CAR_Public/170421.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Friday, April 21, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 80



                            Headlines

1-800 CONTACTS: "Champion" Sues Over Contact Lens Price-Fixing
15 TAYLOR LLC: Faces "Garcia" Lawsuit Under Mass. Labor Law
ADVANCEMED: Faces Class Action Over Improper Medicare Payments
AM RETAIL: Faces "John" Suit Over Wilson's Leather Outerwear Ad
AMAZON.COM: Faces "Cupolo" Class Suit for Copyright Infringement

ANTICA POSTA: Faces "Jones" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
ASAHI BEER: Faces "Shalikar" Class Suit in Cent. Dist. California
ASSET RECOVERY: "Califf" Sues Over FDCPA Violations
ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Sterling Merger
BANDAS LAW: Edelson Class Action May Spark Flood of Countersuits

BANK OF AMERICA: Settles NationsBank Hiring Discrimination Case
BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: Council OK's Detention Officers' Settlement
BLACKROCK: Faces Class Action Over Mismanaged Retirement Funds
BLUE CROSS: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Doctors' Class Action
BLU PRODUCTS: Faces Suit Over Adups Spyware on Phone Products

BROOMALL: Overtime Wage Class Action Not Subject to Arbitration
BROOK'S HOMECARE: Faces "Chung" Suit Over FLSA, NYLL Violations
CALAVO GROWERS: Defends Wage and Hour Class Suits in California
CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: "Phao" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations
CANADIAN FOOTBALL: Commissioner Steps Down Amid Concussion Case

CBS MEDICAL: Davis Neurology Alleges TCPA Violation
CHARLES SCHWAB: Attorneys Seek Arbitration of ERISA Class Action
CHARLESTON GASTROENTEROLOGY: Class Action v. Matulis Can Proceed
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Appeal in Horsemens' Purses Suit Underway
CLEAR MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Morrison" Suit Says

COCA-COLA CO: Secures Summary Judgment in Privacy Class Action
COLONY STARWOOD: Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Underway
COMENITY BANK: Sued in Illinois Over Unauthorized Automated Calls
CR ENGLAND: Files Motion to Certify Questions in Fraud Case
CST BRANDS: Accord in Canadian Class Suit Awaits Court Approval

DENNIS HEALY: May Face Defamation Class Action Over Comments
DR. SANDHU: Faces "Jones" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations
EAST COAST FORENSIC: Judge OK's Class Action Over Strip Searches
ENERGY RECOVERY: Aug. 24 Hearing for Final Settlement Approval
ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FL: Coleman Sexual Harassment Settlement Pending

EXPRESS INC: Faces Class Action in N.J. Over FLSA Violation
FIAT CHRYSLER: Amended Securities Complaint Filed
FIAT CHRYSLER: 2 Securities Lawsuits Pending in Michigan
FMC CORPORATION: Still Faces Antitrust Action in Germany
FMC CORPORATION: Antitrust Action Ongoing in Canada

FNCB BANCORP: Settles "Antonik" and "Saxe" Suits for $750,000
FOODONI NY: Faces "Bonikos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GLOBAL BROKERAGE: 683 Capital Sues Over Securities Act Violation
GOLD POINT: Antonio, et al. Allege Calif. Labor Law Violations
GOLDMAN SACHS: Loses Bid to Narrow Gender Discrimination Suit

GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION: Faces "Redmon" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
HEALTHY SPOT: Faces "Summers" Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations
HOME DEPOT: Brings Class Action Removal Issue to Supreme Court
ILLINOIS: State Police Faces Suit Over Unlawful Arrests
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: ERISA Suit Remains Pending in New York

JOHNSON & BELL: Defamation Case Against Edelson PC Ongoing
JPMORGAN CHASE: ERISA Plaintiffs' Request for Rehearing Denied
JPMORGAN CHASE: Consumer, ERISA and Purchaser Suits Pending in NY
JPMORGAN CHASE: Canadian Case Settlements Await Court Approval
JPMORGAN CHASE: LIBOR, Other Benchmark Rate Suits Still Pending

JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in Madoff Litigation Underway
KELLY SERVICES: April 25 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
KEMPHARM INC: Awaits Decision on Bid to Remand IPO-Related Suit
KIRKLAND'S INC: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
LIBERTY MEDIA: 200 Consumers Opt Out of Class Action Settlement

LIVE NATION: Faces "Egan" Suit for ADA Violation in Pa.
LLOYDS BANKING: LIBOR-Related Suits Remain Pending in S.D.N.Y.
MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Sues Over ACTH Drug Monopoly
MANHASSET RESTAURANT: "Canales" Suit Asserts NY Labor Law Breach
MARIAM INC: Faces "Boger" Suit Over TCPA Violations

MATCH GROUP: Motions to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Underway
MEXICO FOODS: "Robledo" Suit Claims Employee Misclassification
NORTH BATTLEFORD: Court Approves Class Action Over Tainted Water
NORTHERN CHILDREN'S: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Wages
NRG RESIDENTIAL: "Dobkin" Wants One Touch to Show Cause

ONEOK PARTNERS: "Federman" Files Suit Opposing Proposed Merger
ONEOK PARTNERS: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
ONEWEST: Accused of Foreclosure Abuse by Homeowner Groups
PAM TRANSPORT: Faces "Williams" Suit for FLSA Violations in Ark.
PJT PARTNERS: Bid to Dismiss "Barrett" Suit in New York Underway

PLY GEM: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in New York
PLY GEM: "Pagliaroni" Class Suit Still Pending in Massachusetts
PLY GEM: Settles "Carrillo-Hueso" Employee Suit for $1 Million
PLY GEM: Settles "Morgan" Overtime Violation Suit for $0.9-Mil.
PLY GEM: Still Owes $1.4-Mil. in Vinyl Clad Settlement

PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Haverhill Suit Parties Finalizing Accord
PURINA PETCARE: Resolves Class Action Over Beggin' Strips
REMINGTON: Gun Owners Claim Proposed Settlement Not Enough
REVOLUTION FIELD: Corral, et al. Allege Cal. Labor Law Violations
ROBIN HOOD: National Flour Recall Expands to Additional Products

ROYAL OAK: Water Customers' Claims Deadline Set for May 15
RYDER TRUCK: Glatt Western Files Suit Over "Illegal" Monthly Fees
QUINSTREET INC: Faces "Debusk" Suit Over TCPA Violation
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Menzer" Suit Transferred to W.D. Oklahoma
SANDOZ INC: Fraternal Order of Police Sues Over Amitriptyline

SANTANDER CONSUMER: Motion to Certify Class Pending in "Deka"
SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Parmelee" Class Suit Underway
SAVAGE FUELING: Faces "Parker" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
SHASTA COUNTY, CA: Disabled Inmates' Suit Granted Class Status
SILVER BAY: Faces "Dell'Osso" Suit Over Securities Act Breach

SILVERITE CONSTRUCTION: April 24 Conference Set in "Whitestone"
SIMONTON BUILDING: Minn. Judge Dismissed "Kiefer" Class Suit
SIRIUS: Royalties Class Action Settlement Awaits Court Approval
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces "Falero" Class Suit in California
SUNIVA INC: Faces "Barron" Suit Over WARN Act Violation

SYNERGIES3 TEC: Faces "Faulk" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Vigil Siblings Asks Court to Revive Suit
TAMKO BUILDING: Petitions Supreme Court to Take Up Shingles Case
TCP INT'L: Settles Securities Class Action for $7.2 Million
TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Settles Age Discrimination Suit for $12MM

TITAN SOLAR: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Solicitation Calls
TRADER JOE'S: Plaintiff Appeals Court Not to Dismiss Class Action
TRIBE APP: Faces "Rattner" Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA
UBS GROUP: Appeal From Dismissal of Madoff-Related Claim Pending
UBS GROUP: Appeal From Dismissal of ERISA Suit Pending

UBS GROUP: Awaits Approval of Settlement in USD LIBOR Class Suit
UBS GROUP: Bids to Nix Foreign Currency Purchasers Suit Pending
UBS GROUP: To Seek Dismissal of FX Indirect Purchasers Suit
UBS GROUP: Bid to Dismiss 2014 Puerto Rico Suit Denied in Part
UBS GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Over Precious Metals Pending

UBS GROUP: Opposes Bid to Appeal Class Certification Denial
UBS GROUP: Parties Await Final Approval of $141-Mil. Settlement
UBS GROUP: Suit Alleging Manipulation of Government Bonds Pending
UBS GROUP: Suit Over ISDAFIX Rates Manipulation Remains Pending
UBS GROUP: 2015 Puerto Rico Suit Stayed Pending Appeal

UNITED AIRLINES: Could Face Possible Suit for Ill-treatment
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Teamsters Funds Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
VASCO DATA: Continues to Defend "Rossbach" Class Suit in Illinois
VERIZON: Sued in Philadelphia for Leasing Extra Fios Set Tops
VOLKSWAGEN: "Artola" Sues Over Defective Timing Chain Systems

W.W. GRAINGER: Class Action Trial Set for February 2018
WAYFAIR INC: Still Defends "Zouzout" Class Suit
WELEDA INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Fraudulent Claims
WELLS FARGO: OCC Downgrades Rating Following Class Action
YGRENE ENERGY: Sued for Failing to Disclose PACE Loan Risks

* CFPB Faces 'Rock and a Hard Place' in Pushing Arbitration Rule
* Class Certification Remains an Obstacle in Data Breach Cases
* Mark Hartmere Joins JND as VP Operations, Class Action Services
* Web Companies Bash Robo-Texting Law
* What Would Class Action Reform Mean For Notice Programs?


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Object to Corporate Witness Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Owes Defense Costs for 206 Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Vacates Judgment on Double Billing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rules on Regulatory Materials as Evidence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow's Case Proceeds Against John Crane

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 18 Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Has 6,883 Asbestos Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Has $912MM Asbestos Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Smith AO Still Faces Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemtura Continues to Face Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Faces Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has $6.6MM Asbestos Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Corp. Faces 22 Asbestos Claims at Jan. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alleghany Has $166.3MM Net Loss, LAE Reserves
ASBESTOS ALERT: Equity Lifestyle Under Probe Over Compliance

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Has $61MM A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBLI Had US$15.8MM Net Loss Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Had 3,313 Cases Pending at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Still Defends 103 Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Faces 2 Mesothelioma Suits at Dec.31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Facing 42 Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners' Unit Has 57 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 229 Cases vs. Ceco Still Pending at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Records $4.6MM Asbestos Charge
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,618 Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh's Suit vs. Insurers Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has US$171MM Liability Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Case vs. E-Source Set for This Summer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Units Still Face PI Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Intricon Still Faces Suits at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Faces 103 PI Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Faces PI Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Electronics Still Faces "Edwards" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MLIC Had 67,223 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Reinsurance Had US$441.1MM A&E Reserves

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Trust to be Formed Under Oakfabco Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Geo V. Hamilton Files Chapter 11 Plan


                            *********


1-800 CONTACTS: "Champion" Sues Over Contact Lens Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Champion, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
0:17-cv-60696-KMW (S.D. Fla., April 7, 2017) seeks to recover
damages, costs, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief for
violation of the Florida Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The complaint says Defendant's conduct causes significant
anticompetitive effects including restraining or eliminating price
competition by fixing, raising or maintaining the price of contact
lenses sold online at artificially high levels.

1-800 Contacts, Inc. sells contact lenses and related products
over the internet throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James L. Kauffman, Esq.
   Bailey Glasser LP
   1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
   Washington, DC 20007
   Tel: 202-463-2101
   Fax: 202-463-2103
   Email: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com


15 TAYLOR LLC: Faces "Garcia" Lawsuit Under Mass. Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
EDISON GARCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 15 TAYLOR, LLC and AARON PAPOWITZ,
Defendants, Case No. 17-1083C (Mass. Super., April 5, 2017),
alleges that 15 Taylor habitually refuses to pay its employees
overtime as required by law. Further, Garcia claims that 15 Taylor
also refuses to compensate its employees for all travel time as
required by 454 CMR 27.04(4) when they are assigned to travel to
one of the properties 15 Taylor manages and/or operates. Garcia
alleges that these habitual failures to comply with Massachusetts
law constitute violations of the Massachusetts wage laws and
regulations.

Aaron Papowitz is the sole registered manager of 15 Taylor
registered with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin J. McCullough, Esq.
     Briap P. McNiff, Esq.
     Michael C. Forrest, Esq.
     FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW, MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI, P.C.
     2 Salem Green, Suite 2
     Salem, MA 01970
     Phone: (415) 579 -9481
     E-mail: kmccullough@forrestlamothe.com
             Bmcniff@forrestlamothe. Com
             mforrest@forrestlamothe.com


ADVANCEMED: Faces Class Action Over Improper Medicare Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Baxter, writing for Home Health Care News, reports that just
before Thanksgiving in 2016, Rizaldy Villasenor got some
unexpected news that would impact his home health care business
and cause him to lay off employees and discharge many of the
company's patients.  A Medicare subcontractor slapped the Chicago-
based agency, MedPro Health Providers, LLC, with an audit and
determined improper payments had been made.

That subcontractor, AdvanceMed, was an auditor known as a Zone
Program Integrity Contractor (ZPIC).  It alerted Mr. Villasenor,
founder and CEO of MedPro, that his company would no longer
receive Medicare reimbursements, and that the provider would have
a chance to respond to the allegations of overpayments.

In a twist of fate, the agency had been recognized as a top
workplace by The Chicago Tribune roughly a week before
Mr. Villasenor was notified that Medicare would suspend its
payments.

Months later, MedPro's Medicare reimbursements are still suspended
and Mr. Villasenor has been forced to lay off workers and
discharge hundreds of patients.

Despite the blow, Mr. Villasenor isn't backing down; the business
has filed suit against Secretary of the Department of Health and
Humans Services (HHS) Tom Price and AdvanceMed for not following
Medicare's procedures related to the audit.  MedPro is going after
$300,000 it says it is owed in payments.

In addition, the lawsuit could become a class action.  The suit
could have plenty of cheerleaders in the home health and general
health care community.  ZPICs are the most feared type of Medicare
auditor, as their mandate specifically is to identify suspected
fraud, and the federal government has given them sweeping powers
to conduct investigations and refer those investigations for civil
and/or criminal prosecution.

CMS declined to comment for this story, and AdvanceMed did not
respond to requests from Home Health Care News.

A Lack of Due Process?

When MedPro was informed their Medicare payments would be
suspended, the agency responded quickly, submitting a roughly 100-
page rebuttal statement, highlighting patients that were pulled
out as examples by AdvanceMed and including more supplemental
documents from doctors.  Overnighting all the documents cost
roughly $450, Mr. Villasenor told Home Health Care News.

"They asked me to submit rebuttal statements, along with
additional documentation to prove our case," Mr. Villasenor said.

AdvanceMed's response, which MedPro received roughly two weeks
later in December, was a "general boilerplate" response, and
Ms. Villasenor questioned whether the ZPIC had reviewed the
documents at all, given the short turnaround and lack of
specificity in the response.  AdvanceMed cited "reliable
information" that overpayments had been made to MedPro.

In a conference call in early January, officials told
Mr. Villasenor they did not review his secondary documents, he
told HHCN.  In fact, officials said it was AdvanceMed's policy not
to review additional documents, contrary to Medicare procedures,
the lawsuit says.

That response is important in the lawsuit, which claims AdvanceMed
did not follow due process when conducting the audit by ignoring
MedPro's rebuttal to the allegations and documents. The response,
MedPro alleges, must be specific to justify suspension of Medicare
payments.

"The Secretary, through its ZPICs, has a plainly defined and
nondiscretionary duty to properly and completely respond to
MedPro's rebuttal statement, including but not limited to review
additional documentation . . ." the lawsuit reads.  "The Secretary
has failed to carry out that duty."

The lawsuit seeks class action status, inviting other home health
agencies that have been subject to unfair audit practices by ZPICs
to join.  Ten other home health agencies are considering joining
the case, while MedPro's lawyer estimates there could be as many
as 40 others with similar experiences, Mr. Villasenor told HHCN.
Some of these agencies have already closed up shop for good, he
added.

'Gestapo Tactics'

Mr. Villasenor describes this as a David and Goliath situation,
with the home health provider taking on Tom Price in his capacity
as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, which
is tasked with overseeing the Medicare program.

The audit and subsequent suspension of payments has forced MedPro
to adjust, including by laying off two-thirds of his care staff,
Mr. Villansenor said.

MedPro, which was founded in 2011, has grown rapidly over the past
six years, totaling nearly 1,000 patients in 2016.  Coming from a
background with Dublin, Ohio-based health care products and
services giant Cardinal Health, Mr. Villasenor sought to grow the
business like any other corporation, before being hit with the
devastating blow.

"We have an extensive referral base, we are popular," he said. "We
had a big marketing team, a marketing strategy.  We are doing
things the mainstream way that a business should be run in health
care."

Since the end of 2016, MedPro has discharged or transferred all
its home health patients, but has kept the business running with
managed care patients, which represented roughly 60% of the
agency's patient mix when the audit began.

"I'm not getting paid," he said. "The good thing is that part of
my revenue is managed care."

With the business operating on a "skeleton staff," Mr. Villasenor
is pushing forward, and the case is an uphill battle against
practices he considers unfair.

"The ZPIC companies are not liable for lawsuits," he said. "That's
why they use Gestapo techniques, because they think they are
immune to lawsuits. . . . What we have found out is that they are
only not liable if they follow the due process in the guidelines.
That's why we have a case.  Our lawsuit says they did not follow
the process."

At this point, Mr. Villasenor says, it's "my word against theirs."

The next court appearance is scheduled for April 19, according to
court documents dated April 11, 2017.

"[With an audit], you feel a little scare or threatened,"
Mr. Villasenor said.  "Right now, it's anger that I am feeling.
We were once ranked the No. 1 workplace.  The worst thing is
letting the team go because of this.  If I'm going to close the
company, I say it won't be this way."


AM RETAIL: Faces "John" Suit Over Wilson's Leather Outerwear Ad
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW JOHN, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. AM RETAIL GROUP, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, dba WILSONS LEATHER, and Does 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00727-JAH-BGS (S.D. Cal., April 11,
2017), accuses Defendants of false and misleading advertisement of
deep discounts on its Wilson's Leather branded men's and women's
outerwear and accessories sold in its retail outlet stores. The
discounts offered by defendant on its Wilson's Leather branded
products are allegedly fake sales -- the advertised discounts are
not real.

Defendant advertises, markets, distributes, and/or sells men and
women's accessories, outerwear, and other items to hundreds of
thousands of consumers in California and throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
     402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: 619.756.6994
     Fax: 619.756.6991
     E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

        - and -

     Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
     Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue
     5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Phone: 412.322.9243
     Fax: 412.231.0246
     E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
             glynch@carlsonlynch.com


AMAZON.COM: Faces "Cupolo" Class Suit for Copyright Infringement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Cupolo and Brian Eich, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Amazon.com, Inc. and
Amazon Digital Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02145
(E.D. N.Y., April 8, 2017) seeks to recover damages for copyright
infringement and underpayment of royalties.

The Complaint says Defendants jointly engaged in a systematic
process of infringement by (i) reproducing Plaintiff's and the
Putative Class' recordings without first serving a Notice of
Inquiry (NOI), (ii) deliberately deleting stream information to
hide Defendants' systematic infringement; (iii) failing to serve
any Monthly and Annual Statements of Account to conceal the
infringements and (iv) failing to serve renewal NOIs two years
after the original.

Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and the Putative Publishing Royalty
Class of royalties by: (i) not paying royalties on streamed
recording; (ii) deliberately deleting stream date; (iii)
deliberately deleting the run-time data for recordings over five
minutes to avoid paying the royalty multiplier; (iv) failing to
compensate artists for all streams under $50.00; (v) failing to
provide accurate data to artists related to promotional streams
and incomplete streams and (vii) failing to serve Monthly and
Annual Statements of Account to conceal the stolen royalties.

Defendants own and operate numerous music products subject to the
Copyright Act.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Richard M. Garbarini, Esq.
   Garbarini Fitzgerald P.C.
   250 Park Avenue 7th Floor
   New York, NY 10177
   Tel: (212) 300-5358
   Fax: (347) 218-9478


ANTICA POSTA: Faces "Jones" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
KASSONDRA JONES, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. ANTICA POSTA RISTORANTE, INC., AND MARCO
BETTI, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01304-ELR (N.D.
Ga., April 11, 2017), alleges that Defendants failed to comply
with the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiff and
other servers a direct wage for all hours worked during their
employment.

Defendant, ANTICA POSTA RISTORANTE, INC., operates a restaurant in
Atlanta, Georgia.  Plaintiff worked for Defendants at their Antica
Posta restaurant in Buckhead as server.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
     P.O. Box 4979
     Orlando, FL 32802-4979
     Phone: (407) 420-1414
     Fax: (407) 245-3401
     Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com

        - and -

     J. Stephen Mixon, Esq.
     MILLAR & MIXON, LLC
     1691 Phoenix Boulevard, Suite 150
     Atlanta, GA 30349
     Phone: (770) 955-0100
     Fax: (678) 999-5039
     E-mail: steve@mixon-law.com


ASAHI BEER: Faces "Shalikar" Class Suit in Cent. Dist. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Asahi Beer
U.S.A., Inc. The case is captioned Matin Shalikar, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Asahi Beer
U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-02713-JAK-JPR (C.D. Cal., April 10,
2017).

Based in Torrance, California, Asahi Beer U.S.A., Inc. produces
and supplies beers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Barbara A. Rohr, Esq.
       Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
      FARUQI AND FARUQI LLP
      10866 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1470
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (424) 256-2884
      Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
      E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com
              Bheikali@faruqilaw.com


ASSET RECOVERY: "Califf" Sues Over FDCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Jerri Califf, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00322 (W.D. Mich., April 7, 2017) seeks to
recover damages pursuant to Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendant violated FDCPA by using false, deceptive or misleading
representations or means in connection with the collection of any
debt, including by misleading the consumer as to the identity of
the current creditor, says the complaint.

Asset Recovery is a full service asset recovery management
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph Panvini, Esq.
   Thompson Consumer Law Group, PLLC
   5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
   Mesa, AZ 85206
   Tel: (602) 388-8875
   Fax: (866) 317-2674
   Email: jpanvini@consumerlawinfo.com


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Sterling Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ASTORIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, RALPH F.
PALLESCHI, MONTE N. REDMAN, JOHN R. CHRIN, JOHN J. CORRADO, ROBERT
GIAMBRONE, GERARD C. KEEGAN, BRIAN M. LEENEY, PATRICIA M.
NAZEMETZ, and STERLING BANCORP, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02165
(E.D.N.Y., April 10, 2017), alleges violation of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act in relation to a transaction pursuant
to which Astoria Financial Corporation will be acquired by
Sterling Bancorp.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of
Astoria will receive 0.875 shares of Sterling common stock for
each share of Astoria stock they own.

The case alleges that a Form S-4 Registration Statement in
connection with the Proposed Transaction omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which
renders the Registration Statement false and misleading.

First, the Registration Statement omits material information
regarding Astoria's financial projections and the financial
analyses performed by Astoria's financial advisor, Sandler O'Neill
& Partners, L.P., says the complaint.  Second, the Registration
Statement omits material information regarding Sterling's
financial projections and the financial analyses performed by
Sterling's financial advisors, RBC Capital Markets, LLC and
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.  Third, the Registration Statement
omits material information regarding the process leading to the
Proposed Transaction.

Astoria Financial Corporation, with assets of $14.6 billion, is
the holding company for Astoria Bank. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 683-3516

        - and -

     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Phone: (302) 295-5310

        - and -

     RM LAW, P.C.
     1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Phone: (484) 324-6800


BANDAS LAW: Edelson Class Action May Spark Flood of Countersuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that the
courts could risk a flood of new litigation, which could chill
efforts to object to future class action settlements, if a judge
allows a prominent Chicago class action trial law firm to continue
with a class action lawsuit accusing a rival firm of racketeering
for acting as "professional objectors," bent on extorting payoffs,
according to a motion filed by that rival firm.

On April 10, attorneys for lawyer Christopher Bandas and his firm,
the Bandas Law Firm P.C., of Corpus Christi, Texas, filed a motion
in Chicago federal court, asking a judge to dismiss the lawsuit
brought by Chicago firm Edelson P.C., arguing Edelson's suit
attempts to transform a matter better left to litigation into "a
federal crime" under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act.

"Despite Edelson's allegations . . . this Court should adopt the
precedent that federal courts across the country have established:
litigation activities cannot constitute a predicate act of
racketeering activity," Bandas' counsel argued in a memorandum in
support of their motion to dismiss.

"Moreover, allowing this case to proceed will open the floodgates
to future litigants collaterally attacking civil litigation
proceedings by filing RICO countersuits alleging frivolous or
meritless litigation."

The dismissal request comes as the latest step in the class action
suit launched by Edelson late last year.

In December, Edelson accused the Bandas firm, as well as other law
firms and attorneys, of being "vexatious litigants" raising
objections to class action settlements to simply secure payoffs
from other lawyers attempting to complete those settlement deals.

Other defendants named in the lawsuit included law firms Noonan
Perillo & Thut, of Chicago, and the Darrell Palmer Law Offices, of
Solana Beach, Calif.  Individual defendants include lawyers
Christopher Bandas, Darrell Palmer and C. Jeffery Thut.

In the lawsuit, Edelson pointed to a recent attempt by Bandas,
Thut and Palmer to extract payment from Edelson as the firm sought
to finalize a $13.8 million deal to settle a class action lawsuit
against Gannett Co. over alleged violations of the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act -- a frequent device used by
Edelson and a number of other trial law firms in bringing class
action lawsuits.

The Gannett litigation alleged Gannett had used an autodial
program to call people on their mobile phones without consent.
Gannett denied the allegations, but agreed in September 2016 to
pay $5 million to settle the lawsuit and avoid trial.

Thut, allegedly in conjunction with Bandas and Palmer, objected to
the settlement in October 2016 on behalf of a man identified as
Gary Stewart.  The objection was overruled, and settlement
finalized.

But Edelson said Thut threatened to appeal and "hold up final
resolution of the case."  During a mediation session that
followed, Edelson alleged Bandas and his associates demanded
$225,000-$445,000 as a "fee to go away."

Edelson agreed and paid the fee, but then filed suit.  The firm
alleged the behavior was only a part of a campaign of "serial
objections" to class action settlements. The lawsuit noted Bandas
has filed at least 55 objections in the past 10 years, though
Edelson said they believe "these 55 objections likely represent
only a small fraction of the total number of objections in which
Bandas has been involved."

However, no matter the reason for the objections or how many were
filed, Bandas argued in his motion to dismiss that the objections
cannot form the basis of the kind of RICO complaint Edelson has
brought in this case, as the courts have repeatedly held that
lawsuits and legal actions -- even meritless or frivolous ones --
cannot be considered part of a pattern of racketeering.

Bandas argued finding otherwise would harm the courts and future
litigation by making the threat of a RICO-based countersuit
potentially too great a risk.

"If this Court enables parties to argue that prior litigation
constituted a predicate act of racketeering activity, then this
Court (and others) will have to second-guess prior proceedings in
order to determine whether they were meritless or brought for
improper purposes," Bandas' attorneys argued. "Any party that
defends against frivolous or meritless litigation can seek redress
either through the court in the underlying proceeding, or through
a state tort action for malicious prosecution; there is no need to
create a new, additional route of collaterally attacking final
court decisions through federal RICO countersuits."

Bandas is represented in the action by attorneys with the firm of
Freeborn & Peters LLP, of Chicago.


BANK OF AMERICA: Settles NationsBank Hiring Discrimination Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Labor has settled a case that arose from a
1993 compliance review of NationsBank, N.A., that found systematic
hiring violations involving African-American applicants for entry-
level jobs and led to more than two decades of litigation.
NationsBank merged with the Bank of America, N.A. in 1998.

The review by the department's Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs determined the bank had violated Executive
Order 11246 by unlawfully discriminating against the applicants
for clerical, teller and administrative positions at the
Charlotte, North Carolina facility.

In 2016, the department's Administrative Review Board issued a
Final Decision and Order granting relief to the African-American
applicants who were not hired in 1993.  Bank of America initially
challenged the order in U.S. District Court, and the bank does not
admit liability.  A settlement has been reached, though, and the
bank has now agreed to resolve the case by paying $1 million in
back wages and interest to 1,027 African-American applicants for
the North Carolina jobs.  A U.S. District Court judge in the
District of Columbia has entered an order to stay the proceedings
until Bank of America fully complies with the terms of the
settlement agreement.

"Although much time and effort has gone into this case by all
parties, the department is pleased that the matter has been
resolved.  It is a win for the affected job applicants, for Bank
of America and for the department," said Acting OFCCP Director
Thomas M. Dowd.  "It reinforces our nation's founding principles
of fair treatment and level playing fields."

OFCCP recently launched the Class Member Locator to help identify
applicants and/or workers who have been impacted by its compliance
evaluations and complaint investigations, and who may be entitled
to monetary relief and/or consideration for job placement.

If you are an African-American jobseeker who applied for an entry-
level position at NationsBank's Charlotte facility in 1993 and
were not hired, please visit our website at
http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/CML/index.htm,where you can also find
information about this and other recent OFCCP settlements, or call
855-216-0427.

OFCCP seeks to ensure compliance with Executive Order 11246,
Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era
Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974.  These laws, as
amended, make it illegal for contractors and subcontractors doing
business with the federal government to discriminate in employment
because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender
identity, national origin, disability or status as a protected
veteran.  In addition, contractors and subcontractors are
prohibited from discriminating against applicants or employees
because they have inquired about, discussed, or disclosed their
compensation or that of others, subject to certain limitations.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs, United States Department of Labor, et al. Civil Action
No. 1:16-cv-968; Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs,
United States Department of Labor v. Bank of America, N.A., ARB
Case No. 13-099; ALJ Case No. 1997-OFC-016.


BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: Council OK's Detention Officers' Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Rindge, writing for Post and Courier, reports that
Berkeley County is a step closer to settling a lawsuit stemming
from an ongoing wage dispute.

County Council on April 10 approved a $13,500 settlement offer.

The class-action suit alleged the county violated the S.C. Payment
of Wages Act when it failed to compensate some detention center
employees for hours worked beyond their scheduled shifts.

The suit was filed in state court in February 2016 by five former
detention officers but was transferred to federal court a month
later because the lack of overtime also violated federal wage
laws, according to court documents.

Berkeley County and former Sheriff Wayne DeWitt are defendants in
the suit.  The plaintiffs are Candice Carroll, Thomas Mims,
Dimitar Stoilov, Stephen Gaskins and Christopher Brasseaux.

Staff shortages had required the employees to work 30 minutes to
an hour of overtime without pay each shift at the Hill-Finklea
Detention Center, the documents state.

In 2014, Berkeley County agreed to pay officers time-and-a-half if
they exceeded 40 hours in a work week.  The change, which took
effect in January 2015 for officers at the detention center, was
the result of a similar lawsuit settlement from a previous class-
action suit in federal court.

After reviewing its policies, the defendants gave the plaintiffs a
check for unpaid wages but it did not "fairly compensate" the
employees, the lawsuit alleges.


BLACKROCK: Faces Class Action Over Mismanaged Retirement Funds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Maynard, writing for ConsumerAffairs, reports that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against BlackRock -- the
largest private money manager in the world -- over its management
of employee retirement funds.

The company has grown in prominence over the last 25 years and now
holds $5.1 trillion in assets, but employee Charles Baird says
that it violated ethics rules by putting employee investments in
multi-layer company-run funds that have allowed it to rake in
approximately $60 million in fees, according to Courthouse News.

"Plan participants were subjected to higher hidden fees through
excessive fund layering, where one BlackRock fund invests in a
rabbit hole of other BlackRock funds.  In this layering scheme,
each BlackRock fund charges additional fees to employee investors
and those unnecessary layers of fees cannibalize the returns of
the employee," Mr. Baird stated in his complaint.

Collecting fees

Before filing the class action, Baird analyzed the BlackRock
Retirement Savings Plan and found that it was underperforming
funds when compared to other financial institutions like Vanguard.

"For example, despite charging a 500 to 871 percent premium,
BlackRock's Low Duration Bond Fund has underperformed Vanguard's
alternative over ten, five, three, and one year horizons," Baird
says in the complaint.

He claims the motive behind this poor management was to allow the
company to funnel employee investments through multiple internal
fund layers and collect fees.  "Each of the ten BlackRock LifePath
Funds funnel employee retirement assets into 27 additional
BlackRock proprietary funds, which results in 26 additional layers
of fees," the complaint reads.

Seeking relief
Baird says that a responsible fiduciary would have recognized that
the investments weren't suitable, but he claims BlackRock
continued with the plan to maximize its own returns.

The suit seeks to require BlackRock to establish a trust where all
ill-gotten gains will be placed to the benefit of affected
employees.  It also attempts to put an end to BlackRock's practice
of using its own funds as a part of retirement savings packages
and seeks the termination of those responsible for implementing
the program.

Class members are being represented by Nina Wasow of Oakland-based
Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman and Wasow.


BLUE CROSS: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Doctors' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Land, writing for Daily Report, reports that there was
apparently little substantive disagreement among the three
Eleventh Circuit judges who sided with Blue Cross and Blue Shield
in a dispute with three doctors who had sought to join a class
action against the insurers years after settling similar claims
and agreeing to broad releases.

Should the doctors be permitted to set aside those releases? No.
In an unpublished, one-sentence ruling issued April 5 by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Judges Gerald Tjoflat,
Julie Carnes and Senior Judge Ronald Lee Gilman, sitting by
appointment from the Sixth Circuit, affirmed the trial judge's
"thorough and well-reasoned order" dismissing the case in 2013.
But Judge Tjoflat had more to say, and his 18-page special
concurrence prompted a dialectical detour into the objectives and
limitations of declaratory judgment actions.

Judge Tjoflat took issue with the doctors' use of a declaratory
judgment action to essentially seek permission to violate the
settlement agreement and injunction ending the earlier cases.

"The Declaratory Judgment Act was not intended to provide a route
for circumventing the enforcement of an already-granted
injunction," wrote Judge Tjoflat, and to allow it for such a
purpose "would significantly defang the injunction as a remedy"
and "work a serious harm on the rule of law and the integrity of
the judiciary."

Judge Gilman disagreed, asserting in his own concurrence that
"this court and its sister circuits have noted that declaratory-
judgment actions are an appropriate means of determining the scope
of a settlement agreement or consent decree."

In the first place, Judge Gilman wrote, neither the parties nor
trial court had ever questioned the propriety of a declaratory
judgment action "as the proper vehicle for declaring the
plaintiffs rights vis-a-vis the settlement agreements."

Judge Tjoflat, Judge Gilman said, raised the issue sua sponte, and
is in lonely territory when it comes to U.S. Supreme Court and
district court precedent.

Judge Gilman cited the U.S. Supreme Court's 2007 decision in
MedImmune v. Genentech (549 U.S. 118, 137), which involved a
company seeking to determine whether a patent was enforceable.

In that case, the majority ruled, a party's "choice between
abandoning his rights or risking prosecution is a dilemma that it
was the very purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act to
ameliorate."

"The only jurists who appear vexed by the use of the declaratory-
judgment action in this or a similar setting are Judge Tjoflat, in
his concurring opinion in this case, and Justice Clarence Thomas,
who was the sole dissenter in MedImmune," Judge Gilman wrote.

Joseph Whatley Jr. -- jwhatley@whatleykallas.com -- of
WhatleyKallas, plaintiffs counsel in the pending class action with
partner Edith Kallas, said his side was disappointed with the
Eleventh Circuit's decision but called the debate over so-called
DJ actions "intellectually interesting."

There was no immediate response to queries made to several
attorneys representing the Blue Cross defendants.

The underlying case involves a multidistrict antitrust class
action, Conway v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, filed in
2012 in Alabama's Northern District.  The litigation accuses
multiple Blue Cross entities of colluding to divide up the U.S.
healthcare markets among themselves and fix prices in violation of
the federal Sherman Act.

Doctors Corey Musselman, Rick Love and Charles Shane want to join
the litigation as plaintiffs or class representatives.

But all three had been signatories to two earlier settlements with
Blue Cross in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida relating to the insurers' compensation practices.

As part of the settlements, which required the defendants to pay
more than $384 million in cash and change their business
practices, the plaintiffs were permanently enjoined from taking
part in any subsequent legal action against any of the defendants
based on the released claims.

In 2013, the doctors filed a declaratory judgment action in the
Southern District of Florida seeking a declaration that the
antitrust claims in the Alabama suit fell outside the umbrella of
the injunctions settling the earlier suit.


BLU PRODUCTS: Faces Suit Over Adups Spyware on Phone Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Torres at Legal Newsline reports that two consumers have
filed a class action lawsuit against mobile phone manufacturers,
alleging invasion of privacy and unfair competition.

Darren Martinez and Joe Mocnik filed a complaint, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, March 31 in U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against Blu
Products Inc., and Shanghai Adups Technology Co. Ltd., alleging
they sell their mobile phones that are equipped with Adups Spyware
that intercept private and personal activity and data.

According to the complaint, Martinez and Mocnik bought a mobile
phone found to have a software that could intercept their personal
activities. The plaintiffs allege the defendants failed to inform
consumers about the existence of the Adups spyware in their mobile
phones.

Martinez and Mocnik seek trial by jury, actual and compensatory
damages including interest, restitution and disgorgement of all
amounts, punitive damages, order the defendants to immediately
cease its wrongful conduct, enjoin the defendants from selling
products through false and misleading statements, attorney and
expert fees, plus and all other and proper relief. They are
represented by attorney Laurence M. Rosen  --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- of the Rosen Law Firm PA in Los Angeles,
and by Christopher Hinton -- chinton@rosenlegal.com -- of the
Hinton Law Firm in New York.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 2:17-cv-02507-DSF-AGR [GN]


BROOMALL: Overtime Wage Class Action Not Subject to Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Malfitano, writing for Pennsylvania Record, reports that
a federal appeals court stated that a reputed class action filed
against the operating companies of a senior care facility are not
subject to arbitration, affirming the decision of the lower
federal court.

On April 10, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit judges
Michael A. Chagares, Anthony J. Scirica and D. Michael Fisher
ruled the case brought by Irene Novosad and Kathy Morris's case
against Broomall Operating Company, L.P. and SavaSeniorCare, LLC
dealing with overtime compensation did not need to be sent to
arbitration.

"Does an arbitration clause stating that it 'covers only claims by
individuals and does not cover class or collective actions'
nonetheless require that a putative class and collective action
for overtime pay be sent to arbitration? The District Court
thought not.  We will affirm," Judge Fisher said.

Judge Fisher explained the plaintiffs filed their putative class
and collective action against the defendants under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and comparable Pennsylvania wage and hour
statutes.

Judge Fisher added the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants
failed to pay proper overtime compensation.  In response, the
defendants moved to compel arbitration, pointing to an arbitration
clause in an Employment Dispute Resolution Program book that
plaintiffs agreed to as a condition of employment.

"The clause makes arbitration 'the only means of resolving
employment related disputes.' At the same time, however, the
clause also states that it 'covers only claims by individuals and
does not cover class or collective actions.' The District Court
read this latter sentence as unambiguously carving out class and
collective actions from mandatory arbitration and accordingly
denied defendants' motion.  This appeal followed," Judge Fisher
said.

"We agree with the District Court that the arbitration clause's
plain language excludes class and collective actions from
mandatory arbitration.  Defendants' contrary argument renders that
provision of the clause superfluous.   makes little sense for the
clause to state that it "covers only claims by individuals and
does not cover class or collective actions" only to require
arbitration of such suits," Judge Fisher said.

"We recognize, of course, that there is a strong federal policy
favoring arbitration.  But that policy has its limits, and courts
apply the presumption of arbitrability 'only where a validly
formed and enforceable arbitration agreement is ambiguous about
whether it covers the dispute at hand.' Here, the text of the
arbitration clause controls.  That clause, we hold, unmistakably
provides that plaintiffs' class and collective actions need not be
subject to arbitration," Judge Fisher added.

The plaintiffs were represented by Timothy S. Seiler and Ari
Risson Karpf of Karpf Karpf & Cerutti, in Bensalem.

The defendants were represented by Ryan P. Newell --
rnewell@connollygallagher.com -- and Josiah Rodney Wolcott --
jwolcott@connollygallagher.com -- of Connolly Gallagher in Newark,
Del., plus Henry M. Perlowski -- henry.perlowski@agg.com -- and
Chesley S. McLeod -- chesley.mcleod@agg.com -- of Arnall Golden
Gregory, in Atlanta.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case 16-2089

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case
2:15-cv-06252


BROOK'S HOMECARE: Faces "Chung" Suit Over FLSA, NYLL Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marlon Chung, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Brook's Homecare LLC, Caring Partners LLC and Eric
Johnson in his individual capacity, all jointly and severally,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02534 (S.D. N.Y., April 7, 2017) is
brought against the Defendant for non-payment of overtime wage
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law
(NYLL).

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a home health care aide.
Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs for the time worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, says the complaint.

Defendants provide home health care services to elderly and/or
infirm individuals through home health care aides.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Nathaniel K. Charny, Esq.
   Charny & Wheeler
   9 West Market Street
   Rhinebeck, NY 12572
   Tel: (845) 876-7500
   Email: ncharny@charnywheeler.com


CALAVO GROWERS: Defends Wage and Hour Class Suits in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Calavo Growers, Inc., is defending itself against two purported
class action lawsuits alleging violations of California wage-and-
hour laws, according to the Company's March 10, 2017, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended January 31, 2017.

The Company said: "We are currently a named defendant in two class
action lawsuits filed in Superior state courts in California
alleging violations of California wage-and-hour laws, failure to
pay overtime, failure to pay for missed meal and rest periods,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to
pay all wages due at the time of termination or resignation, as
well as statutory penalties for violation of the California Labor
Code and Minimum Wage Order-2014."

"We are still assessing the claims and assertions made by the
plaintiffs.  We intend to aggressively challenge the merits of
each lawsuit.  At this time, we are not able to predict either the
outcome of these lawsuits or estimate a potential range of loss
with respect to said lawsuits."

Calavo Growers, Inc., is a global leader in the avocado industry
and an expanding provider of value-added fresh food.  The Company
procures avocados principally from California and Mexico.


CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: "Phao" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
KATHY PHAO, an Individual on Behalf of Herself and All Other
Similarly Situated Current and Former Employees, Plaintiffs, vs.
CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CLUB, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES
1 through 10, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 657072 (Cal.
Super., County of Los Angeles, April 7, 2017), alleges that
Defendants engaged in the illegal practice of requiring all non-
exempt employees, including Plaintiff, Plaintiff Class, and other
employees who worked as cashiers, window workers, and cage workers
to work four or more hours without a full, uninterrupted, ten-
minute rest period, in violation of the Industrial Wage Order,
California Labor Code and other relevant laws, rules, orders,
requirements and regulations.

Defendants jointly own, manage and/or operate a Casino in the city
of Commerce, County of Los Angeles, state of California.
Plaintiff KATHY PHAO was a cashier and cage worker for Defendants.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq.
     Shoham J. Solouki, Esq.
     SOLOUKI & SAVOY, LLP
     316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200
     Los Angeles, CA 90012
     Phone: (213) 814-4940
     E-mail: grant@soloukisavoy.com
             shoham@soloukisavov.com


CANADIAN FOOTBALL: Commissioner Steps Down Amid Concussion Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Jeffrey Orridge has resigned as
Canadian Football League commissioner, effective June 30.

Mr. Orridge's tenure was a short but tumultuous one.  On April 12,
Mr. Orridge and the CFL's board of governors mutually agreed to
part ways.  The surprising news comes just over two years after
Orridge was hired amid much fanfare as the first African-American
chief executive of a major North American sports league.

No official reason was given for the move.  In a statement,
Mr. Orridge said he and the board didn't agree on the league's
future.

Mr. Orridge succeeded Mark Cohon, who spent eight years on the
job.

The weight of expectation on Mr. Orridge's shoulders was
immediate. On the day he was formally unveiled as commissioner, he
had to deal with the Toronto Argonauts' muddled ownership issue.
But interim commissioner Jim Lawson pretty much had negotiated the
sale of the franchise in May 2015 to Larry Tanenbaum.

Mr. Orridge did come under fire for the CFL's fallout with the
Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport that led to the league not
having drug testing for more than a year.  Ultimately a new policy
reached with the players' association was implemented in the
collective bargaining agreement.

Last November, Mr. Orridge drew widespread criticism when he
denied the existence of a link between playing football and the
development of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).  Mr.
Orridge's comments came months after Jeff Miller, the NFL's top
health and safety officer, acknowledged a link between football-
related head trauma and brain disease, the first time a senior
league official conceded football's connection to CTE.

Following Miller's admission, an American federal judge gave final
approval to a $1 billion class-action lawsuit settlement between
the NFL and thousands of former players.  The CFL was named in a
$200 million class-action lawsuit over concussions and brain
trauma.  But a judge dismissed former player Arland Bruce III's
lawsuit against the league, Mr. Cohon, neuroscientist Dr. Charles
Tator, the CFL Alumni Association and every team in the league.

The case is on appeal.

"In his time with the CFL, Jeffrey worked tirelessly to promote
player health and safety, the integrity of the league on and off
the field, and the values of diversity and inclusion," Mr. Lawson
said.  "Jeffrey played an important role in developing the
league's strategic plan which has, in a short time, helped to
elevate some key metrics that underpin the health of the league.

"On behalf of the Board of Governors we wish Jeffrey continued
success and thank him for his hard work and integrity during his
tenure with the CFL."


CBS MEDICAL: Davis Neurology Alleges TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
DAVIS NEUROLOGY, P.A., on behalf of itself and all other entities
and persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CBS MEDICAL, INC.
and JOHN DOES 1-10, intending to refer to those persons,
corporations or other legal entities that acted as agents,
consultants, independent contractors or representatives,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00214-BRW (Ark. Circ., Pope County,
April 7, 2017), alleges that Defendants sent non-compliant
facsimile advertisements to advertise their products and services
to hundreds, if not thousands, of telephone facsimile machines in
Arkansas and, presumably, other states in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

CBS Medical Inc. is in the health and allied services business.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alex G. Streett, Esq.
     James a. Streett, Esq.
     STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A.
     107 West Main
     Russellville, AR 72801
     Phone: (479) 968-2030
     E-mail: Alex@SteettLaw.com
             James@SteettLaw.com

        - and -

     Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
     BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
     227 2nd Avenue North, 4th Floor
     Nashville, TN 37201
     Phone: (615) 254-8801
     E-mail: jleniski@branstetterlaw.com


CHARLES SCHWAB: Attorneys Seek Arbitration of ERISA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Moore, writing for Plan Sponsor, reports that attorneys
have asked a court to compel arbitration of a class action
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuit filed
against Charles Schwab Corporation and its retirement plan
fiduciaries alleging fiduciary breaches and prohibited
transactions.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, claims plan fiduciaries engaged in the
imprudent and disloyal exercise of their discretionary fiduciary
authority over the plan to include Schwab's own affiliated
investment products as investment options within the plan and sale
of their own services to the plan.  The complaint alleges that
defendants "reaped significant fees and profits at the expense of
the plan and its participants."

In their motion, the attorneys note that the arbitration
provisions in Schwab's retirement plan document and severance
agreement clearly fall within the scope of the Federal Arbitration
Act (FAA).  The plan document's arbitration provision broadly
encompasses "[a]ny claim, dispute, or breach arising out of or in
any way related to the Plan," and extends to the ERISA claims
asserted, they say.  The attorneys contend the arbitration
provision of the plaintiff's severance of employment agreement
likewise embraces the ERISA claims, insofar as it requires
arbitration of "any dispute or breach arising out of or in any way
related to [Severson's] employment . . . ."

According to the motion, the fact that Christopher W. Severson's
claims are brought pursuant to ERISA's civil enforcement
provisions does not in any way impede or limit the application of
the arbitration provisions contained in the plan document or
severance agreement.  "The mere fact that ERISA provides a federal
court cause of action for alleged ERISA violations does not
prevent parties from agreeing to adjudicate such claims in
arbitration," the attorneys argue.

In addition, the attorneys say the fact that Severson purports to
bring his claims "on behalf of the Plan" under ERISA Section
502(a) does not alter the conclusion that his claims are
arbitrable.  Although Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA provides a cause
of action for claims "on behalf of the plan," the plaintiff
bringing the claim is the plan participant -- not the plan, they
note.

The attorneys say the court should likewise conclude that the
claims asserted by Severson must be arbitrated on an individual
basis because neither the plan document nor the severance
agreement evinces an intent to engage in class or representative
arbitration.  To the contrary, the plan document expressly waives
a participant's "right to commence, be a party to, or be an actual
or putative class member of any class, collective or
representative action arising out of or relating to the Plan."

"The Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, and this Court have
repeatedly upheld this type of class waiver," they say.

The motion says, based on a finding that the arbitration clauses
should be enforced, the court would have two alternative forms of
relief at its disposal: it "may either stay the action or dismiss
it outright."  "The court should compel individual arbitration of
Severson's claims and, on that basis, dismiss the lawsuit, or stay
the litigation pending the outcome of individual arbitration," the
attorneys conclude.


CHARLESTON GASTROENTEROLOGY: Class Action v. Matulis Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kate White, writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reports that a
Kanawha County judge on April 11 refused to throw out a lawsuit
against a Charleston gastroenterologist who has been accused in
multiple lawsuits of sexually assaulting female patients under
anesthesia.

About 40 former patients of Dr. Steven Matulis filled Circuit
Judge Joanna Tabit's courtroom on April 11 to hear arguments over
motions asking the judge to dismiss the complaint.

Lawyers with the Calwell Practice and P. Rodney Jackson, who filed
the lawsuit, want Judge Tabit to grant the lawsuit class-action
status on behalf of Matulis' female patients from the past six
years who underwent a colonoscopy procedure.

Judge Tabit ordered both sides to come up with a proposed
scheduling order in the next two weeks.  Before Judge Tabit
decides whether to grant the lawsuit class-action status, a
certification hearing must be held.

The lawsuit filed in November against Matulis was also filed
against Charleston Gastroenterology Associates and Day Surgery
Center.  Matulis practiced at both locations.

Lawyers for the defendants argued that Judge Tabit should dismiss
the medical malpractice lawsuit because the plaintiffs didn't
allege a physical injury.

The judge responded, however, that West Virginia law doesn't
require a physical impairment to prove an injury has occurred.

"Is there a more vulnerable population than those under
anesthesia?" Judge Tabit said on April 11.  "It's everybody's
worst nightmare."

The complaint states the women who were patients of the doctor
don't know whether they are victims of sexual assault, after
having a procedure by the doctor in which they were under
anesthesia.  The former patients also don't know if the
colonoscopy procedure given by Matulis is reliable.

Not knowing whether an assault occurred creates substantial
concern and distress for the women, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges Matulis failed to comply with the time
requirements for careful withdrawal of a colonoscope during
colonoscopy procedures.  The lawsuit wants those who received a
colonoscopy that is not medically reliable to be given the option
to have the procedure repeated by a competent physician at the
expense of the defendants.

Medical records of Matulis' patients also show that Matulis was
reckless while performing colonoscopy procedures, lawyers said --
which means he could have misdiagnosed patients.

"There's now a new fear," said lawyer Stuart Calwell on April 11.
"Cancer."

The defendants in the case hadn't yet responded to the lawsuit
when they filed the motions to dismiss.  Judge Tabit gave them 20
days from April 11 to respond.

According to a separate lawsuit filed last year, Charleston police
told at least two women, about a week after they underwent a
procedure, that they had been the victims of sexual assault by
Matulis.


CHURCHILL DOWNS: Appeal in Horsemens' Purses Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal related to the Louisiana Horsemens' Purses Class Action
Suit remains pending, Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On April 21, 2014, John L. Soileau and other individuals filed a
Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Permanent Injunction, and
Damages-Class Action styled John L. Soileau, et. al. versus
Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC, Churchill Downs
Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC (Suit No. 14-3873) in the
Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. The petition defined the
"alleged plaintiff class" as quarter-horse owners, trainers and
jockeys that have won purses at the "Fair Grounds Race Course &
Slots" facility in New Orleans, Louisiana since the first
effective date of La. R.S. 27:438 and specifically since 2008. The
petition alleged that Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing,
L.L.C. and Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, L.L.C.
("Fair Grounds") have collected certain monies through video draw
poker devices that constitute monies earned for purse supplements
and all of those supplemental purse monies have been paid to
thoroughbred horsemen during Fair Grounds' live thoroughbred horse
meets; while La. R.S. 27:438 requires a portion of those
supplemental purse monies to be paid to quarter-horse horsemen
during Fair Grounds' live quarter-horse meets. The petition
requested that the Court declare that Fair Grounds violated La.
R.S. 27:438, issue a permanent and mandatory injunction ordering
Fair Grounds to pay all future supplements due to the plaintiff
class pursuant to La. R.S. 27:438, and to pay the plaintiff class
such sums as it finds to reasonably represent the value of the
sums due to the plaintiff class.

On August 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to their
petition naming the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective
Association 1993, Inc. ("HBPA") as an additional defendant and
alleging that HBPA is also liable to plaintiffs for the disputed
purse funds. On October 9, 2014, HBPA and Fair Grounds filed
exceptions to the suit, including an exception of primary
jurisdiction seeking referral to the Louisiana Racing Commission.
By Judgment dated November 21, 2014, the District Court granted
the exception of primary jurisdiction and referred the matter to
the Louisiana Racing Commission.

On January 26, 2015, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
denied the plaintiffs' request for supervisory review of the
Judgment. The Louisiana Racing Commission requested and received
memoranda from the parties in the case on the issue of whether
plaintiffs have standing to pursue the claims against Fair
Grounds.

On August 24, 2015, the Louisiana Racing Commission ruled that the
plaintiffs did not have standing or a right of action to pursue
the case. On September 18, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Petition
for Appeal of Administrative Order Dismissing Case for No Right of
Action in the District Court seeking a reversal of the Louisiana
Racing Commission's ruling.

On July 13, 2016, the plaintiff's filed their brief with the
District Court and Fair Grounds filed its brief on August 12,
2016. A hearing was held at the District Court on September 15,
2016 and the District Court affirmed the Louisiana Racing
Commission's ruling. The plaintiff filed an appeal with the
Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 7, 2016.

Churchill Downs Incorporated is an industry-leading racing, gaming
and online entertainment company anchored by the iconic flagship
event -- The Kentucky Derby.


CLEAR MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Morrison" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aimee Morrison, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Clear Management Solutions, Case No. 1:17-cv-00051-DBP (D. Ut.,
April 10, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Clear Management Solutions operates a medical billing services
company located at 2790 Decker Lake Dr., West Valley City, UT
84119. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP
      2633 E Indian School Rd Ste 460
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 900-1288
      E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com


COCA-COLA CO: Secures Summary Judgment in Privacy Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leigh Ann Benson, Esq. -- lbenson@cozen.com -- and Matthew J.
Siegel, Esq. -- msiegel@cozen.com -- of Cozen O'Connor, in an
article for Lexology, wrote that Coca-Cola won big in March when
it secured summary judgment in a privacy class action brought by a
former bottling plant employee concerning compromised personal
information.  Hon. Joseph Leeson of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania found that Coca-Cola was not under any contractual
obligation to protect its employees' personal information.

The issues arose when an ill-motived former IT employee disposed
of old Coca-Cola laptops that were still storing employee
information, including addresses, phone numbers and SSNs. The
proposed class action was brought on behalf of the 74,000
employees whose information was compromised.

The court rejected plaintiff's arguments that a handful of company
policies, when woven together, impose a contractual duty on Coca-
Cola to safeguard information for the benefit of employees.  Coca-
Cola argued that its detailed security policies create obligations
to safeguard Company information to support business operations,
but not to shield employees personally. The judge agreed, ruling
the relevant policy provisions serve to protect the company, not
the employees.

Cited provisions came from Code of Conduct, the Protection Policy
and the Acceptable Use Policy, and read, in part: "Computer
hardware, software, and data must be safeguarded from damage,
theft, fraudulent manipulation, and unauthorized access to and
disclosure of Company information." Another provision stated that
"[w]e all have an obligation to safeguard Company assets including
exercising care in using Company equipment, vehicles, and bringing
to the attention of high management any waste, misuse,
destruction, or theft of Company property or illegal activity."

It is also noteworthy that, despite not being contractually
obligated to protect employee information, Coca-Cola was
responsible and proactive in response to the incident.  Coca-Cola
informed employees of the lost laptops and provided one year of
free credit monitoring and fraud restoration services.

Ironically, plaintiff claimed that Coca-Cola should compensate him
for wages lost because of the time required to submit the
necessary information to obtain the protection services. The court
explicitly rejected this as well.

The case is Enslin v. The Coca-Cola Co., No. 2:14-cv-06476, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


COLONY STARWOOD: Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Colony Starwood Homes is awaiting the court's ruling on a motion
to dismiss a shareholder class action lawsuit, the Company said in
its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "On October 30, 2015, a putative class action
was filed by Plaintiff (i.e., one of our purported shareholders)
against the Defendants (i.e., us, our trustees, the Manager, SWAY
Holdco, LLC, Starwood Capital Group and CAH) challenging the
Merger and the Internalization. The case is captioned South Miami
Pension Plan v. Starwood Waypoint Residential Trust, et al.,
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, State of Maryland, Case No.
24C15005482. The complaint alleged, among other things, that some
or all of our trustees breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the Merger and the Internalization, and that the other
defendants aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The complaint
also challenged the adequacy of the public disclosures made in
connection with the Merger and the Internalization. Plaintiff
sought, among other relief, an injunction preventing our
shareholders from voting on the Internalization or the Merger,
rescission of the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement, and damages, including attorneys' fees and experts'
fees."

"On December 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a
preliminary injunction preventing our shareholders from voting on
whether to approve the Merger and the Internalization. On December
16, 2015, the day before the shareholder vote, the Court denied
Plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion. Plaintiff thereafter
notified the Defendants that it intended to file an amended
complaint. Plaintiff filed its amended complaint on February 3,
2016, asserting substantially similar claims and seeking
substantially similar relief as in its earlier complaint. In
response, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on March 21, 2016, on which the Court held a hearing on
June 1, 2016."

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

"We believe that this action has no merit and intend to defend
vigorously against it," the Company said.

Colony is an internally managed Maryland real estate investment
trust and commenced operations in March 2012 primarily to acquire,
renovate, lease and manage residential assets in select markets
throughout the United States.


COMENITY BANK: Sued in Illinois Over Unauthorized Automated Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a woman
has filed a class action lawsuit against Comenity Bank, citing
alleged violation of telephone harassment statutes for calling her
about an alleged debt using an automatic dialer.

Lejune Brown filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on March 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois alleging the financial institution called the
plaintiff on her cellphone regarding a consumer debt.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that, in
December 2016, she sustained damages from being charged for
incoming calls.  The plaintiff holds Comenity Bank responsible
because it allegedly used an automatic telephone dialing system to
call the plaintiff despite her request to stop calling her.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks statutory damages
of $500, statutory damages of $1,500, injunctive relief and any
further relief the court grants. She is represented by Mark
Ankcorn of Ankcorn Law Firm PLLC in Chicago.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Case
number 1:17-cv-01970


CR ENGLAND: Files Motion to Certify Questions in Fraud Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
nation's largest refrigerated trucking company, arguing that a
federal court's recent order certifying a nationwide class of more
than 14,000 truck drivers has left "unresolved several issues,"
now is turning to the Utah Supreme Court for direction.

C.R. England Inc., along with defendants Opportunity Leasing Inc.
and Horizon Truck Sales and Leasing LLC, filed a motion to certify
questions to the state's high court March 27.

C.R. England, which is headquartered in Salt Lake City, argues in
its motion -- filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah, Central Division -- that there are issues relating to
provisions in the Utah Consumer Sales Practice Act, or UCSPA, that
impact not only the plaintiffs' UCSPA claim but also their claims
under the Utah Business Opportunity Disclosure Act, or UBODA, and
the Utah Truth in Advertising Act, or UTIAA.

The company asks that the federal court request certification of
the following four questions to the Utah Supreme Court:

- As a matter of state law, do Utah Code and the UCSPA mean that
in a class action relating to a transaction governed by the UCSPA,
class members cannot seek statutory or actual damages for
violations of the UBODA or the UTIAA?

   -- As a matter of state law, do Utah Code and the UCSPA mean
that in a class action relating to a transaction governed by the
UCSPA, the class notice as to claims for violations of the UBODA
and the UTIAA must advise class members that the court will
exclude them from the class unless they request inclusion by a
specific date?

   -- Under the UBODA, can information unrelated to selling or
marketing services to third parties provided by a business to an
independent contractor in order to help the independent contractor
perform services for that same business qualify as "a sales
program or marketing program" within the meaning of Utah Code?

   -- Under the UBODA, can payments from an independent contractor
to a business for the purchase of goods or services pursuant to
written agreements be considered "initial required consideration,"
when the written agreements specifically state that the
independent contractor need not purchase the goods or services as
a condition for earning income in the alleged assisted marketing
plan?

C.R. England argues in its motion that certification is required
because the questions are "indisputably uncertain" in that no Utah
court has ever addressed them and that the answers are "very
significant" to its case and future cases turning on Utah state
law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently denied
the company's Rule 23(f) petition for permission to appeal the
District of Utah's Jan. 31 class certification order.

A three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit, in its March 27 order,
noted that the decision whether to grant such a petition is
"purely discretionary."

"Defendants-Petitioners have not established that the district
court's class certification decision was based upon manifest
error, nor have they established that permissive interlocutory
review is necessary to address 'an unresolved issue of law
relating to class actions that is likely to evade end-of-case
review' or to avoid a 'death knell' situation," the Tenth Circuit
concluded.

The class action lawsuit, originally filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California in May 2011 but
later transferred to the District of Utah in April 2012, alleges
C.R. England and Horizon Truck engaged in a scheme to defraud
class members out of money and labor via the lease driver program.

Among other claims, the class action complaint alleges the
companies used false income statements and failed to disclose the
high failure/turnover rate to secure class members' agreement to
become lease drivers.

C.R. England also allegedly deceptively sought lease drivers by
baiting the general public with advertisements for "guaranteed"
employee company driver positions and then allegedly used
fraudulent and manipulative techniques to switch candidates into
the lease driver program.

District Judge Robert J. Shelby, in his Jan. 31 order, granted
class certification on certain claims.

The judge said "considering the relevant factors," a class action
is "superior" to other methods of adjudication.

"The court finds that concentrating the claims of a nationwide
class of drivers in a single forum is desirable, especially where
Defendants are located in the forum state," he wrote. "Given the
analysis above and the proposed trial plan, the court finds the
benefits of the class action outweigh any difficulties that may be
encountered in the course of this litigation."

Shelby noted the class includes individuals of "insubstantial
means."

"Here, the cost and recovery of a single case would make it
unlikely that thousands of individuals purportedly harmed would
seek recovery outside a class action context," he explained. "On
the claims and record presented, a class action not only promotes
efficiency but also promotes the public interest, insofar as the
class action enables both parties to efficiently test their
respective claims and defenses, as well as the reach of consumer
protection laws in the forum."

T.J. England, C.R. England's chief legal officer, told the
Commercial Carrier Journal in February that he was "deeply
disappointed" by Shelby's certification ruling.

He told CCJ that the company intended to "immediately appeal" the
decision and fight the plaintiffs' "unfounded claims as long as is
necessary."

San Rafael, Calif., attorney Robert S. Boulter; Milwaukee-based
firm Kravit Hovel & Krawczyk SC; and Salt Lake City-based firm
Anderson & Karrenberg PC are representing the plaintiffs.


CST BRANDS: Accord in Canadian Class Suit Awaits Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
CST Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Ultramar and other
defendants' settlement agreement is still subject to approval by
the courts in Canada.

Ultramar Ltd., Valero's principal Canadian subsidiary
("Ultramar"), four of its then current and former employees and
several competitors were named as defendants in four class actions
alleging that Ultramar and the other named competitors engaged in
illegal price fixing in four distinct markets in the province of
Quebec. The cases were filed in June 2008 following an
investigation by the Canadian Competition Bureau, which resulted
in limited guilty pleas by Ultramar and two former employees and
charges laid against several alleged co-conspirators. The guilty
pleas followed an extensive government investigation and was
confined to a limited time period and limited geographic area
around Thetford Mines and Victoriaville in Quebec.

As a result, four class actions were filed on the same day in the
matters of (i) Simon Jacques vs. Ultramar et al in the Superior
Court of Quebec, District of Quebec City, (ii) Daniel Thouin/
Marcel Lafontaine vs. Ultramar et al, Superior Court of Quebec,
District of Montreal, (iii) Michael Jeanson et al vs. Ultramar et
al, Superior Court of Quebec, District of Hull and (iv) Thibeau
vs. Ultramar et al, Superior Court of Quebec, District of
Montreal. As required, pursuant to the civil procedure rules in
effect, the first filed claim is given priority, and the others
are suspended pending final judgment on the first filed claim. The
plaintiffs' lawsuits alleged the existence of a conspiracy beyond
the scope of the time and geographic regions of the guilty pleas.

Hearings on class suitability took place in September 2009, and in
November 2009 and the court allowed plaintiffs to assert claims
for a time range of 2002 to 2006, but limited the geographic area
of the claims to the four limited markets, which were the subject
of the investigation by the Competition Bureau. Plaintiffs amended
their claims to assert claims, which include claims for 2001 and
claims for interest and attorneys fees.

The Company said, "During the fourth quarter of 2012, we concluded
a loss was probable and reasonably estimable and as such, we
recorded an immaterial loss contingency liability for the amount
we believe could be assessed against Ultramar. Ultramar and other
defendants reached a tentative settlement agreement with
plaintiffs on October 16, 2016, which is still subject to approval
by the courts. We have recorded our portion of the settlement as
of December 31, 2016."

On June 10, 2011, Ultramar and several other defendants were
served with a "new" amended motion to institute a class action in
the matter of Daniel Thouin v. Ultramar Ltd., et al., Superior
Court of Quebec, District of Quebec. On September 6, 2012, the
Superior Court of Quebec authorized the class action to be
extended to 14 additional cities/regions of the Province of
Quebec, which were beyond the scope of the Competition Bureau's
investigation and the guilty pleas. CST does not believe that a
loss for this claim is either probable or estimable at this time
and intends to vigorously defend these claims.

CST is one of the largest independent retailers of motor fuel and
convenience merchandise in the U.S. and eastern Canada.


DENNIS HEALY: May Face Defamation Class Action Over Comments
------------------------------------------------------------
Liam Heylin, writing for Irish Examiner, reports that a solicitor
singled out, for special praise, a young woman from the Roma
community for her intelligence, but a judge remarked the lawyer
could have a class action for defamation on his hands.

The particular web of words was woven during a case at Cork
District Court relating to hair-braiding.

Carmen Rosta, aged 22, pleaded guilty to three breaches of casual
trading legislation by offering hair-braiding on St Patrick's
Street, Cork.

Inspector Brian O'Donovan said the accused was operating on July
22, 2015, without a casual trading licence, and in an area of the
city where casual trading was not permitted.

Solicitor Dennis Healy said Ms. Rosta was a young mother of three
from the Roma community in Cork.  "She was the one more
intelligent than most of the others," he said.

Judge Olann Kelleher interjected that Mr Healy could find himself
facing a class action for defamation.

Mr Healy continued: "She is very bright."

Of all the members of the Roma community in Cork, she was the one
Mr Healy believed would succeed through education.  He knew her
since she was a child and she was able to carry out all sorts of
calculations.

"But her family saw fit to have her married off at 16.  She had
three children and her husband is on the run," Mr Healy said.

"She left school after her Junior Cert.  She has become rooted in
her community.  Someone has to break through from this community
at some stage.  This is the girl I thought would do it."

She was fined EUR200 on the casual trading breach, with two
related counts taken into consideration.


DR. SANDHU: Faces "Jones" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
AMY JONES, CRYSTAL ROBERTS and SHANNON WILDE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated and the California general
public, Plaintiffs, vs. DR. SANDHU ANIMAL HOSPITAL, INC.; BALPAL
S. SANDHU; DOE 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
BC656911 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, April 7, 2017),
alleges that Plaintiffs and the rest of the purported class worked
overtime but were not paid overtime compensation for all the
overtime hours they worked for Defendants and were not paid for
all of the hours they worked; Defendants failed to provide
PLAINTIFFS and the rest of the CLASS with meal and rest periods
required by law; DEFENDANTS willfully failed to pay PLAINTIFFS and
the rest of the CLASS who have separated from their employment all
wages owed following their separation; and, DEFENDANTS failed to
provide PLAINTIFFS and the rest of the CLASS with accurate
itemized wage statements required by law.

Dr. Sandhu Animal Hospital, Inc. practices veterinary medicine.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen Glick, Esq.
     M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN GLICK
     1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1480
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Phone: (213) 387-3400
     Fax: (213)387-7872


EAST COAST FORENSIC: Judge OK's Class Action Over Strip Searches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chronicle Herald reports a Nova Scotia court has given class-
action status to a case involving a batch of strip searches at
East Coast Forensic Hospital.

Justice Joel E. Fichaud of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeals
rejected companion appeals from the defendants, the Capital
District Health Authority and the Nova Scotia Attorney General.
Mark Jason Murray of Halifax is the representative plaintiff on
behalf of 33 patients who allege their rights were violated when
they were strip-searched at the hospital on Oct. 16, 2012.

"It was very shocking, to say the least," Murray told the
Chronicle Herald in a February 2015 interview. "It was very
traumatizing, and it was also very confusing and disorienting."
In 2015, motions judge Justice Denise Boudreau of the Nova Scotia
Supreme Court found the class plaintiffs belonged to a
"marginalized and disadvantaged" group -- mentally ill individuals
at odds with the criminal process -- who were unlikely to pursue
individual claims for minor amounts of damages.

ECFH cares for patients who have been found to be either unfit to
stand trial or not criminally responsible.

The hospital has a rehabilitation side, with two units of 30 beds
each, and a correctional/offender side. The class plaintiffs were
housed on the rehabilitation side, as patients, not inmates.
According to court documents, evidence suggests that on Oct. 16,
2012 forensic Capt. Todd Henwood and hospital health services
manager Brenda Mate decided all 33 patients in the two
rehabilitation units would be strip searched and their lockers
examined.

"The strip searches found nothing, though the locker examinations
located some items," Justice Fichaud wrote.

Murray said he still has flashbacks about being forced to take his
clothes off in front of two correctional officers. He said he was
never asked if he had anything in his possession nor told why they
were searching him.

"If you're in there, you are disabled at that point, or pretty
much. It is not a very good thing to have happen to you."
He was the first of 33 patients allegedly strip searched that day
as part of a mass search for illicit drugs in the facility,
according to court documents.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.
Health authority officials said earlier they will not comment
while the case is before the courts.

In her earlier decision, Judge Boudreau recounted evidence put
forward by Brenda Mate, who oversees the rehabilitation side of
the forensic hospital, including the two 30-bed units.

Several events between June 2012 and Oct. 16, 2012, caused Mate to
become increasingly concerned about illegal substances being
brought into the facility, including some patients testing
positive for illegal substances, the decision said.

Mate denied she ordered the strip searches but said she left the
decision up to an officer with the correctional services division
who worked in the facility. However, correctional officers, who
carried out the strip searches, indicated that they were carried
out at the direction of Mate.

Twenty-one of the 33 patients have also filed complaints with the
Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, alleging discrimination on
the basis of mental disability in connection with the incident,
the earlier decision noted.

The suit will proceed on issues under the Charter of Rights,
including individual assessment of grounds to search each person
and privacy.

In a decision posted on April 13, Fichaud ordered Capital Health
to pay Murray court costs of CAD3,000 for the appeal, and the
attorney general to pay him CAD2,000. [GN]


ENERGY RECOVERY: Aug. 24 Hearing for Final Settlement Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, In Re Energy Recovery Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00265 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Edward M
Chen will convene a hearing on August 24, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. to
consider final approval of the parties' settlement.

Cara Mannion, writing for Law360, reported in February 2017 that
Energy Recovery Inc. agreed to pay almost $3.9 million in cash to
end a putative shareholder class action alleging its former CEO
inflated stock prices with misleading statements, including
allegations that he marketed engineering prototypes as ready for
sale.

Lead counsel for the proposed investor class asked a California
federal judge for a preliminary blessing on the deal, saying the
two sides engaged in "arm's length and hard-fought negotiations"
to settle the suit, which alleged that former CEO Thomas S. Rooney
touted inoperable products as ready for customer purchase and
reported that the company reached a "verbal agreement" with a
major oil player despite the deal only being a promising sales
pitch.

Judge Chen granted preliminary settlement approval in an order
dated April 11, 2017, and set the final approval hearing date.

According to the Company's March 10, 2017, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, on January 20 and 27, 2015, two
stockholder class action complaints were filed against the Company
in the United States District Court of the Northern District of
California, on behalf of Energy Recovery stockholders under the
captions, Joseph Sabatino v. Energy Recovery, Inc. et al., Case
No. 3:15-cv-00265 EMC, and Thomas C. Mowdy v. Energy Recovery,
Inc, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00374 EMC. The complaints have now
been consolidated under the caption, In Re Energy Recovery Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00265 EMC. The
consolidated complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b), Rule
10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based upon alleged public misrepresentations and seeks the
recovery of unspecified monetary damages.

On October 12, 2016, the Company and the attorneys representing
the class reached an agreement in principle to settle all
outstanding claims in the case. As part of the settlement
agreement, the Company has agreed to pay the class an undisclosed
sum, the entirety of which will be borne by the Company's insurer.

Law360 reported that California-based Energy Recovery, which
provides water desalination services and harvests power from high-
pressure oil and gas industrial fluid flows, continued to deny the
investors' allegations in the settlement. Levi & Korsinsky LLP,
lead counsel for the shareholders, said it will request up to
$962,500 in attorneys' fees.

Energy Recovery, Inc., is an energy solutions provider to
industrial fluid flow markets worldwide.  The Company's core
competencies are fluid dynamics and advanced material science.
The Company's products make industrial processes more operational
and capital expenditure efficient.


ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FL: Coleman Sexual Harassment Settlement Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WEAR reports that the Escambia County Corrections Director Tamyra
Jarvis is battling allegations that she knew about sexual
harassment issues at Coleman Federal Correctional Complex and did
nothing to stop them.

More than 500 female prison workers were involved in a class
action lawsuit that led to a $20 million settlement that is still
pending in federal court.  A copy of the decision, dated April
2013, does not mention Ms. Jarvis or any specific warden at the
prison.

She was hired by Escambia County in February, but the sexual
harassment case goes back more than a decade.

Ms. Jarvis started working at Coleman Federal Correctional Complex
in Central Florida in 2009.  She told Channel 3's Jackalyn Kovac
the class action got underway before she started. More than 500
female staffers said they were subjected to sexually-charged
threats and abuse over the course of 16 years.
Jarvis said during her time at the prison, any complaint she
received was handled appropriately through the administration
process that was available to her.

She said she also put in new policies and procedures during her
time at the prison.

Escambia County Commissioners Jeff Bergosh (District 1) and Grover
Robinson (District 4) told Ms. Kovac they were made aware of the
lawsuit during the hiring process.  Commissioners do not have
hiring or fire power over county employees.

An article printed in the USA Today, dated April 9, also mentions
the bonuses Jarvis received during her time at Coleman.  It listed
her bonuses totaling around $35,500 in over two years.

Commissioners say she will not be receiving any bonuses in
Escambia County. However, they agree, during the short time she's
been here, she's doing a great job.

"If she obtained a bonus she clearly was accomplishing the goals
set forth in things that she was doing.  So if that's the case
then we should feel very good about having somebody at the federal
level that's coming down to a local level," said Robinson.

"There is no cloud over her as far as I'm aware of and I would
say, by all accounts, she's doing a great job here for us,"
Mr. Bergosh added.

Ms. Jarvis is not facing any charges related to the class action
lawsuit or any other case.

Union officials however contend that top leaders at the prison,
including those that took bonuses, were aware of the issues.


EXPRESS INC: Faces Class Action in N.J. Over FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Daniels, writing for Law360, reports that Express Inc. has
been hit with a putative class action by a former employee in New
Jersey federal court alleging co-managers are misclassified as
exempt employees and denied required overtime pay when they work
more than 40 hours a week, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Karla Reynosa worked as a salaried co-manager at Express stores in
New York and New Jersey, the April 7 complaint says, a position
that often required her to put in more than 40 hours per week.
Though time and a half is the hourly overtime rate under the FLSA
-- as well as New Jersey and New York state laws -- Ms. Reynosa
and other co-managers were paid "supplemental" pay equal to one-
half of an hourly rate calculated off her annual salary, the
complaint says.

"Defendant knowingly and willfully operated its business with a
policy of not paying overtime premiums equal to one and a half
times Plaintiff's regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess
of forty in a workweek," the complaint says.

Claims include failure to pay overtime in violation of the FLSA,
violations of New Jersey's wage and hour laws for overtime and
unpaid overtime wages, and a violation of New York state labor law
for unpaid overtime wages.

Ms. Reynosa seeks to represent an FLSA collective of anyone who
worked as a salaried, exempt co-manager for Express who worked in
excess of 40 hours per week during any workweek in the past three
years. She also seeks to represent a class of those who were
allegedly misclassified pursuant to the New Jersey and New York
claims.

Ms. Reynosa worked for Express from 1999 to 2013 at stores in
Manhattan, the complaint says, and became a co-manager in 2012.
She generally worked between 43 and 45 hours a week, but as many
as 49 hours per week during the holiday seasons, the complaint
says.

Then Ms. Reynosa worked as a salaried co-manager at an Express in
Jersey City from June 2015 to around September 2016, the complaint
says, generally putting in around 42 hours a week.

Despite her title, Ms. Reynosa didn't have duties that were
meaningfully different than the hourly sales associates and wasn't
involved in management, hiring or operational decisions at either
store, the complaint says.

"On a daily basis, Plaintiff primarily performed tasks including
but not limited to: stocking and running merchandise, cleaning the
store and the bathrooms, ringing the register, marking down the
merchandise, store recovery, trash disposal, folding clothes,
taking care of customer services, taking returns and exchanges,
and other duties typically expected of hourly associates," the
complaint says.

Any weeks in which Ms. Reynosa worked over 40 hours were paid in
"supplemental" hours, equal to one-half her regular rate, the
complaint says.

"Despite of being classified as exempt salaried employee,
plaintiff was required to track the number of hours she worked and
was paid the 'Supplemental' for the hours she worked over 40 at a
rate of 0.5 times her regular hourly rate," the complaint says.

The suit asks the court to determine whether Express misclassified
co-managers as exempt from FLSA overtime protection, whether it
failed to properly compensate the co-managers the required time
and a half premium rate and whether its alleged violations of the
FLSA were willful.

A spokesperson for Express didn't immediately respond to a request
for comment on April 11.

Ms. Reynosa is represented by Keli Liu of Hang & Associates PLLC.

Counsel information for Express Inc. wasn't immediately available.

The case is Karla Reynosa v. Express Inc., case number 2:17-cv-
02424, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Amended Securities Complaint Filed
-------------------------------------------------
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. continues to defend a securities
class action lawsuit in New York, Fiat said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "On September 11, 2015, a putative securities
class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against us alleging material
misstatements regarding our compliance with regulatory
requirements and that we failed to timely disclose certain
expenses relating to our vehicle recall campaigns."

On October 5, 2016, the district court dismissed the claims
relating to the disclosure of vehicle recall campaign expenses but
ruled that claims regarding the alleged misstatements regarding
regulatory requirements would be allowed to proceed.

On February 17, 2017, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to
allege material misstatements regarding emissions compliance.

"At this stage of the proceedings, we are unable to reliably
evaluate the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or estimate a
range of possible loss," the Company said.

Fiat is an international automotive group engaged in designing,
engineering, manufacturing, distributing and selling vehicles,
components and production systems worldwide through 162
manufacturing facilities and 87 research and development centers.


FIAT CHRYSLER: 2 Securities Lawsuits Pending in Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company is
aware "of two putative securities class action lawsuits pending
against us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan alleging material misstatements with regard to our
reporting of vehicle unit sales to end consumers in the U.S. At
this early stage, we are unable to reliably evaluate the
likelihood that a loss will be incurred or estimate a range of
possible loss."

Fiat is an international automotive group engaged in designing,
engineering, manufacturing, distributing and selling vehicles,
components and production systems worldwide through 162
manufacturing facilities and 87 research and development centers.


FMC CORPORATION: Still Faces Antitrust Action in Germany
--------------------------------------------------------
An antitrust lawsuit remains pending in Germany, FMC Corporation
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "Multiple European purchasers of hydrogen
peroxide who claim to have been harmed as a result of alleged
violations of European competition law by hydrogen peroxide
producers assigned their legal claims to a single entity formed by
a law firm. The single entity then filed a lawsuit in Germany in
March 2009 against European producers, including our wholly-owned
Spanish subsidiary, Foret. Initial defense briefs were filed in
April 2010, and an initial hearing was held during the first
quarter of 2011, at which time case management issues were
discussed."

"At a subsequent hearing in October 2011, the Court indicated that
it was considering seeking guidance from the European Court of
Justice ("ECJ") as to whether the German courts have jurisdiction
over these claims. After submission of written comments on this
issue by the parties, on March 1, 2012, the judge announced that
she would refer the jurisdictional issues to the ECJ, which she
did on April 29, 2013.

"On May 21, 2015, the ECJ issued its decision, upholding the
jurisdiction of the German court. The case is now back before the
German judge.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the proceedings in September 2015.
We do not anticipate a response by the court until March 2017.
Since the case is in the preliminary stages and is based on a
novel procedure -- namely the attempt to create a cross-border
"class action" which is not a recognized proceeding under EU or
German law -- we are unable to develop a reasonable estimate of
our potential exposure of loss at this time.

"We intend to vigorously defend this matter."

FMC is a diversified chemical company serving agricultural,
consumer and industrial markets globally with innovative
solutions, applications and market-leading products.


FMC CORPORATION: Antitrust Action Ongoing in Canada
---------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation continues to defend against antitrust actions in
Canada, FMC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "In 2005, after public disclosures of the U.S.
federal grand jury investigation into the hydrogen peroxide
industry (which resulted in no charges brought against us) and the
filing of various class actions in U.S. federal and state courts,
which have all been settled, putative class actions against us and
five other major hydrogen peroxide producers were filed in
provincial courts in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia under
the laws of Canada. The other five defendants have settled these
claims for a total of approximately $20.6 million."

"On September 28, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
certified a class of direct and indirect purchasers of hydrogen
peroxide from 1994 to 2005. Our motion for leave to appeal the
class certification decision was denied in June 2010.

"The case was largely dormant while the Canadian Supreme Court
considered, in different litigation, whether indirect purchasers
may recover overcharges in antitrust actions. In October 2013 the
Court ruled that such recovery is permissible. Thereafter, the
plaintiffs' moved to dismiss certain downstream purchasers (those
who purchased products that contain hydrogen peroxide or were made
using hydrogen peroxide) from the case and to reduce the class
period to November 1, 1998 through December 31, 2003 -- thereby
eliminating six of the eleven years of the originally certified
class period. The Court has approved this request.

"Since the proceedings are in the preliminary stages with respect
to the merits, we are unable to develop a reasonable estimate of
our potential exposure of loss at this time. We intend to
vigorously defend these matters."

FMC is a diversified chemical company serving agricultural,
consumer and industrial markets globally with innovative
solutions, applications and market-leading products.


FNCB BANCORP: Settles "Antonik" and "Saxe" Suits for $750,000
-------------------------------------------------------------
FNCB Bancorp, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that it entered into a
$750,000 settlement agreement to resolve the class action lawsuits
commenced by Steven Antonik, et al., and Charles Saxe, III.

On February 16, 2017, FNCB and FNCB Bank entered into a Class
Action Settlement Agreement and Release (the "Settlement
Agreement") in the matters filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Lackawanna County to Steven Antonik, Individually, and as
Administrator of the Estate of Linda Kluska, William R. Howells
and Louise A. Howells, Summer Benjamin, and Joshua Silfee, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated vs. First
National Community Bancorp, Inc. and First National Community
Bank, Civil Action No. 2013-CV-4438 and Charles Saxe, III,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs.
First National Community Bank No. 2013-CV-5071 (collectively, the
"Actions").

By entering into this Settlement Agreement, the parties to the
Actions have resolved the claims made in the complaints to their
mutual satisfaction. FNCB has not admitted to the validity of any
claims or allegations and deny any liability in the claims made
and the Plaintiffs have not admitted that any claims or
allegations lack merit or foundation. Under the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, the parties have agreed to the following: 1)
FNCB is to pay the Plaintiffs' class members the aggregate sum of
Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand ($750,000)(an amount which FNCB
recorded as a liability and corresponding expense in its 2015
operating results); 2) Plaintiffs shall release all claims against
FNCB related to the Actions; 3) FNCB shall move to vacate or
satisfy any judgments against any class members arising from the
vehicle loans that are the subject of the Actions; 4) FNCB shall
waive the deficiency balance of each class member and remove the
trade lines on each class members' credit report associated with
the subject vehicle loans that are at issue in the Actions for
Experian, Equifax and Transunion.

The Settlement Agreement provides for an Incentive Award for the
representative Plaintiffs and an award to Plaintiffs' counsel of
attorney's fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection with
their roles in these Actions, subject to Court Approval. The
Settlement Agreement remains subject to approval by the Court
after notice to the class members and a final settlement hearing.
The hearing on the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement will
be to determine whether 1) the terms and conditions of the
settlement provided for in the Settlement Agreement are fair,
reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of the class
members; 2) the judgment dismissing the claims of the class
members, as provided for in the Settlement Agreement, shall be
entered, and 3) the request of the representative Plaintiffs for
the Incentive Award and the Plaintiffs' counsel for an award for
attorney's fees and reimbursement of expenses shall be granted. As
previously mentioned above and in connection with the primary
terms of the tentative settlement agreement entered by Order of
Court on December 17, 2015, FNCB recorded a liability and
corresponding expense in the amount of Seven Hundred Fifty
Thousand ($750,000), which was included in FNCB's 2015 operating
results.

FNCB Bancorp, Inc., formerly First National Community Bancorp,
Inc., incorporated in 1997, is a Pennsylvania business corporation
and a registered bank holding company headquartered in Dunmore,
Pennsylvania. FNCB Bancorp, Inc. became an active bank holding
company on July 1, 1998 when it acquired 100% ownership of the
former First National Community Bank, now known as FNCB Bank.
FNCB's primary activity consists of owning and operating the Bank,
which provides substantially all of FNCB's earnings as a result of
its banking services.


FOODONI NY: Faces "Bonikos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yannis Bonikos, Dimitirios Oikonomopoulos, and Rigel Shaholli,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Foodoni
NY 23 Corp. d/b/a E Taverna and Panos Seretis, Case No. 1:17-cv-
02162 (E.D.N.Y., April 10, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 2619 23rd
Ave, Astoria NY 11105-3124. [BN]

Yannis Bonikos, Dimitirios Oikonomopoulos, and Rigel Shaholli are
pro se plaintiffs.


GLOBAL BROKERAGE: 683 Capital Sues Over Securities Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
683 Capital Partners, LP, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Global Brokerage, Inc. f/k/a FXCM
Inc., Dror Niv and Robert Lande, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
02506 (S.D. N.Y., April 6, 2017) seeks to recover damages caused
by Defendants for violation of the Securities Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) between
September 4, 2009 through at least 2014, FXCM's U.S. subsidiary
engaged in false and misleading solicitations of its retail
foreign exchange customers by concealing its relationship with its
most important market maker and by misrepresenting that its "No
Dealing Desk" platform as no conflicts of interest with its
customers; (2) FXCM's U.S. subsidiary made false statements to the
National Futures Association about its relationship with the
market maker and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about
FXCM's business, operations and prospects were materially false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant
times.

Headquartered in New York, New York, Defendant FXCM provides
online foreign exchange (FX) trading and related services to
retail and institutional customers worldwide through its
subsidiaries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Phillip Kim, Esq.
   Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
   The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
   275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 686-1060
   Fax: (212) 202-3827
   Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
          lrosen@rosenlegal.com


GOLD POINT: Antonio, et al. Allege Calif. Labor Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
REY B. ANTONIO, EDILBERTO BEDOYA, BRENDA R. BORESOFF, NIDELCO
BORESOFF, CESARY CABUYALES, SALOMON F. GAMEZ, ESTUARDO GIORDANI,
MIGUEL A. TEODOCIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL UNAMED
PLAINTIFFS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. GOLD POINT
TRANSPORTATION, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC 656928 (Cal. Super., County of Los
Angeles), is a Complaint against each Defendant for wage and hour
violations arising out of Defendant's misclassification of
employees, failure to pay wages, failure to provide meal and rest
periods, unlawful deductions, and failure to reimburse drivers for
business expenses.  The case alleges violations of the California
Labor Code and Industrial Wage Order No. 9-2001.

Each Defendant provides various shipping services throughout
California.  Each Plaintiff is/was employed by Defendants as a
driver.[BN]


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Alvin M. Gomez, Esq.
     GOMEZ LAW GROUP
     2725 Jefferson Street, Suite 7
     Carlsbad, CA 92008
     Phone: (858) 552-0000
     Fax: (760) 720-5217
     Email: alvingomez@thegomezlawgroup.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Loses Bid to Narrow Gender Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
judge on April 12 rejected Goldman Sachs Group Inc's bid to
dismiss two of the four female plaintiffs in a proposed class-
action lawsuit accusing the bank of discriminating against women
in pay and promotions.

U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres in Manhattan said former
vice president Mary De Luis' claims did not become moot when she
resigned last May, after the bank allegedly retaliated for her
role in the case by refusing to allow a transfer to Miami from
Dallas unless she accepted a demotion.

The judge also said another ex-employee, former vice
president Allison Gamba, had standing to pursue her claims even
after Goldman left her without a job in August 2014 when it
"divested itself" of her department.

Judge Torres said a judge who previously oversaw the 6-1/2-year-
old lawsuit misinterpreted a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision,
Wal-Mart Stores Inc v. Dukes, in finding that former
employees like De Luis and Gamba who sought "reinstatement"
could not sue.

In an email, Goldman said it was "examining the implications
of the latest ruling and will continue to contest this matter
vigorously."

The plaintiffs accused Goldman of systematically paying
women less than men, and giving them weaker performance reviews
that impeded their career growth.

Their lawsuit, which began in September 2010, also included
allegations that Goldman maintained a "boys' club atmosphere."

This included the use of sexual language, unwanted touching
and subjecting women to the "double-edged sword" of being
expected to socialize after work with colleagues to advance
their careers, it said, but risk being labeled "party girls" if
they did.

The other named plaintiffs include former Goldman employees
Cristina Chen-Oster and Shanna Orlich, who were a vice president
and associate, respectively. A fifth plaintiff agreed to
arbitration.

Judge Torres "brought consistency to how the Southern District of
New York interprets standing," Kelly Dermody, a lawyer for the
plaintiffs, said in an interview, referring to the Manhattan
court.  "This had been a big stopping point in the case and all
four plaintiffs can seek class-action status."

Class-action certification could let thousands of women sue
together, raising the potential for larger awards without
excessive legal costs.

The case is Chen-Oster et al v. Goldman Sachs & Co et al,
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No.
10-06950.


GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION: Faces "Redmon" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN REDMON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, V. GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC. d/b/a AMERICA'S
ALLIANCE d/b/a AMERICA'S CHOICE GARAGE DOOR SERVICE, and
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-
01102 (S.D. Tex., April 10, 2017), alleges violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Global employs "Technicians" to repair, replace, and service
garage doors. Plaintiff Bryan Redmon was employed by Defendants as
a Technician.

The case alleges that the Technicians regularly work far more than
40 hours in a work week. However, Global classifies all the
Technicians as 'independent contractors,' and thus does not pay
them overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Global's
classification of the Technicians is wrong; they are employees
under the FLSA, not independent contractors. Accordingly, Global
owes the Technicians overtime pay, liquidated damages and all
other remedies available under the FLSA.

GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC. is in the business of
residential and commercial garage door repair, replacement, and
service. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd Slobin, Esq.
     Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
     SHELLIST, LAZARZ, SLOBIN LLP
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: (713) 621-2277
     Fax: (713) 621-0993
     E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net
             rprieto@eeoc.net


HEALTHY SPOT: Faces "Summers" Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB SUMMERS, and DAVID RASMUSSEN, on behalf of themselves, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as aggrieved
employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"),
Plaintiff, vs. HEALTHY SPOT, LLC, a California limited liability
company; ANDREW T. KIM, an individual; MARK BOONNARK, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. BC 656995 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, April 7, 2017),
alleges that each year a large percentage of the people hired by
Defendants in the position of "apprentice bather" wish to
terminate their employment with Defendants within the first six
months. Defendants prevent these individuals from terminating
their employment through coercion, duress, and intimidation by
threatening legal action to enforce the Apprenticeship Agreement
and impose a debt of $4,000 upon these individuals if they refuse
to continue working for Defendants.  The case alleges involuntary
servitude, human trafficking, violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, California Labor Code and Los Angeles City
Municipal Code and the California Business and Professions Code.

Healthy Spot LLC distributes dog care products. Defendants hired
Plaintiff JACOB SUMMERS as an apprentice bather. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Travis Hodgkins, Esq.
     CIVIL JUSTICE LAW, P.C.
     12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800
     Los Angeles, CA 90025
     Phone: (213) 529-0003
     Fax: (310)496-0533
     E-mail: travis@civiljustice.com


HOME DEPOT: Brings Class Action Removal Issue to Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Meisel and Jessica Corso, writing for Law360, report that
Home Depot Inc. has told the U.S. Supreme Court that the Seventh
Circuit wrongly remanded a proposed class action over in-home
water treatment systems to Illinois state court on the grounds the
retailer was not an original defendant that could remove the case.

In its April 5 certiorari petition, Home Depot said the Seventh
Circuit construed the Class Action Fairness Act too narrowly by
forbidding removal by a newly added counterclaim defendant "in an
otherwise removable class action."

"CAFA's plain language does not compel that result, and the rule
runs headlong into this court's instruction to liberally construe
CAFA consistent 'with a strong preference that interstate class
actions should be heard in a federal court,'" Home Depot wrote,
citing the high court's 2014 opinion in Dart Cherokee Basin
Operating Co. LLC v. Owens that a defendant's removal notice must
include only a plausible allegation that the dollar amount in
controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold of $5 million.

The case had originally been brought in Madison County court by
retailer Tri-State Water Treatment Inc. against Illinois couple
Stacy and Michael Bauer for allegedly not paying Tri-State for the
in-home water system it had installed for them.

The Bauers turned around and countersued Tri-State on behalf of
consumers across six states whom Tri-State allegedly deceived
during free in-home assessments into believing the systems
detected contaminants when all they really did was identify the
mineral content in drinking water.

Home Depot was named as a counterdefendant in the Bauers'
counterclaim and subsequently removed the case to Illinois federal
court.  But the Seventh Circuit said the retail giant was
precluded from requesting a venue change under CAFA as the statute
does not let counterdefendants take putative class actions
federal. The appeals court noted that applies even though Home
Depot was not an original party to the dispute.

In its April 5 petition, Home Depot laid out what it said was the
Supreme Court's responsibility to weigh in on this "wayward rule,"
as it will "affect class action defendants in those jurisdictions
that most frequently see frivolous and abusive class actions --
including California, Illinois, and West Virginia."

Home Depot pointed out that Madison County court, frequently seen
as friendly to class actions, has been "recognized as a 'magnet
jurisdiction' for abusive class actions," quoting congressional
reasoning for passing CAFA in the first place in 2005.

The Bauers' attorney, Michael Reese, told Law360 on April 6 that
Home Depot's argument is void on arrival.

"There is no reason for granting certiorari here," Mr. Reese said
in an email.  "There is no split amongst the circuits; indeed, all
circuits that have had the issue have ruled the same way as the
7th Circuit.  This is not surprising given the 7th Circuit's well-
reasoned decision is based on the plain language of the statute
and over 50 years of precedent."

An attorney for Home Depot declined to comment on April 12.

The Bauers are represented by Michael Reese of Reese LLP, Sean
Cronin of Donovan Rose Nester PC and Troy Walton of Walton Telken
Foster LLC.

Home Depot is represented by S. Stewart Haskins, Merritt McAlister
and Zheyao Li of King & Spalding LLP.

The case is Home Depot USA Inc. v. Bauer et al., case number 16-
1205, in the Supreme Court of the United States.


ILLINOIS: State Police Faces Suit Over Unlawful Arrests
-------------------------------------------------------
Heather Schroering at Chicago Tribune reports three north suburban
men who said they were targeted as suspects in the 2015 shooting
of Fox Lake police Lt. Charles Joseph Gliniewicz before
authorities declared his death a staged suicide, filed a federal
class-action lawsuit on April 13 against several north suburban
police departments, the FBI, Illinois State Police and the Lake
County sheriff's office.

Raymond Willoughby, Damien Ward and Dan Cooper say in their
lawsuit they were unlawfully arrested based on Gliniewicz's vague
description of two "male whites" and one "male black," whom he was
fictitiously pursuing before his death.

The lawsuit alleges the Fox Lake Police Department had "good
reason to suspect from the very outset that Gliniewicz's death was
a suicide."

"Despite that, they allowed this manhunt for a fabricated cop
killer," said Gregory E. Kulis, who represents the men.
The men say officers handcuffed and held them in custody for up to
10 hours and attempted to enter Ward's homes without a warrant.
Cooper also alleges in the lawsuit he "asked and tried to leave
but was pushed around and told he couldn't leave."

Kulis said law enforcement officers tested his clients for gunshot
residue and pressured at least one of them into giving his DNA if
he wanted to leave. Officers also used an ultraviolet light to
inspect one client's pants and bike.

Gliniewicz was found dead Sept. 1, 2015, shortly after he radioed
that he was pursuing three suspicious individuals on foot.
Authorities launched a widespread search of the area, using
hundreds of officers with dogs and helicopters.

For two months, Gliniewicz was portrayed as a hero shot down in
the line down of duty. But in November 2015, authorities announced
they had determined the officer committed suicide, staging the
scene to make it look like a homicide to avoid possible
consequences for years of alleged theft from the village's
Explorer youth police training program.

The lawsuit also seeks to represent anyone who was "stopped,
questioned, arrested, or otherwise detained and deprived of their
liberty as purported suspects in the nationally publicized murder"
of Gliniewicz. Though the precise number is unknown, Kulis said he
is aware of others who were targeted in the investigation.

"The only information Gliniewicz conveyed with respect to his
fictitious 'murderers' was their race," the lawsuit states.
"Accordingly, the ensuing investigation proceeded without the
benefit of any information regarding the suspects' location,
destination, motivation, age ... or anything else that would
distinguish the suspects from the estimated approximately 70.1
(percent) of Lake County residents fitting these threadbare
descriptions."

Defendants listed in the lawsuit include former Fox Lake police
Chief Michael Behan and members of the Major Crime Task Force that
investigated Gliniewicz's death, including the police departments
of Fox Lake, Round Lake, Round Lake Beach and McHenry, the
Illinois State Police and Lake County sheriff's office and several
unnamed FBI agents, deputy sheriffs, state police agents and
police officers in multiple municipalities.

The Fox Lake Police Department could not be reached for comment.

Kulis also represented two other men who filed a case in
connection with the Gliniewicz investigation that was settled, he
said. [GN]


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: ERISA Suit Remains Pending in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corporation said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,
that an ERISA class action lawsuit remains pending in New York
court.

In March 2015, putative class action litigation was commenced 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 were 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.

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 ("ERISA"). The
company, management's Retirement Plans Committee, and three
current or former IBM executives were named as defendants.

On September 7, 2016, the Court granted the company's motions to
dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in both actions. On October 21,
2016, the ERISA plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, dropping
the company as a defendant. The matter remains pending in the
United States District Court.


JOHNSON & BELL: Defamation Case Against Edelson PC Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Damon W. Silver, Esq., of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for
The National Law Review, reports that an actual breach of client
information could expose your law firm to legal and business risks
is unsurprising.  The risks posed by a potential breach, however,
may be something your firm has not yet carefully considered -- but
needs to.  Law firms face a variety of cybersecurity-related
risks.  Firms have been targeted by cybercriminals with increased
frequency in the past few years, and clients are growing
concerned.  In at least one instance -- and likely more to follow
-- this concern has resulted in litigation between firm and client
over the adequacy of the firm's cybersecurity safeguards.

In April 2016, clients of a Chicago-based firm, Johnson & Bell,
filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the firm failed to
adequately safeguard their information.  The case, which was
subsequently moved to arbitration, is now back in the news.  On
March 28, 2017, Johnson & Bell sued Edelson PC, the firm
representing the client class, for defamation.  In its complaint,
Johnson & Bell alleges that "[t]he Edelson defendants have engaged
in numerous violations of their ethical duties, have illegally
abused the process of the courts to further their own self-
aggrandizement, and have engaged in a self-serving publicity tour
spreading their lies and defamatory statements about J&B."
Perhaps ominously, Edelson has announced that the Johnson & Bell
case is just its opening salvo; it plans to assert similar claims
on behalf of clients of 15 other firms.

The Johnson & Bell Complaint, which was made public last December,
is notable for a number of reasons.

First, it homes in on several of the potential vulnerabilities
firm systems may be subject to, such as the high incident of
employees working remotely, or the fact that less well-protected
systems, like those for timekeeping or email, can serve as
gateways to systems holding more sensitive data.

Second, the Complaint identifies categories of sensitive data that
many firms are likely to maintain, such as financial records,
trade secrets, sensitive communications, and personal information.

Third, it contends that there's an "industry standard" level of
data security that any firm charging and collecting market-rate
attorneys' fees must provide.  This is significant because there
are indications that the "industry standard" (or "reasonable")
level of protection that the law imposes on businesses is likely
to become more expansive and onerous in coming years.

And fourth, in addition to seeking damages and attorneys' fees,
the Johnson & Bell Plaintiffs are seeking to compel a security
audit by an outside auditor.  This audit would, among other
things, reveal whether the firm has conducted a thorough risk
assessment, and whether it has developed a sufficiently robust
data security plan that includes written policies and procedures,
employee training, and vendor management processes.

The prospect of client lawsuits provides a compelling reason to
take prompt and committed action on the cybersecurity front --
even if your firm has not yet experienced a breach.  For guidance
on how firms can prevent and respond to cybersecurity incidents,
please check out our past post on this topic.


JPMORGAN CHASE: ERISA Plaintiffs' Request for Rehearing Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the request of
Plaintiffs in the ERISA class action lawsuit for rehearing by the
full appellate court has been denied.

The Firm has been sued in a consolidated shareholder class action,
and in a consolidated putative class action brought under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), relating to
2012 losses in the synthetic credit portfolio formerly managed by
the Firm's Chief Investment Office ("CIO"). A settlement of the
shareholder class action, under which the Firm paid $150 million,
has received full and final approval from the Court. The putative
ERISA class action has been dismissed. That dismissal was affirmed
by the appellate court, and a request by the plaintiffs for
rehearing by the full appellate court was denied.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Consumer, ERISA and Purchaser Suits Pending in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a consumer action, a
second ERISA action and an indirect purchaser action remain
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The Firm is one of a number of foreign exchange dealers defending
a class action filed in the New York District Court by U.S.-based
plaintiffs, principally alleging violations of federal antitrust
laws based on an alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign exchange
rates (the "U.S. class action").

In January 2015, the Firm entered into a settlement agreement in
the U.S. class action. Following this settlement, a number of
additional putative class actions were filed seeking damages for
persons who transacted FX futures and options on futures (the
"exchanged-based actions"), consumers who purchased foreign
currencies at allegedly inflated rates (the "consumer action"),
participants or beneficiaries of qualified ERISA plans (the "ERISA
actions"), and purported indirect purchasers of FX instruments
(the "indirect purchaser action").

Since then, the Firm has entered into a revised settlement
agreement to resolve the consolidated U.S. class action, including
the exchange-based actions, and that agreement has been
preliminarily approved by the Court. The District Court has
dismissed one of the ERISA actions, and the plaintiffs have filed
an appeal.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Canadian Case Settlements Await Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the settlement of
Canadian class action lawsuits against FX dealers remains subject
to Court approval.

In September 2015, two class actions were filed in Canada against
the Firm as well as a number of other FX dealers, principally for
alleged violations of the Canadian Competition Act based on an
alleged conspiracy to fix the prices of currency purchased in the
FX market. The first action was filed in the province of Ontario,
and seeks to represent all persons in Canada who transacted any FX
instrument. The second action was filed in the province of Quebec,
and seeks authorization to represent only those persons in Quebec
who engaged in FX transactions. In late 2016, the Firm settled the
Canadian class actions; those settlements are subject to Court
approval.


JPMORGAN CHASE: LIBOR, Other Benchmark Rate Suits Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the firm remains a
defendant in LIBOR and other benchmark rate litigation.

The Firm has been named as a defendant along with other banks in a
series of individual and putative class actions filed in various
United States District Courts. These actions have been filed, or
consolidated for pre-trial purposes, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

In these actions, plaintiffs make varying allegations that in
various periods, starting in 2000 or later, defendants either
individually or collectively manipulated the U.S. dollar LIBOR,
Yen LIBOR, Swiss franc LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, EURIBOR, Singapore
Interbank Offered Rate ("SIBOR"), Singapore Swap Offer Rate
("SOR") and/or the Bank Bill Swap Reference Rate ("BBSW") by
submitting rates that were artificially low or high. Plaintiffs
allege that they transacted in loans, derivatives or other
financial instruments whose values are affected by changes in U.S.
dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR, Swiss franc LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR,
EURIBOR, SIBOR, SOR or BBSW and assert a variety of claims
including antitrust claims seeking treble damages. These matters
are in various stages of litigation.

In the U.S. dollar LIBOR-related actions, the District Court
dismissed certain claims, including the antitrust claims, and
permitted other claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and common
law to proceed.

In May 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit vacated the dismissal of the antitrust claims and remanded
the case to the District Court to consider, among other things,
whether the plaintiffs have standing to assert antitrust claims.

In July 2016, JPMorgan Chase and other defendants again moved in
the District Court to dismiss the antitrust claims, and in
December 2016, the District Court granted in part and denied in
part defendants' motion, finding that certain plaintiffs lacked
standing to assert antitrust claims.

Separately, in October 2016, JPMorgan Chase and other defendants
filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the
Second Circuit's decision that vacated the dismissal of
plaintiffs' antitrust claims. That petition was denied.

The Firm is one of the defendants in a number of putative class
actions alleging that defendant banks and ICAP conspired to
manipulate the U.S. dollar ISDAFIX rates. Plaintiffs primarily
assert claims under the federal antitrust laws and Commodity
Exchange Act. In April 2016, the Firm settled the ISDAFIX
litigation, along with certain other banks. Those settlements have
been preliminarily approved by the Court.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in Madoff Litigation Underway
----------------------------------------------------
An appeal related to the Madoff class action litigation remains
pending, JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

A putative class action was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey by investors who were net
winners (i.e., Madoff customers who had taken more money out of
their accounts than had been invested) in Madoff's Ponzi scheme
and were not included in a prior class action settlement. These
plaintiffs allege violations of the federal securities law, as
well as other state and federal claims.

A similar action was filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, although it was not styled as a
class action, and included claims pursuant to Florida statutes.

The Florida court granted the Firm's motion to dismiss the case,
and in August 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

The plaintiffs have filed a petition for writ of certiorari with
the United States Supreme Court. In addition, the same plaintiffs
have re-filed their dismissed state claims in Florida state court,
where the Firm's motion to dismiss is pending.

The New Jersey court granted a transfer motion to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which
granted the Firm's motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs have
filed an appeal of that dismissal.


KELLY SERVICES: April 25 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for ABC15, reports that did you buy fluoride
tablets for you or your kids to chew and keep your teeth strong? A
class action lawsuit is alleging some contain less than 50 percent
fluoride.

The settlement could mean money back.

Qualitest Pharmaceuticals is one of the brands.  If you bought it
between Oct. 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2015, you could qualify.  The
deadline to file was April 17, 2017.

The businesses claim no wrongdoing.

The makers of the prescription drug Provigil settled a lawsuit
over allegations they tried to delay the sale of a generic
version.

If you bought between June 24, 2006 and March 31, 2012, you could
get part of the $35 million settlement.  The deadline to file is
close, April 13th, 2014.

The company claimed no wrongdoing.

And if you were employed by Kelly services as a temp worker check
this out.  A class action lawsuit claims they included a liability
release for background checks they ran on workers. And that would
be against the law.

If you had a report run between July 18, 2012 and January 23rd,
2014, you could get up to $272 back.

The company claims no wrongdoing.

The deadline to file is April 25th, 2017.

While these settlements can mean money for consumers, and hold
businesses accountable, they could also be in jeopardy.

Scott Hardy with Top Class Actions says a federal bill, HR 985
could make it "impossible to file a class action in some consumer
cases."

He says that's because same damages, names and addresses of all
affected by the suit would have to be known.

Mr. Hardy says that could be impossible if millions of people are
affected.

They likely paid different amounts, had different experiences --
even though the underlying issues was the same.  The bill has
already passed the house and is on the way to the Senate.  It also
includes wording about limiting what attorneys can get from the
suits.

So, let Senator's McCain and Flake know how you feel.

And let me know.


KEMPHARM INC: Awaits Decision on Bid to Remand IPO-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
KemPharm, Inc., awaits ruling on the Plaintiff's motion to remand
to the Iowa District Court a lawsuit arising from its initial
public offering, the Company in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "In December 2016, we received a class action
suit filed against us by a stockholder in the Iowa District Court
in Johnson county alleging that we, certain of our senior
executives and directors who signed the registration statement in
connection with our initial public offering, and each of the
investment banks that acted as underwriters for the offering
negligently issued untrue statements of material facts and omitted
to state material facts required to be stated in the registration
statement and incorporated offering materials that we filed with
the SEC in support of the offering. The plaintiff does not
quantify any alleged damages in his complaint but, in addition to
attorneys' fees and costs, the plaintiff seeks to recover damages
and obtain other relief on behalf of himself and all other persons
who purchased our common stock pursuant or traceable to the
offering and the registration statement and who were allegedly
damaged thereby."

"In January 2017, the suit was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa. The plaintiff has since filed a
motion to remand the case to the Iowa District Court, and that
motion is still pending. The suit is still in a preliminary stage
and has not yet been set for trial. As such, we are unable to
predict the timing or outcome of this litigation as of the date of
this report."

KemPharm, Inc., is a clinical-stage specialty pharmaceutical
company engaged in the discovery and development of proprietary
prodrugs that the Company believes will be improved versions of
widely prescribed, approved drugs.  The Company employs its Ligand
Activated Therapy, or LAT, platform technology to create its
prodrugs.  The Company is building a pipeline of prodrug product
candidates that target large market opportunities in pain,
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, and central
nervous system, or CNS, disorders.


KIRKLAND'S INC: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Lynn Gennock and Jordan Budai, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Kirkland's Inc., Case No.
2:17-cv-00454-RCM (W.D. Penn., April 10, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Kirkland's Inc. operates a retail chain that sells home decor,
specializing in furnishings, accessories and gifts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary F. Lynch
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

LIBERTY MEDIA: 200 Consumers Opt Out of Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Media Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that approximately 200
consumers opted-out of a class action settlement.

SIRIUS XM was a defendant in several purported class action suits
that alleged that SIRIUS XM, or call center vendors acting on
their behalf, made calls which violate provisions of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA").  These purported
class action cases were titled Erik Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio
Inc., No. 12-cv-0418-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal.), Francis W. Hooker v.
Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-3 (E.D. Va.), Yefim Elikman v.
Sirius XM Radio, Inc. and Career Horizons, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-02093
(N.D. Ill.), and Anthony Parker v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No.
8:15-cv-01710-JSM-EAJ (M.D. Fla).

SIRIUS XM has entered into an agreement to settle these purported
class action suits. The settlement was approved by the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in
December 2016. The settlement resolves the claims of consumers
beginning in February 2008 relating to telemarketing calls to
their mobile telephones.  Approximately 200 consumers, or less
than 0.002% of the consumers who received notice of the
settlement, opted-out of this class action settlement.  As part of
this settlement, SIRIUS XM made a $35 million payment to a
settlement fund during 2016 (from which notice, administration and
other costs and attorneys' fees are being paid), and are offering
participating class members the option of receiving three months
of SIRIUS XM's Select service for no charge.

Liberty Media Corporation owns interests in subsidiaries and other
companies which are engaged in the media and entertainment
industries.


LIVE NATION: Faces "Egan" Suit for ADA Violation in Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------
John Egan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00445-MRH (W.D. Pa., April 7, 2017) seeks to
recover damages and injunctive relief for violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The complaint says Defendant's policies and practices specifically
violate the ADA by failing to provide Plaintiff and the class
members an equal opportunity to purchase accessible seating during
the same hours and same stages of ticket sales, though the same
methods of distribution, in the same types and numbers of
ticketing sales outlets and under the same terms and conditions as
other tickets sold.

Defendant owns and operates over one hundred entertainment venues,
including Key Bank Pavilion, in Burgettstown, Washington County,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
   Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
   Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP
   1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 322-9243
   Fax: (412) 231-0246
   Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
          glynch@carlsonlynch.com
          kabramowicz@carlsonlynch.com


LLOYDS BANKING: LIBOR-Related Suits Remain Pending in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Purported class action lawsuits remain pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to
Lloyds Banking Group plc's March 10, 2017, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

Certain Group companies, together with other panel banks, have
also been named as defendants in private lawsuits, including
purported class action suits, in the US in connection with their
roles as panel banks contributing to the setting of US Dollar,
Japanese Yen and Sterling LIBOR and the Australian BBSW Reference
Rate. The lawsuits, which contain broadly similar allegations,
allege violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Commodity
Exchange Act, as well as various state statutes and common law
doctrines. Certain of the plaintiffs' claims, including those
asserted under US anti-trust laws, were dismissed by the US
Federal Court for Southern District of New York (the District
Court).

In November 2015 OTC and exchange-based plaintiffs' claims against
the Group were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On December 20, 2016, the Federal Court for Southern District of
New York dismissed all antitrust class action claims against LBG
and its affiliates in the Multi District Litigation arising from
the alleged manipulation of USD LIBOR. Further appeals in relation
to the anti-trust claims remain possible.

Lloyds Banking Group plc is a leading provider of financial
services to individual and business customers in the U.K.  Lloyds
Banking Group's main business activities are retail and commercial
banking and long-term savings, protection and investment.
Services are offered through a number of well recognised brands,
including Lloyds Bank, Halifax, Bank of Scotland and Scottish
Widows, and through a range of distribution channels including the
largest branch network and digital bank in the U.K.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Sues Over ACTH Drug Monopoly
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned City of Rockford, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mallinckrodt Ard, Inc.
formally known as Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mallinckrodt PLC
and United Biosource Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
50107 (N.D. Ill., April 6, 2017) is brought by the Plaintiff
on its own behalf and on behalf of all other government payors, as
well as self-funded private payors similarly situated, to
challenge an anti-competitive, unfair and deceptive scheme by
Defendants, Mallinckrodt ARD Inc., formally known as Questcor
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Questcor) and its parent company,
Mallinckrodt plc, along with Mallinckrodt's self-described agent,
United BioSource Corporation (UBC), to enhance and maintain
Mallinckrodt's monopoly power in the U.S. market for
adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) drugs in violation of the U.S.
antitrust laws.

Mallinckrodt manufactures, markets, distributes and sells Acthar,
NDC No. 63004871001. Acthar is the only therapeutic ACTH product
sold in the United States. Mallinckrodt is the sole provider in
the U.S. of approved ACTH drugs.

The complaint, citing FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez, said "Questcor
took advantage of its monopoly to repeatedly raise the prices of
Acthar, from $40 in 2001 (when it acquired the rights to sell
Acthar for $100,000) to more than $34,000 per vial today
-- an 85,000 percent increase."

The suit seeks to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief, and to
recover overcharges resulting from the illegal monopolization
scheme, RICO violations, and unlawful conduct.  Alternatively, the
City seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and other
appropriate relief under the statutory consumer fraud laws and the
common law of Illinois and other states where similarly-situated
purchasers of ACTH drugs may be found.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kerry F. Partridge, Esq.
   Interim Director, Legal Department
   425 East State Street
   Rockford, IL 61104
   Tel: (779) 348-7154
   Fax: (815) 967-6949
   Email: kerry.partridge@rockfordil.gov

        - and -

   Peter J. Flowers, Esq.
   Meyers & Flowers, LLC
   3 North Second Street, Suite 300
   St. Charles, IL 60174
   Tel: (630) 232-6333
   Fax: (630) 845-8982
   Email: pjf@meyers-flowers.com

        - and -

   Donald E. Haviland, Jr., Esq.
   William H. Platt, II, Esq.
   Haviland Hughes, Esq.
   201 South Maple Avenue, Suite 110
   Ambler, PA 19002
   Tel: (215) 609-4661
   Fax: (215) 392-4400
   Email: haviland@havilandhughes.com
          platt@havilandhughes.com


MANHASSET RESTAURANT: "Canales" Suit Asserts NY Labor Law Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
INGRID MARILU CANALES and BLANCA BONILLA, on behalf of themselves
and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), against MANHASSET
RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a TOKU MODERN ASIAN, ROSLYN HOSPITALITY LLC
d/b/a HENDRICK'S TAVERN, MIRACLE MILE RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a
CIPOLLINI, WHEATLEY RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a BAR FRITES, GOLD COAST
RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a COOPER & BRYANT STEAK HOUSE, WOODBURY
RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a MAJORS STEAK HOUSE, GILLIS POLL and GEORGE
POLL, Defendant(s), INDEX NO. 603053/2017 (N.Y. Sup., County of
Nassau, April 7, 2017), alleges that prior to 2015, Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees spread-
of-hours pay for each day in which their spread of hours exceeded
ten hours.  The case alleges violations of the New York Labor Law.

Defendants are engaged in the restaurant business and operate six
family-owned restaurants in Nassau County, including, Toku Modern
Asian, Hendrick's Tavern, Cipollini, Bar Frites, Bryant & Cooper
Steak House and Majors Steak House. The Plaintiffs were hourly
paid manual workers who performed non-exempt duties in Defendants'
restaurants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter A. Romero, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
     103 Cooper Street
     Babylon, NY 11702
     Phone: (631) 257 5588
     E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com


MARIAM INC: Faces "Boger" Suit Over TCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Boger, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Mariam, Inc. dba Darcars Automotive Group and Fresh
Beginning, Inc. dba Eleadione, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00965-
PX (D. Md., April 6, 2017) seeks to recover damages against the
Defendants who made telemarketing calls to a cellular telephone
number of Mr. Boger for the purpose of advertising their goods and
services, using an automated dialing system in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Mariam, Inc. dba Darcars Automotive Group is automotive
dealerships with locations in Maryland, Virginia, Washington, D.C.
and Florida.

Fresh Beginning, Inc. dba Eleadione is a call center that is hired
by its clients to place automated telemarketing calls.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Stephen H. Ring, Esq.
   Stephen H. Ring, P.C.
   9901 Belward Campus Drive, Suite 175
   Rockville, Md 20850
   Tel: 301-563-9249
   Fax: 301-563-9249
   Email: shr@ringlaw.us


MATCH GROUP: Motions to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants' motions to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint
in the Securities Class Action Litigation against Match Group
remains pending, Match Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On February 26, 2016, a putative nationwide class action was filed
in federal court in Texas against the Company, five of its
officers and directors, and twelve underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering in November 2015.  See David M. Stein v.
Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-549 (U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Texas).  The complaint alleged that the
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's initial public offering were materially false and
misleading given their failure to state that: (i) Match Group's
Non-dating business would miss its revenue projection for the
quarter ended December 31, 2015, and (ii) ARPPU would decline
substantially in the quarter ended December 31, 2015.  The
complaint asserted that these alleged failures to timely disclose
material information caused Match Group's stock price to drop
after the announcement of its earnings for the quarter ended
December 31, 2015.  The complaint pleaded claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 for untrue statements of material fact in,
or omissions of material facts from, the registration statement,
the prospectus, and related communications in violation of
Sections 11 and 12 and, as to the officer/director defendants
only, control-person liability under Section 15 for the Company's
alleged violations.  The complaint sought among other relief class
certification and damages in an unspecified amount.

On March 9, 2016, a virtually identical class action complaint was
filed in the same court against the same defendants by a different
named plaintiff.  See Stephany Kam-Wan Chan v. Match Group, Inc.
et al., No. 3:16-cv-668 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Texas).

On April 25, 2016, Judge Boyle in the Chan case issued an order
granting the parties' joint motion to transfer that case to Judge
Lindsay, who is presiding over the earlier-filed Stein case.  On
April 27, 2016, various current or former Match Group shareholders
and their respective law firms filed motions seeking appointment
as lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel for the putative
class.

On April 28, 2016, the Court issued orders: (i) consolidating the
Chan case into the Stein case, (ii) approving the parties'
stipulation to extend the defendants' time to respond to the
complaint until after the Court has appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel for the putative class and has set a schedule for the
plaintiff's filing of a consolidated complaint and the defendants'
response to that pleading, and (iii) referring the various motions
for appointment of lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel
for the putative class to a United States Magistrate Judge for
determination.

In accordance with this order, the consolidated case is now
captioned Mary McCloskey et ano. v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No.
3:16-CV-549-L.  On June 9, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an
order appointing two lead plaintiffs, two law firms as co-lead
plaintiffs' counsel, and a third law firm as plaintiffs' liaison
counsel.

On July 27, 2016, the parties submitted to the Court a joint
status report proposing a schedule for the plaintiffs' filing of a
consolidated amended complaint and the parties' briefing of the
defendants' contemplated motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.

On August 17, 2016, the Court issued an order approving the
parties' proposed schedule.  On September 9, 2016, in accordance
with the schedule, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint.  The new pleading focuses solely on allegedly
misleading statements or omissions concerning the Match Group's
Non-dating business.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint on November 8, 2016. The plaintiffs filed oppositions to
the motions on December 23, 2016, and the defendants filed replies
to the oppositions on February 6, 2017.

"We believe that the allegations in these lawsuits are without
merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them," the
Company said.

Match Group, Inc. is a provider of dating products.


MEXICO FOODS: "Robledo" Suit Claims Employee Misclassification
--------------------------------------------------------------
NORMA ROBLEDO AND SALVADOR HERNANDEZ, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MEXICO FOODS,
LLC, AND TAMAULIPAS FOODS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. DC-17-04164
(D. Tex., Dallas County, April 10, 2017), alleges that like
Plaintiffs, other hourly employees of Defendants have been
victimized by Defendants' unlawful practice of improperly
misclassifying employees as exempt and not paying them at all
while a work visa is pending.

Plaintiffs both worked for Defendants in the Dallas/Fort Worth
Area as "Food Service Managers." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew R. Scott, Esq.
     Javier Perez, Esq.
     SCOTT PEREZ LLP
     Founders Square
     900 Jackson Street, Suite 550
     Dallas, TX 75206
     Phone: 214-965-9675
     Fax: 214-965-9680
     E-mail: matt.scott@scottperezlaw.com
             javier.perez@scottperezlaw.com


NORTH BATTLEFORD: Court Approves Class Action Over Tainted Water
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports according to the law firm involved, the courts
have approved a class action that will compensate young people who
became sick in the 2001 North Battleford, Sask., tainted water
scandal.

People became sick with flu-like symptoms and gastrointestinal
complaints when the parasite cryptosporidium turned up in their
drinking water.

The contamination occurred after a filtering mechanism in North
Battleford's water treatment system failed during maintenance done
in March 2001.

Some 800 people who got sick had already been compensated in
previous out-of-court settlements.

However, a third court action was launched with the intention of
having it approved as a class action.

That was approved by the courts and according to the firm behind
the effort, anyone who was under 18 at the time and became ill can
now apply for compensation. [GN]


NORTHERN CHILDREN'S: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres at Penn Record reports that an employee has filed a
class action lawsuit against Northern Children's Services, a
nonprofit children's therapy center, citing alleged unpaid wages,
violation of applicable minimum wage law and violation of Workers'
Compensation acts.

Tanea Pratt, an hourly therapeutic staff support worker with the
non-profit, filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on March 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania alleging that the employer failed to
properly compensate the plaintiff for her work.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she and
others sustained damages from not being paid overtime for working
more than 40 hours per week. The plaintiff holds Northern
Children's Services responsible because it allegedly failed to pay
the plaintiff for all the hours she worked during her employment,
which began in 2013.

The plaintiff seeks judgment against the defendant.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case
number 2:17-cv-01433-NIQA [GN]


NRG RESIDENTIAL: "Dobkin" Wants One Touch to Show Cause
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dobkin and Erica Gennarini ask the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia for an order requiring One
Touch Calls, LLC to show cause for its failure to comply with
subpoenas properly issued by Plaintiffs which were served within
this judicial district.

Specifically, Plaintiffs seek an Order (i) requiring One Touch to
show cause as to why it should not be held in contempt of Court,
(ii) imposing appropriate sanctions should it fail to do so, and
(iii) granting any additional relief the Court deemsreasonable and
just.

This Motion is the culmination of a six month-long effort to
obtain documents and information from One Touch that Plaintiffs
Dobkin and Gennarini contend are relevant to their underlying
cases captioned Dobkin v. NRG Residential Solar Solutions LLC and
Gennarini v. NRG Residential Solar Solutions, LLC, No. 3:15-cv-
05089 (D.N.J) (the Underlying Action), which have been
consolidated into a single case that is currently pending in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey before
the Honorable Brian R. Martinotti. In the Underlying Action,
Plaintiffs Dobkin and Gennarini allege that NRG Residential Solar
Solutions, LLC violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. Section 227.

One Touch is a call center hired by NRG to contact potential
customers and is believed to be responsible for running one of the
automated telephone dialing systems that made the calls at issue
in the Underlying Action.

To obtain discovery in the Underlying Action, Plaintiffs served
One Touch with a Subpoena to Produce Documents on August 26, 2016,
seeking documents regarding the number and manner of the phone
calls at issue.  Although One Touch made a partial production with
documents showing that it indeed had relevant information in its
possession, in the weeks that followed, it never completed its
production. Moreover, although Plaintiffs' Counsel repeatedly
attempted to follow up with One Touch's Vice President, Muhammad
Mahmood who was originally cooperating with Plaintiffs' Counsel,
he ceased responding entirely.

Plaintiffs likewise issued and served a Subpoena to Testify at
Deposition to One Touch, which commanded One Touch's corporate
representative to appear for a deposition on February 15, 2017.
Again, although Plaintiffs' Counsel made repeated attempts to
contact One Touch, Plaintiffs' Counsel did not receive any
objection or response and the witness did not appear at the
deposition. Therefore, at this point, and because One Touch has
refused to provide information critical to the advancement of the
Underlying Action, Plaintiffs have no choice but to institute this
action and seek a court order directing One Touch to appear and
explain why it should not be held in contempt, and if it cannot do
so, holding One Touch in contempt.

NRG Residential Solar Solutions LLC provides solar systems on
lease for homeowners. It offers its services through dealers in
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Warner F. Young, III, Esq.
   Allred, Bacon, Halfhill & Young PC
   11350 Random Hills Road, Suite 700
   Fairfax, VA 22030
   Tel: (703) 352-1300
   Fax: (703) 352-1301
   Email: wyoung@abhylaw.com

        - and -

   Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
   Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, Esq.
   Stewart R. Pollock, Esq.
   Edelson PC
   123 Townsend, Suite 100
   San Francisco, CA 94107
   Tel: (415) 212-9300
   Fax: (415) 373-9435
   Email: rbalabanian@edelsom.com
          erapp@edelson.com
          spollock@edelson.com


ONEOK PARTNERS: "Federman" Files Suit Opposing Proposed Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Max Federman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Oneok Partners, L.P., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 4:17-cv-000183-JED-FHM (N.D. Okla., April 7, 2017) seeks
to preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from proceeding
with, consummating or closing the merger of Oneok Partners with
Oneok Inc.

During the relevant period, Defendants disseminated false and
misleading Registration Statements, which failed to disclose
material facts about the merger, says the complaint.

ONEOK Partners, L.P. is engaged in gathering, processing, storage
and transportation of natural gas in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jack L. Brown, Esq.
   Charles Michael Copeland, Esq.
   Jone, Gotcher & Bogan, P.C.
   15 E. 5th Street, Suite 3800
   Tulsa, OK 74103
   Tel: 918-581-8200

        - and -

   Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
   Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
   Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
   Weisslaw LLP
   1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
   New York, NY 10036
   Tel: (212) 682-3025
   Fax: (212) 682-3010


ONEOK PARTNERS: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC on April 12 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
Northern District of Oklahoma, case no. 5:17-cv-00161-GKF-TLW, on
behalf of unitholders of Oneok Partners, LP ("Oneok Partners" or
the "Company") (OKS) who held Oneok Partners securities and have
been harmed by Oneok Partners and its board of directors' (the
"Board") for alleged violations of Sections 14(a), and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in
connection with the sale of the Company to  Oneok, Inc.

Under the terms of the agreement, Oneok Partners unitholders will
receive 0.985 of a share of Oneok, Inc. common stock for each
share of Oneok Partners they own.  The complaint alleges that this
offer is inadequate and alleges that the Registration Statement in
Form S-4 (the "Proxy") provides materially incomplete and
misleading information about the Company's financials and the
transaction, in violation of Sections 14(a), and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from April 12, 2017.  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this
action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact:

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

Monteverde & Associates PC is a boutique class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm committed that has recovered
millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders
and consumers from corporate wrongdoing.  Monteverde & Associates
PC lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect
investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct.


ONEWEST: Accused of Foreclosure Abuse by Homeowner Groups
---------------------------------------------------------
Llewellyn Hinkes-Jones, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that
OneWest Bank, the mortgage servicer previously owned by Treasury
Secretary Steven Mnuchin, has been accused by homeowner groups of
a type of foreclosure abuse involving lender-placed, or force-
placed, insurance.

Mortgage servicers are able to force insurance policies on
homeowners during a lapse in coverage, when premiums haven't been
paid or the homeowner has no hazard insurance.  Sometimes force-
placed policies stem from changes in flood maps or other risks
from catastrophic events.

Numerous class actions accused mortgage servicers during the 2010
foreclosure crisis of forcing expensive LPI policies on
homeowners, when those policies weren't necessary.

Many banks entered into large-scale settlements for abusing LPI,
sometimes worth billions of dollars.  But OneWest, which was
bought by CIT Group Inc., avoided prosecution and class action
settlements.

Documents obtained by Bloomberg BNA show that OneWest attempted to
levy LPI policies costing more than $10,000 for coverage from
"hurricane-wind" damage, over nine times the nationwide average
for fire and homeowner's insurance, according to numbers from the
National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

The lack of successful large-scale class actions against the bank
involving lender-placed insurance is another example of OneWest
regularly avoiding penalties for its actions during the
foreclosure crisis.

OneWest was accused of being a "foreclosure machine" by homeowner
advocacy groups like the California Reinvestment Coalition for a
wide range of activities including robo-signing documents, dual-
tracking foreclosures, and backdating documents.

Lender-Placed Insurance

During the mortgage and foreclosure crisis, the number of force-
placed insurance policies rose sharply, particularly in Florida.

A 2015 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
found that LPI is used most often on borrowers without escrow
accounts who have stopped paying insurance premiums, but is also
common with mortgages that are delinquent or in foreclosure, as
was the case for many homes during the crisis.

Mississippi Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney told Bloomberg BNA
that "[LPI] is directly correlated with mortgage foreclosures"
because mortgage contracts give the lender the right to force-
place hazard insurance.

"In short, lender-placed insurance became more prevalent during
the 2007-2008 financial crisis because more people stopped paying
their mortgages," he said.

Overpriced Lender-Placed Insurance

Birny Birnbaum, director for the advocacy group Center for
Economic Justice, told Bloomberg BNA that the average loss from
LPI policies is half that of homeowner's policies and therefore
less risky, and the lower risks don't justify the high costs
associated with those plans.

But besides the lack of risk, Mr. Birnbaum added, LPI is also
cheap for insurers to provide.

"It's less comprehensive than homeowner's insurance and the
insurers save on the lack of underwriting. For a homeowner's
policy, the insurer needs to inspect the property, research prior
claims and research the borrower's credit history. It's an
expensive process," he told Bloomberg BNA by phone.

According to Mr. Birnbaum, even in the midst of major catastrophic
events in 2011 and Hurricane Sandy in 2012, loss ratios for LPI
remained low for the period despite homeowner's insurance not
covering flood damage.

OneWest, LPI Cases

Numerous banks and surplus-line insurance companies like QBE
Insurance Group Ltd. and Assurant Inc. were found guilty of force-
placing excessively expensive policies when they weren't
necessary.  Sometimes the policies cost ten or twenty times a
normal policy, or backdating policies that would lead to more
penalties.

Banks and the insurance companies were simultaneously brought up
on RICO charges for coordinating kickbacks related to the
policies: mortgage servicers would coordinate levying lender-
placed insurance on homeowners and the insurance companies would
pay kickbacks to the servicer as commissions.


JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.,
HSBC Holding PLC, Bank of America Corp. and U.S. Bank all entered
into large-scale class action settlements involving various
accusations, but OneWest, a major servicer, avoided class action
prosecution.

LPI Lawsuits Against OneWest

In October 2011, the New York Department of Financial Services
opened an investigation into collusion between insurers and
mortgage servicers related to lender-placed insurance, after
receiving complaints from consumer advocates that LPI loss ratios
were significantly lower than loss ratios for borrower-purchased
insurance.

But the Department of Financial Services confirmed to Bloomberg
BNA that OneWest was never part of the investigation.

In 2013, the department reached settlements with the largest LPI
insurers -- Assurant, QBE, and Balboa -- but no mortgage servicers
were included in the settlement.

All individual cases against OneWest were either dismissed or
settled out of court.

The bank has been part of hundreds of individual cases that were
settled out of court but attempts to discover the details of the
settlements have been limited by confidentiality requirements
required of the plaintiffs, Sean Coffey, communications manager
with the California Reinvestment Coalition, told Bloomberg BNA.

The bank has been part of three separate class actions over abuse
of force-placed insurance, and two of those have been dismissed.
The third case, Wieck v. CIT Group, Inc., Haw. Dist. Ct., 1:16-cv-
00596, is ongoing in Hawaii district court.

Sandy Jolley, a reverse mortgage suitability and abuse consultant
who testified at the Mnuchin confirmation hearings, provided
Bloomberg BNA with numerousexamplesof letters sent by OneWest's
subsidiary, Financial Freedom, indicating that policies would be
forced on homeowners sometimes at a cost of more than $10,000 a
year for "hurricane-wind" protection.

The Melodie Meyer v. OneWest Bank, FSB, et al, N.D. Cal., 15-
55596, 4/20/15 class action case was dismissed because OneWest
claimed preemption from state regulations because it was a
nationally chartered bank, according to Catherine Anderson, an
attorney with Giskan Solotaroff & Anderson LLP arguing the Wieck
case.

A representative from CIT Group, which acquired OneWest in August
2015, declined to comment.

Elderly Borrowers, Lender-Placed Insurance

Anderson added that there are numerous issues that make lender-
placed insurance particularly confusing.

She pointed to the Wieck case, in which the plaintiff claimed the
bank backdated a policy for "windstorm-hurricane" insurance even
though the plaintiff already had hazard insurance.

"If a mortgage servicer backdates the policy, it's almost
impossible to get insurance for a period that's already gone by,"
she said. "These are seniors they're dealing with.  Their duty is
to be as clear as possible."

While preemption was used to dismiss the class action in
California, "that opinion might not apply in a different
district," Jeffrey Golant, lead attorney with the Law Offices of
Jeffrey N. Golant, P.A., in Florida told Bloomberg BNA.
Mr. Golant specializes in wrongful foreclosure and borrowers'
rights.

Mr. Golant added that force-placing insurance is part of a suite
of abuses that continue to occur throughout Florida, like
servicers demanding a certificate of occupancy from reverse
mortgagees.

If the resident neglects to return the certificate, mortgage
servicers will send process servants to start the foreclosure
process because the occupancy is not that of the borrower,
according to Mr. Golant.

"As part of the foreclosure process, the process servant may
obtain a signature from the resident at the same location they are
calling unoccupied," he said, showing that the foreclosure process
was unwarranted.

Post-Crisis Regulatory Changes

Following the fallout from the foreclosure crisis, numerous
agencies attempted to rein in the lender-placed insurance
industry.

In 2013, the Federal Housing Finance Agency pushed Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac to prevent mortgage servicers from receiving
commissions related to LPI policies.

In 2014, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau updated mortgage
servicing rules, known as Regulation X, with provisions from Dodd-
Frank to protect homeowners from LPI abuse.


PAM TRANSPORT: Faces "Williams" Suit for FLSA Violations in Ark.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Williams, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. P.A.M. Transport, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-05062-TLB (W.D. Ark., April 7, 2017)
is brought against the Defendant for non-payment of minimum wage
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was a truck-driver for Defendant.

Defendant provides on-demand and scheduled delivery services as
both a common and contract carrier.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Lydia H. Hamlet, Esq.
   Josh Sanford, Esq.
   Sanford Law Firm, PLLC
   103 West Parkway, Suite C
   P.O. Box 39
   Russellville, AR72811
   Tel: (479) 880-0088
   Fax: (888) 787-2040
   Email: lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com
          josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


PJT PARTNERS: Bid to Dismiss "Barrett" Suit in New York Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
PJT Partners Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended complaint filed
in the class action lawsuit by Gregory G. Barrett remains pending,
PJT said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

On April 15, 2016, Plaintiff Gregory G. Barrett filed in the
Southern District of New York a putative class action for
violation of the federal securities laws against defendants PJT
Partners Inc. and Andrew W. W. Caspersen in an action styled
Gregory G. Barrett v. PJT Partners Inc. and Andrew W. W.
Caspersen, No. 1:16-cv-02841-VEC (S.D.N.Y.). Generally, the
complaint alleges that PJT Partners made misstatements about its
business, operational and compliance policies and its compliance
and fraud-prevention controls. These alleged misstatements
allegedly caused members of the putative class, investors who
purchased PJT Partners common stock during the class period,
November 12, 2015 to March 28, 2016, to pay an inflated price for
PJT Partners common stock. The complaint alleges claims under
section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act against PJT
Partners and Mr. Caspersen, and under 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against Mr. Caspersen.

On June 14, 2016, plaintiff Gregory G. Barrett filed a motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of Pomerantz LLP as
lead counsel. On August 3, 2016, the motion was granted.

On September 23, 2016, lead plaintiff filed an amended class
action complaint. The amended complaint alleges claims under
section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act against PJT
Partners, Paul J. Taubman, Helen T. Meates and Mr. Caspersen and
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Mr. Taubman and
Ms. Meates. The Company, Mr. Taubman and Ms. Meates moved to
dismiss the amended complaint.

On December 21, 2016, PJT et al. filed a Reply Memorandum of Law
in support of the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action
Complaint.

"We believe that this shareholder action is without merit and will
defend it vigorously. The Company cannot exclude the possibility
of any future litigation and/or proceedings related to this
matter, including claims against the Company by Mr. Caspersen's
victims," the Company said.

PJT Partners is a global advisory-focused investment bank.


PLY GEM: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
securities litigation pending in New York, according to the
Company's March 10, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

In re Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation is a purported
federal securities class action filed on May 19, 2014 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., several of its directors and
officers, and the underwriters associated with the Company's
initial public offering ("IPO"). It is filed on behalf of all
persons or entities, other than the defendants, who purchased the
common shares of the Company pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's IPO and seeks remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the Company's Form S-1
registration statement was negligently prepared and materially
inaccurate, containing untrue statements of material fact and
omitting material information which was required to be disclosed.
The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) damages
together with interest thereon and (ii) attorneys' fees and costs
of litigation. On October 14, 2014, Strathclyde Pension Fund was
certified as lead plaintiff, and class counsel was appointed. On
February 13, 2015, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the complaint. On September 29, 2015, the District Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss, but ruled that plaintiff could file
an amended complaint.

On November 6, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and on
January 13, 2016, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
this amended complaint. On September 23, 2016, the District Court
granted in part and denied in part this motion to dismiss. The
damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified.

Pursuant to the Underwriting Agreement, dated May 22, 2013,
entered into in connection with the IPO, the Company has agreed to
reimburse the underwriters for the legal fees and other expenses
reasonably incurred by the underwriters' law firm in its
representation of the underwriters in connection with this matter.
Pursuant to Indemnification Agreements, dated as of May 22, 2013,
between the Company and each of the directors and officers named
in this action, the Company has agreed to assume the defense of
such directors and officers.

The Company believes the purported federal securities class action
is without merit and will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., is a leading manufacturer of exterior
building products in North America, operating in two reportable
segments: (i) Siding, Fencing, and Stone and (ii) Windows and
Doors.  These two segments produce a comprehensive product line of
vinyl siding, designer accents, cellular PVC trim, vinyl fencing,
vinyl railing, stone veneer, roofing, and vinyl windows and doors
used in both the new construction market and the home repair and
remodeling market in the United States and Canada.


PLY GEM: "Pagliaroni" Class Suit Still Pending in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit filed by Anthony Pagliaroni, et
al., remains pending in Massachusetts, according to Ply Gem
Holdings, Inc.'s March 10, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

In Anthony Pagliaroni et al. v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and
Deceuninck North America, LLC, a purported class action filed in
January 2012 in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of the
defective design and manufacture of Oasis composite deck and
railing, which was manufactured by Deceuninck North America, LLC
("Deceuninck") and sold by Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. ("MHE").
The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic
and compensatory damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive
damages, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The
damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. The
hearing regarding plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
held on March 10, 2015, and the District Court denied plaintiffs'
motion for class certification on September 22, 2015.

On October, 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed a petition for interlocutory
appeal of the denial of class certification to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, and on April 12, 2016, the Court of
Appeals denied this petition for appeal.

Deceuninck, as the manufacturer of Oasis deck and railing, has
agreed to indemnify MHE for certain liabilities related to this
claim pursuant to the sales and distribution agreement, as
amended, between Deceuninck and MHE. MHE's ability to seek
indemnification from Deceuninck is, however, limited by the terms
and limits of the indemnity as well as the strength of
Deceuninck's financial condition, which could change in the
future.

Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., is a leading manufacturer of exterior
building products in North America, operating in two reportable
segments: (i) Siding, Fencing, and Stone and (ii) Windows and
Doors.  These two segments produce a comprehensive product line of
vinyl siding, designer accents, cellular PVC trim, vinyl fencing,
vinyl railing, stone veneer, roofing, and vinyl windows and doors
used in both the new construction market and the home repair and
remodeling market in the United States and Canada.


PLY GEM: Settles "Carrillo-Hueso" Employee Suit for $1 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the lawsuit initiated by Raul Carrillo-Hueso and Chec
Xiong in California settled the matter for approximately $1
million, Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., said in its Form 10-K filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In Raul Carrillo-Hueso and Chec Xiong v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc.
and Ply Gem Pacific Windows Corporation, a purported class action
filed on November 25, 2015 in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of,
among other things, the defendants' failure to provide (i)
statutorily required meal breaks at the Sacramento, California
facility, (ii) accurate wage statements to employees in
California, and (iii) all wages due on termination in California.
The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic
and compensatory damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii) penalties,
(iv) pre- and post-judgment interest, and (v) attorneys' fees and
costs of litigation.

On January 7, 2017, the parties agreed to settle this matter for
approximately $1.0 million, subject to certain conditions
including approval by the Court. The Company has accrued for this
amount in accrued expenses as of December 31, 2016 in the
Company's consolidated balance sheet.

Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., is a leading manufacturer of exterior
building products in North America, operating in two reportable
segments: (i) Siding, Fencing, and Stone and (ii) Windows and
Doors.  These two segments produce a comprehensive product line of
vinyl siding, designer accents, cellular PVC trim, vinyl fencing,
vinyl railing, stone veneer, roofing, and vinyl windows and doors
used in both the new construction market and the home repair and
remodeling market in the United States and Canada.


PLY GEM: Settles "Morgan" Overtime Violation Suit for $0.9-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the purported class action lawsuit filed by Tina Morgan
agreed to settle the matter for approximately $0.9 million,
according to Ply Gem Holdings, Inc.'s March 10, 2017, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In Tina Morgan v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc. and Simonton
Industries, Inc., a purported class action filed on December 11,
2015 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Solano, plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, alleges damages as a result of, among other things, the
defendants' failure at the Vacaville, California facility to (i)
pay overtime wages, (ii) provide statutorily required meal breaks,
(iii) provide accurate wage statements, and (iv) pay all wages
owed upon termination. The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief,
including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) statutory
damages, (iii) penalties, (iv) pre- and post-judgment interest,
and (v) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.

On December 9, 2016, the parties agreed to settle this matter for
approximately $0.9 million, subject to certain conditions
including approval by the Court.

The Company has accrued for this amount in accrued expenses as of
December 31, 2016 in the Company's consolidated balance sheet.

Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., is a leading manufacturer of exterior
building products in North America, operating in two reportable
segments: (i) Siding, Fencing, and Stone and (ii) Windows and
Doors.  These two segments produce a comprehensive product line of
vinyl siding, designer accents, cellular PVC trim, vinyl fencing,
vinyl railing, stone veneer, roofing, and vinyl windows and doors
used in both the new construction market and the home repair and
remodeling market in the United States and Canada.


PLY GEM: Still Owes $1.4-Mil. in Vinyl Clad Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that approximately $1.4
million of its liability is currently outstanding in connection
with the Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement.

In John Gulbankian v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. ("Gulbankian"), a
purported class action filed in March 2010 in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, alleged
damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of
certain MW vinyl clad windows. In Eric Hartshorn and Bethany Perry
v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. ("Hartshorn"), a purported class action
filed in July 2012 in the District Court, plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, alleged damages as a
result of the defective design and manufacture of certain MW vinyl
clad windows. In April 2014, plaintiffs in both the Gulbankian and
Hartshorn cases filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint, making similar claims against all MW vinyl clad
windows.

MW entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs as of April
2014 to settle both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases on a
nationwide basis (the "Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement"). The
Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement provides that this settlement
applies to any and all MW vinyl clad windows manufactured from
January 1, 1987 through May 23, 2014, and provides for a cash
payment for eligible consumers submitting qualified claims
showing, among other requirements, certain damage to their MW
vinyl clad windows. The period for submitting qualified claims is
the later of: (i) May 28, 2016, or (ii) the last day of the
warranty period for the applicable window. On December 29, 2014,
the District Court granted final approval of this settlement, as
well as MW's payment of attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs'
counsel in the amount of $2.5 million. The Company and MW deny all
liability in the settlements with respect to the facts and claims
alleged. The Company, however, is aware of the substantial burden,
expense, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation,
and therefore agreed to settle these matters.

As a result of the Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement, the Company
recognized a $5.0 million expense during the year ended December
31, 2014 within selling, general, and administrative expenses in
the Company's consolidated statement of operations in the Windows
and Doors segment. It is possible that the Company may incur costs
in excess of the recorded amounts; however, the Company currently
expects that the total net cost will not exceed $5.0 million.

As of December 31, 2016, approximately $1.4 million of this
liability is currently outstanding, with $0.7 million as a current
liability within accrued expenses and $0.7 million as a noncurrent
liability within other long-term liabilities in the Company's
consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2016.

Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., is a leading manufacturer of exterior
building products in North America, operating in two reportable
segments: (i) Siding, Fencing, and Stone and (ii) Windows and
Doors.  These two segments produce a comprehensive product line of
vinyl siding, designer accents, cellular PVC trim, vinyl fencing,
vinyl railing, stone veneer, roofing, and vinyl windows and doors
used in both the new construction market and the home repair and
remodeling market in the United States and Canada.


PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Haverhill Suit Parties Finalizing Accord
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the putative class action lawsuit initiated by
Haverhill Retirement System are working to finalize and document
their settlement, The Providence Service Corporation disclosed in
its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 10, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On June 15, 2015, a putative stockholder class action derivative
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, (the "Court"), captioned Haverhill Retirement System v.
Kerley et al., C.A. No. 11149-VCL. The complaint named Richard A.
Kerley, Kristi L. Meints, Warren S. Rustand, Christopher
Shackelton (the "Individual Defendants") and Coliseum Capital
Management, LLC ("Coliseum Capital Management") as defendants, and
the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint purported to
allege that the dividend rate increase term originally in the
Company's outstanding convertible preferred stock was an
impermissibly coercive measure that impaired the voting rights of
the Company's stockholders in connection with the vote on the
removal of certain voting and conversion caps previously
applicable to the preferred stock (the "Caps"), and that the
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by approving
the dividend rate increase term and attempting to coerce the
stockholder vote relating to the Company's preferred stock, and by
failing to disclose all material information necessary to allow
the Company's stockholders to cast an informed vote on the Caps.
The complaint also purported to allege derivative claims alleging
that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company by entering into the subordinated note and standby
agreement with Coliseum Capital Management, and granting Coliseum
Capital Management certain stock options. The complaint further
alleged that Coliseum Capital Management aided and abetted the
Individual Defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties. The
complaint sought, among other things, an injunction prohibiting
the stockholder vote relating to the dividend rate increase,
corporate governance reforms, unspecified damages and other
relief.

On August 31, 2015, after arms' length negotiations, the parties
reached an agreement in principle and executed a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") providing for the settlement of claims
concerning the dividend rate increase term and stockholder vote
and related disclosure. The MOU stated that the Defendants had
entered into the partial settlement of the litigation solely to
eliminate the distraction, burden, expense, and potential delay of
further litigation involving claims that have been settled.
Pursuant to the partial settlement, the Company agreed to
supplement the disclosures in its definitive proxy statement on
Schedule 14A (the "2015 Proxy Statement"), Coliseum Capital
Management and certain of its affiliates and the Company entered
into an amendment to that certain Series A Preferred Stock
Exchange Agreement, by and among Coliseum Capital Partners, L.P.,
Coliseum Capital Partners II, L.P., Coliseum Capital Co-Invest,
L.P., Blackwell Partners, LLC, and The Providence Service
Corporation dated as of February 11, 2015 described in the 2015
Proxy Statement, and the Board agreed to adopt a policy related to
the Board's determination each quarter as to whether the Company
should pay cash dividends or allow dividends to be paid in the
form of PIK dividends on the preferred stock, as further described
in the supplemental proxy disclosures.

On September 2, 2015, Providence issued supplemental disclosures
through a supplement to the 2015 Proxy Statement. On September 16,
2015, Providence stockholders approved the removal of the Caps.
The Company provided notice of the proposed partial settlement to
Providence's shareholders by December 11, 2015. At a hearing on
February 9, 2016, the court denied approval of the settlement. The
Court indicated that plaintiff's counsel could petition the Court
for a mootness fee, and that defendants would have the opportunity
to oppose any such application.

On January 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed a verified amended class
action and derivative complaint (the "first amended complaint").
In addition to the defendants named in the earlier complaint, the
first amended complaint named David Shackelton, Coliseum Capital
Partners, L.P., Coliseum Capital Partners II, L.P., Blackwell
Partners, LLC, Coliseum Capital Co-Invest, L.P. (collectively, and
together with Coliseum Capital Management, LLC, "Coliseum") and
RBC Capital Markets, LLC ("RBC Capital Markets") as additional
defendants. The first amended complaint purported to allege direct
and derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty against some or
all of the Individual Defendants and David Shackelton
(collectively, the "Amended Individual Defendants") regarding the
approval of the subordinated note, the rights offering, the
standby agreement with Coliseum Capital Management, and the grant
to Coliseum Capital Management of certain stock options. The first
amended complaint also purported to allege an additional
derivative claim for unjust enrichment against Coliseum and
further alleged that Coliseum and RBC Capital Markets aided and
abetted the Amended Individual Defendants in breaching their
fiduciary duties. The first amended complaint sought, among other
things, revision or rescission of the terms of the subordinated
note and preferred stock, corporate governance reforms,
unspecified damages and other relief.

On May 6, 2016, the plaintiff filed a verified second amended
class action and derivative complaint (the "second amended
complaint"). In addition to the defendants named in the earlier
complaint, the second amended complaint named Paul Hastings LLP
("Paul Hastings") and Bank of America, N.A. ("BofA") as additional
defendants. In addition to previously asserted claims, the second
amended complaint purported to assert direct and derivative claims
for breach of fiduciary duties against Coliseum Capital
Management, in its capacity as the controlling stockholder of the
Company, in connection with the subordinated note, the Company's
rights offering of preferred stock and the standby purchase
agreement with Coliseum Capital Management (the "Financing
Transactions"). The second amended complaint also alleged that
Paul Hastings breached their fiduciary duties as counsel to the
Company in connection with the Financing Transactions and that
BofA and Paul Hastings aided and abetted certain of the Amended
Individual Defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Financing Transactions. The second amended
complaint sought, among other things, revision or rescission of
the terms of the subordinated note and preferred stock, corporate
governance reforms, disgorgement of fees paid to RBC Capital
Markets, Paul Hastings and BofA for work relating to the Financing
Transactions, unspecified damages and other relief.

On May 20, 2016, the Court granted a six-month stay of the
proceeding from the date of such order to allow a special
litigation committee, created by the Board, sufficient time to
investigate, review and evaluate the facts, circumstances and
claims asserted in or relating to this action and determine the
Company's response thereto. On October 10, 2016, the Court granted
an extension of the stay of the proceeding from November 20, 2016
until January 20, 2017, to allow the special litigation committee
additional time to complete its investigation and review, and to
determine the Company's response thereto.

On January 20, 2017, the special litigation committee advised the
court that the parties to the litigation and the special
litigation committee had reached an agreement in principle to
settle all of the claims in the litigation. The parties are
working to finalize and document the settlement, which will then
be presented to the Court for approval.

The Providence Service Corporation is a holding company, which
owns interests in subsidiaries and other companies that are
primarily engaged in the provision of healthcare and workforce
development services for public and private sector entities
seeking to control costs and promote positive outcomes.  The
subsidiaries and other companies in which the Company holds
interests comprise these segments: Non-Emergency Transportation
Services, Workforce Development Services and Matrix Investment.


PURINA PETCARE: Resolves Class Action Over Beggin' Strips
---------------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy and Cara Salvatore, writing for Law360, report that
Purina has resolved a proposed class action claiming the company
tricked customers into thinking that Beggin' bacon-flavored dog
treats contain more bacon than they actually do, according to an
April 11 filing in New York federal court.

The one-paragraph order did not disclose any details about the
resolution of the case, just that both sides had agreed to
permanently dismiss the case.  Neither side could be reached for
further comment or an explanation on April 12.

Paul Kacocha sued Nestle Purina Petcare Co. in July 2015, claiming
that 12 types of Beggin' strips marketed with the word "bacon"
didn't actually have as much bacon as consumers were led to
believe.

Specifically, he said Purina strongly insinuates that bacon is a
prominent ingredient in the treat, since they're cut, shaped,
colored and otherwise made to look and smell like real bacon. The
product name, "Beggin'," is also designed to mirror the sound of
"bacon" when spoken, he said.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Karas rejected most of Purina's motion
to dismiss the case in August, finding that the company's
television ads and other statements could cause a reasonable
consumer to believe the products contained more bacon than they
actually do. He did, however, dismiss claims related to an online
ingredient list that said the products included bacon, which they
do. Bacon is the 10th ingredient listed on Beggin' strips'
packaging.

Judge Karas said that he couldn't definitively say that a
reasonable consumer would be tricked by the products' packaging
and advertisements.

The judge also listed in a footnote all of the bacon-related jokes
he refrained from making in the body of the opinion.

"In an act of judicial restraint, the court declines to invoke in
this opinion the phrase, 'where's the beef?,' the expression 'when
pigs fly,' or the works of seventeenth-century English jurist Sir
Francis Bacon, although not for want of opportunity," Judge Karas
wrote.

Mr. Kacocha is represented by Jeffrey Carton --
jcarton@denleacarton.com -- of Denlea & Carton LLP.

Purina is represented by Keri E. Borders --
kborders@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown LLP.

The case is Kacocha v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co., case number
7:15-cv-05489, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


REMINGTON: Gun Owners Claim Proposed Settlement Not Enough
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cohn at CNBC News reports two owners of allegedly defective
Remington Model 700 rifles say they will seek to block a landmark
class action settlement approved by a federal judge last month,
arguing the agreement does not go far enough. That means the fate
of as many as 7.5 million allegedly unsafe guns is once again in
question.

The settlement covers the iconic Model 700 and a dozen other
Remington models with similar designs. In 2010, CNBC investigated
allegations Remington covered up a deadly design defect that
allows the guns to fire without the trigger being pulled.
Remington has steadfastly denied the allegations and maintains
that the guns are safe, but said it was settling the class action
case to avoid prolonged litigation. Remington has agreed to
replace the triggers in millions of the guns free of charge, and
provide product vouchers for models it says are too old to be
retrofitted.

But Lewis Frost, a deputy sheriff in Louisiana who owns three
Model 700s, and Richard Denney, an Oklahoma attorney who also owns
three 700s, have argued that the settlement's mechanism for
notifying the public deliberately downplays the alleged risks the
guns pose, and doesn't do enough to get word out about the
replacement offer. Attorneys general in nine states and the
District of Columbia made similar arguments in court. As of mid-
February, only about 22,000 owners had filed claims to get their
guns fixed.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Ortrie D. Smith in Kansas City
dismissed the arguments and approved the settlement. While Smith
said he was "concerned" about the low claims rate, he concluded
that Remington and plaintiffs' attorneys had made "reasonable"
efforts to notify the public. On April 13, Frost and Denney said
in a court filing that they are appealing the ruling to the 8th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The filing does not describe the
specific grounds for an appeal.

An attorney for the plaintiffs in the class action case, Mark
Lanier, called the appeal "so sad," and said in an e-mail that it
has "no chance of success."

"In the meantime," Lanier wrote, "millions of guns will remain
unfixed while these professional objectors try to hold up the
process to make some money."

As part of their appeal, Denney and Frost seek to block the
USD12.5 million in fees Smith awarded to Lanier and his fellow
plaintiff attorneys. In response, Lanier says the plaintiffs will
now try to recover additional fees from Frost and Denney to cover
the cost of litigating the appeal.

Attorneys for Frost and Denney did not respond to requests for
comment, nor did attorneys for Remington.

The impact on owners who have filed claims or were considering
filing claims is unclear. Lanier said the process would stop while
the appeal is pending. But as of April 13 afternoon, a special web
site containing settlement information and claim forms was still
operating, with no mention of the appeal.

The settlement covers Remington rifle models 700, Seven, Sportsman
78, 673, 710, 715, 770, 600, 660, 721, 722, 725, and the XP-100
pistol. [GN]


REVOLUTION FIELD: Corral, et al. Allege Cal. Labor Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RENETTA CORRAL, NORMA CERDA, ROSA DIAZ, and OSCAR MARTINEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
PLAINTIFFS, VS. REVOLUTION FIELD STRATEGIES, LLC, a District of
Columbia Limited Liability Company, BUZZARDS BAY STRATEGIES LLC, a
District of Columbia Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-100,
DEFENDANTS, Case No. BC 656930 (Cal. Super., County of Los
Angeles, April 7, 2017), accuses Defendants of failing to pay
California canvassers minimum wages for time spent in training,
failing to pay overtime wages when canvassers worked in excess of
eight hours per day, failing to reimburse necessary business
expenses, failing to provide accurate itemized wages statements,
failing to pay all wages due upon employment separation, and
failing to provide access to employment records.

RFS provides signature collection services in the State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Rick Hicks, Esq.,
     Eugenia Hicks, Esq.
     HICKS & HICKS
     9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Phone: (3l0) 274-2974
     Fax: (877-493-0974
     E-mail: eugenia.hicks@hickslaw.net
             rickhicksnavyseal@hickslaw.net

        - and -

     Michael Malk, Esq.
     MICHAEL MALK, ESQ., APC
     1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 302
     Los Angeles, CA 90035
     Phone: (310) 203-0016
     Fax: (310)499-5210
     E-mail: MM@MALKLAWFIRM.COM


ROBIN HOOD: National Flour Recall Expands to Additional Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Globe and Mail reports a national recall of flour due to E. coli
contamination, which was first announced last month and is the
subject of a class-action lawsuit, is being expanded to cover
additional products.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency's recall on March 28 affected
Robin Hood flour sold in four provinces in Western Canada and was
later expanded across the country.

The recall now covers products produced by Ardent Mills of
Brampton, Ont.

They include one-kilogram bags of Brodie self-raising cake and
pastry flour; Creative Baker all-purpose flour in 20-kilogram
bags; Creative Baker whole wheat flour in 10-kilogram packages;
and Golden Temple Sooji creamy wheat in two-kilogram packages --
each with various best-before dates.

The initial recall affected Robin Hood flour in 10-kilogram bags
but the CFIA says the recall now includes Robin Hood flour in one-
kilogram bags with best-before dates of April 14, 15 and 18, 2018.
The CFIA says all recalled products should be thrown out or
returned to the store.

The agency said after the initial recall there had been 26 cases
of people being infected with E. coli in British Columbia,
Saskatchewan, Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador.
No deaths have been reported, but at least six people have
required hospital care. The CFIA says there are no reported
illnesses associated with the products added to the expanded
recall.

Two Alberta law firms announced they were filing a class-action
lawsuit on behalf of people who bought or consumed Robin Hood
flour and became ill.

Full details about the expanded recall are available at the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency website. [GN]


ROYAL OAK: Water Customers' Claims Deadline Set for May 15
----------------------------------------------------------
Mike McConnel at Daily Tribune reports Royal Oak water customers
have until the middle of next month to submit claims to get a
portion of a USD2 million settlement the city has made in a class-
action lawsuit over debt service charges on water bills.

Nearby communities such as Ferndale and Birmingham settled similar
class-action suits by the same law firm on the same issue more
than two years ago, paying out USD4.2 million and USD2.8 million,
respectively.

Royal Oak and other communities have been sued for debt service
fees on water bills to pay their share toward the George W. Kuhn
Drain district treatment facility for storm and water sewage
treatment.

Royal Oak admits no wrongdoing in settling the case, said City
Attorney Dave Gillam.

The Kickham Hanley law firm of Royal Oak, which filed the lawsuit,
mailed out claim forms to about 25,000 water and sewer customers
in Royal Oak last week.

The claims are legitimate and have to be mailed back with a
postmark no later than May 15 for water customers to get a
payment, said Gregory Hanley, an attorney with the firm.

"We won't know what the settlement amounts are (for customers)
until we know how many people file claims," Hanley said. "But it
is certainly worth submitting a claim."

People are eligible to file claims if they paid water bills in
Royal Oak between February 2008 and Jan. 31 2007, he added.

Gillam said Royal Oak officials cannot answer questions about the
claims, which have to be handled completely by the Kickham Hanely
law firm. There is a form and information on the firm's website at
Kickhamhanley.com, which has an email address at --
khtemp@kickhamhanley.com

The multiple-city lawsuit cases are complex and in Oakland County
involve fees cities have had to pay toward the George W. Kuhn
Drain District treatment facility for storm and sewage water
treatment and debt service for upgrades to the facility.

A key argument in all the cases by the plaintiffs is that debt
service fees on water bills are essentially taxes not approved by
voters. The plaintiffs charge that the fees are unfair forms of
taxation under Michigan's Headlee Amendment.

Royal Oak initially fought the suit and won a dismissal of the
case in December 2015 in Oakland County Circuit Court. The lead
plaintiff in the Royal Oak case, Andrew Schroeder, is represented
by the Kickham Hanley law firm, and the case's dismissal was
successfully appealed in Circuit Court.

"It's a little frustrating knowing we have to settle any lawsuit,
especially after believing for decades we billed everything the
right way," Mayor Michael Fournier said last month when the City
Commission voted to approve the settlement.

In a worst case scenario, Gillam said earlier, Royal Oak stood to
lose up to USD50 million if it continued to spend money on legal
fees and ended up losing the case.

The biggest payout of money in the water bill lawsuits goes to the
Kickham Hanley law firm, which gets 30 percent of the settlement
amount in the class-action suits.

In the Ferndale settlement case, about USD1.25 million went to
Kickham Hanley, with a smaller amount to lead plaintiff Laurence
Wolf, a Ferndale businessman. The other USD3 million was to be
disbursed to up to 10,000 Ferndale water customers who made claims
to collect roughly USD300 each.

Gillam explained that Royal Oak didn't overcharge water customers
and that the fees for the drain system that were on water bills
will have to be instituted as a separate charge elsewhere, most
likely in the form of a property tax.

"We have until July 2018 to adjust rates" and remove the drain
system debt service charge from water bills, he said.

Other cities that Kickham Hanley has sued over charges on water
bills include Oak Park, Waterford Township, Dearborn and
Bloomfield Township.

Both sides in the Royal Oak lawsuit are scheduled to appear before
Oakland County Circuit Judge Shalina Kumar on June 14 for final
approval of the settlement agreement. Checks to water customers in
Royal Oak are expected to be mailed out about a month the
settlement's approval, Hanley said.

"It the settlement is approved, the suit is essentially
dismissed," Gillam said [GN]


RYDER TRUCK: Glatt Western Files Suit Over "Illegal" Monthly Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GLATT WESTERN KOSHER, INC., a California Corporation, suing
individually on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
vs. RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC., a Florida Corporation dba RYDER
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES; AND DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. BC
656985 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, April 7, 2017),
alleges that Defendants' committed unfair and fraudulent business
practice by charging its customers monthly fees and mileage for
commercial refrigerated vehicles not in their customers'
possession and in possession of the Defendants.

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants made no effort to
resolve disputes relating to such phantom charges, preferring to
initiate costly litigation against their customers.  Defendants
are engaged in the marketing and leasing of commercial motor
vehicles to their customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Frank Revere, Esq.
     REVERE & WALLACE
     355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
     Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
     Phone: (213) 943-1333
     Fax: (213) 403-4847
     E-mail: frank@reverelawfirm.com


QUINSTREET INC: Faces "Debusk" Suit Over TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Debusk, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Quinstreet, Inc., a Foreign Profit
Corporation d/b/a Insure.Com, Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00608-
GAP-GJK (M.D. Fla., April 6, 2017) seeks damages, and an
injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited telephone
call activities which violates the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Defendant calls their consumers using a pre-recorded message known
as a robocall to initiate their solicitations, which is annoying
and invasive for consumers but inexpensive for Defendant.

Defendant is a corporation that uses mass telemarketing to sell
insurance policies and products across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jordan A. Shaw, Esq.
   Eward H. Zebersky, Esq.
   Zebersky Payne, LLP
   110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150
   Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 989-6333
   Fax: (954) 989-7781
   Email: jshaw@zpllp.com
          mperez@zpllp.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Menzer" Suit Transferred to W.D. Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Kenneth Menzer, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics
America Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Case No. 9:17-cv-
80311 filed on March 10, 2017, was transferred on April 10, 2017
from the District of Florida Southern to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-00409-HE to the proceeding.

The Defendants are manufacturers and distributors of digital
consumer electronics, mobile products and wearables, wireless
infrastructure, IT and home appliance products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael S. Hill, Esq.
      MENZER & HILL, P.A.
      2200 NW Corporate Blvd, Suite 406
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (561) 327-7205
      Facsimile: (561) 431-4611
      E-mail: info@menzerhill.com

         - and -

      Gary Steven Menzer, Esq.
      MENZER & HILL, P.A.
      7280 W. Palmetto Park Road, Suite # 301 N
      Boca Raton, FL 33433
      Telephone: (561) 327-7207
      Facsimile: (561) 431-4611
      E-mail: info@menzerhill.com

SANDOZ INC: Fraternal Order of Police Sues Over Amitriptyline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fraternal Order of Police, et al., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Sandoz, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01569-CMR (E.D. Pa., April 6, 2017)
seeks to recover damages and to obtain injunctive and equitable
relief for the injuries suffered by Plaintiffs from Defendants'
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices of
generic amitriptyline hydrochloride tablets (10, 25, 50, 75, 100
and 150 mg strengths) ("Amitriptyline") in the United States
during the period of June 1, 2014 through the present or the date
on which the anticompetitive effects subside (the "Class Period"),
and to allocate markets and customers for those products during
the same time period.

Sandoz, Inc., is a Colorado corporation with its principal place
of business in Princeton, New Jersey. It deals in generic
pharmaceuticals and bio-similars. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
   Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
   Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP
   35 East State Street
   Media, PA 19063
   Tel: 610-891-9880
   Email: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com
          nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Motion to Certify Class Pending in "Deka"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' motion to certify the proposed classes in the case
captioned, Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA
Holdings Inc. et al., remains pending, Santander Consumer USA
Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, captioned Steck v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-06942 (the Deka Lawsuit). On October 6,
2014, another purported securities class action lawsuit was filed
in the District Court of Dallas County, State of Texas, captioned
Kumar v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al., No. DC-14-11783,
which was subsequently removed to the United States District
Court, Northern District of Texas, and re-captioned Kumar v.
Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al., No. 3:14-CV-3746 (the
Kumar Lawsuit).

Both the Deka Lawsuit and the Kumar Lawsuit were brought against
the Company, certain of its current and former directors and
executive officers and certain institutions that served as
underwriters in the Company's IPO on behalf of a class consisting
of those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities
between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014. In February 2015, the
Kumar Lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

In June 2015, the venue of the Deka Lawsuit was transferred to the
United States District Court, Northern District of Texas. In
September 2015, the court granted a motion to appoint lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel, and the Deka Lawsuit is now captioned
Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.

The amended class action complaint in the Deka Lawsuit alleges
that our Registration Statement and Prospectus and certain
subsequent public disclosures contained misleading statements
concerning the Company's ability to pay dividends and the adequacy
of the Company's compliance systems and oversight. The amended
complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks
damages and other relief. On December 18, 2015, the Company and
the individual defendants moved to dismiss the amended class
action complaint, and on June 13, 2016, the motion to dismiss was
denied. On December 2, 2016, the plaintiffs moved to certify the
proposed classes, and on February 17, 2017, the Company filed an
opposition to the plaintiffs' motion to certify the proposed
classes.


SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Parmelee" Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as, Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc. et al., remains pending, Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

On March 18, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of
Texas, captioned Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.
et al., No. 3:16-cv-783 (the Parmelee Lawsuit). On April 4, 2016,
another purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court, Northern District of Texas,
captioned Benson v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al.,
No. 3:16-cv-919 (the Benson Lawsuit). Both the Parmelee Lawsuit
and the Benson Lawsuit were filed against the Company and certain
of its current and former directors and executive officers on
behalf of a class consisting of all those who purchased or
otherwise acquired our securities between February 3, 2015 and
March 15, 2016. On May 25, 2016, the Benson Lawsuit was
consolidated into the Parmelee Lawsuit, with the consolidated case
captioned as Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et
al., No. 3:16-cv-783. On December 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed
an amended class action complaint.

The amended class action complaint in the Parmelee Lawsuit alleges
that the Company made false or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts, in prior Annual and
Quarterly Reports filed under the Exchange Act and certain other
public disclosures, in connection with, among other things, the
Company's change in its methodology for estimating its allowance
for credit losses and correction of such allowance for prior
periods in, among other public disclosures, the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2016, and the Company's amended filings for prior reporting
periods. The amended class action complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and seeks damages and other relief.


SAVAGE FUELING: Faces "Parker" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN PARKER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, V. SAVAGE FUELING CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00397-GTS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., April 10, 2017), alleges
that Defendant knowingly, deliberately, and voluntarily failed to
pay its Fuel Technicians for all hours worked over forty in a
workweek at the federal and state mandated overtime rate.
Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages owed
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Defendant provides supply chain management solutions and
industrial services.  Plaintiff's employment with Defendant as a
Fuel Technician began on or about January 2, 2014 and ended on or
about October 5, 2016. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq.
     Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
     SHELLIST, LAZARZ, SLOBIN LLP
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: (713) 621-2277
     Fax: (713) 621-0993
     E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net
             rprieto@eeoc.net

        - and -

     Carlo A. C. de Oliveira, Esq.
     COOPER ERVING & SAVAGE LLP
     39 North Pearl Street, Fourth Floor
     Albany, NY 12207
     Phone: (518) 449-3900
     Fax: (518) 432-3111
     E-mail: Cdeoliveira@coopererving.com


SHASTA COUNTY, CA: Disabled Inmates' Suit Granted Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Solis, writing for Record Searchlights, reports that a
federal judge granted class status to a lawsuit alleging Shasta
County Jail discriminates against people with disabilities.

Filed last year, the lawsuit says the jail does not comply with
the Americans with Disabilities Act and does not have the
necessary accommodations for people with disabilities, such as
handle bars in showers.  Some doorways are too narrow for
wheelchairs and there is a lack of seating in classrooms for
people in wheelchairs, according to court documents.

The lawsuit says this restricts disabled inmates' ability to
sleep, shower, worship, exercise and move around the facility on
West Street in downtown Redding and is a form of discrimination.

Filed in a U.S. District Court in Sacramento last year, a federal
judge on April 5 granted the class status.

Former inmate Everett Jewett filed a complaint in May 2013 and
said he was housed without regard to his disability, a "chronic
care issue with his spine."  Mr. Jewett was placed in a second-
floor cell on a top bunk, according to his complaint.  He fell
down stairs and sustained injuries while at the jail.

The county and plaintiff's lawyers are scheduled to meet at a
settlement conference in May.

The Shasta County Sheriff's Office would not comment on the
lawsuit, citing the pending litigation.

The class-action lawsuit includes two other inmates and the San
Francisco-based nonprofit Legal Services for Prisoners with
Children.

Sheriff Tom Bosenko denied the allegations last year in a
statement after the lawsuit was filed.  In its response to the
lawsuit, the county denied it violated Jewett's rights under
federal or state law. It also denied many of the other claims,
including the county had not completed a transition plan to come
into ADA standards. It also pointed to a shower bar in the medical
unit of the jail.

The lawsuit says people with "mobility disabilities face myriad
discriminatory conditions and physical barriers" in the jail. This
excludes them from beneficial programs in the jail, including
religious services.

As part of the lawsuit, the jail was inspected by a consulting
firm.  It found the jail kept a document tracking areas that were
not ADA compliant over a 10-year period. One part of the document
estimated construction costs of $40,000, with over half of that to
fix a concrete ramp connecting the public sidewalk with the public
entrance to the jail.

Another document from the county identified over 100 issues that
needed to be addressed at the jail, but it did not include a
schedule for construction.

Steven Ragland from the law office of Keker, Van Nest & Peters
said the class-action lawsuit is on behalf of all inmates with
disabilities, past and present at the jail.

Taylor Gooch, with the same law firm, said the two aspects of the
lawsuit address the ADA standards in the jail and to cover
Jewett's medical expenses from his time at the Shasta County Jail.

"He had falls and had physical injuries as well (as) 23 hours
being in a cell," said Mr. Gooch.  "That should be reserved for
the most severe, dangerous people."

Maronel Barajas, co-counsel with the Disability Rights Legal
Center, said this case focuses on a population that is common
throughout correctional facilities and jails.

"We believe people with disabilities deserve equal access," Mr.
Barajas said.

Jewett and the other plaintiffs deserve recognition for speaking
up about the conditions in the jail, said Mr. Ragland.

"Really, we have Mr. Jewett to thank for bringing this to our
attention," Mr. Ragland said.

Built in 1984, the jail was designed to house 237 inmates, but the
county increased that population cap to 381.  In 2011, jails
across the state saw an increase in the number of long-term
inmates after realignment (AB 109) sent some inmates that
previously would have gone to state prison into county jails.

Sheriff Bosenko said in a statement after the filing of the
lawsuit that the long-term inmates have added more pressure on the
jail when it comes to disability access.


SILVER BAY: Faces "Dell'Osso" Suit Over Securities Act Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Dell'Osso, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Silver Bay Realty Trust Corp., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00969-JKB (D.M.D., April 7,
2017) seeks damages and to preliminarily and permanently enjoin
Defendants from proceeding with, consummating or closing the
merger of Silver Bay with Tricon Capital Group. Plaintiff also
seeks injunctive and other equitable relief to prevent the
irreparable injury that Company stockholders will continue to
suffer absent judicial intervention.

On February 27, 2017, Silver Bay and Tricon Capital Group, Inc.
announced that they have entered into a definitive agreement
("Merger Agreement") under which Tricon will acquire all of the
outstanding shares of Silver Bay in an all-cash transaction (the
"Proposed Transaction"). If consummated, Silver Bay stockholders
will receive $21.50 in cash for each share of Silver Bay common
stock. The Proposed Transaction has an equity value of
approximately $1.4 billion.

On March 28, 2017, Defendants issued materially incomplete and
misleading disclosures in connection with the Propose Transaction,
says the complaint.

Silver Bay is a Maryland corporation focused on the acquisition,
renovation, leasing, and management of single-family properties in
select markets in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Donald J. Enright, Esq.
   Brian D. Stewart, Esq.
   Levi & Korsinsky LLP
   1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
   Washington, DC 20007
   Tel: (202) 524-4290
   Fax: (202) 333-2121


SILVERITE CONSTRUCTION: April 24 Conference Set in "Whitestone"
---------------------------------------------------------------
A preliminary conference is set for April 24, 2017, in the case
captioned WHITESTONE CONSTRUCTION CORP., on behalf of itself and
all similarly situated Lien Law trust beneficiaries in connection
with the improvement of various lands and premises, as described
herein, Plaintiff, v. SILVERITE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., ZURICH
AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and
ANGELO SILVERI, Defendants, INDEX NO. 700130/2017 (N.Y. Sup.,
County of Queens, January 5, 2017).  The case alleges breach of
contract against Silverite Construction Co., Inc.

Defendant Silverite, as General Contractor, entered into an
agreement with NYCSCA, as Project Owner, (the "PS 314 Prime
Contract") whereby Silverite was to provide work, labor, materials
and services for the construction of the PS 314 Project.
Whitestone, as Subcontractor, entered into Contract No:
12605 (the "PS 314 Contract") with Silverite, as General
Contractor, whereby Whitestone was to furnish and install aluminum
curtainwalls, interior miscellaneous glass/glazing of HM doors and
frames, interior glass partition walls, SS vestibule and stair
walk-off mates, and window guards. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Donald J. Carbone, Esq.
     Maxwell J. Rubin, Esq.
     GOETZ FITZPATRICK LLP
     One Penn Plaza, Suite 3100
     New York, NY 10119
     Phone: (212) 695-8100


SIMONTON BUILDING: Minn. Judge Dismissed "Kiefer" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Richard H Kyle of the Minnesota District Court on April
17, 2017, entered an order granting a motion to dismiss the case
captioned, Kiefer et al v. Simonton Building Products, LLC et al.,
Case No. 0:16-cv-03540 (D. Minn.).  Specifically, the Court
dismissed Counts 1-7 and 10-11 of Plaintiffs' Complaint WITH
PREJUDICE, and Counts 8 and 9 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., said in its March 10, 2017, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in Kiefer et al. v.
Simonton Building Products, LLC et al., a purported class action
filed on October 17, 2016 in the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of,
among other things, the defective design and manufacture of
certain Simonton windows containing two-pane insulating glass
units. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i)
economic and compensatory damages, (ii) punitive or other
exemplary damages, (iii) pre- and post-judgment interest, and (iv)
attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.

On December 23, 2016, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the complaint. A hearing on this motion was held on February 17,
2017, and the District Court has not yet ruled on this motion.

The Company says the damages sought in this action have not yet
been quantified.

Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., is a leading manufacturer of exterior
building products in North America, operating in two reportable
segments: (i) Siding, Fencing, and Stone and (ii) Windows and
Doors.  These two segments produce a comprehensive product line of
vinyl siding, designer accents, cellular PVC trim, vinyl fencing,
vinyl railing, stone veneer, roofing, and vinyl windows and doors
used in both the new construction market and the home repair and
remodeling market in the United States and Canada.


SIRIUS: Royalties Class Action Settlement Awaits Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Cooke, writing for Complete Music Update, reports that
American satellite broadcaster Sirius has asked a judge to ignore
an intervention from various US music industry trade bodies in
relation to its settlement with Flo & Eddie et al over the payment
of royalties on tracks released pre-1972.

As much previously reported, in America sound recordings released
before 1972 are protected by state rather than US-wide federal
copyright law.  That has resulted in all sorts of legal wrangling
over whether or not online and satellite radio services -- which,
unlike American AM/FM radio stations, are obliged to pay artists
and labels royalties under federal law -- are likewise obliged to
pay royalties when they play state-protected pre-1972 tracks.

The debate over such royalties has been rumbling on for years. The
key legal case has been that led by artists Flo & Eddie, who were
in 1960s band The Turtles.  They scored a big win in the
Californian courts, on the back of which both Sirius and Pandora
reached deals with the major record companies on this issue.
Sirius subsequently reached a deal with Flo & Eddie as well. Their
litigation had become a class action, so the deal -- which is
dependent on the outcome of various outstanding appeals and
hearings in various states -- is subject to court approval.

Although that deal only directly affects artists who are members
of the class, various organisations representing American labels
and musicians, and collecting society SoundExchange, have raised
concerns about the wording of some elements of the settlement
agreement.  They fear that Sirius is hoping to use the settlement
to argue for lower royalties overall when the US Copyright Board
next decides what rates the satellite broadcaster should pay the
record industry on post-1972 recordings via its SoundExchange
licence.

Sirius, and many online radio services, rely on a compulsory
licence available under American law to access sound recordings.
That compulsory licence obliges labels to license satellite and
online radio services at rates set by the statutory Copyright
Royalty Board.

Rather than just picking a random royalty rate out of the air, the
CRB -- which is yet to set the royalties that Sirius should pay
between 2018 and 2022 -- hears arguments from both sides as to
what a fair market rate would be.  You know, before it randomly
picks a royalty rate out of the air.  Some fear that the satellite
broadcaster now plans to use its class action deal with Flo &
Eddie et al to argue that the market rate for the record
industry's content is lower than what it currently pays.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, the line that is causing most
concern in the Flo & Eddie settlement reads: "The parties agree
that [the royalty rate] represents the rate that has been
established by negotiations between a willing buyer and willing
seller in a competitive market for pre-1972 sound recordings, and
shall be precedential in all future and/or pending proceedings
(including rate making proceedings and arbitrations) relating to
sound recordings".

Wary about the precedent that agreement could set, the trade
groups and SoundExchange have filed an amicus brief to the judge
considering the class action deal. In it they say: "[It] is clear
from the settlement's face, as well as obvious marketplace facts,
that the proposed royalty rate is well below the market rate for
sound recordings, particularly classic sound recordings that are
among the world's most valuable.  Far from having anything to do
with the settlement's economic terms, this language just gives
Sirius fodder for future rate-setting proceedings -- at the
expense of copyright owners and recording artists".

Sirius has now disputed the claims made in the amicus brief, while
also insisting that the trade groups behind it have no role in the
case and shouldn't be allowed to intervene.  The broadcaster said
the authors of the amicus brief "are not class members and have no
legitimate interest in this matter" and that their attempted
intervention is neither "legitimate, relevant, or helpful" in
helping the judge to decide whether to approve the settlement in
the class action.

Notably, the Sirius filing doesn't say that the satellite
broadcaster won't present this settlement as evidence in the next
CRB rates review, and those behind the amicus brief will likely
feel that proves their point.  It remains to be seen how the judge
overseeing the Flo & Eddie case responds.


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces "Falero" Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Southern
California Pizza Company, LLC and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive.
The case is captioned Elena Cassiano Falero, an individual on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Southern
California Pizza Company, LLC and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive,
Case No. BC657077 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 10, 2017).

Southern California Pizza Company, LLC owns and operates Pizza Hut
and Wing Street restaurants in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
      E-mail: info@maternlawgroup.com


SUNIVA INC: Faces "Barron" Suit Over WARN Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Tracie Barron, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Suniva, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
11083-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., April 6, 2017) seeks to recover damages
in the amount of 60 days' pay and benefits under the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN).

The complaint says Defendant provided Plaintiff and the putative
Class less than 24 hours' notice that their employment was being
terminated.  Plaintiff's employment was terminated effective March
29, 2017, and benefits were canceled effective March 31, 2017.
Plaintiff was not given a severance package upon termination of
her employment, it adds.

Plaintiff was employed as Module Operator.

Suniva is a US manufacturer of high-efficiency crystalline silicon
photovoltaic solar cells and high-power solar modules.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   E. Powell Miller, Esq.
   Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
   The Miller Law Firm, P.C.
   950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300
   Rochester, MI 48307
   Tel: (248) 841-2200
   Fax: (248) 652-2852
   Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
          ssa@millerlawpc.com

        - and -

   Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
   Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
   McCune Wright Arevalo LLP
   555 Lancaster Avenue
   Berwyn, PA 19312
   Tel: (610) 200-0580
   Email: jgs@mccunewright.com
          mds@mccunewright.com


SYNERGIES3 TEC: Faces "Faulk" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Derek Faulk, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Synergies3 Tec Services, LLC, Benton Odom,
Jr. and Eric Atchley, individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00982-N (N.D. Tex., April 7, 2017) seek to recover overtime
compensation, damages, costs and attorneys' fees for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants employed Plaintiff Derek Faulk as a technician.

Defendants contract nationwide with satellite television and
broadband communication service providers for the installation,
maintenance, upgrade and repair of their equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dougas B. Welmaker, Esq.
   Dunham & Jones, P.C.
   1800 Guadalupe Street
   Austin, TX 78701
   Tel: (512) 777-7777
   Fax: (512) 340-4051
   Email: doug@dunhamlaw.com

        - and -

   Scotty Jones, Esq.
   Dunham & Jones, P.C.
   1110 E. Weatherford Street
   Fort Worth, TX 76102
   Tel: (817) 339-1185
   Fax: (817) 810-0050
   Email: sjones@dunhamlaw.com


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Vigil Siblings Asks Court to Revive Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davies at Media Post reports two Chicago siblings are asking
a federal appellate court to revive their class-action lawsuit
accusing Take-Two Interactive Software of violating an Illinois
privacy law by collecting faceprints of video game players.

Vanessa and Ricardo Vigil argue in papers filed that Take-Two's
alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act caused the kind of concrete harm that justifies a lawsuit.

"Take-Two's practices violate both the core object of [the
biometric privacy law] and each of the statute's procedural
requirements, compromising and creating material risk of harm to
the privacy of the Vigils and the putative class members," they
say in a brief filed with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

The battle dates to October 2015, when the Vigils filed suit over
the facial-scanning technology used in the game NBA 2K15. The
Vigils alleged that game used their facial scans -- which were
captured by the platform's camera -- in order to create avatars
that resembled them.

The Vigils claimed in a class-action complaint that Take-Two
violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act -- a 2008
law that requires companies to obtain written releases from people
before collecting biometric data like "face geometry," and
obligates companies to notify people about biometric data
collection and publish a schedule for destroying the information.
Take-Two argued that the case should be dismissed on the grounds
that the Vigils didn't suffer any concrete injury as a result of
any alleged violations of the Illinois law.

U.S. District Court Judge John Koeltl in New York agreed with the
company.

"There is no allegation that Take-Two has disseminated or sold the
plaintiffs' biometric data to third parties, or that Take-Two has
used the plaintiffs' biometric information in any way not
contemplated," Koeltl wrote in a ruling issued earlier this year.
He added that the Vigils agreed to the game's terms and
conditions, and that the game's scanning feature worked as
intended.

The Vigils said they were at an "enhanced risk of harm" in the
future because their faceprints were now in Take-Two's possession.
But Koeltl said that possibility was too speculative to warrant a
lawsuit.

The consumers are now asking the 2nd Circuit to reverse that
decision. Among other arguments, they say that they can proceed
because the Illinois statute confers on residents a "concrete
interest in maintaining privacy over this sensitive biometric
data."

The argument over whether the Vigils allegedly suffered a
"concrete" injury stems from the Supreme Court's 2016 decision in
a separate lawsuit brought by Virginia resident Thomas Robins
against online data aggregator Spokeo. Robins alleged in that
matter that Spokeo violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act
by displaying incorrect information about him.

The Supreme Court said last year Robins could only proceed with
his case if he could prove that any errors resulted in a
"concrete" injury.

Since that ruling came out, judges around the country have
struggled to determine what kind of injury is "concrete." Rulings
have been mixed, but some judges have said that consumers can
still sue companies for allegedly violating laws regarding
robocalling and robotexting.

The Vigils call attention in their new legal papers to those
decisions. "If the receipt of an unsolicited phone call is
invasive enough to constitute a concrete harm, then having one's
sensitive biological data taken without authorization surely is as
well," they argue.

Take-Two is expected to file its response by next month.
Google and Facebook face separate lawsuit accusing them of also
violating the Illinois biometrics privacy law. [GN]


TAMKO BUILDING: Petitions Supreme Court to Take Up Shingles Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Ellison, writing for St. Louis Public Radio, reports that
did Missouri Senate President Pro Tem Ron Richard sponsor a bill
to help a Joplin business avoid a costly lawsuit in exchange for
hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations?
That's the suggestion being made by some lawmakers, and one member
of Mr. Richard's own Senate Republican caucus says the matter
deserves investigation.

"Look, the facts are he received large contributions, he filed
legislation that would dismiss a lawsuit against the people who
made those large contributions," said Sen. Ryan Silvey, a Kansas
City Republican, on KCUR's political podcast Statehouse Blend
Missouri.

Allegations of pay-for-play

The questions about the relationship between Richard and David
Humphreys have been raised most vocally by Rep. Mark Ellebracht, a
Democrat from Liberty.

Last month, Mr. Ellebracht sent an open letter to Richard, noting
that a generous gift to Mr. Richard's campaign came the day after
Richard pre-filed a bill that would significantly change consumer
protection laws governing class-action lawsuits.

"To be blunt, Senator, this appears to be a textbook example of
pay-to-play politics," Mr. Ellebracht wrote.

Mr. Humphreys owns Tamko Building Products, a company based in
Richard's hometown of Joplin.  In a 2014 case claiming the
company's shingles were defective, a Jasper County court denied
the company's motion seeking to send the case to binding
arbitration.  The Missouri Court of Appeals upheld that ruling.
Tamko is now petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the
case.

In December, Mr. Richard pre-filed Senate Bill 5, one of several
tort reform proposals before the General Assembly this session.
Richard's bill would substantially limit damages in merchandising
and product liability cases. Legal experts say it would make class
action lawsuits, like the one pending against Tamko, almost
impossible to bring.

The day after Mr. Richard pre-filed the bill, Humphreys donated
$100,000 to Richard's campaign account. Richard is term-limited
and has not announced a campaign for any other office but can use
leftover campaign funds to build influence by supporting other
candidates.

A lawyer for Humphreys told The Kansas City Star that the pay-to-
play accusations were "false and defamatory." Joe Rebein wrote
that the date of the gift was coincidental, coming just before a
change in campaign finance law that would limit large donations.
He noted that Humphreys made numerous other donations to other
Republicans the same day.

Mr. Richard has declined to comment on the allegations in response
to repeated inquiries.

"Senator Richard has been very, very consistent for the past three
months in saying 'No comment,'" said spokesperson Lauren Hieger.
She added that the bill has numerous parts and that commenting on
any of its details before it reaches its final form would be
premature.

Mr. Hieger also wouldn't comment on whether Richard was standing
by what he told the Associated Press about Mr. Ellebracht's
allegations: "Tell him to kiss my ass."

For his part, Mr. Ellebracht is unapologetic.  Asked on Statehouse
Blend Missouri whether he was "suggesting that the Senate
President Pro Tem has been bought for campaign contributions," Mr.
Ellebracht responded, "I'm not suggesting it, I'm saying it."

"He's a crook," Mr. Ellebracht said.

GOP Senator: Allegations 'worthy of investigation'

Mr. Silvey has made no secret of his differences with Republican
leadership in the Senate.  He has publicly said previous
disagreements -- including his vote against "right to work"
legislation supported by leadership -- cost him the powerful
chairmanship of the Senate appropriations committee.

But his comments on Statehouse Blend were an unusual critique of
his own party leader's conduct.

"Now, it's not for me to determine motive.  It's not for me to
determine if that was a quid pro quo.  If somebody wanted to look
into it, I don't think anybody would be surprised," Mr. Silvey
said.

Mr. Silvey also suggested state and federal law enforcement
agencies might have an interest.

"I'm not willing to go so far as to say that Senator Richard
violated the law, but I'm also not a law enforcement agency," Mr.
Silvey said.  "I would leave that up to them.

Mr. Silvey also couched Richard's sponsorship of a bill that would
seem to favor Humphreys' agenda in the broader context of
Jefferson City politics.

"I do think there's been a pattern of behavior with this
leadership team that certainly would lead you to conclude that
people who have made significant contributions got their
legislation put to the front of the line," Mr. Silvey said.

Mr. Silvey criticized the reassignment of "approximately 60 bills"
to different committees than they were sent to last session, which
he characterized as an attempt by leadership to ensure the desired
outcome of committee process.

"On this scale it's pretty unusual," Mr. Silvey said.  "Sixty
bills being referred to different committees? If you would look at
the subject matter of those bills and who was on which side and
how much money has been contributed, it certainly raises
questions. What conclusion you draw is your own."

The Senate Government Reform Committee held hearings and
recommended passage of Senate Bill 5, and leaders have placed it
on the Senate's "informal calendar."  It is not currently slated
for consideration but could be brought up at any time.


TCP INT'L: Settles Securities Class Action for $7.2 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kat Sieniuc, writing for Law360, reports that investors in
lighting manufacturer TCP International Holdings told an Ohio
federal judge on April 12 they've reached a $7.2 million class
action settlement resolving a two-year-long securities dispute
over allegations the company made false statements about certain
products it sent to market as meeting Energy Star standards, among
other Securities Act violations.

In a motion asking the court to grant preliminary approval of the
agreement, the investor plaintiffs called the multimillion-dollar
cash settlement with TCP "an excellent result" that's "in the best
interests of the class," which includes all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired TCP common stock between June
2014 and February 2015.

"Lead plaintiff [the City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement
System] believes that the claims asserted in the litigation have
merit and that the evidence developed to date supports its claims.
However, lead plaintiff and its counsel recognize and acknowledge
the expense and length of continued proceedings necessary to
prosecute the litigation against defendants through trial and
through appeals," the investors said, adding that they "also have
taken into account the uncertain outcome and the risk of any
litigation, especially in complex actions such as this litigation,
as well as the difficulties and delays inherent in such
litigation."

The investors, led by the Warren Police and Fire Retirement
System, said the settlement with TCP, which describes itself on
its website as a global manufacturer and distributor of energy-
efficient lighting technologies, was possible only after nearly
two years of "hard-fought" litigation, which alleged the lighting
company violated federal securities laws with false and misleading
statements about the regulatory certification process for its
products, including that the company bypassed the Energy Star
certification process by putting noncompliant products on the
market because of a corporate desire to increase production, lower
costs and improve margins.

The Energy Star program grants certification to consumer products
and buildings that comply with certain voluntary standards for
energy efficiency.

The original March 2015 complaint also accused TCP's CEO of
consistently overriding and disregarding internal company policies
having to do with matters spanning capital expenditures, customer
credit and operating expenditure approvals, new product
development processes, and product design and safety
certification, as well as the company's code of ethics for
principal executive and senior financial officers.

The other defendants in the suit include individuals Brian Catlett
and Ellis Yan, as well as underwriter defendants Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., Piper Jaffray & Co., Canaccord Genuity Inc., and
Cowen and Company, LLC.

They, along with TCP, have denied and continue to deny liability
under the Securities Exchange Act or Securities Act for any
alleged misstatements or omissions made about their product
practices, and say they've agreed to the deal merely to eliminate
the burden and expense of future litigation.

"Defendants also have denied, and continue to deny, among other
allegations, the allegations that lead plaintiff or the class has
suffered any damage, or that lead plaintiff or the class was
harmed by the conduct alleged in the litigation or that could have
been alleged as part of the litigation," the order said.

The parties were not able to be immediately reached for comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Ellen Gusikoff Stewart --
elleng@rgrdlaw.com -- Jack Reise -- JReise@rgrdlaw.com -- and
Sabrina E. Tirabassi -- stirabassi@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jack Landskroner of Landskroner Grieco
Merriman LLC, and Thomas C. Michaud -- tmichaud@vmtlaw.com -- of
Vanoverbeke Michaud & Timmony PC.

The defendants are represented by Charles F. Smith --
charles.smith@skadden.com -- Marcella L. Lape --
marcella.lape@skadden.com -- and Gail E. Lee --
gail.lee@skadden.com -- of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP,
Judy L. Woods -- jwoods@beneschlaw.com -- of Benesch Friedlander
Coplan & Aronoff, and Adam S. Hakki -- ahakki@shearman.com -- and
Daniel C. Lewis -- daniel.lewis@shearman.com -- of Shearman &
Sterling LLP.

The case is Sohal v. Yan et al., case number 1:15-cv-00393, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.


TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Settles Age Discrimination Suit for $12MM
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Iandolo at Legal Newsline reports  the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced March 31 that Texas
Roadhouse will pay USD12 million after allegations of
discriminating against a class of job applicants due to their age.

"I am pleased to see this matter come to a mutually agreed-upon
resolution," said EEOC acting chair Victoria A. Lipnic. "As we
mark the 50th anniversary of the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act (ADEA) this year, it is as important as ever to recognize the
very real consequences of age discrimination and the need for job
opportunities for older workers."

According to EEOC, Texas Roadhouse, a national restaurant chain,
denied certain front-of-the-house positions to applicants older
than 40, including server, host, server assistant and bartender
roles. In addition to providing monetary relief to affected
applicants and paying civil penalties, Texas Roadhouse is barred
from future age-based discrimination.

"During this landmark year for the ADEA, everyone should recognize
how far we still have to go in eliminating age discrimination in
the workplace," said Jeffrey Burstein, regional attorney for the
New York District Office.

"Identifying and resolving age discrimination in employment is
critical for older Americans," said EEOC New York District
director Kevin Berry. "The ability to find a new job should not be
impeded because an employer considers someone the wrong age." [GN]


TITAN SOLAR: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Solicitation Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that an individual has filed a class-action lawsuit against Titan
Solar Power and Does 1 through 10, online marketing company,
citing alleged violation of telephone harassment statutes.

Jonathan Payton filed a complaint on behalf of all others
similarly situated on April 5, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California against the defendants alleging
that they called the plaintiff to offer their services.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that, in
December 2016, he suffered damages from being charged for
receiving unwanted calls.  The plaintiff holds Titan Solar Power
and Does 1 through 10 responsible because the defendants allegedly
kept on calling the plaintiff despite being registered to the
National Do Not Call Registry.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks $500 in statutory
damages, $1,500 in treble damages, and any other relief as this
court deems just.  He is represented by Todd M. Friedman, Adrian
R. Bacon and Meghan E. Geoge of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman,
P.C. in Woodland Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 2:17-cv-02619-RGK-MRW


TRADER JOE'S: Plaintiff Appeals Court Not to Dismiss Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeanine Stewart at Under Currents reports consumers in a class
action law suit against US retailer Trader Joe's for allegedly
under filling tuna cans are urging a California judge not to toss
out their case.

The request, filed in district court on April 10, comes in
response to Trader Joe's motion to dismiss the case, filed on
March 21.

Trader Joe's alleges in court documents, "While dressed as a false
advertising action, fatally absent from the First Amended Class
Action Complaint are the hallmarks of such. Plaintiffs identify no
false or misleading representation made by Trader Joe's (this is
because Trader Joe's has made none)".

In response, lawyers representing consumers in the class action
said in their counter-filing, "This is untrue", alleging Trader
Joe's misrepresented the amount of tuna in their cans as being
five ounces.

Consumers in New York and California say they purchased the tuna
after reading the labels said they contained five ounces, and that
they would not have purchased it if they had known the cans were
under filled and underweight.

They also argue that "conspicuously absent from defendants' 23-
page memorandum of law is any discussion of Hendricks v.
StarKist," a case in which Starkist was accused of consistently
under filling certain canned tuna products, or the Safeway tuna
cases.

Each of these cases is a rule 23 consumer class action based on
allegations that the defendants under filled their five-ounce
canned tuna, and these cases were allowed to move into discovery -
- a period used to obtain evidence before trial, the plaintiffs'
lawyers said. [GN]


TRIBE APP: Faces "Rattner" Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER M. RATTNER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. TRIBE APP, INC., a foreign
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-21344-UU (S.D. Fla.,
April 10, 2017), alleges that Defendant engages in deceptive and
intrusive telemarketing. Specifically, Defendant tricks users of
its mobile application into granting access to their contacts
lists. Once in possession of users' contact numbers, Defendant,
using an automatic telephone dialing system, and without any
notice or warning to its users, transmits generic telemarketing
text messages to the users' contacts from spoofed1 telephone
numbers.

The case alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Defendant is a mobile application developer and operator. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: (305) 479-2299
     Fax: (786) 623-0915
     E-mail: efilings@sflinjuryattorneys.com


UBS GROUP: Appeal From Dismissal of Madoff-Related Claim Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the appeal filed by the
Plaintiff in one of the dismissed Madoff-related claims remains
pending in New York.

In relation to the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC
(BMIS) investment fraud, UBS AG, UBS (Luxembourg) S.A. and certain
other UBS subsidiaries have been subject to inquiries by a number
of regulators, including the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory
Authority (FINMA) and the Luxembourg Commission de Surveillance du
Secteur Financier (CSSF). Those inquiries concerned two third-
party funds established under Luxembourg law, substantially all
assets of which were with BMIS, as well as certain funds
established in offshore jurisdictions with either direct or
indirect exposure to BMIS. These funds now face severe losses, and
the Luxembourg funds are in liquidation. The last reported net
asset value of the two Luxembourg funds before revelation of the
Madoff scheme was approximately USD 1.7 billion in the aggregate
although that figure likely includes fictitious profit reported by
BMIS. The documentation establishing both funds identifies UBS
entities in various roles, including custodian, administrator,
manager, distributor and promoter, and indicates that UBS
employees serve as board members. UBS (Luxembourg) S.A. and
certain other UBS subsidiaries are responding to inquiries by
Luxembourg investigating authorities, without, however, being
named as parties in those investigations.

In 2009 and 2010, the liquidators of the two Luxembourg funds
filed claims on behalf of the funds against UBS entities, non-UBS
entities and certain individuals, including current and former UBS
employees. The amounts claimed are approximately EUR 890 million
and EUR 305 million, respectively. The liquidators have filed
supplementary claims for amounts that the funds may possibly be
held liable to pay the BMIS Trustee. These amounts claimed by the
liquidator are approximately EUR 564 million and EUR 370 million,
respectively.

In addition, a large number of alleged beneficiaries have filed
claims against UBS entities (and non-UBS entities) for purported
losses relating to the Madoff scheme. The majority of these cases
are pending in Luxembourg, where appeals were filed by the
claimants against the 2010 decisions of the court in which the
claims in a number of test cases were held to be inadmissible. In
2014, the Luxembourg Court of Appeal dismissed one test case
appeal in its entirety, which decision was appealed by the
investor.

In 2015, the Luxembourg Supreme Court found in favor of UBS and
dismissed the investor's appeal. In June 2016, the Luxembourg
Court of Appeal dismissed the remaining test cases in their
entirety. In the US, the BMIS Trustee filed claims in 2010 against
UBS entities, among others, in relation to the two Luxembourg
funds and one of the offshore funds. The total amount claimed
against all defendants in these actions was not less than USD 2
billion. Following a motion by UBS, in 2011, the SDNY dismissed
all of the BMIS Trustee's claims other than claims for recovery of
fraudulent conveyances and preference payments that were allegedly
transferred to UBS on the ground that the BMIS Trustee lacks
standing to bring such claims. In 2013, the Second Circuit
affirmed the District Court's decision and, in 2014, the US
Supreme Court denied the BMIS Trustee's petition seeking review of
the Second Circuit ruling.

In November 2016, the bankruptcy court issued an opinion
dismissing the remaining claims for recovery of subsequent
transfers of fraudulent conveyances and preference payments on the
ground that the US Bankruptcy Code does not apply to transfers
that occurred outside the US. The BMIS Trustee has indicated that
he will appeal.

In 2014, several claims, including a purported class action, were
filed in the US by BMIS customers against UBS entities, asserting
claims similar to the ones made by the BMIS Trustee, seeking
unspecified damages. One claim was voluntarily withdrawn by the
plaintiff. In 2015, following a motion by UBS, the SDNY dismissed
the two remaining claims on the basis that the New York courts did
not have jurisdiction to hear the claims against the UBS entities.
The plaintiff in one of those claims has appealed the dismissal.

In Germany, certain clients of UBS are exposed to Madoff-managed
positions through third-party funds and funds administered by UBS
entities in Germany. A small number of claims have been filed with
respect to such funds. In 2015, a court of appeal ordered UBS to
pay EUR 49 million, plus interest of approximately EUR 15.3
million.

UBS Group AG is incorporated and domiciled in Switzerland.  UBS
Group is a holding company and UBS AG is a bank.  UBS is a global
financial services firm that houses the world's largest wealth
manager, the number one bank in Switzerland, a specialized and
successful investment bank and one of the world's largest asset
managers.


UBS GROUP: Appeal From Dismissal of ERISA Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their lawsuit
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
remains pending, according to UBS Group AG and UBS AG's March 10,
2017, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

A putative class action has been filed in federal court in New
York against UBS and other banks on behalf of participants,
beneficiaries, and named fiduciaries of plans qualified under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) for whom a
defendant bank provided foreign currency exchange transactional
services, exercised discretionary authority or discretionary
control over management of such ERISA plan, or authorized or
permitted the execution of any foreign currency exchange
transactional services involving such plan's assets. The complaint
asserts claims under ERISA. The parties filed a stipulation to
dismiss the case with prejudice. The plaintiffs have appealed the
dismissal.

UBS Group AG is incorporated and domiciled in Switzerland.  UBS
Group is a holding company and UBS AG is a bank.  UBS is a global
financial services firm that houses the world's largest wealth
manager, the number one bank in Switzerland, a specialized and
successful investment bank and one of the world's largest asset
managers.


UBS GROUP: Awaits Approval of Settlement in USD LIBOR Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that they await approval of
their agreement to settle with representatives of a class of
bondholders to settle their USD LIBOR class action.

A number of putative class actions and other actions are pending
in the federal courts in New York against UBS and numerous other
banks on behalf of parties who transacted in certain interest rate
benchmark-based derivatives. Also pending in the US and in other
jurisdictions are actions asserting losses related to various
products whose interest rates were linked to LIBOR and other
benchmarks, including adjustable rate mortgages, preferred and
debt securities, bonds pledged as collateral, loans, depository
accounts, investments and other interest-bearing instruments. All
of the complaints allege manipulation, through various means, of
various benchmark interest rates, including USD LIBOR, Euroyen
TIBOR, Yen LIBOR, EURIBOR, CHF LIBOR, GBP LIBOR, USD ISDAFIX rates
and other benchmark rates, and seek unspecified compensatory and
other damages under varying legal theories.

In 2013, the US district court in the USD LIBOR action dismissed
the federal antitrust and racketeering claims of certain USD LIBOR
plaintiffs and a portion of their claims brought under the CEA and
state common law. Certain plaintiffs appealed the decision to the
Second Circuit, which, in May 2016, vacated the district court's
ruling finding no antitrust injury and remanded the case back to
the district court for a further determination on whether
plaintiffs have antitrust standing. In December 2016, the district
court again dismissed plaintiffs' antitrust claims, this time for
lack of personal jurisdiction over UBS and other foreign banks.

In 2014, the court in one of the Euroyen TIBOR lawsuits dismissed
certain of the plaintiff's claims, including federal antitrust
claims. In 2015, the same court dismissed plaintiff's federal
racketeering claims and affirmed its previous dismissal of
plaintiff's antitrust claims. UBS and other defendants in other
lawsuits including those related to EURIBOR, CHF LIBOR, GBP LIBOR
and SIBOR have filed motions to dismiss.

UBS has entered into an agreement with representatives of a class
of bondholders to settle their USD LIBOR class action. The
agreement is subject to court approval.

UBS Group AG is incorporated and domiciled in Switzerland.  UBS
Group is a holding company and UBS AG is a bank.  UBS is a global
financial services firm that houses the world's largest wealth
manager, the number one bank in Switzerland, a specialized and
successful investment bank and one of the world's largest asset
managers.


UBS GROUP: Bids to Nix Foreign Currency Purchasers Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss a lawsuit brought on behalf of persons and
businesses, who directly purchased foreign currency from the
Defendants are pending, UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form
20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
10, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In 2015, a putative class action was filed in federal court
against UBS and numerous other banks on behalf of a putative class
of persons and businesses in the US who directly purchased foreign
currency from the defendants and their co-conspirators for their
own end use. That action has been transferred to federal court in
New York. Motions to dismiss are pending.

UBS Group AG is incorporated and domiciled in Switzerland.  UBS
Group is a holding company and UBS AG is a bank.  UBS is a global
financial services firm that houses the world's largest wealth
manager, the number one bank in Switzerland, a specialized and
successful investment bank and one of the world's largest asset
managers.


UBS GROUP: To Seek Dismissal of FX Indirect Purchasers Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that motions to dismiss a
putative class action lawsuit initiated on behalf of those who had
indirectly purchased FX instruments will be filed.

In 2016, a putative class action was filed in federal court in New
York against UBS and numerous other banks on behalf of a putative
class of persons and entities who had indirectly purchased FX
instruments from a defendant or co-conspirator in the US. The
complaint asserts claims under federal and state antitrust laws.
Motions to dismiss will be filed.

UBS Group AG is incorporated and domiciled in Switzerland.  UBS
Group is a holding company and UBS AG is a bank.  UBS is a global
financial services firm that houses the world's largest wealth
manager, the number one bank in Switzerland, a specialized and
successful investment bank and one of the world's largest asset
managers.


UBS GROUP: Bid to Dismiss 2014 Puerto Rico Suit Denied in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied
in part in the class action lawsuit commenced in Puerto Rico in
2014, according to UBS Group AG and UBS AG's March 10, 2017, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Declines since August 2013 in the market prices of Puerto Rico
municipal bonds and of closed-end funds (the funds) that are sole-
managed and co-managed by UBS Trust Company of Puerto Rico and
distributed by UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico
(UBS PR) have led to multiple regulatory inquiries, as well as
customer complaints and arbitrations with aggregate claimed
damages of approximately USD 2.0 billion, of which claims with
aggregate claimed damages of approximately USD 861 million have
been resolved through settlements, arbitration or withdrawal of
the claim. The claims are filed by clients in Puerto Rico who own
the funds or Puerto Rico municipal bonds and / or who used their
UBS account assets as collateral for UBS non-purpose loans;
customer complaint and arbitration allegations include fraud,
misrepresentation and unsuitability of the funds and of the loans.

In 2014, a federal class action complaint was filed against
various UBS entities, certain members of UBS PR senior management,
and the co-manager of certain of the funds seeking damages for
investor losses in the funds during the period from May 2008
through May 2014. Defendants had moved to dismiss that complaint,
and in December 2016, defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in
part and denied in part.

UBS Group AG is incorporated and domiciled in Switzerland.  UBS
Group is a holding company and UBS AG is a bank.  UBS is a global
financial services firm that houses the world's largest wealth
manager, the number one bank in Switzerland, a specialized and
successful investment bank and one of the world's largest asset
managers.


UBS GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Over Precious Metals Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UBS's motion to dismiss the putative class action lawsuit relating
to platinum and palladium remains pending, UBS Group AG and UBS AG
said in its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 10, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2016.

In 2015, UBS was added to putative class actions pending against
other banks in federal court in New York and other jurisdictions
on behalf of putative classes of persons who had bought or sold
physical precious metals and various precious metal products and
derivatives. The complaints in these lawsuits assert claims under
the antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act, and other
claims. In October 2016, the court in New York granted UBS's
motions to dismiss the putative class actions relating to gold and
silver. Plaintiffs in those cases are seeking to amend their
complaints to add new allegations about UBS. UBS's motion to
dismiss the putative class action relating to platinum and
palladium remains pending.

UBS Group AG is incorporated and domiciled in Switzerland.  UBS
Group is a holding company and UBS AG is a bank.  UBS is a global
financial services firm that houses the world's largest wealth
manager, the number one bank in Switzerland, a specialized and
successful investment bank and one of the world's largest asset
managers.


UBS GROUP: Opposes Bid to Appeal Class Certification Denial
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the consolidated class action lawsuit arising
from UBS's sale of closed-end funds in 2008 and 2009 have filed an
opposition to the Plaintiffs' petition to bring an interlocutory
appeal challenging the denial of their motion for class
certification, UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in its Form 20-F filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In 2013, an SEC Administrative Law Judge dismissed a case brought
by the SEC against two UBS executives, finding no violations. The
charges had stemmed from the SEC's investigation of UBS's sale of
closed-end funds in 2008 and 2009, which UBS settled in 2012.
Beginning in 2012, two federal class action complaints, which were
subsequently consolidated, were filed against various UBS
entities, certain of the funds, and certain members of UBS PR
senior management, seeking damages for investor losses in the
funds during the period from January 2008 through May 2012 based
on allegations similar to those in the SEC action.

In September 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. In October 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition with
the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit seeking permission
to bring an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of their
motion for class certification. Defendants have filed an
opposition to plaintiffs' petition.

UBS Group AG is incorporated and domiciled in Switzerland.  UBS
Group is a holding company and UBS AG is a bank.  UBS is a global
financial services firm that houses the world's largest wealth
manager, the number one bank in Switzerland, a specialized and
successful investment bank and one of the world's largest asset
managers.


UBS GROUP: Parties Await Final Approval of $141-Mil. Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties are awaiting final court approval of the $141 million
settlement in the consolidated lawsuit brought on behalf of
persons, who engaged in foreign currency transactions, UBS Group
AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

Putative class actions have been filed since November 2013 in US
federal courts and in other jurisdictions against UBS and other
banks on behalf of putative classes of persons who engaged in
foreign currency transactions with any of the defendant banks.
They allege collusion by the defendants and assert claims under
the antitrust laws and for unjust enrichment. In 2015, additional
putative class actions were filed in federal court in New York
against UBS and other banks on behalf of a putative class of
persons who entered into or held any foreign exchange futures
contracts and options on foreign exchange futures contracts since
1 January 2003. The complaints assert claims under the Commodity
Exchange Act (CEA) and the US antitrust laws.

In 2015, a consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of both
putative classes of persons covered by the US federal court class
actions. UBS has entered into a settlement agreement that would
resolve all of these US federal court class actions.

The agreement, which has been preliminarily approved by the court
and is subject to final court approval, requires, among other
things, that UBS pay an aggregate of USD 141 million and provide
cooperation to the settlement classes.

UBS Group AG is incorporated and domiciled in Switzerland.  UBS
Group is a holding company and UBS AG is a bank.  UBS is a global
financial services firm that houses the world's largest wealth
manager, the number one bank in Switzerland, a specialized and
successful investment bank and one of the world's largest asset
managers.


UBS GROUP: Suit Alleging Manipulation of Government Bonds Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UBS Group AG and UBS AG disclosed in their Form 20-F filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the consolidated lawsuit
alleging that the Defendants manipulated prices of U.S. Treasury
securities remains pending in New York.

Putative class actions have been filed in US federal courts
against UBS and other banks on behalf of persons who participated
in markets for US Treasury securities since 2007. The complaints
generally allege that the banks colluded with respect to, and
manipulated prices of, US Treasury securities sold at auction.
They assert claims under the antitrust laws and the Commodity
Exchange Act (CEA) and for unjust enrichment. The cases have been
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York. Following filing of these complaints, UBS and
reportedly other banks are responding to investigations and
requests for information from various authorities regarding US
Treasury securities and other government bond trading practices.
As a result of its review to date, UBS has taken appropriate
action.

UBS Group AG is incorporated and domiciled in Switzerland.  UBS
Group is a holding company and UBS AG is a bank.  UBS is a global
financial services firm that houses the world's largest wealth
manager, the number one bank in Switzerland, a specialized and
successful investment bank and one of the world's largest asset
managers.


UBS GROUP: Suit Over ISDAFIX Rates Manipulation Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class action lawsuit alleging conspiracy to
manipulate ISDAFIX rates remains pending, UBS Group AG and UBS AG
said in their Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 10, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2016.

Since September 2014, putative class actions have been filed in
federal court in New York and New Jersey against UBS and other
financial institutions, among others, on behalf of parties who
entered into interest rate derivative transactions linked to
ISDAFIX. The complaints, which have since been consolidated into
an amended complaint, allege that the defendants conspired to
manipulate ISDAFIX rates from 1 January 2006 through January 2014,
in violation of US antitrust laws and certain state laws, and seek
unspecified compensatory damages, including treble damages. In
March 2016, the court in the ISDAFIX action denied in substantial
part defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs have
stated Sherman Act, breach-of-contract and unjust-enrichment
claims against defendants, including UBS AG.

UBS Group AG is incorporated and domiciled in Switzerland.  UBS
Group is a holding company and UBS AG is a bank.  UBS is a global
financial services firm that houses the world's largest wealth
manager, the number one bank in Switzerland, a specialized and
successful investment bank and one of the world's largest asset
managers.


UBS GROUP: 2015 Puerto Rico Suit Stayed Pending Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
The Puerto Rico Supreme Court has stayed a class action lawsuit
filed in 2015 pending its review of the Defendants' appeal from
that ruling, UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in its Form 20-F filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Declines since August 2013 in the market prices of Puerto Rico
municipal bonds and of closed-end funds (the funds) that are sole-
managed and co-managed by UBS Trust Company of Puerto Rico and
distributed by UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico
(UBS PR) have led to multiple regulatory inquiries, as well as
customer complaints and arbitrations with aggregate claimed
damages of approximately USD 2.0 billion, of which claims with
aggregate claimed damages of approximately USD 861 million have
been resolved through settlements, arbitration or withdrawal of
the claim. The claims are filed by clients in Puerto Rico who own
the funds or Puerto Rico municipal bonds and / or who used their
UBS account assets as collateral for UBS non-purpose loans;
customer complaint and arbitration allegations include fraud,
misrepresentation and unsuitability of the funds and of the loans.

In 2015, a class action was filed in Puerto Rico state court
against UBS PR seeking equitable relief in the form of a stay of
any effort by UBS PR to collect on non-purpose loans it acquired
from UBS Bank USA in December 2013 based on plaintiffs' allegation
that the loans are not valid. The trial court denied defendants'
motion to dismiss the action based on a forum selection clause in
the loan agreements; the Puerto Rico Supreme Court has stayed the
action pending its review of defendants' appeal from that ruling.

UBS Group AG is incorporated and domiciled in Switzerland.  UBS
Group is a holding company and UBS AG is a bank.  UBS is a global
financial services firm that houses the world's largest wealth
manager, the number one bank in Switzerland, a specialized and
successful investment bank and one of the world's largest asset
managers.


UNITED AIRLINES: Could Face Possible Suit for Ill-treatment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Irina Ivanova at CBS News reports United Airlines (UAL) will
likely face a lawsuit from David Dao, the doctor who was violently
dragged off an overbooked flight on Sunday, Dao's attorneys said
in a wide-ranging press conference in Chicago on April 12.

"Will there be a lawsuit? Probably," said Thomas Demetrio, one of
the two aviation lawyers representing Dao. He hinted there could
be multiple defendants, saying "just because United is
responsible, doesn't mean the city of Chicago isn't responsible."
Video of Dao's violent removal went viral, sparking widespread
criticism of the airline and its CEO's apparently tone-
deaf attempts to explain himself.

Demetrio said that the experience of being dragged off the plane
was more traumatizing for Dao than fleeing Vietnam in 1975. He
said his client suffered a severe concussion and a broken nose,
and lost two front teeth. Dao spent several days in the hospital
after the April 9 incident, according to his lawyers.

The legal team offered few details on the timing or details of the
likely suit, noting that it would likely come "much sooner" than
the legal window of two years after an incident.

Demetrios played down the possibility of a class-action suit,
saying he believes what happened to Dao was exceptional. "Rudeness
and bullying of customers has gone the next step now to injury,"
he said.

Demetrio also said that he hadn't heard from the company's CEO,
but United countered that claim in a statement shortly after the
press conference.

In the statement, United apologized to Dao and detailed changes it
was making, including no longer using law enforcement officers to
take passengers off a flight and reviewing policies and training
programs.

"We continue to express our sincerest apology to Dr. Dao. We
cannot stress enough that we remain steadfast in our commitment to
make this right," the statement said, in part. "This horrible
situation has provided a harsh learning experience from which we
will take immediate, concrete action. We have committed to our
customers and our employees that we are going to fix what's broken
so this never happens again."

"United CEO Oscar Munoz and the company called Dr. Dao on numerous
occasions to express our heartfelt and deepest apologies," the
statement concluded.

Dao, a 69-year-old doctor, is the father of five children, his
lawyer said. One of them, Crystal Dao Pepper, gave a brief
statement at the press conference in which she thanked the
audience for its support.

Read on for a play-by-play of how the conference unfolded April 12
morning (times are Eastern).

It gets political

11:55 -- Demetrio indicates that President Donald Trump's bent
toward deregulation is the wrong way to go, and says he supports
pending legislation from Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois) to
address airline overbooking. "The principal needs to take charge
here of the student," Demetrio says.

11:52 -- Dao's team has asked for the names of the officers who
took the doctor off the plane, Demetrio says. He says he doesn't
know their names or the unions they belong to.

11:46 -- Demetrio declines to say where Dao is, saying he's in "a
secure location." He reiterates the family's request for privacy.
"Just leave this guy alone."

Scant lawsuit details

11:44 -- Dao's legal team has two years to file a lawsuit,
Demetrio says, but promises that the process won't take that long.
He doesn't specify a time, and adds that it will be in state
court.
11:42 -- United Airlines has not reached out to Dao's legal team,
Demetrio says. "I have no quarrel with that."

"I'm not looking for a telephone conversation with Mr. Munoz," he
says, referring to United CEO Oscar Munoz. He adds that he would
rather Munoz "change the culture" at the company. "His public
apology to the family we accept, with gratitute."

11:36 -- There probably won't be a class-action suit, Demetrio
tells the audience. "Class-action lawsuits are a different breed
and I don't believe this will be" one, he says. Nonetheless, he
references what he calls airlines' habitual bad treatment of
customers.

"I hope he becomes a poster child," he says, about Dao. "Someone
ought to."

"Staged" apology

11:33 -- Demetrio is not impressed with  Munoz's apology. "I
thought it was staged," he says, in response to an audience
question.

Suspect refunds?

11:31 -- Demetrio implies that United's move to refund passenger
fares on Dao's flight is suspect.

"One wonders why they would do that," he says. "But it's not going
to keep these people quiet about what they observed." He added
that the legal team had heard from other passengers on the flight
who witnessed the incident and who, according to him, were
disturbed by it.

Who's responsible?

11:25 -- "There is a culture of rudeness on airlines," Demetrio
says, adding that Sunday's incident "went beyond rudeness."
"Rudeness and bullying of customers has gone the next step now to
injury."

11:23 -- "Just because United is responsible, doesn't mean the
city of Chicago isn't responsible," Demetrio says, appearing to
foreshadow a lawsuit.

"Stormtroopers"

11:19 -- Demetrio calls the officers who dragged the doctor off
the flight "stormtroopers."

According to Demetrio, Dao, who left Vietnam in 1975, was more
traumatized by his forceable removal from the flight than fleeing
his country at the height of the Vietnam War. "He said that being
dragged down the aisle was more horrifying and harrowing than what
he experienced in leaving Vietnam," Demetrio says, relaying a
conversation with his client.

11:16 -- Dao was discharged from the hospital late Wednesday
night, Demetrio says. He says Dao had "a serious broken nose,
injury to the sinuses" and lost two front teeth, plus a "serious
concussion."

"He's shaken," Demetrio adds.

11:15 -- Demetrio downplays the role of race in the incident. "I
think what happened to Dr. Dao could have happened to anyone" he
says. He references an email whose sender called Dao "a modern-day
Asian Rosa Parks," a heroine of the U.S. civil rights struggle in
the 1960s, who refused to surrender her bus seat to a white
passenger. But he disagrees with that characterization of Dao.

11:14 -- Dao's daughter, Crystal Dao Pepper, gives a brief
statement. "What happened to my dad should never happen to any
human being, regardless of circumstance," she says, and thanks the
audience for their support.

"Treated like cattle"

11:12 --  "We're going to be vocal about the whole subject of what
we, as a society, say passengers are entitled to," Demetrio says.
"Are we going to continue to be treated like cattle?"

11:09 -- "Will there be a lawsuit? Probably," Demetrio says. He
notes there is a court hearing on the incident scheduled for
Monday.

Demetrio: "Airlines have bullied us"

11:06 -- "For a long time, airlines, United in particular, have
bullied us," Demetrio says. "They have treated us less than maybe
we deserve. I've concluded that based upon hundreds of tales of
woe, of mistreatment, by United, is that, here's what we want as a
society. We want fairness in how people treat us; we want respect
and we want dignity."

11:03 -- Thomas Demetrio opens the conference. Crystal Dao Pepper,
one of Dao's five children, will speak later, he says.

Lawyers for the Kentucky doctor who was dragged off an overbooked
United Airlines flight are speaking out publicly for the first
time, a day after filing court papers that likely presage a
lawsuit.

Thomas Demetrio -- TAD@CorboyDemetrio.com -- of Corboy and
Demetrio  and Stephen Golan -- sgolan@gctlaw.com -- of Golan
Christie Taglia, aviation lawyers who are representing David Dao,
are set to hold a press conference at Chicago's Union League Club
at 10 a.m. local time. Crystal Dao, one of Dao's five children, is
also set to speak.

On April 12, Dao's lawyers filed an emergency request with an
Illinois state court to require United to preserve video
recordings and other evidence related to the April 9 incident, in
which Dao was forcefully dragged away from his seat on the
overbooked flight to make room for crew members. The flight, which
was supposed to depart from Chicago's O'Hare Airport, had been
bound for Louisville, Kentucky.

Citing the risk of "serious prejudice" to Dao, the filing asks
that the airline and the City of Chicago, which runs the airport,
to preserve surveillance videos, cockpit voice recordings,
passenger and crew lists, and other materials related to United
Flight 3411.

The filing with the Cook County Circuit Court likely presages an
eventual lawsuit against United, and possibly the City of Chicago,
for the incident.

In a video posted online, a United Airlines passenger is shown
with a bloody face after he was forced off an overbooked flight on
Sun., April 9, 2017, by officers at Chicago O'Hare airport.
Dao's ordeal reached a global audience when a video of him being
dragged off the flight went viral.

United CEO Oscar Munoz on April 12 said the company would no
longer use law enforcement officers to remove passengers from
overbooked flights.

The officer who dragged Dao away, and two other security officers,
have since been placed on leave ; the aviation department said the
officer's actions "are obviously not condoned."

The backlash from the incident resonated globally, with social
media users in the United States, China and Vietnam calling for
boycotts of the No. 3 U.S. carrier by passenger traffic and an end
to the practice of overbooking flights.

Delta Air Lines (DAL) CEO Ed Bastian told Reuters that overbooking
was "a valid business practice" and did not require additional
oversight by the government.

"It's not a question, in my opinion, as to whether you overbook,"
Bastian said during an April 12 earnings call. "It's how you
manage an overbook situation."

Footage from the incident shows Dao, bloodied and disheveled,
returning to the cabin and repeating: "Just kill me. Kill me," and
"I have to go home." [GN]


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Teamsters Funds Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, David Heed v. Universal Health Services Inc
et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-09499 (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Philip S
Gutierrez on April 17, 2017, granted the motion of Teamsters Local
456 Pension Fund and Teamsters Local 456 Annuity Fund for
appointment as lead plaintiff.  The court also approved their
selection of lead counsel.

A competing request for appointment as Lead Plaintiff was filed by
Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada.  Labourers'
Pension Fund also sought appointment of Rosen Law Firm as Lead
counsel.

Universal Health Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company will
defend itself against the case, Heed v. Universal Health Services,
Inc., et al.

In December 2016 a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against UHS, and certain UHS officers alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.  Plaintiff alleges that
defendants violated federal securities laws relating to the
disclosures made in public filings associated with practices at
our behavioral health facilities.

"Although we have not been served with the complaint at this time,
we deny liability and intend to defend ourselves vigorously.  At
this time, we are uncertain as to potential liability or financial
exposure, if any, which may be associated with this matter," the
Company said.

Universal Health's principal business is owning and operating,
through our subsidiaries, acute care hospitals and outpatient
facilities and behavioral health care facilities.


VASCO DATA: Continues to Defend "Rossbach" Class Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VASCO Data Security International, Inc., continues to defend
itself against a securities lawsuit filed by Linda J. Rossbach in
Illinois, according to the Company's March 10, 2017, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On July 28, 2015 a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, captioned Linda J. Rossbach v. Vasco Data Security
International, Inc., et al., case number 1:15-cv-06605, naming
VASCO and certain of its current and former executive officers as
defendants and alleging violations under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended. The suit was purportedly filed on behalf
of a putative class of investors who purchased VASCO securities
between April 28, 2015 and July 28, 2015, and seeks to recover
damages allegedly caused by the defendants' alleged violations of
the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks certification as
a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest
and attorneys' fees. Pursuant to a September 1, 2015 scheduling
order entered by the court, the lead plaintiff, once appointed,
will have sixty days to file an amended complaint or notify the
defendants that the lead plaintiff intends to rely on the current
complaint.

On January 30, 2017, the appointed lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in which the allegations regarding OFAC related matters
were dropped and replaced with allegations regarding public
disclosures made by the defendants in April 2015 as compared to
public statements made in July 2015, generally regarding the
strength of the Company's business and its future prospects. The
defendants had until March 31, 2017 to answer or otherwise respond
to the operative complaint.

Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be predicted
with certainty, the Company believes that this lawsuit is without
merit and intends to defend against the action vigorously.

VASCO Data Security International, Inc. was incorporated in the
state of Delaware in 1997 and is the successor to VASCO Corp., a
Delaware corporation.  The Company's principal executive offices
are located in Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois, and its international
headquarters in Europe is located in Glattbrugg, Switzerland.
VASCO designs, develops and markets digital solutions for
identity, security and business productivity that protect and
facilitate transactions online, via mobile devices, and in-person.


VERIZON: Sued in Philadelphia for Leasing Extra Fios Set Tops
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Frankel, writing for FierceCable, reports that Verizon has
been sued in Pennsylvania by customers who say the operator is
leasing extra Fios set tops for $10 a month without telling
subscribers that standard streaming devices could be used in the
video service instead.

The class-action suit was filed in the Philadelphia Common Pleas
Court.  A copy of the complaint was obtained and reported on by
the Philadelphia Inquirer.

The complaint centers on Verizon's high-end "Quantum" Fios video
tier. Customers lease the service's primary gateway for $12 a
month.  But unlike competing pay-TV products, the Fios service can
be accessed via home Wi-Fi in other rooms using OTT devices like
Roku, Amazon Fire or Google Chromecast.

The suit says that Verizon isn't telling customers this when it
talks them into leasing extra-room set tops for $10 a month.

Verizon "deceives and confuses its Quantum customers by remaining
silent regarding the availability of set-top box alternatives,"
the suit said.  "Instead, Verizon deceptively claims that a set-
top box connection is required to view content on all its
customers' television sets."

The class action claims to represent 140,000 Pennsylvania
customers who subscribed to Quantum TV and leased more than one
set top from June 2015 to September 2016.

Verizon said it won't comment on pending litigation. But in court
papers, it claims the suit has no merit.

Of course, the ability to replace leased pay-TV set tops with
popular, inexpensive streaming devices like Apple TV and Roku was
a key agenda item for recently departed FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.
That agenda was dealt a fatal blow with the sudden and dramatic
change in political wind, with the election of President Donald
Trump moving Democrat Wheeler out of the chairman's seat.  New FCC
Chair Ajit Pai had been a staunch critic of Wheeler's set-top plan
and has permanently shelved it.

While critics of pay-TV's leased set-top business will find no
recourse in the FCC, the courts hold limited promise.  A class-
action suit filed in 2004 against the erstwhile Cablevision
recently resulted in customers receiving nominal service credits.


VOLKSWAGEN: "Artola" Sues Over Defective Timing Chain Systems
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lloyd Artola, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21296-KMW (S.D. Fla., April 6,
2017) seeks damages and injunctive and declaratory relief for
defective timing chain systems.

Defendants knowingly omitted, concealed and suppressed material
facts regarding the defective Timing Chain System and its
corresponding safety risk and misrepresented the standard, quality
or grade of the Class Vehicles, which directly caused harm to
Plaintiffs and members of the Classes, asserts the complaint.

VWAG is one of the largest automobile manufacturers in the world,
and is in the business of designing, developing, manufacturing,
and selling automobiles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Peter Prieto, Esq.
   John Gravante, Esq.
   Matthew P. Weinshal, Esq.
   Alissa Del Riego, Esq.
   Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
   Sun Trust International Center
   One S.E. 3rd Ave, Suite 2700
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 358-2800
   Fax: (305) 358-2382
   Email: pprieto@podhurst.com
          jgravante@podhurst.com
          mweinshall@podhurst.com
          adelriego@podhurst.com


W.W. GRAINGER: Class Action Trial Set for February 2018
-------------------------------------------------------
Trial is currently set for February 5, 2018, in a class action
lawsuit, against W.W. Grainger, Inc., the Company said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On April 5, 2013, David Davies filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois and sought
certification of a class of persons who may have received one or
more of approximately 400,000 faxes Grainger sent in connection
with a 2009 marketing campaign. The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act
of 2005 (the "TCPA"), by sending fax advertisements that either
were unsolicited and/or did not contain a valid opt-out notice.
The TCPA provides for penalties of $500 to $1,500 for each
noncompliant individual fax.

On May 13, 2013, the Company removed the case to the Federal
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the
"District Court"). On June 27, 2014, the District Court found that
Davies was not an adequate class representative. The United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied Davies' petition
for immediate review of the ruling. Davies subsequently moved the
District Court for reconsideration of its ruling and his motion
was denied on September 28, 2016. Davies may seek to pursue an
appeal of the June 27, 2014, ruling at the conclusion of the
District Court proceeding.

On April 4, 2016, the District Court denied the Company's motion
to dismiss Davies' individual claims and subsequently the parties
filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On November 21, 2016,
the District Court denied Plaintiff's motion and granted, in part,
Grainger's motion for summary judgment. The District Court entered
judgment for Grainger on Davies' common law claim for conversion
while granting partial summary judgment for Grainger on Davies'
TCPA claim, finding that Grainger had an established business
relationship with Davies and that Grainger properly obtained
Davies' fax number from public directories. The District Court
denied Grainger's motion for summary judgment on the ground that
Davies lacks standing to bring his TCPA claim. The District Court
further held that the issue of whether the opt-out notice Grainger
used on the faxes is clear and conspicuous, as required by the
TCPA, is a contested issue of fact to be resolved by a jury at
trial. Trial is currently set for February 5, 2018.

The Company believes it has strong legal and factual defenses and
intends to continue defending itself vigorously in the pending
lawsuit. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of
this proceeding, the Company believes that the ultimate outcome of
this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations.

W.W. Grainger, Inc., incorporated in the State of Illinois in
1928, is a broad line distributor of maintenance, repair and
operating (MRO) supplies and other related products and services
used by businesses and institutions primarily in the United States
(U.S.) and Canada, with a presence also in Europe, Asia and Latin
America.


WAYFAIR INC: Still Defends "Zouzout" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Wayfair Inc. continues to defend against the class action lawsuit
by Naomi Zouzout, Wayfair said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In September 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the Superior Court of the province of
Quebec (Naomi Zouzout v. Wayfair LLC, Case No. PQ 500-06-000809-
166) by an individual on behalf of herself and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals alleging violations of
various Canadian consumer protection statutes. Among other
remedies, this lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive money
damages, costs, and various fees. The Company intends to defend
the lawsuit vigorously. At this time, based on available
information regarding this litigation, the Company is unable to
reasonably assess the ultimate outcome of this case or determine
an estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential losses.

Wayfair is one of the world's largest online destinations for the
home.


WELEDA INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Fraudulent Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Torres at Legal Newsline reports a consumer has filed a class
action lawsuit against a men's products business, alleging fraud
and negligent misrepresentation.

Russell Hughes filed a complaint, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, April 6 in U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against Weleda, Inc. alleging it
falsely used the term "certified natural" and "natural" on its
products to deceive consumers into buying.

According to the complaint, Hughes was misled into buying shower
gel and toothpaste products and paying a premium for it due to its
claims as being "natural." The plaintiff alleges Weleda used the
term "natural" in its products despite containing synthetic
ingredients.

Hughes seeks trial by jury, preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief against the defendant, monetary damages, treble damages,
punitive damages, legal costs and expenses and all other just
relief. He is represented by attorneys Jason P. Sultzer --
sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com -- Joseph Lipari --
liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com -- and Adam Gonnelli --
gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com -- of the Sultzer Law Group PC in
Poughkeepsie, New York, and by Jeffrey Brown of Leeds Brown Law PC
in Carle Place, New York.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Case
number 7:17-cv-02494-CS  [GN]


WELLS FARGO: OCC Downgrades Rating Following Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Dr. John E. Warren, writing for LA Sentinel, reports that
following a series of high profile lawsuits and allegations of
misconduct, the embattled Wells Fargo Bank just suffered another
loss in the form of a rating downgrade.

Late last month, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
downgraded Wells Fargo's rating from an "Outstanding" to a "Needs
to Improve" rating.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is an independent
government agency within the U.S. Treasury Department that
supervises all banks and federal savings associations.  The
downgrade comes on the heels of an agreement by Wells Fargo Bank
to pay $110 million to settle a class action suit involving
customers, who discovered that the bank opened fake accounts in
their names.

The amount might seem small compared to the revelation last
September that the bank had opened over two million fake accounts
in customers' names without their permission.

In September 2016, Wells Fargo agreed to pay $185 million in fines
and penalties and to refund customers $5 million.

The latest settlement covers at least 10 other lawsuits.

"These payouts are on top of the $3.2 million Wells Fargo has paid
to customers on over 130,000 potentially unauthorized accounts or
services," CNNMoney reported.  "That works out to a refund of
roughly $25 per account."

The closer one looks at Wells Fargo's practices, the further back
the bank's problems go.

According to a September 2016 article by CNNMoney, "six former
Wells Fargo employees filed a class action lawsuit in federal
court against the bank seeking $7.2 billion or more for workers
who were fired or demoted after refusing to open fake accounts."

CNNMoney article continued: "The federal class action suit accuses
Wells Fargo of orchestrating a 'fraudulent scheme' to boost its
stock price that forced employees to 'choose between keeping their
jobs and opening unauthorized accounts.'"

Some of the legal allegations arising from the case include:
wrongful termination, violations involving the California labor
code, and failure to pay wages and other charges.

"The suit represents California employees who worked at Wells
Fargo in the past 10 years or who continue to work there and were
fired, demoted or forced to resign due to not meeting their sales
quotas," CNNMoney reported.

Another federal class action involving the beleaguered bank,
alleged that Wells Fargo violated the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act and a section of Sarbanes-Oxley
Act, that prohibits retaliation against whistleblowers. That
lawsuit also alleged that the bank violated the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act covering hours of work.
These lawsuits paint a far different picture than the one Wells
Fargo offered when it fired more than 5,000 employees, after the
bank's own investigation into the fake accounts.  The mass firings
suggested that the employees who were terminated, opened the fake
bank accounts on their own and without the bank's knowledge or
participation.  The class action lawsuits involving former bank
employees shed light on a shadowy pattern of practices that can't
be explained away as a handful of rogue tellers working on their
own to defraud customers.

In recent years, Wells Fargo has also received fines for
misconduct in their mortgage lending division.

On April 8, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a press
release citing Wells Fargo's agreement to pay $1.2 billion for
improper mortgage lending practices.

According to the press release, Wells Fargo, "admitted,
acknowledged and accepted responsibility for, among other things,
certifying to the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), during the period from May 2001 through December 2008, that
certain residential home mortgage loans were eligible for FHA
insurance when in fact they were not, resulting in the Government
having to pay FHA insurance claims when some of those loans
defaulted."

The settlement was approved by the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on April 8, 2016.

In the Justice Department's press release about Wells Fargo's $1.2
billion settlement, then-HUD Secretary Juli n Castro said that the
Obama Administration was committed to holding lenders accountable
for their lending practices.

"The $1.2 billion settlement with Wells Fargo is the largest
recovery for loan origination violations in FHA's history," said
Castro.  "Yet, this monetary figure can never truly make up for
the countless families that lost homes as a result of poor lending
practices."

In the same press release, then-U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara for
the Southern District of New York said that Wells Fargo took
advantage of the FHA mortgage insurance program, that was designed
to help millions of Americans realize the dream of home ownership,
and wrote thousands and thousands of faulty loans.

"Driven to maximize profits, Wells Fargo employed shoddy
underwriting practices to drive up loan volume, at the expense of
loan quality," Mr. Bharara said in the Justice Department's
statement.

Mr. Bharara continued: "Even though Wells Fargo identified through
internal quality assurance reviews thousands of problematic loans,
the bank decided not to report them to HUD.  As a result, while
Wells Fargo enjoyed huge profits from its FHA loan business, the
government was left holding the bag when the bad loans went bust."

MSN Money reported that "shares of Wells Fargo gained only 2.9
percent in the last two years, significantly underperforming" the
22.8 percent growth expected by some analysts.

According to MSN Money, "the primary reason for this
underperformance is the substantial plunge in shares following the
September lawsuit settlement."


YGRENE ENERGY: Sued for Failing to Disclose PACE Loan Risks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ron Hurtibise, writing for Sun Sentinel, reports that a company
that finances home improvement projects in South Florida with no
credit checks and no money down is the subject of a federal court
lawsuit charging it fails to adequately disclose important
limitations of the loans to its consumers.

The defendants, Ygrene Energy Fund and Ygrene Energy Fund Florida,
are among the nation's leading providers of financing for Property
Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) energy efficiency and hurricane-
hardening upgrades, such as new roofs, solar energy systems,
impact windows or water heaters.

Over the past two years, Ygrene and other PACE programs have been
approved by dozens of local governments in South Florida to seek
repayment through assessments on borrowers' property tax bills.
Ygrene has approved hundreds of loans in the region since 2015,
including about 1,600 in Broward County, according to the county's
official records.

The suit, filed in the Northern District of California, where
Ygrene Energy Fund is headquartered, accuses the company of
fraudulent inducement, negligence, unjust enrichment, negligent
misrepresentation, and violation of consumer protection laws in
Florida and California.

It seeks damages for the plaintiffs and prominent disclosure of
risks the suit asserts are inadequately disclosed to borrowers,
including that their loans are recorded as liens against their
properties and that in nearly all cases must be repaid in full
before a lender will approve a new loan on the home.

Ygrene, through its public relations agency, issued a statement
saying that it acknowledges the seriousness of the allegations but
vowed to "vigorously defend ourselves as the suit lacks merit.

"Complete transparency and a commitment to consumer disclosure,
protection, and education are of utmost importance to Ygrene," the
response states.  "In partnership with more than 350 state and
local governments, we hold ourselves to the highest ethical
standards."

The suit states that Ygrene incorrectly markets its loans as
transferable with the house, and in marketing materials "goes so
far as to say, 'It's as if your house is borrowing the money.'"

Not only will almost all consumers be required to pay off their
loans, some will be required to pay a 5 percent prepayment penalty
while others will be charged a "pre-payment waiver fee" at closing
to avoid the penalty, the suit charges.

Prepayment will be necessary, the suit says, because conventional
lenders refuse to provide loans on properties encumbered by
Ygrene's PACE loans.  The loans occupy "first lien" status --
meaning that if a foreclosure occurs, PACE lenders are in line to
get paid off before mortgage lenders.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which regulates mortgage
financiers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has made it clear that
Fannie and Freddie will not back loans for properties with PACE
liens, the suit states.

Fannie, Freddie and other banks regulated by the FHFA backed
nearly 60 percent of mortgages in 2013, according to a Reuters
report.

Another federal lender, the Federal Housing Authority, last year
announced it would begin insuring properties with PACE
assessments. But in an interview, Manuel Hiraldo, a Fort
Lauderdale attorney serving as co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said
FHA loans, which typically come with higher interest rates and
require the buyer to buy mortgage insurance, are more costly
overall than FHFA loans..

Four initial plaintiffs in the case include a Hollywood couple,
Grachian and Mary Jane Smith, who took out a PACE loan through
Ygrene in late 2016 to replace 11 windows at their home.

The other plaintiffs are a San Diego County couple, Alejandro and
Felicia Marcey.  The California law firm for the plaintiffs is
Kasdan Lippsmith Weber and Turner LLP.

The Smiths heard about the program -- and that they could get
their windows replaced with no money down -- from a contractor who
was repairing their roof, the suit states.

They ultimately found a window replacement contractor and agreed
to finance $16,778 to replace the 11 windows, the suit states.

Disclosures in two documents signed by the couple were misleading
because they state the "FHFA appears to have instructed [Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac] not to purchase residential loans where there
is a superior lien" and that to refinance or sell the property,
the borrower "may need to remove the assessment lien by prepaying
the assessment obligation in full."

The suit states the statement "is at pains to downplay the
possibility that the PACE loan will definitely create an obstacle
to sale."

The suit also asserts that PACE loans are offered with less
favorable conditions than conventional loans, including interest
rates of 7 percent to 8.25 percent.

The company charges $4,000 in fees for the average loan, the suit
states, including an application fee, processing and underwriting
fee, miscellaneous county costs, record and disbursement fees,
escrow and title insurance, a closing fee, capitalized interest
and in some cases, a pre-payment waiver fee.

With fees, a 20-year term and a 7.11 percent interest rate, the
Smiths will end up paying $31,946 -- "almost $3,000 per window,"
the suit states.

Mr. Hiraldo said he found the Smiths after contacting fewer than
50 consumers listed with PACE liens in Broward County's official
records database.  The couple was among about 10 borrowers who
responded to his inquiry of whether they were aware a PACE loan
would result in a lien against their homes, he said.

PACE programs, because they offer homeowners with equity an easy
way to qualify for financing, have met with praise from local
government leaders who view property improvements as a overall
positive development for their communities.

In a column posted on April 10 on the website Florida Politics,
Pembroke Pines Mayor Frank Ortis praised PACE programs as "a great
tool that empowers homeowners to invest in their homes in a way
that makes them more prepared for the next storm and lowers their
long-term energy costs."

But a November news release by the Boston-based National Consumer
Law Center warned that an absence of federal protections are
leading to complaints that elderly and low-income property owners
in California are being targeted by third-party PACE contractors
for expensive improvements and being extended credit they cannot
afford to pay.

State and national political leaders are calling for expanded
consumer protections.

A state law enacted in California last year requires disclosures
modeled after federal "Know Before You Owe" standards and gives
consumers the right to cancel PACE loans within three days. A
proposed law would require PACE providers to confirm all loan
terms over the phone with borrowers.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Tom Cotton
of Arkansas that would require PACE loan providers to adhere to
federal Truth in Lending Act disclosure laws.

A release by Cotton called residential PACE loans a "scam" that
targets low-income and elderly Americans "with predatory home
loans."


* CFPB Faces 'Rock and a Hard Place' in Pushing Arbitration Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------
C. Ryan Barber at National Law Journal reports on a Tuesday in
early November, representatives of American Express, Barclays and
Discover met with 10 members of the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau staff to discuss their concern about the agency's proposed
rule to restrict corporate efforts to block class actions.
The pitch from the credit card companies called for carving out a
broad exception to a proposal that -- if finalized in its current
form -- would ban forced arbitration agreements that prevent
consumers from filing class actions.

According to a summary of the meeting, the companies pushed for an
exception for "certain matters where government intervention, a
company's self-identification to the CFPB, or corrective actions
have addressed alleged practices that are the subject of the class
action." In other words, they wanted to be able to stave off any
class actions arising from conduct that had already caught the eye
of regulators.

In the view of at least one of the companies, "there was no need
for a class action if the subject of the class action is subject
to a public enforcement or supervisory action," according to the
meeting summary, which was posted online last month. (American
Express, Barclays and Discover declined to comment.)

The question hanging over the CFPB's arbitration rule -- a
proposal that drew tens of thousands of comments from consumer and
business advocates -- is less now about the finer points of the
final rule than about whether the regulations will ever see the
light of day at all.

President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers are erasing a host
of Obama-era rules through the Congressional Review Act -- a
statutory tool that, before the Trump administration, had only
been used once in its 21-year history to roll back a regulation.
The law gives Congress a window of 60 legislative days -- after an
agency has transmitted a new rule to Capitol Hill -- to enact a
disapproval resolution.

Since Trump's election, speculation has swirled about whether a
push to publicly roll out the arbitration rule would galvanize the
White House into taking the legally perilous step of firing the
CFPB's director, Richard Cordray, before his five-year term
expires in July 2018. A case pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit confronts whether the president should have
the power to remove the director at will, not just for cause.
The arbitration rule presents a longer-term concern. If the rule
is voided by the Congressional Review Act, the CFPB would be
prevented from enacting a "substantially similar" regulation
unless it is supported by a new statute. Such a setback would
indefinitely handcuff the agency, stymieing its ability to limit
forced-arbitration agreements -- often found in the fine print of
consumer contracts -- that the bureau has described as "contract
gotchas."

"All the opponents of the rule need is a simple majority vote.
Clearly they have that, and the president would be expected to
sign it," said Buckley Sandler counsel Kathleen Ryan, a former
deputy assistant director in the CFPB's office of regulations.
"From the bureau's perspective, the real blow to the cause is,
once a rule is struck down that way, it can't be reintroduced in a
similar form ever unless there's new legislation."
Ryan added: "That's the rock and the hard place that they're stuck
between."

For the CFPB, the threat of a congressional override is not
abstract.

In February, Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate proposed
bills to tear up the CFPB's prepaid card rule -- the first set of
sweeping federal regulations that target a fast-growing market
that caters to millions of consumers, including many who have
limited or no access to traditional bank accounts.
The CFPB finalized the rule in October and has proposed delaying
the effective date by six months -- from October 2017 to April
2018 -- citing industry concerns about complying in time.

Clash on Capitol Hill

Supporters of the CFPB's arbitration rule are already turning
their attention to Capitol Hill.

"We've shifted from talking to folks at the CFPB and are now
focusing on preserving what we can by not having the
[Congressional Review Act] challenge be successful," said Amanda
Werner, a campaign manager for Public Citizen and Americans for
Financial Reform. "We're trying to talk to lawmakers and make them
realize this is something the American people are not going to
tolerate."

It remains unclear exactly when the CFPB will finalize the
arbitration rule and face the risk of a congressional override.
The CFPB was once expected to release the final rule in February
2017. In its most recent rulemaking agenda, the CFPB said it was
still reviewing comments as it "considers development of a final
rule for spring 2017." A CFPB spokesman said Thursday he had no
update on the agency's timeline for finalizing the rule.

Diane Thompson, a top official in the CFPB's office of
regulations, said at a recent conference in New York City that it
was "too speculative" to estimate when the agency would finalize
the arbitration rule, according to a blog post by the law firm
Ballard Spahr.

Critics argue the CFPB's proposed ban on class-action waivers
would eliminate arbitration agreements, depriving consumers of a
less-expensive, expedited form of dispute resolution.

Along with American Express, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has
devoted significant resources toward rolling back the rule. In the
last three months of 2016, the chamber's Center for Capital
Markets Competitiveness and Institute for Legal Reform spent a
combined $170,000 on firms whose lobbying efforts included at
least some work on the CFPB's arbitration rule.

In a comment last year, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged the
CFPB to "go back to the drawing board."

Tom Quaadman, executive vice president of the chamber's Center for
Capital Markets Competitiveness, said he's seen the CFPB's urgency
die down of late. Before the election, he said, the CFPB was
"trying to drive toward a final rule and trying to do that fairly
quickly."

"I think they've been trying to, since Nov. 8, assess the
landscape and figure out whether or not it's within the realm of
possibility moving forward with a rule like that," Quaadman said.
On the other hand, consumer advocacy groups have not backed down.
The week Trump was sworn in, staff from Public Citizen, Americans
for Financial Reform and Public Justice urged the CFPB to finalize
the rule "as soon as possible," according to a readout of the Jan.
17 meeting.

Paul Bland, executive director of Public Justice, said in a recent
interview that the CFPB has "no good reason not to go forward with
the rule."

"As far as I'm concerned, they might as well do what's right," he
said.

Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, the top Democrat on
the Senate banking committee, has pledged to defend the
arbitration rule against any efforts to undo it.

"Consumers deserve the right to have their day in court when
they've been wronged, but many don't realize they've lost that
right through forced arbitration. The CFPB's proposal to ban this
unjust and unfair practice is a major victory for consumers," he
told the NLJ in a prepared statement. "I'll keep pushing the CFPB
to finalize the rule as soon as possible, and will fight against
efforts to weaken it."[GN]


* Class Certification Remains an Obstacle in Data Breach Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
HealthIT Security reports that being able to prove fault in a
healthcare data breach class action lawsuit is inherently
difficult, but it is also important to understand the privacy
expectations, according to a recent Corporate Clients Insight blog
post.

Data breach cases are not as simple for plaintiffs as it may seem,
wrote LeClairRyan Partner Chad Mandell.  It is hard to prove
proper legal standing "and class certification remains an obstacle
that has yet to be successfully overcome," he noted.

Citing the Anthem data breach where approximately 80 million
individuals' records were potentially compromised, Mr. Mandell --
chad.mandell@leclairryan.com -- stated that no court has yet
certified a consumer data breach class.

"The aforementioned Anthem case also highlights another question
worth considering in these suits -- namely, whether plaintiffs are
attempting to hold companies to standards of data-privacy
protection that are realistic or fair in today's cybersecurity
environment," Mr. Mandell explained.

The question has been raised, what are reasonable privacy
expectations in an increasingly digital age?

Mr. Mandell noted that some internet users do not practice smart
security and privacy practices.  Lackluster passwords and failing
to "opt out" of certain invasive requests could potentially also
cause information to be compromised.

"No organization, no matter how large and no matter what security
protocols are in place, is immune from its systems being
compromised," Mr. Mandell wrote.  "Thus, it is reasonable to ask
whether alleged damages in a data-breach case truly can be traced
to a given hack of a particular company or whether they stem from
a prior breach or multiple prior breaches of the plaintiff's own
computer."

Calling back to the Anthem case, Mr. Mandell explained how the
court "framed an order that drastically limited the amount of
information that could be culled from forensic examination of the
plaintiffs' computers."

Measures were also put in place to control who had access to the
plaintiffs' information.

"[Enough measures] so that one could safely state that the degree
of protection afforded to these plaintiffs' personal information
in the course of the forensic examination would actually have been
greater than under most everyday circumstances," Mr. Mandell
stated.

Even so, it was not enough for all plaintiffs, he said. Therefore,
companies -- such as Anthem and other healthcare providers -- may
be held to impossible standards when it comes to keeping personal
privacy protected.

Earlier this year, the US Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit,
dismissed a data breach lawsuit that alleged the William Jennings
Bryan Dorn Veterans Affairs Medical Center (Dorn VAMC) had
violated the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA).

In that case, plaintiffs claimed that earlier reported Dorn VAMC
data breaches created an "increased risk of future identity
theft," and that there were costly measures to protect against it.

The appeals court though agreed with the district court's ruling
in that there was a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Similarly, the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently dismissed
claims in a healthcare data breach class action lawsuit in 2016.
The superior court stated that the trial court needed to review
the plaintiff's claim under the Uniform Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL).

Plaintiffs had filed a class action lawsuit against Keystone Mercy
Health Plan and Amerihealth Mercy Health Plan for a missing USB
flash drive that allegedly contained PHI.  The plaintiffs claimed
that the health plans had performed deceptive practices under
UTPCPL.

The judge explained though that justifiable reliance is necessary
for deceptive practice claims under UTPCPL.

"As stated previously, on December 9, 2014, a panel of this Court
affirmed the trial court's denial of class certification on
Appellant's negligence claims but vacated its decision to deny
class certification on the UTPCPL deceptive conduct claim," the
opinion stated.  "In doing so, the panel noted the trial court had
concluded that Appellant's UTPCPL claim did not satisfy the
commonality requirement of Rule 1702(2) because a plaintiff who
brings a private cause of action under the UTPCPL must show
reliance . . ."


* Mark Hartmere Joins JND as VP Operations, Class Action Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JND Legal Administration, a premier legal management and
administration company headquartered in Seattle, has appointed
Mike Hartmere as vice president of operations for class action
services.  In this role, Mr. Hartmere oversees JND's class action
operations in the firm's Denver office.  Mr. Hartmere brings
extensive legal experience from his successful legal career
representing a broad range of corporations, financial
institutions, educational institutions and individuals in all
aspects of litigation from pre-suit investigation through trial.

"As JND enters its second year of operations, our class action
services division continues to be a key growth area for the
company," comments Jennifer Keough, CEO and founder of JND Legal
Administration.  "Mike's strong legal background and hands-on
expertise in the class action sector makes him an invaluable team
member and a significant asset to JND's class action service
line."

Before joining JND, Mr. Hartmere served as counsel and senior
associate in the commercial litigation department of the New York
office of Venable LLP for ten years.  Prior to that, he worked as
a litigation associate in the New York office of Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP.  Earlier in his career, he served as a law clerk for
the Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy in the Southern District of New
York.

Recognized five times as a New York Super Lawyers "Rising Star"
(2011-2015), Mike is admitted to practice law in New York,
Connecticut, the Southern District of New York, the Eastern
District of New York, and the Eastern District of Michigan.  A
member of the American Bar Association, he has published articles
in numerous legal publications on a variety of topics.
Mr. Hartmere received his Bachelor of Arts from Colgate University
and his Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law.

                 About JND Legal Administration

JND Legal Administration -- http://www.jndla.com-- is a legal
management and administration company led by a team of industry
veterans who are passionate about providing superior service to
clients.  Armed with decades of expertise and a powerful set of
tools, JND has deep experience expertly navigating the intricacies
of multiple, intersecting service lines including class action
settlements, corporate restructuring, eDiscovery, mass tort claims
and government services.  JND is trusted by law firms, government
agencies and Fortune 500 companies across the nation.  The company
is backed by Stone Point Capital and has offices in California,
Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Washington and Washington, D.C.


* Web Companies Bash Robo-Texting Law
-------------------------------------
Wendy Davis at Media Post reports tech companies are increasingly
getting hit with class-action complaints for sending text messages
to consumers, according to the trade group Internet Association.
The organization, made up of Google, Facebook, eBay and other
large Web companies, made that statement in a regulatory filing
summarizing a recent meeting between Internet Association
officials and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai.

The Silicon Valley trade group writes that it "fully supports" the
intent behind the Telephone Consumer Protection Act -- a federal
law that prohibits companies from using autodialers to send text
messages to people's cell phones without their permission.

"However," the Internet Association adds, its members
"increasingly are subject to TCPA class action lawsuits in
contexts where companies are sending wanted communications to
consumers."

That statement appears to refer to lawsuits brought on behalf of
people who are using recycled phone numbers. In those cases, the
person who first used the phone number may have welcomed the
texts, but the current users of those phone numbers view the
messages as a nuisance at best.

For instance, Philadelphia resident Bill Dominguez allegedly
received 27,000 text alerts from Yahoo -- all of which were meant
for the phone's prior owner, who apparently had signed up for a
former Yahoo service that converted emails to text messages and
sent them to users' phones. Dominguez alleged in a lawsuit that he
complained about the messages to Yahoo, but was informed that only
the phone's former owner could arrange to stop the texts.
Dominguez also said he doesn't know the former owner or how to
contact that person. When Dominguez threatened to resort to
litigation, a Yahoo supervisor allegedly replied, "So sue me."
Facebook is currently facing a lawsuit by Washington, D.C.
resident Christine Holt, who said she was bombarded with SMS
messages from the company after obtaining a recycled phone number.
Twitter was also hit with a class-action complaint for allegedly
sending text messages to recycled phone numbers.

Two years ago, the FCC tightened the robotexting law by issuing
new regulations, including one that prohibits companies from
sending more than one autodialed text (or make one robocall) to a
reassigned number -- even if the original owner consented to
receive texts.

The debt collection association ACA International, U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and others have asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
to vacate the new regulations. That request is backed by the
Internet Association, which argued in a friend-of-the-court brief
that the one-call limit for reassigned numbers isn't workable,
given estimates that 100,000 cell phone numbers are reassigned to
new users daily.

"Companies who have received consent to communicate with their
users or customers ... may potentially be racking up significant
statutory liability without even knowing it," the Internet
Association argued in its court papers.

The group said that it "will seek to engage with the FCC on this
important issue," if the appellate court reverses the recent
regulations. [GN]


* What Would Class Action Reform Mean For Notice Programs?
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeanne C. Finegan at Law 360 reports the Fairness in Class Action
Litigation Act of 2017 (H.R. 985) has drawn a firestorm of
opposition. As the ACLU and 120 other signatory civil rights
organizations note, "The bill would undermine the enforcement of
the nation's civil rights laws and upend decades of settled class
action law.[1]"

If it were to become law, what impact would it have on class
notice? Whether H.R. 985 becomes law or not, will it cause a
greater emphasis to be placed on quantifiable media and notice
performance that uses the correct tools and technology to select
the appropriate media to deliver due process notice. In
advertising you get what you pay for. Programs that are evaluated
based on a "race to the price basement" have insufficient budgets,
which simply cannot compete for quality advertising inventory.
Importantly, these programs cannot deliver the appropriate amount
of messages to class members. This can also damage the companies'
brand by poor ad quality and placement.

Of course, all parties have an interest in achieving due process
notice. In the discharge of his or her fiduciary duties to the
class, class counsel wants every class member to know about the
settlement and have the opportunity to participate. This will be a
factor in evaluating the merits of the settlement, adequacy of
class counsel and the appropriateness of their fee application.
Due process notice ensures that the settlement will not be subject
to collateral attack and will be given res judicata effect.
Finally, constitutional notice will dissuade or defeat objectors
who will attack the adequacy of the settlement based upon
inadequate notice.

Effective due process notice in today's complex media environment
requires greater emphasis on engaging notice programs that are
media-relevant to the class at hand, which include an appropriate
frequency of message delivery. This may sound simple, but to
accomplish appropriate message delivery, notice programs must be
specifically tailored to each case and they must use the correct
tools and technology to select the right media and accurately
report reach[2], while actively monitoring and reporting the
results. Without the benefit of this complex analysis, outreach
can be severely handicapped or exclude key audiences, adversely
affecting due process. The method, means and manner of designing
and executing a notice plan are anything but simple or
straightforward in this complex media environment. Each notice
plan must be individually designed by evaluating a multitude of
factors, including but not limited to the company, the brand the
company's advertising and marketing plan conducted in the ordinary
course of business, the method and means of company's regular
contact with class members, class size, demographics, factors that
give rise to the litigation, class member behavior, and available
media and cost.

Of course, there is always a balance between cost and the desire
to reach the largest possible audiences. Quality matters in media.
Remington[3] and Motor Fuels provide chilling cautionary tales of
what happens when the type, quality, nature, method and means of
notice are not considered. An appropriate notice plan takes all of
these factors into account, particularly in high-stakes matters.

Quality, Nature, Method and Means of Notice

A mix of media silos and screens is critical because many
consumers use multiple media channels, sometimes concurrently. A
recent Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) and Nielsen
study reports that in our current complex and distracted media
environment, the combination of print, digital and mobile is
necessary to provide the greatest awareness, and intent to take
action and multiple exposures are required across multiple devices
and platforms to achieve the greatest results. To this point,
according to a 2014 Nielsen report[4], 84 percent of smartphone
and tablet owners use the devices as second screens while watching
television at the same time. Which screen will grab the
individual's attention[5]? This is why a multidevice program is
necessary on consumer matters[6] and why cross-device targeting
has become the sine qua non of all digital advertising. This type
of program recognizes the same consumer across multiple devices,
whether on a laptop, tablet or smartphone. It also provides
powerful insight as to how, when and where we provide the most
effective advertising to class members.

The creation of custom audiences will help zero-in on the consumer
and the device they are using. Custom audiences can occur across
social media or online. Custom audiences leverage unique and
specialized media data modeling techniques for qualitative
behavioral preferences for each person, such as when they tend to
be online as well as their interests, political affiliation,
products they purchase, where they shop, websites they visit, and
the devices with which they most highly engage. These audiences
can be deterministic[7] based on big data matches and online
persistent identification[8].

Custom audiences have been used successfully in a number of high-
profile court-approved matters including: Carter v. Forjas Taurus
S.S., Taurus International Manufacturing Inc., Case No. 1:13-CV-
24583 PAS (S.D. Fl. 2016). To create a custom audience, we start
with a statistical analysis of the core population's (e.g. in
Carter, those who own handguns) behavioral characteristics. Key
preferences are mined from our proprietary social media banks.
This analysis provides insight into where, when and how the
necessary impression volume and average frequency of message
delivery should be delivered to that audience to convert to an
actionable outcome -- visiting the website.

Other notable cases also leveraged this type of approach,
including Michael Allagas, et al., v. BP Solar International Inc.,
et al., BP Solar Panel Settlement, Case No. 3:14-cv-00560- SI
(N.D. Cal., San Francisco Div. 2016). In Re: TracFone Unlimited
Service Plan Litigation, No. C-13-3440 EMC (N.D. Cal). In Re: Blue
Buffalo Company Ltd., Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation,
Case No. 4:14-MD-2562 RWS (E.D. Mo. 2015).

However, caution should be used if a notice provider relies
exclusively on in-platform metrics from sources such as Facebook
or from an online network. These metrics are only a subset of the
larger population and not everyone uses Facebook.  In most
instances, only 50 to 60 percent or less of a population will use
Facebook. And while a given population may report that they have
Facebook accounts, some may not use it with significant frequency.
The second round of notice in Remington is illustrative of this
point. Here the primary outreach was employed through a custom
audience[9] targeting over 4 million individuals with sport
hunting interests among other characteristics. As a practical
matter even precisely targeted custom audiences are not perfect
matches to class members.

For example custom audiences can be overly broad (not all sport
hunters will be owners of the Remington rifles at issue) and
custom audiences also can be overly specific (not all rifle owners
are hunters), so impressions will not reach the entire target. But
in Remington's case, the custom audience was less than half of
what it should have been. In fact, when we apply our proprietary
techniques, we see that there are over 10 million Facebook users
who have engaged with Remington's Facebook page, product-specific
pages, relevant groups, or checked in at events and mentioned
Remington. Still, according to GfK Mediamark Research and
Intelligence LLC (MRI), exclusively using Facebook is not enough.
To put this into perspective, MRI data reports that only 57
percent of rifle owners visit Facebook within a 30-day period.

A heavy reliance on Facebook for this target automatically
excludes 43 percent of potential class members. This is why notice
programs must use research to appropriately select media channels
with an adequate mix of media. It also underscores the need to
quantify the reach of a program with measurement from appropriate
sources (comScore or Nielsen) and accurately report reach and
frequency by using mixing tools such as Telmar or IMS. Simply
citing an audience size, impression tonnage, clicks or total
commercials across an entire network may sound impressive, but
they do not reveal the total audience reached.

Notice plans will need to focus on media that the class is using
and how they are actually engaging with it. This has been a common
downfall of many recent notice programs that rely too heavily on
only one media channel, such as online or social, simply to save
on costs. Without consideration as to why, how or if someone
actually views that channel, media could be completely missing the
target. An alarming example is found in Remington's second round
of notice, where streaming radio, as part of the notice program,
was used to reach an overwhelmingly older male target audience.
However, as reported by MRI, streaming radio is used by a little
over 4 percent of men 35 to 64 who own rifles. An in-depth
analysis of Remington's second-round notice program, conducted by
David L. Smith, an internationally recognized digital advertising
and media expert and CEO of advertising agency, Mediasmith,
states:

"the [Remington] plan presented to the court should have been
judged inadequate and the attempt to impress through over a
hundred pages of data is not meaningful. It is doubtful that the
combined [terrestrial and streaming] radio reached more than 20
percent of its target."[10]

Digital and social media will continue to be important, but in
certain instances video can play a role in effective notice.
There's a reason why brands continue to allocate a majority of
their budgets to television. It works. According to a study by
Market Share[11], television and video are effective media
channels to reach consumers. In fact the study reveals that given
similar advertising budgets, television's 'lift[12], is
consistently seven times that of paid search and three times that
of online across the automotive, financial service, retail and
consumer packaged goods segments.

Further, television is a major driver of website visits and
inbound calls. Contrary to common myth, it doesn't have to break
the bank. Television, like digital media, is scalable, which means
you can buy as much or as little as you need, particularly when it
is mixed with other media. It has been used in recently filed
high-profile matters, including The Rocky Flats Nuclear Waste
Settlement Cook, et al. v. Rockwell International Corp. and Dow
Chemical Co., No. 90-cv-00181-JLK (D.Colo.) an online video was
employed in In re: Domestic Drywall Litigation E.D. Pa., MDL No.
2437 and 13-MD-02437. Further, video was successfully employed in
Carter, through training videos posted on YouTube and embedded
video in the multimedia press release.

Adequate frequency is important. In a distracted world, reminders
make all the difference in getting consumers attention. A one-time
ad may not trigger much attention. This is one of the key factors
hindering due process when online notice programs use a severe
one-time or three-time campaign frequency cap. Consumers need to
see the notice more than one time or in more than one location.
For this reason, we often use a multifaceted approach so that
there are several touch points to convey the message. Numerous
research studies report on the frequency sweet spot for various
audiences which is typically between three to 10 times.

Don't turn a blind eye to bots. Ad fraud and bots are an ever-
present reality in the digital environment. This nonhuman traffic
silently steals your impressions. The bots are clicking on your
ads and fleecing your outreach budget; most importantly, bots are
depriving class members of an opportunity to see a notice. The
Association of National Advertisers (ANA) reports that up to 33
percent of advertising inventory can be lost to bots. And buying
premium inventory is no guarantee. Integral Ad Science (IAS) and
the IAB report that up to 19 percent of inventory found on premium
sites can be fraudulent. It takes active and aggressive management
to mitigate this problem.

There are two forms of fraud: impression fraud and click fraud,
and there are multiple tools that provide varying forms of
detection based on where the online provider is looking for the
fraud[13], e.g., in-exchange, network-based, in-ad, etc. Industry
tools such as Double Verify, Integral Ad Science, MOAT, Sizmek and
others are all approved by the Media Ratings Counsel (MRC) to
monitor fraud. But don't think you are covered simply because the
network says that they offer a fraud monitoring service. Your
notice provider has to specifically request it and then pay
additional fees for this service when the campaign is placed.

That said, these tools have limitations, and additional layers of
monitoring are required to block and adjust to this type of
nonhuman traffic. While a number of premium networks will say that
they are virtually bot-free, with less than one to two percent
fraudulent traffic, they are only free of named bots. However, the
bad bots are dynamic. They can act like a human. They can look
like a high-net-worth individual, a rifle owner, a mom, and they
can fill out forms. It is one of the critical reasons why you
cannot expect 100 percent of impressions to deliver the promised
audience on a severely frequency-capped (one-time to three-time
lifetime campaign cap) program. Severely frequency-capped programs
lack the scale to make any kind of adjustment or compensation.

In addition to active monitoring, certain strategies can mitigate
exposure, such as day-parting [14](serving ads during the week),
staying away from certain holidays, and maintaining consistent
delivery throughout the campaign[15].

Conclusion

Regardless of whether H.R. 985 becomes law, placing greater
emphasis on quantifiable performance (using the correct tools and
technology to select the appropriate media) versus focusing on
price will result in notice programs that will ensure due process
notice. In advertising you get what you pay for. Programs with
insufficient budgets simply cannot compete for quality inventory
and frequency capped programs cannot deliver the appropriate
amount of message to class members. This can also damage
companies' brands by poor ad quality and placement.

Media plans are complex and need to consider all factors for
appropriate design. Without the right combination of digital,
print and social media, objectors may try to attack the
settlement, and courts will scrutinize the settlement at final
approval. Some cases will end up with multiple notice attempts
like In re Fuel Temp Litigation or Remington at great cost.

Appropriate plans must be measured against objective criteria to
validate that the class received due process notice. An effective
notice plan supported by objective metrics will be an asset for
approval and to meet the parties' settlement objective.
Conversely, proceed with caution as inadequate notice may result
in a poor outcome for the parties and class. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Object to Corporate Witness Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION, JEANNE
EVANS, as Executor for the Estate of FREDERICK W. EVANS, and
JEANNE EVANS, Individually, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, Docket No. 190109/2015 (N.Y.), plaintiff Frederick W.
Evans, as against defendant Burnham LLC, asserts that he came in
contact with asbestos-containing products for which Burnham bears
responsibility while he was employed as an HVAC mechanic by Vulcan
Engineering. Burnham moves in limine to preclude plaintiff from
mentioning, criticizing, or objecting to any testimony of its
corporate witness, Roger Pepper, based on a lack of personal
knowledge given that Mr. Pepper was not employed by Burnham until
1991.

Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County,
denied the motion.  Judge Moulton held that Federal Rule 30 (b)(6)
has no applicability to this case in New York state court. Even if
it did apply here, the provision applies to the use of otherwise
inadmissible documents for discovery purposes rather than for
trial. Defendant has cited no state counterpart to Federal Rule 30
(b)(6), the judge said.

CPLR Section 4518 does not support defendant's argument because
that provision relates to introduction of business records,
assuming proper foundation, and not to criticizing or objecting to
testimony based on the lack of personal knowledge, according to
the judge.  Not only does Federal Rule 30 (b)(6) not apply, but
New York state law is to the contrary.  Thus, in Matter of New
York City Asbestos Litig., supra, the Court of Appeals found that
the lower court properly precluded a defense witness from
testifying as to certain issues "because he gained personal
knowledge of Navy practices only once he started working on
procurement for the Navy more than a decade after Dummitt's work
on Crane's valves ended and several decades after the Navy bought
the valves."  Defendant cannot circumvent the requirement that a
witness have personal knowledge merely because that witness
testifies for a corporation, the judge said.  As plaintiff points
out, if a corporate witness gains his knowledge through other
sources -- such as the review of unspecified historical documents
or unspecified conversations with other employees, that testimony
is hearsay, and defendant must identify an appropriate hearsay
exception, Judge Moulton held.

A full-text copy of the decision and order dated April 4, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/VN2PhF from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Owes Defense Costs for 206 Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff CNH Industrial America LLC filed a declaratory relief
and breach of contract case against several insurance companies,
including Travelers Indemnity Company.  CNH's complaint alleges
Travelers breached its duty to defend and indemnify CNH in
underlying asbestos-related lawsuits.

The Complex Commercial Litigation Division of the Superior Court
of Delaware has issued numerous decisions in this case.  Among
these, the Court has held that: (1) Wisconsin law applied to the
policies; (2) CNH was the policies' proper assignee under 1994
reorganization agreements; (3) Travelers has a duty to defend CNH;
(4) Travelers's July 6, 2015, payments extinguished applicable
policy limits on the policies; and (5) Travelers's conduct
constituted a waiver on the issues of notice and cooperation, and
that Travelers's duty to defend did not terminate until Travelers
made the July 6, 2015 payment.

After these decisions, one matter remained open -- the amounts
Travelers may owe for defense costs incurred by CNH prior to July
6, 2015.  Although "one matter," the question as to what Travelers
may owe on defense costs involved hundreds of suits and a
multitude of open issues (factual and legal).  The parties are
well-represented in this litigation.  As such, the parties'
counsel significantly narrowed the issues before the scheduled
trial date.  Moreover, the Court addressed some of the open
matters at a pretrial conference conducted on November 14, 2016.

By the date of trial, several issues still remained.  First, while
the parties had resolved a number of defense cost claims, CNH
contends Travelers still owes it defense costs for 211 claims CNH
has tendered to Travelers.  Travelers disputes that it owes
defense costs on the 211 claims, arguing that these claims do not
meet the Court mandate for coverage. Second, Travelers claims that
certain defenses costs sought by CNH are unsubstantiated costs.
CNH disagrees and contends that it has sufficient information to
support the costs. Third, the parties cannot agree on whether the
invoices submitted by Moran Reeves & Conn PC are reimbursable
defense costs. Fourth, Travelers seeks production of CNH's
settlement with the CNA Defendants, a dismissed set of insurers in
this case.  Travelers wants access to the CNA Settlement in order
to determine what CNA paid as defense costs in order to establish
set-off rights and prevent CNH from obtaining what Travelers
considers an impermissible double recovery.

The Court held a one-day trial in this civil action on December
12, 2016. The Court then had the parties submit supplemental
memoranda on equitable set-off under Wisconsin law. The Court
received the final post-trial paper on December 20, 2016.

Judge Eric M. Davis finds and holds:

   (a) Travelers owes defense costs for the 206 cases;

   (b) Travelers does not owe defense costs for the five cases;

   (c) CNH is entitled to recover all fees billed by Moran Reeves;

   (d) CNH is not entitled to recover for the $301,690 in
unsubstantiated costs; and

   (e) Travelers request to produce the CNA Settlement is denied.

In sum, 200 cases triggered Travelers's duty to defend because the
underlying plaintiffs allege claims against Case; five cases
triggered Travelers's duty to defend because CNH is listed as a
defendant individually; one case triggered Travelers's duty to
defend because it alleged claims against New Holland/CNH, and the
Court could not discern from reviewing the four corners which
entity the underlying plaintiff sued; and five cases are not
covered because CNH has not met its burden of proof to show
coverage was triggered. Travelers must reimburse CNH for 206 of
the 211 claims.

The case is CNH INDUSTRIAL AMERICA LLC, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN
CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Defendants,
C.A. No. N12C-07-108 EMD CCLD (Del.).

A full-text copy of the Court's decision dated April 6, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/H4WmAO from Leagle.com.

Brian M. Rostocki, Esq. -- brostocki@reedsmith.com -- and John C.
Cordrey, Esq. -- jcordrey@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware and James M. Davis, Esq. --
jdavis@reedsmith.com -- Thomas A. Marrinson, Esq. --
tmarrinson@reedsmith.com -- Evan T. Knott, Esq. --
eknott@reedsmith.com -- and Emily E. Garrison, Esq. --
egarrison@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith LLP, Chicago, Illinois.
Attorneys for CNH Industrial America LLC.

Neal J. Levitsky, Esq. -- nlevitsky@foxrothschild.com -- and Seth
A. Niederman, Esq. -- sniederman@foxrothschild.com -- at Fox
Rothschild LLP, Wilmington, Delaware and Richard L. McConnell,
Esq. -- rmcconnell@wileyrein.com -- and Michael J. Gridley, Esq. -
- mgridley@wileyrein.com -- Washington, DC. Attorneys for
Travelers Indemnity Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Vacates Judgment on Double Billing
------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
SIMPLEXGRINELL, LP, Plaintiff, v. P&M ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING,
CORP., Defendants, Docket No. 161092/2015, Motion Seq. No. 002
(N.Y. Sup.), is an action to collect monies purportedly owed to
plaintiff from defendant under a job order contract entered into
between plaintiff, defendant and the City of New York.  Defendant
moves, pursuant to CPLR Section 5015(a)(1), to vacate a judgment
granted on default in plaintiff's favor on the issue of liability.
Defendant argues that it had a reasonable excuse for its default,
and has a meritorious defense to plaintiff's allegations.

On or about June 8, 2010, plaintiff and defendant entered into a
job order between themselves and the City of New York, whereby
plaintiff was to perform certain work and provide materials with
respect to upgrading the fire alarm system at 60 Centre Street,
New York, New York. Under the contract, plaintiff was to perform
its work, provide the materials required, and submit its paper
work including requisitions for payment to defendant. Defendant in
turn would forward the paperwork, including requisitions for
payment of the approved work performed by plaintiff, along to the
City for payment. The City paid defendant a flat percentage of the
approved requisition work performed by plaintiff. Plaintiff
alleges that it fully performed the work required under the
contract. Following the completion of plaintiff's work, the City
issued a Substantial Completion Acceptance to Plaintiff,
indicating that the job was substantially complete. Subsequently,
the job was closed. Shortly thereafter, all final payments were
made to all of the different trades, including retainage.

On September 17, 2014, plaintiff sent defendant an email regarding
purportedly unpaid services that it rendered. On November 3, 2014,
defendant responded to plaintiff and stated that it appeared that
the late and recently submitted invoice included labor that was
already included in a previous invoice paid by the City. In
response, plaintiff emailed defendant on the same day and stated
that "in reviewing the documents you sent over, you are correct
that the 116 hours are duplicative billing. What about the
retainage?"

Because the request for payment that is the subject matter of this
lawsuit was submitted a year after substantial competition,
defendant argues that the retainage was fully paid out and that
there are no additional monies left to pay plaintiff for its
services. As the money sought in this action includes double
billing and retainage has been paid in full to plaintiff,
defendant argues that there is no money owed by the City or
defendant to plaintiff.

In a decision and order dated April 6, 2017, Judge Peter J.
Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County, ordered that
defendant's motion is granted, and the default judgment is
vacated.  The parties are directed to contact court attorney, Hasa
Kingo, at hkingo@nycourts.gov to discuss how best to proceed no
later than April 29, 2017.

In granting the defendant's motion, Judge Moulton held that, given
New York courts' public policy favoring adjudication of cases on
their merits, and given the lack of prejudice against plaintiff in
light of the short duration that has elapsed between the judgment
and the instant motion, this matter should be decided on its
merits.  Additionally, as set forth in its motion papers,
defendant has demonstrated that his case has merit, and that it
has a defense to the claims asserted in the complaint.  Defendant
has established that the money sought in this action includes at
least some double billing and retainage was possibly paid in full.
Plaintiff has allegations to the contrary, warranting a resolution
of these issues on their respective merits.  In light of these
competing claims, coupled with New York's preference for
adjudicating disputes on their merits and the lack of prejudice to
plaintiff, this court finds that the judgment entered against
defendant must be vacated, and the matter decided on its merits.

A full-text copy of the decision and order dated April 7, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/F1l4G1 from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rules on Regulatory Materials as Evidence
----------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION, relating to JEANNE EVANS,
as Executor for the Estate of FREDERICK W. EVANS, and JEANNE
EVANS, Individually, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, et al. Defendants,
Docket No. 190109/2015, Motion Seq. 010 (N.Y. Sup.), involves
Plaintiff Frederic W. Evans' alleged exposure to asbestos-
containing products and equipment during residential renovations,
while working as a cable puller for Western Electric from 1946 to
1948, as a groundsman and lineman for Queens Gas & Electric from
1948 to 1952, as an HVAC apprentice/mechanic for various employers
throughout New York from 1952 to 1963, and as an HVAC mechanic and
supervisor from 1965 to 1986 at residential and commercial sites
throughout Vermont for Vermont Heating. Additionally, plaintiff
has testified as to possible bystander asbestos exposure at
worksites he visited while self-employed from 1987 to 2001 (1) as
a roofer (1966), (2) as a maintenance repairman involving
flooring, ceiling, door, and plaster work (1971-1977), and (3) as
a carpenter personally handling and installing flooring and
insulated doors while being present in boiler rooms where other
trades were working in his immediate vicinity (1977-1990).

Defendants submit a joint omnibus motion in limine to preclude
certain evidence at trial. They seek to preclude: (1) improper
specific causation testimony of plaintiffs' medical experts, the
subject of which will be addressed in a separate motion to be
heard on Wednesday April 5, 2017; (2) argument or evidence of
government statements or regulations regarding asbestos hazards;
(3) argument or evidence regarding knowledge or conduct post-
dating plaintiff's last exposures; (4) plaintiff's purported
expert witness Dr. Arnold Brody's testimony; (5) the testimony of
any MAS and MVA employee and to exclude evidence of any MAS and
MVA work practice studies; and (6) plaintiffs from arguing that
defendants are liable for products they did not manufacture or
supply. Defendants also seek to compel plaintiff to file all
possible claims to bankruptcy trusts and or seeking to forever
enjoin plaintiff from filing any claims to bankruptcy trusts.

In a decision and order dated April 5, 2017, a full-text copy of
which is available at https://is.gd/BLVduP from Leagle.com, Judge
Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County, held that
the motion in limine to preclude the submission of regulatory
materials and public health announcements is decided in accordance
with the following.  To the extent that plaintiffs intend to
introduce these documents into evidence, plaintiffs are directed
to submit an exhibit list of these documents, and identify the
relevant hearsay exception.

To the extent that the regulatory materials and public health
announcements will not be separately introduced at trial, but will
form the basis for expert testimony, the court cannot determine on
the submission whether the materials would be subject to the
professional reliability exception, Judge Moulton said.
Therefore, that aspect of the motion is denied, Judge Moulton
concluded.

The standards promulgated by regulatory agencies as protective
measures are inadmissible to demonstrate causation, the judge
said.  However, studies that lead to regulatory action can be
admissible (as opposed to standards promulgated by a regulatory
agency as a matter of policy), the judge added.  Defendants have
not demonstrated that the material upon which plaintiffs' experts
relied is based on outdated science such that it should be
excluded.  Further, defendants may submit their own scientific
evidence at trial (assuming that the evidence is admissible). The
parties are also instructed to work together on a jury instruction
clarifying that evidence derived from regulatory materials and
public health announcements is not relevant as to causation but is
relevant as to notice, if charged.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow's Case Proceeds Against John Crane
---------------------------------------------------------
Having been diagnosed with mesothelioma just three months earlier,
Ronald Carroll died on July 23, 2015.  Unquestionably, Carroll's
long-term exposure to asbestos while working in the Navy and later
at Wisconsin Power & Light contributed to his contracting
mesothelioma, a debilitating, ultimately fatal, lung disease
uniquely caused by asbestos.  In a civil suit, however, plaintiff
Patricia Carroll, Ronald Carroll's wife and the personal
representative of his estate, bring claims against other
defendants, manufacturers of asbestos products or of industrial
equipment in which asbestos was used, alleging that their products
were also causes of Ronald Carroll's death.

Before the court are defendants' motions for summary judgment,
arguing primarily that plaintiff cannot prove that any of
defendants' products caused Ronald Carroll's injury and that
defendants cannot be held liable for risks of harm introduced by
third party manufacturers of asbestos products under the so-called
"bare metal" defense.

The Court will grant summary judgment to all defendants except
John Crane Inc., the single manufacturer for which plaintiff has
presented enough evidence for a reasonable jury to infer that its
products were a cause of Carroll's asbestos-related injury.

The case is PATRICIA L. CARROLL, individually and as personal
representative of THE ESTATE OF RONALD KENNETH CARROLL, deceased
Plaintiff, v. ABB, INC., ATWOOD & MORRILL CO., INC., A.W.
CHESTERTON COMPANY, CRANE CO., CROSBY VALVE, INC., FLOWSERVE US
INC., INGERSOLL RAND COMPANY and JOHN CRANE INC., Defendants, No.
15-cv-373-wmc (W.D. Wis.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion & Order dated April 12, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/efboY2 from Leagle.com.

Estate of Ronald Kenneth Carroll, Plaintiff, represented by Steven
Scott Schulte , Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC.

Estate of Ronald Kenneth Carroll, Plaintiff, represented by David
Warren Henderson , Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC & Craig
Ronald Steger , Hale, Skemp, Hanson, Skemp & Sleik.

Patricia L. Carroll, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Scott
Schulte , Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, David Warren
Henderson , Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC & Craig Ronald
Steger , Hale, Skemp, Hanson, Skemp & Sleik.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin
, O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin ,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Mark Ingram
Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin ,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin ,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin ,
O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell,
Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin
Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller &
Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns
LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel
Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram
Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin ,
O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin ,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin ,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Counter Defendant,
represented by Smitha Chintamaneni , von Briesen & Roper.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin ,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin ,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin ,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin ,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin ,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin ,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin ,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin ,
O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell,
Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin
Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller
& Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin ,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond
Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin ,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin ,
O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell,
Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin
Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller &
Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns
LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel
Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram
Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 18 Cases at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. has 18 pending asbestos cases,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company states, "Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are
among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for
exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials.  The
Company currently has three pending silica cases and 18 pending
asbestos cases.  To date, 1,492 silica cases and 48 asbestos cases
have been dismissed, not including any lawsuits against AMCOL or
American Colloid Company dismissed prior to our acquisition of
AMCOL.  Six new asbestos cases were filed in the period, including
three new cases in the fourth quarter of 2016, and one additional
case in the first quarter of 2017.  No asbestos or silica cases
were closed during the fourth quarter, however, as previously
reported, twenty-seven silica cases and two asbestos cases were
closed during 2016.  Most of these claims do not provide adequate
information to assess their merits, the likelihood that the
Company will be found liable, or the magnitude of such liability,
if any.  Additional claims of this nature may be made against the
Company or its subsidiaries.  At this time, management anticipates
that the amount of the Company's liability, if any, and the cost
of defending such claims, will not have a material effect on its
financial position or results of operations.

"The Company has settled only one silica lawsuit, for a nominal
amount, and no asbestos lawsuits to date (not including any that
may have been settled by AMCOL prior to completion of the
acquisition).  We are unable to state an amount or range of
amounts claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court
pleading practices do not require identifying the amount of the
claimed damage.  The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal
defense of these cases since inception continues to be
insignificant.  The majority of the costs of defense for these
cases, excluding cases against AMCOL or American Colloid, are
reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. pursuant to the terms of certain
agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial
public offering in 1992.  Of the 18 pending asbestos cases all
except two allege liability based on products sold largely or
entirely prior to the initial public offering, and for which the
Company is therefore entitled to indemnification pursuant to such
agreements.  The two exceptions pertain to a pending asbestos case
against American Colloid Company, and one for which no period of
alleged exposure has been stated by plaintiffs.  Our experience
has been that the Company is not liable to plaintiffs in any of
these lawsuits and the Company does not expect to pay any
settlements or jury verdicts in these lawsuits."

Minerals Technologies Inc. develops, produces, and markets various
specialty mineral, mineral-based, and synthetic mineral products,
and supporting systems and services worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Has 6,883 Asbestos Claims at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp. has 6,883 pending asbestos claims at the end of
December 31, 2016, 7,151 at the end of December 15, 2015,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

Pending, new, total closed and closed without payment claims for
asbestos and environmental exposures for the years ended December
31 are summarized at: https://is.gd/myoErl

The Allstate Corporation is a publicly held personal lines
property and casualty insurer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Has $912MM Asbestos Reserves at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp.'s reserves for asbestos claims were $912
million and $960 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of $444
million and $458 million, as of December 31, 2016 and 2015,
respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

Reserves for environmental claims were $179 million and $179
million, net of reinsurance recoverables of $40 million and $43
million, as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
Approximately 57% of the total net asbestos and environmental
reserves as of both December 31, 2016 and 2015 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 factors,
management believes it is not practicable to develop a meaningful
range for any such additional net loss reserves that may be
required.

To see Allstate Corp.'s financial results, visit:
https://is.gd/myoErl

The Allstate Corporation is a publicly held personal lines
property and casualty insurer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Smith AO Still Faces Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Smith A O Corp. is involved in various unresolved legal actions,
administrative proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of
our business involving product liability, property damage,
insurance coverage, exposure to asbestos and other substances,
patents and environmental matters, including the disposal of
hazardous waste, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

The Company states: "Although it is not possible to predict with
certainty the outcome of these unresolved legal actions or the
range of possible loss or recovery, we believe, based on past
experience, adequate reserves and insurance availability, that
these unresolved legal actions will not have a material effect on
our financial position or results of operations."

A. O. Smith Corporation is a global manufacturer of residential
and commercial water heaters and boiler.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemtura Continues to Face Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corp. faces product liability claims, including claims
related to current and historic products and asbestos-related
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company states: "We are routinely subject to other civil
claims, litigation and arbitration, and regulatory investigations,
arising in the ordinary course of our business, as well as in
respect of our divested businesses. Some of these claims and
litigations relate to product liability claims, including claims
related to our current and historic products and asbestos-related
claims concerning premises and historic products of our corporate
affiliates and predecessors."

Chemtura Corp. is a global specialty chemicals company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Faces Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Eaton Corp. plc is subject to asbestos claims from historic
products which may have contained asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Eaton is subject to a broad range of claims, administrative and
legal proceedings such as lawsuits that relate to contractual
allegations, tax audits, patent infringement, personal injuries,
antitrust matters and employment-related matters. Eaton is also
subject to asbestos claims from historic products which may have
contained asbestos. Insurance may cover some of the 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. During the fourth quarter
of 2016, the Company was able to resolve several insurance
matters. In total, the income from insurance matters was $68
million.

Eaton Corporation plc operates as a power management company
worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has $6.6MM Asbestos Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
Selective Insurance Group Inc.'s asbestos claims constituted 29%
of the Company's $22.7 million net asbestos and environmental
reserves at December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company states: "Our general liability, excess liability, and
homeowners reserves include exposure to asbestos and environmental
claims. Our exposure to environmental liability is primarily due
to: (i) landfill exposures from policies written prior to the
absolute pollution endorsement in the mid 1980s; and (ii)
underground storage tank leaks mainly from New Jersey homeowners
policies. These environmental claims stem primarily from insured
exposures in municipal government, small non-manufacturing
commercial risks, and homeowners policies.

"The total carried net losses and loss expense reserves for these
claims were $22.7 million as of December 31, 2016 and $23.2
million as of December 31, 2015. The emergence of these claims
occurs over an extended period and is highly unpredictable. For
example, within our Standard Commercial Lines book, certain
landfill sites are included on the National Priorities List
("NPL") by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
("USEPA"). Once on the NPL, the USEPA determines an appropriate
remediation plan for these sites. A landfill can remain on the NPL
for many years until final approval for the removal of the site is
granted from the USEPA. The USEPA has the authority to re-open
previously closed sites and return them to the NPL. We currently
have reserves for nine customers related to six sites on the NPL.

"Asbestos claims" are claims for bodily injury alleged to have
occurred from exposure to asbestos-containing products. Our
primary exposure arises from insuring various distributors of
asbestos-containing products, such as electrical and plumbing
materials. At December 31, 2016, asbestos claims constituted 29%
of our $22.7 million net asbestos and environmental reserves,
compared to 29% of our $23.2 million net asbestos and
environmental reserves at December 31, 2015.

"Environmental claims" are claims alleging bodily injury or
property damage from pollution or other environmental contaminants
other than asbestos. These claims include landfills and leaking
underground storage tanks. Our landfill exposure lies largely in
policies written for municipal governments, in their operation or
maintenance of certain public lands. In addition to landfill
exposures, in recent years, we have experienced a relatively
consistent level of reported losses in the homeowners line of
business related to claims for groundwater contamination from
leaking underground heating oil storage tanks in New Jersey. In
2007, we instituted a fuel oil system exclusion on our New Jersey
homeowners policies that limits our exposure to leaking
underground storage tanks for certain customers. At that time,
existing customers were offered a one-time opportunity to buy back
oil tank liability coverage.  The exclusion applies to all new
homeowners policies in New Jersey. These customers are eligible
for the buy-back option only if the tank meets specific
eligibility criteria.

"Our asbestos and environmental claims are handled in our
centralized and specialized asbestos and environmental claim unit.
Case reserves for these exposures are evaluated on a claim-by-
claim basis. The ability to assess potential exposure often
improves as a claim develops, including judicial determinations of
coverage issues. As a result, reserves are adjusted accordingly.

"Estimating IBNR reserves for asbestos and environmental claims is
difficult because of the delayed and inconsistent reporting
patterns associated with these claims. In addition, there are
significant uncertainties associated with estimating critical
assumptions, such as average clean-up costs, third-party costs,
potentially responsible party shares, allocation of damages,
litigation and coverage costs, and potential state and federal
legislative changes. Normal historically-based actuarial
approaches cannot be applied to asbestos and environmental claims
because past loss history is not indicative of future potential
loss emergence. In addition, while certain alternative models can
be applied, such models can produce significantly different
results with small changes in assumptions. As a result, we do not
calculate an asbestos and environmental loss range. Historically,
our asbestos and environmental claims have been significantly
lower in volume, with less volatility and uncertainty than many of
our competitors in the commercial lines industry. Prior to the
introduction of the absolute pollution exclusion endorsement in
the mid-1980's, we were primarily a personal lines carrier and
therefore do not have broad exposure to asbestos and environmental
claims. Additionally, we are the primary insurance carrier on the
majority of these exposures, which provides more certainty in our
reserve position compared to others in the insurance marketplace."

Selective Insurance Group, Inc. is a regional insurance holding
company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Corp. Faces 22 Asbestos Claims at Jan. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
GATX Corp. and subsidiaries face 22 remaining asbestos-related
cases as of January 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company states, "Several of our subsidiaries have also been
named as defendants or co-defendants in cases alleging injury
caused by exposure to asbestos. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified
amount of damages based on common law, statutory, or premises
liability or, in the case of claims against the company's business
unit American Steamship Company (ASC), the Jones Act, which
provides limited remedies to certain maritime employees. In
January 2017, GATX agreed to settle Jones Act cases originally
filed against ASC in the United States District Court, Northern
District of Ohio for an immaterial amount. During 2016, an
additional 3 asbestos cases were dismissed without payment. As of
January 31, 2017, there remains 22 asbestos-related cases pending
against GATX and its subsidiaries, which includes 7 new asbestos
cases filed during 2016. In addition, demand has been made against
GATX for asbestos-related claims under limited indemnities given
in connection with the sale of certain of our former subsidiaries.
It is possible that the number of these cases or claims for
indemnity could begin to grow and that the cost of these cases,
including costs to defend, could correspondingly increase in the
future."

GATX Corporation is in the business of railcar leasing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alleghany Has $166.3MM Net Loss, LAE Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Corp. has $166.3 million net loss and loss adjustment
expenses (LAE) reserves for asbestos-related illness and
environmental impairment liabilities as of December 31, 2016,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company states: "Our reinsurance and insurance subsidiaries'
reserves for loss and LAE include amounts for risks relating to
asbestos-related illness and environmental impairment. The
reserves carried for such claims, including the incurred but not
yet reported (IBNR) portion, are based upon known facts and
current law at the respective balance sheet dates. However,
significant uncertainty exists in determining the amount of
ultimate liability for asbestos-related illness and environmental
impairment losses, particularly for those occurring in 1985 and
prior, which before TransRe's entry into the Commutation
Agreement, represented the majority of TransRe's asbestos-related
illness and environmental impairment reserves. This uncertainty is
due to inconsistent and changing court resolutions and judicial
interpretations with respect to underlying policy intent and
coverage and uncertainties as to the allocation of responsibility
for resultant damages, among other reasons. Further, possible
future changes in statutes, laws, regulations, theories of
liability and other factors could have a material effect on these
liabilities and, accordingly, future earnings. Although we are
unable at this time to determine whether additional reserves,
which could have a material adverse effect upon our results of
operations, may be necessary in the future, we believe that our
asbestos-related illness and environmental impairment reserves
were adequate as of December 31, 2016.

"On November 30, 2015, Transatlantic Holdings, Inc. (TransRe)
entered into a commutation and release agreement with AIG Property
Casualty, Inc., National Indemnity Company and Resolute
Management, Inc. with respect to certain reinsurance contracts, or
the "Commutation Agreement," including contracts covering
asbestos-related illness and environmental impairment liabilities
for 1986 and prior years, or the "Commuted A&E Liabilities."
Pursuant to the Commutation Agreement, TransRe made a settlement
payment of $400.0 million in 2015 to terminate certain liabilities
and obligations, including for the Commuted A&E Liabilities, which
eliminated the vast majority of its asbestos-related illness and
environmental impairment loss and LAE reserves. As a result of the
Commutation Agreement, TransRe incurred $38.2 million ($24.8
million after-tax) of unfavorable prior accident year loss reserve
development in the fourth quarter of 2015.

"As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, gross and net loss and LAE
reserves for asbestos-related illness and environmental impairment
liabilities were https://is.gd/6yjEBV

"As of December 31, 2016, the reserves for asbestos-related
illness liabilities were approximately nine times the average paid
claims for the prior three year period, compared with eight times
as of December 31, 2015. As of December 31, 2016, the reserves for
environmental impairment liabilities were approximately five times
the average paid claims for the prior three year period, compared
with five times as of December 31, 2015.

"The reconciliation of the beginning and ending gross reserves for
unpaid loss and LAE related to asbestos-related illness and
environmental impairment claims of our reinsurance and insurance
subsidiaries for the years 2014 through 2016."

Alleghany Corporation is an insurance holding company.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Equity Lifestyle Under Probe Over Compliance
------------------------------------------------------------
Equity Lifestyle Properties Inc. continues to assess the
allegations and the underlying facts regarding an investigative
subpoena by certain California District Attorneys seeking
information relating to, among other items, statewide compliance
with asbestos and hazardous waste regulations, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company states: "In November 2014, we received a civil
investigative subpoena from the office of the District Attorney
for Monterey County, California ("MCDA"), seeking information
relating to, among other items, statewide compliance with asbestos
and hazardous waste regulations dating back to 2005 primarily in
connection with demolition and renovation projects performed by
third-party contractors at our California Properties.  We
responded by providing the information required by the subpoena.

"On October 20, 2015, we attended a meeting with representatives
of the MCDA and certain other District Attorneys' offices at which
the MCDA reviewed the preliminary results of their investigation
including, among other things, (i) alleged violations of asbestos
and related regulations associated with approximately 200
historical demolition and renovation projects in California; (ii)
potential exposure to civil penalties and unpaid fees; and (iii)
next steps with respect to a negotiated resolution of the alleged
violations. No legal proceedings have been instituted to date and
we are involved in settlement discussions with the District
Attorneys' offices. We continue to assess the allegations and the
underlying facts, and at this time we are unable to predict the
outcome of the investigation or reasonably estimate any possible
loss."

Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc. owns or has controlling interest
in nearly 400 communities and resorts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Has $61MM A&E Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. has $61.0 million, $57.7 million
and $60.6 million of asbestos and environmental reserves as of
December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company states: "Although we attempt to limit our exposures to
asbestos and environmental damage liability through specific
policy exclusions, we have been and may continue to be subject to
claims related to these exposures. Ending loss and LAE reserves
for all direct business written by our property and casualty
companies related to asbestos and environmental damage liability
were $9.9 million, $9.5 million and $10.1 million, net of
reinsurance of $19.9 million, $20.5 million, and $21.4 million for
the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
Activity for our asbestos and environmental reserves was not
significant to our 2016, 2015 or 2014 financial results. In recent
years, average asbestos and environmental payments have declined
modestly. As a result of our historical direct underwriting mix of
Commercial Lines policies toward smaller and middle market risks,
past asbestos and environmental damage liability loss experience
has remained minimal in relation to our total loss and LAE
incurred experience.

"In addition, we have established gross and net loss and LAE
reserves for assumed reinsurance pool business with asbestos and
environmental damage liability of $31.2 million, $27.7 million and
$29.1 million at December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
These reserves relate to pools in which we have terminated our
participation; however, we continue to be subject to claims
related to years in which we were a participant. Results of
operations from these pools are included in our Other segment. A
significant part of our pool reserves relates to our participation
in the ECRA voluntary pool from 1950 to 1982. In 1982, the pool
was dissolved and since that time, the business has been in run-
off. Our percentage of the total pool liabilities varied from 1%
to 6% during these years. Our participation in this pool has
resulted in average paid losses of approximately $2 million
annually over the past ten years. Our ECRA reserves were increased
by $7.4 million based on an updated third-party actuarial study
received in the fourth quarter.

"We estimate our ultimate liability for asbestos, environmental
and toxic tort liability claims, whether resulting from direct
business, assumed reinsurance or pool business, based upon
currently known facts, reasonable assumptions where the facts are
not known, current law and methodologies currently available.
Although these outstanding claims are not significant, their
existence gives rise to uncertainty and are discussed because of
the possibility that they may become significant. We believe that,
notwithstanding the evolution of case law expanding liability in
asbestos and environmental claims, recorded reserves related to
these claims are adequate. Nevertheless, the asbestos,
environmental and toxic tort liability reserves could be revised,
and any such revisions could have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations for a particular quarterly or annual period
or on our financial position."

The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., based in Worcester, Mass., is
the holding company for several property and casualty insurance
companies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBLI Had US$15.8MM Net Loss Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Global Indemnity Limited (NASDAQ: GBLI) had US$15.8 million of net
loss reserves for asbestos-related claims as of December 31, 2016,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

Global Indemnity states, "The Company's environmental exposure
arises from the sale of general liability and commercial multi-
peril insurance.  Currently, the Company's policies continue to
exclude classic environmental contamination claims.  However, in
some states, the Company is required, depending on the
circumstances, to provide coverage for certain bodily injury
claims, such as an individual's exposure to a release of
chemicals.  The Company has also issued policies that were
intended to provide limited pollution and environmental coverage.
These policies were specific to certain types of products
underwritten by the Company.  The Company has also received a
number of asbestos-related claims, the majority of which are
declined based on well-established exclusions.  In establishing
the liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses
related to A&E exposures, management considers facts currently
known and the current state of the law and coverage litigations.
Estimates of these liabilities are reviewed and updated
continually.

"Uncertainty remains as to the Company's ultimate liability for
asbestos-related claims due to such factors as the long latency
period between asbestos exposure and disease manifestation and the
resulting potential for involvement of multiple policy periods for
individual claims, the increase in the volume of claims made by
plaintiffs who claim exposure but who have no symptoms of
asbestos-related disease, and an increase in claims subject to
coverage under general liability policies that do not contain
aggregate limits of liability.

"The liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses,
inclusive of A&E reserves, reflects the Company's best estimates
for future amounts needed to pay losses and related adjustment
expenses as of each of the balance sheet dates reflected in the
financial statements herein in accordance with GAAP.  As of
December 31, 2016, the Company had US$15.8 million of net loss
reserves for asbestos-related claims and US$14.1 million for
environmental claims.  The Company attempts to estimate the full
impact of the A&E exposures by establishing specific case reserves
on all known losses.

"In addition to the factors, establishing reserves for A&E and
other mass tort claims involves considerably more judgment than
other types of claims due to, among other things, inconsistent
court decisions, an increase in bankruptcy filings as a result of
asbestos related liabilities, and judicial interpretations that
often expand theories of recovery and broaden the scope of
coverage.

"The insurance industry continues to receive a substantial number
of asbestos-related bodily injury claims, with an increasing focus
being directed toward other parties, including installers of
products containing asbestos rather than against asbestos
manufacturers.  This shift has resulted in significant insurance
coverage litigation implicating applicable coverage defenses or
determinations, if any, including but not limited to,
determinations as to whether or not an asbestos-related bodily
injury claim is subject to aggregate limits of liability found in
most comprehensive general liability policies.  The Company
continues to closely monitor its asbestos exposure and make
adjustments where they are warranted.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2pkNakK

Global Indemnity plc (Global Indemnity) is a holding company.
Global Indemnity is a property and casualty insurers in the
industry, provides its insurance products across a distribution
network-binding authority, program, brokerage, and reinsurance.
The Company manages the distribution of these products in two
segments: Insurance Operations and Reinsurance Operations. The
Company offers property and casualty insurance products in the
excess and surplus lines marketplace through its Insurance
Operations and provides third party treaty reinsurance for writers
of excess and surplus and specialty lines of property and casualty
insurance through its Reinsurance Operations. The Company's
subsidiaries include United National Insurance Company, Penn-
America Insurance Company and Penn-Star Insurance Company; Diamond
State Insurance Company and United National Casualty Insurance
Company; United National Specialty Insurance Company and Penn-
Patriot Insurance Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Had 3,313 Cases Pending at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
There were 3,313 pending asbestos-related cases filed against
Graybar Electric Company, Inc., as of December 31, 2016, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company states, "More specifically, with respect to asbestos
litigation, as of December 31, 2016, 3,247 individual cases and 66
multiple-plaintiff cases are pending that allege actual or
potential asbestos-related injuries resulting from the use of or
exposure to products allegedly sold by us.  Additional claims will
likely be filed against us in the future.  Our insurance carriers
have historically borne virtually all costs and liability with
respect to this litigation and are continuing to do so.
Accordingly, our future liability with respect to pending and
unasserted claims is dependent on the continued solvency of our
insurance carriers.  Other factors that could impact this
liability are: the number of future claims filed against us; the
defense and settlement costs associated with these claims; changes
in the litigation environment, including changes in federal or
state law governing the compensation of asbestos claimants;
adverse jury verdicts in excess of historic settlement amounts;
and bankruptcies of other asbestos defendants.  Because any of
these factors may change, our future exposure is unpredictable,
and it is possible that we may incur costs that would have a
material adverse impact on our liquidity, financial position, or
results of operations in future periods."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2oCGYU2

Graybar Electric Company, Inc., distributes more than 1 million
electrical, communications, and data networking products through a
network of around 250 distribution facilities. Its diversified
lineup includes a myriad of wire, cable, and lighting products
from thousands of manufacturers and suppliers. It also offers
supply chain management and logistics services. Affiliate Graybar
Financial Services provides equipment leasing and financing.
Graybar Electric sells to construction contractors, industrial
plants, power utilities, and telecommunications providers,
primarily in the US.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Still Defends 103 Cases at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc., continues to defend itself against 103
asbestos cases, the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in various
lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a
result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured
by our former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed
dust.  In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos
from working in various facilities previously owned and/or
operated by us.  There are 103 of these types of cases pending,
involving a total of approximately 588 plaintiffs.  In addition,
the claims of approximately 8,687 plaintiffs have been
administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in
Ohio state courts.  We do not expect these claims will be re-
opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for
asbestos-related claims.  We have not accrued any amounts for this
litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and inability
to reasonably estimate the liability, if any.  To date, we have
not been adjudicated liable in any of these matters.

"Based on information available to us, including:

   * facts concerning historical operations,
   * the rate of new claims,
   * the number of claims from which we have been dismissed, and
   * our prior experience in the defense of these matters,

we believe that the range of reasonably possible outcomes of these
matters will be consistent with our historical costs (which are
not material).  Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably
possible outcome would involve amounts material to our
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity.  We have sought and will continue to vigorously seek,
dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from each claim.  In
addition, from time to time, we have received notices regarding
asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former
subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which we
have entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance
policies.  These insurers may seek indemnification from us.

"In addition to the litigation, we and our affiliates are also
involved in various other environmental, contractual, product
liability, patent (or intellectual property), employment and other
claims and disputes incidental to present and former businesses.
In certain cases, we have insurance coverage for these items,
although we do not expect additional material insurance coverage
for environmental matters.

"We currently believe the disposition of all of these various
other claims and disputes, individually and in the aggregate,
should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
financial position, results of operations or liquidity beyond the
accruals already provided."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2oM7Z7N


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Faces 2 Mesothelioma Suits at Dec.31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Two asbestos lawsuits against The Dixie Group, among other
defendants, are still ongoing, according to the Company's Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company states, "We are one of multiple parties to two
lawsuits, both filed in Madison County Illinois, styled Sandra D.
Watts, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of
Dianne Averett, Deceased vs. 4520 Corp., Inc. f/k/a Benjamin F.
Shaw Company, et al No. 12-L-2032 and styled Brenda Bridgeman,
Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Robert
Bridgeman, Deceased, vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., f/k/a
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al No. 15-L-374.  Each lawsuit
entails a claim for damages to be determined in excess of
US$50,000 filed on behalf of the estate of an individual which
alleges that the deceased contracted mesothelioma as a result of
exposure to asbestos while employed by the Company.  Discovery in
both matters is ongoing, and tentative trial dates have been set.
We have denied liability, are defending the matters vigorously and
are unable to estimate our potential exposure to loss, if any, at
this time."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2oiSPmH


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Facing 42 Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noble Corporation plc remains a defendant in 42 asbestos-related
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company states, "We are from time to time a party to various
lawsuits that are incidental to our operations in which the
claimants seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for
personal injury, including injuries purportedly resulting from
exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities.
At December 31, 2016, there were 42 asbestos related lawsuits in
which we are one of many defendants.  These lawsuits have been
filed in the United States in the states of Louisiana and
Mississippi.  We intend to vigorously defend against the
litigation.  We do not believe the ultimate resolution of these
matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2poEiru


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners' Unit Has 57 Claims at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of Steel Partners Holdings L.P. has 57 pending asbestos
claims as of December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company states, "(All monetary amounts used in this discussion
are in thousands unless otherwise indicated.) BNS Sub has been
named as a defendant in 1,371 alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort
claims as of December 31, 2016.  The claims were filed over a
period beginning 1994 through December 31, 2016.  In many cases
these claims involved more than 100 defendants.  Of the claims
filed, 1,314 were dismissed, settled or granted summary judgment
and closed as of December 31, 2016.  Of the claims settled, the
average settlement was less than US$3.  There remained 57 pending
asbestos claims as of December 31, 2016.  There can be no
assurance that the number of future claims and the related costs
of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the
experience to date of existing claims.

"BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims
for years beginning 1974 through 1988 with estimated aggregate
coverage limits of US$183,000, with US$1,543 at December 31, 2016
and 2015, respectively, in estimated remaining self-insurance
retention (deductible).  There is secondary evidence of coverage
from 1970 to 1973 although there is no assurance that the insurers
will recognize that the coverage was in place.  Policies issued
for BNS Sub beginning in 1989 contained exclusions related to
asbestos.  Under certain circumstances, some of the settled claims
may be reopened.  Also, there may be a significant delay in
receipt of notification by BNS Sub of the entry of a dismissal or
settlement of a claim or the filing of a new claim.  BNS Sub
believes it has significant defenses to any liability for toxic-
tort claims on the merits.  None of these toxic-tort claims has
gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that these
defenses will prevail.

"BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits from
its insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims
accruals as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as
estimates of the ultimate settlement and defense costs for the
then-existing claims are revised.  As of December 31, 2016 and
2015, BNS Sub has accrued US$1,349 and US$1,422, respectively,
relating to the open and active claims against BNS Sub.  This
accrual represents the Company's best estimate of the likely costs
to defend against or settle these claims by BNS Sub beyond the
amounts accrued by the insurance carriers and previously funded,
through the retroactive billings by BNS Sub.

"There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and
the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be
consistent with the experience to date of existing claims, and
that BNS Sub will not need to increase significantly its estimated
liability for the costs to settle these claims to an amount that
could have a material effect on the consolidated financial
statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2oM2qGH


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 229 Cases vs. Ceco Still Pending at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Ceco Environmental Corp. continues to defend itself against 229
pending cases as of December 31, 2016, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016

The Company states, "Our subsidiary, Met-Pro, beginning in 2002
began to be named in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a
large number of industrial companies including, in particular,
those in the pump and fluid handling industries.  In management's
opinion, the complaints typically have been vague, general and
speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other
defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and
engaged in other related actions which caused injuries (including
death) and loss to the plaintiffs.  Counsel has advised that more
recent cases typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma.
The Company's insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the
Company, are vigorously defending these cases.  Many cases have
been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of
exposure to Met-Pro's products.  In those cases where evidence has
been produced, the Company's experience has been that the exposure
levels are low and the Company's position has been that its
products were not a cause of death, injury or loss.  The Company
has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases.
Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through December 31, 2016
for cases involving asbestos-related claims were US$1.1 million
which together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel
expenses; US$1.0 million have been paid by the Company's insurers.
The average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was
approximately US$30,000.

"Based upon the most recent information available to the Company
regarding such claims, there were a total of 229 cases pending
against the Company as of December 31, 2016 (with Connecticut, New
York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of
cases), as compared with 221 cases that were pending as of January
1, 2016.  During 2016, 75 new cases were filed against the
Company, and the Company was dismissed from 63 cases and settled 4
cases.  Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the
early stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on
schedules leading to, or are scheduled for trial.  The Company
believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for the cases
currently pending against the Company and for the foreseeable
future, assuming a continuation of the current volume, nature of
cases and settlement amounts.  However, the Company has no control
over the number and nature of cases that are filed against it, nor
as to the financial health of its insurers or their position as to
coverage.  The Company also presently believes that none of the
pending cases will have a material adverse impact upon the
Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial
condition."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2ojdDua


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Records $4.6MM Asbestos Charge
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation (NYSE: AP) records US$4.6 million net
charge associated primarily with revaluing the estimated
liabilities and insurance receivables for asbestos litigation
through 2026, according to the Company's news release attached
with its Form 8-K filing dated March 14, 2017 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Loss from operations for the three months
ended December 31, 2016, was US$39.8 million and included
impairment losses of US$26.7 million, primarily from the
impairment of goodwill in the Forged and Cast Engineered Products
reporting unit ("Impairment Charge") and a US$4.6 million net
charge associated primarily with revaluing the estimated
liabilities and insurance receivables for asbestos litigation
through 2026 ("Asbestos Charge").  This compares to income from
operations in the prior year quarter of US$7.7 million, which
included approximately US$14.0 million of proceeds received from
an insurance carrier in rehabilitation and US$3.0 million in costs
related to potential acquisitions.  Loss from operations for the
full year ended December 31, 2016, was US$54.5 million and
included the aforementioned Impairment Charge, Asbestos Charge,
and approximately US$7.5 million in acquisition-related costs and
purchase accounting impacts.  This compares to income from
operations of US$5.0 million for the full year ended December 31,
2015, which included the aforementioned proceeds received from
insurance carriers in rehabilitation and acquisition-related
costs.

"Sales for the Air and Liquid Processing segment increased nearly
5% for Q4 2016 compared to the prior year quarter as higher
shipment volumes of centrifugal pumps more than offset softer
shipments for custom air handlers and heat exchange coils.  The
segment's sales for full year 2016 decreased approximately 2% as
lower demand for heat exchange coils in the coal-fired power
generation market was only partly offset by the higher demand for
centrifugal pumps.  The segment's operating income for the quarter
and full year ended December 31, 2016 declined compared to prior
year due to the Asbestos Charge recorded in the current year
compared to the insurance recoveries received in the prior year.
Higher centrifugal pump shipment volumes, improved productivity,
and cost reductions across the segment more than offset the impact
of lower heat exchange coil volumes in underlying operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://is.gd/Frx9og


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,618 Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has 6,618 asbestos-related claims
pending at December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company states, "Claims have been asserted alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components
historically used in some products of predecessors of Air & Liquid
Systems Corporation ("Asbestos Liability").  Those subsidiaries,
and in some cases the Corporation, are defendants (among a number
of defendants, often in excess of 50) in cases filed in various
state and federal courts.

"The following table reflects approximate information about the
claims for Asbestos Liability against the subsidiaries and the
Corporation for the two years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015.

                                            2016      2015
                                            ----      ----
    Total claims pending at
      the beginning of the period          6,212     8,457
    New claims served                      1,452     1,424
    Claims dismissed                        (782)   (3,339)
    Claims settled                          (264)     (330)
                                     ---------------------
    Total claims pending at
      the end of the period*               6,618     6,212
                                     ---------------------
    Gross settlement and
      defense costs (in 000's)         US$17,960 US$19,199
                                     ---------------------
    Average gross settlement
      and defense costs per
      claim resolved (in 000's)         US$17.17   US$5.23

"*Included as "open claims" are approximately 444 and 430 claims
in 2016 and 2015, respectively, classified in various
jurisdictions as "inactive" or transferred to a state or federal
judicial panel on multi-district litigation, commonly referred to
as the MDL.

"A substantial majority of the settlement and defense costs
reflected in the table was reported and paid by insurers.  Because
claims are often filed and can be settled or dismissed in large
groups, the amount and timing of settlements, as well as the
number of open claims, can fluctuate significantly from period to
period."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2pmdhHT


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh's Suit vs. Insurers Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals has issued an order on November 23,
2016, to dismiss, by agreement of all parties, an asbestos
insurance case filed by Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation against
certain insurers, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

The Company states, "The Corporation and its Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation ("Air & Liquid") subsidiary are parties to a series of
settlement agreements ("Settlement Agreements") with insurers that
have coverage obligations for Asbestos Liability (the "Settling
Insurers").  Under the Settlement Agreements, the Settling
Insurers accept financial responsibility, subject to the terms and
conditions of the respective agreements, including overall
coverage limits, for pending and future claims for Asbestos
Liability.  The Settlement Agreements encompass the substantial
majority of insurance policies that provide coverage for claims
for Asbestos Liability.

"The Settlement Agreements include acknowledgements that Howden
North America, Inc. ("Howden") is entitled to coverage under
policies covering Asbestos Liability for claims arising out of the
historical products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge,
a former subsidiary of the Corporation (the "Products").  The
Settlement Agreements do not provide for any prioritization on
access to the applicable policies or any sublimits of liability as
to Howden or the Corporation and Air & Liquid, and, accordingly,
Howden may access the coverage afforded by the Settling Insurers
for any covered claim arising out of a Product.  In general,
access by Howden to the coverage afforded by the Settling Insurers
for the Products will erode coverage under the Settlement
Agreements available to the Corporation and Air & Liquid for
Asbestos Liability.

"On February 24, 2011, the Corporation and Air & Liquid filed a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania against thirteen domestic insurance
companies, certain underwriters at Lloyd's, London and certain
London market insurance companies, and Howden.  The lawsuit sought
a declaratory judgment regarding the respective rights and
obligations of the parties under excess insurance policies that
were issued to the Corporation from 1981 through 1984 as respects
claims against the Corporation and Air & Liquid for Asbestos
Liability and as respects asbestos bodily-injury claims against
Howden arising from the Products.

"By September 2013, the Corporation and Air & Liquid had reached
Settlement Agreements with all but two of the defendant insurers
in the coverage action.  Those Settlement Agreements specify the
terms and conditions upon which the insurer parties are to
contribute to defense and indemnity costs for claims for Asbestos
Liability.  One of the Settlement Agreements entered into by the
Corporation and Air & Liquid also provided for the dismissal of
claims, without prejudice, regarding two upper-level excess
policies issued by one of the insurers.  The Court entered Orders
dismissing all claims in the action filed against each other by
the Corporation and Air & Liquid, on the one hand, and by the
settling insurers, on the other.

"Howden also reached an agreement with eight domestic insurers
addressing asbestos-related bodily injury claims arising from the
Products, and claims as to those insurers and Howden were also
dismissed.  Various counterclaims, cross claims and third party
claims had been filed in the litigation and remained pending as of
September 27, 2013 although only two domestic insurers and Howden
remained in the litigation as to the Corporation and Air & Liquid
at that time.

"On September 27, 2013, the Court issued a memorandum opinion and
order granting in part and denying in part cross motions for
summary judgment filed by the Corporation and Air & Liquid,
Howden, and the insurer parties still in the litigation.  On
February 26, 2015, the Court issued final judgment.  One insurer
filed a notice of appeal from the judgment to the U.S. Court of
Appeals to the Third Circuit; as a result, several other insurers,
Howden, the Corporation, and Air & Liquid filed notices of appeal.

"On November 2, 2016, the Corporation and Air & Liquid reached a
settlement with one of the two insurer defendants that remained in
the litigation as to them.  Thereafter, the U.S. Court of Appeals
issued an order of dismissal of the case on November 23, 2016 by
agreement of all parties."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2pmdhHT


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has US$171MM Liability Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has $171 million reserve at December
31, 2016, for the total costs, including defense costs, for
Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted
through 2026, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company states, "In 2006, the Corporation retained Hamilton,
Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized
expert in the valuation of asbestos liabilities, to assist the
Corporation in estimating the potential liability for pending and
unasserted future claims for Asbestos Liability.  Based on this
analysis, the Corporation recorded a reserve for Asbestos
Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2013
as of December 31, 2006.  HR&A's analysis has been periodically
updated since that time.  Most recently, the HR&A analysis was
updated in 2016, and additional reserves were established by the
Corporation as of December 31, 2016 for Asbestos Liability claims
pending or projected to be asserted through 2026.  The methodology
used by HR&A in its projection in 2016 of the operating
subsidiaries' liability for pending and unasserted potential
future claims for Asbestos Liability, which is substantially the
same as the methodology employed by HR&A in prior estimates,
relied upon and included the following factors:

   * HR&A's interpretation of a widely accepted forecast of the
population likely to have been exposed to asbestos;

   * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people
likely to develop asbestos-related diseases;

   * HR&A's analysis of the number of people likely to file an
asbestos-related injury claim against the subsidiaries and the
Corporation based on such epidemiological data and relevant claims
history from January 1, 2014 to September 9, 2016;

   * an analysis of pending cases, by type of injury claimed and
jurisdiction where the claim is filed;

   * an analysis of claims resolution history from January 1, 2014
to September 9, 2016 to determine the average settlement value of
claims, by type of injury claimed and jurisdiction of filing; and

   * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
value of claims, at an annual inflation rate based on the
Congressional Budget Office's ten year forecast of inflation.

"Using this information, HR&A estimated in 2016 the number of
future claims for Asbestos Liability that would be filed through
the year 2026, as well as the settlement or indemnity costs that
would be incurred to resolve both pending and future unasserted
claims through 2026.  This methodology has been accepted by
numerous courts.

"In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Corporation also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its Asbestos Liabilities.  In developing the
estimate, the Corporation considered HR&A's projection for
settlement or indemnity costs for Asbestos Liability and
management's projection of associated defense costs (based on the
current defense to indemnity cost ratio), as well as a number of
additional factors.  These additional factors included the
Settlement Agreements then in effect, policy exclusions, policy
limits, policy provisions regarding coverage for defense costs,
attachment points, prior impairment of policies and gaps in the
coverage, policy exhaustions, insolvencies among certain of the
insurance carriers, and the nature of the underlying claims for
Asbestos Liability asserted against the subsidiaries and the
Corporation as reflected in the Corporation's asbestos claims
database, as well as estimated erosion of insurance limits on
account of claims against Howden arising out of the Products.

"In addition to consulting with the Corporation's outside legal
counsel on these insurance matters, the Corporation consulted with
a nationally-recognized insurance consulting firm it retained to
assist the Corporation with certain policy allocation matters that
also are among the several factors considered by the Corporation
when analyzing potential recoveries from relevant historical
insurance for Asbestos Liabilities.  Based upon all of the factors
considered by the Corporation, and taking into account the
Corporation's analysis of publicly available information regarding
the credit-worthiness of various insurers, the Corporation
estimated the probable insurance recoveries for Asbestos Liability
and defense costs through 2026.  Although the Corporation believes
that the assumptions employed in the insurance valuation were
reasonable and previously consulted with its outside legal counsel
and insurance consultant regarding those assumptions, there are
other assumptions that could have been employed that would have
resulted in materially lower insurance recovery projections.

"Based on the analyses, the Corporation's reserve at December 31,
2016 for the total costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos
Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2026
was US$171 million of which approximately 70% was attributable to
settlement costs for unasserted claims projected to be filed
through 2026 and future defense costs.  While it is reasonably
possible that the Corporation will incur additional charges for
Asbestos Liability and defense costs in excess of the  amounts
currently reserved, the Corporation believes that there is too
much uncertainty to provide for reasonable estimation of the
number of future claims, the nature of such claims and the cost to
resolve them beyond 2026.  Accordingly, no reserve has been
recorded for any costs that may be incurred after 2026.

"The Corporation's receivable at December 31, 2016 for insurance
recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Corporation's
Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the
portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Settlement
Agreements in effect through December 31, 2016, and the probable
payments and reimbursements relating to the estimated indemnity
and defense costs for pending and unasserted future Asbestos
Liability claims, was US$116 million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2pmdhHT


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Case vs. E-Source Set for This Summer
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit against a Vertex Energy, Inc., unit is
set for trial in the summer of 2017, according to Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company states, "E-Source, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vertex
Operating, was named as a defendant (along with Motiva
Enterprises, LLC, ("Motiva")) in a lawsuit filed in the Sixtieth
(60th) Judicial District, Jefferson County, Texas, on April 22,
2015.  Pursuant to the lawsuit, Whole Environmental, Inc.
("Whole"), made certain allegations against E-Source, and Motiva.
The claims include Breach of Contract and Quantum Meruit actions
relating to asbestos abatement and remediation operations
performed for defendants at Motiva's facility in Port Arthur,
Jefferson County, Texas.  The plaintiff alleges it is due monies
earned.  Defendants have denied any amounts due plaintiff.  The
suit seeks damages of approximately US$864,000, along with pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, the fair value of certain
property alleged to be converted by defendants and reimbursement
of legal fees.  E-Source has asserted a counterclaim against Whole
for the filing of a mechanic's lien in excess of any amount(s)
actually due as well as a cross-claim against Motiva.  Under the
terms of E-Source's contract with Motiva, Motiva was to pay all
sums due to any sub-contractors of E-Source.  If any additional
monies are owed to Whole, those monies should be paid by Motiva.
E-Source seeks to recover the balance due under its contract with
Motiva of approximately US$1,000,000.  The case is set for trial
in the summer of 2017.  We intend to vigorously defend ourselves
against the allegations made in the complaint.  The Company has no
basis of determining whether there is any likelihood of material
loss associated with the claims and/or the potential and/or the
outcome of the litigation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2ofB7kM


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Units Still Face PI Suits at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Corporation subsidiaries continue to be defendants in active
personal injury lawsuits related to asbestos exposure, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company states, "Some of our subsidiaries as premises owners
are defendants in active lawsuits filed on behalf of persons
alleging injury as a result of occupational exposure to asbestos
at various facilities.  A former affiliate of a subsidiary has
been named, along with a large common group of industrial
companies, in a pattern complaint where our involvement is not
evident.  Since 1999, several thousand such complaints have been
filed.  To date, the former affiliate has been dismissed from
almost every case that was actually placed in line for trial.  Our
subsidiaries and acquired companies, all have had numerous
insurance policies over the years that provide coverage for
asbestos based claims.  Many of these policies provide layers of
coverage for varying periods of time and for varying locations.
We have significant insurance coverage and believes that its
reserves are adequate for its known asbestos exposure related
liabilities.  The costs of defense and settlement have not been
and are not expected to be material to the results of operations,
cash flows, and financial position of Alcoa Corporation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2nRyRnX


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Intricon Still Faces Suits at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------
Intricon Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos
lawsuits related to its discontinued heat technologies segment,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

Intricon states, "The Company is a defendant along with a number
of other parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may
have contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure
to asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one
or more named defendants.  These lawsuits relate to the
discontinued heat technologies segment which was sold in March
2005.  Due to the non-informative nature of the complaints, the
Company does not know whether any of the complaints state valid
claims against the Company.

"Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the
primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been
exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide defense and
insurance coverage under those policies.  However, the Company has
other primary and excess insurance policies that the Company
believes afford coverage for later years.

"Some of these other primary insurers have accepted defense and
insurance coverage for these suits, and some of them have either
ignored the Company's tender of defense of these cases, or have
denied coverage, or have accepted the tenders but asserted a
reservation of rights and/or advised the Company that they need to
investigate further.  Because settlement payments are applied to
all years a litigant was deemed to have been exposed to asbestos,
the Company believes that it will have funds available for defense
and insurance coverage under the non-exhausted primary and excess
insurance policies.

"However, unlike the older policies, the more recent policies have
deductible amounts for defense and settlements costs that the
Company will be required to pay; accordingly, the Company expects
that its litigation costs will increase in the future.  Further,
many of the policies covering later years (approximately 1984 and
thereafter) have exclusions for any asbestos products or
operations, and thus do not provide insurance coverage for
asbestos-related lawsuits.

"The Company does not believe that the asserted exhaustion of some
of the primary insurance coverage for the 1970-1978 period will
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
liquidity, or results of operations.  Management believes that the
number of insurance carriers involved in the defense of the suits,
and the significant number of policy years and policy limits under
which these insurance carriers are insuring the Company, make the
ultimate disposition of these lawsuits not material to the
Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2oANQzH


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Faces 103 PI Suits at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., remains a co-defendant in around 103
asbestos-related personal injury cases at December 31, 2016,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company states, "We were a co-defendant in approximately 103
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 199 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought.  To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are six asbestos cases, involving 24 plaintiffs, that plead
specified damages against named defendants.  In each of the six
cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action.
In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory and
punitive damages in the amount of US$3.0 million and US$10.0
million, respectively, for four separate causes of action, US$1.0
million for a fifth cause of action and US$3 million for a sixth
cause of action.  In the fourth and fifth cases, the plaintiff has
alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of
US$20.0 million, for three and six separate causes of action,
respectively and US$5.0 million compensatory for the fifth and
seventh cause of actions, respectively.  In the sixth case, the
plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in
the amount of US$10.0 million for five counts, and US$5.0 million
for a sixth cause of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-
containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.
We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe
we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such
cases.  However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate
outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due
to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation.
Despite this uncertainty, and although our results of operations
and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected
by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations.

"Among the factors management considered in reaching this
conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being dismissed
from these types of lawsuits; (b) many cases have been improperly
filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the
plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal relationship
to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases, the
plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered
any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or that any
injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged
exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims against
multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages alleged are
not attributed to individual defendants.  Additionally, we do not
believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are
meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because the
amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of the
plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to
date and, based upon available information, our management does
not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have
a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity
or financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2oAOA7P


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Faces PI Suits at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Company continues to defend itself against
lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos that may be in
certain wire and cable, the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company states, "We, along with many other defendants, have
been named in a number of lawsuits in the state courts of
Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota alleging that certain
wire and cable which may have contained asbestos caused injury to
the plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable.  These
lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek
unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy.  It is
not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of the
wire and cable in question or whether we, in fact, distributed the
wire and cable alleged to have caused any injuries.  We maintain
general liability insurance that, to date, has covered the defense
of and all costs associated with these claims.  In addition, we
did not manufacture any of the wire and cable at issue, and we
would rely on any warranties from the manufacturers of such cable
if it were determined that any of the wire or cable that we
distributed contained asbestos which caused injury to any of these
plaintiffs.  In connection with ALLTEL's sale of our company in
1997, ALLTEL provided indemnities with respect to costs and
damages associated with these claims that we believe we could
enforce if our insurance coverage proves inadequate."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2ogm8XR


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Electronics Still Faces "Edwards" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Electronics Corporation continues to defend itself in the
lawsuit filed by Audrey Edwards against more than 90 defendants,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company states, "In December 2010, Audrey Edwards, Executrix
of the Estate of Leon Leroy Edwards, filed a law suit in the
Superior Court of Providence County, Rhode Island, against 3M
Company and over 90 other defendants, including the Company,
alleging that the Company processed, manufactured, designed,
tested, packaged, distributed, marketed or sold asbestos
containing products that contributed to the death of Leon Leroy
Edwards.  The Company received service of process in April 2011.
The Company has retained legal counsel and has filed a response to
the compliant.  The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit
and has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to that affect.
Accordingly, the Company does not believe the lawsuit will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or
results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2oNodxr


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MLIC Had 67,223 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
There were 67,223 asbestos personal injury claims filed against
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) at December 31, 2016,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company also disclosed that there are 4,146 new claims in
2016. It also made settlement payments of US$50.2 million in the
same year.

The Company states, "Settlement payments represent payments made
by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company during the year in
connection with settlements made in that year and in prior years.
Amounts do not include Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
attorneys' fees and expenses.

"Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has been a defendant
in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in
state courts.  These suits principally allege that the plaintiff
or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages.  Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the business of
manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or
asbestos-containing products nor has Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to
companies in the business of manufacturing, producing,
distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect
to certain research, publication and other activities of one or
more of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the
period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege
that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have
learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other
things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health
risks.

"Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should not
have legal liability in these cases.  The outcome of most asbestos
litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by
numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in
various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and
factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims
asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company employs a number of resolution
strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking
resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling
individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate
circumstances.

"Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company have
included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning
the health risks associated with asbestos.  Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that: (i) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
owed no duty to the plaintiffs -- it had no special relationship
with the plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute
or sell the asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs;
(ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company; (iii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv)
plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were
known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has
expired.  During the course of the litigation, certain trial
courts have granted motions dismissing claims against Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company, while other trial courts have denied
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motions.  There can be no
assurance that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company will receive
favorable decisions on motions in the future.  While most cases
brought to date have settled, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on
asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2pqqzjO


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Reinsurance Had US$441.1MM A&E Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Reinsurance Holdings, Inc., had US$441.1 million reserves
for asbestos and environmental liabilities at December 31, 2016 on
a gross of reinsurance basis, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.  In terms of net reinsurance
basis, the Company's A&E reserves were $274.4 million at December
31, 2016.

The Company states, "The difficulty in estimating our reserves is
significantly more challenging as it relates to reserving for
potential asbestos and environmental ("A&E") liabilities.  At
December 31, 2016, 5.3% of our gross reserves were comprised of
A&E reserves.  A&E liabilities are especially hard to estimate for
many reasons, including the long delays between exposure and
manifestation of any bodily injury or property damage, difficulty
in identifying the source of the asbestos or environmental
contamination, long reporting delays and difficulty in properly
allocating liability for the asbestos or environmental damage.
Legal tactics and judicial and legislative developments affecting
the scope of insurers' liability, which can be difficult to
predict, also contribute to uncertainties in estimating reserves
for A&E liabilities.

"The Company continues to receive claims under expired insurance
and reinsurance contracts asserting injuries and/or damages
relating to or resulting from environmental pollution and
hazardous substances, including asbestos.  Environmental claims
typically assert liability for (a) the mitigation or remediation
of environmental contamination or (b) bodily injury or property
damage caused by the release of hazardous substances into the
land, air or water.  Asbestos claims typically assert liability
for bodily injury from exposure to asbestos or for property damage
resulting from asbestos or products containing asbestos.

"The Company's reserves include an estimate of the Company's
ultimate liability for A&E claims.  The Company's A&E liabilities
emanate from direct insurance business and Everest Re's assumed
reinsurance business.  All of the contracts of insurance and
reinsurance under which the Company has received claims during the
past three years, expired more than 20 years ago.  There are
significant uncertainties surrounding the Company's reserves for
its A&E losses.

"A&E exposures represent a separate exposure group for monitoring
and evaluating reserve adequacy."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
http://bit.ly/2pFX5h3


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Trust to be Formed Under Oakfabco Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oakfabco, Inc., filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of Illinois a disclosure statement with respect
to its plan of reorganization, dated March 31, 2017, which
contemplates the formation of a Liquidating Trust which will
assume responsibility for the asbestos personal injury claims
against the Debtor.

The Liquidating Trust will review, resolve, and, if appropriate,
pay asbestos personal injury claims. The Plan also treats
non-asbestos-related general unsecured claims against the Debtor
by paying them a Pro Rata percentage of the General Unsecured Fund
established under the Plan.

Class 3 General Unsecured Claims consist of all Unsecured Claims
against the Debtor's Estate. Most Class 3 claims are unpaid bills
owed to law firms that had been defending the Debtor in asbestos-
related litigation. The Debtor estimates that the Allowed Class 3
Claims total approximately $280,000. Estimated recovery for this
class is still unknown.

On the Effective Date, the Debtor will transfer the Trust Assets
to the Liquidating Trust. The Trust Assets shall include, without
limitation: Excess Cash; all rights under Approved Insurance
Settlement Agreements; the Asbestos Insurance Rights; and the
Qualified Settlement Fund. The assets in the Liquidating Trust
shall be administered for the benefit of the Holders of Asbestos
PI Claims.

A full-text copy of the Disclosure Statement is available at:

       http://bankrupt.com/misc/ilnb15-27062-411.pdf

                    About Oakfabco, Inc.

Oakfabco, Inc, formerly known as Kewanee Boiler Corporation, has
not manufactured boilers since 1988 when it sold its Kewanee
boiler
business in an 11 U.S.C. Section 363 sale to Coppus Engineering
Corporation. In early 2009, it sold all of its remaining assets.

The Debtor has no employees, and, Frederick W. Stein is the
Debtor's sole officer and director. The Debtor's sole remaining
asset is its insurance, and it has no known liabilities other than
asbestos claims.

In January 1970, Kewanee Boiler Corp, then a newly-formed Illinois
Corporation, acquired the assets and debt of American Standard,
Inc.'s commercial boiler manufacturing division known as "Kewanee
Boiler." The boilers manufactured and sold by Kewanee Boiler were
insulated with asbestos.

Oakfabco sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Case No.
16-27062) on Aug. 7, 2015, to resolve its remaining asbestos
claims. The petition was signed by Frederick W. Stein, president.

Stephen T. Bobo, Esq., Aaron B. Chapin, Esq., Paul M. Singer,
Esq.,
Luke A. Sizemore, Esq., and Joseph D. Filloy, Esq., at Reed Smith
LLP, serves as counsel to the Debtor.

The Debtor estimated $10 million to $50 million in assets and
debt.

The U.S. Trustee for Region 11 appointed four members to the
Asbestos Claimants' Committee in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of
Oakfabco Inc.: Vince Holajn, William E. Gallet, Kristin Leigh
Hart,
and Michael Batchelor. The Asbestos Claimants' Committee is
represented by Frances Gecker, Esq., at FrankGecker LLP.

The Debtor tapped Logan & Company, Inc. as its claims and noticing
agent, and Alan D. Lasko and Associates, P.C. as its tax
accountant.

The Asbestos Claimants' Committee retained Henry Booth and Colin
Gray to provide insurance professional services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Geo V. Hamilton Files Chapter 11 Plan
------------------------------------------------------
Geo V. Hamilton, Inc., filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania a disclosure statement with
respect to its plan of reorganization, dated March 31, 2017, a
full-text copy of which is available for free at:

        http://bankrupt.com/misc/pawb15-23704-1053.pdf

The Plan contemplates the formation of an Asbestos Trust to
administer the assets to be contributed to the Asbestos Trust, to
determine the amounts of Asbestos Claims through the use of the
Asbestos Trust Distribution Procedures, and to make Distributions
to holders of Asbestos Claims.

Class 3, General Unsecured Claims, is impaired under the Plan.
Each holder of an Allowed General Unsecured Claim will receive
Cash in an amount equal to the Allowed amount of such Claim paid
in two installments as follows:

   (i) 50% of the Allowed amount of such Claim will be paid on the
later of (a) the Effective Date and (b) the date on which such
Claim becomes Allowed, or, in each case, as soon as reasonably
practicable thereafter; and

  (ii) 50% of the Allowed amount of such Claim will be paid on the
date that is one year after the Effective Date.

Class 4, Asbestos Claims, is impaired under the Plan. This class
includes approximately 1,400 asserted Asbestos Claims, most of
which have not been liquidated. On the Effective Date, all
liability for Asbestos Claims against the Debtor will
automatically, and without further act, deed, or court order, be
channeled exclusively to and assumed by, the Asbestos Trust in
accordance with, and to the extent set forth in the Plan, the Plan
Documents, and the Confirmation Order.  Each Asbestos Claim will
be resolved in accordance with the terms, provisions, and
procedures set forth in the Asbestos Trust Documents.  The
Asbestos Trust will be funded in accordance with the Plan. The
sole recourse of the holder of an Asbestos Claim on account of
such Asbestos Claim will be to the Asbestos Trust and each such
holder will have no right whatsoever at any time to assert its
Asbestos Claim against any Asbestos Protected Party.

The Debtor will fund distributions to holders of Allowed Non-
Asbestos Claims with cash on hand; cash generated from the
Reorganized Debtor's operations; and the proceeds of the Exit
Credit Agreement.

The Hon. Gregory L. Taddonio of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania will hold on May 11, 2017, at
2:00 p.m. a hearing to consider the approval of the disclosure
statement filed by Geo. V. Hamilton, Inc., on March 31, 2017,
referring to the Debtor's Chapter 11 plan dated March 31, 2017.

Objections to the Disclosure Statement must be filed by May 4,
2017.

                     About Geo V. Hamilton, Inc.

Formed in 1947, Geo. V. Hamilton, Inc. is based in McKees Rocks,
Pennsylvania, its home of nearly seventy years. Hamilton is a
distributor of insulation products and an insulation contractor
serving a wide variety of industrial, energy and commercial
facilities in the Pittsburgh area and elsewhere.

Hamilton filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition (Bankr. W.D. Pa.
Case No. 15-23704) on Oct. 8, 2015, for the purpose of resolving
all existing and future personal injury and wrongful death claims
arising from alleged exposure to asbestos-containing product
distributed or installed by Hamilton more than 40 years ago.

Judge Gregory L. Taddonio is assigned to the case.

The petition was signed by Joseph Linehan, the Company's general
counsel.

The Debtor has engaged Reed Smith LLP as counsel and Logan &
Company, Inc., as claims and noticing agent. Schneider Downs &
Co., Inc., as accounting consultant.

On Oct. 23, 2015, the United States Trustee appointed the Official
Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants to represent the
shared interests of holders of current asbestos-related claims for
personal injury or wrongful death against the Debtor. The
Committee is represented by Douglas A. Campbell, Esq., at Campbell
& Levine, LLC, and Ann C. McMillan, Esq., Jeffrey A. Liesemer,
Esq., and Kevin M. Davis, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered.

On Dec. 8, 2015, the U.S. Trustee filed its statement that an
unsecured creditors committee has not been appointed to represent
the interests of unsecured creditors of the Debtor.

On Dec. 23, 2015, the Court entered its order appointing Gary
Philip Nelson as the Legal Representative of Holders of Future
Asbestos Demands.  The FCR is represented by Beverly A. Block,
Esq., at Sherrard German & Kelly, PC.



                         *********


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. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. 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  * * *