, generally allege that the definitive proxy statement
that RAI filed with the SEC on June 14, 2017, referred to as the
RAI Proxy Statement, omitted certain material information in
connection with the BAT Merger in violation of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaints seek injunctive relief
to prevent the consummation of the BAT Merger unless the allegedly
material information is disclosed, damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.

RAI believes that the claims asserted in these cases are without
merit and that no supplemental disclosure was required under
applicable law. Nevertheless, in order to avoid the risk of the
Merger Litigation delaying or otherwise adversely affecting the
BAT Merger and to minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties
inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or
wrongdoing, on July 11, 2017, RAI filed supplemental disclosures
to the RAI Proxy Statement with certain additional information
relating to the BAT Merger.

Reynolds American, Inc. is an American tobacco company.


RICE ENERGY: Wilson Files Suit Over Sale to EQT Corp.
-----------------------------------------------------
Dale M. Wilson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Rice Energy, Inc., Robert F. Vagt, Daniel
J. Rice, IV, Toby Z. Rice, Daniel J. Rice, III, Kathryn J.
Jackson, James W. Christmas, John McCartney, EQT Corporation, and
Eagle Merger Sub I, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01054 (W.D.
Pa., August 11, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and permanently
enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of Rice
by EQT Corporation; rescissory damages in case the merger pushes
through; and reasonable allowance for Plaintiff's attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

EQT will acquire all of the outstanding shares of Rice for 0.37
shares of EQT common stock and $5.30 in cash per share of Rice
common stock for an implied value of $27.04 per share, making Rice
a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of EQT. Transaction is valued
at approximately $6.7 billion.

Plaintiff and other Rice shareholders claimed that the transaction
documents omitted material information concerning financial
projections prepared by the company management and EQT's
management as well as the valuation analyses performed by Barclays
Capital, Inc., the company's financial advisor. They, therefore,
are not able to assess the integrity of the process that led to
the offer or the adequacy of the consideration being offered for
their shares, says the complaint.

Rice is an independent natural gas and oil company focused on the
acquisition, exploration and development of natural gas, oil and
natural gas liquid properties in the Appalachian Basin.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
      BROWER PIVEN - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
      475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 501-9000
      Facsimile: (212) 501-0300
      Email: kuznicki@browerpiven.com

             - and -

      Alfred G. Yates, Jr.
      Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
      300 Mt. Lebanon Boulevard, Suite 206-B
      Pittsburgh, PA 15234-1507
      Telephone: (412) 391-5164
      Facsimile: (412) 471-1033
      Email: yateslaw@aol.com


RICE ENERGY: Faces "Gordon" Suit Over Merger With EQT Corp.
-----------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK GORDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RICE ENERGY, INC., ROBERT F. VAGT, DANIEL
J. RICE, IV, TOBY Z. RICE, DANIEL J. RICE, III, KATHRYN J.
JACKSON, JAMES W. CHRISTMAS and JOHN MCCARTNEY, Defendants, Case
No: 1:17-cv-01067-UNA (D. Del., August 2, 2017), alleges violation
of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act in connection with the
proposed merger between Rice and EQT Corporation.  The transaction
is valued at $6.7 billion in the aggregate.

The case claims the Board authorized the filing of a materially
incomplete and misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement in
connection with the merger.  In particular, the S-4 contains
materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i)
financial projections for the Company and EQT; and (ii) the
valuation analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor,
Barclays Capital, Inc. in support of their fairness opinion.

Rice Energy, Inc. is an independent natural gas and oil
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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


RUANE CUNNIFF: Can Compel Arbitration in DST ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge William P. Pauley, III, of the District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted Ruane's motion to compel
arbitration in the case captioned CLIVE COOPER, individually and
as a representative of a class of similarly situated plan
participants, on behalf of the DST SYSTEMS, INC. 401(K) PROFIT
SHARING PLAN, Plaintiff, v. RUANE CUNNIFF & GOLDFARB INC.,
Defendant, No. 16cv1900(S.D. N.Y.).

This ERISA action arises from the alleged mismanagement of assets
in the DST Systems, Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan.  Cooper,
individually and as representative of similarly situated Plan
participants, brings claims on behalf of the Plan, alleging
principally that the Plan's fiduciaries pursued an imprudent
investment strategy that resulted in losses exceeding $100
million.  Cooper further alleges that the Plan fiduciaries
deprived participants of timely and meaningful information
regarding their investments, including investment objectives,
strategies, portfolio holdings, and the risk levels associated
with each investment.  Moreover, he claims that conflicts of
interest between Ruane -- the Plan's investment manager -- and DST
hobbled management of the Plan, and allowed Ruane to enter into
self-dealing transactions, charge unreasonable fees, and continue
as investment manager despite years of dismal performance.  Ruane
moves to compel Cooper to arbitrate his claims, or in the
alternative, dismiss Count Three of the Complaint.

Judge Pauley finds that the claims concern a breach of fiduciary
duty specifically recognized under ERISA, not a breach of the
Investment Management Agreement.  The Investment Management
Agreement simply provides the necessary context for the formal
relationship between Ruane and DST, and clarifies the scope of
Ruane's duties and obligations vis-a-vis DST.  But Ruane's
fiduciary status, and the duties inherent to that position, do not
spring from the Investment Management Agreement. Ruane is a
fiduciary by virtue of the authority it exercises over Plan
assets.  Based on that authority, ERISA designates the investment
manager of an employee benefits plan as a fiduciary.  Moreover,
the Summary Plan Descriptions do not undermine the notion that
Cooper's claims are employment disputes subject to arbitration.
Finally, Cooper cites the ERISA-related exception in the
Arbitration Agreement as an additional basis to circumvent his
obligation to arbitrate.  But that exception applies only to
claims for benefits in accordance with a plan's reasonable
procedure for filing benefit claims.  In sum, Judge Pauley finds
that Cooper's claims regarding these funds clearly relate to his
employment by DST, and fall squarely within the scope of the
arbitration provision.

In addition, Judge Pauley held that Cooper's argument that even if
the Arbitration Agreement could be stretched to apply to Ruane, it
violates the National Labor Relations Act and the Norris-LaGuardia
Act by prohibiting collective action by employees, fails in two
respects.  First, the majority of courts have enforced collective
action waivers in arbitration agreements.  Second, signing the
Arbitration Agreement was not a condition of employment at DST.
Rather, participation in the Arbitration Program and Agreement was
entirely voluntary because all employees had the right to opt out
of the program within 30 days after receiving the Arbitration
Agreement.

For these reasons, Judge Pauley granted Ruane's motion to compel
arbitration.  The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the
motion pending at ECF No. 63 and mark the case as closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/XF6gbm from Leagle.com.

Clive V. Cooper, Plaintiff, represented by James Edward Miller,
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, pro hac vice.

Clive V. Cooper, Plaintiff, represented by Monique Olivier --
monique@dplolaw.com -- Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP, pro
hac vice & Laurie Rubinow, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah,
LLC.

Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc., Defendant, represented by Max
Garfield -- max.garfield@srz.com -- Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP,
Robert J. Ward -- robert.ward@srz.com -- Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP,
Ronald E. Richman -- ronald.richman@srz.com -- Schulte Roth &
Zabel LLP, Tariq Mundiya -- tmundiya@willkie.com -- Willkie Farr &
Gallagher LLP & Jeffrey B. Korn -- jkorn@willkie.com -- Willkie
Farr & Gallagher LLP.


SEATTLE GENETICS: Defending Against Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Seattle Genetics, Inc. is defending against a securities class
action complaint, it said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On January 10, 2017, the Company became a named defendant in a
securities class action complaint seeking compensatory damages of
an undisclosed amount. On March 29, 2017, a stockholder derivative
lawsuit was filed in Washington Superior Court for the County of
Snohomish, naming as defendants certain of the Company's current
and former executive officers and members of its board of
directors. The Company is named as a nominal defendant.

The Company does not believe it is feasible to predict or
determine the outcome or resolution of these proceedings, or to
estimate the amount of, or potential range of, loss with respect
to these proceedings. In addition, the timing of the final
resolution of these proceedings is uncertain. As a result of these
lawsuits, the Company will incur litigation expenses and may incur
indemnification expenses, and potential resolutions of the
lawsuits could include settlements requiring payments. Those
expenses could have a material impact on the Company's financial
position, results of operations, and cash flows.

Seattle Genetics is a biotechnology company focused on the
development and commercialization of targeted therapies for the
treatment of cancer.


SOS SECURITY: Faces "Musa" Lawsuit Alleging FCRA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
MUSTAFA MUSA and TREY HARDY, on behalf of themselves and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SOS SECURITY LLC,
Defendant, Case No: 2:17-cv-05681-MCA-SCM (D.N.J., August 3,
2017), alleges that Defendant routinely obtains and uses
information in consumer reports to conduct background checks on
prospective employees and existing employees, and frequently
relies on such information, in whole or in part, as a basis for
adverse employment action, such as termination, reduction of
hours, change in position, failure to hire, and failure to
promote.

The practice violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act, says the
complaint.

Defendant is a national firm providing security related services
that employs thousands of employees in the United States.
Plaintiffs are former employees.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Andrew Frisch, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN
     600 North Pine Island Road, Suite 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Phone: (954) WORKERS
     Fax: (954) 327-3013
     Email: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


SOUTHERN HEALTH: Court Denies Conditional Class Cert. in "Medley"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ELLA MEDLEY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN HEALTH
PARTNERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00003(M.D. Tenn.),
Judge Aleta A. Trauger of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, Columbia Division, denied the Medley's
Motion for Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized Notice
and denied SHP's Motion to Strike.

This is an action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), for the recovery of unpaid or improperly calculated
overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.  Plaintiff Medley, brings suit individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated employees of the Defendant,
Southern Health Partners, Inc. ("SHP").  Now, before the court is
Medley's Motion for Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized
Notice, in which the she seeks leave to pursue this case as a
collective action, under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and a Court
order directing SHP to provide her with a list of the names, last
known addresses, and last known telephone numbers of all similarly
situated current and former employees who worked for SHP during
the preceding three years.

The Plaintiff also requests approval of her proposed Notice of
this collective action to be mailed to that list of employees so
that they can choose whether to opt in as the Plaintiffs in this
litigation.  In response, besides opposing the Motion to Certify
on its merits, Defendant SHP has filed a Motion to Strike certain
statements in the Plaintiff's Declaration and an exhibit attached
to her Motion to Certify.  SHP argues that the exhibit and
portions of the Declaration constitute hearsay, double hearsay,
and/or inadmissible speculation without evidence of any personal
knowledge and, as such, may not be considered by the Court in
ruling on the Motion to Certify.

As to the Defendant's Motion to Strike, Judge Trauger finds that
neither party actually addresses the standard of review applicable
to a motion to strike or suggests the basis for the Court's
authority to strike in this context.  Rule 12(f) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure provides only that a court may strike
from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.  The Sixth Circuit
has recognized that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not
require the district court to remove documents other than
pleadings from the record in a case.  Judge Trauger therefore
denied the Motion to Strike.  He nonetheless finds it appropriate
to exclude from consideration the same evidence the Defendant
seeks to strike.

With respect to the Plaintiff's Motion to certify, the Judge finds
that the Plaintiff offers no other evidence to support her claim
that similarly situated employees exist who, like her, have been
forced to work off the clock.  Consequently, she has not made even
the "modest factual showing" required to support her bid to bring
a collective action on behalf of such similarly situated
employees.  Moreover, regardless of how the paid time off policy
was applied to the Plaintiff and regardless of its admittedly
ambiguous wording, there is no evidence before him that it or any
of SHP's other leave policies were actually applied to any other
employees paid under SHP's Fluctuating Overtime Policy.  Under
these circumstances, even applying the "modest factual showing"
standard, he again finds that the Plaintiff has not submitted
sufficient evidence to support her claim that a class of similarly
situated employees exists for purposes of pursuing her claim as a
collective action.  Therefore, Judge Trauger denied the motion to
conditionally certify a class consisting of current and former SHP
employees who were forced to work off the clock.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2017 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/bLdZOq from Leagle.com.

Ella Medley, Plaintiff, represented by Cameron Hoffmeyer, Boston,
Holt, Sockwell & Durham, PLLC.

Ella Medley, Plaintiff, represented by Emily S. Emmons --
eemmons@gilbertfirm.com -- Gilbert McWherter Scott & Bobbitt PLC,
George Benson Boston, Boston, Holt, Sockwell & Durham, PLLC & Ryan
P. Durham, Boston, Holt, Sockwell & Durham, PLLC.

Southern Health Partners, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Elizabeth S. Washko -- liz.washko@ogletree.com -- Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, L.L.P. & Lucille L. Nelson --
luci.nelson@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C.


SSA BONDS: $65M Settlement Reached with BofA, Deutsche Bank
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: SSA BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 1:16-
cv-03711-ER (S.D.N.Y.), Plaintiffs have negotiated and executed
settlement agreements with:

     -- Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A.,
        Merrill Lynch International, Bank of America Merrill
        Lynch International Limited, and Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
        Fenner & Smith Incorporated; and

     -- Deutsche Bank AG and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.

These settlements provide for the payment of a total of
$65,500,000 in monetary compensation for the benefit of members of
the proposed class of investors in sub-sovereign, supranational,
and agency bonds in this matter.

Bank of America and Deutsche Bank have also agreed to provide
substantial and meaningful cooperation to the class. Among other
things, they have agreed to provide substantial evidence to
Interim Co-Lead Counsel, including hundreds of electronic "chats"
among the alleged conspirators, which Plaintiffs believe they can
use against the remaining Defendants both at the pleading stage
and later in the case.  Cooperation evidence, initially from Bank
of America, has already played a central role in Plaintiffs'
ability to file a Consolidated Complaint on April 11, 2017, which
Plaintiffs contend contains substantial evidence supporting their
claims.

The Plaintiffs and their Interim Co-Lead Counsel tell the Court in
a Memorandum filed August 17, 2017, that they believe the
Settlement Agreements with Bank of America and Deutsche Bank are
well within the range of fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness
warranting preliminary approval.

Plaintiffs request the Court to enter the Preliminary Approval
Orders for Bank of America and Deutsche Bank.

By stipulation dated August 19, 2016, so ordered by the Court on
August 22, 2016, nine related individual actions alleging a
conspiracy to manipulate the prices of SSA bonds were consolidated
under this docket and captioned as "In re SSA Bonds Antitrust
Litigation."  After entry of the Stipulation and Consolidation
Order, five related actions were filed and thereafter consolidated
with the nine prior actions as Subsequent Actions.

The Court appointed these firms as Interim Co-Lead Counsel on
December 22, 2016:

Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel and Counsel for Plaintiffs Sheet
Metal Workers Pension Plan of Northern California and Iron Workers
Pension Plan of Western Pennsylvania and the Proposed Class:

     David W. Mitchell, Esq.
     Brian O. O'Mara
     Carmen A. Medici
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 231-1058
     Fax: (619) 231-7423
     E-mail: davidm@rgrdlaw.com
             bomara@rgrdlaw.com
             cmedici@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

     QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
     Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
     Sascha N. Rand, Esq.
     Steig D. Olson, Esq.
     Thomas J. Lepri, Esq.
     51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
     New York, New York 10010
     Telephone: (212) 849-7000
     Fax: (212) 849-7100
     E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com
             sascharand@quinnemanuel.com
             steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
             thomaslepri@quinnemanuel.com

          - and -

     Jeremy D. Andersen, Esq.
     Adam B. Wolfson
     865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Telephone: (213) 443-3000
     Fax: (213) 443-3100
     E-mail: jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com
             adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com

Counsel for Plaintiff KBC Asset Management NV and Additional
Counsel for the Class:

     Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
     MOTLEY RICE LLC
     600 Third Avenue, Suite 2101
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 577-0040
     Fax: (212) 577-0054
     E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com

          - and -

     Ann K. Ritter, Esq., Esq.
     Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq.
     MOTLEY RICE LLC
     28 Bridgeside Blvd.
     Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
     Telephone: (843) 216-9000
     Fax: (843) 216-9450
     E-mail: aritter@motleyrice.com
             cmoriarty@motleyrice.com


STAR GAS: No Class Has Yet Been Certified in New Jersey Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Star Gas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that no class has yet been
certified in a civil action in New Jersey.

On February 18, 2016, a civil action was filed in the United
States District Court, District of New Jersey, entitled M. Norman
Donnenfeld v. Petro Home Services, Petro Holdings Inc. and Petro,
Inc., Civil Action Number 2:16-cv-00882 JMV-JBC, against Petro
Home Services which is a brand name, Petro Holdings Inc. and
Petro, Inc. Plaintiff alleged he did not receive expected
contractual benefits under his protected price plan contract when
oil prices fell and asserted various claims for relief including
breach of contract, violation of the New York General Business Law
and fraud. The Plaintiff also sought to have a class certified of
all customers of the defendants in the United States who entered
into protected price plan contracts and were denied the same
contractual benefits and to be appointed to represent them. The
Plaintiff sought compensatory, punitive and other damages in
unspecified amounts. On May 9, 2016, the Partnership filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction
and failure to state a claim for relief and to strike the class
action allegations. On March 24, 2017, the motion to dismiss the
complaint was granted, for failure to state a claim and for lack
of personal jurisdiction but Plaintiff was given 30 days to
attempt to replead.

Instead of filing an amended complaint, on April 18, 2017,
Plaintiff commenced a new putative class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
entitled M. Norman Donnenfeld v. Petro, Inc., Civil Action Number
2:17-cv-02310-JFB-SIL. The new complaint names Petro, Inc. d/b/a
Petro Home Services as the sole defendant. The allegations and
claims in the new complaint are substantially similar to those in
the prior complaint filed in the District of New Jersey. No class
has yet been certified in this action. The Partnership believes
the allegations lack merit and intends to vigorously defend the
action; at this time the Company cannot assess the potential
outcome or materiality of this matter.

Star Gas Partners, L.P. is a full service provider specializing in
the sale of home heating products and services to residential and
commercial customers.


STATE FARM: Faces "Castenada" Suit in C. Dist. of Ill.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm Mutual
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Aaron Castenada and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. State Farm Mutual
Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-mc-01017-JBM-JEH (C.D.
Ill., August 17, 2017).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bill G. Horton, Esq.
   Nolan, Caddell& Reynolds, PA
   211 N 2nd Street
   Rogers, AR 72756
   Tel: (479) 464-8269
   Fax: (479) 200-2003

The Defendant is represented by:

   Syed E Ahmad, Esq.
   HEYL ROYSTER VOELKER & ALLEN
   300 Hamilton Boulevard
   PO Box 6199
   Peoria, IL 61601-6199
   Tel: (309) 676-0400
   Fax: (309) 676-3374
   Email: sahmad@heylroyster.com


SWAMI LLC: Faces "Mughal" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
SHEHROZ MUGHAL, and all others similarly situated,  Plaintiffs, v.
SMITABEN HIREN PATEL; ILESH PATEL; HIREN JASHVANTBHAI PATEL;
SWAMI, LLC; MAHANT SWAMI, INC.; BHAKTI SWAMI, LLC; PRAMUKHJI
ENTERPRISE, INC.; PRAMUKHTIRTH, INC.; PRAMUKHTIRTH PROPERTY, LLC;
NILKANTH NARAYAN, LLC; GHANSHAYAM ENTERPRISE, LLC; AND SHREEJI
MARAJH ENTERPRISE, LLC, Defendants, Case No: 4:17-cv-02355 (S.D.
Tex., August 2, 2017), alleges that employees have been victimized
by Defendants' ill-conceived patterns, practices, and policies
that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, in that other similarly
situated employees have been, and are being, denied their lawful
wages.

Purported members of the "Plaintiff Class" are current and former
hourly and non-exempt salaried employees of Defendants to whom the
Defendants have denied overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 in one or more workweek.  Defendants and/or
Defendants' "enterprise" employed Mr. Mughal as a store clerk.[BN]

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

     Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
     ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
     One Arena Place
     7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920
     Houston, TX 77074
     Phone: (713) 223-1300
     Fax: (713) 255-0013
     Email: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


THRESHOLD PHARMACEUTICALS: Stipulation to Dismiss Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California has denied
a Stipulation to voluntarily dismiss a class action lawsuit.

On May 25, 2017, Ron Welk, a purported stockholder of Threshold,
sent Threshold a demand letter and draft complaint alleging that
(1) Threshold and the members of its Board of Directors, or the
Board, violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, by filing a proxy statement, which allegedly failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented material information about the
proposed merger with Molecular Templates, Inc., or the Merger, and
(2) the members of the Board, as control persons of Threshold,
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the
filing of the allegedly materially deficient proxy statement.  Mr.
Welk demanded that Threshold provide certain corrective
disclosures to the proxy statement/prospectus/information
statement.

On June 20, 2017, Victor Pariso, a purported stockholder of
Threshold, or the Plaintiff, filed a putative class action
complaint against Threshold and members of its Board in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
This case is captioned Pariso v. Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-03557-WHA. The complaint alleges that (1)
Threshold and the members of its Board violated Section 14(a) of
the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by filing
this proxy statement/prospectus/information statement, which
allegedly fails to disclose and/or misrepresents material
information about the proposed merger, and (2) the members of
Threshold's Board of directors, as control persons of Threshold,
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the
filing of the allegedly materially deficient proxy
statement/prospectus/information statement. The Plaintiff has
asked the District Court to, among other things, (i) enjoin the
defendants from proceeding with the proposed merger, (ii) rescind,
to the extent already implemented, the proposed merger or grant
rescissory damages, and (iii) award damages and attorneys' fees
and expenses.

On June 27, 2017, Threshold filed an amendment to the Form S-4
with the SEC containing certain supplemental disclosures.  After
the SEC declared the Form S-4 effective on June 30, 2017,
Threshold filed with the SEC a final prospectus/proxy
statement/information statement also containing the supplemental
disclosures pursuant to Rule 424(b)(3) promulgated under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

On July 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed a stipulation to voluntarily
dismiss the Action with prejudice as to himself because he
believes the supplemental disclosures mooted the claims set forth
in the complaint, or the Stipulation.  In voluntarily dismissing
the Action, Plaintiff asked the Court to retain jurisdiction for
the sole purpose of determining any potential application for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses, and to set a briefing
schedule to resolve any potential fee dispute that may arise.

On July 26, 2017, the District Court denied the Stipulation
because the Civil Local Rules provide specific procedures, from
which the District Court was not inclined to deviate, to move for
an award of fees.

On March 16, 2017, Threshold entered into the merger agreement
with Molecular pursuant to which the security holders of Molecular
will become the majority owners of Threshold common stock.

Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") is a biotechnology
company using its expertise in the tumor microenvironment to
discover and develop therapeutic agents that selectively target
tumor cells for the treatment of patients living with cancer.


TRENDY COLLECTIONS: "Hernandez" Lawsuit Alleges FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
GILBERTO HERNANDEZ, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b), Plaintiff, v. TRENDY COLLECTIONS, LLC,
INDERTJIT S. DHANI, and RAJINDER S. SINGH, Defendants, Case No:
3:17-cv-02049-G (N.D. Tex., August 2, 2017), alleges that
Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act as
Defendants knew of the overtime requirements of the FLSA and
recklessly failed to investigate whether their payroll practices
were in accordance with the Act.

Defendant is a designer, manufacturer, importer, and distributor
of handicrafts, gift items, and other decorative accessories for
home and business.  Plaintiff, GILBERTO HERNANDEZ, worked for
Defendants as a warehouse worker and truck driver.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq.
     Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
     6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112
     Dallas, TX 75240
     Phone: (972) 233-2264
     Fax: (972) 386-7610
     Email: zabogado@aol.com
            rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
            josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


TRI-MED HOME: "Wallace" Hits Contract Breach, Seek OT Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Saida Wallace, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tri-Med Home Care Services,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 157235/2017, (N.Y. Sup., August 11,
2017), seeks to recover wages and benefits, minimum wages,
overtime compensation, spread-of-hours compensation, reimbursement
for business expenses, damages arising from breach of contract,
interest and attorneys' fees and costs under New York Labor Laws.

Wallace was formerly employed by Tri-Med Home Care Services, Inc.
to provide personal care, assistance, health-related tasks and
other home care services to Defendant's clients within the State
of New York.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
      Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 943-9080
      Fax: (212) 943-9082
      Email: llusher@vandallp.com

             - and -

     Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
     NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
     2747 Coney Island Ave
     Brooklyn, NY 11235
     Tel: (718) 808-2224
     Fax: (718) 808-2224
     Email: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


TRINITY REVERSE: Faces "Brailsford" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trinity Reverse
Mortgage. The case is styled as Rebecca Brailsford, on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Carol Therese Dana-
Fullam, Does 1 to 100, Michael Robert Fullam and Trinity Reverse
Mortgage, Defendants, Case No. 34-2017-00217620-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super. Ct., August 17, 2017).

Trinity Reverse Mortgage is a brokerage firm specializing in
finding custom solutions for seniors looking for income
assistance.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


US BANK: Faces "Moseman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Moseman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. U.S. Bank National Association, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00481-GCM (W.D.N.C., August 14, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

U.S. Bank National Association provides banking, investment,
mortgage, trust, and payment services products to individuals,
businesses, governmental entities, and other financial
institutions nationwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      15720 Brixham Hill Ave., Suite 331
      Charlotte, NC 28277
      Telephone: (704) 612 0038
      E-mail: pgibbons@stephanzouras.com

         - and -

      James B. Zouras, Esq.
      Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 233 1550
      E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
              tbecvar@stephanzouras.com

WAL-MART: Johnson Sues Over Negligent Bike Assembly Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
Boyd Johnson, Michelle Stone, Z.H., a minor, by and through his
father and next friend, T.E.H., Dwight S. Cenac, Johnny Alfredo
Martinez, and Michael Angelo Espinoza, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No.
9:17-cv-80943-RLR (S.D. Fla., August 14, 2017), seeks to put an
end to Walmart's negligent bike assembly policies and to recover
damages for those class members that have suffered injury due to
Walmart's negligence.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates as a chain of hypermarkets,
discount department stores, and grocery stores throughout the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yechezkel Rodal, Esq.
      RODAL LAW, P.A.
      3201 Griffin Road, Suite 203
      Dania Beach, FL 33312
      Telephone: (954) 367-5308
      Facsimile: (954) 900-1208
      E-mail: Chezky@Rodallaw.com


WATERSTONE MORTGAGE: Liable for Unpaid Wages in "Herrington" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Waterstone Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that in the case, Herrington
v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation, an arbitrator has issued a
final award finding Waterstone Mortgage liable for unpaid minimum
wages, overtime, unreimbursed business expenses, and liquidated
damages.

Waterstone Mortgage Corporation is a defendant in a class action
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin and subsequently compelled to arbitration
before the American Arbitration Association. The plaintiff class
alleged that Waterstone Mortgage Corporation violated certain
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and failed to
pay loan officers consistent with their various employment
agreements.

On July 5, 2017, the arbitrator issued a final award finding
Waterstone Mortgage Corporation liable for unpaid minimum wages,
overtime, unreimbursed business expenses, and liquidated damages
under the FLSA.  The arbitrator awarded damages under the FLSA in
the amount of $7.3 million, and attorney's fees and costs in the
amount of $3.3 million.

While a judgment confirming the arbitrator's award with respect to
damages and fees has not yet been issued, if plaintiff prevails on
her theories, the Company has estimated that the award, which
includes attorney's fees and costs, could be as high as $11.0
million.

Waterstone Mortgage Corporation will continue to vigorously defend
its interests in this matter, including challenging any findings
regarding liability and damages through appropriate post-
arbitration motions and appeal processes and seeking to vacate in
its entirety any award against the Company.

"Given the pending legal strategies that are available, we do not
believe that it is probable that the plaintiff will ultimately
prevail in this litigation, and estimate the low end of the
possible range of loss is $0. In accordance with the authoritative
guidance in evaluating contingencies, the Company has not recorded
an accrual related to this matter," the Company said.

WaterStone Bank SSB (the "Bank") is a community bank that has
served the banking needs of its customers since 1921. WaterStone
Bank also has an active mortgage banking segment, Waterstone
Mortgage Corporation.


WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Recovered $4 Mil. from Insurers
----------------------------------------------------------
Weatherford International public limited company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 1, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that
the Company is pursuing reimbursement from insurance carriers and
recovered $23 million of the Securities Class Action Settlement
amount to date, of which $4 million was recovered in the second
quarter of 2017.

The Company said, "On June 30, 2015, we signed a stipulation to
settle a shareholder securities class action captioned Freedman v.
Weatherford International Ltd., et al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK
(S.D.N.Y.) for $120 million subject to notice to the class and
court approval. The Freedman lawsuit had been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York in March
2012, and alleged that we and certain current and former officers
of Weatherford violated the federal securities laws in connection
with the restatements of the Company's historical financial
statements announced on February 21, 2012 and July 24, 2012. On
November 4, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York entered a final judgment and an order
approving the settlement. Pursuant to the settlement, we were
required to pay $120 million, which was partially funded by
insurance proceeds. There was no admission of liability or fault
by a party in connection with the settlement."

Weatherford International public limited company principally
provides products, equipment and services to the oil and natural
gas exploration and production industry, both on land and
offshore, through the Company's three business groups: (1)
Formation Evaluation and Well Construction and (2) Completion and
Production, and (3) Land Drilling Rigs, which together include the
company's product lines.


WELLS FARGO: Faces "Heiman" Suit Over Auto Insurance Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Heiman and Misty Alexander, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo & Company, Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., d/b/a Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc., Balboa
Insurance Company, National General Insurance Company, Dawn Martin
Harp; Bill Katafias; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
8:17-cv-01395 (C.D. Cal., August 14, 2017), arises out of the
Defendants' unlawful, abusive and unfair practices with respect to
"force-placed" automobile insurance policies, called "collateral
protection insurance" (CPI), which practices included, among other
things: (a) purchasing CPI and/or charging borrowers for CPI whose
voluntary automobile insurance had not lapsed; (b) charging class
members fees and interest related to the unlawfully purchased CPI;
(c) receiving commissions and/or other things of value from
providers of CPI; (d) forcing borrowers to pay for duplicative
insurance coverage; (e) wrongfully reporting borrowers as
delinquent and/or wrongly repossessing vehicles in connection with
the scheme; (f) using the mail and wires to conduct a scheme to
defraud Plaintiff and the Class by unlawful purchasing and
charging borrowers for unnecessary CPI; (g) misrepresenting that
the Defendants were force-placing insurance on the Plaintiffs' and
Class Members' automobiles lawfully, but instead, doing so as a
means of generating illicit, unreasonable and unwarranted
financial benefits for each of the Defendants, and (h) conspiring
to take advantage of their contractual authority to issue CPI to
the Plaintiffs and Class members pursuant to prearranged
agreements that return an undisclosed and improper financial
benefit to each
Defendant.

Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., d/b/a Wells
Fargo Dealer Services, Inc. are providers of banking, mortgage,
investing, credit card, insurance, and personal, small business,
and commercial financial services.

Balboa Insurance Company and National General Insurance Company
offer property and casualty insurance services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel L. Germain, Esq.
      ROSMAN & GERMAIN LLP
      16311 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
      Encino, CA 91436-2152
      Telephone: (818) 788-0877
      Facsimile: (818) 788-0885
      E-mail: Germain@Lalawyer.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Erin J. Illman, Esq.
      BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
      214 N. Tyron Street, Suite 3700
      Charlotte, NC 28202
      Telephone: (704) 338-6123
      Facsimile: (704) 332-8858
      E-mail: eillman@bradley.com

         - and -

      Robert R. Maddox, Esq.
      Keith S. Anderson, Esq.
      Alison C. Smith, Esq.
      BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
      One Federal Place
      1819 Fifth Avenue
      North Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 521-8000
      Facsimile: (205) 521-8800
      E-mail: rmaddox@bradley.com
              kanderson@bradley.com
              acsmith@bradley.com


WILKES-BARRE, PA: Slavish Files Suit v. Housing Authority
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The City of Wilkes-
Barre, Pennsylvania Housing Authority. The case is styled as
Catherine Slavish, Karima Ahmad, Kenneath Barnes, Ethel Carter
Farmer, Martha Corbett, Michele Hallock, Mary Kowalczyk, Donna
Linderman, Bettie Mangum, Victor Mariano, Gary Matthews, Charles
Maury, Alan Newton, David Smith, Emily Webster, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. The
City of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania Housing Authority (an agency of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania) and Donna Kozak Property
Manager, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01468-RDM (M.D. Pa., August
17, 2017).

The City of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania Housing Authority is a
public housing agency in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Peter C Wood, Jr., Esq.
   Law Office of Peter C. Wood, Jr., PC
   230 Wyoming Avenue, Suite 5
   Kingston, PA 18704
   Tel: (570) 234-0442
   Email: peter@pcwlawoffice.com


YINGLI GREEN: Court Dismisses Third Amended Complaint in "Knox"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KEVIN T. KNOX; NOE BAROCIO; SALVADOR
BAROCIO; CINDY CONYBEAR, each individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. YINGLI GREEN ENERGY
HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED; LIANSHENG MIAO; YIYU WANG; and ZONGWEI
"BRIAN" LI, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-04003-ODW(MRWx), c/w: No.
2:15-cv-04600-ODW (MRWx)( C.D. Cal.), Judge Otis D. Wright, II, of
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted Yingli's Motion to Dismiss and denied as moot its Motion
to Strike.

This is a putative class action for securities fraud under
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Yingli, a company that sells
solar energy products, defrauded its investors by making false or
misleading public statements about (i) the company's involvement
in a government subsidy program, the Golden Sun Program; and (ii)
the collectability of an outstanding debt in the amount of RMB
75.3 million owed by Shanghai Chaori Solar Energy Science &
Technology Co. Ltd..

The Court has twice dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint for
failure to comply with the relevant pleading requirements.  After
the most recent dismissal, the Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated
Third Amended Complaint, which Yingli now moves to dismiss on a
variety of grounds. (Yingli has also moved to strike the expert
declaration of Harris L. Devor, CPA, that the Plaintiffs attached
to the complaint.

Judge Wright finds the current iteration of the complaint fares no
better.  The few new allegations pleaded concerning Golden Sun
still use the same vague quantifiers and generalities that the
Court previously held to be insufficient.  Without knowing facts
such as how many companies had this purported policy and how many
projects this policy affected, he cannot conclude that the fraud
was so pervasive throughout the entire solar industry that
Yingli's upper management could not possibly have been ignorant of
it and its potential to shutter the Golden Sun Program.  The Judge
therefore dismissed this theory.  Moreover, as the Plaintiffs' new
allegations are of the same type that the Court previously held to
be insufficient, Judge Wright denied leave to amend.

He further dismissed the Plaintiffs' accounting fraud theory and
declined to grant leave to amend.  This is the fourth iteration of
the complaint and the Plaintiffs' fourth attempt to plead a viable
accounting fraud theory.  Even though Yingli did not previously
attack this theory based on a failure to establish loss causation,
he cannot see how the Plaintiffs could cure the deficiency.
Yingli's 2015 disclosures do not specifically identify Chaori as
the debtor whose receivable was listed as doubtful and/or written
off, and did not disclose Yingli's accounting practices with
respect to the Chaori debt.  An amended complaint cannot change
this.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wright granted Yingli's Motion to
Dismiss and denied as moot its Motion to Strike.  He further
ordered that the Plaintiffs to show cause, in writing only, no
later than Aug. 18, 2017, why the Court should not dismiss the
Defendants Liansheng Miao, Yiyu Wang, and Zongwei "Brian" Li
without prejudice based on their failure to serve them with the
complaint within the Rule 4(m) period.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 15, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/C2hAva from Leagle.com.

Kevin T. Knox, Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Zevi Glancy --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP.

Kevin T. Knox, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay --
rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP.

Noe Barocio, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm PA, Jonathan R. Horne
-- jhorne@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm PA, pro hac vice &
Phillip Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm PA, pro
hac vice.

Salvador Barocio, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen, The
Rosen Law Firm PA, Jonathan R. Horne, The Rosen Law Firm PA, pro
hac vice & Phillip Kim, The Rosen Law Firm PA, pro hac vice.

Cindy Conybear, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan R. Horne, The
Rosen Law Firm PA, pro hac vice & Laurence M. Rosen, The Rosen Law
Firm PA.

Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited, Defendant,
represented by Chet A. Kronenberg -- ckronenberg@stblaw.com --
Simpson Thacher and Bartlett LLP, Colin Rolfs --
colin.rolfs@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher and Bartlett LLP &
JoAnne S. Jennings -- joanne.jennings@stblaw.com -- Simpson
Thacher and Bartlett LLP.


YORK HEALTHCARE: "Wallace" Hits Contract Breach, Seeks OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saida Wallace, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. York Healthcare LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 157236/2017, (N.Y. Sup., August 11, 2017), seeks to
recover wages and benefits, minimum wages, overtime compensation,
spread-of-hours compensation, reimbursement for business expenses,
damages arising from breach of contract, interest and attorneys'
fees and costs under New York Labor Laws.

Wallace was formerly employed by York Healthcare to provide
personal care, assistance, health-related tasks and other home
care services to Defendant's clients within the State of New York.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
      Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 943-9080
      Fax: (212) 943-9082
      Email: llusher@vandallp.com


ZTO EXPRESS: Jian Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------
Jian Guo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc., Meisong Lai,
Jianmin (James) Guo, Jianf A Lai, Jilei Wang, Xiangliang Hu, Baixi
Lan, Xin G Liu, Frank Zhen Wei, Morgan Stanley & Co. International
PLC, Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C., China Renaissance Securities
(Hong Kong) Limited, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse
Securities (USA) LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and Does 1-25,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05936 (C.D. Cal., August
10, 2017), asserts strict liability claims under Sec. 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against ZTO, its officers and
directors and the underwriters of the October 2016 initial public
stock offering.

ZTO is a Chinese logistics company that provides shipping and
delivery services to merchants on e-commerce platforms like
Alibaba. In October 2016, ZTO commenced the IPO over 7.2 million
shares at $19.59 per share, all pursuant to the Registration
Statement. It failed to disclose that two quarters before the IPO,
ZTO had lowered its network transit fees to subsidize its network
partners in response to increased operating costs, pricing
pressure, competition and other negative market conditions. Said
statement further failed to disclose the consequent negative
impact on ZTO's revenue, margins, earnings and forecasts. Shortly
after the IPO, price of ZTO American Depositary Shares plummeted,
from $19.50 per share offering price to $12 per share, a nearly
43% decline. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     James L. Jaconette, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Fax: (619) 231-7423
     Phone: (619) 231-1058

            - and -

     Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
     Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
     Nichole T. Browning, Esq.
     Eric M. Carrino, Esq.
     ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
     600 B Street, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 525-3990
     Fax: (619) 525-3991



                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belluck & Fox Awarded Best Lawyers in America(R)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Experienced mesothelioma lawyers, Belluck & Fox, LLP are proud to
announce that three lawyers from their New York firm have been
awarded placement in the current installment of Best Lawyers. The
organization awards lawyers based solely on peer review, and
covers various categories of law, including litigation, class
action, family law, and medical malpractice. Attorneys Joseph W.
Belluck, Jordan Fox, and James C. Long, Jr. have all enjoyed
placement in the Best Lawyers in America(R) list, with Long
receiving a 2017 Lawyer of the Year award.

Those selected for the Best Lawyers in America(R) placement are
nominated by peer review from other lawyers in their practice
area. While being selected for placement in the Best Lawyers in
America list is an achievement in itself, individual attorneys can
also be selected for the additional recognition of Lawyer of the
Year. This award is given to those attorneys who achieved the
highest peer feedback overall for a specific geographical location
and practice area. Attorney James C. Long, Jr. of Belluck & Fox,
LLP has been selected for the 2017 Lawyer of the Year award in the
area of Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions -- Plaintiffs in New
York City. This marks the second Lawyer of the Year award for the
firm overall, with attorney Jordan Fox being given the honor in
2013 for the same area of practice.

Belluck & Fox, LLPis nationally recognized for their
representation of individuals and families with asbestos and
mesothelioma claims. Joe Belluck, founding partner of the legal
firm, is best known for his unparalleled experience and legal work
in mesothelioma and asbestos litigation and his ethical standards.
This has helped Attorney Belluck to foster a reputation for his
legal practice as the 'go-to' choice for the most important
mesothelioma cases nationwide. Belluck is known by his peers and
clientele as being a compassionate and dedicated attorney when it
comes to representing injured workers and consumers.

Attorney Joseph W. Belluck is AV Preeminent Rated by Martindale-
Hubbell; an award recognizing only those attorneys with the
highest ethical and professional standards. In addition, Belluck
has enjoyed continuous listing in The Best Lawyers in America(R)
and SuperLawyers since 2009. Widely regarding amongst his legal
peers for his ethics and expertise, attorney Belluck volunteers
many of his free hours to legal organizations and not-for-profit
groups in his area, and has been appointed to several government
commissions and boards.

The legal team of Belluck & Fox is driven by compassion and
motivated by justice when it comes to helping asbestos and
mesothelioma victims reach fair compensation for their claims. The
law firm has an unmatched record of success as a nationally
renowned provider of mesothelioma claims representation. Belluck &
Fox have been able to recover more than $800 million for their
mesothelioma clients, with $30 million in verdicts and two major
appeals in New York' highest court being reported in 2016 alone.

Belluck & Fox, LLP is an experienced team of lawyers dedicated to
helping victims of mesothelioma receive fair compensation for
their legal claims. The law firm is located at 546 5th Ave, 4th
Floor in New York, New York (10036). The firm can be reached by
phone at (212)681-1575, or from their website,
https://www.belluckfox.com/.

Media Contact
Company Name: Belluck & Fox, LLP
Contact Person: Joseph W. Belluck
Email: marketing@belluckfox.com
Phone: (212) 681-1575
Address:546 5th Ave, 4th Floor
City: New York
State: New York
Country: United States
Website: https://www.belluckfox.com/


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Greater Hume Shire Says Pay Falls Short
--------------------------------------------------------
David Johnston, writing for Eastern Riverina Chronicle, reported
that anger has erupted over loose-fill asbestos compensation claim
guidelines across Holbrook.

According to the Greater Hume Shire's interpretation of the state-
government's guidelines, only affected property owners aiming to
rebuild will be able to meet the stringent conditions.

Frustrations over the fine print details exploded at a meeting.

Less than half of the 38 impacted properties in the shire will be
in line for compensation, according to the mayor.

Councillor Healther Wilton said there could be as few as 10 to 12
properties eligible.

As a Holbrook resident, Cr Wilton said the situation was
"harrowing".

Council has been advised if a resident received $100,000 for their
property and had to buy a lesser standard property for $130,000,
the $30,000 gap would not meet the guidelines.

General manager Steve Pinnuck said the government and loose fill
asbestos task force had not grasped of the market forces,
previously raised by council.

"A number of the people who are affected have very low value homes
and while they are getting market value, there were no other
houses in Holbrook for that amount of compensation," Mr. Pinnuck
said.  "They have to get some money from somewhere, borrow, take
from their superannuation, but these are retired pensioners.

Mr. Pinnuck said (the government and task force) would not accept
that as a valid reason to pay additional money.

Cr Denise Osborne said it "was real world stuff".

"This is not getting $3 million for your house in Sydney," Cr
Osborne said.

"This is a rural town where people, who have lived all their
lives, should not be pushed out or put in a situation where they
have to rent for the rest of their lives, simply because they
can't replace their home.

"They're not in the real world."

The council is accepting all submissions to form part of a single
funding proposal to the NSW government, with a deadline of August
30.

It has been recently announced people can apply re-apply for
testing.

"What happens if someone, in three months time, finds out they
have got loose fill asbestos and they do want to rebuild?" Mr.
Pinnuck said.

"They've missed the boat.

"There are people who can justify a claim and we need to make sure
we don't compromise their position, but we need to make sure we
get the best outcome for the remainder."

Also included in the fine print is that every $5 paid by the NSW
Government must be matched $1 from council.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Negligence Could Result in Stop Orders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Balzer, writing for My Prince George Now, reported that
WorkSafeBC is reporting 44 construction worker deaths in 2017 so
far, as a result of asbestos exposure.

The agency is reaching out once more to all businesses in better
protecting their employees and any negligence could end in stop-
work orders and fines.

"We wanted to get homeowners to understand their
responsibilities," says Vice President of WorkSafeBC Prevention
Services.  "Now, we're really ramping up our direction to asbestos
contractors, demolition contractors, and general renovation
contractors so that they know what they need to do when it comes
to asbestos."

He adds they're sending out officers to perform workplace
inspections.

"With that approach, we want to remind them, if you will, of their
responsibilities so then hopefully, when our officers do come out
and inspect their sites, they're doing everything right and we
catch them doing it right that way."

Since 2007, there have been 605 deaths from asbestos-related
diseases, which Johnson calls an alarming number.

Buildings built before 1990 being renovated is most vulnerable to
asbestos growth and exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Witness Permitted to Testify
----------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma.net reported that when a person is diagnosed with
malignant mesothelioma or another asbestos-related disease and
decides to pursue legal action against those who are responsible,
they need to know that they face a long and often frustrating
road.

Though it has been well established that mesothelioma is caused by
exposure to asbestos, the companies that they identify as being
responsible for their exposure to the carcinogenic material will
do everything they can to avoid legal and financial
responsibility. This is why it is so important for the victim to
make sure that they are working with legal professionals who are
well aware of asbestos company tactics, and prepared to fight for
their rights. An excellent example of this was recently seen in a
California case in which the asbestos company fought against the
mesothelioma victim' family' expert witness being allowed to
testify.

Asbestos exposure has been named the cause of many diseases beyond
mesothelioma. In the case of William Duty, a drywall taper, the
diagnosis was colon cancer. Mr. Duty died of the disease in 2010,
and his widow and three children filed a claim against TRZ Realty
LLC and a number of other defendants, holding his occupational
exposure to asbestos responsible for his cancer and subsequent
death. Before the lawsuit could begin to be heard in court, TRZ
moved to disqualify the expert witness that the family was using
to support their claims: they argued that he was not qualified.

Using an expert witness is an integral part of almost every
personal injury lawsuit, including those involving mesothelioma
and other asbestos-related diseases. These experts provide
essential information for a jury to consider as they weigh whether
an asbestos company is at fault or not. In this case the expert is
Dr. Revels Cayton, a medical doctor who specializes in multiple
areas of practice, including gastroenterology and oncology. Dr.
Cayton testified that he had studied asbestos related diseases for
over thirty years, but TRZ moved for his testimony to be barred,
and the original court hearing the case agreed. An appeals court
has now overruled that decision and will permit his testimony at
trial. The Court of Appeals of California determined that the
initial decision was incorrect. They also ordered that the family
be provided reimbursement for their court expenses in filing the
appeal.

If you or someone you love is facing mesothelioma or another
asbestos-related disease, you need to know that the system is
working and that people are on your side. At Mesothelioma.net, we
are here to make sure you have all the resources you need. For
more information on how we can help, contact us at 1-800-692-8608.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Couple Says Corps. Failed to Warn of Effects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for St. Louis Record, reported that a
couple is suing multiple corporations, citing alleged failure to
protect and failure to warn of the dangerous effects of asbestos.

Henry W. Johnson Jr. and Elizabeth L. Johnson filed a complaint in
the St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court against A.W. Chesterton
Co., Allied Paint & Wallpaper Co. Inc., Black & Veatch Holding
Co., et al., alleging the defendants failed their duty to exercise
reasonable care and caution for the safety of its employees and
others working with or around the products.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that between
1961 and 1977, Henry Johnson worked with and around materials,
products, equipment and conditions and was thereby exposed to,
inhaled, ingested and otherwise absorbed asbestos and asbestos
fibers. Henry Johnson claims he suffers from asbestos-related
diseases and first became aware of the disease on April 26.

The plaintiffs allege the defendants 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 for
compensatory damages in excess of $25,000 and for costs, pre and
post-judgment interest, and such other and further relief as the
court deems appropriate. They are represented by Brian J. Cooke
and Andrew Murrie of Simmons Hanly Conroy in Alton, Illinois.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1722-CC108


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hillshire Owes $13MM Over Asbestos Death
---------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, writing for Law360, reported that Tyson Foods Inc.
unit Hillshire Brands Co. was slapped with a $13 million verdict
after a California federal jury found the company had negligently
allowed a resident of a company town to be exposed to asbestos for
years, eventually leading to his death.

Mark Lopez had grown up in Betteravia, California, a so-called
company town, a village set up in the late 1890s by the Union
Sugar Refining Co., in housing owned by Hillshire near the sugar
refinery, court records show. The company didn't take safety
precautions to protect its workers or town residents from asbestos
exposure, his family alleged in a version of the state court suit
filed in October 2015 after Lopez' death.

Living with Hillshire meant decades of exposure to asbestos
without protection or safety precautions as the material was
dragged into his home by his father and grandfather from the
factory, according to the suit, which accused Hillshire and a
handful of other companies of having a hand in Lopez's
mesothelioma death.

The jury awarded $11 million in noneconomic damages and $2 million
in economic damages to Lopez' family in the verdict.

"The Lopez family is grateful to the jury for recognizing how
special Mark Lopez was, his importance to each of them, and for
holding Hillshire fully accountable," Lawrence Gornick of Kaiser
Gornick LLP, who represented the family, said in a statement
Thursday.

Tyson Foods bought Hillshire Brands in August 2014, and Hillshire
itself took over the Betteravia grounds after a chain of owners
from Union Sugar to Sara Lee, court records show.

Caroline Ahn, a spokeswoman for Tyson said the company plans to
seek reversal on appeal.

"Our sympathies are with the Lopez family but we do not believe
the death of Mark Lopez was caused by anything that may have
occurred at the Union Sugar plant in 1960s or '70s," Ahn said.
"The Union Sugar facility was sold to another company in 1986,
more than 28 years before Tyson Foods purchased Hillshire Brands
in 2014."

Betteravia was Union Sugar' company town, built in 1897 to house
the workers at its refinery. The premises included land, lakes, a
dump, homes, a hotel, a church, a store, a school and other
buildings as well as the sugar beet processing plant and its
related buildings and yards, according to the suit.

Lopez lived there from 1954 to the mid-1960s before leaving for
the nearby town of Santa Maria, where he lived with his father,
who was still working at the refinery and allegedly carrying
asbestos from Betteravia into the family' new home, according to
the suit.

But even in the 1950s, the industrial, scientific and medical
communities knew that specific precautions had to be taken when
working with asbestos, the Lopez family alleged. For example,
companies were supposed to reduce the use of asbestos and require
the use of protective clothing and gear for workers who were
exposed to it, mandate the use of laundry and shower facilities
for workers exposed to asbestos, and wet down the material itself
so it wouldn't float off the premises on a worker's clothes or
skin or in the air, according to the suit.

Those precautions, the family said, weren't taken.

The suit included claims for premises liability, negligence,
strict liability and survival action, the cost of caring for Lopez
when he was ill and the money he couldn't earn when he was sick
with mesothelioma.

The jury awarded $2 million in economic damages, covering expenses
like medical bills and burial costs, plus $6 million for his widow
and $2.5 million for each of his two children, according to the
verdict form.

A handful of other small companies had also been named in the
suit, but the jury found Hillshire was fully responsible for the
man' asbestos exposure, according to the form.

Lopez is represented by Lawrence J. Gornick, Jeffrey A. Kaiser and
David Markevitch of Kaiser Gornick LLP.

Hillshire is represented by Jason J. Curliano of Buty & Curliano
LLP and P. Stephen Fardy and Arthur J. Reliford Jr. of Swanson
Martin & Bell LLP.

The case is Lopez v. The Hillshire Brands Co. et al., case number
RG14721622, in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Alameda.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed from Vacant Keokuk Church
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Parrott, writing for TSPR.org, reported that crews have been
working at the former Unitarian Church at the corner of 4th and
High Streets in Keokuk. City Administrator Aaron Burnett said they
are not tearing down the vacant building.  Instead, they are
removing asbestos from it.

"This is important because if the structure does fail and
collapse, then everything has to be treated as hazardous material
if there is still asbestos within it," said Burnett. "So this is
an effort to protect the city from future liability should
something catastrophic happen to the structure."

The city declared the former church unsafe to occupy years ago,
and then late last year a judge ruled it to be dangerous, granting
the city the authority to tear the building down if it so chooses.

Aldermen took a step in that direction in July, voting to move
ahead with the demolition of the building. But at their next
meeting Aldermen delayed awarding contracts for the work in order
to allow a man from Des Moines named Reike Plecas to have more
time to develop a plan to save the church.

Burnett said aldermen have heard from people in the past who
wanted to save the church, only to see those efforts fade away.
But he said this opportunity appeared different.

"They did understand that this gentleman has experience and has
the ability and financial backing. All of those things to make
something happen, so they elected to postpone the awarding of the
bids," said Burnett.

Plecas wrote a letter to the editor in the Daily Gate City
newspaper in Keokuk declaring his intentions to save the church.

"Should I be able to sway the city council and the mayor to deed
the property to me, I will be more than delighted to immediately
re-roof the property within 30 days, privately, and then seek
corporate and local donations," wrote Plecas in the letter. The
roof is expected to cost as much as $250,000.

Plecas wrote that his background is in banking and philanthropic
organizations. Burnett said he' spoken on several occasions to
Plecas, who plans to address the city council regarding the
church.

"If the council chooses to, aldermen can wait and allow him to
move forward with his plan," said Burnett. "If they don't feel it
sufficient to make a meaningful improvement to the church, then
they can move ahead with the demolition bids."

Burnett said in the meantime, caution tape surrounds the building
in the hope that it will deter people from trying to enter an
unsafe property.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found During Melbourne Roadworks
----------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that work on a Melbourne
highway upgrade has been shut down after the discovery of
asbestos.

VicRoads says work has stopped on the Chandler Highway upgrade at
Alphington, with tests confirming confirming asbestos-contaminated
soil.

It comes after the CFMEU raised the alarm and blamed contractor
Seymour Whyte for putting at risk the safety of workers and the
public.

"The contractor would have known there was asbestos in the soil
and has blatantly disregarded the knowledge," the union's
occupational health and safety manager Gerry Ayers told reports
near the site.

"There was no type of any dust suppression whatsoever . . .
there's potentially a huge amount of exposure."

At least 100 workers have been potentially exposed to the asbestos
during work over the past few months, CFMEU organiser James
Simpson added.

"They have moved a lot of asbestos around the site, put a lot of
people in potentially harms way," he said.

VicRoads said exclusion zones had been established around areas
where asbestos was found.

Work will not resume until the asbestos was removed, they added.

The government is spending $110 million to widen the Chandler
Highway to six lanes and is building a new bridge, but it's not
clear when works will resume.

Seymour Whyte and the office of Roads Minister Luke Donnellan
directed media enquiries to VicRoads.

Premier Daniel Andrews said community safety was paramount.

"I'm not aware of what the contract arrangements have been, but
the most important thing here is that work has stopped in a
particular part of this project because there were concerns about
the safety on that site," he told reporters.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Contaminated Schools Pose Risk for Kids
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma.net reported that as parents prepare to send their
kids off to their first day of school, their focus is likely on
back-to-school shopping and bus schedules rather than the risk of
the deadly disease known as malignant mesothelioma. But according
to experts and advocates, families need to be aware that many
American classrooms and school buildings are contaminated with
asbestos, the deadly carcinogen that is the cause of this always-
fatal form of cancer. Let' take a look at what asbestos is, why it
is in school buildings, and what parents need to know to protect
their children.

Did you know that teaching is one of the five most at-risk
professions when it comes to malignant mesothelioma? Though you
may associate the deadly condition with shipbuilding, oil
refineries and insulation, the truth is that teachers have more
than twice the risk of dying of mesothelioma than those in the
general population. That' because most of the nation' schools
contain asbestos. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, roughly one third of American students go to school in
buildings constructed using asbestos.

Of course not every school building is contaminated with asbestos,
and those that do have it within their structures may still be
safe it the substance is properly contained. The best way to
determine your child' risk level is to get as much information as
possible. The EPA has published a guide for parents to help them
determine their school' status and what steps need to be taken.
It' called "The ABCs of Asbestos in Schools" and it is available
for download from the agency' website. It suggests that you start
by asking questions of your school' administrators, the school
board, or the district itself, and that if you don't get the
answers that you need, you need to stay persistent.  Many parents
have taken their inquiries to the Parent Teacher Association in
order to increase the pressure for answers.

Asbestos-related diseases like malignant mesothelioma are
completely preventable, but that prevention relies on knowing the
risks and taking appropriate steps to contain asbestos and protect
against the inhalation or ingestion of this dangerous fiber that
causes so much pain and heartache.

If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with an asbestos-
related disease, then you know the difference that protection and
information would have made. To learn more about what to do now,
contact the compassionate Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net at
1-800-692-8608.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4250 Corp. Named in Asbestos Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported
that a man diagnosed with lung cancer earlier this year claims it
was caused by asbestos exposure during his decades of employment.

J.E. Russell and Betty Russell filed a complaint on July 18 in the
St. Clair County Circuit Court against 4520 Corp. Inc., ABB Inc.,
Ameron International Corp., Anheuser-Busch LLC, et al. alleging
negligence.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at various
times during J.E. Russell's employment from 1944 to 1980, he was
exposed to and inhaled large amounts of asbestos fibers emanating
from defendants' products. On April 14, 2017, the suit states that
the plaintiffs first became aware that he had developed lung
cancer, an asbestos-induced disease.

The plaintiffs holds 4520 Corp. Inc., ABB Inc., Ameron
International Corp., Anheuser-Busch LLC, et al. responsible
because the defendants allegedly negligently included asbestos
fibers in their products when adequate substitutes were available
and failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions
concerning the safe methods of working with or around products
containing asbestos fibers.

The plaintiffs seek damages of more than $50,000. They are
represented by Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori Julian &
Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 17-L-379


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Claims Lung Cancer Caused by Alfa Laval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported
that a woman who worked at various employers in Illinois over a
period of 20 years alleges she was exposed to asbestos.

Marguerite Denson filed a complaint on July 27 in the St. Clair
County Circuit Court against Albany International Corp., Alfa
Laval Inc., Armstrong International Inc., et al. alleging
negligence.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that at various
times during her employment from 1968 to 1988, she was exposed to
and inhaled large amounts of asbestos fibers emanating from
defendants' products. On Aug. 22, 2016, the suit states she first
became aware that she developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced
disease.

The plaintiff holds Albany International Corp., Alfa Laval Inc.,
Armstrong International Inc., et al. responsible because the
defendants allegedly negligently included asbestos fibers in their
products when adequate substitutes were available and failed to
provide adequate warnings and instructions concerning the safe
methods of working with or around products containing asbestos
fibers.

The plaintiff seeks judgment against defendants of more than
$50,000. She is represented by Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of
Gori Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 17-L-404


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sen. Kennedy Proposes Bill to Help Veterans
------------------------------------------------------------
Capt. Bob Bell, writing for The Donaldsonville Chief, reported
that Louisiana junior U.S. Senator John Kennedy has only been in
office a few months, but he already has a chance to make his mark.
As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he will soon
consider a bill that would help people -- particularly veterans --
struggling with asbestos-related illnesses, protect America's
businesses, and expose scam artists.

The legislation is the Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency
(FACT) Act, and it would protect asbestos-related personal injury
trust funds from bogus claims.

Once asbestos was found to have serious health consequences, trust
funds were set up to compensate people impacted by mesothelioma,
asbestosis, and other illnesses. The trust funds were financed by
the assets of more than 100 companies that were bankrupted by
asbestos-related lawsuits.

Unfortunately, that system is plagued by a lack of transparency
and accountability. Consequently, the trust funds easily ripped-
off by dishonest actors who "double-dip" by filing for payments
from multiple trust funds.

Some swindlers claim they worked for a number of companies at
once, or file the same claim with dozens of trust funds. There'
simply no way to cross-check claims to uncover such examples
fraud.

That fraud may cause the trust funds to run dry before deserving
recipients receive money that is rightfully theirs. This would
particularly harm veterans, many of whom worked in shipyards, on
ships and in other environments where asbestos exposure was
common.

The FACT Act is not tort reform and it doesn't cap payments. In
fact, it would do absolutely nothing to prevent legitimate victims
of asbestos-related illnesses from collecting every penny they
deserve.

It simply adds a level of transparency to the asbestos trust fund
system so crooks are no longer allowed to fraudulently bring
multiple claims.

As a result of the broken trust fund system, asbestos claims are
on the rise, while actual cases of asbestos-related illnesses have
fallen substantially in recent years. New cases of Mesothelioma, a
lung cancer often associated with asbestos exposure, has dropped
from about 1 in every 86,000 American in 1992 to 1 in 123,000
today.

Under the FACT Act, asbestos trust funds file quarterly claims
disclosure reports that will allow judges and administrators to
detect when someone tries to improperly collect money. The
proposal would install a layer of transparency to the asbestos
payout system without violating privacy. The FACT Act does not
reveal addresses or full Social Security numbers. It utilizes the
same protections court systems rely on to protect personal
information.

Thwarting con artists from draining the trusts dry would be a
double victory. First, it ensures trust funds can pay veterans,
pipefitters, ship builders, factory workers and others who
suffered from asbestos exposure the money they're due. Second, it
keeps businesses from improperly being forced to pay money into
trusts for bogus payments -- something that' particularly
important here in Louisiana, where jobs and economic growth remain
all too scarce.

The unemployment rate in the Pelican State remains 32 percent
worse than the national average, and ranks fourth-worst among the
50 states and the District of Columbia. Louisiana' economy was
rated #46 in the nation in a recent Governing Magazine study.
Clearly, anything Sen. Kennedy can do to prevent the state' job-
creators from funding bogus claims with money that could be used
to hire more workers or increase salaries would be a step in the
right direction.

In March, the House of Representatives stood up to con artists
pilfering the asbestos trust funds when lawmakers approved the
FACT Act. Now it' up to Sen. Kennedy to stop swindlers from
targeting our veterans and other Americans suffering from
asbestos-related illnesses, as well as job-creating businesses,
and pass the FACT Act through the Senate and sending it to the
president' desk.

Capt. Bob Bell is an Air Force veteran who also served 30 years as
a Navy Reserve JAG legal officer. He is a Louisiana resident and
former candidate for Louisiana' 6th Congressional District.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Highway Project Shut After Asbestos Report
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Galloway, writing for Herald Sun, reported that the $110
million Chandler Highway upgrade has been shut down after asbestos
was uncovered.

The construction union is claiming residents and motorists around
the Alphington project are in "serious danger", with workers
uncovering asbestos contaminated soil.

According to the union, early works conducted by lead contractor
Seymour Whyte exposed "large quantities" of asbestos.

It is understood work only started on the project last week.

The CFMEU is warning the shutdown could mean the project is
delayed by months, but VicRoads said it was not expecting delays.

The contaminated soil has also shut down neighbouring work on the
demolition of the old Australian Paper Mill and the construction
of a residential tower.

WorkSafe Victoria spokesman Peter Flaherty said inspectors had
attended the construction site and air monitoring of the area had
begun.

"While a pedestrian path near the site has been shut down as a
precaution, there is currently no impact on road traffic," Mr
Flaherty said.

"WorkSafe will continue to monitor the site to ensure safety of
workers and the public while the clean-up work is being
undertaken."

CFMEU safety team head Gerry Ayers said there were concerns
strong winds made the problem worse.

Dr. Ayers said it appeared Seymour Whyte was aware of the
contamination before beginning the earth works.

"The disturbance of the contaminated earth in this manner is a
serious breach of basic industry and OHS standards," Dr. Ayers
said.  "It is completely unacceptable that a company the size of
Seymour Whyte would act in such a hazardous and reckless way. The
taxpayer is funding this project and the least they can expect is
that workers and the community are kept safe."

The project, which was to be finished by the middle of next year,
will see a new six-lane bridge built over the Yarra River in
Alphington.

Premier Daniel Andrews confirmed work had stopped on the project,
saying "we don't cut corners when it comes to the safety of
workers".

"As I understand it, there is some asbestos has been found there,
or at least there' not confidence the proper testing has gone on
to establish that, not so much on the south side, but on the
northern side, is as safe as it should be," Mr. Andrews said.
"Hopefully the delay will be a short amount of time, we can keep
to a minimum, but ultimately there' no cutting corners here."

In a statement, VicRoads said preliminary investigations on the
north side showed no contamination but a contractor alerted it
about "possible contamination" after works had started.

"Subsequent testing confirmed the excavated materials did contain
asbestos," VicRoads said.

"The affected areas have been contained with exclusion zones set
up to ensure the safety of our workers and the community.

"Work will not resume until we have satisfied all safety
requirements on site and disposed of the materials appropriately.
Worksafe is on site."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BASF Alleges Conflict with Special Master
----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reported that
for the second time in a month, the judge in a fraudulent-
concealment case against BASF and law firm Cahill, Gordon &
Reindel is hearing grumbling over his choice of discovery special
master.

Lawyers for Cahill Gordon and BASF asked Chief U.S. Judge Jose
Linares on Aug. 8 to select a different special master based on
alleged conflicts of interest surrounding the appointment of
former Supreme Court Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto. But Rivera-Soto
wrote to Linares on Aug. 11 to say the issues raised do not impair
his ability to serve as special master.

The dispute comes not long after plaintiffs expressed unhappiness
about the $900 hourly rate of the first special master appointed
by Linares, Garrett Brown Jr., former chief U.S. judge for the
District of New Jersey, was too expensive. After Brown declined to
serve, Rivera-Soto was appointed discovery master Aug. 3 in
Williams v. BASF Catalysts. Rivera-Soto, who is with Ballard Spahr
in Cherry Hill, has an hourly rate of $695.

The case is brought on behalf of plaintiffs in thousands of
asbestos injury suits who claimed that Cahill Gordon and
Engelhard, a predecessor of BASF, conspired to destroy evidence in
those cases and that they were shortchanged on their recoveries as
a result.

In the latest special master dispute, defense lawyers said Rivera-
Soto's firm, Ballard Spahr, is represented in a suit in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Ballard Spahr v. Symphony
Health Solutions, by Williams & Connolly, which also represents
Cahill Gordon in the present case. Therefore, Williams & Connolly
has a fiduciary relationship to both Cahill Gordon and Ballard
Spahr, according to a letter signed by Robert Ryan of Connell
Foley, representing Cahill Gordon, and Justin Quinn of Robinson
Miller, which represents BASF. In addition, before Rivera-Soto was
appointed to the Supreme Court in 2004, he was with Fox
Rothschild, one of the firms representing the plaintiffs in the
present case, Ryan and Quinn wrote.

Those circumstances "require the court to select a different
special master for the case," the defense lawyers said.
But Rivera-Soto said in his Aug. 11 letter to Linares that he did
not know that Williams & Connolly was involved in the case, and
added that the issues raised in the Aug. 8 letter do not
disqualify him from serving as special master in the present case.
He said he is not involved in the Symphony Health Solutions case
or events leading up to the case. He said he and any other Ballard
Spahr lawyer assisting him with his special master duties would be
segregated by an ethical 'wall' from lawyers in his firm's
Philadelphia office who are working on or involved with the
Symphony Health Solutions case.

Rivera-Soto added that when he was on the Supreme Court, some
members of the judiciary heard cases from their former law firms
at the outset, while others placed a moratorium of varying lengths
on hearing cases from their former firms. The longest moratorium
he knew of was five years, Rivera-Soto said. "Now, 13 years later
-- and after six years at a competing firm -- it is difficult to
ascertain how my prior relationship with Fox Rothschild LLP has
any relevance here," he said.

But on Monday, defense lawyers Ryan and Quinn reasserted their
protests over the appointment of Rivera-Soto in another letter to
Linares. They said that Rivera-Soto's assurances about ethical
walls are used to avoid improper sharing of client information,
but such measures cannot address fiduciary and conflict issues
raised by Williams & Connolly's ongoing representation of both
Ballard Spahr and the Cahill defendants. Ryan and Quinn asserted
that "the perception issues alone would compel appointment of a
different discovery master." They added that the perception issues
are compounded by Rivera-Soto's prior association with Fox
Rothschild.

"From a practical perspective, we respectfully submit that it
should be possible to appoint a Special Discovery Master who has
no connections to the parties or their attorneys, and who is not
personally or through his or her firm represented by attorneys in
this case," Ryan and Quinn said. They said that if Linares is
inclined to proceed with Rivera-Soto, they want an opportunity for
full briefing, including submissions from expert witnesses.

Rivera-Soto declined to comment on his appointment, as did
Christopher Placitella of Cohen, Placitella & Roth in Red Bank,
who represents the plaintiffs. Lawyers for Cahill Gordon did not
return calls. A lawyer for BASF did not immediately reply to a
request for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Could Delay Shaftsbury Start of School
----------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Carson, writing for Benington Banner, reported that the
discovery of asbestos in the Shaftsbury Elementary School may
delay its opening.

Asbestos was found during work to improve the school's ventilation
system. It must be removed before any further work can be done.

"We're at a bit of a standstill right now," said Principal Jeff
Johnson. The board met for a special meeting on July 25 to award
the contract for the project to Hayden Plumbing and Heating of
Bennington for $159,245, and the duct replacement was scheduled to
take place soon after. The hope was that the project, which is to
improve air flow in the in the old wing of the building after
readings showed carbon dioxide levels at higher than the
recommended levels during the school day, would be completed
before students returned to school. Now, however, that timeline is
in jeopardy.

When the ceiling was removed, asbestos insulation was discovered
on the pipes. A consultant was brought in to survey the situation
and it was determined that the old duct-work could not be removed
without disturbing the asbestos. "We can't do any ventilation work
until we get rid of that asbestos," said Johnson.

Johnson said that the removal must be approved by the state of
Vermont and the Environmental Protection Agency, which could take
up to two weeks. An emergency waiver is available from the state,
which Johnson said the school would pursue after a contractor had
been hired to do the work. Once the plan is approved the removal
will take five to seven days. With school scheduled to start on
Sept. 5, the timeline to get the asbestos removed and the
ventilation work done is tight.

"The timeline is kind of crunched up to the start of school," said
Johnson. "If it does take us two weeks to get the permit from the
state of Vermont, that will push us to the very end of August
before they can even start the work, then five to seven days to
get the work done, plus another couple days for the contractor to
put the drop ceiling back in. That's going to push us past Sept.
5."

If the start of school is delayed for a week, it will not affect
the timing of summer vacation, as schools in the Southwest Vermont
Supervisory Union already attend five days more than are required
by the state. The Bennington school system is also considering the
possibility of a similar delay depending on how its own
construction projects progress in the next several weeks.

The board approved a bid to remove the asbestos at their meeting
from Levaggi Environmental Contracting of Morrisville, Vermont for
$15,775.

In terms of the ventilation project, one potential option, after
the asbestos is removed, will be to leave the ceiling open and to
have Hayden come in on evenings and weekends to replace the duct-
work. Johnson said that if the project needs to be delayed until
next June, the ceiling will just have to be torn down again at
additional cost.

Superintendent Jim Culkeen said that the school will need to make
an announcement relatively soon if they decide that the start of
school must be delayed, so that parents will have time to make
alternate plans for child-care.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-contaminated Rubbish Found in Backyard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eleanor Wenman, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reported that Tenant Jade
Darbyshire believes his landlords failed to properly address his
concerns about asbestos found in the yard of his rented home.

Last year, Paekakariki resident Jade Darbyshire would watch his
four-year-old daughter make mud pies in the backyard of his rented
home. Now he worries that dirt was contaminated with asbestos and
said his landlords have left him in the lurch, brushing off his
worries.

Darbyshire moved into the Ames St property in July 2016 and it
wasn't long before he became concerned about asbestos in old
building materials scattered around the backyard.

"There were three property lots on the same property and the
tenants got together and had a pow-wow about the backyard."

One of the tenants approached the landlords, Wayne and Adaleen
Irion, with their concerns but Darbyshire said they were brushed
off.

"They told us it was fibrolite and absolutely harmless."

Fibrolite, sometimes known as asbestos cement, is material with
asbestos fibres woven in. According to the WorkSafe website, when
asbestos is intact and covered, it is harmless but once the
material it's in is broken up, the fibres can be released into the
air.

Darbyshire, who is now is the process of moving out, said a
previous tenant had broken up contaminated concrete sheeting in
the backyard with a sledgehammer.

He contacted the Kapiti Coast District Council and also arranged
for an independent test in August to determine whether it posed
any danger to himself or his four-year-old daughter.

He believed his family wasn't the only one affected. "It's been
making people sick for years."

He had been in contact with past tenants and believed one of them
had respiratory problems after living in the flat.

Environmental standards manager Jacquie Muir said council staff
had found an amount of broken cement sheeting in the rear and
front of the site.

"A lab test confirmed that the sheeting material contained amosite
and chrysotile asbestos," she said.

After visiting the site several times in July, council staff
referred the case to WorkSafe.

WorkSafe investigators found the sheeting had been on the property
for some time, calling it "historical", Muir said.

Landlord Adaleen Irion said the first they knew their property was
contaminated with asbestos was when the Kapiti Coast District
Council got in touch earlier this year.

"I was in absolute shock," she said.

Irion said they followed the advice given by the WorkSafe and
immediately hired an asbestos removal company to deal with the
fibrolite material on the property.

"To the best of our knowledge, all the fibrolite is gone."

In the 23 years they had owned the property, she said they had
never had any complaints or concerns.

The Ames St property backed onto KiwiRail land and she believed
the contaminated sheeting had originally been buried on the
company's land.

A previous tenant kept chickens in the space two years ago and
Irion said the birds had likely scratched up the dirt over the
material.

She and her husband Wayne had since gated off the area.

A KiwiRail spokeswoman said the company was recently made aware of
the situation and was looking into it.

"At this stage the exact location of the fence in relation to the
boundary line of the property is unknown and because of that it
would be premature for KiwiRail to comment."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Officials Fine County for Asbestos Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Hinton, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reported that the
state' Occupational Safety and Health Division has fined Davidson
County $6,500 after the agency issued three citations to the
county for exposing people to asbestos during several renovations
and repairs to the Davidson County Courthouse in Lexington.

Brian Shipwash, the Davidson County Clerk of Court, said that
there is no current danger of airborne asbestos in the courthouse
as there are no construction projects in the building. Trial
participants, county employees and the news media who attended the
recent murder trial of Thomas Martens and Molly Corbett in the
courthouse were not in any danger of being exposed to asbestos, he
said.

Asbestos is a mixture of six naturally occurring fibrous minerals
that was used for decades in thousands of commercial products,
such as insulation and fireproofing materials, automotive brakes
and textile products, and cement and wallboard materials,
according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.

When handled, asbestos can separate into microscopic-size
particles that remain in the air and are easily inhaled, the CDC
said. People occupationally exposed to asbestos have developed
several types of life-threatening diseases, including asbestosis,
lung cancer and mesothelioma.

The Davidson County Courthouse, which covers 55,187 square feet,
was built in 1958, and renovated in 1999. In past years, crews
have conduct repair projects there.

County officials will decide whether to pay the fine or appeal the
citations, Shipwash said. Davidson County officials haven't taken
any action to remediate the asbestos in the courthouse, he added.

Shipwash issued a statement about the matter. County Manager Zeb
Haner couldn't be reached for comment.

OSHA determined that county officials failed to inform employees
in the courthouse regarding the presence, location and quantity of
material containing asbestos and those officials also failed to
tell the building' occupants and those who performed work within
the courthouse of the presence, location and quantity of asbestos,
the statement said.

State inspectors also determined that county officials didn't
ensure that a competent person conducted an exposure assessment
immediately before or at the initiation of the operation to
ascertain expected exposures during that operation or workplace,
the statement said. The county also performed asbestos work
without using engineering and work practice controls that
minimized the exposure to employees performing the asbestos work
and to bystander employees.

"These three citations and the subsequent testing, which have
verified asbestos, black mold and lead, validate my concerns about
this building and the health, welfare and safety of those who work
and enter it," Shipwash said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carisbrook CFA Crew May be Exposed to Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Vallely, writing for Bendigo Advertiser, reported that
volunteer Country Fire Authority crews may have been exposed to
asbestos during a controlled burn carried out at the request of
the Central Goldfields Shire Council.

And the shire' mayor Geoff Lovett said council staff led members
of the Carisbrook CFA to believe the recently-burnt waste pile did
not contain asbestos.

Cr Lovett also said a risk assessment was not conducted on the
mound at the former Penney and Lang abattoirs site, in Madmans
Lane, Flagstaff.

An asbestos-accredited company, dressed in "moon suits", cleaned
up what remained of the pile the day after the burn, erecting
asbestos warning signs, Cr Lovett said.

Council staff called in the company but did not inform the shire'
councillors, he said.

"There was no risk assessment done and I find that absolutely
appalling," he said.  "I'm very, very concerned about the
processes we didn't follow."

Central Goldfields Shire Council interim chief executive officer
Vince Haining said: "The processes associated with the clearance
of the site were inadequate and we acknowledge that."

"If the issue has caused distress to any individuals we apologise
unreservedly and have renewed our processes to ensure it won't
happen in the future."

Mr. Haining said the EPA had asked the shire for further
information and it would provide that.

The community was "up in arms" about the burn, as was the Captain
of the Carisbrook CFA, said Cr Lovett, arguing the Captain felt
the shire had put his members at risk.

Tests are currently being conducted on the site and the clothes of
CFA members involved in the burn to establish whether asbestos was
present in the material.

The Bendigo Advertiser contacted the CFA who confirmed members
were present at the burn.

A CFA spokesperson said: "Our priority is always the safety of our
members and the community. We've applied all appropriate policies
and procedures in accordance with CFA guidelines."

The block of land has been dormant since Penney and Lang shut down
in 2005, and Cr Lovett believed the site would "certainly" have
contained asbestos years ago.

"I don't think anyone definitively knows whether there was
asbestos there or not," he said, adding the council process had
been "found wanting".

The shire received a clean up order from the Environment
Protection Authority for the site in May and the burn was
completed in late June.

Concerned local environmentalist Wayne McKail suggested the
rubbish pile had spread over recent months.

"There' enough people who are standing up and demanding answers,"
said Mr. McKail, suggesting the site has been riddled with issues
since 2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Haw. Firefigters Union Raises Asbestos Concerns
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii News Now reported that nearly a month after more than 120
Honolulu firefighters responded to the city's largest-ever
highrise fire, many are being asked turn in their jackets, hoods,
and pants because of potential asbestos contamination.

It's a directive that's prompted the president of the Hawaii Fire
Fighters Association to accuse the Honolulu Fire Department of
failing to protect its firefighters.

"I'm really disappointed that they didn't do that at the scene of
the fire. This is almost a month later," said Bobby Lee. "Even
though they put it through the wash, there's no guarantee it takes
out the asbestos. It would still be considered contaminated."

Lee says that an email recently went out to all the firefighters
who responded to the fire that day -- they were given one day to
turn in their gear.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Automatic Pay for GE Retirees Remains Goal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joelle Kovach, writing for The Peterborough Examiner, reported
that advocates for former workers of General Electric who believe
they got cancer from exposure to toxins in the workplace say they
are still lobbying for automatic compensation from the Workplace
Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The local advocacy group is called the Occupational and
Environmental Health Coalition -- Peterborough (OEHCP).

After Labour Minister Kevin Flynn said he needs three months to
"finalize some decisions" about how best to help the former
workers and their families, the health coalition responded with a
written statement.

It says the coalition will settle for nothing less than
"presumptive entitlement" of compensation for the sick workers and
their families.

That means that if the person worked at GE in Peterborough between
1945 and 2000, and later developed cancer, it is presumed that it
came from workplace toxins -- no need for to prove it to WSIB.

That's how the system now functions: the worker has to prove that
the cancer was caused by exposure to workplace chemicals.

A recent report, written by two retired occupational health
researchers (with help from former GE employees and sponsored by
the union, Unifor), states that the plant was awash in toxic
chemicals between 1945 and 2000 (at which point it was scrubbed
clean).

The report states that there were more than 3,000 toxic chemicals
used at the plant, at least 40 of which were carcinogens.

Asbestos and benzene were used all the time, states the report --
and the ventilation was extremely poor, in the plant.

It also describes how workers handled these toxins: some immersed
their bare hands in vats of chemicals, for instance, or they sawed
asbestos boards without using respiratory protection.

The report is meant to serve as scientific evidence to back up
workers' claims that they have cancer due to exposure to toxins at
work.

And the health coalition wants the cohort of workers from that era
to receive automatic compensation from WSIB if they develop cancer
-- no questions asked.

"The coalition believes this is the only route to ensure claimants
in the cohort would see fair compensation in their lifetime," the
statement reads.

Flynn didn't promise this, when he was interviewed by The
Examiner.

But he did say that he feels confident significant progress will
take place over the next three to four months.

"We still have a few decisions to make, but not that many," he
said. "Such as, do we take the legislative route or not?"

If they do, he says, it can take awhile. Another option is what he
calls the "regulatory route", meaning they make changes to WSIB
regulations to make it easier for these workers to access help.

"This gives you more flexibility," he said.

The health coalition states that they know they're asking for
something that will take strong political will, when they ask for
presumptive entitlement.

"We recognize this would be a bold, courageous move on the part of
Ontario's Minister of Labour -- and we expect nothing less from
our provincial government than full support for the implementation
of presumptive entitlement for the historical GE cohort," it
states.

See the full statement below:

"OEHCP stands firm in pursuing presumptive entitlement for the
historical GE cohort of occupational disease claims. The coalition
believes that this is the only route to ensure the claimants in
the cohort would see fair compensation in their lifetime.

"After 12 years of studying, researching, supporting and providing
the infrastructure for the affected community to come together, we
are convinced that we have left 'no stone unturned' (Kerin 2016)
in pursuing all possible paths to address Peterborough's lethal
legacy -- a miscarriage of justice.

"Our community -- both those directly affected and those who
belong to the wider Peterborough community, expects government
action to bring fair adjudication, fair compensation and closure
for the GE cohort, the community and the province.

"The recently published Unifor REPORT strongly supports OEHCP's
advocacy for presumption entitlement.

"We recognize this would be a bold, courageous move on the part of
Ontario's Minister of Labour and we expect nothing less from our
provincial government than full support for the implementation of
presumptive entitlement for the historical GE cohort."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.4BB Liability at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation has $1,422 million asbestos-related
liability for pending and future claims at June 30, 2017,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "The Corporation is and has been involved in a
large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts during the past four decades.  These suits principally
allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-
containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive
damages.  The alleged claims primarily relate to products that UCC
sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products
located on UCC's premises and UCC's responsibility for asbestos
suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc.
("Amchem").  In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate
that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such
exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure
to the Corporation's products.

"The Corporation expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed
against UCC and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend
or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future
claims.

"Since 2003, the Corporation has engaged Ankura Consulting Group,
LLC ("Ankura"), a third party actuarial specialist, to review the
Corporation's historical asbestos-related claim and resolution
activity in order to assist UCC management in estimating the
Corporation's asbestos-related liability.  Each year, Ankura has
reviewed the claim and resolution activity to determine the
appropriateness of updating the most recent Ankura study.
Historically, every other year beginning in October, Ankura has
completed a full review and formal update to the most recent
Ankura study.

"Based on the December 2016 Ankura study and the Corporation's own
review of the data, and taking into account the change in
accounting policy that occurred in the fourth quarter of 2016, the
Corporation's total asbestos-related liability through the
terminal year of 2049, including asbestos-related defense and
processing costs, was US$1,490 million at December 31, 2016, and
was included in "Asbestos-related liabilities -- current" and
"Asbestos-related liabilities -- noncurrent" in the consolidated
balance sheets.

"Each quarter, the Corporation reviews claims filed, settled and
dismissed, as well as average settlement and resolution costs by
disease category.  The Corporation also considers additional
quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature of pending
claims, trial experience of the Corporation and other asbestos
defendants, current spending for defense and processing costs,
significant appellate rulings and legislative developments, trends
in the tort system, and their respective effects on expected
future resolution costs.  UCC management considers all these
factors in conjunction with the most recent Ankura study and
determines whether a change in the estimate is warranted.  Based
on the Corporation's review of 2017 activity, it was determined
that no adjustment to the accrual was required at June 30, 2017.

"The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims and defense and processing costs was US$1,422
million at June 30, 2017, and approximately 14 percent of the
recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 86
percent related to future claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/z0orzx


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has 15,910 PI Claims at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation has 15,910 claims unresolved at June 30,
2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "The Corporation is and has been involved in a
large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts during the past four decades.  These suits principally
allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-
containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive
damages.  The alleged claims primarily relate to products that UCC
sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products
located on UCC's premises, and UCC's responsibility for asbestos
suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc.
("Amchem").  In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate
that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such
exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure
to UCC's products.

"Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue numerous defendants in individual
lawsuits or on behalf of numerous claimants.  As a result, the
damages alleged are not expressly identified as to UCC, Amchem or
any other particular defendant, even when specific damages are
alleged with respect to a specific disease or injury.  In fact,
there are no personal injury cases in which only the Corporation
and/or Amchem are the sole named defendants.  For these reasons
and based upon the Corporation's litigation and settlement
experience, the Corporation does not consider the damages alleged
against it and Amchem to be a meaningful factor in its
determination of any potential asbestos-related liability."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/z0orzx


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Still Defends Suits at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation continues to defend itself against
lawsuits regarding asbestos-related injuries, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017

The Company states, "We or our subsidiaries have been named in a
number of lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos.
To date, neither we nor our subsidiaries have been found liable or
paid any material sum of money in settlement in any case.  We
believe that the minimal use of asbestos in our past operations
and the relatively non-friable condition of asbestos in our
products makes it unlikely that we will face material liability in
any asbestos litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate.
We maintain insurance coverage for these potential liabilities and
believe adequate coverage exists to cover any unanticipated
asbestos liability."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Unit Still Faces Suits at Jun30
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Quaker Chemical Corporation still defends itself
in various lawsuits on asbestos-related injuries, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

Quaker Chemical states, "The Company previously disclosed in its
Annual Report filed on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2016 that an inactive subsidiary of the Company that was acquired
in 1978 sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an
installed basis, and is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits
alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos.

"During the six months ended June 30, 2017, there have been no
significant changes to the facts or circumstances of this matter
previously disclosed, aside from on-going claims and routine
payments associated with this litigation.

"Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated
future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently projected
that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for
these claims is approximately US$2.2 million (excluding costs of
defense)."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/1VfmBE


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 609 Pending Cases at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation has 609 pending asbestos-related personal
injury cases as of June 30, 2017, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "As of June 30, 2017, the Company was a party
to 609 pending cases involving an aggregate of 5,274 claims
primarily alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated
and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of its
subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical refining and
exploration industries.

"In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition.  The Company believes that many of its
pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets
were distributed or used.

"The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos-
related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases in which
product identification can be made may increase, and the Company
may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors.

"The Company is unable to make a meaningful statement concerning
the monetary claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among
other things, claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions
without specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the
requisite or maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be
amended to alter the amount sought.  The large majority of claims
do not specify the amount sought.

"Of the 5,274 claims pending at June 30, 2017, 58 set forth
specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the
statutory minimum or maximum).  At June 30, 2017, of the 58 claims
that set forth specific amounts, there were no claims seeking
specific amounts for punitive damages.

"Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been
approximately US$8.4 million.  All relief sought in the asbestos
cases is monetary in nature.  To date, approximately 40% of the
Company's costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos
litigation have been covered by its primary insurance.

"Effective February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-
in-place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding
the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related
claims when the primary insurance is exhausted.  The coverage-in-
place agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity
insurance coverage available to the Company that might otherwise
be disputed by the carriers and provides a methodology for the
administration of such expenses.  Nonetheless, the Company
believes it is likely there will be a period within the next 12
months, prior to the commencement of coverage under this agreement
and following exhaustion of the Company's primary insurance
coverage, during which the Company will be solely responsible for
defense costs and indemnity payments, the duration of which would
be subject to the scope of damage awards and settlements paid.

"Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims
dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the
Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not
bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability.  Based
upon the Company's experience to date, including the trend in
annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other
available information (including the availability of excess
insurance), the Company does not believe these cases will have a
material adverse effect on its financial position and results of
operations or cash flows."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Had 9,292 Claims Pending at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. had 9,292 asbestos-related claims pending as of
June 30, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "It is probable that additional asbestos-
related claims will be asserted against the Company in the future.
The Company vigorously defends against these claims, and has
obtained the dismissal of the majority of the claims asserted
against it without any payment.  The Company likewise expects that
no payment will be made by the Company or its insurers in the vast
majority of current and future asbestos-related claims in which it
has been or will be named (or has an obligation to indemnify a
party which has been or will be named).

"Through June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the Company had
accrued and paid US$504.2 million and US$477.7 million,
respectively, in indemnity (including settlement payments) and
defense costs in connection with asbestos-related claims.  These
gross payments are before tax benefits and any insurance receipts.
Indemnity and defense costs are incorporated into the Company's
operating cash flows and will continue to be in the future.

"The Company reviews, on an ongoing basis, its own experience in
handling asbestos-related claims and trends affecting asbestos-
related claims in the U.S. tort system generally, for the purposes
of assessing the value of pending asbestos-related claims and the
number and value of those that may be asserted in the future, as
well as potential recoveries from the Company's insurers with
respect to such claims and defense costs.  During the fourth
quarter of 2016, the Company determined that a reasonable estimate
of its liability for asbestos claims not yet asserted could be
made, and the Company increased its aggregate estimated liability
for asbestos-related claims asserted but not yet resolved and
potential asbestos-related claims not yet asserted to US$879.3
million as of December 31, 2016.  The Company's estimate is not
discounted to present value and includes an estimate of liability
for potential future claims not yet asserted through December 31,
2059 with a runoff through 2067.  The Company currently believes
that December 31, 2067 is a reasonable assumption as to the last
date on which it is likely to have resolved all asbestos-related
claims, based on the nature and useful life of the Company's
products and the likelihood of incidence of asbestos-related
disease in the U.S. population generally."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/XjA0N0


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Had $852.7MM Liability at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. recorded US$852.7 million liability for asbestos-
related claims as of June 30, 2017, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017. The amount is the
Company's best estimate of the aggregate liability for both
asbestos-related claims asserted but not yet resolved and
potential asbestos-related claims not yet asserted, including
estimated defense costs.

BorgWarner states, "The Company's estimate of its aggregate
liability for asbestos-related claims asserted but not yet
resolved and potential asbestos-related claims not yet asserted
was developed with the assistance of a third-party consultant.  In
developing such estimate, the third-party consultant projected a
potential number of future claims based on the Company's
historical claim filings and patterns and compared that to
anticipated levels of unique plaintiff asbestos-related claims
asserted in the U.S. tort system against all defendants.  The
consultant also utilized assumptions based on the Company's
historical proportion of claims resolved without payment,
historical settlement costs for those claims that result in a
payment, and historical defense costs.  The liabilities were then
estimated by multiplying the pending and projected future claim
filings by projected payments rates and average settlement amounts
and then adding an estimate for defense costs.

"The Company's estimate of the indemnity and defense costs for
asbestos-related claims asserted but not yet resolved and
potential claims not yet asserted is its best estimate of such
costs.  Such estimate is subject to numerous uncertainties.  These
include future legislative or judicial changes affecting the U.S.
tort system, bankruptcy proceedings involving one or more co-
defendants, the impact and timing of payments from bankruptcy
trusts that presently exist and those that may exist in the
future, disease emergence and associated claim filings, the impact
of future settlements or significant judgments, changes in the
medical condition of claimants, changes in the treatment of
asbestos-related disease, and any changes in settlement or defense
strategies.  The balances recorded for asbestos-related claims are
based on best available information and assumptions that the
Company believes are reasonable, including as to the number of
future claims that may be asserted, the percentage of claims that
may result in a payment, the average cost to resolve such claims,
and potential defense costs.  Any amounts that are reasonably
possible of occurring in excess of amounts recorded are believed
to not be significant.  The various assumptions utilized in
arriving at the Company's estimate may also change over time, and
the Company's actual liability for asbestos-related claims
asserted but not yet resolved and those not yet asserted may be
higher or lower than the Company's estimate as a result of such
changes.

"The Company has certain insurance coverage applicable to
asbestos-related claims.  Prior to June 2004, the settlement and
defense costs associated with all asbestos-related claims were
paid by the Company's primary layer insurance carriers under a
series of interim funding arrangements.  In June 2004, primary
layer insurance carriers notified the Company of the alleged
exhaustion of their policy limits.  A declaratory judgment action
was filed in January 2004 in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois by Continental Casualty Company and related companies
against the Company and certain of its historical general
liability insurers.  The Cook County court has issued a number of
interim rulings and discovery is continuing in this proceeding.
The Company is vigorously pursuing the litigation against all
carriers that are parties to it, as well as pursuing settlement
discussions with its carriers where appropriate.  The Company has
entered into settlement agreements with certain of its insurance
carriers, resolving such insurance carriers' coverage disputes
through the carriers' agreement to pay specified amounts to the
Company, either immediately or over a specified period.  Through
June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the Company had received
US$270.0 million in cash and notes from insurers on account of
indemnity and defense costs respecting asbestos-related claims.

"The Company continues to have additional excess insurance
coverage available for potential future asbestos-related claims.
The Company also reviews the amount of its unresolved, unexhausted
excess insurance coverage for asbestos-related claims, taking into
account the remaining limits of such coverage, the number and
amount of claims from co-insured parties, the ongoing litigation
against the Company's insurers, potential remaining recoveries
from insolvent insurers, the impact of previous insurance
settlements, and coverage available from solvent insurers not
party to the coverage litigation.  Based on that review, the
Company has estimated that as of June 30, 2017 and December 31,
2016 that it has US$386.4 million in aggregate insurance coverage
available with respect to asbestos-related claims already
satisfied by the Company but not yet reimbursed by the insurers,
asbestos-related claims asserted but not yet resolved, and
asbestos-related claims not yet asserted, in each case together
with their associated defense costs.  In each case, such amounts
are expected to be fully recovered.  However, the resolution of
the insurance coverage litigation, and the number and amount of
claims on our insurance from co-insured parties, may increase or
decrease the amount of such insurance coverage available to the
Company as compared to the Company's estimate."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/XjA0N0


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UTC Had $370.0MM Asbestos Liability at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Technologies Corporation (UTC) recorded US$370 million as
of June 30, 2017 for its estimated total liability to resolve all
pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through
2059, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "... [L]ike many other industrial companies,
we and our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos
integrated into certain of our products or business premises.
While we have never manufactured asbestos and no longer
incorporate it in any currently-manufactured products, certain of
our historical products, like those of many other manufacturers,
have contained components incorporating asbestos. A substantial
majority of these asbestos-related claims have been dismissed
without payment or were covered in full or in part by insurance or
other forms of indemnity. Additional cases were litigated and
settled without any insurance reimbursement. The amounts involved
in asbestos related claims were not material individually or in
the aggregate in any year.

"Our estimated total liability to resolve all pending and
unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is
approximately $370 million and is principally recorded in Other
long-term liabilities on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet
as of June 30, 2017. This amount is on a pre-tax basis, not
discounted, and excludes the Company' legal fees to defend the
asbestos claims (which will continue to be expensed by the Company
as they are incurred). In addition, the Company has an insurance
recovery receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of
approximately $133 million, which is included primarily in Other
assets on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30,
2017.

"The amounts recorded by UTC for asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance recoveries are based on currently available information
and assumptions that we believe are reasonable. Our actual
liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than
those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the
assumptions. Key variables in these assumptions include the number
and type of new claims to be filed each year, the outcomes or
resolution of such claims, the average cost of resolution of each
new claim, the amount of insurance available, allocation
methodologies, the contractual terms with each insurer with whom
we have reached settlements, the resolution of coverage issues
with other excess insurance carriers with whom we have not yet
achieved settlements, and the solvency risk with respect to our
insurance carriers. Other factors that may affect our future
liability include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, legal
rulings that may be made by state and federal courts, and the
passage of state or federal legislation. At least annually, the
Company evaluates all of these factors and, with input from an
outside actuarial expert, makes any necessary adjustments to both
our estimated asbestos liabilities and insurance recoveries."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Had $26.8MM Libby Costs at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. had total estimated liability of US$26.8 million
at June 30, 2017, for response costs related to a vermiculite mine
and surrounding area in Libby, Montana, as well as at vermiculite
processing sites outside of Libby, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "Grace purchased a vermiculite mine in Libby,
Montana, in 1963 and operated it until 1990.  Vermiculite
concentrate from the Libby mine was used in the manufacture of
attic insulation and other products.  Some of the vermiculite ore
contained naturally occurring asbestos.

Grace is engaged with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(the "EPA") and other federal, state and local governmental
agencies in a remedial investigation and feasibility study
("RI/FS") of the Libby mine and the surrounding area.  In its 2017
Annual Project Update for the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site, the
EPA announced a narrowing of its focus from the former "OU3 Study
Area" to a smaller Operable Unit 3 or "OU3." Within this revised
area, the RI/FS will determine the specific areas requiring
remediation and will identify possible remedial action
alternatives.  Possible remedial actions within OU3 are wide-
ranging, from institutional controls such as land use
restrictions, to more active measures involving soil removal,
containment projects, or other protective measures.  Grace expects
the RI/FS and a record of decision to be completed by the end of
2019.  When meaningful new information becomes available, Grace
will reevaluate estimated liability for the costs for remediation
of the mine and surrounding area and adjust its reserves
accordingly.

The EPA is also investigating or remediating formerly owned or
operated sites that processed Libby vermiculite into finished
products.  Grace is cooperating with the EPA on these
investigation and remediation activities, and has recorded a
liability to the extent that its review has indicated that a
probable liability has been incurred and the cost is estimable.
These liabilities cover the estimated cost of investigations and,
to the extent an assessment has indicated that remediation is
necessary, the estimable cost of response actions.  Response
actions typically involve soil excavation and removal, and
replacement with clean fill.  The EPA may commence additional
investigations in the future at other sites that processed Libby
vermiculite, but Grace does not believe, based on its knowledge of
prior and current operations and site conditions, that liability
for remediation at such other sites is probable.

Grace accrued US$4.3 million in the three months ended June 30,
2017 for future costs related to vermiculite-related matters,
which reflects provision for an agreed upon remedy at a former
vermiculite processing site.  Grace's total estimated liability
for response costs that are currently estimable for the Libby mine
and surrounding area, and at vermiculite processing sites outside
of Libby at June 30, 2017, and December 31, 2016, was US$26.8
million and US$31.2 million, respectively.  It is probable that
Grace's ultimate liability for these vermiculite-related matters
will exceed current estimates by material amounts.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/76vZZU


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Subsidiaries Still Face Claims at June30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 2, 2017, that asbestos-related product liability
claims continue to be filed against two of its subsidiaries:
Spence Engineering Company, Inc. ("Spence"), the stock of which
the Company acquired in 1984; and CIRCOR Instrumentation
Technologies, Inc. (f/k/a Hoke, Inc.), the stock of which the
Company acquired in 1998.

The Company states, "Due to the nature of the products supplied by
these entities, the markets they serve and our historical
experience in resolving these claims, we do not believe that these
asbestos-related claims will have a material adverse effect on the
financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of the
Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/H4K9kh


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 56,000 Claims at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. (fka Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc) had 56,000
pending claims related to asbestos-related matters as of June 30,
2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc.  ("Crown
Cork") is one of many defendants in a substantial number of
lawsuits filed throughout the United States by persons alleging
bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.  These claims
arose from the insulation operations of a U.S. company, the
majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963.
Approximately ninety days after the stock purchase, this U.S.
company sold its insulation assets and was later merged into Crown
Cork.

"Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by
a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with
carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became
self-insured.  The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has
no remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

"In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger
to companies involved with asbestos.  The legislation limits the
successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset
value adjusted for inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly
more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired company's
adjusted asset value.  In November 2004, the legislation was
amended to address a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli
v. AC&S Corporation, et al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the
statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive
application.  The Company cautions that the limitations of the
statute, as amended, are subject to litigation and may not be
upheld.

"In June 2003, the state of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such
as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because
they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos.  The Texas legislation, which applies to
future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related
liabilities at the total gross value of the predecessor's assets
adjusted for inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly more
for asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its
predecessor's assets.

"In October 2010, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision,
reversed a lower court decision, Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork &
Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, Texas, which had upheld the dismissal of an asbestos-
related case against Crown Cork.  The Texas Supreme Court held
that the Texas legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas
Constitution when applied to asbestos-related claims pending
against Crown Cork when the legislation was enacted in June 2003.
The Company believes that the decision of the Texas Supreme Court
is limited to retroactive application of the Texas legislation to
asbestos-related cases that were pending against Crown Cork in
Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore, in its accrual, continues to
assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003.

"In recent years, the states of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West
Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming enacted legislation that limits
asbestos-related liabilities under state law of companies such as
Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they
are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos.  The legislation, which applies to future
and, with the exception of Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina,
South Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming, pending claims, caps
asbestos-related liabilities at the fair market value of the
predecessor's total gross assets adjusted for inflation.  Crown
Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than
the total value of its predecessor's assets adjusted for
inflation.  Crown Cork has integrated the legislation into its
claims defense strategy.

"The Company further cautions that an adverse ruling in any
litigation relating to the constitutionality or applicability to
Crown Cork of one or more statutes that limits the asbestos-
related liability of alleged defendants like Crown Cork could have
a material impact on the Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Td6ZqU


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $331.0MM Accrual at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. (fka Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc.) had accrual
of US$331 million for pending and future asbestos-related claims
and related legal costs as of June 30, 2017, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with
plaintiffs' counsel in certain jurisdictions with respect to
claims which are not yet filed, or asserted, against it. However,
Crown Cork expects claims under these arrangements to be filed or
asserted against Crown Cork in the future. The projected value of
these claims is included in the Company' estimated liability as of
June 30, 2017.

"As of June 30, 2017, the Company' accrual for pending and future
asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was $331 million,
including $279 million for unasserted claims. The Company
determines its accrual without limitation to a specific time
period.

"It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess
of the Company' accrual. However, the Company is unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due
to uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the
Company' accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such
accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant (which was
not specified for approximately 82% of the claims outstanding at
the end of 2016), the Company and claimant' willingness to
negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other
defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy
filings of other defendants (which may result in additional claims
and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the nature of
pending and future claims (including the seriousness of alleged
disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos
before or during 1964 and the claimant' ability to demonstrate the
alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of the litigation
environment, the defense strategies available to the Company, the
level of future claims, the rate of receipt of claims, the
jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the effect of state
asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of
the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions,
where the substantial majority of the Company' asbestos cases are
filed)."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Td6ZqU


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 18,037 Pending Claims at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had 18,037 unresolved claims related to
asbestos matters as of June 30, 2017, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company also disclosed that in the six months ended June 30,
2017, there were 2,339 claims filed and 4,869 claims resolved.

The Company states, "Claims filed include all asbestos claims for
which notification has been received or a file has been opened.

"Claims resolved include all asbestos claims that have been
settled, dismissed or that are in the process of being settled or
dismissed based upon agreements or understandings in place with
counsel for the claimants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/M11hCA


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $53.3MM Accrued Liability at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had accrued asbestos liability of US$53,377,000
and long-term asbestos liability of US$316,607,000 as of June 30,
2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

The accrued liability represents current accruals for probable and
reasonably estimable asbestos-related liability cost that the
Company believes the subsidiaries will pay, overpayments by
certain insurers and unpaid legal costs related to defending
themselves against asbestos-related liability claims and legal
action against the Company's insurers, which is included in
Accrued liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.
On the other hand, the long-term liability is included in Other
liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The Company states, "Following a Delaware Supreme Court ruling on
September 12, 2016, the Company received a total of US$26.0
million of previously unreimbursed costs funded by the Company in
defense and settlement of asbestos claims from insurance companies
during the six months ended June 30, 2017.  Certain matters,
including potential interest which could be awarded to a specific
subsidiary, are subject to further rulings from the Delaware
courts.  While the outcome is uncertain, none of these matters is
expected to have a material adverse effect on the financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company.

"Management's analyses are based on currently known facts and a
number of assumptions.  However, projecting future events, such as
new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving
each claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method
in which losses will be allocated to the various insurance
policies, interpretation of the effect on coverage of various
policy terms and limits and their interrelationships, the
continuing solvency of various insurance companies, the amount of
remaining insurance available, as well as the numerous
uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could cause the
actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower
than those projected or recorded which could materially affect the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash
flow."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/M11hCA


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Had 61,400 Claims at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company had 61,400 asbestos-related
claims pending as of June 30, 2017, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits
alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to
result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products
manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities.
Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and federal courts. To date, we have disposed
of approximately 126,700 claims by defending, obtaining the
dismissal thereof, or entering into a settlement. The sum of our
accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date,
including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled
approximately $525 million through June 30, 2017 and $517 million
through December 31, 2016.

"We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing
reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of
the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and
estimate our receivables from probable insurance recoveries. We
recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted
claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling $175 million and $171
million at June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. In
determining the estimate of our asbestos liability, we evaluated
claims over the next ten-year period. Due to the difficulties in
making these estimates, analysis based on new data and/or a change
in circumstances arising in the future may result in an increase
in the recorded obligation, and that increase could be
significant.

"We maintain certain primary and excess insurance coverage under
coverage-in-place agreements, and also have additional excess
liability insurance with respect to asbestos liabilities. After
consultation with our outside legal counsel and giving
consideration to agreements with certain of our insurance
carriers, the financial viability and legal obligations of our
insurance carriers and other relevant factors, we determine an
amount we expect is probable of recovery from such carriers. We
record a receivable with respect to such policies when we
determine that recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate
the amount of a particular recovery.

"We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of $126
million and $123 million at June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016,
respectively. We expect that approximately 70% of asbestos claim
related losses would be recoverable through insurance during the
ten-year period covered by the estimated liability. Of these
amounts, $12 million was included in Current Assets as part of
Accounts Receivable at June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016. The
recorded receivable consists of an amount we expect to collect
under coverage-in-place agreements with certain primary and excess
insurance carriers as well as an amount we believe is probable of
recovery from certain of our other excess insurance carriers.

"We believe that, at December 31, 2016, we had approximately $430
million in excess level policy limits applicable to indemnity and
defense costs for asbestos products claims under coverage-in-place
agreements.  We also had additional unsettled excess level policy
limits potentially applicable to such costs.  We had coverage
under certain primary policies for indemnity and defense costs for
asbestos products claims under remaining aggregate limits pursuant
to a coverage-in-place agreement, as well as coverage for
indemnity and defense costs for asbestos premises claims pursuant
to coverage-in-place agreements.

"With respect to both asserted and unasserted claims, it is
reasonably possible that we may incur a material amount of cost in
excess of the current reserve; however, such amounts cannot be
reasonably estimated. Coverage under insurance policies is subject
to varying characteristics of asbestos claims including, but not
limited to, the type of claim (premise vs. product exposure),
alleged date of first exposure to our products or premises and
disease alleged. Depending upon the nature of these
characteristics, as well as the resolution of certain legal
issues, some portion of the insurance may not be accessible by
us."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Longhorn Claims Fall Under Pollution Exclusion
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacates the
District Court's judgment and remands the appealed case captioned
LONGHORN GASKET AND SUPPLY COMPANY; ET AL, Plaintiffs, TRINITY
LLOYD'S INSURANCE COMPANY; TRINITY UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Intervenor Plaintiffs -- Appellees Cross-Appellants, v. UNITED
STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant -- Appellant Cross-
Appellee, No. 15-41625, (5th Cir.), to the District Court for a
determination of the applicability of the "sudden and accidental"
exception to the pollution exclusion.

This case concerns Longhorn Gasket and Supply Company's primary
and excess policy coverage, as provided by Trinity Lloyd's
Insurance Company and Trinity Universal Insurance Company, and
United States Fire Insurance Company ("U.S. Fire"), between May
21, 1983 and February 1, 1986.

Longhorn Gasket and Supply Company, et al., manufactured and sold
gaskets throughout the 1980s and 1990s, some of which contained
asbestos.  As a result, Longhorn Gasket has been the Defendant in
numerous asbestos and mixed dust cases in Texas regarding damage
that occurred over many years -- including years in which
intervenors Trinity Lloyd's Insurance Company and Trinity
Universal Insurance Company provided primary comprehensive general
liability insurance policies.

Trinity's primary policies and U.S. Fire's excess policies
overlapped from May 21, 1983 through February 1, 1986. Trinity's
primary insurance policies were effective May 21, 1983 through May
21, 1988, and each had an annual limit of $500,000 per occurrence
and in the aggregate. U.S. Fire's excess policies at issue were
effective February 1, 1983 through February 1, 1986, and had
policy limits of $5 million.

On September 12, 2007, Longhorn Gasket sued U.S. Fire, alleging
breach of contract and insurance code violations for U.S. Fire's
alleged refusal to acknowledge the applicability of coverage, to
provide settlement authority, to negotiate, and to eliminate
Longhorn Gasket's exposure in the outstanding asbestos lawsuits.
Longhorn Gasket also sought a declaratory judgment that U.S.
Fire's excess policies were activated, enforceable, and applicable
to the claims being made against Longhorn Gasket in the asbestos
lawsuits.

Trinity filed an unopposed motion to intervene in November 2008,
alleging that its policies from 1983-1988 were exhausted and that
as a result, U.S. Fire was obligated to indemnify and defend the
claims against Longhorn Gasket during the time when U.S. Fire
provided excess policies. Trinity contends it has paid a total of
$2,432,556.44 in indemnity payments to asbestos claimants on
Longhorn Gasket's behalf, and that it has expended another
$3,171,029 defending Longhorn Gasket against asbestos claims.
Trinity sought reimbursement for all of the defense and indemnity
payments it made on behalf of Longhorn Gasket under the theory
that, once its 1980-1983 policies were exhausted, U.S. Fire was
obligated to defend and indemnify Longhorn Gasket from the claims
that Trinity defended and settled.

U.S. Fire filed a motion for summary judgment based on the
policies' pollution exclusion, which was denied by the District
Court in March 2012, saying that asbestos was not a pollutant, and
therefore the pollution exclusion did not apply to the underlying
claims. In the alternative, the District Court held that a fact
issue existed regarding the sudden and accidental exception,
making summary judgment improper.

According to the plain language of U.S. Fire's excess policy, the
pollution exclusion bars claims for the following: (1) a bodily
injury or property damage liability claim; (2) arising out of the
discharge, dispersal, release, or escape into or upon the land,
the atmosphere or any water course or body of water; (3) of smoke,
vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, liquids or
gases, waste materials or other irritants, contaminants or
pollutants.

In October 2014, the District Court appointed a Special Master,
who prepared a report and recommendation on these motions for
partial summary judgment in March 2015. The Special Master's
report and recommendation reiterated the following: the cause of
the injuries in the underlying claims was exposure to Longhorn
Gasket's gaskets with asbestos, Longhorn Gasket did not have to
horizontally exhaust its primary coverage, and U.S. Fire's excess
policies were triggered upon exhaustion of any of the underlying
primary policies for the same policy period, that exposure to
asbestos constituted injury-in-fact (thus triggering coverage
under Texas law), and that all claimants exposed "at the same time
and location" constituted one "occurrence." The report addressed
the parties' arguments regarding settlement payments, defense
costs, and equitable subrogation. As a result, the District Court
determined that Trinity was entitled to $903,639 in settlement
payments and $1,564,335 in defense costs from U.S. Fire.

The District Court determined that the pollution exclusion did not
apply for two reasons. First, it "declined to find that asbestos
is a pollutant subject to the pollution exclusion" because U.S.
Fire "has not cited and the District Court has not found any cases
where asbestos is considered a `pollutant' and subject to the
pollution exclusion in an umbrella policy." Alternatively, the
District Court determined that "even if asbestos is a pollutant
and the pollution exclusion applies to the underlying claims,
there still remains a question of material fact with respect to
the 'sudden and accidental' exception to the pollution exclusion,"
which would make a grant of summary judgment to U.S. Fire
improper.

The District Court denied U.S. Fire's motion for reconsideration
and U.S. Fire appealed, and entered a final judgment, adopting the
report and recommendation. On April 5, 2016, the District Court
granted Trinity's Bill of Costs and ordered that U.S. Fire pay all
taxable costs, which U.S. Fire has also appealed.

U.S. Fire now appeals the final judgment as well as several of the
district court's rulings. On appeal, U.S. Fire has presented many
arguments as to why its excess policies are not triggered and why
it should not have to pay anything. It argues that: (1)
horizontal, rather than vertical, exhaustion of the primary
policies must occur before U.S. Fire's excess policies are
triggered; (2) in the alternative, even under vertical exhaustion,
U.S. Fire is entitled to subrogation from Trinity; (3) the
policies were never triggered because injury-in-fact cannot be
determined; (4) the policies were never triggered because there is
insufficient proof that the claimants were exposed to asbestos
during the relevant time; (5) the District Court should not have
awarded Trinity costs; (6) the excess policies' pollution
exclusion bars asbestos claims; or (7) in the alternative, Trinity
has failed to demonstrate a fact issue as to the applicability of
the "sudden and accidental" exception to the pollution exclusion.

Trinity, for its part, argues that U.S. Fire must provide
indemnification for the underlying asbestos claims. It argues
that: (1) the District Court properly applied vertical exhaustion,
exhausting policy coverage by year rather than by type, which
would implicate U.S. Fire's excess policies; (2) U.S. Fire is not
entitled to subrogation; (3) the District Court correctly
determined that the injury-in-fact trigger was "exposure" to
asbestos, thereby triggering U.S. Fire's excess policies; (4)
there was sufficient evidence that claimants were exposed to
asbestos during the relevant time; (5) the District Court properly
awarded Trinity costs; (6) the District Court properly concluded
that the pollution exclusion did not apply; or (7) in the
alternative, the pollution exclusion does not apply to product
liability claims; or (8) as a second alternative, the District
Court properly concluded Trinity had raised a genuine issue of
material fact on the applicability of the "sudden and accidental"
exception.

The Parties' arguments focus on whether asbestos is a pollutant.
U.S. Fire emphasizes that asbestos is a pollutant, specifically
one that must first be released into the air to cause the injuries
alleged in the underlying claims. Trinity replies that asbestos is
not a pollutant.

The Fifth Circuit finds that the pollution exclusion in U.S.
Fire's excess policies is broad, and applies generally to
"irritants, contaminants, and pollutants." The Fifth Circuit
concludes, under the plain language of the policy exclusion, that
asbestos constitutes a pollutant and an irritant. Accordingly, the
Fifth Circuit holds that the claims fall under the pollution
exclusion because they: (1) were for bodily injury; (2) arose out
of the discharge, dispersal, release, or escape, into the
atmosphere; (3) and originated with an irritant and pollutant --
namely, asbestos.

Because the Fifth Circuit has concluded that asbestos is
encompassed within the pollution exclusion in U.S. Fire's excess
policies, the Fifth Circuit will remand for the District Court to
determine in the first instance the applicability of the sudden
and accidental exception to the pollution exclusion.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated August 18, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/3YlRTB from Leagle.com.

Howard Louis Close, for Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee.

Richard Brent Cooper, for Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-
Appellant.

Richard Brent Cooper, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Bruce Alan Smith, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Thomas Clark Wright, for Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee.

Damon Michael Young, Sr., for Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-
Appellant.

Aaron Linzy Mitchell, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Diana L. Faust, for Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-Appellant.

Henry Sim Platts, Jr., for Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee.

Tarron L. Gartner-Ilai, for Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-
Appellant.

Tarron L. Gartner-Ilai, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Raffi Melkonian, for Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee.

Wesley G. Johnson, for Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-
Appellant.

Before: REAVLEY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Review "Hodjera" Ruling Set for Sept. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington issued an order in the case captioned
MATTHEW HODJERA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BASF CATALYSTS LLC, et
al., Defendants, No. C17-0048RSL, (W.D. Wash.), directing the
Clerk of Court to renote "Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify Order
Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint" on the
Court's calendar for September 1, 2017.

Earlier this year, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims against
a number of defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. The
dismissals were without prejudice, and the Plaintiffs were given
leave to amend if they could allege facts showing that their
claims arose out of defendants' purposeful contacts with this
forum.

The Court, however, ultimately found that Plaintiffs' amended
jurisdictional allegations were still deficient and denied leave
to amend. Although the order should have stated that no further
leave to amend would be granted, it instead used the shorthand
phrase "dismissed with prejudice."

The Plaintiffs timely filed a motion for reconsideration,
requesting the Court that the order denying leave to amend be
modified to show that the dismissal remains without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Order dated August 17, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/GJdWYn from Leagle.com.

Matthew Hodjera, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra B. Caggiano,
WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC.

Matthew Hodjera, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Robert
Couture, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC, Brian Weinstein, WEINSTEIN
COUTURE PLLC, Charles Stein Siegel, WATERS & KRAUS LLP, pro hac
vice & Patrick J. Wigle, WATERS & KRAUS LLP, pro hac vice.

Sylvia Hodjera, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra B. Caggiano,
WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC, Benjamin Robert Couture, WEINSTEIN COUTURE
PLLC, Brian Weinstein, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC, Charles Stein
Siegel, WATERS & KRAUS LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick J. Wigle,
WATERS & KRAUS LLP, pro hac vice.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kevin J.
Craig, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP & Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON &
REES.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Review Imerys Dismissal Set for Sept. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington issued an order directing the Clerk of
Court to renote "Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify Order Dismissing
Defendant Imerys Talc America, Inc., "With Prejudice" based on a
Jurisdictional Defect" on the Court's calendar for September 1,
2017.

On July 31, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims against
Defendant Imerys Talc America, Inc., for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Although the order should have stated that no
further leave to amend would be granted, it instead used the
shorthand phrase "dismissed with prejudice."  Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs request the Court that the order of dismissal be
modified to show that the dismissal is without prejudice.

Plaintiffs timely filed a motion for reconsideration, requesting
that the order of dismissal be modified to show that the dismissal
is without prejudice.  The Court is inclined to grant the request
and therefore directs the Clerk of Court to renote "Plaintiffs'
Motion to Modify Order Dismissing Defendant Imerys Talc America,
Inc., 'With Prejudice' Based on a Jurisdictional Defect" on the
Court's calendar for Friday, September 1, 2017.

The case is MATTHEW HODJERA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BASF CATALYSTS
LLC, et al., Defendants, No. C17-0048RSL, (W.D. Wash.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated August 17, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/KlJGsY from Leagle.com.

Matthew Hodjera, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra B. Caggiano,
WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC.

Matthew Hodjera, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Robert
Couture, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC, Brian Weinstein, WEINSTEIN
COUTURE PLLC, Charles Stein Siegel, WATERS & KRAUS LLP, pro hac
vice & Patrick J. Wigle, WATERS & KRAUS LLP, pro hac vice.

Sylvia Hodjera, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra B. Caggiano,
WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC, Benjamin Robert Couture, WEINSTEIN COUTURE
PLLC, Brian Weinstein, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC, Charles Stein
Siegel, WATERS & KRAUS LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick J. Wigle,
WATERS & KRAUS LLP, pro hac vice.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kevin J.
Craig, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP & Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON &
REES.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Fisher Controls Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MINERVA McSWAIN, Individually and as
Executrix of the Estate of BUREN EDWARD McSWAIN, Plaintiff, v. AIR
& LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Case No.
1:15-cv-00130-MR-DLH, (W.D.N.C.), Judge Martin Reidinger of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's claims against Defendant
Fisher Controls International, LLC.

A full-text copy of the Order dated August 16, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/NFsvW6 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,
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.

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..

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, Ivan A.
Gustafson, Evert Weathersby Houff, 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.

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..

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: Asbestos PI Claims vs. Union Carbide Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.), Judge Martin Reidinger
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Union
Carbide Corporation with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Order dated August 16, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/582WR2 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 Joshua Douglas
Lee, Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac vice & 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.

Domco Products Texas, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy
Peck, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Mayeaux" Remanded to Louisiana State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana remands the case styled GEORGE K.
MAYEAUX, JR., v. TAYLOR-SEIDENBACH, INC., et al., Section: "G"
(5), Civil Action Case No. 16-16813, (E.D. La.), to the Civil
District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Plaintiff filed a "Petition for Damages" in the Civil District
Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, on October
19, 2016. The Plaintiff alleges that he was employed by Avondale
from 1963 to 2009. During that time, the Plaintiff avers that he
handled asbestos and asbestos-containing products "aboard U.S.
Destroyer Escorts, Lykes, and other vessels," which caused him "to
inhale asbestos dust and fibers, which led to his development of
malignant mesothelioma and resultant injuries, damages, and
losses." The Plaintiff asserts that each of the named defendants
manufactured, sold, installed, distributed, and/or supplied the
asbestos products to which Plaintiff was exposed. The Plaintiff
brings Louisiana state law claims for negligence against Avondale
and other defendants and strict liability claims against
defendants other than Avondale.

In his Petition for Damages, the Plaintiff brings negligence
claims against Avondale and alleges that OneBeacon America
Insurance Company is liable to Plaintiff as Avondale's insurer.
The Court maintains that the Plaintiff does not assert any strict
liability claims against Defendants Avondale, Henry Carter, and
OneBeacon America Insurance Company.

The Defendants Huntington Ingalls Inc. and OneBeacon America
Insurance Company, the alleged insurer of Henry Carter, a former
President of Avondale, removed the case to the Court on December
2, 2016. Avondale alleges that removal is proper because the
action involves claims "for or relating to acts performed under
color of federal office and "because the Court has federal officer
jurisdiction over at least one of the claims asserted by the
Plaintiff, it has supplemental jurisdiction over all of the
Plaintiff's claims."

In particular, Avondale contends that Plaintiff alleges in his
Petition for Damages that he worked on U.S. Navy Destroyer
Escorts, or "Federal Vessels," where he was exposed to asbestos.
Moreover, Avondale avers that the use of asbestos-containing
materials from which the Plaintiff's causes of action arise was
required by the contractual provisions and design specifications
mandated by the federal government, and that the federal
government supervised the construction process to ensure
compliance.

Additionally, Avondale purports to assert "two colorable federal
defenses" in its Notice of Removal to Plaintiff's claims: (1)
Plaintiff's claims are barred under the doctrine of government
contractor immunity established by the Supreme Court in Boyle v.
United Technologies Corporation; and (2) Plaintiff's claims are
preempted and barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the
Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ("LHWCA").
Accordingly, Avondale contends that removal is proper under the
federal officer removal statute.

In his Motion to Remand, the Plaintiff argues that remand is
appropriate because Avondale has failed to satisfy all four
requirements of the federal officer removal statute. Avondale
argues that it is entitled to removal under the federal officer
removal statute because: (1) it acted under color of federal
office in building the Navy Destroyer Escorts, (2) it has shown
that the Plaintiff's claims satisfy the causation element of the
removal statute as amended, and (3) it has asserted a colorable
federal defense.

The Court holds that in order to show that removal under the
federal officer removal statute is proper, Avondale must show
that: (1) it is a "person" within removal under the federal
officer removal statute; (2) it acted pursuant to a federal
officer's directions, and a causal nexus exists between its
actions under color of federal office and the plaintiff's claims;
and (3) it has a colorable federal defense to the plaintiff's
claims.  With regard to the first factor, Plaintiff does not
dispute that Avondale as a corporation qualified as a "person"
within removal, and therefore, the Court finds that Avondale has
sufficiently shown that it is a "person" within the meaning of the
federal officer removal statute.

With regard to the second factor, the Plaintiff argues that
Avondale cannot show that a federal officer directed or controlled
their safety- and warning-related activities, or that there is a
causal nexus between Avondale's actions under color of federal
office and Plaintiff's negligence claims. In opposition, Avondale
asserts that, under the current "for or relating to" language of
Section 1442(a)(1), it has demonstrated that all of the breaches
of duty Plaintiff alleges "relate to" Avondale's conduct in
fulfilling its contracts with the federal government for the
construction of the Navy Destroyer Escorts, and therefore,
Plaintiff's negligence claims are "related to" its actions
pursuant to the federal government's directions.

The Court finds that Avondale has not shown the second prong of
the federal officer removal statute is met. The Court points out
that the Plaintiff has only brought negligence claims against his
employer, Avondale, for its failure to meet its duties to
Plaintiff. Moreover, the Court finds Avondale has adduced no
evidence that the federal government prevented Avondale from
taking the protected measures identified by Plaintiff or exercised
control over Avondale's safety procedures or safety department.
Rather, the Court determines that the Plaintiff has pointed to
testimony by two former Avondale Safety Directors confirming that
the federal government did not exercise any control over
Avondale's safety department or its compliance with safety
regulations.

Accordingly, the Court finds that removal was improper, as
Avondale has not shown that the necessary causal nexus exists
between Avondale's actions under color of federal office and
Plaintiff's negligence claims. Avondale has not pointed to any
evidence that the federal government controlled Avondale's safety
procedures or safety department such that its alleged failure to
warn or protect Plaintiff from the dangers of asbestos is "related
to" its actions under color of federal office.

A full-text copy of the Order dated August 15, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/BjFQl3 from Leagle.com.

George K. Mayeaux, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Louis L.
Gertler, Gertler Law Firm.

George K. Mayeaux, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Helen Hairston
Babin, Gertler Law Firm.

OneBeacon America Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Adam Devlin deMahy,
Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP, Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP & Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz
& Duhe, APLC.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Brian
C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III,
Blue Williams, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams,
LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Laura M. Gillen, Blue
Williams, LLP & Patrick Kevin Shockey, Blue Williams, LLP.

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta
Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Kaye
N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta
Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

Continental Insurance Co, Defendant, represented by William P.
Wynne, Jones Walker, Christopher Kirt Ulfers, Jones Walker, Glenn
Gill Goodier, Jones Walker & Hansford P. Wogan, Jones Walker.

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Defendant, represented by McGready Lewis
Richeson, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, Ernest G.
Foundas, Pugh, Accardo, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Pugh,
Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, Milele N. St. Julien, Pugh,
Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey & Perrey S. Lee, Pugh, Accardo,
LLC.

Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jamie M. Zanovec, Willingham
Fultz & Cougill, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Willingham Fultz &
Cougill & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz & Cougill.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Edward
J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard
J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale.

McCarty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & James R. Guidry, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Zurich American Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Edward T. Hayes, Leake & Andersson, LLP, Adam D. Whitworth, Leake
& Andersson, LLP & Marc E. Devenport, Leake & Andersson, LLP.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Third Party Plaintiff,
represented by Brian C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher
Thomas Grace, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III,
Blue Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Laura M.
Gillen, Blue Williams, LLP & Patrick Kevin Shockey, Blue Williams,
LLP.

International Paper Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by
Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Elizabeth
Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Mary Reeves Arthur,
Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP & Thomas Peyton Smith, Forman,
Watkins, & Krutz, LLP.

Uniroyal, Inc., Third Party Defendant, represented by Mary Reeves
Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP & Amy Louise Maccherone,
Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Cross Claimant, represented by
Brian C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace,
III, Blue Williams, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue
Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Laura M.
Gillen, Blue Williams, LLP & Patrick Kevin Shockey, Blue Williams,
LLP.

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by McGready
Lewis Richeson, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, Ernest G.
Foundas, Pugh, Accardo, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Pugh,
Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, Milele N. St. Julien, Pugh,
Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey & Perrey S. Lee, Pugh, Accardo,
LLC.

Continental Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
William P. Wynne, Jones Walker, Christopher Kirt Ulfers, Jones
Walker, Glenn Gill Goodier, Jones Walker & Hansford P. Wogan,
Jones Walker.

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Troy
Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jamie M. Zanovec,
Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Willingham
Fultz & Cougill & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz & Cougill.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale, Edward J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale.







                             *********


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  * * *