---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, November 27, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 237


                            Headlines


3M COMPANY: Mediation in Employee Suit Must Be Done by Dec. 31
3M COMPANY: Case by 3 Morgan County Residents on Hold
3M COMPANY: Suit by Franklin County Resident on Hold
3M COMPANY: Water Authority Filed Lawsuit in N.D. Alabama
6D GLOBAL: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Suit

AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Yeninas" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing
AXXIS DRILLING: Court Tosses WARN Act Claims in "Voisin"
BRISTOL-MYERS: 5,200 Personal Injury Claims Over Plavix* Pending
BRISTOL-MYERS: Claims by 3,000 Plaintiffs Over Reglan* Pending
BRISTOL-MYERS: 500 Lawsuits Related to Byetta* Still Pending

BROOKFIELD BUSINESS: Facing Litigation Over GrafTech Merger
BUTH-NA-BODHAIGE: Lambert's Motion for Attorneys' Fees Granted
CIRQUE DU SOLEIL: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
CLIFFS NATURAL: Discovery Remains Stayed in Ohio Suit
CLIFFS NATURAL: Accord Reached in Investor Suit

CLS TRANSPORTATION: Court Says Some Waivers May be Unenforceable
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Defending Two Purported Class Actions
DRAFTKINGS: Rigged Online Games, "Cantamaglia" Claims
DOW CHEMICAL: Expects Writ Petition to Be Tackled Next Year
DOW CHEMICAL: Ontario Case in Pretrial Stage

E. I. DU PONT: 2nd Trial in Drinking Water Suit to Begin in March
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Securities Class Action Filed
EXPEDIA AIRLINE: Judge Refuses to Certify Customer Suit
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: ESI's Bid to Decertify Class in Brady Pending
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: "Berk" FLSA Collective Suit Dismissed

FANDUEL: Faces 40 Class Suits Over Illegal Gambling Scam
FLORIDA: Judge Throws Out Inmate's Suit Against John Does
FORD MOTOR: Appeal Filed in "Agrawal" Case
FRANKIE JAE LORDMASTER: 4th Cir. Denies Mandamus Petition
HANZON HOMECARE SERVICES: "Dudley" Alleges Unjust Compensation

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Bid for Rehearing En Banc Tossed
HCA HOLDINGS: Securities Class Action Trial Seen in 2016
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Not Yet Set
HIGHER ONE: Plaintiffs Filed Brief Opposing Motion to Dismiss
HOME DEPOT: Oregon Court Transfers "Bjerke" Case to N.D. Ga.

HUNTSMAN CORP: 3rd Amended Suit Filed in Indirect Purchasers Case
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Defending Suit Over Planned Sale of Unit
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Defending ERISA Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Class Settlement Court Benefit Erie County
LIFELINE: Court Tosses Punitive Damages Claim in "Davis" Suit

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Litigation Stayed Pending Court Approval
MCKESSON CORPORATION: True Health Case Remains Pending
MEL S. HARRES: Judge Accepts $59-Mil. Settlement
NUVASIVE INC: Fifth Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Action
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Consolidated Class Suits Re-Filed

OUTERWALL INC: Oral Argument Held in Class Action Appeal
PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of N.J. Class Action Sought
PARTY CITY: Rosen Firm Files Securities Class Action Suit
PROCTER & GAMBLE: 6th Circ. Stays Certification Pending Appeal
QLOGIC CORPORATION: Class Action Filed in California Court

RORY W. CLARK: Scheduling Conference Postponed
SAFI-G: "Yunda" Suit Alleges Violation of Fair Labor Standards
SANTA CLARA, CA: County Jail Sued Over Inmates' Conditions
SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissal of "Hassett" Action Sought
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Scheduling Order Entered in Suit v. AirTran

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: MDL Panel Centralized Consumer Suits
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Shareholder Class Action Filed in Colo.
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Deal Reached with Plaintiffs' Representatives
STRAIGHT PATH: Faces Shareholder Class Action
SUNTIME ENERGY: Los Angeles Woman Files Class Suit

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Appeal from Decertificaton Ruling Pending
TYSON FOODS: High Court Hears Arguments in Wage and Hour Suit
UBER: Loses Appeal to Deny Class Suit Filing
UNITED AUTO WORKERS: Lawyer in "Hare" Class Action Steps Down
UNITED STATES: H-2B Visa Workers Sue Over Depressed Wages

UNUM GROUP: Hearing in November on Class Certification Motion
VENTAS INC: Settlement Reached in HCT Acquisition Case
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Allergan Suit Pending
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Briefing Schedule on Dismissal Bid Set
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Potter and Chen Cases Filed in N.J.

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Begins in Solodyn(R) Actions
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: New Cert. Hearing in Afexa Class Action
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: 321 MoistureLoc(TM) Suits Pending
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Salix Actions Briefed
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Investors File Suit in British Columbia

VERISK ANALYTICS: Says Intellicorp Records Unit Faces Litigation
VERISK ANALYTICS: Facing Interthinx Inc. Litigation
VIDEOTRON: Pays $7-Mil. Back to Cable Customers for Overcharging
VIZIO: Slapped with 2 Class Suits Over Smart TV Spying
VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: To Settle Securities Action for $9MM

VOLKSWAGEN: Proposed Suit Could Expand to Gas-Powered Models
VOLKSWAGEN: Strosberg LLP Considers Adding More Cars to Class Suit
VOLKSWAGEN: Victims May Be Eclipsed by Lawsuit Underwriters
VOLKSWAGEN: Australian Customers to Join $100-Mil. Class Suit
VOLKSWAGEN: Blackburn Firm to File $72-Mil. Class Suit

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Kim" & "Crispell" Sue Over Emission Test
WASTE MANAGEMENT: To Seek Settlement Approval During Q4 2015
WESBANCO INC: Memorandum of Settlement Approved
WESTERN UNION: Settles TCPA Class Suit for $8.5 Million
YAHOO! INC: 3rd Cir. Revives "Dominguez" TCPA Suit

YRC WORLDWIDE: Court Denied Fourth Motion to Approve Settlement


                       Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mining Co. Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "Winn"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Winn"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "Schulte"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleaver-Brooks Ordered to Produce Docs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Poche" Remanded, $3K Atty Fees Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Vacates Summary Judgment in "Curtis"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Preyer"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "Riddick"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Illegal Fibro Removal Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Affirms Liability for Medical Expenses

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Criminal Indictment Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Superior Court Judgment in "Barabin" Reversed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Brye"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Fibro Suit Against 3M to Start Feb. 16
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment vs. Schmidt Affirmed in Part

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favoring PATCO Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5 Cos. Win Summary Judgment in "Stallings"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Win Summary Judgment Bids in 3 Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $7MM Est. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus Seeks Dismissal of Magnetek Fibro Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon, Units Continue to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Unit Had $95MM PI Claims Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carpenter Tech Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Talc-Related Suits v. Colgate Set for Trial

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims v. Lincoln Drop to 8,901 at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 452 Claims Pending at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Still Has Cost Sharing Agreement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Corp. Had $995MM Reserves at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caterpillar Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: STERIS Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Water Corp. Subject to Fibro Investigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Officials Probe for Fibro at Plant Fire Site

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Town Hall Closed Due to Toxic Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Company Sued for Misleading Information
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Probe Shows Fibro in 80% of Derbyshire Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACCC Recalls Fake Toyota Brake Pads with Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Drives Up Demolition Cost of County Home

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sheldon Silver Jurors Hear Conversation Tape
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exeter Family Demands New Place Over Fibro Scare
ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Cuts Fibro Compensation Payment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Sued for Destroying Fibro Documents
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Idyllwild Town Hall Closed Due to Fibro Scare

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Libby Fibro Cleanup Almost Done
ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Auditorium Closed After Fibro Inspection
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Still Remains After Libby Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Accused of Fibro Exposure Negligence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cadbury Worker Dies of Fibro-related Cancer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Cleanup Set for Superfund Subdivision
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found at Nathan Homestead



                            *********

3M COMPANY: Mediation in Employee Suit Must Be Done by Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that a court has issued a
scheduling order staying discovery pending mediation which must be
completed by December 31, 2015, in a class action by a former
employee.

A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002
in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama (the "St. John"
case), seeking unstated damages and alleging that the plaintiffs
suffered fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries, and property
damage from exposure to certain perfluorochemicals at or near the
Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility. The court in
2005 granted the Company's motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's
personal injury-related claims on the basis that such claims are
barred by the exclusivity provisions of the state's Workers
Compensation Act. The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended
complaint in November 2006, limiting the case to property damage
claims on behalf of a purported class of residents and property
owners in the vicinity of the Decatur plant.

In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
additional defendants, including BFI Waste Management Systems of
Alabama, LLC; BFI Waste Management of North America, LLC; the City
of Decatur, Alabama; Morgan County, Alabama; Municipal Utilities
Board of Decatur; and Morgan County, Alabama, d/b/a Decatur
Utilities. In September 2015, the court issued a scheduling order
staying discovery pending mediation which must be completed by
December 31, 2015.

If mediation is unsuccessful, the discovery relating to the class
certification will begin, and the class certification hearing is
scheduled for November 2016.


3M COMPANY: Case by 3 Morgan County Residents on Hold
-----------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that no further action in the
case filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, is
expected unless and until the stay is lifted.

In 2005, the judge in a second purported class action lawsuit
filed by the Morgan County three residents, seeking unstated
compensatory and punitive damages involving alleged damage to
their property from emissions of certain perfluorochemical
compounds from the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing
facility that formerly manufactured those compounds (the
"Chandler" case), granted the Company's motion to abate the case,
effectively putting the case on hold pending the resolution of
class certification issues in the St. John case. Despite the stay,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking damages for alleged
personal injuries and property damage on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and the members of a purported class. No further action
in the case is expected unless and until the stay is lifted.


3M COMPANY: Suit by Franklin County Resident on Hold
----------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that a case filed by a resident
of Franklin County, Alabama, is on hold pending the resolution of
the class certification issues in the St. John case.

In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County (the "Stover" case) seeking compensatory damages and
injunctive relief based on the application by the Decatur
utility's wastewater treatment plant of wastewater treatment
sludge to farmland and grasslands in the state that allegedly
contain PFOA, PFOS and other perfluorochemicals. The named
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons within the
State of Alabama who have had PFOA, PFOS, and other
perfluorochemicals released or deposited on their property.

In March 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the case
transferred from Franklin County to Morgan County. In May 2010,
consistent with its handling of the other matters, the Morgan
County Circuit Court abated this case, putting it on hold pending
the resolution of the class certification issues in the St. John
case.


3M COMPANY: Water Authority Filed Lawsuit in N.D. Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that West Morgan-East Lawrence
Water & Sewer Authority ("Water Authority") filed in October 2015,
an individual complaint against 3M Company, Dyneon, L.L.C, and
Daikin America, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama. The complaint also includes representative
plaintiffs who brought the complaint on behalf of themselves, and
a class of all owners and possessors of property who use water
provided by the Water Authority and five local water works to
which the Water Authority supplies water (collectively, the "Water
Utilities"). The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages
and injunctive relief based on allegations that the defendants'
chemicals, including PFOA and PFOS from their manufacturing
processes in Decatur, have contaminated the water in the Tennessee
River at the water intake, and that the chemicals cannot be
removed by the water treatment processes utilized by the Water
Authority.


6D GLOBAL: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of investors who purchased 6D Global
Technologies, Inc. ("6D Global" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:SIXD)
securities between November 3, 2010 and September 10, 2015.

Click here to learn about the case: http://docs.wongesq.com/SIXD-
Info-Request-Form-983. There is no cost or obligation to you.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company had deficient internal controls, (2) the lack of
internal controls allowed Defendant Benjamin Wey to exert
influence and control over the Company, (3) the Company was
engaged in improper and undisclosed material related party
transactions, and (4) Defendants were engaged in a scheme to
manipulate the Company's stock price.

On September 10, 2015, the SEC filed a civil action against New
York Global Group, CEO Benjamin Wey, and certain other defendants
for their roles in an alleged fraudulent scheme to obtain and
profit from undisclosed, controlling ownership interests in
several U.S. companies, including 6D Global Technologies.

If you suffered a loss in 6D Global you have until December 14,
2015 to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
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://docs.wongesq.com/SIXD-Info-Request-
Form-983.

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

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Yeninas" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Yeninas, and all others similarly-situated v. American
Airlines Group, Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines,
Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., Inc. and United Airlines, Inc., Case
1:15-cv-01980 (D.D.C., November 9, 2015), seeks to recover treble
damages, equitable relief, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys'
fees for violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act.

The antitrust class action arises out of an alleged conspiracy
among the largest U.S. airline companies, who collectively account
for over 80% of all domestic air travel, to fix, raise, maintain,
and/or stabilize prices for air passenger transportation services
within the United States, its territories and the District of
Columbia in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act among other things, colluding to limit seat capacity.

American Airlines Group Inc. is a holding company and the parent
company of American Airlines, Inc.  Both American Airlines Group,
Inc. and American Airlines, Inc. are Delaware corporations with
their principal places of business located in Fort Worth, Texas.
American is the largest airline in the world, operating nearly
6,700 flights per day to 339 locations in 54 countries.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta operates more
than 5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a Texas corporation with its principal
place of business located in Dallas, Texas. Southwest operates
more than 3,600 flights per day to 94 locations in the United
States and six additional countries.

United Airlines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with principal
places of business located in Chicago, Illinois. United offers
service to more destinations than any other airline in the world,
operating more than 5,300 flights per day to 369 locations across
six continents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hilary K. Scherrer, Esq.
      Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
      Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
      Washington, DC 20006
      Tel: (202) 540-7200
      Fax: (202) 540-7201
      Email: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
             hscherrer@hausfeld.com
             jkenney@hausfeld.com

          - and -

      Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
      Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
      Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 633-1908
      Fax: (415) 358-4980
      Email: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
             bsweeney@hausfeld.com
             clebsock@hausfeld.com

          - and -

      Christopher L. Sagers, Esq.
      1801 Euclid Ave., LB 138
      Cleveland, Ohio 44115
      Tel: (216) 687-2344
      Email: chrissagers@yahoo.com


AXXIS DRILLING: Court Tosses WARN Act Claims in "Voisin"
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Martin L. C. Feldman of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana granted Defendants' motion for
summary judgment in the case captioned, KETTI VOISIN, ET AL. v.
AXXIS DRILLING, INC. AND TRINIDAD DRILLING, LP, SECTION "E", Case
No. 15-571 (E.D. La.).

The putative class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of a group
of Axxis Drilling's former employees who were laid off between
December of 2014 and February of 2015 in response to a downturn in
oil and gas productivity. The plaintiffs' claims arise under the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (the
WARN Act), which requires employers who have 100 or more full-time
employees to provide affected employees with a 60-day notice
before ordering a plant closing or a mass layoff.  The plaintiffs
claim they did not receive the required notice.

The sole question before the Court is whether Axxis' five drilling
rigs together with its Houma office constitute a "single site of
employment" under the WARN Act. If the office and each rig are
separate sites, the plaintiffs' claims fail because Axxis did not
lay off 50 employees from any individual site.

The plaintiffs contend that the Axxis office and the adjacent dock
and warehouses comprise a single site of employment under subparts
1 and 3 of the regulations. Because the dock is a part of the
Axxis office, the plaintiffs surmise that, when a rig is stacked
at the dock, it too becomes part of the single site.

The Court disagrees.  In his Order and Reasons dated October 21,
2015 available at http://is.gd/KIDDUsfrom Leagle.com, Judge
Feldman held that the plaintiffs' claims fail because Axxis did
not lay off 50 employees from any single site of employment. The
plaintiffs fail to satisfy the remaining factors because
geographic proximity is only one of three essential factors for
separate facilities to be treated as a single site of employment.

Plaintiffs are represented by Philip Bohrer, Esq. --
phil@bohrerbrady.com -- BOHRER LAW FIRM, Michael Thomas Tusa, Jr.,
Esq. -- mtusa@sutton-alker.com -- SUTTON & ALKER, LLC & Scott
Brady, Esq. -- sbrady@schuckitlaw.com -- SCOTT E. BRADY, ATTORNEY
AT LAW

Defendants are represented by David M. Korn, Esq. --
david.korn@phelps.com -- Alex H. Glaser, Esq. --
alex.glaser@phelps.com -- PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP, J. Marshall Horton,
Esq. -- marshallhorton@andrewskurth.com -- Matthew L. Hoeg, Esq. -
- matthewhoeg@andrewskurth.com -- ANDREWS KURTH, LLP


BRISTOL-MYERS: 5,200 Personal Injury Claims Over Plavix* Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company and certain affiliates of Sanofi are defendants in a
number of individual lawsuits in various state and federal courts
claiming personal injury damage allegedly sustained after using
Plavix*. Currently, over 5,200 claims involving injury plaintiffs
as well as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries, are filed
in state and federal courts in various states including
California, New Jersey, Delaware and New York.

In February 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
granted the Company and Sanofi's motion to establish a
multidistrict litigation to coordinate Federal pretrial
proceedings in Plavix* product liability and related cases in New
Jersey Federal Court.

"It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome
of these lawsuits or the potential impact on the Company," the
Company said.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Claims by 3,000 Plaintiffs Over Reglan* Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company is one of a number of defendants in numerous lawsuits, on
behalf of approximately 3,000 plaintiffs, including injury
plaintiffs claiming personal injury allegedly sustained after
using Reglan* or another brand of the generic drug metoclopramide,
a product indicated for gastroesophageal reflux and certain other
gastrointestinal disorders, as well as claims by spouses and/or
other beneficiaries. The Company, through its generic subsidiary,
Apothecon, Inc., distributed metoclopramide tablets manufactured
by another party between 1996 and 2000. It is not possible at this
time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits. The
resolution of these pending lawsuits, however, is not expected to
have a material impact on the Company.


BRISTOL-MYERS: 500 Lawsuits Related to Byetta* Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Amylin, a
former subsidiary of the Company, and Lilly are co-defendants in
product liability litigation related to Byetta*. To date, there
are over 500 separate lawsuits pending on behalf of over 2,400
active plaintiffs (including pending settlements), which include
injury plaintiffs as well as claims by spouses and/or other
beneficiaries, in various courts in the U.S.

The Company has agreed in principle to resolve over 510 of these
claims. The majority of these cases have been brought by
individuals who allege personal injury sustained after using
Byetta*, primarily pancreatic cancer and pancreatitis, and, in
some cases, claiming alleged wrongful death. The majority of cases
are pending in Federal Court in San Diego in a multidistrict
litigation or in a coordinated proceeding in California Superior
Court in Los Angeles.

Amylin has product liability insurance covering a substantial
number of claims involving Byetta* and any additional liability to
Amylin with respect to Byetta* is expected to be shared between
the Company and AstraZeneca. It is not possible to reasonably
predict the outcome of any lawsuit, claim or proceeding or the
potential impact on the Company.


BROOKFIELD BUSINESS: Facing Litigation Over GrafTech Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brookfield Business Partners L.P. on May 17, 2015, entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with BCP IV
GrafTech Holdings LP, a Delaware limited partnership ("Parent"),
and Athena Acquisition Subsidiary Inc., a Delaware corporation and
a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Acquisition Sub"), pursuant
to which, among other things, Parent has agreed to make a cash
tender offer (the "Offer") to purchase any and all of the
outstanding shares of the Company's common stock, par value $0.01
per share (the "Shares"), at a purchase price of $5.05 per Share
in cash (the "Offer Price"). Parent and Acquisition Sub are
indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Brookfield.

Brookfield Business Partners L.P. said in its Form F-1 Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2015, that a number of putative class action complaints have been
filed relating to the merger. The lawsuits, which contain
substantially similar allegations, include allegations that the
transactions do not appropriately value the Company, were the
result of an inadequate process, include preclusive deal
protection devices, involved conflicts of interests and further
allege that the public disclosures made by the Company in
connection with such transactions were materially misleading.
GrafTech, Brookfield and its affiliates are alleged to have aided
and abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches. The lawsuits seek a
variety of equitable relief, including enjoining the GrafTech
board of directors from proceeding with the proposed merger unless
and until they have acted in accordance with their fiduciary
duties to maximize shareholder value and rescission of the merger
to the extent implemented, in addition to damages arising from the
defendants' alleged breaches and attorneys' fees and costs. The
defendants believe that the allegations are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend the lawsuits.

The lawsuits include: a lawsuit captioned Travis J. Kelleher, etc.
v. GrafTech International Ltd., et al. (Case No. CV-15-846032)
filed on May 22, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas in the State
of Ohio; a lawsuit captioned David Widlewski v. Randy Carson,
Thomas A. Danjczek, Karen Finerman, Joel L. Hawthorne, David R.
Jardini, Nathan Milikowsky, M. Catherine Morris, BCP IV GrafTech
Holdings LP, and Athena Acquisition Subsidiary Inc. (Civil Action
No. 11086-VCL) filed on June 2, 2015, in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware; a lawsuit captioned Walter Watson. v.
GrafTech International Ltd., Randy Carson, Thomas A. Danjczek,
Karen Finerman, Joel L. Hawthorne, David R. Jardini, Nathan
Milikowsky, M. Catherine Morris, Brookfield Asset Management,
Inc., Brookfield Capital Partners Ltd., Brookfield Capital
Partners IV L.P., BCP IV GrafTech Holdings LP, and Athena
Acquisition Subsidiary Inc. (Civil Action No. 11096-VCL) filed on
June 4, 2015, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware; a
lawsuit captioned CyHyoung Park v. GrafTech International Ltd.,
Randy Carson, Thomas A. Danjczek, Karen Finerman, Joel L.
Hawthorne, David R. Jardini, Nathan Milikowsky, M. Catherine
Morris, BCP IV GrafTech Holdings LP, and Athena Acquisition
Subsidiary Inc. (Civil Action No. 11125-VCL) filed on June 9,
2015, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware; a lawsuit
captioned Charles Daeda v. GrafTech International Ltd., Randy
Carson, Thomas A. Danjczek, Karen Finerman, Joel L. Hawthorne,
David R. Jardini, Nathan Milikowsky, M. Catherine Morris,
Brookfield Asset Management Inc., BCP IV GrafTech Holdings LP, and
Athena Acquisition Subsidiary Inc. (Civil Action No. 11145-VCL)
filed on June 15, 2015, in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware; a lawsuit captioned Abraham Grinberger, v. GrafTech
International Ltd., Randy Carson, Thomas A. Danjczek, Karen L.
Finerman, Joel L. Hawthorne, David R. Jardini, Nathan Milikowsky,
M. Catherine Morris, Brookfield Asset Management Inc., Brookfield
Capital Partners Ltd., BCP IV GrafTech Holdings LP, Athena
Acquisition Subsidiary Inc. (Civil Action No. 11148-VCL) filed on
June 15, 2015, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware;
a lawsuit captioned Bruce Wells v. GrafTech International Ltd.,
Randy Carson, Thomas A. Danjczek, Karen Finerman, Joel L.
Hawthorne, David R. Jardini, Nathan Milikowsky, M. Catherine
Morris, BCP IV GrafTech Holdings LP, Athena Acquisition Subsidiary
Inc., and Brookfield Capital Partners Ltd. (Civil Action No.
11166-VCL) filed on June 17, 2015, in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware; and a lawsuit captioned Mark O'Neill and
Adoracion Guerrero, et al. v. Joel L. Hawthorne, et al. (Case No.
CV-15-847670) filed on June 29, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas
in the State of Ohio.


BUTH-NA-BODHAIGE: Lambert's Motion for Attorneys' Fees Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., for the Eastern
District of California granted Aimee Lambert's Motion for
Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards.

The Court finds that Plaintiff's requested fee award of
$1,593,605.70 is fair and reasonable in light of the results
obtained by Plaintiff's counsel; the risks and complex issues
involved, and the skill and high-quality work required to overcome
them; the burdens borne by counsel in pursuing this litigation on
a pure contingency basis; and the range of awards made in similar
cases. The Court finds that the requested fee award, which
represents approximately 21.8% of the Settlement Benefits, is less
than the Ninth Circuit's benchmark of 25%, and comports with the
applicable law and is justified by the circumstances of this case.

The Court has confirmed the reasonableness of Plaintiff's fee
request by conducting a lodestar cross-check. The Court finds that
Plaintiffs' counsel's reasonable lodestar as of the date they
filed their Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Incentive
Awards was $542,640.00 based on their current hourly rates.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' requested fee award represents a
multiplier of 2.95 based on their counsel's current hourly rates.
This multiplier is within the range of multipliers awarded in
similar complex, class action cases and is well-justified, given
the novelty and difficulty of this litigation, counsel's skillful
handling of the difficult factual and legal issues presented, the
significant contingent risks in this case, and the quality of the
result achieved.

The Court finds that Plaintiff's counsel incurred $6,394.30 in
litigation costs and expenses as of the date they filed their
Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards. The Court
finds that these costs and expenses were reasonably incurred in
the ordinary course of prosecuting this case and were necessary
given the nature and scope of the case. Accordingly, the Court
approves payment to counsel in the amount of $6,394.30 for
reimbursement of costs and expenses.

The Court also approves an incentive award of $5,000 to Plaintiff.

The case is, AIMEE LAMBERT, an individual, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. BUTH-NA-BODHAIGE,
INC., a Delaware corporation; RAZE MEDIA, INC., a Texas
corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive Defendants, CASE NO. 2:14-
CV-00514-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal.).

Lambert alleged that Buth-Na-Bodhaige and Raze Media, LLC violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending the Plaintiff two
text messages without her consent on October 18, 2013. An
estimated 225,252 additional individuals also received messages
from Defendants in violation of the TCPA between February 20, 2010
and February 20, 2014. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated individuals.

On July 29, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff's unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action.  In that Order, the
Court appointed Plaintiff as the class representative; and
Hornberger Law Corporation as settlement class counsel.

A copy of the Court's November 18, 2015 Order is available at
http://is.gd/2V83rUfrom Leagle.com.

A copy of the Court's July 29, 2015 Order is available at
http://is.gd/Dw0Tlofrom Leagle.com.


CIRQUE DU SOLEIL: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Klein Moynihan Turco LLP wrote that on November 12, 2015, the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
denied Cirque du Soleil's ("Cirque") motion to dismiss a pending
class action brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act's ("TCPA") Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 ("JFPA").

Cirque argued that the class action, which was commenced on March
21, 2014, was barred on statute of limitations grounds because the
allegedly unsolicited fax at issue was sent to the class
representative back on July 7, 2009. The Court, however, rejected
this argument due to a previous class action litigation brought
against Cirque by a different class representative concerning the
very same commercial fax broadcast.

Why Didn't the Court Dismiss the TCPA Class Action against Cirque?

Junk Fax Class Action Against Cirque Survives
Cirque argued that the class action complaint must be dismissed
because the class representative did not assert his claim within 4
years after receipt of the subject fax, as prescribed by the TCPA.
The Court rejected this argument because a previous class action
was asserted against Cirque concerning the very same fax and
making the very same allegations. Although that previous class
action was voluntarily dismissed by the class representative with
prejudice, the Court, relying on Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit
precedent, reasoned that "when a plaintiff purporting to represent
a class commences a suit, 'he notifies the defendants not only of
the substantive claims being brought against them, but also of the
number and generic identities of the potential plaintiffs who may
participate in the judgment.'" Relying on this argument, the Court
held that the previous class action tolled the statute of
limitations for the current class action, and the parties must now
go forward with discovery.

Protect Yourself

Simple dismissal from a previous class action may not mean a
complete escape of liability for TCPA defendants. As such, it is
important that dismissals from class action litigation be
accompanied, if at all possible, by a release (entered into by the
class representative) of all claims on behalf of the class.
If you are interested in learning more about this topic, please
visit the Telemarketing Law practice area of our website. If you
have been served with process concerning the TCPA or your
marketing practices, please e-mail us at info@kleinmoynihan.com or
call us at (212) 246-0900.


CLIFFS NATURAL: Discovery Remains Stayed in Ohio Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that discovery
remains stayed in a class action pending a ruling on the
defendant's motion to dismiss.

In May 2014, alleged purchasers of the Company's common shares
filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio against us and certain current and former officers and
directors of the Company. The action is captioned Department of
the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and Its Division of
Investment v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., et al., No. 1:14-CV-
1031.

"The action asserts violations of the federal securities laws
based on alleged false or misleading statements or omissions
during the period of March 14, 2012 to March 26, 2013, regarding
operations at our Bloom Lake mine in Qu‚bec, Canada, and the
impact of those operations on our finances and outlook, including
sustainability of the dividend, and that the alleged misstatements
caused our common shares to trade at artificially inflated
prices," the Company said.  "The lawsuit seeks class certification
and an award of monetary damages to the putative class in an
unspecified amount, along with costs of suit and attorneys' fees.
The parties attempted unsuccessfully to mediate this dispute in
September 2015. Discovery remains stayed pending a ruling on the
defendant's motion to dismiss. The lawsuit has been referred to
our insurance carriers."


CLIFFS NATURAL: Accord Reached in Investor Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
parties in a class action filed by an alleged purchaser of the
depositary shares successfully mediated the dispute and reached a
settlement agreement in principle.

In June 2014, an alleged purchaser of the depositary shares issued
by Cliffs in a public offering in February 2013 filed a putative
class action, which is captioned Rosenberg v. Cliffs Natural
Resources Inc., et al., and after a round of removal and remand
motions, is now pending in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas,
No. CV-14-828140.

The Company said, "The suit asserts claims against us, certain
current and former officers and directors of the Company, and
several underwriters of the offering, alleging disclosure
violations in the registration statement regarding operations at
our Bloom Lake mine and the impact of those operations on our
finances and outlook. This action seeks class certification and
monetary relief in an unspecified amount, along with costs of suit
and attorneys' fees. The parties successfully mediated this
dispute and reached a settlement agreement in principle, subject
to a court approval process. This lawsuit had been referred to our
insurance carriers and the settlement is not material to the
Company."


CLS TRANSPORTATION: Court Says Some Waivers May be Unenforceable
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marjorie J. Burchett, Esq. -- marjorie.burchett@dentons.com --
Robert (Bob) A. Cocchia, Esq. -- robert.cocchia@dentons.com -- Jim
S. McNeill, Esq. -- Jim.McNeill@dentons.com -- and Laurence R.
Phillips, Esq. -- laurence.phillips@dentons.com -- at Dentons
wrote in an article for Lexology that class action waivers have
become common in consumer contracts, including sales agreements to
purchase newly constructed residences and employment agreements,
which may also contain arbitration clauses. After last year's
California Supreme Court decision in Iskanian v. CLS
Transportation(2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, it's clear that a class
action waiver is not unenforceable when combined with an
arbitration clause, nor can it by itself render an arbitration
clause unconscionable. But that's only because the California
Supreme Court had to knuckle under to US Supreme Court authority
interpreting the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

On October 26, the Second District of the California Court of
Appeal declared the law when the FAA does not apply. The case
is Garrido v. Air Liquide Industrial, No. B254490, 2015 WL 6451011
(Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2015). In Garrido, the FAA did not apply
because of its categorical exemption of transport workers. The
court held that California's pre-Iskanian law governs when the FAA
does not preempt it. That means that, when an arbitration clause
is not subject to the FAA, a class action waiver will likely be
found unenforceable by California courts under a four-part test
that is easy for consumers to meet, and it can by itself render an
arbitration clause unconscionable. This is not a surprising
result, but Garrido is the first published decision to articulate
the rationale.

Garrido emphasizes the need to analyze whether a consumer contract
will be governed by the FAA. In the employment agreement context,
categorical exemptions appear impossible to avoid; a clause that
says "this agreement is governed by the FAA" will be interpreted
to include the FAA's categorical exemptions. Since there are no
categorical exemptions applicable to real estate sales
transactions, questions about whether such transactions involve
interstate or foreign commerce are more amenable to drafting
solutions, such as statements that the contract involves
interstate commerce and is therefore subject to the FAA.


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Defending Two Purported Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. is currently defending two
purported class actions, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

"We are routinely involved in various legal proceedings resulting
from our consumer finance activities and practices, both
continuing and discontinued. Consumers can and do initiate
lawsuits against us alleging violations of law applicable to
collection of receivables, and such lawsuits sometimes allege that
resolution as a class action is appropriate. We are currently
defending two such purported class actions," the Company said.

"The first of those two has been settled by agreement with the
plaintiffs, with the settlement remaining subject to approval by
the court. In the second, the California court of appeals ruled in
March 2015 that the plaintiff may assert his claim only in
arbitration, on an individual basis and not on a class basis. That
ruling was vacated when the California supreme court accepted the
plaintiff's petition for review, ordering the matter held pending
that court's decision in a case to which we are not a party," the
Company said. "The August 2015 decision in the case to which we
were not a party generally upheld arbitration clauses, and the
California Supreme Court has ordered our case returned to the
court of appeals. We expect that the court of appeals will
reaffirm its prior ruling; however, there can be no assurance as
to the outcome."


DRAFTKINGS: Rigged Online Games, "Cantamaglia" Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Antonio Cantamaglia and Emilio Oliva v. Draftkings, Inc. and
Fanduel, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-06073-PD (E.D. Pa. November 10,
2015), seeks to recover damages and injunctive relief under
Section 201-2(4)(iii), (v), (vii), (ix), (xiv) and (xxi) of the
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

The class action complaint arises out of an alleged internal
rigging of online gaming website, Daily Fantasy Sports, an online
game that allows paying participants to engage in virtual athletic
drafting with data tied to actual player statistics that allows
game simulations. Draftkings, Inc. and Fanduel, Inc. entice
participants to play by offering cash winnings.

DraftKings is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located at 225 Franklin St., 26th Floor, Boston,
Massachusetts. FanDuel is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located at 41 East 11th Street, 10th
Floor, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas B. Malone, Esq.
      THE MALONE FIRM, LLC
      1650 Arch Street, Suite 1903
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: 215-987-5200
      Email: tmalone@themalonefirm.com


DOW CHEMICAL: Expects Writ Petition to Be Tackled Next Year
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company does not expect any further action on its
writ petition related to the Urethane price-fixing litigation
until sometime in 2016, Dow said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

On February 16, 2006, the Company, among others, received a
subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") as part of a
previously announced antitrust investigation of manufacturers of
polyurethane chemicals, including methylene diphenyl diisocyanate,
toluene diisocyanate, polyether polyols and system house products.
The Company cooperated with the DOJ and, following an extensive
investigation, on December 10, 2007, the Company received notice
from the DOJ that it had closed its investigation of potential
antitrust violations involving these products without indictments
or pleas.

In 2005, the Company, among others, was named as a defendant in
multiple civil class action lawsuits alleging a conspiracy to fix
the price of various urethane chemical products, namely the
products that were the subject of the above described DOJ
antitrust investigation. These lawsuits were consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (the "District
Court") or have been tolled. On July 29, 2008, the District Court
certified a class of purchasers of the products for the six-year
period from 1999 through 2004. Shortly thereafter, a series of
"opt-out" cases were filed by a number of large volume purchasers;
these cases are substantively identical to the class action
lawsuit, but expanded the time period to include 1994 through
1998. In January 2013, the class action lawsuit went to trial in
the District Court with the Company as the sole remaining
defendant, the other defendants having previously settled.

On February 20, 2013, the jury returned a damages verdict of
approximately $400 million against the Company, which ultimately
was trebled by the District Court under applicable antitrust laws
-- less offsets from other settling defendants -- resulting in a
judgment entered in July 2013 in the amount of $1.06 billion. The
Company appealed this judgment to the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals ("Tenth Circuit" or "Court of Appeals"), which heard oral
arguments on the matter on May 14, 2014.

On September 29, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion
affirming the District Court judgment. On October 14, 2014, the
Company filed a petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc
(collectively the "Rehearing Petition") with the Court of Appeals,
which was denied on November 7, 2014.

On March 9, 2015, the Company filed a petition for writ of
certiorari ("Writ Petition") with the U.S. Supreme Court ("Supreme
Court"), seeking judicial review by the Supreme Court and
requesting that the Supreme Court ultimately correct fundamental
errors in the Circuit Court opinion. While it is unknowable
whether or not the Supreme Court will accept the Writ Petition for
review, there are several compelling reasons why the Supreme Court
should grant the petition for writ of certiorari, and if the
petition for writ of certiorari is accepted, the Company believes
it is likely that the District Court judgment will be vacated.

Specifically, it is the Company's position that the Tenth Circuit
decision violates the law as expressed by the Supreme Court as set
out in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) and
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013). The Tenth
Circuit also did not follow accepted law from other federal
circuits on dispositive case issues, including legal precedent
from the U.S. First, Second, Third, Fifth, Ninth and D.C. Circuit
Courts. Finally, the erroneous law applied by the Tenth Circuit is
not supported by any other circuit court.

In April 2015, six amici filed Amicus Briefs in support of Dow's
Writ Petition. The class plaintiffs' opposition brief was filed
May 11, 2015. Dow filed its reply brief on May 22, 2015.

On June 8, 2015, the Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ
of certiorari in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, PEG, et al.,
("Tyson Foods") (Supreme Court No. 14-1146), which presented a
question core to the questions presented in Dow's Writ Petition.
Dow's case was considered by the Supreme Court in conference on
June 11, 2015. On June 15, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its
decisions from its conference and did not rule on Dow's Writ
Petition.

Subsequently, Dow's Writ Petition has not been listed for further
consideration by the Supreme Court at its weekly conferences. Dow
has been advised that this means that the Supreme Court is
withholding further consideration of Dow's Writ Petition while it
considers Tyson Foods on the merits. As a result, Dow does not
expect any further action on its Writ Petition until sometime in
2016.

Dow believes that the Supreme Court has accepted Tyson Foods for
the compelling reasons also advanced by Dow in its Writ Petition
and that ultimately the Supreme Court will issue an opinion in
Tyson Foods that is favorable to Dow.

On August 14, 2015, Dow filed an Amicus Brief in Tyson Foods
supporting Tyson Foods' position. The Tyson Foods oral argument
before the Supreme Court was scheduled for November 10, 2015.

The Company has consistently denied plaintiffs' allegations of
price fixing and, the Company will continue to vigorously defend
this litigation. As with any litigation and based on various
factors, the Company has had and may from time to time pursue
confidential settlement negotiations to resolve the matter. As
part of the Company's review of the jury verdict, the resulting
judgment and the Court of Appeals' opinion, the Company assessed
the legal and factual circumstances of the case, the trial record,
the appellate record, the briefing before the United States
Supreme Court in Tyson Foods and the applicable law including
clear precedent from the Supreme Court. Based on this review and
the reasons stated, the Company believes the judgment and decision
from the Court of Appeals are not appropriate. As a result, the
Company has concluded it is not probable that a loss will occur
and, therefore, a liability has not been recorded with respect to
these matters. While the Company believes it is not probable a
loss will occur, the existence of the jury verdict, the Court of
Appeals' opinion, and subsequent denial of Dow's Rehearing
Petition indicate that it is reasonably possible that a loss could
occur. The estimate of the possible range of loss to Dow is zero
to the $1.06 billion judgment (excluding post-judgment interest
and possible award of class attorney fees).

On September 30, 2014, the "opt-out" cases that had been
consolidated with the class action lawsuit for purposes of pre-
trial proceedings were remanded from the District Court to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On June 10,
2015, a final pretrial conference was held in the "opt-out cases,"
but no trial date has currently been set.


DOW CHEMICAL: Ontario Case in Pretrial Stage
--------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that there are two
separate but inter-related matters in Ontario and Quebec, Canada.
In March 2014, the Superior Court of Justice in London, Ontario,
ruled in favor of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Dow filed its Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal in March 2014,
which was subsequently denied. This matter is currently in the
pretrial stage, but no trial date has been set. The Quebec case
has been stayed pending the outcome of the Ontario case. The
Company has concluded it is not probable that a loss will occur
and, therefore, a liability has not been recorded with respect to
the opt-out litigation or the Canadian matters.


E. I. DU PONT: 2nd Trial in Drinking Water Suit to Begin in March
-----------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
second trial in the drinking water actions is scheduled to begin
in March 2016.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking
water.

DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004
that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a
payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a
community health project.  The company funded a series of health
studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent
science panel of experts (the C8 Science Panel). The studies were
conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate available
scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as
defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and
human disease.

The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the
settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-
induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer;
testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and
diagnosed high cholesterol.

In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released
its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing
of eligible class members.

In September 2014, the medical panel recommended follow-up
screening and diagnostic testing three years after initial
testing, based on individual results. The medical panel has not
communicated its anticipated schedule for completion of its
protocol. The company is obligated to fund up to $235 million for
a medical monitoring program for eligible class members and, in
addition, administrative costs associated with the program,
including class counsel fees.

In January 2012, the company put $1 million in an escrow account
to fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement
agreement.  The court appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has
established the program to implement the medical panel's
recommendations and the registration process, as well as
eligibility screening, is ongoing. Diagnostic screening and
testing has begun and associated payments to service providers are
being disbursed from the escrow account.

In addition, under the settlement agreement, the company must
continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level
of PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the Little
Hocking Water Association (LHWA), and private well users.

Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont
only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel
determined a probable link exists. At September 30, 2015 and June
30, 2015, there were approximately 3,500 lawsuits pending in
various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia. In
accordance with a stipulation reached in the third quarter 2014
and other court procedures, these lawsuits have been or will be
served and consolidated in multi-district litigation in Ohio
federal court (MDL). Based on information currently available to
the company the majority of the lawsuits allege personal injury
claims associated with high cholesterol and thyroid disease from
exposure to PFOA in drinking water.

At September 30, 2015, 37 of the pending lawsuits allege wrongful
death. In 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL were selected for
individual trial. On October 7, 2015, in the first individual
trial involving a plaintiff who alleged that exposure to C8 had
caused the plaintiff's kidney cancer, the jury awarded $1.6
million in compensatory damages. DuPont expects to appeal the
decision. The second trial is scheduled to begin in March 2016.
DuPont denies the allegations in these lawsuits and is defending
itself vigorously.


EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Securities Class Action Filed
---------------------------------------------------
Edison International and Southern California Edison Company said
in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015, that a purported securities class action
lawsuit was filed on July 6, 2015, in federal court against Edison
International, its CEO and CFO. The lawsuit alleges that the
defendants violated the securities laws by failing to disclose
that Edison International's ex parte contacts with CPUC decision-
makers were more extensive than initially reported. The complaint
purports to be filed on behalf of a class of persons who acquired
Edison International common stock between July 31, 2014 and June
24, 2015.


EXPEDIA AIRLINE: Judge Refuses to Certify Customer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
June Williams, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge refused to certify a class action that claimed
Expedia misled customers with bogus discounts and lowballed
luggage fees, finding the lead plaintiff has no reliable method to
identify class members.

Jeffrey Weidenhamer claimed he had to pay $650 in baggage fees
because Expedia falsely promised one free checked bag with online
airfare purchases, and failed to give mobile application users the
5 percent discount it promised in its pop-up ad.

He sued the travel service in July 2014 alleging consumer law
violations, unjust enrichment and violation of the Washington
Sellers of Travel Act, and asked for class status.

U.S. District Judge Richard Jones found that Weidenhamer was
actually proposing two class certifications, arising from the
baggage-fee claims and "Mobilego" pop-up ad.

Judge Jones ruled that Weidenhamer failed to meet the burden for
class certification in several ways. He found it was not
"administratively feasible" to identify members of the proposed
baggage-fee class.

"At this juncture, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not
demonstrated that the baggage fee class is ascertainable and has
serious reservations as to whether such a potentially large and
unwieldy class could be ascertained," Judge Jones wrote.

He agreed with Expedia's argument that identifying customers who
paid baggage fees that had been misrepresented would be
"inordinately difficult."

"The crux of Defendant's argument is that it would be inordinately
difficult to identify individual class members due to: (1)
incomplete records of past baggage fee estimate 'rules' and the
actual baggage fee policies for the carriers at the time, (2) the
astronomical number of permutations created by the mix of
carriers, flights, and fare classes offered by Expedia over the
relevant period, (3) individual customer variations, such as
whether a refund or waiver of baggage fees was issued by the
airline, and (4) purportedly incomplete or insufficient records
from the airlines who actually charged the baggage fees," Judge
Jones wrote.

He called Weidenhamer's solution: looking at Expedia's internal
records for customers' baggage fees that did not match
disclosures, "nothing more than throwing the proverbial spaghetti
at the wall to see what sticks."

"First, Plaintiff presupposes that historical baggage fee display
information exists, despite Defendant's representations and all
evidence to the contrary. Second, Plaintiff does not identify what
he plans to do with any of this information or how it identifies
actual class members - that can only be done with some method of
identifying the customers who potentially received the problematic
baggage fee displays," Judge Jones wrote.

He found that Weidenhamer failed to show a class action is
superior to an individual lawsuit, as "individual issues
predominate over any common issues."

Judge Jones found "no administratively feasible means" to identify
the mobile app class.

He said that while Expedia knows how many mobile devices
downloaded the app, it has no way to tie the specific devices to
flight purchases and no way to know whether any individual
purchased a flight after viewing the Mobilego coupon.

"Plaintiff has not met that burden, given the monumental
manageability issues presented by the proposed class, and his
failure to explain how to meaningfully take this case to an
eventual conclusion," Judge Jones wrote.

He denied class certification without prejudice and gave
Weidenhamer 10 days to try again.

Weidenhamer's attorney, Duncan Turner with Badgley Mullins Turner
in Seattle, did not immediately return an emailed request for
comment sent after business hours.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: ESI's Bid to Decertify Class in Brady Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Express
Scripts, Inc., motion to decertify the class in the Brady
Enterprises case is pending.

The Company said it cannot predict the timing or outcome of these
matters: (i) Brady Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Medco Health
Solutions, Inc. (ii) North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v.
Express Scripts, Inc., et al. (iii) Mike's Medical Center
Pharmacy, et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al.

Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Antitrust
Act. Currently, ESI's motion to decertify the class in the Brady
Enterprises case is pending. Oral arguments were held in January
2012. Mike's Medical Center Pharmacy agreed to voluntarily dismiss
its claims against Medco Health Solutions, Inc. in July 2015.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: "Berk" FLSA Collective Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the case,
Jason Berk v. Express Scripts, Inc. and Express Scripts Pharmacy,
Inc., has been dismissed with the Company receiving a release of
all claims.

A complaint was filed by named employee, Jason Berk, a current
Pharmacy Benefit Specialist employee, alleging: (1) a collective
action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to
pay wages and overtime; and (2) a class action for breach of
contract. In April 2015, the parties reached an agreement to
settle outstanding claims for an immaterial amount. In October
2015, the case was dismissed with the Company receiving a release
of all claims.


FANDUEL: Faces 40 Class Suits Over Illegal Gambling Scam
--------------------------------------------------------
Janelle Irwin, writing for Saint Peters blog, reported that
Fantasy Football giants FanDuel and DraftKings are facing some 40
class action lawsuits alleging the two sites fraudulently coerced
players into an illegal gambling scam.

According to the National Law Journal, most of the lawsuits claim
consumer fraud and false advertisement as the basis for suit.
Plaintiffs are seeking reimbursement for lost fees paid to the
websites ranging anywhere from just $0.25 to thousands of dollars.
Some of the suits also claim the companies engaged in insider
trading after it was found that employees were participating in
Fantasy Football leagues and disproportionately earning winnings
based on inside knowledge they obtained through employment.

Some customers allege they would not have signed up for leagues
had they known employees were participating. Both sites have since
implemented policies forbidding employees from participating.

According to the National Law Journal write-up those scandals
erupted when a DraftKings employee accidentally released internal
data about a Fantasy Football league before the actual NFL games
associated with it began. The result was that employee winning
$350,000 from the competing site, FanDuel.

Both sites have been reluctant to comment on lawsuits levied
against them. Pinellas County has joined the growing list of
places where litigation has been filed against the two Fantasy
Football providers.

The difference between FanDuel and DraftKings is that they payout
daily or weekly prizes to players while other Fantasy Sports
providers don't. Lawsuits allege that constitutes a violation of
the U.S. Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.

But the two sites defend their businesses arguing players win or
lose based on skill, not chance. Under the federal law, these
types of games are permissible if players win based on skill
rather than luck.

The game is played when users select "teams" based on real players
in the NFL. How well that person's team does is based on the
actual players' performances in real games. Fantasy Football has
become so popular some non-football fans even play just for
professional networking opportunities.

Despite the popularity, FanDuel and DraftKings have become a
target for many state officials and attorneys. Nevada barred the
websites from operating until they file for gambling status. Much
of the controversy was sparked with New York's Attorney General
began looking into potential illegal gambling activity.

Lawyers on both sides of the argument are now trying to coordinate
the class action lawsuits filed in 13 states to have them heard in
multidistrict litigation.

A multidistrict litigation panel isn't expected to hear arguments
for merging cases until January 28 in Fort Myers.


FLORIDA: Judge Throws Out Inmate's Suit Against John Does
---------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones of the United States District Court
for Northern District of Florida has stricken the Second Amended
Complaint and dismissed the case captioned, ROY O DANIELS,
Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOES, Defendants, Case No. 5:14-CV-277-MW-GRJ
(N.D. Fla.).

On October 23, 2014, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983,
alleging various constitutional violations. Ten months later,
Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. The First Complaint
suffered from numerous deficiencies. While Plaintiff named
identifiable Defendants, his allegations included a litany of
unrelated claims against different defendants among multiple
prisons. More notably, Plaintiff improperly added two other
inmates as plaintiffs to the action, Arnold L. Evans and Douglas
Lowe.

The Court directed Plaintiff to amend his Complaint by clearly
identifying his primary claim that he would pursue in the case and
advised Plaintiff that under the Prison Litigation Reform Act
("PLRA") he could only bring suit in his name and could not
include additional prisoners as named plaintiffs.

Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint on September 23,
2015. The Second Amended Complaint suffers from many of the same
defects as his original Complaint and First Amended Complaint,
including Plaintiff's failure to utilize the court-approved Sec.
1983 form and the inclusion of other prisoners as named
plaintiffs.

In his Report and Recommendation dated October 1, 2015 available
at http://is.gd/d54STFfrom Leagle.com, Judge Jones concluded that
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint defies the previous Court
orders in multiple ways: Plaintiff failed to utilize the Court's
form; continues to name multiple prisoners as plaintiffs, and
alleges multiple unrelated claims against multiple defendants
without identifying the claim that Plaintiff wishes to pursue in
the action.


FORD MOTOR: Appeal Filed in "Agrawal" Case
------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Credit Company LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company has filed an appeal in the case, Ford Motor Credit Company
v. Sudesh Agrawal.

On January 18, 2011, a state trial court judge in Cuyahoga County,
Ohio certified a nationwide class action with an Ohio subclass in
a counterclaim arising out of a collection action.  Class
claimants allege breach of contract, fraud, and statutory
violations for Ford Credit's lease-end wear and use charges. Class
claimants allege that the standard applied by Ford Credit in
determining the condition of vehicles at lease-end is different
than the standard set forth in claimants' leases. The Court of
Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, affirmed nationwide
class certification and certification of an Ohio subclass.

"We appealed, and on December 17, 2013, the Supreme Court of Ohio
reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further
proceedings," the Company said.

On March 13, 2014, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court
order certifying the classes and remanded the case for further
proceedings.  On September 28, 2015, the trial court re-certified
a nationwide class action with an Ohio subclass.

"We have filed an appeal," the Company said.


FRANKIE JAE LORDMASTER: 4th Cir. Denies Mandamus Petition
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied
the petition lodged by Frankie Jae LordMaster for a writ of
mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to file
certain documents and to grant him the relief he requested in a 28
U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (2012) petition and a 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (2012)
complaint.  The Fourth Circuit also denied LordMaster's motions to
stay judgment and for class action status.

The case is In re: FRANKIE JAE LORDMASTER, a/k/a Jason Robert
Goldader, Petitioner, NO. 15-1517 (4th Cir.).  A copy of the
Fourth Circuit's November 23, 2015 per curiam opinion is available
at http://is.gd/rWEXTSfrom Leagle.com.


HANZON HOMECARE SERVICES: "Dudley" Alleges Unjust Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zelma Dudley v. Hanzon Homecare Services, Inc. and Melsada
Morrison, Case No. 1:15-cv-08821-JMF (S.D.N.Y., November 11,
2015), seeks equitable and legal relief for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The civil action complaint arises out of an alleged non-payment of
minimum and overtime wages for work rendered as a home healthcare
provider for the elderly.

Hanzon Home Care Services, Inc. also known as Mel's Quality Care
Services, Inc. is engaged in the business of providing short and
long-term home health care services, including 24-hour in-home
care, for elderly and sick people throughout New York, New Jersey,
and Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nicole Grunfeld, Esq.
     KATZ MELINGER PLLC
     280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
     New York, New York 10016
     Telephone: 212.460.0047
     Facsimile: 212.428.6811
     E-mail: ndgrunfeld@katzmelinger.com


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Bid for Rehearing En Banc Tossed
------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Incorporated said in its Form 10-
Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that an appeals court has denied defendants' motion for a
rehearing en banc in the case, Harman International Industries,
Inc. Securities Litigation.

The Company said, "On October 1, 2007, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed by Cheolan Kim (the "Kim Plaintiff") against
Harman and certain of our officers in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia (the "District Court") seeking
compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who
purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September
24, 2007 (the "Class Period"). The original complaint alleged
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder."

"The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose
material adverse facts about Harman's financial condition and
business prospects. The complaint contended that had these facts
not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg,
Kravis, Roberts & Co. and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners was
entered into, there would not have been a merger agreement, or it
would have been at a much lower price, and the price of our common
stock therefore would not have been artificially inflated during
the Class Period. The Kim Plaintiff alleged that, following the
reports that the proposed merger was not going to be completed,
the price of our common stock declined, causing the plaintiff
class significant losses.

"On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension
Plan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and
certain of our officers in the District Court seeking compensatory
damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our
common stock between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007. The
allegations in the Boca Raton complaint are essentially identical
to the allegations in the original Kim complaint, and like the
original Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges claims
for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

"On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period
through January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the
violations alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose
"significant problems" relating to its PND sales forecasts,
production, pricing, and inventory" prior to January 14, 2008. The
amended complaint claimed that when "Defendants revealed for the
first time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would
adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share
in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in our share value
and additional losses to the plaintiff class.

"On February 15, 2008, the District Court ordered the
consolidation of the Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the
administrative closing of the Boca Raton action, and designated
the short caption of the consolidated action as In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, civil action
no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR). That same day, the District Court
appointed the Arkansas Public Retirement System as lead plaintiff
("Lead Plaintiff") and approved the law firm Cohen, Milstein,
Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead counsel.

"On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated
Complaint, which extended the Class Period through February 5,
2008, contended that Harman and certain of our officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and
misleading disclosures regarding our financial condition in fiscal
year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. In particular, the Consolidated
Complaint alleged that the defendants knowingly or recklessly
failed to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG radios,
personal navigation devices and our capital expenditures. The
Consolidated Complaint alleged that when Harman's true financial
condition became known to the market, the price of our common
stock declined significantly, causing losses to the plaintiff
class.

"On July 3, 2008, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and the defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2,
2008.

"On September 5, 2012, the District Court heard oral arguments on
the defendants' motion to dismiss. At the request of the District
Court, on September 24, 2012, each side submitted a supplemental
briefing on the defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 17,
2014, the District Court granted a motion to dismiss, without
prejudice, in the In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation. The Lead Plaintiff appealed this ruling to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the "Court of Appeals") and, on June 23, 2015, the District
Court's ruling was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
On July 23, 2015, the defendants filed a motion for a rehearing en
banc before the Court of Appeals, which was denied on September 4,
2015. The defendants have until November 24, 2015 to file a writ
of certiorari seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court."


HCA HOLDINGS: Securities Class Action Trial Seen in 2016
--------------------------------------------------------
HCA Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that trial is likely to
occur in 2016 in the securities class action litigation.

On October 28, 2011, a shareholder action, Schuh v. HCA Holdings,
Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee seeking monetary relief. The case
sought to include as a class all persons who acquired the
Company's stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement issued in connection with the March 9, 2011
initial public offering.

The lawsuit asserted a claim under Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 against the Company, certain members of the board of
directors, and certain underwriters in the offering. It further
asserted a claim under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
against the same members of the board of directors. The action
alleged various deficiencies in the Company's disclosures in the
Registration Statement. Subsequently, two additional class action
complaints, Kishtah v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et al. and Daniels v.
HCA Holdings, Inc. et al., setting forth substantially similar
claims against substantially the same defendants were filed in the
same federal court on November 16, 2011 and December 12, 2011,
respectively. All three of the cases were consolidated.

On May 3, 2012, the court appointed New England Teamsters &
Trucking Industry Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff for the
consolidated action. On July 13, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint asserting claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2)
of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, certain members
of the board of directors, and certain underwriters in the
offering. It further asserts a claim under Section 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 against the same members of the board of
directors and Hercules Holding II, LLC, a majority shareholder of
the Company at the time of the initial public offering.

The consolidated complaint alleges deficiencies in the Company's
disclosures in the Registration Statement and Prospectus relating
to: (1) the accounting for the Company's 2006 recapitalization and
2010 reorganization; (2) the Company's failure to maintain
effective internal controls relating to its accounting for such
transactions; and (3) the Company's Medicare and Medicaid revenue
growth rates.

The Company and other defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on September 11, 2012. The court granted the motion in
part on May 28, 2013. The action proceeded to discovery on the
remaining claims. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification
was granted on September 22, 2014. The court certified a class
consisting of all persons that acquired HCA stock on or before
October 28, 2011 (the date of the lawsuit) pursuant to the
Registration Statement issued in connection with the March 9, 2011
initial public offering.

A request to the court of appeals to hear an immediate appeal of
this ruling was denied. Plaintiffs and defendants have each filed
motions for summary judgment and to strike certain of the expert
witnesses. If the case is not otherwise resolved, trial is likely
to occur in 2016.


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Not Yet Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HealthSouth Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a hearing on
the Company's motion to dismiss a class action has not yet been
set.

"We have been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March 28,
2003 by several individual stockholders in the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v. HealthSouth
Corp.," the Company said.  "The plaintiffs allege that we, some of
our former officers, and our former investment bank engaged in a
scheme to overstate and misrepresent our earnings and financial
position. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive
damages. This case was consolidated with the Tucker case for
discovery and other pretrial purposes and was stayed in the
Circuit Court on August 8, 2005."

"The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 9, 2010 to
which we responded with a motion to dismiss filed on December 22,
2010. During a hearing on February 24, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel
indicated his intent to dismiss certain claims against us.
Instead, on March 9, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint
to include additional securities fraud claims against HealthSouth
and add several former officers to the lawsuit. On September 12,
2012, the plaintiffs further amended their complaint to request
certification as a class action. One of those named officers has
repeatedly attempted to remove the case to federal district court,
most recently on December 11, 2012.

"We filed our latest motion to remand the case back to state court
on January 10, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the federal court
remanded the case back to state court. On November 25, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed another amended complaint to assert new
allegations relating to the time period of 1997 to 2002.

"On December 10, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds
the plaintiffs lack standing because their claims are derivative
in nature, and the claims are time-barred by the statute of
limitations. A hearing on our motion has not yet been set.

"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this case. Based on
the stage of litigation, review of the current facts and
circumstances as we understand them, the nature of the underlying
claim, the results of the proceedings to date, and the nature and
scope of the defense we continue to mount, we do not believe an
adverse judgment or settlement is probable in this matter, and it
is also not possible to estimate the amount of loss, if any, or
range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment
or settlement of this case."


HIGHER ONE: Plaintiffs Filed Brief Opposing Motion to Dismiss
-------------------------------------------------------------
Higher One Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Plaintiffs
have filed an opposition brief opposing the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Complaint in the Securities Class Action.

On May 27, 2014, a putative class action captioned Brian Perez v.
Higher One Holdings, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-755-AWT, was filed by HOH
shareholder Brian Perez in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut. On December 17, 2014, Mr. Perez was
appointed lead plaintiff.

On January 20, 2015, Mr. Perez filed an amended complaint. HOH
former shareholder Robert Lee was added as a named plaintiff in
the amended complaint. HOH and certain employees and board members
have been named as defendants. Mr. Perez and Mr. Lee generally
allege that HOH and the other named defendants made certain
misrepresentations in public filings and other public statements
in violation of the federal securities laws and seek an
unspecified amount of damages. Mr. Perez and Mr. Lee seek to
represent a class of any person who purchased HOH securities
between August 7, 2012 and August 6, 2014.

All defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint. In response,
Plaintiffs have filed an opposition brief opposing dismissal. HOH
intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations. HOH
is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and
therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a
range of possible loss.


HOME DEPOT: Oregon Court Transfers "Bjerke" Case to N.D. Ga.
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul Papak of the United States District Court for
District of Oregon granted Plaintiff's motion to change or
transfer venue in the case captioned, CORY BJERKE, Plaintiff, v.
THE HOME DEPOT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:15-CV-1708-PK (D.
Ore.).

Plaintiff Cory Bjerke filed this putative class action on his own
behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated against
defendant The Home Depot, Inc. in the Multnomah County Circuit
Court on July 31, 2015.  By and through his complaint, Bjerke
alleges Home Depot's liability for violation of the federal Fair
Credit Reporting Act.  Home Depot removed Bjerke's action to the
district court effective September 10, 2015 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1441 (a) on the grounds that Bjerke's claim raises a federal
question.

Home Depot removed Bjerke's action to the District Court of Oregon
effective September 10, 2015 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441 (a)
on the grounds that Bjerke's claim raises a federal question.

Bjerke then asked the Court to transfer the case to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Bjerke intends to have the case consolidated with Albu v. The Home
Depot, Inc., Case No. 1:15-CV-412-ELR-JFK (N.D. Ga.).

Home Depot does not oppose either the requested transfer to the
Northern District of Georgia or the contemplated consolidation
with Albu.

In his Opinion and Order dated October 21, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/5UQcHZfrom Leagle.com, Judge Papak concluded that
the matter would most efficiently be litigated in the Northern
District of Georgia.

Cory Bjerke is represented by Anna P. Prakash, Esq. --
aprakash@nka.com -- E. Michelle Drake, Esq. -- drake@nka.com --
NICHOLS KASTER PLLP

     - and -

Justin M. Baxter, Esq.
BAXTER & BAXTER, LLP
5291 NE Elam Young Pkwy #140
Hillsboro, OR 97124
Tel: (503)681-9752

     - and -

James B. Zouras, Esq.
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
205 N Michigan Ave #2560
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel: (312)233-1550

Home Depot, Inc. is represented by Leah C. Lively, Esq. --
leah.lively@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK &
STEWART P.C., Joseph C. Sarles, Esq. --
josephsarles@quinnemanuel.com -- Shon Morgan, Esq. --
shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN,
LLP


HUNTSMAN CORP: 3rd Amended Suit Filed in Indirect Purchasers Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International LLC said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on October 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that a Third Amended Class Action Complaint has been filed
in the Indirect Purchasers litigation.

The Company said, "We were named as a defendant in consolidated
class action civil antitrust suits filed on February 9 and 12,
2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
alleging that we and our co-defendants and other alleged co-
conspirators conspired to fix prices of titanium dioxide sold in
the U.S. between at least March 1, 2002 and the present. The other
defendants named in this matter were DuPont, Kronos and Cristal
(formerly Millennium)."

On August 28, 2012, the court certified a class consisting of all
U.S. customers who purchased titanium dioxide directly from the
defendants (the "Direct Purchasers") since February 1, 2003.

"On December 13, 2013, we and all other defendants settled the
Direct Purchasers litigation and the court approved the
settlement. We paid in settlement an amount immaterial to our
condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited).

"On November 22, 2013, we were named as a defendant in a civil
antitrust suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota brought by a Direct Purchaser who opted out of the
Direct Purchasers class litigation (the "Opt-Out Litigation"). On
April 21, 2014, the court severed the claims against us from the
other defendants and ordered our case transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Subsequently,
Kronos, another defendant, was also severed from the Minnesota
case and claims against it were transferred and consolidated for
trial with our case in the Southern District of Texas. Trial is
scheduled for February 22, 2016. It is possible that additional
claims will be filed by other Direct Purchasers who opted out of
the class litigation."

"We were also named as a defendant in a class action civil
antitrust suit filed on March 15, 2013 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California by the purchasers of
products made from titanium dioxide (the "Indirect Purchasers")
making essentially the same allegations as did the Direct
Purchasers. On October 14, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Class Action Complaint narrowing the class of plaintiffs
to those merchants and consumers of architectural coatings
containing titanium dioxide.

"On August 11, 2015, the court granted our motion to dismiss the
Indirect Purchasers litigation with leave to amend the complaint.
A Third Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on September 29,
2015 further limiting the class to consumers of architectural
paints. Plaintiffs have raised state antitrust claims under the
laws of 15 states, consumer protection claims under the laws of 9
states and unjust enrichment claims under the laws of 16 states.
The Opt-Out Litigation and Indirect Purchasers plaintiffs seek to
recover injunctive relief, treble damages or the maximum damages
allowed by state law, costs of suit and attorneys' fees."


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Defending Suit Over Planned Sale of Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that a putative class action was commenced in March 2015 in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York related to the company's October 2014 announcement that it
was divesting its global commercial semiconductor technology
business. The company and three of its officers are named as
defendants. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated Sections
20(a) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Defending ERISA Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that in May 2015, a related putative class action was also
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York based on the same underlying facts, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The
company, management's Retirement Plans Committee, and three
current or former IBM executives are named as defendants.


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Class Settlement Court Benefit Erie County
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Glynn, writing for Buffalo News, reported that more than
7,000 Erie County residents could benefit from a class-action
settlement with a debt-collection firm accused of using deceptive
tactics to win judgments against unsuspecting individuals.

The settlement arose from a lawsuit filed in 2009 targeting
Leucadia National Corp., which owned debt-collection subsidiaries,
the Mel S. Harris & Associates law firm, and Samserv, a process-
serving agency. The suit contended that the defendants, all of New
York City, bought old debt for pennies on the dollar and filed
affidavits claiming that they had served proper notice informing
debtors of the cases, when they had not. As a result, the victims
did not appear in court to defend themselves. When the debt
collector won judgments in court, victims had their wages
garnished or bank accounts frozen.

"This not just particular to these parties," said Josh Zinner, co-
director of the New York City-based New Economy Project. "This is
something that is actually a big problem nationally."

The New Economy Project filed the suit along with Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady and MFY Legal Services, all of New York City.
The settlement, filed in federal court in New York City, calls for
creating a $59 million settlement fund. The funds, excluding
attorneys' fees and administrative costs, will be distributed to
victims as restitution, but the money is not expected to start
flowing until sometime next year.

About 75,000 members of the class-action suit had judgments
entered against them and money extracted by the debt collector,
Zinner said. How much each member of the suit will receive depends
on how many people file claim forms, Zinner said.

In addition, about 195,000 default judgments, with a face value of
about $800 million, will be vacated via the settlement, Zinner
said. The New Economy Project said that nearly 7,400 debt-
collection cases were filed by LR Credit -- a subsidiary of
Leucadia -- in Buffalo City Court since 2005. The organization
said that a "vast majority" of those cases filed ended up in a
default judgment.

About 353,320 people in New York State with LR Credit debts --
including the 195,000 judgments in the class-action suit -- will
have their debts wiped out, Zinner said.

The victims were harmed by the judgments in ways beyond having
money extracted, Zinner said. "These come up on people's credit
reports, and it affects their ability to get jobs and housing.
These judgments really have a profound effect on people's lives."
Leucadia, a publicly traded company with diverse business
holdings, is leaving the debt-collection industry, Zinner said.

In court documents, the company said: "The Leucadia defendants
deny all wrongdoing in connection with the allegations made
against them in this action, but nevertheless have agreed to the
settlement because it avoids burdensome litigation and resolves
all of the claims made against them."

The Harris law firm ceased operating in September, according to
court documents.

As large as the settlement was, Zinner said advocates are hoping
for far-reaching changes in the debt-collection industry.
"This is not just an isolated scheme," he said.

"This is really a business model that is hopefully on the way out
because it is a predatory business model that really particularly
takes advantage of lower-income people and people of color."
The state Department of Financial Services and Office of Court
Administration have implemented rules designed to thwart the
practice, and the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as
well, is looking at writing rules about the debt-collection
industry, Zinner said.


LIFELINE: Court Tosses Punitive Damages Claim in "Davis" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge J. Frederick Motz of the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland granted Defendants' partial
motion to dismiss in the case captioned, DAVID DAVIS v. RANDALL
MARTIN, et al., Case No. JFM-15-1746 (D. Md.).

Plaintiff David Davis, by and through his legal guardian, Maribeth
Donohue brings the class action against Randall Martin, Theresa
Martin, and four companies sharing the "Lifeline" name for
negligence, violation of constitutional rights, and punitive
damages. The case arises out of defendants' alleged wrongful
treatment of Davis, a 19 year old quadriplegic, in May 2014. Davis
alleges defendants, who were charged with his and other disabled
persons' residential care, left him unattended for long periods,
causing bedsores "so severe that his skin and flesh rotted to the
bone." After defendants discovered Davis's condition, Davis was
rushed to Laurel Regional Hospital. After a transfer to Johns
Hopkins Hospital, Davis endured three procedures over the course
of three weeks.

Davis first filed his suit in state court in Pennsylvania. Davis's
case was removed to federal court on March 13, 2015 and
transferred to the District of Maryland on June 12, 2015.

Defendants asked the Court to dismiss Davis's claim for punitive
damages (Count III).

In the Memorandum dated October 22, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/2kKa6pfrom Leagle.com, Judge Motz concluded that
even when Davis pleads specific facts, like his allegations that
defendants left Davis unattended and vulnerable to bedsores and
that defendants failed to contact first responders within an
adequate amount of time, Davis fails to link these facts to his
punitive damage claim. The Plaintiffs allegations are precisely
the sort of bare and unsupported legal conclusions the court is
required to ignore.

Plaintiffs are represented by John J. Cord, Esq. --
jcord@charmcitylawyer.com -- JOHN CORD LAW LLC

     - and -

Douglas Alan Yazinski, Jr., Esq.
PISANCHYN LAW FIRM
524 Spruce St
Scranton, PA 18503
Tel: (570)344-1234

Defendants are represented by:

Irwin Raphael Kramer, Esq.
James M. Connolly, Esq.
KRAMER AND CONNOLLY
465 Main St
Reisterstown, MD 21136
Tel: (410)581-0070


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Litigation Stayed Pending Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that litigation
in the case filed by Peter S. Bezich has been stayed pending court
approval of the settlement for the entire class.

On June 13, 2009, a single named plaintiff filed a putative
national class action in the Circuit Court of Allen County
("Court"), Indiana, captioned Peter S. Bezich v. The Lincoln
National Life Insurance Company ("LNL"), No. 02C01-0906-PL73,
asserting he was charged a cost of insurance fee that exceeded the
applicable mortality charge, and that this fee breached the terms
of the insurance contract.

"Solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, we
reached a settlement with the plaintiff resolving all claims
related to this litigation.  On September 9, 2015, the litigation
was stayed pending court approval of the settlement for the entire
class," the Company said.


MCKESSON CORPORATION: True Health Case Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------
True Health Chiropractic Inc., et al. v. McKesson Corporation, et
al., CV-13-02219 (HG) remains pending, McKesson said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

In May 2013, True Health Chiropractic, Inc. filed a class action
against McKesson Corporation, claiming that McKesson sent
unsolicited marketing faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk Fax
Protection Act of 2005 or JFPA.

In July 2014, Plaintiff amended its complaint, adding an
additional named plaintiff and McKesson Technologies Inc. as a
defendant. Plaintiffs purport to represent all persons who were
sent marketing faxes that did not contain proper opt-out notices
and from whom McKesson did not obtain prior express permission
from June 2009 to the present. The case is pending in the Northern
District of California. True Health Chiropractic Inc., et al. v.
McKesson Corporation, et al., CV-13-02219 (HG).

In August 2015, McKesson was granted a waiver from the opt out
requirement from the Federal Communications Commission. Plaintiffs
have appealed that decision.


MEL S. HARRES: Judge Accepts $59-Mil. Settlement
------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Eidelman, writing for Inside Arm, reported that court
documents showed preliminarily approval of the class action
settlements in Monique Sykes, et al., vs. Mel S. Harris and
Associates, LLC, et al. A Fairness Hearing has been scheduled for
May 11, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

The case is a class-action lawsuit originally certified in
September 2012 by consumers against a group of affiliated debt-
buying companies, their outside law firm, and a process serving
agency, under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and
other federal and state statutes.

The Plaintiffs allege that the debt collector obtained over
120,000 default judgments against New York consumers by using
affidavits that falsely claim the consumers had been properly
served when they had not. The plaintiffs claim that the judgments
are the result of defendants' construction of a "default judgment
mill." The "mill" operates by first obtaining charged-off consumer
debt; then, by initiating a debt-collection action by serving a
summons and complaint on the purported debtor; and finally, by
submitting fraudulent documents to the New York City Civil Court
in order to obtain a default judgment.

The Defendants have argued that this alleged conduct is not
actionable under the FDCPA because the allegedly false
communications were directed to the court and not the consumer.

The case was appealed to the Second Circuit, with Defendants
claiming the court was not within its rights to grant class action
status to the lawsuit.

The Bureau, joined by the Federal Trade Commission, filed a brief
in November, 2013, arguing that the overall scheme is better
understood as, in fact, being directed at the consumer, but that
in any event, the relevant provisions of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C.
1692e and 1692f, do not require that false communications or other
misconduct be directed at the consumer.

In February 2015, the Second Circuit ruled in a split decision
that the district court was within its rights to grant class
action status to the case.

A settlement was filed in the case, awarding $59 million to tens
of thousands of New Yorkers who had their bank accounts frozen and
wages garnished in connection with the alleged scheme.

The law firm in question, Mel S. Harris & Associates, has recently
gone out of business. The settlement names several debt buyers
with names related to "L-Credit," which are subsidiaries of
Leucadia National, a publicly traded holding company.

The process-server named in the lawsuit, Samserv Inc., agreed to
stop serving process in consumer debt-collection cases and to
start paying process servers as much money for unsuccessful
attempts as for successful ones, according to the settlement.

Any Class Member who wishes to object to the fairness,
reasonableness, or adequacy of the proposed Settlements, including
the Allocation Plan and/or Class Counsel's Attorney's Fees and
Expenses Application, may do so by filing an objection as noted in
the filing.


NUVASIVE INC: Fifth Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nuvasive, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Plaintiff has
filed a Fifth Amended Complaint in a securities class action.

On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California naming the Company and certain of its current and
former executive officers for allegedly making false and
materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results, specifically relating to the purported
improper submission of false claims to Medicare and Medicaid.

The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from
October 22, 2008 to July 30, 2013. The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.

On February 13, 2014, the lead plaintiff ("Plaintiff") filed an
Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal
Securities Laws. The District Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss the Amended Complaint and ordered Plaintiff to amend
its complaint. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on
September 8, 2014, and the District Court once again granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. On
December 23, 2014 Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss, and while the Company's motion
was pending, Plaintiff sought leave to file a Fourth Amended
Complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended
Complaint.

On August 28, 2015, the District Court issued an order granting
the Company's motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint with
leave to amend. On September 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Fifth
Amended Complaint. At September 30, 2015, the probable outcome of
this litigation cannot be determined, nor can the Company estimate
a range of potential loss. In accordance with authoritative
guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, the Company has
not recorded an accrual related to this litigation.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Consolidated Class Suits Re-Filed
--------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that both the
consolidated class action and the consolidated securities fraud
class action have been re-filed in federal court.

The Company said, "Following our announcement on August 12, 2014
that we intended to restate our financial statements for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and the quarter ended March
31, 2014, and amend our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013 and our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014, putative securities fraud
class action lawsuits have been filed against Ocwen and certain of
its officers and directors regarding such restatements and
amendments. Those lawsuits have been consolidated and are pending
in federal court in Florida.  After Ocwen signed a Consent Order
with the NYDFS on December 22, 2014, the consolidated class action
complaint was amended to include allegations relating to that
Consent Order and other matters."

"In January 2015, Ocwen was named as a defendant in a separate
consolidated securities fraud class action that has been brought
on behalf of a putative class of Altisource shareholders.

"On September 4, 2015, the presiding federal court dismissed both
the above-referenced consolidated class action and the above-
referenced consolidated securities fraud class action. Both of
those actions have since been re-filed in federal court."


OUTERWALL INC: Oral Argument Held in Class Action Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Outerwall Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that oral argument was
scheduled for November 10, 2015, in an appeal related to a class
action.

In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a putative class action complaint against our Redbox subsidiary in
the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair
County, Illinois. The plaintiff alleged that, among other things,
Redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive late fees in
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, and that Redbox's rental terms violate the Illinois
Rental Purchase Agreement Act or the Illinois Automatic Contract
Renewal Act and the plaintiff is seeking monetary damages and
other relief.

In November 2009, Redbox removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In February 2010, the
District Court remanded the case to the Circuit Court for the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. In May
2010, the court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
complaint.

In November 2011, the plaintiff moved for class certification, and
Redbox moved for summary judgment. The court denied Redbox's
motion for summary judgment in February 2012.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 19, 2012, and an
amended motion for class certification on June 5, 2012. The court
denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The
amended class certification motion was briefed and argued.

At the hearing on plaintiff's amended motion for class
certification, the plaintiff dismissed all claims but two and is
pursuing only her claims under the Illinois Rental Purchase
Agreement Act and the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act.

On May 21, 2013, the court denied plaintiff's amended class action
motion. On January 29, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court denied
plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal the trial court's denial
of class certification.

Redbox has moved to dismiss all remaining claims on mootness
grounds, and the Court granted Redbox's motion on December 11,
2014. The plaintiffs appealed on January 7, 2015. Oral argument
was scheduled for November 10, 2015.

"We believe that the claims against us are without merit and
intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter. Currently,
no accrual has been established as it was not possible to estimate
the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not
advanced to a stage where we could make any such estimate," the
Company said.


PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of N.J. Class Action Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015.

On October 3, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the
Company and several of its current officers, Nicholas R. Lovallo
v. Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06172-
WHW-CLW. The plaintiff amended the lawsuit on May 29, 2015. The
lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is premised on
allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and non-disclosure
of material facts, regarding the Company's business, operations,
prospects and performance during the proposed class period of
February 24, 2014 to April 29, 2015. The Company is vigorously
defending all claims asserted, including by filing a motion to
dismiss.

Given the early stage of the litigation, at this time the Company
is unable to reasonably estimate possible losses or form a
judgment that an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote.
It is not currently possible to assess whether or not the outcome
of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the
Company.


PARTY CITY: Rosen Firm Files Securities Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it
has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Party
City Holdco Inc. (NYSE:PRTY) securities pursuant and/or traceable
to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection
with Party City's April 16, 2015 initial public offering ("IPO").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Party City investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the Party City class action, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-783.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or
via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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

The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose certain
risks in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, including the
impact on Party City due to: (1) soft consumer traffic trends; (2)
the extraordinary performance of the Disney Frozen franchise from
the prior year; and (3) the store reset initiative. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
January 19, 2016. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-783.htmlfor more
information. You may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan,
Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.

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


PROCTER & GAMBLE: 6th Circ. Stays Certification Pending Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reported that Procter & Gamble ("P&G")
stomached a loss last August when the Sixth Circuit affirmed
certification of a false advertising class action regarding P&G's
Align probiotic supplement. But on October 27, the Sixth Circuit
stayed its decision pending P&G's petition for certiorari to the
Supreme Court. P&G contends that plaintiffs have not sufficiently
demonstrated a common injury.

P&G began to sell Align in 2005, mainly through doctor-driven
sales. In 2009, it launched a widespread promotional campaign.
Plaintiffs alleged Align was "snake oil" that produced only a
placebo effect rather than true digestive health benefits. The
three named plaintiffs had purchased the supplements in several
different states, including California, Florida, Illinois, New
Hampshire and North Carolina. The suit was originally filed in
California federal court before it was moved to Ohio federal
court, where U.S. District Judge Timothy S. Black granted a motion
to certify the suit as five single-state class actions. A split
three-judge panel for the Sixth Circuit upheld this decision.

In its opposition to class certification, P&G argued that there
was insufficient evidence of a common injury incurred by class
members, and indeed, that the named plaintiffs had not shown that
they suffered any injury at all, because they presented only
anecdotal claims that the product was ineffective. In her dissent
from the majority decision affirming class certification, Sixth
Circuit Judge Deborah Cook agreed with P&G, writing that the class
should not have been certified because they had not presented
sufficient evidence of Align's alleged ineffectiveness. According
to Judge Cook, plaintiffs claimed Align produced only a placebo
effect, but they "offer no proof in support of this argument, and
all the available evidence tends to show the opposite: that
consumers benefit more or less from Align based on their
individual gastrointestinal health." However, the Sixth Circuit
glossed over this, ruling that at the class certification stage,
plaintiffs must show only that they can eventually prove a common
injury, not that they have already done so.

On October 6, P&G moved to stay this ruling, arguing that the
Sixth Circuit had upheld certification despite a lack of evidence
that consumers were actually harmed. The stay motion pointed out
that Judge Cook's dissent highlighted the "substantial dispute
that exists on these issues" and argued that the "certify first,
ask for proof later approach" endorsed by the Sixth Circuit
conflicted with the Seventh Circuit's decision in Szabo v.
Bridgeport Machs., Inc, 249 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2001). In Szabo,
the Seventh Circuit held that "certifying classes on the basis of
incontestable allegations in the complaint moves the court's
discretion to the plaintiff's attorneys -- who may use it in ways
injurious to other class members, as well as ways injurious to
defendants." Thus, P&G claimed, this ruling deepened the circuit
split over common injury requirements at the certification stage.

Consequently, it argued, the Supreme Court is likely to consider
the issue by granting certiorari in either this case or the
Seventh Circuit's Mullins v. Direct Digital decision, which
implicates similar issues. 795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2015).

P&G additionally argued that the case involves similar issues to
two other cases for which certiorari already has been granted:
Tyson Foods Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146, cert. granted 135 S.
Ct. 2806 (2015), which raises the issue of standing for unnamed
class members; and Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339, cert.
granted 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015), concerning whether statutory
violations alone can confer standing in civil suits. Certiorari
was granted in both of these cases, and both have been argued.

In response to P&G's motion, the Sixth Circuit temporarily stayed
its mandate to allow P&G to file its cert petition and for the
Supreme Court to rule on it.


QLOGIC CORPORATION: Class Action Filed in California Court
----------------------------------------------------------
QLogic Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a purported class
action was commenced on September 28, 2015, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California asserting claims
arising under federal securities laws against the Company and
certain individual defendants.  The plaintiff purports to
represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between April 30, 2015 and July 30, 2015.  The plaintiff
alleges that the defendants engaged in a scheme to inflate the
Company's stock price by making false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's operations, financial results and future
business prospects in violation of federal securities laws.  The
plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, interest and an award of
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company has not yet
been served with the complaint.


RORY W. CLARK: Scheduling Conference Postponed
----------------------------------------------
A scheduling conference set for October 26, 2015, has been
postponed indefinitely in the case captioned, Anthony Cove v. Law
Office of Rory W. Clark; Matthew J. Kumar, Case No. 15-00700-
AB(KKX)(C.D. Cal.).

The scheduling conference will be reset upon resolution of an
order to show cause, District Judge Andre Birotte, Jr. of the
United States District Court for Central District of California,
said.

Plaintiff Anthony Cove brought the putative class action on August
10, 2015 and filed a waiver of service upon Defendants Law Office
of Rory W. Clark and Matthew J. Kumar on May 14, 2015. The parties
filed their Joint Rule 26(f) Report on October 16, 2015. In the
Joint Report, Plaintiff requests that the Court set a date for
Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion that allows sufficient time
for discovery of class related issues Defendants, on the other
hand, "oppose the handling of this matter as a class action and
ask that discovery and class certification be stayed until the
ruling on Defendants' motion for summary judgment." Neither party
addresses the impact of Local Civil Rule 23-3.

In his Civil Minutes dated October 23, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/hjhUHmfrom Leagle.com, Judge Birotte, Jr. concluded
that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the mandatory filing
deadline set forth in Local Civil Rule 23-3. Plaintiff was ordered
to show cause no later than November 2, 2015 why the Court should
not strike Plaintiff's class action allegations pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f)(1) as immaterial in light of
Plaintiff's failure to timely move for class certification or to
timely seek an extension of time to file for class certification.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Robert E. Schroth, Jr., Esq.
Robert E Schroth, Sr., Esq.
SCHROTH SCHROTH AND MADIGAN
610 W Broadway # 201,
Jackson, WY 83001
Tel: (307)733-5610

     - and -

Amy Lynn Bennecoff Ginsburg, Esq.
KIMMEL AND SILVERMAN, PC
30 E Butler Ave
Ambler, PA 19002
Tel: (215)540-8888

Defendants are represented by Matthew J. Kumar, Esq. --
matthew@rwclarklaw.com -- LAW OFFICE OF RORY W CLARK APLC


SAFI-G: "Yunda" Suit Alleges Violation of Fair Labor Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alvaro Yunda, and all others similarly-situated v. SAFI-G, Inc.,
Case 1:15-cv-08861 (S.D.N.Y., November 10, 2015), seeks to recover
monetary damages, liquidated damages, interest and costs,
including reasonable attorney's fees, as a result of willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Article 6 and 19 of
the New York Labor Law by SAFI-G, Inc.

The labor suit arises out of an alleged under-compensation by
SAFI-G by paying on a per-shift basis instead of the mandatory
per-hour basis, paying less than the minimum wage for tipped
employees, non-payment of overtime pay for hours worked in excess
of 40 hours each week and non-payment of one additional hour of
pay at the basic minimum hourly rate in excess of 10 hours.

SAFI-G, Inc. is a business corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of New York, with a principal
executive office at 236 E. 77th Street, New York, NY 10021, and an
address for service of process at P.O. Box 23908, Brooklyn, NY
11201.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq.
      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Tel: (201) 630-0000 (office)
      Fax: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com
              jtb@jtblawgroup.com


SANTA CLARA, CA: County Jail Sued Over Inmates' Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------
Len Ramirez, writing for CBS, reported that inmates at the Santa
Clara County Jail have filed a class-action lawsuit, alleging that
they were forced to live in "inhumane conditions."

Joseph Vejar is locked up in the main jail, awaiting trial for the
last three years on drug charges. But his family said that doesn't
give jailers the right to hold him in a tiny and filthy solitary
confinement cell with little outside contact.

"This isn't rehabilitation, this is punishment. For conspiracy of
drugs?  I don't understand," said Benee Vejar, the inmate's wife.

The Prison Law Office said inmates suspected of having gang ties
are being housed in the same maximum security conditions, some of
the most inhumane the watchdog group has seen.

"The conditions in Santa Clara are worse that what we have seen in
many other jails and they are certainly worse than we have seen in
the state prison system," said Kelly Knapp of the Prison Law
Office.

The group filed a class action lawsuit against Santa Clara County
on behalf of hundreds of inmates, alleging their 14th Amendment
rights to due process and basic human needs are being violated.

Knapp said, "The County is isolating people without human
interactions, environmental stimulation, fresh air, sunlight, 22
to 24 hours a day for months or years at a time."

It's one of a mounting number of lawsuits and investigations
targeted at the jail in the aftermath of the killing of mentally
ill inmate Michael Tyree, allegedly at the hands of three jail
guards last august.

"We have already taken steps to improve operations in our custody
facilities," said Sgt. James Jensen of the Santa Clara County
Sheriff's Office.

A spokesman read a statement from the sheriff, saying she
appreciates the perspective of the Prison Law Office in ongoing
efforts to improve practices and training.

But families say that's little comfort for their loved ones behind
bars right now.

"Something needs to change.  I can't believe this is happening
here," Benee Vejar said. "I have lost all faith in the justice
system.  There is no justice."


SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissal of "Hassett" Action Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
Sensata Technologies Holding N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that
Sensata filed motions to dismiss the Hassett class action.

On March 19, 2015, two named plaintiffs filed a class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan against Chrysler and Schrader-Bridgeport International,
Inc., styled Hassett v. FCA US, LLC et al., case number
2:2015cv11030 (E.D. Michigan). The lawsuit alleges that faulty
valve stems were used in Schrader TPMS installed on Chrysler
vehicles model years 2007 through 2014. It alleges breach of
warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Michigan
consumer protection act and the federal Magnuson-Moss warranty
act, and is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Both the
size of the class and the damages sought are unspecified. The
plaintiffs, now joined by an additional individual, have filed an
amended complaint dated June 2, 2015.

On July 23, 2015, along with Chrysler, Sensata filed motions to
dismiss. The court scheduled a hearing on these motions for
November 9, 2015.

"We do not believe a loss is probable, and as of September 30,
2015, we have not recorded an accrual related to this matter," the
Company said.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Scheduling Order Entered in Suit v. AirTran
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Court has
entered a scheduling order to complete the briefing on defendants'
motions for summary judgment, the motion for class certification,
and motions to exclude experts by January 2016.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta
Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009.
The complaint alleged, among other things, that AirTran attempted
to monopolize air travel in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the
first item of checked luggage in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act. The initial complaint sought treble damages on behalf
of a putative class of persons or entities in the United States
who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on domestic
flights beginning December 5, 2008.

After the filing of the May 2009 complaint, various other nearly
identical complaints also seeking certification as class actions
were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia;
Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada. All of the cases were
consolidated before a single federal district court judge in
Atlanta. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in the
consolidated action on February 1, 2010, which broadened the
allegations to add claims that Delta and AirTran conspired to
reduce capacity on competitive routes and to raise prices in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

In addition to treble damages for the amount of first baggage fees
paid to AirTran and to Delta, the Consolidated Amended Complaint
seeks injunctive relief against a broad range of alleged
anticompetitive activities, as well as attorneys' fees.

On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that
AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the
Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the
imposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and
pricing decisions.

On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class, which AirTran and Delta have opposed. The parties have
submitted briefs on class certification, and AirTran filed a
motion to exclude the class certification reports of plaintiffs'
expert. The Court has not yet ruled on the class certification
motion or the related motion to exclude plaintiffs' expert.

The parties engaged in extensive discovery, which was extended due
to discovery disputes between plaintiffs and Delta, but discovery
has now closed.

On June 18, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order that
plaintiffs have abandoned their claim that AirTran and Delta
conspired to reduce capacity. On August 31, 2012, AirTran and
Delta moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' remaining
claims, but discovery disputes between plaintiffs and Delta
delayed further briefing on summary judgment.

On December 2, 2013, plaintiffs moved for discovery sanctions
against Delta, which the Court resolved by Order dated August 3,
2015.

On August 5, 2015, the Court entered an order granting class
certification, which was vacated on August 17, 2015, to permit
further briefing on class certification and AirTran's motion to
exclude plaintiffs' expert.

On August 24, 2015, the Court entered a scheduling order to
complete the briefing on defendants' motions for summary judgment,
the motion for class certification, and motions to exclude experts
by January 2016.

AirTran denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in
the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and intends to defend
vigorously any and all such allegations.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: MDL Panel Centralized Consumer Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation has centralized
several cases filed against U.S. airline companies to the Federal
District Court in the District of Columbia, Southwest Airlines Co.
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015.

On July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the
Company, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines
to limit capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Since then, a number of similar class action complaints have been
filed in the United States District Courts for the Central
District of California, the Northern District of California, the
District of Columbia, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern
District of Florida, the Northern District of Georgia, the
Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Indiana,
the Eastern District of Louisiana, the District of Minnesota, the
Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New York,
the Middle District of North Carolina, the District of Oklahoma,
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern District of
Texas, the District of Vermont, and the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.

The complaints seek treble damages for periods that vary among the
complaints, costs, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief.

The time for the Company to respond to the complaints varies by
case and has not yet expired. Requests to transfer the pre-trial
proceedings of these cases into to a single federal court were
filed with the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ("MDL
Panel"), and on October 13, 2015, the MDL Panel centralized the
cases to the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia.
The Company intends to vigorously defend these civil cases.


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Shareholder Class Action Filed in Colo.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Spectranetics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a
stockholder filed on August 27, 2015, a purported shareholder
class action against the Company and certain of its officers in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based
on alleged statements made by the Company between February 19,
2015 and July 23, 2015.

"Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
alleged class, interest, and attorney's fees and costs of
litigation. The court will consider motions for the appointment of
lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the near future. After the
court appoints the lead plaintiff and lead counsel, we expect the
plaintiff to file an amended complaint and we will respond," the
Company said.


SPIRIT AIRLINES: Deal Reached with Plaintiffs' Representatives
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit Airlines, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a mediation has
been held on two cases, during which the Company and plaintiffs'
representatives reached a settlement.

In August 2014, two cases (entitled Rosen v. Spirit Airlines and
Legg v. Spirit Airlines) were filed against the Company in federal
court in Illinois and Florida, respectively. The Rosen case was
subsequently transferred to Florida. The cases, which contain
identical claims, allege violations of the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act.

On August 19, 2015, a mediation was held on the two cases, during
which the Company and plaintiffs' representatives reached a
settlement. Because one of the cases had been previously certified
as a class action, the agreed settlement will be subject to a
court approval process. Amounts agreed to be paid by the Company
under the settlement are not material.


STRAIGHT PATH: Faces Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that
a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Straight
Path Communications, Inc. (NYSE: STRP) ("Straight Path" or the
"Company") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between October 29, 2013 and November 5, 2015, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

Straight Path shareholders who wish to discuss this action and
their legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela,
Esq. or Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299 -- 7706 or at
info@ktmc.com.

For additional information about this lawsuit, or to request
information about this action online, please visit
http://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/straight-path-communications-inc.
Paragraph before: Straight Path is a communications asset company.
The Company reports in public filings that it holds 828 licenses
of 39 gigahertz ("GHz") band and 133 licenses in the multipoint
distribution service band.

Straight Path is a communications asset company.  The Company
reports in public filings that it holds 828 licenses of 39
gigahertz ("GHz") band and 133 licenses in the multipoint
distribution service band.

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that Straight Path
and certain of its executive officers made a series of false and
misleading statements during the Class Period, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, the defendants are
alleged to have made materially false and misleading statements to
investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
commercialibility of Straight Path's spectrum assets is less than
touted; (2) Straight Path's spectrum licenses were improperly
obtained; and (3) as a result, Straight Path's public statements
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.

On October 29, 2015, Kerrisdale Capital published a report
questioning the commercial viability of Straight Path's spectrum
licenses. Following this report, shares of the Company's common
stock fell $18.23 per share, or over 38%, to close on October 29,
2015 at $29.35 per share.

Then, on November 5, 2015, Sinclair Upton Research published a
report asserting, among other things, that the "vast majority" of
Straight Path's spectrum licenses "were obtained under fraudulent
misrepresentation, because the systems were never built on the
sites" as specified in regulatory filings.  Following this report,
shares of the Company's common stock fell an additional $13.70 per
share, or over 51%, to close on November 5, 2015 at $12.81 per
share.

Straight Path shareholders who purchased their securities during
the Class Period may, no later than January 12, 2016, petition the
Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff of the class.

A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class in the action.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not
affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff.  Any member of the purported class may move the court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state
and federal courts throughout the country.  Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and
has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and
individual investors from the United States and around the world.
The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers
(private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the
government and share in the recovery of government dollars).  The
complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check.  For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
or for additional information about participating in this action,
please visit www.ktmc.com.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
Darren J. Check, Esq.
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(888) 299-7706
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com


SUNTIME ENERGY: Los Angeles Woman Files Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Sharon Spungen, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a Los
Angeles woman, on behalf of herself and others, is bringing a
lawsuit against a solar power company for collection calls which
were allegedly made to cellular phones without agreement or
permission.

Marissa Weisberg, on her own behalf and for others similarly
situated, is suing Suntime Energy and 10 additional unnamed
defendants in a class action lawsuit filed Nov. 13 in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, citing
willful and/or negligent violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Weisberg alleges that beginning in October, she started receiving
automated telephone calls on her cellular telephone regarding the
collection of a debt owed to Suntime Energy by her mother. She
further states that these calls were not emergency calls as
statutorily defined, at no time did she provide prior consent to
receiving automated telephone calls, and that her cellular service
provider charges her for incoming calls.

Weisberg, in the complaint, purports to be bringing this lawsuit
on behalf of herself and any other individuals similarly called
with this automated dialing system who had not consented to these
calls or provided defendants with their cellular telephone number.
She identifies the stated harm caused as the reduction in
available telephone minutes or increased fees for individuals so
affected as a direct result of the defendants' alleged negligent
and willful breaches of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act with
respect to each and every potential class action member.

Weisberg states the anticipated total amount of damages exceeds
the $5,000,000 jurisdictional requirement for federal court
jurisdiction as well as individual damages of up to $1,500 per
call for the willful and knowing and/or negligent actions of
defendants. She is represented by attorney Todd M. Friedman of the
Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman located in Beverly Hills.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Appeal from Decertificaton Ruling Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Grisolano, writing for Landline Mag, reported that a lawsuit
more than a decade in the making that claims Swift Transportation
shorted drivers hundreds of millions of dollars on mileage-based
pay is on hold pending the outcome of a motion to appeal a judge's
ruling to decertify the case as a class-action.

The ruling to decertify the class was issued in July by Judge
Richard Gama, the same judge who in 2013 certified the class and
ruled that former Swift driver Leonel Garza would serve as the
representative. In his ruling to decertify the class, Gama wrote
that Swift presented "overwhelming evidence" that it did disclose
and explain to both owner-operators and employee drivers "that
miles determined by HHG were less than the actual miles driven"
and that Garza's claim "is not typical of the class claim."

The decertification ruling means that Garza is free to pursue his
own individual lawsuit for damages against the company, but he no
longer acts as the legal stand-in for an estimated 60,000 to
80,000 employee drivers and owner-operators who were allegedly
underpaid by the company's Household Goods mileage formula. The
initial lawsuit, filed back in 2004 in Maricopa County Superior
Court in Arizona, alleges the drivers were underpaid by hundreds
of millions of dollars.

Michella Kras, an attorney with Hagens Berman, a national law firm
that had been representing the plaintiffs in the class-action,
said the judge's ruling is "a little bit of a roadblock."

"He said in light of new evidence Swift had shown that it did
explain HHG to drivers," Kras said in a phone interview with Land
Line. "We obviously disagree with that.

"When we've averaged it out, (the amount shorted) has been between
8 and 9 percent, which is pretty high," she said. "The fact that
(mileage) may vary doesn't tell a driver that, across the board,
you're going to get shorted 8 percent. Eight percent of your time
is essentially free for us."

Two classes of drivers were certified in the class action ruling
in 2013, including employee drivers and owner-operators, who
contracted with Swift. Those are defined as owner-operators who
contracted with Swift after March 6, 2001, and as employee
drivers, who worked for the company after April 9, 2009.

"One of the things we found that was very interesting was that
employee drivers who have to follow the route that Swift gives
them were actually shorted a higher percentage than owner-
operators, who could at least try to choose a route that was
better," Kras said.

The law firm was granted a stay on Garza's case pending an appeal
of the decertification. Kras said the plan is to file a special
action for the appeal. If the appeals court accepts the case, a
ruling on whether to recertify the class or to uphold the
decertification would most likely occur in 2016.

"There's no automatic right to appeal on a decertification order
for a case that's as old as ours," she said. "Newer cases there
are, but our case is so old, the statute doesn't apply."

The case has made at least two previous trips to state's Court of
Appeals, and even one trip to the Arizona Supreme Court.


TYSON FOODS: High Court Hears Arguments in Wage and Hour Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reported that the United States Supreme
Court heard oral arguments in a donning and doffing class and
collective action against Tyson Foods, Inc. that has the potential
to dramatically expand the certification of class and collective
wage and hour "off-the-clock" actions.

The Fictional "Average Employee"

One of the primary issues in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, No.
14-1146, is whether the plaintiffs' use of statistical averages in
a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") case was appropriate to
certify a federal Rule 23(b)(3) damages class and to prove
liability and damages at trial.  The plaintiffs relied on expert
testimony to prove that a class of more than 3,000 workers at an
Iowa pork processing plant were owed overtime wages for time spent
donning and doffing personal protective equipment and walking to
and from their workstations.  At trial, the plaintiffs used
statistical evidence of the average donning, doffing and walking
times for employees, resulting in a jury verdict against Tyson

Foods in excess of $5.8 million.  They relied on individual time
sheets and average times calculated by their expert from more than
700 videotape observations of employees putting on and taking off
protective gear and walking to their workstations.

Relying on the Supreme Court's recent employer-friendly class
action decisions in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541
(2011) and Comcast v. Behrend, 133 S.Ct. 1426 (2013), Tyson Foods
appealed the verdict to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.  It
argued that the plaintiffs' reliance on statistical evidence
improperly "presume[s] that all class members are identical to a
fictional 'average' employee," which is contrary to the so-called
"trial by formula" prohibition in Dukes and Behrend for
determining classwide liability and damage.

A divided (2-1) panel of the Eighth Circuit disagreed with Tyson
Foods' positions.  Based on a split in the circuits, the Supreme
Court granted certification on (1) whether differences among
individual class members may be ignored and a class action
certified under Rule 23(b)(3), or a collective action certified
under the FLSA, where liability and damages will be determined
with statistical techniques that presume all class members are
identical to the average observed in a sample; and (2) whether a
class action may be certified or maintained under Rule 23(b)(3),
or a collective action certified or maintained under the FLSA,
when the class contains hundreds of members who were not injured
and have no legal right to any damages.

Will Statistical Modeling Be Permitted to Show Classwide
Violations Under the FLSA?

Some of the Justices, including the likely swing-vote, Justice
Kennedy, appeared skeptical of Tyson Foods' argument that the
plaintiffs could not rely on statistical averages as the mechanism
to demonstrate commonality and typicality among workers when there
was evidence Tyson Foods did not keep accurate or adequate time
records.  Several Justices cited to the burden-shifting framework
in off-the-clock cases established after Anderson v. Mount Clemens
Pottery Co., 380 U.S. 680 (1946) (where the employer's records are
inaccurate or inadequate and the employee cannot offer convincing
substitutes, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate the
precise amount of work performed or to refute the inference to be
drawn from the employee's evidence).  In addition, Justice Kennedy
suggested that Tyson Foods might have waived arguments by not
challenging the plaintiffs' statistical experts at trial, by
objecting to bifurcating the liability and damages phases of the
trial, and by not seeking a special jury verdict for determination
and apportionment of damages among class members.

On the other side, Justices Alito and Roberts questioned whether
the use of averaging is appropriate when the job positions and
equipment used by workers were undisputedly different among the
workers included in the class, and where it was undisputed that
some workers did not perform the activities in question and
therefore suffered no injury.  Justice Alito asked, "How can you
separate the employees who were injured from the employees who
were not injured" or "how much time the employees were entitled
to" except in "a very slap-dash fashion?"  The Chief Justice
echoed this point, stating "once the jury rejects plaintiffs'
"average statistics, . . . there's no way to tell whether
everybody who's going to get money was injured or not."

Takeaways

The Tyson Foods case highlights the difficulties employers
continue to face when determining whether their workers'
"preliminary" (time spent before the principal work begins) and
"postliminary" activities (time spent after the principal work
ends) are compensable in the first place under the FLSA. As
Justice Alito asked at oral argument, "What do you think an
employer should do about recordkeeping when the employer believes
that certain activities need not be counted under the FLSA? . . .
Is it supposed to keep two sets of records?"  The answer,
according to the DOJ's attorney, is that "Mt. Clemens . . .
make[s] clear that the employer is stuck with its mistake . . . ."
Tyson Foods also shows that despite the Court's decisions in Dukes
and Comcast, which many commentators predicted would be the death
knell of employment class actions, courts continue to certify
classes where the plaintiffs can muster enough evidence (including
statistical "averages" through qualified experts) to overcome the
presumption of individualized differences among class members.

Further, while the lack of accurate time records is not an
insurmountable obstacle to defeating an employee's claim that he
or she (or a group of workers) did not receive overtime for
compensable time worked in excess of 40 hours, it could provide an
opening under the Mt. Clemens standard for employees to take
advantage of "relaxed" standards of proof ("just and reasonable
inference") to show wage violations under the FLSA, which
ultimately could allow them to avoid early dismissal and get to a
jury.


UBER: Loses Appeal to Deny Class Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------
Peter Mondrose, writing for Business 2 Community, reported that
Uber's request to immediately appeal an order approving class
certification in a lawsuit filed by its own contract drivers was
denied by a U.S. appeals court.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, is set to
hear the lawsuit which was filed by drivers who contend they are
employees and entitled to reimbursement for expenses, including
gas and vehicle maintenance. Uber drivers currently pay those
costs themselves.

Earlier in the year, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San
Francisco said California drivers could sue as a group on the
question of whether they are employees or contractors. There are
also question surrounding how Uber hands out tips to drivers due
to the split commission structure of the service.

"We look forward to presenting the facts about how drivers use
Uber with complete flexibility and control over their work to a
jury," Uber attorney Theodore Boutrous said in a statement.
Shannon Liss-Riordan, an attorney representing the plaintiff
drivers, said they are pleased with the 9th Circuit's decision.

Uber drivers who have worked for the service since May 2014 must
specifically opt out of an arbitration agreement in order to sue
the company.

Only a small fraction of a potential 160,000 Uber drivers are
eligible for the class action lawsuit.

The case is Douglas O'Connor et al v. Uber Technologies Inc, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California, No. 13-3826.


UNITED AUTO WORKERS: Lawyer in "Hare" Class Action Steps Down
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David M. Lawson granted the request of Mandel I.
Allweil, Esq., to withdraw as counsel of record in the putative
class action, WILBERT HARE, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND 65 SIMILARLY
SITUATED MEMBERS OF UNITED AUTO WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 668 AND
EMPLOYEES OF THE GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v.
INTERNATIONAL UNION UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, AND AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW), and GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Defendants, CASE NO. 15-12043 (E.D. Mich.).

It appears that there is a disagreement between Mr. Hare, the
named plaintiff, and Mr. Allweil as to the manner in which to
proceed in this case.

The Court directed the plaintiff to find suitable counsel to
represent him and the class, or the case will be dismissed without
prejudice. The attorney must file an appearance with the Court on
or before December 21, 2015.

A motion hearing set for December 8, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. is
adjourned until further notice of the Court.

A copy of the Court's Nov. 20 Order is available at
http://is.gd/xLi13Bfrom Leagle.com.

Wilbert Hare, Plaintiff, represented by Wilbert Hare.

UAW (Local 668), Defendant, represented by John R. Canzano,
Klimist, McKnight & Patrick J. Rorai, McKnight, McClow, Canzano,
Smith & Radtke, P.C..

General Motors LLC, Defendant, represented by Alex L. Alexopoulos,
Starr, Butler, Alexopoulos, & Stoner, PLLC, Kay R. Butler, Starr,
Butler, Alexopoulos & Stoner, PLLC & Thomas Schramm, Nemeth Law.


UNITED STATES: H-2B Visa Workers Sue Over Depressed Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News reported that supplemental wages for visa-holding
immigrants have been on hold for two years with no sign of relief,
at least 1,500 temporary workers claim in a federal class action.

Administered by the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor,
the H-2B visa program allows employers to bring foreign workers to
the United States to perform temporary, unskilled work.

Prior to filing an H-2B petition with Homeland Security, an
employer must confirm that no "qualified" U.S. workers are
available to perform the position sought at the "prevailing wage"
set by the Department of Labor.

Though the Labor Department published its newest wage rule in
2011, numerous lawsuits from employers and opposition from
Congress have repeatedly kept the department from implementing the
new wage rule, leaving the 2008 calculation in place.

A federal judge in Pennsylvania even invalidated the older rule in
2013, but supplemental prevailing wages remain on hold.

In a federal class action in Baltimore, lead plaintiff Pablo
Gonzalez-Aviles notes that nearly a year has passed the Department
announced that it would resolve the issue.

"In the ensuing nine months since the close of the comment period,
DOL has taken no action on the proposed declaratory order and on
October 26, 2015, in response to inquiries, DOL's counsel
indicated that 'DOL has no plans to issue the Declaratory Order by
a date certain,'" the complaint states.

With their right to receive wages from work in 2013 faced with an
"indefinite stay," the class says there is no adequate remedy.

"Even if the stay is lifted, DOL's actions have severely
handicapped the ability of workers to recover their lost SPWD
wages because employers have been under no obligation to notify
their workers of the SPWD issue," the complaint states,
abbreviating supplemental prevailing wage determination. "Each day
that DOL continues to hold the Employer Defendants administrative
appeals of the SPWD in abeyance makes it more difficult to locate
workers to inform them of their right to receive SPWDs."

The class also emphasizes that paying H-2B workers below the SPWD
level causes depressed wages for U.S. workers in occupations in
which H-2B workers are employed.

Had the new rule taken effect, Maryland landscape workers would
earn $12.86 an hour, up from $9.49 per hour. As many as 58,000 H-
2B workers were employed in the jobs subject to the SPWD set by
the DOL in 2013.

In addition to the U.S. Department of Labor, the complaint names
more than 80 Maryland employers as defendants. The class says
these employers have used "administrative appeals to challenge the
legality of the Secretary of Labor's SPWD wage requirement."

As time passes, it will only become more difficult to find workers
and pay them the higher wages they are due, according to the
complaint.

Neither a spokesman for the Department of Labor nor attorneys for
the plaintiffs responded to emails seeking comment regarding the
case.


UNUM GROUP: Hearing in November on Class Certification Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that a hearing is scheduled in
November on plaintiffs' motion seeking certification of five
subclasses.

In May 2013, a purported class action complaint was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.  The
plaintiff sought to represent a class of California insureds who
were issued long-term care policies containing an inflation
protection feature.  The plaintiff alleged we incorrectly
administered the inflation protection feature, resulting in an
underpayment of benefits.  The complaint made allegations against
us for breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, violation of Business
and Professions Code 17200, and injunctive relief.

"We removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California and filed a motion to dismiss," the
Company said.  "Rather than oppose the motion, the plaintiff filed
an amended complaint, and we filed another motion to dismiss."

"In August 2014, the District Court dismissed the fraud claim as
well as plaintiff's requests for injunctive and declaratory
relief, but granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.
The amended complaint alleged breach of contract, bad faith,
fraud, and violation of Business and Professions Code 17200 on
behalf of a nationwide class of insureds who were issued long-term
care policies containing an inflation protection feature.

"In October 2014, we answered the second amended complaint. In
December 2014, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why he
was an adequate representative with claims typical of the putative
class.

"In March 2015, the court permitted the plaintiff to file a third
amended complaint entitled Michael Don, Executor of The Estate of
Ruben Don, Leroy Little, by and through his Guardian ad Litem
Tamara Pelham, and Carolyn Little v. Unum Group, and Unum Life
Insurance Company of America. The complaint alleges breach of
contract, bad faith, fraud, and violation of Business and
Professions Code 17200 and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief
on behalf of a nationwide class of insureds who were issued long-
term care policies containing an inflation protection feature.

"In April 2015, we answered the third amended complaint. Also in
April 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification of
five subclasses, and we filed our opposition. The motion is fully
briefed, and a hearing is scheduled for November 2015.

"We accrued an estimated loss contingency in the second quarter of
2015, the amount of which was immaterial to our consolidated
financial position and results of operations."


VENTAS INC: Settlement Reached in HCT Acquisition Case
------------------------------------------------------
Ventas, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the plaintiffs in
the Maryland state court action have submitted a stipulation of
settlement related to the litigation relating to the acquisition
of American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. ("HCT").

"In the weeks following the announcement on June 2, 2014 of our
agreement to acquire HCT, a total of 13 putative class actions
were filed by purported HCT stockholders challenging the
transaction," the Company said.  "Certain of the actions also
purport to bring derivative claims on behalf of HCT. Among other
things, the lawsuits allege that the directors of HCT breached
their fiduciary duties by approving the transaction and that we
and our subsidiaries, Stripe Sub, LLC and Stripe OP, LP, aided and
abetted this purported breach of fiduciary duty. The complaints
seek injunctive relief and damages."

Ten of these actions were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, Maryland and consolidated under the caption In re: American
Realty Capital, Healthcare Trust, Inc. Shareholder & Derivative
Litigation, Case No. 24-C-14-003534, two actions were filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, and
one action was filed in the United States District Court of
Maryland.

On January 2, 2015, the parties to the consolidated Maryland state
court action entered into a memorandum of understanding that
contemplated the settlement of the Maryland action and the release
of all claims that could be brought by or on behalf of any HCT
stockholder related to the HCT acquisition, including all claims
asserted on behalf of each alleged class of HCT stockholders. The
proposed settlement terms require HCT to make certain additional
disclosures related to the merger, which were set forth in HCT's
Current Report on Form 8-K dated January 2, 2015.

On January 5, 2015, the parties to the federal action also entered
into a memorandum of understanding that contemplated the
settlement of the federal action and the release of all claims
that could be brought by or on behalf of any HCT stockholder
related to the HCT acquisition, including all claims asserted on
behalf of each alleged class of HCT stockholders. The proposed
settlement terms required HCT to make certain additional
disclosures related to the merger, which were set forth in HCT's
Current Report on Form 8-K dated January 5, 2015.

On August 24, 2015, the plaintiffs in the Maryland state court
action submitted a stipulation of settlement to the court executed
by the parties and moved for preliminary approval of the
settlement. The plaintiffs in the Maryland federal action have
agreed to allow the settlement to proceed through the state court
and do not currently plan to submit an additional stipulation to
the federal court. The settlement is contingent on providing
notice to HCT's stockholders, who will have an opportunity to
object to the settlement. The settlement is also contingent on
final court approval, after a hearing to be scheduled by the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland at which the court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement. There can be no assurance that the court will approve
the proposed settlement.

"We believe that each of these actions is without merit," the
Company said.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Allergan Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 26, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint
in the Allergan shareholder class action remains pending.

On December 16, 2014, Anthony Basile filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company, Valeant, AGMS, Pershing Square, PS
Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Basile v.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-
cv-02004-DOC).

On June 26, 2015, lead plaintiffs the State Teachers Retirement
System of Ohio, the Iowa Public Employees Retirement System and
Patrick T. Johnson filed an amended complaint against the Company,
Valeant, J. Michael Pearson, Pershing Square, PS Management, GP,
LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman.  The amended complaint
alleges claims on behalf of a putative class of sellers of
Allergan securities between February 25, 2014 and April 21, 2014,
against all defendants asserting violations of Section 14(e) of
the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC thereunder and
Section 20A of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint also
alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against
Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, William A. Ackman and J.
Michael Pearson. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief,
money damages, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On
August 7, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint in its entirety. The motion remains pending. The Company
intends to vigorously defend these matters.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Briefing Schedule on Dismissal Bid Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 26, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that an initial briefing schedule for Defendants' motions to
dismiss the Salix shareholder class actions has been set.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger
Agreement with Salix, 6 purported stockholder class actions were
filed challenging the Salix Acquisition. All of the actions were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and alleged claims
against some or all of the board of directors of Salix (the "Salix
Board"), the Company, Salix, Valeant and Sun Merger Sub, Inc.
("Sun Merger Sub").

On March 17, 2015, the Court consolidated the actions under the
caption Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. Shareholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No.10721-CB

On September 25, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The
operative complaint alleges generally that the members of the
Salix Board breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders, and
that the other defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by
seeking to sell Salix through an allegedly inadequate sales
process and for allegedly inadequate consideration and by agreeing
to allegedly preclusive deal protections.  The complaint also
alleges that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by Salix in connection with
the Salix Acquisition contained inaccurate or materially
misleading information about, among other things, the Salix
Acquisition and the sales process leading up to the Merger
Agreement. The complaint seeks, among other things, money damages
and unspecified attorneys' and other fees and costs.

An initial briefing schedule for Defendants' Motions to Dismiss
has been set. Salix and the Company are vigorously defending this
consolidated matter.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Potter and Chen Cases Filed in N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 26, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that two putative securities class actions were filed on
October 22 and 23, in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, against the Company and certain current or
former officers and directors, captioned Potter v. Valeant, et al.
(Case No. 15-cv-7658) and Chen v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. 15-cv-
7679).

The actions allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on a behalf of a putative class of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Valeant stock between
February 23, 2015 (February 28, 2015 in Chen) and October 20, 2015
(October 21, 2015 in Chen). The allegations relate to, among other
things, allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failures
to disclose information about the Company's business and
prospects, including relating to drug pricing, the Company's use
of specialty pharmacies and the Company's relationship with
Philidor. The Company believes the actions are without merit and
intends to defend itself vigorously.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Begins in Solodyn(R) Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 26, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that discovery has commenced in the Solodyn(R) antitrust
class actions.

Starting in July 2013, a number of civil antitrust class action
suits were filed against Medicis, the Company and various
manufacturers of generic forms of Solodyn, alleging that the
defendants engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to exclude
competition from the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended
release tablets, a prescription drug for the treatment of acne
marketed by Medicis under the brand name, Solodyn.  The plaintiffs
in such suits alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2, and of various state
antitrust and consumer protection laws, and further alleged that
the defendants have been unjustly enriched through their alleged
conduct. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief
and, where applicable, treble, multiple, punitive and/or other
damages, including attorneys' fees.

By order dated February 25, 2014, the Judicial Panel for
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") centralized the suits in the
District of Massachusetts, under the caption In re Solodyn
(Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:14-
md-02503-DJC, before U.S. District Judge Denise Casper.  After the
Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs and the End-Payor Class
Plaintiffs each filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on September 12, 2014, the defendants jointly moved to
dismiss those complaints.

On August 14, 2015, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with
respect to claims brought under Sherman Act, Section 2 and various
state laws but denied the motion to dismiss with respect to claims
brought under Sherman Act, Section 1 and other state laws.  The
Company was dismissed from the case, but the litigation will
continue against Medicis and the generic manufacturers as to the
remaining claims.  Discovery has recently commenced.

On March 26, 2015, and on April 6, 2015, while the motion to
dismiss the class action complaints was pending, 2 additional non-
class action complaints were filed against Medicis by certain
retail pharmacy and grocery chains making similar allegations and
seeking similar relief to that sought by Direct Purchaser Class
Plaintiffs.  Those suits have been centralized with the class
action suits in the District of Massachusetts.

Medicis has not yet responded to the non-class action complaints.
The Company intends to vigorously defend all of these actions.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: New Cert. Hearing in Afexa Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 26, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that a new certification hearing is expected to be held in
early 2016 in a class action over the Afexa product.

On March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia which seeks an order certifying a
proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor,
Afexa (Case No. NEW-S-S-140954). The proposed claim asserts that
Afexa and the Company made false representations respecting Cold-
FX(R) to residents of British Columbia who purchased the product
during the applicable period and that the proposed class has
suffered damages as a result.

On November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff served an amended notice of
civil claim which sought to re-characterize the representation
claims and broaden them from what was originally claimed.

On December 8, 2014, the Company filed a motion to strike certain
elements of the Plaintiff's claim for failure to state a cause of
action.  In response, the Plaintiff proposed further amendments to
its claim.  The hearing on the motion to strike and the
Plaintiff's amended claim was held on February 4, 2015.  The Court
allowed certain amendments and a new certification hearing is
expected to be held in early 2016. The Company denies the
allegations being made and is vigorously defending this matter.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: 321 MoistureLoc(TM) Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 26, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that Bausch & Lomb Holdings Incorporated ("B&L") has been
served or is aware that it has been named as a defendant in
approximately 321 currently active product liability lawsuits
(some with multiple plaintiffs) pending in a New York State
Consolidated Proceeding, as well as in certain other U.S. state
courts, on behalf of individuals who claim they suffered personal
injury as a result of using a contact lens solution with
MoistureLoc(TM). 2 consolidated cases were established to handle
MoistureLoc(TM) claims.

First, on August 14, 2006, the Federal Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation created a coordinated proceeding in the
Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina. Second,
on January 2, 2007, the New York State Litigation Coordinating
Panel ordered the consolidation of cases filed in New York State,
and assigned the coordination responsibilities to the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, New York County.

There are approximately 320 currently active non-fusarium cases
pending in the New York Consolidated Proceeding. On July 15, 2009,
the New York State Supreme Court overseeing the New York
Consolidated Proceeding granted B&L's motion to exclude
plaintiffs' general causation testimony with regard to non-
fusarium infections, which effectively excluded plaintiffs from
testifying that MoistureLoc(TM) caused non-fusarium infections.

On September 15, 2011, the New York State Appellate Division,
First Department, affirmed the Trial Court's ruling. On February
7, 2012, the New York Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs'
additional appeal. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to renew
the trial court's ruling, and B&L cross-filed a motion for summary
judgment to dismiss all remaining claims.

On May 31, 2013, the Trial Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to
renew, and granted B&L's motion for summary judgment, dismissing
all remaining non-fusarium claims. On June 28, 2013, Plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Appeal to the Trial Court's ruling. The appeal
was argued January 20, 2015. The Court issued its decision on
February 10, 2015, denying plaintiffs' appeal to renew and
affirming the lower court's decision granting B&L's motion for
summary judgment regarding all remaining non-fusarium claims. On
March 10, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to
appeal this decision, which was denied on May 21, 2015. Plaintiffs
filed their motion for leave to appeal from that decision to the
New York State Court of Appeals on July 1, 2015. B&L filed its
brief in opposition on July 13, 2015. On September 22, 2015, the
New York State Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' motion for
leave to appeal. Plaintiffs have exhausted all appellate remedies.

All matters under jurisdiction of the coordinated proceedings in
the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina have
been dismissed, including individual actions for personal injury
and a class action purporting to represent a class of consumers
who suffered economic claims as a result of purchasing a contact
lens solution with MoistureLoc(TM).

Currently, B&L has settled approximately 630 cases in connection
with MoistureLoc(TM) product liability suits. All U.S.-based
fusarium claims have now been resolved and there is 1 active
fusarium claim involving a claimant outside of the United States
that remains pending. The parties in this active matter are
involved in settlement discussions, and the Company currently
expects that any potential settlement amounts would not be
material.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Salix Actions Briefed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 26, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that Defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints in the
Salix securities litigation have been fully briefed and the
parties await the scheduling of oral argument.

Starting on November 7, 2014, 3 putative class action lawsuits
were filed by shareholders of Salix, each of which generally
alleges that Salix and certain of its former officers and
directors violated federal securities laws in connection with
Salix's disclosures regarding certain products, including with
respect to disclosures concerning historic wholesaler inventory
levels, business prospects and demand, reserves and internal
controls.  2 of these actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, and are captioned:
Woburn Retirement System v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., et al.
(Case No: 1:14-CV-08925 (KMW)), and Bruyn v. Salix
Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., et al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-09226 (KMW)).
These two actions have been consolidated under the caption In re
Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. (Case No. 14-CV-8925 (KMW)).
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss have been fully briefed and the
parties await the scheduling of oral argument. Salix and the
Company are vigorously defending this consolidated matter.

A third action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina under the caption Grignon v.
Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. (Case No. 5:14-cv-00804-D), but
was subsequently voluntarily dismissed.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Investors File Suit in British Columbia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Investigation Counsel Professional Corporation has commenced a
class action in Vancouver on behalf of investors of Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International Inc. (VRX.TO).

The class action is being brought on behalf of investors who
purchased shares or bonds of Valeant between February 28, 2013,
and October 21, 2015.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is a specialty
pharmaceutical and medical device company. The company has a
market cap of $32.73 billion. The Firm is engaged in developing,
manufacturing, and marketing a range of branded, generic and
branded generic pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter products, and
medical devices (contact lenses, intraocular lenses, ophthalmic
surgical equipment, and aesthetics devices), which are marketed
directly or indirectly in over 100 countries. It has 40.8 P/E
ratio. The Firm operates through two divisions: developed markets
and emerging markets.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Says Intellicorp Records Unit Faces Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company was
served on September 9, 2015, with a nationwide putative class
action complaint filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga
County in Ohio naming the Company's subsidiary Intellicorp
Records, Inc. ("Intellicorp.")

The complaint titled Sherri Legrand v. Intellicorp Records, Inc.
and The Cato Corporation et al. claims violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act and alleges two putative class claims, namely
(i) a  section 1681k(a)  claim on behalf of all individuals  who
were the subjects of  consumer reports furnished  by Intellicorp
which contained  public record  information in the "Government
Sanctions" section of the report and who did not receive notice
pursuant to  section 1681k(a) for two years predating the filing
of the Complaint and continuing through the date the class list is
prepared, and (ii) a section 1681e(b) claim  on behalf of all
individuals  who were the subjects of  consumer reports furnished
by Intellicorp which contained  public record  information in the
"Government Sanctions" section of the report where the address or
social security number of the subject of the report do not match
the social security number or address contained in the government
database in the two years predating the filing of the complaint
and continuing through the date the class list is prepared.

Count I of the  class complaint alleges that defendant Cato
violated the FCRA by procuring  consumer reports on the plaintiff
and other class members without making the stand-alone disclosure
required by FCRA section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i). Counts II and III
allege that Intellicorp violated the FCRA section 1681e (b) by
failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuracy
of the adverse information included in its consumer reports and
FCRA section 1681k (a) by failing to maintain strict procedures to
assure that the public record information reported which was
likely to have an adverse effect on the consumer was complete and
up to date, respectively.

The complaint seeks statutory damages for the classes in an amount
not less than one hundred dollars and not more than one thousand
dollars per violation, punitive damages, costs and attorney's
fees.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Facing Interthinx Inc. Litigation
---------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company on
April 20, 2015, was served with a putative class action titled
John Weber v. Interthinx, Inc. and Verisk Analytics, Inc. The
plaintiff, a former employee of the Company's former subsidiary
Interthinx, Inc. in Missouri, filed the class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on behalf of all review appraisers and individuals
holding comparable positions with different titles who were
employed by Interthinx for the last three years nationwide and who
were not paid overtime wages. The class complaint claims that the
review appraiser employees were misclassified as exempt employees
and, as a result, were denied certain wages and benefits that
would have been received if they were properly classified as non-
exempt employees. It pleads a Collective Action under section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime and
seeks overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief,
interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

On March 11, 2014, the Company sold 100 percent of the stock of
Interthinx, Inc. At this time, it is not possible to determine the
ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this
matter.


VIDEOTRON: Pays $7-Mil. Back to Cable Customers for Overcharging
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Montreal Gazette reported that communications company
Videotron has been ordered to cough up more than $7 million for
improperly billing its TV customers for a federal fund to improve
local programming.

Superior Court Judge Carole Hallee gave cause to a class-action
suit filed on behalf of Videotron's 1.5 million customers, saying
the company misled consumers and deliberately overcharged,
violating provincial consumer-protection laws.

The special charge on TV services was introduced by the Canadian
Radio-television and telecommunications commission (CRTC) in 2009
and eliminated in 2014. Videotron passed it on to its TV-service
clients, intially charging them 1.5 per cent of their monthly fee
and gradually reducing it to 0.5 per cent in 2013.

The suit alleged that the charge should not have applied to video-
on-demand purchases, since that wasn't spelled out in its contract
with consumers, and Judge Hallee agreed.

Videotron also based the fee for cable customers on its regular
monthly rate, regardless of whether they had discounts for
bundling, yet remitted to the CRTC a percentage based on the
lower, after-discount total.

About 95 per cent of its customers had bundling discounts, court
was told.

The company had two ways of calculating the fee, Judge Hallee
said, one that benefited Videotron and one that disadvantaged
consumers.

Only the minority who subscribed to cable with no other service
paid the correct amount for the fund, she said. The rest were
deliberately overcharged.

She ordered Videotron to remit to the class-action plaintiffs all
fees charged for the fund on video-on-demand services  --  a total
of $3.2 million  --  plus $3.1 million for the overcharges on
cable service. "These were billed illegally and subscribers were
affected," she said.

She also assessed $1 million in punitive damages. "Videotron's
behaviour justifies the awarding of substantial punitive damages
to dissuade such companies from profiting from their positions and
extracting, in a recurrent fashion, minimal sums from clients,
under the pretext that it would be too complicated to rectify the
situation," she wrote.

How the award will be passed on to consumers remains to be
determined.


VIZIO: Slapped with 2 Class Suits Over Smart TV Spying
------------------------------------------------------
Pulkit Chandna, writing for Tech Hive, reported that
Vizio, the company best known for its bang-for-buck TVs, is these
days in the news for all the wrong reasons owing to some truly
troubling data collection practices. And it doesn't seem as if the
controversy is going to blow over in a jiffy. On the contrary, as
first reported by Consumer Reports, it has boiled over into court.
While that site only referred to a single lawsuit in its report,
turns out the company is facing two different class action
complaints. In both the lawsuits -- filed two days apart in
separate California courts -- Cognitive Media Networks has been
named as a co-defendant alongside the TV maker. Cognitive's
Automatic Content Recognition (ACR) technology is essential to
Vizio's ability to track users' viewing habits, so much so that it
acquired the San Francisco-based company earlier this year and
renamed it Inscape Data Services.

Vizio would like shoppers to think its data-mining activities are
a consumer benefit.

Quick Recap

The whole controversy erupted when ProPublica ran an article
highlighting just how aggressively the Smart Interactivity
"feature" in Vizio smart TVs monitors users' viewing habits. It is
enabled by default -- unbeknown to most users -- and remains
active unless you opt out of it. The worrying part is Vizio shares
the viewing data with third parties -- advertisers, content
providers, etc. -- along with some potential personally
identifiable information. The TV maker, however, denies passing on
any information that could lead someone to a user's true identity.
Vizio's privacy policy states that IP addresses are an example of
the kind of harmless "non-personal information" it collects and
shares with others; conventional wisdom holds otherwise. In most
cases, IP addresses can easily be used to identify the specific
people they are associated with. That's especially true if you are
a data broker, a type of business that specializes in this kind of
"data enhancement."

The lawsuits

A lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on November 13, 2015, accuses Vizio and
Cognitive of secretly installing tracking software on the former's
smart TVs in a way that violates various federal and state laws.
The tracking program -- whose scale and sophistication is a source
of pride for Vizio, as revealed by its recent IPO filing -- goes
well beyond users' viewing habits and IP addresses. According to
the complaint, it continuously scans their home computer networks
for all manner of other information. This may even include the
exact make, model, serial number, and software and hardware IDs of
non-Vizio devices (say a Sonos speaker) connected to the same
network as the spying TV.

One likely short-term outcome will be that the two class-action
lawsuits will be combined into a single case.

It further alleges that the company freely enlists the help of
data brokers to enhance (read: de-anonymize) the data it collects,
and passes some of that sensitive information along to some of its
partners. The more specific the data is, the more ad dollars it is
likely to fetch. "That is, Defendants may know from the Tracking
Software that an individual watched Scandal on a Thursday at 8:00
pm pacific time with an IP address of 96.90.87.4 and a Wifi router
MAC address of 04:bd:88:7a:1c:c1, but they want to know the
individual's name, address, and other demographic information,"
reads the complaint accessed by TechHive.

Chief among the laws that this whole practice is said to violate
is the Video Privacy Protection Act. It prohibits a "video tape
service provider" -- any company engaged in rental, sale or
delivery of audio visual content and not necessarily just video
tapes -- from divulging any personally identifiable information
about its customer to a third party, except where the customer has
clearly consented to such data sharing (definitely not the case
here). This includes any information that so much as "identifies a
person as having requested or obtained video materials or services
from a video tape service provider" (precisely what the company's
Smart Interactivity feature does). Vizio has previously argued
it's not a video tape service provider at all, and so this
particular law doesn't apply to it.

The other lawsuit, filed on November 11 with the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, also makes similar
claims. Given their similarities, we won't be surprised if they
end up being combined into one lawsuit.


VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: To Settle Securities Action for $9MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vocera Communications, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 27, 2015, that the company has agreed in principle to
settle the purported securities class action pending against the
company and certain current and former officers. The agreement in
principle calls for payment of $9 million, which will be funded
entirely by the company's insurance carriers. The terms of the
settlement are subject to execution of final settlement documents
and approval by the U.S. District Court.


VOLKSWAGEN: Proposed Suit Could Expand to Gas-Powered Models
------------------------------------------------------------
CBC reported that a Canadian law firm announced its involvement in
a proposed class action lawsuit stemming from Volkswagen's
admission that it had rigged emissions tests for some of its
diesel-powered cars.

Lawyers at Sutts, Strosberg LLP told reporters in Windsor, Ont.,
that an investigation taking place in Germany now has elements
that involve some of the automaker's gas-powered vehicle products.

And if those models were sold in Canada, they may get added to the
proposed class action.

"Our firm is presently investigating the extent to which Canadian
owners of Volkswagen gasoline-powered vehicles will be affected by
the information derived from the ongoing investigation," said
lawyer Myron Shulgan, when speaking with reporters at the law
firm's Windsor office.

Shulgan said the proposed class action currently involves people
who bought diesel-powered Volkswagen vehicles since 2009.
But Shulgan said, "We have not been able to determine to what
extent gas-powered vehicles imported into Canada suffer from
suppressed test results."

S. Alex Constantin, a fellow lawyer at Sutts, Strosberg LLP, said
hundreds of Canadians have made contact with the lawyers involved
in the existing proposed class action.


VOLKSWAGEN: Strosberg LLP Considers Adding More Cars to Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Veneza, writing for Black Burn News, reported that
Windsor law firm Sutts, Strosberg LLP is considering adding more
cars to its proposed $1.1-billion class action lawsuit against
Volkswagen over the automaker's ongoing emissions controversy.
Volkswagen has been dealing with the fallout of revelations
software in many of its diesel vehicles cheated emissions testing.

Myron Shulgan with the law firm says the problem extends to 2016
Jetta, Passat and Golf gas-powered cars.

"It is expected that because the misinformation started in 2013
and continued up to the present, that there will be a number of
other types of models of vehicles that are impacted," says
Shulgan.

According to Shulgan, about 430,000 vehicles are affected, but
it's not known how many of those are in Canada. Shulgan says more
investigation is needed before the class action is extended to
include more vehicles.

"Once we've determined the extent to which the owners of gasoline-
powered vehicles are impacted, we'll then make a determination of
whether to expand the class [action] or not," says Shulgan.

He thinks about 12,000 car owners have contacted various law firms
to join the class action. Law firms based in London and Toronto
are also listed as prosecutors of the proposed class action.


VOLKSWAGEN: Victims May Be Eclipsed by Lawsuit Underwriters
-----------------------------------------------------------
The New York Times' DealBook reported that the real victims of
Volkswagen's diesel-emissions scandal may end up being eclipsed in
court.

That's the risk, at least, when firms that specialize in
underwriting lawsuits for profit get involved. One of them,
Bentham Europe, is already funding a case that claims that the
German carmaker duped shareholders. The financial muscle may
improve the odds for large awards -- but also hefty gains for
Bentham and others.

The basic facts are not much in dispute. VW admitted rigging
millions of Jettas and other vehicles with software that sharply
reduced emissions when the cars were being tested. It is likely
that VW will lose cases, but the big question is how much it will
have to pay out.

That may depend on litigation financiers like Bentham Europe,
which is partly backed by Elliott Management, the hedge fund run
by Paul Singer. The litigation-financing industry started in
Britain decades ago, largely because rules that limited class-
action lawsuits, barred lawyers from sharing awards and required
losers to pay winners' fees often made suing prohibitively
expensive. Outside funders stepped in to finance the bill in
return for up to a third of the proceeds.

It's a decent business. The Australia-based IMF Bentham, Elliott's
partner in Bentham Europe, says it has made a 158 percent return
on investment since 2001. Its rival, Burford Capital, reports a 71
percent net return over six years, and it announced a joint
venture with the law firm Hausfeld to bring antitrust cases in
Germany.

The benefits for victims are less clear. They receive help suing
in costly places like Britain and Germany, perhaps when they
otherwise would not. Even in the relatively litigation-friendly
United States, funding may give plaintiffs bargaining power to
extract bigger settlements.

But conflicts of interest are a concern. Litigation financiers
emphasize that they do not interfere with legal strategy. But
critics fear they still have indirect influence on the timing and
amounts of settlements. Their cut also reduces what goes to
victims.

That may seem unfair when, as in the VW cases, public outrage and
government investigations already provide victims' lawyers with
enormous leverage. It is perhaps fitting that what looks like a
profit-driven decision to cheat is being met with litigation
motivated by money. When a court fight is all about business,
though, the interests of the actual victims can take a back seat.


VOLKSWAGEN: Australian Customers to Join $100-Mil. Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Carswell, writing for Daily Telegraph, reported that more
than 10,000 Australians have joined a potential $100 million class
action against Volkswagen after being duped into buying vehicles
that did not meet stated emissions standards.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers will launch proceedings in the Federal
Court on behalf of the 90,000 Australians who purchased
Volkswagen, Audi and Skoda high-emission diesel vehicles that were
designed to cheat emissions tests.

The firm, which has settled eight class action cases in excess of
$100 million, is pursuing more at the very least $10,000, but
preferably the entire amount of the purchase cost for each
participant in the no-win no-charge class action, claiming VW
customers were duped in a scandal that threatens to bring the car
giant to its knees.
"We've taken the time to prepare the claims comprehensively to
also include Skoda and Audi diesel vehicles affected by this rort.
Importantly, our claims will be made against the international
parent companies involved in the scam and not just local
subsidiaries," Maurice Blackburn Principal Jason Geisker said.

Volkswagen was caught by the US Environmental Protection Agency in
September selling vehicles with a "defeat device", allowing cars
to detect when they were being tested for emissions and
subsequently improve their performance.


VOLKSWAGEN: Blackburn Firm to File $72-Mil. Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Maurice Blackburn will launch a class action lawsuit on
behalf of Australian owners of scam-tainted Volkswagen AG seeking
total damages "well north" of A$100 million ($71.59 million).

Volkswagen is embroiled in a global recall scandal, and faces
several class action lawsuits, after tests showed that thousands
of vehicles had been fitted with devices designed to mask the
level of emissions.

More than 10,000 Australian owners have already registered for the
class action that targets the German parent companies involved in
the emissions scam, not just the local subsidiaries, Maurice
Blackburn said.

"I am extremely disappointed that, because of the company's
deceitful conduct, I've now got a car that is emitting dirty
diesel," Audi owner Robyn Richardson told a news conference in
Sydney.

"I am here to bring them to account for what they've done. I'm
here to deter other companies from behaving similarly," said
Richardson, one of the lead applicants for the class action in
Australia.

Maurice Blackburn Principal Jason Geisker said the litigation, on
behalf of more than 90,000 car owners, will seek to recover the
full cost of the vehicle, plus damages for misleading and
deceptive conduct, among others.

Volkswagen did not immediately respond to a request for comment by
Reuters outside business hours.

Volkswagen already faces a handful of shareholder lawsuits,
including a securities-fraud class action in Virginia against its
U.S. divisions and a planned claim by Dutch investor association
VEB on behalf of investors who bought VW stock through a Dutch
bank or broker.

The company is also battling dozens of class actions accusing it
of fraud for selling supposedly low-pollution, high-horsepower,
fuel-sipping vehicles that have declined substantially in value
since the revelations.

Litigation funder Bentham Europe, a joint venture between
Australia's IMF Bentham and U.S. hedge fund Elliott Management on
Nov. 5 said it was talking with Volkswagen's 200 largest investors
about filing a lawsuit in Germany, as soon as February, claiming
negligence and breach of securities law.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Kim" & "Crispell" Sue Over Emission Test
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Kim and Paul Crispell v. Volkswagen Group of America, Case
No. 1:15-cv-01483-LO-MSN (E.D. Va., November 9, 2015), alleges
deliberate manipulation of emission control equipment in VW's
diesel engine vehicles to cover up inadequacies of the vehicle to
comply with emission standards.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation located at 2200
Ferdinand Porsche Dr., Hemdon, Virginia 20171 doing business in
every U.S. state and the District of Columbia selling vehicles
under the Volkswagen and Audi brands.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen E. Baril, Esq.
     Gray B. Broughton, Esq.
     KAPLAN VOEKLER CUNNINGHAM & FRANK PLC
     1401 East Gary Street
     Richmond, VA 23112
     Telephone: 804-823-4000
     Facsimile: 804-823-4099
     Email: sbaril@kv-legal.com
            gbroughton@kv-legal.com

          - and -

     Michael Goldberg, Esq.
     Brian Schall, Esq.
     GOLDBERG LAW PC
     13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Ste.1404
     Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
     Telephone: 800-977-7401
     Fax: 800-536-0065
     Email: Michael@goldberglawpc.com
            Brian@goldberglawpc.com


WASTE MANAGEMENT: To Seek Settlement Approval During Q4 2015
------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
anticipates seeking preliminary court approvals during the fourth
quarter of 2015 of the class action against Deffenbaugh.

On March 26, 2015, the Company acquired Deffenbaugh. In May 2012
and December 2013, Deffenbaugh was named as a defendant in
purported class actions filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Kansas. These cases pertained to fuel,
environmental and base rate charges included on invoices,
generally alleging that such charges were not properly disclosed,
were unfair or were contrary to the customer service contracts.

"We have agreed on settlement terms for both cases, and we
anticipate seeking preliminary court approvals during the fourth
quarter of 2015," the Company said. The anticipated settlements
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.


WESBANCO INC: Memorandum of Settlement Approved
-----------------------------------------------
WesBanco, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a court has
approved the settlement contemplated in the Memorandum of
Settlement, and both the Federal Lawsuit and the Lawrence County
Lawsuit have been dismissed with prejudice.

On October 29, 2014, ESB Financial Corporation ("ESB"), and
WesBanco entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement"), providing for the merger of ESB with and into
WesBanco, with WesBanco as the surviving corporation (the
"Merger"). Each of ESB and WesBanco filed a definitive joint proxy
statement/prospectus, dated as of December 11, 2014 (the "Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus"), with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Merger. The Merger was
consummated on February 10, 2015.

As reported by each of ESB and WesBanco on Current Reports on Form
8-K, each dated December 15, 2014 and filed on December 19, 2014,
two putative class action complaints were filed by purported
shareholders of ESB with respect to the Merger. One complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania (the "Federal District Court"), and captioned and
numbered James Elliott vs. ESB Financial, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:14-cv-01689-MRH (the "Federal Lawsuit"). The other complaint was
filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County,
Pennsylvania, and captioned and numbered Randall Kress v. ESB
Bank, Case No. 11185/14 CA (the "Lawrence County Lawsuit"). Both
complaints alleged generally, among other things, that each member
of ESB's board of directors (the "Director Defendants") breached
their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement, that ESB
and WesBanco aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty and
that the disclosure regarding the Merger contained in the Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus was materially deficient.

On January 15, 2015, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, ESB, ESB Bank, WesBanco and
the Director Defendants (ESB, ESB Bank, WesBanco and the Director
Defendants, collectively the "Defendants") entered into a
Memorandum of Settlement (the "MOS") with the respective
plaintiffs (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") regarding the
settlement of both the Federal Lawsuit and the Lawrence County
Lawsuit. Pursuant to the MOS, ESB and WesBanco agreed to file with
the SEC and make publicly available to shareholders of ESB and
WesBanco supplemental disclosures provided on Form 8-K and the
Plaintiffs agreed to release ESB, ESB Bank, WesBanco and the
Director Defendants from all claims related to the Merger
Agreement and the Merger, subject to approval of the Federal
District Court.

The court approved the settlement contemplated in the MOS on
September 21, 2015, and both the Federal Lawsuit and the Lawrence
County Lawsuit were dismissed with prejudice, and all claims that
were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the
Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in
connection therewith were released and barred. ESB or its
successor or insurer paid the fees and expenses awarded by the
court.

The parties prepared a stipulation of settlement which was entered
into by the parties and filed with the court on April 28, 2015. By
Order dated July 2, 2015, the Federal district Court made
preliminary determinations regarding (i) certification of a class
of ESB shareholders such that notice could be disseminated to
class members relating to, among other things, the Federal
Lawsuit, the Lawrence County Lawsuit, the settlement contemplated
in the MOS (the "Settlement"), a final hearing to approve the
Settlement and the right of class members to participate in such
hearing, and (ii) the role of Mr. Elliott and his counsel as Class
Representative and Class Counsel, respectively.

The settlement did not affect the timing of the special meeting of
shareholders of ESB held January 22, 2015 in Ellwood City,
Pennsylvania to vote upon a proposal to adopt the Merger
Agreement. Similarly, the settlement did not affect the timing of
the special meeting of shareholders of WesBanco held January 22,
2015 in Wheeling, West Virginia to vote on a proposal to approve
the issuance of shares of WesBanco common stock in connection with
the Merger. The shareholders of both corporations approved the
Merger. ESB and the other Defendants denied all of the allegations
in the lawsuits and believed the disclosures previously included
in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus were appropriate under the
law. Nevertheless, ESB and the other Defendants agreed to settle
the putative class action lawsuits in order to avoid the costs,
disruptions and distraction of further litigation.

ESB and the other Defendants vigorously denied, and continue to
vigorously deny, that they have committed or aided and abetted in
the commission of any violation of law or engaged in any of the
wrongful acts that were alleged in the lawsuits, and expressly
maintain that, to the extent applicable, they diligently and
scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and other legal burdens
and entered into the MOS solely to eliminate the burden and
expense of further litigation and to put the claims that were or
could have been asserted to rest. Nothing in the MOS or any
stipulation of settlement shall be deemed an admission of the
legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the
disclosures set forth therein.


WESTERN UNION: Settles TCPA Class Suit for $8.5 Million
-------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Shinabarger, Esq. -- eshinabarger@winston.com -- and Liisa
M. Thomas, Esq. -- lmthomas@winston.com -- at Winston & Strawn
LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that Western Union agreed
to pay $8.5 million to settle alleged claims that it violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) when it sent unsolicited
text messages asking consumers to opt in to receive regular
updates from the company.

Recently, Western Union agreed to pay $8.5 million to settle
alleged claims that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA) when, during a 2009 marketing campaign, it sent
unsolicited text messages asking consumers to opt in to receive
regular updates from the company. The settlement between Western
Union and the more than 800,000 class members is reportedly double
the next highest TCPA settlement in terms of award per class
member.

In their claim, the plaintiffs allege that they never consented to
receive Western Union's initial opt in text, and the company
therefore violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited advertising
texts through equipment capable of storing and randomly generating
telephone numbers, also known as autodialing equipment. Western
Union countered that the message did not constitute advertising
(being instead a request to see if people wanted to get
advertising texts), and as such, express written consent was
unnecessary. (As explained in our prior post, the FCC broadly
defines autodialing equipment and requires, under the TCPA, that
companies to obtain express written consent from consumers before
sending text advertisements through autodialers.) Notwithstanding
this argument, Western Union agreed to settle the matter with a
payment of $8.5 million (almost $3 million of which was for
attorneys' fees).


YAHOO! INC: 3rd Cir. Revives "Dominguez" TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Thomas L. Ambro of the United States Court of
Appeals, Third Circuit, vacated the opinion of the district court
in the case captioned, BILL H. DOMINGUEZ, on behalf of himself And
all others similarly situated, Appellant, v. YAHOO, INC, Case No.
14-1751 (3rd Cir.).

The matter is remanded for further proceedings.

In December 2011, Dominguez bought a cell phone that came with a
reassigned telephone number. The previous owner of the number had
subscribed to an email-notification service offered by Yahoo. That
service sent a text message to the owner's phone number every time
an email was sent to the owner's linked Yahoo email account.
Having received 27,809 text messages over 17 months, Dominguez
filed a putative class action under the TCPA, which forbids "any
person within the United States to make any call (other than a
call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express
consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing
system autodialer to any telephone number assigned to a cellular
telephone service. Dominguez stands to win $13,904,500.

Yahoo moved for summary judgment. It argued that the statute
requires an "autodialer" to have "a random or sequential number
generator," and its text-messaging system did not generate numbers
at all; instead, it dialed numbers from a compiled list. The trial
court awarded summary judgment in Yahoo's favor agreeing that the
phrase "random or sequential" refers to the types of numbers
(random or sequential ones), not the manner they are dialed and it
rejected the FCC's interpretation as contrary to the TCPA's plain
language and inapplicable outside the narrow context of
"predictive dialers.  Dominguez appealed.

In the Opinion dated October 23, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Yq5epMfrom Leagle.com, Judge Ambro concluded that
remand is appropriate to allow the trial court to address more
fully in the first instance whether Yahoo's equipment meets the
statutory definition because the matter is an issue of heightened
importance in light of a 2015 FCC ruling, and the District Court
did not previously have the benefit of the FCC's ruling in
addressing the issue.

The FCC issued a declaratory ruling and order in July 2015 further
clarifying the meaning of an autodialer.

Dominguez is represented by James A. Francis, Esq. --
jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- David A. Searles, Esq. --
dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com -- John Soumilas, Esq. --
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN

Yahoo is represented by Ian C. Ballon, Esq. -- Ballon@gtlaw.com,
Lori Chang, Esq. -- Chang@gtlaw.com -- Brian T. Feeney, Esq. --
Feeney@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG


YRC WORLDWIDE: Court Denied Fourth Motion to Approve Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
YRC Worldwide Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Plaintiffs'
fourth motion to approve settlement in the Bryant Holdings
Securities Litigation was denied by the district court in October
2015.

"On February 7, 2011, a putative class action was filed by Bryant
Holdings LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between April 24, 2008
and November 2, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
damages under the federal securities laws for statements and/or
omissions allegedly made by us and the individual defendants
during the Class Period which plaintiffs claimed to be false and
misleading," the Company said.

"The individual defendants are former officers of our Company. No
current officers or directors are named in the lawsuit. The
parties participated in voluntary mediation between March 11, 2013
and April 15, 2013. The mediation resulted in the execution of a
mutually acceptable settlement agreement by the parties.
Plaintiffs' fourth motion to approve settlement was denied by the
district court in October 2015, and the Company is considering all
options going forward. Substantially all of the payments
contemplated by the settlement would be covered by our liability
insurance. The self-insured retention on this matter has been
accrued. On March 4, 2015, the district court set the case for
trial on the individual claims beginning June 6, 2016."


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mining Co. Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "Winn"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Willard E. Bartel and David E. Peebles, Administrators
of the Estate of Vondie M. Winn, allege that Mr. Winn was exposed
to asbestos while working aboard various ships.  The Plaintiffs
assert that the Decedent developed an asbestos-related illness as
a result of his exposure to asbestos aboard those ships.

Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Defendant Hanna
Mining's motion for summary judgment in the case captioned as
WILLARD E. BARTEL, et al., (Administrators for Estate of Vondie M.
Winn) Plaintiffs, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, ET AL.,
Defendants, CONSOLIDATED UNDER MDL NO. 875, E.D. PA CIVIL ACTION
NO. 2:11-31307-ER (E.D. Pa.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated November 10, 2015 is
available at http://is.gd/J6muzRfrom Leagle.com.

WILLARD E. BARTEL, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN,
Esq. -- dkrispin@jaquesadmiralty.com -- THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW
FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, Esq. -- dmarsden@jaquesadmiralty.com
-- JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., JOHN E. HERRICK, Esq. --
jherrick@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC & JOHN DAVID HURST,
Esq. -- jhurst@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC.

DAVID C. PEEBLES, ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF OTHER VONDIE M.
WINN, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN, THE JAQUES
ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW
FIRM, P.C., JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC & JOHN DAVID HURST,
MOTLEY RICE LLC.

A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, Defendant, represented by WILLIAM A.
VISCOMI.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Winn"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Willard E. Bartel and David E. Peebles, Administrators
of the Estate of Vondie M. Winn, allege that Mr. Winn was exposed
to asbestos while working aboard various ships.  The Plaintiffs
assert that the Decedent developed an asbestos-related illness as
a result of his exposure to asbestos aboard those ships.

Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the motion for summary
judgment filed by Thompson Hine on behalf of various shipowners.

The case captioned as WILLARD E. BARTEL, et al., (Administrators
for Estate of Darryl J. Bertrand, Sr. Plaintiffs, v. A-C PRODUCT
LIABILITY TRUST, ET AL., Defendants, CONSOLIDATED UNDER MDL 875,
E.D. PA CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-30147-ER (E.D. Pa.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated November 5, 2015 is
available at http://is.gd/UvsoYTfrom Leagle.com.

WILLARD E. BARTEL, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN,
Esq. -- dkrispin@jaquesadmiralty.com -- THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW
FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, Esq. -- dmarsden@jaquesadmiralty.com
-- JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., JOHN E. HERRICK, Esq. --
jherrick@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC & JOHN DAVID HURST,
Esq. -- jhurst@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC.

DAVID C. PEEBLES, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN, THE
JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, JAQUES
ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC & JOHN
DAVID HURST, MOTLEY RICE LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "Schulte"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Willard E. Bartel and David E. Peebles, Administrators
of the Estate of James M. Schulte, allege that Mr. Schulte was
exposed to asbestos while working aboard various ships. Plaintiffs
assert that Decedent developed an asbestos-related illness as a
result of his exposure to asbestos aboard those ships.

Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Defendants Thompson
Hine Shipowners' (THS) motion for summary judgment in the case
captioned as WILLARD E. BARTEL, et al., (Administrators for Estate
of Darryl J. Bertrand, Sr. Plaintiffs, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY
TRUST, ET AL., Defendants, CONSOLIDATED NO. MDL 875, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 2:11-32119-ER (E.D. Pa.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated November 5, 2015 is
available at  http://is.gd/9INqHrfrom Leagle.com.

WILLARD E. BARTEL, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN,
Esq. -- dkrispin@jaquesadmiralty.com -- THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW
FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, Esq. -- dmarsden@jaquesadmiralty.com
-- JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., JOHN E. HERRICK, Esq. --
jherrick@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC & JOHN DAVID HURST,
Esq. -- jhurst@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC.

DAVID C. PEEBLES, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN, THE
JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, JAQUES
ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC & JOHN
DAVID HURST, MOTLEY RICE LLC.

AMERICAN EXPORT ISBRANDTSEN, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, Esq. -- Hal.Henderson@ThompsonHine.com -- THOMPSON,
HINE LLP & RICHARD C. BINZLEY, Esq. --
Dick.Binzley@ThompsonHine.com -- THOMPSON, HINE AND FLORY.

ARGO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by EDWARD
J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

AUBURN MFG. CO., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

AURORA PUMP DIVISION OF GENERAL SIGNAL CORP., Defendant,
represented by ERNEST W. AUCIELLO, JR., Esq. --
ernest.auciello@tuckerellis.com -- TUCKER, ELLIS & WEST LLP.

BOYD CO., A.B., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

BRYAN STEAM CORP., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

CHESTERTON CO., A.W., Defendant, represented by JOHN P. PATTERSON,
Esq. -- john.patterson@tuckerellis.com -- TUCKER ELLIS WEST.

FEDERAL-MOGUL CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by EDWARD J.
CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

GATKE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN & JOHN M. HERKE, SPYRIDON PALERMO &
DORNAN.

GOODALL RUBBER CO., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

GULF TRADING & TRANSPORT, Defendant, represented by RICHARD C.
BINZLEY, THOMPSON, HINE AND FLORY.

HAJOCA CORP., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER
SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by COLLEEN A.
MOUNTCASTLE, Esq. -- cmountcastle@gallaghersharp.com -- GALLAGHER
SHARP, STEPHEN M. BEAUDRY, Esq. -- sbeaudry@gallaghersharp.com --
GALLAGHER SHARP, JAMES T. MILLICAN, II, Esq. --
jmillican@gallaghersharp.com -- GALLAGHER SHARP & KEVIN C.
ALEXANDERSEN, Esq. -- kalexandersen@gallaghersharp.com --
GALLAGHER SHARP.

INGERSOLL-DRESSER PUMP, Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

INGERSOLL-RAND CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by EDWARD J.
CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

JANOS INDUSTRIAL INSULATION CORP., Defendant, represented by
EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

JOHN CRANE INC., Defendant, represented by STEPHEN H. DANIELS,
Esq. -- sdaniels@mdllp.net -- MCMAHON DEGULIS LLP.

MELRATH GASKET, INC., Defendant, represented by WILLIAM A.
VISCOMI.

NOLAND COMPANY, Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

PECORA CORP., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER
SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

PREFERRED UTILITIES MFG. CORP., Defendant, represented by EDWARD
J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

RHOPAC INC., Defendant, represented by ERNEST W. AUCIELLO, JR.,
TUCKER, ELLIS & WEST LLP.

SKINNER ENGINE COMPANY, INC., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J.
CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

TEXACO INC., Defendant, represented by WILLIAM T. SMITH, CALFEE
HALTER & GRISWOLD.

TEXACO MARINE SERVICES INC, Defendant, represented by WILLIAM T.
SMITH, CALFEE HALTER & GRISWOLD.

TRINIDAD CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

UNIROYAL CHEMICAL CO., Defendant, represented by ERIC LARSON
ZALUD, BENESICH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF.

UNITED FRUIT COMPANY, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP & RICHARD C. BINZLEY, THOMPSON, HINE
AND FLORY.

WARREN PUMPS, INC., Defendant, represented by JAMES T. MILLICAN,
II, GALLAGHER SHARP.

ZIMMERMAN PACKING & MFG., INC., Defendant, represented by EDWARD
J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

FIBREBOARD CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by DONA L. ARNOLD,
BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN ARONOFF & ERIC LARSON ZALUD, BENESICH
FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF.

FARRELL LINES INC, Movant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON,
THOMPSON, HINE LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleaver-Brooks Ordered to Produce Docs
-------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, required Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., to produce all
documents that reference or otherwise mention asbestos or
asbestos-containing products, components or parts used on, in or
in conjunction with or as replacement parts for all boilers it
manufactured or sold in the case IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS
LITIGATION relating to MARY ANNE McCLOSKEY, ETC., Plaintiff-
Respondent. v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., ET AL., Defendants,
CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC., Defendant-Appellant, 40000/88-190441/12,
16119, 16118, 16117, 2015 NY Slip Op 08116 (N.Y. App. Div.).

A full text copy of the Decision dated November 12, 2015 is
available at http://is.gd/oIEBWDfrom Leagle.com.

David G. Keyko, Esq. -- david.keyko@pillsburylaw.com -- Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, New York, for appellant.

Jerry Kristal, Esq. -- Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York, for
respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Poche" Remanded, $3K Atty Fees Denied
-------------------------------------------------------

Plaintiffs Paul C. Poche and Dorothy Poche filed a motion to
remand their asbestos case.  Defendant Foster Wheeler LLC opposed.
The Plaintiffs also requested $3,000 in attorneys' fees.

Judge Carl J. Barbier of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana remanded the case captioned as PAUL
C. POCHE, ET AL. v. EAGLE, INC., ET AL., SECTION "J" (4), CIVIL
ACTION NO. 15-5436 (E.D. La.) and and denied the Plaintiffs'
request for attorneys' fees.

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 10, 2015 is available
at http://is.gd/kzKVWjfrom Leagle.com.

Paul C. Poche, Plaintiff, represented by L. Eric Williams, Jr.,
Williams Law Office, LLC, Christopher B. Cortez, Esq. --
Christopher Brookey Cortez, Attorney at Law, LLC, John A. Venezia,
Esq. -- john@venezialaw.net -- Venezia & Associates APLC & Julie
Elizabeth O'Shesky, Esq. -- Venezia & Associates APLC.

Dorothy Poche, Plaintiff, represented by L. Eric Williams, Jr.,
Williams Law Office, LLC, Christopher B. Cortez, Christopher
Brookey Cortez, Attorney at Law, LLC, John A. Venezia, Venezia &
Associates APLC & Julie Elizabeth O'Shesky, Venezia & Associates
APLC.

Eagle, Inc., Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon,
Peragine, Esq. -- suek@spsr-law.com -- Smith & Redfearn, LLP,
Douglas Kinler, Esq. -- dkinler@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Esq. -- jguidry@spsr-
law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M.
Loup, Esq. -- nicolel@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP.

McCarty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, represented by Angela M. Bowlin,
Esq. -- abowlin@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr.,
Esq. -- jbrown@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., John Joseph Hainkel,
III, Esq. -- jhainkel@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A.
Eagan, Esq. -- keagan@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K.
Keenan, Esq. -- mkeenan@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R.
Tafaro, Esq. -- ptafaro@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Vacates Summary Judgment in "Curtis"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff-Appellant Christopher Curtis, individually and as
personal representative of the estate of decedent Charles C.
Curtis, appeals from the district court's grant of summary
judgment in favor of the Defendant-Appellees ABB, Inc., Eaton
Corporation, and Schneider Electric USA, Inc..

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated
the district court's summary judgment and remanded the action to
the district court for further proceedings in the case captioned
as CHRISTOPHER C. CURTIS, individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Charles C. Curtis, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. ABB INCORPORATED, individually and as successor in
interest to ITE Imperial Co., FKA ITE Circuit Breaker Company,
Defendant-Appellee, CHRISTOPHER C. CURTIS, individually and as
Personal Representative of the Estate of Charles C. Curtis,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EATON CORPORATION, as successor in
interest to Cutler Hammer, Defendant-Appellee. CHRISTOPHER C.
CURTIS, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate
of Charles C. Curtis, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC
USA, INC., FKA Square D. Company, Defendant-Appellee, NOS. 13-
56976, 13-56977, 13-56978 (9th Cir.).

A full text copy of the Memorandum dated November 13, 2015 is
available at http://is.gd/H6TdI1from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Preyer"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Willard E. Bartel and David E. Peebles, Administrators
of the Estate of Gilbert L. Preyer, allege that Mr. Preyer was
exposed to asbestos while working aboard various ships. Plaintiffs
assert that Decedent developed an asbestos-related illness as a
result of his exposure to asbestos aboard those ships.

Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the motion for summary
judgment filed by various shipowners represented by Thompson Hine
in the case captioned as GILBERT L. PREYER, Plaintiff, v. A-C
PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, et al., Defendants, CONSOLIDATED UNDER
MDL 875, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-30906-ER (E.D. Pa.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated October 28, 2015 is
available at  http://is.gd/9ALXcS from Leagle.com.

GILBERT L. PREYER, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN,
Esq. -- dkrispin@jaquesadmiralty.com -- THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW
FIRM, P.C., JOHN E. HERRICK, Esq. -- jherrick@motleyrice.com --
MOTLEY RICE LLC & JOHN DAVID HURST, Esq. -- jhurst@motleyrice.com
-- MOTLEY RICE LLC.

A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, Defendant, represented by WILLIAM A.
VISCOMI.

ARGO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by EDWARD
J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

AUBURN MFG. CO., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

AURORA PUMP DIVISION OF GENERAL SIGNAL CORP., Defendant,
represented by ERNEST W. AUCIELLO, JR., TUCKER, ELLIS & WEST LLP.

BOYD CO., A.B., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

BRYAN STEAM CORP., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

CHESTERTON CO., A.W., Defendant, represented by JOHN P. PATTERSON,
TUCKER ELLIS WEST.

FEDERAL-MOGUL CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by EDWARD J.
CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

GATKE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN & JOHN M. HERKE, SPYRIDON PALERMO &
DORNAN.

GOODALL RUBBER CO., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

HAJOCA CORP., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER
SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by COLLEEN A.
MOUNTCASTLE, GALLAGHER SHARP, KEVIN C. ALEXANDERSEN, GALLAGHER
SHARP, STEPHEN M. BEAUDRY, GALLAGHER SHARP & JAMES T. MILLICAN,
II, GALLAGHER SHARP.

INGERSOLL-DRESSER PUMP, Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

INGERSOLL-RAND CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by EDWARD J.
CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

JANOS INDUSTRIAL INSULATION CORP., Defendant, represented by
EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

JOHN CRANE INC., Defendant, represented by STEPHEN H. DANIELS,
MCMAHON DEGULIS LLP.

MELRATH GASKET, INC., Defendant, represented by WILLIAM A.
VISCOMI.

NOLAND COMPANY, Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

PECORA CORP., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER
SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

PHOENIX SPECIALTY MANUFACTURING CO., INC., Defendant, represented
by EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

PREFERRED UTILITIES MFG. CORP., Defendant, represented by EDWARD
J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

RHOPAC INC., Defendant, represented by ERNEST W. AUCIELLO, JR.,
TUCKER, ELLIS & WEST LLP.

SKINNER ENGINE COMPANY, INC., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J.
CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

UNIROYAL CHEMICAL CO., Defendant, represented by ERIC LARSON
ZALUD, BENESICH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF.

WARREN PUMPS, INC., Defendant, represented by JAMES T. MILLICAN,
II, GALLAGHER SHARP.

ZIMMERMAN PACKING & MFG., INC., Defendant, represented by EDWARD
J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "Riddick"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the motion for summary
judgment filed by various shipowners represented by Thompson Hine
in the case captioned as KEITH R. RIDDICK, Plaintiff, v. A-C
PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, et al., Defendants, CONSOLIDATED UNDER
MDL 875, E.D. PA. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-30929-ER (E.D. Pa.).

Plaintiff Keith R. Riddick alleges that he was exposed to asbestos
while working aboard various ships. Plaintiff asserts that he
developed an asbestos-related illness as a result of his exposure
to asbestos aboard those ships.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated October 30, 2015 is
available at http://is.gd/x757bE from Leagle.com.

KEITH R. RIDDICK, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN,
Esq. -- dkrispin@jaquesadmiralty.com -- THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW
FIRM, P.C., JOHN E. HERRICK, Esq. -- jherrick@motleyrice.com --
MOTLEY RICE LLC & JOHN DAVID HURST, Esq. -- jhurst@motleyrice.com
-- MOTLEY RICE LLC & V. BRIAN BEVON, Esq. -- bbevon@motleyrice.com
--MOTLEY RICE.

A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JOHN P.
PATTERSON, Esq. -- john.patterson@tuckerellis.com -- TUCKER ELLIS
WEST

GATKE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JOHN M. HERKE,
SPYRIDON PALERMO & DORNAN.

IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by COLLEEN A.
MOUNTCASTLE, Esq. -- cmountcastle@gallaghersharp.com -- GALLAGHER
SHARP, STEPHEN M. BEAUDRY, Esq. -- sbeaudry@gallaghersharp.com --
GALLAGHER SHARP, JAMES T. MILLICAN, II, Esq. --
jmillican@gallaghersharp.com -- GALLAGHER SHARP & KEVIN C.
ALEXANDERSEN, Esq. -- kalexandersen@gallaghersharp.com --
GALLAGHER SHARP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Illegal Fibro Removal Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard A. Lazzara of the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, concludes that
Aurelijius Baltusis's motion to dismiss Count Six Before the court
is Defendant Baltusis' Motion to Dismiss Count Six under Fed. R.
Crim. P. 12(3)(b) should be denied.

Defendant Baltusis argues that Count Six must be dismissed for
alleging a continuing violation over the course of 498 days for a
substantive offense. Count Six alleges in pertinent part:

   "From at least on or about November 29, 2010, through and
including on or about March 31, 2012, in the Middle District of
Florida, the defendant, Aurelijius Baltusis, an operator of a
renovation at the Urban Style Flats facility that did or would
disturb or remove at least 160 square feet of RACM ("regulated
asbestos containing material) from facility components, did
knowingly fail and cause others to fail to carefully lower removed
or stripped RACM to the ground, in violation of the work practice
standard found at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Section
61.145(c)(6)(ii), and incorporated by Pinellas County Code. . . ."

The case is captioned UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PHILIP J.
FARLEY, III, and AURELIJIUS BALTUSIS, CASE NO. 8:15-CR-133-T-26MAP
(M.D. Fla.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 11, 2015 is available
at http://is.gd/erjetLfrom Leagle.com.

Philip J. Farley, III, Defendant, represented by Matthew P.
Farmer,  Esq. -- Mattfarmer1@aol.com -- Farmer & Fitzgerald, PA,
Ronald S. Safer, Esq. -- rsafer@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin,
LLP, Timothy James Fitzgerald, Esq. -- Tjfitz@me.com -- Farmer &
Fitzgerald, PA & Valarie Hays, Esq. -- vhays@schiffhardin.com --
Schiff Hardin, LLP.

Aurelijius Baltusis, Defendant, represented by Valarie Hays,
Schiff Hardin, LLP & William F. Jung, Esq. --
wjung@jungandsisco.com -- Jung & Sisco, PA.

USA, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Lynn Riedel, US Attorney's
Office, Thomas Franzinger, US Department of Justice & Lana Pettus,
US Department of Justice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Affirms Liability for Medical Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed
the Benefits Review Board's affirmance of the Administrative Law
Judge's order holding Ramsay Scarlett liable for medical expenses
attributable to Ferdinand J. Fabre's asbestosis under the
Longshore Harbor Worker's Compensation Act.

The case is RAMSAY SCARLETT & COMPANY; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, Petitioners, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION
PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent, FERDINAND
J. FABRE, JR., Claimant-Respondent, NO. 15-60112 (5th Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Decision dated November 12, 2015 is
available at http://is.gd/aszURgfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Criminal Indictment Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard A. Lazzara of the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, denied Philip J.
Farley, III, and Aurelijius Baltusis' Joint Motion to Dismiss the
Superseding Indictment and Joint Memorandum in the case captioned
as UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. PHILIP J. FARLEY, III, and
AURELIJIUS BALTUSIS, CASE NO. 8:15-CR-133-T-26MAP (M.D. Fla.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 11, 2015 is available
at http://is.gd/qXTEu9from Leagle.com.

Philip J. Farley, III, Defendant, represented by Matthew P.
Farmer, Esq. -- Mattfarmer1@aol.com -- Farmer & Fitzgerald, PA,
Ronald S. Safer, Esq. -- rsafer@schiffhardin.com  -- Schiff
Hardin, LLP, Timothy James Fitzgerald, Esq. -- Tjfitz@me.com --
Farmer & Fitzgerald, PA & Valarie Hays, Esq. --
vhays@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin, LLP.

Aurelijius Baltusis, Defendant, represented by Valarie Hays,
Schiff Hardin, LLP & William F. Jung, Esq. --
wjung@jungandsisco.com -- Jung & Sisco, PA.

USA, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Lynn Riedel, US Attorney's
Office, Thomas Franzinger, US Department of Justice & Lana Pettus,
US Department of Justice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Superior Court Judgment in "Barabin" Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, reversed the
judgment of the Superior Court based on its recently held ruling
in Deggs v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd. that there is no viable cause of
action for wrongful death once an individual allows the statute of
limitations to expire on his underlying personal injury claim
during his lifetime.

After Henry Barabin died, his wife Geraldine Barabin filed a
wrongful death action against defendants Astenjohnson et al that
Barabin had not sued for personal injuries during his lifetime.
The court concluded that Deggs controls. Because Henry Barabin
allowed the statute of limitations to expire on his underlying
personal injury claim during his lifetime, his personal
representative has no viable cause of action for wrongful death
against the new defendants.

The case is GERALDINE BARABIN, as Personal Representative for the
Estate of HENRY BARABIN, Deceased, Respondent, v. ASTENJOHNSON,
INC.; GOULDS PUMPS, INC.; GRINNELL LLC (fka GRINNELL CORPORATION,
aka GRINNELL FIRE); HARDER MECHANICAL CONTRATORS, INC.; KEYSTONE
CONTRACTING, INC. METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION; METROPOLITAN
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; PARAMOUNT SUPPLY COMPANY; SCAPA DRYER
FABRICS, INC.; SEQUOIA VENTURES, INC.; TRECO CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES, INC.; UNITED SUPPLY COMPANY; WRIGHT SCHUCHART HARBOR;
and FIRST DOE through ONE HUNDREDTH DOE, Appellants, NO. 72626-9-
I, CONSOLIDATED WITH NOS. 72720-6-I, 72721-4-I, 72722-2-I, 72724-
9-I, AND 72725-7-I (Wash. App.).

A full-text copy of the Decision dated November 9, 2015 is
available at http://is.gd/rcBgu5from Leagle.com.

Katherine M. Steele, Esq. -- katherine.steele@bullivant.com --
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC, 1700 7th Ave. Ste. 1810, Seattle, WA,
98101-1820, Malika Johnson, Esq. -- mjohnson@williamskastner.com -
-  WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC, 601 Union St. Ste. 4100,
Seattle, WA, 98101-1368, Christine Elisabeth Dinsdale, Esq. --
dinsdale@sohalang.com -- SOHA & LANG PS, 1325 4th Ave. Ste. 2000,
Seattle, WA, 98101-2570, Mark Bradley Tuvim, Esq. --
mtuvim@gordonrees.com -- GORDON & REES LLP, 701 5th Ave. Ste.
2100, Seattle, WA, 98104-7084, Kevin James Craig, Esq. --
kcraig@gordonrees.com -- GORDON & REES LLP, 701 5th Ave. Ste.
2100, Seattle, WA, 98104-7084, Benjamin J. Lantz, Esq. --
blantz@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK LLP, 1201 3rd Ave.
Ste. 3200, Seattle, WA, 98101-3052, Beth Marie Strosky, Esq. --
bstrosky@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P., 1201 3rd
Ave. Ste. 3200, Seattle, WA, 98101-3052, Maria Liesl Ruckwardt,
Esq. -- RUCKWARDT LAW, 818 Sw 3rd Ave. # 382, Portland, OR, 97204-
2405, Jason Harris Daywitt, Esq. -- jdaywitt@rizzopc.com -- RIZZO
MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC, 1300 Sw 6th Ave. Ste. 330, Portland, OR,
97201-3530, Shaun Mary Jd Morgan, Esq. -- smorgan@rizzopc.com --
RIZZO, MATTINGLY, BOSWORTH, 1300 Sw 6th Ave. Ste. 330, Portland,
OR, 97201-3530, Counsel for Petitioners.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Brye"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Willard E. Bartel and David E. Peebles, Administrators of the
Estate of Donald G. Brye, Sr., allege that Mr. Brye was exposed to
asbestos while working aboard various ships. Plaintiffs assert
that Decedent developed an asbestos-related illness as a result of
his exposure to asbestos aboard those ships.

Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the motion for summary
judgment filed by various shipowners represented by Thompson Hine
in the case captioned as WILLARD E. BARTEL, et al.,
(Administrators for Estate of Donald G. Brye) Plaintiffs, v. A-C
PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, ET AL., Defendantsm CONSOLIDATED UNDER
MDL 875, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-32120-ER (E.D. Pa.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated November 10, 2015 is
available at http://is.gd/SV3u1rfrom Leagle.com.

WILLARD E. BARTEL, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN,
Esq. -- dkrispin@jaquesadmiralty.com -- THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW
FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, Esq. -- dmarsden@jaquesadmiralty.com
-- JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., JOHN E. HERRICK, Esq. --
jherrick@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC & JOHN DAVID HURST,
Esq. -- jhurst@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC.

DAVID C. PEEBLES, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN, THE
JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, JAQUES
ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC & JOHN
DAVID HURST, MOTLEY RICE LLC.

WILLARD E. BARTEL, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN,
Esq. -- dkrispin@jaquesadmiralty.com -- THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW
FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, Esq. -- dmarsden@jaquesadmiralty.com
-- JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., JOHN E. HERRICK, Esq. --
jherrick@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC & JOHN DAVID HURST,
Esq. -- jhurst@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC.

DAVID C. PEEBLES, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN, THE
JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, JAQUES
ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC & JOHN
DAVID HURST, MOTLEY RICE LLC.

AMERICAN EXPORT ISBRANDTSEN, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, Esq. -- Hal.Henderson@ThompsonHine.com -- THOMPSON,
HINE LLP & RICHARD C. BINZLEY, Esq. --
Dick.Binzley@ThompsonHine.com -- THOMPSON, HINE AND FLORY.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Fibro Suit Against 3M to Start Feb. 16
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William M. Conley of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Wisconsin consolidated the asbestos cases
filed by Boyer, Masephol, Pecher, and Sydow against 3M Co. for
purposes of trial. That trial will commence on February 16, 2016.
The pretrial deadlines set in the Seehafer case will govern that
trial.

Judge Conley granted the motion to substitute Katrina Masephol as
the Special Administrator of the Estate of Richard Masephol as the
named plaintiff for her now-deceased father's claims.  The court
denied the plaintiff's leave to add a nuisance claim on behalf of
Katrina Masephol individually.

Judge Conley also granted in part and denied in part Defendant 3M
Co.'s motions to exclude the testimony of Dr. Arnold.  The Court
directed the Plaintiffs to produce Dr. Brody for a deposition by
December 31, 2015, if the plaintiffs intend to call Dr. Brody to
testify at the consolidated trial on plaintiffs' claims against
3M.  The trial dates and pre-trial deadlines in the Masephol,
Boyer, and Seehafer are struck.

The case is MILTON BOYER and KATHY BOYER, Plaintiffs, v.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, and METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendants. KATRINA MASEPHOL, Individually and as Special
Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Richard Masephol,
Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, and METROPOLITAN
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. JANET PECHER, Individually and
as Special Administrator on behalf of the Estate zof Urban Pecher,
Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, and METROPOLITAN
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. VIRGINIA PRUST, Individually
and as Special Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Valmore
Prust, Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, and METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. JANICE SEEHAFER, Individually and
as Special Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Roger
Seehafer, Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendant. THERESA
SYDOW, Individually and as Special Administrator on behalf of the
Estate of Roger Seehafer, Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M
COMPANY, and METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants BRIAN
HECKEL, Individually and as Special Administrator on behalf of the
Estate of Sharon Heckel, Plaintiff, v. CBS CORP., GENERAL ELECTRIC
CO., METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and WEYERHAEUSER
COMPANY, Defendants. DIANNE JACOBS, Individually and as Special
Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Rita Treutel, Plaintiff,
v. RAPID AMERICAN CORPORATION, and WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY,
Defendants, RAPID AMERICAN CORPORATION, Cross-claimant, v.
WEYERHAEUSER Company, Cross-defendant, NO. 14-CV-286-WMC, NO.14-
CV-186-WMC, NOS. 14-CV-147-WMC, 14-CV-143-WMC, 14-CV-161-WMC, 14-
CV-219-WMC, 13-CV-459-WMC, 12-CV-899-WMC.

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 6, 2015 is available
at http://is.gd/3lRoHxfrom Leagle.com.

The Estate of Richard Masephol, Plaintiff, represented by Michael
P. Cascino, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Alyssa R.
Segawa, Esq. -- info@galiherlaw.com  -- Galiher DeRobertis Waxman,
Anthony Carr, , Esq. -- info@galiherlaw.com  -- Galiher DeRobertis
Waxman, Gary Galiher, , Esq. -- info@galiherlaw.com  -- Galiher
DeRobertis Waxman, Ilana Waxman, , Esq. -- info@galiherlaw.com  --
Galiher DeRobertis Waxman, James Nicholas Hoey, Esq. -- Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., John Everett Guerry, III, Esq. --
rguerry@motleyrice.com  -- Motley Rice LLC, John Eugene Herrick,
Esq. -- jherrick@motleyrice.com Motley Rice LLC, L. Richard
DeRobertis, , Esq. -- info@galiherlaw.com  -- Galiher DeRobertis
Waxman, Nathan David Finch, Esq. -- nfinch@motleyrice.com --
Motley Rice LLC, Robert G. McCoy, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law
Offices, Ltd., Thomas David Hoyle, Esq. -- dhoyle@motleyrice.com -
- Motley Rice LLC & William C Swett, Esq. -- cswett@motleyrice.com
-- Motley Rice LLC.

3M Company, Defendant, represented by Edward J. McCambridge, Esq.
-- emccambridge@smsm.com -- Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney,
Ltd., Jason Patrick Eckerly, Esq. -- jeckerly@smsm.com -- Segal
McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., Bradley R. Bultman, Esq. --
bbultman@smsm.com -- Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd.,
Emily Zapotocny, Esq. -- ezapotocny@smsm.com -- Segal McCambridge
Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., Kevin B. Brown, Esq. --
kbrown@thompsoncoe.com  --  Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons, LLP & W.
Wayne Drinkwater, Jr., Esq. -- wdrinkwater@babc.com -- Bradley
Arant Boult Cumming LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Smitha Chintamaneni, Esq. -- schintam@vonbriesen.com -- von
Briesen & Roper.

Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendant, represented by Joshua J. Metcalf,
Esq. -- Joshua.Metcalf@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins &
Krutz, LLP, Mitch McGuffey, Esq. --
Mitch.McGuffeyf@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP,
Ruth F. Maron, Esq. -- Ruth.Maron@formanwatkins.com -- Forman
Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Tanya D. Ellis, Esq. --
Tanya.Ellis@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP &
Thomas Benton York, Esq. -- Thomas.Benton@formanwatkins.com --
Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment vs. Schmidt Affirmed in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chambers Creek LLC appeals a trial court's order granting summary
judgment to Anthony and Charles Schmidt on Chambers' claims for
civil conspiracy and conversion.  Chambers argues that summary
judgment was improper because its settlement agreement with Coyote
Excavating, Inc. does not preclude its claims against the Schmidts
and there are genuine disputes of material fact.  In response, the
Schmidts argue that Chambers' claims are barred by judicial
estoppel and the compulsory counterclaims doctrine.

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two, affirmed the
summary judgment on the civil conspiracy claim and reversed
summary judgment and remand for trial on the conversion claim.

The court held that (1) neither judicial estoppel nor the
compulsory counterclaim doctrine bar Chambers' conspiracy and
conversion claims, (2) Chambers' settlement agreement with Coyote
does not preclude its claims against the Schmidts, (3) a genuine
dispute of material fact exists such that summary judgment was
improper on Chambers' conversion claim, but (4) summary judgment
was proper on the civil conspiracy claim.

The case is CHAMBERS CREEK LLC, a limited liability company
registered to do business in Washington, Appellant, v. CHARLES
SCHMIDT; and ANTHONY SCHMIDT, Respondents, NO. 46898-1-II.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated November 17, 2015 is
available at http://is.gd/9eARqofrom Leagle.com.

Paul Edward Brain, Esq. -- Brain Law Firm PLLC, 1119 Pacific Ave
Ste 1200, Tacoma, WA, 98402-4323, Counsel for Appellants.

Steven Charles Burke, Esq. -- Case & Dusterhoff, LLP, 9800 Sw
Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy Ste 200, Beaverton, OR, 97005-3361,
Counsel for Respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favoring PATCO Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
The Estate of Sandra Brust and Philip Brust appeas from the
summary judgment dismissal of their complaint.

Sandra Brust was diagnosed with mesothelioma in October 2010, and
passed away from the disease while the litigation was pending.
The Plaintiffs allege that Brust's father John Noga's employment
from 1970 to 1977 as a train operator, yard operator, and
supervisor with Port Authority Transit Corporation (PATCO)
resulted in take-home asbestos exposure leading to her illness.

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed
Judge Vincent LeBlon's decision granting PATCO's motions for
summary judgment as a matter of law.

Judge LeBlon's granted summary judgment to the automotive
defendants because, even when the facts were viewed in the light
most favorable to plaintiffs, no genuine issue of material fact
remained which could expose them to any liability.

As to the automotive defendants, Judge LeBlon found that there was
no evidence that Brust's contacts with automotive brake dust were
sufficiently frequent, regular, and proximate to demonstrate
causation. Thus, plaintiffs' proofs did not establish the elements
of a prima facie case.

The case is ESTATE OF SANDRA BRUST and PHILIP BRUST, individually
and as Executor and Executor ad Prosequendum of the Estate of
Sandra Brust, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ACF INDUSTRIES, LLC, f/k/a
American Car & Foundry Co.; AMSTED RAIL GROUP, individually and as
successor to and d/b/a Griffin Wheel Company; BOMBARDIER
TRANSPORTATION (HOLDINGS) USA INC.; CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, f/k/a Viacom, Inc., successor by merger to CBS
Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse
Electric Corp.; CARRIER CORPORATION; CERTAINTEED CORP.,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Gustin Bacon; EATON
CORPORATION, as successor-in-interest to Eaton Electrical, Inc.,
and Cutler-Hammer, Inc.; FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION;
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GE LEASING, individually and as
successor to ITEL Leasing, The Pullman Leasing Company and The
Pullman Company; GRIMES AEROSPACE CORPORATION, individually and as
successor to FL Aerospace Corporation and Midland-Ross Corp.;
KAWASAKI RAIL CAR INC.; NEW YORK AIR BRAKE CORPORATION; PULLMAN
TECHNOLOGY INC., individually and as successor to The Pullman
Company; ROCKWELL AUTOMATION INC., as successor by merger to
Allen-Bradley, Inc.; SIEMENS ENERGY & AUTOMATION, INC., f/k/a I-T-
E Circuit Breakers; SQUARE-D COMPANY; THYSSENKRUPP BUDD CO., f/k/a
and as successor to The Budd Company; TRANE US, INC., f/k/a
American Standard, Inc., f/k/a Westinghouse Air Brake Company;
TRINITY INDUSTRIES, individually and as successor to The Pullman
Transportation Company and The Pullman Company; UNION CARBIDE
CORP.; WABTEC CORPORATION, individually and as successor in
interest to Westinghouse Air Brake Co. (WABCO) and MotivePower
Industries, Inc.; GOULD ELECTRONICS, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to ITE Circuit Breakers; OLD ORCHARD
INDUSTRIAL CORP., individually and as successor-in-interest to
Vapor Corporation; and AMSTED INDUSTRIES, INC., f/k/a American
Steel Foundries (ASF), Defendants, and DELAWARE RIVER PORT
AUTHORITY (DRPA), individually and d/b/a Port Authority Transit
Corporation (PATCO); HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., f/k/a Allied
Signal, Inc. as successor-in-interest to The Bendix Corporation;
PEP BOYS-MANNY MOE & JACK OF DELAWARE, INC.; PNEUMO-ABEX, LLC, as
successor-in-interest to Abex Corporation, f/k/a American Brake
Shoe Company; PORT AUTHORITY TRANSIT CORPORATION (PATCO); and
RAILROAD FRICTION PRODUCTS CORPORATION, individually and d/b/a
Cobra, Defendants-Respondents, NO. A-3431-13T4.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated November 19, 2015 is
available at http://is.gd/ZptIaPfrom Leagle.com.

Jeffrey P. Blumstein, Esq. -- JBlumstein@szaferman.com -- argued
the cause for appellants (Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein & Blader,
P.C. and Levy Konigsberg, LLP, attorneys; Robert E. Lytle, Esq. --
on the briefs).

Christopher R. Gibson, Esq. -- cgibson@archerlaw.com -- argued the
cause for respondent Delaware River Port Authority and Port
Authority Transit Corporation (Archer & Greiner, attorneys; Mr.
Gibson, of counsel and on the brief; Patrick M. Flynn, Esq. --
pflynn@archerlaw.com -- on the brief).

John C. Garde, Esq. -- jgarde@mccarter.com  -- argued the cause
for respondent Honeywell International Inc., f/k/a Allied Signal,
Inc. as successor-in-interest to The Bendix Corporation (McCarter
& English, LLP and Gibbons, P.C., attorneys; Debra M. Perry, Esq.
-- dperry@mccarter.com -- Kim M. Catullo, Esq. --
kcatullo@mccarter.com -- and Ethan D. Stein, Esq. --
estein@mccarter.com of counsel; Mr. Garde and Jean Patterson, Esq.
-- jpatterson@mccarter.com -- on the brief).

Walter F. Kawalec, III, Esq. -- wfkawalec@mdwcg.com -- argued the
cause for respondent Pep Boys --Manny Moe & Jack of Delaware, Inc.
(Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, attorneys; Paul
Johnson, Esq. -- pcjohnson@mdwcg.com -- Lisa Only, Esq. and Mr.
Kawalec, on the brief).

Reagan W. Simpson, Esq. -- rsimpson@yettercoleman.com -- Yetter
Coleman LLP, of the Texas bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the
cause for respondent Pneumo Abex, LLC, Roy F. Viola, Jr., Esq. --
rviola@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP, and
Mr. Simpson, attorneys; Mr. Viola and Mr. Simpson, on the brief).

David J. Bird, Esq. -- dbird@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, of
the Pennsylvania bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for
respondent Railroad Friction Products Corporation (Bonner Kiernan
Trebach & Crociata, LLP, attorneys; Mark A. Lockett, Esq. --
mlockett@bonnerkiernan.com -- on the brief).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5 Cos. Win Summary Judgment in "Stallings"
-----------------------------------------------------------
William Stallings sued Georgia-Pacific Corporation, IMO
Industries, Crane Company, John Crane Inc., and CBS Corporation
under strict liability and negligence theories, alleging that
exposure to their asbestos-containing products caused him to
develop mesothelioma. Following Stallings's death, his widow,
Carol Lee Stallings, continued the suit as executrix of his
estate. Each remaining defendant has moved for summary judgment

Judge David J. Hale of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division granted
Defendants' motions because the plaintiff cannot establish
substantial causation against each defendant.

The case is CAROL LEE STALLINGS, Individually and as Executrix of
the Estate of William Stallings, Plaintiff, v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-724-DJH.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
November 17, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/fw4secfrom
Leagle.com.

Carol Lee Stallings, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth L. Sales,
Esq. -- KSales@bubalolaw.com -- Bubalo Goode Sales & Bliss, PLC.

Georgia Pacific Corporation, Defendant, represented by Raymond P.
Harris, Jr., Esq. -- rharris@schachterharris.com -- Schachter
Harrris, LLP & Rebecca F. Schupbach, Esq. -- Napier Gault Schupach
& Moore PLC.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Albert F. Grasch, Jr.,
Esq. -- firm@graschlaw.com -- Grasch Law, PSC, Gregory Scott
Gowen, Esq. -- sgowen@fmdlegal.com  -- Fultz, Maddox, Hovious &
Dickens PLC, James L. Thomerson, Esq. -- firm@graschlaw.com --
Grasch Law, PSC &Scott T. Dickens, Esq. -- sdickens@fmdlegal.com -
- Fultz, Maddox, Hovious & Dickens PLC.

Crane Company, Defendant, represented by Stefan Richard Hughes,
Esq. -- rhughes@coleandmoore.com -- Cole & Moore, PSC.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Berlin Tsai, Esq. --
Lynch, Cox, Gilman & Goodman, P.S.C., Joseph P. Hummel, Esq. --
Lynch, Cox, Gilman & Goodman, P.S.C., Max S. Hartz, Esq. --
McCarroll, Nunley, Hartz & Lee & William Thomas Rump, IV, Esq. --
Lynch, Cox, Gilman & Goodman, P.S.C..

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ekundayo Seton,
Esq. -- dseton@wyattfirm.com -- Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs LLP &
Walter M. Jones, Esq. -- wjones@wyattfirm.com --  Wyatt, Tarrant &
Combs LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Win Summary Judgment Bids in 3 Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the three "Motions
For Summary Judgment of Shipowner Defendants Represented by
Thompson Hine LLP and dismissed the cases with prejudice.

The cases are IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (No.
VI) relating to DESTASIO v. A-C PRODUCTS LIABILITY TRUST, et al.;
SCHINDLER v. FOSTER WHEELER CO., et al.; and DILBERT v. KEYSTONE
SHIPPING CO., et al, CASE NO. 11-CV-31250, NO. 11-CV-33911., 11-
CV-33924 (E.D. Pa.).

Full-text copy of the Memorandums dated November 6, 2015 and
November 9, 2015 respectively are available at http://is.gd/JB3RBw
and http://is.gd/xRE4eXfrom Leagle.com.

WILLARD E. BARTEL, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN,
Esq. -- dkrispin@jaquesadmiralty.com -- THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW
FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, Esq. -- dmarsden@jaquesadmiralty.com
-- JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., JOHN E. HERRICK, Esq. --
jherrick@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC & JOHN DAVID HURST,
Esq. -- jhurst@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC.

DAVID C. PEEBLES, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN, THE
JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, JAQUES
ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC & JOHN
DAVID HURST, MOTLEY RICE LLC.

A. W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JOHN P.
PATTERSON, Esq. -- john.patterson@tuckerellis.com -- TUCKER ELLIS
WEST.

GATKE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JOHN M. HERKE,
SPYRIDON PALERMO & DORNAN.

IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by COLLEEN A.
MOUNTCASTLE, Esq. -- cmountcastle@gallaghersharp.com -- GALLAGHER
SHARP, STEPHEN M. BEAUDRY, Esq. -- sbeaudry@gallaghersharp.com --
GALLAGHER SHARP, JAMES T. MILLICAN, II, Esq. --
jmillican@gallaghersharp.com -- GALLAGHER SHARP & KEVIN C.
ALEXANDERSEN, Esq. -- kalexandersen@gallaghersharp.com --
GALLAGHER SHARP.

EXXON COMPANY USA, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON,
THOMPSON, HINE LLP & WILLIAM H. ARMSTRONG, ARMSTRONG ASSOC LLP.

ESSO SHIPPING CO., Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON,
THOMPSON, HINE LLP & WILLIAM H. ARMSTRONG, ARMSTRONG ASSOC LLP.

STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY, Defendant, represented by HAROLD
W. HENDERSON, Esq. -- Hal.Henderson@ThompsonHine.com -- THOMPSON,
HINE LLP & WILLIAM H. ARMSTRONG, Esq. -- ARMSTRONG ASSOC LLP.

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP & WILLIAM H. ARMSTRONG, ARMSTRONG
ASSOC LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $7MM Est. Fibro Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation estimates its asbestos-related
aggregate liability at approximately $7,091,000, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

Like many industrial manufacturers, the Company is involved in
asbestos-related litigation.  In continually evaluating costs
relating to its estimated asbestos-related liability, the Company
reviews, among other things, the incidence of past and recent
claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the mix of the claimed
illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its recent and
historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending
against it, the status and results of broad-based settlement
discussions, and the number of years such activity might continue.
Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share of
liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related personal
injury claims.  This estimate is highly uncertain due to the
limitations of the available data and the difficulty of
forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can
affect the range of the liability.  The Company will continue to
study the variables in light of additional information in order to
identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact
on the range of liability that is probable and estimable.

Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between $6,700,000 and $11,200,000 using actuarial
parameters of continued claims for a period of 37 years from
September 30, 2015.  The Company's estimation of its asbestos-
related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in
accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles
approximates $7,091,000, which has been reflected as a liability
in the consolidated financial statements as of September 30, 2015.
The recorded liability does not consider the impact of any
potential favorable federal legislation.  This liability will
fluctuate based on the uncertainty in the number of future claims
that will be filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may
be influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the
ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies,
and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement
program.  Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos
liability payments of approximately $2,000,000 over the next 12
months.  Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over
many years, management believes that the potential additional
costs for claims will not have a material effect on the financial
condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of
any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a
future period.

Columbus McKinnon Corporation is a global designer, manufacturer
and marketer of hoists, rigging tools, cranes, actuators, and
other material handling products serving a range of commercial and
industrial end user markets.  The products include a range of
electric, lever, hand and air-powered hoists, hoist trolleys,
winches, industrial crane systems such as bridge, gantry and jib
cranes; alloy and carbon steel chain; closed-die forged
attachments, such as hooks, shackles, textile slings, clamps,
logging tools and load binders; industrial components, such as
mechanical and electromechanical actuators and rotary unions;
below-the-hook special purpose lifters; tire shredders; and light-
rail systems.  The diverse end users of the products are in a
range of industries, including manufacturing, power generation and
distribution, utilities, wind power, warehouses, commercial
construction, oil exploration and refining, among others.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus Seeks Dismissal of Magnetek Fibro Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation seeks dismissal of asbestos-related
lawsuits filed against Magnetek Inc., along with multiple other
defendants, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015.

On September 2, 2015, Columbus McKinnon acquired 100% of the
shares of Magnetek, which is a global provider of digital power
control systems that are used to control motion and power
primarily in material handling, elevator, and mining applications.

Magnetek has been named, along with multiple other defendants, in
asbestos-related lawsuits associated with business operations
previously acquired but which are no longer owned.  During
Magnetek's ownership, none of the businesses produced or sold
asbestos-containing products.  For such claims, Magnetek is
uninsured and either contractually indemnified against liability,
or contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the purchaser
of these former business operations.  The Company aggressively
seeks dismissal from these proceedings.  Based on actuarial
information, the asbestos related liability including legal costs
is estimated to be approximately $1,523,000 which has been
reflected as a liability in the consolidated financial statements
at September 30, 2015.

Columbus McKinnon Corporation is a global designer, manufacturer
and marketer of hoists, rigging tools, cranes, actuators, and
other material handling products serving a range of commercial and
industrial end user markets.  The products include a range of
electric, lever, hand and air-powered hoists, hoist trolleys,
winches, industrial crane systems such as bridge, gantry and jib
cranes; alloy and carbon steel chain; closed-die forged
attachments, such as hooks, shackles, textile slings, clamps,
logging tools and load binders; industrial components, such as
mechanical and electromechanical actuators and rotary unions;
below-the-hook special purpose lifters; tire shredders; and light-
rail systems.  The diverse end users of the products are in a
range of industries, including manufacturing, power generation and
distribution, utilities, wind power, warehouses, commercial
construction, oil exploration and refining, among others.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon, Units Continue to Defend PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation and two of its subsidiaries, Baltimore Gas and
Electric and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, continue to defend
themselves against two asbestos-related premises liability cases,
LLC, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

Since 1993, BGE and certain Constellation (now Exelon Generation
Company, LLC) subsidiaries have been involved in several actions
concerning asbestos.  The actions are based upon the theory of
"premises liability," alleging that BGE and Generation knew of and
exposed individuals to an asbestos hazard.  In addition to BGE and
Generation, numerous other parties are defendants in these cases.
Approximately 468 individuals who were never employees of BGE or
certain Constellation subsidiaries have pending claims each
seeking several million dollars in compensatory and punitive
damages.  Cross-claims and third-party claims brought by other
defendants may also be filed against BGE and certain Constellation
subsidiaries in these actions.  Most asbestos claims which have
been resolved have been dismissed or resolved without any payment
by BGE or certain Constellation subsidiaries and a small minority
of these cases has been resolved for amounts that were not
material to BGE or Generation's financial results.

Discovery begins in these cases after they are placed on the trial
docket.  At present, only two of the pending cases are set for
trial.  Given the limited discovery in these cases, BGE and
Generation do not know the specific facts that are necessary to
provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss relating to
these claims; as such, no accrual has been made and a range of
loss is not estimable. The specific facts not known include:

    * the identity of the facilities at which the plaintiffs
      allegedly worked as contractors;

    * the names of the plaintiffs' employers;

    * the dates on which and the places where the exposure
      allegedly occurred; and

    * the facts and circumstances relating to the alleged
      exposure.

Insurance and hold harmless agreements from contractors who
employed the plaintiffs may cover a portion of any awards in the
actions.

Exelon Corporation is an energy provider and holding Company for
several energy businesses.  Exelon is engaged in the energy
generation business through its Exelon Generation Company, LLC
(Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales through
its Constellation business unit and the energy delivery business
through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE), Commonwealth Edison
Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO) subsidiaries.
Generation's integrated business consists of its owned and
contracted electric generating facilities and investments in
generation ventures that are marketed through its customer-facing
activities.  ComEd's energy delivery business consists of the
purchase and regulated retail sale of electricity and the
provision of transmission and distribution services to retail
customers in northern Illinois.  PECO's energy delivery business
in southeastern Pennsylvania and BGE's in central Maryland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Unit Had $95MM PI Claims Reserve
--------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
had reserved approximately $95 million for asbestos-related bodily
injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015.

Generation maintains a reserve for claims associated with
asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities
that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned by
ComEd and PECO.  The reserve is recorded on an undiscounted basis
and excludes the estimated legal costs associated with handling
these matters, which could be material.

At September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, Generation had
reserved approximately $95 million and $100 million, respectively,
in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims.  As of
September 30, 2015, approximately $20 million of this amount
related to 217 open claims presented to Generation, while the
remaining $75 million of the reserve is for estimated future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through
2050, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are
updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, Generation
monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims
to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates whether
an adjustment to the reserve is necessary.

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

On June 27, 2014, the Illinois Court of Appeals ruled that the
Illinois Worker's Compensation law should not apply in cases where
the diagnosis of an asbestos related disease occurred after the
25-year maximum time period for filing a Worker's Compensation
claim.  This decision is now on appeal to the Illinois Supreme
Court.  If confirmed on appeal, former employees could file suit
against Exelon, Generation, and ComEd, similar to the way former
employees are filing suit against Exelon in Pennsylvania.
Currently, Exelon, Generation, and ComEd are unable to predict
whether and to what extent they may experience additional claims
in the future as a result of this ruling; as such, no increase to
the asbestos-related bodily injury liability has been recorded as
of September 30, 2015.

Exelon Corporation is an energy provider and holding Company for
several energy businesses.  Exelon is engaged in the energy
generation business through its Exelon Generation Company, LLC
(Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales through
its Constellation business unit and the energy delivery business
through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE), Commonwealth Edison
Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO) subsidiaries.
Generation's integrated business consists of its owned and
contracted electric generating facilities and investments in
generation ventures that are marketed through its customer-facing
activities.  ComEd's energy delivery business consists of the
purchase and regulated retail sale of electricity and the
provision of transmission and distribution services to retail
customers in northern Illinois.  PECO's energy delivery business
in southeastern Pennsylvania and BGE's in central Maryland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eaton Corporation plc continues to defend itself against asbestos
claims from historic products which may have contained asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

Historically, significant insurance coverage has been available to
cover costs associated with these claims.  Although it is not
possible to predict with certainty the outcome or cost of these
matters, the Company believes they will not have a material
adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements.

Eaton Corporation plc operates as a power management company
worldwide.  Its Electrical Products segment offers electrical
components, industrial components, residential products, single
phase power quality, emergency lighting, fire detection, wiring
devices, structural support systems, circuit protection, and
lighting products.  The company was founded in 1916 and is based
in Dublin, Ireland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carpenter Tech Continues to Defend PI Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Carpenter Technology Corp. continues to defend itself against
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
chemicals and substances in the workplace such as asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015.

The Company states: "We are defending various routine claims and
legal actions that are incidental to our business, and that are
common to our operations, including those pertaining to product
claims, commercial disputes, patent infringement, employment
actions, employee benefits, compliance with domestic and foreign
laws, personal injury claims and tax issues.  Like many other
manufacturing companies in recent years we, from time to time,
have been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to chemicals and substances in the
workplace such as asbestos.  We provide for costs relating to
these matters when a loss is probable and the amount of the loss
is reasonably estimable.  The effect of the outcome of these
matters on our future results of operations and liquidity cannot
be predicted because any such effect depends on future results of
operations and the amount and timing (both as to recording future
charges to operations and cash expenditures) of the resolution of
such matters.  While it is not feasible to determine the outcome
of these matters, we believe that the total liability from these
matters will not have a material effect on our financial position,
results of operations or cash flows over the long-term.  However,
there can be no assurance that an increase in the scope of pending
matters or that any future lawsuits, claims, proceedings or
investigations will not be material to our financial position,
results of operations or cash flows in a particular future quarter
or year."

Carpenter Technology Corp. engages in the manufacture,
fabrication, and distribution of specialty metals and engineered
products. The Company is based in Reading, Pa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Talc-Related Suits v. Colgate Set for Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company reported that some of the talc-related
asbestos cases filed against the Company are expected to go trial
this year, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015.

The Company is a defendant in a number of civil actions alleging
that certain talc products it sold prior to 1996 were contaminated
with asbestos.  The Company is challenging these cases vigorously.
Twenty-three cases filed against the Company have been voluntarily
dismissed and/or had final judgment entered in favor of the
Company.  In addition, the Company has settled eight cases for
amounts that are not material to the Company's results of
operations.

There are 32 additional individual cases pending against the
Company in state and federal courts in California, Delaware, the
District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina and
Wisconsin.  Nineteen of these cases have been filed against the
Company since the quarter ended June 30, 2015; all but one of
these cases have multiple defendants named in addition to the
Company.  Some of the cases are expected to go to trial in 2015.
While the Company and its legal counsel believe that these cases
are without merit and intend to challenge them vigorously, there
can be no assurances of the outcome at trial.  Since the amount of
any potential losses from these cases currently cannot be
estimated, the range of reasonably possible losses in excess of
accrued liabilities does not include any amount relating to these
cases.

New York-based Colgate-Palmolive Company makes and markets
toothpaste and oral care products (mouthwashes, toothpaste,
toothbrushes).  The Company operates in more than 70 countries and
sells its products in about 200 countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims v. Lincoln Drop to 8,901 at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. disclosed that at September 30,
2015, the Company was a co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos
induced illness involving claims by approximately 8,901
plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of 432 claims from those
previously reported, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015.

In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of
defendants.  The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and punitive
damages, in most cases for unspecified sums.  Since January 1,
1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in other similar cases
that have been resolved as follows: 49,214 of those claims were
dismissed, 22 were tried to defense verdicts, seven were tried to
plaintiff verdicts (one of which is being appealed), one was
resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and 681 were
decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment
motions.

Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc.'s primary business is the design
and manufacture of arc welding and cutting products, manufacturing
a broad line of arc welding equipment, consumable welding products
and other welding and cutting products.  The Company is
headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 452 Claims Pending at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation had 452 pending asbestos-related claims as of
September 30, 2015, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015.

The Company states: "A significant number of asbestos-related
product liability claims have been brought against numerous United
States industrial companies where the third-party plaintiffs
allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing
products.  We have been named, along with hundreds of other
companies, as a defendant in some of these claims.  In virtually
all of these claims filed against us, the plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified damages, or, if an amount is specified, such amount
merely represents a jurisdictional amount.  However, occasionally
specific damages are alleged and in such situations, plaintiffs'
lawyers often sue dozens of defendants, frequently without factual
basis or support.  As a result, even when a specific amount of
damages is alleged, such action can be arbitrary, both as to the
amount being sought and the defendant being charged with such
damages.

"We did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos; rather we
made a limited number of products which contained encapsulated
asbestos.  Such products were provided to industrial users.  We
stopped manufacturing these products in the late 1980s.

"We have been named in asbestos litigation primarily in Illinois,
Pennsylvania and Mississippi.  As of September 30, 2015, there
were 452 pending claims compared to 438 pending claims at
December 31, 2014.  The number of pending claims at a particular
time can fluctuate significantly from period to period depending
on how successful we have been in getting these cases dismissed or
settled.  Some jurisdictions prohibit specifying alleged damages
in personal injury tort cases such as these, other than a minimum
jurisdictional amount which may be required for such reasons as
allowing the case to be litigated in a jury trial (which the
plaintiffs believe will be more favorable to them than if heard
only before a judge) or allowing the case to be litigated in
federal court.  This is in contrast to commercial litigation, in
which specific alleged damage claims are often permitted.  The
prohibition on specifying alleged damages sometimes applies not
only to the suit when filed but also during the trial -- in some
jurisdictions the plaintiff is not actually permitted to specify
to the jury during the course of the trial the amount of alleged
damages the plaintiff is claiming.  Further, in those
jurisdictions in which plaintiffs are permitted to claim specific
alleged damages, many plaintiffs nonetheless still choose not to
do so.  In those cases in which plaintiffs are permitted to and
choose to assert specific dollar amounts in their complaints, we
believe the amounts claimed are typically not meaningful as an
indicator of a company's potential liability.  This is because (1)
the amounts claimed may bear no relation to the level of the
plaintiff's alleged injury and are often used as part of the
plaintiff's litigation strategy, (2) the complaints typically
assert claims against numerous defendants, and often the alleged
damages are not allocated against specific defendants, but rather
the broad claim is made against all of the defendants as a group,
making it impossible for a particular defendant to quantify the
alleged damages that are being specifically claimed against it and
therefore its potential liability, and (3) many cases are brought
on behalf of plaintiffs who have not suffered any medical injury,
and ultimately are resolved without any payment or payment of a
small fraction of the damages initially claimed.

"We believe the rate at which plaintiffs filed asbestos-related
suits against us increased in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 because of
increased activity on the part of plaintiffs to identify those
companies that sold asbestos-containing products, but which did
not directly mine, mill or market asbestos.  A significant
increase in the volume of asbestos-related bodily injury cases
arose in Mississippi in 2002.  This increase in the volume of
claims in Mississippi was apparently due to the passage of tort
reform legislation (applicable to asbestos-related injuries),
which became effective on September 1, 2003 and which resulted in
a higher than average number of claims being filed in Mississippi
by plaintiffs seeking to ensure their claims would be governed by
the law in effect prior to the passage of tort reform.  The number
of asbestos related suits filed against us decreased slightly in
2005 and 2006, but increased slightly in 2007, declined in 2008
and increased again in 2009 and 2010.  The number of lawsuits
filed against us in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and the first nine
months of 2015 (annualized) was significantly higher than in 2010.
These new lawsuits are reflected in the National Economic Research
Associates, Inc. ("NERA") and Marsh USA, Inc. ("Marsh") reports.

"In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they
have suffered any compensable loss as a result of exposure to our
asbestos-containing products.  We believe that the trend will
continue and that a majority of the claimants in pending cases
will not be able to demonstrate exposure or loss.  This belief is
based in large part on the limited number of asbestos-related
products manufactured and sold by us and the fact that the
asbestos was encapsulated in such products.  In addition, even at
sites where the presence of an alleged injured party can be
verified during the same period those products were used, our
liability cannot be presumed because even if an individual
contracted an asbestos-related disease, not everyone who was
employed at a site was exposed to the asbestos containing products
that we manufactured. Based on these and other factors, we have
and will continue to vigorously defend ourselves in asbestos-
related matters.

"Cases involving us typically name 50-300 defendants, although
some cases have had as few as one (1) and as many as 833
defendants.  We have obtained the dismissal of many of these
claims.  For the nine months ended September 30, 2015, 148 claims
were dismissed and five claims were settled.  For the year ended
December 31, 2014, 104 claims were dismissed and 13 were settled.
The majority of costs have been paid by our insurance carriers,
including the costs associated with the small number of cases that
have been settled.  We paid $1.6 million on settlements for the
nine months ended September 30, 2015, compared to $1.5 million for
the nine months ended September 30, 2014.  Although these figures
provide some insight into our experience with asbestos litigation,
no guarantee can be made as to the dismissal and settlement rates
that we will experience in the future.

"Settlements are made without any admission of liability.
Settlement amounts may vary depending upon a number of factors,
including the jurisdiction where the action was brought, the
nature and extent of the disease alleged and the associated
medical evidence, the age and occupation of the claimant, the
existence or absence of other possible causes of the alleged
illness of the alleged injured party and the availability of legal
defenses, as well as whether the action is brought alone or as
part of a group of claimants.  To date, we have been successful in
obtaining dismissals for many of the claims and have settled only
a limited number.  Most of the settled claims were settled for
nominal amounts, and the majority of such payments have been borne
by our insurance carriers. In addition, to date, we have not been
required to pay any punitive damage awards.

"NERA has historically been engaged to assist us in projecting our
future asbestos-related liabilities and defense costs with regard
to pending claims and future claims.  Projecting future asbestos
costs is subject to numerous variables that are extremely
difficult to predict, including the number of claims that might be
received, the type and severity of the disease alleged by each
claimant, the long latency period associated with asbestos
exposure, dismissal rates, costs of medical treatment, the
financial resources of other companies that are co-defendants in
claims, uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case and the impact
of potential changes in legislative or judicial standards,
including potential tort reform.  Furthermore, any predictions
with respect to these variables are subject to even greater
uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. In light of these
inherent uncertainties, the variability of our claims history and
consultations with NERA, we currently believe that ten years is
the most reasonable period for recognizing a reserve for future
costs, and that costs that might be incurred after that period are
not reasonably estimable at this time.  As a result, we also
believe that our ultimate asbestos-related contingent liability
(i.e., our indemnity or other claim disposition costs plus related
legal fees) cannot be estimated with reasonable certainty.

"Our applicable insurance policies generally provide coverage for
asbestos liability costs, including coverage for both indemnity
and defense costs. Following the initiation of asbestos
litigation, an effort was made to identify all of our primary,
umbrella and excess level insurance carriers that provided
applicable coverage beginning in the 1950s through the mid-1980s.
We located primary policies for all such years except for the
early 1960s.  With respect to this period, we entered into an
arrangement with ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Company in
2005, pursuant to which we and they share in asbestos liabilities
allocable to such period.  We have located umbrella or excess
layer policies for all such years except for the period from May
18, 1961 to May 18, 1964.  We believe that a policy was purchased
from Continental Casualty Company covering this period based upon
documents we have found, but the insurer has denied coverage.
This policy has not yet been triggered.

"Where appropriate, carriers were put on notice of the litigation.
Marsh has historically been engaged to work with us to project our
insurance coverage for asbestos-related claims.  Marsh's
conclusions are based primarily on a review of our coverage
history, application of reasonable assumptions on the allocation
of coverage consistent with certain industry practices, an
assessment of the creditworthiness of the insurance carriers,
analysis of applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits,
the experience of NERA and a review of NERA's reports."

Rogers Corporation is a supplier of specialty materials products
across range of end markets, including portable communications,
communications infrastructure, consumer electronics, mass transit,
automotive, defense, and clean technology.  The Company's products
are sold into markets, including high technology applications such
as cellular base stations and antennae, hand held wireless
devices, energy efficient motor drives, wind and solar energy
applications, and electric and hybrid-electric vehicles.  The
Company's has presence and serves three major geographic regions:
North America, Europe, and Asia.  The Company operates in two
business segments: Core Strategic and Other.  The Company's core
strategic segment includes High Performance Foams (HPF), Printed
Circuit Materials (PCM) and Power Electronics Solutions (PES).
The Company's products were sold to over 3,000 customers worldwide
in 2013.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Still Has Cost Sharing Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation reported that its cost sharing agreement with
insurance carriers has not been terminated, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

The Company states: "Our insurance carriers have paid for
substantially all of the settlement and defense costs associated
with our asbestos-related claims.  The current cost sharing
agreement between us and such insurance carriers is primarily
designed to facilitate the ongoing administration and payment of
such claims by the carriers until the applicable insurance
coverage is exhausted.  This agreement, which replaced an older
agreement that had expired, can be terminated by election of any
party thereto after January 25, 2015.  Absent any such election,
the agreement will continue until a party elects to terminate it.
As of the report filing date for this report, the agreement has
not been terminated.

"In 2014, the primary layer insurance policies providing coverage
for the January 1, 1966 to January 1, 1967 period exhausted.  The
cost sharing agreement contemplates that any excess carrier over
exhausted primary layer carriers will become a party to the cost
sharing agreement, replacing the coverage provided by the
exhausted primary policies if the carrier providing such excess
coverage is not already a party to the cost sharing agreement.
The excess carrier providing coverage for the period is currently
providing applicable insurance coverage in accordance with the
allocation provisions of the cost sharing agreement, but has not
yet signed that agreement."

Rogers Corporation is a supplier of specialty materials products
across range of end markets, including portable communications,
communications infrastructure, consumer electronics, mass transit,
automotive, defense, and clean technology.  The Company's products
are sold into markets, including high technology applications such
as cellular base stations and antennae, hand held wireless
devices, energy efficient motor drives, wind and solar energy
applications, and electric and hybrid-electric vehicles.  The
Company's has presence and serves three major geographic regions:
North America, Europe, and Asia. The Company operates in two
business segments: Core Strategic and Other. The Company's core
strategic segment includes High Performance Foams (HPF), Printed
Circuit Materials (PCM) and Power Electronics Solutions (PES). The
Company's products were sold to over 3,000 customers worldwide in
2013.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation continues to defend itself against lawsuits
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly
contained in its products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

The Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in
or accompanying products made by the Company.  The Company is a
co-defendant with numerous other defendants in these lawsuits and
intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims.  The
claims in the Company's current lawsuits are similar to those made
in previous asbestos suits that named the Company as defendant,
which either were dismissed when it was shown that the Company had
not supplied products to the plaintiffs' places of work or were
settled for immaterial amounts.

As of September 30, 2015, the Company was subject to the claims,
as well as other legal proceedings and potential claims that have
arisen in the ordinary course of business.

Although the outcome of the lawsuits, legal proceedings or
potential claims to which the Company is or may become a party
cannot be determined and an estimate of the reasonably possible
loss or range of loss cannot be made, management does not believe
that the outcomes, either individually or in the aggregate, will
have a material effect on the Company's results of operations,
financial position or cash flows.

Graham Corporation designs, manufactures and sells critical
equipment for the energy, defense and chemical/petrochemical
industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Corp. Had $995MM Reserves at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation had $995 million reserves for asbestos
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015.

Allstate's reserves for asbestos claims were $995 million and
$1.01 billion, net of reinsurance recoverables of $475 million and
$478 million, as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014,
respectively.  Reserves for environmental claims were $188 million
and $203 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of $45 million
and $64 million, as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014,
respectively.  Approximately 57% and 57% of the total net asbestos
and environmental reserves as of September 30, 2015 and December
31, 2014, respectively, were for incurred but not reported
estimated losses.

Management believes its net loss reserves for asbestos,
environmental and other discontinued lines exposures are
appropriately established based on available facts, technology,
laws and regulations.  However, establishing net loss reserves for
asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines claims is
subject to uncertainties that are much greater than those
presented by other types of claims.  The ultimate cost of losses
may vary materially from recorded amounts, which are based on
management's best estimate.  Among the complications are lack of
historical data, long reporting delays, uncertainty as to the
number and identity of insureds with potential exposure and
unresolved legal issues regarding policy coverage; unresolved
legal issues regarding the determination, availability and timing
of exhaustion of policy limits; plaintiffs' evolving and expanding
theories of liability; availability and collectability of
recoveries from reinsurance; retrospectively determined premiums
and other contractual agreements; estimates of the extent and
timing of any contractual liability; the impact of bankruptcy
protection sought by various asbestos producers and other asbestos
defendants; and other uncertainties.  There are also complex legal
issues concerning the interpretation of various insurance policy
provisions and whether those losses are covered, or were ever
intended to be covered, and could be recoverable through
retrospectively determined premium, reinsurance or other
contractual agreements.  Courts have reached different and
sometimes inconsistent conclusions as to when losses are deemed to
have occurred and which policies provide coverage; what types of
losses are covered; whether there is an insurer obligation to
defend; how policy limits are determined; how policy exclusions
and conditions are applied and interpreted; and whether clean-up
costs represent insured property damage.  Further, insurers and
claims administrators acting on behalf of insurers are
increasingly pursuing evolving and expanding theories of
reinsurance coverage for asbestos and environmental losses.
Adjudication of reinsurance coverage is predominately decided in
confidential arbitration proceedings which may have limited
precedential or predictive value further complicating management's
ability to estimate probable loss for reinsured asbestos and
environmental claims. Management believes these issues are not
likely to be resolved in the near future, and the ultimate costs
may vary materially from the amounts currently recorded resulting
in material changes in loss reserves.  In addition, while the
Company believes that improved actuarial techniques and databases
have assisted in its ability to estimate asbestos, environmental,
and other discontinued lines net loss reserves, these refinements
may subsequently prove to be inadequate indicators of the extent
of probable losses.  Due to the uncertainties and certain factors,
management believes it is not practicable to develop a meaningful
range for any such additional net loss reserves that may be
required.

The Allstate Corporation is primarily engaged in the personal
property and casualty insurance business and the life insurance,
retirement and investment products business. It conducts its
business primarily in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., continues to defend itself
against asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

The Company states: "We are one of several unrelated defendants in
lawsuits filed in Mississippi, Louisiana and Missouri state courts
alleging that defendants manufactured, distributed or utilized
drilling mud containing asbestos and, in our case, allowed such
drilling mud to have been utilized aboard our offshore drilling
rigs.  The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award of
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.  The manufacture
and use of asbestos-containing drilling mud had already ceased
before we acquired any of the drilling rigs addressed in these
lawsuits.  We believe that we are not liable for the damages
asserted and we expect to receive complete defense and indemnity
from Murphy Exploration & Production Company with respect to many
of the lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our 1992 asset purchase
agreement with them.  We also believe that we are not liable for
the damages asserted in the remaining lawsuits pursuant to the
terms of our 1989 asset purchase agreement with Diamond M
Corporation, and we filed a declaratory judgment action in Texas
state court against NuStar Energy LP, or NuStar, and Kaneb
Management Co., L.L.C., or Kaneb, the successors to Diamond M
Corporation, seeking a judicial determination that we did not
assume liability for these claims.  We are unable to estimate our
potential exposure, if any, to these lawsuits at this time but do
not believe that our ultimate liability, if any, resulting from
this litigation will have a material effect on our consolidated
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows."

Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. is a global offshore oil and gas
drilling contractor.  The Company has a fleet of 44 offshore
drilling rigs, consisting of 32 semisubmersibles, seven jack-ups
and five dynamically positioned drillships, four of which are
under construction.  The Company's jackups include Ocean King,
Ocean Nugget, Ocean Scepter, Ocean Spartan, Ocean Spur, Ocean
Summit and Ocean Titan.  The Company's Deepwater Semisubmersibles
include Ocean Alliance, Ocean America, Ocean Apex, Ocean Onyx,
Ocean Valiant, and Ocean Star.  Ultra-Deepwater Semisubmersibles
include Ocean Valor, Ocean Courage, Ocean Monarch, Ocean Baroness,
and Ocean Confidence. Ultra-Deepwater Drillships include Ocean
BlackLion, Ocean BlackRhino, Ocean BlackHornet, and Ocean Clipper.
Mid-Water Semisubmersibles includes Ocean Winner, Ocean Quest,
Ocean Concord, Ocean Guardian, Ocean Whittington, and Ocean
Yorktown.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caterpillar Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Caterpillar Inc. continues to defend itself againsts asbestos-
related product exposure actions, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

The Company states: "We are involved in other unresolved legal
actions that arise in the normal course of business.  The most
prevalent of these unresolved actions involve disputes related to
product design, manufacture and performance liability (including
claimed asbestos and welding fumes exposure), contracts,
employment issues, environmental matters or intellectual property
rights.  The aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in
excess of accrued liabilities, if any, associated with these
unresolved legal actions is not material.  In some cases, we
cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss because there is
insufficient information regarding the matter.  However, we
believe there is no more than a remote chance that any liability
arising from these matters would be material.  Although it is not
possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these unresolved
legal actions, we believe that these actions will not individually
or in the aggregate have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated results of operations, financial position or
liquidity."

Caterpillar Inc. is a manufacturer of construction and mining
equipment, diesel and natural gas engines, industrial gas
turbines and diesel-electric locomotives.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: STERIS Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
STERIS Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related product exposure actions, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

The Company states, "We are, and will likely continue to be,
involved in a number of legal proceedings, government
investigations, and claims, which we believe generally arise in
the course of our business, given our size, history, complexity,
and the nature of our business, products, Customers, regulatory
environment, and industries in which we participate.  These legal
proceedings, investigations and claims generally involve a variety
of legal theories and allegations, including, without limitation,
personal injury (e.g., slip and falls, burns, vehicle accidents),
product liability or regulation (e.g., based on product operation
or claimed malfunction, failure to warn, failure to meet
specification, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements),
product exposure (e.g., claimed exposure to chemicals, asbestos,
contaminants, radiation), property damage (e.g., claimed damage
due to leaking equipment, fire, vehicles, chemicals), commercial
claims (e.g., breach of contract, economic loss, warranty,
misrepresentation), financial (e.g., taxes, reporting), employment
(e.g., wrongful termination, discrimination, benefits matters),
and other claims for damage and relief.

"We believe we have adequately reserved for our current litigation
and claims that are probable and estimable, and further believe
that the ultimate outcome of these pending lawsuits and claims
will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
financial position or results of operations taken as a whole.  Due
to their inherent uncertainty, however, there can be no assurance
of the ultimate outcome or effect of current or future litigation,
investigations, claims or other proceedings.  For certain types of
claims, we presently maintain insurance coverage for personal
injury and property damage and other liability coverages in
amounts and with deductibles that we believe are prudent, but
there can be no assurance that these coverages will be applicable
or adequate to cover adverse outcomes of claims or legal
proceedings against us."

STERIS Corporation provides infection prevention and surgical
products and services, focused primarily on healthcare,
pharmaceutical and research.  The Company is headquartered in
Mentor, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Water Corp. Subject to Fibro Investigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew O'Connor, writing for ABC News, reported that some 138
employees and contractors were potentially exposed to white
asbestos during renovation work at the Minnivale reservoir in the
Shire of Dowerin between April and September.

The white asbestos was contained in fascia panels and sealant used
in building work at the site.

Water Minister Mia Davies told Parliament the corporation was
investigating the incident, and the internal probe would be
overseen by the safety committee of its board of directors.

"Preliminary findings suggest Water Corporation's processes for
managing asbestos at the reservoir site were not adequate," she
said.

"It appears that the necessary checks for asbestos were not made
at key stages of the project delivery."

Ms Davies told Parliament the incident and Water Corporation's
response was being monitored by Worksafe.

"Worksafe has advised that it will review Water Corporations
progress towards establishing a plan to address asbestos
management across the organisation and this feedback is due at the
end of November, and again at the end of January," she said.

"In the interim, the Water Corporation board has asked for a
number of processes to be reviewed, including the asbestos
register and management processes as well as changing project
management and design processes to ensure that it doesn't happen
again."

Workers 'unhappy' with internal review

But the State Opposition said it was not satisfied, with their
spokesman for water, Dave Kelly, calling for an independent
inquiry.

"What the workers are telling me is that they are not happy for
the Water Corporation to be in sole control of this
investigation," Mr Kelly said.

"The Government should appoint someone from outside the Water
Corporation, someone who is not a government employee, who would
have the trust and respect of the people who have been exposed,
and allow them to conduct the investigation."

Mr Kelly said it was the most significant asbestos exposure in
recent years, and it was due to a failure to identify asbestos at
the site.

He said asbestos was noted on detailed plans included in the
tender documents for the work, but not listed in the risk control
documents.

"So it's not an accident, it's a failure by the Government to
protect its own staff and contractors," he said.

"And rather than have the Water Corporation and the Government
protect itself from issues of legal liability, they should appoint
someone independent who can look at this in a way that would give
the victims some confidence that justice will prevail."

The Water Minister told Parliament the asbestos panels were dumped
at the Northam landfill facility in April and May.

Ms Davies said it appeared the asbestos had been buried under
other waste material.

The Department of Environmental Regulation is investigating and
will advise the Water Corporation of any further action required.

It is also assessing the Minnivale reservoir site where dust from
the renovation work was deposited.

Tests are being conducted to determine if asbestos is present at
the site.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Officials Probe for Fibro at Plant Fire Site
-------------------------------------------------------------
Josh O'Bryant, writing for Northwest Georgeia News, reported that
the old Barwick plant in LaFayette has been a cause for concern,
not only due to heavy smoke from  fire, but also because of the
fear of asbestos at the site, where testing for the substance has
been ordered by federal officials.

On Nov. 14, fire and gas explosions at the old E.T. Barwick Mills
sent huge plumes of black smoke into the air. Nearby residents
were advised to stay indoors to avoid breathing the smoke.

According to LaFayette city manager David Hamilton, the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a branch of the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources, has ordered tests
to see if asbestos is present.

Representatives from ATSDR, the city of LaFayette, and the federal
Environmental Protection Agency will be at the LaFayette-Walker
County Library, 305 South Duke Street, on, Nov. 17, from 3-7 p.m.
to answer questions about the fire.

Hamilton said the EPA has not been checking every contaminant, but
rather following using standard protocol to check for certain
compounds that can be found in fires of this nature.

Hamilton said residents' concerns over the possibility of asbestos
is legitimate. The city also wants answers, as the EPA follows
standard procedures in the matter.

These are routine procedures that the EPA has for situations like
this, Hamilton said.

According to asbestos.com/asbestos/natural-disasters:

"Asbestos is one of the most heat-resistant substances known to
man, yet it can be highly toxic when it is confronted by fire.

"Smoke from debris piles is made up of carbon dioxide, water
vapor, carbon monoxide, fine particulate matter, hydrocarbons and
other organic and non-organic substances. Smoke can contain
toxins, including minute asbestos fibers, particularly when
hazardous materials are burned. Materials of particular concern
related to asbestos are insulation, roof materials, drywall,
ceiling tiles, flooring and asphalt.

"To limit exposure to hazardous materials, the Centers for Disease
Control recommend individuals remain at least 1,000 feet away from
burning debris piles and wear appropriate protective clothing.
Most protective equipment that firefighters use will eliminate the
exposure to the fibers but in the secondary stages of the fire,
firefighters may remove the protective gear for greater comfort
and not realize that there may be high asbestos levels present.

"Fires leave a residue of ashes, half-burned materials and
unburned materials that are otherwise destroyed or ruined. This
debris is almost always removed from a fire site, and sometimes it
contains dangerous asbestos. Only if a fire site is examined
specifically for the existence of asbestos can cleanup workers be
assured that none of the mineral is present."

On Nov. 16, officials with the city, a federal EPA coordinator,
and the owner of the business that occupied the plant said that no
hazardous chemicals have been found at the scene.

Meanwhile, EPA officials cautioned residents within a half-mile of
the site to remain indoors if possible, as heavy smoke is being
swirled low to the ground and should not be inhaled. The caution
was lowered from warning citizens in that area to keep the heating
and air units off, because the threat of the smoke level had
decreased as of 10 p.m.

On afternoon, Nov. 16, Hamilton said the EPA would continue to
monitor concerns about air and water contamination.

According to Carter Williamson, federal on-scene coordinator for
the emergency response and removal branch of the EPA office in
Atlanta, the main task of the EPA, after being deployed to the
fire, was to conduct air monitoring.

"We are currently running analytical (tests) on the water samples
that were taken, downgrading from the site. All day (Nov. 15)),
our numbers were looking good as far as the impacted neighborhoods
with the plumes tracking southwest," Williamson said. "That was
good up until the afternoon, and then when the temperature kind of
changed last night, we lost some of the potential for combustion."

Williamson said the EPA thought the area would have more
particulate matter going into the atmosphere, so acting with the
city and with "an abundance of caution," the EPA decided it was in
the community's best interest to warn residents to stay indoors,
especially those with respiratory problems, the elderly, and
students in schools around the site.

Williamson credited the city for quickly getting the word out to
the residents.

Williamson said the EPA is working with Ashgan Products, which
occupied the mill, and is currently going over what products were
contained at the facility.

The mill ceased operations in the early to mid-1990s.

According to Nate Bennett, of Ashgan Products, which occupied the
building from owner Drennon Crutchfield, calcium carbonate
(limestone), polypropylene foam, water, and sand were products
inside the mill and there were no hazardous materials inside the
building.

"The explosions were coming from propane tanks," Bennett said. "We
had about 12 propane cylinders for our forklifts in the building."

The EPA is not concerned with the air quality right now and the
discoloration in the water on is not a concern as well, Bennett
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Town Hall Closed Due to Toxic Dust
---------------------------------------------------
J.P. Crumrine and Marshall Smith, writing for Idly Wiid Town
Crier, reported that the Town Hall building has been closed for a
duration yet to be determined, according to Kyla Brown, parks and
recreation bureau chief for the Riverside County Regional Parks
and Open-space District, although she hopes it will be only a
week.

A notice on the door stated, "Upon recent inspection of Town Hall,
materials were found to contain asbestos in some areas . . ."

Another notice stressed, "Preliminary tests have determined this
facility has material containing asbestos. Do not disturb." But it
stressed that the park district is taking comprehensive
precautionary steps, ". . .  therefore, this facility is not being
used for programs until further testing is conducted."

More inspections and chemical tests will be made, according to
Brown.

Town Hall programs, including the afterschool program, were being
held at the Idyllwild Nature Center. Parks had already arranged
with Hemet Unified School District to transport the children in
the program to the Nature Center.

"Regular park district staff will continue to run the program at
the Nature Center and provide the same services," read the notice
on the door.

Although Idyllwild School will be closed for the Thanksgiving
holiday, its own afterschool program will be at the school on and
from 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Principal Matt Kraemer said, if
parents plan to have children participate, "they need to be there
from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m."

If the problem at Town Hall is greater than the Parks and Open
Space District currently believes, Brown said they hope to
relocate the program to a space closer to town, perhaps Idyllwild
School.

According to Brown, a routine inspection in the attic area in
preparation for some maintenance work discovered some disturbed
asbestos. As a precaution before determining the condition of the
asbestos, the building was closed for county recreation use.

Verne Lauritzen, 3rd District Supervisor Chuck Washington's chief
of staff, cautioned that asbestos, when it begins to deteriorate,
may become airborne particles that can be inhaled and cause health
hazards. "That's why the decision was made to move recreation
programs until further inspections and necessary repairs can be
made," said Lauritzen.

At this point it is uncertain who will make repairs if they prove
necessary. "I'm not aware that the county has a Memorandum of
Understanding with the Johnsons [the owners of Town Hall]
regarding responsibility for repair.

"I've asked the Parks District to have a long term contingency
plan in place for relocating recreation if Town Hall remains
unsuitable," Lauritzen said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Company Sued for Misleading Information
--------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a Dallas
asbestos firm facing a racketeering lawsuit is attempting to turn
the tables on its accuser.

Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, one of five plaintiffs firms
facing racketeering lawsuits from Garlock Sealing Technologies,
has filed a counterclaim that maintains Garlock is the one that
engaged in racketeering.

The counterclaim, filed in the RICO case against Simon Greenstone,
alleges gasket-maker Garlock made fraudulent misrepresentations
and withheld evidence of the dangers of its products in order to
lower the costs of verdicts and settlements.

"Garlock claimed that it did not learn of the relationship between
exposure to asbestos fibers and lung cancer until the 'early
1970's,'" the complaint says.

"But in truth, Garlock learned no later than March of 1956, at a
meeting of the Asbestos Textile Institute, that exposures to
asbestos as short as six months cause lung cancer."

Simon Greenstone filed its counterclaim and answer to Garlock's
complaint more than two months after a federal judge refused to
dismiss Garlock's complaint. The firm has appealed that decision
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond,
Va.

The two sides are also debating whether a stay should be
implemented on Garlock's case while the appeal is sorted out.

Garlock's case was filed days before a landmark 2014 ruling by
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges.

Garlock, like many companies that faced a wave of asbestos
lawsuits already have, is in the process of establishing a
bankruptcy trust to compensate claimants. Doing so means a company
no longer must face civil lawsuits and establishes procedures for
those who submit evidence they were made ill by the company's
products.


While Hodges was tasked with determining how much Garlock needed
to put in its trust, he ruled that plaintiffs firms had been
withholding their clients' exposures to other company's products
while they pursued lawsuits against Garlock.

They did this to prevent Garlock from claiming other companies
were responsible for a plaintiff's illness, which would drive up
the amount of the verdict or settlement, Hodges ruled.

After inspecting evidence in 15 cases, Hodges ordered Garlock to
put $125 million in its trust -- more than $1 billion less than
what plaintiffs attorneys had hoped.

"These fifteen cases are just a minute portion of the thousands
that were resolved by Garlock in the tort system," Hodges wrote.

"And they are not purported to be a random or representative
sample. But the fact that each and every one of them contains such
demonstrable misrepresentation is surprising and persuasive.

"More important is the fact that the pattern exposed in those
cases appears to have been sufficiently widespread to have a
significant impact on Garlock's settlement practices and results.
. .  It appears certain that more extensive discovery would show
more extensive abuse."

Garlock's RICO cases echo the claims it made in its bankruptcy
proceeding. The other defendants are Belluck & Fox in New York
City, Stanley-Iola of Dallas, Shein Law Center of Philadelphia and
Waters & Kraus of Dallas.

Simon Greenstone says in its counterclaim that Garlock and its
parent company ignored testimony from each of the 15 plaintiffs
that showed exposure to other products.

Other arguments made by the firm include:

   -- Garlock's real reason in bringing the RICO suit was to gain
leverage against Simon Greenstone in the bankruptcy proceeding by
putting it at financial risk;

   -- Garlock claimed in litigation against it that there was no
scientific or medical evidence that its products posed a health
hazard, even though it knew the products could be hazardous when
subjected to movement that would release the asbestos fibers into
the air; and

   -- Garlock withheld a 1980 manual in which the company admitted
the need to avoid creating dust because breathing it could cause
harm.

Simon Greenstone said it did not know about the manual until it
found a copy on eBay.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Probe Shows Fibro in 80% of Derbyshire Schools
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Hobson, writing for Debyshire Times, reported that a Freedom
of Information request sent to Derbyshire County Council found
that 335 of the 413 schools in the county still have asbestos
present.

In the wake of the news, campaigners say the known harm being
caused to children is the 'tip of the iceberg'.

They warn that more needs to be done to remove the cancer-causing
substance.

Derbyshire County Council has spoken out to reassure parents that
children are safe.

A spokesperson for the authority said: "We follow strict Health
and Safety regulations to control asbestos in school buildings and
keep pupils and staff safe. The buildings are rFaegularly checked
by a qualified team and we remove asbestos wherever it could
potentially cause a problem..."

But campaigners claim more action should be taken.

Joanne Gordon, of Derbyshire Asbestos Support Team, said: "It is
incredibly worrying that so many schools contain asbestos.

"We have already helped and supported a number of teachers,
particularly primary school teachers...

"This is the tip of the ice-berg as to how many children have been
affected by asbestos from their schools. There is still a lack of
awareness about the dangers of asbestos and just how easily
asbestos can become damaged and therefore become dangerous.

"Asbestos needs to be systematically and safely removed at a time
when teachers, staff and pupils cannot be exposed."

The council spokesperson said: "While we're confident that the
amount of asbestos is being reduced we cannot determine if schools
will become asbestos free because it is only removed when
identified as a potential problem..."

FACTS ABOUT ASBESTOS:

Asbestos is the name given to a group of naturally occurring
minerals used in certain products, such as building materials and
vehicle brakes, to resist heat and corrosion. The inhalation of
asbestos fibres can cause serious diseases of the lungs and other
organs that may not appear until years after the exposure has
occurred. For instance, asbestosis can cause a build-up of scar-
like tissue in the lungs and result in loss of lung function that
often progresses to disability and death. There are four main
diseases caused by asbestos: mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis
and diffuse pleural thickening. According to the UK Health and
Safety Executive, abestos-related conditions are responsible for
about 4,000 deaths a year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACCC Recalls Fake Toyota Brake Pads with Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Dowling, writing for News.co.uk, reported that Australia's
top consumer watchdog has issued an unprecedented recall on
counterfeit brake pads that contain asbestos.

The bogus brake pads -- which are supplied in what appears to be
genuine Toyota packaging and are designed to fit more than 500,000
HiLux utes and Hiace vans on Australian roads -- were bought
online by an independent workshop.

It is the first time a recall has been issued for a counterfeit
car part.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) will
compel the supplier Westend Spares, based in the western Sydney
suburb of St Marys, to contact all customers who bought the
counterfeit parts and refund the cost to them.

The action comes after News Corp Australia revealed exclusively a
fortnight ago that the asbestos parts had been imported illegally
into the country.

The owner of Westend Spares, Andrew Gaal, said he was shocked to
learn the brake pads he bought online from China were found to be
counterfeit and contain asbestos.

Mr Gaal, who told News Corp Australia his father died from
asbestos poisoning in 2008, said he took immediate action once he
was notified about the dangerous parts.

"This subject is close to my heart because my father passed away
from asbestosis, so I got in contact with the people we sold them
to straight away, (we're) giving them a full refund and getting
the pads back so they can be destroyed," said Mr Gaal.

The independent mechanic said he sold the parts via the online
auction site eBay after he bought them from a supplier in China.

"It's made me more alert, it's never going to happen again that's
for sure," said Mr Gaal.

"I wasn't aware they were counterfeit. They came in a Toyota box.
I've lost sleep about this. It's created stress between me and my
wife. This could have been a lot worse on a bigger scale and I'm
glad it didn't."

Mr Gaal says while he only sold 10 sets of counterfeit brake pads
(from a batch of 40 sets), he believes a lot of other independent
workshops are likely to have been caught out by the scam.

"A lot of smaller workshops buy stuff online like me . . . there
is a strong possibility there are more (counterfeit brake pads
with asbestos) out there," he said.

Asbestos brake pads were banned from Australia in 2004 after the
material was linked to lung cancer.

HiLux and Hiace vehicles serviced only by the Toyota dealer
network are not at risk of having the bogus brake pads, but
vehicles maintained by independent repairers may have been fitted
with the counterfeit parts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Drives Up Demolition Cost of County Home
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Smith, writing for The Gazette, reported that demolition of
the empty former county home just northeast of Marion has proved
more costly than the Linn County Board of Supervisors had thought
when they approved a contract for the work in September.

The culprit: newly discovered asbestos in the roof of the
sprawling building, 1860 County Home Rd., which most recently was
occupied by the Abbe Center for Community Care.

On, the supervisors voted to move ahead on a change order on the
demolition project, which will increase the cost 120 percent, from
$373,000 to $819,350.

"You hope projects go as you planned," said Supervisor Linda
Langston, the board's chairwoman. "This isn't one of those."

D.W. Zinser Co. of Walford easily won the demolition contract in
September with the $373,000 bid, which bested two other bids of
$739,000 and $1.28 million. The bids were based on a pre-
demolition analysis of the 1970s-era building that did not
identify much asbestos on the site.

Zinser discovered extensive asbestos in the building's roof after
it arrived to begin the demolition work, the supervisors said.

The supervisors on concluded that it would cost the county much
more to seek new bids rather than keep Zinser on the project and
approve a project change order.

New bids would require the county to pay Zinser some money for the
time it already has put in on the project, Supervisor Ben Rogers
said.

The supervisors said Zinser's square-foot cost to remove asbestos
is lower than other estimates obtained by the county.

Supervisor Jim Houser said asbestos was being phased out on
construction projects from about 1973 to 1978, but the county
home, built in 1976, unfortunately did not escape asbestos use, he
said.

Langston said the asbestos in the building is Linn County's and so
it is the county's responsibility to remediate it, even if
extensive asbestos was not identified when the initial contract
was bid.

The demolition contract called for the work to be done in March,
and Langston said she did not anticipate much of a change in the
timeline.

She said the county will delay improvements planned to its O'Brien
Building, 825 Third St. SW, to pay for the increased cost of the
county home demolition.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sheldon Silver Jurors Hear Conversation Tape
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Murphy and John Riley, writing for News Day, reported that
former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver more than doubled his money
over an eight-year period, to $1.4 million, by investing in a
little-known fund not generally available to others, according to
testimony at his federal corruption trial in Manhattan.

The investment with Counsel Financial, a Buffalo-area firm that
gave loans to trial lawyers to finance the cost of their lawsuits,
was made at the recommendation of Silver's golfing buddy and
political supporter Jordan Levy. Levy, of Buffalo, testified at
the trial in U.S. District Court.

Silver also put tens of thousands of dollars in other investments,
including an Australian firm building a space satellite, a company
that develops portals for the Internet and a firm that lends money
to risky start-up companies, according to Levy.

The nature of the investments was in contrast to previous public
statements Silver made over the years in which he characterized
them as being in solid, traditional businesses.

Silver, 71, is charged with making $4 million in law firm referral
fees in two quid pro quo schemes and money laundering.

The Democratic lawmaker allegedly gave state grants to a doctor
who referred asbestos patients to his law firm, and he did
legislative favors for New Hyde Park's Glenwood Management and the
Witkoff Group to get them to refer cases to the law firm Goldberg
& Iryami in return for Goldberg splitting fees with him.In a
statement from July 2013, which was played in court, Silver told
news reporters his investments were in "blue chip stocks like
millions of Americans in their retirement accounts."

The prosecution rested its case night. The defense was expected to
introduce exhibits, but Silver is not expected to testify.

At one point in 2013, Silver had Counsel Financial combine his
holdings with $100,000 he had invested in the name of his wife,
Rosa, and then split the total between them so he could report the
lower amount on his state financial disclosure, Levy said in his
testimony.

By splitting the amount, "It would allow him not to disclose [it]"
said Levy, a financier.

Paul Cody, president of Counsel, testified that Silver and his
wife made several investments totaling $650,000 with his firm,
starting in 2007, and had a balance of $1.4 million at the end of
2014.

Before the financial testimony, jurors heard a tape in which
Silver told news reporters his private law business included
asbestos cases.

The tape, played during testimony by former Silver press secretary
Michael Whyland, appeared to contradict prosecution claims Silver
kept secret his receipt of fees on asbestos cases while giving
state research grants to a doctor who referred patients to
Silver's firm.

Whyland said it was recorded in an elevator in an Albany state
building, as news reporters grilled Silver about the nature of his
income from the Manhattan law firm Weitz & Luxenberg.
"That's correct," Whyland answered when a defense attorney asked
if the ex-speaker was telling the news reporters about asbestos
cases in the tape.

Prosecutors on played an earlier segment of the same interview in
which Silver said he "didn't represent any corporations" or any
clients "involved in the legislative process."

Prosecutor Howard Gildstein asked Whyland if Silver ever told him
he was getting hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees from a
real estate law firm.

"I had no knowledge of that," Whyland testified.
The trial will not be in session or. Closing arguments in the case
could occur as early as.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exeter Family Demands New Place Over Fibro Scare
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Express and Echo reported that an Exeter family are appealing to
move out of their flat -- because it contains asbestos.

Jonathan and Sarah Small, 29 and 26, who live with their four-
year-old daughter, Milly, in Coates Road, were told by health
inspectors that their two-bedroom home contains the fibrous
material.

Spectrum Housing Group, which manages the property, said the
asbestos does not pose a danger to them and is "perfectly safe to
live with".

But the couple, who do not work for health reasons, fear the
substance carries a "significant" risk to them and their daughter.

The family, who have lived in the property for two years, claim to
sleep in the living room each night, because they are worried
about asbestos in the bedrooms.

They insist alternative accommodation should be found for them
before their contract ends in July 2016.

Mrs Small said: "We are becoming extremely concerned about our
health. Our four-year-old daughter refuses to sleep in her
bedroom. I am having epileptic seizures due to worrying and
stress. My husband is coughing a lot, and my lung problem is
getting worse. We are worried the asbestos will affect Milly's
health as she gets older.

"My husband and I cannot sleep in our bedroom at the moment
because asbestos is on the floor."

"We feel very strongly that we should be moved to a different
place, which should be thoroughly inspected, as soon as possible."

The couple are worried the asbestos may have been disturbed
recently when a computer was knocked onto their bedroom floor.

They have since locked the door and refuse to enter the room.

Spectrum officials admit the property has asbestos containing
materials (ACMs) -- but stress they are not a health hazard.

It has declined to remove the asbestos or move the family
elsewhere.

Bryn Shorey, property services director, said: ""We understand the
concerns of the Smalls and we have met with them to discuss the
asbestos containing materials that are located within their home.

"ACMs are present in many homes and in many cases such as this are
perfectly safe to live with. They can be an issue if disturbed but
the ACMs detected do not pose a danger to the Smalls. In any cases
where asbestos is deemed a danger to residents Spectrum will take
immediate action as recommended by our ACM consultants."

Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous material which was
regularly used in buildings from the 1950s until the late 1990s.
It is still found in many buildings, including homes, schools and
hospitals. If disturbed, it can cause disease and even death.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Cuts Fibro Compensation Payment
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Sydney Morning Herald reported that James Hardie has cut its
annual contribution to a compensation fund set up for asbestos
victims by nearly a third following a drop in its free cash flow.
The building products supplier fulfilled its previously flagged
commitment to pay 35 per cent of its free cash flow to the
Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund (AICF), but a drop in that
cash flow meant the 2014-15 payment was $81.1 million compared to
$119.9 million a year earlier.

James Hardie said it has now paid a total $799.2 million to the
fund since its inception in 2007.

he number of claims the company received for the first half of
2015-16 was also down, declining 12.2 per cent to 296 for the six
months to September 30, according to figures released on.
The average claim settlement was $223,000, down 8.6 per cent.
The AICF received a record 665 claims in 2014-15.
The drop in the payment was confirmed at the same time James
Hardie downgraded its full year profit guidance due to below
target growth in its share of an uncertain US housing market.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Sued for Destroying Fibro Documents
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Bedell, writing for New York Law Journal, reported that a
company that made asbestos products in the 1980s should have
anticipated it would be sued, and therefore the destruction of
dozens of boxes of related documents in the 1990s was spoliation
requiring sanction, a Manhattan state judge has ruled.

Justice Peter Moulton rejected claims by J-M Manufacturing
Company, one of the defendants in Warren v. Amchem Products,
190281/2014, that there had to be notice of a specific claim or
pending litigation to trigger a requirement to preserve documents
through a "litigation hold."

"Every corporation which reasonably anticipates litigation must
preserve relevant evidence," Moulton said in a Nov. 9 opinion.
Even when litigation doesn't start until 25 years after the
products at issue were discontinued, he said "it is neither unfair
nor overly burdensome for a company to place a litigation hold for
a time period commensurate with the nature and risks of the
product."

He added: "Were this otherwise, companies with knowledge of the
dangers of asbestos could intentionally destroy relevant evidence,
while simultaneously knowing that due to the long latency period
of asbestos-related diseases, they would not be sued until decades
later."

Moulton noted that J-M had purchased its asbestos pipe business in
1983 from the Johns-Manville Corporation, the world's leading
asbestos products maker before it filed for bankruptcy in 1982,
citing an anticipated flood of asbestos liability suits.

Moulton noted that J-M had many employees who had worked for
Johns-Manville and had itself been named in asbestos-related
litigation and workers' compensation claims as early as 1983, when
it began selling asbestos pipe.

J-M was sued in 2014 by the estate of Richard Warren, which
claimed Warren had died from mesothelioma from being exposed to J-
M's asbestos pipe products before they were discontinued in 1988.
J-M employee James Reichert, who had worked at Johns-Manville,
said he "lost" between 10 and 50 banker's boxes of documents when
the company moved its corporate headquarters from California to
New Jersey in 1990. And in 1997, he destroyed another 27 boxes
because "you just get tired of moving stuff," he said in a
deposition.

"J-M's lackadaisical, if not intentional, approach to a litigation
hold commencing with defendant's purchase of a company synonymous
with asbestos litigation, and in the face of the overwhelming
evidence that J-M knew of both the hazards and the long latency
period of the disease as far back as 1983, is egregious and in bad
faith," Moulton said.

He brushed aside J-M's claims that the plaintiff never showed the
documents would have been relevant and their destruction
prejudicial.

"It is not enough to demonstrate that the innocent party has other
means to prove his or her case but rather, the spoliating party
must demonstrate that the innocent party had access to the
evidence or that the evidence would not have supported the claim,"
Moulton said, citing Voom HD Holdings, LLC v. EchoStar Satellite
LLC, 93 AD3d 33 (1st Dept 2012).

Moulton, who heads the New York City Asbestos Litigation court,
said a remedy of striking J-M's answer -- and in effect entering
summary judgment for the plaintiff -- would be too severe, but an
adverse inference instruction by the court was warranted if the
case were to come before a jury.

"Because of J-M's bad faith and disturbing behavior, plaintiff is
entitled to a jury instruction that the jury is permitted to infer
that the missing documents would have supported plaintiff's
claims," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Idyllwild Town Hall Closed Due to Fibro Scare
--------------------------------------------------------------
John M. Blodgett, writing for PE.com, reported that Idyllwild Town
Hall is closed indefinitely after asbestos was found during a
routine inspection.

The building was shuttered Nov. 13 after a preliminary test
confirmed its presence, triggering the call for thorough testing.

Kyla Brown, an official from the Riverside County Parks department
that manages the facility, said more tests will determine how to
address the issue.

Because the asbestos was undisturbed, Brown said, it didn't
present an immediate health concern, and initial measurements
indicated levels were low.

Closure therefore was not mandated but was done as a precaution
"while we get a full picture of what the conditions are and if we
need to change anything," Brown said. It is unknown when it will
reopen.

The building was built around 1947. The mineral was commonly used
in fireproofing, insulation and other construction applications at
the time. Many uses were banned in the U.S. in the 1970s, however,
after asbestos dust was found to be carcinogenic if inhaled.

Brown said the inspection was intended to reveal maintenance
issues for the district to address. Inspectors suspected
insulation and ceiling materials in the attic, and floor tiles
elsewhere, may have asbestos.
Brown said additional tests were performed. The parks district is
waiting for those results before deciding what to do.

Who is responsible for those next steps is in question, however.

The parks district leases Town Hall from the estate of the family
that built it. Verne Lauritzen, chief of staff for District 3
Riverside County Supervisor Chuck Washington, said a maintenance
agreement between the county and the property's owners might not
exist.

He said such an agreement existed when the now-defunct Idyllwild
Convention and Visitors Bureau managed the recreational
programming, but it's not clear if that agreement carried over
after the bureau dissolved in 2012.

"(So far) I'm told there is nothing in place like that," Lauritzen
said. "If that's the case, whatever needs to happen here in way of
asbestos mitigation is up to the owners, not the county."

Brown said evidence of bats in the attic also was discovered.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, bat
droppings can cause a fungus that, when disturbed, releases spores
that can infect humans when inhaled.

Brown said cleaning up after the bats would require the removal of
insulation, which can't occur until the asbestos issue is
resolved.

Town Hall's closure required a handful of community activities to
be relocated. Adult fitness classes and children's after-school
programs were moved to the Idyllwild Nature Center at 25225
Highway 243. Idyllwild's Harvest Festival on Nov. 27-28 was moved
to Idyllwild School, 26700 Highway 243.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Libby Fibro Cleanup Almost Done
------------------------------------------------
Corin Cates-Carney, writing for Montana Public Radio, reported
that the EPA's report concluded that it's possible to live and
work in Libby and Troy without concern of suffering from the
respiratory diseases associated with asbestos. It confirms
findings released in a preliminary report eleven months ago.

The EPA's Deborah McKean said, "The cleanup that we have been
conducting over the past number of years is indeed protective and
the risks and exposures experienced by the population before the
cleanup has been abated."

Usually, an EPA risk assessment like the one released is announced
before cleanup work begins. The assessment then guides the future
work. But in the case of Libby, EPA officials didn't want to wait
to start cleanups.

"We started doing the removal on the properties and other business
areas early on in the process so that we could mitigate exposures
as much as possible," she said.

In 1999 the EPA responded to requests from the State of Montana
and the Lincoln County Board of Health to investigate potential
exposure to asbestos because of former mine operations in the
area.

In 2002 Libby was added to the Superfund National Priority List.

Since then, the EPA has investigated more than 7,000 properties
within the Superfund site for asbestos contamination, but is still
waiting for access to another 700. The EPA encourages the
remaining property owners to contact the EPA's Libby Information
Office at 406-293-6194.

EPA officials estimate another three to five years of cleanup in
Libby.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Auditorium Closed After Fibro Inspection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Scinto, writing for Patch.com, reported that ernvironmental
engineers encountered more asbestos and PCBs than originally
expected during the remediation of the Saxe Middle School
auditorium.

Asbestos was used in the glue to hold acoustical panels to the
walls, said Superintendent Bryan Luizzi, according to the New
Canaanite. PCBS were found in dust when workers took down the
ceiling.

The total cost of remediation was about $157,000. The auditorium
has been closed since last December. More remediation work will be
done during the summer throughout other parts of the school.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Still Remains After Libby Cleanup
--------------------------------------------------------
Mathew Brown, writing for ABC News, reported that federal
officials say their final analysis of a Montana community wracked
by a deadly asbestos contamination shows a costly and much-
criticized cleanup is working, even though some 700 properties
have yet to be investigated and concerns linger over asbestos left
behind.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has spent more than $540
million removing asbestos in and around the town of Libby in
northwest Montana. The material came from a W.R. Grace and Co.
vermiculite mine that is now closed.

Health workers have estimated that as many as 400 people have died
and almost 3,000 have been sickened from exposure. Yet after a
lengthy review of the health risks, the EPA said in a report
issued that people could continue to live in Libby and neighboring
Troy without excessive exposure.

"EPA's indoor and outdoor cleanups have significantly reduced risk
from exposure to asbestos," agency officials said in a statement.

An EPA research panel concluded that breathing in even a tiny
amount of asbestos from Libby could scar lungs and cause other
health problems.

Critics of the cleanup point out that asbestos would be left in
the walls of houses, underground and elsewhere -- areas that the
EPA says pose less of a chance of exposure. Some Libby residents
said the asbestos inevitably will escape during future excavation
work, home renovations and accidents such as fires.

State officials have raised similar concerns.

The EPA acknowledged in  analysis that higher levels of asbestos
could be found in the 700 properties they have not been able to
access because of uncooperative owners.

Vermiculite from the Grace mine was used as insulation in millions
of houses across the U.S.

In the Libby area, asbestos-tainted mine waste unwittingly was
used as a garden-soil additive by residents and as fill for the
local construction industry.

The government so far has removed more than a million cubic yards
of dirt and contaminated building materials from more than 2,000
properties in Libby and Troy.

EPA officials have never fully documented how many homes and
businesses were left with vermiculite in their walls after cleanup
work was completed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Accused of Fibro Exposure Negligence
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mohamed Taha, writing for ABC News, reported that the EPA was
investigating up to 15 sites that could be affected by the
contaminated fill, which could have come from the council's soil
storage facility, the Western Depot at Kemps Creek.

It comes after Liverpool councillors passed a motion at an
extraordinary meeting to provide medical checks for staff who
believe they may have been affected by the contaminated fill.

The EPA told the ABC it had begun an investigation into sites of
potential contamination.

"The NSW Environment Protection Authority is currently
investigating allegations that Liverpool Council has unlawfully
disposed waste at a number of properties in the Liverpool Council
area," a spokesperson said.

A man who worked for the council in 2013 said asbestos was
everywhere.

He agreed to speak to the ABC anonymously, for fears of
repercussions, and said the issue was first discovered by workers
about four years ago.

"I was told by quite a few people that some of the fill that was
going in had asbestos in amongst it," he said.

"It was laying there for a long time... it's everywhere."

The man said asbestos material has been knowingly dumped at the
depot by contractors and mixed in with the soil for several years.

"A lot of jobs were done on overtime, concreters used to pull it
out, take it to Western Depot and dump it there," he said.

"There'd be Telstra pits and everything else, the old asbestos
pits and they'd just leave it there and mix it in with everything
else, it'd be mixed in with soil, mixed in with concrete, it'd be
mixed in with everything."

"I was told that when they were putting it (asbestos material)
through, they just kept putting it back through until they got
really fine soil."

He said workers complained to managers about the asbestos but
their complaints were dismissed.

"Some of the leading hands said, 'don't worry about it, just put
it in the truck and take it away'," he said.

"When the coordinators came out they turned a blind eye to it and
said keep working, keep working.

"On a lot of occasions we were told to ignore it, bury it."

The man said workers were afraid to speak up out of fear of losing
their jobs.

"The boys were too worried about repercussions and getting
disciplined or getting the sack," he said.

"So they're scared for their well-being and their lifestyle.

"If they don't [obey instructions] the bosses give them curry and
they just continue to hound them and hound them."

Bigger investigation needed, whistleblower says

The United Services Union has told the ABC about 22 sites could be
affected by the contaminated fill, including parks, reserves and
waterways, some of which are near schools.

"The sites that are there are the tip of the iceberg," the
whistleblower told the ABC, adding that a bigger investigation was
needed.

"It could be on numerous sites all over Liverpool. Parks were
coming in and loading it on trucks on weekends and taking it
everywhere."

Councillor Peter Ristevski, who first raised the issue to Council,
told the ABC a lot of the footpaths built by council in the past
18 months to two years have used this asbestos-contaminated
backfill.

The man who worked at the council in 2013 confirmed this could be
the case.

"If you have had a footpath done recently and had soil put in, ask
council to come out and have it tested for your own safety," he
said.

He added that residents should call the council or EPA immediately
if they were concerned.

"It's a safety issue... ring somebody, don't ignore it, it's the
worst thing you can do," he said

"It's also your life, your children's life and your
grandchildren's life which is affected."

Council management has deliberately ignored the problem, he
believes.

"It's a cover-up," he added.

Low health risk: Liverpool Council

Liverpool Council CEO Carl Wulff told the ABC the contamination
posed a low health risk for workers and members of the public.

"The material is in solid form, unless it becomes airborne either
through drilling or cutting or whatever there is no risk," he
said.

"The sites that have been identified it is either sub-surface or
buried, so it is already in a safe position from a worker's
perspective or a health perspective."

Mr Wulff said medical checks were available for staff members who
were concerned about their health.

"We've said to them we understand their concern and accordingly
we've organised for some testing to be done," he said.

"And that anyone who feels they've been exposed, for whatever
reason, we are happy to get the testing done.

"I'm very confident no staff member has been exposed to asbestos
risk in any way."

Resident says he will sue council over health concerns

Bernie King has lived in Chipping Norton for almost 60 years.

In July, he said he received a letter from Liverpool Council
stating that stockpiles of dirt along Rickard Road contained
"small fragments" of asbestos.

He said the council removed the dirt but in the process his front
patio contaminated with asbestos dust.

"Dust was blowing everywhere, when they put it here there was
dust, when they took it away there was dust," he said.

"But we only found out [there was asbestos] when they were taking
it away. Then my front patio was contaminated as well."

Mr King said the council had placed 12 stockpiles of dirt along
his street over 12 months ago to prevent trucks from accessing the
area.

Now he is getting medical tests, fearful he may have asbestosis.

"I've been here the whole time on this street, copping it," he
said.

Mr King has engaged Paramount Compensation Lawyers and intends to
sue the council for personal injury and seek compensation.

Metropolitan manager for the United Services Union Steve Donley
said many residents, like Mr King, and council workers were
concerned about their health.

"People like Bernie are starting to stand up to say enough is
enough," he said.

"It's a disgrace, they shouldn't have to be put through this."

Mr Donley said Liverpool Council has ignored the seriousness of
the contamination.

"The CEO and the mayor knew about this 12 months ago," he said.

"All it's done is, put your head in the sand, it's too big of a
thing, let it ride over and hopefully it'll go away. Well, it's
not going away."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cadbury Worker Dies of Fibro-related Cancer
------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Stacey, writing for Birmingham Mail, reported that the
widow of Richard Williams is appealing to the public after claims
he was exposed to asbestos while working at the Cadbury factory
from 1966

The heartbroken widow of a Cadbury chemist who died from an
asbestos-related cancer is appealing to his former colleagues for
help to trace the cause of his death.

Richard Williams, from Selly Oak, died aged 70 in November 2014
after a painful two-year battle with mesothelioma -- an incurable
cancer caused by exposure to the deadly fibres.

Before his death the dad-of-two claimed there had been a
significant amount of asbestos-lagged pipework at the Cadbury
factory, where he worked between 1966 and 1973.

Now his widow Dawn is appealing to former colleagues who worked at
the Bournville site with Richard to come forward with information.

"Richard went through more than two years of pain and suffering as
a result of the mesothelioma he developed," she said.

"To find out his exposure may have taken place at work just added
insult to injury for all of us."

Richard worked at the factory from the mid-1960s as a research
chemist.

Before his death he claimed that there was often construction and
maintenance work going on in the packaging area, where he worked,
and that workmen would often disturb lagging.

Dawn contacted Birmingham lawyers Irwin Mitchell to investigate
the cause of her husband's death further.

She added: "Hopefully, those who worked with him at the Cadbury
factory will remember him and come forward with any information,
no matter how small, they may have about the presence of asbestos
at the factory and the safety measures in place to protect people
like Richard."

Rajni Kandola, an expert asbestos-related disease lawyer at Irwin
Mitchell's Birmingham office, said: "Mesothelioma is a very
aggressive, and sadly, incurable cancer caused by exposure to
asbestos, most often in the working environment.

"It can cause a significant amount of pain for victims like
Richard, as well as family and friends who see their loved ones in
distress.

"Our focus now is providing Dawn with the answers she deserves
about how Richard was exposed to asbestos at work and if more
could, and should, have been done to protect him."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Cleanup Set for Superfund Subdivision
------------------------------------------------------------
Bend Bulletin reported that a three-year cleanup of an asbestos-
ridden subdivision outside Klamath Falls is scheduled to start
next August.

Project managers say the $30 million renovation planned for North
Ridge Estates will happen in three phases, with work to be
completed in October 2018.

The mostly abandoned subdivision has been designated as a
Superfund site.

The 171-acre site is was initially developed as a Marine
recuperation barrack during World War II. The Oregon Institute of
Technology then used the site from 1947 to 1964.

The government later sold the land to a developer who demolished
buildings that contained asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found at Nathan Homestead
-----------------------------------------------------
Cris Harrowell, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reported that up to
$40,000 will be spent to remove asbestos from an historic South
Auckland building.

An Auckland Council spokesperson says the potentially hazardous
material was discovered at Nathan Homestead in Manurewa during
recent health, safety and compliance assessments.

It was discovered in roof panels in the theatre annex, in
structural panels in an outside garden, and in loose material in
the basement storage area.

The storage area is only used by the homestead's staff.

"The asbestos in the panels is stable, isolated and contained,"
the spokesperson says.

"This type of asbestos is very common in buildings around Auckland
and poses no public health risks if left undisturbed.

"The loose material in the basement area did pose some public
health risk. It was contained ... and the area sealed until it
could be removed."

The asbestos will be removed from the homestead's basement by
December 14.

"Staff occasionally accessed the basement storage area, but the
risk of exposure was very low as the materials present were in a
cavity area they did not access."

Services will not be disrupted while the work is carried out.

The spokesperson says it's likely the remaining asbestos will be
removed in the new year.

The Manurewa Local Board is allocating $20,000 toward the asbestos
removal.



                            *********

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, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2015. 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 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *