---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Friday, December 1, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 238



                            Headlines

ARAMARK CORP: Tagged With Worker Fingerprint Class Action
ASEMOTAS REAL: "Bingham" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
BUCCANEERS LIMITED: 11th Cir Allows Intervenors in Class Suit
BURLINGTON, VT: Clears Homeless Encampment at Center of Lawsuit
CHEETAH MOBILE: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit

CHRYSLER GROUP: Cox Renews Rule 23 Bid for Class Certification
CNN: Atlanta Lawyer Re-files Racial Discrimination Lawsuit
DASSAULT FALCON: Three FLSA Classes Certified in "Coates" Suit
DIRECTIONAL PROJECT: "Arredondo" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
DLF LLC: Sango Moves to Certify Class of Employees Under FLSA

ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Removed "Alesi" Class Suit to E.D. New York
EQUIFAX INC: Hundreds of Suits, SEC Subpoena Over Data Breach
EXPRESS COURIER: Wins Bid to Decertify "Harris" FLSA Action
GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action Lawsuit
HOLTKAMP HEATING: "Berry" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

HYDRO QUEBEC: Group Seeks Class Action Over Overbilling
INSTAMOTOR INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Atkins" Suit Claims
IOWA, USA: Court Refuses to Certify Fisher's Ill-Defined Class
ISLE OF CAPRI: Larson Seeks Class, Collective Certification
ISO TEX: "Camp" Suit Alleges Failure to Pay Overtime

JFK AIRPORT: More Than 600 Security Workers to Split Payout
MDL 2796: "Newton" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Town & Country Seeks Final OK of Accord
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, NY: Hill Supplements Bid to Certify Class
MRS BPO: Court Allows Dinaples' Bid for Class Certification

NORTHERN ILLINOIS FENCE: Bid to Dismiss "Haack" Complaint Denied
MTC FINANCIAL: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "Manos" Suit
OPUS BANK: Proposed Settlement of Class-Action Lawsuit Announced
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Update on Class Action Suit Filed in New York
PHILIPS BRYANT: "Chang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

RAAKEEN INC: "Avila" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
REMINGTON ARMS: Few Rifles Have Been Fixed 3 Yrs After Settlement
RIO TINTO: Dec. 22 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
ROCKWELL COLLINS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Suit
STATESERV MEDICAL: Coles Moves to Certify Background Check Class

TRANSUNION LLC: Appeals Judgment in Class Action Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Al Otro Lado Suit Transferred to S.D. California
VIRGINIA BEACH: Faces "Andreana" Suit Over Age Discrimination
WALMART STORES: Female Employees Try Again for Class Certification
WESTJET AIRLINES: Wants Court TO Toss Proposed Harassment Suit


                              Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Special Court to Handle Libby Asbestos Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New England Schools Get $631K for Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Illegally Dumped All Over Devon
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Concerns Linger After Calif. Wildfires
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Classic Cars

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Time Bomb Ticking for Marine Industry
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Led to Death of Pembroke Dock Man
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worcester Developer Settles Suit for $100K
ASBESTOS UPDATE: S.C. Officials Indicted for Exposing Firemen
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Power Unit Still Defends PI Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Defends PI Suits at Sept. 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $1.36BB Net Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.55BB Liabilities at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Records $920MM NARCO Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $631MM Bendix Claims at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 32,075 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "DeLisle" Suit v. Crane Co. Ongoing at Oct. 23
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. to Seek Further Review of "Poage" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Rabovsky" Lawsuit vs. Crane Co. Still Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briefing Ongoing in "Coulbourn" Suit v Crane Co

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Anisansel" Claim v. Crane Co. Settled in Aug.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX, Units Still Face Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l Paid $3.9MM for Asbestos Expenses
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Units Had 600 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amici Curiae OK'd to Appear in NYCAL

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Summary Judgment in "Terry" Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favoring MCIC, W&G Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WC Appeals Panel Affirms Dismissal of "Schuler"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims v. AEPC Dismissed in "Stuart"





                            *********


ARAMARK CORP: Tagged With Worker Fingerprint Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
Aramark, one of the country's largest employers, providing food
and other vendor services to Chicago's Soldier Field and numerous
schools, corporate headquarters, hospitals, prisons and other
institutional facilities in Illinois, has become one of the latest
targets among a growing number of lawsuits under an Illinois
privacy law, accusing employers of not properly handling the
process of scanning and managing their employees' fingerprints to
log employees' work hours.

On Nov. 7, attorneys with the firm of Werman Salas P.C., of
Chicago, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Aramark
on behalf of named plaintiff Joseph Cintron, seeking to also
expand the lawsuit to include a class of at least 500 workers, if
not more, who also have worked for Aramark in Illinois since 2014.

The lawsuit alleges Aramark, like many other employers, both large
and small, in recent years required employees to scan their
fingerprints into a company database so the company could track
their hours worked for payroll purposes. Essentially, the
employees would scan their fingerprints on company punch clock
devices when they would begin a work shift, end a shift, punch out
for meal breaks or otherwise go off the clock.

Employers have increasingly used such systems in recent years,
rather than time cards, swipe cards or keypads into which
employees would enter an identification number, to more
efficiently and accurately log employee work hours, while
decreasing incidences of fraud, such as someone other than the
employee punching the clock to make it appear an absent employee
was working.

Since 2008, however, when Illinois lawmakers enacted the state's
Biometric Information Privacy Act, the state has increased
regulations on businesses that collect and store so-called
biometric identifiers, such as fingerprints, retinal scans and
other identifying physical characteristics, for either customers
or employees.

Among other requirements, the law ordered businesses maintaining
such databases to enact policies to receive authorization from
customers or employees before scanning fingerprints, retinas or
other biometric identifiers, and to share with those whose
biometrics are being scanned, information on how those identifiers
would be stored and disposed of.

In their lawsuit against Aramark, the Werman Salas firm alleges
the company failed to secure authorization from employees before
scanning and storing employees' fingerprints, and did not explain
in writing the company's policies for storing and ultimately
disposing of the scanned prints when employees leave the company,
thus allegedly violating the Illinois BIPA law.

According to published reports, Philadelphia-based Aramark brought
in more than $14 billion in revenue in 2016 and employs more than
217,000 workers worldwide.

According to the lawsuit, Cintron worked for Aramark as a grill
cook at Soldier Field from 2013-2015 and then at BMO Harris Bank's
Chicago headquarters for about five months in 2016.

Also on Nov. 7, Cintron and the Werman Salas firm also filed a
similar class action lawsuit under BIPA against Cintron's next
employer, the Sweetgreen restaurant chain, alleging that employer
also improperly collected and stored Cintron's fingerprints, as
well as those of other employees at its four Chicago locations.

The lawsuits ask the court to order the defendants to pay
"liquidated monetary damages . . .  for each violation" of BIPA,
plus attorney fees.

Under the BIPA law, plaintiffs are allowed to request damage
awards of $1,000-$5,000 per violation, plus attorney fees. Thus,
large employers sued under the BIPA law could face many millions
of dollars in potential damages.

The Werman Salas lawsuits mark the firm's third entry in recent
days into the increasingly crowded field of BIPA litigation in
courts in Illinois.

In downstate Tazewell County, on Oct. 30, the firm filed a similar
lawsuit against the Bob Evans restaurant chain on behalf of named
plaintiff Emily Kiefer, who has worked as a server at the chain's
Pekin restaurant since September 2015, according to the complaint.

Since earlier this year, dozens of BIPA lawsuits against employers
have piled up in the state, and particularly in Cook County.

For instance, as the complaints were filed against Aramark and
Sweetgreen, similar class actions were launched by other firms on
behalf of other clients against other employers, including United
Airlines, Hyatt Hotels, Life Time Fitness, Kerry Ingredients and
Flavors, Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, and the Suparossa
Restaurant Group, among others.

Those lawsuits would include potentially tens of thousands of
Illinois workers, and come on the heels of dozens of others
brought against nursing homes, retailers, restaurants, janitorial
service firms and hoteliers, among others.

Law firms bringing other actions include Edelson P.C., McGuire Law
P.C., Stephan Zouras LLP, The Khowaja Law Firm, the Law Office of
James X. Bormes and Caffarelli & Associates, all of Chicago. [GN]


ASEMOTAS REAL: "Bingham" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Bingham v. Asemotas Real Estate, LLC and Sammy Asemota, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00893-HSO-LRA (S.D. Miss., November 7, 2017), is
brought on behalf of all similarly situated individuals that seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages in violation for the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate company in
Mississippi. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis H. Watson Jr., Esq.
      Nick Norris, Esq.
      WATSON & NORRIS, PLLC
      1880 Lakeland Drive, Suite G
      Jackson, MI 39216
      Telephone: (601) 968-0000
      Facsimile: (601) 968-0010
      E-mail: louis@watsonnorris.com


BUCCANEERS LIMITED: 11th Cir Allows Intervenors in Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew M. Brown, writing for The National Law Review, reports
that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently considered two
class action lawsuits under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA), which involved the same class and allegations and the
question of whether additional parties could intervene in a
pending case.

In Technology Training Associates, Inc., et al. v. Buccaneers
Limited Partnership, Cin-Q Automobiles, Inc. filed a complaint on
behalf of a putative class, alleging that Buccaneers Limited
Partnership was responsible for unsolicited faxes that violated
the TCPA.  The case was litigated for approximately three years,
with Medical & Chiropractic Clinic, Inc. joining in as a second
named plaintiff.  In 2016, Technology Training Associates, Inc. et
al. filed a complaint on behalf of the same putative class based
on the same allegedly unlawful acts by Buccaneers, which
subsequently settled.  After the settlement was announced, Cin-Q
and Medical & Chiropractic Clinic (the "movants") moved to
intervene in the case.  The district court denied the movants
(named plaintiffs in the first class action case) the opportunity
to intervene in the second class action, but on October 26, 2017,
a three judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit remanded the case to
the district court with instructions to grant the movants' motion
to intervene, holding that the movants had satisfied Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2)'s requirements for intervention.

The movants originally filed a lawsuit in 2013 on behalf of a
putative class against the defendant alleging violations of the
TCPA. In 2016, the named plaintiffs in the second case filed a
second complaint on behalf of the same putative class based on the
same allegations against the same defendant.  One of the attorneys
from the firm representing the plaintiffs in the first action
changed firms, and his new firm represented the plaintiffs in the
second action.  Soon after the second lawsuit was filed in 2016,
the parties in the second lawsuit announced that they had reached
a settlement, part of which involved the defendant agreeing to
waive its statute of limitations defense against the plaintiffs in
the second lawsuit.

After the settlement was announced in the second lawsuit, the
movants moved to intervene in the second lawsuit, and the district
court denied that motion and preliminarily approved the settlement
agreement. The movants appealed the denial of their motion to
intervene.

The Eleventh Circuit ultimately held that the movants satisfied
Rule 24(a)(2)'s requirements for intervention, and in doing so
found significance in a series of emails exchanged within the law
firm representing the plaintiffs in the second case.  The emails
appeared to show that the law firm in the second case not only
knew how much the law firm from the first case wanted to settle
their class action for, but also that the second law firm filed
the second action with the intent to underbid the law firm in the
first action.  In addition, the Court of Appeals found the fact
that the plaintiffs' claims in the second lawsuit might be time
barred allowed the movants to meet the "minimal" burden of showing
the plaintiffs' representation in the second action might be
inadequate, because the plaintiffs in the second action had a
greater incentive to settle as their claims may have been time
barred.

The Eleventh Circuit concluded its opinion by observing that the
record suggested that plaintiffs' counsel in the second action
deliberately underbid the movants in an effort to collect fees,
while at the same time doing a fraction of the work that movant's
counsel had done in the first lawsuit, together with a brief
discussion of the American Bar Association's Ethical Guidelines
for Settlement Negotiations. [GN]


BURLINGTON, VT: Clears Homeless Encampment at Center of Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Republic reports that Vermont's largest city has cleaned up
the remnants of a homeless encampment that is at the center of a
class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

A federal judge ruled that Burlington could dismantle the
encampment where three men had been staying while their case
proceeds through court.

City workers cleaned up the site November 9 morning. The homeless
men left November 8 afternoon, with one telling the Burlington
Free Press that they had found another place to camp.

The ACLU had filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of the men and
Burlington's homeless population saying the city is violating
their rights by threatening to close down the encampment without
finding alternative housing.

City officials counter the encampment is in an environmentally
sensitive area. [GN]


CHEETAH MOBILE: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Cheetah Mobile Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Cheetah securities on the open market from April 26, 2017
through October 25, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Cheetah Mobile is
using company-controlled accounts to inflate the gifting on
Live.me; (2) Cheetah Mobile overstated its revenue; and (3) as a
result, Cheetah Mobile's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 26, 2017, Prescience Point Research Group published a
report asserting, among other things, that approximately 55% of
Cheetah Mobile's reported consolidated revenue does not exist and
Cheetah Mobile uses company-controlled or "fake" accounts on
Live.me to gift other users using company money.  On this news,
shares of Cheetah fell $0.37 per share or over 4% to close at
$8.05 per share on October 26, 2017, damaging investors.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the January 8, 2017
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- or Gregory M. Egleston,
Esq. -- gegleston@gme-law.com -- of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at
(212) 983-1300. [GN]


CHRYSLER GROUP: Cox Renews Rule 23 Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled DAVID COX, et al., v.
CHRYSLER GROUP, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-07573-MAS-DEA (D.N.J.), move
for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

The Renewed Motion also seeks for appointment of Plaintiff David
Cox as a Class Representative and for appointment of the Keefe Law
Firm, Poulos LoPiccolo, P.C., and the Law Offices of Peter C.
Lucas as Class Counsel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
          John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
          Paul DiGiorgio, Esq.
          Jessica S. Allen, Esq.
          KEEFE LAW FIRM
          170 Monmouth Street
          Red Bank, NJ
          Telephone: (732) 224-9400
          E-mail: ssullivan@.keefe-lawfirm.com
                  jkeefe@.keefe-lawfirm.com
                  pdigiorgio@keefe-lawfirm.com
                  jallen@keefe-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          John N. Poulos, Esq.
          Joseph LoPiccolo, Esq.
          POULOS LOPICCOLO PC
          1305 South Roller Road
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 673-6264
          E-mail: poulos@pllawfirm.com
                  lopiccolo@pllawfirm.com

               - and -

          Peter C. Lucas, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER C. LUCAS
          725 Carol Avenue
          Oakhurst, NJ 07755
          Telephone: (732) 663-9100
          E-mail: plucas@lm-lawfirm.com


CNN: Atlanta Lawyer Re-files Racial Discrimination Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood, writing for Fox News, reports that the Atlanta lawyer
whose racial discrimination suit against CNN was dismissed earlier
this year says he is re-filing the class action case -- this time
with a new set of plaintiffs and even more alleged victims.

The network news channel's alleged racial discrimination is "as
abhorrent as all of the sexual harassment cases that are
rightfully now being prosecuted," Daniel R. Meachum told Fox News.
"Educated, well-intentioned, experienced and talented African-
Americans are being discriminated against."

Celeslie Henley, a plaintiff in the first version, said she worked
at CNN for seven years until she was allegedly fired after
emailing the human resources department about discriminatory
treatment. The suit also claimed that the liberal network had a
"glass ceiling" on the career paths of African-American staffers.

The original lawsuit had 175 plaintiffs, but Meachum said 30 more
alleged victims have come forward since Judge William Duffey Jr.
essentially ruled in July the case didn't have enough to move
forward as a class action suit. "We are drafting a new complaint,
line by line, addressing the issues that he outlined for us,"
Meachum said.

The attorney also said he understands proving discrimination is "a
challenge," but said the 205 plaintiffs involved "are not overly
sensitive, walking around with chips on their shoulder."

The suit will be refiled sometime this year, according to Meachum,
who said he is still gathering the necessary paperwork from the
new plaintiffs. The news comes as CNN continues to cause problems
for parent company Time Warner as it tries to complete an $84.5
billion deal with AT&T.

The original suit "alleged CNN and sister companies claims that
African-Americans receive lower performance ratings in
evaluations."

Meachum said the new suit's 205 accusers will be named in an Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission action, and have a 90-day right-
to-sue letter.

"My office has been contacted consistently from people who worked
there . . .  talking about the discrimination at CNN," Meachum
said.

Meachum said "95 percent" of the 205 people claim their
discrimination occurred within the past four years.

"With the information that we have, and will get during discovery,
I think we will be able to survive a motion for summary judgement.
At that point, I think we will be victorious," Meachum said.

CNN did not respond to request for comment. [GN]


DASSAULT FALCON: Three FLSA Classes Certified in "Coates" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. J. Leon Holmes granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional class certification and court-authorized notice filed
in the lawsuit titled CRAIG COATES; MOLLY WARRINGTON; and EDWIN
SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. DASSAULT FALCON JET CORPORATION, Case No. 4:17-cv-00372-JLH
(E.D. Ark.).

The lawsuit is a collective action brought by former employees of
Falcon Jet alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.  The Plaintiffs allege that Falcon
Jet wrongfully classified them as exempt from the FLSA and AMWA
overtime requirements.

According to the Court's opinion and order, the Plaintiffs propose
three classes for conditional certification:

   (1) All Team Leaders (internal job code TEAM LDR and similar
       positions) employed by Defendants since June 6, 2014.

   (2) All Office Personnel Employees (internal job codes
       ANALYST, ASSOC ANALYST, SPEC and similar positions)
       employed by Defendants since June 6, 2014.

   (3) All Liaisons (internal job codes LIAISON PRODUCTION,
       COORD-SHOP FLOOR and similar positions) employed by
       Defendants since June 6, 2014.

Judge Holmes approved the proposed notice subject to certain
amendments.  Before sending notices, the Plaintiffs' lawyers must
submit the form of notice to the Defendant's lawyers to confirm
that the required amendments have been made, Judge Holmes states.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eD6Ngmgb


DIRECTIONAL PROJECT: "Arredondo" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Arredondo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Directional Project Support, Inc., Case No.
4:17-cv-03457 (S.D. Tex., November 13, 2017), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Frank Arredondo worked as a materials manager for
Defendant until December 2015.

Defendant is a horizontal directional drilling business and does
business throughout Texas, Ohio, and the United States.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay Forester, Esq.
      FORESTER LAW PC
      1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 288-8519
      Fax: (214) 346-5909


DLF LLC: Sango Moves to Certify Class of Employees Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled RICHARD SANGO Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DLF LLC d/b/a
THE SUSHI BAR and HSLS, LLC d/b/a THE SUSHI BAR, Case No. 5:17-cv-
00165-W (W.D. Okla.), asks the Court to conditionally certify this
class under the Fair Labor Standards Act:

     All current and former hourly employees of DLF LLC d/b/a The
     Sushi Bar and/or HSLS, Inc. d/b/a The Sushi Bar, who were
     employed at any time from three years before the date of
     mailing of this notice and who had time-keeping techniques
     utilized against them, and/or were not paid overtime.

Richard Sango filed this collective action lawsuit to recover
alleged unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs.

Mr. Sango also asks the Court to:

   (1) order that a judicially approved notice be sent to all
       Putative Class members by mail and e-mail;

   (2) approve the form and content of the Plaintiff's proposed
       judicial notice and reminder notice;

   (3) order the Defendants to produce to Plaintiffs' counsel the
       name, last known address, phone number, e-mail address and
       dates of employment for each of the Putative Class Members
       in a usable electronic format;

   (4) authorize a 60-day notice period for the Putative Class
       Members to join the case; and

   (5) authorize notice to be sent via First Class mail and
       e-mail to the Putative Class Members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=R98ZA8TB

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Lauren Braddy, Esq.
          ANDERSON2X, PLLC
          819 North Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (36) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com

               - and -

          Noble K. McIntyre, Esq.
          MCINTYRE LAW PC
          8601 S. Western Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73139
          Telephone: (405) 917-5250
          Facsimile: (405) 917-5405
          E-mail: noble@mcintyrelaw.com


ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Removed "Alesi" Class Suit to E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on June 27, 2017 captioned Caroline
Alesi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Encore Receivable Management, Inc. and Covergys Corporation, Case
No. 612043.2017, was removed on November 7, 2017 from the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-06473 to the proceeding.

The case alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Encore Receivable Management, Inc. operates a collection agency
headquartered in Olathe, Kansas.

Covergys Corporation is a corporation based in Cincinnati, Ohio,
that sells customer management and information management
products, primarily to large corporations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ellen B. Siverman, Esq.
      HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
      800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 471-6200
      E-mail: esilverman@hinshawlaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Hundreds of Suits, SEC Subpoena Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hayley Tsukayama, writing for The Washington Post, reports that
Equifax, the credit reporting firm, is facing more than 240 class-
action lawsuits from consumers -- in addition to suits from
shareholders and financial institutions -- over the way it handled
a massive data breach that affected 145.5 million Americans.

The lawsuits were detailed in the company's third-quarter earnings
report, its first since revealing the breach in September. The
incident prompted three top officials to leave the company,
including former chief executive Richard Smith.

Equifax also said in its filings that it had received subpoenas
from the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia "regarding
trading activities by certain of our employees in relation to the
cybersecurity incident." Shortly after news of the breach broke,
reports circulated that top officials had sold Equifax stock after
the company found out about the breach, but before disclosing it
to the public. Equifax said that it had cleared its executives of
wrongdoing after an internal investigation found that the
executives did not personally know about the breach before their
stock sales.

SEC Chairman Jay Clayton has not confirmed or denied that the SEC
is investigating those executives for insider trading, according
to the Associated Press.

The credit bureau is also facing more than 60 government
investigations from states, U.S. federal agencies and the British
and Canadian governments, the earnings report revealed.

Equifax estimates that the breach-related costs will total $87.5
million, including the cost of the free credit-monitoring services
it provides to breach victims. The company said it did not know
how much it would cost them to address any judgments, settlements
or penalties as a result of the breach.

"As we report our third-quarter results, we recognize that we have
an important journey in front of us to regain the trust and
confidence of consumers and our business customers," said Paulino
Barros, Equifax's interim chief executive in the release. "Our
teams have taken immediate actions to improve our data security
and provide improved support for consumers who were impacted by
our cybersecurity incident."

Equifax reported $834.8 million in revenue in its third quarter,
which is up 4 percent from the same time last year; analysts had
expected this, as the bulk of the company's money comes from
selling services to other business, not consumers. Profits,
however, were down 27 percent from the previous year at $96.3
million -- in large part due to the breach.

Shares of Equifax, which have fallen more than 20 percent since
the breach, took another hit after the report, down as much as 3
percent from its market close of $108.95. As of time of writing,
shares were trading slightly down at $108.50. [GN]


EXPRESS COURIER: Wins Bid to Decertify "Harris" FLSA Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Timothy L. Brooks entered a memorandum opinion and order
in the lawsuit captioned JAMES HARRIS; RICK KETCHAM; and ADAM
MANSKE, Each Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated v. EXPRESS COURIER INTERNATIONAL, INC. n/k/a LSO FINAL
MILE, Case No. 5:16-cv-05033-TLB (W.D. Ark.):

   -- granting the Defendant's Motion to Decertify FLSA
      Collective Action; and

   -- denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class
      Certification.

The Plaintiffs are former couriers of LSO, which is a company that
facilitates the delivery of products for the medical, financial,
and retail industries, through the work of couriers who actually
perform these deliveries.  According to the Plaintiffs, LSO has
misclassified its couriers as independent contractors, when they
really should be classified and paid as employees, and LSO has
failed to pay their couriers a minimum wage and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 per week.

The conditionally-certified collective action includes:

     Each individual who (a) worked for Express Courier
     International, Inc. ("Express"), as a driver, courier, or
     owner-operator any time after February 11, 2013, (b) never
     subcontracted any of his or her work for Express, and (c)
     contracted directly with Express under Express's standard
     "Owner-Operator Agreement."

The proposed Rule 23 class includes:

     Each individual who (a) worked for Express Courier
     International, Inc. ("Express"), as a driver, courier, or
     owner-operator in Arkansas any time after February 11, 2013,
     (b) never subcontracted with anyone, or otherwise never
     hired anyone, to perform any of his or her work for Express,
     and (c) contracted directly with Express under Express's
     standard "Owner-Operator Agreement."

The Court finds that the class action mechanism is not superior to
holding individual trials on the issue of liability.  The lack of
uniformity in how the couriers were paid, in and of itself, is
fatal to achieving effective and efficient classwide consideration
of LSO's alleged liability, Judge Brooks opines.  Hence, the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification is denied.

Judge Brooks also directs the Plaintiffs' counsel is to provide a
copy of this Order and an instructional letter to all opt-in
collective action members, explaining their legal options in light
of the Court's decision to decertify.

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claims of the opt-in collective
action members are TOLLED FOR A PERIOD OF 60 DAYS FROM TODAY'S
DATE in order to allow them to receive notice of this Court's
Order regarding decertification and, if desired, to file their
individual claims in the appropriate court or courts," according
to the Memorandum Opinion and Order.

The Plaintiffs' individual claims will proceed, and a case
management order will issue forthwith, granting a limited time-
period for the parties to conduct merits discovery, setting
a deadline to file dispositive motions, and fixing a date for
trial, Judge Brooks says.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=T6GWZTPH


GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts against Genocea Biosciences,
Inc. and certain Company executives on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Genocea Biosciences, Inc.
securities between May 5, 2017 and September 25, 2017, inclusive.

Investors who have incurred losses in Genocea Biosciences, Inc.
are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com
or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional
information concerning the action on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the securities of Genocea
Biosciences, Inc. and would like to assist with the litigation
process as a lead plaintiff, you may, no later than January 2,
2018, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the
proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more
about your rights as an investor in Genocea Biosciences, Inc.

The filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. It is alleged that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the Company's
finances were insufficient to support Phase 3 trials of GEN-003;
accordingly, Genocea had overstated the prospects for GEN-003; and
as a result of the foregoing, Genocea's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 25, 2017 after the market closed, Genocea disclosed
that it was halting spending and activities on GEN-003, its lead
product candidate, and exploring strategic alternatives for the
drug. The Company also announced that it was cutting 40% of its
workforce.

On the subsequent trading day following this news, Genocea's share
price fell $4.08 per share, or 76.5%, to close at $1.25 per share
on September 26, 2017.

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP has extensive experience
in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative
litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across
the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and
offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and
expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation
has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed
it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and
consolidated litigation.

         Gregory Stone
         Kevin Cooper, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
         Tel: (800) 575-0735
                   (212) 545-4774
         E-mail: gstone@whafh.com
                 kcooper@whafh.com [GN]


HOLTKAMP HEATING: "Berry" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
George Berry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Holtkamp Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., Case No.
1:17-cv-04558 (N.D. Ga., November 13, 2017), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff George Berry is a resident of the State of Georgia.
Plaintiff, an air conditioner installer, was an employee of
Defendant beginning in April of 2017.

Defendant is a heating and air conditioning contractor in Suwanee,
Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry A. Pankey, Esq.
      PANKEY & HORLOCK, LLC
      1441 Dunwoody Village Parkway, Suite 200
      Atlanta, GA 30338-4122
      Tel: (770) 670-6250
      Fax: (770) 670-6249
      E-mail: LPankey@PankeyHorlock.com


HYDRO QUEBEC: Group Seeks Class Action Over Overbilling
-------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Dunham, writing for CTV News, reports that a group
representing Hydro Quebec customers is seeking the green light to
go ahead with a class-action lawsuit against the utility company
they accuse of overcharging consumers.

The Switched On Coalition/Coalition Peuple Allume asked a judge on
November 8, to approve their request to launch the class-action
lawsuit. The group alleges that Hydro Quebec overbilled customers
to the tune of $1.2 billion over a five-year period, from 2008 to
2013. They are seeking a refund of $50 per household for seven
years amounting to $365, or a 10 per cent reduction in the cost of
electricity.

The group claims that approximately 45,000 supporters have already
signed up online to join the cause.

Every year, the hydro company sets out its budget and projected
profits to the Regie de l'energie, the province's energy board.
Hydro Quebec must also request permission from the board to hike
rates for consumers during that time.

The Switched On Coalition alleges the utility company provided the
energy board with incorrect information from 2008 to 2013 and the
resulting rate hikes should never have been approved.

Bryan Furlong, Esq., a lawyer for the coalition, told the hearing
that Hydro Quebec's hefty surpluses at the end of certain years
indicate that consumers were being overcharged.

"If you go in front of the Regie and you state something which is
inaccurate and the Regie renders a judgment, well I'm asking you,
'Is it a proper judgment?'" Furlong said.

For its part, Hydro Quebec maintains there was no overbilling.
Serge Abergel, a spokesperson for the Crown corporation, told CTV
Montreal that the company has to present their $12 billion annual
budget to the energy board 20 months in advance. By the time
they're able to collect money from their customers, there can be a
lot of fluctuations in the weather, he explained. Electricity has
been delivered to households at a lower cost for many years,
Abergel said.

"We are sometimes more efficient, sometimes less efficient," he
said.

Hydro Quebec also claimed their budget, on average, has been 99
per cent accurate, but when there is a surplus, they give it back
to the government or back to Quebec residents in dividends.

Pierre Moreau, Quebec's energy minister, said Hydro Quebec is
obligated to comply with the energy board's directives and that he
would be very surprised if the coalition was able to prove in
court that the company overcharged its customers.

When the accusations first came to light earlier this year, the
province's then-energy minister Pierre Arcand said consumers had
already been compensated because the surplus money was used to
balance the provincial government's budget.

Hydro Quebec's requests for rate hikes to the energy board have
been rejected since 2015. The company has only been allowed to
increase fees by 0.7 per cent, less than the rate of inflation, in
that time. [GN]


INSTAMOTOR INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Atkins" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Atkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Instamotor Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-06461 (N.D. Cal.,
November 7, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, specifically by
contacting individuals on their cellular telephones through an
automatic telephone dialing system without first obtaining their
express written consent, thus invading their right to privacy.

Instamotor Inc. is an online and app-based service that allows
people to buy and sell used vehicles directly to others without
any middleman. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Mark S. Greenstone, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: info@glancylaw.com


IOWA, USA: Court Refuses to Certify Fisher's Ill-Defined Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger denied without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled
MELINDA FISHER; SHANNON G.; BRANDON R.; MARTY M.; MISTY M.; and
NEAL SIEGEL v. JERRY FOXHOVEN, Case No. 4:17-cv-00208-RGE-CFB
(S.D. Iowa).

The Court finds Plaintiffs' proposed class fails to meet the
implied definiteness requirement of Rule 23(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

"In part because the proposed class is ill-defined, the Court
finds Plaintiffs also fail to meet Rule 23(a)'s commonality and
typicality requirements," Judge Ebinger opines.  Additionally, the
Court finds the Plaintiffs do not satisfy Rule 23(b)(2) because
they fail to bridge the gap between the class they seek to certify
and the relief they request.

The case involves challenges to the Iowa Department of Human
Services' (Iowa DHS) supervision of Iowa's Medicaid program,
administered by Managed Care Organizations.  Plaintiff Melinda
Fisher and the other named plaintiffs bring this suit against
Defendant Jerry Foxhoven, Director of Iowa DHS, alleging
violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution, the Medicaid Act, the Americans
with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 the Rehabilitation Act.

The Plaintiffs assert the MCOs administering Medicaid denied,
reduced, or terminated enrollees' service budgets under various
Medicaid programs.  The Plaintiffs claim these actions were taken
in the absence of ascertainable standards or adequate notice, and
resulted in deprivation of necessary services, thereby threatening
enrollees with institutionalization.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of individuals
enrolled in Intellectual Disability, Brain Injury, and Health and
Disability Home and Community-Based Services waivers.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kJXRf7wd


ISLE OF CAPRI: Larson Seeks Class, Collective Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled CYNTHIA D. LARSON,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
ISLE OF CAPRI CASINOS, INC., and IOC-KANSAS CITY, INC. d/b/a ISLE
OF CAPRI CASINO KANSAS CITY, Case No. 4:16-cv-00902-ODS (W.D.
Mo.), pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeks conditional
collective action certification of these collectives:

   a. Nationwide Timekeeping Policy Collective:

      All hourly employees who worked at IOC or IOC's subsidiary
      properties or casinos in the United States at any time from
      three years prior to the filing of the Complaint, who
      clocked-in and clocked-out on an automated timeclock.

   b. Nationwide Tip Credit Notice Policy Collective:

      All hourly employees who worked at IOC or IOC's subsidiary
      properties or casinos in the United States at any time from
      three years prior to the filing of the Complaint, and who
      were paid a direct hourly wage that was less than the
      federal minimum wage at that time.

Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Plaintiff seeks to certify this class definition as
a class action:

   a. Isle of Capri Casino Kansas City Unjust Enrichment Class:

      All hourly employees who worked at Isle of Capri Casino
      Kansas City at any time from five years prior to the filing
      of the Complaint, who clocked-in and clocked-out on an
      automated timeclock.

Ms. Larson also asks the Court to appoint her as class
representative for the collectives and class, and to appoint
McClelland Law Firm, P.C., as class counsel for each class and
collective.  She further asks the Court to:

   a. order the Defendants to produce necessary information for
      each member of each class within 14 days of the Court's
      Order on this motion;

   b. approve the FLSA Collective Notice to Class Members and
      Consent Form;

   c. order that the Notice be mailed via first-class mail and
      electronic mail to such persons within 45 days of the order
      granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional class
      certification;

   d. order the posting of the Notice of the pending suit in
      conspicuous locations at Defendants' subsidiary casinos and
      properties where putative class members are employed
      (including break room bulletin boards or bulletin boards
      where job notices are posted) during the opt-in period;

   e. order a reminder postcard or electronic mail notice to
      putative class members 30 days before the opt-in deadline;

   f. order that all Consent Forms of the putative class members
      be received and filed with the Court within 120 days of the
      order granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional class
      certification; and

   g. set a deadline by which Plaintiff shall meet and confer
      with Defendants and file a motion to approve Rule 23 Class
      Notice to the Isle of Capri Casino Kansas City Unjust
      Enrichment Class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=THHIa6Cv

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelly L. McClelland, Esq.
          Kenneth E. Cox, Esq.
          Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
          MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          The Flagship Building
          200 Westwoods Drive
          Liberty, MO 64068-1170
          Telephone: (816) 781-0002
          Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
          E-mail: kmcclelland@mcclellandlawfirm.com
                  kcox@mcclellandlawfirm.com
                  ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com


ISO TEX: "Camp" Suit Alleges Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------
Arthur Camp, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated employees v.  Iso Tex Diagnostics, Inc. and Tel-Test,
Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-03472 (S.D. Tex., November 13, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff, Arthur Camp is a resident of the state of Texas
and worked for Defendant Iso Tex as a non-exempt Lab Director.

Defendant Iso Tex, manufactures drug and radiopharmaceuticals and
various other pharmaceuticals, for diagnostic and therapeutic
application.

Defendant Tel Test is a re-sale company that resells molecular
biology extraction reagents for various medical treatments, and at
all times material hereto acted directly or indirectly in the
interest of Defendant Iso-Tex, in relation to Plaintiff's
employment and worked in conjunction to deprive Plaintiff of his
rightful overtime compensation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:


      Alfred M. Benoit, Esq.
      BENOIT LAW, PLLC
      3033 Chimney Rock, Suite 610
      Houston, TX 77056
      Tel: (713) 963-8866
      Fax: (713) 832-504-9497
      E-mail: al.benoit@thebenoitlawfirm.com


JFK AIRPORT: More Than 600 Security Workers to Split Payout
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ginger Adams Otis, writing for New York Daily News, reports that
more than 600 airport workers who provided security services at
JFK airport will split a $700,000 payout after their employer
settled a class-action lawsuit for wage violations.

A Manhattan Supreme Court judge ordered Global Elite Group, also
known as Global Security Associates, to cough up $720,000 as
restitution.

The settlement covers Global Elite airport workers who were
employed from October 2008 through last year.

The class-action accused the Queens-based security firm of
shorting them on regular and overtime pay and dinging employees
for unlawful uniform deductions in their pay.

Global Elite could not immediately be reached for comment.

Its employees were given legal representation in their class-
action by SEIU 32BJ, which has waged an intense and successful
organizing drive among airport workers since 2015.

Although many of the security workers weren't part of the union
when the complaints first began -- and some are still not members
-- 32BJ included them all in the legal claim.

"We're glad that these Global Security workers are finally getting
the back wages they are owed. This is a great victory for the
workers who stood up and stood together for fair pay and respect,"
said Hector Figueroa, president of 32BJ SEIU.

The union has also set up a wage theft hotline for any JFK
employees who think they might be eligible for a cut of the
$720,000 settlement but haven't already registered as part of the
class-action.

Steven Barnes, 27, who worked for Global for two years in 2011 --
right out of high school and before he joined the military -- said
he was thrilled to learn he was getting some restitution.

"It was really messed up. I was earning about $9 an hour and they
just never got my paycheck right. It was always a couple of hours
short, like I'd work eight and they'd pay me for five," Barnes
said.

"They'd say, 'We'll add to your next paycheck,' and of course they
never did," he said.

Barnes wasn't part of 32BJ when he worked at Global Elite but he's
about to become a member now.

After a stint in the military, he returned to New York and got a
new job with a different airport security firm -- one that pays
him more.

"I'm in the double digits now, so it's getting better, and we've
got benefits," Barnes said. "And I'm excited to be joining a
union, too." [GN]


MDL 2796: "Newton" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on September 20, 2017 styled Renee
Newton, Oren Arbit, Biltrite Furniture, Inc., Dennis Lane, Mark
Rosen, Tyler Carver, Miles Rosen, and Frank Palumbo, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bayerische
Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, BMW of North America, LLC,
Daimler Aktiengesellschaft, Mercedesbenz USA, LLC, Volkswagen
Aktiengesellschaft, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi
Aktiengesellschaft, Audi of America, LLC, DR. ING. H.C. F. Porsche
Aktiengesellschaft, and Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Case No.
2:17-cv-07267, was transferred on November 7, 2017 from the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-06462-CRB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation No.
2796. The lead case is 3:17-md-02796-CRB.

The case arises out of the conspiracy to unlawfully inflate prices
and increase maintenance costs for diesel passenger vehicles
manufactured and sold by Defendants.

The Defendants are in the business of developing, manufacturing,
and selling cars and motorcycles worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 994-1700
      Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
      E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com


MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Town & Country Seeks Final OK of Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting final
approval of class settlement agreement in the lawsuit titled TOWN
& COUNTRY JEWELERS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP, INC., Case No.
3:15-cv-02519-PGS-LHG (D.N.J.).

Town & Country filed a class action complaint on April 08, 2015.
In its Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that
Meadowbrook violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
sending unsolicited advertisements by fax.

Pursuant to the Agreement, the Parties have stipulated to
certification of this class for settlement purposes only:

     All persons nationwide within the United States who are
     included in Meadowbrook's GoldMine customer relationship
     management database and received any advertisement on their
     telephone facsimile machines from Defendant or its agents or
     employees since April 8, 2011 through preliminary approval.

Meadowbrook created a class settlement fund of $1,500,000, which
the Class Administrator Kurtzman Carson Consultants will
distribute among those Settlement Class Members, who submit valid
claims, and who do not exclude themselves from the Settlement, on
a pro rata basis up to $1,500, which shall be calculated by
dividing the amount remaining in the Settlement Fund (after
deducting all Settlement Costs) by the total number of valid
claims.

Based on the valid claims, the Plaintiff estimates each Claimant's
pro rata share after administration costs, court awarded attorney
fees and incentive award will be $543.

Town & Country has moved for a service award of $10,000 as set
forth in the motion for service award and attorney fees filed on
August 21, 2017.  The Plaintiff has also moved for an award of
attorney's fees and costs to be paid to Class Counsel from the
Settlement Fund in the amount of $500,000, inclusive of costs as
set forth in the motion for service award and attorney fees.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com

               - and -

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 W. Monroe, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 374-3405
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: Keith@Keoghlaw.com


MONTGOMERY COUNTY, NY: Hill Supplements Bid to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned PERRY HILL, on behalf of a
class of others similarly situated v. COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY,
MICHAEL AMATO and MICHAEL FRANKO, Case No. 9:14-cv-00933-BKS-DJS
(N.D.N.Y.), files with the Court a supplemental notice of motion
for class certification, and notice of motion for leave to amend
the complaint and to intervene a new class representative.

The Plaintiff further seeks to certify these class and sub-
classes, pursuant to the Court's allowance of a supplemental
submission on class certification:

     * Primary Class:

     All detainees who have been or will be placed into the
     custody of the Montgomery County Jail and were detained for
     at least two consecutive weeks. The class period commences
     on July 24, 2011, and extends to the date on which
     Montgomery County is enjoined from, or otherwise ceases,
     enforcing its policy, practice and custom of refusing to
     provide an appropriate amount of nutritional sustenance to
     all detainees admitted to the Montgomery County Jail.

     Specifically excluded from the class are Defendant and any
     and all of its respective affiliates, legal representatives,
     heirs, successors, employees or assignees.

     * Pre-Trial Detainee Sub-Class:

     All members of the Primary Class but who were housed as a
     Pre-Trial Detainee, in that they had not yet been convicted
     of their charges.

     * Post-Trial Detainee Sub-Class:

     All members of the Primary Class, but who were housed as a
     Post-Trial Detainee, in that they had been convicted of
     their charges, either by a plea or jury trial.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maria K. Dyson, Esq.
          Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, PC
          One Pine West Plaza, Suite 109
          Albany, NY 12205
          Telephone: (518) 434-1718
          Telecopier: (518) 770-1558
          E-mail: mariadyson@keachlawfirm.com
                  bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com


MRS BPO: Court Allows Dinaples' Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael A. Ponsor entered a memorandum and order in the
lawsuit entitled DONNA DINAPLES v. MRS BPO, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
01435-MAP (W.D. Pa.):

   -- allowing the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to
      liability;

   -- denying the Defendant's motion for summary judgment; and

   -- allowing the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

"The court has this day allowed Plaintiff's proposed Order
Certifying Class, with the agreed modification permitting
Plaintiff's counsel to submit a proposed form of Class
Notification for review by the court within 45 (not 20) days and
allowing Defendant to produce the Class List within 45 days as
well," Judge Ponsor says.

The Plaintiff brings suit under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act against Defendant debt collector, MRS BPO, LLC.  The
Plaintiff seeks certification of this Class pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

     All consumers with an address in Westmoreland County who,
     beginning November 2, 2014 through and including the final
     resolution of this case, were sent one or more letters from
     Defendant attempting to collect a consumer debt allegedly
     owed to Chase Bank, which displayed on the outside of the
     mailing a Quick Response ("QR") Code containing the account
     number associated by Defendant with that consumer's account.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=51SBq2kw


NORTHERN ILLINOIS FENCE: Bid to Dismiss "Haack" Complaint Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on November 21, 2017, in the case
captioned Roman Haack, et al. v. Northern Illinois Fence, et al.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-02854 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held
before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Motion hearing was held on November 21, 2017;

   -- Plaintiffs' oral motion to dismiss Defendants Personnel
      Staffing Group, LLC, Daniel S. Barnett, and David Barnett
      without prejudice is granted;

   -- Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint
      pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is denied;

   -- Plaintiffs' motion and corrected motion for class and
      collective action certification and Plaintiffs' motion to
      conditionally certify collective class action and for
      notice are denied as moot;

   -- Defendants' motion to strike is denied as moot;

   -- Plaintiffs' motion to withdraw previously filed motion to
      conditionally certify FLSA action as collective action
      under Rule 23, to refile and remove for conditional
      certification as collective action under the
      class/collective action section of the FLSA itself, 29
      U.S.C.216(b) and for notice is granted;

   -- Remaining defendants to file objections within three days;

   -- Responses within sixty days;

   -- Status hearing set for December 6, 2017, is stricken and
      reset to January 23, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.; and

   -- Personnel Staffing LLC, Daniel S. Barnett (individually)
      and David Barnett (individually) are terminated.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6GLrxnRb


MTC FINANCIAL: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "Manos" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Cormac J. Carney denied without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification filed in the lawsuit
entitled JOHN MANOS, TARA BORRELLI, AND JESSIE MANOS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS V. MTC
FINANCIAL, INC., MALCOLM CISNEROS, ALC, DITECH FINANCIAL LLC,
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., AND FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,
Case No. 8:16-cv-01142-CJC-KES (C.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs brought this case against the Defendants for
various claims in relation to the foreclosure on the Plaintiffs'
property.

On November 16, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for
class certification, which is set for hearing on December 18,
2017.

The Court denies the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
without prejudice and vacates the hearing scheduled for Dec. 18,
2017.

According to its Civil Minutes, the Court must rule on the pending
motions to dismiss and motion to strike before the Court
undertakes determining if a class can be certified.  Hence, the
Court says, the Plaintiffs must have a finalized operative
complaint before seeking class certification.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=71OaJXMp


OPUS BANK: Proposed Settlement of Class-Action Lawsuit Announced
----------------------------------------------------------------
Opus Bank disclosed that in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended September 30, 2017, which was filed on November
9, 2017, the Bank disclosed it had entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the putative class action lawsuit pending
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (the "Court"), Schwartz v. Opus Bank, No. 2:16-cv-
07991. The parties agreed to settle the lawsuit for $17.0 million
and negotiate in good faith and execute a stipulation of
settlement within 30 days of November 3, 2017. The settlement is
expected to be fully funded by the Bank's insurance carriers. The
settlement is not expected to have any effect on the Bank's
consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income for the
three and nine months ended September 30, 2017.

The settlement must be approved by the Court. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. If the settlement is approved by the Court, the
settlement will release all claims in the lawsuit that were or
could have been brought and preclude further proceedings.

Further information regarding the settlement will be made
available if and when the settlement is approved by the Court.

                           About Opus Bank

Opus Bank is an FDIC insured California-chartered commercial bank
with $7.3 billion of total assets, $5.1 billion of total loans,
and $6.1 billion in total deposits as of September 30, 2017. Opus
Bank provides superior ideas and solutions, and banking products
to its clients through its Retail Bank, Commercial Bank, Merchant
Bank and Correspondent Bank. Opus Bank offers a suite of treasury
and cash management and depository solutions and a wide range of
loan products, including commercial, healthcare, media and
entertainment, corporate finance, multifamily residential,
commercial real estate and structured finance, and is an SBA
preferred lender. Opus Bank offers commercial escrow services and
facilitates 1031 Exchange transactions through its Escrow and
Exchange divisions. Opus Bank provides clients with financial and
advisory services related to raising equity capital, targeted
acquisition and divestiture strategies, general mergers and
acquisitions, debt and equity financing, balance sheet
restructuring, valuation, strategy and performance improvement
through its Merchant Banking division and its broker-dealer
subsidiary, Opus Financial Partners, LLC, Member FINRA/SIPC. Opus
Bank's alternative asset IRA custodian subsidiary has over $16
billion of custodial assets and approximately 52,000 client
accounts, which are comprised of self-directed investors,
financial institutions, capital raisers and financial advisors.
Opus Bank operates 50 banking offices, including 31 in California,
16 in the Seattle/Puget Sound region in Washington, two in the
Phoenix metropolitan area of Arizona and one in Portland, Oregon.
Opus Bank is an Equal Housing Lender. [GN]


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Update on Class Action Suit Filed in New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. disclosed that on November 3, 2017, the
United States Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
granted a petition for stay filed by the company. Therefore, the
class action will remain suspended until the US Supreme Court
decides whether to analyze our appeal.

"On November 1, 2017, we filed a petition to the US Supreme Court
requesting the admission of an appeal against certain aspects of
the decision handed down by the Federal Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit that, on July 7, 2017, partially annulled the class
certification and determined that the matter be reconsidered by
the First Instance Court.

"We reiterate that we will continue to take the necessary measures
to defend our interests.

Facts deemed material will be disclosed to the market in a timely
manner." [GN]


PHILIPS BRYANT: "Chang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Chang, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v.  Philips Bryant Park LLC dba Bryant Park Hotel, Phil Columbo,
and Michael Strauss, Case No. 1:17-cv-08816 (S.D. N.Y., November
13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium, unpaid wages
due to time shaving, tips earned at private catering events that
were illegally retained by Defendants, portion of tips earned on
room service orders, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

Plaintiff Arthur Chang is a resident of New York County, New York
and worked for the Defendants as a non-managerial employee.

The Defendants operate a luxury boutique hotel doing business
under the trade name "Bryant Park Hotel," located at 40 West 40th
Street, New York, NY 10018.  The Hotel includes the Cellar Bar, an
upscale lounge located in the Hotel's basement.

The Individual Defendants are senior officers of the corporate
Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      Taimur Alamgir, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181


RAAKEEN INC: "Avila" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Maria Avila, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Raakeen, Inc. dba Oaks Cleaners, and Rahim K.
Maknojia, Case No. 4:17-cv-03471 (S.D. Tex., November 13, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and unpaid overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiff Maria Avila was employed with Defendants for the last
eight years, up until August 2017, as a laborer.

Defendants own and operate two Oaks Cleaners locations in Houston,
Texas.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      Curt Hesse, Esq.
      Bridget Davidson, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana St., Suite 675
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 222-6775
      Fax: (713) 222-6739
      E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
              curt@mooreandassociates.net
              bridget@mooreandassociates.net


REMINGTON ARMS: Few Rifles Have Been Fixed 3 Yrs After Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cohn, writing for CNBC, reports that Heather Ogg's grief has
turned to anger as she approaches the second anniversary of her
teenage son's shooting death.

"It feels like, in a sense, that my son's life didn't matter," she
said.

Tanner Douglas, 16, was killed Dec. 3, 2015, while on a hunting
trip with his father near Laredo, Texas. The father told police
his rifle, a Remington Model 721, went off while he was unloading
it, without touching the trigger.

Authorities ruled the death accidental. The state crime lab found
the gun to be "unsafe."

"The rifle fired each time the bolt was locked in the closed
position with no pressure being applied to the trigger," the
report said.

What the family did not know at the time of Tanner's death was
that the gun was one of millions covered under a nationwide class-
action settlement announced a year earlier, over allegations that
Remington concealed a deadly design defect that allows the guns to
fire without the trigger being pulled. CNBC first investigated
those allegations in 2010.

The settlement, made public in December 2014, covers some 7.5
million guns, including the iconic Model 700 rifle. While still
maintaining that the guns are safe, Remington agreed to replace
the triggers, free of charge, in most of the guns. In older
models, like the Model 721 that killed Tanner Douglas, the company
agreed to provide a product voucher along with a gun safety DVD.

But nearly three years later, the vast majority of the guns have
not been fixed, and it is unclear if they ever will be. This, as
another hunting season is underway or about to begin in much of
the country.

"We are stalled," said Houston attorney Mark Lanier, who
represents plaintiffs in the class-action case.

A federal judge gave final approval to the class-action settlement
in March, but two Model 700 owners promptly appealed the ruling,
saying the agreement did not do enough to properly notify the
public, and accusing Remington of deliberately downplaying the
risks in order to reduce its costs.

In court filings, Remington has defended the settlement as "fair,
reasonable, and adequate." But with the appeal pending, the
trigger replacement program is effectively on hold.

An attorney representing Remington, Dale Wills, said the company
"generally does not comment on pending litigation." He referred
CNBC to the official settlement website, which says owners "will
not be entitled to a retrofit until after the pending appeal is
resolved."

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Kansas City has agreed to
hear oral arguments but has not yet set a date.

In the meantime, plaintiffs' attorneys said the company is only
retrofitting guns that the owner can prove fired without the
trigger being pulled -- a small fraction of the total. Separately,
a recall of Model 700 and Model Seven rifles with a newer trigger
mechanism -- manufactured between 2006 and 2014 -- is continuing,
but attorneys would not say how many guns have been repaired.

                          Safety Debate

Remington has consistently said the guns are safe and free of
defects. The company blames all of the incidents -- which number
in the thousands, according to lawsuits and customer complaints --
on user errors such as improper maintenance and failure to
practice proper firearm safety. The lawsuits have linked the
alleged defect to hundreds of serious injuries and at least two-
dozen deaths.

For Heather Ogg, Remington's stance adds insult to injury.

"That's blood on their hands every time somebody gets killed,
because they know there's a defect with these guns and they're not
doing anything to let people know about it," she said.

Ogg said attorneys have told her family it would be fruitless to
take legal action against Remington, because of a Texas law
requiring product liability cases to be brought within 15 years of
the product's sale. The gun in question had been in the family for
generations, first owned by Tanner's great-grandfather. The Model
721 first went on the market in 1948. However, it is common for
guns to be treated as family heirlooms, and Ogg says Tanner's
father was meticulous about maintenance and safety.

"His dad was a very conscious person about these things," she
said. "If we're going to take it hunting, it needs to be cleaned,
and we need to make sure there's nothing that's going to jam it up
or anything like that."

Michael Douglas told police that the gun fired when he closed the
bolt while unloading it. He said he had the muzzle pointed safely
downward, toward the floorboards of his vehicle. But he said the
shot ricocheted off another gun in the vehicle, striking Tanner,
who was standing nearby, in the rib cage. A bullet fragment was
recovered at the scene, according to the state crime lab report.
No charges were filed.

"There was no question in my mind. I mean, his dad would never do
anything to harm him intentionally," Ogg said.

Only afterward, while planning the boy's funeral, did the family
start learning about alleged issues surrounding Remington rifles
and about the class-action settlement. As owners of one of the
oldest models in question, the settlement would have entitled them
to a product voucher worth only $10 plus the gun safety DVD. But
Ogg says the mere possibility of a problem would have raised a red
flag with the boy's father.

"I know for a fact he would not have taken that gun hunting. He
would not have used that gun unless it had been fixed because he
was so 'gun safety.' If there was a problem with the gun, he would
not have taken it out there risking someone's life," she said.

                      Spreading the Word

With the class action settlement on hold, Remington critics are
trying to alert the public about what they see as a life or death
situation.

Richard Barber of Montana, whose own son was killed in a hunting
accident in 2000, has launched a Facebook page featuring some of
the Remington internal documents he uncovered in his long search
for answers. Nonetheless, he says he feels a sense of "impending
doom" as hunting season begins, knowing that other families are
likely to suffer the same fate.

"As sure as the sun is going to come up tomorrow, people are going
to be maimed or killed this year," he said.

Barber initially worked as a paid consultant to the plaintiffs'
attorneys in the class-action case but says he resigned after it
became clear that neither side was interested in getting the truth
out. He eventually became an outspoken critic of the settlement,
which he calls a "sham," although he is not involved in the
appeal.

Barber blames the legal system for the settlement being in limbo.

"The courts seem to be satisfied if money changes hands," he said,
rather than finding the truth and punishing the guilty.

Barber also blames plaintiffs' attorneys, who stand to collect
$12.5 million in fees once the settlement is finalized.

"The people who are thumping their chest about this settlement had
a vested financial interest in this case," he said.

One of those attorneys, Lanier, is urging hunters to pay heed
regardless of the settlement.

"This is a safety hazard still, and all hunters should be aware,"
he said. "I would not use a Remington 700 without having it
retrofitted."

On that point, Barber and Ogg agree.

"I hope that people will get their guns fixed," Barber said. "If
they don't, then I have to say they deserve what they get."

"It can happen to anybody in the blink of an eye," Ogg said, "and
it's life altering. It takes five minutes to do research, and it
could save your child's life." [GN]


RIO TINTO: Dec. 22 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm reminds investors that a class action complaint
has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Rio Tinto PLC (NYSE:
RIO) who purchased shares between October 23, 2012 and February
15, 2013. The action, which was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges that
the Company violated federal securities laws.

In 2011, Rio Tinto acquired certain Riversdale Mining Limited coal
assets in Mozambique that became known as Rio Tinto Coal
Mozambique ("RTCM"). The complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding RTCM's
true value, including that: (1) within months of the purchase,
now-former senior executives knew of material problems adversely
affecting RTCM's multi-billion dollar publicly reported valuation;
(2) as time passed, the same senior executives knew of additional
problems and events that, under applicable accounting rules,
required an impairment analysis of RTCM and reductions in its
reported valuation; and (3) these executives thwarted the required
impairment analysis and continued to tout RTCM's value to
investors.

Shareholders have until December 22, 2017 to petition the court
for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
does not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose
to be an absent class member.

If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain
additional information, please contact Joseph Klein, Esq. by
telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-sbm/rio-tinto-plc?wire=3.

Joseph Klein, Esq. is an experienced attorney and has also
practiced as a Certified Public Accountant. Mr. Klein represents
investors and participates in securities litigations involving
financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


ROCKWELL COLLINS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., has filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa on
behalf of holders of Rockwell Collins, Inc. ("Rockwell Collins")
(NYSE:COL) common stock in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Rockwell Collins by United Technologies Corporation
and its affiliate announced on September 4, 2017 (the
"Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Rockwell Collins, its
Board of Directors (the "Board"), and UTC, is captioned Sharpenter
v. Rockwell Collins, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00113-MWB (N.D. Iowa).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington,
DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-
legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On September 4, 2017, Rockwell Collins entered into an agreement
and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with UTC.  Pursuant to
the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Rockwell Collins will
receive, for each share of Rockwell Collins they own, $93.33 in
cash and a portion of a share of UTC's common stock having a value
equal to the quotient obtained by dividing $46.67 by the average
of the volume-weighted average prices per share of UTC common
stock on the New York Stock Exchange for each of the 20
consecutive trading days ending immediately prior to the closing
date, subject to a two-way 7.5% collar centered on UTC's August
22, 2017 closing share price of $115.69 (the "Proposed
Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Form S-4
Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The
Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement, which
recommends that Rockwell Collins stockholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction, omits material information necessary to
enable shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to vote
on the Proposed Transaction, including material information with
respect to Rockwell Collins' and UTC's financial projections, the
analyses performed by Rockwell Collins' financial advisors, and
potential conflicts of interest.  The Complaint seeks injunctive
and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of Rockwell
Collins common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 8, 2018.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and
Garden City, New York, regularly prosecutes securities fraud,
shareholder corporate, and shareholder derivative litigation on
behalf of shareholders in state and federal courts throughout the
United States.

         Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
         Gina M. Serra, Esq.
         Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
         Tel. No.: (888) 969-4242
                   (302) 295-5310
         Fax: (302) 654-7530
         Email: sdr@rl-legal.com
                gms@rl-legal.com [GN]


STATESERV MEDICAL: Coles Moves to Certify Background Check Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled DERRICK COLES, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
STATESERV MEDICAL OF FLORIDA, LLC, THE STATESERV COMPANIES, LLC,
and STATESERV MEDICAL, LLC, Case No. 8:17-cv-00829-EAK-AEP (M.D.
Fla.), moves the Court to certify this Fair Credit Reporting Act
case as a class action for this class:

     Background Check Class:

     All employees and job applicants of StateServ Medical of
     Florida, LLC, The StateServe Companies, LLC, StateServ
     Medical LLC, and any of their affiliates, related companies,
     agents and owners (the "StateServ Entities"), who were the
     subject of a consumer report procured by StateServ Medical
     of Florida, LLC, The StateServe Companies, LLC, or StateServ
     Medical LLC ("Defendants") within five years of the filing
     of the complaint through the date of final judgment based
     upon disclosure authorization forms substantially similar to
     Exhibits A and B.

Mr. Coles also asks the Court to appoint him as Class
Representative, to appoint his counsel and their firm and members
thereof as class counsel, and to allow them to notify the Class
members.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          201 N. Franklin Street, #700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
          E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Geddes D. Anderson, Jr., Esq.
          Lawton R. Graves, Esq.
          MURPHY & ANDERSON, P.A.
          1501 San Marco Blvd.
          Jacksonville, FL 32207
          Telephone: (904) 598-9282
          E-mail: ganderson@murphyandersonlaw.com
                  lgraves@murphyandersonlaw.com


TRANSUNION LLC: Appeals Judgment in Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
David Hutton, writing for Northern California Record, reports that
TransUnion has filed an appeal in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California San Francisco Division,
challenging a Ninth Circuit Court ruling that denied its motion
for judgment and request for a new trial.

TransUnion is represented by Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP of Los
Angles.

A judgment was entered in California Ramirez v. TransUnion LLC on
June 20 which awarded a class of 8,185 consumers $8 million in
statutory damages and $52 million in punitive damages.

TransUnion was accused of violating provisions of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) by not accurately providing information on
consumers to lenders and other consumers.

As a result of those allegations, a class-action lawsuit was filed
in 2012.

The final verdict was reached before a magistrate of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

In the original complaint, the alleged errors by TransUnion
happened when the class action's lead plaintiff, Sergio L.
Ramirez, was denied the ability to obtain a loan to purchase a car
when a TransUnion consumer report indicated he was a match to an
individual found on the SDN (Specially Designated Nationals) list.

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), credit reporting
agencies (CRAs), such as TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian are
required to provide accurate information about consumers to
lenders and allow individuals to review this information and
dispute it if incorrect.

There are civil penalties that exceed $290,000 per transaction
made for companies that conduct business with individuals and
other entities found on the SDN list. Because of this, companies
are given an incentive to avoid penalties and other regulatory
actions by not doing business with these individuals.

In the complaint, Ramirez argued TransUnion made no apparent
effort to ensure his consumer report file was accurate. This also
was true for several thousand other consumers, thus forming the
class action against the firm, forming the foundation of the case
against the company. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Al Otro Lado Suit Transferred to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable John F. Walter grants the Defendants' motion to
transfer venue submitted in the lawsuit styled Al Otro Lado, Inc.,
et al. v. John F. Kelly, Case No. 2:17-cv-05111-JFW-JPR (C.D.
Cal.).

The action is transferred to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California.

On July 12, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in this Court,
alleging claims for relief for violation of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Non-
Refoulement Doctrine.

John F. Kelly is the Secretary of Homeland Security.

In light of this action being transferred to the Southern District
of California, the Class Representatives' Unopposed Motion to
Proceed Pseudonymously, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6),
Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery or Grant Protective Relief,
Pending Decision on Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Transfer
Venue, and Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification are denied
without prejudice, according the Court's civil minutes.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qp8pRXBC


VIRGINIA BEACH: Faces "Andreana" Suit Over Age Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph H. Andreana, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Virginia Beach City Public Schools and the School
Board of the City of Virginia Beach, Case No. 2:17-cv-00574-RAJ-
LRL (E.D. Va., November 7, 2017), arises out of the Defendants'
pattern and practice of discrimination on the basis of age in
violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Virginia Beach City Public Schools is a public entity that
provides educational services for the City of Virginia Beach.

School Board of the City of Virginia Beach is an 11-member body
created pursuant to the Constitution of Virginia and responsible
for the supervision of all public schools in the City of Virginia
Beach. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Theuer, Esq.
      JAMES R. THEUER, PLLC
      555 E. Main St., Suite 1212
      Norfolk, VA  23510
      Telephone: (757) 446-8047
      Facsimile: (757) 446-8048
      E-mail: jim@theuerlaw.com


WALMART STORES: Female Employees Try Again for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sara E. Teller, writing for legalreader.com, reports that in a
lawsuit filed November 6 in federal court in Florida, a group of
female Walmart employees alleged they have been denied promotional
opportunities and aren't being paid the same rates as their male
counterparts in both hourly retail positions and salaried
management positions.  The complaint, which seeks class-action
status, also addresses specific discriminatory measures regarding
relocation and travel requirements for management positions.  Many
of the women began working for the world's largest retailer back
in the 1990s and are familiar with former claims made against
their employer.

The case is left-over from the Dukes versus Walmart Stores Inc.
issue, which was a 2001 lawsuit alleging the retailer had a
history of discriminating against its female employees for
promotions, compensation, on-the-job training opportunities, and
specific job assignments.  This lawsuit was granted class-action
certification in 2004 with 1.6 employees being represented in the
class.

Then, in 2011, the United States Supreme Court reversed the
decision for class certification and rolled out revised guidelines
for employment discrimination class-action lawsuits.  The
conservative judges decided the complaints were too dissimilar to
be included in one filing. "In a company of Walmart's size and
geographical scope, it is quite unbelievable that all managers
would exercise their discretion in a common way without some
common direction," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the court's
decision.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, representing the dissenters, wrote
that "gender bias suffused Walmart's corporate culture."  But, all
court members agreed that those who felt they had been
discriminated against by the retailer were not discriminated
against in the same way.  Betty Dukes, the named plaintiff in the
suit, passed away last July.  Seven plaintiffs in the recent
filing, Forbes v. Walmart Stores Inc., were members of the
national class certified in Dukes.

"The class the plaintiffs now allege is no more appropriate than
the nationwide class the Supreme Court has already rejected,"
Randy Hargrove, a Walmart spokesman, said. "These claims are
unsuitable for class treatment because the situations of each
individual are so different, and because the claims are not
representative of the hundreds of thousands of women who work at
Walmart."

However, the latest complaint addresses the court's revised
guidelines and focuses on allegations of Walmart employees based
only in the southeastern U.S. rather than in the entire country,
which creates a more unified group with similar complaints.

The filing states: "Walmart maintained a pattern or practice of
gender discrimination in compensation and promotion.  And, in each
of the above regions, the compensation and promotion policies and
practices of Walmart had a disparate impact, not justified by
business necessity, on its female employees in the region."

These allegations represent only one of approximately 2,000 claims
that have been filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission claiming bias in pay and promotions at Walmart since
the court's decision in 2011.  The retailer has taken a lot of
heat from dissatisfied employees and its sub-par employment
practices are no secret.

The plaintiffs are seeking a monetary award to include any back
pay and damages due to lost compensation and employment benefits.
Walmart has 94,000 employees and 293 stores in total. [GN]


WESTJET AIRLINES: Wants Court TO Toss Proposed Harassment Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Calgary Herald reports that WestJet is asking a B.C. Supreme Court
to throw out a proposed class-action lawsuit that accuses the
company of failing to provide a harassment-free workplace for
female employees.

The airline's lawyer, Don Dear, Esq. -- ddear@mross.com -- says
the lawsuit is an abuse of process that would be better dealt with
through a human rights tribunal and workers' compensation board.

Former flight attendant Mandalena Lewis is suing WestJet over
allegations of gender-based discrimination, accusing her former
employer of fostering a corporate culture that tolerates
harassment against its female employees.

WestJet says its opposition to Lewis's lawsuit is not a defence of
poor behaviour or sexual harassment, but it believes the
allegations are being heard in the wrong venue.

Lewis filed an earlier lawsuit against the airline saying she had
been sexually assaulted by a pilot while on a stopover in Hawaii
in 2010.

WestJet rejected allegations that it failed to take appropriate
action after she reported the incident.

The Calgary-based airline's statement of defence said it
immediately launched an internal investigation into Lewis's
complaint, but the company was ultimately unable to conclude the
pilot had committed an assault.

None of the allegations have been proven in court. [GN]



                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Special Court to Handle Libby Asbestos Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Chaney, writing for Missoulian, reported that after 17 years
of delay, the Montana Supreme Court has opened a special court for
asbestos-related lawsuits stemming from the mining of vermiculite
near Libby.

About 600 cases were pending before 2001, when the Legislature
passed a law creating the special court to handle them. At the
time, more than 1,100 people were diagnosed with asbestos-related
diseases connected to exposure to vermiculite. More than 200 had
already died from those diseases.

"Asbestos litigation in Montana kind of screeched to a halt at
that point," said Roger Sullivan of the Kalispell law firm
McGarvey, Heberling, Sullivan & Lacey. "We probably represent the
plaintiffs in most of those cases. The asbestos claims court was
just being created in response to the increasing caseload in the
district courts when W.R. Grace went bankrupt in April 2001."

W.R. Grace operated the Libby vermiculite mine linked to most of
the exposure cases. Its bankruptcy process was completed in 2015,
and all cases against it were moved to a specific bankruptcy trust
for settlement. But numerous other cases remain against Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Railroad, the state of Montana, International
Paper and some insurance companies involved in handling asbestos,
according to Sullivan.

"Now that those bankruptcy proceedings are resolved, those cases
are reactivated," Supreme Court Administrator Beth McLaughlin said
Tuesday. "We're giving the parties notice they need to file that
says they're ready to proceed."

The court handles cases involving asbestos-related disease
"alleged to result from the mining of vermiculite, the processing
of vermiculite, or the transfer, storage, installation or removal
of a product containing vermiculite." Anyone with a pending case
must file before Thursday, Dec. 28.

While the original legislation called for a special court to be
created, there's no funding currently available to do that,
McLaughlin said. Instead, Flathead County District Court Judge Amy
Eddy will preside over the cases for discovery and settlement
discussions. Those that aren't settled will move on to the regular
district court system wherever the cases originated.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New England Schools Get $631K for Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Mauney, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it awarded a total
of $631,000 this year to five New England state agencies to ensure
schools properly manage asbestos-containing materials.

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island
each received between $100,000 and $166,000 from the government
agency, depending on the amount of initiatives they are committed
to in accordance with the EPA's Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response
Act (AHERA).

AHERA requires public school districts and nonprofit private
schools to inspect their schools for asbestos-containing materials
and prepare management plans to reduce asbestos hazards.

The EPA requires schools to have a designated person assigned to
handle asbestos issues. Schools must update asbestos management
plans every three years and notify parents when a new plan is
filed.

The annual EPA funding helps establish and carry out these plans,
including potential asbestos abatement projects. The grant also
helps states maintain an asbestos accreditation and certification
training program.

Vermont, which only performs the inspection portion of the
program, received $16,000 from the EPA.

Exposure to asbestos can lead to serious health conditions such as
asbestosis and mesothelioma cancer.

Asbestos Prevalent in New England Schools

Asbestos-containing building materials remain prevalent in schools
built before the 1980s. The EPA estimates there are asbestos-
containing materials in most of the nation's primary, secondary
and charter schools.

About half of all U.S. schools were built from 1950 to 1969, when
asbestos was added to virtually every kind of construction product
to increase durability and fire resistance. Asbestos materials do
not pose a health risk if left intact and undisturbed.

However, many of these products wear over time or become damaged
during building renovation or demolition projects, putting
students, teachers and other faculty at risk for asbestos
exposure.

Asbestos products are particularly common in New England schools,
given the region's history and centuries-old infrastructure.
Asbestos is most often found in floor and ceiling tiles, pipes in
boiler rooms and insulation materials.

Many schools in Massachusetts, Connecticut and other New England
states regularly face costly asbestos abatement projects and
controversial asbestos exposure incidents.

Notable Asbestos Issues Throughout New England

A report showing photos of disturbed asbestos inside West Haven
High School in Connecticut sparked outrage among students and
parents earlier this year.

The report, conducted by Dunn Environmental Group on the order of
the Connecticut Department of Public Health, investigated a camera
installation project at the school.

Asbestos materials were reportedly disturbed by untrained and
unlicensed workers during the project. Pictures in the report
showed asbestos debris in various areas of the school, including
on top of a trophy case.

"I was surprised that they would do work in a school with asbestos
and then not handle it properly," Bridgette Hoskie, a mother of a
West Haven High School student told NBC Connecticut.

Other notable asbestos-related incidents within New England
schools this year include:

   * Watertown, Massachusetts: Asbestos was found in the walls,
ceiling and floor tiles of Watertown High School. The inspection,
conducted by EFI Global in October, found asbestos in a number of
areas, including damaged plaster in 50 areas around the school.
Remediation plans include encapsulating damaged areas or replacing
significantly damaged plaster with sheet rock and joint compound.

   * Barre, Massachusetts: The Quabbin Regional School Committee
in October awarded a $39,600 contract to a local restoration
company for the removal of asbestos-containing floor tile from
Oakham Center School. Tile was removed from the school's kitchen,
cafeteria and adjoining hallways.

   * Hartford, Connecticut: The Wish School in Connecticut's
capital city closed for two days in April after contractors
removing old lockers exposed asbestos insulation within the
school. No students, staff or families were exposed since the
lockers were removed during spring break, according to NBC
Connecticut.

   * Rhode Island: The Jacobs Report -- a statewide, independent
assessment of the repair needs of all 307 public school facilities
sanctioned by the Rhode Island Department of Education --
estimated it would cost $2.2 billion to get the buildings into
"ideal" condition, including removing unabated asbestos materials.

   * Bennington, Vermont: Shaftsbury Elementary School opened with
other schools across Southwest Vermont in September, despite
earlier concerns that exposed asbestos may delay its opening.
Asbestos was discovered in August during work to improve the
school's ventilation system. Principal Jeff Johnson told the
Bennington Banner that asbestos had been fully removed a week
before the start of the school year. The contract for the duct
replacement project was awarded to Hayden Plumbing and Heating of
Bennington for $159,245.

Asbestos a Growing Concern in Maine

Maine has the nation's highest rate of asbestos-related deaths,
according to a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC). The agency found that between 1999 and 2015,
the annual mortality rate from malignant mesothelioma in Maine was
approximately 22 per million people.

The CDC study focused on occupational asbestos exposure through
high-risk industries such as construction and shipbuilding.

Maine's housing stock is among the oldest in the country, with
more than 30 percent of units built before 1950. Many schools,
homes and offices still contain asbestos building materials,
putting occupants at risk for exposure if the products are
damaged.

Concerns over asbestos abatement costs played a factor in the
decision to consolidate two aging middle schools in South
Portland, Maine.

The Middle School Facilities Committee recommended in a Nov. 9
meeting that the city build a new $50 million school consolidating
students from Mahoney Middle School -- built in 1922 -- and
Memorial Middle School, built in 1967.

Other options included renovating and expanding Mahoney or
building a new Memorial Middle School at the existing site. But
school officials feared asbestos and lead paint abatement issues
would drive up costs because of the age of the buildings.

According to The Forecaster, Memorial will likely be demolished,
while Mahoney, a historic building, will likely be preserved,
although not as a school.

Just across Fore River in Portland, voters in November
overwhelmingly decided to borrow $64.3 million to renovate four
elementary schools. The schools have outdated heating systems and
a variety of structural problems, including exposed asbestos
materials.

"You can't have a strong city without strong schools," Emily
Figdor, a leader of the four-school campaign, told the Portland
Press Herald. "We'd like to get started as soon as possible. The
problems are urgent and they need our attention right away."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Illegally Dumped All Over Devon
---------------------------------------------------------
Annie Gouk and Rom Preston-Ellis, writing for Devon Live, reported
that Devon councils have had to clear up illegally dumped and
potentially deadly asbestos on dozens of occasions in the last
year. The latest government figures have revealed that councils
across the county had to clear up fly-tipped asbestos 77 times in
2016-17.

The majority of cases occurred in Teignbridge, which saw people
fly-tipping asbestos 37 times over the course of the year -- up
from just 14 instances in 2015-16.

East Devon also had a high number of people dumping the hazardous
waste, with 10 cases of illegal asbestos disposal recorded by the
council.

Asbestos has been blamed for a number of lung diseases, including
several forms of cancer, and in some cases exposure to the
material can be fatal.

Since 1981, at least 1,428 people in Devon have died of
mesothelioma -- just one of the illnesses caused by the inhalation
of asbestos fibres.

While its use in the building trade has been banned since 2000,
the material can still be found in many buildings, and if it poses
a hazard it must be disposed of properly.

Asbestos waste should only be handled by a licensed disposal site.

However, some 'cowboy' asbestos removal companies will charge you
to remove the material only to illegally dump it to save on the
cost of disposing of it correctly.

Across the country, there were 3,166 such cases of asbestos being
dumped -- mainly on highways and footpaths and in back alleyways.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Concerns Linger After Calif. Wildfires
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Duff, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that shutting
down a mobile home park in Sonoma is just the beginning of a
multitude of post-wildfire asbestos concerns in Northern
California. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently
closed Journey's End Mobile Home Park to public access, citing
concerns about asbestos and other toxic chemicals that may have
been released to the environment after fires passed through the
area.

"A dangerous volume of asbestos was dispersed throughout the
entire park," said Santa Rosa Assistant Fire Marshal Paul
Lowenthal. Only about 20 of the 160 units remain after the fires.

No one is allowed back into the park until the EPA deems the
property safe. This means former residents returning to go through
the ash for their belongings are not allowed to do so.

"They are going to make a plan to segregate out personal
belongings that they find from the debris," said Lowenthal. "They
are prepared to take steps to preserve people's things."

The fires produced as much air pollution in a few days as the
entire state of California's cars produce in one year. The ash
contains toxic materials like asbestos in it due to the burning of
products containing the hazardous substance.

"The white ash that's left behind that has a lot of these alkali
hydroxides can be very fluffy and easily disturbed and picked up
and breathed in," said U.S. Geological Survey environmental expert
Geoffrey Plumlee.

"So you want to wear a high-quality N95 dust mask and wear long
sleeves, long pants, gloves, and eye protection to help minimize
any possible exposures to whatever's in the ash that might be
there," continued Plumlee.

Plumlee studied the ash left after the southern California fires
of 2007. "We found quite a lot of variability depending on the age
of the house, how hot it burned, and the type of construction. But
we found a variety of things like arsenic, hexavalent chromium,
lead, [and] there may be some asbestos," said Plumlee.

While firefighters are the primary ones in danger from asbestos
exposure due to a fire, the damage and destruction left behind can
still be a hazard to others later. Staying safe from asbestos
after a natural disaster, such as a wildfire, can be difficult,
and it requires a lot of patience and care to clean it up properly
and avoid exposure.

According to a University of California, Davis pediatrics and
pulmonary medicine specialist Lisa Miller, "It's known that
wildfires can lead to short-term uptick in people seeking medical
treatment, especially if they have pre-existing respiratory
conditions. But the long-term effects of smoke exposure are less
well understood."

"Older houses have legacy things like asbestos and lead and some
pesticides, so understanding that particularly, unfortunately, as
more houses burn or buildings burn," said Plumlee. "And then
understanding what the longer-term impacts from exposures to smoke
downwind [are] based on what's known about what's in the smoke."

"We're really good at using mathematical modeling strategies to
come up with estimates of exposure," said Miller. "But actually
determining the amount of exposure and the type of exposure on an
individual basis is really, really challenging. So I think that's
a major gap that we need to address in science."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Classic Cars
-----------------------------------------------
Joshua Dowling, writing for The Morning Bulletin, reported that
deadly asbestos is being detected in an increasing number of
privately imported classic cars -- and unwary buyers are risking
thousands of dollars in fines and repairs.

Australian Border Force has intercepted more than 50 classic and
vintage cars containing asbestos parts so far this year, almost
twice as many as the same period last year.

Valuable collector cars such as Ford Mustangs, Rolls-Royces,
Bentleys and Jaguars -- most of which are more than 40 years old -
- have been caught in the Customs crackdown.

Individual importers risk fines of more than $3000 per offence,
but the biggest expense is getting car parts tested and replaced.

Importers must pay for the testing of suspect parts and then
replace them with asbestos-free components before the vehicle can
clear Customs -- a process that can take months and cost in excess
of $20,000.

"Recent history has shown a high incidence of imports in the
classic car sector where asbestos has been found in parts such as
brake pads, clutch linings and gaskets from vintage and veteran
cars," said Stephen Hledik, the acting commander of Customs
Compliance in the Australian Border Force.

"If the Australian Border Force suspects there is asbestos present
in the goods being imported we will instruct the importer to
arrange for testing at their cost. That involves extra cost to
them as well as delays as the testing is conducted," said Mr
Hledik.

"It's the responsibility of the importer to make sure the asbestos
parts have been removed before importing the car into Australia.
Importers need to be aware that Australia's total ban on asbestos
(introduced in 2003) means zero per cent asbestos content."

News Corp Australia has spoken to three private importers who've
been caught out by the recent detection of classic cars containing
asbestos, but none wanted to comment publicly.

One importer said testing and repairs cost him $14,500, another
said the process set him back $25,000. Another importer said he
was $10,000 out of pocket.

Australian Border Force says it has the discretion to not issue
fines, but will use its powers to keep vehicles in quarantine
until asbestos parts are removed.

One classic car importer who was caught out said it is "Russian
roulette whether or not your car gets an inspection".

However he cautioned anyone planning to import a classic car to
get it checked first.

"Anybody who buys an imported classic car needs to get it
inspected by an authorised asbestos expert whose qualifications
are recognised by Australian authorities, otherwise you could be
wasting your money importing the car in the first place," one
importer told News Corp Australia.

The Australian Border Force does not collect samples or dismantle
cars suspected of containing asbestos. Instead, the importer or
their broker is responsible for arranging testing by an accredited
expert.

Testing for asbestos requires microscopic analysis by "an
occupational hygienist".

For testing in Australia the laboratory must be accredited by the
National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA); overseas test
results will only be accepted by a "NATA-recognised equivalent".

Australia's prohibition on asbestos has been in place since 2003
and "the significant health risks of asbestos are well known",
said Mr Hledik. "We make no apologies for our work to protect the
community from the significant dangers of asbestos."

He said many overseas sellers will claim a car is asbestos-free
"but importers shouldn't rely on the assurances of the seller
alone," said Mr Hledik.

"Get it tested, or remove and replace the suspect parts, and
you'll save yourself a lot of time, effort and money when your car
arrives in Australia."

RECENT ASBESTOS BUSTS BY AUSTRALIAN BORDER FORCE

   -- 1948 Chevrolet Fleetline, USA to Adelaide
   -- 1969 Chevrolet Corvette, USA to Adelaide
   -- 1955 Chevrolet Bel Air, USA to Adelaide
   -- 1972 Lotus Europa, USA to Adelaide
   -- 1987 Nissan Skyline, Japan to Sydney
   -- 1964 Bentley S3, Netherlands to Perth
   -- 1978 Holden sedan, New Zealand to Brisbane
   -- 1973 DeTomaso Pantera, USA to Sydney
   -- 1972 Ducati Desmo 450 motorcycle, Holland to Sydney
   -- 1973 Jaguar E-Type, USA to Brisbane
   -- 1962 Lancia, USA to Sydney
   -- 1966 Ford Shelby GT350, USA to Sydney
   -- 1965 Ford Mustang, USA to Sydney


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Time Bomb Ticking for Marine Industry
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maritime Journal reports that the IMO should amend the SOLAS
Regulation banning the use of asbestos and asbestos containing
materials (ACM) in ships, says John Chillingworth, senior marine
principal at Lucion Marine.

Regulations under the International Convention for the Safety of
Life at Sea (SOLAS) state that if asbestos is found onboard a ship
built after July 2002 then the vessel's flag registry, in
conjunction with its classification society, issues a non-
extendable exemption certificate, providing the owner with a
three-year window in which to remove the asbestos.

Any ship built before 2002, may contain asbestos but must have a
hazardous materials' register and management plan in place to
cover any maintenance or repair work involving asbestos. This
situation could be considered somewhat ridiculous and, while
originally it might have been thought a straight forward move to
ban asbestos in ships built after 2002, the reality is that we
have a system that's failing.

LOGISTICAL CHALLENGES

It's possible to correct this by ensuring that all new vessels
have an approved asbestos survey before they are delivered to
operators but there are significant logistical challenges ahead.

In the EU alone, there are 30,000 ships requiring an IHM
(Inventory of Hazardous Materials).  Of these, it's estimated that
80% will contain some form of asbestos. But what does an IHM
inspection involve? An accredited surveying company carries out an
inspection to verify the amount of hazardous materials onboard a
vessel -- 60% of which is an asbestos survey of the ship's systems
and structure (it is well documented that 80% of existing and new
ships contain asbestos in their systems).

The amount of asbestos found onboard depends on several factors,
including where the ship was built. In our experience, ships built
in the Far East and Turkey have a high percentage of items
containing asbestos. Ships can also be contaminated through items
brought on board by the owners, despite assurances that they are
asbestos free.

The term 'asbestos free' can be a misleading one, due to the
different international standards that constitute exactly what it
means. In the USA, for instance, it is up to a 1.0% content, while
in the EU it is 0.1% and 0% in Australia. In the Far East, China
has no official standard -- indeed, we have found as much as 15%
asbestos in materials that have been declared free in China. The
problem is compounded by the fact that there is no testing and
certification of materials by manufacturers.

Global supply chains are such that a lot of material and equipment
originates from China where it is still legal to use asbestos.
Chinese manufacturers may set up a production line to supply
'asbestos free' materials, but they could also be unaware of cross
contamination in their factory emanating from other production
lines that are producing items containing asbestos.

The usual procedure is for a shipyard to issue a declaration that
its vessel is 'asbestos free' before the classification society
makes a notation to that effect on the operating certificate based
on a statement of fact. However, government flag state authorities
such as Australia and the Netherlands, are aware that these
declarations can be inaccurate, and insist that a ship registered
under their flag has a verification asbestos survey performed by a
marine specialist ISO17020 accredited company and that any
asbestos found is removed before the ship can be registered.

For some reason, Panama, Liberia and UK among other major flag
states still accept a classification society's inspection for an
annual operating certificate even though the 'asbestos free
notation' is based only on a shipyard declaration that the vessel
is 'asbestos free'.

So, what can be done to ensure an asbestos free ship? There are
some important steps to take but it's important to engage the
services of an ISO17020 accredited company, which has the
experience and resources to undertake a comprehensive survey.
Then, if asbestos is found, have it removed and instigate a
quality management system that periodically has materials supplied
to the ship tested to see if they are safe. After a refit, it will
be important to undertake an update survey.

A proactive prudent approach can prevent potential litigation for
claimed exposure to asbestos from the ship's crew, protecting ship
owners. It can also enhance the true value of the ship and
eliminates any potential issues if asbestos was found during a
pre-purchase survey and, ultimately, protects the crew and anyone
else working on the ship.

The IMO would be justified in modifying the SOLAS requirement for
asbestos in ships and institute a more manageable procedure that
would contribute to securing the safety of seafarers. This
modification would also spur owners into actioning the IHM
inspections now rather than leaving it to the last minute. It
really is matter of urgency therefore, that the following
principles are adopted by the EU and Hong Kong Convention as an
approved amended regulation:

   * All new ships must have an accredited asbestos survey

   * All existing ships must have an asbestos survey, performed by
an accredited marine specialist ISO17020 survey company this can
be part of an approved IHM survey

   * If asbestos is found then an asbestos management plan should
be established. All high-risk asbestos should be removed within
three years. Low risk asbestos items should be encapsulated and
replaced when maintenance requirements allow and condition
monitoring should be recorded.

Looking to the future, we are seeing some flag states adopting a
more realistic approach by accepting an asbestos register and a
management plan for ship operations and in planned refits and
maintenance, overseen by licensed contractors working onsite to
ensure the safe removal and management of ACM. The flag state may
accept this beyond the three years as an equivalence to the
removal of ACM with a certification to the vessel and notification
to IMO accordingly.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Led to Death of Pembroke Dock Man
-----------------------------------------------------------
Western Telegraph reported that a Pembroke Dock man died of the
industrial disease mesothelioma after coming in to contact with
asbestos while repairing sea targets at the town's dockyards, an
inquest heard last week.

Kenneth Sealey, 81, of 6 Sunderland Avenue, Pembroke Dock died on
August 19 at his home.

At the November 23 inquest, Coroner's officer for Dyfed-Powys
Police Jeremy Davies said Cowbridge-born Mr Sealey had previously
worked as a coal miner in Gilfach and had served in both the Royal
Welch Regiment, later serving at Llanion barracks, and in the
Royal Army Service Corps, leaving the service in 1963.

Mr Sealey later worked at Pembroke Dock's naval dockyard, later,
in 1970, moving to the MoD dockyard depot, repairing sea targets.

"At this point he came in to contact with asbestos when stripping
targets," Mr Davies said.

Mr Sealey had been in reasonable health other than an ongoing
diabetes condition and high blood pressure, the inquest heard.

In January 2016, Mr Sealey suffered from serious toothache caused
by his wisdom teeth, and, while tests were carried out, a mark was
discovered on his lung.

By December of last year it was confirmed Mr Sealey was suffering
from the industrial disease mesothelioma.

Mr Sealey's condition deteriorated in 2017, losing four stone in
weight, and was bedbound for the last few weeks of his life.

Mr Sealey, described at the inquest as a very independent man, had
opted for a do not resuscitate order; his family remaining at his
bedside on August 19 until he passed away.

A statement by GP Melville Jones said Mr Sealey had died as a
result of contracting mesothelioma, likely contracted as a result
of his former occupation.

Coroner Mark Layton, recording a conclusion of death by industrial
disease, said: "Mr Kenneth Sealey, through contact with asbestos
has developed the industrial disease mesothelioma that has caused
his death."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worcester Developer Settles Suit for $100K
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Massachusetts developer has
agreed to pay $100,000 to settle a lawsuit over accusations that
workers improperly removed and disposed of asbestos.

Attorney General Maura Healey announced the settlement with
Worcester-based Hampton Properties LLC on Tuesday.

According to the lawsuit, unlicensed workers were allowed to
remove materials containing asbestos without taking proper safety
precautions. The lawsuit also alleges the company threw away
unsealed asbestos near apartment buildings.

Asbestos, a mineral fiber, can release toxic chemicals in the air
if improperly handled.

The company's lawyer tells The Telegram & Gazette the work
described in the lawsuit was performed by a subcontractor who has
since been fired. The company has since cleaned the buildings
under the supervision of the state's Department of Environmental
Protection.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: S.C. Officials Indicted for Exposing Firemen
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that the Marion,
South Carolina, city administrator and its fire chief have been
indicted on charges of knowingly exposing staff, volunteer workers
and community members to toxic asbestos.

Both were granted a personal recognizance bond at their
arraignment Nov. 17 in the Marion County Courthouse.

City Administrator Alan Thomas Ammons and Fire Chief Ralph Walton
Cooper III were charged with misconduct in office, conspiracy to
violate the Pollution Control Act, and violation of the Pollution
Control Act.

All three indictments -- signed by South Carolina Attorney General
Alan Wilson -- were filed Nov. 2, 2017.

The alleged violations were between Feb. 1 and May 1 of 2017 at
the Marion Fire Station. The indictments contend Cooper and Ammons
allowed continued use of the facility during that period, despite
knowing asbestos was present.

The indictments stem from an inspection by the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) in October
2016 that discovered exposed asbestos.

Hurricane Cleanup Exposes Asbestos in Floor

The asbestos was found in floor tiles that were being replaced as
part of cleanup efforts following Hurricane Matthew, which hit the
area Oct. 6, 2016.

Officials from the DHEC, after their inspection, had requested the
recreation room at the fire station and adjacent rooms be closed
until asbestos abatement could be completed.

Ammons and Cooper are being blamed for allowing the rooms to
remain open.

Ammons, near the end of May, told WPDE the city had spent $30,000
to remove the asbestos.

DHEC officials said the cleanup of the fire station was completed
on May 17, with all regulations followed.

The unknowing inhalation of asbestos fibers can lead to a number
of serious respiratory health issues, including asbestosis, lung
cancer or mesothelioma.

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral that once was used
extensively in construction of both residential and commercial
buildings.

Older Buildings Filled with Asbestos

Although the use of asbestos has been reduced significantly in
recent decades, most structures built before 1980 contain asbestos
products, which typically are not dangerous unless disturbed.

"The city of Marion is aware of the indictments against two of its
employees," Marion Mayor Ashley Brady said in a statement. "We are
monitoring the situation and in the process of determining what
action, if any, needs to be taken."

Marion, which is the county seat, is a city with a population of
an estimated 6,700.

Both Ammons and Cooper attended the regular city council meeting
last week, prior to the arraignment.

Ammons, who also serves as the city's building inspector, gave his
monthly report to council.

Neither Ammons nor Cooper would comment to local media regarding
the indictments, referring questions to their personal attorneys.

"I have looked into the matter and I'm convinced that the
indictments here were ill advised and that my client has
participated in no criminal conduct," attorney Morgan Martin, who
represents Cooper, told WMBF News. "And I believe that a thorough
review of all the facts surrounding this will establish that."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Power Unit Still Defends PI Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
A Global Power Equipment Group Inc. subsidiary still faces
asbestos personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company states, "A former operating unit of Global Power has
been named as a defendant in a limited number of asbestos personal
injury lawsuits.  Neither we nor our predecessors ever mined,
manufactured, produced or distributed asbestos fiber, the material
that allegedly caused the injury underlying these actions.  The
bankruptcy court's discharge order issued upon our emergence from
bankruptcy in January 2008 extinguished the claims made by all
plaintiffs who had filed asbestos claims against us before that
time.  We also believe the bankruptcy court's discharge order
should serve as a bar against any later claim filed against us,
including any of our subsidiaries, based on alleged injury from
asbestos at any time before emergence from bankruptcy.  In any
event, in all of the asbestos cases finalized post-bankruptcy, we
have been successful in having such cases dismissed without
liability.

"Moreover, during 2012, we secured insurance coverage that will
help to reimburse the defense costs and potential indemnity
obligations of our former operating unit relating to these claims.
We intend to vigorously defend all currently active actions, all
without liability, and we do not anticipate that any of these
actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial
position, results of operations or liquidity.  However, the
outcomes of any legal action cannot be predicted and, therefore,
there can be no assurance that this will be the case."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Defends PI Suits at Sept. 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company continues to face asbestos-related claims and
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 2, 2017.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits
in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing
asbestos manufactured more than 30 years ago.  The plaintiffs
generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and
seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts.  In
many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered
were the result of exposure to products manufactured by us.  We
are typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without
payment.  If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that
compensable injury occurred as a result of exposure to our
products, the case is generally settled for an amount that
reflects the seriousness of the injury, the length, intensity and
character of exposure to products containing asbestos, the number
and solvency of other defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction
in which the case has been brought.

"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party.  Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.

"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide
coverage for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs.
Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of our
defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation.
However, certain of our insurers are insolvent.  We have entered
into cost-sharing agreements with our insurers that provide for
the allocation of defense costs and settlements and judgments in
asbestos-related lawsuits.  These agreements require, among other
things, that we fund a share of settlements and judgments
allocable to years in which the responsible insurer is insolvent

"We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the
aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us
because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured.
Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of
lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the
plaintiff.  To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of
our probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we
establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable for
insurance recoveries.

"Based on currently available information, we have concluded that
the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related
litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flow."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $1.36BB Net Reserves at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc. had net asbestos reserves of
US$1.36 billion at September 30, 2017, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

The Travelers Companies states, "The Company believes that the
property and casualty insurance industry has suffered from court
decisions and other trends that have expanded insurance coverage
for asbestos claims far beyond the original intent of insurers and
policyholders.

"The Company has received and continues to receive a significant
number of asbestos claims from the Company's policyholders (which
includes others seeking coverage under a policy).  Factors
underlying these claim filings include continued intensive
advertising by lawyers seeking asbestos claimants and the
continued focus by plaintiffs on defendants who were not
traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation.  The focus
on these defendants is primarily the result of the number of
traditional asbestos defendants who have sought bankruptcy
protection in previous years.

"In addition to contributing to the overall number of claims,
bankruptcy proceedings may increase the volatility of asbestos-
related losses by initially delaying the reporting of claims and
later by significantly accelerating and increasing loss payments
by insurers, including the Company.  The bankruptcy of many
traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement
demands against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but
remain in the tort system.  Currently, in many jurisdictions,
those who allege very serious injury and who can present credible
medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial
settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any
credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates
delayed or placed on an inactive docket.  Prioritizing claims
involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation, contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense
payment patterns experienced by the Company.  The Company's
asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience
also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance
sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through
exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other
participating insurers.

"The Company continues to be involved in coverage litigation
concerning a number of policyholders, some of whom have filed for
bankruptcy, who in some instances have asserted that all or a
portion of their asbestos-related claims are not subject to
aggregate limits on coverage.  In these instances, policyholders
also may assert that each individual bodily injury claim should be
treated as a separate occurrence under the policy.  It is
difficult to predict whether these policyholders will be
successful on both issues.  To the extent both issues are resolved
in a policyholder's favor and other Company defenses are not
successful, the Company's coverage obligations under the policies
at issue would be materially increased and bounded only by the
applicable per-occurrence limits and the number of asbestos bodily
injury claims against the policyholders.  Although the Company has
seen a reduction in the overall risk associated with these
lawsuits, it remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of
these claims.

"Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved
through settlement agreements.  Because many policyholders make
exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of
settlement negotiations.  Settlements involving bankrupt
policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable
to the Company but which could result in settlements for larger
amounts than originally anticipated.  There also may be instances
where a court may not approve a proposed settlement, which may
result in additional litigation and potentially less beneficial
outcomes for the Company.  As in the past, the Company will
continue to pursue settlement opportunities.

"In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have
been launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by
individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the
handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking
damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries.  It
is possible that the filing of other direct actions against
insurers, including the Company, could be made in the future.  It
is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings,
including whether the plaintiffs will be able to sustain these
actions against insurers based on novel legal theories of
liability.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to
these claims and has received favorable rulings in certain
jurisdictions.

"The Company's quarterly asbestos reserve reviews include an
analysis of exposure and claim payment patterns by policyholder
category, as well as recent settlements, policyholder
bankruptcies, judicial rulings and legislative actions.  The
Company also analyzes developing payment patterns among
policyholders in the Home Office and Field Office, and Assumed
Reinsurance and Other categories as well as projected reinsurance
billings and recoveries.  In addition, the Company reviews its
historical gross and net loss and expense paid experience, year-
by-year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations, or
characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid activity.
Conventional actuarial methods are not utilized to establish
asbestos reserves nor have the Company's evaluations resulted in
any way of determining a meaningful average asbestos defense or
indemnity payment.

"The completion of these reviews and analyses in the third
quarters of 2017 and 2016 resulted in a US$225 million increase in
the Company's net asbestos reserves in each period.  In both 2017
and 2016, the reserve increases were primarily driven by increases
in the Company's estimate of projected settlement and defense
costs related to a broad number of policyholders in the Home
Office category due to a higher than previously anticipated level
of litigation activity surrounding mesothelioma claims.  This
increase in the estimate of projected settlement and defense costs
resulted from payment trends that continue to be higher than
previously anticipated due to the impact of the current litigation
environment.

"Over the past decade, the property and casualty insurance
industry, including the Company, has experienced net unfavorable
prior year reserve development with regard to asbestos reserves,
but the Company believes that over that period there has been a
reduction in the volatility associated with the Company's overall
asbestos exposure as the overall asbestos environment has evolved
from one dominated by exposure to significant litigation risks,
particularly coverage disputes relating to policyholders in
bankruptcy who were asserting that their claims were not subject
to the aggregate limits contained in their policies, to an
environment primarily driven by a frequency of litigation related
to individuals with mesothelioma.  The Company's overall view of
the current underlying asbestos environment is essentially
unchanged from recent periods and there remains a high degree of
uncertainty with respect to future exposure to asbestos claims.

"Because each policyholder presents different liability and
coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure
presented by each policyholder at least annually.  Among the
factors which the Company may consider in the course of this
review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of
any umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the
policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the
policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved;
past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on
pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims;
allocated claim adjustment expense; potential role of other
insurance; the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential
non-asbestos claims in any resolution process; and applicable
coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including the
determination as to whether or not an asbestos claim is a
products/completed operation claim subject to an aggregate limit
and the available coverage, if any, for that claim.

"Net asbestos paid loss and loss expenses in the first nine months
of 2017 were US$193 million, compared with US$632 million in the
same period of 2016.  Net asbestos paid loss and loss expenses in
the first nine months of 2016 included the gross settlement
payment related to PPG of US$518 million, US$458 million net of
reinsurance.  Net asbestos reserves were US$1.36 billion at
September 30, 2017, compared with US$1.40 billion at September 30,
2016."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.55BB Liabilities at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded total liabilities of
US$1.55 billion related to asbestos matters at September 30, 2017,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "Honeywell is a defendant in asbestos related
personal injury actions related to two predecessor companies:

  * North American Refractories Company (NARCO), which was sold in
1986, produced refractory products (bricks and cement used in high
temperature applications).  Claimants consist largely of
individuals who allege exposure to NARCO asbestos-containing
refractory products in an occupational setting.

  * Bendix Friction Materials (Bendix) business, which was sold in
2014, manufactured automotive brake parts that contained
chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form.  Claimants consist
largely of individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes
from either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who
performed brake replacements.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Records $920MM NARCO Liabilities
-----------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded US$920 million at
September 30, 2017, in asbestos-related liabilities involving
predecessor company North American Refractories Company (NARCO),
according to Honeywell's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017.

NARCO, which was sold in 1986, produced refractory products
(bricks and cement used in high temperature applications).

The Company states, "In connection with NARCO's emergence from
bankruptcy on April 30, 2013, a federally authorized 524(g) trust
(NARCO Trust) was established for the evaluation and resolution of
all existing and future NARCO asbestos claims. Both Honeywell and
NARCO are protected by a permanent channeling injunction barring
all present and future individual actions in state or federal
courts and requiring all asbestos related claims based on exposure
to NARCO asbestos-containing products to be made against the NARCO
Trust. The NARCO Trust reviews submitted claims and determines
award amounts in accordance with established Trust Distribution
Procedures approved by the Bankruptcy Court which set forth the
criteria claimants must meet to qualify for compensation
including, among other things, exposure and medical criteria that
determine the award amount. In addition, Honeywell provided, and
continues to provide, input to the design of control procedures
for processing NARCO claims, and has on-going audit rights to
review and monitor the claims processor's adherence to the
established requirements of the Trust Distribution Procedures.

"Honeywell is obligated to fund NARCO asbestos claims submitted to
the NARCO Trust which qualify for payment under the Trust
Distribution Procedures (Annual Contribution Claims), subject to
annual caps of $140 million in the years 2017 and 2018 and $145
million for each year thereafter. However, the initial $100
million of claims processed through the NARCO Trust (the Initial
Claims Amount) will not count against the annual cap and any
unused portion of the Initial Claims Amount will roll over to
subsequent years until fully utilized. In 2015, Honeywell filed
suit against the NARCO Trust in Bankruptcy Court alleging breach
of certain provisions of the Trust Agreement and Trust
Distribution Procedures. The parties agreed to dismiss the
proceeding without prejudice pursuant to an 18 month Standstill
Agreement. Claims processing continued during this period subject
to a defined dispute resolution process. The Standstill Agreement
expired on October 12, 2017. Notwithstanding its expiration,
claims processing will continue, and Honeywell will continue to
negotiate and attempt to resolve remaining disputed issues.
Honeywell reserves its right to seek judicial intervention should
negotiations fail or prove futile. Honeywell has not made any
payments to the NARCO Trust for Annual Contribution Claims and
does not anticipate making any such payments for the remainder of
2017.

"Honeywell is also responsible for payments due to claimants
pursuant to settlement agreements reached during the pendency of
the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to
submit claims to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification under
the terms of the settlement agreements and Trust Distribution
Procedures criteria (Pre-established Unliquidated Claims), which
amounts are estimated at $150 million and are expected to be paid
during the initial years of trust operations ($5 million of which
has been paid since the effective date of the NARCO Trust). Such
payments are not subject to the annual cap.

"Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated
liability for Pre-established Unliquidated Claims ($145 million),
as well as unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for
bankruptcy protection and operating and legal costs related to the
Trust (collectively $32 million) and for the estimated value of
future NARCO asbestos claims expected to be asserted against the
NARCO Trust ($743 million). The estimate of future NARCO claims is
based on a commonly accepted methodology used by numerous
bankruptcy courts addressing 524(g) trusts and also reflects
disputes concerning implementation of the Trust Distribution
Procedures by the NARCO Trust, a lack of sufficient trust claims
processing experience, as well as the stay of all NARCO asbestos
claims which remained in place throughout NARCO's Chapter 11 case.
Some critical assumptions underlying this commonly accepted
methodology include claims filing rates, disease criteria and
payment values contained in the Trust Distribution Procedures,
estimated approval rates of claims submitted to the NARCO Trust
and epidemiological studies estimating disease instances. The
estimated value of future NARCO claims was originally established
at the time of the NARCO Chapter 11 filing reflecting claims
expected to be asserted against NARCO over a fifteen year period.
This projection resulted in a range of estimated liability of $743
million to $961 million. We believe that no amount within this
range is a better estimate than any other amount, and accordingly,
we have recorded the minimum amount in the range.

"Our insurance receivable corresponding to the estimated liability
for pending and future NARCO asbestos claims reflects coverage
which reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity
and defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance
policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the
domestic insurance market and the London excess market. We conduct
analyses to estimate the probable amount of insurance that is
recoverable for asbestos claims. While the substantial majority of
our insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual
carriers are insolvent, which has been considered in our analysis
of probable recoveries. We made judgments concerning insurance
coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our
historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent solvency
issues surrounding insurers.

"Projecting future events is subject to many uncertainties that
could cause the NARCO-related asbestos liabilities or assets to be
higher or lower than those projected and recorded. Given the
uncertainties, we review our estimates periodically, and update
them based on our experience and other relevant factors.
Similarly, we will reevaluate our projections concerning our
probable insurance recoveries in light of any changes to the
projected liability or other developments that may impact
insurance recoveries."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $631MM Bendix Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded US$631 million at September
30, 2017, in asbestos-related liabilities involving predecessor
company Bendix Friction Materials (Bendix) business, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2017.

Bendix, which was sold in 2014, manufactured automotive brake
parts that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form.

The Company states, "Claimants consist largely of individuals who
allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or
being in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake
replacements.

"It is not possible to predict whether resolution values for
Bendix-related asbestos claims will increase, decrease or
stabilize in the future.

"Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated
liability for resolution of pending (claims actually filed as of
the financial statement date) and future Bendix-related asbestos
claims.  We have valued Bendix pending and future claims using
average resolution values for the previous five years.  We update
the resolution values used to estimate the cost of Bendix pending
and future claims during the fourth quarter each year.

"The liability for future claims represents the estimated value of
future asbestos related bodily injury claims expected to be
asserted against Bendix over the next five years.  Such estimated
cost of future Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic
claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease
classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the
previous five years.  In light of the uncertainties inherent in
making long-term projections, as well as certain factors unique to
friction product asbestos claims, we do not believe that we have a
reasonable basis for estimating asbestos claims beyond the next
five years.  The methodology used to estimate the liability for
future claims is similar to that used to estimate the liability
for future NARCO-related asbestos claims.

"Our insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for
settlement of pending and future Bendix asbestos claims reflects
coverage which is provided by a large number of insurance policies
written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic
insurance market and the London excess market.  Based on our
ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance
receivables are recorded in the financial statements simultaneous
with the recording of the estimated liability for the underlying
asbestos claims.  This determination is based on our analysis of
the underlying insurance policies, our historical experience with
our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency of our insurers,
judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs, and
our consideration of the impacts of any settlements reached with
our insurers.

"Honeywell believes it has sufficient insurance coverage and
reserves to cover all pending Bendix-related asbestos claims and
Bendix-related asbestos claims estimated to be filed within the
next five years.  Although it is impossible to predict the outcome
of either pending or future Bendix-related asbestos claims, we do
not believe that such claims would have a material adverse effect
on our consolidated financial position in light of our insurance
coverage and our prior experience in resolving such claims.  If
the rate and types of claims filed, the average resolution value
of such claims and the period of time over which claim settlements
are paid (collectively, the Variable Claims Factors) do not
substantially change, Honeywell would not expect future Bendix-
related asbestos claims to have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations or operating cash flows in any fiscal year.
No assurances can be given, however, that the Variable Claims
Factors will not change."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 32,075 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. has 32,075 pending asbestos-related claims as of
September 30, 2017, according to the Company's Form 8-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2017.

Crane Co. states, "As of September 30, 2017, the Company was a
defendant in cases filed in numerous state and federal courts
alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos.

"Of the 32,075 pending claims as of September 30, 2017,
approximately 18,200 claims were pending in New York,
approximately 700 claims were pending in Texas, approximately
1,500 claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 200
claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which
legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims that
can proceed to trial on the merits.

"The Company has tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts
by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court.
The Company further has pursued appeals of certain adverse jury
verdicts that have resulted in reversals in favor of the defense."

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://is.gd/0wDUoA


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "DeLisle" Suit v. Crane Co. Ongoing at Oct. 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. disclosed in its Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2017, that briefing in an
asbestos suit filed by Richard DeLisle remains ongoing.

Crane Co. states, "On September 17, 2013, a Fort Lauderdale,
Florida state court jury in the Richard DeLisle claim found the
Company responsible for 16 percent of an US$8 million verdict.
The trial court denied all parties' post-trial motions, and
entered judgment against the Company in the amount of US$1.3
million.  The Company has appealed.  Oral argument on the appeal
took place on February 16, 2016.  On September 14, 2016 a panel of
the Florida Court of Appeals reversed and entered judgment in
favor of the Company.  Plaintiff filed with the Court of Appeals a
motion for rehearing and/or certification of an appeal to the
Florida Supreme Court, which the Court denied on November 9, 2016.
Plaintiffs have subsequently requested review by the Supreme Court
of Florida.  Plaintiffs' motion was granted on July 11, 2017.  The
briefing in this matter remains ongoing."

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://is.gd/0wDUoA


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. to Seek Further Review of "Poage" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. said in its Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 23, 2017, that it intends to seek
further review of a ruling in an asbestos suit filed by James
Poage.

Crane Co. states, "On July 2, 2015, a St. Louis, Missouri, state
court jury in the James Poage claim entered a US$1.5 million
verdict for compensatory damages against the Company.  The jury
also awarded exemplary damages against the Company in the amount
of US$10 million.  The Company filed a motion seeking to reduce
the verdict to account for the verdict set-offs.  That motion was
denied, and judgment was entered against the Company in the amount
of US$10.8 million.  The Company initiated an appeal.  Oral
argument was held on December 13, 2016.  In an opinion dated May
2, 2017, a Missouri Court of Appeals panel affirmed the judgment
in all respects.  The Court of Appeals denied the Company's motion
to transfer the case to the Supreme Court of Missouri.  The
Company sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of
Missouri, which denied that request.  The Company plans to seek
further review of that ruling by the Supreme Court of the United
States."

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://is.gd/0wDUoA


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Rabovsky" Lawsuit vs. Crane Co. Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. still faces legal action related to the asbestos claim
of Valent Rabovsky, according to the Company's Form 8-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2017.

Crane Co. states, "On February 9, 2016, a Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, federal court jury found the Company responsible for
a 30 percent share of a US$1.085 million verdict in the Valent
Rabovsky claim.  The court ordered briefing on the amount of the
judgment.  The Company argued, among other things, that settlement
offsets reduce the award to plaintiff under Pennsylvania law.  A
further hearing was held April 26, 2016, after which the court
denied the Company's request and entered judgment in the amount of
US$0.4 million.  The Company filed post-trial motions, which were
denied in two decisions issued on August 26, 2016 and September
28, 2016.  The Company is pursuing an appeal to the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals, which was argued on June 12, 2017.  On September
27, 2017, the Court entered an order asking the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania to decide one of the issues raised in the Company's
appeal.  The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has yet to rule on
their request."

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://is.gd/0wDUoA


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briefing Ongoing in "Coulbourn" Suit v Crane Co
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. disclosed in its Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2017, that briefing on
matters involving the asbestos-related claim of George Coulbourn
is ongoing.

Crane Co. states, "On April 22, 2016, a Phoenix, Arizona federal
court jury found the Company responsible for a 20 percent share of
a US$9 million verdict in the George Coulbourn claim, and further
awarded exemplary damages against the Company in the amount of
US$5 million.  The jury also awarded compensatory and exemplary
damages against the other defendant present at trial.  The court
entered judgment against the Company in the amount of US$6.8
million.  The Company filed post-trial motions, which were denied
on September 20, 2016.  The Company is pursuing an appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Briefing is ongoing."

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://is.gd/0wDUoA


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Anisansel" Claim v. Crane Co. Settled in Aug.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. disclosed in its Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2017, that it has settled
the matters involving the claim of Geoffrey Anisansel in August
2017.

Crane Co. states, "On June 30, 2017, a New York City state court
jury entered a US$20 million verdict against the Company in the
Geoffrey Anisansel claim.  The Company settled the matter in
August 2017.  The settlement is reflected in the third quarter
2017 indemnity amount."

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://is.gd/0wDUoA


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX, Units Still Face Suits at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and six of its subsidiaries continue to defend
themselves against a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-
related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to
products manufactured with components that contained asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "These components were acquired from third
party suppliers, and were not manufactured by the Company or any
of the defendant subsidiaries.  To date, the majority of the
Company's settlements and legal costs, except for costs of
coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a
portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance,
subject to applicable deductibles.  However, the Company cannot
predict whether and to what extent insurance will be available to
continue to cover these settlements and legal costs, or how
insurers may respond to claims that are tendered to them.

"Claims have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United
States.  Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed
without payment.  The balance have been settled for various
insignificant amounts.  Only one case has been tried, resulting in
a verdict for the Company's business unit.  No provision has been
made in the financial statements of the Company, other than for
insurance deductibles in the ordinary course, and the Company does
not currently believe the asbestos-related claims will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/gJ6JEq


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l Paid $3.9MM for Asbestos Expenses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. recorded US$3.9 million expense for
asbestos-related litigation for the nine months ended September
30, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "We are involved in a number of claims and
lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses.  Insurance
coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such
claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and
lawsuits, based on experience involving similar matters and
specific facts known.

"Some of these claims and lawsuits allege personal injury or
health problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was
integrated into certain of our products.  We have never
manufactured asbestos and have not incorporated asbestos-
containing components into our products for several decades.  A
substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been
covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been
dismissed without payment.  The remainder of our closed cases have
been resolved for amounts that are not material, individually or
in the aggregate.  Our defense costs for asbestos-related claims
are generally covered by insurance; however, our insurance
coverage for settlements and judgments for asbestos-related claims
varies depending on several factors and are subject to policy
limits, so we may have greater financial exposure for future
settlements and judgments.

"For the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, expense
for asbestos-related litigation was US$3.9 million and US$2.3
million, respectively, net of probable insurance recoveries, for
known and future asbestos-related litigation and is recorded in
Losses and other expenses, net in the Consolidated Statements of
Operations.  For the three months ended September 30, 2017 and
2016, expense for asbestos-related litigation was US$1.5 million
and US$0.4 million, respectively, net of probable insurance
recoveries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/98BiwY


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Units Had 600 Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------
Pentair plc's subsidiaries are still facing approximately 600
asbestos-related claims as of September 30, 2017, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "Our subsidiaries and numerous other companies
are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials.  These cases
typically involve product liability claims based primarily on
allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial
products that either contained asbestos or were attached to or
used with asbestos-containing components manufactured by third-
parties.  Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds of
corporate defendants.  While we have observed an increase in the
number of these lawsuits over the past several years, including
lawsuits by plaintiffs with mesothelioma-related claims, a large
percentage of these suits have not presented viable legal claims
and, as a result, have been dismissed by the courts.  Our
historical strategy has been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at
having unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and, where appropriate,
settling suits before trial.  Although a large percentage of
litigated suits have been dismissed, we cannot predict the extent
to which we will be successful in resolving lawsuits in the
future.

"As of September 30, 2017, there were approximately 600 claims
outstanding against our subsidiaries.  This amount is not adjusted
for claims that are not actively being prosecuted, identified
incorrect defendants, or duplicated other actions, which would
ultimately reflect our current estimate of the number of viable
claims made against us, our affiliates, or entities for which we
assumed responsibility in connection with acquisitions or
divestitures.  In addition, the amount does not include certain
claims pending against third parties for which we have been
provided an indemnification."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/4Gs1EH


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amici Curiae OK'd to Appear in NYCAL
-----------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, has granted amici curiae Business Council of New York
State, Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York, New York Insurance
Association, Inc., Northeast Retail Lumber Association, Coalition
for Litigation Justice, Inc., Chamber of Commerce of the United
States of America, National Association of Manufacturers, NFIB
Small Business Legal Center, American Tort Reform Association,
Washington Legal Foundation and American Insurance Association
leave to appear in support of the defendants-appellants in
connection with the appealed case IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS
LITIGATION, Motion No. M-5392, Index Nos. 40000/88, 782000/17,
(N.Y. App. Div. 1st).

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 21, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/i6XET5 from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Summary Judgment in "Terry" Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the
district court's summary judgment on Dewey Steven Terry's Eighth
Amendment claim because Terry failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether "he himself was being exposed to
unreasonably high levels" of asbestos and lead.

The Ninth Circuit maintains that the district court properly
granted summary judgment on Terry's state law claims because Terry
did not comply with the claim-presentment requirement of the
California Government Claims Act. The Ninth Circuit concludes that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Terry's
motion to alter or amend the judgment because Terry failed to
demonstrate any grounds for such relief.

The appealed case is DEWEY STEVEN TERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
PHILLIP EARLEY; et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 17-15184, (9th
Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 21, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/E44UBN from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favoring MCIC, W&G Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirms the judgment of
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City granting summary judgment in
favor of two Defendants, MCIC, Inc., (formerly the McCormick
Asbestos Company) and Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust
(formerly the Wallace & Gale Company) in the appealed case KATHRYN
A. DAVENPORT, ET AL., v. MCIC, INC., ET AL., No. 1204, September
Term, 2016, (Md. Ct. Spec. App.).

On June 28, 2004, Joseph W. Davenport filed an initial complaint
against the Appellees, alleging that he suffered from mesothelioma
and asbestosis as a result of occupational exposure to asbestos-
containing products associated with McCormick and W&G. Mr.
Davenport died on August 3, 2013.

On October 18, 2013, the case was amended to include a survival
action claim and a wrongful death claim on behalf of Mr.
Davenport's surviving spouse, Kathryn A. Davenport, and surviving
son, Joseph W. Davenport.

The Appellees filed separate motions for summary judgment on
December 22, 2014, arguing that the Appellants had not produced
evidence specifically linking either W&G or McCormick's installers
to Davenport at any particular time or place.

The circuit court found that the Plaintiffs had not produced
evidence that was sufficient to create an issue of fact for the
jury and granted the Appellees' summary judgment motion. The
appeal raises the single issue of whether the circuit court erred
in granting summary judgment to the Appellees.

Joseph Davenport worked at Bethlehem Steel's Key Highway Shipyard
("KHS") from 1956-1958 and 1960-1972, as a laborer and outside
machinist. After leaving KHS, he was employed at the Glen L.
Martin Company and thereafter at Baltimore Gas & Electric Company,
until his retirement in 2000 at the age of 62.

Mr. Davenport's co-worker, John McCray, testified that he and Mr.
Davenport worked together every day between 1963 and 1972. Mr.
McCray initially testified that Mr. Davenport worked on all of the
ships at KHS, but later testified that Mr. Davenport worked on all
of the ships at some point between 1963 and 1972. Mr. McCray
identified certain ships on which he specifically recalled Mr.
Davenport working, and Mr. McCray further testified about
insulation work on five of those ships.

Mr. McCray acknowledged that he could not recall whether Mr.
Davenport had worked on the S.S. Philadelphia or the conversion of
the U.S.N.S. Brewster. Mr. McCray testified that Davenport
primarily worked in the engine rooms of ships in close proximity
to pipe insulation installers.

The repair work performed at KHS frequently involved removing and
replacing insulation, which often contained asbestos, on large
commercial and military ships. Insulation work was done both by
Bethlehem Steel employees and various outside contractors,
including McCormick, W&G, Armstrong, Hopeman Brothers, and Lloyd
E. Mitchell. W&G and McCormick were two installer-suppliers of
both asbestos and non-asbestos-containing insulation products.
Both W&G and McCormick were based in Baltimore and both provided
installation services at KHS.

Harry Myers, a pipefitter at KHS, testified about W&G and
McCormick's presence at KHS, explaining that both companies had
trailers at KHS, used trucks to deliver their products to KHS, and
generally had a permanent presence at KHS. Mr. Myers testified
that contractor Porter Hayden was at KHS "a little bit less than"
W&G and McCormick. Mr. Myers testified that he saw an Armstrong
trailer "once in awhile" but acknowledged that he did "not
remember how often." Mr. Myers did not testify as to the actual
relative volume of ships serviced by each insulation contractor.

Electrician Ed Pipken testified that W&G did the majority of the
insulation work at KHS and was "almost like a Bethlehem Steel
worker." Additional witnesses testified to the presence of
McCormick and W&G workers and trucks at KHS during the relevant
time period.

The Appellants acknowledge that they did not present direct
evidence of which specific insulation companies worked in close
proximity to Mr. Davenport. Rather, the Appellants argued that
evidence relating to the number of ships in which Mr. Davenport
worked in the engine room in close proximity to pipe insulators,
combined with evidence the Appellants presented as to McCormick
and W&G's presence at KHS, is sufficient to permit the case to
survive the Appellees' motion for summary judgment.

The Court of Special Appeals notes that Mr. Davenport, who worked
in close proximity to insulation contractors but did not himself
perform insulation work, is what the Court of Appeals has "termed
a 'bystander,' in that he did not work directly with the asbestos
products but was in the vicinity of where such products were
used." In order for Mr. Davenport to have a legally sufficient
cause of action against W&G and McCormick, "he must prove that the
Appellees' products were a substantial causative factor in his
illness and ultimate death."

The Appellants aver that the circuit court erred in its findings
that the Appellants had failed to present sufficient evidence to
establish that Mr. Davenport was actually exposed to McCormick
and/or W&G's asbestos-containing products.

The Appellants argue that because Mr. Davenport worked in close
proximity to pipe insulation contractors in ship engine and boiler
rooms on all or nearly all of the ships at KHS, an inference can
be drawn that Mr. Davenport was exposed to the Appellees'
products. The Appellants argue that the evidence presented
demonstrates that Mr. Davenport "worked in proximity to virtually
every pipe insulation job performed at the shipyard between 1963
and 1972" and that this evidence renders "it impossible for Mr.
Davenport to not have been exposed to asbestos-containing products
being installed by McCormick and [W&G] on scores of ships on a
very frequent basis."

The Court of Special Appeals finds that none of the evidence
presented by the Appellants, with the exception of Mr. Pipken's
testimony, addresses the actual percentage of work performed by
the Appellees at KHS. Given the inconsistencies in Mr. Pipken's
testimony, it does not fill the evidentiary gaps.

Moreover, even if the Court were to interpret the evidence
presented by the Appellants as establishing that the Appellees, in
fact, performed a majority of the insulation work at KHS during
the relevant time frame, this would not support the inference that
Mr. Davenport was exposed to the Appellees' products or employees.

The Court of Special Appeals holds that circumstantial evidence
cannot, in certain circumstances, be sufficient to generate a jury
question on the issues of product/installer identification and
substantial factor causation. The Court maintains the evidence
produced by the Appellants was insufficient to establish a
rational inference the Mr. Davenport was exposed to asbestos-
containing products installed by the Appellees' employees.

The Court of Special Appeals observes that no clear test can be
applied to determine what amount of circumstantial evidence is
sufficient to prove bystander exposure to asbestos and the Court
do not presume to set forth the precise quantum of circumstantial
evidence which would support such a rational inference.

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 20, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/Kj1zm8 from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WC Appeals Panel Affirms Dismissal of "Schuler"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme
Court of Tennessee affirms the trial court's dismissal of the case
styled DOUGLAS E. SHULER v. EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY ET AL., No.
E2016-02292-SC-R3-WC, (Tenn. Workers' Comp. Panel), after
determining that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction regarding
Mr. Shuler's workers' compensation claim.

Eastman and the Second Injury Fund each filed a motion to dismiss
Mr. Shuler's claim, asserting that the Court of Workers'
Compensation Claims had original and exclusive jurisdiction over
the subject matter of the claim. Eastman argued that the trial
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Shuler's claim
because his injury occurred after July 1, 2014. Eastman took the
position that the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims had
exclusive jurisdiction over Mr. Shuler's claim by reason of his
2015 diagnosis date.

The trial court granted the motions and dismissed Mr. Shuler's
claim. Mr. Shuler timely appealed. The appeal has been referred to
the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and
a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51.

The plaintiff, Douglas E. Shuler, filed this action seeking
workers' compensation benefits in the Circuit Court for Sullivan
County against his former employer, Eastman Chemical Company and
the Second Injury Fund, Tennessee Department of Labor and
Workforce Development. In his complaint, Mr. Shuler alleged that
he was exposed to cigarette smoke, asbestos, toluene, and other
harmful substances during the course of his employment with
Eastman.

Mr. Shuler further alleged that "on or about December 8, 2015, Mr.
Shuler discovered that he was suffering from cancer arising out of
and in the course and scope of the Mr. Shuler's employment with
the Defendant, Eastman Chemical Company, as a result of his
exposure to various chemicals." Mr. Shuler also alleged that "as a
result of the discovery of the occupational disease... the
Plaintiff was rendered disabled to work and earn wages."
Therefore, according to his complaint, Mr. Shuler became disabled
from working at the time of his diagnosis in December 2015.

The Court points out that in the case of a claim arising from an
occupational disease, the date of the accident or injury is the
date on which the employee becomes partially or totally
incapacitated for work. Since Mr. Shuler's injury occurred after
July 1, 2014, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-6-237 is
applicable to his claim.

The Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-6-237 (2014), provides in
pertinent part: "There is created the court of workers'
compensation claims in the bureau of workers' compensation, which
shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all contested
claims for workers' compensation benefits when the date of the
alleged injury is on or after July 1, 2014."

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the trial court properly
determined that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction
regarding Mr. Shuler's workers' compensation claim because the
Court of Workers' Compensation Claims had original and exclusive
jurisdiction. The trial court thereby properly dismissed Mr.
Shuler's claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 17, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/H8rFbk from Leagle.com.

David H. Dunaway, LaFollette, Tennessee, for the appellant,
Douglas E. Shuler.

Russell W. Adkins, Kingsport, Tennessee, for the appellee, Eastman
Chemical Company.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Andree S.
Blumstein, Solicitor General; and Alexander S. Rieger, Assistant
Attorney General, for the appellee, Second Injury Fund, Tennessee
Department of Labor and Workforce Development.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims v. AEPC Dismissed in "Stuart"
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington directs that a final judgment be entered
dismissing all claims against Defendant American Electric Power
Company, Inc. in the case styled SAMUEL PRICE STUART and ANITA
LOUISE STUART, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. ABB, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-01508-TSZ, (W.D. Wash.),
pursuant to the Stipulation between the Plaintiffs and American
Electric Power Company.

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 17, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/SzwEEP from Leagle.com.

Samuel Price Stuart, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin H. Adams,
DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP, pro hac vice.

Samuel Price Stuart, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Braly,
DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP, pro hac vice, Charles W. Branham, III,
DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP, pro hac vice, David W. Henderson, DEAN
OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP, pro hac vice, Lucas W.H. Garrett, SCHROETER
GOLDMARK & BENDER & Thomas J. Breen, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER.

Anita Louise Stuart, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin H. Adams,
DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin D. Braly, DEAN
OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP, pro hac vice, Charles W. Branham, III, DEAN
OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP, pro hac vice, David W. Henderson, DEAN OMAR &
BRANHAM, LLP, pro hac vice, Lucas W.H. Garrett, SCHROETER GOLDMARK
& BENDER & Thomas J. Breen, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER.

ABB Inc, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey M. Odom, LANE POWELL PC
& Tim D. Wackerbarth, LANE POWELL PC.

Autozone Inc, Defendant, represented by Kyle M. Butler, SOHA &
LANG PS & Megan E. Graves, Soha & Lang, PS.

Bechtel Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kevin C.
Baumgardner, CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP &
Todd T. Williams, CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE
LLP.

Boise Cascade Company, Defendant, represented by C. Todd Koebele,
HKM PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, pro hac vice, Kevin C. Baumgardner,
CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP & Jeff Bone,
CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP.

BW/IP Inc, Defendant, represented by Christine E. Dinsdale, SOHA &
LANG PS.

CBS Corporation, Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher S.
Marks, SEDGWICK LLP & Erin P. Fraser, SEDGWICK LLP.

Cleaver-Brooks Inc, Defendant, represented by Timothy Kost
Thorson, CARNEY BADLEY SPELLMAN.

ConocoPhillips Company, Defendant, represented by Michael Edward
Ricketts, GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL.

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by Diane Catherine
Babbitt, FOLEY & MANSFIELD & Melissa K. Roeder, FOLEY & MANSFIELD.

Ericsson Inc, Defendant, represented by Ryan W. Vollans, WILLIAMS
KASTNER & Nicole R. MacKenzie, WILLIAMS KASTNER.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christopher S. Marks, SEDGWICK LLP & Erin P. Fraser, SEDGWICK LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher S.
Marks, SEDGWICK LLP & Erin P. Fraser, SEDGWICK LLP.

Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP, Defendant, represented by
Brian D. Zeringer, SEDGWICK LLP, Christopher S. Marks, SEDGWICK
LLP & Erin P. Fraser, SEDGWICK LLP.

The Gorman-Rupp Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher S.
Marks, SEDGWICK LLP & Erin P. Fraser, SEDGWICK LLP.

Gould Electronics Inc, Defendant, represented by Allen Eraut,
RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC, John Michael Mattingly, RIZZO
MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC & Shaun Mary Morgan, RIZZO MATTINGLY
BOSWORTH PC.

Graybar Electric Company Inc, Defendant, represented by George S.
Pitcher, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP & Marc Marshall
Carlton, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP.

Honeywell International Inc, Defendant, represented by Ethan M.
Kutinsky, PERKINS COIE & Mary P. Gaston, PERKINS COIE.

IMO Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne,
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & Michael Edward Ricketts, GORDON THOMAS
HONEYWELL.

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. Craig,
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP & Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON REES
SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Richard G. Gawlowski, WILSON SMITH COCHRAN & DICKERSON.
Occidental Chemical Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ronald
C. Gardner, GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

OfficeMax Incorporated, Defendant, represented by C. Todd Koebele,
HKM PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, pro hac vice, Kevin C. Baumgardner,
CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP & Jeff Bone,
CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP.

The Okonite Company Inc, Defendant, represented by Marc Marshall
Carlton, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP & Randy J. Aliment,
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP.

Phelps Dodge Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by Mallory L.
Satre, CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP, Thomas
A. Maraz, GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, pro hac vice & William Randolph
Squires, III, CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP.

Phillips 66 Company, Defendant, represented by Michael Edward
Ricketts, GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL.

Riley Power Inc, Defendant, represented by Malika Johnson,
WILLIAMS KASTNER & Rodney L. Umberger, Jr., WILLIAMS KASTNER.

Rockwell Automation Inc, Defendant, represented by Diane Catherine
Babbitt, FOLEY & MANSFIELD & Melissa K. Roeder, FOLEY & MANSFIELD.

RSCC Wire & Cable LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael Edward
Ricketts, GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL.

Schneider Electric USA Inc, Defendant, represented by Alice Coles
Serko, SEDGWICK LLP & Barry Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP.

Sequoia Ventures Inc, Defendant, represented by Kevin C.
Baumgardner, CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP &
Todd T. Williams, CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE
LLP.

Siemens Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. Craig,
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP & Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON REES
SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP.

Viad Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ronald C. Gardner,
GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

Viking Pump Inc, Defendant, represented by Diane Catherine
Babbitt, FOLEY & MANSFIELD.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, represented by Allen Eraut, RIZZO
MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC, John Michael Mattingly, RIZZO MATTINGLY
BOSWORTH PC & Shaun Mary Morgan, RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

Yuba Heat Transfer LLC, Defendant, represented by G. William Shaw,
K&L GATES LLP & R. Dirk Bernhardt, SEDGWICK LLP.

Pennsylvania Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jeanne F.
Loftis, BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC.



                             *********


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  * * *