CAR_Public/171229.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Friday, December 29, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 258



                            Headlines

AAY SECURITY: "Borne" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ACCREDITED DEBT: "Marinez" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
AFNI INC: "Heerema" Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
ALCO COLLECTIONS: Faces "Spencer" Suit in S.D. of Texas
ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Underway

ALTERATION GROUP: Fails to Pay Wages, "Arnutouskaya" Suit Says
ALTRIA GROUP: 7 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial Thru Dec. 31
ALTRIA GROUP: Smoking and Health Class Suits in Canada Underway
ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Still Faces 4 Lights & Ultra Lights Suits
ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Argument Heard in "Larsen" Case Appeal

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Antitrust Suits and DOJ Probe Still Ongoing
ANTHEM INC: Cross Motions for Partial Summary Judgment Pending
ANTHEM INC: Bid to Dismiss ERISA Class Suit Still Pending
ARCADIA TRANSIT: Underpays Workers, Hovanesian Claims
ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Drop Merger Suit Underway

ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Agreement Reached in 4 Class Action Suits
AVIS BUDGET: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern District of Florida
BAY TERRACE: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Vargas Alleges
BEHR PROCESS: Faces "Surprenant" Suit in N.D. of Georgia
BOBCAT COMPANY: Faces Autumn Suit Over Defective Track Loaders

BOFI HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Action Suit
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Bid to Drop 3rd "Zamir" Complaint Pending
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Discovery Underway in "Nieder" Class Suit
BUFFALO WILD: New York Employee Class Action Suit Underway
CELGENE CORP: IUB Class Action Suit in New Jersey Underway

CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Muransky" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
CHICO'S FAS: "Altman" Class Action Suit Ongoing
CHICO'S FAS: De Minimis Deal in "Ackerman" Suit Okayed
CHICO'S FAS: De Minimis Deal in "Calleros" Suit Okayed
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Class Suits by 2 Credit Unions Consolidated

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: "Gordon" and "Lawson" Suits Consolidated
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: NY and CO Shareholders Suits Still Ongoing
CHRISTOPHER & BANKS: $1.475MM Contributed to Settlement Fund
CMS ENERGY: Gas Index Price Reporting Suit Still Ongoing
CR BARD: Continues to Defend Suits over Hernia Products

CR BARD: Suits over Women's Products Underway
CR BARD: Continues to Defend Against Filter Product Claims
CR BARD: "Tanguma" Class Action Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
CREDIT ONE: Faces "Beitler" Suit in Southern District of Florida
DOORDASH INC: Faces "Austin" Suit in Dist. of Massachusetts

EQUIFAX INC: Faces D.L. Evans Bank Suit in N.D. of Georgia
ERIE INDEMNITY: Case Dismissal Order Under Appeal to 3rd Circuit
EVINE LIVE: Customer Class Action in New York Ongoing
EVINE LIVE: TCPA Class Action in California Underway
FAMOUS BOURBON: "Richardson" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class

FEDCHEX RECOVERY: Faces "Spencer" Suit in S.D. of Texas
FIRST ENERGY: "Ewing" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
FIVE BOROUGH: Stepanov Seeks Minimum Wages, OT under Labor Law
GC SERIVCES: Faces "Fligman" Suit in Eastern District of NY
GC SERVICES: "Kausar" Suit Seeks to Certify Class

GREATBANC TRUST: "McMaken" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
GTS HOLDINGS: Pierrot Seeks Minimum Wages, OT under Labor Law
HP INC: Additional Bid to Compel Arbitration Filed in "Forsyth"
HP INC: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Drop Firmware Update Suit
I.Q. DATA: "Dees" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA

INTEL CORP: Appeal in Calif. Shareholders Suit Still Pending
ITURAN LOCATION: Israeli Class Action Suit Ongoing
JC PENNEY: $97.5MM Deal in Securities Class Suit Awaits Final OK
JC PENNEY: Awaits Final Court Approval of $4.5MM ERISA Case Deal
JC PENNEY: Deal in Calif. Suit Pending, Illinois Suit Resolved

LOUISIANA: "Hamilton" Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
MARVEL TECHNOLOGY: March Trial Date in Shareholder Suit
MATTEL INC: Securities Lawsuits Consolidated
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: "Moodie" Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
MDC PARTNERS: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismissed Appeal

MDC PARTNERS: Case Management Judge Appointed in Canada Suit
MDC PARTNERS: Seeks to Determine Scope of Class Definition
MDL 2437: USG Still Faces Wallboard Price Fixing Suits
MICHIGAN: "Salem" Suit Seeks Class Certification
MICROSOFT CORP: Continues to Defend British Columbia Class Suit

MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Suit Still Dormant
MIDLAND CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
ML AUTOMOTIVE: "Bernard" Suit Seeks Conditional Certification
MONSANTO COMPANY: "Koons" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2741
NCL CORPORATION: Certification of Collective Action Sought

NEULION INC: Bid to Consolidate Nevada Class Action Suits Pending
NEW AGE: Has Sent Spam Advertisements, "Abedi" Action Claims
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: "Nguyen" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
O'REILLY AUTO: Court Denies Class Certification in "Davidson"
OLSON RESEARCH: "Fischbein" Suit Seeks to Certify Class

PEOPLE 2.0: "Duran" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
PETMED EXPRESS: Securities Suit Ongoing in Florida
PHD FITNESS: Faces "Bohr" Suit in Northern District of Illinois
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Minnesota Class Suit Okayed
QUALITY SYSTEMS: 9th Cir. En Banc Denies Petition for Rehearing

QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Court Certifies California Consumers Class
SAL-MARK RESTAURANT: Cruz Submits Proposed Stipulation & Order
SERVICE CORP: Dismissal of "Moulton" Suit under Appeal
SERVICE CORP: Agreement in Principle Reached in "Allard" Suit
SMARTHEAT INC: Settles Class Action Suit for $120,000

SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: New Trial Sought in Arkansas Royalty Suit
STEIN MART: "Sperling" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
TERRAFORM POWER: Jan. 31 Hearing on $14.8MM Deal in "Chamblee"
TILLYS INC: $6.2MM Estimated Loss for "Minniti" Case Settlement
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Suits over ET Plus System Still Ongoing

TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Stayed
THOMAS AGENCY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Abby" Action Claims
TOYOTA MOTOR: "Salas" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
TRU-FLEX METAL: Adams Pointe Suit Seeks to Certify Class
UNITED STATES: Court Nixed Catholic Benefits Association's Suit

UNITIL CORP: Mass. Appeals Court Drops Town of Lunenburg Suit
VAN WYK: Class Certification Bid Nixed as Parties Reach Accord
VOYA FINANCIAL: Faces "Barnes" Suit Over Breach of Contract
WALGREENS BOOTS: Class Certification Bid in Chicago Suit Underway
WALGREENS BOOTS: Pennsylvania Class Action Suits Still Ongoing

WELLS FARGO: Continues to Defend RMBS Investors' Class Suit
WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL: "Torres" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
WESTERN DIGITAL: Discovery in SD Cards Class Action Suit Stayed
WESTERN DIGITAL: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Action Denied
WINDHAVEN INSURANCE: Faces "Gregory Haskin" Suit in S.D. of Fla.

WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Settlement in "Epstein" Case Has Final Okay


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Affirms Judgment Favoring Pneumo Abex
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Order vs. Cleaver-Brooks Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Equity LifeStyle, DAs Continue Discussions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Had $908MM Claim Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Faces 1,500 Cases at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Liability Upped to $35.2MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Energy Still Assessing Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Still Has Less Than 500 Cases at Sept 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Still Faces Asbestos Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $25.1MM Libby Costs at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consolidated Edison Accrues US$8MM Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Had US$80.0MM Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Expects Additional Exposure at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BGE Still Defends Asbestos Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Has $44.4MM Asbestos Coverage at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Still Defend Suits at Sept30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Fuels Still Faces Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 27,000 Claims Pending at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Has US$875.5MM Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP3.8MM for North East Asbestos Victims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Materials Removed in Minister's Home
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fiji Lacks Asbestos Awareness
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Endanger Children Playing Xmas Decors
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foundry Job Exposed Husband to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Neyland Couple Sue for Asbestos-Related Injuries

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Summary Judgment in Asbestos Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Letter Suspected to Contain Asbestos Sent to DHB
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Points Accurate Mesothelioma Testing


                            *********


AAY SECURITY: "Borne" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Darin Borne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AAY Security LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00510 (E.D. Tex.,
December 4, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Darin Borne is a resident of Beaumont, Texas. He was
hired by Defendant around September 2015 to work as a security
officer.

Defendant is a security company that provides trained
professional security officers to maritime, petrochemical, and
refinery facilities in the United States, including at Cheniere
Energy, Inc.'s Sabine Pass LNG Terminal in Cameron, Louisiana.
Defendant offers a variety of security services, including, if
requested, the provision of an around-the-clock, twenty-four hour
per day security presence at Defendant's customers' facilities.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alex Mabry, Esq.
      THE MABRY LAW FIRM, PLLC
      10320 Sommerville Avenue
      Houston, TX 77041
      Tel: (832) 350-8335
      Fax: (832) 831-2460
      E-mail: amabry@mabrylaw.com


ACCREDITED DEBT: "Marinez" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Anna Marinez and John Brooks, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Accredited Debt Relief, LLC, Case
No. 2:17-cv-14419 (S.D. Fla., December 4, 2017), seek injunctive
relief, requiring Defendant to cease all solicitation text-
messaging activities to cellular telephones without first
obtaining prior express written consent, as well as an award of
statutory damages to the members of the Classes under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, costs, and reasonable
attorney's fees.

Plaintiff Marinez is a natural person residing in the City of
Chicago in the State of Illinois.

Plaintiff Brooks is a natural person residing in the City of Port
Saint Lucie in the State of Florida.

Defendant is a company that specializes in assisting consumers
with various debt-relief programs and matching them to the
appropriate debt-settlement company. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
      HIRALDO P.A.
      401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Tel: (954) 400-4713
      E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

          - and -

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN P.A.
      201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
      Miami, FL 333131
      Tel: (888) 333-9427
      Fax: (888) 498-8946


AFNI INC: "Heerema" Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GEORGE E. HEEREMA, on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AFNI, INC. and JOHN
DOES 1 to 10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00244-JBC
(D.N.J.), Mr. Heerema, on consent of Defendant, will move the
Court for an Order certifying this case to proceed as a class
action and granting preliminary approval of the Parties' class
settlement agreement, on behalf of a class of:

   "all persons who reside in the State of New Jersey to whom
   AFNI, Inc. mailed a written communication, in connection with
   its attempt to collect a debt owed to Sprint, which included a
   statement that "[p]ayments made electronically to Afni may be
   subject to a $4.95 processing fee" during the period beginning
   January 14, 2015, and ending January 14, 2016."

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

Attorneys for George E. Heerema:

          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
          Telephone: (973) 379 7500

               - and -

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 200
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273 7117


ALCO COLLECTIONS: Faces "Spencer" Suit in S.D. of Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alco Collections.
The case is styled Monique Spencer, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alco Collections and
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-03845 (S.D. Tex,
December 21, 2017).

Alco Collections, is a licensed and bonded full service
commercial collection agency serving Louisiana business's
collection needs since 1987.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan David Kandelshein, Esq.
   The Law Office of Jonathan Kandelshein
   6906 Rocky Top Circle
   Dallas, TX 75252
   Tex: (646) 753-0149
   Email: Jonathan.kandelshein@gmail.com


ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the company's bid to
dismiss the amended complaint in a class action suit related to
misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris remains pending.

As previously reported, on December 29, 2016, a shareholder filed
a putative class action against the Company and certain former
employees in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, alleging that defendants made misrepresentations and
omissions about Soliris. On April 12, 2017, the court appointed
lead plaintiff.

On July 14, 2017, lead plaintiff filed an amended putative class
action complaint against the Company and seven current or former
employees. The complaint alleges that defendants made
misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris, including alleged
misrepresentations regarding sales practices, management changes,
and related investigations, between January 30, 2014 and May 26,
2017, and that the Company's stock price dropped upon the
purported disclosure of the misrepresentations. Defendant's moved
to dismiss the Amended Complaint on September 12, 2017.

Alexion Pharmaceuticals said "Given the early stages of this
litigation, management does not currently believe that a loss
related to this matter is probable or that the potential
magnitude of such loss or range of loss, if any, can be
reasonably estimated."

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a global biopharmaceutical
company focused on serving patients and families affected by rare
diseases through the innovation, development and
commercialization of life-changing therapies. The company is
based in New Haven, Connecticut.


ALTERATION GROUP: Fails to Pay Wages, "Arnutouskaya" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
IRINA ARNUTOUSKAYA individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALTERATION GROUP
OF NY, LLC d/b/a/ ALTERATION SPECIALISTS OF NEW YORK, and related
or affiliated entities, and JEREMY MILLER, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 161194/2017 (N.Y. Super. Ct., Dec. 19,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, all minimum wages
compensation, overtime compensation, and damages arising from
Defendants' breach of contract, which they were deprived of, plus
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the New York
Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants pay their tailors on
commission or on hourly wage basis. The Plaintiff and the members
of the putative class regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in
any given week, however they were not compensated for all the
hours worked and were not paid overtime compensation pursuant to
the New York Labor Law. In addition, Defendants maintained a
policy and practice of paying its tailors commissions at a rate
lower than the rate promised and unlawfully deducting earned
wages from Plaintiffs' last paycheck.

Alteration Specialists of New York offers custom tailoring
services in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
          Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212 943 9080
          Facsimile: 212 943 9082
          E-mail: jnewhouse@vandallp.com


ALTRIA GROUP: 7 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial Thru Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that as of October 23, 2017, seven Engle
progeny cases are set for trial through December 31, 2017.

There are no other individual smoking and health cases and no
"Lights/Ultra Lights" class actions against Philip Morris USA set
for trial during this period. Cases against other companies in
the tobacco industry may be scheduled for trial during this
period. Trial dates are subject to change.

Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases, verdicts
have been returned in 62 smoking and health, "Lights/Ultra
Lights" and health care cost recovery cases in which PM USA was a
defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were
returned in 41 of the 62 cases. These 41 cases were tried in
Alaska (1), California (7), Florida (10), Louisiana (1),
Massachusetts (2), Mississippi (1), Missouri (4), New Hampshire
(1), New Jersey (1), New York (5), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1),
Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2) and West Virginia (2). A motion
for a new trial was granted in one of the cases in Florida and in
the case in Alaska. In the Alaska case (Hunter), the trial court
withdrew its order for a new trial upon PM USA's motion for
reconsideration.

In December 2015, the Alaska Supreme Court reversed the trial
court decision and remanded the case with directions for the
trial court to reassess whether to grant a new trial. In March
2016, the trial court granted a new trial and PM USA filed a
petition for review of that order with the Alaska Supreme Court,
which the court denied in July 2016. The retrial began in October
2016. In November 2016, the court declared a mistrial after the
jury failed to reach a verdict. The plaintiff subsequently moved
for a new trial. In October 2017, the trial court vacated the
October 16, 2017 trial date. A new date for trial has not been
set.

Of the 21 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned
in favor of plaintiffs, 18 have reached final resolution.

As of October 23, 2017, 114 state and federal Engle progeny cases
involving PM USA have resulted in verdicts since the Florida
Supreme Court's Engle decision as follows: 62 verdicts were
returned in favor of plaintiffs; 45 verdicts were returned in
favor of PM USA. Five verdicts that were initially returned in
favor of plaintiff were reversed post-trial or on appeal and
remain pending and two verdicts in favor of PM USA were reversed
for a new trial. See Smoking and Health Litigation - Engle
Progeny Trial Court Results below for a discussion of these
verdicts.

After exhausting all appeals in those cases resulting in adverse
verdicts associated with tobacco-related litigation, since
October 2004, PM USA has paid in the aggregate judgments and
settlements (including related costs and fees) totaling
approximately $490 million and interest totaling approximately
$184 million as of September 30, 2017. These amounts include
payments for Engle progeny judgments (and related costs and fees)
totaling approximately $99 million, interest totaling
approximately $22 million and payment of approximately $43
million in connection with the Federal Engle Agreement.

Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United
States. The company sells its tobacco products primarily to
wholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations,
such as chain stores; and the armed services.  Altria Group, Inc.
was founded in 1919 and is based in Richmond, Virginia.


ALTRIA GROUP: Smoking and Health Class Suits in Canada Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself
in seven smoking and health class actions filed in various
Canadian provinces.

As of October 23, 2017, PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are named
as defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven
class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta,
Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and
Ontario. In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases)
and Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of
individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases,
including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart
disease or cancer, after smoking defendants' cigarettes.

In the actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia,
plaintiffs seek certification of classes of all individuals who
smoked defendants' cigarettes.

Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United
States. The company sells its tobacco products primarily to
wholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations,
such as chain stores; and the armed services.  Altria Group, Inc.
was founded in 1919 and is based in Richmond, Virginia.


ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Still Faces 4 Lights & Ultra Lights Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that as of October 23, 2017, Philip Morris
USA, the company or its other subsidiaries continues to defend a
total of four class action cases that are pending in various U.S.
state courts.

Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their
cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the
uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute
deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory
fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and seek
injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in
certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been
brought against PM USA and, in certain instances, Altria Group,
Inc. or its other subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who
purchased and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including
Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and
Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights.

Defenses raised in these cases include lack of misrepresentation,
lack of causation, injury and damages, the statute of
limitations, non-liability under state statutory provisions
exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory
directives, and the First Amendment.

As of October 23, 2017, a total of four such cases are pending in
various U.S. state courts.

Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United
States. The company sells its tobacco products primarily to
wholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations,
such as chain stores; and the armed services.  Altria Group, Inc.
was founded in 1919 and is based in Richmond, Virginia.


ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Argument Heard in "Larsen" Case Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the Missouri Court of Appeals heard oral
argument on plaintiffs' appeal on August 8, 2017.

In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class
certification order. In December 2009, the trial court denied
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during which
potential class members can qualify to become part of the class.
The class period remains 1995-2003. In June 2010, Philip Morris
USA's motion for partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs'
request for punitive damages was denied. In April 2010,
plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to an element of
liability in the case, claiming collateral estoppel from the
findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice. The
plaintiffs' motion was denied in December 2010.

In June 2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motions
challenging the plaintiffs' claims. In August 2011, the trial
court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment,
ruling that plaintiffs could not present a damages claim based on
allegations that Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than Marlboro
Reds. The trial court denied PM USA's remaining summary judgment
motions. Trial in the case began in September 2011 and, in
October 2011, the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed
to reach a verdict. In January 2014, the trial court reversed its
prior ruling granting partial summary judgment against
plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim and allowed plaintiffs to
pursue that claim.

In October 2014, PM USA filed motions to decertify the class and
for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' "more dangerous"
claim, which the court denied in June 2015. Upon retrial, in
April 2016, the jury returned a verdict in favor of PM USA. In
August 2016, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and PM USA
cross-appealed. In November 2016, the court of appeals dismissed
PM USA's cross-appeal without prejudice upon joint motion of the
parties. Oral argument at the Missouri Court of Appeals occurred
August 8, 2017.

Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United
States. The company sells its tobacco products primarily to
wholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations,
such as chain stores; and the armed services.  Altria Group, Inc.
was founded in 1919 and is based in Richmond, Virginia.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Antitrust Suits and DOJ Probe Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend
itself in a class action suit filed in the Federal District Court
for the District of Columbia.

In June 2015, American received a Civil Investigative Demand
(CID) from the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) as part
of an investigation into whether there have been illegal
agreements or coordination of air passenger capacity. The CID
seeks documents and other information from American, and other
airlines have announced that they have received similar requests.
American is cooperating fully with the DOJ investigation.

In addition, subsequent to announcement of the delivery of CIDs
by the DOJ, American, along with Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest
Airlines Co., United Airlines, Inc. and, in the case of
litigation filed in Canada, Air Canada, have been named as
defendants in approximately 100 putative class action lawsuits
alleging unlawful agreements with respect to air passenger
capacity. The U.S. lawsuits have been consolidated in the Federal
District Court for the District of Columbia. On October 28, 2016,
the Court denied a motion by the airline defendants to dismiss
all claims in the class actions.

American Airlines said "Both the DOJ investigation and these
lawsuits are in their relatively early stages and American
intends to defend these matters vigorously."

American Airlines, Inc. operates as a network air carrier. The
company provides scheduled air transportation services for
passengers and cargo. It also offers freight and mail services.
The company is based in Fort Worth, Texas.


ANTHEM INC: Cross Motions for Partial Summary Judgment Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that cross motions for partial summary
judgment in an Alabama antitrust suit were heard by the Court in
October 2017, and they remain pending.

The company is a defendant in multiple lawsuits that were
initially filed in 2012 against the BCBSA as well as Blue Cross
and/or Blue Shield licensees across the country. The cases were
consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re
Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, or the Court. Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSA
and the Blue plans have engaged in a conspiracy to horizontally
allocate geographic markets through license agreements, best
efforts rules (which limit the percentage of non-Blue revenue of
each plan), restrictions on acquisitions, rules governing the
BlueCard and National Accounts programs and other arrangements in
violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and related state laws.

The cases were brought by two putative nationwide classes of
plaintiffs, health plan subscribers and providers. Subscriber and
provider plaintiffs each filed consolidated amended complaints in
July 2013. The consolidated amended subscriber complaint was also
brought on behalf of putative state classes of health plan
subscribers in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii,
Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Defendants filed motions to
dismiss in September 2013. In June 2014, the Court denied the
majority of the motions, ruling that plaintiffs had alleged
sufficient facts at that stage of the litigation to avoid
dismissal of their claims. Following the subsequent filing of
amended complaints by each of the subscriber and provider
plaintiffs, we filed our answer and asserted our affirmative
defenses in December 2014.

Since January 2016, subscribers have filed additional actions
asserting damage claims in Indiana, Kansas, Kansas City,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, Vermont, and Virginia, all of which have been
consolidated into the multi-district lawsuit. In November 2016
and April 2017, subscriber plaintiffs and provider plaintiffs
filed new consolidated amended complaints adding new named
plaintiffs and new factual allegations.

The company filed answers to the amended complaints in May 2017.
In February 2017, the Court granted in part defendants' motion
for summary judgment based on the filed rate doctrine finding
that the damages claims of certain named Alabama subscribers are
barred under federal law. Subscribers filed a motion to
reconsider the Court's order, which was denied without prejudice
to plaintiffs' right to raise the issue at a later date. In April
2017, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a
lower court ruling in a related declaratory judgment action,
Musselman v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, et al., that
the antitrust conspiracy claims being asserted by a subset of
putative provider class members were released a decade ago by
class action settlements in the In re Managed Care Litigation. In
June 2017, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss certain
of the claims in provider plaintiffs' latest consolidated
complaint.

Briefing on the relevant standard of review for the claims
asserted under the Sherman Antitrust Act commenced in July 2017.
Cross motions for partial summary judgment on the relevant
standard of review were heard by the Court in October 2017, and
they remain pending. In August 2017, provider plaintiffs moved
for partial summary judgment against Anthem on the basis of
collateral estoppel on several issues discussed in United States
v. Anthem, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 3d 171 (D.D.C. 2017). That motion
was heard in October 2017, and is pending. No dates have been set
for either the pretrial conference or trials in these actions.

Anthem said "We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however,
their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined."

Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health
benefits company in the United States.  It operates through three
segments: Commercial and Specialty Business, Government Business,
and Other.  The Company offers a spectrum of network-based
managed care health benefit plans to large and small employer,
individual, Medicaid, and Medicare markets.  The Company was
formerly known as WellPoint, Inc. and changed its name to Anthem,
Inc. in December 2014.  Anthem, Inc. was founded in 1944 and is
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.


ANTHEM INC: Bid to Dismiss ERISA Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the company filed in April 2017 a motion
to dismiss claims brought against it in an ERISA class action
lawsuit but the same remains pending.

Anthem, Inc. and Express Scripts were named as defendants in a
purported class action lawsuit filed in June 2016 in the Southern
District of New York by three members of ERISA plans alleging
ERISA violations captioned Karen Burnett, Brendan Farrell, and
Robert Shullich, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Express Scripts, Inc. and Anthem, Inc. The
lawsuit was then consolidated with a similar lawsuit that was
previously filed against Express Scripts.

A first amended consolidated complaint was filed in the
consolidated lawsuit, which is captioned In Re Express
Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation. The first amended consolidated
complaint was filed by six individual plaintiffs against Anthem
and Express Scripts on behalf of all persons who are participants
in or beneficiaries of any ERISA or non-ERISA health care plan
from December 1, 2009 to the present in which Anthem provided
prescription drug benefits through a PBM Agreement with Express
Scripts and who paid a percentage based co-insurance payment in
the course of using that prescription drug benefit. As to the
ERISA members, the plaintiffs allege that Anthem breached its
duties under ERISA (i) by failing to adequately monitor Express
Scripts' pricing under the PBM Agreement and (ii) by placing its
own pecuniary interest above the best interests of Anthem
insureds by allegedly agreeing to higher pricing in the PBM
Agreement in exchange for the $4,675.0 purchase price for our
NextRx PBM business. As to the non-ERISA members, the plaintiffs
assert that Anthem breached the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing implied in the health plans under which the non-
ERISA members are covered by (i) negotiating and entering into
the PBM Agreement with Express Scripts that was detrimental to
the interests of such non-ERISA members, (ii) failing to
adequately monitor the activities of Express Scripts, including
failing to timely monitor and correct the prices charged by
Express Scripts for prescription medications, and (iii) acting in
Anthem's self-interests instead of the interests of the non-ERISA
members when it accepted the $4,675.0 purchase price for NextRx.

Plaintiffs seek to hold Anthem and Express Scripts jointly and
severally liable and to recover all losses suffered by the
proposed class, equitable relief, disgorgement of alleged ill-
gotten gains, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs and
interest. In November 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss all of
the claims brought against Anthem. In response, in March 2017,
the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint
adding two self-insured accounts as plaintiffs and asserting an
additional purported class of self-insured accounts. In April
2017, the compan filed a motion to dismiss the claims brought
against Anthem. Our motion remains pending. In January 2017,
Express Scripts filed a motion to transfer the case to a federal
court in Missouri, which the court denied.

Anthem said "We intend to vigorously defend this suit; however,
its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined."

Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health
benefits company in the United States.  It operates through three
segments: Commercial and Specialty Business, Government Business,
and Other.  The Company offers a spectrum of network-based
managed care health benefit plans to large and small employer,
individual, Medicaid, and Medicare markets.  The Company was
formerly known as WellPoint, Inc. and changed its name to Anthem,
Inc. in December 2014.  Anthem, Inc. was founded in 1944 and is
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.


ARCADIA TRANSIT: Underpays Workers, Hovanesian Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
EDVART HOVANESIAN, an individual, SERZHIK SARGSYAN, an
individual, and KHOSROW PETROSSIAN, an individual, and on behalf
of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general
public, the Plaintiff, v. ARCADIA TRANSIT, INC., a California
corporation, SUPERSHUTTLE INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
BC687617 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 19, 2017), seeks to recover
compensation for all hours worked and minimum wage under
California.

According to the complaint, despite Plaintiffs' status as
independent contractors, Defendants dictated Plaintiffs' work
hours, assignments, revisions to their assignments, and their
planned routes. The Defendants controlled significant aspects of
Plaintiffs' operation of the vans, yet required Plaintiffs to
purchase their vans from Defendants and pay for their own
insurance, fuel, and damage. Moreover, Defendants deduct $50 from
a driver's pay when a driver refuses a route. The designation of
the drivers as independent contractors was and is clearly
improper because drivers lack the requisite control and
discretion over their job responsibilities and duties to deserve
treatment as independent contractors.

Defendants clearly intentionally misclassified Plaintiffs and
members of the Plaintiff Class. In addition to wrongful
misclassification, Plaintiffs allege in this lawsuit that
Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class were not provided
with lawful meal and rest periods as required by California state
law. The Plaintiffs further alleges that they were required to
work off-the-clock, which violates state minimum wage laws, and
that they were not reimbursed for all business related expenses,
such as expenses related to passengers' invalid credit cards or
no shows, maintenance of the trucks, mileage, gas, and other
expenses which are weekly deducted from drivers' pay, among other
claims.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael S. Morrison, Esq.
          Jessica S. Choi, Esq.
          ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP
          401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
          Santa Monica, California 90401
          Telephone: 310 394 0888
          Facsimile: 310 394 0811
          E-mail: mmorrison@akgllp.com
                  jchoi@akgllp.com

               - and -

          Thomas W. Falvey, Esq.
          Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
          Armand R. Kizirian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 547 5200
          Facsimile: (818) 500 9307
          E-mail: thomaswfalvey@gmail.com
                  mike.falveylaw@gmail.com
                  armand.falveylaw@gmail.com


ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Drop Merger Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Armour Residential REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the company awaits the
court's decision on its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit
related to a tender offer and merger for Javelin.

Nine putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the tender offer (the "Tender Offer") and merger (the
"Merger") for JAVELIN. The Tender Offer and Merger are
collectively defined herein as the "Transactions." All nine suits
name ARMOUR, the previous members of JAVELIN's board of directors
prior to the Merger (of which eight are current members of
ARMOUR's board of directors) (the "Individual Defendants") and
JMI Acquisition Corporation ("Acquisition") as defendants.

Certain cases also name ACM and JAVELIN as additional defendants.
The lawsuits were brought by purported holders of JAVELIN's
common stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class
of JAVELIN's stockholders, alleging that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs
and the putative class of JAVELIN stockholders, including claims
that the Individual Defendants failed to properly value JAVELIN;
failed to take steps to maximize the value of JAVELIN to its
stockholders; ignored or failed to protect against conflicts of
interest; failed to disclose material information about the
Transactions; took steps to avoid competitive bidding and to give
ARMOUR an unfair advantage by failing to adequately solicit other
potential acquirors or alternative transactions; and erected
unreasonable barriers to other third-party bidders. The suits
also allege that ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and Acquisition aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Individual Defendants. The lawsuits seek equitable relief,
including, among other relief, to enjoin consummation of the
Transactions, or rescind or unwind the Transactions if already
consummated, and award costs and disbursements, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.

The sole Florida lawsuit was never served on the defendants, and
that case was voluntarily dismissed and closed on January 20,
2017. On April 25, 2016, the Maryland court issued an order
consolidating the eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned
In re JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation
(Case No. 24-C-16-001542), and designated counsel for one of the
Maryland cases as interim lead co-counsel. On May 26, 2016,
interim lead counsel filed the Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty asserting consolidated
claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting the
breaches of fiduciary duty, and waste. On June 27, 2016,
defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. A hearing was held on the Motion to
Dismiss on March 3, 2017, and the Court reserved ruling. To date,
the Court has not issued an order on the Motion to Dismiss.

ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. invests in residential mortgage
backed securities in the United States.  It is managed by ARMOUR
Capital Management LP.  The Company was founded in 2008 and is
based in Vero Beach, Florida.


ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Agreement Reached in 4 Class Action Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Banc-Corp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the Corporation and Bank Mutual reached
agreement with the plaintiffs in the cases, Schumel et al v. Bank
Mutual Corporation et al., Paquin et al. v. Bank Mutual
Corporation et al. Wollenburg et al. v. Bank Mutual Corporation
et al., and Parshall et al., v. Bank Mutual Corporation et al.

Subsequent to the announcement on July 20, 2017, of the Merger
Agreement between the Corporation and Bank Mutual, several
lawsuits were filed in connection with the proposed merger.

On July 28, 2017, two substantially identical purported class
action complaints, each by various individual plaintiffs, were
filed with the Wisconsin Circuit Court for Milwaukee County on
behalf of the respective named plaintiffs and other Bank Mutual
shareholders against Bank Mutual, the members of the Bank Mutual
board, and the Corporation. The lawsuits are captioned Schumel et
al v. Bank Mutual Corporation et al. and Paquin et al. v. Bank
Mutual Corporation et al. Both complaints allege state law breach
of fiduciary duty claims against the Bank Mutual board for, among
other things, seeking to sell Bank Mutual through an allegedly
defective process, for an allegedly unfair price and on allegedly
unfair terms.

On August 30, 2017, a third purported class action complaint,
captioned Wollenburg et al. v. Bank Mutual Corporation et al.,
was filed in the Wisconsin Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, on
behalf of the same class of shareholders and against the same
defendants as the prior two complaints. The Wollenburg complaint
asserts similar allegations as the prior two complaints, and
further alleges that the preliminary proxy statement/prospectus
filed with the SEC contains various alleged misstatements or
omissions under federal securities law. The Paquin, Schumel and
Wollenburg complaints allege that the Corporation aided and
abetted Bank Mutual's directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty. The parties have entered into a stipulation seeking to
consolidate the three actions.

On September 13, 2017, the Corporation filed a notice of removal
of the Paquin, Schumel and Wollenburg actions to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.  On
September 15, 2017, the plaintiffs in the Paquin, Schumel and
Wollenburg actions filed identical motions to remand the three
cases back to state court, and on September 27, 2017, the
defendants filed oppositions to the motions to remand.

On October 3, 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
three actions.

On September 6, 2017, a fourth purported class action complaint,
captioned Parshall et al., v. Bank Mutual Corporation et al., was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, on behalf of the same class of shareholders and
against the same defendants as the prior complaints.

The Parshall complaint criticizes the adequacy of the merger
consideration and alleges that Bank Mutual, the members of the
Bank Mutual board and the Corporation allegedly omitted and/or
misrepresented certain information in the registration statement
on Form S-4 filed in connection with the proposed merger in
violation of the federal securities laws. The lawsuits seek,
among other things, to enjoin the consummation of the transaction
and damages. The Corporation believes the allegations are without
merit.

On October 13, 2017, Bank Mutual and the Corporation reached
agreement with the plaintiffs in each of the four cases whereby
Bank Mutual issued certain additional disclosures in a Form 8-K,
and each of the plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss their actions
with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs and without prejudice
as to the rest of the purported class members.

Associated Banc-Corp said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that Associated, Bank Mutual
and the other defendants believe that the claims asserted in the
lawsuits are without merit and that the disclosures in the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus are adequate under the law. However, to
avoid the risk that the lawsuits may delay or otherwise adversely
affect the consummation of the Merger and to minimize the expense
of defending such actions, Associated and Bank Mutual wish to
voluntarily make the Supplemental Disclosures related to the
Merger set forth below. Associated and Bank Mutual specifically
deny that any further disclosure is required to supplement the
Proxy Statement/Prospectus under applicable law.

In light of the Supplemental Disclosures, the plaintiffs in the
lawsuits have agreed to dismiss their individual claims with
prejudice.

A copy of the company's supplemental disclosure is available at
https://goo.gl/NXEeg8

Associated Banc-Corp is a U.S. regional bank holding company
providing retail banking, commercial banking, commercial real
estate lending, private banking, specialized financial services,
and insurance services. It is headquartered in Green Bay,
Wisconsin and is the largest bank (by asset size) headquartered
in Wisconsin.


AVIS BUDGET: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern District of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avis Budget Group,
Inc. The case is styled Andres Gomez, on his own and on behalf of
all other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Avis
Budget Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-24643-UU (S.D.
Fla., December 21, 2017).

Avis Budget is the American parent company of Avis Car Rental,
Budget Car Rental, Budget Truck Rental, Payless Car Rental, Apex
Car Rentals, Maggiore Group and Zipcar.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
   Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
   333 Las Olas Way
   Suite CU3-311
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: service@advocacypa.com


BAY TERRACE: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Vargas Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
CESAR TELLO VARGAS and LEANDRO RIVERA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BAY TERRACE
PLAZA LLC D/B/A ALLORA ITALIAN KITCHEN & BAR and STEVE MENEXAS
and DANIEL STEINBERGER, as individuals, the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-07385-PKC-SJB (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2017), seeks to recover
damages as a result of Defendant's violations of state and
federal wage and hour laws.

The Plaintiff's primary duties were as a food runner, expediter,
busser, and cleaner, and performing other miscellaneous duties
from April 2017 until July 2017. The Plaintiff has worked 54-61
hours or more per week for Defendants from April 2017 to July
2017. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for
hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime
provisions contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C.
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263 9591


BEHR PROCESS: Faces "Surprenant" Suit in N.D. of Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Behr Process Corp.
The case is styled Thomas Surprenant, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Behr Process Corp,
Behr Paint Corp, Masco Corp, The Home Depot, Inc. and Home Depot
U.S.A., Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05330-WSD (N.D. Ga.,
December 21, 2017).

The Defendants are suppliers of architectural paint and exterior
wood care products to the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
   Levin Sedran & Berman
   510 Walnut Street
   Suite 500
   Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
   Tel: (215) 592-1500
   Fax: (215) 592-4663
   Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

      - and -

   Michael McShane, Esq.
   Audet & Partners, LLP
   Suite 1460
   221 Main Street
   San Francisco, CA 94105
   Tel: (415) 982-1776
   Email: mmcshane@audetlaw.com

      - and -

   Ranse M. Partin, Esq.
   Conley Griggs Partin, LLP- GA
   Building One, Suite 300
   4200 Northside Parkway, NW
   Atlanta, GA 30327
   Tel: (404) 467-1155
   Fax: (404) 467-1166
   Email: ranse@conleygriggs.com

      - and -

   S. Clinton Woods, Esq.
   Audet & Partners, LLP -CA
   711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
   San Francisco, CA 94102
   Tel: (415) 568-2555


BOBCAT COMPANY: Faces Autumn Suit Over Defective Track Loaders
--------------------------------------------------------------
Autumn Ridge Landscaping, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Bobcat Company, Case No. 0:17-cv-
05343-MJD-BRT (D. Minn., December 4, 2017), is an action of
damages and equitable relief on behalf of the Class, each of whom
purchased and leased one or more of the defectively designed and
manufactured Bobcat Compact Track Loaders.

The defect at issue is Bobcat's failure to include a standard and
effective metal shield in their Class Loaders, which, if
installed, would provide a solid and durable buffer between the
rapidly spinning drive belts within the engine of the Loader and
the hydraulic, fuel filler, and fuel distribution lines which run
along the outside of the engine.

Bobcat Company currently manufactures and sells three types of
loaders -- Skid-Steer Loaders, Compact Track Loaders and Mini
Track Loaders -- designed to assist workers such as construction
and farm workers with moving heavy materials such as asphalt,
dirt, and feed through the use of a tractor-mounted loader. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy Becker, Esq.
      David Grounds, Esq.
      Jennell K. Shannon, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
      St. Paul, MN 55101
      Telephone: (612) 436-1804
      Facsimile: (612) 436-4801
      E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
              dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com
              jshannon@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Gregory Erickson, Esq.
      MOHRMAN, KAARDAL & ERICKSON, P.A.
      150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3100
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 465-0937
      Facsimile: (612) 341-1076
      E-mail: erickson@mklaw.com


BOFI HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BofI Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself
in a consolidated class action suit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California.

On October 15, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit styled Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al,
and brought in United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (the "Golden Case"). On November 3, 2015,
the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial
Officer were named defendants in a second putative class action
lawsuit styled Hazan v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and also
brought in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (the "Hazan Case"). On February 1, 2016,
the Golden Case and the Hazan Case were consolidated as In re
BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case #: 3:15-cv-02324-
GPC-KSC (the "First Class Action"), and the Houston Municipal
Employees Pension System was appointed lead plaintiff. The First
Class Action complaint was amended by a certain Consolidated
Amended Class Complaint filed on April 11, 2016. On September 27,
2016, the Court dismissed the First Class Action, with leave to
amend, as to defendants Andrew Micheletti, Paul Grinberg,
Nicholas Mosich and James Argalas. The Court denied the Motion to
Dismiss with respect to the Company and Gregory Garrabrants. On
November 25, 2016, the putative class action plaintiff filed a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Second Amended
Complaint"), which includes the previously dismissed defendants.

On December 23, 2016, the Company and other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss such Second Amended Complaint. On May 23, 2017,
the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants;
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On September 28,
2017, the Company and other defendants filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings, which is currently pending.

The First Class Action seeks monetary damages and other relief on
behalf of a putative class that has not been certified by the
Court. The Second Amended Complaint alleges that the Company and
other named defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by failing to disclose wrongful conduct that was
alleged in a complaint filed in connection with a wrongful
termination of employment lawsuit filed on October 13, 2015 (the
"Employment Matter") and that as a result the Company's
statements regarding its internal controls, as well as portions
of its financial statements, were false and misleading. The
Company and the other defendants named in the Employment Matter
dispute the allegations of wrongdoing advanced by the plaintiff
in that case, including plaintiff's statement of the underlying
factual circumstances, and are vigorously defending against the
complaint filed in connection therewith. Moreover, the Company
and the other named defendants dispute the allegations advanced
by the plaintiffs in the First Class Action and are vigorously
defending against the Second Amended Complaint.

On April 3, 2017, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit styled Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et
al, and brought in United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (the "Mandalevy Case"). The Mandalevy Case
seeks monetary damages and other relief on behalf of a putative
class that has not been certified by the Court. The complaint in
the Mandalevy Case (the "Mandalevy Complaint") alleges a class
period that differs from that alleged in the First Class Action,
and that the Company and other named defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose wrongful
conduct that was alleged in a March 2017 media article. The
Mandalevy Case has not been consolidated into the First Class
Action. On June 2, 2017, lead plaintiff motions were filed on
behalf of three members of the putative class and on July 17,
2017, the Company and other defendants filed an opposition to
such motions. The Mandalevy Complaint has yet to be served upon
the Company or the other named defendants. The Company and the
other named defendants dispute the allegations advanced by the
plaintiffs in the Mandalevy Case, and are vigorously defending
against the Mandalevy Complaint.

BofI Holding, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofI
Federal Bank that provides consumer and business banking products
in the United States.  The Company offers deposits products,
including consumer and business checking, demand, savings, and
time deposit accounts.  BofI Holding, Inc. was incorporated in
1999 and is based in San Diego, California.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Bid to Drop 3rd "Zamir" Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the plaintiffs in the case
entitled Zamir v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., et al., filed a
third amended complaint and the defendants filed a third motion
to dismiss which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

On February 24, 2015, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California by Nelda Zamir naming the Company, Andrew Clark and
Daniel Devine as defendants. The complaint asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants made false
and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts regarding the Company's business,
operations and prospects, specifically regarding the Company's
improper application of revenue recognition methodology to assess
collectability of funds owed by students. The complaint asserts a
putative class period stemming from August 7, 2012 to May 30,
2014 and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest and
attorneys' fees. On July 15, 2015, the Court granted plaintiff's
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for appointment of
lead counsel.

On September 18, 2015, the plaintiff filed a substantially
similar amended complaint that asserts a putative class period
stemming from March 12, 2013 to May 30, 2014. The amended
complaint also names Patrick Hackett, Adarsh Sarma, Warburg
Pincus & Co., Warburg Pincus LLC, Warburg Pincus Partners LLC,
and Warburg Pincus Private Equity VIII, L.P. as additional
defendants. On November 24, 2015, all defendants filed motions to
dismiss. On July 25, 2016, the Court granted the motions to
dismiss and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint
within 30 days. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended
complaint and the Company filed a second motion to dismiss on
October 24, 2016, which was granted by the Court with leave to
amend. Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on April 19,
2017 and the defendants filed a third motion to dismiss, which is
currently pending with the court.

Bridgepoint said "The outcome of this legal proceeding is
uncertain at this point because of the many questions of fact and
law that may arise. The Company has not accrued any liability
associated with this action."

Bridgepoint Education, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides postsecondary education services.  Its academic
institutions, Ashford University and University of the Rockies,
offer associate's, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree
programs in the disciplines of business, education, psychology,
social sciences, and health sciences. The company offers its
programs primarily through online; and at its campuses. The
company was formerly known as TeleUniversity, Inc. and changed
its name to Bridgepoint Education, Inc. in February 2004. The
company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Discovery Underway in "Nieder" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the case Dustin Nieder v.
Ashford University, LLC, which was filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California in San Diego, is currently in discovery.

On October 4, 2016, Dustin Nieder filed a purported class action
against Ashford University in the Superior Court of the State of
California in San Diego. The complaint is captioned Dustin Nieder
v. Ashford University, LLC and generally alleges various wage and
hour claims under California law for failure to pay overtime,
failure to pay minimum wages and failure to provide rest and meal
breaks. The lawsuit seeks back pay, the cost of benefits,
penalties and interest on behalf of the putative class members,
as well as other equitable relief and attorneys' fees. The
Company filed an answer denying the claims and the case is
currently in discovery.

Bridgepoint "The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at
this point because of the many questions of fact and law that may
arise. Based on information available to the Company at present,
it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action.
Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated
with this action."

Bridgepoint Education, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides postsecondary education services.  Its academic
institutions, Ashford University and University of the Rockies,
offer associate's, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree
programs in the disciplines of business, education, psychology,
social sciences, and health sciences. The company offers its
programs primarily through online; and at its campuses. The
company was formerly known as TeleUniversity, Inc. and changed
its name to Bridgepoint Education, Inc. in February 2004.  The
company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


BUFFALO WILD: New York Employee Class Action Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 24, 2017, that the plaintiffs in a putative class
action suit filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of New York, amended their complaint to include
putative class action claims under the laws of seven additional
states: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Pennsylvania
and Wisconsin.

The Company said, "On June 2, 2015, two of our former employees
(the "plaintiffs") filed a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and putative class action under New York
state law against us in the United States District Court for the
Western District of New York. The claim alleges that we have a
policy or procedure requiring employees who receive compensation
in part through tip credits to perform work that is ineligible
for tip credit compensation at a tip credit rate in violation of
the FLSA and New York state law. On September 27, 2016, the
plaintiffs amended their complaint to include putative class
action claims under the laws of seven additional states: Arizona,
Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."

Added Buffalo Wild Wings, "We intend to vigorously defend this
lawsuit. We believe there is a reasonable possibility of loss
related to these claims; however, we are currently unable to
determine the potential range of exposure, if any."

Buffalo Wild Wings is an American casual dining restaurant and
sports bar franchise in the United States, Canada, Mexico, the
Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Oman,
which specializes in Buffalo wings and sauces. The company is
based in Minneapolis, Minnesota.


CELGENE CORP: IUB Class Action Suit in New Jersey Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself
in a class action lawsuit filed by the International Union of
Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB).

The Company said, "On November 7, 2014, the International Union
of Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB)
filed a putative class action lawsuit against us in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging
that we violated various antitrust, consumer protection, and
unfair competition laws by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive
supply contract with Seratec S.A.R.L. so that Barr Laboratories
allegedly could not secure its own supply of thalidomide active
pharmaceutical ingredient; (b) allegedly refusing to sell samples
of our THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R) brand drugs to various generic
manufacturers for the alleged purpose of bioequivalence testing
necessary for ANDAs to be submitted to the FDA for approval to
market generic versions of these products; and (c) allegedly
bringing unjustified patent infringement lawsuits in order to
allegedly delay approval for proposed generic versions of
THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R). IUB, on behalf of itself and a
putative class of third party payers, is seeking injunctive
relief and damages."

"In February 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss IUB's complaint,
and upon the filing of a similar putative class action making
similar allegations by the City of Providence (Providence), the
parties agreed that the decision in the motion to dismiss IUB's
complaint would apply to the identical claims in Providence's
complaint. In October 2015, the court denied our motion to
dismiss on all grounds.

"The company filed its answers to the IUB and Providence
complaints in January 2016. On June 14, 2017, a new complaint was
filed by the same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the IUB
case, making similar allegations and adding three new plaintiffs
-- International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary
Engineers Local 39 Health and Welfare Trust Fund (Local 39), The
Detectives' Endowment Association, Inc. (DEA) and David Mitchell.

"Counsel identified the new complaint as related to the IUB and
Providence cases and, on August 1, 2017, filed a Consolidated
Amended complaint on behalf of IUB, Providence, Local 39, DEA,
and Mitchell. On September 28, 2017, the same counsel filed
another complaint, which it identified as related to the
consolidated case, and which made similar allegations on behalf
of an additional asserted class representative: New England
Carpenters Health Benefits Fund. The completion of fact discovery
and expert discovery in these cases is scheduled for April 2,
2018 and September 13, 2018, respectively. No trial date has been
set."

Celgene added "We intend to vigorously defend against these
claims."

Celgene Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is an
integrated global biopharmaceutical company engaged primarily in
the discovery, development and commercialization of innovative
therapies for the treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases
through next-generation solutions in protein homeostasis, immuno-
oncology, epigenetics, immunology and neuro-inflammation. The
company is based in Summit, New Jersey.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Muransky" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DR. DAVID S. MURANSKY, the Plaintiff, v.
THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY, INC., d/b/a THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY, a
Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-07569-CJC-
RAO (C.D. Cal.), Mr. Muransky will move the Court on January 22,
2018, for an order certifying this action to proceed as a class.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6SM48Lu2

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathaniel Clark, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT WARMUTH, APC
          17700 Castleton St. No. 168
          City of Industry, CA 91748
          Telephone: (626) 282 6868

               - and -

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S. Ocean Dr., Suite 235
          Hollywood, FL 33091
          Telephone: (954) 589 0588
          Facsimile: (954) 589 0588
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com

               - and -

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726 1092

               - and -

          Bret L. Lusskin, Esq.
          BRET L. LUSSKIN, P.A.
          20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 302
          Aventura, Florida 33180
          Telephone: (954) 454-5841


CHICO'S FAS: "Altman" Class Action Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 29, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself in the
case entitled Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc.

In July 2015, White House Black Market, Inc. (WHBM) was named as
a defendant in Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., a
putative class action filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia. The complaint alleges that
WHBM, in violation of federal law, willfully published more than
the last five digits of a credit or debit card number on
customers' point-of-sale receipts. Plaintiff seeks an award of
statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 for each alleged willful
violation of the law, as well as attorneys' fees, costs and
punitive damages.

The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint and
believes the case is without merit. The Court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss on July 13, 2016, and the parties
have engaged in extensive discovery since then. Plaintiff filed a
motion for class certification in May 2017, which WHBM opposed in
a brief filed in June 2017.

Chico's FAS said "The Company will continue to vigorously defend
the matter, including a planned motion for summary judgment to
dismiss all claims. At this time, the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of loss, if any,
related to the lawsuit because there are a number of unknown
facts and unresolved legal issues that may impact the amount of
any potential liability, including, without limitation, (a)
whether the action will be permitted to proceed as a class, (b)
if a class is certified, the resolution of certain disputed
statutory interpretation issues that may impact the size of the
putative class and (c) whether or not the plaintiff is entitled
to statutory damages."

Chico's FAS, Inc. is a leading omni-channel specialty retailer of
women's private branded, sophisticated, casual-to-dressy
clothing, intimates and complementary accessories, operating
under the Chico's, White House Black Market ("WHBM") and Soma
brand names. The company earns revenues and generates cash
through the sale of merchandise in their domestic and
international retail stores, their various websites and their
call centers, which takes orders for all of our brands, and
through an unaffiliated franchise partner in Mexico.


CHICO'S FAS: De Minimis Deal in "Ackerman" Suit Okayed
------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 29, 2017, that the parties in the case entitled Ackerman v.
Chico's FAS, Inc., entered into a settlement agreement, and the
court issued a final approval and entry of judgment on June 5,
2017.

In June 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in Ackerman v.
Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative representative Private Attorney
General action filed in the Superior Court of California, County
of Los Angeles. The complaint alleged numerous violations of
California law related to wages, meal periods, rest periods, wage
statements and failure to reimburse business expenses, among
other things. Plaintiff subsequently amended her complaint to
make the same allegations on a class action basis. The parties
entered into a settlement agreement, and the Court issued final
approval and entry of judgment on June 5, 2017. The settlement
did not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

Chico's FAS, Inc. is a leading omni-channel specialty retailer of
women's private branded, sophisticated, casual-to-dressy
clothing, intimates and complementary accessories, operating
under the Chico's, White House Black Market ("WHBM") and Soma
brand names. The company earns revenues and generates cash
through the sale of merchandise in their domestic and
international retail stores, their various websites and their
call centers, which takes orders for all of our brands, and
through an unaffiliated franchise partner in Mexico.


CHICO'S FAS: De Minimis Deal in "Calleros" Suit Okayed
------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 29, 2017, that the parties in the case entitled Calleros v.
Chico's FAS, Inc., entered into a settlement agreement, which was
approved by the court on July 25, 2017.

In July 2016, the company was named as a defendant in Calleros v.
Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of Santa Barbara. Plaintiff alleged
that the Company failed to comply with California law requiring
it to provide consumers cash for gift cards with a stored value
of less than $10.00. Following voluntary mediation of the matter
in November of 2016, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement, which was approved by the court on July 25, 2017. The
settlement will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial condition or results of
operations.

Chico's FAS, Inc. is a leading omni-channel specialty retailer of
women's private branded, sophisticated, casual-to-dressy
clothing, intimates and complementary accessories, operating
under the Chico's, White House Black Market ("WHBM") and Soma
brand names. The company earns revenues and generates cash
through the sale of merchandise in their domestic and
international retail stores, their various websites and their
call centers, which takes orders for all of our brands, and
through an unaffiliated franchise partner in Mexico.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Class Suits by 2 Credit Unions Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the purported class action
complaints filed by Bellwether Community Credit Union and Alcoa
Community Credit Union in the U. S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, have been consolidated.

On May 4, 2017, Bellwether Community Credit Union filed a
purported class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado alleging that the company
negligently failed to provide adequate security to protect the
payment card information of customers of the plaintiffs and those
of other similarly situated credit unions, banks and other
financial institutions alleged to be part of the putative class,
causing those institutions to suffer financial losses.  The
complaint also claims that the company was negligent per se based
on alleged violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act and similar state laws.  The plaintiff seeks
monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

On May 26, 2017, Alcoa Community Credit Union filed a purported
class action complaint in the U. S. District Court for the
District of Colorado making substantially the same allegations as
the Bellwether complaint and seeking substantially the same
relief. The Bellwether and Alcoa cases have been consolidated and
will proceed as a single action.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is an American chain of fast casual
restaurants in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada,
Germany, and France, specializing in tacos and Mission-style
burritos. Its name derives from chipotle, the Nahuatl name for a
smoked and dried jalapeno chili pepper. The company is based in
Denver, Colorado.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: "Gordon" and "Lawson" Suits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
Chiptole Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the plaintiffs in the
Gordon case and the Lawson and Conard case have notified the
court of their agreement to consolidate their cases and file an
amended consolidated complaint.

On June 9, 2017, Todd Gordon filed a purported class action
complaint in the U. S. District Court for the District of
Colorado alleging that the company negligently failed to provide
adequate security to protect the payment card information of the
plaintiff and other similarly situated customers alleged to be
part of the putative class, causing such customers to suffer
financial losses.  The complaint also claims the company was
negligent per se based on alleged violations of Section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act and similar state laws, and also
alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of
the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act.

Additionally, on August 21, 2017, Greg Lawson and Judy Conard
filed a purported class action complaint in the U. S. District
Court for the District of Colorado making allegations
substantially similar to those in the Gordon complaint, and
stating substantially similar claims as well as claims under the
Colorado Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiffs in the Gordon
case and the Lawson and Conard case have notified the court of
their agreement to consolidate their cases and file an amended
consolidated complaint for the consolidated matter.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is an American chain of fast casual
restaurants in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada,
Germany, and France, specializing in tacos and Mission-style
burritos. Its name derives from chipotle, the Nahuatl name for a
smoked and dried jalapeno chili pepper. The company is based in
Denver, Colorado.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: NY and CO Shareholders Suits Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Chiptole Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the company continues to
defend itself from a purported class action complaints filed by
Susie Ong in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York and Elizabeth Kelly in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado.

On January 8, 2016, Susie Ong filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of shares of the company's common
stock between February 4, 2015 and January 5, 2016. The complaint
purports to state claims against the company, each of the co-
Chief Executive Officers serving during the claimed class period
and the Chief Financial Officer under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and related rules, based on the company's
alleged failure during the claimed class period to disclose
material information about the quality controls and safeguards in
relation to consumer and employee health. The complaint asserts
that those failures and related public statements were false and
misleading and that, as a result, the market price of the
company's stock was artificially inflated during the claimed
class period. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of the
purported class in an unspecified amount, interest, and an award
of reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.

On March 8, 2017, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the complaint, with leave to amend.  The plaintiff filed
an amended complaint on April 7, 2017. Additionally, on July 20,
2017, Elizabeth Kelly filed a complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of shares of our common stock between February 5,
2016 and July 19, 2017, with claims and factual allegations
similar to the Ong complaint, based primarily on media reports
regarding illnesses associated with a Chipotle restaurant in
Sterling, Virginia.

Chipotle Mexican Grill said "We intend to defend these cases
vigorously, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably
estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from the
cases."

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is an American chain of fast casual
restaurants in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada,
Germany, and France, specializing in tacos and Mission-style
burritos. Its name derives from chipotle, the Nahuatl name for a
smoked and dried jalapeno chili pepper. The company is based in
Denver, Colorado.


CHRISTOPHER & BANKS: $1.475MM Contributed to Settlement Fund
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher & Banks Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended July 29, 2017, that the company
contributed $1.475 million into a settlement fund in the second
fiscal quarter of 2017.

The Company said, "In connection with a preliminary settlement of
pre-litigation employment claims reached in February 2017, we
established a loss contingency of $1.475 million as of January
28, 2017. In connection therewith, on April 13, 2017, a complaint
was filed in state Circuit Court in the Fifteenth Judicial
Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida (the "Florida Circuit
Court") by three named plaintiffs in a purported class action
asserting claims on behalf of current and former store managers.
The plaintiffs principally alleged that they and other similarly
situated store managers were improperly classified as exempt
employees and thus not compensated for overtime work as required
under applicable federal and state law. On May 4, 2017, the
Company entered into a settlement agreement with the named
plaintiffs and the proposed class. On May 8, 2017, the Florida
Circuit Court issued an order approving the class settlement."

As approved by the Florida Circuit Court, certain current and
former store managers will be eligible to receive payments in
connection with time worked in prior years. The settlement of the
lawsuit is not an admission by us of any wrongdoing.

Christopher & Banks said "As part of the settlement, the Company
contributed $1.475 million into a settlement fund in the second
fiscal quarter of 2017. Any funds remaining after payment of all
submitted claims and related settlement fund costs and expenses
will revert to the Company. A final resolution of the matter and
the dissolution of the settlement fund is expected by the end of
this fiscal year. While the ultimate amount of the claims paid
under the settlement is likely to be less than the Company has
recorded, the difference is not expected to have a material
impact on our consolidated financial position or liquidity."

Christopher & Banks Corporation is a national specialty retailer
featuring exclusively-designed, privately-branded women's apparel
and accessories. The company offers their customers an assortment
of unique, classic and versatile clothing that fits her everyday
needs at a good value. The company operates an integrated, omni-
channel platform that provides their customers the ability to
shop when and where they wants, including online or at retail and
outlet stores.


CMS ENERGY: Gas Index Price Reporting Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corporation warned in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that the bankruptcy filing of an
unaffiliated company that is also a defendant in a price
reporting class action suit could increase the risk of loss to
CMS Energy.

CMS Energy, along with CMS MST, CMS Field Services, Cantera
Natural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, have been named as
defendants in four class action lawsuits and one individual
lawsuit arising as a result of alleged inaccurate natural gas
price reporting to publications that report trade information.
Allegations include price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of
trade, and artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in
Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin. Plaintiffs are making claims for
the following: treble damages, full consideration damages,
exemplary damages, costs, interest, and/or attorneys' fees.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred
to a single federal district court pursuant to the multidistrict
litigation process. In 2010 and 2011, all claims against CMS
Energy defendants were dismissed by the district court based on
FERC preemption. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the district court decision. The appellate court
found that FERC preemption does not apply under the facts of
these cases. The appellate court affirmed the district court's
denial of leave to amend to add federal antitrust claims. The
matter was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2015
upheld the Ninth Circuit's decision. The cases were remanded back
to the federal district court.

In May 2016, the federal district court granted the defendants'
motion for summary judgment in the individual lawsuit based on a
release in a prior settlement involving similar allegations and
reinstated CMS Energy as a defendant in one of the class action
lawsuits. The order of summary judgment has been appealed.

In December 2016, CMS Energy entities reached a settlement with
the plaintiffs in the three Kansas and Missouri cases for an
amount that was not material to CMS Energy. In August 2017, the
federal district court approved the settlement.

CMS Energy entities remain as defendants in the Wisconsin class
action lawsuits. In March 2017, the federal district court denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The plaintiffs
appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, which has accepted the matter for hearing. In June 2017,
an unaffiliated company that is also a defendant in these cases
filed for bankruptcy, which could increase the risk of loss to
CMS Energy.

CMS Energy said "These cases involve complex facts, a large
number of similarly situated defendants with different factual
positions, and multiple jurisdictions. Presently, any estimate of
liability would be highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's
reasonably possible loss would be based on widely varying models
previously untested in this context. If the outcome after appeals
is unfavorable, these cases could negatively affect CMS Energy's
liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations."

CMS Energy Corporation is an energy company that is focused
principally on utility operations in Michigan. Its principal
business is Consumers Energy, a public utility that provides
electricity and natural gas to more than 6 million of Michigan's
10 million residents. Its non-utility businesses are focused
primarily on domestic independent power production. Consumers
Energy has operated since 1886. The company is based in Michigan.


CR BARD: Continues to Defend Suits over Hernia Products
-------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend lawsuits
related to Hernia Product Claims in various federal and state
courts.

As of September 30, 2017, approximately 25 federal and 185 state
lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 205
plaintiffs, as well as one putative class action in the United
States, are currently pending against the company with respect to
its Composix(R) Kugel(R) and certain other hernia repair implant
products (collectively, the "Hernia Product Claims"). The company
voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the Composix(R)
Kugel(R) products beginning in December 2005. In June 2007, the
Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits and, subsequently, other hernia
repair product lawsuits, pending in federal courts nationwide
were transferred into one Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States District
Court for the District of Rhode Island. The MDL stopped accepting
new cases in the second quarter of 2014 and was terminated in
November 2016, at which time the remaining federal lawsuits were
remanded to their courts of original jurisdiction for trial.

As of September 30, 2017, all but one of the United States
putative class actions pending against the company was dismissed.
The remaining putative class action pending against the company
has not been certified and seeks: (i) medical monitoring; (ii)
compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial
finding of defect and causation; and/or (v) attorneys' fees. In
April 2014, a settlement was reached with respect to three
putative Canadian class actions within amounts previously
recorded by the company. As of September 30, 2017, five new
putative Canadian class actions have been filed against the
company. Approximately 170 of the state lawsuits, involving
individual claims by approximately 170 plaintiffs, are pending in
the Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, with the
remainder in various other jurisdictions. The Hernia Product
Claims also generally seek damages for personal injury resulting
from use of the products.

The company has resolved the majority of its historical Hernia
Product Claims, including through agreements or agreements in
principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle their
respective inventories of cases. Each agreement involving the
settlement of a firm's inventory of claims was subject to certain
conditions, including requirements for participation in the
proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs.
In addition, the company continues to engage in discussions with
other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of
unsettled Hernia Product Claims, and intends to vigorously defend
Hernia Product Claims that do not settle, including through
litigation. The company expects additional trials of Hernia
Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months.

The company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the
Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted
and unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuit, will
not have a material adverse effect on the company's business,
results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

C. R. Bard, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells medical, surgical,
diagnostic, and patient care devices worldwide.  The Company
sells its products directly to hospitals, individual healthcare
professionals, extended care facilities, and alternate site
facilities through hospital/surgical supply and other medical
specialty distributors.  C. R. Bard, Inc. was founded in 1907 and
is headquartered in Murray Hill, New Jersey.


CR BARD: Suits over Women's Products Underway
---------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend lawsuits
related to Women's Health Product Claims in various federal and
state courts.

As of September 30, 2017, product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 3,285 plaintiffs are currently
pending against the company in various federal and state
jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use
of certain of the company's surgical continence products for
women, which includes products manufactured by both the company
and two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as successor in interest
to Covidien plc) ("Medtronic"), each a supplier of the company.
Medtronic has an obligation to defend and indemnify the company
with respect to any product defect liability for products its
subsidiaries had manufactured. In July 2015 the company reached
an agreement with Medtronic (which was amended in June 2017)
regarding certain aspects of Medtronic's indemnification
obligation.

In addition, five putative class actions in the United States and
five putative class actions in Canada have been filed against the
company, and a limited number of other claims have been filed or
asserted in various non-U.S. jurisdictions. The foregoing
lawsuits, unfiled or unknown claims, putative class actions and
other claims, together with claims that have settled or are the
subject of agreements or agreements in principle to settle, are
referred to collectively as the "Women's Health Product Claims".
The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for
personal injury resulting from use of the products.

The putative class actions, none of which has been certified,
seek: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii)
punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and
causation; and/or (v) attorneys' fees. In April 2015, the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in one Canadian putative class action. In
March 2016, the company reached an agreement in principle to
resolve all Canadian putative class actions, with the exception
of a Quebec class action, within amounts previously recorded by
the company, which settlement was finalized in September 2016. In
January 2017, the court approved the discontinuance of the
proposed Quebec class action.

In October 2010, the Women's Health Product Claims involving
solely Avaulta(R) products pending in federal courts nationwide
were transferred into an MDL in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia (the "WV District
Court"), the scope of which was later expanded to include
lawsuits involving all women's surgical continence products that
are manufactured or distributed by the company. The first trial
in a state court was completed in California in July 2012 and
resulted in a judgment against the company of approximately $3.6
million. On appeal the decision was affirmed by the appellate
court in November 2014. The company filed a petition for review
to the California Supreme Court on December 24, 2014, which was
denied on February 18, 2015. The judgment in this matter,
including interest and costs, was paid on March 20, 2015 within
the amounts previously recorded by the company.

The first trial in the MDL commenced in July 2013 and resulted in
a judgment against the company of approximately $2 million, which
was upheld by the Fourth Circuit on January 14, 2016. The company
does not believe that any verdicts entered to date are
representative of potential outcomes of all Women's Health
Product Claims. On January 16, 2014 and July 31, 2014, the WV
District Court ordered that the company prepare 200 and then an
additional 300 individual cases, respectively, for trial (the
"2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders"). The 2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders
resulted in significant additional litigation-related defense
costs beginning in the second quarter of 2014 and continuing
through the second quarter of 2015. In February 2015, the WV
District Court appointed a Special Master to assist with
settlement resolution. In June 2015, the WV District Court issued
an order staying the requirement to prepare a significant portion
of the cases covered by the 2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders.

Substantially all of the 500 individual cases that are the
subject of the 2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders have been part of
agreements or agreements in principle to settle with various
plaintiff law firms. In December 2016, the WV District Court
lifted the stay of the 2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders and remanded
five of the unsettled cases to their courts of original
jurisdiction for trial. In the first quarter of 2017, an
additional 11 cases were remanded for trial for a total of 16
remanded cases. As of September 30, 2017, after accounting for
settlements effectuated over the second and third quarters of
2017, there are only three remaining remanded matters, of which
two cases have been assigned trial dates in 2018. In response to
court orders on January 27, 2017 and March 3, 2017, the company
is preparing an additional approximately 125 remaining individual
cases for trial (together with the 2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders, the
"WHP Pre-Trial Orders"), which has been reduced from the original
order due to settlements and dismissals over the second and third
quarters of 2017.

The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result in material additional costs
in future periods in defending Women's Health Product Claims. The
WV District Court may also order that the company prepare
additional cases for trial, which could result in material
additional costs in future periods.

As of September 30, 2017, the company reached agreements or
agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to
settle their respective inventories of cases totaling
approximately 13,050 Women's Health Product Claims, including
approximately: 560 during 2014, 6,215 during 2015, 4,155 during
2016 and 2,120 during 2017.

C. R. Bard said "The company believes that these Women's Health
Product Claims are not the subject of Medtronic's indemnification
obligation. These settlement agreements and agreements in
principle include unfiled and previously unknown claims held by
various plaintiffs' law firms, which have not been included in
the approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the first
paragraph of this section." Each agreement is subject to certain
conditions, including requirements for participation in the
proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs."

The company continues to engage in discussions with other
plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled
Women's Health Product Claims, which may include additional
inventory settlements. Notwithstanding these settlement efforts,
the company anticipates additional trials over the next 12
months. In addition, one or more possible consolidated trials may
occur in the future.

In July 2015, Medtronic agreed to take responsibility for
pursuing settlement of certain of the Women's Health Product
Claims that relate to products distributed by the company under
supply agreements with Medtronic and the company has paid
Medtronic $121 million towards these potential settlements. In
June 2017, the company amended the agreement with Medtronic to
transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women's
Health Product Claims to Medtronic on terms similar to the July
2015 agreement, including with respect to the obligation to make
payments to Medtronic towards these potential settlements. The
company also may, in its sole discretion, transfer responsibility
for settlement of additional Women's Health Product Claims to
Medtronic on similar terms. The agreements do not resolve the
dispute between the company and Medtronic with respect to Women's
Health Product Claims that do not settle, if any. As part of the
agreements, Medtronic and the company agreed to dismiss without
prejudice their previously filed litigation with respect to
Medtronic's obligation to defend and indemnify the company.

C. R. Bard, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells medical, surgical,
diagnostic, and patient care devices worldwide.  The Company
sells its products directly to hospitals, individual healthcare
professionals, extended care facilities, and alternate site
facilities through hospital/surgical supply and other medical
specialty distributors.  C. R. Bard, Inc. was founded in 1907 and
is headquartered in Murray Hill, New Jersey.


CR BARD: Continues to Defend Against Filter Product Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that as of September 30, 2017, product
liability lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately
2,765 plaintiffs are currently pending against the company in
various federal and state jurisdictions alleging personal
injuries associated with the use of the company's vena cava
filter products (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Filter Product
Claims").

In August 2015, the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation
("JPML") ordered the creation of a Multi-District Litigation for
all federal Filter Product Claims (the "IVC Filter MDL") in the
District of Arizona. There are approximately 2,690 Filter Product
Claims that have been, or shortly will be, transferred to the IVC
Filter MDL. In September 2017, the Court denied Plaintiffs'
motion seeking class certification of a medical monitoring class.
Plaintiffs may appeal this decision. In March 2017, the company
filed a motion for summary judgment based upon principles of
federal preemption. The remaining approximately 70 Filter Product
Claims are pending in various state courts.

In March 2016, a putative Canadian class action was filed against
the company in Quebec. In April 2016 and May 2016, putative
Canadian class actions were filed in Ontario and British
Columbia, respectively. In November 2016, a putative Canadian
class action was filed in Saskatchewan. The approximate number of
lawsuits set forth above does not include approximately 20 claims
that have been threatened against the company but for which
complaints have not yet been filed. In addition, the company has
limited information regarding the nature and quantity of these
and other unfiled or unknown claims.

The company continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may in
future periods learn additional information regarding other
unfiled or unknown claims, or other lawsuits, which could
materially impact the company's estimate of the number of claims
or lawsuits against the company. The company expects that trials
of Filter Product Claims may take place over the next 12 months.

C. R. Bard said "While the company intends to vigorously defend
Filter Product Claims that do not settle, including through
litigation, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of
these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the
company's business, results of operations, financial condition
and/or liquidity."

C. R. Bard, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells medical, surgical,
diagnostic, and patient care devices worldwide.  The Company
sells its products directly to hospitals, individual healthcare
professionals, extended care facilities, and alternate site
facilities through hospital/surgical supply and other medical
specialty distributors.  C. R. Bard, Inc. was founded in 1907 and
is headquartered in Murray Hill, New Jersey.


CR BARD: "Tanguma" Class Action Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the Tanguma action has been voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiffs.

The company, its directors, BD and Merger Corp were or have been
named as defendants in two putative class actions in the United
States District Court of the District of New Jersey, under the
captions Barbara Stanford Tanguma v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:17-CV-03977 (filed June 2, 2017) (the "Tanguma
action") and Richard K. Maser v. Timothy M. Ring, et al., Case
No. 2:17-CV-04549 (filed June 21, 2017) (the "Maser action" and,
together with the Tanguma action, the "lawsuits"). The complaint
for the Tanguma action alleged, and for the Maser action alleges,
that the preliminary registration statement on Form S-4 filed by
BD on May 23, 2017 contains material misstatements and omits
material information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

The Tanguma action sought, and the Maser action continues to
seek, among other things, equitable relief to enjoin consummation
of the Merger and attorneys' fees and costs. The Tanguma action
also sought dissemination of a registration statement that is
materially true and not misleading and, if the company and BD
consummate the Merger, its rescission and/or rescissory damages,
and the Maser action continues to seek unspecified damages. On
September 25, 2017, the Tanguma action was voluntarily dismissed
by the plaintiffs.

C. R. Bard said "The company believes that Maser action is
without merit."

C. R. Bard, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells medical, surgical,
diagnostic, and patient care devices worldwide.  The Company
sells its products directly to hospitals, individual healthcare
professionals, extended care facilities, and alternate site
facilities through hospital/surgical supply and other medical
specialty distributors.  C. R. Bard, Inc. was founded in 1907 and
is headquartered in Murray Hill, New Jersey.


CREDIT ONE: Faces "Beitler" Suit in Southern District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit One Bank,
N.A. The case is styled Chris Beitler, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit One Bank,
N.A., Defendant, Case No. 9:17-cv-81383-RLR (S.D. Fla., December
21, 2017).

The Defendant is a national banking association with its
principal place of business located at 585 Pilot Road, Las Vegas,
Nevada 89119.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   William Peerce Howard, Esq.
   The Consumer Protection Firm, PLLC
   210-A South MacDill Avenue
   Tampa, FL 33609
   Tel: (813) 500-1500
   Fax: (813) 435-2369
   Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com


DOORDASH INC: Faces "Austin" Suit in Dist. of Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DoorDash, Inc. The
case is captioned as Darnell Austin, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DoorDash, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-12498-IT (D. Mass., Dec. 19, 2017).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani.

DoorDash is an on-demand restaurant delivery service founded in
2013 by Stanford students Andy Fang, Stanley Tang, Tony Xu and
Evan Moore.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Francis J. Bingham, Esq.
          Michael Mankes, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          One International Place, Suite 2700
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 378 6000
          E-mail: fbingham@littler.com
                  mmankes@littler.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces D.L. Evans Bank Suit in N.D. of Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc. The
case is styled D.L. Evans Bank and Texas First Bank, individually
and on behalf of a class of all similarly situated financial
institutions, Plaintiffs v. Equifax Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-05357-TWT (N.D. Ga., December 21, 2017).

Equifax Inc. operates a global credit reporting agency that
collects, stores, organizes, analyzes and disseminates data on
millions of consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Anthony C. Lake, Esq.
   Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC
   3490 Piedmont Road, N.E.
   One Securities Centre, Suite 1050
   Atlanta, GA 30305
   Tel: (404) 842-9700
   Fax: (404) 842-9750
   Email: aclake@gwllawfirm.com

      - and -

   Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
   Murray Law Firm
   650 Poydras Street
   Suite 2150
   New Orleans, LA 70130
   Tel: (505) 525-8100
   Email: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com

       - and -

   Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
   Zimmerman Reed, P.L.L.P. -MN
   1100 IDS Center
   80 South 8th Street
   Minneapolis, MN 55402
   Tel: (612) 341-0400
   Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com

      - and -

   Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
   Chestnut Cambronne, PA
   Suite 300
   17 Washington Avenue North
   Minneapolis, MN 55401
   Tel: (612) 339-7300
   Fax: (612) 336-2940
   Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com

      - and -

   Bryan A. Fox, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP - PA
   5th Floor
   1133 Penn Avenue
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 322-9243
   Fax: (412) 231-0246

      - and -

   Charles Hale Van Horn, Esq.
   Berman Fink Van Horn, P.C. -Atl
   3475 Piedmont Road, N.E.
   Suite 1100
   Atlanta, GA 30305
   Tel: (404) 261-7711
   Fax: (404) 233-1943
   Email: cvanhorn@bfvlaw.com

      - and -

   Erin Green Comite, Esq.
   Scott & Scott, LLP-NY
   17th Floor
   230 Park Avenue
   New York, NY 10169
   Tel: (860) 537-5537
   Email: ecomite@scott-scott.com

      - and -

   Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP - PA
   5th Floor
   1133 Penn Avenue
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 322-9243
   Fax: (412) 231-0246
   Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

      - and -

   Jamisen Etzel, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP - PA
   5th Floor
   1133 Penn Avenue
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 322-9243
   Fax: (412) 231-0246
   Email: jetzel@carlsonlynch.com

      - and -

   Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
   Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP
   230 Park Avenue
   17th Floor
   New York, NY 10169
   Tel: (212) 223-6444
   Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

      - and -

   Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
   Lockridge Grindal Nauen
   100 Washington Avenue South
   2200 Washington Square
   Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
   Tel: (612) 339-6900
   Email: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

      - and -

   Stephen B. Murray , Sr., Esq.
   Murray Law Firm
   650 Poydras Street
   Suite 2150
   New Orleans, LA 70130
   Tel: (504) 525-8100
   Email:amurray@murray-lawfirm.com

      - and -

   Thomas A. Withers, Esq.
   Gillen, Withers & Lake, LLC
   8 E. Liberty Street
   Savannah, GA 31401
   Tel: (912) 447-8400
   Fax: (912) 233-6584
   Email: twithers@gwllawfirm.com


ERIE INDEMNITY: Case Dismissal Order Under Appeal to 3rd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erie Indemnity Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that the plaintiffs in the "Beltz II"
lawsuit filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, from the district court's decision
granting the company's and the directors' motion to dismiss a
class action lawsuit.

On February 6, 2013, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania,
captioned Erie Insurance Exchange, an unincorporated association,
by members Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan and Anita
Sullivan, and Patricia R. Beltz, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situate v. Richard L. Stover; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr.;
Terrence W. Cavanaugh; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Susan Hirt Hagen;
Thomas B. Hagen; C. Scott Hartz; Claude C. Lilly, III; Lucian L.
Morrison; Thomas W. Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Elizabeth H.
Vorsheck; and Robert C. Wilburn (the "Beltz" lawsuit), by alleged
policyholders of Exchange who are also the plaintiffs in the
Sullivan lawsuit. The individuals named as defendants in the
Beltz lawsuit were the then-current Directors of Indemnity.

As subsequently amended, the Beltz lawsuit asserts many of the
same allegations and claims for monetary relief as in the
Sullivan lawsuit. Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of all
policyholders of Exchange, or, alternatively, on behalf of
Exchange itself. Indemnity filed a motion to intervene as a Party
Defendant in the Beltz lawsuit in July 2013, and the Directors
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in August 2013. On February
10, 2014, the court entered an order granting Indemnity's motion
to intervene and permitting Indemnity to join the Directors'
motion to dismiss; granting in part the Directors' motion to
dismiss; referring the matter to the Department to decide any and
all issues within its jurisdiction; denying all other relief
sought in the Directors' motion as moot; and dismissing the case
without prejudice. To avoid duplicative proceedings and expedite
the Department's review, the Parties stipulated that only the
Sullivan action would proceed before the Department and any final
and non-appealable determinations made by the Department in the
Sullivan action will be applied to the Beltz action.

On March 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Indemnity
filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on March 26, 2014. On
November 17, 2014, the Third Circuit deferred ruling on
Indemnity's motion to dismiss the appeal and instructed the
parties to address that motion, as well as the merits of
Plaintiffs' appeal, in the parties' briefing. Briefing was
completed on April 2, 2015. In light of the Department's April
29, 2015 decision in Sullivan, the Parties then jointly requested
that the Beltz appeal be voluntarily dismissed as moot on June 5,
2015. The Third Circuit did not rule on the Parties' request for
dismissal and instead held oral argument as scheduled on June 8,
2015. On July 16, 2015, the Third Circuit issued an opinion and
judgment dismissing the appeal. The Third Circuit found that it
lacked appellate jurisdiction over the appeal, because the
District Court's February 10, 2014 order referring the matter to
the Department was not a final, appealable order.

On July 8, 2016, the Beltz plaintiffs filed a new action labeled
as a "Verified Derivative And Class Action Complaint" in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania. The action is captioned Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph
S. Sullivan, and Anita Sullivan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf of
Nominal Defendant Erie Insurance Exchange v. Erie Indemnity
Company; Kaj Ahlmann; John T. Baily; Samuel P. Black, III; J.
Ralph Borneman, Jr.; Terrence W. Cavanaugh; Wilson C. Cooney;
LuAnn Datesh; Patricia A. Goldman; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B.
Hagen; C. Scott Hartz; Samuel P. Katz; Gwendolyn King; Claude C.
Lilly, III; Martin J. Lippert; George R. Lucore; Jeffrey A.
Ludrof; Edmund J. Mehl; Henry N. Nassau; Thomas W. Palmer; Martin
P. Sheffield; Seth E. Schofield; Richard L. Stover; Jan R. Van
Gorder; Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck; Harry H. Weil; and Robert C.
Wilburn (the "Beltz II" lawsuit). The individual defendants are
all present or former Directors of Indemnity (the "Directors").

The allegations of the Beltz II lawsuit arise from the same
fundamental, underlying claims as the Sullivan and prior Beltz
litigation, i.e., that Indemnity improperly retained Service
Charges and Added Service Charges. The Beltz II lawsuit alleges
that the retention of the Service Charges and Added Service
Charges was improper because, for among other reasons, that
retention constituted a breach of the Subscriber's Agreement and
an Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing by Indemnity,
breaches of fiduciary duty by Indemnity and the other defendants,
conversion by Indemnity, and unjust enrichment by defendants
Jonathan Hirt Hagen, Thomas B. Hagen, Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck,
and Samuel P. Black, III, at the expense of Exchange. The Beltz
II lawsuit requests, among other things, that a judgment be
entered against the Defendants certifying the action as a class
action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure; declaring Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class
and Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the Class; declaring the
conduct alleged as unlawful, including, but not limited to,
Defendants' retention of the Service Charges and Added Service
Charges; enjoining Defendants from continuing to retain the
Service Charges and Added Service Charges; and awarding
compensatory and punitive damages and interest.

On September 23, 2016, Indemnity filed a motion to dismiss the
Beltz II lawsuit. On September 30, 2016, the Directors filed
their own motions to dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit. On July 17,
2017, the Court granted Indemnity's and the Directors' motions to
dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit, dismissing the case in its
entirety. The Court ruled that "the Subscriber's Agreement does
not govern the separate and additional charges at issue in the
Complaint" and, therefore, dismissed the breach of contract claim
against Indemnity for failure to state a claim.  The Court also
ruled that the remaining claims, including the claims for breach
of fiduciary duty against Indemnity and the Directors, are barred
by the applicable statutes of limitation or fail to state legally
cognizable claims. On August 14, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

Indemnity believes it has meritorious legal and factual defenses
and intends to vigorously defend against all allegations and
requests for relief in the Beltz II lawsuit. The Directors have
advised Indemnity that they intend to vigorously defend against
the claims in the Beltz II lawsuit and have sought
indemnification and advancement of expenses from the Company in
connection with the Beltz II lawsuit.

Erie Indemnity Company operates as a managing attorney-in-fact
for the subscribers at the Erie Insurance Exchange in the United
States. The company provides sales, underwriting, and policy
issuance services for the policyholders on behalf of the Erie
Insurance Exchange. Its sales related services include agent
compensation, and sales and advertising support services; and
underwriting services comprise underwriting and policy
processing, as well as provides administrative support,
information technology, and customer services. The company
operates three field offices. Erie Indemnity Company was founded
in 1925 and is based in Erie, Pennsylvania.


EVINE LIVE: Customer Class Action in New York Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Evine Live Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 29, 2017, that a customer had filed a purported class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York.

On June 26, 2017, a purported class action case was filed by an
individual, William Horan, against both the Company and Invicta
Watch Co. of America, Inc. ("Invicta") in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, asserting
claims under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and New York
General Business Law Section 349.  The claims relate to the
warranty provided with the Invicta watch that the plaintiff
allegedly purchased through the Company.  Plaintiff alleges that
the defendants breached the warranty, failed to disclose material
information and\or made false representations concerning the
warranty.  This case is pled as a putative class action, which
means that the plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all other
similarly situated individuals who purchased an Invicta watch
through the Company. The complaint seeks, among other relief,
class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages,
injunctive relief, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees,
and such other relief as the court might find just and proper.

Evine Live said "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of this case and the legal standards that must
be met for, among other things, class certification, the Company
cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss
that may result from this action."

Evine Live Inc. is a multiplatform video commerce company that
offers a mix of proprietary, exclusive and name brands directly
to consumers in an engaging and informative shopping experience
through TV, online and mobile devices. The company operates a 24-
hour television shopping network, Evine, which is distributed
primarily on cable and satellite systems, through which the
company offers proprietary, exclusive and name brand merchandises
in the categories of jewelry & watches; home & consumer
electronics; beauty; and fashion & accessories.


EVINE LIVE: TCPA Class Action in California Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Evine Live Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 29, 2017, that the company is facing a TCPA class action
suit in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California.

On June 29, 2017, a purported class action case was filed by an
individual, Betty Gregory, against the Company in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
asserting claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA").  The plaintiff alleges that the Company unlawfully
contacted her on her cellular telephone without her prior express
consent.  This case is pled as a putative class action, and the
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all other individuals who
received telephone calls similar to the ones she allegedly
received from the Company and the Company's third-party
collection vendors.  The TCPA provides for recovery of actual
damages or $500 for each violation, whichever is greater. If it
is determined that a defendant acted willfully or knowingly in
violating the TCPA, the amount of the award may be increased by
up to three times the amount provided above. The complaint seeks,
among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit,
unspecified damages, injunctive relief, costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court
might find just and proper.

Evine Live said "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of this case and the legal standards that must
be met for, among other things, class certification, the Company
cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss
that may result from this action."

Evine Live Inc. is a multiplatform video commerce company that
offers a mix of proprietary, exclusive and name brands directly
to consumers in an engaging and informative shopping experience
through TV, online and mobile devices. The company operates a 24-
hour television shopping network, Evine, which is distributed
primarily on cable and satellite systems, through which the
company offers proprietary, exclusive and name brand merchandises
in the categories of jewelry & watches; home & consumer
electronics; beauty; and fashion & accessories.


FAMOUS BOURBON: "Richardson" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LAWRENCE RICHARDSON, the Plaintiff, v.
FAMOUS BOURBON MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. AND FIORELLA'S ON DECATUR,
INC., D/B/A JAZZ CAFE, FIORELLA'S CAF  AND BEERFEST, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-05848-JTM-DEK (E.D. La.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally
certifying a class of:

"all persons employed by Defendants since December 2014 who were
paid on a "day rate" basis but were not paid at a rate equal to
or higher than the federal minimum wage rate and/or who were not
paid at an overtime rate of one and one-half times their hourly
rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 per week in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=a4jrXqoD

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Action:

          Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
          Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON & JACKSON
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 599 5953
          Facsimile: (888) 988 6499
          E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
                  mjackson@jackson-law.net

               - and -

          Christopher L. Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS LITIGATION, L.L.C.
          639 Loyola Ave., Suite 1850
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 308 1438
          Facsimile: (504) 308 1446
          E-mail: chris@williamslitigation.com


FEDCHEX RECOVERY: Faces "Spencer" Suit in S.D. of Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FEDChex Recovery
LLC. The case is styled Monique Spencer, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDChex
Recovery LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-
03850 (S.D. Tex, December 21, 2017).

FEDChex Recovery LLC is a Collections Agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan David Kandelshein, Esq.
   The Law Office of Jonathan Kandelshein
   6906 Rocky Top Circle
   Dallas, TX 75252
   Tex: (646) 753-0149
   Email: Jonathan.kandelshein@gmail.com


FIRST ENERGY: "Ewing" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Linda Ewing, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. First Energy Corp., Case No. 2:17-cv-01573 (W.D. Pa.,
December 4, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the
Ohio Prompt Pay Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Linda Ewing worked exclusively for First Energy as a
Field Agent during the relevant statutory time period. Throughout
her employment with First Energy, Ewing was paid a day rate with
no overtime compensation and was classified as an independent
contractor. Plaintiff Ewing is resident of and a citizen of
Pennsylvania.

Defendant FirstEnergy Corporation is a diversified energy company
headquartered in Akron, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave.
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Tel: (412) 766-1455
      Fax: (412)766-0300
      E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


FIVE BOROUGH: Stepanov Seeks Minimum Wages, OT under Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZULFIYA STEPANOV, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by FIVE BOROUGH HOME CARE,
INC. along with other entities affiliated or controlled by FIVE
BOROUGH HOME CARE, INC., the Plaintiffs, v. FIVE BOROUGH HOME
CARE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 161196/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Dec. 19, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime
compensation, "spread of hours" compensation, reimbursement for
business expenses borne for the benefit and convenience of the
Defendant, as well as damages arising from Defendant's breach of
contract, which they were deprived of, plus interest, attorneys'
fees, and costs, pursuant to New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has maintained a policy
and practice of requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess
of ten hours per day, without providing the proper hourly
compensation for all hours worked, overtime compensation for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, and "spread
of hours" compensation.

Five Borough is in the Home Health Care Services business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
          Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, Seventh Fl
          New York, New York 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943 9082
          E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com

               - and -

          Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
          NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1517 Voohies Ave, 2nd Fl
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (212) 808 2224
          Facsimile: (866) 261 5478
          E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


GC SERIVCES: Faces "Fligman" Suit in Eastern District of NY
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Serivces Limited
Partnership. The case is styled Lea Fligman, on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. GC
Serivces Limited Partnership, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07442
(E.D. N.Y., December 21, 2017).

GC Services is the largest privately-held outsourcing provider of
call center management and collection agency services in North
America.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


GC SERVICES: "Kausar" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RUKHSANA KAUSAR, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. GC SERVICES
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-06027-ES-JAD
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order determining
that this Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case may proceed as
a class action, on behalf of:

   "(1) all persons with a New Jersey address, (2) to whom GC
   Services Limited Partnership mailed an initial communication
   letter to Plaintiff's Complaint that stated: (a) "However, if
   you do dispute all or any portion of this debt within 30 days
   of receiving this letter, we will obtain verification of the
   debt from our client and send it to you." and/or (b) "if
   within 30 days of receiving this letter you request the name
   and address of the original creditor, we will provide it to
   you in the event it differs from our client, Synchrony Bank",
   (3) between August 5, 2014 through and including August 24,
   2015, (4) in connection with the collection of a consumer
   debt, (5) that was not returned as undeliverable to GC
   Services Limited Partnership."

The Plaintiff further asks the Court that she be appointed as the
class representative and that Ryan Gentile, Esq. be appointed as
counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2q9xbVWz

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ryan Gentile, Esq.
   110 Jericho Turnpike - Suite 100
   Floral Park, NY 11001
   Telephone: (201) 873 7675
   Facsimile: (212) 675 4367
   E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com


GREATBANC TRUST: "McMaken" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL V. MCMAKEN, on behalf of the
Chemonics International, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and
on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. GREATBANC TRUST COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-04983 (N.D. Ill.), Mr. McMaken moves the Court to enter
an order certifying a class:

   "all participants in the Chemonics International, Inc.
   Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and the beneficiaries of such
   participants, who were allocated Chemonics International, Inc.
   stock in the Plan from July 7, 2011 to present."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZXqvuo8C

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          Patrick O. Muench, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463 2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463 2103
          E-mail: rjenny@baileyglasser.com
                  gporter@baileyglasser.com
                  pmuench@baileyglasser.com


GTS HOLDINGS: Pierrot Seeks Minimum Wages, OT under Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROUDT PIERROT, on behalf of himself and others similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GTS HOLDINGS, INC. EMPIRE
INTERNATIONAL, LTD, EMPIRE CLS WORLDWIDE CHAUFFEURING SERVICES
and any other related entities, the Defendants, Case No.
161206/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 19, 2017), seeks to recover
compensation including unpaid minimum wages, overtime, spread-of-
hours compensation and withheld gratuities, plus interest,
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to New York Labor
Law, the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations, and New Jersey
Statutes.

The Plaintiff and all similarly situated persons who are
presently or were formerly employed by Defendants as chauffeurs
who, as part of their employment, picked up and dropped off
vehicles at EmpireCLS's Secaucus, New Jersey garage

Beginning in December 2008 and, continuing through the present,
Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of failing to
pay Plaintiff and the putative class members employed as Garage
Chauffers earned minimum wages for work performed in connection
with Defendants' luxury transportation company. The Defendants
have engaged in a policy and practice of requiring their
employees to regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week,
without providing overtime compensation as required by applicable
state law.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Putative Class:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Suzanne Leeds Klein, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad St, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com


HP INC: Additional Bid to Compel Arbitration Filed in "Forsyth"
---------------------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 29,
2017, that defendants filed additional motions to compel
arbitration as to a number of the opt-in plaintiffs, in the case
Forsyth, et al. vs. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise.

This is a purported class and collective action filed on August
18, 2016 in the United States District Court, Northern District
of California, against HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging
the defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in
Employment Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act, California public policy and the California Business
and Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing
them with younger workers. Plaintiffs seek to certify a
nationwide collective class action under the ADEA comprised of
all U.S. residents employed by defendants who had their
employment terminated pursuant to a workforce reduction ("WFR")
plan on or after May 23, 2012 and who were 40 years of age or
older. Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Rule 23 class under
California law comprised of all persons 40 years or older
employed by defendants in the state of California and terminated
pursuant to a WFR plan on or after May 23, 2012.

Following a partial motion to dismiss, a motion to strike and a
motion to compel arbitration that the defendants filed in
November 2016, the plaintiffs amended their complaint.  New
plaintiffs were added, but the plaintiffs agreed that the class
period for the nationwide collective action should be shortened
and now starts on December 9, 2014. On January 30, 2017, the
defendants filed another partial motion to dismiss and motions to
compel arbitration as to several of the plaintiffs. On March 20,
2017, the defendants filed additional motions to compel
arbitration as to a number of the opt-in plaintiffs.

HP Inc. is a leading global provider of personal computing and
other access devices, imaging and printing products, and related
technologies, solutions, and services. The company sells to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses and
large enterprises, including customers in the government, health,
and education sectors.


HP INC: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Drop Firmware Update Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 29,
2017, that HP's motion to dismiss in the case entitled captioned
In re HP Printer Firmware Update Litigation remains pending.

Five purported consumer class actions were filed against HP,
arising out of the supplies authentication protocol in certain
OfficeJet printers.  This authentication protocol rejects some
third-party ink cartridges that use non-HP security chips.  Two
of the cases were dismissed, and the remaining cases have been
consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, captioned In re HP Printer Firmware
Update Litigation.

The remaining plaintiffs' operative consolidated complaint was
filed on March 22, 2017, alleging eleven causes of action: (1)
unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of the Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.;
(2) fraudulent business practices in violation of the Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.;
(3) violations of the False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code Section 17500, et seq.; (4) violations of the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq.; (5)
violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices -- Consumer
Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. Section 17.01, et
seq.; (6) violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act,
Wash. Rev. Code Ann. Section 19.86.010, et seq.; (7) violations
of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, New Jersey Statutes Ann.
56:8-1, et seq.; (8) violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1030, et seq.; (9) violations of the
California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, Cal. Penal Code
Section 502; (10) Trespass to Chattels; and (11) Tortious
Interference with Contractual Relations and/or Prospective
Economic Advantage.

The plaintiffs seek to certify a primary class of all persons in
the United States who purchased or owned the OfficeJet printers
in question, and they alternatively seek to certify subclasses of
all such printer purchasers or owners in California, Texas,
Washington, and/or New Jersey. On April 21, 2017, HP filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The court held a
hearing on July 14, 2017. HP's motion to dismiss remains pending.


I.Q. DATA: "Dees" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------
David Dees, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. I.Q. Data International, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-04489
(D. Ariz., December 4, 2017), seeks damages pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff David Dees, is a consumer who at all relevant times
resided in the State of Arizona, County of Maricopa, and City of
Phoenix.

Defendant, I.Q. Data International, Inc. is an entity who at all
relevant times was engaged, by use of the mails and telephone, in
the business of attempting to collect a "debt". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
      Joseph Panvini, Esq.
      THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
      5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
      Mesa, AZ 85206
      Tel: (602) 388-8898
      Fax: (866) 317-2674
      E-mail: rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com
              jpanvini@consumerlawinfo.com


INTEL CORP: Appeal in Calif. Shareholders Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that a California Court of Appeals heard oral
argument in October 2017 on the plaintiffs' appeal on a lower
court ruling, and the parties await the appeals court's decision.

On August 19, 2010, the company announced that it had agreed to
acquire all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. for $48.00 per
share. Four McAfee shareholders filed putative class-action
lawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior Court
challenging the proposed transaction. The cases were ordered
consolidated in September 2010.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that named former McAfee
board members, McAfee, and Intel as defendants, and alleged that
the McAfee board members breached their fiduciary duties and that
McAfee and Intel aided and abetted those breaches of duty. The
complaint requested rescission of the merger agreement, such
other equitable relief as the court may deem proper, and an award
of damages in an unspecified amount.

In June 2012, the plaintiffs' damages expert asserted that the
value of a McAfee share for the purposes of assessing damages
should be $62.08.

In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class
action, appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as
the class representative and scheduled trial to begin in January
2013. In March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the
California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the
class certification order; the petition was denied in June 2012.
In March 2012, at defendants' request, the court held that
plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial and ordered a bench
trial. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the
California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that
order, which the court of appeal denied in July 2012. In August
2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial
court granted that motion in November 2012, and entered final
judgment in the case in February 2013.

In April 2013, plaintiffs appealed the final judgment. The
California Court of Appeal heard oral argument in October 2017,
and the parties await the court's decision.

Intel said "Because the resolution of the appeal may materially
impact the scope and nature of the proceeding, we are unable to
make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of
losses, if any, arising from this matter. We dispute the class-
action claims and intend to continue to defend the lawsuit
vigorously."

Intel Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells computer,
networking, and communications platforms worldwide. It operates
through Client Computing Group, Data Center Group, Internet of
Things Group, Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group, Intel Security
Group, Programmable Solutions Group, and All Other segments. The
company is based in Santa Clara, California.


ITURAN LOCATION: Israeli Class Action Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
Ituran Location and Control Ltd. said in its Form 20-F/A Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016, that the company continues to
defend itself in a purported class action suit.

On July 13, 2015 the company received a purported class action
lawsuit which was filed against the Company in the District Court
of Central Region in Tel-Aviv, Israel, by one plaintiff who is a
subscriber of the Company, alleging that the Company, which was
declared a monopoly under the Israeli Restrictive Trade Practices
Law, 1988, unlawfully abused its power as a monopoly and
discriminated between its customers. The plaintiff claims that
the alleged discrimination resulted from the Company charging
higher monthly subscription fees from customers who are obliged
by insurance company requirements to install location and
recovery systems in their vehicles than the monthly subscription
fees that are charged from customers who are not required by
insurance companies to install location and recovery systems in
their vehicles.

In addition, the plaintiff claims that the Company offers to
customers who are not required by insurance companies to install
location and recovery systems in their vehicles, a discounted
warrantee service to their location and recovery systems. The
plaintiff claims in addition to the above, that such actions
raise additional causes of action against the Company such as
negotiations without good faith, executing contract without good
faith, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of consumer
protection laws, tort laws, and breach of statutory duty. The
lawsuit is yet to be approved as a class action. The total amount
claimed if the lawsuit is approved as a class action was
estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 300 million
(approximately USD 77 million).

The Company said, "Our defense against the approval of the class
action lawsuit was filed on January 3, 2016. The plaintiff has
responded to our defense on February 29, 2016, and a first
preliminary hearing took place on January 4th, 2017 A class
action lawsuit based on similar claims, against the Company,
which description was filed with sect on form 6-K on March 22,
2011, was dismissed by the court on the request of both parties,
on March 5, 2012 for a small compensation to the plaintiff and
his attorneys, in a total amount of NIS 30,000 (approximately USD
7,900). Such dismissal of a similar class action lawsuit may have
a positive effect on the Company's defense against the current
lawsuit. Based on an opinion of its legal counsels, at this
preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the lawsuit's
chances of success, however based on the documents of the claim,
the Company has good defense arguments in respect of claims made
by the plaintiff and that the chances that the lawsuit will not
be approved as a class action lawsuit are higher than it will be
approved. While we cannot predict the outcome of this case, if we
are not successful in defending our claim, we could be subject to
significant costs, adversely affecting our results of
operations."

Ituran Location and Control Ltd. is an Israeli company that
provides stolen vehicle recovery and tracking services, and
markets GPS wireless communications products. Ituran is traded on
NASDAQ and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange and is included in the TA-
100 Index. Ituran has over 1,300 employees worldwide and is a
market leader in Brazil, Argentina, Israel and the United States.
As of February 2015, the company has 817,000 subscribers. Ituran
was established in 1994 by the Tadiran conglomerate to develop
and operate a service for locating stolen vehicles using a
technology that was originally developed for military use at
Tadiran Telematics, a subsidiary of Tadiran Communications.


JC PENNEY: $97.5MM Deal in Securities Class Suit Awaits Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
J.C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periods
ended July 29, 2017, and ended October 28, 2017, that the parties
have reached an agreement in principle, subject to final court
approval, to settle a consolidated securities class action for
$97.5 million, which will be funded by insurance.

The Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah are
parties to the Marcus consolidated purported class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler
Division. The Marcus consolidated complaint is purportedly
brought on behalf of persons who acquired the company's common
stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through September
26, 2013, and alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff claims that the defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the
Company's financial condition and business prospects that caused
the company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated
prices.  The consolidated complaint seeks class certification,
unspecified compensatory damages, including interest, reasonable
costs and expenses, and other relief as the court may deem just
and proper. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint which was denied by the court on September 29, 2015.
Defendants filed an answer to the consolidated complaint on
November 12, 2015. Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification on January 25, 2016, and on August 29, 2016, a
magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that the
motion for class certification be granted. The district court
adopted this report and recommendation granting class
certification on March 8, 2017.

Also, on August 26, 2014, plaintiff Nathan Johnson filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company, Myron E.
Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The suit is
purportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquired our
securities other than common stock during the period from August
20, 2013 through September 26, 2013, generally mirrors the
allegations contained in the Marcus lawsuit discussed above, and
seeks similar relief. On June 8, 2015, plaintiff in the Marcus
lawsuit amended the consolidated complaint to include the members
of the purported class in the Johnson lawsuit, and on June 10,
2015, the Johnson lawsuit was consolidated into the Marcus
lawsuit.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle, subject to
final court approval, to settle the consolidated securities class
action for $97.5 million, which will be funded by insurance. The
court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on June 24,
2017.

J.C. Penney said "While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of these matters, we believe that the final
resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, financial position,
liquidity or capital resources."

J.C. Penney Company, Inc. is a holding company whose principal
operating subsidiary is J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. (JCP). JCP
was incorporated in Delaware in 1924, and J. C. Penney Company,
Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in 2002, when the holding
company structure was implemented. The holding company has no
independent assets or operations and no direct subsidiaries other
than JCP.

The company is an American department store chain with 1095
locations in 49 U.S. states and Puerto Rico. In addition to
selling conventional merchandise, JCPenney stores often house
several leased departments such as Sephora, Seattle's Best
Coffee, salons, optical centers, portrait studios, and jewelry
repair.


JC PENNEY: Awaits Final Court Approval of $4.5MM ERISA Case Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
J.C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periods
ended July 29, 2017, and ended October 28, 2017, that the court
granted preliminary approval on a $4.5 million settlement
agreement reached by the parties.

JCP and certain present and former members of JCP's Board of
Directors have been sued in a purported class action complaint by
plaintiffs Roberto Ramirez and Thomas Ihle, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, which was filed on July
8, 2014 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas,
Tyler Division. The suit alleges that the defendants violated
Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) by breaching fiduciary duties relating to the J. C.
Penney Corporation, Inc. Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock
Ownership Plan (the Plan). The class period is alleged to be
between November 1, 2011 and September 27, 2013. Plaintiffs
allege that they and others who invested in or held Company stock
in the Plan during this period were injured because defendants
allegedly made false and misleading statements and/or omissions
regarding the Company's financial condition and business
prospects that caused the Company's common stock to trade at
artificially inflated prices. The complaint seeks class
certification, declaratory relief, a constructive trust,
reimbursement of alleged losses to the Plan, actual damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which was
granted in part and denied in part by the court on September 29,
2015. The parties reached a settlement agreement, subject to
final court approval, pursuant to which JCP would make available
$4.5 million to settle class members' claims, and the court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement on January 3,
2017.

J.C. Penney said "While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of these matters, we believe that the final
resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, financial position,
liquidity or capital resources."

J.C. Penney Company, Inc. is a holding company whose principal
operating subsidiary is J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. (JCP). JCP
was incorporated in Delaware in 1924, and J. C. Penney Company,
Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in 2002, when the holding
company structure was implemented. The holding company has no
independent assets or operations and no direct subsidiaries other
than JCP.

The company is an American department store chain with 1095
locations in 49 U.S. states and Puerto Rico. In addition to
selling conventional merchandise, JCPenney stores often house
several leased departments such as Sephora, Seattle's Best
Coffee, salons, optical centers, portrait studios, and jewelry
repair.


JC PENNEY: Deal in Calif. Suit Pending, Illinois Suit Resolved
--------------------------------------------------------------
J.C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periods
ended July 29, 2017, and ended October 28, 2017, that the parties
have reached a settlement agreement, subject to final court
approval, to resolve a California action for $1.75 million. The
California court granted preliminary approval of the settlement
on June 7, 2017. The parties have also reached a settlement
agreement to resolve an Illinois action for $5 million. The
Illinois court granted final approval of the settlement on August
9, 2017.

JCP is a defendant in a class action proceeding entitled Tschudy
v. JCPenney Corporation filed on April 15, 2011 in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of California. The lawsuit
alleges that JCP violated the California Labor Code in connection
with the alleged forfeiture of accrued and vested vacation time
under its "My Time Off" policy. The class consists of all JCP
employees who worked in California from April 5, 2007 to the
present. Plaintiffs amended the complaint to assert additional
claims under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act on
behalf of all JCP employees who worked in Illinois from January
1, 2004 to the present.

After the court granted JCP's motion to transfer the Illinois
claims, those claims are now pending in a separate action in the
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, entitled
Garcia v. JCPenney Corporation. The lawsuits seek compensatory
damages, penalties, interest, disgorgement, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiffs in
both lawsuits filed motions, which the Company opposed, to
certify these actions on behalf of all employees in California
and Illinois based on the specific claims at issue. On December
17, 2014, the California court granted plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. Pursuant to a motion by the Company, the
California court decertified the class on December 9, 2015. On
March 30, 2016, the California court granted JCP's motion for
summary judgment. On April 26, 2016, the California plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal. On May 4, 2016, the California court
entered judgment for JCP on all plaintiffs' claims. The Illinois
court denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for class
certification pending the filing of an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint in the Illinois lawsuit
on April 14, 2015 and the Company answered. On July 2, 2015, the
Illinois plaintiffs renewed their motion for class certification,
which the Illinois court granted on March 8, 2016. The parties
have reached a settlement agreement, subject to final court
approval, to resolve the California action for $1.75 million. The
California court granted preliminary approval of the settlement
on June 7, 2017. The parties have also reached a settlement
agreement to resolve the Illinois action for $5 million. The
Illinois court granted final approval of the settlement on August
9, 2017.

J.C. Penney said "While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of these matters, we believe that the final
resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, financial position,
liquidity or capital resources."

J.C. Penney Company, Inc. is a holding company whose principal
operating subsidiary is J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. (JCP). JCP
was incorporated in Delaware in 1924, and J. C. Penney Company,
Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in 2002, when the holding
company structure was implemented. The holding company has no
independent assets or operations and no direct subsidiaries other
than JCP.

The company is an American department store chain with 1095
locations in 49 U.S. states and Puerto Rico. In addition to
selling conventional merchandise, JCPenney stores often house
several leased departments such as Sephora, Seattle's Best
Coffee, salons, optical centers, portrait studios, and jewelry
repair.


LOUISIANA: "Hamilton" Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARCUS HAMILTON; WINTHROP EATON; and
MICHAEL PERRY, on their own behalf, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated prisoners, the Plaintiffs, v. DARREL VANNOY,
Warden of Angola; BURL CAIN, former Warden of Angola; JAMES
CRUZE, Warden of Death Row; LESLIE DUPONT, Deputy Warden of
Security; and JAMES LEBLANC, Secretary of the Louisiana
Department of Public Safety Corrections, the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-00194-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court for an order certifying two classes:

Due Process Class:

   "all current and future Death Row prisoners at Louisiana State
   Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana, as well as other prisoners
   sentenced to death at Angola who are similarly situated"; and

Eighth Amendment Class:

   "all current and future Death Row prisoners who are now, or
   will be, on Death Row under the conditions described above for
   more than five continuous years."

The Plaintiffs will also move for an order appointing the
Plaintiffs' counsel to represent the certified classes.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SqapPV8L

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Pieter Van Tol, Esq.
          Nicole E. Schiavo, Esq.
          Robin L. Muir, Esq.
          Garima Malhotra, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          875 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 981 3000
          Facsimile: (212) 981 3100
          E-mail: pieter.vantol@hoganlovells.com
                  nicole.schiavo@hoganlovells.com
                  robin.muir@hoganlovells.com
                  garima.malhotra@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Betsy R. Ginsberg, Esq.
          CARDOZO CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC
          Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
          55 5th Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 790 0871
          E-mail: betsy.ginsberg@yu.edu

               - and -

          Nicholas Trenticosta, Esq.
          7100 Saint Charles Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70118
          Telephone: (504) 864 0700
          Facsimile: (504) 864 0780
          E-mail: nicktr@bellsouth.net


MARVEL TECHNOLOGY: March Trial Date in Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Marvell Technology Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 29, 2017, that the court has set a deadline of
December 29, 2017, for the conclusion of fact discovery, and a
trial date of March 5, 2018.

On September 11, 2015, Daniel Luna filed an action asserting
putative class action claims on behalf of the Company's
shareholders in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York ("S.D. of New York"). This action was
consolidated with two additional, nearly identical complaints
subsequently filed by Philip Limbacher and Jim Farno. The
complaints asserted violations of federal securities laws based
on allegations that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors (Sehat Sutardja, Michael Rashkin, and Sukhi Nagesh)
made, caused to be made, or failed to correct false and/or
misleading statements in the Company's press releases and public
filings. The complaints request damages in unspecified amounts,
costs and fees of bringing the action, and other unspecified
relief.

On November 18, 2015, the S.D. of New York granted the Company's
motion to transfer the consolidated cases to the N.D. of
California. On December 21, 2015, the N.D. of California granted
the Company's motion to deem the consolidated cases related to
the Saratoga litigation, discussed below. On February 8, 2016,
the N.D. of California granted an unopposed motion to appoint
Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff.
On March 19, 2016, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint. On April 29, 2016, Marvell and each of the individual
defendants each filed motions to dismiss. The hearing on the
motions to dismiss took place on July 29, 2016 and the court took
the matter under submission. On October 12, 2016, the Court
granted Defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to amend and
granted lead plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint. The
parties agreed that the plaintiffs would file and serve an
amended complaint by November 28, 2016. Plaintiffs filed and
served the amended complaint on November 28, 2016. The Initial
Case Management Conference took place on January 12, 2017.
Marvell and co-defendants filed separate Motions to Dismiss on
January 17, 2017. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss took place
on May 4, 2017, and on May 17, 2017, the Court granted the Motion
to Dismiss as to Rashkin and Nagesh and denied the Motion to
Dismiss as to Sutardja and Marvell. At a Case Management
Conference on June 1, 2017, the Court set a deadline of December
29, 2017 for the conclusion of fact discovery and confirmed a
trial date of March 5, 2018.

Marvell Technology Group Ltd. is a fabless semiconductor provider
of high-performance, application-specific standard products. Its
core strength of expertise is the development of complex System-
on-a-Chip devices, leveraging its technology portfolio of
intellectual property in the areas of analog, mixed-signal,
digital signal processing, and embedded and standalone integrated
circuits.


MATTEL INC: Securities Lawsuits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the cases Waterford Township Police &
Fire Retirement System v. Mattel, Inc., et al. and Lathe v.
Mattel, Inc., et al., have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff
has been appointed.

Two stockholders have filed purported class action lawsuits in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System v.
Mattel, Inc., et al., filed June 27, 2017; and Lathe v. Mattel,
Inc., et al., filed July 6, 2017) against Mattel, Christopher A.
Sinclair, Richard Dickson, Kevin M. Farr, and Joseph B. Johnson
alleging federal securities laws violations in connection with
statements allegedly made by the defendants during the period
October 20, 2016 through April 20, 2017.

In general, the lawsuits assert the same or similar allegations,
including that the defendants artificially inflated Mattel's
common stock price by knowingly making materially false and
misleading statements and omissions to the investing public about
retail customer inventory, the alignment between point-of-sale
and shipping data, and Mattel's overall financial condition.

The lawsuits allege that the defendants' conduct caused the
plaintiffs and other stockholders to purchase Mattel common stock
at artificially inflated prices. By an order dated September 29,
2017, the two actions were ordered consolidated and a lead
plaintiff was appointed.

The lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees, expert fees, and costs. Mattel believes that the
allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against them.  A reasonable estimate of the amount of any
possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

Mattel designs, manufactures, and markets a broad variety of toy
products worldwide which are sold to its customers and directly
to consumers. Mattel is the owner of a portfolio of global brands
with untapped intellectual property potential. Mattel's products
are among the most widely recognized toy products in the world.
The company is based in El Segundo, California.


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: "Moodie" Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled SHONNTEY MOODIE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, INC., a Maryland Corporation, E-VERIFILE.COM, INC., a
Georgia Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-03471-FMO-
AS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, with the consent of Maxim
Healthcare Services, Inc., asks the Court to:

   1. approve the terms of the parties' Settlement Agreement;

   2. provisionally certify Settlement Class for settlement
      purposes only;

   3. approve the Notice Program set forth in the Settlement
      Agreement and approve the form and content of the Notices
      of the Settlement;

   4. approve the procedures set forth in the Settlement
      Agreement for Class Members to exclude themselves from the
      Settlement Class or to object to the Settlement; and

   5. stay the Action pending Final Approval of the Settlement.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
          Caleb Marker, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (877) 500 8780
          Facsimile: (877) 500 8781
          E-mail: christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com
                  caleb.marker@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Alina B. Mazeika (303840)
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590 5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590 8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  amazeika@mahoney-law.net


MDC PARTNERS: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismissed Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
MDC Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit
have voluntarily dismissed their appeal.

On July 31, 2015, North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District
Firefighter Pension Plan ("North Collier") filed a putative class
action suit in the Southern District of New York, naming as
defendants MDC, CFO David Doft, former CEO Miles Nadal, and
former CAO Mike Sabatino. On December 11, 2015, North Collier and
co-lead plaintiff Plymouth County Retirement Association filed an
amended complaint, adding two additional defendants, Mitchell
Gendel and Michael Kirby, a former member of MDC's Board of
Directors. The plaintiff alleges in the amended complaint
violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on allegedly materially
false and misleading statements in the Company's SEC filings and
other public statements regarding executive compensation,
goodwill accounting, and the Company's internal controls. By
order granted on September 30, 2016, the U.S. District Court
presiding over the case granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice.
On November 2, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal
the U.S. District Court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit. On February 21, 2017, the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed their appeal.

MDC Partners Inc. is an advertising and marketing holding company
based in New York City. MDC is structured as a partnership model,
in which it initially acquires a majority stake in its partner
agency, leaving a percentage of ownership with the founder. It
has more than 50 partner firms worldwide.


MDC PARTNERS: Case Management Judge Appointed in Canada Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
MDC Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A report filed with the
U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016, that a case management judge has been
appointed in a class action litigation in Canada.

On August 7, 2015, Roberto Paniccia issued a Statement of Claim
in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the City of
Brantford, Ontario seeking to certify a class action suit naming
the following as defendants: MDC, former CEO Miles S. Nadal,
former CAO Michael C. Sabatino, CFO David Doft and BDO U.S.A.
LLP. The Plaintiff alleges violations of section 138.1 of the
Ontario Securities Act (and equivalent legislation in other
Canadian provinces and territories) as well as common law
misrepresentation based on allegedly materially false and
misleading statements in the Company's public statements, as well
as omitting to disclose material facts with respect to the SEC
investigation.

MDC Partners said "The Company intends to continue to vigorously
defend this suit. A case management judge has now been appointed
but a date for an initial case conference has not yet been set."

MDC Partners Inc. is an advertising and marketing holding company
based in New York City. MDC is structured as a partnership model,
in which it initially acquires a majority stake in its partner
agency, leaving a percentage of ownership with the founder. It
has more than 50 partner firms worldwide.


MDC PARTNERS: Seeks to Determine Scope of Class Definition
----------------------------------------------------------
MDC Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that the company has served a motion to address
the scope of the proposed class definition in a class action
lawsuit.

On August 7, 2015, Roberto Paniccia issued a Statement of Claim
in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the City of
Brantford, Ontario seeking to certify a class action suit naming
the following as defendants: MDC, former CEO Miles S. Nadal,
former CAO Michael C. Sabatino, CFO David Doft and BDO U.S.A.
LLP. The Plaintiff alleges violations of section 138.1 of the
Ontario Securities Act (and equivalent legislation in other
Canadian provinces and territories) as well as common law
misrepresentation based on allegedly materially false and
misleading statements in the Company's public statements, as well
as omitting to disclose material facts with respect to the SEC
investigation. The Company intends to continue to vigorously
defend this Canadian suit on the same basis as which the U.S.
class action was previously dismissed. A first case management
meeting has been held. The plaintiff has served his material for
leave to proceed under the Securities Act. MDC has served a
motion to address the scope of the proposed class definition.

MDC Partners Inc. is an advertising and marketing holding company
based in New York City. MDC is structured as a partnership model,
in which it initially acquires a majority stake in its partner
agency, leaving a percentage of ownership with the founder. It
has more than 50 partner firms worldwide.


MDL 2437: USG Still Faces Wallboard Price Fixing Suits
------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself
in lawsuits, including a class action filed in Canada, related to
a conspiracy in fixing wallboard prices.

In 2015, USG, United States Gypsum Company, L&W Supply
Corporation, and seven other wallboard manufacturers were named
as defendants in a lawsuit filed in federal court in California
by twelve homebuilders alleging that since at least September
2011, U.S. wallboard manufacturers conspired to fix and raise the
price of gypsum wallboard sold in the United States and to
effectuate the alleged conspiracy by ending the practice of
providing job quotes on wallboard.

The lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the title In re:
Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2437. In the
second quarter of 2016, the Court dismissed with prejudice the
portions of the homebuilders' complaint alleging a conspiracy in
2014 and 2015, ruling that there were insufficient factual
allegations to allow such a claim to go forward.

The homebuilders' claims alleging a conspiracy prior to 2014 have
not been dismissed, and the case proceeds as to those claims. USG
has agreed to defend and indemnify L&W Supply Corporation with
regard to this matter.

Beginning in the third quarter of 2013, class action lawsuits
making similar allegations with regard to Canada were filed in
Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia courts on behalf of
purchasers of wallboard in Canada and naming USG Corporation,
United States Gypsum Company, CGC Inc., and other wallboard
manufacturers as defendants.

USG Corporation said "We believe that the cost, if any, of
resolving the homebuilders' lawsuit and Canadian class action
litigation will not have a material effect on our results of
operations, financial position or cash flows."

USG Corporation is a manufacturer of building products and
innovative building solutions. The company produces a wide range
of products for use in new residential, new nonresidential, and
residential and nonresidential repair and remodel construction as
well as products used in certain industrial processes.


MICHIGAN: "Salem" Suit Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled AMIRA SALEM and KESHUNA ACUMBY, On behalf
of themselves and a class of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, & MILLICENT
WARREN, the Defendant, Case No. 2:13-cv-14567-PDB-RSW (E.D.
Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify class of
individuals:

   "any women who are currently, or have formerly been
   incarcerated at Women's Huron Valley Correctional Facility who
   were subject to the "chair portion" of the strip search in
   view of others between November 1, 2010 and to the present and
   who allege they have suffered a compensable injury as a result
   of the search; Any women subject to search during 2009-2010
   time period before Warden's investigation of feasibility of
   chair-based strip search; any women subject to search and
   complaining that they were not given disposable seat covers
   before the April, 2011 memorandum from the Warden; any women
   subject to search and complaining that they were not given
   hand sanitizer before the April, 2011 memorandum from the
   Warden; any women subject to search and complaining that they
   were not given disposable seat covers after the April, 2011
   memo from the Warden; any women subject to search and
   complaining that they were not given hand sanitizer after the
   April, 2011 memo from the Warden; and any women subject to
   search after December 14, 2011 to present time period after
   chair-based strip search policy "ended" in writing."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lowE03v4

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth J. Hardin II, Esq.
          Hardin Thompson, P.C.
          30700 Telegraph Road Suite 1675
          Bingham Farms, MI 48025

               - and -

          Racine Miller
          WE FIGHT THE LAW
          17600 Northland Park Court, Suite 210
          Southfield, MI 48075

               - and -

          Teresa J. Gorman, Esq.
          TERESA J. GORMAN, PLLC
          363 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 215
          Troy, MI 48084


MICROSOFT CORP: Continues to Defend British Columbia Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that a six-month oral hearing is
expected to begin in summer 2018, in the British Columbia
antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits.

Antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed
against us in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada. All
three have been certified on behalf of Canadian indirect
purchasers who acquired licenses for Microsoft operating system
software and/or productivity application software between 1998
and 2010.

The trial of the British Columbia action commenced in May 2016.
The plaintiffs filed their case in chief in August 2016, setting
out claims made, authorities, and evidence in support of their
claims. A six-month oral hearing is expected to begin in summer
2018, consisting of cross examination on witness affidavits. The
Ontario and Quebec cases are inactive.

Microsoft develops, license, and support a wide range of software
products, services, and devices.  The company is based in
Redmond, Washington.


MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Suit Still Dormant
------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the Canadian cell phone class action has
been dormant for more than three years.

Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network
operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in
the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class of
Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1,600 hours,
including a subclass of users with brain tumors, alleging adverse
health effects from cellular phone use. Microsoft was served with
the complaint in June 2014 and has been substituted for the Nokia
defendants. The litigation has been dormant for more than three
years.

Microsoft develops, license, and support a wide range of software
products, services, and devices.  The company is based in
Redmond, Washington.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RACHEL HOLMES, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND
CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC., MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, ALLIED INTERSTATE
LLC, and ATLANTIC CREDIT & FINANCE INC., the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-01752-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying proposed classes in this case,
appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and
further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


ML AUTOMOTIVE: "Bernard" Suit Seeks Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Jose Bernard and Jose Rojas, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ML
AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
24131-KMW (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an
Order:

   1. granting conditional certification of the above styled
      action as a collective action under the Fair Labor
      Standards Act;

   2. expediting discovery production by the Defendants, within
      15 days of the Court Order, of a complete list of each and
      every person -- and their last known home address,
      telephone number, and email addresses -- who was ever
      employed as an automobile salesperson at the auto mall
      dealership owned and/or operated by the located at or near
      the Palmetto Expressway and NW 57th Avenue, Miami between
      November 2014 and the present;

   3. requiring Defendants to format and produce on an expedited
      basis said list, both in hard copy and electronically in an
      editable Excel spreadsheet, organized alphabetically from
      "A" to "Z" and with each person's last known home address
      and telephone number, and email addresses in a separate
      field corresponding with each name; and

   4. permitting Plaintiffs' counsel to mail a Court-Approved
      Notice to all such persons about their rights to opt into
      this collective action by filing a consent to Join Lawsuit.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jugtk8HE

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.
          ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
          6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
          Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 665 9211
          Facsimile: (305) 328 4842
          E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Susan Potter Norton, Esq.
          ALLEN, NORTON & BLUE, P.A.
          121 Majorca Avenue
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 445 7801
          Facsimile: (305) 442 1578
          E-mail: snorton@anblaw.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: "Koons" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2741
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on July 11, 2017 captioned Beverly
Koons, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:17-cv-02685 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S.
District Court California Northern District. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-06903-VC to the proceeding.

The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled
In re: Roundup Products Liability MDL 2741. According to an order
entered by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, it appears that the actions in the litigation involve
questions of fact that are common to the actions previously
transferred to the Northern District of California and assigned
to Judge John A. Ross. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.

Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology
corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob A. Flint, Esq.
      FLINT LAW FIRM, LLC
      222 Park Street, Suite 500
      Edwardsville, IL 62025
      Telephone: (618) 205-2017
      Facsimile: (618) 307-5790
      E-mail: jflint@toverdict.com


NCL CORPORATION: Certification of Collective Action Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled HILDE CRANKSHAW, SEAN FREIXA, and VICTOR
PETRENKO, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. NCL CORPORATION LTD., a Foreign Corporation,
NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD., a Bermuda Company, PRESTIGE CRUISE SERVICES
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, PRESTIGE CRUISE
HOLDINGS, INC., a Foreign Corporation, and PRESTIGE CRUISES
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Foreign Corporation, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-20415-DPG (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order:

   1. certifying the case as a collective action;

   2. authorizing notice to Potential Opt-Ins of their
      opportunity to participate in the Settlement and to file
      any objections to the Settlement; and

   3. setting a date for a final approval hearing approximately
      75 days after the date of approval of distribution of the
      notice of settlement.

According to the complaint, on July 22, 2015, Sean Freixa filed a
complaint against Defendants for their failure to pay him any
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Freixa worked as a Personal Vacation Consultant for Defendant
Prestige Services LLC from December 7, 2013 until December 19,
2014. During this time, Freixa's primary job was to sell cruises
directly to customers. Throughout his employment as a PVC,
Defendants paid Freixa $500 per week in salaried wages, plus
commissions in some months on his sales if a minimum number of
sales bookings and other requirements were met. Commissions were
earned on a monthly basis. If any commissions were earned by
Freixa, they were paid to him during the subsequent month for
commissions that were actually earned during the preceding month.
Defendants did not track Freixa's actual hours worked and Freixa
was not paid overtime compensation for hours he worked in excess
of 40 hours per week between December 2013 and December 2014.
Instead, Defendants have maintained Freixa was not entitled to
overtime compensation because he was exempt from the overtime
requirements of the FLSA under the Retail or Service
Establishment Exemption, Section 7(i) of the FLSA.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Sam J. Smith, Esq.
          Loren B. Donnell, Esquire
          BURR & SMITH, LLP
          111 2nd Ave. N.E., Suite 1100
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (813) 253 2010
          E-mail: ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com
                  ldonnell@burrandsmithlaw.com

               - and -

          Keith M. Stern, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
          One Flagler
          14 N.E. 1st Avenue, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 901 1379
          E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Norell, Esq.
          ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
          300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305
          Plantation, Florida 33317
          Telephone: (954) 617-6017
          Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
          E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark J. Neuberger, Esq.
          Larry S. Perlman, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 482 8400
          Facsimile: (305) 482 8600
          E-mail: MNeuberger@foley.com
                  lperlman@foley.com


NEULION INC: Bid to Consolidate Nevada Class Action Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Neulion, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that a motion to consolidate three class
action lawsuits relating to the experienced problem during the
streaming of the Mayweather vs. McGregor pay per view boxing
event is pending.

On the night of August 26, 2017, the Company experienced a
problem during its streaming of the Mayweather vs. McGregor pay
per view boxing event that affected a significant number of
UFC.TV users. The Company does not believe the issue was systemic
or fundamental to the NeuLion Digital Platform or the Company's
underlying technology. The Company has been working in
collaboration with the UFC to process refunds for purchasers who
were unable to view the fight.

On September 1, 2017, the Company was named along with several
other parties in a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada that claims to have
been filed on behalf of the affected purchasers. The Company has
subsequently been named, along with other parties, in two other
similar class action lawsuits in the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada (filed September 14, 2017) and the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (filed September 13, 2017).

A motion to consolidate these three class action lawsuits along
with several other class action lawsuits filed against unrelated
streaming providers of the same pay per view event is pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

Neulion said "While the Company disagrees with many of the
allegations set forth in the class action lawsuits and intends to
vigorously defend itself (including but not limited to defenses
based upon the lack of any contractual relationship between the
Company and the affected purchasers), the Company believes that
the refund program will render the lawsuits moot."

Neulion, Inc. is a provider of enterprise digital video solutions
with the mission to deliver and enable the highest quality live
and on-demand digital video content experiences anywhere and on
any device. The company's flagship solution, the NeuLion Digital
Platform, is a proprietary, cloud-based, fully integrated,
turnkey solution that enables the delivery and monetization of
digital video content.


NEW AGE: Has Sent Spam Advertisements, "Abedi" Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Deeba Abedi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. New Age Medical Clinic PA, and Does 1-10, inclusive,
Case No. 1:17-at-00898 (E.D. Cal., December 4, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for negligently contacting the Plaintiff
on his cellular telephone for the purpose of notifying the
Plaintiff of the various promotions the Defendant offered on
their products by sending hyperlinks to the Defendant's websites,
which qualify as spam advertisements and promotional offers, via
text messages.

New Age Medical Clinic PA provides dental restoring and enhancing
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Meghan E. George, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
              abacon@toddflaw.com
              mgeorge@toddflaw.com


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: "Nguyen" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled HUU NGUYEN, individually, and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v.
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-05591-LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
will move the Court on March 22, 2018, to enter an Order:

   1. certifying his claims under the California Consumers Legal
      Remedies Act and the California Song-Beverly Consumer
      Warranty Act, on behalf of the following classes:

      Class:

      "all individuals in California who purchased or leased,
      from an authorized Nissan dealer, a new Nissan vehicle
      equipped with a FS6R31Amanual transmission";

      CLRA Class:

      "all members of the Class who are "consumers" within the
      meaning of California Civil Code Sec. 1761(d)";

   2. appointing Plaintiff as Class representative;

   3. appointing Plaintiff's attorney, Capstone Law, APC, to
      serve as class counsel under Rule 23(g); and

   4. directing notice to class members under Rule 23(c).

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xYpj16L8

Attorneys for Huu Nguyen:

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
          Karen L. Wallace, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556 4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943 0396
          E-mail: Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com
                  Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                  Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                  Karen.Wallace@capstonelawyers.com


O'REILLY AUTO: Court Denies Class Certification in "Davidson"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KIA DAVIDSON, the Plaintiff, v. O'REILLY
AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC et al. the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-
00603-RGK-AJW (C.D. Cal.), the Court denies Davidson's motion for
class certification of:

   Wage Statement Class:

   "[a]ll persons who worked for [O'Reilly] as a non-exempt,
   hourly paid employee in California (excluding Assistant Store
   Managers and Store Managers) at any time from March 29, 2016
   until April 2017"; and

   Rest Period Policy Class:

   "[a]ll person who worked for [O'Reilly] as a non-exempt,
   hourly paid employee in California (excluding Assistant Store
   Managers and Store Managers) at any time from March 29, 2013
   until the date of certification."

The Court said, "While Davidson does provide evidence that, for
some period of time, O'Reilly had a written rest break policy
that violated California law, she provides limited evidence
showing how, or even if, that policy was consistently applied to
all 21,000 proposed class members. Specifically, Davidson
provided the Court with her own declaration stating that she was
not aware of receiving any rest period premiums for working
shifts between six and eight hours in length; a copy of the
written policy at issue; and deposition testimony from O'Reilly's
Rule 30(b)(6) designee stating that the policy was provided to
managers and that managers are charged with implementing the
policy.  Although Davidson asserts in her Reply that this
constitutes "significant proof," the Court finds that on balance,
her evidence fails to implicate any illegal practices. In fact,
Davidson's own declaration does not even state that she was ever
denied proper rest breaks. Thus, Davison failed to meet her
burden. O'Reilly not only maintained a facially defective policy,
but also implemented unlawful practices pursuant to the policy."

A copy of the Civil Minutes - General is available at no charge
at: http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nnNm7z0m


OLSON RESEARCH: "Fischbein" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DR. RICHARD E. FISCHBEIN, individually and
as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons,
the Plaintiff, v. THE OLSON RESEARCH GROUP, INC., and John Does
1-12, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-05601-GJP (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class of:

   "each person sent one or more telephone facsimile messages
   after December 13, 2013 from "Olson Research Group" inviting
   them to participate for payment or compensation in a
   "marketing research study" through the website
   www.olsononlinesystems.com."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=82cxWnhW

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Shenkan, Esq.
          SHENKAN INJURY LAWYER LLC
          6550 Lakeshore St.
          West Bloomfield, MI 48321429
          Telephone: 248-562-1320
          Facsimile: 888-769-1774
          E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com

               - and -

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312 658 5500
          Facsimile: 312 658 5555
          E-mail: service@classlawyers.com


PEOPLE 2.0: "Duran" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Desiree Duran, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. People 2.0 North America LLC and Does 1-100, Case No.
2:17-cv-02546 (E.D. Calif., December 4, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code.

Plaintiff Desiree Duran was hired by People 2.0 on or around
August 6, 2017.

Defendant People 2.0 is a temporary services employer (aka "temp
agency"). [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
      William J. Gorham, Esq.
      Nicholas J. Scardigli, Esq.
      John P. Briscoe, Esq.
      MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
      2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
      Stockton, CA 95207-8253
      Tel: (209) 477-3833
      Fax: (209) 473-4818
      E-mail: rwasserman@mayallaw.com
              wgorham@mayallaw.com
              nscardigli@mayallaw.com
              jbriscoe@mayallaw.com


PETMED EXPRESS: Securities Suit Ongoing in Florida
--------------------------------------------------
PetMed Express, Inc. continues to defend a shareholder securities
class action lawsuit in Florida.

According to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on August 30, 2017, a
shareholder filed on August 25 a putative securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against PetMed Express, Inc. (the "Company")
and the Company's principal executive officers, one of whom is
also a director. Relying exclusively on a false and defamatory,
anonymous "report" posted on August 23, 2017 on the Aurelius
Value website claiming that the Company's growth was due in part
to marketing addictive animal drugs to opioid addicts, the
plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company denies the
complaint's unfounded accusations and intends to defend itself
vigorously against the plaintiff's factually and legally
meritless allegations.

PetMed Express, Inc. is an online pharmacy that sells drugs for
pets. Its business directly competes with veterinarians, who
derive some of their income from selling pet drugs, which has
created problems for the company because it can only fill
prescriptions written by a veterinarian. PetMed Express is
licensed or authorized to conduct business in all 50 states in
the United States and has received Vet-VIPPS accreditation by the
National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP).


PHD FITNESS: Faces "Bohr" Suit in Northern District of Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PhD Fitness LLC.
The case is styled William Bohr, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PhD Fitness LLC, a
California limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-09220 (N.D. Ill., December 21, 2017).

PhD manufactures, markets, advertises, distributes and sells a
line of sport supplement products in South Carolina and
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph J Siprut, Esq.
   Siprut PC
   17 N. State St.
   Suite 1600
   Chicago, IL 60602
   Tel: (312) 236-0000
   Email: jsiprut@siprut.com

      - and -

   Ke Liu, Esq.
   Siprut Pc
   17 North State Street
   Suite 1600
   Chicago, IL 60602
   Tel: (312) 236-0000
   Email: kliu@siprut.com


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Minnesota Class Suit Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Industries Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota has entered an order dismissing an amended
investor class action complaint.

In September and October 2016, investors filed two purported
class action complaints in the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota naming the Company and two of its
executive officers as defendants. On December 12, 2016, the
District Court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel. In a later order, the court set a
date of March 14, 2017, for the lead plaintiff to file a
consolidated amended complaint or to designate one of the filed
complaints as the operative pleading. On March 14, 2017, the lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint against the
Company and six current or former executives for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws. The lead plaintiff
seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased or acquired
Polaris securities during the time period from February 20, 2015
through September 11, 2016.

The amended complaint alleges that, during the proposed class
period, defendants made materially false or misleading public
statements about the Company's business, operations, forecasts,
and compliance policies relating to certain of its ORV products
and product recalls. The amended complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and seeks damages in an unspecified amount, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, and an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses. In May 2017, the Company and the other defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court had a
hearing on the motion on October 4, 2017. By order entered
October 13, 2017, the Court dismissed the amended complaint with
prejudice.

Polaris Industries Inc. is an American manufacturer of
snowmobiles, ATV, and neighborhood electric vehicles. The company
also manufactures motorcycles through its Victory Motorcycles
subsidiary and through the Indian Motorcycle subsidiary which it
purchased in April 2011. The company is based in Medina,
Minnesota.


QUALITY SYSTEMS: 9th Cir. En Banc Denies Petition for Rehearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quality Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the company's petition for rehearing en
banc has been denied.

Quality Systems said "On November 19, 2013, a putative class
action complaint was filed on behalf of the shareholders of our
Company other than the defendants against us and certain of our
officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California by one of our shareholders."
After the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
this action, and recaptioned the action In re Quality Systems,
Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8:13-cv-01818-CJC-JPR, lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2014.

The amended complaint, which is substantially similar to the
litigation described above under the caption "Hussein
Litigation," generally alleges that statements made to our
shareholders regarding our financial condition and projected
future performance were false and misleading in violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"), and that the individual defendants are
liable for such statements because they are controlling persons
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks
compensatory damages, court costs and attorneys' fees.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
June 20, 2014, which the Court granted on October 20, 2014,
dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a
motion for reconsideration of the Court's order, which the Court
denied on January 5, 2015. On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed
a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, captioned In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 15-55173. Oral argument was held on December 5,
2016. On July 28, 2017, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision
reversing and remanding the District Court's order on our motion
to dismiss.

On September 5, 2017, the company filed a petition for rehearing
en banc, which was denied on September 29, 2017.

Quality Systems said "We believe that the plaintiffs' claims are
without merit and continue to defend against them vigorously,
including by evaluating potential challenges to the Ninth Circuit
decision. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability
or the amount of liability, if any, related to this claim."

Quality Systems, Inc., known to its clients as NextGen
Healthcare, provides software, services and analytics solutions
to the ambulatory care market. The company is a healthcare
information technology and services company that delivers the
foundational capabilities to organizations that want to promote
healthy communities. The company is based in Irvine, California.


QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Court Certifies California Consumers Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled PHILLIP RACIES, the Plaintiff, v. QUINCY
BIOSCIENCE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-00292-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification and
      certifies the following class for both Plaintiff's UCL and
      CLRA claims:

      "all California consumers who, within the applicable
      statute of limitations period, purchased Prevagen Regular
      Strength, Prevagen Extra Strength, or Prevagen Mixed Berry
      Chewable"; and

   2. appointing Phillip Racies as Class representative and the
      law firms of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C.,
      and Siprut, PC as Class Counsel.

The Court sets a case management conference for January 16, 2018,
at 2:00 p.m. The parties shall meet and confer and submit a joint
case management statement by January 9, 2018. The joint statement
should include a proposed case schedule through trial, as well as
a brief discussion of any outstanding issues to resolve before
trial.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FWrXOj3C


SAL-MARK RESTAURANT: Cruz Submits Proposed Stipulation & Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Cruz, the Plaintiff, v. Sal-Mark Restaurant
Corp., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00815-GTS-DJS
(N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff submits to the Court, for review and
approval, the parties' agreed-to:

   1. Stipulation and Proposed Order;

   2. Notice of Lawsuit with Opportunity to Join; and

   3. Consent to Become Party Plaintiff form.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yGcUOar7

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Pelton Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385 9700
          Facsimile: (212) 385 0800
          E-mail: WWW.PELTONGRAHAM.COM


SERVICE CORP: Dismissal of "Moulton" Suit under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that plaintiffs in the
case, Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service
Corporation International and others, Case No. 2013-5636 have
appealed the case dismissal.

The Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service
Corporation International and others ; Case No. 2013-5636; in the
Civil District Court Parish of New Orleans., was filed as a class
action in June 2013 against SCI and the Company's subsidiary in
connection with SCI's acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc.

The plaintiffs allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches of
fiduciary duties by Stewart Enterprises and its board of
directors in negotiating the combination of Stewart Enterprises
with a subsidiary of SCI. The plaintiffs seek damages concerning
the combination. The company filed exceptions to the plaintiffs'
complaint that were granted in June 2014. Thus, subject to
appeals, SCI will no longer be party to the suit. The case has
continued against its subsidiary Stewart Enterprises and its
former individual directors. However, in October 2016, the court
entered a judgment dismissing all of plaintiffs' claims.
Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.

Service Corporation said "We cannot quantify our ultimate
liability, if any, for the payment of damages."

Service Corporation International is North America's largest
provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of
funeral service locations and cemeteries unequaled in geographic
scale and reach. The company is based in Houston, Texas.


SERVICE CORP: Agreement in Principle Reached in "Allard" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the parties in
the case entitled, Linda Allard, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. SCI Direct, Inc., have reached a
settlement agreement.

The case Linda Allard, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. SCI Direct, Inc., Case No 16-1033; in the
United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, was
filed in June 2016 as a class action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (the Act).

Plaintiff alleges she received telemarketing telephone calls that
were made with a prerecorded voice or made by an automatic
telephone dialing system in violation of the Act. Plaintiff seeks
actual and statutory damages, as well as attorney's fees and
costs. The parties reached a settlement of the lawsuit as
reported in our Form 8-K filed on August 30, 2017.

The settlement agreement is subject to court approval and notice
to the class. The financial terms of the settlement call for SCI
Direct to pay $15.0 million, of which $3.5 million will be paid
by its insurer.

Service Corporation International is North America's largest
provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of
funeral service locations and cemeteries unequaled in geographic
scale and reach. The company is based in Houston, Texas.


SMARTHEAT INC: Settles Class Action Suit for $120,000
-----------------------------------------------------
SmartHeat Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016, that the company had entered into an agreement
to settle all claims in a US securities class action lawsuit for
$120,000.

The Company said, "On August 31, 2012, a putative class action
lawsuit, Steven Leshinsky v. James Wang, et al., which purported
to allege federal securities law claims against the Company and
certain of its former officers and directors, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  Thereafter, two plaintiffs filed competing motions to be
appointed lead plaintiff in the proceeding.  A lead plaintiff was
appointed and an amended complaint was filed on January 28, 2013,
by the Rosen Law Firm. The amended complaint included Oliver
Bialowons, our President, and Michael Wilhelm, our former Chief
Financial Officer, as defendants in the proceeding though they
were not officers of the Company during the alleged class
period."

"A second amended complaint was filed on April 8, 2013, under the
caption Stream Sicav, Dharanendra Rai et al. v. James Jun Wang ,
SmartHeat, Inc. et al., removing Messrs. Wilhelm and Bialowons as
defendants.  The second amended complaint alleges two counts
against the Company, both asserting violations of the federal
securities laws arising from alleged insider sales or management
sales of securities and alleged false disclosures relating to
those sales. On May 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint which was denied. On March
17, 2014 the court, denied, the lead plaintiff's motion for class
certification, without prejudice. On August 6, 2014, the lead
plaintiff once again filed a motion for class certification.  On
September 19, 2014, the Company filed an opposition to the lead
plaintiff's motion for class certification, to which plaintiff
filed a response on October 20, 2014.  By Opinion and Order dated
January 21, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs' class
certification motion, finding that it failed to satisfy the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23 for typicality, adequacy and
predominance.  Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs'
theory of liability required a trade-by-trade inquiry as to
whether the sale of the locked-up shares resulted in price
inflation of the company's stock, and that, as a result, the
injury to all class members could not be established by common
proof.  In addition to finding a lack of predominance of common
issues, the Court expressed substantial concerns about the
adequacy of the class representative, and that his claims were
typical of other class members.  The Court also expressed doubts
as to how plaintiffs would establish damages.  The Court's denial
of class certification was without prejudice, and the Court gave
plaintiffs until February 17, 2015 to file a 'far more rigorous,
and a far more convincing submission. . .".  The pleadings and
court orders are publicly available.

"The Company entered into an agreement to settle all claims in a
US securities class action lawsuit. No findings of any
wrongdoings were ever made against SmartHeat, any current or
former officer or director of Smartheat or any of the defendants,
and the Company and all other defendants continue to deny any
wrongdoing.  The default judgment previously entered against
James Jun Wang was vacated and was dismissed with prejudice. The
Company entered into the settlement in order to avoid further
cost of defending any of the purported actions. According to the
settlement, the Company paid the plaintiffs $120,000. In return,
the plaintiffs dismissed all claims against the Company and all
of the individual defendants with prejudice.  As a result of the
settlement, the case will not be allowed to be re-filed."

SmartHeat added, "The settlement is not an admission of
wrongdoing or acceptance of fault by the Company or any of the
individual defendants.  The Company has and continues to assert
that the allegations made in the consolidated lawsuits lack merit
and no evidence was ever asserted supporting the allegations made
in the consolidated lawsuits. The Company has nevertheless agreed
to the settlement in order to eliminate the uncertainties, burden
and expense of further litigation. The Company believes that
putting this matter behind it is in the best interest of its
customers, employees and shareholders so that it can remain
focused on growing and strengthening its business."

SmartHeat Inc., formerly known as Pacific Goldrim Resources,
Inc., through its operating subsidiaries in China and Germany,
designed, manufactured, sold and serviced plate heat exchangers
("PHEs"), PHE Units, which combine PHEs with various pumps,
temperature sensors, valves and automated control systems, heat
meters and heat pumps for use in commercial and residential
buildings.


SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: New Trial Sought in Arkansas Royalty Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SouthWestern Energy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the plaintiff in the
Arkansas Royalty Litigation has moved for a new trial and the
court has not yet ruled on that motion.

In June 2017, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company
on all counts in Smith v. SEECO, Inc. et al., a class action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas. The plaintiff had alleged that the Company had
underpaid lessors of lands in Arkansas by deducting from royalty
payments costs for gathering, transportation and compression of
natural gas in excess of what is permitted by the relevant leases
and asserted claims for, among other things, breach of contract,
fraud, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and violation of
certain Arkansas statutes. Following the verdict, the court
entered judgment in favor of the Company on all claims. The
plaintiff has moved for a new trial, and the court has not yet
ruled on that motion.

The plaintiff class in Smith comprises the vast majority of
lessors of lands in Arkansas for which leases permit deductions
for these types of costs.  Most of the remaining lessors are
named plaintiffs or members of classes in other pending lawsuits.
In particular, two actions on behalf of certified classes of only
Arkansas residents pending in state courts in Arkansas (one is
set for trial during the third quarter of 2018; the other does
not have a trial date) and three cases (all currently stayed)
that were filed in Arkansas state court on behalf of a total of
248 individually named plaintiffs, two of which have been removed
to federal court, have been assigned to the same court that held
the Smith trial.

SouthWestern "Management believes that, as the Smith jury
concluded, the deductions from royalty payments were calculated
in accordance with the leases. The Company currently does not
anticipate that these other cases are likely to have a material
adverse effect on the results of operations, financial position
or cash flows of the Company."

Southwestern Energy Company is an independent energy company
engaged in natural gas, oil and NGL exploration, development and
production ("E&P"). The Company is also focused on creating and
capturing additional value through its natural gas gathering and
marketing businesses ("Midstream Services"). The company is based
in Texas.


STEIN MART: "Sperling" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARILYN SPERLING, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. STEIN MART, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:15-cv-
01411-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will ask the Court on
February 9, 2018, for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons who, while in the State of California, and
      between July 15, 2011, and the present, purchased from
      Stein Mart one or more items at any Stein Mart store in the
      State of California with a price tag that contained a
      "Compare At" price which was higher than the price listed
      as the Stain Mart sale price on the price tag, and who have
      not received a refund or credit for each of their
      purchase(s)."

   2. appointing plaintiffs Marilyn Sperling and/or Jared Schuh
      as representatives of the Class;

   3. appointing as counsel for the Class attorneys Douglas
      Caiafa of Douglas Caiafa, A Professional Law Corporation,
      Christopher J. Morosoff of the Law Office of Christopher J.
      Morosoff, and Reuben Nathan of Nathan & Associates; and

   4. ordering the parties to meet and confer and present this
      Court, within fifteen days of an order granting class
      certification, a proposed notice to the certified class.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Caiafa, Esq.
          DOUGLAS CAIAFA
          11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1245
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 444 5240
          Facsimile: (310) 312 8260
          E-mail: dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Morosoff, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. MOROSOFF
          77-760 Country Club Drive, Suite G
          Palm Desert, CA 92211
          Telephone: (760) 469 5986
          Facsimile: (760) 345 1581
          E-mail: cjmorosoff@morosofflaw.com


TERRAFORM POWER: Jan. 31 Hearing on $14.8MM Deal in "Chamblee"
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider final approval of the settlement in the
Chamblee class action lawsuit is scheduled for January 31, 2018.

TerraForm Power, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that the parties in the Chamblee class action have
agreed in principle to a settlement of $14.8 million.

On April 4, 2016, a securities class action under federal
securities laws (Chamblee v. TerraForm Power, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-00981-JFM) (the "Chamblee Class Action") was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
against the Company and two of its former officers (one of which
was also a director of the Company) asserting claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of a putative class. The
Complaint alleges that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies, including with respect to
disclosures regarding SunEdison's internal controls and the
Company's reliance on SunEdison. An amended complaint was filed
on September 26, 2016 and a former officer and director of the
Company were added as defendants.

On October 4, 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred this matter to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (SDNY) for consolidated or
coordinated pretrial proceedings. On December 19, 2016, an
initial case management conference was held in the multidistrict
litigation proceedings in the SDNY. The Court entered an order
requiring all parties to the multidistrict litigation to mediate
and entered a partial stay of all proceedings through March 31,
2017. On March 24, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint adding three additional directors and officers of the
Company as defendants, as well as additional factual allegations.
On June 9, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case.

After mediation, the parties agreed in principle to a settlement
of $14.8 million conditioned on, among other things, funding of
the settlement by the Company's directors' and officers'
liability insurance providers to the satisfaction of the Company.

In its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2017, Terraform Power said the parties have agreed that
$13.63 million of the settlement will be covered by the Company's
directors' and officers' liability insurance providers. On
September 11, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court granted approval of the
use of $13.63 million of proceeds to fund the settlement.  The
Company, the Company's directors' and officers' liability
insurance providers and the Company's co-defendants are in the
process of finalizing documentation governing the use of the
$13.63 million of proceeds from the insurance. On September 14,
2017, the U.S. District Court for the SDNY preliminarily approved
the settlement and provided the Company with an express
termination right in the event that the settlement is not timely
funded with proceeds from the directors' and officers' liability
insurance. A hearing on final approval of the settlement is
scheduled for January 31, 2018.

"If a final resolution is achieved on the settlement, the
Company's contribution to the settlement amount, net of the
amount to be covered by insurance, would be $1.13 million. The
Company reserved $1.13 million for its estimated probable loss
related to this complaint as of December 31, 2016, which is the
amount the Company would be prepared to fund the settlement out
of its own funds. If the conditional settlement offer fails for
any reason, including because the insurers do not make the
requisite contribution to the settlement amount, the Company
would continue to vigorously contest this claim," TerraForm Power
said.

The Company added that it has agreed to issue additional shares
of Class A common stock to Orion Holdings for no additional
consideration in respect of the Company's net losses, such as
out-of-pocket losses, damages, costs, fees and expenses, upon the
final resolution of the Chamblee Class Action. The Company and
TerraForm Global, Inc. have entered into an agreement pursuant to
which TerraForm Global, Inc. has agreed to indemnify and
reimburse the Company for certain costs, fees and expenses
related to the defense or settlement of the Chamblee Class Action
that are not covered by insurance (excluding the $1.13 million
settlement contribution). As a result, as of the date hereof, the
Company does not expect to incur any material fees or expenses
(excluding the $1.13 million settlement contribution) in
connection with the Chamblee Class Action that would not be
covered by insurance or indemnified and reimbursed by TerraForm
Global, Inc.

TerraForm Power, Inc. and its subsidiaries is a dividend growth-
oriented company formed to own and operate contracted clean power
generation assets. The company's business objective is to acquire
assets with high-quality contracted cash flows, primarily from
owning clean power generation assets serving utility and
commercial customers. The company's portfolio consists of
renewable energy facilities located in the United States
(including Puerto Rico), Canada, Chile and the United Kingdom
with a combined nameplate capacity of 2,606.7 MW as of June 30,
2017.

TerraForm Power is a holding company and its sole asset is an
equity interest in TerraForm Power, LLC, or Terra LLC. TerraForm
Power is the managing member of Terra LLC and operates, controls
and consolidates the business affairs of Terra LLC.


TILLYS INC: $6.2MM Estimated Loss for "Minniti" Case Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 29, 2017, that the company recorded an estimated loss
provision of $6.2 million in connection with the proposed
settlement in the case Lauren Minniti, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, v. Tilly's, Inc., United States
District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 0:17-cv-
60237-FAM.

On January 30, 2017, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company, alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA").  Specifically, the
complaint asserts a violation of the TCPA for allegedly sending
unsolicited automated messages to the cellular telephones of the
plaintiff and others.  The complaint seeks class certification
and damages of $500 per violation plus treble damages under the
TCPA.

Tilly's said, "We filed our initial response to this matter with
the court in March 2017.  The parties attended a mediation in
June 2017.  In July 2017, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle this matter, subject to court approval and
the execution of a final settlement agreement.  We recorded an
estimated loss provision of $6.2 million in connection with the
proposed settlement in the second quarter ended July 29, 2017."

                           *     *     *

Tilly's Inc. also said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 29, 2017, that the appeal related to a class action lawsuit
in California remains pending.

In September 2015, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company, alleging violations of California's
wage and hour rules and regulations and unfair competition law.
"Specifically, the complaint asserted a violation of the
applicable California Wage Order for alleged failure to pay
reporting time pay, as well as several derivative claims.  The
complaint sought certification of a class, unspecified damages,
unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees.  In
June 2016, the court granted our demurrer to the plaintiff's
complaint, on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to state a
cause of action against Tilly's," the Company said.

The Company added, "Specifically, the court agreed with us that
the plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay fails as a
matter of law as the plaintiff and other putative class members
did not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which
the plaintiff's claims are based."  At the hearing on the
plaintiff's demurrer, the court granted the plaintiff leave to
amend her complaint.  The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in
July 2016, which brought the same claims as her original
complaint but added various factual allegations.  In August 2016,
we filed a demurrer as to the plaintiff's amended complaint, on
the grounds that the plaintiff's amended complaint still failed
to state a cause of action against Tilly's, for the same reasons
that the court granted our demurrer as to the plaintiff's
original complaint.

In November 2016, the court entered a written order sustaining
our demurrer, and dismissing all of plaintiff's causes of action
with prejudice.  In January 2017, the plaintiff filed an appeal
of the order to the California Court of Appeal, and the
plaintiff's opening brief was most recently due to be filed on
July 31, 2017, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, but it was
not filed on that date. On August 16, 2017, the clerk of the
California Court of Appeal sent a letter to the parties advising
of plaintiff's default in filing the opening brief, and setting
the deadline for plaintiffs to do so within 15 days, per
California Rule of Court Rule 8.220.  Accordingly, the
plaintiff's opening brief was due to be filed on August 31, 2017.

Tilly's said, "We have defended this case vigorously and will
continue to do so."

Tilly's Inc. is a destination youth culture specialty retailer of
casual apparel, footwear and accessories for young men, young
women, boys and girls. The company is based in Irvine,
California.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Suits over ET Plus System Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend
itself in various suits related to ET Plus guardrail end
terminal.

The Company was served in a lawsuit filed November 26, 2014,
titled Hamilton County, Illinois and Macon County, Illinois,
Individually and on behalf of all Other Counties in the State of
Illinois vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway
Products, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-1320 (Southern District of
Illinois). This complaint was later amended to substitute St.
Clair County, Illinois for Hamilton County as a lead plaintiff
and to expand the proposed class.

The case was brought by plaintiffs for and on behalf of
themselves and the other 101 counties of the State of Illinois
and on behalf of cities, villages, incorporated towns, and
township governments of the State of Illinois. The plaintiffs
alleged that the Company and Trinity Highway Products made a
series of un-tested modifications to the ET Plus and falsely
certified that the modified ET Plus was acceptable for use on the
nation's highways based on federal testing standards and approval
for federal-aid reimbursement. The plaintiffs also alleged breach
of implied warranties, violation of the Illinois Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment, for which
plaintiffs sought actual damages related to purchases of the ET
Plus, compensatory damages for establishing a common fund for
class members, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
injunctive relief.

On September 1, 2017, plaintiffs St. Clair County and Macon
County, Illinois voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit with
prejudice and without receiving any payment by the Company in
connection therewith.

There are two pending class action lawsuits involving claims
pertaining to the ET Plus that are currently pending. The Company
has been served in a lawsuit filed February 11, 2015, titled The
Corporation of the City of Stratford and Trinity Industries,
Inc., Trinity Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity Industries
Canada, Inc., Case No. 15-2622 CP, pending in Ontario Superior
Court of Justice. The alleged class in this matter has been
identified as persons in Canada who purchased and/or used an ET
Plus guardrail end terminal.

The plaintiff alleges that Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity
Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity Industries Canada, Inc.,
failed to warn of dangers associated with undisclosed
modifications to the ET Plus guardrail end terminals, breached an
implied warranty, breached a duty of care, and were negligent.
The plaintiff is seeking $400 million in compensatory damages and
$100 million in punitive damages. Alternatively, the plaintiff
claims the right to an accounting or other restitution remedy for
disgorgement of the revenues generated by the sale of the
modified ET Plus in Canada.

The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed November 5, 2015,
titled Jackson County, Missouri, individually and on behalf of a
class of others similarly situated vs. Trinity Industries, Inc.
and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 1516-CV23684 (Circuit
Court of Jackson County, Missouri). The case is being brought by
plaintiff for and on behalf of itself and all Missouri counties
with a population of 10,000 or more persons, including the City
of St. Louis, and the State of Missouri's transportation
authority.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Trinity Highway
Products did not disclose design changes to the ET Plus and these
allegedly undisclosed design changes made the ET Plus allegedly
defective, unsafe, and unreasonably dangerous. The plaintiff
alleges product liability negligence, product liability strict
liability, and negligently supplying dangerous instrumentality
for supplier's business purposes.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs, and in the alternative plaintiff seeks a
declaratory judgment that the ET Plus is defective, the Company's
conduct was unlawful, and class-wide costs and expenses
associated with removing and replacing the ET Plus throughout
Missouri.

The Company believes each of these pending county and municipal
class action lawsuits is without merit and intends to vigorously
defend all allegations. While the financial impacts of these two
county and municipal class action lawsuits are currently unknown,
they could be material.

Based on the information currently available to the Company, we
currently do not believe that a loss is probable in any one or
more of the actions described under "State, county, and municipal
actions," therefore no accrual has been included in the
accompanying consolidated financial statements. Because of the
complexity of these actions as well as the current status of
certain of these actions, we are not able to estimate a range of
possible losses with respect to any one or more of these actions.

Trinity Industries, Inc. provides various products and services
to the energy, chemical, agriculture, transportation, and
construction sectors in the United States and internationally.
The company is based in Dallas, Texas.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that a consolidated shareholder class
action suit against the Company and other defendants, has been
stayed and remains administratively closed pending the conclusion
of any appeal in the Joshua Harman FCA case.

On January 11, 2016, the previously reported cases styled Thomas
Nemky, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated
v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E.
Perry, Case No. (2:15-CV-00732) ("Nemky") and Richard J. Isolde,
Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v.
Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry,
Case No. (3:15-CV-2093) ("Isolde"), were consolidated in the
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, with all
future filings to be filed in the Isolde case.

On March 9, 2016, the Court appointed the Department of the
Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division of
Investment and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund
and United Association Local Union Officers & Employees' Pension
Fund as co-lead plaintiffs ("Lead Plaintiffs"). On May 11, 2016,
the Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Complaint alleging
defendants Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, James E.
Perry, and Gregory B. Mitchell violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and defendants Mr. Wallace and Mr. Perry violated
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
materially false and misleading statements and/or by failing to
disclose material facts about Trinity's ET Plus and the FCA case
styled Joshua Harman, on behalf of the United States of America,
Plaintiff/Relator v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 2:12-cv-00089-JRG (E.D. Tex.).

On August 18, 2016, Trinity, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Perry, and Mr.
Mitchell filed motions to dismiss Lead Plaintiffs Consolidated
Complaint, which remain pending. On March 13, 2017, the Court
granted defendant's motion to stay and administratively close
proceedings pending Fifth Circuit appeal. The Isolde matter is
stayed and remains administratively closed pending the conclusion
of any appeal in the Joshua Harman FCA case. Trinity, Mr.
Wallace, Mr. Perry, and Mr. Mitchell deny and intend to
vigorously defend against the allegations in the Isolde case.

Trinity Industries said "Based on the information available to
the Company, we currently do not believe that a loss is probable
with respect to this shareholder class action; therefore no
accrual has been included in the accompanying consolidated
financial statements. Because of the complexity of these actions
as well as the current status of certain of these actions, we are
not able to estimate a range of possible losses with respect to
these matters."

Trinity Industries, Inc. provides various products and services
to the energy, chemical, agriculture, transportation, and
construction sectors in the United States and internationally.
The company is based in Dallas, Texas.


THOMAS AGENCY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Abby" Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Logan Abby, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly
situated individuals v. The Thomas Agency, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00474-JDL (D. Me., December 4, 2017), seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice
to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called
party.

The Thomas Agency operates a credit reporting company located at
207 Larrabee Road #6, Westbrook, ME 04092. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith A. Mathews, Esq.
      ASSOCIATED ATTORNEYS OF NEW ENGLAND
      587 Union Street
      Manchester, NH 03104
      Telephone: (603) 622-8100
      Facsimile: (888) 912-1497
      E-mail: keith@aaone.law


TOYOTA MOTOR: "Salas" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ALFRED SALAS and GLORIA ORTEGA SALES, the
Plaintiffs, v. U.S.A., INC., a California corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-08629-FMO-E (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify classes and subclasses:

   1. Nationwide Class:

      "consisting of all persons in the United States who
      purchase or leased a 2012-2015 Toyota Camry XV50 model
      vehicle from an authorized Toyota dealer and still own or
      lease their vehicles";

   2. California-only sub-class:

      "consisting of all persons in the United States who
      purchase or leased a 2012-2015 Toyota Camry XV50 model
      vehicle from an authorized Toyota dealer";

   3. California-only class:

      "consisting of all persons in the United States who
      purchase or leased a 2012-2015 Toyota Camry XV50 model
      vehicle from an authorized Toyota dealer";

   4. California CLRA sub-class:

      "consisting of all the members of the California class who
      are "consumers" within the meaning of California Civil
      Code"; and

   5. Rule 23(c)4 class:

      "consisting of all persons in California who purchased or
      leased a 2012-2015 Toyota Camry XV50 model vehicle from an
      authorized Toyota dealer".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ocknaws7

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
          Karen L. Wallace, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park Easrt, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles CA 900067
          E-mail: Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com
                  Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                  Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                  Karen.Wallace@capstonelawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David L. Schrader, Esq.
          Esther K. Ro, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS, & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, 22 Floor
          Los Angeles, CA
          Telephone: (213) 312 2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612 2501
          E-mail: david.schrader@morganlewis.com
                  esther.ro@morganlewis.com


TRU-FLEX METAL: Adams Pointe Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ADAMS POINTE I, L.P, ADAMS POINTE II, L.P.,
BAYBERRY NORTH ASSOCIATES L.P., BETTERS REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS,
L.P., JBCO; ADAMS POINTE III, L.P. ADAMS POINTE NORTH CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, ADAMS POINTE MASTER ASSOCIATION, L.P., COULTER &
GRAHAM, L.P., MICHAEL AND KATHLEEN BICHLER, AND JOHN EVANS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, the
Plaintiffs, v. TRU-FLEX METAL HOSE CORP., TRU-FLEX, LLC, and PRO-
FLEX LLC, the Defendants; TRU-FLEX METAL HOSE CORP., TRU-FLEX,
LLC, and PRO-FLEX LLC, Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. RIDGE
DEVELOPMENT CORP.; RIDGE MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORP.; ADAMS
POINTE CONSTRUCTION CORP.; ADAMS POINTE SOUTH VILLAGE OWNERS
ASSOC., L.P.; ADAMS POINTE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION; WARD
MANUFACTURING, LLC d/b/a WARDFLEX; UNIQUE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT
COMPANY; PRO-FLEX HOLDINGS, LLC (OF TEXAS), Third Party
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00750-CB-CRE (W.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "any and all owners of real property or structures in the
      United States in which Pro-Flex (TM) CSST is installed";

   2. appointing individually Named Plaintiffs as Class
      Representatives to the extent requested; and

   3. appointing as Lead Class Counsel N. Scott Carpenter and
      Rebecca Bell-Stanton of the firm Carpenter & Schumacher,
      P.C.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dutbdEs3

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rebecca Bell-Stanton, Esq.
          N. Scott Carpenter, Esq.
          CARPENTER & SCHUMACHER, P.C.
          Parkway Centre IV
          2701 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 570
          Plano, Texas 75093
          Telephone: 972-403-1133
          Facsimile: 972-403-0311
          E-mail: scarpenter@cstriallaw.com
                  rstanton@cstriallaw.com

               - and -

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          707 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (866) 273 1941
          Facsimile: (412) 281 4229
          E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants, Tru-Flex, LLC and Tru-Flex Metal Hose
Corp.:

          Daniel R. Bentz, Esq.
          Thomas M. Pie, Jr., Esq.
          MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C.
          E-mail: DBentz@moodklaw.com
          tpie@moodklaw.com

               - and -

Attorney for Third-Party Defendants, Unique Industrial Product
Co., L.P. And Pro-Flex Holding, LLC:

          CRAIN, CATON & JAMES, P.C.
          H. Miles Cohn, Esq.
          E-mail: mcohn@craincaton.com

               - and -

Attorneys for Defendant, Pro-Flex, LLC

          Daniel J. Offenbach, Esq.
          Thomas A. Gamache, Esq.
          LEAHY, EISENBERG & FRAENKEL, LTD.
          E-mail: tag@lefltd.com
                  djo@lefltd.com

Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant, Ward Manufacturing, LLC
d/b/a Wardflex

          Jacqueline Gorbey, Esq.
          Thomas Sullivan, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS, & BOCKIUS, LLP
          E-mail: Jacqueline.gorbey@morganlewis.com
                  Thomas.sullivan@morganlewis.com


UNITED STATES: Court Nixed Catholic Benefits Association's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled THE CATHOLIC BENEFITS ASSOCIATION LCA, et
al., the Plaintiffs, v. HARGAN, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
5:14-cv-00240-R (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge David L. Russell
entered an order dismissing case as moot on Dec. 15, 2017.

The Defendants are ERIC D. HARGAN, in his official capacity as
Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; R.
ALEXANDER ACOSTA, in his official capacity as Secretary of U.S.
Department of Labor; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; STEVEN MNUCHIN, in
his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of the
Treasury; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; DOES 1-100.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GCRshTe1


UNITIL CORP: Mass. Appeals Court Drops Town of Lunenburg Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Unitil Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that a motion to dismiss for failure to
perfect the appeal has been granted by the Massachusetts Appeals
Court.

The Town filed a notice of appeal, but failed to perfect its
appeal with the Court in a timely manner. A motion to dismiss for
failure to perfect the appeal was granted by the Massachusetts
Appeals Court in August 2017.

In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Unitil's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg, in
Massachusetts' Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captioned
Bellermann et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company).
The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including
the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources,
emotional and physical pain and suffering and property damages
allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the loss of
electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service
territory in December 2008. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court issued an order denying class certification status in July
2016, though the plaintiffs' individual claims remain pending.

The Company continues to believe that this suit is without merit
and will continue to defend itself vigorously. Based upon
information furnished by counsel and others, the Company believes
that the ultimate resolution of this suit will not have a
material impact on its financial position, operating results or
cash flows.

The Town of Lunenburg filed a separate action in the Court
arising out of the December 2008 ice storm. The Court granted the
Company's Motion for Summary Judgment on all counts in December
2016 and dismissed the Town's complaint. The Town filed a notice
of appeal, but failed to perfect its appeal with the Court in a
timely manner. A motion to dismiss for failure to perfect the
appeal was granted by the Massachusetts Appeals Court in August
2017.

Unitil Corporation, a public utility holding company, engages in
the distribution of electricity and natural gas in the United
States. It operates through three segments: Utility Gas
Operations, Utility Electric Operations, and Non-Regulated.
Unitil Corporation was incorporated in 1984 and is headquartered
in Hampton, New Hampshire.


VAN WYK: Class Certification Bid Nixed as Parties Reach Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Jerome Ratliff Jr., the Plaintiff, v. Van
Wyk, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07212 (N.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Judge Sara L. Ellis entered an order withdrawing Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on December 13,
2017, a Status hearing held on Dec. 13.  Parties report that a
settlement has been reached in principle. Plaintiff's motion for
class certification is withdrawn. Another status hearing is set
for Jan. 30, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.  If a stipulation to dismiss is
filed prior to status date, no appearance is required.

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


VOYA FINANCIAL: Faces "Barnes" Suit Over Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Barnes, individually and behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Voya Financial, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-09493-JFK
(S.D.N.Y., December 4, 2017), is a class action for breach of
contract and conversion to recover amounts that the Defendant
charged the Plaintiff and the proposed class in excess of the
amounts authorized by the express terms of their life insurance
policies.

Voya Financial, Inc. operates a financial, retirement, investment
and insurance company based in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darren T. Kaplan, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      1359 Broadway, Suite 2001
      New York, NY 10018
      Telephone: (212) 999-7370
      E-mail: kaplan@stuevesiegel.com

         - and -

      Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
      Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq.
      Angelica M. Ornelas, Esq.
      GIRARD GIBBS LLP
      601 California Street, Suite 1400
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 981-4800
      Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
      E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
              eak@girardgibbs.com
              amo@girardgibbs.com

         - and -

      Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
      Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
      Bradley T. Wilders, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MI 64112
      Telephone: (816) 714-7100
      Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
      E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
              siegel@stuevesiegel.com
              wilders@stuevesiegel.com

         - and -

      John J. Schirger, Esq.
      Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
      Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
      MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC
      4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
      Kansas City, MI 64111
      Telephone: (816) 561-6500
      Facsimile: (816) 561-6501
      E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com
              mlytle@millerschirger.com
              jfeierabend@millerschirger.com


WALGREENS BOOTS: Class Certification Bid in Chicago Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended August 31, 2017, that plaintiffs' motion for class
certification remains pending.

On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities
class action in federal court in the Northern District of
Illinois against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of
Walgreen Co. The action asserts claims for violation of the
federal securities laws arising out of certain public statements
the Company made regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals. On June
16, 2015, the Court entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff.

Pursuant to the Court's order, lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on August 17, 2015, and defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint on October 16, 2015. Lead plaintiff filed a
response to the motion to dismiss on December 22, 2015, and
defendants filed a reply in support of the motion on February 5,
2016. On September 30, 2016, the Court issued an order granting
in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss.
Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint on
November 4, 2016 and filed an amended answer on January 16, 2017.
Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on April
21, 2017.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company which
operates the second largest chain in the United States. The
company is based in Deerfield, Illinois.


WALGREENS BOOTS: Pennsylvania Class Action Suits Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended August 31, 2017, that the company continues to defend
itself in class actions filed in the State of Pennsylvania in the
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County and the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

As of August 31, 2017, the Company was aware of two putative
class action lawsuits filed by purported Rite Aid stockholders
against Rite Aid and its board of directors, Walgreens Boots
Alliance and Victoria Merger Sub, Inc. for claims arising out of
the transactions contemplated by the original Merger Agreement
(prior to its amendment on January 29, 2017) (such transactions,
the "Rite Aid Transactions"). One Rite Aid action was filed in
the State of Pennsylvania in the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County (the "Pennsylvania action"), and one action was
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania (the "federal action").

The Pennsylvania action primarily alleged that the Rite Aid board
of directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
Rite Aid Transactions by, among other things, agreeing to an
unfair and inadequate price, agreeing to deal protection devices
that preclude other bidders from making successful competing
offers for Rite Aid, and failing to disclose all allegedly
material information concerning the proposed merger, and also
alleged that Walgreens Boots Alliance and Victoria Merger Sub,
Inc. aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.
The federal action alleged, among other things, that Rite Aid and
its board of directors disseminated an allegedly false and
misleading proxy statement in connection with the Rite Aid
Transactions.

The plaintiffs in the federal action also filed a motion for
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Rite Aid shareholder
vote relating to the Rite Aid Transactions. That motion was
denied and plaintiffs agreed to stay the litigation until after
the Rite Aid Transactions closed. On March 17, 2017, plaintiffs
moved to lift the stay to allow plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint. On August 4, 2017, that motion was granted for the
limited purpose of allowing plaintiffs to file a motion seeking
leave to amend their complaint in light of the termination of the
Merger Agreement. Plaintiffs filed such a motion on September 22,
2017. The Company filed its response on October 6, 2017.
Plaintiffs filed their reply, and the motion is fully briefed.
The court has not set a hearing date or indicated when it will
issue a ruling.

The Company was also named as a defendant in eight putative class
action lawsuits filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the "Delaware actions"). Those actions were
consolidated, and plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the Rite Aid shareholder vote
relating to the Rite Aid Transactions. That motion was denied and
the plaintiffs in the Delaware actions agreed to settle this
matter for an immaterial amount. The Delaware actions all have
been dismissed.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company which
operates the second largest chain in the United States. The
company is based in Deerfield, Illinois.


WELLS FARGO: Continues to Defend RMBS Investors' Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2013-C8 said
in its Form 10-D Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the monthly distribution period from July 18, 2017
to August 17, 2017 that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. continues to
defend a class action complaint by institutional investors.

On June 18, 2014, a group of institutional investors filed a
civil complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
New York County, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., ("Wells Fargo
Bank") in its capacity as trustee under 276 residential mortgage
backed securities ("RMBS") trusts, which was later amended on
July 18, 2014, to increase the number of trusts to 284 RMBS
trusts. On November 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
voluntarily dismiss the state court action without prejudice.
That same day, a group of institutional investors filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District
Court") against Wells Fargo Bank, alleging claims against the
bank in its capacity as trustee for 274 RMBS trusts (the "Federal
Court Complaint"). In December 2014, the plaintiffs' motion to
voluntarily dismiss their original state court action was
granted.

As with the prior state court action, the Federal Court Complaint
is one of six similar complaints filed contemporaneously against
RMBS trustees (Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York
Mellon and US Bank) by a group of institutional investor
plaintiffs. The Federal Court Complaint against Wells Fargo Bank
alleges that the trustee caused losses to investors and asserts
causes of action based upon, among other things, the trustee's
alleged failure to: (i) notify and enforce repurchase obligations
of mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of
representations and warranties, (ii) notify investors of alleged
events of default, and (iii) abide by appropriate standards of
care following alleged events of default. Relief sought includes
money damages in an unspecified amount, reimbursement of
expenses, and equitable relief.

Other cases alleging similar causes of action have been filed
against Wells Fargo Bank and other trustees in the District Court
by RMBS investors in these and other transactions, and these
cases against Wells Fargo Bank are proceeding before the same
District Court judge. A similar complaint was also filed May 27,
2016 in New York state court by a different plaintiff investor.

On January 19, 2016, an order was entered in connection with the
Federal Court Complaint in which the District Court declined to
exercise jurisdiction over 261 trusts at issue in the Federal
Court Complaint; the District Court also allowed plaintiffs to
file amended complaints as to the remaining, non-dismissed
trusts, if they so chose, and three amended complaints have been
filed. On December 17, 2016, the investor plaintiffs in the 261
trusts dismissed from the Federal Court Complaint filed a new
complaint in New York state court (the "State Court Complaint").
On July 11, 2017, certain PIMCO investment funds filed a civil
complaint relating to Wells Fargo Bank's setting aside reserves
for legal fees and expenses in connection with the liquidation of
11 RMBS trusts at issue in the State Court Complaint.  The
complaint seeks, among other relief, declarations that Wells
Fargo Bank is not entitled to (i) indemnification from, (ii)
advancement of funds from, or (iii) taking reserves from trust
funds for legal fees and expenses it incurs in defending the
claims in the State Court Complaint.

With respect to the foregoing litigations, Wells Fargo Bank
believes plaintiffs' claims are without merit and intends to
contest the claims vigorously, but there can be no assurances as
to the outcome of the litigations or the possible impact of the
litigations on Wells Fargo Bank or the RMBS trusts.


WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL: "Torres" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JONATHAN TORRES, CHRISTINE JACKSON, DONALD
JACKSON, ASHLEY MCCONNELL, ROXANNE GANT, GERALD THOMAS, and CORY
BEADLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-00210-PGB-DCI (M.D, Fla.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court for class certification of:

   "all persons residing in the United States who made a credit
   or debit card purchase at any Wendy's location affected by the
   Data Breach from October 1, 2015 through June 9, 2016 (the
   "Nationwide Class")".

Additionally, the Plaintiffs seek certification of consumer
protection claims under New York, New Jersey, and Tennessee law.

According to the complaint, Wendy's failure to implement adequate
data security to protect the payment card data and other
personally-identifiable information ("PII") of its customers
(collectively, "Data") resulted in a widespread data breach. As a
result of Wendy's shoddy security practices, this data breach
remained undetected for a 9-month period, affected more than
1,000 restaurants, and resulted in the Class members' Data being
exposed to and accessed by cyber-criminals (the "Data Breach").
This case is naturally suited for resolution on a class-wide
basis, the Plaintiffs contend.  Each named Plaintiff and each
absent class member was injured by the same Data Breach. Wendy's
inadequate data security practices are at the root of each claim.
Whether and to what extent Wendy's had an obligation to provide
security of its customer's Data and whether such obligations were
violated is the same question and answer for each putative class
member. The remedies available to Class members will also be
similar, and all Class members would be entitled to the same
injunctive relief to protect them from future harm. Because
Wendy's data security practices uniformly apply to all Class
members, common issues will predominate the trial of all claims
arising from the Data Breach.

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

Attorneys For Plaintiffs And The Proposed Class:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Patrick A. Barthlev
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX
          LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N Franklin St, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: 813 275 5272
          Facsimile: 813 226 5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  pbarthle@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Jean Sutton Martin
          LAW OFFICE OF JEAN SUTTON
          MARTIN PLLC
          2018 Eastwood Road Suite 225
          Wilmington, NC 28403
          Telephone: (910) 292 6676
          Facsimile: (888) 316 3489
          E-mail: jean@jsmlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Ariana Tadler, Esq.
          Charles Slidders, Esq.
          Melissa Clark, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594 5300
          Facsimile: (212) 868 1229
          E-mail: atadler@milberg.com
                  cslidders@milberg.com
                  mclark@milberg.com

               - and -

          John G. Emerson, Esq.
          EMERSON SCOTT, LLP
          830 Apollo Lane
          Houston, TX 77058
          Telephone: (281) 488 8854
          Facsimile: (281) 488 8867
          E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com

               - and -

          David G. Scott, Esq.
          EMERSON SCOTT, LLP
          700 Rock Street
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 907 2555
          Facsimile: (501) 907 2556
          E-mail: dscott@emersonfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeremy M. Glapion
          GLAPION LAW FIRM
          1704 Maxwell Drive
          Wall, NJ 07719
          Telephone: (732) 455 9737
          E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com


WESTERN DIGITAL: Discovery in SD Cards Class Action Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 29, 2017, that discovery is presently
stayed until after completion of the pleading stage in the case
filed by indirect purchasers of SD cards.

In March 2011, a complaint was filed against SanDisk, SD-3C,
Panasonic, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Toshiba and
Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
lawsuit purports to be on behalf of a nationwide class of
indirect purchasers of SD cards. The complaint asserts claims
under federal antitrust laws and California antitrust and unfair
competition laws, as well as common law claims. The complaint
seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and fees and
costs. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to
artificially inflate the royalty costs associated with
manufacturing SD cards, which in turn allegedly caused the
plaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD cards.

The allegations are similar to and incorporate allegations in
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corp., et al.,. In
November 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' federal law claims. In October 2016, the District
Court granted the defendants' motion with leave to amend and the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' remaining
claims. Discovery is presently stayed until after completion of
the pleading stage.

Western Digital said "The Company intends to defend itself
vigorously in this matter."

Western Digital Corporation is a leading developer, manufacturer
and provider of data storage devices and solutions that address
the evolving needs of the information technology ("IT") industry
and the infrastructure that enables the proliferation of data in
virtually every industry. The company is based in San Jose,
California.


WESTERN DIGITAL: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Action Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 29, 2017, that the District Court has
denied the defendants' motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit.

Beginning in March 2015, SanDisk and two of its officers, Sanjay
Mehrotra and Judy Bruner, were named in three putative class
action lawsuits filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. Two complaints are allegedly
brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of SanDisk's
securities between October 2014 and March 2015, and one is
brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of SanDisk's
securities between April 2014 and April 2015.

The complaints generally allege violations of federal securities
laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the
defendants during the alleged class periods. The complaints seek,
among other things, damages and fees and costs. In July 2015, the
District Court consolidated the cases and appointed Union Asset
Management Holding AG and KBC Asset Management NV as lead
plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
August 2015. In January 2016, the District Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint
with leave to amend.

In February 2016, the District Court issued an order appointing
as new lead plaintiffs Bristol Pension Fund; City of Milford,
Connecticut Pension & Retirement Board; Pavers and Road Builders
Pension, Annuity and Welfare Funds; the Newport News Employees'
Retirement Fund; and Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund
(collectively, the "Institutional Investor Group").

In March 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed an amended
complaint. In June 2016, the District Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint
with leave to amend. In July 2016, the Institutional Investor
Group filed a further amended complaint. In June 2017, the
District Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

Western Digital Corporation is a developer, manufacturer and
provider of data storage devices and solutions that address the
evolving needs of the information technology ("IT") industry and
the infrastructure that enables the proliferation of data in
virtually every industry. The company is based in San Jose,
California.


WINDHAVEN INSURANCE: Faces "Gregory Haskin" Suit in S.D. of Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Windhaven Insurance
Company. The case is styled Gregory Haskin Chiropractic Clinics,
Inc., a Florida corporation, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated other Jeffrey Rabin, Plaintiff v. Windhaven
Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-62532-WPD (S.D.
Fla., December 21, 2017).

The Defendant owns and operates an auto insurance coverage
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Barbara Perez, Esq.
   Aronovitz Law
   2 South Biscayne Blvd.
   Suite 3700
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 372-2772
   Fax: (305) 397-1886
   Email: bp@aronovitzlaw.com

      - and -

   Theophilos George Poulopoulos, Esq.
   Corredor, Husseini and Snedaker, P.A.
   9130 South Dadeland Blvd
   Datran II Center, Suite 1902
   Miami, FL 33156
   Tel: (978) 621-4636
   Email: theo.poulopoulos@gmail.com

      - and -

   Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq.
   Aronovitz Law
   One Biscayne Tower
   2 South Biscayne Boulevard
   Suite 3700
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 372-2772
   Fax: (305) 397-1886
   Email: ta@aronovitzlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

   Ari Gerstin, Esq.
   Akerman LLP
   98 SE 7th Street
   Suite 1100
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 374-5600
   Fax: (305) 349-4656
   Email: ari.gerstin@akerman.com

      - and -

   Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq.
   Akerman LLP
   Three Brickell City Centre
   98 Southeast Seventh Street
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 374-5600
   Fax: 374-5095
   Email: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com

      - and -

   Ross Elliot Linzer, Esq.
   Akerman LLP
   Three Brickell City Centre
   98 Southeast Seventh Street
   Suite 1100
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 374-5600
   Fax: (305) 374-5095
   Email: ross.linzer@akerman.com


WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Settlement in "Epstein" Case Has Final Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary Geiger Lewis entered an Order and Final Judgment dated
December 18 approving the settlement agreement in the class
action, Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et al., Case No.
6:14-cv-01606 (D. S.C.).

The Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous
Pension Fund serves as lead counsel in the case.

Judge Lewis also approved a plan of allocation as part of the
settlement.

World Acceptance Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on April 22,
2014, a shareholder filed a putative class action complaint, Edna
Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et al., in the
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina
(case number 6:14-cv-01606) (the "Edna Epstein Putative Class
Action"), against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between April 25,
2013 and March 12, 2014. Two amended complaints have been filed
by the plaintiffs, and several other motions have been filed in
the proceedings. The complaint, as currently amended, alleges
that (i) the Company made false and misleading statements in
various SEC reports and other public statements in violation of
federal securities laws preceding the Company's disclosure in a
Form 8-K filed March 13, 2014 that it had received the CID from
the CFPB (ii) the Company's loan growth and volume figures were
inflated because of a weakness in the Company's internal controls
relating to its accounting treatment of certain small-dollar loan
re-financings and (iii) additional allegations regarding, among
other things, the Company's receipt of a Notice and Opportunity
to Respond and Advise letter from the CFPB on August 7, 2015. The
complaint seeks class certification for a class consisting of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock between January 30, 2013 and August 10, 2015, unspecified
monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The Company denied
that the claims had any merit and opposed certification of the
proposed class.

On June 7, 2017, during a court-ordered mediation, the parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle the Edna Epstein
Putative Class Action. The parties' stipulation setting forth the
terms of the settlement was filed with the court on August 25,
2017. The court entered an order preliminarily approving the
settlement on August 31, 2017.

The settlement resolves the claims asserted against all
defendants in the action. The settlement stipulation provides for
a settlement payment to the class of $16 million, all of which
will be funded by the Company's directors and officers (D&O)
liability insurance carriers. Neither the Company nor any of its
present or former officers have admitted any wrongdoing or
liability in connection with the settlement.

World Acceptance Corporation engages in small-loan consumer
finance business.  It serves individuals with limited access to
other sources of consumer credit, including banks, credit unions,
other consumer finance businesses, and credit card lenders.  The
Company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in Greenville,
South Carolina.


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Affirms Judgment Favoring Pneumo Abex
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms the
appealed judgment entered in favor of Pneumo Abex, LLC, on the
negligence claim of Erik Ross Phillips and Tina Landers.

Phillips contends that he contracted mesothelioma because of
occupational exposure to asbestos in brake linings used in a
machine at the facilities of his employer, Champion International
Paper Company. Reddaway Manufacturing Company made the brake
linings, and Abex sold them to Champion's supplier.

At trial, Phillips pursued a negligent failure-to-warn theory
under North Carolina law against Reddaway and Abex. For their
part, Abex and Reddaway argued (among other things) that even if
they were negligent, they are not liable because of the
intervening negligence of a third party -- i.e., Champion.

The district court submitted Phillips' claims to the jury, with
accompanying instructions, using a special verdict form that
asked the jury to answer a series of questions concerning each
defendant. The two questions that are most pertinent to this
appeal are Questions 2 and 3, which read:

     (2) Was the Plaintiff Erik Ross Phillips injured as a
proximate result of any negligence on the part of the
Defendant(s) in providing the warnings for the brake lining
product at issue? If your answer to Issue 2 is Yes with regard to
either or both Defendants, proceed to answer Issue 3. If your
answer to Issue 2 is No for both Defendants, then your
deliberations have come to an end. . . .

     (3) Did any negligence on the part of some third party serve
to be a superseding or intervening cause of any injury on the
part of the Plaintiff Erik Ross Phillips? If your answer to Issue
3 is Yes, then your deliberations have come to an end. . . .

As to Reddaway, the jury answered "No" on Question 2. This
answer, read in conjunction with the jury's answer to Question 1,
reflects the jury's finding that although Phillips had frequent
and regular exposure to an asbestos-containing brake lining
product of Reddaway in his workplace, he was not injured as a
proximate result of any negligence by Reddaway.

Regarding Abex, the jury answered "Yes" to Questions 2 and 3.
These answers reflect the jury's finding that Phillips (who had
frequent and regular exposure to an asbestos-containing brake
lining product of Abex in his workplace) was injured as a
proximate result of Abex's negligence in providing the warnings
for the brake lining product, but negligence on the part of a
third party was an intervening cause of his injury that became as
a legal matter the proximate cause.

Phillips thereafter moved for a new trial against Abex, which the
court denied. Phillips now appeals the judgment as to Abex,
seeking partial entry of judgment in his favor or, alternatively,
a new trial. Phillips primarily argues that the jury rendered a
legally inconsistent verdict. In his view, the district court
erroneously split the concept of intervening negligence (Question
3) from the concept of proximate cause (Question 2), and the
jury's answers to these questions are irreconcilable. As he
explains: "On the one hand, [the jury] found that Abex's
negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. On the
other hand, it found that a third party was the sole proximate
cause of his injury... The jury can only find that defendant's
negligence proximately caused the injury, or that an intervening
cause was the sole cause, but not both."

The Fourth Circuit, disagrees with Phillips' argument, explaining
that when the use of a special verdict form leads to alleged
conflicting jury findings, the court have a duty to harmonize the
jury's answers -- considering the answers in light of the jury
instructions and view the evidence "in the light most favorable
to upholding the jury's decision by a finding of consistency.".
The Fourth Circuit finds no inconsistency in the jury's decision.

The North Carolina Supreme Court has held that "in order to
insulate the negligence of one party, the intervening negligence
of another must be such as to break the sequence or causal
connection between the negligence of the first party and the
injury, so as to exclude the negligence of the first party as one
of the proximate causes of the injury. An efficient intervening
cause is a new proximate cause. It must be an independent force
which entirely supersedes the original action and renders its
effect in the chain of causation remote."

Given the fact that the parties and the district court viewed
intervening negligence as an affirmative defense, the court's
decision to have the jury decide Questions 2 and 3 separately is
eminently sensible. The jury instructions and the verdict form
required the jury to consider first (in Question 2) whether
Phillips had proven his negligence claim against the defendants
without regard to whether there was any intervening negligence of
a third party. Properly instructed on this point, the jury found
in Phillips' favor. The jury instructions and verdict form then
required the jury to consider (in Question 3) the intervening
negligence "defense." Properly instructed on this point, the jury
found in Abex's favor. Thus, in accord with North Carolina law,
the jury found that a new proximate cause (third-party
negligence) overtook the original proximate cause (Abex's
negligence), thereby becoming as a legal matter the sole
proximate cause of the injury.

The appealed case is ERIK ROSS PHILLIPS; TINA LANDERS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, and GINA PHILLIPS, spouse, Plaintiff, v.
PNEUMO ABEX, LLC, a/k/a Abex Corporation, f/k/a American Brake
Shoe Company, f/k/a American Brake Shoe and Foundry Company,
American Brakeblok Division, Defendant-Appellee, and ALBANY
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; ASTENJOHNSON, INC.; B E & K INC.; BEK
CONSTRUCTION, INC.; BORG-WARNER CORPORATION, by its Successor in
Interest BorgWarner Morse TEC Inc.; CBS CORPORATION, f/k/a
Viacom, Inc., f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation, a Delaware
Corporation; CERTAINTEED CORPORATION; CHATTANOOGA BOILER & TANK
COMPANY; CLEAVER-BROOKS COMPANY; CRANE CO.; DANIEL INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION; FLOWSERVE US, INC. as successor to Nordtrom Valves,
Inc.; FLUOR DANIEL, INCORPORATED, f/k/a Daniel Construction
Company, Inc.; FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION; GARDNER DENVER
INC.; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GENUINE PARTS COMPANY; GOULDS
PUMPS, INC.; GRIZZLY INDUSTRIAL, INC.; HENRY VOGT MACHINE
COMPANY; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.; INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS
CORPORATION, f/k/a Carborundum Company; INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY;
ITT CORPORATION, Kennedy Valve Manufacturing Company,
individually, and as successor to Bell & Gossett; KORBER
PAPERLINK NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Clark-Aiken Company; METROPOLITAN
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife,
Inc.; NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ASSOCIATION, INC.; NATIONAL
SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC., f/k/a North Brothers Company; RAPID
AMERICAN CORPORATION; RILEY POWER, INC., f/k/a Babcock Borsig
Power, Inc., f/k/a D.B. Riley, Inc., f/k/a Riley Stoker
Corporation; SEPCO CORPORATION; MONTALVO COMPANY; TRANE U.S.
INC., f/k/a American Standard, Incorporated; UNION CARBIDE
CORPORATION; UNIROYAL, INCORPORATED, f/k/a United States Rubber
Company, Inc.; VIKING PUMP, INCORPORATED; YARWAY CORPORATION;
ZURN INDUSTRIES, LLC; KORBER PAPERLINK GMBH, individually and as
successor in interest to E.C.H. Will GmbH, successor in interest
to Pemco, Inc., successor in interest to Clark-Aiken Company;
E.C.H. WILL GMBH; PEMCO, INC., individually and as successor in
interest to Clark-Aiken Company; WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, d/b/a Wabtec Corporation; RAILROAD
FRICTION PRODUCTS CORPORATION; REDDAWAY MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
INC., Defendants, No. 16-1508, (4th Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated December 14, 2017, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yapdxe36 from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Mona Lisa Wallace, WALLACE & GRAHAM, PA, Salisbury, North
Carolina, for Appellants.

Reagan William Simpson, YETTER COLEMAN LLP, Houston, Texas, for
Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Michael B. Pross, John S. Hughes, WALLACE & GRAHAM, PA,
Salisbury, North Carolina, for Appellants.

Timothy W. Bouch, Amy Melvin DiLorenzo, Yancey A. McLeod III,
LEATH, BOUCH & SEEKINGS, LLP, Charleston, South Carolina; April
L. Farris , YETTER COLEMAN LLP, Houston, Texas, for Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Order vs. Cleaver-Brooks Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
Appellate Court of Illinois for the Fourth District affirms the
February 9, 2017 discovery order requiring Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.
to produce copies of 5077 of its 90,000 index cards, vacates the
February 27, 2017 contempt order, and remands the case for
further proceedings.

Defendant, Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., a division of Aqua-Chem, Inc.,
appeals from the trial court's order finding it in "friendly
contempt" and assessing a $1 fine for failing to comply with an
order requiring it to produce copies of certain documents to
Plaintiffs, Larry Salvator, Sr. (now deceased) and his wife,
Marcia Salvator, in discovery.

In February 2016, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Cleaver-
Brooks and 42 other defendants, alleging, in part, Larry
Salvator, Sr., sustained injuries caused by the inhalation of
asbestos fibers during his work in close proximity to "asbestos-
containing boilers, and associated gaskets and insulation"
manufactured by Cleaver-Brooks in the 1960s and 1970s. The
Plaintiffs alleged theories of negligence based on Cleaver-
Brooks's failure to (1) warn the exposure to asbestos caused
serious disease, pulmonary fibrosis, malignancies, and death and
(2) provide instruction as to safe methods, if any existed, of
handling and processing asbestos-containing products. Larry
Salvator, Sr., ultimately identified 11 jobsites where he worked
with equipment manufactured by Cleaver-Brooks. Due to the nature
of Larry Salvator, Sr.'s injuries, plaintiffs sought and received
an expedited discovery and trial schedule.

In November 2016, plaintiffs served Cleaver-Brooks with a second
request for production of documents. In part, plaintiffs
requested Cleaver-Brooks to produce "[t]he index cards referenced
by [Cleaver-Brooks's corporate representative] at his depositions
that he says he uses to perform searches for boilers at job sites
[sic]."

In December 2016, Cleaver-Brooks filed responses and objections
to plaintiffs' second request for production of documents.
Cleaver-Brooks objects to any request that relates to periods of
time, geographical areas, or activities outside the scope of the
allegations of the operative complaint as over broad [sic],
irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Any request that is
not limited in time and scope to the particular facts of the
case, by definition, calls for irrelevant information and is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. It would also impose an unreasonable burden on Cleaver-
Brooks to search out, review, organize and produce information
and documents not related to any issue in the case. Further,
requiring Cleaver-Brooks to produce information without
limitation to the particular facts of the case improperly shifts
plaintiffs' burden of proof to Cleaver-Brooks.

Cleaver-Brooks states that there are over 90,000 index cards and
they are too voluminous to produce. Cleaver-Brooks has agreed to
make the index cards available for plaintiffs' inspection in an
orderly fashion at a mutually agreeable date and time." The
parties thereafter agreed plaintiffs would inspect the 90,000
index cards on January 10, 2017.

On January 18 and 19, 2017, Cleaver-Brooks allowed plaintiffs to
inspect its 90,000 index cards at its facilities. Plaintiffs
tabbed 5077 index cards to be copied and turned over.

Cleaver-Brooks suggested issues relating to the index cards were
likely to be raised in different ways throughout the course of
litigation. Cleaver-Brooks argued, to protect its due process
rights, the issue had to be immediately appealed or plaintiffs'
motion to compel should be withdrawn. Cleaver-Brooks assured the
court its refusal to comply was in good faith because it believed
the remaining index cards were not relevant. Plaintiffs indicated
they were "not requesting any relief from the court at that
time." Cleaver-Brooks maintained it was within the court's
discretion to enter an order of friendly contempt without a
request from plaintiffs' counsel.

Cleaver-Brooks requests the Appellate Court to reverse and vacate
the February 9, 2017, discovery order because the trial court
abused its discretion in ordering it to produce copies of the
5077 tabbed index cards. Specifically, Cleaver-Brooks argues the
court's finding was in error because (1) plaintiffs failed to
present any reasonable argument as to why 5064 of the tabbed
index cards were relevant or likely to lead to relevant evidence,
(2) plaintiffs' "true motive" in seeking the index cards was to
conduct an improper "fishing expedition" for the benefit of other
plaintiffs within and outside of Illinois; and (3) our courts
prohibit discovery orders based on wide, sweeping discovery
requests.

Plaintiffs disagree, arguing (1) Cleaver-Brooks's appeal is
frivolous and brought in bad faith, (2) Cleaver-Brooks waived any
relevance objection by producing the index cards on January 18
and 19, 2017, (3) Cleaver-Brooks's boilerplate objections in its
discovery responses did not preserve any relevance objection, and
(4) the trial court properly concluded copies of 5077 of Cleaver-
Brooks's 90,000 index cards were subject to disclosure, as they
were relevant and not requested as part of a "fishing
expedition."

While it appears Cleaver-Brooks intended to preserve its right to
review the tabbed index cards for relevance, the record shows
Cleaver-Brooks failed to do so. Prior to production, Cleaver-
Brooks did not obtain a ruling from the trial court or enter into
an agreement with plaintiffs whereby it could review the index
cards tabbed by plaintiffs for relevance. Instead, Cleaver-Brooks
voluntarily produced the index cards without any reservation. By
doing so, Cleaver-Brooks forfeited its relevance objection.

Forfeiture aside, the Court finds that Cleaver-Brooks has failed
to show the trial court abused its discretion in ordering it to
produce copies of 5077 of its 90,000 index cards on the basis
they were relevant and not requested as part of an improper
"fishing" expedition. The Court mentions that the supreme court
has stated: "The objectives of pretrial discovery are to enhance
the truth-seeking process, to enable attorneys to better prepare
for trial, to eliminate surprise, and to promote an expeditious
and final determination of controversies in accordance with the
substantive rights of the parties."

Cleaver-Brooks presented no argument addressing the purposes for
which plaintiffs asserted the index cards were relevant. Instead,
for the first time on appeal, Cleaver-Brooks takes issue with
Plaintiffs' alleged purposes for this evidence. By failing to
present argument before the trial court on this issue, Cleaver-
Brooks has forfeited the opportunity to do so on appeal. In
reaching its decision, the trial court explicitly found the index
cards were relevant to establish negligence by showing, through
Cleaver-Brooks's corporate representative, "the state of the art,
what products were sold, what the company's knowledge was at a
particular point in time, [and] if they continued to sell those
products after particular points in time."

The Appellate Court notes that Cleaver-Brooks failed to address
the court's reasoning other than a conclusory statement in its
initial brief suggesting the court's reasoning "fails to justify
the sweeping discovery that was ordered." Cleaver-Brooks has
failed to show the trial court's conclusion was unreasonable.

Cleaver-Brooks also argues plaintiffs' "true motive" in seeking
the index cards was to conduct an improper "fishing expedition"
to benefit other plaintiffs within and outside of Illinois.
Cleaver-Brooks raised this argument before the trial court. As
additional support for its position, Cleaver-Brooks now cites
plaintiffs' (1) refusal to agree to its inspection agreement, (2)
comments at the January 27, 2017, hearing, suggesting they could
use the index cards in other cases, and (3) refusal to agree to a
"confidentiality order" after copies of the tabbed index cards
were ordered to be produced.

Cleaver-Brooks asserts the trial court's discovery order is based
on the type of wide, sweeping discovery requests prohibited by
the courts. The Court finds, however, that the plaintiffs
requested Cleaver-Brooks, who provided its product to 11
identified jobsites, to produce copies of 5077 of its 90,000
index cards. Thus, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs'
discovery request was sufficiently limited and does not amount to
the type of wide, sweeping discovery requests prohibited by the
courts.

The appealed case is LARRY SALVATOR, SR., and MARCIA SALVATOR,
Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Successor to
Buffalo Pumps Inc.; AURORA PUMP COMPANY; BRAND INSULATIONS, INC.;
BORG WARNER MORSE TEC, INC., as Successor by Merger to Borg
Warner Corp.; BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC.; BURNHAM, LLC; BW/IP,
INC.; BRYANT HEATING & COOLING SYSTEMS; CARRIER CORPORATION;
CHICAGO GASKET COMPANY; CLEAVER-BROOKS, a Division of Aqua-Chem,
Inc.; CRANE COMPANY; DAP, INC.; DURO DYNE CORPORATION; FLOWSERVE
CORPORATION, f/k/a Duriron Company, Inc., and as Successor to
Byron Jackson Pump Division, Durco, And BW/IP International,
Inc.; FMC CORPORATION, Successor of Peerless Pumps; GENERAL
GASKET CORPORATION; GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC; GOULDS PUMPS (IPG),
INC.; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.; INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY; ITT
CORPORATION; JOHN CRANE, INC.; JP BUSHNELL PACKING SUPPLY CO.;
McMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO.; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.; PNEUMO ABEX LLC; SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA
INC., f/k/a Square D; SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY; SPRINKMANN SONS
CORPORATION; STERLING FLUID SYSTEMS (USA) LLC; SUPERIOR BOILER
WORKS, INC.; TACO, INC.; TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE OPERATING COMPANY;
TRANE U.S. INC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; VIKING PUMP, INC.;
WARREN PUMPS LLC; WEILMCLAIN COMPANY; WESTERN AUTO SUPPLY
COMPANY; YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; and ZURN INDUSTRIES LLC,
Defendants, (Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., a Division of Aqua-Chem, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellant), No. 4-17-0173, (Ill. App. Ct. 4d).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Order dated December 5, 2017
is available at https://is.gd/c2Bjol from Leagle.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Equity LifeStyle, DAs Continue Discussions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc., continues to be involved in
settlement discussions with District Attorneys' offices regarding
alleged asbestos-related violation on its properties in
California, 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, "In November 2014, we received a civil
investigative subpoena from the office of the District Attorney
for Monterey County, California ("MCDA"), seeking information
relating to, among other items, statewide compliance with
asbestos and hazardous waste regulations dating back to 2005
primarily in connection with demolition and renovation projects
performed by third-party contractors at our California
Properties.  We responded by providing the information required
by the subpoena.

"On October 20, 2015, we attended a meeting with representatives
of the MCDA and certain other District Attorneys' offices at
which the MCDA reviewed the preliminary results of their
investigation including, among other things, (i) alleged
violations of asbestos and related regulations associated with
approximately 200 historical demolition and renovation projects
in California; (ii) potential exposure to civil penalties and
unpaid fees; and (iii) next steps with respect to a negotiated
resolution of the alleged violations.

"No legal proceedings have been instituted to date and we are
involved in settlement discussions with the District Attorneys'
offices.  We continue to assess the allegations and the
underlying facts, and at this time we are unable to predict the
outcome of the investigation or reasonably estimate any possible
loss."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/qFOCl0


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Had $908MM Claim Reserves at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation had US$908 million reserves for asbestos
claims net of reinsurance recoverable 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, "Allstate's reserves for asbestos claims were
US$908 million and US$912 million, net of reinsurance
recoverables of US$428 million and US$444 million, as of
September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively.  Reserves
for environmental claims were US$175 million and US$179 million,
net of reinsurance recoverables of US$35 million and US$40
million, as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016,
respectively.

"Management believes its net loss reserves for asbestos,
environmental and other discontinued lines exposures are
appropriately established based on available facts, technology,
laws and regulations.  However, establishing net loss reserves
for asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines claims
is subject to uncertainties that are much greater than those
presented by other types of claims.  The ultimate cost of losses
may vary materially from recorded amounts, which are based on
management's best estimate.  Among the complications are lack of
historical data, long reporting delays, uncertainty as to the
number and identity of insureds with potential exposure and
unresolved legal issues regarding policy coverage; unresolved
legal issues regarding the determination, availability and timing
of exhaustion of policy limits; plaintiffs' evolving and
expanding theories of liability; availability and collectability
of recoveries from reinsurance; retrospectively determined
premiums and other contractual agreements; estimates of the
extent and timing of any contractual liability; the impact of
bankruptcy protection sought by various asbestos producers and
other asbestos defendants; and other uncertainties.  There are
also complex legal issues concerning the interpretation of
various insurance policy provisions and whether those losses are
covered, or were ever intended to be covered, and could be
recoverable through retrospectively determined premium,
reinsurance or other contractual agreements.

"Courts have reached different and sometimes inconsistent
conclusions as to when losses are deemed to have occurred and
which policies provide coverage; what types of losses are
covered; whether there is an insurer obligation to defend; how
policy limits are determined; how policy exclusions and
conditions are applied and interpreted; and whether clean-up
costs represent insured property damage.  Further, insurers and
claims administrators acting on behalf of insurers are
increasingly pursuing evolving and expanding theories of
reinsurance coverage for asbestos and environmental losses.
Adjudication of reinsurance coverage is predominately decided in
confidential arbitration proceedings which may have limited
precedential or predictive value further complicating
management's ability to estimate probable loss for reinsured
asbestos and environmental claims.  Management believes these
issues are not likely to be resolved in the near future, and the
ultimate costs may vary materially from the amounts currently
recorded resulting in material changes in loss reserves.

"In addition, while the Company believes that improved actuarial
techniques and databases have assisted in its ability to estimate
asbestos, environmental, and other discontinued lines net loss
reserves, these refinements may subsequently prove to be
inadequate indicators of the extent of probable losses.  Due to
the uncertainties and factors, management believes it is not
practicable to develop a meaningful range for any such additional
net loss reserves that may be required."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/5BDhBe


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Faces 1,500 Cases at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 1,500 cases were outstanding at September 30, 2017,
for which Standard Motor Products, Inc., may be responsible for
any related liabilities in connection to its former brake
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.

The Company states, "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which
we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as
a discontinued operation.  When we originally acquired this brake
business, we assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the
seller of the acquired brake business.  In accordance with the
related purchase agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities
for all new claims filed on or after September 2001.  Our
ultimate exposure will depend upon the number of claims filed
against us on or after September 2001 and the amounts paid for
indemnity and defense thereof.  At September 30, 2017,
approximately 1,500 cases were outstanding for which we may be
responsible for any related liabilities.  Since inception in
September 2001 through September 30, 2017, the amounts paid for
settled claims are approximately US$23.5 million.

"In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have
considered various factors including, among other things, an
actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by
an independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether
there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits
are filed, and the status and results of settlement discussions.
As is our accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial
consultants with experience in assessing asbestos-related
liabilities to estimate our potential claim liability.  The
methodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities and
costs in our actuarial study considered: (1) historical data
available from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our
recent claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the
future; (3) an analysis of our currently pending claims; and (4)
an analysis of our settlements to date in order to develop
average settlement values."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ns4cd9


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Liability Upped to $35.2MM
----------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc., increased its asbestos liability
to
$35.2 million, 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 responsible for certain future
liabilities relating to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products.  In accordance with our accounting policy, our most
recent actuarial study as of August 31, 2017 estimated an
undiscounted liability for settlement payments, excluding legal
costs and any potential recovery from insurance carriers, ranging
from US$35.2 million to US$54 million for the period through
2060.  Based on the information contained in the actuarial study
and all other available information considered by us, we have
concluded that no amount within the range of settlement payments
was more likely than any other and, therefore, in assessing our
asbestos liability we compare the low end of the range to our
recorded liability to determine if an adjustment is required.

"Based upon the results of the August 31, 2017 actuarial study,
in September 2017 we increased our asbestos liability to US$35.2
million, the low end of the range, and recorded an incremental
pre-tax provision of US$6 million in earnings (loss) from
discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of
operations.  In addition, according to the updated study, future
legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and reported in
earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the accompanying
statement of operations, are estimated to range from US$44.3
million to US$79.6 million for the period through 2060.

"We will continue to perform an annual actuarial analysis during
the third quarter of each year for the foreseeable future.  Based
on this analysis and all other available information, we will
continue to reassess the recorded liability and, if deemed
necessary, record an adjustment to the reserve, which will be
reflected as a loss or gain from discontinued operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ns4cd9


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Energy Still Assessing Liability at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that it is analyzing the scope of potential
liability related to its subsidiary, Midwest Generation, LLC.

NRG Energy states, "The Company, through its subsidiary, Midwest
Generation, may be subject to potential asbestos liabilities as a
result of its acquisition of EME.  The Company is currently
analyzing the scope of potential liability as it may relate to
Midwest Generation.  The Company believes that it has established
an adequate reserve for these cases."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/y32SNC


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Still Has Less Than 500 Cases at Sept 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. is still facing not more than 500 active and
inactive cases by claimants alleging health problems as a result
of exposure to 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, "For many years we have been and continue to
be subject to lawsuits initiated by claimants alleging health
problems as a result of exposure to asbestos.  Our current docket
of active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases nationwide.
A small number of claims have been asserted against one of our
subsidiaries by railroad workers alleging exposure to asbestos
products in railroad cars.  The substantial majority of the
remaining claims are related to alleged exposure to asbestos in
our automotive products although a significant number of those
claims appear also to involve occupational exposures sustained in
industries other than automotive.

"We believe, based on scientific and other evidence, it is
unlikely that claimants were exposed to asbestos by our former
products and that, in any event, they would not be at increased
risk of asbestos-related disease based on their work with these
products.  Further, many of these cases involve numerous
defendants, with the number in some cases exceeding 100
defendants from a variety of industries.  Additionally, in many
cases the plaintiffs either do not specify any, or specify the
jurisdictional minimum, dollar amount for damages.

"As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users continue to go out
of business or file for bankruptcy, we may experience an
increased number of these claims.  We vigorously defend ourselves
against these claims as part of our ordinary course of business.

"In future periods, we could be subject to cash costs or charges
to earnings if any of these matters are resolved unfavorably to
us.  To date, with respect to claims that have proceeded
sufficiently through the judicial process, we have regularly
achieved favorable resolutions.  Accordingly, we presently
believe that these asbestos-related claims will not have a
material adverse impact on our future consolidated financial
position, results of operations or liquidity."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/42kqos


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Still Faces Asbestos Suits at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc., still defends itself against a number of asbestos-
related lawsuits, 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.

AMETEK states, "The Company (including its subsidiaries) has been
named as a defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits.
Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business which was acquired
by the Company and do not involve products which were
manufactured or sold by the Company.  In connection with these
lawsuits, the seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the
Company against these claims (the "Indemnified Claims").

"The Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are being
defended by, such seller.  The seller has met its obligations, in
all respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe
such party would fail to fulfill its obligations in the future.

"No judgments have been rendered against the Company as a result
of any asbestos-related lawsuit.  The Company believes that it
has good and valid defenses to each of these claims and intends
to defend them vigorously."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/mWhA9t


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $25.1MM Libby Costs at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. had total estimated liability of US$25.1
million at September 30, 2017, for response costs related to a
vermiculite mine and surrounding area in Libby, Montana, as well
as at vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2017.

The Company states, "Grace purchased a vermiculite mine in Libby,
Montana, in 1963 and operated it until 1990.  Vermiculite
concentrate from the Libby mine was used in the manufacture of
attic insulation and other products.  Some of the vermiculite ore
contained naturally occurring asbestos.

"Grace is engaged with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(the "EPA") and other federal, state and local governmental
agencies in a remedial investigation and feasibility study
("RI/FS") of the Libby mine and the surrounding area.  In its
2017 Annual Project Update for the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site,
the EPA announced a narrowing of its focus from the former "OU3
Study Area" to a smaller Operable Unit 3 or "OU3." Within this
revised area, the RI/FS will determine the specific areas
requiring remediation and will identify possible remedial action
alternatives.  Possible remedial actions within OU3 are wide-
ranging, from institutional controls such as land use
restrictions, to more active measures involving soil removal,
containment projects, or other protective measures.  Grace
expects the RI/FS and a record of decision to be completed by the
end of 2019.  When meaningful new information becomes available,
Grace will reevaluate estimated liability for the costs for
remediation of the mine and surrounding area and adjust its
reserves accordingly.

"The EPA is also investigating or remediating formerly owned or
operated sites that processed Libby vermiculite into finished
products.  Grace is cooperating with the EPA on these
investigation and remediation activities, and has recorded a
liability to the extent that its review has indicated that a
probable liability has been incurred and the cost is estimable.
These liabilities cover the estimated cost of investigations and,
to the extent an assessment has indicated that remediation is
necessary, the estimable cost of response actions.  Response
actions typically involve soil excavation and removal, and
replacement with clean fill.  The EPA may commence additional
investigations in the future at other sites that processed Libby
vermiculite, but Grace does not believe, based on its knowledge
of prior and current operations and site conditions, that
liability for remediation at such other sites is probable.

"Grace accrued US$0.5 million in the three months ended September
30, 2017, for future costs related to vermiculite-related
matters, which reflects provision for an agreed-upon remedy at a
former vermiculite processing site.  Grace's total estimated
liability for response costs that are currently estimable for the
Libby mine and surrounding area, and at vermiculite processing
sites outside of Libby at September 30, 2017, and December 31,
2016, was US$25.1 million and US$31.2 million, respectively.  It
is probable that Grace's ultimate liability for these
vermiculite-related matters will exceed current estimates by
material amounts."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/fOm7uL


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consolidated Edison Accrues US$8MM Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc., had accrued liability of US$8 million
for asbestos suits 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 also deferred US$8 million as regulatory assets
related to asbestos suits at September 30, 2017.

On the other hand, subsidiary Consolidated Edison Company of New
York, Inc. (CECONY) had accrued liability of US$7 million for
asbestos suits and deferred US$7 million as asbestos-related
regulatory assets at September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "Suits have been brought in New York State
and federal courts against the Utilities and many other
defendants, wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large
amounts of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and
injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various
premises of the Utilities.  The suits that have been resolved,
which are many, have been resolved without any payment by the
Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the aggregate,
material to them.  The amounts specified in all the remaining
thousands of suits total billions of dollars; however, the
Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly exaggerated,
based on the disposition of previous claims.

"At September 30, 2017, Con Edison and CECONY have accrued their
estimated aggregate undiscounted potential liabilities for these
suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15
years.  These estimates were based upon a combination of
modeling, historical data analysis and risk factor assessment.
Courts have begun, and unless otherwise determined on appeal may
continue, to apply different standards for determining liability
in asbestos suits than the standard that applied historically.
As a result, the Companies currently believe that there is a
reasonable possibility of an exposure to loss in excess of the
liability accrued for the suits.  The Companies are unable to
estimate the amount or range of such loss.

"In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed
or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged
disability from exposure to asbestos.  CECONY is permitted to
defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through
rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers'
compensation claims."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Had US$80.0MM Reserves at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
had reserved US$80 million at September 30, 2017, for asbestos-
related claims, 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, "At September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016,
Generation had reserved approximately US$80 million and US$83
million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily
injury claims.  As of September 30, 2017, approximately US$22
million of this amount related to 227 open claims presented to
Generation, while the remaining US$58 million of the reserve is
for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims
anticipated to arise through 2050, based on actuarial assumptions
and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis.  On a
quarterly basis, Generation monitors actual experience against
the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim
payments and evaluates whether an adjustment to the reserve is
necessary."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/CY7KqS


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Expects Additional Exposure at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that there is a reasonable possibility that
it may have additional exposure to estimated future asbestos-
related bodily injury claims in excess of the amount accrued and
the increases could have a material adverse effect on future
results of operations and cash flows of the Company and its
subsidiaries Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Commonwealth Edison
Company, PECO Energy Company and Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company.

The Company states, "On November 22, 2013, the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania held that the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act
does not apply to an employee's disability or death resulting
from occupational disease, such as diseases related to asbestos
exposure, which manifests more than 300 weeks after the
employee's last employment-based exposure, and that therefore the
exclusivity provision of the Act does not preclude such employee
from suing his or her employer in court.  The Supreme Court's
ruling reverses previous rulings by the Pennsylvania Superior
Court precluding current and former employees from suing their
employers in court, despite the fact that the same employee was
not eligible for workers compensation benefits for diseases that
manifest more than 300 weeks after the employee's last
employment-based exposure to asbestos.  Since the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court's ruling in November 2013, Exelon, Generation, and
PECO have experienced an increase in asbestos-related personal
injury claims brought by former PECO employees, all of which have
been reserved for on a claim by claim basis.  Those additional
claims are taken into account in projecting estimates of future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims.

"On November 4, 2015, the Illinois Supreme Court found that the
provisions of the Illinois' Workers' Compensation Act and the
Workers' Occupational Diseases Act barred an employee from
bringing a direct civil action against an employer for latent
diseases, including asbestos-related diseases that fall outside
the 25-year limit of the statute of repose.  The Illinois Supreme
Court's ruling reversed previous rulings by the Illinois Court of
Appeals, which initially ruled that the Illinois Worker's
Compensation law should not apply in cases where the diagnosis of
an asbestos related disease occurred after the 25-year maximum
time period for filing a Worker's Compensation claim.  Since the
Illinois Supreme Court's ruling in November 2015, Exelon,
Generation, and ComEd have not experienced a significant increase
in asbestos-related personal injury claims brought by former
ComEd employees.

"There is a reasonable possibility that Exelon may have
additional exposure to estimated future asbestos-related bodily
injury claims in excess of the amount accrued and the increases
could have a material adverse effect on Exelon's, Generation's,
ComEd's, PECO and BGE's future results of operations and cash
flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/CY7KqS


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BGE Still Defends Asbestos Claims at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that its subsidiary, Baltimore Gas and
Electric Company, still faces asbestos-related claims.

The Company states, "Since 1993, BGE and certain Constellation
(now Generation) subsidiaries have been involved in several
actions concerning asbestos.  The actions are based upon the
theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE and Generation
knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos hazard.  In
addition to BGE and Generation, numerous other parties are
defendants in these cases.

"Most asbestos claims which have been resolved relating to BGE
and certain Constellation subsidiaries have been dismissed or
resolved without any payment and a small minority of these cases
has been resolved for amounts that were not material to BGE or
Generation's financial results.  Presently, there are an
immaterial number of asbestos cases pending against BGE and
certain Constellation subsidiaries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/CY7KqS


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Has $44.4MM Asbestos Coverage at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enpro Industries, Inc., had US$44.4 million of insurance coverage
to cover asbestos claims payments and certain expense payments 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, "The historical business operations of
Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC ("GST LLC") and The Anchor
Packing Company ("Anchor") resulted in a substantial volume of
asbestos litigation in which plaintiffs alleged personal injury
or death as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers.  Those
subsidiaries manufactured and/or sold industrial sealing
products, predominately gaskets and packing, that contained
encapsulated asbestos fibers.  Anchor was an inactive and
insolvent indirect subsidiary of EnPro's then-direct subsidiary,
Coltec Industries Inc ("Coltec").  Our subsidiaries' exposure to
asbestos litigation and their relationships with insurance
carriers had been managed through another subsidiary, Garrison
Litigation Management Group, Ltd.  ("Garrison").  GST LLC, Anchor
and Garrison are collectively referred to as "GST."

"On June 5, 2010 (the "GST Petition Date"), GST LLC, Anchor and
Garrison filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under
Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the "GST Chapter
11 Case") in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District
of North Carolina (the "Bankruptcy Court").  The filings were the
initial step in a claims resolution process for an efficient and
permanent resolution of all pending and future asbestos claims
through court approval of a plan of reorganization to establish a
facility to resolve and pay all GST asbestos claims.  On March
17, 2016, we announced that we had reached a comprehensive
consensual settlement to resolve current and future asbestos
claims which contemplated the joint plan of reorganization (the
"Joint Plan") which was filed with the Bankruptcy Court.  This
settlement contemplated that Coltec would, subject to the receipt
of necessary consents, undergo a corporate restructuring (the
"Coltec Restructuring") in which all of its significant operating
assets and subsidiaries, which included each of the Company's
major business units, would be distributed to a new direct
subsidiary of the Company, which would also assume all of
Coltec's non-asbestos liabilities.  The Coltec Restructuring was
completed on December 31, 2016, and included the merger of Coltec
with and into OldCo, LLC ("OldCo"), an indirect subsidiary of
EnPro.  As further contemplated by the settlement, on January 30,
2017 (the "OldCo Petition Date"), OldCo filed a Chapter 11
bankruptcy petition with the Bankruptcy Court (the "OldCo Chapter
11 Case").  On February 3, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court issued an
order for the joint administration of the OldCo Chapter 11 Case
with the GST Chapter 11 Case.  The Joint Plan was consummated on
July 31, 2017.

"During the pendency of the GST Chapter 11 Case and the related
OldCo Chapter 11 Case, certain actions proposed to be taken by
GST or OldCo not in the ordinary course of business were subject
to approval by the Bankruptcy Court.  As a result, during the
pendency of the GST Chapter 11 Case and the OldCo Chapter 11
Case, we did not have exclusive control over these companies.
Accordingly, as required by GAAP, GST was deconsolidated
beginning on the GST Petition Date and OldCo was deconsolidated
beginning on the OldCo Petition Date.

"As a result of the initiation of the GST Chapter 11 Case and the
OldCo Chapter 11 Case, the resolution of asbestos claims against
these companies was subject to the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy
Court.  The filing of the GST Chapter 11 Case automatically
stayed the prosecution of pending asbestos bodily injury and
wrongful death lawsuits, and initiation of new such lawsuits,
against GST.  Further, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order
enjoining plaintiffs from bringing or further prosecuting
asbestos products liability actions against affiliates of GST,
including EnPro, Coltec and all their subsidiaries, during the
pendency of the GST Chapter 11 Case, subject to further order.
As a result, except as a result of the resolution of appeals from
verdicts rendered prior to the GST Petition Date and the
elimination of claims as a result of information obtained in the
GST Chapter 11 Case, the numbers of asbestos claims pending
against our subsidiaries had not changed since the GST Petition
Date.

"At September 30, 2017, we had US$44.4 million of insurance
coverage we believe is available to cover GST asbestos claims
payments and certain expense payments, including contributions to
the Trust.  GST has collected insurance payments totaling
US$152.3 million since the GST Petition Date.  We consider the
US$44.4 million of available insurance coverage remaining to be
of high quality because the insurance policies are written or
guaranteed by U.S.-based carriers whose credit rating by S&P is
investment grade (BBB-) or better, and whose AM Best rating is
excellent (A-) or better.  Of the US$44.4 million, US$8.3 million
is allocated to claims that were paid by GST LLC prior to the
initiation of the Chapter 11 Case and submitted to insurance
companies for reimbursement, and the remainder is allocated to
pending and estimated future claims.  There are specific
agreements in place with carriers covering US$29.4 million of the
remaining available coverage.  Based on those agreements and the
terms of the policies in place and prior decisions concerning
coverage, we believe that all of the US$44.4 million of insurance
proceeds will ultimately be collected, although there can be no
assurance that the insurance companies will make the payments as
and when due.  Based on those agreements and policies, some of
which define specific annual amounts to be paid and others of
which limit the amount that can be recovered in any one year, we
anticipate that US$19.2 million will be received either through
settlements or in reimbursements of GST's plan funding as
payments are made by the asbestos trust.

"GST LLC has received US$8.8 million of insurance recoveries from
insolvent carriers since 2007, and may receive additional
payments from insolvent carriers in the future.  No anticipated
insolvent carrier collections are included in the US$44.4 million
of anticipated collections.  The insurance available to cover
current and future asbestos claims is from comprehensive general
liability policies that cover OldCo, as the successor to Coltec,
and certain of its other subsidiaries in addition to GST LLC for
periods prior to 1985 and therefore could be subject to potential
competing claims of other covered subsidiaries and their
assignees."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/z2dVs9


ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Still Defend Suits at Sept30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to face
several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by
installation of brakes 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, "A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company,
Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its wholly-
owned subsidiary Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. ("WAG"), are
named defendants in several lawsuits involving claims for damages
caused by installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early
1970's that contained asbestos.  WAG marketed certain brakes, but
did not manufacture any brakes.  WAG maintains liability
insurance coverage to protect its and the Company's assets from
losses arising from the litigation and coverage is provided on an
occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the Company is
not expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs in
connection with this matter that would be material to its
consolidated financial statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Oe7gxz


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Fuels Still Faces Claims at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Fuels Inc. continues to face claims over an alleged
asbestos exposure resulting from the operation of the White Mesa
Mill, 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, "In November 2012, the Company was served
with a Plaintiff's Original Petition and Jury Demand in the
District Court of Harris County, Texas, claiming unspecified
damages from the disease and injuries resulting from mesothelioma
from exposure to asbestos, which the Plaintiff claims was
contributed to by being exposed to asbestos products and dust
while working at the White Mesa Mill.

"The Company does not consider this claim to have any merit, and
therefore does not believe it will materially affect our
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.  In
January, 2013, the Company filed a Special Appearance challenging
jurisdiction and certain other procedural matters relating to
this claim.  No other activity involving the Company on this
matter has occurred since that date."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/n9WM6m


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 27,000 Claims Pending at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Inc.'s subsidiaries had 27,000 pending claims 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, "Subsidiaries of ITT, including ITT LLC and
Goulds Pumps LLC, have been sued, along with many other companies
in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to
asbestos exposure.  These claims generally allege that certain
products sold by our subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part
manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained
asbestos.  To the extent these third-party parts may have
contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other)
material and was non-friable.  As of September 30, 2017, there
were approximately 27 thousand pending claims against ITT
subsidiaries, including Goulds Pumps LLC, filed in various state
and federal courts alleging injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos.

"Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC or
Goulds Pumps LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure.  Our
experience to date is that a majority of resolved claims are
dismissed without any payment from ITT subsidiaries.  Management
believes that a large majority of the pending claims have little
or no value.  In addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed
in large groups, the average cost per resolved claim can
fluctuate significantly from period to period.  ITT expects more
asbestos-related suits will be filed in the future, and ITT will
continue to aggressively defend or seek a reasonable resolution,
as appropriate.

"Asbestos litigation is a unique form of litigation.  Frequently,
the plaintiff sues a large number of defendants and does not
state a specific claim amount.  After filing a complaint, the
plaintiff engages defendants in settlement negotiations to
establish a settlement value based on certain criteria, including
the number of defendants in the case.  Rarely do the plaintiffs
seek to collect all damages from one defendant.  Rather, they
seek to spread the liability, and thus the payments, among many
defendants.  As a result of this and other factors, the Company
is unable to estimate the maximum potential exposure to pending
claims and claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/I0THzo


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Has US$875.5MM Liability at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Inc. had recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related liability
of US$875.5 million as of September 30, 2017, for pending claims
and unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10
years, 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 record a liability for pending asbestos
claims and asbestos claims estimated to be filed over the next 10
years.  While it is probable that we will incur additional costs
for future claims to be filed against the Company, a liability
for potential future claims beyond the next 10 years is not
reasonably estimable due to the variables and uncertainties
inherent in the long-term projection of the Company's asbestos
exposures and potential recoveries.  As of September 30, 2017, we
have recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related liability for
pending claims and unasserted claims estimated to be filed over
the next 10 years of US$875.5 million, including expected legal
fees, and an associated asset of US$374.3 which represents
estimated recoveries from insurers, resulting in a net asbestos
exposure of US$501.2 million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/I0THzo


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP3.8MM for North East Asbestos Victims
---------------------------------------------------------
Mike Kelley of Chronicle News reported that asbestos victims and
their families in this region have shared in GBP3.8 million
compensation pay outs over the last 17 months thanks to the help
of campaigners.

The cash was secured by the Northern TUC Asbestos Support and
Campaign Group (ASCG) between April 2016 and September 2017 for
claimants in the North East and North Cumbria.

The group, launched in 2010, is a partnership between Northern
TUC, Macmillan Cancer Support, trade unions and West View Advice
and Resource Centre, provides support, advice and information to
people living with the effects of asbestos exposure, their
families and carers.

People helped by the group have asbestos-related diseases such as
mesothelioma, asbestosis and lung cancer as well as other
workplace cancers.

Beth Farhat, Northern TUC Regional Secretary said: "Results like
these are amazing and highlight the need for groups like the
ASCG.

"We are also looking to develop this area of work further and
widen the scope of the group to help even more people -- taking
the service directly into workplaces, briefing and training union
reps."

Asbestos is the biggest cause of workplace deaths. Last year
5,000 people were likely to die prematurely as a result of
asbestos exposure, around three times the number of road accident
deaths.

Most of those who die do so as a result of mesothelioma, a kind
of cancer that can be caused by very low levels of exposure which
is always fatal.

Almost all of the people who are dying today were exposed to
asbestos decades ago, so asbestos is now often seen as being a
problem of the past as its importation and use have been banned
since 1999.

That is not the case. The dangers of asbestos are still with us.
Asbestos-containing materials can be found in around half a
million non-domestic premises, and probably around a million
domestic ones.

Ms Farhat said: "Unfortunately, the legacy of asbestos is going
to be with us for some time to come so it is imperative that
there is free access to good quality, easily accessible support
and guidance for those who need it."

Val Evens, Manager of West View Advice and Resource Centre
Limited, said: "We welcome the opportunity to extend our services
and partnerships to incorporate the Northern TUC and the
Macmillan Industrial Benefits Adviser.

"We know that through working together with our partners we will
ensure this valuable service continues helping people suffering
from industrial cancers right across the north east."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Materials Removed in Minister's Home
--------------------------------------------------------------
Solomone Rabulu and Mere Naleba of Fiji Times Online reported
that a team from the Ministry of Labour is removing materials
that contain asbestos at the State House.

This was confirmed by the Minister for Labour, Jone Usamate.

Mr Usamate said materials containing asbestos from the old
Nausori Market had also been successfully removed under great
supervision and the focus now was on clearing asbestos from the
State House which the President, Jioji Konrote, occupies.

"I understand that the asbestos have been removed under great
supervision from the Nausori Market," said Mr Usamate.

"We had the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Unit that had
the requirements in place. We also had the Nausori Town Council
to gather consultants and help the team remove the asbestos from
the place."

Asbestos are bundles of fibre that are used by construction
companies to strengthen cement and plastics as well as for
insulation, roofing, fireproofing, and sound absorption.

However, asbestos have been classified as a cancer-causing
substance that has been banned in several countries around the
world.

Studies have shown that people exposed to asbestos may have an
increased risk of developing lung cancer and a cancer of the thin
membrane that lines the chest and the abdomen known as
mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fiji Lacks Asbestos Awareness
----------------------------------------------
Alisi Vucago of The Tiji Times Online reported that there is not
enough awareness in Fiji and the region on the health
implications of asbestos exposure, says Ken Takahashi, the
director and Professor for Asbestos Disease Research Institute at
the University of Sydney.

In an interview with Fiji Times Online today, Mr Takahashi said
the fact that an asbestos symposium hosted in Pacific Harbour
today was the first of its kind, speaks of the fact that the
country and the region needed to start organising similar kinds
of effort, including general awareness raising, training of
workers and education of children.

He said first, there was a need to know how much of asbestos was
coming into Fiji and in what way.

"Now we do know that some very well-known buildings in Fiji have
used asbestos as construction materials and I think we should
consider that as a tip of the iceberg. It is very likely that
asbestos has been used in other public buildings as well as
residential buildings and unless proven otherwise, we should
suspect that," Mr Takahashi said.

"I also emphasised in my talk that it's not only in construction
materials, asbestos can be used in wide range of industrial
applications because they are heat resistant, good friction
materials so the country has to first look into these sources of
asbestos used in the country and take it from there.

"Once you identify the sources, you'll know how to deal with
them. Of course you have to think about detecting the disease,
but I think that is secondary to finding the sources.

"Once you know the sources, you will know the people who might be
exposed and then you are able to target a certain section of the
population who may be at risk of developing the disease and from
that, you may be able to find asbestos-related diseases."

Mr Takahashi said since the exposure of the asbestos situation
was not well recognised in the region, he realised that medical
expertise was non-existent.

"But I can tell you that even in developed countries like
Australia and Japan, there are misdiagnosis as many cases are
mistaken for other diseases or they may even not be detected at
all. So it takes a long time for countries to acquire the
expertise," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Endanger Children Playing Xmas Decors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak of Asbestos.com reported that the organization
representing education worker unions in the United Kingdom has
cautioned its members to avoid disturbing asbestos and
endangering children when displaying Christmas decorations in
school classrooms.

The Joint Union Asbestos Committee (JUAC) through the Department
of Education  issued a directive to staffs throughout the U.K.,
reminding them nearly 90 percent of schools still contain some
toxic asbestos products.

JUAC said putting staples and pins into walls or ceilings to help
display holiday decorations often releases microscopic asbestos
fibers that can cause serious health issues for those nearby.

"This activity should not be taking place in schools where
asbestos is known to be present," the Department of Education
insisted.

JUAC advised school staffs to:

   * Determine whether your building contains asbestos and
exactly where it is located.

   * Not pierce the walls and ceilings of classrooms, corridors
or halls with staples or pins to hang Christmas decorations if
asbestos is suspected.

   * Find alternative ways to display holiday decorations and
other artwork.

"Any school built before 2000 is likely to contain asbestos," the
JUAC directive said. "Nearly 90 percent of schools still contain
asbestos and children are known to be most vulnerable because of
the long latency of asbestos-related diseases such as
mesothelioma."

Even with Asbestos Ban, the Problem Remains

The U.K. is among 61 countries that have banned the toxic
mineral, but still has one of the world's highest incidence rates
of asbestos-related disease, stemming from ubiquitous use for
decades that remains a threat today.

Asbestos was used in U.K. school construction in various forms
until 1999, when the full ban took effect. It was utilized to
better fireproof the construction, primarily in ceiling and floor
tiles, along with certain drywall products.

The Health and Safety Executive, the U.K.'s governmental agency
that oversees school remodeling projects that may include
asbestos, said "as long as asbestos is in good condition, well-
managed and unlikely to be damaged or disturbed, it is not a
significant risk to the health of teachers and pupils."

Asbestos becomes dangerous when it ages or is disturbed, sending
microscopic fibers into the air. When they are inhaled or
ingested, the fibers eventually could lead to serious problems
such as asbestosis, lung cancer or mesothelioma.

Teachers and Students Getting Exposed

More than 250 former staff and students in the U.K. the past six
years have filed claims with the Department of Education, citing
asbestos-related diseases traced to various schools.

Asbestos also has been a problem in older schools throughout the
United States.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates
asbestos-containing materials are in many of the approximately
132,000 secondary and primary schools across the country.

The EPA also insists those materials pose very little risk if
they remain in good condition and undisturbed. Problems have
arisen, though, when an improper abatement is attempted or
maintenance work is done without the necessary precautions.

Too often, untrained and unlicensed workers are performing older-
school maintenance.

Although asbestos is difficult to identify in products, some
places it is commonly found include:

   * Chipped paint
   * Damaged drywall, plaster or wallboard
   * Aging floor tiles and ceiling panels
   * Older air-conditioning and heating equipment

EPA regulations require schools to develop and regularly update a
plan describing the type and location of any asbestos materials.
It also requires regular asbestos inspections.

The EPA estimates almost half of all schools today were built
between 1950 and 1969, a time when asbestos use was at its peak.
It is especially prevalent in schools throughout New England.
The EPA recently awarded $631,000 in grants to five New England
states to help manage their asbestos-in-schools problem.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foundry Job Exposed Husband to Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of Madison-St. Claire Record reported that a
couple alleges the husband's employment at a foundry exposed him
to asbestos.

Ellis Blamble and Bertha Blamble filed a complaint in the St.
Clair County Circuit Court against Agco Corp., Beazer East Inc.,
Cleaver-Brooks, et al., alleging negligence.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at various
times during plaintiff Ellis Blamble's work from 1957 to 2000 at
Ford Foundry, he was exposed to asbestos fibers emanating from
certain products manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by
defendants. They also allege that he was secondarily exposed to
asbestos through his father, a farmer.

The suit states that on Oct. 10, Ellis was diagnosed with lung
cancer, an asbestos-induced disease, and that the disease was
wrongfully caused.

The plaintiffs holds Agco Corp., Beazer East Inc., Cleaver-
Brooks., et al. responsible because the defendants allegedly
failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions concerning
the dangers of working with or around products containing
asbestos fibers.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek damages of more
than $50,000. They are represented by Randy L. Gori of Gori,
Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Neyland Couple Sue for Asbestos-Related Injuries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lhale Castillo of Madison-St. Claire Record reported that a
couple is seeking more than $50,000 in damages from multiple
companies over allegations of injuries sustained by asbestos
exposure.

Andre Neyland and Casandra Neyland filed a complaint on Dec. 6 in
the St. Clair County Circuit Court against Alfa Laval Inc.,
Ameron International Corp., Borg-Warner Morse TEC LLC alleging
negligence.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at various
times during Andre Neyland's career from 1974 to 2016, he was
exposed to and inhaled or ingested large amounts of asbestos
fibers emanating from certain products manufactured, sold,
distributed or installed by defendants.

The suit states that on or about June 14, 2016, he first became
aware that he developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease,
and that the disease was wrongfully caused.

The plaintiffs holds Alfa Laval Inc., Ameron International Corp.,
Borg-Borg-Warner Morse TEC LLC, et al. responsible because the
defendants allegedly negligently included asbestos fibers in
their products when adequate substitutes were available and
failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions concerning
the dangers of working with or around products containing
asbestos fibers.

The plaintiffs seek damages of more than $50,000. They are
represented by Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in
Edwardsville.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Summary Judgment in Asbestos Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harris Martin Publishing reported that a Ohio federal court has
denied Honeywell International Inc.'s motion for summary judgment
in an asbestos case, finding that the plaintiff has established a
question of material fact as to whether bystander exposure to
asbestos fibers in the defendant's brake linings caused her to
develop mesothelioma.

In the Dec. 13 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio found there was enough evidence for a jury to
determine whether the Bendix brakes were a substantial factor in
her development of the asbestos-related disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Letter Suspected to Contain Asbestos Sent to DHB
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Houlahan of Otago Daily Times reported that a poison pen
letter with a difference has been sent to the Southern District
Health Board, a sample of material possibly containing asbestos.
The unwanted delivery has prompted a warning from health
officials for people not to handle hazardous materials
themselves, but to call in a health protection officer first.

That precaution was not taken by the correspondent, who instead
opted to send the potentially deadly material by mail to the DHB
for testing.

"We appreciate that people are trying to do the right thing by
getting asbestos tested," DHB medical officer of health Marion
Poore said.

"But we need to take precautions to protect the health and safety
of our staff and community."

WorkSafe New Zealand was notified of the incident, but a
spokesman said the incident did not meet its criteria for further
investigation.

Asbestos was a commonly used building material but is now known
to cause a wide range of serious health issues, including deadly
illnesses.

Unsuspecting homeowners run the risk of exposure to asbestos when
disturbing or removing building materials.

"It is important to seek advice from a health protection officer
prior to collecting samples to help ensure any samples are
collected and submitted safely," Dr Poore said.

The Southern DHB website page on asbestos now has a warning in
bold type not to send asbestos samples in the post.

Health protection officers are available to provide advice in
Otago and Southland.

Professionals such as builders, roofers and flooring companies
are expected to remove samples in accordance with Worksafe
guidelines and submit them to a lab for testing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Points Accurate Mesothelioma Testing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma.net reported that one of the most challenging
aspects of treating malignant pleural mesothelioma is the fact
that the condition is generally so far advanced by the time it is
diagnosed. The condition does not begin to manifest symptoms
until decades after exposure to asbestos has taken place, and by
that time the cancerous tumors have often taken hold deep within
the chest cavity and infiltrated vital organs. But now a
collaborative study conducted by the University of Amsterdam and
several Belgian universities has shown successful preliminary
results from the use of breath analysis tests in screening for
malignant mesothelioma. If the tools is developed further, it
could be used on those with a known exposure to asbestos in order
to help identify illness much earlier, providing extended
survival times.

The technology that is being tested for use in detecting early
stage malignant pleural mesothelioma uses a technology that is
broadly known as breathomics. Breathomics uses gas
chromatography-mass spectrometry technology, as well as
technology known as "e-Nose". In the test conducted in Europe, 64
study participants were selected, with 16 healthy individuals
chosen as controls, 19 people with a known history of exposure to
asbestos but in whom no symptoms had yet presented, 15 people
identified as being ill with asbestos-related diseases other than
mesothelioma, and 14 who had already been confirmed as having
malignant pleural mesothelioma. Each provided breath samples for
analysis of compounds found within their exhaled breath.

The results were remarkable: the technology was able to
distinguish between mesothelioma and other asbestos-related
illnesses in those who were already sick, as well as providing
accurate predictions on who was likely to develop mesothelioma at
a later date and who was not. The scientists involved in the
research concluded, "This study shows accurate discrimination of
patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma from asymptomatic
asbestos-exposed persons at risk by GC-MS and eNose analysis of
exhaled volatile organic compounds and provides proof-of-
principle of breath analysis for malignant pleural mesothelioma
screening." Though more testing will need to be done before this
technology is widely available, the results are encouraging.


                            *********


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, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Joy A. Agravante, 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.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *