CAR_Public/180309.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, March 9, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 50

                            Headlines
                                     
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Class Action Suit in Ill.
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Bid to Drop Amended Robinson-Brown Suit Underway
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Decision to Drop Petrizzo-Jara Suit Still Pending
ADVANCE AUTO: Vincent Wong Firm Files Securities Class Action
AFLAC INC: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action

AMERICAN RENAL: Inks $4.0-Mil. Settlement for "Esposito" Suit
APPLE INC: Faces iPhone Battery Class Action in South Carolina
ARKANSAS: State Asks U.S. Judge to Decertify Medicaid Class Suit
ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: 4 Class Suits in Wisconsin Settled
AUSTRALIA: Navy Recruits File Class Action Over Training Absence

BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Defend Hernia Product Claims
BECTON DICKINSON: Women's Health Product Claims Still Ongoing
BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Defend Filter Product Claims
BOOZ ALLEN: Wins Dismissal of "Langley" Suit
BROTHERS OF THE SACRED: Senegalese Man Files Sexual Abuse Suit

CAPITAL ONE: 2nd Circuit Revives Overdraft Fee Class Action
CAPSTONE TURBINE: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in Calif.
CELGENE CORP: IUB Class Action Suit in New Jersey Underway
CENTURYLINK: Nationwide Class Suit to be Litigated in Minnesota
CNX RESOURCES: Agreement in Hale Suit Awaits Court Approval

CNX RESOURCES: Agreement in Addison Suit Awaits Court Approval
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Baron & Budd Secures Class Certification
CSRA INC: Judgment for Plaintiffs Entered in "Strauch" Suit
CSX CORP: Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation Still Ongoing
CVS PHARMA: Hit with Class Action Lawsuits from HIV Patients

DOLLAR GENERAL: Still Faces California Wage & Hour Suit
DOLLAR GENERAL: Defending Against Pennsylvania Wage & Hour Suit
DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Tennessee Wage & Hour Suit
DOLLAR GENERAL: Bid to Dismiss Shareholders Suit Pending
DR REDDY'S: Chairman, COO Added as Defendants in US Class Action

ELECTRONIC ARTS: "Davis" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
EMCORE CORP: $300,000 Settlement in "Mirasol" Case Okayed
ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI: Facing $1-Billion Class Action Suit
EQUIFAX INC: Judge Appoints Lawyers to Lead Data Breach Cases
FACEBOOK INC: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Class Lawsuit

FIRST SOLAR: Partial Denial of Summary Judgment Affirmed
FREDS INC: Discovery Completed in Southern Independent Bank Suit
FREDS INC: Bid to Remand Class Suits Still Pending
FUNKO INC: Faces "Lowinger" Class Action Suit
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Grant & Eisenhofer Files Class Action

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Insurance Shortfall
GENERAL MOTORS: Economic-Loss Claims Suits Still Ongoing
GENERAL MOTORS: Bid for Rehearing and Review Still Pending
GOOGLE INC: NLRB Recommends Dismissal of James Damore Case
GOOGLE INC: Girard Gibbs Mulls Class Action Over Pixel 2 Defects

HAIN CELESTIAL: Bid to Dismiss NY Securities Class Suit Pending
HAIN CELESTIAL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY
HYUNDAI MOTORS: 9th Circuit Unwinds Class Action Settlement
INTEL CORP: City of Providence Files Suit Over Meltdown, Spectre
INTEL CORP: Faces 32 Class Actions Over Meltdown, Spectre Flaws

KEY TECHNOLOGY: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
INTEL CORP: Faces 32 Class-Action Lawsuits Over CPU Flaws
INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Operators Ask for Rehearing En Banc
INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Says "Lanier" Suit Closed
ITERIS INC: Pays $215,000 in "Ionni" Class Action Suit

KEMET CORP: Settles Direct Battery Buyers' Claims for $4.95 Mil.
KEMET CORP: Still Pays Settlement Amount in Capacitor Class Suit
LIFEVANTAGE CORP: "Zhang" Class Action Suit Concluded
LIPOCINE INC: Inks Settlement of Securities Class Action Lawsuit
LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Fact Discovery to Be Completed By April 9

LJM PRESERVATION: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Action
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: "Gathmann-Landini" Class Suit Underway
MCDONALD'S: Chose Not to Open to Visually Impaired, CA Says
MDL 2709: Dollar General Says Motor Oil Suit Still Ongoing
MDL 2804: Cordova City Votes to Join Opioid Lawsuit

MEDLEY CAPITAL: Faces "Solomon" Suit in E.D. Virginia
MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE: Faces "Forman" Class Action Suit
MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE: Faces "Edelson" Class Action Suit
MISONIX INC: Settlement in "Scalfini" Already Paid
MISSOURI: Must Face Class Action Over Use of Psychotropics

NATIONAL VISION: Appeal in Class Action vs. Unit Underway
NATIONAL VISION: 1-800 Contacts Suit Settled for $7,000,000
NESTLE USA: Faces Class Action Over Use of Child Labor
NEW YORK: Housing Authority Under Fire Over Lead Paint
NIAGARA FALLS, ON: Napoli Shkolnik Files Class Action Lawsuit

NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in D.C.
NORTHLAND INVESTMENT: Class Action Status Sought for Suit
NOVOCURE LTD: Time to Appeal Case Dismissal Has Expired
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Faces "Sgarlata" Class Action Suit
PROVIDER POWER: False Advertising Class Action Pending

QUALITY CARE: Boynton Beach Class Suit Still Ongoing
REGIS CORP: Faces Potential Consumer & Wage and Hour Class Suits
RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
SEQWATER: Class Action Over 2011 Flood Crisis Ongoing
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Imposition of Bag Fees-Related Suit Ongoing

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Canada
SPARTON CORP: Pays $200 to Plaintiffs' Counsel
SYNERGY PHARMA: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
TAILORED BRANDS: Texas Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
TAILORED BRANDS: "Oliver" Class Action Suit Stayed

TAILORED BRANDS: Suit by American Airlines Staff Pending
TRANS WORLD: "Spack" Class Action Underway in N.D. New York
TRANS WORLD: Seeks to Adjourn Mediation Deadline in "Roper" Suit
TUESDAY MORNING: "Castillo" Class Action Litigation Underway
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over TSA Violation

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge OKs Suit Over Shortchanged Drivers
UFC: Fighters File for Certification of Antitrust Suit
UGI CORP: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Denied by 8th Circuit
ULTA BEAUTY: Wolf Haldenstein Files Nationwide Class Action
UNITED STATES: Class Action Over Unaccompanied Minors Pending

UNITIL CORP: Individual Claims Still Pending in Bellermann Suit
VERINT SYSTEMS: Supreme Court Allows CTI's Appeal in Part
WELLS FARGO: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action
WESTERN DIGITAL: Unit Still Defends Class Action Suit in Calif.
WORLD ACCEPTANCE: "Epstein" Class Action Suit Concluded


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 32,234 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Nelson" Trial v. Crane Co. Set for April 2018
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "DeLisle" Suit v. Crane Co. Ongoing at Jan. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Poage" Suit v. Crane Co. Ongoing at Jan. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Settles "Rabovsky" Lawsuit in 4Q2017

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Coulbourn" Suit v Crane Co Ongoing at Jan. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had 54,000 Open Claims at Dec31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Has 12,000 PI Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at Dec31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Lawsuits v. Global Power Unit Still Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jail Officials Win Summary Ruling in "Mitchell"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Central Entitled to Setoff in "Oakes"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nexus Corp. Not Liable in "Amling" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. Plenco Dismissed in "Lineberger"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Asbestos Claims in "Davis" Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Faces Suspension Over Asbestos Mess

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Infested Mill Demolition to Commence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bill Could Affect Asbestos Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bestwall Objects to Committee Counsel Retention
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos on Del. 141 Bridge Cost Extra Millions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Mine Secures $14MM for Reopening

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mich. Solons to Introduce Asbestos Legislation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Back to Back Asbestos Surveys for Fire Station
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tonnes of Asbestos Dumped at Essex Roadside
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stop Work Order Issued Over Asbestos Scare
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Has Tea Room Exposed to Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Misleading Asbestos Signs Posted on BC Campus
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Test Reveals Asbestos in Jail Office Equipment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenants Told to Vacate Bldg Due to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter Names Copes Vulcan, et al., in Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP350K OK'd for Nottingham Asbestos Removal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Fined for Dumping Asbestos Near Water Plant
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nowra Residents Raises Asbestos Concerns
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Environmental Worker's Death Link to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Port Otago Sheds
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Alert After Low Level Exposure Ruling

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Not Yet Disposed 6 Months After Find
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Horwich Train Worker Seeks Justice
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimant Atty Hails Landmark Asbestos Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Courtroom Site of New Talc Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court of Appeals Flips Ruling in "Bussey"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Persists in Australia Despite Ban




                            *********


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Class Action Suit in Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that the
plaintiffs in the putative class action lawsuit filed by the
Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, has filed a Third
Amended Complaint.

On May 13, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by the
Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, against Adtalem, Daniel
Hamburger, Richard M. Gunst, and Timothy J. Wiggins in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons
who purchased Adtalem common stock between February 4, 2011 and
January 27, 2016. The complaint cites the ED January 2016 Notice
and a civil complaint (the "FTC lawsuit") filed by the U.S.
Federal Trade Commission on January 27, 2016 against Adtalem,
DeVry University, Inc., and DeVry/New York Inc. (collectively,
the "Adtalem Parties"), which was resolved with the FTC in 2017,
that alleged that certain of DeVry University's advertising
claims were false or misleading or unsubstantiated at the time
they were made in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade
Commission Act, as the basis for claims that defendants made
false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University's
graduate employment rate and the earnings of DeVry University
graduates relative to the graduates of other universities and
colleges.

As a result of these alleged false or misleading statements, the
plaintiff alleged that defendants overstated Adtalem's growth,
revenue and earnings potential and made false or misleading
statements about Adtalem's business, operations and prospects.

The plaintiff alleged direct liability against all defendants for
violations of Section10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act and
asserted liability against the individual defendants pursuant to
Section20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff sought monetary
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other unspecified
relief. On July 13, 2016, the Utah Retirement System ("URS")
moved for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of its
selection of counsel, which was not opposed by the Pension Trust
Fund for Operating Engineers and URS was appointed as lead
plaintiff on August 24, 2016.

URS filed a second amended complaint ("SAC") on December 23,
2016. The SAC sought to represent a putative class of persons who
purchased Adtalem common stock between August 26, 2011 and
January 27, 2016 and names an additional individual defendant,
Patrick J. Unzicker. Like the original complaint, the SAC
asserted claims against all defendants for alleged violations of
Section10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act and asserted
liability against the individual defendants pursuant to
Section20(a) of the Exchange Act for alleged material
misstatements or omissions regarding DeVry University graduate
outcomes.
On January 27, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the SAC, which
was granted on December 6, 2017 without prejudice. The plaintiffs
filed a Third Amended Complaint on January 29, 2018.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, Technology and Business, and
U.S. Traditional Postsecondary. The company is based in Chicago,
Illinois.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Bid to Drop Amended Robinson-Brown Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that the motion
to dismiss the amended complaint filed by the Adtalem Parties in
the putative class action filed by T'Lani Robinson and Robby
Brown is still pending.

On or about June 21, 2016, T'Lani Robinson and Robby Brown filed
an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association
in Chicago, seeking to represent a putative class of students who
received a DeVry University education from January 1, 2008 until
April 8, 2016 (the "Putative Class Period"). Following Adtalem's
filing of a declaratory judgment action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking,
among other things, an order declaring that federal court is the
appropriate venue for this putative class action, on September
12, 2016, Robinson and Brown voluntarily withdrew their demand
for arbitration.

On September 20, 2016, Robinson and Brown answered the
declaratory judgement action and filed a putative class action
counterclaim, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, against Adtalem Inc., DeVry University, Inc., and
DeVry/New York, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

The counterclaim asserted causes of action for breach of
contract, misrepresentation, concealment, negligence, violations
of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and
the Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools Act,
conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The
plaintiffs sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other
unspecified relief.

On November 4, 2016, following a stipulated dismissal of the
declaratory action, the Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss the
counterclaim after which plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew it. On
December 2, 2016, Robinson and Brown filed an amended complaint
adding two additional named plaintiffs.

The amended complaint purports to assert nationwide class claims
under the above-referenced Illinois statutes and common law
theories on behalf of those who, during the Putative Class
Period, (i) enrolled in DeVry University; (ii) financed their
education with DeVry University with direct loans administered by
ED; or (iii) entered into an enrollment agreement with DeVry
University and otherwise paid for a DeVry University education.
The amended complaint also seeks to represent a fourth class of
individuals residing in, or enrolled in a DeVry University campus
located in, California during the Putative Class Period bringing
claims under the California Business and Profession Code. In
addition to the claims previously asserted as described above,
the amended complaint adds a claim for breach of fiduciary duty
owed students in administering Title IV funds.

The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss the amended complaint on
January 13, 2017.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, Technology and Business, and
U.S. Traditional Postsecondary. The company is based in Chicago,
Illinois.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Decision to Drop Petrizzo-Jara Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that the
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the
consolidated lawsuit by Petrizzo and Jara plaintiffs remains
pending.

On October 14, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Debbie Petrizzo and five other former DeVry University students,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against
the Adtalem Parties in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "Petrizzo Case").

The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons
consisting of those who enrolled in and/or attended classes at
DeVry University from at least 2002 through the present and who
were unable to find employment within their chosen field of study
within six months of graduation. Citing the FTC lawsuit, the
plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate
and asserted claims for unjust enrichment and violations of six
different states' consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and
consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs seek monetary,
declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief.

On October 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Jairo Jara and eleven others, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (the "Jara Case"). The individual plaintiffs claim to
have graduated from DeVry University in 2001 or later and sought
to proceed on behalf of a putative class of persons consisting of
those who obtained a degree from DeVry University and who were
unable to find employment within their chosen field of study
within six months of graduation. Citing the FTC lawsuit, the
plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate
and asserted claims for unjust enrichment and violations of ten
different states' consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and
consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs seek monetary,
declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief.

By Order dated November 28, 2016, the district court ordered the
Petrizzo and Jara Cases be consolidated under the Petrizzo
caption for all further purposes. On December 5, 2016, plaintiffs
filed an amended consolidated complaint on behalf of 38
individual plaintiffs and others similarly situated. The amended
consolidated complaint seeks to bring claims on behalf of the
named individuals and a putative nationwide class of individuals
for unjust enrichment and alleged violations of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act and the Illinois
Private Businesses and Vocational Schools Act of 2012.

In addition, it purports to assert causes of action on behalf of
certain of the named individuals and 15 individual state-specific
putative classes for alleged violations of 15 different states'
consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection
laws. Finally, it seeks to bring individual claims under Georgia
state law on behalf of certain named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs
seek monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified
relief. The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss the complaint on
February 3, 2017.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, Technology and Business, and
U.S. Traditional Postsecondary. The company is based in Chicago,
Illinois.


ADVANCE AUTO: Vincent Wong Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware on behalf of investors who purchased
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. ("Advance Auto Parts") (NYSE:AAP)
securities between November 14, 2016 and August 15, 2017.

Click here to learn about the case: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-
c/advance-auto-parts-inc?wire=3. There is no cost or obligation
to you.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Company issued materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) integration issues surrounding the
Company's Carquest acquisition resulted in systemic
inefficiencies and cannibalization of sales; (ii) increased
competition was negatively impacting sales; and (iii) as a
result, Defendants' statements about Advanced Auto Parts'
business, operations and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant
times.

If you suffered a loss in Advance Auto Parts you have until April
9, 2018 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information,
contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by
telephone at 212.425.1140, or visit http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-
c/advance-auto-parts-inc?wire=3.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has
represented investors in securities litigations involving
financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


AFLAC INC: 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
Middle District of Georgia on behalf of purchasers of Aflac
Incorporated (NYSE:AFL) ("Aflac" or the "Company") securities
during the period between February 27, 2013 and January 11, 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 Aflac 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' 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 Aflac hired its sales
associates under false promises of high compensation packages and
work-life-balance, that Aflac misclassified its employees as
independent contractors to reduce costs associated with
unemployment insurance taxes and employment benefits, that Aflac
manipulated its average weekly producer equivalent metric to
fabricate growth, and that Aflac violated its Code of Conduct and
corporate social responsibility standards.

According to the complaint, following a January 11, 2018, post-
market report revealing undisclosed lawsuits against Aflac for
exploitation of workers, manipulation of accounting, and insider
trading, the value of Aflac shares declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Aflac securities purchased on or after February 27, 2013 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.

Contact Information:
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]


AMERICAN RENAL: Inks $4.0-Mil. Settlement for "Esposito" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. has entered into an
arrangement to settle the shareholder class action lawsuit
captioned Esposito, et al. v. American Renal Associates Holdings,
Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-11797, according to the Company's Form
10-K filed on February 1, 2018 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On February 1, 2018, American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc.
(the "Company") issued a press release announcing that the
Company has entered into a Stipulation of Settlement with the
lead plaintiff in the shareholder class action lawsuit pending
against it in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, Esposito, et al. v. American Renal Associates
Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-11797 (the "Esposito Action").  
The proposed settlement releases all claims asserted against the
Company and the other named defendants in the Esposito Action
without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them.  

The proposed settlement provides for a total settlement payment
of US$4.0 million, inclusive of administrative fees and fees for
lead plaintiff's counsel.  The Company expects that substantially
all of the settlement will be funded by insurance proceeds.  The
proposed settlement remains subject to court approval and other
customary conditions.

American Renal Associates Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on August
31, 2016 and September 2, 2016, putative shareholder class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, respectively, against
the Company and certain officers and directors of the Company.  
Both complaints asserted federal securities law claims against
the Company and the individual defendants under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC, and, in addition, the complaint filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York asserted claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act.

The complaints alleged that the Company made material
misstatements or omissions, including in connection with its
initial public offering filings and other public filings. The
complaints sought unspecified damages on behalf of the
individuals or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's securities from April 20, 2016 to August 18, 2016.  On
October 26, 2016, the complaint filed in the Southern District of
New York was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff without
prejudice. On November 30, 2016, Lead Plaintiff was appointed for
the putative shareholder class action complaint pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
captioned Esposito, et al. v. American Renal Associates Holdings,
Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-11797 (the "Esposito Action").

On February 1, 2017, Lead Plaintiff in the Esposito Action filed
an amended complaint against the Company, certain former and
current officers and directors of the Company, Centerbridge
Capital Partners L.P., and certain of the underwriters in our
initial public offering. The amended complaint asserts federal
securities laws claims under Securities Act Sections 11 and 15,
as well as Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and SEC Rule
10b-5. On May 18, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On July 17, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed a
consolidated opposition to the motions to dismiss. On August 16,
2017, the Company filed a reply brief in further support of its
motion to dismiss.

American Renal Associates is a dialysis services provider in the
United States focused exclusively on joint venture partnerships
with physicians.


APPLE INC: Faces iPhone Battery Class Action in South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
John McDermott, writing for The Post and Courier, reports that
South Carolina has joined the growing legal flap over sluggish
iPhones.

But the dispute with technology titan Apple Inc. may not be long
for the Palmetto State.

At issue is a controversial software upgrade that the company
activated on its ubiquitous smartphones in October.  The
installation slowed the performance of older devices with aging
batteries to prevent unexpected shutdowns.

It quickly mushroomed into a full-blown crisis at image-conscious
Apple, namely because the company didn't disclose that important
side effect.  Nor did it tell customers they could easily resolve
the issue by installing a new $79 battery.

The company made its first disclosure of the problem Dec. 20 as
questions and complaints mounted on blogs, social media and tech
publications.  In response, Apple cut the price for the
replacement batteries by $50 and offered owners of older iPhones
a way to disable the so-called throttling feature.

CEO Tim Cook apologized for the missteps.

"About a year ago, we released some code, that essentially what
it does, is all batteries age over time, and they become
unhealthy in a point in time," Mr. Cook told ABC News in his
first public explanation about the controversy.  "And an
unhealthy battery has a probability that it will create an
unexpected restart. . . . When we did put it out, we did say what
it was, but I don't think a lot of people were paying attention,
and maybe we should have been clearer as well."

By then, the lawsuits were already flying, including a complaint
filed in U.S District Court in Charleston on behalf of two iPhone
6 owners.  Both are from the Lowcountry, according to their
attorney, Aaron Mayer.

As of press time, a total of 49 cases had been filed in 15
federal courts across the country by Apple's count.

Most if not all are seeking class-action status.  A key
allegation is that Apple's stealthy technical tweak last fall was
a ploy to drive sales of pricier new iPhones.  Mr. Mayer
described it in a court filing as a "bad faith business practice"
that tricked his clients and perhaps millions of other consumers.
[GN]


ARKANSAS: State Asks U.S. Judge to Decertify Medicaid Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Satter, writing for Arkansas Online, reports that attorneys
for the state are asking a federal judge to decertify a class-
action lawsuit challenging Arkansas' discontinuation of Medicaid
funding for Planned Parenthood services.

The case began in 2015 as a lawsuit filed on behalf of three
anonymous women who used Planned Parenthood services. U.S.
District Judge Kristine Baker granted a preliminary injunction
preventing the state from refusing to fund services for those
three women until questions about whether they had a right to be
free from government interference in choosing a provider could be
permanently decided.

Then in 2016, after certifying the case as a class action to
include all Medicaid patients in Arkansas who choose Planned
Parenthood as a health care provider, Baker expanded the
injunction to apply to the entire class.

On Nov. 13, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis
refused to reconsider an Aug. 16 panel decision that vacated the
injunctions, leaving Planned Parenthood's two clinics in Arkansas
-- one each in Little Rock and Fayetteville -- to provide care
for Medicaid clients for free.

Although the clinics planned to keep providing the care in the
hopes they could later seek reimbursement from the state Medicaid
program if they were ultimately successful, Planned Parenthood
attorneys said they hit a brick wall Jan. 5.

That's when they learned that even if they were able to be
reimbursed at some point for services provided up to a year
earlier, the state was also cutting off coverage for
prescriptions, test results and follow-up specialist care,
essentially mooting the provider's efforts.

Since then, the clinics haven't been treating Medicaid patients,
and Planned Parenthood attorneys have renewed constitutional
claims in the 2015 lawsuit that they initially didn't pursue
while they focused instead on whether individuals have the right
under the Medicaid Act to sue over their choice of provider.

"We've been forced to turn away patients due to the state's
actions," Aaron Samulcek, interim president and chief executive
officer of Planned Parenthood Great Plains said Jan. 19. He said
that on behalf of the clinics' patients who rely on Medicaid
coverage and want to continue using Planned Parenthood as their
provider, "we are continuing this fight."

"Arkansas' politicians are waging a politically motivated war
against basic health care services that directly hurts the
state's patients who are struggling financially and also those
who already face barriers to accessing health care -- especially
people of color, people with low to moderate incomes, as well as
people who live in rural areas," Samulcek said.

The renewed claims -- whether the discontinuation of state
Medicaid funds violates the plaintiffs' rights to equal
protection and due process -- have pushed the reset button on the
lawsuit, though attorneys for the state have complained that the
"piecemeal" approach wastes time and money.

Attorneys representing the state argued that the lawsuit should
no longer have class-action status.

"This case is at a unique juncture," wrote Nicholas Bronni,
deputy solicitor general under Attorney General Leslie Rutledge,
Esq. Noting that the 8th Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs
have no right of action under the Medicaid Act, he said the
plaintiffs "now proceed on two other claims that apparently were
not meritorious enough to warrant pursuing the first time around,
bringing a new preliminary injunction motion."

Bronni said a unique situation has developed, in that "a class
remains certified, although the basis for certification ... was
eviscerated by the 8th Circuit's reversal." He argued that the
anonymous plaintiffs don't have standing -- a vested interest in
the outcome -- to pursue either of the remaining claims.

"For this reason," he said, "the patient class must be
decertified."

While the judge refused in 2016 to limit class certification to
the Medicaid Act claim, she relied on claims of commonality and
typicality that rested on the now-defunct Medicaid Act claim,
Bronni argued.

Planned Parenthood and the women filed the lawsuit in response to
Gov. Asa Hutchinson's 2015 directive ordering the state to
terminate its Medicaid contract with Planned Parenthood because
of videos that claimed to show unethical behavior by Planned
Parenthood affiliates in other states. Those videos have since
been discredited.

Hutchinson's order didn't affect abortion services, because state
law already prevented Medicaid money from being used to pay for
abortions in Arkansas. However, the clinics also provide
contraception; cancer screenings including Pap tests, breast
exams and colonoscopies; tests and treatments for sexually
transmitted infections; and education programs.

Bronni reminded the judge that in 2015, the state requested an
evidentiary hearing attended by the three anonymous women to
explore their allegations, but the request was denied, as were
the state's later requests to depose the women before a
preliminary injunction hearing and through written questions.

Planned Parenthood had objected on the grounds of protecting the
women's anonymity and logistical problems, such as the attorneys'
difficulty in being able to readily communicate with the women.

Although Baker allowed attorneys for the state to send a list of
questions through Planned Parenthood attorneys for the women to
answer in writing, state attorneys weren't able to cross-examine
the women, Bronni noted.

After the three women were granted an injunction to restore
Medicaid funding for themselves only, Planned Parenthood sought
class-action status. Bronni noted that attorneys for the state
then unsuccessfully sought permission to depose each potential
class representative for up to two hours, to ensure they had
enough in common with the class as a whole to adequately
represent it.

He complained that a lack of information about the women and
their similarities with other class members should prevent them
from being allowed to lead a class on the remaining
constitutional claims, particularly when it has been 2« years
since they were allowed to proceed as class representatives.

To have standing, a plaintiff must show that she has suffered an
actual or threatened injury as a result of the challenged action.
Although each member of a class isn't required to prove standing,
Bronni said, "a class cannot be certified if it contains members
who lack standing."

He also argued that the renewed claims appear to focus not on the
women who would be class representatives but on the state's
termination of the Arkansas Planned Parenthood affiliates because
of their association with the larger organization and affiliates
in other states. [GN]


ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: 4 Class Suits in Wisconsin Settled
--------------------------------------------------------
Associated Banc-Corp said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2018, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that Bank Mutual and
Associated Banc-Corp reached agreement with the plaintiffs in the
cases entitled, Schumel et al v. Bank Mutual Corporation et al.,
Paquin et al. v. Bank Mutual Corporation et al., Wollenburg et
al. v. Bank Mutual Corporation et al., and Parshall et al., v.
Bank Mutual Corporation et al.

Subsequent to the announcement on July 20, 2017, of the Merger
Agreement between the Corporation and Bank Mutual, several
lawsuits were filed in connection with the proposed merger. On
July 28, 2017, two substantially identical purported class action
complaints, each by various individual plaintiffs, were filed
with the Wisconsin Circuit Court for Milwaukee County on behalf
of the respective named plaintiffs and other Bank Mutual
shareholders against Bank Mutual, the members of the Bank Mutual
board, and the Corporation.

The lawsuits are captioned Schumel et al v. Bank Mutual
Corporation et al. and Paquin et al. v. Bank Mutual Corporation
et al. Both complaints allege state law breach of fiduciary duty
claims against the Bank Mutual board for, among other things,
seeking to sell Bank Mutual through an allegedly defective
process, for an allegedly unfair price and on allegedly unfair
terms.

On August 30, 2017, a third purported class action complaint,
captioned Wollenburg et al. v. Bank Mutual Corporation et al.,
was filed in the Wisconsin Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, on
behalf of the same class of shareholders and against the same
defendants as the prior two complaints. The Wollenburg complaint
asserts similar allegations as the prior two complaints, and
further alleges that the preliminary proxy statement/prospectus
filed with the SEC contains various alleged misstatements or
omissions under federal securities law.

The Paquin, Schumel and Wollenburg complaints allege that the
Corporation aided and abetted Bank Mutual's directors' alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty. The parties have entered into a
stipulation seeking to consolidate the three actions. On
September 13, 2017, the Corporation filed a notice of removal of
the Paquin, Schumel and Wollenburg actions to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On
September 15, 2017, the plaintiffs in the Paquin, Schumel and
Wollenburg actions filed identical motions to remand the three
cases back to state court, and on September 27, 2017, the
defendants filed oppositions to the motions to remand. On October
3, 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the three
actions.

On September 6, 2017, a fourth purported class action complaint,
captioned Parshall et al., v. Bank Mutual Corporation et al., was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, on behalf of the same class of shareholders and
against the same defendants as the prior complaints. The Parshall
complaint criticizes the adequacy of the merger consideration and
alleges that Bank Mutual, the members of the Bank Mutual board
and the Corporation allegedly omitted and/or misrepresented
certain information in the registration statement on Form S-4
filed in connection with the proposed merger in violation of the
federal securities laws. The lawsuits seek, among other things,
to enjoin the consummation of the transaction and damages. The
Corporation believes the allegations are without merit.

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

Associated Banc-Corp, a bank holding company, provides various
banking and nonbanking products to individuals and businesses
primarily in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Minnesota. The company is
based in Green Bay, Wisconsin.


AUSTRALIA: Navy Recruits File Class Action Over Training Absence
----------------------------------------------------------------
9News reports that a judge has labelled a navy contract as
shoddy, a sham and "a delusion" in a civil case where more than
200 recruits are suing the Commonwealth claiming they did not
receive promised training.

"The whole thing is a very curious course of dealing to my mind,"
Justice Desmond Fagan said in the NSW Supreme Court on Feb. 19.

Former sailor Clayton William Searle is the lead claimant in an
action involving 283 people -- 127 still in the navy -- who state
they didn't receive promised training which could have been used
in their civil life.

In opening the class action on Feb. 19 their barrister, Nick Kidd
SC, said their contracts had been binding but were not honoured
by the Royal Australian Navy.

Their particular training contract, which he said was separate to
their main enlistment agreements, was used by the navy between
June 2011 and October 2012.

Mr Kidd said that in June 2014 the recruits were told they could
not obtain the "certificate IV" anymore and would need to enter a
different contract.

"(The navy) were unable to and never intended to provide training
or qualification for certificate IV -- referred to in this
contract," he said.

Justice Fagan commented on the contract saying "the document is
just a delusion".  He asked "what is the sham document for" and
noted "it looks extremely shoddy".

He expressed surprise that such an "explicit and apparently
binding agreement would be made" to be later disowned.

Gregory Sirtes SC, for the Commonwealth which is fighting the
case, noted the judge had expressed "strong views" which had been
shared by senior navy personnel.

He said a review had been held about what had happened and how it
could be avoided in the future, and it was quite apparent the
navy formed the view it was "executed poorly".

But, he said, this did not mean the class action claims had a
legal standing and sometimes "some things don't work out as
planned".

In his affidavit, the now 25-year-old Mr Searle said he grew up
in Rockhampton in Queensland and started his service with the
navy in January 2011 when he was 18, signing a document stating
he was joining for four years.

"It was the first full-time job I had ever had and was the first
time that I had a job where I could also achieve trade
qualifications," he said.

He referred to being posted to the fleet support unit at HMAS
Kuttabul in Sydney in October 2011.

But during 10 months he spent a lot of time sitting around with
friends playing games on their phones, as there was nothing for
them to do, while others went to the gym or went home.

The hearing is continuing. [GN]


BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Defend Hernia Product Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that the
company continues to defend itself in a product liability class
action claims involving Bard's line of hernia repair devices.

As of December 31, 2017, the Company is defending approximately
650 product liability claims involving Bard's line of hernia
repair devices (collectively, the "Hernia Product Claims").

The majority of those claims are currently pending in a
coordinated proceeding in Rhode Island State Court, but claims
are also pending in other state and/or federal court
jurisdictions. In addition, those claims include one putative
class action in the United States and multiple putative class
actions in Canada. Generally, the Hernia Product Claims seek
damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the
products.

From time to time, the Company engages in resolution discussions
with plaintiffs' law firms regarding certain of the Hernia
Product Claims, but the Company also intends to vigorously defend
Hernia Product Claims that do not settle, including through
litigation. Trials are scheduled throughout 2018 in various state
and federal courts.

The Company expects additional trials of Hernia Product Claims to
take place over the next 12 months. The Company cannot give any
assurances that the resolution of the Hernia Product Claims that
have not settled, including asserted and unasserted claims and
the putative class action lawsuits, will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations,
financial condition and/or liquidity.

Becton, Dickinson and Company ("BD") is a global medical
technology company engaged in the development, manufacture and
sale of a broad range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory
equipment and diagnostic products used by healthcare
institutions, life science researchers, clinical laboratories,
the pharmaceutical industry and the general public. The Company's
organizational structure is based upon two principal business
segments, BD Medical ("Medical") and BD Life Sciences ("Life
Sciences"). The company is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.


BECTON DICKINSON: Women's Health Product Claims Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that the
company continues to defend itself in a product liability class
action claims related to Women's Health Product Claims.

As of December 31, 2017, the Company is defending approximately
3,500 product liability claims involving Bard's line of pelvic
mesh devices. The majority of those claims are currently pending
in a federal Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
but claims are also pending in other state and/or federal court
jurisdictions, including a coordinated proceeding in New Jersey
State Court.

In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in
the United States. Not included in the figures above are
approximately 1,090 filed and unfiled claims that have been
asserted or threatened against Bard but lack sufficient
information to determine whether a Bard pelvic mesh device is
actually at issue. The claims identified above also include
products manufactured by both Bard and two subsidiaries of
Medtronic plc (as successor in interest to Covidien plc)
("Medtronic"), each a supplier of Bard. Medtronic has an
obligation to defend and indemnify Bard with respect to any
product defect liability relating to products its subsidiaries
had manufactured.

In July 2015 the Company reached an agreement with Medtronic
(which was amended in June 2017) regarding certain aspects of
Medtronic's indemnification obligation. The foregoing lawsuits,
unfiled claims, putative class actions, and other claims,
together with claims that have settled or are the subject of
agreements or agreements in principle to settle, are referred to
collectively as the "Women"s Health Product Claims." The Women's
Health Product Claims generally seek damages for personal injury
allegedly resulting from use of the products.

As of December 31, 2017, the Company has reached agreements or
agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to
settle their respective inventories of cases totaling
approximately 13,050 Women's Health Product Claims.

The Company believes that these Women's Health Product Claims are
not the subject of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. These
settlement agreements and agreements in principle include unfiled
and previously unknown claims held by various plaintiffs' law
firms, which are not included in the approximate number of
lawsuits set forth in the first paragraph of this section. Each
agreement is subject to certain conditions, including
requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a
certain minimum number of plaintiffs. The Company continues to
engage in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding
potential resolution of unsettled Women's Health Product Claims,
which may include additional inventory settlements.

Starting in 2014 in the MDL, the court entered certain pre-trial
orders requiring trial work up and remand of a significant number
of Women's Health Product Claims, including an order entered in
the MDL on January 30, 2018, that requires the work up and remand
of all remaining unsettled cases (the "WHP Pre-Trial Orders").
The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result in material additional costs
or trial verdicts in future periods in defending Women's Health
Product Claims.

Trials are scheduled throughout 2018 in state courts, with the
next trial scheduled in March 2018 in the New Jersey coordinated
proceeding. The Company expects additional trials of Women's
Health Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months.

In July 2015, as part of the agreement noted above, Medtronic
agreed to take responsibility for pursuing settlement of certain
of the Women's Health Product Claims that relate to products
distributed by Bard under supply agreements with Medtronic, and
Bard has paid Medtronic $121 million towards these potential
settlements. In June 2017, Bard amended the agreement with
Medtronic to transfer responsibility for settlement of additional
Women's Health Product Claims to Medtronic on terms similar to
the July 2015 agreement, including with respect to the obligation
to make payments to Medtronic towards these potential
settlements. Bard also may, in its sole discretion, transfer
responsibility for settlement of additional Women's Health
Product Claims to Medtronic on similar terms. The agreements do
not resolve the dispute between Bard and Medtronic with respect
to Women's Health Product Claims that do not settle, if any.

During the course of engaging in settlement discussions with
plaintiffs' law firms, the Company has learned, and may in future
periods learn, additional information regarding these and other
unfiled claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact
the Company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits
against the Company.

Becton, Dickinson and Company ("BD") is a global medical
technology company engaged in the development, manufacture and
sale of a broad range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory
equipment and diagnostic products used by healthcare
institutions, life science researchers, clinical laboratories,
the pharmaceutical industry and the general public. The Company's
organizational structure is based upon two principal business
segments, BD Medical ("Medical") and BD Life Sciences ("Life
Sciences"). The company is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.


BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Defend Filter Product Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that the
company continues to defend itself in a product liability class
action claims involving Bard's line of inferior vena cava
filters.

In connection with the acquisition of Bard, as of December 31,
2017, the Company is defending approximately 3,480 product
liability claims involving Bard's line of inferior vena cava
filters (collectively, the "Filter Product Claims"). The majority
of those claims are currently pending in an MDL in the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona, but claims are
also pending in other state and/or federal court jurisdictions,
including a coordinated proceeding in Arizona State Court. In
addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in
the United States and Canada.

The Filter Product Claims generally seek damages for personal
injury allegedly resulting from use of the products. The Company
has limited information regarding the nature and quantity of
certain of the Filter Product Claims. The Company continues to
receive claims and lawsuits and may in future periods learn
additional information regarding other unfiled or unknown claims,
or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the Company's
estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against the Company.

Trials are scheduled throughout 2018 in the MDL and state courts,
with the next trial scheduled for March 2018 in the MDL. The
Company expects additional trials of Filter Product Claims may
take place over the next 12 months.

In most product liability litigations, plaintiffs allege a wide
variety of claims, ranging from allegations of serious injury
caused by the products to efforts to obtain compensation
notwithstanding the absence of any injury. In many of these
cases, the Company has not yet received and reviewed complete
information regarding the plaintiffs and their medical conditions
and, consequently, is unable to fully evaluate the claims. The
Company expects that it will receive and review additional
information regarding any remaining unsettled product liability
matters.

In January 2017, the Company reached an agreement to resolve
litigation filed in the Southern District of New York by its
insurance carriers in connection with Women's Health Product
Claims and Filter Product Claims. The agreement requires the
insurance carriers to reimburse the Company for certain future
costs incurred in connection with Filter Product Claims up to an
agreed amount. For certain product liability claims or lawsuits,
the Company does not maintain or has limited remaining insurance
coverage.

Becton, Dickinson and Company ("BD") is a global medical
technology company engaged in the development, manufacture and
sale of a broad range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory
equipment and diagnostic products used by healthcare
institutions, life science researchers, clinical laboratories,
the pharmaceutical industry and the general public. The Company's
organizational structure is based upon two principal business
segments, BD Medical ("Medical") and BD Life Sciences ("Life
Sciences"). The company is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.


BOOZ ALLEN: Wins Dismissal of "Langley" Suit
--------------------------------------------
Judge Leonie M Brinkema has dismissed the Amended Complaint in
the case, Langley v. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation, et
al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00696 (E.D. Va., June 20, 2017).

In an order dated Feb. 8, 2018, the Court granted defendants BAH,
Howell, and Rozanski's Motion to Dismiss and defendant Cook's
Motion to Dismiss, without prejudice.

Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 5, 2018, for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2017, that on June 19, 2017, a purported stockholder of the
Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia styled
Langley v. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp., No. 17-cv-00696
naming the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief
Financial Officer as defendants purportedly on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company's securities from May 19, 2016 through
June 15, 2017. On September 5, 2017, the court named two lead
plaintiffs and on October 20, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, alleging misrepresentations or omissions
by the Company purporting to relate to matters that are the
subject of the DOJ investigation described above. The plaintiffs
seek to recover from the Company and the individual defendants an
unspecified amount of damages.

The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend
against the lawsuit. Motions to dismiss were argued on January
12, 2018, and the court took the matters under advisement.

Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation a provider of management
and technology consulting, engineering, analytics, digital
solutions, mission operations, and cyber expertise to U.S. and
international governments, major corporations, and not-for-profit
organizations. The company is based in McLean, Virginia.


BROTHERS OF THE SACRED: Senegalese Man Files Sexual Abuse Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a Senegalese man is suing a
Quebec-based Catholic congregation for 1.4 million dollars,
alleging one of its brothers sexually abused him when he was a
boy in the 1980s at a school the religious order ran in Africa.

Legal experts consulted by The Canadian Press said they weren't
aware of another case where a Canadian religious organization was
taken to court for the alleged actions of its members in another
country.

Max Silverman, the Senegalese plaintiff's Montreal-based lawyer,
says the congregation has indicated it will contest the Quebec
court's jurisdiction, setting up a legal battle over whether the
province is the best place to hear the evidence.

The plaintiff alleges a now-deceased Quebec member of the
Brothers of the Sacred Heart congregation sexually abused him
between 1984 and '87, at a school the order ran in Kaolack,
Senegal.

The congregation is also the target of a 15-million dollar class
action lawsuit authorized last November in Quebec Superior Court.

At least 18 brothers are accused of abusing male students at the
College Mont-Sacre-Coeur in Granby over a span of decades. [GN]



CAPITAL ONE: 2nd Circuit Revives Overdraft Fee Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anne Wallace, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
the Second Circuit reversed the lower court's dismissal of a
customer's overdraft fee lawsuit against Capital One.  The
decision revives a class action lawsuit and a NY consumer law
claim.

New York, NYTawanna Roberts's excessive bank overdraft fees
lawsuit had all the familiar hallmarks. She claimed that she had
a positive balance at the time she made the transactions that
triggered the penalties, and that those penalties were made worse
by Capital One's practice of reordering transactions to maximize
what it could charge.

It's Alive! Class Action Lawsuit against Capital One Bank is Back
OnBut for a while, it looked like all was lost.  The District
Court decided in May that the bank had that right to assess those
fees.  Then the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
breathing new life into Ms. Robert's case and the class action
lawsuit that was building around it.  This is good news,
especially for plaintiffs who are not millionaires and who
continue to get pummeled with excessive bank overdraft fees.

What does "pay" mean?

At the risk of disappearing down a legal rabbit hole, the lawsuit
focuses on what the word "pay" means in Capital One's Deposit and
Electronic Funds Agreements, to which Ms. Roberts agreed when she
opened her checking account and applied for a debit card.  More
specifically, it was about whether "payment" occurred when the
bank authorized the transaction (in which case Ms. Roberts wins)
or when the bank actually settled with the merchant, which is
later in which case the bank wins).

Anyone who has ever been puzzled about whether a checking account
balance reflects some past, even long past, transaction can
understand the problem.

Pouring salt in the wound, Capital One also appears to have
reordered the sequence in which it cleared Ms. Robert's
transactions to maximize the number of overdraft fees it charged,
a practice lawyerly explained in footnote1 to the Second
Circuit's opinion.

The District Court held for Capital One and tossed the lawsuit
out. The Appeals Court was not so sure, and so permitted the
lawsuit to continue.

Dig those bank agreements out of your bottom drawer

This would be a good idea for Capital One customers and also for
other checking account customers, since Capital One's contractual
language is probably not sui generis.  The Second Circuit, which
covers New York, Connecticut and Vermont, could be a very good
place to file a lawsuit over excessive bank overdraft fees.  If
you can sue in New York, you may also be able to recover under
New York consumer protection laws.  It looks like bank customers
may be back in the legal game when it comes to contesting
overdraft charges. [GN]


CAPSTONE TURBINE: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Capstone Turbine Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that the
company continues to defend itself in a consolidated securities
class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

Two putative securities class action complaints were filed
against the company and certain of its current and former
officers in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California under the following captions:  David
Kinney, etc. v. Capstone Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-08914 on
November 16, 2015 (the "Kinney Complaint") and Kevin M. Grooms,
etc. v. Capstone Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-09155 on December
18, 2015 (the "Grooms Complaint").

The putative class in the Kinney Complaint is comprised of all
purchasers of the company's securities between November 7, 2013
and November 5, 2015. The Kinney Complaint alleges material
misrepresentations and omissions in public statements regarding
BPC Engineering, one of the Company's former Russian
distributors, and the likelihood that BPC would not be able to
fulfill many legal and financial obligations to the company. The
Kinney Complaint also alleges that the company's financial
statements were not appropriately adjusted in light of this
situation and were not maintained in accordance with GAAP, and
that the company lacked adequate internal controls over
accounting. The Kinney Complaint alleges that these public
statements and accounting irregularities constituted violations
by all named defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act by the individual defendants.  

The Grooms Complaint makes allegations and claims that are
substantially identical to those in the Kinney Complaint, and
both complaints seek compensatory damages of an undisclosed
amount.

On January 16, 2016, several shareholders filed motions to
consolidate the Kinney and Grooms actions and for appointment as
lead plaintiff. On February 29, 2016, the Court granted the
motions to consolidate, and appointed a lead plaintiff. On May 6,
2016, a Consolidated Amended Complaint with allegations and
claims substantially identical to those of the Kinney Complaint
was filed in the consolidated action. The putative class period
in the Consolidated Amended Complaint is June 12, 2014 to
November 5, 2015.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaint on June 17, 2016. On March 10, 2017, the Court issued
an order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety
with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
April 28, 2017. Defendants' motion to dismiss was filed June 2,
2017. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss
on July 7, 2017, and Defendants filed their reply in support of
the motion to dismiss on July 28, 2017. The court vacated the
hearing that was scheduled for August 18, 2017.

Capstone Turbine said "We have not recorded any liability as of
September 30, 2017 since any potential loss is not probable or
reasonably estimable given the preliminary nature of the
proceedings."

Capstone Turbine Corporation develops, manufactures, markets, and
services microturbine technology solutions for use in stationary
distributed power generation applications worldwide. It offers
microturbine units, components, and various accessories for
applications, including cogeneration comprising combined heat and
power (CHP) and integrated CHP, as well as combined cooling,
heat, and power; and renewable energy, natural resources, and
critical power supply. The company is based in Van Nuys,
California.


CELGENE CORP: IUB Class Action Suit in New Jersey Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2018, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company
continues to defend itself in a putative class action suit filed
by the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craft
Workers Local 1 Health Fund, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

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

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

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

Counsel identified the new complaint as related to the IUB and
Providence cases and, on August 1, 2017, filed a Consolidated
Amended complaint on behalf of IUB, Providence, Local 39, DEA,
and Mitchell. On September 28, 2017, the same counsel filed
another complaint, which it identified as related to the
consolidated case, and which made similar allegations on behalf
of an additional asserted class representative: New England
Carpenters Health Benefits Fund. The completion of fact discovery
and expert discovery in these cases is scheduled for May 17, 2018
and October 29, 2018, respectively. No trial date has been set.
We intend to vigorously defend against these claims.

Celgene Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, engages in the
discovery, development, and commercialization of therapies for
the treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases worldwide. The
company is based in Summit, New Jersey.


CENTURYLINK: Nationwide Class Suit to be Litigated in Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------------
S. M. Chavey, writing for Twin Cities Pioneer Press, reports that
a class-action lawsuit accusing CenturyLink of overcharges and
unauthorized charges will be handled in Minnesota.

The decision means a Minnesota judge will preside over the case,
which dozens of attorneys are involved in.

"Minnesota is a jurisdiction in which there were pending lawsuits
and many consumers had been wronged," said Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
a lead attorney on the case.

Customers and former employees have alleged that CenturyLink
charged consumers amounts higher than sales agents quoted, and
sometimes made unauthorized charges.

The company has repeatedly denied allegations that it billed
customers higher amounts than sales agents had quoted.

"These allegations are completely inconsistent with our company
culture. Our position is clear -- we aim to operate our business
with honesty and integrity," a spokesman said in a statement.
"However speculative or unfounded we think these claims may be,
we are treating them very seriously and will vigorously defend
ourselves."

Attorneys representing the plaintiff requested that the case be
consolidated in Minnesota, partially because of Minnesota
Attorney General Lori Swanson's legal action against CenturyLink.
Minnesota also has a large coverage area for CenturyLink and is
somewhat of a central point in the country.

CenturyLink originally requested Minnesota as well, but later
changed its request to Louisiana, its home state. [GN]


CNX RESOURCES: Agreement in Hale Suit Awaits Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
CNX Resources Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2018,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that CNX and
plaintiffs' counsel in the Hale Litigation, have reached an
agreement in principal to settle the certified class claims,
subject to court approval.

This class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010 in the
U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia. The putative class
consists of force-pooled unleased gas owners whose ownership of
the coalbed methane (CBM) gas was declared to be in conflict with
rights of others. The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of
ownership of the CBM and damages based on allegations CNX Gas
Company failed to either pay royalties due to conflicting
claimants or deemed lessors or paid them less than required
because of the alleged practice of improper below market sales
and/or taking alleged improper post-production deductions.

On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order
certifying the class, and CNX Gas Company appealed the Order to
the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 19, 2014, the
Fourth Circuit agreed with CNX Gas Company, reversed the Order
certifying the class and remanded the case to the trial court for
further proceedings consistent with the decision. On April 23,
2015, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class Certification,
which CNX opposed.

On March 29, 2017, the Court issued an Order certifying four
issues for class treatment: (1) allegedly excessive deductions;
(2) royalties based on purported improperly low prices; (3)
deduction of severance taxes; and (4) Plaintiffs' request for an
accounting. On April 13, 2017, CNX filed a Petition for Allowance
of Appeal with the Fourth Circuit, and on May 22, 2017 the
Petition was denied. CNX and plaintiffs' counsel have reached an
agreement in principal to settle the certified class claims,
subject to court approval. The Company has established an accrual
to cover its estimated liability for this case.

CNX Resources Corporation, an independent oil and natural gas
company, explores for, develops, and produces natural gas in the
Appalachian Basin.


CNX RESOURCES: Agreement in Addison Suit Awaits Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
CNX Resources Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2018,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that CNX and
plaintiffs' counsel in the Addison Litigation, have reached an
agreement in principal to settle the certified class claims,
subject to court approval.

This class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010 in the U.S.
District Court in Abingdon, Virginia. The putative class consists
of gas lessors whose gas ownership is in conflict. The lawsuit
seeks a judicial declaration of ownership of the CBM and damages
based on the allegations that CNX Gas Company failed to either
pay royalties due to these conflicting claimant lessors or paid
them less than required because of the alleged practice of
improper below market sales and/or taking alleged improper post-
production deductions.

On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order
certifying the class, and CNX Gas Company appealed the Order to
the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 19, 2014, the
Fourth Circuit agreed with CNX Gas Company, reversed the Order
certifying the class and remanded the case to the trial court for
further proceedings consistent with the decision. On April 23,
2015, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class Certification,
which CNX opposed.

March 29, 2017, the Court issued an Order denying class
certification in this matter. CNX and plaintiff's counsel have
reached an agreement in principal to settle this lawsuit. The
Company has established an accrual to cover its estimated
liability for this case.

CNX Resources Corporation, an independent oil and natural gas
company, explores for, develops, and produces natural gas in the
Appalachian Basin.


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Baron & Budd Secures Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The national law firm of Baron & Budd announced that it has
secured a certified plaintiff class action federal lawsuit
against Countrywide Financial Corp. and its successor, Bank of
America.

The case accuses the bank and appraisal firm, LandSafe Inc., of
conducting "sham" appraisals to boost the number of loans
originated by Countrywide. The cases are: Waldrup v. Countrywide
Financial Corp. et al., case number 2:13-cv-08833, and Williams
et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corp. et al., case number 2:16-
cv-04166, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

According to the suits, Countrywide required borrowers to receive
their appraisals through LandSafe as a condition of their loan.
The cases allege that in the mid-2000s, Countrywide and LandSafe,
which at the time was owned by Countrywide, schemed to prepare
fraudulent property appraisals in an effort to help Countrywide
quickly close loans. The suits go on to allege that, as part of
the scheme, LandSafe cherrypicked appraisers, withheld
information and took other steps to side-step the Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) to create
appraisal reports that benefited the lender. Plaintiffs were
charged between $300 to $600 for each of the allegedly fraudulent
appraisals.

The suits allege violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. RICO is a federal law
originally designed to combat organized crime. It has since been
expanded to corporate misconduct.

On Feb. 8, U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder certified the
nationwide class, noting that the plaintiffs provided
"substantial evidence that could be used to prove an alleged RICO
scheme on a class-wide basis." In addition to the ruling that
certifies the class, Judge Snyder also certified a subclass of
borrowers in Texas who have filed an unjust enrichment claim
under Texas state law.

"It has been a long, hard fight to reach this milestone, and I'm
extremely pleased with Judge Snyder's decision to certify this
class," said Baron & Budd Shareholder, Roland Tellis. "Through
this case, we intend to prove that Countrywide charged borrowers
hundreds of millions of dollars for legally-mandated, yet
fraudulent appraisals. Manipulating borrowers and coercing them
into paying for phony appraisals is simply wrong. We intend to
continue our fight to ensure each and every borrower who was
affected by this scheme receives justice."

Consumers who received a loan from Countrywide and appraisal
through LandSafe may call 866-700-8994 for more information.

ABOUT BARON & BUDD, P.C.

The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C., with offices in Dallas, Baton
Rouge, New Orleans, Austin, Los Angeles, and San Diego, is a
nationally recognized law firm with a nearly 40-year history of
"Protecting What's Right" for people, communities and businesses
harmed by negligence. Baron & Budd's size and resources enable
the firm to take on large and complex cases. The firm represents
individuals and government and business entities in areas as
diverse as dangerous pharmaceuticals and medical devices,
environmental contamination, the Gulf oil spill, financial fraud,
overtime violations, deceptive advertising, automotive defects,
trucking accidents, nursing home abuse, and asbestos-related
illnesses such as mesothelioma.

Contacts
Bradley Bowen, Esq.
Baron & Budd, P.C.
Tel: 214-523-6633 [GN]


CSRA INC: Judgment for Plaintiffs Entered in "Strauch" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
CSRA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended December 29, 2017, that the court in the Strauch et
al. Fair Labor Standards Act Class Action, entered judgment,
without specified damages.

On June 30, 2017 the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut granted class certification for former employees
classified as Associate Professionals or as Professionals working
in the states of California and Connecticut who worked more than
40 hours per week. The Court denied class certification for all
class members in North Carolina on the basis that North Carolina
law is preempted by the Fair Labor Standards Act. In addition,
class certification was denied as to former employees classified
as Senior Professionals in California and Connecticut.  

The Second Circuit denied the Company's July 14, 2017 petition
for review of the partial certification of the class. The case
was tried in December 2017, resulting in a jury verdict in favor
of the plaintiffs. The Court entered judgment on January 5, 2018,
without specified damages. The Court noted that the judgment will
be amended to include damages and fees when determined.

                           *     *     *

According to a December blog post from Lieff Cabraser, a federal
jury ruled that Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), which
recently merged with Hewlett Packard Enterprise Services to form
DXC Technology (NYSE: DXC), wrongly and willfully denied overtime
pay to approximately 1,000 current and former technology support
workers around the country. After deliberating over two days, the
Connecticut jury unanimously rejected CSC's claim that its System
Administrators in the "Associate Professional" and "Professional"
job titles are exempt under federal, Connecticut and California
law, ruling instead that the workers should have been classified
as nonexempt and paid overtime. The jury found CSC's violations
to be willful, triggering additional damages. The
misclassifications were made despite the fact that, in 2005, CSC
paid $24 million to settle similar claims from a previous group
of technical support workers.

"These System Administrators' hard work for CSC and its clients
is a significant driver of CSC's profits and success, and they
deserve to be fairly compensated," said co-lead plaintiffs'
counsel Todd Jackson of Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP.

Co-lead plaintiffs' counsel Jahan C. Sagafi of Outten & Golden
LLP added, "We're thankful that the jury took such care in
listening to and weighing a massive amount of evidence,
appropriately finding that the employees deserve overtime pay."

Until earlier in 2017, CSC was an American multinational
corporation that routinely ranked among the leading IT service
providers in the world. On April 3, the company merged with the
Enterprise Services business of Hewlett Packard Enterprise to
form DXC Technology, based in Tysons, Virginia. The company
claims to be the world's leading independent, end-to-end IT
services company.

The approximately 1,000 plaintiffs represented in this class
action are System Administrators who are salaried employees of
CSC. They provide to CSC clients IT support including routine
installation and maintenance of computer hardware and software,
server maintenance and troubleshooting. Co-lead plaintiffs'
counsel Daniel Hutchinson of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein
LLP explained, "Because the System Administrators do not make
policy, design the systems or do computer programming, they fall
within the protections of federal and state overtime laws."

The System Administrators have all worked over forty hours per
week at least once without receiving overtime compensation as
required by federal and state law. In addition, they are often
assigned to be "on call" to handle troubleshooting tickets and
other nonexempt tasks to assist clients 24/7/365.

"The Fair Labor Standards Act and similar state laws exist to
make sure companies don't use fancy titles to deny workers fair
pay and reasonable hours so that they can spend time with their
families," said co-lead plaintiffs' counsel Genevieve Casey of
Feinberg Jackson Worthman & Wasow. "Without these protections,
companies would be incentivized to overwork the very ground-level
employees that these laws are designed to protect."

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) dictates federal overtime
protections. Unless exempt, employees covered by the Act must
receive at least time-and-a-half for hours worked over 40 in a
workweek. Over the course of the two-week trial, CSC claimed four
distinct types of exemptions -- administrative, computer
professional, learned professional and a combination exemption --
and the jury unanimously rejected all of them.

The case, Joseph Strauch et al. v. Computer Sciences Corporation,
No. 3:14-cv-00956, was filed in 2014 in United States District
Court in Connecticut. Judge Janet Bond Arterton granted class
certification in June of this year, and the trial began on
December 7. The case will next proceed to a damages phase, where
the court will determine how much CSC owes each class member.

The workers are represented by Todd Jackson, Genevieve Casey and
Darin Ranahan of Feinberg Jackson Worthman & Wasow LLP, Jahan C.
Sagafi, Darnley S. Stewart, Michael J. Scimone, Michael N.
Litrownik, Elizabeth V. Stork and Jared Goldman of Outten &
Golden LLP, Kelly M. Dermody, Daniel M. Hutchinson, Lin Y. Chan
and Shira Tevah of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and
Karen Baldwin Kravetz of Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC.

More information about the case can be found at
http://www.csclawsuit.com/

Information about the three firms representing the plaintiff
class of System Administrators can be found at
www.outtengolden.com, www.feinbergjackson.com,
www.lieffcabraser.com and www.susmanduffy.com.

CSRA Inc. delivers a range of information technology solutions
and professional services to its U.S. government customers to
modernize legacy systems, protect networks and assets, and
enhance the mission-critical functions for war fighters and
citizens. The company is based in Falls Church, Virginia


CSX CORP: Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2018, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company continues
to defend itself in the Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSXT and
three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the
defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and
unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws. In November 2007, the class action
lawsuits were consolidated in federal court in the District of
Columbia, where they are now pending. The suit seeks treble
damages allegedly sustained by purported class members as well as
attorneys' fees and other relief. Plaintiffs are expected to
allege damages at least equal to the fuel surcharges at issue.

In June 2012, the District Court certified the case as a class
action. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of
plaintiffs' claims, but rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs
to seek to prove the case as a class. The defendant railroads
petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for
permission to appeal the District Court's class certification
decision. In August 2013, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision
vacating the class certification decision and remanded the case
to the District Court to reconsider its class certification
decision. On October 10, 2017, the District Court issued an order
denying class certification. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit is reviewing the District Court's decision. The
District Court has not yet issued a further schedule on
proceedings on the merits.

CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at
and applied lawfully and that the case is without merit.
Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously.
However, penalties for violating antitrust laws can be severe,
and resolution of this matter or an unexpected adverse decision
on the merits could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or liquidity
in that particular period.

CSX Corporation ("CSX"), and together with its subsidiaries (the
"Company"), based in Jacksonville, Florida, is one of the
nation's leading transportation companies. The Company provides
rail-based freight transportation services including traditional
rail service, the transport of intermodal containers and
trailers, as well as other transportation services such as rail-
to-truck transfers and bulk commodity operations.


CVS PHARMA: Hit with Class Action Lawsuits from HIV Patients
------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Parton, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
group of HIV-positive plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit
against pharmacy giant CVS and its subsidiaries in federal court,
claiming that the company's pharmacy insurance plan violated
their privacy by forcing them to purchase HIV/AIDS medication at
CVS retail stores or have them mailed to their homes.

The lawsuit, filed by four John Doe plaintiffs in the Northern
District of California, claims that CVS Caremark stopped covering
their prescription costs at out-of network pharmacies, along with
other restrictions. As a result, the plaintiffs have had to
compromise their privacy, according to the lawsuit. A similar
lawsuit was filed in the Central District of California the same
day.

According to one of the plaintiffs, he was forced to accept the
program because he was running low on his month's supply of
medications, which would have cost him more than $2,000 out-of-
pocket if he purchased it at his local pharmacy.

"I received no written notice to prepare for this impending
policy change," John Doe One said in the lawsuit. "I had to
scramble into action since I only had a seven-day supply
remaining."

He purchased a three-month supply to be delivered to his home,
only to discover that the delivery came during the day while he
was at work, "baking in the afternoon sun." Storage at high
temperatures can degrade the medications, the lawsuit states.
Additionally, the medications were left out for his neighbors to
see, risking both his privacy and possible theft.

After that, John Doe One decided to pick up his medications at a
CVS store instead. Whereas his local pharmacy had accurate
records of the medications he takes, the lawsuit said the CVS
pharmacist had no such information. Additionally, the medications
are filled at a remote location and not at the pharmacy.
Plaintiffs are asked to go to the CVS pharmacy to pick up the
shipment.

"CVS Caremark does not have a full and accurate record of all of
the medications JOHN DOE ONE is taking and cannot anticipate or
warn against potential adverse drug interactions, which are
common with HIV/AIDS Medications," the lawsuit states.

According to the lawsuit, the company incentivizes employers to
enroll their employees in the program, and names Amtrak as a
defendant. Additionally, the lawsuit states that the plaintiffs
have concern over their privacy when picking up medications at
the stores.

"At my retail specialty pharmacy, they have a little alcove for
privacy," John Doe Two said in the lawsuit. "I can take my
medications out and match it with a list I have of all my drugs.
I can meet with my pharmacist and explain any changes I have felt
and ask any questions I have. At CVS, I am within hearing
distance of everyone waiting in line, including many people who
do not have HIV/AIDS. I can hear other patients' questions and
the pharmacists' answer. I am concerned with other people finding
out about my HIV positive status."

The plaintiffs say they've been forced to stick with the program
because they can't afford the out-of-pocket expenses for the
medications. When asked if they could opt-out of the CVS Caremark
program, they were either denied or ignored, according to the
lawsuit.

One of the plaintiffs called CVS Caremark "more than 20 times" to
try to opt-out, but was denied.

The lawsuit said that by forcing HIV/AIDS patients to purchase
their medications through CVS pharmacies, the company
"effectively reduces the quality of prescription drug care
provided to Class Members, and thus a reduction or elimination of
benefits, by forcing enrollees to only obtain such medications
through their sister co-conspirator and wholly-owned subsidiary."

According to the lawsuit, CVS Caremark's business practices
specifically target HIV/AIDS patients.

"The Program denies HIV/AIDS patients full and equal access to
utilize the in-network pharmacies and method of delivery of their
choice specifically because of the medications attributable to
their illness, while at the same time permitting other enrollees
to enjoy full access to the pharmacies of their choice," the
lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs are represented by Alan Mansfield, Esq. --
amansfield@whatleykallas.com -- of Whatley Kallas LLP. Calls made
to Mansfield and CVS Caremark were not immediately returned. [GN]


DOLLAR GENERAL: Still Faces California Wage & Hour Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended November 3, 2017, that the company faces the so-
called California Wage/Hour Litigation.

Plaintiffs allege that they and a putative statewide class of
other "key carriers" were not provided with meal and rest periods
and were provided inaccurate wage statements and termination pay
in violation of California law, including California's Private
Attorney General Act (the "PAGA").

The plaintiffs seek to proceed on a statewide class basis and to
recover alleged unpaid wages, injunctive relief, consequential
damages, pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Dollar General Corporation is a discount retailer, provides
various merchandise products in the southern, southwestern,
midwestern, and eastern United States. The company is based in
Goodlettsville, Tennessee.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Defending Against Pennsylvania Wage & Hour Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended November 3, 2017, that the company is facing the so-
called Pennsylvania Wage/Hour Litigation.

Plaintiff alleges that he and other similarly situated current
and former hourly employees were subjected to unlawful policies
and practices and were denied regular and overtime wages in
violation of federal and Pennsylvania law.

The plaintiff seeks to proceed on a nationwide collective basis
under federal law and a statewide class basis under Pennsylvania
law and to recover alleged unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
statutory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Dollar General Corporation is a discount retailer, provides
various merchandise products in the southern, southwestern,
midwestern, and eastern United States. The company is based in
Goodlettsville, Tennessee.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Tennessee Wage & Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended November 3, 2017, that the company faces the
Tennessee Wage/Hour Litigation.

Plaintiffs allege that they and other similarly situated current
and former "key holders" were not paid for all hours worked in
violation of federal, Illinois and Tennessee law.

The plaintiffs seek to proceed on a nationwide collective basis
under federal law and a statewide class basis under Tennessee and
Illinois law and to recover alleged unpaid wages, statutory and
common law damages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

Dollar General Corporation is a discount retailer, provides
various merchandise products in the southern, southwestern,
midwestern, and eastern United States. The company is based in
Goodlettsville, Tennessee.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Bid to Dismiss Shareholders Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended November 3, 2017, that a motion to dismiss filed by
the Company and the Individual Defendants is pending.

The Company is defending litigation filed in January and February
2017 in which the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a
putative class of shareholders, allege that between March 10,
2016 and December 1, 2016, the Company and certain of its
officers (the "Individual Defendants") violated federal
securities laws by misrepresenting the impact to sales of changes
to certain federal programs that provide supplemental nutritional
assistance to individuals. (Iron Workers Local Union No. 405
Annuity Fund v. Dollar General Corporation, et al., M.D. Tenn.
Case No. 3:17-cv-00063; Julia Askins v. Dollar General
Corporation, et al., M.D. Tenn., Case No. 3:17-cv-00276; Bruce
Velan v. Dollar General Corporation, et al., M.D. Tenn., Case No.
3:17-cv-00275) (collectively "the Shareholder Litigation").  

The plaintiffs in the Shareholder Litigation seek the following
relief: compensatory damages, unspecified equitable relief, pre-
and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and expenses. The
court has consolidated the cases, appointed a lead plaintiff and
entered a preliminary scheduling order. A motion to dismiss filed
by the Company and the Individual Defendants is pending.

Dollar General Corporation is a discount retailer, provides
various merchandise products in the southern, southwestern,
midwestern, and eastern United States. The company is based in
Goodlettsville, Tennessee.


DR REDDY'S: Chairman, COO Added as Defendants in US Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
PTI reports that Dr Reddy's Laboratories on Feb. 19 said its
Chairman Satish Reddy, COO Abhijit Mukherjee and US subsidiary
have been included as defendants in the class action lawsuit
filed against it by investors.

Last year in August, the company had said "a law firm
representing a purported investor in the company filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the company, its CEO and
CFO in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey
alleging violation of the US federal securities laws."

Later on in November, the company said it was served a securities
class action lawsuit in the US by the lead plaintiff.

"We would like to inform you that an amended complaint has been
filed by the lead plaintiff, wherein our Chairman, COO and Dr
Reddy's Laboratories Inc, a wholly-owned subsidiary in the US
have been added as defendants," Dr Reddy's Labs said in a BSE
filing.

As intimated earlier, the company believes that the asserted
claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself
against the allegations, it added.

The lawsuit filed at the District Court for New Jersey seeks
damages to compensate the class of investors for a 'purported
decline' in the company's share price allegedly caused by the
misstatements or omissions.

The company had stated that the lawsuit represented a class of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
publicly traded shares on the New York Stock Exchange between
June 17, 2015 through August 10, 2017.

The lawsuit alleged that the company made materially false and/or
misleading statements or omissions in connection with its
corporate quality system, it had added.

The allegation is specifically in connection with a warning
letter from the USFDA dated November 6, 2015 and a letter from
Regierung von Oberbayern in Germany, dated August 10, 2017, Dr
Reddy's had said. [GN]


ELECTRONIC ARTS: "Davis" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit filed by Michael
Davis in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

In July 29, 2010, Michael Davis, a former NFL running back, filed
a putative class action in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Company, alleging
that certain past versions of Madden NFL included the images of
certain retired NFL players without their permission. In March
2012, the trial court denied the Company's request to dismiss the
complaint on First Amendment grounds.

In January 2015, that trial court decision was affirmed by the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the case was remanded back to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, where the case is pending.

Electronic Arts Inc. develops, markets, publishes, and
distributes games, content, and services for game consoles,
personal computers, mobile phones, and tablets worldwide. The
company is based in Redwood City, California.


EMCORE CORP: $300,000 Settlement in "Mirasol" Case Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Emcore Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that the Court granted
final approval of the formal settlement agreement entered into
between the parties and ordered the parties to prepare and file a
proposed judgment by February 7, 2018.

On December 15, 2015, Plaintiff Christina Mirasol ("Mirasol"), on
her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of similarly
situated individuals composed of current and former non-exempt
employees of the Company working in California since December 15,
2011, filed a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court
of California, Los Angeles County (the "Court").

The complaint alleged seven causes of action related to: (1)
failure to pay overtime; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3)
failure to pay minimum wages; (4) failure to timely pay wages
upon termination; (5) failure to provide compliant wage
statements; (6) unfair competition under the California Business
and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq.; and (7) penalties under
the Private Attorneys General Act.

The claims were premised primarily on the allegation that Mirasol
and the putative class members were not provided with their
legally required meal periods. Mirasol sought recovery on her own
behalf and on behalf of the putative class in an unspecified
amount for compensatory and liquidated damages as well as for
declaratory relief, injunctive relief, statutory penalties, pre-
judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

In exchange for a one-time cash payment offered by the Company,
certain current and former employees previously agreed to release
the Company from all potential claims related to the matters
alleged in the Mirasol lawsuit. The Company had recorded an
accrual for these amounts at September 30, 2016 that was not
material to the Company's results of operations, financial
condition or cash flows, which had been recorded within Operating
Expenses for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016.

On January 6, 2017, the Company and Mirasol agreed to a class
action settlement of $0.3 million with regards to all outstanding
claims.

Emcore said in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2017, that the parties have agreed to a formal
settlement agreement, which was preliminarily approved by the
Court, and will require final Court approval. As of September 30,
2017, the $0.3 million settlement remains outstanding. During the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2017, the Company recorded an
accrual of $0.2 million within Operating Expenses related to the
settlement.

In its recent SEC disclosure, the Company said the Court on
January 24, 2018, granted final approval of the formal settlement
agreement entered into between the parties and ordered the
parties to prepare and file a proposed judgment by February 7,
2018.  As of December 31, 2017, the $0.3 million settlement
remains outstanding. During the three months ended December 31,
2016, the Company recorded an accrual of $0.2 million within
Operating Expenses related to the settlement.

Emcore Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
advanced mixed-signal optics products in California. It offers
broadband products comprising cable television; laser, receiver,
and photodetector component products; radio frequency over glass
FTTP products; satellite/microwave communications products; and
wireless communications products. The company is based in
Alhambra, California.


ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI: Facing $1-Billion Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Amy, writing for The Virginian Pilot, reports that in one
corner, there's Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, who has
made suing corporations a hallmark of his tenure.

In the other corner is Entergy Mississippi, the state's largest
privately owned electrical utility, whose leader says the company
is supporting a bill to make it harder for Hood to sue the
company again.

And in the middle of the ring is a decade-old federal lawsuit
over how New Orleans-based Entergy Corp. charged its Mississippi
unit for wholesale electricity. Hood claims the company wrongly
chose to sell overpriced power from inefficient generating plants
from 1998 to 2009 and should pay back up to $1.1 billion, plus
penalties. His lawsuit argues Entergy instead had a duty to buy
cheaper power from outside generators for its 447,000 customers
in western Mississippi.

"They're looking down the barrel of a gun and they're desperate
with a billion dollars on the line," Hood said of the suit, which
he hopes to bring to trial later this year.

Entergy is backing Senate Bill 2295, which passed the Senate 51-1
and is now pending in the House. It says that the Mississippi
Public Service Commission has "exclusive jurisdiction" over
utility matters, and the attorney general can only appeal
decision to court or sue with commission permission. The new
clause is attached to a must-pass bill that keeps the Public
Service Commission in business. Barring legislative action, the
utility regulator would go out of business on June 30.

Entergy Mississippi CEO Haley Fisackerly said Hood's lawsuit has
muddied the water about who's in charge of utility regulation in
the state, and said rate disputes should be decided by the
commission.

"When we saw the repealer coming up here, we said 'We need some
clarity here, who's regulating us -- The attorney general or the
Public Service Commission?" Fisackerly said.

Fisackerly said that the new law wouldn't cause Hood's lawsuit to
be thrown out. Hood, though, predicted in a Feb. 7 letter sent to
every member of the House of Representatives that Entergy would
try to use the law to throw out the lawsuit.

He wrote in the letter that "unscrupulous utilities in
Mississippi will argue that any activity, including criminal
activity, that is even remotely related to rates, customer bills,
or the accuracy or reliability of information" can only be
handled by the commission. He also wrote that commissioners can't
award damages or penalties, as a court can, even if it can order
refunds.

It's the second attack on Hood's power this session. He's also
trying to kill House Bill 1238 , which would prohibit the
attorney general's consumer protection division from suing
private businesses for actions that are allowed by state or
federal laws or regulations.

The lawsuit is being handled by private lawyers who sued two
Entergy subsidiaries in Louisiana, winning about $100 million in
class-action damages.

Entergy faced claims from the U.S. Department of Justice that it
used control of its grid to favor its own power plants over newer
independent generators, even when it cost much more to make
electricity at old, inefficient Entergy plants. Independents were
unable to sign profitable long-term contracts. Many generators
ended up in financial distress and Entergy bought seven of their
power plants.

The Justice Department didn't pursue those claims further after
Entergy turned over management of its power grid to the
Midcontinent Independent System Operator.

Fisackerly restated Entergy's longtime position that it did
nothing wrong. But Hood said Entergy's annual claims of savings
from MISO proves the company could have bought power more cheaply
from others.

"This is stuff that's so nefarious that I think people will be
really concerned about their legislators supporting it," he said.
[GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Judge Appoints Lawyers to Lead Data Breach Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that a Georgia
federal judge turned to lawyers he knew in appointing leadership
teams in the Equifax data breach cases.  And an Ohio federal
judge has appointed teams in an effort to find a settlement in
the opioid MDL.  Law.com's Ms. Bronstad took a closer look at why
the 9th Circuit's Hyundai decision sent the class action bar
reeling.  Plus, the 2nd Circuit vacated a terrorism verdict
against Arab Bank.

Equifax Case a Reunion for Data Breach Lawyers

On Feb. 12, U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash issued this order
appointing the lawyers who would lead the 350+ class actions
against Equifax.  

For consumers, he relied almost entirely on a 10-member slate
lead by Ken Canfield of Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles,
Amy Keller of DiCello Levitt & Casey and Norman Siegel of Stueve
Siegel Hanson.  He rejected proposals from Hagens Berman, Robbins
Geller and Susman Godfrey.  He also rejected a proposal from
Evangelista Worley but included David Worley as co-liaison
counsel with former Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes.

For financial institutions, he relied on a leadership team
compiled by co-leads Joseph Guglielmo --
jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- of Scott + Scott and Gary Lynch --
glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- of Carlson Lynch.

The teams appear bigger than what Judge Thrash had seemed to be
considering, with 13 lawyers in each track.

But he did order lawyers to submit quarterly reports "reflecting
hours billed in this matter by all plaintiffs' counsel."

Team Effort to Attempt Opioid Deal

U.S. District Judge Dan Polster has approved "settlement teams"
in the opioid cases ahead of a March 6 hearing.  The law firms
are pretty much the same as those appointed to lead the MDL, but
there are some different lawyers in the settlement room:

  -- For the plaintiffs: Russell Budd of Baron & Budd is handling
settlement talks, even though firm partner Roland Tellis is on
the leadership team.

  -- For the manufacturing defendants: At Quinn Emanuel,
Sheila Birnbaum -- sheilabirnbaum@quinnemanuel.com -- is stepping
in for Purdue, even though Mark Cheffo --
markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com -- has been lead attorney, and, at
Kirkland & Ellis, Mark Filip -- mark.filip@kirkland.com -- is
handling settlement for Allergan, whose lead attorney is Donna
Welch.

For the distributor defendants: At Covington & Burling,
Geoffrey Hobart -- ghobart@cov.com -- is settlement attorney, and
Mark Lynch is lead attorney for McKesson.

The judge also appointed lawyers to represent attorneys general:
Jennifer Peacock of the Tennessee Attorney General's Office, and
Jeffrey Rupert of the Washington Attorney General's Office.

'Hyundai' Decision Fuels Class Debate

The 9th Circuit's Jan. 23 decision in In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel
Economy Litigation has revved up the class action bar, and
lawyers already have cited the decision in settlements involving
data breaches at Anthem and Target, and Remington rifles.  But
why did it strike such a nerve? Here's my story on the debate,
which goes back decades.

In a nutshell: It has to do with how much is required to satisfy
Rule 23 when a class action gets settled.  Generally speaking,
lawyers on both sides typically just want to get the deal done,
and judges want to clear their dockets -- so some have insisted
that the analysis at settlement isn't as detailed as what's
required at class certification. But appeals courts have come
down with conflicting decisions.

In the meantime, with the 9th Circuit's January decision
objectors have been armed with a powerful weapon to unravel class
action settlements.

Arab Bank Verdict Axed

The 2nd Circuit vacated a pivotal 2014 jury verdict against Arab
Bank for its role in financing 24 terrorist attacks committed by
the Palestinian militant group Hamas in Israel.  

The panel found jury instructions were incorrect that allowed for
liability under the Antiterrorism Act based on Arab Bank's
handling of financial transactions for Hamas.  The panel also
disagreed with the plaintiffs that the Justice Against Sponsors
of Terrorism Act, passed in 2016 to hold aiders and abettors of
terrorist acts liable, made the error harmless.

The ruling could impact other suits brought over terrorist
attacks.

Law.com's Ms. Bronstad checked in with Cozen O'Connor's Sean
Carter, who is spearheading the multidistrict litigation brought
on behalf of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in
the United States.  He told Ms. Bronstad:

"The 2nd Circuit confirmed the passage of JASTA in September 2016
has really simplified the legal framework for these claims going
forward," he said.  Before that, he said, "liability in these
cases depended on this labyrinthic statutory framework
incorporating different provisions by reference.  It made the
entire legal analysis incredibly complicated."

Kent Yalowitz -- kent.yalowitz@arnoldporter.com -- of Arnold &
Porter, who secured a $655 million verdict against the
Palestinian Authority and the PLO in 2015 that the 2nd Circuit
later vacated, said the panel's guidance was more limited.

"However, the court issued some important rulings clarifying the
elements required in jury instructions, as well as confirming the
proximate cause standard applicable in these cases."

Who Got the Work?

Greenberg Traurig's Robert Herrington, co-chairman of the firm's
product liability and mass torts practice, made an appearance for
Wal-Mart in a California class action alleging the retailer
falsely advertises its private label eggs as having been laid by
hens "with outdoor access" when, according to an investigation
conducted by plaintiffs firm Hagens Berman, "there was not a
single hen outside on the grounds."  Sidley Austin's Liv Kiser --
lkiser@sidley.com -- a partner, and Naomi Igra --
naomi.igra@sidley.com -- an associate, appeared for egg supplier
Cal-Maine Foods.

There's more news to love on this Valentine's week:

Shareholders Sue J&J: Johnson & Johnson has been hit by a
shareholder class action over allegedly false statements it made
about asbestos in its talc products, which thousands of lawsuits
have claimed causes cancer.  Johnson & Johnson insists that its
talc products, like baby powder, are safe and don't contain
asbestos. The suit, filed in New Jersey state court, was brought
by Laurence Rosen of The Rosen Law Firm and Ben Crump, who
announced a joint partnership earlier this year.

In Praise of Koh: U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh and objector
lawyer Ted Frank got this glowing endorsement from The Wall
Street Journal's editorial board on Feb. 11 for their roles in
the $115 million Anthem data breach settlement.  Judge Koh hired
a special master at Frank's urging after raising significant
concerns about the plaintiffs lawyers' request for $38 million in
legal fees.  The op-ed said Judge Koh "exposes what amounts to
legal looting."

Testosterone's Fresh Face: Kirkland & Ellis partner James Hurst
-- james.hurst@kirkland.com -- coming off his defense win in the
third bellwether trial over prescription testosterone supplement
AndroGel, talked to Law.com in this story about his winning
strategy.  One tip: He uses a lot of "second chairs" in the
trial.  A "fresh face," he said, "creates a situation where now
the jury's paying closer attention." Not So Sweet: Before you
bite into that Valentine's candy, here's a class action filed on
Feb. 12 to chew over: It claims Nestle fails to tell customers
that it imports cocoa beans from suppliers on the Ivory Coast,
home to the "Worst Forms of Child Labor." Hagens Berman brought a
similar suit that was dismissed 2016.  In that case, U.S.
Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero in California acknowledged
"significant ethical questions" in the case.  "The issue before
this court, however, is whether California law requires
corporations to inform customers of that fact on their product
packaging and point of sale advertising," Judge Spero wrote.  
"Every court to consider the issue has held that it does not.  
This court agrees."

That might be why the firm sued in Massachusetts this time. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Class Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. continues to defend itself against a consolidated
securities class action in New York, according to Company's Form
10-K filed on February 1, 2018 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company said, "Beginning on May 22, 2012, multiple putative
class actions, derivative actions, and individual actions were
filed in state and federal courts in the United States and in
other jurisdictions against us, our directors, and/or certain of
our officers alleging violation of securities laws or breach of
fiduciary duties in connection with our initial public offering
(IPO) and seeking unspecified damages.  We believe these lawsuits
are without merit, and we intend to continue to vigorously defend
them.  The vast majority of the cases in the United States, along
with multiple cases filed against The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.  and
The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (collectively referred to herein as
NASDAQ) alleging technical and other trading-related errors by
NASDAQ in connection with our IPO, were ordered centralized for
coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  In a
series of rulings in 2013 and 2014, the court denied our motion
to dismiss the consolidated securities class action and granted
our motions to dismiss the derivative actions against our
directors and certain of our officers.  On July 24, 2015, the
court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of the derivative
actions.  On December 11, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the consolidated securities
action.  On April 14, 2017, we filed a motion for summary
judgment."

Trial in the case was scheduled to begin on February 26, 2018.

Facebook, Inc. provides various products to connect and share
through mobile devices, personal computers, and other surfaces
worldwide.  It was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Menlo
Park, California.


FIRST SOLAR: Partial Denial of Summary Judgment Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------
First Solar, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on February 6, 2018,
that the Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the order
of the Arizona District Court partially denying summary judgment
in a class action lawsuit.

On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-
DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona (the "Arizona District Court") against the
Company and certain of its current and former directors and
officers (the "Defendants"). The complaint was filed on behalf of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
publicly traded securities between April 30, 2008 and February
28, 2012 (the "Class Action").

The complaint generally alleges that the Defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
financial performance and prospects. The action includes claims
for damages, including interest, and an award of reasonable costs
and attorneys' fees to the putative class.

The Arizona District Court on July 23, 2012, issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the Class Action the
Mineworkers' Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation
Scheme (collectively "Pension Schemes"). The Pension Schemes
filed an amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains
similar allegations and seeks similar relief as the original
complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14,
2012. On December 17, 2012, the court denied defendants' motion
to dismiss. On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court
granted the Pension Schemes' motion for class certification, and
certified a class comprised of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the Company
between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 and were damaged
thereby, excluding defendants and certain related parties. Merits
discovery closed on February 27, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 27, 2015.

On August 11, 2015, the Arizona District Court granted
defendants' motion in part and denied it in part, and certified
an issue for immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals (the "Ninth Circuit"). First Solar filed a petition for
interlocutory appeal with the Ninth Circuit, and that petition
was granted on November 18, 2015.

On May 20, 2016, the Pension Schemes moved to vacate the order
granting the petition, dismiss the appeal, and stay the merits
briefing schedule. On December 13, 2016, the Ninth Circuit denied
the Pension Schemes' motion, First Solar said in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

The Arizona District Court has entered a stay of the proceedings
in district court until the appeal is decided.

In its recent regulatory disclosure, the Company said that on
January 31, 2018, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion
affirming the order of the Arizona District Court partially
denying summary judgment.

First Solar, Inc. is an American photovoltaic (PV) manufacturer
of rigid thin film modules, or solar panels, and a provider of
utility-scale PV power plants and supporting services that
include finance, construction, maintenance and end-of-life panel
recycling.


FREDS INC: Discovery Completed in Southern Independent Bank Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fred's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 31, 2017, that the Company has now completed discovery in
the case, Southern Independent Bank v. Fred's, Inc., and is
moving to trial.

On October 15, 2015, a lawsuit entitled Southern Independent Bank
v. Fred's, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court,
Middle District of Alabama related to the data security incident.
The complaint includes allegations made by the plaintiff on
behalf of itself and financial institutions similarly situated
("alleged class of financial institutions") that the Company was
negligent in failing to use reasonable care in obtaining,
retaining, securing and deleting the personal and financial
information of customers who use debit cards issued by the
plaintiff and alleged class of financial institutions to make
purchases at Fred's stores.

The complaint also includes allegations that the Company made
negligent misrepresentations that the Company possessed and
maintained adequate data security measures and systems that were
sufficient to protect the personal and financial information of
shoppers using debit cards issued by the plaintiff and alleged
class of financial institutions. The complaint seeks monetary
damages and equitable relief to be proved at trial as well as
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company has denied the allegations and has filed a motion to
dismiss all claims. This motion has since been denied, and the
Company filed a motion to reconsider by certifying the question
to the Alabama Supreme Court for clarity. However the Company's
motion was denied, and the Company has now completed discovery
and is moving to trial. Future costs or liabilities related to
the incident may have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The Company has not made an accrual for future losses related to
these claims at this time as the future losses are not considered
probable.

Fred's, Inc. and its subsidiaries operate 597 general merchandise
and pharmacy stores, including 13 franchised locations and three
specialty pharmacy-only locations. With unique store formats and
strategies that combine the best elements of a value-focused
retailer with a healthcare-focused drug store, Fred's stores
offer frequently purchased items that address the everyday needs
of its customers. The company is based in Memphis, Tennessee.


FREDS INC: Bid to Remand Class Suits Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Fred's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 31, 2017, that plaintiff's counsel for the Williams and
Wallace matters has filed a Motion to Remand, and that the Motion
to Remand is still pending.

On March 30, 2017, a lawsuit entitled Tiffany Taylor,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
Fred's Inc. and Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the
United Stated District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
Southern Division. The complaint alleges that the Company
wrongfully and willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act ("FACTA").

On April 11, 2017, a lawsuit entitled Melanie Wallace, Sascha
Feliciano, and Heather Tyler, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc.
was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County in the state of
Georgia. The complaint alleges that the Company wrongfully and
willfully violated FACTA.

On April 13, 2017, a lawsuit entitled Lillie Williams and
Cussetta Journey, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed
in the Superior Court of Fulton County in the state of Georgia.

The complaint also alleges that the Company wrongfully and
willfully violated FACTA. The complaints are filed as Class
Actions, with the class being open for five (5) years before the
date the complaint was filed. The complaint seeks statutory
damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages, an injunctive order,
and other such relief that the court may deem just and equitable.

The Company has filed a Motion to Dismiss the Taylor complaint,
and this Motion is still pending before the court. The Company
filed and the Court Granted Motions to Remove and Motions to
Transfer the Williams and Wallace matters to the Northern
District of Alabama. Since the Williams and Wallace matters were
removed and transferred to the Northern District of Alabama, the
Company has filed a Motion to Consolidate the Taylor, Williams,
and Wallace matters.

The Court has yet to rule on the Motion to Consolidate.
Plaintiff's counsel for the Williams and Wallace matters has
filed a Motion to Remand the matters. Fred's has opposed the
Motion to Remand, and the Motion to Remand is still pending.

Future costs and liabilities related to this case may have a
material adverse effect on the Company; however, the Company has
not made an accrual for future probable losses related to these
claims as future losses are not considered probable and an
estimate is unavailable.

Fred's, Inc. and its subsidiaries operate 597 general merchandise
and pharmacy stores, including 13 franchised locations and three
specialty pharmacy-only locations. With unique store formats and
strategies that combine the best elements of a value-focused
retailer with a healthcare-focused drug store, Fred's stores
offer frequently purchased items that address the everyday needs
of its customers. The company is based in Memphis, Tennessee.


FUNKO INC: Faces "Lowinger" Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------
Funko, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the company faces a putative class
action lawsuit filed by Robert Lowinger.

On November 16, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company
filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of
Washington in and for King County against Funko, Inc., certain of
the company's officers and directors, and the underwriters of the
company's initial public offering, entitled Robert Lowinger v.
Funko, Inc., et al., No. 17-2-29838-7 SEA.

The complaint alleges that the company violated Sections 11, 12,
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making
allegedly materially misleading statements and by omitting
material facts necessary to make the statements made therein not
misleading. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory
statutory damages and rescissory damages in account of the
consideration paid for our Class A common stock by plaintiff and
members of the class, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Funko said "We intend to vigorously defend all claims asserted."

                           *     *     *

Judge Ricardo S Martinez on March 1 entered a Stipulation and
Order setting briefing schedule on Plaintiff's Motion to Remand
and the Funko Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending
Decision by U.S. Supreme Court.

The Motion to Stay Proceedings and Motion to Remand were filed
Feb. 27.  The Motions have a Noting Date of April 13, 2018.

Funko is an American company that manufactures licensed pop
culture toys. Funko is most known for producing licensed vinyl
figures and bobbleheads. In addition, Funko produces licensed
plush, action figures, and licensed electronic items such as USB
drives, lamps, and headphones. The company is based in Everett,
Washington.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Grant & Eisenhofer Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., has filed a securities class
action on behalf of The Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension
Fund against General Electric Company (NYSE: GE) and certain of
its current and former senior executives. The action, filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or acquired publicly traded GE securities, including GE
common stock, during the period between February 26, 2013 and
January 24, 2018, inclusive. The action is captioned The
Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund v. General Electric
Co., C.A. No.: 18-cv-01404 (S.D.N.Y.). It is related to the
consolidated action Hachem v. General Electric Co., No. 1:17-cv-
08457-JMF (S.D.N.Y.).

This action seeks damages for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  
Defendants are General Electric, former GE Chief Executive
Officer Jeffery Immelt and GE's current CEO John Flannery, as
well as the company's former Chief Financial Officer Jeffery
Bornstein and its current CFO Jamie Miller.

General Electric is a multinational conglomerate and one of the
world's largest companies. The action alleges that defendants
concealed material information and made false and misleading
statements relating to the performance of various GE business
segments (including Oil & Gas and GE Power) as well as the actual
value of its wholly-owned subsidiary, GE Capital, and its long-
term care insurance portfolio, and did not set sufficient loss
reserves for its known LTC liabilities, resulting in material
overstatements in GE's net income, earnings and cash flow figures
during the Class Period. When the truth regarding these false and
misleading statements became known to the public, the price of
GE's publicly traded securities fell significantly, harming
investors.

If you purchased or acquired GE publicly traded securities during
the Class Period, you are a member of this proposed Class and may
be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff, which is a court-
appointed representative for the Class, by complying with the
relevant provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"). See 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-
4(a)(2)(A)(i)-(iv).  If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court no later than April 17, 2018. You need not
seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible
recovery. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you
in this action.

The plaintiff, The Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund,
seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class and is
represented by Grant & Eisenhofer, a law firm with a strong
background and experience in handling securities class actions
and other complex commercial litigation. If you have any
questions about this notice, this action, or your rights, you may
contact Grant & Eisenhofer at www.gelaw.com. [GN]


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Insurance Shortfall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alwyn Scott and Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports
that General Electric Co was sued by a shareholder who accused
the conglomerate of concealing mounting insurance liabilities and
a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission probe, saying it cost
shareholders tens of billions of dollars.

The complaint filed by the Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension
Fund appears to be the first proposed shareholder class action
accusing GE of securities fraud since the company surprised
investors with two negative announcements in January.

On Jan. 16, GE said it would take a $6.2 billion pretax charge
and set aside $15 billion in reserves to help cover insurance
operations held by its GE Capital unit, mainly concerning long-
term-care insurance policies.

Eight days later, it said the SEC had begun probing how it
handled its insurance obligations, as well as how it accounted
for service agreements related to power plants, jet engines and
other equipment.

Other defendants in the lawsuit, filed in federal court in New
York, include GE Chief Executive Officer John Flannery, his
predecessor Jeffrey Immelt, Chief Financial Officer Jamie Miller
and her predecessor Jeffrey Bornstein.

"The company will defend itself against these claims," a GE
spokeswoman said.

Daniel Berger, Esq. a lawyer for the plaintiff, did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.

The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of shareholders from Feb. 26,
2013, to Jan. 24, 2018.

GE's market value fell to roughly $143 billion by the end of the
class period from more than $290 billion in July 2016.

The Boston-based company has faced earlier shareholder lawsuits
over its falling stock price.

Long-term-care insurance has become a more troublesome and costly
business, including for the Genworth Financial Inc business that
GE spun off in 2004, as policyholders live longer.

The complaint said GE knew or should have known it was not immune
from that trend, and quoted from analysts covering GE who wrote
that it was "hard to believe" or "hard to imagine" that the
company suddenly discovered its problems.

GE stopped writing long-term-care insurance contracts in 2006,
but has said it provides reinsurance on about 300,000 policies.

The case is Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund v General
Electric Co et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New
York, No. 18-01404. [GN]


GENERAL MOTORS: Economic-Loss Claims Suits Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2018,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company
moved for reconsideration of certain portions of the Southern
District's summary judgment ruling.

General Motors said "We are aware of over 100 putative class
actions pending against GM in various courts in the U.S. and
Canada alleging that consumers who purchased or leased vehicles
manufactured by GM or Motors Liquidation Company (formerly known
as General Motors Corporation) had been economically harmed by
one or more of the 2014 recalls and/or the underlying vehicle
conditions associated with those recalls (economic-loss cases)."

In general, these economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported
compensatory damages, such as alleged benefit-of-the-bargain
damages or damages related to alleged diminution in value of the
vehicles, as well as punitive damages, injunctive relief and
other relief. There is also a civil action brought by the Arizona
Attorney General relating to the 2014 recalls that seeks civil
penalties and injunctive relief for alleged violations of state
laws.

Many of the pending economic-loss claims have been transferred
to, and consolidated in, a single federal court, the Southern
District. These plaintiffs have asserted economic-loss claims
under federal and state laws, including claims relating to
recalled vehicles manufactured by GM and claims asserting
successor liability relating to certain recalled vehicles
manufactured by Motors Liquidation Company. The Southern District
has dismissed various of these claims, including claims under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, claims for
recovery for alleged reduction in the value of their vehicles due
to damage to GM's reputation and brand as a result of the
ignition switch matter, and claims of plaintiffs who purchased a
vehicle before GM came into existence in July 2009. The Southern
District also dismissed certain state law claims at issue.

In August 2017 the Southern District granted the company's motion
to dismiss the successor liability claims of plaintiffs in seven
of the sixteen states at issue on the motion and called for
additional briefing to decide whether Plaintiffs' claims can
proceed in the other nine states. In December 2017 the Southern
District granted GM's motion and dismissed successor liability
claims of plaintiffs in an additional state, but found that there
are genuine issues of material fact that prevent summary judgment
for GM in eight other states. In January 2018, GM moved for
reconsideration of certain portions of the Southern District's
summary judgment ruling.

General Motors Company, together with its subsidiaries, designs,
builds, and sells cars, trucks, crossovers, and automobile parts
worldwide. The company operates through GM North America, GM
International, and GM Financial segments. It markets its vehicles
primarily under the Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, Holden,
Baojun, Jiefang, and Wuling brand names. The company is based in
Detroit, Michigan.


GENERAL MOTORS: Bid for Rehearing and Review Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2018,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, an objector filed
petitions for rehearing and for en banc review before the entire
Sixth Circuit and both of those petitions remains pending.

In a putative shareholder class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Eastern
District) on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
from November 17, 2010 to July 24, 2014, the lead plaintiff
alleged that GM and several current and former officers and
employees made material misstatements and omissions relating to
problems with the ignition switch and other matters in SEC
filings and other public statements.

In 2016 the Eastern District entered a judgment approving a
class-wide settlement of the class action for $300 million. One
shareholder filed an appeal of the decision approving the
settlement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed the judgment approving the settlement in
November 2017. The objector subsequently filed petitions for
rehearing and for en banc review before the entire Sixth Circuit.
Both of those petitions remain pending.

General Motors Company, together with its subsidiaries, designs,
builds, and sells cars, trucks, crossovers, and automobile parts
worldwide. The company operates through GM North America, GM
International, and GM Financial segments. It markets its vehicles
primarily under the Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, Holden,
Baojun, Jiefang, and Wuling brand names. The company is based in
Detroit, Michigan.


GOOGLE INC: NLRB Recommends Dismissal of James Damore Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Marykate Jasper, writing for The National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB) has determined that Google acted within its legal rights
when it decided to fire James Damore for his anti-diversity memo,
according to a letter written by its Division of Advice. The
Division of Advice provides guidance to regional offices about
"difficult and novel issues" that arise in labor disputes.

Though the NLRB determined that parts of Damore's memo were
protected speech, for which he could not be fired, the
"statements about immutable traits linked to sex" were determined
to be "so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be
unprotected."  Since Mr. Damore was fired for those
discriminatory statements, rather than the protected parts of the
memo, Google was within its rights.  As a result, the NLRB
recommended dismissing Mr. Damore's case.

"Employers must be permitted to 'nip in the bud' the kinds of
employee conduct that could lead to a 'hostile workplace,' rather
than waiting until an actionable hostile workplace has been
created before taking action," wrote Jayme L. Sophir, an
Associate General Counsel for the NLRB. ". . . Statements about
immutable traits linked to sex" such as women's heightened
neuroticism and men's prevalence at the top of the IQ
distribution -- were discriminatory and constituted sexual
harassment, notwithstanding effort to cloak comments with
'scientific' references and analysis, and notwithstanding 'not
all women' disclaimers."

Bless and keep those quotations marks around "scientific."

"Moreover," Mr. Sophir continued, "those statements were likely
to cause serious dissension and disruption in the workplace.
Indeed, the memorandum did cause extreme discord, which the
Charging Party [Damore] exacerbated by deliberately expanding its
audience.  Numerous employees complained to the Employer that the
memorandum was discriminatory against women, deeply offensive,
and made them feel unsafe at work . . . Thus, while much of the
Charging Party's memorandum was likely protected, the statements
regarding biological differences between the sexes were so
harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected."

"The Employer demonstrated that the Charging Party was discharged
only because of unprotected discriminatory statements and not for
expressing a dissenting view on matters affecting working
conditions or offering critical feedback of its policies and
programs, which were likely protected," Mr. Sophir concluded.

She also cited Google's own messaging about Damore's firing.  
"The Employer carefully tailored the message it used in
discharging the Charging Party," she wrote, "as well as its
followup message to all employees, to affirm their right to
engage in protected speech while prohibiting discrimination or
harassment.  In fact, the Employer disciplined another employee
for sending the Charging Party a threatening email in response to
the views expressed in memo.  Because the Employer discharged the
Charging Party only for unprotected conduct while it explicitly
affirmed right to engage in protected conduct, discharge did not
violate the Act."

According to NLRB records, Mr. Damore's case was closed on
January 19, 2018.  He initially filed his complaint in August of
2017, after Google fired him for circulating an anti-diversity
memo which claimed that women were underperforming in tech not
because of sexism but because "on average, men and women
biologically differ in many ways" and "these differences aren't
just socially constructed." While some defended his memo, it was
widely criticized for promoting sexist pseudoscience, since it
purports to be based on "the science of human nature," but
ignores wide swathes of human reality and history because they
are inconvenient. (To name a few: the hunter-gatherer period, the
existence of trans people, the history of the tech industry
itself, the piles of studies which show the effects of sexism on
women's psychology, the scores of studies which demonstrate
sexism in hiring practices, etc).  The memo also advocated doing
away with unconscious bias training and de-emphasizing empathy.

According to Bloomberg, Damore withdrew his complaint in January,
but Mr. Sophir's letter (dated January 16) also recommends
dismissing the case, so I'm not sure which came first.  
Mr. Damore's lawyer says they have withdrawn the complaint in
order to focus on a class-action lawsuit filed by Mr. Damore and
fellow former Google employee David Gudeman, alleging that Google
discriminated against them for being conservative, white, and
male. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Girard Gibbs Mulls Class Action Over Pixel 2 Defects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Thubron, writing for Techspot, reports that it's fair to say
that Google's second generation of Pixel phones haven't had the
smoothest of times since launch.  Following their display and
audio issues (among others), it seems some users are experiencing
yet more problems with their Pixel 2 handsets: warm temperatures
and reduced battery life.

Twitter, Reddit, and Google's Pixel User Community have all seen
reports of the issues, which affect both the Pixel 2 and Pixel 2
XL.  As noted by 9to5Google, many believe these are the result of
February's security patch.

The severity seems to vary from user to user, but most people are
complaining that the phones, while still usable, are running a
lot warmer than they should be, even when performing non-
intensive tasks.  Some reports say the handsets are heating up
while in standby and the problem is still present in safe mode,
making the recent update, rather than any apps, the likely cause.

A toasty phone isn't the only problem users are experiencing; it
seems the security patch has also negatively affected the battery
life of some Pixel 2 handsets.  A few reports say the battery
drained by more than half after one hour with the display turned
on, though the impact hasn't been as extreme for other users.

Some people have reported experiencing both the warming and the
reduced battery life after installing the update, while others
say their phones suffer from one of the problems but not the
other.

Google has yet to comment on the reports, but given their
numbers, expect the company to release a statement soon.  At
least the tech giant isn't alone in putting out an update that
had unforeseen effects; Samsung recently halted its rollout of
Android Oreo to Galaxy S8 handsets after it was found to be
causing random reboots.

While Google managed to double Pixel shipments in 2017, it still
only moved a comparatively underwhelming 3.9 million units last
year.

The company could be facing more Pixel-related problems from law
firm Girard Gibbs LLP, the same company that handled the LG
bootloop case.  It is behind a class action lawsuit directed at
the first generation of Pixels over their "defects," and is
looking at launching a similar suit against the Pixel 2s. [GN]


HAIN CELESTIAL: Bid to Dismiss NY Securities Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that the motion
to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint is pending before
the Court.

On August 17, 2016, three securities class action complaints were
filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Company
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The three complaints are: (1) Flora v. The
Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al., (the "Flora Complaint"); (2)
Lynn v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Lynn
Complaint"); and (3) Spadola v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.,
et al. (the "Spadola Complaint" and, together with the Flora and
Lynn Complaints, the "Securities Complaints").  

On June 5, 2017, the court issued an order for consolidation,
appointment of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approval of selection of
co-lead counsel. Pursuant to this order, the Securities
Complaints were consolidated under the caption In re The Hain
Celestial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "Consolidated
Securities Action"), and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon Gimpel
were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs.

On June 21, 2017, the Company received notice that plaintiff
Spadola voluntarily dismissed his claims without prejudice to his
ability to participate in the Consolidated Securities Action as
an absent class member.

The Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action
filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on August 4, 2017 and a
Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint on September 7, 2017 on
behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Hain Celestial securities between
November 5, 2013 and February 10, 2017 (the "Amended Complaint").  
The Amended Complaint names as defendants the Company and certain
of its current and former officers (collectively, the
"Defendants") and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly
materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public
statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the
Company's business, prospects, financial results and internal
controls.

Hain Celestial said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss on October 3, 2017. Co-Lead Plaintiffs' opposition is
due by December 4, 2017, and Defendants will file a reply within
45 days after the filing of the Lead Co-Plaintiffs' opposition.

In its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended December
31, 2017, Hain Celestial said the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an
opposition on December 1, 2017, and Defendants filed the reply on
January 16, 2018. The motion to dismiss is pending before the
Court.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, was
founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake Success, New York.
The Company's mission has continued to evolve since its founding,
with health and wellness being the core tenet -- To Create and
Inspire A Healthier Way of LifeTM and be the leading marketer,
manufacturer and seller of organic and natural, "better-for-you"
products by anticipating and exceeding consumer expectations in
providing quality, innovation, value and convenience. The company
is based in New York.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that the
company continues to defend in a consolidated class action suit
in New York.

On April 19, 2017 and April 26, 2017, two class action and
stockholder derivative complaints were filed in the Eastern
District of New York against the Board of Directors and certain
officers of the Company under the captions Silva v. Simon, et al.
(the "Silva Complaint") and Barnes v. Simon, et al. (the "Barnes
Complaint"), respectively. Both the Silva Complaint and the
Barnes Complaint allege violation of securities law, breach of
fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.

On May 23, 2017, an additional stockholder filed a complaint
under seal in the Eastern District of New York against the Board
of Directors and certain officers of the Company. The complaint
alleges that the Company's directors and certain officers made
materially false and misleading statements in press releases and
SEC filings regarding the Company's business, prospects and
financial results. The complaint also alleges that the Company
violated its by-laws and Delaware law by failing to hold its 2016
Annual Stockholders Meeting and includes claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and corporate waste. On August
9, 2017, the Court granted an order to unseal this case and
reveal Gary Merenstein as the plaintiff.

On August 10, 2017, the court granted the parties stipulation to
consolidate the Barnes Compliant, the Silva Complaint and the
Merenstein Compliant under the caption In re The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation (the
"Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action") and to
appoint Robbins Arroyo LLP and Scott+Scott as Co-Lead Counsel,
with the Law Offices of Thomas G. Amon as Liaison Counsel for
Plaintiffs.

Hain Celestial said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that on September 14, 2017, a
related complaint was filed under the caption Oliver v. Berke, et
al. (the "Oliver Complaint"), and on October 6, 2017, the Oliver
Complaint was consolidated with the Consolidated Stockholder
Class and Derivative Action. The Plaintiffs filed their
consolidated amended complaint under seal on October 26, 2017.  
Defendants' answer, motion, or other response to the consolidated
amended complaint was due by December 26, 2017.

In its recent Form 10-Q Report, the Company said that on December
20, 2017, the parties agreed to stay Defendants' time to answer,
move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated amended complaint
through and including 30 days after a decision is rendered on the
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the consolidated
Securities Class Actions, filed in the Eastern District of New
York against the Company.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, was
founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake Success, New York.
The Company's mission has continued to evolve since its founding,
with health and wellness being the core tenet -- To Create and
Inspire A Healthier Way of LifeTM and be the leading marketer,
manufacturer and seller of organic and natural, "better-for-you"
products by anticipating and exceeding consumer expectations in
providing quality, innovation, value and convenience. The company
is based in New York.


HYUNDAI MOTORS: 9th Circuit Unwinds Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gary M. Pappas, Esq., and Ricardo Rozen, Esq., at Carlton Fields,
in an article for JD Supra, wrote that in a split panel, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's
certification of a nationwide class action settlement because the
lower court failed to conduct a sufficient predominance inquiry
under Rule 23(b)(3).

In 2012 Hyundai and Kia were accused of overstating their fuel
efficiency estimates in advertisements and car window stickers
for certain of their vehicles. A flurry of putative class action
litigation ensued across the country, and the MDL judicial panel
transferred the cases to the California district court presiding
over the lead case. The parties then reached a settlement of a
single nationwide class and presented it to the district court
for approval under Rule 23(b)(3), which provides a class action
may be maintained only if questions of law or fact predominate
over questions affecting only individual members. Numerous
objectors argued that a nationwide class could not be certified
under California choice of law rules because conflicts existed
under the various state consumer protection statutes. The
district court certified the nationwide settlement class --
without ever addressing variations in state law -- and approved
the settlement. The objectors appealed.

The Ninth Circuit vacated the settlement. The court began by
reiterating the Supreme Court's warning in Amchem that district
courts must give "undiluted, even heightened attention" to Rule
23 in the settlement context. 521 U.S. at 620. Here, the district
court proceeded on the mistaken assumption that the standard for
certification was lessened in the settlement context and that it
could avoid the choice of law analysis on the ground that it
found the settlement fair. Relying on its prior decision in
Mazza, the Ninth Circuit held that the lower court erred by
failing to apply California choice of law rules and by failing to
rigorously analyze potential differences in state consumer
protection laws to determine whether variations in such laws
swamp common issues and defeat predominance under Rule 23(b)(3).   
Further relying on Mazza, the court also held that the district
court erred by presuming that used car purchasers, who were class
members, relied on Hyundai and Kia's misleading statements. The
court reasoned that there was no evidence as to the extent of
defendants' advertising campaigns for the 76 different car models
at issue over several years, and that there was no legal
requirement to provide used car purchasers with the offending
window stickers. In conclusion, the Ninth Circuit remanded the
case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The dissent argued that since Mazza had held a nationwide class
could not be certified in a closely analogous case, the majority
had championed the cause of a handful of objectors and deprived
thousands of consumers from recovering a settlement valued at
more than $159 million. [GN]


INTEL CORP: City of Providence Files Suit Over Meltdown, Spectre
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patently Apple reported that while class action lawsuits against
Apple over intentionally slowing older iPhones have sailed past
55 thus far, Intel made it public on Feb. 16 that they've been
hit with 32 class actions over Meltdown and Spectre as of
February 15, 2018.  One of the Class Actions in that group was
filed on Feb. 5 by the city of Providence who is demanding $5
billion.

At the bottom of Intel's Form 10-K filing made public on Feb. 16,
Intel notes specifically that "As of February 15, 2018, 30
customer class action lawsuits and two securities class action
lawsuits have been filed.  The customer class action plaintiffs,
who purport to represent various classes of end users of our
products, generally claim to have been harmed by Intel's actions
and/or omissions in connection with the security vulnerabilities
and assert a variety of common law and statutory claims seeking
monetary damages and equitable relief.  The securities class
action plaintiffs, who purport to represent classes of acquirers
of Intel stock between July 27, 2017 and January 4, 2018,
generally allege that Intel and certain officers violated
securities laws by making statements about Intel's products and
internal controls that were revealed to be false or misleading by
the disclosure of the security vulnerabilities."

Elsewhere in their filing they state: "Security vulnerabilities
may exist with respect to our processors and other products as
well as the operating systems and workloads running on them.
Mitigation techniques designed to address these security
vulnerabilities, including software and firmware updates or other
preventative measures, may not operate as intended or effectively
resolve these vulnerabilities."

They later confessed that "A side-channel exploit is a type of
security vulnerability that has recently received attention as a
result of the variants referred to as "Spectre" and "Meltdown."
Information on these variants was prematurely reported publicly
before mitigation techniques to address all vulnerabilities were
made widely available, and certain of the mitigation techniques
did not operate as intended."

City of Providence: Causes for Action

Count 1: Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law

Count 2: Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act

Count 3: Violation of Rhode Island's Unfair Competition Law

Count 4: Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

Count 5: Breach of Implied Warranty

Count 6: Breach of Express Warranty of Marketability

Count 7: Unjust Enrichment

Count 8: Negligence

The complaint filed by the City of Providence begins with a
segment titled "Nature of the Case" wherein it states:

"This is a consumer protection action seeking injunctive relief
and damages arising from Defendant Intel's sale of defective
microprocessor chips to Plaintiff and Class Members for over
twenty-three (23) years.  Intel's microprocessor chips are
defective because they possess significant security
vulnerabilities that, if exploited, permit an adversary to access
sensitive data stored elsewhere on the machine or in the "cloud."
Defendant has been aware of these issues since at least June
2017, and thus far, is unable to offer consumers who purchased
devices containing defective microprocessor chips that possess
the significant security vulnerabilities described herein
("Affected Devices") an effective remedy.

Intel's primary business is the manufacture, sale, and supply of
microprocessors for computer system manufacturers like Apple,
Lenovo, HP, Dell, among others.  Intel also manufactures
motherboard chipsets, network interface controllers and
integrated circuits, flash memory, graphics chips, embedded
processors and other devices related to communications and
computing.  In 2016, Intel reported full-year revenue of $59.4
billion.

Intel's marketing scheme emphasizes its cutting-edge processor
speed and security.  Defendant repeatedly makes public
representations that its machines meet certain performance
metrics and possess security features embedded in the hardware,
which provided "robust, vulnerability-resistant platforms."  For
example, on July 11, 2017, Intel unveiled its "powerful" new Xeon
Scalable processor, which broke "58 world [performance] records
and counting," and was designed to offer businesses "security
without compromise" while providing support to "an expanding
range of existing and emerging data center, and network
workloads, including cloud computing, high-performance computing
and artificial intelligence."  Similarly on January 19, 2016,
Intel unveiled its then new 6th Gen Intel Core vPro processor for
"full business productivity with up to 2.5 times the
performance," which "lock[ed] the PC's Virtual Front Door with
More than Password Protection."

Unbeknownst to consumers purchasing Affected Devices, Defendant's
microprocessors were defectively designed, exposing Plaintiff and
Class Members' sensitive information to adversaries through at
least two types of security vulnerabilities, dubbed "Meltdown"
and "Spectre."

Meltdown affects virtually every machine that runs an Intel
processor, or millions of machines world-wide, as it is imbedded
in nearly all of Intel's "out-of-order" execution microprocessors
manufactured since 1995.  Adversaries exploiting the Meltdown
flaw attack the processors "out-of-order" execution to read
arbitrary kernel-memory locations, including personal data and
passwords.  A Meltdown attack is independent of the operating
system and does not rely on software vulnerabilities, which
allows it to bypass security assumptions based on address space
isolation and paravirtualized environments.  An adversary that
uses Meltdown to infect a system may readily access and read
(without user permissions or privileges) the memory of other
processes in that machine or the processes of linked virtual
machines (i.e., those in the cloud). In addition to Microsoft and
other software manufacturers releasing patches, Defendant
purports to have released software patches through original
equipment manufacturer ("OEM") partners, which purport to protect
90 percent of machines affected by Meltdown.  The patches,
however, are not 100 percent secure and has been shown to
decrease the performance of the Intel microprocessor by as much
as 30 percent.  There are also growing reports that the patches
are causing significant machine instability.

Spectre, meanwhile, exploits modern processor branch prediction
and speculative execution by instructing the microprocessor to
execute the destination of a branch ahead of time and then
guessing the branch destination, depend on the memory value being
read.  The processor either discards wrong speculative guesses,
or if right, commits to the speculative computation when the
memory value finally arrives.  Speculative logic, therefore, has
access to the machine's memory and registers and performs
operations. Spectre exploits this access.  In a successful
attack, the adversary induces the victim to "speculatively
perform operations that would not occur during correct program
execution and which leak the victim's confidential information
via a side channel to the adversary."  Because Spectre accesses
memory registers and performs software operations, securing
devices affected by Spectre requires each individual software
vendor update its potentially vulnerable applications.  Spectre,
therefore, is a difficult fix, and a problem that "will haunt us
for quite some time."

Defendant's microprocessors are defective because they expose
sensitive consumer data to adversaries through the Meltdown and
Spectre security vulnerabilities.  Moreover, Intel has thus far
been unable to offer consumers who purchased Affected Devices an
effective repair or alternative solution.  Intel itself admits
that patches released for Meltdown and Spectre has caused
instability in both newer and older machines.  Based on these
issues, Intel has even gone so far as to advise consumers to stop
installing current versions of its Spectre and Meltdown patches.
Defendant's defect microprocessors exist in nearly every Intel
central processing unit (CPU) manufactured in the last 23 years,
and thus, Affected Devices include most personal computers,
laptops, smartphones, tablets, and servers in use today.

Consumers, including Plaintiff and all members of the proposed
Class, are consequently left between a rock and a hard place,
forced to choose between: purchasing a new machine with a
processor that does not contain the design defect; continuing to
use Affected Devices with significant security vulnerabilities;
or utilizing a "patched" machine that is not 100 percent secure,
which also may suffer from significant performance degradation or
other instability issues.

Intel's conduct deprived consumers of the ability to make a
meaningful choice from among competing processor products.  Had
consumers known of Intel's defectively designed processors prior
to purchase, consumers likely would have opted to purchase AMD or
ARM processors, which are not affected by the Meltdown flaw and
are often priced below comparable Intel processors.

Plaintiffs and the Class it seeks to represent are consumers who
purchased Affected Devices.  This lawsuit is brought to challenge
Intel's unfair business practices and practices pursuant to the
consumer protection laws of Rhode Island.  Plaintiff also brings
a claim for: breach of express and implied warranty of
marketability; unjust enrichment; and negligence.

Plaintiff requests the Court find Intel's business practices
constitute unfair business practices and enjoin Intel from
selling affected machines in the future.  

Later in the court filing, the Plaintiff uses Intel's own ads
against them.  Although the lawsuit pointed to 6 particular ads,
we present two of them as noted above.  The Plaintiff added the
following in their complaint in relation to the ads:

"Intel regularly touts the security of its processors in its
marketing materials.  For example, Intel advertises that its
processors offer "Data Protection with Hardware-assisted
Security" and ensures "data protection through innovation."  In
one instance, Intel emphasizes a "key component" of its approach
to security is "providing more robust, vulnerability-resistant
platforms.  Security features are embedded in the hardware of
Intel(R) processors, including three of Intel's newest server
processors -- the Intel(R) Xeon(R) processor E3 v3 family, the
Intel(R) Xeon(R) processor E5 family, and the Intel(R) Xeon(R)
processor E7 family, as well as the latest generation Intel(R)
Core(TM) vPro(TM) processors."  Intel's advertisements routinely
focus on security measures built into its processors.

In June 2017, Intel learned its microprocessors suffered from
several defects that allowed adversaries to access secure
consumer data.  These defects, colloquially known as Meltdown and
Spectre, rendered Affected Devices unfit for their intended use."

The Class action was filed in San Jose California in the county
of Santa Clara.  The Presiding Judge is noted as being Beth
Labson Freeman and the referring Judge noted as being Nathanael
Cousins.

On January 8th Patently Apple posted a report titled "Intel gets
hit with a String of Class Action Lawsuits over Meltdown and
Spectre Security Flaws found in their Processors," which marked
the first wave of Class Actions filed against Intel. [GN]


INTEL CORP: Faces 32 Class Actions Over Meltdown, Spectre Flaws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Moore-Colyer, writing for The Inquirer, reports that Intel
has been walloped by 32 lawsuits so far over the Meltdown and
Spectre flaws found in its processors.

"As of February 15, 2018, 30 customer class action lawsuits and
two securities class action lawsuits have been filed," explained
Intel in a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing.

The chipmaker is being hit from two sides, with customer class
action looking to sue it for "monetary damages and equitable
relief" and the securities lawsuits seeking action against Intel
and its top brass.

The latter alleges that Intel "violated securities laws by making
statements about its products and internal controls that were
revealed to be false or misleading by the disclosure of the
security vulnerabilities".

A trio of shareholders have each filed shareholder derivative
actions against Intel, which allege that specific members of its
board and leading officers failed to take action relating to
insider trading.

This would suggest that raised eyebrows over Intel CEO
Brian Krzanich's sales of company stock ahead of the Meltdown and
Spectre disclosure are now being given some legal force. It's
worth noting that the stock sales were part of a pre-arranged
stock plan, only that the quantity of stock Krzanich was
offloading seemed unusually high.

While Intel has issued fixes for both Meltdown and Spectre, not
with initial resounding success, it may still face further
lawsuit action form people and companies that feel the processors
flaws have damaged them by their computers don't work as they
should.

Spectre and Meltdown have been present in Intel chips for a
decade, though they only came to light last year after Google's
Project Zero security team revealed them in a non-disclosure
agreement with a clutch of big tech firms.

So one could argue that all the people suing Intel are being
opportunistic and haven't really been affected by the flaw in any
significant manner, particularly as attacks exploiting Meltdown
or Spectre have yet to be spotted out in the wild.

But unfortunately for Intel, it doesn't look like the fallout
from the flaws is going away anytime soon, and could even force
the chip maker to rework the architecture of it processors. [GN]


KEY TECHNOLOGY: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on Feb. 18 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Washington on behalf of holders of Key
Technology, Inc. ("Key Technology") (Nasdaq:KTEC) common stock in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Key Technology by
Duravant LLC and its affiliate ("Duravant") announced on January
25, 2018 (the "Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Key
Technology, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and Duravant,
is captioned Franchi v. Key Technology, Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-
5027 (E.D. Wash.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please
contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra
at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220,
Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail
at info@rl-legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On January 25, 2018, Key Technology entered into an agreement and
plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Duravant.  Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Key
Technology will receive $26.75 in cash for each share of Key
Technology they own (the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the "Solicitation
Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission.  The Complaint alleges that the Solicitation
Statement omits material information with respect to, among other
things, Key Technology's financial projections, the analyses
performed by Key Technology's financial advisor, and potential
conflicts of interest.  The Complaint seeks injunctive and
equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of Key
Technology common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than April 19, 2018.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.

With offices in Wilmington, Delaware, Garden City, New York, and
San Francisco, California, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. --
http://www.rigrodskylong.com--  has recovered hundreds of  
millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved
substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous cases
nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions,
shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative actions.
[GN]


INTEL CORP: Faces 32 Class-Action Lawsuits Over CPU Flaws
---------------------------------------------------------
David Lumb, writing for Engadget, reports that, Intel expanded
its bug bounty program to catch more issues like the extensive
Meltdown and Spectre CPU flaws, but that was too little, too late
for some chip owners. We knew three class-action lawsuits were
filed in early January days after the vulnerabilities were
publicized, but according to an SEC filing, the total has grown
to 30 multi-party suits by customers and two securities suits.
Most argue that Intel violated securities laws when it assured
its products were safe to use, which the Meltdown and Spectre
flaws revealed to be untrue.

The customer suits are seeking "monetary damages and equitable
relief," though they're in such early stages that none have
specified exact amounts. On top of that, the SEC filing revealed
that the company faces two class-action suits from shareholders
claiming Intel officials have failed to respond to alleged
insider trading, likely referring to Intel CEO Brian Krzanich's
questionably-timed stock sale late last year.

The Meltdown and Spectre flaws were present in CPUs dating back
to 1995. Per SEC filing, a Google security team informed Intel
about chip vulnerabilities that would later be called Meltdown
and Spectre in June 2017. News about the flaws emerged in early
January, and Intel rushed out patches, some so crude that the
company urged customers not to install them and wait for the next
ones. Even as Intel continues to trickle out updates to its
different chip lines, researchers keep finding new ways to
exploit the vulnerabilities -- luckily, they can be patched out,
but they would likely be present in the Meltdown-and-Spectre-
proof chips Intel claims it's working on. [GN]


INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Operators Ask for Rehearing En Banc
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 7, 2018, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017,
that the exchange defendants disagree with various aspects of the
Second Circuit's decision in a class action appeal, and on
January 31, 2018, filed a petition for rehearing and/or rehearing
en banc.

In April 2014, New York Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc.,
two of the company's subsidiaries, were among more than 40
financial institutions and exchanges named as defendants in four
purported class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, or the Southern District,
by the City of Providence, Rhode Island, and other plaintiffs.

In subsequent consolidated amended complaints, the plaintiffs
asserted claims against the exchange defendants and Barclays PLC,
or Barclays, a subsidiary of which operates an alternative
trading system known as Barclays LX, on behalf of a class of "all
public investors" who bought or sold stock from April 18, 2009 to
the present on the U.S.-based equity exchanges operated by the
exchange defendants or on Barclays LX.

In August 2015, the court issued an opinion and order granting
the defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissing the second
amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice. The court held
that the plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently state a claim
against the defendants under Sections 10(b) and 6(b) of the
Exchange Act, and additionally that some of the claims against
the exchanges were barred by the doctrine of self-regulatory
organization immunity. In September 2015, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal of the dismissal of the lawsuit to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, or the Second Circuit.
The appeal was briefed and argued during 2016.

On December 19, 2017, the Second Circuit issued a decision
vacating the dismissal and remanding the case to the district
court for further proceedings. The Second Circuit held that the
claims against the exchanges were not barred by the doctrine of
self-regulatory organization immunity because (according to the
Second Circuit) the exchanges were not carrying out regulatory
functions while operating their markets and engaging in the
challenged conduct at issue, and that the plaintiffs had
adequately pleaded claims against the defendants under Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act.

The Second Circuit directed that, on remand, the district court
should address and rule upon various other defenses raised by the
exchanges in their motion to dismiss (which the district court
did not address in its prior opinion and order). The exchanges
disagree with various aspects of the Second Circuit's decision,
and on January 31, 2018, filed a petition for rehearing and/or
rehearing en banc.

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. is a leading global operator of
regulated exchanges, clearing houses and listings venues, and a
provider of data services for commodity, fixed income and equity
markets. The company is based in Atlanta, Georgia.


INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Says "Lanier" Suit Closed
----------------------------------------------------
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 7, 2018, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017,
that the company considers the purported class action lawsuits
filed by Harold Lanier closed.

In May 2014, three purported class action lawsuits were filed
(and later amended) in the Southern District by Harold Lanier
against the securities exchanges that are participants in each of
the three national market system data distribution plans - the
Consolidated Tape Association/Consolidated Quotation Plan, the
Nasdaq UTP Plan, and the Options Price Reporting Authority, or
the Plans, - which are established under the Exchange Act and
regulated by the SEC. New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca,
Inc. and NYSE American (NYSE American was formerly known as NYSE
MKT), which are our subsidiaries, were among the defendants named
in one or more of the suits, in which Lanier claimed to sue on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated subscribers to
the market data disseminated by the Plans.

Lanier's allegations included that the exchange participants in
the Plans breached agreements with subscribers by disseminating
market data in a discriminatory manner in that other "preferred"
customers allegedly received their data faster than the proposed
class. In September 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaints, and in April 2015, the court issued an
opinion and order granting the motion and dismissing the three
lawsuits with prejudice. In September 2016, the Second Circuit
entered an order affirming the dismissal of the lawsuits. In
November 2016, the Second Circuit denied a petition filed by
Lanier, relating only to the lawsuit involving the Options Price
Reporting Authority plan, seeking a rehearing by the panel of
judges that decided the appeal or, in the alternative, for review
by the full Second Circuit. Lanier has not sought review of these
matters by the U.S. Supreme Court and we consider this matter
closed.

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. is a leading global operator of
regulated exchanges, clearing houses and listings venues, and a
provider of data services for commodity, fixed income and equity
markets. The company is based in Atlanta, Georgia.


ITERIS INC: Pays $215,000 in "Ionni" Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Iteris Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that defendants paid
$215,000 in Ionni v. Bergera class action suit as per agreed in
the settlement agreement.

On September 15, 2016, a stockholder class action and derivative
action (captioned Ionni v. Bergera, et al., Case No. 16-cv00807-
RGA) was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware (the "Court") against certain of the
Company's current and former directors and officers (the
"Individual Defendants") and the Company as a nominal defendant
(together with the Individual Defendants, the "Defendants").

The complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty and
unjust enrichment. Plaintiff contended that, in 2014 and 2015,
the Individual Defendants caused the Company to issue purportedly
false and misleading proxy statements in connection with the
Company's annual meeting of stockholders in 2014 and 2015
(collectively, the "Proxy Statements"). In those Proxy
Statements, the Company's stockholders were asked to approve
amendments (the "Amendments") to increase the number of shares of
the Company's common stock reserved for issuance under the
Iteris, Inc. 2007 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the "2007 Plan").

Among other things, Plaintiff alleged that the Proxy Statements
were materially false and misleading because they affirmatively
represented that no person could receive more than 500,000 stock
options or SARs under the 2007 Plan in any fiscal year (the
"Share Limit") and failed to disclose that the Compensation
Committee had the discretion to approve an annual grant to a 2007
Plan participant in excess of that amount. Plaintiff contended
that, the Amendments were not valid and sought rescission of any
stock options granted pursuant to the Amendments, including the
option to purchase up to 1,350,000 shares of the Company's common
stock that was granted in September 2015 to Mr. Bergera (the "CEO
Option") in connection with his appointment to serve as President
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company.

The Individual Defendants denied that they breached their
fiduciary duties and the Company believed (and still believes)
the Amendments were properly approved and that all of the options
granted pursuant to the Amendments, including the CEO Option,
were valid. Nonetheless, to eliminate the burden, expense and
uncertainty of the litigation, on November 8, 2016, the parties
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") setting forth
their agreement in principle to resolve the litigation. In
consideration for a release of claims and dismissal of this
litigation with prejudice, the Company agreed to submit a
proposal at its 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders seeking
stockholder approval for that portion of the CEO Option that
exceeds the Share Limit (i.e., the 850,000 options above the
Share Limit (the "Excess Shares")). The Company submitted a
proposal of the Excess Shares for approval by the Company
stockholders at the 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. On
December 15, 2016, the Company's stockholders approved the Excess
Shares.

On April 28, 2017, the parties entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement and Compromise (the "Stipulation") that provides for,
among other things, a release of claims against Defendants. Under
the Stipulation, Defendants agreed not to oppose any award of
attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiff up to $215,000.

Iteris said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that the parties on May 2, 2017, filed
a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On May 11,
2017, the Court issued an order requesting briefing from the
parties regarding the scope of the proposed release in the
settlement, and on May 22, 2017, Defendants and Plaintiff each
filed a letter brief to the Court in response to the order. On
June 2, 2017, the Court issued an order granting the motion for
preliminary approval, approving notice of the settlement, and
scheduling a settlement approval hearing for September 8, 2017.

At the settlement hearing on September 8, 2017, the Court
approved the settlement and entered a final judgment dismissing
the action with prejudice. No stockholder objected to either the
settlement or the proposed fee award. The settlement became
effective on October 10, 2017, because as of that date, the
dismissal of the action is no longer subject to appeal.

The Court approved the settlement and entered a final judgment
dismissing the action with prejudice on September 8, 2017, and
the settlement became effective on October 10, 2017.

Pursuant to the settlement terms, Defendants paid $215,000 in
October 2017.  An immaterial accrued liability for the settlement
was included in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of
March 31, 2017, which was sufficient to cover the settlement
payment.

Iteris, Inc. provides intelligent information solutions to
traffic management and global agribusiness markets worldwide. It
operates in three segments: Roadway Sensors, Transportation
Systems, and Agriculture and Weather Analytics. The company is
based in Santa Ana, California.


KEMET CORP: Settles Direct Battery Buyers' Claims for $4.95 Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kemet Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on February 1,
2018 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that the Company has
paid US$4.95 million to the settlement class of direct product
purchasers of lithium ion batteries.

In July 2013, TOKIN was named as one of eight defendants in two
purported U.S. class action antitrust lawsuits (In Re: Lithium
Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, 13-MD-02420-YGR, United
States District Court, Northern District of California) (the
"Battery Class Action Suits") regarding the sale of lithium ion
batteries brought on behalf of direct product purchasers and
indirect product purchasers.

On December 22, 2017, the Court granted preliminary approval to a
settlement agreement by which, in consideration of the release of
TOKIN and its subsidiaries from claims asserted in the Battery
Class Action Suits, TOKIN agreed to pay US$4.95 million to the
settlement class of direct product purchasers.  TOKIN paid the
settlement amount on January 18, 2018.

On December 12, 2017, TOKIN reached a preliminary settlement by
which, in consideration of the release of TOKIN and its
subsidiaries from claims asserted in the Battery Class Action
Suits, TOKIN agreed to pay US$2.0 million to the settlement class
of indirect product purchasers.  The settlement with indirect
product purchasers is subject to execution of a definitive
agreement and court approval.

KEMET is a global manufacturer of a wide variety of capacitors,
and, with the recent acquisition of TOKIN, electro-magnetic
compatible devices, sensors and actuators.


KEMET CORP: Still Pays Settlement Amount in Capacitor Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kemet Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on February 1,
2018 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that it continues to
pay an aggregate US$37.3 million to a settlement class of direct
purchasers of capacitors and a settlement class of indirect
purchasers of capacitors.

On July 15, 2016, TOKIN entered into definitive settlement
agreements in two antitrust suits filed with the United States
District Court, Northern District of California as In re:
Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD (the
"Capacitor Class Action Suits").  Pursuant to the terms of the
settlement, in consideration of the release of TOKIN and its
subsidiaries (including TOKIN America, Inc.) from claims asserted
in the Capacitor Class Action Suits, TOKIN will pay an aggregate
US$37.3 million to a settlement class of direct purchasers of
capacitors and a settlement class of indirect purchasers of
capacitors.  Each of the respective class payments is payable in
five installments, two of which were paid on or before the
respective due dates of July 29, 2016 and 2017, the next two of
which are due each year thereafter on the anniversary of the
initial payment, and the final payment is due by December 31,
2019.

KEMET is a global manufacturer of a wide variety of capacitors,
and, with the recent acquisition of TOKIN, electro-magnetic
compatible devices, sensors and actuators.


LIFEVANTAGE CORP: "Zhang" Class Action Suit Concluded
-----------------------------------------------------
Lifevantage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that the securities
class action suit entitled Zhang v. LifeVantage Corp., Case No.
2:16-cv-00965-BCW, is now concluded.

On September 15, 2016, a purported securities class action was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Utah, entitled Zhang v. LifeVantage Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-
00965-BCW (D. Utah filed Sept. 15, 2016). In this action (later
recaptioned as In re LifeVantage Corp. Securities Litigation),
plaintiff alleged that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer
and former Chief Financial Officer violated Sections 10(b) and/or
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections
78j(b), 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5,
promulgated thereunder.

On June 15, 2017, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the amended complaint, without prejudice, and permitted lead
plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint.

Lifevantage said in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2017, that on June 15, 2017, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss, without prejudice, denied
defendants' motion to strike and granted lead plaintiffs 14 days
to file a motion for leave to amend.  Thereafter, the parties
agreed to extend lead plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for
leave to amend by one week. On July 6, 2017, lead plaintiffs
filed a motion for leave to amend. Defendants' opposition to that
motion is due to be filed on July 20, 2017. No hearing date has
been set for this motion. By operation of the PSLRA, all
discovery and other proceedings remain stayed.

In its recent Form 10-Q Report, Lifevantage said that on
September 18, 2017, the Court denied lead plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend and entered final judgment in favor of LifeVantage
and the other defendants and dismissed the case with prejudice.
On October 17, 2017, the parties executed a stipulation whereby
lead plaintiffs agreed not to take an appeal from the final
judgment of dismissal in favor of defendants in exchange for
mutual releases, without payment of any consideration by or on
behalf of defendants. This case is now concluded.

Lifevantage Corporation is a company focused on biohacking the
aging code through nutrigenomics, the study of how nutrition and
naturally occurring compounds affect the genes.


LIPOCINE INC: Inks Settlement of Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lipocine Inc. (NASDAQ: LPCN), a specialty pharmaceutical company,
announced that the Company and the other defendants have entered
into a memorandum of understanding to settle the purported
securities class action litigation captioned In re Lipocine Inc.
Securities Litigation, 2:17CV00182 DB (D. Utah).

The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties
will enter into a settlement agreement, which, if entered into,
will be subject to customary conditions including court approval
following notice to the stockholders of the Company, and a
hearing at which time the court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement.  If a settlement
is finally approved by the court, it will resolve all of the
claims that were or could have been brought in the action being
settled.

The defendants continue to deny the allegations made in the
purported securities fraud class action litigation and have
agreed to enter into the memorandum of understanding in order to
avoid the burden and expense of further litigation.   

About Lipocine

Lipocine Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company developing
innovative pharmaceutical products for use in men's and women's
health using its proprietary drug delivery technologies.
Lipocine's clinical development pipeline includes three
development programs TLANDO, LPCN 1111 and LPCN 1107.  TLANDO, a
novel oral prodrug of testosterone containing testosterone
undecanoate, is designed to help restore normal testosterone
levels in hypogonadal men. TLANDO was well tolerated and met the
primary efficacy end-points in Phase 3 testing with twice daily
dosing and is currently under FDA review.  LPCN 1111, a novel
oral prodrug of testosterone, originated and is being developed
by Lipocine as a next-generation oral testosterone product with
potential for once-daily dosing and is currently in Phase 2
testing.  LPCN 1107 is potentially the first oral
hydroxyprogesterone caproate product candidate indicated for the
prevention of recurrent preterm birth, is currently in Phase 2
testing and has been granted orphan drug designation by the FDA.
For more information, please visit www.lipocine.com. [GN]


LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Fact Discovery to Be Completed By April 9
-------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidity Services, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on
February 1, 2018 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that in the
case Howard v. Liquidity Services, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 14-1183
(D.D.C. 2014), fact discovery be completed by April 9, 2018, and
that expert discovery be completed by October 1, 2018.

On July 14, 2014, Leonard Howard filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia (the "District Court") against the Company and its chief
executive officer, chief financial officer, and chief accounting
officer, on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company's
common stock between February 1, 2012, and May 7, 2014.

The complaint alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other
things, misrepresenting the Company's growth initiative, growth
potential, and financial and operating conditions, thereby
artificially inflating its stock price, and sought unspecified
compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys'
and experts' fees.

On October 14, 2014, the Court appointed Caisse de Depot et
Placement du Quebec and the Newport News Employees' Retirement
Fund as co-lead plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on December 15, 2014, which alleges substantially
similar claims, but which does not name the chief accounting
officer as a defendant.

On March 2, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim or plead fraud with the
requisite particularity.  On March 31, 2016, the Court granted
that motion in part and denied it in part.  Only the claims
related to the Company's retail division were not dismissed.

On May 16, 2016, the Company answered the amended complaint.

Plaintiffs' class certification was granted on September 6, 2017.

Liquidity Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2017, that the court's scheduling
order in this action requires that fact discovery be completed by
February 23, 2018, and that expert discovery be completed by July
27, 2018.

In its recent Form 10-Q Report, the Company said the deadlines
have been moved.  The scheduling order now requires that fact
discovery be completed by April 9, 2018, and that expert
discovery be completed by October 1, 2018.

Liquidity Services said, "The Company believes the allegations in
the amended complaint are without merit and cannot estimate a
range of potential liability, if any, at this time."

Liquidity Services operates a network of leading e-commerce
marketplaces that enable buyers and sellers to transact in an
efficient, automated environment offering over 500 product
categories.


LJM PRESERVATION: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and KSF partner, former Attorney General
of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they
have until April 10, 2018 to file lead plaintiff applications in
a securities class action lawsuit against LJM Funds Management
Ltd., if they purchased shares of the LJM Preservation and Growth
Fund Class I (Nasdaq: LJMIX) between February 28, 2015 and
February 7, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of LJM Preservation and Growth Fund Class
I and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case
might affect you and your right to recover for your economic
loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF
Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via
email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaq-ljmix/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by April 10, 2018.

About the Lawsuit

LJM Funds Management, certain of its executives and others are
charged with failing to disclose material information during the
Class Period, violating federal securities laws.

The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions
include, but are not limited to, that: (i) LJMIX failed to
adequately focus on preservation of capital particularly in down
markets as stated in its Registration Statements and
Prospectuses; (ii) investors were exposed to unacceptably high
risks of significant losses; and (iii) as a result, the Fund's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include the Former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities,
antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger &
acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly
traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices
in New York, California and Louisiana.

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         206 Covington St.
         Madisonville, LA 70447
         Tel.No.: 1-877-515-1850
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com  [GN]


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: "Gathmann-Landini" Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended October 29, 2017, that the company faces a class action
suit entitled, Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA
inc.

On October 9, 2015, certain current and former hourly employees
of the Company filed a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court
of New York entitled Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon
USA inc. On December 2, 2015, the case was moved to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated various New York
labor codes by failing to pay all earned wages, including
overtime compensation. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified
amount of damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend this
matter.

                        *     *     *

Plaintiff's motion to certify an FLSA collective action remains
pending.

On Jan. 19, lululemon filed its Memorandum in Opposition to
Motion Certify FLSA Collective Action.

lululemon athletica inc. is a designer, distributor, and retailer
of healthy lifestyle inspired athletic apparel. Since its
inception, the company had developed a distinctive corporate
culture, and the company has a mission to produce products which
create transformational experiences for people to live happy,
healthy, fun lives.


MCDONALD'S: Chose Not to Open to Visually Impaired, CA Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
McDonald's is facing another federal class action complaint from
customers who say the restaurant denies people with visual
impairments equal access during late night, drive-through-only
hours.

Karen Morey, of Villa Park, Calif., filed her complaint Feb. 13
in Chicago. She suffers from macular degeneration and can't drive
at night, putting her in a class of people protected under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. She said McDonald's
discriminates against such customers when restaurants shift to
drive-through-only operations, an experience she documented from
a late 2017 trip to the McDonald's in Orange, Calif., about three
miles from her home.

According to the complaint, the drive-through windows at
McDonald's restaurants "lack any meaningful for visually-impaired
individuals who are unable to operate motor vehicles. Since they
are unable to drive, and because it is not safe for them to walk
through the drive-(through), visually-impaired individuals are
totally precluded from accessing defendants' products during late
night hours. . . . This lack of accessibility is particularly
offensive given the sophistication and size of McDonald's as well
as the advanced technological society in which we live today."

In detailing the distinction between counter service and drive-
through windows, Morey also praised the burger chain, stating
"one of the hallmarks of McDonald's success has been its
adaptability," and referencing 2015 updates such as changes to
bun toasting times, hamburger patty searing methods, using
margarine instead of butter for Egg McMuffins, using cage-free
eggs and making some breakfast items available all day, among
others.

Morey further detailed the way McDonald's adjusts drive-through
operations, such as streamlining menu options and implementing
training and operations procedures to ensure order accuracy,
noting the chain's "precision calibrations and shrewd business
planning is consummate with its status as an international
business monolith. Curiously absent, however, from McDonald's
continued adaptation, is any concern whatsoever for the
accessibility of their late-night drive-(throughs) to the
disabled."

According to the complaint, company policy forces McDonald's
employees to refuse service to anyone trying to order food from a
drive-through window while on foot, and when a restaurant has
shifted to late-night operations, "customers are not permitted to
physically enter the McDonald's to order food," effectively
barring people with visual impairments from "independently using
or enjoying" McDonald's goods and services during those hours.

"There are a variety of modest accommodations defendant could
make that would allow blind people to access to McDonald's late-
night restaurant services," the complaint said, though it did not
specify what those might be. "However McDonald's does not employ
any such policy or practice."

The complaint calls for creation of a nationwide class as well as
a class for California customers. Formal complaints include
violation of Title III of the ADA for the nationwide class, and
of the Unruh Civil Rights Act for the California class. In
addition to class certification and a jury trial, Morey seeks a
court order to prevent McDonald's from further ADA violations and
a permanent injunction requiring the chain to make its drive-
through lanes accessible and usable for customers with vision
impairments.

Morey also seeks actual, compensatory and statutory damages as
well as legal fees.

She is represented in the matter by Beaumont Costales, LLC, of
Chicago, and Glenn M. Goffin, Esq. of Foster City, Calif.

A similar action was brought in May 2016 against McDonald's in
Chicago federal court by plaintiff Scott Magee. That case remains
pending. [GN]


MDL 2709: Dollar General Says Motor Oil Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended November 3, 2017, that the company continues to
defend itself in the motor oil-related suit.

In December 2015 the Company was first notified of several
lawsuits in which the plaintiffs allege violation of state
consumer protection laws relating to the labeling, marketing and
sale of Dollar General private-label motor oil. Each of these
lawsuits, as well as additional, similar lawsuits filed after
December 2015, was filed in, or removed to, various federal
district courts of the United States (collectively "the Motor Oil
Lawsuits").

On June 2, 2016, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") granted the Company's motion to
centralize the Motor Oil Lawsuits in a matter styled In re Dollar
General Corp. Motor Oil Litigation, Case MDL No. 2709, before the
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
("Motor Oil MDL"). Subsequently, the plaintiffs in the Motor Oil
MDL filed a consolidated amended complaint, in which they seek to
certify two nationwide classes and multiple statewide sub-classes
and for each putative class member some or all of the following
relief: compensatory damages, injunctive relief, statutory
damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

The court recently granted in part and denied in part the
Company's motion to dismiss the allegations raised in the
consolidated amended complaint. To the extent additional consumer
lawsuits alleging violation of laws relating to the labeling,
marketing and sale of Dollar General private-label motor oil have
been or will be filed, the Company expects that such lawsuits
will be transferred to the Motor Oil MDL.

In May 2017, the Company received a Notice of Proposed Action
from the Office of the New Mexico Attorney General (the "New
Mexico AG" or "Attorney General") which alleges that the
Company's labeling, marketing and sale of Dollar General private-
label motor oil violated New Mexico law (the "New Mexico Motor
Oil Matter"). The State is represented in connection with this
matter by counsel for the plaintiffs in the Motor Oil MDL.

On May 25, 2017, in response to the Notice of Proposed Action,
the Company filed an action in New Mexico federal court seeking a
declaratory judgment that the Attorney General is prohibited by,
among other things, the United States Constitution, from pursuing
the New Mexico Motor Oil Matter and an order enjoining the
Attorney General from pursuing such an action. (Dollar General
Corporation v. Hector H. Balderas, D.N.M., Case No. 1:17-cv-
00588). Thereafter, on June 20, 2017, the New Mexico Attorney
General filed an action in the First Judicial District Court,
County of Santa Fe, New Mexico pertaining to the New Mexico Motor
Oil Matter.  (Hector H. Balderas v. Dolgencorp, LLC, Case No. D-
101-cv-2017-01562).

The Company removed this matter to New Mexico federal court on
July 26, 2017, and filed a motion to dismiss the action. The
matter was transferred to the Motor Oil MDL and the State has
moved to remand it to state court.(Hector H. Balderas v.
Dolgencorp, LLC, D.N.M., Case No. 1:17-cv-772).

On September 1, 2017, the Mississippi Attorney General, who also
is represented by the counsel for the plaintiffs in the Motor Oil
MDL, filed an action in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial
District of Hinds County, Mississippi which alleges that the
Company's labeling, marketing and sale of Dollar General private-
label motor oil violated Mississippi law. (Jim Hood v. Dollar
General Corporation, Case No. G2017-1229 T/1) (the "Mississippi
Motor Oil Matter").

The Company removed this matter to Mississippi federal court on
October 5, 2017, and filed a motion to dismiss the action. The
matter was conditionally transferred to the Motor Oil MDL and the
State moved to vacate the JPML's conditional transfer order. The
State also moved to remand it to state court. (Jim Hood v. Dollar
General Corporation, N.D. Miss., Case No. 3:17-cv-801-LG-LRA).

The Company is vigorously defending these matters and believes
that the labeling, marketing and sale of its private-label motor
oil comply with applicable federal and state requirements and are
not misleading. The Company further believes that these matters
are not appropriate for class or similar treatment. At this time,
however, it is not possible to predict whether these matters will
be permitted to proceed as a class or in a similar fashion,
whether on a statewide or nationwide basis, or the size of any
putative class or classes.

Likewise, at this time, it is not possible to estimate the value
of the claims asserted, and no assurances can be given that the
Company will be successful in its defense of these matters on the
merits or otherwise. For these reasons, the Company is unable to
estimate the potential loss or range of loss in these matters;
however, if the Company is not successful in its defense efforts,
the resolution of the Motor Oil MDL, the New Mexico Motor Oil
Matter or the Mississippi Motor Oil Matter could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements
as a whole.

Dollar General Corporation is a discount retailer, provides
various merchandise products in the southern, southwestern,
midwestern, and eastern United States. The company is based in
Goodlettsville, Tennessee.


MDL 2804: Cordova City Votes to Join Opioid Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Cohron, writing for Daily Mountian Eagle, reports that
Cordova City Council members voted February 13 night to join a
class action lawsuit involving opioid manufacturers and
distributors.

"It (the opioid epidemic) has had a devastating effect not only
on people's lives, but it has taxed governmental services. Those
resources could be diverted elsewhere to build your city instead
of having to deal with a problem," city attorney Ben Goldman,
Esq. told the council.

Goldman recommended joining the lawsuit and assured council
members that the action will not cost the city money unless
damages are awarded.

The city will be represented by the Jasper-based law firm Nelson,
Bryan and Cross.

Attorney Bob Bryan, Esq. told the council that his firm is
representing a number of small towns, including Carbon Hill,
Parrish and Winfield.

"I believe from living here that we have been disproportionately
damaged by the opioid industry. They violated numerous federal
laws in sending opiates without checks and balances. They were
prescribed for things they never should have been prescribed for,
and we've all seen what has happened," Bryan said. [GN]


MEDLEY CAPITAL: Faces "Solomon" Suit in E.D. Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------
Royce Solomon has filed a class action lawsuit against Medley
Capital Corporation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6,
2018, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017.

Medley LLC, the Company, and Medley Opportunity Fund II LP were
served on January 2, 2018 with a complaint naming them as
defendants, along with other various parties, in a putative class
action lawsuit. The case is captioned as Solomon v. American Web
Loan, et al. Royce Solomon, Jodi Belleci, Michael Littlejohn, and
Giulianna Lomaglio v. American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Mark
Curry, MacFarlane Group, Inc., The MacFarlane Group, LLC, Sol
Partners, Medley Opportunity Fund, II, LP, Medley LLC, Medley
Capital Corp., Oakmont Funding, Inc., Dinero Investments, Inc.,
Chieftain Funding, Inc., Dant Holdings, Inc., DHI Computing
Service, Inc., Smith Haynes & Watson, LLC, Middlemarch Partners,
and John Does 1-100, and was filed on December 15, 2017, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No. 4:17cv145.

The plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging claims
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and
the Truth in Lending Act, and various other claims arising out of
the alleged payday lending activities of American Web Loan. The
claims against Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, and the
Company allege that the Medley defendants exercised control over
American Web Loan's payday lending activities as a result of a
$22.9 million loan to American Web Loan. The loan was made by
Medley Opportunity Fund II LP in 2011. American Web Loan repaid
the loan from Medley Opportunity Fund II LP in full in February
of 2015, more than ten months prior to any of the loans allegedly
made by American Web Loan to the alleged class plaintiff
representatives.

The Company and Medley LLC never made any loans or provided
financing to, or had any other relationship with, American Web
Loan. The Medley defendants are seeking indemnification from
American Web Loan, various affiliates and other parties with
respect to these claims.

The Medley defendants believe the alleged claims are without
merit and they intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

Medley Capital Corporation is a business development company. The
fund seeks to invest in privately negotiated debt and equity
securities of small and middle market companies. The company is
based in New York.


MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE: Faces "Forman" Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Meridian Bioscience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that the company
faces a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, filed by Barbara Forman.

On November 15, 2017, Barbara Forman filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio naming Meridian, its Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer (in their capacities as such) as
defendants. The complaint alleges that Meridian made false and
misleading representations concerning certain of Magellan's lead
test systems at or around the time of Meridian's acquisition of
Magellan and subsequent thereto. The lawsuit underlying
plaintiff's class action complaint seeks compensatory damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees to all members of the
proposed class.

Meridian Bioscience said "Because the litigation and related
discovery are in preliminary stages, we do not have sufficient
information to determine or predict the ultimate outcome or
estimate the range of possible losses, if any. Accordingly, no
provision for litigation losses has been included within the
accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for
the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2017."

Meridian Bioscience Inc. is an international producer and
distributor of a range of diagnostic test kits. The company was
founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. The
company consists of two segments including Diagnostics and Life
Science. The focused markets of the company comprise
gastrointestinal and upper respiratory infections, serology,
parasitology and fungal disease testing.


MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE: Faces "Edelson" Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Meridian Bioscience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that the company
faces a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, filed by Michael Edelson.

On December 6, 2017, Michael Edelson filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio naming Meridian, its Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer and certain members of Meridian's Board
of Directors and Audit Committee (in their capacities as such) as
defendants.

The complaint alleges that Meridian made false and misleading
representations concerning certain of Magellan's lead test
systems at or around the time of Meridian's acquisition of
Magellan and subsequent thereto, and the complaint alleges that
certain members of the Board of Directors and Audit Committee
breached their fiduciary duties in their oversight of the
Company's public disclosures and corporate governance matters.
The lawsuit underlying plaintiff's class action complaint seeks
compensatory damages, injunctive relief, equitable relief and
attorneys' fees to all members of the proposed class.

Meridian Bioscience said "Because the litigation and related
discovery are in preliminary stages, we do not have sufficient
information to determine or predict the ultimate outcome or
estimate the range of possible losses, if any. Accordingly, no
provision for litigation losses has been included within the
accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for
the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2017."

Meridian Bioscience Inc. is an international producer and
distributor of a range of diagnostic test kits. The company was
founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. The
company consists of two segments including Diagnostics and Life
Science. The focused markets of the company comprise
gastrointestinal and upper respiratory infections, serology,
parasitology and fungal disease testing.


MISONIX INC: Settlement in "Scalfini" Already Paid
--------------------------------------------------
Misonix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that the Company and
its insurance carrier had already paid the settlement agreement
in Scalfani class action.

On September 19, 2016, Richard Scalfani, an individual
shareholder of Misonix, filed a lawsuit against the Company and
its former CEO and CFO in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.

The complaint alleges that the Company's stock price was
artificially inflated between November 5, 2015 and September 14,
2016 as a result of alleged false and misleading statements in
the Company's securities filings concerning the Company's
business, operations, and prospects and the Company's internal
control over financial reporting.

Scalfani filed the action seeking to represent a putative class
of all persons (other than defendants, officers and directors of
the Company, and their affiliates) who purchased publicly traded
Misonix securities between November 5, 2015 and September 14,
2016. Scalfani was seeking an unspecified amount of damages for
himself and for the putative class under the federal securities
laws.

On March 24, 2017, the Court appointed Scalfani and another
individual Misonix shareholder, Tracey Angiuoli, as lead
plaintiffs for purposes of pursuing the action on behalf of the
putative class. The lead plaintiffs, on behalf of the putative
class, and the Company reached a settlement in principle under
which the Company would pay $500,000 to resolve the matter.

Misonix said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that the settlement was preliminarily
approved by the district court through an order entered on
September 8, 2017. The Company believes it has various legal and
factual defenses to the allegations in the complaint, and intends
to vigorously defend the action if the settlement is not
finalized. As of September 30, 2017, the Company has paid its
$250,000 retention relating to this claim, and believes that its
exposure will be limited to this insurance company retention.

In its recent SEC disclosure, the district court approved the
settlement and dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice in an order
dated December 16, 2017. The Company has paid its $250,000,
representing its insurance retention. The balance was paid by the
Company's insurance carrier.

Misonix designs, manufactures, develops and markets therapeutic
ultrasonic devices. In the United States, the Company sells its
products through its direct sales force, in addition to a network
of commissioned agents assisted by Company personnel. Outside of
the United States, the Company generally sells to distributors
who then resell the product to hospitals. The Company operates as
one business segment.


MISSOURI: Must Face Class Action Over Use of Psychotropics
----------------------------------------------------------
Open Minds reports that on January 8, 2018, a federal court
rejected a Missouri motion to dismiss a class-action suit that
challenged the state's oversight of children in the foster care
system prescribed psychotropic drugs.  The plaintiffs seek
declaratory and injunctive relief.  The state asked the court to
dismiss the complaint. The court agreed to dismiss part of the
complaint, but denied the request to entirely dismiss it.  The
complaint's allegation that the state's policies violate due
process will move forward.

The suit is styled M.B. v. Corsi (previously M.B. v. Tidball).  
[GN]


NATIONAL VISION: Appeal in Class Action vs. Unit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
National Vision Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that an appeal from the
dismissal of a class action lawsuit against the company's
subsidiary FirstSight Vision Services, Inc., remains pending.

The Company's subsidiary, FirstSight Vision Services, Inc.
("FirstSight") is a defendant, in a purported class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California that
alleges that FirstSight participated in arrangements that caused
the illegal delivery of eye examinations and that FirstSight
thereby violated, among other laws, the corporate practice of
optometry and the unfair competition and false advertising laws
of California.

On March 23, 2017, the court granted the motion to dismiss
previously filed by FirstSight and dismissed the complaint with
prejudice. The plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in April 2017.

National Vision said "The Company believes that the claims are
without merit."

National Vision Holdings, Inc. one of the largest and fastest
growing optical retailers in the United States and a leader in
the attractive value segment of the U.S. optical retail industry.
The company is based in Duluth, Georgia.


NATIONAL VISION: 1-800 Contacts Suit Settled for $7,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
National Vision Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the Company has settled the
1-800 Contacts Matter for $7.0 million, without admitting
liability.

In May 2017, a complaint was filed against the Company and other
defendants alleging, on behalf of a proposed class of consumers
who purchased contact lenses online, that 1-800 Contacts, Inc.
entered into a series of agreements with the other defendants,
including the Company's subsidiary, Arlington Contact Lens
Service, Inc. ("AC Lens"), to suppress certain online advertising
and that each defendant thereby engaged in anticompetitive
conduct in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (the "1-800
Contacts Matter").

The Company has settled the 1-800 Contacts Matter for $7.0
million, without admitting liability. Accordingly, the Company
recorded a $7.0 million charge in litigation settlement in the
accompanying condensed consolidated statement of operations and
comprehensive income during the nine months ended September 30,
2017, which were incurred in the second quarter of 2017.

National Vision Holdings, Inc. one of the largest and fastest
growing optical retailers in the United States and a leader in
the attractive value segment of the U.S. optical retail industry.
The company is based in Duluth, Georgia.


NESTLE USA: Faces Class Action Over Use of Child Labor
------------------------------------------------------
Christina Davis, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a
new class action lawsuit was filed against Nestle USA alleging
the company uses West African sources for its chocolate, but does
not disclose to consumers that those sources are known to use
child labor.

Lead plaintiff, Danell Tomasella, alleges in her class action
lawsuit that the Ivory Coast and Ghana, where Nestle gets cocoa
beans to use in its chocolate products, rely on child labor.

Ms. Tomasella says that she and others would not have purchased
Nestle chocolate had they known that some of the worst offenders
in child labor were involved in its production.

The plaintiff says popular Nestle chocolate products, including
Nestle Crunch, Baby Ruth, and Butterfinger all use chocolate made
from cocoa beans sourced from West Africa.

"Nestle's material omissions and failure to disclose is all the
more appalling considering that Nestle has identified the
protection of human rights, including the abolition of child
labor and the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory
labor as one of its corporate business principals," alleges the
Nestle class action lawsuit.  "But Nestle does not live up to its
own ideals."

More than 1.1 million children in the Ivory Coast are involved in
dangerous forms of labor, according to the Department of Labor,
including use of dangerous tools, exposure to toxins, and heavy
manual labor.  Additional practices include paying children
little or even no wages for their work and forcing children under
15 to work.

According to the Nestle class action lawsuit, Nestle has been
aware of the horrific child labor practices used to source its
cocoa beans since at least 2015, but has failed to take any
action. In fact, alleges the plaintiff, Nestle has falsely
claimed that the problem of child labor is better in the region,
while government reports find otherwise.

"Defendant has knowledge of the child and slave labor in its
supply chain . . . based on its years of experience marketing and
distributing chocolate products made from West African cocoa
beans; its partnership with West African exporters; its
responsibility for enforcing its supplier code, which forbids
child and slave labor; and its failed efforts in conjunction with
the Chocolate Manufacturers Association to make good on the
promise to eliminate the worst forms of child labor from the West
African supply chain by 2005," argues the Nestle class action
lawsuit.

Ms. Tomasella alleges that she and other consumers do not want
their dollars supporting the worst child labor practices in the
world, but Nestle fails to disclose the source of their
chocolate.

The plaintiff seeks to represent consumers in Massachusetts who
purchased Nestle chocolate products over the last four years.  
The Nestle class action lawsuit alleges that by failing to
disclose the child labor involved in the making of its products,
the company violates Massachusetts state consumer protection law.

The plaintiff is seeking damages as well as a court order
stopping Nestle from the "unfair and deceptive marketing and sale
of their Chocolate Products."

Ms. Tomasella is represented by Hannah W. Brennan --
hannahb@hbsslaw.com -- Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com --
and Elaine T. Byszewski -- elaine@hbsslaw.com -- of Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP.

The Nestle Child Labor Class Action Lawsuit is Tomasella v.
Nestle USA Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-10269, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. [GN]


NEW YORK: Housing Authority Under Fire Over Lead Paint
------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Denney, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that as
members of Gov. Andrew Cuomo's team engage in talks with New York
City Council members about improving the city's public housing
stock, the city is also fighting numerous legal battles with
public housing residents suing over lead paint.

The New York City Housing Authority was handed a loss in the
courts just a few weeks ago when a Bronx jury awarded a $57
million jury verdict to Tiesha Jones, a housing authority
resident whose daughter Dakota Taylor was poisoned by lead paint
in their apartment, as well as lead paint in Taylor's
babysitter's apartment.

Attorneys from both sides are now engaged in settlement talks,
but the eye-popping verdict came as the housing authority is
embroiled in a scandal over lead paint that has led to firings of
top NYCHA officials and as a proposed class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of approximately 400,000 housing authority residents,
continues to move forward.

On February 15, in response to a letter from City Councilman
Robert Cornegy of Brooklyn regarding possible state involvement
with solving the city's lead paint crisis, Alphonso David, the
counsel to the governor, issued a statement calling the danger
posed by lead paint--as well as issues with mold and lack of
heat--"a threat to public health and an insult to the residents of
public housing."

David also said that the state has allocated $300 million to the
housing authority and has agreed to a request by state Sen. James
Sanders, D-Queens, to inspect the NYCHA facilities in his
district, but added that he agreed with Cornegy that the problems
with NYCHA are systemwide.

He also noted that the state has the power to declare a state of
emergency for NYCHA and, on February 15, council members held a
news conference calling on Cuomo to do just that.

"A declaration of emergency can take various forms from
expediting contracting mechanisms to intervening with actual task
completion," David said. "That is the discussion we must now
have."

For its part, NYCHA has admitted that it has fallen short on lead
paint reporting and complying with regulations, according to a
fact sheet on lead paint it issued in November after the city's
Department of Investigation issued a scathing report stating that
the housing authority had failed to do required inspections.

"Our compliance to date has been uncoordinated and incomplete--
that's unacceptable," said NYCHA spokeswoman Jean Weinberg in the
NYCHA fact sheet.

The fact sheet also cited a statistic by the city's Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene that lead poisoning in the city is at
"historic lows" and that the health department is also inspecting
homes for lead paint.

In court battles over lead paint, however, NYCHA and the city's
health department have clashed over inspection findings, such as
in Jones' lawsuit.

The health department inspected Jones' apartment and found
chipped and peeling lead paint in her residence, but the housing
authority, which conducted its own inspection, contested the
health department's findings and said lead paint was not present,
according to a report from VerdictSearch, a Law Journal
affiliate.

Counsel for NYCHA argued that Taylor may one day live to lead a
normal life and an expert for the defense said that she may one
day go to college.

But the city's Department of Education reported that Taylor, who
is now 12, is intellectually disabled and an expert witness for
Jones said Taylor will have limited vocational opportunities.
After a two-week trial, a jury of three women and three men sided
with Jones.

"The problem with lead paint cases is that the defense is trying
to argue against science," said Jones' lawyer, Thomas Giuffra of
Rheingold Giuffra Ruffo & Plotkin. "To take the position that
lead paint doesn't cause illness is just like taking science and
throwing it out the window."

Peter Kurshan, Esq. -- PKurshan@chaselawnj.com -- of Herzfeld &
Rubin, who appeared for the NYCHA in the case, did not respond to
a request for comment.

In the Meantime, a potentially larger wave of residents are
pushing forward with a proposed class action case in the Southern
District who are taking the NYCHA to task for "routinely"
contesting the health department's findings from lead paint
inspections, as well as alleging that it has "implemented a
policy" of not conducting lead testing in apartments constructed
before 1978 and in NYCHA common areas and that it has made false
statements and filings with regard to lead inspection reports.

Earlier this month, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction calling on U.S. District Judge William
Pauley III of the Southern District of New York to appoint an
independent monitor to scour NYCHA's inspection records and to
order NYCHA to inform its residents about the lead paint status
of their residences.

The motion is pending and the NYCHA has not filed an answer. The
NYCHA did not respond to a request for comment.

Levy Konigsberg attorneys Corey Stern, Esq., the lead counsel for
plaintiffs filing claims for injuries from the lead-filled water
crisis in Flint, Michigan, and Brendan Little, Esq. are
representing the proposed class.

Assistant Corporation Counsel Mark Muschenheim, Esq. and Max
Sarinsky, Esq. of the city's Law Department are representing the
NYCHA. [GN]


NIAGARA FALLS, ON: Napoli Shkolnik Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Napoli Shkolnik has filed a class action lawsuit against the City
of Niagara Falls, the Niagara Falls Water Board, Occidental
Petroleum Corporation (the former Hooker Chemical Corp.), and
other defendants, for injuries related to toxic waste released
from the Love Canal hazardous waste site.

Love Canal, an area synonymous with hazardous waste and public
health impacts, is the site of a toxic waste dump created by
Hooker that caused a public health emergency in the late 1970s.
Much of the hazardous waste that caused this historic health and
environmental crisis remains at the site to this day. The suit
alleges that chemicals leaking from the site migrate throughout
the area through groundwater, leaky sewer pipes, and through the
air, exposing the public to the same chemicals that required a
full-scale evacuation of the area almost four decades ago.

Occidental has failed to properly manage and contain its waste to
ensure that the public and the environment are protected, and the
City of Niagara Falls and the Niagara Falls Water Board have
failed to stop this hazardous waste from migration through and
out of its storm water and sewer systems, resulting in impacts to
public health and property.

"It is inexcusable that the City and companies involved have
turned a blind eye to the suffering their negligence has caused,"
said Napoli Shkolnik partner Louise Caro. "The level of suffering
the Love Canal community has experienced has had serious, long
term and in some cases, permanent consequences," she added.

The lawsuit seeks to address injuries to persons who were exposed
to Love Canal chemicals that leached from the landfill and were
carried by the City's sewer system to residential properties.
Health impacts proven to be caused by Love Canal chemicals
include: birth defects, nervous disorders and cancer (bladder
cancer, kidney cancer, respiratory cancers).

If you own property or live in the Love Canal area, and you are
shown to have been injured by Love Canal chemicals, you may be
able to recover damages. Napoli Shkolnik PLLC is ready to seek
justice on behalf of those exposed to Love Canal contaminants.

About the firm

Napoli Shkolnik PLLC is a national litigation firm providing
representation to persons in class action lawsuits and complex
commercial cases, as well as victims of environmental
contamination disasters, aviation accidents, defective
prescriptions drugs and medical devices, asbestos-related
illnesses, and other serious personal injury matters.

With their principal offices in New York City and additional
offices in California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, and Texas, as well as affiliates throughout the
United States, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC is readily available to
clients.

There are no upfront legal fees and we only recover money if we
win your case.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Media Contact
Louise Caro, Esq.
Partner
Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC
Tel: (212) 397-1000
Website: www.napolilaw.com
Email: LCaro@NapoliLaw.com [GN]


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in D.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5,
2018, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the
company continues to defend itself in a consolidated antitrust
class action suit in the District of Columbia

In 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against the
company and other Class I railroads in various Federal district
courts regarding fuel surcharges were consolidated in the
District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation. In 2012, the court certified the case as a class
action.

The defendant railroads appealed this certification, and the
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the
District Court's decision and remanded the case for further
consideration. On October 10, 2017, the District Court denied
class certification; the findings are subject to appeal.

Norfolk Southern said "We believe the allegations in the
complaints are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the
cases. We do not believe the outcome of these proceedings will
have a material effect on our financial position, results of
operations, or liquidity."

Norfolk Southern Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
engages in the rail transportation of raw materials, intermediate
products, and finished goods. It also transports overseas freight
through various Atlantic and Gulf Coast ports, as well as coal,
automotive, and industrial products; and provides commuter
passenger services. The company is based in Norfolk, Virginia.


NORTHLAND INVESTMENT: Class Action Status Sought for Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Mary E. O'Leary, writing for New Haven Register, reports that an
expert on environmental medicine makes a direct connection
between the water leaks and pervasive mold in the Church Street
South complex and the high rates of asthma and other ailments
experienced by its residents.

Dr. Carrie A. Redlich, director of the Yale Occupational and
Environmental Medicine Program, in a survey of 268 residents at
the low-income deteriorated development, found that 48 percent of
170 children surveyed had physician-diagnosed asthma, while 37
percent of the adults suffered from this respiratory ailment.

Her study and that of experts on structural problems, water
damage and poor maintenance are contained in a filing by attorney
David Rosen who is seeking class action status for his suit
against the Northland Investment Corp. originally filed in
October 2016.

The newest motion accuses the developer, who was contracted to
provide "decent, safe and sanitary" housing for the tenants at
Church Street South, of purposefully letting the 301-unit housing
complex deteriorate for eventual conversion to a higher use.

The 268 tenants surveyed lived in 118 apartments in the
development from 2008 through 2015, while the total complex had
301 apartments in 22 similar buildings, which were built almost a
half century ago.

Northland, in a statement, took issue with Rosen's suit and
accused him of providing selective information.

"Any notion that Northland was undertaking demolition of Church
Street South by neglect is simply unsupported by the facts and
will be addressed in our response to the court," the statement
reads.

"It is well-known that Church Street South has been plagued by
problems since the 1960's including construction and design
deficiencies. Northland inherited these problems upon purchasing
the property in 2008," the company stated.

"Northland's plan is and always has been to work with HUD (the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) and the City to
redevelop the site with a high quality mixed-use community for
New Haven which would include hundreds of units of newly
constructed low-income housing," the developer said.

Northland continues to own the prime property that is located
near Union Station and was paid $3.6 million in rent subsidies
from HUD annually when the complex was occupied.

After the New Haven Legal Assistance Association, starting in
2015, took legal action concerning the presence of asthma among
the tenants and mold and structural problems at the complex,
scores of residents were moved out to hotels and eventually into
new apartments.

Prior to that, tenants had complained that the outside
consultants contracted by the HUD to evaluate the complex cherry-
picked the units they visited, skewing the results.

Following a thorough inspection by HUD in the fall of 2015,
Northland was given a score of 20 points out of 100 on the
condition of the apartments with more than 2,300 deficiences
identified.

HUD already had found Northland out of compliance with its
contract at Church Street South in August 2015, based on reviews
by the city's Livable City Initiative and Building Official Jim
Turcio.

Northland didn't appeal the 2015 HUD score and has been working
with LCI and HUD since then to move the tenants out after the
majority opted to use Section 8 portable housing vouchers.

The company estimates it has spent millions on emergency repairs,
hotel bills, moving expenses and storage of tenant household
goods as they were relocated in the last few years.

In a September 2015 report on decommissioning the complex,
Northland said it spent nearly $5 million, beyond normal repairs,
to extend the life of the building since 2008.

The exhibits attached to the class action suit look back on the
condition of the apartments, the timeliness and standard of
repairs and the health problems reported by tenants.

In her report, Redlich said the parents also reported that 41
percent of the children had other respiratory conditions; 47
percent had skin problems; 45 percent reported emotional distress
while living at Church Street South.

Of the 104 children with physician -diagnosed asthma or other
respiratory ailments, Redlich said 98 percent of them began to
either experience symptoms while at Church Street South or those
symptoms worsened. Some 66 percent reported improved respiratory
conditions when they moved out.

For comparison purposes, Redlich wrote that the prevalance of
asthma in adults across the United States is 7.6 percent and for
children it is 8.4 percent, although in Connecticut it is higher,
affecting 10.5 percent of adults and 11.7 percent of children.

Other data shows that asthma is more common in black and Hispanic
children and adults, as well as for residents of poorer
communities, but not as high as the Church Street South
households.

She said physician-diagnosed asthma is widely used "to establish
the presence of asthma and evaluate causative risk factors."

Redlich said similar data is not available for the other ailments
reported, "but it is notable how frequently these conditions,
many of which are known to co-exist with asthma, were reported."

The physician, whose primary focus has been environmental and
work-related asthma in the New Haven area, said she could not
identify any other cause for the high rates of asthma at Church
Street South beyond the "independently documented water-related
problems and visible mold" found there.

She said the findings are consistent across apartments and over
many years.

Northand in its statement also said: "The claims that damp, moldy
conditions were neglected by Northland are unfair, untrue and
ignore the facts."

It also stated that it "has continuously responded to tenant
concerns, maintained the property, and made repairs and capital
improvements."

The suit contains a report by Certified Industrial Hygienist
Robert Klein, a lecturer in occupational and environmental
medicine at the Yale School of Medicine, who reviewed maintenance
and inspection reports from 2008 through 2015.

He found that work orders were "frequently incomplete. This is
evidenced by numerous LCI re-inspection field notes and HUD
inspection reports, where the same deficiencies or problems
persisted over many weeks, months or even years after being
reported and logged into the work order system."

Klein said another trend was the identification of mold or water
infiltration in one apartment, which was then fixed, only to re-
emerge in another unit in the same building, "further pointing to
systemic building- and complex-wide problems."

"... the persistence of water infiltration, water damages, mold
and mildew over months to years meant that residents were
continuously expose to these conditions for prolonged periods of
time," Klein wrote.

Referring to the questionnaire given to tenants in 118 units, he
said they reported "personal awareness of mold/mildew, water
intrusion/leaks, various structural damages, and plumbing and
sewage problems in 82 percent to 93 percent of their apartment
units, rates generally consistent with the magnitude of findings
from the third-party inspectors (LCI and HUD)."

Engineer James D. Parry of Miller Forensic Consulting, LL C
concluded that Northland did not perform routine inspections or
proactive maintenance that could have decreased the amount of
water flowing into the apartments from the leaking roofs down to
the tops of window and door frames, resulting in bulging or
collapsed ceilings.

He said a roof leak in Building 1 in 2011 persisted for a minimum
of five months, which "opened a massive opportunity for a large
volume of water to enter the building with each rain event."

In Building 7 in 2015, leaks were reported in April with roof
work done in December. He said there was a "theme of roofing
repair work that occurs several months after leakage reports." In
another it took four times and five months to correct leakage
into the bathroom.

Parry concluded that all 22 buildings suffered from external and
internal water leaks. In addition to inadequate repairs, he said
there was no indication that wet walls, ceiling and floors were
properly dried out before being repaired, thus encouraging mold.

Alder Delores Colon, D-6, whose ward includes Church Street
South, as part of the suit, said the complex became known as
"Asthma Central."

"Very few of the residents had no respiratory ailments, but the
most severely affected were the very young and the senior
citizens of the complex," Colon said in a statement attached to
the suit.

She mirrored the complaints of tenants who said "repairs, if
completed, were superficial and not long lasting. ... Interior
mold and mildew on interior walls was bleached, then painted
over. But the Sheetrock was never removed to get behind the walls
to eliminate the source of the growing and constant problem, so
it would come back time after time."

Colon said often the repair person was a "handy man," rather than
a licensed plumber or electrician. [GN]


NOVOCURE LTD: Time to Appeal Case Dismissal Has Expired
-------------------------------------------------------
NovoCure Limited said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that the defendants' motion to
dismiss was granted on the ground that the court lacked personal
jurisdiction over any of the defendants.

In its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2017, NovoCure said the plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal
and the deadline for filing an appeal has expired.

In January 2017, two putative class action lawsuits were filed
against NovoCure Limited (the "Company"), its directors and
certain of its officers, as well as the underwriters in the
Company's October 2015 initial public offering. The complaints,
which purported to be brought on behalf of a class of persons
and/or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired ordinary
shares of the Company pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's initial public offering, alleged material
misstatements and/or omissions in the Company's initial public
offering materials in alleged violation of the federal securities
laws and sought compensatory damages, among other remedies.  

The two actions were subsequently consolidated, and the
defendants moved to dismiss on multiple grounds. On December 4,
2017, the defendants' motion to dismiss these actions was granted
on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over
any of the defendants.

NovoCure Limited engages in the development, manufacture, and
commercialization of tumor treating fields (TTFields) for the
treatment of solid tumors. The Company markets its proprietary
therapy, TTFields delivery system under the Optune name for use
as a monotherapy treatment for adult patients with glioblastoma
brain cancer. It is also involved in conducting clinical trials
for the use of TTFields in brain metastases, non-small cell lung
cancer, pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, and mesothelioma. The
company markets its products in the United States, Germany,
Switzerland, Japan, and other countries. NovoCure Limited was
founded in 2000 and is based in Saint Helier, the Channel
Islands.


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Faces "Sgarlata" Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------
PayPal Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2018, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company faces a
putative class action lawsuit captioned Sgarlata v. PayPal
Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-06956.

PayPal Holdings said "In November 2017, we announced that we had
suspended the operations of TIO Networks ("TIO") as part of an
ongoing investigation of security vulnerabilities of the TIO
platform. On December 1, 2017 we announced that we had identified
evidence of unauthorized access to TIO's network, including
locations that stored personal information of some of TIO's
customers and customers of TIO billers and the potential
compromise of personally identifiable information for
approximately 1.6 million customers. We have received a number of
governmental inquiries, including from state attorneys general,
and we may be subject to additional governmental inquiries and
investigations in the future."

In addition, on December 6, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Sgarlata v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-06956 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and Hamed
Shahbazi, the former chief executive officer of TIO (the
"Defendants") alleging violations of federal securities laws.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Defendants made false or
misleading statements or failed to disclose that TIO's data
security program was inadequate to safeguard the personally
identifiable information of its users, those vulnerabilities
threatened continued operation of TIO's platform, the Company's
revenues derived from TIO services were thus unsustainable, and
consequently, the Company overstated the benefits of the TIO
acquisition, and, as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who
acquired shares of the Company's stock between February 14, 2017
through December 1, 2017 and seeks damages and attorneys' fees,
among other relief.

PayPal Holdings said "We may be subject to additional litigation
relating to TIO's data security platform or the suspension of
TIO's operations in the future."

PayPal Holdings, Inc. is a leading technology platform and
digital payments company that enables digital and mobile payments
on behalf of consumers and merchants worldwide. The company is
based in San Jose, California.


PROVIDER POWER: False Advertising Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Judy Harrison, writing for Bangor Daily News, reports that the
financially troubled Getchell Agency Inc. is on track to have a
new owner by the end of March, according to documents filed in
U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

A stalking horse bidder has offered $3.4 million for the firm
that operates residential homes in Bangor for adults with
physical, cognitive and developmental disabilities.

A stalking horse bidder is chosen before an auction to ensure
there's a starting bid and a willing buyer if no better bids are
received.

Emile Clavet of Auburn, who owns Health Affiliates Maine, which
provides mental health services, submitted the stalking horse
bid.

Health Affiliates has an existing relationship with the Maine
Department of Health and Human Services, which is Getchell's only
source of income.  Bankruptcy trustee Nathaniel Hull said that
the ownership transition could go more smoothly if the buyer
already has a relationship with the department.

Other companies have until March 26 to submit competing bids,
according to Hull.  The new owner is expected to named March 27
by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Peter Cary, with a closing date set for
April 3.

The Getchell Agency filed for bankruptcy in March 2016, three
years after former employees filed a class-action lawsuit over
unpaid overtime for employees who slept on site during overnight
shifts.  That case was settled through the bankruptcy process.

In late November, Cary removed owner Rena J. Getchell from the
day-to-day operation of the business and appointed Hull, a
Portland bankruptcy attorney, as trustee.  Hull hired Sweetser of
Saco to run the agency.

The agency in December borrowed $350,000 from the Department of
Health and Human Services to solve a cash flow problem.

Getchell took in about $1.33 million and spent about $1.17
million, for a gross profit of nearly $160,000, according to a
January report filed in bankruptcy court. That does not include
past-due bills or other debts.

The agency can serve up to 72 clients.  The current number of
clients was not included in the January report.

As of Jan. 31, it had 139 employees, 10 fewer than when it filed
for bankruptcy, according to court documents.

The purchase and sale agreement calls for the new owner to
continue offering care to Getchell's clients and to employ its
current workers.

Once the company is sold, the Getchell Agency's legal troubles
won't be over. The health department has lodged fraud allegations
against Getchell, which the agency has denied. Last year, Cary
appointed a special examiner to investigate those allegations. As
of Feb. 16, the examiner's report had not yet been filed in
bankruptcy court.

The Getchell Agency has not been charged with any crimes
involving how the business was run.

Mr. Clavet has his own legal issues.  He is a controlling member
of Provider Power, parent company to competitive electricity
supplier Electricity Maine LLC, which faces a proposed class
action covering thousands of customers.  The complaint claims
customers were lured by false advertising with the promise of
saving money into electricity contracts with Electricity Maine
for their homes between 2011 and 2014.  The lawsuit lists
Provider Power, Spark HoldCo LLC, as well as Mr. Clavet and Kevin
Dean, another controlling member of Provider Power, as
defendants.  The case, filed 15 months ago, is pending in federal
court in Portland.

Efforts to reach Mr. Clavet over the weekend were unsuccessful.
[GN]


QUALITY CARE: Boynton Beach Class Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Quality Care Properties, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that HCP, HCRMC, and certain of
its officers are facing a putative class action suit entitled,
Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al.

HCP Inc. (HCP) has reported that, on May 9, 2016, a purported
stockholder of HCP filed a putative class action complaint,
Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio against HCP, certain of its officers,
HCR ManorCare, Inc. (HCRMC), and certain of its officers,
asserting violations of the federal securities laws. The suit
asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and alleges
that HCP made certain false or misleading statements relating to
the value of and risks concerning its investment in HCRMC by
allegedly failing to disclose that HCRMC had engaged in billing
fraud, as alleged by the DOJ in a pending suit against HCRMC
arising from the False Claims Act.

The plaintiff in the suit demands compensatory damages (in an
unspecified amount), costs and expenses (including attorneys'
fees and expert fees), and equitable, injunctive, or other relief
as the Court deems just and proper.

Quality Care said "As the Boynton Beach action is in its early
stages and a lead plaintiff has not yet been named, the
defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. HCP has
reported that it believes the suit to be without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against it."

Quality Care Properties, Inc. is a Maryland corporation that was
formed in 2016 to hold the HCR ManorCare, Inc. ("HCRMC")
portfolio ("HCRMC Properties"), 28 other healthcare related
properties ("non-HCRMC Properties," and, collectively with the
HCRMC Properties, the "Properties"), a deferred rent obligation
("DRO") due from HCRMC under a master lease (the "Tranche B DRO")
and an equity method investment in HCRMC (together, the "QCP
Business") previously held by HCP, Inc. ("HCP").


REGIS CORP: Faces Potential Consumer & Wage and Hour Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regis Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on February 1,
2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that it is defending
itself against allegations of purported class-wide consumer and
wage and hour violations.

Regis Corp. said, "The Company is a defendant in various lawsuits
and claims arising out of the normal course of business.  Like
certain other large retail employers, the Company has been faced
with allegations of purported class-wide consumer and wage and
hour violations.  Litigation is inherently unpredictable and the
outcome of these matters cannot presently be determined.  
Although the actions are being vigorously defended, the Company
could in the future incur judgments or enter into settlements of
claims that could have a material adverse effect on its results
of operations in any particular period."

Regis Corporation owns, operates, and franchises hairstyling and
hair care salons.  The Company operates through four segments:
North American Value, North American Franchise, North American
Premium, and International.  Regis Corporation was founded in
1954 and is headquartered in Edina, Minnesota.


RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it
has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Riot Blockchain, Inc. (NASDAQ: RIOT) from November
13, 2017 through February 15, 2018, both dates inclusive ("Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Riot
Blockchain investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Riot Blockchain class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1296.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, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Riot's principle executive offices were not in
Colorado, but rather in Florida in the same location as a large,
influential shareholder, Barry C. Honig who had a previous
working relationship with Defendant O'Rouke; (2) Riot never
intended to hold its Annual General Meetings scheduled for
December 28, 2017 and February 1, 2018; and (3) as a result,
Defendants' statements about Riot's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis 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 18, 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://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1296.htmlto join the class  
action. You may also contact Phillip Kim or Daniel Sadeh of Rosen
Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email 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
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com,  
                dsadeh@rosenlegal.com [GN]


SEQWATER: Class Action Over 2011 Flood Crisis Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Sam McKeith, writing for Central Telegraph, reports that a
Lockyer Valley farmer who lost crops and equipment in the 2011
flood crisis has recalled the devastating ordeal, telling a court
he remembers wading "knee deep" through his flooded home.

The NSW Supreme Court is in the second month of a class action --
against the Queensland Bulk Water Authority trading as Seqwater
-- on behalf of more than 6000 people affected by the January
2011 floods.

At the heart of their claim is that operators of Wivenhoe and
Somerset dams failed to follow their manuals in the emergency and
didn't take enough account of rain forecasts at the time, which
caused unnecessary flooding downstream.

The trial is hearing testimony from several land owners whose
properties were impacted by the swollen Brisbane River and
Lockyer Creek at the time.

On Feb. 19, Lowood farmer John Keller, who lost crops and farm
equipment in the disaster, agreed that rainfall at the height of
the crisis was some of the "most intense" he had ever witnessed.

"That was on the 11th," he said.

"We knew it was going to be a fair flood, we had a lot of rain
that day."

Mr Keller said he regularly checked local flood warnings issued
by the Bureau of Meteorology in the week leading up to January 11
when rising waters isolated his property and cut power.

He told the court it was likely more than 150mm of rain fell on
January 11, but it was difficult to be exact because his rain
gauge got washed away.

The court heard that by the afternoon of that day, water had
"started to run through" his house until it was "knee deep".

Outside court Maurice Blackburn principal Vavaa Mawuli said Mr
Keller was one of thousands of people who suffered terribly in
the 2011 floods.

"Mr Keller lost his crops and his farming equipment," she told
reporters.

"This is just a tiny insight into the experience of 6500 class
members that we represent in this case.

"The focus of the case will now turn to what the dam operators
did to manage this crisis. This is the real issue in the case."

Lead claimant, Fairfield Gardens sports shop owner Vince
Rodriguez, told reporters it was important to hold the government
to account for what had happened.

"We had our house and our business flooded, the shopping centre
was closed for about five months and re-opened after that but we
never recovered," he said.

The trial continues before Justice Robert Beech-Jones. [GN]


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Imposition of Bag Fees-Related Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2018,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that AirTran
Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary AirTran Airways, Inc. continues
to defend an antitrust class action suit related to the
imposition of$15-per-bag fees for the first item of checked
luggage in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta
Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary
AirTran Airways, Inc. (collectively with AirTran Holdings, Inc.,
"AirTran") in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that AirTran attempted
to monopolize air travel in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for
the first item of checked luggage in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act. The initial complaint sought treble damages on
behalf of a putative class of persons or entities in the United
States who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on
domestic flights beginning December 5, 2008.

After the filing of the May 2009 complaint, various other nearly
identical complaints also seeking certification as class actions
were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia;
Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada. All of the cases were
consolidated before a single federal district court judge in
Atlanta.

A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in the consolidated
action on February 1, 2010, which broadened the allegations to
add claims that Delta and AirTran conspired to reduce capacity on
competitive routes and to raise prices in violation of Section 1
of the Sherman Act. In addition to treble damages for the amount
of first baggage fees paid to AirTran and to Delta, the
Consolidated Amended Complaint sought injunctive relief against a
broad range of alleged anticompetitive activities, as well as
attorneys' fees.

On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that
AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the
Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the
imposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and
pricing decisions. On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to certify a class, which AirTran and Delta opposed. On
June 18, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order that
plaintiffs abandoned their claim that AirTran and Delta conspired
to reduce capacity. On August 31, 2012, AirTran and Delta moved
for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' remaining claims. On
July 12, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a
class of all persons who paid first bag fees to AirTran or Delta
from December 8, 2008 to November 1, 2014 (the date on which
AirTran stopped charging first bag fees). Defendants have
appealed that decision. On March 29, 2017, the Court granted
defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims
against AirTran. On April 13, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal from the district court's judgment, and on April 24,
2017, AirTran filed a conditional notice of cross-appeal to
appeal the Court's order certifying a class. The appeals of the
class certification and summary judgment orders have been
consolidated. The Court has scheduled oral argument for the
appeals on March 7, 2018. AirTran denies all allegations of
wrongdoing, including those in the Consolidated Amended
Complaint, and intends to defend vigorously any and all such
allegations.

Southwest Airlines Co. (the "Company" or "Southwest") operates
Southwest Airlines, a major passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation in the United States and near-
international markets. The airline was established in 1967 by
Herb Kelleher as Air Southwest and then adopted its current name,
Southwest Airlines, in 1971 when it began operating as an
intrastate airline wholly within the state of Texas.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2018,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit in Canada.

On July 8, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action filed in the Federal Court in Canada
alleging that the Company, Air Canada, American Airlines, Delta
Air Lines, and United Airlines colluded to restrict capacity and
maintain higher fares for Canadian residents traveling in the
United States and for travel between the United States and
Canada.

Similar lawsuits were filed in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia on July 15, 2015, Court of Queen's Bench for
Saskatchewan on August 4, 2015, Superior Court of the Province of
Quebec on September 21, 2015, and Ontario Superior Court of
Justice on October 6, 2015. In December 2015, the Company entered
into Tolling and Discontinuance agreements with putative class
counsel in the Federal Court, British Columbia, and Ontario
proceedings and a discontinuance agreement with putative class
counsel in the Quebec proceeding.

The other defendants entered into an agreement with the same
putative class counsel to stay the Federal Court, British
Columbia, and Quebec proceedings and to proceed in Ontario. On
June 10, 2016, the Federal Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
discontinue that action against the Company without prejudice and
stayed the action against the other defendants. On July 13, 2016,
the plaintiff unilaterally discontinued the action against the
Company in British Columbia. On February 14, 2017, the Quebec
Court granted the plaintiff's motion to discontinue the Quebec
proceeding against the Company and to stay that proceeding
against the other defendants. On March 10, 2017, the Ontario
Court granted the plaintiff's motion to discontinue that
proceeding as to the Company. On September 29, 2017, the Company
and the other defendants entered into a tolling agreement
suspending any limitations periods that may apply to possible
claims among them for contribution and indemnity arising from the
Canadian litigation.

The Saskatchewan claim has not been served on the Company, and
the time for the Company to respond to that complaint has not yet
begun to run. The plaintiff in that case generally seeks damages
(including punitive damages in certain cases), prejudgment
interest, disgorgement of any benefits accrued by the defendants
as a result of the allegations, injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees and other costs. The Company denies all allegations of
wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend this civil case in
Canada. The Company does not currently serve Canada.

Southwest Airlines Co. (the "Company" or "Southwest") operates
Southwest Airlines, a major passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation in the United States and near-
international markets. The airline was established in 1967 by
Herb Kelleher as Air Southwest and then adopted its current name,
Southwest Airlines, in 1971 when it began operating as an
intrastate airline wholly within the state of Texas.


SPARTON CORP: Pays $200 to Plaintiffs' Counsel
----------------------------------------------
Sparton Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that the Company and
plaintiffs in the four federal securities class action suits,
related to the merger transaction with Ultra, agreed on the
amount of attorneys' fees, and $200 was paid to plaintiffs'
counsel.

The Company and the members of its board of directors were named
as defendants in four federal securities class actions
purportedly brought on behalf of all holders of the Company's
common stock challenging the pending merger transaction with
Ultra.

The lawsuits generally sought, among other things, to enjoin the
defendants from proceeding with the shareholder vote on the
merger at the special meeting or consummating the merger
transaction unless and until the Company disclosed the allegedly
omitted information. The complaints also sought damages allegedly
suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of the asserted omissions,
as well as related attorneys' fees and expenses.

After discussions with counsel for the plaintiffs, the Company
included certain additional disclosures in the proxy statement
soliciting shareholder approval of the Merger. The Company
believes the demands and complaints were without merit, there
were substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims
asserted, and the proxy statement disclosed all material
information prior to the inclusion of the additional disclosures.

The Company made the additional disclosures to avoid the expense
and burden of litigation.

Sparton said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended October 1, 2017, that on September 1, 2017, the court
dismissed the lawsuits with prejudice with respect to lead
plaintiffs in the lawsuits and without prejudice as to all other
shareholders.

In its recent SEC disclosure, the Company said that during the
second quarter of fiscal year 2018, the Company and plaintiffs
agreed on the amount of attorneys' fees, and $200 was paid to
plaintiffs' counsel.

                           *     *     *

Sparton said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended October 1,
2017, that the members of the company's board of directors were
named as defendants in a class action suit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Sparton said "the members of our board of directors were named as
defendants in another class action suit filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on
October 24, 2017, purportedly brought on behalf of all holders of
the Company's common stock.

This lawsuit seeks damages allegedly suffered by plaintiffs as a
result of violations by the members of the board of directors of
their fiduciary duties.

The Company believes the allegations in the complaint are without
merit.

Sparton Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
design, development, and manufacturing services for
electromechanical devices; and engineered products in
electromechanical value stream worldwide. The company is based in
Schaumburg, Illinois.


SYNERGY PHARMA: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces that
purchasers of Synergy Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NasdaqGS: SGYP) have
filed a class action complaint against the company's officers and
directors for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 between September 5, 2017 and November 14, 2017. Synergy,
a biopharmaceutical company, develops and commercializes novel
therapies to treat gastrointestinal diseases and disorders

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/synergy-pharmaceuticals-inc

Synergy Accused of Taking Out Large Loan at Shareholders' Expense

According to the complaint, on September 5, 2017, Synergy
announced that it closed on a $300 million senior secured loan
from CRG Partners III L.P. Synergy said the loan was non-dilutive
and would give the company the ability to launch its drug,
Trulance, and achieve its business objectives, which it was
confident would maximize long-term shareholder value and fund the
company's plans through 2019. Consequently, investors were under
the impression that Synergy would successfully develop and profit
from Trulance without needing to raise additional capital or
dilute stockholders' outstanding equity interests. The CRG loan,
however, had critical undisclosed terms and conditions that
prevented Synergy from accessing funds "when needed." As a
result, in order to fund its operations, on November 14, 2017,
Synergy conducted a secondary offering of approximately 22
million shares for net proceeds of $52.4 million. The 10%
dilutive capital increase was described by investors as
"unexpected," "blindsiding," and stoked "fears about further
unexpected dilution."

Synergy Shareholders Have Legal Options

If you would like more information about your rights and
potential remedies, contact attorney Leonid Kandinov at (800)
350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the shareholder
information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in
shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in
which they have invested.

Contacts
Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
Robbins Arroyo LLP
Tel: (619) 525-3990 or Toll Free (800) 350-6003
Website: www.robbinsarroyo.com
Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]


TAILORED BRANDS: Texas Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Tailored Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 28, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself in
a putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas.

On March 29, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer, Douglas S.
Ewert, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas (Case No. 4:16-cv-00838). The complaint
attempts to allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between June 18, 2014 and December 9, 2015 (the "Class
Period").

On May 26, 2017, Lead Plaintiff Strathclyde Pension Fund filed an
Amended Complaint alleging that during the Class Period
Defendants omitted facts about the Company's Jos. A. Bank's
business, financial status, and operations, the omission of which
rendered Defendants' statements about the Jos. A. Bank business
false or misleading. The amended complaint also named Jon W.
Kimmins, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, and Mary
Beth Blake, the Company's current Brand President, Jos. A. Bank,
as additional named defendants.

Tailored Brands said "We believe that the claims are without
merit and are defending the lawsuit vigorously. The range of
loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not
currently believe, however, that it will have a material adverse
effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash
flows."

Tailored Brands, Inc. is a specialty retailer of men's suits and
the largest men's formalwear provider in the United States
("U.S.") and Canada and help men love the way they look for work
and special occasions. The company is based in Houston, Texas.


TAILORED BRANDS: "Oliver" Class Action Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
Tailored Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 28, 2017, that the lawsuit filed by Anthony Oliver has
been stayed pending the court's decision on the parties filed
cross-motions for summary judgment

On February 17, 2016, Anthony Oliver filed a putative class
action lawsuit against the company's Men's Wearhouse subsidiary
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (Case No. 2:16-cv-01100). The complaint attempts to
allege claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

In particular the complaint alleges that the Company sent
unsolicited text messages to cellular telephones beginning
October 1, 2013 to the present day. After the company
demonstrated that the Company had the plaintiff's permission to
send him texts, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging
the Company sent text messages exceeding the number plaintiff had
agreed to receive each week. The parties filed cross-motions for
summary judgment and the case is stayed pending the Court's
decision on those motions.

Tailored Brands said "We believe that the claims are without
merit and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. The range of
loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not
currently believe, however, that it will have a material adverse
effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash
flows."

Tailored Brands, Inc. is a specialty retailer of men's suits and
the largest men's formalwear provider in the United States
("U.S.") and Canada and help men love the way they look for work
and special occasions. The company is based in Houston, Texas.


TAILORED BRANDS: Suit by American Airlines Staff Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Tailored Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 28, 2017, that the company continues to defend a class
action lawsuit filed by two American Airlines employees in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

On August 2, 2017, two American Airlines employees filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the company's Twin Hill
subsidiary in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Case No. 1:17-cv-05648). The complaint
attempts to allege claims for strict liability and negligence
based on allegedly defective uniforms Twin Hill supplied to
American Airlines for its employees.

On September 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding nine additional named plaintiffs and adding claims for
civil battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Tailored Brands said "We believe that any lawsuit filed on the
basis of the safety of the Twin Hill uniforms supplied to
American Airlines is without merit, and we intend to contest this
action vigorously. Twin Hill has substantial and convincing
evidence of the uniforms' safety and fitness for their intended
purpose and we believe that there is no evidence linking any of
the plaintiffs' alleged injuries to our uniforms. The range of
loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not
currently believe, however, that it will have a material adverse
effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash
flows."

Tailored Brands, Inc. is the leading specialty retailer of men's
suits and the largest men's formalwear provider in the United
States ("U.S.") and Canada and help men love the way they look
for work and special occasions. The company is based in Houston,
Texas.


TRANS WORLD: "Spack" Class Action Underway in N.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carol Spack's class action lawsuit against Trans World
Entertainment Corporation is proceeding in the Northern District
of New York (Case No. 1:17-cv-01335).

The case was transferred from the New Jersey District Court to
the Northern District of New York in Syracuse, pursuant to Judge
Brian R. Martinotti's Order dated Dec. 8, 2017, granting the
Defendants' Motion to Transfer.

Judge Martinotti said these motions are administratively
terminated without prejudice and may be refiled in the Northern
District of New York:

     (1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count Three of the
         Complaint,

     (2) Spack's Motion to Amend her Complaint, and

     (3) Spack's Motion for Equitable Tolling.

In a separate order dated Dec. 8, Judge Martinotti ruled that
Record Town USA, LCC is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

The Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 28, 2017, that Carol Spack filed a complaint against
Trans World Entertainment Corporation (Trans World) in the United
States District Court, District of New Jersey, on April 20, 2017
(Case No.: 3:17-cv-02687-BRM-LHG) alleging that she is entitled
to unpaid compensation for overtime under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

She brings a nationwide collective action under the FLSA on
behalf of all Store Managers and Senior Assistant Managers. She
also brings class action claims under New Jersey and Pennsylvania
law on behalf of all persons who worked as Store Managers in New
Jersey or Senior Assistant Managers in Pennsylvania.

Trans World Entertainment Corporation, together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a specialty retailer of entertainment
products. The company operates in two segments, fye and etailz.
The company is based in Albany, New York.


TRANS WORLD: Seeks to Adjourn Mediation Deadline in "Roper" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Roper v. Trans World Entertainment Corporation et
al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00553 (N.D.N.Y., May 19, 2017), a Joint
Letter Motion from William J. Anthony for Record Town, Inc.,
Trans World Entertainment Corporation requesting an adjournment
of the deadline to complete mandatory mediation was submitted to
Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel on March 5, 2018.

On the same date, Defendants filed an Answer to the Second
Amended Complaint.

A Motion Status Conference was set for March 7, 2018 before
Magistrate Judge Hummel.

Trans World Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended October 28, 2017, that on May 19, 2017,
Natasha Roper filed a complaint against Trans World in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York (Case No.:
1:17-cv-0553-TJM-CFH) in which she alleges that she is entitled
to unpaid compensation for overtime under the FLSA. Ms. Roper
brings a nationwide collective action under the FLSA on behalf of
all similarly situated Store Managers.

Trans World Entertainment Corporation, together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a specialty retailer of entertainment
products. The company operates in two segments, fye and etailz.
The company is based in Albany, New York.


TUESDAY MORNING: "Castillo" Class Action Litigation Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday Morning Corporation is facing a purported class action
lawsuit filed by Jerry Castillo related to alleged violations of
various wage and hour labor laws, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filed on February 1, 2018 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2017.

The case, Jerry Castillo v. Tuesday Morning Inc., was filed on
December 28, 2017 in the United States District Court, Middle
District of Florida and is brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and includes allegations that the Company violated various
wage and hour labor laws.  Relief is sought on behalf of current
and former Company employees.  The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages, penalties and attorneys' fees as a result of the alleged
violations.

The Company said, "We are investigating the underlying
allegations and intend to vigorously defend our position.  We
cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of loss,
if any, for the lawsuit."

                           *     *     *

Tuesday Morning filed on Feb. 22, 2018, its Answer and
affirmative defenses to the Complaint.

In a Scheduling Order dated Feb. 23, Magistrate Judge Gregory J.
Kelly said Plaintiff's answers to Court interrogatories are due
April 6.  A Joint report regarding settlement is due May 25.

Tuesday Morning Corporation operates as a retailer of upscale
decorative home accessories, housewares, seasonal goods, and
gifts in the United States.  The company offers various products,
such as home textiles, home furnishings, housewares, and seasonal
d‚cor. It operates approximately 720 stores in 40 states.  
Tuesday Morning Corporation was founded in 1974 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over TSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Rashi Varshney, writing for MediaNama, reports that Uber is set
to face a class-action lawsuit for alleged underpayment of
drivers and violating work agreement, known as the Technology
Services Agreement (TSA) in North Carolina in US, according to a
report of Ars Technica.  The portal reports that Martin Dulberg,
a driver who was apparently underpaid by the Uber, will now a
class of about 9,000 similarly affected drivers.

San Francisco-based US District Judge William Alsup, who was also
part of Waymo-Uber trial, formally certified the case of Dulberg-
Uber of underpayment to drivers as a class-action lawsuit.

Dulberg had filed a lawsuit in federal court last year alleging
that the company is consistently underpaying him and many drivers
like him, and that the Uber is supposed to 80% of a fare and was
paying the same since long time, but now Uber has changed the way
or its 'own formula' of calculation, and consistently pays
between 70% to 80% -- but not the full 80 percent -- of what the
fare should be.  A trial date has been scheduled for October 29,
2018 in San Francisco.

Uber drivers in India
Note that while Uber is allegedly violating its agreed payment
terms in the US. In India, it has been in the headlines for the
issue that they very low incentives to drivers.  MediaNama
quickly tried speaking to few Uber drivers in Delhi about the
exact numbers, but MediaNama could not get the clear picture.  
One or two rather said that they (driver) work on salary-basis
and car owners get to earn the revenues, and said that this a
very common model in India.

MediaNama have had reported earlier that there have been protests
by the drivers.  Early this year, drivers associated with online
cab aggregators Ola and Uber called a strike in Chennai.  Uber
has about 4.5 lakh taxis on the road across India. Driver
protests have been increasing over the last year with the latest
call in December in Mumbai.  This came in the in the backdrop of
the Maharashtra government saying it will fix both minimum and
maximum fares for app-based taxi companies during the winter
session of the state's legislative assembly.

In India, as Ola and Uber have tweaked their incentive plans
which led to reduced incomes.  Drivers MediaNama spoke to said
that in 2016 and 2015, they had monthly earnings of Rs 85,000 and
Rs 70,000.  Now their earnings have fallen to around Rs 51,000.
The driver recordings and interviews show that drivers are now
earning around Rs 1,700 per day and they say that this barely
covers the cost of fuel and servicing of their cars.  If a driver
earns Rs 1700 a day for 30 days, his income is Rs 51,000.  Their
monthly loan EMI ranges between Rs 11,000 to Rs 16,000.  Their
car maintenance and fuel set them back by at least Rs 500 to Rs
700 each day.  Even taking Rs 500 as an average, their monthly
expenditure for this comes to Rs 15,000. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge OKs Suit Over Shortchanged Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cyrus Farivar, writing for Ars Technica, reports that a North
Carolina Uber driver who says he was consistently underpaid by
the rideshare giant has now been allowed to represent a class of
over 9,000 similarly affected drivers.

San Francisco-based US District Judge William Alsup, who
coincidentally also recently oversaw the brief Waymo v. Uber
trial, formally certified the case as a class-action lawsuit on
February 14.

The suit, Dulberg v. Uber, was filed nearly a year ago in federal
court. It alleges that Martin Dulberg and other drivers like him
are consistently underpaid based on the company's own formula.

Since nearly the beginning, Uber has paid its drivers 80 percent
of a given fare. However, in the lawsuit, Dulberg claims that the
company has now changed the way it calculates what that fare is.
The result is that the company consistently pays between 70 and
80 percent--but not the full 80 percent--of what the fare should
be.

His lawsuit argues:

For example, on February 2, 2017, Plaintiff drove an UberX
passenger from 3408 Cherry Lane in Raleigh, North Carolina, to
101 Macaw Street in Raleigh, North Carolina. The passenger was
charged $15.38. This is the Fare. The Booking Fee in Raleigh at
the time was $1.80. So Dulberg should have made 80% of ($15.38 -
$1.80) = $10.86.

But Dulberg was paid $9.91 (80% of Uber's backend calculation of
$12.39). This is 95 cents less than Dulberg should have made
under the Agreement (the difference is magnified on longer
rides). Indeed, instead of receiving the promised 80% of the
Fare, Dulberg received approximately 73%.

This, Dulberg claims, is in violation of the December 2015 work
agreement (known as the Technology Services Agreement, or "TSA")
that he and many other drivers signed. As they opted out of
arbitration, they can sue and band together as a class.

Indeed, alleged violations of the TSA are the only issue at hand:
the case does not turn on whether Dulberg and the other drivers
were properly classified as contractors or employees, as numerous
other cases have.

"The theory is that the court should look closely at the terms of
the agreement that Uber sends to the drivers, and see what it
says about compensation; then make sure that Uber keeps to its
side of the agreement," Miriam Cherry, a labor law professor at
St. Louis University, emailed Ars. "The drivers here seem to be
alleging that there are two ways to calculate fares (estimated
and actual), and that they are being paid on the lower number."

A trial date has been set for October 29, 2018 in San Francisco.
Uber did not immediately respond to Ars' request for comment.
[GN]


UFC: Fighters File for Certification of Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Paul Gift, writing for Forbes, reports that the UFC antitrust
lawsuit is heating up again. Last year was largely about
discovery disputes, depositions, and expert reports -- relatively
dull from a newsworthiness perspective. 2018 will see the case
transition into the next key phases of class certification and
summary judgment, where the respective arguments, strengths and
weaknesses of each side should start to achieve clarification.

As a class-action, antitrust lawsuit filed against the UFC by
now-former fighters, the Bout Class of fighters who competed in
qualifying bouts and Identity Class of those whose identities
were allegedly expropriated must be certified by the Court or the
case would likely grind to a halt. For certification, Plaintiffs
need to show there are enough similarities among class members to
justify joining them together. Their initial certification motion
was filed yesterday evening.

On the same day, the UFC submitted three motions to exclude the
testimony of Plaintiffs' expert witnesses Andrew Zimbalist, Hal
Singer and Guy Davis. Including exhibits, the filings contain
over 1,500 pages. So here's a summary of the arguments, nuggets
of information gleaned and what it all might mean for the case.

Class Certification

Plaintiffs claim the UFC used an anticompetitive scheme to
establish and maintain market dominance, resulting in
substantially lower fighter compensation than would have occurred
in a competitive market. In a heavily redacted class
certification filing, they argued the scheme stems from three
types of conduct: Long-term exclusive contracts with fighters,
coercing fighters to re-sign, and acquiring and shutting down
other MMA promoters.

A prior focus on the overall effect of exclusive contracts with
fighters, venues, sponsors and television networks, also known as
monopoly broth, didn't seem to appear. It's unclear if it will
return later or if the focus has shifted to fighter contracts as
the venue, sponsor and television contract claims were likely
weak.

One problem Plaintiffs were going to have with fighter contracts
is the duration. If exclusive contracts are short term, it's
difficult to show they prevented rival MMA promoters from having
access to the critical fighter services needed to compete. In
yesterday's filing, Plaintiffs argued UFC exclusive contracts are
"effectively perpetual" and cited control over fighter careers,
control over marquee fighters, and the right to match as primary
reasons why.

Another danger area for Plaintiffs was consumer harm. Fighters
are inputs into the MMA industry and, in order to prevail in
their antitrust case, Plaintiffs likely need to show that
consumers in the output market for MMA events were harmed by the
UFC's alleged conduct. If the UFC competes in entertainment for
things we might do with our time on a Saturday night,
demonstrating consumer harm through a monopolistic increase in
price is a heavy task.

Plaintiffs instead appear to be going the quality reduction
route, noting that two of their expert witnesses, Singer and
Zimbalist, concluded ". . . increasing MMA Fighter compensation
closer to competitive levels would cause Fighters to better
promote themselves and to enhance their training, improving the
quality of Fighters and, ultimately, Events."

To help support the claim of a common impact on class members,
Singer performed a regression analysis and found that 78% of
fighter compensation is explained by "common, objectively
measurable variables. Those variables include weight class, rank,
gender, placement on the card, year, country, and venue. So the
great majority of Fighter compensation is formulaic and any
downward shift in compensation would affect the Bout Class as a
whole." Quotes from former UFC matchmaker Joe Silva and current
matchmaker Sean Shelby (likely from depositions) were cited in
the same part of the document, but fully redacted.

The UFC will surely have a different side of the story when it
responds in April, one which began to take shape in its arguments
to exclude three Plaintiff experts.

UFC's Daubert Motions

Relentless best describes the UFC's attack on the work of
economist Andrew Zimbalist in its motion to have his testimony
excluded. Calling it "junk science," the UFC noted that Zimbalist
measured purported damages using a legitimate technique known as
the yardstick method, but with a "different and previously
unknown basis of comparing firms."

The yardstick method compares businesses that are similar in all
respects other than the antitrust conduct in question. Zimbalist
allegedly compared the UFC's fighter wages as a percentage of
event revenues to the average labor share of revenue across five
sports: The NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL and boxing. Why the Big Four plus
boxing? The UFC argued it's because Zimbalist was "comfortable"
with them, and then proceeded to pick apart the foundations of
his analysis.

Among many examples, the UFC noted the Big Four league sports
have players who are unionized employees, increasing wages and
causing Zimbalist's analysis to be "speculative and unreliable."
And even though there are "at least twenty" boxing promoters with
nationally televised events, the boxing wage percentages came
from a 2 1/2 year sample of a single promotion (Golden Boy) which
I discovered in boxing's Al Haymon antitrust lawsuit 13 months
ago. The UFC claims expert analyses from other litigation should
not be permitted without independent verification of the
underlying work, which Zimbalist allegedly did not do.

Daubert motions are sometimes used to prime a judge for the
arguments to come against an expert's work, knowing the motion
itself will likely fail. But in this case, it wouldn't be
surprising if Zimbalist's work is actually tossed out. Its
foundation appears shaky at best and the UFC claims his work has
been excluded in another case for a similar reason: Using "his
own version" of a test.

Zimbalist's final calculation of damages was redacted and is
still unknown at this time.

While Zimbalist's use of an averaged Big Four plus boxing
yardstick is tenuous at best, the UFC's Daubert motion against
Singer reveals where the true expert battle will likely take
place.

A theme throughout the filings was conflict over the use of "wage
share" versus wage level. Wage share is total compensation as a
percentage of relevant revenues. Wage levels are the wages
themselves. As UFC revenues have taken off since 2006, one can
infer that its wage shares have declined. Singer appears to use
this along with a measure called "foreclosure share" to determine
that higher foreclosure rates lead to lower wage shares, and
estimates damages accordingly to the tune of $811.2 million to
$1.6 billion. The UFC's expert purportedly ran the exact same
model using wage levels -- which have been increasing over
time -- and found no damages at all.

A term bandied about in this argument is Marginal Revenue Product
(MRP). It's what workers should earn in a competitive market. But
it's also not easily estimated, giving each side leeway to
develop their own process for approximating fighter wages
relative to MRP. Then they argue about reputable peer-reviewed
research and what's been done in prior antitrust cases. The UFC
claims, if allowed, Singer's use of wage share would be the first
known case "used to measure an alleged anticompetitive effect,
antitrust injury or damages."

Given how the choice of a single metric can potentially change
damages from $1.6 billion to zero, the judge or jury's final
determination on the wage share issue could be critical.

The UFC also attacked Singer's definition of foreclosure as 30-
month bout contracts or longer (with a Champion's Clause), the
input market for fighter services, calculation of market shares
and "unwarranted conclusions" regarding alleged decreases in the
number of UFC events on PPV, an increase in PPV revenue, and how
Zuffa enforced its sponsorship rules with athletes.

A final expert the UFC wants excluded, Guy Davis, is a CPA who
purportedly found "that Zuffa could have increased athlete
compensation by as much as $706 million over the course of the
Class Period while remaining a 'financially healthy' company."
The UFC says Davis' analysis is not relevant to whether it
violated the antitrust laws and would "mislead" a jury.

Class-action antitrust cases can be extremely complex, and
economic expert witness testimony is absolutely critical to a
party's success. Yesterday's filings provided an initial glimpse
into the new, focused arguments of each side after exchanging
millions of documents in discovery and conducting depositions.

Plaintiffs' positions on certain important matters have been
clarified. Zimbalist's standing in the case is on shaky ground as
the UFC argued, "A 'scientific' method without generally accepted
standards is the hallmark of what Daubert said must be excluded."

Wage share or wage levels? It's a fight we'll be hearing more on
in the months to come. How were market and foreclosure shares
weighted? How were regressions setup and run? It's the academic
detail and support that could play an important role in the
outcome of this case. And the two sides certainly have strong
differences of opinion.

A request for comment from the UFC was not returned as of this
writing. Plaintiff attorney Eric Cramer, Esq. -- ecramer@bm.net -
- provided the following statement: "The lengthy fact and expert
discovery process has nearly come to a close. As our motion for
class certification reflects, we believe we have amassed a
powerful case, which would be most efficiently and fairly tried
as a class action. We look forward to doing so before a jury in
Las Vegas." [GN]


UGI CORP: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Denied by 8th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that the petition for
writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court appealing the
decision of the Eighth Circuit in the propane-related class
action suit was denied

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

On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class
action cases to the Western Division of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri ("District
Court").

In July 2015, the District Court dismissed all claims brought by
direct customers. In June 2017, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ("Eighth Circuit") ruled en banc
to reverse the dismissal by the District Court, which had
previously been affirmed by a panel of the Eighth Circuit. In
September 2017, the company filed a Petition for a Writ of
Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court appealing the decision of
the Eighth Circuit. The petition was denied in January 2018 and,
as a result, the case was transferred back to the District Court
for further proceedings.

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

The indirect customers appealed this decision to the Eighth
Circuit; such appeal was subject to a stay pending the en banc
review of the direct purchasers' claims. In light of the Eighth
Circuit decision with respect to the direct purchaser claims, the
briefing schedule in respect of the indirect purchaser appeal
will now resume. On July 21, 2016, several new indirect customer
plaintiffs filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against the
Partnership in the Western District of Missouri.  

The new indirect customer class action lawsuit was dismissed in
September 2016 and certain indirect customer plaintiffs appealed
the decision, consolidating their appeal with the indirect
customer appeal still pending in the Eighth Circuit. Now that the
Eighth Circuit has ruled on the direct purchasers' claims, the
stay has been lifted for the indirect claims and the parties
submitted briefs in October 2017 to the Eighth Circuit and are
awaiting the court's ruling.

UGI Corporation distributes, stores, transports, and markets
energy products and related services in the United States and
internationally. The company is based in King of Prussia,
Pennsylvania.


ULTA BEAUTY: Wolf Haldenstein Files Nationwide Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
On January 26, 2018, New York-based law firms Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz and McLaughlin & Stern filed a nationwide
class action lawsuit against Ulta Beauty, Inc. ("Ulta")
(NASDAQ:ULTA) in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.  The Complaint alleges that Ulta
engages in a company-wide practice of re-selling beauty and make-
up products that were previously used and returned by other Ulta
customers.  The case is Kimberly Laura Smith-Brown v. Ulta
Beauty, Inc. 1:18-cv-610 (N.D. Ill.).

The suit alleges that for years Ulta has secretly restocked used
cosmetics, including makeup.  Customers have no way of knowing
whether the makeup or cosmetic supplies they buy are new or have
been used by other people before them.  For example, returned
products like mascara and foundation are put back on shelves to
be re-sold to unwitting customers.  Other products like shampoo
or lotion are simply wiped down to make them look new, even
though other customers have already taken them home and used
them.

This case seeks to require that Ulta stop its practices
immediately, retrain its staff, and refund to customers all the
money that may have been spent on used, dirty makeup and cosmetic
products sold as new.  At this time, the case is represented by a
plaintiff from California, but plaintiff and her attorneys
believe that this practice has been widespread throughout the
United States.  If you are interested in speaking further with
us, we encourage you to do so.

A copy of the complaint is available upon request.  Counsel can
be contacted at:

Janine Pollack, Esq.  
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10016
Tel: (212) 545-4600
Email: pollack@whafh.com

Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC
70 W. Madison St., Suite 1400
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Tel: (312) 984-0000
Email: tbell@whafh.com

Lee Shalov, Esq.
McLaughlin & Stern LLP
260 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10016
Tel: (212) 448-1100
Email: lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com [GN]


UNITED STATES: Class Action Over Unaccompanied Minors Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anjali Tsui, writing for FRONTLINE, reports that junior left for
church 10 minutes before 8:00 p.m. on a Monday in June 2017.

A friend came by his father's home on Long Island to pick him up.

As he approached the building, Junior, who was 15 at the time,
noticed four cars behind him.  He was glad to see them.  The
prayer service would be full, he thought.

But the cars were not carrying churchgoers.  They belonged to
agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

"I got to the prayer service.  I got out of the car and the
immigration agents arrested me," Junior said in an interview for
the FRONTLINE documentary The Gang Crackdown.

The agents took Junior to an adult detention center in Manhattan,
where he was allowed to make one phone call.  His father, George,
picked up.

"Are you on your way home?" George asked.

Junior couldn't find the words to explain what had happened. Nor
could he have predicted what would come next.  Junior had not
committed a crime, but within days, he'd be transferred more than
400 miles away to the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Center
in rural Virginia -- one of the most restrictive facilities in
the country for undocumented minors.

The Crackdown
This past summer, the Trump administration ramped up its efforts
to arrest and detain suspected gang members for immigration
violations.  The crackdown has swept up dozens of young
undocumented immigrants, like Junior, who arrived in the United
States without a parent or guardian.  More than 200,000
unaccompanied minors crossed the border on their own in recent
years, often fleeing violence and poverty in Central America.

In making its case for these arrests and for tougher immigration
laws in general, the administration has repeatedly pointed to
violence by the gang MS-13 in communities on Long Island, New
York.

Since 2016, MS-13 has been tied to 25 homicides on Long Island,
according to local police.  Seven out of 13 alleged MS-13 members
who were charged with murder last March were unaccompanied
minors.  ICE has arrested more than 400 people across the area as
part of an ongoing series of immigration raids targeting gang
members.  Around 60 of those arrested came to the U.S. as
unaccompanied minors.

In the middle of the crackdown, known as Operation Matador, the
Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) changed its policies on how
it treats minors who are suspected of being in a gang like MS-13.

The new approach -- detailed in an August 2017 memo from ORR to
the president's Domestic Policy Council -- said unaccompanied
minors suspected of "current or past gang affiliation" would now
be detained in some of the most restrictive detention facilities
available for juveniles.  Once detained, ORR would attempt to
hold these minors until their 18th birthday before transferring
them to ICE, where they would be more likely to be deported.

During a Congressional hearing earlier in the summer, ORR
Director Scott Lloyd said the new detention policies for alleged
gang members were "one of the first major policy changes" he
directed since taking office.  The updated rules would complement
ORR's new "Community Safety Initiative" under President Trump,
which emerged in the wake of MS-13 violence.

"We want to ensure that the UAC [unaccompanied alien children] we
release from our care do not pose a danger to our communities,"
he said.

Under U.S. law, ORR must place minors who are apprehended by
immigration authorities in "the least restrictive setting" that
is in "the best interest of the child."  Around 95 percent of
unaccompanied minors are released to a parent or guardian while
waiting for their immigration cases to be processed. But a small
minority remain in custody.  Minors who have been charged with a
crime or pose a danger to themselves or others are kept in the
highest level of security.

With the change, ORR -- once an agency primarily tasked with
aiding refugees and asylum seekers -- has become a potent and
controversial tool in the Trump administration's fight against
MS-13 and its approach to undocumented immigrants.

Bob Carey, the former ORR director under President Obama,
described the change as "disturbing."

"It would not have happened, in my experience, a year ago," he
said.

Carey said minors who are vetted and released to family members
and sponsors were virtually never re-arrested by ICE and sent
back to ORR custody.

The change has also brought sharp criticism from immigration and
civil rights attorneys, who argue that unaccompanied minors are
being arrested without sufficient evidence and detained without
due process.  Many of these minors have been sent to a high-
security facility that has faced allegations of routine abuse.

"The government can't take away your liberty.  They can't lock
you up. They can't take away your property unless they give you a
hearing in front of a neutral person like a judge where you can
hear the evidence against you and respond to it," said ACLU of
Northern California's Julia Harumi Mass, the lead attorney in a
class-action lawsuit against the Trump administration involving
34 unaccompanied minors.

The ORR memo detailing these policies, dated August 16, 2017, and
reviewed by FRONTLINE reveals how the agency has ramped up
efforts to help investigate and detain unaccompanied minors,
increase its "secure" bed capacity, and to partner more closely
with both federal authorities and local law enforcement in New
York, Virginia and Texas.

And whereas all releases from secure facilities used to be
approved by a minor's case manager and received final sign-off
from ORR headquarters, now, the agency director himself must
personally approve all such releases.

The government's efforts to target unaccompanied minors for
alleged gang activity "is a national operation," said Mass, who
reviewed the memo as part of the ACLU's lawsuit.

"Long Island was a testing ground, a pilot program, but this is
supposed to be rolled out throughout the country," she said.

Detention
Junior arrived at the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center, nestled
between the Blue Ridge mountains and the Allegheny peaks, at the
beginning of the summer.

He was kept in a tiny cell without a window.  At times, he spent
23 hours a day in solitary confinement, according to his
attorney.

"You can never see the sun or the moon," said Junior, who asked
to be identified only by his first name due to safety concerns.
"Being at that place is like a living hell . . . I don't wish
that upon anyone."

The detention center serves incarcerated youth between the ages
of 10 and 17.

But unlike many detainees at Shenandoah, Junior never had a run
in with the criminal justice system.

He was sent there because ICE suspected that he belonged to MS-13
-- which he denies.  Junior says that before coming to the U.S.,
he was targeted by MS-13 members in his hometown in Honduras.  At
his high school on Long Island, he experienced a similar
situation.

"I was scared when they would talk to me about gangs," he said.
"They would ask me if I wanted to be one of them.  And I would
tell them no."

The basis for his arrest was spelled out in an ICE memo drafted
four days before Junior was apprehended outside of church.

The memo included information from Junior's school -- a pattern
that emerged in the midst of Operation Matador.  The document
alleged that Junior had MS-13 drawings in his school work.  It
also noted that the Suffolk County Police Department saw Junior
with "multiple other known MS-13 gang members."

Junior was suspended from school a few months earlier for
allegedly harassing another student and "maintaining possession
of material that referenced" MS-13.  Junior denies these claims
and his lawyers say the school never provided any evidence.
Officials from the school declined to comment.

Angel Melendez, the special agent in charge of ICE Homeland
Security Investigations in New York, said agents rely on
information provided by the Suffolk County police in order to
make arrests, including from police officers who are embedded in
public schools.

FRONTLINE reviewed around a dozen cases involving unaccompanied
minors who were picked up by ICE partly due to evidence collected
in schools.  Indicators of "gang activity" used to justify these
arrests included writing the number "503," the area code of El
Salvador, in a notebook; wearing black Nike Cortez sneakers; a
Brooklyn Nets hat; and being seen affiliating with "known MS-13
gang members."

Inside Shenandoah, Junior's physical and mental health declined
rapidly.  After long hours confined to this cell, he says he grew
desperate.

"I took my shirt off and made a rope and I put it around my neck
and I started to attempt suicide," he said.

As he began to lose consciousness, Junior started to think about
his father, George.

"The only thing I thought about was that my dad loves me, and I
love him too," he said.  "I thought about my dad . . . and I
loosened the noose."

Staff members at the center forced their way into Junior's cell
and stopped him from killing himself.  Then, Junior says they
stripped him of his clothes and belongings.

"They put me on restriction, with no clothes," he said.  "They
took everything away from me. I was suffering through the cold
for a week."

His experience at Shenandoah is not unique.

In October, the Washington Lawyers Committee, a civil rights
group, filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all immigrant
youth who have been detained at the facility.  The committee
alleges that the center violated the constitutional rights of
these minors, including their rights to be "kept physically safe
and secure" and "free from excessive use of force."  The group
says that young immigrants who are detained at Shenandoah are
subject to physical and verbal abuse by staff members.

Children are routinely locked in solitary rooms for up to 14
hours a day, according to the lawsuit.  One child was allegedly
called a "Mexican monkey" by a staff member.  Others were
allegedly called "criminal" and told that the only way to leave
the detention center was to be deported.

Several detainees reported being completely stripped of their
clothing, including their underwear, as a form of punishment.  
The lawsuit also claims that immigrant youth are regularly
subjected to substandard medical and mental health care.

Representatives from the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center wrote
in a statement to FRONTLINE that they believe the allegations are
"without merit" and intend to "present evidence at trial that
will allow a jury to reach the same conclusion."

The Ruling
On the morning of his 16th birthday, Junior woke up in a new
detention facility in Dobbs Ferry, New York.  After spending two
months in Virginia, he was stepped down to a less restrictive
facility where he could sleep in a dorm room.

His father, George, and his employer, Arnold, drove an hour-and-
a-half to celebrate with him at the facility.

They bought six pizzas and a chocolate cake with vanilla icing.

Junior and around a dozen other detained teens gathered around
ping pong tables and weight lifting equipment in the basement.
Junior hugged his dad tightly.  After the party, he called his
grandmother in Honduras.

Around this time, ORR director Lloyd wrote a letter to say that
his agency did not consider Junior to be "a danger to the
community or a risk of flight."  Then, in late October, Junior
appeared before an immigration judge in New York City.  The judge
agreed with Lloyd's assessment and recommended Junior's release.

Yet, he remained in detention as ORR continued to evaluate
whether his father was a suitable sponsor.

Junior was finally released one month later as a result of the
ACLU's class-action lawsuit on behalf of unaccompanied minors
detained over gang allegations.

A federal judge in California ruled that the Trump administration
must provide convincing evidence of gang membership in order to
justify detaining a minor.

"By shipping the minors across the country for indefinite
detention in a high-security facility before providing that
hearing, the government has violated their due process rights,"
he wrote in the November opinion.

Going forward, all unaccompanied minors who are arrested by ICE
over alleged gang activity must now receive a hearing within
seven days.  The ruling, however, does not protect unaccompanied
minors who have turned 18.

So far, 31 out of the 34 minors have received a hearing -- 29
have been released due to insufficient evidence.

"It's almost everyone," said Mass from the ACLU of Northern
California.  "Arresting children, separating them from their
families, detaining them and not giving them a hearing, that's an
abuse of power."

The ruling, however, has not affected ORR's plans to build its
capacity to detain more unaccompanied minors.  During President
Trump's first year in office, the agency expanded its number of
beds in high security facilities like Shenandoah by around 50
percent.

In August, Northern Virginia Juvenile Detention Center was
awarded a $3.9 million year-long contract to offer 30 additional
beds.  ORR has cited the uptick in ICE arrests of unaccompanied
minors with suspected gang ties as one of the reasons to secure
more beds.

Junior was one of the first unaccompanied minors to be released
after the class-action ruling.

He returned to Long Island in time to spend Christmas with his
dad.

He says the experience in detention transformed him.

"If I hadn't been through all that, I wouldn't have wanted to
take my life," Junior said.  "They have to investigate things
better . . .  I was in jail five months, almost six months, for
something that I didn't do, and that was unjust." [GN]


UNITIL CORP: Individual Claims Still Pending in Bellermann Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Individual claims in a putative class action captioned Bellermann
et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company remain pending,
according to Unitil Corporation's Form 10-K filed on February 1,
2018 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

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

Unitil said, "The Company continues to believe that these claims
are without merit and will continue to defend itself vigorously."

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


VERINT SYSTEMS: Supreme Court Allows CTI's Appeal in Part
---------------------------------------------------------
Verint Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 31, 2017, that the Supreme Court partially allowed CTI's
appeal and ordered the case to be returned to the District Court
to determine whether a cause of action exists in this case under
New York law, based on CTI's previously submitted expert opinion
and the opinion of any expert the plaintiffs elect to introduce.

On March 26, 2009, legal actions were commenced by Ms. Orit
Deutsch, a former employee of the company's subsidiary, Verint
Systems Limited ("VSL"), against VSL in the Tel Aviv Regional
Labor Court (Case Number 4186/09) (the "Deutsch Labor Action")
and against CTI in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number
1335/09) (the "Deutsch District Action").

In the Deutsch Labor Action, Ms. Deutsch filed a motion to
approve a class action lawsuit on the grounds that she purported
to represent a class of our employees and former employees who
were granted Verint and CTI stock options and were allegedly
damaged as a result of the suspension of option exercises during
the period from March 2006 through March 2010, during which the
company did not make periodic filings with the SEC as a result of
certain internal and external investigations and reviews of
accounting matters discussed in the company's prior public
filings.

In the Deutsch District Action, in addition to a small amount of
individual damages, Ms. Deutsch was seeking to certify a class of
plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to
exercise Verint and CTI stock options as a result of alleged
negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class
certification motions do not specify an amount of damages. On
February 8, 2010, the Deutsch Labor Action was dismissed for lack
of material jurisdiction and was transferred to the Tel Aviv
District Court and consolidated with the Deutsch District Action.

On March 16, 2009 and March 26, 2009, respectively, legal actions
were commenced by Ms. Roni Katriel, a former employee of CTI's
former subsidiary, Comverse Limited, against Comverse Limited in
the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 3444/09) (the
"Katriel Labor Action") and against CTI in the Tel Aviv District
Court (Case Number 1334/09) (the "Katriel District Action").

In the Katriel Labor Action, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a
class of plaintiffs who were granted CTI stock options and were
allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option
exercises during an extended filing delay period affecting CTI's
periodic reporting discussed in CTI's historical SEC filings. In
the Katriel District Action, in addition to a small amount of
individual damages, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a class of
plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to
exercise CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by
CTI in its financial reporting. The class certification motions
do not specify an amount of damages. On March 2, 2010, the
Katriel Labor Action was transferred to the Tel Aviv District
Court, based on an agreed motion filed by the parties requesting
such transfer.

On April 4, 2012, Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel filed an
uncontested motion to consolidate and amend their claims and on
June 7, 2012, the District Court allowed Ms. Deutsch and Ms.
Katriel to file the consolidated class certification motion and
an amended consolidated complaint against VSL, CTI, and Comverse
Limited. Following CTI's announcement of its intention to effect
the distribution of all of the issued and outstanding shares of
capital stock of its former subsidiary, Comverse, Inc., on July
12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the
District Court order CTI to set aside up to $150.0 million in
assets to secure any future judgment. The District Court ruled at
such time that it would not decide this motion until the Deutsch
and Katriel class certification motion was heard. Plaintiffs
initially filed a motion to appeal this ruling in August 2012,
but subsequently withdrew it in July 2014.

Prior to the consummation of the Comverse share distribution, CTI
either sold or transferred substantially all of its business
operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests
in the company and Comverse) to Comverse or unaffiliated third
parties. On October 31, 2012, CTI completed the Comverse share
distribution, in which it distributed all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of Comverse to CTI's shareholders. As a
result of the Comverse share distribution, Comverse became an
independent public company and ceased to be a wholly owned
subsidiary of CTI, and CTI ceased to have any material assets
other than its equity interest in us. On September 9, 2015,
Comverse changed its name to Xura, Inc. and, on February 28,
2017, Xura, Inc. changed its name to Mavenir Inc.

On February 4, 2013, the company merged with CTI. As a result of
the merger, the company have assumed certain rights and
liabilities of CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of
the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel District Action.
However, under the terms of the Distribution Agreement between
CTI and Comverse relating to the Comverse share distribution, the
company, as successor to CTI, are entitled to indemnification
from Comverse (now Mavenir) for any losses we suffer in the
company's capacity as successor-in-interest to CTI in connection
with the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel District Action.

Following an unsuccessful mediation process, the proceeding
before the District Court resumed. On August 28, 2016, the
District Court (i) denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit
as a class action with respect to all claims relating to Verint
stock options and (ii) approved the plaintiffs' motion to certify
the suit as a class action with respect to claims of current or
former employees of Comverse Limited (now Mavenir) or VSL who
held unexercised CTI stock options at the time CTI suspended
option exercises. The court also ruled that the merits of the
case and any calculation of damages would be evaluated under New
York law.

On December 15, 2016, CTI filed with the Supreme Court a motion
for leave to appeal the District Court's August 28, 2016 ruling.
The plaintiffs did not file an appeal of the District Court's
August 28, 2016 ruling. On February 5, 2017, the District Court
approved the plaintiff's motion to appoint a new representative
plaintiff, Mr. David Vaaknin, for the current or former employees
of VSL who held unexercised CTI stock options at the time CTI
suspended option exercises in replacement of Ms. Deutsch.

On August 8, 2017, the Supreme Court partially allowed CTI's
appeal and ordered the case to be returned to the District Court
to determine whether a cause of action exists in this case under
New York law, based on CTI's previously submitted expert opinion
and the opinion of any expert the plaintiffs elect to introduce.
The District Court's decision on this question will act to either
affirm its earlier ruling to certify a portion of the suit as a
class action or to reverse this class certification. A hearing
date before the District Court has not yet been set.

Verint is a global leader in Actionable Intelligence solutions.
Actionable Intelligence is a necessity in a dynamic world of
massive information growth because it empowers organizations with
crucial insights and enables decision makers to anticipate,
respond, and take action. With Verint solutions and value-added
services, organizations of all sizes and across many industries
can make more informed, timely, and effective decisions. The
company is based in New York.


WELLS FARGO: 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 New York on behalf of purchasers of Wells
Fargo & Company (NYSE:WFC) ("Wells Fargo" or the "Company")
securities during the period between January 13, 2017, and July
27, 2017, 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 Wells Fargo 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 Wells Fargo
charging more than 800,000 customers for unneeded auto insurance,
the expense for which pushed approximately 274,000 Wells Fargo
customers into delinquency and resulted in almost 25,000 vehicle
repossessions, would foreseeably subject Wells Fargo to
heightened regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement actions.

According to the complaint, following a July 27, 2017 The New
York Times article referencing the 800,000 people who were
charged for auto insurance they did not need, the 25,000 wrongful
vehicle repossessions and that "the bank owed $73 million to
wronged customers," the value of Wells Fargo shares declined
significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Wells Fargo securities purchased on or after January 13, 2017
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.

Contact Information:
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]


WESTERN DIGITAL: Unit Still Defends Class Action Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended December 29, 2017, that the
company intends to defend itself in a consolidated class action
suit involving SanDisk Corporation and two of its officers.

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

The complaints generally allege violations of federal securities
laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the
defendants during the alleged class periods. The complaints seek,
among other things, damages and fees and costs.

In July 2015, the District Court consolidated the cases and
appointed Union Asset Management Holding AG and KBC Asset
Management NV as lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint in August 2015. In January 2016, the District
Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the
amended complaint with leave to amend. In February 2016, the
District Court issued an order appointing as new lead plaintiffs
Bristol Pension Fund; City of Milford, Connecticut Pension &
Retirement Board; Pavers and Road Builders Pension, Annuity and
Welfare Funds; the Newport News Employees' Retirement Fund; and
Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund (collectively, the
"Institutional Investor Group").

In March 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed an amended
complaint. In June 2016, the District Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint
with leave to amend. In July 2016, the Institutional Investor
Group filed a further amended complaint. In June 2017, the
District Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The
Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

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


WORLD ACCEPTANCE: "Epstein" Class Action Suit Concluded
-------------------------------------------------------
World Acceptance Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that the
putative class action complaint with a caption, Edna Selan
Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et al., in the United
States District Court for the District of South Carolina, has
been concluded

On April 22, 2014, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint, Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et
al., in the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina (case number 6:14-cv-01606) (the "Edna Epstein
Putative Class Action"), against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock
between April 25, 2013 and March 12, 2014.

Two amended complaints have been filed by the plaintiffs, and
several other motions have been filed in the proceedings. The
complaint, as currently amended, alleges that (i) the Company
made false and misleading statements in various SEC reports and
other public statements in violation of federal securities laws
preceding the Company's disclosure in a Form 8-K filed March 13,
2014 that it had received the above-referenced CID from the CFPB
(ii) the Company's loan growth and volume figures were inflated
because of a weakness in the Company's internal controls relating
to its accounting treatment of certain small-dollar loan re-
financings and (iii) additional allegations regarding, among
other things, the Company's receipt of a Notice and Opportunity
to Respond and Advise letter from the CFPB on August 7, 2015.

The complaint seeks class certification for a class consisting of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between January 30, 2013 and August 10, 2015,
unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The
Company denied that the claims had any merit and opposed
certification of the proposed class.

On June 7, 2017, during a court-ordered mediation, the parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle the Edna Epstein
Putative Class Action. The parties' stipulation setting forth the
terms of the settlement was filed with the court on August 25,
2017. The settlement stipulation provides for a settlement
payment to the class of $16 million, all of which will be funded
by the Company's directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance
carriers. The court entered an order preliminarily approving the
settlement on August 31, 2017. On December 18, 2017, the court
entered a final order and judgment approving the settlement.

The court's order approving the settlement resolves the claims
asserted against all defendants in the action. Neither the
Company nor any of its present or former officers have admitted
any wrongdoing or liability in connection with the settlement.

World Acceptance Corporation engages in small-loan consumer
finance business. The company offers short-term small and medium-
term larger installment loans, as well as related credit
insurance and ancillary products and services to individuals. It
also provides automobile club memberships to its borrowers; and
income tax return preparation and electronic filing services. The
company is based in Greenville, South Carolina.


                           Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 32,234 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. has 32,234 pending asbestos-related claims as of
December 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 8-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2018.

Crane Co. states, "As of December 31, 2017, the Company was a
defendant in cases filed in numerous state and federal courts
alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos.

"Of the 32,234 pending claims as of December 31, 2017,
approximately 18,200 claims were pending in New York,
approximately 600 claims were pending in Texas, approximately
1,500 claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 200
claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which
legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims that
can proceed to trial on the merits.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Nelson" Trial v. Crane Co. Set for April 2018
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. disclosed in its Form 8-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2018, that a
new trial is set for April 2018 regarding the lawsuit over James
Nelson's asbestos claim.

The Company states, "On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, state court jury found the Company responsible for
a 1/11th share of a US$14.5 million verdict in the James Nelson
claim.  On February 23, 2011, the court entered judgment on the
verdict in the amount of US$4.0 million, jointly, against the
Company and two other defendants, with additional interest in the
amount of US$0.01 million being assessed against the Company,
only.  All defendants, including the Company, and the plaintiffs
took timely appeals of certain aspects of those judgments.  On
September 5, 2013, a panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, in
a 2-1 decision, vacated the Nelson verdict against all
defendants, reversing and remanding for a new trial.  Plaintiffs
requested a rehearing in the Superior Court and by order dated
November 18, 2013, the Superior Court vacated the panel opinion,
and granted en banc reargument.  On December 23, 2014, the
Superior Court issued a second opinion reversing the jury
verdict.  Plaintiffs sought leave to appeal to the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court, which defendants have opposed.  By order dated
June 21, 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied
plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal.  The case is set for a
new trial in April 2018."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "DeLisle" Suit v. Crane Co. Ongoing at Jan. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument is set for March 6, 2018 in the asbestos suit filed
by Richard DeLisle against Crane Co., according to the Company's
Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on January 30, 2018.

The Company states, "On September 17, 2013, a Fort Lauderdale,
Florida state court jury in the Richard DeLisle claim found the
Company responsible for 16 percent of an US$8 million verdict.  
The trial court denied all parties' post-trial motions, and
entered judgment against the Company in the amount of US$1.3
million.  The Company has appealed.  Oral argument on the appeal
took place on February 16, 2016.  On September 14, 2016 a panel
of the Florida Court of Appeals reversed and entered judgment in
favor of the Company.  Plaintiff filed with the Court of Appeals
a motion for rehearing and/or certification of an appeal to the
Florida Supreme Court, which the Court denied on November 9,
2016.  Plaintiffs subsequently requested review by the Supreme
Court of Florida.  Plaintiffs' motion was granted on July 11,
2017.  The briefing in this matter has concluded, and oral
argument is set for March 6, 2018."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Poage" Suit v. Crane Co. Ongoing at Jan. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. disclosed in its Form 8-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2018, that it
is seeking further review of a ruling in an asbestos suit filed
by James Poage.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Settles "Rabovsky" Lawsuit in 4Q2017
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. disclosed in its Form 8-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2018, that the
settlement related to the asbestos claim of Valent Rabovsky was
reflected in the fourth quarter 2017 indemnity amount.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Coulbourn" Suit v Crane Co Ongoing at Jan. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument related to the asbestos claim of George Coulbourn
against Crane Co. is set for March 15, 2018, according to the
Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 30, 2018.

The Company states, "On April 22, 2016, a Phoenix, Arizona
federal court jury found the Company responsible for a 20 percent
share of a US$9 million verdict in the George Coulbourn claim,
and further awarded exemplary damages against the Company in the
amount of US$5 million.  The jury also awarded compensatory and
exemplary damages against the other defendant present at trial.  
The court entered judgment against the Company in the amount of
US$6.8 million.  The Company filed post-trial motions, which were
denied on September 20, 2016.  The Company is pursuing an appeal
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Briefing is complete, and
oral argument is set for March 15, 2018."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had 54,000 Open Claims at Dec31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that there were 54,000
open claims filed against the Company at December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "The claims alleging personal injury caused
by exposure to asbestos asserted against Ashland result primarily
from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection
with the sale of Riley Stoker Corporation, a former subsidiary.  
The amount and timing of settlements and number of open claims
can fluctuate from period to period.

"From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for
litigation defense and claim settlement costs, which generally
approximates the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure
from model results.  Ashland reviews this estimate and related
assumptions quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-
inflated, non-discounted approximate 50-year model developed with
the assistance of HR&A.  

"During the most recent annual update of this estimate completed
during the June 2017 quarter, it was determined that the
liability for Ashland asbestos-related claims should be increased
by US$36 million.  Total reserves for asbestos claims were US$409
million at December 31, 2017 compared to US$419 million at
September 30, 2017.

"Ashland has insurance coverage for certain litigation defense
and claim settlement costs incurred in connection with its
asbestos claims, and coverage-in-place agreements exist with the
insurance companies that provide substantially all of the
coverage that will be accessed.  

"For the Ashland asbestos-related obligations, Ashland has
estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated
with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations
and estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance
coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance
carriers remain solvent.  Substantially all of the estimated
receivables from insurance companies are expected to be due from
domestic insurers, all of which are solvent.

"At December 31, 2017, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to US$151 million (excluding the Hercules receivable for
asbestos claims) compared to US$155 million at September 30,
2017.  During the June 2017 quarter, the annual update of the
model used for purposes of valuing the asbestos reserve and its
impact on valuation of future recoveries from insurers was
completed.  This model update resulted in a US$15 million
increase in the receivable for probable insurance recoveries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Tv2ukt


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Has 12,000 PI Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that wholly-owned
subsidiary Hercules LLC had 12,000 open claims filed against it
related to asbestos matters at December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Hercules has liabilities from claims
alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos.  Such
claims typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers
from resin encapsulated pipe and tank products which were sold by
one of Hercules' former subsidiaries to a limited industrial
market.  The amount and timing of settlements and number of open
claims can fluctuate from period to period.

"From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for
litigation defense and claim settlement costs, which generally
approximates the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure
from model results.  Ashland reviews this estimate and related
assumptions quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-
inflated, non-discounted approximate 50-year model developed with
the assistance of HR&A.  As a result of the most recent annual
update of this estimate, completed during the June 2017 quarter,
it was determined that the liability for Hercules asbestos-
related claims should be increased by US$16 million.  Total
reserves for asbestos claims were US$315 million at December 31,
2017 compared to US$323 million at September 30, 2017.

"For the Hercules asbestos-related obligations, certain
reimbursement obligations pursuant to coverage-in-place
agreements with insurance carriers exist.  As a result, any
increases in the asbestos reserve have been partially offset by
probable insurance recoveries.  Ashland has estimated the value
of probable insurance recoveries associated with its asbestos
reserve based on management's interpretations and estimates
surrounding the available or applicable insurance coverage,
including an assumption that all solvent insurance carriers
remain solvent.  The estimated receivable consists exclusively of
solvent domestic insurers.

"As of December 31, 2017 and September 30, 2017, the receivables
from insurers amounted to US$68 million.  During the June 2017
quarter, the annual update of the model used for purposes of
valuing the asbestos reserve and its impact on valuation of
future recoveries from insurers was completed.  This model update
resulted in a US$5 million increase in the receivable for
probable insurance recoveries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Tv2ukt


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at Dec31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc. still defends itself against personal
injury lawsuits filed by people claiming exposure to asbestos in
certain product components, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "We (including our subsidiaries) have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain
components of our products many years ago.  Currently there are a
few thousand claimants in lawsuits that name us as defendants,
together with hundreds of other companies.  In some cases, the
claims involve products from divested businesses, and we are
indemnified for most of the costs.  However, we have agreed to
defend and indemnify asbestos claims associated with products
manufactured or sold by our former Dodge mechanical and Reliance
Electric motors and motor repair services businesses prior to
their divestiture by us, which occurred on January 31, 2007.

"We are also responsible for half of the costs and liabilities
associated with asbestos cases against the former Rockwell
International Corporation's divested measurement and flow control
business.  But in all cases, for those claimants who do show that
they worked with our products or products of divested businesses
for which we are responsible, we nevertheless believe we have
meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of
the products, the encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing
components, and the lack of any impairing medical condition on
the part of many claimants.  We defend those cases vigorously.  
Historically, we have been dismissed from the vast majority of
these claims with no payment to claimants.

"We have maintained insurance coverage that we believe covers
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising from our former Allen-Bradley
subsidiary.  Our insurance carrier entered into a cost share
agreement with us to pay the substantial majority of future
defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims.  
We believe that this arrangement will continue to provide
coverage for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims throughout the
remaining life of the asbestos liability.

"We also have rights to historic insurance policies that provide
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising out of certain asbestos
liabilities relating to the divested measurement and flow control
business.  We initiated litigation against several insurers to
pursue coverage for these claims, subject to each carrier's
policy limits, and the case is now pending in Los Angeles County
Superior Court.  In September 2016, we entered into settlement
agreements with certain insurance company defendants, and we
continue to pursue our claims against the remaining defendants.  
We believe these settlement agreements will continue to provide
partial coverage for these asbestos claims throughout the
remaining life of asbestos liability.

"The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult
to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims.  
That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse
rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or
the settlement process.  Subject to these uncertainties and based
on our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe
these lawsuits will have a material effect on our business,
financial condition or results of operations.

"We have, from time to time, divested certain of our businesses.  
In connection with these divestitures, certain lawsuits, claims
and proceedings may be instituted or asserted against us related
to the period that we owned the businesses, either because we
agreed to retain certain liabilities related to these periods or
because such liabilities fall upon us by operation of law.  In
some instances, the divested business has assumed the
liabilities; however, it is possible that we might be responsible
for satisfying those liabilities if the divested business is
unable to do so.

"In connection with the spin-offs of our former automotive
business, semiconductor systems business and avionics and
communications business, the spun-off companies have agreed to
indemnify us for substantially all contingent liabilities related
to the respective businesses, including environmental and
intellectual property matters.

"In conjunction with the sale of our Dodge mechanical and
Reliance Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, we
agreed to indemnify Baldor Electric Company for costs and damages
related to certain legal, legacy environmental and asbestos
matters of these businesses arising before January 31, 2007, for
which the maximum exposure would be capped at the amount received
for the sale."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/1hyNje


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Lawsuits v. Global Power Unit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Global Power Equipment Group Inc. subsidiary continues to face
asbestos personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

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

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

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/U4Wjxp


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jail Officials Win Summary Ruling in "Mitchell"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin grants Defendants Dane County Jail
Officials' motion for summary judgment since the evidence of
record establishes neither that Plaintiff Roy Mitchell was
exposed to dangerous levels or mold or asbestos, nor that the
defendants were deliberately indifferent to those conditions.

Between 1998 and September of 2016, Mitchell has been
incarcerated at the Dane County Jail on various occasions.
Plaintiff Roy Mitchell claims that various Dane County Jail
Officials subjected her to conditions of confinement that
violated her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. In
particular, she is proceeding on claims that she was housed in a
section of the Dane County Jail that exposed her various hazards,
including sewage flies, asbestos, lead, and black mold.

The Defendants include Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney, Dane
County Jail Captain Anhalt, Sergeant Olsen, Sergeant Skerpenski,
Deputy Merrill, and Dane County Administrator Joe Parisi.
Mitchell claims that each of these defendants knew about the
conditions in the jail and failed to correct them. As to Parisi
specifically, Mitchell claims that he failed to pass a budget
that would provide funding to improve conditions at the Dane
County Jail.

Mitchell has been seen by health care providers since being
diagnosed with atypical pneumonia in September of 2016. Since
that time, Mitchell has since been seen by her health care
providers multiple times for complaints of problems breathing,
nasal congestion and problems walking for long periods of time,
but she has not been diagnosed with pneumonia since 2016.
Although a regular smoker of cigarettes in the past, Mitchell's
records further indicate that she reported to her health care
providers that she believes these symptoms to be related to her
exposure to asbestos at the Dane County Jail.

At the time of her deposition, August 29, 2017, Mitchell stated
that she was suffering from bronchitis, but the court has been
unable to locate a medical record confirming that diagnosis.
Mitchell has a February 2018 appointment scheduled a UW Health
pulmonologist for suspected asbestos exposure, but the court has
been unable to identify any instance in her medical records in
which a health care provider confirmed actual exposure to
asbestos.

Mitchell claims that during her time on the 7th floor of the
City-County Building of the Dane County Jail, she (along with
other inmates and staff) had been exposed to four types of
hazards: asbestos, lead paint, black mold and "sewage flies" that
appear around the drainage holes in the Jail. Assuming for the
moment that Mitchell was exposed to a dangerous level of asbestos
at some point in her life, the question remains whether plaintiff
has submitted proof of the presence of, and exposure to, asbestos
during the relevant time period that she was an inmate of the
Jail's 7th floor.

Beyond personally averring that she has been exposed to all of
these conditions, Mitchell submitted sixty pages of "sworn
declarations" of other inmates. These sworn statements similarly
refer to allegedly unsanitary conditions in the jail, including
the presence of black mold and bugs, although none put Mitchell
near any such hazards; as opposed to being housed in the jail
generally. Nor do they provide additional, specific information
about the conditions to which Mitchell was exposed.

As such, even setting aside the question of the admissibility of
these statements, they do not provide much corroborating evidence
material to proving the defendants acted with deliberate
indifference to Mitchell's exposure to constitutionally infirm
conditions of confinement. Accordingly, the Court has not
considered those statements material for purposes of evaluating
Mitchell's constitutional claims in this lawsuit.

Mitchell has also submitted a June 2014 "Needs Assessment and
Master Plan" report for the Dane County Jail and Sheriff's Office
created by the engineering firm of Mead & Hunt, and directed to,
among others, Administrator Parisi, Sheriff Mahoney and Jail
Captain Anhalt.

Mitchell argues that this report establishes that the inmates
were held in "dire psychological and unsafe dehumanizing
environmental conditional hardships." At summary judgment,
Mitchell submitted what appear to be portions of that final
report, which do not include such an unqualified condemnation,
but does contain an executive summary stating that "the age of
the City County [Building], outdated technology, and poor
physical conditions of the buildings cause many risks and
hazards." The report further states that among those risks are
the "existence of hazardous materials (asbestos and lead paint)"
in the portions of the Jail located in the City County Building.
Finally, the report states that "stakeholders" should use caution
in "considering long term solutions" for the City County Building
due to the immense costs associated with remodeling and updating
the City-County Building to meet those concerns.

While some of the statements from the report would appear to
corroborate some of Mitchell's own claimed experiences at the
Dane County Jail, like the affidavits of other inmates, the Court
finds that they are not specific enough, alone, to support a
finding of deliberate indifference.

Scott Teuscher, Dane County's Safety Coordinator, is a Certified
Asbestos Inspector and holds a current license to do inspections
in the State of Wisconsin. In this role, Tuescher is responsible
for inspecting and sampling materials for the presence of
asbestos-laden materials before any Dane County renovation and
demolition projects can begin, one of the requirements in the
County's written policies on asbestos control.

It is undisputed that on August 29 and 30 of 2017, Teuscher
toured and inspected each cell and holding area within the Dane
County Jail where Mitchell has been housed in since 1998,
including cells in the City-County and Public Safety Buildings.
Teuscher's visual inspection did not lead him to believe that any
of these cells had asbestos-containing materials. Even though
other areas in the buildings needed testing, Teuscher did not
deem testing necessary in Mitchell's cells because they were in
good condition and not subject to renovation or demolition.

Still, Mitchell maintains that she was exposed to asbestos,
citing only her own, self-serving observations about exposure,
past and current issues with her lungs, and the 2014 report
recognizing the existence of asbestos in portions of the Jail, a
place she stayed off and on between 1998 and 2016. At the same
time, Mitchell admits that she is not an expert on asbestos, she
does not know what asbestos is or looks like; she is unable to
say specifically where in the Dane County Jail asbestos was
located; and she cannot identify any laws or regulations that the
Dane County Jail violated with respect to asbestos.

Mitchell also submitted no evidence that she had been exposed to
a dangerous level of asbestos as the Dane County Jail. Further,
Mitchell has never been diagnosed with mesothelioma, asbestosis,
or any other asbestos-related illness. While she has an upcoming
appointment related to her complaints of asbestos exposure, she
has not been told to date by any medical professional that her
health was endangered or compromised due to asbestos exposure.

As to her claims about asbestos, plaintiff's evidence -- her own
statements and the 2014 report -- permits the trier of fact to
conclude no more than that the portions of the City-County
Building in which Mitchell was housed at times between 1998 and
2014 contained asbestos. However, the mere presence of asbestos
does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment because, while
unfortunate, "the fact remains that asbestos abounds in many
public buildings," and "exposure to moderate levels of asbestos
is a common fact of contemporary life."

Mitchell concedes that she cannot identify asbestos. More
importantly, she has submitted no evidence supporting a finding
that the asbestos within the City-County Building was exposed to
the air, nor that she otherwise was exposed to friable asbestos
when housed there. While Mitchell's medical records show that she
reported asbestos exposure to her treating professionals after
she learned about the 2014 report, she submitted no evidence that
actually confirms (or even suggests) exposure. In fact, there is
no evidence of measurements about the air quality, nor instances
where she was actually present for major construction or
renovation projects that could have opened up the possibility of
exposing her to asbestos-laden materials, which was the concern
raised by the 2014 report.

Furthermore, Mitchell does not dispute defendants' evidence that
none of the cells in which plaintiff was housed posed a risk of
exposure to asbestos. Even assuming that plaintiff does in fact
suffer from asbestos-related illness, therefore, she has failed
to submit evidence of a "causal connection" between her potential
injury and exposure at the Dane County Jail. Accordingly, the
record before this court on summary judgment does not support a
finding that the presence of asbestos in the portion of the City-
County Building in which Mitchell was housed for sporadic periods
of time between 1998 and 2016 created conditions of confinement
that violated her constitutional rights.

With respect to the asbestos and lead paint only, it may be
reasonable to infer from the 2014 report that Parisi, Mahoney and
Anhalt were on notice that the City-County Building generally
contained both of these potential hazards. However, this piece of
evidence advances Mitchell's theory only minimally, since
knowledge of their presence alone does not establish knowledge
that the conditions were sufficiently serious to constitute cruel
and unusual punishment.

Furthermore, just as there is no evidence that Mitchell was
actually exposed to dangerous levels of either asbestos or lead
paint, there likewise is no evidence that any of the defendants
actually knew about exposure to any of the four hazards and
failed to respond to them in an appropriate manner. To the
contrary, Mitchell has acknowledged that the Dane County Jail had
policies and procedures in place to address the presence of
asbestos, flies and mold, and nothing in the record suggests that
defendants have failed to address or remediate dangerous exposure
to lead paint.

Specifically, Mitchell does not dispute that the Dane County Jail
employs exterminators on a seasonal and regular basis to
eliminate the flies. Similarly, as to the mold, the jail not only
has inmate workers clean the floors on a weekly visit and has
staff also clean the floors, Dane County Jail policies permit the
jail to contract with third parties for more thorough cleaning
projects, and Mitchell admits, based on her own observations, the
cleaning efforts have been successful. Based on this record, a
reasonable fact finder simply could not conclude that any of the
named defendants' acted with deliberate indifference to the
alleged conditions.

Even assuming that Mitchell submitted evidence supporting a
finding she was not only exposed to conditions of confinement
that exceeded the contemporary bounds of decency and that the
defendants were deliberately indifferent to those conditions, she
has submitted no evidence that she was injured because of that
exposure. A plaintiff must show both injury and a causal
connection between that injury and the deprivation of a
constitutionally protected right.

Mitchell's medical records indicate that she is scheduled to meet
with a pulmonologist regarding multiple respiratory symptoms
(coughing, wheezing, trouble walking long distances), which she
attributes to her alleged asbestos exposure, the Court finds no
reason to wait for the results of plaintiff's upcoming
examination.

While Mitchell admitted during her deposition that she also
previously smoked cigarettes, if, indeed, she does receive a
diagnosis of a condition typically caused by asbestos (or black
or toxic mold exposure) such as asbestosis, mesothelioma, lung
cancer or black mold poisoning, the Court holds that a reasonable
fact finder may conclude that the injury was caused by one of the
challenged conditions.

The case is Roy Mitchell, Plaintiff, v. Dane County Sheriff
Department, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-352-wmc, (W.D.
Wis.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion & Order dated February 13, 2018,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y87ssyjs from Leagle.com.

Roy Mitchell, Plaintiff, pro se.

Sheriff Dave Mahoney, Mrs. Anhalt, Joe Parisi, Sergeant Olsen,
Sergeant Skerpenski & Deputy Merrill, Defendants, represented by
Matteo Reginato --  mreginato@ammr.net -- Arenz, Molter, Macy,
Riffle & Larson, S.C., Remzy Bitar -- rbitar@ammr.net -- Arenz,
Molter, Macy, Riffle & Larson, S.C. & Samantha R. Schmid, Arenz,
Molter, Macy, Riffle & Larson, S.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Central Entitled to Setoff in "Oakes"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Mississippi reverses the Court of Appeals'
judgment affirming the Warren County Circuit Court's denial of
Illinois Central Railroad's request for a setoff of a jury
verdict awarded to Bennie Oakes through his representative Clara
Hagan.

The Court holds that the Court of Appeals misconstrued the
primary case it relied upon and ignored other federal precedent.
The Court maintains that the issue presented in the appealed
case, Illinois Central Railroad Company, v. Bennie Oakes,
Deceased, by and through Clara Hagan, his Representative, No.
2015-CT-00644-SCT. (S.Ct. Miss.), is whether the Defendant is
entitled to a setoff for money already paid to the Plaintiff for
the same injuries alleged to have been caused by the Defendant.

As described by Illinois Central, who as appellant framed the
issues for appeal, "This case is about whether, once those
damages are assessed by a jury, a railroad company under the
[Federal Employers' Liability Act] is entitled to a credit or
reduction of that verdict for sums that have already been paid by
others to the Plaintiff for the same injuries and damages." In
Illinois Central's answer, it raised an affirmative defense that
"it is entitled to apportionment or set off liability and/or
damages for any negligence of or damages caused by third parties,
including but not limited to other employers and manufacturers,
distributors, and sellers of products to which plaintiff claims
the decedent was exposed as alleged in the complaint." However,
Illinois Central later clarified its position that it was not
attempting to have negligence apportioned, and the circuit court
echoed the clarification by stating that Illinois Central had not
"tried to use a third, an empty chair for any other defendants."

On February 13, 2009, Clara Hagan filed a complaint, as the
representative of Bennie Oakes, against Illinois Central in the
Warren County Circuit Court. The complaint, brought under the
provisions of the Federal Employers Liability Act, sought to
recover damages for "personal injuries and/or death sustained by
Bennie Oakes, deceased, while [Oakes] was employed by [Illinois
Central] and while engaging in interstate commerce."

Oakes had been an employee of Illinois Central from 1952 through
1994 and was exposed to asbestos on a daily basis. The complaint
contained allegations that: "As a result of his exposure to
asbestos containing products and materials, [Oakes] has developed
asbestosis, lung cancer, shortness of breath, reduced lung
function, cough, chest congestion, and is at increased risk to
develop one or more of the following diseases: mesothelioma,
asbestos related pleural disease, mixed dust pneumoconiosis,
sleep interruption, aggravation of pre-existing and co-existing
disease, throat cancer, laryngeal cancer, colon, stomach, and
other asbestos related cancer." According to the complaint, due
to Illinois Central's negligence in exposing Oakes to asbestos
daily, Oakes incurred injury and damages.

The first trial occurred in 2011 but resulted in a hung jury. The
jury in the second trial found in favor of Hagan and awarded
$250,000 in damages. However, the jury also apportioned fault,
with Illinois Central being twenty percent at fault and Oakes
being eighty percent at fault. Therefore, the circuit court
adjusted the damages accordingly, and the total award was
$50,000. Illinois Central filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment
and Setoff to have the damages reduced further based on its
discovery that Hagan had received more than $65,000 in payments
from asbestos trusts for Oakes' injuries and death. The circuit
court denied Illinois Central's motion and entered the judgment
of $50,000 plus eight percent interest.

Illinois Central appealed, and the case was assigned to the Court
of Appeals. Writing for the Court of Appeals, Judge Greenlee
framed the issue on appeal as "whether setoff against a jury
verdict is required in [Federal Employers' Liability Act] cases
where the claimant has already settled with separate
tortfeasors." Illinois Cent. R.R. Co. v. Oakes, 2016 WL 7647571,
(Miss. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2016). The Court of Appeals held:
"Because an injured railroad employee can recover all his damages
from his railroad employer if the employer's negligence caused
any part of the employee's injury, and because the collateral
source rule does not allow for a defendant to avoid payment of
damages based on compensation to the plaintiff from a third party
that was not a party to the action, we find that an allowance of
setoff for recoveries from nonparty tortfeasors is inconsistent
with the [Federal Employers' Liability Act]'s intent, the
statutory language, and Mississippi and U.S. Supreme Court
precedent."

Nothing in the [Federal Employers' Liability Act] entitles the
plaintiff to more than one recovery for his damages. This case
involves an injury caused by exposure to asbestos; the Plaintiff
has already been compensated for this same injury by the
manufacturers of the asbestos; and there is no reason that her
recovery against Illinois Central should not be reduced to
account for those payments.

In its petition, Illinois Central argued that the Court of
Appeals decision is in "irreconcilable conflict with previous
opinions... and disregards the controlling federal law on the
issue." Additionally, Illinois Central submitted that the primary
case of Norfolk & Western Railway Company v. Ayers, 538 U.S. 135
(2003), relied upon by the Court of Appeals' decision, was
misconstrued and misapplied to the present case.

Illinois Central also argued that the Court of Appeals' decision
erred in holding that the collateral source rule applied to
asbestos trusts set up by the now-bankrupt asbestos manufacturers
as a condition of their bankruptcy proceedings. Finally, Illinois
Central contended that the Court of Appeals' decision effectively
"obliterates" the one-recovery rule by allowing Hagan to collect
from the asbestos trust for the asbestos-related injury and also
from Illinois Central for the same asbestos-related injury.

As the Court of Appeals noted, the issue in the present case is
whether Illinois Central is entitled to a setoff of the jury
verdict based on Oakes' or Hagan's receipt of settlement funds
from an asbestos bankruptcy trust. The Supreme Court holds that
it is, and the Court of Appeals and the circuit court erred in
concluding otherwise.

The Court of Appeals' majority opinion based its holding
primarily on the United States Supreme Court case of Ayers. The
majority states that the Supreme Court in Ayers rejected "the
suggestion that the [Federal Employers' Liability Act] would
permit damages to be apportioned among joint tortfeasors
according to the degree of fault attributable to each." (citing
Ayers, 538 U.S. at 161-65). Further, "the Ayers Court found
significant that Congress, while expressly directing in the
[Federal Employers' Liability Act] the apportionment of
responsibility between employers and employee based on
comparative fault, did not provide for such apportionment among
potentially liable tortfeasors."

According to Ayers: "After reduction for three claimants'
comparative negligence from smoking and for settlements with non-
[Federal Employers' Liability Act] entities, the final judgments
amounted to approximately $4.9 million." The issue in Ayers was
whether fault could be apportioned among joint tortfeasors, and
Ayers stands for the premise that a plaintiff may recover its
full amount of damages from one defendant and places the burden
on the defendant to seek contribution from other nonparty
tortfeasors later.

In the present case, the Supreme Court points out that had
Illinois Central asked that the jury apportion fault to Illinois
Central, Oakes, and the nonparty asbestos trusts, standing in the
place of the now-bankrupt asbestos manufacturers, such request
would have run afoul of Ayers. However, that is not what
happened, and the jury apportioned fault between Illinois Central
and Oakes, as permitted by the Federal Employers' Liability Act
and Ayers.

Simply, Ayers does not apply to the facts and issue of the
present case. The trial court has never apportioned fault to the
asbestos trusts and, had it done so, it would have erred pursuant
to Ayers. The settling asbestos trusts never have been held to be
liable for the plaintiffs' injuries. Even though Ayers does not
apply to the issue presented in the case sub judice because the
issue there was whether, under the Federal Employers' Liability
Act, fault could be attributed to nonrailroad joint tortfeasors
and the issue today is whether, after a verdict in which fault is
not attributed to any other tortfeasors the defendant is entitled
to a setoff equal to money already paid to the plaintiff for the
same injuries, the principal purpose of the Federal Employers'
Liability Act announced therein reinforces our holding.

As argued by Oakes, "[The Federal Employers' Liability Act]'s
express terms, reinforced by consistent judicial applications of
the Act, allow a worker to recover his entire damages from a
railroad whose negligence jointly caused an injury . . ., thus
placing on the railroad the burden of seeking contribution from
other tortfeasors." After adjustment for fault apportioned to
Oakes, the jury's verdict awarded him $50,000 in damages. The
asbestos trusts have paid him more than $50,000. Accordingly, he
has recovered his entire damages from the asbestos trusts, and
with the setoff, the Federal Employers' Liability Act's purpose
has been fulfilled. Nowhere in Ayers or any other authorities
cited by Oakes is there any indication that the Federal
Employers' Liability Act contemplates that a plaintiff would
receive more than his entire damages, as would be the case absent
the setoff.

To further [the Federal Employers' Liability Act's] humanitarian
purposes, Congress did away with several common-law tort defenses
that had effectively barred recovery by injured workers. As
cataloged in Gottshall, the [Federal Employers' Liability Act]
abolished the fellow servant rule; rejected the doctrine of
contributory negligence in favor of... comparative negligence;
prohibited employers from exempting themselves from the [Federal
Employers' Liability Act] through contract; and, in a 1939
amendment, abolished the assumption of risk defense. Consolidated
Rail Corporation v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. [532, 542], 114 S.Ct.
2396.

While the Ayers Court's holding that fault may not be apportioned
between the railroad and nonrailroad defendants rests upon the
Federal Employers' Liability Act's negating of the common law
defense of apportionment. However, nothing in the statute changes
the common law on damages to the effect that a defendant, such as
Illinois Central in the case sub judice, would be prohibited from
seeking a setoff from another entity, which earlier paid the
plaintiff for the same injuries.

A full-text copy of the Order on Writ of Certiorari dated
February 15, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd725mpd
from Leagle.com.

Glenn F. Beckham -- gbeckham@upshawwilliams.com -- Harris
Frederick Powers, III -- hpowers@upshawwilliams.com -- Attorneys
for Appellant.

Henry Dean Andrews, Jr. , Timothy W. Porter --
tim@portermalouf.com -- Patrick Malouf --
patrick@portermalouf.com -- John Timothy Givens --
johnny@portermalouf.com -- Attorneys for Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nexus Corp. Not Liable in "Amling" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sue E. Myerscough of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of Illinois has issued an Opinion dismissing and
referring the case styled Harrow Industries LLC, Plaintiff, v.
Nexus Corporation, a Colorado Corporation, Defendant, No. 3:17-
cv-3222, (C.D. Ill.) to Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins to
set a limited discovery schedule so that Plaintiff can determine
how National Greenhouse Company passed from Old Nexus to
Defendant, as well as set a deadline for Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint.

Plaintiff's claims are based on a 1990 Asset Purchase Agreement
involving the sale of National Greenhouse Company, a company that
designs and builds greenhouses and sells products for the use in
greenhouses. Plaintiff alleges that Harrow Products, Inc.
(Harrow) sold National Greenhouse Company to Defendant pursuant
to an Asset Purchase Agreement dated November 14, 1990. Harrow is
now a division of Plaintiff's corporate structure. The Agreement
identifies the seller as National Greenhouse Company and the
purchaser as Nexus Corporation (which is the same name as
Defendant). Harrow is identified as the owner of 100% of the
stock of the seller.

The Agreement contains a provision providing that the purchaser
assumes certain liabilities of the seller and also providing
that, "except as provided herein, Purchaser shall be liable for
all claims arising after the Closing date from events occurring
after the Closing date." The Purchaser also agreed to indemnify
the seller for certain claims, losses, and liabilities.

In 2016, Plaintiff and Defendant were named as Defendants in
Robert M. Amling and Deborah Amling v. Burnham, LLC et al.,
Madison County, Illinois, Case No. 2016-L-000111. In that
underlying lawsuit, the Amlings allege that Robert Amling was
exposed to asbestos fibers emanating from products designed,
manufactured, sold, delivered, distributed, processed, applied,
specified, or installed by the various named defendants in that
action, including Plaintiff and Defendant as successors-in-
interest to National Greenhouse Company. The Amlings further
allege that this exposure caused Robert's mesothelioma, which was
diagnosed on October 7, 2015.

In October 2017, Plaintiff Harrow Industries LLC filed a two-
count Complaint against Defendant Nexus Corporation based on a
1990 Asset Purchase Agreement for the sale of National Greenhouse
Company. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant is liable for damages
arising out of the Amling case. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges
that, based on the Agreement, Defendant is liable for any damages
related to National Greenhouse Company in the Amling case because
the Amlings' claims arose after the closing date of the Agreement
from an event that occurred after the closing date of the
Agreement.

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant owes Plaintiff a
contractual duty to defend and indemnify Plaintiff against any
claims arising after the closing date of the Agreement. Defendant
has purportedly breached its contractual obligations by failing
to defend and indemnify Plaintiff against the Amlings' claims.
Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment that Defendant is
liable for all amounts expended by Plaintiff regarding National
Greenhouse Company in the Amling case.

In December 2017, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and asked
the Court to take judicial notice of certain documents, including
filings with the Colorado Secretary of State. Defendant argues
that it was not a party to the 1990 Agreement on which the
Complaint is based, as Defendant was not even incorporated until
1994. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff fails to plausibly
allege any basis for holding Defendant liable for claims based
entirely on the 1990 Agreement.

The Colorado Secretary of State documents show that, on January
12, 1994, Nexus Corporation (Old Nexus) changed its name to Leroy
Greenhouse Corporation (Leroy). On February 8, 1994, Defendant
was formed when it filed Articles of Incorporation. On September
30, 2004, the State of Colorado administratively dissolved Leroy.
The State of Colorado documents, of which the Court takes
judicial notice, demonstrate that Defendant was not a party to
the Agreement because Defendant was not incorporated until
several years after the Agreement was executed.

When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the
Court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, accepting all well-pleaded allegations as true and
construing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor.
However, the complaint must set forth facts that plausibly
demonstrate a claim for relief. A plausible claim is one that
alleges factual content from which the Court can reasonably infer
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Merely
reciting the elements of a cause of action or supporting claims
with conclusory statements is insufficient to state a cause of
action.

In response, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant is a proper party
because Defendant owns and operates National Greenhouse Company,
and it is a reasonable inference that the entity currently
operating National Greenhouse Company is a successor to any
liability of the entity that bought National Greenhouse Company
from Harrow in 1990. Alternatively, Plaintiff asserts that it
should be allowed discovery to determine how National Greenhouse
Company passed from Old Nexus to Defendant.

Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendant was a party to the
Agreement, alleging: that Defendant has owned and operated
National Greenhouse Company since its acquisition via the
Agreement; that Defendant agreed it would be liable for claims
arising after the closing date of the Agreement; that Plaintiff
and Defendant entered into a valid and enforceable contract); and
that Defendant owes Plaintiff a contractual duty under the
Agreement.

Plaintiff may be able to allege successor liability, but the
Complaint currently contains no allegations from which the Court
can reasonably infer that Defendant is liable under the Agreement
on a successor-liability theory.

Plaintiff argues that the allegation that Defendant owns and
operates National Greenhouse Company is sufficient to plausibly
allege successor liability. However, even if the Court infers
that Defendant purchased National Greenhouse Company at some
point, the general rule is that a corporation that purchases the
assets of another corporation is not liable for the latter
corporation's debts or liabilities.

While exceptions to this general rule exist, Plaintiff has not
alleged any facts from which the Court could infer that any of
those exceptions apply. A corporation that purchases the assets
of another is liable for that corporation's debts and liabilities
where: (a) the purchasing corporation explicitly or implicitly
assumes the debts and liabilities; (b) the transaction amounts to
a consolidation or merger; (c) the purchaser is merely a
continuation of the seller; or (d) the transaction is for the
fraudulent purpose of escaping liability for the seller's
obligations.

Because Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that Defendant is
liable for claims based on the Agreement, the Court granted
Defendant's Motion and granted Plaintiff leave to conduct limited
discovery and file an amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated February 21, 2018, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6ubxg7h from Leagle.com.

Harrow Industries LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff,
represented by Michael W. Drumke -- mdrumke@smbtrials.com --
Swanson Martin & Bell LLP & Adam H. Doeringer --
adoeringer@smbtrials.com -- Swanson Martin & Bell LLP.

Nexus Corporation, a Colorado Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Richard M. Scherer, Jr. -- rscherer@lippes.com -- Lippes
Mathias Wexler Friedman LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. Plenco Dismissed in "Lineberger"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Martin Reidinger of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina granted the parties' Joint Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed all of the Plaintiffs' claims against the
Defendant Plastics Engineering Company (d/b/a Plenco) and its
wholly owned subsidiaries from the case Tommy William Lineberger
and spouse Marcella Wilson Lineberger, Plaintiffs, v. CBS
Corporation, et al., Defendants, Civil Case No. 1:16-cv-00390-MR-
DLH, (W.D. N.C.), without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Order dated February 22, 2018, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9vvdlex from Leagle.com.

Tommy William Lineberger, and spouse & Marcella Wilson
Lineberger, Plaintiffs, represented by Sabrina G. Stone --
sstone@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac vice &
William M. Graham , Wallace & Graham.

CBS Corporation, f/k/a Viacom, Inc. (sued as successor-by-merger
to CBS Corporation f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation) and
also as successor-in-interest to BF Sturtevant, Defendant,
represented by Jennifer M. Techman -- jmtechman@ewhlaw.com --
Evert Weathersby Houff.

CNA Holdings, Inc., formerly known as Celanese Corporation,
formerly known as Hoechst Celanese Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Stephen B. Williamson, Van Winkle, Buck, Wall,
Starnes & Davis, P.A.

Georgia Pacific LLC, formerly known as Georgia Pacific
Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr. --
kkyre@pckb-law.com -- Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Asbestos Claims in "Davis" Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In 1984, John Davis, an Alabama resident, accepted a job working
for Louisiana-Pacific Corporation. After undergoing a pre-
employment physical examination in Eufaula, Alabama, Davis worked
exclusively at Louisiana-Pacific's Clayton, Alabama facility. In
March 1998, he voluntarily resigned and permanently moved to
Georgia. More than 17 years after he voluntarily resigned and
moved to Georgia, Davis was diagnosed with mesothelioma in May
2015. He exclusively received treatment for his mesothelioma
condition in Georgia.

Davis filed a claim for benefits with the Georgia State Board of
Workers' Compensation in August 2015. After Davis died as a
result of his condition the following month, his surviving
spouse, individually and on behalf of a minor child
("Appellant"), filed a claim for death and dependent benefits.
Neither Davis nor Appellant asserted a claim for benefits under
Alabama's workers' compensation system. The administrative law
judge and the State Board found that the Board did not have
jurisdiction, which was affirmed by the superior court.

Appellant argues that dismissal was improper because, under
Article 8 of the Act, specifically OCGA Section 34-9-281, the
Board has jurisdiction over all work-related injuries and deaths
that occur in Georgia. Although Davis was last exposed to
asbestos in Alabama, Appellant contends that his work-related
injury did not occur until he was diagnosed and became disabled,
both of which took place in Georgia, as did his work-related
death. In a related claim of error, Appellant contends that
general rules of statutory construction support his
interpretation.

"Where applicable, the Workers' Compensation Act provides the
exclusive remedy to an employee injured by accident arising out
of and in the course of the employment." The general provisions
of the Act apply to Article 8, Compensation for Occupational
Disease, "unless otherwise provided in or inconsistent with
[that] article."

OCGA Section 34-9-281 (a), on which Appellant relies, begins:
"Where the employer and employee are subject to this chapter, the
disablement or death of an employee resulting from an
occupational disease shall be treated as the occurrence of an
injury by accident; and the employee or, in the case of his or
her death, the employee's dependents shall be entitled to
compensation as provided by this chapter. The practice and
procedure prescribed in this chapter shall apply to all the
proceedings under this article except as otherwise
provided . . ."  Thus, OCGA Section 34-9-281 (a), by its own
terms, applies only where both the employer and employee are
subject to the Act.

In contrast, OCGA Section 34-9-242, located in Article 6, Payment
of Compensation, provides: "In the event an accident occurs while
the employee is employed elsewhere than in this state, which
accident would entitle him or his dependents to compensation if
it had occurred in this state, the employee or his dependents
shall be entitled to compensation if the contract of employment
was made in this state and if the employer's place of business or
the residence of the employee is in this state unless the
contract of employment was expressly for service exclusively
outside of this state. . . ." Thus, OCGA Section 34-9-242
includes a jurisdictional provision, unlike Article 8.

Appellant does not dispute that the contract of employment was
entered into in Alabama for service exclusively in that state.
Under the plain and ordinary meaning of OCGA Section 34-9-242, if
the "accident" occurred while Davis was employed in Alabama, he
does not meet the conditions of coverage under the Act.

Although Davis did not have a work-related "injury" under the Act
until his 2015 diagnosis and disablement in Georgia, the
"accident" that resulted in Davis' injury was his exposure to
asbestos while he was employed in Alabama. Thus, because the
contract of employment was also made in Alabama, OCGA Section 34-
9-242 excludes compensation for Davis' "injury" (his disablement
and death) under the Act. It follows that the Board did not err
by dismissing the claims for lack of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the of Court of Appeals of Georgia for the Second
Division affirmed the administrative law judge and the State
Board's finding that the Board did not have jurisdiction over the
appealed case Davis et al., v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., A17A1726,
(Ga.App. 2d).

A full-text copy of the Judge Reese's Decision dated February 27,
2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6vkblty from
Leagle.com.

Robert Cape Buck , for Appellant.

Juliana Y. Sleeper , for Appellant.

Trisha Elise Holland , for Appellee.

Marion George Waters IV , for Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Faces Suspension Over Asbestos Mess
------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Mountains Gazette reported that Local Government Minister
Gabrielle Upton has moved to suspend Blue Mountains Council for
the second time in two months following questions about a
conflict of interest in council's independent investigation into
asbestos management.

Council is set to have an extraordinary meeting on February 20 to
finalise a response to the Minister's notice to suspend council
for three months and appoint an interim administrator.

Council commissioned the independent investigations into asbestos
management and staff recruitment practices in November last year
after serious allegations were made against it, including
concerns about asbestos in a Mountains pre-school.

In a statement Ms Upton said: "It has now emerged that an
independent investigator engaged to oversee the investigation
appears to have had links to one of the council's senior staff
members subject to investigation.

"This independent investigation is critical to addressing serious
issues facing council. However, it seems that the
relationship . . . was not just professional, they were friends."

Her comments relate to chief investigator Michael Tooma, a
partner in the global law firm Clyde and Co, and his friendship
with acting Director of Service Delivery, Mark Mulligan.
Mr Tooma called Mr Mulligan a "good friend" in the foreword to
one of his textbooks and also gave him a glowing endorsement on a
professional social networking service. The information was
revealed by radio station 2GB.

Mark Mulligan was let go by the general manager Rosemary Dillon.
The status of the Tooma investigation is now under review and
council is seeking advice from the Office of Local Government
about how to best proceed.  

Ms Upton said the relationship was "a serious conflict of
interest and brings into question the council's governance and
due diligence practices".

But Mayor Mark Greenhill can not understand "how the actions of
an independent solicitor, not engaged directly by the council,
can lead to the suspension of democracy in the Blue Mountains".

"Council did its due diligence with him in writing through the
law firm that engaged him. They communicated formally about
conflicts of interest and relationships before the appointment.
This relationship with Mark Mulligan was not declared.

"Mr Tooma would have formed the view, in good faith, that it
wasn't an issue. But the point is, we asked the right questions
and did everything right. So it looks like the elected council is
being punished for something we didn't know about, even though we
had a robust process in place. How can we be responsible for an
answer we never received?"

Mayor Greenhill claimed there was "an ongoing campaign" against
council who had "complied with everything asked of it by SafeWork
NSW".

Mr Tooma told the Gazette he had "been engaged to conduct an
investigation in relation to very specific terms of reference.
Those terms span conduct by the council over a 15 year period. I
was first contacted in relation to that investigation on 9
November 2017 by McPhee Kelshaw".

"The incidents at the centre of my investigation occurred prior
to November 2017; in some cases, some years prior. All my terms
of reference relate to matters which occurred prior to 1 November
2017. My investigation is limited to council conduct and not the
conduct of third parties such as the numerous consultants engaged
over the previous 15 years in relation to asbestos issues.

"Mr Mulligan was employed by council on 1 November 2017. My terms
of reference do not and have never extended to his conduct . . .
Mr Mulligan's recruitment both as a consultant and as an employee
is the subject of a separate investigation by another firm. I
have had no involvement in that investigation."

Mr Tooma said he had interviewed 42 witnesses and reviewed more
than 2,500 documents, with regular briefings to SafeWork NSW and
the USU.

He added: "It would be a real shame if the affected workers are
robbed of the opportunity to have the findings of this
investigation as a result of inaccurate and misconceived
allegations."

A hotline [1800 291 051] has been set up to allow anyone with
information or concerns about council to report it directly to
the Office of Local Government. Reports can be made anonymously.

General manager Rosemary Dillon said in a message to staff the
decision to cease the employment of the acting director was made
"as part of the review of the current and future needs" of
council  "in consultation" with Mr Mulligan". She thanked him for
his work.

Meanwhile Greens councillor Kerry Brown will raise an urgency
motion at the extraordinary council meeting asking the general
manager to clarify the scope of the investigation by Mr Tooma and
whether or not it includes the many council contractors. It also
asks for a copy of Mr Tooma's declarations about his connections
with council members, the costs of the investigation and related
legal fees and the general manager's plans for a future
investigation.

'I think the public and councillors need to know the facts of
this independent investigation into council's asbestos management  
and whether it is undermined as is alleged by a conflict of
interest caused by Mr Tooma's prior connections with staff or
councillors.'

A council spokeswoman gave the following statement to Gazette
questions about the matter.

"Mark Mulligan's employment with BMCC was terminated on mutual
terms on February 12.

"Mark Mulligan's employment ceased prior to the allegation made
on 2GB regarding a potential conflict of interest relating to the
Tooma investigation, which aired on February 14.

"Both the mayor and general manager were shocked to hear the
revelation that the past professional association between the
independent investigator, Michael Tooma who was appointed to
conduct the investigation into asbestos management by BMCC, with
Mark Mulligan, former Acting Director Service Delivery.

"It is not been a matter that has been raised with either the
general manager, mayor or councillors before hearing it on the
Ray Hadley Morning Show on February 14.

"The status of the Tooma investigation is currently under review
and we are seeking advice from the Office of Local Government
about how to best proceed.  

"The cost of council's response to asbestos management, including
legal fees, are yet to be determined as there is ongoing work
required to remediate the Katoomba Waste Management Facility and
the former Blackheath landfill, and consideration of further
expansion of councils asbestos management program to address
illegal dumping; asbestos management operations -- including
asbestos response team staffing, and asbestos and hazardous
material capital works.

"Council currently has eight ongoing Improvement Notices or
Prohibition Orders issued by SafeWork as follows. All works
relating the Notices are in progress and in consultation and
agreement with SafeWork"

The results of the notices, the sites and the actions are:

   1. Improvement  Notice
      Lawson Mechanics Institute
      Ongoing health monitoring

   2. Improvement  Notice
      Katoomba Waste Management Facility
      Ongoing health monitoring

   3. Improvement  Notice
      Lawson Stockpile Site
      Health Monitoring

   4. Improvement  Notice
      BMCC
      Implementation of Asbestos Management Plan and Training

   5. Prohibition Notice
      Springwood Depot -- Amenities Building
      Remediation works to commence in February

   6. Prohibition Notice
      Springwood Depot -- Waste Services Office
      Remediation works to commence in February

   7. Prohibition Notice
      Katoomba Waste Management Facility  -- Building
      Clean-up work underway

   8. Prohibition Notice
      Katoomba Waste  Management Facility -- Platform
      Clean-up work underway


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Infested Mill Demolition to Commence
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Marquis of Lewiston Sun Journal reported that the Forster
Mill demolition in Wilton has begun.

Town Manager Rhonda Irish said more than 400 windows have been
removed in preparation for the demolition -- due to the asbestos
in the windows' caulking.

Acquired by the town in 2015, the mill has manufactured
automotive upholstery, wood products and plastic cutlery over its
more than 100 years in operation.

EnviroVantage of Epping, New Hampshire, submitted the winning
bid -- $48,225 -- for asbestos removal, and the winning bid --
$372,689 -- for building demolition bid.

The company has 90 days to complete the demolition.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bill Could Affect Asbestos Injury Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Abrahm Hurt of The Statehouse File reported that legislation
working its way through the Indiana General Assembly that would
limit asbestos lawsuits is a version of a model law crafted by
the American Legislative Exchange Council and pushed by the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce.

Testimony by proponents of House Bill 1061 told the Senate Civil
Law Committee said that the issue is about transparency and
fairness to those affected by asbestos.

But lawyer Kathy Farinas, who represents asbestos victims across
the state, said the bill is not needed because Indiana already
has a court that has effectively ruled on these cases for years.

The American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative
organization that writes state-level legislation for lawmakers
across the country, first developed the bill in 2007. The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, which lobbies on behalf of business
interests, has been traveling from state to state to urge
lawmakers to pass the proposed legislation.

Rep. Matt Lehman, R-Berne, who authored Indiana's version of the
bill, said the first part would look at Indiana's statute of
repose, which deals with when a claim can be filed by a plaintiff
in a liability case.

"Our law has been struck down by the courts," he said during
testimony. "The concern I have there is I do think it is the
responsibility of this legislative body to make public policy.
Not the judicial branch but the legislative branch."

The proposed law, which recommends a 10-year statute of repose,
would refer the timing of when a lawsuit can be filed to a summer
study committee.

Two other parts of the bill, if enacted, could have an immediate
impact on the Indiana cases pending in Marion Superior Court.
One would require plaintiffs, within 30 days, to file a form with
the court detailing any settlements they might have received from
the national trust funds set up when asbestos makers went
bankrupt decades ago. Current lawsuits have been directed against
other businesses whose employees might have become sickened by
asbestos exposure.

The other part of the bill would bar a plaintiff from filing a
lawsuit over asbestos exposure until they actually become sick.
Proponents said it would make sure that sick people get their
cases heard first.

Mark Behrens, who represents the U.S. Chamber Institute of Legal
Reform, said plaintiffs' attorneys delay filing trust claim forms
because they don't want the jury to hear about other asbestos
exposure they may have had.

"The average person with mesothelioma will file 20 different
trust claims and recover about a half a million dollars," Behrens
said during his testimony. "That is relevant information that the
jury should decide if a local small business is the defendant in
a case, but by delaying the filing of those claim forms they can
hide that information from the jury."

Behrens is also a lawyer for Shook, Hardy & Bacon in Washington
D.C. and co-chairs their public policy practice group.

Farinas said the legislation is not necessary because she is
already required to give the defendants the trust claims that she
files for her clients. She also disputed his claim that lawyers
delay filing trust claims to hide information from the businesses
being sued.

"We just firmly believe there's a big difference in what's
discoverable versus admissible and making these trust claim
documents prima fascia evidence of wrongdoing that goes to a jury
can only confuse them," she said.

Farinas said she is most concerned about efforts to change
Indiana's statute of repose to 10 years, which hurt her clients'
ability to sue to recover damages for asbestos exposure.

"Science shows that asbestos diseases will never show up within
the first 10 years from exposure," she said during her testimony.
Farinas said the bill also contains language that says a
physician is not allowed to diagnose an asbestos-related injury
unless 15 years have passed from exposure to diagnosis.

Farinas said the statute of repose portion of the bill is unique
to Indiana and not included in other states that have passed
similar legislation.

"This bill is a national model that is being, I like to say, a
square bill trying to be put in round Indiana hole," she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bestwall Objects to Committee Counsel Retention
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo of Madison County Record reported
that  Bestwall LLC, a unit of Georgia Pacific, objects to a
motion filed by asbestos claimants requesting the court
reconsider approval of its counsel in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceeding.

"In fact, the (claimants') arguments either are without legal
merit or are premised on misstatements or misunderstandings of
the facts," the debtor's Feb. 15 objection states.

Bestwall LLC, formerly part of Georgia Pacific LLC, filed a
voluntary petition for bankruptcy on Nov. 2 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina.

On Jan. 26, the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants filed an
omnibus motion to reconsider employing King & Spalding LLP of
Atlanta and Schachter Harris LLP of Irving, Texas as the debtors'
special counsel.

Local attorneys Beth A. Gori of Gori Julian & Associates PC in
Edwardsville and Andrew O'Brien of O'Brien Law Firm PC in St.
Louis are included on the committee of lawyers for claimants.

The committee alleges Bestwall was formed on July 31, 2017, as
part of a "very carefully planned and executed" restructuring
process by Georgia Pacific.

Georgia Pacific moved to Texas for less than a day to utilize the
state's divisive merger statute and spun off its asbestos
liabilities into Bestwall, a new company with limited assets,
claimants say.

"Specifically, the Debtor, an entity with no employees, certain
limited holdings valued by the Debtor at approximately $175
million, and a contractual right to certain payments under a
'Funding Agreement,' assumed liability for all of Old GP's
asbestos liabilities and domiciled itself in North Carolina less
than 100 days before the Petition Date in anticipation of a
bankruptcy filing," the motion states.

Then on Nov. 1, 2017, the day before its bankruptcy filing, the
debtor changed its name from Georgia Pacific to Bestwall.

"The sole issue in this case is the treatment of the Georgia-
Pacific Asbestos Liabilities. Indeed, from inception, the
Debtor's entire corporate purpose was to provide Old GP and New
GP with a resolution of the Georgia-Pacific Asbestos Liability
without Old GP or New GP being subjected to a bankruptcy filing.

Bestwall seeks to retain King & Spalding to assist with the
estimation trial, which has represented Old Georgia Pacific for
more than 13 years.

However, the committee argues that King & Spalding will be a
significant witness at any estimation trial based on its
"extensive knowledge concerning Old GP's businesses, former
asbestos-containing products, history related to asbestos
litigation, scientific research relating to issues arising in the
asbestos cases filed against Old GP, defenses to asbestos claims,
and both Old GP's and the Debtor's management of the defense and
settlement of asbestos claims."

The committee also argues that the firm's "role in connection
with pre-petition management of the debtors' asbestos liability
defense provides it with an interest that may be adverse to the
best interests of the debtor's estate."

The committee states that by arguing that Georgia Pacific's
settlement history has been tainted by withheld information, the
debtor has put at issue the approach Georgia Pacific used in
making decisions to settle asbestos related personal injury and
wrongful death claims.

"Central to Old GP's and the Debtor's decisions to address
asbestos claims through litigation, settlement, or otherwise will
be the conduct and advice of its counsel.

"Among other things, K&S' role in establishing settlement
protocols and values, including what was known or should or could
have been known in establishing such protocols and recommending
such settlement values, will be at issue in any estimation
trial," the motion states.

Further, the committee argues that any communications that would
have otherwise been subject to attorney-client privilege will
also be placed at issue.

"To state it plainly, K&S' settlement advice, its defense
strategy, and its management of trial counsel are likely to be at
issue in any estimation trial," the motion states.

"While the Committee has no information to suggest that K&S'
representation of Old GP and Bestwall in connection with the
Georgia-Pacific Asbestos Claims was less than superb, if the
investigation of other potential sources of recovery by Old GP
was deficient, it is possible that K&S' interests and the
interests of the Debtors' estate could conflict," it continues.

As for Schachter Harris, the motion states that Bestwall seeks to
retain the firm to assist with medical science expertise,
historical experience representing the debtor and technical
knowledge regarding expert testimony and discovery in asbestos
claims.

The committee argues that Schachter Harris' proposed services
regarding medical science expertise "are unnecessary and
irrelevant with regard to an estimation proceeding before this
Court."

"An estimation proceeding is not a process in which the Debtor
can globally re-litigate whether Georgia-Pacific's chrysotile-
containing products cause mesothelioma," the motion states. "Such
a determination is beyond the Court's jurisdiction."

The committee adds that Schachter Harris lawyers will also be
important fact witnesses regarding its services as National
Coordinating Counsel for Georgia Pacific in asbestos cases for
three years before the debtor entered bankruptcy proceedings.

The motion states that any estimation proceeding should
approximate as reliably as possible the amount Georgia Pacific
would have paid to dispose of asbestos claims absent Bestwall's
bankruptcy.

"Under applicable jurisprudence, this Court may not decide which
set of medical/science experts are correct on the issue of the
extent to which Georgia-Pacific's products caused or contributed
to the mesothelioma claims against Old GP/the Debtor," the motion
states.

The committee argues that Georgia Pacific's contention that
chrysotile asbestos does not contribute or cause mesothelioma and
its supporting medical science evidence are reflected in its
verdicts and settlements.

"The Debtor has neither contended that the plaintiffs presented
evidence relating to chrysotile which was hidden to them and as
to which they were unable to respond, nor asserted that there are
new developments in the independent medical or scientific
literature," the motion states. "Thus, the Court must take the
state of tort law as it exists and should not permit the Debtor
to attempt to use this Court to serve as a legislator or as an
alternative fact-finder to the state courts, which regularly
serve as finder of fact on this very issue."

Referencing the Garlock Sealing Technologies estimation
proceeding, the committee argues that the parties presented
extensive evidence on the medical science related to chrysotile
asbestos. However, the evidence was "ultimately proved
irrelevant" to the court's estimation holdings, the motion
states.
Garlock sought bankruptcy protection to escape increasing
settlement awards and jury verdicts, which it blamed on plaintiff
attorneys who were allegedly withholding evidence of other
company culpability.

U.S. District Judge George Hodges agreed, finding that the amount
of previous awards and settlements paid by Garlock in the civil
justice system were not reliable because plaintiffs' attorneys
had withheld evidence of their clients' exposure to asbestos-
containing products manufactured by other companies in order to
maximize recovery against Garlock.

Bestwall attorney Garland Cassada of Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson
of Charlotte, N.C. filed an objection to the motion to
reconsider, arguing that "denying the debtor access to
representation of its choice, including by curtailing the role of
such counsel, requires compelling justification. Here, the ACC
has offered no valid factual or legal justification for that
relief, much less a compelling one."

It further argues that the committee's motion is an attack on its
legal team.

"Far from seeking to remedy any actual and identified risks
associated with the Professionals' retention by the Debtor, the
Motion instead is a transparent attempt to hamstring the Debtor's
ability to pursue an estimation proceeding in the event that one
is needed."

Casada wrote that Bestwall is "committed to pursuing a prompt and
consensual resolution" in determining the debtor's liability.
However, he notes that an estimation trial is typical.

He adds that Bestwall has no reason to believe attorneys with the
two firms will be called as witnesses, as their testimonies are
not necessary.
Casada argues that attorneys with King & Spalding and Schachter
Harris did not serve in the roles the committee alleges.
Therefore, attorneys with the firms are not qualified to testify
to the matters raised in the committee's motion.

As for the committee's argument over medical and science
evidence, the debtor argues that such evidence has been an
important part to estimation proceedings in similar bankruptcy
cases.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos on Del. 141 Bridge Cost Extra Millions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Baker of The News Journal reported that a mistake in the
design of the Del. 141 bridge renovation in New Castle has added
an extra million dollars to the price of the long-delayed
project, and the principal highway now is "unlikely" to reopen,
as state officials just weeks ago had hoped.

Last March, the Delaware Department of Transportation awarded to
Mumford and Miller Concrete Inc. a contract to rebuild the
crumbling Del. 141 bridge over U.S. 13. The company's winning bid
valued the project at $15.6 million -- about $4 million, or 35
percent, above a state estimate.

Plans called for replacing the concrete deck, widening its
sidewalk on the northbound side, removing the narrow walkway on
the southbound side, and jacking up the span to increase its
clearance above U.S. 13.

The bridge deck at the time was dotted with potholes and exposed
rebar, and its substructure bore wounds from collisions with
oversized trucks below.

With the contract awarded, the work was set to begin during the
summer and it would close the 4-lane artery between New Castle
and Newport for 45 days. The highway carried about 78,000
vehicles daily, according to a 2012 estimate.

With scheduling delays, the project didn't begin until the fall.
Still, the state promised a quick turnaround as the contractor
would use a cutting-edge construction technique, which involved
replacing the old bridge deck with precast concrete slabs, sewn
together with an extra strong bonding material, called ultra-high
performance concrete.

By Thanksgiving, the bridge would reopen, the Delaware Department
of Transportation had said.

Yet a toxic discovery derailed those plans. Soon after partial
demolition commenced on Oct. 9, workers slicing into the old
structure discovered an asbestos conduit lying underneath its
sidewalk.
Work stopped, and change orders with new price tags were filed.

Meanwhile, construction detours were sending thousands of
vehicles daily onto residential streets in Wilmington Manor and
elsewhere.

The existence of the asbestos had not been documented in plans
drawn up by the project design company, McCormick Taylor,
according to DelDOT -- though it should not have been a surprise.

The original 1950s-era blueprints identified the asbestos
conduit, which had been installed within the bridge structure to
hold electrical wires for lighting. McCormick Taylor planners
should have referenced those documents, according to DelDOT.

State transportation officials also had approved the design plan
before it went to Mumford and Miller to begin the work.

Reached by phone, a McCormick Taylor employee said the company
could not comment as the project designer was not available.

Ultimately, crews removed the asbestos, construction resumed, and
in January DelDOT spokesman C.R. McLeod said the bridge should
reopen by the middle of February.

Yet, that is unlikely, he said.

"Unfortunately, no completion date of bridge deck to share yet,"
McLeod said in an email. "Completion of the Ultra-High
Performance Concrete (UHPC) placement is what is driving the
overall schedule at this point, and is totally dependent on
weather conditions. Warm weather will help expedite this work."

While project delays, to date, have added nearly a million
dollars to its costs, no final price tag has been calculated, he
said.

If DelDOT officials decided it is warranted, they could file an
errors and omissions claim against McCormick Taylor to recoup the
additional costs, McLeod said in December.

DelDOT could not provide additional details to the public about a
potential claim, McLeod said, "beyond we are pursuing."

After the span reopens, Mumford and Miller will start a
corresponding construction project on the segment of roadway that
approaches the bridge. Weekend closures will be required for the
work.

Crews also will paint the bridge.  


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Mine Secures $14MM for Reopening
----------------------------------------------------------
Walter Mswazie Masvingo of The Herald reported that a Mashaba
Asbestos Mine in Mashava is set to reopen after the firm managed
to mobilise $14 million for recapitalisation, amid indications
that more than 1 400 direct jobs will be created when operations
reach full throttle.

The company is part of Shabanie-Mashaba Mine, which was
Zimbabwe's sole asbestos producer before operations stopped more
than 10 years ago.

The new administration led by President Mnangagwa has been
working round the clock to re-open big companies such as Mashaba
Mine that have potential to earn millions of dollars in hard
currency through exports and creating thousands of jobs directly
and indirectly.

Mashaba Mine chief executive Mr Chirandu Dhlambeu revealed they
had secured part of the $53 million required to fully
recapitalise the mine.

He was addressing a delegation led by Masvingo Provincial Affairs
Minister Senator Josaya Hungwe that toured the mine.

Mr Dhlambeu said Mashaba Mine's reopening would contribute
immensely to the economic development of Masvingo and the
national economy at large once full operations resume.

He said demand for asbestos remained high on the international
market after some traditional fibre producers stopped output of
the mineral.

"We only need $20 million to kick-start operations at Mashaba
Mine, said Mr Dhlambeu.

"We would be operating at 50 percent capacity due to financial
constraints, then increase as we are fully recapitalised.

"Before any further exploration, the ore at King Mine here in
Mashava will enable us to produce 75 000 tonnes of fibre per
year.

"The ore that is there can sustain the mine for the next 17
years. We are confident that the new political dispensation will
allow Mashaba Mine to return to its yesteryear glory.

Mr Dhlembeu said the asbestos ore at Mashaba Mine had many other
minerals that could be tapped to support its recapitalisation.

Some of the minerals were being sold to sustain the skeletal
staff presently working at the closed mine.

"We have nickel, chrome, manganese seams within Mashava," said Mr
Dhlambeu.

"We also have our dump site where we can produce the fibre that
we want and we will be able to export it to get the much-needed
foreign currency.

"We have also raised some of the required capital from our
tenants such as the Great Zimbabwe University. We have so far
raised $4 million and we are planning to raise more money through
sale of residential land here in Mashava."

Masvingo Provincial Affairs Minister Senator Hungwe hailed
Mashaba Mine staff for their efforts towards the resuscitation of
the mine.

"I am happy with the strides that you are making to see our mine
working again, said Minister Hungwe.

"President Mnangagwa has asked us to identify sectors we feel
need to be urgently resuscitated for our people to get employment
here in Masvingo and Mashaba was our first company.

We also have Cold Storage Company that is lying idle in Masvingo
city."
Sen Hungwe said CSC would be recapitalised by the National Social
Security Authority soon.

"NSSA will pour money into CSC and I am told by the management of
the company here that it needs about $14 million to resume full
operations," he said.

Mashaba Mine is undergoing de-watering to enable production to
resume in the waterlogged shafts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mich. Solons to Introduce Asbestos Legislation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Detroit Free Press reported that a bipartisan group of lawmakers
plans to introduce legislation in the Michigan House of
Representatives to get tougher on contractors who expose workers
and the environment to deadly asbestos fibers.

The package of bills was prompted in part by a series of stories
in the Detroit Free Press in 2016 and 2017 that found weak
enforcement of workplace safety laws and a "lack of oversight" of
demolition contractors by the City of Detroit, which has been
knocking down thousands of abandoned homes in the largest blight
removal project in the country.

State Rep. Stephanie Chang, D-Detroit, lead lawmaker on the
bills, said the proposed changes in state law would help protect
neighborhood residents and construction workers from the health
hazards of mishandled asbestos.

Among other things, the bills would:

   * Require public agencies to do background checks before
hiring an asbestos abatement contractor. Those with recent
criminal convictions related to environmental or safety
violations would be barred from working.

   * Require contractors bidding on public projects to disclose
any state or federal environmental violations within the last
five years.

   * Allow public agencies to withhold payments to contractors
who receive more than five environmental violation notices in the
last year until they prove they have remedied the situation.

The legislation also seeks tougher penalties for workplace safety
violations, would allow the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality to collect a fee to finance asbestos inspectors and would
require DEQ to file a yearly report on asbestos inspector
staffing levels.

"What I'm hoping for is a little bit more accountability and
transparency when it comes to contracting," Chang said. "The hope
is that this will help improve the process for making sure we
have environmentally sound practices for abating asbestos. ...
Given the high numbers of abatement projects that are going on, I
wanted to protect public health so that people can be sure that
when blight is being addressed in their neighborhood, they're not
also going to be breathing in asbestos."

Melanie Brown, a DEQ spokeswoman, said the department appreciates
"Representative Chang's leadership on developing a bipartisan
solution to assure that asbestos removal and disposal is
conducted safely across the state. We look forward to continuing
to work with the bill sponsors and others throughout the
process."

Chang credited the Free Press with exposing problems with
enforcement of state and federal laws meant to protect workers
and the environment from asbestos. There is no known safe level
of exposure to the fibers, which can cause lung disease and
cancer.
In 2016, a Free Press investigation found the Michigan
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA), the
state's workplace safety agency, rarely got tough on employers
who exposed their workers to asbestos.The newspaper's analysis of
4,000 violations over seven years found that 96% resulted in
penalties of $1,000 or less. And during that same period,
employers were issued zero penalties in two-thirds of violations
in which safety issues were involved.

The Free Press also found dozens of cases of unlicensed
contractors and untrained workers who had removed asbestos
improperly, including residents of a Bay City homeless shelter.
They were not given proper clothing or respirators.

In another case, untrained workers scrapped a former Consumers
Energy plant near Kalamazoo, causing what federal prosecutors say
may have been the largest release of asbestos in Michigan in four
decades -- more than 600 cubic yards.  

Compared with MIOSHA, federal OSHA assessed two or three times as
much in penalties for the worst asbestos violations, the Free
Press found. Michigan is one of 22 states and territories that
has its own workplace safety agency for both private and
government workers. OSHA  covers private sector workers in the
remaining states.

Last year, the Free Press reported that the DEQ had found dozens
of properties where asbestos had been mishandled by contractors
tearing down thousands of abandoned buildings for the City of
Detroit.

Since 2014, when Mayor Mike Duggan took office and launched his
ambitious push to tear down 40,000 empty buildings, DEQ
inspectors found violations at more than 100 properties,
including dusty bags stuffed with asbestos siding and tossed into
a garbage bin, and pulverized asbestos-containing floor tiles
left in a pile of construction debris.

DEQ inspects only a small sample -- between 8% and 10% of sites
targeted for asbestos abatement or demolition. Its findings
suggested the possibility of a larger problem with demolitions in
Detroit.  

DEQ faulted the city for a "lack of oversight" of its
contractors. As the property owner, the city is as responsible
for asbestos violations as its contractors.

The Free Press also found that Detroit hired a demolition
contractor a month after federal prosecutors accused him of
exposing his workers and the children of a southwest Detroit
neighborhood to asbestos. The city ended up suspending the
contractor after DEQ found multiple violations at his sites.
A spokesman for the Department of Licensing and Regulatory
Affairs, which includes MIOSHA, said it doesn't make specific
comments on pending legislation.

Other sponsors of the legislation are Reps. LaTanya Garrett, D-
Detroit; Gary Howell, R-North Branch and chair of the House
Natural Resources Committee; David Maturen, R-Brady Township;
Bill Sowerby, D-Clinton Township; and Scott VanSingel, R-Grant.

Howell said he has asked that the legislation be referred to the
Natural Resources Committee.

"My plan is to give the bills a full hearing," Howell said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Back to Back Asbestos Surveys for Fire Station
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Saltzberg of Martha's Vineyard Times reported that
Chilmark's primary fire station had two asbestos surveys done by
two different environmental firms.

Since the initial Times report on Feb 2, ("Threat of asbestos
haunts Chilmark's fire station,") concern has grown among town
officials about potential asbestos pollution from Transite-type
boards that extensively panel the station's vehicle bays.

On Feb. 6, Chilmark selectmen voted unanimously to hire a
"hazardous materials" inspector.  FLI Environmental of Dedham was
chosen to do the work, and an FLI inspector surveyed the fire
station on Feb. 14. Company president David McDonald said FLI
expects to have results immediately.

Independently, the firefighter's association had voted on Feb 5.
to hire an asbestos inspector from Kansas-based Terracon
Consultants. The association acted independently due to concerns
about potential health hazards in the station and the perceived
indifference of the board of selectmen.

On Feb. 15, an inspector from Terracon surveyed the fire station.
Chilmark fire department officials noted that the inspection
included the testing of linoleum flooring on the second floor of
the station that may have been installed with an asbestos-
containing adhesive. The results of the Terracon inspection
should be ready by Feb. 23, or Feb. 26, fire department officials
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tonnes of Asbestos Dumped at Essex Roadside
------------------------------------------------------------
Piers Meyler of Essex Live reported that a furious resident has
blasted "morons" who have flytipped an estimated three tonnes of
asbestos, potentially threatening the lives of anyone who drives
through it.

Jeff Forkes contacted both Essex County Council and Brentwood
Borough Council on February 15 to alert them to the dangers of
the rapidly disintegrating asbestos dumped along Murthering Lane,
Navestock -- yet after the weekend, it remained on the roadside.

The area is a notorious spot for fly tipping and one, that
according to Mr Forkes, is being turned into the "pits of Essex"
after offenders repeatedly return without impunity.

Jeff, who has lived in Murthering Lane for 20 years, has
catalogued a number of incidents but claims the most recent
episode threatens to cause a lasting health hazard for years to
come.

He said: "Flytipping inert material is one thing but tonnes of
asbestos in the road is another. It is toxic waste.
"Someone is going to die because of this."

He said that although the relevant authorities have been made
aware of the problem, cars are routinely driving over the bags of
roofing asbestos, crushing it into dust.

Jeff added: "I've told them that instead of having to clear up
sheets, you are going to have millions of particles and as soon
as it dries out, it is going to go to dust and we'll all be
breathing it in.

"We are actually looking at it in the road, illegally dumped by
some moron and being driven over and turned to dust.

"Whoever has done this has chucked it out of the back of a van as
they go along and when the summer comes and it all dried out,
you'll have billions of asbestos particles floating around.

"It'll be impossible to clear up -- it will lay in the verges and
on road surfaces and then it'll puff up in a cloud of dust when
someone is driving with the window down.

"Common sense wold be to clear it up now."

Brentwood Borough Council respond

A Brentwood Borough Council spokeswoman said: "Brentwood Borough
Council is fully aware of the asbestos roofing which has been
illegally dumped in Muthering Lane and would respectfully ask
residents to avoid the immediate area where the waste has been
abandoned.

"Officers estimate that around three tonnes of waste has been fly
tipped, and have taken steps to ensure its safe removal. As part
of this action, officers will be investigating for any
information that may help identify the perpetrators with a view
to taking legal action against them."

Vice chair of the council's environment and enforcement
committee, Councillor Thomas Bridge, added: "It's breathtaking
that people can be so utterly irresponsible and wreckless as to
fly dump at all -- let alone fly dump asbestos.

"No doubt this illegal action has been taken by criminals who do
not want to pay the high cost of properly and legally disposing
of asbestos. Our officers are rightly following procedure for the
removal of this type of waste.

"This is not a job that can be done by council workers and
requires a specialist contractor. Unfortunately this will be at a
significant cost to the council and therefore our residents."

Brentwood Borough Council say that officers have sought a number
of quotes from specialist companies and a quotation has now been
secured.

It is thought that the contractor will undertake the removal as
soon as necessary paperwork is in place.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stop Work Order Issued Over Asbestos Scare
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Sunshine Coast Daily reported that a stop work order has been
made at a beachfront demolition site until authorities are
satisfied all asbestos has been properly disposed.

Residents at Club Beach resort in Alexandra Headland were
evacuated at short notice due to building collapse concerns at a
neighbouring unit block.

Workers from licensed firm Paterson Demolition and Recycling had
been removing asbestos when the alarm was raised about the
building's structural integrity.

Workplace Health and Safety Queensland officers and a Sunshine
Coast Council structural engineer watched on as a section of the
building was bashed down with an excavator so it wouldn't fall of
its own accord.

Residents returned to their homes about 6pm, about two hours
after being asked to leave.

"All asbestos in the front of the building had been removed prior
to the emergency demolition, which was necessary after an
incident rendered the foundations unsafe and threatened a
neighbouring property," a Workplace Health and Safety Queensland
spokesman said.

"Asbestos in other parts of the building is bonded and stable and
will be removed as a priority."

He said there was a minimal risk of exposure to asbestos and an
inspector was monitoring the situation.

"Workplace Health and Safety Queensland has taken enforcement
action against the persons conducting a business or undertaking
(demolition company) and a prohibition notice has been issued to
stop work on the site until all suspected asbestos is identified
and removed."

He said the demolition would continue once Paterson Demolition
and Recycling had complied with enforcement actions.

Paterson Demolition and Recycling was contacted for comment but
did not respond.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Has Tea Room Exposed to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniella White of The Canberra Times reported that wards persons
and hospital assistants at Canberra Hospital say their
relationship with management has hit rock bottom, amid concerns
their tiny tea room is an asbestos risk.

The Health Services Union claims the workers have faced "ongoing
bullying" from upper management who have shown a lack of respect
to the essential staff.

The union says about 190 workers are using a tiny, poorly
maintained tea room -- formally a supervisor's office -- which
doesn't have basic amenities like running water, but is exposed
to asbestos flooring.

ACT Health says a visual test was completed by an independent
party but the union wants a sample taken.

HSU NSW/ACT Secretary Gerard Hayes said an HSU site inspection,
conducted after workers had been already moved by hospital
management, had identified a possible risk of asbestos exposure
from the glue used in the room's tile floor.

Mr Hayes said ward services staff, including wards persons and
hospital assistants, were given just one week's notice of the
move.  Workers who were on leave were initially told to come back
to work to clean out their lockers before the staff room was
moved.

"In its undue haste to clear out the old staff room, hospital
management has shown no regard for the needs or safety of its
employees," he said.

"Now we have a situation where workers are frustrated at the
conditions in which they have to work, angry at the way they have
been treated, and concerned about their own health and safety.

"What's more, the hospital is due to be accredited in the next
few weeks, so it cannot afford to be making sloppy mistakes.

"All of this could have been avoided with better communication
and a little bit of respect."

Sarah Gleeson, from HSU ACT, said the workers -- whose roles
included restraining patients when nurses or doctors were at risk
and performing CPR on children -- deserved a proper tea room.

"Their job is a really emotionally demanding one, they are on
foot all day and often dealing with very volatile patients," Ms
Gleeson said.

"The alternative they gave was that they could use management's
tea room.

"Based on the inappropriate and aggressive responses I've seen
from high level management, we would not want them so closely
located with management."  

A Canberra Hospital wards person said staff felt like they were
being treated like "scum, mold and trash" by management.

"[Our relationship with management] has hit rock bottom," he
said.

"We feel no appreciation for what we do, the only people who
comment on how well we perform are patients or nursing staff,
never from management.

"We'd like a written apology and we'd like some consultation
involvement in future for changes that affect us.

"There have been multiple occasions where management don't inform
us of changes until they are happening in the hospital."

ACT Health says an independent visual inspection was completed on
January 22 rated the room as "normal" and found the likelihood of
"no exposure to airborne asbestos under normal building use".

"The health and safety of staff, patients and visitors at
Canberra Hospital, and all ACT Health facilities, is incredibly
important to ACT Health and we take our responsibilities very
seriously.

"ACT Health acknowledge the presence of asbestos in some of our
buildings given the age profile of these buildings constructed in
the late 1960s and early 1970s.

"The temporary relocation of staff members from one side of a
corridor to the other side is required to accommodate essential
infrastructure upgrades to ensure that ACT Health continues to
deliver the high quality services that the community expect.

"ACT Health, through its Health Infrastructure Services division,
will continue to review its consultation process to ensure all
impacted staff, patients and visitors are kept informed of
disruptions arising from necessary ongoing improvement works at
the Canberra Hospital."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Misleading Asbestos Signs Posted on BC Campus
--------------------------------------------------------------
Radhika Viswanathan of The Excelsior reported that it's hard to
miss the signs posted around campus notifying students of
asbestos abatement projects. Most recently, they have been
displayed on doors in the Library Cafe, Ingersoll Hall, Whitehead
Hall, Boylan Hall, and Whitman Theatre, causing many students to
be worried about the health consequences of these abatement
projects--after all, everyone has seen those mesothelioma
advertisements listing the dangers of asbestos over ominous
music.

According to Francis Fitzgerald, Brooklyn College's assistant
vice president of facilities planning and operations, there are
no asbestos abatement projects currently happening.

So why the notices?

Due to guidelines by the Office of Environmental Health and
Safety, these notices must be placed for the entire duration of
any construction project, of which the actual asbestos removal
might only be a small portion.

"For instance, an abatement notice posted on June 1 may require
work to be completed by Oct. 31, but the actual work takes three
days and is completed by Sept. 1," Fitzgerald wrote in an email.
"It's very project-dependent."

The amount of time it requires to remove the asbestos depends on
how complex the project is, and can range from one day to several
weeks.

Asbestos is a generic name for group of minerals that resist heat
and corrosion very well, and therefore used to be very popular
for construction projects. However, these minerals turned out to
be serious health hazards; they have tiny fibers that, when
directly breathed in, cause scar tissue in the lungs. This
scarring leads to decreased lung function and can even cause lung
cancer. When this cancer affects the mesothelial tissue, which
lines several of your organs, it is called mesothelioma.

According to the United States Department of Occupational Safety
and Health Administration, "Asbestos exposures as short in
duration as a few days have caused mesothelioma in humans."

In 1989, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a ban on
asbestos use. However, because asbestos is only dangerous when
directly inhaled, asbestos that is already safely contained in
construction is not generally removed.

"Wholesale removal of all asbestos-containing building materials
is not our objective nor is it recommended by anyone in the field
of health and safety," Fitzgerald wrote in an email. "If
asbestos-containing material is in good condition, it is safest
to leave it in place."

The Office of Environmental Health and Safety at Brooklyn College
monitors asbestos conditions on campus. And when buildings on
campus undergo construction or repair that would disturb these
contained minerals, third-party firms are contracted to remove
the asbestos and measure the air around these construction
projects to ensure that there are no fibers.

The office's website lists all precautions that are taken when
these projects worked on; for example, contractors use a
"negative air" machine that suctions the air through special
filters that remove all asbestos particles. As a result of these
measures, they declare that it is safe to be in a building while
abatement is happening.

Long story short, if you see asbestos abatement notices, there's
no need to pull out a mouth mask.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Test Reveals Asbestos in Jail Office Equipment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Jechow and David Barer of KXAN.com reported that testing in
the old Bastrop County jail has found asbestos in dust on office
equipment but no airborne asbestos fibers, according to a
statement from the County Judge and records obtained by KXAN.

On Feb. 13, employees in the historic jail building, used for
county offices, were told to leave the building after plaster
containing a "small percentage of asbestos" was loosened and
displaced, causing a health and safety concern, according to a
statement from County Judge Paul Pape.

The county contracted with asbestos specialists to have the
interior air and dust on some office equipment tested. Through
the Texas Public Information Act, KXAN requested all recent
asbestos tests for the building. Samples gathered from office
equipment in the Civil Processes Office found asbestos-containing
dust on three of five items tested, including a deputies' office
printer, a coffee machine and an "office wall hanging." The
asbestos test report is dated Feb. 16.

Pape's news release mentions the negative airborne asbestos test,
but it does not specifically mention the tests the county paid
for that show some office dust did contain asbestos. Pape does
not mention the asbestos-containing dust in a Feb. 14 statement,
either.

The old jail at 801 Pine St., just next to the Bastrop County
Courthouse, was built in the 1890s and suffered damage from
Hurricane Harvey in August, necessitating the repairs that led to
the asbestos concern. It was not until Jan. 29 that the building
was initially tested. The test results came back on Feb. 13, and
then the building was emptied.

All offices shuttered by the closure have now reopened in
different facilities. Judge Pape said Indigent Health Care and
Prescription Assistance are at the Tuck Building, 104 Chestnut
St., in Bastrop. Civil Process staff are working out of temporary
offices in the jail complex and arrangements have been made to
hold juries in other rooms of the courthouse.

Following the air test, the county says trained workers were able
to clean and remove much of the furniture and fixtures from the
offices as well as work items such as computers, files and desk
contents.

While the county comes up with a plan to get rid of the asbestos
in the wall plaster and flooring, the historic jail will remain
closed and off-limits. Because the offices have been relocated,
Pape said there is no deadline for the work to be done.

The county judge says the Commissioners Court will consider
options and a plan will be developed in the near future.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenants Told to Vacate Bldg Due to Asbestos
------------------------------------------------------------
Aleanna Siacon of Detroit Free Press reported that tenants of the
Village Plaza in Dearborn are scrambling to find new space after
being forced out of the 285,468-square-foot office building
because of safety issues.

One tenant, Michael Bsharah, founder and CEO of Bsharah Public
Relations, said he was told to "vacate the building immediately,"
due to issues involving "asbestos and fire retardant."

However, Michael Hamame of Village Plaza's management company,
Cambridge Real Estate, said while there is asbestos contained in
fire retardant on the upper floors, that isn't the primary reason
tenants are being asked to leave the building at Michigan Avenue
and Outer Drive.

Hamame said a broken pipe caused damage and they need to shut
down the building's heating and cooling system to make fixes. He
said the situation is temporary.

Bsharah told the Free Press that he received a letter from
Cambridge ordering tenants to leave.

The building has been under renovation for the last year, Bsharah
said, but he was unaware of asbestos or other contaminants until
he received the letter.

"For the management company to not inform tenants or potential
tenants is a problem," said Bsharah, who plans to move out
permanently.

"Doing what I do for a living, particularly, not to be direct and
honest about a potential crisis or a potential hazardous
situation is unethical and just plain bad business."

Hamame said the order to vacate came because of the broken pipe,
not because of citations from the state of Michigan regarding
asbestos.

Jeannie Vogel, spokeswoman for the Department of Licensing and
Regulatory Affairs, confirmed that a health and safety inspection
was conducted in June, but no citations were issued.

"However, as required by the Michigan Asbestos Abatement
Contractors Licensing Act (1986 PA 135), Sloan Environmental
Services provided MIOSHA with notification of an asbestos
abatement project at the site, which is scheduled to begin on
2/28/2018 and end on 6/29/2018," Vogel said in an e-mailed
statement.

Sloan Environmental Services is scheduled to remove 125,000
square feet of asbestos-containing material from the site, she
said.

In most buildings built before 1975, Hamame said, there is fire
retardant that contains asbestos.

"[Asbestos in fire retardant] to our understanding is OK, as long
as it is encapsulated, which it is," he said. "We bring in an
environmental company to scrape and clean up any contaminated
material."

According to the letter, broken pipes caused extensive water
damage starting on the 10th floor and trickling downward, but the
areas that were affected were unoccupied.

The letter also noted that undisturbed asbestos is not harmful
but said a state of Michigan representative and certified
consultants noted that some of the contained asbestos was
displaced by the water damage and affected areas need to be
cleaned.

"Environmental consultants did observe some areas where spray-on
asbestos fireproofing had fallen on the 10th floor and 4th floor.
We are presently unaware of any asbestos release which directly
impacts your space, although once the cleaning processes commence
this could be a possibility," the letter said.

Hamame said each lease is different, but tenants won't be charged
for the time the space is not being used.

Attorney Eugene Smith, whose leased an office on the second floor
for about 11 months, said management generally has been good
about maintaining the building. Still, the evacuation has been a
little disruptive, he said.

"The likelihood of me moving out and moving back is slim," Smith
said. "I mean if I find another suitable location, why would I
move back?"


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter Names Copes Vulcan, et al., in Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of Madison-St. Claire Record reported that a
woman alleges her father's cancer was caused by his exposure to
asbestos during his career.

Jacqueline Norful, individually and as special administrator of
the estate of Wymon Norful, filed a complaint on Feb. 6 in the
St. Clair County Circuit Court against Copes Vulcan Inc., Foster
Wheeler Corp., Honeywell International Inc., et al. alleging
negligence.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that at various
times during plaintiff's decedent Wymon Norful's work as a
security guard from 1966 to 1997, he was exposed to and inhaled
or ingested asbestos fibers emanating from certain products
manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by defendants. The
suit states that on or about Sept. 1, 2017, the decedent first
became aware that he developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced
disease, and that it was wrongfully caused. He died on Nov. 16,
2017, the suit states.

The plaintiff holds Copes Vulcan Inc., Foster Wheeler Corp.,
Honeywell International Inc., et al. responsible because the
defendants allegedly negligently included asbestos fibers in
their products when adequate substitutes were available and
failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions concerning
the dangers of working with or around products containing
asbestos fibers.

The plaintiff and seeks compensatory, exemplary and punitive
damages of more than $50,000. She is represented by Randy L. Gori
of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 18-L-84


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP350K OK'd for Nottingham Asbestos Removal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Barlow of Nottingham Post reported that something has to be
done. It's a waste of space if it's not used for anything. It's
got to be done with care to not affect the people that live right
next door'.

Hundreds of thousands of pounds will be spent as part of a
project to remove asbestos from a derelict city primary school.

The former Elms Primary school, in Cranmer Street, St Ann's,
dates back from the 1940s and was built at the time to reflect a
rising demand for school places.

But it closed in August 2008 as part of a shape-up in the
organisation of schools in the St Ann's area to reduce surplus
spaces. The building has remained vacant since.

In June last year, Nottingham City Council awarded a contract to
a firm to remove asbestos and partially demolish the school and
its caretakers' house -- subject to the work costing a total of
GBP500,000.

But, after work started to remove the notorious mineral,
additional asbestos was found "in underground ducts and voids
that were previously inaccessible or unidentified".

And now the council has approved an extra GBP350,000 to get rid
of it.

Maureen Ball, 78, of nearby Fothergill Court, Mapperley Road, a
retired mental health worker, said: "It would be a good thing.
It's the process [of the work] that would be worrying, how they
deal with it. I do know about asbestos and that it can cause lung
problems.

"Something has to be done. It's a waste of space if it's not used
for anything. It's got to be done with care to not affect the
people that live right next door. I walk past the site but
there's a lot of overgrowth and fencing."

Asbestos, a mineral that doesn't burn, is commonly found in
buildings made or refurbished before the year 2000.

It was banned as a building material in 1999, but still causes
around 5,000 deaths each year.

Cost of excluding pupils from city schools tops more than GBP5m
After asbestos is identified, it is usually protected, enclosed
and left alone -- as long as it's not damaged.

But, if its fibres are inhaled, it can cause fatal lung
conditions and cancer, which commonly only develop years after
exposure.
Susan Redgate, deputy manager of the Headway brain association in
Plains Road, said the asbestos needed "taking out".

"People [living nearby] would worry, it's a natural thing. When
something like that is going on that involves something thats
potentially hazardous to your health, people naturally would
worry about it," she added.

After a GBP500,000 contract was agreed to carry out work on the
school site last year, council documents show that after a survey
was carried out additional asbestos was found on the site -- and
the cost of removal was increased by GBP55,000.

The anticipated cost of demolition was also raised.

The documents read: "Historic England have raised concerns with
the council's partial demolition proposal, this is likely to
result in possible delays on site to the start of demolition
works increasing security costs.

"It is now anticipated that the proposed partial demolition,
including additional security costs, fees and contingency will be
in the order of GBP295,000."

The authority has agreed to release an extra GBP350,000 --
meaning the entire project would cost GBP850,000.

Sarah Walters, fundraising development worker at Derbyshire
Asbestos Support, which works to help people affected by
asbestos-related diseases in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, said
they are regularly seeing ex-teachers who are being diagnosed
with Mesothelioma.

Mesothelioma is a cancer and can result from low-level exposure
to asbestos -- it still has no cure.

"It's caused by exposure to asbestos fibres. We have a few
teachers who were exposed in their workplace, in classrooms," she
said.

"Sometimes we have [seen cases when] ceiling tiles containing
asbestos came loose and fibres showers into the classroom.

"It just seems to be a lottery. One of them will go onto develop
the disease and another will not. A lot of the time boiler rooms
are found with asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Fined for Dumping Asbestos Near Water Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Gray of NEWS.com.au reported that a man has copped a $7500
fine for dumping a load of waste mixed with asbestos next to a
water plant in regional NSW.

The man from Perthville was fined after he was caught on CCTV
off-loading the asbestos outside the Bathurst Water Filtration
Plant in September 2017.

NSW Environment Protection Agency spokesman Sandie Jones said the
cost of disposing of the asbestos legally at Bathurst landfill
would have been about $35.

Instead, the illegal dumping cost tax-payers more than $4000 for
the Bathurst Regional Council to employ a licensed asbestos
contractor to help safely clean up the site.

"In the age of surveillance cameras, dashboard cameras and
cameras on mobile phones, the chances of a witness observing
waste dumpers are ever increasing," Ms Jones said in a statement.

Bathurst Mayor Graham Hanger said the council will be seeking to
recover the costs of the clean up from those who dumped the
waste.

Lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis can result from an
individual breathing in the fibres if they become airborne,
according to Safe Work Australia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nowra Residents Raises Asbestos Concerns
---------------------------------------------------------
South Coast Register reported that Norm Atkinson feels like he is
living with a time bomb ticking away in his Nowra home.

Mr Atkinson fears his home is full of asbestos dust, has
thousands of chunks of the dangerous matter under the property,
and he also has lead paint issues.

He is a Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) public
housing tenant and he does not want to place his health at risk.

One of the first things Mr Atkinson points to, inside the home,
is the picture rails which he says are asbestos boards.

"You can see the asbestos dust on my finger," he said after
touching the rail.

"Run your finger along the rail and you will also feel that
dust."

He notified the department about the asbestos issues a year ago.

"Six months ago I went back to see them and they did an asbestos
audit and they are just waiting for maintenance to get a quote
and seem to be putting it off," he said.

He said it was frustrating because his health is being put at
risk.

All he wants is to move into a house where his health is not
being put at risk.

I just don't feel safe and my lungs are already bad.
Norm Atkinson

"I just don't feel safe and my lungs are already bad," he said.

He has emphysema, asthma and a cystic related condition.

"They (his doctors) say I have also picked up some sort of
fungus," he said.

He said asbestos was in his bathroom and dining room.

"That is asbestos, this is asbestos," he points out while walking
around his home.

He has been trying to get the maintenance team to fill the
numerous gaps in the walls in for a while.

Underneath the property more asbestos, according to Mr Atkinson,
can be found.

"There are chips all under the house -- there are thousands of
chunks under there," he said

He has tried to cover and remove the chunks up himself.

When he has removed the asbestos he wore a mask and protective
clothing.

"I think it's affecting me and my dog Simba because there is so
much under there. Simba has bad lungs now," he said.

The chipping lead paint around the windows also worries him.

More work is being done to improve and maintain public housing.

Department of Community and Family Services

"They (the department) had the paint tested and the test showed
it was lead paint and they said they would just cover it up," Mr
Atkinson said.

Mr Atkinson said he was told they could not strip the paint back
as the lead then contaminates the soil.

He said he first started to raise his concerns about the paint
five years ago.

"They never came back and the paint is just getting worse," he
said.

Shortly after the South Coast Register visited, a department
representative came to Mr Atkinson's home on February 21 and he
expected another visit on February 22.

A FACS spokesperson said the situation was being investigated.

The Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) has
arranged for contractors to attend the property and conduct an
assessment in response to the concerns raised by the tenant," the
spokesperson said.

"Any necessary works will be undertaken by the contractors and
there are strict requirements for dealing with asbestos in accord
with NSW SafeWork practice.

"All FACS contractors must abide by SafeWork NSW regulations when
they handle or move asbestos. "

Mr Atkinson also questioned FACS's accelerated works program.

"The accelerated works program is when they come in and do as
much maintenance as they can. It's fast-tracked and done as cheap
as they can by the sounds of it," he said.

He said a section of concrete which is a trip hazard was 'fixed'
by having blue metal spread around it.

The FACS spokesperson said they took maintenance seriously.

"More work is being done to improve and maintain public housing,"
the spokesperson said.

"FACS contractors do around 700,000 maintenance jobs each year
right across New South Wales and this must be done satisfactorily
to ensure the maintenance concern is addressed.

"Tenants are requested to report any maintenance issues through
the maintenance line to the contractors on 1800 422 322, 24 hours
a day, seven days a week."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Environmental Worker's Death Link to Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
South Wales Argus reported that the death of a former
environmental worker from Newport has been attributed to contact
with asbestos, an inquest has ruled.

Originally from Usk, Derek Ronald Leonard, 62, of Windmill
Square, Commercial Road died on November 22 of last year.

A post-mortem examination, conducted by Dr Majid Rashid, a
consultant pathologist at the Royal Gwent Hospital, found the
likely cause of death was linked to asbestos fibres, with three
conditions linked to the death of the 62-year-old.

Dr Rashid's examination found the likely causes of death were
peritonitis -- a peritoneum inflammation caused usually by a
bacteria infection either via the blood or rupturing the
abdominal organ.

The pathologist also found metastatic peritoneal mesothelioma --
a form of cancer which initially starts in the peritoneal cavity,
which contains the stomach, spleen, liver, intestines and other
abdominal organs -- was another likely cause of Mr Leonard's
death.

A secondary cause of death from the post-mortem was coronary
artery disease, as part of Dr Rashid's examination.

In her verdict, Wendy James, the senior coroner for Gwent,
returned a verdict of industrial disease.

Miss James cited peritonitis, metastatic peritoneal mesothelioma
and coronary artery disease -- all linked to the exposure to
asbestos fibres -- as attributing to Mr Leonard's death.

The verdict was returned on February 22 at Newport Coroner's
Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Port Otago Sheds
---------------------------------------------------
Simon Hartley of Otago Daily Times reported that Port Otago has
shut down public access to 360m of asbestos-contaminated wharf-
side sheds in Fryatt St after a member of the public found
asbestos dust on her vehicle, where up to 50 cars park most days.

The only business in the sheds was shut down and Port Otago
traffic management was put in place to ensure car parks remained
empty, once vehicles left the area.

Building-owner Port Otago contacted the Otago Daily Times and
then hosted a meeting of about seven neighbours and building
tenants, who met near the wharf.

Southern District Health Board medical officer of health Keith
Reid said there was "only a low level of risk, although it is not
zero", to the public who had used the area.

Mr Reid said any wider testing would come under WorkSafe
regulations.

A building owner and developer, Russell Lund, noted Fryatt St was
subject to high winds at times and asked how far the asbestos
could extend, and whether that could be tested.

"The bigger issue is [that] half the area has asbestos roofs ...
all in the same condition," he said.

The "harbourside precinct" has been tagged for a variety of
developments, but Port Otago chief executive Kevin Winders did
not think the asbestos find was an issue.

"No, I don't believe this is a clanger for the harbourside
development in anyway," Mr Winders said following the meeting.

Mr Winders said the wharfside shed, which he understood did not
have a historic designation, was already on an "asbestos
register".

However, because the building was largely non-operational or used
only occasionally for storage, Port Otago had not been focusing
on its asbestos issue.

Mr Winders was unsure if Port Otago was specifically insured for
asbestos issues.

Stuart Keer-Keer, managing director of specialist asbestos
company K2 Environmental, said in his Asbestos Assessment for
Port Otago, asbestos dust was detected within the old sheds, and
the soil outside.

He also believed the public risk was "low level", saying anyone
parking in the area would have to be exposed repeatedly to large
doses of asbestos to cause any health concerns.

"The immediate risk now is low," Mr Keer-Keer said.

He said it was not coming off the roof airborne, but fibres had
been washed to the ground with rain, and after warm weather then
became airborne; hence the dust on the woman's car.

The hundreds of sheets of Super Six asbestos, thought to be have
been in place since the 1950s and 1960s, break down over time
after the acid in rainfall "dissolved" the cement and released
asbestos fibres, which were then washed off, to the ground, he
said.

"This [dissolving process] starts from day one [of
installation]," he said of the corrugated concrete sheets.

Mr Winders said a member of the public had found powder on her
car on February 1, across the road from the warehouse.

That complaint prompted Port Otago to bring in asbestos
specialists K2 to test the area on February 8.

"They detected asbestos in the sheds, and outside, coming off the
canopy," Mr Winders said.

Mr Winders said adhesive spray would probably be used, as a
"stop-gap" measure, to fix asbestos residue, before a long-term
management plan was devised.

Mr Winders said the present focus was safe containment of the
area, and it would be up to two weeks before details of options
and specific plans would be available.

Containers would be in place to isolate the area and fencing from
Christchurch would be going up.

It appears the road area will be out of bounds for several weeks.
The wharf side of the old sheds is also closed off. Owners of
boats moored there have limited access and could be moved to
other berths, if required, in the future.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Alert After Low Level Exposure Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Dray, Esq. -- carl.dray@cms-cmno.com -- of CMS Cameron
McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP, writing for Lexology.com, wrote that
the insurance industry is on alert following the High Court
ruling in Hawkes v Warmex Ltd [2018] EWHC 205 (QB). Mr Peter
Marquand ruled that asbestos exposure that was less than
'substantial' was capable of establishing breach under the common
law duty of care and s. 47 of the Factories Act in the 1940s.

Mrs Hawkes died from mesothelioma in 2014. It was alleged that
between 1946 and 1952 she had been exposed to asbestos while
making electric blankets at the defendant's factory. It was
claimed the inner linings of the blankets were made of asbestos
which would come loose and settle on her clothes as she worked.
The claimant, Mrs Hawke's son, argued that the defendant was
negligent and in breach of numerous statutory duties. Judge
Marquand held that the claimant had failed to demonstrate the
lining contained asbestos. Accordingly, the claim failed on the
facts.

Crucially, however, obiter the Judge addressed the defendant's
duties as a factory owner and employer in the 1940s and 1950s in
terms of low-level exposure:

Dealing with the 'second limb' of s.47 and whether the
defendant's manufacturing process produced 'substantial'
quantities of dust, the judge held that it did not. Having heard
the expert evidence and reviewed the relevant literature he
considered it improbable that such fibre counts would have been
visible;

Most importantly, dealing with the 'first limb' of s.47, the
judge accepted the formula laid down in Jeromson v Shell Tankers
[2001] EWCA Civ 101, whilst strictly confining Williams v The
University of Birmingham [2011] EWCA Civ 1242 to its context. He
held that in determining breach of duty, the question is whether
asbestos-related injury is foreseeable, rather than mesothelioma
itself. He found that by 1946 to 1952, asbestos-related injury
was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of exposure to asbestos
dust even at low levels, and if the lining had been proved to
contain asbestos, the defendant would have been in breach of its
common law duty and s.47 of the Factories Act 1937.

This case appears to be a further step towards departure from
Williams, albeit Mr Marquand's remarks were made obiter and are
therefore non-binding. With the Court of Appeal's decision in
Bussey v Anglia Heating Ltd pending, the industry is relying on
the Appeal Judges to reaffirm the decision in Williamsand provide
much needed clarity on the issue of low-level asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Not Yet Disposed 6 Months After Find
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Power of Bendigo Advertiser reported that illegally-dumped
rubbish that contains deadly asbestos has yet to be disposed of
six months after its discovery by authorities in Whipstick
forest.
Parks Victoria detected the carcinogen at an illegal waste site
last August but still hasn't had it removed, claiming to be
overwhelmed by reports of dumping across the state.

Despite the time that has passed, the agency responsible for
managing parks admitted the material was only likely to be
removed "over the next couple of months."

"Unfortunately, Parks Victoria receives many reports of dumped
waste in our parks and reserves including dumped asbestos," said
Mathew Sobey of Parks Victoria.

"Each time a report of dumped waste is received, rangers make an
assessment of the risk to health and the environment. This is
used to prioritize the removal of the waste dumps."

Mr Sobey said the dump, which lies less than 50 meters from
Beelzebub Gully, posed less of a risk to human health and the
environment than other sites around the state.

"The asbestos waste is asbestos cement sheeting; if it is not
disturbed, it presents little risk of asbestos fibres being
released," he said. "The waste is located in a remote location
with little visitation further reducing the risk of exposure of
people to asbestos fibres."

But Sam Robertson at Jim's Hazardous Material Removal challenged
Parks Victoria's instance that the material was not a risk to the
nearby watercourse.

"That's complete BS," he said. "The reality is it's asbestos."
Mr Robertson said his company, if asked, would be able to remove
the hazardous substance within days for $1,250, with any site
under 10 mư not requiring notification to Environmental
Protection Agency Victoria.

"It just seems bizarre to me that they would leave it lying
around," he said.

Mr Sobey said there were no leads on who was responsible, but
noted that the improper disposal of hazardous materials can
attract fines exceeding $1,700.

Local woman Amy Mitchell, who discovered the site, called for
stronger punishments for dumpers.

"Every time we are going out we've got to deal with these people
who have dumped rubbish all throughout the bush," she said. "It's
just disgusting. People really don't care and are just too lazy
to take their rubbish to the tip or put it in their bins."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Horwich Train Worker Seeks Justice
----------------------------------------------------------
The Bolton News reported that a former train maintenance worker
who was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease is calling on
colleagues to come forward in his quest for justice.

Jeffrey Smith, aged 71, worked at the Horwich Loco Works as an
apprentice fitter and turner for British Rail between 1962 and
1972.

And in December 2016 he was told by doctors that he had developed
asbestosis.

Since the diagnosis, he and his wife Janice instructed specialist
lawyers to investigate how he came to develop the illness and
whether anything could have been done to prevent his exposure to
the material.

Mr Smith's job as an apprentice fitter and turner meant he
undertook maintenance and repair work on wagons and carriages at
the site.

Jobs included working on heating systems that were cladded in
asbestos as well as carrying out repairs on pipework, which also
had asbestos insulation.

Mr Smith said: "Any work related to heating systems and pipework
often meant having to remove cladding and insulation, which of
course meant that dust and fibres were released into the air.

"Throughout this time I was never warned of any potential risks
to my health created by my work, so I am now understandably
devastated that I have been diagnosed with this condition.

"All I want is answers regarding how this could have happened, so
any help from old colleagues or anyone who worked for British
Rail across this time period would be massively appreciated."

Mr Smith and Irwin Mitchell are hoping to get in touch with
others who worked in Horwich between 1962 and 1972.

Dominic Hemsi, lawyer at Irwin Mitchell's Manchester, said: "The
terrible legacy of asbestos had had a huge impact on so many
lives and this is yet another case in which the consequences of
exposure to the material have become apparent many years after
the contact is believed to have happened.

"Our client is understandably keen for answers regarding how his
illness has emerged and we are determined to do everything we can
to help him gain justice.

"Any information regarding the working conditions at the Horwich
Carriage and Wagon Works across the period outlined could prove
absolutely vital in our efforts, so we would be hugely grateful
to anyone who is able to come forward and help."

Anyone with information should contact Mr Hemsi on 0161 259 1516
or by emailing Dominic.Hemsi2@IrwinMitchell.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimant Atty Hails Landmark Asbestos Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Hyde of Law Gazette reported that the Court of Appeal has
reset the threshold for asbestos-related cases, which could pave
the way for thousands of potential claims.

Lord Justice Jackson said the High Court judge in Bussey v Anglia
Heating Ltd had felt 'constrained' by relying on data that was
never intended to be used as a yardstick for making claims.

Guidelines produced 40 years ago about acceptable levels of
asbestos fibres in the air have been used as the test for
assessing the claims of victims since the ruling in Williams v
the University of Birmingham in 2011.

This latest ruling is being hailed by claimant lawyers as an
acknowledgment the application of historic data is wrong, and
that the courts have wrongly applied the measurements as a guide
to employers of a so-called 'safe' level of asbestos in which
people could work.

Caroline Pinfold, an industrial disease solicitor at London firm
Fieldfisher, who represented the claimant in Bussey, said: 'These
data that measured levels of asbestos fibres in the air have been
wrongly applied by employers and their lawyers to deny or delay
claimants the compensation they deserved. I know the ruling will
come as a huge relief for mesothelioma sufferers and their
families who have had their cases put on hold waiting for this
decision.'

'Sadly, many others will have died in the meantime without being
given funds to pursue private immunotherapy treatment that could
have given them some respite.'

Veronica Bussey pursued a claim for compensation against one of
her husband's former employers after he died in 2016 from cancer
associated with asbestos.

In May last year, His Honour Judge Yelton decided he was bound by
Williams, but the Court of Appeal ruling means that judgment is
set aside and the case remitted for determination on the issue of
liability.

Lord Justice Moylan, agreeing with Jackson LJ, said there were
particular concerns about the categorisation of risks.

With a note that will be of interest to all litigation lawyers,
he added: 'To seek to address whether a particular risk is
acceptable or unacceptable could well lead to confusion rather
than assisting the court in determining the critical question of
the foreseeability of the relevant risk.'


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Courtroom Site of New Talc Trial
------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma.net reported that a courtroom in Florida is the
scene of the state's first trial accusing a talc company of
causing a man's malignant mesothelioma. Lawsuits accusing
asbestos companies of causing people's mesothelioma have been
with us for decades, and have resulted in billions of dollars in
compensation being awarded to the victims of asbestos exposure.

But a new phase of mesothelioma trials is being seen across the
United States. People diagnosed with the rare and fatal form of
cancer are now charging talc companies with the same level of
negligence as asbestos companies have been accused of in the
past, and are saying that these companies failed to warn of the
presence of asbestos in their products.

The talc mesothelioma lawsuit has been filed by Robert Lord and
his wife Lola. They claim that Vanderbilt Minerals LLC sold
asbestos-contaminated talc products to his employer, Florida Tile
Company, without providing adequate warnings about its presence.
The company's attorneys are arguing that there is no scientific
evidence that the company's talc caused his illness and that the
tissue samples submitted by Mr. Lord contained a kind of asbestos
not found in their products.

The Florida talc mesothelioma case is different from others being
heard around the country because it involves industrial talc
exposure rather than exposure to asbestos-contaminated talc found
in household or cosmetic products. Instead, the talc that Mr.
Lord was exposed to came from components of ceramics. Other
industrial talc lawsuits could involve chemical coatings, paper
and plastics. It is expected that this case will take
approximately two to three weeks before a verdict is handed down.

The revelations of talc's asbestos-contamination has created a
sea-change in the public's awareness of mesothelioma, the harm
that it does, and the significant risk that it continues to pose.
If you have been diagnosed with this rare and fatal form of
cancer and you need information about resources, call  1-800-692-
8608 to speak to Mesothelioma.net's compassionate Patient
Advocates.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court of Appeals Flips Ruling in "Bussey"
----------------------------------------------------------
Toby Scott, Esq. -- toby.scott@clydeco.com -- at Clyde & Co. LLP,
writing for Lexology.com, said that the late Mr Bussey was
employed by Anglia Heating Ltd and exposed to some asbestos
during work between 1965 and 1968. He was also exposed (probably
in greater concentrations) whilst employed by Pump Maintenance
Ltd between 1969 and 1980. It was contended that it was in
consequence of these exposures the deceased contracted
mesothelioma which led to his death in January 2016.

The claim against Pump Maintenance Limited had been settled prior
to litigation and the Claimant, the deceased's widow, conceded
that she would need to give credit for damages received.

The High Court decision

The High Court had held itself to be bound by Williams v
University of Birmingham [2011] EWCA Civ 1242, and found that a
widow's claim for damages following her husband's death from
mesothelioma failed.

Mrs Bussey was unable to prove, on the balance of probabilities,
that the levels of his exposure to asbestos, during the course of
his employment as a plumber with the Defendant (in 1965-1968),
had exceeded that set out in TDN13 of 1970. As such, the risk of
the deceased contracting mesothelioma was not foreseeable.

The claimant applied for permission to appeal on two grounds:

   1. The determination of the level of exposure;
   2. The application of Williams to the facts of this case.

The Court of Appeal

Although the Court of Appeal rejected the Claimants application
to make a factual determination on breach of duty, Mrs Bussey has
been granted leave to appeal on the following grounds:

   1. TDN13 is not a touchstone for determining whether the level
of exposure to asbestos is 'safe'. It is merely to be used as
guidance and sets out the levels of exposure which would trigger
a prosecution by the Factory Inspectorate.

   2. The decision in Williams is not to be regarded as
incorrect. The Court of Appeal distinguish Williams from Bussey
on the grounds that the deceased in Williams had been exposed to
lower levels of asbestos than the deceased in Bussey and for a
shorter period of time. Therefore the total exposure was
different in each case.

   3. The only gloss the Court of Appeal intends to place on
Williams is that the judgment "should not be read as making TDN13
a universal test of foreseeability in mesothelioma cases".

   4. It was relevant that neither Jeromson v Shell Tankers UK
Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 100 nor Maguire v Harland and Wolff PLC
[2005] EWCA Civ 1 were cited in Williams as it affected the
approach (not the result) adopted by the court. The outcome may
have remained the same, however it would not have been suggested
that TDN13 was a general yardstick for determining the issue of
foreseeability.

   5. When determining foreseeability it is necessary for the
court to look at:

      1. What information should a reasonable employer in the
defendant's position at the relevant time have acquired?

      2. Taking this into account, what are the risks the
employer should have foreseen?

      3. Did the employer implement precautionary measures to
reduce those risks?

   6. The judiciary disagreed on Aikens LJ's use of the phrase
"an unacceptable risk of asbestos-related injury". Jackson LJ
agreed with the inclusion of 'unacceptable' as "anyone who works
or lives in proximity to asbestos faces some risk of
mesothelioma". Whilst it is not possible to eliminate the risk
altogether, it is possible to implement precautionary measures to
reduce the risk and the remaining risk following the measures
would be deemed 'unacceptable'.

   7. However, the majority (Underhill LJ and Moylan LJ) held
categorising risks as acceptable and unacceptable would lead to
confusion. It is particularly problematic to determine whether a
risk is acceptable in the context of mesothelioma claims as there
is no safe level of exposure to asbestos dust.

   8. The Court of Appeal did not have a full transcript of the
evidence, nor did the judges hear oral evidence from the experts.
On that basis the Court of Appeal felt it was not in a position
to determine liability and therefore remitted the case back to
the High Court.

What can we learn?

   * It has been suggested that the decision in Williams handed
the defendants something of a windfall in defending claims on
breach on the basis that exposures prior to and during the
currency of the hygiene standards set by TDN13 would be regarded
as acceptable and not actionable if, and with expert evidence,
defendants could establish levels below the guidance (even if,
adopting the precautionary approach exposed by Hale LJ meant that
the risk could not be ignored).  This led to the potential
anomaly of exposures occurring prior to the publication of TDN13
could be in potential breach of duty whereas subsequent exposures
could not (per Williams).

   * Nonetheless this does not mean that defences as to breach
are doomed to failure.Mr Bussey was exposed to asbestos
concentrations substantially greater than those for Mr Williams
and came close to those mentioned in TDN13.

   * Whilst declining Mr Bussey's invitation to make factual
finding as to liability, the Court concluded that the Defendant
was not in a position to assess whether Mr Bussey's exposure was
liable to cause mesothelioma, but it did have available to it
precautions that could lead to the unknown or variable risk.

   * To this extent employers appear to have lost the windfall
and now need to establish on the basis of then available
literature, that exposures were sufficiently low to enable an
employer to discount the risk.

   * Lord Justices Underhill and Moylan provided supporting
unanimous judgments but went further than Lord Justice
Jackson.They rejected as unhelpful Jackson LJs categorisation of
risks as "acceptable" or "unacceptable". Underhill LJ preferred a
lower threshold for precautions as arising when the risk core is
"significant" (i.e. more than fanciful).

   * It is only in very low exposure cases that an employer is
likely to be able to demonstrate the absence of constructive
knowledge of a significant risk.Beyond those cases the two
supporting judges clearly envisage the employer taking
precautions on a prospective basis.

   * The case has been re mitted to HHJ Yelton to re-determine
liability in the light of these findings, although it is likely
that the case will be settled prior to this.

   * Whilst Mrs Bussey's case has been sent back to the court of
first instance for re-trial the Court of Appeal clearly took the
view following Jeromson that in heavy exposure cases an employer
cannot rely upon is own ignorance as to exposure levels and take
refuge in TDN13; because the employer is not in a position in any
event to know whether it met the standard. In such circumstances
the employer is expected to do its best and adopt a precautionary
approach.

   * The said, employers who can demonstrate minimal exposure
levels will not necessarily find themselves liable by virtue of
Jeromson and this ruling.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Persists in Australia Despite Ban
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Strauss of Surviving Mesothelioma reported that Australia's
legacy of asbestos mining and use continues to haunt it almost
fifteen years after the country banned all forms of asbestos
almost fifteen years ago.

A new report published in the International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health suggests that, although
asbestos consumption peaked in Australia in the 1970s, malignant
mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases continue to be a
significant public health issue.

Asbestos is a naturally-occurring mineral that was prized as a
building product additive because of its high tensile strength
and resistance to heat and corrosion. Australia is rich in the
mineral and once operated several of the world's largest mines.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the country also had the highest per
capita use of the toxin in the world.

Today, thousands of Australians who have been diagnosed with
pleural mesothelioma, peritoneal mesothelioma, asbestosis, and
lung cancer are paying the price.

Rather than address emerging concerns about malignant
mesothelioma by issuing a total asbestos ban in the 1960s,
Australia took it's time severing ties with the mineral.


                            *********


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  * * *