CAR_Public/180601.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Friday, June 1, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 110



                            Headlines


3M COMPANY: "Ackerman" Suit Alleges Negligence
AARON'S INC: Motion to Dismiss "Winslow" Suit Still Pending
AARON'S INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
ABILITY INC: Settlement of Securities Suit Pending
ABILITY INC: Third Amended Class Complaint Filed in "Levy"

ABILITY INC: "Ladragror" Class Suit Underway
ACETO CORP: Faces Class Action, June 25 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
AEP TRANSMISSION: Settlement of 3 Class Suits Finally Approved
AGENT ZIP: "Becker" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
ARCH COAL: "Brooks" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

ARCONIC INC: Answer to "Howard" Class Action Due June 8
BANCO BRADESCO: Suit over Operation Zealots in Discovery
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Discriminatory Policy
BANK OF AMERICA: Bid to Appeal in Mortgage Appraisal Suit Pending
BATTEN INDUSTRIES: Berman Files Suit Over False Ad

BIG HEART: Sued Over Euthanasia Drug Found in Dog Food
BMW: Class-Action Lawsuit May Soon Be Settled
BRF SA: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in New York
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: "Zamir" Class Action Concluded
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Parties in "Nieder" Agree to Settle

BRIXMOR PROPERTY: $19.5MM Settlement Balance Remains in Escrow
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA: To Give US Voter All Data on Him
CEMEX SAB: Unit Still Defends Suit over Ready-Mix Concrete
CEMEX SAB: Securities Suit Related to Maceo Project Underway
CHATHAM LODGING: Faces "Ruffy" and "Doonan" Suits in California

CHINACACHE INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Initial Approval of Settlement
COMPANHIA BRASILEIRA: Class Action Settlement Granted Final OK
COWEN INC: Stay in "Fletcher" Suit Lifted
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: B&R Supermarket Suit Still in Discovery
DISH NETWORK: Appeals Ruling in Telemarketing Call Class Action

DISH NETWORK: Judge Awards Attorney Fees in Class Action
DR PEPPER: Must Face Class Action Over Canada Dry Ginger Ale
EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Sanfilippo" Class Action
ENEL AMERICAS: Writ of Proof in Codensa Case Still Pending
ENEL AMERICAS: Class Suit Against Emgesa Still Ongoing

EVIR CORP: "Adame" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
EXLSERVICE HOLDINGS: Parties Agree to Settle California Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Indonesian Institutions Mull Data Misuse Lawsuit
FASTAFF LLC: Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Can Proceed
FREDDIE MAC: Continues to Defend Ohio Public Employees Suit

FREDDIE MAC: Still Defends Preferred Stock Purchase Suit
FREDDIE MAC: Appeal in Jacobs-Hindes Case Underway
FRESH DEL MONTE: Delaware High Court Weighs in on DBCP Case
G WILLI FOOD: Suit over Improper Product Marketing Discontinued
G WILLI FOOD: NIS4-Mil. Class Suit over Food Labeling Ended

G WILLI FOOD: NIS3-Mil. Food Labeling Suit Concluded
G WILLI FOOD: NIS2.7-Mil. Food Labeling Suit Underway
GAZIT GLOBE: Continues to Defend Lawsuits in Tel Aviv
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Kessler Topaz Appointed Lead Counsel
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Consolidated 401(k) Plan Suit Underway

GEO GROUP: Class Suits by Immigration Detainees Underway
GORDON AYLWORTH: "Chase" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
GRUPO TELEVISA: Defending FIFA-Related Class Action in New York
HALIFAX HEALTH: Class Action Over Deltona Project Pending
HENRY SCHEIN: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit

HUDSON COUNTY, NJ: Some Residents Considering Class Suit
IOWA HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over UnityPoint Data Breach
ITURAN LOCATION: Initial Court Hearing Set for June 2018
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend Talcum Powder Lawsuits
KENYA POWER: Attempts to Delay Class Action Over Billing System

KOREA ELECTRIC: Suits over Electricity Tariffs Pending
LEGACY RESERVES: "Chammah" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
LM WIND: "Bobo" Suit Alleges FLSA and AMWA Violations
LOBLAW: $25 Gift Card Offer in Bread Price-Fixing Suit Ends
LONGFIN CORP: "Chauhan" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations

LORD & TAYLOR: "Beekman" Suit Alleges Negligence
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Trial in "Gold" Suit Set for Feb. 2019
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defending "Mason" Class Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Kramer" Class Action Underway
MDL 2020: Out-of-Network Providers' Suit vs Aetna Still Ongoing

MOISES BAKERY: "Cuello" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
MEDCARE INVESTMENT: "Collier" Suit Alleges WARN Act Violations
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Defending Against Steamfitters Local 449 Suit
MYRIAD GENETICS: June 19 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
NEW RESIDENTIAL: Appeal in Retirement Fund Suit Underway

NORTH AMERICAN: "Correa" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA
NRG YIELD: "Braun" Class Suit Underway
NRG YIELD: Court Dismisses "Ahmed" Class Action
PEP BOYS-MANNY: Court Dismisses "Silver" Consumer Fraud Suit
PETSMART INC: 9th Cir. Affirms "Loomis" Class Settlement Approval

PNM RESOURCES: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Pending
PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: Court Refuses to Decertify "Lorenzo" Class
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Has Deal in Align Probiotic Supplement Suit
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Court Junks Pricing & Billing Practices Suit
QUINSTREET INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action

RADY CHILDREN'S: Court Narrows Doc Production Subject in "Crooks"
REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Retirement System's Suit Concluded
RIP CURL: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Candelario"
RIPPLE LABS: Faces Securities Class Action Over ICO
S.A. GEAR: Court Won't Exclude Expert Witnesses in "Williamson"

SABRE CORPORATION: Suit over Air Fare Prices Ongoing
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Court Narrows Claims in "Buckley"
SCANA CORP: Bids to Certify Class, Appoint Receiver Pending
SCANA CORP: Bid to Certify Class in "Lightsey" Suit Pending
SCANA CORP: "Goodman" Class Action Underway

SCANA CORP: "Cook" Class Action Still Ongoing
SCANA CORP: Motion to Dismiss "Delmater" Class Suit
SCANA CORP: "Kolbe" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
SCANA CORP: Bid to Dismiss "Glibowski" Suit Still Pending
SCANA CORP: "Norman" Suit Consolidated, Amended Suit Filed

SCANA CORP: "Evans" Suit Consolidated, Amended Suit Filed
SCANA CORP: "Fox" Suit Consolidated, Amended Suit Filed
SCANA CORP: West Palm Beach Suit Consolidated, Amended Suit Filed
SCANA CORP: Bid to Drop "Pennington" Suit Ongoing
SCANA CORP: Bid to Dismiss Warren Police's Suit Underway

SCANA CORP: Bid to Drop Metzler Asset's Suit Ongoing
SCANA CORP: Defending Against "Turner" Class Action
SCANA CORP: "Brown" Class Action Dismissed
SECURITAS ELECTRONIC: "Bender" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
SELECTIVE SERVICE: Court Won't Dismiss Gender Discrimination Suit

ST. CLAIR COUNTY, IL: Wins Summary Judgment in Tax Suit
SYMANTEC CORP: "Beyer" Sues Over Defective Antivirus Software
TEKFOR INC: "Bailey" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
TENET HEALTHCARE: "Maderazo" Suit Underway in Texas
TENISON MGT: "Bennett" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

THERANOS INC: Betsy Devos, Rupert Murdoch, Among Those Duped
TRANSDIGM GROUP: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Underway
TRINET GROUP: Appeal in "Welgus" Class Suit Underway
TRS STAFFING: "Castilleja" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
TWITTER INC: Kim Dotcom Threatens to Sue Over Password Exposure

U.S. BANK: BlackRock Suit Pending in New York
UNITED STATES: Judge to Rule on ACLU's Class Action Against ICE
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Customers Await Enforcement of Class Action Law
WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Ruling in "Herrington" Appealed to 7th Cir.
WELLS FARGO: Settles Securities Fraud Class Action for $480MM

WESTERN UNION: $8.5MM Settlement of "Douglas" Case Pending
WESTERN UNION: Court Okays Pool for Unclaimed Funds
WESTERN UNION: Appeal in "Pincus" Suit Still Pending
WESTERN UNION: Suit Against WUFSA Still Ongoing in Argentina
WESTERN UNION: Smallen Revocable Living Trust Suit Ongoing

WESTERN UNION: Defending Against "Fraizer" Action in Colorado
YINGLI GREEN: Parties Agree to Settle Calif. Suit for US$1.2MM
ZORN DESIGN: "Dendall" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime


                    Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Corp. Had $210.7MM Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Suit v. Aqua-Chem Still Stayed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co. Still Defends Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Had 355 Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Had $1.2BB Reserve at Dec.31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Had $44.4MM Asbestos Coverage at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 55,500 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $315-Mil. Accrual at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entergy Corp. Units Had 200 Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AADE Still Defends "Holzer" Suit at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Still Faces PI Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgments Favoring Ex-Truck Driver Reversed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imerys Talc Can File Bid to Dismiss "Souza"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims vs. CNA Holdings Junked in "Lineberger"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Must Reply to Oakfabco Asbestos Panel's Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: WUFTA Not Controlling in Fraud Asset Transfer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lamorak Primary Insurance Coverage Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Philly Schools Have Dangerous Asbestos Levels
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Building Basement Has Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Labtrobe City Council Looking at Moving Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2d Cir. Orders Fresh Look at Reinsurer's Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prison Hospital Cleanup Leads to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Not Liable for Take-Home Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal Underway at Trump Plaza
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barry Family Seeks Help Over Asbestos Death

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed at Old Ministry Building
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Stations Crew Called to Asbestos Incident
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Witham Man Admits to Dumping, Burning Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Silver Guilty of Making Millions From Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Botched Removal Job Results to $35K Fine

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal Hazard Not Just for Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Defends Itself on Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal Starts at Fairmount Tower
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $6K Fine for False Asbestos Disposal Info
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Liability Under Maritime Law Mulled

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dumped in Barunga Sparks Health Fears
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Husband Seeks Help Over Wife's Asbestos Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bennett Couple Files PI Suit vs. IMO, et al.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ironworker Alleges Exposure to Asbestos Products
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Says Attys to Rig Votes in Oakfabco Plan

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reserve Bank Bldg Evacuated After Asbestos Find
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon DEQ Pushes for Tighter Asbestos Rules


                            *********


3M COMPANY: "Ackerman" Suit Alleges Negligence
----------------------------------------------
Christina Ackerman et al., individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. The 3M Company, fka Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing, Co., Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor in
interest to The Ansul Company, Buckeye Fire Equipment Company,
ChemGuard Inc., and National Foam, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-00117
(E.D. Wash., April 5, 2018), seeks damages for negligence,
medical monitoring, products liability - failure to warn,
defective design and private nuisance.

The Plaintiffs represent over 11,600 residents of Airway Heights
and Medical Lake who were exposed to drinking water contaminated
with Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and/or Perfluorooctane
sulphonate (PFOS) from the Areas of Investigation, had their
properties and soil contaminated with PFOA and PFOS, and who
suffered bioaccumulation of PFOA and PFOS in their bodies.

The Defendants marketed and sold their products with knowledge
that large quantities of Aqueous film forming foam (AFFF),
containing toxic PFC's, would be used in training exercises and
in emergency situations at military bases, including Fairchild
AFB, in such a manner that PFOA and PFOS would contaminate the
air, soil, and groundwater. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Breean L. Beggs, Esq.
      Andrew Biviano, Esq.
      Mary Elizabeth Dillon, Esq.
      Daniel R. Hayward, Esq.
      PAUKERT & TROPPMANN, PLLC
      522 West Riverside Avenue, Suite 560,
      Spokane, WA 99201
      Tel: (509) 232-7760
      Fax: (509) 232-7762


AARON'S INC: Motion to Dismiss "Winslow" Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the Company's motions to dismiss and strike
certain allegations remain pending in the case, Michael Winslow
and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial Corporation, Aaron's, Inc.,
John Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC.

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

In April 2013, the Company removed this matter to federal court.
In May 2013, the Company filed a motion to stay this litigation
pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim, and a motion to strike certain
allegations in the complaint. The Court subsequently stayed the
case. The Company's motions to dismiss and strike certain
allegations remain pending.

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

           Summary Judgment Granted in "Peterson" Suit

Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the District Court has
granted the motion for summary judgment in its entirety as to
Aaron's, Inc., in the case, Michael Peterson v. Aaron's, Inc. and
Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc.

The Peterson case was filed on June 19, 2014, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
plaintiffs claim that the Company and Aspen Way knowingly
violated plaintiffs' privacy and the privacy of plaintiffs' law
firm's clients in violation of the ECPA and the Computer Fraud
Abuse Act. Plaintiffs seek certification of a putative nationwide
class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of PC
Rental Agent software.

The Court has dismissed all claims except a claim for aiding and
abetting invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification which the Court denied on January 25, 2017. On May
5, 2017, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on the
remaining single plaintiff case, and on October 3, 2017, the
District Court granted that motion in its entirety as to Aaron's,
Inc.

Aaron's, Inc. is a lease-to-own retailer. The company focuses on
leases and retail sales of furniture, electronics, appliances,
and computers. The company is based in Atlanta, Georgia.


AARON'S INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the Company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit,
In Re Aaron's Securities Litigation, f/k/a Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System, et al (f/k/a Employees' Retirement System of
the City of Baton Rouge) v. Aaron's, Inc., John W. Robinson, III,
Ryan K. Woodley, and Gilbert L. Danielson, remains pending.

The case was filed on June 16, 2017, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The
litigation relates to the temporary drop in Aaron's stock price
following the Company's announcement of 2015 third quarter
results. The complaint alleges that during the period from
February 6, 2015 through October 29, 2015, Aaron's made
misleading public statements about the Company's expected
financial results and business prospects. The allegations
underlying the lawsuit principally relate to the loss of certain
data feeds experienced by Progressive Leasing beginning in
February 2015 and the alleged failure to disclose the same in a
timely manner, as well as certain software issues that allegedly
hindered the identification of delinquent accounts during certain
limited times in 2015.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on December 15,
2017, and oral argument was scheduled for mid-May 2018. The
Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against this lawsuit.

Aaron's, Inc. is a lease-to-own retailer. The company focuses on
leases and retail sales of furniture, electronics, appliances,
and computers. The company is based in Atlanta, Georgia.


ABILITY INC: Settlement of Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Ability Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that a motion to approve settlement is pending
in the lawsuit captioned as In re Ability Inc. Securities
Litigation.

On May 25, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit, captioned In
re Ability Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 16-cv-
03893-VM (S.D.N.Y) was filed against the company, Anatoly Hurgin
and Avi Levin in the Southern District of New York in the United
States. The complaint asserts claims pursuant to Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of the
Company's ordinary shares between September 8, 2015 and April 29,
2016.

The complaint broadly alleges that certain of the Company's
public statements were false, and that the Company materially
overstated its income and failed to disclose that it had material
weaknesses in its internal controls. The complaint does not
specify the amount of damages sought. On July 25, 2016, a second
purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company,
Anatoly Hurgin and Avi Levin in the Southern District of New York
in the United States. The complaint asserts claims pursuant to
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder on behalf of a putative class of all
purchasers of our ordinary shares between September 8, 2015 and
April 29, 2016.

The complaint broadly alleges that the Company's financial
statements were false and misleading and were not prepared in
conformity with GAAP, nor was the financial information a fair
presentation of our operations. The complaint does not specify
the amount of damages sought. These two putative class actions
have been consolidated into one action and co-lead plaintiffs
have been appointed. In accordance with a schedule adopted by the
court, co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 28,
2017.

In the amended complaint, co-lead plaintiffs have added Benjamin
Gordon and BDO Ziv Haft as defendants. The amended complaint
asserts claims pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, a claim
pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Messrs.
Hurgin, Levin and Gordon, a claim pursuant to Section 11 of the
Securities Act against us, BDO Ziv Haft and Messrs. Hurgin and
Gordon, and a claim pursuant to Section 15 of the Securities Act
against Messrs. Hurgin, Levin and Gordon on behalf of a putative
class of all purchasers of the Company's ordinary shares between
September 8, 2015 and April 29, 2016.

The amended complaint does not specify the amount of damages
sought. The complaint broadly alleges that certain of the
Company's public statements were false, that it had material
weaknesses in its internal controls, that its financial
statements were false and misleading and were not prepared in
conformity with GAAP, nor was the financial information a fair
presentation of the Company's operations, and that its
registration statement contained material misstatements and
omissions. On August 17, 2017, the court ordered a stipulated
schedule recognizing that all parties had agreed to a mediation
on October 17, 2017 and all deadlines were reset until after that
mediation took place.

On December 21, 2017, the Company entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") to memorialize an agreement in principle to
settle all claims of participating class members in the class
actions consolidated in the lawsuit captioned In re Ability Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 16-cv-03893 (VM), pending in the
Southern District of New York (the "New York Class Action
Litigation"). The MOU provides for an aggregate settlement
payment of $3.0 million, which includes all plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and expenses, as well as any other class notice
and administrative fees related to the resolution of the New York
Class Action Litigation.

On April 25, 2018, the motion for settlement was filed with the
court. The settlement includes the dismissal of all claims
against the Company and the named individuals in the New York
Class Action Litigation. It is expected that $250,000 of the $3.0
million settlement amount will be funded by the Company and the
remaining $2.75 million will be funded with the Company's
insurance proceeds or contributed by other defendants.

The ultimate impact of this class action settlement on the Levy
Litigation (Case No. 2015-CA-003339), Pottash Litigation (Case
No. 502016CA013823), Hammel Litigation (Case No. 50-2018-CA-
000762-MB-AG) and the Ladragor Litigation (C.A. 8482-05-16), each
as further described herein, has yet to be determined, however,
some or all of the claims raised in such other actions may be
deemed to be resolved, settled and disposed of as part of such
class action settlement.

The Company intends to continue to attempt to settle and resolve
the litigation. There is no assurance that the court will approve
the settlement.

Ability Inc. provides interception, geolocation, and cyber
intelligence products and solutions for security and intelligence
agencies, military forces, law enforcement agencies, and homeland
security agencies worldwide. It specializes in off-air
interception of voice, SMS, and data communication from cellular
and satellite communication networks; and deciphering solutions
for cellular and satellite communications. The company is based
in Tel Aviv, Israel.


ABILITY INC: Third Amended Class Complaint Filed in "Levy"
----------------------------------------------------------
Ability Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the plaintiffs in the "Levy" Litigation
have filed a verified third amended class action and derivative
complaint attempting to assert the same type of claims raised in
the defective second amended complaint.

On October 15, 2015, plaintiff Brian Levy, purportedly on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a first
amended class action and derivative complaint against Cambridge
Holdco Corp., Ability, the individual members of the Cambridge
board of directors, and plaintiff also named Cambridge Capital
Acquisition Corp. and the Company as nominal defendants in the
case number 2015CA003339 in the Circuit Court of the 15th
Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida. The complaint
generally alleged, among other things, that the members of the
Cambridge board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Cambridge stockholders by approving the contemplated merger with
Ability, and that Ability was aiding and abetting the Cambridge
board of directors in the alleged breach of their fiduciary
duties.

The action sought injunctive relief, damages and reimbursement of
fees and costs, among other remedies. On February 17, 2016,
Ability filed a motion and supporting memorandum of law to
dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint on the grounds that the
Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Ability; the derivative
aiding and abetting claim was extinguished by the closing of the
Business Combination and the claims against Ability are
insufficiently pleaded. On September 15, 2016, the Court granted
the defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety without
prejudice, and the Judge dismissed the amended complaint.

However, the court provided the plaintiff with 45 days within
which to file a further amended complaint. On October 22, 2016, a
second amended complaint was filed by the plaintiff. On January
17, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint on multiple grounds, including various pleading
deficiencies that the plaintiff has failed to adequately correct.
On March 9, 2017, the plaintiff filed a response to the motion to
dismiss. On June 21, 2017, the Judge entered an order (the "June
21 Order") granting a partial motion to dismiss as to the counts
against Ability due to lack of personal jurisdiction over
Ability.

Ability was therefore dismissed from the case without prejudice,
and it is unclear at this stage whether the plaintiff will
attempt to bring Ability directly back into the action in the
future.

On the other hand, pursuant to the Judge's ruling, the Company
still remains as a necessary party and named defendant in the
case. In the June 21 Order, the Judge also partially denied the
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and the purported
class action and derivative claims against the individual
defendants for alleged breach of fiduciary duties, failure to
disclose and ultra vires acts still remain pending.

On July 21, 2017, the Company and each of the individual
defendants filed their answer and affirmative defenses raising
numerous substantive and legal defenses to the alleged claims set
forth in the second amended complaint. On August 7, 2017,
plaintiff's counsel filed a motion for class certification and
incorporated memorandum of law.

The Company and defendants filed papers in opposition to such
motion, and on March 13, 2018, the Court entered an order denying
plaintiff's motion for class certification and providing that the
plaintiff may attempt to file a further amended complaint within
30 days after the order denying the request for class
certification.

Plaintiff has now filed a verified third amended class action and
derivative complaint attempting to assert the same type of claims
raised in the defective second amended complaint.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against such claims, and
to continue to explore potential opportunities to settle and
resolve the litigation. If the case does not settle, it is
impossible to predict the probable outcome of these legal
proceedings at this time in light of the relatively early stage
of the proceedings.

Ability Inc. provides interception, geolocation, and cyber
intelligence products and solutions for security and intelligence
agencies, military forces, law enforcement agencies, and homeland
security agencies worldwide. It specializes in off-air
interception of voice, SMS, and data communication from cellular
and satellite communication networks; and deciphering solutions
for cellular and satellite communications. The company is based
in Tel Aviv, Israel.


ABILITY INC: "Ladragror" Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------
Ability Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against
the case, Ladragror v. Ability Inc. et al.

On May 4, 2016, the Company was served with a lawsuit and a
motion for the certification of the lawsuit as class action,
captioned Ladragror v. Ability Inc. et al. C.A. 8482-05-16, in
the Tel Aviv District Court in Israel, filed, against the
Company, Anatoly Hurgin, Alexander Aurovsky, and Benjamin Gordon
and Mitchell Gordon. The claim alleges, among other things, that
the Company misled the public in our public filings with regard
to its financial condition and included misleading information
(or omitted to include relevant information) in its financial
statements published in connection with the January 12, 2016
listing of shares for trading on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.

In addition, the claim alleges that the defendant directors
breached their fiduciary duty under Israeli law towards the
Company and its public shareholders. The claim alleges that the
plaintiff suffered personal damages of NIS 137.7 (approximately
$39.7), and estimates that its shareholders suffered damages of
approximately NIS 23.3 million (approximately $6.72 million).

On September 15, 2016, the Company filed a motion for a stay of
proceedings, due to other pending class action lawsuits in the
United States that also relate (among other things) to the stated
causes of action and based on similar claims. The Court required
the parties to update the Court on the status of the United
States class actions by March 15, 2017. On March 15, 2017, the
plaintiff filed an update and requested that proceedings be
stayed until the completion of the internal investigation of the
audit committee. On the same day, the Company filed a separate
update with respect to the United States class actions, together
with a motion for a stay of proceedings pending resolution of the
consolidated United States class actions.

On March 16, 2017, the Court held that the plaintiff must respond
to the motion to stay proceedings pending resolution of the
consolidated United States class actions. On March 26, 2017, the
plaintiff filed a partial response, requesting an extension until
May 15, 2017 to file a full response, alleging that the
publication of the Company's annual financial statements,
together with the findings of the internal investigation, would
affect its position on its motion to stay proceedings. On May 23,
2017, the Court granted the plaintiff the requested extension. On
May 15, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion asking for an
additional three month extension to file a full response, among
other things, as the Company had not filed its annual financial
statements or published the findings of the internal
investigation.

On August 14, 2017, the Company and Messrs. Hurgin and Aurovsky
filed a notice regarding their counsel substitution. In light of
this, the judge decided on August 27, 2017 to recuse herself from
the case. On August 21, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion and an
updated notice in which he claimed that the Company had not yet
published the report of the internal investigation, and hence the
reasons for granting him a continuance to file his response to
the motion to stay of proceedings are still relevant. The
plaintiff also informed the Court that in the U.S. proceedings,
the parties agreed to mediation, and the mediation meeting was
scheduled in October 2017. The plaintiff asked the Court to file
an update notice in 90 days.

On August 28, 2017, the Court ordered the parties to file an
update notice on September 28, 2017. On September 28, 2017 and
November 7, 2017 the plaintiff, the Company, and Messrs. Hurgin
and Aurovsky updated the Court that the mediation process in the
U.S. was still pending. On November 8, 2017, the Court ordered
the parties to file an update notice in 90 days. On February 7,
March 7 and April 12, 2018, the parties updated the Court that
they are holding negotiations in order to settle the case, and
requested extensions for filing the update notice. The parties
are required to file the abovementioned notice on May 8, 2018.

The Company intends to attempt to settle and resolve the
litigation. If the case does not settle, the Company intends to
continue vigorously defend against this action. Given that the
proceeding is currently suspended, the timing or outcome of this
matter cannot be predicted at this time.

Ability Inc. provides interception, geolocation, and cyber
intelligence products and solutions for security and intelligence
agencies, military forces, law enforcement agencies, and homeland
security agencies worldwide. It specializes in off-air
interception of voice, SMS, and data communication from cellular
and satellite communication networks; and deciphering solutions
for cellular and satellite communications. The company is based
in Tel Aviv, Israel.


ACETO CORP: Faces Class Action, June 25 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC on May 6 disclosed that a shareholder class
action lawsuit has been filed against Aceto Corp. (NASDAQ:ACET)
("Aceto" or the "Company") on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between August 25, 2017 and April 18, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Aceto investors are encouraged to visit
www.kaskelalaw.com/case/aceto-corp/ to receive additional
information about this action and submit their information
online.  Investors may also contact attorney D. Seamus Kaskela at
(888) 715 - 1740, or via email at skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, to
discuss their legal rights and options with respect to this
action.

On April 18, 2018, Aceto issued a press release cautioning
investors not to rely on the Company's previously issued fiscal
2018 earnings guidance, and disclosed that "the Company
anticipates recording non-cash intangible asset impairment
charges, including goodwill, in the range of $230 million to $260
million on certain currently marketed and pipeline generic
products as a result of continued intense competitive and pricing
pressures."

Following this news, Aceto's common stock declined $4.74 per
share, or over 64%, to close on April 19, 2018 at $2.66 per
share.

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that Aceto and
certain of its senior executive officers made false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors
that: (i) the Company failed to implement and enforce proper
internal control to identify the misapplication of cash; (ii) the
Company would incur large non-cash intangible asset impairment
charges, (iii) the Company lacked effective internal control over
financial reporting; (iv) the Company's financial results for the
fiscal year 2017 could not be relied upon; and (v) the Company's
fiscal 2018 financial guidance was overstated.  The complaint
further alleges that, as a result of the foregoing, investors
purchased Aceto's common stock at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period and sustained significant investment
losses when the truth was revealed.

Investors who purchased Aceto securities during the Class Period
may, no later than June 25, 2018, seek to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff representative of the class through Kaskela Law or
other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.  In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff a
class member must meet certain legal requirements.

Kaskela Law LLC -- http://www.kaskelalaw.com-- exclusively
prosecutes shareholder actions in state and federal courts
throughout the country on behalf of investors. [GN]


AEP TRANSMISSION: Settlement of 3 Class Suits Finally Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
AEP Transmission Company, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the district court has
issued final approval of the settlement in three class action
lawsuits.

In 2002, a lawsuit was commenced in Los Angeles County California
Superior Court against numerous energy companies, including AEP,
alleging violations of California law through alleged fraudulent
reporting of false natural gas price and volume information with
an intent to affect the market price of natural gas and
electricity. AEP was dismissed from the case.

A number of similar cases were also filed in state and federal
courts in several states making essentially the same allegations
under federal or state laws against the same companies.  AEP is
among the companies named as defendants in some of these cases.
AEP settled, received summary judgment or was dismissed from all
of these cases. The plaintiffs appealed the Nevada federal
district court's dismissal of several cases involving AEP
companies to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In April 2013, the appellate court reversed in part, and affirmed
in part, the district court's orders in these cases. The United
States Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit's opinion. The cases were remanded to the district
court for further proceedings. AEP had four pending cases, of
which three were class actions and one was a single plaintiff
case. In February 2017, a settlement was reached in the single
plaintiff case. A settlement was also reached in the three class
actions and the district court issued final approval of the
settlement in June 2017.

AEP Transmission Company, LLC operates as a subsidiary of AEP
Transmission Holding Company, LLC.


AGENT ZIP: "Becker" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------
Cody Becker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Agent Zip, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-60706 (S.D. Fla.,
April 3, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engages in unsolicited
telemarketing directed towards prospective customers, with no
regard for consumers' privacy rights.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Broward County, Florida.

The Defendant creates and operates real estate lead generation
campaigns and lead management systems.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARCH COAL: "Brooks" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ormand R. Brooks, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Arch Coal, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-00523
(S.D. W.Va., April 3, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant Arch Coal in or about
January 2009, and he worked at the Beckley Complex from his
hiring until on or about March 9, 2018.

Arch Coal owns and operates an underground coal mine known as the
Beckley Complex, located at 2221 Old Eccles Road, Beckley, West
Virginia 25836. The Defendant is a producer of metallurgical coal
in Appalachia and the second largest producer of thermal coal in
the Powder River Basin, and operates large scale mining complexes
in West Virginia, Wyoming, Colorado and Illinois.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Goldner, Esq.
      Maria W. Hughes, Esq.
      HUGHES & GOLDNER, PLLC
      10 Hale Street, Second Floor
      Charleston, WV 25301
      Tel: (304) 400-4816
      Fax: (304) 205-7729
      E-mail: mark@wvemploymentrights.com
              maria@wvemploymentrights.com


ARCONIC INC: Answer to "Howard" Class Action Due June 8
-------------------------------------------------------
Arconic Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend itself in a consolidated class action suit entitled,
Howard v. Arconic Inc. et al.

According to a docket entry dated April 16, 2018, the Defendants
have until June 8 to file their answer.  The defendants are:

     * ARCONIC INC;
     * BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP.;
     * CITIGROUP GLOBEL MARKETS INC.;
     * ARTHUR D. COLLINS, JR;
     * ROBERT S. COLLINS;
     * CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC;
     * KATHRYN S. FULLER;
     * GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO.;
     * JUDITH M. GUERON;
     * J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC;
     * KLAUS KLEINFELD;
     * MITSUBISHI UFJ SECURITIES (USA), INC.;
     * MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC;
     * MICHAEL G. MORRIS;
     * E. STANLEY O'NEAL;
     * WILLIAM F. OPLINGER;
     * JAMES W. OWENS;
     * RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC;
     * RBS SECURITES INC.;
     * PATRICIA F. RUSSO;
     * MARTIN SORRELL;
     * RATAN N. TATA; and
     * ERNESTO ZEDILLO

A purported class action complaint related to the Grenfell Tower
fire was filed on August 11, 2017 in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Arconic
Inc., and Klaus Kleinfeld. A related purported class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on August 25, 2017, under the
caption Sullivan v. Arconic Inc. et al., against Arconic Inc.,
two former Arconic executives, several current and former Arconic
directors, and banks that acted as underwriters for Arconic's
September 18, 2014 preferred stock offering (the "Preferred
Offering").

The plaintiff in Sullivan had previously filed a purported class
action against the same defendants on July 18, 2017 in the
Southern District of New York and, on August 25, 2017,
voluntarily dismissed that action without prejudice.

On February 7, 2018, on motion from certain putative class
members, the court consolidated Howard and Sullivan, closed
Sullivan, and appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case.

On April 9, 2018, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated
purported class action filed a consolidated amended complaint.
The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the registration
statement for the Preferred Offering contained false and
misleading statements and omitted to state material information,
including by allegedly failing to disclose material uncertainties
and trends resulting from sales of Reynobond PE for unsafe uses
and by allegedly expressing a belief that appropriate risk
management and compliance programs had been adopted while
concealing the risks posed by Reynobond PE sales.

The consolidated amended complaint also alleges that between
November 4, 2013 and June 23, 2017 Arconic and Kleinfeld made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information about the Company's commitment to safety, business
and financial prospects, and the risks of the Reynobond PE
product, including in Arconic's Form 10-Ks for the fiscal years
ended December 31, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, its Form 10-Qs and
quarterly financial press releases from the fourth quarter of
2013 through the first quarter of 2017, its 2013, 2014, 2015 and
2016 Annual Reports, and its 2016 Annual Highlights Report. The
consolidated amended complaint seeks, among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and
expert fees and expenses.

Arconic said 'While the Company believes that this case is
without merit and intends to challenge it vigorously, there can
be no assurances regarding the ultimate resolution of this
matter. Given the preliminary nature of this matter and the
uncertainty of litigation, the Company cannot reasonably estimate
at this time the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the
possible loss or range of losses in the event of an unfavorable
outcome. The Board of Directors has also received letters,
purportedly sent on behalf of shareholders, reciting allegations
similar to those made in the federal court lawsuit and demanding
that the Board authorize the Company to initiate litigation
against members of management, the Board and others. The Board of
Directors has appointed a Special Litigation Committee of the
Board to review these shareholder demand letters and consider the
appropriate course of action. In addition, lawsuits are pending
in state court in New York and federal court in Pennsylvania,
initiated, respectively, by another purported shareholder and by
the Company, concerning the shareholder's claimed right, which
the Company contests, to inspect the Company's books and records
related to the Grenfell Tower fire and Reynobond PE."

Arconic Inc. engineers, manufactures, and sells lightweight
metals of aluminum, titanium, and nickel worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Engineered Products and Solutions, Global
Rolled Products, and Transportation and Construction Solutions.
The company is based in New York.


BANCO BRADESCO: Suit over Operation Zealots in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------
Banco Bradesco S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the putative class action suit related to
Operation Zealots is now in discovery stage.

According to the company, "on May 31, 2016, a lawsuit was filed
against three members of our Diretoria Executiva, within the so-
called "Operacao Zelotes" or "Operation Zealots," which
investigates the alleged improper performance of members of the
Federal Administrative Tax Court (Conselho Administrativo de
Recursos Fiscais - "CARF"). On July 28, 2016, the Federal Public
Prosecution Office pressed charges against three officers of our
Diretoria Executiva and a former member of our Board of
Directors. The charges were received for processing by the Judge
of the Tenth Federal District Court of the Federal District of
Brazil. The executives have already submitted their respective
defenses in the criminal proceeding and moved to dismiss the
charges against them. At present, two of the three members of our
Organization remain defendants in the proceeding. The process
went through discovery phase and the next step is the
presentation of closing arguments by the parties. After that, the
judge will give a decision on the merits."

"Our Management conducted an internal evaluation of the records
and documents related to the indictment and found no evidence of
any unlawful conduct by our representatives. We provided all
information to the competent authorities and regulators in Brazil
and abroad."

Following news reports of the Operation Zealots, a putative
class-action lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York on June 3, 2016 asserting claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

On October 21, 2016, the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff submitted
an Amended Class Action Complaint naming the Company and the
three members of the Company's Diretoria Executiva who were
indicted. The lawsuit alleges that investors who purchased the
company's preferred ADSs between April 30, 2012 and July 27, 2016
suffered damages due to a supposed violation of U.S. securities
laws.

On September 29, 2017, the Court decided to limit the claim to
investors who acquired preferred ADSs between August 8, 2014 and
July 27, 2016. The discovery phase has started and, because the
lawsuit is in a preliminary stage, it is not possible at present
to estimate the exposure and not enough elements are available to
conduct a risk assessment.

Banco Bradesco S.A. is one of the largest private sector banks in
Brazil. It offers a wide range of banking and financial products
and services both domestically and abroad to individuals, SMEs,
large companies, and local and international corporations and
institutions. Its operations are organized into two main
segments: banking services, and insurance services and private
pension and savings plans.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Discriminatory Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Hudson, writing for Charlotte Business Journal, reports
that Charlotte-based Bank of America Corp. is being sued in
federal court by a 27-year-old Brazilian man who says the bank
wrongly discriminated against him when it refused to consider him
for hire because of his non-citizen status.

Daniel Marques, who resides in New Jersey, was granted
authorization to work in the U.S. under Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals, a permitted status that can be renewed every
two years.  DACA also allows individuals brought to the U.S.
illegally as children to qualify for a period of deferred action
from deportation.

After applying for a position within BofA's wealth-management
division, Merrill Lynch, Mr. Marques was told about a month later
that his application was disqualified because of his lack of
citizenship, according to the lawsuit filed.

The lawsuit states Mr. Marques participated in a telephone
interview, during which a recruiter informed him that his DACA
status disqualified him for the position based on its
limitations.  After multiple emails, the recruiter referred
Mr. Marques' case to a manager and operations manager, who
allegedly handed down the same conclusion.  Mr. Marques says he
then received no response to his further inquiries.

On behalf of Mr. Marques, the Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund filed a class-action lawsuit on May 3 with the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
Charlotte Division.  The claim states MALDEF and Marques are
suing due to BofA's "facially discriminatory policy and/or
practice that discriminates on the basis of alienage."

"Bank of America's conduct has caused, and continues to cause,
Plaintiff Marques and Class Members substantial losses in
earnings and other work benefits," the lawsuit reads.

In BofA's hiring guidelines, it states, among other factors, that
job candidates must "submit documentation as proof of work
authorization for employment in the applicable country."
Mr. Marques contends he did so.

"Bank of America does not have any prohibition on hiring
individuals with DACA status.  We will review this particular
situation," spokesman Bill Halldin says in a statement provided
to the Charlotte Business Journal.

The lawsuit requests there be an injunction placed on BofA
employees "to restrain them from engaging in each of the unlawful
policies, practices, customs and usages," along with requests for
back-pay, damages for emotional distress and punitive damages.

Elliot Morgan Parsonage, a law firm with offices in Charlotte and
Winston-Salem, is representing Marques in the suit. [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: Bid to Appeal in Mortgage Appraisal Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that the defendants' petition for
permission to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit remains pending.

The Corporation and certain subsidiaries are named as defendants
in two putative class action lawsuits filed in U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Waldrup and
Williams, et al.). In November 2016, the actions were
consolidated for pre-trial purposes. Plaintiffs allege that in
fulfilling orders made by Countrywide for residential mortgage
appraisal services, a former Countrywide subsidiary, LandSafe
Appraisal Services, Inc., arranged for and completed appraisals
that were not in compliance with applicable laws and appraisal
standards. Plaintiffs seek, among other forms of relief,
compensatory and treble damages.

On February 8, 2018, the District Court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. Defendants' petition for
permission to appeal that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit is pending.


BATTEN INDUSTRIES: Berman Files Suit Over False Ad
--------------------------------------------------
Daniel Berman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Batten Industries Inc., Batten Industries (US) Inc.,
and Batten Services (US) Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-02818 (C.D.
Calif., April 5, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the
Unfair Competition Law, and the False Advertising Law.

This is a proposed Class Action Complaint against Defendants for
falsely, misleadingly and deceptively labeling its kitchen and
bathroom cleaning and laundry products as "All Natural" when
these products, in fact, are not all natural and contain
synthetic and toxic ingredients, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is and was a resident of Los Angeles, California,
at all times relevant to this action.

The Defendant maintains an enterprise ostensibly built around
providing consumers with purportedly "All Natural Nellie's"
products for the kitchen, laundry and bathroom that are safe,
clean, eco-friendly, cruelty-free, organic, and that do not cause
any health issues. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      11755 Wilshire Blvd., 15th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Tel: (323) 510-4060
      Fax: (866) 300-7367
      E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com


BIG HEART: Sued Over Euthanasia Drug Found in Dog Food
------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Fletcher, writing for WJLA News reports that new information
is raising questions about the source of the euthanasia drug
pentobarbital in dog food.

Earlier this year, an ABC7 investigation exposed the drug and
prompted the recall of more than 107 million cans of pet food.

Within hours of the investigation, the FDA launched its own into
Smucker's subsidiary, Big Heart Brands -- the maker of Gravy
Train, Kibbles 'N Bits, Ol' Roy and Skippy dog foods.

At issue: a rendered fat ingredient -- that is, the boiled
byproduct of carcasses that contained the euthanasia drug
pentobarbital.

The latest class action lawsuit against the company alleges that
the FDA found pentobarbital, in the company's fat supply, at
levels at least 80 times higher than what ABC7 discovered in
products on the shelves.

And that the company retained a sample of that fat from a full
year earlier, in 2017, with levels of pentobarbital more than 50
times higher than ABC7 results that prompted the recall.

"It is an important fact because they retained it, yet they
didn't test it," said attorney Rebecca Peterson, Esq. "Or they
did test it and they still went forward by including that tallow
in the contaminated dog food." Peterson is one of the attorneys
handling one of the class action lawsuits against Smucker's
subsidiary, Big Heart Pet Brands, for pentobarbital
contamination.

From the onset, the company maintained that the pentobarbital was
not to be of concern to consumers. It characterized the levels in
pet food as "extremely low."

Pentobarbital is illegal at any level, as it is a lethal drug.

Big Heart Brands states its top priority is the "safety and
quality of its products."

The revelation that pentobarbital has existed in the company's
supply chain for more than a year appears to contradict its
assurance to consumers of "a comprehensive testing program that
is used to assess the safety and quality of ingredients upon
receipt."

An unsurprising contradiction to food safety attorney Bill
Marler, Esq. -- marler@marlerclark.com

"Sometimes the industry just doesn't want to be transparent and I
think they miss the boat because consumers are pretty
understanding of mistakes that get made in the food supply," said
Marler. "They aren't so understanding when they think that the
government and industry are hiding things from them."

In a statement, Smuckers did not address the failures of its
previous "comprehensive testing program" but said that "although
the company has robust quality assurance procedures in place, we
are committed to enhancing sourcing and supplier oversight
procedures to help ensure this does not happen again."

Court documents allege the source of contaminated fat as the
company's supplier JBS, itself the subject of investigations and
recalls for everything from E.coli and the inhumane treatment of
animals, to rotten meat and product contamination dating back to
at least 2009.

In a statement, JBS did not address those issues but stated it
has modified it procurement process and "will divert all third-
party sourced materials to non-edible production until the
company can ensure these materials meet its high standards for
quality and safety."

Peterson says they're seeking more than remedies for affected
consumers.

"That these companies become transparent and honest as to what
they're including in the dog food. Pets are viewed as family and
consumers [want] to know and expect that these companies are
transparent and honest in what they put on their labels," said
Peterson.[GN]


BMW: Class-Action Lawsuit May Soon Be Settled
---------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for Car Complaints, reports that  a BMW
N63 engine class-action lawsuit may be over for owners and
lessees who have suffered from drained batteries and oil
consumption problems.

The proposed settlement includes about 84,000 current and former
owners and lessees of 2009-2014 BMW 5 Series, 6 Series, 7 Series,
X5 and X6 vehicles equipped with N63 engines.

Plaintiff Joon Bang filed the class-action lawsuit in September
2015 in California, and that same month a similar N63 lawsuit was
filed in Kansas. The Kansas lawsuit was dropped so the plaintiff
could join the California complaint, but within three months two
more N63 lawsuits were filed in California.

The affected parties then moved to transfer the consolidated
lawsuit to a New Jersey federal court. Although the case never
went to trial, BMW says it agreed to settle to save on the future
expense of litigation that has already went on since 2015.

According to the plaintiffs, the V8 turbocharged N63 engines
consume excessive amounts of engine oil between regularly
scheduled service visits. Owners also complain about drained
batteries and the expense of replacing the batteries on a routine
basis.

The lawsuit alleges BMW knew the vehicles had problems because in
June 2013, the automaker issued technical service bulletin (TSB)
SIB-11-01-13 to dealers after complaints about oil consumption.

In November 2013, another TSB (SIB 11 03 13) was issued to
dealers that set a new "oil consumption specification" that said
"[a]ll BMW engines (excluding Motorsport) can consume up to 1
quart of engine oil per 750 miles at any time."

The plaintiffs claim the TSB says owners may need to add up to 20
quarts of oil between regularly scheduled oil changes.

The problem was enough to cause BMW to create the "N63 Customer
Care Package" (TSB SIB 00 13 14) in December 2014, but the
plaintiffs claim the repairs did nothing to help.

In addition to the N63 engine oil consumption issues, the
plaintiffs claim batteries drain at advanced rates and require
replacement every 10,000 miles or one year.

Complaints about BMW's drained batteries caused the automaker to
issue TSB SIB 61 30 14 instructing BMW technicians to replace the
batteries at every engine oil change if the battery had not been
replaced in the previous 12 months.

Owners would also be provided free replacement batteries, but
only until the expiration of BMW's 4 year or 50,000-mile
warranty. But the plaintiffs say none of this will help owners
beyond the warranty periods.

According to the proposed settlement terms, every affected owner
and lessee will receive a voucher transferable to family members
that is worth either $1,000 or $1,500 toward the purchase or
lease of a new BMW vehicle.

BMW will also reimburse owners and lessees for out-of-pocket
costs for up to three oil changes, not to exceed $75 each,
provided the costs were paid by the owner or lessee for an oil
change performed during 10 years/120,000 miles (whichever is
earlier) from first use and took place less than 12 months/10,500
miles after the previous oil change.

Owners may also elect to receive a free future oil change in
place of the $75 cash reimbursement for each past qualifying oil
service.

BMW will further reimburse owners and lessees for the cost of up
to seven quarts of oil (not to exceed $10 a quart) as long as the
following conditions are met:

(a) adequate proof of purchase is presented
(b) the oil was of the same type and grade as provided in the
owner's manual
(c) at least one prior oil consumption complaint was made to a
BMW dealership and confirmed by documentation
(d) the vehicle had fewer than 10 years/120,000 miles at the time
of the oil purchase

The proposed settlement agreement also has BMW reimbursing for
the cost of one tow, rental or roadside assistance up to $50, but
only if the vehicle was towed to a BMW dealer or third-party
repair facility and with documentation confirming the tow was
related to an oil consumption or battery discharge issue.

And finally, the automaker will reimburse the cost of one battery
replacement that was incurred within three years prior to final
approval of the settlement and purchased outside of the new
vehicle limited warranty period.

The above benefits require that claims must be submitted, but
other benefits are called "complimentary" because all affected
owners and lessees qualify.

Customers will receive a credit of $75 each for up to three
future oil changes until the earlier of 10 years or 120,000
miles, regardless of whether they have experienced excessive oil
consumption.

A customer is also entitled to one free 105Ah battery to replace
a 90Ah battery, or if the vehicle cannot be retrofitted with the
105Ah battery, a 90Ah battery will be provided.

BMW will further provide free replacement batteries if the
replacement batteries fail within 2 years of installation and the
failure is not due to customer negligence.

In addition, BMW will perform up to three oil consumption tests
if the oil warning light illuminates within the oil service
interval and provide free repairs on a vehicle which fails the
test within the earlier of 10 years or 120,000 miles.

Furthermore, each affected N63 vehicle is entitled to one service
under the customer care program.

For customers who hope to have their engines replaced, there is
hope, but there are also qualifications that include paying part
or most of the cost.

According to the proposed terms, BMW agreed to pay plaintiff
attorneys' fees and expenses of more than $3 million.

The BMW N63 class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey - Bang, et al., v. BMW of
North America, LLC et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, and
Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP. [GN]


BRF SA: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------
BRF S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the company is facing a purported
shareholder class action suit in the U.S. Federal District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

On March 12, 2018, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. Federal District Court in the Southern
District of New York alleging, among other things, that BRF and
certain of its officers and/or directors engaged in securities
fraud or other unlawful business practices related to some
regulatory issues.

BRF said, "Because this lawsuit is in its early stage, the
possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this
litigation cannot be estimated. While we believe that the claims
against us are without merit and will continue to defend against
the litigation vigorously, in the event that this litigation is
decided against us, or we enter into an agreement to settle there
can be no assurance that an unfavorable outcome would not have a
material impact on us."

BRF S.A. is one of the largest producers of fresh and frozen
protein foods in the world, with a portfolio of over four
thousand stock keeping units ("SKUs"). The company's processed
products include marinated and frozen chicken, Chester(R) rooster
and turkey meats, specialty meats, frozen processed meats, frozen
prepared entrees, portioned products and sliced products.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: "Zamir" Class Action Concluded
-----------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the securities
class action suit filed by Nelda Zamir has been concluded.

On February 24, 2015, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California by Nelda Zamir naming the Company, Andrew Clark and
Daniel Devine as defendants. The complaint asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants made false
and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts regarding the Company's business,
operations and prospects, specifically regarding the Company's
improper application of revenue recognition methodology to assess
collectability of funds owed by students.

The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from
August 7, 2012 to May 30, 2014 and seeks unspecified monetary
relief, interest and attorneys' fees. On July 15, 2015, the Court
granted plaintiff's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and
for appointment of lead counsel.

On September 18, 2015, the plaintiff filed a substantially
similar amended complaint that asserts a putative class period
stemming from March 12, 2013 to May 30, 2014. The amended
complaint also names Patrick Hackett, Adarsh Sarma, Warburg
Pincus & Co., Warburg Pincus LLC, Warburg Pincus Partners LLC,
and Warburg Pincus Private Equity VIII, L.P. as additional
defendants. On November 24, 2015, all defendants filed motions to
dismiss. On July 25, 2016, the Court granted the motions to
dismiss and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint
within 30 days.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint and the
Company filed a second motion to dismiss on October 24, 2016,
which was granted by the Court with leave to amend. Plaintiffs
filed a third amended complaint on April 19, 2017 and the
defendants filed a third motion to dismiss, which was granted
with prejudice by the court on March 12, 2018. As a result, this
matter is now concluded.

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


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Parties in "Nieder" Agree to Settle
----------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the parties in
the lawsuit by Dustin Nieder have reached a mediated agreement to
settle the case, subject to final court approval.

On October 4, 2016, Dustin Nieder filed a purported class action
against Ashford University in the Superior Court of the State of
California in San Diego. The complaint is captioned Dustin Nieder
v. Ashford University, LLC and generally alleges various wage and
hour claims under California law for failure to pay overtime,
failure to pay minimum wages and failure to provide rest and meal
breaks.

The lawsuit seeks back pay, the cost of benefits, penalties and
interest on behalf of the putative class members, as well as
other equitable relief and attorneys' fees.

On January 5, 2018, the parties reached a mediated agreement to
settle the case, subject to final court approval. Accordingly,
the Company has accrued a liability of $1.8 million associated
with this action.

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


BRIXMOR PROPERTY: $19.5MM Settlement Balance Remains in Escrow
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brixmor Property Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that the remaining settlement
balance of $19.5 million remains in escrow pending final class
distribution in the case filed by Westchester Putnam Counties
Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefit Funds.

On December 13, 2017, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted final approval of the
settlement of the previously disclosed putative securities class
action complaint filed in March 2016 by the Westchester Putnam
Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefit Funds related
to the review conducted by the Audit Committee of the Board of
Directors. Pursuant to the approved settlement, without any
admission of liability, the Company will pay $28.0 million to
settle the claims. This amount is within the coverage amount of
the Company's applicable insurance policies and has been funded
into escrow by the insurance carriers.

The settlement provides for the release of, among others, the
Company, its subsidiaries, and their respective current and
former officers, directors and employees from the claims that
were or could have been asserted in the class action litigation.

Certain institutional investors elected to opt out of the
settlement and will not be bound by the release or receive any
settlement proceeds. The Company expects that the resolution of
any future related claims asserted by such opt-outs will also be
within the coverage amount of the Company's applicable insurance
policies. During the three months ended March 31, 2018, $8.5
million of the settlement amount was released from escrow per the
court approved settlement agreement for the payment of
plaintiff's legal fees. The remaining settlement balance of $19.5
million remains in escrow pending final class distribution.

Brixmor Property Group Inc. and subsidiaries (collectively,
"BPG") is an internally-managed real estate investment trust
("REIT"). Brixmor Operating Partnership LP and subsidiaries
(collectively, the "Operating Partnership") is the entity through
which BPG conducts substantially all of its operations and owns
substantially all of its assets. BPG owns 100% of the common
stock of BPG Subsidiary Inc. ("BPG Sub"), which, in turn, is the
sole member of Brixmor OP GP LLC (the "General Partner"), the
sole general partner of the Operating Partnership. The company is
based in New York.


CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA: To Give US Voter All Data on Him
-----------------------------------------------------
Tom McKay, writing for Gizmodo, reports that UK authorities have
ordered Cambridge Analytica, the sketchy election firm at the
center of a data scandal involving at least 87 million Facebook
users, to hand over all of the information it acquired on a US
voter in a move that could potentially open the floodgates for
others to know what information the firm stockpiled on them.

According to the Guardian, the UK Information Commissioner's
Office -- the same regulatory body that raided Cambridge
Analytica's London offices in March -- has ordered the company's
staff to hand over its files to professor David Carroll. The ICO
said that because Carroll's data was processed in the UK, he
qualifies for the same treatment given UK citizens under British
law:

The test case was taken to the ICO by David Carroll, an associate
professor at Parsons School of Design in New York. As a US
citizen, he had no means of obtaining this information under US
law, but in January 2016 he discovered Cambridge Analytica had
processed US voter data in the UK and that this gave him rights
under British laws. Cambridge Analytica had refused to accept
this and told the ICO that Carroll was no more entitled to make a
so-called "subject access request" under the UK Data Protection
Act "than a member of the Taliban sitting in a cave in the
remotest corner of Afghanistan".

Cambridge Analytica, which was founded in coordination with top
Republican donors and now-former White House chief strategist
Steve Bannon to work on US elections, is reported to have
essentially operated as a front for SCL Group, a British company.
The company denies any of the Facebook data was used for its work
on Donald Trump's presidential campaign or the Brexit referendum,
though its credibility is now in shambles. (Even if it did misuse
the harvested Facebook profiles, some have questioned how useful
Cambridge Analytica's data tools really were.)

Both firms are shutting down amid both the data scandal and
another involving footage of executives bragging about cloak and
dagger election tactics, but according to the Guardian, the ICO
has made clear shutting down does not exempt Cambridge Analytica
from releasing the data. If they don't, the paper wrote, the ICO
will treat it as a criminal offense.

The Guardian added that if Cambridge Analytica is unable to
comply, they can simply hand over the passwords for servers
seized during the raid -- something that suggests investigators
may have yet to gain access to the possible treasure trove of
information therein.

Carroll's case also sets a precedent for other Americans to
demand the company hand over the data, which was obtained without
their consent via prior versions of Facebook's ad tools that made
it extremely simple to aggregate large amounts of information on
users' friends. This is noteworthy because thanks to the
extremely lax laws in the US governing data privacy, Facebook has
essentially been able to inform users about what happened on
their terms and at a pace of their choosing.

If Cambridge Analytica is subject to a class action lawsuit, the
Guardian reported, it could be forced to hand over the data en
masse -- which would be a much less polite way of showing users
exactly what went on than a vague Facebook notification. While
the 87 million users in question are the most likely to demand
their files, Cambridge Analytica bragged about having thousands
of data points on 240 million Americans who could all
theoretically be rolled into a huge class action "if it refuses
to comply with Carroll's request or can be shown to have misused
data," the Guardian wrote.

"The data commissioner has said that data crimes are real crimes
and she is now putting this into action," data expert Paul-
Olivier Dehaye, who helped Carroll with the process, told the
paper. "This would have been unimaginable a year ago. It's a real
landmark. The ICO is showing that they are real consequences to
not complying with UK data laws ... Cambridge Analytica has been
able to evade journalists' questions and mislead both parliament
and Congress, but now if they don't answer these questions, it
shows they're criminally liable."[GN]


CEMEX SAB: Unit Still Defends Suit over Ready-Mix Concrete
----------------------------------------------------------
Cemex, S.A.B. de C.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that one of CEMEX's subsidiary in Israel
continues to defend itself in a class action lawsuit alleging
that the concrete supplied to plaintiff did not meet with the
Israeli ready-mix strength standard requirements.

In June 2012, one of CEMEX's subsidiaries in Israel and three
other companies were notified about a class action suits filed by
a homeowner who built his house with concrete supplied by the
defendants in October 2010. The class action argues that the
concrete supplied to him did not meet with the Israeli ready-mix
strength standard requirements and that as a result CEMEX acted
unlawfully toward all of its customers who received concrete that
did not comply with such standard requirements, causing financial
and non-financial damages to those customers, including the
plaintiff.

CEMEX presumes that the class action would represent the claim of
all the clients who purchased the alleged non-conforming concrete
from its subsidiary in Israel during the past 7 years, the
limitation period according to applicable laws in Israel. The
damages that could be sought are equivalent to US$80 (Ps1,564).

After several hearings to present evidence from all parties over
the years and the resolution of the court to join together all
claims against all four companies in order to simplify and
shorten court proceedings, as of December 31, 2017, the
proceedings are finalizing the evidentiary stage, and CEMEX's
subsidiary in Israel is not able to assess the likelihood of the
class action application being approved or, if approved, of an
adverse result, such as an award for damages in the full amount
that could be sought, but if adversely resolved CEMEX considers
that an adverse resolution on this matter would not have a
material adverse impact on its results of operations, liquidity
or financial condition.

Cemex SAB de CV is a building products company. The Company
produces, distributes, and markets cement, ready-mix concrete,
aggregates, and related building materials. Cemex operates
throughout the Americas, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and
Asia.


CEMEX SAB: Securities Suit Related to Maceo Project Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Cemex, S.A.B. de C.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself in
a putative securities class action suit related to the Maceo
Project.

On March 16, 2018, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed against CEMEX and one of its members of the board of
directors (CEO) and certain of its officers (CEO and CFO) in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of the investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of CEMEX between August 14, 2014 to March 13, 2018,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act") based on purportedly issuing press releases and SEC filings
that included materially false and misleading statements in
connection with alleged misconduct relating to the Maceo project
and the potential regulatory or criminal actions that might arise
as a result.

CEMEX denies liability and intends to vigorously defend the case.
CEMEX is not able to assess the likelihood of an adverse result
to this lawsuit. Because of its current status and its
preliminary nature, CEMEX is not able to assess if a final
adverse result in this lawsuit would have a material adverse
impact on its results of operations, liquidity and financial
condition.

Cemex SAB de CV is a building products company. The Company
produces, distributes, and markets cement, ready-mix concrete,
aggregates, and related building materials. Cemex operates
throughout the Americas, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and
Asia.


CHATHAM LODGING: Faces "Ruffy" and "Doonan" Suits in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham Lodging Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is facing
two class action suits in Santa Clara County Superior Court.

Island Hospitality Management LLC (IHM) is currently a defendant
in two (2) related class action lawsuits pending in the Santa
Clara County Superior Court.

The first class action lawsuit was filed on October 21, 2016
under the title Ruffy, et al, v. Island Hospitality Management,
LLC, et al. Case No. 16-CV-301473 and the second class action was
filed on March 21, 2018 under the title Doonan, et al, v. Island
Hospitality Management, LLC, et al. Case No. 18-CV-325187.

The class actions relate to hotels operated by IHM in the state
of California and owned by affiliates of the Company and the
NewINK JV, and/or certain third parties. The complaints allege
various wage and hour law violations based on alleged
misclassification of certain hotel managerial staff and violation
of certain California statutes regarding incorrect information
contained on employee paystubs. The plaintiffs seek injunctive
relief, money damages, penalties, and interest.

Chatham Lodging said, "None of the potential classes has been
certified and we are defending our case vigorously. As of March
31, 2018, included in accounts payable is $0.2 million which
represents an estimate of the Company's total exposure to the
litigation and is also its estimated maximum possible loss that
the Company may incur."

Chatham Lodging Trust is a self-advised hotel investment company
organized in October 2009 that commenced operations in April
2010. The company's investment strategy is to invest in upscale
extended-stay and premium-branded select-service hotels in
geographically diverse markets with high barriers to entry near
strong demand generators. The company is based in West Palm
Beach, Florida.


CHINACACHE INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Initial Approval of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd. said in its Form 20-F
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the lead
plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement remains pending.

The company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have been named as defendants in a putative shareholder
class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (the "District Court"): Xu v.
ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd., et al., Civil Action No.
2:15-cv-07952-CAS-RAO (C.D. Cal.) (filed on October 9, 2015).

The action -- purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons
who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their trading
activities related to the company's ADSs from March 27, 2015 to
August 20, 2015 -- alleges that certain of the company's
statements in press releases, quarterly earnings calls, and an
SEC filing contained misstatements or omissions related to the
company's High Performance Cloud Cache platform and asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act.

On January 5, 2016, the District Court appointed a lead plaintiff
and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel. On
February 19, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint. On August 15, 2016, the District Court dismissed
without prejudice the First Amended Complaint against the
Company. On September 14, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed the
Second Amended Complaint. On January 9, 2017, the District Court
dismissed the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice,
allowing plaintiff to file the Third Amended Complaint on or
before January 30, 2017. On February 28, 2017, the lead plaintiff
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the District
Court granted on March 1, 2017.

On March 6, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of
the District Court's order granting the company's motion to
dismiss and other related orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit (the "Court of Appeals"). On September 13,
2017, the lead plaintiff filed with the Court of Appeals a motion
for extension of time to file its opening brief, reporting to the
Court of Appeals that the lead plaintiff and the company have
reached an agreement in principle for the settlement of the
purported class action, which settlement would require approval
by the District Court.

ChinaCache said in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016, that on September 14, 2017, the Court of
Appeals granted the lead plaintiff's motion for extension of time
to file its opening brief. On November 7, 2017, the lead
plaintiff filed with the Court of Appeals another motion for
extension of time to file its opening brief, which motion was
granted by the Court of Appeals on November 9, 2017.

In its recent report, the Company said that on February 14, 2018,
the lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to remand the case
to the District Court for the limited purpose of enabling the
District Court to consider the parties' settlement agreement,
which motion was granted by the Court of Appeals on March 6,
2018.

On March 28, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of class action settlement in the
District Court, requesting that the District Court a)
preliminarily approve a settlement agreement that the parties
reached to settle the case for USD 990,000, b) certify the
proposed settlement class for settlement purposes only, c)
approve the parties' proposed form and method of giving
settlement class members notice of the action and proposed
settlement, and d) set a hearing at which the District Court will
consider whether to grant final approval of the settlement,
dismiss claims against defendants, approve the release of claims
against all released parties, enter judgment, and award
attorneys' fees and expenses to co-lead counsel. The lead
plaintiff's unopposed motion is currently pending before the
District Court.

ChinaCache International said, "We believe the case is without
merit and intend to defend the action vigorously."

ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd.provides a portfolio of
services and solutions to businesses, government agencies and
other enterprises to enhance the reliability and scalability of
their online services and applications and improve end-user
experience.


COMPANHIA BRASILEIRA: Class Action Settlement Granted Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Brasileira de Distribuicao said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the court has entered a
final order giving a definitive approval to the settlement of a
securities class action lawsuit.

The company's subsidiary Cnova NV, a Dutch public limited
company, certain of its current and former officers and
directors, and the underwriters of Cnova's initial public
offering, or IPO, were named as defendants in a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States Federal District Court for
the Southern District of New York, related to internal
investigation, concluded on July 22, 2016, conducted by Cnova
N.V., Cnova Brasil e its advisors. In October 11, 2017 the Court
for the Southern District of New York approved preliminarily an
agreement with the plaintiffs' shareholders.

Subject to the settlement agreement's terms, a fund of $28.5
million will become available by Cnova N.V. for distribution
amongst the former Cnova shareholders as well as to the
plaintiffs' lawyers. A portion of this amount will be used to
cover the settlement fund's administrative costs.

In addition, subject to the terms of the settlement, all
defendants are acquitted of all liability emanating from the
allegations made in the class action suit.

Following the March 15, 2018 hearing, the court entered on March
19, 2018 the final order giving the definitive approval to the
settlement, closing the judicial proceedings with the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York and
releasing defendants of the claims alleged against them
accordingly.

In the coming period, notices will be sent and distributed via
Newswire by the plaintiffs' lawyer with more information
concerning the settlement.

Companhia Brasileira de Distribuicao engages in the retail of
food, clothing, home appliances, electronics, and other products
through its chain of hypermarkets, supermarkets, specialized
stores, and department stores in Brazil. The company operates
through two segments, Food Retail; and Cash and Carry.


COWEN INC: Stay in "Fletcher" Suit Lifted
-----------------------------------------
Cowen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018, that the case captioned as, Landol Fletcher and all others
similarly situated v. Convergex Group LLC, Cowen Execution,
Convergex Global Markets Ltd., Convergex Holdings LLC, G-Trade
Services LLC, & Does 1-10, is proceeding in District Court after
a stay of the proceedings was lifted.

On December 27, 2013, Landol Fletcher filed a putative class
action lawsuit against Convergex Holdings, LLC, Convergex
Group, LLC, Cowen Execution, Convergex Global Markets Limited and
G-Trade Services LLC (collectively, "Convergex") in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Landol Fletcher and all others similarly situated v. Convergex
Group LLC, Cowen Execution, Convergex Global Markets Ltd.,
Convergex Holdings LLC, G-Trade Services LLC, & Does 1-10, No.
1:13-CV-09150-LLS).

The suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty and prohibited
transactions under ERISA and seeks to maintain a class action on
behalf of all ERISA plan participants, beneficiaries and named
fiduciaries whose plans were impacted by net trading by Convergex
Global Markets Limited from October 2006 to December 2011. On
April 11, 2014, Landol Fletcher and Frederick P. Potter Jr.,
filed an amended complaint raising materially similar
allegations. This matter was assumed by the Company as a result
of the Company's previously announced acquisition of Convergex
Group, which was completed on June 1, 2017.

On February 17, 2016, the District Court granted Convergex's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed an
appeal to the Second Circuit, and the AARP and Department of
Labor filed amicus briefs on plaintiffs' behalf. The appeal was
argued on December 12, 2016.

On February 10, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (1)
reversed the District Court, finding that plaintiff has
constitutional standing in a "representative" capacity to sue for
damages to the ERISA defined benefit plan in which he is a
participant, and (2) remanded to the District Court to
reconsider, in light of the Circuit Court's decision, the issue
whether plaintiff has standing to pursue claims on behalf of
ERISA plans in which plaintiff is not a participant. Convergex
filed a petition for rehearing, and the Court of Appeals denied
the petition.

On June 30, 2017, the Company filed a notice of motion and
memorandum of law in support of a motion to stay the proceedings
in the District Court pending resolution of its petition for writ
of certiorari, which the Company intended to file with the U.S.
Supreme Court. On August 16, 2017, the District Court granted the
Company's motion to stay the proceedings in the District Court
pending resolution of the Company's petition for writ of
certiorari. On September 1, 2017, the Company filed a petition
with the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari
requesting review of the decision of the Court of Appeals.

On January 8, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Company's
petition for a writ of certiorari. The previously granted stay of
the proceedings in the District Court has been lifted, and the
case is proceeding in the District Court.

Cowen said, "We are indemnified against losses arising from this
matter pursuant to, and subject to, the provisions of the
purchase agreement relating to the acquisition of Convergex
Group. Because the case is in its preliminary stages, the Company
cannot predict the outcome at this time, but it does not
currently expect this case to have a material effect on its
financial position or its results of operations."

Cowen Inc. (formerly Cowen Group, Inc.), a Delaware corporation
formed in 2009, is a diversified financial services firm and,
together with its consolidated subsidiaries, provides investment
management, investment banking, research, sales and trading,
prime brokerage, global clearing and commission management
services through its two business segments: the investment
management segment and the investment bank segment. The company
is based in New York.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: B&R Supermarket Suit Still in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that discovery is
ongoing in the case entitled, B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a
Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa, Inc. et al.

On March 8, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, other credit card networks, other issuing banks, and
EMVCo in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al.
v. Visa, Inc. et al.) alleging violations of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, California's Cartwright Act, and unjust
enrichment. Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy by defendants to shift
fraud liability to merchants with the migration to the EMV
security standard and chip technology. Plaintiffs assert joint
and several liability among the defendants and seek unspecified
damages, including treble damages, attorneys' fees, costs and
injunctive relief.

On July 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
includes additional named plaintiffs, reasserts the original
claims, and includes additional state law causes of action. The
defendants filed motions to dismiss on August 5, 2016. On
September 30, 2016, the court granted the motions to dismiss for
certain issuing banks and EMVCo but denied the motions to dismiss
filed by the networks, including the Company.

In May 2017, while discovery was proceeding and after class
certification was fully briefed but not yet ruled upon, the Court
entered an order transferring the entire action to a federal
court in New York that is presiding over certain related claims
that are pending in the actions consolidated as MDL 1720. In June
2017, the federal court in New York declined to consolidate the
B&R case with MDL 1720, but ordered the parties to coordinate
discovery across the actions to the extent they involved related
issues. On July 6, 2017, the Company requested permission to file
a motion to dismiss the claims against it in the federal court in
New York.

On August 24, 2017, the Court held a status conference at which
it set a briefing schedule on Discover's motion to dismiss. In
September 2017, Discover filed its motion to dismiss. On November
29, 2017, the Court heard argument on class certification and
took the motion under advisement. On January 23, 2018, the Court
heard argument on Discover's motion to dismiss. On March 11,
2018, the Court entered an order denying the plaintiffs' motion
of class certification without prejudice to filing a renewed
motion with additional detail on the proposed class period and
alleged antitrust injuries. Plaintiffs have requested permission
to file such a motion on July 16, 2018.

Discovery is ongoing, and for most fact issues and defenses is
scheduled to conclude on April 30, 2018, subject to a proposed
extension through June 14, 2018 for certain discovery related to
questions in the Court's March 11, 2018 class certification
order.

The Company is not in a position at this time to assess the
likely outcome or its exposure, if any, with respect to this
matter, but will seek to vigorously defend against all claims
asserted by the plaintiffs.

Discover Financial Services ("DFS") is a direct banking and
payment services company. The company provides direct banking
products and services and payment services through our
subsidiaries. The company offers its customers credit card loans,
private student loans, personal loans, home equity loans and
deposit products. The company also operates the Discover Network,
the PULSE network ("PULSE") and Diners Club International
("Diners Club").


DISH NETWORK: Appeals Ruling in Telemarketing Call Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBS News reports that thousands of people who got a telemarketing
call for Dish Network in 2010 or 2011 may be able to collect
$1,200 per call.  If you think that sounds too good to be true,
you're not alone.  Lawyers say they are having trouble convincing
people to sign up to get the money they're owed from the $61
million class action lawsuit over sales pitches to people on the
national Do Not Call Registry.

There's been a 120 percent increase in complaints about
violations of the list since 2014. Nearly 230 million numbers are
on the registry.  It was supposed to stop unwanted telemarketing,
but it hasn't.  Thousands are now eligible for payback after a
lawsuit against Dish Network, reports CBS News correspondent
Anna Werner.

"When someone is on the do not call list, it means do not call,"
Chicago resident Deborah Turner said.

But telemarketers did call Ms. Turner.

Salespeople for Dish Network allegedly dialed the Chicago banker
15 times in 2010 and 2011, asking her to sign up for their
satellite TV service.  So when she got another call recently from
a man telling her she could receive up to $18,000 through a
class-action lawsuit: "'Yeah, right' is my first thought.
Right," Turner said with a laugh.

John W. Barrett, an attorney with Bailey Glasser, is hearing that
a lot as he tries to contact a group of people who may be
eligible for thousands of dollars each.

"Talking to them firsthand, I learned that they thought that we
were, A, telemarketers, or B, trying to scam them," Mr. Barrett
said.

Some won't answer.  Others hang up on him.  That's despite the
fact he did win a lawsuit against Dish Network for what a jury
found was illegal telemarketing.

But it's no scam.  The jury awarded $400 for each of the 51,000
calls made in violation of the Do Not Call Registry.  Not only
that, a judge later determined Dish "willfully and knowingly
violated" the law and tripled the damages to $1,200 per call.

"The evidence was that Dish Network knew what was going on,"
Mr. Barrett said.  "It had the ability to put an end to it but
didn't."

Dish is appealing the ruling.  The company blames an outside
contractor which has since shut down, telling CBS News "these
calls violated Dish's express instructions to the contractor."
As the appeals process plays out and Turner waits for her money,
she said, "I have bills to pay.  I have a mortgage."

Mr. Barrett is hoping more people pick up the phone to join in.

"We have an obligation to be standing up on the mountaintops
shouting about the result that we got in this lawsuit to try to
reach the people that need to be reached," he said.

This lawsuit is in addition to a separate government case in
which a court ordered Dish to pay a $280 million penalty.  To
check if your phone number received one of these calls, you can
look it up on this website. [GN]


DISH NETWORK: Judge Awards Attorney Fees in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Sam Knef, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that a federal
judge has awarded attorney fees in a class action that settled
for $2.7 million in January against Dish Network over its
cancellation of regional sports programming of FOX Network
packages in October 2010.

U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey found that the "lodestar"
method of determining fees to be appropriate in the case
originally brought by Michael Padberg in 2011 -- with an amount
of fees exceeding the total settlement fund.  A lodestar method
calculates attorney's fees by hours worked times a reasonable
hourly rate.

"Class counsel's lodestar is more than $3 million, with an
additional $711,278.16 in previously incurred costs and expenses,
exclusive of the settlement administration costs and expenses,"
Judge Laughrey held.

"The court agrees that class counsel have vigorously and
zealously advocated on behalf of Plaintiff Padberg and the class
members for years and, as plaintiff notes, did so on a purely
contingent fee basis with no guarantee that their efforts would
ever result in a fee," she wrote.

Judge Laughrey noted the case had been heavily litigated since
early 2011, which included a weeklong trial in Jefferson City,
post-trial motions and hearings for a new trial and
reconsideration of the order granting a new trial, motions to
decertify the class, and revisit prior evidentiary motions, among
other things.

For his service as class representative, Mr. Padberg was awarded
$15,000, the ruling states.

"Although the requested award is on the higher end of the
spectrum, courts in the Eighth Circuit 'regularly grant service
awards of $10,000 or greater,'" Judge Laughrey wrote.

According to background information in the original complaint,
after plaintiffs had paid for the programming, DISH had dropped
the service, but refused to provide any refund, rebate or
reimbursement.

In response, DISH had claimed that its contracts with customers
allowed it to drop or delete programming without notifying
customers and without reimbursing them.

"DISH claims, further, that, under these contracts, DISH's
customers are required to continue to pay DISH monthly premiums
for the deleted programming and may not cancel their contracts
without the payment of hefty cancellation fees to DISH," the
complaint states. [GN]


DR PEPPER: Must Face Class Action Over Canada Dry Ginger Ale
------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Knef, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that a putative
class action that claims Canada Dry Ginger Ale does not contain
ginger can proceed.

U.S. District Judge Roseann Ketchmark on April 25 denied a motion
to dismiss brought by Dr. Pepper Snapple Group and Dr
Pepper/Seven Up Inc. in a case that alleges that laboratory
testing of the product does not contain "a detectable amount of
ginger."

Lead plaintiff Arnold E. Webb claims that he and others relied on
the product makers' "deceptive representation about the product,
and believing that the product contained a detectable amount of
ginger."

The litigation also claims that had Webb and others known that
Ginger Ale did not contain a detectable amount of ginger they
would not have purchased it, or would have paid substantially
less at the checkout counter.

Webb claims alleged violations of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act (MMPA), breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, common law fraud,
intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and
quasi contract/unjust enrichment/restitution.  The proposed class
seeks damages, restitution, declaratory relief and injunctive
relief.

In her ruling, Judge Ketchmark found that plaintiffs' pleadings
sufficiently satisfied a federal rule requiring "particularity."

"[T]he court finds plaintiff has alleged a claim that is
plausible on its face and satisfied Rule 9(b) particularity
requirements," Judge Ketchmark wrote.  "Here, the plaintiff has
sufficiently presented the "who,' "what," "where," "when," and
"how" of his claims to survive a motion to dismiss under Fed. R.
Civ. 9(b) with respect to the laboratory testing and the
television advertising campaigns."

She further held that plaintiffs had pleaded sufficient facts to
state claims for breach of express and implied warranty under
Missouri statute, as well as on plaintiffs' other claims.

"Plaintiff alleged that defendants were enriched by a benefit
from plaintiff's purchase of the product in that defendants
retained monies paid to them by plaintiff . . . the enrichment
occurred at plaintiff's expense because he was induced into
purchasing the product and did not obtain the full value of the
benefit conferred on Defendants . . . and therefore, it would be
unjust to allow defendants to retain the benefit," the ruling
states. [GN]


EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Sanfilippo" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Edge Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is facing
a purported securities class action suit entitled, Sanfilippo v.
Edge Therapeutics, Inc.

On April 23, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed against the Company, Brian Leuthner (the Company's
President and Chief Executive Officer) and Andrew Saik (the
Company's Chief Financial Officer) in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Sanfilippo v. Edge
Therapeutics, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-8236. The complaint alleges
that the Company, Mr. Leuthner and Mr. Saik violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's business,
operations and prospects by failing to disclose that EG-1962
would likely fail a futility analysis.

The complaint is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's common stock between December 27, 2017 and March 27,
2018, and seeks unspecified damages. None of the Company, Mr.
Leuthner, or Mr. Saik have been served with the complaint and
their time to respond has not yet expired.

The Company and its executives intend to defend themselves
vigorously in the action.  There can be no guarantee as to the
outcome or timing of any resolution.

Edge Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company
that seeks to discover, develop and commercialize novel,
hospital-based therapies capable of transforming treatment
paradigms in the management of acute, life-threatening
conditions. The company is based in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey.


ENEL AMERICAS: Writ of Proof in Codensa Case Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Enel Americas S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the writ of proof in the Codensa class
action suit is still pending.

A class action was filed in Colombia against Codensa in which
plaintiffs seek reimbursement for excess charges for not applying
the tariff benefit that according to them would have applied to
them as users of the Voltage One Level and owners of the
infrastructure, as established by Resolution No. 082 of 2002,
amended by Resolution No. 097 of 2008. Regarding the proceeding
status, Codensa filed a plea against the lawsuit rejecting it
entirely. A conciliation hearing was held between the parties,
without success.

The writ of proof is pending as well as the decision on including
the new claimant. The amount involved in this proceeding is
estimated to be approximately CP$337,000 million (approximately
ThUS$112,935).

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Enel Americas SA operates as an electricity utility company. The
Company generates, transmits, and distributes electricity. Enel
Americas serves customers in Latin America.


ENEL AMERICAS: Class Suit Against Emgesa Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Enel Americas S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that Emgesa, the company's subsidiary,
continues to defend a class action suit filed by the residents of
the Colombian Municipality of Garzon.

In 2013, a class action lawsuit was filed by residents of the
Colombian Municipality of Garzon against the company's subsidiary
Emgesa, alleging that the construction of the El Quimbo
hydroelectric project had caused the plaintiffs' income from
handicrafts or entrepreneurial activities to decrease by an
average of 30%. The lawsuit claims the decrease was not
considered when the project's social-economic impact report was
drafted.

Emgesa denied these allegations on the basis that (i) the social-
economic impact report complied with all methodological criteria,
including giving all interested parties the opportunity to be
registered in the report, (ii) the plaintiffs are not residents
and therefore, compensation is allowed only for those whose
revenues are, in their majority, coming from of their activity in
the direct area of influence of the El Quimbo hydroelectric
project and (iii) compensation must not go beyond the "first
link" of the production chain and must be based on the status of
the income indicators of each affected person. A proceeding was
filed in parallel by 38 inhabitants of the Municipality of
Garzon, who are claiming compensation for being affected by the
El Quimbo hydroelectric project since they were not included in
the social-economic impact report.

A mandatory settlement hearing was unsuccessful. The court
ordered a test, which is currently in the preliminary phase. In
the parallel proceeding, an exception previous of pending lawsuit
was filed, based on the existence of the principal proceeding.
The proposed exception is pending ruling. The trial is currently
in a probatory period. The parties requested an expert opinion to
evaluate the damages to each of the 1170 plaintiffs, but to date
this expert opinion requested by the plaintiffs with regard to
the review of the Socioeconomic Census, has not been submitted,
despite the fact that it has been notified officially by the
General Comptrollership of the Republic, the National Authority
for Environmental Licenses (ANLA), the National University and
the Regional Autonomous Corporation of Cundinamarca (CAR), to
perform and issue this opinion.

Enel Americas said, "Right now they are evaluating the strategy
to petitioning the Court to declare the probatory period closed
and move the proceedings forward, so that notice may be given to
submit the conclusion. The current status and procedural
situation of the parallel action: is as follows. The defendant's
plea has been submitted in four parallel group actions (one by
welders and three by builders). In all of them, a motion to set
aside due to pending proceedings was filed, given the existence
of the main lawsuit, but the judges have decided that the
proceedings should continue where the parties must prove the
damages they have suffered.

The amount involved in this proceeding is estimated to be
approximately CP$ 33,000 million (approximately ThUS$11,058). The
amount involved in the parallel proceeding is estimated to be
approximately CP$ 1,710 billion (approximately ThUS$573).

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Enel Americas SA operates as an electricity utility company. The
Company generates, transmits, and distributes electricity. Enel
Americas serves customers in Latin America.


EVIR CORP: "Adame" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Marco Antonio Alarcon Adame, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Evir Corp. dba San Marzano, Kamran
Malekan and David Malekan, Case No. 1:18-cv-02969 (S.D. N.Y.,
April 4, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
and for violations of the New York Labor Law.

Marco Antonio Alarcon Adame was employed as a delivery worker at
the Italian restaurant located at 117 2nd Avenue New York, New
York 10003.

The Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian restaurant,
located at 117 2nd Avenue New York, New York 10003 under the name
"San Marzano". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Fax: (212) 317-1620


EXLSERVICE HOLDINGS: Parties Agree to Settle California Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
ExlService Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the parties in a
putative class action lawsuit in California have reached an
agreement in principle.

In March 2017, the Company was named in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in California, which included several causes of
action seeking damages but did not include a monetary demand. The
Company filed its answer in April 2017 vigorously denying the
allegations. Both parties agreed to participate in a court-
approved mediation which occurred in March 2018.

The parties reached an agreement in principle whereby the
Company, without any admission of wrongdoing or liability, would
pay $2,400 to settle the litigation, which amount has been
accrued under "General and administrative expenses" for the three
months ended March 31, 2018. The agreement remains subject to
final court approval, which is expected to occur in the fourth
quarter of 2018 although there can be no guarantee as to approval
or timing.

ExlService Holdings, Inc. is an operations management and
analytics company that helps businesses enhance revenue growth
and improve profitability. Using proprietary platforms,
methodologies, and our full range of digital capabilities, the
company looks deeper to help companies transform their
businesses, functions and operations, to help them deliver better
customer experience and business outcomes, while managing risk
and compliance. The company is based in New York.


FACEBOOK INC: Indonesian Institutions Mull Data Misuse Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tempo.co reports that two institutions plan to file a lawsuit
against Facebook over the data misuse scandal involving
Indonesians' personal information.  The Indonesia ICT Institute
and the Indonesian Society for Information Empowerment
Development (LPPMII) said the lawsuit represented the Indonesian
people who are users of Facebook.

ICT Institute president director Heru Sutadi said one of the
reasons for the lawsuit was the uncertainties surrounding the
continuation of case involving the misuse of Indonesians' data.

"We are called to file a class action on the matter, so that the
problem becomes as clear and bright as possible," Heru said on
May 7.

Heru explained that the class action is filed against three
defendants; Facebook, Facebook Indonesia, and Cambridge
Analytica.

Jemy Tommy, the legal representatives of both institutions, said
the lawsuit would be registered at the South Jakarta District
Court on May 7 at 13:00 local time.

Among the demands made by the plaintiffs are to have Facebook
apologize openly to the Indonesian government and the people of
Indonesia, especially Facebook users in Indonesia.  The apology
must be published for seven consecutive days in national media --
both print and electronic.

The plaintiffs also asked the defense to compensate users.  The
material compensation demanded is in the form of internet data
charges to access Facebook, amounting to Rp20,000 per every
Facebook user, or totaling at some Rp20 billion for the one
million Indonesians who are registered as Facebook users.

To compensate for non-material losses caused, the plaintiffs are
demanding Facebook to pay Rp10 million for each Facebook user, or
around Rp10 trillion in total. [GN]


FASTAFF LLC: Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charmaine Little, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that former nursing firm employees can now move forward with a
class action lawsuit against Fastaff LLC following an April 9
opinion in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

Fastaff, a hospital staffing agency under the U.S. Nursing Co.,
attempted to put a stay on the case after plaintiffs Stephanie
Dalchau and Michael Goodwin requested the court verify the class
action status.  Ms. Dalchau and Mr. Goodwin requested the court
grant it class action status.  The plaintiffs prevailed.

The legal issues between Ms. Dalchau and Fastaff began after the
plaintiffs discovered an alleged overtime versus housing
compensation system that resulted in employees being underpaid.
Ms. Dalchau said Fastaff didn't include the housing provisions in
the employees' pay "for purposes of calculating overtime." Before
the court's ruling, Fastaff stated being denied a stay "will
cause this court and the parties hardship due to the
unnecessarily expended time and resources . . ."

Still, the court denied Fastaff's request for a stay under the
notion that it could not provide evidence of any hardships it
experienced as a result of the legal issues with Ms. Dalchau and
Mr. Goodwin with the exception of the actual defense of the
lawsuit, which the district court said was not sufficient to
grant Fastaff a stay.

Conversely, the court stated the lawsuit met all of the
requirements to merit class action status.

It also explained the class applies to anyone who worked
"exclusively on or after Nov. 16, 2017" who was provided with in-
kind housing from March 25, 2013 through the date the class was
certified.  The class also included employees who "worked in
California pursuant to an Assignment Agreement Letter with
Fastaff" and was provided with a housing stipend, was paid for
overtime, and had housing provisions deducted from their regular
pay that was considered when paying for overtime hours. [GN]


FREDDIE MAC: Continues to Defend Ohio Public Employees Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
1, 2018, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the
company continues to defend itself in a class action suit
entitled, Ohio Public Employees Retirement System ("OPERS") vs.
Freddie Mac, Syron, et al.

A putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac
stock from August 1, 2006 through November 20, 2007. FHFA later
intervened as Conservator, and the plaintiff amended its
complaint on several occasions.

The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading
statements concerning our business, risk management, and the
procedures we put into place to protect the company from problems
in the mortgage industry. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages
and interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorney and expert fees.

In October 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint. In October 2014, the District Court granted
defendants' motions and dismissed the case in its entirety
against all defendants, with prejudice. In November 2014,
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit. On July 20, 2016, the Court of Appeals
reversed the District Court's dismissal and remanded the case to
the District Court for further proceedings.

Federal Home said, "At present, it is not possible for us to
predict the probable outcome of this lawsuit or any potential
effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity, or
results of operations. In addition, we are unable to reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss in the event
of an adverse judgment in the foregoing matter due to the
following factors, among others: the inherent uncertainty of pre-
trial litigation and the fact that the District Court has not yet
ruled upon motions for class certification or summary judgment.
In particular, absent the certification of a class, the
identification of a class period, and the identification of the
alleged statement or statements that survive dispositive motions,
we cannot reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of
possible loss."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation operates in the secondary
mortgage market in the United States. The company purchases
residential mortgage loans originated by lenders, as well as
invests in mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities. It
operates in three segments: Single-family Guarantee, Multifamily,
and Capital Markets. The company is based in McLean, Virginia.


FREDDIE MAC: Still Defends Preferred Stock Purchase Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
1, 2018, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the
company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit
entitled, In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock
Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations.

This case is the result of the consolidation of three putative
class action lawsuits: Cacciapelle and Bareiss vs. Federal
National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation and FHFA, filed on July 29, 2013; American European
Insurance Company vs. Federal National Mortgage Association,
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and FHFA, filed on July
30, 2013; and Marneu Holdings, Co. vs. FHFA, Treasury, Federal
National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, filed on September 18, 2013. (The Marneu case was
also filed as a shareholder derivative lawsuit.)

A consolidated amended complaint was filed in December 2013. In
the consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs allege, among
other items, that the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase
Agreement breached Freddie Mac's and Fannie Mae's respective
contracts with the holders of junior preferred stock and common
stock and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in
such contracts. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, equitable
and injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorney
and expert fees.

The Cacciapelle and American European Insurance Company lawsuits
were filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of
junior preferred stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae who
held stock prior to, and as of, August 17, 2012. The Marneu
lawsuit was filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers
of junior preferred stock and purchasers of common stock issued
by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae over a not-yet-defined period of
time.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation operates in the secondary
mortgage market in the United States. The company purchases
residential mortgage loans originated by lenders, as well as
invests in mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities. It
operates in three segments: Single-family Guarantee, Multifamily,
and Capital Markets. The company is based in McLean, Virginia.


FREDDIE MAC: Appeal in Jacobs-Hindes Case Underway
--------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
1, 2018, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the
plaintiffs in the case Jacobs and Hindes vs. FHFA and Treasury,
filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.

This case was filed on August 17, 2015 as a putative class action
lawsuit purportedly on behalf of a class of holders of preferred
stock or common stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. The
case was also filed as a shareholder derivative lawsuit,
purportedly on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as "nominal"
defendants.

The complaint alleges, among other items, that the August 2012
amendment to the Purchase Agreement violated applicable state law
and constituted a breach of contract, as well as a breach of
covenants of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs seek
equitable and injunctive relief (including restitution of the
monies paid by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to Treasury under the
net worth sweep dividend), compensatory damages, attorneys' fees,
costs and expenses.

On November 27, 2017, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice
after defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On December 21, 2017,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.

Federal Home said, "At present, it is not possible for us to
predict the probable outcome of the lawsuits discussed above in
the U.S. District Courts and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims
(including the outcome of any appeal) or any potential effect on
our business, financial condition, liquidity, or results of
operations. In addition, we are unable to reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of possible loss in the event of an
adverse judgment in the foregoing matters due to a number of
factors, including the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial
litigation. In addition, with respect to the In re Fannie
Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class
Action Litigations case, the plaintiffs have not demanded a
stated amount of damages they believe are due, and the Court has
not certified a class."

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation operates in the secondary
mortgage market in the United States. The company purchases
residential mortgage loans originated by lenders, as well as
invests in mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities. It
operates in three segments: Single-family Guarantee, Multifamily,
and Capital Markets. The company is based in McLean, Virginia.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Delaware High Court Weighs in on DBCP Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended March 30, 2018, that the Delaware
Supreme court has decided the complex procedural question in
favor of plaintiffs in the DBCP-related case and is in the
process of returning the case to the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware.

Beginning in December 1993, certain of the company's U.S.
subsidiaries were named among the defendants in a number of
actions in courts in Texas, Louisiana, Hawaii, California and the
Philippines involving claims by numerous non-U.S. plaintiffs
alleging that they were injured as a result of exposure to a
nematocide containing the chemical dibromochloropropane ("DBCP")
during the period 1965 to 1990. As a result of a settlement
entered into in December 1998, the remaining unresolved DBCP
claims against the company's U.S. subsidiaries are pending or
subject to appeal in Hawaii, Delaware and the Philippines.

On October 14, 2004, two of the company's subsidiaries were
served with a complaint in an action styled Angel Abarca, et al.
v. Dole Food Co., et al. filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of more
than 2,600 Costa Rican banana workers who claim injury from
exposure to DBCP. On January 2, 2009, three of the company's
subsidiaries were served with multiple complaints in related
actions styled Jorge Acosta Cortes, et al. v. Dole Food Company,
et al. filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles on behalf of 461 Costa Rican residents.

An initial review of the plaintiffs in the Abarca and Cortes
actions found that a substantial number of the plaintiffs were
claimants in prior DBCP actions in Texas and may have
participated in the settlement of those actions. On June 27,
2008, the court dismissed the claims of 1,329 plaintiffs who were
parties to prior DBCP actions. On June 30, 2008, the company's
subsidiaries moved to dismiss the claims of the remaining Abarca
plaintiffs on grounds of forum non conveniens in favor of the
courts of Costa Rica.

On September 22, 2009, the court granted the motion to dismiss
and on November 16, 2009 entered an order conditionally
dismissing the claims of those remaining plaintiffs who allege
employment on farms in Costa Rica exclusively affiliated with the
Company's subsidiaries. Those dismissed plaintiffs re-filed their
claim in Costa Rica on May 17, 2012. On January 18, 2013, all
remaining plaintiffs in California filed Requests for Dismissal
effecting the dismissal of their claims without prejudice. On
September 25, 2013, the company's subsidiaries filed an answer to
the claim re-filed with the courts of Costa Rica. Two additional
DBCP-related lawsuits were filed in Costa Rica in 2015, which
have since been dismissed by the Court on procedural grounds.

On May 31 and June 1, 2012, eight actions were filed against one
of the company's subsidiaries in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware on behalf of approximately 3,000
plaintiffs alleging exposure to DBCP on or near banana farms in
Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, and Guatemala. The company and its
subsidiaries have never owned, managed or otherwise been involved
with any banana growing operations in Panama and were not
involved with any banana growing operations in Ecuador during the
period when DBCP was in use.

The plaintiffs include 229 claimants who had cases pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana which were dismissed on September 17, 2012. On August
30, 2012, the company's subsidiary joined a motion to dismiss the
claims of those plaintiffs on the grounds that they have first-
filed claims pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana. The motion was granted on March
29, 2013 and appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit. On September 21, 2012, the company's
subsidiary filed an answer with respect to the claims of those
plaintiffs who had not already filed in Louisiana.

On May 27, 2014, the court granted a motion made by a co-
defendant and entered summary judgment against all remaining
plaintiffs based on the September 19, 2013 affirmance by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the
dismissal on statute of limitations grounds of related cases by
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana. On July 7, 2014, the company's subsidiary joined in a
motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds as
to all remaining plaintiffs on the basis of the court's May 27,
2014 ruling.

Plaintiffs agreed that judgment be entered in favor of all
defendants for the claims still pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware on the basis of the
summary judgment granted on May 27, 2014 and the district court
entered judgment dismissing all plaintiffs' claims on September
22, 2014. On October 21, 2014, a notice of appeal was filed with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
expressly limited the appeal to the claims of 57 (out of the more
than 2,600) plaintiffs who had not previously filed claims in
Louisiana.

On August 11, 2015, a panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal of the claims of these plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Rehearing en Banc with the Third Circuit, which was
granted on September 22, 2015. On September 2, 2016, the Third
Circuit en banc reversed the District Court's dismissal on first-
filed doctrine grounds of the claims of approximately 229 of the
plaintiffs and remanded the case back to the District Court for
further proceedings.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has
canceled the hearing previously scheduled for March 9, 2017 to
hear oral argument in the appeal from the grant of summary
judgment to defendants on the statute of limitations issue and
has advised the parties that its decision on the appeal, which
remains pending, will be issued on the basis of the written
pleadings filed by the parties.

On June 2, 2017, the Third Circuit issued a Petition for
Certification of State Law to the Delaware Supreme Court to
resolve the complex procedural question pending on appeal
regarding the applicability of the first-filed doctrine for
tolling the statute of limitations on class actions claims. The
Delaware Supreme Court has accepted certification of the pending
question of law and the parties have filed their respective
briefs with the court.

On March 15, 2018, the Delaware Supreme court decided the complex
procedural question in favor of the plaintiffs and is in the
process of returning the case to the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware for further proceedings.

In Hawaii, plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari to the
Hawaii Supreme Court based upon the Hawaii Court of Appeals
affirmance in March 2014 of a summary judgment ruling in
defendants' favor at the trial court level. The Hawaii Supreme
Court accepted the petition and oral argument was held on
September 18, 2014 with respect to whether the claims of the six
named plaintiffs were properly dismissed on statute of
limitations grounds. On October 21, 2015, the Hawaii Supreme
Court reversed the Hawaii Court of Appeals and the Hawaii state
trial court's grant of partial summary judgment against the DBCP
plaintiffs on statute of limitations grounds. The Hawaii Supreme
Court remanded the claims of six remaining plaintiffs back to the
Hawaii state trial court for further proceedings.

Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. is one of the world's leading
vertically integrated producers, marketers and distributors of
high-quality fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as
a leading producer and marketer of prepared fruit and vegetables,
juices, beverages and snacks in Europe, Africa and the Middle
East. The company markets its products worldwide under the DEL
MONTE(R) brand, a symbol of product innovation, quality,
freshness and reliability since 1892.


G WILLI FOOD: Suit over Improper Product Marketing Discontinued
---------------------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the class action suit
related to the company's alleged improper marketing of products
has been ended after the parties submitted a stipulation of
discontinuance.

In December 2013, December 2014 and April 2016, the Company was
served with lawsuits and motions to certify them as class action
lawsuits in accordance with the Israeli Class Action Claims Law,
5766 - 2006, whose subject matter and cause of action, according
to what is claimed, is the improper marketing of products which
the Company imports and sells in a manner which allegedly
misleads the consumers.

The class which the petitioning plaintiffs wish to represent is
every resident of Israel who purchased the Company products. The
amount of the lawsuits, if successful, is estimated by the
plaintiffs in approximately NIS 40 million. On September 23,
2016, the parties submitted a stipulation of discontinuance,
thereby ending the litigation.

The Company is an Israeli-based company engaged, directly and
through subsidiaries, in the development, import, export,
marketing and distribution of a wide variety of over 600 food
products world-wide.


G WILLI FOOD: NIS4-Mil. Class Suit over Food Labeling Ended
-----------------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that an Israeli court has
approved a compromise reached in a class action suit related to
non-compliance on food labeling regulations.

A lawsuit and a motion to approve it as class action was filed on
July 5, 2017, against Willi-Food to the Central District Court
for allegedly not complying with the food labeling regulations in
connection with one of its products and thereby misleading
consumers. The amount specified in the lawsuit is NIS 4 million.

The Company and the plaintiff reached a settlement agreement
whereby the plaintiff will withdraw the lawsuit and it will be
stricken out at a cost which is immaterial to the Company. On
November 23, 2017, the Court approved the compromise, thereby
ending the litigation.

The Company is an Israeli-based company engaged, directly and
through subsidiaries, in the development, import, export,
marketing and distribution of a wide variety of over 600 food
products world-wide.


G WILLI FOOD: NIS3-Mil. Food Labeling Suit Concluded
----------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that an Israeli court has
approved a compromise reached in a class action suit related to
non-compliance on food labeling regulations.

A lawsuit and a motion to approve it as class action was filed on
July 23, 2017, against Willi-Food and against two other companies
to the Central District Court for allegedly not complying with
the food labelling regulations in connection with one of its
products and thereby misleading consumers.

The amounts specified in the lawsuit is NIS 3 million (and no
specific amount was attributed to any of the defendants), since
according to the plaintiff, he does not have any data regarding
the scope of marketing of the product, which is the subject
matter of the motion.

The Company and the plaintiff reached a settlement agreement
whereby the plaintiff will withdraw the lawsuit and it will be
stricken out without consideration. On November 24, 2017, the
Court approved the settlement agreement, thereby ending the
litigation.

The Company is an Israeli-based company engaged, directly and
through subsidiaries, in the development, import, export,
marketing and distribution of a wide variety of over 600 food
products world-wide.


G WILLI FOOD: NIS2.7-Mil. Food Labeling Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that a NIS 2.7 million class
action lawsuit over non-compliance of food labeling regulations
remains pending.

A lawsuit and a motion to approve it as class action was filed on
January 3, 2018, against the Company and against another company
to the Central District Court for allegedly not complying with
the food labelling regulations in connection with one of its
products and thereby misleading consumers.

At this stage, the amount specified in the lawsuit is NIS 2.7
million since according to the plaintiff he does not have any
data regarding the extent of the damage.

The Company is required to file a response to the lawsuit until
May 15, 2018.

G. Willi-Food said, "At this preliminary stage of the
proceedings, it is not yet possible to assess the Company's
chances of prevailing in the claim."

The Company is an Israeli-based company engaged, directly and
through subsidiaries, in the development, import, export,
marketing and distribution of a wide variety of over 600 food
products world-wide.


GAZIT GLOBE: Continues to Defend Lawsuits in Tel Aviv
-----------------------------------------------------
Gazit-Globe Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself in
a number of lawsuits filed in the Economic Affairs Division of
the Tel Aviv District Court.

In July and August 2014, a number of lawsuits were filed with the
Economic Affairs Division of the Tel Aviv District Court to
certify lawsuits as class actions, against U.Dori Construction
Ltd. ("Dori Construction"), U.Dori Ltd. ("Dori Group" presently -
Amos Luzon Development and Energy Group Ltd.), their directors
and officers and their auditors, as well as against Gazit
Development and the Company.

The motions deal with damage allegedly caused to the public that
have invested in Dori Construction and/or Dori Group, as the case
may be, as a result of the publication of allegedly erroneous
information in the reporting of Dori Construction, including in
its financial statements, and as a result of failing to report,
at the appointed time, material adverse information concerning
the financial results and the financial position of Dori
Construction, and consequently, concerning the financial results
of Dori Group.


The grounds for the claims in the aforementioned motions include
grounds under the Securities Law, 1968, among which are the
inclusion of erroneous details in the financial statements and
deficient and erroneous reporting, a tort of negligence under the
Torts Laws, breach of statutory duty (in relation to the
Securities Law and the Regulations promulgated thereunder, as
well as the Companies Law), all being with regard to the
reporting of Dori Construction. The amounts of the aforesaid
claims range from NIS 13 million to NIS 75 million (subject to
quantifying the exact damage in the course of the hearings on the
lawsuits), which are not material for the Company (including
cumulatively).

The aforesaid motions have been unified into a single proceeding
(apart from three motions that have been dismissed). The Company
and the other respondents have submitted their responses to the
amended motion, subsequent to which the petitioners filed their
replies and also added and lodged a motion for disclosure of
documents in which the disclosure was sought of documents not
belonging to the Company or Gazit Development.

In December 2015, a preliminary hearing was held on the amended
motion, within the framework of which the parties agreed to
transfer the proceeding to mediation. The parties further agreed
that, at this stage, the hearing on the motion for disclosure of
documents would be deferred. In August 2016, the petitioners
notified the Court of the failure of the mediation proceeding.
Within this framework, the petitioners requested to resume the
hearing of the motion for the disclosure of documents and to
provide for further deliberation in the proceeding.

Following several deliberations and petitions for the disclosure
of the documents, on December 13, 2017, the Court determined that
the petitioners will be allowed to peruse certain documents that
are in the hands of the Securities Authority, subject to the
signing of an NDA.

At this preliminary stage of the proceeding, the chances of the
lawsuit cannot be assessed. Moreover, two motions for a
derivative action were filed in 2014 (unified under a single
proceeding) against Dori Construction and Dori Group and their
directors and officers in connection with dividend distributions
made by Dori Construction to its shareholders in the years 2010-
2014, in an amount of NIS 36 million, as well as alleged damages
to Dori Construction as a result of said distributions. As a
result of the motion, Dori Group refunded dividend amounts of NIS
12 million to Dori Group. As from the date of sale by the Company
of the shares in Dori Group, the Company is not informed of the
status of said proceedings.

Gazit Globe Ltd, through its subsidiaries, acquires, owns,
develops, operates, and manages supermarket-anchored shopping
centers in North America, Europe, and internationally.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Kessler Topaz Appointed Lead Counsel
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Hachem v. General Electric Inc. et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-08457 (S.D.N.Y., November 1, 2017), Judge Jesse M Furman
granted the motion of Sjunde Ap-Fonden for appointment as lead
plaintiff and approval of its selection of counsel. AP7 is
appointed to serve as Lead Plaintiff and its selection of Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Lead Counsel for the class is
approved.

General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the since November
2017, several putative class actions under the federal securities
laws have been filed against GE and certain affiliated
individuals. Those actions have been consolidated into a single
action currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Hachem v. GE et al). In January
2018, the court appointed the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System
(ATRS) as Lead Plaintiff and Labaton Sucharow LLP as Lead Counsel
for the consolidated shareholder actions.

In March 2018, ATRS filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint naming as defendants GE, Jeffrey R. Immelt, Jeffrey S.
Bornstein, John L. Flannery, Jamie S. Miller and Keith S. Sherin.
It alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to insurance
reserves and accounting for long-term service agreements and
seeks damages on behalf of shareowners who acquired GE stock
between January 23, 2015 and January 23, 2018.

On February 16, 2018, another putative class action (the
Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund (CBTPF) case) was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The CBTPF case names as defendants GE, Jeffrey R. Immelt,
Jeffrey S. Bornstein, John L. Flannery and Jamie S. Miller and
makes similar allegations as those in the ATRS case. The CBTPF
complaint seeks damages on behalf of shareowners who acquired GE
stock between February 26, 2013 and January 24, 2018.

On April 12, 2018, in response to a motion filed by counsel for
CBTPF, the court vacated its January 19, 2018 order appointing
ATRS as Lead Plaintiff and Labaton Sucharow LLP as Lead Counsel
and set a new deadline of May 4, 2018 for putative class members
to file motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff.

Since February 2018, four shareholder derivative lawsuits have
also been filed against current and former GE executive officers
and members of GE's Board of Directors and GE (as nominal
defendant). Two of the lawsuits (the Gammel case and the Lasker
case) were filed in New York state court, one lawsuit (the
Bennett case) was filed in Massachusetts state court and one
lawsuit (the Raul case) was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York. The lawsuits allege breaches
of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment from 2016 to the
present. The allegations relate to substantially the same facts
as those underlying the securities class actions described above,
as well as the oversight of past GE practices regarding the use
of its corporate aircraft. The Bennett complaint also includes a
claim for professional negligence and accounting malpractice
against GE's auditor, KPMG. The plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages and improvements in GE's corporate governance and
internal procedures.

These cases are at an early stage; we believe we have defenses to
the claims and will respond accordingly

General Electric Company operates as a digital industrial company
worldwide. It operates through Power, Renewable Energy, Oil &
Gas, Aviation, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital
segments. The company is based in Boston, Massachusetts.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Consolidated 401(k) Plan Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is facing
a consolidated class action suit involving its 401(k) plan.

On September 27, 2017, three individual plaintiffs filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California with claims regarding the
oversight of GE's 401(k) plan (the GE RSP). From October 30 to
November 15, 2017, three similar class action suits were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

All four actions have been consolidated into a single action in
the District of Massachusetts. The consolidated complaint names
as defendants GE, GE Asset Management, current and former GE and
GE Asset Management employees who served on fiduciary bodies
responsible for overseeing the GE RSP during the class period and
current and former members of GE's Board of Directors.

Like similar lawsuits that have been brought against other
companies in recent years, this action alleges that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) in their oversight
of the GE RSP, principally by retaining five proprietary funds
that plaintiffs allege were underperforming as investment options
for plan participants and charging higher management fees than
some alternative funds.

General Electric said, "The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages
on behalf of a class of GE RSP participants and beneficiaries
from October 30, 2011 through the date of any judgment, but we
believe we have defenses to the claims and will respond
accordingly."

General Electric Company operates as a digital industrial company
worldwide. It operates through Power, Renewable Energy, Oil &
Gas, Aviation, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital
segments. The company is based in Boston, Massachusetts.


GEO GROUP: Class Suits by Immigration Detainees Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
The Geo Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company continues to face immigration
detainees class action suits in multiple states.

On October 22, 2014, former civil immigration detainees at the
Aurora Immigration Detention Center filed a class action lawsuit
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado (the "Court"). The complaint alleges that
the Company was in violation of the Colorado Minimum Wages of
Workers Act and the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act
("TVPA"). The plaintiff class claims that the Company was
unjustly enriched as a result of the level of payment the
detainees received for work performed at the facility, even
though the voluntary work program as well as the wage rates and
standards associated with the program that are at issue in the
case are authorized by the Federal government under guidelines
approved by the United States Congress.

In February 2017, the Court granted the plaintiff-class' motion
for class certification which the Company appealed to the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 9, 2018, a three-judge
panel of the appellate court affirmed the class-certification
order. The Company is seeking a rehearing en banc of the panel
decision. The plaintiff class seeks actual damages, compensatory
damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution,
attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief as the Court may
deem proper.

Since the Colorado suit was initially filed, three similar
lawsuits have been filed -- two in Washington and one in
California. In Washington, one of the two lawsuits was filed on
September 9, 2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington. The second of the two lawsuits was filed on September
20, 2017 by the State Attorney General against the Company in the
Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County. On
October 9, 2017, the Company removed the lawsuit to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington.

In California, a class-action lawsuit was filed on December 19,
2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the United
States District Court Eastern Division of the Central District of
California. All lawsuits allege violations of the respective
state's minimum wage laws. However, only the California lawsuit,
similar to the Colorado class-action, also includes claims based
on violating the federal TVPA.

The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously
defend itself and has consistently refuted the allegations and
claims in these lawsuits. The Company has not recorded an accrual
relating to these matters at this time, as a loss is not
considered probable nor reasonably estimable at this stage of the
lawsuit.

The Geo Group, Inc. is a real estate investment trust ("REIT")
specializing in the ownership, leasing and management of
correctional, detention and reentry facilities and the provision
of community-based services and youth services in the United
States, Australia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. The
company is based in Boca Raton, Florida.


GORDON AYLWORTH: "Chase" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Carlton Chase, Eric MacCartney, and Luanne Mueller, individually
and on behalf of all others v. Gordon, Aylworth & Tami, P.C. and
Vision Investigative Service, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00568 (D.
Ore., April 3, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Oregon's
Unlawful Trade Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are individuals living in Multnomah County, Oregon
and "consumers" protected by the FDCPA because they allegedly
owed delinquent credit account debt incurred for personal,
family, household purposes. Plaintiffs are also persons protected
by the UTPA.

The Defendants are debt collectors in Oregon. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Michael Fuller, Esq.
      OlsenDaines
      US Bancorp Tower 111
      SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150
      Portland, OR 97204
      Tel: (503) 743-7000
      E-mil: michael@underdoglawyer.com


GRUPO TELEVISA: Defending FIFA-Related Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Grupo Televisa, S.A.B. said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that a purported stockholder class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York alleging securities law
violations in connection with allegedly misleading statements
and/or omissions in Televisa's public disclosures.

The lawsuit alleges that Televisa and two of its executives
failed to disclose alleged involvement in bribery activities
relating to certain executives of Federation Internationale de
Football Association ("FIFA"), and wrongfully failed to disclose
weaknesses in Televisa's internal control over its financial
reporting as of December 31, 2016.

Televisa believes that the lawsuit, and the material allegations
and claims therein, are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend against the lawsuit. With regard to plaintiff's
allegations regarding FIFA, outside counsel long previously
investigated the circumstances surrounding Televisa's acquisition
of the Latin American media rights for the 2026 and 2030 FIFA
World Cups and uncovered no credible evidence that would form the
basis for liability for Televisa or for any executive, employee,
agent or subsidiary thereof. In particular, Televisa itself made
no payment to any FIFA person and in no way knew of, or condoned,
any payment by any third party to any FIFA person. Televisa also
notes that no proceedings have been initiated against it by any
governmental agency.

Grupo Televisa, S.A.B. operates as a media company in the
Spanish-speaking world. The company operates through four
segments: Content, Sky, Cable, and Other Businesses. The Content
segment produces television programming and broadcasts Channels
2, 4, 5, and 9; sells advertising time on programs; provides
Internet services; and produces television programming and
broadcasting for local television stations in Mexico and the
United States.


HALIFAX HEALTH: Class Action Over Deltona Project Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Mike Finch II, writing for The Daytona Beach News-Journal,
reports that Halifax Health will try to convince the Florida
Supreme Court that a multimillion dollar hospital under
construction in Deltona should be completed using bond money
after two state court judges ruled that the project is unlawful.

The area's largest and only public hospital said in court filings
that it intends to appeal one of the judge's decision rejecting
its request to issue $115 million in bonds to pay for the medical
facility located outside of the special taxing district Halifax
Health was created to serve.

The case is one of three overlapping legal disputes that are
threatening to derail the health system's plans to offer medical
services on the opposite end of the county.  By pushing its case
to the state's highest court, Halifax Health is preparing for the
ultimate legal battle that could have far-reaching effects on its
future business opportunities.

The appeal is also one of a handful of options Halifax Health has
to attach legitimacy to the many facilities it already owns and
operates in cities outside of the Halifax Hospital District.  One
judge suggested Halifax take its cause to the state legislature
where other public hospitals have been granted powers that allow
them to compete as a business.

Lately, however, the hospital has been on bit of a losing streak
in the courtroom.

   -- In April, Volusia County Circuit Judge Christopher France
denied a request for a bond validation -- a voluntary proceeding
that Halifax Health initiated in January.  Mr. France decided
that the "plain reading" of state law does not give the hospital
the power to build facilities outside of its taxing district.
Therefore, issuing bonds to pay for the Deltona hospital would be
illegal.

   -- Following that ruling, Volusia County Circuit Court Judge
Michael Orfinger sided with former Ponce Inlet Mayor Nancy Epps
who first challenged the hospital's plans to move outside the
taxing district nearly two years ago.  Epps has asked that the
hospital withdraw completely from the Deltona project, but Judge
Orfinger has held off on granting the request as a solution.

   -- Following that ruling in the Epps case, a band of local
business owners and residents filed a lawsuit seeking class
action status to recover any tax dollars that might have been
used to pay for the Deltona project.

Meanwhile, the taxpayer-supported Halifax Health has been
spending large sums on legal fees and expenses -- more than
$600,000 -- a review of billing invoices shows.  With the appeal
to the supreme court, the tab will only increase.

A bond validation hearing gives the hospital the right to an
expedited hearing but a Florida Supreme Court spokesperson said
it's unclear how soon the case will land in high court.  Halifax
Health officials declined to comment on the pending litigation,
but hospital administrators have previously said that bonds would
play a key role in their financial strategy.

Solution in the Legislature?

The hospital could also find a solution in the state legislature.
They would have to first convince local lawmakers to take up its
cause.

There were mixed responses among four of the seven lawmakers
reached by The News-Journal.  Some said they needed more
information while others were supportive of giving Halifax Health
the legal heft it needs to open the Deltona hospital.

"I haven't had the opportunity to talk to people about it and
review the situation so I'm not going to make a comment on
whether I would support or not support," said state Sen. Dorothy
Hukill, R-Port Orange.  "It just hit the fan so to speak.  I'm
just not going to take a position."

It's still a long time between now and March 1, 2019 when the
next legislative session begins. The effects of the decision in
the Epps case could be irreversible by then.  Halifax Health has
asked Judge Orfinger to stop the proceeding until the appeal has
been heard.

Unless a lawmaker proposed changes to taxing districts across the
state, the seven members of the local delegation would have to
agree to introduce a local bill that only applies to Halifax
Health.

The proposed law doesn't necessarily need unanimous support in
the delegation.  But lawmakers would perceive it more favorably
if everyone agreed on its importance, said Rep. Tom Leek, R-
Ormond Beach, who is the chairman of the local delegation.

"Typically I'm going to fall on the side of our local hospitals
here particularly one like Halifax that is trying to get its
reliance on tax dollars down to zero.  But without knowing the
context of it I can't really (comment) on it," Mr. Leek said.

"Taxing authorities generally are not favored but to the extent
that the purpose is to reduce the reliance on tax dollars -- that
might find some favor, but it's hard to say."

There could also be some lingering opposition in the legislature
to taxing districts after years of skepticism, particularly from
Gov. Rick Scott who will leave office to run for U.S. Senate.

"I don't think there's any reason to rush into any special
delegation meeting knowing that we're not going back until
March," said state Sen. Travis Hutson, R-Palm Coast, who said he
needed to do some fact-finding first.

"As of right now I'd be supportive of all of us in the delegation
taking a couple months to figure out what this issue is.  And
then come back maybe right after the elections when we have our
normal delegation meeting."

A 'hospital war'?

Rep. David Santiago, R-Deltona, sees the landscape differently.

A former Deltona city commissioner, Mr. Santiago is aware of the
city's longtime courtship of health care providers and the
politics that are taking shape today.

In a recent interview, Mr. Santiago repeated a claim first made
by Halifax Health officials that Nancy Epps' lawsuit is being
funded by a third party and the organization most likely to hold
a grudge against Halifax Health is the health care giant Hospital
Corporation of America.

Mr. Santiago said he is willing, if necessary, to run a local
bill through the House.

"The legislature today, I would say the overall theme is access
to health care.  How do we expand it and not necessarily
corporate competition from a corporate battle," Mr. Santiago
said.  "What we have here is a hospital war.  That's really what
it is -- between HCA (and Halifax)."

A sizable number of residents living in West Volusia frequent
Orlando area hospitals.  The HCA-owned Central Florida Regional
Hospital in Sanford is one of the closest to the Volusia-Seminole
County line.  And a new hospital, like the one Halifax Health is
currently building in Deltona, could dig into its customer base.

In fact, Central Florida Regional was the only organization to
formally protest the Deltona facility through its lobbyist
Stephen Ecenia while state regulators decided whether to
greenlight the project.  But due to a regulatory limitation, the
state Agency for Health Care Administration didn't consider their
complaint.

Mr. Ecenia's law practice, Rutledge Mr. Ecenia, re-emerged as one
of two representing Epps in her lawsuit challenging the project.
They used the same legal arguments, too.

Epps has previously said any connections to HCA are nothing more
than a coincidence.  Mr. Ecenia did not respond to a recent
request for an interview.

Mr. Santiago said he can see beneath the deflections.

"There is probably over a million dollars in that litigation,"
Mr. Santiago said.  "Nancy Epps is not putting up $1 million to
stop Halifax from building a hospital." [GN]


HENRY SCHEIN: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former
Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind
investors with large financial interests that they have only
until May 7, 2018 to file lead plaintiff applications in a
securities class action lawsuit against Henry Schein, Inc.
(NasdaqGS: HSIC). Investor losses must relate to purchases of the
Company's securities between February 13, 2013 and February 12,
2018. This action is pending in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Henry Schein 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/nasdaqgs-hsic/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action by
overseeing lead counsel with the goal of obtaining a fair and
just resolution, you must request this position by application to
the Court by May 7, 2018.

         Contact:
         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         Telephone: 1-877-515-1850
         E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.co [GN]


HUDSON COUNTY, NJ: Some Residents Considering Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Al Sullivan, writing for Hudson Reporter, reports that with the
deadline approaching to appeal the property assessments given
during the recent Jersey City revaluation, some downtown
residents hope to take the issue to court in a class action
lawsuit.

Although slow to start, the protest has picked up momentum over
the last few weeks as downtown residents hardest hit with massive
increases scramble to challenge the resulting spikes in their tax
bills.

Ward E Councilman James Solomon said the issuing of property
cards to residents, which signals the official end of the
revaluation process, was due to start on May 1. This sets into
motion the formal appeal process. Residents will have 45 days
from when the cards are mailed to file an appeal with the Hudson
County Tax Board.

"Van Vorst, Paulus Hook, and the Village neighborhoods were the
hardest hit," Solomon said. "Some of these residents have been
there for 30, 40 even 50 years. It's hard for them to have to
sell and move out of a place they love."

Solomon said some of these residents will be hit hard when the
August tax bills come out.

"We tried to keep people informed," Solomon said, referring to
community meetings he held earlier this year in order to provide
information to residents about what their options are. "But there
is only so much we can do."

Bad news coming in August

Because the taxes are retroactive to the beginning of the year,
the impact on the tax bills will be significant. Residents whose
estimated taxes rose by tens of thousands of dollars will not
only have to pay the increase for the third and fourth quarters,
but will have to make up for what they underpaid in the first two
quarters. The February and May bills are based on last year's
assessments.

"If the tax rate goes up to $2 (per $100 of assessed value), I
may have to sell my house," said Marie Borrelli, 64, of Van
Vorst, who was one of the hardest hit.

The revaluation caused her assessment to jump from under $200,000
to $2,538,000.

Borrelli moved to Jersey City in 1984 to her Barrow Street home
across the street from Van Vorst Park.

"The house was in terrible shape," she said. "We restored it 27
years ago."

This means that all the improvements are 27 years old.

"In photography, my kitchens and baths may look beautiful,
however, there is significant wear and tear," she said.

The shock of the new assessment came a time when she was just
finishing up treatments for breast cancer.

"I could have sold my house after I got the cancer, but I
didn't," she said.

She said she was issued the wrong information initially about the
contents of her home, and so during the informal appeal, she
brought back the inspectors from Appraisal Systems, Inc., the
appraisal company. While they modified the original, she said,
she may be forced to sell because of the high taxes.

"This is like communism," she said. "How do people expect someone
as old as 85 to pick up and see and move? There are lot of people
like that here."

Class action suit

Borrelli has become one of the leaders of a protest, hoping to
win support from others like her as well as from local and state
officials.

"We're looking to set up tables at local supermarkets and maybe
the Newark Avenue pedestrian plaza to gather signatures for the
petitions. We're trying to find an attorney so we can file a
class action suit," she said. "We would like to have Gov. [Phil]
Murphy look at what is going on here."

Residents have held protests in front of City Hall several times.
Originally, support seemed weak. But as people recovered from the
shock of increased assessments, Borelli said, they started to
come out.

"We're getting more and more people involved," she said. "On
April 14 we had a good turnout. A lot of people are serious and
want to get involved. Our group is growing."

She said a community meeting at Holy Rosary Church in late April
brought out more than 75 people where they discussed filing a
class action suit.

Some these residents are blaming the delay in implementing the
revaluation.

While the city had not conducted a revaluation since 1988, one
was attempted in 2013. But Mayor Steven Fulop halted this -- and
did not authorize another until the state ordered the city to do
so in 2016.

Some residents feel that with the increased amount of development
that took place and the number of abatements handed out, the
impact of the current revaluation is harsher than had Fulop
allowed the 2013 revaluation to proceed.

Other residents believe that the new assessments are inconsistent
with similar properties more highly assessed than others.

While residents could not use other property assessments in the
informal appeal process, Solomon said this factor can be used in
the formal appeal process.

"But we're running out of time," Borrelli said. "We need to get
someone to do something about this before we get hit with the
August tax bill."[GN]


IOWA HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over UnityPoint Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
WKOW reports that a local health system is under fire after a
lawsuit claims it mislead patients regarding a recent data
breach.

The lawsuit was filed on May 4 against Iowa Health Systems Inc,
the company that runs UnityPoint Health.  UnityPoint operates
Meriter Hospital.  Attorney Robert Teel filed the class action
suit on behalf of Yvonne Mart Fox of Middleton.  It claims the
hospital delayed reporting a data breach in mid-April.  It also
alleges UnityPoint Health misled patients in believing their
social security numbers were not compromised.

Teel said 16,429 patient records were affected by the breach,
going back as far as November 2017.  Records show the breach
happened through a "phishing" attack of employee email accounts.
Data compromised is reported to include social security numbers,
insurance and financial information, diagnosis, and treatment.

In a letter sent to patients, UnityPoint Health said it is not
aware of any reports of improper use of the information as a
direct result of the breach, but Mr. Teel said it's disingenuous
to think the data will not be used in an unauthorized manner.

"Why do you think criminals acquire these records? They don't do
it for fun.  It's well known in the industry that medical records
are used for criminal activity," he said.

Mr. Teel said the hospital could have done more to secure patient
information.

"In other instances, hospitals have simply stepped up.  Other
financial institutions who have suffered a data breach have
simply stepped up and bought the credit monitoring service as
well as the identity theft insurance.  So at a minimum, I believe
those are the steps UnityPoint should step up and do," Mr. Teel
said.

Also in the letter to patients dated April 16, 2018, UnityPoint
said "we want to make you aware of the situation so you can take
precautionary measures to protect your health information." It
goes on to say, "we encourage you to remain vigilant in reviewing
your account statements for fraudulent or irregular activity on a
regular basis."

But Mr. Teel said the burden of protecting their health records
shouldn't fall on patients.

"Our hope is that again they'll step up and recognize that this
is not the patients burden to try to protect the confidentiality
of their records.  It's the healthcare institution's legal
obligation to do so.  So, simply telling them they should take
precautionary measures is just blame shifting."

UnityPoint reportedly discovered the data breach between February
7th and 15th 2018.  The hospital could be fined up to $25-
thousand per plaintiff and per breach, if a judge rules they
willingly and knowingly violated the confidentiality of health
records.  The hospital has 20 days to respond to the lawsuit.

If you're a patient of UnityPoint and are eligible to be included
in the lawsuit, you will automatically receive a letter in the
mail from UnityPoint Health.

WKOW reached out to UnityPoint health on May 6, but have not
heard back.

In April, the company released the following statement confirming
the breach of protected health information:

"After a detailed forensic investigation and document review,
UnityPoint Health determined that protected health information
was contained in impacted email accounts, including patient names
and one or more of the following: dates of birth, medical record
numbers, treatment information, surgical information, diagnoses,
lab results, medications, providers, dates of service and/or
insurance information.  For a limited number of impacted
individuals, information that may have been viewed included
Social Security Numbers or other financial information." [GN]


ITURAN LOCATION: Initial Court Hearing Set for June 2018
--------------------------------------------------------
Ituran Location & Control Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017, that the initial court hearing in a
purported class action suit in the District Court of Central
Region in Tel-Aviv will take place June 2018.

On July 19, 2015, Ituran Location and Control Ltd. received a
purported class action lawsuit which was filed against the
Company in the District Court of Central Region in Tel-Aviv on
July 13, 2015, by one plaintiff who is a subscriber of the
Company, alleging that the Company, which was declared a monopoly
under the Israeli Restrictive Trade Practices Law, 1988,
unlawfully abused its power as a monopoly and discriminated
between its customers.

The lawsuit is yet to be approved as a class action. The total
amount claimed if the lawsuit is approved as a class action was
estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 300 million
(approximately USD 87 million).

Based on an opinion of its legal counsels, the Company believes
that the lawsuit lacks substantiation, and that the Company has
good defense arguments in respect of claims made by the plaintiff
and that the chances that the suit will not be approved as a
class action lawsuit are higher than it will be approved. Initial
court hearing will take place on June 2018.

Ituran Location said, "Notwithstanding the aforesaid, at this
preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the lawsuit's
chances of success. While we cannot predict the outcome of this
case, if we are not successful in defending our claim, we could
be subject to significant costs, adversely affecting our results
of operations."

Ituran Location & Control Ltd. is a leading provider of location-
based services, consisting predominantly of stolen vehicle
recovery, fleet management services and other tracking services
as well as connected car and UBI (usage base insurance). The
company also provides wireless communications products used in
connection with the Company's location-based services. The
company is based in Azour, Israel.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend Talcum Powder Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Sausser, writing for The Post and Courier, reports that
first, a $72 million verdict.  Then, one for $55 million.  The
damages kept climbing: $70 million, $110 million, $417 million.
Each time, a different trial, another woman, new jurors, the same
story.

This is what they share in common: All of the plaintiffs used
talcum powder, the same kind found in millions of medicine
cabinets and diaper bags across the United States.

All were diagnosed with ovarian cancer, an aggressive disease
that kills more than half of its victims within five years.

And in each of these cases, jurors became convinced that a common
household product, manufactured by one of America's oldest family
companies, was lethal.

"Instantly, I knew that's what caused my cancer," said Alishia
Landrum, a South Carolina woman who used Johnson & Johnson's Baby
Powder for decades.  "It was a staple, just like it would be
toothpaste for anyone else.  It was just part of my routine."

Ms. Landrum, 46, is among thousands of women who have filed
lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson, emboldened by multi-million-
dollar verdicts and a body of anecdotal and scientific evidence
linking talcum powder to cancer.  They're fighting to prove a
definitive connection and to force the company to post warning
labels on its product to spare others from the same fate.

But the venerable company isn't backing down.  Far from it.
Johnson & Johnson officials cite independent studies that rule
out a cancer link, and their attorneys have worked to paint women
like Landrum as greedy opportunists.  They've successfully
overturned unfavorable verdicts and, to date, haven't paid a dime
to any of the plaintiffs.

Ms. Landrum, who lives in Spartanburg County, insists her lawsuit
isn't about money and that she's only seeking justice for a
diagnosis that may kill her.  She sued in 2016 after reading on
Facebook about other talcum powder cases.

"I'm worried for several reasons," she said.  "I exposed my kids
to it. I didn't know not to."

'A very angry jury'
Countless women were taught decades ago to dust talcum powder
into their underwear each morning.  To keep fresh, their mothers
and aunts and grandmothers told them.

Marvin Salter remembers the powder was ubiquitous in the Alabama
home of his mother, Jacqueline Fox.

"In the bathroom, on the dressers, in the medicine cabinet. I
mean, everywhere," Mr. Salter said.

Fox died of ovarian cancer in 2015 and won a $72 million
judgement against Johnson & Johnson the following year.

She first found out about the possible link during a late-night
legal commercial.  She had used Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower
to Shower talcum powder for years.  In fact, she continued using
it after she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, not knowing the
potential risk the product posed.

Nor did she suspect, as lawyers for these plaintiffs have argued,
that tiny particles of talc could travel through a woman's
reproductive tract, inciting dangerous inflammation in the
ovaries.  She never dreamed that a product marketed for infants,
packaged in such a plain, white bottle might prove deadly.

"She couldn't believe something she used all of her life could
put her in this situation," Mr. Salter said.  "She was up late
one night and saw the commercial and started putting two and two
together. A light bulb went off and calls were made."

Other victims and larger awards followed her case, but Charleston
attorney Carmen Scott recalls the $72 million Fox verdict as a
watershed moment.  Ms. Scott doesn't represent Fox's family but
handles hundreds of talcum powder cases at Motley Rice in
Charleston.

"What that number represents is a very angry jury," she said.  "A
jury that has seen the data, seen the information, realizes what
Johnson & Johnson . . . knew way back when, what they covered up
and what they could have done to save those women's lives.  And
didn't."

But Ms. Fox's case, and others like it, are far from resolved.
Late last year, an appeals court in Missouri threw out the
verdict, ruling that her lawsuit was not tried in the appropriate
venue.

Her legal team is currently considering whether to appeal that
decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Meanwhile, other talcum
powder verdicts against the company have been overturned or
appealed.  None of the plaintiffs have received any money, and
company executives point to a lack of conclusive evidence linking
ovarian cancer with their product.

In fact, their argument won the day when a Missouri jury ruled in
Johnson & Johnson's favor last year, rejecting a Tennessee
woman's claim that Baby Powder gave her the disease.

"The jury's decision is consistent with the science, research,
clinical evidence and decades of studies by medical experts
around the world that continue to support the safety of cosmetic
talc," a company spokeswoman told the press after the jury's
decision was rendered.

Johnson & Johnson and its attorneys did not respond to questions
for this article. But the company's "Facts About Talc" website
tackles the debate head-on.  It cites research, including three
well-regarded cohort studies, that found no evidence talcum
powder causes cancer.  The website also quotes doctors affiliated
with the National Cancer Institute, who found last year that the
"weight of evidence" doesn't support a connection between the
two.

A spokeswoman for Imerys Talc America, which mines the talc that
Johnson & Johnson uses in its product, also insisted that "talc
is safe."

"Imerys Talc America sympathizes with women suffering from
ovarian cancer and hopes that the scientific community's efforts
will be directed toward finding the true causes of this terrible
disease," she said in a prepared statement.

Nearly 10,000 cases
Many experts, however, aren't ready to dismiss allegations about
the powder, given the number of competing studies that have
established a link -- even a small one -- and the number of women
who have come forward.

"They'll tell you all the reasons they think this isn't a story,"
said Dr. Daniel Cramer, a Harvard scientist who started studying
the link between talcum powder and cancer 40 years ago.
"Obviously, you need to take that with a grain of salt."

Meanwhile, nearly 10,000 talcum powder lawsuits against the
company are still pending, many of them awaiting trial near
Johnson & Johnson headquarters in New Jersey.  These women, from
South Carolina and across the country, claim the company has
known about the talcum powder risk for many years and still
refuses to pull the product from store shelves or put a warning
label on its bottles.

In fact, so many women have sued the company that the lawsuits
are being managed as "multi-district litigation," a process that
differs from class-action because each of the talcum powder
plaintiffs will file her own case.  The mechanism allows the
federal court system to consolidate thousands of complex cases,
in theory, saving time and money during pre-trial discovery.

Ultimately, few of those cases will be hand-picked to appear in
court. Some may be dismissed. Others may be settled.  The
remainder could be sent back to their original jurisdiction.  The
process, start to finish, will take years.

In Charleston, Carmen Scott finds herself at the epicenter of all
this activity.  The 44-year-old attorney sits on a national
committee that will decide which cases get to see the New Jersey
courtroom.

"We do all the discovery.  We read all the documents.  We are the
case," she said.

It's all a long way from small-town Lugoff where Scott grew up.
Her dad drove a truck and her mom owned a meat-and-three diner
off Interstate 20.  The first in her family to go to college,
Scott joined Motley Rice 13 years ago, a storied firm best known
for its success battling tobacco giants and asbestos cases.

Her legal team has spent the better part of three years
interviewing potential clients for the talcum powder lawsuits.
They're looking for a perfect storm of circumstances to make
their argument: women who have used talcum powder daily for
decades, who have been diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer
and whose medical history does not otherwise predispose them to
the disease.

For Ms. Scott, the talcum powder cases have been the culmination
of her life's work.  As a woman, they're also personal.

"Women . . . are marketed to throughout our lives," she said,
"from our early formative years into early adulthood, about
things that make us thinner, or our teeth whiter -- or whatever
the case may be.  In this case, with talc, it was marketed to us
as something that could make us feel fresh. It has no medicinal
effect whatsoever.  There is no benefit other than feeling
fresh."

Plus-Sized Southerners'
Edward, Robert and James Johnson founded their family's namesake
company in 1886.  In those early days, Johnson & Johnson mainly
manufactured antiseptic surgical supplies, capitalizing on the
relatively new idea that germs were dangerous and that safe
cleaning practices, such as hand-washing, would reduce infection
and death.

But one of its primary products, a medicated bandage, came with a
drawback.

"Some patients who used medicated plasters had complained to the
Company that some of the plasters irritated their skin," Johnson
& Johnson historian Margaret Gurowitz wrote on the company's
blog.  "In response, Scientific Director Fred Kilmer sent them
small containers of Italian talc to soothe the irritation."

In solving one problem, the talc also fixed another.  Some
customers noticed the product helped reduce their babies' diaper
rash.

Johnson's Baby Powder was officially introduced to the market in
1894 and became the first product in a new line of goods geared
for babies.  It was first sold as "toilet and baby powder."

"It's not an ordinary talcum," an early advertisement exclaimed.
"The purity of its ingredients and the details of its preparation
are guarded as a mother guards her baby's welfare -- all to the
very same end.  It is a wise thing to sprinkle and pat your baby
several times a day with Johnson's Baby Powder.  It is indeed,
'Best for Baby, Best for You.'"

Little about the product has changed in the past 124 years.

Johnson's Baby Powder is still made from just talc and added
fragrance.  It's packaged now in plastic bottles, rather than the
original tin, but its container still bears that rounded
rectangular shape, designed more than a century ago to prevent
the product from rolling off the bed when a mother changed her
infant's diaper.

It's called Baby Powder, but the product has long been promoted
for the whole family's use.  In fact, nearly 30 years ago,
Johnson & Johnson ramped up advertising to minority families
because research showed significant brand loyalty among those
consumers.

"Remember when your mother took care of you with JOHNSON's baby
products? How good it made you feel?" poses a 1980s advertisement
featuring a black family.  "Well, you can feel that way again.
You, and those you love. Everyone, including the man of the
house, will enjoy the fresh, clean feeling of pure JOHNSON's Baby
Powder."

Danielle Mason, an Alabama-based attorney who represented
Jacqueline Fox, said a 1992 Johnson & Johnson marketing document
that surfaces during every talcum powder trial shows the company
wanted to boost slumping talcum powder sales by targeting certain
demographic groups.  The court document conceals the identity of
those groups, but Ms. Mason said it's clear the memo refers to
black and Hispanic shoppers.

A separate company memo from 2010 shows that Johnson & Johnson
intended to boost sales by targeting "overweight women living in
hot climates during key summer season." That document alternately
calls their target consumers "Plus-Sized Southerners."

The 1992 marketing document also acknowledges that the "health
community" had been promoting "negative publicity" about the
"cancer linkage."  It proves, Ms. Mason argued, that Johnson &
Johnson was aware of the potential risk and decided to focus
sales efforts on minority groups anyway.

"As a lawyer on the case who is also a black woman," Ms. Mason
said, "it never ceases to shock me when I see it."

Deeper scrutiny
Pediatricians no longer recommend parents use Baby Powder for
diaper rash.  Experts believe infant girls don't face the same
risk of developing ovarian cancer because the hymen prevents talc
from reaching reproductive organs.  But cornstarch works just as
well, they argue, and isn't so easily inhaled by the respiratory
system.

This risk of inhalation has recently been highlighted in a string
of lawsuits targeting the potential presence of asbestos -- a
known carcinogen -- in talcum powder.  In April, a jury in New
Jersey ordered Johnson & Johnson and Imerys Talc America to pay a
man $117 million after he claimed talcum powder tainted with
asbestos caused his mesothelioma.  A similar case linking talcum
powder to asbestos is soon set to be tried in South Carolina.

Before talc is mined from the earth, the mineral may naturally
contain veins of asbestos.  But in the 1970s, the federal
government banned even trace amounts of the toxin from talcum
powder.

The problem, some experts argue, is that policing the ban is
largely left to producers such as Johnson & Johnson.  And the
lawsuits allege that Johnson & Johnson knowingly skirted the
federal regulation by using a testing mechanism that wouldn't
detect asbestos.

"They designed their own test and designed it so that they would
always pass it," said Scott, the Charleston lawyer.  "If this was
a pharmaceutical product, any knowledge from a bio-manufacturer
that a product could have a carcinogenic effect, the manufacturer
would be required to put it on their label."

But talcum powder isn't a pharmaceutical product. It's a cosmetic
product, and as such, it isn't subject to as much regulation or
scrutiny by federal authorities.

A 2016 Bloomberg report points out that the 345-page Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Act, written in 1938, only devotes two pages to the
safety of cosmetic products, which do not require FDA approval
before they are introduced to customers.

Consumer advocates, some industry groups -- even celebrity
Kourtney Kardashian -- have challenged the lack of regulations,
saying the gap places adults and children at risk.

Four years ago, for example, the FDA asked a shampoo manufacturer
about reports of hair breakage and loss.  At the time, regulators
were given no indication that tens of thousands of complaints had
already been filed with "WEN By Chaz Dean." That's because the
shampoo's manufacturers were not obligated to report those
complaints to the federal government.  And while the company
settled a class-action lawsuit last year, the FDA remains
powerless to pull the product from the market.

Johnson & Johnson recently faced its own shampoo controversy.  In
2011, mounting public pressure forced the company to remove
potentially cancerous chemicals from its baby shampoo.  The FDA
played no role in that decision.

'Why take the risk?'
Johnson & Johnson supports a bill to update existing federal
cosmetics regulations, at the same time arguing that its products
are completely safe.

Bart Williams -- bwilliams@proskauer.com -- an attorney
representing Johnson & Johnson, recently told CNN he thinks the
talcum powder complaints are fueled by greed, not science.

"My take on the talc ovarian cancer litigation is that it really
is skillful and well-funded plaintiffs lawyers who are
exaggerating science and taking it out of context to scare people
and to frighten the public with the goal of lining their own
pockets," Mr. Williams said.  "I think they are wrong
scientifically.  I think they are wrong legally, and I think the
evidence shows that the science doesn't support using talc and
ovarian cancer."

Johnson & Johnson has been hit with the overwhelming majority of
talcum powder lawsuits, but a few dozen cases have targeted
Valeant Pharmaceuticals, which bought the Shower to Shower brand
six years ago.  Valeant, which operates one of its manufacturing
facilities in Greenville, has also resisted claims that its
product is tied to cancer, citing "strong legal, factual and
scientific defenses."

Many experts -- including those at the American Cancer Society --
agree that the evidence is not conclusive, even though the
connection between the powder and cancer has been studied for
decades.

Dr. Anthony Alberg, former interim director of Hollings Cancer
Center at the Medical University of South Carolina, was among
those who initially considered the idea far-fetched when he first
heard about it 30 years ago.

It's not like smoking, he said, which carries a risk of
developing cancer 20 times higher than not smoking.  Research
indicates women who use talcum powder are only about 1.2 times
more likely to develop cancer than non-users, he said.

Still, Dr. Alberg said he wouldn't recommend his loved ones using
it.

"I think it would be inadvisable for women to apply body powder
to the genital area based on the evidence I see," he said.  "Why
take the risk?"

Living with fear
Alishia Landrum was driving a go-kart at an Upstate fun park in
2011 when the brakes failed and she hit a wall at full speed,
breaking her hip.

When she went for a follow-up MRI at Spartanburg Regional Medical
Center, an orthopedist discovered a fibroid tumor on her ovary.

She soon learned that her cancer was advanced and had spread
throughout her pelvis.  The surgeon who removed part of her tumor
said "it looked like a grenade went off inside me."

"Am I going to live or die?" she asked him.

"Alishia," he told her, "it's in God's hands."

Last year, Ms. Landrum beat the five-year mortality mark. But
she's reluctant to call herself cancer-free, despite living in
remission since she finished chemotherapy six years ago.  She's
convinced the cancer will come back, and she blames talcum powder
for her predicament.

"Every day, I'm thankful that I beat that five-year mark," she
said.  "But I shouldn't have to live with that fear."

Her attorney, Ted Meadows of Beasley Allen, estimated that more
than 25,000 women have called his firm over the past four years
inquiring about the talcum powder cases.  His colleagues are
still investigating roughly one-quarter of those claims, he said.

So far, Beasley Allen has tried six talcum powder cases in court
and won five -- a margin of victory he called "unprecedented in
mass torts."

The outcome of Ms. Landrum's lawsuit is still unknown, just like
thousands of similar cases in the pipeline.  Next year, it may
become more clear which of the "bellwether" cases Scott and her
colleagues will choose to advance in New Jersey federal court.

In the meantime, Ms. Landrum, Ms. Scott and Mr. Salter agree on
one thing: They want a warning label.

"When we first got the verdict, yeah, we felt a sigh of relief
thinking finally this company is going to be held accountable and
awareness is going to spread like wildfire about what they've
known, what they did, what they tried to hide," said Mr. Salter,
who lost his mother to cancer.  "It's a never-ending emotional
roller coaster knowing that this is not done yet." [GN]


KENYA POWER: Attempts to Delay Class Action Over Billing System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samwel Owino, Wanjohi Githae and Walter Menya, writing for Daily
Nation, report that a class action suit against Kenya Power
Company for overcharging consumers would come up May 7, when the
parties were expected to make submissions.

But ahead of the court date, Kenya Power has been pulling out all
the stops to delay the case.

The Sunday Nation has learnt that lawyers for the power firm have
been trying to reach out to Apollo Mboya, one of the petitioners,
along with Electricity Consumers Society of Kenya (ECSK) to agree
to delay the submissions to a later date.

Kenya Power had not filed its written submissions more than a
month after the petitioners filed theirs as directed by the
court.

PR WORK

The petitioners filed their written submissions on March 6 and
the court had directed that Kenya Power and the other respondents
in the matter, namely the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) and
the Attorney-General, to file theirs seven days after the
petitioners did.

Amid this, the company has been pursuing different strategies to
deal with a barrage of social media attacks over the bills.

One of the strategies Kenya Power settled on was a public
relations charm offensive involving increased presence in the
media to try and change the narrative.

This is what informed the press conference at their offices and
which was followed by choreographed interview of Managing
Director Ken Tarus by State House's senior director Dennis Itumbi
and incorporating the Consumers Federation of Kenya and bloggers.

TOKEN VENDORS

Kenya Power has also been holding what they call media
engagements across the country.

One such media engagement for Nairobi on May 4, however, ended up
a disappointment after most of the invited guests snubbed the
event.

Apparently, despite the investments in that, the strategy seems
to have flopped as sustained pressure from Kenyans both online
and offline forced the company to admit there are mistakes.

Another strategy Kenya Power has been looking into is to
terminate the contracts with third party token vendors Dynamo and
Vendit.

Appearing before the Senate Committee on Energy, Energy Principal
Secretary Joseph Njoroge told the team the firm will end
contracts with power vendors who currently own 35 per cent of the
token purchases.

"In two to three months, the vendors will automatically be kept
out of our operations.  We will be looking at their contracts
with a view to taking advantage of any exit clause," Mr Njoroge
told the senators.

CONSUMERS FRUSTRATED
On this, the Sunday Nation has learnt there has been some initial
discussions convened by the Public Private Partnership Unit,
which is domiciled under the Treasury, to review the contracts
with a view to terminating them and also looking at the impact of
the suit currently before High Court Judge Chacha Mwita.

Meanwhile, after four months of denials over the high power bills
and delayed, non-responsive and costly token generation, Kenya
Power finally admitted that consumers were overcharged and have
apologised with a promise they will fix their system in the next
two months.

Mr Tarus admitted it has been their fault as they failed to
adequately communicate to their customers over the billing
system.

"Our apologies, it would appear that we have been mean in our
communication over the increase in power bills," he said.

On May 4, the firm sent a message to its customers which read:
"Dear customer, please buy tokens through pay bill No 888880."

This could be as a result of the recent public outrage. [GN]


KOREA ELECTRIC: Suits over Electricity Tariffs Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Korea Electric Power Corporation said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that six cases are currently
pending in the first round of proceedings in class action suits
related to electricity tariffs.

During the period from 2014 to 2017, certain residential
customers filed class action lawsuits against the company based
on the claim that electricity tariffs, determined under the
progressive rate structure, were excessive.

As of December 31, 2017, the company was subject to 13 such
lawsuits brought by approximately 10,000 plaintiffs with an
aggregate claim amount of Won 5.2 billion.

The company said, "Of these 13 lawsuits, two cases are currently
pending in the third round of proceedings (for which we won all
of the first and second rounds of proceedings) and five cases are
currently pending in the second round of proceedings (for which
we won all of the first rounds of proceedings, except for one
case). Six cases are currently pending in the first round of
proceedings."

Korea Electric Power Industrial Development Corporation is an
integrated electric utility company engaged in the transmission
and distribution of substantially all of the electricity in
Korea. Through its six wholly-owned generation subsidiaries, the
company also generates the substantial majority of electricity
produced in Korea.


LEGACY RESERVES: "Chammah" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------
Chammah Ventures, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated preferred unit holders of Legacy Reserves LP
v. Legacy Reserves LP, Legacy Reserves GP, LLC, and Legacy
Reserves Inc., Case No. 2018-0242 (Del. Ch., April 3, 2018), is
brought against the Defendants for breach of contract and breach
of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Chammah Ventures, LLC is the owner of 12,000 Series A Preferred
Units and 48,600 Series B Preferred Units.

The Defendants are engaged in the development of oil and natural
gas properties in the central United States.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ned Weinberger, Esq.
      Thomas Curry, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1340
      Wilmington, DE  19801
      Tel: (302) 573-2530

          - and -

      Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
      John Vielandi, Esq.
      David MacIsaac, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ
      BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      1251 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY  10020
      Tel: (212) 554-1400


LM WIND: "Bobo" Suit Alleges FLSA and AMWA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosie Bobo and Amber Grayson, each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LM Wind Power Blades (ND), Inc.,
Case No. 4:18-cv-00230 (E.D. Ark., April 2, 2018), seeks damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiffs are residents and citizens of Pulaski County and
were employed by the Defendant as production workers.

The Defendant is a component supplier to the wind industry,
primarily manufacturing and providing wind rotor blades to wind
turbine manufacturers and other consumers. The Defendant operates
over 15 manufacturing facilities worldwide, including facilities
in Arkansas and North Dakota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Ford, Esq.
      Joshua West, Esq.
      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 South Shackleford, Ste 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Tel: (501) 221-0088
      Fax: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com
              west@sanfordlawfirm.com
              josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


LOBLAW: $25 Gift Card Offer in Bread Price-Fixing Suit Ends
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sophia Harris, writing for CBC News, reports that on May 8 marks
the final day to apply for Loblaws' $25 gift card, offered as
compensation for the retailer's admitted part in a bread price-
fixing scandal.

Many Canadians report they're satisfied with their gift of free
groceries. However, the end of the card program doesn't mark the
end of the retailer's troubles  --  far from it.

For starters, Loblaws still faces multiple proposed class action
lawsuits targeting the retailer and alleged co-conspirators in
the scandal.

Loblaws has stated that it expects to subtract $25 from any
potential settlement payments to class action members who also
got a gift card.

However, in the case of a proposed class action in Ontario, a
Superior Court judge recently ruled that's not necessarily how it
will play out.

"Whether or not they get credit for the gift cards is an open
question," said lawyer Jay Strosberg, Esq. who's involved in the
Ontario suit. "Loblaws doesn't get to decide that issue. The
judge does."

Loblaws told CBC News that it has made it clear to customers that
applying for the gift card doesn't prevent people from
participating in class action lawsuits.

"Our $25 Loblaw Card is a genuine effort to put money back in our
customers' hands quickly," said spokesperson Kevin Groh in an
email to CBC News.

Swamped with case inquiries

In November, Strosberg's firm, Strosberg Sasso Sutts, launched a
$1-billion class action in Ontario representing victims of the
alleged bread price-fixing scandal.

The firm hopes to turn the Ontario suit into a national class
action that would represent anyone who purchased packaged bread
on or after 2001 in all provinces, except Quebec where a separate
suit has been filed.

Another firm, Merchant Law Group, is also pursuing a similar
national class action.

Strosberg says his office has already been swamped with thousands
of inquiries from people across the country.

"This case, out of any case I've ever dealt with, really hits
home, I think, with Canadians because everybody buys bread."

The Ontario suit alleges that Loblaws, Canada Bread and grocers
Sobeys, Walmart, Metro, and Giant Tiger colluded to artificially
inflate prices for packaged bread for about 16 years.

"The defendants were unjustly enriched," alleges the statement of
claim.

Sobeys, Giant Tiger and Walmart continue to deny any involvement.
Canada Bread said it's investigating the allegations and Metro
declined to comment.

More investigations
Meanwhile, Canada's Competition Bureau continues its
investigation into the same companies for alleged bread price-
fixing.

Loblaws is the only one to admit to any wrongdoing, and will
receive immunity from prosecution for co-operating with the
Bureau's investigation.

But it could face repercussions from Canada's privacy
commissioner on how it handled the gift card program. The
commissioner is investigating the retailer for asking some
customers to send a copy of their ID, such as a driver's licence,
before receiving a gift card.

Some affected customers, including Suzette Collins in Toronto,
were so upset by the request, they refused to comply and vowed to
boycott Loblaws stores.

"It's absolutely ludicrous," said Collins, who happens to work as
a privacy and access-to-information consultant. "There's all
kinds of information on my driver's licence that they're not
entitled to for the purpose of fulfilling a gift card voucher."

Loblaws said any personal information sent will be protected, and
that the retailer needed to do the ID check to combat fraud. "We
wanted to make sure the money was actually landing in our
customers' hands," said Groh.

Gift cards a success?
Many customers who weren't asked for ID received their gift card
with no hassle and report they're happy with the gesture. "They
did the right thing," said Chris Dunstan in Stanley, N.B., who
bought groceries with his rebate. "I am very satisfied with it."

Food industry expert Sylvain Charlebois believes that Loblaws'
card program was a smart move that helped prevent some customers
from losing faith in the retailer following the price-fixing
scandal.

"A price-fixing scheme which is overly complicated to understand
doesn't resonate all that well," says Charlebois, a professor at
Dalhousie University specializing in food distribution and
policy.

"Twenty-five bucks, that's very easy to understand."

Charlebois says it's too early to determine the overall success
of the program. But he believes a positive sign is that Loblaws'
had a good quarter: the company's profits grew to $377 million,
an increase of 62.5 per cent compared to the first quarter of
2017.

"When you look at financial results, it seems as though Loblaws
has done very well," he said.

Although pending lawsuits and investigations targeting Loblaws
continue, Charlebois says the retailer is also benefiting from
dwindling negative press about the price-fixing scandal and gift
card program.

"People will forget."[GN]


LONGFIN CORP: "Chauhan" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Dinesh Chauhan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Longfin Corp., Venkata S Meenavalli, and
Vivek Kumar Ratakonda, Case No. 1:18-cv-02010 (E.D. N.Y., April
4, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Longfin
securities between December 13, 2017 and April 2, 2018.

The Plaintiff purchased Longfin securities during the class
period and was economically damaged, says the complaint.

Longfin is a finance and technology complaint that specializes in
the structure trade finance solutions and physical commodities
finance solutions. Longfin is incorporated in Delaware. Longfin's
common stock is currently traded on The NASDAQ Capital Market
under the ticker symbol "LFIN".

The Individual Defendants are officers of Longfin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 686-1060
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
              pkim@rosenlegal.com


LORD & TAYLOR: "Beekman" Suit Alleges Negligence
------------------------------------------------
Bernadette Beekman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lord & Taylor, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00521
(D. Del., April 5, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and
negligence per se.

The Plaintiff brings this class action against Lord & Taylor for
its failure to exercise reasonable care in securing and
safeguarding its customers' personal financial data -- in
particular, credit and debit card records including cardholder
name, card number, expiration date, and internal verification
code.

Bernadette Beekman resides in New York, New York, and is a
citizen of the State of New York. In May of 2017, Plaintiff used
a credit card to pay for purchases at a Lord & Taylor retail
store in New York City, and had her Private Information exposed
as a result of Lord & Taylor's inadequate security.

Lord & Taylor, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company
headquartered in New York, New York. Lord & Taylor operates a
number of department stores selling clothing, footwear, jewelry,
beauty products, fragrances, electronics, bedding, and
housewares. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ralph N. Sianni, Esq.
      ANDERSEN SLEATER SIANNI, LLC
      2 Mill Road, Suite 202
      Wilmington, DE 19806
      Tel: (302) 510-8528
      Fax: (302) 595-9321
      E-mail: rsianni@andersensleater.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Trial in "Gold" Suit Set for Feb. 2019
----------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that trial in a
class action lawsuit by Dana Gold is currently scheduled for
February 25, 2019.

On or about December 8, 2014, Dana Gold ("Gold") filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the
Morning Star bamboo flooring that the Company sells is defective.
On February 13, 2015, Gold filed an amended complaint that added
three additional plaintiffs (collectively with Gold, "Gold
Plaintiffs"). Gold Plaintiffs have filed amended complaints,
which limited the complaint to the Company's Morning Star Strand
Bamboo flooring that the Company sells (the "Strand Bamboo
Product") and allege that the Company has engaged in unfair
business practices and unfair competition by falsely representing
the quality and characteristics of the Strand Bamboo Product and
by concealing the Strand Bamboo Product's defective nature.

In the amended complaint, Gold Plaintiffs limited the purported
class of individuals to those who are residents of California,
Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia,
respectively, and purchased the Strand Bamboo Product for
personal, family, or household use. On February 2, 2018, Gold
Plaintiffs filed another amended complaint substituting a new
proposed Illinois class representative for the class
representative previously dismissed by the Court.

Gold Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their
complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, Gold
Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Company's actions violate
the law and that it is financially responsible for notifying all
purported class members, injunctive relief requiring the Company
to replace and/or repair all of the Strand Bamboo Product
installed in structures owned by the purported class members, and
a declaration that the Company must disgorge, for the benefit of
the purported classes, all or part of the profits received from
the sale of the allegedly defective Strand Bamboo Product and/or
to make full restitution to Gold Plaintiffs and the purported
class members.

Fact discovery in the matter is now complete. The Gold Plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification seeking to certify state-
wide classes for purchases of the Strand Bamboo Product in
California, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia. The Company filed an opposition to class certification
and a motion to exclude the opinions of the Gold Plaintiffs'
experts. In November 2017, the court granted Gold Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification with respect to the six states,
and granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to
exclude Gold Plaintiffs' expert witnesses. The Company has
appealed the class certification decision to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but the request to appeal
was denied. The Company's previously filed motion to dismiss the
non-California plaintiffs on jurisdictional grounds was denied.
Trial is currently scheduled for February 25, 2019.

In addition, there are a number of other claims and lawsuits
alleging damages similar to those in the Gold matter. The Company
disputes these and the Gold Plaintiffs' claims and intends to
defend such matters vigorously. Given the uncertainty of
litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal
standards that must be met for, among other things, class
certification and success on the merits, the Company is unable to
estimate the amount of loss, or range of possible loss, at this
time that may result from this action. Any such losses could,
potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or
collectively, on the Company's results of operations, financial
condition, and liquidity.

Lumber Liquidators is the largest specialty retailer of hardwood
flooring in North America, offering a complete purchasing
solution across an extensive assortment of domestic and exotic
hardwood species, engineered hardwood, laminate, resilient vinyl,
engineered vinyl plank, bamboo, engineered bamboo, cork and wood-
look tile. The company is based in Toano, Virginia.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defending "Mason" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company
remains a defendant in the purported class action suit initiated
by Ashleigh Mason.

On or about August 15, 2017, Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan
Carroll and Osagie Ehigie (collectively, the "SM Plaintiffs")
filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
all current and former store managers, store managers in training
and similarly situated current and former employees holding
comparable positions but different titles (collectively, the "SM
Employees") alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by
classifying the SM Employees as exempt.

The alleged violations include failure to pay for overtime work.
The SM Plaintiffs seek certification of the SM Employees for (i)
a collective action covering the period beginning three years and
115 days prior to the filing of the complaint through the
disposition of this action for the SM Employees nationwide (the
"Nationwide Collective Class") in connection with FLSA and (ii) a
class action covering the period beginning six years and 115 days
prior to the filing of the complaint through the disposition of
this action for members of the SM Employees who currently are or
were employed in New York (the "NY SM Class") in connection with
NYLL.

The SM Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the SM Plaintiffs seek
class certification, unspecified amount for unpaid wages and
overtime wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory
relief, restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and
other damages. The Company disputes the SM Plaintiffs' claims and
intends to defend the matter vigorously.

Lumber Liquidators said, "Given the uncertainty of litigation,
the preliminary stage of the case and the legal standards that
must be met for, among other things, class certification and
success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this
action and therefore no accrual has been made related to this.
Any such losses could, potentially, have a material adverse
effect, individually or collectively, on the Company's results of
operations, financial condition, and liquidity."

Lumber Liquidators is the largest specialty retailer of hardwood
flooring in North America, offering a complete purchasing
solution across an extensive assortment of domestic and exotic
hardwood species, engineered hardwood, laminate, resilient vinyl,
engineered vinyl plank, bamboo, engineered bamboo, cork and wood-
look tile. The company is based in Toano, Virginia.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Kramer" Class Action Underway
--------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company
is defending against a purported class action suit filed by
Robert J. Kramer.

On or about November 17, 2017, Robert J. Kramer, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated (collectively, the
"Kramer Plaintiffs") filed a purported class action lawsuit in
the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento on behalf
of all current and former store managers, all others with similar
job functions and/or titles and all current and former employees
classified as non-exempt or incorrectly classified as exempt and
who worked for the Company in the State of California
(collectively, the "CSM Employees") alleging violation of the
California Labor Code ("CLC") including, among other items,
failure to pay wages and overtime and engaging in unfair business
practices.

The Kramer Plaintiffs seek certification of the CSM Employees for
(i) a class action covering the prior four-year period prior to
the filing of the complaint through the disposition of this
action for the CSM Employees who currently are or were employed
in California (the "California SM Class") in connection with the
CLC. The Kramer Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages
but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the Kramer
Plaintiffs seek class certification for the California SM Class,
unspecified amount for unpaid wages and overtime wages,
liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief,
restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and other
damages.

The Company disputes the Kramer Plaintiffs' claims and intends to
defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of
litigation, the preliminary stage of the case and the legal
standards that must be met for, among other things, class
certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any,
that may result from this action and therefore no accrual has
been made related to this. Any such losses could, potentially,
have a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on
the Company's results of operations, financial condition, and
liquidity.

Lumber Liquidators is the largest specialty retailer of hardwood
flooring in North America, offering a complete purchasing
solution across an extensive assortment of domestic and exotic
hardwood species, engineered hardwood, laminate, resilient vinyl,
engineered vinyl plank, bamboo, engineered bamboo, cork and wood-
look tile. The company is based in Toano, Virginia.


MDL 2020: Out-of-Network Providers' Suit vs Aetna Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend a New Jersey class action suit related to the company'
practices related to the payment of claims for services rendered
to its members by health care providers with whom the company do
not have a contract.

Aetna said, "We are named as a defendant in several purported
class actions and individual lawsuits arising out of our
practices related to the payment of claims for services rendered
to our members by health care providers with whom we do not have
a contract ("out-of-network providers"). Among other things,
these lawsuits allege that we paid too little to our health plan
members and/or providers for these services, among other reasons,
because of our use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a
subsidiary of one of our competitors ("Ingenix"). Other major
health insurers are the subject of similar litigation or have
settled similar litigation.  "

Various plaintiffs who are health care providers or medical
associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of-
network providers who provided services to the company's members
during the period from 2001 to the present. Various plaintiffs
who are members in the company's health plans seek to represent
nationwide classes of the company's members who received services
from out-of-network providers during the period from 2001 to the
present.

Taken together, these lawsuits allege that the company violated
state law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
as amended ("ERISA"), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO") and federal antitrust laws, either
acting alone or in concert with our competitors. The purported
classes seek reimbursement of all unpaid benefits, recalculation
and repayment of deductible and coinsurance amounts, unspecified
damages and treble damages, statutory penalties, injunctive and
declaratory relief, plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and
seek to disqualify us from acting as a fiduciary of any benefit
plan that is subject to ERISA. Individual lawsuits that generally
contain similar allegations and seek similar relief have been
brought by health plan members and out-of-network providers.

The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007.  The
federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "MDL
Panel") has consolidated these class action cases in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey
District Court") under the caption In re: Aetna UCR Litigation,
MDL No. 2020 ("MDL 2020").

In addition, the MDL Panel has transferred the individual
lawsuits to MDL 2020. On May 9, 2011, the New Jersey District
Court dismissed the physician plaintiffs from MDL 2020 without
prejudice. The New Jersey District Court's action followed a
ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (the "Florida District Court") that the
physician plaintiffs were enjoined from participating in MDL 2020
due to a prior settlement and release. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has dismissed the physician
plaintiffs' appeal of the Florida District Court's ruling.

On December 6, 2012, the company entered into an agreement to
settle MDL 2020. Under the terms of the proposed nationwide
settlement, we would have been released from claims relating to
our out-of-network reimbursement practices from the beginning of
the applicable settlement class period through August 30, 2013.
The settlement agreement did not contain an admission of
wrongdoing. The medical associations were not parties to the
settlement agreement.

Under the settlement agreement, the company would have paid up to
$120 million to fund claims submitted by health plan members and
health care providers who were members of the settlement classes.
These payments also would have funded the legal fees of
plaintiffs' counsel and the costs of administering the
settlement. In connection with the proposed settlement, the
Company recorded an after-tax charge to net income attributable
to Aetna of $78 million in the fourth quarter of 2012.

The settlement agreement provided the company the right to
terminate the agreement under certain conditions related to
settlement class members who opted out of the settlement. Based
on a report provided to the parties by the settlement
administrator, the conditions permitting the company to terminate
the settlement agreement were satisfied. On March 13, 2014, the
company notified the New Jersey District Court and plaintiffs'
counsel that the company will be terminating the settement
agreement. Various legal and factual developments since the date
of the settlement agreement led the company to believe
terminating the settlement agreement was in its best interests.

As a result of this termination, the company released the reserve
established in connection with the settlement agreement, net of
amounts due to the settlement administrator, which reduced first
quarter 2014 other general and administrative expenses by $103
million pretax.

On June 30, 2015, the New Jersey District Court granted in part
the company's motion to dismiss the proceeding. The New Jersey
District Court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' RICO and
federal antitrust claims; their ERISA claims that are based on
our disclosures and our purported breach of fiduciary duties; and
certain of their state law claims. The New Jersey District Court
also dismissed with prejudice all claims asserted by several
medical association plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' remaining claims
are for ERISA benefits and breach of contract.

Aetna said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against the
plaintiffs' remaining claims."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Aetna Inc. is an American managed health care company, which
sells traditional and consumer directed health care insurance
plans and related services, such as medical, pharmaceutical,
dental, behavioral health, long-term care, and disability plans.
Aetna is a member of the Fortune 500. The company is based in
Hartford, Connecticut.


MOISES BAKERY: "Cuello" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Yosvany Carmona Cuello, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Moises Bakery of Miami, Inc. aka Moises
Bakery, Joaquin Bras, Jacquelin Bras, and Philip Coleman, Case
No. 1:18-cv-21255 (S.D. Fla., April 3, 2018), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Dade County, Florida and was
employed by the Defendants.

The Defendants own and operate a bakery in Dade County, Florida.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


MEDCARE INVESTMENT: "Collier" Suit Alleges WARN Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Collene Collier, Karen Groce, and Barry Kusnick, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. MedCare
Investment Corporation dba Medcare Investment Funds,
Cardiovascular Care Group, Inc., and CCG of Louisiana, LLC, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00331 (M.D. Tenn., April 2, 2018), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act.

This is a class action for the recovery by the Plaintiffs and the
other similarly situated employees against the Defendants who as
parent employers made the decision to close the Plaintiffs'
direct employers, Louisiana Medical Center and Heart Hospital,
LLC, aka Louisiana Heart Hospital, LLC and LMCHH PCP, LLC in
Lacombe, Louisiana. The decisions by the Defendants to close the
Hospital caused the termination of Plaintiffs and approximately
700 employees without sixty days' advanced notice in violation of
the WARN Act, says the complaint.

Collene Collier worked at the facility located at 64030 Hwy 434,
Lacombe, LA 70445 as a Registered Nurse Telemetry/Medical
Surgery.

Karen Groce worked at the Lacombe Facility and served as a
medical group support specialist until her termination in
February 2017.

Barry Kusnick worked at the Lacombe Facility and served as an
Interventional Cardiologist until his termination in February
2017.

The Defendants owned, maintained and operated hospitals employing
approximately 700 employees at the Lacombe Facility and other
medical facilities. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      David W. Garrison, Esq.
      Seth M. Hyatt, Esq.
      BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
      Bank of America Plaza
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Tel: (615) 244-2202
      Fax: (615) 252-3798
      E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
              shyatt@barrettjohnston.com


MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Defending Against Steamfitters Local 449 Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Molina Healthcare Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the company is facing a securities
class action suit entitled, Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan
v. Molina Healthcare, Inc, et al.

On April 27, 2018, the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan filed
a class action securities complaint in the Central District Court
of California against the Company and its former executive
officers, J. Mario Molina, John C. Molina, Terry P. Bayer, and
Rick Hopfer, Case 2:18-cv-03579.

The complaint purports to seek recovery on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased Molina common stock between October 31,
2014 and August 2, 2017 for alleged violations under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The plaintiff alleges the defendants
misled investors regarding the scalability of the Company's
administrative infrastructure during the identified class period.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the alleged
claims and intends to defend the matter vigorously.

Molina Healthcare, Inc. provides quality managed health care to
people receiving government assistance. The company offers cost-
effective Medicaid-related solutions to meet the health care
needs of low-income families and individuals, and to assist
government agencies in their administration of the Medicaid
program. The company is based in Long Beach California.


MYRIAD GENETICS: June 19 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until June 19, 2018 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit
against Myriad Genetics, Inc. (Nasdaq:MYGN), if they purchased
the Company's securities between August 13, 2014 through March
12, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action is pending
in the United States District Court for the District of Utah.

Myriad Genetics and certain of its executives are charged with
failing to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.

On March 12, 2018, the Company revealed that it received a
subpoena from the Department of Health and Human Services,
regarding "an investigation into possible false or otherwise
improper claims submitted for payment under Medicare and
Medicaid," specifically relating to the Company's hereditary
cancer testing dating back to January 1, 2014 (less than four
months after the Company launched its myRisk test in September
2013) to the date of the subpoena's issuance.

On this news, the price of Myriad's shares plummeted over 12.14%

       Contact:
       Claimsfiler Claim Center
       Toll-free: (844) 367-9658 [GN]


NEW RESIDENTIAL: Appeal in Retirement Fund Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
New Residential Investment Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the appeal in
the case entitled, Chester County Employees' Retirement Fund v.
New Residential Investment Corp., et al., remains pending.

On May 22, 2015, a purported stockholder of the Company, Chester
County Employees' Retirement Fund, filed a class action and
derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery purportedly
on behalf of all stockholders and the Company, titled Chester
County Employees' Retirement Fund v. New Residential Investment
Corp., et al., C.A. No. 11058-VCMR. On October 30, 2015,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint").

The lawsuit names the Company, its directors, its Manager,
Fortress and Fortress Operating Entity I LP as defendants, and
alleges breaches of fiduciary duties by the Company, its
directors, its Manager, Fortress and Fortress Operating Entity I
LP in connection with the HLSS Acquisition. The lawsuit also
seeks declaratory judgment, among other things, as to the
applicability of Article Twelfth of the Company's Certificate of
Incorporation and as to the validity of the release of claims of
the Company's stockholders related to the termination of the HLSS
Initial Merger Agreement.

The Amended Complaint seeks declaratory relief, equitable relief
and damages. On December 11, 2015, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint, which was heard by the court on
June 14, 2016. On October 7, 2016, the court issued an opinion
dismissing without prejudice the breach of fiduciary duty claims
and declaratory judgment claims, except for the claim relating to
the applicability of Article Twelfth. On October 14, 2016,
plaintiff moved to reargue the Court's dismissal opinion, and
defendants filed an opposition to the motion for reargument on
October 28, 2016. On December 1, 2016, the court denied the
motion for reargument.

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (the "Second Amended
Complaint") on February 27, 2017 containing allegations and
seeking relief similar to that in the Amended Complaint.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on March
30, 2017. The court held an oral argument on the motion to
dismiss on July 7, 2017, which the court granted in the
defendants' favor on October 6, 2017. On November 2, 2017, the
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court
appealing the court's original motion to dismiss opinion, motion
for reargument opinion, and second motion to dismiss opinion.
Oral argument on the appeal is scheduled for May 2, 2018.

New Residential is a publicly traded REIT primarily focused on
opportunistically investing in, and actively managing,
investments related to residential real estate. The company
primarily targets investments in mortgage servicing related
assets and related opportunistic investments. The company is
based in New York.


NORTH AMERICAN: "Correa" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Correa, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. North American Recovery aka N.A.R. and John Does 1-
25, Case No. 2:18-cv-01375 (E.D. Pa., April 2, 2018), seeks
damages and declaratory relief under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and is
a consumer.

The Defendant is debt collector and maintains a location at 1600
W 2200 S, #410, West Valley City, Utah 84119. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NRG YIELD: "Braun" Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------
NRG Yield LLC said in its Form 10-K/A report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the fiscal
year ended February 28, 2018, that the Company continues to
defend against the case, Braun v. NRG Yield, Inc.

On April 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed a putative class action
lawsuit against NRG Yield, Inc., the current and former members
of its board of directors individually, and other parties in
California Superior Court in Kern County, CA. Plaintiffs allege
various violations of the Securities Act due to the defendants'
alleged failure to disclose material facts related to low wind
production prior to NRG Yield, Inc.'s June 22, 2015 Class C
common stock offering.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, rescission, attorney's fees
and costs. The defendants filed objections and a motion
challenging jurisdiction on October 18, 2016. On December 1,
2017, the parties agreed to a stipulation which provides the
plaintiffs' opposition was due on March 6, 2018 and the
defendants' reply was due on May 4, 2018.

NRG Yield LLC provides investment services. The Company holds and
invests existing assets of its parent company for various aspects
of electricity generation projects and general corporate
purposes. NRG Yield serves the utilities market in the United
States. The company is based in Princeton, New Jersey.


NRG YIELD: Court Dismisses "Ahmed" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
NRG Yield LLC said in its Form 10-K/A report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the fiscal
year ended February 28, 2018, that the court has dismissed the
lawsuit entitled, Ahmed v. NRG Energy, Inc. and the NRG Yield
Board of Directors, with prejudice, thereby ending the case.

On September 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed a putative class action
lawsuit against NRG Energy, Inc., the directors of NRG Yield,
Inc., and other parties in the Delaware Chancery Court. The
complaint alleges that the defendants breached their respective
fiduciary duties with regard to the recapitalization of NRG
Yield, Inc. common stock in 2015.

The plaintiffs generally seek economic damages, attorney's fees
and injunctive relief. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the lawsuit on December 21, 2016. Plaintiffs filed their
objection to the motion to dismiss on February 15, 2017. The
defendants' reply was filed on March 24, 2017. The court heard
oral argument on the defendants' motion to dismiss on June 20,
2017. On September 7, 2017, the court requested additional
briefing which the parties provided on September 21, 2017. On
December 11, 2017, the court dismissed the lawsuit with
prejudice, thereby ending the case.

NRG Yield LLC provides investment services. The Company holds and
invests existing assets of its parent company for various aspects
of electricity generation projects and general corporate
purposes. NRG Yield serves the utilities market in the United
States. The company is based in Princeton, New Jersey.


PEP BOYS-MANNY: Court Dismisses "Silver" Consumer Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint in the case captioned DEBRA A. SILVER, Plaintiff, v.
PEP BOYS-MANNY, MOE & JACK OF OF DELAWARE, INC., JANE AND JOHN
DOES 1-100, and XYZ CORPORATIONS 1-10, Defendants, Civil Action
No. 17-00018 (FLW)(LHG)(D.N.J.).

The Plaintiff brings claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et seq. (CFA), New Jersey Automotive Repair
Regulations N.J.A.C. 13:45A-26C.1 et seq. (Repair Regulations),
New Jersey's Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act
(TCCWNA), and the common law of breach of contract and unjust
enrichment, arising from the Defendant's alleged practice of
offering auto parts for sale at its retail locations at different
prices than those available online on the Defendant's website.

In its motion, Defendant Pep Boys argues that Counts II and IV of
the Second Amended Complaint must be dismissed because (a) the
Plaintiff has failed to plead any unlawful practice by Pep Boys;
(b) the Plaintiff has failed to plead any ascertainable loss by
the Plaintiff; and (c) the Plaintiff has failed to plead
causation.  The Defendant's arguments apply equally to the
Plaintiff's Count II affirmative representation claim and the
Plaintiff's Count IV regulatory violation claim. All of
Defendant's arguments for dismissal return to the same basic
facts: even accepting, arguendo, that an action under the CFA may
be maintained against a retailer for charging different prices at
its physical locations and on its website, the Plaintiff has
failed to allege that the auto parts she purchased from Pep Boys'
Princeton store were in fact offered for different and lower
prices on Pep Boys' website at the time she purchased the parts.
Instead, the Plaintiff alleges one set of prices on three dates
of in-store purchases in September 2015, April 2016, and May
2016, and another set of allegedly lower prices published online
on two subsequent dates in September 2016.

The Court agrees that this pleading deficiency is fatal to the
Plaintiff's claims of fraud, however conceived under the CFA or
its implementing regulations. The heart of the Plaintiff's theory
of liability is that the Defendant violated the CFA by charging
one price for a product through its physical retail location and
another through its web portal. Taking the Plaintiff's
allegations as true for the purpose of the motion to dismiss,
there are simply no factual allegations supporting this
contention that could give rise to an unlawful practice or an
ascertainable harm caused thereby.  The Plaintiff therefore fails
to state each of the elements of a CFA claim, and Counts II and
IV of the Second Amended Complaint will be dismissed with
prejudice.

The Court having found that the Plaintiff has failed to state a
claim because she has not alleged that she ever purchased auto
parts at one of the Defendant's retail locations at the time when
such parts were being advertised for lower prices on the
Defendant's website, there is no longer a live case or
controversy in this putative class action and, dismissal, of the
entire action, including the class claims is appropriate, the
Court finds.  The doctrine of mootness requires that an actual
controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at
the time the complaint is filed.

Here, the fact that the Plaintiff has not successfully alleged
that she was ever the victim of the alleged differential pricing
scheme, and her individual claims have been dismissed, the
Plaintiff no longer has a cognizable interest in the outcome of
her putative class action. Because the putative class in this
matter has not been certified, dismissal of this action is
required.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9fwptot from Leagle.com.

DEBRA A. SILVER, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by SEAN F. FORLENZA, THE LAW
OFFICE OF SEAN F. FORLENZA, ESQ.

PEP BOYS-MANNY, MOE, & JACK OF DELAWARE, INC., Defendant,
represented by DAVID R. KOTT -- dkott@mccarter.com -- MCCARTER &
ENGLISH, LLP.


PETSMART INC: 9th Cir. Affirms "Loomis" Class Settlement Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the
District Court's judgment approving the class action settlement
and the award of attorney's fees in the case captioned DANETTE M.
MOORE; ALANNA HARRISON; ALISA VALDEZ; LATRESA MYERS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellees, LINDSEY LOOMIS, Objector-Appellant, v. PETSMART, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, No. 16-16124 (9th Cir.).

Lindsey Loomis challenges the district court's approval of a
class action settlement and the court's award of attorney's fees.

Current and former employees of PetSmart, Inc., filed a putative
class action alleging various labor-law violations.  Loomis
argues that the Pet Stylist Class and the Non-Exempt Employee
Class were competing for payments from the same pot of money and
that this fact constitutes an inherent conflict of interest
between these two classes, such that they may not be represented
by the same counsel. PetSmart and class counsel respond that the
interests of the two classes are aligned. Each class asserted
claims for unpaid wages, failure to provide adequate meal and
rest periods, failure to provide adequate wage statements, and
waiting-time penalties.

The Ninth Circuit noted that unlike Amchem Products, Inc. v.
Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997), this case does not involve an
attempt to settle both pending claims and future claims. Although
the claims of one class purportedly are more valuable than the
claims of another class, a difference in value of claims does not
necessarily mean that there is a structural, or fundamental,
conflict of interest requiring separate counsel. To find that a
conflict within a class is fundamental, and thus requires
separate counsel, there must be some actual, apparent conflict
beyond the mere unequal allocation of settlement funds. When
class members disagree over the type or form of relief sought, or
where class members have claims that are vastly different from
one another, as in Amchem, there may be a fundamental conflict.

On the other hand, when class members essentially seek the same
thing from the defendant and differ only with respect to the
amount or value of their claims, absent vast differences or some
other evidence of unfairness, there is no fundamental conflict
sufficient to defeat adequacy. That is the case here, the Ninth
Circuit said.  The district court did not abuse its discretion in
approving the class action settlement and awarding attorney's
fees.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's March 29, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydh2czt8 from Leagle.com.


PNM RESOURCES: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Pending
------------------------------------------------------
PNM Resources Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the Company's Petition for Writ of
Certiorari with the US Supreme Court is underway.

A putative class action was filed against PNM and other utilities
in February 2009 in the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico. Plaintiffs claim to be allottees, members
of the Navajo Nation, who pursuant to the Dawes Act of 1887, were
allotted ownership in land carved out of the Navajo Nation and
allege that defendants, including PNM, are rights-of-way grantees
with rights-of-way across the allotted lands and are either in
trespass or have paid insufficient fees for the grant of rights-
of-way or both.

In March 2010, the court ordered that the entirety of the
plaintiffs' case be dismissed. The court did not grant plaintiffs
leave to amend their complaint, finding that they instead must
pursue and exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking
redress in federal court. In May 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal with the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA"), which was
denied by the BIA Regional Director. In May 2011, plaintiffs
appealed the Regional Director's decision to the DOI, Office of
Hearings and Appeals, Interior Board of Indian Appeals. Following
briefing on the merits, on August 20, 2013, that board issued a
decision upholding the Regional Director's decision that the
allottees had failed to perfect their appeals, and dismissed the
allottees' appeals, without prejudice.

The allottees have not refiled their appeals. Although this
matter was dismissed without prejudice, PNM considers the matter
concluded. However, PNM continues to monitor this matter in order
to preserve its interests regarding any PNM-acquired rights-of-
way.

In a separate matter, in September 2012, 43 landowners claiming
to be Navajo allottees filed a notice of appeal with the BIA
appealing a March 2011 decision of the BIA Regional Director
regarding renewal of a right-of-way for a PNM transmission line.

The allottees, many of whom are also allottees in the above
matter, generally allege that they were not paid fair market
value for the right-of-way, that they were denied the opportunity
to make a showing as to their view of fair market value, and thus
denied due process. On January 6, 2014, PNM received notice that
the BIA, Navajo Region, requested a review of an appraisal report
on 58 allotment parcels. After review, the BIA concluded it would
continue to rely on the values of the original appraisal.

On March 27, 2014, while the matter was stayed, the allottees
filed a motion to dismiss their appeal with prejudice. On April
2, 2014, the allottees' appeal was dismissed with prejudice.

Subsequent to the dismissal, PNM received a letter from counsel
on behalf of what appears to be a subset of the 43 landowner
allottees involved in the appeal, notifying PNM that the
specified allottees were revoking their consents for renewal of
right of way on six specific allotments.

On January 22, 2015, PNM received a letter from the BIA Regional
Director identifying ten allotments with rights-of-way renewals
that were previously contested. The letter indicated that the
renewals were not approved by the BIA because the previous
consent obtained by PNM was later revoked, prior to BIA approval,
by the majority owners of the allotments. It is the BIA Regional
Director's position that PNM must re-obtain consent from these
landowners.

On July 13, 2015, PNM filed a condemnation action in the NM
District Court regarding the approximately 15.49 acres of land at
issue. On December 1, 2015, the court ruled that PNM could not
condemn two of the five allotments at issue based on the Navajo
Nation's fractional interest in the land. PNM filed a motion for
reconsideration of this ruling, which was denied. On March 31,
2016, the Tenth Circuit granted PNM's petition to appeal the
December 1, 2015 ruling. On September 18, 2015, the allottees
filed a separate complaint against PNM for federal trespass. Both
matters have been consolidated.

On June 27, 2016, PNM filed its opening brief in the Tenth
Circuit. Amicus briefs were filed in support of PNM's position.
On October 5, 2016, the United States, the Navajo Nation, and
individual allottees filed their response briefs.

After the response briefs were filed, other entities requested
leave to file amicus briefs addressing arguments raised in the
United States' response brief. Oral argument before the Tenth
Circuit was heard on January 17, 2017. On May 26, 2017, the Tenth
Circuit affirmed the district court.

On July 8, 2017, PNM filed a Motion for Reconsideration en banc
with the Tenth Circuit. On July 21, 2017, the court denied PNM's
Motion for Reconsideration. On July 26, 2017, PNM filed a motion
to stay implementation of the court's decision, which was denied.

PNM Resources said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that PNM was considering all of
its procedural options going forward in the litigation. On
September 11, 2017, PNM filed an Application for Extension of
Time to File a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the US Supreme
Court. PNM's application for an extension of time to November 20,
2017 was granted. On October 23, 2017, the parties filed a Joint
Motion to Stay the federal district court case for 90 days based
on the Navajo Nation's acquisition of interests in two additional
allotments and the unresolved ownership of the fifth allotment
due to the owner's death. The court granted this motion on
October 24, 2017.

In its recent report, PNM said the NM District Court has stayed
the case until May 15, 2018 based on the Navajo Nation's
acquisition of interests in two additional allotments and the
unresolved ownership of the fifth allotment due to the owner's
death.

On November 20, 2017, PNM filed its Petition for Writ of
Certiorari with the US Supreme Court. On December 22, 2017,
amicus briefs supporting PNM's Petition for Writ of Certiorari
were filed with the US Supreme Court. On March 23, 2018,
responses to PNM's petition were filed. On April 5, PNM filed its
reply brief in support of its Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Texas-New Mexico Power Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that its
principal, PNM Resources Inc., "cannot predict the outcome of
these matters."

Texas-New Mexico Power Company, an electric utility company,
engages in the transmission and distribution of electricity to
residential, commercial, industrial, and other customers in
Texas. The company was founded in 1925 and is based in
Lewisville, Texas. Texas-New Mexico Power Company is a subsidiary
of PNM Resources, Inc.

PNM Resources, Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages in the
energy and energy-related businesses in the United States. It
operates through Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) and
Texas-New Mexico Power Company (TNMP) segments. The PNM segment
is primarily involved in the generation, transmission, and
distribution of electricity. The company is based in Albuquerque,
New Mexico.


PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: Court Refuses to Decertify "Lorenzo" Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina, Western Division, denied Defendant's Motion to
Decertify Class and granted Defendant's Alternative Motion to
Amend Class Definition in the case captioned ROSE LORENZO, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. PRIME COMMUNICATIONS, L.P., a Texas General Partnership,
Defendant, No. 5:12-CV-69-H (E.D.N.C.).

The Defendant objects to the memorandum and recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank arguing that the Magistrate
(1) failed to address the elements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3), (2) incorrectly concluded that Rule 23's
commonality and typicality standards have been met by over-
simplifying the rigorous analysis of commonality and typicality
required in this matter, (3) failed to consider the merits of
plaintiff's North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA) claims as
part of its class decertification decision, (4) should not have
relied on the passage of almost four years since certification of
the class as part of her reasoning for recommending denial; (5)
and failed to address defendant's argument that plaintiff is not
an adequate class representative. Defendant also notes it
incorporates its prior arguments from its prior notice of
objections.

The objection argues it was error for the magistrate judge to not
consider the merits of the NCWHA claims in the motion to
decertify. However, a court should not engage in "free-ranging
merits inquiries." Instead, the merits are only relevant for the
purpose of determining whether the Rule 23 requirements are
satisfied. This conclusory objection is wholly without merit as
the magistrate judge properly considered the merits to the extent
required by Rule 23 and the caselaw.

Having found the objections to be without merit, the District
Court finds the magistrate's recommendation to deny the motion to
decertify to be proper.  A full and careful review of the M&R and
other documents of record convinces the court that the
recommendation of the magistrate judge is, in all respects, in
accordance with the law and should be approved.  Therefore,
Prime's motion to decertify the class is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yayvb7kj from Leagle.com.

Rose Lorenzo, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Harris D. Butler -- harris.butler@butlerroyals.com
-- Butler Royals, PLC, S. Michael Dunn, Emanuel & Dunn, Zev H.
Antell -- zev.antell@butlerroyals.com -- Butler Royals, PLC &
Stephen A. Dunn -- sdunn@emanuelanddunn.com -- Emanuel & Dunn.

Prime Communications, L.P., a Texas General Partnership,
Defendant, represented by Amy Elizabeth Puckett --
apuckett@bradley.com -- Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Avery
A. Simmons -- asimmons@bradley.com -- Bradley Arant Boult
Cummings LLP, John W. Smith -- jsmth@bradley.com -- Bradley Arant
Boult Cummings, LLP, Scott B. Smith -- ssmith@bradley.com --
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP & Thomas M. Miller --
mmiler@bradley.com -- Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Has Deal in Align Probiotic Supplement Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Johnson, writing for Dayton Daily News, reports that
Procter & Gamble recently reached a settlement in a class action
lawsuit involving the marketing and advertising of its probiotic
supplements under the Align brand.

In October of 2017, the Cincinnati, Ohio-based company agreed to
pay $30 million to settle a class action lawsuit brought against
it by three plaintiffs who purchased Align.

The trio claimed that the company used deceptive marketing and
false advertising when it promoted Align as "clinically proven"
to help digestive health, according to a filing.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs said that they "suffered
injury in fact and lost money as a result of the unfair
competition described [t]herein" after discovering that Align did
not help their digestive health as it promised.

Despite settling in the case, P&G for its part, does not admit to
any wrongdoing and still steadfastly denies that it engaged in
underhanded practices of any kind. Nonetheless, if you happen to
have some Align on your shelf, you may qualify for a check.

The company agreed to fork over $15 million in refunds.

If you bought Align between March 1, 2009 and June 6, 2016, you
could be a settlement class member and entitled to some cash.

The catch is, you'd better hurry. Claimants have until May 16,
2018 to file.

A settlement website has been set up at alignsettlement.com.
According to the site, "If you submit a Claim Form, you will give
up the right to sue P&G in a separate lawsuit about the legal
claims this settlement resolves."

How to file a claim for the Procter & Gamble Align class action
settlement:

   * To file online, sending an email to
info@AlignSettlement.com.

   * You can also call 1-866-653-4873, or write to the Settlement
Administrator at P.O. Box 404041 Louisville, KY 40233-4041.

Keep in mind that the most you may get is a cash refund of up to
$49.26 for buying up to three Align products.

If you think you may have more money out there via class action
lawsuits all you have to do is let your fingers do the walking
and check out these websites, which typically post the latest
claims. [GN]


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Court Junks Pricing & Billing Practices Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned MARVIN
D. LESLIE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-1590 (ES)(MAH)(D.N.J.).

Quest is the largest provider of diagnostic and clinical testing
in the United States. The Plaintiffs are nine individuals who
received testing services from Quest. At all relevant times,
eight of the Plaintiffs maintained healthcare insurance and one
Plaintiff did not. For the Plaintiffs who maintained healthcare
insurance, each of their insurers declined to cover some or all
of Quest's procedures. The Plaintiffs bring this putative class
action to challenge Quest's pricing and billing practices for
non-covered procedures.

In Counts 1 through 10, Plaintiffs assert claims under ten
different consumer-fraud statutes.  (Count 1: New Jersey), (Count
2: Florida), (Count 3: Colorado), (Count 4: Pennsylvania), (Count
5: Arizona), (Count 6: Michigan), (Count 7: Maryland), (Count 8:
Nevada), and (Counts 9 & 10: California)).

Quest argues that these claims must be dismissed because (i)
differential or high' pricing does not constitute an unfair or
deceptive trade practice; and (ii) the Plaintiffs have failed to
plead their concealment claims with the particularity required by
Rule 9(b).

The Court agrees with Quest that allegations of differential
pricing, by themselves, do not constitute unfair or deceptive
trade practices.  The Plaintiffs may be able to state consumer-
fraud claims based on excessive pricing if they address other
factors relevant to whether Quest's pricing is deceptive or
fraudulent. Although the Plaintiffs' opposition relies on many of
these cases. Quest correctly points out that the Plaintiffs'
Complaint does not address any of these factors. The Court will
therefore grant the Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint so
they may address these factors.

The Plaintiffs characterize their fraud claims as two-fold.
First, the Plaintiffs allege that Quest failed to disclose to
plaintiffs at the time it performed services that it would charge
patients without insurance or patients whose insurer denied
coverage non-market rates.  Second, the Plaintiffs allege that
Quest does not inform patients "whether a test was disallowed by
the insurer, or whether the patient is being charged the
excessive non-market" rack rate.

In the Court's view, the Plaintiffs' allegations that Quest
failed to advise them of the non-discounted rates even when
viewed in the Plaintiffs' favour do not constitute a deceptive or
unfair trade practice under the state consumer-fraud statutes.
Quest provides the Court with ample authority supporting this
proposition.  Furthermore, the cases Plaintiffs rely on are
generally distinguishable regarding excessive pricing.

In those cases, the plaintiffs alleged facts suggesting the
prices charged were not the actual, necessary, or reasonable
costs for the services. The Plaintiffs do not make any such
allegations here.

Accordingly, the Court dismisses Counts 1 through 10 without
prejudice.

In Count 13, the Plaintiffs assert a claim for common law fraud.
The Plaintiffs have inadequately alleged that Quest made any
material misrepresentations or engaged in any fraudulent or
deceptive conduct about its services or prices. For this reason,
the Court dismisses Count 13 without prejudice.

In Count 11, the Plaintiffs assert a claim for common law breach
of contract. Plaintiffs allege that Quest provided services
pursuant to an implied contract that Quest would bill the
Plaintiffs (if their claims were disallowed by insurance) for the
reasonable fair market value of Quest's services (quantum
meruit).

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for
breach of contract. In particular, the Plaintiffs' Complaint does
not contain any facts to support their allegations that Quest
promised, through an implied contract, to bill the Plaintiffs for
the reasonable fair market value of Quest's services. As Quest
persuasively argues, the Plaintiffs do not allege that they ever
asked Quest about price; they do not allege that Quest ever made
any sort of representation to them about price; and they do not
allege that Quest ever stated that they would be entitled to a
discount. With no factual support, the Plaintiffs' allegations
about an implied contract with terms reflecting discounted or
reasonable fair market value rates are merely conclusory.

Next, the Court is not persuaded the Plaintiffs can even bring a
quantum meruit claim because they are not the performing party.
But even if the Plaintiffs could bring such a claim, the
Plaintiffs' Complaint as it currently stands does not adequately
allege a basis for one. The Plaintiffs acknowledge that Quest
maintains rack rates for each laboratory test CPT code and that
insurers at times deny patients coverage of lab tests. And
although the Plaintiffs allege that Quest's rack rates are
commercially unreasonable, the Court already explained why such
allegations, by themselves, are insufficient to demonstrate
unreasonableness. Thus, the Court finds that Quest's retention of
its rack rates would not be inequitable the Plaintiffs' Complaint
therefore fails to state a claim for quantum meruit.

The Court dismisses Count 11 without prejudice.

In Count 12, the Plaintiffs assert a claim for common law unjust
enrichment.  The Plaintiffs' unjust-enrichment claim is virtually
identical to their quantum meruit claim. Because the Court has
already found that Quest's retention of its rack rates would not
be inequitable, the Court dismisses Count 12 without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc5esqug from Leagle.com.

MARVIN D. LESLIE, LAWRENCE D. CATTI, VALERIE J. FUNARI, CLYDE
FREEMAN, JACOB CHERNOV, LING GONG, JILL A. ROACH & ARTHUR S.
GOLDSMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by JEFFREY W. HERRMANN, COHN,
LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLC.

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Defendant, represented by MICHAEL R.
MCDONALD, GIBBONS, PC & JOSHUA SIMON LEVY, GIBBONS PC.


QUINSTREET INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP  announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California against QuinStreet, Inc.
("QuinStreet" or the"Company") (NASDAQ:QNST) on behalf of
investors that acquired QuinStreet securities during the period
from February 10, 2016 through April 10, 2018 (the "Class
Period"), inclusive.

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

If you have incurred losses in the shares of QuinStreet, Inc and
would like to assist with the litigation process as a lead
plaintiff, you may, no later than June 26, 2018, request that the
Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please
contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an
investor in QuinStreet, Inc.

The filed complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:

   -- QuinStreet recklessly disregarded the occurrence of click-
through fraud;

   -- QuinStreet-owned websites experienced phony, low-quality
traffic for its clients;

   -- the Company's practices were not geared toward providing
its clients with valuable customers or high-quality leads or
clicks;

   -- the Company's fiscal 2018 financial guidance was
overstated; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, QuinStreet's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On April 11, 2018, Kerrisdale Capital published a report entitled
"QuinStreet, Inc. (QNST) Leading Nowhere" which suggested that
QuinStreet was generating fake web traffic and poor-quality
clicks for its customers.

On this news, shares of QuinStreet fell from $12.32 to close at
$10.14 per share on April 11, 2018, a decline of 18% on the day.

         Contact:
         Kevin Cooper, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
         Email: kcooper@whafh.com

            -- and --

         Gregory Stone
         Director of Case and Financial Analysis
         Telephone: (800) 575-0735
                    (212) 545-4774
         Email: gstone@whafh.com
                classmember@whafh.com [GN]


RADY CHILDREN'S: Court Narrows Doc Production Subject in "Crooks"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) captioned TANEESHA CROOKS and
ANTHONY BROWN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RADY CHILDREN'S HOSPITIAL-SAN DIEGO,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-0246-WQH-MDD (S.D. Cal.), the parties
filed a Joint Motion to determine a discovery dispute involving
two Requests for Production (RFP) and four Interrogatories served
by Plaintiff Crooks upon the Defendant.

The current class description is as follows:

     All persons within the United States who received any
telephone call from Defendant or its agent/s and/or employee/s,
not sent for emergency purposes, to said person's cellular
telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing
system and/or with an artificial or pre-recorded message within
the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint.

The United States District Court for Southern District of
California issued an order limiting the discovery requests to,
among other things, exclude the identification of the actual
telephone numbers dialed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybtaax7w from Leagle.com.

Taneesha Crooks, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated & Anthony Brown, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Abbas
Kazerounian -- ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerounian Law Group, APC, Jason
A. Ibey -- jason@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC, Joshua B.
Swigart -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart, Yana
A. Hart -- yana@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart, Daniel
G. Shay -- danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com -- Law Offices of Daniel G.
Shay & Nicholas Ryan Barthel, Kazerouni Law Group APC.

Rady Children's Hospital -- San Diego, Defendant, represented by
Stephen Heald Turner -- S0tephen.Turner@lewisbrisbois.com --
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, David Dylan Samani --
David.Samani@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
LLP & -- Patrik.Johansson@lewisbrisbois.com -- Patrik Johansson,
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.


REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Retirement System's Suit Concluded
-------------------------------------------------------
Regional Management Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the class action suit
filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, where Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System
and City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System serve as lead
plaintiffs, has been concluded.

On May 30, 2014, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the ""District Court") against the Company and certain of
its current and former directors, executive officers, and
stockholders (collectively, the "Defendants").

The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933
(the "1933 Act Claims") and sought unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock in the September 2013
and December 2013 secondary public offerings.

On August 25, 2014, Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement
System and City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System were
appointed as lead plaintiffs (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"). An
amended complaint was filed on November 24, 2014. In addition to
the 1933 Act Claims, the amended complaint also added claims for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act
Claims") seeking unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between May 2, 2013 and October 30, 2014, inclusive.

On January 26, 2015, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety. In response, the Plaintiffs
sought and were granted leave to file an amended complaint. On
February 27, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. Like the prior amended complaint, the second amended
complaint asserts 1933 Act Claims and 1934 Act Claims and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages. The Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the second amended complaint on April 28, 2015, and on
March 30, 2016, the District Court granted the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety.

On May 23, 2016, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a third
amended complaint. On January 27, 2017, the District Court denied
the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint and directed entry of final judgment in favor of the
Defendants. On January 30, 2017, the District Court entered final
judgment in favor of the Defendants.

On March 1, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the
"Appellate Court"). After hearing oral arguments on November 17,
2017, the Appellate Court issued a summary order on January 26,
2018 affirming the District Court's order denying Plaintiffs
leave to file a third amended complaint.

The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court was April 26,
2018. The Plaintiffs did not pursue an appeal with the United
States Supreme Court, and therefore, this matter is fully
resolved and concluded.

Regional Management Corp. is a diversified consumer finance
company providing a broad array of loan products primarily to
customers with limited access to consumer credit from banks,
thrifts, credit card companies, and other traditional lenders.
The company is based in Greer, South Carolina.


RIP CURL: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Candelario"
----------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the
dismissal of the complaint for lack of standing in the case
captioned LUCIA CANDELARIO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RIP CURL,
INC., a California corporation and DOES, 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-56382 (9th Cir.).

Lucia Candelario appeals the district court's dismissal for lack
of Article III standing of her putative class action lawsuit
against Rip Curl, Inc.

In her complaint, Candelario alleges that Rip Curl violated New
Jersey's Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act,
N.J. Stat. Ann. Sections 56:12-14 et seq.

Candelario's conclusory allegation that she suffered intangible,
informational injuries based on a violation of the Act alone is
too speculative to establish Article III standing, the Ninth
Circuit held.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's March 29, 2018 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8vfoc9x from Leagle.com.


RIPPLE LABS: Faces Securities Class Action Over ICO
---------------------------------------------------
Cali Haan, writing for Crowdfund Insider, reports that Ripple
Labs, the company behind the cryptocurrency Ripple (XRP), are
facing a class action lawsuit filed by an investor, Ryan Coffey,
who alleges the company sold its cryptocurrency tokens to the
public in violation of US securities laws.

The filing also claims the company has engaged in a "never-ending
ICO (Initial Coin Offering)" and has, "earned massive profits by
quietly selling off this XRP to the general public . . . and has
consistently portrayed XRP as a good investment, relayed
optimistic price predictions, and conflated Ripple Labs'
enterprise customers with usage of XRP."

In early April, Bloomberg reported that Ripple Labs offered to
pay American crypto exchanges Gemini and Coinbase to list Ripple
tokens for trading last year.

A listing on a popular exchange could enhance the value of Ripple
by providing a "liquidity premium," write Bloomberg authors Annie
Massa, Lily Katz and Mathew Leishing:

"Few things have propelled XRP's price more in recent months than
speculation that the token is set to graduate to a U.S. exchange
. . . A U.S. listing would also cement XRP's standing among
titans of cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin, the most popular and
valuable of the bunch."

However, the industry-wide scrutiny by regulators that
characterized the first part of 2018 may have ruined chance of a
prime listing of Ripple for the time being.  "U.S. officials have
warned unlicensed exchanges not to list tokens that could be
deemed securities," says Bloomberg.

Gemini reportedly declined an offer of a million dollars to list
Ripple, and Coinbase are said to have declined a loan of $100
million dollars worth of the cryptocurrency for a spot on its
high-profile exchange.

Taylor Copeland Law filed the class action lawsuit in the state
of California alleging that Ripple was in breach of securities
laws for selling unregistered securities. The complaint stated:

"This is a securities class action on behalf of all investors who
purchased Ripple tokens (XRP) issued and sold by Defendants.  It
arises out of a scheme by Defendants to raise hundreds of
millions of dollars through the unregistered sale of XRP to
retail investors in violation of the registration provisions of
state and federal securities laws.

Unlike cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, which are
mined by those validating transactions on their networks, all 100
billion of the XRP in existence were created out of thin air by
Ripple Labs at its inception in 2013.1  "In other words, unlike
some virtual currencies, XRP was fully generated prior to its
distribution . . . 20 billion XRP, or 20 percent of the total XRP
supply, were given to the individual founders of Ripple Labs,
with the remaining 80 billion retained by Ripple Labs."

Forbes contributor, Bernard Marr wrote in February, "That Ripple
recently added a new feature whereby, through a smart contract
system (escrows), the company releases 1 billion of its XRP
holding to themselves each month to help fund business
operations, incentivize customers, and sell to accredited
investors.  Any unused tokens will be placed back into escrow."

Taylor Copeland Law has filed multiple class action lawsuits
pertaining to initial coin offerings.  In fact, the law firm
filed the very first suit against Tezos that got the class action
movement in crypto going.

Many companies that have issued crypto "tokens" claim that,
although the tokens are often traded speculatively for cash and
other cryptos on exchanges, these tokens do not constitute
securities because they are needed to access special features of
the networks that generated them.

According to Marr, "Ripple is a payment settling, currency
exchange and remittance system intended for banks and payment
networks . . . for direct transfer of assets (e.g. money, gold,
etc.) that settles in almost real-time, and is a cheaper, more
transparent and secure alternative to transfer systems used by
banks today," such as Swift.

Rather than converting to US dollars in a currency exchange,
writes Mr. Marr, "which incurs currency exchange fees and . . .
takes up to three days to process . . . . By first converting the
value of the transfer into XRP, rather than USD, exchange fees
are eliminated and processing of payments is reduced to seconds."

Mr. Marr reports that Fidor Bank, Santander, the Commonwealth
Bank of Australia, and 61 Japanese are currently trialing Ripple
in their systems.

But, like the plaintiffs in the class action, Medium blogger
"Coin and Crypto" disputed the veracity of that notion that
Ripple is the preferred cryptocurrency of banks.  In a recent
article at Hacker Noon, "Coin and Crypto" claimed Ripple Labs
makes a number of banking network products including its
xCurrent, xRapid and xVia Only xRapid uses Ripple.

As well, writes "Coin and Crypto":

"Remember that impressive 100+ list of financial institutions
Ripple is working with? Guess what, they are all using xCurrent.
And xCurrent does not use XRP (Ripple)."

Functions native to a network are the main rationale used by
crypto-token issuers to justify how their exchange-traded tokens
have nothing to do with stock certificates.

At the Edcon Ethereum Conference in Toronto, author and former
Ethereum Foundation Board member William Mougayar presented a
slide that defined tokens as:

"a unit of value that an organization creates to
self-govern . . . and empower its users to interact with its products while
facilitating the distribution and sharing of rewards and benefits
to all its stakeholders."

Joseph Lubin, Ethereum co-founder and Creator of Ethereum
satellite companies, stated that, after consulting with numerous
lawyers during Ethereums' creation faze, he was "extremely
comfortable" that ether, the widely-traded cryptocurrency native
to the Ethereum network, "is not a security."

It may be that that privately-managed cryptocurrency creators may
simply have found an incredibly lucrative loophole to exploit-
the whole time using words like "empower,""rewards," and
"community."

Ethereum inventor Vitalik Buterin told a interviewer at Vice last
year, that after the creation of cryptocurrencies, "Here, it just
made it very obvious that money is just something a community can
create for itself whenever it wants."

Meanwhile, the cat is already very far out of the bag.  Ethereum
not only raised $18.4 million dollars selling its tokens for
real-world money in 2014, subsequent run ups of the value of
tokens on exchanges have made three of its founders billionaires.
Ethereum Satellite companies like Consensys continue to
facilitate and take cuts of ensuing ICOs built on Ethereum.

Ethereum, also allows anyone to create a cryptoken of their own.
So in this case, the cat has released maybe thousands of more
cats.

"The problem," writes Medium Blogger Ryan Selkis, "is crypto
companies tend to want things both ways":

"Act like a securities offerer when it's convenient from a
capital formation perspective or when you're doling out
'founders' rewards.' Pretend you're actually selling a currency
or commodity when it becomes markedly less convenient from an
investor disclosures standpoint."

And while six-figure annual listing fees on major stock exchanges
are "standard," Mr. Selkis writes, these "usually carry with them
the expectation that listees will be regulated and subject to
some level of standardized reporting."

It is standard for ICOs to extend absolutely no rights to
investors.

Big money must pay big money.  Autonomous Research have reported,
"the average listing fee charged by top crypto exchanges . . .
(is) 10x what you'd expect in the public markets." [GN]


S.A. GEAR: Court Won't Exclude Expert Witnesses in "Williamson"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois denied Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Stephen Batzer,
David Hallman, Steven Tucker and Larry Arthur as expert witnesses
in the case captioned STEVE WILLIAMSON and RHONDA CHRISTINE
LEMASTER, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. S.A. GEAR COMPANY, INC., AUTOZONE, INC.,
AUTOZONE PARTS, INC., and AUTOZONE STORES, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 15-CV-365-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill.).

The Plaintiffs filed a multi-count class action Complaint
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons
against the Defendants, alleging that the defendants
manufactured, distributed, advertised, and/or sold defective
timing chain tensioners.

AutoZone retained David Hallman to assess Plaintiff Williamson's
allegations that Part 9422 caused damage to Plaintiff LeMaster's
engine and that the Part is uniformly defective.  S.A. Gear
retained Stephen Batzer, Ph.D., P.E. as a class certification
expert and requested that he analyze the Plaintiffs' allegations
regarding Part 9422.

The Plaintiffs do not challenge either expert's qualifications.
Instead, they argue that the proffered opinions of Hallman and
Batzer should be excluded or not considered by the Court during
the class certification stage. The Plaintiffs maintain the only
opinion the Defendants' attempt to tie to class certification is
the return rate analysis, which speaks to the merits of the case
and should be disregarded by the Court at this juncture.  The
Plaintiffs also assert that Hallman and Batzer's opinions that
Part 9422 is not defective and/or did not cause damage to
LeMaster's vehicle should be excluded because, at the class
certification stage, merits are not at issue.

Steven Tucker is the Vice President of Sales and Marketing for
S.A. Gear, Inc., and submitted a 2-page Affidavit in support of
S.A. Gear's opposition to class certification.  Larry Arthur has
been Autozone's Product Liability Supervisor for Merchandise
Claims since 2012 and submitted a Declaration in support of
Autozone's opposition to class certification.

The Plaintiffs move to exclude Tucker and Arthur, asserting that
(1) they were not disclosed as expert witnesses and (2) their
testimony contains expert opinions, not mere facts or lay opinion
testimony.   The Defendants counter that these witnesses provided
permissible factual testimony based on their personal knowledge.

Tucker clearly possesses sufficient personal and particularized
knowledge to testify as a witness under Rule 701 by virtue of his
position as the Vice President of Sales and Marketing for S.A.
Gear. He has held the position since 2002, and as a result of his
involvement with discovery in this case, Tucker is familiar with
Plaintiffs' claim of defect with respect to the Part.

Arthur's Declaration is based not only on his personal experience
handling Autozone's claims from the Part, but also on his
personal experience with Plaintiff Williamson's claim  Arthur
states in his Declaration that he is familiar with the Autozone
merchandise claim process and was personally involved in the
investigation of Plaintiff Williamson's claim when it was
submitted. He also personally reviewed the 146 customer (both
commercial and do-it-yourself) claims related to the Part. Based
on his review of the claims, Arthur testified that there was no
single consistent problem alleged in the claims. He also
testified that the measure of money damage claims submitted to
Autozone on Part 9422 was low. He reached this conclusion by
reviewing the claims submitted.
As both Tucker and Arthur relied on their personal knowledge and
based their testimony on their reviews of Defendants' business
records, a sufficient foundation for their lay opinion testimony
has been made.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybg4yr62
from Leagle.com.

Steve Williamson, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated & Rhonda Christine LeMaster, Plaintiffs, represented by
Gregory J. Pals, Driscoll Firm, P.C. & John J. Driscoll, Driscoll
Firm, P.C.

S.A. Gear Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan H.
Garside -- jgarside@greensfelder.com -- Greensfelder, Hemker &
Gale, P.C.

AutoZone, Inc., AutoZone Stores, Inc. & AutoZone Parts, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Jonathan D. Jay -- jjay@hjlawfirm.com
-- Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC, Anne T. Regan --
aregan@hjlawfirm.com -- Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC & Michael R.
Cashman -- mcashman@hjlawfirm.com -- Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC.


SABRE CORPORATION: Suit over Air Fare Prices Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Sabre Corporation continues to defend a class action lawsuit
alleging price-fixing of air fare prices, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 1, 2018, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2018.

In July 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the company and two other Sabre global distribution system
(GDSs), in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The plaintiffs, who are asserting claims on
behalf of a putative class of consumers in various states, are
generally alleging that the GDSs conspired to negotiate for full
content from the airlines, resulting in higher ticket prices for
consumers, in violation of various federal and state laws.

The plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of damages in
connection with their state law claims, and they requested
injunctive relief in connection with their federal claim. In July
2016, the court granted, in part, the company's motion to dismiss
the lawsuit, finding that plaintiffs' state law claims are
preempted by federal law, thereby precluding their claims for
damages. The court declined to dismiss plaintiffs' claim seeking
an injunction under federal antitrust law. The plaintiffs may
appeal the court's dismissal of their state law claims upon a
final judgment.

Sabre Holdings said, "We believe that the losses associated with
this case are neither probable nor estimable and therefore have
not accrued any losses as of March 31, 2018. We may incur
significant fees, costs and expenses for as long as this
litigation is ongoing. We intend to vigorously defend against the
remaining claims."

Sabre Holdings Corporation, through its subsidiaries, offers
solutions to the travel industry which includes agencies,
corporations, suppliers, developers, government, and online. It
provides technology consulting solutions to travel and tourism
industry in the United States and internationally. The company is
based in Southlake, Texas.


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Court Narrows Claims in "Buckley"
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, granted in part and denied in part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned SUZANNE BUCKLEY,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, DISMISS INC.,
Defendant, Case No. C17-5813 BHS (W.D. Wash.).

Buckley incurred a debt related to the financing of a purchased
vehicle. The debt was financed through Santander. Buckley's sales
agreement with the vehicle dealership stated: "You agree to pay
the Creditor, Seller, the Amount Financed and Finance Charge in
U.S. funds according to the payment schedule below. Sometime
later, but still before February 15, 2017, Buckley defaulted on
her debt."

Crown Asset Management LLC (Crown), a debt collection company,
filed a lawsuit against Buckley to collect the same debt for
which she had negotiated and issued a payment to Apex and
Universal.  Through the course of the litigation, Buckley
discovered that unfortunately, Apex is an unauthorized or "ghost"
debt collector who does not legally collect from consumers and is
not licensed in the state of Washington as a debt collector.
Instead, Buckley, had been "tricked into paying a scam debt
collector."

Buckley filed her class action complaint, asserting five claims
against Santander: (1) violations of the Washington Consumer
Protection Act (CPA); (2) negligence, (3) intrusion upon
seclusion through disclosure of private information; (4) breach
of contract; and (5) a violation of the Washington Data Breach
Act (DBA).

The Court dismissed Buckley's CPA claim premised on Santander's
failure to notify her of the alleged data breach, Buckley's
negligence claim premised on Santander's failure to maintain
adequate security measures, Buckley's intrusion upon seclusion
claim, and Buckley's breach of contract claims.  To the extent
Santander seeks to dismiss Buckley's remaining claims for
negligence and violations of the CPA and DBA, its motion is
denied.

The Court rejects Santander's argument that all of Buckley's CPA
claims must be dismissed for the complaint's lack of factual
allegations relating to what Santander's "deceptive act" was,
when it may have occurred, or who it involved.  By alleging that
Santander deliberately disclosed her information to an
unauthorized third party, Buckley has outlined a theory that
Santander intentionally exposed her to an unacceptable likelihood
of being subject to identity theft or some other unlawful
activity premised on the exploitation of her personal
information. Buckley has further alleged that she was ultimately
subject to such a fraudulent scheme premised on the misuse of her
personal information regarding her debt with Santander and that
she suffered $5,000 in economic damages as a result.

The intentional disclosure of a consumer's social security
number, driver's license, address, and other personal information
to third parties not authorized to possess such information could
in many circumstances be unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous.
Further, such a practice would be likely to inflict the harm of
making consumers the target of identity theft or other deceptive
schemes, such as the fraudulent debt collection scheme
perpetrated upon Buckley by Apex.

Santander also moves to dismiss Buckley's CPA claim under her
stolen data theory on the basis that the DBA preempts CPA claims
for failure to inform consumers of data breaches.

Santander received sensitive personal information that could
result in significant financial harm to Buckley if mishandled.
Santander's alleged failure to take reasonably adequate security
measures constitutes an unfair act because it knowingly and
foreseeably put Buckley at a risk of harm from data theft and
fraudulent activity and this harm allegedly occurred.
Accordingly, the Court denies Santander's motion to dismiss
Buckley's CPA claims based on unfair practices. To the extent the
complaint asserts conclusory claims of "deceptive" acts or
practices without factual allegations of misrepresentations or
omissions, those claims are dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8bdzye2 from Leagle.com.

Suzanne Buckley, as an individual and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian,
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC, Joshua Swigart, HYDE & SWIGART & Ryan
Lee McBride, KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP.

Santander Consumer USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin
J. Sitter, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, pro hac vice, Jacob M. Downs, CORR
DOWNS PLLC, Jarrod D. Shaw, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, pro hac vice,
Joseph P. Corr, CORR DOWNS PLLC & Mary J. Hackett, MCGUIREWOODS
LLP, pro hac vice.


SCANA CORP: Bids to Certify Class, Appoint Receiver Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
SCANA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that plaintiff's motion
for class certification and plaintiff's motion to appoint a
receiver in the class action lawsuit be LeBrian Cleckley are
still pending.

Scana said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that on August 11, 2017, a purported class
action was filed against SCE&G by plaintiff LeBrian Cleckley (the
"Cleckley Lawsuit"), on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, in the State Court of Common Pleas in
Richland County, South Carolina (the "Richland County Court").
The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that SCE&G was
negligent and unjustly enriched and breached alleged fiduciary
and contractual duties by failing to properly manage the V.C.
Summer construction project. The plaintiff seeks to recover, on
behalf of the purported class, unspecified damages and attorneys'
fees, specific performance of the alleged implied contract to
construct the now abandoned project, and any other relief the
court deems proper.

In its recent SEC report, Scana said that, by order dated October
31, 2017, the South Carolina Supreme Court consolidated all
pending state court ratepayer class actions and assigned the
consolidated cases to a single Circuit Court judge.

On March 2, 2018, the Circuit Court judge issued orders denying
SCE&G's Motion to Dismiss the pending state court ratepayer class
actions. The Circuit Court's order denied SCE&G's motion on the
grounds that the Circuit Court does have subject matter
jurisdiction to determine plaintiffs' claims; that plaintiffs
have stated causes of action that state a claim upon which relief
can be granted; that the filed rate doctrine does not bar
plaintiffs' claims; and that the Circuit Court has concurrent
jurisdiction with the SCPSC on specific issues raised in
plaintiffs' complaint.

On March 8, 2018, SCE&G received an order that its appeal of this
decision was dismissed by the South Carolina Court of Appeals. On
March 12, 2018, the Circuit Court judge indicated that discovery
could proceed. At March 31, 2018, the following motions regarding
this matter were pending: Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, filed November 1, 2017; and Plaintiff's Motion to
Appoint a Receiver, filed November 1, 2017.

SCANA Corporation, incorporated on October 1, 1984, is a holding
company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in
South Carolina. The Company operates through segments, including
Electric Operations, Gas Distribution, Gas Marketing and All
Other. The Company is engaged in the purchase, transmission and
sale of natural gas in North Carolina and South Carolina. The
company is based in Cayce, South Carolina.


SCANA CORP: Bid to Certify Class in "Lightsey" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
SCANA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that plaintiff's motion
for class certification and motion to compel in "Lightsey" suit
are still pending.

Scana said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that on August 14, 2017, a purported class
action was filed against SCE&G by plaintiff Richard Lightsey, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, in the State
Court of Common Pleas in Hampton County. The plaintiff makes
substantially similar allegations as those alleged in the
Cleckley Lawsuit and, in addition, alleges that SCE&G committed
unfair trade practices and violated state anti-trust laws.  The
plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that SCE&G may not charge
its customers for any past or continuing costs of the V.C. Summer
construction project. The plaintiff also seeks compensatory,
punitive and statutory treble damages, attorneys' fees, and any
other relief the court deems proper. On August 25, 2017, SCE&G
filed a motion to transfer venue to Lexington County, South
Carolina.

In its recent SEC report, the Company said that the Circuit
Court's ruling on SCE&G's Motion to Dismiss in the Cleckley
Lawsuit has been applied to this case, and this case is expected
to proceed along the same discovery timeline as the Cleckley
Lawsuit.

At March 31, 2018, the following motions regarding this matter
were pending: Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, filed
August 23, 2017; and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, filed October
12, 2017.

SCANA Corporation, incorporated on October 1, 1984, is a holding
company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in
South Carolina. The Company operates through segments, including
Electric Operations, Gas Distribution, Gas Marketing and All
Other. The Company is engaged in the purchase, transmission and
sale of natural gas in North Carolina and South Carolina. The
company is based in Cayce, South Carolina.


SCANA CORP: "Goodman" Class Action Underway
-------------------------------------------
SCANA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend itself in a class action suit filed by Edwinda Goodman.

Scana said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that on August 28, 2017, a purported class
action was filed against SCANA and SCE&G by plaintiff Edwinda
Goodman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
in the State Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County (the
"Fairfield County Court"). The plaintiff makes substantially
similar allegations as those alleged in the Cleckley Lawsuit and,
in addition, alleges that SCE&G committed fraud and
misrepresentation in failing to properly manage the V.C. Summer
construction project. The plaintiff seeks to have the defendants'
assets frozen and all monies recovered from Toshiba and other
sources be placed in a constructive trust for the benefit of
ratepayers.

The plaintiff also seeks compensatory, punitive and treble
damages, attorneys' fees, and any other relief the court deems
proper. The Circuit Court's ruling on SCE&G's Motion to Dismiss
in the Cleckley Lawsuit has been applied to this case, and this
case is expected to proceed along the same discovery timeline as
the Cleckley Lawsuit.

In its recent report, the Company said that, at March 31, 2018,
the following motions regarding this matter were pending:
Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Receiver and Expedite Hearing,
served November 2, 2017; and Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary and
Permanent Injunction, filed December 15, 2017.

SCANA Corporation, incorporated on October 1, 1984, is a holding
company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in
South Carolina. The Company operates through segments, including
Electric Operations, Gas Distribution, Gas Marketing and All
Other. The Company is engaged in the purchase, transmission and
sale of natural gas in North Carolina and South Carolina. The
company is based in Cayce, South Carolina.


SCANA CORP: "Cook" Class Action Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
SCANA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend a purported class action suit filed by Jessica Cook.

Scana said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that a purported class action was filed on
September 7, 2017, against Santee Cooper, SCE&G and Palmetto
Electric Cooperative, Inc. by plaintiff Jessica Cook, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, in the Richland
County Court. The plaintiff makes substantially similar
allegations as the Cleckley Lawsuit and the Lightsey Lawsuit.
The plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that defendants may
not charge the purported class for reimbursement for past or
future costs of the V.C. Summer Nuclear construction project, as
well as other compensatory and statutory treble damages,
attorneys' fees, and any other relief the court deems proper.

In its recent report, the Company said that the Circuit Court's
ruling on SCE&G's Motion to Dismiss in the Cleckley Lawsuit has
been applied to this case, and this case is expected to proceed
along the same discovery timeline as the Cleckley Lawsuit.

On March 27, 2018, the plaintiff and additional named plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint including as additional named
defendants current and former directors of Santee Cooper and
SCANA.

SCANA Corporation, incorporated on October 1, 1984, is a holding
company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in
South Carolina. The Company operates through segments, including
Electric Operations, Gas Distribution, Gas Marketing and All
Other. The Company is engaged in the purchase, transmission and
sale of natural gas in North Carolina and South Carolina. The
company is based in Cayce, South Carolina.


SCANA CORP: Motion to Dismiss "Delmater" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
SCANA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, that the
defendant's motion to dismiss the purported class action suit
filed by Christine Delmater remains pending.

Scana said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that a purported class action was filed on
September 25, 2017, against SCANA by plaintiff Christine
Delmater, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
in United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina (the "Federal District Court").  The plaintiff alleges,
among other things, that SCE&G violated provisions of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") 18
U.S.C. Section 1961, was negligent, breached alleged contractual
duties, and was unjustly enriched by failing to properly manage
the V.C. Summer construction project. The plaintiff seeks
compensatory and consequential damages, and any other relief the
court deems proper.

In its recent report, the Company said Plaintiff filed its Second
Amended Complaint on November 7, 2017, and filed a Motion for
Injunctive Relief on November 8, 2017. SCANA filed a motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and an opposition to the
Motion for Injunctive Relief on December 21, 2017.

Plaintiff has requested a status conference with the court to
discuss potential consolidation for hearings on Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss this case and the Glibowski Lawsuit. At March
31, 2018, a date for this conference had not been set.

SCANA Corporation, incorporated on October 1, 1984, is a holding
company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in
South Carolina. The Company operates through segments, including
Electric Operations, Gas Distribution, Gas Marketing and All
Other. The Company is engaged in the purchase, transmission and
sale of natural gas in North Carolina and South Carolina. The
company is based in Cayce, South Carolina.


SCANA CORP: "Kolbe" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------
SCANA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, that lawsuit
filed by Chris Kolbe and Ruth Ann Keffer has been voluntarily
dismissed.

On October 9, 2017, plaintiffs Chris Kolbe and Ruth Ann Keffer
filed an amended complaint in a purported class action, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, against Santee
Cooper and certain of its directors and officers, in the Berkeley
County Court of Common Pleas, naming SCE&G and SCANA as
additional defendants (the "Kolbe Lawsuit").

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that SCE&G and SCANA
were grossly negligent, reckless, breached contracts, were
unjustly enriched, and violated principles of equity in
connection with their management of the Nuclear Project. The
plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and a
declaratory judgment as to Santee Cooper's rates.

The plaintiffs have since joined the Cook Lawsuit and on March
27, 2018, voluntarily dismissed the Kolbe Lawsuit.

SCANA Corporation, incorporated on October 1, 1984, is a holding
company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in
South Carolina. The Company operates through segments, including
Electric Operations, Gas Distribution, Gas Marketing and All
Other. The Company is engaged in the purchase, transmission and
sale of natural gas in North Carolina and South Carolina. The
company is based in Cayce, South Carolina.


SCANA CORP: Bid to Dismiss "Glibowski" Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
SCANA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, that the
motion to dismiss filed in the Glibowski Lawsuit remains pending.

On January 31, 2018, a purported class action was filed against
SCANA, SCE&G, Kevin Marsh, Jimmy Addison, Stephen Byrne, Martin
Phalen, Mark Cannon, Russell Harris, Jeffrey B. Archer, Sarena
Burch, W. Keller Kissam, Ronald T. Lindsay, and James Micali by
Plaintiff Timothy Glibowski, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, in District Court (the "Glibowski Lawsuit").

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Company,
SCE&G and the individual defendants participated in an unlawful
racketeering enterprise in violation of RICO 18 U.S.C. Section
1961 et seq., and conspired to violate RICO 18 U.S.C. Section
1962(c) by fraudulently inflating utility bills to generate
unlawful proceeds. Plaintiff seeks treble damages, attorneys'
fees, and any other relief the court deems proper.

SCANA, SCE&G and Mr. Archie (improperly named as Jeffrey B.
Archer in the complaint) have moved to dismiss the complaint. As
of March 31, 2018, the motion remains pending.

SCANA Corporation, incorporated on October 1, 1984, is a holding
company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in
South Carolina. The Company operates through segments, including
Electric Operations, Gas Distribution, Gas Marketing and All
Other. The Company is engaged in the purchase, transmission and
sale of natural gas in North Carolina and South Carolina. The
company is based in Cayce, South Carolina.


SCANA CORP: "Norman" Suit Consolidated, Amended Suit Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
SCANA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, that the
purported class action suit filed by Robert L. Norman has been
consolidated with other similar cases.

Scana said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that on September 27, 2017, a purported class
action was filed against SCANA, Kevin B. Marsh, Jimmy E. Addison,
and Stephen A. Byrne by plaintiff Robert L. Norman, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, in the Federal
District Court. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that
the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that the individual named
defendants are liable under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The plaintiff seeks compensatory and consequential damages,
attorneys' fees, and any other relief the court deems proper.

In its recent report, the Company disclosed that in November and
December 2017, competing Motions for Consolidation and Motions
for Appointment of Lead Counsel were filed by plaintiffs' firms.
After a hearing on January 18, 2018, the District Court granted
consolidation of the Norman Lawsuit, the Evans Lawsuit, the Fox
Lawsuit, and the West Palm Beach Lawsuit, and granted plaintiffs'
requests for appointment of lead counsel. The plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint on March 30, 2018.

SCANA Corporation, incorporated on October 1, 1984, is a holding
company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in
South Carolina. The Company operates through segments, including
Electric Operations, Gas Distribution, Gas Marketing and All
Other. The Company is engaged in the purchase, transmission and
sale of natural gas in North Carolina and South Carolina. The
company is based in Cayce, South Carolina.


SCANA CORP: "Evans" Suit Consolidated, Amended Suit Filed
---------------------------------------------------------
SCANA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, that the
purported class action suit filed by Kenneth Evans has been
consolidated with other similar cases.

On October 5, 2017, a purported class action was filed against
SCANA, Kevin B. Marsh, and Jimmy E. Addison by plaintiff Kenneth
Evans on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated in
the District Court (the "Evans Lawsuit"). The plaintiff alleges,
among other things, that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that
the individual named defendants violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks compensatory and consequential
damages, attorneys' fees, and any other relief the court deems
proper.

In November and December 2017, competing Motions for
Consolidation and Motions for Appointment of Lead Counsel were
filed by plaintiffs' firms. After a hearing on January 18, 2018,
the District Court granted consolidation of the Norman Lawsuit,
the Evans Lawsuit, the Fox Lawsuit, and the West Palm Beach
Lawsuit, and granted plaintiffs' requests for appointment of lead
counsel. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
March 30, 2018.

SCANA Corporation, incorporated on October 1, 1984, is a holding
company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in
South Carolina. The Company operates through segments, including
Electric Operations, Gas Distribution, Gas Marketing and All
Other. The Company is engaged in the purchase, transmission and
sale of natural gas in North Carolina and South Carolina. The
company is based in Cayce, South Carolina.


SCANA CORP: "Fox" Suit Consolidated, Amended Suit Filed
-------------------------------------------------------
SCANA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, that the
purported class action suit filed by Marsha Fox has been
consolidated with other similar cases.

On November 10, 2017, a purported class action was filed against
SCANA, Kevin Marsh, Jimmy Addison, and Steve Byrne by plaintiff
Marsha Fox on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
in the District Court (the "Fox Lawsuit"). The plaintiff alleges,
among other things, that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that
the individual named defendants violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks compensatory and consequential
damages, attorneys' fees, and any other relief the court deems
proper.

In November and December 2017, competing Motions for
Consolidation and Motions for Appointment of Lead Counsel were
filed by plaintiffs' firms. After a hearing on January 18, 2018,
the District Court granted consolidation of the Norman Lawsuit,
the Evans Lawsuit, the Fox Lawsuit, and the West Palm Beach
Lawsuit, and granted plaintiffs' requests for appointment of lead
counsel. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
March 30, 2018.

SCANA Corporation, incorporated on October 1, 1984, is a holding
company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in
South Carolina. The Company operates through segments, including
Electric Operations, Gas Distribution, Gas Marketing and All
Other. The Company is engaged in the purchase, transmission and
sale of natural gas in North Carolina and South Carolina. The
company is based in Cayce, South Carolina.


SCANA CORP: West Palm Beach Suit Consolidated, Amended Suit Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SCANA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, that the
purported class action suit filed by the West Palm Beach
Firefighters' Pension Fund has been consolidated with other
cases.

On November 17, 2017, a purported class action was filed against
SCANA, Kevin B. Marsh, Jimmy E. Addison, and Steve B. Byrne by
plaintiff West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated in the District Court
(the "West Palm Beach Lawsuit"). The plaintiff alleges, among
other things, that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that the
individual named defendants violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks compensatory and consequential
damages, attorneys' fees, and any other relief the court deems
proper.

In November and December 2017, competing Motions for
Consolidation and Motions for Appointment of Lead Counsel were
filed by plaintiffs' firms. After a hearing on January 18, 2018,
the District Court granted consolidation of the Norman Lawsuit,
the Evans Lawsuit, the Fox Lawsuit, and the West Palm Beach
Lawsuit, and granted plaintiffs' requests for appointment of lead
counsel. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
March 30, 2018.

SCANA Corporation, incorporated on October 1, 1984, is a holding
company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in
South Carolina. The Company operates through segments, including
Electric Operations, Gas Distribution, Gas Marketing and All
Other. The Company is engaged in the purchase, transmission and
sale of natural gas in North Carolina and South Carolina. The
company is based in Cayce, South Carolina.


SCANA CORP: Bid to Drop "Pennington" Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
SCANA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, that the
motion to dismiss the Pennington class action lawsuit remains
pending.

Scana said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that on August 8, 2017 a purported class
action was filed against SCANA, SCE&G, and its co-defendants
Fluor and Fluor Enterprises, Inc., by plaintiff Harry Pennington
III, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, in
Federal District Court. The plaintiff alleges, among other
things, that the defendants violated the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act") in connection with the
decision to stop construction on the new nuclear project.  The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to provide adequate
advance written notice of his termination of employment.

In its recent report, the Company said that its Motion to Dismiss
was heard by the District Court on February 14, 2018.

No further updates were provided by the Company's SEC report.

SCANA Corporation, incorporated on October 1, 1984, is a holding
company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in
South Carolina. The Company operates through segments, including
Electric Operations, Gas Distribution, Gas Marketing and All
Other. The Company is engaged in the purchase, transmission and
sale of natural gas in North Carolina and South Carolina. The
company is based in Cayce, South Carolina.


SCANA CORP: Bid to Dismiss Warren Police's Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
SCANA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, that Dominion
Energy has removed the lawsuit filed by the City of Warren Police
and Fire Retirement System to District Court, and filed its
Motion to Dismiss.

On January 23, 2018, a purported class action was filed against
SCANA, Dominion Energy, Sedona, Jimmy Addison, Gregory Aliff,
James Bennett, John Cecil, Sharon Decker, Maybank Hagood, Lynne
Miller, James Roquemore, Maceo Sloan, and Alfredo Trujillo, by
plaintiff City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System in the
State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington County, South Carolina.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants
violated their fiduciary duties to shareholders by executing a
merger agreement that would unfairly deprive plaintiffs of the
true value of their SCANA stock, and that Dominion Energy and
Sedona aided and abetted these actions.

Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin and/or
rescind the proposed merger, as well as unspecified monetary
damages, attorneys' fees, costs and any other relief the court
deems proper.

On February 21, 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to
District Court, and filed its Motion to Dismiss on March 9, 2018.

SCANA Corporation, incorporated on October 1, 1984, is a holding
company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in
South Carolina. The Company operates through segments, including
Electric Operations, Gas Distribution, Gas Marketing and All
Other. The Company is engaged in the purchase, transmission and
sale of natural gas in North Carolina and South Carolina. The
company is based in Cayce, South Carolina.


SCANA CORP: Bid to Drop Metzler Asset's Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
SCANA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, that Dominion
Energy has removed the lawsuit filed by Metzler Asset Management
GmbH and Joseph Heinz to District Court, and filed its Motion to
Dismiss.

On February 8, 2018, a purported class action was filed against
Gregory Aliff, James Bennett, John Cecil, Sharon Decker, Maybank
Hagood, Lynne Miller, James Roquemore, Maceo Sloan, Alfredo
Trujillo, Dominion Energy, and Sedona by plaintiffs Metzler Asset
Management GmbH and Joseph Heinz in the Richland County Court.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that defendants
violated their fiduciary duties to shareholders by executing a
merger agreement that would unfairly deprive plaintiffs of the
true value of their SCANA stock, and that Dominion Energy and
Sedona aided and abetted these actions. Among other remedies, the
plaintiffs seek to enjoin and/or rescind the proposed merger, as
well as unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and any
other relief the court deems proper.

On February 21, 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to
District Court, and filed its Motion to Dismiss on March 9, 2018.

SCANA Corporation, incorporated on October 1, 1984, is a holding
company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in
South Carolina. The Company operates through segments, including
Electric Operations, Gas Distribution, Gas Marketing and All
Other. The Company is engaged in the purchase, transmission and
sale of natural gas in North Carolina and South Carolina. The
company is based in Cayce, South Carolina.


SCANA CORP: Defending Against "Turner" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
SCANA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, that the
company faces a purported class action suit filed by Mary Turner.

On March 15, 2018, a purported class action was filed against
SCANA, Dominion Energy, Sedona, Jimmy E. Addison, Gregory E.
Aliff, James A. Bennett, John F.A.V. Cecil, Sharon A. Decker, D.
Maybank Hagood, Lynne M. Miller, James W. Roquemore, Maceo K.
Sloan, and Alfredo Trujillo by plaintiff Mary Turner, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated in the District
Court.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated provisions of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 14a-9 by allowing or causing misleading proxy statements to
be issued. The plaintiffs alternatively seek to enjoin the
merger, monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and any other relief
the court deems proper.

SCANA Corporation, incorporated on October 1, 1984, is a holding
company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in
South Carolina. The Company operates through segments, including
Electric Operations, Gas Distribution, Gas Marketing and All
Other. The Company is engaged in the purchase, transmission and
sale of natural gas in North Carolina and South Carolina. The
company is based in Cayce, South Carolina.


SCANA CORP: "Brown" Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------
Scana Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that a purported class action was filed
against Santee Cooper and SCANA by plaintiffs Hope Brown and
Thomas Lott, in the Richland County Court.

In its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2017, Plaintiffs' counsel voluntarily dismissed this action
without prejudice on November 12, 2017.

On September 7, 2017, a purported class action was filed against
Santee Cooper and SCANA by plaintiffs Hope Brown and Thomas Lott,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, in the
Richland County Court. The plaintiffs allege, among other things,
that SCE&G conspired with Santee Cooper to unlawfully deprive
plaintiffs of their property rights guaranteed under the United
States and South Carolina Constitutions and were unjustly
enriched by the V.C. Summer Nuclear construction project.

The plaintiffs seek disgorgement of all monies spent by
defendants on the project, as well as other compensatory and
punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and any other relief the court
deems proper.

SCANA Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity
to retail and wholesale customers in South Carolina. It owns
nuclear, coal, hydro, natural gas, biomass, and solar generating
facilities. The company also purchases, sells, and transports
natural gas; and offers energy-related services.


SECURITAS ELECTRONIC: "Bender" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Kim Bender, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
Securitas Electronic Security, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-00757 (N.D.
Ohio, April 4, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a Customer Service Representative and
Dispatcher in Defendant's Uniontown, Ohio call center.

The Defendant is in the business of providing security monitoring
and other related services to customers throughout the United
States.

Defendant operates customer service/dispatch call centers in
Ohio, among other places. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
      Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER, LLC
      7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
      Massillon, OH 44646
      Tel: (330) 470-4428
      Fax: (330) 754-1430
      E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
              hans@ohlaborlaw.com


SELECTIVE SERVICE: Court Won't Dismiss Gender Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned ELIZABETH
KYLE-LABELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-5193 (ES) (JAD)(D.N.J.),

The Plaintiff tried to register for the draft at least twice.
Each time, the Plaintiff visited the SSS website and indicated on
an online form that she is female.  When the Plaintiff clicked
Female on the top line of the online registration form, she was
prevented from registering.  The Plaintiff alleges that she will
continue to try to register for the draft because she believes it
is her right and duty as a U.S. citizen.

The Plaintiff alleges that the MSSA creates an unlawful sex-based
difference that violates her and the putative class's equal-
protection and substantive-due-process rights under the Fifth
Amendment because the MSSA (i) requires males and not females to
register, and (ii) forbids females from registering.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to
establish a concrete injury for purposes of Article III standing.
Plaintiff alleges that she tried to register for the military
draft but was refused. As Plaintiff explains in her opposition
brief, the MSSA's male-only registration and SSS's enforcement of
it barred the Plaintiff from registering based solely on her sex
while at the same time allowing males who were similarly situated
as her to register. The Supreme Court has observed that when the
suit is one challenging the legality of government action or
inaction and the plaintiff is himself an object of the action or
forgone action at issue there is ordinarily little question that
the action or inaction has caused him injury.

The Plaintiff is challenging the legality of the MSSA's male-only
requirement. As the Plaintiff persuasively argues, this kind of
sex-based discrimination constitutes a harm that has
traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit in
English or American Courts. Indeed, the Third Circuit has stated
that "virtually every circuit court has reaffirmed as has the
Supreme Court that a discriminatory classification is itself a
penalty and thus qualifies as an actual injury for standing
purposes, where a citizen's right to equal treatment is at
stake."

Here, the Plaintiff wants to register for the draft, tried to
register for the draft, but can't register for the draft because
she is a woman. Thus, the Plaintiff has alleged a concrete
injury.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8qaul22  from Leagle.com.

ELIZABETH KYLE-LABELL, as plaintiff suing on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated & MONICA PATRICIA PINTO, also
suing as a plaintiff on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by MICHAEL JOHN DAHER
-- Michael@MDaherLaw.com

SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM & LAWRENCE G. ROMO, DIRECTOR OF
SELECTIVE SERVICE, in his official capacity, Defendants,
represented by ANDREW EVAN CARMICHAEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTSICE CIVIL DIVISION & MEGAN ANNE CROWLEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION.


ST. CLAIR COUNTY, IL: Wins Summary Judgment in Tax Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in the
case captioned KEVIN DVORAK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ILLINOIS, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-1119-SMY-RJD (S.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs Kevin Dvorak and Kathleen Dvorak1 are proceeding on an
eight-count Complaint asserting an alleged conspiracy to fix St.
Clair County, Illinois real estate tax sales so that property
owners were required to pay artificially high interest penalties
to redeem their properties.

The Plaintiffs assert eight causes of actions, including claims
against all defendants for Civil Conspiracy (Count I), violations
of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1 and 2 (Counts
III and IV) and violations of the Illinois Antitrust Act, 740
ILCS 10/1, et seq. (Counts V-VII). They also assert claims for
money had and received against all defendants except Suarez
(Count II) and breach of fiduciary duty against Suarez alone
(Count VIII).

Here, the tax sale in question took place on November 10, 2008.
The Plaintiffs have not alleged any overt acts in furtherance of
the alleged conspiracy after the sale. Nor do the Plaintiffs
claim that their injury arose from any act committed after
November 10, 2008. The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on October
17, 2014, five years and eleven months later. Facially, the
Plaintiffs' claims in Counts I and III-VIII appear to have been
filed out of time. The only claim that is not barred on its face
is Count II for money had and received, because penalty was not
paid until November 8, 2011.

The Plaintiffs have not identified any evidence that Suarez was
involved in the alleged bid rigging. In fact, they offer no
evidence regarding any actions undertaken by Suarez himself. They
merely cite Defendant John Vassen's deposition testimony that he
had known Suarez for 35 years, considered them friends, and that
his relationship with Suarez was the same as his relationship to
the convicted Madison County Treasurer, Fred Bathon.

The Plaintiffs point only to the overall weighted average bids
for the St. Clair County market in 2006 and 2007 compared with
other years and other counties as evidence that the alleged
anticompetitive conduct had an antitrust impact. But this
information is not probative of whether the Plaintiffs themselves
paid more than they would have if the auctions were not allegedly
manipulated. In the absence of even a scintilla of evidence
regarding what the penalty rates on the Washington and Schuetz
Properties should have been in 2007, the Plaintiffs cannot prove
antitrust injury or make a submissible case on damages. The jury
would improperly be left to rely on mere speculation and
guesswork.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 29, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycw4naf3 from
Leagle.com.

Kevin Dvorak & Kathleen Dvorak, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron
G. Weishaar -- aweishaar@rwalawfirm.com -- Reinert Weishaar &
Associates, P.C., Nelson L. Mitten -- mitten@riezmanberger.com --
Riezman Berger, P.C., Steven C. Giacoletto --
sgiacoletto@scglawoffice.com -- Giacoletto Law Firm & Paul A.
Grote -- pag@riezmanberger.com -- Riezman Berger, P.C.

People of the State of Illinois, the "St. Clair County
Government", ex rel, for the use and benefit of the above named
Plaintiffs and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Steven C. Giacoletto, Giacoletto Law Firm & Aaron
G. Weishaar, Reinert Weishaar & Associates, P.C.

St. Clair County, Illinois & Charles Suarez, in his official
capacity as St. Clair County Treasurer, Defendants, represented
by Garrett P. Hoerner, Becker, Hoerner, Thompson & Ysursa, P.C.,
James L. Gehrs, II, Becker, Paulson et al. & Thomas R. Ysursa,
Becker, Hoerner, Thompson & Ysursa, P.C.

Barrett Rochman, Kenneth Rochman, Sabre Group LLC & S.I.
Securities, LLC, Defendants, represented by Andrew R. Kasnetz,
Sandberg, Phoenix et al, Natalie J. Kussart, Sandberg, Phoenix et
al & Timothy C. Sansone, Sandberg Phoenix & von Gontard, P.C.


SYMANTEC CORP: "Beyer" Sues Over Defective Antivirus Software
-------------------------------------------------------------
Montgomery Beyer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Symantec Corporation, Case No. 5:18-cv-
02006 (N.D. Calif., April 2, 2018), seeks damages for Defendant's
violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the
California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the California
False Advertising Law.

This is a class action on behalf of persons and entities who
purchased and/or licensed certain network security software
products sold by Symantec Corporation between December 21, 2005
and September 19, 2016 containing Symantec's AntiVirus Decomposer
Engine. The network security software products at issue were sold
or licensed to consumers under the Norton brand and to businesses
under the Symantec brand.

This action arises out of revelations about critical security
flaws in the Affected Products, as revealed by Project Zero.
Project Zero is a team of expert cybersecurity analysts employed
by Google, Inc., dedicated to identifying and resolving "zero-
day" vulnerabilities, or flaws in software that can be exploited
by hackers.

Montgomery Beyer is a citizen of Michigan and a resident of
Walker, Michigan. During the Class Period, Mr. Beyer purchased
and renewed several Norton Products, including the Norton 360 and
Norton 360 Premier software products.

The Defendant operates a business segment for consumer and home
business security through its Norton-branded services, as well as
a separate enterprise security segment for mid-size and large
organizations. Symantec's end user license agreements for the
Affected Products identify California law as the choice of law
for U.S. purchasers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
      Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
      Noah M. Schubert, Esq.
      Cassidy Kim, Esq.
      SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
      Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 788-4220
      Fax: (415) 788-0161
      E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law
              wjonckheer@sjk.law
              nschubert@sjk.law
              ckim@sjk.law


TEKFOR INC: "Bailey" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Robin Bailey, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Tekfor, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-00771 (N.D. Ohio,
April 5, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant as an hourly non-exempt
employee in Defendant's Wooster, Ohio plant in this district and
division.

The Defendant manufactures precision machine parts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
      Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
      Michaela M. Calhoun, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER LLC
      7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
      Massillon, OH 44646
      Tel: (330) 470-4428
      Fax: (330) 754-1430
      E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
              sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


TENET HEALTHCARE: "Maderazo" Suit Underway in Texas
---------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend
itself in a purported class suit entitled, Maderazo, et al. v.
VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist Health Systems, et
al.

In Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a
Baptist Health Systems, et al., filed in June 2006 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, a purported
class of registered nurses employed by three unaffiliated San
Antonio-area hospital systems allege those hospital systems,
including our Baptist Health System, and other unidentified San
Antonio regional hospitals violated Section 1 of the federal
Sherman Act by conspiring to depress nurses' compensation and
exchanging compensation-related information among themselves in a
manner that reduced competition and suppressed the wages paid to
such nurses.

The suit seeks unspecified damages (subject to trebling under
federal law), interest, costs and attorneys' fees. The case was
stayed from 2008 through mid-2015.

Tenet Healthcare said, "At this time, we are awaiting the court's
ruling on class certification and will continue to vigorously
defend ourselves against the plaintiffs' allegations. It remains
impossible at this time to predict the outcome of these
proceedings with any certainty; however, we believe that the
ultimate resolution of this matter will not have a material
effect on our business, financial condition or results of
operations.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Tenet Healthcare Corporation is a diversified healthcare services
company. The company is based in Dallas, Texas.


TENISON MGT: "Bennett" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Chris Bennett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tenison Mgt, LLC, Vickery Development Inc., Asa
Cascavilla, Case No. 3:18-cv-00846 (N.D. Tex., April 5, 2018), is
brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed as a maintenance technician, in which
capacity his primary duties were to perform manual labor outside
of an office environment.

The Defendants are a property management company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay Forester, Esq.
      D. Matthew Haynie, Esq.
      FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
      1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 210-2100
      Fax: (214) 346-5909


THERANOS INC: Betsy Devos, Rupert Murdoch, Among Those Duped
------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Abelson and Katie Thomas, writing for The New York Times,
report that even some of the world's richest people may get
duped, according to newly unsealed documents in a lawsuit filed
on behalf of investors in the failing blood-testing company
Theranos.

High-profile investors who collectively lost hundreds of millions
of dollars included Walmart's Walton family, the media mogul
Rupert Murdoch, as well as Betsy DeVos, the secretary of
education and her relatives.

The list of investors, which was first reported by The Wall
Street Journal, came to light as part of a class-action lawsuit
brought in 2016 by Robert Colman, a retired Silicon Valley
investment banker, who claims that Theranos misled investors
about its business and technology.

Theranos, founded by Elizabeth Holmes when she was a 19-year-old
Stanford University dropout, promised to revolutionize the lab
industry using a few drops of blood from a simple finger-prick to
look for everything from diabetes to cancer, at a fraction of the
cost of a traditional blood test.

The company became a Silicon Valley fairy tale, with investors
awarding the privately held company a valuation of around $9
billion. But the story began to unravel in October 2015 after The
Wall Street Journal, owned by Mr. Murdoch's News Corp., began
questioning whether the tests worked. Theranos became the subject
of federal investigations into its testing and claims of
proprietary technology, which were called "nanotainers." Much of
the time the company had to resort to using conventional blood
testing methods, unable to get federal approval for any test but
one for Herpes.

Theranos and its founder also became embroiled in a series of
lawsuits, involving investors as well as one of its key partners,
Walgreens, a large drugstore chain, where it offered its tests.
The company reached a settlement with Walgreens last August.

In March, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Ms.
Holmes with fraud, accusing her of exaggerating and lying about
her technology to attract investors. As part of the S.E.C.
action, Ms. Holmes agreed to pay $500,000, give up control of her
company, and is barred from serving as an officer or director of
any public company for 10 years. She and Theranos did not admit
nor deny the allegations.

Theranos still faces the class-action lawsuit, and may still be
subject to a criminal investigation by the United States attorney
in San Francisco. The company's future is unclear. The company
did not respond to requests for comment.

Theranos had always boasted a star-studded list of investors and
directors -- its board included the former secretaries of state
George P. Shultz and Henry A. Kissinger, two former United States
senators, and Gen. Jim Mattis, the current secretary of defense.
But while some high-profile investors' links to Theranos had been
previously known, the new documents provide a detailed list of
financial amounts.

The Walton family invested about $150 million in 2014 through two
separate entities, according to the investor list. Mr. Murdoch
put in about $125 million, and the extended family of Ms. DeVos
invested about $100 million.

"It's obvious that they are highly disappointed in them as a
company and as an investment," said Greg McNeilly, the chief
operating officer of The Windquest Group, the holding company of
Ms. DeVos and her husband. Mr. McNeilly said the $100 million was
a joint investment across multiple generations and branches of
her family, and described the share held by Ms. DeVos and her
husband as "minor."

Other prominent investors, according to the list, included the
Cox family; the Atlanta billionaires who own the media
conglomerate Cox Enterprises and who invested $100 million; and a
company affiliated with Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim that put
in about $30 million. Robert K. Kraft, the owner of the New
England Patriots, invested $1 million.

Representatives for Mr. Kraft, the Walton family, Cox Enterprises
and News Corp. declined to comment. [GN]


TRANSDIGM GROUP: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
TransDigm Group Incorporated said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on May 1, 2018,
that the company continues to defend against a consolidated class
action suit entitled, In re TransDigm Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation.

The Company discloses that the TransDigm Group and certain of its
current or former officers and directors are defendants in a
consolidated securities class action captioned In re TransDigm
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:17-cv-01677-DCN
(N.D. Ohio). The cases were originally filed on August 10, 2017
and September 18, 2017, and were consolidated on December 5,
2017. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on February 16,
2018.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false or
misleading statements with respect to, or failed to disclose, the
impact of certain alleged business practices in connection with
sales to the U.S. government on the TransDigm Group's growth and
profitability. The plaintiffs assert claims under Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

In addition, the TransDigm Group, as nominal defendant, and
certain of its current or former officers and directors are
defendants in a shareholder derivative action captioned
Sciabacucchi v. Howley et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-1971
(N.D. Ohio). The case was filed on September 19, 2017. The
plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty and other claims
arising out of substantially the same actions or inactions
alleged in the securities class action described above. This
action has been stayed pending the outcome of an anticipated
motion to dismiss on the securities class action.

Although the TransDigm Group is only a nominal defendant in the
derivative action, it could have indemnification obligations
and/or be required to advance the costs and expenses of the
officer and director defendants in the action. The TransDigm
Group intends to vigorously defend these matters and believes
they are without merit. The TransDigm Group also believes it has
sufficient insurance coverage available for these matters.

Therefore, the TransDigm Group does not expect these matters to
have a material adverse impact on its financial condition or
results of operations. However, given the preliminary status of
the litigation, it is difficult to predict the likelihood of an
adverse outcome or estimate a range of any potential loss.

TransDigm Group Incorporated designs, produces, and supplies
aircraft components in the United States. The company's Power &
Control segment offers mechanical/electro-mechanical actuators
and controls, ignition systems and engine technology, specialized
pumps and valves, power conditioning devices, specialized AC/DC
electric motors and generators, databus and power controls,
hoists, winches and lifting devices, and cargo loading and
handling systems. The company is based in Cleveland, Ohio.


TRINET GROUP: Appeal in "Welgus" Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Trinet Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend against the
case, Welgus v. TriNet Group, Inc. et al.

In August 2015, Howard Welgus, a purported stockholder. filed a
putative securities class action lawsuit, Welgus v. TriNet Group,
Inc. et al., under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The complaint was later amended in April 2016 and again in March
2017. On December 19, 2017, the district court granted TriNet's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, without
leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the
district court's order on January 17, 2018.

Plaintiff-Appellant filed his opening appeal brief before the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 27, 2018. TriNet intended
to file a responsive brief by May 29, 2018.

Trinet Group "We will defend the appeal of the district court's
decision vigorously as we see no basis for reversal. We are
unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or expense, or
range of losses and expenses, if any, arising from this
litigation."

TriNet is a leading provider of human resources (HR) solutions
for small to midsize businesses (SMBs). Under its co-employment
model, the company assumes certain of the responsibilities of
being an employer and help its clients mitigate employer-related
risks and manage many of the complex and burdensome
administrative and compliance responsibilities associated with
employment. The company is based in Dublin, California.


TRS STAFFING: "Castilleja" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Gerardo Castilleja, each individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TRS Staffing Solutions, Inc., Case No.
4:18-cv-01017 (S.D. Tex., April 2, 2018), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was misclassified by the Defendant as exempt from
the overtime protections and benefits of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of TRS Staffing, who performed
work as a Construction Quality Control.

TRS Staffing is a staffing company focused on placing employees
in the energy and chemicals, infrastructure, power and renewable
energy, manufacturing, automotive and metal and mining
industries, nationwide. The Defendant manages these same
employees at the various projects where it assigns them to work.
They are employees of TRS Staffing. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Moises Cedillos, Esq.
      CEDILLOS LAW FIRM, PLLC
      3801 Kirby Dr., Suite 510
      Houston, TX 77098
      Tel: (832) 900-9456
      Fax: (832) 900-9456
      E-mail: moises@cedilloslaw.com


TWITTER INC: Kim Dotcom Threatens to Sue Over Password Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nigel Marple of Reuters, writing for RT News, reports that Kim
Dotcom has threatened to sue Twitter in a class-action lawsuit
after the social network admitted to accidentally storing its
users' passwords after an "internal glitch."

Twitter urged their 330 million users to change their passwords
on May 3 after discovering a "bug," which stored their users'
unmasked passwords in an internal log for months. They didn't
specify exactly how many accounts had been affected, however,
Reuters reported that the figure was "substantial."

Unconvinced by their 'honest mistake' apology, internet
entrepreneur Dotcom questioned why Twitter decided to admit to
the breach now. He suggested that a threat from a former
employee, a pending lawsuit, or an imminent NSA leak could be
possible reasons for their forthrightness.

"What we can all agree on is that this wasn't an 'error' or an
honest mistake," wrote Kim.

On Twitter, Kim asked his more than 700,000 followers to vote in
a poll about whether they would be interested in joining a class-
action lawsuit against the social media network for misleading
their users "by telling them that their passwords were encrypted
while deliberately storing them in plain text and probably
providing them unlawfully to US govt agencies?"

Following a resounding 'Yes' from more than 6,000 participants --
and his estimation that "over a million Twitter users" will feel
the same -- Kim later appealed for a "reputable US law firm" to
step forward to head the class-action lawsuit.

Many users felt similarly skeptical about the "bug" excuse, which
prompted Twitter's Chief Technology Officer Parag Agrawal to
defensively claim that the company "didn't have to" alert users
to their mistake. Agrawal later took back the statement. [GN]


U.S. BANK: BlackRock Suit Pending in New York
---------------------------------------------
First National Funding LLC said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that U.S. Bank
continues to defend itself in a class action suit entitled,
BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio et al v. U.S. Bank National
Association.

First National Funding said, "Currently U.S. Bank is a defendant
in multiple actions alleging individual or class action claims
against the trustee with respect to multiple trusts as described
above with the most substantial case being: BlackRock Balanced
Capital Portfolio et al v. U.S. Bank National Association, No.
605204/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (class action alleging claims with
respect to approximately 770 trusts) and its companion case
BlackRock Core Bond Portfolio et al v. U. S. Bank National
Association, No. 14-cv-9401 (S.D.N.Y.). Some of the trusts
implicated in the aforementioned BlackRock cases, as well as
other trusts, are involved in actions brought by separate groups
of plaintiffs related to no more than 100 trusts per case."

U.S. Bank cannot assure you as to the outcome of any of the
litigation, or the possible impact of these litigations on the
trustee or the RMBS trusts. However, U.S. Bank denies liability
and believes that it has performed its obligations under the RMBS
trusts in good faith, that its actions were not the cause of
losses to investors and that it has meritorious defenses, and it
intends to contest the plaintiffs' claims vigorously.


UNITED STATES: Judge to Rule on ACLU's Class Action Against ICE
---------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Moran, writing for San Diego Union Tribune, reports that a
federal court judge in San Diego will decide whether to issue an
injunction ordering federal immigration officials to stop
automatically separating children from their parents when they
are taken into custody at the nation's border.

U.S. District Court Judge Dana Sabraw said he would issue a
ruling later on a case filed by the American Civil Liberties
Union that seeks to stop the practice by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement of separating families.

The suit contends that the agency splits parents from children
without a compelling reason, such as doubts about whether the
adult is the actual parent of the child or whether the parent is
otherwise legally unfit to have custody.

Judge Sabraw seemed to be leaning toward granting the injunction
and certifying a class action that would encompass children and
parents -- known as family units in immigration parlance -- taken
into custody, most of whom are seeking asylum.

But the judge also seemed to want to carefully fashion an
injunction that would not intrude on the federal government's
broad authority over immigration enforcement.

The Trump administration has indicated that it would consider
separating families at the border as a deterrent to other
families coming to the U.S. but has not made it official policy.

While it's not exactly known how many families have been
separated, a government lawyer at the hearing did not dispute
that an estimated 700 minors are currently in custody and
separated from their parents.

The issue largely turns on the interplay of several legal issues
-- laws governing asylum-seekers, a federal law known as the
Trafficking Victims Protection and Reauthorization Act and issues
of due process rights under the law.

The ACLU is asking parents and children to be detained together
and wants an order prohibiting ICE from splitting up families
when there is no legal reason to separate them.

ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt said that when family units are taken
into custody, the government does not have any procedure to
determine whether they can stay together.  That violates the due
process rights of the families, he said.  In addition he said
that the trafficking victims law requires the government to
consider the "best interests of the child" when deciding where to
place a detainee.

"If there is no reason whatsoever to keep them apart," he argued,
"you can't do this to these little children."

Department of Justice lawyer Sarah Fabian contended that there is
no right for families to be detained together under the law.  She
also said families are separated not as a matter of policy, but
often as a result of another lawful and legally authorized
decision -- such as when an agent decides to take a mother into
custody, leaving the minor children technically "unaccompanied"
under the law.

When that happens, the government is required to turn the
children over quickly to the Health and Human Services agency,
which then houses the children.

Judge Sabraw focused many of his questions on the process the
government goes through when dealing with a family unit.  He
questioned Ms. Fabian about whether the government is required to
make determinations about parentage and whether a child would be
safe with the adult before separating them.

He also questioned whether the trafficking law's emphasis on
considering the best interest of the child should also be
considered by immigration officials.  Mr. Gelernt had argued that
experts say separating children from their families causes great
trauma and anxiety to children, who already are spooked by
fleeing from their home country. [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Customers Await Enforcement of Class Action Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Petzinger, writing for QZ.com, reports that more than three
years after Volkswagen's emissions cheating scandal broke,
consumers in the car maker's home country could finally get a
shot at suing the all-powerful company.

To do so would require something akin to class-action suits,
where a group of plaintiffs band together under the
representation of one individual or law firm.  Unlike the US,
where they are common, such lawsuits are not allowed under German
law.  That will change when the government approves class-action
lawsuits.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives had been dragging their
feet on the change, and have been criticized for what is regarded
as an attempt to protect the all-powerful German car industry at
the expense of people's health and wallets.  Talk of making the
German taxpayer foot part of the bill to fix diesel engines has
been met with outrage.  Meanwhile, plunging diesel sales and a
court decision to allow diesel bans in some German cities has the
government worried about an industry that employs around 800,000
people.

While VW compensated around 400,000 US customers at a cost of
over $7 billion, in Germany -- where it argues it hasn't broken
any laws -- it has only been asked to upgrade the emissions-
manipulating software on 2.8 million diesels.  In the US, drivers
are entitled to a total engine overhaul, not just the much
cheaper software fix.  A Handelsblatt report notes that out of
the $31 billion the carmaker has earmarked in fines and
compensation, the bulk of it has been paid out in the US.

"We will achieve the goal we have set in the coalition
agreement," John Fechner, a spokesman for the parliamentary group
of Merkel's coalition partners, the center-left Social Democrats,
told the Tagesspiegel, adding that the new law allowing class-
action suits will come into force on Nov.1.

People hoping to make Volkswagen pay up for selling them dodgy
diesels will need to be quick, though -- the statute of
limitations for claims against VW will run out at the end of this
year.

"Time is short," justice minister Katarina Barley told
RedaktionsNetzwerk.  "We must ensure the victims of the VW diesel
scandal don't lose their claims due to the statute of
limitations." [GN]


WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Ruling in "Herrington" Appealed to 7th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Waterstone Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that a district court judgment in
the captioned as, Herrington v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation,
has been appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and
execution of the judgment is stayed pending appeal.

Waterstone Mortgage Corporation is a defendant in a class action
lawsuit that was filed in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Wisconsin and subsequently compelled to
arbitration before the American Arbitration Association. The
plaintiff class alleged that Waterstone Mortgage Corporation
violated certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and failed to pay loan officers consistent with their
employment agreements.

Waterstone Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on July 5, 2017,
the arbitrator issued a final award finding Waterstone Mortgage
Corporation liable for unpaid minimum wages, overtime,
unreimbursed business expenses, and liquidated damages under the
FLSA.  The arbitrator awarded damages under the FLSA in the
amount of $7.3 million, and attorney's fees and costs in the
amount of $3.3 million. While a judgment confirming the
arbitrator's award with respect to damages and fees has not yet
been issued, if plaintiff prevails on her theories, the Company
has estimated that the award, which includes attorney's fees and
costs, could be as high as $11.0 million.

In its recent report, the Company said that on December 8, 2017,
the District Court confirmed the award in large part, and entered
a judgment against Waterstone in the amount of $7,267,919 in
damages to Claimants, $3,298,851 in attorney fees and costs, and
a $20,000 incentive fee to Plaintiff Herrington, plus post-
judgment interest.

On February 12, 2018, the District Court awarded post-arbitration
fees and costs of approximately $98,000. The judgment is
currently being appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals,
and execution of the judgment is stayed pending appeal.

Waterstone Financial said, "If the judgment is upheld, the
Company has estimated that the award, which includes attorney's
fees, costs, and interest, could be as high as $11.0 million.
Waterstone Mortgage Corporation will continue to vigorously
defend its interests in this matter, including pursuing
appropriate appellate processes to challenge the judgment.
Although the Company believes there is a basis for appeal, there
remains a reasonable possibility that the Court's judgment will
be affirmed in whole or in part, with the possible range of loss
from $0 to $11.0 million. Given the pending appeal, we do not
believe that the loss is probable at this time, as that term is
used in assessing loss contingencies. Accordingly, in accordance
with the authoritative guidance in the evaluation of
contingencies, the Company has not recorded an accrual related to
this matter."

Waterstone Financial, Inc. operates as a bank holding company for
WaterStone Bank SSB that provides various financial services to
customers in southeastern Wisconsin, the United States. It
operates through two segments, Community Banking and Mortgage
Banking. The company is based in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin.


WELLS FARGO: Settles Securities Fraud Class Action for $480MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Blumenthal, writing for Philadelphia Business Journal,
reports that Wells Fargo & Co.'s legal tab keeps blowing up.  On
May 4, the embattled bank agreed to pay $480 million to resolve a
class action lawsuit brought by investors accusing the company of
securities fraud related to its fake-account scandal.

San Francisco-based Wells Fargo, Philadelphia's largest bank by
deposits, disclosed the settlement in its first quarter Form 10-Q
filed on May 4.  It is still subject to final approval by a
federal judge.

The lawsuit, which was consolidated into one case in San
Francisco, sought damages for investors who bought Wells Fargo
stock between February 2014 and when the scandal broke in
September 2016.

Despite settling, Wells Fargo said that it denies the claims and
settled the matter "to avoid the cost and disruption of further
litigation."  It said the amount was fully accrued as of
March 31.

"We are pleased to reach this agreement in principle and believe
that moving to put this case behind us is in the best interest of
our team members, customers, investors and other stakeholders,"
said CEO Tim Sloan.  "We are making strong progress in our work
to rebuild trust, and this represents another step forward."

Wells Fargo has struggled over the past 20 months with a series
of issues in its consumer banking division that has harmed its
reputation.

The problems began with the fake accounts scandal -- when it was
disclosed in September 2016 that bank employees had opened as
many as 3.5 million deposit and credit accounts without customer
authorization to meet ambitious sales goals.  The scandal led to
a $185 million settlement with regulators and the departure of
CEO John Stumpf.  It has also set in motion more regulatory
settlements, replacing several members of the bank's board and
states and municipalities severing or suspending business ties.

Last summer, Wells Fargo reached a $142 million settlement in a
consumer class action lawsuit over the fake accounts scandal.  A
final approval hearing for that settlement has been scheduled for
May 30.

In addition, several federal, state and local government agencies
-- including the Department of Justice, the SEC, U.S. Department
of Labor, state attorneys general and prosecutors' offices, and
Congressional committees -- have undertaken formal or informal
inquiries, investigations or examinations of certain sales
practices that were the subject of the September 2016 settlements
with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency and city prosecutors in Los Angeles.

Since the sales practice scandal, Wells Fargo has been
investigated for several other issues related to its operations.
Most recently, it agreed to pay a $1 billion fine to settle
claims from federal regulators that the bank mistreated consumers
in its auto lending and residential mortgage units.

Earlier this year, the Federal Reserve, in an unprecedented move,
capped Wells Fargo's assets at $1.95 trillion, which it posted at
the end of last year.  Wells Fargo estimates the sanction will
cost it as much as $400 million in after-tax annual profit.
Wells Fargo will also replace four members of its board, a
quarter of its 16 directors.

The bank is also being sued by the city of Philadelphia and
several other municipalities across the country on unrelated
claims of discriminatory mortgage lending practices.  Wells
denies those claims and is fighting those cases across the
country.

Philadelphia also ended a longstanding relationship with Wells
Fargo to handle its $2 billion payroll account. [GN]


WESTERN UNION: $8.5MM Settlement of "Douglas" Case Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in the class action lawsuit by Jason Douglas is
awaiting final court approval, The Western Union Company said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 1, 2018, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2018.

On March 12, 2014, Jason Douglas filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois asserting a claim under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq., based on
allegations that since 2009, the Company has sent text messages
to class members' wireless telephones without their consent.

During the first quarter of 2015, the Company's insurance carrier
and the plaintiff reached an agreement to create an $8.5 million
settlement fund that will be used to pay all class member claims,
class counsel's fees and the costs of administering the
settlement. The agreement has been signed by the parties and, on
November 10, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement. On January 9, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion
requesting decisions on its pending motion to approve the
settlement and motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive
award. On January 10, 2018, the Court issued an order stating
that the pending motions will be decided shortly. A status
conference was set for May 21, 2018.

The Company accrued an amount equal to the retention under its
insurance policy in previous quarters and believes that any
amounts in excess of this accrual will be covered by the insurer.
However, if the Company's insurer is unable to or refuses to
satisfy its obligations under the policy or the parties are
unable to reach a definitive agreement or otherwise agree on a
resolution, the Company's financial condition, results of
operations, and cash flows could be adversely impacted. As the
parties have reached an agreement in this matter, the Company
believes that the potential for additional loss in excess of
amounts already accrued is remote.

Additional information on the case is available at:

           https://www.westernuniontcpasettlement.com/

Western Union is a provider of money movement and payment
services. The company is based in Englewood, Colorado.


WESTERN UNION: Court Okays Pool for Unclaimed Funds
---------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the Court has entered
an order creating a fund for the remainder of class members'
unclaimed funds.

The Company and one of its subsidiaries are defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits: James P. Tennille v. The Western
Union Company and Robert P. Smet v. The Western Union Company,
both of which are pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.

The original complaints asserted claims for violation of various
consumer protection laws, unjust enrichment, conversion and
declaratory relief, based on allegations that the Company waits
too long to inform consumers if their money transfers are not
redeemed by the recipients and that the Company uses the
unredeemed funds to generate income until the funds are escheated
to state governments. During the fourth quarter of 2012, the
parties executed a settlement agreement, which the Court
preliminarily approved on January 3, 2013.

On June 25, 2013, the Court entered an order certifying the class
and granting final approval to the settlement. Under the approved
settlement, a substantial amount of the settlement proceeds, as
well as all of the class counsel's fees, administrative fees and
other expenses, would be paid from the class members' unclaimed
money transfer funds. During the final approval hearing, the
Court overruled objections to the settlement that had been filed
by several class members. In July 2013, two of those class
members filed notices of appeal. On May 1, 2015, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the
District Court's decision to overrule the objections filed by the
two class members who appealed.

On January 11, 2016, the United States Supreme Court denied
petitions for certiorari that were filed by the two class members
who appealed. On February 1, 2016, pursuant to the settlement
agreement and the Court's June 25, 2013 final approval order,
Western Union deposited the class members' unclaimed money
transfer funds into a class settlement fund, from which class
member claims, administrative fees and class counsel's fees, as
well as other expenses have been paid, with the remainder to go
to eligible jurisdictions to which the unclaimed funds would have
escheated in the absence of a settlement.

On April 3, 2018, the Court entered an order creating a fund for
the remainder of the unclaimed funds, which gives eligible
jurisdictions one year to execute a release to receive their
proportionate share of the fund. Some jurisdictions may opt not
to participate in the settlement, taking the position that the
Company must escheat those jurisdictions' full share of the
settlement fund and that the pro rata deductions for class
counsel's fees, administrative costs, and other expenses that are
required under the settlement agreement are not permitted. In
that event, there is a reasonable possibility a loss could result
up to approximately the pro rata amount of those fees and other
expenses.

Western Union is a provider of money movement and payment
services. The company is based in Englewood, Colorado.


WESTERN UNION: Appeal in "Pincus" Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the appeal made by
Caryn Pincus to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit, seeking reversal of the summary judgment, is
pending.

On February 10, 2015, Caryn Pincus filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against Speedpay, Inc. ("Speedpay"), a
subsidiary of the Company, asserting claims based on allegations
that Speedpay imposed an unlawful surcharge on credit card
transactions and that Speedpay engages in money transmission
without a license. The complaint requests certification of a
class and two subclasses generally comprised of consumers in
Florida who made a payment through Speedpay's bill payment
services using a credit card and were charged a surcharge for
such payment during the four-year and five-year periods prior to
the filing of the complaint through the date of class
certification.

On April 6, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On April 23, 2015, in response to the motion to
dismiss, Pincus filed an amended complaint that adds claims (1)
under the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act,
which authorizes civil remedies for certain criminal conduct; and
(2) for violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"). On May 15, 2015, Speedpay filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On October 6, 2015, the Court entered an order denying Speedpay's
motion to dismiss. On October 20, 2015, Speedpay filed an answer
to the amended complaint. On December 1, 2015, Pincus filed a
second amended complaint that revised her factual allegations,
but added no new claims. On December 18, 2015, Speedpay filed an
answer to the second amended complaint. On May 20, 2016, Speedpay
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Pincus'
Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act and federal
RICO claims.

On June 7, 2016, Pincus filed an opposition to Speedpay's motion
for judgment on the pleadings. On June 17, 2016, Speedpay filed a
reply brief in support of the motion. On October 28, 2016, Pincus
filed a motion seeking class certification. The motion seeks the
certification of a class consisting of "All (i) persons in
Florida (ii) who paid Speedpay, Inc. a fee for using Speedpay,
Inc.'s electronic payment services (iii) during the five-year
period prior to the filing of the complaint in this action
through the present." Pincus also filed a motion to file her
motion under seal.

On November 4, 2016, the Court denied Pincus' motion for class
certification without prejudice and motion to seal and ordered
her to file a new motion that redacts proprietary and private
information. Later that day, Pincus filed a redacted version of
the motion. On November 7, 2016, Speedpay filed a motion for
summary judgment on Pincus' remaining claims. On December 15,
2016, Speedpay filed an opposition to Pincus' class certification
motion. The same day, Pincus filed an opposition to Speedpay's
summary judgment motion and requested summary judgment on her
individual and class claims.

On January 12, 2017, Speedpay filed a reply in support of its
summary judgment motion and Pincus filed a reply in support of
her class certification motion. On March 28, 2017, the Court
granted Speedpay's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to
Pincus' Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act and
federal RICO claims. On June 27, 2017, the Court granted
Speedpay's summary judgment motion, entered judgment in favor of
Speedpay and ordered the Court clerk to close the case.

On October 19, 2017, Pincus filed an appeal brief in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, seeking
reversal of the summary judgment, to which the Company filed an
opposition on December 4, 2017. Pincus filed her reply brief on
January 17, 2018.

Western Union said, "Due to this pending appeal, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, which could be associated with this action.
Speedpay intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter."

Western Union is a provider of money movement and payment
services. The company is based in Englewood, Colorado.


WESTERN UNION: Suit Against WUFSA Still Ongoing in Argentina
------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the class action suit
against the Company's subsidiary, Western Union Financial
Services Argentina S.R.L., is still ongoing.

In October 2015, Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil para
su Defensa, an Argentinian consumer association, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in Argentina's National Commercial
Court No. 19 against the Company's subsidiary Western Union
Financial Services Argentina S.R.L. ("WUFSA").

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that WUFSA's fees for
money transfers sent from Argentina are excessive and that WUFSA
does not provide consumers with adequate information about
foreign exchange rates. The plaintiff is seeking, among other
things, an order requiring WUFSA to reimburse consumers for the
fees they paid and the foreign exchange revenue associated with
money transfers sent from Argentina, plus punitive damages. The
complaint does not specify a monetary value of the claim or a
time period.

In November 2015, the Court declared the complaint formally
admissible as a class action. The notice of claim was served on
WUFSA in May 2016, and in June 2016 WUFSA filed a response to the
claim and moved to dismiss it on statute of limitations and
standing grounds. In April 2017, the Court deferred ruling on the
motion until later in the proceedings. The Court is finalizing a
notification process for potential class members. After notices
are published, the case will move to the evidentiary stage. Due
to the stage of this matter, the Company is unable to predict the
outcome or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated
with this matter. WUFSA intends to defend itself vigorously.

Western Union is a provider of money movement and payment
services. The company is based in Englewood, Colorado.


WESTERN UNION: Smallen Revocable Living Trust Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend itself against a consolidated class action suit
entitled, Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable
Living Trust et al. v. The Western Union Company et al.

On February 22, 2017, the Company, its President and Chief
Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and a former
executive officer of the Company were named as defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits, both of which asserted claims
under section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and
Exchange Commission rule 10b-5 and section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

On May 3, 2017, the two cases were consolidated by the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado under the
caption Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable
Living Trust et al. v. The Western Union Company et al., Civil
Action No. 1:17-cv-00474-KLM (D. Colo.). On September 6, 2017,
the Court appointed Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen
Revocable Living Trust as the lead plaintiff.

On November 6, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint ("Amended Complaint") that, among other things, added
two other former executive officers as defendants, one of whom
subsequently was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. The
Amended Complaint asserts claims under section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission rule 10b-5
and section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleges that, during
the purported class period of February 24, 2012, through May 2,
2017, the defendants made false or misleading statements or
failed to disclose purported adverse material facts regarding,
among other things, the Company's compliance with AML and anti-
fraud regulations, the status and likely outcome of certain
governmental investigations targeting the Company, the reasons
behind the Company's decisions to make certain regulatory
enhancements, and the Company's premium pricing.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on January
16, 2018. The plaintiffs filed an opposition on April 5, 2018.

Western Union said, "The consolidated action is in a preliminary
stage and the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated
with it. The Company and the individual defendants intend to
vigorously defend themselves in this matter."

Western Union is a provider of money movement and payment
services. The company is based in Englewood, Colorado.


WESTERN UNION: Defending Against "Fraizer" Action in Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is facing
a purported class action suit entitled, caption Frazier et al. v.
The Western Union Company et al.

On April 26, 2018, the Company, its Western Union Financial
Services, Inc. (WUFSI) subsidiary, its President and Chief
Executive Officer, and various "Doe Defendants" (purportedly
including Western Union officers, directors, and agents) were
named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit asserting
claims for alleged violations of civil RICO and the Colorado
Organized Crime Act, civil theft, negligence, unjust enrichment,
and conversion under the caption Frazier et al. v. The Western
Union Company et al., Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00998-KLM (D.
Colo.).

The complaint alleges that, during the purported class period of
January 1, 2004 to the present, and based largely on the
admissions and allegations relating to the DPA, the FTC Consent
Order, and the NYDFS Consent Order, the defendants engaged in a
scheme to defraud customers through Western Union's money
transfer system.

Western Union said, "The action is in a preliminary stage and the
Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, which could be associated with it. The
Company and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend
themselves in this matter."

Western Union is a provider of money movement and payment
services. The company is based in Englewood, Colorado.


YINGLI GREEN: Parties Agree to Settle Calif. Suit for US$1.2MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited said in its Form 20-F
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the parties have
reached an agreement to settle the action on a class-wide basis
for US$1.2 million, plus the costs of administering the
settlement, subject to the execution of a definitive settlement
agreement and court approval.

In May and June 2015, two individual plaintiffs respectively
filed purported class action securities fraud lawsuits against
the company, its chairperson and chief executive officer, Mr.
Liansheng Miao, and its director and chief financial officer, Mr.
Yiyu Wang, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, both alleging, among other things, that the company
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
certain material financial information.

In October 2015, the cases were consolidated, and the court
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. In November 2015,
lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. The complaint
contended that the company and certain of its officers and
directors made false or misleading statements between December 2,
2010 and May 15, 2015 regarding (i) the Chinese government's
Golden Sun program, which provided subsidies for solar projects
in China; and (ii) the company's accounts receivable attributable
to Chinese customers.

The complaint asserted a claim against the company for violation
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
complaint also asserted a claim against Mr. Miao, Mr. Wang, and
Mr. Zongwei "Bryan" Li for violation of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. In December 2015, the company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint, and, on May 10, 2016, the
court granted that motion with leave to amend. On June 24, 2016,
lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, again alleging that,
between December 2, 2010 and May 15, 2015, Yingli's officers made
false or misleading statements regarding Golden Sun and accounts
receivables.

On August 8, 2016, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, and, on March 15, 2017, the court dismissed
the amended complaint with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint on April 24, 2017. On May 26, 2017, the
company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

On August 15, 2017, the court issued an order dismissing the
action against the company with prejudice and ordering the
plaintiffs to show cause why the court should not dismiss the
individual defendants based on the plaintiffs' failure to timely
serve the individuals. Plaintiffs filed a response on August 18,
2017 stating that they do not oppose dismissal of the individual
defendants without prejudice. On August 21, 2017, the court
issued an order dismissing the individual defendants without
prejudice. Also on August 21, 2017, the court issued a judgment
dismissing plaintiffs' claims on the merits and awarding costs to
our company.

On September 15, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On April 4,
2018, the parties reached an agreement to settle the action on a
class-wide basis for US$1.2 million, plus the costs of
administering the settlement, subject to the execution of a
definitive settlement agreement and court approval.

Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited, together with its
subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures, assembles, sells,
and installs photovoltaic (PV) products. The company offers
polysilicon ingots and blocks, polysilicon wafers, PV cells, PV
modules, and integrated PV systems; and develops and operates
solar projects.


ZORN DESIGN: "Dendall" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Dendall and Brian Dendall, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Zorn Design, LLC, dba Zorn Design
Company, and Edward A. Zorn, Case No. 2:18-cv-05408 (D. N.J.,
April 4, 2018), seek to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Galloway, New Jersey. The
Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as laborers to renovate,
remodel and redesign interior and exterior of real property.

Zorn Design specializes in all phases of home construction from
remodeling to designing a new addition and building a custom home
from the ground up as well as providing renovation services to
homeowners, residential property owners, and businesses. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Nicholas R. Conlon, Esq.
      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd St., Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Tel: (877) 561-0000
      Fax: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
              jtb@jtblawgroup.com


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Corp. Had $210.7MM Reserves at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Markel Corporation recorded US$210.7 million for asbestos-related
reserves at December 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "At December 31, 2017, asbestos-related
reserves were US$210.7 million and US$84.4 million on a gross and
net basis, respectively.  Net reserves for reported claims for
A&E exposures were US$92.0 million at December 31, 2017.  Net
incurred but not reported reserves for A&E exposures were US$12.7
million at December 31, 2017.  Inception-to-date net paid losses
and loss adjustment expenses for A&E related exposures totaled
US$626.4 million at December 31, 2017, which includes US$159.6
million of payments for two retroactive reinsurance transactions
completed in 2015 and US$96.2 million of litigation-related
expense.  As previously described, during 2015, the Company
completed two retroactive reinsurance transactions to cede two
portfolios of policies primarily comprised of liabilities arising
from A&E exposures.  At the time of the transactions, the
reinsurance recoverable for the retroactive reinsurance coverages
totaled US$177.6 million, of which US$159.6 million was
attributable to A&E exposures.

"The Company's reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses
related to A&E exposures represent management's best estimate of
ultimate settlement values.  A&E reserves are monitored by
management, and the Company's statistical analysis of these
reserves is reviewed by the Company's independent actuaries.  A&E
exposures are subject to significant uncertainty due to potential
loss severity and frequency resulting from the uncertain and
unfavorable legal climate.  A&E reserves could be subject to
increases in the future; however, management believes the
Company's gross and net A&E reserves at December 31, 2017 are
adequate."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/mQDJK6


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Suit v. Aqua-Chem Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Company's lawsuit against its former subsidiary,
Aqua-Chem, Inc., relating to liabilities in connection with
asbestos lawsuits is still stayed, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "On December 20, 2002, the Company filed a
lawsuit (The Coca-Cola Company v. Aqua-Chem, Inc., Civil Action
No.  2002CV631-50) in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
Georgia ("Georgia Case"), seeking a declaratory judgment that the
Company has no obligation to its former subsidiary, Aqua-Chem,
Inc., now known as Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. ("Aqua-Chem"), for any
past, present or future liabilities or expenses in connection
with any claims or lawsuits against Aqua-Chem.  Subsequent to the
Company's filing but on the same day, Aqua-Chem filed a lawsuit
(Aqua-Chem, Inc. v. The Coca-Cola Company, Civil Action No.
02CV012179) in the Circuit Court, Civil Division of Milwaukee
County, Wisconsin ("Wisconsin Case").  In the Wisconsin Case,
Aqua-Chem sought a declaratory judgment that the Company is
responsible for all liabilities and expenses not covered by
insurance in connection with certain of Aqua-Chem's general and
product liability claims arising from occurrences prior to the
Company's sale of Aqua-Chem in 1981, and a judgment for breach of
contract in an amount exceeding US$9 million for costs incurred
by Aqua-Chem to date in connection with such claims.  The
Wisconsin Case initially was stayed, pending final resolution of
the Georgia Case, and later was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice by Aqua-Chem.

"The Company owned Aqua-Chem from 1970 to 1981.  During that
time, the Company purchased over US$400 million of insurance
coverage, which also insures Aqua-Chem for some of its prior and
future costs for certain product liability and other claims.  The
Company sold Aqua-Chem to Lyonnaise American Holding, Inc., in
1981 under the terms of a stock sale agreement.  The 1981
agreement, and a subsequent 1983 settlement agreement, outlined
the parties' rights and obligations concerning past and future
claims and lawsuits involving Aqua-Chem.  Cleaver-Brooks, a
division of Aqua-Chem, manufactured boilers, some of which
contained asbestos gaskets.  Aqua-Chem was first named as a
defendant in asbestos lawsuits in or around 1985 and currently
has approximately 40,000 active claims pending against it.

"The parties agreed in 2004 to stay the Georgia Case pending the
outcome of insurance coverage litigation filed by certain Aqua-
Chem insurers on March 26, 2004.  In the coverage action, five
plaintiff insurance companies filed suit (Century Indemnity
Company, et al. v. Aqua-Chem, Inc., The Coca-Cola Company, et
al., Case No. 04CV002852) in the Circuit Court, Civil Division of
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, against the Company, Aqua-Chem and
16 insurance companies.  Several of the policies that were the
subject of the coverage action had been issued to the Company
during the period (1970 to 1981) when the Company owned Aqua-
Chem.  The complaint sought a determination of the respective
rights and obligations under the insurance policies issued with
regard to asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem.  The action
also sought a monetary judgment reimbursing any amounts paid by
the plaintiffs in excess of their obligations.  Two of the
insurers, one with a US$15 million policy limit and one with a
US$25 million policy limit, asserted cross-claims against the
Company, alleging that the Company and/or its insurers are
responsible for Aqua-Chem's asbestos liabilities before any
obligation is triggered on the part of the cross-claimant
insurers to pay for such costs under their policies.

"Aqua-Chem and the Company filed and obtained a partial summary
judgment determination in the coverage action that the insurers
for Aqua-Chem and the Company were jointly and severally liable
for coverage amounts, but reserving judgment on other defenses
that might apply.  During the course of the Wisconsin insurance
coverage litigation, Aqua-Chem and the Company reached
settlements with several of the insurers, including plaintiffs,
who paid funds into escrow accounts for payment of costs arising
from the asbestos claims against Aqua-Chem.  On July 24, 2007,
the Wisconsin trial court entered a final declaratory judgment
regarding the rights and obligations of the parties under the
insurance policies issued by the remaining defendant insurers,
which judgment was not appealed.  The judgment directs, among
other things, that each insurer whose policy is triggered is
jointly and severally liable for 100 percent of Aqua-Chem's
losses up to policy limits.  The court's judgment concluded the
Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation.

"The Company and Aqua-Chem continued to pursue and obtain
coverage agreements for the asbestos-related claims against Aqua-
Chem with those insurance companies that did not settle in the
Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation.  The Company anticipated
that a final settlement with three of those insurers ("Chartis
insurers") would be finalized in May 2011, but the Chartis
insurers repudiated their settlement commitments and, as a
result, Aqua-Chem and the Company filed suit against them in
Wisconsin state court to enforce the coverage-in-place settlement
or, in the alternative, to obtain a declaratory judgment
validating Aqua-Chem and the Company's interpretation of the
court's judgment in the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation.

"In February 2012, the parties filed and argued a number of
cross-motions for summary judgment related to the issues of the
enforceability of the settlement agreement and the exhaustion of
policies underlying those of the Chartis insurers.  The court
granted defendants' motions for summary judgment that the 2011
Settlement Agreement and 2010 Term Sheet were not binding
contracts, but denied their similar motions related to
plaintiffs' claims for promissory and/or equitable estoppel.  On
or about May 15, 2012, the parties entered into a mutually
agreeable settlement/stipulation resolving two major issues:
exhaustion of underlying coverage and control of defense.  On or
about January 10, 2013, the parties reached a settlement of the
estoppel claims and all of the remaining coverage issues, with
the exception of one disputed issue relating to the scope of the
Chartis insurers' defense obligations in two policy years.  The
trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company and
Aqua-Chem on that one open issue and entered a final appealable
judgment to that effect following the parties' settlement.  On
January 23, 2013, the Chartis insurers filed a notice of appeal
of the trial court's summary judgment ruling.  On October 29,
2013, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of
summary judgment in favor of the Company and Aqua-Chem.  On
November 27, 2013, the Chartis insurers filed a petition for
review in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and on December 11,
2013, the Company filed its opposition to that petition.  On
April 16, 2014, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied the Chartis
insurers' petition for review.

"The Georgia Case remains subject to the stay agreed to in 2004."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/77VBkF


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co. Still Defends Lawsuits at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc., continues to defend itself against
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

Manitowoc Co. states, "The Company is involved in numerous
lawsuits involving asbestos-related claims in which the Company
is one of numerous defendants.  After taking into consideration
legal counsel's evaluation of such actions, the current political
environment with respect to asbestos related claims, and the
liabilities accrued with respect to such matters, in the opinion
of management, ultimate resolution is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows of the Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/cy8nn8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Had 355 Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc., is defending approximately 355
lawsuits in different jurisdictions, alleging injury or death as
a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "The complaints in these cases typically name
a large number of defendants and do not identify any of our
particular products as a source of asbestos exposure.  To date,
discovery has failed to yield evidence of substantial exposure to
any of our products and no judgments have been entered against
us."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/Yb8P81


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Had $1.2BB Reserve at Dec.31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. had net reserve of
US$1,215 million for asbestos-related liabilities at December 31,
2017, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Reserves for asbestos and environmental are
primarily within P&C Other Operations with less significant
amounts of asbestos and environmental reserves included within
Commercial Lines and Personal Lines."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Had $44.4MM Asbestos Coverage at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enpro Industries, Inc. had US$44.4 million of insurance coverage
to cover asbestos claims payments and certain expense payments at
December 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "The historical business operations of
certain of our subsidiaries, principally Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC ("GST LLC") and The Anchor Packing Company
("Anchor"), had resulted in a substantial volume of asbestos
litigation in which plaintiffs alleged personal injury or death
as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers.

"On June 5, 2010 (the "GST Petition Date"), GST LLC, Anchor and
another subsidiary, Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd.
("Garrison"), filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under
Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the "GST Chapter
11 Case") in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District
of North Carolina in Charlotte (the "Bankruptcy Court").  GST
LLC, Anchor and Garrison are sometimes referred to collectively
as "GST" in this report.  These filings were the initial step in
a claims resolution process for an efficient and permanent
resolution of pending and future asbestos claims through court
approval of a plan of reorganization to establish a facility to
resolve and pay all GST asbestos claims.  The filings on the GST
Petition Date did not include EnPro Industries, Inc. or any other
EnPro Industries, Inc. operating subsidiary.  GST LLC is one of
the businesses in our broader Garlock group and, prior to the GST
Petition Date, was included in our Sealing Products segment.  GST
LLC and its subsidiaries operate five manufacturing facilities,
including operations in Palmyra, New York and Houston, Texas.

"On March 17, 2016, we announced that we had reached a
comprehensive consensual settlement to resolve current and future
asbestos claims which contemplated the joint plan of
reorganization (the "Joint Plan") which was filed with the
Bankruptcy Court.  This settlement contemplated that Coltec
would, subject to the receipt of necessary consents, undergo a
corporate restructuring (the "Coltec Restructuring") in which all
of its significant operating assets and subsidiaries, which
included each of the Company's major business units, would be
distributed to a new direct subsidiary of the Company, which
would also assume all of Coltec's non-asbestos liabilities.  The
Coltec Restructuring was completed on December 31, 2016, and
included the merger of Coltec with and into OldCo, LLC ("OldCo"),
an indirect subsidiary of EnPro.  As further contemplated by the
settlement, on January 30, 2017 (the "OldCo Petition Date"),
OldCo filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition with the Bankruptcy
Court (the "OldCo Chapter 11 Case").  On February 3, 2017, the
Bankruptcy Court issued an order for the joint administration of
the OldCo Chapter 11 Case with the GST Chapter 11 Case.  The
Joint Plan was consummated on July 31, 2017.

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

"At December 31, 2017, we had US$44.4 million of insurance
coverage we believe is available to cover GST asbestos claims
payments and certain expense payments, including contributions to
the Trust.  GST has collected insurance payments totaling
US$152.3 million since the GST Petition Date.  We consider the
US$44.4 million of available insurance coverage remaining to be
of high quality because the insurance policies are written or
guaranteed by U.S.-based carriers whose credit rating by S&P is
investment grade (BBB-) or better, and whose AM Best rating is
excellent (A-) or better.  Of the company's US$44.4 million
remaining solvent insurance coverage, US$17.8 million is
allocated to claims that were paid by GST LLC prior to the
initiation of the Chapter 11 proceedings and submitted to
insurance companies for reimbursement, and the remaining US$26.6
million is available to pending and estimated future claims.
There are specific agreements in place with carriers covering
US$29.4 million of the remaining available coverage.  Based on
those agreements and the terms of the policies in place and prior
decisions concerning coverage, we believe that all of the US$44.4
million of insurance proceeds will ultimately be collected,
although there can be no assurance that the insurance companies
will make the payments as and when due.  Based on those
agreements and policies, some of which define specific annual
amounts to be paid and others of which limit the amount that can
be recovered in any one year, we anticipate that US$15.0 million
will be received either through settlements or in reimbursements
of GST's plan funding as payments are made by the asbestos trust.

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

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/MW1tVJ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 55,500 Claims at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. (fka Crown Cork & Seal Co. Inc.) had 55,500
pending claims related to asbestos matters as of December 31,
2017, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. ("Crown
Cork") is one of many defendants in a substantial number of
lawsuits filed throughout the United States by persons alleging
bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.  These claims
arose from the insulation operations of a U.S. company, the
majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963.
Approximately ninety days after the stock purchase, this U.S.
company sold its insulation assets and was later merged into
Crown Cork.

"Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered
by a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement
with carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork
became self-insured.  The fund was depleted in 1998 and the
Company has no remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

"The states of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and
Wyoming enacted legislation that limits asbestos-related
liabilities under state law of companies such as Crown Cork that
allegedly incurred these liabilities because they are successors
by corporate merger to companies that had been involved with
asbestos.  The legislation, which applies to future and, with the
exception of Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota,
West Virginia and Wyoming, pending claims at the time of
enactment, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the fair market
value of the predecessor's total gross assets adjusted for
inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-
related claims than the total value of its predecessor's assets
adjusted for inflation.  Crown Cork has integrated the
legislation into its claims defense strategy.  The Company
cautions, however, that the legislation may be challenged and
there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate effect of the
legislation on Crown Cork.

"In June 2003, the State of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies
such as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities
because they are successors by corporate merger to companies that
had been involved with asbestos.  The Texas legislation, which
applies to future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-
related liabilities at the total gross value of the predecessor's
assets adjusted for inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly
more for asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of
its predecessor's assets.

"In October 2010, the Texas Supreme Court reversed a lower court
decision, Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc.,
No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Texas, which had
upheld the dismissal of an asbestos-related case against Crown
Cork.  The Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas legislation
was unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution when applied to
asbestos-related claims pending against Crown Cork when the
legislation was enacted in June of 2003.  The Company believes
that the decision of the Texas Supreme Court is limited to
retroactive application of the Texas legislation to asbestos-
related cases that were pending against Crown Cork in Texas on
June 11, 2003 and therefore, in its accrual, continues to assign
no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003.  In December 2001,
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities of Pennsylvania corporations
that are successors by corporate merger to companies involved
with asbestos.  The legislation limits the successor's liability
for asbestos to the acquired company's asset value adjusted for
inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-
related claims than the acquired company's adjusted asset value.
In November 2004, the legislation was amended to address a
Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli v. AC&S
Corporation, et al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the statute
violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive
application.  The Company cautions that the limitations of the
statute, as amended, are subject to litigation and may not be
upheld.

"The Company further cautions that an adverse ruling in any
litigation relating to the constitutionality or applicability to
Crown Cork of one or more statutes that limits the asbestos-
related liability of alleged defendants like Crown Cork could
have a material impact on the Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/vXqV1i


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $315-Mil. Accrual at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. (fka Crown Cork & Seal Co. Inc.) had accrual
of US$315 million for pending and future asbestos-related claims
and related legal costs, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Crown Cork has entered into arrangements
with plaintiffs' counsel in certain jurisdictions with respect to
claims which are not yet filed, or asserted, against it.
However, Crown Cork expects claims under these arrangements to be
filed or asserted against Crown Cork in the future.  The
projected value of these claims is included in the Company's
estimated liability as of December 31, 2017.

"Approximately 81% of the claims outstanding at the end of 2017
were filed by plaintiffs who do not claim a specific amount of
damages or claim a minimum amount as established by court rules
relating to jurisdiction; approximately 15% were filed by
plaintiffs who claim damages of less than US$5 million;
approximately 3% were filed by plaintiffs who claim damages from
US$5 million to less than US$100 million (35% of whom claim
damages less than US$25 million) and 6 were filed by plaintiffs
who claim damages in excess of US$100 million.

"As of December 31, 2017, the Company's accrual for pending and
future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was US$315
million, including US$272 million for unasserted claims.  The
Company determines its accrual without limitation to a specified
time period.

"It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in
excess of the Company's accrual.  However, the Company is unable
to estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual
due to uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the
Company's accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such
accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant, the
Company and claimant's willingness to negotiate a settlement, the
terms of settlements of other defendants with asbestos-related
liabilities, the bankruptcy filings of other defendants (which
may result in additional claims and higher settlements for non-
bankrupt defendants), the nature of pending and future claims
(including the seriousness of alleged disease, whether claimants
allege first exposure to asbestos before or during 1964 and the
claimant's ability to demonstrate the alleged link to Crown
Cork), the volatility of the litigation environment, the defense
strategies available to the Company, the level of future claims,
the rate of receipt of claims, the jurisdiction in which claims
are filed, and the effect of state asbestos legislation
(including the validity and applicability of the Pennsylvania
legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions, where the
substantial majority of the Company's asbestos cases are filed)."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/vXqV1i


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entergy Corp. Units Had 200 Lawsuits at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entergy Corporation's utility operating companies are facing
approximately 200 asbestos-related lawsuits involving
approximately 500 claimants, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Numerous lawsuits have been filed in federal
and state courts, primarily by contractor employees who worked in
the 1940-1980s timeframe, primarily against Entergy Texas, and to
a lesser extent the other Utility operating companies, as
premises owners of power plants, for damages caused by alleged
exposure to asbestos.  Many other defendants are named in these
lawsuits as well.  Currently, there are approximately 200
lawsuits involving approximately 500 claimants.  Management
believes that adequate provisions have been established to cover
any exposure.  Additionally, negotiations continue with insurers
to recover reimbursements.  Management believes that loss
exposure has been and will continue to be handled so that the
ultimate resolution of these matters will not be material, in the
aggregate, to the financial position, results of operation, or
cash flows of the Utility operating companies."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AADE Still Defends "Holzer" Suit at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Athene Holding Ltd.'s U.S. insurance subsidiary Athene Annuity &
Life Assurance Company (AADE) still defends itself in an
asbestos-related lawsuit filed Jack Holzer and Mary Bruesh-
Holzer, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

The Company states, "On September 12, 2016, Jack Holzer and Mary
Bruesh-Holzer filed suit in Jackson County, Missouri against
several defendants, including AADE, as successor-in-interest to
Business Men's Assurance Company of America.  Mr. Holzer
allegedly sustained injuries due to asbestos exposure from 1966-
1973 while working in an office building in Kansas City,
Missouri, then owned by Business Men's Assurance Company of
America.  Plaintiffs assert strict liability and negligence
claims against AADE, and AADE is one of the last remaining
defendants.  AADE is insured for costs, fees and compensatory
damages under several primary and excess general liability
policies issued to Business Men's Assurance Company of America,
and has rights to indemnity for costs, fees and damages,
including punitive damages.  The matter is calendared for trial
on March 6, 2018.  We do not currently expect this matter to have
a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.
However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in this
matter, it is possible that the ultimate outcome could have a
material impact on our consolidated financial statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/v1Lq5y


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Still Faces PI Claims at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
BNSF Railway Company continues to face a number of asbestos-
related personal injury claims, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

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

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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgments Favoring Ex-Truck Driver Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Deborah S. Eyler of the Court of Special Appeals of
Maryland reverses the judgments of the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City in favor of the appellee Christopher Coates, Sr.,
on negligent failure to warn, including the judgments in favor of
Certainteed Corporation on cross-claims against it.

Christopher Coates, Sr., the Appellee was employed by Ralph
Marcantoni & Sons Construction -- a Baltimore-based general
construction contracting company -- from 1974 until 1989. For the
first three to four years, he worked as a pipe layer, digging
trenches and cutting and laying cement pipe. Around 1978, Coates
began working as a dump truck driver for Marcantoni, during which
he drove a Ford dump truck for about four years. The friction
lining in the brake components in the Ford vehicles contained
chrysotile asbestos, as well as very small amounts of tremolite
asbestos. In the late 1970s to early 1980s, Marcantoni sold its
Ford dump trucks and replaced them with four R-600 double-axle
Mack trucks. Coates drove a Mack dump truck for three to four
years.

In June 2015, at age 67 years old, Coates was diagnosed with
malignant mesothelioma. On October 6, 2015, Coates filed suit
against Mack Trucks, Inc. and Ford Motor Company and more than
thirty other defendants, stating claims in negligence and strict
liability arising from his exposure to asbestos while employed by
Marcantoni. Mack and Ford filed cross-claims for indemnity and
contribution against other defendants, including CertainTeed
Corporation. In the pre-trial period, many defendants settled and
were dismissed. On the eve of trial, Coates settled with
CertainTeed Corporation.

A jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City found Mack and
Ford liable in negligence for failure to warn Coates about the
presence of asbestos in the linings of brakes they supplied to
Coates's employer, Marcantoni. It found that Coates developed
malignant mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos;
that he was exposed to asbestos fibers from products or equipment
manufactured, supplied, or sold by Mack and Ford, and that that
exposure was a substantial factor in causing him to develop
mesothelioma; that Mack and Ford were negligent in failing to
warn Coates about the dangers of asbestos; that Mack and Ford
were not strictly liable for failing to warn Coates about the
dangers of asbestos; that Coates incurred $72,000 in past medical
expenses and suffered $5 million in non-economic damages; and
that Coates's exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured, sold, or supplied by CertainTeed was not a
substantial contributing factor causing his mesothelioma.

Mack and Ford moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on
their cross-claims against CertainTeed, arguing that the
"evidence overwhelmingly proved that Coates suffered significant
exposure to amphibole asbestos from CertainTeed cement pipes,
which was a substantial contributing factor in causing his
mesothelioma." In the alternative, they moved for a new trial on
their cross-claims on the ground that the court permitted the
introduction of "inadmissible hearsay evidence from a CertainTeed
motion for summary judgment brief." Mack and Ford motions for new
trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict were denied.

On appeal, Mack and Ford contend the trial court abused its
discretion by denying their motion for new trial. Specifically,
they argue that in finding them liable for negligent failure to
warn, the jurors must have found the elements of strict liability
failure to warn (and the additional breach of duty element), yet,
in finding them not liable for strict liability failure to warn,
they must have found that at least one of those overlapping
elements was not proven. Therefore, the verdict in their favor on
strict liability failure to warn was irreconcilably inconsistent
with the verdict against them on negligent failure to warn.

The Court determines that the special verdict sheet prepared by
the trial court did not preclude the jurors from finding the
defendants (or any one of them) negligent for failing to warn,
but not strictly liable for failing to warn, or vice versa. The
Court recognizes that the verdict sheet proposed by Mack and Ford
would have precluded such a result, by instructing the jurors to
decide strict liability failure to warn first and, if they found
in a defendant's favor on that claim, not to decide negligent
failure to warn for that defendant. However, neither Mack nor
Ford objected to the verdict sheet proposed by the trial court on
the ground of inconsistency.

The Court explains that when a jury returns a verdict that can be
readily identified as inconsistent, the trial court should be
given the opportunity to address any inconsistency and,
potentially, to remedy it by directing the jurors to continue
their deliberations. But in this case, the inconsistency Mack and
Ford complain about would have been evident to them before the
jury was discharged. By not objecting at that time, they deprived
the trial court of the opportunity to remedy any inconsistency.
It was incumbent upon them to object right then, and not to wait
to file a post-trial motion in the hope of obtaining a new trial.
By not objecting to the verdict sheet, Mack and Ford acquiesced
in the case being submitted to the jurors with questions that
permitted the very inconsistency they now complain about. Even if
the issue were not waived under Rule 2-522(b)(5), it was waived
when neither Mack nor Ford immediately objected to the verdicts
on the ground of inconsistency.

Mack and Ford contend the trial court erred (1) by giving jury
instructions about design and manufacturing defect claims that
Coates did not pursue at trial; (2) by giving legally incorrect
jury instructions about failure to warn causation and substantial
factor causation; and (3) by giving jury instructions and using a
verdict sheet that improperly suggested that Mack and Ford could
be held liable for injuries caused by products manufactured by
others.  Mack and Ford assert that these instructions, taken
together, were "misleading and confusing," because they permitted
the jurors to find liability for negligent design, manufacture,
inspection, or testing of the brakes or brake components, when no
evidence was generated to support those liability theories,
rather than for negligent failure to warn, which was the only
negligence claim being pursued.

Although the Court finds that the trial court's instructions were
not jumbled and confused, the Court concludes, however, that the
inclusion of instructions pertaining to manufacturing and design
defects was error. The only liability issues properly before the
jury were (1) Whether Mack and/or Ford negligently failed to warn
Coates about the presence of asbestos in the brakes they
manufactured (in the case of Ford) and/or sold/supplied (in the
case of both defendants); and (2) Whether Mack and/or Ford were
strictly liable for failure to warn. Nevertheless, the trial
court instructed the jurors that in the negligence claim they
were being asked to determine whether Mack and/or Ford were
"negligent in manufacturing, selling, distributing, or supplying
their product" without any mention that the only negligence being
alleged was the failure to warn. This error was compounded by its
obvious contrast to the instruction that followed, which
correctly informed the jurors that the strict liability claim
only concerned a failure to warn.

Thus, the Court agrees with Mack and Ford that the outcome seems
illogical here and that it can be explained by the jurors having
been instructed that, with respect to negligence, they were to
determine whether Mack and Ford were negligent in manufacturing
their products, not just in failing to warn, even though the
evidence did not generate a negligent manufacturing claim. The
Court concludes, therefore, that the trial court erred by giving
a broad negligence instruction that was not supported by the
evidence and that more likely than not the error prejudiced Mack
and Ford. Accordingly, a new trial is required. The Court will
reverse the judgments against Mack and Ford and remand for
further proceedings on the negligence claims against them.

CertainTeed settled with Coates on the eve of trial -- while not
explicit in the record, it is apparent that CertainTeed did not
admit to joint tortfeasor status in doing so. Consequently, Mack
and Ford were not entitled to a reduction of any damages awarded
against them on account of the consideration paid by CertainTeed
under the Maryland Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tort-Feasors
Act.

On appeal, Mack and Ford contend they are entitled to a new trial
on their cross-claims because the trial court erroneously
admitted an excerpt from CertainTeed's reply memorandum in
support of its motion for summary judgment that was inadmissible
hearsay and that was prejudicial.

The excerpt from CertainTeed's reply memorandum that was read
into the record stated that CertainTeed had "conducted an
exhaustive investigation into Coates's claims" and, importantly,
had "amassed tangible conclusive evidence that rebuts the
CertainTeed pipe identification of Coates and John Lake (a former
coworker at Marcantoni). . ., and demonstrates that Mr. Coates
was not exposed to CertainTeed asbestos cement pipe." The excerpt
went on to say that CertainTeed had evidence that "indisputably
prove[d] CertainTeed asbestos cement pipe was not used at the
various job sites as recalled by Mr. Coates and his coworkers."
The reply memorandum represented that there was affirmative
evidence establishing that CertainTeed asbestos cement pipe never
was used by Marcantoni when Coates was employed there.

The Court finds that the excerpt from CertainTeed's reply
memorandum plainly was hearsay -- an out of court declaration
offered for its truth. The Court holds that the trial courts
erred by admitting into evidence a reply memorandum and as a
result Mack's and Ford's cross-claims against CertainTeed were
prejudiced. The prejudice to Mack and Ford from the admission of
this evidence is clear. The excerpt was read into the record
immediately prior to the close of all the evidence. Defense
counsel was not permitted to cross-examine the declarant or to
rebut the statement that "tangible, conclusive" evidence, none of
which was introduced at trial, even existed. For these reasons,
the Court holds that Mack and Ford are entitled to a new trial on
their cross-claims against CertainTeed.

The appealed case is Mack Trucks, Inc., et al., v. Christopher
Coates, Sr., No. 2709, September Term, 2016, (Md. Ct. Spec.
App.).

A copy of the Opinion dated May 11, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ydb9c6yf from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imerys Talc Can File Bid to Dismiss "Souza"
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rya W. Zobel of the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts granted Defendants Imerys Talc America,
Inc., and Cyprus Amax Minerals Company leave to file a motion to
dismiss on jurisdictional grounds together with any supporting
memoranda on or before May 24, 2018.

Plaintiffs may file their opposition by June 7, 2018. The court
will decide any such motions on the papers.

The case is David Leonard Souza, as Personal Representative of
the Estate of Karen Marie Souza, v. Colgate-Palmolive Company,
Cyprus Amax Minerals Company (sued as successor to Sierra Talc
Company and United Talc Company); and Imerys Talc America, Inc.
(sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Luzenac
America, Inc. successor-in-interest to Cyprus Industrial Minerals
Company and Metropolitan Talc Co.), Civil Action No. 15-13109-
RWZ, (D. Mass.).

A copy of the Order dated May 15, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7qepw9z from Leagle.com.

Karen Marie Souza & David Leonard Souza, Plaintiffs, represented
by Charles E. Soechting, Jr. -- csoechting@sgptrial.com --  Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice, Christopher J.
Panatier -- cpanatier@sgptrial.com -- Simon Greenstone Panatier
Bartlett, P.C., pro hac vice, Eric Przybysz --
eprzybysz@sgptrial.com -- Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC,
pro hac vice, Evan R. Hoffman -- ehoffman@tenlaw.com -- Thornton
Law Firm LLP & Samuel I. Iola , Simon Greenstone Panatier
Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice.

Colgate-Palmolive Company, Defendant, represented by James M.
Campbell -- jmcampbell@campbell-trial-lawyers.com -- Campbell,
Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC & Adam A. Larson --
alarson@campbell-trial-lawyers.com -- Campbell, Campbell, Edwards
& Conroy, PC.

Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, Defendant, represented by Brendan
J. Tuohy , Governo Law Firm LLC, Carolyn E. Riggs --
carolyn.riggs@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP, Eric V. Skelly --
eskelly@mgmlaw.com -- Manning Gross & Massenburg LLP, James W.
Sexton -- sexton@litchfieldcavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP &
Jeniffer A.P. Carson , CMBG3 Law LLC.

Imerys Talc America, Inc., Defendant, represented by James W.
Sexton -- sexton@litchfieldcavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP.

Colgate-Palmolive Company, Cross Claimant, represented by James
M. Campbell -- jmcampbell@campbell-trial-lawyers.com -- Campbell,
Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC & Adam A. Larson --
alarson@campbell-trial-lawyers.com -- Campbell, Campbell, Edwards
& Conroy, PC.

Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, Cross Claimant, represented by
Jeniffer A.P. Carson , CMBG3 Law LLC.

Colgate-Palmolive Company, Cross Defendant, represented by James
M. Campbell -- jmcampbell@campbell-trial-lawyers.com -- Campbell,
Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC & Adam A. Larson --
alarson@campbell-trial-lawyers.com -- Campbell, Campbell, Edwards
& Conroy, PC.

Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Brendan J. Tuohy , Governo Law Firm LLC, Carolyn E. Riggs --
carolyn.riggs@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP, Eric V. Skelly --
eskelly@mgmlaw.com -- Manning Gross & Massenburg LLP, James W.
Sexton -- sexton@litchfieldcavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP &
Jeniffer A.P. Carson , CMBG3 Law LLC.

Imerys Talc America, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by James
W. Sexton -- sexton@litchfieldcavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims vs. CNA Holdings Junked 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 CNA Holdings, Inc. f/k/a Celanese Corporation, f/k/a
Hoechst Celanese Corporation 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.), with prejudice.

A copy of the Order dated May 15, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ycz6jazg 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.

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: CNA Must Reply to Oakfabco Asbestos Panel's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge Jack B. Schmetterer for the Northern District of
Illinois denies CNA entities' Motion to Dismiss Counts V, VI, and
VII, as well as Resolute Management, Inc's Motion to Dismiss
Counts VIII and IX, and requires Defendants each to file its
Answer to the entire complaint within 14 days of entry of the
Order and set the matter for status on June 4, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.

Plaintiff Asbestos Claimants Committee, on behalf of Debtor
Oakfabco, Inc., brings an adversary proceeding against Defendants
American Casualty Company of Reading Pennsylvania, The
Continental Insurance Company, Columbia Casualty Company (the CNA
entities) and Resolute Management, Inc.

The Plaintiff pleads nine counts against Defendants:

     (a) Counts I and II are claim objections to CNA's $900,000
Administrative Expense Claim, allegedly incurred as a result of
CNA's funding of the case, and Rejection Damages Claim, allegedly
incurred as a result of the rejected settlement agreement between
CNA and Debtor.

     (b) Count III seeks a declaratory judgment stating that
asbestos claims have triggered the coverage under the undisputed
insurance policies and that CNA is obligated to pay $9,203,422
under these policies.

     (c) Count IV seeks a declaratory judgment stating that the
asbestos claims have triggered the disputed LX insurance policies
and that Continental Insurance Company (one of the CNA entities)
is obligated to pay $8 million and any additional coverage that
is available under the LX policies to pay asbestos claims.

     (d) Count V alleges that CNA fraudulently induced Debtor
into entering the settlement agreement because CNA falsely
represented to Debtor that it did not have documents relating to
the LX policies.

     (e) Count VI alleges that CNA fraudulently concealed
documents relating to the LX policies from Debtor, and because of
the special relationship between Debtor and CNA, CNA violated its
duty to disclose the documents, resulting in the inducement of
Debtor to enter into the settlement agreement.

     (f) Count VII alleges that CNA breached its contractual
obligations pursuant to 215 ILCS 5/155 by refusing to perform its
duties under the LX insurance policies and thus violating its
implied covenant of good faith.

     (g) Count VIII alleges that Resolute aided and abetted CNA
in committing fraud by falsely stating that it had no documents
related to the LX insurance policies.

     (h) Count IX alleges that Resolute tortuously interfered
with the contract between CNA and Debtor by failing to conduct a
reasonable search for documents related to the LX insurance
policies and informing CNA's attorneys that it was unaware of any
such documents in existence.

CNA has filed a Motion to Dismiss Counts V, VI and VII of the
adversary complaint. Resolute has filed a Motion to Dismiss
Counts VIII and IX of the adversary complaint. Defendants assert
that the facts plead by Plaintiff in its adversary complaint are
not a basis for any of the relief sought by Plaintiff. Moreover,
with regards to the allegations of fraud, Defendants state that
Plaintiff has failed to plead fraud with particularity, as
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Defendants state that they do
not believe the adversary proceeding is a core proceeding, and do
not consent to final ruling by a bankruptcy judge.

The Court determines that Plaintiff has pleaded details
sufficient to support the Counts in its adversary complaint that
are objected to. The complaint gives Defendants fair notice of
what they are being accused of and upon what grounds those
allegations rest. Moreover, the Plaintiff has clearly pleaded its
case above a speculative level. Accordingly, Defendants'
arguments as to the weight and nature of the actual facts, or as
to the application of the requisite legal standards to the facts,
will be decided at trial.

The case is In re: Oakfabco, Inc., Chapter 7, Debtor. Asbestos
Claimants Committee, for itself and ex rel. Oakfabco, Inc.,
Plaintiff, v. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania,
The Continental Insurance Company, Columbia Casualty Company, and
Resolute Management, Inc. Defendants, Bankruptcy No. 15 BK 27062,
Adversary No. 18 AP 00002, (Bank. N.D. Ill.).

A copy of the Opinion dated May 15, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yamne7qt from Leagle.com.

Asbestos Claimants Committee, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph D.
Frank -- jfrank@fgllp.com -- FrankGecker LLP & Micah R. Krohn --
mkrohn@fgllp.com -- FrankGecker LLP.

American Casualty Company of Reading, PA, The Continental
Insurance Company & Columbia Casualty Company, Defendants,
represented by Michael M. Marick -- mmarick@hinshawlaw.com --
Hinshaw Culbertson LLP.

Resolute Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by William C.
Joern -- wjoern@hww-law.com -- Hinkhouse Williams Walsh.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WUFTA Not Controlling in Fraud Asset Transfer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court of Wisconsin has granted Powers Holdings, Inc.'s
petition for review, and now reverses the court of appeals
finding that the Wisconsin Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (Wis.
Stat. ch. 242 (the "WUFTA") governs the standard by which to
identify fraud in the transfer of assets from FBE1 to FBE2.

Penny Springer's husband died in 2007 from mesothelioma. She
believes his exposure to asbestos-containing products during his
employment between 1963 and 1969 contributed to his sickness and
eventual death. She sued several companies, including Fire Brick
Engineers Company, Inc. and Powers Holdings, Inc., alleging they
were negligent in mining, merchandising, manufacturing,
supplying, installing, distributing, or selling the asbestos
products to which Mr. Springer was exposed.

The complaint identified Powers Holdings, Inc. as the successor
to Fire Brick Engineers Company, Inc. But the relevant history of
these companies actually goes back much further. In the 1940s,
Harry J. Schofield formed a company that came to be known as Fire
Brick Engineers Company. The business manufactured and
distributed, inter alia, asbestos-containing refractory and
foundry supplies. Several successors to this company contained
some variation of "Fire Brick Engineers" in their names -- the
original will be referred to as "FBE1."

In 1983, a group of investors (including attorneys who had
previously provided legal representation to FBE1) formed a
company that would come to be known as Fire Brick Engineers
Company, Inc. ("FBE2") for the purpose of acquiring FBE1's
assets. FBE2 accepted some, but not all, of FBE1's liabilities.
Several years later, FBE2 merged with Curtis Industries, Inc.,
and adopted the name Powers Holdings, Inc. Powers Holdings, Inc.
currently does business under the name "Fire Brick Engineers
Company."

The record does not reflect that either FBE2 or Powers has ever
manufactured or distributed asbestos-containing products. FBE2
acquired FBE1 via an asset purchase agreement, which is a common
method of acquiring a business while limiting exposure to its
liabilities. The Agreement provided that the only liabilities
FBE2 would assume in the transaction would be a promissory note,
trade accounts-payable, open inventory purchase orders, loans
against certain life insurance policies, and FBE1's lease
obligations with respect to two properties. The Agreement
disclaimed the assumption of any other liabilities:" Buyer [FBE2]
does not, by this Agreement or otherwise, assume or agree to pay
or perform any other liabilities or obligations of Seller [FBE1]
of any kind, whether or not related to the Subjects' Business,
all of which liabilities and obligations remain the sole
responsibility of Seller."

Therefore, Powers' answer to the complaint affirmatively asserted
that Mrs. Springer had sued the wrong company: "The Plaintiff has
brought an action against the wrong entity insofar as Powers
Holdings, Inc. is not liable for the torts of its predecessor
corporations based upon corporate successor liability defenses."
Neither the original nor the amended complaint named FBE1 as a
party. Nothing in the pleadings recognized that FBE2 had been
created long after the period of time during which Mrs. Springer
says her husband was exposed to asbestos products, or that Powers
has never commercially dealt with asbestos-containing products.
And the pleadings asserted no facts or legal theories by which
FBE2 or Powers could be held responsible for FBE1's liabilities.

Powers eventually moved for summary judgment. It argued, in part,
that "there is no basis to impose liability on Powers Holding,
Inc. as a successor to Fire Brick Engineers Company [FBE1]." But
sometime between the joining of issue in this case and resolution
of the motion for summary judgment, the nature of Mrs. Springer's
claim against Powers changed substantially. The issue the parties
joined was whether Powers culpably engaged in activity that
resulted in Mr. Springer's exposure to asbestos. By the time
Powers moved for summary judgment, however, it had become
apparent that this claim could not succeed because FBE2 had not
come into existence until many years after the period of Mr.
Springer's alleged exposure, and Powers had never engaged in
commerce with asbestos-containing products.

Consequently, in response to the motion for summary judgment,
Mrs. Springer introduced an entirely new reason for holding
Powers liable. She tacitly acknowledged that the relevant
timeline made it impossible for FBE2 or Powers to have been part
of the causal chain between the asbestos-containing products and
her husband's death. So she instead argued Powers should be
liable to her because (1) FBE1 had transferred all of its assets
to Powers with the fraudulent purpose of escaping any future
asbestos-related liability, (2) Powers was a mere continuation of
FBE1, or (3) Powers was the product of a de facto merger with
FBE1. Because Mrs. Springer pled the latter and not the former,
Powers was properly dismissed from the case upon its motion for
summary judgment. The circuit court granted Powers' motion and
dismissed FBE2 and Powers from the case.

Mrs. Springer appealed. Her primary argument was that undisputed
evidence proved the Agreement between FBE1 and FBE2 had the
purpose of fraudulently escaping liability for FBE1's
obligations. She also argued that the circuit court erred in
granting summary judgment because there was a genuine factual
dispute as to whether the "mere continuation" and "de facto
merger" exceptions to the rule of successor non-liability applied
to Powers.

The court of appeals addressed only the "fraudulent transaction"
exception. Although it noted that Mrs. Springer did not
adequately explain how a court is supposed to determine whether
there has been such a fraudulent transaction, the court of
appeals concluded that "the question of whether a transfer
transaction was entered into fraudulently must be answered in the
context of Wisconsin's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (Wis.
Stat. ch. 242 (the "WUFTA"). So the court of appeals reversed and
remanded the case to the circuit court for a trial in which the
jury would apply the "badges of fraud" contained in Wis. Stat.
Section 242.04 (2015-16)4 to determine whether Powers should be
held responsible for the liabilities of its predecessor company,
FBE1.

However, Mrs. Springer never made a claim out of any of these
arguments; they were never more than a response to Powers' motion
for summary judgment. Her pleadings never mentioned FBE1, either
explicitly or implicitly. In neither her original nor her amended
complaint are there allegations from which one could infer that
she sought to hold Powers responsible for FBE1's torts. She
certainly had opportunity and reason to amend her complaint to
make such allegations -- Powers' answer put her on notice that
she had named the wrong company: "The Plaintiff has brought an
action against the wrong entity insofar as Powers Holdings, Inc.
is not liable for the torts of its predecessor corporations based
upon corporate successor liability defenses."

As a separate legal entity, Powers enjoys the presumption that it
is not liable for the misdeeds of its predecessor, even when it
has succeeded to all of its assets. A claim of successor
liability, as distinct from a claim based on the underlying tort,
puts on the plaintiff the burden of establishing one of the
exceptions to the rule of non-liability. Because the substantive
theory of liability drives the facts a plaintiff must plead, Mrs.
Springer had the burden of alleging facts sufficient to reveal
that she was pursuing Powers not as the tortfeasor itself, but as
the successor to the tortfeasor. Exceptions to the rule of
successor non-liability focus almost exclusively on the nature of
the transaction by which the latter obtained the former's assets.
They have little to no relationship with the facts supporting the
tortfeasor's liability. Consequently, facts that are sufficient
to support a claim against the tortfeasor are unlikely to be
sufficient to support a claim of successor liability.

Mrs. Springer says she did not know about the existence of FBE1
until after Powers had moved for summary judgment. The Court
concludes Powers' answer put Mrs. Springer on notice that FBE2
and Powers were not the tortfeasors she claimed they were. And
there was a nearly two-year hiatus between the original and
amended motions for summary judgment -- the specific purpose of
which was to allow for additional discovery into Powers'
corporate history. Mrs. Springer had ample opportunity to amend
her complaint to assert that the circumstances under which Powers
succeeded to FBE1's assets were such that they should make Powers
liable pursuant to one of the exceptions to the rule of successor
non-liability.

The Court finds that the complaint does not mention successor
liability at all (except cryptically as between FBE2 and Powers,
which is not at issue here). Nor does it even acknowledge the
existence of FBE1. It necessarily follows that the complaint
alleges nothing with respect to the asset transfer between FBE1
and its successors, the very thing that could potentially make
Powers liable. So Mrs. Springer's pleadings are silent on the
only theory of liability she now advances in her case. Therefore,
the Court concludes that Mrs. Springer's complaint fails to
"allege facts that plausibly suggest she is entitled to relief"
as against Powers, Powers was entitled to summary judgment.

The Court concludes that the WUFTA does not control the analysis
of the fraudulent transaction exception. WUFTA is designed to
assist creditors in collecting on claims that may be frustrated
by recent asset transfers. The fraudulent transaction exception
is a doctrine that prevents successor companies from avoiding
obligations incurred by their predecessors.

The appealed case is Penny L. Springer, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
Nohl Electric Products Corporation, General Refractories Company,
Dana Sealing Products, LLC, John Crane, Inc., Union Carbide
Corporation, Rockbestos Surprenant Cable Corporation a/k/a
Rockbestos Products Corp and RSCC Wire & Cable, Inc., Garlock
Sealing Technologies LLC, Anchor Packing Company, Inc., Gaskets,
Inc., Cincinnati Valve Company, Leslie Controls, Inc. and Trac
Regulator Company, Inc., Defendants, Powers Holdings, Inc. and
Fire Brick Engineers Company, Inc., Defendants-Respondents-
Petitioners, Secure Horizons by United Health Care Insurance
Company, Subrogated Defendant, No. 2015AP829, (Wis.).

A copy of the Decision dated May 15, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y9u8yoqy from Leagle.com.

For the defendants-respondents-petitioners, there were briefs by
George S. Peek -- gpeek@crivellocarlson.com -- Eric D. Carlson --
ecarlson@crivellocarlson.com -- Benjamin A. Sparks --
bsparks@crivellocarlson.com -- Crivello Carlson, S.C., Milwaukee.
There was an oral argument by Eric D. Carlson.

For the plaintiff-appellant, there was a brief by Kathryn A.
Keppel -- kkeppel@grgblaw.com -- Gimbel, Reilly, Guerin & Brown
LLP, Milwaukee, with whom on the brief was Ronald G. Tays and
Tays Law Office, Milwaukee. There was an oral argument by Ronald
G. Tays.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lamorak Primary Insurance Coverage Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois for the First District affirms
the circuit court's judgment declaring that Lamorak Insurance
Company's policies provided primary coverage.

In May 2012, John Nichol filed a complaint charging Kone, Inc.
for injuries suffered due to long-term exposure to asbestos,
causing him to contract malignant pleural mesothelioma. Nichol
alleged that his exposure to asbestos took place between the
early 1960s and the late 1980s, when Nichol worked for Kone or
Kone's corporate predecessors. Kone provided notice of Nichol's
claim to insurers who sold liability policies to Kone and
predecessor corporations covering the years from 1961 through
1988.

One of the insurers, Lamorak Insurance Company, agreed to defend
Kone, subject to a full reservation of rights. Lamorak argued
that the policies it sold to Kone for the years 1977 to 1985
counted as excess insurance because Kone had agreed to a self-
insured retention (SIR) instead of a deductible for those years.

In November 2012, Lamorak filed a complaint, asking the court to
enter a judgment allocating the liability to Nichol amongst all
insurers who sold policies to Kone. Lamorak named Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company, Kone, and others as defendants.

Lamorak admitted that its corporate predecessors sold insurance
policies to Kone's predecessors covering the period from June 30,
1971, to June 30, 1985. Lamorak also admitted that the policies
for 1971 to 1977 provided primary coverage, subject to a
deductible. For the years 1977 to 1985, Lamorak sold Kone both
umbrella policies and other policies, subject to SIRs. The
parties agree that Lamorak's umbrella policies provided excess
coverage that Kone cannot reach until it exhausts underlying
coverages. The parties disagree about Lamorak's duties under the
other policies, the policies at issue, which the umbrella
policies listed as underlying coverage.

Kone filed a counterclaim that included a request for a judgment
declaring that Lamorak's policies provided primary coverage. The
circuit court granted Kone's motion for summary judgment on that
part of its counterclaim.

On Lamorak's appeal from the partial summary judgment, the Court
finds that Lamorak's policies bear the characteristics of primary
insurance. Specifically, the Court finds that the insurance
policies Lamorak issued to Kone from 1977 to 1985 imposed on Kone
a duty to notify Lamorak of every occurrence, regardless of
whether potential liability exceeded Kone's SIR, and the policies
established Lamorak's duty to defend claims that appeared likely
to exceed the SIR. The policies also had premiums far greater
than the premiums for the umbrella policies Lamorak issued to
Kone for the same years. Contemporary documents show that Lamorak
and Kone understood that the policies at issue provided primary
insurance subject to a SIR.

Accordingly, the Court affirms the circuit court's judgment
declaring that the policies at issue provided primary insurance
coverage to Kone.

Lamorak Insurance Company f/k/a Commercial Union Insurance
Company, f/k/a Employers Commercial Union Insurance Company,
Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-Appellant, v. Kone, Inc., and
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants and
Counterplaintiffs-Appellees, No. 1-16-3398, (Ill. App. Ct. 1st).

A copy of the Opinion dated May 15, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yccy46q6 from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Philly Schools Have Dangerous Asbestos Levels
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Miller of PennLive.com reported that there are dangerous
asbestos levels in Philadelphia city schools, according to an
investigative report in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

In tests on 84 surfaces in 11 of the city's most rundown
elementary schools, the Inquirer found "alarmingly high" amounts
of asbestos fibers on gym floors, cafeterias, hallways,
classrooms and auditoriums. Nine of the schools had elevated
asbestos levels in areas accessed by students.

Surface tests in six of the schools showed more than 100,000
asbestos fibers per square centimeter, which is a level expert
say is cause for alarm, said the Inquirer report.

The highest level -- 8.5 million fibers -- was found in a floor
near an insulated pipe in a hallway outside a classroom in a
school where asbestos remediation was done last fall.

School district officials question whether the sampling was done
properly, but the Inquirer said independent experts have
validated the results.

While asbestos repairs were made in some schools, some was left
behind, the report says.

In the school district's last full asbestos inspection in 2015-
16, more than 80 percent of schools showed damaged asbestos in
more than 2,000 locations.

This school year, the district has budgeted more than $5 million
on asbestos repairs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Building Basement Has Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Gobep of TheJambar.com reported that according to a
campus-wide email from John  Hyden, vice president of facilities
maintenance at Youngstown State University, the basement of the
Lincoln Building contains asbestos.

"Asbestos abatement has been scheduled in this building to remove
flooring containing asbestos material," he said. "All work is
being conducted according to OSHA and EPA guidelines by certified
asbestos abatement contractors."

Hyden said the areas will be sealed off with appropriate
barriers.
"[The contaminants] do not pose a threat or concern to the
general public or building occupants," he said.

Hyden said the work will be performed during the evening and on
weekends.

"Every effort will be made to hasten the completion of this phase
of the project," he said. "We apologize for any inconvenience,
and we are sure you will be pleased with the finished project."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Labtrobe City Council Looking at Moving Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Slater of Latrobe Valley Express reported that hundreds
of trucks loaded with asbestos could be moving in and out of
Morwell along local highways, if Latrobe City Council finds
alternative sites to store the dangerous material.

Latrobe City Council deferred a decision on a permit application
from Energy Brix Australia to store 15,000 cubic metres of
asbestos in deep underground pits at the old Morwell Power
Station, if it gets approval from Heritage Victoria to demolish
the old buildings.

Instead, council agreed to reconvene to discuss finding a place
to take the asbestos off-site.

Cr Sharon Gibson spoke against the application at Latrobe City's
ordinary council meeting, concerned the site was only 650 metres
away from a residential area.

"I'd be quite happy for it to be stored in another municipality -
- we can send our asbestos out and other people can cop that,"
she said.

"Just like we are getting drug-affected people sent our way, they
can have our asbestos."

Cr Gibson was referring to her previous comments about the
numbers of public housing residents being sent to regional areas
without enough support.

Gippsland Resource Group spokesperson Christine Sindt, a former
Latrobe City councillor, spoke against the application in the
public gallery.

"This proposal could result in designated asbestos dumps
throughout Latrobe City. Asbestos needs to be removed from
Latrobe City, not buried in the city," she said.

Cr Graeme Middlemiss said he did not trust the Environment
Protection Authority to oversee the project.

He said the EPA let the community down during the Hazelwood mine
fire.

"I will vote against this only to alert the community that this
is very close to a town. I have no confidence in the EPA's
ability to regulate this," Cr Middlemiss said.

"This is 650 metres from a housing estate. The prevailing winds
will come from the east and blow straight off this dump and
straight towards the residential area."

Energy Brix remediation project manager Barry Dungey said burying
the asbestos onsite in deep pits which would be sealed and
capped-off, was the safest and most secure option.

He said if the plan did not get approved, it would mean 400
trucks loaded with asbestos would be moving about on the roads.

"The reason we chose this was to minimise risk of asbestos
removal. And the best way to handle large amounts of material,"
he said.

"If anyone's been exposed to a truck accident involving asbestos,
it's not a pleasant time. We know our roads are congested and not
in good standing."

Other councillors spoke in favour of the application, saying it
was the best option and would be carefully monitored.

Asbestos Council of Victoria executive Vicki Hamilton was upset
by Latrobe City's decision to find another place to store it and
backed EBAC's application.

"Whose backyard do you want to put it in? Where else would they
put it? It should not be trucked up and down highways," she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2d Cir. Orders Fresh Look at Reinsurer's Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk of Law360 reported that the Second Circuit directed
a lower court to reassess whether Global Reinsurance Corp. of
America must cover Century Indemnity Co.'s costs to defend
Caterpillar in asbestos litigation beyond the reinsurer's total
liability limits, after New York's highest court clarified how
reinsurance contracts should be interpreted.

In late 2016, a Second Circuit panel had sought input from the
New York Court of Appeals in Century's challenge to a federal
court ruling that capped Global's share of the more than $60
million Century paid to cover construction equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prison Hospital Cleanup Leads to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------
Danny Robbins of MyAJC reported that when the Georgia Department
of Corrections began working earlier this year to improve
conditions at Augusta State Medical Prison, the first order of
business was a deep cleaning. After years of neglect, a thorough
scrubbing of the building with disinfectant was desperately
needed.

But what was supposed to be a major step in bringing the state's
flagship prison medical facility up to hospital standards in many
ways has created more dysfunction.

No sooner had the cleaning begun then a new problem -- asbestos -
- emerged. And that, in turn, has led to a spate of other issues.
Dealing with the asbestos has caused the operating room to be
shut down for more than two months, increased the cost of the
project by tens of thousands of dollars and rankled employees who
believe they were kept too long in the dark about a significant
health hazard.

"I have had consistent respiratory issues since March 8," an OR
nurse, Laura Matthews, wrote in a March 16 email to her
supervisor complaining about the asbestos. "I wanted to make you
aware I am documenting these issues."

The effort to clean up Augusta State Medical Prison began nearly
five months ago after a series of stories in The Atlanta Journal-
Constitution revealed how piles of trash, black mold and other
unsanitary conditions had become commonplace in the 36-year-old
building.

In an interview with the AJC in January, Randy Sauls, the
Department of Corrections' assistant commissioner of health
services, vowed that the problems would be corrected, starting
with what is called a terminal cleaning.

But new reporting by the AJC, based on emails and other documents
obtained through open records requests, suggests that missteps
have continued even as officials have tried to remedy the
situation, casting doubt on whether dangerous conditions are
being properly addressed.

Just days after the company hired to do the terminal cleaning,
BriTen Janitorial of Edgefield, S.C., started work in late
February, some floor tiles were found to be loose in a nursing
unit where inmates with severe disabilities are cared for. The
tiles were tested and found to contain asbestos.

When asbestos is disturbed or crumbled, tiny fibers too small to
be seen can be released into the air. Years later, those fibers
can cause lung cancer as well as mesothelioma, a rare form of
cancer that typically affects the linings of internal organs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Not Liable for Take-Home Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------
The Arizona Capitol Times reported that an Arizona Supreme Court
decision says employers can't be held liable to somebody who
contracted cancer from asbestos dust brought home on a parent's
work clothes.

The five-justice majority's opinion says employers in such
circumstances aren't legally obligated to protect the public from
so-called take-home secondary exposure and that making them
liable doesn't serve "individual liberty and personal autonomy."

Two justices dissented, saying children have "a greater right" to
be free from unreasonable exposure to debilitating and life-
threatening illness.

The case stems from the 2014 death of Ernest Quiroz Jr., whose
2013 negligence lawsuit says he was exposed to asbestos on his
father's work clothes and that Reynolds Metal Co. needed to avoid
creating hazardous conditions that would injure people off its
property.

The decision upholds a trial judge's decision before trial to
rule for Alcoa Inc., a company that purchased Reynolds.

The suit argued that Reynolds Metal Co. was legally obligated to
avoid creating hazardous conditions that would injure people off
its property.

However, lower courts ruled that Reynolds, which was later
purchased by Alcoa Inc., didn't have a legal obligation to
Quiroz, something required for a negligence claim.

A Court of Appeals ruling said potential drawbacks of recognizing
what's called a duty of care in so-called "take-home exposure"
cases outweigh potential benefits.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal Underway at Trump Plaza
---------------------------------------------------------
Elinor Comlay of Route 40 reported that in the bowels of the
former Trump Plaza, there are dumpsters filled with armchairs and
other soft furnishings.  The owner -- billionaire Carl Icahn --
looks to be getting rid of every last thread of his remaining
Atlantic City property.

Icahn's company has called in the asbestos removers, city
official Dale Finch said.  "I would assume if they are going to
remove the asbestos, they're going to demolish it," said Finch.
"But they do not have any permit yet [for demolition]," he added.

Most of the last vestiges of President Trump's name were
carefully scrubbed from Atlantic City at some point between the
2016 election and his inauguration. (A few still remain). The
Trump Plaza was Icahn's one remaining property in Atlantic City
after his company sold Tropicana (the also shuttered Taj Mahal
was sold last year and will reopen this summer as the Hard Rock
Hotel and Casino).

The billionaire tycoon is seeking permission to use $5.6 million
in "investment alternative" taxes paid long ago by the Plaza
toward its $13.2 million demolition cost. The Casino Reinvestment
Development Authority gave preliminary approval to the use of the
taxes for demolition and said it would hold a public hearing on
the plan. Since then, there has been no update (that we could
find, and a spokeswoman for CRDA did not immediately respond to a
request for comment).

Trump Plaza closed in 2014 and there have been rumors of its
impending demolition ever since. Recent storms have damaged parts
of the facade.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barry Family Seeks Help Over Asbestos Death
------------------------------------------------------------
Barry and District News reported that the family of an asbestos-
related lung cancer victim needs vital help to find out where and
when their father was exposed to the deadly dust and fibres.

Vivian Jones died on July 31, 2016, in hospital from
mesothelioma, which is a type of aggressive lung cancer caused by
past exposure to asbestos.

The former council building surveyor from Barry was only
diagnosed with the terminal lung cancer after falling in his
assisted living accommodation.

The x-rays taken after his fall revealed that Mr Jones, then 85,
had mesothelioma and he died just a week later.

It can take between 10 and 50 years for mesothelioma to develop
after exposure to asbestos dust and fibres.

The symptoms often develop late and -- as in Mr Jones' case --
the victim has limited time to establish where they were exposed
to asbestos.

With the help of The National Asbestos Helpline and Birchall
Blackburn Law, the family is appealing to anyone who may have
worked with Mr Jones and remembers the presence of asbestos dust
and fibres.

It is hoped that any information could help the family make an
industrial disease compensation claim to secure justice for their
father.

During the early 1950s Mr Jones worked for Woolaway Bungalows,
possibly in the Brecon area, as a surveyor on what are thought to
be prefabricated homes built after the war.

From 1957 to the mid-1980s he worked in the architects
departments for Port Talbot council, Barry council and Mid-
Glamorgan council as a building surveyor. He mainly oversaw the
refurbishment and building of schools, which would have contained
asbestos during that period.

It is known that Mr Jones worked extensively in the Barry area.
This included projects such as a conversion of the Drill Hall, an
extension to the Barry Memorial Hall, Barry Girls' Grammar School
around 1972, a primary school in Wenvoe on Old Port Road, High
Street Primary School in Barry, and also in Bargoed on Lewis
Boys' School, during the mid-1970s.

Mr Jones' son, Byron, said: "I remember dad talking to me about
asbestos when I was about 10-years-old.

"I can't remember anything specific about the conversation, only
that he had been exposed to asbestos and he warned me about the
dangers. It seems unthinkable now that they would be allowed to
work in an asbestos environment without safety equipment but it
happened even when employers were aware of the terrible risk."

Jan Garvey, from the National Asbestos Helpline, says: "We've no
doubt that Vivian Jones was exposed to asbestos but that's not
enough. We need the help of his former council colleagues or any
contractors who worked with him on building and refurbishment
projects from the 1950s to the 1980s."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed at Old Ministry Building
----------------------------------------------------------
Nation News reported that the public is advised that work will
start to remove all the asbestos from the site of the recent fire
at the old Ministry of Health buildings on Jemmotts Lane, St
Michael.

The work, which will be carried out under the supervision of the
Environmental Protection Department, is expected to be completed
within five days.

Parents of students of St Ambrose Primary School, located on
Cyprus Street, are asked to note that the school was closed for
three days from May 14, until May 16. Students returned to school
on May 17.

Any inconvenience caused is regretted.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Stations Crew Called to Asbestos Incident
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dereham Times reported that crews from five different fire
stations were called to help with an asbestos-related incident in
a Norfolk village.

Norfolk Fire and Rescue sent appliances from Dereham, Earlham,
Carrow, Sprowston and King's Lynn to assist the ambulance service
with the incident at a property in Church Road, Elsing, near
Dereham.

The crews were called at 12.59pm on May 12, to make the scene of
the incident safe while the ambulance crew got to work.
Norfolk Police said they did not attend.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Witham Man Admits to Dumping, Burning Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbie Bryson of Braintree and Witham Times reported that a man
has admitted dumping and burning dangerous waste in the garden of
home in Witham.

Thomas England, 26, of Hunt Close, Writtle, admitted unlawfully
depositing controlled waste at a property in Glebe Crescent,

After dumping the waste, which included asbestos insulation
board, England went on to set it alight.

This lead to a further offence being added to his charge list for
the disposal of waste in a manner likely to cause harm to the
environment or human health.

England had entered a not guilty plea, however changed this to a
guilty plea before the case reached trial.

Magistrates declined jurisdiction over the case, claiming the
offences required higher penalties than they were able to give.

England is due to be sentenced at Chelmsford Crown Court on June
7.

Braintree Council instructed contractors to remove the hazardous
waste from the home and any nearby properties which had also been
contaminated.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Silver Guilty of Making Millions From Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien of Legal News Line reported that for a second time,
a jury has convicted former New York State Assembly Speaker
Sheldon Silver of corruption for using his status as a lawmaker
and asbestos attorney to rake in millions of dollars.

On May 11, Silver, a Democrat who was granted a retrial of his
2015 conviction after a U.S. Supreme Court decision, again
received bad newsfrom a federal jury in Manhattan. The first
time, he was sentenced to 12 years in prison. He was convicted of
all seven charges in this latest trial, and an appeal is planned,
according to the New York Times.

Prosecutors charged Silver with a scheme in which a mesothelioma
doctor referred possible asbestos lawsuit plaintiffs to him in
exchange for $500,000 in state grants. Silver passed on the
clients to the powerful New York asbestos firm Weitz & Luxenberg,
which paid him more than $3 million in referral fees and has
denied knowledge of Silver's arrangement with the doctor.

"The jurors that decided Sheldon Silver's fate have done their
fellow New Yorkers a great public service in bringing the former
Assembly Speaker to justice," said Tom Stebbins executive
director of New York Lawsuit Reform Alliance.

"Silver used his elected-office and his law license to enrich
himself and his friends at personal injury law firms."

LRANY and other civil justice reform groups were long critical of
Silver, calling him a roadblock to meaningful reform in the
state's courts. Its most notorious is the special asbestos docket
-- New York City Asbestos Litigation (NYCAL).

Weitz & Luxenberg files the most cases in NYCAL, which recently
reintroduced the possibility of hitting defendants with punitive
damages. Defendants are likely to appeal again after first losing
in an intermediate appellate court.

Silver's trial lasted half as long this time around. During
opening arguments, Assistant U.S. Attorney Damian Williams told
jurors that Silver received $60,000 from Weitz & Luxenberg for
each name of potential asbestos plaintiffs.

The Weitz firm "didn't hire Sheldon Silver because he was a
talented lawyer, or because they expected him to do any legal
work at all," Williams told the jury.

"He used his law license as a cover to accept bribes."

Prosecutors say Weitz & Luxenberg hired Silver for $120,000 a
year despite his having no clients and no prior experience
representing asbestos plaintiffs, because as Speaker he
controlled the flow of legislation through the statehouse as well
as key committee assignments. The law firm, in a statement to
Legal Newsline, said its payments to Silver "were compensation
for business he referred in his 'of counsel' role at the firm,"
and therefore not illegal.

In the 2015 indictment that led to Silver's conviction, and which
was being used in the retrial, the government called the referral
fees "illegal payments."

Silver wasn't satisfied with his salary, prosecutors said, and
began referring mesothelioma patients he learned about from Dr.
Robert Taub, who ran a cancer clinic affiliated with Columbia
University.

Shortly after cashing his first referral fee of $130,000 in 2005,
Silver arranged for Taub's clinic to receive a $250,000 grant
from a state healthcare fund Silver controlled. He issued another
$250,000 grant the following year, prosecutors say, then halted
them after the state legislature required all such grants to be
disclosed to the public.

To convince the jury Silver had the guilty state of mind
necessary for a criminal conviction, Williams told jurors Silver
never publicized his grants to a cancer clinic even though many
of his constituents in downtown New York were worried about
coming down with cancer from inhaling asbestos-laced dust from
the collapse of the World Trade Towers.

Silver also was accused of depriving taxpayers of "honest
services," a crime the Supreme Court held is restricted to cases
of bribery and kickbacks in a 2010 decision involving former
Enron Chairman Jeffrey Skilling.

Prosecutors needed to prove that the payments to Silver fall
within that definition, therefore, as well as prove that he
performed specific official acts in exchange for the illegal
payments. That is to comply with the Supreme Court's 2016
decision overturning the conviction of former Virginia governor
Robert McDonnell.

In that decision, the court said the illegal behavior must go
beyond arranging meetings or even urging lawmakers to pass
legislation.

Silver, now 74 years old, served as Speaker for more than 20
years until his legal troubles began. His first year in the State
Assembly was 1977, nine years after he earned his law degree from
Brooklyn Law School.

But he was "blinded by greed," prosecutors said.

"Sheldon Silver, the former New York State Assembly Speaker, took
an oath to act in the best interests of the people of New York
State. As a unanimous jury found, he sold his public office for
private greed," said Geoffrey

Berman, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

"One of the most worthy endeavors of this office is combatting
public corruption."

Silver also was convicted of accepting $700,000 in fees from a
real estate law firm after he steered business the firm's way
from two developers who benefited from his activities at the
statehouse.

Sentencing is July 13.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Botched Removal Job Results to $35K Fine
---------------------------------------------------------
Deena Coster of Stuff.co.nz reported that A botched asbestos
clean up job has seen a retired tradie cop a $35,000 fine.

John Carstairs Robertson used to work as a painter decorator in
Taranaki and asbestos removal was among the suite of services he
offered.

But a small job to remove six fibre building sheets riddled with
the dangerous material from a shed last year turned into a major
headache for the

74-year-old, who has now been convicted of three charges laid
under the Health and Safety at Work Act.

At the sentencing, WorkSafe lawyer Lucy Moffitt said Robertson
was responsible for "multiple failings" at the New Plymouth site.

Carstairs previously pleaded guilty to failing to give the proper
written notice to WorkSafe about the removal work and failing to
take all practicable steps to ensure other people, and his
employee, were not put at risk.

The breaches included the use of hand tools to break up the
asbestos material, not wearing masks or proper protective
clothing and failing to restrict access to the site.

WorkSafe's investigation found Robertson had failed to manage the
risk of asbestos appropriately, despite training and a prior
improvement notice being issued.

Judge Chris Sygrove said in February 2017 Robertson was engaged
to remove asbestos from a shed on a New Plymouth property, which
was up for sale.

The judge said during the course of the work, the defendant had
misunderstood his obligations regarding health and safety and
racked up a number of violations.

"You accept that the procedures you adopted were flawed," Judge
Sygrove said.

A complaint was subsequently laid by the new owner of the
property, who had to get another company in to finish the job.

When setting a fine for the offending, Judge Sygrove took into
account Robertson's ability to pay.

He said Robertson's financial situation was tight, as he had
minimal savings and few assets.

Defence lawyer Julian Hannam said Robertson accepted he struggled
to maintain the integrity of the site and adhere to the necessary
requirements, including ensuring masks were worn and access to
the site was restricted.

But at 74, Robertson was retired and had no plans to undertake
any more work, Hannam said.

Judge Sygrove fined the defendant $35,000 and ordered him to pay
the remediation and prosecution costs, totalling $3878.29.

In response to the sentencing, Simon Humphries, WorkSafe deputy
general manager of investigations and specialist services, said
asbestos was the number one killer in the New Zealand workplace.

About 170 people died each year from asbestos-related diseases,
he said.

"No asbestos removal plan was prepared and Mr Robertson's
haphazard removal work not only put himself and a worker at risk,
but the occupier and visitors to the property, and those in the
neighbouring area," Humphries said.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal Hazard Not Just for Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scoop.co.nz reported that almost 50 years after New Zealand
businesses working in and around construction were first made
aware of the risks of asbestos, removal of the cancer causing
material is still not being managed effectively says WorkSafe New
Zealand.

"Asbestos is New Zealand's number one killer in the workplace
with around 170 people dying every year from asbestos-related
diseases," says WorkSafe Deputy General Manager, Investigations
and Specialist Services, Simon Humphries.

WorkSafe says those working in construction need to be more
diligent when it comes to managing asbestos removal because it is
not just "yourself" at risk.

"Asbestos fibres can travel thousands of kilometres from a site
where removal work is undertaken under certain weather
conditions. Negligence is unacceptable and there is no excuse for
putting the lives of others in and around your workplace at
risk."

WorkSafe's comments follow the sentencing of John Carstairs
Robertson in New Plymouth District Court on health and safety
charges relating to unsafe removal of asbestos.

In February 2017, Mr Robertson began work on a New Plymouth
property to remove asbestos containing material from a shed. His
conduct departed significantly from current asbestos regulations
and included the use of hand tools to break up asbestos
containing material, no use of masks or proper protective
clothing, and no management of airborne asbestos particles.

WorkSafe's investigation found that Mr Robertson had failed to
manage the risk of asbestos appropriately, despite training and a
prior improvement notice. WorkSafe was not notified of the class
B removal work.

"No asbestos removal plan was prepared and Mr Roberston's
haphazard removal work not only put himself and a worker at risk,
but the occupier and visitors to the property, and those in the
neighbouring area," Mr Humphries said.

Notes:

   -- A fine of $35,000 was imposed.

   -- Reparation of $2580.59 was ordered for site remediation.

   -- Costs of $1297.50 were ordered.

   -- John Carstairs Robertson faced three charges:

1. Regulations 34(1) and 34(5) of the Health and Safety at Work
(asbestos)

Regulations 2016

Being a licensed asbestos removalist failed to give written
notice to WorkSafe at least 5 days before the removalist
commences licensed asbestos removal work.

Maximum penalty of a fine not exceeding $6000.

2. Section 36(2) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015
Being a PCBU, failed to ensure., so far as was reasonably
practicable, that the health and safety of other persons, was not
put at risk from work carried out as part of the conduct of the
business or undertaking, namely the removal of asbestos cladding.

Maximum penalty of a fine not exceeding $300,000.

3. Section 36(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015

Being a PCBU who is a self-employed person, failed to ensure, so
far as was reasonably practicable, the health and safety of
workers who worked for the PCBU while at work in the business of
removal of asbestos cladding.

Maximum penalty of a fine not exceeding $300,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Defends Itself on Asbestos Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Tina Bellon of Reuters reported that a trial for a lawsuit
alleging that Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder was responsible for
the death of a woman due to her exposure to cancer-causing
asbestos began in South Carolina in the latest case against the
healthcare conglomerate and a supplier over their talc-based
products.

J&J said that its widely-used baby powder never contained
asbestos, a known carcinogen linked to mesothelioma.

The case also names as a defendant a local unit of Rite Aid, one
of the largest U.S. drugstore chains, which allegedly sold the
baby powder used by the woman.

The case marked the first time a drugstore was involved in a
talcum powder liability trial and a lawyer for the company, Sarah
Johnston, said there was no reason for Rite Aid to be part of the
suit.

In opening statements, a lawyer for the family of Bertila Boyd-
Bostic, who died of a rare form of cancer in 2017 at the age of
30, told a jury in the Darlington County Court of Common Pleas
that J&J had known for decades that its baby powder contained
asbestos.

J&J and its supplier, a unit of Imerys SA, deny the allegations,
and their lawyers said their talc product did not cause any form
of cancer, according to an online broadcast of the trial by
Courtroom View Network.

The case is one of several in recent months that alleged asbestos
in talc products caused mesothelioma.

A New Jersey state court jury in April ordered J&J and Imerys to
pay $117 million to a man who alleged he developed mesothelioma
due to asbestos exposure from J&J Baby Powder. An appeal is
pending.

J&J has also been battling some 6,000 cases claiming its baby
powder caused ovarian cancer.

Boyd-Bostic used baby powder nearly all her life, her family's
lawyer, Christopher Swett, said.  In 2016, she was diagnosed with
pericardial mesothelioma, an extremely rare form of cancer that
develops in the lining around the heart.

"J&J's choices are why we're here," Swett said. He accused the
company of concealing knowledge of asbestos contamination since
the 1970s and choosing not to warn consumers of the risks.

Bruce Bishop, a lawyer for J&J, said there was no evidence in
Boyd-Bostic's medical records that her mesothelioma was in any
way related to asbestos exposure.

Michael Brown, another J&J lawyer, said millions of people had
used Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder without developing any
diseases. "And that's because it does not contain asbestos," he
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal Starts at Fairmount Tower
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wichita State Sunflower reported that crews has started removing
asbestos from the Fairmount Towers Complex in preparation for the
building's demolition, according to a university press release.

In Fairmount Towers' 50 years of operation, "the asbestos was not
in a state that exposed anyone living or working in the building
to risk," the release said, but it will be removed in accordance
with state regulations to ensure the community's safety during
demolition.

Blake Hall, which is also slated for demolition, contains a small
amount of asbestos, but because of its "type and location," does
not require special precautions, the release said.

The Fairmount Towers demolition project is set for completion by
spring of 2019.

Wichita State announced last summer that Fairmount Towers would
cease operation -- saying the facility had "reached the end of
its useful life."

About a month before move-in day, the 300 students planning to
live there this school year, were moved to The Flats, a
privately-owned apartment complex on Innovation Campus.

The Kansas Board of Regents Inventory of Physical Facilities and
Space Utilization report rates building conditions at state
institutions on a scale of 0-100. In the January 2017 report,
Fairmount Towers was given a 76, which falls into the "fair"
category.

Building conditions for student housing at other state
universities ranged between 45 and 95.

Blake Hall, which used to house the university radio station,
KMUW 89.1, got a 49.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $6K Fine for False Asbestos Disposal Info
----------------------------------------------------------
Blue Mountains Gazette reported that the NSW Environment
Protection Authority has fined a Liverpool-based company for
dumping asbestos waste at Blaxland Tip in 2016.

RG Demolition Pty Ltd from Wattlegrove, near Liverpool in south
western Sydney, and its owner Ryan Glover, were fined $6,250 for
providing false and misleading information about waste disposed
at the Blaxland Waste Management Centre.

But Mr Glover and the company deny ever using Blaxland Tip or
receiving any notices from the EPA and plans to contest the fines
in court.

On November 10, 2016, Blue Mountains Council made a report to the
EPA's Environment Line regarding the disposal of asbestos at the
Blaxland Waste Management Centre. Council said the asbestos waste
was not declared to staff on arrival at the gatehouse, and as a
consequence, was disposed of in the general waste disposal area.
Following a complex EPA investigation, and with council's help,
RG Demolition Pty Ltd was ultimately identified as being
responsible.

"Council assisted the EPA in the subsequent investigation which
was instrumental in identifying the responsible party," an EPA
spokeswoman said. She added the "risk of harm was minimised
through the actions of council."

The EPA issued notices to both the company and company director
to answer questions about the incident, however they failed to
comply with the EPA's requirements. The attempt at avoiding EPA
scrutiny resulted in three penalty notices being issued for
providing false and misleading information and failing to comply
with statutory notices.

The penalties issued to Mr Glover include $4,000 for providing
false and misleading information about the waste and $750 for not
complying with an EPA notice. R.G. Demolition Pty Ltd was fined
the corporation amount of $1,500 for not complying with an EPA
requirement.

The EPA spokeswoman said penalties were issued to the registered
address of both Mr Glover and his company.

But the owner Mr Glover denied he knew anything about the matter
when contacted by the Gazette.

"We dump at Kemps Creek," he said.

"We strongly deny any alleged allegations of illegal waste
disposal at Blaxland waste facility. All asbestos or contaminated
waste is transported and disposed of at licensed EPA landfills
such as Suez Kemps Creek. We will be fighting this in court to
clear our company."

EPA Manager Regional Waste Compliance Cate Woods said the
community expects the EPA to take strong action against those who
unlawfully dispose of waste and place human health and the
environment at risk.

"By providing false and misleading information about waste,
appropriate decisions about safe management and disposal cannot
be made, which has the potential to impact on human health and
pollute the environment," Ms Woods said.

Blue Mountains Mayor Mark Greenhill commended staff for picking
up the breach and reporting it and for the EPA's investigation.

"This is a great outcome and I thank the EPA for their efforts to
investigate this incident. I commend the council staff for
reporting the matter to the EPA in the interest of worker and
public safety.

"The fact that asbestos containing material was not declared to
staff on arrival at the Blaxland waste facility highlights the
ongoing challenges we face in managing asbestos at our waste
management facilities, and more broadly in the city. The need to
identify and manage asbestos containing material is a challenge
faced by councils across NSW."

Cr Greenhill said council was exploring options to better manage
the identification and handling of asbestos containing material
on entry to the Waste Management Facilities to prevent this kind
of incident from happening in the future.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Liability Under Maritime Law Mulled
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an
appeal of a precedential Third Circuit decision holding that
companies can be held liable under maritime law for asbestos-
related injuries if a manufacturer could have reasonably foreseen
asbestos would be later added to its product.

The high court will review the Third Circuit's October decision
in two consolidated lawsuits brought by former U.S. Navy
veterans, now deceased, alleging they developed lung cancer after
being exposed to asbestos on ships during their service.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dumped in Barunga Sparks Health Fears
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Maddocks of ABC Online reported that the Department of
Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics workers and an asbestos
contractor mapped the location and took samples of suspected
asbestos material on the outskirts of Barunga, about 400
kilometres south-east of Darwin.

The department is now testing the material to verify the extent
of the problem, which it said is probably a result of legacy
dumping dating back a number of years.

Resident Conway Bush, who lives with his family in between the
community and the site, said he was cleaning up his shed when he
stumbled across asbestos in discarded pipelines, and then
discovered a swathe of ageing building materials nearby.

Mr Bush, who has a dangerous goods licence and dealt with
asbestos in a former role with Katherine Town Council, said he
first raised the issue about a year ago.

"It took a while and they're starting to register now because
we're three weeks away from Barunga Festival," said Mr Bush,
adding that the community is preparing for an influx of thousands
of festival-goers for the popular annual event.

"I don't want to point any fingers . . . but it should be cleaned
up.

"The more I investigated the more I found and I went out and took
photos . . . NLC [Northern Land Council] knows, and the
Government, and they're coming out to try and fix the problem.

"But the thing is, it shouldn't be left out on country, or dumped
illegally, for that matter."

Mr Bush said he's worried for the health of his children, and
other kids in the community.

"My people like to walk to go fishing and . . . kids play on that
walk. They play along as they go. They're innocent children," he
said.

The NLC said the issue was raised at a consultation with Mr Bush
and it was passed on to the Infrastructure Department, who are
now responsible for cleaning up asbestos in the NT.

'It's not treated as important'

In a statement, the Department said it would coordinate a "whole
of government response" based on the test results.

"The suspected asbestos material is likely a result of legacy
dumping dating back a number of years," it said.

The Roper Gulf Regional Council said it had only just become
aware of the issue, but declined to comment.

Legacy dumping of asbestos is a big problem, said Andrew Ramsay,
chair of the Queensland-based Asbestos Disease Support Society.

"It's just amazing that it's still treated like it's not an
important issue up there in the Territory," said Mr Ramsay, who
last year travelled to Tennant Creek to investigate claims of
asbestos exposure.

"It just seems to be an attitude that it's out of sight, out of
mind . . . the last thing you would want, even on your [worst]
enemy, is to come down with an asbestos-related disease, because
it is a horrible, horrible way to die."

Last year, similar concerns about asbestos exposure in remote NT
communities surfaced in Tennant Creek and Yuendumu.

A report previously found dumped asbestos in and around remote
Indigenous communities is a widespread and costly problem, and
the CFMEU claimed asbestos exposure in the Northern Territory had
become an epidemic.

A job opportunity?

Mr Bush said very few people in Barunga know about the dangers of
asbestos, and the dump offers an opportunity to train and employ
locals to clear asbestos on country.

"Aboriginal people should have some sort of education within the
communities that this stuff does exist . . . and where it's been
dumped," he said.

"They should give us Indigenous people that's living here a
chance to do a course, or go and do it through a small business
so that we can all achieve one goal.

"It prompted me to think, well, what about all the other
communities? All the countrymen, they don't know what asbestos
looks like or what material it is in, or even in the house, for
that matter.

"But it will give people the inside knowledge on what is
asbestos, and how dangerous it is."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Husband Seeks Help Over Wife's Asbestos Death
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sunderland Echo reported that the husband of a retired seamstress
from Sunderland who died from an asbestos-related disease is
appealing for her old workmates to help him find answers over her
illness.

Jean Davis died in February at Sunderland Royal Infirmary, aged
81 -- about 11 months after being diagnosed with mesothelioma --
a cancer of the lining of the lung linked to asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bennett Couple Files PI Suit vs. IMO, et al.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of St. Louis Record reported that a California
man alleges exposure to asbestos during his career caused him to
develop lung cancer.

David Bennett and Naomi Bennett filed a complaint on May 8 in the
St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court against IMO Industries
Inc., ITT Corp., J P Bushnell Packing Supply Co., et al, alleging
negligence.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at various
times during David Bennett's career from 1973 to 1991 at various
locations in California, 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 Feb. 9, 2016, he first became aware
that he developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease, and
that the disease was wrongfully caused.

The plaintiffs hold IMO Industries Inc., ITT Corp., J P Bushnell
Packing Supply Co., et al responsible because the defendants
allegedly intentionally included asbestos fibers in their
products when they knew that it had toxic, poisonous and highly
deleterious effect to human's health and failed to provide
adequate warnings and instructions concerning the dangers of
working with or around products containing asbestos fibers.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek compensatory
damages in a fair and reasonable amount exceeding $25,000 and all
further relief that the court may deem just and equitable. They
are represented by Wilson D. Sikes of Napoli Shkolnik PLLC in
Edwardsville.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1822-CC00944


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ironworker Alleges Exposure to Asbestos Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of St. Louis Record reported that a man alleges
exposure to asbestos in Ohio caused him to develop lung cancer.

Ernest Timbs and Mary Timbs filed a complaint on May 9 in the St.
Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court against Crown, Cork & Seal USA
Inc.; Grinnell LLC; Union Carbide Corp.; et al. alleging
negligence.

According to the complaint, Ernest Timbs alleges he was exposed
to and inhaled or ingested asbestos fibers emanating from certain
products manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by
defendants while employed as an ironworker in Ohio from 1952
through the 1970s. The suit states that on or about Oct. 14,
2014, he first became aware that he developed lung cancer, an
asbestos-related disease.

The plaintiffs hold Crown, Cork & Seal USA Inc.; Grinnell LLC;
Union Carbide Corp.; et al, responsible because the defendants
allegedly intentionally included asbestos fibers in their
products when they knew that it had toxic, poisonous and highly
deleterious effect to human health and failed to provide adequate
warnings and instructions concerning the dangers of working with
or around products containing asbestos fibers.

The plaintiffs seek damages of more than $25,000, plus costs of
this action and all further relief as the court may deem just and
equitable. They are represented by Benjamin R. Schmickle and
Matthew C. Morris of SWMW Law LLC in St. Louis.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1822-CC00945


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Says Attys to Rig Votes in Oakfabco Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk of Cook County Record reported that saying the
plan would open opportunities for "gamesmanship" by trial
lawyers, insurer CNA has asked a bankruptcy judge to shoot down a
plan by the successor company to a defunct boiler maker to wind
down its existence by essentially giving lawyers representing
plaintiffs in nearly 34,000 asbestos claims the chance to vote
themselves a payday.

However, the company says the Chicago-based insurer is simply
trying to "distract" and "obfuscate" to gain "advantages" and
"leverage" to "elevate its own interests" in the case, and
essentially reduce its potential liability to pay out under the
company's policy.

The case at the heart of the dispute landed in federal court in
Chicago in late 2015, when Oakfabco, the successor company to the
Kewanee Boiler Corporation, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection. The company intended to gain court approval of a plan
to liquidate its sole remaining assets, certain insurance
policies through CNA and other insurance companies, to ultimately
set up a trust to handle and pay current known asbestos personal
injury claims, and then wind down its existence.

"The approval of the insurance settlement agreements and
confirmation of a plan of liquidation will ensure a fair and
equitable distribution among current asbestos claimants,"
Oakfabco president Frederick W. Stein wrote in a declaration.

The asbestos claims are largely associated with boilers made by
the company featuring an "asbestos rope gasket."

In 1988, Kewanee filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, agreeing to
sell off its boiler manufacturing assets and rename itself
Oakfabco.

However, the company's bankruptcy plan included no provisions
limiting its exposure to asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuits, and the claims continued to pile up. According to court
filings, Oakfabco faces an estimated 3,400 active asbestos claims
and more than 30,000 inactive claims.

After filing for bankruptcy in 2015, the company agreed to
insurance settlements with three insurers for a total of about
$14.3 million, including a settlement with CNA for about $9.8
million.

However, while $4.5 million settlements with two other insurers
were approved, a committee of trial lawyers representing the tens
of thousands of asbestos claimants objected to the settlement
with CNA. In discovery that followed, the asbestos claimants
committee asserted it had uncovered evidence indicating
Oakfabco's policy with CNA entitled claimants to potentially more
than $17 million in coverage.

Oakfabco then pulled out of the settlement, and the court
rejected the deal.

In December 2017, Oakfabco presented a liquidation plan to the
court, and proposed the court allow its claimants to vote on the
plan under a matrix assigning weighted votes to claimants based
on the value of their claims.

Oakfabco asserted the proposal followed the reasoning of prior
decisions in prior similar asbestos-related bankruptcy cases, and
particularly the reasoning of the court in the case docketed in
New York federal court as In Re Quigley Co. In that case, which
also involved a huge pre-bankruptcy settlement from Quigley Co.'s
parent company, Pfizer, the judge signed off on a proposal to
similarly weight claims, based on their severity.

In the Oakfabco case, however, CNA objected to Oakfabco's plan,
asserting the plan would essentially leave CNA holding the bag,
without proper opportunity to enforce its own claims, as
Oakfabco's insurer.

In a brief filed April 25, lawyers for CNA argued the plan would
fix the outcome any vote, as it would give the asbestos personal
injury claimants, through their lawyers, free rein to use
essentially worthless claims against

Oakfabco to "skew the results" of any vote on the liquidation
plan.

In the brief, CNA asserts it believes as many as 90 percent of
the remaining asbestos claims should be considered all but
worthless, as they hold little to no possibility of ever
recovering damages from Oakfabco.

"Many such claims come from the inventory of plaintiffs' firms
and have not named or pursued the Debtor (Oakfabco) in the many
years since the plaintiff first developed a disease," CNA wrote
in its brief. "Rather, they have sued and obtained recoveries
from other defendants that they claim are responsible for their
injuries.

"These claims have no value, especially in comparison to the
relatively few that have timely pursued the Debtor and can offer
evidence connecting the development of their disease to a Kewanee
Boiler product."

Allowing those vast majority of the claims, which "likely have
zero value" were they to attempt to pursue the claims in court,
"would dramatically skew the results, using generic values for
the votes of legitimate claims and significantly inflated values
for the votes of those holding non-compensable claims."

Further, CNA argued the proposed "matrix" balloting system in
Oakfabco's proposed plan would open up "opportunities for abuse"
for the trial lawyers representing the asbestos claimants group
to essentially stuff the ballot box.

"The plaintiffs' lawyers have an obvious incentive to assert
their entitlement to vote larger numbers of claims with larger
values, and now that the Debtor has struck a deal with the
asbestos committee members in exchange for their votes, the
Debtor supports this get-out-the-vote effort," CNA wrote.

And, while CNA asserted the liquidation plan would grant outsized
influence to allegedly worthless claims, the insurer further
argued the plan's proposal to render its own contribution claim
worthless, would "disenfranchise" the insurer, stifling its vote
in the outcome of the plan.

CNA asked the court to order discovery into the nature of the
remaining claimants to quantify which claimants should be allowed
to vote on the Oakfabco liquidation plan.

In response filed May 8, Oakfabco's lawyers asked the court to
brush aside CAN's objections, characterizing the insurer's
arguments as "misplaced" and saying the insurer's claims
concerning disenfranchisement "cannot be taken seriously."

Oakfabco said CNA's contention concerning the relative merit of
the various asbestos claimants amounts to little more than the
insurer's "opinion (at best)."

"The Debtor's proposed voting procedure offers only a way to
efficiently value those claims for voting purposes," Oakfabco
wrote. "The proposed voting procedure neither liquidates any
claim nor grants any recovery to any claimant."

Oakfabco asserted the proposed discovery proceedings, to "screen
out unmeritorious claims," would "threaten to consume a
significant portion of the estate's assets, and could leave
little or nothing for 'meritorious' claims to recover after a
plan is confirmed and becomes effective."

"All together, the arguments in CNA's Reply amount to nothing
more than an attempt to distract the Court and to obfuscate what
is a reasonable and common voting procedure for asbestos-related
claims in an asbestos-related Chapter 11 case," Oakfabco wrote.
"CNA may not like that proposal because it does not offer the
advantages or leverage that CNA is seeking to elevate its own
interests in this Chapter 11 case, but its disfavor cannot
justify departing from the Debtor's reasonable and appropriate
voting procedure proposal."

CNA is represented in the action by attorneys Michael Lotus and
David Christian, of David Christian Attorneys LLC, of Prairie
Village, Kan.

Oakfabco is represented by attorneys Stephen T. Bobo, Paul M.
Singer and Andrew J. Muha, of the firm of Reed Smith LLP, of
Chicago and Pittsburgh.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reserve Bank Bldg Evacuated After Asbestos Find
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Bracewll-Worrall of Newshub reported that a Wellington
building that houses a number of Government services was forced
to evacuate after asbestos was found in the skirting.

Dozens of public servants spilled on to pavements of the Terrace
in Wellington after the asbestos was found at around 4pm.

It's since been confirmed that the asbestos was confined to the
skirting and is not believed to have been disturbed. The
evacuation was a precaution.

Just last year, renovations to the same building -- the  Reserve
Bank -- came to a halt after asbestos was discovered on level two
of the building.

That fit-out cost taxpayers $908,000.

The building houses the Parliamentary Commissioner for the
Environment, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, the Reserve Bank
of New Zealand and the State Services Commission.

The State Services Commission's lease of the Reserve Bank
building was due to expire at the end of March 2018, but it was
renewed and the lease was extended to March 2021.

Inhaled asbestos fibres can remain in the lungs for long periods
and can cause serious lung diseases including asbestosis, lung
cancer, pleural thickening and mesothelioma.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon DEQ Pushes for Tighter Asbestos Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------
Portland Tribune reported that agency proposes requiring asbestos
surveys when working with the hazardous substance in residential
properties with four or fewer units.

The Department of Environmental Quality has proposed new
administrative rules for handling asbestos, a mineral used in
insulation, siding and other applications that can cause lung
cancer and other afflictions.

If approved by the state Environmental Quality Commission, the
rules would require developers or owners renovating residential
buildings with four or fewer dwelling units to conduct an
asbestos survey. In addition, procedures would be tightened for
contractors handling asbestos-containing waste material,
affecting packaging, labeling, transport and disposal. Materials
would have to be packaged in two plastic bags instead of one.
Laboratories that test for asbestos would have to participate in
a nationally recognized testing program or the equivalent.

DEQ will hold a public hearing about the proposed new rules on
June 20, at 6:30 p.m. at Oregon DEQ, 700 N.E. Multnomah St. in
the Lloyd district in Portland, on the third-floor conference
room.

Public comments may be submitted until June 22.


                            *********


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  * * *