CAR_Public/180622.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Friday, June 22, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 125



                            Headlines


276-43 GOURMET: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, "Salgado" Says
AEG: Files Motion to Dismiss Ozzy Osbourne's Class Action
AEGEAN MARINE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Action
AKORN PHARMA: Judge Awards $6MM in Attorneys' Fees
ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: "Checkman" Files Securities Class Suit in Ca.

AMP: Slater & Gordon Files Shareholder Class Action
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action in Colorado Over Defective Watch
ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Jones" Suit in E.D. New York
AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Sydney Light Rail Project
AUTORAMA ENTERPRISES: "Comas" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA

AWA COLLECTIONS: Faces "Porter" Suit in C.D. California
BANK OF AMERICA: Pushed Homeowners Into Foreclosure, Suit Claims
BARLEAN'S: Accused by Brannon of Mislabeling Supplement Powders
BAUBLE BAR: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
BLACKWATER TESTING: "Coppola" Suit Seeks Payment of OT Under FLSA

CANADA: Wagner & Associates Mulls Nursing Home Class Action
CHINA AGRITECH: High Court May Reverse 9th Cir.'s Decision
CITY CATERING: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, "Hernandez" Alleges
COMMONWEALTH BANK: $700MM AUSTRAC Fine Positive for Claimants
CRYPTSY: Florida Judge Reopens Customers' Class Action

DALLAS, TX: New Pension Law Helped Settle Back Pay Lawsuit
EDWARD JONES: Former Broker Files Discrimination Class Action
EPIC SYSTEMS: Godfrey & Kahn Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
EPIC SYSTEMS: Sabino & Sabino Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
EPIC SYSTEMS: Uber Lawyer Lauds SCOTUS Arbitration Ruling

EPIC SYSTEMS: Hancock Attorney Comments on SCOTUS Ruling
EPIC SYSTEMS: SCOTUS Ruling to Have Implications for NLRA
EQUIFAX INC: Quebec Court Refuses to Stay Data Breach Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Faces BIPA Violation Class Action in Illinois
FACEBOOK INC: Ruling in BIPA Case to Have More Financial Impact

FCH ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Action Over Zippy's Data Breach
FITBIT: Motion to Dismiss Heart Rate Monitor Class Action Denied
FITBIT: May Face Contempt Charge in Heart Rate Monitor Case
FORD MOTOR: Settles Class Action Over Faulty Touch Screen Systems
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Toxic Fumes

FUNKO INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over 2017 IPO
FUYAO GLASS: Workers File Class Action Over Wage, Break Issues
GAP APPAREL: Faces "Andrews" Suit in California Superior Court
GLORYRIDGE AT GETTYSBURG: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
GOLDEN STAR SUPPLY: Faces "Cortez" Wage and Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.

GOOGLE LLC: Seeks Dismissal of Kids Data Privacy Class Action
GULF INTERSTATE: Faces "Sloane" Suit in S.D. Ohio
HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Faces New Sexual Assault Class Action
HOMESTEAD HOUSING: "De Leon" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
HOMETOWN EATS: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Joachin" Claims

IDEAL IMAGE: Sued by Carfagno Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Text
INVENTION SUBMISSION: Faces $72MM Fraud Class Action
LENDING CLUB: Faces "Lynch" Suit in E.D. New York
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Removes "Crutcher" Suit to New Mexico Dist. Ct.
LOUIS VUITTON: Judge Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration

LUCKY VITAMIN: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Holzer & Holzer Files Class Action
MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
MCFADDEN HOTEL: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
MDL 2804: More Than 60 Cities File Suits Over Opioid Epidemic

M G CLEANERS: Hunsley Seeks to Recover Regular and Overtime Wages
MICHIGAN: DHHS Faces Mental Health Services Class Action
MICKEL LAW FIRM: Faces "Schmidt" Suit in W.D. Arkansas
MICRO FOCUS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
MODO YOGA: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York

MYLIFE.COM: Beaumont Costales Files Class Action
NATIONWIDE BUSINESS: Cunningham Sues for Invasion of Privacy
NBA MEDIA: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
NESTLE USA: Ruling in Fancy Feast Class Action on Appeal
NETWORK OF COMMUNITY: "Burge" Class Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime

PANHANDLE MAINTENANCE: "Diaz" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Wages
PHILLIPS 66: Averts Conoco Employees' ERISA Class Action
PICANTE INC: "Carrasco" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
POPCHIPS INC: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
PPG INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Class Action in California

PREMIUM MERCHANT: "Blevins" Suit Seeks Damages under TCPA
PREVITI PIZZA: "Davalos" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
PURDUE PHARMA: Faces "Grace" Suit Over Prescription Opioids' Sale
QUALITY MIDWESTERN: "Buszta" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages and OT
RECRO PHARMA: Federman Files Securities Class Action in Pa.

ROCHESTER HOME: Cross Wants Reclassification to Receive OT Pay
RODRIGUEZ AUTO: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA
ROYAL BANK: July 4 Canadian FX Settlement Approval Hearing Set
RUBIN-LOBO LLC: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
SAGE TELECOM: Appeals Panel Upholds Class Action Dismissal

SAM'S CLUB: Judge Quizzes Attorney on $1.8MM Fee Request
SAWGRASS GRAND: Faces "Sierra" Suit in S.D. Florida
SHELBY COUNTY, TN: 3 Class Actions Over Jail Issues Merged
SIX FLAGS: Class Action Remanded to Lake County Circuit Court
SOUND TRANSIT: Faces Class Action Over Car-Tab Taxes

STATE FARM: Eckhardt Seeks Refund on Fees Due to Crypto Purchases
STATE STREET: ATRS Wants to Remain as Class Representative
STEPS AGENCY: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Dodge" Suit Says
SUPER MICRO: New York Union Named Lead Plaintiff in Class Action
SYMANTEC CORP: July 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

THERANOS: Founder Averts Indirect Investors' Class Action
TIGER RETAIL: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
UNITED STATES: Request to Stay Injunction in Abortion Case Denied
UNITED STATES: Must Process Teen Pregnancy Grants, Judge Rules
UNITED STATES: SCOTUS Tosses Immigrant Teen Abortion Case Ruling

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: More Women Join Sexual Abuse Lawsuit
UPMC: Patient Files Class Action Over Potential TB Exposure
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Two Law Firms File Class Action
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Byrne Challenges Merger With Francisco Partners
WEINSTEIN CO: Sexual Assault, Misconduct Class Action Can Proceed

* ALRC Releases Paper on Class Action Litigation Funders
* Class Action Reforms Must Include Restricting Negligence Claims
* Europe Not Actively Seeking to Adopt US Class Action Structure
* Netwealth Allows Investors to Participate in Class Actions
* Restaurants Should Make Mandatory Arbitration Agreements

* SAN Wants Class Action Included in Law School Curriculum
* Tripp Scott Attorneys Discuss Recent SCOTUS Arbitration Ruling


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 687 Pending Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Auto Had $1.2MM Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Energy Still Assessing Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two CIRCOR Units Still Face Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MLIC Had 62,930 Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Still Named Defendant in "Parsons" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL & Associates Had $3.1MM Liability at Dec.31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMC Insurance Had $10MM Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Case vs. E-Source Set for Summer 2018
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Faces 96 Cases at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Continues to Defend Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Had 50 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBLI Had $15.8MM Net Loss Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 218 Cases vs. CECO Still Pending at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Still Faces 3 Suits at Dec. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Still Faces Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Still Defend Suits at Dec30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,907 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $149.7MM Liability Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Faces PI Suits at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Faces 62,930 Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 96 Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockland Place's Abatement Activity Continues
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Brown" PI Suit Remanded to La. State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims vs. Lockheed Martin Dismissed in "Thrash"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Grants Bid to Strike FAC in "Mestas"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Con Man in Australia Getting Locked Up
ASBESTOS UPDATE: House Demolition Delay Frustrates City Hall
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Riddled Community to be Demolished
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Cancer Occur 20 Years After Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Lawmakers Balking At Asbestos Reform
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Won't Ban New Uses of Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Whitesell Mill Fire Debris Could Have Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Settles Suit Over Husband's Asbestos Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BASF Ex-GC Can't Testify in Asbestos Fraud Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Blight Removal Sites Inspected for Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: British Rail Worker Dies of Asbestos Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norwich Maintenance Worker Dies of Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imerys Unit Said to Settle Talc Claims for $5MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Died Within 20 Meters from Asbestos Factory

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Campaigner Fights for Asbestos Illness Pay
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Plague Spreads to Pulau Ubin
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Burned in Firefighters' Training
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Stricken School Could Close
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Revealed During Roadworks

ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Rigged Asbestos Talc Tests
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wayne Bus Garage Sealed for Asbestos Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA to Remove Asbestos from Spark Plug Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10.7MM Asbestos Fibers in Philly Elem. School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trump Says Asbestos Poisoning Mod-Led Conspiracy

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. State Officials Unable to Inspect Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sodomaco Accused of Illegal Asbestos Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Laden Train Ripped Apart
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Among Flytipped Rubbish Near Beach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Studio Closed After Contamination With Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 75Year Old Granddad Killed by Asbestos Cancer




                            *********


276-43 GOURMET: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, "Salgado" Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AZAEL GOMEZ SALGADO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. 276-43 GOURMET GROCERY INC. (D/B/A LUCKY
STAR CAFE), MAX MICHAEL, GEORGE MAXEMOSS, NAGI ZAKA FANOUS, and
MAGED M. MOURIS, Case No. 1:18-cv-03934 (S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2018),
alleges that the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of
40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime,
and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked.

276-43 Gourmet Grocery Inc., doing business as Lucky Star Cafe,
is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the state of New York and maintains its principal place of
business in New York City.  The Individual Defendants serve or
served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of the
Defendant Corporation.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a cafe, located at 250
West 43rd Street, in New York City under the name "Lucky Star
Cafe."  The cafe is located in the Midtown West section of
Manhattan in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


AEG: Files Motion to Dismiss Ozzy Osbourne's Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Ian Courtney, writing for Celebrity Access Encore, reports that
promoter AEG has filed a motion to dismiss a class-action lawsuit
brought by rock icon Ozzy Osbourne, accusing the promoter of
anti-trust violations.

The lawsuit, filed by Osbourne in March, accuses AEG of 'tying'
performances together to force artists to who want to play at
venues like the O2 in London, to also perform at AEG venues in
competitive markets such as Los Angeles, instead of The Forum, a
rival venue operated by a joint venture between Irving Azoff and
Madison Square Garden.

In moving to dismiss, AEG claims that Ozzy's lawsuit is far from
the anti-trust case that it appears to be on the surface.  The
suit also suggests that Ozzy's suit is the latest move by AEG's
rival Live Nation to hamper their opposition in the highly
competitive Los Angeles concert market.

"This lawsuit is not what it pretends to be. On the surface,
Plaintiff John Michael 'Ozzy' Osbourne purports to bring an
antitrust lawsuit against [AEG] in the name of 'artistic freedom'
to protect artists such as himself from being 'coerced' into
performing at Staples Center instead of the Forum.  But in
reality, this case is a poorly-disguised attempt by Ozzy's
promoter, Live Nation (represented by the same lawyers), to
pressure Defendants to abandon their lawful efforts to compete
for bookings in Los Angeles and counteract Live Nation's tactics
to steer business away from venues that AEG owns."

According to AEG's motion, the key element to the Live
Nation/Ozzy commitment letter at the center of the suit is the
fact that it prevents Live Nation from promoting Ozzy's Los
Angeles show at The Forum instead of the Staples Center, but not
Ozzy himself.

From the original commitment letter stipulated in Ozzy's suit:

"As we have previously communicated, and to give effect to our
new booking policy, as a condition of entering the pencils for
The O2 Shows, we require both Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
Live Nation (Music) UK Limited (collectively 'you' or 'Live
Nation') to execute this letter agreement for the purpose of
setting forth your irrevocable and binding commitment that, if
(i) any of the aforementioned The O2 Shows are booked at The O2
arena and (ii) Ozzy Osbourne also plays an indoor arena anywhere
within twenty five (25) miles of the City of Los Angeles as part
of the same tour cycle as the aforementioned The O2 Shows and
that show/those shows is/are promoted by a Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc. group company, then you shall ensure at least
one of those Ozzy Osbourne shows in Los Angeles shall be held at
the Staples Center (the "Staples Center Commitment").  The
foregoing Staples Center Commitment shall not apply to the extent
[Ansco] or [L.A. Arena] advise you that the Staples Center is not
available on the particular date(s) in question due to another
event, although, in such instance, you agree to use your best
efforts in keeping with customary industry practice to work with
us to find mutually acceptable dates," the commitment letter
said, per the motion to dismiss memorandum.

The motion goes on to cite Live Nation's own defense of similar
practices in front of the Fourth Circuit (It's My Party, Inc. v.
Live Nation) in which LN said artists remained free to "work with
local promoters on a concert-by-concert basis and pick any venue
they want for a specific date."

Judge Dale S. Fischer of the US Central District of California
will hear the motion on July 30th.

A rep for Live Nation did not respond to a request for comment.
[GN]


AEGEAN MARINE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP on June 5 disclosed that a securities
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired the securities of Aegean Marine Petroleum
Network Inc. ("Aegean" or the "Company") (NYSE:ANW) between
April 28, 2016 and June 4, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover Aegean shareholders'
investment losses.

To join the Aegean class action, and/or if you have information
relating to this matter, please visit our AEGEAN SHAREHOLDER PAGE
or contact Daniel Sadeh toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
dsadeh@bernlieb.com.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Aegean had improperly accounted for approximately $200
million of accounts receivable as of December 31, 2017; (2)
Aegean failed to maintain effective internal control over
financial reporting; and (3) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about Aegean's business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

On June 4, 2018, during aftermarket hours, Aegean revealed "that
approximately $200 million of accounts receivable owed to the
Company at December 31, 2017 will need to be written off," as
"[t]he transactions that gave rise to the accounts receivable
("the Transactions") may have been, in full or in part, without
economic substance and improperly accounted for in contravention
of the Company's normal policies and procedures."  Aegean further
revealed that "[a] number of individuals employed by the Company
across multiple functions who are believed to have been involved
in the Transactions have been terminated or placed on
administrative leave pending the outcome of [an] investigation.
The Company has reported its preliminary findings to the SEC and
the Department of Justice and intends to cooperate with any
resulting investigations."

On this news, Aegean's stock fell $2.18, or over 75%, from its
previous closing price to close at $0.70 on June 5, 2018,
damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than August 6, 2018.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose
to take no action, you may remain an absent class member.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP -- http://www.bernlieb.com
-- has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients.  In addition
to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained
by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the
country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their
behalf.  As a result of its success litigating hundreds of
lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The
National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and
listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. [GN]


AKORN PHARMA: Judge Awards $6MM in Attorneys' Fees
--------------------------------------------------
Diana Novak Jones, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois
federal judge on June 5 awarded Pomerantz LLP and Glancy Prongay
& Murray LLP more than $6 million in attorneys' fees in a class
action brought by Akorn Pharmaceuticals investors who claimed
that Akorn Inc. failed to properly track its finances, leading
the company to misstate its revenue.

About two months after he signed off on the $24 million
settlement in the litigation, U.S. District Judge Gary Feinerman
awarded the fees and $10,000 in incentive awards for each of the
three named plaintiffs.

The case is  In re Akorn, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:15-cv-01944 (N.D. Ill.).  The case is assigned to  Judge
Honorable Gary Feinerman.  The case was filed March 4, 2015. [GN]


ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: "Checkman" Files Securities Class Suit in Ca.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Checkman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Allegiant Travel Company, Maurice J.
Gallagher, Jr., and Scott Sheldon, Case No. 2:18-cv-03417 (C.D.
Calif., April 24, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of
Allegiant between June 8, 2015 and April 13, 2018, both dates
inclusive.

The Plaintiff purchased Allegiant common stock during the Class
Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal
securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements
and/or material omissions alleged herein.

The Defendant Allegiant is a Nevada corporation with substantial
operations located in Los Angeles, California. Allegiant focuses
on the provision of travel services and products to residents of
under-served cities in the United States. The company offers
scheduled air transportation on limited frequency nonstop flights
between under-served cities and leisure destinations. The
Company's securities are traded on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol
"ALGT.

The Individual Defendants are officers of Allegiant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 785-2610
      Fax: (213) 226-4684
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


AMP: Slater & Gordon Files Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that AMP will face a fourth
shareholder class action with Slater and Gordon the latest law
firm to launch proceedings against the embattled wealth manager.

AMP has been hit with a fourth shareholder class action over the
scandals revealed at the banking royal commission and the
resulting damage to the embattled financial giant's market value.

Law firm Slater and Gordon on June 7 said it had filed
proceedings against the wealth management business in the Federal
Court of Australia, adding that it will act on a no-win, no-fee
basis.

AMP -- which has admitted charging customers for financial advice
that was never given and subsequently lying to the corporate
watchdog about its behaviour -- is also facing class actions from
law firms Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Phi Finney McDonald
and Shine Lawyers.

There is also one potential proceeding lingering from Maurice
Blackburn Lawyers which has previously said it will charge a 12.5
per cent commission on successful completion of the case -- a
rate it hopes will tempt aggrieved shareholders away from
competing actions.

Slater and Gordon has said that hundreds of mum and dad investors
and dozens of institutions have contacted the law firm and were
"rightly furious" about AMP's conduct.

The revelations heard at the royal commission sent AMP shares
spiralling to a six-year low, stripping more than $2 billion off
the wealth manager's market value.

They also triggered the departure of AMP chief executive Craig
Meller and chairman Catherine Brenner.

Slater and Gordon says the class action is open to investors who
acquired shares in AMP between June 7, 2012, and April 15, 2018.
[GN]


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action in Colorado Over Defective Watch
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patently Apple reports that Kenneth Sciacca of Colorado filed a
class action against Apple on June 4th in San Jose California
seeking $5 million for their refusal to acknowledge a common
complaint about every edition of the Apple Watch.  According to
the Plaintiff "The Watches all contain the same defect and/or
flaw, which causes the screens on the Watches to crack, shatter,
or detach from the body of the Watch (the "Defect"), through no
fault of the wearer, oftentimes only days or weeks after
purchase."

Nature of Action

Mr. Sciacca's formal complaint before the court provides a
segment called the "Nature of the Action" which is provided below
in full.  It should be noted that all highlighting has been done
by Patently Apple.

"Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the
proposed class (the "Class"), as more fully defined below, for
the benefit and protection of all current and former owners of
the First Generation ("Series 0"), Second Generation ("Series 1"
and "Series 2"), and Third Generation ("Series 3") models of the
Apple Watch ("Watch" or "Watches") purchased in the United
States. Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated persons to obtain damages,
restitution, as well as injunctive and other relief.

Apple started selling the Watches in April 2015, when it
introduced its Series 0 Watches to consumers. Since April 2015,
Defendant has released two additional "generations" of the Apple
Watch: the Series 1 and Series 2 Watches; and the Series 3 Watch.

The Watches all contain the same defect and/or flaw, which causes
the screens on the Watches to crack, shatter, or detach from the
body of the Watch (the "Defect"), through no fault of the wearer,
oftentimes only days or weeks after purchase.

Apple knew that the Watches were defective at or before the time
it began selling them to the public.  Furthermore, consumers
complained to Apple about the Defect almost immediately after
Apple released the Series 0, Series 1, Series 2, and Series 3
Watches.

Shortly after the release of the Series 0 Watch in April 2015,
consumers began to complain that the screens on their Watches
were spontaneously detaching from the body of their Watches.

Apple has persistently denied any widespread issue with Series 0
Watches, but in April 2017, Apple acknowledged a swelling battery
defect in certain Series 0 Watches and extended its Limited
Warranty for qualifying Series 0 Watches from one year to three
years.

Apple began to sell its Series 1 and Series 2 Watches in
September 2016.  Shortly thereafter, consumers who purchased the
Series 1 and Series 2 Watches complained that the screens on
their Series 1 and Series 2 Watches had cracked, shattered, or
completely detached from the body of their Watches.  Like their
Series 0 brethren, these consumers took their defective Watches
to Apple Stores, contacted Apple Support, and posted their
complaints on the "Communities" forum on apple.com.

Apple has persistently denied any widespread issue with Series 1
or Series 2 Watches, but, upon information and belief, in
April 2018, Apple acknowledged a swelling battery defect in
certain Series 2 Watches and extended its Limited Warranty for
qualifying Series 0 Watches from one year to three years.

Apple started selling its Series 3 Watch in September 2017.
Shortly thereafter, consumers who purchased the Series 3 Watch
reported that the screens on their Watches were cracking,
shattering, or detaching from the body of their Watches, and
lodged their complaints with Apple in the manners described
above.

Since 2015, Apple has sold millions of Watches with the Defect
throughout the United States, and either knew, or should have
known, that the Watches contain the Defect and are not fit for
their intended purpose.  Nonetheless, Apple has actively
concealed and failed to disclose the Defect to Plaintiff and
Class members prior to, at, or after the time of purchase.

Further, Apple's conduct, when confronted with the Defect,
indicates that its internal policy is to deny the existence of
the Defect, claim the Defect is the result of "accidental damage"
caused by consumers, and then refuse to honor its Limited
Warranty on those grounds.  Without Limited Warranty coverage,
consumers are forced to incur the significant expense of
repairing or replacing their defective Watches.

Apple knew that purchasers of the Watches would reasonably expect
the screens to function in a predictable and expected manner
during normal use, and Plaintiff and other consumers have
precisely that expectation.  Also, Apple knew that purchasers of
the Watches would reasonably expect the Defect -- when it
manifested itself -- to be covered under its Limited Warranty,
and again, Plaintiff and other consumers did have that
expectation.

Had Plaintiff and other Class members known about the Defect at
the time of purchase, they would not have bought the Watches, or
would have paid less for them.

As a result of the Defect in the Watches and monetary costs
associated with repair, replacement, or lost use of the Watches,
Plaintiff and Class members have suffered injury in fact,
incurred damages, and have otherwise been harmed by Apple's
conduct.

This action is brought to remedy violations of state consumer
protection statutes in connection with Apple's misconduct,
including its conscious effort to conceal material facts
concerning the Defect during the distribution, marketing, sale
and advertisement of the Watches, as well the consumer and
warranty services performed with respect to the Watches.

Plaintiff and the Class assert claims under the Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL" or "Section 17200"), Business and
Professions Code Sec. 17200, et seq., and the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Civil Code Sec. 1750, et seq."

Causes for Action

Count 1: UNLAWFUL BUSINESS ACTS AND PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF
CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE Secs. 17200

Count 2: VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES ACT, CAL. CIV.
CODE Secs. 1750

Count 3: BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

Count 4: BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

Count 5: MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT

Count 6: UNJUST ENRICHMENT [GN]


ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Jones" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Tanea Jones, on behalf of
herself individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
03465 (E.D. N.Y., June 13, 2018).

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is a Data recovery service in Des
Plaines, Illinois.[BN]


AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Sydney Light Rail Project
------------------------------------------------------------
Lanie Tindale, writing for altmedia, reports that the Sydney
Light Rail project has another headache coming its way as
businesses and residents along its route are about to launch a
class action suit for losses and damages to property.

The class action will be brought by CBD cafe owner and City of
Sydney councillor Angela Vithouklas, who has had her George
Street business severely impacted by the project.

"We knew that we were never going to be treated fairly in terms
of compensation and that there were many businesses that were
described as ineligible under the current criteria, and then
there were residents that don't fit any sort of criteria and have
been stonewalled in regards to their homes," Angela Vithouklas
said.

Coming on top of the debacle with project sub- contractor ACCIONA
Australia who are taking the State Government to court for $1.1
billion for what is says was misleading information supplied in
regards to power infrastructure for 106 utility pits controlled
by AusGrid.

ACCIONA are currently on a go-slow while they tangle with the
government with no resolution or settlement in sight.

"Since January of this year there has been infrequent work and
weeks and days go by with nobody working, so clearly the go-slow
is happening here," Ms Vithouklas said.

"On the days when they feel like working there is massive noise
and there does not appear to be any project management happening
and no information about when construction is going to occur."

In 2017 the NSW Government admitted that costs for the 12km track
had blown out by $500 million, but that figure is expected to
rise before the project's now estimated completion date of 2020.

Meanwhile many small businesses have gone to the wall or are
suffering financial hardships from which they may never recover.

"My last count of the businesses that have gone bankrupt due to
the light rail would be close to 50," Ms Vithouklas said.

"There are a lot of businesses that are hanging on because they
feel compelled to and there are a lot of businesses that can't
walk away because of their legal obligations such as leases."

Ms Vithouklas says that over the past few months she has been
working with a team of six to get businesses and residents to
sign on and now has a couple of hundred signed on and a law firm
on board.

"All the signatures have been collected online and because I have
been fighting the light rail for some years now we have been able
to reach a lot of people," Ms Vithouklas said.

While transport minister Andrew Constance has been the unsteady
hand in public for the project, it is in fact the pet project of
Premier Gladys Berijiklian, as she was the transport minister
when the coalition came to power in 2011 and oversaw the
project's formative years of planning.

The Government at the time saw the project as a jewel in their
crown to be unveiled to grateful Sydneysiders in time for the
2019 elections.

The whole debacle was foreshadowed in 2012 when Infrastructure
NSW's then chief executive Paul Broad and then chairman Nick
Greiner both warned the Government that a pitfall of delays and
financial problems lay ahead.

In 2012 Mr Broad told the ABC: "If you add light rail to George
Street you will not fix a problem, you will create a problem."

By 2013 Gladys was pondering 10 possible routes for the light
rail, and despite warnings that Devonshire Street was
inappropriate, she went ahead with that route that saw the
demolition of Olivia Gardens in Surry Hills, making 70 long term
residents uncertain of their futures.

Writing in the SMH in 2014, Nick Miller warned that "subterranean
surprises" could be major risks.

Gladys and her current Passepartout, Andrew Constance, could have
also looked at the tram wreck that occurred with the Edinburgh
project that saw costs blow-out by three times estimations and
build time double, while less the half the planned line was
produced.

That project also saw one of its main contractors, Bilfinger
Berger, sue Transport Initiatives Edinburgh for similar
underground problems encountered by ACCIONA in Sydney.

In January of this year City Hub wrote about the residents of
Parkham Street, Surry Hills, who had been battling for
compensation for damages to their properties with no results.

Barbara Best, one of the residents interviewed for that article,
has signed onto the class action saying: "I have been trying to
get settlement for at least a couple of years and there has been
no progress."

Ms Vithouklas will make a public announcement regarding the class
action later this month and is calling for more people to sign
on, particularly people who have suffered damage to their homes.

"To continually keep telling people affected by the light rail
that it is short term pain for long term gain is one of the
biggest insults that this government has ever put forward to its
people," Ms Vithouklas said.

For those interested in joining the class action go to
sydneylightrailclassaction.info. [GN]


AUTORAMA ENTERPRISES: "Comas" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN COMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-
situated v. AUTORAMA ENTERPRISES OF BRONX INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-
03892 (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2018), seeks to recover overtime
compensation that the Defendant allegedly failed to pay the
Plaintiff and others pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

Autorama Enterprises of Bronx, Inc., is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the state of New York with its
principal place of business located in Bronx, New York.  Autorama
provides towing and auto repair services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory N. Filosa, Esq.
          Ariel Y. Graff, Esq.
          FILOSA GRAFF LLP
          111 John Street, Suite 2510
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 256-1780
          Facsimile: (212) 256-1781
          E-mail: gfilosa@filosagraff.com
                  agraff@filosagraff.com


AWA COLLECTIONS: Faces "Porter" Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Awa Collections.
The case is styled as Ashley Porter, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Awa Collections
and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-01050 (C.D.
Cal., June 13, 2018).

AWA Collections is a licensed and bonded collection agency in
Orange, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BANK OF AMERICA: Pushed Homeowners Into Foreclosure, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deon Roberts, writing for The Charlotte Observer, reports that a
lawsuit says Bank of America misled borrowers trying to hang onto
their homes, pushing them into foreclosure while it enriched
itself off a federal mortgage-modification program.

The suit, filed this month in federal court in Charlotte, is the
latest to allege the Charlotte-based company abused homeowners
seeking to reduce their mortgage payments through the Home
Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP.  The U.S. Treasury
Department launched the program in 2009 following the financial
crisis to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure.

Brought by 11 borrowers across the U.S., including one in North
Carolina's New Hanover County, the suit was initially filed in
May in Mecklenburg County Superior Court before being moved to
federal court.  The suit says it involves individual borrowers
after a federal judge in Massachusetts in 2013 denied a request
to grant class-action certification for a case against Bank of
America involving HAMP applicants from across the U.S.

In issuing that rejection, the judge determined that borrowers
had been subjected to a "Kafkaesque bureaucracy" and that they
had plausibly alleged Bank of America "utterly failed" to
administer modifications in a timely and efficient way.  But the
judge also said the various claims were too different to justify
folding them into a single class-action case.

In a court filing addressing the latest suit, Bank of America
made a similar argument, saying the 11 borrowers were improperly
filing a single case when their claims were distinct and
unrelated.  The bank declined to comment beyond the filing.

Many allegations in the new case are similar to, or cite, those
made in previous lawsuits against Bank of America over its
handling of HAMP applicants.

Among claims in the latest suit:

   -- Bank of America falsely told applicants they had to stop
making regular monthly mortgage payments to be eligible for a
HAMP modification.  It was part of the bank's scheme to prevent
borrowers from receiving a modification so that it could acquire
their homes through foreclosure.

   -- Bank of America employees made homeowners submit
applications over and over in order to frustrate them, ensuring
that their mortgage would be denied a modification.  Applications
were intentionally lost or destroyed to prevent borrowers from
getting a modification.  The bank's employees also falsely told
applicants that documents were not current or were missing, in
order to delay modification requests and ultimately deny them.

   -- Bank of America profited from charging borrowers fees for
unnecessary and unlawful property inspections. The bank did not
tell borrowers the inspections were taking place or that they
were being charged for them.

The North Carolina borrower, Chester Taylor, contacted the bank
in 2010 to request a modification after experiencing financial
hardship in part because of the down economy, the suit says.

Mr. Taylor stopped making his mortgage payments on the advice of
a bank representative, fell into default and Bank of America
foreclosed on his home in 2012.  As a result of the foreclosure,
a judgment of $117,130 was entered against Taylor, who then filed
for bankruptcy.

Bank of America has previously attracted the scrutiny of
government authorities for its conduct under HAMP.  In 2012, it
entered into a settlement with authorities to resolve claims it
defrauded the program as part of a landmark $25 billion
settlement involving other large banks accused of mortgage and
foreclosure abuses.

Last year, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset
Relief Program, the federal bailout program for the financial
system, issued a report to Congress that said Bank of America had
denied 79 percent of HAMP applicants.  That performance required
deeper Treasury scrutiny into whether the bank is properly
evaluating homeowners, according to the report.

The bank has one of the worst track records in HAMP, the report
said, adding: "This should be unacceptable given that Bank of
America has already received about $2 billion from Treasury for
HAMP." [GN]


BARLEAN'S: Accused by Brannon of Mislabeling Supplement Powders
---------------------------------------------------------------
CORY BRANNON, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. BARLEAN'S, Case No. 3:18-cv-00981-BEN-WVG (S.D. Cal.,
May 17, 2018), arises out of the Defendant's alleged unlawful
merchandising practices with respect to its Barlean's Greens
Supplement Powders.

Mr. Brannon notes that the Defendant labels and advertises the
Products as, among other things, "NATURE'S PERFECT SUPERFOOD," a
"Pathway to a better life," "Vegan Superfood," and as containing
"Antioxidant Power."  In addition, the Defendant states on the
label of the Products that they are a "premium superfood created
to:" "Support cleansing of organs and tissues"; "Super-Boost your
health and ENERGY"; "Help improve digestion"; "Aid the body's
natural detoxification"; and "Promote a healthy immune system."

These uniform, material representations are false and misleading
because they are not substantiated and, therefore, violate the
Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, Mr. Brannon
contends.  He adds that the representations are false and
misleading because the Products contain lead, which is harmful,
rather than beneficial, to a consumer's health.

Barlean's is a Washington Corporation, with principal offices in
Ferndale, Washington.  The Company manufactures, labels, markets,
promotes, advertises, and sells Barlean's Greens Products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Naomi Spector, Esq.
          Christopher D. Moon, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLP
          9404 Genesee Avenue, Suite 340
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (310) 400-1053
          Facsimile: (212) 202-6364
          E-mail: nspector@kamberlaw.com
                  cmoon@kamberlaw.com


BAUBLE BAR: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bauble Bar, Inc.
The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bauble Bar, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03447 (E.D. N.Y., June 13, 2018).

BaubleBar Inc. engages in the online retail of jewelry in the
United States and internationally. It provides necklaces,
earrings, bracelets, rings, and personalized products. BaubleBar
Inc. was formerly known as eight1six, Inc. The company was
incorporated in 2010 and is based in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BLACKWATER TESTING: "Coppola" Suit Seeks Payment of OT Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIK JAMES COPPOLA, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. BLACKWATER TESTING, INC., a Florida Corporation, NEW
LINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida Corporation, XYZ ENTITIES 1-
10, and DENNIS W. DUFFY, individually, Case No. 9:18-cv-80663-DMM
(S.D. Fla., May 18, 2018), demands for the payment of all alleged
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs of suit under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Blackwater, New Line and XYZ Entities are all doing business as
Blackwater Testing and are owned and managed/operated by Dennis
W. Duffy.  The XYZ Entities comprise or operate one or more
divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliated companies of Blackwater.

The Defendants have owned and operated a business providing
windows, doors, and hurricane protection product testing and
related services to commercial customers in numerous locations,
including Italy, Colombia, Puerto Rico, and throughout United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith M. Stern, Esq.
          Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
          One Flagler
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 901-1379
          Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
          E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
                  hsolis@workingforyou.com

CANADA: Wagner & Associates Mulls Nursing Home Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Henderson, writing for Chronicle Herald, reports that
Halifax law firm Wagner & Associates is taking "a serious look"
at a potential class action with respect to allegations of
negligence in Nova Scotia nursing homes.

"Certainly we have seen a spike and have been receiving frequent
calls and emails about a lack of resources, as well as complaints
of abuse and neglect in long-term care homes," said Maddy Carter,
Esq. -- mcarter@wagners.co -- a lawyer who handles class actions
at Wagner's.  She declined to estimate how many queries the firm
has fielded.

Ms. Carter confirms that while the firm has received complaints
about homes owned by Shannex, it has also received complaints
about care at other homes.  The firm is continuing to gather
information before making any decision to narrow the target of a
possible lawsuit. In Ontario, a class action alleging negligence
was filed this spring by families of residents in facilities
owned by a company called Extendicare.

Meanwhile, leaders from three advocacy groups from different
areas of the province are teaming up to demand the government
provide better long-term care for senior citizens. Halifax-based
Advocates for the Care of the Elderly (ACE), the North Shore
Seniors Association based in Tatamagouche, and Families for
Quality Eldercare in Cape Breton held their first meeting to
discuss strategy.  Their goals include more nursing home beds and
more staff with appropriate training to care for residents.

"The government hasn't addressed it," said Bob Silverstein, co-
founder of Families for Quality Eldercare.  "Our group has only
been going for six weeks but we can see more people are starting
to come forward. With that involvement, we might be able to make
the government understand there is a crisis which is only going
to get much worse."

The Cape Breton group was started by Bob and Norma Silverstein
after Norma's father, 93-year-old John Ferguson, passed away last
October.  He was a resident of the Shannex-owned Harbourstone
Enhanced Care facility in Sydney and was admitted to the ER after
a bedsore (also known as a pressure ulcer) turned septic. Norma
Silverstein says they've been contacted by more than 50 people so
far.

Improvement plan
Shannex has responded to several recent published accounts of
alleged neglect with a letter dated May 25 to families, staff,
and the media. It states:

"Recent reports from family members concerned about care are
matters we take very seriously; our culture is one that always
strives to learn from experience so that we can do better.  As a
result, we have launched a Quality Improvement Plan in wound
prevention and management which includes a number of activities
that focus on supporting our staff and improving communication
with residents and families."

Paul Jenkinson attended the meeting on behalf of the 30 members
of the North Shore Seniors' Association.  The retired social
worker lives in the area north of Truro along the Northumberland
Strait.  He says people in his area are very satisfied with the
care provided at Willow Lodge in Tatamagouche.  The 61-bed
nursing home is modelled on the Eden Alternative, which allows
residents some control over daily decisions and incorporates
pets, gardens, and visits from volunteers and children.  The
non-profit has been run by a local board since 1969.  Mr.
Jenkinson says the problem his group has identified is there
aren't enough Willow Lodges and not enough beds for people too
frail to rely on home care.

Mr. Jenkinson says seniors tell him they feel abandoned, that
they believe "the current government is simply waiting for them
to die at home or in hospital rather than create new long-term
care beds."

Lenore Zann, MLA for Truro-Bible Hill-Millbrook, released numbers
in March obtained by the NDP through a Freedom of Information
request.  They revealed that over the last five years, 23 per
cent of the people waiting for placement in a nursing home died
in hospital.  The number of deaths in the northern zone is higher
than the provincial average of 15 per cent.  The daily cost of a
hospital bed is also higher than the cost of a long-term care bed
-- approximately five times higher, according to estimates from
the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

The McNeil government has not allocated any money for more
nursing home beds in five years.  Instead, it has invested
heavily in home-care programs to keep people in their residences.
Still, the wait for long-term care beds hovers around 1,000
people, and with more baby boomers growing older, the demand for
beds is likely to double within the next 10 years.

'For those people, there isn't time'
Gary MacLeod started ACE a dozen years ago, after his mother
spent 18 months in the VG waiting for a nursing home bed and then
had a sink fall on her head while she was a resident in a rundown
nursing home.  He agrees with Mr. Jenkinson that the coming
together of three groups represents a significant synergy in the
fight to engage politicians.

"When you have bedsores and you have people dying from
preventable medical situations and the government remains in a
bureaucratic snooze saying, 'Wait, wait, there's time' -- for
those people, there isn't time," argues Mr. Jenkinson, from North
Shore Seniors.  "If people are waiting for beds, the solution is
a bed. If people are waiting to be cared for, the solution is a
reasonable level of staffing. You could study it forever."

The Silversteins have filed a complaint under the province's
Protection of Persons in Care Act about the care Norma's father
received. Seven months later, they've been told their complaint
is still being investigated by a staffer employed by the
Department of Health's enforcement branch.  Both the Silversteins
and members of ACE say complaints regarding nursing homes should
be investigated by an arms-length agency outside government.  In
Ontario, the government created Health Quality Ontario to look
into complaints and to monitor health indicators such as falls
and pressure ulcers before making regular reports to the public.

"People have been afraid to come forward and join forces with
those who want to make changes in the care older people receive,"
said Norma Silverstein.

"Residents want to be treated like human beings and not like old
pillows waiting to be thrown out." [GN]


CHINA AGRITECH: High Court May Reverse 9th Cir.'s Decision
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Hickok, Esq. -- hickokr@pepperlaw.com -- and Gay Parks
Rainville, Esq. -- rainvilleg@pepperlaw.com -- of Pepper
Hamilton, in an article for Law.com, wrote that nearly 45 years
ago, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in
American Pipe & Construction v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 553 (1974),
holding that the filing of a class action "tolls the running of
the statute of limitations for all purported members of the class
who make timely motions to intervene after the court has found
the suit inappropriate for class action status."  A few years
later, in Crown, Cork & Seal v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 350 (1983),
the court expanded this equitable tolling rule to extend to the
filing of new individual actions.

During the first 20 years after American Pipe, U.S. Courts of
Appeal confronted with the issue (i.e., the First, Second, Fifth,
and Eleventh circuits) declined to expand American Pipe to
include the filing of new, otherwise untimely class actions.
See, e.g., Basch v. Ground Round, 139 F.3d 6, 11-12 (1st Cir.
1998); Griffin v. Singletary, 17 F.3d 356, 359 (11th Cir. 1994);
Korwek v. Hunt, 827 F. 2d 874, 877 (2d Cir. 1987); Salazar-
Calderon v. Presidio Valley Farmers Association, 765 F.2d 1334,
1351 (5th Cir. 1985).

More recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third and Eighth
Circuits have applied a more nuanced interpretation of American
Pipe, holding that its tolling principle allows the filing of new
class claims in certain limited circumstances, such as "where
class certification has been denied solely on the basis of the
lead plaintiffs' deficiencies as class representatives, and not
because of the suitability of the claims for class treatment," as
in Yang v. Odom, 392 F.3d 97, 111 (3d Cir. 2004) (emphasis
added); accord Great Plains Trust v. Union Pacific Railroad, 492
F.3d 986, 997 (8th Cir. 2007).

Beginning in 2011, however, when the Seventh Circuit issued its
decision in Sawyer v. Atlas Heating & Street Metal Works, three
circuit courts -- the Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth -- dramatically
parted ways with the majority view of American Pipe and held that
the tolling rule of that case permits the filing of any new,
otherwise time-barred class action. See Sawyer, 642 F.3d 560, 564
(7th Cir. 2011); Phipps v. Wal-Mart Stores, 792 F.3d 637, 652
(6th Cir. 2015); Resh v. China Agritech, 857 F.3d 994, 1004 (9th
Cir. 2017).

Fortunately, the Supreme Court granted China Agritech's petition
for writ of certiorari in the Ninth Circuit case and will soon
resolve this circuit conflict when it issues its opinion later
this year in China Agritech v. Resh, No. 17-432.  Though it is
impossible to predict how the court will decide the issue, some
of the justices' questions and comments during oral argument,
held on March 26, indicate that the court may be leaning toward
either reversing the Ninth Circuit's decision altogether or
adopting, as a compromise, the approach applied by the Third and
Eighth circuits.

Procedural Background
Prior to the filing of the original class action in this
protracted securities litigation, China Agritech was a NASDAQ-
listed holding company whose various subsidiaries purportedly
manufactured and sold organic compound fertilizers in China.  In
2011, China Agritech's stock price dropped following public
reports of its alleged fraudulent business practices. In 2012,
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revoked the
company's stock registration.

On Feb. 11, 2011, company shareholder Theodore Dean filed the
original class action, Dean v. China Agritech, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, alleging
that the company and several of its managers and directors
violated various federal securities laws, including, inter alia,
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange
Act), SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933 (Securities Act).  On Jan. 6, 2012, the Dean plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification, which the district court
denied on May 3, 2012. According to the court, the plaintiffs had
failed to make a showing of market efficiency and, therefore, did
not establish a fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance.  The
plaintiffs filed an appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(f), but the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
ruling.  Thereafter, the plaintiffs continued litigating, and
ultimately settled, their claims as individuals, which claims the
district court dismissed with prejudice on Sept. 20, 2012.

On Oct. 4, 2012, company shareholder Kevin Smyth filed a class
action complaint against China Agritech on behalf of the same
putative class as that alleged in the Dean action in the U.S.
District Court for the District Court of Delaware.  Notably, the
Smyth action was filed one year and eight months after the
reports of China Agritech's alleged fraudulent activity and,
therefore, was filed within the Exchange Act's two-year statute
of limitations.

The Smyth complaint was nearly identical to the Dean complaint
except that it did not allege any Securities Act violations and
did not name all of the defendants named in the Dean action.
Ultimately, the Smyth action was transferred to the Central
District of California and assigned to the same judge, Judge R.
Gary Klausner, who had been assigned the Dean action.  On Aug. 5,
2013, the Smyth plaintiffs moved for class certification.  On
Sept. 26, 2013, the district court denied the motion on grounds
that the Smyth plaintiffs failed to meet the typicality and
adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a).  On Jan. 8, 2014, the
parties agreed to dismiss the Smyth action with prejudice as to
the named plaintiffs.

On June 30, 2014, shareholder Michael Resh filed an action
against China Agritech and several individual defendants based
the same Exchange Act violations and on behalf of the same would-
be class as alleged in the Dean and Smyth actions.  As had the
Dean and Smyth actions, the Resh action was assigned to Judge
Klausner.  On Sept. 22, 2014, China Agritech and one of the
individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the Resh action on
grounds that it was time-barred under the Exchange Act's two-year
statute of limitations.  In opposition to the motions, the Resh
plaintiffs argued that the statute of limitations had been tolled
under American Pipe and, therefore, their action was timely.

On Dec. 1, 2014, the district court granted the motions to
dismiss without leave to amend, holding that the statute of
limitations was tolled for the named plaintiffs' individual
claims but not for their would-be class action.  According to the
district court, a contrary ruling "'would allow tolling to extend
indefinitely as class action plaintiffs repeatedly attempt to
demonstrate suitability for class certification on the basis of
different expert testimony and/or other evidence.'" The district
court also denied the Resh plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration, "explaining that the 'plaintiffs' class action
claims were time-barred regardless of the grounds on which class
certification was denied in the two earlier actions.'"

On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the
district court's decision, holding that the Resh plaintiffs'
claims -- whether brought individually or as named plaintiffs in
a would-be class action -- had been tolled under American Pipe
and Crown, Cork & Seal during the pendency of the Dean and Smyth
actions and, therefore, were not time barred.  The court reasoned
that such an application of American Pipe "creates no unfair
surprise to defendants because the pendency of a prior class suit
has already alerted them 'not only to the substantive claims
being brought against them, but also [to] the number and generic
identities of the potential plaintiffs who may participate in the
judgment.'"  In addition, such application "promotes economy of
litigation by reducing incentives for filing duplicative,
protective class actions because 'a putative class member who
fears that class certification may be denied would have every
incentive to file a separate action prior to the expiration of
his own period of limitations.'"

Signals From Oral Argument
During oral argument before the Supreme Court, the parties faced
a multitude of questions from several of the justices.  One line
of questioning focused on the class action "stacking" risk that
the application of American Pipe to otherwise-untimely class
actions would present, i.e., that of would-be named plaintiffs
filing a succession of class actions, extending the statute of
limitations indefinitely until certification is achieved.
Although the applicable statutes of repose would provide outer
limits to successive class claims under the Exchange Act and
Securities Act, see California Public Employees Retirement System
v. ANZ Securities, 137 S. Ct. 2042, 2051 (2017) (holding that
statutes of repose are not subject to equitable tolling), the
effect of American Pipe tolling in other class action contexts
would be to eviscerate the statute of limitations altogether.
Such an undesirable result prompted Justice Neil Gorsuch to
challenge the Resh plaintiffs' counsel: "Can you stack them
forever, so that try, try again, and the statute of limitations
never really has any force in these cases. What do we do about
that, given the congressional judgment that there should be a
statute of limitations?" After the Resh plaintiffs' counsel
discussed the possible application of various comity principles,
Justice Gorsuch asked why ruling against the Resh plaintiffs
wouldn't solve the problem, even if it encouraged the filing of
more protective filings: "We wouldn't have to create these
extraordinary rules in extending American Pipe in new ways; we'd
just create a new incentive structure that would ensure that
there are backup class actions available."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked about another possible resolution:
adopting the approach of the Third and Eighth circuits, which
"say if there's a deficiency in the plaintiff, they will permit a
follow-on class action but otherwise no."  When she asked the
Resh plaintiffs' counsel "why shouldn't we accept that
compromise," he conceded that "the compromise position would
certainly solve the problem in this case."

It appears at least from these lines of questioning that the
justices may be leaning toward either reversing the Ninth
Circuit's decision altogether and holding (as have the First,
Second, Fifth and Eleventh Circuits) that American Pipe cannot be
used to toll any otherwise-untimely class claim, or adopting the
Third Circuit and Eighth Circuit's middle ground approach, which,
according to the Third Circuit, would not lead to the stacking of
class action suits "indefinitely," Either outcome would appease
the concern, specifically expressed by Justice Gorsuch, that the
court's ultimate decision uphold "the congressional judgment that
there should be a statute of limitations." [GN]


CITY CATERING: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, "Hernandez" Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL DE LUNA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. CITY CATERING CAFE INC. (D/B/A CITY
CATERING CAFE F/D/B/A BISTRO CATERERS), JOHN DOE CORP. 1 (D/B/A
CITY CATERING CAFE F/D/B/A BISTRO CATERERS), LEX BAKERY CORP.
(D/B/A CITY CATERING CAFE F/D/B/A BISTRO CATERERS), NICHOLAS
CASTIGLIANO, GEORGE JAMISON, LEON MOORE, and STEVE TENEDIOS, Case
No. 1:18-cv-03919 (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2018), alleges that the
Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked.

City Catering Cafe Inc. (d/b/a City Catering Cafe f/d/b/a Bistro
Caterers) is a domestic corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the state of New York.  John Doe Corp. 1 (d/b/a City
Catering Cafe f/d/b/a Bistro Caterers) is a domestic corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York.
Lex Bakery Corp. (d/b/a City Catering Cafe f/d/b/a Bistro
Caterers) was a domestic corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the state of New York.  The Individual Defendants
serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of the
Defendant Corporations.

The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a catering deli and
cafe, located at 333 E. 23rd Street, in New York City under the
name "City Catering Cafe."  The catering deli and cafe is located
in the Gramercy Park section of Manhattan in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


COMMONWEALTH BANK: $700MM AUSTRAC Fine Positive for Claimants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Pelly, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that there is more pain to come for the Commonwealth Bank, with
the $700 million fine for reporting failures leaving it
vulnerable in the face of a pending class action by shareholders.

The action, launched by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers in October 2017
with backing from litigation funder IMF Bentham, was already
being touted as one of the biggest and most lucrative in
Australian history.

Now it could surpass the $200 million deal for Centro
shareholders in 2012.  A sticking point will be whether Maurice
Blackburn can make the case that the scandal had a "material
effect" on the shares, which fell 5.4 per cent in four days.

The National Head of Class Actions at Maurice Blackburn,
Andrew Watson, conceded the news was a boon for the firm's claim.

"The size of the AUSTRAC fine -- $700m is, in any one's view, a
material sum -- and the scale of the wrongdoing puts paid to any
suggestion that these issues were not material to shareholders
and should not have been revealed earlier than they were,"
Mr Watson said.

"Our view is that it clearly strengthens our claim, so it's a
positive development for all of our claimants involved in the
class action we have on foot in the Federal Court.

The firm says it has already signed up "many thousands" for its
group. The CBA may yet face another claim, with law firm Phi
Finney McDonald said to be circling.

The damning admissions contained in the agreed set of facts could
give the bank less room to move when it come to a final payout.
Negotiations will cover the impact on the bank's share price
after the scandal was revealed.  It fell from an intra-day high
of $84.69 on 3 August 2017 to an opening price of $80.11 on 7
August 2017.

Mr Watson is arguing that the fall of 5.4 per cent was "a
significant movement for an otherwise stable stock . . . it is in
the top 1 per cent of price movements for CBA shares in the past
five years."

Maurice Blackburn has alleged that CBA had "a disregard" for its
continuous disclosure obligations.  "The CBA has said that its
board was aware of the breaches in the second half of 2015 but
chose to say nothing to the ASX until 4 August 2017," Mr Watson
said.

"Materiality is judged as being something that would influence
someone to consider either selling or acquiring shares.  Can it
be contested that had CBA disclosed in 2015 that it had been
engaged in systematic failures . . . and that it was exposed to
potential for significant penalties, that that would not have
been material?"

Mr Watson does not expect a settlement any time soon: "Experience
tells us that even when corporations have made admissions in
proceedings, they will fight long and hard.  I am not expecting
that to change."

A report by the Australian Law Reform commission noted that since
2002 -- when the continuous disclosure and misleading and
deceptive conduct provisions of the Corporations Act introduced
-- 66 shareholder class actions have been filed in the Federal
Court. None has proceeded to judgment.

In the Centro settlement, Maurice Blackburn recovered $150million
for its clients and Slater and Gordon collected $50 million.  The
current top three settlements is rounded out by Aristocrat
($144.5) in 2008 and QBE ($132.5 million) in 2017. [GN]


CRYPTSY: Florida Judge Reopens Customers' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Nikhilesh De, writing for Coindesk, reports that a judge in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
reopened a case involving cryptocurrency startup Coinbase and the
now-defunct exchange service Cryptsy.

Cryptsy collapsed in early 2016 amid allegations of fraud and
mismanagement and claims that it had been hacked and subsequently
drained of its funds.  That decline-- preceded by months of
growing complaints about withdrawals and access to customer money
-- sparked a class action lawsuit that ultimately led to an $8.2
million judgment against Cryptsy's CEO, Paul Vernon.

In December 2016, a lawsuit was filed against Coinbase by the
Cryptsy class-action investors, alleging that Coinbase should
have prevented Vernon from funneling their money through the
startup's service.

Coinbase sought to argue that those customers are bound by the
arbitration agreement Vernon signed, but US District Judge
Kenneth Marra -- who is overseeing the case in Florida --
disagreed.  Two other appellate courts subsequently sided against
Coinbase, leading to Mr. Marra's June 4 order to reopen.

The plaintiff's motion to reopen the case indicated that Coinbase
did not oppose the move.

"Prior to filing this Motion, the undersigned counsel conferred
with Defendant's counsel, and has been authorized to represent
that Defendant does not oppose the relief sought herein," the
document states.

On June 1, both the plaintiffs' and defendant's counsel held a
case management conference via phone and will submit a report and
proposed schedule order. [GN]


DALLAS, TX: New Pension Law Helped Settle Back Pay Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Tristan Hallman, writing for Dallas News, reports that Dallas'
$235 million police-and-fire back pay lawsuit settlements were
made much easier because of a single line in the lengthy bill
that saved the city's first-responder pension system from
disaster.

The new law states that "eligible back pay" for pension
contributions and benefits "does not include any additional
compensation paid by the city to a member or pensioner wholly or
partly or directly or indirectly as the result of litigation
instituted to recover back pay."

That sentence -- a compromise from what the city initially wanted
-- prevents police and firefighters from claiming the Dallas
Police and Fire Pension System owes them more in benefits.  And
it halts what would've been the consequence of those additional
benefits: the retirement fund's claims for pension contributions
owed on back pay from the city and those same police and
firefighters.

City Attorney Larry Casto said the language was important to the
settlements and the pension bill. The sentence also helped "the
number crunchers" make sure the pension rescue plan worked, he
said.

"We needed to add certainty," Mr. Casto said.  "And that sentence
facilitated us coming to an accord on the pension legislation."

Mr. Casto said if the city had to pay tens of millions more to
the pension, the settlement of the decades-old suits -- the
payment of which is tied to the city's available bonding capacity
-- probably wasn't possible.

The end result of the bill might not look pretty to taxpayers.
The city will pay out $61.7 million for plaintiffs in Collin
County cases, $173.3 million for the Rockwall County class-action
suits and tens of millions more in pension contributions every
year.

But the risks were great.  Mayor Mike Rawlings had called the
lawsuits and the pension's troubles part of a dark cloud that
loomed over the city's finances and could push Dallas into
bankruptcy.  Losing the lawsuits would've meant multi-billion-
dollar judgments.  The pension system was on track to go broke
within 10 years.  And the police and fire departments were
shrinking as people quit amid the uncertainty.

The plaintiffs also had a major risk: They could have lost in
court and walked away with nothing after more than two decades of
litigation.

Mr. Casto said the settlement was "the best deal all around that
we could achieve for all the parties."

"It's a good day for the firefighters, it's a good day for the
police officers, and it's a good day for the taxpayers," he said.

Pension leaders had attached the system to the pay lawsuits as a
third party because they wanted to make sure the fund wasn't
doomed by a potential judgment that declared the city should have
forever followed the language of a 1979 pay referendum.

"Throughout the whole time of this lawsuit, we were agnostic, as
long as we were made whole," said Josh Mond, the pension system's
general counsel.

Mr. Mond wasn't sure that police and firefighters could legally
have claimed they were owed pension benefits if they had agreed
to settle the claim. And those calculations would have been
extraordinarily difficult at the very least.

But pension leaders had been concerned enough to push for
language to ensure the system got its money if it had to pay
larger benefits.

Had the pension system been on the hook to pay the benefits,
Executive Director Kelly Gottschalk said it "would've been
devastating to the pension plan" and would have "probably
bankrupted the pension fund."

The city had hoped to kill the lawsuits with the bill. But their
bid for legal immunity language went nowhere.

City leaders had also asked legislators late in the negotiations
if they could bump up the sales tax temporarily to help settle
the lawsuits, but they were told a tax increase was a non-
starter.

After the bill became law, the city late last year agreed to
settle the four Collin County pay lawsuits for a total cost of
$61.7 million. The pension system had already removed itself from
those cases.

The system remains as a party in the Rockwall County cases, but
that's only because the cases were on appeal.  Removing the
system is only one of the hurdles left for the class-action
lawsuits to clear before the settlement is officially a done
deal.  The parties also still need to determine how the
settlement will be administered and account for all the nearly
8,700 plaintiffs.

"All that will take several months, but it's all doable," said
Bob Gorsky, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

The Dallas City Council is expected to vote on the deal sometime
this summer. [GN]


EDWARD JONES: Former Broker Files Discrimination Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Corbin, writing for OnWallStreet, reports that a former
broker is suing Edward Jones over allegations of "systemic,
intentional race discrimination" and policies that "unlawfully
segregate its workforce."

Wayne Bland is asking the eastern division of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District Court of Illinois to put a halt
to the alleged discriminatory practices at the firm in a class-
action suit filed on behalf of himself and other African-American
advisors at Edward Jones.

Mr. Bland "alleges that Edward Jones employs companywide policies
and practices regarding training, compensation, partnerships and
the assignment of territories, business opportunities and sales
support that unlawfully segregate its workforce and deny African-
Americans the income and advancement opportunities because of
their race."

Mr. Bland's lawsuit targets a powerhouse in the brokerage sector,
with more than $1 trillion in AUM at the end of 2017 and a roster
of more than 16,000 brokers.

The firm's sustained growth included a sharp uptick last year,
and the firm has set out a goal of exceeding 20,000 financial
advisors, with no plans to stop there.  With that growth has come
a focus on diversifying the ranks of its workforce, which would
seem to run counter to the discriminatory behavior alleged in the
new lawsuit.

In the complaint, Mr. Bland says that he is aiming to achieve
"meaningful reform" at Edward Jones, seeking injunctive relief on
behalf of the class and other remedies, including a potential
reinstatement at the firm for him and other former brokers who
left after experiencing racial bias.

In a separate case, Mr. Bland and three other former Edward Jones
employees are suing to overturn the firm's practice of forcing
trainees to sign contracts vowing to repay training expenses of
up to $75,000 if they leave the firm within three years.

"This is the second purported class-action lawsuit that this
former financial advisor has filed against the firm in the past
two months," Alex Reed, a spokesman for Edward Jones, writes in
an email.  "As we have said previously, we strongly disagree with
the allegations in each of his lawsuits and we intend to
vigorously defend both in court."

Mr. Bland worked for Edward Jones from November 2014 to March
2016, and during that time "was denied resources and business
opportunities, including lucrative client accounts, favorable
offices and territory, sales and administrative support, and
inclusion in favorable broker teams and pooled accounts, on
account of his race," according to the complaint in the racial
discrimination suit.

He goes on to allege that Edward Jones operates with an
institutional stereotype that undervalues the abilities of black
advisors, resulting in a brokerage workforce that is 94% white.

"African-Americans are underrepresented both as FAs and in
management at Edwards Jones, and are paid substantially less than
their counterparts who are not African-American," he says in the
court filing.

In part, Mr. Bland attributes that compensation disparity to
Edward Jones' centralized oversight of its wealth management
business, where advisors are evaluated alongside their peers
based on commissions earned, and black advisors are often denied
opportunities to grow their book of business.

Advisors have two paths when starting out at Edward Jones: going
it alone at a home office, or joining up with an existing office.
In the latter scenario, advisors have the benefit of office
space, mentorship and administrative support.  In turn, advisors
who join up with those so-called Legacy or Goodknight programs
are generally far more successful than those who try to make a go
of it from a home office.

"It kind of gives you a leg up. He was given neither of those
opportunities," says George Robot, Esq. -- grobot@sfltd.com -- a
partner with the civil rights law firm Stowell & Friedman who is
representing Mr. Bland in both of his complaints.

At Edward Jones, African-Americans are "disproportionately
excluded" from those programs, Bland alleges, and says that the
firm routinely assigns African-American advisors to less
lucrative territories.

"The firm also reserves territories with greater investment
opportunities for non-African-American FAs in order to race-match
its FAs to the neighborhood demographics," the complaint alleges.

That was the experience that Bland describes in his complaint.
He claims that he was denied the opportunity to join a Goodknight
partnership, and his request to prospect in an affluent and
largely white neighborhood was rejected.  Instead, a white
advisor was assigned to that area, and Mr. Bland was relegated to
a poorer, heavily African-American neighborhood where Edward
Jones had previously closed an unsuccessful office.

Mr. Bland says that after repeated requests he managed to
negotiate a position with an established Edward Jones office, but
that he was provided a storage room for an office and was the
target of "racially hostile statements."  Mr. Bland claims that
he reported this activity to the firm's management, but then
suffered "retaliation and further discrimination."

"They really didn't take his complaint seriously," Mr. Robot
says.

Ultimately, when the senior advisor to whose office Mr. Bland had
been assigned ended up exiting the firm, he was passed up for the
book of business.

"Even though by that time Mr. Bland had been in the office, they
ended up giving it to a white trainee with lesser experience at
the firm and the industry," Mr. Robot says.  At that point, Robot
says that Mr. Bland "saw the writing on the wall" and determined
to exit the firm.

Mr. Bland is no longer registered as a broker, and instead works
as a state-registered investment advisor in North Carolina,
according to Robot.

Mr. Bland is asking for a jury to determine a monetary value for
him and other African-American advisors to recoup lost earnings
and other employment benefits.

Mr. Robot says that several African-American brokers have
expressed interest in joining the class-action case against
Edward Jones, but that it's too early to guess how large the
class might become or when the court will determine whether to
grant certification.

"We hear from people all the time, so people have been
responding," he says.  "We're just at the beginning." [GN]


EPIC SYSTEMS: Godfrey & Kahn Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Rufino Gaytan, Esq. -- rgaytan@gklaw.com -- Margaret R.
Kurlinski, Esq. -- mkurlinski@gklaw.com -- and Rebeca M. Lopez,
Esq. of Godfrey & Kahn S.C., in an article for The National Law
Review, wrote that on May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in
Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis that employees can agree to: (1)
arbitrate employment disputes; and (2) waive their right to
resolve those disputes through class and collective actions.  The
decision represents a victory for employers and may limit an
employer's financial exposure in employment disputes. Despite the
potential benefits that come with arbitration of employment
claims on an individual basis, employers should carefully
consider whether arbitration agreements make sense for their
workforce.

Background
In Epic Systems Corp., Epic Systems required its employees to
sign an arbitration agreement that included a class and
collective action waiver.  Employees who signed the agreement
thus agreed to resolve their employment disputes through
individual arbitration and also waived their right to participate
in or receive benefits from any class, collective or
representative proceedings.

An Epic employee, Jacob Lewis, signed such an agreement with
Epic.  After his employment ended and despite the agreement,
Lewis filed class and collective actions against Epic, claiming
that he and other Epic employees had been denied overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wisconsin
wage and hour laws.

Epic moved to dismiss the claim and to compel arbitration, citing
the arbitration and class waiver agreement.  The district court
denied Epic's motions, stating that the waiver was unenforceable
because it interfered with employees' right to engage in
"concerted activities" for "mutual aid or protection" under the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district
court, becoming the first appellate court to agree with the
National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) 2012 position in D.R.
Horton that such waivers were unenforceable.  As a result,
employers in Wisconsin, Indiana and Illinois have been bound by
this ruling since 2016.

The Decision
In a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme
Court overturned the Seventh Circuit and ruled the NLRA did not
grant employees a right to pursue their claims through a class or
collective action, nor did the waiver of class rights violate any
provision of the NLRA.  According to the Court, the NLRA does not
address class or collective action issues.  Instead, the NLRA
focuses on collective bargaining issues.  The Court further
stated that the Federal Arbitration Act compelled upholding the
parties' right to enter into agreements to arbitrate their wage
and hour claims.

The Epic decision upholds an employee's ability to waive his or
her right to seek damages through class and collective actions.
The Supreme Court majority has also signaled a broader approval
of arbitration agreements covering employment claims within and
outside of the wage and hour context.

Impact On Employers
For employers who do not currently use arbitration or alternative
dispute resolution agreements, the Epic decision provides an
opportunity to implement them.  Employers should weigh the
benefits of mandatory arbitration and class and collective action
waivers against the costs and challenges associated with
proceeding in such a forum.  For example, employers will need to
consider which procedures will govern the arbitration, where the
arbitration will take place, how discovery will be handled, the
fees and costs associated with arbitration (and who bears such
costs), and similar issues.

Employers who already use arbitration agreements with their
employees should consult with legal counsel to ensure those
agreements meet their needs and preferred outcomes.  While the
Epic decision gives employers certainty that they can use
arbitration agreements with class action waivers as a tool to
minimize financial exposure, such agreements must nevertheless be
well-drafted to withstand potential challenges from plaintiffs'
counsel related to the underlying enforceability of the contract.
Some plaintiffs' attorneys have also resorted to filing multiple
single arbitration claims, which can have the effect of driving
up costs and disruption for employers and can lead to differing
results for similarly-situated employees.

In addition, policymakers at the federal and state levels have
introduced legislation to limit an employer's ability to require
arbitration in cases where an employee has alleged sexual
harassment.  Aside from the potential legal issues, employers
should also consider the public relations issues associated with
requiring employees to sign arbitration agreements with class
waivers.

Because the landscape of arbitration will continue to evolve,
employers should consult with legal counsel to discuss their
options and obligations before making changes to existing
agreements, relying on arbitration agreements going forward or
implementing new agreements. [GN]


EPIC SYSTEMS: Sabino & Sabino Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Sabino, Esq., and Anthony Michael Sabino, Esq., of
Sabino & Sabino, in an article for New York Journal, wrote that
for decades now, arbitration has time and again proven its worth,
in the main because of the efficiency and economy of its
individualized resolution of disputes, and for its concomitant
exclusion of more cumbersome and expensive proceedings, such as
class actions.  Yet there are those who insist agreements to
arbitrate disputes on a one-to-one basis are voided when a
complaining party seeks to represent a class of similarly
situated claimants.

To be sure, an imposing line of Supreme Court precedents have
soundly rejected the latter proposition. We add Epic Systems
Corp. v. Lewis to that body of jurisprudence.  In this newest
ruling, the high court rejected the plaintiffs' claims to a right
to institute class litigation, and bid all parties to return to
the arbitral forum.  Epic is notable, not only for its precise
enforcement of the agreements to arbitrate, but also for the
valuable lessons it imparts regarding statutory construction and
judicial restraint.  Before proceeding, however, the discussion
of a few preliminary matters will assist in better comprehending
the import of this Epic holding.

The Federal Arbitration Act
As posited by the Epic Court, arbitration carries "the promise of
quicker, more informal, and often cheaper resolutions."
Notwithstanding contemporary recognition of arbitration's
unquestioned benefits, it must be remembered that once courts
routinely refused to enforce agreements to arbitrate.  Congress
brought this to an end in 1925 by promulgating the Federal
Arbitration Act, which proclaimed a strong federal policy
favoring arbitration.  The FAA renders "valid, legal, and
enforceable" any contractual agreement to arbitrate.  If a party
refuses to honor its obligation to arbitrate, it can be compelled
to do so.  And so, the FAA constitutes the first cornerstone of
our introductory analysis.  Next, we review the precedents which
so informed this most recent holding.

Bedrock Precedents Favoring Arbitration
A plethora of high court cases have unequivocally enforced
contracts to arbitrate on a one-to-one basis, including venerable
decisions less than a decade old refuting assertions that the
nominal right to proceed on behalf of a class of claimants
eradicates the obligation to arbitrate.  For our purposes here,
we need exposit only three such landmarks.

Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon was a bellwether case
for individualized arbitration on Wall Street and elsewhere.
There Justice Sandra Day O'Connor made abundantly clear that even
valuable and complex federal claims such as securities fraud
could be the subject of arbitration proceedings, and not
courtroom litigation, provided the parties had contracted for
alternative dispute resolution.  McMahon was the watershed by
which the predominant practice on Wall Street has long called for
the arbitration of most customer/stockbroker and employee/firm
disputes.

Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animalfeeds International Corp. provided
one of the first instances where a party contended it was
entitled to arbitrate class claims.  Writing for the court,
Justice Alito opined that arbitration is a matter of consent, not
coercion. Courts can only enforce the bargain that the parties
voluntarily reached, and if that accord does not accommodate
collective action, then class proceedings are barred.

Stolt-Neilsen further posited that the rules of class actions are
antithetical to the individualized nature of arbitration.
Therefore, any right to bring class claims before an arbitrator
must be explicit, and never inferred. Finding no such stipulation
in that case, the court returned the parties to one-to-one
adjudication.

Stolt-Neilsen was soon followed by AT& T Mobility, LLC v.
Concepcion, where the claimants had agreed to arbitrate any
disputes with their telecom provider.  Subsequently, they claimed
a state law doctrine negated the arbitral accord, and they should
be permitted to litigate a class action instead.  In one of his
most formidable opinions, the late Justice Scalia declared that
such state law obstacles to arbitration had been eradicated by
the FAA in 1925, and, furthermore, these erstwhile class
representatives had lawfully contracted away any right to proceed
as class representatives.

Given these powerful declarations by the court that agreements to
arbitrate must be enforced, and parallel rights to class actions
can be waived by agreeing to one-to-one resolutions, we now turn
to Epic as the next step in the natural evolution of this
jurisprudence.

'Epic' -- The FAA Controls
Epic consolidated three appeals, only one which the court found
illustrative.  As a condition of his employment at the "Big Four"
accounting firm Ernst & Young, a junior accountant contractually
agreed to the individual arbitration of any disputes, to the
exclusion of class litigation.  Contending federal labor law
negated the prior accord, he sought to litigate wage and hour
claims on behalf of a class. Not surprisingly, the former
employer sought a return to the arbitral forum for one-to-one
adjudication.

As its foremost ruling, the Supreme Court unequivocally held the
FAA mandated enforcement of the agreement to arbitrate.  Writing
for the court, Justice Gorsuch reminds the FAA is the embodiment
of "a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements,"
requiring courts to rigorously enforce arbitral accords according
to their terms.  Here, the parties contracted for individualized
arbitration, and eschewed collective action. "And this much the
Arbitration Act seems to protect pretty absolutely," found the
court.

Furthermore, declared Justice Gorsuch, courts are not permitted
to "reshape traditional individualized arbitration by mandating
classwide arbitration procedures without the parties' consent."
Here Epic embodies the principle announced in Stolt-Nielsen that
arbitration is a matter of contract, not coercion.

Class Actions Not a Contractual Defense
Next, the court had to decide whether or not the putative class
representatives possessed a contractual defense that could defeat
the arbitration accord.  The plaintiffs here had alleged that
their purported right to proceed via a collective action was akin
to prosaic counters to contract enforcement, such as fraud or
duress, which undeniably hold the power to unravel an agreement
to arbitrate.

The high bench rejected that contention.  The majority agreed
that traditional contract defenses can indeed nullify an arbitral
proviso.  Yet it is equally true that a defense applicable solely
to arbitration or which derives its meaning from the fact that
the underlying accord is one to arbitrate does not fall within
that category.  This would include a defense that targets
arbitration by name or "by more subtle methods." In finding such
obstacles antithetical to the FAA, the keen influence of
Concepcion is much in evidence here.

FAA and Labor Law Not in Conflict
In their final argument, the claimants insisted that the FAA was
negated by labor statutes, specifically the National Labor
Relations Act (the "NLRA").  Once more, the Supreme Court
heartily disagreed.

Observing that these respective bodies of law "have long enjoyed
separate spheres of influence," and have co-existed for over
eight decades, the court's newest justice opined that "[i]t is
this court's duty to interpret Congress's statutes as a
harmonious whole rather than at war with one another."
Admittedly, federal labor law is protective of employee rights to
unionize and bargain collectively. Nevertheless, Justice Gorsuch
made the pithy observation that the NLRA "says nothing about how
judges and arbitrators must try legal disputes that leave the
workplace and enter the courtroom or arbitral forum."  This
segment of Epic reflects McMahon, wherein the court of three
decades ago found harmony, not discord, between the FAA and the
federal securities laws.

And for the Next Case . . .
In a fitting coda, Justice Gorsuch imparted the following wisdom
for the future.  He called for the court to be on guard against
"new devices" intended to confound agreements to arbitrate, and
to remain steadfast in rejecting efforts by some to "conjure
conflicts between the FAA and other federal statutes."

Next, the court invoked inviolate axioms of constitutional law in
support of its Epic holding.  "[R]espect for separation of powers
counsels restraint," where, as here, "the respective merits of
class actions and private arbitration as a means of enforcing the
law are questions constitutionally entrusted not to the courts to
decide but to the policymakers in the political branches."  In
words we shall no doubt see again, Justice Gorsuch proclaimed it
is the function of Congress to enact legislation, not for the
court to suppose what the law is. And there Epic ends, with the
agreements for individualized arbitration being enforced in full,
and the calls for class actions stoutly rejected.

Closing -- An 'Epic' Decision Favoring Arbitration
The clarity of Epic allows us to be brief.  The Federal
Arbitration Act has long embodied a strong federal policy
favoring arbitration as a valid means of alternative dispute
resolution.  The Supreme Court continues to uphold agreements to
arbitrate, most especially here in the 21st Century, and has
consistently found that nominal rights to proceed in class
actions do not invalidate arbitral accords.  Moreover, this
decision bestows valuable lessons in separation of powers and
judicial restraint, making it a truly Epic decision.

Michael A. Sabino is an attorney in the New York office of
Kennedys where his practice includes commercial and insurance
coverage litigation.  Anthony Michael Sabino is a partner at
Sabino & Sabino and a professor of law at Tobin College of
Business at St. John's University. [GN]


EPIC SYSTEMS: Uber Lawyer Lauds SCOTUS Arbitration Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Erin Mulvaney, writing for The Recorder, reports that Uber
Technologies Inc. told a federal appeals court that the recent
U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld class action bans in
employment contracts should defeat claims from the ride-hailing
company's drivers that their arbitration agreements are unlawful.

"Epic Systems ends any possible argument that the arbitration
agreements should not be enforced," Gibson Dunn's Theodore
Boutrous tells the Ninth Circuit. [GN]


EPIC SYSTEMS: Hancock Attorney Comments on SCOTUS Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Karen Michael, Esq., of KarenMichael PLC, in an article for
Richmond Times-Dispatch, reports that employers frequently
require that employees enter in certain agreements upon hire as a
condition of employment, to include non-competition, non-
disclosures and non-solicitation.

In some cases, employers also will require that employees agree
to arbitrate employment disputes, in lieu of filing them in state
or federal court, or being included as part of a class action.

In May, the U.S. Supreme Court split 5-4 in deciding that these
arbitration clauses are legal and do not violate federal law.
Newly appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority.

In Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, the employer and the employee
entered into a contract providing for individualized arbitration
proceedings to resolve employment disputes between the parties.
Despite signing these agreements, certain employees sought to
litigate Fair Labor Standards Act and related state law claims
through class or collective actions in federal court.

The employers sought to enforce the arbitration agreements
pursuant to the Arbitration Act and deny the employees the right
to participate in class or collective actions.

The Supreme Court held that the agreement to arbitrate
individualized disputes must be upheld.  The employees were thus
prohibited from bringing suit in court, or joining a collective
or class action.

Previous to the case, there was a split in the law on whether
these agreements that provided the class action waivers were
enforceable.  This Supreme Court decision resolves the conflict.

Kimberly Daniel, Esq. -- kdaniel@hancockdaniel.com -- a partner
with Richmond-based Hancock, Daniel & Johnson P.C., said
employers can now safely use arbitration clauses as a valuable
tool to efficiently resolve individual workplace disputes.  She
said this case is especially significant for national and
regional employers because it settles a split between the circuit
courts that had subjected these employers to conflicting rulings
over the enforceability of class action waivers in arbitration
agreements.

"With this important legal issue settled, now is an ideal time
for employers to develop arbitration agreements that include
class action waivers," Ms. Daniel said.

She says the arbitration process is quick and inexpensive in
comparison to litigation, and a well-drafted arbitration
agreement will greatly reduce an employer's litigation risk.

In addition, she said that for many employers, the cost and risks
associated with even meritless class action litigation have led
to countless and extremely costly settlements.

Finally, there is no one-size-fits-all agreement for every
company.  She said employers should create an arbitration
agreement and process that is right for the company, to include
the establishment of important terms such as where the
arbitration will take place, the process for selecting the
arbitrator and when claims must be filed.

Employers who do not have such agreements in place should
consider implementing them for new and current employees.
[GN]


EPIC SYSTEMS: SCOTUS Ruling to Have Implications for NLRA
---------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Chen, writing for The Nation, reports that when you sign
a job contract, read the fine print: If it contains a mandatory-
arbitration clause, you're likely signing away your rights, too.
In a decision that will have widespread ramifications, the
Supreme Court basically barred workers nationwide from launching
class-action lawsuits against employers.  In the ruling in the
case, Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, five justices made it that
much harder for workers to collectively seek justice in court
against employers' abuses at work.

For an individual worker, the ruling would channel a typical
workplace grievance -- even one dealing with major questions of
civil and labor rights -- into an individual mandatory-
arbitration process, effectively controlled by the employer.
These mandatory-arbitration procedures are just like a regular
court . . .  except that the judge is your boss and the jury is
stacked with corporate attorneys. With virtually no rules on
transparency or discovery, your rights are compromised before the
"trial" begins.

The class action, on the other hand, is one of the key legal
mechanisms workers have to raise their collective voice on issues
of wage theft, discrimination, sexual abuse, and other rights
violations at work.  Even those not in a union can join a broad,
self-defined class of plaintiffs sharing a grievance (like a
warehouse that pays all workers minimum wage, or a supervisor
known to target women workers for sexual harassment).  Class-
action suits have been an extremely effective mechanism for
seeking justice for violations ranging from unsafe working
conditions to racially biased hiring.

According to Celine McNicholas, director of labor law and policy
at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the majority ruling,
which takes an extremely pro-business reading of employment law,
is "striking at the heart of workers' ability to act
collectively, which makes it all the more difficult for them to
access not only wage-and-hour protections but, obviously,
discrimination protections across the board."

In the Epic Systems ruling, nothing less than the enforcement of
civil-rights law at work is at stake.  In 2001, a landmark sex-
discrimination case brought by Walmart workers went to the
Supreme Court, which determined that Walmart had systematically
discriminated against 1.6 million women workers by paying them at
a lower scale than male coworkers.  Thanks to their certification
as a legal class, the women won an historic settlement and
changed the company's policies against gender discrimination.
But since then, various changes to court procedures and now the
added final blow of Epic Systems have built a brick wall around
giant employers like Walmart.  In the future, big-box retailers
might be shielded from lawsuits by workers bringing wage-and-hour
claims on a big-box scale.

In a typical individual arbitration, the company orchestrates the
proceedings, so even workers protesting, say, the top manager's
racial epithets or the company's wage theft schemes will be
judged by a tribunal controlled by the alleged abuser.  By
contrast, in a class action, workers collaboratively challenge
violations in a transparent public arena.  But without the
ability to pool claims together, poorer workers face daunting
financial barriers due to high litigation costs.  So the Epic
Systems ruling renders workers virtually defenseless, as long as
they are barred from banding together on a claim.

Faced with such high barriers to justice, Ms. McNicholas says,
"being able to have that leverage that they can exert when
they're acting in concert with one another is critical to them to
be able to access their rights."  And bosses have much less to
fear for flouting labor standards, explains Ms. McNicholas, when
arbitration contracts provide "a way of employers getting around
all of the hard-fought, hard-won worker protections that exist
across different statutes . . . you waive it on your first day on
the job."

Forcing workers to sign arbitration agreements is already a
widespread practice; binding arbitration contracts are estimated
to cover some 80 percent of private-sector employees by 2024.
The Epic Systems ruling "will leave more than 85 million workers
subject to mandatory arbitration agreements with class and
collective action waivers," according to the EPI.

The case is especially relevant for the future of the enforcement
of the National Labor Relations Act, as the ruling turns on the
question of whether federal workplace rights also extend to
taking legal action as a collective.  The Court sided with the
bosses, ruling that, outside of the union context, the nation's
central labor law doesn't allow workers to band together to fight
labor violations affecting a whole workplace.  The impact will be
compounded by a parallel ruling in a separate Supreme Court case,
Janus v. AFSCME, which is expected to stifle unions' ability to
effectively represent workplaces in collective-bargaining
agreements.  While unions will suffer from that ruling, the
Century Foundation's Moshe Marvit and Leo Gertner point out that
Epic Systems threatens "to destroy the protections that non-union
workers currently enjoy for actions taken short of filing
lawsuits."  The perverse reading of labor law by "Gorsuch and his
conservative billionaire backers . . . places workers' concerns
on wage theft, racial discrimination, sexual harassment,
immigration, safety issues, and other matters beyond the NLRA's
purview."

The #MeToo movement has highlighted another common use of legal
gags imposed on workers: Non-disclosure agreements and forced-
arbitration systems are a convenient tool for silencing the
claims of survivors, forcing them to agree to a settlement check
and a lifetime of silence.  Recently legislation and policies
have been proposed to curtail the use of mandatory arbitration in
consumer and sexual-harassment claims, but the Epic Systems
ruling highlights how the assault on access to justice poses a
risk for all workers as well.

"There's never been a more important time for worker advocates to
really speak up and to demand something of government,"
Ms. McNicholas says, "so that labor and employment rights don't
get so marginalized that there's no path back . . . to meaningful
protections."  With the nation's courtrooms now closing off to
workers' rights, the labor movement's ability to hold employers
accountable might soon hinge instead on the ultimate judgement at
the ballot box: "We absolutely have to demand that we have folks
in office who prioritize these issues above and beyond all else."

For now, the high court has outsourced its judicial duties to the
quasi-tribunals of corporate America; its verdict is that the
struggle for justice at work is simply none of the public's
business. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Quebec Court Refuses to Stay Data Breach Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Jean-Philippe Mathieu, Esq. -- jpmathieu@mccarthy.ca -- of
McCarthy Tetrault LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that the
Quebec Superior Court ("QCSC") has refused to stay the Quebec
class action relating to the Equifax data breach in 2017, despite
five substantially similar class proceedings currently ongoing in
other Provinces. In Li c. Equifax inc., 2018 QCCS 1892, ("Li")
the QCSC confirmed that class actions in other provinces can only
potentially be the basis for a stay of a Quebec class action if
the other actions were filed before the Quebec proceeding.  Li is
also of interest because the judge held that, after Asselin c.
Desjardins Cabinet de services financiers Inc, 2017 QCCA 1673
("Asselin"), the scope of defendants' rights to examine a
Petitioner at the pre-authorization stage no longer included a
right to examine to clarify vague allegations in the motion for
authorization. Interestingly, another judge of the QCSC reached
an opposite decision one week later.  Leave of appeal from the
Asselin decision is currently being sought before the Supreme
Court of Canada, so the appeal, if leave is granted, may provide
clarity on these two seemingly conflicting decisions.

Regarding Equifax's application to stay the Quebec proceeding,
Justice Bisson applied the two-step framework from Garage Poirier
& Poirier Inc. c. FCA Canada Inc. 2018 QCCS 107 (currently under
appeal) for determining whether a stay should be granted in a
class action.  Under that framework, the court must first
determine whether the general conditions under s. 3137 of the
Civil Code of Quebec ("CCQ") for a stay of proceeding in favour
of a foreign authority are satisfied.  If the test under CCQ s.
3137 is met, the Court must then examine whether it should
exercise the discretion under s. 577 of the under Civil Code of
Procedure ("CCP") and decline to stay a class proceeding if doing
so is not in the interest of justice, with a view to protecting
the rights and interests of Quebec residents in class
proceedings.

As to the analysis under CCQ s. 3137, Justice Bisson adopted a
restrictive interpretation of the requirement that the foreign
proceeding must "be pending before the foreign authority".  The
foreign proceeding must have been filed in court before the
Quebec proceeding, otherwise it will not be considered "pending"
for the purpose of a potential stay.  Here, only one of the five
other filings, that in the Saskatchewan action, was anterior to
the Quebec filing, so the Saskatchewan action was the only one
capable of giving rise to any stay of proceedings in Quebec.  In
this case, the result was that the Ontario proceeding filed one
day after the Quebec proceeding and which Equifax had proposed to
be the "lead" class action was not even potentially eligible to
give rise to a stay in Quebec.

The formalistic application of the anteriority criterion under
CCQ s. 3137 would appear to preclude any possible stay in other
provinces that were commenced after a Quebec action. However,
Justice Bisson did leave the door open for defendants to invoke
the forum non conveniens doctrine, pursuant to which Quebec
courts retain the discretion to refuse to exercise their
jurisdiction over a particular dispute in exceptional
circumstances.

As to the analysis under CCP s. 577, Justice Bisson held that
general arguments about judicial economy and avoidance of a
multiplicity of proceedings are generally not independently
sufficient to stay a Quebec class action.  Instead, the specific
implications of a stay for Quebec class members in the particular
case must be examined under CCP s. 577.  Here, Justice Bisson
found that the rights and interests of the Quebec residents would
be better protected if the Quebec action was to be continued.
The judge relied on the fact that the Quebec Consumer Protection
Act contained a distinctive notion of consumer contracts; there
was a risk the Saskatchewan claim would not proceed because of an
abuse of process application brought by Equifax; the
authorization hearing in the Quebec action was likely to proceed
before any certification hearing in the Saskatchewan claim; and,
there was no proof of the participation by Quebec residents in
the Saskatchewan proceeding.

Justice Bisson also mostly dismissed Equifax's alternative
application for leave to examine the Petitioner and file evidence
before the authorization hearing.  Justice Bisson held that the
Asselin decision had changed the law on the scope of pre-
authorization examination, and examinations for the purpose of
obtaining clarity on vague allegations by a Petitioner in a
motion for authorization were no longer permitted.  Instead,
leave to examine the Petitioner and file evidence will be allowed
only where the evidence sought is directly relevant to one of the
four criterion for authorization.  Here, Justice Bisson held that
examination on matters relevant to the Petitioner's individual
claim were not permitted.

Interestingly, another decision of the QCSC rendered a week after
Li reached an opposite result.  In Shore c. Symantec Corporation,
2018 QCCS 2062, ("Shore") the judge allowed the defendant to
examine the Petitioner in order to clarify ambiguous allegations
in the authorization motion.  Unlike Justice Bisson in Li, the
judge in Shore limited the scope of Asselin and allowed
examination on some facts and circumstances underlying the
Petitioner's individual right of action. Leave of appeal from the
Asselin decision to the Supreme Court of Canada is currently
being sought.  If leave is granted, the appeal may provide
clarity for litigants in light of the seemingly conflicting
decisions in Li and Shore. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Faces BIPA Violation Class Action in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
Greg Sterling, writing for Marketing Land, reports that
Facebook's legal struggles continue.  The company faces (and
disputes) new allegations that it previously shared user data
with smartphone device makers without consent.  It was also sued
on June 5 by Washington state for failing to comply with campaign
finance laws. Google was also named in the complaint.

Both companies are charged by Washington Attorney General
Bob Ferguson with not maintaining proper records and information
about buyers of political ads as required by state law.  The
alleged violations go back as far as 2013.  Mr. Ferguson seeks
penalties, legal fees and injunctions against both Google and
Facebook.

Both companies have pledged to capture and disclose more
information in the future, where political ads are involved.
Despite these actions they may face fines for historical behavior
unless those are waived in a negotiated settlement.

Separately Facebook faces a class action in Illinois for failing
to comply with rules under the 2008 the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), which governs fingerprint
identification, facial recognition technology and other biometric
information and collection practices.

The case was originally filed in 2015 by three plaintiffs who
argue that photo tagging was powered by facial recognition
technology and utilized without consent, as required under the
Illinois statute.  Damages claimed are up to $5,000 per
violation. Facebook has an estimated 1.5 million users in
Illinois -- resulting in potential exposure of billions of
dollars.

Facebook moved to dismiss the suit and argued that the Illinois
law violates the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.  However
U.S. District Court James Donato, based in San Francisco, denied
the motion and asserted that a class action is actually the most
efficient way to resolve the claims.

Facebook may appeal the ruling, which was handed down in April,
and certainly will fight the case if it proceeds as a class
action. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Ruling in BIPA Case to Have More Financial Impact
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Agee, writing for The Western Journal, reports that the
hits keep coming for Facebook as the beleaguered tech giant faces
backlash over a litany of policies regarding how it handled
users' personal data.

While negative publicity and congressional hearings have taken a
toll on the company's image and customer base, a judge's ruling
could potentially have a far more direct financial impact on the
social media platform.

As the East Bay Times reported, a federal judge paved the way for
millions of users to pursue a class-action lawsuit against
Facebook with the potential of billions in awarded damages.

The case hinges on an interpretation of an Illinois law
prohibiting the storage of biometric information by any company
without direct consent.  The June 4 court ruling by U.S. District
Judge James Donato provided a rare victory among class-action
suits in consumer privacy cases.

Facebook has maintained it had the right to collect image data
uploaded to the platform, but plaintiffs argue the company's use
of that information violated the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act of 2008.

According to that legislation, each of the 6 million users
eligible under the terms of the suit could translate to a fine
for Facebook of between $1,000 and $5,000.  Judge Donato
referenced the potential financial ramifications of the suit in
his ruling.

The judge wrote that Facebook "seems to believe" that individual
complaints, not a class-action suit, would be the appropriate way
to address the issue.

A Facebook representative acknowledged the ruling, promising a
vigorous defense and reiterating the company's assertion that
"the case has no merit."

Judge Donato noted the fact that "damages could amount to
billions of dollars" in concluding that the action could
nevertheless move forward as presented.

He wrote that "substantial damages are not a reason to decline
class certification," approving a group of millions of people
with a registered Facebook account in Illinois as of June 2011.

"Although many individuals may not have had enough tagged photos
to generate a face template in Facebook's database, in January
2011 (i.e., before Facebook implemented tag suggestions for all
users) the average user was tagged in 53 photos, far more than
the 10 needed to generate a face template," a court filing in the
case states.

Facebook has succeeded in a change of venue from Illinois to
California, but the judge said there is sufficient evidence the
company violated the spirit of the original state's law to
approve the pending lawsuit.

As Judge Donato wrote, the tech company has amassed a "wealth of
data on its users, including self-reported residency and IP
addresses," allowing it to isolate Illinois users whose profiles
include face templates.

Attorney Shawn Williams represents Facebook users taking part in
the suit and predicts their effort will result in serious changes
in the company's privacy policies.

"As more people become aware of the scope of Facebook's data
collection and as consequences begin to attach to that data
collection, whether economic or regulatory, Facebook will have to
take a long look at its privacy practices and make changes
consistent with user expectations and regulatory requirements,"
he said. [GN]


FCH ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Action Over Zippy's Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that two people have filed a class-
action lawsuit against Hawaii restaurant chain Zippy's.

Zippy's alerted its customers April 27 that it experienced a data
breach at all of its 25 restaurant, Napoleon's Bakery, Kahala
Sushi and Pearl City Sushi locations.  It also says credit and
debit cards used to buy drinks at Pomaikai Ballrooms also may
have been affected by the breach.

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reports lawyers who specialize in
class-action petitions filed a lawsuit on behalf of Hawaii
resident Joshua Bokelman and Suchandra Thapa, of Illinois, with
the hope of representing others who are victims of the breach.

The lawsuit names FCH Enterprises Inc., owner of Zippy's
Restaurants, as the defendant.

FCH Vice President of Marketing and Communications Kevin Yim says
the company doesn't comment on pending litigation. [GN]


FITBIT: Motion to Dismiss Heart Rate Monitor Class Action Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, disclosed that on June
5, 2018, Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California issued an order denying Fitbit's
motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit alleging that its
PurePulse(TM)-equipped devices are grossly inaccurate and
frequently fail to record any heart rate at all.  The lawsuit
brings claims for false advertising, unfair competition, common-
law fraud, fraud in the inducement, unjust enrichment, breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranties under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and under the consumer protection
statutes of California and Arizona.  While the court removed
plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim, the motion to dismiss was
otherwise entirely denied, subject to plaintiff's agreement to
amend the complaint to include product packaging statements and
further allegations of reliance.

Fitbit had argued that its advertising claims have "nothing to do
with accuracy," but as the court noted in response, "that cannot
be reconciled with the plain meaning of its own marketing words."
The court further noted that "[g]iven the magnitude of the
aberrant heart rate readings and multiple allegations that the
devices under-report heart rate, [plaintiff] has plausibly
alleged an 'unreasonable safety hazard' that may arise when users
rely on Fitbit heart rate readings during exercise."

With regard to Fitbit's material statements underlying
plaintiff's allegations as to warranty claims, the Court said,
"These statements are not 'vague' or 'equivocal.' Rather, they
specifically promise that the devices are capable of giving real-
time feedback on heart rate that can be used to adjust workout
intensity."

Summing up, the Court further noted, "According to the complaint,
the ability to record heart rate in real time and during physical
activity is marketed as a key feature of the PurePulse(TM)
devices, yet in reality the products frequently fail to record
any heart rate at all or provide highly inaccurate readings, with
discrepancies of up to 75 bpm.  Those facts indicate that the
devices lack even a basic degree of fitness for use as exercise
or activity monitors."

Lieff Cabraser partner and attorney for plaintiff Jonathan D.
Selbin notes, "We are pleased that the Court recognized the
strength of our claim that Fitbit misled consumers when it
marketed its Fitbit trackers as being able to continuously and
accurately measure heart rate during exercise.  As independent
test after test has shown, these devices are wildly inaccurate
and cannot be relied upon to monitor heart rate during exercise
reliably and safely."

The case will move forward on all claims apart from that for
unjust enrichment.

Consumer Protection Attorneys at Lieff Cabraser

On January 5, 2016, attorneys at Lieff Cabraser, along with their
co-counsel, filed a class action complaint on behalf of consumers
seeking redress for Fitbit's deceptive and misleading
representations about its heart rate monitor products.  The
consumers claim that, as all the data demonstrates, Fitbit's
heart rate monitors cannot accurately or meaningfully record
heart rates during high-intensity exercise, precisely what Fitbit
advertised them for.

The consumers also claim that Fitbit fraudulently tried to shield
itself from liability for these defective products by tricking
consumers into agreeing to an arbitration agreement, which the
consumers argue should not be enforced.

If you purchased a Fitbit heart rate monitor (Fitbit Charge HR,
Blaze, and Surge), we invite you to visit our Fitbit heart rate
monitor lawsuit page to contact a consumer attorney at Lieff
Cabraser.  We welcome the opportunity to learn of your
experiences with your Fitbit heart rate monitor and to answer any
questions you may have about your legal rights.

              About Lieff Cabraser and Counsel

Recognized as "one of the nation's premier plaintiffs' firms" by
The American Lawyer, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, has
successfully litigated and settled hundreds of class action
lawsuits in federal and state courts, including dozens of cases
requiring manufacturers to remedy a defect, extend warranties,
and refund to purchasers the cost of repairing the defective
product.  It has recovered billions of dollars for consumers in
such cases.  With seventy attorneys in offices in San Francisco,
New York, Nashville, and Seattle, we are among the largest law
firms in the United States that represent only plaintiffs.

The consumer plaintiffs are also represented by Robert Klonoff
and Levi & Korsinsky LLP. [GN]


FITBIT: May Face Contempt Charge in Heart Rate Monitor Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Patrice, writing for Above The Law, reports that Fitbit, and
its lawyers from MoFo, have worked themselves into a tight spot
with U.S. District Judge James Donato who, unsurprisingly, isn't
a fan of companies admitting that they're trying to screw their
customers out of due process.

In a recent hearing, Fitbit's attorneys performed an astounding
display of rhetorical seppuku by repeatedly arguing that the fees
required to initiate an arbitration -- mandatory under their
agreement with consumers -- run upwards of $750 meaning it just
wouldn't make sense for anyone with a smaller claim to pursue an
action.  It was an "emperor has no clothes" moment for the
anti-class action cause in its efforts to keep companies from
ever facing the consequences of numerous small transgressions,
except in this case the emperor was working the day shift at the
Bada Bing while the townspeople wanted to believe he was in
church.

Judge Donato simply couldn't believe a company would bank on high
fees to keep consumers from pressing their claims, remarking that
Fitbit's behavior "appears to be an absolutely unacceptable level
of gamesmanship" and potentially "a form of civil contempt."

Fitbit's "gamesmanship" goes even further than just hoping no one
would pony up $750 to get redress over a cheap heartrate monitor.
The company is battling a customer named Kate McLellan, who
joined a class action against Fitbit as part of a group
represented by Leiff Cabraser.  After Judge Donato ruled -- in
true Lewis Carroll fashion -- that the mandatory arbitration
clause leaves the question of the enforceability of the
arbitration clause solely to the arbitrator, Ms. McLellan went
ahead and filed that demand for arbitration to determine the
enforceability of the forced arbitration clause.  Fitbit offered
her a little more than 17 times the value of her claim to drop
the matter and when she refused they took matters into their own
hands, writing AAA and telling them that the matter was over,
regardless of what Ms. McLellan may think.

Since the courts really don't work that way (at least not since
the Supreme Court laid down Campbell-Ewald), Ms. McLellan's
treatment at Fitbit's hands became the focal point of Leiff
Cabraser's latest motion in the class action.

The business community's war on the class action device isn't
new.  It's dressed up in all sorts of quasi-economic mumbo jumbo,
but fundamentally it's about robbing individual consumers -- and
as importantly the consuming public at large -- of private
redress for corporate malfeasance.  Judge Posner railed that "the
realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million
individual suits, but zero individual suits," and while he meant
that no individual would pursue a costly formal litigation for a
small claim, the logic carries over to the world of arbitration.

Because while the anti-class action spin machine touts
arbitration's "efficiency" and "cost-effectiveness," they gloss
over the fact that this is really only true for companies.
Arbitration can and does resolve business disputes at a fraction
of the cost of a full-scale litigation.  For consumers seeking a
fair shake from corporations, arbitration is a costly, confusing,
and business-favoring nightmare.  But atomization is the name of
the game, because as long as individuals are prevented from
coming together, there's really nothing a company can do that it
can't sweep under the rug.

Or, as Fitbit admitted -- though they've since backtracked,
telling Alison Frankel of Reuters that they "never intended to
close off any avenues for consumers" -- by pricing complainants
out of the system.

But, really, it seems as though Fitbit's taking more heat for its
candor than for its behavior.  Did anyone seriously not
understand the purpose of a mandatory arbitration agreement?
Asymmetrical arbitration agreements, whether they're buried in
arcane service agreements or crafted for an abusive boss, are all
about silencing complaints.  That they've become so de rigueur
that attorneys casually admit that they're keeping people from
filing otherwise warranted actions and go so far as to suggest
only a crazy person might challenge that logic just shows how
pervasive the Lochner Monster has gotten.

But maybe, like the case of the emperor's stripper pole, it's
just going to take the judicial system a little longer to see
what's so obvious to the rest of us out here. [GN]


FORD MOTOR: Settles Class Action Over Faulty Touch Screen Systems
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that to avoid a potential $300 million in civil penalties, Ford
has agreed to settle a class action claiming it knowingly sold
vehicles with defective and unsafe touch screen systems.

Under terms of a proposed deal filed in court on June 1, Ford
will pay a minimum $35 to consumers who had problems with faulty
touch screen systems and offer up to $500 payouts and $2,000
discounts to those who paid for multiple software fixes.

The deal applies to consumers in seven states -- California,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and
Washington state -- who bought vehicles with My Ford Touch or My
Lincoln Touch systems before Aug. 9, 2013.

Filed in July 2013, the lawsuit claimed touch-screen software
designed by Microsoft for Ford and Lincoln vehicles between 2010
and 2013 often freezes, leaving drivers unable to defrost
windows, operate rearview cameras, or dial 911.

A jury trial had been set to start in May this year after U.S.
District Judge Edward Chen rejected the bulk of Ford's motion for
summary judgment in February.  The parties reached a deal at the
end of March.

As part of the proposed settlement, Ford will offer free software
upgrades for six months and free service at Ford dealerships to
fix any additional software problems for one year.

Consumers who paid for at least one software fix in the past will
receive $100 cash payments or $200 discounts on the purchase of
new vehicles.  Those who paid for two software fixes will get
$300 payouts and $600 discounts, and those who paid for three or
more software fixes will receive $500 payouts or $1,000 discounts
on new vehicles.

Each class member who bought a Ford or Lincoln with a faulty
touch screen system prior to Aug. 9, 2013, will receive at least
$35 under the terms of the deal.

Class attorneys will request an additional $22 million in
attorneys' fees, according to the motion for preliminary
settlement approval.

Lawyers for Ford and the plaintiff class did not immediately
return phone calls seeking comment.

The class is represented by Adam Levitt of DiCello Levitt & Casey
in Chicago; Craig Spiegel of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in
Seattle; and Cynthia Chapman, Michael Caddell, and Corey Fein in
Houston, Texas.

Ford is represented by Randall Edwards -- redwards@omm.com -- of
O'Melveny & Myers in San Francisco.

A hearing on preliminary approval of the settlement is scheduled
for June 28 in San Francisco. [GN]


FRONTIER AIRLINES: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Toxic Fumes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Graf, writing for Law360, reports that Frontier Airlines
Inc. puts its passengers at risk of passing out, choking and
experiencing other ailments by allowing toxic fumes to enter the
passenger cabin of its Airbus SAS planes, a passenger claims in a
proposed class action filed on June 1 in California federal
court.

Andrea Ridgell said Frontier draws outside air into its fleet of
Airbus planes through the jet engines but does not filter this
air when combining it with the existing cabin air.

The case is styled Ridgell v. Frontier Airlines, Inc. et al, Case
No. 2:18-cv-04916 (C.D. Cal.).  The case was filed June 1, 2018.
[GN]


FUNKO INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over 2017 IPO
-------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on June 6
disclosed that purchasers of Funko, Inc. (NasdaqGS: FNKO) filed a
class action complaint on June 4, 2018, against the company's
officers and directors for alleged violations of the Securities
Act of 1933 pursuant to the company's November 1, 2017 initial
public offering ("IPO").  Funko, a pop culture consumer products
company, designs, sources, and distributes licensed pop culture
products in the United States, China, Vietnam, and the United
Kingdom.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/funko-inc-june-2018

Funko Accused of Misleading Investors About its Financial
Condition

In its IPO, Funko sold 10,416,666 shares of Class A common stock
at $12.00 per share, generating proceeds of approximately $116.4
million.  Funko's Registration Statement said that the company's
financial performance reflected the strong growth of its
business, citing its leadership in pop culture consumer products.
However, the complaint alleges that Funko's profits and growth
were not as optimistic as the company represented in its offering
documents.  On November 2, 2017, Bloomberg published an article
entitled "Funko Extends Playtime to Its Accounting," calling into
question how Funko could report an 86% earnings increase while
losing more than $10 million in the first half of 2017.  Yahoo
Finance subsequently published an article doubting the company's
readiness to go public and a New York Times article questioned
whether selling giant-headed dolls of pop-culture figures is a
sustainable business.

Funko Shareholders Have Legal Options

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

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


FUYAO GLASS: Workers File Class Action Over Wage, Break Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Kenney, writing for WYSO, reports that a class-action
lawsuit alleging Fuyao Glass America failed to pay overtime and
give workers adequate breaks is moving forward in the courts.
The global Chinese auto glass maker employs more than 2,000
workers at its Moraine plant.

Mr. Kenney spoke with Dayton Daily News Investigative Reporter
Tom Gnau who says the lawsuit's outcome could have worldwide
implications in the manufacturing industry.  The case was filed
in Dayton federal court last year.  [GN]


GAP APPAREL: Faces "Andrews" Suit in California Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gap (Apparel) LLC.
The case is styled as Carmen Andrews, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gap (Apparel) LLC,
Gap International Sales, Inc. and The Gap, Inc, Defendants, Case
No. CGC18567237 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 13, 2018).

Gap (Apparel), LLC is based in San Francisco, California. Gap
(Apparel), LLC operates as a subsidiary of The Gap, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
   Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
   324 S Beverly Blvd, Suite 725
   Beverly Hills, CA 90212
   Tel: 424-285-6006


GLORYRIDGE AT GETTYSBURG: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gloryridge at
Gettysburg, LLC. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Gloryridge at Gettysburg, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03448
(E.D. N.Y., June 13, 2018).

Gloryridge at Gettysburg, LLC is a 3-star hotel located in 685
Camp Gettysburg Rd, Gettysburg, PA.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


GOLDEN STAR SUPPLY: Faces "Cortez" Wage and Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO CORTEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GOLDEN STAR SUPPLY INC., GOLDEN STAR
KITCHEN & BATH, INC., and BOR SU YANG, MAX YANG and GINA YOUNG,
as individuals, Case No. 1:18-cv-02572-FB-RLM (E.D.N.Y., May 1,
2018), seeks to recover damages for alleged egregious violations
of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of the
Plaintiffs' employment at Century Plumbing & Building Supply,
Inc., Golden Star Supply and Golden Star Kitchen.

Century was a New York corporation with a principal executive
office in Flushing, New York.  Century was dissolved on Dec. 12,
2017, and is no longer an active corporation.

Golden Star Supply is a corporation organized under the laws of
New York with a principal executive office in Flushing.  Golden
Star Kitchen is a corporation organized under the laws of New
York with a principal executive office in Flushing.  The
Individual Defendants own and/or operate the Defendant
Corporations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598


GOOGLE LLC: Seeks Dismissal of Kids Data Privacy Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Grande, writing for Law360, reports that Google and its
YouTube subsidiary on June 4 moved to ax a putative class action
accusing them of unlawfully collecting and using personal
information from people under the age of 13 for "commercial
gain," telling a South Carolina federal court that the
plaintiffs' state law privacy claims replicate and are therefore
preempted by the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection
Act.

The case is Manigault-Johnson et al v. Google LLC et al,
Case No. 2:18-cv-01032.  The case is assigned to Judge Bruce Howe
Hendricks.  The case was filed April 16, 2018. [GN]


GULF INTERSTATE: Faces "Sloane" Suit in S.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gulf Interstate
Field Services, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas Sloane,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Gulf Interstate Field Services, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00583 (S.D. Ohio, June 13, 2018).

Gulf Interstate Field Services provides seasoned Construction
Management, Pipeline and Facility Inspection, Materials
Management, and other services for both onshore and offshore,
domestic and international energy transportation projects.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Alexandra Koropey Piazza, Esq.
   Berger & Montague, P.C.
   1622 Locust Street
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 875-3063
   Fax: (215) 875-4604
   Email: apiazza@bm.net

      - and -

   Sarah R Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
   Berger & Montague, P.C.
   1622 Locust Street
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 875-3053
   Fax: (215) 875-4604
   Email: sschalman-bergen@bm.net

      - and -

   Shanon J Carson, Esq.
   Berger & Montague PC
   1622 Locust St
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 875-3000
   Fax: (215) 875-4604
   Email: scarson@bm.net

      - and -

   Clifford A. Rieders, Esq.
   Rieders Travis Humphrey Waters & Dohrmann
   161 W. Third St.
   Williamsport, PA 17703-0215
   Tel: (570) 323-8711
   Fax: 5671025
   Email: crieders@riederstravis.com

      - and -

   James A Jones, Esq.
   Bruckner Burch PLLC
   8 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 1500
   Houston, TX 77046
   Tel: (713) 877-8788
   Fax: (713) 877-8065
   Email: jjones@brucknerburch.com

      - and -

   Richard J Burch, Esq.
   Bruckner Burch PLLC
   8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
   Houston, TX 77046
   Tel: (713) 877-8788
   Fax: (713) 877-8065
   Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com

The Defendant is represented by:

   Annette A Idalski, Esq.
   Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Aughtry
   191 Peachtree Street, N.E.
   Thirty-Fourth Floor
   Atlanta, GA 30303-1747
   Tel: (404) 659-1410
   Fax: (404) 659-1852
   Email: annette.idalski@chamberlainlaw.com

      - and -

   Keith E Whitson, Esq.
   Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
   120 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2700
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 577-5220
   Fax: (412) 577-5190
   Email: kwhitson@schnader.com

      - and -

   Peter N. Hall, Esq.
   Chamberlain Hrdlicka White Williams & Aughtry
   191 Peachtree Street, N.E.
   Atlanta, GA 30303
   Tel: (404) 658-5390
   Fax: (404) 658-5391
   Email: peter.hall@chamberlainlaw.com

      - and -

   Chamberlain Hrdlicka White Williams & Aughtry
   191 Peachtree Street, N.E.
   34th Floor
   Atlanta, GA 30303
   Tel: (404) 658-5474

      - and -

   Veronica Saltz Turner, Esq.
   Clark Hill PLC
   2005 Market Street, Suite 1000
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 640-8546
   Fax: (215) 640-8501
   Email: vsaltz@clarkhill.com


HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Faces New Sexual Assault Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Jessica m. Goldstein, writing for Think Progress, reports that
"She knew that if she reported him, Weinstein would destroy her
life."

That line, from a new class action lawsuit filed in federal court
on June 1 against Harvey Weinstein and the "Weinstein Sexual
Enterprise" that enabled Weinstein's alleged prolific career as a
sexual predator, comes up at the conclusion of a harrowing
description of plaintiff Caitlin Dulany's false imprisonment and
sexual assault at the hands of the Miramax producer.

An aspiring actress in independent film, Ms. Dulany had a chance
run-in with Weinstein in New York in 1996 -- "she felt very
lucky" to have exchanged contact information with such a major
figure in the entertainment industry -- and saw Mr. Weinstein as
a professional mentor for a year before his attention toward her
turned inappropriate, manipulative, and finally violent.

The beats of Ms. Dulany's experience will sound familiar to
anyone who has read any of the accounts from the scores of women
who allege Weinstein sexually coerced or assaulted them.  So will
the narratives of Larissa Gomes and Melissa Thompson, the two
other named plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit filed on
June 1 in the Southern District of New York.

The details, as ever, are chilling: That during an attempted
assault of Ms. Gomes in a hotel room, "Weinstein seemed smug, as
if he was amused by Gomes's fear and anxiety"; that Weinstein
groped Ms. Thompson throughout a business pitch she was trying to
make and later, as he began raping her in his hotel room:

"While Weinstein ran his hand up Thompson's bare leg, she tried
to back away from him and declared in a raised voice that she did
not think her boyfriend would appreciate what he was doing.
While maintaining a hold on her and with his face below her
waist, Weinstein responded in a resolute tone: 'Fuck him.'"

And the lawsuit itself, right down to the term of art "Weinstein
Sexual Enterprise," should also sound familiar: It's virtually
identical to the class action lawsuit filed against Weinstein,
The Weinstein Company, and Miramax, LLC last November in Los
Angeles.  Both aim to represent all the women in the United
States who claim they met with Weinstein in person to "audition
for or to discuss involvement in a project to be produced or
distributed by" Weinstein's company, only to be victimized by
Weinstein. (That is, all the women for whom the statute of
limitations to pursue criminal action against Weinstein have run
out.)

One change of note in the second lawsuit is a new defendant: The
Walt Disney Company, which purchased Miramax in 1993 is named
"for the negligent supervision or retention of an unfit officer,
director, and/or employee."  And the first suit has an anonymous
woman as its plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 1.

Mr. Weinstein was arrested and charged with rape, criminal sex
act, sex abuse, and sexual misconduct.  He was released on $1
million bail, which he paid in cash.

Mr.  Weinstein denies all allegations of rape and sexual assault
and insists all the sexual contact he had with these women was
consensual. [GN]


HOMESTEAD HOUSING: "De Leon" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Luis De Leon, and other similarly situated v.  Homestead Housing
Authority and Brandy Ramirez, Case No. 1:18-cv-21638 (S.D. Fla.,
April 24, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida and
worked for the Defendants as a janitor. The Plaintiff worked for
Homestead from approximately April 17, 2012, to February
28, 2018.

The Defendants are a municipal entity and a Florida resident,
respectively, having their main place of business in Miami-Dade
County, Florida.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Tel: (305) 503-5131
      Fax: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


HOMETOWN EATS: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Joachin" Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO JOACHIN, On his behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HOMETOWN EATS, INC., A Nevada Corporation,
and ALEJANDRA MEZA-CERVANTES, and REX HENRIOTT, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00793-GMN-CWH (D. Nev., May 2, 2018), accuses the Defendants of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay their
employees, including the Plaintiff, time and one-half for each
hour worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

Hometown Eats, Inc., is a Nevada corporation whose registered
office address is in Las Vegas, Nevada.  Alejandra Meza-Cervantes
is the owner and/or manager of Hometown.  Rex Henriott is the
general manager of Hometown.

The Company operates the restaurant Hometown Eats Buffet in Las
Vegas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don Springmeyer, Esq.
          Jordan Butler, Esq.
          WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
          3556 E. Russell Road, 2nd Floor
          Las Vegas, NV 89120-2234
          Telephone: (702) 341-5200
          Facsimile: (702) 341-5300
          E-mail: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com
                  jbutler@wrslawyers.com

               - and -

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          Facsimile: (248) 436-8453
          E-mail: Jthompson@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq.
          AVANTI LAW GROUP, PLLC
          600 28th St. SW
          Wyoming, MI 49509
          Telephone: (616) 257-6807
          E-mail: ralvarez@avantilaw.com


IDEAL IMAGE: Sued by Carfagno Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Text
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRI CARFAGNO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. IDEAL IMAGE OF FLORIDA, LLC d/b/a IDEAL
IMAGE, Case No. 8:18-cv-01060-SCB-AAS (M.D. Fla., May 1, 2018),
alleges that the Defendant violates the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by engaging in unsolicited telemarketing directed
towards prospective customers, with no regard for consumers'
privacy rights.

Ideal Image is a Florida corporation with its principal place of
business located in Tampa.  The Defendant is a medical spa
company, which provides goods and services to the general public,
such as Botox injections and non-surgical fat reduction
procedures called CoolSculpting(R).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INVENTION SUBMISSION: Faces $72MM Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Emma Cueto, writing for Law360, reports that a Texas woman has
filed a $72 million proposed class action in Pennsylvania federal
court against a company she claims lied to her about the profit
potential of her invention, pressured her into borrowing
thousands of dollars to pay the company to promote her idea and
then pocketed the funds without providing any services.

Etta Calhoun, who says she went to InventHelp to get assistance
in promoting her idea for bedsheets printed with Bible passages,
claims the business has duped hundreds of hopeful inventors.

The case is Calhoun v. Invention Submission Corporation et al,
Case No. 2:18-cv-02307 (E.D. Pa.).  The case is assigned to Judge
Juan R. Sanchez.  The case was filed June 1, 2018. [GN]


LENDING CLUB: Faces "Lynch" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lending Club
Corporation. The case is styled as George William Lynch,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Vital Recovery Services, Inc. and Lending Club
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03459 (E.D. N.Y., June
13, 2018).

LendingClub Corporation operates an online marketplace platform
that connects borrowers and investors in the United States. Its
marketplace facilitates various types of loan products for
consumers and small businesses, including unsecured personal
loans, unsecured education and patient finance loans, auto
refinance loans, and unsecured small business loans. The company
also provides an opportunity to the investors to invest in a
range of loans based on term and credit. LendingClub Corporation
was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Sanders Law, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Removes "Crutcher" Suit to New Mexico Dist. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit styled GREGORY CRUTCHER,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY PERSONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, and
SAFECO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. D-202-CV-2018-01371,
was removed on May 1, 2018, from the New Mexico Second Judicial
District Court, County of Bernalillo, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Mexico.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00412 to the
proceeding.

The Defendants contend that removal is proper under the Class
Action Fairness Act because the lawsuit is a putative class
action with more than 100 putative class members that seeks to
recover more than $5,000,000.

The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on February 16, 2018, in the
State Court.  The Plaintiff alleges that on March 2, 2006, Safeco
Insurance Company of America issued him an auto insurance policy,
including minimum underinsured motorist ("UIM") coverage limits
of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident.

According to Plaintiff, the policy failed to fully inform him of
the Schmick offset described in Schmick v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
Ins. Co., 704 P.2d 1092, 1093 (1985), a case directing that an
insured's recovery shall be offset by a tortfeasor's liability
coverage.  He alleges he paid a premium for UIM coverage, but
that the Defendants, and in particular Safeco, failed to inform
him of the limited scenarios under which he would benefit from
his purchase of minimum limits UIM coverage (i.e., limits of
$25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident) and that, in the event
of a covered occurrence, his UIM coverage may be illusory.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Meena H. Allen, Esq.
          ALLEN LAW FIRM, LLC
          6121 Indian School Road, NE, Suite 230
          Albuquerque, NM 87110
          Telephone: (505) 298-9400


LOUIS VUITTON: Judge Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------
Braden Campbell, writing for Law360, reports that a Los Angeles
county judge has found that two Louis Vuitton workers waived
their rights to sue the designer in court, sending most of their
two wage suits to arbitration and tossing their class-action
claims.

Judge Carolyn Kuhl on June 1 granted Louis Vuitton's motion to
compel arbitration on all of Asuncion Navarrete and Erminda
Cervantes' claims save for the portion of Cervantes' suit brought
under California's Private Attorneys General Act, which lets
workers enforce labor laws in the state's stead, and tossed the
workers' class claims. [GN]


LUCKY VITAMIN: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lucky Vitamin LLC.
The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Lucky Vitamin LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03454
(E.D. N.Y., June 13, 2018).

Lucky Vitamin LLC operates as an online e-commerce company for
vitamins and nutritional supplements in the United States. It
sells vitamins, nutritional supplements, herbs, body building,
green living, organic, and natural products. The company was
founded in 2004 and is based in Norristown, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Holzer & Holzer Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC on June 5 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased MabVax
Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. ("MabVax" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
MBVX) common stock between March 14, 2016 and May 18, 2018.

The lawsuit alleges that MabVax and other defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
that: (1) that the Company's internal controls over financial
reporting were materially weak and deficient; (2) that the
Company had incorrectly calculated and reported beneficial
ownership of MabVax shares, and permitted improper influence or
control over MabVax, and/or the Company's officers and directors
by certain shareholders; and, (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial statements and Defendants'
statements about MabVax's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased MabVax common stock and suffered a loss on that
investment, you are encouraged to contact Corey D. Holzer Esq. at
cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Alexandria P. Rankin, Esq. at
arankin@holzerlaw.com, or call the firm by toll-free telephone at
(888) 508-6832.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com-- is an
Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. [GN]


MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on June 4 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of
persons and entities that acquired MabVax Therapeutics Holdings
("MabVax" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MBVX) securities between
March 14, 2016 and May 18, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the
date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
in this action.

Investors suffering losses on their MabVax investments are
encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their
legal rights at 310-201-9150 or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit the MabVax case page on our
website at www.glancylaw.com/case/mabvax-therapeutics-holdings-
inc.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the
Company's internal controls over financial reporting were
materially weak and deficient; (2) that the Company had
incorrectly calculated and reported beneficial ownership of
MabVax shares, and permitted improper influence or control over
MabVax, and/or the Company's officers and directors by certain
shareholders; and, (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's financial statements and Defendants' statements about
MabVax's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased MabVax securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this
notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff.  To be
a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time;
you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more
about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.  If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
[GN]


MCFADDEN HOTEL: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McFadden Hotel
Group, LLP. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. McFadden
Hotel Group, LLP doing business as: Hotel Warner, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-03446 (E.D. N.Y., June 13, 2018).

McFadden Hotel Group, LLP is a 3-star hotel in Downtown West
Chester PA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street
   2nd floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Fax: (212) 465-1181
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


MDL 2804: More Than 60 Cities File Suits Over Opioid Epidemic
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kara Savio, writing for STL News, reports that much is being done
around the country in the battle against the opioid overdose
crisis that's killing so many people.  The National Institute on
Drug Abuse, reports that more than 115 people in the U.S. die
each day after an opioid overdose.  The magnitude of the problem
is impacting the country by an estimated $78.5 billion per year
based on costs for health care, lost productivity, criminal
justice and addiction treatment.

Over-prescribing isn't the only major contributor to the opioid
epidemic, but Pharmaceutical companies helped to create the
problem by overpromising the benefits and downplaying the risks
of opioids for years, misleading healthcare professionals about
their safety.  In 2016, there were 215 million opioid
prescriptions in the U.S. alone.

Still more needs to be done.  That's evident after the recent
Nebraska fentanyl drug bust that was one of the largest in the
U.S. and the largest in that state.  DEA agents seized 118 pounds
of the synthetic pain killer that is a key factor in the nation's
opioid abuse crisis.  The amount seized was enough to kill close
to 26.7 million people.

Currently, more than 60 U.S. Cities are now suing big Pharma over
the opioid crisis.  A coalition of 41 attorneys general served
five major opioid manufacturers with subpoenas seeking
information about how they marketed and sold prescription
opioids, and demanding documents and information related to
distribution practices from three drug distributors.

The investigative subpoenas and document requests went to
pharmaceutical manufacturers Purdue Pharma, Endo International,
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
Ltd./Cephalon Inc. and Allergan.  Documents were also requested
of major pharmaceutical distributors: AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal
Health and McKesson.

In a January lawsuit, New York City sued several large
pharmaceutical companies naming Purdue Pharmaceuticals, Teva
Pharmaceuticals and Johnson & Johnson, among others.  The largest
city in the country saw 1,441 overdose deaths last year.

The city has become a pioneer in creating supervised injection
sites for illegal drug users, part of a novel but contentious
strategy to combat the epidemic of fatal overdoses caused by the
use of heroin and other opioids.  Safe injection sites have been
considered successful in Canada and Europe, but until now do not
exist in the U.S.

Philadelphia is also suing manufacturers and distributors for
their marketing practices when it came to opioids.  Even union
workers there have joined the litigation after losing eight
members to addiction in one year alone.  In 2016, 907 people died
from overdoses in Philadelphia, more than three times the number
of homicides in the city and its projected as many as 1,200
people could die from opioid-related overdoses this year, with
thousands more suffering from non-deadly overdoses.

Baltimore's lawsuit focuses largely on allegedly deceptive
marketing practices.  It joined several counties in Maryland also
filing suits alleging that some of these pharmaceutical companies
marketed pills they knew would be "destructive of lives."

In Florida, Palm Beach County's lawsuit against key
pharmaceutical companies states that its case is about runaway
corporate greed where profits were put above the health and well-
being of consumers duped into believing addictive opioid
painkillers were safe.

To decrease the influence of pharmaceutical sales
representatives, Chicago announced in 2016 that they would be
required to obtain a license after undergoing training on ethics,
marketing regulations, and related laws.  Licensure also requires
sales professionals to disclose which doctors they speak to and
how many times they visit them, as well as any gifts or other
materials given to healthcare professionals.

In May, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, announced a lawsuit
against major opioid manufacturer Purdue Pharma for Violation of
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Missouri is suing Endo Pharmaceuticals, Purdue Pharmaceuticals
and Janssen Pharmaceuticals for misrepresenting the addictive
risks of opioids often using fraudulent science to back their
claims, leading to a startling opioid crisis in the state.

Former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens' recently announced a
crackdown on opioid-prescribers that will hit nearly half of the
state's doctors.  They are being flagged for not complying to the
CDC's guidelines for prescribing opioids.

In May, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, began an investigation of
the pharmaceutical industry, including two of the same companies
named in A G Hawley's lawsuit, Purdue Pharma and Janssen.  Hawley
won a major court victory in the fight to hold opioid
manufacturers responsible when the St. Louis Circuit Court
rejected the opioid manufacturers' attempts to halt the case and
ordered the lawsuit to proceed.  Overall, there were 1,067 drug-
related deaths in Missouri in 2014, an almost 400 percent
increase since 1999.

So, are all of these combined efforts making even a dent in the
problem?  The pressure put on by a coalition of states has
started to make some real headway.  On February 11 in a major
move, Purdue Pharma stopped selling OxyContin, the world's top-
selling opioid, directly to doctors.

The company announced they will cut their sales team in half,
leaving them with about 200 sales representatives.  The Purdue
sales team will instead focus their efforts on Symproic, a drug
that treats opioid-induced constipation.  Between 2013 and 2015,
healthcare professionals received $46 million from opioid
manufacturers.  Purdue spent $2.9 million marketing OxyContin
directly to doctors.  In 2007, the Department of Justice charged
Purdue with false branding.  The company and three executives,
including the president, pled guilty and agreed to a $634.5
million settlement.

Much more needs to be done in the battle against our country's
opioid epidemic, but at least this proves that facing litigation
pressure, some pharmaceutical companies are making changes. Some
are even sponsoring dependency prevention programs and reforming
how the highly addictive pain killers are distributed and
marketed.  Purdue alone faces lawsuits from more than 400 cities
and 14 states alleging that they falsely marketed OxyContin and
misrepresented its risks. [GN]


M G CLEANERS: Hunsley Seeks to Recover Regular and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER HUNSLEY, PATRICK RODRIGUEZ, and BRANDON PICKETT,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. M
G CLEANERS, LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-00016-DC (W.D. Tex., May 2,
2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid regular and overtime wages
from the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

M G Cleaners, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company.  The
Company is a rig and equipment cleaning company that does
business in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          Bridget Davidson, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Centre
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
          E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                  curt@mooreandassociates.net
                  bddavidson11@gmail.com


MICHIGAN: DHHS Faces Mental Health Services Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Mantese Honigman, P.C. on June 6 disclosed that six families,
having children with significant disabilities, filed a federal
class action against Governor Rick Snyder and the Michigan
Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS), alleging that
the State of Michigan has failed to fulfill its legal obligation
under the Medicaid Act to provide needed intensive home and
community-based mental health services to children and young
adults.

Jacob W., a 20-year old Medicaid beneficiary from Ingham County,
has been waiting over 9 months for his approved services (applied
behavioral analysis therapy and other psychiatric services).
Jacob's mother applied for services after he had been traumatized
due to bullying at school.  Jacob continues to isolate himself at
home because of his anxiety and trauma.

Jacob's story is not unique. This suit was filed on behalf of
thousands of Medicaid beneficiaries who have been harmed by the
State's denial of needed mental health treatment.  Numerous
Medicaid-eligible children have been approved by the State to
receive intensive home and community-based mental health
services, but, the suit alleges, the state lacks an effective
system for arranging for needed services, depriving families and
children of desperately needed mental health care. This creates
an unacceptable risk of medical complications, hospitalization,
and placement outside of the family home.

"The State of Michigan has a legal obligation to ensure
individuals meeting specific treatment criteria receive timely
access to the mental health services they need -- services
mandated by federal law," said Elmer Cerano, Executive Director
for MPAS.  "It is heartbreaking and inexcusable when children
with significant mental health care needs cannot receive timely
access to treatment in the community, but it is beyond appalling
that children with the most severe mental health needs cannot
obtain timely and effective intensive crisis services or even
emergency psychiatric treatment."

According to a Michigan Inpatient Psychiatric Admissions study,
"From March 2016 to March 2017, Community Mental Health Service
Programs (CMHSPs) in the Mid-State Health Network region reported
31,107 instances of community-based psychiatric inpatient
denials, which impacted 1,676 individuals: as a result, each
individual on average was denied access to inpatient services
over 18 times within one year." The Study further reveals that:
"Michigan has a shortage of children's psychiatric inpatient
capacity, which is causing children and adolescents to be boarded
in emergency departments and not receiving appropriate care in a
timely manner."

Plaintiffs are represented by Michigan Protection & Advocacy
Service, Inc.; Gerard Mantese, Dave Honigman, and Theresamarie
Mantese of Mantese Honigman, PC; and the Law Offices of John J.
Conway. [GN]


MICKEL LAW FIRM: Faces "Schmidt" Suit in W.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mickel Law Firm.
The case is styled as Tricia Schmidt, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mickel Law Firm, U.S.
Bank N.A., as Trustee For Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Inc.
2006-NC2 Asset Back Pass Through Certificates Series 2006-NC-2,
Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Inc. 2006-NC2 Asset Backed Pass
Through Certificates Series 2006-NC-2 and Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-05109-PKH (W.D. Ark., June
13, 2018).

Mickel Law Firm, P.A. is a law firm serving Little Rock in Real
Estate Foreclosure, Creditor Bankruptcy and Commercial Law
cases.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Paul Grobman, Esq.
   555 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
   New York, NY
   Tel: (212) 983-5880


MICRO FOCUS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on June 5 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Micro Focus
International plc (NYSE:MFGP) who purchased shares (1) between
September 1, 2017 and March 19, 2018, and/or (2) pursuant to the
August 4, 2017 Registration Statement or August 22, 2017
Prospectus.  The action, which was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges
that the Company violated federal securities laws.

In particular, the complaint alleges that the Registration
Statement and Prospectus filed for the Company's Initial Public
Offering contained materially false and misleading information
and/or failed to disclose material information, and that Micro
Focus made materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose material information throughout the class
period.

Your ability to share in any recovery does not require that you
serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose to be an absent class
member.

If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain
additional information, please contact Joseph Klein, Esq. by
telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-c/micro-focus-international-
plc.

Joseph Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in
securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the
nation. [GN]


MODO YOGA: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Modo Yoga
International, Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Modo
Yoga International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05326 (S.D.
N.Y., June 13, 2018).

The Modo Yoga community (known in Canada as "Moksha Yoga") is a
group of socially and environmentally conscious yoga studios.
Modo Yoga in the United States (and Internationally, and Moksha
Yoga in Canada) is a unique hot yoga series that combines the
precision of therapeutic yoga and the foundations of traditional
yoga in a specially heated room.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MYLIFE.COM: Beaumont Costales Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Beaumont Costales on June 4 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against MyLife on behalf of Maribel Deyerler and
all those whose identities were used by MyLife.com in the web
site's advertisements.  The lawsuit charges that MyLife.com,
which sells so-called "reputation reports" to the general public,
is reckless in its display of the Plaintiffs' personal
information in its advertisements, in doing so, violates Illinois
law.

According to the complaint, MyLife displays extensive personal
information about individuals without those individuals'
permission.  When an individual's name is searched on MyLife.com,
the personal information revealed may include the searched name's
middle initial, age, aliases, placed lived, relatives, current
city and birthday.  All this information serves to advertise
MyLife's "reputation report" service and encourage searchers to
provide $39.95 in exchange for the searched name's full
background detail.  Because MyLife uses these identities as
advertisement without written consent from the owners of said
identities, the lawsuit charges that MyLife is in violation of
the Illinois Right of Publicity Act.  The Right of Publicity Act
prohibits using a person's name, photograph, image or likeness
for the purpose of advertising or promoting products,
merchandise, goods or services without written consent.

Plaintiff Deyerler discovered that MyLife was revealing her
personal information to the public and using it as advertisement
without her consent.  The web site's public display of personal
details such as Ms. Deyerler's age, date of birth, previous
cities, her maiden name and even the identities of her relatives,
caused her emotional distress, as she has no relationship with
MyLife whatsoever.

The lawsuit seeks to stop MyLife from using individuals'
identities without their consent and to award damages to those
individuals.

Individuals who have had their identities utilized by MyLife for
advertising purposes and who wish to be added to the plaintiff
list may contact Beaumont Costales at 773-831-8000.

Beaumont Costales -- http://www.beaumontcostales.com-- is a law
firm whose primary practice is plaintiff's class action
litigation with a special emphasis on workers' rights and
consumer rights.  Beaumont Costales has offices in Chicago and
New Orleans. [GN]


NATIONWIDE BUSINESS: Cunningham Sues for Invasion of Privacy
------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NATIONWIDE BUSINESS RESOURCES, INC., and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:18-cv-
04180 (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2018), accuses the Defendants of
negligently, knowingly and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on
his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy.

Nationwide Business Resources, Inc., is a telemarketer, who sells
promotional marketing items.  The Doe Defendants are currently
unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


NBA MEDIA: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NBA Media Ventures,
LLC. The case is styled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NBA Media Ventures,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05324 (S.D. N.Y., June 13,
2018).

NBA Media Ventures operates the NBA Store, the official e-
commerce site of the National Basketball Association; the WNBA
Store of the Women's National Basketball Association; and the D-
League Store of the NBA Development League, a minor league
basketball organization. Store.NBA.com features apparel, footwear
and other logo gear from NBA teams. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NESTLE USA: Ruling in Fancy Feast Class Action on Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. O'Day, Esq. -- soday@sgrlaw.com -- and Edward A.
Ezekiel, Esq. -- eezekiel@sgrlaw.com -- of Smith Gambrell &
Russell LLP, in an article for Mondaq, wrote that claims and
investigations based on corporate social responsibility ("CSR")
disclosures are becoming increasingly common in the U.S. and
internationally.  Numerous theories are advanced in claims
asserted for allegedly untrue, misleading or incomplete reports
and disclosures about a company's social responsibility
initiatives and accomplishments.  This article highlights a class
action lawsuit in California now on appeal in the U.S. Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals related to disclosures under the
California Transparency in Supply Chains Act 2010 ("CTSCA").  The
case is an example of increased litigation potential arising from
CSR reports and disclosures. Companies making such reports and
disclosures are encouraged to consult with counsel about
potential litigation exposure.

CSR and the CTSCA
The CTSCA requires retail sellers and manufacturers to "disclose
to what extent, if any," they take steps to "eradicate slavery
and human trafficking from [their] direct supply chain for
tangible goods offered for sale." Cal. Civ. Code, Sec.
1714.43(a)(1).  The law applies to retail sellers and
manufactures doing business in California that have annual
worldwide gross receipts of more than $100 million. Cal. Civ.
Code Sec. 1714.43(a)(1).

Class Actions
The CTSCA does not expressly include a private right of action.
See Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1714.43.  Even so, numerous lawsuits have
been filed in California alleging that covered companies'
disclosures under the CTSCA were incomplete, misleading, and/or
deceptive in violation of other California consumer protection
statutes.

For example, in Melanie Barber, et. al. v. Nestle USA, Inc., et
al, 154 F. Supp.3d 954, 959 (C.D.Cal. 2015), Nestle USA, Inc.
("Nestle") did not disclosure on its Fancy Feast products that
some of the seafood used to make Fancy Feast was likely produced
by forced labor in Southeast Asia. Barber v. Nestle USA, Inc.,
154 F. Supp. 3d 954, 957 (C.D. Cal. 2015).  The plaintiffs did
not allege that Nestle failed to comply with the CTSCA. Id.
Instead, plaintiffs argued that Nestle was obligated to make
additional disclosures at the point of sale regarding the
likelihood that a given can of Fancy Feast product contained
seafood sourced by forced labor. Id.

Consumers alleged that they would not have purchased the product
if they realized that some of the seafood contained in Fancy
Feast may have been sourced from forced labor. Id. The consumers
argued that Nestles' failure to make that disclosure was unlawful
under the California Unfair Competition Law, California Legal
Remedies Act, and the California False Advertising Act. Id.
Nestle argued that it had a "safe harbor" from the plaintiffs'
state law claims created by the CTSCA. Id. at 962. Judge Cormac
C. Carney agreed that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the
safe harbor doctrine and therefore dismissed the case. Id. at
964.

Judge Carney's decision is currently on appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Melanie Barber,
et al v. Nestle USA, Inc., et al, Docket No. 16-55041, Argued and
Submitted, December 7, 2017 ECF No. 61 (9th Cir.).  The case was
consolidated with other cases making similar allegations against
other companies.  Oral arguments for all of those cases were
heard in December 2017.

Compliance with the CTSCA
Companies subject to the Act must post disclosures related to
five specific areas: verification, audits, certification,
internal accountability, and training. Cal. Civ. Code
Sec. 1714.43(c).  The disclosure must be accessible by a
"conspicuous and easily understood" link on the organization's
website. Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1714.43(b).

The CTSCA "does not mandate that business implement new measures
to ensure that their product supply chains are free from human
trafficking and slavery." State of California, Department of
Justice, "The California Transparency in Supply Chains Act, A
Resource Guide (2015)." Instead, "the law only requires that
covered businesses make the required disclosures -- even if they
do little or nothing at all to safeguard their supply chains."
Id.; see also American Bar Association Section of Labor &
Employment Law, International Labor & Employment Law Committee
Midyear Meeting 2018, Business and Human Rights: Threading the
Needle of Multiple Jurisdictions in Supply Chain Integrity,
Including Human Trafficking Compliance (May 10, 2018). [GN]


NETWORK OF COMMUNITY: "Burge" Class Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VICKI BURGE and DELORIS GRAY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NETWORK OF COMMUNITY OPTIONS, INC.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00034-DPM (E.D. Ark., May 17, 2018), seeks to
recover alleged unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Network of Community Options, Inc., is a domestic non-profit
corporation.  The Company provides various services to assist its
clients -- individuals with developmental disabilities, including
in-home support.

The Company employs home care workers, such as the Plaintiffs, to
assist individuals with developmental disabilities.  The
Plaintiffs allege that despite working long hours assisting
individuals with developmental disabilities, they were not paid
overtime compensation for their hours worked over 40 per
workweek.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Holleman, Esq.
          Timothy A. Steadman, Esq.
          Jerry Garner, Esq.
          HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          1008 West Second Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975-5040
          Facsimile: (501) 975-5043
          E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net
                  tim@johnholleman.net
                  jerry@johnholleman.net


PANHANDLE MAINTENANCE: "Diaz" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GENARO DIAZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PANHANDLE MAINTENANCE, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00097-D
(N.D. Tex., May 18, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Panhandle Maintenance, LLC, is a Texas company.  Panhandle
provides insulation, scaffolding, and painting services to
customers in the oil and gas industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          Bridget Davidson, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
          E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                  curt@mooreandassociates.net
                  bddavidson11@gmail.com


PHILLIPS 66: Averts Conoco Employees' ERISA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth L. Chernof, Esq. -- kenneth.chernof@arnoldporter.com --
John D. Lombardo, Esq. -- john.lombardo@arnoldporter.com --
Daphne Morduchowitz, Esq. -- daphne.morduchowitz@arnoldporter.com
-- Andrew K. Solow, Esq., and David J. Weiner, Esq., of Arnold &
Porter, in an article for Mondaq, wrote that in Schweitzer v.
Investment Committee of the Phillips 66 Savings Plan, the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas held that an
employee retirement fund established by a newly spun-off entity
did not violate its fiduciary duties to its participants by
continuing to hold a major portion of its assets in company stock
from the old parent company.

When ConocoPhillips (Conoco) spun off its wholly owned
subsidiary, Phillips 66 Company (Phillips), in 2012, its
employees' retirement funds were transferred from the plan
managed by Conoco to a plan managed by Phillips.  Before the
spin-off, many Conoco employees held Conoco stock as part of
their retirement savings.  When Conoco employees left for
Phillips after the spin-off, the Phillips retirement plan
retained the Conoco stock its members held, which comprised
roughly 25% of the new plan's assets.  After Conoco stock began
to perform badly, a group of employees filed a class action
against the administrators of the Phillips plan for violating the
duties of diversification and prudence.

The central issue was whether the administrators could defend
their holdings of Conoco stock under ERISA, which allows a plan
administrator to ignore the duty to diversify when purchasing
securities from the plan participants' employer.  The defendants
also claimed the plaintiff class had not pled any facts
establishing a violation of the duty to diversify and the duty of
prudence.

The Court held that the Conoco stock was not employer stock that
is protected by ERISA, despite having been employer stock when it
was initially acquired.  However, the Court also held that the
defendants had not violated their duty to diversify because they
had offered all participants the option to move their savings out
of the Conoco stock they had previously purchased, and had not
purchased any additional Conoco stock after the spin-off.  Nor
had the defendants violated their duty of prudence by failing to
force the participants to divest their oversized holdings of
Conoco stock because there were neither "special circumstances"
dictating a divestiture of Conoco stock nor an inadequate
investigation into the long-term prospects of Conoco stock. [GN]


PICANTE INC: "Carrasco" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Irma Carrasco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v.  Picante, Inc. dba Picante, Humberto Tito, Angel
Tenesach aka Angel Tenesaca, and Moises Tenesaca, Case No. 1:18-
cv-03641 (S.D. N.Y., April 24, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff Irma Carrasco was employed as a general assistant
and ostensibly as a supervisor at the restaurant located at 3424
Broadway New York, NY 10031. The Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants at Picante from approximately 2001 until on or about
November 19, 2017.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Mexican Restaurant,
located at 3424 Broadway New York, NY 10031 under the name
"Picante".  [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


POPCHIPS INC: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Popchips, Inc. The
case is styled as Aretha Crosson, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Popchips, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03449
(E.D. N.Y., June 13, 2018).

Popchips, Inc. produces and supplies snack food products. It
offers popped potato chips in various flavors, sweet potato
chips, and popped tortilla chips. The company provides its
products through a network of retail stores in the United States
and Canada, as well as online. popchips, inc. was founded in 2007
and is based in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 4 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
investors who purchased PPG Industries, Inc. ("PPG") (NYSE:PPG)
securities between April 24, 2017 and May 10, 2018.

Click here to learn about the case: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-
c/ppg-industries-inc-2?wire=3. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Company issued materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) PPG's consolidated financial
statements for the year ended December 31, 2017 and quarterly
financial statements for 2017 contained improper accounting
entries and could no longer be relied upon; (2) PPG failed to
maintain adequate internal controls; and (3) as a result,
defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.  On April 19, 2018, PPG issued
a press release disclosing it had received a report concerning
possible violations of its accounting policies and the
identification of approximately $1.4 million of expenses that
should have been accrued in the first quarter.  Then on May 10,
2018, PPG announced that certain previously issued financial
statements could no longer be relied upon.  As part of the
investigation, the Company also determined that "certain improper
accounting entries were made by certain employees at the
direction of the Company's former vice president and controller,"
whose employment was terminated.

If you suffered a loss in PPG you have until July 19, 2018 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve
as a lead plaintiff.  To obtain additional information, contact
Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone
at 212.425.1140, or visit http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-c/ppg-
industries-inc-2?wire=3.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has
represented investors in securities litigations involving
financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. [GN]


PREMIUM MERCHANT: "Blevins" Suit Seeks Damages under TCPA
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Blevins, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Premium Merchant Funding One, LLC, Case No.
2:18-cv-00377 (S.D. Ohio., April 24, 2018), seeks damages
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff Jeffrey Blevins is, and at all times relevant has
been, a resident of the State of Ohio.

The Defendant Premium Merchant Funding One, LLC is a nationwide
provider of business financing services, primarily in the form of
short-term loans. Premium Merchant is a limited liability company
organized under the laws of the State of New York, with a
principal place of business in New York, NY. On information and
belief, Premium Merchant is licensed to conduct business in the
State of Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
      Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
      MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
      1320 Dublin Road, Ste. 100
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Tel: (614) 224-6000
      Fax: (614) 224-6066
      E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
              mboyle@meyerwilson.com


PREVITI PIZZA: "Davalos" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Davalos aka Rene Davalos, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v.  Previti Pizza Corp. dba Previti
Pizza Corp., Papazzio & Previti Corp. dba Previti Pizza &
Papazzio Dining, Jack Marv Inc. dba Previti Pizza and Papazzio
Dining, Paul Previti, and Kevin Wade, Case No. 1:18-cv-03635
(S.D. N.Y., April 24, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for
violations of the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff Juan Davalos aka Rene Davalos is a resident of
Kings County, New York. The Plaintiff was employed as a pizza
maker by Defendants at Previti Pizza from approximately 2008
until on or about March 19, 2018.

Defendants own, operate, or control three Italian restaurants,
located at 123 E 42st Street, New York, New York 10168 under the
name "Previti Pizza Corp.", at 3338 Hillside Avenue, New Hyde
Park, New York 11040 under the name "Previti Pizza & Papazzio
Dining", and  at 2085 Hillside Avenue, New Hyde Park, New York
11040 under the name "Previti Pizza and Papazzio Dining".  [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


PURDUE PHARMA: Faces "Grace" Suit Over Prescription Opioids' Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD GRACE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA INC.; THE PURDUE
FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; INSYS THERAPEUTICS, INC.; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.;
CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ACTAVIS
PLC; ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; WATSON
LABORATORIES, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.;
and AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-10857 (D.
Mass., May 2, 2018), seeks redress for the Defendants' alleged
illegal acts that have caused the Plaintiff's health insurance
premiums to increase.

The Defendants manufacture, market, sell and distribute
prescription opioids, which are powerful, highly addictive
narcotic painkillers.

The Defendants have engaged in a cunning and deceptive marketing
scheme to encourage doctors and patients to use opioids to treat
chronic pain, Mr. Grace alleges.  He contends that the
Defendants' conduct has fueled skyrocketing opioid addiction and
opioid-related deaths and emergency treatments, and has generated
huge sales of opioids at inflated prices.  He adds that the
direct and proximate consequence of the Defendants' misconduct is
that every Massachusetts purchaser of private health insurance
paid higher premiums, co-payments, and deductibles.

Purdue Pharma L.P. is a limited partnership organized under the
laws of the state of Delaware with its principal place of
business in Connecticut.  Purdue Pharma Inc. is a New York
corporation with its principal place of business in Connecticut.
Purdue Frederick Company is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Connecticut.

Insys Therapeutics, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Chandler, Arizona.

Cephalon, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Frazer, Pennsylvania.  Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries, Ltd., is an Israeli corporation with its principal
place of business in Petah Tikva, Israel.  In 2011, Teva Ltd.
acquired Cephalon, Inc.  Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Teva Ltd. and is incorporated in
Delaware with its principal place of business in North Wales,
Pennsylvania.

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation with
its principal place of business in New Jersey and is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson.  Johnson & Johnson is a
New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in
New Jersey.

Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Pennsylvania, and is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Endo Health Solutions Inc.  Endo Health
Solutions Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business in Pennsylvania.

Allergan plc is a public limited company incorporated in Ireland
with its principal place of business in Dublin, Ireland.  Watson
Laboratories, Inc., is a Nevada corporation with its principal
place of business in California, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Allergan plc (f/k/a Actavis, Inc., f/k/a Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.).  Actavis Pharma, Inc. (f/k/a Actavis,
Inc.) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in New Jersey, and was formerly known as Watson Pharma,
Inc.  Actavis LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in New Jersey.  Each of these
defendants is owned by Allergan plc, which uses them to market
and sell its drugs in the United States.

McKesson Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in California.  Cardinal Health, Inc., is an
Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio.
AmerisourceBergen Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick Strawbridge, Esq.
          CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
          Ten Post Office Square
          8th Floor South PMB, #706
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 227-0548
          E-mail: patrick@consovoymccarthy.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          David I. Mindell, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  dmindell@edelson.com

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Todd Logan, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  tlogan@edelson.com

               - and -

          William S. Consovoy, Esq.
          Thomas R. McCarthy, Esq.
          CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
          3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Telephone: (703) 243-9423
          E-mail: will@consovoymccarthy.com
                  tom@consovoymccarthy.com

               - and -

          Michael H. Park, Esq.
          CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Telephone: (212) 247-8006
          E-mail: park@consovoymccarthy.com

               - and -

          Ashley Keller, Esq.
          Travis Lenkner, Esq.
          Seth Meyer, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2570
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 741-5220
          E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com
                  tdl@kellerlenkner.com
                  sam@kellerlenkner.com


QUALITY MIDWESTERN: "Buszta" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages and OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
THERESA BUSZTA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. QUALITY MIDWESTERN HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a/ "QUALITY
SERVICES MOVING" and EDWARD GRAVES, Case No. 1:18-cv-00593-LO-IDD
(E.D. Va., May 17, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

Quality Midwestern Holdings, Inc., doing business as "Quality
Services Moving" is a company with its principal place of
business located in Lorton, Virginia.  Edward Graves is the
president of Quality Midwestern Holdings.

The Company's line of business includes providing local trucking
with storage services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew T. Sutter, Esq.
          SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC
          7540 Little River Tnpk., Suite A, First Floor
          Annandale, VA 22003
          Telephone: (703) 256-1800
          Facsimile: (703) 991-6116
          E-mail: matt@sutterandterpak.com

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street NE, Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520
          Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
          E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
                  jrathod@classlawdc.com


RECRO PHARMA: Federman Files Securities Class Action in Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood on June 4 disclosed that on May 31, 2018, a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Recro
Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ:REPH).  The complaint alleges violations of
federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including
allegations of issuing a series of material or false
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is July 31, 2017 through May 23, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Recro Pharma,
Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class
Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described
above.  You may move the Court no later than July 30, 2018 to
serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.  However, in
order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

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

          Robin Hester
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com

Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com [GN]


ROCHESTER HOME: Cross Wants Reclassification to Receive OT Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vanelia Cross, on behalf of herself, the proposed Rule 23 class,
and others similarly situated v. Rochester Home Care LLC and
Munya Bana, Case No. 0:18-cv-01385 (D. Minn., May 19, 2018),
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Minnesota Fair
Labor Standards Act, seeks:

   (1) declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the Defendants
       to reclassify their workforce of personal care assistants
       like the Plaintiff as overtime eligible; and

   (2) damages compensating the Plaintiff and all similarly
       situated employees for the overtime compensation they were
       improperly denied.

Rochester Home Care LLC is a business incorporated and
headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  Rochester Home Care is
a home health care company, providing in-home nursing,
rehabilitative, therapeutic, and assistive care services to its
clients, who are children, adults, and seniors in need of such
services.  Munya Bana is the owner and chief executive officer of
Rochester Home Care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam W. Hansen, Esq.
          APOLLO LAW, LLC
          400 South 4th Street, Suite 401M - 250
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 927-2969
          Facsimile: (419) 793-1804
          E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com


RODRIGUEZ AUTO: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO ALVAREZ and other similarly-situated individuals v.
RODRIGUEZ AUTO TRANSPORT CORP., and DANIEL N. RODRIGUEZ,
individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-21988-KMM (S.D. Fla., May 17,
2018), seeks to recover from the Defendants alleged regular and
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and
reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Rodriguez Auto Transport Corp. is a profit corporation registered
to do business in Florida, which has its main place of business
in Miami-Dade County, Florida.  Daniel N. Rodriguez is the
Manager of the Defendant Corporation.

Rodriguez Auto is a transportation company dedicated to transport
motor vehicles across interstate lanes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


ROYAL BANK: July 4 Canadian FX Settlement Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Sotos LLP, Koskie
Minsky LLP, Siskinds LLP, Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman and
Siskinds Desmeules, s.e.n.c.r.l. ("Class Counsel") regarding the
Canadian FX Price-Fixing Class Action.

To: All Persons in Canada Who, Between January 1, 2003 and
December 31, 2013, Entered into an FX Instrument*, Either
Directly or Indirectly Through an Intermediary, and/or Purchased
or Otherwise Participated in an Investment or Equity Fund, Mutual
Fund, Hedge Fund, Pension Fund or any Other Investment Vehicle
that Entered into an FX Instrument (the "Settlement Class").

*FX Instruments include FX spot transactions, outright forwards,
FX swaps, FX options, FX futures contracts, options on FX futures
contracts, and other instruments traded in the FX Market.

WHAT IS THE CLASS ACTION ABOUT?

Class action lawsuits in Ontario and Quebec allege an unlawful
conspiracy to fix prices in the foreign exchange market (the "FX
Market").  Beginning at least as early as 2003 and continuing
through 2013, it is alleged that the Defendants communicated
directly with each other to coordinate their: (i) fixing of spot
prices; (ii) controlling and manipulating FX benchmark rates; and
(iii) exchanging key confidential customer information in an
effort to trigger client stop loss orders and limit orders.  The
Defendants' alleged conspiracy affected dozens of currency pairs,
including the U.S. and Canadian dollar (USD/CAD) currency pair,
which is one of the world's highest volume trading currency
pairs.  Due to the importance of spot prices, it is alleged that
the Defendants' alleged conspiracy impacted all manner of FX
instruments, including those trading both over-the-counter and on
exchanges.

WHO ARE SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS?

You are included in this lawsuit if you are a Person in Canada
who, between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2013, entered into
an FX Instrument1 either directly or indirectly through an
intermediary, and/or purchased or otherwise participated in an
investment or equity fund, mutual fund, hedge fund, pension fund
or any other investment vehicle that entered into an FX
Instrument and you did not opt-out of the action on or before
December 5, 2016.

WHAT SETTLEMENTS HAVE BEEN REACHED?

Settlements have been reached with 12 groups of Defendants.  The
settlements achieved to date total approximately CAD$107 million.
The settlement funds, plus interest, are being held in trust for
the benefit of settlement class members, less court approved fees
and expenses.  The litigation continues against 4 groups of
Defendants.  The settlements are a compromise of disputed claims
and the Defendants do not admit any wrongdoing or liability.

HOW WILL THE SETTLEMENT FUNDS BE DISTRIBUTED?

At the approval hearing, the courts will be asked to approve a
protocol for distribution of the settlement funds.

Although settlements have only been reached with certain
Defendants, if approved, settlement class members can make claims
for transactions with any Defendant or other financial
institution, provided they entered into an FX Instrument, either
directly or indirectly through an intermediary, and/or purchased
or otherwise participated in an investment or equity fund, mutual
fund, hedge fund, pension fund or any other investment vehicle
that entered into an FX Instrument between January 1, 2003 and
December 31, 2013.

Settlement class members who directly entered into an FX
Instrument, either with a Defendant or another financial
institution, will submit documentation of their FX transaction
volumes using their own records and will submit those records to
the Claims Administrator.  Subject to further order of the
courts, the settlement funds allocated to Direct Claimants will
be distributed proportionally, based on the value of an approved
claim (adjusted for certain factors described in the Distribution
Protocol) relative to the value of all approved claims.

If approved, settlement class members who indirectly transacted
in an FX Instrument by virtue of participating or trading in an
investment vehicle, such as a mutual fund, which was incorrectly
valued due to the Defendants' misconduct, may submit their own
trading records of their investments in such investment vehicles
to the Claims Administrator.

This notice only summarizes the Distribution Protocol.  More
information about the Distribution Protocol is available at
www.canadianfxnationalclassaction.ca.

HOW TO MAKE A CLAIM FOR SETTLEMENT BENEFITS?

You do not have to do anything now. If approved, after the
approval hearing, a further notice will be provided regarding the
process and deadline to apply for settlement benefits.

If you did not receive this notice by direct mail, you should
register online at www.canadianfxnationalclassaction.ca to ensure
that you receive future notices by direct mail.

WHO ARE THE LAWYERS WHO REPRESENT THE CLASS AND HOW WILL THEY BE
PAID?

The law firms of Sotos LLP, Koskie Minsky LLP, Siskinds LLP, and
Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman represent the Plaintiffs and the
class in the Ontario action.  Siskinds Desmeules, s.e.n.c.r.l.
represents the Plaintiff and the class in the Quebec action
("Class Counsel").

The lawyers will be paid on a contingency fee basis. Class
Counsel fees and disbursements must be approved by the Ontario
court.  Class Counsel will be requesting that legal fees of up to
18.5% of the settlement funds, less legal fees previously
awarded, plus disbursements and applicable taxes, be approved by
the court and paid out of the settlement funds. This motion will
be heard in Ontario, at the same time as the hearing to approve
the Distribution Protocol.

WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS?

If you do not object to the Distribution Protocol or Class
Counsel's request for fees or expenses, you do not have to do
anything now.

If you do not agree with the Distribution Protocol or Class
Counsel's request for fees or expenses, you can make submissions
to the courts regarding the proposed Distribution Protocol and
Class Counsel's fee request.  To do so, you must act by June 29,
2018.  See the long-form notice online at
www.canadianfxnationalclassaction.ca for more information.

The hearing before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice will be
held on July 4, 2018 at 10:00AM at Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street
West, Toronto, Ontario.  The hearing before the Quebec Superior
Court will be held on August 6, 2018 at 9:30AM at the Quebec City
Courthouse, 300, boulevard Jean-Lesage, Quebec City, Quebec.

MORE INFORMATION?

Go to www.canadianfxnationalclassaction.ca or call toll-free 800-
375-9070 or write to Laura-Marie Paynter at laura-
marie.paynter@siskinds.com.

DISTRIBUTION OF THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE AND BY THE QUEBEC SUPERIOR COURT

DO NOT CONTACT THE COURTS ABOUT THIS NOTICE

This Notice is a Summary.  For more information about these class
actions, please visit www.canadianfxnationalclassaction.ca or
contact Class Counsel.

1    "FX Instruments" includes FX spot transactions, outright
forwards, FX swaps, FX options, FX futures contracts, options on
FX futures contracts, and other instruments traded in the FX
Market. [GN]


RUBIN-LOBO LLC: Faces "Tucker" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rubin-Lobo LLC. The
case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rubin-Lobo LLC doing
business as: Bode NYC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05323 (S.D.
N.Y., June 13, 2018).

Formerly known as Bikram Yoga NYC, Bode led New York City in the
Hot Yoga revolution by bringing Bikram Yoga to Manhattan in
1999.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAGE TELECOM: Appeals Panel Upholds Class Action Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------
Lauraann Wood, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois
appeals panel on June 1 upheld an order dismissing a man's
putative class action over service disruption at Sage Telecom
Communications, agreeing with the lower court the check he
received for relief of his claim before moving for class
certification did not need to contemplate court costs to take
effect.

The panel ruled unanimously that the Illinois Code of Civil
Procedure awards damages only when a plaintiff recovers a
judgment in an action for them. [GN]


SAM'S CLUB: Judge Quizzes Attorney on $1.8MM Fee Request
--------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Brown and Daniel J. Gross, writing for Anderson Independent
Mail, report that U.S. District Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks
recently quizzed Greenville attorney William Herlong and two
other lawyers about their request for $1.8 million in legal fees
from a class-action settlement involving Sam's Club.

Mr. Herlong, who is seeking the Republican nomination for state
attorney general, said Hendricks asked reasonable questions about
the fees that he and lawyers T. Christopher Tuck of Mount
Pleasant and Terry Richardson Jr. of Barnwell are seeking.

"She is doing her job," Mr. Herlong said after the May 24 hearing
at federal courthouse in Greenville.

The case was filed in 2014 on behalf of a Greenville woman who
says Sam's Club failed to keep its promise to provide a 200
percent refund on fresh grocery products such as meat, produce
and bakery items that are returned. As an alternative, the stores
also pledged to refund the full price of returned fresh items and
replace them.

The woman, Myriam Fejzulai, contends that she has been
shortchanged by hundreds of dollars during the past eight years
by Sam's Club's refusal to honor its 200 percent Freshness
Guarantee.

Her attorneys argued that "many thousands, if not millions" of
Sam Club's members suffered a similar fate.

Under terms of a proposed settlement, Sam's Club has agreed to
pay between $3 million and $6 million, court documents show.

Mr. Herlong, Mr. Tuck and Mr. Richardson have stated in court
papers that their suggested $1.8 million in legal fees accounts
for 30 percent of the maximum settlement amount.

"I don't think it's exorbitant at all," Mr. Herlong said after
the May hearing.

According to court records, Judge Hendricks raised concerns that
the proposed legal fees would represents 60 percent of the $3
million "floor."

Judge Hendricks had not issued orders on the proposed settlement
or legal fees as of June 4. [GN]


SAWGRASS GRAND: Faces "Sierra" Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sawgrass Grand Fee
Owner, LLC. The case is styled as Luis Sierra, on his own and on
behalf of all other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Sawgrass Grand Fee Owner, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-61313-BB (S.D. Fla., June
13, 2018).

Sawgrass Grand Fee Owner, LLC was incorporated in 2014 and is
based in Miami, Florida and engaged in Holiday Inn Hotel & Suites
Sawgrass Mills.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
   Jessica L. Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
   200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: service@advocacypa.com


SHELBY COUNTY, TN: 3 Class Actions Over Jail Issues Merged
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeni Diprizio, writing for Local Memphis, reports that there's
new information on lawsuits against Shelby County regarding how
it literally lost people in the jail and court system.  Three
federal class action lawsuits have now been merged into one.

In 2016, the county switched computer systems, causing chaos at
the courthouse.

At the Shelby County Criminal Justice center, things are running
more smoothly a year and a half after the $10 million computer
switchover, but it's what happened in the days, weeks, and months
after the new system was installed that caused the problems.

People were lost in jail for days, some even months.  At the
courthouse, judges and staff were not able to pull up the proper
paperwork to make sure the right people were in court or able to
check if the status of cases were correct.

Brice Timmons is one of the lawyers handling the federal case.
He says now that the three lawsuits are merged, the judge will
first decide how the lawsuit will be structured.

"This is a big case with a lot of data, a lot of electronically-
stored information a lot of private information, so how that
information gets handled is going to be complicated,"
Mr. Timmons.

Mr. Timmons believes thousands of people were impacted by the
botched computer switchover.

He says many of the people who were stuck in the system were
picked up on simple driving offenses and then never convicted of
crimes. Because the computer system was spitting out bad
information, one of his clients was arrested for an old medical
bill.

"He had an outstanding $250 medical debt in a civil case.  That's
sorta like being arrested 'cuz you didn't pay your credit card
bill.  Those are the kinds of people we're talking about here,"
said Mr. Timmons.

Mr. Timmons says this is really just the beginning. Class action
lawsuits takes years and this case won't end anytime soon.

"Battles like this are fought on long muddy battlefields," said
Mr. Timmons.

Since the lawsuits were filed, the county has refused to comment,
citing pending litigation. [GN]


SIX FLAGS: Class Action Remanded to Lake County Circuit Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charmaine Little, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Chicago federal judge has kicked back to Lake County Circuit
Court a class action lawsuit brought by a couple who claimed
theme park operator Six Flags printed too many of their credit
card's digits on their receipts from a day at Six Flags Great
America.

On May 24, U.S. District Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. remanded the
lawsuit brought by Hugo and Sharon Soto, granting their request
to send the matter back to state court.

The Sotos sued after they both used debit cards to pay for food
at the Great America theme park in Gurnee.  The Sotos took issue
with the receipts they were given, alleging the receipts
displayed the first eight and the last four digits of their debit
card numbers.  The plaintiffs said they threw away their
receipts, making it even more likely that their information is
not protected.

The Sotos ultimately filed a class action lawsuit in Lake County
court arguing that by displaying 12 numbers from their debit
cards on the receipts, Six Flags violated the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Under the act, companies are not allowed to print more than the
last four digits on a debit or credit card receipt.

Six Flags removed the case to federal court, prompting the
plaintiffs' motion to have it returned to state court.

In his ruling, Judge Dow said he took into account the
plaintiffs' standing before deciding whether to remand the case
or toss it out completely.  The judge said he disagreed with the
defendant's argument that remanding the case would be futile, and
stated an Illinois court could rule that the alleged violation of
FACTA is strong enough to stand in state court, even if the law
wouldn't hold the same weight in federal court.

"Because the court cannot say definitively what an Illinois state
court would decide, remand rather than dismissal is appropriate,"
the judge said.

The judge also said that even if the defendant was correct and
the plaintiffs' argument was futile because of their failure to
state a claim, the federal and state courts would probably both
permit the complaint to be changed.

The judge denied the plaintiffs' request for reimbursement of
their attorneys' fees.

The Sotos are represented by attorneys James O. Latturner,
Francis Richard Greene, Daniel A. Edelman, Cathleen M. Combs and
Michelle A. Alyea, of the firm of Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin LLC, of Chicago.

Six Flags is defended by attorneys Bevin M. Brennan --
bbrennan@pedersenhoupt.com -- of Pedersen & Houpt P.C., of
Chicago, and Spencer S. Persson --
spencer.persson@nortonrosefulbright.com -- of Norton Rose
Fulbright US LLP, of Los Angeles. [GN]


SOUND TRANSIT: Faces Class Action Over Car-Tab Taxes
----------------------------------------------------
David Gutman, writing for Seattle Times, reports that seven Puget
Sound-region residents have filed a class-action lawsuit alleging
that Sound Transit's collection of car-tab taxes is unauthorized
because the law passed in 2015 that let the agency send Sound
Transit 3 to the ballot is unconstitutional.

The seven residents want Sound Transit to pay back $240 million
in car-tab revenue the agency has collected since early last
year.

The lawsuit, filed in Pierce County Superior Court on June 5, is
the latest foray in a long-simmering battle over how Sound
Transit collects car-tab taxes.  The agency uses an outdated
formula, inherited from the Legislature, to estimate a car's
value for the purposes of collecting taxes.  The formula inflates
newer cars' values, relative to Kelley Blue Book values,
resulting in higher car-tab fees.

Despite bipartisan support, the Legislature has repeatedly failed
to pass bills that would correct the formula.  Last fall, a
Republican-led state Senate committee investigated Sound
Transit's actions, focusing, in part, on the same legal issue
raised by the lawsuit.

The lawsuit hinges on the 2015 law and the circuitous, convoluted
legislative and judicial history behind how car-tab taxes are
levied.

Responding to the lawsuit, a spokesman for Sound Transit issued
an emailed statement late on June 5.

"We are confident in the validity of the law and will be
reviewing and responding to the lawsuit," the spokesman,
Geoff Patrick, wrote.  "Any reduction of MVET [motor vehicle
excise tax] revenues would delay or kill voter-approved transit
alternatives."

Washington developed a formula for estimating a car's value for
tax purposes in 1990.  That inflated formula has technically been
replaced but, in practice, is still in use today.

The Legislature replaced the inflated formula with a more
accurate formula in 2006.  But, because Sound Transit had already
sold bonds based on the tax rate and the inflated formula, it
will continue to use the old formula until the bonds are paid off
in 2028.

When the Legislature authorized sending Sound Transit 3 to the
ballot, the law they wrote specifically said the old formula
would be used until the bonds were paid off.  It did so by
referencing an overturned section of law, the state code "as it
existed on Jan. 1, 1996."

The lawsuit says this makes the law unconstitutional, and means
Sound Transit can't collect those car-tab taxes.

"The schedule in place on that date had been repealed and was not
in force in 2015," said state Sen. Phil Fortunato, a supporter of
the lawsuit, in a prepared statement.  Sen. Fortunato, R-Auburn,
does not live in the Sound Transit district and is not a party to
the lawsuit, but said he recruited the lawyers -- Joel Ard and
David DeWolf -- who filed the lawsuit. [GN]


STATE FARM: Eckhardt Seeks Refund on Fees Due to Crypto Purchases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SETH ECKHARDT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. STATE FARM BANK, F.S.B. Case No. 1:18-cv-01180-JBM-
JEH (C.D. Ill., May 2, 2018), is brought on behalf of persons in
the United States who, upon purchasing a cryptocurrency from
Coinbase.com or another online crypto merchant, incurred cash
advance fees and/or cash advance interest charges on a consumer
credit card issued by State Farm.

In January 2018, State Farm abruptly altered its customers'
credit card terms -- without notice -- such that any crypto
purchases made by credit cardholders would be designated as Cash
Advances rather than Purchases, as they had been throughout 2017
and prior years, according to the complaint.

Mr. Eckhardt seeks, inter alia, a complete refund of all cash
advance-related charges levied against him and the class by State
Farm in connection with their recent crypto purchases.

State Farm Bank USA, F.S.B., is domiciled in Illinois and is one
of the larger federal savings banks and credit card issuers in
the United States.  State Farm issues a number of consumer credit
cards to customers nationwide, such as the State Farm Rewards
Visa, State Farm Good Neighbor Visa, and State Farm Student Visa
credit cards.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Harris, Jr., Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101-3579
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
          E-mail: djh@classactionlaw.com


STATE STREET: ATRS Wants to Remain as Class Representative
----------------------------------------------------------
Max Brantley, writing for Arkansas Times, reports that
George Hopkins, director of the Arkansas Teacher Retirement
System, has told a federal court in Massachusetts that the system
wants to remain as class representative in a lawsuit against a
securities firm where lawyer fees have become controversial.

Mr. Hopkins' decision follows what was described in the Arkansas
Democrat-Gazette as a vote on June 4 by the Board of Trustees of
the System to recommend that he withdraw as a representative in
the suit against State Street, which produced a $300 million
settlement.  The Board chair said, however, he didn't want to
"push" Hopkins to make a decision. A court controversy continues
about $75 million in attorney fees paid out of the settlement.
Some, it was learned recently, was paid as a finder's fee to an
unnamed law firm.  Mr. Hopkins defended the lawyers' work at the
ATRS board meeting, where trustees also asked him to report on a
dozen class action lawsuits in which the system is still
participating.

Mr. Hopkins had told the Arkansas Blog, which first reported on
the issue in Arkansas, that one of the lead firms in the case,
Labaton Sucharow, had been introduced to then-ATRS Director Paul
Doane by then-Sen. Steve Faris.  He said he didn't know about a
referral fee paid in the case until the recent special master's
report.  But he said the firm had done good work.

In a statement filed on June 6 in federal court in Massachusetts,
Hopkins said he wanted ATRS to stay as class representative,
though a federal judge had suggested he contemplate whether he
should step down.  The filing said the ATRS board had authorized
him to use his "best judgment" about ATRS remaining as class
representative.  He said he'd sought independent legal advice and
he noted ATRS had pushed the case from the start and won a large
settlement.  He said ATRS had always been open about its role and
had led some 30 class action suits that had recovered more than
$2 billion for retirement funds. He acknowledged "imperfection"
in the case, but said "hindsight is 20/20."

"Armed with legal advice from counsel 'whose conduct is not at
issue' and with the extensive knowledge of the posture of this
case, I feel ATRS is uniquely positioned to represent the
customer class and to knowingly and actively assist in moving
this matter to a proper conclusion and confirm that ATRS wishes
to continue as a class representative for the Customer Class."

Labaton Sucharow also issued a statement:

"As Class Representative in the State Street class action,
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System played a critical role in
helping formulate and evaluate litigation strategy, overseeing
and supporting class counsel and establishing a basis for a
strong financial recovery for the class.  George Hopkins
personally did an outstanding job as class representative
throughout the six-year entirety of the case.  At the direction
of ATRS the legal team achieved an excellent result on behalf of
the class.  We support ATRS' continued role as Class
Representative in this successfully settled case."

A special master's report has led the federal judge to consider
whether the law firms should repay some of their fee because of
the sharing arrangement questioned by the master.  That report
remains under seal, but some elements of it became known through
a court hearing.

Mr. Brantley asked Mr. Hopkins this morning about a seeming
contradiction in the report on the Board vote on June 4 and his
decision to remain. He responded:'

"The ATRS Board recommendation was for me to use my best judgment
as to stay or go.  The recommendation was if I saw this taking
too much time or otherwise would lessen my focus on ATRS that the
ATRS Board would support a withdrawal." [GN]


STEPS AGENCY: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Dodge" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kara Dodge and Tara Flores, On behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated v. STEPS Agency, Inc.; STEPS Provider Agency,
LLC; Barry DiBiasio; and Jackie Bruce, Case No. 3:18-cv-01150-JZ
(N.D. Ohio, May 18, 2018), alleges that the Defendants fail to
compensate the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals with
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Prompt Pay Act.

STEPS Agency, Inc., doing business as "STEPS," is a domestic for-
profit corporation headquartered in Fremont, Ohio.  STEPS
Provider Agency, LLC, doing business as "STEPS," is a for-profit
limited liability company headquartered in Fremont.  Barry
DiBiasio is the founder, the owner and an officer of the
Defendant Corporations.  Jackie Bruce is the President of STEPS
Agency.

The Defendants have operated a supported living provider agency
in Northwest Ohio for individuals with developmental disabilities
since 2005.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Biller, Esq.
          Andrew Kimble, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
                  akimble@msdlegal.com


SUPER MICRO: New York Union Named Lead Plaintiff in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Breslin, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District Court of
California recently agreed to consolidate lawsuits against a
northern California tech company and ruled that a pension fund
for a New York union representing hotel and gaming workers will
be the lead plaintiff in the securities class action.

The New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York
City Inc. Pension Fund has satisfied all the requirements that
allow it to be named the lead plaintiff in the class action
against San Jose-based Super Micro Computer, the court said in
its May 25 order.

The class action, filed on behalf of anyone who bought shares in
Super Micro between Aug. 5, 2016, and Jan. 30, 2018, accuses the
company of violating the 1934 Security Exchange Act.

The complaint claimed that Super Micro, which designs and
manufactures servers and other computer accessories, made false
and misleading statements and failed to disclose adverse
information, according to court documents.

The court order, which also consolidated all the actions against
Super Micro, followed a request by the Oklahoma Police Pension
and Retirement System to be named the lead plaintiff in the case.

The New York pension fund claimed in should be the lead plaintiff
because it suffered the greatest financial loss - $180,622,
according to court documents.

"Once a movant has demonstrated that it has the largest financial
interest, it need only make a prima facie showing of its
typicality and adequacy," U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar wrote in
the order.

He explained that "the test of typicality is whether other
members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is
based on conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and
whether other class members have been injured by the same course
of conduct."

Further, under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995, if the lead plaintiff has demonstrated it has made "a
reasonable choice of counsel, the district court should generally
defer to that choice."

Super Micro Computer, which is listed on the Nasdaq exchange,
recently announced it was granted continuing listing on Nasdaq by
the exchange's hearings panel until Aug. 24. [GN]


SYMANTEC CORP: July 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on June 6
disclosed that class action litigation has been filed on behalf
of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities
of Symantec Corporation ("Symantec" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:
SYMC) between May 19, 2017 and May 10, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Symantec securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than July 16, 2018.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Your share of any recovery in the
actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff.  You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the actions.

Symantec investors who wish to learn more about the litigation
and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should contact
Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358.

Background on the Symantec Securities Class Litigation

Symantec, incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Mountain
View, California, provides cybersecurity solutions worldwide.

The action alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
Symantec, its Chief Executive Officer Gregory S. Clark, and its
Chief Financial Officer Nicholas R. Noviello, made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Symantec's internal controls over financial reporting were
materially weak and deficient; and (2) Symantec's "reporting of
certain Non-GAAP measures including those that could impact
executive compensation programs" would provoke heightened
regulatory scrutiny.

On May 10, 2018, after markets closed, the Company reported that
it would likely need to delay the filing of its annual report for
the fiscal year ended March 30, 2018 because its Audit Committee
had begun an internal investigation related to concerns raised by
a former employee.  On this news, the price of Symantec shares
fell $9.66 per share, or 33.1% from the previous closing price of
$29.18, to close at $19.52 per share on May 11, 2018, on
extremely heavy trading volume.

On May 14, 2018, after markets closed, Symantec disclosed details
of the investigation, which involves the "Company's public
disclosures including commentary on historical financial results,
its reporting of certain Non-GAAP measures including those that
could impact executive compensation programs, certain forward-
looking statements, stock trading plans and retaliation."

                      About Lieff Cabraser

With offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Seattle,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP --
http://www.lieffcabraser.com-- is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility. [GN]


THERANOS: Founder Averts Indirect Investors' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Luke Stangel, writing for Silicon Valley Business Journal,
reports that a federal judge has ruled that a group of indirect
investors in the failed blood-testing startup Theranos cannot
file a class-action lawsuit against the company.

The group included more than 200 people who invested in funds
between July 2013 and October 2016 that bought pre-IPO shares in
Theranos.  The group claimed the startup had lied to investors
about its capabilities, Reuters reports.

In a decision handed down in a San Jose courtroom on May 31, U.S.
Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins said the indirect investors
couldn't prove they had been deliberately misled by Theranos
founder and CEO Elizabeth Holmes and Chief Operating Officer
Ramesh Balwani.

"It is easy to imagine, for example, that someone invested simply
because a friend suggested it, or because all that percolated
down the grapevine was vague insight that Theranos was a fast-
growing company, or had promising (but unspecified) technology,"
Cousin wrote in his decision, according to Reuters.

The group's lawyer told the news agency he may appeal the ruling.
Ms. Holmes and Mr. Balwani are scheduled to give depositions in
the case later this month.

Indirect investors in private startups can't sue under federal
securities laws, so the group had instead filed its suit under
California state law, Reuters reports.

Theranos was once a Silicon Valley darling that promised to
replace traditional blood tests with a new test that collected a
single drop of blood. At its height, investors were pouring money
into the startup at a $9 billion valuation.

But behind the scenes, Theranos failed to tell investors, its
retail partner Walgreens, and the public that its tests were
inaccurate.  In late 2015, the Wall Street Journal published
evidence that suggested Theranos had secretly purchased and was
using conventional blood-testing equipment, rather than its own
technology.

Theranos initially denied the allegations, which prompted state
and federal officials to open a series of investigations into the
company.  Theranos' early, direct investors sued.  In 2017,
Theranos settled lawsuits from investor Partner Fund Management,
and its former partner, Walgreens. It also agreed to shut down
its blood-testing labs.

Earlier this year, the company settled with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, with Ms. Holmes agreeing to pay $500,000
in fines and promising not to serve as a director or officer of
any publicly traded company for 10 years. [GN]


TIGER RETAIL: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tiger Retail East
Coast, LLC. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Tiger Retail East Coast, LLC doing business as: Flying Tiger
Copenhagen, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05351 (S.D. N.Y., June
13, 2018).

Tiger Retail East Coast LLC is in the Real Estate Agents and
Managers business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10017-6705
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


UNITED STATES: Request to Stay Injunction in Abortion Case Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
a federal appellate panel on June 4 rejected an attempt by the
Trump administration to block an injunction against the
government's policies restricting the ability of pregnant
undocumented minors to obtain abortions.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously denied
the U.S. Justice Department's request to stay the entire
injunction pending the government's appeal in the case Garza v.
Azar.  The Justice Department is challenging the injunction and a
trial judge's certification of a nationwide class of pregnant
minors in the custody of the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement
(ORR).

The panel's ruling came on the same day the U.S. Supreme Court,
in a related case that was the forerunner to the class action,
vacated a decision that had allowed a pregnant immigrant teen in
U.S. custody to go forward with her abortion.  The justices also
declined the Justice Department's suggestion to impose sanctions
on the immigrant teenager's lawyers at the American Civil
Liberties Union for allegedly misleading the government about the
timing of the girl's abortion.

After the Supreme Court ruling, Justice Department lawyers told
the D.C. Circuit that the justices' order supports the government
argument that the trial judge was wrong to certify a class and to
enjoin Office of Refugee Resettlement practices with respect to
access to abortions.

Brigitte Amiri of the ACLU, representing the class of immigrant
minors, said the Supreme Court's action "was not at all relevant.
It will have no effect on the class action."

D.C. Circuit Judge Judith Rogers wrote on June 4:
"The class action complaint seeks to prevent defendants, in light
of 'recently revised nationwide policies,' from wielding an
'unconstitutional veto power' over access to such abortion in
violation of the Fifth Amendment, by forcing those who, like
J.D., request a pre-viability abortion, to visit pre-approved
anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers, which require them, in
violation of the First and Fifth Amendments, to 'divulge the most
intimate details' of their lives, and by notifying, without
consent, parents or other family members of their request for an
abortion."

Judge Rogers continued: "In this manner, pregnant unaccompanied
immigrant minors who seek pre-viability abortions can avoid both
the unconstitutional burden under defendants' practices and the
necessity of repeated individual emergency proceedings in the
district court and on appeal.  The injunction of defendants'
practices relieves class members of these burdens and restores
their rights to privacy and to choose whether to seek a pre-
viability abortion.  Avoiding time-consuming litigation of
individual cases may alleviate some of the emotional trauma
inflicted upon a group of especially vulnerable young women."

The three-judge panel did put on hold one part of the injunction
that had restricted disclosure of immigrant teenagers' "abortion
decisions."  The D.C. Circuit ruling allows such disclosure when
a minor becomes incapacitated or gives consent.

The appeals panel divided 2-1 on an aspect of the temporary bar
against the Office of Refugee Resettlement "interfering with or
obstructing any class member's access to an abortion."  Two of
the panel judges -- Rogers and Sri Srinivasan -- said the access
bar applies only to pre-viability abortions.  But Judge Thomas
Griffith, writing separately, argued the access bar applied to
all abortions and that the "overbroad" injunction violated
Supreme Court abortion precedents.

Judge Griffith wrote: "While I am not opposed to interpreting an
injunction in light of its context, the majority's saving
construction here is unpersuasive.  For that reason, I would
treat the abortion-access provision just as we did the non-
disclosure provision, staying it to the extent it exceeds the
right established by the Supreme Court."  Judge Griffith said
Rogers and Srinivasan were refusing "to acknowledge the
government's interest in 'fetal life.'"

Judge Rogers countered Judge Griffith, writing: "Regrettably, my
colleague has joined defendants' non-contextual misconception of
the injunction to conclude that an opinion on post-viability
abortions is required.  This conclusion too is unfounded. The
designated class representatives' own circumstances involve
access to pre-viability abortions."

The panel issued a briefing order beginning July 2 and ending
August 9, with oral arguments in September. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Must Process Teen Pregnancy Grants, Judge Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessie Hellmann, writing for The Hill, reports that a federal
judge ruled that the Trump administration must accept and process
grant applications for more than 60 organizations working to
prevent teen pregnancy.

It's a significant development in a fight that has dragged on
since last summer, when the administration prematurely ended
grants for groups participating in the Teen Pregnancy Prevention
Program, created under former President Obama.

Judge Kentanji Brown Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia ruled in a class action lawsuit against the
administration that the termination was unlawful and ordered the
department to proceed "as if the agency had not undertaken to
shorten these grantees' federal awards."

The administration told grantees last summer their funding would
end two years earlier than originally planned, claiming the
program was inefficient at curbing teen pregnancy rates.

The ruling means that the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) will have to process applications from grantees for the
final two years of the program.

The decision from Brown, an Obama appointee, is the fifth in
rulings against HHS over the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program.

Supporters of the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program are
cautiously celebrating the result of the lawsuit, but are
concerned about what the administration's next steps might be.

"While we are thrilled to see the continued trend of courts
holding the Trump administration accountable--especially in
regard to this vital program -- we know that this fight could be
far from over," said Chitra Panjabi, president and CEO of the
Sexuality and Information Council of the U.S.

"SIECUS will continue to keep a close watch as any potential
response from the Administration remains unknown."

HHS said in a statement that it was evaluating its next steps,
but did not provide any further details.

"We are disappointed with this ruling," HHS spokesperson Caitlin
Oakley said in a statement.

"Continuing the program in its current state does a disservice to
the youth it serves and to the taxpayers who fund it.
Communities deserve better, and we are considering our next
steps."

This story was updated at 3:07 p.m. [GN]


UNITED STATES: SCOTUS Tosses Immigrant Teen Abortion Case Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Hurley, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court on June 4 threw out a lower court ruling that let a
pregnant illegal immigrant minor held in federal immigration
custody obtain an abortion last year at age 17 over the
objections of President Donald Trump's administration.

The justices provided a legal victory to Trump's administration
even though the teenager already has had the abortion because it
eliminated a precedent at the federal appeals court level that
could have applied in similar circumstances in which other
detained minors sought abortions.

In the unsigned opinion with no dissents, the justices threw out
the lower court decision on the grounds that the dispute became
moot once the teenager had the abortion.

The girl, whose name and nationality were not disclosed and was
called "Jane Doe" in legal papers, had an abortion on Oct. 25 in
Texas, the day after a U.S. appeals court ruled against the Trump
administration's objections.

The case involves the intersection of two divisive social issues
on which Trump has taken a hard line: abortion and immigration.

Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec welcomed the court's
action.  "The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that the
federal government is not required to facilitate abortions for
minors and may choose policies favoring life over abortion. We
look forward to continuing to press the government's interest in
the sanctity of life."

The justices also allowed litigation to continue in lower courts
concerning other detained immigrants in similar situations.

On March 30, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington
issued an injunction preventing the administration from impeding
access to abortion by detained immigrant minors.  Judge Chutkan
also certified a class action of similar minors to challenge the
administration's policy.

'STRIKE IT DOWN'
"The decision doesn't affect our ongoing efforts to ensure that
all 'Janes' can get an abortion if they need one," said lawyer
Brigitte Amiri of the American Civil Liberties Union, which
represented the girl.  "The district court has blocked the Trump
administration's cruel policy of obstructing unaccompanied
immigrant minors' access to abortion while the case continues,
and we won't stop until we strike it down once and for all."

The ACLU, which has filed a range of lawsuits against the
administration, sued in Washington in October, seeking a decision
on obtaining abortions that would be binding in future similar
cases.

The justices on June 4 declined to take up the administration's
request for disciplinary action against the ACLU lawyers. The
administration had accused them of misleading the Justice
Department over when she would have the abortion.  The department
has said it was preparing to appeal that ruling to the Supreme
Court when it learned the girl had already had the abortion early
that morning. [L2N1N01BN]

The high court said that it takes misconduct allegations against
lawyers seriously but said "not all communication breakdowns
constitute misconduct."

A 1973 Supreme Court ruling legalized abortion nationwide. One of
the issues raised by the current case is whether illegal
immigrant women have the same right to an abortion as American
citizens and legal residents.

The girl entered the United States without any family in
September 2017 and was immediately detained by U.S. authorities
and placed in a shelter in Texas for unaccompanied illegal
immigrant minors.

She sought and received a Texas court order to approve the
abortion because she a minor, and scheduled a sonogram and
consultation with a physician, as required by Texas law.  But the
administration refused to let her leave the detention center to
carry out those steps. [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: More Women Join Sexual Abuse Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on June 4 disclosed that a
growing class-action lawsuit filed against the University of
Southern California (USC) and the university's longtime
gynecologist, Dr. George Tyndall, for his sexual abuse,
molestation, and unwanted touching of his patients at USC is now
21 women-strong, as additional alumnae and students are stepping
forward to join the lawsuit brought by attorneys at Hagens
Berman.

If you were in any way violated or treated inappropriately by
USC's Dr. Tyndall during a medical examination, find out more
about the lawsuit and your rights.

Please note: Your protection is Hagens Berman's top priority.  We
welcome any information, and those who contact our firm may
remain anonymous in their potential case.  Hagens Berman will
request that the Court permit our clients to proceed anonymously
as a Jane Doe.  Our attorneys have experience in protecting
plaintiffs who wish to remain anonymous, both as whistleblowers
and as survivors of sexual misconduct.

The complaint filed June 4, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California detail accusations against
USC's Dr. Tyndall by 15 more women.

"If the Me Too movement has taught us anything, it's that there
is strength in numbers," said Elizabeth Fegan -- beth@hbsslaw.com
-- partner at Hagens Berman representing the proposed class of
women against USC and Dr. Tyndall.  "We applaud the incredibly
brave women who have stepped forward to join us in this case and
take a stand against systemic abuse and abusers."

"USC hid Dr. Tyndall's abhorrent actions for decades, and we're
here to bring USC's cover-up under the glare of the public eye,"
Ms. Fegan added.  "It is our hope that this lawsuit will expose
USC for its blatantly irresponsible behavior that led to the
violation of hundreds if not thousands of women over the course
of decades, and bring them justice."

The lawsuit states, "USC violated its female students' trust by
knowingly putting women in the room for treatment by Tyndall,
knowing that inappropriate physical contact and violations would
occur.  In fact, USC nurses, chaperones, and other staff members
were regularly present in the examination rooms, observed the
inappropriate sexual molestation, and took no steps to stop it as
it occurred."

"Moreover, even as numerous supervisors and administrators became
aware of Tyndall's harmful conduct, USC failed to act to protect
its female students by removing Tyndall from his position even
though it was clear he was unfit to treat patients," it adds.

The lawsuit accuses Dr. Tyndall of sexually harassing, abusing,
molesting and engaging in wildly inappropriate behavior with
female students who sought his medical care at USC's student
health clinic and accuses USC of brazen negligence in failing to
stop his violation of female students.  Dr. Tyndall oversaw tens
of thousands of female patients during his time at USC, and the
university knew of his behavior since at least the 1990s but
failed to take action.

One nurse at USC stated she repeatedly expressed concerns about
Tyndall to clinic administrators, "but they seemed uninterested."
It wasn't until the nurse went to USC's rape crisis center in
2016 and spoke to its executive director that the investigation
that led to Tyndall's removal began.  USC admitted that prior
complaints (dating back to 2000) were sufficient to terminate
Tyndall, and should have been elevated for "proper
investigation."

According to the complaint, ultimately, in 2017, the university
began termination proceedings.  However, USC did not contact law
enforcement, the attorney general or the medical licensing board,
nor did USC inform Tyndall's patients.

Attorneys at Hagens Berman achieved a nationwide sexual
harassment settlement on behalf of 16,000 women and also tried
the first ever sexual harassment case in Washington state in
1985.  The firm represents multiple women on behalf of a class of
all victims who were harassed or otherwise assaulted by Harvey
Weinstein, seeking to hold him and his co-conspirators
accountable for a years-long pattern of sexual harassment and
cover-ups.

Recent news headlines have brought these heinous acts to the
forefront, and many victims have bravely stepped forward to tell
their stories.  Hagens Berman continues this fight, working to
help achieve justice for those who have been victim to sexual
violation, and enforce systemic change.  Tell us about your case.

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- https://www.hbsslaw.com -- is
a consumer-rights class-action law firm with ten offices across
the country. The firm has been named to the National Law
Journal's Plaintiffs' Hot List eight times. [GN]


UPMC: Patient Files Class Action Over Potential TB Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sean D. Hamill, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that
a woman who said that she was exposed to tuberculosis last year
from a UPMC Presbyterian emergency room nurse -- who was already
infected with the potentially deadly bacteria -- sued UPMC on
June 6 claiming the hospital was negligent for allowing the
employee to work there while infected.

The woman, Michelle Harris-Barber, is seeking class action status
for herself in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court and more than
4,000 other patients who UPMC believes may have had some contact
with the infected employee.

UPMC announced in April that it had informed 4,700 patients who
may have come in contact with the employee that they needed to be
tested for tuberculosis, which is known as TB.

The hospital discovered the employee was infected with TB in
March and believes the employee was infectious between Oct. 28,
2017, and Feb. 28, 2018.  Ms. Harris-Barber says in the lawsuit
that she may have come in contact with the employee during a
visit to Presbyterian on Oct. 31, 2017.

"Prior to October of 2017, the defendant knew or should have
known that it was required to have in place at its institution
administrative measures and controls to reduce the risk for
exposure to persons who might have TB disease," the lawsuit said.

In April, after Ms. Harris-Barber received the letter UPMC sent
to the former patients, she received additional treatment and
testing because of her possible exposure to TB, the lawsuit said.

In order to pursue the case as a class action, the lawsuit seeks
to find the identities of the more than 4,000 other patients who
received letters from UPMC that they were possibly exposed to TB.

"In many instances, class members are either unaware that claims
exist or have sustained individual damages too small to justify
the costs of bringing suit separately," according to the lawsuit,
filed by Pittsburgh attorney Brendan Lupetin.  "When aggregated,
however, individual damages are large enough to justify this
class action."

In arguing for class action status, attorneys for Ms. Harris-
Barber claim that it is similar to another class action lawsuit
that was filed against UPMC -- and other hospitals -- for
patients who were harmed when they underwent colonoscopy
procedures at UPMC using improperly cleaned and disinfected
endoscopes.

Neither Ms. Harris-Barber nor her attorneys could be reached on
June 6.

"We have not yet had a chance to review this just-filed
complaint, but UPMC acted quickly to work with local health
authorities to notify potentially exposed patients and to protect
their health.  We will defend this suit in court, not in the
media," a UPMC spokeswoman said. [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Two Law Firms File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Sauder Schelkopf LLC and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
on June 6 disclosed that they have filed a class action lawsuit
on behalf of individuals who were sexually abused, harassed, and
molested by gynecologist George Tyndall, M.D. while they were
students at University of Southern California ("USC").

While attending USC as a student, the representative Plaintiff --
who is named only as Jane Doe 1 to protect her privacy -- was
forced to repeatedly seek medical treatment from Tyndall, who was
the only full-time gynecologist on staff at USC's Student Health
Clinic.  "My experience with Dr. Tyndall was very upsetting,"
said the Plaintiff Jane Doe 1.  "I felt violated as a woman and
betrayed as a patient.  I trusted that my doctor would have my
health and best interests in mind, but instead he preyed on me
and on other young, naive women."  Her lawsuit alleges Tyndall
used this position of trust and authority to repeatedly sexually
abuse her and potentially thousands of other class members, women
who were examined by Dr. Tyndall at USC.

"I was scared to speak up," said the Plaintiff, "but I know it's
the only way to bring justice, empower other women who are
victims of sexual abuse, deter other health professionals from
abusing their patients, and force educational institutions to put
their students first."

The suit also alleges that despite USC's public admission that it
received numerous complaints of Tyndall's sexually abusive
behavior, dating back to at least the year 2000, USC actively and
deliberately concealed Tyndall's sexual abuse for years,
continuing to grant Tyndall unfettered sexual access to the
female USC students in his care, all to protect USC's reputation
and financial coffers.

"Those who irresponsibly put sexual predators in a position of
authority or trust, giving them access and opportunity to molest
their victims, share the blame for the harm they cause," said
Annika K. Martin of Lieff Cabraser, who is herself an alumnus of
USC's law school.  "It is even more shameful when institutions
that we entrust our children to help sexual predators by
silencing complaints and covering the predator's tracks."

According to the lawsuit, the Plaintiff and the other members of
the Class had no reason to suspect Tyndall was anything other
than a competent and ethical physician.  Knowing that Plaintiff
and other members of the Class were trusting and vulnerable --
and in many cases still teenagers who had never visited a
gynecologist before -- Tyndall used his position of authority to
make Plaintiff and other victims fully disrobe for no reasonable
medical purpose, then fondled and groped their breasts and other
intimate areas while making suggestive and improper comments,
used his fingers to penetrate their vaginas and genital regions
for the purpose of his own sexual arousal and gratification, and
engaged in verbal discussions about inappropriate sexual topics,
for no legitimate medical purpose and for no other reason than to
satisfy his own prurient sexual desires.  Tyndall also made
racially discriminatory and sexually harassing comments.

"This is not what you expect to happen when our daughters go off
to college.  USC's silence is a betrayal to these victims and
their families.  Our client is courageously adding her voice on
behalf of the many women who have been victimized as the result
of USC's silence," said Plaintiff's attorney Joe Sauder of Sauder
Schelkopf.

Through his employment with USC, Tyndall also allegedly used his
position of authority as a medical professional to take hundreds
of nonconsensual and medically unwarranted photographs of female
genitalia under the guise of medical "treatment."  The complaint
also notes that Tyndall particularly targeted young students,
many of whom were foreign students, and who were frequently
unfamiliar with the nature of gynecological examinations as a
result of their youth, inexperience, and/or cultural background.
Many of these young women did not know that what Tyndall was
doing during the examinations was not proper protocol and did not
realize he was engaging in sexual misconduct, sexually violating
them, and/or taking advantage of them.

As alleged in the complaint, beginning in approximately the
1990's, USC began receiving reports from its students and
employees regarding concerns about Tyndall's conduct and
"treatment" of his patients; nonetheless, USC failed to take any
action in response to such complaints.  USC received numerous
complaints of serious misconduct, including sexual misconduct by
Tyndall made to Tyndall's supervisors and other administrators
employed by USC, including but not limited to, the executive
director of its health center and other university officials.

The complaint alleges that rather than addressing and properly
investigating the complaints, including taking appropriate
disciplinary action and/or terminating the employment of Tyndall,
USC kept the complaints secret to avoid negative publicity
despite their actual knowledge of such misconduct, so that for
over 30 years, Tyndall had unfettered access to female students
-- many of them as young as 17 or 18 years old -- through the
student health clinics at USC.

USC hid the complaints despite the fact that many of the
complaints came directly from its own employees and staff,
including nurses and medical assistants who were physically
present during the examinations as "chaperones," and witnessed
the sexual misconduct firsthand.  Despite receiving years of
serious complaints of significant misconduct about Tyndall,
including sexual misconduct, USC failed to take any meaningful
action to address the complaints until it was finally forced to
do so in June 2016.

"He should never have been an OBGYN this long at USC," Plaintiff
Jane Doe 1 said.  "He should have been stopped from sexually
abusing his patients."

As further alleged in the complaint, in or around June of 2016,
complaints about Tyndall were made to the executive director
USC's rape crisis center, known as Relationship and Sexual
Violence Prevention and Services, and photographs of female
genitalia were found in Tyndall's office.  Only at this time did
USC place Tyndall on administrative leave and investigate the
complaints made in 2016 through its OED, Office of Compliance,
Risk Management.  Also, not until this time did USC contract an
outside consulting firm, which determined that Tyndall "exhibited
unprofessional and inappropriate behavior" and that his pelvic
exams were outside "current standards of care."  Upon information
and belief, following the investigation, Tyndall was permitted to
quietly "retire" from USC with an unknown amount of settlement
money.

On or about May 15, 2018, then-USC President C.L. Max Nikias sent
a letter to the USC community indicating that Tyndall's "behavior
was completely unacceptable.  It was a clear violation of our
Principles of Community, and a shameful betrayal of our values"
and calling the behavior a "profound breach of trust."

Approximately one week after the letter from President Nikias was
sent to the USC community and after about 200 faculty members
petitioned for his resignation, USC announced his resignation.
At no time did USC inform Plaintiff, the public or any other
students or patients of the concerns that led to Tyndall being
relieved from his duties at USC and his subsequent "retirement."

Read more information, or contact Ms. Martin securely and
confidentially about the case.

                  About Sauder Schelkopf LLC

Sauder Schelkopf LLC is a nationally recognized class action and
personal injury law firm protecting the rights of individuals,
small businesses, employees, and consumers.  The firm's partners
have been selected by the National Trial Lawyers Association as
one of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers in Pennsylvania since 2012. As
former state prosecutors, the attorneys at Sauder Schelkopf have
significant experience investigating and aggressively prosecuting
hundreds of sexual assault cases against criminals who victimized
innocent people.

          About Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP

Recognized as "one of the nation's premier plaintiffs' firms" by
The American Lawyer, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is a
seventy-plus attorney law firm with offices in San Francisco, New
York, Nashville, and Seattle.  Since its founding 46 years ago in
1972, Lieff Cabraser has litigated and resolved hundreds of class
action lawsuits and thousands of individual cases, including the
successful representation of thousands of women across America in
class action lawsuits involving gender discrimination and in
individual lawsuits due to the injuries they suffered from
defective medical devices and defective prescription drugs. [GN]


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Byrne Challenges Merger With Francisco Partners
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BYRNE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. VERIFONE SYSTEMS, INC., ALEX WAY HART, ROBERT W.
ALSPAUGH, JONATHAN I. SCHWARTZ, LARRY ALLAN KLANE, ROBERT
BRADSHAW HENSKE, RONALD D. BLACK, KAREN A. AUSTIN, PAUL S.
GALANT, JANE J. THOMPSON, and ROWAN M. TROLLOPE, Case No. 4:18-
cv-02926-YGR (N.D. Cal., May 17, 2018), arises from the proposed
merger between Verifone and an investor group led by Francisco
Partners and including British Columbia Investment Management
Corporation.

On April 9, 2018, the Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the
Company's shareholders stand to receive $23.04 in cash for each
share of Verifone stock they own, a transaction valued at $3.4
billion.

Verifone is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal
executive offices in San Jose, California.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Verifone is a technology company, which provides electronic
payment transactions and value-added services at the point of
sale to its global customer base, which include financial
institutions, payment processors, and large retailers among
others.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Ave., 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com


WEINSTEIN CO: Sexual Assault, Misconduct Class Action Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Christie, writing for Reuters, reports that the judge
overseeing the Weinstein Co bankruptcy on June 5 agreed to lift
the stay in the case to allow six women to press a class action
seeking to hold the film studio to account for cofounder Harvey
Weinstein's alleged sexual misconduct.

Judge Mary Walrath of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware said
at a hearing she did not believe lifting the stay would trigger a
"race to the courthouse" to file similar complaints, as the
studio had warned. [GN]


* ALRC Releases Paper on Class Action Litigation Funders
--------------------------------------------------------
Gareth Horne, Esq. -- gareth.horne@clydeco.com -- Janette
McLennan, Esq. -- janette.mclennan@clydeco.com -- Jenni
Priestley, Esq. -- jenni.priestley@clydeco.com -- and Helen Tieu,
Esq., of Clyde & Co, in an article for Mondaq, wrote that on May
31, 2018, the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) released a
discussion paper on its "Inquiry into Class Action Proceedings
and Third-Party Litigation Funders" (Inquiry).  The Inquiry
focuses on the impact that an increasing number of class actions
and litigation funders has had on the class action regime
introduced to the Federal Court of Australia 26 years ago.  As a
result of that Inquiry, the ALRC has proposed several reforms to
the federal class action regime in Australia. Whilst the ALRC is
not due to provide its final report to the Attorney-General until
December 2018, the law firm explores the current proposals in
this article.

The full ALRC report is available https://is.gd/dcFkDO[GN]


* Class Action Reforms Must Include Restricting Negligence Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Pelly, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that the "radical" reform proposals for Australia's class action
regime should include restricting claims to negligent conduct,
according to a leading class action lawyer.

Herbert Smith Freehills partner Ruth Overington, Esq. --
ruth.overington@hsf.com -- says that demanding continuous
disclosure laws have made Australia a class actions haven and
that more claims are on the way if key measures are adopted.

"Requiring claimants to prove negligence causing actual loss
would likely mean a significant reduction in the number of
shareholder class actions," Ms Overington said.

The Australian Financial Review asked three key players -- a
litigation funder, a plaintiff lawyer and a lawyer that
specialises in defending class actions --- to respond to the
Australian Law Reform Commission proposals for reform, which were
outlined in a discussion paper.

The ALRC said only one class action should be allowed for each
claim and that there should be other avenues for companies to
provide redress.  It also urged a review of the impact of the
continuous disclosure obligations of listed entities and the
propensity for companies to be the target of funded shareholder
class actions, further regulation of funders, and that plaintiff
lawyers be allowed to charge contingency fees.

It added that a crisis was looming for the availability of
directors and officers (D&O) insurance.  It noted one major
insurer had stopped providing coverage and another had increased
premiums by up to 200 percent.  Ms Overington says the proposals
"have potential to radically change the class action landscape".

The AFR panel underlines how contingency fees and continuous
disclosure laws have emerged as two reform hot spots.

Litigation funder IMF Bentham said the commission shouldn't have
even addressed the latter subject.

"Proposals to water down the impact of the continuous disclosure
regime are well outside the terms of reference and, for that
reason alone, should not be pursued by the commission," said IMF
Bentham managing director Andrew Saker.

However, Allens partner Ross Drinnan, Esq. --
Ross.Drinnan@allens.com.au -- said their opposition was
instructive.

"Shareholder class actions are the by-product of our market
disclosure laws and class action laws.  It's hardly surprising
that the plaintiff lawyers have already come out in opposition,
but all the ALRC is suggesting is a thorough review of whether
these cases make sense from a legal and economic policy
perspective.

"I can't see how anyone can suggest that after 15 years it isn't
a matter of sufficient importance to the good conduct of business
in this country that we stop to undertake some careful research
and have a balanced review, particularly considering the emerging
impact on the availability of D&O insurance."

The ALRC is accepting submissions until July 30 and is scheduled
to deliver its report to the government by December 21. [GN]


* Europe Not Actively Seeking to Adopt US Class Action Structure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beatrice Bigonzi, Esq. -- beatricebigonzi@eversheds-sutherland.it
-- Michel Chatelin, Esq. -- michelchatelin@eversheds-
sutherland.nl -- Frederique de La Chapelle, Esq. --
frederiquedelachapelle@eversheds-sutherland.com -- Michael R.
Nelson, Esq., Francis X. Nolan, IV, Esq., Peter Shervington,
Esq., Richard Matthews, Esq., and Fabian Volz, Esq., of Eversheds
Sutherland (US) LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that the
class action mechanism in the United States allows groups of
individuals or businesses to resolve similar claims against a
defendant or group of defendants in a single litigation.  The US
class action system is, however, a global outlier.  European
jurisdictions, for example, do not provide mechanisms to resolve
mass or collective lawsuits. Companies should be aware of the
patchwork of collective, class, and mass action litigation
schemes across these and other jurisdictions because they may
require different defense strategies in otherwise similar
litigation.

This article discusses the history and current state of class
actions in the US, with a particular focus on the system's
strengths and weaknesses.  In addition, it analyzes the cultural
and legal reasons why European countries have not adopted the US
class action system. Finally, it summarizes approaches some
European jurisdictions have taken to mass or collective action
litigation.

US class actions

The class action mechanism in the US was formally introduced in
1938, with the enactment of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
The use of class actions has increased dramatically since then,
particularly over the last few decades, in both state and federal
courts.  Parties regularly contest the limits of and rules for
class actions.  The class action regime itself is embedded in the
legal system and culture of the US, however, as are its strengths
and weaknesses.

On the one hand, class actions allow parties to resolve thousands
of individual claims without disparate findings of fact or law.
Class action settlements can be financially efficient and can
give defendants peace of mind that they have resolved potential
claims fully.  From a policy perspective, consumers often benefit
from changes in business practices that result from large class
action lawsuits.

On the other hand, plaintiffs' attorneys drive class action
lawsuits and reap the financial rewards far more often than do
the plaintiffs themselves.  Further, an increasing number of
class action lawsuits are filed in the US alleging little or no
actual harm to the plaintiffs.  Statutory penalties and awards of
attorneys' fees can result in millions of dollars in costs -- to
say nothing of defense counsel fees -- where the actions of the
defendant companies have not caused any real harm.

There is limited interest among international companies in
exporting the Rule 23 framework to jurisdictions overseas,
particularly in Europe.  Recent multinational litigations have
highlighted the differences in the approaches across the Atlantic
Ocean and have raised questions as to whether consumers,
defendants, and would-be defendants would benefit from European
adoption of this traditionally American mechanism.

Lost in translation: Why not in Europe?

Approaches to collective actions vary widely across Europe,
reflecting a diverse range of legal systems arising from
differing historical contexts.  Although many countries have
explored new procedures to deal with collective litigation in
different forms, US-style class actions have yet to gain a
foothold in Europe for a variety of cultural and legal reasons.

First and foremost, Europe does not share what it perceives to be
the litigation-friendly culture of the US.  Instead, Europeans
have historically seen regulation, rather than litigation, as the
key mechanism for controlling corporate behavior.  Relatedly,
there exists a widespread perception in Europe that the
introduction of a class action system would create an unwanted
"compensation culture" in which the odds are stacked too heavily
in favor of plaintiffs, with lawyers reaping the rewards.  This
perception -- deserved or not -- has made it politically
untenable for lawmakers to promote the often criticized US
system.

Other features of European legal systems tend to act as a barrier
to would-be plaintiffs, reducing further the appetite for group
litigation.  For example, unlike in the US, most European
jurisdictions abide by the principle that the losing party in a
litigation bears a significant proportion of the legal costs of
the prevailing party.  That risk often deters plaintiffs from
participating in collective actions where legal costs are higher
than in single-plaintiff litigation.  Further, European civil
claims generally provide for lower potential damages awards than
their US counterparts.  Punitive damages are not widely
available, jury trials for civil actions are rare, and damages
are typically imposed in accordance with a codified process.
Third-party litigation funding is also heavily restricted in many
European jurisdictions, including in France, whereas litigation
funding has become more commonplace in the US.

Finally, and in contrast to the US, most existing European
collective action mechanisms operate on an opt-in basis in which
each individual member of a defined class must take proactive
steps before he or she can become part of the plaintiff group.
In the UK, as with several other European jurisdictions,
plaintiffs must take steps to have themselves joined to a
register before they can participate in a collective claim.  To
compound this issue, regulations in many jurisdictions make it
difficult for plaintiff firms to advertise group actions,
limiting awareness.

A unified approach in Europe?

The possibility of a unified approach to group actions within the
European Union (EU) has been under discussion for some time.  In
2013, the European Commission made certain recommendations for
common principles in relation to injunctive and compensatory
collective redress mechanisms in EU member states.  This set out
a series of non-binding principles that member states should
adopt in order to put collective redress mechanisms in place,
including principles regarding standing, admissibility, and
funding.  A January 2018 Commission report on the implementation
of the recommendation reiterated the view that a "clear, fair,
transparent, and accessible system" of collective redress is
needed.  Given the range of pressing political issues facing
Europe at present, however, and with divergent views across the
27 EU member states regarding the virtues of increased alignment,
a truly unified mechanism for group actions across the EU will
likely remain out of reach in the near future.

A brief survey of European jurisdictions

As a result of the factors described on the previous page and the
patchwork of legal systems across Europe, each with its own
history and characteristics, a wide range of different approaches
to multi-party litigation is found across the continent.

United Kingdom. In England and Wales, the primary system for
collective litigation is the Group Litigation Order (GLO).
Established in 2000, the GLO has not been utilized as much as
some commentators expected.  That said, there have been a number
of significant GLO cases in recent years.  For example, the Royal
Bank of Scotland Plc faced a collective action from its investors
who alleged that the Bank misrepresented the state of its
financial health in the financial crisis.  Product liability
plaintiffs have also utilized the GLO, including women affected
by the PIP breast implant scandal (involving the use of non-
clinical grade silicone by a French manufacturer of breast
implants) and individuals with claims arising from contaminated
blood products.  As with other systems in Europe, GLOs work on an
opt-in basis -- individual participants must take steps to have
themselves joined to a register in order to participate in the
litigation.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 introduced an opt-out collective
action regime in the UK for the first time, albeit a regime
restricted to certain forms of competition law claims.  Early
claims under this new system have faced difficulties.  In 2017,
the courts rejected a รบ14 billion class action claim purportedly
on behalf of 46 million consumers who used certain credit cards
between 1992 and 2008 as too broad.

Italy. In Italy, a class action system is available to certain
types of consumers in specific circumstances.  Under Article 140-
bis of the Italian Consumer Code, there are strict admissibility
requirements before a class action can be brought, in that the
rights violated must be "homogenous" for the entire class.  This
system is rarely used.

Germany.  German law currently allows for collective litigation
on a restricted basis, but only in certain areas of law,
including consumer protection laws (the UKlaG law), unfair
competition (UWG), capital market information claims (KapMuG),
and minority shareholder claims (SpruchG).

The new German coalition government plans to introduce a more
comprehensive framework for sample proceedings
(Musterfestellungsklage) in Germany.  If such a framework is
introduced, sample claims could be presented by a qualified
institution (a registered association acting on behalf of injured
parties).  It remains to be seen how this will develop, and many
commentators have suggested that consumer groups in Germany
acting as the "qualified institution" may lack the equivalent
power and funds to proactively pursue substantial claims.  This
contrasts with class action litigation in the US, where a class
representative is usually represented by a law firm that has
significant financial resources.

France. After much debate, France introduced a form of class
action in 2014.  Like the German system, the French system is
limited to restricted subject areas as well as certain plaintiff
groups (namely, consumer associations accredited by the French
state).  The French rules include a system under which a judge
first rules on whether the action is admissible and the defendant
liable.  Once the court establishes liability, the court defines
-- in the same ruling -- the group of persons affected by the
subject of the class action and the publication methods to
advertise the action.  Class members will then have the
opportunity to opt in to the class action.

The Netherlands. The Netherlands has two alternative collective
redress mechanisms. The first is a system which enables a
representative organization to initiate a collective action.
This scheme allows an individual member of a class to opt out of
being bound by a relevant judgment, but only in limited
circumstances.  It is noteworthy that the representative
organization can only establish liability, and not seek damages.
In cases where liability is established, individuals may then
file a claim for damages in individual proceedings.  The second
collective redress mechanism in the Netherlands is a system of
judicially approved collective settlements, organized on an
opt-out basis, whereby the court is entitled to declare a
settlement binding on all members of a class, unless a class
member opts out before such settlement is declared.  This
mechanism is set forth in the Act on the Collective Settlement of
Mass Claims, known in the Netherlands as the WCAM.

Conclusion

Despite the European Commission's efforts to align approaches, a
unified European mechanism for collective or group actions seems
unlikely in the near future.  Further, individual European
jurisdictions are not actively seeking to emulate the US class
action structure.  Given Europe's skepticism of the US system,
this is unlikely to change, particularly with the increasing
prevalence of no-injury lawsuits, litigation funding, and
outsized attorneys' fee awards in the US.  Companies operating in
different countries should tailor their risk and defense
strategies accordingly. [GN]


* Netwealth Allows Investors to Participate in Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Williamson, writing for Financial Standard, reports that in
its latest round of platform enhancements, Netwealth has added
the ability for investors to participate in class actions.

As of June, Netwealth has made available information on open
class actions within the platform's Corporate Actions Diary to
clients with a Netwealth Wealth Accelerator or Investment Wrap
account.

If they meet the eligibility requirements outlined, clients can
then notify Netwealth if they wish to participate in an action
and Netwealth will do so on their behalf.

For Super Accelerator or Super Wrap account holders, Netwealth
will determine in its absolute discretion as trustee whether to
participate in a class action on behalf of members.  The fund
will then participate on members' behalf.

From July 31, 2018, Netwealth will publish details of class
actions it has participated in on a quarterly basis, as well as
historic details of class actions the platform provider has
participated in.

Netwealth joint managing director Michael Heine described the
addition as a valuable facility, telling Financial Standard it is
another step in Netwealth's ongoing work to consistently improve
policies and procedures.

It is also in response to the significantly increased number of
class actions that are now around, a trend which Heine said
Netwealth anticipates will continue.

"Due to the increasing number of class actions now existing we
wanted to ensure that clients and super members and their
advisers were fully aware of our policy in respect to these
matters and how we may participate on their behalf for their
benefit," Mr. Heine said.

Netwealth has also added the ability to generate detailed reports
around asset performance, compiling return data for assets held
in an account, as well as the overall portfolio return.
Automated summaries of asset performance will also become
available later in the year.

Detailed portfolio performance and valuation reports will also
soon become available.  The former will provide a summary of
portfolio performance with the ability to compare performance
against a range of benchmarks to be added in due course; the
latter will provide asset and portfolio valuations in a new
reporting style, with the ability for users to produce
consolidated reports across multiple accounts.

Financial advisers and paraplanners can also now set minimum
trade sizes by the percentage of total dollars invested in a
managed account, in addition to being able to set a minimum trade
size in dollars.  This is to assist in the number of small trades
that may occur as an account grows, Netwealth said. [GN]


* Restaurants Should Make Mandatory Arbitration Agreements
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamstra, writing for Nation's Restaurant News, reports that
restaurant operators should make mandatory arbitration agreements
with collective-action waivers a standard part of their hiring
practices, according to attorneys specializing in employment
cases.

A recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court clarified this issue,
which had been up in the air for the past several years.  The
National Labor Relations Board in 2012 ruled that collective- and
class-action lawsuits were "protected concerted activities" and
therefore not covered by mandatory arbitration agreements.
However, some federal courts had ruled that was not the case,
leaving employers in limbo.

The Supreme Court ruling supports the ability of companies to
require their workers to consent to arbitration rather than
filing a lawsuit, including having workers agree not to join
collective-action lawsuits against their employers.

"This Supreme Court decision definitely provides clarity on the
issue that arbitration agreements that prevent collective actions
are clearly enforceable, they are legal, and employers do have
the right to implement them," said Daniel Ramirez, a partner at
Houston-based law firm Monty & Ramirez LLP.

Not only do employers have the right to implement arbitration
agreements that bar class-action lawsuits, but they probably
should, Mr. Ramirez and other attorneys said.

"I don't really see any downside for employers to implement it,"
said Mr. Ramirez.  "It's just an update of policy that could
limit liability, and restaurants can do that freely, but they
should still consult with their attorney to ensure they are
correctly implementing it."

Provided the arbitration agreements are well-written and adhere
to local regulations, restaurant employers should be able to use
them to avoid the kinds of class-action lawsuits that have hit
the industry in recent years, such as the $5.25 million lawsuit
settled in 2012 by celebrity chef Mario Batali and his business
partners.

Many observers viewed the Supreme Court ruling as a blow to
workers' rights, citing the unlikelihood that employees will
bring arbitration cases against their employers individually.

"It is a significant loss for workers," wrote Erwin Chemerinsky,
dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law,
in a column for the American Bar Association Journal.  "Employers
. . . will be ever more emboldened to rip off their employees."

Some attorneys said arbitration does provide some advantages for
workers, however, including the fact that arbitration can be much
faster than a jury trial.

"Arbitration allows parties to decide a suit much faster than
going to court, so there is some upside to the individual
employee to signing an agreement," said Ron Chapman, an
employment and litigation attorney at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C., which offers turnkey arbitration-agreement
software for employers.

Following are some considerations restaurateurs should take into
account when rolling out such agreements, according to attorneys:

Comply with state restrictions on arbitration agreements. Some
states, including California, require companies to offer
employees compensation in exchange for asking them to sign an
arbitration agreement, such as added vacation or a monetary
reward, explained Andria Lure Ryan, Esq. --
alureryan@fisherphillips.com -- a partner at Fisher Phillips LLP
in Atlanta.  Many states, however, maintain that simply offering
continued employment in exchange for signing such agreements is
enough.

Consider how to approach new hires versus veteran workers. While
it should be relatively straightforward to include an arbitration
agreement as a part of the hiring process, companies need to
think about how to handle veteran workers who have not previously
been party to such agreements, Ms. Ryan said.

"For current employees, it's much harder, because what are you
going to do, terminate them?" she said.  "What if it's a good
employee? What if it's a long-term employee? You have to decide,
if they don't want to sign that agreement, are you still going to
keep them? Or are you going to try to coax them into signing it?"

Remember that arbitration can still go against the employer, and
arbitration carries the risk of compromised awards, said
Mr. Chapman.

"Arbitrators will frequently try to 'split the baby' and please
all sides," he said.  "The upside is that all claims have to be
arbitrated individually, so you avoid the big class actions and
the exposure that comes with them, but the downside is that you
run the risk of compromised rewards from the arbitrator." [GN]


* SAN Wants Class Action Included in Law School Curriculum
----------------------------------------------------------
Oluwatosin Omojuyigbe, writing for Punch, reports that the Senior
Partner, Alliance Law Firm, Mr. Uche Obi (SAN), has appealed to
the Council of Legal Education to take necessary steps to
incorporate the study of class action procedure into the Civil
Procedure curriculum of the Nigerian Law School.

Similarly, Obi called for a review of relevant court rules from
the high court to the appellate courts to accommodate and
encourage class action.

These, he said, had become imperative because despite its many
benefits, class action remains an area of law that is still
largely underdeveloped in Nigeria.

According to the senior advocate, any lawyer handling a class
action brief today is not likely to find any relevant appellate
courts authorities to support their case.

Obi argued that this lack or inadequacy had exposed the need for
an intervention by the courts and the Council of Legal Education.

He made this advocacy during the public presentation of a book,
Class Action in Nigeria, authored by him.

The book was presented during the maiden edition of Alliance Law
Firm's lecture series, which held on Victoria Island.

The lecture, with the title, "Contemporary Corporate Governance
Issues in Nigeria," was delivered by the Chairman, Financial
Reporting Council of Nigeria, Mr. Adedotun Sulaiman, under the
chairmanship of Prof. Pat Utomi.

On the panel of discussants were Prof. Fabian Ajogwu (SAN); the
Chief Executive Officer, Seplat, Mr. Augustine Avuru; and the
Managing Director, United Capital Plc, Oluwatoyin Sanni.

Others were the acting Director-General, Budget Office of the
Federation, Ben Akabueze; DG, Securities and Exchange Commission,
Mrs. Mary Uduak; and the CEO, Nigerian Stock Exchange, Mr. Oscar
Onyema, who were represented.

Highlighting the benefits of class action, Obi said it gives the
masses easy access to justice, while also ensuring that the
courts are not congested by multiplicity of lawsuits to redress
one wrongdoing.

He said, "It is a general belief that class action procedure or
mechanism will improve access to justice as more people can
easily seek redress by just falling within the class of persons
affected by a particular act of wrongdoing.

"It will also assist in decongesting the courts as there will be
less incidence of multiplicity since the claims would be
consolidated under a certified suit.

"The benefits are such that there will be saving of cost and time
by litigants and the court.

"Again, it will also help to protect the vulnerable members of
the society, who ordinarily may not know that their rights have
been violated or may not have the capacity of articulating or
approaching the court to seek redress against powerful
tortfeasors, who may be giant corporations with amazing resources
to fight legal battles."

For these and many more benefits, Obi said it was necessary for
the courts to "promote, encourage and expand the scope and
frontiers of class action in Nigeria and to consciously ensure
that it is nurtured to maturity."

This, he said, might involve "a substantial review of the various
Rules of Courts (appellate courts, Federal High Court, state high
courts and the National Industrial Court) with a view to
institutionalising class action procedure."

He added, "Similarly, Practice Directions that can align with
this noble cause should be seriously considered where necessary.

"The leaders of the Bar and the bench, the press and indeed, the
general public have roles to play in all these. Similarly, the
Council of Legal Education should take the necessary steps to
incorporate the study of class action procedure into the Civil
Procedure curriculum of the Nigerian Law School.

"In similar terms, the leaders of various arbitration and ADR
institutes, which provide alternative or complementary dispute
resolution options should also review their rules to accommodate
the emerging trend of class action." [GN]


* Tripp Scott Attorneys Discuss Recent SCOTUS Arbitration Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Lopez, Esq. -- rlopez@gklaw.com -- and Megan Janes, Esq., of
Tripp Scott, in an article for Daily Business Review, wrote that
in a significant victory for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that arbitration clauses in employment contracts are
enforceable even if they prevent workers from bringing class
action lawsuits.  The court considered three cases: all involving
employees seeking to litigate Fair Labor Standards Act (overtime
or minimum wage) and related state law claims through class or
collective actions in federal court.  Each employee had an
employment agreement requiring individual arbitration
proceedings.

Arbitration is often preferred by employers because it offers
greater confidentiality, often quicker decision making, and some
control over selecting the lawyer who serves as the arbitrator.
Arbitration clauses requiring one-on-one proceedings prevent
employees from banding together and pooling resources against an
employer while represented by (usually) one law firm. Oftentimes,
this translates into major litigation cost savings for employers.

The policy behind the court's decision is two-fold.  First,
federal law has long favored arbitration as a quicker, simpler,
and less costly way of deciding disputes compared to cases filed
in the court system. Second, the court's prior decisions that
favor arbitration clauses continue to make sense.  The court
follows a rule of construction that existing statutes must be
interpreted in a way that gives effect to both laws rather than
causing conflicts unless there is clear congressional intent that
one statute is meant to prevail.  For this reason, the court
rejected the employees' argument that the National Labor
Relations Act's protection of workers' rights to engage in
concerted activity for their protection trumps the Federal
Arbitration Act.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote the dissent, expressed
concerns about the potential negative impact of this decision on
enforcement of employment laws designed to protect workers.  If
it is easier for employers to escape class action litigation,
then arguably fewer employees will bring claims.

The New York Times estimates that this decision could impact some
25 million employment contracts.  Justice Ginsburg noted that
research data indicates an increase from 2.1 percent to 53.9
percent since 1992 in nonunionized employers using mandatory
arbitration agreements. The percentage of nonunion employers
requiring class action waivers is estimated at up to 23.1
percent.

The takeaway? Employers can effectively circumscribe their
employees' ability to participate in class-action litigation
against them by including appropriate arbitration clauses in
their employees' employment agreements.  This is a strong
decision for our corporate clients who are using, or would like
to use, arbitration clauses in their employment contracts that
restrict class action claims.  However, it is critical that the
arbitration clause used by the companies comply with the law.
Because arbitration clauses are only enforceable if properly
drafted, you should consult with experienced employment counsel
if you intend to avoid class or collective action employment
litigation. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 687 Pending Cases at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation remains a defendant in 687 asbestos-related
product liability cases 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, "We were a defendant in 687 asbestos-related
product liability cases as of December 31, 2017, compared to 605
cases as of December 31, 2016, with the change reflecting new
cases, dismissals, settlements and other dispositions.  We have
never mined, milled, manufactured or marketed asbestos; rather,
we made and provided to industrial users a limited number of
products that contained encapsulated asbestos, but we stopped
manufacturing these products in the late 1980s.

"In virtually all of the cases against us, the plaintiffs are
seeking unspecified damages above a jurisdictional minimum
against multiple defendants who may have manufactured, sold or
used asbestos-containing products to which the plaintiffs were
allegedly exposed and from which they purportedly suffered
injury.  Most of these cases are being litigated in Illinois,
Maryland and Missouri; however, we are also defending cases in
other states.

"We intend to vigorously defend these cases, primarily on the
basis of the plaintiffs' inability to establish compensable loss
as a result of exposure to our products.  As of December 31,
2017, the estimated liability and estimated insurance recovery
for all current and future claims projected through 2058 were
US$76.2 million and US$69.2 million, respectively.

"The defense and settlement costs of our asbestos-related product
liability litigation to date have been substantially covered by
insurance.  Our consolidated financial statements include
approximately US$7.0 million of estimated asbestos-related
expenses that exceed asbestos-related insurance coverage for all
current and future claims projected through 2058."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Auto Had $1.2MM Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
State Auto Financial Corporation has US$1.2 million asbestos
reserves, 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 property and casualty industry has
experienced significant loss from claims related to asbestos,
environmental remediation, product liability, mold and other mass
torts.  Because we have insured primarily product retailers and
distributors, we do not expect to incur the same level of
liability, particularly related to asbestos, as companies that
have insured manufacturing risks.

"Asbestos reserves are US$1.2 million, and environmental reserves
are US$17.1 million, for a total of US$18.3 million, or 1.5% of
net losses and loss expenses payable.  Asbestos and environmental
reserves increased US$0.1 million and US$2.0 million,
respectively, from 2016."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/fXS5TE


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Energy Still Assessing Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that it is analyzing the scope of potential
liability as it may relate to its subsidiary, Midwest Generation,
LLC.

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

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/c33lBg


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two CIRCOR Units Still Face Claims at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017, that asbestos-related product liability
claims continue to be filed against two of its subsidiaries:
Spence Engineering Company, Inc.  ("Spence"), the stock of which
the Company acquired in 1984; and CIRCOR Instrumentation
Technologies, Inc. (f/k/a Hoke Incorporated) ("Hoke"), the stock
of which the Company acquired in 1998.

The Company states, "Due to the nature of the products supplied
by these entities, the markets they serve and our historical
experience in resolving these claims, we do not believe that
these asbestos-related claims will have a material adverse effect
on the financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of
Spence or Hoke, or the financial condition, consolidated results
of operations or liquidity of the Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/BeCw9R


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MLIC Had 62,930 Claims at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
(MLIC), had 62,930 asbestos personal injury claims pending 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 also disclosed that in
2017, there are 3,514 new claims filed against MLIC. Furthermore,
settlement payments amounted to US$48.6 million during the same
year.

The Company states, "MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large
number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts.
These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs
suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and
seek both actual and punitive damages.  MLIC has never engaged in
the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC issued
liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products.  The lawsuits
principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain
research, publication and other activities of one or more of
MLIC's employees during the period from the 1920's through
approximately the 1950's and allege that MLIC learned or should
have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among
other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those
health risks.  MLIC believes that it should not have legal
liability in these cases.  The outcome of most asbestos
litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by
numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in
various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and
factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims
asserted against MLIC.  MLIC employs a number of resolution
strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including
seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and
settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under
appropriate circumstances.

"Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence,
intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks
associated with asbestos.  MLIC's defenses (beyond denial of
certain factual allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty
to the plaintiffs -- it had no special relationship with the
plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell
the asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii)
plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC's
conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv)
plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were
known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit
has expired.  During the course of the litigation, certain trial
courts have granted motions dismissing claims against MLIC, while
other trial courts have denied MLIC's motions.  There can be no
assurance that MLIC will receive favorable decisions on motions
in the future.  While most cases brought to date have settled,
MLIC intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims
based on asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials.

"The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure
is subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions
impacting its liability can be dynamic and subject to change.
The availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult
to predict the numerous variables that can affect liability
estimates, including the number of future claims, the cost to
resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of disease in
pending and future claims, the impact of the number of new claims
filed in a particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in
the jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact
of tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow
plaintiffs to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to
asbestos took place after the dangers of asbestos exposure were
well known, and the impact of any possible future adverse
verdicts and their amounts.

"The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos
exposure declines significantly as the estimates relate to years
further in the future.  In the Company's judgment, there is a
future point after which losses cease to be probable and
reasonably estimable.  It is reasonably possible that the
Company's total exposure to asbestos claims may be materially
greater than the asbestos liability currently accrued and that
future charges to income may be necessary.  While the potential
future charges could be material in the particular quarterly or
annual periods in which they are recorded, based on information
currently known by management, management does not believe any
such charges are likely to have a material effect on the
Company's financial position.

"The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for asbestos-related claims.  MLIC's recorded
asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following
elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its
understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the
probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims
already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not
yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability
for asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC
believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the
legal defense costs associated with the foregoing claims.
Significant assumptions underlying MLIC's analysis of the
adequacy of its recorded liability with respect to asbestos
litigation include: (i) the number of future claims; (ii) the
cost to resolve claims; and (iii) the cost to defend claims.

"MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure
from asbestos litigation, including studying its claims
experience, reviewing external literature regarding asbestos
claims experience in the U.S., assessing relevant trends
impacting asbestos liability and considering numerous variables
that can affect its asbestos liability exposure on an overall or
per claim basis.  These variables include bankruptcies of other
companies involved in asbestos litigation, legislative and
judicial developments, the number of pending claims involving
serious disease, the number of new claims filed against it and
other defendants and the jurisdictions in which claims are
pending.  Based upon its regular reevaluation of its exposure
from asbestos litigation, MLIC has updated its liability analysis
for asbestos-related claims through December 31, 2017.  MLIC
increased its recorded liability for asbestos-related claims to
US$551 million at December 31, 2017."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/2Bd612


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Still Named Defendant in "Parsons" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that its subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC,
remains a named defendant in the asbestos-related class action
case Parsons v. AC & S Inc., which is currently stayed.

The Company states, "In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc.,
a purported class action was commenced on behalf of all West
Virginia residents who allegedly have personal injury claims
arising from exposure to cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers.
The complaint seeks to recover US$1,000,000 in compensatory and
punitive damages individually and unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages for the class.  The case is stayed due to the
December 2000 bankruptcy of three of the defendants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/zom4qZ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL & Associates Had $3.1MM Liability at Dec.31
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. recorded a liability of US$3.1
million related to potential future asbestos abatement activities
at its properties 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, "All of our Properties (but not properties
for which we hold an option to purchase but do not yet own) have
been subject to Phase I environmental assessments or updates of
existing Phase I environmental assessments.  Such assessments
generally consisted of a visual inspection of the Properties,
review of federal and state environmental databases and certain
information regarding historic uses of the Property and adjacent
areas and the preparation and issuance of written reports.  Some
of the Properties contain, or contained, underground storage
tanks used for storing petroleum products or wastes typically
associated with automobile service or other operations conducted
at the Properties.  Certain Properties contain, or contained,
dry-cleaning establishments utilizing solvents.  Where believed
to be warranted, samplings of building materials or subsurface
investigations were undertaken.  At certain Properties, where
warranted by the conditions, we have developed and implemented an
operations and maintenance program that establishes operating
procedures with respect to asbestos-containing materials.  The
cost associated with the development and implementation of such
programs was not material.  We have also obtained environmental
insurance coverage at certain of our Properties.

"We believe that our Properties are in compliance in all material
respects with all federal, state and local ordinances and
regulations regarding the handling, discharge and emission of
hazardous or toxic substances.  As of December 31, 2017, we have
recorded in our consolidated financial statements a liability of
US$3.1 million related to potential future asbestos abatement
activities at our Properties which are not expected to have a
material impact on our financial condition or results of
operations.  We have not been notified by any governmental
authority, and are not otherwise aware, of any material
noncompliance, liability or claim relating to hazardous or toxic
substances in connection with any of our present or former
Properties.  Therefore, we have not recorded any liability
related to hazardous or toxic substances.  Nevertheless, it is
possible that the environmental assessments available to us do
not reveal all potential environmental liabilities.  It is also
possible that subsequent investigations will identify material
contamination, that adverse environmental conditions have arisen
subsequent to the performance of the environmental assessments,
or that there are material environmental liabilities of which
management is unaware.  Moreover, no assurances can be given that
(i) future laws, ordinances or regulations will not impose any
material environmental liability or (ii) the current
environmental condition of the Properties has not been or will
not be affected by tenants and occupants of the Properties, by
the condition of properties in the vicinity of the Properties or
by third parties unrelated to us, the Operating Partnership or
the relevant Property's partnership."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMC Insurance Had $10MM Reserves at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
EMC Insurance Group Inc. had US$9,984,000 reserves for loss and
settlement expenses on asbestos-related matters 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 also disclosed that US$5,177,000
were incurred for asbestos-related losses and settlement expenses
in the same period.

EMC Insurance states, "The Company has exposure to asbestos and
environmental related claims associated with the insurance
business written by the parties to the pooling agreement and the
reinsurance business assumed from Employers Mutual by the
reinsurance subsidiary.  With regard to the assumed reinsurance
business, however, all asbestos and environmental exposures
related to 1980 and prior accident years are retained by
Employers Mutual.

"Estimating loss and settlement expense reserves for asbestos and
environmental claims is very difficult due to the many
uncertainties surrounding these types of claims.  These
uncertainties exist because the assignment of responsibility
varies widely by state and claims often emerge long after a
policy has expired, which makes assignment of damages to the
appropriate party and to the time period covered by a particular
policy difficult.  In establishing reserves for these types of
claims, management monitors the relevant facts concerning each
claim, the current status of the legal environment, social and
political conditions, and the claim history and trends within the
Company and the industry.

"The property and casualty insurance subsidiaries have exposure
to asbestos and environmental claims arising primarily from the
other liability line of business.  These exposures are closely
monitored by management, and IBNR loss reserves have been
established to cover estimated ultimate losses.  The loss and
settlement expense reserves associated with asbestos claims have
been increased each year for the last several years due to
continued reporting of new claims at a rate not previously
anticipated, as well as updated internal ultimate loss and
settlement expense evaluations.  During 2017, a settlement was
reached with a former insured, resulting in the Company
recognizing US$4.5 million (its share) of losses and settlement
expenses to remove all past and future asbestos liability
exposure related to that policyholder, and loss and settlement
expense reserves for asbestos claims were also strengthened
approximately US$900,000.

"Reserves for environmental claims are established in
consideration of the implied three-year survival ratio.
Estimation of ultimate liabilities for these exposures is
unusually difficult due to unresolved issues such as whether
coverage exists, the definition of an occurrence, the
determination of ultimate damages and the allocation of such
damages to financially responsible parties.  Therefore, any
estimation of these liabilities is subject to greater than normal
variation and uncertainty, and ultimate payments for losses and
settlement expenses for these exposures may differ significantly
from the carried reserves.

"Based upon current facts, management believes the reserves
carried for asbestos and environmental-related claims at December
31, 2017 are adequate.  Although future changes in the legal and
political environment may result in adjustment to these reserves,
management believes any adjustment will not have a material
impact on the Company's financial condition or results of
operations."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Case vs. E-Source Set for Summer 2018
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vertex Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the asbestos-related lawsuit filed
against its subsidiary is set for trial in the summer of 2018.

The Company states, "E-Source Holdings, LLC ("E-Source"), the
wholly-owned subsidiary of Vertex Operating, was named as a
defendant (along with Motiva Enterprises, LLC, ("Motiva") in a
lawsuit filed in the Sixtieth (60th) Judicial District, Jefferson
County, Texas, on April 22, 2015.  Pursuant to the lawsuit, Whole
Environmental, Inc. ("Whole"), made certain allegations against
E-Source and Motiva.  The claims include Breach of Contract and
Quantum Meruit actions relating to asbestos abatement and
remediation operations performed for defendants at Motiva's
facility in Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas.  The plaintiff
alleges it is due monies earned.  Defendants have denied any
amounts due to plaintiff.  The suit seeks damages of
approximately US$864,000, along with pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, the fair value of certain property alleged to
be converted by defendants and reimbursement of legal fees.  E-
Source has asserted a counterclaim against Whole for the filing
of a mechanic's lien in excess of any amount(s) actually due, as
well as a cross-claim against Motiva.  Under the terms of E-
Source's contract with Motiva, Motiva, Motiva was to pay all sums
due to any sub-contractors of E-Source.  In management's opinion,
any monies due to Whole, should be paid by Motiva.  E-Source
seeks to recover the balance due under its contract with Motiva
of approximately US$1,000,000.  The case is set for trial in the
summer of 2018.  We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against
the allegations made in the complaint.  The Company has no basis
of determining whether there is any likelihood of material loss
associated with the claims and/or the potential and/or the
outcome of the litigation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/C7yh0P


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Faces 96 Cases at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. continues to defend itself against 96
cases alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure,
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, "We were a co-defendant in approximately 96
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 203 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

"In each asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a
minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court
in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally
range from US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the
monetary damages sought.  To the extent that any specific amount
of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all
named defendants.

"There are four asbestos cases, involving 21 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages against named defendants.  In each of the
four cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of
action.  In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts
at US$3.0 million compensatory and punitive damages each; one
count at US$3.0 million compensatory and US$1.0 million punitive
damages; and one count at US$1.0 million.  In the fourth case,
the plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each
in the amount of US$20.0 million, for three separate causes of
action, and US$5.0 million compensatory damages for the fifth
cause of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-
containing product manufactured or sold by us or our
subsidiaries.  We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos
cases, and believe we will continue to be successful in being
dismissed from such cases.  However, it is not possible to
predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims
and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal
injury litigation.  Despite this uncertainty, and although our
results of operations and cash flows for a particular period
could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims
and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution
of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition, liquidity or results of operations.  Among
the factors management considered in reaching this conclusion
were: (a) our historical success in being dismissed from these
types of lawsuits; (b) many cases have been improperly filed
against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs
have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or
our products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have
been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any
identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or that any
injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged
exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims
against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages
alleged are not attributed to individual defendants.
Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any
of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of our potential
exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear no relation
to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to
date and, based upon available information, our management does
not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have
a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity
or financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/4de3Sr


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Continues to Defend Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation continues to face asbestos
claims related to its facilities and older vehicle models,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
January 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we
have been subject to an increased number of asbestos-related
claims in recent years.  In general, these claims relate to
illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from
component parts found in older vehicles, although some cases
relate to the alleged presence of asbestos in our facilities.  In
these claims, we are generally not the sole defendant, and the
claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of
a wide variety of products allegedly containing asbestos.

"We have strongly disputed these claims, and it has been our
policy to defend against them vigorously.  Historically, the
actual damages paid out to claimants have not been material in
any year to our financial condition, results of operations, or
cash flows.  It is possible that the number of these claims will
continue to grow, and that the costs for resolving asbestos
related claims could become significant in the future."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Had 50 Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of Steel Partners Holdings L.P. has approximately 50
pending asbestos claims 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, "BNS Sub has been named as a defendant in
approximately 1,390 alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims as
of December 31, 2017.  The claims were filed over a period
beginning 1994 through December 31, 2017.  In many cases these
claims involved more than 100 defendants.  Of the claims filed,
approximately 1,340 were dismissed, settled or granted summary
judgment and closed as of December 31, 2017.  Of the claims
settled, the average settlement was less than US$3.  There
remained approximately 50 pending asbestos claims as of December
31, 2017.  There can be no assurance that the number of future
claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments
will be consistent with the experience to date of existing
claims.

"BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims
for years beginning 1974 through 1988 with estimated aggregate
coverage limits of US$183,000,000, with US$1,543,000 at December
31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, in estimated remaining self-
insurance retention (deductible).  There is secondary evidence of
coverage from 1970 to 1973 although there is no assurance that
the insurers will recognize that the coverage was in place.
Policies issued for BNS Sub beginning in 1989 contained
exclusions related to asbestos.  Under certain circumstances,
some of the settled claims may be reopened.  Also, there may be a
significant delay in receipt of notification by BNS Sub of the
entry of a dismissal or settlement of a claim or the filing of a
new claim.  BNS Sub believes it has significant defenses to any
liability for toxic-tort claims on the merits.  None of these
toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and, therefore, there can be
no assurance that these defenses will prevail.

"BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits from
its insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims
accruals as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as
estimates of the ultimate settlement and defense costs for the
then-existing claims are revised.  As of both December 31, 2017
and 2016, BNS Sub has accrued US$1,349,000 relating to the open
and active claims against BNS Sub.  This accrual represents the
Company's best estimate of the likely costs to settle these
claims by BNS Sub beyond the amounts accrued by the insurance
carriers and previously funded, through the retroactive billings
by BNS Sub.

"There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and
the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be
consistent with the experience to date of existing claims, and
that BNS Sub will not need to increase significantly its
estimated liability for the costs to settle these claims to an
amount that could have a material effect on the consolidated
financial statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/hRNR4o


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBLI Had $15.8MM Net Loss Reserves at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Global Indemnity Limited (NASDAQ: GBLI) had US$15.8 million of
net loss reserves for asbestos-related claims 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.

GBLI states, "The Company's environmental exposure arises from
the sale of general liability and commercial multi-peril
insurance.  Currently, the Company's policies continue to exclude
classic environmental contamination claims.  However, in some
states, the Company is required, depending on the circumstances,
to provide coverage for certain bodily injury claims, such as an
individual's exposure to a release of chemicals.  The Company has
also issued policies that were intended to provide limited
pollution and environmental coverage.  These policies were
specific to certain types of products underwritten by the
Company.  The Company has also received a number of asbestos-
related claims, the majority of which are declined based on well-
established exclusions.  In establishing the liability for unpaid
losses and loss adjustment expenses related to A&E exposures,
management considers facts currently known and the current state
of the law and coverage litigations.  Estimates of these
liabilities are reviewed and updated continually.

"Uncertainty remains as to the Company's ultimate liability for
asbestos-related claims due to such factors as the long latency
period between asbestos exposure and disease manifestation and
the resulting potential for involvement of multiple policy
periods for individual claims, the increase in the volume of
claims made by plaintiffs who claim exposure but who have no
symptoms of asbestos-related disease, and an increase in claims
subject to coverage under general liability policies that do not
contain aggregate limits of liability.

"The liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses,
inclusive of A&E reserves, reflects the Company's best estimates
for future amounts needed to pay losses and related loss
adjustment expenses as of each of the balance sheet dates
reflected in the financial statements herein in accordance with
GAAP.  As of December 31, 2017, the Company had US$15.8 million
of net loss reserves for asbestos-related claims and US$14.3
million for environmental claims.  The Company attempts to
estimate the full impact of the A&E exposures by establishing
specific case reserves on all known losses.

"In addition, establishing reserves for A&E and other mass tort
claims involves considerably more judgment than other types of
claims due to, among other things, inconsistent court decisions,
an increase in bankruptcy filings as a result of asbestos related
liabilities, and judicial interpretations that often expand
theories of recovery and broaden the scope of coverage."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/yTt74q


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 218 Cases vs. CECO Still Pending at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental Corp. continues to defend 218 pending
asbestos-related cases 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, "Our subsidiary, Met-Pro, beginning in 2002,
began to be named in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a
large number of industrial companies including, in particular,
those in the pump and fluid handling industries.  In management's
opinion, the complaints typically have been vague, general and
speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other
defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and
engaged in other related actions that caused injuries (including
death) and loss to the plaintiffs.  Counsel has advised that more
recent cases typically allege more serious claims of
mesothelioma.  The Company's insurers have hired attorneys who,
together with the Company, are vigorously defending these cases.
Many cases have been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to
produce evidence of exposure to Met-Pro's products.  In those
cases where evidence has been produced, the Company's experience
has been that the exposure levels are low and the Company's
position has been that its products were not a cause of death,
injury or loss.  The Company has been dismissed from or settled a
large number of these cases.  Cumulative settlement payments of
all legal fees other than corporate counsel expenses from 2002
through December 31, 2017 for cases involving asbestos-related
claims were US$1.3 million, of which US$1.2 million has been paid
by the Company's insurers.  The average cost per settled claim,
excluding legal fees, was approximately US$28,000.

"Based upon the most recent information available to the Company
regarding such claims, there were a total of 218 cases pending
against the Company as of December 31, 2017 (with Connecticut,
New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest
number of cases), as compared with 229 cases that were pending as
of December 31, 2016.  During 2017, 51 new cases were filed
against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from 56 cases
and settled six cases.  Most of the pending cases have not
advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although a number
of cases are on schedules leading to, or are scheduled for trial.
The Company believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for
the cases currently pending against the Company and for the
foreseeable future, assuming a continuation of the current
volume, nature of cases and settlement amounts.  However, the
Company has no control over the number and nature of cases that
are filed against it, nor as to the financial health of its
insurers or their position as to coverage.  The Company also
presently believes that none of the pending cases will have a
material adverse impact upon the Company's results of operations,
liquidity or financial condition."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Still Faces 3 Suits at Dec. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Dixie Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 30, 2017, that discovery in each of the 3 pending
asbestos-related lawsuits is ongoing.

The Company states, "We are one of multiple parties to three
current lawsuits filed in Madison County Illinois, styled Brenda
Bridgeman, Individually and as Special Administrator of the
Estate of Robert Bridgeman, Deceased, vs. American Honda Motor
Co., Inc., f/k/a Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al No. 15-L-
374, styled Charles Anderson, Pltf., vs.  3M Company, et al, No.
17-L-525 and styled Danny Atkins and Pamela Atkins, Pltfs., vs.
Aurora Pump Company, et al. No. 18-L-2.

"All three lawsuits entail a claim for damages to be determined
in excess of US$50,000 filed on behalf of either a former
employee or the estate of an individual which alleges that the
deceased contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to
asbestos while employed by us.

Discovery in each matter is ongoing, and a tentative trial date
has been set for one of the cases.  We have denied liability, are
defending the matters vigorously and are unable to estimate our
potential exposure to loss, if any, at this time.

"In August of 2017, the lawsuit styled Sandra D.  Watts,
Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Dianne
Averett, Deceased vs. 4520 Corp., Inc. f/k/a Benjamin F. Shaw
Company, et al No. 12-L-2032 was placed in the category of
"special closed with settlements and bankruptcy claims pending"
to all remaining defendants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2ISDd7S


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Still Faces Lawsuits at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation remains a defendant against asbestos
lawsuits related to its discontinued heat technologies segment,
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, "We are a defendant along with a number of
other parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may
have contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure
to asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one
or more named defendants.  These lawsuits relate to the
discontinued heat technologies segment which we sold in March
2005.  Due to the non-informative nature of the complaints, we do
not know whether any of the complaints state valid claims against
us.

"Certain insurance carriers have informed us that the primary
policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been exhausted
and that the carriers will no longer provide defense and
insurance coverage under those policies.  However, we have other
primary and excess insurance policies that we believe afford
coverage for later years.

"Some of these other primary insurers have accepted defense and
insurance coverage for these suits, and some of them have either
ignored our tender of defense of these cases, or have denied
coverage, or have accepted the tenders but asserted a reservation
of rights and/or advised us that they need to investigate
further.  Because settlement payments are applied to all years a
litigant was deemed to have been exposed to asbestos, we believe
we will have funds available for defense and insurance coverage
under the non-exhausted primary and excess insurance policies.

"However, unlike the older policies, the more recent policies
have deductible amounts for defense and settlements costs that we
will be required to pay; accordingly, we expect that our
litigation costs will increase in the future as the older
policies are exhausted.  Further, many of the policies covering
later years (approximately 1984 and thereafter) have exclusions
for any asbestos products or operations, and thus do not provide
insurance coverage for asbestos-related lawsuits.

"If our insurance policies do not cover the costs and any awards
for the asbestos-related lawsuits, we will have to use our cash
or obtain additional financing to pay the asbestos-related
obligations and settlement costs.  There is no assurance that we
will have the cash or be able to obtain additional financings on
favorable terms to pay asbestos related obligations or
settlements should they occur.  The ultimate outcome of any legal
matter cannot be predicted with certainty.  In light of the
significant uncertainty associated with asbestos lawsuits, there
is no guarantee that these lawsuits will not materially adversely
affect our financial position, results of operations or
liquidity."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2s22rq3


ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Still Defend Suits at Dec30
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.'s subsidiaries still faces several
lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of
brakes that contained asbestos, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 30, 2017.

The Company states, "A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company,
Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its wholly-
owned subsidiary WAG, are named defendants in several lawsuits
involving claims for damages caused by installation of brakes
during the late 1960's and early 1970's that contained asbestos.
WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes.
WAG maintains liability insurance coverage to protect its and the
Company's assets from losses arising from the litigation and
coverage is provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made
basis, and the Company is not expected to incur significant out-
of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that would be
material to its consolidated financial statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2rUJkid


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,907 Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has 6,907 asbestos-related claims
pending 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, "Claims have been asserted alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components
historically used in some products manufactured by predecessors
of Air & Liquid Systems Corporation ("Asbestos Liability").  Air
& Liquid Systems Corporation ("Air & Liquid"), and in some cases
the Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants,
often in excess of 50) in cases filed in various state and
federal courts.

"Included as "open claims" are approximately 479 and 444 claims
in 2017 and 2016, respectively, classified in various
jurisdictions as "inactive" or transferred to a state or federal
judicial panel on multi-district litigation, commonly referred to
as the MDL.

"A substantial majority of the settlement and defense costs was
reported and paid by insurers.  Because claims are often filed
and can be settled or dismissed in large groups, the amount and
timing of settlements, as well as the number of open claims, can
fluctuate significantly from period to period."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2KEgutc


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $149.7MM Liability Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has US$149,750,000 reserve at
December 31, 2017, for the total costs, including defense costs,
for Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted
through 2026, 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, "In 2006, the Corporation retained Hamilton,
Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc.  ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized
expert in the valuation of asbestos liabilities, to assist the
Corporation in estimating the potential liability for pending and
unasserted future claims for Asbestos Liability.  Based on this
analysis, the Corporation recorded a reserve for Asbestos
Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2013
as of December 31, 2006.  HR&A's analysis has been periodically
updated since that time.  Most recently, the HR&A analysis was
updated in 2016, and additional reserves were established by the
Corporation as of December 31, 2016, for Asbestos Liability
claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2026.  The
methodology used by HR&A in its projection in 2016 of the
operating subsidiaries' liability for pending and unasserted
potential future claims for Asbestos Liability, which is
substantially the same as the methodology employed by HR&A in
prior estimates, relied upon and included the following factors:

   * HR&A's interpretation of a widely accepted forecast of the
population likely to have been exposed to asbestos;

   * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people
likely to develop asbestos-related diseases;

   * HR&A's analysis of the number of people likely to file an
asbestos-related injury claim against the subsidiaries and the
Corporation based on such epidemiological data and relevant
claims history from January 1, 2014, to September 9, 2016;

   * an analysis of pending cases, by type of injury claimed and
jurisdiction where the claim is filed;

   * an analysis of claims resolution history from January 1,
2014, to September 9, 2016, to determine the average settlement
value of claims, by type of injury claimed and jurisdiction of
filing; and

   * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
value of claims, at an annual inflation rate based on the
Congressional Budget Office's ten year forecast of inflation.

"Using this information, HR&A estimated in 2016 the number of
future claims for Asbestos Liability that would be filed through
the year 2026, as well as the settlement or indemnity costs that
would be incurred to resolve both pending and future unasserted
claims through 2026.  This methodology has been accepted by
numerous courts.

"In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Corporation also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its Asbestos Liabilities.  In developing the
estimate, the Corporation considered HR&A's projection for
settlement or indemnity costs for Asbestos Liability and
management's projection of associated defense costs (based on the
current defense to indemnity cost ratio), as well as a number of
additional factors.  These additional factors included the
Settlement Agreements then in effect, policy exclusions, policy
limits, policy provisions regarding coverage for defense costs,
attachment points, prior impairment of policies and gaps in the
coverage, policy exhaustions, insolvencies among certain of the
insurance carriers, and the nature of the underlying claims for
Asbestos Liability asserted against the subsidiaries and the
Corporation as reflected in the Corporation's asbestos claims
database, as well as estimated erosion of insurance limits on
account of claims against Howden arising out of the Products.  In
addition to consulting with the Corporation's outside legal
counsel on these insurance matters, the Corporation consulted
with a nationally recognized insurance consulting firm it
retained to assist the Corporation with certain policy allocation
matters that also are among the several factors considered by the
Corporation when analyzing potential recoveries from relevant
historical insurance for Asbestos Liabilities.  Based upon all of
the factors considered by the Corporation, and taking into
account the Corporation's analysis of publicly available
information regarding the credit-worthiness of various insurers,
the Corporation estimated the probable insurance recoveries for
Asbestos Liability and defense costs through 2026.  Although the
Corporation believes that the assumptions employed in the
insurance valuation were reasonable and previously consulted with
its outside legal counsel and insurance consultant regarding
those assumptions, there are other assumptions that could have
been employed that would have resulted in materially lower
insurance recovery projections.

"Based on the analyses, the Corporation's reserve at December 31,
2016, for the total costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos
Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through
2026, was US$171,181,000 of which approximately 70% was
attributable to settlement costs for unasserted claims projected
to be filed through 2026 and future defense costs.  The reserve
at December 31, 2017, was US$149,750,000.  While it is reasonably
possible that the Corporation will incur additional charges for
Asbestos Liability and defense costs in excess of the amounts
currently reserved, the Corporation believes that there is too
much uncertainty to provide for reasonable estimation of the
number of future claims, the nature of such claims and the cost
to resolve them beyond 2026.  Accordingly, no reserve has been
recorded for any costs that may be incurred after 2026.

"The Corporation's receivable at December 31, 2016, for insurance
recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Corporation's
Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the
portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Settlement
Agreements in effect through December 31, 2016, and the probable
payments and reimbursements relating to the estimated indemnity
and defense costs for pending and unasserted future Asbestos
Liability claims, was US$115,945,000 (US$100,342,000 at December
31, 2017)."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2KEgutc


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Faces PI Suits at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Company still defends itself against
lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos that may be in
certain wire and cable, 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, "We, along with many other defendants, have
been named in a number of lawsuits in the state courts of
Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota alleging that certain
wire and cable which may have contained asbestos caused injury to
the plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable.  These
lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek
unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy. It is
not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of
the wire and cable in question or whether we, in fact,
distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused any
injuries. We maintain general liability insurance that, to date,
has covered the defense of and all costs associated with these
claims. In addition, we did not manufacture any of the wire and
cable at issue, and we would rely on any warranties from the
manufacturers of such cable if it were determined that any of the
wire or cable that we distributed contained asbestos which caused
injury to any of these plaintiffs. In connection with ALLTEL's
sale of our company in 1997, ALLTEL provided indemnities with
respect to costs and damages associated with these claims that we
believe we could enforce if our insurance coverage proves
inadequate."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2Iyjabs


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Faces 62,930 Suits at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has 62,930 asbestos personal
injury claims at year end dated 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 also received 3,514 new asbestos-related claims
within 2017.  It has also made settlement payments of USUS$48.6
million in 2017.

The Company states, "Settlement payments represent payments made
by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company during the year in
connection with settlements made in that year and in prior years.
Amounts do not include Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
attorneys' fees and expenses.

"Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has been a defendant
in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in
state courts.  These suits principally allege that the plaintiff
or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages.  Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the business of
manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or
asbestos-containing products nor has Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to
companies in the business of manufacturing, producing,
distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect
to certain research, publication and other activities of one or
more of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during
the period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's and
allege that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should
have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among
other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those
health risks.

"Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should not
have legal liability in these cases.  The outcome of most
asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be
impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal
rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged
injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the
claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company employs a number of
resolution strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure,
including seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial
rulings and settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits
under appropriate circumstances.

"Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company have
included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning
the health risks associated with asbestos.  Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that: (i) Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company owed no duty to the plaintiffs -- it had no special
relationship with the plaintiffs and did not manufacture,
produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products that allegedly
injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions
of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; (iii) Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs'
injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of
asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to
filing suit has expired.  During the course of the litigation,
certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims
against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, while other trial
courts have denied Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motions.
There can be no assurance that Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company will receive favorable decisions on motions in the
future.  While most cases brought to date have settled,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company intends to continue to defend
aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including
defending claims at trials."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2Iyjwib


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 96 Suits at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., is still a co-defendant in around 96
asbestos-related personal injury cases, 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, "We were a co-defendant in approximately 96
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 203 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

"In each asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a
minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court
in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally
range from US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the
monetary damages sought.  To the extent that any specific amount
of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all
named defendants.

"There are four asbestos cases, involving 21 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages against named defendants.  In each of the
four cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of
action.  In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts
at US$3.0 million compensatory and punitive damages each; one
count at US$3.0 million compensatory and US$1.0 million punitive
damages; and one count at US$1.0 million.  In the fourth case,
the plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each
in the amount of US$20.0 million, for three separate causes of
action, and US$5.0 million compensatory damages for the fifth
cause of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-
containing product manufactured or sold by us or our
subsidiaries.  We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos
cases, and believe we will continue to be successful in being
dismissed from such cases.  However, it is not possible to
predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims
and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal
injury litigation.  Despite this uncertainty, and although our
results of operations and cash flows for a particular period
could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims
and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution
of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition, liquidity or results of operations.  Among
the factors management considered in reaching this conclusion
were: (a) our historical success in being dismissed from these
types of lawsuits on the bases mentioned; (b) many cases have
been improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in
many cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any
causal relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in
many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that
they have suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at
all or that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact
result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints
assert claims against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the
damages alleged are not attributed to individual defendants.
Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any
of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of our potential
exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear no relation
to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to
date and, based upon available information, our management does
not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have
a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity
or financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2KE04kC


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockland Place's Abatement Activity Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rockland Place Apartments, LP, moves forward with its asbestos
abatement activities at the Spring Gate Apartments in Rockland,
Massachusetts, according to First Hartford Corporation's Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Following a site inspection of asbestos
abatement activities being conducted at the Spring Gate
Apartments in Rockland, Massachusetts (Facility) on April 14,
2017, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
(MassDEP) by letter dated April 21, 2017 requested that Rockland
Place Apartments, LP (Company) temporarily cease and desist from
any additional asbestos removal, abatement and/or handling
activities at the Facility.  Upon receipt of the MassDEP letter,
the Company engaged MassDEP in discussions regarding the
abatement project.  Following submission to and approval by
MassDEP of a work plan addressing the issues raised in MassDEP's
April 21 letter, MassDEP permitted the asbestos abatement work to
go forward.  There have been no further enforcement actions taken
by MassDEP.

By letters dated May 15, May 16 and May 30, 2017, three attorneys
representing tenants in three units at the Facility notified the
Company and/or its management company, FHRC Management
Corporation, of claims related to environmental conditions at the
Facility.  The first of these letters alleges that the tenant and
her family have been exposed to and have been living in an
apartment containing asbestos for many years.  The second letter
claims that the tenant and her three minor children have suffered
injuries believed to be caused by the presence of mold and
asbestos in the apartment.  The final letter asserts claims with
respect to the tenant and her three minor children involving the
presence and remediation of asbestos including violation of a
tenant's quiet enjoyment, breach of the warranty of habitability,
causation of emotional distress and the use of unfair and
deceptive practices under M.G.L. c. 93A.

The first two letters made no specific monetary demand; the third
letter demanded USUS$312,600.  All three claims were tendered to
the Company's insurer, which agreed to respond under a
reservation of rights.

On July 14, 2017, counsel retained by the insurer provided a
timely response to the third letter, adamantly denying the
Company's liability pursuant to M.G.L. c. 93A or for any of the
other claims.

By letter dated July 27, 2017, the insurer acknowledged receipt
of the three claims, at the same time stating however that as no
lawsuit had arisen, it did not have a duty to defend, but
nonetheless would continue to investigate.

At this time, the Company cannot assess the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome or provide any estimate of the amount or
range of any potential loss.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2wVvocI


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Brown" PI Suit Remanded to La. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Mary Ann Vial Lemmon of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana remands the case styled
Gregory Brown, v. Avondale Industries, Inc., f/k/a Northrop
Gruman Ship Systems, Inc., n/k/a Huntington Ingalls Incorporated,
et al., Section: "S" (5), Civil Action No. 18-4400, (E.D. La.) to
the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana,
following the precedent of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit and after finding that Avondale failed to meet
the causal nexus test.

Gregory Brown suffers from lung cancer, which he alleges was
caused by occupational exposure to asbestos. Brown alleges that
he was exposed to asbestos when he worked as a cleanup man,
tacker, and insulator helper at Avondale Shipyard intermittently
from 1967 to 1971. Avondale Shipyard was owned and operated by
defendant, Avondale Industries, Inc. f/k/a Northrop Grumman Ship
Systems, Inc. n/k/a Huntington Ingalls Incorporated. Brown also
alleges that he was exposed to asbestos while employed by
Fibrelite Corporation, Oubre & Labat, and Koppers Performance
Chemicals, Inc. from 1965 to 1978.

On November 29, 2017, Brown filed this action against Avondale,
and several other defendants seeking damages for various causes
of action related to his alleged exposure to asbestos. Brown
alleges a negligence cause of action against Avondale and its
executive officers, and strict liability and negligence causes of
action against the other defendants in the "Employer/Premises
Owner/Executive Officers" category and all of the defendants in
"Supplier/Manufacturer/Seller/Contractor" category.

Brown was deposed on March 14 and 15, 2018. He testified about
working aboard numerous vessels at Avondale where he was exposed
to asbestos. Brown testified that he worked aboard a "big ship,"
but did not know what type of vessel it was. Brown did not
testify specifically that he was exposed to asbestos while
working aboard any ships belonging to the United States Navy or
the United States Coast Guard.

On April 27, 2018, Avondale removed this case to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
pursuant to the Federal Officer Removal Statute. Avondale alleges
that it was acting under the authority of an officer of the
United States because the government required it to use asbestos
on its ships.

Brown filed a motion to remand arguing that the Federal Officer
Removal Statute is not implicated because he does not assert
strict liability claims against Avondale for using asbestos.
Rather, he alleges that Avondale was negligent for failing to
warn its employees of the risks of asbestos exposure and failing
to implement safety procedures for handling asbestos, which was
not controlled by the government. Brown argues that the
applicable precedent of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit dictates that this case must be remanded.

A recent case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit, Templet v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., Fed.
Appx., 2018 WL 2049145 (5th Cir. May 1, 2018), is nearly
identical to this case, where the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's remand order
holding that the claims raised by the plaintiff against Avondale
of "negligently 'failing to warn, train, and adopt safety
procedures regarding asbestos' does not support removal because
it is 'private conduct that implicates no federal interest.'"
Quoting, Legendre v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 885 F.3d 398, 400
(5th Cir. 2018), the court reasoned that "allowing removal when
the defendants were free to adopt the safety measures at issue,
'would have stretched the casual nexus requirement to the point
of irrelevance.'" In contrast, a claim against Avondale based on
strict liability that rests on the mere use of asbestos would
have supported removal because it is casually linked to the
government's requirement that its ships contain asbestos.

In this case, Brown alleges that Avondale was negligent for
failing to warn him of the dangers of asbestos and failing to
implement safety procedures for handling asbestos. He does not
allege strict liability claims against Avondale. The precedent
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
holds that the Federal Officer Removal Statute is inapplicable
when the plaintiff alleges negligence claims for failure to warn
and implement safety procedures for handling asbestos.

Avondale argues Legendre and the cases on which it relies are
outdated because they rely on the pre-2011 amendment version of
Section 1442(a)(1). The 2011 amendment, which became effective on
November 9, 2011, inserted the words "or relating to" before "any
act under the color of such office. . ." 28 U.S.C. Section
1442(a)(1) (2012). Avondale contends that the addition of the
phrase "or relating to" removes the causal requirement and would
make Brown's negligence claims against Avondale removable.

In Legendre, the United States Court of Appeals recognized that
its precedent on Section 1442(a)(1) relies on the pre-2011
amendment version of the statute and that "a revised approach may
have merit" because "by adding 'relating to," Congress preserved
a nexus requirement, but it is unclear whether the relationship
must be causal." However, the precedent to which the court refers
was decided after the 2011 amendment and continued to apply the
causal nexus test to the post-2011 amendment version of Section
1442(a)(1). Thus, the court held that pursuant to the "rule of
orderliness, under which a panel may not overturn a controlling
precedent absent an intervening change in law, such as by a
statutory amendment, or the Supreme Court, or our en banc court,"
its precedent controlled, and "Avondale must show a casual
connection between the federal officer's direction and the
conduct challenged by the" plaintiff.

A copy of the Order and Reasons dated June 12, 2018, is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ycboja7x from Leagle.com.

Gregory Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Lindsey A. Cheek,
Christopher Joseph Fransen, The Cheek Law Firm, Matthew Scott
Dillahunty, Ferrell Law Group, pro hac vice & Rubiante Lolana
Brown, Cheek Law Firm, LLC.

Albert L Bossier, Jr & J Melton Garrett, Defendants, represented
by Gustave A. Fritchie, III -- gfritchie@irwinllc.com -- Irwin
Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC, David Michael Melancon --
dmelancon@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC,
Edward Winter Trapolin -- etrapolin@irwinllc.com -- Irwin
Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC & Timothy Farrow Daniels --
tdaniels@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, formerly known as, Defendant,
represented by Brian C. Bossier -- bbossier@bluewilliams.com --
Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III --
cgrace@bluewilliams.com -- Blue Williams, LLP, David Michael
Melancon -- dmelancon@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart &
Moore, LLC, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III --
eellinghausen@bluewilliams.com -- Blue Williams, LLP, Erin Helen
Boyd -- eboyd@bluewilliams.com -- Blue Williams, LLP, Laura M.
Gillen -- lgillen@bluewilliams.com -- Blue Williams, LLP &
Patrick Kevin Shockey -- pshockey@bluewilliams.com -- Blue
Williams, LLP.

Certain Underwriters of Lloyd's London, Defendant, represented by
James R. Logan, IV, Logan & Soileau, LLC.

Koppers Inc., Individually and as Successor in Interest to
Koppers Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas R.
Elliott -- delliott@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by McGready
Lewis Richeson -- mricheson@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas,
Radecker & Carey, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III -- fdeblanc@pugh-
law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, Kathleen Erin
Jordan -- kjordan@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &
Carey & Milele N. St. Julien -- mstjulien@pugh-law.com -- Pugh,
Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Successor by Merger to Buffalo
Pumps, Inc. & Flowserve US Inc, Solely as successor to Rockwell
Manufacturing Company, Edward Valves, Inc. McCanna Corporation
and Nordstrom Valves, Defendants, represented by Stacey Leigh
Strain -- strain@hubbardmitchell.com -- Hubbard, Mitchell,
Williams & Strain, PLLC.

Anco Insulations Inc, Defendant, represented by Douglas R.
Elliott -- delliott@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC, Jamie
Hebert Baglio -- jbaglio@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC &
Margaret M. Joffe -- mjoffe@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC.

Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, as Successor-By-Merger to Borg-Warner
Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher O. Massenburg
-- cmassenburg@mgmlaw.com -- MGM The Law Firm, Bradley Adam Hays
-- ahays@mgmlaw.com -- MGM The Law Firm, Helen Meredith Buckley -
- hbuckley@mgmlaw.com -- MGM The Law Firm, Jeanette Seraile-
Riggins -- jriggins@mgmlaw.com -- MGM The Law Firm, Meghan B.
Senter -- msenter@mgmlaw.com -- MGM The Law Firm & Quinn Kelcie
Brown -- qbrown@mgmlaw.com -- MGM The Law Firm.

CBS Corporation, successor by merger with CBS Corporation, Foster
Wheeler LLC, formerly known as, General Electric Company,
Ingersoll-Rand Company, individually and as successor-in-interest
to Terry Steam Turbine Company & FMC Corporation, individually
and as successor in interest to Peerless Pumps and Sterling Fluid
Systems, Inc., Defendants, represented by John Joseph Hainkel,
III -- jhainkel@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin --
abowlin@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Barry C. Campbell --
cwallace@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr. --
jbrown@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long --
klong@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan --
keagan@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Lacey Taylor McCoy --
LMcCoy@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin --
mpuente@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C.

Crane Company, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Romero --
jromero@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC, Lawrence G. Pugh, III
-- lpugh@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC, Daniel E. Oser --
doser@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC & Donna M. Young --
dyoung@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC.

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher O.
Massenburg -- cmassenburg@mgmlaw.com -- MGM The Law Firm, Bradley
Adam Hays -- ahays@mgmlaw.com -- MGM The Law Firm, Brandie
Mendoza Thibodeaux -- bthibodeaux@mgmlaw.com -- MG + M The Law
Firm, Glenn L.M. Swetman -- mswetman@mgmlaw.com -- MG+M The Law
Firm, Helen Meredith Buckley -- hbuckley@mgmlaw.com -- MGM The
Law Firm, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins -- jriggins@mgmlaw.com -- MGM
The Law Firm, Meghan B. Senter -- msenter@mgmlaw.com -- MGM The
Law Firm, Natasha Amber Corb -- ncorb@mgmlaw.com -- MG+M The Law
Firm & Quinn Kelcie Brown -- qbrown@mgmlaw.com -- MGM The Law
Firm.

Goulds Pumps LLC, formerly known as, Defendant, represented by
Lauren Ann McCulloch -- lauren.mcculloch@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius & Mitchell F Tedesco --
mitchell.tedesco@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Kelly Lightfoot -- klightfoot@hmhlp.com -- Hailey, McNamara,
Hall, Larmann & Papale, LLP, Edward J. Lassus, Jr. --
elassus@hmhlp.com -- Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale,
LLP & Richard J. Garvey, Jr. -- rgarvey@hmhlp.com -- Hailey,
McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, LLP.

McCarty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn --
suek@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP,
April Ann McQuillar -- aprilm@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler -- douglask@spsr-law.com --
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Watson Redfearn -
- douglasr@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn,
LLP, Janice M. Culotta -- janicec@spsr-law.com -- Simon,
Peragine, Smith and Redfearn, LLP & Louis Oliver Oubre --
louiso@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Travelers Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Kristopher
T. Wilson, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard & Katherine
Osborne Hannan, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard.

Warren Pumps, LLC, formerly known as, Defendant, represented by
Joseph Henry Hart, IV, Pugh, Accardo, LLC, Daniel E. Oser, Pugh,
Accardo, LLC, Kathleen Erin Jordan -- kjordan@pugh-law.com --
Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey & Thomas A. Porteous --
tporteous@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC.

Avondale Industries, Inc., formerly known as, Defendant,
represented by Brian C. Bossier -- bbossier@bluewilliams.com --
Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III --
cgrace@bluewilliams.com -- Blue Williams, LLP, Edwin A.
Ellinghausen, III -- eellinghausen@bluewilliams.com -- Blue
Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd -- eboyd@bluewilliams.com -- Blue
Williams, LLP, Laura M. Gillen -- lgillen@bluewilliams.com --
Blue Williams, LLP & Patrick Kevin Shockey --
pshockey@bluewilliams.com -- Blue Williams, LLP.


Lamorak Insurance Company, erroneously named as OneBeacon
Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton
Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam Devlin
deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Travis Layne
Simmons, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Albert L Bossier, Jr & J Melton Garrett, Third Party Plaintiffs,
represented by Gustave A. Fritchie, III -- gfritchie@irwinllc.com
-- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC, Alex Tyler Robertson --
arobertson@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC,
Alison A. Spindler -- aspindler@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie
Urquhart & Moore, LLC, Amanda Marie Crowley Fraser --
afraser@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC,
David Michael Melancon -- dmelancon@irwinllc.com -- Irwin
Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC, Edward Winter Trapolin --
etrapolin@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC &
Timothy Farrow Daniels -- tdaniels@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie
Urquhart & Moore, LLC.

Union Carbide Coporation, Cross Claimant, represented by McGready
Lewis Richeson -- mricheson@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas,
Radecker & Carey, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III -- fdeblanc@pugh-
law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, Kathleen Erin
Jordan -- kjordan@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &
Carey & Milele N. St. Julien -- mstjulien@pugh-law.com -- Pugh,
Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey.

Albert L Bossier, Jr & J Melton Garrett, Cross Claimants,
represented by Gustave A. Fritchie, III -- gfritchie@irwinllc.com
-- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC, Alex Tyler Robertson --
arobertson@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC,
Alison A. Spindler -- aspindler@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie
Urquhart & Moore, LLC, Amanda Marie Crowley Fraser --
afraser@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC,
David Michael Melancon -- dmelancon@irwinllc.com -- Irwin
Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC, Edward Winter Trapolin --
etrapolin@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC &
Timothy Farrow Daniels -- tdaniels@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie
Urquhart & Moore, LLC.

John Deere Construction & Forestry Company, Cross Defendant,
represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler --
dkuchler@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk Weiner, LLC, Amber B.
Barlow -- abarlow@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk Weiner, LLC,
Janika D. Polk -- jpolk@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk Weiner,
LLC & Lee Blanton Ziffer -- lziffer@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler
Polk Weiner, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims vs. Lockheed Martin Dismissed in "Thrash"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District California, pursuant to the Parties' stipulation, has
dismissed with prejudice all claims against Defendant Lockheed
Martin Corporation, individually and as successor in interest to
Glenn L. Martin Company, American-Marietta Corporation, Martin
Marietta and The Lockheed Corporation in the case styled Joseph
Thrash, an individual; Chez Thrash, an individual; Plaintiffs, v.
Cirrus Enterprises LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
01501-JST, (N.D. Cal.).

A copy of the Order dated June 13, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ycqnscxe from Leagle.com.

Joseph Thrash, an individual, Plaintiff, represented by Benno
Behnam Ashrafi, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Adam Cooper, Weitz &
Luxenberg P.C., pro hac vice, Carlos Jorge Enrique Guzman, Weitz
& Luxenberg, P.C., Josiah Parker, Weitz and Luxenberg, Michael
Thomas Reid, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Robert Allen Green, Weitz &
Luxenberg, P.C. & Tyler Robert Stock, Weitz & Luxenburg, P.C.

Chez Thrash, an individual, Plaintiff, represented by Benno
Behnam Ashrafi, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Adam Cooper, Weitz &
Luxenberg P.C., pro hac vice, Carlos Jorge Enrique Guzman, Weitz
& Luxenberg, P.C., Michael Thomas Reid, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.,
Robert Allen Green, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. & Tyler Robert Stock,
Weitz & Luxenburg, P.C.

The Boeing Company, individually and as successor by merger to
McDonnell Douglas Corporation, successor by merger with Douglas
Aircraft Company, Defendant, represented by Dustin Clark Beckley
-- dbeckley@mgmlaw.com -- Manning Gross & Massenburg LLP, Brent
Marshall Karren -- bkarren@mgmlaw.com -- Manning Gross &
Massenburg LLP, Brian D. Gross -- bgross@mgmlaw.com -- Manion
Gaynor Manning LLP, Freddy Israel Fonseca --  ffonseca@mgmlaw.com
-- Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Howard Phillip Skebe, Manion
Gaynor & Manning LLP & Jeanette Riggins -- jriggins@mgmlaw.com --
Manion Gaynor Manning LLP, pro hac vice.

United Technologies Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ferlin
Peregrino Ruiz -- ferlin.ruiz@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis
LLP, Judith Ann Perritano -- jperritano@piercedavis.com -- Pierce
Davis Perritano LLP, pro hac vice, Knight S. Anderson  --
knight.anderson@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP, pro hac vice
& Lance Douglas Wilson -- lance.wilson@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker
Ellis LLP.

Honeywell International Inc., formerly known as, AlliedSignal
Inc., Successor in Interest to the Bendix Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jessica Jean Thomas -- jjthomas@mwe.com --
McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Alice Truong Wong -- alwong@mwe.com -
- McDermott Will Emery LLP & Jonathan Yang -- joyang@mwe.com --
McDermott Will & Emery LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey
-- bbailey@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP, Frederick W.
Gatt -- fgatt@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP & Ketul
Dilip Patel, Leader & Berkon LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Grants Bid to Strike FAC in "Mestas"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Raymond P. Moore of the United States District Court for
the District Colorado has issued an Opinion and Order granting
Defendant John Crane, Inc.'s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint.

The principal issues raised Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint in the case Richard A. Mestas, Sr., et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01006-RM-NYW, (D. Colo.), is: (a)
whether plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint should be stricken,
and (b) whether plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint
within the time limits allowed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 15 ("Rule 15")
because plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint under the
assumption that it was their right as a matter of course to do so
without leave or consent.

Plaintiffs rely solely upon the requirement that a pleading be
amended within 21 days of service of a responsive pleading.
Plaintiffs assert that an answer to the original complaint was
filed on May 4, 2018. Plaintiffs, however, ignore the fact that
answers to the original complaint were also filed on May 2, 2018.
Therefore, even if the Court accepts Plaintiffs' contention that
the 21-day timeline did not begin until an answer was filed after
removal, that timeline began on May 2, 2018 with the filing of
answers to the original complaint.

Rule 15 allows a party to amend a pleading within 21 days of
serving it, or, if the pleading is one to which a response is
required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or
motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is
earlier. Twenty-one days from May 2, 2018 is May 23, 2018. The
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint was filed on May 25, 2018.
Therefore, the Court settles that the First Amended Complaint was
filed two days too late, and, as such, must be stricken as
untimely filed.

In their response, Plaintiffs also request leave to amend their
original complaint. However, the Court explains that Local Rules
do not allow for a motion to be included in a response.
Therefore, to the extent Plaintiffs wish to move for leave to
amend the original complaint, Plaintiffs must do so by filing a
motion. To the extent Plaintiffs decide to do this, the Court
suggests that they address the arguments raised in Defendant's
reply in this regard. Plaintiffs may have until on or before June
21, 2018 to file a motion for leave to amend complaint in the
manner envisioned in the First Amended Complaint.

Because the Court has now resolved the motion to strike, the stay
in this case is lifted as moot. In addition, because plaintiffs'
motion to remand is entirely premised upon the existence of the
First Amended Complaint, the Court denied the motion to remand,
without prejudice. As such, the motions for joinder are also
denied as moot.

A copy of the Opinion and Order dated June 14, 2018, is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ya2lqgau from Leagle.com.

Richard A. Mestas, Sr. & Lori Ann Muse, Plaintiffs, represented
by John Reily Crone -- john.crone@andruswagstaff.com -- Andrus
Wagstaff, P.C.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, also known as Buffalo Pumps,
Inc., Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., formerly known as Cleaver-Brooks &
Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendants, represented by Matthew John
Broderick -- mbroderick@grsm.com --  Gordon Rees Scully
Mansukhani, LLP.

Aurora Pump Company & Certainteed Corporation, Defendants,
represented by Amanda Catherine Jokerst -- ajokerst@mac-legal.com
-- Montgomery Amatuzio Chase Bell Jones, LLP & Lori Kathryn Bell
-- lbell@mac-legal.com -- Montgomery Amatuzio Chase Bell Jones,
LLP.

Borgwarner Morse Tec, LLC, sued individually and as successor by
merger to, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Wirkus Vedra,
Polsinelli PC & Michael Patrick Dulin -- mdulin@polsinelli.com --
Polsinelli PC.

Bryan Steam, LLC & Burnham, LLC, also known as Burnham
Commerical, Defendants, represented by Daniel Sean Smith --
ssmith@wshblaw.com -- Wood Smith Henning & Berman, LLP, Michael
Joseph Potraffke -- mpotraffke@wshblaw.com -- Wood Smith Henning
& Berman, LLP & Nicholas Robert Herrick -- nherrick@wshblaw.com -
- Wood Smith Henning & Berman, LLP.

CBS Corporation, sued individually and as successor-in-interest,
FMC Corporation, sued as successor of Peerless Pumps, Ingersoll-
Rand Company & Trane US, Inc., formerly known as, Defendants,
represented by Kevin G. Walton -- kwalton@swlaw.com -- Snell &
Wilmer, LLP, Timothy Philip Scalo -- tscalo@swlaw.com -- Snell &
Wilmer, LLP & Tracy H. Fowler -- tfowler@swlaw.com -- Snell &
Wilmer, LLP.

Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., formerly known as, Defendant, represented
by Michael John Ramirez -- mramirez@grsm.com --Gordon Rees Scully
Mansukhani, LLP.

Crane Co., sued individually and as successor-in-interest to,
Defendant, represented by Thomas E. Birsic --
thomas.birsic@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP & Nicholas P. Vari --
nicholas.vari@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP.

Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by John
F. Hensley, Hensley & Kennedy, P.C.

Flowserve Corporation, sued individually and as successor-in-
interest to, Defendant, represented by Lawrence Michael Brooks,
Jr. -- mbrooks@warllc.com -- Wells Anderson & Race, LLC & Mary
Alice Wells -- mwells@warllc.com -- Wells Anderson & Race, LLC.

Gardner Denver, Inc. & Union Carbide Corporation, Defendants,
represented by Jesse Daniel Rodgers --
Jesse.Rodgers@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith, LLP & Ronald Lyle Hellbusch --
Ronald.Hellbusch@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith, LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Katherine
Joan Mercer-Lawson -- mercerlawson@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell, LLP.

Genuine Parts Company, sued individually, Defendant, represented
by Joshua I. Berry -- berryj@hallevans.com -- Hall & Evans, LLC &
Valerie A. Garcia -- garciav@hallevans.com -- Hall & Evans, LLC.

Honeywell International, Inc., sued as successor-in-interest,
Defendant, represented by Conor Andrew Flanigan --
cflanigan@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP &
Michael D. Plachy -- mplachy@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber
Christie LLP.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary M. Clexton,
Miller & Steiert, P.C. & Stephen Jonathan Woolsey, Miller &
Steiert, P.C.

Lamons Gasket Company, Defendant, represented by Kyle Brandon
Joyce -- kjoyce@mac-legal.com -- Montgomery Amatuzio Chase Bell
Jones, LLP & Max K. Jones, Jr. -- mjones@mac-legal.com --
Montgomery Amatuzio Chase Bell Jones, LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Susan G. Pray -- spray@dewhirstdolven.com -- Dewhirst & Dolven,
LLC.

Riley Power Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy Lilien Twohey,
Jachimiak Peterson, LLC & Charles Edward Weaver, Jachimiak
Peterson, LLC.

Rite Engineering & Manufacturing Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Christopher Shane Gatewood --
gatewoodc@hallevans.com -- Hall & Evans, LLC & Michael Allen Paul
-- paulm@hallevans.com -- Hall & Evans, LLC.

Superior Boiler Works, Inc. & Viking Pump, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Gregg S. Rich -- Rich@ccrjlaw.com -- Markusson
Green & Jarvis, P.C. & Rachael Margaret Wachs --
wachs@ccrjlaw.com -- Coombe Curry Rich & Jarvis.

U.S. Engineering Company, Defendant, represented by Kyle
MacArthur Bogdan -- kbogdan@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop & Gage,
LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Con Man in Australia Getting Locked Up
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yessenia Funes of Earther reported that these days, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency's got no shame cozying up
to polluters. Head to Australia, though, and it's a whole
different game. Ever heard of Dib Hanna? Me neither, but
apparently, he's a notorious criminal in Sydney, Australia. His
crime? Serial asbestos dumper. (And no, I'm not kidding.)

Hanna's dumping spree has come to a halt after government
authorities caught wind he was at it again. He's faced fines in
the past -- like more than $200,000 in fines -- for illegal
dumping, but the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
sentenced him to three years in prison for crimes committed back
in 2015 and 2016.

This includes no parole for two years and three months. He's the
first to be jailed under the state's anti-dumping laws.

Hanna wasn't just dumping material full of pollutants like
asbestos, plastic, and pipe onto people's lawns, though. He was
deceiving at least some of his victims, by offering a topsoil
service. So ya boy was getting paid (!!) while spreading around
asbestos, a known carcinogen that can also cause respiratory
issues.

In other instances, he was straight up abandoning waste on
private property.

In total, he dumped more than 500 tons of combined waste in 2015
and 2016.

Now, the government has given him 90 days to clean this shit up.
On top of that, he's got to pay the Environmental Protection
Agency for its legal fees andpublish newspaper ads about what he
did. Talk about public shaming, man.

"It is an appropriate sentence for Hanna, who took advantage of
innocent people for his own financial benefit," said Environment
Minister Gabrielle Upton, per The Sidney Morning Herald. "Illegal
dumping, especially of asbestos waste, is a serious environmental
crime and [New South Wales] has tough laws to prevent it."

Seems like Australia's got it figured out. We'll have to hold our
breath to see polluters get treated the same by our EPA here in
the U.S. Sigh.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: House Demolition Delay Frustrates City Hall
------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Tank of Saskatoon StarPhoenix reported that the demolition
of a dilapidated house in the Mayfair neighbourhood that was
found to contain asbestos has been delayed again.

The City of Saskatoon has contracted a company to complete
demolition of the house, but work must wait until more
information can be provided to a provincial ministry.

The Ministry of Occupational Health and Safety needs to review
the work plan for any such demolition and the ministry has asked
for more information to ensure worker safety, a city official
says.

"The level of detail for this project requested by the ministry
was not expected," Kara Fagnou, the city's director of building
standards, said in an emailed statement. "The City of Saskatoon
is frustrated by the continued delays this project is
experiencing, however we do support and understand worker safety
is a priority."

Fagnou sent the update to community associations in the area near
the home located at Avenue B and 34th Street. Demolition began on
the house in September, when a material containing asbestos was
discovered.

Fagnou said in April the city hired a company to complete the
demolition, but opted to wait until temperatures were
consistently above freezing, in keeping with accepted safety
practices.

The city continues to work with its contractor and the ministry,
Fagnou said.

"It is important to note there is no risk to the public or
residents in the area," she said. The ministry has also not
raised any concerns about public safety, Fagnou added.

She said the public will be updated when demolition can resume.
City council passed a bylaw change that reduces the time frame
for residential demolition permits from two years to 60 days.

That change was brought about in response to concerns about the
Mayfair house. Some residents feel it's unsafe, despite
assurances from the city and the ministry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Riddled Community to be Demolished
------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Boyden of Kent Live reported that a former community hall
in Broadstairs which has been condemned due to excessive asbestos
could soon be demolished.

Planning permission for the demolition of the structure, on
Pierremont Park in Broadstairs, was submitted to Thanet District
Council and validated by the council.

The building itself, which is also known as the old Age Concern
building, is not listed, but it sits within the curtilage of the
Grade II listed Pierremont Hall.

The design and access statement submitted alongside the
application reads: "The former community hall in Broadstairs has
been derelict since July 2016, and the building was condemned due
to excessive asbestos throughout the fabric of the building. The
building, a pre-fabricated structure, has reached the end of its
natural life span.

Outline planning application for the building of up to 25 homes
near Birchington has been decided.

"Since the closure of the building it has been plagued by
antisocial behaviour, which has included break-ins, fires, rough
sleeping and drug abuse.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Cancer Occur 20 Years After Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zeno Zocatelli of swissinfo.ch reported that as the issue of
compensation for victims of cancer linked to asbestos exposure is
debated in the Swiss parliament, new research has shed light on
how asbestos fibres cause cancer.

Every year, around 120 people in Switzerland develop
mesothelioma. This is a rare cancer that develops in the
mesothelium, a thin membrane that protects the internal organs of
the chest and abdomen, and is caused by inhaling asbestos fibres.
In most cases, people encountered the hazardous material while at
work before its use was banned nationally in 1989.

Despite ceasing the production of asbestos, people will continue
to die from it for a long time, says Dr Emanuela Felley-Bosco, a
researcher at the Laboratory of Molecular Oncology at University
Hospital Zurich.

In a recent article she wrote for the scitecheuropa.euexternal
link website, the scientist points out that asbestos bans are not
in place everywhere.

Global production and consumption of asbestos peaked in 1980 at
4.8 million tonnes, before decreasing to 1.4 million in 2016.
Russia was the biggest producer in 2016 (692,000 tonnes).

The researcher says mesothelioma is likely to remain an issue for
many years, due to the long timespan between exposure to asbestos
and the development of a malignant tumour.

Why does asbestos cause cancer?

Asbestos is not carcinogenic, chemically speaking. What makes it
dangerous is the size and sharp, elongated shape of fibres which,
when inhaled, lodge in the mesothelium.

As the fibres are too large to be removed, they can repeatedly
damage internal tissue. At that stage, the immune system
intervenes destroying any damaged or "defective" cells, and re-
generating new tissue.

New research, funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation and
supported by the university hospitals of Zurich, Geneva and
Toronto, as well as the University of Freiburg and the Federal
Institute of Technology, Zurich (ETHZ), has revealed how this
creates an imbalance in the body's immune response. A person's
defence mechanism is lowered, while the regenerative aspect is
accentuated. Carcinogenic cells, which would be quickly
eliminated in a healthy patient, then begin to reproduce and form
a tumour.

This imbalance is due to changes in the RNA, says Felley-Bosco.
Such mutations will need to be studied in more detail but they
could provide a clue to identifying the "genetic signature" of
asbestos-related cancer.

The hope is that, thanks to the data, one day an early diagnosis
will be possible, which will be "useful for all types of cancer
but crucial for mesothelioma", Felley-Bosco explains.

Prescription after 20 years "unreasonable"

While the scientific battle to fight mesothelioma continues, the
issue of asbestos has returned to the political arena in
Switzerland. Parliament concluded a debate on the deadline to be
fixed for compensation claims linked to asbestos exposure. This
refers to the amount of time between exposure to asbestos fibres
and claims for compensation for work-related illnesses, including
for affected foreign workers who have left Switzerland and
returned to their home countries.

The Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights says the
current ten-year period for claims is too short. The Swiss Senate
followed the House of Representatives in extending it to 20
years.

Felley-Bosco, however, says this extended period is
"unreasonable". In Europe, where asbestos has been banned for
over 20 years, mesothelioma cases are on the rise, she notes. In
addition, the disease is more widespread among people aged 70 and
over.

The researcher claims that up to 40 years could easily pass
between exposure to asbestos and the onset of mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Lawmakers Balking At Asbestos Reform
--------------------------------------------------------
Forbes reported that reform bills that would require asbestos
plaintiffs to disclose all potential claims in court appear
stalled in the New York legislature, three weeks after former
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted for a second time
on charges stemming directly from the state's scandal-prone
asbestos court system.

A new asbestos-transparency bill was introduced May 29 in the
State Assembly, streamlining a previous one that has languished
in the Judiciary Committee since February of last year amid
fierce trial lawyer opposition. A similar bill in the Senate
passed out of that body's Judiciary Committee in March but has
been sitting in the Finance Committee awaiting separate review.

Supporters of the bills say they would level the playing field
between plaintiffs and defendants by forcing plaintiffs to
identify all the sources of exposure to the deadly substance
before taking lawsuits to trial. Under the current system,
plaintiff lawyers target solvent companies with lawsuits first,
then file claims with the numerous trusts set up by companies
already driven into bankruptcy by asbestos litigation.

Defendants -- and the insurance companies that actually pay most
of the bills in this system -- say withholding bankruptcy trust
claims until after trial deprives them of potentially exculpatory
evidence about whose products made the plaintiff sick.

New York's specialized asbestos court known as NYCAL has been
criticized as especially favorable for plaintiffs, with docket
procedures that allow plaintiffs to bundle cases together and sue
for punitive damages, which defendants say are hard to justify in
lawsuits against companies that in most cases ceased operating
years ago and were gobbled up in larger transactions by companies
like Pfizer and Honeywell. NYCAL has also consistently been
tagged a "Judicial Hellhole" by the American Tort Reform
Association.

It's also the court system that spawned the illegal behavior of
Silver, who collected millions of dollars in fees from the
state's leading asbestos law firm, Weitz & Luxenberg, in exchange
for providing the names of patients diagnosed with mesothelioma,
a deadly asbestos-linked cancer.

Once the state's most powerful politician, Silver was convicted
of steering hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer funds to
the doctor who provided him the names. As Assembly Speaker,
Silver named Weitz & Luxenberg name partner Arthur Luxenberg to
the Judicial Screening Committee for the First Department, which
includes NYCAL.

Both of the New York bills face a tough road to passage despite
the fact they were sponsored by lawyers and have strong support
from the state's insurers, business community and veterans'
groups.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Won't Ban New Uses of Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------
Alex Formuzis of Environmental Working Group reported that the
Environmental Protection Agency released documents indicating it
will dramatically scale back its safety evaluations for 10
chemicals under the revamped Toxic Substances Control Act.

The agency also announced it will not prohibit new uses or review
exposures from abandoned uses of asbestos, one of the world's
most notorious carcinogens that has killed hundreds of thousands
of Americans. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has yet again proved
he is uniquely unfit for the job, said Melanie Benesh,
legislative attorney at EWG.

Under the new law, Congress gave the EPA much broader authority
to ban toxic chemicals or dramatically curtail their uses in
commerce to protect the public, especially vulnerable populations
like young children, from exposure to toxic chemicals. Among the
chemicals under consideration for such actions are asbestos; 1,4-
dioxane, an industrial solvent and common household product
contaminant; and methylene chloride and trichloroethylene, two
neurotoxic, cancer-causing solvents.

"The release of these problem formulations further highlights
this EPA's commitment to cooking the books on chemical safety in
favor of polluters," said Benesh. "This failure is further proof
Mr. Pruitt should not be within 100 miles of any position for
which public health protection is part of the job."

"Scott Pruitt's blatant attempt to bamboozle Americas by stating
he's taking 'important, unprecedented action on asbestos,' while
avoiding a ban, is reprehensible," said Asbestos Disease
Awareness Organization President and Co-Founder Linda Reinstein.
"The asbestos importers and users may see this as an initial win
-- but they are dead wrong.  ADAO has built an arsenal of
evidence in the docket proving there is no safe or controlled use
of this toxic chemical. Pruitt's actions signal TSCA reform is a
failure."

In 2016, Congress passed and President Obama signed into law the
Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, which amended the
woefully weak Toxic Substances Control Act. The new law gives the
EPA power to finally ban asbestos and other dangerous chemicals.
However, the problem formulations the EPA released fail to
consider the key ways Americans are exposed to these chemicals,
such as exposures from contaminated air, drinking water, and even
consumer and skin care products.

Ignoring the many ways in which people are exposed to chemicals
will put vulnerable populations, such as young children and
communities living near factories, at even greater risk. These
woefully incomplete problem formulations signal the EPA's intent
to discount human health risks to justify weak regulations of
these chemicals.

Pruitt's EPA is doing the bidding of the chemical industry by
giving it the green light to continue business as usual, and by
signaling that even the most dangerous chemicals are unlikely to
be restricted or banned.

Late last year, major chemical corporations and the ACC held at
least four meetings with EPA officials about the agency's plans
for asbestos under the revamped TSCA law.

"With the announcement, it's clear polluters can ask Scott Pruitt
for virtually any favor, no matter how outrageous, and they'll
get it," Benesh added.

Up to 15,000 Americans die each year from mesothelioma,
asbestosis and other diseases triggered by asbestos exposure. Yet
the U.S. remains one of the few advanced countries in the world
that has not banned all uses of the notorious carcinogen.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Whitesell Mill Fire Debris Could Have Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEZITV reported that health officials are warning about possible
dangers from debris from the Whitsell mill fire in Saginaw.
Employees at the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency are
concerned the ash and debris could contain asbestos.

They've collected samples that have tested negative for asbestos,
but they can't guarantee all of the ash will be safe. They're
warning residents who live south and southwest of the fire, in
the direct line of the smoke, to use caution when handling the
debris.
"It's an older building, and we want to be cautious," said Jo
Niehaus of the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency. "There could
be asbestos in some of the debris. That's why we went ahead and
tested some of the samples. We are really happy to see the
samples came back negative, but at the same time, we can't be 100
percent sure that 100 percent of the materials are free from
asbestos."
If you see debris, wet down the material to make sure fibers
don't break off and become airborne, officials say. Wear gloves
and place debris into plastic bags. Then, double bag it and throw
it in the trash.

The fire destroyed the Saginaw mill, doing millions of dollars in
damage. The cause of the blaze remains under investigation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Settles Suit Over Husband's Asbestos Death
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anna O'Loughlin of Irish Examiner reported that the widow of a
man who it was claimed was exposed to large quantities of
asbestos when he was working at the power stations at Tarbert and
Aghada has settled her High Court action over his death.

Liam Moloney from Killeaney, Glin, Limerick died on February 16,
2005, just over a year after finding out he was suffering from a
rare form of cancer, mesothelioma.

It was claimed he was exposed to large quantities of asbestos in
the course of his work at the power generating stations in Co
Kerry and Co Cork.

Mr Moloney's wife Catherine had sued his employers General
Electrical Technologies Ltd And General Electrical Technical
Services Company, International Financial Services Centre, Dublin
who are the successors of APC who were the employers of Mr
Moloney between 1974 and 1979 when he worked at Tarbert and
Aghada. The settlement was against those two companies.

Proceedings against the ESB were struck out.

It was claimed that Mr Moloney was exposed to large quantities of
asbestos in the course of his work at the power stations at
Tarbert and Aghada. It was further alleged it was impossible for
him to avoid inhaling vast quantities of asbestos dust during the
long hours including overtime which he worked.

It was claimed there was an alleged failure to provide Mr Moloney
with proper masks and safety equipment and an alleged failure to
warn him of the dangers to which he was exposed.
The claims were denied.

In 2003 it was claimed Mr Moloney developed a cough and pain in
his chest and as a result of a medical investigation was found in
January 2004 to be suffering from malignant mesothelioma caused
by exposure to asbestos.

Mrs Moloney It was claimed suffered great distress and shock when
in 2004 the nature and extent of her husband's illness was
diagnosed.

Mr Justice Kevin Cross was told the case had been settled. The
terms of the settlement are confidential.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BASF Ex-GC Can't Testify in Asbestos Fraud Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that BASF Catalysts LLC fought back against a
proposed class' attempts to compel more testimony from the former
general counsel of a subsidiary accused of concealing the
presence of asbestos in talc products, arguing that the
information is protected by attorney-client privilege.

In its opposition to the motions by named plaintiff Kimberlee
Williams and others, BASF slammed the plaintiffs' contention that
they were only asking attorney Arthur Dornbusch, who worked for
Engelhard Corp., for facts when he was deposed on May 14.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Blight Removal Sites Inspected for Asbestos
------------------------------------------------------------
The Detroit News reported that a state agency is inspecting
blight-removal projects to ensure workers are protected from
exposure to asbestos, lead and other hazards.

The effort is part of a program that runs through February. The
Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration is working
with employers to identify hazards associated with demolition and
renovation work.

The state says 30 residential blight-removal sites were inspected
during 2016-17. Citations for 62 violations were issued, mostly
for lack of asbestos medical exams and consultations.

Bart Pickelman, director of the safety agency, says it's
"especially important" that men and women are protected as
Michigan eliminates blight and revitalizes neighborhoods.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: British Rail Worker Dies of Asbestos Cancer
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Massey of Norfolk Eastern Daily Press reported that a
brother and sister are trying to get in touch with old colleagues
and friends of their great uncle, after he died of an asbestos-
related form of cancer.

The asbestos-related disease often takes decades to develop and
Mr Lee's great nephew and niece, Grant Jones and Leigh Jarvis,
are trying to find out where and how he may have contracted the
disease.

Mr Lee had been married to his wife Doris for 70 years, spending
his retirement caring for her as she lived with dementia.

However, when he was diagnosed with terminal cancer he was
admitted to hospital and Doris was left without a carer.

She was then taken into respite care at the James Paget
University Hospital where she died on July 10, 2017 -- just 20
days before her husband died in the same hospital.

Mr Jones and Mrs Jarvis had been raised by the pair as children,
as their own mother died when they were young.

Now, the brother and sister, who live in Great Yarmouth, are
trying to acquire evidence of their great uncle's working
conditions in order to determine how he came into contact with
asbestos.

Mr Lee spent 25 years working for British Rail, from 1959 to 1964
and again from 1970 to 1990, when he retired.

Over the course of his career with the company, Mr Lee worked as
a boiler maker and fitter, as well as a train guard and driver.
He was mainly based at the now closed South Town station, though
he did also work at Norwich station.

From 1963 to 1970, he worked as a fitter for Heatrae in Norwich
and Great Yarmouth.

While searching through their great auntie and uncle's personal
papers, Mr Jones and Mrs Leigh found a picture of Mr Lee with
some of his colleagues from his time at British Rail; they are
hoping that by circulating the picture they may be able to make
contact with a former workmate of Mr Lee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norwich Maintenance Worker Dies of Cancer
----------------------------------------------------------
Geraldine Scott of Norfolk Eastern Daily Press reported that the
family of a former maintenance worker from Norwich who died of
asbestos-related cancer earlier this year have launched an appeal
for answers over his illness.

Rodney Bailey, 75, died at the Colman Hospital in January, just
12 weeks after he was told he had mesothelioma, a cancer of the
lining of the lung which is associated with exposure to the
deadly material asbestos.

Mr Bailey, who was one of three children, is thought to have
lived in Norwich during his time working at Sizewell Power
Station in the 1960s.

And his daughter Julie, 43, wants to find out how he could have
come into contact with asbestos and whether more could have been
done to prevent his illness.

She said: "Dad was always really interested in cars and we think
around this time he may have been particularly memorable as he
would have travelled into work in a Triumph.

"It has only been a short period of time since dad's death and
the entire family misses him so much. We're desperate for answers
regarding his illness and any further information from former
colleagues could prove vital to our efforts to gain justice on
his behalf.

"We just feel we deserve answers regarding what he went through
and whether it could have been prevented."

The family instructed specialist asbestos-related disease lawyers
at Irwin Mitchell to investigate.

And they are calling on anyone who worked with Mr Bailey during
his time as a member of the maintenance crew at Sizewell Power
Station from 1965 to 1969 to come forward and provide information
regarding the working conditions he faced.

Rosemary Giles, partner and asbestos-related disease expert at
Irwin Mitchell's Cambridge office is representing the family. She
said: "This is yet another tragic example of the devastating
impact that asbestos-related disease can have on victims, with
Rodney passing away just weeks after his diagnosis.

"We are now working to develop a full picture of Rodney's working
life and are particularly keen for information regarding his work
at Sizewell Power Station and whether he may have come into
contact with asbestos at the site.

"We would be hugely grateful to anyone who can come forward and
provide an insight into the working conditions he would have
faced, as such information could be a step towards ensuring his
loved ones gain justice regarding his terrible illness."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imerys Unit Said to Settle Talc Claims for $5MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Margareth Cronin Fisk and Jef Feeley of BloombergQuint reported
that a unit of Imerys SA agreed to settle claims by 22 women that
talc it supplied to Johnson & Johnson for baby powder was tainted
with asbestos and caused their cancers.

The Paris-based minerals company's unit didn't acknowledge that
the talc was tainted or dangerous. The terms of the settlement
are closely guarded and won't be made public. But according to
two people familiar with the matter, the accord includes a
payment of at least $5 million.

The settlement comes as a trial over the women's ovarian cancer
claims is set to start June 6 in St. Louis, leaving J&J and its
consumer-products unit as the only defendants in the case. The
deal gets Imerys out of a high-profile case focusing in part on
whether it sold its talc knowing it was tainted with asbestos.
Imerys says its talc is free of the carcinogen.

Imerys Talc America "has reached a resolution with the 22
plaintiffs and is being dismissed from the action," Gwen Myers, a
company spokeswoman, said in an emailed statement without
commenting on the settlement's details.

Mark Lanier, the women's lead lawyer, declined to comment on the
settlement.

The women may have accepted the relatively modest payment from
Imerys to gain a tactical advantage at trial, said Jean Eggen, a
Widener University law professor.

"It will make the trial cleaner because now Lanier can put all
his eggs in the J&J basket and not have to worry about evidence
against Imerys," she said.

9,000 Claims

The case is part of a recent wave of trials over allegations
J&J's Baby Powder's iconic white bottles were filled with
asbestos-laced talc and the company failed to warn consumers
about its cancer risks. J&J steadfastly maintains there is no
asbestos in its baby powder and the product is safe.

"We will continue to defend the safety of Johnson & Johnson's
baby powder," Carol Goodrich, a company spokeswoman, said.

Imerys faces about 9,000 claims that talc it supplied to J&J
caused ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, another form of cancer
that has been specifically linked to asbestos.

The company has been forced to defend itself in a string of
trials, most recently in New Jersey, where a jury ordered Imerys
and J&J in April to pay $117 million to a banker who claimed his
asbestos-linked cancer was tied to baby powder use.

Jurors said J&J was liable for 70 percent of those damages while
Imerys picked up the remaining 30 percent. The companies have
asked the trial judge to throw out the award.

Other Venues

J&J has lost four cases and Imerys has lost two over ovarian
cancer that were tried in state court in St. Louis during a 15-
month period starting in February 2016.

The first of those plaintiffs' verdicts against J&J, for $72
million, was thrown out on procedural grounds last year after the
U.S. Supreme Court limited where non-resident plaintiffs could
bring their state-court cases to trial. Imerys won three verdicts
in St. Louis and has also won some judgments dismissing it before
trial, including one in California that ended in a verdict
against J&J.

Most of the 22 plaintiffs pressing claims in the current case are
from outside Missouri. J&J and Imerys challenged their ability to
bring them in St. Louis based on the high court's ruling. Some of
the women have died, so their families are pressing wrongful-
death claims against J&J.

Judge Rex Burlison, who is overseeing the case, found Imerys's
sales of talc to a Missouri manufacturing company provided a
basis for jurisdiction of the out-of-state plaintiffs' claims.
After that decision, both companies asked the Missouri Supreme
Court to stop the June trial by challenging the bundling of non-
resident claims.

Imerys dropped its request after settling the cases. The state
Supreme Court May 25 denied J&J's petition and cleared the way
for the cases to go to trial.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Died Within 20 Meters from Asbestos Factory
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kenji Tsuji of Asahi Shimbun reported that three people who lived
within 200 meters of an asbestos-related factory in Tokyo's Ota
Ward died from mesothelioma between 2007 and 2017, and experts
say the number of similar deaths could soon rise across Japan.

The three, who had never worked with asbestos, were between the
ages of 73 and 82 when they died, sources said.

"It is quite unlikely that the cause of their mesothelioma was
something other than asbestos that drifted from the factory,"
said Hirokazu Tojima, a doctor and director of respiratory
medicine at Tokyo Rosai Hospital also in Ota Ward, who had
examined the patients.

Mesothelioma, an often malignant tumor that commonly affects the
lungs, is believed to be caused by inhalation of asbestos
particles.

"The three patients told me that they had been playing around the
factory in their childhood," Tojima said. "Even though they had
never worked at the factory, it is likely that (the factory) led
to their illness and deaths."

An official of the company that had run the factory declined to
comment on its operations.

"The old documents (about the factory) have not been kept, so we
cannot tell you the details," the official told The Asahi
Shimbun.
Asbestos-related illnesses can take decades to develop, so the
full extent of the damage caused by the mineral may now be
surfacing.

Fuyushi Nagakura, who heads the Mesothelioma-Pneumoconiosis-
Asbestos Center, a nonprofit organization, noted that many
asbestos-related factories had been in operation in Japan.

"Many more (asbestos) victims must exist across the country,"
Nagakura said. "But the reality has not been revealed. All we can
do is just wait for the claims from victims."

Japan started restricting asbestos use long after other major
countries responded to the health hazard posed by the material.
Lawsuits have been filed against the government from people who
worked closely with asbestos and later developed lung ailments,
such as mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Campaigner Fights for Asbestos Illness Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that June Summers Shaw wants answers as to why
families affected by the asbestos related cancer mesothelioma
cannot claim compensation in Jersey.

In the UK, the government has set up a scheme to support those
who cannot work out who is responsible for their exposure to
asbestos.
She says families suffering losses from mesothelioma in
particular need the help, as it is nearly always fatal and acts
in a very short space of time.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Plague Spreads to Pulau Ubin
------------------------------------------------------
Audrey Tan of The Straits Times reported that debris containing
asbestos has found its way to Pulau Ubin, with the potentially
toxic mineral cropping up at the island off the Republic's
eastern coast.

The National Parks Board (NParks), which manages the island, said
on June 5 that "small pieces of debris containing asbestos were
found at four isolated locations on the island and have been
removed". It added that the four areas off Jalan Mamam, the
Sensory trail and Jalan Wat Siam on the island were not easily
accessible or frequented by the public.

This is the latest development in the spread of asbestos, which
has since April been found at a number of places in the Southern
Islands. On May 19, NParks said it was surveying Pulau Ubin to
determine if asbestos could be found there.

NParks said the asbestos on Ubin was detected at the end of May,
and that works to remove the debris and decontaminate the sites
were completed. But its discovery on Pulau Ubin shows that it is
not just the islands south of Singapore that have been affected.

Asbestos containing debris has also been found on Sisters'
Islands Marine Park, Pulau Hantu, St John's Island and Kusu
Island -- islands popular among day-trippers who visit the
southern islands for their nature, scenic views of the Singapore
Strait, or to worship at the temple or shrine located on Kusu.

NParks said the debris containing asbestos on Big Sister's
Island, found washed ashore, has since been removed. Works to
remove the debris in other areas are ongoing.

The two long-term residents on St John's Island have moved back
to the mainland. The Straits Times understands the Pulau Ubin
villagers did not have to move back as the asbestos was not found
in residential areas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Burned in Firefighters' Training
----------------------------------------------------------
Jane Harper of Firehouse.com reported that a firefighters
organization recently filed complaints with federal and state
agencies about a training exercise, claiming that fire officials
endangered its members and the public when they burned an empty
Pungo house that contained asbestos.

The city and the firefighters group agree the house contained the
material, but how much was there and when fire officials learned
of its existence is in dispute.

The two-story home was burned April 15 in the 2000 block of
Princess Anne Road -- a sparsely populated area near the Sherwood
Lakes community and the city line. The house dates to the 1930s.
It was offered for the training exercise by its owner, who knew
one of the fire officials involved.

The Virginia Beach Professional Firefighters group, which
represents about 90 percent of the city's 500 firefighters,
reported the incident to the FBI, Environmental Protection Agency
and the state departments of environmental quality, labor and
industry, as well as occupational safety and health, when they
learned about the asbestos. They also informed the city's
auditor.

"This act appears to be a clear violation of federal and state
environmental laws and cannot be tolerated or ignored," Bill
Bailey, a retired Virginia Beach firefighter and president of the
organization, wrote in a statement released to the group's
members.

"This incident was reported so that the appropriate city, state,
and federal agencies could fully and thoroughly investigate this
incident and take appropriate action. The trust of the public as
well as the firefighters has been damaged and can only be
regained by a complete, transparent, and thorough investigation
along with appropriate consequences."

The firefighters group claims that information it obtained
through a Freedom of Information Act request shows that a
battalion chief canceled the burn's first scheduled date because
he suspected that the building's exterior contained asbestos.

But city officials say only a small amount of the substance was
eventually found. They also say it was limited to an area near
the fireplace and wasn't discovered until weeks after the house
was burned. But they conceded that mistakes were made and said
they have taken steps to prevent it from happening again.

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral that was frequently
used in homes and businesses from the 1920s to 1980s because of
its resistance to fire and heat . The EPA banned its use in
building products in 1989 after studies showed it could cause
cancer if inhaled.

It's still found in older buildings, but is not considered
hazardous unless it becomes airborne. Proper removal and disposal
can be costly and time-consuming.

None of the firefighters who ignited and then battled the blaze
that day knew asbestos was present, Bailey said. Neither did
residents who stood by. Bailey estimated that among the crowd
were 20 to 30 children.

"It was like stadium seating out there," he said. "People were
pulling their cars over to watch."

Records obtained through the FOIA request show communications
about the planned burn began months before it happened.

On March 15, a district fire chief sent an email to four other
fire officials notifying them that it had been assigned to the B
shift, one of three firefighting shifts in the city. It was set
to occur April 8.

About a week before the burn date, a battalion chief wrote about
his suspicions that asbestos might be present. He also shared
some research he conducted showing the prohibitions and
restrictions related to live burns involving the material.

The burn was canceled the following day.

Four days later -- on April 3 -- the district chief who was
friends with the homeowner scheduled the event for the following
weekend. He also noted that the C shift would be handling it
instead.

"We had offered it to B shift, but it didn't work out," the
district chief wrote without mentioning in the email why the plan
had fallen through. Two other fire officials who were aware of
the previously canceled date were included in the email.

About 1 p.m. on April 15, the house was ignited as scheduled.

Fire Chief David Hutcheson said the district chief who scheduled
it thought that the department's training center had already
reviewed the battalion chief's suspicions.

"We missed some paperwork opportunities and we own that,"
Hutcheson said.
"But there was nothing that was done sneakily. It was simply an
oversight."

Scott Kalis, the city's occupational safety and health manager,
said he was told about the possibility of asbestos in the house
about a month after it was burned. Tests conducted at the site
confirmed its existence, but revealed only a small amount, he
said.

"Because of its fire retardant characteristics, it may have been
used in that area near the fireplace," Kalis said.

Kalis and Hutcheson disputed that firefighters and residents were
put in danger as a result of the burn. The amount was too small
to have harmed anyone, they said.

"The last thing we would want to do is subject any of our
firefighters and the public to a dangerous situation," Hutcheson
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Stricken School Could Close
-----------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that pupils at Northfield School in Oxford have
been taught at temporary sites since the main building was deemed
"unfit for purpose".

The National Education Union (NEU) said the council "should be
looking at rebuilding a purpose-built school".

Oxfordshire County Council said that was one option being
considered.

The main building of the Blackbird Leys school -- which teaches
71 boys aged between 11-18 with social, emotional and mental
health needs -- was declared unsafe in March after a ceiling
containing asbestos was damaged.

Pupils in Years 10 and 11 are being taught in temporary
classrooms on the school site.

Years 6 to 9 have been temporarily relocated to Hill End Centre
in Farmoor, just outside Oxford.

'Bite the bullet'

Lucy Butler, the council's director of children's services, told
an extraordinary cabinet meeting the building was in a
"dilapidated state" and "not fit for purpose".

She said the school now faced two options -- either to close or
remain open.

"Short-term we have an immediate problem and we have to decide
what's best for the children," said Ms Butler.

"Longer term we're looking at the needs of all of our special
educational needs children and saying, actually we've got enough
provision in Oxfordshire, do we need to look at rebuilding sites,
what is it that we need to do?"

The council said it wants to consult the public to help decide
the school's future.

Stuart Robinson, from the Oxfordshire NEU, said the council
should "bite the bullet, get a long-term plan for Northfield and
keep it open".

"They've got a perfectly good site, there's parts of the building
which could be used and they should be looking at rebuilding a
purpose-built school to meet the needs of these students," he
said.

Ms Butler said she had commissioned a comprehensive review of
Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) provision and
sufficiency which is due to be completed late summer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Revealed During Roadworks
---------------------------------------------------
Mark Logan of Blayney Chronicle reported that Roadworks at the
corner of the Mid-Western Highway and Hobby's Yards Road have
recommenced, after work at the site was suspended following the
discovery of asbestos during excavation works.

Work in the area ceased on May 28 when Roads and Maritime
Services (RMS) staff were informed that a number of concrete
pipes located during drainage improvement work could possibly
contain asbestos.

The $2.3 million safety upgrade is being funded and constructed
by the RMS.

A spokesman for the RMS said that the presence of asbestos was
confirmed on May 30 and remediation work began soon after.

"While the work site has been declared safe, Roads and Maritime
is working with the specialist, the EPA and Blayney Shire Council
to remediate the stockpile site and Blayney Waste Facility in
accordance with best practice in asbestos management," he said.

"Any asbestos identified on a project site is managed according
to these procedures to ensure there is no risk to the public."
A large stockpile of contaminated material is being stored on the
Mid-Western highway opposite the entrance to the Blayney Golf
Club.

Another smaller stockpile is situated in the Blayney Waste
Facility.

A spokesperson for the NSW Environmental Protection Authority
stated that NSW EPA is aware of this matter and the EPA's
investigation is ongoing.

Blayney shire council general manager Rebecca Ryan said that a
number of agencies were engaged in the issue.

"As soon as Council was made aware of the issue, Council
immediately notified the lead agency, NSW EPA and continues to
liaise with all stakeholders on the issue including SafeWork NSW
and RMS," she said.

"Council has been advised by RMS that an urgent remediation plan
is being prepared and undertaken."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Rigged Asbestos Talc Tests
-----------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad of Law.com reported the Johnson & Johnson "rigged
the tests" to avoid conceding that its baby powder contained
asbestos, causing 22 women to get ovarian cancer, plaintiffs
lawyer Mark Lanier told a St. Louis jury in opening statements in
the most high-volume talcum powder trial to date.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wayne Bus Garage Sealed for Asbestos Removal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nikki Dotson Merritt of Huntington Herald Dispatch reported that
The parts building of the Wayne County Schools bus garage is
sealed after testing positive for asbestos.

According to Superintendent Todd Alexander, after he received a
complaint with concern there was asbestos in the building,
Wayne's contracted asbestos worker inspected it and felt there
could be presence of the material.

After that, another crew tested the location and it showed
positive. The building was ordered to be sealed and for abatement
to begin immediately.

"The removal process will cost the district around $90,000, which
will come out of the Wayne County general budget," Alexander
said.

He added that the West Virginia Bureau for Public Health
Environmental Health Services office was notified and is
investigating further.

A few years ago, tile from the areas that have now tested
positive was removed by employees without knowledge of its
possible presence.

According to Alexander, the way the asbestos was discovered and
due to the removal of the tile, the bureau could intervene  --
and if cause is found, the district could be issued a violation
as well as fines.

Alexander said as far as he has been informed, he does not
believe any fines will be issued, but the investigation is not
complete at this time.

The cleanup is expected to take 6-8 weeks, and because multiple
bus parts and various machinery are stored in the building, each
will have to be inspected and cleaned.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA to Remove Asbestos from Spark Plug Site
------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Henry of Toledo Blade reported that The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency is moving forward with a $1.8 million cleanup
of the former Champion

Spark Plug factory in the 900 block of Upton Avenue, six years
after the factory's buildings were razed and three years after a
subsequent owner was sentenced in Lucas County Common Pleas Court
for improper asbestos removal and disposal.

The agency said the cleanup, which is being done under the
federal government's Superfund program, is expected to take two
months. U.S. Rep.

Marcy Kaptur (D., Toledo) said in a prepared statement that the
20-acre site is finally being cleaned because of the diligence of
Toledo Mayor Wade Kapszukiewicz.

Miss Kaptur is a member of the U.S. House Interior Appropriations
Committee, which has oversight over U.S. EPA spending.

"This is an important step toward getting that property back into
productive use," Mayor Kapszukiewicz said in a written statement.

What remains a mystery is why it took so long, given the toxic
nature of asbestos fibers, which are known to cause lung cancer
and other respiratory problems.

The U.S. EPA itself recognizes the dangers of asbestos, as do a
number of other federal agencies, including the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, and the National Cancer
Institute.

The U.S. EPA said in its release that it considers the cleanup
effort a "time-critical action." Francisco Arcaute, an agency
spokesman, said he was referring questions about the cleanup
timeline to project officials.

"Asbestos co-mingled with building debris remained strewn over
five acres of the former factory site after the buildings were
razed in 2012. The city of Toledo referred the site to EPA for
cleanup in 2017," according to the U.S. EPA release.

Champion Spark Plug was once one of Toledo's most iconic
businesses, founded in Boston in 1907 by Robert A. Stranahan,
Sr., and his brother, Frank D. Stranahan. It relocated to Toledo
in 1910, opening the Upton Avenue plant in 1912.

Months after purchasing Champion for $707.5 million in 1989,
Houston-based Cooper Industries Inc. shuttered most of the Upton
Avenue plant, shifting work to other parts of the country.

Donzell Moore, owner of Moorhouse Real Estate Development LLC,
bought the former industrial site for $1 in 2013.

In 2015, Mr. Moore was sentenced to 30 days in jail with work
release, three years of community control, and 240 hours of
community service after pleading guilty to a felony charge of
complicity to remove asbestos without a certification or license,
and a misdemeanor charge of illegal disposal of construction and
demolition debris. He also was ordered to pay $25,274 toward
cleanup, as well as $10,750 in fines, according to a joint
statement issued that year by the Ohio EPA and the Ohio attorney
general's office.

Ohio EPA Director Craig Butler and Ohio Attorney General Mike
DeWine said at the time that Mr. Moore's case is one that put
public health at risk, acknowledging that asbestos "is a highly
regulated material with special handling and disposal
requirements."

Councilman Tyrone Riley said in 2015 it appears the former
Champion property was purchased for the sole purpose of stripping
metal from buildings, then abandoned and allowed to become a
rodent-infested eyesore that encouraged illegal dumping. Mr.
Moore was issued a cleanup notice for the site on July 3, 2014,
after the late Mayor D. Michael Collins visited the site and saw
two men dumping concrete. They claimed to have had the owner's
permission.

Mr. Moore told a local television station at the end of 2015 he
was sorry for what happened and wanted to fix the site's
problems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10.7MM Asbestos Fibers in Philly Elem. School
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philly.com reported that shortly after the School District of
Philadelphia learned of alarming levels of asbestos fibers on the
floor of a highly traveled hallway inside Olney Elementary
School, officials said, they sent an environmental team to fix
the problem.

But four months later, the hazard is not gone. In fact, it's
worse. Tests there revealed 10.7 million asbestos fibers per
square centimeter, up from 8.5 million.

That latest result is more than 100 times higher than the level
that health experts say is cause for alarm.

This recent finding is part of an Inquirer and Daily News
investigation, "Toxic City: Sick Schools," in which reporters
enlisted staffers at 19 of the district's more run-down
elementary schools to collect samples of suspected asbestos
fibers, lead dust, mold spores, and water from drinking
fountains. An accredited laboratory, International Asbestos
Testing Laboratories in South Jersey, analyzed the materials.

When reporters learned of the sky-high asbestos result at Olney
on June 1, they quickly alerted district officials.

A district spokesman, Lee Whack, would not reply to questions
about what steps, if any, the district took or will take in
response to the high test result. In an email to reporters, Whack
said that the district would look "at the areas at Olney
Elementary that have been mentioned."

"The health and safety of students and staff will always be our
top priority," Whack said. "No single test can ever fully reflect
the needs of our school communities."

Arthur Steinberg, head of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers
Health and Welfare Fund, said he was highly disturbed that
Olney's asbestos problem persists.

"They say it's safe. No one knows whether that's true or not,"
Steinberg said. "They need to have effective oversight so we can
feel secure sending kids into these buildings."

Crumbling fibers

Asbestos, which can cause cancer and other lung diseases when
inhaled over time, can be found wrapped around steam pipes,
sprayed on walls and ceilings, and woven into floor tiles in
schools across the country. Asbestos is not dangerous if kept in
good condition, but years of wear and tear can cause it to
crumble and release microscopic fibers that can be sent airborne
and stay aloft for hours and days.

Of the 19 elementary schools where the newspapers did independent
testing, staffers at 11 collected dust samples to test for
asbestos fibers. In all, reporters obtained scientific results
from 84 different surfaces. Nine of the 11 schools had concerning
amounts of asbestos fibers in student-accessible areas, including
gyms, classrooms and hallways.

The newspapers' investigation also found that damaged asbestos
has gone unrepaired in schools for up to two years, even when
inspectors flagged the repairs as "high priority."

In his email, Whack criticized how the newspapers tested for
asbestos contamination, saying it was "unscientific" and the
staffers who collected samples are "not certified, trained
professionals and their testing does not meet established
industry standards." District officials have said that air
testing, not relying on surface wipes, is a more accurate way to
assess asbestos peril and remains the only testing method
required by federal law.

"Across our nearly 300 buildings, we remain focused on addressing
and prioritizing environmental issues that truly need attention
because they have been evaluated according to proven methods,"
Whack said.

Outside experts say dust wipe samples are an investigative tool
that can help identify potential hot spots in the district's
aging schools. Asbestos fibers can be found in nearly all the
pre-1980 district schools. Any result of 100,000 fibers per
square centimeter or higher in surface dust should be immediately
addressed, public- and occupational-health experts say.

The district uses contractors and its own staff of certified
asbestos workers to remove or repair asbestos more than 200 times
a year on average, Health Department records show. The district
is projected to spend $5 million in this fiscal school year on
major asbestos jobs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trump Says Asbestos Poisoning Mod-Led Conspiracy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Niocole Goodkind of Newsweek reported that the Environmental
Protection Agency will not consider the health risks and impacts
of asbestos already in the environment when evaluating the
dangers associated with the chemical compound, Scott Pruitt, the
agency's head, quietly announced. That means asbestos used in
tiles, piping and adhesives throughout homes and businesses in
the United States will remain largely unchecked and unaccounted
for. Nearly 15,000 Americans die each year from asbestos-related
diseases, but President Donald Trump has called the substance
"100 percent safe, once applied."

In his 1997 book, The Art of the Comeback, Trump argued that the
association of the chemical with health risks was part of a mob-
created conspiracy. "I believe that the movement against asbestos
was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies
that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on
politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented," he wrote.

The Trump EPA's decision came in response to new amendments made
to the Toxic Substances Control Act in 2016. The additions to the
bill mandate that the EPA perform safety reviews of certain
chemicals, require testing and public notice of safety info for
said chemicals and allow the EPA to ban certain uses of asbestos
(previously, the EPA did not have the authority to do so).

The EPA announced that it would evaluate and require approval for
new uses of asbestos but would not evaluate the health risks of
asbestos already in the environment. "The end result will be a
seriously inadequate risk evaluation that fails to address major
contributors to the heavy and growing toll of asbestos mortality
and disease in the United States," said Linda Reinstein,
president of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization in a
statement.

Reinstein, whose husband developed Mesothelioma and passed away
in 2006, told Newsweek that she met with Nancy Beck, deputy
assistant administrator of the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety
and Pollution Prevention, on two occasions along with
representatives from the AFL-CIO and the International
Association of Fire Fighters. The group explained the hazards of
legacy asbestos and presented over 100 studies confirming that
low-dose asbestos exposure caused disease, but were shut down by
Beck, she said. Beck was previously a senior director at the
American Chemistry Council, a lobbyist group that represents Dow
Chemical, DuPont, Monsanto and ExxonMobil Chemical.

In August of 2016, the American Chemistry Council sent a letter
to the EPA urging the agency to carefully consider its decision
regarding asbestos evaluation as the chemical is essential to the
chlor-alkali industry, which creates chlorine and sodium
hydroxide for industrial use. They asked the EPA to"take this
into consideration as it determines whether to select asbestos
among the initial 10 chemicals for risk evaluation" under the
changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act. Chemical lobbyist
agencies including American Chemical Council held at least four
meetings with the EPA last year regarding asbestos policy.

"If you don't evaluate the dangerous legacy of asbestos you don't
know how much contamination still exists in the United States,"
Reinstein told Newsweek. "We know it's in our homes, schools,
workplace and environment but the average American can't identify
and evaluate the risk. We have taken risk evaluation off the
table."

The bipartisan updates made to the Toxic Substances Control Act
by Congress were intended to give the EPA the ability to ban the
use of these substances, some senators say. The environmental
agency attempted to ban the use in 1989, but a federal court
ruled that it lacked the authority to do so.

"In a bipartisan compromise, Congress moved to patch up the holes
in our chemical review system when it updated the Toxic
Substances Control Act. But Scott Pruitt and the Trump
administration are presiding over an attack on not just the
spirit, but also the actual content of the reform law," said
Senator Edward J. Markey, a member of the Environment and Public
Works Committee, in a statement. "Thousands of people die from
asbestos-related cancers every year. Asbestos and other toxic
substances will continue to contaminate our environment because
Trump administration policies are contaminating the EPA."

There's a lack of basic information in the United States about
the extent to which public and private structures are
contaminated by the chemical. A recent report found that the
government has no record of how many schools contain asbestos
materials.

"EPA's refusal to address longstanding concerns around the use
and disposal of asbestos is further proof that Administrator
Pruitt will bend over backwards to help industry, but won't lift
a finger to protect public health," said Congressman Frank
Pallone, Jr., ranking member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.

The EPA did say that it would take unprecedented action on
asbestos by requiring new manufacturers and importers of asbestos
to receive EPA approval before importing or processing the
chemical. Reinstein, however, said that this is not a ban and
that the largest users of asbestos will continue to use it.

Fifty-five countries including Australia, the United Kingdom,
South Africa, Israel and Japan have completely banned asbestos
use. The White House referred Newsweek to the EPA and the EPA did
not respond to a request for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. State Officials Unable to Inspect Site
-----------------------------------------------------------
Beth Musgrave of Lexington Herald Leader reported that Kentucky
environmental officials inspected possible asbestos contamination
on a nearly 90-acre site off Squires Road in Lexington, one day
after being unable to enter the property, state officials
confirmed.

Susan Lancho, a spokeswoman for Kentucky American Water, said
Kentucky Cabinet for Energy and Environmental Protection
officials were on the site, after a miscommunication the day
before left them standing at a locked gate.

"Once we learned through a phone call of the cabinet wanting to
visit the property, we contacted various folks (including the new
property owners) to coordinate," Lancho said.

John Mura, a spokesman for the cabinet, said officials collected
samples and were having them tested.

Kentucky American Water is the former owner of the property. Ball
Homes plans to build more than 420 homes and hundreds of
apartments and townhouses on the property.

Water company officials have said the asbestos is from older
water pipes that were stored on the property, bordered on three
sides by a reservoir. Those older pipes pose no threat unless
they are moved, officials have said.

Ball Homes has said they plan to hire environmental consultants
to remove the asbestos pipes prior to development.

The cabinet's Superfund Program has sent Kentucky American Water
a letter inquiring about media reports about possible
contamination of the site. Lancho said they had not received the
letter.

The Herald-Leader reported that the Fayette County School board
had backed out of a deal to buy 20 acres of the property after
receiving a report from an environmental firm that showed areas
of possible asbestos contamination.

The school board had planned to build a middle school on the
site, but declined after determining that remediation of the site
could cost more than $1 million. Ball Homes, which had previously
received a zone change to build homes, apartments and townhouses
on the surrounding property, filed an application with city
planners to put up to 77 homes on the 20 acres the school system
had planned to buy.

A hearing on whether Ball Homes can build on the 20 acres is set
for June 28. To proceed, the Urban County Planning Commission
must agree to lift a zoning restriction that limited the number
of housing units on the 90 acres to 450. If that restriction is
lifted, Ball Homes plans to put 238 apartments, 31 townhouses and
240 lots for single-family homes in the development.

Mura said the cabinet wanted to see more documentation and to
inspect the site to determine if there has been an environmental
release. If the pipes have been disturbed or moved, that might be
considered a release, he said.

"If it's still inert and contained in the pipes, that's not a
release," Mura said.

Neighbors of the proposed Peninsula development have previously
said they are upset that more has not been done to address the
asbestos on the site and said they want more assurances that
removal of the asbestos will be monitored.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sodomaco Accused of Illegal Asbestos Removal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Williams of Ballarat Courier reported that a company is
contesting charges it starting to remove asbestos at Sovereign
Hill without monitoring conditions as required by law.

Sodomaco Investments claims the Victorian Workcover Authority
cannot prove friable asbestos was removed from the outdoor
museum's Taylor's Cottage in Magpie Street on March 24, 2016.

A contested mention at the Ballarat Magistrates Court was told
Sodomaco Investments workers attended Sovereign Hill with a
hygienist and removed vinyl floor tiles.

Defence barrister Jim Stavris said WorkSafe could not prove the
work involved asbestos because there was no sample.

He said Sovereign Hill was not charged over the incident but
received an official warning.

The VWA prosecutor said it was relying on an environmental report
and a police record of interview where the company admitted it
was asbestos.

Magistrate Ross Maxted said the prosecution case was strong and a
fine would be issued if the company pleaded guilty.

But Mr Stavris requested an adjournment for a further contested
mention, which will be held in July.

Sodomaco Investments faces two charges under the Occupational
Health and Safety Regulations 2007, including failing to monitor
conditions and failing to ensure people were not exposed to
health risks.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Laden Train Ripped Apart
--------------------------------------------------
Jessica Long and Matt Stewart of The Dominion Post reported that
trains contaminated with asbestos were torn apart by diggers at
the Wellington landfill.

Crunching metal, cracking glass and pounding fibres sounded out
across Happy Valley in what was a train wreck of a different kind
for about 50 train carriages.

Laying vacant and empty, the 20 tonne asbestos-laden bodies were
viciously ripped apart by hungry excavators at Wellington's
landfill.

Waste operations manager Darren Hoskins said the Ganz Mavag
trains were bound for South Africa in 2013 but many were left
behind and put into storage. The deal to send the rest overseas
fell through
last year.

In late May contractors began moving the old carriages to the
dump because Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) decided
it was the cheapest disposal option.

What metal can be taken will be recycled by Macaulay Metals but
the rest of the material will be buried in the approved asbestos-
disposal site.

A third of the weight in the carriages was heavy steel, stripped
from the bodies of the carriages before the diggers got to work.
The bogies have been put aside for any extra metal to be taken.
Hoskins said in the 25 years he had worked at the site he had
never seen a train carriage being ripped apart, each one taking
about 25 minutes to dismantle.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Among Flytipped Rubbish Near Beach
------------------------------------------------------------
Hartlepool Mail reported that a pile of asbestos was among a one-
tonne mountain of rubbish dumped just feet from a Hartlepool
beach.

Uncertainty as to who owns the strip of land leading to Middleton
beach off Ferry Road is contributing to the problem of flytipping
in the area, say local conservationists.

An emergency clean up operation was organised by the local branch
of the Sea Shepherd marine conservation group. A small team of
volunteers bagged up an estimated one-tonne of rubbish which was
later removed. Both Hartlepool Borough Council and Hartlepool
port managers PD Ports say the land in question does not belong
to them. But the council says it is committed to tackling the
problem and is working closely with PD Ports. Craig Boumphrey,
who organised the emergency clean up, said: "We collected about
35 sacks of rubbish along with a fridge freezer, shredded tyres,
furniture, soiled nappies and old clothes. "The area looks like
it's a regular fly tipping spot and upon arrival we noticed what
a disgrace and danger the area was.

"We found a large amount of asbestos dumped that we had to work
around. "In high winds this would have blown into the sea causing
a great danger to wildlife." A council spokesman said: "Our
checks have revealed that the beach slip road where the majority
of the fly-tipping has occurred is unregistered land and, as
such, its ownership is unclear. "Nevertheless, we are committed
to tackling the problem and we will continue to work closely with
PD Ports." Craig believes the confusion is contributing to the
problem at the spot.

He added: "If we had a distinguished owner we could work together
to improve the area, thus protecting the beach and the ocean."
Councillor Shane Moore, who represents the Headland and Harbour
ward where the land is, said it was a frustrating problem. He
said: "We have been in talks with PD Ports over the flytipping
around there and we have come to an agreement for the council and
PD Ports to work together to try to make sure this doesn't
continue. "From a council involvement we are going to try to do
our best to work on the enforcement side of things and try to
catch the people who are regularly dumping there. "It is
frustrating as when residents call it in we can't go in and clear
it because we don't own the land."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Studio Closed After Contamination With Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adele Redmond Stuff.co.nz reported that an Ara Institute of
Canterbury studio has been closed after a member of the public
informed the polytechnic it was contaminated with asbestos.

The man, who was authorised to use the broadcasting space, tested
three samples of dust from the rafters. Two of the samples
returned positive for white and the more dangerous brown
asbestos.

The building, known as ST Block, is used as a storeroom and
studio primarily by New Zealand Broadcasting School staff and
students.

Upon receiving the test results on May 18, Ara immediately closed
the Allen St building, cleaned and re-tested it. Results returned
were negative, a spokeswoman advised.

Air samples had also come back negative, indicating the asbestos
dust was not airborne and therefore not harmful.

"It is unlikely that anyone using the building has been exposed
to any risk," Ara health and safety manager David Currie said.

The contamination report follows revelations of a "high
concentration" of asbestos found in The Court Theatre buildings
in Addington.

Testing company K2 Environmental concluded there was "a risk to
health from asbestos-containing dust" in the affected areas of
the theatre's workshop, a risk of it becoming airborne if
disturbed, and that action was required to remove it.

The theatre's chief executive and a lawyer for its landlord,
Marachi Ltd, have disagreed over whether the Court Theatre asked
for the contaminated corrugated iron roof to be replaced, and
whether the company was obliged to do so.

There had been no complaints of ill health, Ara staff said.
Ara's director of corporate services, Darren Mitchell, said the
roof of ST Block was replaced in 2015 during earthquake repairs.

He said Harcourts' specialist asbestos cleaning service was
brought in at that time and subsequent testing by K2 found the
building was clear of asbestos.

A student of the broadcasting school said they were told of ST
Block's closure and contamination at the time the polytechnic
became aware of it.

Broadcasting school manager Tony Simons could not be reached for
comment. The studio remained closed.

The polytechnic was yet to be invoiced for the testing and
cleaning costs, Mitchell said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 75Year Old Granddad Killed by Asbestos Cancer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sophie Morton of Barking and Dagenham Post reported that David
Lloyd was 75 when he passed away from mesothelioma -- a cancer
which is almost always caused by the inhalation of asbestos
fibres -- in May last year.

He had worked at the Ford Dagenham plant between 1964 and 1965 as
a stoker in the foundry, shovelling fuel into the furnaces and
sweeping the floors.

After that, he worked for Telephone Cables Limited in Chequers
Lane, Dagenham, until 1985.

During that time, he operated a machine that produced undersea
cables and had to wrap a light brown paper around the cables to
coat them.

His family, who also live in Dagenham, are hoping to find anyone
who may have worked at either of the companies around the same
time David did and who may have information about the working
conditions there.

His son Steve said: "Dad was an extremely active guy before this
tragic illness.

"He was very well known in the area over many years and loved
nothing more than walking around and talking to fellow locals.
"He loved spending time with all of his grandchildren and taking
time to go and watch and support the Daggers."

"He added: "To see him suffer so terribly with this awful disease
was heart-breaking for us all and to know it was so avoidable if
he had been given simple protection like a mask makes it even
worse."

Solicitor Vijay Ganapathy of Leigh Day, who is investigating
David's case, said: "We are appealing for anyone who may have
worked at Fords in Dagenham or at Telephone Cables Limited in
Dagenham who has information about these companies and the
conditions in these factories to contact us.

"Anyone who worked at Fords Dagenham in the 1960s or at Telephone
Cables Limited in the 1960s to 1980s, or believes they can help
with relevant information can contact me at
vganapathy@leighday.co.uk or on 020 7650 1341.


"All information received will be treated in the strictest
confidence."


                            *********


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  * * *