CAR_Public/170922.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


           Friday, September 22, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 188



                            Headlines

547 LENOX: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks Spread-of-Hours, OT Pay
ABBOTT LABS: Faces Asea/Afscme Trust Suit in N.D. Ill.
AMERICAN REALTY: Appeals Order Granting Class Certification
AMERICAN SECURITIES: Greensboro NC Sues Over Alum Price-Fixing
AMERICAN SUGAR: Faces Class Action Over "Organic" Nectar Label

ANGLO AMERICAN: Industry Working Group Seeks Silicosis Settlement
ARNOLD & ITKIN: Faces "Prunty" Suit in M.D. Fla.
BANGLADESH HINDU: Sued over Religious Temple Operation
BLUE CROSS: Faces Lutz Surgical Suit in Middle District of Fla.
BMW AG: Madison Class Suit Removed to Mass. Dist. Ct.

CALIBER COLLISION: Faces "Rocha" Suit in C.D. Calif.
CALIFORNIA: Dept. of Water Resources Sued Over Spillway Incident
CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Improper Reserve Land Taxation
CHICAGO, IL: KCL Appeals N.D. Ill. Decision to Seventh Circuit
CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Deane" Suit in E.D.N.Y.

COLLECTO INC: Nov. 27 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
COLLECTION PROFESSIONAL: Faces Class Action in Illinois
COMSCORE: Plans to Settle Securities Class Actions
CONSTRUCTION DIRECTIONS: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime
DST SYSTEMS: Faces Class Action Over Employee Retirement Plan

EAST PALACE: "Cui" Action Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
EGS FINANCIAL: McCormick Files Suit in E.D.N.Y.
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: October 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
ENERGY RECOVERY: $3.85MM Settlement Wins Final Court Approval
EQUIFAX INC: 143 Million Records Affected by Cyber Attack

EQUIFAX INC: Lawmakers to Conduct Investigations Into Hack
EQUIFAX INC: Corresponded With SEC About Data Breaches 5 Years Ago
EQUIFAX INC: Oregon AG Ellen Rosenblum Comments on Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Class Actions Pile Up Following Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Chatbot Helps Data Breach-Affected Consumers to Sue

EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Whipper" Suit over Data Security Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Skye" Suit over Data Security Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Zamora" Suit over Data Security Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Bergeron" Suit over Data Security Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Kircher" Suit over Data Security Breach

EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Zweig" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
EQUIFAX INC: Faces 23 Class Actions Over Massive Cyberbreach
EQUIFAX INC: Levy & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
EQUIFAX INC: Sanford Heisler Files Data Breach Class Action
EUROPTICS INC: Faces Class Action Over Unsafe Eclipse Glasses

EXXON MOBIL: Motion to Dismiss "Goldstein" Suit Okayed
FARRELL'S LIMOUSINE: "Lee" Suit Seeks OT Pay under Labor Law
FEDERAL NATIONAL: Appeals Court Revises Opinion on Breach Claims
FIREEYE INC: Settlement of Stockholder Case Awaits Final Court OK
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Cafiso" Suit in E.D. of New York

FLINT, MI: Water Crisis Class Action to Remain in Genesee County
FOODSTUFFS INC: "Williams" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA
GOODRICH CORP: "Alikhan" Suit Moved to C.D. California
GRAIN PROCESSING: Iowa Supreme Court Affirms Class Certification
HEALTH INSURANCE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

HEALTH INSURANCE: Vigorito Sues over Securities Exchange Act
I3CONCEPTS LLC: "Duncan" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
IMPERVA INC: Oct. 11 Hearing to Approve $19MM Settlement
INOTEK PHARMACEUTICALS: 2nd Amended Suit Filed in "Whitehead"
INOVALON HOLDINGS: Initial Conference Today in "Xiang" Suit

IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Answer to "DeSilvio" Suit Due Nov. 14
JACKSON NURSE: Faces "Musgrove" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss Suit Denied
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs Permitted to File Amended Suit
KUKA TOLEDO: Unpaid Overtime Premiums Claimed Unpaid by "Clemons"

LINCOLN NAT'L: Faces "Tutor" Suit in East. Dist. Penn.
LIVERPOOL, UK: Suit Mulled Against Council Over Chinatown Project
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Class Suit Related to MVCD Program Pending
MID-ATLANTIC LUBES: Judge Rejects FLSA Class Action Settlement
NESTLE WATERS: Faces Class Acton Over Deceptive Business Strategy

NEW RESIDENTIAL: Nov. 17 Hearing on Case Settlement
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: "Adams" Hits Defective Dashboards
OAKMONT SENIOR: Faces "Lollock" Suit over Excessive Fees
OVASCIENCE INC: Discovery Underway in Suffolk County Class Suit
OVASCIENCE INC: Shareholder Suit in Massachusetts Underway

PARK GROVE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Printed Receipt
PHH CORPORATION: Settlement Hearing in "Strader" Moved to Oct. 19
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Daskal" Suit in East. Dist. New York
REWALK ROBOTICS: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Actions Pending
RLS SUPERMARKETS: Batra Appeals Ruling in FACTA Suit to 5th Cir.

SCOTTRADE INC: "Hine" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.
SEARCH ENGINE: "Dickson" Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
SERES THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss "Mazurek" Under Advisement
SPROUTS FARMERS: Appeal in Securities Action Still Pending
ST JUDE MEDICAL: Decision on Litigation Funding Under Reserve

SUNCOKE: Settles Class Action Over Emissions for $4.25 Million
SUPERIOR PROTECTION: Faces "Lemons" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
TACOS CUAOTLA: Faces "Cali" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Jurs" Suit in N. Dist. New York
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway

TWIN HILL: Class Action Plaintiffs Sue Poynter Law Group
TWITTER INC: Shareholder Actions Pending in California
UNITED STATES: D. Worby Comments on 9/11 Class Action Settlement
UNITED STATES: Court Set to Hear Arguments in Immigration Case
US BANK: Sued in N.Y. Over Improper Use of Covered Trusts Funds

VEREIT INC: Cole Litigation Matter Still Pending
VIACOM INC: Court Narrows Claims in Stockholders' Action
VISALUS INC: Sommers Schwartz Files Securities Class Action
VITAS HEALTHCARE: Unpaid Overtime Premiums Claimed by "Bates"
VOLKSWAGEN: Swiss Car Buyers Take Part in Diesel Class Action

VONAGE HOLDINGS: Still Defends Merkin & Smith, et al. Suit
VOX MEDIA: "Bradley" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: "Blocker" Disputes Collection Letter
WAL-MART STORES: Failed to Pay Regular & OT Pay, Evans Claims
WEST VIRGINIA, USA: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Greer" Suit

WESTERN UNION: Settlement in "Douglas" Suit Pending Final Okay
WESTERN UNION: Appeal in "Pincus" Case Underway
WESTERN UNION: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit
WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Appeal in Unitholder Litigation Underway
WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Trial to Begin June 2018 in Stockholder Case

WINNIPEG ROYAL: Faces Privacy Class Action Over Intimate Photos
ZAGG INC: Still Faces Stotz and Charles Lawsuit

* 34% of Data Breach Class Actions Targeted Health Sector in 2016
* Class Action Certification Overpleading Unnecessary & Wasteful
* Contingency Attorney Fees Lower in Big Class Action Settlements
* CUNA Urges Senate to Vote Against CFPB's New Arbitration Rule
* Plaintiffs Lawyers Seek 30% Contingency Fees in Class Action

* Recall of Tainted Marijuana May Spark More Class Actions
* Suits Against Foods Companies Related to "Natural" Label Rise


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Maritime Asbestos Claims Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Laden Trees Near Fire Spark Concerns
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two Devon Men Die After Exposure to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Fears Investigated on Argyll Island
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Rhode Island Police Station

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Remains in Many Rutgers Dormitories
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Legal Claims Grows Over Fumes Exposure at Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Village of Canton Hires Asbestos Testing Agency
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crews Begin Removing Asbestos from Courthouse
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lane County Warns of Asbestos in Home Materials

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Condemns NT Gov't Statement Over Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mont. Asbestos Claims Still Trickling to Courts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Price Tag of Mesothelioma Soars to $2.35-Bil.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Rules for Asbestos Lawyers, Trusts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Imports Nearly Doubled in 2016

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Work Resumes on Contaminated Wilmington Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in Favor of McCord Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia Ct. Denies Gary's Forma Pauperis Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. App. Affirms Final Judgment for Northrop
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claim vs. Exelon Dismissed in "Harding"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Junks Bell & Gossett's Appeal in "Brown"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Strike Affidavit Denied in "Doolin"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CertainTeed Wins Summary Judgment in "Lempert"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Sets Jan. 19 Discovery Deadline in "Cox"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Vacates Settlement Enforcement Ruling



                            *********


547 LENOX: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks Spread-of-Hours, OT Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luis Espinoza Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 547 Lenox Bar-B-Q-Rest. Corp.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06704 (S.D. N.Y., September 1, 2017),
seeks unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, spread-of-hours premium,
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

Marc Bernstein and Kwasi Sempero own and operate Harlem Bar-B-Q
located at 547 Lenox Ave, New York, NY 10037-1806 where Espinoza
worked as a dishwasher. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Phone: (212) 317-1200
      Fax: (212) 317-1620


ABBOTT LABS: Faces Asea/Afscme Trust Suit in N.D. Ill.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Abbott Laboratories.
The case is styled as Asea/Afscme Local 52 Health Benefits Trust,
individually and on behalf of a class similarly situated third
party payors, Plaintiff v. Abbott Laboratories, an Illinois
Corporation and St. Jude Medical, Inc., a Minnesota corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06704 (N.D. Ill., September 18,
2017).
Abbott Laboratories is engaged in the discovery, development,
manufacture and sale of a range of health care products.[BN]

St. Jude Medical, Inc. operate a medical device company
headquartered in Saint Paul, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Amy Elisabeth Keller, Esq.
   DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC
   Ten North Dearborn Street
   Eleventh Floor
   Chicago, IL 60602
   Tel: (312) 214-7900
   Email: akeller@dlcfirm.com

      - and -

   Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
   Dicello Levitt & Casey LLC
   Ten North Dearborn Street
   Eleventh Floor
   Chicago, IL 60602
   Tel: (312) 214-7900
   Email: alevitt@dlcfirm.com



AMERICAN REALTY: Appeals Order Granting Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. and other defendants
filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit a
petition for permission to appeal orders granting class
certification in the case, In re American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-MC-00040 (AKH).

According to VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P.'s
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017,
between October 30, 2014 and January 20, 2015, the Company and
certain of its former officers and directors, among other
individuals and entities, were named as defendants in ten
securities class action complaints filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The court
consolidated these actions under the caption In re American Realty
Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-MC-00040 (AKH) (the
"SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action"). The plaintiffs filed
a second amended class action complaint on December 11, 2015,
which asserted claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

Certain defendants, including the Company and the OP, filed
motions to dismiss the second amended class action complaint (or
portions thereof), which were granted in part and denied in part
by the court. The Company and the OP filed an answer to the second
amended class action complaint on July 29, 2016.

On September 8, 2016, the court issued an order directing
plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint to reflect certain
prior rulings by the court. The third amended complaint was filed
on September 30, 2016 and the defendants were not required to file
new answers. Document production is substantially complete.

Plaintiffs in the SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action filed
a motion for class certification on March 15, 2017, which has been
fully briefed by the parties.

The Motion was granted following a hearing on August 24, 2017.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Scott Alexander Edelman, Esq.
     Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP
     28 Liberty Street
     New York, NY 10005
     Tel: 212-530-5000

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Susan Katina Alexander, Esq.
     Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
     Post Montgomery Center
     1 Montgomery Street
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: 415-288-4545

          - and -

     Andrew Love, Esq.
     Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
     Post Montgomery Center
     1 Montgomery Street
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: 415-288-4545

          - and -

     Darren Jay Robbins, Esq.
     Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
     655 West Broadway
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: 619-231-1058

VEREIT is a full-service real estate operating company.


AMERICAN SECURITIES: Greensboro NC Sues Over Alum Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
City of Greensboro, North Carolina, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. American Securities LLC,
Matthew Lebaron and Scott Wolff, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
06674, (D. N.J., September 1, 2017), is an anti-trust suit over
price-fixing of liquid aluminum sulfate pursuant to the Sherman
Act.

Defendants are allegedly engaged in a conspiracy to artificially
fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of aluminum
sulfate in the United States. Plaintiff purchased liquid aluminum
sulfate directly from the defendants at allegedly excessive
prices.

City of Greensboro indirectly purchased liquid alum for its water
treatment facilities. Alum is a coagulant used to remove
impurities and other substances from water. It hydrolyzes to form
insoluble precipitates, which aid in the removal of tiny particles
that cannot be easily filtered or are too small to settle.

American Securities LLC is a private equity firm based in New
York, New York that owns the GenChem Group comprising General
Chemical Corporation, General Chemical LLC and General Chemical
Performance Products LLC. They manufacture and sell alum and other
water treatment chemicals for use by water and sewage treatment
plants and pulp and paper plants. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq.
      WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
      100 South Broad Street, Suite 705
      Philadelphia, PA 19110-1061
      Tel: (215) 545-7200
      Email: kitchenoff@wka-law.com

             - and -

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
      Zachary S. Bower, Esq.
      CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Tel: (973) 994-1700
      Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
             ltaylor@carellabyrne.com
             zbower@carellabyrne.com

             - and -

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

            - and -

     Michael D. Critchley, Esq.
     CRITCHLEY, KINUM & DENOIA LLC
     75 Livingston Ave.
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Tel: (973) 422-9200
     Email: mcritchely@critchleylaw.com

            - and -

     Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
     David Rudolph, Esq.
     Katherine L. Benson, Esq.
     LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMAN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
     Embarcadero Center West
     275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: (415) 956-1000
     Email: efastiff@lchb.com
            drudolph@lchb.com
            kbenson@hchb.com

            - and -

     Paul J. Geller, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Tel: (651) 750-3000
     Email: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com

            - and -

     Manuel Juan Dominguez, Esq.
     David A. Young, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL
     2925 PGA Boulevard
     Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
     Tel: (561) 833-6575
     Email: dominguez@cohenmilstein.com
            dyoung@cohenmilstein.com

            - and -

     H. Laddie Montague, Jr., Esq.
     Ruthanne Gordon, Esq.
     Candice J. Enders
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 875-3000
     Email: hlmontague@bm.net
            rgordon@bm.net

            - and -

     Sanford P. Dumain, Esq.
     MILBERG LLP
     One Pennsylvania Plaza, 50th Floor
     New York, NY 10119
     Tel: (212) 594-5300
     Email: sdumain@milberg.com
            cenders@bm.net

            - and -

     Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
     NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
     570 Lexington Avenue, 19 Fl.
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: (212) 722-7053
     Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

            - and -

     Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq.
     SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
     Woodland Falls Corporate Park
     220 Lake Drive East, Suite 200
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
     Tel: (856) 482-5222
     Email: lrodriguez@schnader.com

            - and -

     Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
     SEEGER WEISS LLP
     77 Water Street, 26th Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Tel: (212) 584-0700
     Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

            - and -

     Whitney Erin Street, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     520 Third Street, Suite 108
     Oakland, CA 94109
     Tel: (415) 968-8999
     Email: whitney@blockesq.com


AMERICAN SUGAR: Faces Class Action Over "Organic" Nectar Label
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark D. Anstoetter, Esq. -- manstoetter@shb.com -- and Madeleine
M. McDonough, Esq. -- mmcdonough@shb.com -- of Shook Hardy & Bacon
LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that a consumer has filed a
putative class action alleging that American Sugar Refining
mislabeled its agave syrup as "organic" because it contains
isomaltose, an ingredient "not naturally found in pure agave
syrup." Valdes v. Am. Sugar Refining, No. 17-5213 (E.D.N.Y., filed
September 5, 2017).  The complaint asserts that while the only
ingredient listed on the product label is organic agave nectar,
independent testing revealed the presence of isomaltose, which is
"commonly found in high fructose corn syrup" and "other non-
natural, non-organic sweeteners." Alleging violations of state
consumer-protection laws, fraud, breach of express warranty and
unjust enrichment, the plaintiff seeks class certification,
damages, an injunction, restitution and attorney's fees.  [GN]


ANGLO AMERICAN: Industry Working Group Seeks Silicosis Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mining Review Africa reports that having made several strides
towards its goal of finding sustainable compensation and medical
care solutions for present and future gold mining employees, the
Gold Mining Industry Working Group on Occupational Lung Disease
(OLD) is aiming to do the same for former gold mine employees by
reaching an out-of-court settlement before the end of the year on
the class action lawsuit that was levelled against the mining
companies by former mineworkers who developed silicosis on South
Africa's gold mines. The settlement of this legacy issue should
act as a catalyst in creating a better system for current and
future gold miners in South Africa, Chantelle Kotze writes.

Formed in 2014 by five of the gold mining companies, either
historically or currently active in gold mining, the OLD working
group acts as a platform on which to engage all stakeholders
(including employees and unions, the regulators, medical
professionals and others) in order to work together to design and
implement a comprehensive solution that is both fair to past,
present and future gold mining employees, and also a solution that
is sustainable for the sector.

Since then, the number of companies has since increased to six and
includes Anglo American South Africa, AngloGold Ashanti, Gold
Fields, Harmony Gold Mining Company, Sibanye-Stillwater and
African Rainbow Minerals.

The three main pillars of the OLD working group are to:

   * Work with other stakeholders in the initiative headed by
Deputy Minister Godfrey Oliphant to integrate the COIDA and ODMWA
compensation funds for new employees
   * Work with the ODMWA Compensation Commissioner to improve the
administration of the fund and to speed up compensation payments
to eligible claimants
   * Work towards a settlement of the class action legal suit.

Legal action

In 2012 and 2013, three separate class action lawsuits were
instituted, namely the Abrahams, Spoor and LRC class applications.
In 2013, the three class applications were consolidated into a
single class application against 32 mining companies including the
OLD working group companies and their respective subsidiaries.

The applicants in the class application applied for the
certification of two classes:

   * a silicosis class comprising current and former mine workers
who have contracted silicosis, and the dependants of mine workers
who have died of silicosis; and
   * a tuberculosis class comprising current and former
mineworkers who have or had contracted pulmonary tuberculosis and
the dependants of deceased mineworkers who died of pulmonary
tuberculosis.

In May 2016, the Johannesburg High Court approved the
certification of the two classes.  According to attorney Richard
Spoor, an estimated 100 000 former and current mineworkers who
developed the disease while working in any of the goldmines
belonging to the 32 respondent mining companies after 1965.

The companies have appealed against the judgment.  The case is
scheduled to be heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal next March.

OLD working group spokesperson Alan Fine, speaking to MINING
REVIEW AFRICA on behalf of all the working group member companies,
notes that the member companies remain of the view that achieving
a mutually acceptable comprehensive settlement which is both fair
to past, present and future employees, and sustainable for the
sector, is preferable to protracted litigation.

"A settlement this year could be a significant victory for both
parties, given that, in a case as complex as this one, the legal
class action process could be drawn out for several years -- to no
benefit to either party -- which is one reason for the
constructive negotiations that are underway and aim to be
finalised before year end," Mr. Fine notes.

Financial provision for settlement

All of the six working group companies, which account for most of
the 32 respondent companies against which the class action suit
was lodged, have already indicated, during the release of their
financial results, that they have set aside a provision for the
possible silicosis class action settlement.

Harmony Gold Mining Company has set aside a pre-tax amount of R917
million (US$ 70 million), while Gold Fields has provided an amount
of R390 million ($30.2 million) for this obligation, as at 30 June
2017.

Meanwhile, Anglo American South Africa has estimated and set aside
$101 million -- an amount it deems as management's best estimate
of the cost of a settlement, while AngloGold Ashanti has provided
for this obligation a discounted pre-tax amount of $63 million
($46 million post-tax) (pre-tax undiscounted amount of $77
million).

African Rainbow Minerals has recorded a provision of R330 million
(discounted) in its results for the year ended 30 June 2017. The
nominal amount of the provision is R417 million.

Sibanye-Stillwater has provided R1.1 billion (US$82 million)
before tax, for its obligation, while Harmony Gold Mining Company
has made a provision of R917 million (US$70 million) as at 30 June
2017, representing the company's share of the estimated cost of a
possible settlement of the silicosis class action litigation and
related costs.

The right compensation system

The key to successful compensation coverage for all current and
future employees is the application of the Compensation for
Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA) across the board.
By moving all future mine workers from the Occupational Diseases
in Mines and Works Act (ODMWA) compensation system to the COIDA
system, mine workers who become sick or are injured in the course
of their employment will be eligible for substantially higher
compensation for OLD than if they still fell under CODWA.

COIDA is also widely acknowledged as a progressive compensation
system that is compliant with standards set by the International
Labour Organisation.  Should present and/or future employees be
transferred from ODMWA to COIDA, the OLD working group believes
that this would likely preclude future litigation.  Mr. Fine notes
that the OLD working group has spent a lot of effort, time and
money in addressing the administrative issues at the Medical
Bureau for Occupational Diseases (MBOD).

Tackling administrative challenges

The Chamber of Mines and the OLD working group have been working
closely with the Compensation Commissioner, through Project
Ku-Riha -- set up in 2015 and rolled out by the Department of
Health -- to try to tackle the administrative obstacles faced by
the MBOD/CCOD (Compensation Commission for Occupational Diseases).
The Chamber has contributed around R26 million towards tracking
sufferers, administrative improvements, and providing the public
health system in labour-sending areas with the capacity to examine
for occupational lung diseases and assist with compensation
claims.

A crucial part of the work that has been done is the capacitation
of the existing government compensation structures to deal with a
considerable backlog of compensation claims from former and
current mineworkers.  In addition to the Chamber's funding, the
OLD working group has provided financial, organisational,
technical and personnel support, including the secondment of a
senior manager to act as COO of the MBOD and a medical
practitioner expert in the field of occupational health.

Tackling health and wellness head on

The collaboration by the Chamber of Mines and the OLD working
group (at the time comprising AngloGold Ashanti, Gold Fields,
Harmony Gold Mining Company and Sibanye-Stillwater) with
government and unions led to the establishment of One Stop Centres
in Mthatha and Carletonville (opened in 2014).  This was an
important step in ensuring former mineworkers can easily access
compensation benefits by enabling them to be tested for
occupational lung diseases and claim appropriate compensation in
one place.  The OLD working group companies continue to fund the
staffing costs of the Carletonville One Stop Centre, and will do
so until 2018, at a cost of over R5.5 million (taking inflation
into account). [GN]


ARNOLD & ITKIN: Faces "Prunty" Suit in M.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arnold & Itkin LLP.
The case is styled as Robert R. Prunty and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Arnold & Itkin LLP, The Meyer Blair Law
Firm, Morgan & Morgan LLP, Sheller PC and Kline & Specter, P.C.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00506-UA-CM (M.D. Fla., September 18,
2017).

Arnold & Itkin LLP is a law firm in Houston, TX, specializing in
Personal Injury.

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BANGLADESH HINDU: Sued over Religious Temple Operation
------------------------------------------------------
DWIJEN BHATTACHARJYA, Ph.D., ASHOK SAHA, M.D., DIPAK KARMAKAR,
SHYAMAL CHAKRABORTY, PROBIR ROY, PRONOBENDU CHAKRABORTY,
SUBHASH MAJUMDER, JOYDEB DEY, PIENAKY SEN CHOWDHURY, PURNIMA
BHATTACHARJYA, DILIP NATH, DEEPOK BHATTACHARJYA, AMIT CHOWDHURY,
GITANJALI CHOWDHURY, MADHABI CHAKRA VARTY, RANESH CHAKRAVARTY,
SANTOSH DEBNATH, and others similarly situated, individually and
on behalf of BANGLADESH HINDU MANDIR, INC., the Plaintiffs, v.
BANGLADESH HINDU MANDIR, INC., the Defendant, Case No. (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Sep. 13, 2017), seeks judgment directing Defendants to fully
comply with all Constitutional mandates of the Temple.

The Temple's mission and purpose is to operate a religious temple
and promote the spiritual, cultural and social needs of people of
the Hindu faith who are of Bangladeshi origin.

The Plaintiffs state that they are aggrieved members as a result
of the in/actions of the present Board of Directors which is
governing the Temple as an autocratic institution. The action is
also based upon sections 623 and 720 of the NonProfit Corporation
Law and as otherwise provided by law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Moulinos, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW MOULINOS
          23-52 31st Street
          Astoria, NY 11105
          Telephone: 718 545 2600


BLUE CROSS: Faces Lutz Surgical Suit in Middle District of Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Florida, Inc. The case is styled as Lutz Surgical
Partners, PLLC, on its own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Florida, Inc, Health Options, Inc. and GuideWell Mutual Holding
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02157-JSM-TGW (M.D.
Fla., September 18, 2017).

The Defendants offer services in the health solutions industry in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Anant Kumar, Esq.
   Zuckerman Spaeder LLP
   399 Park Avenue, 14th Floor
   New York, NY 10022
   Tel: (212) 704-9600
      - and -

   D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
   Pomerantz, Haudek, Block, Grossman & Gross, LLP
   100 Park Ave., 26th Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 661-1100

      - and -

   Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
   Zuckerman Spaeder LLP
   399 Park Avenue, 14th Floor
   New York, NY 10022
   Tel: (212) 704-9600

      - and -

   Nathan Michael Berman, Esq.
   Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP
   101 E Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
   Tampa, FL 33602-5838
   Tel: (813) 221-1010
   Fax: (813) 223-7961
   Email: nberman@zuckerman.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Christopher M. Murphy, Esq.
   McDermott, Will & Emery LLP
   227 West Monroe St., Suite 4400
   Chicago, IL 60606
   Tel: (312) 372-2000
   Fax: (312) 984-7700

      - and -

   Justin B. Uhlemann, Esq.
   McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP
   333 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 4500
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 358-3500
   Fax: (305) 347-6500
   Email: juhlemann@mwe.com

      - and -

   Peter B. Allport, Esq.
   McDermott Will & Emery LLP
   444 W. Lake St., Suite 4000
   Chicago, IL 60606
   Tel: (312) 372-2000

      - and -

   Robert Michael Kline, Esq.
   McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP
   333 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 4500
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 347-6537
   Fax: (305) 347-6500
   Email: rkline@mwe.com


BMW AG: Madison Class Suit Removed to Mass. Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on August 18, 2017 captioned
Madison Food Corp., and Harriet Ann Slawsby, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. BMW AG, BMW OF
North America, LLC, Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America,
INC., Audi AG, Audi of America, LLC, DR. ING. H.C. F. Porsche AG,
Porsche Cars of North America, Inc., Bentley Motors Limited,
Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC and
Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Case No. 17-2496 was removed
from the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for
Suffolk County to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Eastern Division. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:17-cv-11682 to the proceeding.

The Defendants operate luxury vehicle, sports car, motorcycle, and
engine manufacturing companies. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jeffery E. Poindexter, Esq.
      Mary Ellen MacDonald, Esq.
      BULKLEY, RICHARDSON AND GELINAS, LLP
      1500 Main Street, Suite 2700
      Springfield, MA 01115-5507
      Telephone: (413) 781-2820
      Facsimile: (413) 272-6805
      E-mail: jpoindexter@bulkley.com
              mmacdonald@bulklgy.com

           - and -

      Norman Armstrong Jr., Esq.
      KING & SPALDING LLP
      1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 200
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 737-0500
      Facsimile: (202) 626-3737
      E-mail: narmstrong@kslaw.com


CALIBER COLLISION: Faces "Rocha" Suit in C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caliber Collision
Transport Services LLC. The case is styled as Ron Rocha, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Caliber Collision Transport Services LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, Caliber Bodyworks, Inc., a California
Corporation and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
06876 (C.D. Cal., September 18, 2017).

The Defendants operate an automotive collision repair center in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CALIFORNIA: Dept. of Water Resources Sued Over Spillway Incident
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Olenyn, writing for KRCR News, reports that a class-action
lawsuit has been filed against the California Department of Water
Resources in Butte County on behalf of the 188,000 residents who
were evacuated February 12 because of the Oroville Dam's emergency
spillway.

Three evacuees represent the 188,000 evacuees as plaintiffs in the
case: Francis Bechtel, Jacob Klein -- eklein@bdlaw.com -- and Mary
Watson.

The suit was filed by Los Angeles-based law firms McNicholas &
McNicholas LLP and Frantz Law Group, APLC.

The plaintiff's attorneys said, "This event was the result of
DWR's negligence and inadequate maintenance of the dam over
several years."

It also claims that the DWR's conduct in the operation of the dam
was "a substantial factor in causing harm to the Plaintiffs who .
. . continue to be concerned about the stigma associated with the
dam failure, the potential for future failures and the
implications on property values."

"They didn't seem to really care how they took care of that dam,"
said James Frantz, one of the Plaintiff's attorneys.  "As a result
we almost had a catastrophe of tens of thousands of people being
killed."

"They should have been looking at the maintenance records. They
should have been looking at the construction records, and they
would have known that over time the dam was destined to fail,"
said attorney, Patrick McNicholas.

Neither attorney gave a number as to how much they think each
evacuee is entitled, but said they'll be ready if the case moves
forward.

The Plaintiff's attorneys predicted it would take between one and
three years to either litigate or settle out of court.

The Department of Water Resources responded saying they do not
comment on ongoing litigation. [GN]


CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Improper Reserve Land Taxation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Business Vancouver reports that a pair of Aboriginal fishermen is
suing the Canadian government in a proposed class action over the
alleged improper taxation of assets and income on reserve land.
Plaintiffs Bill and Daniel Scow filed a notice of civil claim
under the Class Proceedings Act against the Attorney General of
Canada and the Minister of National Revenue in BC Supreme Court on
August 30.

The proposed class is on behalf of all people with status under
the Indian Act "who claim to have had their personal property
situated on a reserve unlawfully taxed by the defendants through
the defendants' reliance upon the 90-day limitation period to
object to an assessment."

According to the lawsuit, the Scows are members of the We Wai Kai
band who live on Quinsam Reserve 12 in Campbell River.  They grew
up on the reserve and spent their lives fishing in the band's
traditional territory around the Georgia and Jonhstone straits.
They both operated small-scale fishing operations as sole
proprietors, the lawsuit says.  They claim Canadian tax
authorities have improperly assessed tax debts related to
"personal property situated on reserve land."

"The defendants have used the limitation period in the Income Tax
Act to collaterally attack the rights of the plaintiffs to have
their property on a reserve be free from taxation," the claim
states.  "As status Indians, the plaintiffs' employment and
business income connected to a reserve by sufficient connecting
factors is exempt from taxation pursuant to . . . the Indian Act."

Bill Scow, the claim says, successfully objected to reassessments
for his 2001 and 2002 taxation years, while Daniel Scow objected
to his 2003 assessment where their fishing incomes were determined
to be exempt.

However, the Minister of National Revenue denied the exemption to
Bill Scow's income from 2004 through 2011 and Daniel Scow's income
from 2004 through 2012. Both men claim their business was
conducted on the reserve, including repairs to vessels while
storing all records and equipment at their on-reserve residences.

"In short, the plaintiffs have had their property taken from them
contrary to statute," the claim states.  "They wish to exercise
their rights to have it returned to them and be compensated for
the hardship they endured as a result of this taking."

They seek class certification and damages for breach of the Indian
Act "in an amount equal to the total tax assessed and interest to
the date of judgment," the claim states.

The government had not responded to the claim by press time and
the allegations have not been tested or proven in court. [GN]


CHICAGO, IL: KCL Appeals N.D. Ill. Decision to Seventh Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Keep Chicago Livable, Susan Maller, Danielle McCarron,
Benjamin T. Wolf and Monica Wolf filed an appeal from a court
ruling in their lawsuit titled Keep Chicago Livable, et al. v.
City of Chicago, Case No. 1:16-cv-10371, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The appellate case is captioned as Keep Chicago Livable, et al. v.
City of Chicago, Case No. 17-2846, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit on behalf of two classes of
plaintiffs -- shared housing hosts and guests of shared housing
hosts on Airbnb and other similar short-term rental
intermediaries.

The Plaintiffs have previously filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is entitled as Keep Chicago
Livable, et al. v. City of Chicago, Case No. 17-1656, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by September 21, 2017;
      and

   -- Fee or IFP forms are due on September 21, 2017, for
      Appellants Keep Chicago Livable, Susan Maller, Danielle
      McCarron, Benjamin T. Wolf and Monica Wolf.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants KEEP CHICAGO LIVABLE, an Illinois not-for-
profit corporation; BENJAMIN T. WOLF, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; SUSAN MALLER; DANIELLE
MCCARRON; and MONICA WOLF are represented by:

          Shorge Sato, Esq.
          SHOKEN LEGAL, LTD.
          125 S. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 818-4146
          E-mail: ssato@shoken-legal.com

Defendant-Appellee CITY OF CHICAGO is represented by:

          Stephen G. Collins, Esq.
          CITY OF CHICAGO LAW DEPARTMENT
          30 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60602-0000
          Telephone: (312) 742-0115


CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Deane" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services,
Inc.  The case is styled as Michael E. Deane, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Client
Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05461 (E.D.N.Y.,
September 18, 2017).

Client Services offers mortgage modifications and credit card rate
reductions.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


COLLECTO INC: Nov. 27 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
ILYM Group Inc., a neutral third party that has been court
appointed as Claims Administrator for this case, on Sept. 11
disclosed that Class Counsel, David C. Parisi and J. Andrew Meyer,
have reached an agreement to resolve this class action pending
against Collecto, Inc., in the United States District Court,
District of Massachusetts.  The lawsuit alleges that Collecto,
Inc. violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by
placing calls to cellular telephone numbers without consent.
Under the terms of the settlement, Collecto, Inc. denies any
liability but agreed to fund a $3,200,000.00 settlement to fully
resolve this matter without the time and expense of a court
proceeding.

The settlement has been preliminarily approved by the
Massachusetts District Court, In Re: Collecto, Inc. Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Litigation, Case Number
14-md-2513-RGS and is subject to the court's final approval.  The
Settlement Class consists of: (a) all natural persons residing in
the United States; (b) who received one or more telephone calls
from an automatic telephone dialing system operated by Defendant
to their cellular telephone number; (c) between July 23, 2009 and
June 30, 2014; where (d) the person never had an agreement with
the creditor for whom Collecto sought to collect.

The settlement fund will be used to pay attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses, costs of notice and claims administration,
any incentive payment as approved by the Court, and to Class
Members who submit a claim under the procedures implemented by the
Court overseeing the settlement.

For more information call ILYM Group, Inc. toll free at 1-855-309-
1484 or visit the settlement website at
http://www.collectoclassaction.com.

The deadline to file a claim, request exclusion from the
settlement, or object to the settlement is November 27, 2017.

Class Counsel:

David C. Parisi, Esq.
Parisi & Havens LLP
212 Marine Street, Unit 100
Santa Monica, CA 90405
dcparisi@parisihavens.com
[GN]


COLLECTION PROFESSIONAL: Faces Class Action in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
divorced couple has filed a class action lawsuit against
Aplington, Kaufman, McClintock, Steele & Barry Ltd., Robert B.
Steele and Collection Professional Inc. for alleged
misrepresentation in debt collection.

Benedict P. Martorano and Laura Loch filed the complaint on July
31 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
alleging the defendants filed suits against them to collected debt
that was allegedly time-barred.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege they were
wrongly sued over their alleged medical debt.  They seek to expand
the action to include all others who were allegedly similarly
wronged by the defendants.

The plaintiffs seek statutory damages of $1,000 per alleged debt
and the lesser of $500,000 or 1 percent of the defendants' net
worth, court costs and any further relief this court grants.  They
are represented by Daniel A. Edelman -- dedelman@edcombs.com --
Cathleen M. Combs -- ccombs@edcombs.com -- James O. Latturner --
jlatturner@edcombs.com -- Francis R. Greene -- fgreene@edcombs.com
-- and Patricia N. Jjemba -- pjjemba@edcombs.com -- of Edelman,
Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC in Chicago.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois case
number 1:17-cv-05573
[GN]


COMSCORE: Plans to Settle Securities Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------
Jon Lafayette, writing for Broadcasting Cable, reports that
comScore, which has been trying to put its financial house in
order since accounting issues cropped up, said it has formed a
special committee to do a long-term strategic review of the
company.

The review process is being driven by Starboard Value LP, which
owns 4.9% of comScore stock.

comScore also said it has delayed reporting its financial results
and plans to settle lawsuits against it for $27.2 million in cash,
which would come from the company's insurers, and $82.8 million in
stock.

The media measurement company has not released financial
statements since its account issues emerged, which has resulted in
comScore's shares being delisted from public exchanges.  The
company said on Sept. 11 it will restate its earnings for 2015,
2016 and 2017 in March 2018 at the earliest.  The company noted
that it is also working on preparing its financial statements from
2017.

Earlier this year, the company said that the cost of the
investigation and redoing its financial statements was about $30
million.

"We regret the need to extend further the date for filing our
restated financials and we share the frustration of our
stockholders.  However, to ensure the completeness and accuracy of
the past four years of financial information we will be reporting
and to ensure that we are also able to include audited financial
statements for 2017, the Board has determined that additional time
is needed," said CEO Gian Fulgoni.  "In the meantime, I firmly
believe in comScore's future based on the compelling opportunities
we see for organic growth within our existing and new products,

The financial irregularities came to light after comScore acquired
Rentrak, a move that some saw as having the potential to make the
new combined company a challenger to Nielsen, which dominates the
media measurement industry.

comScore also announced that it reduced the size of its board to
five directors, eliminating seven current members.  Sue Riley, an
independent director, was appointed board chairman.  The board is
now Fulgoni, Bill Livek, president and executive VP; Brent
Rosenthal, an investor and former non-executive chairman of the
board of comScore, independent director Jacques Kerrest and Riley.

Messrs. Riley and Kerrest form the special committee studying the
company's strategic options.

"Since joining the Board, the members of the Special Committee
have immersed themselves in the challenges and opportunities the
Company faces and are working closely with the Company's
management and the other Board members to move the Company
forward," Mr. Riley said.

David Kay, co-founder and managing partner of CrossCountry
Consulting, was named interim CFO and treasurer of comScore.  He
succeeds David Chemerow, who resigned.

Securities class action lawsuits were brought against the company
and some of its current and former directors and officers of the
company in Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association.

"We believe this proposed settlement eliminates the burden of
further time, expense and risk related to the class action,
allowing the comScore team to focus on the restatement and
executing on our operational initiatives for growth," said
Fulgoni.

In another suit, comScore has agreed to pay $19 million, all but
$1.66 million of which is covered by insurance. [GN]


CONSTRUCTION DIRECTIONS: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS ALLEN and GARTH BROWN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CONSTRUCTION
DIRECTIONS, LLC, BUILDING ENTERPRISE SERIVCES, INC. and all of
their affiliated entities and successors, and HOLLISTER
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 158197/2017
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sep. 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
including unpaid overtime compensation for work performed in
excess of 40 hours on project sites other than Lighthouse Point
under Labor Law.

This action is brought on behalf of the Named Plaintiffs and a
putative class of individuals who worked on numerous projects in
the New York metropolitan area for Construction Directions, LLC,
Building Service Enterprise, Inc. and all of their affiliated
entities and successors. The Plaintiffs also bring this action
against Hollister Construction Services, LLC for work they
performed on a project known as Lighthouse Point in Staten Island,
New York.  Construction Directions failed to pay, and
Hollister failed to ensure, that Plaintiffs were compensated at
the prevailing wages and supplemental benefit rates.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080


DST SYSTEMS: Faces Class Action Over Employee Retirement Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Dornbrook, writing for Kansas City Business Journal, reports
that a former employee at DST Systems Inc. filed a class-action
lawsuit against the Kansas City company for breaching its
fiduciary duty related to its employee retirement plan.

Stephanie Ostrander, who worked at DST from 1991 to 2016, filed
the suit on Sept. 7 in federal court in Kansas City on behalf of
all employees at the company who participate in its 401(k) profit-
sharing plan.  A strong team of attorneys will represent the
plaintiffs: John Klamann, Andrew Schermerhorn and Paul Anderson of
The Klamann Law Firm PC in Kansas City; Ted Kapke --
ted@kapkewillerth.com -- and Mike Fleming --
mike@kapkewillerth.com -- of Kapke & Willerth LLC in Lee's Summit;
William Carr and Bryan White of White Graham Buckley & Carr LLC in
Independence; and Ken McClain of Humphrey Farrington & McClain PC
in Independence.

DST has not yet responded to the case.

Ms. Ostrander accuses DST of breaching its fiduciary duty by not
ensuring that the assets were adequately diversified to minimize
risk of large losses and by not adequately disclosing the level of
risk it took in investing the funds.

DST invested about 30 percent of the profit-sharing portion of the
retirement plan's assets in Valeant Pharmaceuticals International
Inc. stock.  Valeant has faced many allegations of price gouging
and accounting irregularities related to how it reported earnings.
Its stock peaked about $196 a share in 2015 but plummeted to a low
of $8.31 a share earlier this year.  The DST profit-sharing plan's
investment in Valeant fell from a high of about $415 million to
about $22 million, causing a loss of $395 million for plan
participants.

"The SEC recognizes the immense risk inherent in concentrating
assets in a single industry, including even those that contain
hundreds of companies with a collective market capitalization in
the trillions," the lawsuit states.  "In this case, Defendants
invested 30 percent of the assets in the profit-sharing portion of
the plan in a single stock.  No prudent fiduciary under like
circumstances would have or could have made the same decision to
invest so heavily in a single stock." [GN]


EAST PALACE: "Cui" Action Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ruixuan Cui, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. East Palace Restaurant Group, Six Happiness
Restaurant Group, Xi Lin, Rui Hua Chen, Lai Yin Ho, Xue Du Chen,
Qi Yeng Lin, Xue Xian Chen, Mei Qin Weng, Xian Lin, Jian Feng Lin,
Lin Fui, Fei Lin and Tan Hui Lu, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
06713, (S.D. N.Y., September 1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and unpaid spread-of-hours
under the New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate a chain of Chinese Restaurants in New York
under the names East Palace Chinese Restaurant and Six Happiness
Chinese Restaurant where Cui was employed as a deliveryman. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Tel: (718) 762-1324
      Fax: (718) 762-1342
      Email: johntroy@troypllc.com

EGS FINANCIAL: McCormick Files Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EGS Financial Care,
Inc.  The case is styled as Annie McCormick, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EGS Financial
Care, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05455 (E.D. N.Y.,
September 18, 2017).

Defendant EGS Financial Care, Inc. is a company that purchases
consumer debts and collecting thereon from Debtors.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: October 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Endo International plc
("Endo" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: ENDP) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Endo securities
between November 30, 2012 and July 6, 2017, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period").  Such investors are encouraged to join this
case by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/endp.

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (1) Reformulated Opana was not resistant to
crushing; (2) Reformulated Opana was not abuse-deterrent and its
use carried an inherent risk of abuse by grinding, snorting, or
injecting; (3) Reformulated Opana was contributing to an opioid
public health crisis; and (4) as a result, Endo would ultimately
remove Reformulated Opana from the market.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/endpor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484.  If you suffered a loss
in Endo you have until October 17, 2017 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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


ENERGY RECOVERY: $3.85MM Settlement Wins Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen entered a Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal With Prejudice dated Aug. 28, granting final approval of
the $3,850,000 settlement in the case, In Re: Energy Recovery Inc.
Securities Litigation.

Judge Chen entered a separate Order dated Aug. 29 granting Lead
Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Expenses.

Energy Recovery, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that on January 20 and 27,
2015, two stockholder class action complaints were filed against
the Company in the United States District Court of the Northern
District of California, on behalf of Energy Recovery stockholders
under the captions, Joseph Sabatino v. Energy Recovery, Inc. et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00265 EMC, and Thomas C. Mowdy v. Energy
Recovery, Inc, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00374 EMC. The complaints
have now been consolidated under the caption, In Re Energy
Recovery Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00265 EMC.
The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b),
Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 based upon alleged public misrepresentations and seeks the
recovery of unspecified monetary damages.

On October 12, 2016, the Company and the attorneys representing
the class reached an agreement in principle to settle all
outstanding claims in the case. As part of the settlement
agreement, the Company has agreed to pay the class an amount equal
to $3,850,000, the entirety of which will be borne by the
Company's insurer. The settlement agreement was granted
preliminary approval by the United States District Court of the
Northern District of California and a final approval hearing was
scheduled for August 2017.

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

Additional information on the case is available at:

        http://www.energyrecoverysecuritieslitigation.com/

Lead Counsel may be reached at:

     Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
     Washington, DC 20007
     Tel: 202-524-4290
     Fax: 202-333-2121

Counsel for Defendants:

     David M. Furbush, Esq.
     James M. Lindfelt, Esq.
     PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
     Palo Alto, CA 94304-1115
     Tel: 650-233-4500
     Fax: 650-233-4545

Energy Recovery, Inc. is an energy solutions provider to
industrial fluid flow markets worldwide.


EQUIFAX INC: 143 Million Records Affected by Cyber Attack
---------------------------------------------------------
Dante Disparte, writing for Huffington Post, reports that Equifax,
one of the 3 major credit bureaus in the U.S., recently revealed a
cyber breach resulting in the exfiltration of more than 143
million personally identifiable records -- these are the veritable
"crown jewels" in cybersecurity parlance, including social
security numbers, addresses, birthdates and credit card
information (albeit for a subset of the total).  This corresponds
to nearly half of the U.S. population and virtually 100% of the
labor force.  While the sheer number makes this one of the largest
and most damaging cyber-attacks of its kind, the real long-range
damage to Equifax may be the ill-timed stock sale by 3 of its
executives, including its CFO, just days after the breach was
originally discovered and nearly 2 months before it was disclosed.
This seemingly deliberate move by these executives to de-risk
their exposure to Equifax's almost certain market loss, reveals
how cyber risk cannot be treated in isolation of reputational
harm.  Similarly, this massive breach is yet another reminder that
there is no technological panacea to cybersecurity, but rather a
holistic approach to cyber resilience is needed.

Compounding the company's challenges, reports that Equifax's
remediation measures would in fact limit consumer rights while
boosting enrollment in their own subsidiary that provides identity
monitoring services, have only added to management and governance
headaches.  Not to mention very legitimate consumer concerns as
143 million people grapple with a lifetime of vulnerability.  Many
of these affected consumers are already organizing a massive
class-action lawsuit, seeking damages of $70 billion.  Equifax's
heartfelt apology from their chairman and CEO, offers people the
opportunity to enroll in their subsidiary's identity monitoring
services at no cost for a period of one year.  Herein a host of
new consumer challenges emerge, especially with the latency of
cyber threats, the vast secondary black market where personal data
are sold, the lifelong nature of social security numbers and our
performance-based credit system.  Sadly, low levels of financial
literacy and awareness among many consumers means that those who
can least afford this unwanted disclosure will bear the brunt of
its long-term consequences.  Others can take matters into their
own hands to monitor their identities, guard against financial
fraud and credit theft by following some straightforward, if
noisome, steps.

People who take Equifax's one year identify monitoring offer may
be concerned with being locked into the service after the year
elapses or preyed on by cyber-criminals (who have the benefit of
patience and Equifax's announcement to time their moves) the very
day the service expires.  Compounding these issues, Equifax's
service to provide customer notification of whether they have been
exposed or not, provides a blanket message no matter what
information was entered on their breach response website.  Here
too there is a lag of a few days when customers can return,
subject to their own memories, to enroll in the identify
monitoring service.  This created an impression of granularity,
that was in fact not there.  This is not surprising given the
massive size of the breach, but it does say something about the
state play inside the firm.  The delayed public notice, by nearly
2 months, the stock sale, the fumbled response (that neglected the
reality that bad news does not improve with time) and using their
own identity monitoring company to provide the market comfort, all
conspire to erode customer trust and will be met with reasonable
cynicism.  This cyber breach is a teachable moment not only for
firms of Equifax's size and financial wherewithal, but for all
market participants.  In short, cyber risk is truly a systemic
threat and if firms like Equifax can bleed their very life blood
with such reckless abandon at the hands of cyber criminals, what
does it say about the rest of the market?

Beyond these short-term questions, which are surely weighing on
the minds of Equifax's executives and board, the real long-range
issues raised by this breach are much bigger.  Needless to say, a
company of Equifax's size likely employed what might be considered
best demonstrated practices in cybersecurity.  This would include
cutting edge threat detection technology, data encryption and
obfuscation, onerous compliance standards and a wide range of
internal controls and data segregation that were supposed to make
these types of breaches a thing of the past. To draw a comparison,
for a major credit bureau like Equifax, which is essentially a
data privacy firm, cybersecurity is a zero-failure mission in the
same way passenger safety is paramount to an airline. With the
scope of this breach, it is the equivalent of all an airline's
planes falling out of the sky at the same time.

Troublingly if Equifax is exposed in this way, the rest of the
market may very well be sitting ducks in the sights of patient,
complex, and deeply interconnected cyber threats.  The number of
affected people is so staggering that in some respects these
large-scale breaches, like Target's, Yahoo!'s or the Office of
Personnel Management breach, have made the public somewhat
indifferent to these events.  The Equifax breach, however, is
different because unlike other events of this nature, it reveals
that there are many systemically important firms that are not on
the regulatory radar, and it creates potential lifelong
externalities for 143 million people.  This begs one final
question, was Equifax sufficiently "risk-aware" to adequately
guard our crown jewels?

For publicly-held companies, annual reports are often our closest
proxy for an in-depth management conversation.  Against this
measure, in reviewing the last 5 years of Equifax annual reports,
there is surprisingly little mention of risk management,
cybersecurity, customer privacy, cyber risk and information
security -- let alone the governance and accountability for these
areas.  In fact, in the 2016 annual report the word cyber does not
appear once.  Given the rapidly evolving cyber risk landscape and
the fact that these risks are industry agnostic, this is
troublingly for any organization, but especially so for 1 of 3
national data providers that wield so much power over consumer
financial outcomes.  Structurally, there appears to be no Chief
Risk Officer on Equifax's executive team and no independent risk
management committee on the company's board. And while there are
reports that Equifax has up to $150 million in cyber liability
insurance, a breach of this magnitude will quickly exhaust this
coverage and likely lead to a "hardening" of cyber insurance
rates.  In short, the Equifax breach, which has the dubious
distinction of being in the top 5 in terms of exposed data, along
with the stratospheric damages being sought is another costly
reminder that we need systemic solutions to confront systemic
risk. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Oregon AG Ellen Rosenblum Comments on Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pamplin Media Group reports that Oregon Attorney General
Ellen Rosenblum is urging consumers not to rely on Equifax for
protection from hackers who may have stolen the personal data of
143 million people from the credit reporting agency's files.

The hack, which occurred between May and July of 2017 but was not
publicly reported by Equifax until Sept. 7, involved the theft of
names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses and, in
some instances, driver's license numbers.  Credit card numbers and
credit card dispute documents with personal identifying
information also were taken.

"This is a monster data breach," Ms. Rosenblum said on Sept. 9.
"All of the personal information accessed by the hackers can be
used fraudulently to validate the claimed identity of someone
trying to open a bank or credit account.  I urge Oregonians to
assume your personal information has been hacked and take extra
precautions to help ensure its safety."

Equifax has agreed to pay for one year of credit monitoring for
affected consumers.  The first step is to visit the company's
website to find out if your information was exposed and then to
enroll in Equifax's credit monitoring service.  But Ms. Rosenblum
is urging consumers not to do that.

"The website's terms of service potentially restricts your legal
rights," she said.  "Buried in the terms of service is language
that bars those who enroll in the Equifax checker program from
participating in any class-action lawsuits that may arise from the
incident. (Two Oregon residents asked a U.S. District Court judge
to award class-action status to a lawsuit they filed in Eugene on
Sept. 7; a court date has not yet been set.) And because the
hackers gained access to the information through Equifax's U.S.
website, it is unclear whether the information you enter to
determine if your information has been compromised will be
protected from future breaches."

Instead, Ms. Rosenblum said, consumers should:

   -- Check your credit report for inaccuracies. You can request
your credit report for free from each of three reporting bureaus
every year by visiting www.annualcreditreport.com or by calling 1-
877-322-8228;

   -- Place a credit freeze. A credit freeze will halt any
application for a new line of credit and remain in effect until
you request that it be lifted.  Keep in mind that a credit freeze
won't prevent a thief from making charges to your existing
accounts.  For more information on how to place a freeze, visit
www.doj.state.or.us/consumer-protection/id-theft-data-
breaches/identity-theft

   -- Place a fraud alert. A fraud alert is a statement in your
credit file that notifies anyone requesting a copy of your credit
report that you may be a victim of ID theft.  There are three
different types of fraud alerts: an initial alert, an extended
alert and an active duty alert.  For more information on these
types, visit www.doj.state.or.us/consumer-protection/id-theft-
data-breaches/identity-theft

   -- File your taxes as early as possible. As soon as you have
the tax information you need, file your taxes before a scammer
does. Tax identity theft happens when someone uses your Social
Security number to get a tax refund or a job. Respond right away
to letters from the IRS; and

   -- Visit www.identitytheft.gov to learn more about protecting
yourself after a data breach.

Under Oregon law, businesses with Oregon customers are required to
inform customers and the Attorney General's Office about security
breaches that have placed personal information in jeopardy.  For
more information on the law and to view a copy of the Equifax
breach notice, visit justice.oregon.gov/consumer/databreach

"In short: Do not rely on Equifax to help you deal with this data
breach," Ms. Rosenblum said.  "Consider taking these suggested
actions to protect your information going forward. Check your
credit report every four months or so.  Thieves can use your
information anytime and anywhere!" [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Class Actions Pile Up Following Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that class
action lawsuits have begun to multiply against Equifax in recent
days in the wake of news the credit reporting agency had suffered
a massive data breach affecting more than 140 million Americans,
yet had waited at least a month to tell the public.

Nationally, nearly three dozen lawsuits have been filed in federal
district courts across the country since Equifax first confirmed
the breach on Sept. 7.  The first class action was filed that same
day in Oregon federal court.

That lawsuit was followed by two dozen more on Sept. 7 and
Sept. 8, with more following from California, New Jersey, New
York, Nevada, Arizona, Kansas, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri,
Minnesota and others.

Two such class actions had been filed in Chicago federal court, as
of Sept. 11.

Equifax is based in Atlanta.

Chicago law firm Barnow and Associates was the first local firm to
file against Equifax, suing on behalf of named plaintiff Sean
Neilan.

They were joined on Sept. 11 by a lawsuit filed by Chicago law
firms -- who in a press release announcing their lawsuit described
themselves as "powerhouse Chicago firms" -- the Zimmerman Law
Offices and the Clifford Law Offices.  Also signing the complaint
were attorneys from DannLaw, of Cleveland, Ohio; PaytonDann
Attorneys, of Chicago; Haines & Krieger, of Henderson, Nev.; and
Knepper & Clark, of Las Vegas.

Zimmerman and Clifford said they also signed on to lawsuits filed
in other federal jurisdictions, including Nevada, New York and
Ohio.

Named plaintiffs in the Chicago Zimmerman/Clifford suit include
Dan Lang and Russell Pantek, identified as residents of Cook
County.

The lawsuits center on accusations Equifax violated the federal
Fair Credit Reporting Act and state consumer fraud laws by not
properly safeguarding the information of people whose credit the
agency reviews and scores.  Hacked information allegedly included
names, addresses, Social Security numbers and other identifying
information. Equifax said it first discovered the breach on July
29.

Further, the lawsuits allege Equifax has further misled consumers
by attempting to dupe them into signing away their rights to sue,
by requiring consumers to click on a box agreeing to arbitrate
their claims to check if they are among the many millions of
people whose information may have been compromised in the data
breach.

The lawsuits ask the court to award unspecified statutory and
punitive damages, plus attorney fees.  They also ask the court to
invalidate arbitration requirements under Equifax's identity
protection programs, and to order Equifax to stop its efforts to
"bait and switch consumers into signing a class action waiver and
arbitration agreement" to prevent them from suing.

"Even regulators are suggesting that Equifax customers freeze
their credit reports, which for many it may be too late,"
Robert A. Clifford, founder and senior partner at Clifford Law
Offices, said in a prepared statement.  "People can only protect
themselves when they are informed and where there is a failure to
monitor consumers' most sensitive information, and then a lack of
full disclosure for a prolonged period of time, companies have to
know that that's not right and consumers won't stand by with no
recourse.  Equifax, of all companies, should understand the
importance of the privacy of this information." [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Lawmakers to Conduct Investigations Into Hack
----------------------------------------------------------
Ali Breland and Sylvan Lane, writing for The Hill, report that the
massive breach of credit rating firm Equifax is attracting
scrutiny from government officials across the country.

Lawmakers from both parties have expressed concern over the hack,
which could have left vulnerable sensitive personal information
for as many as 143 million people.

The New York, Pennsylvania and Illinois attorneys general have
announced formal investigations into the hack.

Officials are alarmed by the scope of the breach as well as
Equifax's terms of service which forces individuals to waive their
right to a class-action lawsuit.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) called on Senate Commerce Committee
Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) and ranking member Bill Nelson (D-
Fla.) to hold a hearing examining the breach.

"Equifax reportedly failed to disclose this massive breach to
affected individuals for weeks, meaning the risk of identity theft
may have been further aggravated," Baldwin wrote in her letter to
Commerce leaders on Sept. 8.  "I am troubled by the company's
failure to address the breach promptly with those whose
information was compromised."

The Senate Commerce Committee announced later on Sept. 7 that it
sent a letter to Equifax seeking answers about the extent of the
breach and what Equifax is doing to mitigate its impact.

In the House, Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling
(R-Texas) said that his committee would hold a hearing on the
hacks at a to-be-determined date.  Mr. Hensarling noted in a
statement that such breaches are becoming "too common" and that
consumers "deserve answers."

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.)
said that his committee would hold a separate hearing on the
matter as well.  In a statement, Walden mentioned that he had been
receiving briefings from Equifax on the breach. He says he expects
the briefings to continue.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) said he'd like the House Judiciary
Committee to conduct a hearing on the hack.

On social media, critics cried foul at Equifax's terms of service,
which included an arbitration clause forcing users of its products
to waive their right to sue.  After being contacted by New York
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office, however, Equifax
updated its terms of service to note that users checking to see if
they were affected by the hack would not be subject to the clause.

Democratic lawmakers quickly blasted the clause prior to its
update.

Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) called it "shameful," and Sen.
Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) hammered Equifax's terms of service in
a series of tweets, while praising a new rule by the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau that would ban such clauses.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) could get also
involved in the matter to examine potential insider trading.

Several days after Equifax says it learned of the hack, company
executives unloaded almost $2 million worth of shares, Bloomberg
reports. Ines Gutzmer, a spokeswoman for the company told the
outlet that the three executives "sold a small percentage of their
Equifax shares," and they "had no knowledge that an intrusion had
occurred at the time."

Each sold between 4 and 13 percent of their holdings in the
company.  Bloomberg notes that the sales were not listed in the
executives' pre-scheduled trading plans that company insiders
often use to trade stock.

The SEC declined to comment on if it would investigate the matter.
[GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Corresponded With SEC About Data Breaches 5 Years Ago
------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Hicks, CEO of Intelligize began poring through the Equifax's
historical regulatory filings and other data to better understand
Equifax Inc.'s situation and its overall market impact.  Mr. Hicks
was shocked to uncover a letter from Equifax's Deputy General
Counsel to the Securities and Exchange Commission that accurately
predicted the data breach that occurred almost five years later.

On September 7, 2012 -- five years ago, to the day of Equifax's
major breach disclosure -- Equifax received a comment letter from
the SEC stating, "We note you disclose that disruptions to your
information technology networks and infrastructure may be
vulnerable to damage, disruptions, or shutdowns due to various
events, including cyber-attacks and other security breaches."

In its September 24, 2012, response, Equifax told the SEC, "We
collect and store sensitive data, including intellectual property,
proprietary business information, the propriety business
information and personally identifiable information of our
customers, employees, consumers, and providers . . . The secure
operation of these networks and systems, and of the processing and
maintenance of this information, is critical to our business
operations and strategy."

The company went on to admit in the response that, "Although we
have not experienced any material breach of cybersecurity, if one
or more of such events occur, this potentially could compromise
our networks and the information stored there could be accessed,
publicly disclosed, lost or stolen.  Any such access could subject
us to litigation, significant losses, regulatory fines, penalties
or reputational damage. . . .  Our property and business
interruption insurance may not be adequate to compensate us for
all losses or failures that may occur."

A copy of Equifax's letter dated Sept. 24, 2012, is available at
https://goo.gl/EEFpxz from the SEC's Web site.


EQUIFAX INC: Chatbot Helps Data Breach-Affected Consumers to Sue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Liao, writing for The Verge, reports that Equifax's
security failure affected 143 million US consumers, or 44 percent
of the US population.  To add insult to injury, Equifax waited
over a month before revealing the security breach it had suffered.
If you're one of the millions affected by the breach, a chatbot
can now help you sue Equifax in small claims court, potentially
letting you avoid hiring a lawyer for advice.

Even if you want to be part of the class action lawsuit against
Equifax, you can still sue Equifax for negligence in small claims
court using the DoNotPay bot and demand maximum damages.  Maximum
damages range between $2,500 in states like Rhode Island and
Kentucky to $25,000 in Tennessee.

The bot, which launched in all 50 states in July, is mainly known
for helping with parking tickets.  But with this new update, its
creator, Joshua Browder, who was one of the 143 million affected
by the breach, is tackling a much bigger target, with larger
aspirations to match.  He says, "I hope that my product will
replace lawyers, and, with enough success, bankrupt Equifax."

Not that the bot helps you do anything you can't already do
yourself, which is filling out a bunch of forms -- you still have
to serve them yourself.  Unfortunately, the chatbot can't show up
in court a few weeks later to argue your case for you either.  To
add to the headache, small claims court rules differ from state to
state.  For instance, in California, a person needs to demand
payment from Equifax or explain why they haven't demanded payment
before filing the form.

Attorney Scott Nelson, from the advocacy organization Public
Citizen, says he isn't convinced a chatbot can successfully win a
lawsuit. "I am not inclined to think it would be a panacea. Filing
and winning a small claims case takes more than just filling in a
form."

Still, chatting with the bot on a friendly blue screen can help
take the guesswork out of small claims court procedures.  All you
have to do is state your name and address and it generates eight
pages of lawsuit documentation in PDF form for you to print and
file.

Equifax seems like it's going to put up a fight, so help in the
form of chatbots can't hurt.  Peter Vogel, a trial and
transactional lawyer in Texas, says, "I believe that Equifax will
fight class action lawsuits [and] small claims courts actions.
That does not mean that Equifax will prevail, but . . . given the
scope of the 143 million individuals, it strikes me that Equifax
will want to make this as complicated as possible for consumers."
[GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Whipper" Suit over Data Security Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE WHIPPER and ROBERTA SERAFINE, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EQUIFAX INC. and
EQUIFAX CREDIT INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00248-SPB (W.D. Pa., Sep. 13, 2017), seeks declaratory
and injunctive relief and redress for affected Equifax consumers
as a result of Defendants' alleged violations of the federal Fair
Credit Reporting Act, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law, and various common law claims.

Equifax is one of the three largest consumer credit reporting
agencies in the United States. Plaintiffs have been consumers of
Equifax's services and entrusted Defendants with their personal
information. The Plaintiffs and the Class entrusted Defendants
with their sensitive personal information. Because of this,
Equifax owed Plaintiffs and the Class a duty of care to take
adequate measures to protect the information entrusted to it, to
detect and stop data breaches, and to inform Plaintiffs and the
Class of data breaches that could expose them to harm. Equifax
failed to do so.

According to the complaint, Equifax acknowledges that, between May
2017 and July 2017, it was the subject of a data breach in which
unauthorized individuals accessed Equifax's database and the
names, Social Security numbers, addresses, and other Personal
Identifying Information (PII) stored therein. According to
Equifax, the Data Breach affected as many as 143 million people.
Equifax admits that it discovered the unauthorized access on July
29, 2017, but failed to alert Plaintiffs and the Class to the fact
of the breach until September 7, 2017.

The Data Breach was the inevitable result of Equifax's inadequate
approach to data security and the protection of the PII that it
collected during the course of its business. Defendants knew and
should have known of the inadequacy of their own data security.
Equifax has experienced similar breaches of PII on smaller scales
in the past, including in 2013, 2016, and even as recently as
January 2017. Over the years, Equifax has jeopardized the PII and,
as a result, financial information of hundreds of thousands of
Americans. Despite this long history of breaches, Defendants have
failed to prevent the Data Breach that has exposed the personal
information of over 100 million Americans. The damage done to
these individuals may follow them for the rest of their lives, as
they will have to monitor closely their financial accounts to
detect any fraudulent activity as well as incur out-of-pocket
expenses for years to protect themselves from, and to combat,
identity theft now and in the future. Equifax knew and should have
known the risks associated with inadequate security and with
delayed reporting of the breach. The potential for harm caused by
insufficient safeguarding of PII is profound. With data such as
those leaked in the Data Breach, identity thieves can cause
irreparable and long-lasting damage to individuals, from filing
for loans and opening fraudulent bank accounts to selling valuable
PII to the highest bidder. In the case of Defendants' Data Breach,
the potential repercussions for consumers are particularly
egregious.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Saba Bireda, Esq.
          Jeremy Heisler, Esq.
          Andrew Melzer, Esq.
          Kevin H. Sharp, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          1666 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 499 5200
          Facsimile: (202) 499 5199
          E-mail: sbireda@sanfordheisler.com
                  jheisler@sanfordheisler.com
                  amelzer@sanfordheisler.com
                  ksharp@sanfordheisler.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Skye" Suit over Data Security Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
KAETHE SKYE, individually on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-11742 (D. Mass., Sep. 13, 2017), seeks to recover all
statutory damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages,
liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment
interest, statutory damages, and any other damages that may be
just and proper.

The case is a nationwide class action on behalf of all persons
whose personal identifying financial information was provided to
Equifax Inc. and was compromised in Defendant's "data breach,"
which resulted in a third party obtaining the names, birth dates,
Social Security numbers, addresses and some driver's license
numbers, of more than 140 million consumers. Social security
numbers, and the other identifying information that was taken from
Defendant's databases, are among the most highly sensitive
information that consumers possess. The theft of this information
may allow a thief to impersonate a consumer and obtain access to
nearly every account that consumer owns.

The Plaintiff and the Class are now subject to the serious and
real risk that highly confidential information they shared or
allowed to be shared with Equifax, in reliance on Equifax's
assurances of security, will be used to their detriment.

Although Defendant knew about the data breach as early as July 29,
2017, it did not disclose the breach to the public until September
7, 2017. As a result, Plaintiff and the Class remained ignorant
that their sensitive information was compromised and were unable
to take any actions to protect themselves for over a month. The
early stages after a data theft are the most crucial, as that time
is when the data thieves have incentive to run rampant before the
victim discovers the theft. Moreover, unlike other data breaches,
not all of the people affected by the
Equifax breach may be aware that they're customers of the company.
Equifax gets its data from credit card companies, banks,
retailers, and lenders who report on the credit activity of
individuals to credit reporting agencies, as well as by purchasing
public records. People affected may not realize that Equifax has
their data.

Shortly after Equifax discovered the data breach, and over one
month before Equifax disclosed the breach to the public, several
Equifax executives sold a substantial amount of Equifax shares
thus profiting on inside information before the inevitable decline
in Equifax's share prices. Also, on the same day that Equifax
announced the data breach, a congressman introduced a bill --
which Equifax had lobbied for -- limiting the liability of the
credit reporting agencies to $500,000 in the event of a
lawsuit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
          HUTCHINGS BARSAMIAN MANDELCORN, LLP
          110 Cedar Street, Suite 250
          Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
          Telephone: (781) 431 2231 ext. 234
          Facsimile: (781) 431 8726
          E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          Orin Kurtz, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          Tower 56
          126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 905 0509
          Facsimile: (212) 905 0508
          E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com
                  okurtz@gardylaw.com

               - and -

          MAYERSON & HARTHEIMER, PLLC
          Sandra E. Mayerson, Esq.
          David Hartheimer, Esq.
          845 Third Ave., 11th Floor
          New York, N.Y. 10022
          Tel: (646) 778 4381
          Fax: (501) 423 8672
          E-mail: David@mhlaw-ny.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Zamora" Suit over Data Security Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR ZAMORA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX, INC. and EQUIFAX INFORMATION
SERVICES LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-07085 (D.N.J., Sep.
13, 2017), seeks to enjoin Equifax from engaging in the alleged
wrongful conduct concerning disclosure and inadequate protection
of Plaintiff's and Classes' personal identifying information
(PII).

According to the complaint, on September 7, 2017, Equifax publicly
disclosed a massive data security breach potentially impacting
more than 140 million U.S. consumers -- equivalent to about half
of all U.S. adults -- despite having knowledge of the breach as
early as July 29, 2017.

While Equifax has yet to come forth with a full and candid
description of all facts known only to it concerning the
unprecedented disclosure of millions of consumers' highly
sensitive personal information, what Equifax has admitted is
damning. Equifax admits that its U.S. website application had a
security "vulnerability" that allowed third parties to access a
vast amount of individual PII from at least mid-May through July
2017. The PII accessed includes, at least, individual names,
Social Security Numbers, birth dates, and addresses. In at least
some instances, Equifax's system also afforded access to
individual drivers' license numbers. Credit card numbers and other
PII from dispute records were disclosed for at least approximately
180,000 to 200,000 consumers.

None of the individuals whose PII was accessed authorized such
access or disclosure by Equifax.  Equifax itself claims that the
data was accessed by, and therefore presumably is in the hands of,
"criminals." Thus, all of the individuals whose PII was accessed
now face massive risks of further injury from identity theft,
credit and reputational harm, false tax claims, extortion, and
worse. While Equifax holds itself out as a sophisticated data and
information company with "industry expertise" in handling "trusted
unique data," including PII for individual consumers like
Plaintiff, it has been sued, investigated, and fined multiple
times in recent years for fundamental flaws in its systems that
handle PII related to consumer credit.

As a direct and proximate result of Equifax's actions and
omissions, Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers have been
harmed, injured, and damaged. Plaintiffs and members of the
Classes have been injured through unauthorized use of their PII
and through violations of statutes such as the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) and Graham-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) that
recognize the inherent harm in such unauthorized access to and use
of PII, as well as the multitude of harms that are likely to
follow from such access and use. Consumers like Plaintiffs already
have had to spend time and resources trying to redress the effects
of the breach, including investigating the extent to which their
PII has been compromised and putting in place credit monitoring
and credit freezes to try to minimize the risks to which they have
been exposed. These harms were reasonably foreseeable to
Equifax.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave.
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837 7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989 9163
          E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Bergeron" Suit over Data Security Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID BERGERON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2017CV295186 (Ga. Super. Ct., Sep. 13, 2017), seeks to remedy harm
Plaintiff have suffered on behalf of themselves and similarly
situated consumers whose personally identifiable information (PII)
was stolen as a result of a data breach.

The Plaintiff brings this class action case against Defendant
Equifax for its failures to secure and safeguard consumers' PII
which Equifax collected from various sources in connection with
the operation of its business as a consumer credit reporting
agency, and for failing to provide timely, accurate and adequate
notice to Plaintiff and other Class members that their PII had
been stolen and precisely what types of information were stolen.
Equifax has acknowledged that a cybersecurity incident ("Data
Breach") potentially impacting approximately 143 million U.S.
consumers. It has also acknowledged that unauthorized persons
exploited a U.S. website application vulnerability to gain access
to certain files. Equifax claims that based on its investigation,
the unauthorized access occurred from mid-May through July 2017.

The information accessed primarily includes names, Social Security
numbers, birth dates, addresses and, in some instances, driver's
license numbers. In addition, Equifax has admitted that credit
card numbers for approximately 209,000 U.S. consumers, and certain
dispute documents with personal identifying information for
approximately 182,000 U.S. consumers, were accessed.

Equifax has acknowledged that it discovered the unauthorized
access on July 29 2017, but has failed to inform the public why it
delayed notification of the Data Breach to consumers.

Instead, Equifax executives sold at least $1.8 million worth of
shares before the public disclosure of the breach. Equifax
disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class members by
intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems
were protected, failing to disclose to its customers the material
fact that it did not have adequate computer systems and security
practices to safeguard PII, failing to take available steps to
prevent and stop the breach from ever happening, and failing to
monitor and detect the breach on a timely basis.

The Plaintiff retains a significant interest in ensuring that his
PII, which, while stolen, remains in the possession of Equifax is
protected from further breaches.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James W. Hurt. Jr., Esq.
          URTSTOLZ, P.C.
          345 West Hancock Avenue
          Athens, GA 30601
          Telephone: (706) 395 2750
          Facsimile: (866) 766 9245
          E-mail: jhurt@hurtstolz.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Kircher" Suit over Data Security Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
STEFAN KIRCHER and WILLIAM SLAUGHTER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 2017CV295174 (Ga. Super. Ct., Sep. 13,
2017), seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages against
Equifax in an amount to be determined by a jury and for equitable
relief enjoining Equifax from engaging in further wrongful conduct
and from putting the Plaintiffs and the Georgia Equifax Class in
any further danger of having their personal information stolen by
third parties.

Equifax is a national credit-reporting business which rates the
financial history of consumers in the United States including the
State of Georgia. To accomplish this, Equifax gathers financial
information about consumers including data concerning loans,
credit cards, utility payments, rent payments, and other personal
financial information. On September 7, 2017, Equifax released a
statement to the public announcing that there had been a breach of
consumers' personally identifiable information by hackers, and
that Equifax had been made aware of the breach on July 29, 2017.

The personally identifiable information that had been compromised
includes names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, credit card
numbers, drivers' license numbers, and documents pertaining to
disputed charges. In total, an estimated 143 million consumers in
the United States may have been impacted by the data breach.
As a result of the data breach, Plaintiffs' personal and financial
information has been compromised and potentially exposed to
criminal misuse or sale on the Internet black market.

In an attempt to minimize costs and increase company profits,
Equifax failed to install proper and adequate security measures to
protect consumer information.  Unauthorized access of this
information by criminal hackers or cyberattacks was reasonably
foreseeable given the numerous earlier reported attacks on other
large corporations and other credit-reporting competitors like
Experian. Equifax itself has experienced other, although much less
extensive, data breaches in the past that led to the unauthorized
release of personal identifiable information.

The Plaintiffs have suffered actual injury in that the value of
their personally identifiable information has been exposed and
diminished in value, they have been and will be forced to spend
time, money, and resources monitoring their credit and finances,
and they are subject to a greater risk of identity theft in the
future. Though the data breach was discovered on July 29, 2017,
Defendant Equifax did not disclose this information to the public
until nearly six weeks after, on September 7. The delay in
disclosing this information likely allowed the unauthorized use of
the personal identifiable information of Plaintiffs and similarly
situated consumers without Plaintiffs and other victims having the
ability to take reasonable precautions to protect themselves from
the inevitable fraud.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Page A. Pate, Esq.
          Jess B. Johnson, Esq.
          PATE & JOHNSON, LLC
          101 Marietta Street, Suite 3300
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 223 3310

               - and -

          Stephen G. Lowrv, Esq.
          Jeffrey R. Harris, Esq.
          Jed D. Manton, Esq.
          HARRIS LOWRY MANTON LLP
          1201 Peachtree Street
          NE - Suite 900
          Atlanta, GA 30361
          Telephone: (404) 961 7650


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Zweig" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc. The
case is styled as Bernard J. Zweig and Frank Palumbo, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Equifax Inc. and Equifax Information Services, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-07090 (S.D.N.Y., September 18, 2017).

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and provides
human resources business process outsourcing services for
businesses, governments and consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appears PRO SE.


EQUIFAX INC: Faces 23 Class Actions Over Massive Cyberbreach
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McCoy, writing for USA TODAY, reports that Equifax faces at
least 23 proposed class-action lawsuits since its disclosure that
personal identifying information for 143 million U.S. consumers
may have been compromised by a massive cyberbreach.

And additional cases are likely to come.

Federal court records show the lawsuits were filed through the
weekend after the credit-reporting giant's Sept. 7 disclosure that
a cyberattack by criminal hackers provided unauthorized access to
information for nearly 44% of the U.S. population.

Separately, Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Ron Wyden, D-Oregon,
respectively the chairman and ranking member of the Senate
Committee on Finance, sent Equifax detailed questions about the
breach on Sept. 11.

A copy of the letter, reviewed by USA TODAY, shows the panel wants
a detailed timeline of the breach, information about the company's
efforts to identify the number of consumers affected, the breadth
of information compromised and the steps Equifax has taken to
identify and limit potential consumer harm.

The relatively large number of new lawsuits against Equifax that
seek class-action status signal the high legal stakes over the
potential for identity-theft losses by millions of Americans whose
personal data was exposed.

The cases also show an eagerness by plaintiff law firms to stake
swift claims on behalf of consumers who eventually might be in
line for a share of either a court judgment against Equifax or a
settlement by the company.

"Equifax probably injured 143 million people, which is kind of a
record," said John Coffee, a Columbia Law School professor and
director of the school's Center on Corporate Governance.  Although
the extent of the damage hasn't yet been determined, "with 143
million people it doesn't surprise me there are already 23 suits,"
said Mr. Coffee.

Equifax did not respond to emails seeking comment on the cases.
However, the company acknowledged it expects costs related to the
cyberattack.  Shares of Equifax (EFX) closed down 8.2% at $113.12
in the Sept. 11 trading, extending nearly 13.7% plunge on Sept. 8.

Unknown hackers carried out the cyberattack out from mid-May
through July 2017.  The resulting breach primarily involved names,
Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and in some
cases, driver's license numbers, Equifax said.

The company said it discovered the intrusion on July 29, but it
first disclosed the attack publicly on Sept. 7, after engaging an
independent cybersecurity firm to conduct a forensic assessment
and provide recommendations to toughen electronic security
safeguards.

The Atlanta-based firm is one of the nation's three largest
credit-reporting and monitoring firms, along with Experian and
TransUnion.

Equifax organizes and analyzes data on more than 820 million
consumers and more than 91 million businesses worldwide.  The
company's databases hold employee data submitted by more than
7,100 employers.

The complaints:

Filed in 14 states and the District of Columbia, the federal
lawsuits target either Equifax or the company's Equifax
Information Services subsidiary.  The legal complaints cite a
range of legal claims, including alleged security negligence by
Equifax, the delay in alerting the public and concerns about the
free credit monitoring service the company has offered consumers.

Noting that Equifax experienced smaller cyberbreaches in 2013,
2016, and earlier this year, the lawsuit filed in California
federal court on behalf of Ehud Gersten and Hannah Obradovich
charges the company "knew and should have known of the inadequacy
of its own data security."

Equifax's delay in alerting consumers was "willful, or at least
negligent," argued the case filed in Illinois federal court on
behalf of Dan Lang and Russell Pantek.

As a result, "consumers were deprived of their opportunity to
meaningfully consider and address issues related to the potential
fraud, as well as to avail themselves of the remedies available
under the FCRA (U.S. Fair Credit Reporting Act) to prevent further
dissemination of their private information," the Illinois lawsuit
alleged.

A California federal court lawsuit filed on behalf of Richard
Spicer and Julia Gutierrez in part focused on Equifax's offer to
register consumers for a free year of credit monitoring from
TrustedID.

"Equifax failed to disclose to consumers that it owned TrustedID,
and its long-term business model turns on baiting consumers into
signing up for its services," the California case alleged.  "In
other words, Equifax sought to turn its failure to protect
consumers' sensitive data into a clandestine money-making
opportunity."

The company separately drew legal criticism from New York Attorney
General Eric Schneiderman's office over an implication that those
who registered for TrustedID would waive their rights to pursue
class-action lawsuits and instead would have to pursue legal
claims through arbitration.

Mr. Schneiderman is investigating the Equifax cyberbreach.  On
Sept. 8, the company said the waiver requirement applied only to
the offer of free credit monitoring and identity theft protection,
"not the cybersecurity incident."

How the legal process could play out:

Barring any pretrial settlement, the cases would likely go through
a legal culling process.

First, a federal panel on multidistrict litigation would likely to
consolidate the cases in a single lawsuit on behalf of all
consumers claiming harm, and assign that case to a judge, said
Coffee.  In turn, the judge would likely determine which law firm
or firms would serve as lead plaintiff counsel -- a designation
that typically brings a larger percentage share of any settlement
or judgment.

Although the lawsuits seek class-action status, such a designation
typically is approved by a federal court only after extensive
legal arguments from plaintiff and defense lawyers.

In a Sept. 7 online notice to investors, Equifax said it was too
early "to provide specific estimates of the costs we expect to
incur related to the cybersecurity incident."

While anticipating "some disruption to our business," Equifax said
it "remains committed to delivering on the long term financial
model of 7-10% revenue growth and 11%-14% growth in adjusted
earnings per share on average over a business cycle."
[GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Levy & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, issued the following statement:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Equifax Inc. ("Equifax") (NYSE:EFX) between February
25, 2016 and September 7, 2017. You are hereby notified that the
securities class action lawsuit Kuhns v. Equifax Inc., et al. has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.  To get more
information go to:

http://www.zlk.com/pslra-sbm/equifax

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-
free: (877) 363-5972.  There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the Company failed to maintain adequate
measures to protect its data systems; (2) the Company failed to
maintain adequate monitoring systems to detect security breaches;
(3) the Company failed to maintain proper security systems,
controls and monitoring systems in place; and (4) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in Equifax you have until November 13, 2017
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Sanford Heisler Files Data Breach Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Equifax, Inc. got more bad news on Sept. 8 when attorneys at
Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP filed a class action complaint against
the consumer credit reporting agency in U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California.

With an outstanding record in more than 50 class actions against
giant corporations nationwide, the public interest firm filed suit
on behalf of San Diego residents Ehud Gersten and Hannah
Obradovich and the approximately 143 million other U.S. consumers
whose Equifax consumer credit files were hacked in mid-May through
July this year.

The Sanford Heisler Sharp team is led by Ed Chapin, managing
partner of the San Diego office, Kevin Sharp, managing partner of
the Nashville office, and Danielle Fuschetti of the San Francisco
office.

"Equifax has irreparably harmed hundreds of millions of American
consumers by failing to adequately protect their credit and highly
sensitive personal information," said Mr. Chapin.

"Ehud, Hannah and all other consumers in this class trusted
Equifax with this information, and the company should have taken
adequate measures to keep this information private and
confidential," added Ms. Fuschetti.  "Equifax also unnecessarily
delayed notifying consumers of the data breach."

The Complaint asserts Equifax learned on July 29 that unauthorized
individuals had accessed its database -- including the names,
social security numbers, addresses and other personally
identifiable information of its customers -- but did not notify
customers about the breach until September 7.

"Equifax has a long history of data breaches going back to 2013,"
said Mr. Sharp.  "The company knew the risks of such breaches,
including the damage to consumers inherent in delayed reporting,
yet it failed to act to protect millions of Americans."

A former chief judge for the federal district court in the Middle
District of Tennessee, Mr. Sharp noted that consumers whose
identifying information was released must now personally bear the
cost of credit monitoring and other similar services for years to
come or place credit freezes or fraud alerts on their files in
order to protect themselves from the destructive effects of
identity theft.

The complaint also notes that although Equifax took no action to
inform consumers of the data breach for over a month, three of the
company's senior executives sold shares worth $1.8 million within
days of discovering the massive hack.

The class action seeks actual and statutory damages, equitable
relief, restitution, reimbursement of out-of-pocket losses, other
compensatory damages, credit monitoring services with identify
theft insurance, and injunctive relief -- including an order that
requires Equifax to improve its data security and eliminate future
privacy breaches.

In addition to plaintiffs Gersten and Obradovich, two classes are
included in the action.  The "nationwide class" comprises all
persons residing in the U.S. whose personal data Equifax collected
and stored and whose personal information was placed at risk
and/or disclosed in the recent breach.  The "California class"
comprises all persons residing in California in a similar
situation.

In its 13-year history, Sanford Heisler Sharp has successfully
represented hundreds of individuals and thousands of class members
in suits against American corporations and institutions, including
Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Omnicare, Amgen, Office Depot, AT&T,
Energy Plus, Cracker Barrel, Google, Sanofi, Qualcomm, General
Electric, Sedgwick, Daiichi, Publicis, Alcon, Smith & Nephew,
Medtronic, ICON, San Diego State University and many others.

                 About Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP

Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP -- http://www.sanfordheisler.com/-- is
a public interest class-action litigation law firm with offices in
New York, Washington, D.C, Nashville, San Francisco and San Diego.
The Firm specializes in civil rights and general public interest
cases, representing plaintiffs with employment discrimination,
labor and wage violations, predatory lending, whistleblower,
consumer fraud, and other claims.  Along with a focus on class
actions, the firm also represents individuals and has achieved
particular success in the representation of executives and
attorneys in employment disputes. [GN]


EUROPTICS INC: Faces Class Action Over Unsafe Eclipse Glasses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Mitchell, writing for The Denver Post, reports that attorneys
seek class-action status in a lawsuit filed in Denver District
Court against a Denver company that gave away "unsafe and
hazardous" glasses for viewing the solar eclipse, claiming they
damaged a Castle Rock woman's eyes.

The lawsuit was filed Sept. 2 on behalf of Kendall Heise and
Kim Heise of Castle Rock against Europtics Inc. of Denver, which
owns the store at 7301 Santa Fe Drive in Littleton where the
couple received eclipse glasses.

"After using the Europtics eclipse glasses, Ms. Heise began to
experience injuries including, but not limited to, discomfort,
blurred vision, increased sensitivity to light and distorted
vision and certain of these harms and impairments continue," the
lawsuit says.

Attorneys Kevin Hannon and Justin Blum, who filed the lawsuit
Sept. 2, are seeking class action certification so that anyone who
received the glasses and then used them to view the total solar
eclipse on Aug. 21 could join the lawsuit.  They are seeking
compensatory damages, injunctive relief to fund medical monitoring
and court costs.

The attorneys are seeking class action status because they believe
it would be impractical to file individual lawsuits for such a
large group of plaintiffs, given that Europtics is a leading
optical chain store in Colorado.  The exact number of potential
litigants would not be known until Europtics provides the number,
the lawsuit says.

Europtics gave customers who bought glasses at their stores the
eclipse glasses after buying them from Amazon, Europtics officials
say.  They declined to comment further.

The eclipse glasses did not meet international safe-eclipse
viewing standards called ISO 12312-2 even though it advertised on
Aug. 10 that its glasses were safe, the lawsuit says. The company
advertised that not using safe glasses could cause irreparable
damage, the lawsuit says.

"Even short exposures can cause vision impairment, including solar
retinopathy. Exposure of the retina to intense visible light
causes physical damage to the retina itself, triggering chemical
reactions within the retina," the lawsuit says.

But when Kim Heise used the glasses it was apparent her eyes were
not protected, the lawsuit says.  The legal complaint questions
whether Europtics adequately tested the glasses before giving them
away to buying costumers. [GN]


EXXON MOBIL: Motion to Dismiss "Goldstein" Suit Okayed
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dale S. Fischer entered an order dated August 14, 2017,
granting a motion to dismiss the case, Arnold Goldstein et al v.
Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-02477 (C.D.
Cal.).

PBF Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that it was defending
against the case, Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al.

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

"The operation of the Torrance Refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to our acquisition in July 2016 is also referenced in
the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the
ESP explosion, Exxon has retained responsibility for any
liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the
agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance Refinery.
While we are evaluating the allegations and cannot currently
estimate the amount or the timing of the resolution of this
matter, we believe the outcome will not have a material impact on
our financial position, results of operations or cash flows."

PBF Energy Inc. owns and operates oil refineries and related
facilities in North America.


FARRELL'S LIMOUSINE: "Lee" Suit Seeks OT Pay under Labor Law
------------------------------------------------------------
GLORIA LEE and PAUL LAWRENCE, Individually and on Behalf of All
Putative Class Members, the Plaintiff, v. FARRELL'S LIMOUSINE
SERVICE CORP., FARRELLS' LIMOUSINE SERVICE, LLC, FARRELL'S LEASING
COMPANY, INC., MARGUERITE FARRELL, PATRICK FARRELL and URSULA
FARRELL, jointly and severally, the Defendant, Case No.
655832/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sep. 13, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime premium pay, unpaid spread-of-hours premiums,
improper business expenses and uniform and uniform maintenance
reimbursements, pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs are former chauffeurs for Defendants' car service,
which is currently based in Long Island City, Queens. While
working for Defendants, Plaintiffs did not receive overtime wages
for hours worked over 40 in a given workweek.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brent E. Felton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, New York 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          Facsimile: (212) 385-0800


FEDERAL NATIONAL: Appeals Court Revises Opinion on Breach Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3,
2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that in the
case, Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements Litigation, the
Court of Appeals has issued a revised opinion allowing certain
plaintiffs to continue to maintain their breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing and breach of contract
claims.

The Company said, "A number of putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
against us, FHFA as our conservator, Treasury and Freddie Mac from
July through September 2013 by shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or
Freddie Mac challenging the August 2012 amendment to each
company's senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury.
These lawsuits were consolidated and, on December 3, 2013,
plaintiffs (preferred and common shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or
Freddie Mac) filed a consolidated class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against us, FHFA
as our conservator, Treasury and Freddie Mac ("In re Fannie
Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class
Action Litigations"). The preferred shareholder plaintiffs allege
that the net worth sweep dividend provisions of the senior
preferred stock that were implemented pursuant to the August 2012
amendments to the senior preferred stock purchase agreements
nullified certain of the shareholders' rights, particularly the
right to receive dividends. The common shareholder plaintiffs
allege that the August 2012 amendments constituted a taking of
their property by requiring that all future profits of Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac be paid to Treasury. Plaintiffs allege claims for
breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing against us, FHFA and Freddie Mac, a takings
claim against FHFA and Treasury, and a breach of fiduciary duty
claim derivatively on our and Freddie Mac's behalf against FHFA
and Treasury. Plaintiffs seek to represent several classes of
preferred and/or common shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie
Mac who held stock as of the public announcement of the August
2012 amendments. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, equitable
and injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees."

"A non-class action suit, Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Fannie
Mae, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia on September 20, 2013 by preferred shareholders against
us, FHFA as our conservator, the Director of FHFA (in his official
capacity), Treasury, the Secretary of the Treasury (in his
official capacity) and Freddie Mac. Plaintiffs bring claims for
breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing against us, FHFA and Freddie Mac, and
claims for violation of the Administrative Procedure Act against
the FHFA and Treasury defendants, alleging that the net worth
sweep dividend provisions nullified certain rights of the
preferred shareholders, particularly the right to receive
dividends. Plaintiffs seek damages, equitable and injunctive
relief, and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

"On September 30, 2014, the court dismissed both lawsuits and
plaintiffs in both suits filed timely notices of appeal. On
February 21, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claims alleging
violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, but reversed the
district court's dismissal of the claims alleging breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and one of the
breach of contract claims. The court also ruled that the class-
action plaintiffs could seek leave in the district court to amend
their claim for breach of fiduciary duty from a derivative to a
direct claim.

"On July 17, 2017, the Court of Appeals issued a revised opinion
allowing certain plaintiffs to continue to maintain their breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and breach
of contract claims that the original opinion had found not
properly preserved, and modifying its discussion of the standard
that applies to the breach of implied covenant claim."

Fannie Mae is a government-sponsored enterprise ("GSE") chartered
by Congress.  It serves as a stable source of liquidity for
purchases of homes and financing of multifamily rental housing, as
well as for refinancing existing mortgages.


FIREEYE INC: Settlement of Stockholder Case Awaits Final Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FireEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the settlement of a
stockholder class action lawsuit remains subject to final court
approval.

The Company said, "On June 20, 2014, a purported stockholder class
action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of Santa Clara, against the Company, current and former
members of our Board of Directors, current and former officers,
and the underwriters of our March 2014 follow-on public offering.
On July 17, 2014, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the
same court against the same defendants. The actions were
consolidated and, on March 4, 2015, an amended complaint was
filed, alleging violations of the federal securities laws on
behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of the
Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus for the follow-on public offering, and
seeking unspecified compensatory damages and other relief."

"On February 6, 2017, the parties submitted to the Superior Court
a stipulation of settlement. The terms of the settlement include a
release and dismissal of all claims against all defendants without
any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them. On February 7,
2017, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement, which the Superior Court granted. The
settlement, which is immaterial to the Company's consolidated
financial statements, is subject to stockholder notice, court
approval, and other customary conditions."

FireEye, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries is a leader in
stopping advanced cyber attacks that use advanced malware, zero-
day exploits, and APT ("Advanced Persistent Threat") tactics.


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Cafiso" Suit in E.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firstsource
Advantage, LLC. The case is styled as Stefano Cafiso, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05454
(E.D.N.Y., September 18, 2017).

Firstsource Advantage provides innovative debt collections
services to the leading credit card issuers, financial
institutions, and healthcare providers.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


FLINT, MI: Water Crisis Class Action to Remain in Genesee County
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Fonger, writing for MLive, reports that residents who are
suing city and state officials, alleging gross negligence in the
Flint water crisis, won't be forced to make their case in federal
court, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals says.

The appeals court, in a 2-1 decision, issued an opinion on Sept.
11, saying the class action case can remain in Genesee Circuit
Court where it was filed in January 2016.

Four current or former employees of the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality sought to have the case moved to federal
court, but attorneys for the residents, including activist Melissa
Mays, asked that the case remain where it was filed.

The U.S. District court earlier agreed with the residents, a
decision the DEQ employees asked the Appeals Court to reverse.

Instead, the three-judge panel affirmed the earlier decision,
saying that state employees failed to meet the burden "of
demonstrating that a basis for federal jurisdiction exists."

The decision was written by Judge Ronald Lee Gilman and Judge
Richard F. Suhrheinrich joined in the opinion.  Judge David W.
McKeague dissented.

MLive-The Flint Journal could not immediately reach attorney
Michael Pitt for comment on the decision. [GN]


FOODSTUFFS INC: "Williams" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, v.
FOODSTUFFS, INC., AND JAY LIBERMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-06603 (N.D. Ill., Sep. 13, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff on a regular basis
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, without pay for all
hours worked over 40 at a rate of time and one-half his regular
hourly rate, pursuant to the requirements of the federal and state
statutes. The Plaintiff, and all similarly situated members of the
Plaintiff Class, was denied time and one half the regular rate of
pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

Foodstuffs provides food and food services and products to
customers from four different Illinois locations in Evanston,
Glencoe, Glenview and Lake Forest.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853 1450


GOODRICH CORP: "Alikhan" Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Daniel Jesus Alikhan, an
individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Goodrich Corporation, a corporation, the Defendant,
Hamilton Sundstrand doing business as UTC Aerospace Systems
a corporation; and United Technology Corporation, a corporation;
DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Inclusive, Case No. BC660319, was removed from
the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los
Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-06756
to the proceeding.

Goodrich Corporation, formerly the B.F. Goodrich Company, was an
American aerospace manufacturing company based in Charlotte, North
Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kevin Steven Saman, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          333 South Hope Street Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 270 9600
          Facsimile: (213) 270 9601
          E-mail: ksaman@seyfarth.com


GRAIN PROCESSING: Iowa Supreme Court Affirms Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graham C. Zorn, Esq. -- gzorn@bdlaw.com -- and Eric L. Klein, Esq.
of Beveridge & Diamond PC, in an article for The National Law
Review, wrote that the Iowa Supreme Court permitted the
certification of a two-tier class action in a nuisance suit filed
against the owner of a corn milling plant by nearby residents.
See Freeman v. Grain Processing Corp., 895 N.W.2d 105 (Iowa,
2017).

An Iowa district court first granted class certification in 2015,
dividing the class into two subclasses: one for members living in
close proximity to the corn milling plant and one for those in
peripheral proximity to the plant.  On appeal, the plant owner
argued that there was insufficient commonality between the
plaintiffs' claims, and that alleged common questions of law or
fact did not "predominate" over individual issues that may have
existed.

The Iowa Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that "[t]he
central factual basis for all of Plaintiff's claims . . . is [the
defendant's] course of conduct and knowledge of its potential
hazards."  The court also held that by dividing the class into two
subclasses, the trial court resolved issues arising from potential
disparities in the alleged harm suffered by the plaintiffs.

The court also held that these common issues predominated over any
individual questions of law or fact.  Noting that the test for
predominance is a pragmatic one, the court rejected the notion
that the mere existence of any individual issues is fatal to class
certification.  Accordingly, the court held that individual
issues, such as potential contamination from other sources or the
precise extent of contamination on plaintiffs' property, were
nevertheless outweighed by common questions regarding the
defendant's course of conduct, its knowledge of emissions, and the
level at which emissions would interfere with a normal person's
enjoyment of his or her property. [GN]


HEALTH INSURANCE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 11
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.
(NASDAQ:HIIQ) from August 2, 2017 through September 11, 2017, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Health Insurance Innovations investors under
the federal securities laws.

To join the Health Insurance Innovations class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1207.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Health Insurance Innovations' application for a third-
party insurance administrators license with the Florida Office of
Insurance Regulation was denied due in part to material errors and
omissions; (2) the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation's
rejection of Health Insurance Innovations' application for a
third-party insurance administrators license could result in its
losing licenses in the other states; and (3) as a result, Health
Insurance Innovations' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
November 10, 2017.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1207.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
[GN]


HEALTH INSURANCE: Vigorito Sues over Securities Exchange Act
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL VIGORITO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. HEALTH INSURANCE
INNOVATIONS, INC., GAVIN SOUTHWELL, and MICHAEL D. HERSHBERGER,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06962 (S.D.N.Y., Sep. 13, 2017),
seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Health Insurance Innovations securities between
August 2, 2017 and September 11, 2017, both dates inclusive.

Health Insurance Innovations operates as a developer, distributor,
and administrator of cloud-based individual health and family
insurance plans, and supplemental products in the
United States. The Company offers, inter alia, short-term medical
plans, hospital indemnity plans, and supplemental insurance
products. It designs and structures individual health and family
insurance plans, and supplemental products on behalf of insurance
carriers and discount benefit providers and market them to
individuals through a network of distributors.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Health Insurance Innovations' application for a key insurance
license in its home state of Florida was rejected due to the
state's Office of Insurance Regulation's ("OIR") discovery of
undisclosed legal actions against Health Insurance Innovations
insiders; (ii) Health Insurance Innovations warned the OIR of the
anticipated "domino effect" that the rejection was likely to
cause, by which the Company would subsequently lose licenses in
additional states; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Health
Insurance Innovations' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On September 11, 2017, the website SeekingAlpha.com published an
article reporting on the OIR's June 2017 rejection of Health
Insurance Innovations' application for a "key insurance license in
[its] home state of Florida as [the OIR] uncovers undisclosed
legal actions against HIIQ insiders" and that "HIIQ privately
warns of disastrous "domino effect" spreading to other states,
causing additional loss of licenses. HIIQ makes no disclosure to
investors." On this news, Health Insurance Innovations' share
price fell $6.55, or 21.91%, to close at $23.35 on September 11,
2017.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damage.

Health Insurance Innovations was founded in 2008 and is
headquartered in Tampa, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


I3CONCEPTS LLC: "Duncan" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
David Duncan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. i3Concepts, LLC and Jeffrey Comeaux,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02347 (N.D. Tex., September 2, 2017),
seeks unpaid overtime compensation due, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this
action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and
such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

i3Concepts is a security services company with offices in Dallas,
Houston and Austin/San Antonio where Duncan performed security
installation duties in its Dallas office. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
      1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
      Southlake, TX 76092-4322
      Tel: (817) 416-5060
      Fax: (817) 416-5062
      Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com


IMPERVA INC: Oct. 11 Hearing to Approve $19MM Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins, writing for Law360, reports that shareholders of
data security company Imperva Inc. have asked a California federal
judge to preliminarily approve a $19 million settlement that would
resolve putative class claims that the company misled investors
and cost them nearly half the value of their investment while
letting executives sell off their shares for millions.

A hearing on the proposed settlement is set for Oct. 11.

Without admitting liability, Imperva has agreed to the $19 million
deal, under which class attorneys are asking for $4.85 million in
fees, or 25 percent of the settlement, plus interest. The
shareholders argued that the deal is fair and reasonable,
considering the risks involved with litigation. The shareholders
also noted that $19 million is 8.3 percent of the total $228
million in damages that the investors sought.

"[8.3 percent] is well above the median percentage of 2.5 percent
for securities class action settlements in 2016," the memo in
support of the settlement said.

The parties don't know exactly how many class members are
qualified to receive the relief, but they estimate there are
hundreds, if not thousands, who purchased or acquired Imperva's 24
million shares during the applicable class period, according to
the memo.

If approved, the deal would resolve claims that the Redwood City,
California-based data security company deceptively hyped the
company's competitiveness against rival International Business
Machines, while executives sold off millions of their shares. The
shareholders claimed the company overestimated Imperva's
competitive success, superior technology and revenue predictions
for 2014.

The deal outlines how the recovery class members can receive
relief based on the number of claims the investor submits, when
the investor acquired and sold Imperva securities, and the number
of the shares that the investor purchased or acquired and sold.

Imperva, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that on April 11, 2014, a
purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers.

On August 7, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing lead
plaintiff and counsel for the purported class. The lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint on October 10, 2014. The lawsuit named
the Company and certain of its current and former officers and
purported to bring suit on behalf of those investors who purchased
the Company's publicly traded securities between May 2, 2013 and
April 9, 2014. The plaintiff alleged that defendants made false
and misleading statements about the Company's operations and
business and financial results and purported to assert claims for
violations of the federal securities laws. The amended complaint
sought unspecified compensatory damages, interest thereon, costs
incurred in the action and equitable/injunctive or other relief.

On January 6, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On September 17, 2015, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 13, 2016, again
naming the same current and former officers, alleging false and
misleading statements about the Company's operations and business
and financial results, and seeking the same relief.

On February 10, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On May 16, 2016, the Court granted the motion
in part and denied the motion in part.  On September 7, 2016,
defendants filed their operative answer to the amended complaint.

In July 2017, with the help of a mediator, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle the action.  The settlement,
which is subject to final documentation and the approval of the
Court, among other conditions, will be funded entirely by the
Company's insurance carriers, and has been accrued in current
assets and current liabilities for the period ended June 30, 2017.

"The settlement is not deemed material to our results of
operations, liquidity or capital resources as a result of the
insurance receivable," the Company said.

Imperva, Inc. is engaged in the development, marketing, sales,
service and support of cyber-security solutions that protect
business-critical data and applications whether in the cloud or on
premises.


INOTEK PHARMACEUTICALS: 2nd Amended Suit Filed in "Whitehead"
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Second Amended Complaint against Rudolf A. Baumgartner, David P.
Southwell, Inotek Pharmaceuticals Corporation was filed Sept. 5 in
the case, Whitehead v. Inotek Pharmaceuticals Corporation et al.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-10025 (D. Mass.).

In an Order entered that same day, District Court Judge Leo T
Sorokin reset deadlines in the case.  Dispositive Motions are now
due by Oct. 6, 2017.  Responses are due by Dec. 12, 2017.  Replies
are due by Jan. 16, 2018.

Inotek Pharmaceuticals said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the company is
defending against the case, Whitehead v. Inotek Pharmaceuticals
Corporation.

The Company said, "On January 6, 2017, a purported stockholder of
the Company filed a putative class action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, captioned Whitehead v.
Inotek Pharmaceuticals Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-10025. An
amended complaint was filed on July 10, 2017. The amended
complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 against the
Company, David Southwell, and Rudolf Baumgartner based on
allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions regarding
our phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials of trabodenoson. The
lawsuit seeks among other things, unspecified compensatory damages
for purchasers of the Company's common stock between July 23, 2015
and December 30, 2016, as well as interest and attorneys' fees and
costs."

Inotek Pharmaceuticals Corporation (the "Company") is a clinical-
stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery,
development and commercialization of therapies for ocular
diseases, including glaucoma.


INOVALON HOLDINGS: Initial Conference Today in "Xiang" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The initial conference in the consolidated class action lawsuit
captioned as, Xiang v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-04923 (S.D.N.Y.), has been rescheduled to Sept. 22, 2017,
at 9:45 a.m. before Judge Victor Marrero.

Inovalon Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Court has denied
both the Defendant's motion for reconsideration and defendant's
request for an interlocutory appeal.

On June 24, 2016, a purported securities class action complaint
(Xiang v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-04923) was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, certain officers,
directors and underwriters in the Company's initial public
offering (the "Complaint"). The Complaint was brought on behalf of
a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased shares of the Company's Class A common stock pursuant or
traceable to the Registration Statement relating to the Company's
initial public offering on February 18, 2015. The Complaint
asserted violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions
with respect to, among other things, the Company's revenues from
sales in the city and state of New York and the Company's
effective tax rate. The Complaint sought certification as a class
action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys' fees.

On June 28, 2016, a nearly identical complaint was filed in the
same court captioned Patel v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc., et. al.,
No. 1:16-cv-05065.

On July 5, 2016, the court consolidated the Xiang and Patel
actions. On September 20, 2016, the court appointed a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.

On December 21, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class
action complaint (the "Amended Complaint") purporting to assert
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, based on allegedly false or misleading
statements and omissions with respect to substantially the same
topics as alleged in the Complaint. On February 21, 2017, and as
required by the court's individual practices, the Company invoked
the pre-motion process required prior to filing a motion to
dismiss.

On May 23, 2017, the court issued a decision and order construing
the pre-motion letter submitted by the defendants as a motion to
dismiss, granting dismissal of the Section 12 claims against the
individual defendants, but denying dismissal of the remaining
claims.

On June 6, 2017, defendants filed a joint motion for
reconsideration and supporting memorandum of law seeking
reconsideration of the court's decision and arguing that
plaintiff's claims are time-barred. Also on June 6, 2017,
defendants submitted a letter to the court requesting, in the
alternative to the motion for reconsideration, a pre-motion
conference concerning defendants' anticipated motion for
certification of an interlocutory appeal to resolve a controlling
question of law. The motion for reconsideration and letter seeking
a pre-motion conference are both still pending before the court.

On July 11, 2017, the Company and its officers and directors filed
their answer to the Amended Complaint denying that plaintiffs are
entitled to any relief. On July 28, 2017, the court issued a
decision and order denying both the motion for reconsideration and
defendant's request for an interlocutory appeal.

In light of, among other things, the early stage of the
litigation, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these
consolidated actions and is unable to make a meaningful estimate
of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from
this proceeding.

Inovalon is a technology company providing an integrated, cloud-
based platform, referred to as the Inovalon ONE(TM) Platform,
empowering a data-driven transformation from volume-based to
value-based models throughout the healthcare industry.


IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Answer to "DeSilvio" Suit Due Nov. 14
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants' answer in the case, DeSilvio v. LION BIOTECHNOLOGIES,
INC. et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02086 (N.D. Cal.), is due Nov. 14,
2017.

Judge Susan Illston presides over the securities class action
lawsuit.

Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the court has
appointed a lead plaintiff in the shareholder class action.

The Company said, "On April 10, 2017, the SEC announced
settlements with us and with other public companies and unrelated
parties in the In the Matter of Certain Stock Promotion
investigation. Our settlement with the SEC is consistent with our
previous disclosures (including in our Form 10-K that we filed
with the SEC on March 9, 2017)."

"On April 14 2017, a purported shareholder filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court, Northern District
of California for violations of the federal securities laws
(Leonard DeSilvio v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., et al., case no:
3:17cv2086) against our company and three of our former officers
and directors.

"On April 19, 2017, a second class action complaint (Amra Kuc vs.
Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., et al., case no: 3:17cv2086) was filed
in the same court. Both complaints allege, among other things,
that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements, or by failing to make
certain disclosures, regarding the actions taken by Manish Singh
and our former investor relations firm that were the subject of
the In the Matter of Certain Stock Promotions SEC investigation.

"On July 20, 2017 the plaintiff in the Kuc case filed a notice to
voluntarily dismiss that case. The Court entered an order
dismissing the Kuc complaint on July 21, 2017. On July 26, 2017,
the court appointed a movant as lead plaintiff.

"We intend to vigorously defend against the foregoing complaints.
Based on the very early stage of the litigation, it is not
possible to estimate the amount or range of possible loss that
might result from an adverse judgment or a settlement of these
matters."

Iovance is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on
the development and commercialization of novel cancer
immunotherapy products designed to harness the power of a
patient's own immune system to eradicate cancer cells.


JACKSON NURSE: Faces "Musgrove" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
E. Howard Musgrove, an individual on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Jackson Nurse Professionals, LLC; Jackson
Healthcare Staffing, LLC, and Does 1 to 10 inclusive, Case No.
2:17-cv-06565 (C.D. Cal., September 6, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to
timely pay all wages owing at the termination of employment.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of healthcare staffing
throughout California and elsewhere. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
      Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
      HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
      595 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 303
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (626) 808-4357
      Facsimile: (626) 921-4932
      E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
              kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com


JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------
Juno Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company's motion to
defend a class action lawsuit has been denied.

Beginning on July 12, 2016, three putative securities class action
complaints were filed against the Company and several of its
officers. On October 7, 2016, these complaints were consolidated
into a single action titled "In re Juno Therapeutics, Inc." On
October 19, 2016, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff. On
December 12, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The putative class in the amended complaint is composed of all
purchasers of the Company's securities between May 9, 2016 and
November 22, 2016, inclusive. The amended complaint names as
defendants the Company, its chief executive officer, its chief
financial officer, and its chief medical officer and generally
alleges material misrepresentations and omissions in public
statements regarding patient deaths in the Company's Phase II
clinical trial of JCAR015 and the safety of JCAR015, violations by
all named defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act by the individual defendants. The amended
complaint seeks compensatory damages of an undisclosed amount.

On February 2, 2017, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 20, 2017, the
plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. On April
19, 2017, the Company and the individual defendants filed a reply
in support of the motion to dismiss. On June 14, 2017, the
defendants' motion to dismiss was denied.

Juno is building a fully-integrated biopharmaceutical company
focused on developing innovative cellular immunotherapies for the
treatment of cancer.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs Permitted to File Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the district court
granted plaintiffs' motion for permission to file an amended
complaint.

Koppers Inc. operated a utility pole treatment plant in
Gainesville, Florida from December 29, 1988 until its closure in
2009. The property upon which the utility pole treatment plant was
located was sold by Koppers Inc. to Beazer East in 2010.

In November 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed by
residential real property owners located in a neighborhood west of
and immediately adjacent to the former utility pole treatment
plant in Gainesville. The complaint named Koppers Holdings Inc.,
Koppers Inc., Beazer East and several other parties as defendants.
Koppers Holdings Inc. was subsequently dismissed from the case by
the district court.

In a second amended complaint, plaintiffs alleged that chemicals
and contaminants from the Gainesville plant contaminated their
properties, caused property damage (diminution in value) and
placed residents and owners of the putative class properties at an
elevated risk of exposure to and injury from the chemicals at
issue. The plaintiffs sought a class comprised of all current
property owners of single family residential properties with a
polygon-shaped area extending approximately two miles from the
former plant area (which area encompasses approximately 7,000
owners).

In September 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Florida. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motions for
class certification and the parties' motions relating to experts
was held in January 2016.

On March 20, 2017, the district court denied the motion for class
certification and also granted the motion to strike several of the
plaintiffs' expert witnesses. Plaintiffs have sought permission to
file a third amended complaint for five individual plaintiffs in
the district court which is currently opposed by the Company.

In July 2017, the district court granted in part and denied in
part plaintiffs' motion for permission to file an amended
complaint. Plaintiffs were permitted to add a count related to
ultra-hazardous activities, but were denied the right to add
counts related to public nuisance, medical monitoring and for
equitable relief. The Company and the other defendants are
preparing their answer to plaintiffs' amended complaint.

The Company has not provided a reserve for this matter because, at
this time, it cannot reasonably determine the probability of a
loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated. The timing of resolution of this case cannot be
reasonably determined. Although the Company is vigorously
defending this case, an unfavorable resolution of this matter may
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.


KUKA TOLEDO: Unpaid Overtime Premiums Claimed Unpaid by "Clemons"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Clemons, on behalf of himself and other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KUKA Toledo
Production Operations, LLC, KUKA Systems North America, LLC and
KUKA U.S. Holdings Company, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
01850, (N.D. Ohio, September 1, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages
and all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt
Pay Act.

The KUKA Group is a supplier of automated manufacturing and
assembly solutions for industrial production where Clemons was
employed by Defendants as a production worker from approximately
2006 through September 2016. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
      BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
      1457 S. High St.
      Columbus, OH 43207
      Telephone: (614) 704-0546
      Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
      Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

             - and -

      Matthew B. Bryant, Esq.
      BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
      3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370
      Toledo, OH 43606
      Telephone: (419) 824-4439


LINCOLN NAT'L: Faces "Tutor" Suit in East. Dist. Penn.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lincoln National
Corp.  The case is styled as Marshall Lewis Tutor, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lincoln
National Corp. and Lincoln National Life Insurance Company doing
business as: Lincoln Financial Group, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-04150-GJP (E.D. Penn., September 18, 2017).

The Defendants operate multiple insurance and retirement
businesses in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
   McCune Wright Arevalo LLP
   555 Lancaster Avenue
   Berwyn, PA 19312
   Tel: (610) 200-0580
   Email: jgs@mccunewright.com

LIVERPOOL, UK: Suit Mulled Against Council Over Chinatown Project
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hiba Mahamadi, writing for theMJ.co.uk, reports that Liverpool
City Council's stalled New Chinatown development could result in a
class action lawsuit launched against it, the leader of the
council's Lib Dem group has warned.

The housing and development scheme was of one of the council's key
regeneration projects for 2016/17. [GN]


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Class Suit Related to MVCD Program Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the
Company continues to defend a class action lawsuit related to the
Marriott Vacation Club Destinations ("MVCD") program.

The Company said, "On May 20, 2016, we, certain of our
subsidiaries, and other third parties were named as defendants in
an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida by Anthony and Beth Lennen. The case is filed as a
putative class action; the plaintiffs seek to represent a class
consisting of themselves and all other purchasers of MVCD points,
from inception of the MVCD program in June 2010 to the present, as
well as all individuals who own or have owned weeks in any resorts
for which weeks have been added to the MVCD program. Plaintiffs
challenge the characterization of the beneficial interests in the
MVCD trust that are sold to customers as real estate interests
under Florida law. They also challenge the structure of the trust
and associated operational aspects of the trust product. The
relief sought includes, among other things, declaratory relief, an
unwinding of the MVCD product, and punitive damages."

"On September 15, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
and a motion to stay the case pending referral of certain
questions to Florida state regulators, which motions remain
pending. We dispute the material allegations in the complaint and
intend to defend against the action vigorously. Given the early
stages of the action and the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
we cannot estimate a range of the potential liability, if any, at
this time."

Marriott is the exclusive worldwide developer, marketer, seller
and manager of vacation ownership and related products under the
Marriott Vacation Club and Grand Residences by Marriott brands.
It is also the exclusive worldwide developer, marketer and seller
of vacation ownership and related products under The Ritz-Carlton
Destination Club brand.


MID-ATLANTIC LUBES: Judge Rejects FLSA Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fox Rothschild LLP wrote that most wage-hour class actions settle,
usually with the lead plaintiff getting an extra sum of money for
leading the "good fight."  In any such action, the Judge has to
approve the settlement.  Well, sometimes a Judge does not like
what is in the settlement and will reject it.  That is exactly
what has happened in a Pennsylvania case.  The federal judge has
declined to approve a settlement between a former Assistant
Manager and his class, who had sued an auto repair shop.  The
Court found that the proposed settlement was too generous to the
named plaintiff and, more tellingly, his attorneys.  The case is
entitled Hoover et al. v. Mid-Atlantic Lubes Inc. et al, filed in
federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The Judge found that the proposed $6,000 incentive award for the
named plaintiff, in addition to his money from the actual
settlement, would see him receive the amount of the $15,000, which
was deemed excessive.  The Court also found the $175,512 requested
by his counsel for his fees was also excessive. As the Court aptly
put it, "the fee award named plaintiff's counsel seeks is almost
12 times greater than the amount the opt-in collective will
receive in total.  In these circumstances, I cannot preliminarily
approve the settlement."

The employees alleged that the Company denied proper compensation
by throwing out time records and/or editing time entries to reduce
or remove hours.  The Company also allegedly ordered employees to
clock out when they were not assisting customers, although they
were required to stay in the store.

The parties sought approval of the settlement in January; every
potential class member was going to receive compensation for hours
worked but uncompensated.  A settlement fund of 15,000 had been
established.  The class included customer service technicians and
assistant managers who worked at the store in Warminster, PA, from
January 2014-January 2016.

Counsel for the named plaintiff contended that the $6,000
incentive award requested for Mr. Hoover was fair, as he was
actively involved in going to judicial proceedings and court
conferences.  He also agreed not to seek employment with the
Company and asserted that should be worth something. The Judge
disagreed and dubbed the incentive award "excessive and unduly
preferential."

The Takeaway

Plaintiff's counsel stated that, "the parties have worked amicably
with one another from the outset of this litigation and we look
forward to continuing to work with the defendants to consummate a
mutually agreeable resolution. [GN]


NESTLE WATERS: Faces Class Acton Over Deceptive Business Strategy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that one of
the leading bottled water brands has been accused of fraud, false
advertising and violating consumer protection laws for allegedly
selling ordinary groundwater as spring water, according to a
proposed class action filed in federal court last month.

A group of plaintiffs filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut Aug. 15. The named defendant is
Nestle Waters North America Inc., based in Stamford, Conn.

According to its website, Nestle Waters is the third largest non-
alcoholic beverage company, with 28 bottled water facilities
across the U.S. and annual revenues of $4.5 billion in 2016.

The plaintiffs contend Nestle Waters, a unit of the giant Swiss
food and beverage conglomerate Nestle S.A., has mislabeled or
otherwise misrepresented its Poland Spring brand "100% Natural
Spring Water," thereby "deceiving and misleading consumers into
purchasing that product or paying more for it than they would if
the product was accurately labeled."

"For more than 20 years, Nestle Waters' marketing and sales of
Poland Spring Water has been a colossal fraud perpetrated against
American consumers.  To consumers, 'spring water' from a naturally
occurring spring signifies purity and high quality and commands a
premium price compared to Defendant's non-spring drinking water
products or filtered tap water," the plaintiffs wrote in a 300-
plus-page complaint.

"To illicitly capture that premium, Defendant, since it began
selling the Poland Spring brand in 1993, has bottled common
groundwater and illegally mislabeled it as '100% Natural Spring
Water.'"

Not one drop of the Poland Spring Water emanates from a water
source that complies with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's
definition of "spring water," according to the complaint.

"Each year Defendant misidentifies hundreds of millions of gallons
of Poland Spring Water as 'spring water,' and for many years it
has misrepresented on every Poland Spring Water label that the
water in the bottle came from one or more of eight purported
'natural springs' in Maine," the plaintiffs allege.

"Rather than being '100% Natural Spring Water' as Defendant's
labels advertise, and rather than being collected from pristine
mountain or forest springs as the images on those labels depict,
Poland Spring Water products all contain ordinary groundwater that
Defendant collects from wells it drilled in saturated plains or
valleys where the water table is within a few feet of the earth's
surface."

According to the complaint, FDA regulations require all bottled
spring water to be collected either at the source of a naturally
occurring spring or from a well that extracts water that could
otherwise exit the earth's surface from a natural spring if not
drawn from the well.

"In hydrogeological parlance, all such well water must be
'hydraulically connected' to a genuine spring. All such well water
also must have 'the same' physical and chemical characteristics as
the water emerging from the spring," the plaintiffs explained.
"Not one ounce of Defendant's Poland Spring Water complies with
the law's mandates."

The lawsuit alleges Nestle Waters -- a self-described "leading
Healthy Hydration Company" -- has built and maintains "phony, man-
made 'springs'" to feign compliance with FDA regulations.

"Defendant has created artificial springs (i) by causing well
water to flow artificially through pipes or plastic tubes into
wetlands that contain no genuine springs; (ii) by inserting small
wells into the ground to tap the water table and artificially
force groundwater to the surface; and (iii) by maintaining
excavated pits in the ground that intercept the water table to
form man-made pools," the plaintiffs wrote.

But genuine springs, they explained, must have a "natural orifice"
through which water "flows naturally" to the surface, without
human assistance.

"By faking the existence of springs, Defendant is defrauding its
consumers," according to the complaint.

Not to mention, the plaintiffs allege, one or more wells at each
of the company's six largest volume groundwater collection sites
in Maine are near a present or former human waste dump, refuse
pit, landfill, ash pile, salt mound, farm where pesticides were
previously used, fish hatchery or toxic petroleum dump site.

"Such areas are near all four of Defendant's most productive well
sites -- those in Poland Spring, Hollis, Poland and Fryeburg, from
which Defendant collectively pumps 80 percent of its Poland Spring
Water," they wrote.

The plaintiffs contend Nestle Waters conceals the fact it is
collecting ordinary groundwater by shielding its source wells and
purported "springs" from public view -- behind trees or shrubs,
locked fences and gates.

"Through its more than two decades-long pattern of deception,
Defendant has built its Poland Spring Water brand into the
country's largest bottled spring water brand," the lawsuit states.
"Poland Spring Water's market share exceeds 50 percent in its
primary marketing region, the northeastern United States. Poland
Spring Water sales in the U.S. were approximately $400 million in
2007 and have been between $300 million and $900 million annually
for each of the past nine years.

"Currently, at least 13 million consumers nationwide buy Poland
Spring Water under false and deceptive circumstances every year."

The proposed class includes all consumers of Poland Spring Water
nationwide who have purchased Poland Spring Water since Nov. 5,
2003, excluding Defendant's own personnel and agents, as well as a
sub-class of home and office consumers and eight sub-classes of
PET, or retail, market consumers in the brand's primary marketing
territory consisting of the northeastern states of New Jersey, New
York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New
Hampshire and Maine.

The plaintiffs are seeking a judgment awarding compensatory and
punitive damages, and permanent injunctive relief.

Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer is overseeing the case.

"For more than 170 years, Poland Spring(R)has delivered great
tasting spring water from Maine to millions of people in the
Northeast.  The claims made in the lawsuit are without merit and
an obvious attempt to manipulate the legal system for personal
gain," a spokesperson for Nestle Waters told Legal Newsline.
"Poland Spring(R)is 100 percent spring water.  It meets the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration regulations defining spring water,
all state regulations governing spring classification for
standards of identity, as well as all federal and state
regulations governing spring water collection, good manufacturing
practices, product quality and labeling.

"We remain highly confident in our legal position."

Day Pitney LLP, in Stamford, is listed as counsel for the
defendant.

Judge Meyer recently granted the company's motion for extension of
time, given it until Oct. 6 to respond to the plaintiffs'
complaint.

New York law firm Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Los Angeles firm
Susman Godfrey LLP, West Hartford, Conn., firm Izard Kindall &
Raabe LLP and New Jersey attorney Alexander H. Schmidt are listed
as counsel for the plaintiffs. [GN]


NEW RESIDENTIAL: Nov. 17 Hearing on Case Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
New Residential Investment Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3,
2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Court
has set a hearing for November 17, 2017 to determine whether the
settlement of a class action lawsuit should receive final
approval.

Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Home
Loan Servicing Solutions and certain of its current and former
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York entitled: (i) Oliveira v. Home Loan
Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-652 (S.D.N.Y.), filed
on January 29, 2015; (ii) Berglan v. Home Loan Servicing
Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-947 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on
February 9, 2015; and (iii) W. Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v.
Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-1063
(S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 13, 2015. On April 2, 2015, these
lawsuits were consolidated into a single action, which is referred
to as the "Securities Action." On April 28, 2015, lead plaintiffs,
lead counsel and liaison counsel were appointed in the Securities
Action. On November 9, 2015, lead plaintiffs filed an amended
class action complaint. On January 27, 2016, the Securities Action
was transferred to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida and given the Index No. 16-CV-60165
(S.D. Fla.).

The Securities Action names as defendants HLSS, former HLSS
Chairman William C. Erbey, HLSS Director, President, and Chief
Executive Officer John P. Van Vlack, and HLSS Chief Financial
Officer James E. Lauter. The Securities Action asserts causes of
action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") based on certain public
disclosures made by HLSS relating to its relationship with Ocwen
and HLSS's risk management and internal controls. More
specifically, the consolidated class action complaint alleges that
a series of statements in HLSS's disclosures were materially false
and misleading, including statements about (i) Ocwen's servicing
capabilities; (ii) HLSS's contingencies and legal proceedings;
(iii) its risk management and internal controls; and (iv) certain
related party transactions. The consolidated class action
complaint also appears to allege that HLSS's financial statements
for the years ended 2012 and 2013, and the first quarter ended
March 30, 2014, were false and misleading based on HLSS's August
18, 2014 restatement. Lead plaintiffs in the Securities Action
also allege that HLSS misled investors by failing to disclose,
among other things, information regarding governmental
investigations of Ocwen's business practices. Lead plaintiffs seek
money damages under the Exchange Act in an amount to be proven at
trial and reasonable costs, expenses, and fees.

On February 11, 2015, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Securities Action in its entirety. On June 6, 2016, all
allegations except those regarding certain related party
transactions were dismissed.

On June 15, 2017, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving a settlement of the Securities Action for $6 million,
certifying a settlement class, approving the form and content of
notice of the settlement to class members, and setting a hearing
for November 17, 2017 to determine whether the settlement should
receive final approval. Should the settlement receive final
approval, insurance proceeds would cover $5 million of such $6
million settlement.

New Residential is an independent publicly traded real estate
investment trust ("REIT") primarily focused on investing in
residential mortgage related assets. New Residential is listed on
the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") under the symbol "NRZ."


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: "Adams" Hits Defective Dashboards
-------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Adams and Kimberlyn Jones, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Nissan North America,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-02653 (S.D. Tex., September 1,
2017), seeks actual damages, restitution, disgorgement or other
equitable relief, repair of defective dashboards, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney fees and costs of
suit, including expert witness fees and such other and further
relief resulting from unjust enrichment and breach of implied
warranty of merchantability.

Ellen Adams and Kimberlyn Jones both bought Nissan Altimas whose
dashboards cannot withstand exposure to sunlight and melted;
emitted a noxious chemical smell; and became reflective thus
obstructing drivers' vision, notes the report.

Nissan North America, Inc. has its headquarters and principal
place of business in Franklin, Tennessee. Nissan North American,
Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes automobiles in the United
States, including Nissan Altima cars. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stuart L. Cochran, Esq.
      Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
      R. Dean Gresham, Esq.
      STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN PLLC
      12720 Hillcrest Rd., Ste. 1045
      Dallas, TX 75230
      Tel: (972) 387-4040
      Fax: (972) 387-4041
      Email: dean@stecklerlaw.com
             stuart@stecklerlaw.com
             krogers@stecklerlaw.com


OAKMONT SENIOR: Faces "Lollock" Suit over Excessive Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Donald Lollock, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Kathleen
Lollock; Zareen Khan as Special Administrator for the Estate of
Abdulwafi Khan; Frank Pearson; Jo Ella Nashadka; and Jane Burton-
Whitaker; on their own behalves, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Oakmont Senior Living, LLC, and Does
l - 25, the Defendants, Case No. RG17875110 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep.
13, 2017), seeks an order prohibiting Oakmont from charging fees
based on care points that correspond to the amount of staff time
Oakmont represents is necessary to provide the required services,
unless and until Oakmont uses those numbers in setting and
providing staffing levels at its facilities.

According to the complaint, Defendant has engaged in a scheme to
defraud seniors, persons with disabilities, and their family
members at its assisted Living facilities in California by falsely
representing to all residents in its admission contracts that each
resident will be provided the care services (through facility
staff) that the resident needs as determined by the resident
assessment conducted by facility personnel. This is false and
misleading, the lawsuit claims, because the results generated by
Oakmont's resident assessment system are not used to set staffing
at each facility. Instead, as a matter of corporate policy,
Oakmont allocates expenditures for staffing at each facility based
on pre-determined and static budgets designed to maximize revenue.
As a result, Oakmont's facilities do not have sufficient numbers
of trained staff to provide promised care services to its
residents. Oakmont conceals and fails to disclose this material
fact to current and prospective residents.

Oakmont Senior Living, LLC develops, owns, and operates high-end
senior communities in the Western United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kathryn A. Stebner, Esq.
          Kelly Knapp, Esq.
          George Kawamoto, Esq.
          STEBNER AND ASSOCIATES
          870 Market Street, Suite 1212
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 362 9800
          Facsimile: (415) 362 9801

               - and -

          Guy B. Wallace, Esq.
          Sarah Colby, Esq.
          Jennifer A. Uhrowczik, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
          KONECKY WOTKYNS, LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421 7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421 7105

               - and -

          Christopher J. Healey,
          DENTONS US LLP
          600 West Broadway, Suite 2600
          San Diego, CA 92101-3372
          Telephone: (619) 235 3491
          Facsimile: (619) 645 5328


OVASCIENCE INC: Discovery Underway in Suffolk County Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
OvaScience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit are engaged in discovery and are briefing a class
certification motion.

On October 9, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Suffolk County Superior Court in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts against the Company, several of the Company's
officers and directors and certain of the underwriters from the
Company's January 2015 follow-on public offering of the Company's
common stock.  The plaintiffs purport to represent those persons
who purchased shares of the Company's common stock pursuant or
traceable to the Company's January 2015 follow-on public offering.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information in the Company's January 2015 Registration Statement
and incorporated offering materials.  Plaintiffs allege violations
of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and seek, among other relief, unspecified compensatory
damages, rescission, pre-and post-judgment interest and fees,
costs and disbursements.

On December 7, 2015, the OvaScience, Inc. defendants filed a
notice of removal with the Federal District Court for the District
of Massachusetts.  On December 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion
to remand the action to the Superior Court.  Oral argument on the
motion to remand was held on February 19, 2016.  On February 23,
2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand the
action to the Superior Court.

On February 26, 2016, a second putative class action suit was
filed in the Suffolk County Superior Court in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts against the Company, several of the Company's
officers and directors and certain of the underwriters from the
Company's January 2015 follow-on public offering of the Company's
common stock.  The complaint is substantially similar to the
complaint filed in October 2015.

The two actions subsequently were consolidated and plaintiffs
filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint on June 17, 2016.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint.  Those motions
were denied by order dated December 22, 2016.  The parties
currently are engaged in discovery and are briefing a class
certification motion.  The Company believes that the complaint is
without merit and intends to defend against the litigation.  There
can be no assurance, however, that the Company will be successful.
A resolution of this lawsuit adverse to the Company or the other
defendants could have a material effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position and results of operations in the
period in which the lawsuit is resolved.

"At present, we are unable to estimate potential losses, if any,
related to the lawsuit," the Company said.

OvaScience, Inc. is a global fertility company developing
proprietary potential treatments for female fertility based on
scientific discoveries about the existence of egg precursor, or
EggPCSM, cells.


OVASCIENCE INC: Shareholder Suit in Massachusetts Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
OvaScience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that Plaintiff in a
Massachusetts class action lawsuit was scheduled to file an
amended complaint on August 21, 2017.

On March 24, 2017, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in federal district court for the District of
Massachusetts against the Company and certain of our present and
former officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On June 5, 2017, the Court appointed Freedman Family Investments,
LLC as lead plaintiff, the firm of Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
as lead counsel and the Law Office of Alan L. Kovacs as local
counsel.  Plaintiff was scheduled to file an amended complaint on
August 21, 2017.

"We believe that the complaint is without merit and intend to
defend against the litigation. There can be no assurance, however,
that we will be successful. A resolution of this lawsuit adverse
to the Company or the other defendants could have a material
effect on our consolidated financial position," the Company said.

OvaScience, Inc. is a global fertility company developing
proprietary potential treatments for female fertility based on
scientific discoveries about the existence of egg precursor, or
EggPCSM, cells.


PARK GROVE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Printed Receipt
------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Hullinger, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Park Grove Inn, Inc. (d/b/a Park Grove Inn); and Does
1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:17-cv-00400 (E.D. Ten.,
September 6, 2017), arises from the Defendant's unlawful practice
of providing an electronically printed receipt at the point of a
sale or transaction at any of the Defendants' physical locations
in the United States, on which receipt printed the first 6 and
last 4 digits of costumers' card number, the expiration date of
her card, the brand of her card, her name, her address, and other
information.

Park Grove Inn, Inc. is a Tennessee corporation which owns,
manages, maintains, and operates one or more physical hotel
locations in the State of Tennessee, through which it offers
various goods and services for sale to the public. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick Barrett, Esq.
      BARRETT LAW OFFICE, PLLC
      4205 Hillsboro Pike, Suite 303
      Nashville, TN 37215
      Telephone: (615) 463-4000
      E-mail: pbarrett@barrettlawofficetn.com

         - and -

      Brian K. Herrington, Esq.
      HERRINGTON LAW, PA
      1520 N. State Street
      Jackson, MS 39202
      Telephone: (601) 208-0013
      Facsimile: (601) 235-9947
      E-mail: brian@herringtonlawpa.com

         - and -

      Chant Yedalian, Esq.
      CHANT & COMPANY
      A Professional Law Corporation
      1010 N. Central Ave.
      Glendale, CA 91202
      Telephone: (877) 574-7100
      Facsimile: (877) 574-9411
      E-mail: chant@chant.mobi


PHH CORPORATION: Settlement Hearing in "Strader" Moved to Oct. 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order dated Sept. 1 granting a
stipulation that pushes back to Oct. 19 the hearing to consider
preliminary approval of the settlement in the lawsuit, Timothy L.
Strader, Sr. v. PHH Corporation et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01973
(C.D. Cal.).

In a separate Minute Order entered on the same day, Judge Olguin
held that the individual claims of Lester L. Hall, Jr., Timothy L.
Strader, Sr., and Susan M. Strader, as Trustee of the T/S Strader
Family Trust are dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiffs Ram Agrawal, Sarita Agrawal, Neil Dodge, Sheri Dodge
filed a Motion for Entry of Order Granting Prelinary Approval of
Class Action Settlement on Aug. 25.  A hearing on the Settlement
was set for Sept. 14.

On Aug. 31, a Joint Stipulation to Reschedule Preliminary Approval
Hearing was filed by Defendant PHH Broker Partner Corporation, PHH
Corporation, PHH Mortgage Corporation.

Realogy Holdings Corp. and Realogy Group LLC said in their Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that
the Company continues to defend against the case, Strader, et al.
and Hall v. PHH Corporation, et al. (U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California).

This is a purported class action brought by four California
residents against 15 defendants, including Realogy and certain of
its subsidiaries, PHH Corporation and PHH Home Loans, LLC (a joint
venture between Realogy and PHH), alleging violations of Section
8(a) of RESPA.  Plaintiffs seek to represent two subclasses
comprised of all persons in the United States who, since January
31, 2005, (1) obtained a RESPA-covered mortgage loan from either
(a) PHH Home Loans, LLC or one of its subsidiaries, or (b) one of
the mortgage services managed by PHH Corporation for other
lenders, and (2) paid a fee for title insurance or settlement
services to TRG or one of its subsidiaries.  Plaintiffs allege,
among other things, that PHH Home Loans, LLC operates in violation
of RESPA and that the other defendants violate RESPA by referring
business to one another under agreements or arrangements.
Plaintiffs seek treble damages and an award of attorneys' fees,
costs and disbursements.

On February 5, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
case claiming that not only do the claims lack merit, but they are
time-barred under RESPA's one-year statute of limitations. On
April 5, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their complaint.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on April 21, 2016, and
a third amended complaint on May 12, 2016.  Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the third amended complaint.

The Court denied the motion on October 6, 2016, without prejudice
to defendants' ability to move for summary judgment after
discovery. The parties are proceeding with discovery.

On May 19, 2017, the parties held a second mediation session, at
which they agreed in principle to a settlement of the action,
pursuant to which the Company would pay approximately $8 million
(or one-half of the settlement). The agreement in principle is
subject to the parties resolving certain additional issues such as
the allocation of settlement funds, the filing of a fourth amended
complaint and completing confirmatory discovery.

On July 31, 2017, the fourth amended complaint was filed changing
the named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed their motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement by August 25, 2017.

Realogy Holdings Corp. is a holding company for its consolidated
subsidiaries including Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC ("Realogy
Intermediate") and Realogy Group LLC ("Realogy Group") and its
consolidated subsidiaries. Realogy, through its subsidiaries, is a
global provider of residential real estate services.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Daskal" Suit in East. Dist. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, L.L.C.  The case is styled as Fradel Daskal, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff
v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-05456 (E.D. N.Y., September 18, 2017).

Defendant operates a nationwide debt collection business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


REWALK ROBOTICS: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Actions Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
ReWalk Robotics Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated Massachusetts State Court Actions remains
pending.

Between September 2016 and January 2017, eight substantially
similar putative securities class actions were filed against the
Company. Four of these actions have been dismissed on procedural
grounds, one was voluntarily dismissed and three are pending,
including two actions which have been consolidated and one action
brought by the plaintiffs whose actions were dismissed.

Dismissed Actions:

* On September 20, November 3, November 9, and November 10, 2016,
respectively, four putative class actions on behalf of alleged
shareholders that purchased or acquired the Company's ordinary
shares pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement
used in connection with the Company's IPO were commenced in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo.
The actions were filed against the Company, certain of the
Company's current and former directors and officers, and the
underwriters of the Company's IPO. We refer to these actions as
the "California State Court Actions." The complaints in the
California State Court Actions asserted various claims under the
Securities Act. Each of the California State Court Actions was
dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction in January 2017.

* On January 24, 2017, a substantially similar class action was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (Case No. 4:17-cv-362) against the same
defendants as in the California State Court Actions plus certain
additional defendants. This action is referred to as the
"California Federal Court Action." On March 23, 2017, this case
was voluntarily dismissed.

Pending Actions:

* On or about October 31, 2016, a class action with claims
substantially similar to the California State Court Actions was
commenced in the Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk County, by
a different plaintiff (Civ. Action No. 16-3336), alleging claims
under Section 11 of the Securities Act against the Company,
certain of the Company's current and former directors and
officers, and the underwriters of the Company's IPO, and alleging
claims under Section 15 of the Securities Act against the Company
and certain of the Company's current and former directors and
officers.

* On or about November 30, 2016, a substantially similar class
action was commenced in the Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk
County, by a different plaintiff (Civ. Action No. 16-3670)
alleging claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
against the same defendants as in the action commenced on October
31, 2016, and also alleging claims under Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act against the Company, certain of the Company's
current and former directors and officers, and the underwriters of
the Company's IPO. This action was ordered consolidated in the
Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk County on January 9, 2017
with the action commenced on October 31, 2016, and the two actions
are referred to as the "Consolidated Massachusetts State Court
Actions".

* On or about January 31, 2017, a substantially similar class
action was commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Case No. 1:17-cv-10169) by four of the
same plaintiffs who commenced the California State Court Actions,
and two additional plaintiffs, alleging claims under Sections 11
and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against the Company, certain of
the Company's current and former directors and officers, and the
underwriters of the Company's IPO, and alleging claims under
Section 15 of the Securities Act against certain of the Company's
current and former directors and officers. This action is referred
to as the "Massachusetts Federal Court Action."

The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Massachusetts State Court
Actions filed a consolidated amended complaint on March 20, 2017.
The Company moved to dismiss the Consolidated Massachusetts State
Court Actions on June 2, 2017.

The complaints in all of the actions listed above allege that the
Company's registration statement used in connection with its IPO
failed to disclose that the Company was unprepared or unable to
comply with certain regulatory special controls and to provide the
FDA with a postmarket surveillance study on the Company's ReWalk
Personal device, and that, as a result of such alleged omission,
the plaintiffs suffered damages. The Company believes that the
allegations made in the complaints are without merit and intends
to defend itself vigorously against the complaints relating to the
three pending actions.

Based on information currently available and the early stage of
the litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a
possible loss or range of possible losses, if any, with regard to
these lawsuits; therefore, no litigation reserve has been recorded
in the Company's consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2017.
The Company will continue to evaluate information as it becomes
known and will record an estimate for losses at the time or times
when it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of
the loss is reasonably estimable.

ReWalk Robotics is an innovative medical device company that
derives revenue from selling the ReWalk Personal and ReWalk
Rehabilitation exoskeleton devices that allow individuals with
paraplegia the ability to stand and walk once again.


RLS SUPERMARKETS: Batra Appeals Ruling in FACTA Suit to 5th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sumeet Batra filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Sumeet Batra v. RLS Supermarkets, L.L.C., Case No.
3:16-CV-2874, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, Dallas.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 18,
2017, Judge Jane J. Boyle dismissed the case.

The case is based on the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA").  The
provision of FACTA at issue governs the "truncation" of credit
card and debit card numbers. Specifically, the statute provides
that no person that accepts credit cards or debit cards for the
transaction of business will print more than the last 5 digits of
the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided
to the cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction.

The Plaintiff brings the suit as a putative class action.  The
Plaintiff's sole allegation is that he, and other putative class
members, received receipts from Defendant that had the following
information printed on them: (i) the expiration date of their
credit or debit cards; (ii) the last four digits of their credit
or debit card numbers; and (iii) the brand of the credit or debit
card.  He asserts that printing this information amounted to the
Defendant willfully violating FACTA.

The appellate case is captioned as Sumeet Batra v. RLS
Supermarkets, L.L.C., Case No. 17-11014, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SUMEET BATRA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Sameer Singh Birring, Esq.
          BIRRING LAW FIRM
          501 N. IH-35
          Austin, TX 78702
          Telephone: (512) 937-2712
          E-mail: sameer@birringlaw.com

               - and -

          James A. Foley, Esq.
          4116 W. Vickery Boulevard
          Fort Worth, TX 76107
          Telephone: (817) 738-1633

               - and -

          Chant Yedalian, Esq.
          CHANT & COMPANY
          1010 N. Central Avenue
          Glendale, CA 91202
          Telephone: (877) 574-7100
          Facsimile: (877) 574-9411
          E-mail: chant@chant.mobi

Defendant-Appellee RLS SUPERMARKETS, L.L.C., is represented by:

          Jason Scott Lewis, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, L.L.P.
          2200 Ross Avenue
          JP Morgan Chase Tower
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 665-3606
          E-mail: lewisjs@gtlaw.com


SCOTTRADE INC: "Hine" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Stephen Hine, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Scottrade, Inc. and
Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 37-201600035493-CU-MC-CTL
was removed on September 5, 2017, from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Diego to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-01796-DMS-AGS.

Scottrade, Inc. is a securities brokerage firm based in St. Louis,
Missouri, that provides brokerage and other financial services to
its customers. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

      Helen B. Kim, Esq.
      THOMPSON COBURN LLP
      2029 Century Park East, 19th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 282-2500
      Facsimile: (310) 282-2501
      E-mail: hkim@thompsoncoburn.com


SEARCH ENGINE: "Dickson" Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Dickson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Search Engine Listing, Inc. and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-06509, (C.D. Cal., September 2, 2017), seeks statutory and
actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in
this action, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other
and further relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading
Plaintiff's privacy.

Search Engine Listing is an online marketing company who contacted
Dickson on his cellular telephone number in an attempt to solicit
its services using an automatic telephone dialing system and
without his expressed consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Meghan E. George, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, 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
            mgeorge@toddflaw.com
            abacon@toddflaw.com
            twheeler@toddflaw.com


SERES THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss "Mazurek" Under Advisement
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Mazurek v. Seres Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-11943 (D. Mass.), Judge Denise J Casper held a hearing on
August 9 to consider a Motion to Dismiss the case for failure to
state a claim.  Following the hearing, the Court took the Motion
under advisement.

Seres Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that on September 28, 2016,
a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the Company entitled Mariusz Mazurek v.
Seres Therapeutics, Inc., et al.

On February 12, 2017, the Company received an amended complaint
and on March 30, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. A
hearing on the motion to dismiss was scheduled for August 9, 2017.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule
10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by
making allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions
about the Company's clinical trials for its product candidate SER-
109 in the Company's public disclosures between June 25, 2015 and
July 29, 2016. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, damages in
connection with the Company's allegedly inflated stock price
between June 25, 2015 and July 29, 2016 as a result of those
allegedly false and misleading statements, as well as interest,
attorneys' fees and costs. The Company can make no assurances as
to the time or resources that will need to be devoted to this
lawsuit or its final outcome, or the impact, if any, of this
lawsuit or any proceedings on its business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows. While the Company is
vigorously defending against all claims asserted, this litigation
could result in substantial costs to the Company and a diversion
of the Company's management's attention and resources, which could
harm its business. In addition, the uncertainty of the pending
lawsuit or potential filing of additional lawsuits could lead to
more volatility and a reduction in the Company's stock price.
Given the early stage of the litigation, at this time the Company
is unable to reasonably estimate possible losses or form a
judgment that an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote.
It is not currently possible to assess whether or not the outcome
of these proceedings may have a material adverse effect on the
Company.



Plaintiff Mariusz Mazurek, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

     Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
     Levi Korsinsky LLP
     733 Summer Street, Suite 304
     Stamford, CT 06901
     Tel: (212) 363-7500
     Fax: (866) 367-6510
     E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com

Plaintiff Dariusz Lazarczyk is represented by:

     Kenneth A. Reich, Esq.
     Kenneth Reich Law, LLC
     7th Floor
     745 Boylston Street
     Boston, MA 02116
     Tel: (781) 608-7267
     E-mail: kreich@kennethreichlaw.com

Plaintiff Steven Taylor:

     Erica C Mirabella, Esq.
     Mirabella LLC
     132 Boylston Street
     Boston, MA 02116
     Tel: (617) 580-8270
     Fax: (617) 583-1905
     E-mail: erica@mirabellallc.com

Defendants Seres Therapeutics, Inc., Roger J. Pomerantz et al. are
represented by:

     John D. Donovan , Jr., Esq.
     Ropes & Gray LLP
     Prudential Tower
     800 Boylston St.
     Boston, MA 02199-3600
    Tel: (617) 951-7566
     Fax: (617) 951-7050
     E-mail: jdonovan@ropesgray.com

          - and -

     Daniel V. Ward, Esq.
     Ropes & Gray LLP
     Prudential Tower
     800 Boylston St.
     Boston, MA 02199-3600
     Tel: (617) 951-7703
     Fax: (617) 235-9766
     E-mail: daniel.ward@ropesgray.com

Movant Erste-Sparinvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH is
represented by:

     Julie Goldsmith Reiser, Esq.
     Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
     1100 New York Ave., N.W. Fifth Floor
     Washington, DC 20005
     Tel: (202) 408-4600
     Fax: (202) 408-4699
     E-mail: jreiser@cohenmilstein.com

          - and -

     Kenneth M. Rehns, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Tel: (212) 838-7797
     E-mail: krehns@cohenmilstein.com

          - and -

     Steven J. Toll, Esq.
     Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll
     1100 New York Avenue, NW
     West Tower, Suite 500
     Washington, DC 20005-3934
     Tel: (202) 408-4600
     E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com

          - and -

     Gregg S. Levin, Esq.
     Motley Rice LLC (SC)
     28 Bridgeside Blvd.
     Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464-4399
     Tel: (843) 216-9000
     E-mail: glevin@motleyrice.com

          - and -

     Lance Oliver, Esq.
     Motley Rice, LLC
     28 Bridgeside Blvd.
     Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
     Tel: (843) 216-9000
     E-mail: loliver@motleyrice.com

          - and -

     Lauren G. Barnes, Esq.
     Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
     55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
     Cambridge, MA 02142
     Tel: (617) 482-3700
     Fax: (617) 482-3003
     E-mail: lauren@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

     Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
     Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
     55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
     Cambridge, MA 02142
     Tel: (617) 482-3700
     Fax: (617) 482-3003
     E-mail: Tom@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

     William S. Norton, Esq.
     Motley Rice LLC
     28 Bridgeside Blvd.
     Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
     Tel: (843) 216-9000
     Fax: (843) 216-9450
     E-mail: bnorton@motleyrice.com

Seres Therapeutics, Inc. is a microbiome therapeutics platform
company developing a novel class of biological drugs, which are
designed to treat disease by restoring the function of a dysbiotic
microbiome.


SPROUTS FARMERS: Appeal in Securities Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended July 2, 2017, that the Company's appeal
related to the securities class action remains pending.

On March 4, 2016, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for
the State of Arizona against the Company and certain of its
directors and officers on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of shares of the Company's common stock in the
Company's underwritten secondary public offering which closed on
March 10, 2015 (the "March 2015 Offering"). The complaint purports
to state claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, based on an alleged failure by the Company to
disclose adequate information about produce price deflation in the
March 2015 Offering documents. The complaint seeks damages on
behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount,
rescission, and an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.

On March 24, 2016, the Company removed the action to federal court
in the District of Arizona. On March 24, 2017, the federal court
in the District of Arizona remanded the case to state court. On
April 21, 2017, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal of the
federal court decision to remand the case. On May 16, 2017, the
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal in the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals, which is fully briefed and under consideration.

On May 25, 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss in the
Superior Court for the State of Arizona, which is also fully
briefed.

The Company intends to defend this case vigorously, but it is not
possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of, or
any potential liability from, the case.

Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a Delaware corporation, through its
subsidiaries, operates as a healthy grocery store that offers
fresh, natural and organic food through a complete shopping
experience that includes fresh produce, bulk foods, vitamins and
supplements, packaged groceries, meat and seafood, deli, baked
goods, dairy products, frozen foods, beer and wine, natural body
care and household items catering to consumers' growing interest
in health and wellness.


ST JUDE MEDICAL: Decision on Litigation Funding Under Reserve
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judy van Rhijn, writing for Law Times, reports that the newest
player in the Ontario litigation funding market has just presented
its unique funding arrangement for approval in a class action for
the first time.

In the case of Houle v. St Jude Medical Inc, which addresses the
marketing of deficient defibrillators, the third-party funder,
Bentham Canada, has put its arrangement on the Ontario Superior
Court's table.

"This is an evolution.  Previous case law in the class action
realm on litigation funding considered an arrangement where the
lawyers were acting on a full contingency basis with a private
funder providing some disbursements and some coverage for adverse
costs," states Tania Sulan, the Toronto-based chief investment
officer of Bentham Canada, the subsidiary of Australian-based IMF
Bentham.

"We have agreed to pay a portion of the lawyer's fee so the lawyer
operates on a partial contingency fee.  We pay all the
disbursements, rather than a capped amount, and court-ordered
costs," she says.

The motion for approval was argued in August 2017, before Justice
Paul Perell.

His decision is now under reserve.

"Justice Perell was the right judge to be faced with an innovative
agreement," says David Lederman -- dlederman@goodmans.ca -- of
Goodmans LLP of Toronto, who represented Bentham.

"He is well versed on the issues and was ready to raise concerns
and questions."

Mr. Lederman advises that Bentham has also sought approval of its
funding arrangement in private litigation from the federal court
at the end of July.

That decision is also under reserve.

"It was a novel application," he says.

"The federal court has not considered approval of a litigation
funding agreement before.

"One thing that is somewhat novel in this instance is that some of
the funding is going to class counsel as the case is going
forward," Mr. Lederman says.

"In the ordinary course, class counsel carries it forward and then
waits until the end of the day to see if it can recoup fees and
disbursements.

"Bentham is funding a portion of the work in progress in fees.
That is unique. It hasn't happened before."

The defendants were represented by McCarthy Tetrault LLP, which
did not oppose the funding per se but had concerns over some of
the terms of the arrangement.

The firm did not respond to requests for comment for this article.

Margaret Waddell -- marg@waddellphillips.ca -- of Waddell
Phillips, acting for the representative plaintiff, presented
calculations to show that the arrangement is to the class's
advantage.

"If we used our usual contingency fee arrangement and got funding
from the Class Proceedings Fund, the class would be more out of
pocket than under the Bentham arrangement," she says.  "It's a
good deal."

Ms. Waddell says the defendant presented it as a shift, so the
funder gets the biggest percentage instead of the lawyers."

"That is because lawyers are taking on substantially less risk,"
she says.  "They are partially paid as they go along."

Ms. Waddell says funding the legal fees frees up capital.

"The firm has more resources and the ability to take on more
cases.  Smaller cases that usually aren't financially feasible
become financially feasible," she says.  "Little firms that are
risk averse may be more willing to take on a class action because
the risks are substantially mitigated."

One unusual aspect of the proceedings was that it live streamed on
twitter.

Samantha Schreiber -- samantha@spark.law -- of Spark LLP, which
provided the representative plaintiff with its independent legal
advice, thought the proceedings were important enough to live-
tweet.

"I felt they had precedential value for litigation funding
approval.  The court only started approving them in 2011," she
says.

"Every decision informs class counsel of the sort of arrangements
the court will accept and the sort of terms the court will accept.
It helps them to understand the parameters of what is acceptable
to the court."

Ms. Schreiber had some trepidation about tweeting from the court.

"I was quite nervous that Justice Perell was going to call me
out," she says.  "It looked like I was just on my phone and not
doing something legal, so I was worried he would notice."

Mr. Lederman says the move reflects the "age of innovation."

"It's an open courtroom, so those interested can get access to
statements made in the courtroom," he says.

Apart from the uniqueness of the arrangement, the court's main
concern was with the termination provision in the funding
agreement.

"The clause provides that certain events would allow Bentham, on
10 days' notice, to terminate the funding arrangement while
staying on the hook for court-ordered costs up until termination,"
explains Mr. Lederman.  "Events would include breaches by the
plaintiffs or a situation where a lawyer seeks to withdraw from
the proceedings.  It also allows Bentham to terminate if it ceases
to be satisfied that the merits of the proceedings warrant the
claim being advanced or it is no longer commercially viable."

Mr. Lederman says the court was concerned whether the funder has a
right to terminate at all.

"Bentham can only engage the termination clause on a reasonable
basis.  Another provision allows parties to approach the court if
there's any dispute in the terms or obligations," he says.  "We
were not opposed to making the issue of termination one that could
readily go before a court.  We could fashion an adjudication
process whether before an arbitrator or judge in a private
setting."

Ms. Waddell says termination rights haven't been explored in
previous case law.

"The agreement is pretty clear," she says.  "If it's terminating,
Bentham will only recover to the extent that it put money into the
case, not a percentage."

Mr. Lederman expressed to the court it was more a theoretical
concern than a practical one.

"There are so many reasons why the funder would not want to
terminate in any event.  Doing so puts the funder in the position
of losing its investment," he says.

"There are also implications to the fund's reputation. People are
expecting the funder to carefully assess the case and come into it
for the long haul."

Mr. Lederman advises that in Bentham IMF's 17-year history, it has
only had to terminate funding once.

"The commercial reality is that termination is a very rare
possibility, but, that said, to compel the funder to stay in where
it has determined reasonably on the merits it should not or that
it is no longer commercially viable really would not serve the
public interest at all.  We don't want cases clogging up the
system," he says.

Ms. Waddell says her response to the concerns "was that these are
precisely the situations when a funder ought to be able to
withdraw."

"The funder could be accused of champerty by funding something it
knows to be unmeritorious.  That is exactly the stirring of strife
that champerty laws are meant to prevent." [GN]


SUNCOKE: Settles Class Action Over Emissions for $4.25 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Horrell, writing for the Edwardsville Intelligencer, reports
that five Granite City residents who claimed that their homes were
polluted by harmful emissions from a neighboring steel mill have
reached a $4.25 million settlement against the company in a class
action lawsuit.

The residents alleged that SunCoke and U.S. Steel "regularly
released substantial amounts of noxious odors into the air" and
knew that it often migrated downwind of U.S. Steel's mill and
caused the residents to endure "intolerable conditions that drive
them into their homes and otherwise prevent them from using and
enjoying their property," according to the suit.

The suit was filed in Madison County in late 2014.  A preliminary
settlement was announced on Sept. 5.

A hearing for final approval is scheduled for Feb. 16, 2018, in
Circuit Judge William Mudge's courtroom.

"This is a fair and welcome victory for our clients who, for
years, had their homes and fresh air needlessly polluted when
proper management by the steel mill and the coke plant could have
prevented the issue," said Ted Gianaris --
tgianaris@simmonsfirm.com -- of Simmons Hanly Conroy. Gianaris was
co-lead attorney for the plaintiffs, along with SHC attorney Jo
Anna Pollock. They represented Peggy Keltner, Jerome and Beverly
Johnson, Melinda Duniphan and Shelby Siebert.

SunCoke produces a raw material known as coke, a raw material used
by U.S. Steel to manufacture steel.  The suit alleged that SunCoke
and U.S. Steel regularly released into the atmosphere "substantial
amounts of particles that leave a silty deposit" on neighbor's
homes and cars.  The suit alleged that the companies negligently
failed to capture the emissions and failed to store and properly
transport coke.

It claims that from November of 2009 until November of 2014, the
plaintiffs experienced annoyance and discomfort, including an
inability to fully utilize and enjoy their homes.

In 2013, SunCoke agreed to pay $1.995 million to settle a claim
filed by the U.S. EPA.  The claim alleged that SunCoke violated
the Clean Air Act at its Gateway Energy and Coke plant in Granite
City, and at a separate coke plant it owned in Franklin Furnace,
Ohio.  The alleged violations concerned excessive bypass venting
of hot coking gases directly to the atmosphere, resulting in
"excess SO2 and particulate matter emissions from the from the
facilities' waste heat and main stacks."

SO2, the EPA says, "contributes to acid rain and exacerbates
respiratory illness."

According to a news release from the EPA's Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Service, the companies were also required to spend
$225,000 on a lead abatement project in southern Illinois "to
reduce lead hazards in owner-occupied income residences with
priority given to families with young children and pregnant
women."

They were also ordered to pay a penalty of $1.27 million to the
United States, $575,000 to the state of Illinois and $150,000 to
the state of Ohio.

"This settlement is good news for communities in Illinois and
Ohio, who will benefit from these substantial reductions in
harmful air pollution and enjoy cleaner, healthier air to breathe
for many years to come," Acting Assistant Attorney General Robert
G. Dreher said in the 2013 news release.

But despite that settlement, the plaintiffs in the class action
suit alleged that SunCoke and U.S. Steel continued to release
emissions that harmed their property.

The settlement class includes anyone who occupied property in a
pre-determined geographical area from Nov. 10, 2009, to the
present.  Simmons Hanly Conroy is urging potential class members
to review the website or call 1-844-798-3651 to determine the
settlement class area. [GN]


SUPERIOR PROTECTION: Faces "Lemons" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Lemons, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Superior Protection Services, Inc. d/b/a Advert Group
USA, Case No. 4:17-cv-00567-KGB (E.D. Ark., September 6, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Superior Protection Services, Inc. provides armed and unarmed
security and training services to clients in Arkansas, Oklahoma,
Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

         - and -

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


TACOS CUAOTLA: Faces "Cali" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tacos Cuaotla
Morelos Inc. doing business as: Tacos Cuautla Morelos. The case is
styled as Wilfrido Cali and Arnulfo Sosa Marin, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Tacos Cuaotla Morelos Inc. doing business as: Tacos Cuautla
Morelos, Justino Doe and John Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07087 (S.D.N.Y., September 18, 2017).

Tacos Cuaotla Morelos Inc. doing business as: Tacos Cuautla
Morelos is engaged in the restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appears PRO SE.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Jurs" Suit in N. Dist. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems
Inc. The case is styled as Carol Jurs, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Transworld Systems
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01030-DNH-DJS (N.D.N.Y.,
September 18, 2017).

Transworld Systems provides accounts receivable, debt recovery,
and past due accounts services for businesses, medical companies,
and dental companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Anthony J. Pietrafesa, Esq.
   Law Office of Anthony J. Pietrafesa
   721 University Building
   120 East Washington Street
   Syracuse, NY 13202
   Tel: (518) 218-0851
   Fax: (518) 514-1241
   Email: ajp@ajp1law.com

      - and -

   Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq.
   Kakalec & Schlanger LLP
   85 Broad Street, 18th Floor
   New York, NY 10004
   Tel: (212) 500-6114
   Fax: (646) 612-7996
   Email: dschlanger@kakalec-schlanger.com


TREEHOUSE FOODS: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------
TreeHouse Foods, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Public Employees'
defendants' motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit remains
pending.

On November 16, 2016, a purported TreeHouse shareholder filed a
putative class action captioned Tarara v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-10632, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against TreeHouse and
certain of its officers. The complaint, amended on March 24, 2017,
is purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of TreeHouse
common stock from January 20, 2016 through and including November
2, 2016, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and seeks, among other things, damages and costs and
expenses.

On December 22, 2016, another purported TreeHouse shareholder
filed an action captioned Wells v. Reed, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-
16359, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against
TreeHouse and certain of its officers. This complaint, purportedly
brought derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse, asserts state law
claims against certain officers for breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, and corporate waste.

On February 7, 2017, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed
an action captioned Lavin v. Reed, Case No. 17-cv-01014, in the
Northern District of Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of
its officers. This complaint, like Wells, is purportedly brought
derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse, and it asserts state law
claims against certain officers for breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and
corporate waste.

All three complaints make substantially similar allegations
(though the amended complaint in Tarara now contains additional
detail). Essentially, the complaints allege that TreeHouse, under
the authority and control of the individual defendants: (i) made
certain false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and future prospects; and (ii) failed to
disclose that (a) the Company's private label business was
underperforming; (b) the Company's Flagstone business was
underperforming; (c) the Company's acquisition strategy was
underperforming; (d) the Company had overstated its full-year 2016
guidance; and (e) TreeHouse's statements lacked reasonable basis.
The complaints allege that these actions artificially inflated the
market price of TreeHouse common stock during the class period,
thus purportedly harming investors.

"We believe that these claims are without merit and intend to
defend against them vigorously," the Company said.

Since its initial docketing, the Tarara matter has been re-
captioned as Public Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi
v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al., in accordance with the Court's
order appointing Public Employees' Retirement Systems of
Mississippi as the lead plaintiff. The Public Employees'
defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, which has been fully
briefed.

Additionally, due to the similarity of the complaints, the parties
in Wells and Lavin have entered stipulations deferring the
litigation until the earlier of (i) the court in Public Employees'
entering an order resolving defendants' anticipated motion to
dismiss therein or (ii) plaintiffs' counsel receiving notification
of a settlement of Public Employees' or until otherwise agreed to
by the Parties. The next status dates in Wells and Lavin are
October 30, 2017 and August 4, 2017, respectively, though these
dates may change.

TreeHouse Foods, Inc. is a manufacturer of packaged foods and
beverages with more than 50 manufacturing facilities across the
United States, Canada, and Italy that focuses primarily on private
label products for both retail grocery and food away from home
customers.


TWIN HILL: Class Action Plaintiffs Sue Poynter Law Group
--------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a group
of plaintiffs, dissatisfied with their representation in a
previous action, have filed a lawsuit against their former lawyer,
considered a nationally recognized class action and trial
attorney.

Five plaintiffs filed their lawsuit against Little Rock, Arkansas,
law firm Poynter Law Group and attorney Scott Poynter in Orange
County Superior Court on June 8.  Another plaintiff, Michelle
Afont, was added in an amended complaint filed Aug. 2.

Mr. Poynter filed a removal notice in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Southern Division, Aug. 10.

Mr. Poynter argues in the six-page notice that complete diversity
exists and the amount in controversy requirement is met.

The plaintiffs, who are from California, Washington State and
Virginia, are suing Mr. Poynter and his firm for legal malpractice
and breach of fiduciary duty.

They contend Mr. Poynter failed to "adequately prepare" their case
for trial, including preparing expert witnesses, and therefore
"compromised" their case.

They also allege he breached his fiduciary duty by failing to
properly counsel and advise the plaintiffs, by "generally
mishandling" the case, and by failing to manage the litigation in
a "prudent manner."

The plaintiffs were plaintiffs in a case against Twin Hill
Acquisition Company Inc., which was filed in Orange County
Superior Court in January 2013.

Twin Hill is part of a global corporate apparel group that
provides corporate clothing apparel and workwear to customer
workforces.  The company was founded in 1997 and is based in
Houston, Texas.

Mr. Poynter, who is representing himself in the lawsuit, could not
immediately be reached for comment.

Judge James V. Selna of the Central District of California is
overseeing the case, according to the docket. [GN]


TWITTER INC: Shareholder Actions Pending in California
------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company currently
has pending shareholder class action lawsuits alleging violations
of securities laws filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California and the Superior Court for San
Mateo County in California, naming current and former officers as
defendants.

"Legal risk is enhanced in certain jurisdictions outside the
United States where our protection from liability for content
published on our platform by third parties may be unclear and
where we may be less protected under local laws than we are in the
United States.  Future litigation may be necessary, among other
things, to defend ourselves, and our users, by determining the
scope, enforceability, and validity of third-party rights or to
establish our rights," the Company said.

Twitter, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in April 2007, and is
headquartered in San Francisco, California. Twitter offers
products and services for users, advertisers, developers and
platform and data partners.


UNITED STATES: D. Worby Comments on 9/11 Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
News 12 reports that the death toll from 9/11 continues to rise 16
years later as more sick first responders lose their battles with
cancer and other diseases.

Their 9/11-related sicknesses prompted the largest class-action
lawsuit in New York City history, which led to the Zadroga Act.

News 12 sat down for an interview with White Plains lawyer
David Worby, who was the first to predict the toxic World Trade
Center dust that emergency responders were told was safe to
breathe wasn't.

In 2004, Mr. Worby filed the largest class-action lawsuit that New
York City had ever seen.  It was on behalf of two, then ultimately
10,000, sick 9/11 heroes who were battling deadly cancer and who
felt the city did little to protect them.

At the time, the accusation was unthinkable and doubted by
respected medical and political circles.

"I think they thought it was a lawyer inventing a disease that
didn't really exist," said Mr. Worby.

Mr. Worby took to Google, which was new at the time, to research
Hiroshima and spills of toxins.  He speculated that 9/11 workers
inhaled a combination of pollutants including benzene, asbestos
and PCBs that no one had ever been exposed to before.  He said it
somehow accelerated the latency periods for a number of deadly
illnesses, but proving it would take years.

About 1,700 of Mr. Worby's clients never lived to see the $1
billion settlement, which finally came in December 2010.

Following Mr. Worby's lawsuit, the government established the
Zadroga Act, which provides funding and monitors the health of
roughly 75,000 people. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Court Set to Hear Arguments in Immigration Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Civil Liberties Union reports that this case began in May
2007 with a basic question: Can the federal government lock
someone up, for months or years, without a hearing to determine if
his or her imprisonment is justified? Shockingly, at the time, the
answer in the most of the country was yes -- that is, if the
person is an immigrant facing deportation proceeding, even he or
she is legally in the United States.

How did this case come about?

The ACLU brought a class action lawsuit challenging the
government's practice of detaining immigrants -- including many
green-card holders and asylum seekers -- for months or years
without due process.  In 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit handed down a victory for our plaintiffs and upheld an
order requiring bond hearings for detainees locked up six months
or longer while they fight their deportation cases.  In 2015, the
Ninth Circuit expanded its ruling and stipulated that the
government must provide individualized bond hearings to assess
danger and flight risk for immigrants when detention exceeds six
months, and every six months thereafter.  The ruling introduced
basic due process to the federal immigrant detention.

In May 2016, the federal government asked the Supreme Court to
review the Ninth Circuit's ruling.  On Oct. 3, the justices will
hear arguments over whether detained immigrants should have the
right to a bond hearing or if the government can lock people up
for years without meaningful review.

Who are the plaintiffs?

Alejandro (Alex) Rodriguez, the lead plaintiff, was imprisoned for
more than three years without ever receiving a bond hearing while
he went through deportation proceedings.  Alex immigrated to the
United States from Mexico with his parents as a baby, and grew up
as a lawful permanent resident.

As an adult, Alex worked as a dental assistant to support his two
children.  But he also ran into legal trouble and was convicted of
joyriding and misdemeanor drug possession.  Immigration agents put
him in detention after the second conviction and began deportation
proceedings to send him to Mexico.  Three years after he was first
locked up, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of Alex and a class
of immigration detainees in the Los Angeles area, arguing the
government has no right to hold people for more than six months
without a hearing before an immigration judge to determine whether
their detention is justified.

After the ACLU filed suit, the government released Alex from
custody.  Ultimately he won his immigration case and kept his
legal permanent resident status.

The case also includes thousands of asylum seekers who have come
to this country fleeing persecution from abroad.  Many of these
people will ultimately win their cases, but until then, are also
subject to prolonged detention.

What's the constitutional principle at stake?

The right to a hearing is a fundamental due process requirement.
In this case, the ACLU does not seek anyone's immediate release.
In the appeals court, we fought for and won on the principle that
immigrants should be given the opportunity to present their case
to a judge, allowing that judge to decide whether the detainee
could be released without risk of flight or threat to public
safety.

Because of that ruling, thousands of immigrants have been allowed
to return to their families and communities while they contested
their deportation cases.  A reversal by the Supreme Court would
permit individuals to be held without due process in a broken and
brutal detention system. [GN]


US BANK: Sued in N.Y. Over Improper Use of Covered Trusts Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Park Investments SA/NV, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. U.S. Bank National Association, Case
No. 1:17-cv-06778 (S.D.N.Y., September 6, 2017), arises out of
U.S. Bank's improper and illegal use of residential mortgage-
backed securities ("RMBS") investors' Covered Trusts funds to pay
for its legal fees and costs in relation to the litigation between
Royal Park Inv. SA/NV.

U.S. Bank National Association is a national banking association
organized and existing under the laws of the United States with
its principal place of business in Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Arthur C. Leahy, Esq.
      Steven W. Pepich, Esq.
      Lucas F. Olts, Esq.
      Darryl J. Alvarado, Esq.
      Hillary B. Stakem, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-3301
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: artl@rgrdlaw.com
              stevep@rgrdlaw.com
              lolts@rgrdlaw.com
              dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com
              hstakem@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN  37219
      Telephone: (615) 244-2203
      Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
      E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com


VEREIT INC: Cole Litigation Matter Still Pending
------------------------------------------------
VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017,
that the Company still defends the Cole Litigation Matter.

In December 2013, Realistic Partners filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company and the then-members of its board of
directors in the Supreme Court for the State of New York,
captioned Realistic Partners v. American Realty Capital Partners,
et al., No. 654468/2013. Cole was later added as a defendant. The
plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the board of the
Company breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
transactions contemplated under the Cole Merger Agreement (in
connection with the merger between a wholly owned subsidiary of
Cole and Cole Holdings Corporation) and that Cole aided and
abetted those breaches.

In January 2014, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on
behalf of the alleged class of the Company's stockholders. The
proposed settlement terms required the Company to make certain
additional disclosures related to the Cole Merger, which were
included in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company with
the SEC on January 17, 2014. The memorandum of understanding also
contemplated that the parties would enter into a stipulation of
settlement, which would be subject to customary conditions,
including confirmatory discovery and court approval following
notice to the Company's stockholders, and provided that the
defendants would not object to a payment of up to $625,000 for
attorneys' fees.

If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, which has
not occurred, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will enter
into a stipulation of settlement, that the court will approve any
proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be under
the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding.

The Company is a full-service real estate operating company.


VIACOM INC: Court Narrows Claims in Stockholders' Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Viacom Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the court has dismissed the
remaining two counts without prejudice in a stockholders' class
action lawsuit.

Between June 17, 2016 and August 1, 2016, three substantially
similar purported class action complaints were filed in the
Delaware Chancery Court by purported Viacom stockholders, against
Viacom and Viacom's directors at the time (the "Incumbent
Directors"), as well as National Amusements, Inc. ("National
Amusements") and NAI Entertainment Holdings LLC (together, "NAI"),
and were subsequently consolidated into one action. The action --
brought on behalf of the class of all holders of Viacom Class B
common stock except the named defendants and any person or entity
affiliated with any of the defendants -- alleged claims for
breaches of fiduciary duty against the incumbent director
defendants and NAI, and alleged that the Viacom directors who
joined the Board of Directors subsequent to the filing of the
actions (the "New Directors") aided and abetted these breaches.

In addition to damages and attorneys' fees, the action sought
"such relief as the Court deems just and proper." All defendants,
including Viacom and the Incumbent Directors, moved to dismiss the
action. The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in
November 2016, and "we again moved to dismiss the action," the
Company said.

In March 2017, plaintiffs and the New Directors petitioned the
court to dismiss the New Directors from the lawsuit, and the court
dismissed the New Directors from the lawsuit without prejudice.

In May 2017, the court dismissed one count "as moot," and in July
2017, the court dismissed the remaining two counts without
prejudice.

Viacom is home to premier global media brands that create
compelling television programs, motion pictures, short-form
content, applications ("apps"), games, consumer products, social
media experiences and other entertainment content for audiences in
more than 180 countries. Viacom operates through two reporting
segments: Media Networks and Filmed Entertainment.


VISALUS INC: Sommers Schwartz Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sommers Schwartz, P.C., on Sept. 11 disclosed that it has filed a
lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (docket no. Case No.
2:17-cv-12626) on behalf of all persons or entities (the "Class")
that acquired ViSalus securities through a company offering
between January 1, 2015 and February 17, 2017.

A copy of the Complaint may be obtained from the Court, or by
calling Sommers Schwartz, P.C. at (877) 957-6272 to speak with an
attorney who will provide a copy of the Complaint.

Among other claims, the Complaint alleges that in violation of
Section 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and Section
509(2) of the Michigan Uniform Securities Act, ViSalus, Inc., Nick
Sarnicola, Ashley Sarnicola, Blake Mallen, Ryan Blair, Todd
Goergen, Gary J. Reynolds, and Vincent Owens (the "Defendants")
defrauded and deceived the Plaintiffs and other Class members into
believing they had collectively purchased 6% of ViSalus common
stock from Defendants Nick Sarnicola, Mallen, and Blair, shares
that the three individual Defendants falsely represented they had
re-purchased after a failed stock purchase by Blyth, Inc.

According to the lawsuit, the shares were made available during a
public offering via an instrument called the "Founders Equity
Incentive Plan" (the "Plan") that called for the equity to be sold
in two lots -- 3% in 2015 and another 3% in 2016.  Neither the
company nor the selling shareholders registered the offering,
prepared a formal prospectus, or disclosed information about the
company's precarious financial condition.

The Complaint alleges that advertising and promotional information
about the Plan stated that purchasers could obtain their equity by
"qualifying" through participation in the company's distribution
system, a purported pyramid scheme at the center of a separate
pending class action (Kerrigan, et al., v. ViSalus, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-12693).  The company provided no means for a
direct purchase; instead, the Plaintiffs and other Class members
were required to become ViSalus distributors (if they were not
existing distributors), earn "points" by buying ViSalus products
(or recruiting other people to buy ViSalus products), then
converting those points into "units" that qualified them to
receive the equity shares.

The Complaint further alleges that, to entice buyers to "March to
Equity" -- a promotional campaign for the Plan -- the Defendants
promised a "generational" dividend and a specific payout slated
for April 17, 2017.  The payout did not occur the Plaintiffs and
other Class members were then told that to receive their equity
shares, they must sign a "Participation Agreement" with unknown
terms and conditions.

The Plaintiffs claim that, to date, no shares have never been
tendered by the Defendants, nor have they revealed the quantity of
stock each purchaser acquired.  Further, the Plaintiffs and other
Class members have been advised they must continue to work for
ViSalus and a new entity called LIV in order to receive their
equity.

The Complaint also alleges federal and state laws required the
Defendants to file a registration and prospectus before offering
the securities, the failure of which prevented the Plaintiffs and
other Class members from learning facts necessary to correct the
Defendants' misrepresentations about the Plan.  Similarly, the
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants materially misrepresented
the circumstances of the Plan and fraudulently induced them to
purchase unregistered securities, resulting in financial loss. But
for the Defendants' fraudulent and deceptive actions and the
expectation created by the Defendants that purchasers would
receive a portion of the 6% equity offering, the Plaintiffs and
other Class members would not have continued to purchase products
and otherwise remain in good standing under the Plan following
their initial qualification.

If you participated in the ViSalus, Inc. "Founders Equity
Incentive Plan" between January 1, 2015 and February 17, 2017, you
may qualify to serve as lead plaintiff on behalf of the Class.
All motions for appointment as lead plaintiff must be filed with
the Court no later than sixty days from September 11, 2017.  Any
member of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff in this action through counsel of his or her choice, or
may remain an absent class member.  There are certain legal
requirements to serve as lead plaintiff, which the attorneys at
Sommers Schwartz would be pleased to review with you. Please
contact Andrew Kochanowski by email at akochanowski@sommerspc.com
or by telephone at (877) 957-6272 if you would like to discuss
this action or have any questions regarding this notice or your
rights.

Sommers Schwartz, P.C. -- http://www.sommerspc.com-- is a law
firm located in Southfield, Michigan, represents individuals in
Michigan and across the country who have been harmed as a result
of fraud, medical errors, defective products, employment disputes,
and other forms of negligence or intentional injury, as well as
businesses involved in complex litigation matters that jeopardize
their existence. [GN]


VITAS HEALTHCARE: Unpaid Overtime Premiums Claimed by "Bates"
-------------------------------------------------------------
April Bates, individually and on behalf of persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Vitas Healthcare Corporation of Florida,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-23328, (S.D. Fla., September 1, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages for the last three years,
for liquidated/double damages, attorneys' fees, costs, prejudgment
interest and all other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Vitas is a provider of hospice care in the United States, where
Bates worked in the human resources department assigned to the
Direct Student Aid. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bruce Botsford, Esq.
     BRUCE BOTSFORD, P.A.
     1615 S.W. 2nd Avenue
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315
     Telephone: (954) 990-4213
     Facsimile: (954) 208-0968
     E-Mail: service@botsfordlegal.com
             paralegal@botsfordlegal.com


VOLKSWAGEN: Swiss Car Buyers Take Part in Diesel Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
swissinfo.ch reports that how best to gain compensation for Swiss
car buyers affected by the Volkswagen diesel scandal? While the
Consumer Protection Association for French-speaking Switzerland
(FRC) is taking part in a European class action lawsuit in
Germany, its equivalent in the German-speaking part of the country
is going it alone.

The FRC said on Sept. 11 it was following the path taken by the
European Consumer Organisation, which it considered the most
promising.  Affected Volkswagen owners in Switzerland who want to
take part in the suit can register online at https://www.frc.ch/

It has been more than a year since Volkswagen agreed to pay more
than $20 billion (CHF19 billion) to settle criminal charges and
civil claims related to the German company's sale of nearly
600,000 cars with "defeat devices" designed to beat US emissions
tests.

Volkswagen admitted to illegally rigging cars to turn off diesel
emission controls when not on test stands.  Subsequent
investigation found that many diesels by other manufacturers met
official test standards but emitted far more pollution during
every day driving, often by exploiting legal loopholes that
permitted them to turn off controls at certain temperatures.
This is the first time the Consumer Association for French-
speaking Switzerland has pursued such a course of action.
Taking a different approach, the Consumer Protection
Organisationexternal link in German-speaking Switzerland (SKS) on
Sept. 7 filed suit in Zurich against Volkswagen and AMAG,
Switzerland's largest car dealership.

The aim of this is to determine whether Volkswagen and AMAG
tricked car buyers and broke Swiss law.  SKS is looking for
compensation of between CHF3,000 and CHF7,000 per vehicle.

'Complementary'
The two processes are complementary, covering all interests at
both a local and international level, according to Sophie Michaud
Gigon from the FRC.

She points out that the SKS is not a member of the European
Consumer Organisation and that courts in German-speaking
Switzerland come down more often on the side of consumers.
Nevertheless, she believes a large-scale action has a greater
chance of success.

Cecile Thomi from the SKS disagrees, pointing out that because
Volkswagen is such an important employer in Germany, the risk is
that the verdict will go in its favour.

She also believes a suit in Switzerland benefits from proximity:
the interests of affected drivers in Switzerland will be taken
into account more before a Swiss court. [GN]


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Still Defends Merkin & Smith, et al. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Vonage Holdings Corp. continues to defend against the class action
lawsuit by Merkin & Smith, et al., the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On September 27, 2013, Arthur Merkin and James Smith filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Vonage America, Inc. in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
alleging that Vonage violated California's Unfair Competition Law
by charging its customers fictitious 911 taxes and fees.

On October 30, 2013, Vonage filed a notice removing the case to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. On November 26, 2013, Vonage filed its Answer to the
Complaint.

On December 4, 2013, Vonage filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration,
which the Court denied on February 4, 2014. On March 5, 2014,
Vonage appealed that decision to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On March 26, 2014, the district
court proceedings were stayed pending the appeal.

On February 29, 2016, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district
court's ruling and remanded with instructions to grant the motion
to compel arbitration. On March 22, 2016, Merkin and Smith filed a
petition for rehearing.

On May 4, 2016, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its February 29, 2016
decision and issued a new order reversing the district court's
order and remanded with instructions to compel arbitration. The
Ninth Circuit also declared as moot the petition for rehearing. On
June 27, 2016, the lower court stayed the case pending
arbitration.

A joint status report was filed with the District Court on
December 23, 2016. A second joint status report was filed with the
District Court on March 23, 2017. A third joint status report was
filed with the District Court on June 27, 2017.

Vonage Holdings Corp. is a provider of cloud communications
services for business.


VOX MEDIA: "Bradley" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl C. Bradley, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Vox Media, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01791 (D. Colo., September 1, 2017), seeks unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, court costs and attorneys' fees
incurred in recovering the unpaid wages pursuant to the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Vox Media, Inc., operating as "SB Nation," maintains hundreds of
nationwide sports websites where Bradley worked as a managing
editor for Vox's "Mile High Hockey" website. She claims to have
worked, at times, in excess of 40 hours per week but still got
paid a flat rate without overtime compensation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Judith Sznyter, Esq.
     Steph J. Holroyd, Esq.
     Marc. L. Gelman, Esq.
     James E. Goodley, Esq.
     JENNINGS SIGMOND, PC.
     1835 Market Street, Suite 2800
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Telephone: (215) 351-0641/0670/0623/0613
     Email: jsznyter@jslex.com
            sholroyd@jslex.com
            mgelman@jslex.com


WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: "Blocker" Disputes Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------
Terra Blocker, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Wakefield & Associates, Inc., Defendant,
Case 2:17-cv-02641 (W.D. Tenn., September 1, 2017) seeks actual
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this
action, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and
further relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Blocker's alleged obligation arises from personal medical services
in which Wakefield & Associates, acting as a collection agent,
sent a collection letter dated February 3, 2017 that failed to
indicate that the debt would increase due to accrued interest,
fees or other charges and will be charged to Plaintiff's
outstanding debt.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Russell S. Thompson IV, Esq.
      THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
      5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
      Mesa, AZ 85206
      Telephone: (602) 388-8898
      Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
      Email: rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com

             - and -

      Joseph Panvini, Esq.
      Thompson Consumer Law Group, PLLC
      5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
      Mesa, AZ 85206
      Telephone: (602) 388-8875
      Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
      Email: jpanvini@consumerlawinfo.com


WAL-MART STORES: Failed to Pay Regular & OT Pay, Evans Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC675587
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages
and restitution under Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendant for
alleged violations of the Labor Code and Business and Professions
Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay them for
all accrued vacation time, including holiday pay; failed to pay
overtime and double time wages at the correct rate by failing to
include all applicable remuneration in calculating the regular
rate of pay; failed to provide them with accurate written
statements; and failed to timely pay them all of their final wages
following separation of employment.[BN]

Wal-Mart is an American multinational retailing corporation that
operates as a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores,
and grocery stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile (310) 888 0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehiaw.com
                  scott@setarehlaw.com


WEST VIRGINIA, USA: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Greer" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Bernard L. Greer filed an appeal from a court ruling in
his lawsuit styled Bernard Greer v. State of West Virginia, Case
No. 1:16-cv-00142-IMK-MJA, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia at Clarksburg.

The lawsuit arises from alleged civil rights violations.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was commenced on June 28, 2016, and assigned to Judge Irene M.
Keeley.  Mr. Greer has previously sought class certification.

The appellate case is captioned as Bernard Greer v. State of West
Virginia, Case No. 17-2046, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit.

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

   -- Informal Opening Brief is due on October 2, 2017; and

   -- Informal response brief, if any, is due 14 days after
      informal opening brief is filed.

Plaintiff-Appellant BERNARD L. GREER, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se.[BN]

Defendant-Appellee STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA is represented by:

          Thomas M. Johnson, Jr., Esq.
          DEPUTY SOLICITOR
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA
          State Capitol Complex
          1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          Charleston, WV 25305-0000
          Telephone: (304) 558-2021
          E-mail: tjohnson@wvago.gov

               - and -

          Zachary Aaron Viglianco, Esq.
          ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          812 Quarrier Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 558-5830
          E-mail: zav@wvago.gov


WESTERN UNION: Settlement in "Douglas" Suit Pending Final Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the settlement in the
class action lawsuit by Jason Douglas remains subject to final
Court approval.

On March 12, 2014, Jason Douglas filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois asserting a claim under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq., based on
allegations that since 2009, the Company has sent text messages to
class members' wireless telephones without their consent. During
the first quarter of 2015, the Company's insurance carrier and the
plaintiff reached an agreement to create an $8.5 million
settlement fund that will be used to pay all class member claims,
class counsel's fees and the costs of administering the
settlement. The agreement has been signed by the parties and, on
November 10, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement.

The Company accrued an amount equal to the retention under its
insurance policy in previous quarters and believes that any
amounts in excess of this accrual will be covered by the insurer.
However, if the Company's insurer is unable to or refuses to
satisfy its obligations under the policy or the parties are unable
to reach a definitive agreement or otherwise agree on a
resolution, the Company's financial condition, results of
operations, and cash flows could be adversely impacted. As the
parties have reached an agreement in this matter, the Company
believes that the potential for additional loss in excess of
amounts already accrued is remote.

Western Union is a provider of money movement and payment
services.


WESTERN UNION: Appeal in "Pincus" Case Underway
-----------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the appeal in the class
action lawsuit by Caryn Pincus is underway.

On February 10, 2015, Caryn Pincus filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against Speedpay, Inc. ("Speedpay"), a
subsidiary of the Company, asserting claims based on allegations
that Speedpay imposed an unlawful surcharge on credit card
transactions and that Speedpay engages in money transmission
without a license. The complaint requests certification of a class
and two subclasses generally comprised of consumers in Florida who
made a payment through Speedpay's bill payment services using a
credit card and were charged a surcharge for such payment during
the four-year and five-year periods prior to the filing of the
complaint through the date of class certification.

On April 6, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On April 23, 2015, in response to the motion to
dismiss, Pincus filed an amended complaint that adds claims (1)
under the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, which
authorizes civil remedies for certain criminal conduct; and (2)
for violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO").

On May 15, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On October 6, 2015, the Court entered an order denying
Speedpay's motion to dismiss.

On October 20, 2015, Speedpay filed an answer to the amended
complaint. On December 1, 2015, Pincus filed a second amended
complaint that revised her factual allegations, but added no new
claims.

On December 18, 2015, Speedpay filed an answer to the second
amended complaint. On May 20, 2016, Speedpay filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings as to Pincus' Florida Civil Remedies for
Criminal Practices Act and federal RICO claims. On June 7, 2016,
Pincus filed an opposition to Speedpay's motion for judgment on
the pleadings. On June 17, 2016, Speedpay filed a reply brief in
support of the motion.

On October 28, 2016, Pincus filed a motion seeking class
certification. The motion seeks the certification of a class
consisting of "All (i) persons in Florida (ii) who paid Speedpay,
Inc. a fee for using Speedpay, Inc.'s electronic payment services
(iii) during the five year period prior to the filing of the
complaint in this action through the present." Pincus also filed a
motion to file her motion under seal.

On November 4, 2016, the Court denied Pincus' motion for class
certification without prejudice and motion to seal and ordered her
to file a new motion that redacts proprietary and private
information. Later that day, Pincus filed a redacted version of
the motion.

On November 7, 2016, Speedpay filed a motion for summary judgment
on Pincus' remaining claims. On December 15, 2016, Speedpay filed
an opposition to Pincus' class certification motion. The same day,
Pincus filed an opposition to Speedpay's summary judgment motion
and requested summary judgment on her individual and class claims.

On January 12, 2017, Speedpay filed a reply in support of its
summary judgment motion and Pincus filed a reply in support of her
class certification motion. On March 28, 2017, the Court granted
Speedpay's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Pincus'
Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act and federal RICO
claims.

On June 27, 2017, the Court granted Speedpay's summary judgment
motion, entered judgment in favor of Speedpay and ordered the
Court clerk to close the case. On July 5, 2017, Pincus filed a
notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit.

Western Union is a provider of money movement and payment
services.


WESTERN UNION: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend the consolidated class action lawsuits by Martin Herman,
Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living
Trust, and UA Local 13 Pension Fund.

On March 27, 2017, plaintiffs in the Martin Herman, Lawrence Henry
Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust, and UA
Local 13 Pension Fund actions filed motions to consolidate the
three cases and to be appointed lead plaintiff. On May 3, 2017,
the Court granted the motion to consolidate.

On January 26, 2017, Martin Herman filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company, its President and
Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and a former
executive officer of the Company, asserting claims under sections
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission
rule 10b-5 against all defendants and a claim under section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The
complaint alleges that, during the purported class period,
February 24, 2012 through January 19, 2017, defendants made false
or misleading statements or failed to disclose adverse material
facts known to them, including those regarding: (1) the
effectiveness of the Company's fraud prevention program and the
program's compliance with applicable law and best practices; (2)
the development and enhancement of the Company's global compliance
policies and AML program; and (3) the Company's compliance with
regulatory requirements.

On March 6, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to transfer venue
of the case to the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado. The Court granted that motion on March 30, 2017, and
transferred the case. This action is in a preliminary stage and
the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss
or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with this
action. The Company and the named individuals intend to vigorously
defend themselves in this matter.

On February 22, 2017, Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne
Smallen Revocable Living Trust filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado. The defendants, class period, claims and bases are the
same as those in the purported class action complaint filed by
Martin Herman described above. This action is in a preliminary
stage and the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated
with this action. The Company and the named individuals intend to
vigorously defend themselves in this matter.

On February 22, 2017, UA Local 13 Pension Fund filed a purported
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania. The alleged factual bases are
similar to and the defendants, class period and claims are the
same as those in the purported class action complaints filed by
Martin Herman and Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen
Revocable Living Trust described above, except that the
plaintiff's claim under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act is
against all of the defendants. On March 10, 2017, the defendants
filed an unopposed motion to transfer venue to the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado. The Court granted the
motion and transferred the case. This action is in a preliminary
stage and the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated
with this action. The Company and the named individuals intend to
vigorously defend themselves in this matter.

On March 27, 2017, plaintiffs in the Martin Herman, Lawrence Henry
Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust, and UA
Local 13 Pension Fund actions filed motions to consolidate the
three cases and to be appointed lead plaintiff. On May 3, 2017,
the Court granted the motion to consolidate.

Western Union is a provider of money movement and payment
services.


WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Appeal in Unitholder Litigation Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Williams Partners L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the plaintiff's appeal
in the Unitholder Litigation remains pending.

The Company said, "On March 7, 2016, a purported unitholder of us
filed a putative class action on behalf of certain purchasers of
our units in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma. The action names as
defendants, us, Williams, Williams Partners GP LLC, Alan S.
Armstrong, and Donald R. Chappel and alleges violations of certain
federal securities laws for failure to disclose Energy Transfer
Equity, L.P.'s intention to pursue a purchase of Williams
conditioned on Williams not closing the WPZ Public Unit Exchange
when announcing the WPZ Public Unit Exchange. The complaint seeks,
among other things, damages and an award of costs and attorneys'
fees. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 31,
2016."

"On October 17, 2016, we requested the court dismiss the action,
and on March 8, 2017, the court dismissed the complaint with
prejudice. On April 7, 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal. We cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss at
this time."

Williams Partners is an energy infrastructure master limited
partnership focused on connecting North America's significant
hydrocarbon resource plays to growing markets for natural gas and
NGLs through our gas pipeline and midstream businesses.


WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Trial to Begin June 2018 in Stockholder Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Windstream Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that trial is scheduled
to begin on June 20, 2018, in a stockholder class action lawsuit.

On February 9, 2015, a putative stockholder filed a Shareholder
Class Action Complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the
"Court"), captioned Doppelt v. Windstream Holdings, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 10629-VCN, against the Company and its Board of
Directors.  This complaint was accompanied by a motion for a
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the spin-off. The Court,
ruling from the bench on February 19, 2015 - the day before a
special meeting of stockholders was scheduled to vote on a reverse
stock split and amended governing documents (the "Proposals") -
denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, reasoning
that much of the information sought by plaintiff had been
disclosed in public filings available on the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission's website, the Windstream
Holdings' Board of Directors was in no way conflicted, and while
approval of the Proposals would facilitate the spin-off, approval
was not necessary to effect the spin-off.

On March 16, 2015, plaintiff, joined by a second putative
Windstream stockholder, filed an Amended Shareholder Class Action
Complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company and
its Board concerning Windstream's disclosures and seeking to
rescind the spin-off and unspecified monetary damages.

On February 5, 2016, the Court dismissed Windstream as a named
party and also dismissed the plaintiffs' demand to rescind the
spin-off, but otherwise denied Windstream's motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims.

On or about January 27, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion
seeking class certification which the Court granted on April 17,
2017. A trial is scheduled to begin on June 20, 2018.

Windstream is a provider of advanced network communications and
technology solutions for consumers, businesses, enterprise
organizations and wholesale customers across the United States.


WINNIPEG ROYAL: Faces Privacy Class Action Over Intimate Photos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judy van Rhijn, writing for Law Times, reports that a recent class
action filed against the Winnipeg Royal Ballet, former students
are asserting claims based upon breach of privacy in relation to
intimate photos taken by an instructor and then posted online.

The case promises to develop the jurisprudence in this relatively
new area of the law, where courts are wrestling with the concept
of digital images being uploaded on to the internet, where control
is then out of the hands of the defendant and the scope of
exposure can be infinite.

Margaret Waddell -- marg@waddellphillips.ca -- whose Toronto-based
firm Waddell Phillips PC has commenced a class action on the
matter, says for her clients knowing there are images online of
them can have a "devastating effect."

Many of the women represented in the class action were students,
under the age of 18, at the prestigious ballet school.

They have alleged an instructor and photographer at the school,
Bruce Monk, had unsupervised photo sessions with them in which he
coaxed them to partially or completely undress.  While the police
have been investigating the matter, no charges have been laid to
date.  The representative plaintiff in the class action is
Sarah Doucet, a student at the school in the 1990s.

"Many other students have come forward and been in contact with
us.  They all speak of a similar experience," says Ms. Waddell.
She says images of the students continue to appear online.

"Even if the original posting comes down, it doesn't take much
effort to Google them or they can be downloaded and reposted at a
later date," she says.

The proceedings are at a very early stage.  Ms. Waddell says she
is currently putting together the record for certification.

"It should be completed in September and delivered to the
defendants," she says.

The Winnipeg Ballet School is being represented by Paul Tushinski
-- ptushinski@duttonbrock.com -- of Dutton Brock LLP, who declined
to be interviewed.

Mr. Monk is represented by Susan Metzler --
smetzler@millerthomson.com -- of Miller Thomson LLP, who did not
respond to requests for an interview.

There has been no court appearance so far except the order from
the court allowing Doucette's spouse, who is the representative in
the Family Law Act claim, to be named by initials.
Ms. Waddell advises there is also a hearing with the Class
Proceedings Fund at the end of the month. She does not envision
any unusual hurdles obtaining certification.

She refers to Jones v. Tsige, 2012, ONCA 32, where a woman's
confidential bank records were accessed by her former husband's
new wife, a bank employee.  In that case, the Court of Appeal of
Ontario articulated the tort of intrusion on seclusion for the
first time, saying:

"The key features of the cause of action of intrusion upon
seclusion are, first, that the defendant's conduct must be
intentional (which includes recklessness); second, that the
defendant must have invaded, without lawful justification, the
plaintiff's private affairs or concerns; and third, that a
reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly offensive,
causing distress, humiliation or anguish."

Ms. Waddell says that there is no doubt that the former students
are entitled to pursue the claim against the Winnipeg Royal Ballet
as a civil claim under the tort "intrusion on seclusion."

She says that the tort is still developing, particularly in
determining the appropriate measure of damages for having intimate
images posted online.

"Courts are still working through that.  It is a relatively new
area because the internet is relatively new," she says.

"It's right out there on the front end of the law."

One of the few comparable cases is the default judgment in the
case of Jane Doe 464533 v. N.D., 2017 ONSC.

The original judgment was rendered in January 2016 in the Superior
Court of Ontario, but later last year, Justice Grant Dow of the
Superior Court granted a motion to set the default judgment aside
on the basis that the factors of promptness, arguable defence and
prejudice favoured the defendant. That decision was appealed early
this year.

The presiding judge, Superior Court Justice Frances Kiteley,
denied the motion, saying she did not see "the dismissal of this
motion for leave to appeal as a discouragement of victims."

"The uniqueness of the case and the prospect for a decision on the
merits making a contribution to the development of torts in an
important area of the law is a compelling reason to conclude that
it is a question of general importance that the defendant have the
opportunity to participate in a trial," said the ruling.

Lara Guest -- lguest@torys.com -- an associate at Torys LLP, who
will represent Jane Doe in the retrial, says an important point in
Justice Kiteley's decision "is that it only set aside the finding
of liability and the damages."

"It didn't set aside the injunction that the defendant destroy any
and all intimate images or recordings of the plaintiff in his
possession, power or control, and it didn't set aside the legal
principles relating to the tort," she says.

"That is still good law." [GN]


ZAGG INC: Still Faces Stotz and Charles Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------
ZAGG Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2017, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend
against the case, Eric Stotz and Alan Charles v. mophie inc., U.S.
District Court, Central District of California, Civil Action No.
2:16-cv-08898-GW-FFM.

On January 13, 2017, Eric Stotz and Alan Charles, individually and
on behalf of a purported class, filed a first amended class action
complaint alleging that they purchased certain external battery
packs and that the battery packs did not extend the life of the
phones' internal batteries as advertised and adversely affected
the phones' internal battery life. Plaintiffs allege violations of
California's unfair competition law, California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, New York's unlawful deceptive acts and practices
statute, and New York's false advertising law.

The Company has denied all liability and will defend the claims
and otherwise respond to the allegations. This matter is not
expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, results of operations, or liquidity.

ZAGG(R) Inc and its subsidiaries are innovation leaders in mobile
tech accessories for smartphones and tablets.


* 34% of Data Breach Class Actions Targeted Health Sector in 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Spitzer, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that
there were 76 class action data breach lawsuits in 2016, up 7
percent from the year prior, according to a Bryan Cave report.

For its 2017 Data Breach Litigation Report, the St. Louis-based
international law firm analyzed data breach lawsuits in 2016 at
both the state and federal levels.

Here are four survey insights.

   1. Only 3.3 percent of publicly reported data breaches led to
class action litigation. This percentage was less than prior
years, in which an average of 4 percent to 5 percent of publicly
reported breaches led to class action lawsuits.

   2. The medical industry was disproportionately targeted by the
plaintiffs' bar. However, although 70 percent of publicly reported
breaches related to the medical industry, it only comprised 34
percent of lawsuits.

   3. Nearly all cases (95 percent) alleged negligence led to the
data breach.

   4. Eighty-nine percent of lawsuits involved a breach of
sensitive data, which includes information like Social Security
numbers or medical treatment information. [GN]


* Class Action Certification Overpleading Unnecessary & Wasteful
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy van Rhijn, writing for Law Times, reports that as the risk of
unsuccessful certification applications diminishes, Ontario courts
are coming down hard on the practice of overpleading, saying it is
unnecessary and wasteful, and leveraging cost consequences to
emphasize the point.

However, the concept is not gaining traction elsewhere, leading to
conflicting decisions.

"The whole animus of a class action is judicial expediency.
Theoretically, we should just certify claims that have a viable
chance and favour a streamlined approach," says Craig Lockwood --
clockwood@osler.com -- of Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, who is on
board with the Ontario push.

"To be honest, the plaintiff's bar wants to do what they can. They
traditionally employ a buckshot approach.  Once the essence of the
claim is established, they articulate as many causes of action as
can be reasonably sustained through the course of the litigation,
and create a dog's breakfast.  That makes cases more difficult and
needlessly complex."

Mr. Lockwood's view supports what has become a campaign by Justice
Paul Perell, most recently articulated in Berg v. Canadian Hockey
League 2017 ONSC 2608.

That case alleges that junior hockey players were entitled to
receive minimum wages for their services on the basis that they
are employees of their clubs.

In the certification proceedings, Justice Perell explained,
"Perhaps because of the novelty of their claim and the
extraordinary importance that hockey has to Canadians, Messrs.
Berg and Pachis excessively over-pleaded both their case and also
their certification motion . . . "

He went on to say that the defendants excessively responded to the
certification motion.

He found that while all of the causes of actions were properly
disclosed in the pleadings, many of them were redundant and should
not be certified because of the requirements of s. 5(1)(d), that
the class proceeding be a preferable procedure for the fair and
efficient resolution of the common issues.

"This is a mantra Perell has been hammering since the Magill v.
Expedia 2014 ONSC 2073 case," says Mr. Lockwood.  He recalls
similar statements in the Smith v. Sino-Forest 2012 ONSC 24
carriage fight.

"He awarded carriage to the firm that had the most streamlined
claim," he says.

Another case that provided a platform for the concept was the
determination of costs in Bern-stein v. Peoples Trust Company,
2017 ONSC 2189, where Justice Perell said, "In the class action
context, over-pleading the class size, class period, and adding
redundant causes of action and claims and not making concessions
is a frequent phenomenon.  And it is a problematic phenomenon
because over-pleading and not making concessions virtually ensures
that there will be a contested certification motion -- and an
expensive one -- that simply aggravates the access to justice
problems that class action procedure was designed to ameliorate."

Ted Charney of Charney Lawyers in Toronto, who represents the
plaintiff in the Ontario Hockey League case, points to the recent
conflicting decision of Justice R.J. Hall of the Court of Queen's
Bench of Alberta in the Western Hockey League case.

"Justice Perell is the only one who has championed this so far.
The only judge who has considered it so far, to see if it's going
to be accepted, is Justice Hall," he says.

In Walter v. Western Hockey League, 2017 ABQB 382, Justice Hall
said, "Justice Perell chose not to certify various causes of
action for reasons of efficiency and judicial economy.  I am not
prepared to follow his lead."

"If the pleadings disclose causes of action, then I consider that
those causes of action should be permitted to proceed . . . I am
not prepared to strike causes of action which have been properly
pleaded," said the ruling.

Mr. Charney says it is very rare to have parallel cases, let alone
parallel class actions.

"This case is virtually identical to the one Justice Perell
heard," he says.

"It has the same facts, the same pleadings, the same causes of
action and same common issues. It's virtually the same record."

Mr. Charney thinks Justice Hall takes the preferable approach.  He
has appealed the Ontario decision to exclude the causes of action,
and the CHL and WHL have appealed Hall's decision to let them in.

"There are serious implications to having two conflicting
decisions. Both OHL and WHL are overseen by CHL -- it is a
defendant in both proceedings.  It's unfortunate.  It is delaying
the litigation significantly.  We'll be preoccupied with this for
the next six months to a year," he says.

Mr. Charney points to another conflicting decision, namely the
carriage motion in Mancinelli v. Barrick Gold Corporation, 2016
ONCA 571, which has been confirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

"It is the only appellate court to have dealt with a carriage
motion," he says.

"Justice Belobaba awarded carriage to the firm with the most
comprehensive pleadings."

Until the conflicting decisions are resolved, Lockwood says that
any hearing before Justice Perell will likely be affected by the
concept of overpleading.

"He is the most prolific writer in the class actions realm in
Ontario in any event," he says.

"The reality is if you bring an action in Ontario there is a
strong likelihood you will end up in front of Perell, so there is
more force and effect when he says it."

Despite this, Mr. Lockwood does not believe that plaintiff's
counsel is taking much note of the concept so far.

"I do have sympathy for them. They want to pitch it at the highest
level, but there is still a tendency to throw everything in except
the kitchen sink," he says.

"Once one side pleads it, the defence has no choice but to meet it
with any available defence."

He considers that the class action should be streamlined at the
certification stage.

"Let the judge pick and choose what he or she wants to proceed
on," he says.

He says the defence can also raise the issue.

"In the CHL case, the defence conceded it was a valid cause of
action but said that it's a singular issue," he says.

"We know what it is.  We don't need 10 different ways of getting
at it.  We should not go through the headache of navigating all of
them when one will do."

Justice Charney disagrees.

"I do not think it's appropriate at the certification stage for
the judge to call certain causes of action redundant or
unnecessary.  They must realize that the motion is being heard at
a preliminary stage," he says.

"We haven't had discovery.  We haven't had exchange of documents.
It's necessary to have numerous causes of action until we have a
complete record and the facts play out.  At the pleadings stage,
we do not have a crystal ball." [GN]


* Contingency Attorney Fees Lower in Big Class Action Settlements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that when it comes to attorney fees in class actions, it pays to
be in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit -- and
it's tough to get what you want in the Second and Ninth circuits.
That's according to two leading academic research reports that
federal judges increasingly cite in determining how much in fees
to award plaintiffs attorneys who work on contingency.

New York University School of Law professor Geoffrey Miller and
the late Theodore Eisenberg, a professor at Cornell Law School,
authored one of the studies.  The second is a 2010 study conducted
by Brian Fitzpatrick, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law
School.

Both reports found that federal judges tend to determine a
percentage of the settlement amount, then crosscheck it against
the hours that plaintiffs attorneys spent multiplied by a
reasonable hourly rate -- called the lodestar.  They also found
that as the size of the settlement goes up, the percentage of fees
that judges award to plaintiffs attorneys goes down.  That's
particularly true when it comes to the largest class action
settlements.

Fee Awards 2006-2007 federal class action
But a lot depends on what circuit of the U.S. court of appeals the
case ends up.  Here are some key points from the studies:

   * Fee awards aren't evenly spread out: The vast majority of
class action fee awards come in the Second, Ninth, First and
Seventh circuits, Mr. Fitzpatrick said.  He attributed much of
that to the larger cities in those circuits -- Boston, New York,
Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles.  "The lawyers are there,
the defendants are often there, and I think judges with a lot of
experience are often there, so that attracts these cases," he
said.
   * Benchmarks might matter: The Ninth Circuit is one of the few
circuits with a benchmark that judges cite in determining fees --
25 percent based on its 2011 holding in In re Bluetooth Headset
Products Liability Litigation.  Mr. Fitzpatrick said "that really
limits the number of times a court would award more than 25
percent.  It's working as a ceiling in the Ninth Circuit."
Mr. Miller said having a benchmark didn't seem to matter when it
comes to lower fee awards -- his report found the Ninth Circuit
stuck to 25 percent for the most part.

   * The Second Circuit has experience: The Second Circuit handled
nearly a third of all the cases, according to the Eisenberg/Miller
report.  Many are securities class actions.  The circuit doesn't
have a benchmark, but it did set forth six factors for judges to
consider in a 2000 ruling called Goldberger v. Integrated
Resources.  It's the circuit in which a judge is most likely to
reject the original fee request made by lawyers. "It's a hard road
to convince a district judge in the Second Circuit that your fee
request ought to be accepted without question," Miller said.

   * One of the most generous circuits is the Seventh: That's due
in large part to a 2001 decision in In re Synthroid Marketing
Litigation, in which the Seventh Circuit downplayed the
significance of using the percentage of the settlement fund by
directing judges to look at market rates when assessing the
lodestar component of an attorney fee request.  "They have said
clearly you should not lower the percentage over the entire amount
of the settlement," Mr. Fitzpatrick said.  "You should do it on a
marginal basis.  I see more district courts doing it in the
Seventh Circuit than anywhere else because of those admonitions."
[GN]


* CUNA Urges Senate to Vote Against CFPB's New Arbitration Rule
---------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Union National Association (CUNA) wrote to Senate
Leadership and the Senate Banking Committee urging the chamber to
vote yes on H.J. Res. 111 when it comes before the Senate.  The
legislation would disapprove of the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau's (CFPB's) recent arbitration rule, which refused to take
into account the very different size and member-ownership
structure of credit unions.  Credit union consumer-members can be
particularly harmed by class action litigation where resources are
taken directly from members' own pockets to pay for trial lawyers.

The letter, signed by CUNA, Independent Community Bankers of
America and National Association of Federally-Insured Credit
Unions, reads:

"Community financial institutions are consumer- and community-
focused institutions that thrive or fail based on their reputation
for fair treatment of their members/customers. Reputation is a
critical business asset to be protected and enhanced.  The best
marketing plan for these institutions is satisfied consumers.
When complaints arise, these institutions are committed to
resolving them in a fair, expeditious, and timely manner.

"For many community financial institutions, arbitration is a
practical alternative to costly and interminable class action
litigation.  Class action suits serve the interests of trial
lawyers at the expense of consumers who receive paltry settlements
and community financial institutions who face exorbitant legal
fees.  Class action litigation can be ruinous for a community
financial institution and the consumers that rely on them for
financial services."

                            About CUNA

With its network of affiliated state credit union leagues, Credit
Union National Association (CUNA) -- http://www.aSmarterChoice.org
-- serves America's credit unions, which are owned by more than
100 million consumer members. Credit unions are not-for-profit
cooperatives providing affordable financial services to people
from all walks of life. [GN]





* Plaintiffs Lawyers Seek 30% Contingency Fees in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that after reaching a $101 million class action settlement to
resolve lawsuits brought over a chemical spill that contaminated a
West Virginia river, the plaintiffs lawyers asked a federal judge
to grant them 30 percent of the fund as contingency fees.

The judge praised their work but found that fee request to be just
too high.

"Even without accounting for fund size, the empirical literature
clearly demonstrates that a 30 percent fee is higher than that
awarded in the vast majority of class actions," U.S. District
Judge John Copenhaver of the Southern District of West Virginia
wrote in a July order.  "Courts have found through empirical
analysis that larger common funds typically have smaller
percentage fees."

The empirical analysis Judge Copenhaver referred to came from the
findings of two leading academic reports -- both cited in the
opinion -- that federal judges across the country have used for
the past decade to guide them in decisions about attorney fees in
some of the nation's largest class action settlements.

New York University School of Law professor Geoffrey Miller and
the late Theodore Eisenberg, a professor at Cornell Law School,
wrote one of the studies, an updated version of which is set to be
published this year.  The second is a 2010 study conducted by
Brian Fitzpatrick, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law
School.

Both studies have provided critical assistance for federal judges,
particularly when it comes to class action settlements of $100
million or more.  The concern for those on the bench is how to
award plaintiffs lawyers for their work without granting them
excessive fees and leaving class members in the lurch.

"Judges do take the role seriously," said William Rubenstein, a
professor at Harvard Law School whose highly regarded "Newberg on
Class Actions" has cited the Eisenberg/Miller and Mr. Fitzpatrick
studies in his 11-volume treatise, alongside data he has used from
a former publication called Class Action Attorney Fee Digest.
"And they understand they're a bulwark against excessive fees from
the class members' money."

How to determine the exact amount has often been more art than
science.  In a webinar earlier this year hosted by the National
Association of Legal Fee Analysis, U.S. District Judge David
Herndon of the Southern District of Illinois, who has handled
several of the nation's largest mass torts and class actions, said
a lot depends on the amount of recovery to the class.
"It just depends . . . on the case and what the benefit is that
the lawyers have achieved by their work," he said at the webinar,
called "View from the Bench: Awarding Attorney Fees in Federal
Litigation." "If it's reasonable, then you can approve the
contingency, but if it's pretty far out of whack maybe you've got
to have the lawyers justify the difference or perhaps go with the
lodestar.  There are a lot of things to look at."

And there are outside concerns as well.  Judges have increasing
scrutiny from appeals courts, which often take up the petitions of
objectors to class action settlements, Mr. Rubenstein said.
"Public policy generally cautions against awarding too high a
fee," Judge Copenhaver wrote in the West Virginia water case. "The
court's challenge is to award a fee that both compensates the
attorneys with a risk premium on their skill and labor and avoids
a windfall."

Last month, plaintiffs lawyers in the case submitted a renewed
motion for settlement approval that lowered their fee request to
25 percent -- more in line with what Judge Copenhaver had found
was reasonable.

Judges often look to previous case decisions, or their own
experience, to determine what amount is appropriate to award
lawyers in class actions.  They also get a list of cases from the
lawyers -- but those often come with vested interests.  For a long
time, there was limited statistical data on what other judges had
done.  That's where Mr. Fitzpatrick said he and the Eisenberg-
Miller team tried to give judges a starting point. [GN]


* Recall of Tainted Marijuana May Spark More Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Terry Davidson, writing for The Lawyer's Daily, reports that
recent medical marijuana recalls and the impending broad
legalization and regulation of pot could mean future class actions
aimed at tainted bud, lawyers say.

Their comments come in the wake of a British Columbia medical
marijuana provider having to issue a recall of dried cannabis it
sold during the second half of 2016.

It was just recently that reports surfaced that Vancouver Island's
Broken Coast Cannabis Ltd. was forced to recall batches of its bud
after a Health Canada spot test found the samples to contain
traces of two banned pesticides.

As of Aug. 30, no Broken Coast clients had come forward to report
illness.  But this latest recall comes after other cases where
people reportedly came forward with complaints of sickness.

The Globe and Mail recently featured an article about a 53-year-
old former military cop who had been prescribed medical marijuana
to deal with the pain of a back injury.  He got sick just before
his New Brunswick-based pot provider issued a recall due to banned
substances found in its product.  The man went and had the pot
tested himself, with results reportedly coming back as positive
for chemical contamination.

Toronto-based class action lawyer Ted Charney, of Charney Lawyers,
says the federal government's impending legalization of
marijuana's recreational use could lead to an increase in class
action lawsuits if recalls and illness continue in what he says
has been, up to this point, a "wild, wild west" type of industry.

"If the products are not manufactured in accordance with Health
Canada standards, yes, and whether they will or not be we have to
wait and see, but so far this industry has been sort of the wild,
wild west, and to what extent it is properly regulated, whether it
gets to the same level of pharmaceutical products, is unknown,"
said Mr. Charney.  "But the difficulty here is they are growing a
plant product and I'm not sure to what extent they are going to be
supervised and regulated in terms of the levels of pesticides and
herbicides that are included in the product, which is really the
key."

Mr. Charney said the plight of the retired military man in the
Globe story is the "classic case of a class action because it
involves an individual who, at least according to his evidence,
was poisoned by herbicides or pesticides that were at unlawful
levels [and] that were included in a product which he purchased
and consumed."

He added that the regulated sale of tainted marijuana is "like any
other defective product or drug."

"If it's been sold to a number of individuals and consumed, then
there is a class-wide issue in terms of whether the product was
contaminated, and then some individuals will be able to claim
damages if they can connect their illness to the product."

Windsor-based class action icon Harvey Strosberg, of Strosberg
Sasso Sutts LLP, likened poisoned pot to tainted meat.

"If you sell tainted meat . . . there will be a class action, so
it's no different from tainted marijuana," said Mr. Strosberg.
"It's no different than beef . . . or any product.  The law is the
same for any ingestible product.  If it's not constructed or grown
properly or harvested properly or packaged properly, there can be
a class action."

Edmonton lawyer Jonathan Faulds, of Field Law, is "reluctant" to
say legalization and recalls will result in a "flood of claims,"
but he does acknowledge there is always the possibility.  Like Mr.
Charney, Mr. Faulds called this a "relatively new industry" and
said that it depends largely on what health standards and
regulation will look like when it comes to legal recreational
marijuana.

"You could look at this from the perspective that this is a
relatively new industry and they are still finding their feet and
learning how to provide the product in a way that sticks with the
regulatory requirements," said Mr. Faulds.  "What we're seeing
right now might be part of a learning curve.  When you look at
other kinds of products that are produced for consumption . . .
certainly you get producers who fail to meet the necessary
standards and the class action plaintiff's bar is pretty
aggressive in terms of jumping on those things when they happen."

Mr. Faulds went on to say that "there is learning going on on all
sides of this new industry, both from the producers' side and from
the government's side, and how the regulations are crafted and
enforced . . . is going to be something to watch."

As of March, at least two Canadian marijuana providers were
reportedly staring down the barrel of proposed class actions due
to tainted product.  Recent medical marijuana recalls and the
impending broad legalization and regulation of pot could mean
future class actions aimed at tainted bud, lawyers say.

Their comments come in the wake of a British Columbia medical
marijuana provider having to issue a recall of dried cannabis it
sold during the second half of 2016. [GN]


* Suits Against Foods Companies Related to "Natural" Label Rise
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caitlin Dewey, writing for The Washington Post, reports that
more than a year after the Food and Drug Administration signaled
that it would soon nail down exactly what the word "natural"
means, the agency has yet to provide any guidance -- and baffled
consumers are suing.

They've sued Sargento, the dairy giant, because the cows behind
its "natural" cheeses are given genetically modified feed.

They've sued Wal-Mart over its "all-natural" pita chips, which
contain thiamine mononitrate and folic acid -- both B vitamins
that are made synthetically.

They've even sued HINT, which makes "all-natural" fruit-flavored
waters, for using a common solvent to boost the drink's taste.

Since January, court filings show that there's been an uptick in
lawsuits against food companies regarding "all-natural" and
"natural" claims -- and some lawyers say the FDA's continued
silence is to blame.

Nineteen all-natural class actions have been filed this year, as
of July 2017.  There were 27 such suits for the entire year of
2016.

The suits were brought by individual consumers, or small groups of
consumers, on behalf of everyone who purchased a given product.
The law suits frequently claim that "natural" labels tricked
shoppers into buying a more expensive cheese -- or flavored water,
or pita chip -- by deceiving them about how the product was made.
A handful of law firms filed the majority of complaints.

"It's really striking that we're seeing this return to the types
of claims we were seeing two years ago," said Charles Sipos, a
partner at the law firm Perkins Coie, who defends food
manufacturers.  "Plaintiffs are arguing that the FDA hasn't acted
yet, and that's tantamount to an admission they're not going to
act."

Judges, consumer groups and even manufacturers have long called on
government to intervene in the fraught debate over what the word
"natural" means on a food label -- much like the words "wholesome"
and "pure," which have also been the subject of lawsuits.

For manufacturers, such guidance would clarify the rules of the
game, helping them avoid future legal action.  For consumer
groups, the concern is that shoppers don't understand what they're
buying when they shell out more money for "natural" products.

According to a 2016 survey by Consumer Reports, 73 percent of
consumers seek out products with the "natural" label.  But many
erroneously believe it indicates a food does not contain
synthetic, highly processed or genetically modified ingredients,
when in fact there are no clear rules for what "natural" is and
isn't.

Unofficially, the FDA says it expects natural foods to have
"nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives,
regardless of source)" added.

In 2015, after more than 100 lawsuits and several requests from
judges, the FDA agreed to take up the question and began
soliciting comments from the public.  The deadline, initially set
for February 2016, was delayed until May of that year.  The agency
has been mum since then on what action it plans to take.

Deborah Kotz, a spokesperson for FDA, said the agency is
"currently reviewing comments submitted . . . on use of the term
"natural" on food labels to help determine next steps." She did
not specify when those next steps could be expected. (The rule-
making process is typically a time-consuming one, and does not
appear to have any direct link to the change in administrations.)

Until then, food manufacturers are contending with a new wave of
"all-natural" lawsuits -- including those aimed at Sargento, Wal-
Mart and HINT.  In addition to the looming FDA question, a January
ruling in California district court that makes it easier to
register class action suits has made these companies vulnerable to
litigation.

The Sargento case is especially interesting, as it does not allege
that the company's "natural" cheeses contain ingredients that are
artificial or genetically modified, themselves.  Instead, the case
claims that the cows that produce Sargento's milk have eaten
genetically modified feed, or been treated with hormones or
antibiotics.

"Reasonable consumers believe that if a cow consumes GMO grass,
corn, or soy, or is given rbST, and then produces cream, the
casein is not 'Natural' and products derived from the casein, such
as cheese, are likewise not 'Natural,' " the complaint reads.

The plaintiff, Brittany Stanton, is a Seattle woman who used to
buy Sargento cheese.  She is represented by Michael Reese, an
attorney who has filed numerous "all-natural" class actions on
behalf of a range of consumers, and against a number of companies.

Lawyers for Sargento have pushed back, arguing that the claims are
"without legal basis."  The company has also said that it's
inappropriate for these decisions to be made by anyone beside FDA,
a common refrain among food class-action critics.

The Institute for Legal Reform -- an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, which has pushed for sweeping changes to the class-
action system -- maintains that these suits are little more than
lawyerly tricks, intended to earn big fees for attorneys and next
to nothing for plaintiffs.

They point to the recent proposed settlement in the Subway foot-
long case, which claimed the chain's sandwiches aren't always 12
inches long: It would have awarded more than $500,000 to
plaintiff's attorneys, and $500 each to a handful of plaintiffs. A
judge in Milwaukee threw the settlement out, calling the whole
case a "racket."

That's true of most "all-natural" suits as well, the institute
says. It claims that most consumers are hurt by food class-actions
because companies may raise their prices to cover the cost of
fighting litigation.

"The consumers are really getting nothing," said Lisa Rickard, the
president of the Institute for Legal Reform. "But the lawyers are
walking away with huge settlements. It's ridiculous."

That said, even Ms. Rickard acknowledges that food class-actions
can serve a legitimate purpose.  As the food law scholar Nicole
Negowetti argued in a paper for Brookings in 2014, some of these
suits -- originally a tactic of public health groups, concerned
about lax FDA enforcement -- can identify gaps in existing
regulation and force FDA to close them.

That is certainly what began to happen in the case of "natural,"
said Sipos, the Perkins Coie attorney.  Now he and other lawyers
who defend food-makers are hoping to see the agency finish what it
started.

Until then, Sipos and others aren't expecting the trend to change.

"This seems to be where the cases are for the time being," he
said.  "The only difference right now is that we're seeing more of
them." [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Maritime Asbestos Claims Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Bellon, writing for Reuters, reported that a federal appeals
court said a district court was correct in dismissing on
jurisdictional grounds the nearly 30-year-old claims of 12 U.S.
Merchant Marine sailors who sued shipmakers over asbestos
exposure.

In a decision, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 6th Circuit unanimously ruled 19 ship manufacturers did
not waive their personal jurisdiction defense, affirming the
district court's dismissal of the cases.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Laden Trees Near Fire Spark Concerns
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Oppenheimer, writing for Mesothelioma.net, reported that
Montana is known for many things, but one of its most tragic
pieces of history involves the W. R. Grace & Co. vermiculite mine,
which was responsible for hundreds of deaths and thousands of
illnesses from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases.
The state and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have spent
many years working on clean-up efforts of the site, and the
company was held legally and financially responsible for that work
as well as for the health impact of their negligence. Now the mine
is giving rise to new concerns as the West Fork Fire burns just
miles away: officials are concerned that if the area surrounding
the now-closed mine catches fire, the asbestos-contaminated trees
and ground could send toxic smoke into nearby towns.

Mesothelioma is caused by breathing in or ingesting asbestos
fibers, so it's understandable for people to be worried about the
fire burning the upwind area.  According to Flathead County
Sheriff Chuck Curry, the question has been raised before. "Over
the years we've had discussions with the Forest Service about how
much of the asbestos from that site would be carried by the
smoke." The answer from the EPA and the state's Department of
Environmental Quality has attempted to reassure residents. "Their
studies have shown that the fire burn over that heavily asbestos-
laden forest, 95 percent of the asbestos would be contained in the
ash," he says. The small percentage that would go into the smoke
would quickly precipitate out.

That is small consolation to those in the area who have already
been dealing with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases
over the years. Plus, the area that catches fire would still
represent a serious concern for firefighters tasked with battling
the flames near the defunct mine. Curry says that a lot of effort
is going into preventing the area from burning. "They threw a lot
of resources at it. They were hauling loads of logs out not even
limbed. They were cutting fire lines like crazy I know they're
very concerned about it because they are in the fall zone."

It only takes exposure to one mesothelioma patient for a community
to be aware of the real risks pose by asbestos, and people in
Montana know far too well what a toll the disease can take. If you
or someone you love has been affected similarly, the Patient
Advocates at Mesothelioma.net can help. Contact us at 1-800-692-
8608.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two Devon Men Die After Exposure to Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Harris, writing for Devon Live, reported that two Devon men
have died after exposure to asbestos in the workplace in the Royal
Navy and hospitals, a coroner has concluded.

At an inquest on September 13, at South Molton town hall, Coroner
Dr. Elizabeth Earland heard cases about two men who had died at
the end of their working lives after being exposed to asbestos
lagging.

William Henry Prior, 81, from Barnstaple, died on March 23, at
North Devon Hospice.

After completing a post-mortem examination, pathologist Dr. Jason
Davies said Mr. Prior had died from bronchopneumonia due to
malignant mesothelioma and asbestos fibres present in his lungs,
which he stated had a strong association with previous asbestos
exposure.

In 2015, Mr. Prior was diagnosed with mesothelioma. In March 2017,
he started to deteriorate and became unwell at home before being
admitted to the hospice. In keeping with his wishes, he received
end of life care and died at the hospice.

Mr. Prior had written a statement about his work life, which was
read out at the inquest. In it he said: "I worked at a London-
based firm as a welder and did maintenance work at various places
including the Houses of Parliament and hospitals in Essex. I
cleaned out ducts and cut out old pipes lagged with asbestos to
replace them with new ones. I was exposed to asbestos on a daily
basis in hot and dusty environments but had no training. I just
had to work it out for myself."

The coroner concluded: "I am satisfied Mr. Prior was exposed to
asbestos during his working life in London and then Chelmsford. I
am confident his death was due to this exposure and therefore the
appropriate conclusion to give is industrial decease."

The second inquest of the day examined the death of Hartland man
Robert Samuel Sunley, 73, who died on February 4, 2017, at North
Devon Hospice.

He was admitted to North Devon District Hospital from January 26
to February 2, 2017, presenting with chest pain, and then was keen
to head home.

On February 3, he spoke to his general practitioner, Dr. Ruth
Tapsell from Hartland Surgery, and said he wanted to die at the
hospice. He was admitted to the hospice that evening, following
advice from his GP, and died the next day.

Dr. Tapsell told the court Mr. Sunley was known to have asbestosis
and pleural plaques. He had suffered from angina, a heart attack,
hypertension, diabetes and a stroke, among other health issues.

Pathologist Dr. Deborah Cook confirmed Mr. Sunley had pulmonary
fibrosis due to asbestosis relating to exposure, and gave a cause
of death of acute lower respiratory tract infection complicating
asbestosis.

Mr. Sunley also prepared a statement about his work life. He said:
"I worked as a Royal Navy engineer based within the boiler and
engine room compartments, repairing machinery and pipework. I was
exposed to asbestos continuously throughout the course of my
shift. Clouds of dust were released into the air and it was
clearly visible. I could not help but breathe in the asbestos dust
and fibres. I had no protection against this and could not avoid.
I was never warned about the dangers of asbestos exposure."

Coroner Dr Elizabeth Earland summarised the evidence and gave her
conclusion. She said: "We have clear evidence in his employment
history of him having been exposed to asbestos dust in the Royal
Navy and for Caird and Rayner between 1958 and 1975 which is known
to cause fibrosis. We have post-mortem findings which confirm that
as well. He died as a consequence of asbestos exposure while
employed so the appropriate conclusion is industrial decease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Fears Investigated on Argyll Island
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rita Campbell, writing for Press & Journal, reported that health
and safety chiefs have launched a probe after concerns were raised
in a small island village that contractors may have left asbestos
dust in the streets.

The former Highland Arts Centre in Ellenabeich on Seil Island has
been bought by Tony Hill, owner of Seafari Adventures.

Malcom Kerr Contractors set to work to remove the roof at the
weekend.

But an alarmed neighbour called the police after witnessing dust
in the air.

The contractor and local residents are now at odds over whether
the material was asbestos and the matter is being investigated by
the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

Inspector Mark Stephen of Oban Police said: "We spoke to the
contractor who told us it wasn't asbestos. We told the complainer
and advised the person to contact Argyll and Bute Council or the
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa)."

Local resident Graeme Bruce, who was not the complainer to the
police, said: "What looks like asbestos is lying outside the old
Highland Arts building and some of the neighbours' properties.
Nobody has come and said whether it is safe or not. It is very
concerning.

"I am most concerned that no-one from the council has come to have
a look.

"I have picked up materials which I had tested in Glasgow and it
was confirmed to be asbestos."

Mr. Hill said that material outside his building was "paint
fragments and bits of concrete". He added: "My staff have been
power washing the front of the building."

He said that the material in the roof was cement fibre and he
would leave it to the experts to say whether it was asbestos.

"It is a hazardous material, we all know that. I brought in a
licensed contractor. It has been disposed of properly. Sepa are
aware and I have all of the certification."

Mr. Kerr said: "It has been disposed of in a proper manner. It is
not asbestos, it's cement board. It has got to be treated the same
way as asbestos.

"When we are taking it out we are suited and masked up. It gets
wrapped, put in a skip and taken away. We do these jobs all of the
time."

A spokesman for Argyll and Bute Council said it was a matter for
Sepa and the Health and Safety Executive.

Jim Frame, unit manager at Sepa, said: "Sepa is aware of the
ongoing work at the former Highland Arts Centre and of local
concerns which have been raised about the presence and handling of
asbestos-based materials on the site. It is our understanding that
colleagues from HSE and the local authority have been involved
throughout and at present there are no activities underway which
require a regulatory intervention by Sepa."

A spokesman for HSE said it was making inquiries into concerns
which have been raised.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Rhode Island Police Station
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a Rhode Island police
department is planning to temporarily relocate its officers after
mold and asbestos were found in the aging headquarters.

The Providence Journal reports that Scituate Police Chief Donald
Delaere proposed moving officers to a fire station, dispatchers to
a portable trailer and inmates to nearby police departments. The
town council approved funding for the move.

A consultant told the council some evidence at the station is
covered in so much mold that it is unrecognizable.

A town official tells WPRI-TV that funding to renovate or replace
the station has already been set aside and that taxpayers will
vote in a special referendum in December to choose which.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Remains in Many Rutgers Dormitories
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chloe Dopico, writing for Daily Targum, reported that many fully-
inhabited dormitories and department buildings at Rutgers,
including the Livingston Quads, Demarest Hall and Katzenbach Hall
contain asbestos in their ceilings. Asbestos, now known to be a
leading cause of lung cancer, was popularly used for insulation
after World War II.

As many students are informed on move-in day, certain dormitory
and department buildings at Rutgers University contain asbestos --
a material that, if disturbed, can cause lung cancer and numerous
other health problems.

These buildings include the Quads on Livingston campus, part of
the Gibbons complex, Demarest Hall, Katzenbach Hall, Lippincott
Hall, Nicholas Hall.

The Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs, formerly the
location of the Italian Department, was also infested with
asbestos but had it removed before they moved into the building,
said Jo Ann Arnholt, director of fraternity and sorority affairs.

Neal Buccino, the assistant director of public relations for the
University, said many of the buildings on campus that contain
asbestos were constructed prior to 1980.

"The mere presence of asbestos is not hazardous, so long as the
material is intact and undisturbed. The University provides
notification letters to students residing in buildings with
asbestos ceilings, to inform them about activities that must be
avoided to prevent damage to the ceilings, and to request that
they report any damage immediately in order to minimize potential
exposure," Buccino said in an email.

Buccino said the University has been notifying students of the
presence of asbestos since the 1900s, and so far it has been
successful in preventing damaging the ceilings, which contain
asbestos.

It is safe to live in residence halls or apartments that have the
presence of asbestos, according to the flyer handed out to
students. Intact and undisturbed asbestos containing materials
(ACM) do not pose a health risk. But, the flyer said if a student
notices damage or disturbs any material that could contain
asbestos within their living area, to notify the housing office
immediately.

Buccino said Rutgers implemented an asbestos management program to
"ensure the health and safety of the University community,
minimize or prevent asbestos exposures, and, when necessary,
remove asbestos products safely and effectively."

Rutgers conducts visual inspections of materials, air sampling,
training of staff, identification of asbestos prior to renovation
or maintenance to monitor the asbestos, and all rooms containing
it are inspected yearly prior to the fall semester, according to
the flyer.

In order to maintain safe conditions in the buildings, the flyer
instructs students living in asbestos infected dorms not to hang
plants or other items from the ceiling, tack posters or materials
to the ceiling, spray it with water or other substances, or bounce
balls, books or any other objects off of the ceiling.

Asbestos has several health-related effects related to exposure,
including asbestosis, which is a slow buildup of scar-like tissue
in the lungs, according to nj.gov.

For most people who are affected by asbestosis, symptoms do not
occur until 15 to 20 years after exposure.

About 125 million people in the world are exposed to asbestos at
the workplace, according to the World Health Organization.
Approximately half of the deaths from occupational cancer are
thought to be caused by asbestos. It is also estimated that
several thousand deaths annually can be attributed to exposure to
asbestos in the home.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Legal Claims Grows Over Fumes Exposure at Work
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Laville and Sarah Marsh, writing for The Guardian, reported
that legal claims over exposure to diesel exhaust fumes at work
are growing as unions warn toxic air in the workplace is a ticking
time bomb on a par with asbestos.

Royal Mail and at least one local authority are among major
employers who are being sued over their alleged failure to protect
staff from the damaging health effects of diesel pollution from
vehicles. More cases are lined up, according to lawyers and unions
involved in supporting workers.

Dan Shears, health and safety director for the GMB union, said:
"We strongly believe it is a major problem. It needs a test case
and then there will be an increase in claims. It's almost like the
early days of asbestos.

"There are potentially lots of people who have unnecessarily
suffered premature death who may have been affected by industrial
exposure. We are now with diesel in the same place we were with
asbestos in the 1930s."

Five years ago the International Agency for Research in Cancer
(IARC) classified diesel engine exhaust emissions as carcinogenic
to humans. That classification, combined with growing awareness
over the damaging effects of diesel air pollution, the revelations
in the VW emissions scandal, and research that shows some diesel
cars have been emitting about six times more NOx on the road than
is allowed in lab tests, has led to increasing numbers of
employees considering action.

In one case Parcelforce Worldwide, part of Royal Mail Group
Limited, is being sued for negligence for allegedly breaching
health and safety regulations designed to protect employees from
exposure to hazardous substances. Under the Control of Substance
Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH), all employers have a
legal duty to prevent exposure to substances that can cause health
problems.

The claimant is a Parcelforce employee who worked at a major depot
where he says he was exposed daily to diesel exhaust pollution for
eight hours a shift. He says the exposure led him to develop
asthma, and provides medical evidence to support his claim.

"Throughout the course of his employment the claimant was exposed
to, ingested and breathed diesel exhaust fumes and particulate and
other combustion gases from numerous vehicles passing through the
out gate . . . the claimant's face, skin and clothing would become
contaminated with diesel particulates. Any drinks left by the
booth window would develop a black film very quickly," the claim
states.

The claimant, who is 47, said no protection was provided by his
employers in the form of ventilation in his booth or protective
equipment. With the backing of the Communication Workers Union he
is taking action against Royal Mail, whom he said failed to advise
him of the dangers of exposure to diesel fumes, failed to carry
out a risk assessment of where he worked, failed to monitor the
air quality at all until 2015, and failed to take action to
protect him.

His lawyer, Phillip Gower of Simpson Millar, said: "There is
certainly an increase in awareness about the dangers of exposure
to environmental fumes . . . we have seen an increase in the
number of enquiries from clients who have been exposed to diesel
fumes, car exhaust fumes and pollution at work . . . anyone
exposed to excessive amounts of diesel fumes at work does have a
potential claim."

A Royal Mail Group spokesperson said: "Royal Mail Group can
confirm that a Parcelforce Worldwide employee has submitted a
claim alleging that diesel fumes have contributed to his asthma.
Royal Mail Group has denied liability and is robustly defending
this claim.

"We are a responsible employer and we take the security, health
and safety of our employees working throughout our organisation
very seriously."

Workplaces where staff are at increased risk include garages, bus
depots, ferries and warehouses.

Christchurch Borough council is being sued over alleged failure to
protect a tractor driver from toxic diesel fumes which were said
to be leaking into his cab for more than two years after it was
left with holes in the floor panels after a service.

The claimant drove the tractor for two and a half years. He claims
that when it was eventually tested, it was found that exhaust
fumes including carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide fumes were
entering the cab. The legal case states that the claimant's
symptoms were caused and exacerbated by the breach of health
regulations and negligence of his employer.

Judith Plumley, head of community and leisure at Christchurch and
East Dorset councils, said "We are aware of this case, but due to
ongoing legal proceedings we are unable to comment further at this
time."

Britain's largest trade union, Unite, said exposure to diesel
fumes was a ticking time bomb. The union has set up a diesel
emissions register so employees can record their exposure to toxic
air.

A study by the union has revealed that affected workers are
reporting short term health effects which include wheezing,
respiratory problems, eye irritation, nausea and headache. Long
term problems recorded include reduced lung capacity,
breathlessness and asthma.

Unite's assistant general secretary for transport Diana Holland
said: "If it can be proved that the health of workers has been
damaged due to exposure to diesel fumes, Unite will consider
taking legal action on behalf of our members."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Village of Canton Hires Asbestos Testing Agency
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Newman, writing for Watertown Daily Times, reported that
village trustees agreed to hire Atlantic Testing Laboratories to
test for the presence of asbestos at MR Bell's, 30 Riverside
Drive.

The tax delinquent property owes $21,528.15 in taxes, penalties,
fees and interest and has drawn interest from the state due to
what is thought to be a significant degree of contamination. In
July, the village and town each agreed to send letters to the
Office of the State Comptroller to express interest in purchasing
the property.

After the property is purchased, the village will be responsible
for razing the structure before any remediation of the site can
occur. According to St. Lawrence County Attorney Stephen D.
Button, the state is agreeable to bearing the cost and labor of
the cleanup if the property is purchased by the village or town.
"We have asked for some estimates for demo on the building. I have
got three contractors so far that have provided some numbers. The
numbers range from $28,000 down to $15,800 for demo. That is the
roof, the walls down to the foundation," Mayor Michael E. Dalton
said. "However, that excludes anything to do with asbestos or any
other contaminant."

"If there is asbestos containing products in there, that changes
the game and those numbers would go up substantially," he added.
Mr. Dalton said he received an estimate of $3,324 for asbestos
testing from Atlantic Testing.

Mr. Button said he approached the town and village about the
property originally because he was aware the two entities are
interested in developing the Riverside Drive corridor. He said he
knew the town had secured grant funding for development along
Riverside Drive and thought a plan to remediate the site would
further a vision of development.

"The town and village seemed like a likely partner to move forward
with some future development of this site," he said in July. "In
our discussions with the state, they have inquired as to the level
of interest from the town and village in securing the rights to
that property from the county were the county to foreclose."

While there is significant interest from the town and village, a
new request for $7,800 has given some officials reservations.
"The general tenor seems to be that somebody is going to pay
$7,800 to the state, somebody is going to remove the roof and the
walls and the state is going to at some time come in and clean the
place up," said village Attorney Gerald J. Ducharme. "My
understanding is that is a number the spill fund gave the county
attorney."

Both Mr. Dalton and town Supervisor David T. Button said they did
not recall the $7,800 payment being part of the original plan, but
Mr. Ducharme believes it may be a result of stipulations in the
letter sent by the village.

"If the village was to purchase the property it would be under
certain conditions including that the village's cost would be
limited to the expense it would incur to remove and dispose of the
walls and the roof, removal and disposal not to exceed $30,000
subject to our inspection beforehand," he said, explaining the
contents of the letter. "We would not be obligated to remove and
dispose of the floors and footers, these would be removed as part
of the remediation."

Mr. Ducharme also expressed a concern of migration of
contamination to neighboring properties and wanted it understood
that the village would not assume any responsibility for
remediation or cleanup for the property or any neighboring
properties, and that the village would expect a no liability
certificate and a full site release to cover any migrating
contamination.

"It was after that letter was sent that I was informed that the
spill fund had added a condition of $7,800 purchase price for the
property," he said. "That was separate and distinct from the
$30,000 for removal of the walls and the roof."

The town and village told county officials who were present at the
meeting they would have a decision on their commitment to the
project prepared before the county's next scheduled finance
committee meeting on Sept. 25.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crews Begin Removing Asbestos from Courthouse
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that crews have started a long
project to remove asbestos from a central Indiana courthouse.

A contractor began removing fireproofing containing asbestos from
the Madison County Government Center's air-handling room.

The Herald Bulletin says that work must be done before new boilers
can be installed prior to winter.

Contractors will begin full asbestos removal at the Anderson
building in December. The total cost is estimated at $2 million.
The work includes asbestos removal as well as new fireproofing,
carpets, lights and paint in all county offices.

Asbestos is a mineral once commonly used in insulation and
fireproofing material. Exposure can increase the risk of lung
cancer, mesothelioma and other ailments.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lane County Warns of Asbestos in Home Materials
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Meny, writing for KVAL.com, reported that asbestos is very
harmful to breathe in, but Lane County Waste Management workers
come across it all the time.

In the 40s 50s and 60s, asbestos was commonly used in home-
building.

Asbestos produces very small fibers that you can't see with the
naked eye.

People later learned that when the fibers are inhaled, they can
stay in your lungs, and it's a health hazard.

Staff at the Glenwood Transfer station always check items that are
being dropped off to see if they have asbestos.

A lot of times, they do.

"With the housing market being on the increase we've seen more
remodels, more demolitions, so with that we're seeing more
potential for asbestos coming through our facilities," said Chad
Ficek, Special Waste Analyst for Lane County.

Dropping off items with asbestos exposes employees and other
people using the transfer station.

In July, The Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) changed
the date requirements for residential properties that must be
checked for asbestos.

The old requirement said you had to check if your residence was
built before 1987.

The new rule says any residences that were built before 2004 must
be checked.

"If you're planning on remodeling or doing a demolition project on
a home built before 2004, you need to have an asbestos survey
completed," said Kim Singleton, Environment Specialist for the
Lane Regional Air Protection Agency.

Be sure to call LRAPA before a demolition or remodel project.
On LRAPA.ORG you can learn all about asbestos.

You can also learn all about contractors that can come into your
home to conduct a survey and take tests of materials you're unsure
of.

The website features diagrams of places asbestos may be in your
home, and lists of licensed asbestos contractors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Condemns NT Gov't Statement Over Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lydia Lynch, writing for Katherine Times, reported that
Australia's main trade union has called on the NT government to
implement an awareness policy for asbestos immediately.

The CFMEU said workers, staff and the public were exposed to
deadly asbestos fibres while a new air conditioning unit was being
fitted to the Alice Springs Hospital Pathology Building.

"The CFMEU condemns the false and misleading statement made by a
Government spokesperson that air sampling and swab testing for
asbestos returned a low positive result," a CFMEU spokeswoman
said.  "Comments such as this prove just how little knowledge and
understanding Territorians seem to have of asbestos and its deadly
consequences," she said.

CFMEU health and safety co-ordinator Andrew Ramsay said he is
completely dumbfounded and outraged over the comments.

"There is no such thing as a low positive result for asbestos. It
is either a positive or a negative result. Any exposure can have
deadly consequence," Mr Ramsay said.

"These false comments take away from the severity of the issue and
give people a fake sense of security.

"It is obvious that there is a major lack of awareness and
education on asbestos and in the 21st century it's just not
acceptable," he said.

"Just the age of this particular building should have raised
immediate alarm bells as a buildings age is usually the first sign
that asbestos containing materials may have been used in its
construction.

"Asbestos disease does not discriminate. Every member of this
community is at risk of being exposed to the silent killer that is
asbestos and worryingly most people wouldn't even be aware of it,"
Mr Ramsay said.

CFMEU Divisional Branch secretary Michael Ravbar said "asbestos
exposure in the Northern Territory has become somewhat of an
epidemic".

"How many cases of asbestos exposure does there need to be before
this government shows some leadership and takes action on this
major health issue," Mr. Ravbar said.

"The health and wellbeing of this community and future generations
is being put in the hands of a useless regulator and an inactive
government that continues to sit on their hands and do nothing
about this serious issue.

"Back in March, an urgency motion was put forward by the CFMEU and
endorsed at the NT Labor conference calling on the Gunner
Government to address the issue of asbestos by extending the
Public Health and Environment Act and Regulations to specifically
address the issue of asbestos.

"NT WorkSafe has been ineffective in sorting out this problem and
is not the answer to the ever-growing issue in the Northern
Territory," Mr. Ravbar said.

"The CFMEU is again calling on the Gunner Government to step up
and show that he is a leader of the people by implementing strong
legislation and an awareness and education program to ensure that
the people of the Northern Territory have a basic understanding of
asbestos containing materials and the dangers that come with it."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mont. Asbestos Claims Still Trickling to Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seaborn Larson, writing for Great Falls Tribune, reported that
more than 17 years after officials uncovered a rampant asbestos
contamination from a vermiculite mine that had plagued Libby,
negligence claims are still trickling into the courts.

This week, 12 cases will go before a federal magistrate judge to
determine if they should be heard in state or federal court. Roger
Sullivan, whose firm has represented about 2,000 individuals
seeking financial compensation after being diagnosed with
asbestos-related disease, said those 12 are part of another 840
cases currently pending against the BNSF Railroad Company, the
state of Montana and several other entities.

Sullivan spoke with the Tribune about the procedural status of
these and past asbestos-related cases. He declined to speak about
the substance of the cases themselves.

"We are dealing with asbestos-related diseases, the nature of
which are latent diseases," he said. "We are faced with timely
filing of these cases within the statute of limitations."

Sullivan said the statute of limitations on these cases allows
people to file claims within three years of their diagnosis of an
asbestos-related disease. While some people living in Libby had
felt the effects in their lungs from asbestos exposure early,
others who lived farther from heavily-contaminated sites developed
symptoms more slowly. That's why cases continue to trickle in,
well after hundreds of cases have already been settled, he said.

"Typically what has happened is that those cases that are severe
or have a form of asbestos-related cancer are resolved first, and
then some who have mild diseases are handled later," he said.

Sullivan said the amount awarded to previous clients in asbestos-
related cases remains confidential. W.R. Grace, the mining company
that mined the infamous Libby ore and then manufactured and sold
it in products such as insulation, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
in 2011 and later established two compensation trusts worth more
than $4 billion.

In August, 12 individual cases filed by former Libby residents
against the BNSF Railway Company and a railway supervisor were
transferred up to U.S. District Court in Great Falls. The cases
were initially filed in district court in Cascade County in 2015,
2016 and earlier this year.

The cases also list Robinson Insulation, the now-defunct Great
Falls company, and the state of Montana as defendants. Robinson
Insulation, which used to manufacture insulation in its Great
Falls location from the vermiculite ore mined in Libby, closed in
1987. (Owen Robinson, a candidate for Great Falls City Commission,
was not active in the Robinson Insulation company. His father and
grandfather started the company, but he played no role in the
company.)

Retired BNSF supervisor John Swing is also listed as a defendant
in each case. The suits allege that the railroad company and
Swing, now 80 years old and still a Libby resident, knew or should
have known there was toxic asbestos in the vermiculite the company
transported by the rail facility about four-and-a-half miles east
of Libby.

About a week after the cases were filed in federal court,
attorneys for BNSF and Swing filed to dismiss the cases. In the
motion, attorneys argue the company and Swing did not know at the
time that the asbestos was toxic, nor did they owe any duty of
protection to the residents now plagued with asbestos-related
diseases.

Robinson Insulation and the state have yet to name their defense
attorneys.

The litigation closely mirrors cases filed in Great Falls courts
more than 10 years ago, when former employees sued several
entities related to the vermiculite industry, including Robinson
Insulation. Sullivan and other attorneys at his firm, McGarvey,
Herberling, Sullivan and McGarvey, also represented the employees
in those cases 10 years ago. For almost 20 years, his firm has
represented plaintiffs seeking damages from those allegedly
responsible for asbestos exposures, including W.R. Grace, BNSF,
Libby lumber companies and more.

"In some instances, they may have had exposures that provide basis
for a claim against the local lumber mill, which was, in essence,
the retail outlet for Zonolite Insulation (the vermiculite-based
insulation later found to be laced with asbestos)," Sullivan said.

Of the approximately 2,000 clients Sullivan's firm has
represented, about 800 individual cases have already been settled
against multiple defendants, he said. While those cases were
settled in January after they had been pending for nearly 16
years, Sullivan said that was an anomaly. The cases were all
delayed as W.R. Grace went into bankruptcy; when the company came
out of bankruptcy in 2015 and was able to establish the trusts,
the cases got moving once again. The Associated Press in January
reported that the state settled with more than 1,000 victims of
asbestos-related disease for $25 million.

Still, with the companies named as defendants in the current
cases, Sullivan said it's impossible to know how soon these cases
will conclude, considering parties aren't even sure yet which
court will be hearing the cases.

"Here, we had several cases that were beginning to be moved in
state district court and now that process has been temporarily
halted while we're having to resolve these issues in federal
court," he said.

Chad Knight, an attorney representing the railroad, did not return
calls made by the Tribune for comment.

Several thousand people have contracted some form of asbestos-
related lung disease, such as mesothelioma since before the W.R.
Grace mine shuttered in the 1990s. Health officials estimate about
400 people have died from asbestos-related diseases since the
exposure problem surfaced in 1999.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Price Tag of Mesothelioma Soars to $2.35-Bil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Occupational Safety reported that the annual cost of
newly diagnosed mesothelioma and lung cancer due to work-related
asbestos exposure is significantly higher than first thought,
according to a study by the Institute for Work & Health.

The original tab was $1.9 billion, but a review of figures now
puts that cost at $2.35 billion, according to research by senior
scientist Emile Tompa, a health economist who assessed the costs
to Canadian society of newly diagnosed cases in 2011.

The study is the first to estimate the costs to society of
illnesses associated with work-related asbestos exposures,
including secondhand or para-occupational exposures (like a family
member's exposure to fibres brought home on work clothing).

The new estimate is higher because it includes the value of
activities in the home (known as home production). This addition
to the estimate was requested by the article's peer reviewers.

Tompa and his team looked at the estimated total lifetime costs of
427 newly diagnosed cases of mesothelioma in 2011, as well as
1,904 newly diagnosed cases of lung cancer in the same year, for a
total of 2,331 new cases in 2011. These were all cases attributed
to occupational and para-occupational exposures to asbestos.

They considered costs in three areas: direct costs (like health
care and family/community caregiver time), indirect costs (such as
productivity losses associated with work in the paid labour market
and unpaid work in home production) and quality of life costs (for
instance, pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life).

According to figures provided by IWH, based on the 427 cases in
2011, the economic burden of work-related mesothelioma, broken
down, includes:

   * $23.2 million in total health care costs
   * $117.8 million in productivity and output costs
   * $36.8 million in all for insurance administration costs
   * $482.3 million due to mesothelioma as an occupational
     disease.

The economic burden of asbestos-related lung cancer is even
higher. In 1,904 cases of the illness in 2011, IWH reports a total
of $81.8 million in health care costs. In total, there are $498.3
million dollars in productivity and output costs and $21.2 million
in insurance administration costs.

These figures all factor in to the total cost of each disease,
according to the study.

The study, conducted with funding from the Canadian Cancer
Society, was published July 2017 as an open access article in the
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Rules for Asbestos Lawyers, Trusts
---------------------------------------------------------
John Breslin, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a Utah
judge has dismissed a complaint from a number of states that the
four biggest asbestos trusts and the trial lawyers who run them
failed to answer claims they were mismanaging the funds, Legal
Newsline has found.

The complaint, first filed by Utah's attorney general, was
dismissed by a Salt Lake City-based judge Sept. 11 and targets the
actions of the trusts' Future Claims Representatives and Trust
Advisory Committees.

"The TACs, comprised of asbestos plaintiffs' attorneys largely
from a handful of prominent firms, have outsized power over the
billions of dollars in the trust system," it says.

"They represent a large proportion of current asbestos claimants,
and so vote on their behalf in approving the governing documents.
Thus, the evidentiary requirements for claims -- such as the
claimant's work history and proof of exposure -- are primarily
controlled by the same attorneys who collect contingency fees on
millions of dollars of claims paid from a trust each year."

No written order has been issued, but one of the arguments made by
the defendants was that a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling,
handed down after the complaint was filed, meant that Utah lacked
jurisdiction to handle the complaint.

That ruling, in a case involving drug company Bristol-Myers
Squibb, bars plaintiffs from suing in a state in which they have
little or no connection. It means that the four trusts do not have
to reply to the civil investigation demands (CIDs) sent by 13
states asking for detailed information on how they are managed.

The trusts -- set up by bankruptcy courts to manage claims against
Armstrong World Industries, Babcock & Wilcox, DII Industries and
Owens Corning/Fibreboard -- were sent the demands as Utah and the
other states believed they were being mismanaged and abuse was
occurring.

The hearing of the defense counsel's motion to dismiss took place
before Judge Robert Faust in the 3rd Judicial District Court in
Salt Lake City.

Utah's original complaint was filed in early March as it sought
information on whether the trusts are failing to reimburse states
for Medicare and Medicaid. Federal law requires those who oversee
settlements to pay outstanding bills for Medicare coverage.

The trusts, whose operations are overseen by trial lawyers,
replied the following month.

They argued lack of jurisdiction -- three of the trusts are based
in Delaware, and one is in Pennsylvania -- and that the requests
for millions of documents was "overbroad" and could infringe
privacy rights.

But it was a "supplement authority" filing by the trusts that
looks to have been crucial to the decision to dismiss. The filing
argued that a U.S Supreme Court ruling in June cemented the
argument that Utah and other states that joined the complaint
lacked jurisdiction in the case.

The Supreme Court ruling sided with Bristol-Myers Squibb in a case
involving litigation by hundreds of out-of-state plaintiffs over
claims they were injured by the drug Plavix.

The justices, by an 8-1 margin, found that the out-of-state
complainants could not sue in California because they had no link
to the state and that Bristol-Myers Squibb was headquartered
elsewhere.

That decision, heralded as a victory by business groups, was a
blow to trial lawyers who want to pick more friendly
jurisdictions.

Now, the trusts, which are advised by some of the most prominent
groups in the country -- including Weitz & Luxenberg in New York
City and Baron & Budd in Dallas -- have used the Supreme Court
ruling to head off this civil investigation of their management.

Kekst and Co., a New York City communications firm that handles
media requests for the trusts, did not reply to messages asking
for comment.

Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes has 30 days from the date of the
dismissal to file an appeal. Faust asked the defendants to draw up
an order for him to review and then enter.

"It is my understanding that the judge has not yet entered an
order, but we will consider our options once the order is
entered," Dan Burton of the Utah Attorney General's office told
Legal Newsline.

The complaint was that the trusts failed to respond to the CIDs
and must reply. The dismissal means they do not now have to do so.

In the complaint, Utah's attorney general said that "plaintiffs'
attorneys across the country are using asbestos trusts to obtain
significant monetary recovery for claims, even where they would
fail in the tort system.

"The abuse injures states by improperly draining the trust assets,
precluding future legitimate claimants from relying on asbestos
trusts, and leaving states with the high cost associated with
asbestos-related disease."

Crucially, the complaint raised the Medicare Secondary Payer
statute and pondered whether "asbestos trust handlers are ensuring
that medical assistance programs are being reimbursed for payments
made from the trusts." It stated that the CIDs were issued as part
of a joint Medicaid fraud investigation.

This law carries penalties for insurers and others who arrange for
lawsuit settlements to be paid directly to claimants without
making sure they first settle outstanding bills for Medicare
coverage.

Penalties can include double damages and even plaintiff attorneys
can be liable, Frank Qesada, an attorney with MSP Recovery, a
Miami law firm that has filed numerous national class actions on
behalf of private Medicare providers, told Forbes.

More than 60 companies have established trusts, which have paid
out roughly $17 billion since 2008. The trusts are overseen by
trust advisory committees (TACs) and future claims
representatives.

The complaint noted that the TACs were comprised of "asbestos
plaintiffs' attorneys largely from a handful of prominent firms"
that have "outsized power over the billions of dollars in the
trust system."

While the trusts appear to have won this first round, Utah may
appeal. And there are a number of similar cases pending.

In September 2016, Aetna, Humana and United HealthCare Services
filed actions against six law firms specializing in asbestos cases
with a $19 million suit in Texas federal court. They claimed the
firms avoided reimbursing the insurers for medical coverage that
insureds received before pocketing settlement payments.

And earlier this year, General Motors sued asbestos trusts in
Delaware, New York and Pennsylvania bankruptcy courts seeking
recovery of trust money paid to the estate of an employee who also
received workers' compensation payments from the automaker to
settle asbestos-exposure claims.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Imports Nearly Doubled in 2016
--------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, the largest
independent nonprofit asbestos victims' advocacy group in the
United States -- along with the Environmental Working Group, a
consumer advocacy group that empowers people to live healthier
lives in a healthier environment -- released a statement in
response to new data showing asbestos imports nearly doubled in
2016, after years of decline.

Data from the Department of Commerce and the U.S. International
Trade Commission estimates that 705 metric tons of raw asbestos
were imported last year, compared to 343 metric tons in 2015. The
U.S. Geological Survey reported asbestos imports came from Brazil
and Russia. The only remaining user of raw asbestos in the U.S. is
the chloralkali industry, which uses it to "manufacture
semipermeable asbestos diaphragms."

Much of the surge in imports in 2016 came in the fourth quarter of
the year, following the passage of the revamped Toxic Substances
Control Act, or TSCA. Lobbyists from the American Chemistry
Council, on behalf of the chloralkali industry, are now pushing
for an exemption from the new chemical safety law that would allow
it to continue to import and use asbestos just as it does today.

The EPA is currently in the process of implementing TSCA, an
overhaul that gives the agency broader authority to ban toxic
chemicals, and under which asbestos is being evaluated for
regulation.

"Opponents of an asbestos ban have long argued that asbestos use
is shrinking in the United States, but now we know just the
opposite is true," said Linda Reinstein, president and co-founder
of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization. "Each year,
asbestos-caused diseases claim the lives of 15,000 Americans. It
is shocking that unlike more than 60 nations around the world, the
U.S. has not only failed to ban asbestos, but its use is
increasing dramatically. The EPA needs to ban asbestos with no
exceptions. There is no safe or controlled use of asbestos in
mining or manufacturing."

"The chloralkali industry's insistence on the continued use of
deadly asbestos is reprehensible," said EWG President Ken Cook.
"Meanwhile, we shut our eyes to the communities in Brazil and
other asbestos-producing nations, where miners and their families
are exposed to this killer."

"It is incredulous that, in the face of such harrowing facts, the
chloralkali industry continues to peddle their 'safe use'
propaganda to the EPA, the public, and their shareholders," said
Dr. Richard Lemen, former assistant U.S. surgeon general and
current co-chair of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization's
science advisory board. "If the EPA does not put a stop to this
environmental and public health disaster now with a complete
asbestos ban, more innocent Americans will die preventable deaths
due to bureaucratic inaction."

ADAO will be holding a Congressional Staff Briefing on September
26 at noon to discuss increased asbestos imports and its impact on
public health and the environment.

      About the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization is a global leader in
combining education, advocacy, and community initiatives to
prevent and end asbestos exposure. ADAO seeks to raise public
awareness about the dangers of asbestos, advocate for an asbestos
ban, and protect asbestos victims' civil rights. ADAO, a
registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, does not make legal
referrals. For more information, visit
www.asbestosdiseaseawareness.org.

            About the Environmental Working Group

The Environmental Working Group's mission is to empower people to
live healthier lives in a healthier environment. With breakthrough
research and education, we drive consumer choice and civic action.
EWG is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to
protecting human health and the environment. More information is
available at www.ewg.org.

Contacts
Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization
Sara Tiano, 310-251-7477
Sara@asbestosdiseaseawareness.org
or
Environmental Working Group
Alex Formuzis, 202-667-6982
alex@ewg.org


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Work Resumes on Contaminated Wilmington Site
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Copeland, writing for Patch.com, reported that workers have
resumed the demolition and debris removal work at 13 Muse Avenue,
where a century-old house was torn down last month. The
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection had halted
work on the project after siding in the house tested positive for
asbestos. Neighbors had complained to DEP and the town that
Langone Development Group, Inc. was skirting rules that regulate
the removal of the cancer-causing material.

Wilmington approved the demolition permit on August 29. DEP
responded to an August 30 complaint from a resident about improper
asbestos removal and halted work on the demolition. State and
federal rules require a work stoppage when asbestos is discovered
until a plan for its safe removal can be drawn up.

Lagone met with DEP on Sept. 5. The asbestos removal plan was
approved by DEP that same day. Work on the site cleanup resumed
this week, but neighbors are still concerned. Many attended last
week's meeting of the Wilmington Board of Selectmen to voice their
concerns.

At the meeting, Town Manager Jeff Hull said he had been talking
with town department heads to figure out what had gone wrong in
the town's oversight of the project. "I'm not going to make
excuses," Hull said, adding he took full responsibility for the
mistake.

The story of a college student killed by a rare infection;
subpoenas in opioid probe; and a veteran's inspiring run.
"The fact is we directly do not have responsibility for regulation
of asbestos," Hull said. "That said, what we should have done is
when we became aware that this gentleman was going rogue and
demolishing this building, we should have contacted DEP.

Health Department Director Shelly Newhouse said Lagone "knew what
he was doing" and called the company "a shoddy contractor."

"I want to make clear that this contractor knew what he was
doing," she said during last week's meeting. "He did something
illegal and he did something wrong."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in Favor of McCord Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio for the Eighth District, Cuyahoga
County, affirms the Trial Court's decision granting summary
judgment in favor of defendant-appellee McCord Corporation having
found that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in
striking Michael Victor's testimony.

Paul Heaton, individually and as executor of the Estate of Robert
Brawley, appeals the trial court's decision granting summary
judgment in favor of defendant-appellee, McCord Corporation, after
the trial court excluded Victor's testimony.

In July 2011, Heaton filed a complaint against numerous
defendants, including Honeywell International, Inc. and McCord.
The complaint alleged various causes of action, including claims
of strict products liability, negligence, supplier liability,
failure to warn, and breach of warranties. The complaint related
to Brawley's exposure to asbestos that caused his mesothelioma and
eventual death.

As to McCord, it was alleged that Brawley was exposed to asbestos
while performing automotive repair and maintenance work as a
shade-tree mechanic using McCord gaskets from the 1970s to 2010.
It was alleged that this exposure was a substantial factor in
Brawley's death.

In support of his claim against McCord, Heaton presented the
deposition testimony of Michael Victor, a friend of Brawley's who
worked on automobiles with him from 1974 to 2010. Victor was the
only witness identified by Heaton who could identify Brawley's use
of McCord gaskets.

McCord moved for summary judgment, arguing that without Victor's
testimony, no genuine issues of material fact exist, and McCord is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Heaton agreed that
without Victor's testimony, it could not prove its case against
McCord because no other witness can identify that Brawley used
McCord products. Accordingly, the trial court summarily granted
summary judgment in favor of McCord.

During the first day of deposition on February 20, Victor denied
any knowledge of Brawley's exposure to asbestos from any home-
repair products prior to 2010. On the second day of deposition on
February 27, when counsel for Honeywell attempted to inquire into
potential alternative asbestos exposures, i.e. Brawley's use of
drywall compound products in the 1970s or 1980s that may have
contained asbestos, Heaton's attorney instructed Victor not to
answer the question because, according to counsel, Victor already
testified about this on the first day of deposition. During this
exchange, it was discovered that Victor was now represented by
Heaton's counsel for his own asbestos-related claims. Five months
after the deposition, Victor passed away.

Unbeknownst to any of the defendants, Victor had executed an
affidavit, notarized by counsel, on March 30, 2012, less than a
month after his deposition, that averred that Brawley used the
very drywall products -- USG joint compound -- that Honeywell's
counsel attempted to ask Victor about but was prevented from doing
so.

The Defendants to this lawsuit did not learn about the affidavit
until a year later in July 2013, when it was used as support for a
bankruptcy trust claim against USG. The defendants later learned
that Victor executed a second affidavit in March 2012, averring
that Brawley also used Gold Bond joint compound products, which
was likewise used to support a bankruptcy trust claim. These
affidavits were in direct contradiction to Heaton's February 3,
2012 written discovery responses specifically Interrogatory Number
38.

In his first assignment of error, Heaton contends that the trial
court abused its discretion in striking Victor's deposition
testimony. Specifically, Heaton contends that the defendants,
including McCord, could have (1) attempted to revisit the issue of
home repair during day three of Victor's deposition; (2)
subpoenaed Victor under Civ.R. 45; (3) moved to compel his
attendance at another deposition; (4) moved to compel Victor to
answer the question after plaintiff's counsel instructed Victor
not to answer; (5) called the trial judge for a ruling on whether
Victor should be ordered to answer the question, or (6) moved to
compel Heaton to update or supplement the answer to Interrogatory
Number 38 once the bankruptcy claim forms with Victor's affidavits
were discovered.

The Court of Appeals disagrees with Heaton's attempt to impute
fault on the defendants. Once Victor executed the affidavits,
which was less than a month after his deposition, Heaton was aware
that the interrogatories were required to be updated or
supplemented under Civ.R. 25 and 37, yet he failed to do so.

Additionally, the Court of Appeals points out that Heaton
understood that the defendants were asserting alternate exposure
defenses and because home-repair products were potential
"alternative exposures" to asbestos, Heaton had an obligation to
supplement his discovery responses, especially considering that
plaintiff's counsel knew that Victor's health was deteriorating
due to his own exposure to asbestos. The Eighth District finds the
fault that Heaton is attempting to place on McCord and the other
defendants as misdirected.

The Court of Appeals determines that the trial court requested
that the parties negotiate an alternative to striking Victor's
testimony to remedy the nondisclosure. However, the trial court
noted that if no agreement could be reached, he would have to make
the decision. Heaton submitted proposed stipulations that NGC Gold
Bond and USG joint compound exposure were both substantial factors
in causing the disease to Robert Brawley. But McCord and the
remaining affected defendants did not accept the stipulations
because they did not provide sufficient information for a jury to
apportion liability.

Following arguments from all parties and review of the proposed
stipulations offered by Heaton, the trial court concluded that the
only sanction available based on the circumstances was striking
Victor's deposition testimony.

The Court of Appeals agrees with the trial court's conclusions
that striking Victor's testimony was the only adequate remedy
because the suggested stipulation did not provide a jury with
enough information to properly apportion liability. Thus, the
Eighth District finds the stipulations insufficient to remedy the
prejudice caused. However, Heaton contends that what the
stipulations lacked in specificity, the bankruptcy claim forms
supplied -- the forms provided information on duration, frequency,
and proximity.

However, the Court of Appeals determines that the forms merely
provide that during a three-month period in both 1971 and 1972,
Brawley used specific joint compound, where the mixing and sanding
of the joint compound caused a tremendous amount of dust that
Brawley was exposed to. Much like the fact that the NGC Bankruptcy
Claim and the USG Bankruptcy Claim were denied in the bankruptcy
trust cases for "insufficient exposure evidence," the Eighth
District concludes that evidence in the stipulations and claim
forms are insufficient in this case.

While McCord's summary judgment was pending, Heaton moved to
reopen discovery for the purposes of the parties to depose
Brawley's brother-in-law, Roy Heaton. According to Heaton, Roy
could testify about the drywall work that Brawley and Victor
performed in 1971 and 1972. The purpose for this testimony was to
cure any prejudice that the nondisclosure of the Victor affidavits
caused, thus remedying the error. Additionally, Heaton asked for
reconsideration of the trial court's exclusion order due to Roy's
testimony.

In his second assignment of error, Heaton contends that the trial
court abused its discretion in denying his motion for
reconsideration because even if the court was correct in its
initial ruling of striking Victor's testimony, the court should
have granted reconsideration after additional evidence was
uncovered supporting McCord's alternate exposure theory. According
to Heaton, Roy's deposition testimony, coupled with the
stipulations and bankruptcy claim forms with affidavits, would
negate the need to strike Victor's testimony.

The Court of Appeals finds that Roy's deposition makes it clear
that he cannot replace Victor's potential testimony about the home
repair projects that he and Brawley performed together and their
use of joint-compound products. Although Roy Heaton knew that
Victor and Brawley worked frequently together, he was not present
at all times when they did so. Specifically, he knew of only two
instances that Victor and Brawley did drywall repair jobs -- one
in the garage and another in the Brawley kitchen -- but it was
possible that they could have done more home repair work together.

Although Roy provided some insight about Victor and Brawley's home
repair projects, the Eighth District finds that Roy could not
recall any specific details that a jury would need to properly
apportion liability. The Eighth District finds little to no
information that the jury can use to compare the duration and
intensity of exposures to joint compounds to the duration and
intensity of exposures to brakes, clutches, and gaskets. It is
possible that the "primary exposures" were to home remodeling
products, and not to brakes or other automotive parts. However,
the defendants were prevented from the opportunity to develop this
information about additional alternative or potential exposures.

The Court of Appeals maintains that the record supports the trial
court's decision that Roy's testimony cannot substitute for the
lost opportunity to depose Victor on Brawley's alternative
exposures. As such, The trial court did not abuse its discretion
in finding that Roy's testimony, the proposed stipulations, and
the bankruptcy forms with affidavits are inadequate substitutes
for Victor's knowledge and testimony. The Court of Appeals finds
that reconsideration was properly denied. Accordingly, Heaton's
second assignment of error is overruled.

The appealed case is PAUL HEATON, INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees,
No. 104636, (App. Ct. Ohio, 8th Dist.).

A full-text copy of the Journal Entry and Opinion dated September
7, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/wQSVcf from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia Ct. Denies Gary's Forma Pauperis Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge C. Ashley Royal of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia denies Plaintiff Carlton Michael Gary's motion
for leave to appeal in forma pauperis from the Court's September
1, 2016 Order adopting the United States Magistrate Judge's report
and recommendation and dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint without
prejudice.

The Plaintiff has had more than three of his cases or appeals
dismissed on the statutorily-enumerated grounds prior to filing
his notice of appeal in this case:

     (a) Gary v. Hall, Order Dismissing Compl., ECF No. 6 in Case
No. 5:08-cv-00072-CAR-CWH (M.D. Ga. Mar. 21, 2008) (failure to
exhaust administrative remedies);

     (b) Gary v. Owens, Order Dismissing Compl., ECF No. 33 in
Case No. 5:10-cv-00061-MTT (M.D. Ga. Mar. 9, 2011) (failure to
exhaust administrative remedies);

     (c) Gary v. Hall, ECF No. 36 in Case No. 5:07-cv-00149-CAR
(M.D. Ga. Mar. 17, 2008) (failure to exhaust administrative
remedies).

The "three strikes" provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act
prohibits a prisoner from "appealing a judgment in a civil action
or proceeding" in forma pauperis if the prisoner has, on 3 or more
prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility,
brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that
was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless
the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

The Plaintiff has therefore accrued more than three "strikes" for
purposes of Section 1915(g), and he is thus precluded from
proceeding in forma pauperis on appeal unless he is presently in
imminent danger of serious physical injury.

In his reply to Defendants' response opposing his motion to appeal
in forma pauperis, the Plaintiff alleges only that he was at some
time exposed to "friable asbestos" during his incarceration. But
Plaintiff has alleged no specific facts regarding this purported
asbestos exposure in his motion or reply or explained how such
exposure placed him in imminent danger at the time he filed his
notice of appeal. The Court rules that such conclusory allegations
are not enough to overcome the Section 1915(g).

The Court finds that the Plaintiff's appeal would be frivolous as
to each issue raised for the reasons stated in Court's prior
orders. The Court therefore certifies, pursuant to Section
1915(a)(3), that Plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith.

The case is CARLTON MICHAEL GARY, Plaintiff, v. Warden BRUCE
CHATMAN, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 5:15-CV-259-CAR-TQL (M.D.
Ga.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated September 7, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/1z3h4n from Leagle.com.

CARLTON MICHAEL GARY, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Warden BRUCE CHATMAN, Defendant, represented by AMY L. MACRINA,
Georgia Department of Law.

KEITH EUTSEY, Defendant, represented by AMY L. MACRINA, Georgia
Department of Law.

MAJOR BRENDA DENDY, Defendant, represented by AMY L. MACRINA,
Georgia Department of Law.

DR JOSEPH FOWLKES, Defendant, represented by AMY L. MACRINA,
Georgia Department of Law.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. App. Affirms Final Judgment for Northrop
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Third District
affirms the Trial Court's final judgment against Northrop Grumman
Systems Corporation in the appealed case styled Northrop Grumman
Systems Corporation, etc., Appellant, v. Rosa-Maria F. Britt,
etc., Appellee, Case No. 3D16-2583, (Fla. App.).

This is a mesothelioma case originally brought by Dennis Britt and
his wife, Rosa-Maria Britt (as to loss of consortium), against
Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation. In 2014, Mr. Britt passed
away, and Mrs. Britt (as personal representative of his estate),
was substituted for Mr. Britt. Mrs. Britt also amended the
complaint to add a claim for wrongful death.

Mr. Britt was an employee benefits advisor during the period 1978-
97. As part of that work, Mr. Britt visited commercial and
industrial facilities to speak with, and enroll, the employees at
those facilities. Those facilities included workplaces owned and
operated by Northrop and subsidiaries.

Mr. Britt testified before his death that, during the course of
his visits to Northrop facilities in Bethpage, New York, and
Hawthorne, California, he was exposed to, and inhaled, asbestos
fibers while on the premises of the facilities. He, his physician,
and his expert witness, testified that Mr. Britt's exposure to the
asbestos was a substantial cause of his ultimately-fatal
mesothelioma.

At trial, Mrs. Britt introduced evidence that Northrop's
facilities where Mr. Britt had worked contained asbestos-insulated
pipes that released airborne materials above him, and ten to
fifteen feet away from him, during the maintenance activities he
saw during his visits. His deposition testimony that he was on
site at Northrop's facilities each year from 1979 to the "mid
80s," and working in areas where asbestos remediation and
maintenance activities were taking place, provided an estimate of
over 500 days of exposure.

Although Mr. Britt's deposition also included his description of
visits to non-party facilities owned by Mack Trucks and Bekins Van
Lines, and his observations of dust and maintenance performed on
pipes and boiler rooms at those facilities, there was no evidence
that the pipes and boilers at those facilities were asbestos-
containing.

In contrast, the evidence at trial contained extensive documents
and testimony regarding the presence of asbestos in the pipes and
boiler rooms at the Northrop sites visited by Mr. Britt, and
regarding the repair and remediation work performed during the
applicable period.

Northrop's expert, Dr. Roggli, concluded that the pathological
assessment of Mr. Britt's lung tissue and lymph node samples was
not consistent with an asbestos-related variant of mesothelioma.

The plaintiff's expert, Dr. Finkelstein, assessed Mr. Britt's
exposure history -- taking into account Dr. Finkelstein's own
published, peer-reviewed studies on workers diagnosed with
asbestos-related mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos-laden
insulation -- and the asbestos fiber pathology reports on tissue
samples from Mr. Britt's lungs. Dr. Finkelstein also testified
regarding the two other known causes of mesothelioma, ruling them
out based on the facts of Mr. Britt's work and medical history.

Accordingly, the jury rendered a verdict awarding Mr. Britt's
estate an aggregate sum of $519,266 in medical and funeral
expenses, and awarding Mrs. Britt $8,500,000 in compensatory
damages. Northrop appealed.

Northrop asserts that Mrs. Britt failed to prove that Mr. Britt's
exposure to asbestos while on the premises of Northrop (and
companies acquired by Northrop) was a substantial cause of Mr.
Britt's mesothelioma, and that the trial court erred when it
denied Northrop's motions for a directed verdict.

The Third District finds that the evidence presented at trial
included, Northrop's own industrial hygienist's report that in
1985 Northrop's Hawthorne plan had "no exposure monitoring records
for employees engaged in maintenance-type functions on asbestos-
containing fireproofing or pipe lagging materials."

In addition, a Northrop witness testified that there was no
routine air sampling done at either the Hawthorne or Bethpage
facilities during the period Mr. Britt was there. Northrop's
records also substantiated the presence of asbestos and
remediation activities at the Northrop facilities in Bethpage and
Hawthorne during the pertinent time periods.

Accordingly, the Third District determines that such record, the
pathology and medical records reflecting the existence and level
of asbestos fibers in Mr. Britt's lungs, coupled with his personal
testimony regarding his visits to the premises and what he
observed while there -- followed by his undisputed death from
mesothelioma -- competent, substantial evidence supporting the
verdict.

Northrop claims error in the trial court's rulings allowing the
admission of expert testimony by Mrs. Britt's expert witness, Dr.
Murray Finkelstein. Northrop alleges that Dr. Finkelstein's
methodology was equivalent to an "any exposure" or "single fiber"
causation opinion -- a methodology discredited by the courts and
one which precluded the opinion from admission into evidence.

The Fla. App. maintains that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in admitting Dr. Finkelstein's testimony and opinions.
Dr. Finkelstein testified regarding Mr. Britt's exposure, that "in
the aggregate" Mr. Britt's presence for "at least 150 days" of
exposure to asbestos at Northrop facilities was a substantial
contributing cause of his ultimately-fatal mesothelioma.

Northrop also maintains that a 2013 asbestos fiber analysis and
report prepared by Dr. Anna Somigliana in Milan, Italy, was a
"late-disclosed and prejudicial expert opinion" that should not
have been admitted into evidence. The Fla. App. rules that Dr.
Somigliana was not offered as an expert on causation, but rather
as the medical professional who prepared a pathology report and
could authenticate the report as a business record.

The Fla. App. explains that Dr. Somigliana's deposition was
permitted when Northrop declined to stipulate to the authenticity
of the document. In addition, the Third District does not find
that the timing of the turnover of the pathology report was
violative of the pretrial order, "trial by ambush," or so
prejudicial as to warrant a new trial or other sanction because
Northrop ultimately received the report, a certified translation,
a summary of the methodology used in analyzing Mr. Britt's lung
tissue samples, and a deposition of Dr. Somigliana. And Northrop
did not ask for other relief when the trial court invited counsel
to let the court know if Northrop needed additional consideration
of the issue following the deposition. As such, the trial court
did not abuse its discretion in admitting Dr. Somigliana's report.

Northrop contends that the trial court should not have excluded
evidence regarding nonparties that may have exposed Mr. Britt to
asbestos during his career, depriving Northrop of an apportionment
of liability. Northrop argues that there was as much evidence of
causation and Mr. Britt's exposure to asbestos on the premises of
non-parties Mack Trucks and Bekins as there was regarding his
exposure on the premises of Northrop. The Third District rules,
however, that this argument fails, because no evidence established
that asbestos was present at the non-party sites during the time
Mr. Britt visited those facilities.

A full-text copy of the Order dated September 6, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/msnT4U from Leagle.com.

DLA Piper and Fredrick H.L. McClure and J. Trumon Phillips
(Tampa); Munger, Tolles & Olson and Michael B. DeSanctis
(Washington, DC) and John B. Major (San Francisco, CA), for
appellant.

The Ferraro Law Firm and Juan P. Bauta, II, and Janpaul Portal,
for appellee.

Crowell & Moring and William L. Anderson; Shook Hardy & Bacon and
Frank Cruz-Alvarez, for Florida Justice Reform Institute and
Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., as amici curiae.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claim vs. Exelon Dismissed in "Harding"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for
the District Delaware recommends granting Exelon Corporation's
Motion to Dismiss the Asbestos Litigation captioned MICHAEL R.
HARDING and SALLY HARDING, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH CORPORATION,
et al., Defendants, Civ. No. 17-00251-VAC-SRF, (D. Del.), for lack
of personal jurisdiction because the Plaintiffs have not met their
burden of establishing, with reasonable particularity, that
sufficient minimum contacts have occurred between Exelon and the
forum to support jurisdiction.

Michael and Sally Harding filed this asbestos action in the
Delaware Superior Court against multiple defendants on January 20,
2017, asserting claims arising from Mr. Harding's alleged harmful
exposure to asbestos. The Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Harding
developed lung cancer as a result of exposure to asbestos-
containing products during his career with various employers,
including the United States Navy, where Mr. Harding worked as a
pipe fitter from 1963 to 1967. The Plaintiffs contend that the
Defendants manufactured, sold, removed, installed, or distributed
asbestos-containing products. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs assert
negligence, willful and wanton conduct, strict liability, and loss
of consortium claims.

The Plaintiffs have resided in Darien, Connecticut since 1983.
Exelon is not a Delaware business entity and does not have a
principal place of business in Delaware.

The Court states that in order to establish personal jurisdiction,
a plaintiff must produce facts sufficient to satisfy two
requirements by a preponderance of the evidence, one statutory and
one constitutional. The Court cites Daimler AG v. Bauman, where
the Supreme Court stated that the "paradigm all-purpose forums for
general jurisdiction are a corporation's place of incorporation
and principal place of business." The Supreme Court did not hold
that a corporation may be subject to general jurisdiction only in
one of these locations, but rejected the notion that "continuous
and systematic" contacts alone could confer general jurisdiction,
clarifying that the role of general jurisdiction is to "afford
plaintiffs recourse to at least one clear and certain forum in
which a corporate defendant may be sued on any and all claims."

The Court finds that specific personal jurisdiction over Exelon
does not exist in the present case. The Plaintiffs allege Mr.
Harding was exposed to asbestos-containing products during his
work-related activities, all of which occurred in Connecticut and
outside Delaware. The Plaintiffs' complaint does not specify that
any of the alleged exposures which occurred while Mr. Harding was
in the U.S. Navy occurred in Delaware.

In addition, the plaintiffs do not allege that any wrongful
conduct by Exelon occurred in Delaware. Moreover, Mr. Harding is a
resident of Darien, Connecticut, not Delaware. Thus, there is no
nexus between the alleged injurious conduct, the defendant, and
the State of Delaware.

The Court determines that general jurisdiction also does not exist
over Exelon in the present case. Exelon is not a Delaware business
entity and does not have a principal place of business in
Delaware. Therefore, Exelon is not "at home" in Delaware.

A full-text copy of the Report and Recommendation dated September
14, 2017, is available at http://tinyurl.com/yd4bsg34from
Leagle.com.

Michael R. Harding, Plaintiff, represented by Bartholomew J.
Dalton, Dalton & Associates P.A..

Michael R. Harding, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Balick, Balick
& Balick, LLC, Andrew Caulfield Dalton, Dalton & Associates P.A.,
Ipek Kurul Medford, Dalton & Associates, P.A. & Michael Collins
Smith, Balick & Balick, LLC.

Sally Harding, Plaintiff, represented by Bartholomew J. Dalton,
Dalton & Associates P.A., Adam Balick, Balick & Balick, LLC,
Andrew Caulfield Dalton, Dalton & Associates P.A., Ipek Kurul
Medford, Dalton & Associates, P.A. & Michael Collins Smith, Balick
& Balick, LLC.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Timothy A. Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

Burnham LLC, Defendant, represented by Robert S. Goldman,
Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A..

Carrier Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jessica Lee Tyler,
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Allison L. Texter,
Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz
Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Crosby Valve LLC, Defendant, represented by Paul A. Bradley, Maron
Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron
Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Jason A. Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Ryan William
Browning, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Excelon Corporation, Defendant, represented by James J. Horning,
Jr., Wilbraham Lawler & Buba & Timothy A. Sullivan, III,
Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

FMC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel Partick Daly,
Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, represented by Allison L. Texter,
Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew P.
Donelson, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Allison L.
Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant, represented by Irina N. Luzhatsky,
Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Whitney L. Frame, Manion Gaynor &
Manning LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford,
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki
Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

ITT Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kelly A. Costello,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Peerless industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amaryah K.
Bocchino, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Ann Marie Kashishian,
Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Jason A. Cincilla, Manion Gaynor &
Manning LLP & Whitney L. Frame, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Rheem Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by Jonathan L.
Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Sequoia Ventures, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Partick
Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Spirax Sarco, Inc., Defendant, represented by Antoinette D.
Hubbard, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Paul A. Bradley,
Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Superior Boiler Works, Inc, Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jessica Lee Tyler,
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Marley-Wylain Company, Defendant, represented by Matthew P.
Donelson, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

FMC Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Daniel Partick
Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

FMC Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Partick
Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Timothy A. Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

Burnham LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Robert S. Goldman,
Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A..

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Allison L.
Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

Carrier Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jessica Lee
Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles,
Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented
by Jason A. Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Excelon Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy A.
Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Allison L.
Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Allison
L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Whitney L.
Frame, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Kelly A.
Costello, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Rheem Manufacturing Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Sequoia Ventures, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel
Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Spirax Sarco, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Antoinette D.
Hubbard, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Paul A. Bradley,
Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Superior Boiler Works, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen
M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Jessica Lee
Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Sequoia Ventures, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Daniel
Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Sequoia Ventures, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel
Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Timothy A. Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

Burnham LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Robert S. Goldman,
Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A..

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Allison L.
Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC.

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

Carrier Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jessica Lee
Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles,
Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented
by Jason A. Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Excelon Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy A.
Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

FMC Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Partick
Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Allison L.
Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Allison
L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Whitney L.
Frame, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Kelly A.
Costello, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Rheem Manufacturing Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Spirax Sarco, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Antoinette D.
Hubbard, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Paul A. Bradley,
Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Superior Boiler Works, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen
M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Jessica Lee
Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Superior Boiler Works, Inc, Cross Claimant, represented by Eileen
M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

Superior Boiler Works, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen
M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Timothy A. Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

Burnham LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Robert S. Goldman,
Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A..

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Allison L.
Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

Carrier Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jessica Lee
Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles,
Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented
by Jason A. Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Excelon Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy A.
Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

FMC Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Partick
Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Allison L.
Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Allison
L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Whitney L.
Frame, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Kelly A.
Costello, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Rheem Manufacturing Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Sequoia Ventures, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel
Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Spirax Sarco, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Antoinette D.
Hubbard, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Paul A. Bradley,
Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Jessica Lee
Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by Jessica Lee
Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Jessica Lee
Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Timothy A. Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

Burnham LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Robert S. Goldman,
Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A..

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Allison L.
Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

Carrier Corporation, individually and as successor in interest to
Bryant Heating & Cooling Systems, Cross Defendant, represented by
Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles,
Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented
by Jason A. Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Excelon Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy A.
Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

FMC Corporation, individually and as successor through acquisition
of Northern Pump Company, Chicago Pump Company, and Peerless Pump
Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Partick Daly,
Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Allison L.
Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Allison
L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Whitney L.
Frame, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Kelly A.
Costello, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Rheem Manufacturing Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Sequoia Ventures, Inc., f/k/a Bechtel Corporation, Cross
Defendant, represented by Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Spirax Sarco, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Antoinette D.
Hubbard, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Paul A. Bradley,
Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Superior Boiler Works, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen
M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

Superior Boiler Works, Inc, Cross Claimant, represented by Eileen
M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

Superior Boiler Works, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen
M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, individually and as wholly-owned
subsidiary of AMPCO-Pittsburgh, Individually and as Successor in
interest to Buffalo Pumps, Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy
A. Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

Burnham LLC, individually and as successor to Burnham Corporation,
Cross Defendant, represented by Robert S. Goldman, Phillips,
Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A..

CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, f/k/a Viacom, Inc.,
successor by merger to CBS Corporation a Pennsylvania Corporation,
f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation, as successor in interest
to The Bryant Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

Carrier Corporation, individually and as successor in interest to
Bryant Heating & Cooling Systems, Cross Defendant, represented by
Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles,
Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented
by Jason A. Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Ryan William
Browning, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Excelon Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy A.
Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

FMC Corporation, individually and as successor through acquisition
of Northern Pump Company, Chicago Pump Company, and Peerless Pump
Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Partick Daly,
Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Allison L.
Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Allison
L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Whitney L.
Frame, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Kelly A.
Costello, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Marley-Wylain Company, Individually and as successor in interest
to The Weil-McLain Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Matthew P. Donelson, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Rheem Manufacturing Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Sequoia Ventures, Inc., f/k/a Bechtel Corporation, Cross
Defendant, represented by Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Spirax Sarco, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Antoinette D.
Hubbard, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Paul A. Bradley,
Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Jessica Lee
Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, individually and as wholly-owned
subsidiary of AMPCO-Pittsburgh, Individually and as Successor in
interest to Buffalo Pumps, Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy
A. Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

Burnham LLC, individually and as successor to Burnham Corporation,
Cross Defendant, represented by Robert S. Goldman, Phillips,
Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A..

CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, f/k/a Viacom, Inc.,
successor by merger to CBS Corporation a Pennsylvania Corporation,
f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation, as successor in interest
to The Bryant Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

Carrier Corporation, individually and as successor in interest to
Bryant Heating & Cooling Systems, Cross Defendant, represented by
Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles,
Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented
by Jason A. Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Ryan William
Browning, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Excelon Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy A.
Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

FMC Corporation, individually and as successor through acquisition
of Northern Pump Company, Chicago Pump Company, and Peerless Pump
Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Partick Daly,
Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Allison L.
Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Allison
L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Whitney L.
Frame, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Kelly A.
Costello, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Marley-Wylain Company, Individually and as successor in interest
to The Weil-McLain Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Matthew P. Donelson, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Rheem Manufacturing Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Sequoia Ventures, Inc., f/k/a Bechtel Corporation, Cross
Defendant, represented by Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Spirax Sarco, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Antoinette D.
Hubbard, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Paul A. Bradley,
Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Superior Boiler Works, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen
M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Jessica Lee
Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, individually and as wholly-owned
subsidiary of AMPCO-Pittsburgh, Individually and as Successor in
interest to Buffalo Pumps, Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy
A. Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

Burnham LLC, individually and as successor to Burnham Corporation,
Cross Defendant, represented by Robert S. Goldman, Phillips,
Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A..

CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, f/k/a Viacom, Inc.,
successor by merger to CBS Corporation a Pennsylvania Corporation,
f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation, as successor in interest
to The Bryant Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

Carrier Corporation, individually and as successor in interest to
Bryant Heating & Cooling Systems, Cross Defendant, represented by
Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles,
Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented
by Jason A. Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Excelon Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy A.
Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

FMC Corporation, individually and as successor through acquisition
of Northern Pump Company, Chicago Pump Company, and Peerless Pump
Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Partick Daly,
Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Allison L.
Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Allison
L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Whitney L.
Frame, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Michael R. Harding, Cross Defendant, represented by Bartholomew J.
Dalton, Dalton & Associates P.A., Adam Balick, Balick & Balick,
LLC, Andrew Caulfield Dalton, Dalton & Associates P.A., Ipek Kurul
Medford, Dalton & Associates, P.A. & Michael Collins Smith, Balick
& Balick, LLC.

Sally Harding, Cross Defendant, represented by Bartholomew J.
Dalton, Dalton & Associates P.A., Adam Balick, Balick & Balick,
LLC, Andrew Caulfield Dalton, Dalton & Associates P.A., Ipek Kurul
Medford, Dalton & Associates, P.A. & Michael Collins Smith, Balick
& Balick, LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Kelly A.
Costello, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Marley-Wylain Company, Individually and as successor in interest
to The Weil-McLain Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Matthew P. Donelson, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Rheem Manufacturing Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Sequoia Ventures, Inc., f/k/a Bechtel Corporation, Cross
Defendant, represented by Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Spirax Sarco, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Antoinette D.
Hubbard, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Paul A. Bradley,
Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Superior Boiler Works, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen
M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Jessica Lee
Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, individually and as wholly-owned
subsidiary of AMPCO-Pittsburgh, Individually and as Successor in
interest to Buffalo Pumps, Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy
A. Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

Burnham LLC, individually and as successor to Burnham Corporation,
Cross Defendant, represented by Robert S. Goldman, Phillips,
Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A..

CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, f/k/a Viacom, Inc.,
successor by merger to CBS Corporation a Pennsylvania Corporation,
f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation, as successor in interest
to The Bryant Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

Carrier Corporation, individually and as successor in interest to
Bryant Heating & Cooling Systems, Cross Defendant, represented by
Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles,
Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented
by Jason A. Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Excelon Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy A.
Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

FMC Corporation, individually and as successor through acquisition
of Northern Pump Company, Chicago Pump Company, and Peerless Pump
Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Partick Daly,
Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Allison L.
Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Allison
L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Whitney L.
Frame, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Michael R. Harding, Cross Defendant, represented by Bartholomew J.
Dalton, Dalton & Associates P.A., Adam Balick, Balick & Balick,
LLC, Andrew Caulfield Dalton, Dalton & Associates P.A., Ipek Kurul
Medford, Dalton & Associates, P.A. & Michael Collins Smith, Balick
& Balick, LLC.

Sally Harding, Cross Defendant, represented by Bartholomew J.
Dalton, Dalton & Associates P.A., Adam Balick, Balick & Balick,
LLC, Andrew Caulfield Dalton, Dalton & Associates P.A., Ipek Kurul
Medford, Dalton & Associates, P.A. & Michael Collins Smith, Balick
& Balick, LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Kelly A.
Costello, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Marley-Wylain Company, Individually and as successor in interest
to The Weil-McLain Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Matthew P. Donelson, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Rheem Manufacturing Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Sequoia Ventures, Inc., f/k/a Bechtel Corporation, Cross
Defendant, represented by Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Spirax Sarco, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Antoinette D.
Hubbard, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Paul A. Bradley,
Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Superior Boiler Works, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen
M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Jessica Lee
Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, individually and as wholly-owned
subsidiary of AMPCO-Pittsburgh, Individually and as Successor in
interest to Buffalo Pumps, Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy
A. Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

Burnham LLC, individually and as successor to Burnham Corporation,
Cross Defendant, represented by Robert S. Goldman, Phillips,
Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A..

CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, f/k/a Viacom, Inc.,
successor by merger to CBS Corporation a Pennsylvania Corporation,
f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation, as successor in interest
to The Bryant Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

Carrier Corporation, individually and as successor in interest to
Bryant Heating & Cooling Systems, Cross Defendant, represented by
Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles,
Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented
by Jason A. Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Excelon Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy A.
Sullivan, III, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

FMC Corporation, individually and as successor through acquisition
of Northern Pump Company, Chicago Pump Company, and Peerless Pump
Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Partick Daly,
Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Allison L.
Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Allison
L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Whitney L.
Frame, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Michael R. Harding, Cross Defendant, represented by Bartholomew J.
Dalton, Dalton & Associates P.A., Adam Balick, Balick & Balick,
LLC, Andrew Caulfield Dalton, Dalton & Associates P.A., Ipek Kurul
Medford, Dalton & Associates, P.A. & Michael Collins Smith, Balick
& Balick, LLC.

Sally Harding, Cross Defendant, represented by Bartholomew J.
Dalton, Dalton & Associates P.A., Adam Balick, Balick & Balick,
LLC, Andrew Caulfield Dalton, Dalton & Associates P.A., Ipek Kurul
Medford, Dalton & Associates, P.A. & Michael Collins Smith, Balick
& Balick, LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Kelly A.
Costello, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Marley-Wylain Company, Individually and as successor in interest
to The Weil-McLain Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Matthew P. Donelson, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Rheem Manufacturing Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Sequoia Ventures, Inc., f/k/a Bechtel Corporation, Cross
Defendant, represented by Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Spirax Sarco, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Antoinette D.
Hubbard, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Paul A. Bradley,
Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Superior Boiler Works, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen
M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan
Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Jessica Lee
Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Junks Bell & Gossett's Appeal in "Brown"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of New York dismissed, sua sponte, the
appeals case styled PHYLLIS BROWN, ETC., Respondent, v. BELL &
GOSSETT COMPANY, Defendant, CONSOLIDATED EDISON OF NEW YORK, INC.,
Appellant, 2017 NY Slip Op 85759, (App. Ct. N.Y.), upon the ground
that the Appellate Division does not have the power to grant leave
to appeal to this Court on a certified question from an order
granting a new trial.

A full-text copy of the Order dated September 14, 2017, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y9wsj4snfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Strike Affidavit Denied in "Doolin"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Patricia D. Barksdale of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida denies Defendant Ford Motor Company's
motion to strike Stacey Doolin's affidavit filed in connection
with her response in opposition to Ford Motor's motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction in the case captioned STACEY
DOOLIN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF RICHARD E.
DOOLIN, Plaintiff, V. BORG WARNER CORPORATION ETC., Defendants,
No. 3:16-CV-778-J-34PDB, (M.D. Fla.).

In the affidavit, signed in April 2017, the Plaintiff avers that
she "recalls [the decedent] performing brake work on Ford vehicles
on multiple occasions while living in Florida."

Ford Motor argues that the affidavit should be stricken because it
is not based on the Plaintiff's personal knowledge, and her later
deposition testimony contradicts it.

The Plaintiff responds that the affidavit is immaterial because
the defendants have not shifted the burden of proof to her; the
statement in her affidavit does not directly contradict her
deposition testimony; and the statement was not based on hearsay.

The Court finds that striking the affidavit is unwarranted because
Ford Motor has not shown that the Plaintiff's affidavit -- which
asserts her general recollection that the decedent performed brake
work on Ford vehicles in Florida -- flatly contradicts her
deposition testimony that she could not recall more specific
information about when he performed the work or the years and
models of the vehicles he worked on.

The Court explains that absent an unexplained flat contradiction,
striking the affidavit as a sham is unwarranted. The Court points
out that any inconsistency between the Plaintiff's affidavit and
deposition testimony goes to the weight of the evidence and the
Plaintiff's credibility, which the Court can evaluate if necessary
in ruling on Ford Motor's amended motion to dismiss.

Likewise, to the extent Ford Motor argues the affidavit contains
inadmissible hearsay or otherwise is not based on the plaintiff's
personal knowledge, the Court says that it can decide any such
evidentiary issues in ruling on Ford's amended motion to dismiss.
In other words, the Court can still assign the affidavit
appropriate weight without striking it from the record entirely.

A full-text copy of the Order dated September 13, 2017, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yb24n5q8from Leagle.com.

Stacey Doolin, Plaintiff, represented by Marc Phillip Kunen, The
Ferraro Law Firm.

Borg Warner Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amanda Rae
Cachaldora, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL, Eduardo J. Medina, Bice Cole
Law Firm, PL, Kelly L. Kesner, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL, Melanie E.
Chung-Tims, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL & Susan J. Cole, Bice Cole Law
Firm, PL.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Alina Alonso
Rodriguez, Bowman and Brooke, LLP, Andrew Scott Freedman, Cole,
Scott & Kissane, PA, Clarke S. Sturge, Cole, Scott & Kissane, PA,
Henry Salas, Cole, Scott & Kissane, PA, Shepherd D. Wainger,
McGuire Woods, LLP-Norfolk, pro hac vice & Wendy Frank Lumish,
Bowman and Brooke, LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony
Nolan Upshaw, McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP, Caroline M. Iovino,
McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP, Melissa Raspall Alvarez, McDermott,
Will & Emery, LLP & Jack Roy Reiter, GrayRobinson, PA.

Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Scott Freedman,
Cole, Scott & Kissane, PA, Clarke S. Sturge, Cole, Scott &
Kissane, PA, Henry Salas, Cole, Scott & Kissane, PA, Johan D.
Flynn, DeHay Elliston, LLP, pro hac vice & John M. Fitzpatrick,
Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, pro hac vice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CertainTeed Wins Summary Judgment in "Lempert"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr., of the Superior Court of Delaware
granted CertainTeed Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment in
the case THELMA LEMPERT, individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of HAROLD LEMPERT, deceased,
Plaintiff, v. CERTAINTEED CORPORATION et al., Defendants, C.A. No.
N15C-05-221 ASB, (Sup. Del.).

The Court holds that the Plaintiff's, Thelma Lempert, claims that
her husband, Harold Lempert contracted asbestos related lung
cancer from exposure to Defendant CertainTeed Corporation's
asbestos-containing plaster, joint compound, and drywall products
cannot survive summary judgment.

Mr. Lempert installed plaster, drywall, and joint compound from
1952 until 2000. Mr. Lempert moved bags of plastering material and
cleaned up his father's garage starting in 1944, and he continued
to work on weekends until 1952. In 1952 Mr. Lempert started
apprentice school. At this time he began using plaster products.
Mr. Lempert went into the United States Army, and he was
discharged in 1957. Once he was discharged, Mr. Lempert resumed
his apprenticeship. Mr. Lempert stated that he applied Bestwall
plaster, CertainTeed plaster, CertainTeed joint compound, Bestwall
joint compound, and CertainTeed drywall.

CertainTeed maintains that it is entitled to summary judgment
because it exited the gypsum manufacturing business in 1956, and
Mr. Lempert's testimony shows that he did not work with
CertainTeed products until 1958, Mr. Lempert could not have worked
with a CertainTeed product. Plaintiff argues that Mr. Lempert, as
the only product identification witness, sufficiently identified
working with the Defendant's asbestos products.

CertainTeed argues that Mr. Lempert did not recall using
CertainTeed joint compound until he completed his apprenticeship
in 1958. The Defendant presented evidence that CertainTeed
transferred all of its gypsum business to Bestwall Gypsum company
in 1956, and the only gypsum product it manufactured with asbestos
was drywall joint compound, acoustical plaster, and patching
plaster.

The Defendant also claims that CertainTeed did not manufacture or
supply any additional joint compound, plaster, or drywall
materials after this transfer to Bestwall. The Defendant also
states that it sold only asbestos-free wall plaster until June 30,
1956. Additionally, the Defendant states that it manufactured
drywall, or "wall board" under the name Bestwall until June 30,
1956, and CertainTeed never marketed or sold any drywall under the
"CertainTeed" name. CertainTeed asserted that only one of the two
joint compounds Defendant sold until June 30, 1956 contained
asbestos as an ingredient.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff states that Mr. Lampert testified
that he used CertainTeed asbestos containing wall plaster prior to
1956. However, the Court finds that the Plaintiff's assertion is
not supported by the record Plaintiff provided, nor was the
portion of the deposition Plaintiff referred to attached to the
Response Motion.

The Plaintiff also argues that Mr. Lempert identified CertainTeed
Gypsum wallboards. Again, the Court finds this proposition was not
supported by the record Plaintiff provided, nor was portion of the
deposition Plaintiff cited to attached to the Response.

The Court points out that the Plaintiff's claims against
CertainTeed fail because the Plaintiff is unable to show that Mr.
Lempert was exposed to asbestos from CertainTeed's products beyond
speculation.

The Court determines that CertainTeed has offered evidence
demonstrating that "the only gypsum-related products that are
known by CertainTeed to have been marketed by it and have
contained asbestos are drywall joint compounds, Kalite acoustical
plaster, and patching plaster."

CertainTeed also presented evidence that its drywall joint
compound was discontinued on June 30, 1956, and Mr. Lempert
recalled using joint compound after his apprenticeship ended,
which was in 1958. Thus, a rational juror could not find that Mr.
Lempert was exposed to asbestos from Defendant's drywall joint
compound.

Similarly, CertainTeed carried acoustical plaster, under the
tradename Kalite, and patching plaster which were both
discontinued on June 30, 1956. However, the dry powdered wall
plasters sold in bags by CertainTeed did not contain asbestos.
CertainTeed manufactured plasters with asbestos and without
asbestos.

However, the Court finds that the Plaintiff did not offer
evidence, beyond Mr. Lempert's assumption, that the plaster Mr.
Lempert used contained asbestos. Thus, the Court says that the
Plaintiff cannot show that Mr. Lempert was exposed to an asbestos
product manufactured by CertainTeed.

A full-text copy of the Order dated September 12, 2017, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y84nzou4from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Sets Jan. 19 Discovery Deadline in "Cox"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James C. Dever, III, of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, Greenville Division, has
issued an order in the case styled JACK HOWARD COX, SR., Executor
of the Estate of PERCY RAY COX, Plaintiff, v. AGCO CORPORATION, et
al., Defendants, No. 4:16-cv-00084-D, (E.D.N.C.), setting forth
expert discovery deadlines.

The Order provides that reports from retained expert witnesses
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B), and disclosures from any expert
witness under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C) who will provide an
opinion regarding the cause of Decedent's injuries, are due
following the fact discovery period:

     (a) From Plaintiff by January 19;

     (b) From Defendants by February 16;

     (c) Supplementations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) are due as
soon as practicable, but no later than 30 days prior to any
Daubert motions.

A full-text copy of the Order dated September 12, 2017, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y8fuko59from Leagle.com.

Jack Howard Cox, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Braly,
Dean Omar Branham LLP.

Jack Howard Cox, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina G. Stone,
Dean Omar Branham LLP & Janet Ward Black, Ward Black Law.

AGCO Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kelly Street Brown,
Young, Moore & Henderson, P.A. & Joseph W. Williford, Young, Moore
& Henderson, P.A..

Arvinmeritor, Defendant, represented by Carter T. Lambeth, Carter
T. Lambeth Attorney, P.C. & William P. Early, Pierce Herns Sloan
and Wilson LLC.

Borg-Warner Morse Tec, Inc., Defendant, represented by David L.
Levy, Hedrick, Gardner, Kincheloe & Garofalo, LLP & Jon S. Player,
Hedrick, Gardner, Kincheloe & Garofalo, LLP.

Caterpillar, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles M. Sprinkle,
III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald,
Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth Sinkler
Boyd, P.A. & William David Conner, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A..

Cummins, Inc., Defendant, represented by Erin Elaine Shofner,
Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young, Teresa Elizabeth Lazzaroni,
Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP & Douglas Andrew Rubel,
Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP.

Deere & Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy E. Tomlin,
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante,
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP & William Michael Starr,
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

FMC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary L. Beaver, Nexsen
Pruet, PLLC & Peter A. Santos, Nexsen Pruet, PLLC.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher R.
Kiger, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP,
Kirk G. Warner, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan,
LLP & Addie K.S. Ries, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell &
Jernigan, LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by H. Lee
Davis, Jr., Davis & Hamrick, LLP.

Maremont Corporation, Defendant, represented by Carter T. Lambeth,
Carter T. Lambeth Attorney, P.C. & William P. Early, Pierce Herns
Sloan and Wilson LLC.

Meadwestvaco Corporation, Defendant, represented by Carter T.
Lambeth, Carter T. Lambeth Attorney, P.C. & Louis P. Herns, Pierce
Herns Sloan and Wilson LLC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Wall Templeton & Haldrup, P.A..

Navistar, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert O. Meriwether,
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, Tracy E. Tomlin, Nelson
Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante, Nelson
Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP & William Michael Starr, Nelson
Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert
David Proffitt, Proffitt & Cox, LLP & Ronald Brian Cox, Proffitt &
Cox, LLP.

Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch, Leath
Bouch & Seekings.

SPX Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary L. Beaver, Nexsen
Pruet, PLLC.

Standard Motor Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert
David Proffitt, Proffitt & Cox, LLP & Ronald Brian Cox, Proffitt &
Cox, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Vacates Settlement Enforcement Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John B. Owens of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit vacates the District Court's order affirming a Bankruptcy
Judge's order enforcing settlement in the appeals case captioned
MICHAEL J. MANDELBROT; THE MANDELBROT LAW FIRM, Appellants, v.
J.T. THORPE SETTLEMENT TRUST; THORPE INSULATION COMPANY ASBESTOS
SETTLEMENT TRUST; CHARLES B. RENFREW, Administrative Law Judge,
Futures Representative, Appellees, No. 15-56430, (9th Cir.) for
further proceedings.

The appellees in this case -- the J.T. Thorpe Settlement Trust,
and the Thorpe Insulation Company Asbestos Settlement Trust -- are
asbestos bankruptcy trusts. The third appellee, Charles Renfrew,
is the "futures representative" of the two appellee trusts, a
fiduciary charged with representing the interests of future
claimants.

Asbestos trusts are created through the Chapter 11 reorganization
of entities exposed to significant asbestos liability. Although
asbestos trusts arise in the course of federal bankruptcy
proceedings, they are formally created under state trust law. The
J.T. Thorpe and Thorpe Insulation plans of reorganization followed
the standard practice of the bankruptcy court retaining
jurisdiction to supervise the administration of the trust.

The Thorpe Trusts' procedures provide for claimants to submit
evidence and for the relevant trust to evaluate it. To the extent
the claimant shows exposure to the Debtor's asbestos and
compensable harm, the trust offers a settlement. A claimant may
reject the offer and start adversarial proceedings, but only after
the ordinary claims process runs its course.

This case starts with the Thorpe Trusts' barring Michael J.
Mandelbrot from presenting evidence on behalf of his clients,
which is a remedy -- "debarment" -- that helps asbestos trusts
protect themselves from paying out on bad claims.

For over 20 years, Mandelbrot has represented asbestos claimants
before trusts created in the course of federal Chapter 11
proceedings. As of 2013, he had submitted more than 13,000 claims
to asbestos trusts nationwide. In the fall of 2011, the Thorpe
Trusts -- along with another, the Western Asbestos Settlement
Trust -- began investigating some of those claims.

Each of the Thorpe Trusts, as well as the Western Trust, are
distinct entities. To reduce overhead, however, the trusts share
certain administrative resources -- both of the Thorpe Trusts have
contracted out their claims administration function to the Western
Trust. Claims are asserted against individual trusts, and then --
for administrative purposes only -- processed by the Western
Trust's staff. Debarring Mandelbrot from the Thorpe Trusts means
that he cannot file claims for compensation out of Thorpe Trust
funds, but relieves the Western Trust of the administrative
burdens associated with processing those claims.

The three trusts essentially undertook a single joint
investigation, which concluded, in May of 2013, with a letter to
Mandelbrot finding that he was "unreliable," and that, with
respect to the Thorpe Trusts, he had engaged in a pattern of
submitting unreliable evidence. The trusts also noted the
existence of "substantial information to support a conclusion"
that Mandelbrot had intentionally falsified evidence, but did not
actually "make such a determination."

As a result of their findings, the Thorpe Trusts (but not the
Western Trust) debarred Mandelbrot. They determined that they
would "accept no further evidence or claims from [him]," but
offered to suspend that bar if Mandelbrot submitted his clients'
claims to extra scrutiny during a two-year probationary period.

Mandelbrot did not take them up on their offer, and in August of
2013, the Thorpe Trusts jointly moved the bankruptcy court for
instructions (essentially a declaratory judgment) that their
decision to debar Mandelbrot was "authorized under the TDPs of
each Trust, and reasonable in light of the Trusts' audit and
investigative findings."

In exchange for Mandelbrot's agreement to be debarred, the Thorpe
Trusts and the Western Trust agreed that they would not seek to
recover any money from Mandelbrot. The parties departed on the
understanding that they would memorialize the settlement in a
final written agreement. However, Mandelbrot did not hold up his
end of the deal -- he repudiated the settlement within days.

Accordingly, the Thorpe Trusts filed a motion to enforce the
agreement, which Mandelbrot opposed on the grounds that his
agreement not to practice before the four trusts (the "debarment
provision") was illegal under California Business and Professions
Code Section 16600 -- which provides that "every contract by which
anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession... is to
that extent void" -- and California Rule of Professional Conduct
1-500 -- which prohibits a California lawyer from being "a party
to... an agreement, whether in connection with the settlement of a
lawsuit or otherwise, if the agreement restricts the right... to
practice law."

Without addressing section 16600 or Rule 1-500, the Bankruptcy
Judge granted the Trusts' motion to enforce the settlement, and
barred Mandelbrot from filing claims with the Trusts. The District
Court affirmed that decision, concluding that California law
controls this issue, and that neither section 16600 nor Rule 1-500
prohibits the settlement agreement.

The Bankruptcy Judge found that the Thorpe Trusts' conclusion that
Mandelbrot had submitted unreliable claims to be reasonable.
Moreover, the Bankruptcy Judge recognized the existence of an
important countervailing interest -- asbestos trusts' need to
"protect their beneficiaries from a lawyer they find to be
unreliable."

The District Court affirmed that decision, concluding that
California law controls this issue, and that neither section 16600
nor Rule 1-500 prohibits the settlement agreement. The District
Court also concluded that harming the trusts' ability to vindicate
that interest "on the ground that refusing to deal with
[Mandelbrot] would harm his practice" would serve "no public
policy purpose." The District Judge likewise found that refusing
to enforce the debarment provision would not advance the policies
underlying California Rule of Professional Conduct 1-500. In the
District Judge's opinion, "the [debarment provision] does not deny
the public access to a lawyer who prevailed against the defendant
in a prior action. Instead, the District Judge further said that
it protects the public from one who submitted unreliable evidence
that led to further scrutiny, audits, and expense.

The ultimate question in this appeal is whether or not the
debarment provision is valid and enforceable -- to the extent
Mandelbrot tries to get out from under any other provision of the
settlement agreement. His only argument is that the debarment
provision is void and the remainder of the deal non-severable.

Mandelbrot argues that California law applies because the
agreement was made in, and will largely be performed in,
California. California law embodies a strong public policy against
restricting professional practice, and Mandelbrot argues that
under California Business & Professions Code Section 16600, as
well as California Rule of Professional Conduct 1-500, the
settlement agreement is void.

On the other hand, the Thorpe Trusts contend that the issue is
governed by either Nevada law -- because they are domiciled in
that state and constituted under its law of trusts -- or federal
law -- because the trusts were brought forth and continue to
operate pursuant to a federally-supervised plan of reorganization.
The trusts' ultimate position, however, is that Mandelbrot's
agreement to be debarred is enforceable regardless of which law
applies.

The Ninth Circuit notes that in its written opinion, the District
Court did not discuss Golden v. California Emergency Physicians
Medical Group, 782 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2015), which the Ninth
Circuit had decided a few months prior. The Ninth Circuit finds
that the District Court also did not analyze whether federal law
controlled the case, as neither party had clearly argued its
application.

In Golden, the Court examined whether section 16600 prohibited a
settlement agreement that constrained a physician's freedom to
practice medicine. After thoroughly reviewing the statutory
language and relevant case law, the majority concluded that "in
determining a contract's validity under Section 16600... the court
should direct its inquiry according to the actual statutory
language: whether the challenged provision 'restrains anyone from
engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind.'"
The majority in Golden, interpreted California law to require a
broad reading of section 16600. Because the District Court in the
Golden case did not have the benefit of the majority opinion, the
Court remanded the case with its "relatively undeveloped record"
so the district court could order additional briefing or conduct
further fact-finding.

The Ninth Circuit also finds that the briefs filed in the District
Court also failed to squarely argue that federal law controls, a
possible oversight which is hardly the trial judge's fault. The
Ninth Circuit maintains that fundamental questions of law should
appear at the beginning of a brief, not thrown in at the end, and
should be clearly made. The Ninth Circuit went on that the
District Court easily could have concluded that the Trusts never
made a federal choice-of-law argument.

The Ninth Circuit believes that the same approach as that in
Golden is appropriate in this case because neither party
adequately argued to the District Court that federal law governs
(and have hardly argued it to this court), and the District Court
never addressed the impact of Golden. Consistent with Golden, the
Ninth Circuit considers these calls are best for the District
Court to make in the first instance. Accordingly, the Ninth
Circuit vacates and remands this case so that the District Court
can decide whether federal or state law governs (including whether
the federal law argument has been waived), and what impact, if
any, Golden has on this case.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated September 14, 2017, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y9bgqvb7from Leagle.com.

Dirk Van Ausdall (argued), San Francisco, California; Michael J.
Mandelbrot, The Mandelbrot Law Firm, Novato, California; for
Appellants.

Gary S. Fergus (argued), Fergus Law Office, San Francisco,
California; Daniel J. Bussel, Thomas E. Patterson, and Kathryn T.
Zwicker, Klee Tuchin Bogdanoff & Stern LLP, Los Angeles,
California: for Appellees.




                             *********


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  * * *