CAR_Public/171027.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Friday, October 27, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 213



                            Headlines

94 CORNER: Faces "Varela-Itzmoyotl" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
AARON'S INC: Class Cert. Bid Denied in Spying Software Suit
AARON'S INC: Motion to Dismiss "Winslow" Suit Underway
AARON'S INC: Briefing on Motion for Summary Judgment Pending
ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Class Suit over Improper Fees Pending

AFC INDUSTRIES: Nandram Filed Suit Over Delayed Wages
ALTICE USA: Settlement in Cablevision Consumer Suit Pending
ARCADIA RECOVERY: "Vullings Disputes Collection Letter
ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Suit over Sterling Merger Remains Pending
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Suit over Edgewater Fire Underway

AVID TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Dismiss "Mohanty" Case Underway
AVID TECHNOLOGY: Says $40,000 Paid to Plaintiffs' Counsel
AVISTA CORP: "Jen" Suit Seeks to Block Hydro One Merger
BASSAM ARAFA: "Wolfe" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
BIOAMBER INC: Securities Class Action Underway in New York

CAMBREX CORP: Plaintiffs' Bid to Reduce Damages Award Pending
CARSON WILD WINGS: Ortega Seeks OT Pay, Paystubs, Reimbursements
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Parties Expect Case Dismissal by Early 2018
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Still Faces "French" Lawsuit
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Parties Await Trial in Kansas Suit

CHICAGO, IL: Court Grants Conyers' Bid for Class Certification
CHL INC: King Wants Certification of Workers Class Under FLSA
CIGNA CORP: Reconsideration Motion Pending in Pension Plan Case
CIGNA CORP: Still Faces Franco v. Connecticut General Suit
CITIZENS INC: "Gamboa" Class Action Remains Pending

CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL: "Mederos" Suit Seeks Paystubs, OT Wages
CTI BIOPHARMA: Dec. 15 Hearing on $20 Million Deal
DOORDASH INC: "Austin" Suit Seeks Wage Payments, Reimbursements
EMERGENCY COVERAGE: Seeks Approval of "Harbin" Suit Settlement
EQUIFAX GROUP: "Lagasse" Sues Over Data Breach, Claims Damages

EQUIFAX GROUP: "Mead" Sues Over Data Breach, Claims Damages
FARMERS INSURANCE: DeLuca Moves to Certify Class of Investigators
FEDEX GROUND: "Anderson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Granted
FORA FINANCIAL: Dolemba's Cert. Bid Denied Over Settlement Talks

GEICO INDEMNITY: Faces Tower Health Suit in S. Dist. Fla.
GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Fluker Sues Over Biometrics Data Retention
GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Court Denies Chruby's Bid to Certify 4 Classes
GREENCORE USA: "Diaz" Sues Over Biometrics Data Retention
GREENLY: "Davis" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Penalties

HEALTH INSURANCE: Defending Against TCPA Lawsuits
HUTCHISON TREE: Berber's Cert. Bid Denied Due to Settlement Talks
HYATT EQUITIES: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Guarisma" Suit
IC SYSTEM: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Wise" Class Suit
INDUS INVESTMENTS: "Haddadin" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Overtime

INSTAFF INC: "Pelaez" Claims Overtime, Reimbursements, Paystubs
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: $354,000,000 Accord Wins Final Court OK
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Ashley Furniture Suit Underway in Tennessee
ISLE OF CAPRI CASINOS: Brna Seeks Prelim. OK of Class Settlement
JOHN D CLUNK: Rainier May Refile Bid to Certify Class, Court says

LEVEL 3: Settlement of Rights-of-Way Litigation Pending
MATCH GROUP: "McCloskey" Class Action Ongoing in Texas
MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS: "Robinson" Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Mo.
MDL 2796: "Lewis" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MG SECURITY: Denied Gibbons Overtime, Wage Statements

MICRO MATIC: Doritty Wants to Notify Class of Workers, Applicants
MIDLAND CREDIT: Court OKs 2nd Bid to Certify Class in Pierre Suit
MILLER AND STEENO: Court Strikes Dilallo's Bid to Certify Class
NATIONAL ACCOUNT: "Larsen" Disputes Collection Letter
OLD REPUBLIC: "White" Class Action Awaiting Court's Decision

OMNITRITION INT'L: "Pattison" Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Securities Action Pending in New York
ORBITAL ATK: Dismissal of "Knurr" Class Action Sought
PACCAR INC: Petition to Certify Class Action Filed
PASADENA CITY: "Komesar" Hits Excessive Taxes on Electricity Bill

PETER PIPER: "Jacobson" Litigation in Earliest Stages
PHIA GROUP: "Weyant" Suit Seeks to Recover Damages
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Thornton Files Class Action v. Sheriff's Office
PHILADELPHIA, PA: DOC Sued Over Civil Rights Act Violation
POST HOLDINGS: Class Action Appeal Still Ongoing

QUALITY THERAPY: Kondati's Bids to Certify and Set Notice Tossed
R.L. VALLEE: "Kent" Seeks Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum
RAYONIER INC: Says Insurers Fully Funded Settlement Payment
REGENCY VILLAGE: Ridley Seeks to Certify Nurses Class Under FLSA
RLJ LODGING TRUST: Facing Assad or Bagheri Lawsuits

RODEO REALTY: "Crosley" Suit Seeks Penalties, Reimbursements
SAN DIEGO, CA: City Employees Seek to Recover Overtime Premium
SND OPERATING: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Odenbaugh" Suit
SONIC CORP: Ramirez Files Suit Over Stolen Personal Info
SOUTH CAROLINA: DOC Sued Over Civil Rights Acts Violation

SPARK ENERGY: Initial Discovery Ongoing in "Melville" Suit
SPARK ENERGY: No Discovery Yet in Suit by Veilleux and Chon
SPARK ENERGY: Court Orders Briefing in Suit by Gillis et al.
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Ayeni and Hartsock Cases Consolidated
STATE STREET: Securities Suit over Invoicing Matters Ongoing

STEAKHOUSE EXPRESS: "Packard" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
STONERIDGE INC: Royal Moves for Prelim. OK of Class Settlement
SUNTRUST BANKS: Trial Court to Reconsider Motion in "Bickerstaff"
SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Ongoing in Company Stock Class Suit
SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Ongoing in Mutual Funds Class Actions

SUPREME INDUSTRIES: Says Class Suit Pending in Indiana
SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Objectors Fail to Launch Appeal
TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Allen" Suit Transferred to E.D. La.
TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Bright" Suit Transferred to E.D. La.
TAISHAN GYPSUM: "DeOliveira" Suit Transferred to E.D. La.

TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Lochhead" Suit Transferred to E.D. La.
TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Mertlitz" Suit Transferred to E.D. La.
TOTAL RENAL: Brewster Sues Over Missed Breaks, Missing Paystubs
TRANSAMERICA FINANCIAL: Sued in M.D. Fla. Over Automated Calls
U.S. BANCORP: Visa Litigation Proceeding in District Court

U.S. GOVERNMENT: Faces "Tita" Class Suit in Federal Claims Court
UBER TECH: "Sienkaniec" Hits Misclassification, Claims Benefits
UGI CORP: Says AmeriGas Partners Satisfied Case Judgment
UGI CORP: Eighth Circuit Appeal in Consumer Suit Ongoing
USAA LIFE INSURANCE: "Spegele" Sues Over Excessive Charges

VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Still Defends 3 Class Suits
WELCH FOODS: "Hall" Class Suit Removed to East. Dist. New York
WELLS FARGO: 3 ATM Access Fee Cases Returned to District Court
WELLS FARGO: Discovery Proceeding in Remanded Class Suits
WELLS FARGO: Appeal in Order of Posting Litigation Ongoing

WELLS FARGO: RMBS Trustee Litigation Still Pending
WELLS FARGO: Hearing on "Jabbari" Settlement Set for Q1 2018
WHOLE FOODS: Faces Class Suits over Amazon.com Merger
XTO ENERGY: Amount Charged to Trust Not Yet Determined

* JND's Keough Named Female Entrepreneur of the Year Finalist


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Court Junks Synergy Suits vs. Ligett
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Phase I Discovery Underway in Smoker Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Has $606.1MM Asbestos Liability as of July 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 19 Cases at July 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Settlement Obligation Estimated at $364MM

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PC Trust Reaches Deal with Asbestos Claimants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Japanese Gov't. Responsible for Asbestos Damage
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Talc User's Body Had Asbestos, Jury Hears
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Butte Contractor Sues Montana DEQ Over Disposal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Ct. Flips Summary Ruling in Colgate Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Justices to Weigh Coverage Gap Quandary
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Wants Maine Law to Govern Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Urges Court to Chuck $8MM Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Talcum Powder Suit Trials Continue
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Returns $5MM Verdict in Cancer Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies Can Be Liable for Secondary Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charges Against Allegheny Man to be Dropped
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cos. Settle Removal Claims in New Bedford Park
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Asbestos at Council Depot
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Women Become Victims of Mesothelioma

ASBESTOS UPDATE: OneBeacon No Duty to Reimburse Defense Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Released From "Savoie" Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids for Summary Judgment Denied in "Belac"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Denies Bid to Dismiss "Doolin" Asbestos Suit



                            *********


94 CORNER: Faces "Varela-Itzmoyotl" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Mariano Varela-Itzmoyotl, on behalf of others similarly
situated v. 94 Corner Cafe Corp. d/b/a 94 Corner Cafe, Mohinder
Singh, Alejandro Doe, and Balwinder Singh a/k/a Rocky, Case No.
1:17-cv-07620 (S.D.N.Y., October 5, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 2518
Broadway, New York, NY 10025. [BN]

Jose Mariano Varela-Itzmoyotl is a pro se plaintiff.


AARON'S INC: Class Cert. Bid Denied in Spying Software Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
RJ Vogt, writing for Law360, reported that Pennsylvania Federal
Judge Cathy Bissoon in September 2017 denied class certification
to customers alleging that Aaron' s Inc. and a franchisee used
spying software on computers it leased, saying that the group's
latest attempt at a class definition still lacks sufficient
cohesiveness among class members.  Judge Bissoon adopted the
August recommendation of Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter,
who agreed with Aaron's franchisee Aspen Way Enterprises Inc.'s
argument against Crystal and Brian Byrd's expanded class
definition.

Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that in Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc.,
Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees
and Designerware, LLC, filed on May 16, 2011, in the United States
District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, plaintiffs
allege the Company and its independently owned and operated
franchisee Aspen Way Enterprises ("Aspen Way") knowingly violated
plaintiffs' privacy in violation of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act ("ECPA") and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act and sought
certification of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based
these claims on Aspen Way's use of a software program called "PC
Rental Agent."

Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint, which asserts claims
under the ECPA, common law invasion of privacy, seeks an
injunction, and names additional independently owned and operated
Company franchisees as defendants. Plaintiffs seek monetary
damages as well as injunctive relief.

In March 2014, the United States District Court dismissed all
claims against all franchisees other than Aspen Way Enterprises,
LLC, dismissed claims for invasion of privacy, aiding and
abetting, and conspiracy against all defendants, and denied
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action, but denied the
Company's motion to dismiss the claims alleging ECPA violations.

In April 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit reversed the denial of class certification on the grounds
stated by the District Court, and remanded the case back to the
District Court for further consideration of that and the other
elements necessary for class certification.

On January 24, 2017, final briefs were submitted on the remand of
plaintiffs' motion for class certification with the District
Court, and oral arguments were held on March 30, 2017. The Court's
decision is pending.

Aaron's, Inc. is an omnichannel provider of lease-purchase
solutions.


AARON'S INC: Motion to Dismiss "Winslow" Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company's motions to dismiss and strike
certain allegations remain pending in the lawsuit by Michael
Winslow and Fonda Winslow.

In Michael Winslow and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial
Corporation, Aaron's, Inc., John Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees
and Designerware, LLC, filed on March 5, 2013 in the Los Angeles
Superior Court, plaintiffs assert claims against the Company and
its independently owned and operated franchisee, Sultan Financial
Corporation (as well as certain John Doe franchisees), for
unauthorized wiretapping, eavesdropping, electronic stalking, and
violation of California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and
Fraud Act and its Unfair Competition Law. Each of these claims
arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software. The
plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and damages as well as
certification of a putative California class.

In April 2013, the Company removed this matter to federal court.
In May 2013, the Company filed a motion to stay this litigation
pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, and a motion to strike certain
allegations in the complaint.

The Court subsequently stayed the case. The Company's motions to
dismiss and strike certain allegations remain pending.

In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay,
which was denied in July 2015.

On May 5, 2017, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on
the remaining single plaintiff case. The briefing on that motion
was completed in late June 2017, and it remains pending.

Aaron's, Inc. is an omnichannel provider of lease-purchase
solutions.


AARON'S INC: Briefing on Motion for Summary Judgment Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that briefing on the Company's motion for summary
judgment on the remaining single plaintiff case remains pending.

In Michael Peterson v. Aaron's, Inc. and Aspen Way Enterprises,
Inc., filed on June 19, 2014, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, plaintiffs claim that the
Company and Aspen Way knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy and
the privacy of plaintiffs' law firm's clients in violation of the
ECPA and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act.

Plaintiffs seek certification of a putative nationwide class.
Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of PC Rental
Agent software. The Court has dismissed all claims except a claim
for aiding and abetting invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification which the Court denied on January
25, 2017.

On May 5, 2017, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on
the remaining single plaintiff case. The briefing on that motion
was completed in late June 2017, and it remains pending.

Aaron's, Inc. is an omnichannel provider of lease-purchase
solutions.


ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Class Suit over Improper Fees Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend a class action lawsuit over improper fees.

In February 2009, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries were
named as defendants in a purported class action suit in the
Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama. Similar class action
complaints were brought against the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries in 2011 in Duval County, Florida and in 2013 in
Quitman County, Georgia and Barbour County, Alabama, and in 2014
in Chester County, Pennsylvania. The 2013 Georgia complaint was
dismissed in March 2014.

In late 2015 in Gwinnett County, Georgia, another purported class
action suit was filed. The plaintiffs in those cases primarily
allege that the defendants charged improper fees (fuel,
administrative and environmental fees) that were in breach of the
plaintiffs' service agreements with the Company and seek damages
in an unspecified amount.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against
these purported class actions, which it will vigorously pursue.

Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, including the
early stage of these cases, the unknown size of any potential
class, and legal and factual issues in dispute, the outcome of
these cases cannot be predicted and a range of loss, if any,
cannot currently be estimated.

Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. together with its consolidated
subsidiaries, as a consolidated entity, is a nonhazardous solid
waste services company providing collection, transfer, recycling
and disposal services to customers in the South, Midwest and
Eastern regions of the United States.


AFC INDUSTRIES: Nandram Filed Suit Over Delayed Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Balram Nandram, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. A.F.C. Industries Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 713323/2017 (N.Y. Sup., September 21 2017),
seeks maximum liquidated damages and interest for being paid
overtime wages and non-overtime wages later than weekly as well as
costs and attorneys' fees incurred pursuant to New York Labor Law.

A.F.C. Industries Inc. is engaged in the business of furniture
designing, development and manufacturing located at 13-16 133 RD
Place, College Point, NY 11356, where Plaintiff was employed as a
manual laborer.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Tel: (718) 740-1000
      Fax: (718) 355-9668
      Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


ALTICE USA: Settlement in Cablevision Consumer Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Altice USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the settlement in the case, In re Cablevision
Consumer Litigation, remains subject to Court approval.

Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of
certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16,
2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming
feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks
were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems. On
October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new
affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and
carriage was restored. Several purported class action lawsuits
were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers
seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming. Those lawsuits
were consolidated in an action before the U. S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, and a consolidated complaint was
filed in that court on February 22, 2011. Plaintiffs asserted
claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer
fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages
and attorneys' fees.

On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to
dismiss, denying the motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining
claims, which were dismissed. On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed
a second consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a claim
only for breach of contract. The Company's answer was filed on May
2, 2012.

On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and on December 13, 2012, a motion for partial
summary judgment. On March 31, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, and denied without prejudice
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

On May 30, 2014, the Court approved the form of class notice, and
on October 7, 2014, approved the class notice distribution plan.
The class notice distribution has been completed, and the opt-out
period expired on February 27, 2015. Expert discovery commenced on
May 5, 2014, and concluded on December 8 and 28, 2015, when the
Court ruled on the pending expert discovery motions.

On January 26, 2016, the Court approved a schedule for filing of
summary judgment motions. Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment on March 31, 2016. The Company filed its own summary
judgment motion on June 13, 2016. The motions for summary judgment
have been denied with leave to re-file in the event the
discussions between the parties are not successful. The parties
have entered into a settlement agreement, which is subject to
Court approval.

As of December 31, 2016, the Company had an estimated liability
associated with a potential settlement totaling $5,200,000. During
the six months ended June 30, 2017, the Company recorded an
additional liability of $800,000. The amount ultimately paid in
connection with the proposed settlement could exceed the amount
recorded.

Altice completed its acquisition of Cablevision on June 21, 2016.


ARCADIA RECOVERY: "Vullings Disputes Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------
Michelle W. Vullings, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Arcadia Recovery Bureau, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-04361 (E.D. Pa., September 29, 2016),
seeks actual and statutory damages, declaratory relief, reasonable
attorney's fees and litigation expenses, plus costs of suit and
such additional and further relief under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Arcadia is a debt collection agency who sent a collection letter
to the Plaintiff in an attempt to collect a debt. Vullings
disputes the terms used in the said letter which seeks to
allegedly confuse the Plaintiff as to whether to call or write if
the validity of the debt or any portion thereof is disputed. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brent F. Vullings, Esq.
     VULLINGS LAW GROUP, LLC
     3953 Ridge Pike, Suite 102
     Collegeville, PA 19426
     Tel: (610) 489-6060
     Fax: (610) 489-1997
     Email: bvullings@vullingslaw.com


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Suit over Sterling Merger Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Astoria Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend
Sterling Merger-related Litigation.

On March 6, 2017, Astoria entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Sterling Bancorp, a Delaware corporation.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Sterling Merger
Agreement, a number of lawsuits challenging the proposed Sterling
Merger were filed: (1) MSS 1209 Trust v. Astoria Financial
Corporation, et al., Index No. 602161/2017, filed March 13, 2017
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau,
or the MSS Action; (2) Parshall v. Astoria Financial Corporation,
et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-02165, filed April 10, 2017 in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, or the
Parshall Action; (3) Minzer v. Astoria Financial Corporation, et
al., Case No. 2017-0284, filed April 12, 2017 in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, or the Minzer Action; (4)
O'Connell v. Astoria Financial Corporation, et al., Index No.
603703/2017, filed April 28, 2017 in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of Nassau, or the O'Connell Action, and
together with the MSS Action and the Minzer Action, the State
Court Actions; and (5) Jenkins v. Astoria Financial Corporation,
et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-02608, filed May 2, 2017 in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, or the
Jenkins Action, and together with the Parshall Action, the Federal
Actions. Collectively, the State Court Actions and the Federal
Actions are referred to as the Class Actions. Each of these
lawsuits is a putative class action filed on behalf of
stockholders of Astoria and names as defendants Astoria, its
directors and Sterling.

The plaintiffs in the State Court Actions generally allege that
the directors of Astoria breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with their approval of the Sterling Merger Agreement
because they failed to properly value Astoria and to take steps to
maximize value to Astoria's public stockholders, resulting in
inadequate merger consideration. The plaintiffs in the State Court
Actions further variously allege that (i) the directors of Astoria
approved the Sterling Merger through a flawed sales process,
alleging the absence of a competitive sales process and that the
process was tainted by certain alleged conflicts of interest on
the part of the Astoria directors; and (ii) the directors of
Astoria breached their fiduciary duties because they agreed to
unreasonable deal protection devices that allegedly preclude other
bidders from making a successful competing offer for Astoria. The
plaintiffs in the State Court Actions further allege that Sterling
aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches by the Astoria
Board of Directors.

The plaintiffs in the Federal Actions variously allege that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by disseminating a
registration statement that omitted material information with
respect to the Sterling Merger. The plaintiffs in the O'Connell
Action and the Minzer Action also allege that the registration
statement is materially misleading.

Plaintiffs in the Class Actions seek, among other things, an order
enjoining completion of the proposed Sterling Merger, additional
disclosure, rescission of the transaction or rescissory damages if
the Sterling Merger is consummated, and an award of costs and
attorneys' fees.

On June 6, 2017, Astoria, Sterling and the plaintiffs in the Class
Actions entered into a memorandum of understanding, or the MOU,
which provides for the settlement of the Class Actions. The MOU
contemplates, among other things, that Astoria would make certain
supplemental disclosures relating to the Sterling Merger. Although
the defendants deny the allegations made in the Class Actions and
believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under
applicable laws, in order to minimize the distraction, burden,
risk and expense of further litigation and in order to avoid any
possible delay in the closing of the proposed Sterling Merger,
Astoria agreed to make such supplemental disclosures pursuant to
the terms of the MOU, which supplemental disclosures were made in
Exhibit 99.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by Astoria
with the SEC on June 7, 2017. Furthermore, pursuant to the MOU,
plaintiffs in the Minzer Action, the Parshall Action and the
Jenkins Action voluntarily dismissed their respective actions
without prejudice.

In addition, on April 26, 2017, a separate putative class action
challenging the proposed Sterling Merger, Garfield v. Sterling
Bancorp, et al., Index No. 031888/2017, was filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Rockland, or the
Garfield Action. This lawsuit was brought on behalf of the
stockholders of Sterling and names Sterling, its directors and
Astoria as defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things,
that Astoria aided and abetted a breach of the Sterling directors'
fiduciary duty of candor by jointly filing a materially deficient
and misleading proxy statement. Sterling and Astoria agreed to
make certain supplemental disclosures relating to the Sterling
Merger, which supplemental disclosures were made in Exhibit 99.2
to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by Astoria with the SEC on
June 7, 2017, in contemplation of a potential settlement of the
Garfield Action. On June 30, 2017, Sterling, Astoria and the
plaintiffs in the Garfield Action entered into a Stipulation and
Settlement, or the Garfield Stipulation, pursuant to which, in
addition to the supplemental disclosures made on June 7, 2017,
Sterling agreed, subject to final court approval, to pay to
plaintiffs' counsel a fixed amount in full settlement of the
plaintiffs' claim for attorneys' fees and expenses. Although the
defendants in the Garfield Action continue to deny the allegations
made in the Garfield Action, they have nevertheless agreed to
enter into the Garfield Stipulation in order to avoid the costs,
disruption and distraction of further litigation.

On May 15, 2017, another putative class action, Karp v. Astoria
Financial Corporation, et al., Index No. 604286/2017, was filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, or
the Karp Action, challenging the proposed Sterling Merger on
substantially similar grounds as the other State Court Actions.
Plaintiffs in the Karp Action seek similar remedies as the
plaintiffs in the State Court Actions, as well as an order
enjoining individual defendants from initiating any defensive
measures or taking other actions that would allegedly inhibit
their ability to maximize value for Astoria stockholders.
Following the execution of the MOU, on July 10, 2017, Astoria,
Sterling and the plaintiffs in the Karp Action entered into a
Stipulation as to Scheduling and Acceptance of Service, or the
Stipulation, pursuant to which the defendants' time to answer,
move or otherwise respond to the Karp Action has been extended
indefinitely pending the outcome of any settlement approval
process pursuant to the MOU.

The defendants continue to believe that all of these actions are
without merit. Accordingly, no liability or reserve has been
recognized in our consolidated statement of financial condition at
June 30, 2017 with respect to these matters.

The settlements contemplated by the MOU and the Garfield
Stipulation are subject to confirmatory discovery and customary
conditions, including court approval following notice to Astoria's
and Sterling's stockholders, respectively. If the settlements are
finally approved by the court, they will resolve and release all
claims by stockholders of Astoria and Sterling challenging any
aspect of the Sterling Merger, the Sterling Merger Agreement, and
any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms
that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of
the settlements.

There can be no assurance that the court will approve the
settlements contemplated by the MOU and the Garfield Stipulation.
If the court does not approve either or both of the settlements,
or if the settlements are otherwise disallowed or terminated by
plaintiffs or defendants, to the extent provided for therein, the
proposed settlements may become null and void. If the MOU and/or
the Garfield Stipulation is terminated, no assurance can be given
at this time that the litigation against us will be resolved in
our favor, that this litigation will not be costly to defend, that
this litigation will not have an impact on our financial condition
or results of operations or that, ultimately, any such impact will
not be material.


AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Suit over Edgewater Fire Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Avalonbay Communities, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that trial was slated to begin October
2, 2017, in the 19 consolidated lawsuits related to the Edgewater
apartment fire.

In January 2015, a fire occurred at the Company's Avalon at
Edgewater apartment community located in Edgewater, New Jersey
("Edgewater"). Edgewater consisted of two residential buildings.
One building, containing 240 apartment homes, was destroyed. The
second building, containing 168 apartment homes, suffered minimal
damage and has been repaired.

The Company has established protocols for processing claims from
third parties who suffered losses as a result of the fire, and
many third parties have contacted the Company's insurance carrier
and settled their claims.

Three class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company on
behalf of occupants of the destroyed building and consolidated in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The Company has agreed with class counsel to the terms of a
settlement which provides a claims process (with agreed upon
protocols for instructing the adjuster as to how to evaluate
claims) and, if needed, an arbitration process to determine damage
amounts to be paid to individual claimants covered by the class
settlement.

In July 2017 the District Court granted final approval of the
settlement and all claims were required to be submitted to the
independent claims adjuster by September 11, 2017.

A total of 66 units (consisting of residents who did not
previously settle their claims and who did not opt out of the
class settlement) are included in the class action settlement and
bound by its terms.

A fourth class action, being heard in the same federal court, was
filed against the Company on behalf of residents of the second
Edgewater building that suffered minimal damage.

In addition to the class action lawsuits, 20 lawsuits representing
approximately 150 individual plaintiffs have been filed and are
currently pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey Bergen
County - Law Division. All of these state court cases, except for
one that was recently filed, have been consolidated by the court.
All of these plaintiffs, except for two, formally opted out of the
class action settlement and have decided to continue their
individual actions.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the
extent of damages claimed in all of the suits. The 19 consolidated
lawsuits currently have a trial date of October 2, 2017.

There are also five subrogation lawsuits that have been filed
against the Company by insurers of Edgewater residents who
obtained renters insurance; it is the Company's position that in
the majority of the applicable leases the residents waived
subrogation rights. One of these lawsuits has been dismissed on
that basis and the other four have been consolidated and are
currently pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey. The District Court denied the Company's
motions seeking dismissal on this basis. The Company will reassess
the viability of this defense after conducting additional
discovery.

Having settled many third party claims through the insurance
claims process, the Company currently believes that any potential
remaining liability to third parties (including any potential
liability to third parties determined in accordance with the class
settlement described above) will not be material to the Company
and will in any event be substantially covered by the Company's
insurance policies. However, the Company can give no assurances in
this regard and continues to evaluate this matter.

AvalonBay Communities is a Maryland corporation that has elected
to be treated as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for
federal income tax purposes under the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (the "Code"). The Company focuses on the development,
redevelopment, acquisition, ownership and operation of multifamily
communities primarily in New England, the New York/New Jersey
metro area, the Mid-Atlantic, the Pacific Northwest, and Northern
and Southern California.


AVID TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Dismiss "Mohanty" Case Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Avid Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the case, Mohanty v. Avid Technology, Inc., is
not yet scheduled for trial.

On August 21, 2017, a "Reply to Response to Motion to Dismiss" for
failure to state a claim was filed by Avid Technology, Louis
Hernandez, Jr., and Ilan Sidi.

In November 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Mohanty v. Avid Technology, Inc. et al., No. 16-cv-12336) against
the Company and certain of its executive officers seeking
unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between August
4, 2016 and November 9, 2016, inclusive. The complaint purported
to state a claim for violation of federal securities laws as a
result of alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("the Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint's allegations relate
generally to the Company's disclosure surrounding the level of
implementation of the Company's Avid NEXIS solution product
offerings. On February 7, 2017, the Court appointed a lead
plaintiff and counsel in the matter. On June 14, 2017, the Company
moved to dismiss the action. The matter is not yet scheduled for
trial.

Avid develops, markets, sells, and supports software and hardware
for digital media content production, management and distribution.


AVID TECHNOLOGY: Says $40,000 Paid to Plaintiffs' Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------
Avid Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the parties in a stockholder lawsuit have
agreed to a payment by Avid to plaintiffs' counsel of $40 thousand
in full satisfaction of their claim for attorneys' fees and
expenses.

On March 15, 2017, Danae Georges, a stockholder of the Company,
filed a class action in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the
"Action") against the Company and our board members alleging that
Article III, Section 6 of the Company's Amended and Restated
Bylaws (the "Bylaws") violated Section 141(k) of the Delaware
General Corporation Law ("DGCL"). This section of the Bylaws
required that (unless otherwise required by Delaware law) the
Company's directors could be removed by the affirmative vote of
the holders of at least 66 2/3% of the voting power of the
outstanding common stock of the Company entitled to vote in the
election of directors. The Action sought to lower that threshold
to a simple majority of the voting power of the Company's
outstanding common stock.

The Company's position was that the bylaw was consistent with
Delaware law but to avoid the expense of continued litigation, on
March 30, 2017, our Board of Directors approved an amendment to
Article III, Section 6 of the Company's Bylaws, lowering the
threshold voting requirement for the removal of directors from 66
2/3% to a majority of the voting power of the outstanding common
stock of the Company entitled to vote in the election of
directors. This amendment effectively mooted the Action.

On May 1, 2017, the Court of Chancery entered an order dismissing
the Action and retaining jurisdiction solely for the purpose of
ruling on the plaintiff's application for an award of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of expenses. The parties subsequently
agreed to a payment by Avid to plaintiffs' counsel of $40 thousand
in full satisfaction of their claim for attorneys' fees and
expenses. The Court of Chancery has not been asked to review, and
will pass no judgment on, this payment.

Avid develops, markets, sells, and supports software and hardware
for digital media content production, management and distribution.


AVISTA CORP: "Jen" Suit Seeks to Block Hydro One Merger
-------------------------------------------------------
Matthias Jen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Avista Corporation, Erik J. Anderson,
Kristianne Blake, Don Burke, Rebecca A. Klein, Scott H. Maw, Scott
Morris, Marc Racicot, Heidi B. Stanley, R. John Taylor and Janet
Widmann, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00333, (E.D. Wash, September
25, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of
Avista by Hydro One Limited, awarding rescissory damages in the
event defendants consummate the merger, reasonable allowance for
plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees, and such other and
further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Avista and Hydro One issued a joint press release announcing that
they had entered into a definitive merger agreement under which
Olympus Holding Corp., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
Hydro One and Olympus Corp., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary
of Hydro One would acquire all of Avista's outstanding stock for
$53.00 per share in cash. Transaction has a total value of
approximately $5.3 billion.

The complaint says the merger documents omitted the company's
financial projections and the analyses critical from Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. in evaluating the offer price.

Avista is primarily an electric and natural gas utility. Avista
provides utility operations in the Pacific Northwest and Juneau,
Alaska. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roger M. Townsend, Esq.
      BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC
      1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Telephone: (206) 652-8660
      Facsimile: (206) 652-8290
      Email: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com

             - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
      Email: denright@zlk.com
             etripodi@zlk.com


BASSAM ARAFA: "Wolfe" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Wolfe and Misty Johnson, each individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bassam Arafa,
Monticello Seafood Eatery, Inc., Whitehall Seafood, Inc., Wynne
Seafood & More, Inc. and Forrest City Seafood, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00245 (E.D. Ark., September 26, 2017), seeks
monetary and liquidated damages prejudgment interest and civil
penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees for
failure to pay minimum wages and overtime under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Defendants own and/or operate several restaurants under the name
"Sam's Southern Eatery" throughout Eastern Arkansas where
Plaintiffs worked as servers at Defendant's Monticello location.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve Rauls, Esq.
      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
      Email: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com
             josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


BIOAMBER INC: Securities Class Action Underway in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
BioAmber Inc. continues to defend a putative securities class
action in New York, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017.

On March 18, 2017, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company and Messrs. Jean-Francois Huc, Fabrice
Orecchioni and Mario Saucier in federal district court in New York
alleging violations of the U.S. Exchange Act and the U.S.
Securities Act.

"The complaint principally alleges that the prospectus for our
January 2017 follow-on public offering failed to disclose the
postponement of a large customer order. The Company believes the
suit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend it. The
potential loss is therefore remote," the Company said.

BioAmber is an industrial biotechnology company producing
renewable chemicals.


CAMBREX CORP: Plaintiffs' Bid to Reduce Damages Award Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cambrex Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the plaintiffs' motion to reduce the damages
award by a total of $9,600,000 is pending before the District
Court.

In 1998, the Company and a subsidiary were named as defendants
along with Mylan Laboratories, Inc. ("Mylan") and Gyma
Laboratories, Inc. ("Gyma") in a proceeding instituted by the
Federal Trade Commission in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia (the "District Court"). Suits were also
commenced by several State Attorneys General and class action
complaints by private plaintiffs in various state courts. The
suits alleged violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act
arising from exclusive license agreements between the Company and
Mylan covering two APIs (Lorazepam and Clorazepate).

All cases have been resolved except for one brought by four health
care insurers. In the remaining case, the District Court entered
judgment after trial in 2008 against Mylan, Gyma and Cambrex in
the total amount of $19,200,000, payable jointly and severally,
and also a punitive damage award against each defendant in the
amount of $16,709,000.  In addition, at the time, the District
Court ruled that the defendants were subject to a total of
approximately $7,500,000 in prejudgment interest. The case is
currently pending before the District Court following a January
2011 remand by the Court of Appeals.

In July 2014, the District Court dismissed certain customers for
which the plaintiffs were unable to establish jurisdiction and
consequently, the plaintiffs currently have a motion pending
before the District Court to reduce the damages award by a total
of $9,600,000.


CARSON WILD WINGS: Ortega Seeks OT Pay, Paystubs, Reimbursements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jasmin Ortega, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly-
situated, Plaintiff, v. Carson Wild Wings, LLC, A California
Limited Liability Company; and Does 1 through 25, Inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC677389, (Cal. Super., September 26, 2017),
seeks redress for Defendants' failure to pay earned wages, sick
leaves, minimum wages, overtime compensation, meal/rest breaks;
failure to provide itemized and accurate wage statements; and for
wages not timely paid upon termination and reimbursement of
business-related expenses under the California Labor Code and the
Unfair Competition Law of the California Business and Professions
Code.

Carson Wild Wings operates Buffalo Wild Wing restaurant locations
where Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt server at their
Los Angeles location. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:
      Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
      LEBE LAW, APLC
      5723 Melrose Avenue
      Los Angeles, CA 90038
      Tel: (310) 921-7056
      Fax: (310) 820-1258
      E-Mail: jon@lebelaw.com

              - and -

      Rodney Mesriani, Esq.
      MESRIANI LAW GROUP, APLC
      5723 Melrose Avenue
      Los Angeles, CA 90038
      Tel: (310) 826-6300
      Fax: (310) 820-1258
      E-Mail: rodney@mesriani.com


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Parties Expect Case Dismissal by Early 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended July 2, 2017, that the parties in the employment-related
litigation expect that their settlement will be concluded and the
case dismissed by the end of the first quarter of 2018.

On October 10, 2014, former venue General Manager Richard Sinohui
filed a purported class action lawsuit against CEC Entertainment
in the Superior Court of California, Riverside County (the
"Sinohui Litigation"), claiming to represent other similarly-
situated current and former General Managers of CEC Entertainment
in California during the period October 10, 2010 to the present.
The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount in damages and to certify
a class based on allegations that CEC Entertainment wrongfully
classified current and former California General Managers as
exempt from overtime protections; that such General Managers
worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay,
paid rest periods, and paid meal periods; and that CEC
Entertainment failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements
or to pay timely wages upon separation from employment, in
violation of the California Labor Code, California Business and
Professions Code, and the applicable Wage Order issued by the
California Industrial Welfare Commission. The plaintiff also
alleged that CEC Entertainment failed to reimburse General
Managers for certain business expenses, including for personal
cell phone usage and mileage, in violation of the California Labor
Code; he also asserted a claim for civil penalties under the
California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").

On December 5, 2014, CEC Entertainment removed the Sinohui
Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Southern Division. On March 16, 2016, the Court issued
an order denying in part and granting in part Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification. Specifically, the Court denied
Plaintiff's motion to the extent that he sought to certify a class
on Plaintiff's misclassification and wage statement claims, but
certified a class with respect to Plaintiff's claims that CEC
Entertainment had wrongfully failed to reimburse him for cell
phone expenses and/or mileage.

On June 14, 2016, the Court dismissed Sinohui's PAGA claim. After
participating in mediation on April 19, 2017, the parties agreed
to settle all of Sinohui's individual and class claims. Pursuant
to the basic terms of their settlement, Sinohui will grant a
complete release to CEC Entertainment of all claims that he
asserted or could have asserted against the Company, based on the
facts that gave rise to the Sinohui Litigation, in exchange for
the Company's settlement payment.

The parties will present their proposed class settlement to the
Court for review and approval during the third quarter of 2017,
and expect that the settlement will be concluded and the case
dismissed by the end of the first quarter of 2018.

"The settlement of this action will not have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity
or capital resources," the Company said.

After the Court in the Sinohui Litigation issued its order denying
certification of a class of California-based general managers on
misclassification and wage statement claims, six lawsuits were
filed against the Company in California state court (the
"California General Manager Litigation"). The plaintiffs in these
actions include nine current and 12 former California General
Managers asserting individual misclassification, wage statement,
and expense reimbursement claims. Between December 20, 2016 and
April 21, 2017 the Company filed initial responses to each of the
lawsuits and removed them all to Federal District Court.
As part of the settlement reached by the parties in the Sinohui
Litigation, described above, the parties also agreed to settle the
California General Manager Litigation. Pursuant to the basic terms
of their comprehensive settlement, each of the Plaintiffs will
grant a complete release to CEC Entertainment of all claims that
he or she asserted or could have asserted against the Company
based on the facts that gave rise to the California General
Manager Litigation in exchange for the Company's settlement
payments to each of them. The parties expect that the
comprehensive settlement of these lawsuits will be concluded and
each of these cases dismissed by the end of the third quarter of
2017. The settlement of these actions will not have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position,
liquidity or capital resources.

CEC Entertainment develops, operates and franchises family dining
and entertainment venues under the names "Chuck E. Cheese's"
("Where A Kid Can Be A Kid") and "Peter Piper Pizza" ("The
Solution to the Family Night Out").


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Still Faces "French" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended July 2, 2017, that the Company continues to defend the
lawsuit by former Technical Manager Kevin French.

On January 30, 2017, former Technical Manager Kevin French filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
alleging that CEC Entertainment failed to pay overtime wages,
failed to issue accurate itemized wage statements, failed to pay
wages due upon separation of employment, and failed to reimburse
for certain business expenses, including for mileage and personal
cell phone usage, in violation of the California Labor Code and
federal law.

"We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit
and we intend to vigorously defend it. Since the litigation is in
its earliest stages, the Company does not yet have sufficient
information to reach a good faith determination on the Company's
potential liability or exposure in the event that its defense is
unsuccessful," the Company said.

CEC Entertainment develops, operates and franchises family dining
and entertainment venues under the names "Chuck E. Cheese's"
("Where A Kid Can Be A Kid") and "Peter Piper Pizza" ("The
Solution to the Family Night Out").


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Parties Await Trial in Kansas Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended July 2, 2017, that the District Court has not yet set the
litigation related to the merger for trial.

Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC Entertainment
had entered into an agreement ("Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which an entity controlled by Apollo Global Management, LLC and
its subsidiaries merged with and into CEC Entertainment, with CEC
Entertainment surviving the merger ("the Merger"), four putative
shareholder class actions were filed in the District Court of
Shawnee County, Kansas, on behalf of purported stockholders of CEC
Entertainment, against A.P. VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., CEC
Entertainment, CEC Entertainment's directors, Apollo and Merger
Sub (as defined in the Merger Agreement), in connection with the
Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby.

These actions were consolidated into one action (the "Consolidated
Shareholder Litigation") in March 2014, and on July 21, 2015, a
consolidated class action petition was filed as the operative
consolidated complaint, asserting claims against CEC's former
directors, adding The Goldman Sachs Group ("Goldman Sachs") as a
defendant, and removing all Apollo entities as defendants (the
"Consolidated Class Action Petition").

The Consolidated Class Action Petition alleges that CEC
Entertainment's directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC
Entertainment's stockholders in connection with their
consideration and approval of the Merger Agreement by, among other
things, conducting a deficient sales process, agreeing to an
inadequate tender price, agreeing to certain provisions in the
Merger Agreement, and filing materially deficient disclosures
regarding the transaction.

The Consolidated Class Action Petition also alleges that two
members of CEC Entertainment's board who also served as the senior
managers of CEC Entertainment had material conflicts of interest
and that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the board's breaches as a
result of various conflicts of interest facing the bank. The
Consolidated Class Action Petition seeks, among other things, to
recover damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company assumed the defense of the Consolidated Shareholder
Litigation on behalf of CEC's named former directors and Goldman
Sachs pursuant to existing indemnity agreements.

On March 23, 2016, the Court conducted a hearing on the
defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action
Petition and on March 1, 2017, the Special Master appointed by the
Court issued a report recommending to the Court that the
Consolidated Class Action Petition be dismissed in its entirety.

On March 17, 2017, Plaintiffs filed objections to the Special
Master's report and recommendation with the Kansas court and
separately filed a motion with the Special Master to amend the
complaint as to Goldman Sachs.

"We currently await the Special Master's decision on the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend. The District Court has not
yet set this case for trial," the Company said.

The Company continues to believe the Consolidated Class Action
Petition is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously.

"While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of the
consolidated matter, we currently believe that the final
resolution of the action will not have a material adverse effect
on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or
capital resources," the Company said.

CEC Entertainment develops, operates and franchises family dining
and entertainment venues under the names "Chuck E. Cheese's"
("Where A Kid Can Be A Kid") and "Peter Piper Pizza" ("The
Solution to the Family Night Out").


CHICAGO, IL: Court Grants Conyers' Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 28, 2017, in the case
titled Blake H Conyers, et al. v. City of Chicago, et al., Case
No. 1:12-cv-06144 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable John J. Tharp Jr.

The minute entry states that:

   -- For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum
      Opinion and Order, the Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification is granted; and

   -- A status hearing was set for Thursday, October 12, 2017, at
      9:00 a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vfu8dLPB


CHL INC: King Wants Certification of Workers Class Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned KEVIN KING v. CHL, INC.;
and HOA KEVIN TRAN, Case No. 2:17-cv-03691-SM-JVM (E.D. La.),
moves for conditional collective certification and court-
authorized notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The collective consists of:

     All individuals who worked for CHL, Inc., d/b/a CHL Linens,
     or Hoa Kevin Tran at any time between April 19, 2014 to the
     present, and who were not paid overtime time-and-half
     premiums for working more than forty hours in a workweek.

Kevin King alleges that CHL, through its control person and co-
defendant Hoa Kevin Tran, underpays wages and overtime by paying
workers a flat hourly rate for all hours worked, without any
overtime premium for working more than 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court authorize that notice be
sent to the members of the collective, that the Court approve the
proposed Form of Notice, that the Defendants be ordered to
disclose contact information on an expedited basis, and that the
Court issue an order equitably tolling the statute of limitations
during the pendency of the opt-in period.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles J. Stiegler, Esq.
          STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC
          318 Harrison Ave., Suite 104
          New Orleans, LA 70124
          Telephone: (504) 267-0777
          Facsimile: (504) 513-3084
          E-mail: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com


CIGNA CORP: Reconsideration Motion Pending in Pension Plan Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Plaintiffs in the Amara cash balance
pension plan litigation have filed a motion for reconsideration of
the July 14, 2017 Order.

In December 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna
Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan (the "Plan") on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated Plan participants affected by
the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula.  The plaintiffs
allege various violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), including that the Plan's cash
balance formula discriminates against older employees; that the
conversion resulted in a wear-away period (when the pre-conversion
accrued benefit exceeded the post-conversion benefit); and that
the Plan communications contained inaccurate or inadequate
disclosures about these conditions.

In 2008, the District Court (1) affirmed the Company's right to
convert to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998;
(2) found for plaintiffs on the disclosure claim only; and (3)
required the Company to pay pre-1998 benefits under the pre-
conversion traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits
under the post-conversion cash balance formula.  The Second
Circuit upheld this decision.  From 2008 through the present, this
case has undergone a series of court proceedings that resulted in
the original District Court order being largely upheld.  In 2015,
the Company submitted to the District Court its proposed method
for calculating the additional pension benefits due to class
members and plaintiffs responded in August 2015.

In January 2016, the District Court ordered the method of
calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members.
The court order left several aspects of the calculation of
additional plan benefits open to interpretation. During 2016, the
Company submitted its interpretation of the Court Order and the
plaintiffs filed various objections.

On January 10, 2017, the District Court issued an additional
ruling regarding certain aspects of the calculation of additional
plan benefits. On July 14, 2017, the District Court ruled on a
motion for clarification and reconsideration, clarifying and
modifying aspects of the January 10, 2017 Order.  The Company's
reserve for this litigation remains reasonable at June 30, 2017,
based on calculations consistent with the Company's interpretation
of the updated guidance from the Court.

The Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration of the July
14, 2017 Order. The final timing of the resolution of this matter
therefore remains uncertain. Once resolved, the Plan will be
amended to comply with the final interpretation of the District
Court's order and the benefits will begin to be paid.

Cigna Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a global
health services organization.


CIGNA CORP: Still Faces Franco v. Connecticut General Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the
case, Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al.

In April 2004, the Company was sued in a number of putative
nationwide class actions alleging that the Company improperly
underpaid claims for out-of-network providers through the use of
data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of the
Company's competitors.  These actions were consolidated into
Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al.,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The consolidated amended complaint, filed in 2009 on behalf of
subscribers, health care providers and various medical
associations, asserted claims related to benefits and disclosure
under ERISA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
("RICO") Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law
and seeks recovery for alleged underpayments from 1998 through the
present.  Other major health insurers have been the subject of, or
have settled, similar litigation.

In September 2011, the District Court (1) dismissed all claims by
the health care provider and medical association plaintiffs for
lack of standing; and (2) dismissed the antitrust claims, the New
Jersey state law claims and the ERISA disclosure claim.  In
January 2013 and again in April 2014, the District Court denied
separate motions by the plaintiffs to certify a nationwide class
of subscriber plaintiffs.  The Third Circuit denied plaintiffs'
request for an immediate appeal of the January 2013 ruling.  As a
result, the case is proceeding on behalf of the named plaintiffs
only.

In June 2014, the District Court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment to terminate all claims, and denied the
plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment.  In July 2014,
the plaintiffs appealed all of the District Court's decisions in
favor of the Company, including the class certification decision,
to the Third Circuit.

On May 2, 2016, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's
decisions denying class certification for the claims asserted by
members, the granting of summary judgment on the individual
plaintiffs' claims, as well as the dismissal of the antitrust
claims.  However, the Third Circuit also reversed the earlier
dismissal of the providers' ERISA claims.  The Company will
continue to vigorously defend its position.

Cigna Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a global
health services organization.


CITIZENS INC: "Gamboa" Class Action Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Citizens, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend a class action
lawsuit by Juan Gamboa.

On or about March 16, 2017, Juan Gamboa filed a putative class
action lawsuit against the Company and five of its current and
former directors and executive officers in the United States
District Court, Western District of Texas. The lawsuit alleges the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making false and/or misleading statements, as well as failing to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations and prospects.  The complaint seeks an award of damages
in an unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class consisting
of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between March
11, 2015 and March 8, 2017, inclusive.

The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit, and it
intends to vigorously defend against all claims asserted.  At this
time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the outcome of
this litigation.

Citizens, Inc. is an insurance holding company incorporated in
Colorado serving the life insurance needs of individuals in the
United States since 1969 and internationally since 1975.


CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL: "Mederos" Suit Seeks Paystubs, OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Suzana Mederos, individually and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Consolidated Disposal Services,
LLC and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
BC677379 (Cal. Super., September 26, 2017), seeks redress for
failure to provide meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages,
overtime, complete, wages not timely paid upon termination and
accurate wage statements, reimbursement of necessary business
expenses and resulting from unfair business practices and in
violation of the California Labor Law provisions of the Business
and Professions Code, including declaratory relief, damages,
penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees under
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.

Mederos was an hourly employee of Consolidated, a solid waste
collection and recycling service based in Santa Fe Springs,
California, from September 2010 through July 2017, as a customer
resource representative, performing call center-type duties.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael D. Singer, Esq.
      Janine R. Menhennet, Esq.
      COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
      605 C Street, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Phone: (619) 595-3001
      Fax: (619) 595-3000

             - and -

      Jonathan Lebe, Esq.
      LEBE LAW, APC
      5723 Melrose Avenue, Suite 100
      Los Angeles, CA 90038
      Phone: (310) 921-7056
      Fax: (310) 820-1258


CTI BIOPHARMA: Dec. 15 Hearing on $20 Million Deal
--------------------------------------------------
Dani Kass, writing for Law360, reported that CTI BioPharma Corp.
and its executives will pay $20 million to a proposed class of
investors for allegedly withholding information about patient
deaths during clinical trials for a myelofibrosis drug, which led
to a stock drop when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration stopped
the trials, the investors told a Washington federal court.

The proposed class, led by DAFNA LifeScience LP, said in a motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement and class certification
that CTI has agreed to pay following talks with JAMS mediator Jed
D. Melnick.

The plaintiffs then requested a settlement hearing for Dec. 15.

"The parties reached the settlement only after more than a year
and half of litigation and good faith, arm's-length negotiations
between sophisticated parties and experienced counsel, including
extensive mediation conducted by an experienced mediator," the
motion states. "Lead plaintiff respectfully submits that the
proposed settlement is a very favorable outcome for the settlement
class. If approved, the settlement represents a substantial
recovery that falls well within the range of possible approval and
avoids myriad litigation risks."

CTI Biopharma Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company has received a written offer for
the global resolution and settlement of the consolidated action,
In re CTI BioPharma Corp. Securities Litigation, in exchange for
cash payment of $20 million.

On February 10, 2016 and February 12, 2016, class action lawsuits
entitled Ahrens v. CTI BioPharma Corp. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-
01044 and McGlothlin v. CTI BioPharma Corp. et al., Case No. C16-
216, respectively, were filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York and the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington,
respectively, on behalf of shareholders that purchased or acquired
the Company's securities pursuant to our September 24, 2015 public
offering and/or shareholders who otherwise acquired our stock
between March 4, 2014 and February 9, 2016, inclusive. The
complaints assert claims against the Company and certain of our
current and former directors and officers for violations of the
federal securities laws under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and Sections 10
and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims allege that the
Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus for the September
24, 2015 public offering contained materially false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose certain material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations and prospects, including
with respect to the clinical trials and prospects for pacritinib.
Plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims allege that the Company's public
disclosures were knowingly or recklessly false and misleading or
omitted material adverse facts, again with a primary focus on the
clinical trials and prospects for pacritinib.

On May 2, 2016, the Company filed a motion to transfer the Ahrens
case to the United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington. The motion was unopposed and granted by the court
on May 19, 2016. On June 3, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion
to consolidate the McGlothlin case with the Ahrens case in order
to proceed as a single consolidated proceeding. On June 13, 2016,
the court granted the motion to consolidate with the action being
captioned In re CTI BioPharma Corp. Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 2:16-cv-00216-RSL. On September 2, 2016, the court
appointed Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel.

On September 28, 2016, the court entered a scheduling order, as
revised by order entered December 8, 2016, setting November 8,
2016 as the deadline to file a consolidated class action complaint
and deadlines for briefing defendants' motion to dismiss. Briefing
concluded on February 22, 2017. A hearing on the defendants'
motion to dismiss has not been set. The consolidated class action
complaint asserts claims similar to those asserted in the initial
complaints, although it no longer asserts claims relating to the
September 24, 2015 public offering, but adds claims relating to
the Company's October 27, 2015 and December 4, 2015 public
offerings.

The Company said, "On July 26, 2017, we received a written offer
for the global resolution and settlement of the consolidated
action in exchange for cash payment of $20 million. The Company
has insurance coverage related to this matter and such insurance
is expected to cover $18 million of the claim. We have agreed in
principle to the terms of the settlement offer and are currently
negotiating the terms of a memorandum of understanding with
respect to the terms of the settlement offer with the lead
plaintiff's representatives. The terms of any final agreement for
the settlement of the litigation will be subject to court
approval, amongst other customary terms and conditions."

CTI is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the acquisition,
development and commercialization of novel targeted therapies
covering a spectrum of blood-related cancers that offer a unique
benefit to patients and health care providers.


DOORDASH INC: "Austin" Suit Seeks Wage Payments, Reimbursements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darnell Austin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Doordash, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-
3098F filed in the Superior Court for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts on September 26, 2017, seeks restitution for all
damages due to the Plaintiff because of their misclassification as
independent contractors.  The suit also seeks statutory trebling
of damages, attorneys' fees and costs and interest and any other
relief under Massachusetts General Law.

DoorDash is a food delivery service that can be scheduled and
dispatched through a mobile phone application or through its
website from restaurants to customers at their homes and
businesses. Austin worked as a delivery driver for DoorDash and
claims to be misclassified as an independent contractor.  DoorDash
failed to reimburse drivers' necessary business expenses such as
gas and car maintenance and failed to pay him the Massachusetts
minimum wage after accounting for drivers' expenses and excluding
their tips, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
      Adelaide Pagano, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Tel: (617) 994-5800
      Email: sliss@llrlaw.com
             apagano@llrlaw.com


EMERGENCY COVERAGE: Seeks Approval of "Harbin" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit captioned DUSTIN HARBIN and JIMMY
PRUITT, on behalf of plaintiffs and the class defined herein v.
EMERGENCY COVERAGE CORPORATION and ACCOUNT RESOLUTION TEAM, INC.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00125-TRM-HBG (E.D. Tenn.), jointly ask the Court
to enter an order which:

     (i) preliminarily approves the Class Settlement Agreement;

    (ii) certifies for settlement purposes the Settlement Class
         as defined in Paragraph 10 of the Agreement;

   (iii) appoints Alan C. Lee, Esq., Peter A. Holland, Esq., and
         Scott C. Borison, Esq., as Class Counsel;

    (iv) appoints Plaintiffs as representatives of the Settlement
         Class;

     (v) sets dates for Settlement Class members to opt-out of,
         or object to, the Agreement;

    (vi) schedules a hearing for final approval of the Agreement;

   (vii) approves the mailing of notice to Settlement Class
         members; and

  (viii) finds that the mailing of such notice satisfies the
         requirements of due process.

The Parties have stipulated to certification of this class for
settlement purposes only:

     (a) All persons sued by Defendants; (b) in the General
     Session Court of Hamblen County, Tennessee; (c) that had
     garnishments issued against their wages that included
     amounts  of post-judgment interest or fees that exceeded the
     amount allowed under Tennessee state law; (d) that made
     payments to Defendants as a result of the wrongful
     garnishments issued to their employers by garnishment of
     wages or direct payment to the clerk between March 16, 2013
     and ending on April 5, 2016.

The Defendants' business records indicate that there are
approximately 136 people in the Settlement Class.

The Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and asserts additional claims
for restitution and punitive damages under Tennessee law, as a
result of allegedly seeking post-judgment interest in requests for
issuances of a garnishment that exceeded the amount permitted
under Tennessee law.

The Settlement Agreement provides that the Defendants will:

   -- create a class settlement fund of $1,360, which the Class
      Administrator, First Class, Inc., will distribute a $10
      check to each of those Settlement Class Members, who do not
      exclude themselves;

   -- pay $1,010 to Plaintiff Dustin Harbin and $1,010 to
      Plaintiff Jimmy Pruitt for their statutory damages, plus in
      recognition for their services to the Settlement Class; and

   -- pay the Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as
      the Court may award for prosecution of a "successful
      action."

A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=68Kql6iR

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan C. Lee, Esq.
          P. O. Box 1357
          Talbott, TN 37877-1357
          Telephone: (423) 581-0924
          E-mail: aleeattorney@gmail.com

               - and -

          Peter A. Holland, Esq.
          THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          914 Bay Ridge Road, Suite 230
          Annapolis, MD 21403
          Telephone: (410) 280-6133
          Facsimile: (410) 280-8650
          E-mail: peter@hollandlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott C. Borison, Esq.
          LEGG LAW FIRM, LLC
          1900 S. Norfolk Street, Suite 350
          San Mateo, CA 94403
          Telephone: (301) 620-1016
          Facsimile: (301) 620-1018
          E-mail: borison@legglaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John M. Lawhorn, Esq.
          FRANTZ, MCCONNELL & SEYMOUR, LLP
          550 West Main Avenue, Suite 500
          P. O. Box 39
          Knoxville, TN 37901-0039
          Telephone: (865) 546-9321
          Facsimile: (865) 637-5249
          E-mail: jlawhorn@fmsllp.com


EQUIFAX GROUP: "Lagasse" Sues Over Data Breach, Claims Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Lagasse and Andrea E. Petrungaro, in behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax
Credit Information Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
03745, (N.D. Ga., September 25, 2017), seeks compensatory,
statutory, treble and punitive damages, costs of suit including
the costs of notice of class action certification and judgment,
and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from invasion of privacy
and violation of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Equifax is a credit-reporting company that track and rates the
financial history of U.S. consumers. The companies are supplied
with data about loans, loan payments and credit cards, as well as
information on everything from child support payments, credit
limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer
history. Equifax experienced a cybersecurity incident impacting
approximately 143 million U.S. consumers exposing their names,
Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license
numbers and credit card numbers.

Klavans claims to be a victim of the data breach.

Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Credit Information Services LLC are
engaged in the business of assembling, evaluating, and dispersing
information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing
consumer reports to third parties upon request. [BN]

      Steven F. Molo, Esq.
      Justin B. Weiner, Esq.
      Megan Cunniff Church, Esq.
      Daniel Michaeli, Esq.
      MOLO LAMKEN LLP
      300 North LaSalle Street
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Tel: (312) 450-6700
      Fax: (312) 450-6701
      Email: smolo@mololamken.com
             jweiner@mololamken.com
             mchurch@mololamken.com
             dmichaeli@mololamken.com

             - and -

      Benjamin T. Sirolly, Esq.
      MOLO LAMKEN LLP
      600 New Hampshire Ave. NW
      Washington, DC 20037
      Tel: (202) 556-2000
      Fax: (202) 556-2001
      Email: btsirolly@mololamken.com

             - and -

      James E. Butler, Jr., Esq.
      Joel O. Wooten, Jr., Esq.
      Joseph M. Colwell, Esq.
      Ramsey B. Prather, Esq.
      BUTLER WOOTEN & PEAK LLP
      2719 Buford Highway NE
      Atlanta, GA 30324
      Tel: (404) 321-1700
      Fax: (404) 321-1713
      Email: jim@butlerwooten.com
             joel@butlerwooten.com
             joseph@butlerwooten.com
             ramsey@butlerwooten.com

             - and -

      Stephen D. Susman, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
      1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 651-9366
      Fax: (212) 336-8340
      Email: ssusman@susmangodfrey.com


EQUIFAX GROUP: "Mead" Sues Over Data Breach, Claims Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Terry Mead and Sean Knute Adcock, in behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., Equifax Credit
Information Services LLC and Equifax Consumer Services LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00208, (D. Alaska, September 29, 2017),
seeks compensatory, statutory, treble and punitive damages, costs
of suit including the costs of notice of class action
certification and judgment, and reasonable attorneys' fees
resulting from invasion of privacy and violation of the federal
Fair Credit Reporting Act and breach duty of care.

Equifax is a credit-reporting company that track and rates the
financial history of U.S. consumers. The companies are supplied
with data about loans, loan payments and credit cards, as well as
information on everything from child support payments, credit
limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer
history. Equifax experienced a cybersecurity incident impacting
approximately 143 million U.S. consumers exposing their names,
Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license
numbers and credit card numbers.

Plaintiffs claim to be victims of the data breach.

Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Credit Information Services LLC are
engaged in the business of assembling, evaluating, and dispersing
information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing
consumer reports to third parties upon request. [BN]

      Lee Holen, Esq.
      LEE HOLEN LAW OFFICE
      P.O. Box 92330
      Anchorage, AK 99509
      Telephone: (907) 278-0298
      Facsimile: (907) 278-0247

             - and -

      Kevin Sharp, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      611 Commerce St., Suite 3100
      Nashville, TN 37203
      Telephone: (615) 434-7001
      Facsimile: (615) 434-7020
      Email: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com

             - and -

      Ed Chapin, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1700
      San Diego CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 577-4253
      Fax: (619) 577-4250
      Email: echapin2@sanfordheisler.com

             - and -

      Danielle Fuschetti, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      111 Sutter St., Suite 975
      San Franscisco CA 94104
      Tel: (415) 795-2020
      Fax: (415) 795-2021
      Email: dfuschetti@sanfordheisler.com


FARMERS INSURANCE: DeLuca Moves to Certify Class of Investigators
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled DAVID DELUCA AND BARRY
FRANCIS, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and
on behalf of the general public v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE,
FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., and FARMERS
SPECIALITY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-00034-EDL
(N.D. Cal.), move the Court for certification of this class:

     All persons who were, are or will be employed by Defendants
     in the State of California as special investigators, senior
     special investigators, or general special investigators,
     other than those in the "Nationals" group, at any time
     within four (4) years prior to the date of the filing of
     this Complaint through the date of final disposition of this
     action who were, are, or will be classified as exempt from
     overtime pay under applicable law (the "California Rule 23
     Class").

On January 4, 2017, Plaintiffs David DeLuca and Barry Francis
filed this lawsuit seeking unpaid overtime alleging that Farmers
misclassified special investigators as overtime exempt in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and California law.  The
Plaintiffs also seek waiting time and wage statement penalties,
and premiums for missed meal periods.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives and to appoint their counsel as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on January 9, 2018, at 9:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9B0ju32D

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
          Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
          235 Montgomery St., Suite 810
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (877) 448-0492
          Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
          E-mail: helland@nka.com
                  dbrome@nka.com

               - and -

          Matthew H. Morgan, Esq.
          Reena I. Desai, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3243
          Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
          E-mail: morgan@nka.com
                  rdesai@nka.com


FEDEX GROUND: "Anderson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Anderson and Marques T. Sutton, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fedex Ground Package
System, Inc., Defendant, Case No. BC677625 (Cal. Super., September
29, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and benefits, interest,
attorney's fees, costs and expenses and penalties pursuant to the
California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law of the California
Business and Professions Code.

Plaintiffs claim unpaid wages and interest for all hours worked at
minimum wage rate, redress for missed meal periods, statutory
penalties for non-issuance of wage statements, waiting time
penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely
pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment.

FedEx is engaged in the business of the delivery of packages
nationwide where Plaintiffs worked as package handlers.

FedEx allegedly classified its delivery drivers as independent
contractors despite various state wage laws ruling otherwise. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
      Samantha A. Smith, Esq.
      THE COOPER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      4000 Barranca Parkway, Suite 250
      Irvine, CA 92604
      Telephone: (949) 724-9200
      Facsimile: (949) 724-9255
      Email: samantha@cooper-firm.com
             scott@cooper-firm.com

             - and -

      Amber L. Eck, Esq.
      Alreen Haeggquist, Esq.
      HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
      225 Broadway, Suite 2050
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 342-8000
      Facsimile: (619) 342-7878
      Email: ambere@haelaw.com
             alreenh@haelaw.com


FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the defendants' motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit has been granted and all claims
have been dismissed with prejudice.

The Company as successor to First Clover Leaf, certain former
executive officers of First Clover Leaf, and certain former
members of First Clover Leaf's board of directors, and the Company
are named as defendants in one purported class action lawsuit
brought by an alleged individual First Clover Leaf stockholder
challenging the merger of First Clover Leaf into the Company (the
"Lawsuit").

The Lawsuit is captioned Raul v. Highlander, et al , Case No. 16-
L-703, and was filed on May 20, 2016, in the Circuit Court of
Madison County, Illinois, Third Judicial District. The Lawsuit
alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual officers and
directors of First Clover Leaf relating to the process leading to
the merger of First Clover Leaf and the Company. The Lawsuit
alleges that the merger consideration was inadequate and that the
joint proxy statement/prospectus did not contain sufficient
disclosures and detail. The Lawsuit also alleges that First Clover
Leaf and the Company aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty by the individual defendants.

On July 12, 2017, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted
and all claims were dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiff can
appeal this decision prior to August 11, 2017.


FORA FINANCIAL: Dolemba's Cert. Bid Denied Over Settlement Talks
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Andrea R. Wood denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled SCOTT DOLEMBA
v. FORA FINANCIAL, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-10651 (N.D.
Ill.).

Pursuant to Defendants' agreed motion, the case has been stayed
since May 8, 2017, to permit the parties to focus on settlement
negotiations, according to the order.  The case was set for a
settlement conference before the magistrate judge on October 11,
2017.

In light of the stay and settlement conference, the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification was denied without prejudice.  The
Court further found that the Plaintiff has preserved all rights
with respect to his request for class certification.

The Court specifically advises the parties that while the stay
remains in place, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the
Defendant shall not take any action in an attempt to moot or
otherwise impair the Plaintiff's claim or ability to serve as
class representative, such as by depositing the full amount of the
Plaintiff's claim in an account payable to him.  If the settlement
conference is unsuccessful, the Plaintiff may request that the
motion be reinstated prior to the stay being lifted.

To avoid confusion, Judge Wood adds, although the Court's prior
order indicated that the stay would remain in place until October
25, 2017, the stay is modified so that it will remain in place
until further order of the Court.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=F0bOr2sP


GEICO INDEMNITY: Faces Tower Health Suit in S. Dist. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against GEICO Indemnity
Insurance Company.

The case is captioned Tower Health Center, Inc., a Florida
corporation, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated
other Yesenia Gomez v. GEICO Indemnity Insurance Company, Case No.
0:17-cv-61968-CMA (S.D. Fla., October 6, 2017).

GEICO Indemnity Insurance Company offers auto, life, and home
insurance solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Barbara Perez, Esq.
      Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq.
      ARONOVITZ LAW
      2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3700
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 372-2772
      Facsimile: (305) 397-1886
      E-mail: bp@aronovitzlaw.com
              ta@aronovitzlaw.com

         - and -

      Theophilos George Poulopoulos, Esq.
      CORREDOR, HUSSEINI AND SNEDAKER, P.A.
      9130 South Dadeland Blvd
      Datran II Center, Suite 1902
      Miami, FL 33156
      Telephone: (978) 621-4636


GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Fluker Sues Over Biometrics Data Retention
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Fluker, Jr. individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Glanbia Performance Nutrition,
Inc. and Automatic Data Processing, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2017-CH-12993, (Ill. Ch., September 26, 2017), seeks statutory
damages, injunctive and other equitable relief, reasonable
litigation expenses and attorneys' fees, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest and such other and further relief under the
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Glanbia is a sports nutrition company that produces a wide range
of fitness and performance-related food products, such as protein
smoothies, energy drinks, and protein bars. Fluker worked for
Glanbia as a Quality Operator at one of its Illinois facilities
from July 2016 to July 2017.

Glanbia uses a biometric time tracking system that requires
employees to use their fingerprint as a means of authentication,
instead of key fobs or identification cards. Fluker was never
informed of the specific limited purposes or length of time for
which Glanbia collected, stored or used his fingerprint. Plaintiff
was never informed of any biometric data retention policy
developed by Glanbia, nor has he been informed of whether Glanbia
will ever permanently delete his fingerprint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      Sydney M. Janzen, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 N. LaSalle, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Tel: (312) 589-6370
      Email: brichman@edelson.com
             jedelson@edelson.com
             sjanzen@edelson.com

             - and -

      David Fish, Esq.
      John Kunze, Esq.
      THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
      200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
      Naperville, IL 60563
      Tel: (630) 355-7590
      Fax: (630) 778-0400
      Email: fish@fishlawfirm.com
             jkunze@fishlawfirm.com


GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Court Denies Chruby's Bid to Certify 4 Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Timothy L. Brooks entered a memorandum opinion and order
in the lawsuit styled WALTER CHRUBY, et al. v. GLOBAL TEL*LINK
CORPORATION, Case No. 5:15-cv-05136-TLB (W.D. Ark.), denying:

   -- Defendant Global Tel*Link Corporation's motion to compel
      arbitration and stay the proceedings; and

   -- Plaintiffs Walter Chruby, Earl Reese, Stephen Orosz, Sr.,
      Stephen Orosz, Jr., Michael Veon, Stefanie Veon, Lewis
      Brooks, Jacqueline Jacobs, and Shondra Caldwell's motion
      for class certification, appointment of class
      representatives, and appointment of class counsel.

In their Motion, the Plaintiffs sought certification of four
classes:

     Unjust Enrichment Class 1: All persons who at any time on or
     after April 24, 2011 , paid to use inmate calling services
     provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating
     subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more intrastate
     phone calls from a correctional facility in Arkansas,
     California, Indiana, or Vermont, during a period of time
     when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any
     type in connection with the intrastate calls;

     Unjust Enrichment Class 2: All persons who at any time on or
     after April 24, 2011, paid to use inmate calling services
     provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating
     subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more intrastate
     phone calls from a correctional facility in Pennsylvania,
     Georgia, Florida, Maryland, Mississippi, South Dakota, or
     Virginia , during a period of time when Global Tel*Link paid
     the facility a commission of any type in connection with the
     intrastate calls;

     ADTPA Class: All persons who at any time on or after
     June 12, 2010: (1) paid to use inmate calling services
     provided by Global T el*Link (including its operating
     subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more intrastate
     phone calls from a correctional facility in Arkansas, during
     a period of time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a
     commission of any type in connection with the intrastate
     calls; and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Global Tel *Link in
     order to fund a prepaid account used to pay for any
     intrastate calls within Arkansas; and

     UCL Class: All persons who at any time on or after
     August 28, 2011: (1) paid to use inmate calling services
     provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating
     subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more intrastate
     phone calls from a correctional facility in California,
     during a period of time when Global T el *:Link paid the
     facility a commission of any type in connection with the
     intrastate calls; and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Global
     Tel*Link in order to fund a prepaid account used to pay for
     any intrastate calls within California.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M4DxU7iJ


GREENCORE USA: "Diaz" Sues Over Biometrics Data Retention
---------------------------------------------------------
Alma R. Diaz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Greencore USA - CPO Partners, LLC (d/b/a
Peacock Foods), Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-13198 (Ill. Cir.,
September 29, 2017), seeks statutory damages, injunctive and other
equitable relief, reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys'
fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and
further relief under the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Peacock is a food manufacturing, packaging and supply chain
solutions company that uses a biometric time tracking system that
requires employees to use their fingerprint as a means of
authentication, instead of key fobs or identification cards. Diaz
was never informed of the specific limited purposes or length of
time for which Peacock collected, stored or used his fingerprint.
Plaintiff was never informed of any biometric data retention
policy developed by the Defendants, nor has he ever informed of
whether Peacock will ever permanently delete his fingerprint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
      Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq.
      Alexis D. Martin, Esq.
      CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
      224 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Tel. (312) 763-6880


GREENLY: "Davis" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Penalties
---------------------------------------------------
Sable Davis, an individual, Axanti Anthony, an individual, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Greenly, Emily Meyers and Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC677941 (Cal. Super., September 29, 2017),
seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for Defendant's failure to
pay for all hours worked at minimum wage rate, failure to provide
meal/rest, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate
wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of
continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages
due upon separation of employment, reimbursement of business-
related expenses, injunctive relief and other equitable relief,
reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under California
Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law of the California Business and
Professions Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Orders.

Greenly is in the business of providing medical marijuana and
associated products to its clients throughout the Southern
California area where Davis worked as a driver. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas A. Kearney, Esq.
      Prescott W. Littlefield, Esq.
      KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD LLP
      3436 N. Verdugo Rd., Ste. 230
      Glendale, CA 91208
      Telephone (213) 473-1900
      Facsimile (213) 473-1919
      Email: tak@kearneylittlefield.com
             pwl@kearneylittlefield.com

             - and -

      Brandon Littlefield, Esq.
      LITTLEFIELD LAW
      11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 1700
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone (213) 785-8802

             - and -

      Aren Derbarseghian, Esq.
      15303 Ventura Blvd., 9th Floor
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Phone: (818) 574-0846
      Fax: (818) 936-9696
      Email: ad@ad-esq.com

             - and -

      Amir Abdizadeh, Esq.
      ADRO LAW
      9701 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1000
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Phone: (310) 651-3035
      Fax: (310) 300-1680


HEALTH INSURANCE: Defending Against TCPA Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company is
defending against multiple lawsuits relating to alleged TCPA
matters.

The Company has received a number of private-party claims relating
to alleged violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA) by its independently owned and operated licensed-agent
distributors, alleging that their marketing activities were
potentially unlawful.

The Company has been named as a defendant in multiple lawsuits
relating to alleged TCPA matters, including claims styled, but not
yet certified, as class actions. The Company is presently
reviewing these matters and reviewing distributor compliance, and
enhancing existing compliance.

"While these types of claims have previously settled or resolved
without any material effect on the Company, there is a possibility
in the future that one or more could have a material effect. The
Company requires that its independently owned and operated
licensed-agent distributors reimburse or indemnify it for any such
settlements," the Company said.

Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. is a developer, distributor and
cloud-based administrator of affordable individual health and
family insurance plans ("IFP") which include short-term medical
("STM") insurance plans, and guaranteed-issue and underwritten
Health Benefit Insurance Plans, previously referred to as hospital
indemnity plans.


HUTCHISON TREE: Berber's Cert. Bid Denied Due to Settlement Talks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James C. Dever, III, denies without prejudice the Plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed in the lawsuit entitled
ADRIAN BERBER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HUTCHISON TREE SERVICE, NORTHSTAR ENERGY SERVICES,
INC., PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS, INC., and CRAIG HUTCHISON, Case No.
5:15-cv-00143-D (E.D.N.C.).

The parties shall conduct a court-hosted settlement conference
with United States Magistrate Judge James E. Gates, Judge Dever
rules.  If the settlement conference does not resolve the case,
the Court will address the merits of the Plaintiff's Motion, Judge
Dever says.

Judge Gates will notify the parties how he wishes to proceed
concerning the settlement conference, and the date on which it
will be held.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7g7rD8j0


HYATT EQUITIES: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Guarisma" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ursula Ungaro denied the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the lawsuit entitled CARLOS GUARISMA v. HYATT
EQUITIES, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-20931-UU (S.D. Fla.).

On March 13, 2017, Plaintiff Carlos Guarisma filed the putative
class action, alleging one claim for violations of Section
1691c(g) of the Fair and Accurate Credit Reporting Act, amending
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  The Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant Hyatt Equities, LLC, willfully, knowingly or recklessly
violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1681c(g), which, in short, prohibits
persons that accept "credit cards or debit cards for the
transaction of business" from "print[ing] 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 has moved to certify this nationwide class:

     (i) All persons in the United States (ii) who, when paying
     for their hotel room at any Hyatt hotel identified by
     Defendant or its records as using Opera PMS software during
     a time period the software was programmed to print a
     point-of-sale transaction receipt that disclosed the
     expiration date or first six digits of the number of any
     debit or credit card used in that kind of transaction at
     that hotel, (iii) made such payment using a credit or debit
     card (iv) and were provided with a printed receipt.

According to the order, the Court finds that individual issues
predominate over common ones, such that certification would be
inappropriate.  The Court adds that a class action is not the
clearly superior method for fairly and efficiently adjudicating
this controversy.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SBVUx3jE


IC SYSTEM: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Wise" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer grants the Defendant's motion to
compel arbitration in the lawsuit styled ROCHELLE WISE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
I.C. SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-09752 (N.D. Ill.).

Judge Pallmeyer opines that ICS has produced sufficient evidence
that the right to arbitrate in the Customer Agreement was assigned
to it.  Judge Pallmeyer also rules that the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification is stricken, and the case is dismissed without
prejudice to arbitration.

Plaintiff Rochelle Wise received an e-mail in October 2016 from
ICS attempting to collect a debt that she owes to DirecTV, her
former cable provider.  She claims that, in this e-mail, ICS
failed to disclose that it was a debt collector, in violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  She brought this suit on
behalf of herself and all Illinois consumers from whom ICS
attempted to collect a debt, and similarly failed to disclose that
it was a debt collector, during the year prior to the filing of
her complaint.

ICS promptly moved to dismiss and compel arbitration of the
dispute.  ICS contends it is entitled to enforce the agreement for
services between Wise and DirecTV, including the provision in
which Wise agreed to resolve "any legal or equitable claim
relating to this Agreement, any addendum, or [Wise's] Service"
through binding arbitration.  The arbitration provision also
includes a class action waiver.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=K7TOav7F


INDUS INVESTMENTS: "Haddadin" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oday Haddadin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Indus Investments, Inc. and Does 1
through 100, Defendants, Case No. BC677948 (Cal. Super., September
29, 2017), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for failure to
pay for all hours worked and minimum wage rate, failure to
authorize or permit required meal periods, failure to authorize or
permit required rest periods, statutory penalties for failure to
provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the
form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all
wages due upon separation of employment, injunctive relief and
other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
interest under California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law of
the California Business and Professions Code and applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Defendants employed Haddadin as a non-exempt employee working in
Defendants' hotel in Santa Monica as a guest services agent from
approximately March of 2015 through 7 October of 2016. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
      Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
      BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR, P.C.
      287 S. Robertson Blvd., Ste. 303
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Tel: (310) 438-5555
      Fax: (310) 300-1705
      Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
             mehrdad@tomorrowlaw.com


INSTAFF INC: "Pelaez" Claims Overtime, Reimbursements, Paystubs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Pelaez, on behalf of himself and all employees similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Instaff, Inc., a California corporation,
Cruz Modular, Inc., a California corporation, and Does 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2017-00946964 (Cal. Super.,
September 26, 2017), seeks redress for Defendants' failure to
provide meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages, overtime,
complete and accurate wage statements and reimbursement of
necessary business expenses, including declaratory relief,
damages, penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees
resulting from unfair business practices and violation of the
California Labor Laws of the Business and Professions Code,.

Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt employee by Cruz Modular
though a labor-contracting agency, Instaff, Inc., assembling
office furniture at various sites.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
      Dionisios Aliazis, Esq.
      MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
      249 E. Ocean Blvd.,Ste. 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 590-5550
      Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
      Email: kmahonev@mahonev-law.net
             daliazis@mahonev-law.net


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: $354,000,000 Accord Wins Final Court OK
------------------------------------------------------------
The $354,000,000 settlement in the case, Kleen Products LLC, et
al., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v.
International Paper Company, et al., pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, has been
granted final court approval on October 17, 2017.

International Paper Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the district court scheduled the
final approval hearing for October 17, on the settlement in the
Containerboard class action.

On June 27, 2017, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the class plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit captioned
Kleen Products LLC et al. v. International Paper Co. et al. (N.D.
Ill.) which was filed in September 2010, and is pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. Eight containerboard producers, including the Company,
Temple-Inland and Weyerhaeuser Company (the "Released
Defendants"), were named as defendants in the lawsuit which
alleges a civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

In particular, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants conspired
to limit the supply and thereby increase prices of containerboard
products during the period from February 15, 2004, through
November 8, 2010.

Four similar complaints were filed and consolidated in the
Northern District of Illinois.

In March 2015, the District Court certified a plaintiff class
consisting of all persons who purchased containerboard products
directly from the defendant for use or delivery in the United
States during the class period.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, on August 1, 2017,
the Company paid $354 million into a settlement fund in return for
a dismissal of the Released Defendants and release of all claims
and alleged damages asserted against the Released Defendants in
the lawsuit or that are related to or arise from the direct
purchase of containerboard products from the Released Defendants
by the class members from the beginning of time up to preliminary
approval of the settlement agreement by the district court, which
occurred on July 13, 2017. Any attorneys' fees awarded by the
district court and all costs of notice and claims administration
will be paid from the settlement fund.

The settlement agreement remains subject to final approval by the
district court and provides for a period of time during which
class members will be notified of the settlement and given an
opportunity to file a claim form to receive a settlement payment,
object to the settlement or do nothing. The district court has
scheduled a final approval hearing for October 17, 2017, at which
time the parties will request final approval of the settlement and
at which time any objectors to the settlement will be heard. If
the district court gives final approval to the settlement, the
release will be effective as to all class members regardless of
whether they filed a claim form and received payment.

Additional information on the case is available at:

            http://www.containerboardproductscase.com/


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Ashley Furniture Suit Underway in Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. Packaging
Corporation of America et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00469 (W.D. Wis.),
Judge William M Conley entered an Opinion and Order on Sept. 26,
2017, denying a Partial Motion to Dismiss or for Judgment on the
Pleadings; granting in part and denying in part, a Partial Motion
to Dismiss; denying a Partial Motion to Dismiss; denying a Partial
Motion to Dismiss; denying a Partial Motion to Dismiss; granting
in part, a Joint Motion to Stay.

International Paper Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that in June 2016, a lawsuit captioned
Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc. v. Packaging Corporation of America
(W.D. Wis.), was filed in federal court in Wisconsin against ten
defendants, including the Company, Temple-Inland and Weyerhaeuser
Company. The Ashley Furniture lawsuit closely tracks the
allegations found in the Kleen Products complaint, alleging a
practically identical civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, but also asserts Wisconsin state antitrust claims.

In January 2011, International Paper was named as a defendant in a
lawsuit filed in state court in Cocke County, Tennessee alleging
that International Paper violated Tennessee law by conspiring to
limit the supply and fix the prices of containerboard from mid-
2005 to the present.

Plaintiffs in the state court action seek certification of a class
of Tennessee indirect purchasers of containerboard products,
damages and costs, including attorneys' fees. No class
certification materials have been filed to date in the Tennessee
action.

The Company continues to dispute the allegations made in the
Ashley Furniture and Tennessee lawsuits and vigorously defend
each.

"At this time, however, because actions are in a preliminary
stage, we are unable to predict an outcome or estimate a range of
reasonably possible loss," the Company said.


ISLE OF CAPRI CASINOS: Brna Seeks Prelim. OK of Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled DANIEL A. BRNA, RAMON
FERNANDEZ and JAMES E. SCOTT, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. ISLE OF CAPRI CASINOS, INC. and
INTERBLOCK USA, LLC, Case No. 0:17-cv-60144-FAM (S.D. Fla.), filed
with the Court their unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement and for certification of the settlement
class.

For the purposes of implementing the proposed Settlement, and for
no other purpose, the Defendants have conditionally withdrawn
their objections to the certification of a class and stipulated to
the conditional certification of this Settlement Class:

     All Fan Club members who played the game of craps on
     Interblock's Organic Dice machines at IOC's Pompano Park
     casino during the Class Period and who placed and won a Buy
     Bet while playing craps.  Excluded from the Settlement Class
     are (a) officers, directors, and employees of IOC,
     Interblock and their parents and subsidiaries; and (b)
     judicial officers and employees of the Court.

The Settlement Agreement provides direct monetary relief to IOC
Fan Club members, who played the game of craps on Interblock's
Organic Dice machines at IOC's Pompano Park casino and placed a
winning "buy bet" during the Class Period which is "July 8, 2015
to January 22, 2017, inclusive."  According to IOC's Fan Club
records, approximately 6,000 IOC Fan Club members inserted their
membership card to play the Organic Dice machines at IOC's Pompano
Park casino during the Class Period and will be eligible to claim
settlement relief in this case if they certify that they placed
winning Buy Bets during the Class Period.

The Settlement Agreement affords every member of the Settlement
Class the opportunity to receive direct monetary relief in the
form of a settlement check in the amount of $15 or, if the
participation rate in the settlement does not exceed 17.5%, then
each eligible Class Member will instead receive the increased
amount of $30.  Consequently, the Settlement Class members could
receive as much as $90,000 in aggregate monetary relief.

The Parties stipulate in the Settlement Agreement that the law
firms of Kelley Uustal PLC and Daren Stabinski, P.A. will serve as
Class Counsel.  Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees
and expenses shall not exceed $155,000 and Defendants agreed that
they will not oppose such application and agree to pay such amount
if granted by the Court.  This payment of attorney's fees and
costs is separate from the monetary relief to be paid to the
Settlement Class members and does not reduce that recovery.  The
Defendants have also agreed not to oppose a service award of
$2,500 to each named plaintiff, Daniel Brna and James Scott, for
their service to the class.

The Parties have agreed to a resolution that provides for the
settlement on a classwide basis of the claims that are the subject
of this litigation.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cristina M. Pierson, Esq.
          KELLEY UUSTAL, PLC
          500 North Federal Highway, Suite 200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 522-6601
          Facsimile: (954) 522-6608
          E-mail: cmp@kulaw.com

               - and -

          Daren Stabinski, Esq.
          DAREN STABINSKI P.A.
          700 SW 78th Ave., #916
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone (954) 540-9517
          E-mail: daren@tenderbox.tv

Defendant Isle of Capri, Inc., is represented by:

          Gary C. Rosen, Esq.
          Daniel L. Wallach, Esq.
          BECKER & POLIAKOFF, P.A.
          1 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1800
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 985-4133
          Facsimile: (954) 985-4176
          E-mail: grosen@bplegal.com
                  dwallach@bplegal.com

Defendants Interblock USA L.L.C. and Isle of Capri Inc, n/k/a Isle
of Capri LLC, are represented by:

          Stephen Warren, Esq.
          Allison Kernisky, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 374-8500
          Facsimile: (305) 789-7799
          E-mail: stephen.warren@hklaw.com
                  allison.kernisky@hklaw.com


JOHN D CLUNK: Rainier May Refile Bid to Certify Class, Court says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael H. Watson denied without prejudice to re-filing
within 30 days the motion to certify a class or, in the
alternative, to certify a class as to certain issues filed by
Stephen Rainier, and Scott and Stacy Marple, Plaintiffs in the
lawsuit styled STEPHEN & VICKI RAINIER, et al. v. THE LAW OFFICES
OF JOHN D. CLUNK CO., L.P.A., Case No. 2:13-cv-01173-MHW-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio).

In their Motion, the Plaintiffs seek to certify this class:

     All persons who received a Chapter 7 discharge in U.S.
     Bankruptcy Court and were subsequently named as a party in a
     foreclosure complaint filed by Defendant (The Law Offices of
     John D. Clunk, Co., L.P.A.) on or between the dates of
     November 20, 2012 and December 31, 2013.

According to the order, on September 22, 2017, the Court issued an
Opinion and Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment as to liability and granting, in part, Clunk's
cross-motion for summary judgment as to actual damages.  That
disposition either resolved or clarified several of the issues
addressed in the Plaintiffs' Motion and Defendant's response
thereto.

In light of these changed circumstances, the Court finds that, in
the interest of judicial economy, the Plaintiffs' current
certification motion should be denied without prejudice.  The
parties are directed to work in good faith toward a negotiated
statutory damages class definition.

In the event an agreement is reached, the parties should file a
joint motion requesting approval of their proposed class, Judge
Watson rules.  If these efforts are unsuccessful, Judge Watson
states, the Plaintiffs may file a renewed class certification
motion and briefing will follow in the ordinary course.  Any
briefing should be undertaken with the understanding that all
parties shall abide by the Court's page limit requirements.
Either motion may be filed within 30 days.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KKI3ocJK


LEVEL 3: Settlement of Rights-of-Way Litigation Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to seek
approval of the settlement of Rights-of-Way Litigation in the
remaining state.

The Company said, "We are party to a number of purported class
action lawsuits involving our right to install fiber optic cable
network in railroad right-of-ways adjacent to plaintiffs' land. In
general, we obtained the rights to construct our networks from
railroads, utilities, and others, and have installed our networks
along the rights-of-way so granted. Plaintiffs in the purported
class actions assert that they are the owners of lands over which
the fiber optic cable networks pass, and that the railroads,
utilities and others who granted us the right to construct and
maintain our network did not have the legal authority to do so.
The complaints seek damages on theories of trespass, unjust
enrichment and slander of title and property, as well as punitive
damages. We have also received, and may in the future receive,
claims and demands related to rights-of-way issues similar to the
issues in these cases that may be based on similar or different
legal theories. We have defeated motions for class certification
in a number of these actions but expect that, absent settlement of
these actions, plaintiffs in the pending lawsuits will continue to
seek certification of statewide or multi-state classes."

"The only lawsuit in which a class was certified against us,
absent an agreed upon settlement, occurred in Koyle, et. al. v.
Level 3 Communications, Inc., et. al., a purported two state class
action filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Idaho. The Koyle lawsuit has been dismissed pursuant to a
settlement reached in November 2010.

"We negotiated a series of class settlements affecting all persons
who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of way in
which we have installed our fiber optic cable networks. The United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in
Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P. granted preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement; however, on September 10,
2009, the court denied a motion for final approval of the
settlement on the basis that the court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

"In November 2010, we negotiated revised settlement terms for a
series of state class settlements affecting all persons who own or
owned land next to or near railroad rights of way in which we have
installed our fiber optic cable networks. We are currently
pursuing presentment of the settlement in applicable
jurisdictions. The settlements, affecting current and former
landowners, have received final federal court approval in all but
one of the applicable states and the parties are actively engaged
in, or have completed, the claims process for the vast majority of
the applicable states, including payment of claims. We continue to
seek approval in the remaining state.

"Management believes that we have substantial defenses to the
claims asserted in all of these actions and intends to defend them
vigorously if a satisfactory settlement is not ultimately approved
for all affected landowners."

Level 3 Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries is a facilities-
based provider (that is, a provider that owns or leases a
substantial portion of the plant, property and equipment necessary
to provide our services) of a broad range of integrated
communications services.


MATCH GROUP: "McCloskey" Class Action Ongoing in Texas
------------------------------------------------------
Match Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the
"McCloskey" securities class action litigation.

On February 26, 2016, a putative nationwide class action was filed
in federal court in Texas against the Company, five of its
officers and directors, and twelve underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering in November 2015.  See David M. Stein v.
Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-549 (U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Texas).  The complaint alleged that the
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's initial public offering were materially false and
misleading given their failure to state that: (i) Match Group's
Non-dating business would miss its revenue projection for the
quarter ended December 31, 2015, and (ii) ARPPU would decline
substantially in the quarter ended December 31, 2015.

The complaint asserted that these alleged failures to timely
disclose material information caused Match Group's stock price to
drop after the announcement of its earnings for the quarter ended
December 31, 2015.  The complaint pleaded claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 for untrue statements of material fact in,
or omissions of material facts from, the registration statement,
the prospectus, and related communications in violation of
Sections 11 and 12 and, as to the officer/director defendants
only, control-person liability under Section 15 for the Company's
alleged violations.  The complaint sought among other relief class
certification and damages in an unspecified amount.

On March 9, 2016, a virtually identical class action complaint was
filed in the same court against the same defendants by a different
named plaintiff.  See Stephany Kam-Wan Chan v. Match Group, Inc.
et al., No. 3:16-cv-668 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Texas).

On April 25, 2016, Judge Boyle in the Chan case issued an order
granting the parties' joint motion to transfer that case to Judge
Lindsay, who is presiding over the earlier-filed Stein case.

On April 27, 2016, various current or former Match Group
shareholders and their respective law firms filed motions seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel for
the putative class.  On April 28, 2016, the Court issued orders:
(i) consolidating the Chan case into the Stein case, (ii)
approving the parties' stipulation to extend the defendants' time
to respond to the complaint until after the Court has appointed a
lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the putative class and has set
a schedule for the plaintiff's filing of a consolidated complaint
and the defendants' response to that pleading, and (iii) referring
the various motions for appointment of lead plaintiff(s) and lead
or liaison counsel for the putative class to a United States
Magistrate Judge for determination.

In accordance with this order, the consolidated case is now
captioned Mary McCloskey et ano. v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No.
3:16-CV-549-L.  On June 9, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an
order appointing two lead plaintiffs, two law firms as co-lead
plaintiffs' counsel, and a third law firm as plaintiffs' liaison
counsel.

On July 27, 2016, the parties submitted to the Court a joint
status report proposing a schedule for the plaintiffs' filing of a
consolidated amended complaint and the parties' briefing of the
defendants' contemplated motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. On August 17, 2016, the Court issued an order approving
the parties' proposed schedule.

On September 9, 2016, in accordance with the schedule, the
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint.  The new
pleading focuses solely on allegedly misleading statements or
omissions concerning the Match Group's Non-dating business. The
defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint on November 8, 2016. The plaintiffs filed oppositions to
the motions on December 23, 2016, and the defendants filed replies
to the oppositions on February 6, 2017.

"We believe that the allegations in these lawsuits are without
merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them," the
Company said.

Match Group, Inc. is the world's leading provider of dating
products.


MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS: "Robinson" Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Mo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Sharise Robinson, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. McClatchy Newspapers,
Inc. and The Kansas City Star Company, Defendants, Case No. 1716-
CV-18730 (Mo. Cir., August 5, 2017) was removed to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on
September 29, 2017, under Case No. 17-cv-00818.

Robinson alleges that Defendant improperly classified her as an
independent contractor and reported sums paid to her on a Form
1099 and not withholding wages as if she were an employee. She
seeks statutory, liquidated and statutory damages plus punitive
damages and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Internal revenue Code. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip M. Murphy II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP M. MURPHY II
      4717 Grand Avenue, Suite 250
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Tel: (913) 661-2900
      Fax: (913) 312-5841
      Email: Phillip@phillipmurphylaw.com

Defendant is represented by:

      Richard N. Bien, Esq.
      Elizabeth D. Hatting, Esq.
      2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 2200
      Kansas City, MO 64108-2618
      Telephone: (816) 292-2000
      Fax: (816) 292-2001
      Email: rbien@lathropgage.com
             ehatting@lathropgage.com


MDL 2796: "Lewis" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Steven Lewis, Travis Burton, Gabriel Briscoe,
and Marilyn Fong, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BMW AG, BMW North America, LLC, Volkswagen
AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG, Audi of America,
Inc., Audi of America, LLC, Dr. Ing. H.C.F. Porsche AG, Porsche
Cars of North America, Inc., Daimler AG, Mercedes Benz USA, LLC,
Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC, Mercedes-Benz US International, Inc.,
Robert Bosch GmbH, and Robert Bosch LLC, received on October 5,
2017, a transfer order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District
Litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, that the action is
transferred to the Northern District California Creating MDL No.
3:17-md-2796 CRB.

The Defendants are in the business of producing automobiles and
motorcycles, and aircraft engines. [BN]

The Plaintiff Steven Lewis is represented by:

      Emily Catherine Aldridge, Esq.
      Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Esq.
      Matthew Sinclair Weiler, Esq.
      BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
      1999 Harrison Street, Suite 670
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (415) 445-4013
      Facsimile: (415) 445-4020
      E-mail: ealdridge@bfalaw.com
              lweaver@bfalaw.com
              mweiler@bfalaw.com

The Plaintiff Gabriel Briscoe is represented by:

      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK, LLP
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
              lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
              rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
      Oakland, CA 94612-9800
      Telephone: (510) 463-3900
      Facsimile: (510) 463-3901
      E-mail: jlewis@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Juli E. Farris, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1129 State Street, Suite 8
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Telephone: (805) 456-1496
      Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
      E-mail: jfarris@kellerrohrback.com

The Plaintiff Marilyn Fong is represented by:

      Lisa P. Mak, Esq.
      Sean Tamura-Sato, Esq.
      MINAMI TAMAKI LLP
      360 Post Street, 8th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 788-9000
      Facsimile: (415) 398-3887
      E-mail: lmpk@minamitamaki.com
              seant@minamitamaki.com

The Defendant BMW North America, LLC is represented by:

      Kimberly Arouh, Esq.
      BUCHANAN INGERSOLL AND ROONEY
      600 West Broadway, Suite 1100
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 239-8700
      Facsimile: (619) 702-3898
      E-mail: kimberly.arouh@bipc.com

The Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.is represented by:

     Sharon L. Nelles, Esq.
     SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL LLP
     125 Broad Street
     New York, NY 10004
     Telephone: (212) 558-4976
     Facsimile: (212) 291-9104
     E-mail: nelless@sullcrom.com

The Defendant Porsche Cars of North America, Inc.is represented
by:

     Charles Christian Correll Jr., Esq.
     Norman A. Armstrong Jr., Esq.
     KING AND SPALDING LLP
     333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 400
     Redwood Shores, CA 94065
     Telephone: (650) 590-0700
      Facsimile: (650) 590-1900
      E-mail: ccorrell@kslaw.com
              narmstrong@kslaw.com

The Defendant Mercedes Benz USA, LLC is represented by:

      Eric J. Knapp, Esq.
      SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS LLP
      275 Battery Street, Suite 2600
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 954-0200
      Facsimile: (415) 393-9887
      E-mail: Eric.Knapp@squirepb.com

The Defendant Robert Bosch GmbH is represented by:

      Claire Naila Rajan, Esq.
      ALLEN OVERY LLP
      1101 New York Avenue, NW, 11th Floor
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 683-3869
      Facsimile: (202) 683-3869
      E-mail: claire.rajan@allenovery.com


MG SECURITY: Denied Gibbons Overtime, Wage Statements
------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Gibbons, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MG Security Services LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 158554/2017 (N.Y. Sup., September 26, 2017), seeks maximum
liquidated damages and interest for being paid overtime wages, and
non-overtime wages later than weekly; compensation for not
receiving compliant notices and statements; and costs and
attorneys' fees pursuant to New York Labor Law.

Defendant was engaged in the security business, providing security
personal at many locations such as apartment buildings, and
employed Gibbons as a security guard. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Tel: (718) 740-1000
      Fax: (718) 355-9668
      Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


MICRO MATIC: Doritty Wants to Notify Class of Workers, Applicants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned DIANE DORITTY, JOSEPHINE
FLETCHER, KAREN CARR, DEBRA SLATON and BRYAN SLATON, on their own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MICRO MATIC
USA, INC., a Foreign Corporation, Case No. 8:17-cv-01679-EAK-AEP
(M.D. Fla.), ask the Court for an order permitting and supervising
notice to:

     employees and applicants over the age of 40 who: (i) were
     employed at Defendant's Brooksville facilities between
     August 29, 2015 to the present and were terminated or
     demoted; or (ii) applied for, but were denied, employment at
     Defendant's Brooksville facilities of their "opt-in" rights.

The action accuses the Defendant of having a policy or practice of
age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uccgxc4Z

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
          Jason M. Melton, Esq.
          WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
          One Progress Plaza
          200 Central Avenue, #400
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (727) 822-1111
          Facsimile: (727) 898-2001
          E-mail: lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
                  jason@thefllawfirm.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Court OKs 2nd Bid to Certify Class in Pierre Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber denied as moot the Plaintiff's
first motion to certify class in view of the Court's order
granting the Plaintiff's second motion to certify class in the
lawsuit entitled Renetrice R. Pierre v. Midland Credit Management,
Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-02895 (N.D. Ill.).

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=L7kG7kF6


MILLER AND STEENO: Court Strikes Dilallo's Bid to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan has stricken without prejudice
the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit captioned
Roberta Dilallo v. Miller and Steeno, P.C., et al., Case No. 1:16-
cv-00051 (N.D. Ill.).

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sc4KQKCZ


NATIONAL ACCOUNT: "Larsen" Disputes Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------
John Larsen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Account Systems of Omaha, LLC and
Matthew P. Saathoff, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00356, (D. Neb.,
September 25, 2017), seeks injunctive relief, actual and statutory
damages, including disgorgement and refund of any amounts
collected as a result of collecting attorneys' fees and such other
and further relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act.

On April 12, 2017, Defendants filed their standard county court
collection complaint against Larsen seeking to collect the sum of
$606.94 for services of Thomsen Dental Group. Said letter
indicated that Plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable attorney fee
to be taxed as part of the costs against Defendant. This language
is misleading to an unsophisticated consumer because under
Nebraska Law, costs are allowed upon filing the lawsuit but
attorney fees are only allowed upon judgment being taken, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Pamela A. Car, Esq.
      William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
      CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C., LLO
      8720 Frederick Street, Suite 105
      Omaha, NE 68124
      Tel: (402) 391-8484
      Fax: (402) 391-1103
      E-mail: pacar@cox.net

              - and -

      O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
      HORWITZ, HORWITZ& ASSOCIATES
      25 East Washington Street, Suite 900
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 372-8822
      Fax: (312) 372-1673
      Email: rand@horwitzlaw.com


OLD REPUBLIC: "White" Class Action Awaiting Court's Decision
------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the "White" class
action lawsuit is awaiting the Court's decision.

On December 30, 2011 and on January 4, 2013, purported class
action suits alleging RESPA violations were filed in the Federal
District Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania targeting
RMIC, other mortgage guaranty insurance companies, PNC Financial
Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) and HSBC Bank
USA, N.A., and their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries.
(White, Hightower, et al. v. PNC Financial Services Group (as
successor to National City Bank) et al.), (Ba, Chip, et al. v.
HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.).

The lawsuits are two of twelve against various lenders, their
captive reinsurers and the mortgage insurers, filed by the same
law firms. All of these lawsuits were substantially identical in
alleging that the mortgage guaranty insurers had reinsurance
arrangements with the defendant banks' captive insurance
subsidiaries under which payments were made in violation of the
anti-kickback and fee splitting prohibitions of Sections 8(a) and
8(b) of RESPA.

Ten of the twelve suits have been dismissed. A class has not been
certified in either remaining suit. Those two remaining suits
seeking unspecified damages, costs, fees and the return of the
allegedly improper payments were settled with an agreement to make
nominal payments. Ba has been dismissed with prejudice and White
is awaiting the Court's decision.


OMNITRITION INT'L: "Pattison" Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Deana Pattison, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Omnitrition
International, Inc., Roger M. Daley and Barbara Daley,
individually and their marital community comprised therewith,
Jennifer Van Vynck, Omnitrition Independent Marketing Associate,
Defendant, Case No. 17-2-19735-1, (Wash. Super., July 25, 2017),
was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington on September 25, 2017, under Case No. 2:17-cv-01454.

Plaintiff asserts claims for alleged violation of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act, fraud, misrepresentation and unjust
enrichment resulting from the labeling, marketing and sales of
"Omni Drops" product sold by the Daleys' company, Omnitrition
International, Inc. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tyler K. Firkins, Esq.
      Victor J. Torres, Esq.
      VAN SICLEN STOCKS & FIRKINS
      721 45TH ST NE
      Auburn, WA 98002-1381
      Tel: (253) 859-8899
      Email: tfirkins@vansiclen.com

Defendants are represented by:

      Kristin Beneski, Esq.
      Heidi Brooks Bradley, Esq.
      Douglas W Greene, Esq.
      LANE POWELL PC
      1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200
      Seattle, WA 98101-2338
      Tel: (206) 223-7000, (206) 223-7979
      Email: beneskik@lanepowell.com
             bradleyh@lanepowell.com
             greened@lanepowell.com


ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Securities Action Pending in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
OneMain Holdings, Inc. continues to defend federal securities
class actions in New York, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On February 10, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit, Galestan v.
OneMain Holdings, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants
the Company and two of its officers. The lawsuit alleges
violations of the Exchange Act for allegedly making materially
misleading statements and/or omitting material information, and
was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February
25, 2016 and November 7, 2016. The complaint seeks an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, an award of interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs, and equitable relief
as the court may deem just and proper.

On March 23, 2017, the court appointed a lead plaintiff for the
putative class and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of
counsel. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 13,
2017, challenging statements regarding the Company's projections
of future financial performance and certain statements regarding
integration after the OneMain Acquisition.

The Company believes that the allegations specified in the amended
complaint are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend
against the claims. As the lawsuit is in the preliminary stages,
the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of
loss, if any, that may result from the lawsuit.

OneMain is a provider of responsible personal loan products,
primarily to non-prime customers.


ORBITAL ATK: Dismissal of "Knurr" Class Action Sought
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, Knurr v. Orbital ATK Inc. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-
01031 (E.D. Va.), a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
was filed October 24 by defendants Mark W DeYoung, Blake E.
Larson, Orbital ATK Inc., Garrett E. Pierce, David W. Thompson,
and Hollis Thompson.

In September, according to a report by Jon Hill of Law360,
Virginia Federal District Judge T.S. Ellis III lopped off the
fraud-related claims from a proposed class action accusing defense
company Orbital ATK of making false and misleading statements
about a $2.3 billion U.S. Army ammunition contract, finding that
the investors behind the suit hadn't shown an intent to deceive.

Judge Ellis dismissed without prejudice two of the four counts in
the investors' roughly 100-page complaint, ruling that their
allegations didn't individually or collectively support the strong
inference of scienter necessary for the investors' fraud claim and
associated control person liability claim to survive.

Orbital ATK, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 2, 2017, that, "On August 12, 2016, a putative class action
complaint, naming the Company, our Chief Executive Officer and our
Chief Financial Officer as defendants, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Steven
Knurr, et al. v. Orbital ATK, Inc., No. 16-cv-01031 (TSE-MSN)).
The class action complaint asserts claims on behalf of purchasers
of Orbital ATK securities for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, arising out of allegedly false and
misleading statements and the failure to disclose that: (i) the
Company lacked effective control over financial reporting; and
(ii) as a result, the Company failed to record an anticipated loss
on its long-term contract with the U.S. Army to manufacture and
supply small caliber ammunition at the U.S. Army's Lake City Army
Ammunition Plant."

"On April 24, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding our Chief Operating Officer and a former Chief Executive
Officer/Director as defendants and asserting claims for violations
of additional sections of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint
also alleges false and misleading statements in the Company's Form
S-4 filed with the SEC relating to the merger between the Company
and Orbital Sciences Corporation. The complaint seeks an award of
damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses at trial,
including counsel and expert fees, and an award of such other
relief as deemed appropriate by the Court. The Company is
defending this action vigorously."

Orbital ATK is an aerospace and defense systems company and
supplier of products to the U.S. Government, allied nations, prime
contractors and other customers.


PACCAR INC: Petition to Certify Class Action Filed
--------------------------------------------------
PACCAR Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2017, that a petition to certify a claim as a class action have
been filed against DAF Trucks N.V., and other truck manufacturers.

In the first quarter of 2016, the Company recorded a charge of
EUR850.0 million ($942.6 million) in connection with an
investigation by the EC of all major European truck manufacturers,
including DAF Trucks N.V., its subsidiary DAF Trucks Deutschland
GmbH (collectively, "DAF") and the Company as their parent.

On July 19, 2016, the EC reached a settlement with DAF and the
Company under which the EC imposed a fine of EUR752.7 million
($833.0 million) for infringement of European Union competition
rules. As a result of the settlement, the Company reversed, in the
second quarter of 2016, EUR97.3 million ($109.6 million) of the
previously recorded charge. DAF paid the fine in August 2016.

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

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

The Company is a defendant in various legal proceedings and, in
addition, there are various other contingent liabilities arising
in the normal course of business. After consultation with legal
counsel, management does not anticipate that disposition of these
various proceedings and contingent liabilities will have a
material effect on the consolidated financial statements.

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


PASADENA CITY: "Komesar" Hits Excessive Taxes on Electricity Bill
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eve Komesar, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. City of Pasadena and Does 1
through 10, Case No. 677632, (Cal. Super., September 29, 2017),
seeks a refund of all unconstitutional taxes imposed, declaratory
and injunctive relief for violation of Proposition 218.

Plaintiff alleges that the City of Pasadena illegally imposes fees
and charges for its electric utility service without voter
approval. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas A. Kearney, Esq.
      Prescott W. Littlefield, Esq.
      Kearney Littlefield, LLP
      3436 N. Verdugo Rd., Suite 230
      Glendale, CA 91208
      Tel: (213) 473-1900
      Fax: (213) 473-1919
      Email: tak@keamevlittlefield.com
             pwl@keameylittlefield.com

             - and -

      Vincent D. Slavens, Esq.
      Eric J. Benink, Esq.
      KRAUSE, KALFAYAN, BENINK & SLAVENS, LLP
      550 West C Street, Suite 530
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 232-0331
      Fax: (619) 232-4019
      Email: vslavens@kkbs-law.com
             eric@kkbs-law.com


PETER PIPER: "Jacobson" Litigation in Earliest Stages
-----------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended July 2, 2017, that the Peter Piper, Inc. Litigation is in
its earliest stages.

On September 8, 2016, Diane Jacobson filed a purported class
action lawsuit against Peter Piper, Inc. ("Peter Piper") in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Tucson Division
(the "Jacobson Litigation"). The plaintiff claims to represent
other similarly-situated consumers who, within the two years prior
to the filing of the Jacobson Litigation, received a printed
receipt on which Peter Piper allegedly printed more than the last
five digits of the consumer's credit/debit card number, in
violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

On November 11, 2016, Peter Piper filed a motion to dismiss the
Jacobson Litigation. After the plaintiff filed her opposition to
the Motion to Dismiss and Peter Piper filed its reply in support
thereof, the motion was submitted to the Court for ruling on
December 22, 2016.

On February 2, 2017, the Court stayed the Jacobson Litigation
pending the decision of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in
Noble v. Nevada Check Cab Corp., a case that presents an issue for
decision that is relevant to the Peter Piper's motion to dismiss.

"We believe Peter Piper has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit
and, should the Court overrule the motion to dismiss, we intend to
vigorously defend it. Since the litigation is in its earliest
stages, the Company does not yet have sufficient information to
reach a good faith determination on Peter Piper's potential
liability or exposure in the event that its defense is
unsuccessful," the Company said.

CEC Entertainment develops, operates and franchises family dining
and entertainment venues under the names "Chuck E. Cheese's"
("Where A Kid Can Be A Kid") and "Peter Piper Pizza" ("The
Solution to the Family Night Out").


PHIA GROUP: "Weyant" Suit Seeks to Recover Damages
--------------------------------------------------
Jessica Weyant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Phia Group, LLC and Indecs
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 656033/2017, (N.Y. Sup.,
September 26, 2017), seeks to recover damages, penalties, punitive
damages, attorney fees, interest, costs and other such further
relief under the New York General Obligations Law and New York
General Business Law.

In 2012, Jessica Weyant was involved in a motor vehicle accident
wherein she sustained serious injuries and received benefits under
a health insurance policy through a health benefits plan sponsored
by the member School Districts. The Phia Group, LLC, acting as an
agent for Indecs Corporation, asserted a lien, subrogation claim
and/or demand for reimbursement as against Plaintiffs' personal
injury recoveries as to the benefits which the Plan had paid.
Weyant was billed $16,057.19 of her tort recovery by Phia despite
that they are paid a percentage of the money which they recover
through their lien, subrogation and/or repayment demands and
efforts, says the complaint.

Indecs Corporation is the third-party administrator for a health
plan comprised of member school districts in New York with The
Phia Group, LLC, as authorized agent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles Kannebecker, Esq.
      104 West High Street
      Milford, PA 18337
      Tel: (570) 296-6471
      Email: kannebecker@wsklawfirm.com


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Thornton Files Class Action v. Sheriff's Office
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joanne Thornton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. City of Philadelphia and Sheriff Jewell
Williams and Philadelphia Sheriff's Office, Defendants, Case No.
171000060, (Pa. Com. Pleas, September 29, 2017), seeks to recover
on behalf of plaintiff and all others similarly situated from the
Defendants all monies due and owing resulting from negligence,
unjust enrichment, negligent mishandling of funds and breach of
contract.

Unable to make payment on her mortgage to EverBank, her mortgagee,
Thornton's Home was sold at sheriff's sale to a Third Party
individual buyer in the amount of $305,000 on September 9, 2014,
notes the Plaintiff.

The real debt owed on Thornton's Home to mortgagee EverBank was
$75,580.10 while the schedule of distribution from the sale of
Thornton's home specifically listed the Sheriffs costs as
$10,306.78 and identified the excess funds remaining from the
proceeds of the sheriff's sale at $193,795.18.

Rule 3136 mandates the distribution of excess funds of the
proceeds from a sheriff's sale to the foreclosed homeowner, says
the complaint.  The Sheriff refused to distribute the excess funds
requested in her claim and instead demanded that Thornton obtain a
payoff statement from the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority for
a lien they had on Thornton's Home. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
     LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
     510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Telephone: (215) 592-1500

            - and -

     Christopher G. Hayes, Esq.
     LAWOFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G.HAYES
     225S Church St.
     West Chester, PA 19382
     Telephone: (610) 9505


PHILADELPHIA, PA: DOC Sued Over Civil Rights Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Allen Woods and Keith Campbell, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Sean Marler, Case No. 2:17-cv-04443-
MAK (E.D. Penn., October 5, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Civil Rights Act.

Sean Marler is a Correctional Institution Administrator at the
Bureau of Prisons/Federal Prison System in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dana Bazelon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DANA BAZELON
      One South Broad St., suite 1500
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 609-3247
      E-mail: dbazelon@danabazelonlaw.com


POST HOLDINGS: Class Action Appeal Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Post Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the appeal in a class action lawsuit remains
pending.

In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class action lawsuits were
filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc. and
some 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs and egg
products, and egg industry organizations), alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the production
and sale of shell eggs and egg products, and seeking unspecified
damages. All cases were transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

The case involves three plaintiff groups: (1) direct purchasers of
eggs and egg products; (2) companies (primarily large grocery
chains and food companies that purchase considerable quantities of
eggs) that opted out of any eventual class and brought their own
separate actions against the defendants ("opt-out plaintiffs");
and (3) indirect purchasers of shell eggs.

Motions related to class certification: In September 2015, the
court granted the motion of the direct purchaser plaintiffs to
certify a shell-egg subclass, but denied their motion to certify
an egg-products subclass. Also in September 2015, the court denied
the motion of the indirect purchaser plaintiffs for class
certification. The indirect purchaser plaintiffs subsequently
filed an alternative motion for certification of an injunctive
class, and that motion was denied on June 27, 2017.

Motions for summary judgment: In September 2016, the court granted
the defendants' motion for summary judgment based on purchases of
egg products, thereby limiting all claims to shell eggs. Also in
September 2016, the court denied individual motions for summary
judgment made by Michael Foods and three other defendants that had
sought the dismissal of all claims against them.

Settlements by Michael Foods: On December 8, 2016, Michael Foods
reached an agreement to settle all class claims asserted against
it by the direct purchaser plaintiffs for a payment of $75.0
million. The Company has paid such amount into escrow. This
settlement is subject to approval by the court following notice to
all class members. While the Company expects the settlement will
receive the needed approval, there can be no assurance that the
court will approve the agreement as proposed by the parties.

On January 19, 2017, Michael Foods entered into a settlement, the
details of which are confidential, with the opt-out plaintiffs
(excluding those opt-out plaintiffs whose claims relate primarily
or exclusively to egg products; several of those plaintiffs are
now appealing the dismissal of the egg products claims). This
settlement was paid by the Company as of June 30, 2017. Michael
Foods has at all times denied liability in this matter, and
neither settlement contains any admission of liability by Michael
Foods.

During the nine months ended June 30, 2017, the Company expensed
$74.5 million, included in "Selling, general and administrative
expenses" on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations,
related to these settlements. Expense of $10.0 million was
recorded related to these settlements in the three and nine months
ended June 30, 2016. At September 30, 2016, the Company had
accruals related to these settlements of $28.5 million that were
included in "Other current liabilities" on the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Under current law, any settlement paid, including the settlement
with the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the settlement with the
opt-out plaintiffs, is deductible for federal income tax purposes.
Remaining portions of the case: The indirect purchaser plaintiffs
are seeking to immediately appeal the court's denial of their
motions for class certification. The Third Circuit Court of
Appeals has not yet ruled on whether it will accept these matters
for review. Additionally, the elimination of egg products from the
case is being appealed by the opt-out plaintiffs who purchased egg
products. The appeal is fully submitted to the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals.

While the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the egg
antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a result of
the Michael Foods settlements, there is still a possibility of an
adverse outcome following appellate review of the remaining
portions of the case.

"At this time, however, we do not believe it is possible to
estimate any loss in connection with these remaining portions of
the egg antitrust litigation," the Company said.  "Accordingly, we
cannot predict what impact, if any, these remaining matters and
any results from such matters could have on our future results of
operations."

Post Holdings is a consumer packaged goods holding company
operating in four reportable segments: Post Consumer Brands,
Michael Foods Group, Active Nutrition and Private Brands.  Its
products are sold through a variety of channels such as grocery,
club and drug stores, mass merchandisers, foodservice, ingredient
and via the internet.


QUALITY THERAPY: Kondati's Bids to Certify and Set Notice Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly terminates the motion to certify
collective action and motion to determine content of notice filed
in the lawsuit titled Sumana Kondati v. Quality Therapy and
Consultation, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01461 (N.D. Ill.).

Motion to certify collective action and motion to determine
content of notice, filed several months ago, are terminated as
pending motions in light of intervening developments and rulings,
says the Court.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7QlNQn1t


R.L. VALLEE: "Kent" Seeks Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum
----------------------------------------------------------
Jacob R. Kent, Anne B. Vera, Thomas R. Mahar, Dawn M. Mahar, David
C. Carter, and Barbara Carter and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. R.L. Vallee, Inc., SB Collins, Inc., Wesco, Inc.
and Champlain Oil Company, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 17-3080B (D.
Md., September 22, 2017), seeks an order authorizing the issuance
of a Subpoena Duces Tecum to produce the documents and records for
proceeding in tribunal outside the Commonwealth pursuant to
Massachusetts General Law in a proceeding now pending in the
Superior Court, Civil Division, Chittenden Unit, State of Vermont.

Plaintiffs allege price-fixing and/or collusion of wholesale and
retail gasoline prices by Defendants in violation of the Vermont
Consumer Protection Act as well as unjust enrichment. Defendants
operate gas stations in Chittenden, Franklin and Grand Isle
counties. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Lajoie, Esq.
      Bailey & Glasser LLP
      99 High Street, Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (617) 439-6730
      Fax: (617) 951-3954
      Email: blajoie@baileyglasser.com

R.L. Vallee, Inc. is represented by:

      Walter E. Judge, Jr., Esq.
      Tristram Coffin, Esq.
      DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN, PLLC
      PO Box 190 Burlington, VT 05402-0190
      Phone: (802) 846-8326
      Email: wjudge@drm.com
             tcoffin@drm.com

Champlain Oil Co., Inc. is represented by:

      Robert Hemley, Esq.
      Matthew Byrne, Esq.
      GRAVEL & SHEA
      P.O. Box 369
      Burlington, VT 05402-0369
      Phone: (802) 658-0220
      Email: rhemley@gravelshea.com
             mbyrne@gravelshea.com

S.B. Collins, Inc. is represented by:

     Jeffrey R. Behm, Esq.
     Kevin Lumpkin, Esq.
     SHEEHEY FURLONG & BEHM PC
     PO Box 66
     Burlington, VT 05402-0066
     Phone: (802) 864-9891
     Email: JBehm@sheeheyvt.com
            KLumpkin@sheeheyvt.com

Wesco, Inc. is represented by:

     David V. Kirby, Esq.
     Barbara O'Connor, Esq.
     O'CONNOR & KIRBY, PC
     174 Battery St., 3rd Fl.
     Burlington, VT 05401
     Phone: (802) 863-0112
     Email: david@kirbyoconnor.com
            barbara@kirbyoconnor.com


RAYONIER INC: Says Insurers Fully Funded Settlement Payment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rayonier Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that as of July 14, 2017, the insurance carriers
have fully funded the settlement payment in a class action
lawsuit.

Following the Company's November 10, 2014 earnings release and
filing of the restated interim financial statements for the
quarterly periods ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014 (the
"November 2014 Announcement"), shareholders of the Company filed
five putative class actions against the Company and Paul G.
Boynton, Hans E. Vanden Noort, David L. Nunes, and H. Edwin Kiker
arising from circumstances described in the November 2014
Announcement, entitled respectively:

     * Sating v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-
01395, filed November 12, 2014 in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida;

     * Keasler v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-
01398, filed November 13, 2014 in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida;

     * Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund v. Rayonier
Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01403, filed November 13,
2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida;

     * Christie v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-
01429, filed November 21, 2014 in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida; and

     * Brown v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-
08986, initially filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and later transferred to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and
assigned as Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01474.

On January 9, 2015, the five securities actions were consolidated
into one putative class action entitled In re Rayonier Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01395-TJC-JBT, in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and
attorneys' fees and costs. Two shareholders, the Pension Trust
Fund for Operating Engineers and the Lake Worth Firefighters'
Pension Trust Fund moved for appointment as lead plaintiff on
January 12, 2015, which was granted on February 25, 2015.

On April 7, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). In the Consolidated
Complaint, plaintiffs added allegations as to and added as a
defendant N. Lynn Wilson, a former officer of Rayonier. With the
filing of the Consolidated Complaint, David L. Nunes and H. Edwin
Kiker were dropped from the case as defendants.

Defendants timely filed Motions to Dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint on May 15, 2015. After oral argument on Defendants'
motions on August 25, 2015, the Court dismissed the Consolidated
Complaint without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs leave to refile.
Plaintiffs filed the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
(the "Amended Complaint") on September 25, 2015, which continued
to assert claims against the Company, as well as Ms. Wilson and
Messrs. Boynton and Vanden Noort.

Defendants timely filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint
on October 26, 2015. The court denied those motions on May 20,
2016. On December 31, 2016, the case continued to be in the
discovery phase and the Company could not determine whether there
was a reasonable likelihood a material loss had been incurred nor
could the range of any such loss be estimated.

On March 13, 2017, the Company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the case and all parties executed a term sheet
memorializing such agreement. The parties executed and filed with
the Court the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on April 12,
2017 (the "Settlement Agreement"), which Settlement Agreement
included the material terms contained in the term sheet executed
on March 13. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
which is subject to Court approval and requests for exclusion by
members of the settlement class, the Company agreed to cause
certain of its directors' and officers' liability insurance
carriers to fund a settlement payment to the class of $73 million.

As of July 14, 2017, the insurance carriers have fully funded the
settlement payment by deposits in an escrow account as required by
the Settlement Agreement. In connection with the settlement, the
Company agreed to reimburse one of its insurance carriers
approximately $740,000 for certain disputed pre-litigation
expenses, which reimbursement was made in the second quarter of
2017. The amounts agreed to on March 13, 2017, including the
realized amount funded by the insurance carriers, were reflected
in the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements as of June 30,
2017.

Rayonier is a timberland real estate investment trust ("REIT")
with assets located in some of the most productive softwood timber
growing regions in the United States and New Zealand.


REGENCY VILLAGE: Ridley Seeks to Certify Nurses Class Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled MARK RIDLEY, STEPHANIE
KETCHUM, OLGA GUEVARA, and MARIA FERNANDEZ, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. REGENCY VILLAGE INC.
D/B/A REGENCY VILLAGE SKILLED AND REHAB CENTER and PENBAR, INC.
D/B/A REGENCY VILLAGE SKILLED AND REHAB CENTER, Case No. 4:17-cv-
00974 (S.D. Tex.), ask the Court to conditionally certify the case
as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act with
respect to a class of the Defendants':

     current and former nurses who were subject to an automatic
     meal break deduction and worked at Regency Village at any
     time from three year prior to the granting of this Motion to
     the present.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to:

   (1) require the Defendants to produce within 10 days of the
       granting the Motion in a computer readable format, the
       names, all known addresses, all phone numbers (home,
       mobile, etc.), dates of birth, all known e-mail addresses
       (work and personal), driver's license numbers, and dates
       of employment for all class members;

   (2) authorize mailing of the proposed Notice and Consent Form
       to Class Members via regular mail and e-mail within seven
       days of Plaintiffs' counsel receiving the class list from
       Defendants, and allow the Plaintiffs' counsel to hire a
       third-party class action administration company if they
       deem appropriate;

   (3) allow Class Members to execute their consent forms
       electronically via Right Signature; and

   (4) approve that notice be sent to the putative class members
       first via mail and electronically within seven days of
       receiving the list of putative class members from
       Defendants and then a postcard reminder be sent 30 days
       after the initial mailing, but only to those class members
       who have not yet submitted their Consent Forms.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ojZmd1v7

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd Slobin, Esq.
          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net
                  rprieto@eeoc.net


RLJ LODGING TRUST: Facing Assad or Bagheri Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------
RLJ Lodging Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company has not yet been served with
process or the complaint in either the Assad Lawsuit or the
Bagheri Lawsuit.

The Company and several affiliated entities have been named as
defendants in two putative shareholder class action lawsuits filed
in connection with the Company's proposed merger with FelCor. The
first case, Assad v. FelCor Lodging Trust, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-01744 (D. Md.) (the "Assad Lawsuit"), names as defendants
the Company and certain affiliated entities, as well as FelCor,
its directors and FelCor LP. The Assad Lawsuit was filed on June
26, 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland. The second case, Bagheri v. FelCor Lodging Trust, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01892 (N.D. Tex.) (the "Bagheri
Lawsuit"), names as defendants the Company and certain affiliated
entities, as well as FelCor, its directors and FelCor LP. The
Bagheri Lawsuit was filed on July 17, 2017 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Both the Assad
Lawsuit and the Bagheri Lawsuit allege violations of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") arising
in connection with the filing of the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-4 (the "Registration Statement") that was
filed in connection with the Company's proposed merger with
FelCor. The plaintiffs in the Assad Lawsuit and the Bagheri
Lawsuit seek, among other things, damages, an order enjoining
consummation of the proposed merger with FelCor, changes to the
Registration Statement, an award of attorney's fees and
declaratory relief stating that the defendants violated the
Exchange Act.

The Company has not yet been served with process or the complaint
in either the Assad Lawsuit or the Bagheri Lawsuit. The Company
disputes the allegations raised in both actions and will
vigorously defend the Company and related defendants. Because
these matters are in the early stages, the timing and resolution
of them is uncertain.

RLJ Lodging is a self-advised and self-administered Maryland real
estate investment trust ("REIT") that acquires primarily premium-
branded, focused-service and compact full-service hotels.


RODEO REALTY: "Crosley" Suit Seeks Penalties, Reimbursements
------------------------------------------------------------
Summer Crosley, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rodeo Realty, Inc.,
Rodeo Realty, Rodeo Realty Fine Estates and Does 1 through 50,
Defendants, Case No. BC677748 (Cal. Super., September 29, 2017),
seeks statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements and reimbursement of business-related expenses under
California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law of the California
Business and Professions Code.

Defendants are in the business of selling, purchasing and leasing
luxury residential real estate where Crosley worked as a real
estate agent. Rodeo allegedly misclassified Plaintiff as an
independent contractor. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq.
      Donald R. Pepperman, Esq.
      Taylor C. Wagniere, Esq.
      BLECHER COLLINS & PEPPERMAN, P.C.
      515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1750
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 622-4222
      Facsimile: (213) 622-1656

             - and -

      Scott D. McVarish, Esq.
      EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION & NEGOTIATION LAW OFFICE, APC
      6080 Center Drive, Suite 600
      Los Angeles, CA 90045
      Mailing address: P.O. Box 4564
      Culver City, CA 90231
      Telephone: (800) 792-9889
      Facsimile: (800) 628-5605


SAN DIEGO, CA: City Employees Seek to Recover Overtime Premium
--------------------------------------------------------------
Candace Mitchell, Jennifer Becker, Keith Boothe, Grant Bowers,
Gavin Broatch, Isabelle Camacho, Kent Cuevas, Mary Enyeart,
Alexander Milo Flores, Patricia Foss, Jennifer Geran, James A.
Golden, Thairahammi, Ryan Hay, Cynthia Hernandez, Stephanie
Hoover, Miguel Huerta, Graham Hufford, Wayne Jarrell, Anas M.
Kaziha, Teri Kipnis, Nicolas B. Manansala, Erika Mcneill,
Gabrielle Mead, Debra Owen, Alec Phillipp, Michael Prinz, Steven
Ramirez, Pete Razo, Anthony Rea, Arnilda Reyes, Catherine Rivera,
Scott Robinson, Richard Russell, Jim Silverstein, Clemens
Wassenberg, Daniel Weiss, Loretta Williams, Cody Wilkinson,
Gregory Woods, on behalf of themselves and all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City Of San Diego, Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-02014 (S.D. Cal., September 29, 2017), seeks to
recover underpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiffs are non-exempt employees of the City of San Diego who
worked in excess of 40 hours in a 7-day work week but were not
compensated.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ann M. Smith, Esq.
      SMITH, STEINER, VANDERPOOL & WAX, APC
      401 West A Street, Suite 320
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 239-7200
      Fax: (619) 239-6048


SND OPERATING: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Odenbaugh" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert W. Schroeder, III, granted the Plaintiff's motion
to certify class pursuant to Section 216 of the Fair Labor
Standards Act filed in the lawsuit entitled TONY ODENBAUGH v. SND
OPERATING, LLC, S N D ENERGY COMPANY, INC., Case No. 6:16-cv-
01400-RWS (E.D. Tex.).

Judge Schroeder denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion
for approval of form and process for class notice.

Plaintiff Tony Odenbaugh filed a complaint against the Defendants
on behalf of all former and current Production Operators for
Defendant since December 30, 2013.  The Plaintiff and the putative
class members seek relief in a collective action pursuant to the
FLSA.  The Plaintiff and the putative class members worked as
Production Operators for the Defendants, where they were
responsible for monitoring oil-well sites.  They allege they were
improperly misclassified as exempt from payment of an overtime
premium.

The Defendants object to the Plaintiffs' Proposed Notice and
request the parties be given an opportunity to confer on the form,
content and manner of any notice and disclosure of contact
information before the issue is submitted to the Court.  Moreover,
the parties' positions regarding other disputes concerning the
Proposed Notice indicate an inadequate meet and confer.

Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer and
jointly file a Proposed Notice for approval.  The scope of the
Proposed Notice should incorporate the rulings from this Order.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GZ9GargC


SONIC CORP: Ramirez Files Suit Over Stolen Personal Info
--------------------------------------------------------
Denise Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sonic Corp., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-
01044 (W.D. Okla., September 29, 2017), seeks equitable relief,
damages, attorneys' fees costs and litigation expenses,
prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded and such other and
further relief resulting from negligence and violation of New
Mexico's Unfair Practices Act.

Sonic is a chain of drive-in restaurants in the United States with
over 3,500 restaurants in 44 states.

Plaintiff claims Defendant failed to secure and safeguard
consumers' personally identifiable information which Sonic
collected from various sources in connection with the operation of
its restaurant business.  Sonic has acknowledged that a
cybersecurity incident resulted in the theft of its customers'
information mainly consisting of credit card numbers.

Plaintiff is a regular customer at several different Sonic
restaurants in the Albuquerque area and always pays with a debit
card. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:


     William B. Federman, Esq.
     Joshua D. Wells, Esq.
     Carin L. Marcussen, Esq.
     FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
     10205 North Pennsylvania Ave.
     Oklahoma City, OK 73120
     Telephone: (405) 235-1560
     Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
     Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
            jdw@federmanlaw.com
            clm@federmanlaw.com


SOUTH CAROLINA: DOC Sued Over Civil Rights Acts Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Sean Milan, Junior Kiker, Anthony Bolden, Terry Dennis, Jeffrey
Colberth, and Matthew Gilliard, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. South Carolina Department of
Corrections, Patricia Cunningham, Linda McNut, Whitney Clark, and
Christine Livingston, Case No. 0:17-cv-02692-JFA-PJG (D.S.C.,
October 6, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation
of the Civil Rights Acts.

The Defendants are responsible for the correctional facility in
the state of South Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron Cole Mayer, Esq.
      MAYER LAW LLC
      18 Carolina Street, Suite B
      Charleston, SC 29403
      Telephone: (843) 225-7240
      E-mail: aaron@mayerlawpractice.com

         - and -

      James Edward Bell III, Esq.
      BELL LEGAL GROUP
      219 N Ridge Street
      Georgetown, SC 29440
      Telephone: (843) 546-2408
      Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
      E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Daniel C. Plyler, Esq.
      DAVIDSON AND LINDEMANN PA
      PO Box 8568
      Columbia, SC 29202-8568
      Telephone: (803) 806-8222
      E-mail: dplyler@dml-law.com


SPARK ENERGY: Initial Discovery Ongoing in "Melville" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that initial discovery is ongoing in the lawsuit by
John Melville.

John Melville et al v. Spark Energy Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC
is a purported class action filed on December 17, 2015 in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
alleging, among other things, that (i) sales representatives
engaged as independent contractors for Spark Energy Gas, LLC
engaged in deceptive acts in violation of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act, (ii) Spark Energy Gas, LLC breach its contract with
plaintiff, including a breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages for the purported class, injunctive relief and/or
declaratory relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and
attorneys' fees. Initial discovery is ongoing. Spark Energy Inc.
and Spark Energy Gas, LLC intend to vigorously defend this matter
and the allegations asserted therein.

"Given the early stages of this matter, we cannot predict the
outcome or consequences of this case at this time," the Company
said.

Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy services
company founded in 1999 that provides residential and commercial
customers in competitive markets across the United States with an
alternative choice for their natural gas and electricity.


SPARK ENERGY: No Discovery Yet in Suit by Veilleux and Chon
-----------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that discovery has not yet commenced in the lawsuit
by Katherine Veilleux and Jennifer Chon.

Katherine Veilleux and Jennifer Chon, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated v. Electricity Maine. LLC,
Provider Power, LLC, Spark Holdco, LLC, Kevin Dean and Emile
Clavet is a purported class action lawsuit filed on November 18,
2016 in the United States District Court of Maine, alleging that
Electricity Maine, LLC, an entity acquired by Spark Holdco, LLC in
mid-2016, enrolled customers through fraudulent and misleading
advertising and promotions prior to the acquisition.

Plaintiffs allege the following claims against all Defendants:
violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, violation of
RICO, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and breach of contract.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for themselves and the
purported class, rescission of contracts with Electricity Maine,
injunctive relief, restitution, and attorney's fees.

On July 7, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Amend
their Complaint to add a new Plaintiff. Discovery has not yet
commenced in this matter.

Spark HoldCo intends to vigorously defend this matter and the
allegations asserted therein.

"Given the early stages of this matter, we cannot predict the
outcome or consequences of this case at this time. The Company
believes it is fully indemnified for this litigation matter,
subject to certain limitations," the Company said.

Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy services
company founded in 1999 that provides residential and commercial
customers in competitive markets across the United States with an
alternative choice for their natural gas and electricity.


SPARK ENERGY: Court Orders Briefing in Suit by Gillis et al.
------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the district court has ordered briefing on
Defendant's motion to dismiss in the case, Gillis et al. v.
Respond Power, LLC.

Gillis et al. v. Respond Power, LLC is a purported class action
lawsuit that was originally filed on May 21, 2014 in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. On June 23, 2014, the case was
removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

On September 15, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended class
action complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the
disclosure statement contained in Respond Power, LLC's variable
rate contracts with Pennsylvania consumers limited the variable
rate that could be charged to no more than the monthly rate
charged by the consumers' local utility company. The plaintiffs
also allege that Respond Power, LLC (i) breached its variable rate
contract with Pennsylvania consumers, and the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing therein, by charging rates in excess of the
monthly rate charged by the consumers' local utility company; (ii)
engaged in deceptive conduct in violation of the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; and (iii)
engaged in negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment
in connection with purported promises of savings. The amount of
damages sought is not specified.

By order dated August 31, 2015, the district court denied class
certification. The plaintiffs appealed the district court's denial
of class certification to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit vacated the district court's denial of class
certification and remanded the matter to the district court for
further proceedings. The district court has ordered briefing on
Defendant's motion to dismiss.

The Company currently cannot predict the outcome or consequences
of this case at this time. The Company believes it is fully
indemnified for this litigation matter, subject to certain
limitations.

Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy services
company founded in 1999 that provides residential and commercial
customers in competitive markets across the United States with an
alternative choice for their natural gas and electricity.


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Ayeni and Hartsock Cases Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The cases, Olutayo Ayeni v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
(Filed September 21, 2016 in the United States District Court,
Central District of California; Case No. 2:16-cv-07074) (the
"Ayeni Action") and Glen Hartsock v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al. (Filed September 28, 2016 in the United States
District Court, District Court of Nevada Case; No. 2:16-cv-02279-
RFB-GWF) (the "Hartsock Action"), have been consolidated, pursuant
to the order dated October 5, 2017, by Nevada District Court Judge
Kent J. Dawson.  The "Hartsock" case will serve as the base case
in which all future pleadings must be filed in.  The "Ayeni" case
is administratively closed.

Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that on November 15, 2016, the Ayeni
Action was transferred to the United States District Court,
District Court of Nevada. The parties have stipulated to a
consolidation of the Ayeni Action with the Hartsock Action.

"These class action lawsuits allege that we and certain of our
executive officers made false or misleading statements and failed
to disclose material facts about our business and the prospects of
approval for our NDA to the FDA for QAPZOLA in violation of
Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiffs
seek damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and other
unspecified equitable relief," the Company said.

"We believe that these claims are without merit, and intend to
vigorously defend against these claims. Furthermore, the value of
a potential settlement cannot be reasonably estimated given its
highly uncertain nature as of June 30, 2017."

Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biotechnology company, with a
primary strategy comprised of acquiring, developing, and
commercializing a broad and diverse pipeline of late-stage
clinical and commercial products.


STATE STREET: Securities Suit over Invoicing Matters Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that the Company is defending against a
shareholder litigation.

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

State Street Corporation is a financial holding company organized
in 1969 under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.


STEAKHOUSE EXPRESS: "Packard" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Eleni Packard, on behalf of herself and others similarly-situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Steakhouse Express, Inc., Pig-N-Chik Express, Inc.,
Pnc Enterprises, Inc., Richard W. Marrack, and James H. Graddy,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-03815 (N.D. Ga., September 29, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, litigation costs, attorneys' fees and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate Pig-N-Chik barbeque restaurants in the Atlanta,
Georgia area where Packard worked the counter in three locations
operated by the Defendants. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Regan Keebaugh, Esq.
      RADFORD & KEEBAUGH, LLC
      315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080
      Decatur, GA 30030
      Tel: (678) 271-0300
      Fax: (678) 271-0311
      Email: regan@decaturlegal.com


STONERIDGE INC: Royal Moves for Prelim. OK of Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled RICKEY ROYAL, SANDRA
EPPERSON, and GREG HULCY, Individually on behalf of all putative
class members v. STONERIDGE, INC.; STONERIDGE CONTROL DEVICES,
INC. f/k/a JOSEPH POLLAK CORP., Case No. 5:14-cv-01410-F (W.D.
Okla.), move for preliminary approval of class action settlement,
appointment of class counsel, and to set the date for final
approval hearing.

The litigation arises from allegations that Stoneridge designed,
manufactured, and supplied defective clutch safety interlock
devices ("CSIDs") for use in certain manual transmission motor
vehicles.  The CSID is a single function switch designed to
prevent a vehicle engine from starting unless the driver fully
depresses the clutch pedal.  The Plaintiffs allege the subject
CSIDs were defectively designed, which can cause the springs to
break resulting in a vehicle's untended startup or a vehicle's
inability to start.

The Settlement Agreement provides relief to a settlement class
defined as:

     All United States residents who currently own vehicles
     incorporating "Covered CSIDs," defined as all clutch safety
     interlock devices containing model 16813 compression springs
     that (1) were built between February 24, 2005 and January 1,
     2007; and (2) are not subject to any recall campaign
     (included but not limited to Chrysler campaigns 14V-795 and
     15V-222).

Members of the Settlement Class will be eligible to receive from
Stoneridge a shipped replacement CSID containing redesigned 16813-
01 springs (the "Replacement CSIDs"), together with instructions
describing the appropriate procedure for replacing the CSIDs.
Each Replacement CSID has a retail value of approximately $80.

In order to receive Replacement CSIDs, members of the Settlement
Class must (1) elect to participate; (2) properly complete and
submit a claim form with evidence of eligibility (including the
date code their CSID); and (3) do so within the time period set
forth in the Settlement Agreement.  Additionally, Plaintiffs
Rickey Royal, Sandra Epperson, and Greg Hulcy will apply to this
Court for, and Stoneridge has agreed not to oppose, incentive
awards in the amount of $5,000 each.

Stoneridge will provide notice of the settlement to all reasonably
identifiable members of the Settlement Class by first class mail
(based on data obtained from the industry-leading vendor for motor
vehicle data), and will supplement the mailed notice with a class
settlement website containing more detailed notice and claims
information.  The detailed notice will explain the function of the
CSIDs, how to obtain date code evidence, and the potential
ramifications of CSID failure.

The parties will utilize a mutually agreeable, independent claims
administrator to process claims, and Stoneridge will bear the
costs of claims administration.  The process will include creation
of a Web site and toll-free telephone line for the benefit of
members of the Settlement Class so that information and forms
concerning the settlement are readily available.

Stoneridge has agreed not to oppose a fee application by the
Plaintiffs' counsel that requests fees and expenses up to the
amount of $375,000.  The Plaintiffs have agreed not to seek an
award of fees and expenses in excess of $375,000.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qGmwy3f9

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey T. Embry, Esq.
          George Cowden IV, Esq.
          HOSSLEY EMBRY, LLP
          515 S. Vine Avenue
          Tyler, TX 75702
          Telephone: (903) 526-1772
          Facsimile: (903) 526-1773
          E-mail: jeff@hossleyembry.com
                  george@hossleyembry.com

               - and -

          F. Leighton Durham III, Esq.
          Kirk L. Pittard, Esq.
          KELLY, DURHAM & PITTARD, LLP
          P.O. Box 224626
          Dallas, TX 75222
          Telephone: (214) 946-8000
          Facsimile: (214) 946-8433
          E-mail: ldurham@texasappeals.com
                  kpittard@texasappeals.com

               - and -

          Simone Gosnell Fulmer, Esq.
          FULMER GROUP PLLC
          PO Box 2448
          Oklahoma City, OK 73101
          Telephone: (405) 510-0077
          Facsimile: (405) 510-0077
          E-mail: sfulmer@fulmersill.com


SUNTRUST BANKS: Trial Court to Reconsider Motion in "Bickerstaff"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the trial court will reconsider the motion for
class certification in the case, Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank.

This case was filed in the Fulton County State Court on July 12,
2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9, 2010.
Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account
which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually
interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of
Georgia. Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and
criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, and
purports to bring the action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who
incurred such overdraft fees within the four years before the
complaint was filed where the overdraft fee resulted in an
interest rate being charged in excess of the usury rate. The Bank
filed a motion to compel arbitration and on March 16, 2012, the
Court entered an order holding that the Bank's arbitration
provision is enforceable but that the named plaintiff in the case
had opted out of that provision pursuant to its terms. The Court
explicitly stated that it was not ruling at that time on the
question of whether the named plaintiff could have opted out for
the putative class members.

The Bank filed an appeal of this decision, but this appeal was
dismissed based on a finding that the appeal was prematurely
granted. On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification and that motion was denied on February 19, 2014.

Plaintiff appealed the denial of class certification and on
September 8, 2015, the Georgia Supreme Court agreed to hear the
appeal. On January 4, 2016, the Georgia Supreme Court heard oral
argument on the appeal. On July 8, 2016, the Georgia Supreme Court
reversed the Court of Appeals of Georgia and remanded the case for
further proceedings. As a result, the trial court will reconsider
the motion for class certification.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Ongoing in Company Stock Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that discovery is ongoing in the Company Stock
Class Action.

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

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

On October 26, 2009, an amended complaint was filed. On December
9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted in part
and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

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

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

On September 26, 2013, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs filed an appeal
of this decision in the Circuit Court.

Subsequent to the filing of this appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court
decided Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, which held that
employee stock ownership plan fiduciaries receive no presumption
of prudence with respect to employer stock plans. The Circuit
Court remanded the case back to the District Court for further
proceedings in light of Dudenhoeffer. On June 18, 2015, the Court
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Company's motion to dismiss.

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

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


SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Ongoing in Mutual Funds Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that discovery is ongoing in Mutual Funds Class
Actions.

On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors,
and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action
alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by
offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in
the Plan. The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in
their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seek
to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly
incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual
Funds. This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District
Court"). On June 6, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
and, on June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part
and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a
subsequent motion to dismiss the remainder of the case on the
ground that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the
remaining claims. On October 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all
claims in this action. Immediately thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel
initiated a substantially similar lawsuit against the Company
naming two new plaintiffs and also filed an appeal of the
dismissal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss in the new action and this
motion was granted. On February 26, 2014, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the District Court's
dismissal. On March 18, 2014, the plaintiffs' counsel filed a
motion for reconsideration with the Eleventh Circuit. On August
26, 2014, plaintiffs in the original action filed a Motion for
Consolidation of Appeals requesting that the Court consider this
appeal jointly with the appeal in the second action. This motion
was granted on October 9, 2014 and plaintiffs filed their
consolidated appeal on December 16, 2014.

On June 27, 2014, the Company and certain current and former
officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in
another putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties
associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as
investment options in the Plan. This case, Brown, et al. v.
SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia. On September 3, 2014, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order
transferring the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

On November 12, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to stay
this case until the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Tibble
v. Edison International. On May 18, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court
decided Tibble and held that plan fiduciaries have a duty,
separate and apart from investment selection, to monitor and
remove imprudent investments.

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


SUPREME INDUSTRIES: Says Class Suit Pending in Indiana
------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Industries, Inc. continues to defend a class action
lawsuit in Indiana, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 1, 2017.

On November 4, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, Mark Weber (the Company's Chief Executive
Officer) and Matthew W. Long (the Company's Chief Financial
Officer) in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California alleging the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 by making material, misleading statements in July 2016
regarding projected backlog.  The plaintiff seeks to recover
unspecified damages.

On February 14, 2017, the court transferred the venue of the case
to the Northern District of Indiana upon the joint stipulation of
the plaintiff and the defendants.  An amended complaint was filed
on April 24, 2017 challenging statements made during a putative
class period of October 22, 2015 through October 21, 2016.

Due to the inherent risk of litigation, the outcome of this case
is uncertain and unpredictable; however, at this time, management
believes that the allegations are without merit and is vigorously
defending the matter.

Supreme Industries, Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Supreme Corporation, is a manufacturer of specialized commercial
vehicles including truck bodies and specialty vehicles.


SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Objectors Fail to Launch Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
Symantec Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the time for objectors to file an appeal in a
class action lawsuit has already expired without any appeal being
filed.

The Company said, "On January 24, 2011, a class action lawsuit was
filed against us and our previous e-commerce vendor Digital River,
Inc.; the lawsuit alleged violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law, the California Legal Remedies Act and unjust
enrichment related to prior sales of Extended Download Service
("EDS") and Norton Download Insurance ("NDI"). On March 31, 2014,
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota certified a
class of all people who purchased these products between January
24, 2005 and March 10, 2011. In August 2015, the parties executed
a settlement agreement pursuant to which we would pay the
plaintiffs $30 million, which we accrued."

"On October 8, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, which was subsequently paid into escrow by us. The
Court granted final approval on April 22, 2016, and entered
judgment in the case. Objectors to the settlement have appealed to
the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ("Eighth Circuit"),
challenging the Court's approval of the settlement, and the
decision granting approval was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit on
April 28, 2017. The time for the objectors to appeal the Eighth
Circuit's ruling has now expired without any appeal being filed.
This matter is therefore now closed."

Symantec Corporation provides cybersecurity services.


TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Allen" Suit Transferred to E.D. La.
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Lela and Melinda Allen, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Taishan
Gypsum Co. Ltd., formerly known as Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co.,
Ltd., Tai'an Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd., Beijing New Building
Materials Public Limited Co., Beijing New Building Materials
(Group) Co., Ltd., China National Building Material Co., Ltd.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00217 (S.D. Miss., August 1, 2017),
was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana (New Orleans) on September 25, 2017, under
Case No. 2:17-cv-08288.

Plaintiffs allege that the Chinese manufactured drywall designed,
manufactured, imported, exported, distributed, delivered,
supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed by the
Defendants contains toxic sulfide compounds deeming it unfit for
residential purposes.

Taishan Gypsum Company, Ltd. is a foreign corporation doing
business in several States. It manufactured, sold, distributed and
marketed the gypsum drywall. Plaintiffs allege that it reacts,
breaks down, and releases sulfur compounds and other noxious gases
including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Reeves, Jr.
      REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC
      160 Main Street
      P. O. Drawer 1388 (19533)
      Biloxi, MS 39530
      Tel: (228) 374-5151
      Email: jrr@rmlawcall.com


TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Bright" Suit Transferred to E.D. La.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned David and Melody Bright, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Taishan
Gypsum Co. Ltd., formerly known as Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co.,
Ltd., Tai'an Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd., Beijing New Building
Materials Public Limited Co., Beijing New Building Materials
(Group) Co., Ltd., China National Building Material Co., Ltd.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00035 (E.D.N.C., August 1, 2017), was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana (New Orleans) on September 22, 2017, under Case No.
2:17-cv-08290.

Plaintiffs allege that the Chinese manufactured drywall designed,
manufactured, imported, exported, distributed, delivered,
supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed by the
Defendants contains toxic sulfide compounds deeming it unfit for
residential purposes.

Taishan Gypsum Company, Ltd. is a foreign corporation doing
business in several States. It manufactured, sold, distributed and
marketed the gypsum drywall. Plaintiffs allege that it reacts,
breaks down, and releases sulfur compounds and other noxious gases
including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Michael Malone, Esq.
      Hendren & Malone, PLLC
      4600 Marriott Drive, Suite 150
      Raleigh, NC 27612
      Tel: (919) 573-1423


TAISHAN GYPSUM: "DeOliveira" Suit Transferred to E.D. La.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Harry DeOliveira, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Taishan Gypsum Co.
Ltd., formerly known as Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd., Tai'an
Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd., Beijing New Building Materials
Public Limited Co., Beijing New Building Materials (Group) Co.,
Ltd., China National Building Material Co., Ltd., Defendants, Case
No. 4:17-cv-02019 (E.D.S.C., August 1, 2017), was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (New
Orleans) on September 22, 2017, under Case No. 2:17-cv-08291.

Plaintiff alleges that the Chinese manufactured drywall designed,
manufactured, imported, exported, distributed, delivered,
supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed by the
Defendants contains toxic sulfide compounds deeming it unfit for
residential purposes.

Taishan Gypsum Company, Ltd. is a foreign corporation doing
business in several States. It manufactured, sold, distributed and
marketed the gypsum drywall. Plaintiffs allege that it reacts,
breaks down, and releases sulfur compounds and other noxious gases
including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth M. Suggs, Esq.
      JANET JENNER & SUGGS, LLC (BALTIMORE)
      1777 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 165
      Baltimore, MD 21208
      Tel: (410) 653-3200

             - and -

      Gerald D. Jowers, Jr.
      JANET JENNER & SUGGS, LLC (COLUMBIA)
      500 Taylor St.
      Columbia, SC 29201
      Tel: (803) 726-0050


TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Lochhead" Suit Transferred to E.D. La.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kenneth Lochhead and Maria L. Webste,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd., formerly known as Shandong
Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd., Tai'an Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd.,
Beijing New Building Materials Public Limited Co., Beijing New
Building Materials (Group) Co., Ltd., China National Building
Material Co., Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-00294 (S.D. Tex.,
August 1, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) on
September 25, 2017, under Case No. 2:17-cv-08288.

Plaintiffs allege that the Chinese manufactured drywall designed,
manufactured, imported, exported, distributed, delivered,
supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed by the
Defendants contains toxic sulfide compounds deeming it unfit for
residential purposes.

Taishan Gypsum Company, Ltd. is a foreign corporation doing
business in several States. It manufactured, sold, distributed and
marketed the gypsum drywall. Plaintiffs allege that it reacts,
breaks down, and releases sulfur compounds and other noxious gases
including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
      STECKLER LAW, LLP
      12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
      Dallas, TX 75230
      Tel: (972) 387-4040
      Fax: (972) 387-4041
      Email: bruce@stecklerlaw.com


TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Mertlitz" Suit Transferred to E.D. La.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Andy Mertlitz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Taishan Gypsum Co.
Ltd., formerly known as Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd., Tai'an
Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd., Beijing New Building Materials
Public Limited Co., Beijing New Building Materials (Group) Co.,
Ltd., China National Building Material Co., Ltd., Defendants, Case
No. 5:17-cv-00140 (E.D. Tex., August 1, 2017), was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (New
Orleans) on September 25, 2017, under Case No. 2:17-cv-08293.

Plaintiffs allege that the Chinese manufactured drywall designed,
manufactured, imported, exported, distributed, delivered,
supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed by the
Defendants contains toxic sulfide compounds deeming it unfit for
residential purposes.

Taishan Gypsum Company, Ltd. is a foreign corporation doing
business in several States. It manufactured, sold, distributed and
marketed the gypsum drywall. Plaintiffs allege that it reacts,
breaks down, and releases sulfur compounds and other noxious gases
including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
      STECKLER LAW, LLP
      12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
      Dallas, TX 75230
      Tel: (972) 387-4040
      Fax: (972) 387-4041
      Email: bruce@stecklerlaw.com


TOTAL RENAL: Brewster Sues Over Missed Breaks, Missing Paystubs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Brewster, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Total Renal Care, Inc. and Does 1 through
10, Case No. BC678087 (Cal. Super., September 29, 2017), seeks
unpaid wages and interest thereon for failure to pay for all hours
worked at minimum wage rate, failure to provide meal/rest,
statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, injunctive relief and other equitable relief,
reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under California
Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law of the California Business and
Professions Code.

Defendants operate an enterprise engaged in the business of
nursing and dialysis services at multiple locations within
California where Brewster worked as nurse. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John T. Stralen, Esq.
      Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
      CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, APC
      865 Howe Avenue
      Sacramento, CA 95825
      Telephone: (916) 777-7777
      Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
      Email: jstralen@justice4you.com
             jwatson@justice4you.com


TRANSAMERICA FINANCIAL: Sued in M.D. Fla. Over Automated Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tickling Keys, Inc., individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons v. Transamerica Financial
Advisors, Inc., World Financial Group, Inc., World Financial Group
Insurance Agency, Inc., and John Does 1-5, Case No. 6:17-cv-01734-
RBD-KRS (M.D. Fla., October 5, 2017), seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice
to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called
party.

The Defendants operate a multi-level marketing company which sells
investment, insurance, and various other financial products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON & WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Rd Ste 760
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


U.S. BANCORP: Visa Litigation Proceeding in District Court
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Visa Restructuring and Card Association
Litigation is proceeding in district court.

The Company's payment services business issues credit and debit
cards and acquires credit and debit card transactions through the
Visa U.S.A. Inc. card association or its affiliates (collectively
"Visa"). In 2007, Visa completed a restructuring and issued shares
of Visa Inc. common stock to its financial institution members in
contemplation of its initial public offering ("IPO") completed in
the first quarter of 2008 (the "Visa Reorganization"). As a part
of the Visa Reorganization, the Company received its proportionate
number of shares of Visa Inc. common stock, which were
subsequently converted to Class B shares of Visa Inc. ("Class B
shares"). Visa U.S.A. Inc. ("Visa U.S.A.") and MasterCard
International (collectively, the "Card Associations") are
defendants in antitrust lawsuits challenging the practices of the
Card Associations (the "Visa Litigation"). Visa U.S.A. member
banks have a contingent obligation to indemnify Visa Inc. under
the Visa U.S.A. bylaws (which were modified at the time of the
restructuring in October 2007) for potential losses arising from
the Visa Litigation. The indemnification by the Visa U.S.A. member
banks has no specific maximum amount.

Using proceeds from its IPO and through reductions to the
conversion ratio applicable to the Class B shares held by Visa
U.S.A. member banks, Visa Inc. has funded an escrow account for
the benefit of member financial institutions to fund their
indemnification obligations associated with the Visa Litigation.
The receivable related to the escrow account is classified in
other liabilities as a direct offset to the related Visa
Litigation contingent liability.

On October 19, 2012, Visa signed a settlement agreement to resolve
class action claims associated with the multi-district interchange
litigation pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. This case is the largest of the
remaining Visa Litigation matters. The district court approved the
settlement, but that approval was appealed by certain class
members.

On June 30, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit reversed the approval of the settlement and
remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with the appellate ruling.

On November 23, 2016, certain class members filed a petition with
the United States Supreme Court asking it to review the Second
Circuit's decision to reject the settlement. On March 27, 2017,
the Supreme Court denied the class members' petition. The case is
proceeding in the district court.


U.S. GOVERNMENT: Faces "Tita" Class Suit in Federal Claims Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against the U.S.
government.

The case is captioned Christopher Tita and Ijang Fomukong-Tita,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
USA, Case No. 1:17-cv-01461-MBH (C.F.C., October 6, 2017).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6375
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com


UBER TECH: "Sienkaniec" Hits Misclassification, Claims Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Sienkaniec, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and
Rasier, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-04489 (D. Minn., September
29, 2017) seeks to recover all unpaid wages/compensation,
liquidated damages, statutory damages, attorney's fees and costs
owed under the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act.

Uber Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered at
1455 Market Street, San Francisco, California, 94103. Plaintiffs
are Uber drivers. Uber allegedly misclassifies its drivers as
contractors, not employees, thus denying them basic employee
benefits like minimum wages, overtime pay, workers' compensation
and benefits to include unemployment insurance, income tax
withholding, and the ability to participate in Uber's retirement
plan(s), meal and rest breaks.

Plaintiff is an Uber Driver who provide on-demand transportation
services for Uber. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
      Christopher J. Moreland, Esq.
      HALUNEN LAW
      1650 IDS Center
      80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 605-4098
      Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
      Email: weiner@halunenlaw.com
             moreland@halunenlaw.com


UGI CORP: Says AmeriGas Partners Satisfied Case Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------
UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that AmeriGas Partners has satisfied the judgment
in a class action lawsuit.

In connection with the AmeriGas Partners' 2012 acquisition of the
subsidiaries of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. ("ETP") that
operated ETP's propane distribution business ("Heritage Propane"),
the Partnership became party to a class action lawsuit that was
filed against Heritage Operating, L.P. in 2005 by Alfred L.
Williams, II, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated. The class action lawsuit alleged, among other things,
wrongful collection of tank rental payments from legacy customers
of People's Gas, which was acquired by Heritage Propane in 2000.

In 2010, the Florida District Court certified the class and in
January 2015, the Florida District Court awarded the class
approximately $18.0 million.  In April 2016, the Partnership
appealed the verdict to the Florida Second District Court of
Appeals (the "Second DCA") and, in September 2016, the Second DCA
affirmed the verdict without opinion.

"Prior to the Second DCA's action in the case, we believed that
the likelihood of the Second DCA affirming the Florida District
Court's decision was remote," the Company said.

As a result of the Second DCA's actions, in September 2016, the
Partnership recorded a $15.0 million adjustment to its litigation
accrual to reflect the full amount of the judgment plus associated
interest.

In October 2016, the Partnership filed a Motion for Written
Opinion and for Rehearing En Banc with the Second DCA. Following
denial of such motion, the Partnership satisfied such judgment.

UGI conducts a domestic propane marketing and distribution
business through AmeriGas Partners, L.P.  AmeriGas Partners is a
publicly traded limited partnership that conducts a national
propane distribution business through its principal operating
subsidiary AmeriGas Propane, L.P. ("AmeriGas OLP"). AmeriGas
Partners and AmeriGas OLP are Delaware limited partnerships. UGI's
wholly owned second-tier subsidiary, AmeriGas Propane, Inc. (the
"General Partner"), serves as the general partner of AmeriGas
Partners and AmeriGas OLP.  UGI refers to AmeriGas Partners and
its subsidiaries together as the "Partnership" and the General
Partner and its subsidiaries, including the Partnership, as
"AmeriGas Propane."


UGI CORP: Eighth Circuit Appeal in Consumer Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the appeal from the order dismissing an
indirect customer class action lawsuit remains pending in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Between May and October of 2014, more than 35 purported class
action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the
Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by certain of their
direct and indirect customers.  The class action lawsuits allege,
among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor
colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable
propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to
persuade their common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept
that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to
retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and
certain state antitrust laws.  The claims seek treble damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the
putative classes.

On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class
action cases to the Western Division of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri ("District Court").  In
July 2015, the District Court dismissed all claims brought by
direct customers. In June 2017, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit ("Eighth Circuit") ruled en banc to reverse
the dismissal by the District Court, which had previously been
affirmed by a panel of the Eighth Circuit.

"We are considering the filing of a Petition for a Writ of
Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court appealing the decision of the
Eighth Circuit," the Company said.

In July 2015, the District Court also dismissed all claims brought
by the indirect customers other than those for injunctive relief.
The indirect customers filed an amended complaint with the
District Court claiming injunctive relief and state law claims
under Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont law.  In September 2016, the
District Court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety.

The indirect customers appealed this decision to the Eighth
Circuit; such appeal was subject to a stay pending the en banc
review of the direct purchasers' claims.  In light of the Eighth
Circuit decision with respect to the direct purchaser claims, the
briefing schedule in respect of the indirect purchaser appeal will
now resume.

On July 21, 2016, several new indirect customer plaintiffs filed
an antitrust class action lawsuit against the Partnership in the
Western District of Missouri.  The new indirect customer class
action lawsuit was dismissed in September 2016 and certain
indirect customer plaintiffs appealed the decision, consolidating
their appeal with the indirect customer appeal still pending in
the Eighth Circuit.

"We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any, arising
from such litigation. We believe we have strong defenses to the
claims and intend to vigorously defend against them," the Company
said.

UGI Corporation is a holding company that, through subsidiaries
and affiliates, distributes, stores, transports and markets energy
products and related services.


USAA LIFE INSURANCE: "Spegele" Sues Over Excessive Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
Roy C. Spegele, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. USAA Life Insurance Company, Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-00967, (W.D. Tex., September 29, 2017), seeks
compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages, injunctive relief,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, Plaintiff's costs incurred
and such other relief for breach of contract and conversion.

Plaintiff purchased a Universal Life Insurance Policy from USAA
Life Insurance Company. Defendant is alleged of taking inflated
charges and improper amounts from cash values of its policies.
Spegele seeks to recover amounts that Defendant charged him in
excess of the amounts authorized by the express terms of their
life insurance policies including [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
      THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
      6243 IH-10 West, Suite 132
      San Antonio, TX 7820
      Telephone No. (210) 225-0811
      Facsimile No. (210) 225-0821
      Email: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com

             - and -

      Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
      Angelica M. Ornelas, Esq.
      GIRARD GIBBS LLP
      711 Third Ave, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212)798-0136
      Facsimile: (212)557-2952
      Email: dcg@girardgibbs.com
             amo@girardgibbs.com

             - and -

      Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 714-7100
      Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
      Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com

             - and -

      John J. Schirger, Esq.
      Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
      MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC
      4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
      Kansas City, MO 64111
      Telephone: (816) 561-6500
      Facsimile: (816) 561-6501
      Email: jschirger@millerschirger.com
             mlytle@millerschirger.com


VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Still Defends 3 Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that as of June 30, 2017, three actions were
pending for which either a class had been certified or plaintiffs
were seeking class certification where Liggett is a named
defendant. Other cigarette manufacturers are also named in these
actions.

Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in class action cases are
based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross
negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design
defect, failure to warn, nuisance, breach of express and implied
warranties, breach of special duty, conspiracy, concert of action,
violation of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection
statutes and claims under the federal and state anti-racketeering
statutes. Plaintiffs in the class actions seek various forms of
relief, including compensatory and punitive damages,
treble/multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties,
creation of medical monitoring and smoking cessation funds,
disgorgement of profits, and injunctive and equitable relief.
Defenses raised in these cases include, among others, lack of
proximate cause, individual issues predominate, assumption of the
risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, statute of
limitations and federal preemption.

In November 1997, in Young v. American Tobacco Co., a purported
personal injury class action was commenced on behalf of plaintiff
and all similarly situated residents in Louisiana who, though not
themselves cigarette smokers, allege they were exposed to
secondhand smoke from cigarettes that were manufactured by the
defendants, including Liggett, and suffered injury as a result of
that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified
amount of compensatory and punitive damages. No class
certification hearing has been held. The case has been stayed for
a number of years, with the stay renewed every few years.  The
last stay was entered on March 16, 2016 and stays the case,
including all discovery, pending the completion of the smoking
cessation program ordered by the court in Scott v. The American
Tobacco Co.

In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a purported class
action was commenced on behalf of all West Virginia residents who
allegedly have personal injury claims arising from exposure to
cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers. The complaint seeks to
recover $1,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages
individually and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for
the class. The case is stayed due to the December 2000 bankruptcy
of three of the defendants.

Although not technically a class action, in In Re: Tobacco
Litigation (Personal Injury Cases), a West Virginia state court
consolidated approximately 750 individual smoker actions that were
pending prior to 2001 for trial of certain "common" issues.
Liggett was severed from trial of the consolidated action. After
two mistrials, in May 2013, the jury rejected all but one of the
plaintiffs' claims, finding in favor of plaintiffs on the claim
that ventilated filter cigarettes between 1964 and July 1, 1969
should have included instructions on how to use them. The issue of
damages was reserved for further proceedings. The court entered
judgment in October 2013, dismissing all claims except the
ventilated filter claim. The judgment was affirmed on appeal and
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. In April
2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari to
the United States Supreme Court which subsequently declined
review.

In July 2015, the trial court ruled on the scope of the ventilated
filter claim and determined that only 30 plaintiffs have
potentially viable claims against the non-Liggett defendants,
which may be pursued in a second phase of the trial. The court
intends to try the claims of these plaintiffs in six consolidated
trials, each with five plaintiffs. With respect to Liggett, the
trial court requested that Liggett and plaintiffs brief whether
any claims against Liggett survive given the outcome of the first
phase of the trial.

On May 23, 2016, the trial court ruled that the case may proceed
against Liggett. Liggett requested that the trial court certify
the matter to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals for
review, but the trial court refused. A scheduling order was
entered governing the Phase I common issues pre-trial proceedings
and discovery is underway. It is estimated that Liggett could be a
defendant in approximately 90 individual cases.


WELCH FOODS: "Hall" Class Suit Removed to East. Dist. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on June 5, 2017 entitled Lauren
Hall, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Welch
Foods, Inc. and The Promotion In Motion Companies, Inc., Case No.
3:17-cv-03997, was removed on October 5, 2017, from the District
of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York (Brooklyn). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:17-cv-05828-RRM-JO.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

Welch Foods, Inc. processes and produces grape-based products that
include juices, jams, jellies, and spreads.

The Promotion In Motion Companies, Inc. manufactures and markets
confections, fruit snacks, fruit rolls, and snack foods in the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Scott Bauchner, Esq.
      Michael H. Ansell, Esq.
      ANSELL GRIMM & AARON, P.C.
      365 Rifle Camp Road
      Woodland Park, NJ 07424
      Telephone: (973) 247-9199
      Facsimile: (973) 247-9199
      E-mail: jb@ansellgrimm.com
              mha@ansellgrimm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      David R. King, Esq.
      Ronald Jay Levine, Esq.
      HERRICK, FEINSTEIN LLP
      One Gateway Center
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973) 274-2000
      Facsimile: (973) 274-2500
      E-mail: dking@herrick.com
              rlevine@herrick.com

         - and -

      Leah Kelman, Esq.
      HERRICK, FEINSTEIN LLP
      2 Park Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 542-1400
      E-mail: lkelman@herrick.com


WELLS FARGO: 3 ATM Access Fee Cases Returned to District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that three ATM access fee cases have been returned
to the district court for further proceedings.

In October 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action,
Mackmin, et. al. v. Visa, Inc. et. al., against Wells Fargo &
Company, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Visa, MasterCard, and several
other banks in the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia. Plaintiffs allege that the Visa and MasterCard
requirement that if an ATM operator charges an access fee on Visa
and MasterCard transactions, then that fee cannot be greater than
the access fee charged for transactions on other networks violates
antitrust rules. Plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees where available under
federal and state law. Two other antitrust cases which make
similar allegations were filed in the same court, but these cases
did not name Wells Fargo as a defendant.

On February 13, 2013, the district court granted defendants'
motions to dismiss and dismissed the three actions. Plaintiffs
appealed the dismissals and, on August 4, 2015, the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the
district court's decisions and remanded the three cases to the
district court for further proceedings.

On June 28, 2016, the United States Supreme Court granted
defendants' petitions for writ of certiorari to review the
decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia. On November 17, 2016, the United States Supreme Court
dismissed the petitions as improvidently granted, and the three
cases returned to the district court for further proceedings.


WELLS FARGO: Discovery Proceeding in Remanded Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that discovery is proceeding in the opt-out
litigations and the remanded class cases related to the
Interchange Litigation.

Plaintiffs representing a putative class of merchants have filed
putative class actions, and individual merchants have filed
individual actions, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo &
Company, Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Wachovia Corporation regarding
the interchange fees associated with Visa and MasterCard payment
card transactions. Visa, MasterCard and several other banks and
bank holding companies are also named as defendants in these
actions. These actions have been consolidated in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The amended and consolidated complaint asserts claims against
defendants based on alleged violations of federal and state
antitrust laws and seeks damages, as well as injunctive relief.
Plaintiff merchants allege that Visa, MasterCard and payment card
issuing banks unlawfully colluded to set interchange rates.
Plaintiffs also allege that enforcement of certain Visa and
MasterCard rules and alleged tying and bundling of services
offered to merchants are anticompetitive.

Wells Fargo and Wachovia, along with other defendants and
entities, are parties to Loss and Judgment Sharing Agreements,
which provide that they, along with other entities, will share,
based on a formula, in any losses from the Interchange Litigation.

On July 13, 2012, Visa, MasterCard and the financial institution
defendants, including Wells Fargo, signed a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiff merchants to resolve the consolidated
class action and reached a separate settlement in principle of the
consolidated individual actions. The settlement payments to be
made by all defendants in the consolidated class and individual
actions totaled approximately $6.6 billion before reductions
applicable to certain merchants opting out of the settlement. The
class settlement also provided for the distribution to class
merchants of 10 basis points of default interchange across all
credit rate categories for a period of eight consecutive months.

The District Court granted final approval of the settlement, which
was appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals by settlement
objector merchants. Other merchants opted out of the settlement
and are pursuing several individual actions.

On June 30, 2016, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the
settlement agreement and reversed and remanded the consolidated
action to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York for further proceedings.

On November 23, 2016, prior class counsel filed a petition to the
United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the reversal of the
settlement by the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court denied the
petition on March 27, 2017.

On November 30, 2016, the District Court appointed lead class
counsel for a damages class and an equitable relief class. Several
of the opt-out litigations were settled during the pendency of the
Second Circuit appeal while others remain pending.


WELLS FARGO: Appeal in Order of Posting Litigation Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that Wells Fargo's appeal in the Order of Posting
Litigation remains pending.

Plaintiffs filed a series of putative class actions against
Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as many
other banks, challenging the "high to low" order in which the
banks post debit card transactions to consumer deposit accounts.
Most of these actions were consolidated in multi-district
litigation proceedings (the "MDL proceedings") in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The
court in the MDL proceedings has certified a class of putative
plaintiffs, and Wells Fargo moved to compel arbitration of the
claims of unnamed class members. The court denied the motions to
compel arbitration on October 17, 2016. Wells Fargo has appealed
this decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.


WELLS FARGO: RMBS Trustee Litigation Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend the RMBS
Trustee Litigation.

In November 2014, a group of institutional investors (the
"Institutional Investor Plaintiffs") filed a putative class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., alleging claims against
the bank in its capacity as trustee for a number of residential
mortgage-backed securities ("RMBS") trusts (the "Federal Court
Complaint"). Similar complaints have been filed against other
trustees in various courts, including in the Southern District of
New York, in New York state court and in other states, by RMBS
investors.

The Federal Court Complaint alleges that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
as trustee, caused losses to investors and asserts causes of
action based upon, among other things, the trustee's alleged
failure to notify and enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage
loan sellers for purported breaches of representations and
warranties, notify investors of alleged events of default, and
abide by appropriate standards of care following alleged events of
default. Plaintiffs seek money damages in an unspecified amount,
reimbursement of expenses, and equitable relief.

In December 2014 and December 2015, certain other investors filed
four complaints alleging similar claims against Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. in the Southern District of New York, and the various cases
pending against Wells Fargo are proceeding before the same judge.

On January 19, 2016, an order was entered in connection with the
Federal Court Complaint in which the District Court dismissed
claims related to certain of the trusts at issue (the "Dismissed
Trusts"). The Company's motion to dismiss the Federal Court
Complaint was granted in part and denied in part in March 2017.

In May 2017, the Company filed third-party complaints against
certain investment advisors affiliated with the Institutional
Investor Plaintiffs seeking contribution with respect to claims
alleged in the Federal Court Complaint.

A complaint raising similar allegations to the Federal Court
Complaint was filed in May 2016 in New York state court by a
different plaintiff investor. In addition, the Institutional
Investor Plaintiffs subsequently filed a complaint relating to the
Dismissed Trusts and certain additional trusts in California state
court (the "California Action"). The California Action was
subsequently dismissed in September 2016. In December 2016, the
Institutional Investor Plaintiffs filed a new putative class
action complaint in New York state court in respect of 261 RMBS
trusts, including the Dismissed Trusts, for which Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. serves or served as trustee (the "State Court Action").
The Company has moved to dismiss the complaint.

In July 2017, certain of the plaintiffs from the State Court
Action filed a civil complaint relating to Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A.'s setting aside reserves for legal fees and expenses in
connection with the liquidation of eleven RMBS trusts at issue in
the State Court Action. The complaint seeks, among other relief,
declarations that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is not entitled to
indemnification, the advancement of funds or the taking of
reserves from trust funds for legal fees and expenses it incurs in
defending the claims in the State Court Action.


WELLS FARGO: Hearing on "Jabbari" Settlement Set for Q1 2018
------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that a final approval hearing has been scheduled
for the first quarter of 2018 on the settlement in the case,
Jabbari v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Federal, state and local government agencies, including the
Department of Justice, the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission and the United States Department of Labor, and state
attorneys general and prosecutors' offices, as well as
Congressional committees, have undertaken formal or informal
inquiries, investigations or examinations arising out of certain
sales practices of the Company that were the subject of
settlements with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of the
Los Angeles City Attorney announced by the Company on September 8,
2016. The Company has responded, and continues to respond, to
requests from a number of the foregoing seeking information
regarding these sales practices and the circumstances of the
settlements and related matters.

In addition, a number of lawsuits have also been filed by non-
governmental parties seeking damages or other remedies related to
these sales practices. First, various class plaintiffs purporting
to represent consumers who allege that they received products or
services without their authorization or consent have brought
separate putative class actions against the Company in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California and
various other jurisdictions.

In April 2017, the Company entered into a settlement agreement in
the first-filed action, Jabbari v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to
resolve claims regarding certain products or services provided
without authorization or consent for the time period May 1, 2002
to April 20, 2017.

The Company said, "Pursuant to the settlement, we will pay $142
million for remediation, attorneys' fees, and settlement fund
claims administration. In the unlikely event that the $142 million
settlement total is not enough to provide remediation, pay
attorneys' fees, pay settlement fund claims administration costs,
and have at least $25 million left over to distribute to all class
members, the Company will contribute additional funds to the
settlement."

"The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in July
2017. A final approval hearing has been scheduled for the first
quarter of 2018.


WHOLE FOODS: Faces Class Suits over Amazon.com Merger
-----------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market, Inc. is defending class action lawsuits
related to its merger with Amazon.com, Whole Foods said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2017.

On June 15, 2017, Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon.com") and Whole Foods
Market, Inc. ("Whole Foods Market") entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger under which Walnut Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Amazon.com ("Merger Sub") will be merged with and
into Whole Foods Market, with Whole Foods Market continuing as the
surviving company.

After the transaction was announced, three putative class action
lawsuits - captioned Riegel v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., et al.,
No. 1:17-cv-00674-LY (W.D. Tex.), Berg v. Whole Foods Market,
Inc., et al., No. 1:17-00677-LY (W.D. Tex.), and Gieske v. Whole
Foods Market, Inc., et al., No. 1:17-00684 (W.D. Tex.) - were
filed by purported Whole Foods Market stockholders in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The
complaints in these actions assert claims under Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
the disclosures contained in the July 7, 2017 preliminary proxy
statement filed by Whole Foods Market with the Securities and
Exchange Commission. Each suit names Whole Foods Market and the
directors of Whole Foods Market as defendants.

The Berg suit also names Amazon.com and Merger Sub as defendants.
The complaints seek a variety of equitable and injunctive relief
including, among other things, enjoining the consummation of the
merger, rescinding the transaction if it is consummated, and
awarding the plaintiffs costs and attorneys' fees.

Copies of the complaints in these three actions were publicly
filed by the Company as Soliciting Material under Sec. 240.14a-12
of the Exchange Act on July 21, 2017. Whole Foods Market believes
that plaintiffs' claims are without merit.

Whole Foods Market is a natural and organic foods supermarket.


XTO ENERGY: Amount Charged to Trust Not Yet Determined
------------------------------------------------------
Hugoton Royalty Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that in the case, Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO
Energy Inc., the Trustee has requested the settlement amount from
XTO Energy and has been informed that at this time, the amount
that XTO Energy believes should be charged to the Trust has not
been determined.

In December 2010, a royalty class action lawsuit was filed against
XTO Energy styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. in
Coal County District Court, Oklahoma. XTO Energy removed the case
to federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The
plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy wrongfully deducted fees from
royalty payments on Oklahoma wells, failed to make diligent
efforts to secure the best terms available for the sale of gas and
its constituents, and demand an accounting to determine whether
they have been fully and fairly paid gas royalty interests.

The case was certified as a class action in April 2012; however,
on appeal in June 2012, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the certification of the class and remanded the case back to the
trial court for further proceedings.

XTO Energy has informed the Trustee that it has reached a
tentative settlement for the matter. The Trustee has requested the
settlement amount from XTO Energy and has been informed that at
this time, the amount that XTO Energy believes should be charged
to the Trust has not been determined. XTO Energy has advised the
Trustee that the settlement will be allocated to all of XTO
Energy's Oklahoma wells, the majority of which are not properties
in which the Trust owns an underlying net profits interest.


* JND's Keough Named Female Entrepreneur of the Year Finalist
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Keough, CEO and co-founder of JND Legal Administration, a
legal management and administration company serving law firms,
corporations and government entities, has been named a Female
Entrepreneur of the Year finalist in the 14th annual Stevie(R)
Awards for Women in Business.  As a finalist, Ms. Keough will
ultimately be recognized as a Gold, Silver or Bronze Stevie Award
winner.

The Stevie Awards for Women in Business honor women executives,
employees and the companies they run -- worldwide.  The Stevie
Awards have been hailed as the world's premier business awards.

"Every year we say that the current crop of Stevies for Women
nominations couldn't be better, and the next year we're proven
wrong," said Michael Gallagher, founder and president of the
Stevie Awards.  "The judges' scores and comments bear witness to
the fact that this year we will honor a truly remarkable class of
women and women-led organizations."

Finalists were chosen from a pool of more than 1,500 candidates by
more than 170 professionals serving on five specialized judging
committees.  Gold, Silver and Bronze Stevie Award winners will be
announced during a gala event on November 17 at the Marriott
Marquis Hotel in New York.  More details about the Stevie Awards
for Women in Business and the list of finalists are available at
https://stevieawards.com/women/2017-stevie-award-winners.

"It is an honor to be recognized among some of the world's most
accomplished female business leaders," Ms. Keough comments.  "I'm
proud of the results we have achieved at JND.  Our success is very
important to me, as is the culture we strive to create where men
and woman work collaboratively and equally.  Being recognized as a
Female Entrepreneur of the year is also a testament to the strong
partnership between me and JND's other co-founders, Neil Zola and
David Isaac."

Under Ms. Keough's leadership, JND has more than doubled its
revenues in just one year making it the fastest-growing company in
its industry.  As the only female CEO in the legal administration
sector, Ms. Keough serves as a mentor and role model for women
seeking to achieve professional success.

Prior to co-founding JND, Ms. Keough served as chief operating
officer and executive vice president of one of the largest class
action administration firms in the country at that time.
Previously, she worked as a class action business analyst at
Perkins Coie.  Ms. Keough holds a law degree and a master's in
finance from Seattle University, and was named as a "Women Worth
Watching" in 2015 and 2017 by Profiles in Diversity Journal.

                  About JND Legal Administration

JND Legal Administration -- http://www.JNDLA.com-- is a legal
management and administration company led by a team of industry
veterans who are passionate about providing superior service to
clients.  Armed with decades of expertise and a powerful set of
tools, JND has deep experience expertly navigating the intricacies
of multiple, intersecting service lines including class action
settlements, corporate restructuring, eDiscovery, mass tort claims
and government services.  JND is trusted by law firms, government
agencies and Fortune 500 companies across the nation.  The company
is backed by Stone Point Capital and has offices in California,
Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Washington and Washington, D.C.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Court Junks Synergy Suits vs. Ligett
-----------------------------------------------------------
A trial court issued an order dismissing all synergy cases against
the tobacco defendants, including Vector Group Ltd.'s subsidiary,
Liggett Group LLC, without prejudice, according to Vector Group's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "Liggett was a defendant in 16 multi-defendant
personal injury cases in Maryland that allege claims arising from
asbestos and tobacco exposure. The tobacco defendants, including
Liggett, moved to dismiss the cases. In the past, motions to
dismiss have generally been successful, typically resulting in the
dismissal without prejudice of the tobacco company defendants.  In
Stidham, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al.,
however, a Maryland intermediate appellate court ruled that
dismissal of tobacco company defendants may not be appropriate
where the asserted injury is based on both asbestos and tobacco
exposure ("synergy cases"). In July 2016, the Court of Appeals
(Maryland's highest court) ruled that joinder of tobacco and
asbestos cases may be possible in certain circumstances, but
plaintiffs must demonstrate at the trial court level how such
cases may be joined while providing appropriate safeguards to
prevent embarrassment, delay, expense or prejudice to defendants
and "the extent to which, if at all, the special procedures
applicable to asbestos cases should extend to tobacco companies."
The Court of Appeals remanded these issues to be determined at the
trial court level. On June 2, 2017, the trial court issued an
order dismissing all synergy cases against the tobacco defendants,
including Liggett, without prejudice. Plaintiffs may seek
appellate review or file new cases against just the tobacco
companies."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Rp4698

Headquartered in Miami, Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group LLC and
Vector Tobacco Inc. units are engaged in the manufacture and sale
of cigarettes in the United States.  Its New Valley LLC unit is
engaged in the real estate business and seeks to acquire
additional operating companies and real estate properties.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Phase I Discovery Underway in Smoker Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Phase I discovery in individual smoker actions against numerous
defendants including Vector Group Ltd.'s subsidiary, Liggett Group
LLC, are underway, according to Vector Group's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc.,
a purported class action was commenced on behalf of all West
Virginia residents who allegedly have personal injury claims
arising from exposure to cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers. The
complaint seeks to recover $1,000 in compensatory and punitive
damages individually and unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages for the class. The case is stayed due to the December 2000
bankruptcy of three of the defendants.

"Although not technically a class action, in In Re: Tobacco
Litigation (Personal Injury Cases), a West Virginia state court
consolidated approximately 750 individual smoker actions that were
pending prior to 2001 for trial of certain "common" issues.
Liggett was severed from trial of the consolidated action. After
two mistrials, in May 2013, the jury rejected all but one of the
plaintiffs' claims, finding in favor of plaintiffs on the claim
that ventilated filter cigarettes between 1964 and July 1, 1969
should have included instructions on how to use them. The issue of
damages was reserved for further proceedings. The court entered
judgment in October 2013, dismissing all claims except the
ventilated filter claim. The judgment was affirmed on appeal and
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. In April
2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari to
the United States Supreme Court which subsequently declined
review. In July 2015, the trial court ruled on the scope of the
ventilated filter claim and determined that only 30 plaintiffs
have potentially viable claims against the non-Liggett defendants,
which may be pursued in a second phase of the trial. The court
intends to try the claims of these plaintiffs in six consolidated
trials, each with five plaintiffs. With respect to Liggett, the
trial court requested that Liggett and plaintiffs brief whether
any claims against Liggett survive given the outcome of the first
phase of the trial. On May 23, 2016, the trial court ruled that
the case may proceed against Liggett. Liggett requested that the
trial court certify the matter to the West Virginia Supreme Court
of Appeals for review, but the trial court refused. A scheduling
order was entered governing the Phase I common issues pre-trial
proceedings and discovery is underway. It is estimated that
Liggett could be a defendant in approximately 90 individual
cases."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Rp4698

Headquartered in Miami, Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group LLC and
Vector Tobacco Inc. units are engaged in the manufacture and sale
of cigarettes in the United States.  Its New Valley LLC unit is
engaged in the real estate business and seeks to acquire
additional operating companies and real estate properties.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Has $606.1MM Asbestos Liability as of July 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SPX Corporation recorded $606.1 for asbestos product liability
matters at July 1, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended July 1, 2017.

The Company says, "Numerous claims, complaints and proceedings
arising in the ordinary course of business have been asserted or
are pending against us or certain of our subsidiaries
(collectively, "claims"). These claims relate to litigation
matters (e.g., class actions and contracts, intellectual property,
and competitive claims), environmental matters, product liability
matters (predominately associated with alleged exposure to
asbestos-containing materials), and other risk management matters
(e.g., general liability, automobile, and workers' compensation
claims). Additionally, we may become subject to other claims of
which we are currently unaware, which may be significant, or the
claims of which we are aware may result in our incurring
significantly greater loss than we anticipate. While we (and our
subsidiaries) maintain property, cargo, auto, product, general
liability, environmental, and directors' and officers' liability
insurance and have acquired rights under similar policies in
connection with acquisitions that we believe cover a significant
portion of these claims, this insurance may be insufficient or
unavailable (e.g., in the case of insurer insolvency) to protect
us against potential loss exposures. Also, while we believe we are
entitled to indemnification from third parties for some of these
claims, these rights may be insufficient or unavailable to protect
us against potential loss exposures.

"Our recorded liabilities related to these matters totaled $651.4
(including $606.1 for asbestos product liability matters) and
$653.5 (including $605.6 for asbestos product liability matters)
at July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. Of these
amounts, $615.7 and $621.0 are included in "Other long-term
liabilities" within our condensed consolidated balance sheets at
July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, with the
remainder included in "Accrued expenses." The liabilities we
record for these claims are based on a number of assumptions,
including historical claims and payment experience and, with
respect to asbestos claims, actuarial estimates of the future
period during which additional claims are reasonably foreseeable.
While we base our assumptions on facts currently known to us, they
entail inherently subjective judgments and uncertainties. As a
result, our current assumptions for estimating these liabilities
may not prove accurate, and we may be required to adjust these
liabilities in the future, which could result in charges to
earnings. These variances relative to current expectations could
have a material impact on our financial position and results of
operations.

"Our asbestos-related claims are typical in certain of the
industries in which we operate or pertain to legacy businesses we
no longer operate. It is not unusual in these cases for fifty or
more corporate entities to be named as defendants. We vigorously
defend these claims, many of which are dismissed without payment,
and the significant majority of costs related to these claims have
historically been paid pursuant to our insurance arrangements.
During the three months ended July 1, 2017 and July 2, 2016, our
payments for asbestos-related matters, net of insurance
recoveries, were $1.2 and $1.3, respectively. During the six
months ended July 1, 2017, our insurance recoveries for asbestos-
related matters, net of payments, were $7.8, which included cash
proceeds received during the first quarter of 2017 of $8.5 related
to a settlement reached with an insurance carrier. During the six
months ended July 2, 2016, our payments for asbestos-related
matters, net of insurance recoveries, were $3.0. A significant
increase in claims, costs and/or issues with existing insurance
coverage (e.g., dispute with or insolvency of insurer(s)) could
have a material adverse impact on our share of future payments
related to these matters, and, as such, have a material impact on
our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
We have recorded insurance recovery assets associated with the
asbestos product liability matters, with such amounts totaling
$554.0 and $564.4 at July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2016,
respectively, and included in "Other assets" within our condensed
consolidated balance sheets. These assets represent amounts that
we believe we are or will be entitled to recover under agreements
we have with insurance companies. The assets we record for these
insurance recoveries are based on a number of assumptions,
including the continued solvency of the insurers, and are subject
to a variety of uncertainties. Our current assumptions for
estimating these assets may not prove accurate, and we may be
required to adjust these assets in the future, which could result
in additional charges to earnings. These variances relative to
current expectations could have a material impact on our financial
position and results of operations.

"During the three and six months ended July 1, 2017, we recorded a
charge to "Other income (expense), net" of $3.0 associated with
the settlement of a group of asbestos-related claims, while there
were no such charges during the three and six months ended July 2,
2016."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/2PuTCB


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 19 Cases at July 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. has 19 pending asbestos cases,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 2, 2017.

The Company states, "Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are
among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for
exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials. The
Company currently has three pending silica cases and 19 pending
asbestos cases.  To date, 1,493 silica cases and 50 asbestos cases
have been dismissed, not including any lawsuits against AMCOL or
American Colloid Company dismissed prior to our acquisition of
AMCOL.  Two new asbestos cases were filed in the second quarter of
2017, and one asbestos case was dismissed during the quarter (not
counting an existing case that was dismissed in one state only to
be filed again in another state). No silica cases were dismissed
during the quarter.  Most of these claims do not provide adequate
information to assess their merits, the likelihood that the
Company will be found liable, or the magnitude of such liability,
if any. Additional claims of this nature may be made against the
Company or its subsidiaries. At this time management anticipates
that the amount of the Company's liability, if any, and the cost
of defending such claims, will not have a material effect on its
financial position or results of operations.

"The Company has settled only one silica lawsuit, for a nominal
amount, and no asbestos lawsuits to date (not including any that
may have been settled by AMCOL prior to completion of the
acquisition). We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts
claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading
practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed
damage. The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of
these cases since inception continues to be insignificant. The
majority of the costs of defense for these cases, excluding cases
against AMCOL or American Colloid, are reimbursed by Pfizer Inc.
pursuant to the terms of certain agreements entered into in
connection with the Company's initial public offering in 1992.  Of
the 19 pending asbestos cases, 16 of the non-AMCOL cases claim
liability based on sales of products both before and after the
initial public offering.  The Company is entitled to
indemnification, pursuant to agreement, for sales prior to the
initial public offering. In the two remaining non-AMCOL cases, the
plaintiffs have not alleged dates of exposure. The remaining case
is an AMCOL case, which makes no allegation with respect to
periods of exposure.  Our experience has been that the Company is
not liable to plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits and the Company
does not expect to pay any settlements or jury verdicts in these
lawsuits."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/cvMTGN


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Settlement Obligation Estimated at $364MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC ("BNSF") estimates its future
obligation for the settlement of personal injury claims at $364
million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "The Company is party to a number of personal
injury claims by employees and non-employees who may have been
exposed to asbestos. The heaviest exposure for certain BNSF
employees was due to work conducted in and around the use of steam
locomotive engines that were phased out between the years of 1950
and 1967. However, other types of exposures, including exposure
from locomotive component parts and building materials, continued
after 1967 until they were substantially eliminated at BNSF by
1985.

"BNSF assesses its unasserted asbestos liability exposure on an
annual basis during the third quarter. BNSF determines its
asbestos liability by estimating its exposed population, the
number of claims likely to be filed, the number of claims that
will likely require payment and the estimated cost per claim.
Estimated filing and dismissal rates and average cost per claim
are determined utilizing recent claim data and trends.

"Throughout the year, BNSF monitors actual experience against the
number of forecasted claims and expected claim payments and will
record adjustments to the Company's estimates as necessary.

"Based on BNSF's estimate of the potentially exposed employees and
related mortality assumptions, it is anticipated that unasserted
asbestos claims will continue to be filed through the year 2050.
The Company recorded an amount for the full estimated filing
period through 2050 because it had a relatively finite exposed
population (former and current employees hired prior to 1985),
which it was able to identify and reasonably estimate and about
which it had obtained reliable demographic data (including age,
hire date and occupation) derived from industry or BNSF specific
data that was the basis for the study. BNSF projects that
approximately 65, 80 and 95 percent of the future unasserted
asbestos claims will be filed within the next 10, 15 and 25 years,
respectively.

Other Personal Injury

"BNSF estimates its other personal injury liability claims and
expense quarterly based on the covered population, activity levels
and trends in frequency and the costs of covered injuries.
Estimates include unasserted claims except for certain repetitive
stress and other occupational trauma claims that allegedly result
from prolonged repeated events or exposure. Such claims are
estimated on an as-reported basis because the Company cannot
estimate the range of reasonably possible loss due to other non-
work related contributing causes of such injuries and the fact
that continued exposure is required for the potential injury to
manifest itself as a claim. BNSF has not experienced any
significant adverse trends related to these types of claims in
recent years.

"BNSF monitors quarterly actual experience against the number of
forecasted claims to be received, the forecasted number of claims
closing with payment and expected claim payments. Adjustments to
the Company's estimates are recorded quarterly as necessary or
more frequently as new events or revised estimates develop.

"At June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, $80 million and $85
million was included in current liabilities, respectively. Defense
and processing costs, which are recorded on an as-reported basis,
were not included in the recorded liability. The Company is
primarily self-insured for personal injury claims.

"Because of the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate outcome of
personal injury claims, it is reasonably possible that future
costs to settle personal injury claims may range from
approximately $320 million to $435 million. However, BNSF believes
that the $364 million recorded at June 30, 2017 is the best
estimate of the Company's future obligation for the settlement of
personal injury claims.

"The amounts recorded by BNSF for personal injury liabilities were
based upon currently known facts. Future events, such as the
number of new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of
disposing of claims, as well as the numerous uncertainties
surrounding personal injury litigation in the United States, could
cause the actual costs to be higher or lower than projected.

"Although the final outcome of personal injury matters cannot be
predicted with certainty, considering among other things the
meritorious legal defenses available and liabilities that have
been recorded, it is the opinion of BNSF that none of these items,
when finally resolved, will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position or liquidity. However, the occurrence
of a number of these items in the same period could have a
material adverse effect on the results of operations in a
particular quarter or fiscal year."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/tJVA6n


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PC Trust Reaches Deal with Asbestos Claimants
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Gannon, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reported that a
trust set up to handle asbestos litigation against Pittsburgh
Corning Corp. has reached a $178 million settlement with a group
of 2,000 claimants who have been seeking relief since the 1990s.

In a deal disclosed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Pittsburgh, the $4
billion trust agreed to pay initially $38 million to the group,
called the Cimino claims, which filed its cases against Pittsburgh
Corning in Texas in the 1990s.

They will receive another $140 million if an arbitration panel
decides in their favor. The trust had resisted paying the claims
saying some of them never went to trial or their verdicts were
overturned.

The trust was created to handle claims when Pittsburgh Corning
emerged from bankruptcy in 2016. Thousands of people filed claims
saying the company's insulation products caused illnesses.

The trust is funded by PPG and Corning Inc. which were original
joint venture partners in the company. Earlier this year, Plum-
based Pittsburgh Corning was acquired by Owens Corning of Toledo,
Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Japanese Gov't. Responsible for Asbestos Damage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jiji Press reported that the Yokohama District Court ordered the
Japanese government and two construction materials makers to pay a
total of JPY306 million in damages over health problems caused by
asbestos.

Judge Otake Yuko, who presided over the lawsuit at the court in
Yokohama, said that the state failed to put proper asbestos
regulations into place and that the two firms neglected their duty
to indicate asbestos use in their products.

In the suit, 61 former construction workers and bereaved relatives
demanded damages totaling some JPY1.7 billion yen from the state
and 43 construction materials manufacturers, claiming that the
workers developed lung cancer or other diseases after inhaling the
toxic substance at construction sites.

Otake said that the government recognized the danger of asbestos
by 1974 at the latest, adding that companies have been obligated
since 1976 to put warnings on the wrapping or packaging materials
for their products containing asbestos.

The judge pointed out that damages can be granted in cases in
which asbestos made by a particular company is strongly suspected
to be the cause of health damage.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Talc User's Body Had Asbestos, Jury Hears
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reported that a woman claiming
asbestos in Johnson & Johnson's talcum products caused her
mesothelioma had particles of both talc and asbestos in the lymph
nodes connected to her lungs, as well as talc in her lung tissue,
a Mount Sinai pathologist told a California jury.

During the fourth day of the trial in Pasadena, California,
plaintiffs Tina and Doug Herford called to the stand pathologist
Ronald E. Gordon of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai to
back up their claim.

During the first day of the retrial in Pasadena, California, nine
days after Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge C. Edward
Simpson declared a mistrial two days into the first attempt to try
the case.

If Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products contained asbestos,
a person using them on their child or on themselves could develop
mesothelioma, a former Tulane pathology professor and asbestos
expert testified in a California trial for a woman alleging she
developed the cancer in this way.

During the second day of the trial in Pasadena, California,
plaintiffs Tina and Doug Herford called to the stand Tulane
University professor emeritus and asbestos expert Arnold Brody as
the first witness supporting their claim that J&J and its talc
supplier Imerys Talc America Inc. are responsible for Tina
Herford's mesothelioma, an asbestos-related lung cancer.

Under examination by the Herfords' attorney Jay Stuemke of Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett PC, Brody testified in detail for the
jury about how asbestos fibers enter human lungs, cause damage to
the DNA in the cells lining the lungs, and through this process
trigger the development of mesothelioma.

At the conclusion of Brody's testimony, Stuemke laid out a lengthy
hypothetical scenario bearing close resemblance to Herford's own
story -- a person, born in the 1950s, who has talcum powder
products used on them as a child, and who uses them themselves for
decades. Stuemke asked if that talcum powder hypothetically
contained asbestos, and that hypothetical person had mesothelioma,
would Brody consider the talcum powder a cause of the
mesothelioma.

"Yes, that would be a cause in my view. There is asbestos, if
there's asbestos above background, if the individual was exposed,"
Brody answered.

Alexander Calfo, Esq. -- acalfo@kslaw.com -- of King & Spalding
LLP, representing J&J, began his cross-examination by pressing
Brody about the fact that he had not actually studied Herford
herself, or J&J's talc.

"Doctor, you've done nothing to support even a thought that the
Johnson & Johnson talcum powder used by Mrs. Herford was somehow
contaminated with asbestos, true?" Calfo asked.

"I've not studied Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder," Brody
answered.

Calfo again pressed Brody on the subject, asking him to confirm
that he had done no work specific to Herford's case.

"I don't expect that Mrs. Herford's lungs reacted differently than
anyone else's. That's why I can teach that, to medical students or
the jury, this is what happened in a person who developed
mesothelioma," Brody answered.

The Herfords filed suit in January against a host of companies,
alleging that they were responsible for asbestos that they say
caused Tina Herford's mesothelioma. The case headed to trial
earlier this month with claims against J&J and Imerys.

On Oct. 10, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge C. Edward
Simpson declared a mistrial because Tina Herford, who took the
stand as the first witness in her case on Oct. 6, violated a court
order by mentioning the alleged link between J&J's talc and
ovarian cancer, according to attorneys for the parties. A new jury
was empaneled for a retrial, which began Thursday.

The Herfords' trial came in the wake of multiple lawsuits that
have accused J&J's talcum powder of causing harm, not through any
alleged asbestos link but rather by contending that the talcum
powder itself causes ovarian cancer when applied to a woman's
genital area.

After five completed trials in St. Louis over the alleged link
between J&J's talcum powder products and ovarian cancer, the
company was hit with verdicts totaling more than $300 million but
also was cleared of liability in one trial. In the first trial in
consolidated Los Angeles County litigation about the issue, a jury
awarded plaintiff Eva Echeverria $417 million.

On Friday, however, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Maren
E. Nelson tossed that $417 million verdict, ruling that
Echeverria's expert witnesses had failed to provide sufficient
evidence that her ovarian cancer was more likely than not caused
by J&J's talc.

The Herfords are represented by Jay Stuemke and Chris Panatier of
Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett PC.

J&J is represented by Sharla J. Frost, Esq. --
sharla.frost@tuckerellis.com -- of Tucker Ellis LLP, Morton Dubin,
Esq. -- mdubin@orrick.com -- of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,
and Alexander Calfo of King & Spalding LLP. Imerys is represented
by Todd Benoff, Esq. -- todd.benoff@alston.com -- of Alston & Bird
LLP.

The case is Tina Herford et al. v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case
number BC646315, consolidated in LAOSD Asbestos Cases, case number
JCCP4674, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Butte Contractor Sues Montana DEQ Over Disposal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Ayer, writing for NBC Montana, reported that a Butte
contractor is suing Montana's Department of Environmental Quality
claiming the agency isn't doing its job in making sure asbestos
waste is being properly disposed in Montana landfills.

Doug Ingraham, the corporate secretary of Ingraham Environmental
in Butte, tells NBC Montana it's state law that all waste be
properly screened before it's disposed of.

He said when asbestos waste is disposed there needs to be an
inspection, but landfill operators aren't enforcing it.

Ingraham said it's a health hazard for anyone that breathes in the
air near landfills.

He filed a lawsuit in early August with the DEQ and said they are
just beginning to respond.

NBC Montana reached out to the DEQ, but so far they haven't
returned our calls.

"The department requires landfills to uphold the plans that they
have submitted that require them to handle asbestos in a specific
manner. These plans are in place right now and dictate how they're
to be handled, and nobody's checking to make sure that that's
happening," Ingraham said.

Ingraham said he's been trying to raise this awareness for 11
years and believes a court intervention is the only way to get a
significant change.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Ct. Flips Summary Ruling in Colgate Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Bellon, writing for Reuters, reported that a California
appeals court said a trial court had erred in granting summary
judgment to Colgate-Palmolive Co over allegations its cosmetic
talcum powder Cashmere Bouquet contained asbestos and caused a
woman to develop mesothelioma.

In a unanimous decision the three-justice panel of the California
Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3 said that Mary Lyons
had provided enough evidence to warrant a trial.

Dave Simpson, writing for Law360, said the California appellate
court revived the suit against Colgate brought by a woman alleging
their talc product contained asbestos that contributed to her
mesothelioma, ruling that contrary to the lower court's
assessment, there was triable evidence in the case.

In a unanimous published decision, the panel struck down the
November 2016 ruling of Superior Court Judge Garrett L. Wong,
who'd found that Mary Lyons did not have sufficient triable
evidence after Colgate-Palmolive Co. picked apart the testimony of
her expert witness, Sean Fitzgerald.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Justices to Weigh Coverage Gap Quandary
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reported that New Jersey's high
court will hear arguments in Travelers' appeal of a decision that
Honeywell doesn't have to help cover costs tied to asbestos-
related injury suits filed after insurers started excluding
asbestos coverage, in a case that could broadly impact how
coverage is spread between policyholders and insurers in similar
cases.

What's at Stake

The New Jersey Supreme Court is considering a bid by two excess
insurers, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. and parent
Travelers Casualty and Surety Co., to overturn a state appellate
panel's decision that Honeywell International Inc. doesn't have to
foot the bill for asbestos product liability suits filed against
it after exclusions for claims tied to the carcinogen became
common in general liability insurance policies in 1987.

The panel's ruling was based on its application of the so-called
unavailability exception established in the state high court's
landmark 1994 ruling in the case of Owens-Illinois Inc. v. United
Insurance Co.

In Owens-Illinois, the New Jersey justices adopted a "pro rata"
insurance allocation method, whereby each of a company's insurance
companies is liable for a proportional amount of a loss based on
the length of time the insurer's policies were in effect and the
degree of risk assumed. Under that decision, if a policyholder
consciously decides not to buy available insurance for a
particular risk, it must cover a portion of the liability for
claims arising during that time period. If, however, there is no
insurance available for purchase, the unavailability exception
applies and the policyholder has no coverage obligations.

The current case has a wrinkle: Travelers is arguing that
Honeywell's predecessor deliberately continued to manufacture
asbestos-containing products after 1987, even after the risks of
the substance became apparent.

Attorneys who represent policyholders have told Law360 that a
decision in Travelers' favor could unfairly force insureds to pay
out-of-pocket for claims of asbestos injuries occurring during
periods when asbestos coverage could not be purchased. Conversely,
lawyers who counsel insurance carriers have said a decision for
Honeywell could reward irresponsible business decisions by
policyholders.

How We Got Here

During the 17-year-old case, Honeywell has sought coverage under
more than 330 policies issued by various insurance companies to
its predecessors, Bendix Corp. and Allied Corp., for scores of
claims brought by individuals who allege they were injured by
exposure to Bendix's asbestos-containing brake and clutch pads.

Honeywell ultimately settled with all of the insurers except for
Travelers and its St. Paul unit, which had issued a total of 10
excess policies to Bendix between 1968 and 1983, according to
court documents. Notably, Honeywell is pursuing coverage from
those carriers only for claims brought by individuals who were
allegedly first exposed to asbestos-containing products before
asbestos exclusions proliferated in 1987.

In a July 2016 opinion, a panel of the New Jersey Appellate
Division upheld a lower court's holding that the Garden State's
law applies to the case and also affirmed that Honeywell did not
have to share coverage for the underlying claims as if it were
self-insured after 1987 because excess coverage for asbestos
injury claims was no longer available after that year.

Travelers filed a petition for review with the New Jersey Supreme
Court, challenging the lower courts' rulings on both the choice of
law and the unavailability exception, and the state high court
agreed to hear the case last December.

Travelers' Stance

For starters, Travelers is contending that Michigan -- rather than
New Jersey -- law applies to the dispute, because the policies at
issue were brokered, negotiated, underwritten and delivered to
Bendix in Michigan decades ago, well before that company was
acquired by Honeywell.

As the appellate panel noted, the determination of the proper law
will have a significant impact on the way Honeywell's coverage is
allocated. According to the appellate opinion, New Jersey courts
have established a unique pro rata allocation method that takes
into account both the length of time an insurer's policies were in
place and the limits of those policies, while Michigan courts
don't consider limits in the allocation analysis.

Travelers says the Appellate Division's choice-of-law ruling
flouted precedent favoring application of the law of the state in
which an insurance policy is negotiated and issued. The insurer
also asserted that the parties can avoid more costly litigation if
Michigan's "far simpler" allocation method is applied.

"The approach adopted by the Appellate Division threatens to
undermine important policy interests that have long informed
choice of law, including the needs of certainty, predictability
and uniformity, the reasonable expectations of the parties, the
interests of national commerce, and ease of judicial
administration, and in the process injects needless confusion,
complexity and inconsistency," Travelers contended in its petition
for review.

With respect to allocation, Travelers argued that the Appellate
Division applied a "rigid and inflexible" reading of Owens-
Illinois's unavailability exception, failing to take into account
Bendix's decision to continue making and selling asbestos-
containing products after 1987.

"Rather than encouraging responsible conduct, the Appellate
Division has implicitly encouraged risk-taking and irresponsible
conduct, and would signal to manufacturers that they can continue
to engage in activities alleged to cause continuous and
progressive injury without insurance coverage knowing they will be
able to transfer losses to their prior insurers," Travelers said
in its petition.

Honeywell's Stance

For its part, Honeywell countered in an opposition brief that the
parties lack sufficient ties to Michigan that would justify
applying that state's law to the case, given the fact that
Honeywell has been based in New Jersey for more than 30 years.

Moreover, Honeywell said, courts have already ruled that the
Garden State's law applies to hundreds of other policies issued to
the company and its predecessors, so it would make no sense to
apply Michigan law solely to the 10 Travelers excess policies.

"While Travelers' view of Michigan law would reduce its
obligations, New Jersey law requires Travelers to pay its fair
share of claims, consistent with New Jersey's interest in
protecting its policyholders," Honeywell argued in its brief.

In addition, Honeywell said, Travelers has misleadingly suggested
that the company is trying to seek coverage for its predecessor's
conduct after 1987 under policies issued before that year. To the
contrary, Honeywell is seeking coverage only for claims by
individuals who allege they were first exposed to Bendix products
prior to 1987, before asbestos exclusions became standard,
according to the brief.

"Travelers failed to come forward with a single shred of evidence
that any conduct by Honeywell after 1987 had any effect on such
pre-1987 exposure claims," Honeywell's attorneys wrote.

Counsel

St. Paul and Travelers are represented by Stefano V. Calogero,
Esq. -- scalogero@windelsmarx.com -- and Tanya M. Mascarich, Esq.
-- tmascarich@windelsmarx.com -- of Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf
LLP and Andrew T. Frankel of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

Honeywell is represented by Michael J. Lynch, Esq. --
Mike.Lynch@klgates.com -- Donald W. Kiel, Esq. --
Mike.Lynch@klgates.com -- Donald E. Seymour, Esq. --
Mike.Lynch@klgates.com -- and John T. Waldron III, Esq., of K&L
Gates LLP.

The case is Continental Insurance Co. et al. v. Honeywell
International Inc. et al., case number 078152, in the Supreme
Court of the State of New Jersey.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Wants Maine Law to Govern Exposure Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy, writing for Law360, reported that Maine law should
govern claims against General Electric Co. in a former U.S. Navy
shipyard worker's asbestos exposure lawsuit, the company told a
Massachusetts federal court, arguing the man lived and worked
almost his entire life in Maine and never in Massachusetts.
Ernest Burleigh, who originally sued GE and a number of other
companies over a cancer diagnosis in December 2015, was born and
raised in Maine and lived and worked there except for a four-year
stint in North Carolina that ended in 1959. Burleigh died in June
2016 and his widow, Ruth, is pursuing claims as representative of
his estate.

Massachusetts and Maine law differ considerably regarding issues
of fault, damages and contribution and those differences are
significant in a case such as the instant suit, where Burleigh
sued a number of defendants and claims his mesothelioma was caused
by exposure to a variety of products over a period of 40 years, GE
said.

"These different considerations dramatically affect the
determination of the nature and scope of GE's liability as well as
whether any damages awarded are GE's sole responsibility or are to
be shared with other culpable parties and nonparties," GE said.
"Since these conflicts cannot be reconciled, a choice of law
analysis is necessary in this case."

Burleigh worked several jobs in Maine prior to leaving for North
Carolina: at a local movie theater, a service station, a shoe
factory, a mill and at two motor companies. Upon his return, he
worked for a short time at a textile mill and a twine factory
before starting work at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery,
Maine, in 1960. He worked there until 1994.

It's clear and undisputed that the only place he could've
encountered GE products was at the shipyard, GE said, arguing that
no other state's laws fit the claims against it better than
Maine's.

In Massachusetts, only active defendants can be included on
verdict forms -- settled defendants and non-parties, such as
bankrupt companies, cannot. In Maine, however, only non-settling
defendants must pay their part of a verdict. GE said that this
distinction would seriously affect the amount of damages for which
it may ultimately be liable.

After Burleigh died, his widow amended the lawsuit to include a
wrongful death claim, and in Massachusetts, if wrongful death was
caused by malicious, willful or reckless misconduct, punitive
limitless damages are possible. Meanwhile, in Maine, there's a
statutory cap of $500,000 for non-economic damages and punitive
damages are only available if a defendant clearly acted
maliciously, but are capped at $250,000 in wrongful death suits,
GE said.

As for verdict contribution, Massachusetts says defendants are
jointly liable, requiring them to figure out how much they each
have to pay, while in Maine, each defendant has the right to seek
contributions from the others, GE said.

The company acknowledged that it is based in Massachusetts, but
argued that while the state has an interest in providing a forum
for residents to seek compensation for personal injuries, its
interest doesn't outweigh Maine's interest in compensation for
harm related to products sold in, purchased from or worked on
within its borders.

Ruth Burleigh could not be reached for comment.

GE is represented by Catherine A. Mohan, Esq. --
cmohan@mccarter.com -- of McCarter & English LLP.

Burleigh is represented by James L. Ferraro Jr. and David
Jagolinzer of The Ferraro Law Firm PA.

The case is Burleigh v. General Electric Co., et al., case number
1:16-cv-11030, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Urges Court to Chuck $8MM Verdict
------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Bolado, writing for Law360, reported that an industrial
manufacturer facing part of a mesothelioma sufferer's $8 million
verdict told the Florida Supreme Court that the award should not
stand because expert testimony underpinning the verdict is
inadmissible, whether the court decides to adopt a stricter
standard for screening expert testimony or not.

Crane Co., which is on the hook for part of the $8 million award,
urged the high court to affirm a Fourth District Court of Appeal
decision reversing the award to plaintiff Richard DeLisle.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Talcum Powder Suit Trials Continue
-------------------------------------------------------
Another talcum powder lawsuit is at trial in California, this time
involving a woman who claims her long-time use of Johnson &
Johnson's talcum powder products caused a deadly form of cancer
called mesothelioma. (Case No. JCCP4674)

The trial opened on October 19th in Los Angeles County Superior
Court in Pasadena, with the plaintiff's attorney asserting that
Johnson & Johnson had evidence confirming the presence of asbestos
particles in its talcum powder products for decades, but
deliberately withheld this information from consumers.

"Our Firm is representing a number of women who allegedly
developed ovarian cancer due to the long-term use of Johnson &
Johnson's talc-based powders for feminine hygiene purposes. They
also accuse the company of concealing this potential risk from the
public," says Sandy A. Liebhard, Esq. -- Liebhard@bernlieb.com --
a partner at Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationwide law firm
representing victims of defective medical devices, drugs and
consumer products. The Firm is offering free legal reviews to
women who were diagnosed with ovarian cancer that may be
associated with Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower-to-
Shower products.

Talcum Powder Ovarian Cancer Litigation

More than 4,800 lawsuits involving talcum powder and ovarian
cancer have been filed against Johnson & Johnson in courts
throughout the nation. Plaintiffs involved in this litigation
claim that the company has long been aware of studies dating to
the 1970s that suggest the regular and repeated application of
talcum powder to the female genitals increases a woman's risk of
ovarian cancer. Yet the company failed to include cancer warnings
on its talcum powder labels in order to protect profits derived
from its Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower franchises.

One of the country's largest talcum powder ovarian cancer
litigations is currently underway in Missouri's 22nd Circuit Court
in St. Louis, where five cases have gone to trial since February
2015. Only one jury has rendered a verdict in favor of Johnson &
Johnson. Plaintiffs in four talcum powder lawsuits have been
awarded compensatory and punitive damages amounting to $110
million, $70 million, $72 million and $55 million. (Case No. 1422-
CC09326-01)

California completed its first talcum powder ovarian cancer trial
in September, when a Los Angeles Superior Court jury awarded the
plaintiff $417 million, including $340 million in punitive
damages. The case was the first time a plaintiff was able to
present evidence showing that some of Johnson & Johnson's
competitors had begun including ovarian cancer warnings on their
talcum powder labels. (Case No. BC628228)

Women who were diagnosed with ovarian cancer following the long-
term use of talc-based powder for feminine hygiene purposes may be
eligible to file their own talcum powder lawsuit. To learn more,
please visit Bernstein Liebhard LLP's website, or call 800-511-
5092 to arrange for a free, no obligation case review.

                  About Bernstein Liebhard LLP

Bernstein Liebhard LLP is a New York-based law firm exclusively
representing injured persons in complex individual and class
action lawsuits nationwide since 1993. As a national law firm,
Bernstein Liebhard LLP possesses all of the legal and financial
resources required to successfully challenge billion dollar
pharmaceutical and medical device companies. As a result, our
attorneys and legal staff have been able to recover more than $3.5
billion on behalf of our clients. Bernstein Liebhard LLP is
honored to once again be named to The National Law Journal's
"Plaintiffs' Hot List," recognizing the top plaintiffs' firms in
the country. This year's nomination marks the thirteenth year the
firm has been named to this prestigious annual list.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP
10 East 40th Street
New York, New York 10016
800-511-5092

Contact Information:
Sandy A. Liebhard, Esq.
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
Email: info@consumerinjurylawyers.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Returns $5MM Verdict in Cancer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Edith Brady-Lunny, writing for Pantagraph.com, reported that after
about an hour of deliberation, a McLean County jury returned a
judgment of more than $5 million in favor of the family of a
Clinton man who died of mesothelioma.

Willard "Bill" Krumwiede, 81, died in 2012 of the incurable
cancer, which was tied to his work as a window glazier on
commercial buildings throughout Central Illinois and northeast
Indiana between 1956 and the 1990s.

Damages of $5,063,324 were returned against Tremco Inc.

During a two-week trial, the jury heard evidence that Tremco knew
of the hazards of asbestos in its products "and failed to even
identity asbestos as an ingredient in its products" during the
victim's time as a union employee, said Andrew Kelly, with Wylder
Corwin Kelly LLP, attorneys for widow Ruth Krumwiede and sons Mike
and Jeff Krumwiede.

Medical evidence at the trial showed that Krumwiede used Tremco's
440 tape and Mono caulking on construction sites where he
installed glass.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies Can Be Liable for Secondary Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Garret Murai, Esq. -- gmurai@wendel.com -- at Wendel, Rosen, Black
& Dean LLP, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that the history of
asbestos regulation in the United States is complicated. Prior to
the 1970s, asbestos-containing materials used in construction was
widespread.

In 1971, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued an
emissions standard for asbestos as part of the Clean Air Act. In
1972, the EPA extended this regulation to an occupational standard
and, over the next decade, the EPA together with the U.S.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a wide array of
regulations aimed at asbestos.

Finally, in 1989, the EPA enacted the "Asbestos Ban and Phaseout
Rule," which would have eliminated nearly 94 percent of all
asbestos-containing products. However, the ban and phaseout was
overturned in 1991 by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in
Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA (5th Cir. 1991) 947 F.2d 1201, on
the grounds that the EPA had not considered alternative
regulations short of prohibition.

While an outright ban on asbestos failed in the U.S., the use of
asbestos has been curtailed significantly over the years,
primarily due to asbestos litigation, which continues today.

The next case, Petitpas v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. B245037
(July 5, 2017), discusses the breadth these asbestos cases can
take and how crazy these cases can get in terms of the evidence.

Petitpas v. Ford Motor Company

In Petitpas, husband and wife Marline and Joseph Petitpas sued
Ford Motor Company, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Rossmoor Corporation
and others alleging that exposure to asbestos through Joseph's
work resulted in "secondary exposure" of asbestos by Marline.

Joseph's Work at Enco

Joseph and Marline met in 1966 while Joseph was working at an Enco
service station in Pomona, California. Humble Oil, a predecessor
company of Exxon, owned the Enco service station. Joseph later
worked at different Enco service stations in in Ontario and
Pleasanton, California.

While working at the Enco service station, Joseph did a variety of
work on Ford cars including brake inspections and replacements. He
did brake inspections two or three times a day and brake
replacements two or three times a week. During this work Joseph
used an air compressor to blow dust out of wheel assemblies to
check or change brakes.

According to Marline, she watched Joseph do brake work on a total
of seven to ten cars at the Enco station, and while should
couldn't recall the make or model of those cars, the work created
dust which she breathed in. Marline also testified stat she
watched Joseph clean up at the end of the day, which involved
blowing or sweeping the floor, which also created dust which she
breathed in. And finally, according to Marline, while she and
Joseph were dating, Joseph would wear his Enco service shirt when
they went out after work and, after they were married, Marline
would wash Joseph's uniform.

Joseph's Work at Leisure World

Later, Joseph went to work for Rossmoor as a draftsman. At the
time, Rossmoor was building Leisure World, a large retirement
community in Walnut Creek, California. While at Rossmoor, Joseph
would visit the construction site as part of the work. He
typically spent an hour to an hour and a half at the project site.
At first, he drove his own car to the site, and later he used a
company car for visits. Leisure World used gypsum drywall, joint
compound, textured ceiling material and stucco at the project.

According to Joseph, they owned one car, and once or twice a week
Marline would drive him to work in the morning and pick him up in
the evening. When Marline would pick up Joseph they would
typically hug one another. Joseph also occasionally came home for
lunch. Joseph testified that before he left a construction site he
might stomp his feet or brush off his pants if dusty, but that it
was "very possible" that dust from the construction site might be
on his lower pants at the end of the day. With the exception of
Joseph's slacks, Marline would wash Joseph's shirts, socks and
underclothes. In addition, on occasion, according to Joseph, he
would show Marline the partially completed buildings while no one
was around.

According to the Petitpas' experts, numerous studies had connected
asbestos to lung disease, that asbestos from joint compound,
textured ceilings and brakes can cause mesothelioma, and that each
exposure to asbestos raised Marline's risk of developing
mesothelioma.

Rossmoor's Motion for Non-Suit

Following the Petitpas' presentation of their case at trial,
Rossmoor moved for non-suit (note: a motion for non-suit is a
motion presented by a defendant after a plaintiff has presented
its case at trial contending that the plaintiff has failed to
prove each element of its causes of action) contending that it
owed no duty to protect family members of workers working in an
environment with asbestos, arguing that it was irrelevant whether
such exposures occurred "from laundering the clothes, from riding
in the same automobile as someone who was directly exposed or
giving someone a hug in the parking lot by the office."

Rossmoor also contended that there was no evidence that Marline
was directly exposed to asbestos at the Leisure World project
site, arguing that "there is no testimony that they were at the
house at the time that the construction work was going on and/or
that they  were even on the premises at the time that construction
work was going on where there was any  potential release of
asbestos fibers" and that "Mrs. Petitpas specifically testified
that, when she walked into the house, she didn't see any dust."

In response, the Petitpas' responded that expert testimony had
showed "that the nature of respirable asbestos fibers are, in
fact, microscopic and invisible to the naked eye," that only
specialized testing can demonstrate if there are asbestos fibers
in the air, and because the houses were under construction at the
time "that asbestos and asbestos dust, asbestos laden dust was in
the structures. And . . . it doesn't go out. So there doesn't need
to be someone actively doing work for asbestos exposures to
occur."

The trial court granted Rossmoor's motion and the Petitpas'
appealed.

The Appeal

On appeal, the Court of Appeal explained that the California
Supreme Court, in the recently decided case Kesner v. Superior
Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, had held that companies can be held
liable for "secondary exposure" if asbestos from a job site causes
someone in a worker's home to become sick.

However, held the Court, "in the context of a cause of action for
asbestos-related latent injuries, the plaintiff must first
establish some threshold exposure to the defendant's defective
asbestos-containing products, and must further establish in
reasonable medical probability that a particular exposure or
series of exposures was a 'legal cause' of his injury, i.e., a
substantial factor in bringing about the injury."

And, here, while it was "possible" that Marline was exposed to
asbestos from dust on Joseph's clothing because Joseph was in the
presence of dust that may have contained asbestos and Marline was
in the presence of Joseph, the "[m]ere presence at a site where
asbestos was present is insufficient to establish legally
significant asbestos exposure."

Rather, explained the Court of Appeals ""[a] possible cause only
becomes 'probable' when, in the absence of other reasonable causal
explanations, it becomes more likely than not that the injury was
a result of its action." And, here, while the Petitpas' expert had
testified that exposure could have occurred if Marline shook
visible dust from Joseph's clothing or if Joseph dusted off his
pants in the presence of Marline, no one testified that either of
these hypothetical scenarios had in fact occurred.

Conclusion

For those involved in the construction industry, Petitpas is
warning that your duty to your workers can extend to their
household members as well. The case is also illustrative of the
breadth of evidence considered in such cases -- possibilities
versus probabilities -- and degree to which the strength of a
plaintiff's evidence is dependent on the testimony of the
plaintiffs themselves. After all, the case could have easily
turned the other way had either Mr. or Mrs. Petitpas testified
that it was likely that Joseph had dusted off his pants in front
of Marline.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charges Against Allegheny Man to be Dropped
------------------------------------------------------------
Don Hopey, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reported that the
biggest illegal asbestos disposal case ever brought by the
Allegheny County Health Department got a sharper focus when the
department agreed to drop all charges against Raymond Sida, who
claims he was set up to be the "fall guy" by his employers, Ramesh
and Vikas Jain.

Planned dismissal of Mr. Sida's charges shifts the spotlight onto
the Jains, the father and son developers who face penalties
totaling $1.47 million for ordering the unpermitted removal of
more than 130,000 square feet of asbestos-containing floor tile
and pipe insulation at the former George Westinghouse Research and
Technology Park in Churchill earlier this year.

The Jains, who planned to convert multiple buildings on the 135-
acre corporate campus into a commercial development first dubbed
"Shoppes at Pittsburgh Studios" and then "Churchill Crossings,"
have denied the allegations. Their attorney, Maurice Nernberg,
declined comment.

Formal dismissal of the charges against Mr. Sida should occur
within the week, said Max Slater, the health department hearing
officer, following the conclusion of Mr. Sida's hearing.

During the hearing, held on Sept. 26, Mr. Sida, who did painting
and maintenance work over the past five years for the Jains,
testified that not only did the Jains direct the asbestos removal
and disposal without the required county permits, but they
misrepresented the material as safe to handle, grind up and
dispose of for the crew of Guatemalan nationals working at the
site. Sampling by county air quality inspectors later found the
tile and insulation materials contained up to 65 percent amosite
asbestos, which has been found to cause cancer.

After Churchill and county inspectors halted the illegal work, Mr.
Sida said the Jains tried to bribe him with offers of houses,
money and a car, if he would take the blame.

Mr. Sida, who was incorrectly identified by the health department
in its original June enforcement order as "Ramon Perez," and the
"principal owner" of Pintura Construction LLC, testified that not
only was he not Pintura's owner, he had never heard of the
company. He also said his name was forged on a $3,100 check drawn
on a Pintura account to pay attorney Brad Sommer, who Vikas Jain
introduced to Mr. Sida in a phone call on April 10 as Mr. Sida's
lawyer.

"I asked him why I needed a lawyer," Mr. Sida said.

Mr. Sida's current attorney, Ken Hardin, asked Mr. Slater to
dismiss the charges against his client, and Jason Willis,
assistant solicitor for the health department's air quality
division, said he was not opposed.

"The department has no evidence to contradict any of the evidence
presented. This is an ongoing investigation, but we have no basis
to deny the request for dismissal," Mr. Willis said. "We believe
the Jains are primarily responsible for the removal and disposal,
and will not contest the dismissal of charges against Mr. Sida."

Mr. Willis said resolution of the appeals on the enforcement order
against the Jains will take time to play out. An "ability to pay"
hearing -- which was closed to the public and media at the Jains'
request -- concluded in August, and briefs on that aspect of the
case are due to the hearing officer Nov. 3, who will then make a
ruling.

After that, the Jains' appeal of the merits of the county
enforcement order can move forward, Mr. Willis said.

The multimillion-dollar redevelopment project, for which the Jains
had secured a $3.5 million state grant commitment, was shut down
by the health department in May. Work cannot resume until the
Jains receive various permits, including for asbestos removal,
from the county.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cos. Settle Removal Claims in New Bedford Park
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Standard-Times reported that the owner of a New Bedford
industrial building complex and three companies hired to demolish
the facility will pay a total of $377,600 in penalties to settle
allegations that they caused or allowed illegal asbestos work at
the site, Attorney General Maura Healey announced.

The consent judgments, entered in Suffolk Superior Court,
partially settle a lawsuit filed by the AG's Office on Sept. 5
against Multilayer Coating Technologies LLC, the Lexington-based
company that owned the site; Sabre Demolition Corp., a New York
demolition contractor; American Environmental Consultants Inc.,
the Weymouth-based environmental consultant; MK Environmental, a
Lowell-based asbestos abatement company; and Advanced Construction
Technologies Corp., a Rhode Island asbestos-abatement company.

The lawsuit alleges that the companies violated the state's clean
air law and regulations in 2012 and 2013, when their workers
failed to take the required safety precautions when removing
asbestos at the site and failed to remove all of the asbestos-
containing material at the site before demolishing the building.

The AG's complaint alleges that Sabre demolished a portion of the
facility containing asbestos without taking the required
precautions to protect the public or workers from asbestos
exposure and subsequently failed to ensure that asbestos-
contaminated waste was secured properly. The lawsuit also alleges
that MK Environmental and Advanced Construction failed to remove
all of the asbestos-containing material from the portions of the
projects that they were hired to abate and that Multilayer and
American supervised the other companies' work and caused or
allowed their violations.

The claims against MK Environmental for its role in the violations
were not settled by the consent judgment and will proceed in
Suffolk Superior Court.

This case was handled by Assistant Attorney General Louis Dundin
of AG Healey's Environmental Protection Division, with assistance
from Asbestos Program Section Chief Cynthia Baran, Environmental
Analyst Colleen Ferguson, and Senior Regional Counsel Daniel
d'Hedouville of MassDEP's Southeastern Regional Office in
Lakeville, and Health Inspector Avelina Correia of the Department
of Labor Standards Regional Office in New Bedford.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Asbestos at Council Depot
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hebditch, writing for Aberdeen Journal, reported that the
Health and Safety Executive has launched an investigation after
workers were exposed to asbestos at an Aberdeen council depot.

Open bags of roofing material covered in asbestos were found by
workers beginning their morning shifts at the council's Kincorth
facility last month.

But mystery remains over who had accessed the site, which is
locked at night, to dump the bags.

Union bosses expressed doubt over the local authority's own
ability to investigate the incident, as it is thought only someone
with keys could access the depot. They reported it to the Health
and Safety Executive (HSE), which has now launched a probe.

When the city council removes asbestos from a property there is
usually a paper-trail to indicate where it came from and how it
will be disposed.

Unite union representative Tommy Campbell said: "Unite welcome
that there will be an investigation by the HSE, it is however
disappointing that we have had to take the action of reporting
it."

A spokesman for HSE said: "HSE is investigating asbestos concerns
raised at Aberdeen's City Council's Kincorth depot. Our inquiries
are ongoing."

An Aberdeen City Council spokeswoman said: "The health and safety
of our staff is a priority for us and so we have liaised with HSE
about the matter, and are working with their officers in their
investigation."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Women Become Victims of Mesothelioma
----------------------------------------------------------
Doug Conway, writing for Canterbury-Bankstown Express, reported
that Geoff and Lyn Bursill renovated their fibro home more than 30
years ago. Now Lyn has the incurable, deadly disease mesothelioma
and Geoff, her principal carer, has often wondered whether he
might have it, too.

"I have asked specialists about it and the answer is, 'Don't go
down that path'. You can't test for it. If you get crook, that's
when you find out," said Mr Bursill, a retired teacher who
attended a special thank you lunch for carers of mesothelioma
patients at Revesby Workers Club.

He is one of a growing number of male carers now that women are
increasingly falling victim in the so-called "third wave" of the
asbestos-related disease.

"We are certainly noticing more females," said Jocelyn McLean, a
registered nurse who coordinates support for the Asbestos Diseases
Research Institute.

Whereas earlier waves affected predominantly men in the workplace,
more women are presenting with symptoms typically from activities
such as laundering dirty work clothes or sweeping up.

Or in Mrs Bursill's case helping to renovate their Croydon Park
home in the late 1970s.

"Manufacturers might have known about asbestosis in those days but
they weren't telling us," said Mr Bursill.  "We hung a sheet up
across the doorway while we were doing renovations, not because of
any concern we could get sick but to stop the dust getting into
the rest of the house."

Small wonder their daughter Patricia, of Earlwood, refers to
mesothelioma as a "lottery with a shit prize."

Australia suffers the highest per capita rate of malignant
mesothelioma in the world, with around 700 new patients a year.

DEVIL IN THE DUST

The average life expectancy is 12 months though some patients can
live a further 10 years or more.

"Everybody with this disease dies of it, and the people left
behind can really struggle," said Jocelyn McLean.

"What the carers do is tireless, very much undervalued work.
Nobody could go through radical surgery, such as a lung removal,
without a good carer. I know of some who have declined surgery for
that reason. That says it all."

Despite asbestos being banned in 55 countries, including
Australia, it is still made and exported in products by many
others including China and Russia.

"It is money driven," said Mr Bursill, with exports to third world
countries who were unable to diagnose or treat the disease, a
situation described by his daughter as "shocking, disgusting,
insane".

Mr Bursill's big hope is that researchers such as those at Concord
and RPA hospitals will find an immuno therapy treatment that may
not cure mesothelioma but will at least stop it in its tracks.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OneBeacon No Duty to Reimburse Defense Costs
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Appeals Court of Massachusetts vacates so much of the judgment
that awarded Celanese Corporation defense costs for the period
April 13, 2009, through May 27, 2011, as well as the prejudgment.
The Court declares that OneBeacon America Insurance Company has no
duty to reimburse Celanese for defense costs that Celanese
incurred during that period of time.

In March, 2010, OneBeacon filed an action for declaratory relief.
A judge entered an order on May 27, 2011, declaring that OneBeacon
had the right to control the defense of Celanese's underlying
claims as a result of its offer to defend without a reservation of
rights.

On the further cross motions, the judge ruled that OneBeacon was
liable for reasonable and necessary defense costs incurred by
Celanese during this period of time as part of OneBeacon's duty to
defend. The judge further referred the issue of the amount of
reasonable and necessary legal fees to a special master, and
ultimately awarded Celanese $2,435,921.49 in attorney's fees, plus
prejudgment interest from May 27, 2011, to May 31, 2013.

OneBeacon appeals from the final judgment awarding reasonable and
necessary defense costs to its insured, Celanese Corporation,
which Celanese incurred from April 13, 2009, through May 27, 2011.

The issue on appeal is whether that determination precludes
Celanese from receiving any reimbursement for defense of the
underlying claims during the period of time when the question of
control over the defense was being litigated.

OneBeacon argues that it is not liable for any defense costs
incurred by Celanese during that period of time because OneBeacon
offered to defend Celanese without a reservation of rights.

Over the years, Celanese has been subject to numerous legal
actions involving claims of bodily injury from asbestos and
chemicals allegedly contained in Celanese's products or
facilities. In an effort to seek coverage under its insurance
policies in April, 2009, Celanese sent a letter to OneBeacon
stating that it was terminating the parties' then-existing defense
cost-sharing agreements and demanding that OneBeacon instead
defend the ongoing asbestos and chemical product injury claims
under its original general liability policies.

OneBeacon offered to defend Celanese against the remaining
asbestos and chemical product injury claims without a reservation
of rights. To this effect, OneBeacon offered to waive any issues
of coverage and to indemnify Celanese from any settlements or
judgments up to its full liability limits.

In offering to defend Celanese without a reservation of rights,
OneBeacon has the right to control Celanese's defense of those
claims. This right to control Celanese's defense includes the
authority to choose the counsel who will defend the claims and to
make other decisions related to control of the defense that would
traditionally be vested in the insured, as a named party in the
case.

Celanese rejected OneBeacon's offer to defend without a
reservation of rights and conducted its own defense because it
believed that its own attorney would provide a better defense.
That was Celanese's right. However, absent a sufficient conflict
of interest on the part of OneBeacon, Celanese lost its right to
obtain reimbursement for defense costs when it refused to accept
OneBeacon's defense, offered without a reservation of rights.

The Court finds that OneBeacon satisfied its duty to defend by
offering to defend Celanese without a reservation of rights. The
Court explains that because of Celanese's unjustified refusal of
OneBeacon's control of that defense, OneBeacon is not liable for
the attorney's fees that Celanese incurred in conducting its own
defense.

The appealed case is ONEBEACON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, vs.
CELANESE CORPORATION, No. 16-P-203, (Mass. App.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated October 16, 2017 is available
at https://is.gd/TbhO55 from Leagle.com.

Kevin J. O'Connor (Kara A. Loridas also present) for the
plaintiff.

Michael John Miguel for the defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Released From "Savoie" Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carl J. Barder of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana granted the Motion to Re-urge State Court
Exception of Res Judicata filed by Owens-Illinois, Inc.

The Doctrine of Res Judicata precludes re-litigation of claims and
issues arising out of the same factual circumstances when there is
a valid final judgment.

On October 7, 1991, Joseph Savoie ("Decedent") filed a lawsuit in
the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans against the
Defendant and others, alleging that asbestos exposure during his
employment at Avondale Shipyard caused him to develop asbestosis.
During the pendency of that litigation, the Decedent and his wife
entered into a Receipt, Release, and Indemnification Agreement
with the Defendant as part of a group settlement.

Per the terms of the Release Agreement, the Decedent and his wife
agreed to release the Defendant from any causes of action arising
out of the Decedent's asbestos-related injury, including, inter
alia, mesothelioma, cancer, wrongful death, and survival claims.

The Decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer caused by
exposure to asbestos, seventeen years after he entered into the
Release Agreement, and for that reason, filed the instant suit
against Defendant (and others) in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans on August 21, 2014. Subsequent to filing this
lawsuit, the Decedent died as a result of his mesothelioma.

The Decedent's surviving wife and children then filed an amended
petition for damages and joined the lawsuit seeking survival and
wrongful death damages pursuant to Louisiana law. The Defendants
removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana on April 16, 2015, and filed the instant
Motion to Re-urge State Court Exception of Res Judicata.

The Defendant argues that the Court should grant its motion
because the Release Agreement clearly and unambiguously releases
Defendant from all future claims related to the Decedent's
asbestos exposure, including any mesothelioma claims, wrongful
death claims, and survival actions.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Release Agreement is invalid
because it was not signed by both parties -- it does not contain
the Defendant's signature or that of one if its agents.
Nevertheless, the Court finds other documents included in the
record that were signed by individuals acting on the Defendant's
behalf. For instance, the Defendant's attorney, Walter Watkins,
electronically signed the last page of the Settlement Agreement.

The signed Settlement Agreement provides that for each case
dismissed, the Defendant agrees to pay $4,000 if the principal
diagnosis is asbestos-related. Accordingly, the record reflects a
Settlement Check Request Form which affirms that the Decedent was
to receive $4,000 out of the total $1,660,500 group settlement. In
addition, the group settlement check, for "full and final
settlement of any and all claims," bears the signature of
Defendant's treasurer.

When construed together, the Court sustains that these documents
clearly demonstrate that the Defendant agreed to pay the Decedent
and his wife $4,000 in exchange for them entering into the Release
Agreement.

The Plaintiffs also contend that the Decedent's claim did not
exist until seventeen years after he signed the Release Agreement
when the Decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

The Court determines that the Release Agreement includes an
express release of future mesothelioma claims, wrongful death
claims, and survival actions. Because the Release Agreement
contains language that includes the specific claims brought in the
instant dispute, the Court concludes that said claims "existed"
when the Decedent and his wife signed the Release Agreement.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Decedent and his wife did not
intend to settle future mesothelioma claims because they were
unaware that Decedent could contract mesothelioma. In addition,
Plaintiffs contend that the mere nuisance value they received in
exchange for the Release Agreement evinces their lack of intent to
settle such claims.

The Court finds, however, that the Release Agreement at issue
contains an express release of claims involving "mesothelioma...
and all related lung diseases... whether past, present or future,
without limitation, including wrongful death and survival
actions." The Court concludes that such clear and unambiguous
language leaves no doubt that the parties intended to release not
only the Decedent's pending asbestosis claim, but also future
mesothelioma claims, wrongful death claims, and survival actions.

Despite this, the Decedent's wife asserts that no one explained
the releases to her or her husband, that neither she nor her
husband could read the releases, and that she had never heard of
mesothelioma until her husband was diagnosed. But the Court
maintains that a person who signs a written instrument is presumed
to know its contents and cannot avoid its obligations by
contending that he did not read it, or that it was not explained
or that he did not understand it.

The Plaintiffs further contend that the parties did not intend to
release claims for terminal malignant mesothelioma for $4,000 --
an amount Plaintiffs characterize as a mere nuisance sum.
Louisiana courts have reasoned that when a settlement agreement
includes a specific reference to the claim sought to be released,
the actual value a party receives for the release is
inconsequential.

The case is LORITA M. SAVOIE, ET AL., v. PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL
INSURANCE CO., ET AL., SECTION: J (3), Civil Action No. 15-1220,
(E.D. La.).

A full-text copy of the Order and Reasons dated October 12, 2017,
is available at https://is.gd/oDNMCj from Leagle.com.

Lorita M Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel,
Roussel & Clement.

Lorita M Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Brett Clement,
Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement &
Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Marcia Savoie Medlin, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Craig M Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel,
Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement,
Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel,
Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Tania Savoie Alexander, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Rodney A Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel,
Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement,
Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel,
Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Greta Savoie Boudoin, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Dale J Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel,
Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement,
Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel,
Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Joseph B. Savoie, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Benjamin Peter Dinehart, Roussel &
Clement, Dylan A. Wade, TMG Consulting, Jonathan Brett Clement,
Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement &
Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Gary
Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Albert L Bossier, Jr, Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee,
Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP &
Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

J Melton Garrett, Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles,
LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard
Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

OneBeacon America Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC,
Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Angela
J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Michael Kevin
Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Pennsylvania General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC,
Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Angela
J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche
Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Daniel L.
Ring, Mayer Brown, LLP, Ernest G. Foundas, Pugh, Accardo, LLC,
Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &
Carey, McGready Lewis Richeson, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &
Carey, Michael H. Abraham, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP & Milele N.
St. Julien, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey.

Eagle Inc, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn,
LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel,
III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., Benjamin
Melvin Castoriano, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot
L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot
L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C..

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot
L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti,
Frilot L.L.C..

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta
Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin,
Willingham Fultz & Cougill & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer
& Sommers, LLC.

McCarty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP.

Owens Illinois, Inc, Defendant, represented by Walter G. Watkins,
III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Elizabeth Riddell
Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman,
Watkins & Krutz LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich Simmons & Brown,
PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP.

Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jamie M. Zanovec, Willingham
Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Manion Gaynor Manning
LLP & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz & Cougill.

Travelers Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Kristopher
T. Wilson, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard & Travis
Brendon Wilkinson, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Forrest Ren Wilkes,
Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman
Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz
LLP & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel,
III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H.
Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C.,
Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot
L.L.C..

Albert L Bossier, Jr, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Gary
Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

J Melton Garrett, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen
Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell
& Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP &
Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Third Party Plaintiff,
represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne
M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell,
Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell
& Perles, LLP.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant,
represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers,
LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC,
Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer
H. McLaughlin, Willingham Fultz & Cougill & Mathilde Villere
Semmes, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

International Paper Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by
Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy,
LLP, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin
Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Jason K. Elam, Cosmich
Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, &
Krutz, LLP.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant,
represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers,
LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC,
Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer
H. McLaughlin, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Mathilde Villere
Semmes, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

International Paper Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by
Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy,
LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Jason K.
Elam, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman,
Watkins, & Krutz, LLP.

Albert L Bossier, Jr, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary Allen
Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell
& Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP &
Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

J Melton Garrett, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee,
Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP &
Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Cross Claimant, represented by
Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster,
Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot
L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti,
Frilot L.L.C..

Eagle, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP.

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta
Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin,
Willingham Fultz & Cougill & Mathilde Villere Semmes, Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale, Anne Elizabeth Medo, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Edward J.
Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard J.
Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale.

Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jamie M. Zanovec,
Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Manion
Gaynor Manning LLP & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz &
Cougill.

Uniroyal, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Erin Wedge Latuso,
Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
Benjamin Melvin Castoriano, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr.,
Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan,
Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C..

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Deborah
DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC,
Daniel L. Ring, Mayer Brown, LLP, Ernest G. Foundas, Pugh,
Accardo, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Pugh, Accardo, Haas,
Radecker & Carey, McGready Lewis Richeson, Pugh, Accardo, Haas,
Radecker & Carey, Michael H. Abraham, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP
& Milele N. St. Julien, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John
Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot
L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan,
Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott
Zotti, Frilot L.L.C..

Owens-Illinois, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Walter G.
Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP,
Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge
Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich
Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, &
Krutz, LLP.

Eagle, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP.

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta
Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin,
Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Mathilde Villere Semmes, Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer &
Sommers, LLC.

McCarty Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth
Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale, Anne Elizabeth Medo, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Edward J.
Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard J.
Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale.

Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jamie M. Zanovec,
Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Manion
Gaynor Manning LLP & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz &
Cougill.

Uniroyal, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Erin Wedge Latuso,
Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
Benjamin Melvin Castoriano, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr.,
Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan,
Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C..

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Deborah
DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC,
Daniel L. Ring, Mayer Brown, LLP, Ernest G. Foundas, Pugh,
Accardo, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Pugh, Accardo, Haas,
Radecker & Carey, McGready Lewis Richeson, Pugh, Accardo, Haas,
Radecker & Carey, Michael H. Abraham, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP
& Milele N. St. Julien, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey.

3M Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Sophia L. Lauricella,
Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John
Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot
L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan,
Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott
Zotti, Frilot L.L.C..

Owens-Illinois, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Walter G.
Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP,
Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge
Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich
Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, &
Krutz, LLP.

McCarty Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Susan Beth
Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Cross Defendant, represented by
Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster,
Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Owens Illinois, Inc, Counter Claimant, represented by Walter G.
Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP,
Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge
Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich
Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, &
Krutz, LLP.

Lorita M Savoie, Counter Defendant, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids for Summary Judgment Denied in "Belac"
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case is In Re Asbestos Litigation. LORETTA BELAC,
Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, C.A. No. PC-2016-
0544, (R.I. Super.), the Superior Court of Rhode Island finds that
Plaintiff, Loretta Belac, has provided sufficient evidence
demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact to survive summary
judgment, and denies Evenheat Kiln, Inc.'s and Sargent Art, Inc.'s
motions for summary judgment.

The Plaintiff originally filed this personal injury action on
February 9, 2016, asserting claims for failure to warn,
negligence, strict product liability, breach of warranty, and
conspiracy. The Plaintiff named several defendants, including
Evenheat and Sargent Art. In her Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges
that over the course of her career crafting ceramics from her home
business, she was exposed to asbestos-containing products
manufactured by the Defendants. She contends that this exposure
ultimately caused her to develop mesothelioma.

During discovery, the Plaintiff was deposed over the course of six
days from June to September of 2016. Both Evenheat and Sargent Art
attended the deposition. Plaintiff died last year due to
complications from her illness. As of October 19, 2017, the
Plaintiff's counsel has not moved for the appropriate substitution
of parties

Evenheat, a kiln manufacturing company, never contested
jurisdiction in Rhode Island. Rather, after responding to the
Plaintiff's discovery requests, Evenheat brought a motion for
summary judgment on December 22, 2016.

Evenheat maintains that the Plaintiff has failed to provide any
product identification evidence or evidence demonstrating a causal
connection between the Plaintiff's illness and its products.
Evenheat further contends that the affidavit submitted by the
Plaintiff's daughter, Faith Belac Cope, should be struck pursuant
to the "sham affidavit" doctrine. In support of this argument,
Evenheat asserts that the Belac Cope affidavit contradicts
Plaintiff's deposition testimony and provides no explanation for
the contradiction.

Evenheat alleges that the affidavit contradicts the Plaintiff's
unambiguous deposition testimony regarding the number of kilns and
the brands of kilns that the Plaintiff used throughout her
lifetime. Moreover, Evenheat asserts that the Plaintiff provides
no explanation for the alleged discrepancies between the affidavit
and the deposition testimony.

In response, the Plaintiff contends that she has presented
material facts identifying Evenheat and showing a causal
connection to the Plaintiff's illness. Moreover, the Plaintiff
argues that she intends to produce additional evidence of her use
of Evenheat's products as the discovery process moves forward. She
further asserts that a finding for Evenheat here is improper
because the evidence produced has created a question of material
fact best left for the jury's determination.

Sargent Art, a craft product company, also did not contest
jurisdiction in Rhode Island and filed a motion for summary
judgment on January 10, 2017. In its motion, Sargent Art simply
contends that the Plaintiff has failed to show any evidence
indicating that Plaintiff has identified its products or
demonstrating a causal connection. Specifically, Sargent Art
argues in its Memorandum that "Plaintiff has produced no evidence
showing that the Plaintiff worked with, or in close proximity to,
asbestos-containing products sold, distributed or installed by
[Sargent Art]." Moreover, Sargent Art asserts that Plaintiff has
not produced any evidence establishing a causal relationship
between its products and her illness.

The Plaintiff argues in response that -- through her deposition
testimony and the Belac Cope affidavit -- she has met her initial
burden regarding product identification and causal connection
evidence. Furthermore, the Plaintiff argues that she intends to
produce supplemental evidence of her use of Sargent Art's products
as the discovery process moves forward. She again asserts that a
finding for the Defendant is improper because the evidence
produced has created a question of material fact best left to the
factfinder.

The Belac Cope affidavits were completed on May 10, 2017 and filed
on May 22, 2017. With regard to Evenheat, Belac Cope states that
her mother used an Evenheat kiln "from about 1960 to 1962 and
thereafter." Additionally, her affidavit states that the Plaintiff
"would clean the kiln" by scraping the inside of the unit and
using the recommended kiln wash "on a daily basis for several
years." With regard to Sargent Art, Belac Cope states that her
mother "used many products manufactured by Sargent Art, including,
but not limited to dye, clays and paints...."

Conversely, both Evenheat and Sargent Art assert that they have
never manufactured asbestos-containing products. Further, they
argue that because Plaintiff did not specifically identify either
Evenheat or Sargent Art during her six-day deposition, she has not
provided the requisite product identification and causal
connection evidence necessary to proceed.

The Plaintiff disagrees, stating that she has provided both
product identification and causal connection evidence. The
Plaintiff contends that she has provided adequate product
identification and causal connection evidence at this stage of the
proceeding through her deposition testimony and the Belac Cope
affidavits.

Pursuant to the "sham affidavit" doctrine, "when an interested
witness has given clear answers to unambiguous questions, he
cannot create a conflict and resist summary judgment with an
affidavit that is clearly contradictory, but does not give a
satisfactory explanation of why the testimony is changed.'" This
doctrine bars reliance on portions of an affidavit that are
contradicted by the affiant's prior deposition testimony.

The Court finds that Belac Cope has not been subject to a
deposition in this matter; consequently, her affidavit cannot be
said to contradict her own testimony. While Belac Cope's testimony
may be deserving of further scrutiny, it is not within the Court's
purview to "assess the weight or the credibility of the evidence."
Therefore, the Court declines to strike Belac Cope's affidavit
under the "sham affidavit" doctrine, thus saving a determination
of this witness's credibility for the fact-finder.

The Defendants contend that there are no genuine issues of
material fact and that the Plaintiff has provided no product
identification evidence with respect to each of the Defendants.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff did not specifically identify
either Evenheat or Sargent Art during her deposition testimony.
With regard to Evenheat, the Plaintiff did state that she has
owned "at least seven kilns" throughout her lifetime. She
identified a number of kiln manufacturers specifically, but --
throughout her deposition -- she also refers to kilns that she
owned without providing a brand name or description of the kiln.
However, the Court refers to the affidavit provided by the
Plaintiff's daughter and co-worker, Belac Cope, which specifically
states that "Evenheat was one of the kilns [the Plaintiff] used"
on a daily basis from 1960 to 1962.

Regarding Sargent Art, throughout her deposition testimony, the
Plaintiff generally discusses owning paints and clays over the
course of her career. In particular, she discusses using interior
house paint on her ceramics and purchasing craft supplies from
Michael's craft store. Again, the Plaintiff also supplies an
affidavit from her daughter and co-worker, Belac Cope, who states
that she witnessed her mother "use many products manufactured by
Sargent Art" while working in their home.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has alleged sufficient product
identification and causal evidence with regard to each Defendant.
Through her deposition testimony and Belac Cope's affidavit, the
Court finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a specific
period of exposure and the proximity and frequency of that
exposure. Accordingly, this Court finds that genuine issues of
material fact exist regarding product identification, exposure,
and causal connection for a jury's consideration.

A full-text copy of the Decision, dated October 19, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/GgX8Lr from Leagle.com.

John E. Deaton, Esq., for Plaintiff.

Andrew R. McConville, Esq., Marc E. Finkel, Esq., Lisa M. Kresge,
Esq., Kevin J. McAllister, Esq., for Defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Denies Bid to Dismiss "Doolin" Asbestos Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of STACEY DOOLIN, as the Personal Representative of
the Estate of Richard E. Doolin, Plaintiff, v. BORG WARNER
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-778-J-34PDB,
(M.D. Fla.), Judge Marcia Morales Howard of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida denies Pneumo Abex LLC's
and Ford Motor Company's Motions to Dismiss without prejudice, by
operation of Rule 12.

Rule 12 states, in pertinent part, that "a motion asserting any of
[the listed] defenses must be made before pleading if a responsive
pleading is allowed." The Eleventh Circuit has held that Rule
12(b) motions to dismiss are inappropriate where an answer has
already been filed.

On May 22, 2017, the Defendants filed their respective Amended
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. In the Motions,
the Defendants Pneumo Abex LLC and Ford Motor Company move to
dismiss all claims against them for lack of personal jurisdiction
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Notably, however, on August 10, 2016 -- prior to filing the
Motions -- both Defendants filed answers and affirmative defenses
to Plaintiff Stacey Doolin's amended complaint.

With leave of Court, on January 20, 2017, the Defendants
subsequently filed amended answers and affirmative defenses to
Doolin's amended complaint. In both the Answers and Amended
Answers, the Defendants challenge the Court's ability to exercise
personal jurisdiction over them.

The Court explains that the Defendants waived their right to seek
dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b) by declining to file the Motions
prior to their responsive pleadings. But this does not mean,
however, that the Defendants have waived their defenses of lack of
personal jurisdiction altogether. The Court says that the
Defendants may raise the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction
in a properly-supported motion for summary judgment under Rule
56.3.

A full-text copy of the Order dated October 17, 2017 is available
at https://is.gd/y1s1xI from 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, Caroline M. Iovino, McDermott,
Will & Emery, LLP, 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, Caroline M. Iovino, McDermott, Will & Emery,
LLP, Clarke S. Sturge, Cole, Scott & Kissane, PA, Henry Salas,
Cole, Scott & Kissane, PA, Shepherd D. Wainger, McGuire Woods,
LLP, 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, Caroline M. Iovino, McDermott, Will &
Emery, LLP, 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.






                             *********


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. Agravante, 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  * * *