CAR_Public/180302.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Friday, March 2, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 45



                            Headlines


7-ELEVEN: Wage Theft Damages Class Action Looms for Firm
7-ELEVEN: Franchisees to File Class Action Over ANZ Loan Deal
ABSOLUTE CARE: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
ADVANTA SEEDS: Shattercane Class Action Grows to 50 Farmers
AFLAC INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action

AFLAC INC: Faces Class Action, April 16 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
ALICE + OLIVIA: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
ALLIED COLLECTION: Sued Over Wrongful Debt Collection Practices
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
AMERICAN STANDARD: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York

ARMEL TAX AND ACCOUNTING: Faces "Marett" Suit in S.D. New York
AUSTRALIA: Class Action v. Queensland Gov't Over Linc Progressing
AUSTRALIA: 2019 Trial Set for Firefighting Contamination Case
BIG HEART: Faces Class Action Lawsuit
BITCONNECT: Law Firm Calls on Other Victims to Join Class Action

BMW: Fraud Class Action Suit Heads to Appeals Court
BO CONCEPTS NORTH: Faces "Conner" Suit in S.D. New York
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Pierce Atwood Attorney Discusses Ruling
CALIFORNIA: Faces 4th Class Action Over Oroville Dam Crisis
CANADA: Families of Children with Autism Mull Class Action

CANADA: Lenczner Slaght Attorney Discusses Ottawa Class Action
CASSINA CONNECTION: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
CHOPARD USA: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Rubin" Suit Says
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "Sonterre" Suit over Drug Testing Policy

CREDIT SUISSE: Former Brokers File Class Action in California
DAIMLER AG: Says Mercedes-Benz Class Action Without Merit
DIBELLA CORP: Faces "Betancourt" Suit in E.D. New York
DON HERRING: Court Affirms Vitality of Data Privacy Class Action
DUKE UNIVERSITY: Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling

EQUIFAX INC: Murphy Attorney Selected to Help Lead Class Action
FLYWHEEL SPORTS: Faces "Kiler" Suit in E.D. New York
FORD MOTOR: Class Action Over Touch Screen Systems Heads to Trial
FUNKO INC: Faces Securities Class Action Over IPO
HYUNDAI MOTORS: Morrison & Foerster Discusses Class Action Ruling

IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Class Action Lawsuit Certified to Proceed
INDIO, CA: Face Class Action Over Prosecution Fees
INTEL CORPORATION: Sued in N.Y. Over Breach of Implied Warranties
INTELLITIX INC: "Kovacevic" Suit Brought Before NY Supreme Court
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Sued Over Non-Competition Agreement

JAEGER-LECOULTRE: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
KITCHEN PRIDE: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval
LJM FUNDS: Boca Raton Investor Files Class Action Lawsuit

LL BEAN: Sued in Chicago for Ending Lifetime Return Policy
LYFT: Fights Drivers' Class Action in New Jersey
MATALCO: "Pittman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
MCCABE TROTTER: Judge Certifies FDCPA Class Action
MCCARTHY BURGESS: Faces "Pugh" Suit in S.D. West Virginia

MCWANE INC: May 10 Fairness Hearing on $8.7MM DIPF Settlement
MDL 2804: Chester May Join Opioid Class Action Suit
MDL 2804: Pendleton Join Class Action Opioid Lawsuit
MDL 2804: Scott County Votes to Join Opioid Crisis Class Action
MDL 2804: Cayuga County Votes to Join Opioid Class Action

MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Loses Antitrust Class Action Appeal
MEDTRONIC INC: Minnesota Court Certifies Securities Class Action
MEDTRONIC INC: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Class Action Ruling
MERRELL DOW: Reed Smith Discusses Class Certification Rulings
MT&T: Class Action Case Over RESPA Violation Stayed

MTI INC: Faces Advanced Suit in Ohio Over Unsolicited Facsimiles
NEW YORK: Settles Suit Over NYPD Civil Forfeiture Practices
NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Invalid Speed-Camera Tickets
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Judge Certifies Pension Plan Class Action
NQ MOBILE: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action

NUM PANG HOLDINGS: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action
OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action
OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action

OHR PHARMA: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: April 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
PELLA WINDOWS: Plaintiffs' Counsel Seeks Approval of Settlement
PJ HOLDINGS: Transferred "Hollingsworth" Suit to Idaho Dist. Ct.
POLTRONA FRAU: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York

PORSCHE DESIGN: Faces "Thorne" Suit in Southern District New York
QUANTUM CORP: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
QUANTUM CORP: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action
QUANTUM CORP: April 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
REALREAL: Files Motion to Dismiss Diamond Carat Class Action

REMINGTON: Appeals Panel Unlikely to Unravel Rifle Settlement
REMINGTON ARMS: Bankruptcy Filing May Jeopardize Rifle Settlement
REMINGTON ARMS: Sandy Hook Class Action Appeal Pending
ROBERT HALF: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
RODD & GUNN: Faces "Andrews" Suit in E.D. New York

ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Averts Class Action Over Cruise Cancellation
SAINT JOHN, NB: Class-Action Lawsuit Over West Side Water Woes
SAM'S WEST: April 9 Fairness Hearing on $6MM Settlement
SUNRUN INC: April 9 Shareholder Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
SWEATY BETTY USA: Faces "Kiler" Suit in E.D. New York

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: Students Sues Over Inflated Online MBA Ranking
ULTA BEAUTY: Sued in Illinois Over Product Misrepresentation
VEON LTD: Seeks Dismissal of Stock Fraud Class Action
VICE MEDIA: Responds to Pay Equity Class Action
WELLS FARGO: April 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

WERNER ENTERPRISES: Students Drivers Lose Bid for New Trial
WESTERN RANGE: Judge Dismisses Wage Class Action for Second Time
WINDSOR WINDOW: July 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
YALBER: Sets Record Straight on Dismissed Class Action

* BVI Ports Authority Head Plans to Sue Insurance Companies
* Securities Class Actions v. Life Sciences Cos. Hit Record High
* VIX Volatility Manipulation May Spark Class Action


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Free Children's Makeup Bill Introduced
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shareholder Suit Targets J&J Talc Disclosures
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Addresses Insurers' Obligation to Defend
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Closes Elem. School Indefinitely
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navy Ship Exposes Veteran Sailor to Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Austin Apologizes for Asbestos Handling Program
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Documentary Spurs Fight to Unseal Deposition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sydney Asbestos Cover-Up Fuels Resident Outrage
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims Asbestos Not Hazardous to Health is Wrong
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mich. Veteran Opposes Asbestos Bankruptcy Bill

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Remove 70-Yr Old Asbestos-Insulated Line
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal Proceeds at Government Center
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NH Battles Asbestos Lawsuits and Transparency
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Power Plant Riddled With Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Ignored Evidence J&J Talc Lack Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council to Decide on Southwest Bldg Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Land to be Sold After House Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inspections Bares Asbestos in 2nd-Hand Products
ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Construction Stop After Asbestos Find
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Bastrop County Jailhouse

ASBESTOS UPDATE: SA Students Still in Asbestos Classrooms
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Clears Certainteed in $5MM Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Closed Lincoln Memorial Visitor Center
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Council Workers Exposed to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shed Asbestos Causes GoBus to Shift Workers

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Forbes Home
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Can Subpoena Asbestos Claim Handlers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Gets Settlement for Father's Asbestos Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Sues 3 Companies for Asbestos Negligence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Low Level Asbestos Exposure Can Cause Disease

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Scandal Shows NY at Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos at JFK Learning Center Concerns Parents
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Denied Access to Probe Libby Suferfund Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazardous Asbestos Container Goes Missing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Port Arthur Train Tests Positive for Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Laden Shed Catches Fire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boise Police Vacates Building Due to Asbestos







                            *********


7-ELEVEN: Wage Theft Damages Class Action Looms for Firm
--------------------------------------------------------
The West Australian reports that convenience chain 7-Eleven says
it will "vigorously defend" a class action against the company
and the ANZ bank over the underpayment of thousands of workers
across Australia.

Lawyer Stewart Levitt is filing a statement of claim in the
Federal Court on February 16 on behalf of former and current 7-
Eleven franchisees.

The class action will seek damages from both the company 7-Eleven
Stores and ANZ, Mr Levitt said in a statement on February 15.

The convenience chain was forced to pay back millions of dollars
to workers after it was revealed in 2015 that there had been
rampant wage theft across hundreds of stores.

Mr Levitt has argued franchisees could win "substantial damages"
from both 7-Eleven head office and ANZ, which loaned many people
the money they used to buy their franchise.

In a submission to a Federal parliament inquiry, Mr Levitt
alleged the chain practiced a "de facto ethnic selection of
franchisees" to pick store owners less likely to blow the whistle
on employment practices, Fairfax Media reported in early 2016.

The lawyer said the class action is broader and based on a
sweeping review of 7-Eleven's "entire system and the ANZ
funding".

7-Eleven on February 16 said: "Based on what is known, 7-Eleven
intends to vigorously defend any such proceedings."

"We are proud of the significant efforts we have made together
with our franchise network to continually adapt our business and
the positive results that are being achieved," a spokesman said.

"We intend to continue these efforts."

Former ACCC chairman Allan Fels was hand-picked to run an
independent process reimbursing workers after it was revealed
some franchisees systematically underpaid international students
on threat of deportation.

But in mid-2016 Prof Fels accused 7-Eleven management of
"welshing" on public promises to pay staff back after he was
sacked as the independent judge of workers' claims. [GN]


7-ELEVEN: Franchisees to File Class Action Over ANZ Loan Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Butler, writing for The Australian, reports that 7-Eleven
franchisees are to file a class-action lawsuit against the
convenience store group and big bank ANZ, law firm Levitt
Robinson says.

Senior partner Stewart Levitt said the Federal Court lawsuit
would be "seeking remedies, including damages, for current and
former 7-Eleven franchisees as well as for those franchisees who
borrowed money from the ANZ Bank to purchase a 7-Eleven
franchise".

Mr Robinson said a 110-page statement of claim would be filed in
Melbourne tomorrow and the case would be run by one of
Australia's most high-profile barristers, Allan Myers, QC.

He said it will be alleged ANZ made unsustainable loans and
breached the code by lending would-be franchisees hundreds of
thousands of dollars they could not afford to repay.

About 50 stores have so far signed agreements with "an American
funder" who is backing the case, he said.

"It's only among my core clients that I've actually signed people
up -- I imagine once it becomes public it will go viral," he
said.

"It could be huge."

He said the franchisees "could only get funds because 7-Eleven
stood behind the deal".

"There's actually a tripartite deal between 7-Eleven, ANZ and
borrower."

He said that before a joint Fairfax Media-ABC TV investigation in
2015, some 7-Eleven stores were changing hands for up to $1m and
some franchises buyers were borrowing 100 per cent of the
purchase price.

"But rarely did the person have the background that would give a
prudent lender the confidence they would repay."

Fairfax and the ABC accused 7-Eleven's head office of presiding
over systematic underpayment of workers across the store empire
as part of a business model that makes it difficult for
franchisees to make money. [GN]


ABSOLUTE CARE: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Madisen Babineaux, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Absolute Care Management Corporation, Case
No. 4:18-cv-00066-BRW (E.D. Ark., January 25, 2018), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Absolute Care Management Corporation provides in home, non-
medical services to individuals needing assistance with
activities of daily living and personal services from 18
locations throughout Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sean Short, Esq.
      Chris Burks, Esq.
      Josh Sandford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com
              chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
              josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


ADVANTA SEEDS: Shattercane Class Action Grows to 50 Farmers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Millet, writing for Northern Daily Leader, reports that
the number of farmers registered in the shattercane class action
has grown to 50 in NSW and Queensland.

As the groundwork continues to take place in Mallonland vs
Advanta Seeds, lawyer Dan Creevey, Esq. said another 10 people
had come forward after a meeting in Toowoomba on February 13.

The case is due for mention in the Queensland Supreme Court
tomorrow.

Mr Creevey held another meeting in Willow Tree to update
registered and interested farmers on the progress of the matter.

He said there was something surprising about this stage of the
proceedings: "People still haven't even heard of it."

"One farmer saw me in Willow Tree and said the first time he'd
heard of it was from another farmer in Willow Tree [even though]
it has been out in the local news for some time," he said.

"The message at this stage is that it's still early days, it's in
the control of the courts, we're still desperately getting out
there to make sure that anyone who's had this problem at least
come forward and let us know.

"At the end of the day, if we don't hear from them, they miss
out."

                   'Explain delay'

Clifford Gouldson Lawyers' Harrison Humphries, Esq. --
Harrison@cglaw.com.au -- for Advanta Seeds, released a statement
challenging the plaintiff Mallonland "to explain its delay".

"After almost 10 months, Mallonland still has not submitted a
full and final statement of claim, meaning the matter is
effectively yet to get underway," Mr Humphries said.

"Such a lengthy delay in completing the very first stage of a
legal claim is highly unusual.

"The claims against Advanta Seeds, including whether or not its
MR43 Elite seed was contaminated, remain disputed and unproven.

"Advanta Seeds is proud of its 55-year history supporting
Australian farmers.

"The company has every confidence in the quality of its products
and scientifically rigorous quality controls."

Mr Creevey said it was simply a "slow process".

"There are so many complex issues involved in it -- for example,
one of the issues that have to be determined is whether this is
even a class action," he said.

"Advanta is arguing it's not and that the farmers should be suing
them individually: 50 separate actions.

"If they were to win that argument, they couldn't afford to take
Advanta on.

"Like that, there are many, many legal issues that have to be
sorted out.

"The court's aware of that." [GN]


AFLAC INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased Aflac
Incorporated securities between February 27, 2013, and January
11, 2018, inclusive.  Aflac investors have until April 16, 2018
to file a lead plaintiff motion. To obtain information or
actively participate in the class action, please visit the Aflac
page on our website at www.glancylaw.com/case/aflac-incorporated.

Investors suffering losses on their Aflac investments are
encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their
legal rights in this class action at 310-201-9150 or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that during the
Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Aflac hired its
sales associates under false promises of high compensation
packages and work-life balance; (2) Aflac misclassified its
employees as independent contractors to reduce costs associated
with unemployment insurance taxes and employment benefits; (3)
Aflac manipulated its average weekly producer equivalent metric
to fabricate growth; (4) consequently, Aflac violated its Code of
Conduct and corporate social responsibility standards; and (5) as
a result, Aflac's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP.

If you purchased shares of Aflac during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than April 16, 2018 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or
take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you
wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley
Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-
9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
         Tel: 310-201-9150
         Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com [GN]


AFLAC INC: Faces Class Action, April 16 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 13
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Aflac Incorporated (NYSE: AFL)
from February 27, 2013 through January 11, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Aflac
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Aflac class action, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1293.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Daniel Sadeh, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or dsadeh@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, during the Class Period defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Aflac hired its sales associates under false
promises of high compensation packages and work-life balance; (2)
Aflac misclassified its employees as independent contractors to
reduce costs associated with unemployment insurance taxes and
employment benefits; (3) Aflac manipulated its average weekly
producer equivalent metric to fabricate growth; (4) consequently,
Aflac violated its Code of Conduct and corporate social
responsibility standards; and (5) as a result, Aflac's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
April 16, 2018.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1293.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Daniel Sadeh, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
dsadeh@rosenlegal.com

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Since 2014, Rosen Law Firm has been ranked #2 in the nation by
Institutional Shareholder Services for the number of securities
class action settlements annually obtained for investors. [GN]


ALICE + OLIVIA: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alice + Olivia,
LLC. The case is styled s Aretha Crosson, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Alice + Olivia, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01204 (E.D. N.Y., February 23, 2018).

Alice + Olivia is a New York City-based contemporary clothing
company with designer Stacey Bendet at the helm.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ALLIED COLLECTION: Sued Over Wrongful Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Danita Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Allied Collection Service, Inc. and John
Does 1-25, Case No. 3:18-cv-00171-HLA-JRK (M.D. Fla., January 26,
2018), is brought on behalf of all individuals with addresses in
the State of Florida to whom the Defendants sent an initial
collection letter attempting to collect a consumer debt that
failed to include the mandatory disclosures that interest, fees
and costs are continuously accruing, or in the alternative, the
creditor or the Defendant has made the decision to waive accruing
interest and fees, and would accept the amount stated on the
collection letter as payment in full.

Located at 1607 Central Avenue, Columbus, IN 47201, Allied
Collection Service, Inc. is a company that uses the mail,
telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business whose
principal purpose is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be
due another. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Zeig, Esq.
      ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
      3475 Sherdan St., Ste 310
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (754) 217-3084
      Facsimile: (954) 272-7807
      E-mail: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP ("Scott+Scott"), a national
securities and consumer rights litigation firm, reminds investors
that a class action lawsuit has been filed against AMC
Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: AMC) ("AMC" or the "Company")
and other defendants, related to alleged violations of federal
securities laws. If you purchased AMC common stock between
December 20, 2016 and August 1, 2017, including if you purchased
in the Company's secondary public offering ("SPO"), held on or
about February 8, 2017, you are encouraged to contact a
Scott+Scott attorney at (844) 818-6982 for additional
information. The lead plaintiff deadline is March 13, 2018.

Through its subsidiaries, AMC provides theatrical exhibition
services, including movie theaters in the United States, Canada,
Europe, and Asia.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse facts
regarding AMC's business and prospects, particularly related to
AMC's acquisition of Carmike Cinemas, Inc. ("Carmike") in
December 2016 and international businesses in November 2016. As a
result of these false statements and/or omissions, the price of
AMC common shares was artificially inflated.

On August 1, 2017, after market hours, AMC announced
disappointing preliminary second quarter 2017 financial results,
estimating a second quarter net loss of about $178.5 to $174.5
million and a 2017 net loss between $150 and $125 million.

On this news, AMC stock dropped about 27% to close at $15.20 on
August 2, 2017.

                        What You Can Do

If you purchased AMC stock between December 20, 2016 and August
1, 2017, inclusive, including in the SPO, or if you have
questions about this notice or your legal rights, please contact
attorney Joe Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982, or at jpettigrew@scott-
scott.com. Investors have until March 13, 2018, to move for lead
plaintiff.

About Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with
offices in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio.

         Joe Pettigrew, Esq.
         Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP
         Tel: 844-818-6982
         E-mail: jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN]


AMERICAN STANDARD: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Standard
Companies, Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American
Standard Companies, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01670 (S.D.
N.Y., February 23, 2018).

American Standard Companies, Inc. was a global manufacturer of
plumbing, heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems and
services, bath and kitchen products and vehicle control
systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


ARMEL TAX AND ACCOUNTING: Faces "Marett" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Armel Tax and
Accounting Services, LLC.  The case is styled as Lucia Marett,
Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. Armel Tax and Accounting Services,
LLC doing business as: 212 Tax Accounting Services, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01682 (S.D. N.Y., February 23, 2018).

Armel Tax and Accounting Services, LLC (trade name 212 Tax and
Accounting Svcs) is in the Tax Return Preparation Services
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


AUSTRALIA: Class Action v. Queensland Gov't Over Linc Progressing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chronicle reports that a class action against the State
Government over its approval and monitoring of the Linc Energy
underground coal gasification project is progressing, despite a
recent announcement by the Department of Environment and Science
removing the Excavation Caution Zone, and Investigation Zone
around the site.

The department removed the zones from its official mapping in
January, due to recent testing showing a decline in the level of
hazardous gases in the soil.

At the same time, the department has recommended landholders
adhere to the same cautions around digging outlined when the
zones were designated.

Linc Energy is currently on trial on five counts of willfully and
unlawfully causing environmental harm at its Linc Energy UCG
trial site in Hopeland, near Chinchilla, between 2007 and 2013.

Tom Marland, principal of Marland Law, who represents landholders
already affected by the ECZ at Hopelands and Kogan has said that
the most recent announcement just adds to the confusion and
uncertainty of affected landholders.

Mr Marland said the department had allowed Linc to burn coal
seams at shallow depths of about 120 metres over a period of more
than seven years without any proper regulatory supervision.

"Our technical expert advice which is consistent with that of
Gilbert and Sutherland (who prepared the department's
investigation report into Linc Energy), is that there can be no
"quick fix" to the problems caused by the UCG contamination,"
Mr Marland said.

"Our advice is that the testing undertaken by the department or
its consultants to date cannot possibly have identified the
extent of potential contamination in the landform and the
groundwater system and we are concerned to receive all the
testing results on which the Department relied to make this most
recent decision.

"We have spoken to several landholders with test sites that were
installed on their land in 2015 that haven't seen the Department
since."

Mr Marland pointed to experiments like the Hoe Creek Underground
Coal Gasification test site in Campbell County, Wyoming, in the
United States -- where extensive subsidence caused by the burning
of underground coal seams emerged some 15 years after the trial
had been decommissioned.

"The number of tonnes of coal burnt in the Hoe Creek experiments
was a drop in the ocean when compared to the very large volumes
of coal the department allowed Linc to burn underground over a
total period of more than seven years," Mr Marland said.

"Until we obtain conclusive evidence from the Department that
lands contained in the ECZ are not contaminated, we will continue
to progress our proposed class action against the State
Government.

"Given that the ECZ has been lifted but the same "cautionary
advice" applies to affected lands, this may give you some insight
that contrary to their actions in removing the ECZs the
Department does not have the problem under control.

"Until we have definitive evidence, landholders in the affected
areas remain in limbo."

A Department of Environment and Science spokesman said the
department was "unable to comment" on the matter. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: 2019 Trial Set for Firefighting Contamination Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Fellner, writing for The Herald, reports that a trial date
of late 2019 has been set down for class actions over
firefighting contamination that has tainted hundreds of
properties surrounding Defence bases at Williamtown and Oakey.

But it remains unclear whether the two cases will run together or
seperately -- despite both revolving around Defence's use of
toxic per- and poly-fluoroalkyl chemicals [PFAS] -- with Justice
Jayne Jagot reserving a decision.

The matter was heard in the Federal Court in Sydney on Feb. 14,
where Dentons, the law firm representing Williamtown residents,
asked for an initial hearing to settle key questions prior to the
trial.

Ground covered would have included the chemicals' toxicity, human
exposure pathways, Defence's handling of firefighting foam and
whether it took "reasonable precautions" to prevent risk of harm
to residents and businesses.

Williamtown residents launch class action against Defence
However in a setback for members of the action, Justice Jagot did
not grant the request, ordering that the case go to a full trial
in September or October 2019.

There would be an opportunity for mediation once evidence was
served by the end of August this year, she said.

Residents welcomed the timeline and were hopeful mediation might
bring the case to an early settlement.

"Finally we have clarity on the timing of the court process,
which is welcome," said Lindsay Clout of the Fullerton Cove
Residents Action Group.

"More welcome is the opportunity for the first time to directly
engage in mediation with the polluter, being Defence, so that we
can get on with our lives.

"Given their recent statements on their concern for the
community, we expect Defence will be wanting any mediation to
occur quickly and constructively."

In-house Commonwealth solicitors are defending the Williamtown
action, while the government has enlisted global firm King & Wood
Mallesons to defend the Oakey case. [GN]


BIG HEART: Faces Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------
Rudy Rendon, writing for ABC30 News, reports that a lawsuit has
been filed against the parent company of dog food manufacturer
Big Heart Brands after it was discovered some of its products
contain a drug used to euthanize animals.

The class action was filed in California for negligent
misrepresentation after our ABC affiliate in Washington D.C.
tested 62 samples of dog food.

They found that nine of the 15 cans of Big Heart Brands gravy
train tested positive for the drug.

Big Heart Brands also makes meow mix, milk bone, and Kibbles' n
Bits.

Following the suit, Smuckers, the owner of Big Heart Brands,
voluntarily recalled several of its products. [GN]


BITCONNECT: Law Firm Calls on Other Victims to Join Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cryptovest reports that the law firm running the class action
lawsuit against failed cryptocurrency exchange BitConnect has
invited other victim to get on board.

The law firm representing the plaintiffs in the case against
BitConnect and its US-based directors and promoters has called on
other victims to join the class action lawsuit.

The shuttered cryptocurrency exchange and lending platform has
been targeted in a suit filed by law firm Silver Miller before
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.

Silver Miller said in a statement:

"Any member of the putative class may move the court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of his/her/its choice or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the Lawsuit, however, you must
move the court no later than April 13, 2018 to appoint you as the
lead plaintiff."

The lawsuit was filed in January with six original complainants
seeking $770,000 in damages from the failed digital currency
exchange.  BitConnect folded after its native coin, BBC, dropped
to less than $10 from the previous $400 range, thus causing
massive losses to its investors.

The plaintiffs are accusing BitConnect of violating various state
and federal securities laws by engaging in the unregistered
offering and sale of securities.

The charge sheet alleges that BitConnect International PLC,
BitConnect Ltd, BitConnect Trading Ltd, and several US-based
directors and affiliates/promoters operated a Ponzi scheme by
hiring an "army of highly-compensated recruiters who lured in
investors through social media channels -- fraudulently promoted
exorbitant monthly and daily returns on investments that were
actually nothing more than reallocated funds from other
investors."

The lawsuit is asking the court to withdraw all investments in
BitConnect, declare BitConnect and its promoters guilty of
violating multiple security laws, and order an audit on the
exchange to account for all funds it raised from its investors.

BitConnect calls it quits on suspicion of running Ponzi scheme
BitConnect announced in mid-January it was shutting down its
operations after receiving two cease and desist orders from the
North Carolina Secretary of State Securities Division and the
Texas State Securities Board.

The company added that the proliferation of bad publicity had
made it difficult to do business since the cryptocurrency
community lost confidence in the exchange. [GN]


BMW: Fraud Class Action Suit Heads to Appeals Court
---------------------------------------------------
Fender Bender reports that a BMW driver on February 13 told the
Ninth Circuit that the noise created by his car's squealing
brakes presents a safety concern that the company had a duty to
disclose, and implored the court to revive his fraud class action
suit, according to a Law 360 report.

Plaintiff attorney Hovanes Margarian, Esq. --
hovanes@margarianlaw.com -- told the appellate court that a
California federal judge wrongfully tossed out his putative class
action alleging that the optional high-performance ceramic brakes
make overly loud, squealing sounds. He claimed that BMW needed to
disclose the noise, since it could be considered a safety defect
that could distract those around the car.

"The description of the brakes, in my opinion, should say 'high-
performance noisy brakes.' Then you would have disclosure," he
said. "But, if it says 'high-performance brakes,' then you don't
have proper disclosure."

A U.S. District judge asked whether the noise had been linked to
an accident; Margarian said that it hadn't. BMW attorney Jeffrey
Miller, Esq. -- jmiller@hnrklaw.com -- told the panel that
vehicle owner's manuals inform drivers that the brakes can make
noise under certain conditions, and emphasized that the complaint
included no allegations that the brakes didn't function properly.

Plaintiff Norik Barakezyan initially took action against BMW in
Jan. 2016, claiming that he paid nearly $9,000 extra for high-
performance carbon ceramic brakes on a leased BMW M6 that
squealed loudly when in use. He filed the complaint on behalf of
all drivers who had certain BMW M-class vehicles with the
purchased brake system.

During Miller's arguments, U.S. Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw
said that the court doesn't know all facts in the case, given the
stage that it was earlier dismissed. [GN]


BO CONCEPTS NORTH: Faces "Conner" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bo Concepts North
America, Inc. The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Bo Concepts North America, Inc. doing business as:
Bo Concepts, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01680 (S.D. N.Y.,
February 23, 2018).

BoConcept offers a range of contemporary and modern
furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11217
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Pierce Atwood Attorney Discusses Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine S. Kayatta, Esq. -- kkayatta@pierceatwood.com -- of
Pierce Atwood LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that in June
2017, the law firm wrote about the Supreme Court's decision in
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773
(2017) and how it would likely affect attempts by plaintiffs to
pursue multi-state or nationwide class actions.  As predicted,
the case law is rapidly developing in the district courts, where,
in reliance on Bristol-Myers' holding, defendants challenge
courts' jurisdiction in cases where non-resident plaintiffs
assert claims against non-resident defendants not subject to
general jurisdiction.

The law firm expects the post-Bristol-Myers landscape will
continue to evolve and at some point, the various Circuit Courts
of Appeals will begin weighing in.  Until then, below we provide
a brief overview of recent notable district court decisions on
this topic.  As this overview shows, the majority of courts have
held that under Bristol-Myers, they do not have personal
jurisdiction over the non-resident defendants with regard to
claims brought by the non-resident plaintiffs.

Courts have taken different approaches in arriving at this
conclusion. For example, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
the court applied Bristol-Myers but did not specifically address
whether jurisdiction should be treated differently in federal
class actions as compared to a state court mass tort action like
Bristol-Myers, leaving that answer to inference.  Other courts,
such as the Southern District of New York and Northern District
of Illinois, have expressly rejected the argument that personal
jurisdiction in class actions should be analyzed differently from
any other case.

Of the courts which have declined to extend Bristol-Myers to the
class action context, two did so upon consideration of whether
resident plaintiffs could represent a nationwide class where no
named plaintiffs resided outside of the forum.  A third court,
building on those two cases, took a step further in holding that
Bristol-Myers applied only to state court actions, and not in a
case involving non-resident class members.

In effect, while Bristol-Myers has begun restricting plaintiffs'
ability to pursue nationwide classes in any location other than
where the defendant is "at home" and subject to general
jurisdiction under Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), a
few courts allow plaintiffs' counsel to pursue nationwide classes
without having to satisfy the same jurisdictional requirements.

Class actions dismissing claims based on Bristol-Myers' holding:

   -- Plumbers' Local Union No. 690 Health Plan v. Apotex Corp.,
2017 WL 3129147 (E.D. Pa. July 24, 2017) (defendants who did not
sell in the forum could not be subject to specific jurisdiction
in case brought by Pennsylvania plaintiffs asserting nationwide
consumer class).

   -- Spratley v. FCA US LLC, 2017 WL 4023348 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 12,
2017) (court dismissed claims of non-resident plaintiffs, who
showed no connection between their claims and the non-resident
defendant's contacts with the forum state).

   -- In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, 2017 WL 4217115
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2017) (rejecting plaintiffs' argument that
requirements for personal jurisdiction should be relaxed in the
class action context because Bristol-Myers was not a class
action, and holding "[a] putative class representative seeking to
hale a defendant into court to answer to the class must have
personal jurisdiction over that defendant just like any
individual litigant must.").

   -- McDonnell v. Nature's Way Products, LLC, 2017 WL 4864910
(N.D. Ill. Oct. 26, 2017) (finding no jurisdiction where non-
resident plaintiff's alleged injury did not occur in the forum
state, and only connection to forum was provided by the resident
plaintiff's purchase of the product).

   -- LDGP, LLC v. Cynosure, Inc., 2018 WL 439122 (N.D. Ill. Jan.
16, 2018) (holding that court does not have personal jurisdiction
over defendants with regard to claims asserted by non-resident
plaintiffs).

   -- DeBernardis v. NBTY, Inc., 2018 WL 461228 (N.D. Ill. Jan.
18, 2018) (following McDonnell v. Nature's Way, rejecting notion
that class actions should be treated differently from mass torts
for due process purposes, and dismissing claims brought by non-
resident plaintiffs).

   -- Dyson v. Bayer Corp., No. 4:17CV2584 SNLJ, 2018 WL 534375,
at *5 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 24, 2018) (dismissing non-Missouri
plaintiffs' claims for lack of personal jurisdiction in products
liability case brought by 95 plaintiffs, only 3 of whom resided
or were allegedly harmed in Missouri).

Cases declining to extend Bristol-Myers to class actions:

   -- Fitzhenry-Russell v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., No.
17-cv-00564, 2017 WL 4224723 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2017)
(declining to extend Bristol-Myers to class action context in
case brought by California residents on behalf of nationwide
class, but restricting holding to the facts of the case and not
foreclosing possibility of extending Bristol-Myers to a putative
class action with different facts).

   -- In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability
Litigation, No. 09-2047, 2017 WL 5971622 (E.D. La. Nov. 30, 2017)
(following Fitzhenry-Russel in drawing distinction between the
mass tort action of Bristol-Myers and a class action where
citizenship of unnamed plaintiffs was not considered for personal
jurisdiction purposes).

   -- Sloan v. General Motors LLC, No. 16-cv-7244, 2018 WL 784049
(N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2018) (rejecting defendant's argument that
Bristol-Myers required federal court to dismiss claims by non-
California named plaintiffs who did not purchase cars in
California, based on conclusion that Bristol-Myers' federalism
rationale applies only to state court cases). [GN]


CALIFORNIA: Faces 4th Class Action Over Oroville Dam Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------
Risa Johnson, writing for Orovillemr.com, reports that locals who
lost business or saw their property value decrease because of the
Oroville Dam crisis are anxious to be reimbursed through a class
action lawsuit.

The complaint is the fourth filed against the state over the past
month for damages resulting from the spillway emergency last
February, when an estimated 188,000 people downstream were
ordered to evacuate.  The lawsuit contains the same allegations
as those in complaints filed by the city and a group of more than
40 farmers, business owners and residents.

There is a variety of plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit,
including a child care facility, a water ski shop, a ranch and a
ministry.  In general, they seek lower rates of reimbursement
than those in the lawsuit filed by the more than 40 farmers and
business owners.  Alleged damages in the class action suit range
from $3,000 to $220,000.

LOCALS EXPLAIN THEIR LOSSES
Oroville's Small World Child Care and Small World Infant Center
allege total damages of $14,000 or more.  Owner Nikki Small said
that last February she had to load up credit cards to keep things
running.

Some families stayed out of town for weeks, while others came
back but wanted to be with their children at home after the
evacuation order lifted, Ms. Small said.  One day she had two
babies to watch at the infant center, whereas there are usually
more than 20.

"It affected our lives a lot," she said.  "There are lots of
employees to pay. The expenses didn't go away when the parents
didn't show up."

Revenue has not gone up much over the past year to help pay off
the credit card debt, Ms. Small said.  Some families pay for
child care through state-funded programs and the centers were
able to get reimbursement for the two days the evacuation order
was in place but not for the others.

"Anything we get back will help us," she said.

Joedy Woodcock, owner of Oroville Cycle, said he saw a 35 percent
decline in sales in the summer of 2017.  Mr. Woodcock said
business increased at the shop every year previously except in
2008, when the Great Recession hit.  He has owned the shop, which
sells water sports and motocross gear, for 22 years.

Mr. Woodcock attributed that to a few things, including fear of
the area after the crisis, lack of access and also the spread of
misinformation.  A huge factor was the closure of the spillway
boat launch facility, he said.  The spillway ramp has the most
lanes on the lake. The state says it will reopen once Oroville
Dam construction is over, in 2019 at the earliest.

"Tourism basically came to a stop," Mr. Woodcock said.  "Nobody
wants to come and not find a place to park (their boats)."

He also said negative press, including misinformation from out-
of-the-area outlets about the entire lake being off limits, kept
visitors away.  The best outcomes resulting from the lawsuit
would be for news agencies to get the stories right and for
residents to be reimbursed, Mr. Woodcock said.

"Because of a lack of planning and management, we had to suffer,"
he said.  "I hope businesses are compensated because at the end
of the day, we did nothing wrong. DWR has added insult to
injury."

Oroville Cycle is seeking reimbursement of $220,000 or more.

Akers Ranch in Oroville alleges damages of $17,000 or higher in
the lawsuit.

"Due to flooding, seepage, high water, excessive flows and abrupt
and erratic releases of high volumes of water from the dam, Akers
Ranch suffered diminution of value of real property, bank
erosion, and the replacement of an irrigation pumping facility,"
the complaint reads.

Elkhorn Outdoor Sports, LLC in Rio Linda has reported $200,000 or
more in damages, as lake access has been limited and fish
populations have been affected because of the crisis, the suit
alleges.

"Moreover, due to the unsafe condition of the dam, tourism in the
area has dropped off significantly," according to the complaint.

Jordan Crossing Ministries, an Oroville nonprofit that helps
rehabilitate people recently released from prison, sustained
$3,000 in damages, according to the suit, for costs associated
with relocating clients during the evacuation and a loss of
income from providing daily yard service to Oroville residents.

Marie Giordano, owner of three rental properties in Oroville,
claims the value of her properties plummeted from a total of $1
million to $500,000 since the crisis occurred.

"Giordano also suffered insurance expenses, a loss of work wages,
loss of use of real property and incurred expenses from the
feeding and housing of multiple evacuees," according to the suit.

Carol A. Gissell, another Oroville property owner, seeks
reimbursement for $32,000 or more in damages.  Ms. Gissell's
property allegedly decreased from $112,000 to $80,000 after the
spillway emergency.

DIFFERENT CLASSES
Lawyers propose that property owners Ms. Gissell and Ms. Giordano
make up what's called the "diminution class" which would include
all property owners downstream whose real property values
diminished because of the crisis or the unsafe nature of the dam.

Akers Ranch would represent the "property loss class" of people
who suffered damaged to real property valued at $100,000 or lower
"due to flooding, seepage, high water, excessive flows and abrupt
and erratic releases of high volumes of water from the Oroville
Dam."

Lastly, plaintiffs Elkhorn, Jordan Crossing, Oroville Cycle,
Small World Child Care and Small World Infant Center are proposed
representatives of the "business loss class" for all who suffered
a loss of business as a result of the crisis.

WHAT'S NEXT
Representing the plaintiffs are Burlingame-based Cotchett, Pitre
& McCarthy, LLP and the Gardner, Janes, Nakken, Hugo & Nolan law
firm out of Woodland.  Lawyer James Nolan said the state
Department of General Services still needed to be served with a
summons.

Once served, the state has 30 days to respond. Nolan said the
state was served with a summons regarding the city of Oroville's
complaint but had not yet responded.

The latest complaint will need to be certified in order to be
considered a class action lawsuit in court.  The three complaints
may be consolidated, meaning they would come to court at the same
time, he said.

People interested in joining onto the class action lawsuit or
pursuing their own complaint must have filed a claim first and
had that claim denied.  The deadline for filing claims with the
state was in August. [GN]


CANADA: Families of Children with Autism Mull Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Anne Leclair, writing for Global News, reports that at least
eight families are teaming up with the Centre for Research Action
on Race Relations (CRARR) to launch legal action against the
Quebec government over the lack of services for their children
with autism.  One lawyer is blaming the cuts directly on the
government's recent decision to pay millions of dollars directly
to doctors.

"It's $500 million to the doctors without any increase in
productivity or accessibility," medical malpractice lawyer Jean-
Pierre Menard said.  "To be able to pay that money, they have to
find it somewhere and they find it by cutting the services."

Mr. Menard attempted to launch a class action lawsuit on behalf
of families last year but learned that it's nearly impossible.
Quebec's Health Act makes it mandatory for the government to
provide a continuity of care when resources are available.

"It's purely a political issue," Mr. Menard told Global News.
"It's very difficult to fight it legally and the government knows
that."

Human rights advocates at CRARR are determined to hold the Quebec
government accountable. The executive director has started
meeting with families to plan a course of action.

"We wonder whether these are essentially human rights violations
that can open the door to a class action lawsuit," Fo Niemi said.
"We are going to organize these parents to take action."

Mr. Niemi calls it a major health-care crisis.  He hopes to
ultimately take the case to the United Nations' Committee on the
Rights of the Child to expose Quebec's track record with autism.

"It's a bureaucratic nightmare and it just shows a lack of
humanity and compassion in the way that the government and
particularly the health ministry is treating these children,"
Mr. Niemi said.

Meanwhile, seven-year-old Charlotte Kuhn's father continues to
protest outside the health and social services minister's office
in downtown Montreal, hoping other parents will join in the
fight.

"Unfortunately, I think that's what it takes is direct action, a
family going out and begging and embarrassing this government,"
the mother of a 15-year-old with autism, Katharine Cukier, said.
Her teen son Benjamin was hospitalized twice last year after
losing services through his subsidized educator.

"We need a parliamentary committee as soon as possible on this
issue to make sure that this population's rights are being met."
[GN]


CANADA: Lenczner Slaght Attorney Discusses Ottawa Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Robbins, Esq. -- mrobbins@litigate.com -- of Lenczner
Slaght, in an article for The Lawyersdail.ca, wrote that when
disruptive technology companies such as Uber entered the Canadian
marketplace, municipalities bore the brunt of their regulatory
disruption.  Traditional industries, such as the taxi industry,
looked to municipal governments to regulate these new companies
in the traditional way -- an approach that municipalities did not
often take.

We are only now beginning to understand the potential legal
implications of this moment in municipal regulatory history.  In
Metro Taxi Ltd. v. City of Ottawa 2018 ONSC 7468, Justice R.J.
Smith certified a class action which specifically asks: what duty
is owed by municipalities to traditional industries when they
determine how and when to regulate disruptive technology
companies?

The proposed class action centres on the response of the City of
Ottawa to the introduction of Uber, a ride-sharing technology.
In September of 2014, Uber began operating in the city without
licences or taxi plates in violation of the City's bylaw
regulating taxis.  The city undertook a review of the taxi bylaws
and created a new class of licence for private transportation
companies, which came into effect in September of 2016.  The
prior licensing regime for traditional taxis remained in place.

A class action was launched by taxi brokers and plate holders
against the city, claiming negligence and discrimination under
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code.
The proposed class action challenged the enforcement of the taxi
bylaw; the lawfulness of the fees charged under the taxi bylaw;
and the lawfulness of the concurrent regulatory regimes enacted
in 2016.

On the motion for certification, Justice Smith considered the
criteria set out in s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.  He
certified the class action, finding that all of the statutory
requirements had been met.

Justice Smith certified two causes of action: negligence and
discrimination.  The plate holders alleged that the bylaws were
discriminatory on the basis that a vast majority of plate holders
were visible minorities.  In certifying the claim for
discrimination, Justice Smith found that it was not plain and
obvious that it could not succeed on the basis that the bylaws at
issue may give rise to an adverse discriminatory effect despite
being neutral on their face.

The plate holders and brokers were certified as two distinct
classes.  Despite the inclusion of approximately 6-7 per cent of
plate holders who could not claim discrimination on the basis of
a protected ground, Justice Smith found that the proposed classes
were not overbroad.

Justice Smith certified five common issues, including issues
related to aggregate damages and discrimination.  Preferable
procedure was not challenged by the city and Justice Smith found
that the proposed representative plaintiff for each of the two
certified classes was appropriate.

Regulation and technological advancement do not often move at the
same pace.  Regulators are often catching up to, rather than
leading, changes in regulated industries.  Reactionary regulation
is particularly challenging when new competitors enter the
marketplace and disrupt traditionally regulated industries.  The
certification decision in Metro Taxi raises the question of what
obligation is owed by municipalities to traditional industries.

Justice Smith found that the City of Ottawa was empowered, but
not required, to pass bylaws with respect to "taxicab" services
pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001.  While the city may not be
required to regulate either the traditional or the disruptive
companies, this certification decision demonstrates the risks of
both regulating and failing to regulate.

With the introduction of ride-sharing technologies, the city was
faced with an open regulatory question of whether to regulate new
technology in a new way, an old way, or no way.  Where, as here,
the municipality elects to try to adapt bylaws to new technology
rather than vice versa, they face a legal threat from traditional
industries.  What municipalities owe to traditionally regulated
industries is an open question, but with certified claims in
negligence and discrimination there is a degree of caution that
should be exercised.

The certified claim in discrimination adds an additional
consideration to parallel regulatory regimes designed by
municipalities to adapt to the changing marketplace.  While it is
yet to be adjudicated on the merits, the decision in Metro Taxi
exposes the risks inherent in regulating disruptive technologies
in a new way adapted specifically to the new marketplace.  The
effect of creating parallel regulatory regimes opens the risk of
a discrimination claim, depending on the nature of the
traditionally regulated industry.

The challenges faced by municipalities seeking to regulate in
this new marketplace are not only posed by the fast pace of
change but also the traditionally regulated that may be left
behind in the new marketplace.

Margaret Robbins is a lawyer at Lenczner Slaght.  She has a
growing general litigation practice with a particular background
in administrative and Aboriginal law. [GN]


CASSINA CONNECTION: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cassina Connection
International, LLP. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Cassina Connection International, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-
cv-01674 (S.D. N.Y., February 23, 2018).

Cassina Connection International, LLP operates in the
architecture industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CHOPARD USA: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chopard USA Ltd.
The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Chopard USA Ltd.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01679 (S.D. N.Y., February 23, 2018).

Chopard USA, Ltd. operates as a luxury watch, jewelry, and
accessories manufacturing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq.
   Daniel Cohen PLLC
   407 Rockaway Avenue, 3rd Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11212
   Tel: (646) 645-8482
   Email: dan@cml.legal


CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Rubin" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Rubin, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated consumers v. Convergent Healthcare Recoveries Inc., Case
No. 3:18-cv-01127-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., January 26, 2018), seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

Convergent Healthcare Recoveries Inc. owns and operates a debt
collection agency located at 121 NE Jefferson St. Peoria, IL
61602. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Zemel, Esq.
      ZEMEL LAW LLC
      78 John Miller Way, Suite 430
      Kearny, NJ 07032
      Telephone: (862) 227-3106
      E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "Sonterre" Suit over Drug Testing Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Sonterre, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No.
0:18-cv-00245 (D. Minn., January 26, 2018), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to provide hundreds of prospective
employees a lawful written drug testing policy prior to requiring
them to submit to drug testing.

Costco Wholesale Corporation a membership-based warehouse club
that sells merchandise and services throughout the United States
and worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
      Dustin W. Massie, Esq.
      BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP
      100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 252-3570
      Facsimile: (612) 252-3571
      E-mail: sjwanta@baillonthome.com
              dwmassie@baillonthome.com


CREDIT SUISSE: Former Brokers File Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Corbin, writing for On Wall Street, reports that
the bad breakup of Credit Suisse and its former brokers
continues.

The Swiss financial house is now facing a class-action lawsuit
initiated by a former employee who claims that he and other
advisors were deprived of hundreds of millions of dollars in
deferred compensation when Credit Suisse exited the U.S.
brokerage market two years ago.

In the federal lawsuit filed in California's Northern District,
Christopher Laver alleges that Credit Suisse withheld the
compensation from departing brokers on the grounds that they
"voluntarily resigned," thus forfeiting their contractual right
to the payouts.  Only advisors who transitioned to Wells Fargo
Advisors, with which Credit Suisse had entered into an exclusive
recruiting arrangement, received their deferred compensation.

"Otherwise, all outstanding earned deferred compensation was
cancelled and denied entirely by Credit Suisse," Mr. Laver's
complaint reads.  "Through this 'resignation' faĆ”ade, Credit
Suisse is reported to have improperly retained as much as $300
million in deferred compensation owed to the advisors."

In an emailed statement, Credit Suisse spokeswoman Karina Byrne
says that "the allegations are false and the case has absolutely
no merit."  The firm "will vigorously defend the action in due
course."

Ms. Byrne says that every U.S. relationship manager in Credit
Suisse's Private Banking division had the opportunity to
transition to Wells Fargo, "for which they were offered lucrative
compensation packages that included payments covering their
contingent deferred compensation."

She further argues that Mr. Laver and other litigants in the
class-action suit who didn't take the offer to join Wells Fargo
aren't owed anything because of the deals they reached with other
firms.

"Those who chose not to accept those offers had negotiated
equally or more lucrative compensation packages from competing
institutions that also covered the same contingent deferred
compensation at issue here, consistent with standard industry
practice," she says.  "Simply put, the plaintiff here is looking
to be paid the same money twice."

Attorneys for Mr. Laver did not immediately respond to requests
for comment, but in their complaint, they argue forcefully
against the notion that the advisors they represent were made
whole through the compensation they received from other firms
after Credit Suisse shut down its U.S. wealth management
business.

"The deferred compensation at issue here was earned and is owed,"
the complaint states.  "Credit Suisse should not be able to avoid
its obligation to compensate the advisers fully and fairly by
claiming they 'resigned' when, in fact, Credit Suisse simply
ceased operating this business."

The lawsuit is the latest action disgruntled former Credit Suisse
brokers have taken against their old employer.  Many former
brokers have sued, and Credit Suisse has consented to let those
cases move forward in FINRA arbitration proceedings.

Despite Credit Suisse's exclusive recruiting arrangement with
Wells Fargo, many of the departing advisors landed at other
firms, such as UBS and JPMorgan.  Mr. Laver was one of the dozens
of departing brokers who landed at UBS, an exodus that prompted
Credit Suisse to file a raiding claim with FINRA.

That matter, along with dozens of cases involving individual
advisors and teams, is still working its way through the FINRA
arbitration process.  The complexity and unique features of each
of those cases make it unlikely that the class-action lawsuit
will succeed, says Ross Intelisano -- ross@riklawfirm.com -- a
partner at the New York law firm Rich, Intelisano & Katz, who is
representing about a dozen former Credit Suisse advisors seeking
to reclaim deferred compensation.

"I think it's unlikely that they will be able to certify the
advisors as a class because there are individual facts relating
to each of the cases," Mr. Intelisano says.

He is highly skeptical about Credit Suisse's claim that advisors
aren't owed the deferred compensation because they received a
generous onboarding package with their new firms.  He argues that
each compensation agreement is unique, and that the terms of
those deals should have no bearing on their deferred compensation
agreements with Credit Suisse, which are tied to that firm's
share price.

"It's a completely different agreement.  It's legally impossible
for an advisor to have a deal with the new firm that would cover
exactly the deal they had with Credit Suisse," Mr. Intelisano
says.  "It's not like they can just write you a check.

I don't think it's going to pass the smell test, but we'll see."
[GN]


DAIMLER AG: Says Mercedes-Benz Class Action Without Merit
---------------------------------------------------------
Edward Taylor, writing for Reuters, reports that Daimler AG,
owner of the Mercedes-Benz brand, warned that a fall in demand
for diesel cars and a switch to electric vehicles could force it
to prop up its supplier base.

Carmakers face increased legal and regulatory scrutiny over
pollution levels produced by their diesel-engined vehicles after
Volkswagen in 2015 admitted to cheating emission tests using
engine management software.

To avoid a total ban on their diesel vehicles, Daimler and other
carmakers have stepped up development of electric cars and agreed
to update their engine management software to cut down pollution
levels.

Daimler's suppliers are being forced to invest to help electrify
the entire Mercedes-Benz range by 2022, prompting the carmaker to
use unusually frank language to warn about the impact of the
shift to electrified cars in its report.

"Due to the planned electrification of new model series and a
shift in customer demand from diesel to gasoline engines, the
Mercedes-Benz Cars segment in particular is faced with the risk
that Daimler will require changed volumes of components from
suppliers," the carmaker said in its annual report.

"This could result in over- or under-utilization of production
capacities for certain suppliers.  If suppliers cannot cover
their fixed costs, there is the risk that suppliers could demand
compensation payments," Daimler said.

"Necessary capacity expansion at suppliers' plants could also
require cost-effective participation," Daimler added.

Daimler created a risk management committee to oversee its
suppliers in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, when
some smaller companies ran into cash-flow problems, forcing
Daimler to step in.

Daimler said earlier this month that its profit growth would be
dampened this year by spending on new technologies such as
electric and autonomous vehicles.

In its annual report, Daimler also said that political crises and
uncertainties could lead to supply bottlenecks for specific raw
materials, leading to volatile prices.

"Generally, the ability to pass on the higher costs of
commodities and other materials in the form of higher prices for
the manufactured vehicles is limited because of strong
competitive pressure in the international automotive markets,"
the annual report said.

Daimler's report, published on Feb. 13, showed that provisions
stood at 14 billion euros ($17.3 billion) at the end of 2017, 2.1
billion higher than a year earlier.

The Stuttgart-based carmaker did not provide a detailed breakdown
of the rise but said it was primarily due to increased
obligations from sales transactions, provisions for warranty
obligations, and provisions relating to legal proceedings.

Daimler is being sued by owners of diesel-engined Mercedes-Benz
vehicles in the United States in a class-action suit which
alleges the German carmaker used software to reduce emissions.

Daimler views the lawsuit as being without merit, but added it
could not quantify the legal risks from class-action lawsuits,
the annual report showed.

Among the legal risks faced by Daimler is a regulatory probe tied
to raids at several car manufacturers and suppliers, with regard
to steel purchasing.  Daimler reiterated in its report that it
was cooperating in full with the authorities.

Daimler also said in its report that Chief Executive Dieter
Zetsche's total remuneration for 2017 amounted to 8.61 million
euros, an increase from 7.61 million euros a year earlier.  [GN]


DIBELLA CORP: Faces "Betancourt" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dibella Corp. The
case is styled as Danni A Betancourt, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dibella Corp. doing
business as: La Villa, Alfred Discipio also known as: Alfred Di
Scipio, William Rubin also known as: Billy Rubin and Irene
Discipio also known as: Irene Di Scipio, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01213 (E.D. N.Y., February 23, 2018).

Dibella Corp. is a restaurant located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


DON HERRING: Court Affirms Vitality of Data Privacy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
David M. Poell, Esq. -- dpoell@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard,
Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, in an article for The National Law
Review, wrote that a Texas court recently affirmed the vitality
of potential nationwide class actions brought under the federal
Driver's Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA"), in a case brought by an
individual whose personal information had allegedly been obtained
illegally from the Texas DMV database.  The case was filed by a
local individual, Arthur Lopez, who complained of getting direct
mail from Don Herring Ltd., a local Texas car dealer.  Mr. Lopez
claims that Herring's personalized advertisement violated the
DPPA. Here, the advertisement contained Lopez's full name,
address and the make model of his car.  Mr. Lopez, however,
alleged he had never heard of Herring and had no idea how Herring
obtained his personal information without his consent.

According to the complaint, Herring allegedly obtained Lopez's
personal information from the Texas DMV. Herring denies this,
however.  The DPPA prohibits the procurement of personal
information from a state motor vehicle record for advertising
purposes, and empowers plaintiffs to file class actions and seek
monetary damages against violators of the Act.  The court
ultimately held that plaintiff had alleged enough facts to render
his DPPA claim plausible, and denied the car dealer's motion to
dismiss, which means the case will likely proceed to the class
certification stage.

Putting it Into Practice: This case is a reminder that companies
should look at the origins of data they obtain for marketing and
advertising purposes. [GN]


DUKE UNIVERSITY: Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley K. Laken, Esq., and Timothy F. Haley, Esq., of Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that on February 1,
2018, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina entered an order granting in part, and denying in part,
the plaintiff's motion for class certification in a no-hire
antitrust case entitled Seaman v. Duke University, 1:15-CV-462,
at 1-2 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 1, 2018).  The case was brought against
Duke University, Duke University Health System (collectively
"Duke"), and various University of North Carolina entities and
one of its executives (collectively "UNC").  The complaint
alleged that the defendants had entered into an agreement not to
hire each other's medical faculty employees in violation of
federal antitrust laws. With some notable exceptions it has been
difficult for plaintiffs to achieve class certification in wage
suppression cases such as Seaman.  The ruling is a "must read"
for employers, as the Court's reasoning and conclusions make it
difficult to predict whether this case will be helpful or hurtful
to the plaintiffs' bar in other cases.

Background To The Case

Seaman, an Assistant Professor of Radiology at Duke, contended
that she applied for a position at UNC in 2015.  She alleged that
she was denied consideration due to an agreement among the Duke
and UNC defendants that they would not hire each another's
medical faculty employees unless the hire involved a promotion.
Seaman alleged that this agreement not only suppressed the
compensation of defendants' medical faculty members, but also
their other skilled medical employees.  Thus, Seaman sought to
certify a class consisting not only of defendants' medical
faculty members, but also their physicians, nurses, and skilled
medical staff. Id. at 1-2.

Antitrust Impact And Damages -- Faculty

The primary certification challenge for the plaintiff in Seaman
was to demonstrate predominance under Rule 23(b)(3), as there was
little dispute that the other Rule 23 requirements were
satisfied.  As is typical with wage suppression antitrust cases,
the battleground centered on whether antitrust impact and damages
could be shown with common proof.  The Court defined antitrust
impact as injury that reflects the anti-competitive effect,
either of the violation or of anti-competitive acts made possible
by the violation. Id. at 8.  Seaman contended that the no-hire
agreement had an antitrust impact on faculty compensation in two
ways, including: (1) the defendants did not have to provide
preemptive compensation increases for faculty that otherwise
would have been needed to ensure employee retention; and (2) the
defendants' internal equity structures -- policies and practices
that are alleged to have insured relatively constant compensation
relationships between employees -- spread the individual harm of
decreased lateral offers and corresponding lack of retention
offers to all faculty, thus suppressing compensation faculty-
wide. The Court agreed that the evidence offered by Seaman to
prove these facts was common to the class. Id. at 8-9.

Regarding damages, Seaman's expert testified that his analysis of
the data demonstrated that compensation increases were associated
with increases in experience -- i.e., individual faculty members
were typically paid more as they obtained experience. Id. at 13.
The expert conducted a regression analysis and applied the
results "to the faculty compensation data to develop an aggregate
damages estimate for faculty." Id. at 14. Based on this evidence,
the Court concluded that Seaman's proposed method for calculating
damages was based upon evidence that would be common to the
faculty.

Antitrust Impact And Damages -- Non-Faculty

Seaman's expert also attempted to demonstrate that antitrust
impact and damages could be shown with common proof as to non-
faculty members based on the same analysis applied to faculty
members.  As to impact, the Court noted that unlike the faculty,
there was no evidence that non-faculty received retention offers
or peremptory compensation increases that would then be spread to
other non-faculty through Seaman's internal equity theory.  Thus,
the Court concluded that Seaman's method of proving impact
involved individual rather than common proof for all non-faculty.
Id. at 15-16.

Accordingly, the Court granted the motion for class certification
as to faculty members, but not as to non-faculty members. Id. at
21-25.

Implications For Employers

It is unclear what precedential impact Seaman may have on future
class action wage suppression cases.  Plaintiffs have had mixed
results achieving class certification in compensation suppression
cases.  This is true in wage information exchange cases as well
as cases involving no-hire agreements such as Seaman.  For
example, in Weisfeld v. Sun Chem. Corp., 84 Fed. Appx. 257, 258
(3rd Cir. 2004), the Third Circuit upheld the district court's
decision denying certification in an antitrust case involving an
alleged series of no-hire agreements among employers in the ink
printing industry, agreeing with the district court that the
plaintiff did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).
Among other things, the Third Circuit noted that the "decreased
salary and deprivation of opportunities inquiries would require
considering numerous individual factors" including "whether a
covenant not to compete was included in a particular employee's
contract; employee salary history, educational and other
qualifications; employer's place of business; employee's
willingness to relocate to a distant competitor; and [employees']
ability to seek employment in other industries in which their
skills could be utilized . . . " Id. at 264.  There was no
mention in Seaman whether factors like this were present, and if
so, how they could be addressed with common evidence.  It would
certainly be unusual if the only factor affecting compensation
was experience.

Furthermore, the expert's damage model in Seaman was designed to
show only an "aggregate class-wide damages estimate for faculty."
It is not entirely clear what the Court meant by that phrase, but
if the Court was referring to an average wage suppression, such
reliance has been pointedly rejected as a "fundamental flaw" by
at least one other court.  In rejecting the plaintiff's expert's
analysis in Reed v. Advocate Health Care, 268 F.R.D. 573, 590-92
(N.D. Ill. 2009), the court stated: "Measuring average base wage
suppression does not indicate whether each putative class member
suffered harm from the alleged conspiracy.  In other words, it is
not a methodology common to the class that can determine impact
with respect to each class member." Id. at 591.

Given these issues, it remains to be seen what effect Seaman will
have on future cases. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Murphy Attorney Selected to Help Lead Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Rector, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that
Baltimore attorney Hassan Murphy has been selected to help lead a
class-action lawsuit against Equifax over the credit bureau's
massive data breach last year.

Mr. Murphy, of Murphy Falcon Murphy, was selected by a federal
judge in Georgia on Feb. 12 to serve on a seven-member steering
committee for consumer plaintiffs in the case.

"I'm honored to have been selected by Judge Thrash to be in the
leadership of this monumental case that effects so many
Americans," Mr. Hassan told The Baltimore Sun.  "We have
committed to working as hard as we can, as we always do, to get
justice for the victims of this horrific data breach."

The breach occurred between May and July last year and exposed
the financial information of more than 145 million consumers -
nearly half of Americans.  The company said in announcing the
breach in September that the primary information exposed included
"names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses and, in
some instances, driver's license numbers."

Hundreds of law firms filed complaints in courts all over the
country.  Mr. Murphy filed one such complaint in September on
behalf of a Maryland plaintiff whose data was breached, alleging
that Equifax failed to ensure the integrity of his and others'
data.

"It is incomprehensible that Equifax, a major credit reporting
company, would fail in its obligation to protect the personal and
private information of consumers," Murphy said at the time.  "And
now a group of cyber thieves have the holy grail of consumer
identification -- aggregated information on consumers packaged in
a neat little bow.  The value of this package far exceeds the sum
of each individual piece of information and further exacerbates
the seriousness of this matter."

After the cases from across the country were collected in U.S.
District Court in Atlanta, where Equifax is based, attorneys vied
for appointments to the new multidistrict litigation leadership
team in oral arguments before Judge Thomas Thrash.

On Feb. 12, Judge Thrash issued an order appointing more than two
dozen attorneys to the team, who will now work to compile all the
complaints from across the country into a single complaint.

Mr. Murphy, who is African American, said he is honored to be
appointed to a leadership position in such a large class-action
case, in part because it is a legal arena that has suffered in
the past from a lack of diversity, "under the stranglehold of a
handful of firms."

"There has been a remarkable lack of participation by women and
people of color, and it is rewarding to me that Judge Thrash took
that seriously and decided that it was time that there be
diversity and all that that brings -- divergent viewpoints,
different perspectives that add tremendous value to the class and
to the case," Mr. Murphy said. [GN]


FLYWHEEL SPORTS: Faces "Kiler" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flywheel Sports,
Inc. The case is styled as Marion Kiler, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Flywheel Sports, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01208 (E.D. N.Y., February 23, 2018).

Flywheel offers challenging workouts, performance tracking, and a
passionate community of over half a million athletes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11217
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


FORD MOTOR: Class Action Over Touch Screen Systems Heads to Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a $300 million class action claiming Ford knowingly sold
vehicles with defective and unsafe touch screen systems must go
to trial, a federal judge ruled on Feb. 14.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen rejected the bulk of Ford's
summary judgment motion on Feb. 14, finding the plaintiffs
offered adequate evidence to convince a jury that Ford sold
vehicles with faulty My Ford Touch and My Lincoln Touch systems
from 2010 to 2013.

"Plaintiffs have introduced sufficient proof from which a
reasonable jury could conclude that the [My Ford Touch] defect
caused, inter alia, persistent distractions; failed
intermittently and unexpectedly while performing key functions
such as navigation assistance or rear-view cameras; and impaired
operability by undermining use of the rear-view cameras, climate
control systems, and navigation systems, often requiring drivers
to pull-over to reboot the systems," Judge Chen wrote in his 58-
page ruling.

Plaintiffs say the touch-screen software, made by Microsoft,
often freezes, endangering drivers' safety by leaving them unable
to defrost windows, operate the rearview camera, or dial 911.

In September 2016, Chen certified classes of consumers in
California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina,
Ohio, Texas, Virginia and Washington state who bought a Ford or
Lincoln equipped with the touch screens before Aug. 9, 2013.

He later decertified some claims in California, Ohio, Texas and
Virginia, resulting in 12 remaining class action claims in eight
of the nine states, excluding Texas.

On Feb. 14, Judge Chen ruled in Ford's favor on implied warranty
claims in California and product liability claims in Colorado.
But he rejected the rest of Ford's summary judgment motion,
setting the stage for a jury trial slated to start on May 11.

Class attorney Steve Berman, of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in
Seattle, said the plaintiffs have obtained "powerful" evidence,
which he expects will persuade a jury to award them the $300 to
$400 million in damages they seek.

The evidence includes documents in which Ford refers to updates
aimed at fixing its faulty software as "lipstick on a pig" and
"polished turd."

"It's rare that you get documents that frank about the company
and their product," Mr. Berman said.  "Why Ford feels powerful
about trying the case, it's a mystery to me, but let's have at
it."

The plaintiffs also uncovered a photo of former Ford CEO Mark
Fields smashing the My Ford Touch system in his own vehicle out
of frustration, according to Berman.

In his ruling on Feb. 14, Judge Chen also refused to exclude
expert testimony concluding that the touch screen systems, which
cost $625 without navigation and $1,364 with navigation, lost all
value to consumers because of the defects.

Ford attorney Randall Edwards -- redwards@omm.com -- of O'Melveny
& Myers in San Francisco, did not immediately return a phone call
and email seeking comment on Feb. 14. [GN]


FUNKO INC: Faces Securities Class Action Over IPO
-------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP ("Scott+Scott"), a national
securities and consumer rights litigation firm, on Feb. 13
disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against
Funko, Inc. (NASDAQ:FNKO) ("Funko" or the "Company") and other
defendants, related to alleged violations of federal securities
laws.  If you purchased Funko common stock in or traceable to the
Company's initial public offering ("IPO"), held on or about
November 3, 2017, or if you purchased Funko common stock after
November 3, 2017, you are encouraged to contact a Scott+Scott
attorney at (844) 818-6982 for additional information.

Funko is a pop culture consumer products company that sells a
broad range of pop culture consumer products, featuring
characters from a range of media and entertainment content,
including movies, TV shows, video games, music and sports. Its
products combine its proprietary brands and designs into
properties it licenses from content providers.

The lawsuit claims that the Company's Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO were materially
misleading.  In the IPO, the Company sold over 10.4 million
shares of common stock at a price to the public of $12.00 per
share.

Funko's IPO "flopped" as its "IPO saw the worst first-day return
for a Wall Street IPO in 17 years," according to Comics Gaming
Magazine. By market close on November 3, 2017, the price of Funko
common stock dropped over 41% from its initial price of $12.00 to
close at $7.00.  It is alleged that the precipitous drop stems
from Funko's accounting practices, which The Seattle Times called
"the latest example of fun-house accounting on Wall Street."

What You Can Do

If you purchased Funko common stock on or after November 3, 2017,
or if you have questions about this notice or your legal rights,
please contact attorney Joe Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982, or at
jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.

            About Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with
offices in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio.
[GN]


HYUNDAI MOTORS: Morrison & Foerster Discusses Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucia X. Roibal, Esq. -- lroibal@mofo.com -- of Morrison &
Foerster LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that on January
23, 2018, in a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit sent class-action
lawyers into a tizzy when it handed down its decision in In re
Hyundai and Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., No. 15-56067, 2018 U.S. App.
LEXIS 1626 (Jan. 23, 2018), denying certification of a settlement
class and concluding that the district court had failed to
consider the differences in various state consumer protection
laws.  While the court's decision has provoked debate about its
impact on nationwide settlements in the consumer class action
context, Hyundai is a powerful, pro-defense decision.  What may
have gotten lost amid all the shouting is a hidden gem for
defendants: the decision makes clear that predominance requires
proof of classwide deception as well as proof of classwide
exposure to the allegedly misleading advertisement.

Case background. In November 2011, the Environmental Protection
Agency ("EPA") received complaints that Hyundai and Kia had
overstated the fuel efficiency of some of their vehicles.  In
response, EPA launched an investigation, later confirming that
Hyundai and Kia had overstated their fuel efficiency estimates.

Before EPA's results came out, plaintiffs filed a class action in
California, bringing claims under California's consumer
protection laws and common law.  Defendants removed the case to
federal court and then opposed certification, arguing that the
differences in state consumer protection laws precluded a finding
of predominance.  Judge Wu issued a tentative ruling, concluding
that Mazza v. American Honda Motor, 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012)
-- which required application of a choice-of-law analysis --
precluded class certification.

Before the court made a final ruling on class certification, a
flurry of similar class actions was filed nationwide, which the
MDL Panel ultimately consolidated before Judge Wu.  Plaintiffs
then informed Judge Wu that the parties had reached a class
settlement. Judge Wu issued a tentative ruling granting the
plaintiffs' motion for certification of the settlement class.  In
so doing, Judge Wu noted that an "extensive choice of law
analysis" was not warranted in the settlement class context and
could instead be addressed as part of the final fairness hearing
under Rule 23(e).  The court granted class certification and the
objectors appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit vacated the class certification and held that
the district court abused its discretion in certifying a class
under Rule 23(b)(3).

Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry requires a choice-of-law
analysis.  In the most contentious part of its decision, the
Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court failed to apply a
Mazza choice-of-law analysis when determining the issue of
predominance under Rule 23(b)(3).  While the parties argued that
the Mazza analysis affected only manageability, the court held to
the contrary: Mazza's choice-of-law analysis also affects
predominance.

In her dissent, Judge Nguyen argued that the majority had dealt
"a major blow" to multi-state class actions by shifting the
burden of proving whether foreign law governs the district court
or class counsel.  This burden shifting, she argued, violated the
Erie doctrine, which requires a federal court sitting in
diversity jurisdiction to apply the substantive law of the state
in which it sits.  Under this doctrine, the court was required to
apply California law unless a foreign law proponent met its
burden of proving otherwise.

Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry requires proof of classwide
deception. In its greatest gift to defendants, the Ninth Circuit
held that predominance requires proof of classwide exposure.
Judge Nguyen's dissent argued that reliance under California
consumer protection laws "is presumed if 'members of the public
are likely to be deceived'. . ." Not so, held the Ninth Circuit.
A presumption of reliance requires "evidence that the allegedly
false representations were uniformly made to all members of the
proposed class" (emphasis added), i.e., that class members -- not
just members of the public -- were deceived.  In fact, the
relevant class could only include those class members who were
actually exposed to the allegedly misleading advertising.

As a point of comparison, the court distinguished In re Tobacco
II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009), where defendants had engaged in
a decades-long advertising campaign that left little doubt that
every class member had been exposed to the advertising.  In this
case, however, there was no proof that particular class members
-- used car owners -- were exposed to the advertising. The court
held that the class could not be certified without first
analyzing whether these class members were exposed to the alleged
misleading statements.

Key takeaways. Hyundai provides a powerful tool to defendants in
defending against class certification.  First, it expands the
Mazza choice-of-law analysis beyond manageability to the issue of
predominance.  Second, Hyundai requires plaintiffs in deception
cases to show proof of classwide -- not just individual plaintiff
-- deception.  Finally, Hyundai provides an additional defense in
"exposure" cases: predominance may be defeated where plaintiffs
cannot show exposure of all class members to the alleged
misleading advertising. [GN]


IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Class Action Lawsuit Certified to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Did you purchase the following brands of cigarettes in British
Columbia between May 9, 1997 and July 31, 2007?

Player's Light, Player's Light Smooth, Player's Extra Light, du
Maurier Light, du Maurier Extra Light, du Maurier Ultra Light, du
Maurier Special Mild, Matinee Extra Mild, Matinee Ultra Mild or
Cameo Extra Mild.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has certified a class
action for consumers who purchased "light" and "mild" cigarettes
from the Defendant between May 9, 1997 and July 31, 2007.

The representative plaintiff is Kenneth Knight.  The law firm
representing the class is Klein Lawyers ("Class Counsel").  The
Defendant is Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited.

                 Who Are The Class Members?

The class is defined as:

"Persons who, during the Class Period, purchased the Defendant's
light or mild brands of cigarettes in British Columbia for
personal, family or household use.  The Defendant's light and
mild brands of cigarettes includes the following brands: Player's
Light, Player's Light Smooth, Player's Extra Light, du Maurier
Light, du Maurier Extra Light, du Maurier Ultra Light, du Maurier
Special Mild, Matinee Extra Mild, Matinee Ultra Mild and Cameo
Extra Mild."

The Class Period is from May 9, 1997 up to July 31, 2007.

              What is The Class Action About?

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendant breached the Business
Practices and Consumer Protection Act and the Trade Practices
Act.  The lawsuit seeks remedies under those statutes. The court
has not yet made any finding as to the merits of this lawsuit.
The Defendant denies the allegations made in the lawsuit.

        How do British Columbia Residents Participate?

If you were a resident of British Columbia on February 8, 2005,
you do not need to do anything to participate -- you are
automatically included in the class action.

If you do not want to be part of this lawsuit you must notify
Class Counsel at the address below, in writing, no later than May
15, 2018, providing your name and address and indicating that you
do not want to be part of this lawsuit.  If you do not exclude
yourself by that date you will be included in this lawsuit and
will be bound by the court's judgment on the common issues,
whether favorable or not.

      How Do Persons Outside British Columbia Participate?

If you lived outside of British Columbia on February 8, 2005, and
you want to be included in this class action, you must sign an
Opt-In Form, and return it to Class Counsel no later than May 15,
2018.  If you opt into this proceeding, you agree to be bound by
the findings of the British Columbia court on the common issues,
whether favorable or not. You can obtain a copy of the Form from
Class Counsel or by visiting their website.

             What Are The Financial Consequences?

Class members will be entitled to the benefit of a successful
judgment on the common issues.  If the action is not successful
on the common issues, no class member will be responsible for
legal fees or costs.

The representative plaintiff has entered into a contingency fee
agreement with Class Counsel providing that Class Counsel may
receive a percentage of the class' recovery if the action is
successful.  The fee agreements must be approved by the court.
[GN]


INDIO, CA: Face Class Action Over Prosecution Fees
--------------------------------------------------
Brett Kelman, writing for The Desert Sun, reports that Ramona
Morales, 79, had no idea a few chickens could be so expensive.
She also didn't know that prosecutions could be so profitable.

Three years ago, on a neighborhood street in central Indio, a
city code enforcement officer spotted a few clucking birds inside
a coop in the backyard of a small house.  The chickens were a
violation of a city ordinance, so the officer sent a written
warning to Morales, who owned the house and rented it out.

At the time, Mrs. Morales thought the warning was just a slap on
the wrist for a small problem.  This kind of minor headache is
commonplace in the unpredictable life of a landlord.

She told her tenant to get rid of the chickens.  She thought that
was the end of it.  It wasn't.

"She didn't know this little dispute about a couple of chickens
would turn into nearly a $6,000 bill," said Jeffrey Redfern,
Morales attorney.  "But it's because these guys are making money
off of her and everybody else."

On Feb. 13, Mrs. Morales filed a class-action lawsuit against
Indio and Coachella, two cities that have made a practice of
taking residents to criminal court for exceptionally minor
crimes, then charging them thousands to pay for the cost of their
own prosecution.  The lawsuit is a direct response to a Desert
Sun investigation, published in November, which revealed that the
cities had billed residents like Morales more than $122,000 in
"prosecution fees" and threatened to take their homes if they
didn't pay.

If successful, the class-action lawsuit will reverse convictions
of anyone who was prosecuted by Indio and Coachella's privatized
prosecutors, the law firm Silver & Wright, and lead to the return
of prosecution fees paid by those residents.  The suit also might
affect other Riverside County cities that also have hired Silver
& Wright.

Mrs. Morales is represented by the Institute for Justice, a
nonprofit, libertarian public interest law firm that combats
government overreach, particularly what the firm calls "policing
for profit."  The law firm is similar to the American Civil
Liberties Union, or ACLU.

Mr. Redfern, an Institute attorney, said the Morales lawsuit
argues that Silver & Wright had a "personal, financial stake" in
every prosecution; if they got a conviction, they got paid.  This
profitability colored every case filed by Silver & Wright,
Mr. Redfern said, making prosecutions less about fixing problem
properties and more about cashing in on convictions.

"There are enough laws on the books that you can prosecute
basically anyone you want to if you are motivated enough, and the
housing code is really ripe for abuse," Mr. Redfern said.  "But,
if you combine capacious and vague code, where almost anything
can be a violation, and you let the person who is going to
enforce the code make money off of it, then the potential for
abuse is just tremendous."

The following video was produced by The Institute For Justice to
explain the class action lawsuit filed against Indio and
Coachella.

Coachella City Hall declined to comment, saying it does not
discuss litigation.  An Indio official said city staff were
unprepared to comment because they had not yet reviewed the
lawsuit, which was filed shortly before courts closed on Feb. 13.

Curtis Wright -- CWright@SilverWrightLaw.com -- one of the
partners at Silver & Wright, also said he couldn't comment on the
lawsuit because he hadn't read it yet.

Silver & Wright refused to comment for the initial Desert Sun
investigation, but later released a statement insisting that all
of their prosecutions were "meritorious" and that all the fees
charged by the firm -- including prosecution fees -- reimbursed
the taxpayers of Indio and Coachella.

"We go out of our way to be as fair as possible in the criminal
process," Silver & Wright said in its statement, adding later
"The intent is not to convict, but to achieve code compliance."

Indio officials have publicly stood by the Silver & Wright
strategy, saying it had been effective at erasing blight where
other tactics had failed.  Coachella officials said in November
that they would rethink the practice of filing criminal charges
against nuisance property owners, but the Institute for Justice
characterized this response as too little too late.

"It's good news obviously," Mr. Redfern said, "but that doesn't
help the people who've already been prosecuted."

Prosecution fees began in both cities about two or three years
ago, after the city councils hired Silver & Wright, which sells
itself as an expert on code enforcement and cost recovery.  The
firm then helped both cities create new ordinances that would
allow them to send a bill to anyone who is convicted of a
nuisance property crime, then began taking property owners to
criminal court.

Although The Desert Sun investigation identified 18 cases in
which residents or business were charged prosecution fees,
Morales is currently the only plaintiff in the class-action
lawsuit. Her attorneys said they are likely to add others in the
near future.

Mrs. Morales, who has lived and worked in the Coachella Valley
for decades, owns six small Indio rental properties that she
bought with savings from a long career of cleaning houses and
selling Avon makeup, according to the lawsuit.  The properties
were in dilapidated conditions when Morales bought them, Mr.
Redfern said, then Morales and her family members renovated the
homes "largely with their own hands," creating an investment that
she could leave to her children and grandchildren.

Trouble with one of the properties began in 2015 when an Indio
code enforcement officers spotted the chicken in the backyard.
Morales says she told her tenant to get rid of the chickens, but
when the chickens weren't removed, Indio forwarded the case to
Silver & Wright, who filed criminal charges against Morales and
sought a warrant for her arrest.

Mrs. Morales then went to court and pleaded guilty to two
infractions -- one for the chickens and one for renting
properties without a business license, which she did not know was
required.  An infraction is a violation of law no more serious
than a speeding ticket.  Mrs. Morales was fined $75 for each
infraction by the court and the criminal case was closed.

Nearly a year later, Indio City Hall sent Mrs. Morales a bill
saying she now owed the city $3,000 -- including $2,400 in
"prosecution fees" -- which must be paid to Silver & Wright in 45
days.  Mrs. Morales appealed the debt to an administrative
hearing officer (contracted by the city) who upheld the bill.
Silver & Wright then added another $2,600 for the cost of
defending the appeal, bringing Morales total bill to $5,659.

If Mrs. Morales did not pay, the law firm would put a lien on her
property, which meant her land could be seized to pay off the
debt.  Mrs. Morales paid because she was afraid of losing her
investment, but she said she was still utterly confused as to why
she owed anything.

About a year after that, the Desert Sun investigation into
prosecution fees was published.

That day, according to her lawsuit, was when it finally made
sense.

"After reading the story, Mrs. Morales finally understood the
reason she had been subjected to criminal prosecution and billed
almost $6,000 was that the city prosecutor -- Silver & Wright --
was trying to make money off of her," the lawsuit states.

Similar sentiments have come from other property owners who are
not plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit but would still
benefit if the suit erases their convictions.  In some of those
cases, the disparity between the severity of the crime and the
cost of the bill is even more staggering than what happened to
Morales.

For example, one Coachella resident with a busted garage door and
an overgrown yard filled with trash and junk was billed $25,200.
And an Indio businessman, Joseph Ramani, was billed $25,000
because a shopping center he owned had overgrown weeds, unsecured
dumpsters, two broken windows and a "sun-damaged address number."

"It's absolutely a scam -- you can quote me on that," said
Mr. Ramani's attorney, Leonard Cravens, in a prior interview.
"They pick the most expensive way to get the job done, in
criminal court, because it's all about the money."

One other Coachella resident, Cesar Garcia, has also challenged
prosecution fees in county court, although his lawsuit is
separate from the class-action lawsuit announced on Feb. 13.

Mr. Garcia was prosecuted by Silver & Wright for expanding his
house to make room for a small daycare business without the
proper building permit from City Hall.  After he pleaded guilty,
Silver & Wright sent him a bill for $26,000 -- including $21,000
in prosecution fees.  After he appealed, the bill rose to
$31,000.

"Fixing his house was just a side effect. Collecting this money
was always their goal," said Shaun Sullivan, Garcia's attorney,
in a prior interview.  "When it's this easy, and this lucrative,
they are going to look for ways and opportunities to do this as
often as possible." [GN]


INTEL CORPORATION: Sued in N.Y. Over Breach of Implied Warranties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric H. Bernstein and Stephen C. Bevilacqua, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Intel Corporation,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00526 (E.D.N.Y., January 25, 2018), is an action
for damages as a direct and proximate result of Intel's breach of
its implied warranties.

The complaints says the Plaintiffs and Class members suffered
damages and continue to suffer damages, including economic
damages at the point of sale in terms of the difference between
the value of the chips and CPUs as warranted and the value of the
chips and CPUs as delivered.

Intel Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 2200
Mission College Boulevard, Santa Clara, California that designs,
manufactures, distributes, and sells computer products worldwide.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael P. Canty, Esq.
      Ross M. Kamhi, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
      E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com
              rkamhi@labaton.com

         - and -

      Mark S. Goldman, Esq.
      GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C.
      8 Tower Bridge, Suite 1025
      161 Washington Street
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Telephone: (484) 342-0700
      Facsimile: (484) 580-8747
      E-mail: goldman@lawgsp.com

         - and -

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

          - and -

      Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      55 Challenger Road, 6th Fl.
      Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
      Telephone: (973) 639-9100
      E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com


INTELLITIX INC: "Kovacevic" Suit Brought Before NY Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kovacevic, Admir, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Intellitix, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 152743/2017, was brought before the New York
Supreme Court on February 23, 2018.

Intellitix is a global provider of RFID access control and
cashless payment systems for live events.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   LAWYERS, PC
   600 OLD COUNTRY RD, STE 450
   GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 342-2200

The Defendant is represented by:

   NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US, LLP
   1301 AVE OF THE AMERICAS
   NEW YORK, NY 10019
   Tel: (212) 318-3000


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Sued Over Non-Competition Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jan Wolfe, writing for Reuters, reports that International
Business Machines Corp's insistence in a new lawsuit that its
efforts to recruit and maintain a diverse workforce are trade
secrets bucks a trend towards transparency and highlights how
companies can see the issue in competitive terms, business and
legal experts said.

Armonk, New York-based IBM on Feb. 12 sued its former chief
diversity officer, Lindsay-Rae McIntyre, who left for a similar
job at Microsoft Corp.  The lawsuit alleges Ms. McIntyre violated
a one-year non-competition agreement and could disclose IBM's
diversity data and hiring plans.

IBM's stance puts it at odds with trends in the tech industry and
broader corporate world towards sharing diversity success stories
and best practices, instead seeming to view diversity as a zero-
sum game.

The lawsuit is unusual because IBM is arguing its diversity data
and strategy are economically valuable "trade secrets," a legal
term typically associated with closely guarded formulas like that
for Coca-Cola.  It appears to be the first company to bring such
a lawsuit against a rival over diversity efforts, legal experts
said.

IBM cited in its complaint Ms. McIntyre's knowledge and oversight
of its plans to hire 50 diverse candidates to executive positions
and its development of artificial intelligence-based tools to
track the career development of women and minorities at the
company.

According to IBM, knowledge of this "highly confidential,
proprietary, and competitively sensitive information" would allow
Microsoft to compete for the same talent and business from
customers that value diversity.

Once synonymous with white men in dark suits, IBM created task
forces in 1995 to address the issue and soon greatly increased
the diversity of its management.

Y-Vonne Hutchinson, an Oakland, California-based diversity
consultant and lawyer who works with the tech industry, said IBM
has had a legitimate edge over its industry rivals when it comes
to diversity.

IBM's tools for reaching it diversity goals could qualify as
trade secrets if it can show they are valuable to competitors,
said Villanova University law professor Michael Risch.

IBM said in a statement that it "has a long history of being
recognized for leadership in a diverse and inclusive workplace."

Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft, which is not named in IBM's
lawsuit, said it had no interest in IBM's confidential
information.

'PUBLIC CONDEMNATION'

Russell Beck, a lawyer specializing in trade secrets law, said he
was surprised to see IBM make such nakedly economic arguments
about diversity, noting that corporations more typically cast
their efforts as benefiting society as a whole.

Most large tech firms have long faced criticism for the lack of
diversity of their staffs.  IBM took a shot at Microsoft in its
lawsuit, noting that the latter company has faced "public
condemnation and class action litigation" for its struggles to
recruit and promote women.

Microsoft is seeking to dismiss as without merit a class action
alleging pay and promotion discrimination.

Microsoft and IBM both derive much of their revenue from selling
software and cloud computing services to big companies, a number
of which have said they seek diversity in their vendors and
suppliers.

Other tech companies have previously argued for the
confidentiality of diversity information, though more out of fear
of public criticism and litigation than competition, said John
Cary Sims, a professor at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento,
California.

But more have recently embraced transparency.  In 2014, Google
released diversity data after previously trying to keep it
private. Apple and Microsoft have also made their data public.

Joelle Emerson, a consultant who has advised Twitter Inc (TWTR.N)
and Airbnb Inc on diversity efforts, criticized IBM's position.

"If you truly want to build a better industry, sharing learnings
is actually a really helpful part of that," she said.

"Ultimately, a more diverse tech industry benefits every company
within that industry." [GN]


JAEGER-LECOULTRE: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jaeger-Lecoultre.
The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jaeger-Lecoultre,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01676 (S.D. N.Y., February 23, 2018).

Jaeger-LeCoultre is a Swiss luxury watch and clock manufacturer
based in Le Sentier, Switzerland, that dates back to the first
half of the nineteenth century, founded by Antoine LeCoultre in
1833.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq.
   Daniel Cohen PLLC
   407 Rockaway Avenue, 3rd Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11212
   Tel: (646) 645-8482
   Email: dan@cml.legal


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP ("Scott+Scott"), a national
securities and consumer rights litigation firm, is notifying
investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against
Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) ("J&J" or the "Company") and other
defendants, related to alleged violations of federal securities
laws.  If you purchased J&J securities between February 22, 2013,
and February 7, 2018, you are encouraged to contact a Scott+Scott
attorney at (844) 818-6982 for additional information.

Johnson & Johnson manufactures health care products and provides
related services for the consumer, pharmaceutical, and medical
devices and diagnostics markets.

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false or misleading
statements and failed to disclose that J&J has known for decades
that its talc products include asbestos fibers and that the
exposure to those fibers can cause ovarian cancer and
mesothelioma.  J&J's denials that talc could cause cancer and
mesothelioma were materially false and misleading, and the
Company concealed contingent liabilities and loss of future
revenues from the product.

According to the complaint, following a September 21, 2017
Bloomberg article stating that documents indicate that J&J has
known for decades that its talc products include asbestos fibers
and that exposure to those fibers can cause ovarian cancer, and a
February 5, 2018 CNBC report that court proceedings could expose
potentially damaging documents, the value of J&J shares declined
significantly.

What You Can Do

If you purchased J&J securities between February 22, 2013, and
February 7, 2018, inclusive, or if you have questions about this
notice or your legal rights, please contact attorney Joe
Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982, or at jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.
Investors have until April 9, 2018, to move for lead plaintiff.

            About Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with
offices in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio.
[GN]


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given that Monteverde & Associates PC has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
The District  of Delaware, case no. 1:18-cv-00230, on behalf of
shareholders of Kindred Healthcare, Inc., ("Kindred" or the
"Company") (NYSE: KND) who held Kindred securities and have been
harmed by Kindred and its board of directors' (the "Board") for
alleged violations of Sections 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the
merger of the Company to affiliates of each of TPG and Welsh,
Carson, Anderson & Stowe, and Humana Inc. (collectively, the "The
Consortium").

Under the terms of the agreement, Kindred shareholders will
receive $9.00 in cash for each share of common stock they own
(the "MergerConsideration"). The complaint alleges that this
offer is inadequate and that the Registration Statement in Form
S-4 (the "Proxy") provides materially incomplete and misleading
information about the Company's financials and the transaction,
in violation of Sections 14(a), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Specifically, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) the Company's financial
projections; and (ii) the valuation analyses performed by the
Company's financial advisors, Barclays Capital Inc. ("Barclays")
and Guggenheim Securities, LLC ("Guggenheim" and together with
Barclays, the "Financial Advisors"), in support of their fairness
opinions.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days.  Any member of the putative class may move
the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.  If you wish to discuss this action, or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact:

Click here for more information:
www.monteverdelaw.com/investigations/m-a/ It is free and there is
no cost or obligation to you.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a boutique class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm committed that has recovered
millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders
and consumers from corporate wrongdoing.  Monteverde & Associates
PC lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect
investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct.
Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013 and 2017, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field.  He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017 Top Rated Lawyer.

         Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
         MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
         The Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Ave, Suite 4405
         New York, NY 10118
         United States of America
         Tel: (212) 971-1341
         E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN]


KITCHEN PRIDE: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Koenig, writing for Law360, reports that a Pennsylvania
federal judge on Feb. 14 granted preliminary approval to two
mushroom farms looking to pay a combined $375,000 to settle out
of broader class-action multidistrict litigation accusing growers
and sellers of the fungi of a price-fixing conspiracy.

U.S. District Judge Berle M. Schiller preliminarily approved
respective settlements between Kitchen Pride Mushroom Farms Inc.,
Creekside Mushroom Ltd. and non-Western U.S. direct purchasers
who bought Agaricus mushrooms between February 2001 and August
2005 from either a member of the Eastern Mushroom Marketing
Cooperative or "co-conspirators."

The case is In Re: Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv-00620 (E.D. Pa.).  The case is
assigned to Judge Berle M. Schiller.  The case was filed
February 10, 2006. [GN]


LJM FUNDS: Boca Raton Investor Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Criden & Love, P.A., on Feb. 14 disclosed that a Boca Raton
investor has filed a federal class-action lawsuit against a
Chicago-based investment advisor that manages the LJM
Preservation and Growth Fund, intended to "preserve capital,
particularly in down markets (including major drawdowns)" -- only
to lose 80% of its value.

Leonard Sokolow acquired shares of LJMIX pursuant to its
misleading Registration Statements and Prospectuses.  In the end,
Sokolow and other investors lost hundreds of millions of dollars.

The lawsuit names as defendants LJM Partners and its Founder and
Chairman Anthony Caine and Chief Portfolio Manager Anish
Parvataneni, as well as others. It was filed in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois and claims violations
of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933.

"Mr. Sokolow and the Class purchased shares of a fund that was
marketed as a conservative investment, however, in reality, this
was not the case as evidenced by the catastrophic losses suffered
within a span of two days," said Michael E. Criden from the law
firm of Criden & Love in Miami, attorney for the plaintiffs,
along with Tom Laughlin of Scott + Scott.

In truth, "the fund was not focused on capital preservation and
left investors exposed to an unacceptably high risk of
catastrophic losses," the lawsuit claims.  "That became clear on
February 5, 2018, when the S&P fell approximately 4.6%. In the
wake of this drop, LJMIX plunged from $9.82 on February 2, to
$1.94 on February 7, a loss of some 80%."

CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A. -- http://cridenlove.com--is a litigation
firm of experienced trial lawyers that devotes a substantial
amount of its practice to antitrust and consumer fraud class
action litigation, securities and broker misconduct litigation
and complex commercial litigation.

For more information, contact Jennifer Clarin with BoardroomPR,
jclarin@boardroompr.com or (954) 370-8999. [GN]


LL BEAN: Sued in Chicago for Ending Lifetime Return Policy
----------------------------------------------------------
Emily Zantow, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a class of consumers filed a federal lawsuit against L.L. Bean
after the clothing retailer said it will end its famed "no
questions asked" satisfaction guarantee, arguing that's not what
they bargained for.

"Although the warranty promised to have 'no end date' and there
had not been one since 1912, on February 9, 2018, L.L.  Bean
announced without forewarning that a new warranty had been made
that would limit returns to one year after the date of purchase,
and proof of purchase would be required," according to the 16-
page federal lawsuit filed on Feb. 12 in Chicago.

Lead plaintiff Victor Bondi, represented by Chicago attorney
Ben Barnow, brought the class action against L.L. Bean, a Maine
corporation that sells outdoor-style clothing and shoes, on
behalf of himself and other customers who bought products before
the return policy change.

Mr. Bondi claims he is a loyal L.L. Bean customer and all of his
purchases from the retailer, including a pair of Bean Boots, were
based on the company's century-old unconditional satisfaction
guarantee.

"Plaintiff and the other class members paid a particular price
for L.L. Bean merchandise and a warranty with certain terms," the
lawsuit states.  "When L.L. Bean announced those terms would be
dishonored, plaintiff and the other class members were deprived
of their benefit of the bargain."

Mr. Bondi says L.L. Bean has built its brand on its famed
warranty. According to the complaint, until recently the
company's website stated: "Our products are guaranteed to give
100% satisfaction in every way.  Return anything purchased from
us at any time if it proves otherwise.  We do not want you to
have anything from L.L. Bean that is not completely
satisfactory."

The lawsuit includes photos of two L.L. Bean catalog covers with
the words: "100% Satisfaction Guarantee.  No Conditions.  No End
Date."

Mr. Bondi wants to represent a national class of all customers
who purchased goods from L.L. Bean before the return policy
changed on Feb. 9, as well as a sub-class of Illinois consumers.

He wants the retailer to either honor its original warranty or
engage in "corrective advertising" in the form of notices in the
L.L. Bean catalog for the next year and point-of-sale reminders
about the new policy.

The complaint also seeks at least $5 million in damages and a
declaration that L.L. Bean's policy change is an unfair and
deceptive breach of warranty in violation of the Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

L.L. Bean and Mr. Bondi's attorney did not immediately respond on
Feb. 13 to email requests for comment. [GN]


LYFT: Fights Drivers' Class Action in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------
Robin Bull, writing for USA Herald, reports that Lyft is
defending itself in a class action lawsuit filed by its own
drivers.  The company is accused of underpaying drivers.  One
driver located in New Jersey is represented by Steve Mashel, a
New Jersey employment lawyer, told WTMJ-TV that Lyft drivers were
being "deprived the full value of the contract that they entered
into with Lyft."  Under the Terms of Service signed by the
driver, passengers are issued a quote and that quote is the basis
of "which the fare [due] to the driver should be calculated."

Mashel believes that the discrepancy should be clearly disclosed.
According to some drivers and an experiment conducted by the
staff of WTMJ-TV, Lyft drivers are missing almost 10% of what's
due to them.  Mashel stated that fare discrepancies are as little
as .15 cents and as much as $8 per ride.

Is Lyft Lying to Its Drivers?
According to a summary of the lawsuit, Lyft passengers get an
estimate of what their ride will cost.  When the passenger is
picked up, the driver's app calculates the total cost of the
ride. From that amount, Lyft gets 20%.  Then, drivers may have to
pay something to their city in the way of taxes. However, the
class action lawsuit alleges that the pay the driver receives is
actually based on a fare calculation that's not listed in their
Terms of Service.  The agreement between drivers and Lyft states
that while "fare payments are subject to a Lyft commission . . .
You will also receive any tips provided by riders to you, and the
tips will not be subject to any Lyft commission."  Yet, many
drivers allege that their tips were also subject to Lyft's
commission fee.

Attorney Mashel states in the complaint that "Specifically,
defendant Lyft has retained a larger portion of the passenger
fare than they promised they would retain . . ." Lyft recently
filed a motion to dismiss that, at the time of this article's
publication, hadn't been ruled upon.

This Isn't Lyft's First Legal Rodeo
This isn't the first time Lyft has been sued.  In 2017, a judge
approved a settlement of $27 million for a previous class action
lawsuit filed by drivers who alleged that they should be
classified as employees and entitled to reimbursement pay for
expenses.  The settlement held that drivers would remain
independent contractors.

Lyft was also sued over an allegation that one of their drivers
raped a woman.  The victim, unnamed, sued Lyft for failing to
properly supervise and train drivers, negligent hiring, and
misrepresentation as a taxi service.  The victim stated in her
lawsuit that was "viciously and brutally raped" by a driver named
Enrique Godoy, also named in the lawsuit. [GN]


MATALCO: "Pittman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ricky Pittman, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Matalco (U.S.), Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-00203-BYP
(N.D. Ohio, January 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Matalco (U.S.), Inc. is a North American manufacturer of aluminum
billets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
      Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
              chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
              anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


MCCABE TROTTER: Judge Certifies FDCPA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Bradford C. Andrews reported that a Dorchester
County judge has granted a request to certify a class action
lawsuit against a Columbia law firm that's accused of
misrepresenting the debt that property owners owe their
homeowners' associations in violation of the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act.

The property owners allege that the law firm of McCabe, Trotter &
Beverly, which collects debts on behalf of homeowners'
associations throughout South Carolina, improperly inflated the
amounts that they supposedly owed on their accounts by tacking
its own legal fees onto their outstanding balances, and that this
constitutes a violation of the FCDPA.  They claim that the firm
has been engaging in this practice since at least 2012.

Judge Diane Schaffer Goodstein ruled in a Jan. 11 order that the
homeowners had met all of the requirements for class
certification under South Carolina law, which relate to the size
of the proposed class, the commonality of the claims of each
member, and the amount of money at issue.  Class certification is
a procedural question unrelated to the merits of the claim.

Damages under the FDCPA can be substantial.  In addition to
collecting actual damages and attorneys' fees, plaintiffs can
recover up to $1,000 in statutory damages for each separate
violation of the act. Justin Kahn of Kahn Law Firm in Charleston
and Mary Leigh Arnold of Mount Pleasant represent the homeowners.

"We are pleased with the decision and look forward to litigating
the case," Kahn told Lawyers Weekly in a written statement.

Andrew Countryman of Mount Pleasant represents McCabe, Trotter &
Beverly.  Countryman, after being relayed Mr. Kahn's comments,
said he was "disappointed with the decision and look(s) forward
to litigating the case." [GN]


MCCARTHY BURGESS: Faces "Pugh" Suit in S.D. West Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McCarthy, Burgess &
Wolff, Inc. The case is styled Angela Pugh, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. McCarthy, Burgess
& Wolff, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00347 (S.D. W.Va.,
February 23, 2018).

McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc. is a collection agency located in
Cleveland, OH.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher B. Frost, Esq.
   HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD
   P. O. Box 959
   Fayetteville, WV 25840-0959
   Tel: (304) 574-2727
   Fax: (304) 574-3709
   Email: cfrost@hamiltonburgess.com

      - and -

   Ralph C. Young, Esq.
   HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD
   P. O. Box 959
   Fayetteville, WV 25840-0959
   Tel: (304) 574-2727
   Fax: (304) 574-3709
   Email: ryoung@hamiltonburgess.com

      - and -

   Steven R. Broadwater , Jr., Esq.
   HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD
   P. O. Box 959
   Fayetteville, WV 25840-0959
   Tel: (304) 574-2727
   Fax: (304) 574-3709
   Email: sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com


MCWANE INC: May 10 Fairness Hearing on $8.7MM DIPF Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
If You Directly Purchased Ductile Iron Pipe Fittings between
January 11, 2008 and December 31, 2013, You Could Be
Affected by a Proposed Class Action Settlement

Please read the entire Notice carefully. These Settlements may
affect your rights.

What is this lawsuit about?
There is a Proposed Settlement, in a class action lawsuit called
In re Ductile Iron Pipe Fittings ("DIPF") Direct Purchaser
Antitrust Litigation, which is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The defendants in
this lawsuit are McWane, Inc. and its divisions Clow Water
Systems Co., Tyler Pipe Company, and Tyler Union (collectively
"McWane"); SIGMA Corporation and its subsidiary SIGMA Piping
Products Corporation (together, "SIGMA"); and Star Pipe Products,
Ltd. ("Star").

The McWane settlement is in addition to two earlier settlements
with defendants SIGMA and Star.

This lawsuit alleges that from January 11, 2008 through
September 21, 2009, defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix
prices for DIPF in the United States in violation of the
antitrust laws. Plaintiffs also claim that from September 22,
2009 through December 31, 2013, defendant McWane illegally
monopolized, and defendants SIGMA and McWane conspired to
restrain trade and monopolize, the market for Domestic DIPF in
the United States in violation of the antitrust laws.  Defendants
deny all of plaintiffs' allegations.

Am I a Class Member?
The McWane Settlement has three classes: (1) All persons or
entities in the United States that purchased Open-Spec DIPF
directly from any Defendant at any time from January 11, 2008,
through September 21, 2009; (2) All persons or entities in the
United States that purchased Domestic DIPF directly from McWane
or SIGMA at any time from September 22, 2009, through
December 31, 2013; and (3) All persons or entities in the United
States that purchased Domestic DIPF directly from McWane at any
time from September 22, 2009, through December 31, 2013.

Excluded from the McWane Settlement Classes are certain companies
that have otherwise agreed to exclude themselves from the
Settlement.

Full descriptions of DIPFs and a list of excluded entities
are available at www.DIPFDirectSettlement.com

What does the Settlement provide and how do I get a payment?
Under the McWane Settlement, McWane has agreed to pay $8,787,500.
If you are a Settlement Class Member, you may be eligible to
receive payment from the Settlement.  To qualify for payment, you
must complete and send in a valid Claim Form, available at
www.DIPFDirectSettlement.com.  Be sure to sign the Claim Form and
mail it by first-class mail postmarked no later than June 9, 2018
to DIPF Direct Purchaser Antitrust Settlement, c/o GCG, P.O. Box
10220, Dublin, OH 43017-5720.

If the Court approves the McWane Settlement, the Net Settlement
Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis among all Settlement
Class Members who submit valid and timely Claim Forms.

There are specialized companies that may offer to fill out and
file your claim in return for a percentage of the value of your
claim.  The Court has not authorized any of these companies to
contact you.  Before you contract with one of these companies,
you can always seek help from the Claims Administrator or Class
Counsel in filing your Claim.

Can I Exclude Myself?
If you want to keep the right to sue or continue to sue McWane
about the legal issues in this case, then you must exclude
yourself from the Settlement Classes.  If you exclude yourself
from the Settlement Classes, you will not get any payment from
the Settlement.

To exclude yourself, you must send a letter saying that you want
to be excluded.  Important instructions about how to exclude
yourself can be obtained from www.DIPFDirectSettlement.com.  Your
letter must be postmarked by April 10, 2018.

How Do I Object?

You can object to the Settlement if you are a Settlement Class
Member and have not excluded yourself.

To object, you must send a letter to the Court. Instructions
about how to object may be obtained from
www.DIPFDirectSettlement.com Your letter must be postmarked by
April 20, 2018.

What if I do nothing?
If you do nothing, you will not receive payment, you will remain
in the Classes for the McWane Settlement, and you will be bound
by the Releases regarding claims in this matter.  The only way to
qualify for a payment from the Settlement is to send in a Claim
Form.

Who Represents Me?
The Court has appointed Kit A. Pierson of Cohen Milstein Sellers
& Toll PLLC and Robert N. Kaplan of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
to represent the Settlement Class.  If you want to be represented
by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense.

These lawyers will ask the Court to approve an award of
attorneys' fees in an amount up to $2,929,166.67 (one-third of
the total amount of the McWane Settlement), and reimbursement for
costs and expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,200,000.00, and
incentive awards of up to $15,000 for each of the eight class
representatives.  The request for attorneys' fees, expenses,
and incentive awards will be available for viewing on the
website below once it is filed with the Court.

When will the Judge decide?
The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing to decide whether to
approve the terms of the McWane Settlement at 10:00 a.m. on
May 10, 2018, at the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, 402 East State Street, Trenton, NJ 08608.
You may appear at the hearing, but you are not required to do so.
The hearing may be moved to a different date or time without
notice. You should check the Settlement Website below for
updates.

This Notice is only a summary.  For more information visit
www.DIPFDirectSettlement.com or call 1 (888) 298-6316.


MDL 2804: Chester May Join Opioid Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Travis Jenkins, writing for The News & Reporter, reports that the
City of Chester is at least exploring the possibility of joining
a national class action lawsuit against the manufacturers and
distributors of opioids.

Cities across the country are dealing with an epidemic of
addiction to opioids, the powerful drugs that include everything
from opium and morphine to synthetic drugs like hydrocodone,
oxycodone and fentanyl.

"The opioid epidemic has reached Chester," said City Councilwoman
Angela Douglas on February 12. "We need to stay ahead of it if we
can."

Douglas said there is a huge toll in terms of lives affected by
the crisis, but there is also a financial toll being carried by
cities like Chester.

"We have to pay for supplies and training and other things," she
said.

Douglas then introduced attorney (and former state senator)
Creighton Coleman, Esq. who had information about a lawsuit
Chester could potentially join.

"A lot of states are joining a class action suit and South
Carolina is going to be one of them," said Coleman, who said a
national law firm out of Baltimore had approached him about
informing communities on the particulars of the suit.

Coleman said the suit would be targeted towards everyone from
manufacturers of opioids down to distributors.

"The cost of this is huge, from EMS and fire to police, judicial
administration, incarceration costs, school system damages, child
protective services . . . this is far reaching," he said.

Also speaking on the suit was former S.C. House member Boyd
Brown.

"This epidemic has hit every demographic, the old and the young,"
he said.

Brown said the problem starts when people, often ones who have
suffered a painful injury, are prescribed opioids. He said they
quickly become addicted.

"They are prescribed this as medication but when it runs out they
continue to want their fix," said Brown, who said when people
can't find their opioid pills, they frequently turn to heroin.

Brown said deaths from opioids have increased every year recently
both nationally and in South Carolina, including a 27.5 percent
jump from 2015 to 2016. He said three opioid-addicted babies were
born in Chester County last year. The number of addicted adults
is obviously much higher than that, he said.

On top of all the other costs, Brown said many police departments
and EMS units are now having to stock up on Narcan, a medication
that blocks the effects of opioids and is frequently used in
cases of overdoses. He said the medication expires quickly and is
expensive, just like incarceration of inmates, drug treatment for
addicts and other ripple effects from opioids. He mentioned a
small town in West Virginia that has 2,800 residents in which 21
million opioid pills a year were sold.

Councilwoman Linda Tinker said many people who are addicted can't
afford hospital care or addiction treatment.

"We as taxpayers are going to have to pay for their care," she
said.

Brown said if the city was interested, a more detailed plan
included the city's specific costs associated with opioids
(including "future costs") and contract could be drawn up quickly
and presented to the council for consideration at its next
scheduled meeting. He said there was no cost attached to the
lawsuit and that the city would only owe the firm involved money
if they won the suit. The council agreed to have Brown return
with that detailed plan late this month. [GN]


MDL 2804: Pendleton Join Class Action Opioid Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Scott Slade, writing for The Times-Post, reports that Pendleton
voted unanimously to join a class action lawsuit against
manufacturers and distributors of opioid pain medications.

"We do have a problem here, we're not different than anywhere
else," Pendleton Town Council President Bob Jones said during the
Feb. 8 meeting.

The council has talked previously about doing what other
communities, including Alexandria, Elwood and Madison County,
have done -- pursue a legal fix from drug companies for the costs
associated with opioid use and abuse, and thereby fight what is
widely regarded major problem across the country.

The town met in executive session prior to the meeting for
further discussion. Jones said there are several class action
lawsuits under way, and he signed off Feb. 13, on Pendleton
joining the suit with Indianapolis and several other communities.

The prime motivation in taking legal action is not money, Jones
said during the council meeting, but rather to try and fight the
problem on whatever levels possible.

"It's, I guess you could say, maybe a statement," Jones later
said. "We feel litigation is a step forward as a community to
take a stance against the distribution system."

If the town does receive any money, it would help pay for costs
and educational opportunities associated with opioids.

Town attorney Alex Intermill, Esq. -- aintermill@boselaw.com --
said the types of costs towns are seeking to recover include the
expense of EMS responses to overdoses, training EMS staff on how
to respond and court costs associated with opioid cases.

"The list is pretty extensive," Intermill said.

Intermill said he would help the town get in contact with
Indianapolis law firm Cohen & Malad, LLP, which has been working
on similar efforts with other government entities.

Cohen & Malad, which according to its website was hired by the
City of Indianapolis to pursue a case against drugmakers,
describes the basis for that lawsuit: "Hoosiers are more likely
to die from a drug overdose than an automobile accident. A recent
dramatic increase in use of prescription opioid pain medications
. . . is the cause of this sobering statement," the website
reads. "Drug manufacturers ? knew that opioids are too addictive
for long-term use for chronic pain yet engaged in deceptive
marketing practices in order to make a profit.

"Counties, cities and towns across Indiana spend millions of
dollars each year on services for law enforcement, health
services, social services and expenses related to the criminal
justice process in their battle against the opioid addiction
epidemic."

Intermill said joining the lawsuit will not cost the town any
money, as it will be handled on a contingency basis; Cohen &
Malad will receive about a third of any settlement, with the
plaintiff's sharing the remainder, he said.

Intermill said he is not involved in the class action effort and
won't be charging the town for any work related to the suit.

In other business, Pendleton also voted unanimously for an
amendment to its animal control ordinance related to
"temperatures and weather."

The ordinance targets dogs confined in a yard, garage, shed or
barn without heating or air conditioning.

The ordinance requires dogs confined outside on days where the
temperature is lower than 40 degrees or higher than 80 degrees
must have a shelter that protects them from the elements.

It has further stipulations that when temperatures are below 20
degrees and above 90 degrees (or when there's a chill warning or
heat advisory), dogs must be brought into a temperature-
controlled facility. An exception is "when the dog (is) in visual
range of a competent adult who is outside with the dog."

The ordinance also includes an exception on the cold end of the
spectrum for "double-coated" dog breeds, such as Siberian Huskies
and Alaskan malamutes, which can tolerate extreme cold. [GN]


MDL 2804: Scott County Votes to Join Opioid Crisis Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Viers, writing for Times News, reports that Scott County
has joined a growing list of counties in the region that are
fighting a legal battle against opioid abuse.

During the Board of Supervisors meeting, board members
unanimously voted to join a class action lawsuit against opioid
distributors and manufacturers, hoping to recover some of the
costs they've incurred from the opioid epidemic.

County attorney Sally Kegley explained to the supervisors that
the effort is being spearheaded by Delegate Terry Kilgore.

"He's working with a national consortium of attorneys that are
looking at a class action against opioid manufacturers and
distributors," Ms. Kegley said, "and he would like to have all
the counties in Southwest Virginia to participate . . . to
recover costs that we all have from the opioid crisis that's
going on."

Ms. Kegley said Kilgore is working with an attorney from a law
firm in West Virginia that filed a similar lawsuit in early 2017.

"If we did get something (from the lawsuit), it'd be more than we
have now," Ms. Kegley said.  "There's no cost to the county to
join."

Board of Supervisors Chairman David Redwine said the Duffield
Regional Jail remains one of the county's biggest expenses, in
large part due to the opioid epidemic.

"These pharmaceutical companies are getting filthy stinking rich
over providing these opioids for these people so they can abuse
them and wreck their lives and end up in jail," Mr. Redwine said.
"So I think if we get on board, it's a good thing, and if they
get $1, we'd get our share."

The next board meeting will be held March 7 at 8:30 a.m. [GN]


MDL 2804: Cayuga County Votes to Join Opioid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Gwendolyn Craig, writing for auburnpub.com, reports that a Cayuga
County Legislature committee has unanimously voted for the county
to join a class action lawsuit against pharmaceutical companies
that manufacture opioids.

Legislators at the Government Operations Committee meeting on
Feb. 13 discussed which law firm to hire, ultimately going with
the committee's recommendation from October, New York City law
firm Napoli Shkolnik PLLC.

While the committee unanimously passed the hire and joining of
the suit, Legislator Tucker Whitman voiced some concerns he had.
The multi-county lawsuit claims that there's a link between
addiction to prescription drugs and substance abuse.  Mr. Whitman
said he'd yet to receive an answer on how much documentation the
county has on whether prescription opioid medications are leading
to drug addiction and use in Cayuga County specifically.

"I'm a little leery," he said.  "I guess we don't have a lot to
lose."

Cayuga County Administrator J. Justin Woods said he expected the
attorneys the county hires would help county staff walk through
how to find that information.

"There's no coincidence that this is a national epidemic,"
Mr. Woods said.  "I think the bigger issue is addressing the
problem and creating accountability."

Onondaga County has already joined the lawsuit in addition to
about a dozen other New York counties.  States across the nation
are also seeking damages against pharmaceutical companies.

The resolution authorizing the litigation still needs to go
through the Ways and Means Committee and the full Legislature.
According to the county's online calendar, Ways and Means will
meet on Feb. 20 in the Sixth Floor Chambers of the Cayuga County
Office Building, 160 Genesee St., Auburn. [GN]


MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Loses Antitrust Class Action Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal appeals
court has declined to review an order certifying a class action
by purchasers of the acne medication Solodyn alleging Medicis
Pharmaceutical Corp sought to delay the launch of generic
versions of the drug in violation of antitrust laws.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston on Feb. 12
declined to take up the appeal by Medicis, a unit of Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International Inc, and generic drugmaker Impax
Laboratories Inc, before the case goes to trial on March 12. [GN]


MEDTRONIC INC: Minnesota Court Certifies Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP on Feb. 13 disclosed that on January 30,
2018, Judge John R. Tunheim of the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota granted class certification in a
consolidated securities fraud class action against Medtronic and
certain of its officers and employees. West Virginia Pipe Trades
Health & Welfare Fund v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-
01686-JRT-FLN (D. Minn. Jan. 30, 2018). Plaintiffs--institutional
investors who purchased Medtronic stock during the proposed class
period--allege that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by manipulating early
clinical studies of INFUSE, an alternative to replacement bone-
tissue graft, by knowingly concealing adverse side effects
observed in clinical trials, and by failing to sufficiently
disclose that it paid physician authors a total of $210 million
to publish positive articles about INFUSE in medical journals.
Plaintiffs allege that Medtronic's deception artificially
inflated the company's stock price, causing a large stock drop in
August 2011, when the truth was revealed through a corrective
disclosure.  Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of all
purchasers of Medtronic stock between September 8, 2010 and
August 3, 2011.  The Court certified the class, but shortened the
class period end date to June 3, 2011, which is the date of the
initial corrective disclosure.

The Court initially noted that other than the length of the
putative class period, defendants did not contest plaintiffs'
assertions of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy
of representation of the class.  Turning to whether questions of
law or fact common to the proposed class predominate over
questions affecting individual class members, the Court focused
on the reliance element of a Section 10(b) claim, which requires,
among other things, plaintiffs to establish that they relied on a
misstatement or omission by defendants.  The Court considered
whether the Supreme Court's holding in Affiliated Ute -- in which
the Supreme Court concluded that a presumption of reliance should
be afforded to plaintiffs in cases involving an alleged material
omission or failure to disclose -- applied to Medtronic's failure
to disclose the extent of its payments to physician authors. The
Court pointed to the Supreme Court's holding that "all that is
necessary [for the presumption of reliance to apply] is that the
facts withheld be material in the sense that a reasonable
investor might have considered them important in the making of
[the purchasing] decision."  Finding that the thrust of the
alleged scheme liability is omissions, not affirmative
statements, the Court held that while some journal articles had
disclosed that the authors had received outside funding "in
excess of $10,000 from Medtronic," that disclosure -- in light of
Medtronic's total payment of $210 million to authors -- did "not
even begin to capture the size or scope" of the truth of the
payments. Accordingly, the Court concluded that plaintiffs were
entitled to a presumption of reliance.

Having concluded that class questions predominated and that a
class action was superior to other available methods for
adjudicating this action, the Court turned to the length of the
proposed class period.  The Court highlighted that in a
securities class action, the class period ends when a corrective
disclosure or curative information "is publicly announced or
otherwise effectively disseminated to the market," although
district courts have reached differing conclusions as to whether
a non-alleged event may constitute a corrective disclosure at the
class certification stage or should instead only be considered on
summary judgment.  The Court cited the Supreme Court's conclusion
in Amgen that merits questions may be considered at class
certification to the extent they are relevant to determining
whether class certification prerequisites are satisfied, and
determined that corrective disclosures are "essential to defining
the class itself" because they mark the end of the class period.
Moreover, citing the Supreme Court's Halliburton II decision and
various district court decisions throughout the country, the
Court observed that courts "have regularly examined the date of
corrective disclosure at the class-certification stage in order
to decide whether the class period should be modified."

The Court then turned to the three possible dates for corrective
disclosure proposed by the parties.  Having found that the
"payments to physicians are the crux of Plaintiffs' scheme-
liability claims," the Court adopted defendants' contention that
the corrective disclosure occurred on June 28, 2011, which is the
earliest of the three possible dates and when The Spine Journal
published an article disclosing the payments made by Medtronic to
the physician authors.  The Court emphasized that as of the date
of The Spine Journal publication, "a reasonable investor would
have known not to rely on the assumption that these studies were
conducted without significant financial incentives."  The Court
also noted that the two analysts' reports published on July 5,
2011 provided the same facts as--and even referred to--The Spine
Journal publication, and therefore "did not provide any new
information to the market or investors."  The Court similarly
found that Medtronic's August 3, 2011 announcement that it would
publicly release INFUSE data for Yale researchers to conduct a
review was not a corrective disclosure because "it did not reveal
any new hidden information to the public; it only reveal[ed]
Medtronic's prospective intent to salvage the viability of
INFUSE."  The Court thus certified the class, but ended the class
period on June 28, 2011.

This decision serves as a reminder of the presumption of reliance
at the class certification stage pursuant to Affiliated Ute in
omission-based securities fraud cases, and the challenges
defendants face if their disclosures amount to alleged omissions
rather than affirmative misstatements.  However, the decision
also demonstrates an opportunity for defendants at the class
certification stage to seek to shorten the proposed class period
based on earlier corrective disclosures, which potentially could
reduce defendants' overall damages exposure.

West Virginia Pipe Trades Health & Welfare Fund v. Medtronic,
Inc., et al. [GN]


MEDTRONIC INC: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, wrote that
Tunheim of the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota granted class certification in a consolidated
securities fraud class action against Medtronic and certain of
its officers and employees.  West Virginia Pipe Trades Health &
Welfare Fund v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-01686-JRT-FLN
(D. Minn. Jan. 30, 2018).  Plaintiffs -- institutional investors
who purchased Medtronic stock during the proposed class period --
allege that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by manipulating early clinical
studies of INFUSE, an alternative to replacement bone-tissue
graft, by knowingly concealing adverse side effects observed in
clinical trials, and by failing to sufficiently disclose that it
paid physician authors a total of $210 million to publish
positive articles about INFUSE in medical journals.  Plaintiffs
allege that Medtronic's deception artificially inflated the
company's stock price, causing a large stock drop in August 2011,
when the truth was revealed through a corrective disclosure.
Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of all purchasers of
Medtronic stock between September 8, 2010 and August 3, 2011.
The Court certified the class, but shortened the class period end
date to June 3, 2011, which is the date of the initial corrective
disclosure.

The Court initially noted that other than the length of the
putative class period, defendants did not contest plaintiffs'
assertions of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy
of representation of the class.  Turning to whether questions of
law or fact common to the proposed class predominate over
questions affecting individual class members, the Court focused
on the reliance element of a Section 10(b) claim, which requires,
among other things, plaintiffs to establish that they relied on a
misstatement or omission by defendants.  The Court considered
whether the Supreme Court's holding in Affiliated Ute -- in which
the Supreme Court concluded that a presumption of reliance should
be afforded to plaintiffs in cases involving an alleged material
omission or failure to disclose -- applied to Medtronic's failure
to disclose the extent of its payments to physician authors.  The
Court pointed to the Supreme Court's holding that "all that is
necessary [for the presumption of reliance to apply] is that the
facts withheld be material in the sense that a reasonable
investor might have considered them important in the making of
[the purchasing] decision."  Finding that the thrust of the
alleged scheme liability is omissions, not affirmative
statements, the Court held that while some journal articles had
disclosed that the authors had received outside funding "in
excess of $10,000 from Medtronic," that disclosure -- in light of
Medtronic's total payment of $210 million to authors -- did "not
even begin to capture the size or scope" of the truth of the
payments.  Accordingly, the Court concluded that plaintiffs were
entitled to a presumption of reliance.

Having concluded that class questions predominated and that a
class action was superior to other available methods for
adjudicating this action, the Court turned to the length of the
proposed class period.  The Court highlighted that in a
securities class action, the class period ends when a corrective
disclosure or curative information "is publicly announced or
otherwise effectively disseminated to the market," although
district courts have reached differing conclusions as to whether
a non-alleged event may constitute a corrective disclosure at the
class certification stage or should instead only be considered on
summary judgment.  The Court cited the Supreme Court's conclusion
in Amgen that merits questions may be considered at class
certification to the extent they are relevant to determining
whether class certification prerequisites are satisfied, and
determined that corrective disclosures are "essential to defining
the class itself" because they mark the end of the class period.
Moreover, citing the Supreme Court's Halliburton II decision and
various district court decisions throughout the country, the
Court observed that courts "have regularly examined the date of
corrective disclosure at the class-certification stage in order
to decide whether the class period should be modified."

The Court then turned to the three possible dates for corrective
disclosure proposed by the parties.  Having found that the
"payments to physicians are the crux of Plaintiffs' scheme-
liability claims," the Court adopted defendants' contention that
the corrective disclosure occurred on June 28, 2011, which is the
earliest of the three possible dates and when The Spine Journal
published an article disclosing the payments made by Medtronic to
the physician authors.  The Court emphasized that as of the date
of The Spine Journal publication, "a reasonable investor would
have known not to rely on the assumption that these studies were
conducted without significant financial incentives."  The Court
also noted that the two analysts' reports published on July 5,
2011 provided the same facts as -- and even referred to -- The
Spine Journal publication, and therefore "did not provide any new
information to the market or investors."  The Court similarly
found that Medtronic's August 3, 2011 announcement that it would
publicly release INFUSE data for Yale researchers to conduct a
review was not a corrective disclosure because "it did not reveal
any new hidden information to the public; it only reveal[ed]
Medtronic's prospective intent to salvage the viability of
INFUSE."  The Court thus certified the class, but ended the class
period on June 28, 2011.

This decision serves as a reminder of the presumption of reliance
at the class certification stage pursuant to Affiliated Ute in
omission-based securities fraud cases, and the challenges
defendants face if their disclosures amount to alleged omissions
rather than affirmative misstatements.  However, the decision
also demonstrates an opportunity for defendants at the class
certification stage to seek to shorten the proposed class period
based on earlier corrective disclosures, which potentially could
reduce defendants' overall damages exposure. [GN]


MERRELL DOW: Reed Smith Discusses Class Certification Rulings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terence N. Hawley, Esq. -- thawley@reedsmith.com -- and Joshua D.
Anderson, Esq. -- janderson@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith, in an
article for Law.com, wrote that class action plaintiffs often
submit expert testimony in support of class certification
motions, raising the question of how defendants should respond --
particularly when the plaintiff's evidence is unreliable or
otherwise deficient.

Federal courts have long applied, to varying degrees, the
admissibility standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 570 (1993), to expert evidence
submitted in connection with class certification proceedings.
Daubert requires the trial court to scrutinize the reliability
and relevance of expert testimony, ensuring that the evidence
meets basic thresholds before it is admitted.

The California Supreme Court articulated a similar admissibility
standard in Sargon Enterprises v. University of Southern
California, 55 Cal. 4th 747 (2012).  Sargon, which involved
expert opinions presented at trial, directs the trial court to
act as a gatekeeper and ensure that an expert's opinions are not
speculative and are based on, and reasonably supported by, proper
data.

Unfortunately, as to expert evidence presented in connection with
class certification motions, California state courts have
arguably been less clear than their federal counterparts
regarding the applicable legal standards and proper level of
scrutiny.  Recent California decisions, however, suggest that the
tide may be turning in the defendants' favor and provide
additional ammunition for attacking dubious expert evidence at
the certification phase.

Apple Inc. v. Superior Court (Shamrell), D072287, ___ Cal. App.
5th ___ (Jan. 29, 2018)

In Shamrell, the Fourth Appellate District vacated an order
certifying classes of purchasers of various iPhone models,
finding that the trial court committed prejudicial error by
refusing to apply Sargon's admissibility standards to the
plaintiffs' expert witness declarations.

The plaintiffs in Shamrell alleged that Apple sold certain
iPhones with power buttons that malfunctioned or failed during
the warranty periods, in violation of various California consumer
protection statutes and warranty laws. Plaintiffs sought damages
and other relief, and moved for class certification.  As support,
plaintiffs offered declarations from experts who opined that
damages could be established on a classwide basis.  Two experts
sought to establish damages with documents reflecting the amounts
Apple charged customers to repair the iPhone buttons or showing
the diminution in trade-in values for the affected phones.
Another expert opined that he could determine damages through a
"conjoint analysis" that purported to show the value consumers
placed on various features, including the power button.

Apple responded that these expert opinions were unreliable under
Sargon because, among other problems, they focused mainly on the
risk of a defect at the time of sale without reference to class
members' actual post-sale experiences (e.g., receipt of the full
trade-in value). The trial court nevertheless certified
plaintiffs' proposed classes, concluding that Sargon did not
apply and that the reliability of plaintiffs' experts was a
class-wide issue for trial.

The court of appeal vacated the order, holding that the trial
court erred by declining to apply Sargon.  The court saw "no
reason why Sargon should not apply equally in the context of
class certification motions," stating that "there is only one
standard for admissibility of expert opinion evidence in
California, and Sargon describes that standard."  The court also
found the trial court's ruling prejudicial: had Sargon been
applied, the declarations may have been excluded due to issues
with the experts' opinions that were never sufficiently explained
or addressed.

Duran vs. U.S. Bank National Association, A148817, ___ Cal. App.
5th ___ (Jan. 17, 2018)

In the latest installment in a long-running wage-and-hour case,
the First Appellate District affirmed a trial court order denying
class certification on the grounds that the plaintiffs' survey
data was unreliable and failed to establish their case was
manageable as a class action.  Notably, the trial court did not
reference Sargon or exclude plaintiffs' survey evidence. Instead,
it considered the evidence in detail and determined it was
insufficient for certification purposes.

In Duran, the named plaintiffs alleged that a bank improperly
classified its business banking officers (BBOs) as overtime
exempt under the outside salesperson exemption, which applies
only to employees who spend more than 50 percent of their workday
on sales outside their employer's place of business. The bank
filed a motion to deny class certification.  In response,
plaintiffs submitted the results of a 2015 survey conducted by
their expert, which supposedly showed that 95.45 percent of
respondents reported spending 50 percent or less of their workday
performing outside sales activities.  Plaintiffs later submitted
a trial plan that proposed to use testimony from different
samples of BBOs to establish liability and restitution.

On reply, the bank submitted a declaration from its own survey
expert, who opined that the 2015 survey suffered from self-
selection bias and significant measurement and estimation errors.
The trial court denied class certification, finding the results
of the 2015 survey were unreliable and failed to show uniformity
in how BBOs spent their time.  The trial court further determined
that it could not manage the bank's affirmative defense that at
least some BBOs worked most of their time outside of the office.

The court of appeal affirmed, holding that the trial court did
not abuse its discretion in ruling that the 2015 survey was
unreliable.  Significant differences existed between the results
of the 2015 survey and a 2008 survey of the same population by
the same expert.  For example, the estimated number of overtime
hours per week nearly doubled in the 2015 survey, with no
explanation by plaintiffs.  Therefore, substantial evidence
supported the trial court's finding that the 2015 survey was
unreliable as evidence of uniformity on how BBOs spent their time
and as a basis for selecting representative samples of witnesses
to testify on liability and restitution.

ABM Industries Overtime Cases, A132387, A133077, A133695, 19 Cal.
App. 5th 277 (Dec. 11, 2017; pub. ord. Jan. 10, 2018)

In ABM Industries, the First Appellate District reached a
different result, but its reasoning appears to be consistent with
Shamrell and Duran.  The ABM plaintiffs sued a janitorial
services company for violations of California labor laws and
moved for certification of various classes allegedly subjected to
different wage-and-hour violations.  Plaintiffs included in their
supporting evidence expert declarations from Aaron Woolfson, who
analyzed timekeeping and payroll data the defendant maintained.
The defendant filed no formal challenge to Mr. Wolfson's
declaration and did not submit a competing opinion.  The trial
court still ruled, however, that Mr. Woolfson's declarations were
inadmissible and denied certification, emphasizing his lack of
"'formal training or degrees that would qualify him as an expert
to review the timekeeping and payroll data at issue.'"

The court of appeal reversed.  It reasoned that, under the
California Evidence Code, expertise need not be based on formal
education or professional certification and can be established in
a number of ways, including by showing that the expert has the
requisite knowledge, familiarity, or experience regarding a
sufficient number of transactions involving the subject matter of
the opinion.  Here, plaintiffs' submissions established that
Mr. Wolfson had experience with numerous complex transactions
sufficient to qualify him as an expert in database management and
analysis.  The court further concluded that, considering all of
the evidence, plaintiffs had met the requirements for class
certification in the context of a wage and hour case due to
predominating common issues regarding the legality of the
defendant's uniform payroll policies.

While the court ultimately admitted the expert testimony and
found in favor of certification, its holding emphasizes the trial
court's cursory treatment and exclusion of the plaintiffs' sole
expert based on its application of erroneous legal assumptions to
his qualifications.  Unlike Shamrell and Duran, there was no
genuine scrutiny by the trial court -- or by the defendant -- of
the expert's methodology or the bases for his opinions.

Takeaways

Shamrell and Duran provide defendants in California state courts
with additional legal support for rigorously analyzing and
challenging expert evidence offered in support of class
certification, and ABM Industries demonstrates the potential
perils associated with failing to do so.  Accordingly, defendants
should consider the following steps in responding to expert
evidence submitted by plaintiffs in connection with class
certification proceedings:

   -- Conduct expert discovery, including document discovery and
depositions;
   -- Retain an opposing expert or consultant (this may be
appropriate even if the plaintiff is not using an expert), and
remain mindful that plaintiffs, too, may challenge your expert's
opinions;
   -- Submit your own expert evidence regarding the Sargon
factors and class certification elements;
    -- Object to or move to strike the plaintiff's expert(s)
under Sargon;
   -- Argue that the plaintiff's expert evidence, even if
admitted, is insufficient to establish a basis for certification.

The optimal strategy will depend on the circumstances, but
whatever the approach, these recent cases support vigorous
challenges to expert evidence presented in support of class
certification.

Terence N. Hawley is a partner in the San Francisco office of
Reed Smith and focuses his practice on complex business disputes
and class action defense.

Joshua D. Anderson is a litigation associate in the firm's San
Francisco office and joined the firm following a clerkship for
Judge Robert Pitman of the Western District of Texas. [GN]


MT&T: Class Action Case Over RESPA Violation Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
Gail Jankowski, Esq. -- gjankowski@carltonfields.com -- of
Carlton Fields, in an article for JDSupra, reports that in this
putative class action, plaintiffs alleged unlawful practices
related to mortgage insurance practices, including a violation of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 ("RESPA").
This case was stayed pending ultimate resolution of a factually-
similar case, Cunningham v. MT&T, on appeal in the Third Circuit.
In both cases, the plaintiffs purchased primary mortgage
insurance ("PMI") from specific insurers, which in turn purchased
reinsurance from their respective mortgagees' captive reinsurance
subsidiaries. Plaintiffs in both suits alleged that this scheme
(between the mortgagee and the PMI insurer) violated RESPA's
anti-kickback and anti-fee splitting provisions between the
mortgagee and the PMI insurer.

In 2016, the Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of
the defendants in Cunningham, upholding its finding that
plaintiffs' claims were time-barred and that plaintiffs could not
equitably toll the limitations period because they had not
exercised reasonable diligence in investigating any potential
RESPA claims within the statute of limitations.

The District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, like
the Third Circuit in Cunningham, found significant that the
homeowners were made aware of the captive reinsurance program
through disclosures at the time of closing and did not elect to
opt out, did not ask questions of the challenged scheme at or
prior to closing, and did not investigate their mortgage until
they were solicited by their current counsel.  Moreover, the
Court rejected the plaintiffs' attempts to differentiate their
case from Cunningham, which was decided at the summary judgment
phase after limited discovery, and not, as in this case, on a
motion for judgment on the pleadings.  The Court went on to
state, "[u]nfortunately for Plaintiffs, there are no answers to
be had from discovery because there are no questions to ask.  The
similarities between this case and Cunningham cannot be
overstated . . . Just like the plaintiffs in Cunningham,
Plaintiffs had all the facts at the time of closing to allege
their claim under RESPA, but their inaction during the
limitations period bars the application of equitable tolling
under a theory of fraudulent concealment."  The court therefore
found the above claims to be time-barred, and also precluded the
remaining claims under the filed-rate doctrine, which provides
that a rate, such as that for PMI, filed with and approved by a
governing regulatory agency is unassailable in judicial
proceedings brought by ratepayers.  The District Court granted
defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. Menichino v.
Citibank, N.A., Case No. 2:12-cv-00058 (USDC W.D. Pa. Jan. 19,
2018). [GN]


MTI INC: Faces Advanced Suit in Ohio Over Unsolicited Facsimiles
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Dermatology v. MTI, Inc. c/o Its Statutory Agent Jeffrey
Baker, Case No. 5:18-cv-00194-SL (N.D. Ohio, January 25, 2018),
brings a nationwide class action complaint against the Defendant
for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, in
sending unsolicited facsimiles to people and businesses who have
not given their consent.

MTI, Inc. sells medical devices worldwide, including the United
States and Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
      Michael L. Berler, Esq.
      Michael L. Fine, Esq.
      FREDERICK & BERLER LLC
      767 East 185th Street
      Cleveland, OH 44119
      Telephone: (216) 502-1055
      Facsimile: (216) 566-9400
      E-mail: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
              mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
              michaelf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com


NEW YORK: Settles Suit Over NYPD Civil Forfeiture Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Denney, writing for Law.com, reports that the New York
City government has reached a settlement with plaintiffs
attorneys in a suit challenging the police department's retention
of seized cash and property in criminal cases in which the city
has agreed to implement a set of reforms.

The plaintiffs, who are represented by The Bronx Defenders and
attorneys from Boies Schiller Flexner, alleged in a proposed
class action suit filed in 2016 that the New York City Police
Department engaged in an unconstitutional practice of withholding
property it seized in criminal cases after the cases were closed.

When property is seized in an arrest, it is held by the New York
City Police Department until it receives a release form a
district attorney's office; DA's offices are required by city
rules to respond to requests for releases within 15 days.

But three plaintiffs alleged in a proposed class action suit
filed in 2016 that the Bronx District Attorney's Office often
disregarded the deadline.

Under the terms of the settlement, the NYPD has agreed to issue
vouchers to defendants in criminal proceedings for property
seized by the time of their arraignment and not seize personal
property such as proof of an arrestee's identity except in
special circumstances.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New
York approved the settlement on Feb. 12.

The Bronx District Attorney's Office, which was not a defendant
in the case, filed to voluntarily join the suit and has also
implemented reforms.

In 2016, Bronx DA Darcel Clark created a property return unit to
manage the return of confiscated property following criminal
cases.

Under the agreement, the NYPD and the Bronx DA admit no
wrongdoing in the case.  The terms of the settlement apply to
property seized in both open and closed criminal cases.  The city
has also agreed to give a combined $10,000 to the three
plaintiffs in the case and to pay reasonable attorney fees.

While there is no public accounting of how much seized property
the NYPD has on hand, the department retained $7 million in
seized cash and auction proceeds during its 2015 fiscal year,
according to court papers.

In a news release, Niji Jain of The Bronx Defenders said that,
before their suit was filed, property seized during an arrest
would often fall down a "black hole of red tape."

"This dysfunctional and unconstitutional practice
disproportionately harms the low-income communities that are
targeted by broken windows policing and least able to afford
these costly consequences," Jain said.  "This long overdue
settlement ensures they will no longer face insurmountable
obstacles to retrieving what is rightfully theirs."

Also representing the plaintiffs in the case were Johanna
Steinberg and Adam Shoop of The Bronx Defenders and Boies
Schiller attorneys Eric Brenner and Nafees Syed.

Assistant Corporation Counsels Sherrill Kurland and Aviva
Horowitz appeared for the city in the case. In an email, Nicholas
Paolucci, a spokesman for the city's Law Department, said the
city is pleased with the decision.

"The settlement recognizes the significant improvements made by
the Bronx DA and the NYPD to ensure accountability, proper
vouchering and timely responses to requests for property as
required under the existing law," he said.

Assistant DA Julian Bond O'Connor appeared for the Bronx DA.
[GN]


NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Invalid Speed-Camera Tickets
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Keshner, writing for New York Daily News, reports that
incomplete paperwork connected to New York City speed camera
violations is wrongfully costing drivers millions, a new class
action lawsuit claims.

Speed camera violations sent to potentially thousands of drivers
are missing crucial language required by law, according to the
Brooklyn federal case filed on Feb. 12.

Without the verbiage and sign-off from a city employee, the
violations are invalid -- but drivers are still unknowingly
opening their wallets to pay the pesky violations, the suit
argues.

"The city is penalizing its citizens for violating the same law
it chooses to ignore," attorney Israel Klein told the Daily News.
The case's lead plaintiff is Abram Muladzhanov, a Brooklyn barber
who paid about $75 for doing 36 in a 25-mile-per hour school
speed zone.

"Mr. Muladzhanov is a hard working individual.  He is seeking to
recover the money the city unlawfully obtained from him,"
Mr. Klein said.

Between 2014 and 2016, the city sent out 2.8 million violation
notices and collected about $122 million in fines, according to
the suit.  The suit looks to represent anyone from 2013 to the
present who got hit with the allegedly faulty tickets.

Mr. Klein estimated that number could run into the hundreds of
thousands.

Not so fast, say city spokespeople pushing back on the suit.

A Department of Transportation spokeswoman said the speeding
notice "is fully compliant with the law" and if drivers really
want the certificate at issue, it's available when requested at
the hearing on the ticket.

"Deterring speeding is a key priority for Vision Zero because
speeding drivers are a leading cause of fatal crashes in New York
City.  Drivers who are speeding are less likely to be able to
avoid crashes, and crashes which they cause are more likely to be
fatal," the spokeswoman added.

"These claims may have no merit," a Law Department spokesman
said.  "We'll review the suit and respond accordingly." [GN]


NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Judge Certifies Pension Plan Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
in Manhattan has certified a class of approximately 20,000
members in a lawsuit accusing New York University of mismanaging
its employees' pension plans.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest on Feb. 13 said the case is
appropriate for class treatment because the facts that will
ultimately prove or disprove the claims about the plans'
management are the same for every individual class member. [GN]


NQ MOBILE: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. on Feb. 13 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired NQ Mobile Inc. (NYSE: NQ)
securities between March 30, 2017 and February 6, 2018 (the
"Class Period").  Investors have until April 11, 2018 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On February 6, 2018, Seeking Alpha published an article entitled
"NQ Mobile: Undisclosed Transfer Of Subsidiaries To Chairman
Introduces Significant Risks - Price Target $0" in which Rota
Fortunae asserted that Chinese corporate records lead them to
believe that insiders control Tongfang Investment Fund, the firm
that recently acquired NQ's mobile gaming and video businesses.
The article further contended that NQ is likely to default when
its convertible debt comes due in October 2018.

Following this news, shares of NQ fell $1.30, or over 43%, to
close at $1.68 on February 6, 2018.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired NQ Mobile securities and
suffered a loss, continue to hold shares purchased prior to the
Class Period, have information, would like to learn more about
these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at
investigations@bespc.com or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by
filling out this contact form.  There is no cost or obligation to
you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a
New York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and
securities litigation. [GN]


NUM PANG HOLDINGS: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Num Pang Holdings
LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Num
Pang Holdings LLC, Num Pang Management, LLC and Num Pang
Restaurants, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01683 (S.D. N.Y.,
February 23, 2018).

Num Pang is a Cambodian sandwich shop.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Obalon
Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq:OBLN) ("Obalon" or the "Company")
securities during the period between October 5, 2016 and January
23, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors who wish to
become proactively involved in the litigation have until April
16, 2018 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Obalon securities during the Class Period.  Members
of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company
recognized revenue in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
principles and that the Company lacked adequate internal controls
over accounting and financial reporting.

According to the complaint, following Obalon's January 23, 2018 a
press release disclosing that "a purported whistleblower
contacted KPMG LLP, the Company's independent auditors, to make
certain allegations relating to allegedly improper revenue
recognition during the Company's fourth fiscal quarter of 2017"
and that "Obalon's Audit Committee will oversee an internal
investigation of these allegations," the value of Obalon shares
declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Obalon securities purchased on or after October 5, 2016 and
held through the revelation of negative information during and/or
at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about
this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you, please contact Brower Piven
either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at
(410) 415-6616.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of
your choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member
of the class.

         Charles J. Piven, Esq.
         Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
         1925 Old Valley Road
         Stevenson, Maryland 21153
         Telephone: 410-415-6616
         Email: hoffman@browerpiven.com
                piven@browerpiven.com [GN]


OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Obalon Therapeutics,
Inc. (NASDAQ: OBLN) securities between October 2, 2016 and
January 23, 2018 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until April
16, 2018 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff
in the lawsuit.

On January 23, 2018, Obalon announced the termination of the
underwriting agreement and cancellation of its previously
announced public stock offering, after, according to the Company,
a purported whistleblower contacted KPMG LLP, the Company's
independent auditor, to make certain allegations relating to
improper revenue recognition during the Company's fourth fiscal
quarter of 2017.

Following this news, the stock price of Obalon fell $1.73 per
share, or over 33%, to close at $3.46 per share on January 23,
2017.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Obalon securities and
suffered a loss, continue to hold shares purchased prior to the
Class Period, have information, would like to learn more about
these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at
investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by
filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm
concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For
additional information concerning the Obalon lawsuit, please go
to www.bespc.com/obalon. For additional information about Bragar
Eagel & Squire, P.C., please go to www.bespc.com.


         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Tel: 212-355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email: walker@bespc.com,
                fortunato@bespc.com  [GN]


OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:OBLN) from
October 5, 2016 through January 23, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Obalon
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Obalon class action, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1275.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Daniel Sadeh, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or dsadeh@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, during the Class Period defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Obalon recognized revenue in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (2) Obalon lacked
adequate internal controls over accounting and financial
reporting; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about
Obalon's business, operations, and prospects were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
April 16, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1275.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Daniel Sadeh, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
dsadeh@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on
Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Since 2014, Rosen Law Firm has
been ranked #2 in the nation by Institutional Shareholder
Services for the number of securities class action settlements
annually obtained for investors.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Daniel Sadeh, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 dsadeh@rosenlegal.com


OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Feb. 14 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of a
class (the "Class") consisting of persons and entities that
acquired Obalon Therapeutics, Inc., ("Obalon" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: OBLN) securities between October 5, 2016 and January 23,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move
the Court no later than 60 days from February 14, 2018, the date
of this notice, to serve as lead plaintiff.  Please contact
Lesley Portnoy at 888-773-9224 or 310-201-9150, or at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter.

On January 23, 2018, Obalon issued a press release disclosing
that "a purported whistleblower contacted KPMG LLP, the Company's
independent auditors, to make certain allegations relating to
allegedly improper revenue recognition during the Company's
fourth fiscal quarter of 2017."  The Company further stated that
"Obalon's Audit Committee will oversee an internal investigation
of these allegations."

On this news, Obalon's stock price fell $1.73 per share, or
33.3%, to close at $3.46 per share on January 23, 2018, on
unusually heavy volume.  The $3.46 closing price represented a
total decline of $11.54, or nearly 77%, from the IPO price of
$15.00 per share.

The filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company
recognized revenue in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
principles ("GAAP"); (2) that the Company lacked adequate
internal controls over accounting and financial reporting; and
(3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements and Defendants' statements about Obalon's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

If you purchased shares of Obalon during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than 60 days from February 14, 2018, the
date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff.  To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or
take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.  If you
wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley
Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century
Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310)
201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. [GN]


OHR PHARMA: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation, disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Ohr
Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Nasdaq:OHRP) ("Ohr" or the "Company")
securities during the period between June 24, 2014 and January 4,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors who wish to
become proactively involved in the litigation have until April
16, 2018 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Ohr securities during the Class Period.  Members of
the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel
chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been certified in
the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company's
lead product, Squalamine, would not produce vision improvements
and was commercially not viable.

According to the complaint, following a January 5, 2018 report
that topline data from its MAKO study did not meet its primary
efficacy endpoint, the value of Ohr shares declined
significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Ohr securities purchased on or after June 24, 2014 and held
through the revelation of negative information during and/or at
the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about
this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you, please contact Brower Piven
either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at
(410) 415-6616.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of
your choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member
of the class.

         Charles J. Piven, Esq.
         Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
         1925 Old Valley Road
         Stevenson, Maryland 21153
         Telephone: 410-415-6616
         Email: hoffman@browerpiven.com
                piven@browerpiven.com [GN]


OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: April 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Feb. 14 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc.
("Ohr" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:OHRP) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Ohr securities on the open market from June 24, 2014 and
January 4, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) the Company's lead
product Squalamine would not produce vision improvements and was
commercially not viable; and (2) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects were misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On January 5, 2018, the Company announced topline data from its
MAKO study to evaluate the use of Squalamine combination therapy
for the treatment of wet-AMD.  The Company announced the MAKO
study did not meet its primary efficacy endpoint. Following this
news, shares of Ohr fell from a close of $2.02 on January 4,
2018, to a close of $0.38 on January 5, 2018.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the April 16, 2018
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-
law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]


PELLA WINDOWS: Plaintiffs' Counsel Seeks Approval of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Clifford, Esq., of Clifford Law Offices, in an article
for The National Law Review, wrote that plaintiffs' counsel
petitioned the court on Feb. 12, 2018 for approval of a proposed
settlement between Pella Window Corp. and consumers who purchased
Pella Proline wood casement windows between the years 1991 and
2009 that now display wood rot.

The settlement comes after several years of contentious
litigation.

The magistrate judge oversaw discovery, and also presided over
extensive settlement discussions.  The magistrate ultimately made
a recommendation for settlement.

The district court judge will review the proposed settlement plan
and, upon preliminary approval, notice of the settlement terms
will be sent by third party claims administrator KCC to consumers
who purchased the windows at issue. [GN]


PJ HOLDINGS: Transferred "Hollingsworth" Suit to Idaho Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on October 9, 2017, captioned
James Hollingsworth, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons v. PJ Holdings KY, LLC, PJ Operations, LLC, PJ
OPS Colorado, LLC, PJ OPS Idaho, LLC, PJ OPS Kansas, LLC, PJ OPS
Louisiana, LLC, PJ Operations Minnesota, L.L.C., PJ OPS New York,
LLC, PJ West Fargo, LLC, and PJ Acquisitions, LLC, Case No. 2:17-
cv-02590, was transferred on January 25, 2018, from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Idaho. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00037 to the proceeding.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

The Defendants operates at least 31 Papa John's franchise stores,
including stores located in Kansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, Tennessee and
Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
      PAUL LLP
      601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
      Kansas City, MO 64106
      Telephone: (816) 984-8100
      Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
      E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Forrest T. Rhodes Jr., Esq.
      FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP
      1551 N Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100
      Wichita, KS 67206-4466
      Telephone: (316) 291-9555
      Facsimile: (866) 347-5132
      E-mail: frhodes@foulston.com


POLTRONA FRAU: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Poltrona Frau. The
case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Poltrona Frau, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01673 (S.D. N.Y., February 23, 2018).

Poltrona Frau is a furniture-maker founded in 1912 by Sardinian-
born Renzo Frau in Turin, Italy, headquartered since the early
1960s in Tolentino, Italy and specializing in leather seating for
interior and automotive applications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


PORSCHE DESIGN: Faces "Thorne" Suit in Southern District New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Porsche Design of
America, Inc. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Porsche
Design of America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01678 (S.D.
N.Y., February 23, 2018).

Porsche Design of America, Inc. is a German sports-lifestyle
brand driven by technical innovation, outstanding design and
quality.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq.
   Daniel Cohen PLLC
   407 Rockaway Avenue, 3rd Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11212
   Tel: (646) 645-8482
   Email: dan@cml.legal


QUANTUM CORP: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing
investors nationwide, announces that it has filed a class action
against Quantum Corporation ("Quantum" or the "Company")
(NYSE:QTM) and certain of its officers and directors alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.  Quantum shareholders
are encouraged to contact Block & Leviton using the information
below ahead of the April 16, 2018 lead plaintiff filing deadline.

On February 8, 2018, Quantum disclosed that in January of 2018,
the Company received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) related to revenue recognition for certain
transactions, prompting an internal investigation by Quantum,
which remains ongoing.  As a result, the Company announced that
it "is postponing release of its fiscal third quarter 2018
results and its earnings conference call."  On this news,
Quantum's stock fell dramatically causing millions of dollars in
losses to investors.

The complaint, filed in in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California (Lazan v. Quantum
Corporation, et al., No. 5:18-cv-00923) alleges that between July
27, 2016 through February 7, 2018 inclusive (the "Class Period"),
Quantum and certain of its executives misrepresented the
Company's financial results.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that (i) Quantum had inappropriately accounted
for revenue relating to certain transactions commencing April 1,
2016; (ii) the Company lacked adequate internal controls over
financial reporting; and (iii) that as a result of the foregoing,
Quantum's publicly disseminated financial statements were
materially false and misleading.

If you purchased Quantum stock during the Class Period and wish
to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than April 16, 2018.  As a member of the class, you may seek to
file a motion to serve as a lead plaintiff or take no action and
remain an absent class member. If you wish to become involved in
the litigation or have questions about your legal rights, you are
encouraged to contact attorney Bradley Vettraino at (617) 398-
5600, by email at bradley@blockesq.com or by visiting
www.blockesq.com/quantum

Confidentiality to whistleblowers or others with information
relevant to this investigation is assured.

Block & Leviton LLP http://www.blockesq.com-- is a Boston-based
law firm representing investors nationwide.  The firm's lawyers
have collectively been prosecuting securities cases on behalf of
individual and institutional investors for over 50 years, and
have recovered billions of dollars on their behalf.  Block &
Leviton's investigations into corporate wrongdoing were recently
covered by the New York Times. [GN]


QUANTUM CORP: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on February 13, 2018, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against Quantum Corporation
(NYSE:QTM). The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is July 27, 2016 through
February 7, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Quantum
Corporation shareholders who purchased common stock during the
Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described
above. You may move the Court no later than Monday, April 16,
2018 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However,
in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information
and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or
should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice
or preservation of your rights, please contact:

         Robin Hester, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Website: www.federmanlaw.com
         Email: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]


QUANTUM CORP: April 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Quantum Corporation ("Quantum" or the
"Company") (NYSE:QTM) and certain of its officers.   The class
action, filed in United States District Court, for the Northern
District of California, is on behalf of a class consisting of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Quantum securities,
seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Quantum securities between
July 27, 2016, and February 7, 2018, both dates inclusive, you
have until April 16, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action,
contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing
address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Quantum sells scale-out tiered storage, archive and data
protection solutions for capturing, sharing, managing and
preserving digital assets in physical and virtual environments.
Among other products, Quantum provides storage file systems,
nearline storage systems, backup, and deduplication appliances,
tape libraries, and cloud services.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Quantum had
inappropriately accounted for revenue relating to certain
transactions commencing April 1, 2016; (ii) the Company lacked
adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (iii)
that as a result of the foregoing, Quantum's publicly
disseminated financial statements were materially false and
misleading.

On February 8, 2018, before trading had opened, Quantum disclosed
that it had received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 11, 2018 "regarding its accounting
practices and internal controls related to revenue recognition
for transactions commencing April 1, 2016," prompting an internal
investigation by Quantum's audit committee, which remains
ongoing. As a result, the Company further announced that it would
postpone the release of its fiscal third quarter 2018 results and
earnings call.

On this news, Quantum's share price plunged 29.9% to close at
$3.90 on February 8, 2018, causing millions of dollars in losses
to investors.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz,
known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm
pioneered the field of securities class actions.  Today, more
than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the
tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims
of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate
misconduct.  The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar
damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN]


REALREAL: Files Motion to Dismiss Diamond Carat Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bates, writing for JCK News, reports that online consignment
site RealReal has filed a motion to dismiss a proposed class-
action lawsuit which charges it with misrepresenting diamond
carat weights, saying the weights on the site are listed as
estimates.

According to the original complaint, filed Dec. 4 in Northern
California federal court, plaintiff Gaby Basmadjian bought an 18k
gold pave 2.1 cts. t.w. diamond ring from the site in August
2017.  A gemologist later told Basmadjian that the ring contained
only 1.2 cts. t.w. in diamonds, the complaint said.

The RealReal's motion to dismiss, filed Feb. 1, argued that the
site's "standard practice for all gemstone jewelry is the same;
all product descriptions include the disclosures: 'All gemstone
weights and measurements are approximate.'

"There are no facts alleged in the Complaint that in any way
suggest the difference between [The RealReal's] estimate and
Plaintiff's gemologist's estimate is a deliberate
misrepresentation, as opposed to a simple mistake, the result of
using a different methodology, or the difference between
estimating the carat weight of dozens of tiny diamond chips while
in their original mounting versus actually measuring each
individual pave diamond chip," the site's response said.

The response further asserted that the Federal Trade Commission's
Guides for the Jewelry Industry should not apply in this case,
since they only cover "actual, not estimated, carat weights."

The defendant's motion also argued that the plaintiff lacks
standing to launch the class-action suit since her complaint
"does not identify any other piece of jewelry sold on the [The
RealReal] website during the last four years that listed an
incorrect carat weight for that item . . . even though [The
RealReal] sold thousands of jewelry items, including rings,
watches, bracelets, and necklaces, during that four-year period."

Last month, The RealReal announced it would partner with
University of Arizona on a new gemology PhD degree program. [GN]


REMINGTON: Appeals Panel Unlikely to Unravel Rifle Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal
appeals panel appeared unlikely to unravel a controversial class
action settlement over defects in Remington rifles, raising
doubts that a low claims rate necessarily indicates there's
something inherently wrong with the notices that went out.

The settlement, designed to provide refunds or repair an
estimated 7.5 million Remington Model 700 rifles with allegedly
defective triggers, has been a target of critics because of its
dismal claims rate.  Attorneys general from 21 states filed
contrasting amicus briefs in the case, divided over whether the
settlement created a public safety hazard in failing to reach
enough class members or had adequately attempted to compensate
gun owners for economic injuries without infringing on their
rights.

On Feb. 14, Sarah Westcot -- swestcot@bursor.com -- a senior
associate at Bursor & Fisher in Walnut Creek, California, who
represented two objectors to the settlement, told the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that a claims rate of 0.29
percent showed the notice plan was inadequate and, among other
things, demanded reversal of the 2014 settlement's approval.

"What it boils down to is a question of whether it is OK to
approve a class settlement where the claims rate is just so
appallingly low," she said.  Under Federal Rule 23 of Civil
Procedure, lawyers are supposed to use the "best notice that is
practicable" in reaching out to class members.  "Direct mail
notice gets the highest rates, and they simply chose to disregard
that," she said of the settlement's lawyers.

But she got a lot of skepticism from the panelists: James Loken,
a George H.W. Bush appointee; William Benton, an appointee of
George W. Bush; and Donald Trump appointee Ralph Erickson, who
joined the bench in October. The justices appeared dubious that
just because class members hadn't made claims didn't mean the
notice didn't reach them.

"The way to reach particularly young people today may be
completely off the charts in terms of what experts said 10 years
ago," Mr. Loken said.  "Times change, and the law has general
principles that have to be adaptable."

They noted that class members could still make claims for several
years, and the claims rate appeared to be going up regularly.
They also pointed out that many class members might not have made
claims because of concerns about the government taking their guns
if they turned them over to Remington for repairs.

Kevin P. Parker, attorney and appellate law specialist with The
Lanier Law Firm in Houston.

Plaintiffs attorney Kevin Parker at The Lanier Law Firm in
Houston defended the deal, which resolved a case with numerous
hurdles, such as statutes of limitations.

"The result of the defect is an unintentional discharge of the
weapon, something everybody everywhere wants to avoid," he said.
"We want to get that fixed, and what this settlement does is
provide away for that to happen."

"The panel correctly recognized that the legal standard, which is
the 'best notice practicable under the circumstances' means
different things at different times," Parker said in an
interview. "I think the panel understood that, and that's right
in line with the way we were looking at it, too."

The Remington rifles were the subject of a CNBC report called
"Remington Under Fire," but Remington has denied the existence of
such a defect. The settlement does not resolve lawsuits over
injuries or deaths.

In 2015, District Judge Ortrie Smith of the Western District of
Missouri refused to approve the settlement after the notice plan
attracted only 2,327 claims -- which he called an "appalling"
claims rate.  Lawyers in the case came up with a new plan,
largely based on a "state-of-the-art social media campaign,"
which raised the number of claimants to 22,000. Smith approved
the deal, which includes $12.5 million in attorney fees and
costs, but was still "concerned as to why more claims have not
been submitted."

Among the settlement's critics are Todd Hilsee of The Hilsee
Group in Philadelphia, who has worked with the Federal Judicial
Center to develop class action notice standards.  Mr. Hilsee has
insisted that plans based on social media and emails are less
effective than traditional postcards sent through the U.S. mail.

But a push to bring notice plans into the Internet age prompted
the U.S. Judicial Conference's Committee on Rules of Practice and
Procedure to introduce a proposal that would encourage electronic
notice plans.

That proposal should go into effect later this year, said
John Sherk -- jsherk@shb.com -- a San Francisco partner at Shook,
Hardy & Bacon, who represented Remington Arms Co., at the Feb. 14
hearing.  He insisted that the notice plan in the Remington
settlement was "unprecedented."

"It went way beyond as good as practicable," he said. "It was the
best that we could do." [GN]


REMINGTON ARMS: Bankruptcy Filing May Jeopardize Rifle Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cohn, writing for CNBC, reports that an expected bankruptcy
filing by Remington, which the gun manufacturer announced on
Feb. 12, could jeopardize a landmark class action settlement
involving the company's iconic Model 700 bolt-action rifle,
according to an attorney involved in the case.

"If they file for bankruptcy, it will stay all proceedings," said
Mark Lanier, a lead attorney for plaintiffs who claim that for
decades, Remington covered up a deadly design defect that allows
the rifle -- and a dozen similar models -- to fire without the
trigger being pulled.  CNBC first investigated the allegations,
which Remington staunchly denies, in 2010.

In 2014, while still maintaining the guns are safe, Remington
agreed to replace the trigger mechanisms, free of charge, on
millions of guns in order to settle the case.  But two Model 700
owners, Richard Denney of Oklahoma and Lewis Frost of Louisiana,
appealed the settlement.  They argue the agreement deliberately
downplays the risks from the guns, and does not do enough to
notify the public.  A three-judge panel of the Eighth U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals was scheduled to hear oral arguments in
the case on Feb. 13 in Kansas City.

Lanier, who stands to share in $12.5 million in legal fees should
the deal go through, said that while much depends on how the
bankruptcy is structured, he is concerned that none of the guns
will be retrofitted.

"There is a real chance that these objectors have messed this up
for everyone," Lanier said in an email.

But an attorney for Denney and Frost, J. Robert Ates in
New Orleans, calls Mr. Lanier's comments "specious and
scurrilous."

Mr. Ates blames what he calls the "bogus settlement" for the
delay, noting that fewer than 30,000 gun owners out of 7.5
million have submitted claims to have their guns retrofitted,
which he attributes to a "totally flawed notice campaign."

"The fact is that at the end of the day, no guns were going to be
repaired anyway (under the settlement)," Mr. Ates said.

Mr. Ates says the bankruptcy filing should be "of no moment" in
terms of the class action case, particularly because the suit
also named as a defendant E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company,
which owned Remington when the original Model 700 trigger
mechanism was developed in the 1940s until it sold the company in
1993.  The company, which merged with Dow Chemical last year to
form DowDuPont, recorded $24 billion in revenues 2016.

Under the proposed settlement -- which Remington and plaintiffs
have claimed could be worth upwards of $500 million -- DuPont
would fund only a tiny amount, covering product vouchers being
offered to owners of some of the oldest Remington models.  DuPont
has also continuously maintained that the guns are safe.

Neither Remington nor its attorneys responded to multiple emails
about whether the company intends to abide by the agreement in
the event of a bankruptcy filing.  While the settlement includes
a guarantee that the company will meet its financial obligations
under the agreement, it does not address the possibility of a
bankruptcy.

An icon falls
The expected bankruptcy filing, announced by parent company
Remington Outdoors on Feb. 12, caps a remarkable fall for
America's oldest gun manufacturer, which was founded in 1816.

In part, Remington is the victim of broader pressures in the gun
industry, says Rommel Dionisio, a managing director of equity
research at Aegis Capital in New York.  Retailers and
distributors stocked up on inventory in 2016 amid predictions
that Hillary Clinton would be elected President.  Donald Trump's
election left gun owners "feeling more secure about the second
amendment," and retailers with bloated inventories.

But while Mr. Dionisio says other manufacturers are starting to
show signs of a rebound, some of Remington's problems are unique.

"Because of all the debt they have and their high exposure to
modern sporting rifles, they weren't able to handle the cyclical
downturn," he said.

The company has approximately $950 million in debt, aggravated in
part by millions in product liability claims it has paid over the
years.  In its report to investors, Remington said sales last
year plunged more than 30 percent.  The company said it has
reached an agreement with its lenders to restructure the debt in
bankruptcy, but the report does not mention the pending class
action settlement.

Bet gone bad
The events are the latest in what has turned out to be a
disastrous bet by private equity firm Cerberus, which began
buying up gun companies -- including Remington -- a decade ago.
In 2009, the company announced plans for an initial public
offering of what was then known as Freedom Group, which also
included iconic brands such as Marlin and Bushmaster.

But soon after CNBC's initial investigation of Remington in 2010,
Freedom Group dropped its plans for the IPO, citing market
conditions.

Then, in 2012, came the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School
in Newtown, Connecticut, in which 20 children and six adults were
killed with a Bushmaster AR-15 assault-style rifle.  With
institutional investors seeking to distance themselves from gun-
related investments, Cerberus announced it would exit the gun
business.  But it was unable to find a buyer.

Ultimately, Cerberus would come up with an arrangement to allow
investors to cash out of Freedom Group, which was eventually
renamed Remington Outdoors.  All the while, the debt piled up,
and liability claims continued.

Since the class action settlement was announced in 2014, more
court cases have linked alleged design defects in the Model 700
to injuries and deaths, involving both the original trigger
mechanism first marketed in the 1940s, and a successor, known as
the X-Mark Pro, launched in 2007.

Remington contends the design of the X-Mark Pro is safe as well,
but the class action settlement includes a recall of some models
because of what the company acknowledges was a problem in
manufacturing that could cause the guns to fire without a trigger
pull.  The settlement was aimed at ending the litigation once and
for all, but it has been in limbo almost since it was first
announced. [GN]


REMINGTON ARMS: Sandy Hook Class Action Appeal Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Bill Hutchinson, writing for ABC News, reports that for more than
200 years, Remington has been one of America's best known
gunmakers, a wild west throwback whose durable products have been
favored by sportsmen as well as the military.

But on Feb. 12, the North Carolina-based company announced it
intends to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection due to
massive debt.

"We will emerge from this process with a deleveraged balance
sheet and ample liquidity, positioning Remington to compete more
aggressively and to seize future growth opportunities,"
Anthony Acitelli, Remington's chief executive officer, said in a
statement, adding that the "fundamentals of our core business
remain strong."

Experts say the changing winds in Washington, specifically the
election of President Donald Trump, has dramatically reduced the
demand of guns and have hurt the bottom line of manufacturers
like the Remington Outdoor Company.

Robert Spitzer, chairman of the political science department at
the State University of New York at Cortland, said gun sales
spiked during the 2016 presidential campaign because buyers
feared Hillary Clinton would win and continue to strengthen gun
regulations put in place by the Obama administration.

"We have seen the rise of 'political sales,' that is when people
go out and purchase guns to make a political statement,"
Mr. Spitzer told ABC News.  "Donald Trump was the 'great friend'
of the National Rifle Association.  They endorsed him early, then
he wins and so the political incentive is gone.  There's no
looming threat of the national government imposing restrictions
or taking guns away."

At the NRA convention last April, Trump told attendees, "You came
through big for me, and I am going to come through for you.  The
eight-year assault on your Second Amendment freedoms has come to
a crashing end."

FBI statistics show firearm background checks spiked in the last
months of the 2016 presidential campaign rising from 1.87 million
in May, when Trump was trailing Clinton, to 2.56 million in
November, the month Trump was elected.  Following the election,
firearm background checks sank to 1.74 million by July 2017.

"I think Remington's decline is, in part, a reflection of the
'Trump slump,'" Adam Winkler, a professor of law at UCLA and
author of the book "Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear
Arms in America," told ABC News.

But Mr. Winkler said Remington's financial woes are also tied to
a class-action lawsuit over defective parts in the company's most
popular firearms, including its iconic Model 700 rifle.  As part
of a settlement approved in March 2017, Remington agreed to
replace the triggers for free in more than 7.5 million guns.

Remington's reputation also took a hit when loved ones of those
killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook, Connecticut, school massacre,
filed a class action suit charging the company's marketing of its
Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifle, the firearm used by the killer,
was responsible for the shooting.  A judge threw out the suit in
October 2016, ruling the company had immunity under a law passed
in 2005, but the Connecticut Supreme Court is considering an
appeal by the families.

"The long-term debt that they (Remington) was struggling with
made the downturn in sales that much more worse for them,"
Mr. Winkler said.

In a statement released on Feb. 12, Remington said they have come
up with a restructuring plan to reduce its debt by $700 million
while injecting $145 million of new capital into its
subsidiaries.

"I am confident this regrouping ensures that Remington will
continue as both a strong company and an indelible part of our
national heritage," Jim Geisler, executive director of Remington,
said in the statement. [GN]


ROBERT HALF: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robert Half
International, Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Robert Half International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01669 (S.D. N.Y., February 23, 2018).

Robert Half International, is an American human resource
consulting firm based in Menlo Park, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


RODD & GUNN: Faces "Andrews" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rodd & Gunn USA,
Inc. The case is styled as Victor Andrews, Individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Rodd & Gunn USA, Inc. doing business as: Rodd &
Gunn, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01210 (E.D. N.Y., February 23,
2018).

Rodd & Gunn sells men's shoes & clothing.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Averts Class Action Over Cruise Cancellation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Underwood, writing for Florida Record, reports that the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
dismissed a class action brought against Royal Caribbean claiming
the company should have canceled a cruise before a natural
disaster.

Plaintiff Nikki McIntosh's claims against Royal Caribbean were
dismissed without prejudice by Judge James Lawrence King,
according to the Feb. 7 opinion.

The complaint stemmed from a Royal Caribbean cruise scheduled to
leave in August 2017 from the Port of Galveston in Houston; the
cruise was canceled the day Hurricane Harvey was set to make
landfall.  Ms. McIntosh argued the cruise line should have
canceled the cruise sooner, saving her and thousands of others
travel time in dangerous weather, according to background
information in the opinion.

However, Royal Caribbean argued based on the ticket contract and
Ms. McIntosh having no actual injuries, she has no case.

"Plaintiff herself does not allege that she sustained any
injuries, what they were, how she was injured, or that she even
travelled to the Houston area herself like the class of people
she hopes to represent," Judge Lawrence wrote in the opinion.

Lawrence cites Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal
to detail the survival the motion to dismiss.

"A complaint must include enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face," and "A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged," Lawrence wrote
in the opinion.

In the case discussion, Judge Lawrence cited two precedent cruise
line cases -- Keefe v. Bahama Cruise Lines (1989) and Sorrels v.
NCL 2015 -- specifically addressing McIntosh's alleged emotional
distress.

"To state a negligence claim, Plaintiff must allege that
Defendant had a duty of care, Defendant breached that duty, that
such breach was the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiff's
injury, and that Plaintiff suffered damages," Judge Lawrence
wrote in the opinion.  "Further, 'a plaintiff alleging
(intentional infliction of emotional distress) faces an extremely
high burden' in the form of allegations of conduct so outrageous
'as to go beyond of bounds of decency, and to be regarded as
odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.'"

Judge Lawrence said "fatal" to Ms. McIntosh's complaint is that
she herself has no evidence to prove harm.

"While she recites a laundry list of harms allegedly suffered by
the class she hopes to represent, she fails to allege any
specific harms that befell her as a result of Defendant's various
alleged failures and negligent acts," Judge Lawrence wrote in the
opinion.

"Finally, Plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional
distress claim is due to be dismissed with prejudice," Judge
Lawrence wrote.  "As noted, in order to maintain such a claim, a
plaintiff must allege conduct on the part of Defendant so
outrageous as to go beyond all bounds of decency, and to be
regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized
community."

Judge Lawrence also wrote that Ms. McIntosh's argument "fails to
allege conduct sufficiently outrageous to meet the requirements
of Florida law for such a claim, and must be dismissed." [GN]


SAINT JOHN, NB: Class-Action Lawsuit Over West Side Water Woes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bobbi-Jean MacKinnon, writing for CBC News, reports that a class-
action lawsuit has been filed against the City of Saint John on
behalf of west side residents faced with leaking pipes and costly
repairs they allege are due to their water source being changed
as part of system upgrades.

The statement of claim alleges the city was "negligent and
breached duties of care" by failing to "adequately test, analyze
and/or review the distinct chemistry of the new water source and
condition of the water pipes before, during and after the
switchover."

The city also failed to "adequately design, construct, inspect,
repair, maintain, operate and supervise the water supply and
distribution system," according to the statement of claim, filed
with the Court of Queen's Bench February 14 on behalf of the two
representative plaintiffs -- Frances Brownell and Cheryl Steadman
-- and other members.

In addition, the city is accused of breach of contract in that
"there was an implied term that the water supplied would be fit
for the purpose and would not damage the water distribution
system."

The lawsuit is seeking damages to cover existing and future costs
of repairing structural damage, and repairing or replacing pipes,
appliances and other equipment.

It also seeks to have the pipes, appliances and equipment of
every member tested at least twice during the next year and calls
for compensation for reduced property values.

None of the allegations in the statement of claim have been
proven in court and the lawsuit has not yet been certified.

The city has not yet filed a statement of defense, but Mayor Don
Darling told CBC News the city is aware the action has been
filed.

"The matter is currently under review, and the City is not in a
position to comment," he said in an emailed statement.

The lawsuit comes less than a week after Darling faced about 350
angry west side residents who threatened to take legal action if
the water problems weren't resolved soon.

It's unclear how many people have signed up for the lawsuit so
far. Saint John lawyer Rodney Gillis, Esq. who filed the suit,
could not immediately be reached for comment.

In September, about 5,600 customers on the city's west side were
switched over to water drawn from the South Bay Wellfield instead
of the Spruce Lake Reservoir as part of the Safe Clean Drinking
Water project.

As of Feb. 6, 107 customers serviced with the new ground water
source have filed complaints of leaking pipes. One resident at
the Feb. 8 community meeting said it cost him $16,000 to repair
the damage at his home.

Other complaints have included water heater problems, irritated
skin and stained dishes.

The lawsuit alleges the city switched the affected residents to a
new well source, knowing the water had "distinct physical and
chemical properties."

That "distinct chemistry" descaled their water pipes, damaging
them and/or causing them to fail, the document claims.

Similarly, the new water caused their appliances, water heaters
and other equipment to "be damaged and/or fail."

The lawsuit alleges the city failed to collect, calculate,
analyze and/or inspect the data of both the "distinct chemistry
and/or pressure in a timely manner or at all."

The city is also accused of "deliberately creating and
[increasing] the hazards, threats and dangers that arose by
changing the water source."

The "acts and omissions" of the city were conducted in a
"reckless and grossly negligent matter," the statement of claim
alleges.

"An award of punitive damages to recognize the purposes of class
actions, protect consumers and to punish and deter wrongful
corporate conduct is entirely appropriate," it states.

The lawsuit is also seeking damages for loss of use and enjoyment
of real property, loss of the amenities of life, and for mental,
emotional and psychological harm, including loss of the enjoyment
of life.

Other remedies sought include costs, interest and other relief,
yet to be determined. [GN]


SAM'S WEST: April 9 Fairness Hearing on $6MM Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
The following release was issued by RG/2 Claims Administration
LLC, as Claims Administrator, on behalf of Richardson, Patrick,
Westbrook & Brickman, LLC

Legal Notice

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Myriam Fejzulai, et al. v. Sam's West, et al., Case No. 6:14-cv-
03601-BHH

If you purchased certain Fresh Products from Sam's Club and
returned that product but did not receive the full value of the
Freshness Guarantee, a class action settlement may affect your
rights.

You are hereby notified that a settlement has been preliminarily
approved by the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina (the "Court") in a class action lawsuit entitled
Myriam Fejzulai, et al. v. Sam's West, et al., Case No. 6:14-cv-
03601-BHH (the "Lawsuit"). This notice is summary only.  You
should read the full notice for complete information.

WHO'S INCLUDED?

The Court has decided that for settlement purposes, any Sam's
Club member who purchased certain Fresh Products from Sam's Club
and returned that product but did not receive the full value of
the Freshness Guarantee during the time periods covered by the
Settlement (as set forth in more detail in the full notice) is a
considered a Settlement Class Member.  This makes you a member of
the "Settlement Class".

WHAT IS THIS SETTLEMENT ABOUT?

The Lawsuit claims that Sam's Club at times did not fully honor
the Freshness Guarantee with respect to certain fresh products
purchased at Sam's Clubs within the United States.  Sam's Club
denies any liability or wrongdoing with respect to the claims
alleged in the Lawsuit.  The parties desire to settle the case
because a settlement will avoid the risk, expense and distraction
of continued litigation.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

The settlement provides for the following relief: Sam's Club will
fund a Class Settlement Amount of up to $6,000,000.  The Class
Settlement Amount will be used to provide Settlement Class
Members with the opportunity to apply for and receive a gift card
redeemable towards purchases made at Walmart stores, Sam's Club
stores, walmart.com, or samsclub.com, to pay for administration
of the settlement proceeds, to pay attorney fees and expenses and
Class Counsel, and to pay for incentive awards to the Class
Representatives.  Class Counsel will apply for fees in an amount
not to exceed 30% of the settlement and will seek reimbursement
of reasonable expenses.  The anticipated value of the gift card
will be $10, although the actual amount of the gift card could be
higher or lower depending on the number of claims submitted. To
qualify for a payment from the settlement, you must submit a
Claim Form.  To file a Claim Form, visit the settlement website,
http://www.samsclubfreshnesssettlement.com. Your claim must be
submitted no later than March 26, 2018.

WHAT ARE MY LEGAL RIGHTS?

1. If you do not want a payment and do not want to be legally
bound by the terms of the settlement, you must exclude yourself
by sending a signed letter saying that you want to be excluded
from Fejzulai v. Sam's West, Inc., Case No. 6:14-cv-03601-BHH.
Your request for exclusion must be mailed to the Claims
Administrator, postmarked no later than March 26, 2018.  If you
do not exclude yourself you will remain a Settlement Class Member
and will be eligible to submit a claim for money benefits.
Regardless of whether you submit a Claim Form, if you do not
specifically exclude yourself, you will be bound by the Proposed
Settlement which contains a release of claims against Sam's Club.
See the full notice for more details.
2. If you're a Settlement Class Member, and have not excluded
yourself from the settlement, you can object to the settlement if
you don't like any part of it.  To object, you must send a signed
letter to the Court and the Parties saying that you object to the
settlement in Fejzulai v. Sam's West, Inc., Case No. 6:14-cv-
03601-BHH.  This objection must be received no later than March
26, 2018.

WHEN IS THE FAIRNESS HEARING?

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 2:00 p.m. on April 9,
2018 in the United States District Court located in Charleston,
South Carolina.  At this hearing, the Court will consider whether
the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. After the
hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the settlement.

For more information, including to obtain a copy of the full
notice, call 1-866-742-4955, or visit the settlement website at
http://www.samsclubfreshnesssettlement.com,or write to:

     Sam's Freshness Guarantee Claims Administrator
     PO Box 59479
     Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479


SUNRUN INC: April 9 Shareholder Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP and Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP regarding the In re
Sunrun Shareholder Litigation.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

IN RE SUNRUN SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION

Master File No.: CIV 538215

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
THE COMMON STOCK OF SUNRUN INC. BETWEEN AUGUST 5, 2015 AND
JANUARY 31, 2016, INCLUSIVE, INCLUDING ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED
SUNRUN COMMON STOCK DIRECTLY IN SUNRUN'S AUGUST 5, 2015 INITIAL
PUBLIC OFFERING AT $14.00 PER SHARE.

Please be advised that your rights may be affected by a class
action lawsuit pending in this Court if you purchased or
otherwise acquired shares of the common stock of Sunrun Inc.
("Sunrun") between August 5, 2015 and January 31, 2016,
inclusive, including if you purchased Sunrun common stock at $14
per share directly in Sunrun's Initial Public Offering on
August 5, 2015.

A court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a
lawyer.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to a Court Order dated
December 29, 2017, that a Class and Subclass have been certified
in a class action entitled In re Sunrun Shareholder Litigation,
Case No. CIV538215 (the "Action"), currently pending before the
Hon. Marie S. Weiner in the Superior Court of the State of
California, San Mateo County (the "Court").

The Action is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Sunrun common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to Sunrun's August 5, 2015 Initial
Public Offering (the "IPO") during the period August 5, 2015
through January 31, 2016, inclusive (the "Class"), and asserts
claims against (a) Sunrun; (b) certain Sunrun officers and
directors (the "Individual Defendants") who signed the
Registration Statement and incorporated Prospectus for the IPO
(the "Offering Materials"); (c) certain investors (the "Venture
Capital Defendants"); and (d) the underwriters of Sunrun's IPO
(the "Underwriter Defendants").  Plaintiffs, on behalf of the
Class, allege that all Defendants violated Sec 11 of the federal
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Act") because the Offering
Materials, pursuant to which Sunrun shares of common stock were
offered and sold in the IPO, contained materially false or
misleading statements and/or omitted material information
required by the securities laws to be disclosed.  Plaintiffs also
allege, on behalf of the Class, that each Individual Defendant is
also liable for Sunrun's alleged violations of Sec. 11 as a
"controlling person" of Sunrun under Sec. 15 of the Act.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
Sunrun common stock directly in the August 5, 2015 IPO (the
"Subclass"), also allege that (a) Defendant Sunrun, the
Individual Defendants, and the Underwriter Defendants violated
Sec 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act because the Offering Materials
contained materially false or misleading statements and/or
omitted to disclose material information required to be disclosed
therein; and (b) each Individual Defendant is liable for Sunrun's
alleged violations of Sec. 12(a)(2) as a "controlling person" of
Sunrun under Sec. 15 of the Act.

Each Defendant denies any wrongdoing or having violated any
provisions of the Act.

The Court has decided that the Action should proceed as a class
action with respect to the Sec. 11 (and related Sec. 15) claims
on behalf of a Class that (subject to certain exclusions)
consists of "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired common stock before February 1, 2016 pursuant to or
traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with
Sunrun Inc.'s August 5, 2015 initial public offering."  The Court
has also certified a Subclass, with respect to the Sec. 12(a)(2)
(and related Sec. 15) claims only, that consists of "all persons
and entities who purchased common stock of Sunrun Inc. directly
in the August 5, 2015 initial public offering."

If you are a Member of the Class (including the Subclass), your
rights may be affected by this litigation.  If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action
("Notice"), you may obtain copies by writing to Notice
Administrator, In re Sunrun Shareholder Litigation, c/o Garden
City Group, LLC, P.O. Box 10559, Dublin, OH 43017-4521, tel.
(800) 601-7495, or by downloading this information at
www.SunrunSecuritiesLitigation.com.  Inquiries, other than
requests for a copy of the Notice, may be made to Co-Lead Class
Counsel: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, c/o Rachel Jensen, 655
West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101, tel.
(800) 449-4900 or Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP, c/o Mark
Molumphy, 840 Malcolm Rd., Burlingame, CA, 94010, tel. (650) 697-
6000.

You have the right to request exclusion ("opt out") from the
Class (which will also exclude you from the Subclass).  If you do
not request exclusion from the Class, you will be bound by past
and any future rulings of the Court on the claims asserted
against the Defendants, even if there is no recovery.

IF YOU WISH TO REMAIN IN THE CLASS, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO
ANYTHING AT THIS TIME. HOWEVER, IF YOU WISH TO BE EXCLUDED FROM
THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION BY APRIL 9,
2018, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL MEMBERS
OF THE CLASS WHO DO NOT VALIDLY REQUEST EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS
WILL BE BOUND BY ALL OF THE ORDERS THE COURT ISSUES AND JUDGMENTS
THE COURT HAS OR WILL MAKE IN THE ACTION, EVEN IF THERE IS NO
RECOVERY.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

Dated: January 19, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
HON. MARIE S. WEINER
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
FOR SAN MATEO COUNTY


SWEATY BETTY USA: Faces "Kiler" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sweaty Betty USA,
Inc. The case is styled as Marion Kiler, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Sweaty Betty USA, Inc. doing business as: Sweaty
Betty, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01209 (E.D. N.Y., February 23,
2018).

Sweaty Betty USA, Inc. is in the Women's Sportswear business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   44 Court Street
   Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11217
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: Students Sues Over Inflated Online MBA Ranking
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reports that a student in Temple
University's online MBA program lobbed putative class claims on
Feb. 12 accusing the school of knowingly submitting false data to
U.S. News & World Report to boost the program's ranking by the
publication.

Kyle Smith said the university was able to achieve four
consecutive rankings in U.S. News & World Report as the top
online MBA program in the country after misreporting the number
of incoming students who had submitted GMAT or GRE scores as part
of their applications.

The case is SMITH v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:18-cv-00590
(E.D. Pa.).  The case is assigned to Judge Petrese B. Tucker.
The case was filed February 12, 2018. [GN]


ULTA BEAUTY: Sued in Illinois Over Product Misrepresentation
------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Laura Smith-Brown, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Ulta Beauty, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-
00610 (N.D. Ill., January 26, 2018), arises out of the
Defendant's practice of misrepresenting used cosmetics returned
to its retail locations as new, and reselling these used products
to unsuspecting consumers.

Ulta Beauty, Inc. describes itself as the largest beauty retailer
in the United States and the premier beauty destination for
cosmetics, fragrance, skin care products, hair care products, and
salon services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
      Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
      70 West Madison Street, Suite 1400
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 984-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 212-4401
      E-mail: tbell@whafh.com
              malmstrom@whafh.com

         - and -

      Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
      Correy A. Kamin, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
      E-mail: pollack@whafh.com
              kamin@whafh.com

         - and -

      Lee S. Shalov, Esq.
      MCLAUGHLIN & STERN LLP
      260 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 448-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 448-0066
      E-mail: lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com


VEON LTD: Seeks Dismissal of Stock Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Jack Newsham, writing for Law360, reports that four former and
current executives at Veon Ltd., a mobile phone company that has
admitted to paying bribes to do business in Uzbekistan, have told
a New York federal judge that they are not liable for misleading
investors and that a proposed class action against them should be
dismissed.

CEO Jean-Yves Charlier, his predecessors Jo Lunder and Alexander
Izosimov and former chief financial officer Andrew Davies said in
briefs filed on Feb. 9 that the court lacks the power to hear the
case against them.

The case is In re VEON Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:15-
cv-08672 (S.D.N.Y.).  The case is assigned to Judge Andrew L.
Carter, Jr.  The case was filed November 4, 2015. [GN]


VICE MEDIA: Responds to Pay Equity Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Gene Maddaus, writing for Variety, reports that Vice Media,
already reeling from a sexual harassment scandal, was hit on
Feb. 13 with a class action lawsuit alleging the company
systematically underpaid female employees.

The suit was filed by Elizabeth Rose, a former project manager at
Vice who said she discovered that women were routinely paid far
less than men for doing the same work.

According to the suit, Ms. Rose hired a male subordinate who was
paid $25,000 more than she was.  The man was later promoted and
became her supervisor.  A top Vice executive told Ms. Rose that
the male employee was a "good personality fit" for male clients
at Live Nation, with whom he would have to interact.

Ms. Rose also came across an internal memo that listed salaries
for 35 employees, according to the suit.  She said she also spoke
with female colleagues and learned that the women were generally
paid less than the men.  One woman was paid $50,000, while her
male counterparts made $65,000.  When that woman was promoted to
a managing editor job, she was paid $15,000 less than the
previous managing editor, the suit alleges.

The suit claims the company hired two editors in Brooklyn and Los
Angeles at the same time.  The man, in Brooklyn, was paid more.
When an employee raised objections, the suit states that
Michael Prommer, a manager, pushed back, saying of the woman,
"this is how much we can offer her" and "that's what the budget
was."

The lawsuit was filed on Feb. 13 in Los Angeles County Superior
Court by the firm of Alexander Krakow + Glick.

A Vice spokesman issued the following statement:

"We have just been made aware of the complaint and are reviewing
it.  As a company, we have made a significant commitment to a
respectful, inclusive and equal workplace.  That commitment
includes a pay parity audit started last year, a goal of 50/50
female/male representation at every level by 2020, and the
formation of a Diversity & Inclusion Advisory Board." [GN]


WELLS FARGO: April 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 14 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Wells Fargo & Company ("Wells Fargo" or
the "Company") (NYSE:WFC) and certain of its officers.   The
class action, filed in United States District Court, for the
Southern District of New York, and docketed under 18-cv-01318, is
on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Wells Fargo securities, seeking to recover
compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Wells Fargo securities
between January 13, 2017, and July 27, 2017, both dates
inclusive, you have until April 16, 2018, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-
free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number
of shares purchased.

Wells Fargo is a diversified financial services company providing
banking, insurance, investments, mortgage, leasing, credit cards,
and consumer finance. The Company operates through physical
stores, the internet, and other distribution channels worldwide.

On September 8, 2016, the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau published a Consent Order with a Stipulation to its entry
signed by Mary Mack, Executive Vice President of Wells Fargo
Bank, detailing fraudulent practices at the Company, which were
centered on a corporate culture intent on growing its cross-
selling opportunities and unlawfully and without its customers'
consent opening millions of unauthorized deposit and credit card
accounts, and imposing a fine of more than $185 million.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Wells Fargo had
charged more than 800,000 customers for unneeded auto insurance,
the expense of which pushed approximately 274,000 Wells Fargo
customers into delinquency and resulted in almost 25,000 vehicle
repossessions; (ii) the foregoing conduct, when it came to light,
would foreseeably subject Wells Fargo to heightened regulatory
scrutiny and/or enforcement actions; and (iii) as a result, Wells
Fargo's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On July 27, 2017, post-market, The New York Times published an
article entitled "Wells Fargo Forced Unwanted Auto Insurance on
Borrowers."  Citing an internal report prepared for Wells Fargo's
executives, the article reported that "[m]ore than 800,000 people
who took out car loans from Wells Fargo were charged for auto
insurance they did not need," that "[t]he expense of the unneeded
insurance . . . pushed roughly 274,000 Wells Fargo customers into
delinquency and resulted in almost 25,000 wrongful vehicle
repossessions," and "that the bank owed $73 million to wronged
customers."

Following publication of this article, Wells Fargo's share price
fell $1.41, or 2.58%, to close at $53.30 on July 28, 2017.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. [GN]


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Students Drivers Lose Bid for New Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schremmer, writing for Land Line, reports that a class of
student drivers' attempt at a new trial in a class action against
Werner Enterprises has been denied.

In May 2017, a federal jury in Nebraska awarded nearly $780,000
to Werner student drivers who weren't paid for rest breaks of 20
minutes or less.  However, the class asked that the judgement be
altered or amended, arguing that the jury's verdict was based on
an erroneous legal standard. Specifically, the student drivers
were requesting a partial judgment "as to the compensability of
sleeper berth time" or a partial new trial.  The plaintiffs
sought almost $2.2 million in attorney's fees, as well as about
$200,000 in nontaxable costs and $10,000 each for the named
plaintiffs.

The Nebraska federal judge didn't grant a new trial, saying
"there has been no miscarriage of justice that justifies amending
the judgement and/or granting a new trial."

Instead, the plaintiffs were awarded $337,293.69 in attorney's
fees, $133,276.63 in nontaxable costs and expenses, and $10,000
for each of the four named plaintiffs.

The class action is made up of more than 50,000 student drivers
from August 2008 until Aug. 1, 2014.

During the time period, Werner's Student Driver Program paid
student drivers a flat weekly rate while training with an
experienced driver for about eight weeks.  Werner paid trainees
the higher of $50 per day or $7.25 per "on duty" hour.
Philip Petrone and the other student drivers alleged that minimum
wage laws were violated because Werner improperly designated
significant amounts of legally compensable time as "off-duty."
The student drivers alleged that not being paid for short rest
breaks caused them to be paid less than minimum wage.

The jury determined that Werner failed to pay for short breaks
and awarded nearly $780,000 to the student drivers.  The class
also alleged that Werner failed to compensate drivers for sleeper
berth time.  However, the jury sided with Werner on those claims.

The lawsuit began in 2012. [GN]


WESTERN RANGE: Judge Dismisses Wage Class Action for Second Time
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Trader, writing for Law360, reports that a Nevada federal
judge on Feb. 13 dismissed for the second time a proposed class
action made up of foreign shepherds working in the U.S. on H-2A
visas who said that several ranches failed to pay them minimum
wage, finding that federal jurisdiction requirements hadn't been
met.

U.S. District Judge Robert C. Jones concluded that, after
amending their complaint for a second time, the shepherds hadn't
met the Class Action Fairness Act criteria for keeping their suit
in federal court.

The case is Castillo v. Western Range Association et al, Case No.
3:16-cv-00237.  The case is assigned to Judge Robert C. Jones.
The case was filed May 3, 2016. [GN]


WINDSOR WINDOW: July 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
If you own or owned a home or other structure with Windsor
Pinnacle or Legend Series windows manufactured between January 1,
2000 and January 5, 2018, you may qualify for benefits from this
Class Action Settlement.

A settlement has been reached with the Windsor Window Company
("Windsor") and Woodgrain Millwork, Inc. ("Woodgrain") about
certain Pinnacle and Legend Series windows manufactured by
Windsor between January 1, 2000 and January 5, 2018.  The
settlement covers claims of possible damage including wood rot to
the windows themselves, damage caused by water leakage and
possible reimbursement for qualifying prior repairs.  Windsor and
Woodgrain (the "Defendants") deny the claims in the lawsuit and
deny that the windows included in the settlement are defective in
any way.  The Court has not decided who is right, but the
Defendants and the Plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit have agreed
to the settlement.

The Pinnacle and Legend Series windows (including Legend Hybrid
windows) included in the settlement are called the "Qualifying
Windows."  The Qualifying Products page includes detailed
pictures of the Qualifying Windows to help you identify if you
have them on your home or other structure.

The claims process created by the Settlement provides replacement
window sashes, compensation for window frame damage, compensation
for additional damage caused by a window leak, and reimbursement
for certain prior repairs, provided you satisfy the eligibility
criteria and comply with claim-submission requirements.

Your Legal Rights and Options in this Settlement
SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM To get any benefits from this Settlement,
you must submit a Claim Form.  Claim Forms must be submitted
online, by email or sent to the Settlement Administrator by mail,
no later than January 5, 2019.

OPT OUT OF THE SETTLEMENT If you exclude yourself, you may
not apply for any benefits under the Settlement. However, you may
sue or be part of a different lawsuit against the Defendants in
the future.  Requests for exclusion must be postmarked by
April 16, 2018.

OBJECT If you wish, you may object to the certification of
the Settlement Class, to the terms of the proposed Settlement, or
to Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses.  Objections must be postmarked no later than May 7,
2018.

GO TO A HEARING You are welcome to attend the hearing at your
own expense.  However, you must file a Notice of Appearance,
which must postmarked no later than May 7, 2018.

DO NOTHING If you are a Class Member and do nothing, you will
not get benefits from the Settlement.  You will also be bound by
the judgment entered by the Court.

Currently, this Settlement is under Preliminary Approval and the
Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on July 6, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.
CDT.


YALBER: Sets Record Straight on Dismissed Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Yalber on Feb. 14 disclosed that on November 10th 2015, Wilkey
Legal Consultants, LLC published an article titled: Class-Action
Filed on Behalf of Asian-American and U.S. Business Owners
Against National Finance Lender H-Capital Advance a/d/b/a Yalber.
The article was self-promotional.  Although the class action was
later dismissed, one is hard-pressed to find that on the
internet.  The dismissal only appears occasionally and far below
the original Wilkey posting.

Now, over two years later, Yalber on behalf of its affiliates,
Got Capital, LLC, YLH, LLC, Kedma Capital, LLC, S-Capital, LLC,
and Perfect Funding, Inc. wants to set the record straight.

The author of the November 10, 2015, release, Robert Wilkey was
originally one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the class-
action.  Mr. Wilkey was forced to withdraw from the case when it
was determined he was not admitted to the federal court where the
case was to be litigated.  He was ably replaced by his co-
counsel.

From the standpoint of the plaintiffs, the class action was a
disaster.  The plaintiffs had to file two amended complaints to
stave off dismissal motions filed by Yalber.  Ultimately, the
federal court judge dismissed 10 counts of the complaint and two
of the plaintiffs were dropped from the case.  A class-action
hearing resulted in another victory for Yalber: the federal judge
refusing to certify their case as a class-action.

"MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS MOTION (DOC. 49) IS DENIED
AS THE MERCHANT PLAINTIFF'S OFFER NO CLASS REPRESENTATIVE
ADEQUATE TO REPRESENT THE MERCHANT CLASS AS EACH NAMED CLASS
REPRESENTATIVE WAIVED ITS RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION
IN EXCHANGE FOR BUSINESS FINANCING." -- May 27th, 2015

Shortly after the plaintiffs lost their class-action, the federal
court dismissed what remained of the case with prejudice. After
the case was dismissed, each of the remaining plaintiffs stated
in writing that they "Now having the benefit of discovery
provided in the civil action, withdraw their assertion that the
transactions referenced in the second amended complaint were
loans or instances of predatory lending."

You can't change the way search engines work, but what you can do
is make sure your story and narrative are not going to be lost in
the endless amounts of search results. [GN]


* BVI Ports Authority Head Plans to Sue Insurance Companies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Davion Smith, writing for bvinews.com, reports that talk show
host and former head of the BVI Ports Authority, Claude Skelton-
Cline has announced plans to file a class-action lawsuit against
insurance companies in the British Virgin Islands.

Effectively, a class-action suit happens when a group of persons
who are wronged by the same entity collectively take legal action
against that accused wrongdoer.

Mr. Skelton-Cline broadcasted on Feb. 13 on his 'Honestly
Speaking' radio programme that he will be leading that charge and
is inviting aggrieved residents to join the group.

Since the hurricanes, local insurers have been accused of
cheating residents out of fair insurance payouts.

Mr. Skelton-Cline described them as criminals and said one
particular insurance company was worse than the rest.

He did not publicly name that insurance company.

"As early as tomorrow morning I have a meeting with a lawyer
friend because we are going to pursue a class-action suit against
these companies.  We think that how they have behaved in so many
ways is absolutely just criminal . . . It is unbelievable what is
taking place," he said.

Government dissatisfactory

The Premier Dr D Orlando Smith government recently implemented an
insurance tribunal to investigate reports of unfairness from
insurers and to further help settle disputes between residents
and insurance companies.

However, Mr. Skelton-Cline is not satisfied and believes
government has done nothing that is "really meaningful".

He went on to call on support from all insured residents,
regardless of whether they have received insurance payouts for
their properties already.

"The truth of the matter is, whether they took care of you or
not, premiums have already gone up for all of us . . . People are
not being taken care of. They are not receiving enough money to
repair or rebuild their homes," he lamented.

"We are going to call a meeting, we are going to assess how many
people from what insurance companies are not being taken care of,
and we will pursue this vigorously," Skelton-Cline added.

Court action taken before

Mr. Skelton-Cline is no stranger to taking legal action and has
filed at least one lawsuit before.

He filed a suit against the governing National Democratic Party
for not renewing his employment contract as Ports Authority boss
when it ended back in 2016.

He claimed he had 'reasonable expectation' that his contract
would have been renewed. [GN]


* Securities Class Actions v. Life Sciences Cos. Hit Record High
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for Law.com, reports that the volume of
securities fraud suits against life sciences companies set a
nationwide record in 2017, and New Jersey is emerging as a
leading venue for such cases, according to a report issued by
Dechert.

Nationwide, plaintiffs filed 88 class action securities lawsuits
against life sciences companies in 2017, an increase of more than
30 percent from the 67 suits filed in the previous year, and an
increase of more than 225 percent from five years prior.

The growth in suits against life sciences companies mirrors a
general uptick in securities class actions -- 412 suits were
filed nationwide in 2017, up from 270 in 2016 and 188 in 2015,
said the report, issued on Feb. 13.

New Jersey saw 13 securities fraud suits against life sciences
companies in 2017, up from nine in 2016 and five in 2015.

The overall uptick in securities class actions is attributable to
an increase in merger objection suits and to suits driven by
events, such as allegations of misconduct by company officials.
But life sciences companies face many suits over issues
pertaining specifically to their own industry, stemming from
alleged misrepresentations about safety or efficacy of a product,
negative side effects of products in development, or a product's
chances of gaining U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval,
the Dechert report said.

One of the report's authors said securities litigation for life
sciences and other companies is attributable to a predictable
response to a falling stock price by the plaintiff bar.

"I think plaintiffs firms have learned how to craft complaints,
and if there's a certain percent stock drop, there will be a
complaint filed," said Joni Jacobsen -- joni.jacobsen@dechert.com
-- a Dechert litigation partner in Chicago.

Noting that a drop in stock price for a life sciences company
sometimes follows a regulatory action by the FDA, Jacobsen said,
"I do think something about life sciences cases that is
attractive to plaintiffs firms."

But those cases are generally subject to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act, which makes them subject to a heightened
pleading standard, so that many don't survive a motion to
dismiss, Jacobsen said.

The Second, Third and Ninth circuits saw the most life sciences
shareholder suits in 2017, as in past years, the report said. The
Third Circuit was responsible for 23 suits, followed by the Ninth
with 19 and the Second Circuit with 17.

In the Third Circuit, New Jersey was the most active state for
life sciences securities class actions in 2017, with 13 cases,
followed by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with eight and
Delaware with two.

In the Ninth Circuit, the majority of filings, 13 out of 18, came
from the Northern District of California.  In the Second Circuit,
15 of the 17 suits were filed in the Southern District of New
York.

Jacobsen said the growth in volume of New Jersey cases was
attributable to the concentration of life sciences companies in
the state.

The Dechert report found that more and more shareholder suits
against the life sciences industry are aimed at the smallest
companies.  Roughly half the cases filed were against life
science companies with a market cap of $250 million or less, far
more than in 2016, and nearly a quarter of the cases filed had a
market cap of $50 million or less.

Life sciences suits in 2017 saw mixed outcomes, with 15 cases
decided in favor of defendants, 13 cases denying motions to
dismiss and seven cases in which only partial dismissals were
achieved.  Accordingly, in 20 of the 35 decisions in 2017, the
plaintiffs' claims were allowed to proceed.

"The numbers illustrate how life sciences companies remain
attractive targets for class action securities fraud claims,"
said the Dechert report, which offered a series of best practices
that companies can implement to reduce their risk of becoming
targets.

Three New York law firms account for more than half the
shareholder suits against life sciences companies: Levi &
Korsinsky, 21 complaints; Pomerantz, 14; and The Rosen Law Firm,
11.

Eduard Korsinsky of Levi & Korsinsky said the uptick in life
sciences litigation may be related to the lengthy regulatory
process many companies must follow when seeking to bring a new
drug to market.  Investors who have waited patiently for months
or years may be inclined to sue if they hear some bad news about
the prognosis for approval of a company's product, he said.  In
addition, Korsinsky said, the life sciences sector has received
more scrutiny lately because of the opioid crisis.

Dechert's best practices include ensuring "that the sometimes
fine line between puffery and statements of fact is not crossed
in public statements or filings, or even in extemporaneous
statements during conference calls or media commentary." [GN]


* VIX Volatility Manipulation May Spark Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Mark Melin, writing for ValueWalk, reports that a whistleblower
complaint that "rampant manipulation of the VIX index" was at
play in the recent stock market meltdown comes at a time when
algorithmic factors are underlying market prices at a unique
moment in history.  The February 12 letter to the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission
urges the regulators to take swift action "before investors
suffer additional losses due to this fraud."

Volatility professionals were noticing odd market patterns with
the VIX and its correlation ratios as the S&P 500 when on a wild
nearly 250-point market meltdown.  At the time ValueWalk reported
the primary issue:

Late in the afternoon of Feb. 12 the unwinding of VIX linked
short volatility products spilled over into the morning of Feb.
13 as market maker liquidity temporarily dried up, according to
one market participant.

The Feb. 12 whistleblower complaint, to a limited degree,
detailed how the liquidity issues in question arose:

The flaw allows trading firms with sophisticated algorithms to
move the VIX up or down by simply posting quotes on S&P options
and without needing to physically engage in any trading or
deploying any capital.  This market manipulation has led to
multiple billions in profits effectively taken away from
institutional and retail investors and cashed in by unethical
electronic option market makers.

At play is work by alleged options market makers to "spoof," or
submit false orders to the exchange that have no reasonable
intent to be filled.  These orders are identified by a mechanism
in the algorithmic systems that interprets the orders as
indicating the market pricing is about to change, and market
makers adjust their pricing accordingly.

In the case of VIX, the pricing method uses thinly traded out of
the money S&P 500 options that can be easily manipulated -- a
flaw well-known to market participants but one that, until
recently, was not much noticed until the market meltdown.

The complaint adds another level of analysis by targeting
exchanges that trade correlated products, potentially setting up
a class action lawsuit:

Although it is not surprising that an inverse exchange-traded
fund would lose nearly all its value should the underlying
security appreciate over 100% rapidly, we contend that market
manipulation is playing a significant role in driving the price
of VIX ETPs.  And as described below in an excerpt from a widely
circulated note by hedge fund Artemis capital in Q3 2015,
regulators arguably should have taken action to address the
reflexive self-fulfilling danger created by inverse VIX ETPs
which require the ETP managers to purchase large amounts of VIX
futures around market close when the futures rise rapidly,
thereby accelerating their own demise.  Knowing that there is
such danger created by these products, why did the CME Group not
implement circuit breakers on the VIX futures just like it exists
for S&P futures for example? Given the high correlation between
VIX and S&P, by not placing any safeguards around an unstable
market structure for VIX products, the exchange exposes the
entire equity market to unnecessary systemic risk.  The turmoil
in financial markets, which cost American and foreign investors
several trillions, originated from a known flaw in the market
structure by most sophisticated practitioners in the field, and
the magnitude of losses experienced calls for accountability from
both the exchange and market actors who engage in the
manipulation of the VIX.

The Chicago Board of Options Exchange, for its part, maintains
that its systems operated properly.  In a statement to CNBC they
said:

"We take our regulatory responsibilities and the oversight of our
markets very seriously.  This letter is replete with inaccurate
statements, misconceptions and factual errors, including a
fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between the VIX
Index, VIX futures and volatility ETPs, among other things.  As a
result of these errors, we feel the conclusionary statements
contained in this letter lack credibility."

The real question might not be who made or lost money on the
market crash -- that is the point of a risk management hedge.
The real question that could get sticky and expensive is the
liability. [GN]


                           Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Free Children's Makeup Bill Introduced
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak of Asbestos.com reported that U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell
introduced legislation that would mandate a warning label on
cosmetics marketed to children unless stricter testing can show
they are free of asbestos fibers.

The legislation was sparked by reports in 2017 that trace amounts
of tremolite asbestos were found in cosmetics marketed to girls
by national retail chains Claire's and Justice.

Although both companies quickly pulled products off store
shelves, they also disputed the findings and later produced lab
results showing their merchandise was safe and free of asbestos.

"Parents across the country should have the peace of mind in
knowing that the cosmetics they buy for their children are safe,"
Dingell said in a congressional press release. "No child should
be exposed to asbestos through the use of common, everyday
products."

Dingell introduced the bill as "Children's Product Warning Label
Act of 2018."

Testing Protocol for Cosmetics Is Key

The key issue today is the testing protocol used for cosmetic
talc in the various products.

Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) strongly
encourages cosmetic companies to test for traces of asbestos,
there is no federal law requiring it.

The FDA protocol also does not include the technologically
advanced transmission electron microscopy (TEM) to test for the
toxic mineral.

Less-exact, polarized light microscopy (PLM) and X-ray
diffraction (XRD) are considered adequate by current standards.

There never has been a medically documented case of a person
diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease traced to cosmetics.
But most experts agree even a small amount of exposure to
asbestos could cause serious health problems such as
mesothelioma.

Exposure also can lead to lung cancer, asbestosis and other
serious issues.

Congress May Grant FDA More Authority

Dingell also called for a broad overhaul of the FDA's authority
over personal care products and cosmetics, believing it is the
best way to address the current dilemma.

"But if Congress is unwilling to consider this approach, we
should start taking common sense steps to protect our children by
passing my legislation to ensure consumers have all the facts
about the products they purchase," she said. "Congress must make
this a priority in 2018."

The issue of asbestos in cosmetics stems from the extensive use
of talc, one of the world's softest minerals.

It is used as a binding agent in chalk, ceramics and rubber. Talc
is a common ingredient in cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and a
variety of other products.

Thousands of talc-related claims have been filed against
pharmaceutical giants Johnson & Johnson and Colgate-Palmolive,
claiming prolonged use of their personal care products led to
cancer.

Talc Often Mixed with Asbestos

Talc often is found in the same area of the earth's surface as
asbestos.

It's why talc is no longer mined in New York, Vermont or Southern
California -- where traces of asbestos have been commonly mixed
with talc.

Most of the reserves today come from mines in central and west
Texas and southwest Montana, where the talc is purer.

As part of the proposed legislation, the cosmetics manufacturer
must attest in writing to the Department of Health and Human
Services that the talc being used comes from an asbestos-free
mine.

The product also must be tested using the TEM method. Without
those two assurances, the product would be required to have a
warning label.

"We need to pass comprehensive legislation to create a user-fee
program for cosmetics and give the FDA the authority to review
the most dangerous ingredients so they can keep people safe,"
Dingell said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shareholder Suit Targets J&J Talc Disclosures
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant of New Jersey Law Journal reported that the
company artificially inflated its stock price by failing to
disclose what it knew about links between cancer and Johnson's
Baby Powder, according to the suit.

Johnson & Johnson has been hit with a shareholder suit linking a
drop in the company's stock price to allegedly false statements
it made about asbestos in its talc products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Addresses Insurers' Obligation to Defend
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Willams of JD Supra reported that the New York Supreme
Court (Appellate Division) addressed in a February 2nd decision
whether three insurance companies had any obligation to defend or
indemnify a company who was subject to criminal proceedings
related to an alleged violation of the Clean Air Act.

See Certified Environmental Services, Inc. v. Endurance America
Insurance Company, et al., 2018 WL 668955.

The alleged violations involved the release into the ambient air
of asbestos (a hazardous air pollutant).

Plaintiff Certified Environmental Services, Inc. ("Plaintiff")
was indicted by a grand jury and subsequently convicted of aiding
and abetting violations of the Clean Air Act. The conviction was
vacated on appeal and retried.

Plaintiff thereafter pleaded guilty to a criminal charge which is
described as:

. . . negligently releasing into the ambient air a hazardous air
pollutant, i.e., asbestos, thereby negligently placing other
persons in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury in
violation of 42 USC Sec 7413(c)(4).

Plaintiff sought a defense and coverage under the following
insurance policies:

   -- American Safety Casualty Insurance Company ("American
Safety")

   -- Indian Harbor Insurance Company ("Indian Harbor")

The policies issued by American Safety included "Environmental
Consultant's Professional Liability" ("Environmental
Consultant's") coverage.

Indian Harbor issued policies described as:

   -- Professional Liability ("Professional Liability")
   -- Contractors' Pollution Legal Liability ("Pollution
Liability")

The insurance companies disclaimed any duty to defend or
indemnify Plaintiff in the criminal action. Plaintiff
subsequently commenced a declaratory judgment and breach of
contract action seeking to recover its defense costs.

The insurance companies moved in the lower court for a
declaration that they had no obligation to defend or indemnify,
which was granted.

The New York appellate court upholds this decision.

As to the American Safety (Environmental Consultant's) policy,
the Court concludes it is unambiguous and does not require a
defense with respect to the criminal action. It notes that the
policy requires American Safety to defend Plaintiff against any
claim or suit seeking . . . covered damages. A claim is stated to
be defined as any written demand, notice, request for defense,
request for indemnity, or other legal or equitable proceeding
against Plaintiff by a person or entity for, inter alia, "covered
damages" arising out of Plaintiff's "negligent acts, errors, or
omissions." "Covered damages" are noted to include all claim
related costs which are defined as "all costs and expenses
associated with the handling, defense, settlement or appeal of
any claim or suit."

Plaintiff argued that the "claim" was its demand requesting a
defense and indemnity from American Safety for Plaintiff's
negligent acts and that the "covered damages" were its attorneys'
fees and other costs incurred in the criminal action.

The Court rejects this argument stating it:
. . . is not a "claim" within the meaning of the policy inasmuch
as it was not made "against [plaintiff]," but rather, in this
case, was made by plaintiff.

As to the Indian Harbor policies, it concludes that they were
also unambiguous. The Court states that the Professional
Liability coverage requires the insurance company to defend
Plaintiff "against any suit," which is defined as a civil
proceeding. It notes that Plaintiff's proceeding was criminal
and, therefore, not a suit. As a result, there was no duty to
defend under this policy.

As to Pollution Liability coverage, the Court notes Plaintiff's
argument that the allegations of the indictment (if true), could
have resulted in civil claims. It therefore argues that Indian
Harbor had a duty to defend Plaintiff in the criminal action. The
Court rejects this argument, stating:
. . . however, that the contract unambiguously provides that
Indian Harbor has a duty to defend plaintiff against suits only.
Inasmuch as there was no suit against plaintiff here, Indian
Harbor had no duty to provide a defense.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Closes Elem. School Indefinitely
----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Solis of The Daily News of Newburyport reported that the
hope of regaining some normalcy for students and staff of Dr.
John C Page Elementary School were dashed when the discovery of
potential exposure to non friable asbestos forced selectmen to
close the building "indefinitely."

In a letter addressed to Pentucket Regional Superintendent
Jeffrey Mulqueen, as well as the Pentucket Association of
Teachers, parents, residents, teachers and staff, the three-
member Board of Selectmen stated that "as a precautionary
measure," they voted to close the school to all activities to
allow for the asbestos -- apparently derived from adhesive in a
few tiles in the main office -- to be properly tested.

"The sampling is being conducted by the industrial hygienist in
accordance with the regulations promulgated by the Environmental
Protection Agency," the letter states. "As a result, the
reopening of the Page School will be delayed."

It is not unusual for older buildings to contain some asbestos
and it is generally not a problem if properly encapsulated. Since
the Children's Castle building is separated by a firewall and its
utilities are self-contained, it does not have to be closed. But
there will be no activities at Page -- either during the day,
after school or on the weekend -- until further notice.

West Newbury School Committee representative Chris Reading
stressed that exposure to asbestos was not an ongoing problem
parents needed to be concerned about.

"This is a condition that was not an issue prior to the
reconstruction of the building," she said. "Selectmen are just
taking the best precautions that they can."

The school has been closed, when unusually cold weather caused a
water pipe to burst, triggering the fire suppression system and
flooding the first two floors of the multistory brick building on
Pipestave Hill. Subsequently, a small amount of black mold was
also discovered during the repair effort but air quality testing
at the school showed there were no toxins.

Mulqueen decided to relocate classes while repairs were
undertaken, with children in grades k-4 shifted to elementary
schools in Groveland and Merrimac, the other two towns in the
district.

In what was a more angst-producing move for some families, Page
School fifth- and sixth-graders were sent to the regional middle
school on Main Street. The youngsters now ride on buses with the
district's middle and high school students, and start school an
hour earlier than normal in a block of classrooms specifically
set aside for them.

With little time to pull all the pieces all together -- and
winter weather forcing a district closure in the middle of their
efforts -- school officials scrambled to get a viable operation
plan in place and notify parents as quickly as possible about
where and how their children would be going to school for the
next six weeks. They scheduled meetings to answer questions and
quell parental concerns.

Selectmen selectmen were hopeful that repairs to the school would
be completed in time for students and teachers to return to their
home base following school vacation week -- Feb 19-23.

They scheduled a meeting with the superintendent to review the
construction schedule at Page and "work together with the
district to get the kids back to some kind of normalcy,"
Selectman Glenn Kemper said.

That meeting has since been canceled, and instead, the board has
posted an open meeting to follow a planned executive session
scheduled for Feb. 12 at 7 p.m. The only agenda item listed for
the public session is "Update on the Page School (In case new
information is available to share)"

When asked about this most recent delay in the timeline, Kemper
responded, "Sometimes, big projects have setbacks. One thing
everyone needs to know is that the selectmen are working with the
district to make sure the kids are back as fast as we can."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navy Ship Exposes Veteran Sailor to Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------------
The US Navy Veterans Mesothelioma Center says, "We are urging a
US Navy Veteran with recently diagnosed mesothelioma, or their
family members to call us anytime at 800-714-0303, and we will
provide them with instant access to some of the nation's most
skilled, and experienced mesothelioma lawyers. As we would like
to explain anytime being represented by one of the nation's top
mesothelioma lawyers is vital for a US Navy Veteran with this
rare cancer because the more skilled the lawyers the better the
financial compensation result for their client.

"Ours is a nationwide initiative and we are appealing to a US
Navy Veteran with mesothelioma or their family to call us anytime
at 800-714-0303 before they hire a lawyer or law firm. We happen
to think the fulltime mesothelioma attorneys we suggest get much
better financial compensation results for their clients. Please
don't shortchange yourself when it comes to financial
compensation settlements." http://USNavyMesothelioma.Com

US Navy Veterans are by far the largest group of individuals
diagnosed with mesothelioma each year in the United States.
Mesothelioma is caused by exposure to asbestos. The way a US Navy
Veteran could have been exposed to asbestos on a navy ship was
typically related to their job duties which included maintaining
the engine rooms or boilers, maintaining machinery or equipment
on the ship, preparing the ship for deployment, making repairs on
the ship after a deployment, assisting shipyard workers with a
major overhaul, or retrofit of a ship, and or making repairs or
maintaining equipment on a submarine while it was underway.

The US Navy Veterans Mesothelioma Center wants to emphasize that
most US Navy Veterans who were exposed to asbestos and now have
mesothelioma were probably assigned to US Navy ship that had a
home base located in:

Navy Base Norfolk, Virginia (The world's largest navy base)
Navy Base San Diego, California
Navy Base Honolulu, Hawaii
Navy Base Mayport-Jacksonville, Florida
Navy Station Newport, Rhode Island
Navy Submarine Base Kitsap, Washington (Bangor/Keyport)
Navy Submarine Base New London, Connecticut
Navy Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia
Subic Bay, Philippines

Or the US Navy Veteran had extreme exposure to asbestos at a US
Navy Shipyard in Boston, Bremerton, Washington, Norfolk,
Virginia, Groton, Connecticut, Hunters Point, California, Long
Beach, California, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Brooklyn, New York
or Portsmouth, Maine.

For more information about mesothelioma compensation and why it
is so vital for a Navy Veteran with confirmed mesothelioma to be
represented by the most qualified and experienced mesothelioma
attorneys in the United States in order to revive the best
possible financial compensation results-a Navy Veteran with
recently diagnosed mesothelioma or their family are urged to call
the US Navy Veterans Mesothelioma Center anytime at 800-714-0303.
The Center is open 7AM EST until 9 PM EST daily and weekends.
http://usnavymesothelioma.com

For a listing of all types of current and past US Navy warships
please review the US Navy website on this topic.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/our_ships.asp
For a listing of US Navy Bases please refer to Military
Rates.Com: http://www.militaryrates.com/military-bases-navy.cfm
According to the CDC the states indicated with the highest
incidence of mesothelioma include Maine, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West
Virginia, Virginia, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Louisiana,
Washington, and Oregon. However, based on the calls the US Navy
Veterans Mesothelioma Center receives a US Navy Veteran with
mesothelioma could live in any state.
http://USNavyMesothelioma.Com



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Austin Apologizes for Asbestos Handling Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
KXAN.com reported that the city of Austin has reviewed its own
asbestos program and found numerous failures and deficiencies
that may have led to exposures at four separate departments in
the past two years.

The city initiated the asbestos review after KXAN reported
multiple asbestos disturbances that have potentially affected up
to 200 city employees.

The review lists nine problems with the asbestos program,
including lack of personnel to manage it, lack of asbestos
procedure knowledge, lack of training, inadequate oversight of
consultants that perform testing and abatement, a failure to
review procedures and contact the asbestos team, and unauthorized
renovations by city staff, among others.

Eric Stockton, with the Building Services Department, said the
results of the review will strengthen the authority of the
asbestos program and clarify workers' responsibilities. The
review, he said, is all part of the city's effort to protect
employees and stop exposures.

Stockton apologized to the workers that may have been exposed.
"I want them to know that we care and that, for me personally,
I'm really sorry that that ever happened to them," Stockton said.
"If we can tighten up the procedures, then it won't happen
again."
The city is now expanding its asbestos team, developing better
procedures for dealing with contractors, posting signage to alert
if a building may have asbestos, beginning a review of every
building's asbestos survey, and training or retraining employees
on asbestos policy, according to the review.

KXAN's investigations first found possible asbestos exposures at
an airport office building.

Later, we discovered asbestos incidents in the Parks and
Recreation Department, Fire Department and Water Utility.
The city's review notes two additional exposures not previously
reported by KXAN.

In one case, a subsurface asbestos cement pipe at Austin-
Bergstrom International Airport was disturbed during a November
2016 terminal improvement project. Only contractors were may have
been exposed, according to the review.

In another case, a contractor removed a beehive from a wall that
contained asbestos at Fire Station No. 24, which is located on
Nuckols Crossing Road in southeast Austin. That January 2016
incident did not involve city workers, according to the review.
Carol Guthrie, with the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME), said workers involved in the
asbestos incidents have not been satisfied with the city's
responses. Guthrie called the asbestos incidents "shameful" and
said the city should have enforced better guidelines to prevent
potential exposures years ago.

"The way the city has handled the asbestos in the other areas has
not been very forthcoming," Guthrie said.  "I think it's safe for
me to say that the majority of people who have been involved in
these situations, in all these different departments that you
have uncovered, do not have any trust."

A String of Problems

At ABIA, maintenance workers voiced concerns to managers that
during floor renovations in February and June of 2016 asbestos
containing glue could be disturbed. Management told the employees
to keep working and continue ripping out carpet. The renovations
were not authorized by Building Services, and more than 120
employees in the building were potentially exposed to asbestos,
according to city records and interviews. The maintenance
building is not connected to passenger terminals.

"The city of Austin and Department of Aviation would never
intentionally put its employees at risk," the city said in a
prepared statement in 2017.

A later KXAN investigation revealed potential exposures in three
more departments.Last October, as KXAN requested city records and
investigated those exposures, the city initiated the executive
review and stopped answering questions about the asbestos
exposures.

Asbestos is a generic name for several naturally occurring
minerals that were commonly used until the 1980s in building
materials such as insulation, floor adhesive, ceiling tiles and
concrete. Asbestos can become airborne if it is broken apart.
Prolonged exposure to airborne asbestos can cause cancer.
"With asbestos exposures it's a matter of dosage and frequency.
The higher the dosage and the higher the frequency, the higher
the risk that there might be some medical problems in the
future," Stockton said. "Our program is designed to try and
prevent any type of exposure, which is a really ambitious goal
because the asbestos, unfortunately, it's been used heavily in
building materials throughout the decades."

Perhaps the building with the most asbestos concerns is Austin's
downtown Municipal Court. About 600 people arrive per day at the
building, according to the court administrator.

Last November, the city shut down the entire court over concerns
of asbestos contamination. City workers had moved ceiling tiles
and sent dust into a work area. On Nov. 29, city officials closed
the building for asbestos testing, which came back negative. The
city is considering options to move the entire municipal court to
a new building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Documentary Spurs Fight to Unseal Deposition
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Rafique of KXAN.com reported that more than 20 years after
a deposition at the center of an asbestos lawsuit was sealed, a
Dallas lawyer is still fighting to learn just what those
documents contain.

Last year, a Travis County court ruled that it didn't have
jurisdiction to unseal the documents lawyer Christine Biederman
wanted to see. Biederman said a source told her the documents in
that case, initially filed in 1993, could contradict testimony
given in a separate asbestos case.

She's also learned the documents could be related to a memo that
allegedly coaxed plaintiffs on how to testify in asbestos-related
cases so they can receive greater monetary compensation.

Biederman initially became interested in getting the documents
unsealed after being approached by the director and producer of
an upcoming documentary called "Unsettled." The filmmakers talked
to her about her experience covering asbestos litigation as a
journalist decades ago.

They're branding the documentary as a "true-life legal thriller"
that centers around the public health risks of asbestos exposure
and lawyers who are "manipulating the system."

The upcoming documentary will include an interview with
Washington County Judge John Brieden, who has an interest in
asbestos exposure claims through his position with the American
Legion.

Brieden, a former commander of the veterans' service
organization, said lawyers are wrongfully gaining asbestos
settlements for their clients and taking away from the funds
available for those who actually have been exposed to the toxin.

"People are filing multiple claims declaring that each one of
them is the sole responsibility of their disease and they're
collecting multiple times, saying this person or this company is
[solely] responsible, this company is [solely] responsible,"
Brieden said.  "What they're doing is depleting the monies and
the trusts that were set up to protect folks."

With the documentary in the works, Biederman is still trying to
get the deposition from the longstanding asbestos case unsealed.
Her latest efforts led her to the First Court of Appeals in
Houston, where she appealed the decision to dismiss her motion to
get the documents unsealed.

She's even garnered the support of Attorney General Ken Paxton,
who came out against the trial court's decision that they didn't
have jurisdiction to unseal the documents, saying the decision
"is not consistent with the presumption of openness of court
records maintained by Texas law."

"Biederman filed an appropriate motion to intervene for the
purposes of unsealing the . . . deposition," according to
Paxton's amicus brief filed in December. "Consequently, the trial
court erred in determining it did not have jurisdiction to
consider the merits of Biederman's motion."

It goes on to say that if the court "correctly assumed
jurisdiction over this matter," Biederman would have had the
opportunity to provide evidence showing the deposition should be
unsealed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sydney Asbestos Cover-Up Fuels Resident Outrage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kylie Stevens of Daily Mail Australia reported that concerned
residents fear they've been potentially exposed to asbestos that
was allegedly illegally dumped in Sydney's west.

Young children may also be at risk as the asbestos was dumped
next to daycare centre Little Zak's Academy.

Shocked residents say they were unaware of the danger until a
letterbox drop of homes at Jordan Springs, near Penrith raised
the alarm, 9 News reported.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims Asbestos Not Hazardous to Health is Wrong
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur L. Frank and Dr. Aseni Wickramatillake of The Sunday Times
reported that in a recent commentary piece in the Sunday Times of
January 14, Prof. Ravindra Fernando tried to make the claim that
chrysotile asbestos is safe and "is not harmful or hazardous to
health". This is an inaccurate claim as are some other claims in
his commentary, as well as a biased selection of the science of
asbestos disease.

His views go contrary to studies in the United States by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), as well as
internationally by the World Health Organisation (WHO), and the
Internationals Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). all these
institutions document that chrysotile asbestos is indeed
carcinogenic and OSHA even states, as have scientists in the
past, that there is no known safe level of exposure to asbestos.
Cases of lung cancer and mesothelioma have been documented with
as little as one day of exposure, certainly not enough to cause
asbestosis, a scarring of the lung usually found on chest X-ray,
but enough to cause cancer.

Together we have presented in the fall of 2017 at two
international meetings the first data on cases of asbestosis in
Sri Lanka, where it is acknowledged that only chrysotile has been
used. There is copious data in the scientific literature, ignored
by Professor Fernando, of chrysotile causing cancer and
asbestosis.

Of the countries he names, Russia supports asbestos since it
produces half of the world's yearly supply and together China and
India use half of the yearly world supply. Canada, a former major
supplier of chrysotile to the world, has now banned the sale or
use of asbestos, and Brazil, after a recent ruling by its Supreme
Court, became the first country with active mines to ban the use
of asbestos. At present, some 60 countries have banned any use of
asbestos, including chrysotile. As for the United States, where
it regrettably is still a legal product, use has almost
disappeared with about 1000 tons now imported compared to 803,000
tons at its peak use.

As for the issue of bio-persistence, it is true that chrysotile
does not stay in the lung as long as the amphiboles. However, as
many studies show, it is much more likely to move to the pleura,
the lining of the lung, and the site of the asbestos-related
cancer mesothelioma. In some studies, up to 80 percent of the
cases only have chrysotile in the pleural tissue in cases of
mesothelioma.

In his commentary, Prof. Fernando speaks of two asbestos-cement
factory studies. The lack of disease in the Weil study was for
workers with less than two years of exposure. The Gardner study
states "the durations of exposure were short", and they did find
a mesothelioma. Asbestos cement studies from elsewhere, such as
Brazil, Denmark, and Poland have found asbestos-related cancers.
The last issue is that of supposed and implied "safe" levels.
Prof. Fernando notes that the United States Permissible Exposure
Limit (PEL) is 0.1 fiber per cubic metre. This is correct, but it
is not based entirely upon science but must take into
consideration economic factors as pushed by industry. Scientific
data have shown that one year of working at this allowed level,
intended ideally to protect a person from a forty-year lifetime
of work, is sufficient to raise the risk of mesothelioma by a
factor of 4.

Safe use is a fallacy. Disease in Sri Lank exists. The only
rational approach to the use of asbestos would be for Sri Lanka
to join the other truly civilised countries of the world and
fully ban all uses of asbestos to protect workers and the public.
(Arthur L. Frank, MD, PhD, Professor of Public Health and
Professor of Medicine, Fellow: ACP, ACPM, Collegium Ramazzini,
AAAs, Drexel University, USA, has been studying asbestos-related
diseases since 1968. This includes work in China, Sri Lanka,
Colombia and the United States. He has published more than 100
papers on the issue. His PhD was related to asbestos, and he
practises occupational medicine.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mich. Veteran Opposes Asbestos Bankruptcy Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Windall of Massachusetts Newswire reported that Michigan's
top Mesothelioma legal expert on behalf of hundreds of Michigan
Veterans with asbestos disease, Goldberg, Persky & White P.C.,
issued the following statement and alert in response to passage
of HB 5456, the so-called "Asbestos Bankruptcy Transparency Act,"
out of the Michigan House of Representatives Republican
controlled "Competitiveness" committee on a straight party line
vote.

The bill, better entitled "delay 'til they die plan," would
shield corporations from being held accountable for deadly
asbestos-related diseases like Mesothelioma and delay justice for
victims:

The asbestos industry's ongoing nationwide campaign to avoid
accountability to those they harmed has reared its ugly head in
Michigan. This bill would impose burdens on asbestos victims,
including active and retired service members, the civil justice
system, asbestos bankruptcy trusts, and taxpayers. It would force
victims and their families to jump through several expensive and
time-consuming hoops before being allowed to move forward with a
claim in state court.

Those suffering from mesothelioma, on average, have 12 to 18
months to live. Asbestos victims do not have extra time or money
to spare. Unfortunately, the asbestos industry is seeking to take
advantage of this fact. Their goal: To delay and deny until
victims die.

Michigan ranks 12th nationally for mesothelioma and asbestos
deaths, and 40 percent of asbestos victims in the state are
veterans. Hundreds of asbestos exposed Veterans in Saginaw,
Detroit, Muskegon, Escanaba, Lansing, Grand

Rapids, Alpena, Port Huron and other industrial cities will be
disproportionally put at risk. Veterans were extensively exposed
to asbestos products not only during military service but in
their civilian work at Michigan's automobile plants, steel mills,
paper mills and in construction trades.

It is wrong to give asbestos companies new ways to stonewall
their victims, especially those that served their country. This
injustice is magnified by the fact that this legislation is
unnecessary in Michigan as state law already requires
transparency. Asbestos victims must provide asbestos defendants
with copies of all claim forms six months before trial, and
juries are already compelled to assign responsibility to bankrupt
defendants under existing Michigan Law.

Asbestos victims deserve justice. It is unconscionable that
Michigan lawmakers would pass legislation to allow the same out-
of-state corporations and their front groups who hid the dangers
of asbestos for decades and caused hundreds of thousands of
deaths to avoid accountability. Once again our elected
representatives should be fighting for asbestos victims and their
families -- not those who harmed them.

We urge all Michigan veterans to immediately call their state
senator and representative and urge them to oppose HB 5456.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Remove 70-Yr Old Asbestos-Insulated Line
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Gambin of Niagara Gazette reported that crews parked on
Niagara Street throughout the early part of the year have been
removing a 70-year-old electricity line insulated with asbestos.

David Bertola, a spokesmen for National Grid, said that the
National Response Corporation (NRC) has been on site conducting
the work for the utility provider. Bertola said the
infrastructure has not been used for about two decades.

"In what's become a routine process, we're retiring many of the
cables that are underground," Bertola said in a telephone call.
"To do that we hire a subcontractor and to remove the asbestos
for us."

"We are pulling the cable out in case we ever need to lay new
cable along Niagara Street," he continued.

In addition, Bertola said NRC is clearing out accumulated grime
and sludge that migrated down manholes from the road top. He said
he was unaware of when the work will be completed.

Bertola said there was no particular incident that necessitated
the removal, saying a lot of the particular cable remains in
various municipalities.

"It's come to the time now where we're getting this to this
segment," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal Proceeds at Government Center
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ken de la Bastide of The Herald Bulletin reported that the walls
and floors of the upper three stories of the Madison County
Government Center are lined with plastic as work on the removal
of asbestos continues.

Asbestos was discovered above the ceilings in the building last
year and county officials are in the process of a $3.5 million
abatement of the substance and remodeling of the building.

The Madison County Government Center was closed to the public in
December and is not expected to reopen until July.

With plastic lining the walls and flooring, workers are in the
process of removing ceiling tiles on the second and third floors
in preparation for the remediation work on the asbestos.

Looking up into the structural support system, the amount of
asbestos fireproofing overspray done when the building was
constructed in 1973 is evident.

Lonnie Rigsby, owner of Abatement & Contracting Services LLC of
Bardstown, Kentucky, said the work started in December and half
of the fourth floor work is completed.

Rigsby said asbestos fireproofing is being removed from the steel
beams easily. One problem, he said, is the fireproofing on the
decking that comprises the flooring, which has gotten into tiny
spaces.

"We have given them the option of encapsulating that material,
which is an accepted way to abate asbestos," he said. "That would
save both time and money. If we had to remove all the asbestos
material we would probably be working here until December. That
option is acceptable to provide a safe building for the public."
Rigsby said all the mechanical lines will be encapsulated so
there is no danger to the public or county employees.

Dan Dykes, administrator for Madison County, explained the
fireproofing is removed from the steel beams with a power washer.
"That forms a slurry, which is then double bagged," he said.

The bags containing the asbestos slurry are being disposed of in
an approved landfill by Best Way Disposal.

Rigsby said the Indiana Department of Environmental Management
has approved removal of the asbestos powder from the top of the
ceiling tiles and then disposing of the tiles and framework as
normal scrap.

"We'll clean the ceiling tile and IDEM has agreed it is non-
hazardous material and can be disposed of as construction
debris," he said.

Rigsby said the company is ahead of schedule on the ceiling
demolition and a little behind on the abatement.

He said the work will be done by April. The company currently has
20 people working on the Government Center.

The work will proceed in double shifts of 10 hours each.

Dykes said the Madison County commissioners are considering
several design changes to the first floor, including relocating
the commissioners' offices to the space formerly occupied by the
Council of Governments.

Rigsby has been in the abatement business for 12 years and said
the Madison County work is different from most other projects.

"This is a little more difficult because it's not a total
renovation," he said. "Typically we would be removing all the
walls. Normally we don't have the walls to deal with."

Todd Durnill, project manager for Pyramid Architecture and
Engineering, said the new carpeting has been ordered and the
commissioners will accept bids in March on new drywall, painting
and carpentry work in the Government Center.

Abatement & Contracting Services LLC was awarded a $658,950
contract for the asbestos remediation and removal. The engineer's
estimate was $700,000. It was the lowest of the eight bids that
ranged up to $2.1 million.

In November, the Madison County Council voted to borrow $3.5
million over 14 years to pay for the asbestos remediation and
remodeling work at the Government Center.

The County Council is pledging the county's share of the local
option income tax revenues to repay the loan.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NH Battles Asbestos Lawsuits and Transparency
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Landrigan of The Union Leader reported that New Hampshire
has a higher-than-average mortality rate for asbestos-related
diseases, according to a leading environmental group.

Legal advocates claim a pending bill seeks to delay if not deny
financial payouts to victims.

"This proposal is designed with one goal in mind -- to run out
the clock on asbestos victims in New Hampshire so they die before
their cases even make it to court," said Col. Peter J. Duffy,
U.S. Army (ret.) of Manchester.

"People who were unknowingly sickened by asbestos deserve
justice, and the companies responsible for poisoning them should
be held accountable."

But supporters maintain the intent of this measure (SB 335) is
simply to require victims and their lawyers to identify the
sources of money they've already gotten in or out of court.

"The problem is simple; it is about double-dipping," said state
Sen. Harold French, R-Franklin, in testimony to the Senate
Judiciary Committee. "This bill is not about limiting peoples'
rights to their actual damages."

Ohio was the first state to adopt an asbestos trust transparency
law in 2013; since then 11 other states have followed suit.

"Given their success, similar legislation should be enacted in
all states to prevent double recovery and allow for just
allocation of fault at trial," said John Wagner, a nationally
known lawyer based in Ohio who has defended multinational
corporations against asbestos lawsuits in state and federal
courts.

Eva Bleich, a lawyer from Exeter, told the Senate panel her
husband, Joseph, died 16 months ago from mesothelioma.

"The people who did this knew the entire time they were killing
people and I don't think they are the ones our society wants to
protect," Bleich said.

There is no national asbestos law. New York and California are
known as states with a legal structure that encourages suits,
while Georgia, Texas and Florida are among those that place heavy
restrictions on them.

According to legal analysts, New Hampshire falls in the middle of
the spectrum.

Veterans hit hard

The annual rate of asbestos-related mortality in the U.S. is 4.9
for every 100,000 deaths.

New Hampshire's rate is 6.2, with more than 1,200 residents dying
from asbestos-triggered diseases from 1999 to 2013, according to
the Environmental Working Group Action Fund.

There are much higher rates in certain parts of the state --
including Coos County at 10.6, Sullivan County at 8.1 and
Strafford County at 7.6.

Asbestos was once widely used in a number of industries that
employed many people in New Hampshire, including construction,
pulp and paper production, manufacturing and mining.

Veterans are disproportionally afflicted with asbestos-related
diseases.

While they make up 8 percent of the U.S. population, they account
for roughly 30 percent of Americans who contract mesothelioma, a
cancer that attacks the lining of the lungs, stomach and other
organs. Its only cause is asbestos.

Rep. Al Baldasaro, R-Londonderry and a retired Marine, was a
leading adviser to President Trump's 2016 campaign on veteran
issues.

"This is a big business protection bill," Baldasaro said.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Sharon Carson, R-Londonderry, pointed
out many veteran groups across the country endorsed this measure
as it was proposed in other states.

Kevin Grady, a member of the State Veterans Advisory Committee,
said his group is against it.

"Anything that slows that process down is not something we are
interested in," Grady said.

"This puts in a bunch of extra legal steps."

Legislation's provisions

Most companies that made asbestos have filed for bankruptcy
protection. They often created trusts to settle current and
future claims.

Specifically, the legislation would:

   * Compel victims to first seek recovery from the bankruptcy
trust before filing a civil lawsuit against an ongoing business;

   * Force asbestos victims to disclose confidential settlement
agreements;

   * Alter procedural rules by keeping cases open for years after
judgment and;

   * Allow corporations to delay trials.

Advocates for this bill point out lawyers for the victims in New
Hampshire who seek damages do not have to identify whether they
have already received a settlement from the trust.

"They should be able to collect from both those entities with
respect to those groups," said Nina Caroselli, executive vice
president of the Riverstone Group, a Manchester-based insurance
organization that deals with asbestos-related litigation.

"The issue we face in the court system is we don't have the
transparency we need into the bankruptcy trust system."

Supporters of the bill point out surviving members of someone who
dies from asbestos-related disease can still recover damages.

The Senate panel has yet to make its recommendation on this bill
to the full Senate.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Power Plant Riddled With Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------
Kellie Lazzaro of ABC Online reported that the former Energy Brix
Power Station once brought brown coal-fired electricity into
Victorian homes but closed in 2014 and has sat idle since.

The Heritage Council of Victoria issued an interim protection
order for the site in March last year and has now listed the site
for protection.

Moe resident, Cheryl Wragg, was behind the nomination and said it
was a special site that warranted protection on four grounds.
"It's the oldest coal-fired power station in the state, it's the
rarest in terms of engineering, it's the only remnant of
Victoria's briquetting industry and it demonstrates the State
Electricity Commission of Victoria, which changed the course of
Victoria's history," she said.

Ms Wragg said she would like to see the site returned to its
glory days and redeveloped into a tourist attraction and memorial
to those who worked there.

"That means lots of jobs in the Latrobe Valley in terms of
restoration and construction," Ms Wragg said.

Full of asbestos

The site contains between 10,000 and 15,000 cubic metres of class
A and B asbestos, mainly in the power station.

Asbestos Council of Victoria chief executive officer Vicky
Hamilton wants to see all of the buildings demolished.

"It's a danger. The whole place is a toxic dump and it needs to
be pulled down," she said.

The Latrobe Valley already has a high rate of mesothelioma and
asbestos-related diseases.

"It's an insult to see it standing there. It's a reminder of the
pain and suffering the workers have already been through," Ms
Hamilton said.

"We're not being listened to as far as I'm concerned."

$80 million clean-up bill

The company Energy Brix Australia Corporation, which was the
final operator of the site, went into liquidation in 2014.

"We only wanted to demolish the power station which is the
building that contains the majority of the asbestos," Energy Brix
remediation general manager Barry Dungey said.

Mr Dungey said it will cost $60-80 million to make the site safe.
He said demolition was the cheaper option, coming in at about $25
million.

"My personal opinion is it's a failure of common sense," he said.
Mr Dungey said a buyer was interested in the site and would spend
more than $100 million to establish a business to make high-value
coal products, but only if the power station is demolished.

"We can apply for a demolition permit on the basis of health and
safety grounds and that will be the path we go down," Mr Dungey
said.

"The only person that can stop this now is the Victorian Planning
Minister," he said.

A spokesman for the Minister, Richard Wynne, said the Minister
will consider the heritage report and any options for
intervention.

The Latrobe City Council said it would work to ensure any costs
relating to the protection of the site were not borne by local
ratepayers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Ignored Evidence J&J Talc Lack Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal of Law360 reported that counsel for Johnson &
Johnson cross-examined an asbestos expert who previously told New
Jersey jurors the company's talcum powder products contained
asbestos, questioning the scientist about not including more than
a dozen reports giving J&J talc a clean bill of health in his
evaluation.

During the ninth day of the trial on plaintiff Stephen Lanzo
III's claims that he developed mesothelioma after using J&J's
talcum powder products for decades, his environmental health
consultant, Dr. James Webber, returned to the stand to be cross-
examined.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council to Decide on Southwest Bldg Abatement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ronnie Marley of NewsWest9.com reported that the future of the
Building of the Southwest in Midland is a little more clear now.

Council members voted to approve a contract for an abatement of
the asbestos inside the abandoned building at a proposed cost of
$657,000.

The council also voted to accept a bid from the Midland
Development Corporation for the purchase of the property.

So far, no word on what the Midland Development Corporation plans
to do with the building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Land to be Sold After House Demolition
-------------------------------------------------------
Sophie Boyd of The Border Mail reported that the first of four
Albury properties known to contain loose-fill asbestos was
demolished, after the dangerous material had been removed from
the site.

Member for Albury Greg Aplin said the Stephen Street home, bought
by the government under its voluntary purchase and demolition
program, would eventually be put up for sale.

He said it was the only property of the four affected where both
the house and land was sold to the government.

"After the action taken to demolish the house, all materials will
be safely disposed of and they will remediate the land to make
sure the earth is free of any contamination," he said.

"It will then be signed off by the EPA and in the normal course
of events it will be put on the market."

Mr Aplin said the process for removal and demolition was
extremely safe.

"Very few properties were identified in Albury which is good news
as less people have been affected and have to make a difficult
decision."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inspections Bares Asbestos in 2nd-Hand Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
EU News reported that in an EU/EEA-wide project of ECHA's
Enforcement Forum, inspectors found hundreds of consumer products
with illegal amounts of restricted chemicals. Every fifth toy
inspected contained high levels of restricted phthalates.

The project report shows a relatively high number of products on
the European market containing chemicals that are restricted
under REACH. Inspectors in 27 European countries checked 1 009
mixtures, 4 599 articles and 17 substances. Overall, out of 5 625
targeted product checks, 18 % did not comply with the
restrictions.

The most frequent breaches were: phthalates in toys (20 % of
inspected toys contained Bis(2-ethylhexyl) (DEHP), Dibutyl
phthalate (DBP) or Benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP) at levels above
those permitted), cadmium in brazing fillers (14 %) and asbestos
fibres in products (14 %). The products containing asbestos - for
example, catalytic heaters, thermos flasks, brake pads - were
mostly second-hand and probably produced before the restrictions
prohibiting the sale of products containing asbestos came into
force.

Inspectors also found high concentrations of chromium VI in
leather articles (13 % of the tested products) and cadmium in
jewellery (12 %).

Overall, most of the breaches were found with products, which had
origins that could not be identified (39 % of such products did
not comply), followed by products imported from China (17 %).

The report highlights the companies' responsibility to get
information on the chemical composition of their products from
their suppliers. This may also include proactively testing the
products and making agreements between suppliers so that the
chemical composition complies with the chemicals legislation. The
enforcement authorities will continue enforcing REACH
restrictions by analysing further products on the market.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Construction Stop After Asbestos Find
-------------------------------------------------------------
WLOX reported that scheduled renovations at Escatawpa Upper
Elementary School over the Mardi Gras break were halted after
crews found signs of asbestos.

No students or staff were in the building at the time. The
construction was part of a renovation plan for the historic
school.

According to Moss Point School District, the subcontractors
identified signs of asbestos on the job site and  reported it to
the district's director of operations and maintenance supervisor,
who immediately shut down the construction site, sealed off the
dining hall, cleaned and sealed the glue pads in the ceiling and
contacted the architecture firm for further directions.

The district said they are now taking extreme safety precautions
to ensure the safety of all students and staff. Students returned
to school following the two-day holiday. As a part of those
safety precautions, school officials have relocated all meal
preparation and services.

"This happened during Mardi Gras break, students or staff were
not exposed to suspected asbestos. All asbestos encapsulation
work associated with the project has been properly and completely
sealed off and an air quality test has been taken," said
superintendent, Dr. Shannon Vincent in a written statement.

"As an added precaution, the air quality testing will continue to
go to a second lab to ensure the quality of air is safe for our
students. Precautions and
relocation of students was an added measure to ensure that our
staff and students are safe."

The district's maintenance supervisor Darwin Bivins said:
"Periodic surveillance of the schools is performed every 6 months
to monitor the condition changes of any materials that are known
or presumed to contain asbestos. Periodic re-inspections of the
schools are performed every 3 years to update the schools' safety
management plans."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Bastrop County Jailhouse
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Mulder of the Austin American-Statesman reported that
Bastrop County officials evacuated county employees from one of
its oldest buildings, as soon as they learned that damages levied
by Hurricane Harvey were exposing employees to asbestos.

The historic Bastrop County jailhouse, which sits adjacent to the
historic county courthouse, had asbestos-infused plaster that was
damaged and was releasing the carcinogen into the air.

The nine employees who work out of the jailhouse -- which became
an administrative building in 1974 -- had potentially been
exposed to the asbestos for about six months.

The Federal Emergency Management Administration first notified
the county of potential mold in the building following the
hurricane, which struck in August. It wasn't until Jan. 29 that
an inspection, conducted by Austin Enviro Group, was carried out.

Bastrop County Judge Paul Pape was notified of the results when
he ordered the evacuations.

"As soon as we found out about this, we immediately evacuated the
building, even to the point of [staff] leaving behind their
computers and desks and filing cabinets and everything else,"
Pape said.

Pape did not release the full report of asbestos levels, but said
it was at levels "typical of what you might find in renovations
from the mid-1950s and 60s," he said.

Temporary offices are being set up, some of which will be located
at the Grady Tuck Building on Loop 150, Pape said. The jailhouse
housed the Prescription Assistance Department, the Indigent
Health Care Department and the Civil Service Department, as well
as jury and grand jury assembly areas.

All are expected to reopen Feb. 20 at 8 a.m. Until then, the nine
staffers have been placed on administrative leave. The Human
Resources Department will be asking the nine staff members to
receive an immediate physical examination.

The historic jailhouse, along with the county courthouse, was
built in the late 19th century, and both buildings were nominated
for listing on the national register in 1975. The courthouse was
given a top-to-bottom renovation in the 1990s.

Because of budgetary concerns, the county has no plans to conduct
a countywide asbestos assessment of all its buildings.

When asked about taking a more proactive approach, Pape favored a
wait-and-see approach.

"As we become aware of it, we'll deal with it," Pape said.
"I think that's a reasonable and proper way to deal with these
environmental issues," he said. "Why would you start looking for
trouble? I think the proper way to handle it is, if we're going
to do renovation, we would address it at that time. But unless
there's some disturbance . . . it's not a health concern at all.
In fact, the safest thing to do is just to not bother it, just
leave it alone."

It is still unknown what obstacles the building's national
register listing may pose on the abatement process. The building
is also designated as a State Antiquities Landmark, which
provides the highest level of protection for a historic site, a
spokesman with the Texas Historical Commission said.
The Texas Historical Commission may require certain permits for
asbestos abatement, depending on how those renovation and
abatement plans shape up.

"Under State Antiquities Landmark designation, we would have to
issue a permit typically before major work can proceed," said the
commission's spokesman Chris Florance.

The county gave no timeline for when renovation plans will begin
or how much the project might cost.

"It's going to take some serious remediation to get it back to
where it can be used for public offices again," Pape said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SA Students Still in Asbestos Classrooms
---------------------------------------------------------
Heilie Combrinck of News24 reported that Roads and Public Works
MEC Thandiswa Marawu must urgently investigate alleged
unauthorised expenditure of at least R6-million that was paid to
a contractor of the still uncompleted Jubilee Park Primary School
in Uitenhage.

This is according to a media statement issued by Vicky Knoetze
(MPL) Shadow MEC for Roads and Public Works.

"Learners are still in asbestos and prefab structures, despite
the appointment of a contractor by the Department of Roads and
Public Works in August 2014," said Knoetze.

"The original completion date was October 2016. It was then moved
to March 2017, then to July 2017, followed by September 2017. At
this stage, the completion date is April 2018."

On investigation, the Democratic Alliance found out that the
contractor has not been on site since November last year and only
returned recently with a small staff complement.

"In terms of documentation received, the reason that no work had
been done since last year was that the contractor allegedly
claimed an additional R6-million for a 58-day delay. It was
claimed the delay was due to labour unrest and local labour
strikes, which entitles the contractor to an adjustment.
"However, according to a mediator's report, the contractor was
entitled to an amount of only R649 000," said Knoetze.

According to reports, the department paid the R6-million without
waiting for the mediator's report. The fact that the Department
paid an amount of over R5.3-million more than what is stipulated
in the mediator's report is indicative of gross negligence,
resulting in a massive amount of unauthorised expenditure as this
was never part of the contract.

"It has transpired that the contractor is allegedly also claiming
additional funds in connection with the R6-million settlement, of
almost R1-million.

"It is also alleged that the contractor is demanding that
penalties incurred of almost R2-million be reversed," said
Knoetze.

She said it is unacceptable that learners have to sit in prefabs
and asbestos buildings and that they deserve more.

According to Jubilee Park Primary principal, Patrick Korkee, the
1338 learners for the past four years have been attending school
in double shifts, from 08:00 to 12:00 and 12:00 to 16:00.

"Being at school for only 4 hours a day is not ideal. It does
affect the learners' academic achievements. It is impossible to
complete curricula in such a short time compared to the normal 7
hours," said Korkee.

The prefabs and asbestos class rooms date back to 1952 and during
2012 a total of 11 of these old classrooms were destroyed by a
fire.

"We are looking forward to moving to the new state-of-the-art
classrooms and continuing our education as per the norm," said
Korkee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Clears Certainteed in $5MM Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
David Siegel of CVN News reported that an Arizona state court
jury has delivered a defense verdict in favor of CertainTeed
Corp. in an asbestos lawsuit, finding that the building materials
company is not responsible for the death of a pipefitter whose
family claimed he developed cancer after years of inhaling dust
generated by sawing asbestos cement pipes.

The jury returned the verdict on February 1 after roughly three
hours of deliberation following a trial that began on January 9.
They rejected allegations from Francisco Herrera's wife and three
adult children that CertainTeed knew their asbestos-containing
cement pipes posed a health risk but failed to adequately warn
workers.

Attorneys for the Herrera family asked jurors to award
approximately $5 million in compensatory damages and unspecified
punitive damages, but CertainTeed successfully argued that jurors
did not have sufficient evidence to identify CertainTeed's pipes
as the primary cause of Herrera's mesothelioma.

Herrera began working for municipal contractor SunAir Co. in 1977
on public water systems. His attorneys claimed that he routinely
cut asbestos cement pipes with a saw and inhaled large quantities
of asbestos dust. However Herrera died before he could give a
deposition, so his family's attorneys relied on testimony from
former co-workers who CertainTeed's attorneys argued had vague
recollections about Herrera's activities.

"If you take CertainTeed's argument to its logical conclusion is
that [those co-workers] don't remember what they worked with
every day," Susannah Chester-Schindler of Waters Kraus & Paul
told jurors during her closing argument. "Simply because they
can't swear that they used it with Frank Herrera on a specific
day at a specific intersection at a specific time."

She maintained that CertainTeed had substantial evidence about
the dangers of asbestos by the 1970's, but CertainTeed's
attorneys placed the blame on SunAir not training its employees
to work safely with asbestos cement pipes.

Todd Suddleson of DeHay & Elliston LLP told jurors during his
closing argument that CertainTeed explicitly warned customers not
to cut asbestos cement pipes with power saws and to take steps to
minimize the production of airborne asbestos dust.

Suddleson also argued that Herrera worked with asbestos cement
pipes from other companies besides CertainTeed, but his co-
workers couldn't testify about which pipes they saw him cutting.

"All they've shown is some co-workers that say CertainTeed was
one of the pipe that they used," he said. "They never said how
often, they never said where, they never said when, they never
said, 'I saw Frank Herrera touching a piece of CertainTeed pipe."

Suddleson repeatedly emphasized that jurors never got the chance
to hear from Herrera himself, a circumstance that can often
present a significant obstacle for plaintiffs in asbestos
lawsuits involving deceased individuals.

Chester-Schindler told jurors that by the time Herrera's family
filed their lawsuit, that he was too ill to give a deposition.

"I didn't depose him because he was dying of cancer," she said.
"I'm an attorney, that's how I make money, but even I have a
line."

Both sides were represented by pro hac vice counsel from Texas-
based firms, with CertainTeed also represented by Valerie Ross
from Schiff Hardin LLP's Washington, D.C. office.

A CertainTeed spokesperson told CVN the company does not comment
on litigation. Attorneys for the Herrera family did not respond
to a request for comment.

The full trial is available to subscribers as part of CVN's one-
of-a-kind trial video archive, which also includes gavel-to-gavel
video of many other asbestos, product liability and mass tort
trials.

The case is Francisco Herrera v. CertainTeed Corp., case number
CV2014-09632, in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa
County. Judge Dawn Bergin presided.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Closed Lincoln Memorial Visitor Center
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dubois County Free Press reported that parts of the Memorial
Visitor Center at Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial will be
closed from February through mid-March 2018 to allow for the
removal of asbestos in the ceiling in preparation for a future
installation of a fire suppression system.

All areas of the building between the two memorial halls
including the museum, auditorium, bookstore and visitor center,
will be closed during the project to ensure visitor and staff
safety.

The two memorial halls will be open to the public 8:00 a.m. to
4:00 p.m. CST. During this project, visitors will still be able
to view the orientation video, temporary displays, and stamp
their park passports in the memorial halls and hike the trails in
the park.

The Memorial Visitor Center, completed in 1943, was designed with
two memorial halls and a connecting cloister. Lincoln Boyhood
National Memorial is located off of Indiana Highway 162 in
Lincoln City, Indiana. For more information, please visit the
park website at www.nps.gov/libo or call the park at 812-937-
4541.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Council Workers Exposed to Asbestos
------------------------------------------------------
The Advertiser reported that the material was believed to have
been hidden among building material that was dumped at the Two
Wells Recycling Depot.

It was then transferred to a processing plant at Dublin late last
year where it was discovered by a neighbour who reported it the
Adelaide Plains Council.

Four council workers who were exposed to the hazardous material
are undergoing health checks and will be monitored.

It is understood both the recycling depot and the processing
plant have been remediated at a cost of $150,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shed Asbestos Causes GoBus to Shift Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Hartley of Otago Daily Times reported that the Dunedin City
Council has confirmed a 2000sqm building in Princes St has low-
level asbestos contamination, prompting the tenant to move its
staff out.

The council has no immediate plans on what to do with the old
"tram shed" building on the site from where GoBus operates, next
to the Market Reserve.

The council's Property Services confirmed the asbestos
contamination only after inquiries by the ODT, following a tip-
off.

Property Services staff would not be interviewed, and in response
to emailed questions, Property Manager David Bainbridge said the
council had  "recently became aware" of asbestos on the premises,
"which is not surprising for a building of this age".

Nationwide company GoBus leases the site and is staying there,
but has shifted its 12 workshop staff out of the tram shed to
off-site premises.

Mr Bainbridge said both an initial survey, followed by a full
asbestos survey, found no airborne asbestos fibres were present.

"There is asbestos in the roof and around some of the pipework.

"Although the surveys show asbestos risk is low, GoBus has
decided to move some of its workshop operations," Mr Bainbridge
said.
The shed does not have a historic listing.

He was asked if the site would have to be decontaminated or
whether it would be redeveloped or replaced.

Mr Bainbridge said the best course of action for the shed would
depend on GoBus' long-term plans, which it had yet to confirm.

Mr Bainbridge said the council had no plans to demolish the shed.

GoBus South Island operations director Nigel Piper said, when
contacted, about 12 workshop staff were recently moved out of the
"large, dark and very old" tram shed, to a bigger workshop off-
site.

"We really just needed a bigger, better place for them," he said.
When questioned about asbestos, he referred comment to the
council.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Forbes Home
----------------------------------------------
Forbes Advocate reported that Forbes residents are being offered
free testing for loose-fill asbestos after a property in the area
was found to contain the hazardous fibres.

The testing is free to people who own a pre-1980s home in the
Forbes Shire Council area, with the government offering to
purchase homes containing it for demolition.

Parliamentary Secretary for Western NSW Rick Colless urged
homeowners to register for testing before March 12.

"NSW Fair Trading is offering free testing as an opportunity for
us to find out if loose-fill asbestos was installed as insulation
in other properties in the area," Mr Colless said.

"If you are the owner of a pre-1980s residential property in the
Forbes Council area, you are eligible to register for the free
testing.

"Once the testing has been completed, the outcome of those tests
will inform any further action that needs to be considered."
Loose-fill asbestos is raw crushed asbestos, which in the 1960s
and 70s was installed as ceiling insulation in a number of NSW
homes.

Over time, hazardous airborne fibres can move from the ceiling
into living spaces, Mr Colless advised in a press released.

The NSW Government has a Voluntary Purchase and Demolition
Program for homes found to contain loose-fill asbestos. Homes are
purchased at market value, as if they did not contain loose-fill
asbestos.

Earlier experiences in both NSW and the ACT has demonstrated that
simply removing loose-fill asbestos from a ceiling cavity does
not effectively remove the hazard, Mr Colless's press release
said.

"The NSW Government, with input from a range of experts, has
determined that demolition, comprehensive site remediation and
disposal are the best ways to ensure the health and safety of the
NSW community," it said.

To date,142 properties have tested positive to loose-fill
asbestos from more than 61,000 properties tested across NSW.

The owner of the Forbes property where loose-fill asbestos was
discovered is considering their options.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Can Subpoena Asbestos Claim Handlers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Archer of Law360 reported that New York bankruptcy judge has
told Rapid-American Corp. it can't stop the trio of insurance
companies it claims failed to cover it from asbestos claims from
subpoenaing the company's claims handlers.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stuart Bernstein found both Rapid and its
unsecured creditors committee had failed to demonstrate they had
standing to contest the attempt by the insurers -- Travelers
Casualty and Surety Co., Travelers subsidiary St. Paul Fire and
Marine Insurance Co. and National Union Fire Insurance Co. of
Pittsburgh, Pa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Gets Settlement for Father's Asbestos Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
South Wales Argus reported that when Graham Chilton died of the
asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma, his son Leigh sought
justice for the retirement his father was robbed of.

He has achieved it in the form of an undisclosed settlement, but
believes there are many other families with loved ones suffering,
or who will suffer, the ravages of a cruel disease through
exposure to asbestos at work. He urges them to seek justice and
crucially, expert help.

Graham Chilton from Pentwynmawr, near Newbridge, was diagnosed
with mesothelioma in August 2012. Two months later, he died.
Earlier that year he suffered shortness of breath and a chesty
cough, and was found to have fluid on his lungs. He then
developed pain in his chest and a shoulder, followed by stomach
pain.

After various medical examinations, a scan revealed shadowing on
his lungs, later diagnosed as incurable mesothelioma. His death
at 65 left his only son Leigh, with whom he lived, struggling to
come to terms with suddenly being on his own. His mother died in
1997.

It is thought Mr Chilton was exposed to asbestos when working for
Newport Forge. He worked mainly at the firm's Bedwas-based
engineering works, starting in 1971, with maintenance work a part
of his role. Symptoms of mesothelioma often do not appear until
decades later.

He also worked at other sites, including one in Rhymney, where it
is believed his role involved lining ovens, cutting asbestos
sheets to size and using asbestos ropes as links.

"I still lived with dad. I felt angry that he was taken from us
so soon, having deteriorated so quickly. He was only reaching
retirement age and had so much he wanted to achieve," said Leigh
Chilton.

"It wasn't possible for dad to bring a claim during his lifetime,
he was so unwell. So retrospectively seeking justice for him was
important to me.

"I went initially to a solicitor in Liverpool, but after months
of going back and forth they suddenly advised that they could not
continue the claim in the absence of an in-life statement from
dad, and no other witness evidence. By then, limitation had
expired on the claim. I was shocked, exasperated, but still
wanted closure for dad.

Other solicitors recommended Hugh James, a law firm specialising
in industrial disease cases. Though out of time, it took on and
eventually settled the claim, to Mr Chilton's "huge relief."

"If I could offer advice to others who have lost loved ones to an
asbestos-related disease, I would urge them to work directly with
a specialist law firm," he said.

"I learnt the hard way. Using a non-specialist solicitor at the
start put the case in jeopardy. If I'd only known this before,
things would have been so much easier at such a distressing
time."
Sarah James, an associate at Hugh James, said Graham Chilton may
be among many Newport Forge workers who may have been exposed to
asbestos. The company is no longer in business, so claims are
pursued through insurers.

"Sadly, Leigh's experience of losing his father to an asbestos-
related disease is one we see all too often, especially in south
Wales. It is important for people to seek specialist industrial
disease legal advice," she said.

"Through no fault of their own, workers and their families are
still paying the price for employers historically not providing
adequate workplace protection decades ago, and many may have been
unwittingly exposed to asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Sues 3 Companies for Asbestos Negligence
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of St. Louis Record reported that a woman is
suing Crown Cork & Seal USA Inc., Gardner Denver Inc., Honeywell
International Inc., and others, asbestos products manufacturers
and users, alleging failure to warn and negligence.

Vickie West filed a complaint on Jan. 29 in the St. Louis 22nd
Judicial Circuit Court against the defendants alleging that they
breached their duty to exercise reasonable care and caution for
the safety of others.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that, at
various times during her work, she was exposed to and inhaled or
ingested asbestos fibers emanating from certain products
manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by the defendants.
She allegedly was also secondarily exposed to asbestos through
her father. On Aug. 30, 2017, she claims she first became aware
that she had developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease,
and that the disease was wrongfully caused.

The plaintiff holds Crown Cork & Seal USA, Gardner Denver,
Honeywell International and others responsible because they
allegedly intentionally included asbestos fibers in their
products when they knew that it was highly toxic, deleterious and
poisonous to humans' health; and failed to provide adequate
warnings and instructions concerning the dangers of working with
or around products containing asbestos fibers.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury; and seeks actual and
compensatory damages of not less than $25,000 and all other
relief that the court may deem equitable. She is represented by
Benjamin R. Schmickle and Matthew C. Morris of SWMW Law LLC in
St. Louis.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1822-CC00193


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Low Level Asbestos Exposure Can Cause Disease
--------------------------------------------------------------
George Knapp of KLAS-TV reported that motorists will be able to
cruise a brand-new section of Interstate 11.  It's the Railroad
Pass interchange and it will be open for business Feb. 20.

The I-11 bypass is a massive project that almost didn't happen
because of potentially deadly fibers found in the soil near
Boulder City.

Scientists discovered naturally-occurring asbestos a few years
ago, and as the I-Team has reported, those fibers can cause
serious health problems.

Investigative Reporter George Knapp has information on some new
research about the risk from asbestos and how agencies in charge
of the interstate have worked to minimize what gets into the air.

Soon, an empty stretch of the I-11 will be jammed with traffic.
It's a bypass that almost wasn't built because of NOA, or
Naturally Occurring Asbestos, in the rocks and soil.

UNLV geologists Brenda Buck and Rod Metcalf first discovered
suspicious fibers back in 2013. The more they looked, the more
they found. Eventually, they mapped the deposits. It became clear
the planned interstate would plow through the heart of asbestos
country but when the geologists and their colleagues tried to
publish results of a study suggesting elevated levels of asbestos
related disease, state  health officials pounced, issued a cease
and desist order, and tried to bury the results.

Natural asbestos is no risk to public health, the officials said.
The professors worried that the highway project would take
precedence over public health.

"We also don't want it to be true, but you can't deny data," said
Dr. Brenda Buck, UNLV geologist.

Buck and Metcalf insist they were never anti-highway or opposed
to development but thought the public should know about potential
risks.

At a recent public meeting in Boulder City, they unveiled the
latest scientific evidence along with colleague Dr. Jean Pfau of
Montana State University.  Pfau has spent the last 17 years
studying the health effects of asbestos exposure in Libby,
Montana, site of the deadliest environmental disaster in American
history.

In Libby, long-term exposure to a particular asbestos-type fiber
killed 400 people and sickened thousands more.

Mesothelioma -- a rare but always fatal disease -- is
indisputably caused by exposure to asbestos, but Pfau and others
documented a host of other, less obvious diseases that develop
over long periods of time.

"By and large the predominant disease in Libby is a progressive
pleural fibrosis. It's gradual scarring of tissue around the
lung, so it gets harder and harder to expand your lungs," said
Dr. Jean Pfau. "Patients in Libby, for decades, were diagnosed
with, you're obese, you're overweight, you have COPD, you're a
smoker, so cases were dismissed. This is a very subtle, very
gradual reduction in your ability to do daily activity."

Buck and Metcalf found that the fibers which killed so many in
Libby were almost identical to the ones in the Nevada soil.

Dr. Pfau took it a step further by exposing mice to low levels of
the asbestos found here. She confirmed a range of autoimmune
diseases.

"We saw an increase in the level of auto antibodies, indications
of systemic immunity, we saw inflammation, potential kidney
damage, all that you might see in autoimmune disease," Dr. Pfau
said.

"For us, it means low-level exposure levels can cause disease, so
it's important to find out how much people are being exposed to,"
Buck said.

"The exposure level to trigger a negative health response is much
much lower," Metcalf said.

Although Nevada health officials scoffed at the dangers of
asbestos, the agencies and contractors involved with the highway
project took it seriously.

I-Team: Asbestos concerns surface in I-11 project (May 18, 2016)
I-Team: Who's monitoring asbestos risk along I-11? (May 18, 2016)
They delayed the highway for a year, implemented measures to
protect workers, including individual asbestos monitors, sprayed
a million gallons of water per day to tamp down soil and clean
fibers off of everything, and installed sensors around the
project.

The data from the sensors is sent to NDOT where state experts
review it. Highway consultants say the greater risk of airborne
asbestos comes from other sources, in particular from the playa
in the El Dorado Valley, where asbestos-laden dust is generated
daily. Once the highway is finished, that valley will likely
become home to housing developments.

Because Nevada has laws regulating exposure to natural asbestos,
developers who build homes in areas like the El Dorado Valley
won't be required to meet the same kind of safety standards used
to build the interstate.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Scandal Shows NY at Risk
--------------------------------------------------
Edison Severino of Crain's New York Business reported that just
days ago, the New York City Department of Investigation announced
the arrest of 17 people for falsifying inspection documentsfor
asbestos for 40 properties in Manhattan and on Staten Island.
These are construction sites where workers or anybody allowed in
might have unknowingly become exposed to the deadly asbestos
fibers that cause aggressive cancers like lung cancer and
mesothelioma.

I am not a medical expert, but my union, Laborers Local 78,
represents thousands of workers heavily trained to handle
hazardous materials like asbestos and lead. We know first-hand
the health dangers they pose.

The most recent asbestos scandal is solid proof that property
owners are trying to cut corners because there is not enough
oversight of their construction sites. They are willing to
circumvent the system for financial gain while putting New
Yorkers at risk.

The removal of asbestos is a very expensive process required by
the Department of Buildings before a construction permit is
issued. Certified asbestos investigators are required to send an
asbestos assessment to the Department of Environmental
Protection. If lab results confirm the presence of asbestos, the
DEP gets the records.

The problem is that property owners are allowed to choose their
own investigators to certify that their construction site is
asbestos-free. These inspectors, even with the required
certification from DEP, can be easily swayed to produce favorable
results for building owners if there is a business interest to do
so. That's the lesson learned from the Department of
Investigation's probe.

In the age of slumlords, the city cannot rely on the good faith
of building owners any longer. This latest case involved 40
buildings, but these illegal practices could be happening in many
other construction sites that we don't know about.

If the New York City Housing Authority--a government agency
subject to a lot of oversight--can fail to complete the required
inspections for lead, imagine what private building owners can
get away with. Asbestos is even more regulated than lead, but
there are clearly too many loopholes allowing for lack of
oversight.

District attorneys and the Department of Investigation have
wisely recommended background checks and more audits, and DEP has
increased the number of enforcement staff. But that is not
enough. There is a need for more proactive measures, including
third-party inspectors chosen by the city, not by building
owners.
It is time to stop being complacent to property owners. They need
to be held accountable. The city has an obligation to do whatever
it takes to ensure the safety not only of workers but of all New
Yorkers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos at JFK Learning Center Concerns Parents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
News 12 Westchester reported that some parents in Port Chester
remain concerned after mold and asbestos were recently discovered
at an elementary school.

The JFK Early Learning Center shut its building down after mold
and asbestos was discovered.

Sandra Chavez says her first-grader's asthma has gotten worse due
to the school's conditions.

The superintendent of Port Chester schools, Dr. Edward Kliszus,
insists the school is now safe.

"The minute mold was detected we reassigned all the students the
next day," Kliszus said.

Kliszus says he hired crews to clean the school and then had air
quality tests performed.

Chavez says she still doesn't trust that the school is clean.

"I have no faith in the school, so I send my kid with water,"
Chavez said. "That's the most I can do."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Denied Access to Probe Libby Suferfund Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Blodgett of The Western News reported that the Environmental
Protection Agency recently filed with the county 140 letters
indicating the refusal of property owners to allow the agency any
access or continued access for investigations associated with the
Libby Asbestos Superfund site.

The letters, called a Notice of Potential Environmental
Conditions, were filed Jan. 30 with the Lincoln County Office of
the Clerk and Recorder for inclusion with property deeds, EPA
Site Manager Mike Cirian said via email.

On the same day, the agency also filed Notices of Environmental
Conditions for 20 properties requiring some form of remedial
action, Cirian wrote.

Cirian said he anticipates filing at least one more round of
approximately 90 letters and perhaps another round at a later
date.

"We didn't want to overwhelm the county staff for filing these,"
he wrote.

"There will probably be another filing once we are done this
year, as I am guessing some (property owners) will change their
mind or others will be identified and refuse."

Cirian noted that more than 8,100 properties were originally
identified as requiring investigation for asbestos contamination.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazardous Asbestos Container Goes Missing
----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Keith of Yorkshire Post reported that a container holding
hazardous waste was stolen from a property in East Yorkshire.

Humberside Police have launched an appeal to find the large
container, which was stolen from Saddlethorpe Broad Lane, Brough.
It is holding asbestos, which can be dangerous to people if they
are exposed to it.

The container went missing on February 5 and was spotted in
Stainforth near Doncaster on February 8 - but was moved before
the owner could collect it. A force spokesperson said: "We want
to find this container as it contains hazardous waste that needs
disposing of correctly. "We are advising that if it is located
that it's not opened and the contents aren't removed."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Port Arthur Train Tests Positive for Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
KFDM-TV News reported that a Kentucky train restoration
specialist is spearheading a project to save the Kansas City
Southern Engine 503, a historic landmark in Port Arthur.

Through a GoFundMe account, https://www.gofundme.com/help-save-
the-la-503-friends-of, Jason Sobczynski has raised more than
$31,000.

He's aiming for $50,000 to prevent the locomotive from getting
scrapped. Port Arthur city management says the train tested
positive for asbestos and contains lead-based paint. The city
says it was also leaking oil. The city has decided that full
restoration would cost too much, between $150,000 abd $500,000.

The artifact has been a fixture at Bryan Park on Gulfway Drive
since 1957.

The 503 is what's left of the 500 series of locomotives built by
Kansas City Southern between 1913 and 1920. Former Councilman
John Beard, and current community activist, partly blames the
city for the train's decay. Beard says the historic engine
belongs to the people of Port Arthur and they should have the
final say over its fate.

The city contracted Inland Environmental to get rid of the oil
spill and the asbestos.

Sobczynski says he plans to buy the engine from the company, and
move it out of Port Arthur.

He says it will be temporarily housed at the Texas State Railroad
in Rusk. A non-profit trust will be set up and donations to the
trust will pay for restoration. Eventually it will end up at a
train museum in Atlanta, or a tourist railroad in Orlando.

This saddens lifetime Port Arthur residents like Denise Griffin.
She told us, "It looks like everything is leaving away from this
beautiful town, Port Arthur, Texas."

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has given Port
Arthur a March Sixth deadline to get rid of the train's oil
spill.

Meanwhile Beard is questioning if the city council even voted on
scrapping the 503, reportedly the decision was made in closed
session.

Beard says anything decided behind closed doors, action must be
taken in open council.

We've reached out to the city to inquire exactly how it all
happened.

Port Arthur released the following statement about the engine:

     This City recently experienced a catastrophic event, which
exacerbated the City's financial problems (i.e. collapsing sewer
systems, street deterioration, and several city facilities with
leaking and deteriorating roofs).

Just after Tropical Storm Harvey, an oily substance was found in
Bryan Park and the surrounding area. The source appeared to have
come from the KCS Engine Train 503. The City's consultant, Total
Safety, Inc., was hired to investigate the train. Texas
Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ) regulations mandated
that such spills must be immediately remediated and the soil
under the train be excavated.

A visual observation revealed exposed insulation in the train
prompting a test for the presence of asbestos. It was also
determined that the train contained lead based paint. The train
was also in a severe state of disrepair and deterioration. Test
results received on October 9, 2017 confirmed that the insulation
contained asbestos, the level of which was above any acceptable
limit. Abatement of the asbestos was the only responsible
alternative. The TCEQ gave the City of Port Arthur a deadline of
March 6, 2018 to accomplish this task of remediation of the oil
spill. Failure to do so would have placed the City in the
position of being issued an Enforcement Order by TCEQ and a
possible fine.

During the months of September and October of 2017, Kansas City
Southern Railroad was contacted locally and at corporate
headquarters. Inquiry was made as to its interest in re-acquiring
the train. KCS declined the City's offer. Later in October, the
Texas Transportation Museum and others were contacted in an
effort to obtain the cost of full restoration of the train.
Estimates of full restoration ranged from $150,000 to $500,000.

Due to time constraints, safety concerns, the deteriorating
condition of the train, the presence of asbestos, and lead based
paint, City Management determined that the best option was to
award a contract, which included remediation of the liquid,
abatement of the asbestos, excavation of the soil, and removal of
the train. Given the needs of this City, the conditions we face,
and the fiduciary responsibility to the City by the City Manager
and staff, left us with no other viable financial alternative.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Laden Shed Catches Fire
-------------------------------------------------
NEWS.com.au reported that about 20 people were evacuated from a
Melbourne home after an asbestos-laden shed suspiciously caught
on fire.

Eight tankers and about 26 firefighters were required to
extinguish the blaze, which threatened two homes and injured one
firefighter in the suburb of Brooklyn about 10am.

The MFB has raised concerns about "unsatisfactory living
arrangements" with the local council, and investigations are
ongoing into the fire's cause.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boise Police Vacates Building Due to Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Boydston of KTVB reported that if you've driven down
Capitol Boulevard near Boise State University recently, the
vacant Boise Police Department substation might have caught your
eye.

Thanks to potential health risks, BPD packed up and moved out of
the building in January. There are other city-owned buildings on
that same property as well, like a low-income housing complex.

Boise police found a leak in the roof and smelled something funky
in October 2017 so they had it checked out. That's when they
found a mold problem. The mold was tested and they didn't find it
to be at hazardous levels.

But when crews were fixing the leak and doing mold remediation in
January, they ran into asbestos in the walls. The building is old
and asbestos was commonly used in construction material back when
it was built.

An issue came up, however, when the asbestos went airborne after
it was disrupted by the repairs. That's when police decided to
pick up and move out of the old motel-turned-downtown police
station that they've been housed in since 2015.

The building is also home to Life's Kitchen and other buildings
on the property are home to a city-owned low-income housing
complex.
"I'd like to know about it if it's in there," resident of four
years, Dennis Orr, told KTVB. "When I found out about that it
made me a little curious, you know, what's going on in these
buildings, you know. But I've never really been overly
concerned."

So KTVB asked the city whether those other buildings been tested,
and if they have found hazardous substances anywhere else.

The city tells us roofs on three of the four apartment buildings
were replaced within the last 18 months and they didn't find a
need to test for mold.

"There has been significant work done in those buildings and
there is no evidence when that work was being done so there's no
indication at all that there was any mold in any of those other
buildings," City of Boise spokesman Mike Journee told KTVB.
"Going forward, we are going to be doing some more testing with
that. We are going to be looking at other repairs and other
things we need to do as part of our regular maintenance of those
buildings and if any issues crop up, obviously we will take care
of those."

Officials are still waiting on reports from the asbestos
remediation to determine whether BPD officers can move back in.
The city says they want to have an accessible downtown home base
for police, so if they can't move back in to the substation at
1025 S. Capitol Boulevard they hope to find another spot in the
city's center.



                            *********


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, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  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  * * *