CAR_Public/170519.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Friday, May 19, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 100



                            Headlines

ADVANCE TANK: Faces "Hennigan" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
AKIRA: 7th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in TCPA Class Action
ALABAMA: Pushes for Prison Construction Bill Amid Class Action
AMERICAN RECOVERY: Gross Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: "Albano" Sues Over Share Price Drop

ANGIE'S LIST: "Porter" Suit Seeks OT Compensation Under FLSA
BA VICTORY: "Tenegusnay" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Premium Under FLSA
BANK OF AMERICA: "Contant" Files Antitrust Case Over Forex Rates
BI-RITE FOOD: Violates Wage & Hours Laws, "Mendoza" Suit Says
BIG LOTS: Court May Grant Class Certification in "Hubbs" Suit

BP LUBRICANTS: Learys File Suit Over Tie-in Sales Provision
BUFFALO WILD WINGS: "Bailey" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
BUTH-NA-BODHAIGE INC: Bitting Sues Over Gift Card Redemption
C.W.C. OF MIAMI: "Matos" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wage Under FLSA
CARMAX INC: "Santos" Sues Over Unfair Business Practices

CENTURYLINK INC: Bultemeyer Appeals D. Ariz. Ruling to 9th Cir.
CERNER CORPORATION: Certification of Analysts Class Sought
CHIPOTLE: Bellwether Community Files Data Breach Class Action
CHRYSLER: Attorney Files Protest Against Wigginton's Actions
COLLINWOOD BIO ENERGY: Davis et al. Sue Over Noxious Odor

CONSERVATION CONTROL: Diaz, et al. Seek Unpaid OT Under FLSA
CORPORATION TRUST: Faces "Radabaugh" Suit in D. Minnesota
CRAFTMASTER PAINTING: "Boutell" Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Benefits
CREDIT BUREAU: Faces "Jenkins" Suit in Northern Dist. of Alabama
DIAMOND FOODS: McGee Appeals S.D. Calif. Ruling to Ninth Circuit

DICK'S SPORTING: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Greer" Class Suit
DIGITALGLOBE INC: Jeweltex Files Lawsuit Over MacDonald Merger
ELITE HOME: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
ENVOY AIR: Schroeder, et al. Seek to Certify Classes & Subclasses
EXPRESS MEDICAL: "LaCurtis" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class

FACEBOOK INC: Judge Dismisses Spying Class Action
FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL: Waldman, et al. Seek New Directors
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Lossia Appeals E.D. Michigan Ruling to 6th Cir.
FORD MOTOR CO: "Chaidez" Suit Alleges Racial Discrimination
FOX NEWS: Two More People Join Racial Discrimination Class Action

FYRE MEDIA: North Carolinian Couple Files Class Action
FYRE MEDIA: Festival Class Action Targets Investors
FYRE MEDIA: "Jung" Sues Over Event Mayhem, Lack of Amenities
GAITHER TECHNOLOGIES: Mauthe Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Messages
GENWORTH LIFE: "Avazian" Disputes Unlawful Insurance Lapse

GOURMET SUBS: "Buchholz" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
GREGORY KISTLER: "White" Suit Seeks to Certify Workers Class
HUNTER WARFIELD: Faces "Nicholson" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
INNOCOLL HOLDINGS: Faces "Rubin" Suit Over Sale to Gurnet Point
INSPIRON INC: Fails to Pay $1.9 Million Balance, Suit Claims

INTEL CORP: Sulyma Appeals N.D. Cal. Decision to Ninth Circuit
INTERNET GOLD: Unit Still Faces Shareholder Action in Tel Aviv
INTERNET GOLD: Tel Aviv Court Stays Litigation on Monopoly Abuse
INTERNET GOLD: Court Dismisses Claim in Internet Speed Lawsuit
INTERNET GOLD: Unit Faces Lawsuit on Subscribers' ISP Transfer

INTERNET GOLD: Suit v. Unit over NIS5.93 Monthly Charges Ongoing
INTERNET GOLD: Class Suit vs. Unit on Antivirus Payment Underway
INTERNET GOLD: Bezeq, et al., Face Class Suit over B144 Service
INTERNET GOLD: Suit vs. Bezeq, Pelephone in Jerusalem Concluded
INTERNET GOLD: Parties Await Court Action on VAT Lawsuit Appeal

INTERNET GOLD: Class Suit on 850 MHz Service Discrepancy Ongoing
INTERNET GOLD: E-Interactive Lawsuit vs. Pelephone Still Ongoing
INTERNET GOLD: Unit Still Faces Suit over VIP Customers' Perks
INTERNET GOLD: Lawsuit on iQtech Group Content Services Ongoing
INTERNET GOLD: Pelephone Still Defends "Walla Mobile" Complaint

INTERNET GOLD: Bid to Drop Class Status in Mobility Suit Pending
JANSSEN RESEARCH: Faces "Bolden" Suit in E.D. Louisiana
JIN XIANG: "Torres" Suit Moved from Sup. Ct. to E.D. New York
KIMPTON HOTEL: Faces "Jacobo" Lawsuit Alleging Discrimination
L3 COMMUNICATIONS: May 23 Settlement Objection Deadline Set

LA VUE CATERING: "Lopez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
LAS BRISAS STEAKS: "Shinn" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
LION INSPECTON: "Sena" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
LIPOCINE INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Utah
LLR INC: Faces "Mack" Suit Seeks in Central Dist. of California

LIVE VENTURES: "Kolish" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
MADISON COUNTY, IL: Judge Kelly Assigned to Bid Rigging Case
MASSACHUSETTS: McHugh et al. Sue Over Employee Benefits
MDL 2724: Rochester Drug Sues Over Baclofen Tablets Price Fixing
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Baye" Lawsuit Alleging FDCPA Violation

MILLENNIUM TOWER: Joe Montana Joins Condo Class Action
NASSAU, NY: "Chodkowski" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Roberts Sues Over Player Safety
NATURESCAPE INC: "Smith" Suit Seeks Earned Vacation Holiday Pay
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Faces "Lamey" Suit Over Disclosure Practices

NISSAN NORTH: "Hays" Sues Over Defects in Vehicle Floorboards
NORTHLAND GROUP: "Maher" Suit Moved to New Jersey Federal Court
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Marshall, et al. Seek to Certify Class
OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Class Action in Canada Over Abilify
PARTY CITY: Faces "Pasini" Lawsuit Alleging FACTA Violation

POLONIEX: Former Trader Mulls Insider Trading Class Action
POM RECOVERIES: Faces "Galper" Suit in E.D. New York
PORSCHE FINANCIAL: Faces "Kaplan" Suit Over Excess Sales Taxes
PRICELINE GROUP: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Laquer" Suit
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Faces "Nadaskay" Suit Over Neratinib Drug

RECTOR STREET: Faces "Ramos" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
RED COAT: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Back Wages Under FLSA
RMH FRANCHISE: "Ivery" Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
SCI DIRECT: "Romano" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
SECTRAN SECURITY: Faces "Bailey" Wage-and-Hour Suit

SHOTGUN WILLIE: Strippers File Wage Class Action
SILVERCORP METALS: Class Action Discontinued
SINGLETON FOOD: "Thomas" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
SOUTH AFRICA: Class Action Over RITA License Renewal Fines OK'd
SPORTSMAN FISH: Nail, et al. File Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

STAR WORLD: Faces "Moreno" Wage-and-Hour Suit
STATE FARM: Springer Sues Over Vehicle Accident Insurance
TENNESSEE MENTAL: "Richardson" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA
TENSION INTERNATIONAL: Bowers Seeks Approval of Case Settlement
TIME WARNER: Sydney Appeals N.D.N.Y. Decision to Second Circuit

TOTAL: Judge Dismisses Gas Market Manipulation Class Action
UA LOCAL 38: Suit v. Plan Trustees Moved to Washington D.C.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Toyserkani" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
UNITED CAPITAL: Carollo, et al. Seek to Certify Collective Action
UNITED STATES: Veterans Court Can Administer Class Action

UNITED STATES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Carter" Class Suit
URBAN SPACE: "McClendon" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Law
US STEEL: July 3 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
VCG HOLDING: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "McGrew" Class Suit
VINCE HOLDING: July 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

WELLS FARGO: "Scriboni" Suit Moved to New Jersey Federal Court
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Averts Class Action Over Defective Wall Ovens
ZION OIL: Appoints New Board Members Following Class Action

* Pro-Business SC Justices Unfavorable for Organized Labor


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Refuses to Review Ruling in Take-Home Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple's Claims Not Barred by Wis. CSOR
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. App. Vacates $3.4MM Verdict vs. Ford
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court to Deny Reinsurer's Bid for Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Not Liable for Libby Resident's Costs

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Library Renovation Stuck Due to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Station Closed Due to Asbestos in Tiles
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prineville Business Fined Due to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Housing Devt. Raises Concerns on Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vernon School Board to Appeal $628,000 Fine

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Jury Awards $81.5MM in Asbestos Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Fly-Tip Heap in Park Road
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Feds Demand Beech Nut on Canajoharie Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wakefield Awarded Best Asbestos Campaigner
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Cladding Stolen from Council Building

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal Approved in Buildings Expansion
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Rubbish Piles Found in Great Bromley
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bury St Edmunds Group Alarmed on Waste Hub Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Feds Demand Beech-Nut to Clean Up Former Plant
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Anglesey Waste Removal Raises Asbestos Concern

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canada Advocates Asbestos Regulations by 2018
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cheeburger Demolition Raises Asbestos Concern
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal Begins at Alpena County Jail
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mayor Hopes Asbestos Fill Land be Up for Sale
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Reverses Decision on Asbestos Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: County Approves Asbestos Survey on Ex Owl's Nest
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Still Faces Illness Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Still Faces NARCO PI Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Still Faces Bendix PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Still Faces PI Suits at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Still Protected from PC Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 114K Claims v. PPG Industries Inactive, Closed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 650 Claims vs. PPG Industries Active, Open
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Still Faces PI Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 81,720 U.S. Claims vs. Amec Foster Still Open

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has US$70MM Liability in PCC Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3,300 Claims vs. Pentair Plc Units Still Active
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Faces 1,400 Claimants at Mar. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Units Still Face Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had 56,000 PI Claims at Mar. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Has 13,000 PI Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX, Units Continue to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Still Faces Asbestos Matters
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Still Assessing Asbestos Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Illinois had US$22.0MM Fund at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Fire Had US$3.7MM A&E Reserve at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Forum Energy Unit Still Faces at Most 200 Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Intrepid Potash Facilities Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 845 Suits vs. US Steel Still Active at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Unit Still Faces 290 Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 850 Suits vs. US Steel Still Active at Mar. 31






                            *********


ADVANCE TANK: Faces "Hennigan" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN HENNIGAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, V. ADVANCE TANK AND CONSTRUCTION CO.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01426 (S.D. Tex., May 8, 2017),
implicates Defendant's alleged longstanding policy of knowingly
and deliberately failing to compensate Plaintiff and Class Members
for their overtime hours based on the time and one-half formula
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Advance Tank And Construction Co. is a fully integrated industrial
construction company that specializes in the design, fabrication
and erection of above ground welded steel plate structures.
Specifically, Defendant fabricates and provides maintenance of
petroleum holding tanks located at refineries throughout the
country.  Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a manual
laborer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AKIRA: 7th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in TCPA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Record reports that Nicole Blow, who sued
clothing retailer Akira for $1.8 billion because it sent text
messages to her, granted consent for Akira to send the messages,
Seventh Circuit appellate judges ruled.

They affirmed summary judgment for Akira, finding the messages
reasonably related to the purpose for which she provided her
cellular telephone number.

"The record demonstrates that Blow gave her cell phone number to
Akira on several different occasions," Justice Ilana Rovner wrote.

"Both cards in the record containing Ms. Blow's name and cell
phone number clearly state that her information would be used to
provide exclusive information and special offers," she wrote.

Justices Kenneth Ripple and Michael Kanne concurred.

Eric Hseuh founded Akira in 2002, according to the Seventh Circuit
opinion, and his company currently operates more than 20 stores in
the Chicago area.

Blow sought to represent a class of 20,000 customers alleging that
Akira violated federal telephone law -- the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) -- and Illinois consumer law.

The Chicago firm of Messer and Stilp filed the action in 2011, on
behalf of Akira shopper Nicole Strickler.

After District Judge Charles Norgle certified an Illinois class,
Akira learned that Ms. Strickler worked as a lawyer at Messer and
Stilp.

The firm pulled her out, and replaced her with Jennifer Glasson
and Blow.

The firm pulled Glasson out after Akira learned she never received
a message.

Akira moved for decertification of the class, summary judgment,
and sanctions.

Judge Norgle granted summary judgment to Akira, but not on the
question of consent.

He found federal law didn't apply because Akira didn't act as an
auto dialer.

He denied sanctions, and he didn't rule on decertification of the
class.

On appeal, Ms. Blow claimed Judge Norgle prematurely decided the
question of auto dialing.

Akira filed a cross appeal on sanctions and class decertification.

Seventh Circuit judges heard argument last September, and decided
that Judge Norgle reached the right decision by the wrong route.

They disagreed with him on auto dialing, finding he ruled
prematurely.

Instead, they ruled that he should have granted summary judgment
on consent.

Justice Rovner wrote that Ms. Blow texted Akira's name to a short
code on Oct. 1, 2009, to opt into the retailer's text program.

The ruling states that Blow signed up for what she characterized
in her deposition as a frequent buyer card.

Background information also indicates that Blow could earn gift
certificates by reaching spending thresholds.

Akira produced two cards for Ms. Blow, carrying disclaimers that
it would use information solely to provide exclusive information
and special offers.

In the ruling, Justice Rovner quoted notes reflecting that Blow
asked a sales associate to call her when a particular pair of
shoes arrived in stock.

Justice Rovner wrote that Blow received 60 messages through May
2011. Three messages included instructions on unsubscribing.

"Blow never followed the instructions in these texts or otherwise
attempted to opt out of receiving tests from Akira," she wrote.

Justice Rovner assured Akira shoppers who hadn't filled out
loyalty cards or opted into the text club that judgment against
Blow would not bind them.

The panel of judges affirmed Judge Norgle's denial of sanctions.

Justice Rovner wrote that Akira claimed counsel knew Blow
expressly consented to receive messages and that counsel therefore
pressed a claim the law didn't support.

Although the court rejected Blow's claim that her consent did not
extend to the texts Akira sent, "we would not go so far as to
conclude that her position was so baseless as to warrant
sanctions," Justice Rovner wrote.

"Akira also attacks counsel's failure to disclose that
Ms. Strickler, the original named plaintiff, was a member of the
law firm representing her.

"This latter behavior gives us pause, and we would hope Strickler
and Messer would exercise better judgment in the future than using
an attorney from their own firm as the named plaintiff in a class
action."

Justice Rovner added a footnote that the firm is now Messer, Stilp
and Strickler.

Attorney Dana Perminas of the firm represented Blow at the Seventh
Circuit.

Attorney James Borcia -- jborcia@tresslerllp.com -- of the
Tressler firm in Chicago, represented Akira.


ALABAMA: Pushes for Prison Construction Bill Amid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Chandler, writing for Associated Press, reports that Alabama
lawmakers began a final push to try to approve a prison
construction bill in the waning days of the legislative session.

The House Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on a revamped
proposal aimed at building four new prisons to relieve
overcrowding.  However, the plan was harshly criticized by
opponents who argued that a shortage of staff -- not space -- is
the system's more pressing problem.  With five meeting days
remaining in the session, the bill faces a rapidly closing
legislative window.

Alabama prisons house 23,074 inmates in facilities built for
13,318, which puts the system at 173 percent capacity.

"Doing nothing is not an option," said Sen. Cam Ward, R-Alabaster,
the legislation's sponsor.

Under the plan, the state would build a new women's prison and
either lease or build three new men's prisons.  The state would
borrow between $200 million and $845 million for construction,
depending on how many prisons are built and how many are leased
from local communities.  Most existing facilities would close.

The latest House version, unlike the Senate-passed plan, would
replace the state's 75-year-old female prison.

Former Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley first proposed the construction
plan, but the proposal stalled as an impeachment push heated up
against him. Bentley resigned last month.

Opponents of the bill, including the Alabama Corrections Officers
Association president and the Southern Poverty Law Center, argued
understaffing is the more pressing problem.  The SPLC is
representing inmates in a class-action lawsuit claiming that
Alabama fails to provide constitutionally adequate mental health
care to inmates.

"Building new prisons isn't going to solve the biggest crisis that
is underlying all of those lawsuits, and the DOC, which is the
dangerous understaffing of correctional officers," Rhonda
Brownstein, legal director of the SPLC, told the committee.

Randy McGilberry, president of the Alabama Corrections Officers
Association, said his son was stabbed in the thigh while working
as a corrections officer at St. Clair Correctional Facility. He
said eight officers were up against 245 prisons in trying to
contain a disturbance.

"Pretty bad odds," Mr. McGilberry said.

Corrections Commissioner Jeff Dunn said prison conditions are
intertwined with the state's ability to retain corrections
officers.  Mr. Dunn repeated concerns that the state might one day
be ordered by a court to reduce crowding.

"We are the most overcrowded system in the nation.  Our staffing
is going down. Our violence incidents are going up.  We are facing
a looming class-action court ruling that is going to be very
significant for the state," Mr. Dunn said.  "My question is: 'Do
we want Alabama to solve this problem or do we want someone else
to come in and tell us how to solve this problem?'" [GN]


AMERICAN RECOVERY: Gross Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL GROSS individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN RECOVERY SERVICE INCORPORATED, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02602-RRM-SMG (E.D.N.Y., May 2, 2017),
seeks to secure redress from unlawful collection practices engaged
in by Defendant in violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff suffered injury in fact
by being subjected to unfair and abusive practices of the
Defendant. He suffered actual harm by being the target of the
Defendant's misleading debt collection communications. He alleges
and avers that Defendant violated the Plaintiff's right not to be
the target of misleading debt collection communications. The
Plaintiff also alleges and avers that Defendant violated the
Plaintiff's right to a truthful and fair debt collection process.

American Recovery provides commercial accounts receivable
management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Palace, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE
          383 Kingston Ave. No. 113
          Brooklyn, NY 11213
          Telephone: (347) 651 1077
          Facsimile: (347) 464 0012


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: "Albano" Sues Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Albano, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Amtrust Financial Services, Inc., Barry D.
Zyskind, Ronald E. Pipoly, Jr., Donald T. Decarlo, Susan C. Fisch,
Abraham Gulkowitz, George Karfunkel and Jay J. Miller, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-03154, (S.D. N.Y., April 28, 2017), seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, costs and expenses in this litigation, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees and other costs and
disbursements and such other relief under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

AmTrust underwrites and provides property and casualty insurance
products, including workers' compensation, commercial automobile,
general liability and extended service and warranty coverage in
the United States and internationally.

On March 16, 2017, AmTrust disclosed that its board of directors
had determined that the Company's previously issued consolidated
financial statements for 2014 and 2015 should be restated and
should no longer be relied upon as well as its earnings and press
releases and similar communications due to errors relating to
upfront recognition of a portion of warranty contract revenue
associated with administration services, multiple-element revenue
recognition and bonuses spent during the year paid but that should
have been accrued in the year earned.

On this news, shares of Amtrust fell from $21.61, the closing
price on March 15, 2017, to close at $17.58 on March 16, 2017,
representing a 18.7% decline in the value of the Company's common
stock. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
      Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
      GAINEY, McKENNA, & EGLESTON
      440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 983-1300
      Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
      Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
             gegleston@gme-law.com

             - and -

      Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq.
      THE PASKOWITZ LAW FIRM P.C.
      208 East 51st Street, Suite 380
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 685-0969
      Email: lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com

             - and -

      Roy J. Jacobs, Esq.
      ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES
      420 Lexington Avenue Suite 2440
      New York, NY 10170
      Tel: (212) 867-1156
      Fax: (212) 504-8343
      Email: jacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com


ANGIE'S LIST: "Porter" Suit Seeks OT Compensation Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
MARTY PORTER, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ANGIE'S LIST, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01540-SEB-DML (S.D. Ind., May 10, 2017), seeks to
recover overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, on many occasions, Porter and
similarly situated employees worked over 40 hours in a workweek,
but did not receive overtime pay for all overtime hours worked, or
at their correct rates of pay. As an Advertising Sales Consultant,
Porter was required to submit time records documenting his hours
worked on a weekly basis. Angie's List, through its sales
trainers, sales managers, sales directors, and/or other executives
or officers, routinely and regularly instructed its Advertising
Sales Consultants, including Porter and other similarly situated
employees, to under-report, or not report, hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per week, so as to avoid paying overtime compensation
to those employees.

Angie's List is an American home services website. Founded in
1995, it is an online directory that allows users to read and
publish crowd-sourced reviews of local businesses and
contractors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathleen A. DeLaney, Esq.
          Christopher S. Stake, Esq.
          DELANEY & DELANEY LLC
          3646 N. Washington Boulevard
          Indianapolis, IN 46205


BA VICTORY: "Tenegusnay" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Premium Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS TENEGUSNAY on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, the Plaintiff, v. BA VICTORY CORP. d/b/a BUENOS
AIRES and ISMAEL ALBA, the Defendants, Case No 1:17-cv-03503
(S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
premium, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York
Labor Law.

Plaintiff brought claims for relief as a collective action
pursuant to FLSA, on behalf of all non-exempt employees (including
waiters, busboys, runners, bartenders, barbacks, hostesses, cooks,
line-cooks, food preparers, dishwashers and porters) employed by
Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the
filing of the Complaint. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the
other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and have been similarly
situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay
provisions, and are and have been subjected to Defendants'
decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices, procedures,
protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a willful
failure and refusal to pay them the overtime premium at the rate
of one and one half times the regular rate for work in excess of
40 hours per workweek. The claims of Plaintiff stated herein are
essentially the same as those of the other FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs.

BA Victory is in the steak restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181


BANK OF AMERICA: "Contant" Files Antitrust Case Over Forex Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Contant, Martin-Han Tran, Carlos Gonzalez, Ugnius Matkus,
Jerry Jacobson and Paul Vermillion, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bank of America
Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner
& Smith Inc., Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc., BNP
Paribas Group, BNP Paribas North America Inc., BNP Paribas
Securities Corp., BNP Prime Brokerage, Inc., Citigroup Inc.,
Citibank, N.A., Citicorp, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., HSBC Holdings
PLC, HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC North America Holdings Inc., HSBC Bank
USA, N.A., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC,
The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, RBS Securities Inc., UBS AG, UBS
Group AG and UBS Securities LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
03139, (S.D. N.Y., April 28, 2017), seeks equitable and injunctive
relief and to recover for injuries resulting from an alleged
conspiracy among horizontal competitors to fix the prices of
foreign currencies and foreign currency instruments pursuant to
various state antitrust laws, the Clayton Antitrust Act and the
Sherman Act.

Defendants are financial institutions who transacted foreign
currencies and foreign currency instruments throughout the United
States who have allegedly communicated with each other, exchanging
confidential customer information and coordinating their trading
strategies to manipulate foreign exchange benchmark rates and fix
its prices.

Plaintiffs are indirect purchasers of such instruments from
Defendants and/or their co-conspirators. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua T. Ripley, Esq.
      Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq.
      Michael Dell Angelo
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 875-3000
      Fax: (215) 875-4604
      Email: jripley@bm.net
             mdavidoff@bm.net
             mdellangelo@bm.net

             - and -

      Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKYWOTKYNS LLP
      8501 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 270
      Scottsdale, AZ 85253
      Tel: (480) 428-0142
      Fax: (866) 505-8036
      Email: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com

             - and -

      Joseph C. Peiffer, Esq.
      PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE LLP
      201 St. Charles Ave. Suite 4610
      New Orleans, LA 70170
      Tel: (504) 523-2434
      Fax: (504) 523-2464
      Email: jpeiffer@prwlegal.com

             - and -

      R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
      Stuart McCluer, Esq.
      MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
      1022 Carolina Boulevard, Suite 300
      Charleston, SC 29451
      Tel: (855) 467-0451
      Fax: (662) 368-1506
      Email: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com
             smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com


BI-RITE FOOD: Violates Wage & Hours Laws, "Mendoza" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
CESAR MENDOZA on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. BI-RITE
FOOD SERVICE, INC. and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No.
17CIV02044 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 10, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, overtime, meal and rest period compensation,
penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable
attorneys' costs, pursuant to the California Labor Code.

The case is a class action pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure section 382 on behalf of Plaintiff, and all non-exempt,
hourly truck workers, truck drivers, drivers, or similar job
designations who are presently or formerly employed by Bi-Rite
Food Service, INC. and/or Does and/or its subsidiaries or
affiliated companies and/or predecessors and/or Does, within the
State of California.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all other members of
the proposed Class experienced Defendants' common policies and/or
practices of failing to pay all straight time and overtime wages
owed, auto-meal deduct, and providing no meal periods to employees
working at least five hours or any additional meal periods for
working in excess of 10 hours, or compensation in lieu.

Bi-Rite is an agricultural hauler, picking up and delivering
agricultural products throughout the state of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          David Mara, Esq.
          Jamie Serb, Esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234 4048

BIG LOTS: Court May Grant Class Certification in "Hubbs" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Viola Hubbs, the Plaintiff, v. Big Lots
Stores, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-01601-JAK-
AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. District Judge John A. Kronstadt entered
an order taking Plaintiff's motion for class certification and
Defendant's motion to exclude expert testimony of Keith Mendes
under submission

The motion hearing is held.  The Court indicated it is inclined to
grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification and deny Defendant's motion to exclude expert
testimony of Keith Mendes. The Court will issue a written ruling.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tYNtq1Jp

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Yablonovich, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH
          1875 Century Park E, Fl 7
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2508
          Telephone: (310) 286 0246
          Facsimile: (310) 407 5391
          E-mail: mark@yablonovichlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark A Knueve, Esq.
          VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR
          AND PEASE LLP
          52 E Gay St
          Columbus, OH 43215-3108
          Telephone: (614) 464 6400
          Facsimile: (614) 464 6350
          E-mail: maknueve@vorys.com


BP LUBRICANTS: Learys File Suit Over Tie-in Sales Provision
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alison N. Leary and Timothy M. Leary, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BP LUBRICANTS
USA, INC.; AND CARSENSE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02070-
BMS (E.D. Pa., May 5, 2017), allege that Defendants sell a written
warranty that violates the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act because the
warranty contains an illegal tying provision.  The MMWA prohibits
tie-in sales provision.  A tie-in sales provision is a provision
that requires a consumer to buy an item or service from a
particular company to keep warranty coverage.

Defendant BP Lubricants is a conglomerate that provides its
customers with fuel for transport, energy for heat and light,
lubricants to keep engines running and petrochemicals used to
manufacture a wide array of products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
     Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
     Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr.
     CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER LLP
     1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Phone: 619 756 6994
     Fax: 619 756 6991
     E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
             tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
             ekilpelacarlsonlynch.com

        - and -

     Michael McKay, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     8501 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 270
     Scottsdale, AZ 85253
     Phone: 480 428 0145
     Fax: 866 505 8036
     E-mail: mmckay@schneiderwallace.com

        - and -

     Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
     KEHOE LAW FIRM
     1500 JFK Blvd., Suite 1020
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Phone: 215 792 6676
     Fax: 215 990 0701
     E-mail: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com


BUFFALO WILD WINGS: "Bailey" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Brittaney Bailey, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. How No. 1, Inc. d/b/a Buffalo Wild Wings
(West), Westex Wings Management, L.C. d/b/a Buffalo Wild Wings
(East) and Kendall Howard, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00077,
(N.D. Tex., April 28, 2017), seeks compensation for unpaid wages,
unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages at the applicable minimum
wage rate, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post- judgment
interest, costs and expenses of this action together with
reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own, operate, and/or manage several Buffalo Wild Wings
restaurants in Texas and Oklahoma where Ms. Bailey was employed as
a server by at the Buffalo Wild Wings West location in Amarillo.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
      Collin Wynne, Esq.
      YOUNG & NEWSOM, PC
      1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
      Amarillo, TX 79101
      Tel: (806) 331-1800
      Fax: (806) 398-9095
      Email: jyoung@youngfirm.com
             collin@youngfirm.com


BUTH-NA-BODHAIGE INC: Bitting Sues Over Gift Card Redemption
------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTEN BITTING, on behalf of herself, the General Public, and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BUTH-NA-BODHAIGE,
INC., dba, THE BODY SHOP; and DOES 1 through 20, the Defendant,
Case No. 37-00015911-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct.,
May 2, 2017), seeks a public-wide injunction requiring Defendant
to comply with Civil Code section 1749.5 and honor all gift card
holders' requests for the cash value of any of Defendant's gift
cards that have a balance of less than $10.00.

According to the complaint, this putative class action arises from
Defendant's past, present, and future noncompliance with Civil
Code section 1749.5(b)(2). The Plaintiff alleges that as a result
of Defendant's ongoing policy and/or practice of failing to
provide cash to consumers wishing to redeem a gift card with a
cash value less than $10.00, or alternatively, Defendant's failure
to maintain a policy and/or practice of complying with the Civil
Code section, Defendant has violated and will continue to violate
consumers' statutory rights.

Buth-Na-Bodhaige is a retailer offering for sale skin care,
makeup, and other body products to the general public. The Body
Shop owns and operates multiple Body Shop stores in California.
Defendant also sells Body Shop gift cards.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip R. Poliner, Esq.
          Neil B. Fineman, Esq.
          FINEMAN & POLINER LLP
          155 North Riverview Drive
          Anaheim Hills, CA 92808 1225
          Telephone: (714) 620 1125
          Facsimile: (714) 701 0155
          E-mail: Phillip@FinemanPoliner.com
                  Neil@FinemanPoliner.com


C.W.C. OF MIAMI: "Matos" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wage Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON MATOS and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b), the Plaintiff, v. C.W.C. OF MIAMI INC., d/b/a LAS PALMAS
RESTAURANT, MARIO FERRARI MAGALHAES, the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-21609-RNS (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2017), seeks to recover
overtime and minimum wage under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, from December 16, 2015 to February 26,
2017, the Plaintiff worked an average of 50 hours a week for
Defendants and was paid an average of $4.00 per hour but was never
paid the extra half time rate for any hours worked over 40 hours
in a week as required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff therefore claims
the half time overtime rate for each hour worked above 40 in a
week based on the applicable minimum wage. The Defendants
willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff's overtime
wages as required by the FLSA as Defendants knew of the overtime
requirements of the FLSA and recklessly failed to investigate
whether Defendants' payroll practices were in accordance with the
FLSA. Defendants remain owing Plaintiff these wages since the
commencement of Plaintiffs employment with Defendants for the time
period specified above.

The Defendant is a Latin American eatery serving dishes with a
Colombian influence, plus beer and wine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865 6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865 7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


CARMAX INC: "Santos" Sues Over Unfair Business Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Gilbert Santos, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Carmax, Inc., Carmax
Auto Superstores California, LLC, Carmax Business Services, LLC,
Carmax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. and Does 1 to 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02447 (N.D. Cal., April
28, 2017), seeks to temporarily and permanently enjoin Defendants
from continuing their unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair business
practices.  The complaint also seeks injunctive and/or equitable
relief in the form of buyback of the affected vehicles, damages
available under applicable law, including compensatory,
incidental, exemplary and punitive damages, reasonable attorney's
fees and expenses, taxable costs, pre and post-judgment interest
and any other relief under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

CarMax is a nationwide automotive retailer that sells used cars
directly to consumers. As part of its business, CarMax informs
consumers that it performs a detailed vehicle inspection prior to
completion of the sale. However, CarMax allegedly failed to inform
consumers about active safety recalls pending for some of the
vehicles they sold.

In 2006, Santos leased a 2002 Ford F-150 pickup from a CarMax
location in California that was subject to an active safety recall
for its speed control deactivation switch. Said recall indicated
that the switch could overheat, smoke or burn.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Soo-Hoo, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN J. SOO-HOO
      601 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 105
      Santa Ana, CA 92705
      Tel: (714) 589-2252
      Fax: (714) 589-2254
      Email: soohoolaw@gmail.com


CENTURYLINK INC: Bultemeyer Appeals D. Ariz. Ruling to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lydia Bultemeyer filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Lydia Bultemeyer v. CenturyLink Inc., Case No.
2:14-cv-02530-SPL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, Phoenix.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

CenturyLink, Inc. is a provider of telecommunications services in
the Phoenix metropolitan area.

The appellate case is captioned as Lydia Bultemeyer v. CenturyLink
Inc., Case No. 17-15858, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellant Lydia Bultemeyer's opening brief is due on
      August 7, 2017;

   -- Appellee CenturyLink Inc.'s answering brief is due on
      September 5, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant LYDIA BULTEMEYER, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          David Neal McDevitt, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5235 E. Southern Ave., Suite D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 845-5969
          E-mail: dmcdevitt@consumerlawinfo.com

Defendant-Appellee CENTURYLINK INC. is represented by:

          Peter J. Korneffel, Jr., Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4100
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 866-0233
          E-mail: peter.korneffel@bryancave.com


CERNER CORPORATION: Certification of Analysts Class Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CRAWFORD, R. individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CERNER
CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00015-RK (W.D. Mo),
the parties move the Court for an order to conditionally certify a
class of:

   "all Technical Solution Analysts and/or Technical Support
   Analysts ("TSAs") employed in Cerner's AMS or Solution Works
   Organization within the past 3 years who did not sign Cerner's
    Mutual Arbitration Agreement".

On April 17, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional
certification of a putative class defined as "All Technical
Solution and/or Support Analysts ("TSAs") employed in Cemer's AMS
or Solution Works Organization within the past 3 years". The
Plaintiff filed the Motion for conditional certification while
this Court's ruling was pending on Cemer Corporation's motion to
dismiss and compel arbitration of the claims of opt-in plaintiffs
who had signed Cerner's Mutual Arbitration Agreement ("MAA").

While the parties disagree as to the merits of both pending
motions, they agree to stipulate to conditional certification of a
class that excludes those who signed the MAA. As a result of this
stipulation, the parties agree that Cerner Corporation will not
file an opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for conditional
certification, as that motion is now moot. If the Court denies
Defendant's motion to Compel, the Plaintiff may re-file her motion
for conditional certification with respect to the individuals who
signed the arbitration agreements, and the parties agree that the
statute of limitations for those individuals who signed
arbitration agreements will be tolled from the time the Court
rules upon Defendant's motion to compel to the time Cerner files
its opposition to the renewed motion for conditional
certification.

The parties will work cooperatively to agree on a notice to be
sent to the stipulated class, which notice will not be sent until
after the mediation in this case, scheduled for June 8, 2017.
Should the parties reach impasse on the form of notice, they will
bring any disputes to the Court after that mediation.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EpAel1CL

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric Dirks, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com

               - and -

          Jason Knutson, Esq.
          Breanne L. Snapp, Esq.
          HABUSH HABUSH & ROTTIER, S.C.
          150 East Gilman St., Suite 2000
          Madison, WI 53703
          E-mail: jknutson@habush.com
                  bsnapp@habush.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sara E. Welch, Esq.
          Patricia A. Konopka, Esq.
          Molly Walsh Keppler, Esq.
          Erin M. Naeger, Esq.
          STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
          1201 Walnut, Suite 2900
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 842 8600
          Facsimile: (816) 691 3495
          E-mail: sara.welch@stinson.com
                  pat.konopka@stinson.com
                  molly.walsh@stinson.com
                  erin.naeger@stinson.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Schmitt, Esq.
          Mark J. Girouard, Esq.
          NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS PA
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 400
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-4501
          Telephone: (612) 305 7500
          Facsimile: (612) 305 7501
          E-mail: jschmitt@nilanjohnson.com
                  mgirouard@nilanjohnson.com


CHIPOTLE: Bellwether Community Files Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Orem, writing for Credit Union Times, reports that Bellwether
Community Credit Union has filed a class-action lawsuit against
Chipotle and is seeking damages related to the fast-casual
restaurant company's recent data security breach, according to
documents filed in a Colorado District Court on
May 4.  The suit is the latest in a chain of class-action
complaints filed against retailers and restaurant companies, such
as Arby's, Wendy's, Home Depot and Target.

The complaint alleges the breach compromised names, credit and
debit card numbers, card expiration dates, card verification
values and other information of Chipotle customers nationwide.  It
also said the breach forced credit union and other financial
institutions to cancel or reissue cards, close accounts, stop
payments, block transactions, issue refunds, increase fraud
monitoring efforts and deal with cardholder complaints and
confusion.  Credit unions and financial institutions also lost
interest and transaction fees due to reduced card usage, and the
cards and their corresponding account numbers became worthless, it
added.

"Though an investigation is still ongoing, it appears that
hundreds of thousands of defendant's customers at locations
nationwide have had their credit and debit numbers compromised,
have had their privacy rights violated, have been exposed to the
risk of fraud and identify theft, and have otherwise suffered
damages," the complaint alleged.

Manchester, N.H.-based Bellwether Community Credit Union, which
has $488 million in assets and 34,000 members, said the breach's
damages exceed $5 million and involve at least 100 financial
institutions.

Credit union leaders should prepare for data breaches reported by
Chipotle Restaurants and lending orgs.

The suit also claims that, among other things, Chipotle failed to
ensure it maintained adequate security measures, didn't use best
practices and didn't upgrade its security systems.  Bellwether
also alleged that Chipotle hasn't implemented EMV in its stores.

Chipotle's most recent 10-K noted that the company experienced a
possible breach in 2004.  That one cost about $4.3 million in
losses and related expenses, it reported.

"Despite its 2004 data breach, Chipotle quite obviously failed to
upgrade its data security systems in a meaningful way so as to
prevent future breaches," the complaint said.

"Defendant's public statements to customers after the data breach
plainly indicate that defendant believes that card-issuing
institutions should be responsible for fraudulent charges on
cardholder accounts resulting from the data breach.  Chipotle has
made no overtures to the card-issuing institutions that are left
to pay for damages as a result of the breach," the complaint
added.

In an April 25 statement addressing the breach, Chipotle said it
had detected unauthorized activity on the network that supports
its payment processing for purchases made in its restaurants.

"We immediately began an investigation with the help of leading
cyber security firms, law enforcement, and our payment processor.
We believe actions we have taken have stopped the unauthorized
activity, and we have implemented additional security
enhancements.  Our investigation is focused on card transactions
in our restaurants that occurred from March 24, 2017 through April
18, 2017.  Because our investigation is continuing, complete
findings are not available and it is too early to provide further
details on the investigation," it said.

Bellwether Community Credit Union Credit Union asked the court to,
among other things, require Chipotle to use industry standard
encryption of cardholder data at the point of sale, implement EMV
technology, use third-party auditors to test its systems for
weakness, train data security personnel about how to respond to a
data breach and install manufacturer-recommended upgrades to its
security software and firewalls.

As of March 31, 2017, Chipotle operated over 2,200 restaurants in
the United States, as well as 34 international locations.  It
reported $3.9 billion in revenues in 2016. Its most recent 10-K
notes that 70% of its 2016 sales were attributable to credit and
debit card transactions.

"The risk of another such breach is real, immediate, and
substantial," the complaint said.  "If another massive data breach
occurs at Chipotle, plaintiff and members of the class will likely
incur hundreds of millions of dollars in damage."


CHRYSLER: Attorney Files Protest Against Wigginton's Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Record reports that car maker Chrysler, which
claimed in April that former U.S. attorney Stephen Wigginton
exposed its confidential information in his current capacity as
class action lawyer, claims he did it again on May 4.

According to Chrysler, Mr. Wigginton attached excerpts of a
deposition to a brief before the time to designate it as
confidential had expired.

Chrysler counsel Sharon Rosenberg filed a protest that day, as a
supplement to a motion for sanctions pending before District Judge
Michael Reagan.

"Plaintiffs have no right to put into the public record
information and testimony when Chrysler still has a right to mark
that information as protected," Ms. Rosenberg wrote.  "Plaintiffs'
actions are as outrageous as they are astonishing."

She proposed a drastic sanction, swift and stern. She called for
immediate corrective action, and she got it.

As of May 8, the public could not read Mr. Wigginton's brief or
the attachment.

Mr. Wigginton resigned as U.S. attorney in 2015, and joined the
Armstrong Teasdale firm in Clayton, Mo.

Last year, he took charge of a pending action alleging that
hackers can seize control of certain Chrysler vehicles with
uConnect electronic systems.

Lead plaintiff Brian Flynn, a Belleville lawyer, issued a third
party subpoena on Cisco Systems last September.

When Cisco resisted, California lawyer Amy Carlson opened a case
in district court at San Francisco and moved for an order
compelling compliance.

Ms. Carlson attached to the motion an exhibit from discovery in
the Illinois action.

Chrysler moved to seal the motion and the exhibit on April 27,
arguing that they exposed trade secrets in violation of an order
in the Illinois action.

Later that day, Ms. Carlson moved to seal the motion and the
exhibit.

The California court sealed them.

On that date in Illinois, Chrysler moved for sanctions against Mr.
Flynn.

"Not only did plaintiffs include information in a public court
filing that was derived solely from documents designated
confidential during the course of this action, they quoted from
these documents in public filings," Ms. Rosenberg wrote.

Mr. Wigginton responded on May 4, in the brief now under seal.

According to a reply Ms. Rosenberg filed later that day,
Mr. Wigginton argued that the information his California associate
disclosed was not material to their motion.

Ms. Rosenberg wrote that their admission made their offense worse.

"Plaintiffs' argument that Chrysler had a hand in Cisco's decision
about what documents to produce, with no proof whatsoever, is
outrageous," she wrote.

"In fact, Chrysler was not even aware of a discovery dispute
between plaintiffs and Cisco until it received the motion
outlining such a dispute.

"As an additional insult, plaintiffs failed to properly serve on
Chrysler the Cisco subpoena action."

She declared it doubtful that plaintiffs had effectively served
the Cisco third party action on Chrysler in compliance with local
rules.

U.S. Magistrate Donald Wilkerson ordered plaintiffs to respond by
May 12.

In California, on May 8, Cisco counsel Scotia Hicks challenged the
subpoena.

Ms. Hicks wrote that Cisco produced all relevant and responsive
materials and didn't withhold any information on the basis of
trade secret objections.

She asked whether Mr. Flynn satisfied his burden to show that
Cisco should search for additional documents having no probative
value for the underlying action.

She also wrote that Cisco's production included 53 separate
reports of testing work totaling more than 500 pages, "not merely
53 pages as Flynn claims repeatedly."

Also on May 8, Ms. Wigginton applied to appear before the
California court.

Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen has set a hearing May 16.


COLLINWOOD BIO ENERGY: Davis et al. Sue Over Noxious Odor
---------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Davis, 13401 Eaglesmere Ave., Cleveland, OH 44110; Tanya
Higgins, 497 E. 127th St., Cleveland, OH 44108; and Christina
Jones, 826 E. 147th St., Cleveland, OH 44110, On behalf of
themselves and all Others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Collinwood Bio Energy LLC, 13550 Aspinwall Ave., Cleveland, OH
44110, the Defendant, Case No. CV 17 880134 (Ohio Ct. of Common
Pleas, May 10, 2017), seeks to recover compensatory damages as
result of the invasion of their property by Defendant's release of
noxious odors, causing damage to Plaintiffs.

According to the complaint, the Defendant releases noxious odors
that invade Plaintiffs' property, causing property damage through,
negligence, gross negligence and nuisance. Defendant's facility,
and specifically its emissions, has been the subject of frequent
complaints from residents in the adjacent residential area. As a
result, more than 150 households have contacted Plaintiffs'
counsel documenting the odors they attribute to the Defendant's
facility.

Collinwood Bio is an anaerobic digestion bio-energy facility. The
facility produces renewable energy through digesting organic
matter and producing biogas which is then converted into
electricity. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel P. Petrov, Esq.
          THORMAN PETROV GROUP CO., LPA
          50 E. Washington Street
          Cleveland, OH 44022
          Telephone: (216) 621 3500
          Facsimile: (216) 621 3422
          E-mail: dpetrov@tpgfirm.com

               - and -

          Laura L. Sheets, Esq.
          Brandon T. Brown, Esq.
          LIDDLE & DUBIN PC
          975 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207-3101
          Telephone: (313) 392 0015
          Facsimile: (313) 392 0025
          E-mail: lsheets@ldclassaction.com
                  bbrown@ldclassaction.com


CONSERVATION CONTROL: Diaz, et al. Seek Unpaid OT Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR CABRERA DIAZ and WILLIAM GUANDIGUE On behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CONSERVATION
CONTROL CORP., JOHN DOE PRIME CONTACTORS 1 THROUGH 10; JOHN DOE
BONDING COMPANIES 1 THROUGH 10; ARTHUR HOHMAN JR.; AND ERIC HOHMAN
in their individual capacity, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
02573-LDW-AKT (E.D.N.Y., May 1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and fees,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs routinely worked in
excess of 40 hours per week but Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiffs overtime pay required by the Act.

Conservation Control is in lawn and garden services industry in
Huntington Station, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Devis Melendez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DEVIS MELENDEZ
          90 Bradley Street
          Brentwood, NY 11717
          Telephone: (631) 434 1443
          Facsimile: (631) 434 1443


CORPORATION TRUST: Faces "Radabaugh" Suit in D. Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corporation Trust
Company. The case is captioned as Dawn Marie Radabaugh and
S.M.R.K., the Plaintiffs, v. Corporation Trust Company, The
Registered Agent for Northern Trust Corporation, Number 0774471,
John/Jane Doe Agents; American Bar Association, John/Jane Doe
Agents; Minnesota State Bar John/Jane Doe Agents; Minnesota, State
of, John/Jane Doe Agents; District Court Hennepin County Civil
Division, John/Jane Doe Agents; District Court Hennepin County
Juvenile Division, John/Jane Doe Agents; Child Protection
Services, John/Jane Doe Agents; Hennepin County Attorney's Office,
John/Jane Doe Agents; John Doe, Therapist hired by Child
Protection Services for S.M.R.K.; All agents, Sub-agents similarly
situated, hereinafter ab initio mundi, et alii; alia; Joann Lisa
Karetov; Amy Johnson; Joanne Gruber; Janine Moore; Luis
Bartolomei; Lisa Gordon; Christiana Martenson; Michael O Freeman;
Kacy Wothe; Karin L. Chedister; Michelle Ann Larkin; Randolph
Peterson; Traci Smith; Eric S. Rehm; Pat Timpane; and Shiela
Thomas, Case No. 0:17-cv-01559-JRT-BRT (D. Minn, May 10, 2017).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge John R. Tunheim.

CT is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wolters Kluwer, a multi-
national information services company based in the Netherlands
with operations in over 35 countries. It provides software and
services that legal professionals use.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CRAFTMASTER PAINTING: "Boutell" Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Boutell, Brian Stout, Shane Morn, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Craftmaster
Painting, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00317 (W.D. Wis., April
28, 2017), seeks all unpaid overtime wages, 100% liquidated
damages and attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and unpaid straight time and overtime wages owed
under Wisconsin Law plus 50% increased damages.

Craftmaster performs painting and related work both throughout the
State of Wisconsin who employed Plaintiffs throughout various
jobsites. They claim to be denied meal breaks but were deducted
for such, denied overtime pay, denied payment for pre and post
work-shift duties and based 401(k) contributions on actual work
hours and charged insurance premiums in whole and not deducted
with employers' share of such. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yingtao Ho, Esq.
      THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
      310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
      Milwaukee, WI 53203
      Telephone: (414) 271-4500
      Fax: (414) 271-6308
      Email: yh@previant.com


CREDIT BUREAU: Faces "Jenkins" Suit in Northern Dist. of Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Bureau of
Bessemer Inc. The case is styled as Zangela Jenkins, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Credit Bureau of Bessemer Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00768-JEO (N.D. Ala., May 10, 2017). The case is assigned to the
Hon. Magistrate Judge John E Ott.

Credit Bureau of Bessemer, Inc. is doing business in the
collection industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David I. Schoen, Esq.
          2800 Zelda Road, Suite 100-6
          Montgomery, AL 36106
          Telephone: (334) 395 6611
          Facsimile: (917) 591 7586
          E-mail: DSchoen593@aol.com


DIAMOND FOODS: McGee Appeals S.D. Calif. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jacquelyn McGee filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit titled Jacquelyn McGee v. Diamond Foods,
Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-02446-JAH-DHB, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 10,
2017, Judge John A. Houston granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended complaint.

The case involves the Plaintiff filing a class action against the
Defendant, asserting claims for unfair and unlawful business
practices.

The Court agreed that the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
fails to state a claim because the Plaintiff has no injury in fact
and still lacks Article III standing.  Therefore, the Court
dismisses the entire action with prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as Jacquelyn McGee v. Diamond
Foods, Inc., Case No. 17-55577, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellant Jacquelyn McGee's opening brief is due on
      August 3, 2017;

   -- Appellee Diamond Foods, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
      September 5, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JACQUELYN MCGEE, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Gregory Weston, Esq.
          THE WESTON FIRM
          1405 Morena Boulevard, Suite 201
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 255-7098
          E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee DIAMOND FOODS, INC., is represented by:

          Amanda L. Groves, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          100 N. Tryon St.
          Charlotte, NC 28202-1078
          Telephone: (704) 350-7745
          E-mail: agroves@winston.com

               - and -

          Sean D. Meenan, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          101 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 591-1400
          E-mail: agroves@winston.com

               - and -

          Shawn Rieko Obi, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 615-1763
          Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
          E-mail: sobi@winston.com


DICK'S SPORTING: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Greer" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit styled Jimmy Greer v. Dick's Sporting
Goods, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01063-KJM-CKD, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento.

The appellate case is captioned as Jimmy Greer v. Dick's Sporting
Goods, Inc., Case No. 17-80075, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent JIMMY GREER, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Robert Drexler, Jr., Esq.
          Melissa Grant, Esq.
          Jonathan Sing Lee, Esq.
          Bevin Allen Pike, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Robert.Drexler@Capstonelawyers.com
                  melissa.grant@capstonelawyers.com
                  Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com
                  Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com

Defendant-Petitioner DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, is represented by:

          Paul Scott Cowie, Esq.
          Stephen Luther Taeusch, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4106
          Telephone: (415) 774-3182
          Facsimile: (415) 520-9816
          E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com
                  staeusch@sheppardmullin.com


DIGITALGLOBE INC: Jeweltex Files Lawsuit Over MacDonald Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEWELTEX MANUFACTURING INC. RETIREMENT PLAN, On Behalf of Itself
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DIGITALGLOBE,
INC., JEFFREY R. TARR, HOWELL M. ESTES, III, KIMBERLY TILL,
EDDY ZERVIGON, ROXANNE J. DECYK, LAWRENCE A. HOUGH, WARREN C.
JENSON, NICK S. CYPRUS, and L. ROGER MASON, JR., Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01140 (D. Col., May 8, 2017), alleges that Defendants
failed to adequately disclose material information regarding the
acquisition of the Company in violation of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act.

Pursuant to the transaction, the Company will be acquired by
MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd., through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries SSL MDA Holdings, Inc. and Merlin Merger Sub, Inc.
The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $3.6 billion.

According to the case, the proxy statement/prospectus in
connection with the Proposed Transaction omits and/or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things:
(i) DigitalGlobe's and MDA's management projections, utilized by
the Company's financial advisors, PJT Partners LP and Barclays
Capital Inc. in their financial analyses; (ii) the valuation
analyses prepared by PJT Partners and Barclays in connection with
the rendering of their fairness opinions; (iii) DigitalGlobe
insiders' potential conflicts of interest; and (iv) PJT Partners'
and Barclays' potential conflicts of interest.

The Company is a global provider of high-resolution Earth imagery,
data and analysis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
     WEISSLAW LLP
     1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: (212) 682-3025
     Fax: (212) 682-3010
     Email: racocelli@weisslawllp.com


ELITE HOME: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ABLE HOME HEALTH, LLC, on behalf of
plaintiff and the class members, the Plaintiff, v. ELITE HOME
PHYSICIANS, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-03639 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff ask the Court to certify
classes:

For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act:

   "(a) all persons with fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date
   four years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent
   faxes by or on behalf of defendant Elite Home Physicians, LLC,
   promoting its goods or services for sale (d) with respect to
   which defendant Elite Home Physicians, LLC does not have
   evidence of consent or an established business relationship
   prior to sending the fax";

For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act:

   "(a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or
   after a date three years prior to the filing of this action,
   (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Elite Home
   Physicians, LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale (d)
   with respect to which defendant Elite Home Physicians, LLC
   does not have evidence of consent or an established business
   relationship prior to sending the fax"; and

For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, and Count IV,
alleging trespass to chattels:

   "(a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who,
   on or after a date five years prior to the filing of this
   action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Elite
   Home Physicians, LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale
   (d) with respect to which defendant Elite Home Physicians, LLC
   does not have evidence of consent or an established business
   relationship prior to sending the fax".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court that it be appointed class
representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
be appointed counsel for the class.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=subsONKO

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Heather Kolbus, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379


ENVOY AIR: Schroeder, et al. Seek to Certify Classes & Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled K. SCHROEDER and O. GUERRA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
ENVOY AIR, INC., and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-04911-MWF-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court on August 28, 2017, at 10:00 a. m. for an order to certify
classes and subclasses:

The requested Classes and Subclasses are defined as follows:

(a) The Sick Leave Policy Class:

    "all California non-exempt Passenger Service Agents ("PSA's")
    who received one or more wage statements from Envoy from July
    18, 2013 to date";

(b) The Overtime Subclass:

    "all California PSA's who were not paid overtime at rates
    either were computed with reference to the correct: (1)
    "regular rate"; or (2) rate for Training Time, Travel Time or
    Envoy Meeting Time from September 30, 2014 to date";

(c) The Rest Break and Meal Break Subclass:

    "all California PSA's who received one or more wage
    statements from Envoy from September 30, 2014 to the date
    on Class Notice is sent to class members";

(d) The Wage Statement Policy Subclass:

    "all California PSA's who received one or more wage
    Statements from Envoy during the period from one year prior
    to the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, July 18, 2015,
    to date";

(e) The Living Wage Ordinance Subclass:

    "all California PSA's who were issued an alleged "settlement"
    check on account of the Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance in
    2017".

(f) Former Employee Subclass:

    "all California PSA's who are members of the Overtime, Rest
    Break and Meal Break and/or Living Wage Ordinance Subclasses
    whose employ by Defendant has terminated on or before May 15,
    2015".

The Plaintiffs will further ask the Court that Harris and Ruble
and The Law Offices of John Dorigan be appointed Class Counsel
with Plaintiffs appointed as Class Representatives.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BrcVZcsE

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          Priya Mohan, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          655 North Central Ave.
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (323) 962 3777
          Facsimile: (323) 962 3004
          E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
                  pmohan@harrisandruble.com

               - and -

          John P. Dorigan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHN P. DORIGAN
          600 Canterbury Lane
          Sagamore Hills, Ohio 44067
          Telephone: (330) 748 4475
          Facsimile: (330) 748 4475
          E-mail: jpdorigan@aol.com


EXPRESS MEDICAL: "LaCurtis" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL LaCURTIS, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EXPRESS MEDICAL
TRANSPORTERS, INC. (a Missouri Corporation), et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv-00427-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff
ask the Court to issue an Order:

   a. granting conditional class certification regarding
      Plaintiff's claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act for:

      "all persons from July 1, 2013 to the present who (i)
      performed work as drivers or helpers, while employed by
      Defendants who, in whole or in part, (ii) operated a
      paralift van to Plaintiff's Motion for summary judgment, or
      any other paralift van that had a gross vehicle weight of
      10,000 lbs. or less and was designed to seat 8 or fewer
      total passengers, and (iii) were not paid 1.5 times their
      regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in any
      workweek";

   b. directing Defendants to provide a list within 14 days of
      the Court's Order for the class described above with their
      last known residential address, phone numbers email
      addresses, and dates of employment in an electronically
      workable format for mailing purposes;

   c. approving and authorizing Plaintiff to send Notice and
      Consent to Join form to Plaintiff's supporting memorandum;
      and

   d. granting such other relief the Court deems just and proper.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=x6zls1Mu

Attorneys for Plaintiff LaCurtis:

          Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
          420 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 221 7100
          Facsimile: (816) 709 1044
          E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com

               - and -

          Daniel W. Craig, Esq.
          6614 Clayton Road, No. 320
          St. Louis, MO 63117
          Telephone: (314) 297 8385
          Facsimile: (816) 709 1044
          E-mail: dan@donelonpc.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Daniels and Young:

          Brandy B. Barth, Esq.
          Talmage E. Newton IV, Esq.
          7515 Delmar Blvd.
          St. Louis, MO
          Telephone: (314) 272- 490
          Facsimile: (314) 762 6710
          E-mail: bbarth@newtonwrightlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John J. Gazzoli, Jr., Esq.
          Jessica C. Gittemeier, Esq.
          ROSENBLUM GOLDENHERSH
          7733 Forsyth Blvd., 4th Floor
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 726 6868
          Facsimile: (314) 726 6786
          E-mail: jgazzoli@rgsz.com
                  jgittemeier@rgsz.com


FACEBOOK INC: Judge Dismisses Spying Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal judge dismissed a class action lawsuit accusing
Facebook of spying on users who visit major cancer organization
websites.

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila dismissed the suit without leave
to amend on May 9. Because the medical organizations accused of
handing users' private information off to Facebook are outside of
California, the court lacks power -- or "personal jurisdiction" --
over the case, he said.

Judge Davila added that the plaintiffs had agreed to Facebook's
tracking activities when they signed up for their accounts.

"Because they did not purposefully direct activities to California
or purposefully avail themselves of the privilege of conducting
business in California, this court lacks personal jurisdiction
over the healthcare defendants," Judge Davila wrote in a 16-page
ruling, much of it focused on the jurisdiction question.

Lead plaintiff Winston Smith's attorney Jeff Koncius expressed
disappointment with the decision.

"We're obviously not happy, and when we filed the case we thought
it had merit and we still think it has merit," Mr. Koncius said in
an interview.  He added that Smith may appeal the decision or
refile the case in the states where the cancer defendants are
located because "we feel the disclosures being made are not
appropriate."

Mr. Smith sued Facebook, the American Cancer Society, the American
Society of Clinical Oncology, and five other cancer organizations
in March 2016, claiming that Facebook collects users' private
information from the medical organizations' websites when users
click on a Facebook "like" or "share" button embedded on the
sites.

Mr. Smith said that Facebook can identify individual users, track
the pages they visited on the defendants' websites, and use the
data to target them with tailored advertisements, in violation of
the federal Wiretap Act and the California Invasion of Privacy
Act, among other statutes.

However, Mr. Smith admitted in his complaint that he wasn't sure
the organizations knew Facebook collected user data from their
sites.

The plaintiffs pushed back against the judge's ruling that the
Northern District of California federal court lacked jurisdiction.
They argued that the fact that the medical defendants send the
plaintiffs' data to the California-based Facebook makes them
subject to the court's jurisdiction.

But Judge Davila held that the evidence failed to show that the
medical defendants do business in the state.

Assuming the cancer organizations didn't know Facebook was
harvesting information from their websites, Judge Davila added
that "personal jurisdiction requires 'something more' -- namely,
'wrongful conduct targeted at a plaintiff whom the defendant knows
to be a resident of the forum state.'"

"The healthcare defendants cannot have 'targeted' activity at
known California residents if they were unaware that the activity
was happening," he wrote.  "Besides triggering a second [message]
request in the user's browser, the healthcare defendants play no
part in the exchange of data between Facebook and plaintiffs."

Judge Davila added that Mr. Smith had consented to Facebook's
tracking policies, which notify prospective users that it
collects information about the websites they visit -- including
when they click on "like" buttons on those sites -- when he signed
up for an account.

Judge Davila also rejected Mr. Smith's contention that because
Facebook collected "sensitive health information" about users, it
must meet stricter disclosure standards under the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act, finding that Facebook hadn't
collected information considered protected under the law.

"We are pleased with the court's decision," a Facebook
spokesperson said on May 9.

Mr. Koncius is with Kiesel Law in Beverly Hills.

Facebook was represented by John Nadolenco --
jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com -- with Mayer Brown in Los Angeles; the
American Cancer Society by Shelley Hurwitz --
shelley.hurwitz@hklaw.com -- with Holland & Knight, also in Los
Angeles; and the American Society of Clinical Oncology by Jeffrey
Rabkin -- jrabkin@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day in San Francisco.

Hurwitz and Rabkin could not be reached for comment on May.


FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL: Waldman, et al. Seek New Directors
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Waldman, Sarah Parrish, Lauren Berdow, Jonathan Gropper,
& The Irrevocable Trust of Jonathan Gropper, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v.
First Service Residential Midatlantic, LLC, Jim Cosby, Shae
Berler, Kim Ling, Seth Dailey, Chris Peng, & Bentwood Historical
Condominium Association, the Defendants, Case No. 170500493 (Phil.
Common Plea Ct., May 1, 2017), asks the Court to issue an Order:

     -- requiring the Bentwood Historic Condominium Association to
schedule a new special election for its Executive Board within
60 days, and

     -- enjoining the current members of that board, Defendants
Jim Cosby, Shae Berler, Kim Ling, Seth Dailey, and Chris Peng,
from running for election.

The Plaintiffs bring this action as a Class Action under
Pennsylvania Rule 1702 on behalf of all of the residential unit
owners at 1010 Race Street. There are 84 residential units, which
together constitute condominium association, and the common
elements of the building are equally owned by all of the
individual unit owners.

According to the complaint, the total pattern of the behavior of
the Current Board, together with First Service, demonstrates an
intent to prevent the Plaintiffs from having any meaningful
opportunity to meaningfully communicate their grave concerns about
the state of the building with other homeowners, or to have any
reasonable opportunity of being fairly elected to directly deal
with those issues. The owners who actually live in the building
and deal with threats to their comfort and safety are not having
their voice heard or given any proper means to protect themselves
from a negligent and abusive board and property manager that have
committed themselves to preserving their positions rather than
promoting the interests in the building they represent.

FirstService Residential is a property management company in North
America. It provides full-service property management solutions to
community.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan Suchenski, Esq.
          KANE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          1500 JFKBlvd, Suite 820
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 600 0928


FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Lossia Appeals E.D. Michigan Ruling to 6th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs James Lossia, Jr., and Alexandra Plapcianu filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled James Lossia,
Jr., et al. v. Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-12540, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at
Detroit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs allege that Flagstar Bank furnished false information
to consumer reporting agencies as a result of insufficient fund
(NSF) fees assessed by Flagstar.  They assert five state law
claims and one federal claim.

The appellate case is captioned as James Lossia, Jr., et al. v.
Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., Case No. 17-1468, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JAMES LOSSIA, JR., and ALEXANDRA PLAPCIANU,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Ronald G. Acho, Esq.
          CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO P.L.C.
          33900 Schoolcraft Road
          Livonia, MI 48150
          Telephone: (734) 261-2400
          E-mail: racho@cmda-law.com

Defendant-Appellee FLAGSTAR BANCORP, INC., aka Flagstar Bank, is
represented by:

          Colin M. Battersby, Esq.
          MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, P.L.C.
          150 W. Jefferson Avenue, Suite 2500
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 963-6420
          E-mail: battersby@millercanfield.com

               - and -

          Caroline Brooks Giordano, Esq.
          MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, P.L.C.
          101 N. Main Street, Seventh Floor
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 663-2445
          Facsimile: (734) 747-7147
          E-mail: giordano@millercanfield.com


FORD MOTOR CO: "Chaidez" Suit Alleges Racial Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Martin Chaidez, Jessica Galan, Stephanie Galan, Kevin Zuninga,
Antonio Zuninga, Antoinette Delreal and Stacy Delreal, on behalf
of themselves and similarly situated job applicants, Plaintiffs,
v. Ford Motor Company, Allan Millender and other unknown persons,
Defendants, Case No.  1:17-cv-03244, (N.D. Ill., April 30, 2017),
is filed against Ford for racial discrimination against Hispanic
and/or Latino applicants.  The suit seeks compensatory and
punitive damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and such
other relief under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Ford Motor Company operates its Chicago Assembly Plant near
Harvey, Illinois and staffs the plant primarily through their
Harvey unemployment office. Plaintiffs sought employment at Ford
through the Harvey unemployment office but got turned down
allegedly due to their Hispanic and/or Latino descent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James L. Bizzieri, Esq.
      BIZZIERI LAW OFFICES, LLC
      10258 S. Western Ave., Suite 210
      Chicago, IL 60643
      Tel: (773) 881-9000


FOX NEWS: Two More People Join Racial Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Westcott, writing for Newsweek, reports that Elizabeth
Fernandez and Claudine McLeod joined the lawsuit, bringing the
total number of current and former employees to at least 16.  The
lawsuit names 21st Century Fox, Fox News, Dianne Brandi, Fox chief
counsel, and Judith Slater, former controller at Fox News.  Both
Ms. Fernandez and Ms. McLeod worked in the Accounts Payable
Department at Fox News; Ms. McLeod is still employed by the
company.

They claim in the suit that the alleged racial discrimination
suffered by minority employees meant Fox "appears more akin to
Plantation-style management than a modern-day work environment."

Ms. McLeod, who is Panamanian and Black, says in the complaint
that she was "subjected to numerous discriminatory comments and
conduct by Ms. Slater."  Ms. McLeod, who is diabetic, says she was
told by Slater that "You people are high maintenance" and are
"driving up everyone's healthcare premiums" due to her medical
condition.  Ms. McLeod also alleges that Slater demanded to know
if she and other minority employees were U.S. citizens, and made
"numerous disparaging remarks" about her Panamanian heritage.

Ms. Fernandez, who is Hispanic, claims in the complaint that
Ms. Slater asked her she was when pregnant if she planned to have
more children because "Latinas like having a ton of kids."
Ms. Fernandez says she also heard former Fox News CEO Roger Ailes
make discriminatory comments when she mistakenly walked into his
office on the second floor, where she and many other minority
employees were allegedly denied access.  Those comments included
Mr. Ailes referring to employee Musfiq Rahman as a terrorist who
"might drop a bomb."

A Fox News spokesperson tells Newsweek in response to the lawsuit:
"FOX News terminated Judy Slater before a single lawsuit or any
amended complaint was filed."  Ms. Fernandez and Ms. McLeod were
added to the lawsuit the same day that Rupert Murdoch said:
"Nothing's happening at Fox News."

Catherine M. Foti, attorney for Ms. Slater, said: "These are
simply more baseless allegations."

"The race discrimination class action complaint continues to grow
evidencing a systemic and deeply troubling pattern at 21st Century
Fox," said Douglas Wigdor, the lawyer representing the employees.
"Any suggestion by 21st Century Fox that it has taken prompt and
remedial action distorts the reality that Fox's current General
Counsel, Dianne Brandi, had knowledge of this racist behavior for
many years."

Mr. Wigdor says he expects more complaints to be filed in the
coming days and weeks.  Mr. Wigdor sent a letter to British
regulator Ofcom, which is currently investigating 21st Century
Fox's potential takeover of Sky, citing multiple allegations of
harassment at the network.  Mr. Wigdor met with representatives
from Ofcom on May 8.

21st Century Fox did not immediately respond to Newsweek's request
for comment.


FYRE MEDIA: North Carolinian Couple Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Fishbein, writing for Gothamist, reports that for fans of
schadenfreude, Fyre Festival has been the gift that keeps on
giving, much like these Twitter videos of a deflating dancing
Pikachu getting carted off by security.  Since Ja Rule's special
festival for models, rich people, and aspiring rich people on the
private Bahaman island of Fyre Cay spectacularly collapsed last
month, disgruntled attendees have filed a number of lawsuits
against organizers.  And the most recent class-action suit's got
one doozy of a revelation in it -- it alleges the Fyre Festival
crew sent cease-and-desist letters to folks calling Fyre out on
social media.  Which, considering most of us lived out the full
FYRE DRAMA on Twitter, means they probably dumped a lot of money
on legal fees, not that they've proved themselves particularly
financially shrewd thus far. No matter!

A North Carolinian couple just filed the latest class action
lawsuit against Fyre Festival co-founders Ja Rule and Billy
McFarland, marking the sixth such suit filed since the festival
fell apart in April.  The couple, Kenneth and Emily Reel, allege
they spent $4,600 on VIP tickets they were never able to use; like
many ticketholders, they were unable to make it to the island.
Their class action seeks $5 million from the organizers and the
festival's PR agency, 42West, claiming the festival was
fraudulently advertised.  "Defendants sold tickets for a music
festival of unparalleled luxury," the suit states.  "In reality,
Fyre Festival was the opposite. The event fell woefully short of
what was advertised in virtually every way."

The suit went on to say, "Instead of world-class cuisine and
entertainment, concert goers found themselves without adequate
food, water, shelter, and basic medical care.  Still others [en]
route to the event found themselves stranded in Miami, Florida
unsure of how to proceed or of what was occurring on the island."
The Reels are just two of many attendees/prospective attendees
who've lobbed such accusations against Fyre Festival.  As the
festival fell apart on April 27th, social media was abuzz with
pictures of faux-"gourmet" meals, what appeared to be disaster
relief tents falsely advertised as luxury villas and cabanas, and
crowds of attendees attempting to flee the island only to find
themselves trapped on tarmacs.

Unfortunately, it appears Fyre's organizers only like social media
attention when it features hot models and Kendall Jenner, and
according to the Reels' lawsuit, they sent cease-and-desist
letters to those who dared besmirch Fyre's good name on the
Internet.  Per the suit:

Those individuals who elected to speak negatively about the
Defendants on social media, they are now being threatened with
legal action via cease-and-desist letters," the complaint read.
"Specifically, if the social media comments were not taken down,
the Defendants claim they could 'incite violence, rioting, or
civil unrest,' with the caveat that if 'someone innocent does get
hurt as a result . . . Fyre Festival will hold you accountable and
responsible.'

Meanwhile, another lawsuit filed recently claims Fyre Festival was
a "a massive Ponzi scheme" in which investors were either
defrauded or part of the alleged "get rich quick scheme."  At
least one such investor told Page Six they had "no involvement in
operating the business or the conception or execution of the Fyre
Festival."

And for folks who are curious as to how a festival that charged up
to $12K for tickets ran out of cash, Vice reports organizers "blew
all their money early on models, planes, and yachts," because no
one's learned a thing from Entertainment 720.


FYRE MEDIA: Festival Class Action Targets Investors
---------------------------------------------------
Polly Mosendz and Kim Bhasin, writing for Bloomberg News, report
that before the now-infamous Fyre Festival collapsed a few weeks
back, the company behind it -- maker of a mobile phone app you can
use to hire entertainers for your club, concert, or party -- said
it was worth $90 million, according to a document obtained by
Bloomberg News.

Fyre Media Inc. faces a half-dozen lawsuits from less-than-
satisfied customers over the disastrous music event in the
Bahamas.  Now that the fallout is beginning to land in court,
details are coming out about the company behind it.

A term sheet dated March 21 described the particulars of a
proposed $10.5 million investment in Fyre by Comcast Ventures, the
investment arm of media giant Comcast Corp.  In exchange for the
money, Comcast was to get a 10 percent stake, according to the
document.  An additional $4.5 million from new and existing
investors would flow into the tech startup, too, the term sheet
stated.  But the deal fell through.  Though Comcast had considered
investing as much as $25 million, it eventually backed away
entirely during the due diligence process, according to a person
with knowledge of it who requested anonymity.  A Comcast
spokesperson declined to comment on the term sheet.

The Fyre Festival was supposed to be a luxury getaway for moneyed
millennials, who paid up to five figures for VIP packages.  Touted
as an exotic festival with the promise of supermodels, haute
cuisine, and wall-to-wall excess, guests instead arrived to a lack
of facilities, sparse lighting, inadequate housing, and lots of
cheese sandwiches.  In the litigation that's followed, attendees
accused promoters of not keeping their promises. Many were
stranded in an airport through the night as they tried to get off
the Bahamian island of Great Exuma, and the availability of
refunds was unclear due to conflicting information from the
promoters.

"The ability of Fyre Media to float any substantial valuation at
all was based on the continued cash flow it was receiving."
As far as the investors were concerned, Comcast dodged a bullet.
It dropped out just days before the massive, ultimately doomed
attempt at branding.  But for those who did invest in Fyre Media,
things got a lot more complicated.

On May 5, unidentified investors in Fyre Media were added as
defendants to a proposed class action alleging fraud and breach of
contract.  Filed on behalf of a single concertgoer by Hollywood
law firm Geragos & Geragos, the suit (claiming $100 million in
damages) doesn't identify the investors by name, referring to them
as Doe Investors 1 though 15.

The firm, which contends it will have more than a 1,000 additional
plaintiffs before long, said it remains unclear whether the
investors were also victims of an alleged fraud.

"In the weeks leading up to the festival, when the company already
knew the event was doomed for failure, Fyre Media Inc., which was
minimally under-capitalized with [initial] investors, was floating
a completely inflated and shocking valuation of Fyre Media Inc.
between $90 million and $105 million to additional" investors, the
lawyers said in court papers.

While the complaint didn't name any investors, the copy of the
term sheet names Corazon Capital Ltd. as among the investors in
Fyre Media.  An employee of Fyre Media, who spoke only on
condition of anonymity, said Sam Yagan, who runs Corazon, visited
the office last fall.  Billy McFarland, Fyre's founder, had told
employees at the time that Yagan was an investor, the person said.

Yagan committed to a "small seed investment" in Fyre's app after
meeting with McFarland last May, Yagan's spokesman said. "As
passive investors, we had no involvement in operating the business
or the conception or execution of the Fyre Festival," said the
spokesman. "We had no interest in their plans to produce a
festival and unequivocally disavow the handling of the situation
in the strongest possible terms." A second firm, Pensco Trust Co.,
was also listed on the term sheet as a seed investor. Carola Jain,
also named on the document, was described by the person as a
friend of Fyre Media who once sponsored a party for the company.
Pensco and Jain didn't return requests seeking comment on the term
sheet.

McFarland and his partner, musician Ja Rule -- both named as
defendants with Fyre Media -- didn't respond to requests for
comment on the term sheet or the amended complaint. Corazon,
Yagan, Pensco, and Jain aren't named as parties to the litigation
or accused of any wrongdoing.

"Clearly, the $90-$105 million valuation placed on Fyre Media by
its founders was completely untethered to any financial reality,"
Geragos firm lawyers wrote in the filing in Los Angeles federal
court. "Yet, the ability of Fyre Media to float any substantial
valuation at all was based on the continued cash flow it was
receiving, in the weeks and days leading to the festival, from
attendees who were the unwitting pawns and ultimately victims."


FYRE MEDIA: "Jung" Sues Over Event Mayhem, Lack of Amenities
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Jung, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Billy McFarland, an
individual, Jeffrey Atkins p/k/a Ja Rule, an individual, Fyre
Media, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case 2:17-cv-03245 (C.D. Cal., April 30,
2017) seeks actual, consequential and incidental losses and
damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs incurred and
such other and further relief resulting from fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of contract and breach of the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing.

In December 2016, Defendants promoted their upcoming "Fyre
Festival" as a posh, island-based music festival featuring first-
class culinary experiences and a luxury atmosphere on a private
island in the Bahamas. However, the festival's lack of adequate
food, water, shelter and medical care created a dangerous and
panicked situation among attendees. Defendants also promoted the
festival as a "cashless" event where attendees upload funds to a
wristband for use at the festival rather than bringing any cash.
However, attendees were unable to purchase basic transportation on
local taxis or busses, which accept only cash.

Daniel Jung purchased a ticket package and airfare to Fyre
Festival, totaling approximately $2,000.00 in costs. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
     Ben J. Meiselas, Esq.
     Zack V. Muljat, Esq.
     Alex Alarcon, Esq.
     GERAGOS & GERAGOS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION LAWYERS
     Historic Engine Co. No. 28
     644 South Figueroa Street
     Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411
     Telephone (213) 625-3900
     Facsimile (213) 232-3255
     Email: Geragos@Geragos.com


GAITHER TECHNOLOGIES: Mauthe Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., P.C., a Pennsylvania corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. GAITHER TECHNOLOGIES STC, LLC,
and MINGLE ANALYTICS, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-
02154-LS (E.D. Pa., May 10, 2017), seeks statutory damages,
injunctive relief, compensation and attorney fees as a result of
Defendants' violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).

According to the complaint, Defendants have sent advertisements by
facsimile in violation of the TCPA. The Defendants sent Plaintiff
at least one advertisement by facsimile. The Plaintiff did not
expressly consent to receive Defendants' advertisement by fax and
does not have an established business relationship with the
Defendants.

The Plaintiff brought this action against Defendants on behalf of
a class of all persons or entities that Defendants sent one or
more telephone facsimile messages ("faxes") about Merit-based
Incentive Payment System ("MIPS") Physician Quarterly Reporting
System ("PQRS") Payment Adjustment training and review services
available from Gaither and Mingle. The Defendants' unsolicited
faxes damaged Plaintiff and the other class members. Unsolicited
faxes tie up the telephone lines, prevent fax machines from
receiving authorized faxes, prevent their use for authorized
outgoing faxes, cause undue wear and tear on the recipients' fax
machines, and require additional labor to attempt to discern the
source and purpose of the unsolicited message. The recipient of a
"junk" fax loses the use of its fax machine, and many lose their
paper and ink toner in printing the fax. Such an unsolicited fax
interrupts the recipient's privacy. A junk fax wastes the
recipient's valuable time that would have been spent on something
else.

Gaither is in the business of providing consulting services
and software applications, including programs for electronic
medical records, quality measure data submission, and medical
billing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Shenkan, Esq.
          SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
          P.O. Box 7255
          New Castle, PA 16107
          Telephone: (248) 562 1320
          Facsimile: (888) 769 1774
          E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com

               - and -

          Phillip A Bock, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS
          & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658 5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658 5555
          E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com



GENWORTH LIFE: "Avazian" Disputes Unlawful Insurance Lapse
----------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Avazian and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company and Does 1 through 10,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03215 (C.D. Cal., April 28, 2017),
seeks economic and foreseeable consequential damages, plus
prejudgment interest for breach of contract and mental and
emotional distress.  The suit further seeks attorney fees and
punitive damages, plus prejudgment interest and such other and
further relief resulting from breach of contract and breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

In 1993, Genworth issued a policy to Avazian that provided a death
benefit of $500,000. Avazian made all premium payments due under
the Policy until 2016, at which time he had paid more than $70,000
in premiums to Genworth. Avazian missed the January 2016 premium
payment and Genworth sent Arthur a letter dated February 1, 2016
notifying him that the Policy had entered into a 61-day grace
period owing to "insufficient" premiums. Genworth did not abide by
the 30-Day Notice and Third-Party Notice Requirements, rendering
their lapse of the Policy unlawful and in bad faith, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William M. Shernoff, Esq.
      Samuel L. Bruchey, Esq.
      SHERNOFF BIDART ECHEVERRIA LLP
      301 N. Ca§on Drive, Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 246-0503
      Fax: (310) 246-0380
      Email: wshernoff@shernoff.com
             sbruchey@shernoff.com


GOURMET SUBS: "Buchholz" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Buchholz and Jessica Hernandez, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gourmet Subs Of
Charlotte, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00231, (W.D. N.C.,
April 28, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages plus an
equal amount as liquidated damages, damages from unreasonably
delayed payment of wages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs
and disbursements of this action, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant owns and operates Jimmy John's franchised locations
where Buchholz worked for Defendant as an Assistant Store Manager
at their location at 3014 Driwood Court, Charlotte, North Carolina
28269. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
     PHIL GIBBONS LAW, P.C.
     15720 Brixham Hill Ave #331
     Charlotte, NC 28227
     Tel: (704) 612-0038
     Fax: (704) 612-0038
     Email: phil@philgibbonslaw.com

            - and -

     Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
     Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
     Christopher M. Timmel, Esq.
     KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
     Two International Drive, Suite 350
     Rye Brook, NY 10573
     Tel: (914) 934-9200
     Fax: (914) 934-9220
     Email: seth@klafterolsen.com
            fran@klafterolsen.com
            Christopher.timmel@klafterolsen.com

            - and -

     Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
     Michael Litrownik, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 245-1000
     Fax: (212) 977-4005
     Email: jms@outtengolden.com
            mlitrownik@outtengolden.com

            - and -

     Drew Legando, Esq.
     LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
     1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Tel: (216) 522-9000
     Fax: (216) 522-9007
     Email: drew@lgmlegal.com


GREGORY KISTLER: "White" Suit Seeks to Certify Workers Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CATHERINE WHITE, Individually and on
PLAINTIFF Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. THE GREGORY
KISTLER TREATMENT DEFENDANT CENTER, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-02259-PKH (W.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
conditionally certify a class of:

   "all employees of Defendant who have been employed as Direct
   Care Workers (or equivalent job titles) on or after January 1,
   2015, and who were not paid overtime compensation at a rate of
   one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all
   hours they worked in excess of 40 hours for each work week".

The Plaintiff brought this suit on behalf of certain former and
current home healthcare workers of Gregory Kistler Treatment
Center, Inc., to recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, among other claims.

To facilitate notice to class members, Plaintiff asks the Court to
adopt the following deadlines and notice plan:

   1. 7 Days From Order Approving Notice to Potential Collective
      Members:

      Defendant to produce the names, last known addresses, e-
      mail addresses, phone numbers and dates of employment of
      the Putative Collective Members in a usable electronic
      format.

   2. 14 Days From Order Approving Notice to Potential Collective
      Members:

      Plaintiff's Counsel shall send by mail and e-mail or text
      message a copy of the Court approved Notice and Consent
      Form to the Putative Collective Members.

   3. 90 Days From Date Notice is Mailed to Potential Collective
      Members:

      The Putative Collective Members shall have 90 days to
      return their signed Consent forms for filing with the
      Court.

   4. 30 Days from Date Notice is Mailed to Potential Collective
      Members:

Plaintiff's Counsel is authorized to send by mail and e-mail a
Reminder Postcard to the Putative Collective Members reminding
them of the deadline for the submission of the Consent forms.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hgUZN4PL

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent Wakefield, Esq.
          James D. Robertson, Esq.
          BARBER LAW FIRM, PLLC
          3400 Simmons Tower
          425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3414
          Telephone: (501) 372 6175
          E-mail: brent.wakefield@barberlawfirm.com
                  jrobertson@barberlawfirm.com


HUNTER WARFIELD: Faces "Nicholson" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
KIM NICHOLSON, Plaintiff, vs. HUNTER WARFIELD, INC., Serve at:
Hunter Warfield, Inc. c/o Registered Agent, Stephen Sobota
4620 Woodland Corporate Blvd. Tampa, FL 33614, And, DOES 1-4,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-1446 (E.D. Mo., May 5, 2017), is a
purported class action that arises from alleged attempts by
Defendant to collect an alleged debt incurred by Plaintiff through
computer-generated letters.

The case seeks to secure redress against Defendants for the
alleged unlawful collection practices that violated the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act, and the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act.

Defendant acts as a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nathan D. Sturycz, Esq.
     100 N. Main, Suite 11
     Edwardsville, IL 62025
     Phone: 877-314-3223
     Fax: 313-667-2733
     E-mail: nathan@sturyczlaw.com


INNOCOLL HOLDINGS: Faces "Rubin" Suit Over Sale to Gurnet Point
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rubin, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. INNOCOLL HOLDINGS PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY,
ANTHONY P. ZOOK, JONATHAN SYMONDS, SHUMEET BANERJI, DAVID R.
BRENNAN, A. JAMES CULVERWELL, ROLF D. SCHMIDT, and JOSEPH WILEY,
Defendants, is a securities suit seeking to enjoin the vote on a
proposed acquisition of Innocoll by Gurnet Point, L.P., acting
through its general partner Waypoint International GP LLC, through
its wholly-owned subsidiary Lough Ree Technologies Limited.  The
Proposed Transaction has been valued up to approximately $209
million.

The case alleges that a Preliminary Proxy Statement that
recommends that Innocoll stockholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) Innocoll management's
projections, (ii) Innocoll insiders' potential conflicts of
interest; (iii) the valuation analyses prepared by Piper Jaffray &
Co. in connection with the rendering of its fairness opinion; (iv)
Piper's potential conflicts of interest; and (v) the sale process
leading up to the Proposed Transaction.

Defendant is a global commercial stage specialty pharmaceutical
and medical device company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Evan J. Smith, Esq.
     Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
     BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
     Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
     Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
     Phone: 610.667.6200
     Fax: 610 667 9029
     E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
             mackerman@brodskysmith.com

        - and -

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


INSPIRON INC: Fails to Pay $1.9 Million Balance, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
SKY MATERIALS CORP., individually, and as representatives of all
trust beneficiaries similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. INSPIRON,
INC., AK 511 VENTURES, LLC, ALAN GERSHKOVICH, KENNETH HART, and
"John Doe One" through "John Doe Ten," and other Lien Holders
unknown Defendant(s), Case No. 652047/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 10,
2017), seeks to recover funds due and related relief arising out
of Defendants' failure to pay, leaving a balance due of at least
$1,899,969.25.

The case is for funds due Sky Materials, and related relief, for
work performed in the construction of the Moise Safra Community
Center, located at 130-134 East 82nd Street, New York, New York.
Sky's work was performed pursuant to one or more contracts with
the owners' representatives and general contractors, Inspiron and
AK 511.

Inspiron is an information technology services company offering a
wide array of solutions customized for a range of key verticals
and horizontals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Gardner, Esq.
          David T. Meglino, Esq.
          COLE SCHOTZ P.C.
          1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1900
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 752-8000


INTEL CORP: Sulyma Appeals N.D. Cal. Decision to Ninth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Christopher M. Sulyma filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Christopher Sulyma v. Intel
Corporation Investment Policy Committee, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-
04977-NC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from the Defendant's alleged breached of their fiduciary
duties by investing a significant portion of the Plans' assets in
risky and high-cost hedge fund and private equity investments, and
adopting asset allocation models for participant accounts that
departed dramatically from prevailing standards employed by
professional investment managers and plan fiduciaries.

Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee is responsible for
appointing, monitoring, and removing the members of the Investment
Committee and the Administrative Committee pursuant to Section
13(b) of the Plan Document for each of the Plans.

The appellate case is captioned as Christopher Sulyma v. Intel
Corporation Investment Policy Committee, et al., Case No. 17-
15864, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by May 24, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on June 23, 2017;

   -- Appellant Christopher M. Sulyma's opening brief is due on
      August 2, 2017;

   -- Appellees Charlene Barshefsky, Susan L. Decker, John J.
      Donahoe, Finance Committee of the Intel Corporation Board
      of Directors, Reed Hundt, Intel Corporation 401(k) Savings
      Plan, Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, Intel
      Retirement Contribution Plan, Intel Retirement Plans
      Administrative Committee, Ravi Jacob, James D. Plummer,
      David S. Pottruck and Frank D. Yeary's answering brief is
      due on September 5, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CHRISTOPHER M. SULYMA, and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Robert Joseph Barton, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          1735 20th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 734-7046
          E-mail: jbarton@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Joseph Creitz, Esq.
          CREITZ & SEREBIN LLP
          250 Montgomery Street, Suite 1410
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 269-3675
          E-mail: joe@creitzserebin.com

Defendants-Appellees INTEL CORPORATION INVESTMENT POLICY
COMMITTEE, FINANCE COMMITTEE OF THE INTEL CORPORATION BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, INTEL RETIREMENT PLANS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE,
CHARLENE BARSHEFSKY, FRANK D. YEARY, JAMES D. PLUMMER, REED HUNDT,
SUSAN L. DECKER, JOHN J. DONAHOE, DAVID S. POTTRUCK, RAVI JACOB,
INTEL CORPORATION 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN and INTEL RETIREMENT
CONTRIBUTION PLAN are represented by:

          Scott P. Cooper, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          2049 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
          Telephone: (310) 284-5669
          Facsimile: (310) 557-2193
          E-mail: scooper@proskauer.com

               - and -

          Daniel F. Katz, Esq.
          David Simon Kurtzer-Ellenbogen, Esq.
          Juli Ann Lund, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 Twelfth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434-5143
          Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
          E-mail: dkatz@wc.com
                  dkurtzer@wc.com
                  jlund@wc.com


INTERNET GOLD: Unit Still Faces Shareholder Action in Tel Aviv
--------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary continue to face a
shareholder legal proceeding filed in January 2015 with a request
to certify it as a class action in the Tel Aviv District Court
(Economic Department), according to the Company's Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016.

The action was filed against Bezeq - The Israel Telecommunications
Corp., Ltd. and its officers. It asserts compensation of
shareholders for losses, which according to the claim, was caused
by "omissions by Bezeq to report to the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange
(TASE) and to conceal material information from the investors",
relative to two significant and material issues: "Reduction of
interconnection fees" and the "Reform in the wholesale market".

The members of the represented group are divided into two separate
groups:

  (a) In regards to the reduction of interconnect fees - any
person that purchased Bezeq shares (except the Respondents and/or
their representatives) as of February 28, 2013 and held the shares
until May 29, 2014; and

  (b)In respect to the reform in the wholesale market - any person
that acquired Bezeq shares (except the Respondents and/or their
representatives) as of June 9, 2013 and held the shares (in whole
or in part) until the date of submission of the claim or,
alternatively, until January 15 to January 20, 2014.

As it emerges from Bezeq's reports to the public (and as indicated
in the petition), Bezeq reported on these two matters via
immediate reports to the public, as well as via its periodic
reports (annual and quarterly reports), which included all the
material and relevant information relative to these matters, and
all reports were lawful.

The Company disclosed that the original amount of the claim was
approximately NIS2.0 billion (based on the Shortage of Money
Method) and, alternatively approximately NIS1.1 billion (according
to the Approx. Shortage of Money Method).

Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. provides various
telecommunications services in Israel.  It operates through Fixed
Line Domestic Communications; Cellular Communications;
International Communications, Internet Services and Network End
Point; and Multichannel Television segments.  The Company was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Ramat Gan, Israel.
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. is a subsidiary of Eurocom
Communications Ltd.  B Communications Ltd. is the Company's
principal subsidiary.


INTERNET GOLD: Tel Aviv Court Stays Litigation on Monopoly Abuse
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Tel Aviv District Court has approved a motion for a stay of
proceedings in a legal action filed in the Tel Aviv District Court
against Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary over
alleged monopoly abuse, according to the Company's Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Specifically, in November 2016, the court approved the
subsidiary's motion for a stay of proceedings in the case for
reasons of pending proceedings at the Antitrust Tribunal, which is
deliberating issues of the same nature as those at the center of
the approval application.

In August 2015, an action was filed against Bezeq - The Israel
Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. in the Tel Aviv District Court with
an application to approve it as a class action.  It was alleged
that Bezeq abused its position as a monopoly to price its services
in a manner that limits the ability of its competitors to offer
fixed-line telephony services at competitive prices, among other
things, by offering its customers fixed-line telephony services at
the lowest price charged for Internet infrastructure services
only, i.e. for a critical input for the activity of its
competitors, which operate using VoB technology.

The plaintiff argued that the damage to the public resulting from
the above was estimated by reviewing the difference between the
fixed-line telephony market price and comparing it with the
weighted hypothetical price that would be charged in a market with
competition that would lead to a long-term reduction in prices.

According to the plaintiff's claims, the members of the
represented group are all fixed-line telephony service
subscribers, whether provided by Bezeq or its competitors,
including through VoB technology, as of January 15, 2011 until the
date of filing the application.

The original amount of the claim is NIS244 million.

In a separate proceeding, an action was filed in November 2015
against Bezeq in the Central District Court with an application
for its certification as a class action.  It was alleged that
Bezeq abused its position as a monopoly by "preventing and
blocking competition in general and effective competition in the
Israeli communication market", and acted to delay and prevent the
wholesale market reform, thereby causing damage to the Israeli
public and earning unreasonable profits only as a result of
abusing its power as a monopoly.  According to the plaintiffs'
allegations, the damage caused by Bezeq to the communications
market in Israel is expressed by Bezeq's excessive and
unreasonable profits, and they wish to claim damages of NIS 800
million, which they allege is based on 10% of Bezeq's surplus
operating income stemming from abuse of its monopolistic power.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs set the amount of the claim at NIS 556
million, after the amount was reduced in another action (an
application for certification of a class action dated August 2015,
which is described above, for NIS 244 million for claimed abuse of
monopolistic power and refers to the Antitrust Commissioner's
decision).

Another motion on the same matter that was filed against Bezeq in
March 2016 was thrown out in May 2016 due to the similarity to the
above motion.  Subsequently, and for the court's approval, the
above plaintiff filed a motion for certification of a class action
on the same matter.

Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. provides various
telecommunications services in Israel.  It operates through Fixed
Line Domestic Communications; Cellular Communications;
International Communications, Internet Services and Network End
Point; and Multichannel Television segments.  The Company was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Ramat Gan, Israel.
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. is a subsidiary of Eurocom
Communications Ltd.  B Communications Ltd. is the Company's
principal subsidiary.


INTERNET GOLD: Court Dismisses Claim in Internet Speed Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling was rendered on April 3, 2017, approving the petitioner's
motion to withdraw the class action certification motion and
dismissing the petitioner's personal claim in a case related to
deceptive Internet surfing speed upgrade campaign, Internet Gold -
Golden Lines Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2017 for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In June 2016, an action with a motion for its certification as a
class action was filed in the Tel Aviv District Court, alleging
that Bezeq was deceptive in offering a campaign to upgrade the
Internet surfing speed to certain customers without any additional
fee and it subsequently actually charged some of the customers.

On March 28, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion to abandon the
proceeding.

The original amount of the claim is NIS112 million.

Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. provides various
telecommunications services in Israel.  It operates through Fixed
Line Domestic Communications; Cellular Communications;
International Communications, Internet Services and Network End
Point; and Multichannel Television segments.  The Company was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Ramat Gan, Israel.
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. is a subsidiary of Eurocom
Communications Ltd.  B Communications Ltd. is the Company's
principal subsidiary.


INTERNET GOLD: Unit Faces Lawsuit on Subscribers' ISP Transfer
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. is facing a
potential class action related to transferring Internet
subscribers from one ISP to another, according to the Company's
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In August 2016, an action was filed against Bezeq - The Israel
Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. and an ISP in the Tel Aviv District
Court with an application for its certification as a class action,
alleging, among other things, that the defendants acted unlawfully
with respect to the transfer of Internet subscribers from one ISP
to another in that the subscriber is not disconnected immediately
from the abandoned ISP, and as a result, is charged twice for the
same service.

Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. provides various
telecommunications services in Israel.  It operates through Fixed
Line Domestic Communications; Cellular Communications;
International Communications, Internet Services and Network End
Point; and Multichannel Television segments.  The Company was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Ramat Gan, Israel.
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. is a subsidiary of Eurocom
Communications Ltd.  B Communications Ltd. is the Company's
principal subsidiary.


INTERNET GOLD: Suit v. Unit over NIS5.93 Monthly Charges Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary, Bezeq - The Israel
Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., continues to defend itself in
complaints related to its NIS5.93 monthly charges for "support
and/or liability" in the use of its Internet infrastructure,
according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

Two actions were filed in August 2016 and December 2016 against
Bezeq together with motions for their certification as class
actions.

The Company said, "Motions were filed in the Tel Aviv District
Court and the Central District Court claiming that Bezeq charges a
monthly payment of NIS5.93 for 'support and/or liability' as part
of using its Internet infrastructure, unlawfully and without
consent.

"Due to the similarity between the motions, the motion pending in
the Central District Court was transferred to the Tel Aviv
District Court and a motion was filed to strike out one of the
actions.

"On March 26, 2017, the Court ruled to strike out the consolidated
motion (the motion from December 2016 in the amount of NIS 160
million)."

Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. provides various
telecommunications services in Israel.  It operates through Fixed
Line Domestic Communications; Cellular Communications;
International Communications, Internet Services and Network End
Point; and Multichannel Television segments.  The Company was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Ramat Gan, Israel.
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. is a subsidiary of Eurocom
Communications Ltd.  B Communications Ltd. is the Company's
principal subsidiary.


INTERNET GOLD: Class Suit vs. Unit on Antivirus Payment Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary, Bezeq - The Israel
Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., is facing complaints related to
its collection of payment for antivirus service, according to the
Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In February 2017, an action was filed in the Central District
Court with two motions for certification as class actions,
claiming that Bezeq collects payment from some of its customers
for an antivirus service, while in practice it does not provide
them with such service, and that it starts charging for provision
of the service from signing of the agreement with the customers
and not from actual provision of the service.  Accordingly, the
Applicant requests requiring Bezeq to compensate its customers
that purchased the service and did not actually receive it for the
damages incurred by them, including refunding of amounts collected
for the service.

The Company further disclosed, "It is noted that in the same
month, another action together with a motion for certification as
a class action was filed with the Jerusalem District Court on the
same matter."

Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. provides various
telecommunications services in Israel.  It operates through Fixed
Line Domestic Communications; Cellular Communications;
International Communications, Internet Services and Network End
Point; and Multichannel Television segments.  The Company was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Ramat Gan, Israel.
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. is a subsidiary of Eurocom
Communications Ltd.  B Communications Ltd. is the Company's
principal subsidiary.


INTERNET GOLD: Bezeq, et al., Face Class Suit over B144 Service
---------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. subsidiary, Bezeq - The Israel
Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., is facing a potential class action
proceeding related to its B144 service, which enables businesses
to advertise on the internet, the Company disclosed in its Form
20-F filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Specifically, on April 19, 2017, Bezeq received a class action
certification motion which was filed with the Tel Aviv District
Court against Bezeq and against its subsidiary, Walla, Yad2 and an
advertising company owned by Walla.

According to the Company, "Service on Bezeq was not effected with
due process."

According to the petitioner, the respondent unlawfully charge
subscribers for certain services.  The petitioner estimates the
class action amount at NIS1.11 billion (based on an estimate of
300,000 customers and compensation of NIS 3,700 per customer).

The Company said, "Bezeq is studying the motion and is unable to
evaluate its likelihood of success at the present stage."

Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. provides various
telecommunications services in Israel.  It operates through Fixed
Line Domestic Communications; Cellular Communications;
International Communications, Internet Services and Network End
Point; and Multichannel Television segments.  The Company was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Ramat Gan, Israel.
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. is a subsidiary of Eurocom
Communications Ltd.  B Communications Ltd. is the Company's
principal subsidiary.


INTERNET GOLD: Suit vs. Bezeq, Pelephone in Jerusalem Concluded
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case filed in the District Court (Jerusalem) against Internet
Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiaries on allegations that "the
Respondents do not offer the disabled members of the public
accessible handsets and services in a fitting manner" has
concluded in 2016, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016.

Specifically, in April 2016, a compromise settlement in this case
was validated as a court ruling, thus, concluding the proceeding.

In February 2012, an action was filed in the District Court
(Jerusalem) together with a request to approve it as a class
action against the Company's subsidiaries Bezeq - The Israel
Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. and Pelephone Communications Ltd.
as well as two other cellular companies.  The plaintiffs alleged
that the Respondents do not offer the disabled members of the
public accessible handsets and services in a fitting manner, and
that they are therefore in breach of the law and the regulations.

In January 2014, a decision was made with the consent of the
parties whereby the claim will be discussed together with another
claim on the same matter, which was filed against other
communication companies.

The original amount of the claim was NIS361 million.

Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. provides various
telecommunications services in Israel.  It operates through Fixed
Line Domestic Communications; Cellular Communications;
International Communications, Internet Services and Network End
Point; and Multichannel Television segments.  The Company was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Ramat Gan, Israel.
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. is a subsidiary of Eurocom
Communications Ltd.  B Communications Ltd. is the Company's
principal subsidiary.


INTERNET GOLD: Parties Await Court Action on VAT Lawsuit Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016, that the parties in a VAT-related
legal action against its subsidiary are waiting for a judgment to
be handed in an appeal.

In August 2010, an action was filed in the Central District Court
with a motion to certify it as a class action against subsidiary
Pelephone Communications Ltd.  The claimant asserts that Pelephone
should refrain from collecting Value Added Tax from customers who
use its services when they are outside Israel. The motion also
seeks an order instructing Pelephone to cease charging its
customers VAT for such services which they use outside Israel, and
an order instructing that the moneys collected to date be
refunded.

In August 2014, the Court dismissed the application.

In October 2014, an appeal of the ruling was filed.

The Company said, "The amount of the claim is not stated, but the
application is estimated in the tens of millions of shekels."

Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. provides various
telecommunications services in Israel.  It operates through Fixed
Line Domestic Communications; Cellular Communications;
International Communications, Internet Services and Network End
Point; and Multichannel Television segments.  The Company was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Ramat Gan, Israel.
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. is a subsidiary of Eurocom
Communications Ltd.  B Communications Ltd. is the Company's
principal subsidiary.


INTERNET GOLD: Class Suit on 850 MHz Service Discrepancy Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary continues to face a
financial class action suit regarding its failure to inform
customers about service discrepancy in handsets not supporting 850
MHz frequency, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

In May 2012, the lawsuit was filed in the Tel Aviv District Court
against Pelephone Communications Ltd., alleging that Pelephone
does not inform customers wishing to use its services using a
handset that was not purchased from Pelephone, that if the handset
does not support the 850 MHz frequency, they will only get partial
reception over one frequency rather than two.

In March 2014, the court certified the claim as a class action
subsequent to Pelephone announcing its agreement (for reasons of
efficiency) to conduct the claim as a class action, while
retaining its arguments.

The amount of the claim is approximately NIS124 million.

Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. provides various
telecommunications services in Israel.  It operates through Fixed
Line Domestic Communications; Cellular Communications;
International Communications, Internet Services and Network End
Point; and Multichannel Television segments.  The Company was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Ramat Gan, Israel.
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. is a subsidiary of Eurocom
Communications Ltd.  B Communications Ltd. is the Company's
principal subsidiary.


INTERNET GOLD: E-Interactive Lawsuit vs. Pelephone Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary, Pelephone
Communications Ltd., continues to face a financial claim related
to E-interactive mobile services, according to the Company's Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In December 2012, the financial claim was filed against Pelephone
in the Jerusalem District Court with a motion to certify it as a
class action, alleging that Pelephone allowed its subscribers to
be unlawful charged by the content service company E-interactive
for mobile content services that were not ordered.

The amount of the claim is approximately NIS107 million.

Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. provides various
telecommunications services in Israel.  It operates through Fixed
Line Domestic Communications; Cellular Communications;
International Communications, Internet Services and Network End
Point; and Multichannel Television segments.  The Company was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Ramat Gan, Israel.
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. is a subsidiary of Eurocom
Communications Ltd.  B Communications Ltd. is the Company's
principal subsidiary.


INTERNET GOLD: Unit Still Faces Suit over VIP Customers' Perks
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. remains a
defendant in a legal action regarding perks for "highly valuable"
customers, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

In November 2013, an action was filed against Pelephone
Communications Ltd. in the Tel Aviv District Court with a motion
to certify it as a class action, alleging that Pelephone does not
grant the same perks to all of its customers, thereby
distinguishing between those customers that they allege Pelephone
considers to be highly valuable and others, which they claim is in
breach of Pelephone's license and the law.  They also request as
remedy that Pelephone refrain from granting such perks. A stay six
months was ordered in order to enable the Ministry of
Communications to formulate its position on the matter.

The amount of the claim is approximately NIS300 million.

Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. provides various
telecommunications services in Israel.  It operates through Fixed
Line Domestic Communications; Cellular Communications;
International Communications, Internet Services and Network End
Point; and Multichannel Television segments.  The Company was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Ramat Gan, Israel.
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. is a subsidiary of Eurocom
Communications Ltd.  B Communications Ltd. is the Company's
principal subsidiary.


INTERNET GOLD: Lawsuit on iQtech Group Content Services Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary, Pelephone
Communications Ltd., still faces legal proceedings related to
iQtech Group's unlawful charges for content services, according to
Internet Gold's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In July 2014, the action was filed in the Tel Aviv District Court
with a motion to certify it as a class action, alleging that
Pelephone, together with three other mobile telephony companies,
registered subscribers for content services without obtaining
their consent and in contravention of the law, and thereby
creating a "platform" for iQtech Group to unlawfully charge tens
of thousands of people for content services.

The amount of the claims are approximately NIS100 million with
regard to the mobile telephony companies and NIS300 million
against all the defendants.

Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. provides various
telecommunications services in Israel.  It operates through Fixed
Line Domestic Communications; Cellular Communications;
International Communications, Internet Services and Network End
Point; and Multichannel Television segments.  The Company was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Ramat Gan, Israel.
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. is a subsidiary of Eurocom
Communications Ltd.  B Communications Ltd. is the Company's
principal subsidiary.


INTERNET GOLD: Pelephone Still Defends "Walla Mobile" Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary, Pelephone
Communications Ltd., continues to face a complaint for allegedly
misleading customers regarding "Walla Mobile" tracks, according to
the Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company disclosed that the proceedings in the case were
consolidated with another case due to the similarity between the
proceedings.

In May 2015, an action was filed against Pelephone in the Tel Aviv
District Court with a motion to certify it as a class action,
alleging that Pelephone does not offer "Walla Mobile" tracks to
all its existing customers and those who join are subscribers who
want to transfer to a different track, and that this in violation
of the provisions of the license that obligates equality, and
thereby it misleads its customers.

The Company said, "The amount of the claim is not stated, but the
application is estimated to be in millions of shekels."

Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. provides various
telecommunications services in Israel.  It operates through Fixed
Line Domestic Communications; Cellular Communications;
International Communications, Internet Services and Network End
Point; and Multichannel Television segments.  The Company was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Ramat Gan, Israel.
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. is a subsidiary of Eurocom
Communications Ltd.  B Communications Ltd. is the Company's
principal subsidiary.


INTERNET GOLD: Bid to Drop Class Status in Mobility Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 that the parties in a legal
proceeding regarding a subsidiary's violation on mobility rules
had filed a motion to dismiss a request for certification on
November 6, 2016.

In December 2015, a financial claim was filed against Pelephone
Communications Ltd. in the Lod District Court with a motion to
certify it as a class action, alleging that Pelephone violated the
mobility rules.

Allegedly, when attempting to move to another operator the
applicant found out that she was deliberately blocked by Pelephone
from moving.  When calling Pelephone to clarify the issue, she
found out that the reason for blocking her was an attempt to
retain her and prevent her from moving to a competitor.  In
addition, injunctions are sought to prevent such blocking.

On November 6, 2016 the parties filed a motion to dismiss the
motion for certification.

The Company stated, "The amount of the claim is not stated, but is
estimated in the tens of millions of shekels."

Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. provides various
telecommunications services in Israel.  It operates through Fixed
Line Domestic Communications; Cellular Communications;
International Communications, Internet Services and Network End
Point; and Multichannel Television segments.  The Company was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Ramat Gan, Israel.
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. is a subsidiary of Eurocom
Communications Ltd.  B Communications Ltd. is the Company's
principal subsidiary.


JANSSEN RESEARCH: Faces "Bolden" Suit in E.D. Louisiana
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Janssen Research and
Development LLC. The case is captioned as Dennis Bolden, on behalf
of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Janssen Research & Development LLC, formerly known as: Johnson &
Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, LLC; Janssen
Ortho LLC; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., formerly known as:
Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc., formerly known as: Ortho-McNeil-
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson Company; Bayer
Healthcare Pharamaceuticals, Inc.; Bayer Pharma AG; Bayer
Corporation; Bayer Healthcare LLC; Bayer HealthCare AG; and Bayer
AG, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04508-EEF-MBN (E.D. La.,
May 2, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Eldon E.
Fallon.

Janssen Research discovers, develops, and deliveries medicines and
solutions for patients worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Brooks, Esq.
          David Coleman Raphael, Jr., Esq.
          SMITH SEGURA & RAPHAEL, LLP
          3600 Jackson Street, Suite 111
          Alexandria, LA 71303
          Telephone: (318) 445 4480
          E-mail: bbrooks@ssrllp.com
                  draphael@ssrllp.com

               - and -

          Brian Philip Murray, Esq.
          Lee Albert, Esq.
          Thomas J. Kennedy, Esq.
          Glancy Prongay & Murray, LLP
          122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 682 5340
          E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
                  lalbert@glancylaw.com
                  tkennedy@glancylaw.com


JIN XIANG: "Torres" Suit Moved from Sup. Ct. to E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cristobal Escobar Torres, Lucio
Leon Deciderio, Juan Pablo Deciderio-Rios, and Bao Wei Chen, on
Behalf of all other Collective Persons Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Jin Xiang Trading Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
703417/2017, was removed on May 10, 2017 from the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Brooklyn). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:17-cv-02866 to the proceeding.

Jin Xiang is a freight shipping and trucking company running
freight hauling business from Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


KIMPTON HOTEL: Faces "Jacobo" Lawsuit Alleging Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN PABLO JACOBO (813 Prince Street, #1, Alexandria, VA 22314)
and ALMA HERNANDEZ HERCULES (401 Holland Lane Unit 112,
Alexandria, VA 22314) On behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. KIMPTON HOTEL & RESTAURANT
GROUP, LLC Serve: C T CORPORATION SYSTEM (4701 Cox Road, Suite
285, Glen Allen, VA 23060), Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00524-LO-
MSN (E.D. Va., May 5, 2017), seeks to challenge Kimpton Hotel &
Restaurant Group, LLC's alleged policy, pattern and practice of
discrimination against Hispanic, Spanish-speaking employees with
respect to terms and conditions of employment, and specifically,
arbitration terms.  Allegedly, Kimpton has implemented a policy,
in Spanish, which prohibits its employees from opting out of
arbitration agreements.  The case claims violations of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act.

Defendant operates hotels throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew T. Sutter, Esq.,
     SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC
     7540A Little River Turnpike, First Floor
     Annandale, VA 22003
     Phone: 703-256-1800
     Fax: 703-991-6116
     Email: matt@sutterandterpak.com

        - and -

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


L3 COMMUNICATIONS: May 23 Settlement Objection Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ted Frank, writing for Competitive Enterprise Institute, reports
that a class-action settlement over defective holographic weapon
sights provides an excellent example of how attorneys can create
the illusion of relief to rationalize excessive attorneys' fees
that ultimately come at the expense of the putative class of
consumers.

L-3 Communications EOTech sells a variety of holographic weapons
sights to consumers and the U.S. military.  But they had defects
in certain weather conditions; the government complained, and
EOTech paid a $25.6 million fine under the False Claims Act in
November 2015 for their Department of Defense sales.  Nine days
later, class-action lawyers sued: why investigate new wrongdoing
when you can just rent-seek and piggyback on what taxpayer-funded
lawyers have already discovered? That case is Foster v. L-3
Communications EOTech, No. 6:15-CV-03519-BCW (W.D. Mo.).

EOTech has been offering well-publicized refunds for scopes since
January 2016 in the wake of the bad publicity from the government
lawsuit.  This left the lawyers very little to sue over, because
consumers who wanted refunds for the alleged defects haven't
actually been injured.  Nevertheless, the litigation continued,
and now a settlement has been constructed in which the lawyers are
the main beneficiaries to the tune of $10 million, likely over
$1000/hour -- though we don't know for sure, because the attorneys
are violating the law by failing to give the class notice of their
fee application until after the objection deadline.

Consumers can get coupons if they make a claim, even if they've
already received a refund.  But if all 200,000 class members made
claims for the $22.50 coupons for other EOTech products, that
would only add up to $4.5 million in coupons--and given that there
has been no individualized notice to any owners who haven't
already received refunds, it's doubtful that even 10% of the class
will redeem the coupons, even for the $100 coupons that class
members who refuse refunds are entitled to. (The parties no doubt
are trying to get around federal restrictions on coupon
settlements by calling the coupons "vouchers," but come on!)

"The attorneys would almost certainly receive more than 2000% of
what the class redeems in settlement coupons.  The attorneys will
likely rationalize their windfall by taking credit for the full
cash value of the refunds -- though these have been available
since January and, economically, the refunds are simply an undoing
of the original transaction with no value, since the consumer is
effectively selling the scope back to the manufacturer at retail
price.  Since every dollar going to attorneys is a dollar that
won't be going to the class, that's an egregious abuse of the
class-action system -- though not as bad as a $0 settlement in
another case from one of the Foster firms, Faruqi & Faruqi.  We're
arguing that one in the Fifth Circuit on June 5," Mr. Frank said.

"We've successfully represented individuals pro bono in the past
who filed objections to similarly abusive settlements, but only a
class member offended by attorneys ripping them off may object.

"With little notice for the settlement, the parties are likely
hoping no one objects and points this out to the court.  One hopes
a class member comes forward to object to the settlement and
vindicate the class's rights, but the May 23 deadline is coming up
quickly.

"We've previously discussed coupon settlements with the New York
Times, and have a challenge to a particularly silly coupon
settlement pending in the Ninth Circuit."


LA VUE CATERING: "Lopez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL LOPEZ and ALFONSO CARRETERO JUAREZ, on behalf of themselves,
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs Case No: and the Class, the Plaintiffs,
v. LA VUE CATERING INC. d/b/a LA VUE, ORANGE GRILL RESTAURANT
CORPORATION d/b/a ORANGE GRILL, OLEG KIBOUKEVITCH, LYUDMILA BALLA
and YURIY VASKO, the Defendants, Case No 1:17-cv-02628-SJ-SMG.
(E.D.N.Y., May 2, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, unpaid spread of hours premium, statutory
penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York
Labor Law (NYLL) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiffs bring claims for relief as a collective action
pursuant to FLSA, on behalf of all non-exempt employees (including
cooks, line-cooks, food preparers, porters, dishwashers,
hostesses, waiters, busboys, runners, bartenders and
barbacks) employed by Defendants on or after the date that is six
years before the filing of the Complaint.

The Plaintiffs and the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and
have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job
requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subjected
to Defendants' decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices,
procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a
willful failure and refusal to pay them the proper overtime
premium at the rate of one and one half times the regular rate for
work in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The claims of Plaintiffs
stated herein are essentially the same as those of the other FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs.

The Defendants operate two restaurant/lounges in Brooklyn, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181


LAS BRISAS STEAKS: "Shinn" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Shinn, Michael Lopez, Preslea Worrell, Bianca Tagle, Patrick
Cox, Brian Demgen, Audrey Parisi, Kevin Reynolds, Brooke Shaffer,
Individually, and ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER
29 USC 216(b), the Plaintiffs, v. LAS BRISAS STEAKS LUBBOCK, LTD.;
LAS BRISAS, INC.; and KENDALL HOWARD, Individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00099-C (N.D. Tex., May 10, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid wages under Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs and Class Members in accordance with the FLSA in that
they failed to lawfully administer a "tip credit" system, thereby
violating the minimum wage. The Plaintiffs and Class Members were
paid a subminimum wage hourly basis plus tips, which were
improperly shared among other employees and managers, who may not
lawfully participate in a tip pool.

Furthermore, Defendants also subjected Plaintiffs to other
unlawful deductions from their tips, which is also a violation of
condition two of the tip credit. Finally, Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs time and one half their regular rate for hours worked
over 40 in a single workweek.

Las Brisas is as steak house and restaurant offering seafood,
southwest-style dishes & steaks cooked in oven.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          Carley S. Amyx, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          777 Main St., Suite 600
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 479 9229
          Facsimile: (817) 260 0801
          E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
                  carley@herrmannlaw.com

               - and -

          Jerry Murad, Jr.
          LAW OFFICE OF JERRY MURAD
          P.O. Box 470067
          Fort Worth, Texas 76147
          Telephone: (817) 335 5691
          Facsimile: (817) 870 1162
          E-mail: jerrymurad@mac.com


LION INSPECTON: "Sena" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
ABRAN SENA, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LION INSPECTON SERVICES, INC. and
MILKO SIERRA, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01453 (S.D. Tex.,
May 10, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Mr. Sena worked for Defendants as a non-destructive testing (NDT)
inspector. Although he regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
week, Defendants allegedly failed to pay Sena overtime pay.
Instead, Defendants paid him a salary plus commission.

Lion Inspection is in the business of providing inspection
services to the oil and gas industry. Lion employs workers like
Sena to clean and inspect oilfield equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877 8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877 8065
          E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


LIPOCINE INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Utah
---------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that a
class action complaint was filed against Lipocine Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division.  The
complaint is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Lipocine
securities between June 30, 2015 and June 28, 2016, for alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Lipocine's
officers and directors.  Lipocine, a specialty pharmaceutical
company, develops pharmaceutical products using its oral drug
delivery technology in the areas of men's and women's health.  The
company's lead product candidate, TLANDO ("LPCN 1021") is an oral
testosterone replacement therapy designed for twice-a-day dosing.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/lipocine-inc-may-17

Lipocine Accused of Misrepresenting Its Lead Product Candidate

According to the complaint, Lipocine repeatedly touted in press
releases and public filings the positive efficacy and safety
results of its Phase 3 clinical trial for LPCN 1021.  However,
Lipocine officials failed to reveal that the trial results were
based on a dosing scheme used for LPCN 1021 during the trial that
differed significantly from the dosing scheme the company proposed
to use in real world clinical practice, as described in its New
Drug Application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA").
As a result of the deficiency, on June 29, 2016, Lipocine
announced that it received a Complete Response Letter for LPCN
1021 from the FDA, stating its application cannot be approved in
its present form due to "deficiencies related to the dosing
algorithm for the label."  On this news, Lipocine's stock price
fell $3.17 per share, or over 50%, to close at $3.10 per share on
June 29, 2016.

Lipocine Shareholders Have Legal Options

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

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


LLR INC: Faces "Mack" Suit Seeks in Central Dist. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LLR, Inc.  The case
is captioned as Tanya Mack, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LLR, Inc. and
LuLaRoe, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00853-JGB-DTB (C.D.
Cal., May 2, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jesus
G. Bernal.[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


LIVE VENTURES: "Kolish" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH KOLISH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. LIVE VENTURES INCORPORATED, JON ISAAC, and
VIRLAND A. JOHNSON, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01258 (D. Nev.,
May 5, 2017), alleges that Defendants violated the federal
securities laws by disseminating false and misleading statements
to the investing public.

The case states that as a result of Defendants' false statements,
LIVE's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period, reaching a high of $27.68 per share on December 28,
2016, the day the Company issued a press release which reported
inflated and false figures concerning the Company's earnings per
share."

Live Ventures Incorporated is a Diversified Growth Holding Company
with a focus on acquiring U.S. companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John P. Aldrich, Esq.
     Catherine Hernandez, Esq.
     ALDRICH LAW FIRM, LTD.
     1601 S. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 160
     Las Vegas, NV 89146
     Phone: (702) 853-5490
     Fax: (702) 227-1975
     E-mail: jaldrich@johnaldrichlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
     LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP
     821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 493-9780
     E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com


MADISON COUNTY, IL: Judge Kelly Assigned to Bid Rigging Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison St. Clair Record,
reports that Associate Judge J. Marc Kelly of the Fourth Judicial
Circuit Court in Fayette County was selected to preside over a
class action suit alleging former Madison County treasurer Fred
Bathon and several tax buyers participated in a bid rigging
scheme.

Judge Kelly replaces Associate Judge William Becker, who presided
over the case by special assignment as a visiting judge from
Clinton County.

Madison County Chief Judge David Hylla assigned Judge Kelly to the
case on April 19.

Judge Kelly was first appointed to the bench in February 2011.  He
was reappointed in July 2015.  His current term expires on June
30, 2019.

Prior to his appointment, Judge Kelly worked as an attorney with
Burnside, Johnston, Sheafor & Kelly PC in Vandalia.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs claim Mr. Bathon arranged for
tax buyers to charge interest at the maximum legal limit of 18
percent at auctions of delinquent property taxes from 2005 to
2008.

Mr. Bathon served a sentence after pleading guilty of antitrust
violations in 2013.

Tax buyers Scott McLean, Barrett Rochman and John Vassen also
served sentences.

Former U.S. attorney Stephen Wigginton did not seek restitution
for property owners, finding individual calculation of damages
would be impracticable.  He also prosecuted Mr. Bathon and the tax
buyers.

Property owners later filed three suits proposing class actions
against Mr. Bathon and tax buyers in Madison County circuit court.
They were later consolidated.

Defendants in the action opposed class certification, arguing that
individual calculations weren't practical.

Judge Becker granted class certification, concluding that he could
reach an appropriate method to calculate damages.

The tax buyers, Madison County, and auctioneer James Foley
petitioned the Fifth District appellate court for interlocutory
review, which was denied.

The Illinois Supreme Court later directed the Fifth District to
hear their appeal.

The appellate court concluded that Judge Becker did not abuse his
discretion by certifying the class action.

"Although we recognize that four of the defendants pleaded guilty
to the conspiracy in federal court, the determination of whether
the remaining defendants, including Foley, were involved in the
unlawful behavior is still at issue in the case," Justice Thomas
Welch wrote.

"Foley claims that he was not the auctioneer at the tax sale who
picked the winning bids and that he was not even present at the
2008 tax sale.

"Antitrust conspiracies often have to be proven from inferences
drawn from the circumstantial evidence.

"All class members will rely on the same discovery, same
witnesses, and other evidence to prove the existence of the
conspiracy, whether the remaining defendants were part of the
alleged conspiracy, and a causal connection between the conspiracy
and any injury."

Justice Welch rejected a defense argument that statutes of
limitation precluded the claims.

"Although we recognize that this is an issue that will need to be
determined, commonality is not destroyed where class members may
be affected differently by the applicability of the statute of
limitations," Justice Welch wrote.

However, the appellate court also held that while Becker did not
abuse his discretion by certifying the class action, he did abuse
his discretion by not limiting it to liability.

The appellate court also excused Madison County and Madison County
Board Chairman Kurt Prenzler from the proceedings.

Justice Welch wrote that nothing in statutory language allows a
delinquent property tax owner to bring a statutory sale in error
cause of action against the county.

On March 31, Judge Becker entered an order dismissing with
prejudice count II of the second amended complaint for Madison
County and count VIII pursuant to the appellate court's direction.

During the hearing, Judge Becker scheduled the case for trial for
Jan. 8, 2018.  The plaintiffs sought the trial setting and the
defendants objected.

Judge Becker also anticipated that a new trial judge would be
assigned to the case.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 13-L-276


MASSACHUSETTS: McHugh et al. Sue Over Employee Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL McHUGH, MARK STINSON, ALICE SMITH, and JAMES O. BROWN,
JR., the Plaintiffs, v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, and
MARTIN SUUBERG, individually and in his official capacity as
COMMISSIONER of the DEPARTMENT, the Defendants, Case No. 17-1417A
(Mass. Super. Ct., May 2, 2017), seeks remedy from Defendants'
systematic and continuing violation of state and federal law.

The action seeks to redress the Commonwealth's and the Mass DEP's
practices of hiring and employing consultant contractors as long-
term replacements for state employee positions in violation of
multiple statutes, including Massachusetts General Laws (M.G.L.),
and protections afforded by the constitutions of the United States
and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The action is brought on behalf of the 3,300 to 7,600 persons who
are or have been employed by the Commonwealth or MassDEP as
employees for a period of three or more years, by the named
Plaintiffs and class representatives, Michael McHugh, Mark
Stinson, Alice Smith, and James O. Brown, Jr. (Employees or
Plaintiffs). Collectively, the named Plaintiffs have put in over
70 years of public service to the Commonwealth, its citizens and
its residents.

As a result of Commonwealth's and MassDEP's violation of M.G.L.
and other state and federal laws, the Plaintiffs and class members
have received no comparable benefits provided to other "regular"
Commonwealth or MassDEP employees. These benefits have included
vacation pay, access to the State Retirement System, sick days,
health care co-payments and access to group insurance rates,
parental and family leave, equivalent rights to be free from
workplace discrimination, the right to seek and benefit from
collective bargaining, and equal opportunities for training and
advancement. The Plaintiffs and class members have been improperly
excluded from collective-bargaining unions. They are also denied
the opportunity to engage in their own trade outside of their
employment by their respective agencies or divisions.

The harm the Plaintiffs and the class members have suffered is
substantial and grows each year they are denied benefits, the
Complaint says. By way of comparative illustration, the Wall
Street Journal reported on May 11, 2017, in an article entitled
"Fury Over Sick-Day Payouts," that a presumed regular state
employee president of the Wachusett Community College in
Massachusetts received a payout of $334,138 for unused sick days
and vacation hours. This large figure does not even include
numerous and valuable other benefits denied the employees. The
Plaintiffs and class members receive no comparable payouts or
benefits and are collectively in a vastly inferior financial
position as compared with other regular employees of the
Commonwealth.

The current yearly value of the denied benefits to the Plaintiffs
and class members exceeds $30,000 per year of service. The cost of
a "fully loaded" "Full Time Equivalent" employee at MassDEP for
Fiscal Year 2017 was described by an agent of the MassDEP to be
$157,930. This figure included $29,574 in fringe benefits,
characterized as "Group Ins. 21.95%, Retirement 10.72%, Terminal
Leave .83%." This figure does not, however, include all the
benefits of full-time, regular employment with the Commonwealth.

Massachusetts is a U.S. state in New England known for its
significant Colonial history. In Boston, its capital, the Freedom
Trail is a walking route of sites related to the American
Revolution.[BN]

Attorneys for Michael McHugh, Mark Stinson, Alice Smith, and
James O. Brown, Jr.:

          Stefan L. Jouret, Esq.
          Rebecca Royer, Esq.
          JOURET LLC
          Two Center Plaza, Suite 610
          Boston, MA 02108
          Telephone (617) 523 0133
          Facsimile:(617) 507 2576
          E-mail: jouret@jouretllc.com
                  royer@jouretllc.com


MDL 2724: Rochester Drug Sues Over Baclofen Tablets Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC. and FWK HOLDINGS, L.L.C., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. PAR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
USA, INC.; and UPSHER-SMITH LABORATORIES, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02135-CMR (E.D. Pa., May 10, 2017), seeks to
recover treble damages arising out of the Defendants' unlawful
scheme to fix, maintain, and stabilize the prices, rig bids, and
allocate customers for baclofen tablets.

The Plaintiffs brings this class action complaint on behalf of a
class of direct purchasers who purchased generic baclofen in
tablet form directly from Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., or Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc.

Baclofen is a commonly prescribed drug in the United States, used
to treat muscle spasms and cramping, particularly for people with
multiple sclerosis, injury, or disease of the spinal cord. It is
available in tablet form (dosage: 10 and 20 mg). Generic versions
of baclofen have been available in the United States since the
1980s. Defendants dominate the market for baclofen.

According to the Complaint, beginning February 1, 2014, Defendants
and co-conspirators engaged in an overarching anticompetitive
scheme in the market for baclofen tablets to artificially inflate
prices through unlawful agreements between and among would-be
competitors. The Defendants caused the price of baclofen tablets
to dramatically and inexplicably increase as much as higher than
January 2014 prices. These increases were the result of an
agreement among Defendants to increase pricing and restrain
competition for the sale of baclofen in the United States.

The Rochester case is being consolidated with MDL 2724 in re:
Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on April 24, 2017. It appears that the
action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of
fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and assigned to Judge Rufe. The
lead case is 1:16-mc-07000-WHP.

Par Pharmaceutical develops, manufactures and markets generic and
branded specialty pharmaceuticals. Par was founded in 1978 and
initially traded on the New York Stock Exchange in 1987.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
          NASTLAW LLC
          1101 Market St Ste 2801
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 923 9300
          Facsimile: (215) 923 9302
          E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Baye" Lawsuit Alleging FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOAN BAYE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. AND MIDLAND
FUNDING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04789 (E.D. La., May 8,
2017), alleges that MCM violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act by sending Plaintiff collection letters on multiple
occasions about the same time-barred debt.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Katherine Z. Crouch, Esq.
     CROUCH LAW, LLC
     2372 St. Claude Ave. Suite 224
     New Orleans, LA 70117
     Phone: (504) 982-6995
     Fax: (888) 364-5882
     E-mail: Katherine.crouch@gmail.com

     Correspondence address:
     Thompson Consumer Law Group, PLLC
     5235 E. Southern Ave. D106-618
     Mesa, AZ 85206


MILLENNIUM TOWER: Joe Montana Joins Condo Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Riley McDermid, writing for San Francisco Business Times, reports
that Joe Montana, once hired to promote Millennium Tower, is suing
over his condo there.

Mr. Montana is detailing the extent of the damage to a condo he
owns in Millennium Tower, telling TMZ that the developers of the
site knew as early as 2009 about sinking and tilting issues.

Originally, Mr. Montana was hired to promote the West Coast's most
expensive condo development.  But Mr. Montana now is part of a
class-action lawsuit brought by homeowners in the building and is
seeking $1 million for negligence, breach of contract, concealment
and more.

"The tower has sunk 16 inches since its completion in 2008,
according to Montana," the Mercury News reports.  Mr. Montana made
the claims when he spoke to celebrity news site TMZ about the
issue.

"His unit, which he said he bought for $2.7 million in 2013, is
'off level and the fit and finish of the unit are in disrepair,'"
TMZ reports.

The lawsuit includes other well-known names, including Giants
outfielder Hunter Pence and former 49ers president Carmen Policy.


NASSAU, NY: "Chodkowski" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
SUSAN CHODKOWSKI, HELEN EBBERT, GARY VOLPE, MATTHEW SARTER, WENDY
NEAL, DEBORAH PEDENZIN, ROSANNA LAURO, DANIELLE DAVIDSON and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU,
NASSAU COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, NASSAU COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION, the Defendants, Case No. 603925/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
May 5, 2017), seeks to recover overtime monies owed to Plaintiffs
with all other benefits to which Plaintiffs are entitled, with
prejudgment interest, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

The Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalves and on
behalf of all County employees who were and continue to be
required to work supplemental days without pay in addition to
their regular work schedule when employees of the Fire
Communication Technicians/Fire Communication Technician
Supervisors do not.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were not paid overtime
compensation when they worked more than their regular
hours/shift/tour during the seventh week as a result of the
supplemental day. The Plaintiffs were never paid one and a half
times their regular rate of pay when they worked more than their
regular hours/shift/tour during the seventh week as a result of
the supplemental day.

Nassau County is a suburban county on Long Island in the U.S.
state of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Louis D. Stober, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF
          LOUIS D. STOBER, JR. LLC
          98 Front Street
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 742 6546


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Roberts Sues Over Player Safety
----------------------------------------------------
JARROD BLAKE ROBERTS, the Plaintiff, v. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, AND THE BIG 12 CONFERENCE, INC. a/k/a THE
BIG TWELVE CONFERENCE, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01548-SEB-MPB (S.D. Ind., May 10, 2017), seeks monetary judgment
against Defendants for a sum within the jurisdictional limits of
the Court for all actual damages, both past and future.

The Plaintiff Jarrod Blake Roberts individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated brings this Original Class Complaint
complaining of The NCAA and The Big 12 Conference, Inc.

According to the complaint, no matter the popularity and
profitability of any college sport, player safety must come first.
This is especially true of "amateur" college football, which has
over the past few decades rivaled the NFL and other professional
sports in popularity, and profitability. Yet Defendants sacrificed
player safety -- including the Plaintiff's and the Class' long-
term health and well-being -- in favor of profits and self-
promotion.

The NCAA is a non-profit association which regulates athletes of
1,281 institutions, conferences, organizations, and individuals.
It also organizes the athletic programs of many colleges and
universities in the United States and Canada, and helps more than
450,000 college student-athletes who compete annually in college
sports.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent Circelli, Esq.
          CIRCELLI, WALTER & YOUNG, PLLC
          Tindall Square Warehouse
          500 E. 4th Street, Suite 250
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (682) 703-2246
          E-mail: vinny@cwylaw.com


NATURESCAPE INC: "Smith" Suit Seeks Earned Vacation Holiday Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER SMITH, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATURESCAPE, INC. and TODD FURRY, the
Defendant, Case No. 2017CH06652 (Ill. Cir. Ct., May 10, 2017),
seeks to recover earned vacation holiday pay, interest, penalties,
attorneys' fees, and other relief under the Illinois Wage Payment
and Collection Act (IWPCA).

The Plaintiff and the class seek to recover monetary equivalent of
all earned and uncompensated paid time off for Illinois employees
who separated from employment with Naturescape from May 10, 2007
through the date of judgment. The Defendants allegedly failed to
pay employees the monetary equivalent of all earned paid time.

Naturescape provides lawn and landscape care services to
residential and commercial properties. Its services include lawn,
and tree and shrub care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jose J. Behar, Esq.
          Kate E. Schwartz, Esq.
          HUGHES SOCOL PIERS
          RESNICK DYM, LTD.
          70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 580 0100
          E-mail: jbehar@hsplegal.com
                  kschwartz@hsplegal.com


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Faces "Lamey" Suit Over Disclosure Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
William L. Lamey, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff(s), v. NAVIENT
SOLUTIONS, LLC, d/b/a the NAVIENT CORPORATION, d/b/a NAVIENT
SOLUTIONS, INC., d/b/a SLM, INC., d/b/a SALLIE MAE; KEVIN MASON,
P.A.; GM LAW FIRM, LLC; KEVIN P. MASON, in his individual
capacity; CHANTEL L. GRANT, in her individual capacity; JOHN AND
JANE DOES 1-5; and XYZ BUSINESS ENTITIES, 1-5, Defendant, Civil
Action No. 3:17-cv-341 DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss., May 5, 2017), arises
out of alleged damage suffered by Plaintiff relating to the
inducement, origination, servicing, collection and the so-called
"private student loan resolution" legal services provided by the
various Defendants.

Among others, the case alleges that Navient failed to disclose the
annual deadline to renew long-term repayment plans, misrepresented
the consequences of non-renewal, and obscured its renewal notice
to borrowers who were due for renewal.

The case alleges that these practices of the Navient Defendants
prevented some of the most financially vulnerable borrowers from
securing some or all of the benefits of plans that were intended
to ease the burden of unaffordable, and fraudulently-induced,
student debt.

Navient, formerly known as Sallie Mae, Inc., is a student loan
servicer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Macy D. Hanson, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF MACY D. HANSON, PLLC
     The Echelon Center
     102 First Choice Drive
     Madison, MS 39110
     Phone: 601 853 9521


NISSAN NORTH: "Hays" Sues Over Defects in Vehicle Floorboards
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA FRANCES HAYS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC., NISSAN MOTOR
COMPANY, LTD., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00353-BCW (W.D. Mo.,
May 8, 2017), alleges that Nissan sold Nissan Altima automobiles
for model years 2002-2006 in Missouri without disclosing to
consumers that Nissan had opted to install floorboards in the
vehicles that do not withstand normal exposure to the elements, do
not drain properly and rust through to the degree that holes open
up completely through the floorboard allowing visible exposure to
the roadway beneath the vehicle.

According to the suit, Nissan's conduct violates Missouri law,
including the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

Nissan North America, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and
markets Nissan and Infiniti vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
     1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
     Kansas City, MO 64105
     Phone: (816) 945-7135
     Fax: (816) 945-7118
     E-matt@williamsdirks.com

        - and -

     Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
     Sean R. Cooper, Esq.
     STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
     460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Phone: (816) 714-7100
     Fax: (816) 714-7101
     E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
             cooper@stuevesiegel.com

        - and -

     Tim E. Dollar, Esq.
     J.J. Burns, Esq.
     DOLLAR BURNS & BECKER
     1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
     Kansas City, MO 64105
     Phone: (816) 876-2600
     Fax: (816) 221-8763
     E-mail: timd@dollar-law.com
             jjb@dollar-law.com


NORTHLAND GROUP: "Maher" Suit Moved to New Jersey Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JENNIFER MAHER, on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORTHLAND
GROUP INC., and JOHN DOES 1 TO 10, the Defendants, Case No. BER-L-
17-01866, was removed on May 1, 2017 from Superior Court, Law
Division, Bergen County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (Newark). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:17-cv-02957-KM-JBC to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Kevin McNulty.

Northland Group provides accounts receivable management and
collection services to national credit grantors, debt buyers, and
student loan lenders.[BN]

Jennifer Maher is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl.
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273 7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273 7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com

Northland Group Inc. is represented by:

          Daniel J.T. Mckenna, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR, LLP
          210 Lake East Drive, Suite 200
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-1163
          Telephone: (856) 761 3400
          E-mail: mckennad@ballardspahr.com


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Marshall, et al. Seek to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CLIFTON W. MARSHALL, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-06794-AB-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the
court on June 12, 2017 for an order to certify a class of:

all persons, excluding defendants and/or other individuals who are
liable for the conduct described in the complaint, who are or were
participants or beneficiaries of the Northrop Grumman Savings Plan
at any time between September 9, 2010 and the date of judgment,
and were affected by the conduct set forth in this Complaint, as
well as those who will become participants or beneficiaries
Northrop Grumman Savings Plan".

The Plaintiffs will also move the Court to appoint Schlichter
Bogard and Denton, LLP as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs Clifton W. Marshall, Thomas W. Hall, Manuel A.
Gonzalez, Ricky L. Hendrickson, Phillip B. Brooks, and Harold
Hylton are participants in the Northrop Grumman Savings Plan (the
Plan), a defined contribution plan governed by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The Defendants are
fiduciaries of the Plan, who owe to the Plan and all participants
a broad range of fiduciary duties. In this action, Plaintiffs
allege that Defendants breached those duties by causing the Plan
to pay unreasonable and excessive fees and expenses to Plan
service providers and by otherwise acting imprudently in various
ways including with respect to Plan investment options. The
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of the Plan against
Northrop for breach of fiduciary duties and engaging in prohibited
transactions.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TM70LKVu

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
          Michael A. Wolff, Esq.
          Sean E. Soyars, Esq.
          Stephen M. Hoeplinger, Esq.
          Ethan D. Hatch, Esq.
          SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON LLP
          100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621 6115
          Facsimile: (314) 621 5934
          E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com
                  mwolff@uselaws.com
                  ssoyars@uselaws.com
                  shoeplinger@uselaws.com
                  ehatch@uselaws.com

               - and -

          William A. White, Esq.
          HILL, FARRER & BURRILL LLP
          One California Plaza, 37th Floor
          300 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3147
          Telephone: (213) 620 0460
          Facsimile: (213) 620 4840
          E-mail: wwhite@hillfarrer.com


OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Class Action in Canada Over Abilify
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Roebuck, writing for CTV News, reports that a Calgary
woman is one of hundreds of Canadians who said their lives were
negatively impacted by the drug Abilify and are taking part in a
class-action lawsuit.

Christina Milisic was prescribed the drug in 2013 to help with
hallucinations and paranoia, but instead of relief, she quickly
noticed strange new behaviors that she couldn't control,
especially gambling.

"It was casual at first and it increased to a daily, full-time job
basically, and I lost upwards of $400,000 and had to declare
bankruptcy," she said.  "It wasn't just the gambling, it was the
shopping, it was the dining out, the travelling, seven major trips
within a year and a half."

Her life turned upside down and she ended up losing her fiancÇ
along with all of her money.  In the end, the mental illness she
was being treated for got even worse.

Ms. Milisic joined hundreds of other Canadians who had similar
experiences after they began using the drug.

"The difficulty is when you are dealing with a drug that effects
brain chemistry there can be complications," said Clint Docken, a
lawyer representing complainants in the case.  "We see clients who
unfortunately get involved in certain types of behavior that they
are not used to and that behavior gets out of control and it can
lead to disastrous consequences."

The class-action lawsuit is asking for millions of dollars in
compensation, but more importantly, a change in how the drug is
handled.

"One of the things that class actions can affect is behavior
modification and we certainly in the past have been involved in
situations where drugs companies have voluntarily removed drugs
from the market because of the risk from the use of those drugs,"
said Mr. Docken.

Months after Ms. Milisic stopped taking Abilify in 2015 the drug
company added a new label warning of uncontrollable gambling and
sexuality.  In the United States the new label also includes
compulsive spending and eating.  Ms. Milisic said more needs to be
done.

"I would like to see the warning label include all the compulsive
behaviors that I experienced, I would like to see medical
professionals being educated with all of these effects and
monitoring their patients and being very cautious about the
outcome of this medication," she said.

The class-action suit is in the early stages and could take years
to complete.

Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd is the manufacturer of Abilify.


PARTY CITY: Faces "Pasini" Lawsuit Alleging FACTA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOAN PASINI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PARTY CITY CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-at-00483 (E.D. Cal., May
7, 2017), alleges violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act.

The case states that the law gave merchants who accept credit and
or debit cards up to three years to comply with its requirements,
requiring full compliance with its provisions no later than
December 4, 2006. Although Defendants had up to three years to
comply, Defendants have willfully violated this law and failed to
protect Plaintiff and others similarly situated against identity
theft and credit and debit card fraud by printing the expiration
date of the card and the last four digits of the card number on
receipts provided to credit card and debit card cardholders
transacting business with Defendants."

Defendants own, manage, maintain and or operate one or more
locations in this District and offer various goods and services
for sale to the public.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chant Yedalian, Esq.
     CHANT & COMPANY
     1010 N. Central Ave.
     Glendale, CA 91202
     Phone: 877.574.7100
     Fax: 877.574.9411
     E-mail: chant@chant.mobi


POLONIEX: Former Trader Mulls Insider Trading Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
P. H. Madore, writing for Cryptocoins, reports that alleging
"possible insider trading" and putting the onus on Poloniex for
site unavailability, an apparently former trader on the site has
decided to sue the Delaware-based exchange if he can get enough
victims together.  The apparent downward momentum combined with
numerous sustained technical problems at Poloniex led to a number
of long margin Ethereum traders having their positions destroyed.
The owner of the site, whose ownership information is protected by
WhoisGuard, claims to have lost around $250,000 due to the
madness.

The market appears to have corrected itself at this point, with
Ethereum valued at just under $90 across the board, but this does
not do much for the people who've lost their positions due to
freak trading incidents.  The allegation of insider trading is not
so far-fetched when one considers the additional, overnight surge
in the Bitcoin value.  The unavailability of the website and
therefore inability to cancel orders made for an unfair playing
ground.  It seems likely that a firm will decide to take the case
on.

Across the country, Kraken exchange experienced similar problems.
They gave a bit more information to one of our readers regarding
the slaughter:

The answer is, of course, no.  These trades were clearly triggered
by trading bots, which continue to create problems for
cryptocurrency exchanges.  Bots were in part to blame for the
first huge Bitcoin bubble at Mt. Gox, after all, and the
technology was also blamed for the ponzi-like unavailability of
funds.

Yet, perhaps correction was simply in order for Ethereum.  The
sharp rise in the value of Bitcoin makes it ever-more attractive
to drop the potentially overvalued Ether tokens in favor of
Bitcoins, which could be heading to the moon and beyond.

A cautionary tale is here as well, though.  Should Poloniex and
Kraken allow bot trading at all when bots are capable of creating
such havoc in the market? Were some new millionaires minted in the
past couple days, folks who shorted ETH long-shot low? Are their
gains ill-begotten? Was one or more of them involved with the
disruption in access to two of the big Ethereum exchanges? These
are the questions we will have to answer in the coming hours and
days, as the story unfolds and more details emerge.

However, if you feel you got shafted in the melee, and that this
was not simply a natural function of the market -- a bear attack,
if you will -- then you at least have the option of joining others
who feel the same by visiting poloniexlawsuit.com.


POM RECOVERIES: Faces "Galper" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against POM Recoveries, Inc.
The case is styled as Yelena Galper, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. POM Recoveries, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02867 (E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2017).

POM Recoveries is an accounts receivable management firm founded
in 1983.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          JOSEPH H. MIZRAHI LAW, P.C.
          337 Avenue W, Suite 2f
          Brooklyn, NY 11223
          Telephone: (917) 299 6612
          Facsimile: (347) 665 1545
          E-mail: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com


PORSCHE FINANCIAL: Faces "Kaplan" Suit Over Excess Sales Taxes
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID KAPLAN, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. PORSCHE FINANCIAL SERVICES, a Delaware
Corporation; PORSCHE LEASING LTD., a Delaware Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03405
(C.D. Cal., May 5, 2017), seeks to recover the alleged damages
owed to Plaintiff and others similarly situated as a result of the
Porsche Defendants' systemic over-charging of sales taxes in
connection with vehicle leases.

PORSCHE FINANCIAL SERVICES provides leasing and financing products
for Porsche in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phillip A. Baker, Esq.
     Christopher K. Mosqueda, Esq.
     BAKER, KEENER & NAHRA, LLP
     633 West 5th Street, Suite 4900
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 241-0900
     Fax: (213) 241-0990
     E-mail: pbaker@bknlawyers.com
             cmosqueda@bknlawyers.com


PRICELINE GROUP: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Laquer" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Richard Laquer filed an appeal from a District Court
order dated March 28, 2017, and a District Court judgment dated
March 29, 2017, entered in his lawsuit styled Laquer v. Priceline
Group, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-860, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut (New Haven).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma (Case No. 5:16-cv-00015) to the District of
Connecticut.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of similarly situated citizens,
who transacted business with Priceline.  Priceline is a provider
of online travel & related services.

The appellate case is captioned as Laquer v. Priceline Group,
Inc., Case No. 17-1229, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Richard Laquer, Individually, and as Class of
Representative of all similarly situated citizens who transacted
business with The Priceline Group Inc., is represented by:

          Anton J. Rupert, Esq.
          RUPERT & STEINER, P.L.L.C.
          14001 Quail Springs Parkway
          Oklahoma City, OK 73134
          Telephone: (405) 607-1494
          Facsimile: (405) 239-6651
          E-mail: Tony@rupertsteinerlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Priceline Group, Inc., is represented by:

          Kim Elizabeth Rinehart, Esq.
          WIGGIN AND DANA LLP
          1 Century Tower
          265 Church Street
          P.O. Box 1832
          New Haven, CT 06508
          Telephone: (203) 498-4400
          Facsimile: (203) 782-2889
          E-mail: krinehart@wiggin.com


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Faces "Nadaskay" Suit Over Neratinib Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY NADASKAY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC.,
ALAN H. AUERBACH, and CHARLES R. EYLER, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-03455 (C.D. Cal., May 8, 2017), alleges that Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies in violation of the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Act.

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company did not anticipate
that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's would ultimately
approve neratinib for the treatment of breast cancer; (ii) as
such, Puma had overstated the drug's approval prospects and/or
commercial viability; and (iii) as a result, Puma's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Puma Biotechnology, Inc. is a development-stage pharmaceutical
company that is primarily focused on acquiring and developing drug
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     468 North Camden Drive
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Phone: (818) 532-6499
     E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com


RECTOR STREET: Faces "Ramos" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
JOEL RAMOS, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. RECTOR STREET FOOD ENTERPRISES LTD.
d/b/a GEORGE'S NEW YORK RESTAURANT, MASTERPIECE PIZZA, INC. d/b/a
MASTERPIECE PIZZERIA, VELIKA LLC, GEORGE KOULMENTAS, WILLIAM
KOULMENTAS and ELENI KOULMENTAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
03359 (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff has not been
given the proper statutory minimum wage for all hours worked up to
40 in a given week; and has not been paid any premium overtime
compensation for hours worked beyond 40 in any single work week.
These allegedly violate the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a pizzeria and restaurant in New
York County.  Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as non-exempt
food preparers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Cafaro, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES WILLIAM CAFARO
     108 West 39th Streer, Suite 602
     New York, NY 10018
     Phone: (212)583-7400


RED COAT: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Back Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
HUGO RODRIGUEZ, ESTEBAN LOPEZ AND RICARDO MARTINEZ, on behalf of
themselves, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and
unknown, the Plaintiffs, v. RED COAT FARM, LTD., AND MARY A.
GOLDMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03322
(N.D. Ill., May 2, 2017), seeks to recover liquidated damages and
unpaid back wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

According to the complaint, the named Plaintiffs, and all
similarly situated members of the Plaintiff Class, worked in
excess of 40 hours per week at various times throughout their
employment with Defendants, and were denied time and one half
their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek
pursuant to the requirements of the federal and state statutes.

The Defendant provides equestrian training, competition and
Entertainment.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853 1450

               - and -

          Neil Kelley, Esq.
          FARMWORKER & LANDSCAPER
          ADVOCACY PROJECT
          33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL, 60602
          Telephone: (312) 784 3541
          E-mail: nkelley@flapillinois.org


RMH FRANCHISE: "Ivery" Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CHAMORA IVERY and NOAH SIEBENALLER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. RMH FRANCHISE CORP., RMH ILLINOIS, LLC, and RMH
FRANCHISE HOLDINGS, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01619
(N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an Order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action;

   2. ordering Defendants to produce a computer-readable data
      file containing names, last known mailing addresses, last
      known telephone numbers, last known personal and work email
      addresses, the last four digits of social security numbers
      (for those notices returned undeliverable), and work
      locations for all collective members;

   3. authorizing the issuance of notice to all collective
      members, as well as a reminder notice during the opt-in
      period; and

   4. granting such other, further, or different relief as the
      Court deems just and proper.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QswRmPRf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Melissa L. Stewart., Esq.
          Paul W. Mollica, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          Justin M. Swartz
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245 1000

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 S. Federal Highway
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447 8888


SCI DIRECT: "Romano" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Nicole Romano, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SCI
Direct, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. BC656654, was removed on May
10, 2017, from the Superior Court of California County of Los
Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for Central District of
California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-03537 to the proceeding.

SCI Direct is a division of Service Corporation International that
is responsible for all direct cremation sales and services in
North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SECTRAN SECURITY: Faces "Bailey" Wage-and-Hour Suit
---------------------------------------------------
DEVON M. BAILEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SECTRAN SECURITY, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC65F818 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
Wages, restitution, and related relief as a result of Defendants'
violations of the Labor and Business and professions Codes.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide her and
other similarly situated individuals with meal periods, failed to
provide rest periods, failed to pay premium wages for unprovided
meal and/or rest periods, failed to pay at least minimum wages for
all hours worked, failed to pay overtime wages at the correct
overtime rate, failed to pay double-time wages at the correct
double time rate, failed to provide accurate written wage
statements, and failed to timely pay final wages following
separation of employment.

Sectran Security has provided fully-insured and licensed armored
transportation services to thousands of customers in California
and Nevada since 1982.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sham Setareh, Esq.
          Thomas Sega, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310)888-7771
          Facsimile: (310)888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehiaw.com
                  thomas@setareflaw.com


SHOTGUN WILLIE: Strippers File Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Kirk Mitchell, writing for The Denver Post, reports that a
class-action lawsuit has been filed by four strippers against
Shotgun Willie's for allegedly exploiting dancers by making them
pay the club to be allowed to work.

The civil lawsuit was filed in Denver U.S. District Court on
behalf of Chada Mantooth, Gale Raffaele, Alexis Nagle and Nicole
Bujok by Denver civil rights attorneys Mari Newman, Darold Killmer
and Andy McNulty.

The dancers are seeking unpaid back wages, overtime pay, fees,
shared tips, fines, and "all other unlawful kickbacks," the
lawsuit says.

Because the club does not pay them, the dancers rely entirely on
tips from customers, which the club then illegally requires the
dancers to share with its bouncers, disc jockeys, and other
employees, the lawsuit says.

"This is yet another example of the adult entertainment industry
exploiting vulnerable workers," Ms. Newman said in a statement.
"Workers deserve to be paid, regardless of the industry in which
they work."

A similar lawsuit was recently filed against the Lowrie, LLLC and
VCG Holdings, the parent company of strip clubs across the country
including PT's, Diamond Cabaret, La Boheme, and Penthouse.


SILVERCORP METALS: Class Action Discontinued
--------------------------------------------
Silvercorp Metals Inc. ("Silvercorp" or the "Company") announced
the receipt of $470,000 in satisfaction of two litigation cost
awards granted in its favour, first by the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice, and later by the Court of Appeal of Ontario.  The cost
awards were ordered in its successful defense of an action
commenced on May 21, 2013 pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act
(Ontario).

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision noted that the
plaintiff's case was so weak or had been so successfully rebutted
by Silvercorp that the Plaintiff had no reasonable possibility of
success at trial, a finding that was upheld by the Court of
Appeal.  That action was discontinued by Order of the Ontario
Court on April 19, 2017.  Three other parallel class action
lawsuits filed against the Company, in the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice on September 11, 2013 and in the British Columbia
Supreme Court on August 30, 2013 and on September 9, 2013, have
also been discontinued.

"We are very pleased that the actions have been discontinued and
that we have received payment of the cost awards owing to us" said
Rui Feng, Chief Executive Officer.

                  About Silvercorp Metals Inc.

Silvercorp (TSX: SVM) -- http://www.silvercorpmetals.com-- is a
low-cost silver-producing Canadian mining company with multiple
mines in China.  The Company's vision is to deliver shareholder
value by focusing on the acquisition of under developed projects
with resource potential and the ability to grow organically.


SINGLETON FOOD: "Thomas" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
HOPE THOMAS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. SINGLETON FOOD SERVICES, INC. d/b/a SUBWAY; and
J. EDWARD SINGLETON, JR., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00090-
WCO (N.D. Ga., May 10, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The case is a collective action brought under the FLSA, alleging
that Defendants failed to pay Named Plaintiff and others similarly
situated at the federally-mandated minimum wage and overtime
premium rate.

According to the complaint, Defendants subject the Hourly
Employees at all of their Subway Sandwich restaurants to common
illegal policies and practices that result in Hourly Employees
receiving less than 1.5 times their regular hourly rate for all
hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

Defendants own and operate the Subway sandwich restaurant located
at 88 Highland Crossing, East Ellijay, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dustin L. Crawford, Esq.
          John L. Mays, Esq.
          POOLE HUFFMAN LLC
          315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 344
          Decatur, Georgia 30030
          Telephone: (404) 855-3002
          Facsimile: (404) 855-4066
          E-mail: dustin@poolehuffman.com
                  john@poolehuffman.com


SOUTH AFRICA: Class Action Over RITA License Renewal Fines OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
Antoinette Slabbert, writing for The Citizen, reports that The
Road Traffic Infringement Agency's (RTIA) application to appeal
was dismissed.

A judge has ruled road users can band together in a class action
to challenge traffic fine laws blocking drivers' licence renewals
in Johannesburg and Pretoria.

Judge Bill Prinsloo has confirmed his February ruling in favour of
Audi Centre Johannesburg and its fines administrator, Fines4U.

They want hundreds of fines issued under the Aarto Act reviewed
and set aside.  He dismissed the Road Traffic Infringement
Agency's (RTIA) application to appeal.

The Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (Aarto)
Act has been implemented in only Johannesburg and Tshwane for
years.

Both cities are considering withdrawing from the system that is
considered unaffordable and ineffective. But national government
appears determined to roll out the system nationwide.

Aarto administers a system of penalty points that could result in
repeat offenders' licences suspended and even cancelled.

The Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (Outa) said after the ruling it
was compiling a class action to compel the RTIA and relevant
metros to withdraw all unlawfully processed traffic fines.
Business a year ago reported millions of Aarto fines issued in
Johannesburg and Tshwane might be unenforceable due to the RTIA's
failure to pay its outstanding Post Office bill.

The RTIA at the time strongly denied this. The court heard that in
adjudicating drivers' appeals to have fines cancelled, RTIA
officers had been following an internal operating manual that did
not allow procedural challenges.

The agency acknowledged it failed to follow the correct procedure
prescribed in the Aarto Act to process the Audi Centre fines
stretching back to 2008.

Millions of fines to other parties are similarly affected -- many
because the RTIA failed to issue Aarto notices within prescribed
timelines due to its dispute with the Post Office.

This especially affects millions of speeding fines caught on
camera. Prinsloo confirmed the operating manual instructions were
ultra vires.

This leaves the door open to similarly affected road users facing
large amounts for outstanding fines they know nothing about and
did not have an opportunity to challenge, just to renew their
drivers' or vehicle licences.

FF Plus MP Anton Alberts says all fines should be cancelled if:

   -- Drivers were not notified within 40 days of the incident.
   -- Notices were not sent by registered post or issued by hand.
   -- Fines referred to the RTIA were not processed. Drivers
asked for a trial, but cases were not heard speedily.
   -- Drivers failed to respond to infringement notices and
authorities failed to issue a courtesy letter within 64 days.
After courtesy letters, the RTIA failed to issue an enforcement
order.
   -- The RTIA failed to process representations.
   -- The RTIA was inconsistent in its responses.
   -- Owner of Fines4U Cornelia van Niekerk said that since the
ruling.  RTIA had stopped processing her submissions.  If this
continues, she might have to approach the court to compel the
agency to fulfil its legislative mandate. [GN]


SPORTSMAN FISH: Nail, et al. File Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL R. NAIL, JORDIN BALLARD, RICHARD BOYETT, MARK L. HOPPER,
Plaintiffs, vs. ROBERT M. SHIPP, REGINA E. SHIPP, SPORTSMAN FISH
HOUSE, LLC d/b/a SHIPP'S HARBOUR GRILL, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-00195-KD-B (S.D. Ala., May 5, 2017), is a collective complaint
alleging that Plaintiffs worked hours while employed by Defendants
for which they either received no compensation, for which they
were improperly paid at rates less than one-and-one half times
their normal hourly rates, and/or for which they were paid below
the minimum wage.

The case was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants Robert Shipp and Regina Shipp are the owners of
Defendant Sportsman Fish House, LLC d/b/a Shipp's Harbour Grill,
which is an enterprise that operates a seafood restaurant in
Alabama.  Plaintiffs are employed as servers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abby M. Richardson, Esq.
     RICHARDSON LAW FIRM, LLC
     118 North Royal Street, Suite 100
     Mobile, AL 36602
     Phone: 251.338.1695
     Fax: 251.338.1698
     E-mail: abby@richardsonlawllc.com

        - and -

     Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq.
     Charles P. Yezbak, Esq.
     YEZBAK LAW OFFICES
     2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
     Nashville, TN 37215
     Phone: 615.250.2000
     Fax: 615.250.2020
     E-mail: dea@yezbaklaw.com
             yezbak@yezbaklaw.com


STAR WORLD: Faces "Moreno" Wage-and-Hour Suit
---------------------------------------------
VERONICA MORENO, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. STAR WORLD, INC., a
corporate entity; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC660737 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 10, 2017),
seeks to recover equitable relief, interest, restitution, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants for
California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices
stemming from Defendants' failure to provide meal periods, failure
to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked,
failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, and
failure to furnish accurate wage statements.

Star World is a 24-hour Asian English language cable and satellite
television channel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          Allen Feghali, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1820
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 232 3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232 3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                  justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com
                  allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com


STATE FARM: Springer Sues Over Vehicle Accident Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------
SHEREE SPRINGER, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois company; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC660804 (Cal.
Super. Ct., May 10, 2017), seeks to recover monetary damages and
restitution including claims for compensatory damages, interest,
penalties, and attorneys' fees, is less than $75,000, pursuant to
California Code of Civil Procedure section 382.

On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff sustained severe physical
injuries as a result of an automobile accident.  At the time,
Plaintiff was occupying a vehicle insured under the State Farm
Policy, and qualifying as "your car" under the definition of that
term. In addition to Plaintiff, the car was occupied by three
other individuals, each of which sustained injuries as a result of
the Accident. As a result of her injuries, Plaintiff incurred
"reasonable expenses" for "medical Services" as those terms are
defined in the State Farm Policy.  The "Accident" was caused by an
at fault third party, who was insured under a liability insurance
policy with limits of $25,000/person and $50,000/accident (Third
Party Liability Policy.) The maximum policy limits under the Third
Party Liability Policy were not sufficient to fully compensate
Plaintiff and the other persons injured in the Accident for the
injuries they sustained in the Accident.

State Farm is a group of insurance and financial services
companies in the United States. The group's main business is State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, a mutual insurance firm
that also owns the other State Farm companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          Kitty K. Szeto, Esq.
          John M. Bickford, Esq.
          Eric N. Wilson, Esq.
          Daniel Eli, Esq.
          PARRIS LAW FIRM
          43364 10th Street West
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 949 2595
          Facsimile: (661) 949 7524


TENNESSEE MENTAL: "Richardson" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
GARY RICHARDSON, individually on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TENNESSEE MENTAL HEALTH
CONSUMERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
02321-SHL-cgc (W.D. Tenn., May 10, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

The case is a collective action under the FLSA, brought on behalf
of all persons who, at any time during the past three years and up
until the date of entry of judgment are or were employed by
Defendants and who worked overtime without receiving proper
overtime compensation for all of the hours worked.

Tennessee Mental Health Consumers' Association receives funding to
support their groundwork and advocacy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Russell, Esq.
          EMILY S. EMMONS, Esq.
          GILBERT RUSSELL McWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
          341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
          Franklin, TN 37067
          Telephone: 615-354-1144
          E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com
                  eemmons@gilbertfirm.com


TENSION INTERNATIONAL: Bowers Seeks Approval of Case Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled DAVID BOWERS, on behalf of himself, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TENSION
INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00562-FJG
(W.D. Mo.), the parties jointly ask that the Court preliminarily
approve a Settlement so that notice may be sent to a class.

As part of this settlement, and for the purposes of settlement
only, the Parties also stipulate to the certification of the class
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act:

   "all current or former workers at Tension's Longmont ,
   Colorado, facility who were paid with reported tax filings
   submitted under IRS form 1099 and who are not specifically
   excluded from this definition by the mutual agreement of the
   Parties for a period from the commencement of ownership of
   that facility by Tension until the date of the Court's
   preliminary approval of this Settlement".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hrKjw7Xj

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David H. Miller, Esq.
          Adam M. Harrison, Esq.
          SAWAYA & MILLER LAW FIRM
          1600 Ogden Street
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (303) 839 1650 x 1090
          Facsimile: (720) 235 4380
          E-mail: DMiller@sawayalaw.com
                  AHarrison@sawayal.com

               - and -

          Amy L. Coopman, Esq.
          Luke R. Hertenstein, Esq.
          FOLAND, WICKENS, EISFELDER, ROPER, & HOFER, PC
          1200 Main Street, Suite 2200
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 472 7474
          Facsimile: (816) 472 6262
          E-mail: acoopman@fwpclaw.com
                  lhertenstein@fwpclaw.com


TIME WARNER: Sydney Appeals N.D.N.Y. Decision to Second Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jeffrey Sydney and Stephen Capousis filed an appeal
from a District Court memorandum-decision and order dated March
28, 2017, in the lawsuit titled Sydney v. Time Warner
Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership, et al., Case No. 13-
cv-286, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
New York (Syracuse).

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Sydney v. Time Warner
Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership, et al., Case No. 17-
1219, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Jeffrey Sydney, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, and Stephen Capousis, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Matthew J. Blit, Esq.
          LEVINE & BLIT, P.L.L.C.
          350 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 967-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 967-3010
          E-mail: mblit@levineblit.com

Defendant-Appellee Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse
Partnership is represented by:

          Jacqueline B. Jones, Esq.
          MACKENZIE HUGHES LLP
          101 South Salina Street, P.O. Box 4967
          Syracuse, NY 13221
          Telephone: (315) 233-8337
          Facsimile: (315) 474-1216
          E-mail: jjones@mackenziehughes.com


TOTAL: Judge Dismisses Gas Market Manipulation Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth W. Irvin, Esq. -- kirvin@sidley.com -- Terence T. Healey,
Esq. -- thealey@sidley.com -- Sharon A. Rose, Esq. --
srose@sidley.com -- and Christopher J. Polito, Esq. --
cpolito@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin LLP, in an article for
Lexology, wrote that on March 27, Judge Koeltl of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an
order dismissing the class action plaintiffs' case against TOTAL
for alleged natural gas market manipulation.  Judge Koeltl ruled
that the class action complaint did not plead facts that would
allow the court to draw a reasonable inference that the plaintiffs
suffered any economic injury as a result of TOTAL's alleged
manipulation of monthly index prices of physical natural gas at
the regional hubs.  In addition, Judge Koeltl determined that the
class action plaintiffs failed to allege plausibly that TOTAL
specifically intended to cause the artificial price of physical or
financial instruments purchased by the plaintiffs.  Judge Koeltl
also dismissed the plaintiffs' antitrust claims under the Sherman
Act, ruling that the plaintiffs lack antitrust standing and are
not the appropriate parties to bring such a claim.


UA LOCAL 38: Suit v. Plan Trustees Moved to Washington D.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN
AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE
UNITED STATES AND CANADA; RECIPROCITY COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED
ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND
PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO;
TRUSTEES OF THE PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS NATIONAL PENSION FUND;
RECIPROCITY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INCORPORATED; ROBERT BRADLEY
NORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. LAWRENCE J. MAZZOLA, ROBERT E.
BUCKLEY, JR., ARMAND KILIJIAN SCOTT STRAWBRIDGE, FRED NURISSO,
DANIEL ORSOT, MILT GOODMAN STEVE JENNINGS, WILLIAM BLACKWELL,
FRANK REARDON, JOHN CHIARENZA TONY GUZZETTA, R. J. FERRARI, in
their current or former capacities as trustees or fiduciaries of
the United Association Local 38 Defined Benefit Pension Plan, and
PETER MACHI, in his capacity as administrator of the United
Association Local 38 Defined Benefit Pension Plan, Case No.
3:15CV4962-jsc, was transferred on May 1. 2017 from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-mc-01102-JEB-DAR to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge James E.
Boasberg.

The Local 38 Trust Fund Administration Office is responsible for
administering the joint Labor-Management trust funds including
Health and Welfare, and Pensions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Louis P. Malone, Esq.
          O'DONOGHUE & O'DONOGHUE
          4748 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 362 0041
          Facsimile: (202) 237 1200
          E-mail: lmalone@odonoghuelaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Toyserkani" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
BOBAK TOYSERKANI, TUKY CHOWDHURY, HENG LAI, AARON TOUBIAN,
WEHANNAHJO PAGUIO, and BARRYON NEMBHARD, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
RAISER, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, RAISER-CA, LLC,
a Delaware Limited Liability Company, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC660915 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 10, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, statutory penalties for failure to
provide accurate wage statements, and waiting time penalties, plus
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs under California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs also bring an action for themselves and all other
members of the Class for common law breach of contract, as well as
for Defendants' violations of California Business and Professions
Code section, including full restitution of all compensation
retained by Defendants as a result of their unlawful, fraudulent,
and unfair business practices.

Uber is in the business of providing car service to customers, and
that is the service that Uber drivers provide. The drivers'
services are fully integrated into Uber's business, and without
the drivers, Uber's business would not exist. The Uber Defendants
allow end users to use the App to enter their preferred
destination anytime before or during the ride. When an end user
arrives at his/her destination and exists the vehicle, the trip
ends. The fare is automatically calculated and charged to the end
user.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Montes, Esq.
          Daniel J. Rafii, Esq.
          Joseph Nazarian, Esq.
          RAFII & NAZARIAN, LLP
          9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 465E
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 777 7877
          Facsimile: (310) 777 7855
          E-mail: robert@rafiilaw.com
                  daniel@rafiilaw.com
                  joe@rafiilaw.com


UNITED CAPITAL: Carollo, et al. Seek to Certify Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled DEANNA CAROLLO and DIANA J. OWENS, on
behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. UNITED CAPITAL CORP., AFP MANAGEMENT CORP. and
AFP 101 CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-00013-DNH-TWD
(N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on June 23, 2017
for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
      under the Fair Labor Standards Act;

   2. requiring the issuance of prompt notice in the form and
      manner requested by plaintiffs;

   3. requiring defendants to provide plaintiffs' counsel in both
      electronic format (in an Excel spreadsheet) and by hard
      copy, a class list containing each employee's name, current
      or last known address, phone number, job title, dates of
      employment, last four digits of social security number,
      date of birth and e-mail address, within 15 days of the
     issuance of the Order;

   4. requiring defendants to post the notice at the worksite;

   5. allowing notices and consent forms to be emailed to
      employees; and

   6. providing other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OYA6Vv2F

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sarah E. Cressman, Esq.
          Patrick J. Solomon, Esq.
          Michael J. Lingle, Esq.
          Sarah E. Cressman, Esq.
          THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP
          693 East Avenue
          Rochester, NY 14607
          Telephone: (585) 272-0540
          E-mail: psolomon@theemploymentattorneys.com
                  mlingle@theemploymentattorneys.com
                  scressman@theemploymentattorneys.com


UNITED STATES: Veterans Court Can Administer Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Gilman, Esq. -- jgilman@beneschlaw.com -- of Benesch
Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP, in an article for Lexology,
wrote that the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is best known for
adjudicating patent disputes.  But that's not the extent of its
portfolio.  It also has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims, which, in turn, reviews decisions of the Board of
Veterans' Appeals.  Those tribunals adjudicate benefits claims by
military veterans.

High-stakes patent cases tend to evoke more buzz than those
involving veterans' benefits, but a recent decision by the Federal
Circuit on the latter topic is likely to go down as one of its
most significant.  All quoted text is from the court.

Here's the background:  "Conley F. Monk, Jr., petitioned the
Veterans Court to certify a class action and to otherwise
aggregate for adjudication the claims of thousands of veterans
whose claims were similarly situated to his own.  The Veterans
Court denied the request on grounds that it lacks authority to
certify classes of claims, or to adjudicate disability claims on
an aggregate basis."

Here's the issue:  "This appeal concerns whether the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has authority to certify a
class for class action or for similar aggregate resolution
procedures."

And here's the holding:  "We hold that the Veterans Court has the
authority to certify a class for a class action and to maintain
similar aggregate resolution procedures.  We reverse the judgment
of the Veterans Court and remand for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion."

Mr. Monk was a Marine during the Vietnam War.  His benefits claim
was originally denied, prompting him to file a Notice of
Disagreement -- a "NOD" -- with the VA challenging that decision.
When he did not receive a prompt response from the VA, he sought
to certify in the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims ("Veterans Court") a class consisting of "all veterans who
had applied for VA benefits, had timely filed an NOD, had not
received a decision within twelve months, and had demonstrated
medical or financial hardship as defined" by statute.

The Veterans Court denied Mr. Monk's request for class
certification, claiming "that it lacks authority to maintain class
actions."  It stated that "Mr. Monk fails to appreciate the
[Veterans] Court's long-standing declaration that it does not have
the authority to entertain class actions."  "In the absence of
such authority," it said, "no other arguments matter."

In other words, the Veterans Court claimed that it lacked
authority to certify class actions simply because it so declared.

Enter the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.  In a unanimous
decision dated April 26, 2017, it held that "the Veteran's Court
decision that it lacks authority to certify and adjudicate class
action cases was an abuse of discretion" and "that the Veterans
Court has such authority under the All Writs Act, other statutory
authority, and the Veterans Court's inherent powers."

The All Writs Act provides that "[t]he Supreme Court and all
courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs
necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions
and agreeable to the usages and principles of law."  (Emphasis
added.)  Because the Veterans Court was established by Act of
Congress, it was authorized by the All Writs Act law to create
rules and procedures for the administration of class actions.

The court also found that the federal statute creating the
Veterans Court -- the Veterans Judicial Review Act -- did not
expressly preclude class actions in that court.  On the contrary,
that statute permitted the Veterans Court "to prescribe rules of
practice and procedures" in that court -- which would include
rules for the administration of class actions.

And so yes:  the Veterans Court is empowered to administer class
actions, and it erred when it held to the contrary.  In fact, the
Federal Circuit identified several distinct benefits to class
adjudication in veterans-related cases.  "Class actions," it
noted, "can help the Veterans Court exercise [its] authority by
promoting efficiency, consistency, and fairness, and improving
access to legal and expert assistance by parties with limited
resources."  And "class actions may help the Veterans Court
consistently adjudicate cases by increasing its prospects for
precedential opinions.  The Veterans Court issues only a small
number of precedential opinions each year.  Permitting class
actions would help prevent the VA from mooting claims scheduled
for precedential review."  And "class action suits could be used
to compel correction of systemic error and to ensure that like
veterans are treated alike."  Three compelling reasons for
allowing veterans to pursue their claims as class actions.

The Federal Circuit did not rule on whether class certification
was appropriate in Monk's case; that would be for the Veterans
Court to decide on remand.  It simply held that the Veterans Court
is authorized by law to certify class actions.  In so holding, it
flung open a door that for too long had been sealed shut.

The case is Monk v. Shulkin, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals,
case nos. 2015-7092, 2015-7106, and the decision can be found at
https://goo.gl/5jfmRb. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Carter" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Carol Coghlan Carter, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit styled Carol Carter, et al. v. Kevin
Washburn, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01259-NVW, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix.

The appellate case is captioned as Carol Carter, et al. v. Kevin
Washburn, et al., Case No. 17-15839, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from the Defendants alleged discriminatory practices on the
basis of race or ethnicity.

Kevin Washburn is the Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.  Sally Jewell is the Secretary of the Interior, United
States Department of the Interior.  Gregory A. McKay is the
Director of the Arizona Department of Child Safety.

The Department of the Interior is the cabinet agency of which
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is a part and which is assigned
enforcement powers under Indian Child Welfare Act and Title 25 of
United States Code.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are CAROL COGHLAN CARTER, next friend of
A.D., C.C., L.G. and C.R., minors next friend of A.D. next friend
of C.C. next friend of L.G. next friend of C.R.; UNKNOWN PARTY,
named as S.H., a married couple; UNKNOWN PARTY, named as J.H., a
married couple; UNKNOWN PARTY, named as K.C., a married couple;
for themselves and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated
individuals; UNKNOWN PARTY, named as M.C., a married couple; for
themselves and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated
individuals; RONALD FEDERICI, Dr., next friend of A.D., C.C.,
L..G. and C.R., minors next friend of A.D. next friend of C.C.
next friend of L.G. next friend of C.R.; UNKNOWN PARTY, P.R., a
married couple; for themselves and on behalf of a class of
similarly-situated individuals; and UNKNOWN PARTY, named as K.R.,
a married couple; for themselves and on behalf of a class of
similarly-situated individuals.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by May 24, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on June 23, 2017;

   -- Appellants Carol Coghlan Carter, Ronald Federici and
      Unknown Parties' opening brief is due on August 2, 2017;

   -- Appellees Sally Jewell, Gregory McKay and Kevin K.
      Washburn's answering brief is due on September 1, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Aditya Dynar, Esq.
          GOLDWATER INSTITUTE
          37963 West Merced Street
          Maricopa, AZ 85138
          Telephone: (480) 818-5499
          E-mail: adynar@goldwaterinstitute.org

               - and -

          Christina Sandefur, Esq.
          GOLDWATER INSTITUTE
          500 E Coronado Rd.
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 462-5000
          E-mail: csandefur@goldwaterinstitute.org

               - and -

          Michael Kirk, Esq.
          Harold S. Reeves, Esq.
          COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
          1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 220-9600
          Facsimile: (202) 220-9601
          E-mail: mkirk@cooperkirk.com
                  hreeves@cooperkirk.com

Defendants-Appellees KEVIN K. WASHBURN, Esquire, in his official
capacity as Assistant Secretary of Bureau of Indian Affairs; and
SALLY JEWELL, in her official capacity as Secretary of Interior,
United States Department of the Interior, are represented by:

          Steven Miskinis, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 44378
          Washington, DC 20026
          Telephone: (202) 305-0262
          E-mail: steven.miskinis@usdoj.gov

Defendant-Appellee GREGORY MCKAY, named as Gregory A. McKay, in
his official capacity as Director of Arizona Department of Child
Safety, is represented by:

          Gary N. Lento, Esq.
          ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          1275 West Washington Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85007
          Telephone: (602) 364-0681
          Facsimile: (602) 542-9279
          E-mail: gary.lento@azag.gov

               - and -

          Wendy J. Harrison, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: wharrison@bffb.com


URBAN SPACE: "McClendon" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG McCLENDON individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were formerly or are presently employed by
URBAN SPACE WORKS LLC, URBANSPACE GRAND CENTRAL LLC, URBAN
SPACE 230 PARK LLC, and ELDON SCOTT and/or any other entities
affiliated with or controlled by URBAN SPACE WORKS LLC, URBANSPACE
GRAND CENTRAL LLC, URBAN SPACE 230 PARK LLC, and
ELDON SCOTT, the Plaintiffs, v. URBAN SPACE WORKS LLC, URBANSPACE
GRAND CENTRAL LLC, URBAN SPACE 230 PARK LLC, and ELDON SCOTT
and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by URBAN
SPACE WORKS LLC, URBANSPACE GRAND CENTRAL LLC, URBAN SPACE 230
PARK LLC, and ELDON SCOTT, the Defendants, Case No. 153586/2017
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 10, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and withheld wages pursuant to the New York Labor
Law.

In April 2011 and continuing through the present, Defendants have
allegedly engaged in a policy and practice of requiring their
employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week, without
providing all required overtime compensation as required by
applicable state law and failing to pay their employees for an
additional one hour of time at the minimum wage rate for all days
during which the spread of hours exceeded ten hours or a split
shift occurred.

The Defendants operate a business engaged in organizing,
promoting, and managing local retail and culinary markets
including, but not limited to the UrbanSpace, Dekalb Market in
Brooklyn, and Mad. Sq. Eats, Broadway Bites, and the Holiday
Markets at Union Square and Columbus Circle in Manhattan. The
Defendants also manage and operate a mixed-use building located at
80 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10011.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          Alison L. Genova, Esq.
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080


US STEEL: July 3 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, disclosed that
a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against United
States Steel Corporation (NYSE: X) ("U.S. Steel" or the "Company")
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between
November 1, 2016 and April 25, 2017, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Investors who purchased U.S. Steel securities during the Class
Period may, no later than July 3, 2017, seek to be appointed as a
lead plaintiff representative of the class.  For additional
information or to learn how to participate in this action please
visit https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/united-states-steel-
corporation#join.

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

U.S. Steel is an integrated steel producer of flat-rolled and
tubular products, with major production operations in North
America and Europe.  The shareholder class action complaint
alleges that U.S. Steel and certain of its senior executive
officers made materially false and misleading statements to
investors about the Company's outlook and expected financial
performance during the Class Period.

As detailed in the complaint, during Fiscal 2016 U.S. Steel
represented to investors that it was transforming the Company
through "two phases of a focused execution on our stockholder
value creation strategy."  Additionally, during the Class Period
U.S. Steel and certain senior executive officers made a series of
positive statements to investors about the Company's ability to
benefit from improving market conditions.  For example, on January
31, 2017, U.S. Steel's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") stated that
the Company was "starting 2017 with much better market conditions"
than it faced at the beginning of 2016, and that U.S. Steel "will
benefit from improved market conditions."

Then, on April 25, 2017, U.S. Steel announced disappointing First
Quarter Fiscal 2017 financial and operational results -- despite
improved market conditions. Specifically, the Company reported a
quarterly net loss of $180 million (or ($1.03) per share),
adjusted EBITDA of $74 million, and negative operating cash flow
of $135 million.  Also on April 25, 2017, the Company
significantly reduced its net earning guidance from $535 million
to $260 million for Fiscal 2017.

Following this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $8.33 per
share, or over 26.7%, to close on April 26, 2017 at $22.78 per
share, on heavy trading volume.

U.S. Steel shareholders may, no later than July 3, 2017, seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class
through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all
class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class in the action.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not
affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff. For additional information, or to learn how to
participate in this action, please visit https://www.ktmc.com/new-
cases/united-states-steel-corporation#join.

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


VCG HOLDING: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "McGrew" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Melissa McGrew, Sarah Gunter and Kristina Dunlap filed
an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Melissa
McGrew, et al. v. VCG Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-
00397, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky, Louisville Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 11,
2017, Judge Thomas B. Russell granted the Defendants' motion to
compel arbitration and dismiss the claims in the case.

PT's Showclub is an adult entertainment venue located in
Louisville, Kentucky.  Among other things, the entertainment
includes performance by exotic dancers.  Plaintiffs Melissa
McGrew, Sarah Gunter, and Kristina Dunlap were all at one time
exotic dancers at PT's Showclub in Louisville, Kentucky.  They
allege that the Defendants, the club's owners and operators,
misclassified them as independent contractors rather than
employees, paid them less than minimum wage, and deducted certain
fees and penalties from their paychecks, all in violation of
federal and state law.  On behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated dancers, plaintiffs seek back pay, restitution,
civil penalties, costs, and attorney's fees.

The appellate case is captioned as MELISSA MCGREW; SARAH GUNTER;
KRISTINA DUNLAP, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. VCG HOLDING CORP.; KENTUCKY RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, INC.,
dba PT's Showclub Louisville; TROY LOWRIE; MICHAEL OCELLO, Case
No. 17-5474, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Trent R. Taylor, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ
          250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          E-mail: ttaylor@barkanmeizlish.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Paul Anthony Caligiuri Jr., Esq.
          Allan S. Rubin, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS PC
          2000 Town Center, Suite 1650
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 936-1900
          Facsimile: (24) 936-1901
          E-mail: Paul.Caligiuri@jacksonlewis.com
                  RubinA@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Katharine C. Weber, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS PC
          201 E. Fifth Street, 26th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 898-0050
          Facsimile: (513) 898-0051
          E-mail: katharine.weber@jacksonlewis.com


VINCE HOLDING: July 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on May 5, 2017, a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against Vince Holding Corp.
(NYSE:VNCE).  The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is December 8, 2016 through
April 27, 2017.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Vince Holding
Corp. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class
Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above.
You may move the Court no later than Wednesday, July 5, 2017 to
serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.  However, in order
to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

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

Robin Hester
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com
Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com


WELLS FARGO: "Scriboni" Suit Moved to New Jersey Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ROSE M. SCRIBONI, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., doing business as WELL FARGO DEALER
SERVICES; EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC; EXPERIAN; and
TRANSUNION, the Defendants, Case No. CAM L 1188 17, was removed on
May 10, 2017 from the CAMDEN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Camden). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-03315-JHR-JS to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joseph H.
Rodriguez.

Wells Fargo is a provider of banking, mortgage, investing, credit
card, insurance, and consumer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lewis G. Adler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LEWIS ADLER
          26 Newton Avenue
          Woodbury, NJ 08096
          Telephone: (856) 845 1968
          E-mail: lewisadler@verizon.net

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is represented by:

          Jarrod D. Shaw, Esq.
          McGuireWoods LLP
          EQT Plaza
          625 Liberty Avenue, 23rd Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 667 7907
          E-mail: jshaw@mcguirewoods.com

Equifax Information Services, LLC is represented by:

          Joann Needleman, Esq.
          CLARK HILL PLC
          One Commerce Square
          2005 Market Street, Suite 1000
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 640 8536
          Facsimile: (215) 640 8501
          E-mail: jneedleman@clarkhill.com

Experian TRANSUNION is represented by:

          Dorothy A. Kowal, Esq.
          PRICE, MEESE, SHULMAN & D'ARMINIO, PC
          Mack-Cali Corporate Center
          50 Tice Boulevard
          Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07677
          Telephone: (201) 391 3737
          Facsimile: (201) 391 9360
          E-mail: dkowal@pricemeese.com


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Averts Class Action Over Defective Wall Ovens
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
judge in Chicago refused to let consumers pursue class-action
claims that Whirlpool Corp made defective wall ovens because they
could not identify a common defect.

Plaintiffs led by Beth Kljajic and Kathleen Cates alleged that
Whirlpool's Vision II Platform Wall Ovens were prone to overheat
and lock up when the self-cleaning function was turned on, leaving
them unusable.


ZION OIL: Appoints New Board Members Following Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Monica Gray, writing for Stock News Union, reports that Zion Oil &
Gas, Inc. has made two new appointments to its board of
director's, days after being hit with two high profile class
action investigations.  The Appointment of Dr. Lee R. Russell and
Michael B. Croswell Jr. comes on Levi & Korsinsky and Purcell
Julie & Lefkowitz, LLP, launching investigations over a possible
breach of fiduciary duty by the board of directors.

Board of Directors Appointments

Dr. Russell joins Zion Oil & Gas, Inc. (NASDAQ:ZN) board having
been the company's independent Geoscience consultant over the past
four years.  His more than 41 years of industry experience in
research and exploration which should benefit the management team.

Some of the notable projects that Dr. Russell has worked on
include domestic exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, the Rocky
Mountains, and international projects in East and West Africa.
Croswell Jr. Joins the board having served as the company's
corporate controller.  He is also the current Chief Financial
officer. He joins the board with vast accounting and management
experience having been a certified public accountant since 1997.

"I wholeheartedly welcome Lee and Michael to our Board of
Directors and truly believe that they each bring unique experience
and leadership qualities that will help to guide our strategic
decisions on our Megiddo-Jezreel #1 well and future wells in
Israel.  I count both Lee and Michael as personal friends, fellow
Christian brothers, and men of the utmost moral character and
integrity," said Zion's CEO, Victor G. Carrillo.

Oil Drilling In Israel

Separately, Zion Oil & Gas, Inc. has echoed its commitment to
ensuring Israel achieves political and economic independence as it
continues with exploration and drilling activities in the country.
The company is currently drilling a 15,000 foot well in North East
of Israel where it believes there is a good amount of oil
reserves.

The company has already carried out a stock unit option program
that will be used to fund the massive project.  For $10,
interested investors were able to buy 7 shares and 7 warrants of
Zion Oil and Gas stock.  Exercisable for $1 a share of stock the
warrants are set to mature on May 1, 2020.


* Pro-Business SC Justices Unfavorable for Organized Labor
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Wilson, writing for Huffington Post, reports that the Supreme
Court will soon be ruling on the question of whether union
contracts can legally include provisions where employees waive the
right to join in class-action lawsuits.  While unions and the NLRB
argue that this provision violates an employee's inherent right to
"collective action," management argues that all disputes should be
settled individually, by way of binding arbitration, a method that
has proven quicker and less expensive.

This reached the Supreme Court as a result of the lower courts
being split on the issue.  And with the Supreme Court being
composed of five, pro-business, anti-labor conservatives (Justices
Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch and Kennedy), two
pro-labor lefties (Kagan and Sotomayor), and two middle-of-the
road liberals (Ginsburg and Breyer), the smart money is on the
Court ruling against the NLRB.  One more nail in labor's coffin.

Mr. Wilson said "Consider an actual case I was familiar with, one
that occurred in the early 1990s, at an industrial plant in
Northern California.  The union contract required all workers to
receive a 30-minute meal period by the end of the fifth hour of
work.  So, for example, if you start work at 7:30 AM, you needed
to be relieved by noon, in order to squeeze in your 30-minute
lunch by 12:30 PM (which marked the end of the fifth hour)."

"Generally speaking, no one was going to complain if they didn't
get sent out exactly on time, or if they were asked to take only
20 minutes.  That was partly because there were occasions when the
operation was running so poorly, 'all hands on deck' were
required, and partly because there were always those 'heroic'
workers on the factory floor who, for whatever reason, made a
showy display of 'not needing' a break.

"In any event, the company began allowing the 'exception to the
rule' to become a fixed rule.  Which is to say, they began
regularly cutting into people's lunch breaks -- sometimes reducing
it to 20 minutes, sometimes "accidentally" forgetting about it
altogether.  Granted, had the hourly workers (or their union)
raised hell from the outset, this practice would have been nipped
in the bud.  But no one wanted to be seen as a whiner.  So it
persisted.

"Finally, following a big change in management personnel and an
even bigger change in disciplinary policy, the hourly workers
rebelled.   Not only did they insist on getting exactly what they
were entitled to under the contract, they wanted to be reimbursed
for all the break-time they were cheated out it.

"After being threatened with a class-action lawsuit, the company
agreed to compensate those employees affected.  As I recall there
were roughly 20 employees involved, and the entire compensation
package was less than $40,000.

"But if the Supreme Court rules against the NLRB, and workers are
not permitted to file class-action lawsuits, it is going to place
what amounts to an unrealistically heavy burden on the arbitration
process.  For one thing, an arbitrator is not required to treat
all 20 employees as one 'class.'

"An arbitrator (at the urging of the company) may decide to treat
each case individually, which, with 20 people, will take the union
years and years to arbitrate, not to mention the thousands of
dollars in costs to conduct a single hearing.

"Now imagine an arbitration dispute involving not only 20 people,
but an entire factory population of 200 people, which would be
well within reason for any grievance involving an issue like
factory-wide health insurance.

"Once again, what we are seeing is Corporate America continuing to
chip away at workers' rights.  And with organized labor at low
ebb, and congressional Democrats as gutless and hypocritical as
they are, we shouldn't expect the assault to end anytime soon."
[GN]



                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Refuses to Review Ruling in Take-Home Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION. ELIZABETH RAMSEY, Administrator of
the Estate of DOROTHY RAMSEY, deceased, Plaintiff, v. ATLAS TURNER
LTD., et al., Defendants, C.A. No. N14C-01-287 ASB (Del. Sup.),
Judge Vivian L. Medinilla of the Superior Court of Delaware denied
the Plaintiff's Motion for Reargument and/or Reconsideration of
the Court's February 2, 2017, Order granting Defendant Georgia
Southern University Advanced Development Center ("Herty")'s Motion
for Summary Judgment.

Dorothy Ramsey, through her estate, alleges that Defendant Herty,
a manufacturer of asbestos paper product, negligently failed to
warn her of the risks of take-home asbestos exposure due to the
use of Herty's product at her husband's workplace from 1976-1980.
Specifically, she claims Herty owed her a duty of care because she
was a "foreseeable plaintiff" who would be exposed to Herty's
asbestos product when her husband transported the asbestos debris
home on his work uniform.  She argues that Herty's alleged failure
to warn her of this danger was a proximate cause of her lung
cancer.

Judge Medinilla found that the Plaintiff does not argue "newly
discovered evidence" or a "change of law."  Rather, she reasserts
that the Court should have found that Herty owed a duty of care to
her as a foreseeable plaintiff of its alleged negligence.  All of
the Plaintiff's arguments in her Motion were considered in the
Court's ruling on summary judgment, Judge Medinilla said.

A full-text copy of the Order dated May 11, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/rRtzJA from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple's Claims Not Barred by Wis. CSOR
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Daniel and Beverly Ahnert filed an asbestosis case.
The complaint alleged that Daniel Ahnert had been exposed to
asbestos, which had caused his medical condition.  On May 4, 2010,
the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the case to the federal court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, where Judge Eduardo C. Robreno was presiding over
multidistrict litigation involving thousands of asbestosis cases.

On March 31, 2017, the court denied the summary judgment motion
filed by Sprinkmann Sons, Inc., and Employers Insurance of Wausau.
In a memorandum of law dated May 11, 2017, District Judge Pamela
Pepper held that because the court concludes that the defendants
have not met their burden of establishing that the Wisconsin
Construction Statute of Repose ("CSOR") bars the plaintiffs'
claims as a matter of law, and because, construed in the light
most favorable to the plaintiffs, the evidence reveals genuine
issues of material fact, the court need not address the
defendants' remaining arguments.

The case is BEVERLY AHNERT, Individually and as Executrix of the
Estate of Daniel Ahnert, Deceased Plaintiffs, v. EMPLOYERS
INSURANCE COMPANY OF WAUSAU, SPRINKMANN SONS CORPORATION,
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, and PABST BREWING COMPANY,
Defendants, Case Nos. 10-cv-156-pp, 13-cv-1456-pp (E.D. Wis.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum is available at
https://is.gd/Bg7pb6 from Leagle.com.

Daniel Ahnert, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd.

Daniel Ahnert, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G. McCoy, Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices Ltd.

Beverly Ahnert, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd, Daniel B. Hausman, Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices Ltd, Jin Ho Chung, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices
Ltd & Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd.

Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, Defendant, represented by
James A. Niquet, Crivello Carlson SC & Travis J. Rhoades, Crivello
Carlson SC.

Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, Defendant, represented by James A.
Niquet, Crivello Carlson SC & Travis J. Rhoades, Crivello Carlson
SC.

Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Defendant, represented by James
A. Niquet, Crivello Carlson SC & Travis J. Rhoades, Crivello
Carlson SC.

Pabst Brewing Company, Defendant, represented by Edna L. McLain,
Hepler Broom LLC, Michael T. Antikainen, Hepler Broom LLC &
Michael W. Drumke, Hepler Broom LLC.

Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, Cross Defendant,
represented by James A. Niquet, Crivello Carlson SC.

Pabst Brewing Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael T.
Antikainen, Hepler Broom LLC & Michael W. Drumke, Hepler Broom
LLC.

Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by James
A. Niquet, Crivello Carlson SC.

Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
James A. Niquet, Crivello Carlson SC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. App. Vacates $3.4MM Verdict vs. Ford
-----------------------------------------------------------
Automobile mechanic, Joyce Stockton, and his wife, filed suit
against Ford Motor Company for negligence in relation to wife's
diagnosis of mesothelioma.  The Stocktons allege that Ford's brake
products, which contained asbestos, were unreasonably dangerous or
defective such that Ford owed a duty to warn Mr. Stockton so that
he, in turn, could protect his wife from exposure to air-borne
asbestos fibers.  The jury returned a verdict against Ford for
$3.4 million.  Ford appeals. Because the jury verdict form is
defective, in that it omits two necessary questions in products
liability cases, i.e., that the product at issue was unreasonably
dangerous or defective and that the plaintiff's injuries were
reasonably foreseeable, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee vacated
the judgment and remanded the case.

The case is JOYCE STOCKTON, ET AL., v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, No.
W2016-01175-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated May 12, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/1vK7eu from Leagle.com.

Stephen A. Marcum, Esq. -- smarcum@marcumlaw.net -- Huntsville,
Tennessee; Jonathan D. Hacker, Esq. -- jhacker@omm.com -- and Brad
N. Garcia, Esq. -- bgarcia@omm.com -- pro hac vice, Washington,
D.C., for the appellant, Ford Motor Company.

Harry Douglas Nichol, Knoxville, Tennessee; Jonathan Ruckdeschel,
pro hac vice, Ellicott City, Maryland; Robert Shuttlesworth and
Ross Stomel, pro hac vice, Houston, Texas, for the appellees,
Joyce Stockton and Ronnie Stockton.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court to Deny Reinsurer's Bid for Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company insured companies
against asbestos claims in the 1980s.  R&Q Reinsurance Company
reinsured St. Paul's insurance policies.  R&Q sued St. Paul for
declaratory judgment, alleging that St. Paul's egregiously late
notice absolved R&Q of payment under the policies and that one of
the reinsurance contractual relationships was never legally
formed.  St. Paul counterclaimed, alleging it did not receive
payments from R&Q under the reinsurance policies.  Presently
before the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania is R&Q's motion for judgment on the pleadings in
which R&Q argues that St. Paul did not adequately plead the
formation of the contract in its counterclaims.  The Court
disagrees with R&Q's argument and will deny the motion.

The case is R&Q REINSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff/Counterclaim
Defendant, v. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 16-1473 (E.D.
Pa.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated is available at
https://is.gd/G2jZLJ from Leagle.com.

R&Q REINSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, represented by LLOYD A. GURA,
Esq. -- lgura@moundcotton.com -- MOUND COTTON WOLLAN & GREENGRASS.

R&Q REINSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL H.
GOLDSTEIN, Esq. -- mgoldstein@moundcotton.com -- MOUND COTTON
WOLLAN & GREENGRASS LLP, NICHOLAS H. HORSMON, Esq. --
nhorsmon@moundcotton.com -- MOUND COTTON WOLLAN & GREENGRASS LLP,
ALEXANDER L. HARRIS, Esq. -- harrisa@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER
HAMILTON LLP & MICHAEL S. HINO, Esq. -- hinom@pepperlaw.com --
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP.

ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented
by DAVID A. ATTISANI, Esq. -- dattisani@choate.com -- CHOATE HALL
& STEWART LLP, JEAN-PAUL JAILLET, Esq. -- jjaillet@choate.com --
CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP, PAOLA TRIPODI KACZYNSKI, LAW OFFICES
WILLIAM J FERREN & ASSOC & SAMANTHA A. KRASNER, Esq. --
skrasner@choate.com -- CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP.

ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Counter Claimant,
represented by DAVID A. ATTISANI, CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP, JEAN-
PAUL JAILLET, CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP, PAOLA TRIPODI KACZYNSKI,
LAW OFFICES WILLIAM J FERREN & ASSOC & SAMANTHA A. KRASNER, CHOATE
HALL & STEWART LLP.

R&Q REINSURANCE COMPANY, Counter Defendant, represented by LLOYD
A. GURA, MOUND COTTON WOLLAN & GREENGRASS, MICHAEL H. GOLDSTEIN,
MOUND COTTON WOLLAN & GREENGRASS LLP, NICHOLAS H. HORSMON, MOUND
COTTON WOLLAN & GREENGRASS LLP & MICHAEL S. HINO, PEPPER HAMILTON
LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Not Liable for Libby Resident's Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------
In Moreau v. Transportation Ins. Co., WCC No. 2013-3216R1, the
Montana Supreme Court held that Petitioner Christita Moreau,
Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Edwin
Moreau, had standing and that the Workers' Compensation Court of
Montana had jurisdiction to decide this case on its merits.  After
remand, Respondent Transportation Insurance Co. moved for summary
judgment, arguing that it is not liable for the compensation
Moreau seeks.  Moreau objects to Transportation's motion and has
cross-moved for summary judgment.

Edwin contracted an asbestos-related occupational disease which
arose out of his employment with W.R. Grace and ultimately caused
his death.  In 2001, W.R. Grace created and funded the Libby
Medical Plan to assist Libby residents in paying for medical costs
resulting from asbestos exposure from vermiculite mining in
Lincoln County.  During Edwin's illness, the LMP paid $95,846 of
his medical bills.

Transportation initially denied liability for Edwin's occupational
disease.  During subsequent litigation, it accepted liability for
Edwin's occupational disease, and the parties stipulated to a
satisfaction of judgment.  Thereafter, Transportation reimbursed
Moreau for out-of-pocket medical expenses and paid medical bills
which had been paid by other insurers and Medicaid.

The following issues are before the Court:

   Issue One: Is Transportation liable to Moreau for $95,846,
which Transportation would have owed for certain medical bills had
another entity not paid them?

   Issue Two: Is Transportation liable for Moreau's costs and
attorney fees, plus a 20% penalty?

Since Moreau is not the prevailing party, Transportation is not
liable for her costs, attorney fees, or a penalty, and Issue Two
is therefore resolved, the Court held.

A full-text copy of the Order penned by Judge David M. Sandler
dated is available at https://is.gd/2b97WT from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Library Renovation Stuck Due to Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Schreiber, writing for Lemars Daily Sentinel, reported that
the first phase of construction at the Le Mars Public Library may
be held up.

The council was informed the proposed start date for the first
package, April 28, is in question due to the presence of asbestos.

"We're leaving that alone for the time being," City Administrator
Scott Langel said.  "The bidder is aware the city has an asbestos
issue."

Assistant City Administrator Jason Vacura said there are two
potential contractors for asbestos abatement, with one doing a
walk-through on April 20.

"We're still waiting on prices for it," Vacura said.  "They'll
come and look at it and from there generate a quote."

One of the affected areas is the canopy, but there is asbestos in
the interior and exterior of the building which will have to be
dealt with.

The canopy that juts out to the north, the 4x4 foot sheets that
were used to build that have asbestos in them," Langel said.

Vacura added tile underneath the carpet on the interior likely
also has asbestos.

At its meeting, the Le Mars City Council unanimously voted 4-0 to
award the first bid package to Wiltgen Brothers, Inc, at a total
cost of $97,400.  Councilman Ken Nelson wasn't present at the
meeting.

The first package came in over bid. Sullivan reported her estimate
was $60,000.

The first bid package deals with the demolition, concrete, and
steel.

"There are a few areas where we could get some reductions," FEH
Design Principal Architect Toi Sullivan said.  "There are some
logistical items that city staff could possibly handle
differently."

Using a dump truck instead of a dumpster and contracting with the
landfill to dispose of items was one such solution, according to
Langel.

Langel explained the cost was by no means set in stone.

"In this case, we would need to award based on these figures and
have a contract," Langel said.  "Then we can visit with the bidder
about reduction due to economies, and the issue of the asbestos."

"As soon as Jason finishes working with his sub-contractors on
asbestos abatement and figures out the net effect to the
demolition contract, then that portion can be negotiated out of
the bid," Langel said.

The demolition portion of the contract was $55,700.

Construction is set to be finished for the first bid package by
June 15.

The second construction contract is set to be awarded at the May 2
meeting, with construction beginning May 12 and finishing on
Sept. 15.

The library is closed April 10-30, as library and city staff
complete the move to the Eagles Club.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Station Closed Due to Asbestos in Tiles
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christian McPhate, writing for Dallas Observer, reported that
Dallas Fire-Rescue announced its closure in early April after an
inspection by the city revealed asbestos in the floor tiles.  City
officials claimed that it was a precautionary measure until
further testing could be conducted and that a number of stations
have been tested for asbestos issues.

"The safety of our employees is the number one priority of the
city of Dallas," Dallas spokesman Richard Hill told the Observer.
"Building materials, including floor tiles constructed before
asbestos regulations, do not automatically pose a health risk, if
the materials are deemed to be in good condition and non-friable."

Hill did not indicate why the city initiated the asbestos
inspection in the first place, but he did say that the city's
Office of Environmental Quality sent an inspector to Fire Station
57 on April 6 and then hired an environmental firm to conduct a
comprehensive asbestos assessment on April 10.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported that asbestos
can be still found in many older buildings because it was a common
material to use because of its fiber strength and fire resistance.
It was often used as insulation until the 1980s and could be found
in firefighters' older protective gear like their helmets and long
coats.

Asbestos is a particularly nasty substance if it becomes airborne
and inhaled over a long period of time.  It causes illnesses such
as asbestosis and mesothelioma and other lung cancers.  Asbestos
manufacturers eventually set aside $30 billion in a trust to pay
individuals diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases, according to
the National Mesothelioma Claims website.

A source who wished to remain anonymous because her family member
works for Dallas Fire-Rescue initially contacted the Observer,
complaining that firefighters were living in unhealthy conditions.
She claimed Fire Station 57 was shut down because the inspection
found not only asbestos but also excessive mold, rat infestation
and extreme foundation damage.  She also said Fire Station 56 was
facing similar issues.

"Do you know why firefighters are living in unhealthy conditions,
working with outdated, broken equipment?" she asked.  "Because the
mayor would rather put the money towards parks and bridges
(instead of spending it on fire station upkeep).  This man wants
to take no accountability for anything that goes wrong."

The city spokesperson indicated in his response that fire station
renovations or replacements have always been challenging in
relation to the annual budget.  In 2016, the city did replace Fire
Station 6, built in 1954, and Fire Station 44, built in 1959.  In
2015, the city replaced Fire Station 27, built in 1948, and, in
2014, replaced Fire Station 32, built in 1951.

Jim McDade, the president of Dallas Fire Association, said the
lack of station maintenance isn't a new issue.  He pointed out
that many stations are 50 to 70 years old.  "This is just another
thing in a long line of why the morale is so low," he said.

McDade said that Mayor Michael Rawlings' "vendetta against
firefighters" in regards to the pension issue isn't helping
matters, either.  Nor is the low pay, lack of resources and
personnel, which he says has caused Dallas Fire-Rescue to be more
of a training ground, since many new firefighters are leaving for
higher-paying positions at fire departments in the suburbs.

Scott Goldstein, the mayor's chief of policy and communications,
said the mayor declined to comment.  "Jim knows that he can call
or visit the mayor in person any time to discuss any issues of
concern," he wrote in an April 17 email.  "We won't engage in a
back and forth with him through the media."

But Dallas city spokesperson Richard Hill did agree that staffing
has become an issue.  "Although it has historically been rare to
lose people immediately after training, we are seeing an increase
in the number of people who leave the department after they have
completed paramedic training," he said.

Hill said the 30 Dallas Fire-Rescue personnel were allowed to
return to Fire Station 57 after the city's Office of Environmental
Quality and Office of Risk Management determined that the
asbestos-containing material did not present a risk. "This
determination was made after consideration of our consultant's
initial asbestos survey results which identified only non-friable
(non-hazardous) asbestos-containing materials in good condition,"
he said.

Asbestos in good condition and undisturbed is not likely to
present a health risk, according to the EPA .

Hill said the city is conducting comprehensive testing on Fire
Station 56 and expect to complete it in a few weeks.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prineville Business Fined Due to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Roberts, writing for KBND.com, reported that a Prineville
business has been fined for allegedly performing unlicensed
asbestos abatement work at its own facility.  Oregon's DEQ issued
the $6,600 penalty because Contact Industries employees allegedly
removed flooring from the building on North Main Street.

The company notified the DEQ after testing showed the vinyl
flooring contained asbestos.  A licensed abatement contractor was
then hired to decontaminate the affected area.  The DEQ says the
company violated state law by mishandling asbestos-containing
material.

Asbestos fibers are a respiratory hazard proven to cause lung
cancer and other health problems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Housing Devt. Raises Concerns on Mesothelioma
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma.net reported that residents of a North Carolina
housing development are voicing renewed concerns about their risk
of mesothelioma as the U. S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
starts a cleanup project in their neighborhood.  At issue is an
area near a former mill that was once used as an asbestos dumping
ground.

According to those who are currently living in the 20-home
development, the site of EPA workers mowing the lawn in white
protective clothing and gas masks is reassuring and alarming at
the same time.  Tim Mascara told the local National Public Radio
station,  "It was humorous, because you see guys in full white
suits and gas masks on, respirators on, pushing lawn mowers across
the yard. Then they caught all the clippings and put 'em on a
truck and hauled 'em off and tested 'em."  The good news is that
tests of the grass, and others measuring air quality, showed no
signs of airborne asbestos, which is the primary concern for
neighbors.  But that one relief does little to allay the angers
and fears of those who have been trying to get the asbestos clean-
up done for years.

Though the clean up project is currently getting the attention
that it deserves, it has been a long time coming.  John Armstrong
is another neighbor, and he says that his yard is one of those
that has been found to have asbestos contamination.  He says that
he and other neighbors are frustrated that it has taken them so
long, and they worry that their years of living near the
carcinogenic material may have made them vulnerable to
mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases.  "They're still
mad and angry about the years of not paying attention.  Then all
this growth going in, digging up the ground that they knew that
was infested with asbestos."

The ongoing EPA project is a $3 million Superfund program that
will pay for both testing and clean up.  Unlike many other EPA
projects, this one will be safe from potential EPA asbestos cuts
that have been proposed by the Trump administration.  Full cleanup
is slated to begin in the middle of May.  It will start with the
Davidson Presbyterian Church, then move on to the homes, digging
up and removing a foot of soil, laying down a plastic barrier,
then replacing the soil with clean soil.  Residents will be
displaced for a few days, with all expenses paid by the EPA.

If you have been exposed to asbestos then you understand the
concerns of Davidson's citizens.  For those who need information
on available medical or financial resources, Mesothelioma.net has
answers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vernon School Board to Appeal $628,000 Fine
------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Seymour, writing for The Daily Courier, reported that the
Vernon school board will appeal a fine of $628,000 levied against
the district by WorksafeBC.  Officials with the school board did
not take the proper steps to clear a leased downtown property of
asbestos, WorkSafeBC says.

"This penalty is the result of a repeat, high-risk violation for
exposing workers to asbestos, which is a known carcinogen,"
WorksafeBC spokesman Scott McCloy wrote in an email.

When school district workers were renovating the property,
required precautions to protect them from possible exposure to
asbestos were not taken, McCloy says, adding the district also
failed to ensure a qualified person inspected the worksite to
identify any potentially hazardous materials.

"We're certainly disappointed and surprised by the amount of this
fine," Vernon school district superintendent Joe Rogers said.

"It's particularly upsetting because we've already complied with
everything WorkSafe told us to do, and done a lot more beside, at
some considerable cost."

The first step in contesting a fine is to ask WorkSafeBC to review
its own decision, Rogers said.  That has already been done.

Such a review must be completed within 45 days, Rogers said, and
if WorkSafeBC upholds its own decision, the district can then
apply to an independent tribunal.

Vernon School District has a contingency fund of $1 million, which
is designed to cover unforeseen expenses "like a boiler blowing
up," Rogers said.

The $628,000 fine has already been paid, and the amount will be
returned to the school district if the financial penalty is
eliminated or reduced.

The district leased a downtown property for its Open Door Learning
Centre last May. School district officials say they weren't told
by the property owner that the building contained asbestos.

When asbestos was discovered, the hazardous material was removed.
The district also implemented a policy to identify and remove
asbestos from all buildings and revamped health and safety
regulations.

The size of the fine was calculated by WorkSafeBC using a formula
that involves the district's total payroll and its approximately
650 employees.

Rogers says that's a particularly unfair approach, because less
than a dozen maintenance employees were working at the Open
Learning Centre when the asbestos was discovered last year.

WorkSafeBC has already fined the Vernon school district $75,000
for potentially exposing workers to asbestos.

"We knew they were continuing to investigate, but we never thought
we'd get hit with another fine this large," Rogers said.

Long-term exposure to asbestos has been linked to lung cancer and
other lung diseases.  Asbestos is the No. 1 killer of workers in
B.C., WorkSafeBC says, with 584 people dying between 2006 and 2015
from diseases related to asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Jury Awards $81.5MM in Asbestos Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Washington jury has
awarded $81.5 million at the conclusion of a trial involving
asbestos-containing brake products against NAPA and Genuine Parts
Co., HarrisMartin Publishing is reporting.

The Washington Superior Court for Pierce County jury reached the
verdict after a 12-week trial and five-and-a-half hours of
deliberations. Sources told HarrisMartin that the jury's verdict
was unanimous.

The claims were asserted on behalf of Doy Coogan, who allegedly
developed peritoneal mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos-
containing brake shoes, bulk brake bands, gaskets, packing, and
clutches, distributed and sold by NAPA.  The plaintiff also
brought claims against Genuine.



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Fly-Tip Heap in Park Road
------------------------------------------------------------
Vicky Gayle, writing for Harwich and Manningtree Standard,
reported that a village has been blighted by two serious incidents
of fly-tipping -- one of which was contaminated by asbestos.

Tendring Council officers were alerted to the trouble spots in
Park Road and Mary Lane North, Great Bromley.

Asbestos within the rubbish heap in Park Road will need to be
tackled by a specialist contractor at a cost of more than
GBP3,000.

The second pile of waste contained no asbestos but blocked one
carriageway of the road causing disruption to traffic for some
hours while it was cleared.

The council is clueless as to where they had come from.

Councillor Michael Talbot, responsible for the environment, is
urging anyone with any information to come forward.

He said; "If we can find out who was responsible for these
incidents, and prove it, we will not hesitate to prosecute them.

"If anyone saw anything suspicious or actually saw the waste being
dumped, or may know where it has come from, please contact us
immediately."

Anyone who can help should contact Tending Council's helpline on
01255 686768.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Feds Demand Beech Nut on Canajoharie Cleanup
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Nearing, writing for TimesUnion, reported that more than
three years after selling its former Canajoharie plant to a shady
developer who stripped the facility and stiffed the county for $2
million in property taxes, baby food maker Beech-Nut is being told
by the federal government to clean up toxic asbestos from the
derelict eyesore.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency filed an order against
Beech-Nut, outlining the dangers of asbestos at the plant and in
the piles of demolition debris that have been exposed for the last
two years.

EPA also started emergency work to seal debris piles and building
walls to reduce the threat of airborne asbestos -- a known human
carcinogen -- to people in the small village while plans are made
to safely dispose of the debris.  That work could cost $3 million
or more.

In its order, EPA also claims that Beech-Nut knew of the asbestos
danger in 2012 before selling the property for $200,000 to Ohio-
based developer Todd Clifford in 2013.  The EPA cleanup order also
names B & B Recycling LLC, of Broken Arrow, Okla., which Clifford
hired to take down the buildings.

Promising to redevelop the 27-acre former plant, Clifford instead
stripped it of all valuable scrap metal, piled up debris on the
property and then walked away, claiming in December 2014 to have
sold the property to one of his business associates, Jeffrey
Wendel.

Neither Clifford nor Wendel have paid local property taxes going
back to 2013. Montgomery County is holding an unpaid bill of more
than $1.7 million, as it continues to debate whether to foreclose
and take ownership of the decaying environmental headache.
Beech-Nut spokeswoman Kirsten Whippel said the company is
reviewing the federal order and "will determine the appropriate
course of action, if any is required."

Company CEO and President Jeff Boutelle, who was in charge when
the company sold the site to Clifford, recently stepped down.
His replacement, Mark S. Rodriguez, the former head of Hickory
Farms, started last April.
Beech-Nut is a subsidiary of Hero AG, of Lenzburg, Switzerland, a
global conglomerate in infant food and consumer goods.

EPA officials notified Beech-Nut on Nov. 15 that the company is
responsible for the environmental cleanup of its former property,
according to the 25-page order filed April 13.  EPA asked the
company to enter into negotiations over the issue, which Beech-Nut
declined to do, according to the order.

EPA spokesman Elias Rodriguez declined comment when asked how the
agency decided that Beech-Nut remained liable for its former
property.

Beech-Nut faces a deadline to tell EPA whether it will comply with
the order.

Workers were spraying tainted debris piles with a chemical liquid
that dries into a hardened shell meant to trap asbestos from being
blown into the air, said Keith Glenn, an EPA on-site coordinator.
He said the shell lasts about six months.

The piles should be sealed within a week, with the building walls
expected to take another week, Glenn said.  The EPA has not
conducted tests for asbestos potentially in the air near and
around the plant, but Glenn said the sealing operation would
prevent such an "airborne hazard."

In 2013, according to the EPA order, Beech-Nut initially wanted
$1 million for the former century-old plant, which had been
shuttered since 2010 after the company moved to a new facility in
Florida, Montgomery County.

The company ultimately dropped the price on its old plant by 80
percent because of asbestos removal issues.

Canajoharie Mayor Francis Avery said the village had expressed
"grave concerns over airborne asbestos" possibly reaching the
nearby Mohawk River, which provides drinking water for
municipalities downstream.

"We are grateful for any measures to help remediate this problem,"
Avery said. The village also faces unpaid taxes from the Beech-Nut
property, he said. The county stopped reimbursing the village for
unpaid taxes, which now total $150,000 during the last two years,
the mayor said. That represents 10 percent of annual revenue for
the village.

Avery said he is very frustrated with the plant, where damaged
roof drains are leaking water into the building, which is being
overtaken by mold.  "I think it would be easier to demolish the
Great Pyramid," he said.

Montgomery County Executive Matt Ossenfort's office declined
comment.

Under the administration of former Gov. Eliot Spitzer, the state
provided up to $106.5 million in taxpayer-funded incentives for
Beech-Nut to move to its new $124 million facility in 2010.

And this year, the state Empire State Development department
provided the county with a $500,000 grant to help support
demolition costs at the former Beech-Nut plant.

Last summer, ESD President and CEO Howard Zemsky toured the
facility, saying his agency was examining "potential environmental
liability and chain of title" for the Canajoharie site.

The ESD press office could not update the status of any such
examination.  "We are hopeful the county will ultimately take the
title to the site, under an arrangement that would not hold them
accountable for cleanup or environmental issues," ESD spokesman
Jason Conwall said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wakefield Awarded Best Asbestos Campaigner
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Barossa Herald reported that Wakefield Regional Council have
claimed the award for Best SA Regional Council Campaigner this
year because of their commitment to educating the community and
staff about the dangers of asbestos.

In November last year, the council hosted 'Betty in Balaklava,' a
purpose built, mobile model home designed to demonstrate where
asbestos might be found in and around any Australian home built or
renovated before 1987.

They have also ensured the community was up-to-date and educated
about asbestos through information presented in the council foyer
and on the council website.

Chief executive Jason Kuchel said ensuring everyone was safe from
the dangers of asbesto was an important issue for the council.

"Preventing asbestos-related diseases in Australia is important
ongoing work," Mr Kuchel said.

"With collaborative council support, each community can be
directly informed with significant impact."

The award was won leading up to National Asbestos Awareness month
and invited governments, businesses, associations and individuals
from all over the nation to help increase awareness of the dangers
of asbestos at grassroots level.

"There are buildings across Australia that have asbesto in them
that people may come across, and if they're not aware what
asbestos is and they may not realise what they're handling," Mr
Kuchel said.

Last year, more than 500 councils nationwide registered to
participate -- the highest number of councils since the launch of
the campaign in 2012.

Wakefield Regional Council won a similar award during their first
year of participation and said they plan to continue their
involvement in upcoming campaigns.

The story Wakefield council recognised for asbestos efforts first
appeared on Northern Argus.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Cladding Stolen from Council Building
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Shand, writing for Waikato Times, reported that asbestos
cladding has been stolen from Taupo District Council's exterior
sparking further health concerns for Taupo residents.

Te Toi Ora -- the Public Health Service has also been asking
questions of council about why a fence has not been constructed
around the affected area and what steps were being taken to reduce
public harm.

It was revealed the council offices had friable asbestos in the
cladding which led to a decision to evacuate staff.

Friable asbestos is the most deadly form as it crumbles and can be
easily inhaled causing serious, and fatal, health consequences.

Despite the health and safety risks to the members of the public,
fencing was not erected around the contaminated areas meaning
people could walk right up to the potentially hazardous site.

In an email to councillors chief executive Gareth Green speculated
the asbestos was removed by someone trying to get it tested
perhaps to question the councils preferred option to demolish and
rebuild the council building at an estimated $15 million cost.
"Obviously to try and discredit or question the reports we have
out there," he wrote.

"This raises a couple of issues -- firstly it is simple vandalism,
and results in issues around weather tightness etc, and secondly
there are concerns for peoples health when they are messing with
asbestos.

"Obviously if someone uses such information in their submissions
it will be obvious that they are the offenders in this case, so it
is just a little bit dumb."

Green said Te Toi Ora -- Public Health Service contacted council
after seeing media coverage about the asbestos contamination.

"They have asked specifically why we have not fenced the affected
parts of the building off," he wrote.

"As a result of this request, we are getting advice from the
asbestos experts and, should they agree that any residual risk is
a concern and that best way to mitigate the risk is temporary
fencing to isolate the area, that will be done."

A fence has now been erected around the building.  A press release
said the damage to the building was deeply concerning and advice
on what actions needed to be taken had been sought from asbestos
removal experts.

"Their advice to isolate the risk was for the front of the
building to be fenced off, with a five metre exclusion zone, and
for the windows along the front of the building to be sealed with
notices put in place so that they are not used," he said.

Signage would also be erected warning staff and the public that
there was asbestos in the area.  The fencing will also be wrapped
in plastic tomorrow to create a wind barrier.

Green said an investigation into the cause of the damage had been
launched as there were concerns it was due to an act of vandalism.

The removed panelling is thought to have escalated the public
health risk associated with the building as the asbestos is now
exposed to the elements and the structure has been weakened.

"If that is the case it would be extremely disappointing as this
has created increased risk to both staff and our community, and
has resulted in unnecessary expense for our ratepayers."

Worksafe New Zealand would not comment about the specific
situation, or best practices, at council stating council would be
the best people to get hold of.

Toi Te Ora -- Public Health Service said they were investigating
but had no further comment at the time of printing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal Approved in Buildings Expansion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vinde Wells, writing for OgleCountyNews.com, reported that
asbestos removal is the next step in the final phase of the Ogle
County Board's plan to expand parking near the judicial center and
courthouse.

The county board approved asbestos removal at the Spoor House, 102
S. Fifth St., Oregon, and at another house belonging to the county
at 507 Jefferson St., Oregon, at a total cost of approximately
$25,000.

Gold Piece Enterprises Inc., Union, will do the work.

County board member Don Griffin, who is chairman of the Long Range
Planning Committee, said doing the houses at the same time reduced
the cost by about $1,500.

Once the asbestos at the Spoor House is removed, the building will
be demolished to make way for additional parking, the final step
in a plan begun three years ago when the county also purchased and
demolished Jackass BBQ, a restaurant on the southwest corner of
South Fifth and West Washington Streets.

The area where the restaurant had been was leveled and paved for
parking.

The Spoor House sits between the new parking lot and the judicial
center.

The county board purchased the house at 507 Jefferson Street
sometime ago as part of its 50-year plan.

Griffin said the county currently has no definite plans for that
house.

He said the asbestos removal would begin on April 19, and should
be completed by the end of the month.

In a related matter, architect Greg Reewerts of Reewerts Design
Group, Rockford, told the board that renovations to the former
Rochelle Clinic building, now owned by the county, are going well.

He said the project is on schedule and so far is under the
estimated cost of close to $1 million.

"The demolition is almost complete.  We're finding things out as
we go," he said.  "Every week we're coming up with more cost
savings."

The county board purchased the building, which was originally a
bank, in 2015 for $190,000 with the plan of locating the emergency
operations center (EOC) there, along with local offices for the
Ogle County Health and Probation Departments and the Ogle County
Emergency Management Agency Director.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Rubbish Piles Found in Great Bromley
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Townsend, writing for East Anglian Daily Times, reported
that two rubbish heaps -- one of which is contaminated with
asbestos -- have been dumped in Great Bromley.

Tendring District Council teams were called to Park Road and Mary
Lane North in Great Bromley to clean up two serious incidents of
fly-tipping.

Bosses said the small village, which is near Colchester, has been
"blighted" by the crimes.

General waste and a significant amount of asbestos was discovered
in the first pile in Park Road.

Specialist teams are to be brought in to tackle it and the council
must fork out more than GBP3,000 to clear it away.

No trace of asbestos was found in the second pile -- which was
mainly made up of rubble -- but it blocked one carriageway of Mary
Lane North causing disruption to traffic for several hours.

A hit team worked for most of the day to shovel the rubbish off
the road and clear the carriageway.

Although the council workers checked through the two tips, there
was no evidence available to suggest where they may have come
from.

Chiefs are now urging anyone living in the area who may have seen
who dumped the rubbish to come forward with information.

The council's cabinet member for environment, Michael Talbot,
said:  "If we can find out who was responsible for these incidents
-- and prove it -- we will not hesitate to prosecute them," he
said.

"If anyone saw anything suspicious or actually saw the waste being
dumped, or may know where it has come from, please contact us
immediately."

Fly-tipping is a criminal offence punishable by a fine of up to
GBP50,000 or 12 months in prison if convicted in court.

The offence can attract an unlimited fine and up to five years in
prison if convicted in a crown court.

Fixed penalty notices between GBP150 and GBP400 can also be
imposed.

Vehicles and their contents may also be seized because of
suspected involvement in fly-tipping.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bury St Edmunds Group Alarmed on Waste Hub Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Shimwell, writing for East Anglian Daily Times, reported
that concerns over the impact a new waste hub on the edge of Bury
St Edmunds could have on those suffering from exposure to asbestos
have been addressed by the councils behind the plan.

St Edmundsbury and Forest Heath want to build a GBP20 mil.
operational hub that would serve as a waste transfer station, a
household waste recycling site, and a depot for vehicles at the
Hollow Road Farm site.

However, the Asbestos Diseases Support Group, which was formed a
year ago in Bury St Edmunds, has pointed to a case in Basildon,
where a waste plant was found to contain traces of asbestos in the
air after someone brought it to the site against regulations.

The support group's chairman Brian Wallis said this linked in with
an "epidemic of fly-tipping" in East Anglia, some of which could
contain asbestos.

"The latency period for a diagnosis of asbestosis or mesothelioma
can be as much as 40-50 years after exposure.  No wonder the
residents of South Basildon were concerned for their families and
young ones," he said.

He said his group has discussed the implications the waste hub
project near Bury could have on existing mesothelioma sufferers
and also the wider matter of the exposure of residents living
downwind of the plant to toxic and particulate dust that could
come from asbestos or airborne chemical fumes.

A spokesman from the councils said: "In order to maximise
recycling and assist the responsible disposal of waste, household
waste recycling centres need to be convenient and near to the
communities that they serve."

He added: "As part of the process of developing a new waste
management facility, the site will require an environmental permit
from the Environment Agency, which is responsible for the
enforcement of waste regulations.  The councils are committed to
good and safe practice and to working with the regulators, and
will fully implement all design and operational requirements
identified by the Environment Agency."

He said the west Suffolk hub would have security fencing, lockable
access gates and CCTV to try to prevent people fly-tipping outside
the gates, which is understood to be what happened at the Basildon
site.

"Asbestos is deliberately excluded from the regular waste and
recycling services due to its hazardous nature," he added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Feds Demand Beech-Nut to Clean Up Former Plant
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Nearing, writing for TimesUnion, reported that while state
officials knew three years ago about asbestos contamination at the
former Beech-Nut plant in Montgomery County, it was the federal
government that stepped in to force the company to clean up the
decaying eyesore.

The state Labor Department, which enforces federal asbestos safety
rules, had no comment about an order issued April 13 by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency against Beech-Nut.  The company
had sold its former Canajoharie plant in 2013.

That EPA order makes no mention of state involvement during its
two-year investigation into the mishandling of asbestos during the
demolition of the massive, more than a century-old plant visible
from the state Thruway.

In 2015, state Labor Department officials repeatedly declined
comment when called by the Times Union about village complaints
over preceding months that asbestos was being mishandled during
demolition of the buildings by new owner Todd Clifford, an Ohio
developer who bought the building from Beech-Nut.

Asked about what role, if any, state officials had before EPA told
Beech-Nut that it is responsible for the mess Clifford left
behind, EPA spokesman Elias Rodriguez said federal officials
reviewed "historical records" from the Labor Department.  He
provided no further details.

The state Labor Department provided no comment when asked about
its enforcement history at Beech-Nut.

In February 2014, after Village Mayor Francis Avery raised
concerns over how asbestos was being mishandled by Clifford's
demolition crews, the Labor Department cited Clifford and his
company, TD Development, for failing to file a state-required
asbestos inventory for buildings on the 27-acre property.

A year later, Labor Department officials still repeatedly refused
to answer questions about the outcome, if any, for that violation,
or whether subsequent inspections were made or citations issued.

Currently, EPA crews are spraying a protective coating over mounds
of toxic demolition debris and plant exterior walls to prevent
loose asbestos, a known human carcinogen, from blowing into the
air.  The sprawling facility dominates the downtown of the small
village of about 2,100 residents.

Lying uncovered on the ground for the last two years, the toxic
debris piles may have exposed anyone nearby to danger, said Emily
Walsh, outreach director for the not-for-profit Mesothelioma
Cancer Alliance.  Mesothelioma is a cancer of the inner lining of
the lungs and chest wall that is linked to inhalation of asbestos.

"The asbestos debris that was left out in the open for years could
have potentially life-threatening consequences," said Walsh.
"Asbestos particles can become airborne and are toxic to breathe
in.  Once inhaled, the particles can become lodged in their
lungs."

Cancer and other asbestos-related diseases can take years to
develop.  About 90 percent of people diagnosed with mesothelioma
are dead within five years.

Meanwhile, Montgomery County officials are preparing to foreclose
on the partially demolished property for nearly $2 million in
delinquent property taxes, said County Executive Matt Ossenfort.

He said the county has a signed agreement with EPA that relieves
the county of environmental liability for petroleum spills on the
site.  "We are confident that we can address the remaining
environmental liability by this summer," he said.

To help with cleanup and demolition, the county has a $500,000
state grant, a $300,000 grant from National Grid, and an
application for a $1.5 million grant from the state Regional
Economic Development Council.

EPA has estimated that it could cost $3 million or more to safely
dispose of asbestos from the facility.

Ossenfort said he has not spoken with Beech-Nut officials about
the situation.  "It is a delicate issue.  They are still a major
employer in the county and we want to maintain a positive
relationship," he said.

Beech-Nut spokeswoman Kirsten Whippel said the company is
reviewing the federal order and "will determine the appropriate
course of action, if any is required."

The company faces a deadline to tell EPA whether it will comply
with the order.

Company CEO and President Jeff Boutelle, who was in charge when
the company sold the site to Clifford, recently stepped down. His
replacement, Mark S. Rodriguez, former head of Hickory Farms,
started last week.

Beech-Nut is a subsidiary of Hero AG, of Lenzburg, Switzerland, a
global conglomerate in infant food and consumer goods.

Under the administration of former Gov. Eliot Spitzer, the state
was to provide up to $106.5 million in taxpayer-funded incentives
for Beech-Nut to move to its new $124 million facility in Florida,
Montgomery County, in 2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Anglesey Waste Removal Raises Asbestos Concern
---------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that safety concerns have been raised over the
handling of asbestos during the removal of nuclear waste on
Anglesey.

The last nuclear reactor was switched off at Wylfa on the island
in December 2015.

The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has served an enforcement
notice on Magnox Ltd to improve its management of asbestos at the
site.

There is no risk of exposure to the public.  Magnox Ltd said it
had already started improvements.

The company, charged with removing nuclear fuel from the
decommissioned site, said there was no suggestion that any staff
had been exposed to asbestos fibres.

It has until July 28, to make changes.

An inspection of the site, carried out by the ONR, found that
while the company had committed to making improvements, action was
needed to make sure legal standards were met for managing
asbestos-containing materials.

Chief nuclear insp Dr Richard Savage said it had "no impact on
nuclear safety".

"We do require improvements to ensure that any arrangements to
manage the risk arising from the presence of asbestos are adequate
and appropriate," he said.

A statement from Magnox said the Wylfa site contained "significant
quantities of asbestos in a wide range of forms" and had an
asbestos management plan, as required by law.

It reads: "Since this issue was first identified we have mobilised
significant additional resources to ensure that it is dealt with
as a priority.

"We are also reviewing the asbestos management plans across our
business to ensure that they are all of the appropriate standard."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canada Advocates Asbestos Regulations by 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Government of Canada announced a government-wide strategy to
protect Canadians from exposure to asbestos.  As part of this
strategy, the Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health
Canada are developing new regulations to prohibit asbestos and
products containing asbestos, by 2018.

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Honourable
Catherine McKenna, announced that the Government of Canada will
fully support the listing of chrysotile asbestos to the Rotterdam
Convention and will advocate for it at the upcoming eighth meeting
of the Conference of the Parties, in Geneva.  The Government
supports the objective of the convention, which is to protect
human health and the environment by promoting informed decisions
about the import and management of certain hazardous chemicals.

In addition, the Government published a consultation document
describing the proposed regulatory approach to manage asbestos and
to solicit Canadians' views on the proposed measures.

Moving forward, Canada will continue to work domestically and
internationally to protect the environment and health of Canadians
from the risks of harmful substances.

"By supporting the listing of chrysotile asbestos to the Rotterdam
Convention, Canada is taking a concrete step to promote
responsible management of this harmful substance globally.  In
Canada, we will also put in place regulatory measures to protect
the health and safety of Canadians as we move forward toward a ban
on asbestos."

   -- Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate
      Change

"Breathing in asbestos fibres is known to cause cancer and other
devastating illnesses. The Government of Canada is committed to
reducing exposure to asbestos, and that's why we are developing
regulations to ban asbestos, as well as supporting the listing of
chrysotile asbestos to the Rotterdam Convention."

   -- Jane Philpott, Minister of Health

"Protecting the health and safety of Canadians is of utmost
importance to our government.  When it comes to asbestos, the
scientific evidence is clear.  Irrefutable evidence has led us to
take concrete action to swiftly ban asbestos and to support the
listing of chrysotile asbestos to the Rotterdam Convention.
Canadians can be confident that these actions will help ensure
their families, coworkers, and communities will be protected from
the harmful effects of asbestos exposure so they may lead healthy,
secure lives."

   -- Kirsty Duncan, Minister of Science

Quick facts

Canada is a party to the Rotterdam Convention, whose objective is
to protect human health and the environment by promoting informed
decisions about the import and management of certain hazardous
chemicals.
Asbestos was declared a human carcinogen by the World Health
Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer, in
1987.

At the height of its use, asbestos was found in more than 3000
applications worldwide; however, production and use have declined
since the 1970s.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cheeburger Demolition Raises Asbestos Concern
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Levine, writing for NewsChannel9.com, reported that since
the crash of the building that used to house Cheeburger
Cheeburger, workers have been watering the pile of rubble down
with garden hoses in an effort to cut down on dust and prevent the
potential spread of asbestos.

Tourist Cass Faller thought the hoses were being used to cut down
on the dust and she wasn't wrong.

Bob Colby is the Director at the Hamilton County Air Pollution
Control Bureau.

He told NewsChannel 9 that while the dust is a nuisance, he's more
concerned about the potential for asbestos.

Colby said it only takes one particle of asbestos to become
deadly.

"If it's breathed in it can get in the inner most recesses of the
lungs and over a period of time, usually about 25 years, it can
cause a very dangerous disease, which is usually fatal, called
mesothelioma," Colby explained,

Asbestos is usually found in older buildings built "in the 1920's
and 1970's," Colby said.

When it's found, regulations require "it be removed prior to
demolition," he said.

In the case of Cheeburger Cheeburger, crews weren't able to test
for the material prior to demolition "as a result of the dangerous
condition of the partially collapsed building," Colby explained.

Colby and his crew decided to air on the side of caution,
instructing "the demo contractor to treat all of the material in
the demo as if it contained asbestos."

That means hosing down the dust and when it's time to cart away
the rubble, Colby says "it will be placed in a landfill and
promptly covered up by the landfill operator in accordance with
state and federal laws."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal Begins at Alpena County Jail
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schulwitz, writing for The Alpena News, reported that work
to remove asbestos from areas in the Alpena County Jail will begin
in the coming weeks, but it is still unknown if there is more or
how much more there could be in the facility.

During the Alpena County Board of Commissioners Finance Committee
meeting Wednesday, Maintenance Superintendent Wes Wilder updated
the commissioners on what is being done at the jail in terms of
asbestos removal.  He also asked for between $2,000 and $3,000 to
have an asbestos survey done to the rest of the sheriff's
department to see if there is more, where it is and if it is
capable of going airborne and becoming a health issue.

"We found some in the tunnel, boiler room and in the flooring
tile," Wilder said.  "A lot of areas in the jail have been tested,
but since we are having some removed, it is best to have the rest
of the building looked at and it will be cheaper to have it done
now."

Wilder said the project to remediate the asbestos from the jail is
about $12,000.  He said there could be an additional $5,000 to
reinsulate pipes and do other repair work.

It is recommended that an asbestos survey be done on facilities
periodically to see if there is any and if so it isn't creating a
health hazard.  Wilder said there has been occasions when the
county was doing a project in one of its buildings and stumbled
across asbestos, which delayed the project until it was removed.
He said the survey will help to eliminate that hurdle because he
will know where there is asbestos before a project begins.

"It may be a little expensive, but I think it is a good thing to
have done," Wilder said.  "We have had to totally shut down
projects in the past and wait for it to be taken out before we
could resume.  That costs us time and money."

Because some of the county-owned buildings are older and asbestos
was used in them, Wilder said it would be a good idea to have a
survey done to all of them so there aren't any surprises down the
road.  He said there are times where asbestos is in a building,
but it is not a risk to go airborne and can remain and monitored.
Nevertheless he said he intends to propose doing more asbestos
studies to the board of commissioners soon.

"This fall I will be asking for funds for surveys," Wilder said.
"I don't know if we will be able to do them all at once because of
the cost, but maybe we can spread them out a little.  It is
something that I think needs to be done though."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mayor Hopes Asbestos Fill Land be Up for Sale
--------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Howie, writing for The Border Mail, reported that Berrigan
Council's mayor hopes land affected by loose-fill asbestos will be
offered for sale promptly after its remediation.

Matthew Hannan said many of the 19 Berrigan properties with the
dangerous material had been sold to the NSW government, fenced off
and sealed ahead of demolition.

"As quick as the asbestos can be removed, the houses removed and
the blocks rehabilitated, then we'd like to see the state
government get those blocks back on the market," Cr Hannan said.

"Hopefully . . . people are confident enough to purchase these
blocks.

"It's a real opportunity there, I'd suggest.

"If there's 18 blocks in our community up for sale, it's an
opportunity for people to build in some prominent areas."

A NSW Fair Trading spokesman said demolition had begun in
Berrigan, with one property remediated and removed from the loose-
fill asbestos insulation register.

The government had bought 14 properties in the shire, with 18 in
total taking part in its voluntary purchase and demolition
program.

Only Greater Hume (37) and Queanbeyan (60) councils recorded more
positive results to asbestos than Berrigan's 19, of which 18 were
located in Finley.

Cr Hannan, who lives in Finley, said owners had been shocked to
learn their homes contained the dangerous material as insulation.

"I think there was probably disappointment and confusion in the
early days, but I think people have just got on with their lives,
what else can they do?" he said.

"The ones that I've talked to have remained in Finley."

To date, 1078 properties in Berrigan have been tested for loose-
fill asbestos.

"I had my house checked, thankfully it tested negative," Cr Hannan
said.

"Now we have the certificate that says that we don't have any
loose-fill asbestos in our property.

"That certificate is very important."

NSW Minister for Innovation and Better Regulation Matt Kean will
visit Holbrook, where 33 homes have tested positive, to discuss
the program with residents and Greater Hume Council.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Reverses Decision on Asbestos Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reported that the Third Circuit
ruled that a common exclusion found in a Travelers policy bars
coverage for claims arising out of asbestos in any form, limiting
insurers' potential exposure to asbestos injury claims by
precluding policyholders from arguing that the exclusionary
language is ambiguous and doesn't extend to products containing
the carcinogen.

In a published opinion, a panel of the appellate court reversed a
Pennsylvania district court's decision that Travelers Surety &
Casualty Co. cannot enforce a policy exclusion for claims "arising
out of asbestos" to deny coverage to General Refractories Co. for
scores of lawsuits brought by plaintiffs who allege they were
injured by exposure to asbestos contained in the company's fire-
resistant industrial products.

The panel disagreed with GRC's position that the asbestos
exclusion is ambiguous and could reasonably be read to encompass
only claims tied to exposure to asbestos in its raw mineral form.

Pursuant to Pennsylvania law, the phrase "arising out of" is
governed by the broad "but for" causation standard, which doesn't
require a showing that a product proximately caused an injury,
according to the opinion.  When the but-for standard is applied,
the losses in the underlying suits against GRC fall within
Travelers' asbestos exclusion, regardless of whether the exclusion
is interpreted to apply to asbestos in any form or solely the raw
mineral, the panel said.

According to the panel, a decision applying a broad interpretation
of the "arising out of" language was necessary to promote
consistency among insurance contracts in Pennsylvania, noting the
prevalence of the exclusionary language at issue.

"Were we to ignore the consistent and explicit meaning assigned to
the phrase ['arising out of'] in Pennsylvania insurance
exclusions, we would cast doubt on a tradition of interpretation
that many parties have relied upon in defining their contractual
obligations," U.S. Circuit Judge Michael I. Vanaskie wrote for the
panel.  "Parties to an insurance contract must be able to place
faith in consistent interpretations of common language when
drafting their policies if they are to properly allocate the risks
involved."

Crowell & Moring LLP partner Laura Foggan, who represented the
insurance industry groups American Insurance Association and
Complex Insurance Claims Litigation Association as amici in
support of Travelers, said the decision marks a significant
victory for insurers and prevents upheaval in the insurance market
by endorsing Pennsylvania courts' traditionally expansive
interpretation of the "arising out of" language.

"From a broader perspective, this is an important ruling because
of the court's recognition of the fact that contract language
needs to be applied in a consistent fashion so parties can rely on
traditional interpretation and enforcement of policies in a
reliable way," Foggan said.

Meanwhile, Amy Bach, executive director of the policyholder
advocacy group United Policyholders, which filed an amicus brief
in support of GRC, called the appellate panel's rejection of GRC's
ambiguity argument "very disappointing."

"Decisions like the Third Circuit's don't give the proper weight
to reasonable expectations of the policyholder," Bach said.

The asbestos exclusion in the Travelers policies eliminates
coverage for amounts that GRC becomes legally obligated to pay for
injuries or losses arising out of asbestos.

Over the course of long-running litigation over coverage for
thousands of asbestos claims against GRC, Travelers has contended
that the exclusion is subject to only one reasonable
interpretation -- that claims for injuries related to asbestos in
any form are excluded from coverage. GRC countered that the term
"asbestos" plainly connotes the physical substance in its raw
form, which the company did not produce.

During a November 2014 bench trial before U.S. District Judge L.
Felipe Restrepo, GRC presented evidence indicating that it was
standard practice in the insurance industry between the late 1970s
and 1985 to distinguish between claims stemming from direct
exposure to asbestos fibers and exposure to asbestos-containing
products.

In March 2015, Judge Restrepo found GRC had set forth a reasonable
interpretation of the asbestos exclusion, without ruling on which
party's interpretation was more reasonable.  As such, the judge
determined that the exclusion is ambiguous and must be construed
in GRC's favor.

After the district judge issued his ruling, GRC and Travelers
decided to forgo a trial over damages and stipulated to cap the
insurer's potential payout at $21 million.  Judge Restrepo tacked
an additional $15.3 million onto that sum in September 2015, and
Travelers appealed to the Third Circuit the following month.

In the opinion, the Third Circuit panel said Judge Restrepo
erroneously focused his analysis on the proper meaning of the term
"asbestos" in Travelers' exclusion.

Instead, the district judge should have concentrated on the
correct meaning of the antecedent "arising out of" language, the
appellate panel said.  And Pennsylvania law dictates that all of
the claims against GRC arose out of asbestos under the but-for
causation standard, according to the panel.

"The provision plainly encompasses losses that would not have
occurred but for asbestos or which are causally connected to
asbestos," Judge Vanaskie wrote.  "Pennsylvania law permits no
other interpretation."

According to some attorneys, the appellate panel's adoption of a
broad reading of the phrase "arising out of" averted what could
have been a costly expansion of insurers' exposure to asbestos-
related claims against their policyholders.

"Even in the context of a policy exclusion, that language has been
interpreted broadly by Pennsylvania courts," said Clark & Fox
partner Michael S. Savett, who represents insurers.  "The 'but
for' nexus that triggers an exclusion with 'arising out of'
phrasing is much broader than the narrow interpretation that
policyholders would have judges believe."

United Policyholders' Bach, however, said the opinion was
troubling because insurance companies already have the upper hand
in drafting the terms of even the most generic policies.  As such,
she said, any potential ambiguity in policy provisions or
exclusions should be interpreted in the policyholder's favor.

"I think the biggest concern I have as an advocate for
policyholders throughout the country is the way the court looked
at the policy language and didn't find the ambiguity we felt is
there," Bach said.  "At the end of the day, policyholders pay very
substantial sums of money for financial protection, and we need
the courts to apply a balanced approach not in favor of insurers."

According to Savett, the Third Circuit's decision could have a
wide-ranging impact on a variety of policy exclusions containing
the "arising out of" language, not just those dealing with
asbestos.

"Many exclusions in general liability policies include 'arising
out of' language, whether it be an asbestos exclusion, an assault
and battery exclusion, an intentional injury exclusion, or a mold
exclusion," Savett said.  "The impact of this decision goes well
beyond the immediate facts of this case."

Gregory D. Podolak, managing partner of Saxe Doernberger & Vita
PC's Southeast office, said the ruling is a cautionary tale that
should galvanize policyholders and their insurance brokers to take
a closer look at policies to delete or curtail broad "arising out
of" language in exclusions.  Otherwise, insureds could find
themselves without any coverage for claims even remotely related
to a certain product, he said.

"It is incumbent on policyholders and their brokers or insurance
advisers to be thinking strategically, and to the extent an
exclusion contains this type of broad language, they should have a
dialogue with their carriers and push back to try to limit its
use," Podolak said.

Still, despite the Third Circuit panel's emphatic pronouncements
about the meaning of the phrase "arising out of" in insurance
policies governed by Pennsylvania law, it left open the
possibility of future challenges in cases involving different
policy language and circumstances, noted Blank Rome LLP partner
John Gibbons.  The panel indicated that "future parties may
present evidence demonstrating a meaning of 'arising out of' that
is unique to their contract."

"The decision leaves the door open to a different result based on
future evidence of the meaning of phrase ['arising out of'] as a
whole, as opposed to evidence solely about the meaning of the word
asbestos," Gibbon said.

General Refractories is represented by Michael Conley and Meghan
Finnerty of Offit Kurman and Howard J. Bashman of Law Offices of
Howard J. Bashman.

Travelers is represented by Samuel Arena Jr., Daniel Fitch and
William Mandia of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP and Theodore
Boutrous Jr., Richard Doren, Blaine Evanson and Cameron Kistler of
Gibson Dunn.

The case is General Refractories Co. v. First State Insurance Co.,
case number 15-3409, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: County Approves Asbestos Survey on Ex Owl's Nest
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Morris Sun Tribune reported that the Stevens County Board of
Commissioners approved an asbestos survey on the former Owl's Nest
building in the Hancock business district.

The building is one of several slated for demolition to make room
for a new apartment complex on 6th Street.  The project is a joint
venture between the city of Hancock, Stevens County and Midwest
Minnesota Community Development Corporation, the parent company of
Community Development Bank in Hancock.  Midwest Minnesota
Community Development Corporation is building the complex

The county owns the former Owl's Nest which was owned by several
other people after the owners of the Owl's Nest sold the building.

Stevens County Coordinator Becky Young said the city of Hancock
did an asbestos survey several years ago but the building needs
another survey, she said.

"The material will be going to our landfill," Young said. The
county does not want asbestos in the landfill.

Young said after the meeting the asbestos survey will determine if
any material needs to be stripped out of the building before
demolition.

The board approved a contract with West Central Environmental
Consultants to complete the asbestos survey at an anticipated cost
of $1,200 to $1,500.  The survey is to be completed within roughly
two to three weeks of the board's approval.

"Is this just for our building? " board chairman Ron Staples
asked.

Young said the survey is only for the county-owned property.  The
other buildings are owned by MMCDC.

The board also signed a contract for demolition.

The contractor had hoped to start demolition in April or May.

Hancock Mayor Bruce Malo said at a recent city council meeting
that demolition won't start until after MMCDC completes a revised
design.

Young said she was in discussions about the revised design.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Still Faces Illness Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., remains a co-defendant in cases
alleging asbestos-induced illness involving claims by
approximately 5,120 plaintiffs as of March 31, 2017, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "In each instance, the Company is one of a
large number of defendants.  The asbestos claimants seek
compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified
sums.  Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant
in other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 53,160
of those claims were dismissed, 22 were tried to defense verdicts,
seven were tried to plaintiff verdicts (one of which is being
appealed), one was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount
and 771 were decided in favor of the Company following summary
judgment motions."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/vdTXTK


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Still Faces NARCO PI Action
------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. remains a defendant in asbestos-
related personal injury action related to predecessor company
North American Refractories Company (NARCO), according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

Narco, which was sold in 1986, produced refractory products
(bricks and cement used in high temperature applications).

The Company states, "Claimants consist largely of individuals who
allege exposure to NARCO asbestos-containing refractory products
in an occupational setting.

"In connection with NARCO's emergence from bankruptcy on April 30,
2013, a federally authorized 524(g) trust (NARCO Trust) was
established for the evaluation and resolution of all existing and
future NARCO asbestos claims.  Both Honeywell and NARCO are
protected by a permanent channeling injunction barring all present
and future individual actions in state or federal courts and
requiring all asbestos related claims based on exposure to NARCO
asbestos-containing products to be made against the NARCO Trust.
The NARCO Trust reviews submitted claims and determines award
amounts in accordance with established Trust Distribution
Procedures approved by the Bankruptcy Court which set forth the
criteria claimants must meet to qualify for compensation
including, among other things, exposure and medical criteria that
determine the award amount.  In addition, Honeywell provided, and
continues to provide, input to the design of control procedures
for processing NARCO claims, and has on-going audit rights to
review and monitor the claims processors' adherence to the
established requirements of the Trust Distribution Procedures.

"Honeywell is obligated to fund NARCO asbestos claims submitted to
the NARCO Trust which qualify for payment under the Trust
Distribution Procedures (Annual Contribution Claims), subject to
annual caps of US$140 million in the years 2017 and 2018 and
US$145 million for each year thereafter.  However, the initial
US$100 million of claims processed through the NARCO Trust (the
Initial Claims Amount) will not count against the annual cap and
any unused portion of the Initial Claims Amount will roll over to
subsequent years until fully utilized.  In 2015, Honeywell filed
suit against the NARCO Trust in Bankruptcy Court alleging breach
of certain provisions of the Trust Agreement and Trust
Distribution Procedures.  The parties agreed to dismiss the
proceeding without prejudice pursuant to an 18 month Standstill
Agreement that expires in October 2017.  Claims processing will
continue during this period subject to a defined dispute
resolution process.  As of March 31, 2017, Honeywell has not made
any payments to the NARCO Trust for Annual Contribution Claims.

"Honeywell is also responsible for payments due to claimants
pursuant to settlement agreements reached during the pendency of
the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to
submit claims to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification under
the terms of the settlement agreements and Trust Distribution
Procedures criteria (Pre-established Unliquidated Claims), which
amounts are estimated at US$150 million and are expected to be
paid during the initial years of trust operations (US$5 million of
which has been paid since the effective date of the NARCO Trust).
Such payments are not subject to the annual cap.

"Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated
liability for pre-established unliquidated claims (US$145
million), unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for
bankruptcy protection (US$31 million) and for the estimated value
of future NARCO asbestos claims expected to be asserted against
the NARCO Trust (US$743 million).  The estimate of future NARCO
claims is based on a commonly accepted methodology used by
numerous bankruptcy courts addressing 524(g) trusts and also
reflects disputes concerning implementation of the Trust
Distribution Procedures by the NARCO Trust, a lack of sufficient
trust claims processing experience, as well as the stay of all
NARCO asbestos claims which remained in place throughout NARCO's
Chapter 11 case.  Some critical assumptions underlying this
commonly accepted methodology include claims filing rates, disease
criteria and payment values contained in the Trust Distribution
Procedures, estimated approval rates of claims submitted to the
NARCO Trust and epidemiological studies estimating disease
instances.  The estimated value of future NARCO claims was
originally established at the time of the NARCO Chapter 11 filing
reflecting claims expected to be asserted against NARCO over a
fifteen year period.  This projection resulted in a range of
estimated liability of US$743 million to US$961 million.  We
believe that no amount within this range is a better estimate than
any other amount, and accordingly, we have recorded the minimum
amount in the range.

"Our insurance receivable corresponding to the estimated liability
for pending and future NARCO asbestos claims reflects coverage
which reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity
and defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance
policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the
domestic insurance market and the London excess market.  We
conduct analyses to estimate the probable amount of insurance that
is recoverable for asbestos claims.  While the substantial
majority of our insurance carriers are solvent, some of our
individual carriers are insolvent, which has been considered in
our analysis of probable recoveries.  We made judgments concerning
insurance coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent
with our historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent
solvency issues surrounding insurers.

"Projecting future events is subject to many uncertainties that
could cause the NARCO-related asbestos liabilities or assets to be
higher or lower than those projected and recorded.  Given the
uncertainties, we review our estimates periodically, and update
them based on our experience and other relevant factors.
Similarly, we will reevaluate our projections concerning our
probable insurance recoveries in light of any changes to the
projected liability or other developments that may impact
insurance recoveries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/mHGikG


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Still Faces Bendix PI Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. remains a defendant in asbestos-
related personal injury action related to predecessor company
Bendix Friction Materials (Bendix) business, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

Bendix, which was sold in 2014, manufactured automotive brake
parts that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form

The Company states, "Claimants consist largely of individuals who
allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or
being in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake
replacements.

"It is not possible to predict whether resolution values for
Bendix-related asbestos claims will increase, decrease or
stabilize in the future.

"Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated
liability for resolution of pending (claims actually filed as of
the financial statement date) and future Bendix-related asbestos
claims.  We have valued Bendix pending and future claims using
average resolution values for the previous five years.  We update
the resolution values used to estimate the cost of Bendix pending
and future claims during the fourth quarter each year.

"The liability for future claims represents the estimated value of
future asbestos related bodily injury claims expected to be
asserted against Bendix over the next five years.  Such estimated
cost of future Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic
claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease
classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the
previous five years.  In light of the uncertainties inherent in
making long-term projections, as well as certain factors unique to
friction product asbestos claims, we do not believe that we have a
reasonable basis for estimating asbestos claims beyond the next
five years.

"Our insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for
settlement of pending and future Bendix asbestos claims reflects
coverage which is provided by a large number of insurance policies
written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic
insurance market and the London excess market.  Based on our
ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance
receivables are recorded in the financial statements simultaneous
with the recording of the estimated liability for the underlying
asbestos claims.  This determination is based on our analysis of
the underlying insurance policies, our historical experience with
our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency of our insurers,
judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs, and
our consideration of the impacts of any settlements reached with
our insurers.

"Honeywell believes it has sufficient insurance coverage and
reserves to cover all pending Bendix-related asbestos claims and
Bendix-related asbestos claims estimated to be filed within the
next five years.  Although it is impossible to predict the outcome
of either pending or future Bendix-related asbestos claims, we do
not believe that such claims would have a material adverse effect
on our consolidated financial position in light of our insurance
coverage and our prior experience in resolving such claims.  If
the rate and types of claims filed, the average resolution value
of such claims and the period of time over which claim settlements
are paid (collectively, the Variable Claims Factors) do not
substantially change, Honeywell would not expect future Bendix-
related asbestos claims to have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations or operating cash flows in any fiscal year.
No assurances can be given, however, that the Variable Claims
Factors will not change."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/mHGikG


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Still Faces PI Suits at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. continues to face lawsuits and claims
for alleged personal injury or health problems resulting from
exposure to asbestos that was integrated into certain of the
Company's products, according to the Form 10-Q filed by the
Company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "We have never manufactured asbestos and have
not incorporated asbestos-containing components into our products
for several decades.  A substantial majority of asbestos-related
claims have been covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity
or have been dismissed without payment.  The remainder of our
closed cases have been resolved for amounts that are not material,
individually or in the aggregate.

"Our defense costs for asbestos-related claims are generally
covered by insurance; however, our insurance coverage for
settlements and judgments for asbestos-related claims varies
depending on several factors and are subject to policy limits, so
we may have greater financial exposure for future settlements and
judgments.

"For the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, expense for
asbestos-related litigation was US$1.7 million and US$0.8 million,
respectively, net of probable insurance recoveries, for known and
future asbestos-related litigation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Jqjxlf


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Still Protected from PC Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., is still protected under a permanent
channeling injunction under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code
that prohibits present and future claimants from asserting claims
against the Company that arise out of exposure to asbestos or
asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold or distributed by
Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PC") or asbestos on or emanating
from any PC premises, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Prior to 2000, the Company had been named as
a defendant in numerous claims alleging bodily injury from (i)
exposure to asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured,
sold or distributed by the Company, its subsidiaries, or for which
they are otherwise alleged to be liable; (ii) exposure to asbestos
allegedly present at a facility owned or leased by the Company; or
(iii) exposure to asbestos-containing products of PC for which the
Company was alleged to be liable under a variety of legal theories
(the Company and Corning Incorporated were each 50% shareholders
in PC).

"In 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania in an effort to permanently
and comprehensively resolve all of its pending and future
asbestos-related liability claims.  At the time of the bankruptcy
filing, the Company had been named as one of many defendants in
approximately 114,000 open claims.  The Bankruptcy Court
subsequently entered a series of orders preliminarily enjoining
the prosecution of asbestos litigation against PPG until after the
effective date of a confirmed PC plan of reorganization.  During
the pendency of this preliminary injunction staying asbestos
litigation against PPG, PPG and certain of its historical
liability insurers negotiated a settlement with representatives of
present and future asbestos claimants.  That settlement was
incorporated into a PC plan of reorganization that was confirmed
by the Bankruptcy Court on May 24, 2013 and ultimately became
effective on April 27, 2016.

"With the effectiveness of the plan, the preliminary injunction
staying the prosecution of asbestos litigation against PPG expired
by its own terms on May 27, 2016.  In accordance with the
settlement, the Bankruptcy Court issued a permanent channeling
injunction under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code that
prohibits present and future claimants from asserting claims
against PPG that arise, in whole or in part, out of exposure to
asbestos or asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold and/or
distributed by PC or asbestos on or emanating from any PC
premises.  The channeling injunction, by its terms, also prohibits
codefendants in cases that are subject to the channeling
injunction from asserting claims against PPG for contribution,
indemnification or other recovery.

"The channeling injunction also precludes the prosecution of
claims against PPG arising from alleged exposure to asbestos or
asbestos-containing products to the extent that a claimant is
alleging or seeking to impose liability, directly or indirectly,
for the conduct of, claims against, or demands on PC by reason of
PPG's: (i) ownership of a financial interest in PC; (ii)
involvement in the management of PC, or service as an officer,
director or employee of PC or a related party; (iii) provision of
insurance to PC or a related party; or (iv) involvement in a
financial transaction affecting the financial condition of PC or a
related party.  The foregoing PC related claims are referred to as
"PC Relationship Claims."

"The channeling injunction channels the Company's liability for PC
Relationship Claims to a trust funded in part by PPG and its
participating insurers for the benefit of current and future PC
asbestos claimants (the "Trust").  The Trust is the sole recourse
for holders of PC Relationship Claims.  PPG and its affiliates
have no further liability or responsibility for, and will be
permanently protected from, pending and future PC Relationship
Claims.  The channeling injunction does not extend to present and
future claims against PPG that arise out of alleged exposure to
asbestos or asbestos-containing products historically
manufactured, sold and/or distributed by PPG or its subsidiaries
or for which they are alleged to be liable that are not PC
Relationship Claims, and does not extend to claims against PPG
alleging personal injury allegedly caused by asbestos on premises
presently or formerly owned, leased or occupied by PPG.  These
claims are referred to as non-PC Relationship Claims.

"In accordance with the PC plan of reorganization, PPG's equity
interest in PC was canceled.  PPG satisfied its funding
obligations to the Trust on June 9, 2016, when it conveyed to the
Trust the stock it owned in Pittsburgh Corning Europe and
2,777,778 shares of PPG's common stock and made a cash payment to
the Trust in the amount of US$764 million.  PPG's historical
insurance carriers participating in the PC plan of reorganization
are required to make cash payments to the Trust of approximately
US$1.7 billion, subject to a right of prepayment at a 5.5%
discount rate.

"On October 13, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order
entering a final decree and closing the Chapter 11 case.  That
order provided that the Bankruptcy Court retained jurisdiction to
enforce any order issued in the case and any agreements approved
by the court, enforce the terms and conditions of the modified
third amended Plan, and consider any requests to reopen the case."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ipPdVg


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 114K Claims v. PPG Industries Inactive, Closed
---------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., has considered 114,000 reportable asbestos-
related claims, which are not related to Pittsburgh Corning
Corporation ("PC"), to be closed or inactive litigation as they
relate to the Company, according to PPG's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2017.

Prior to 2000, the Company had been named as a defendant in
numerous claims alleging bodily injury from (i) exposure to
asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured, sold or
distributed by the Company, its subsidiaries, or for which they
are otherwise alleged to be liable; (ii) exposure to asbestos
allegedly present at a facility owned or leased by the Company; or
(iii) exposure to asbestos-containing products of PC for which the
Company was alleged to be liable under a variety of legal theories
(the Company and Corning Incorporated were each 50% shareholders
in PC).

In 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The Company states, "At the time PC filed for bankruptcy, PPG had
been named as one of many defendants in one or more of the
categories of asbestos-related claims.  Over the course of the 16
years during which the PC bankruptcy proceedings, and
corresponding preliminary injunction staying the prosecution of
asbestos-related claims against PPG, were pending, certain
plaintiffs alleging premises claims filed motions seeking to lift
the stay with respect to more than 1,000 individually-identified
premises claims.  The Bankruptcy Court granted motions to lift the
stay in respect to certain of these premises claims and directed
PPG to engage in a process to address any additional premises
claims that were the subject of pending or anticipated lift-stay
motions.  As a result of the overall process as directed by the
Bankruptcy Court involving more than 1,000 premises claims between
2006 and May 27, 2016, hundreds of these claims were withdrawn or
dismissed without payment and approximately 650 premises claims
were dismissed upon agreements by PPG and its insurers to resolve
such claims in exchange for monetary payments.

"With respect to the remaining claims not identified and still
reportable within the inventory of 114,000 asbestos-related claims
at the time PC filed for bankruptcy, the Company considers such
claims to fall within one or more of the following categories: (1)
claims that have been closed or dismissed as a result of processes
undertaken during the bankruptcy; (2) claims that may have been
previously filed on the dockets of state and federal courts in
various jurisdictions, but are inactive as to the Company; and (3)
claims that are subject, in whole or in part, to the channeling
injunction and thus will be resolved, in whole or in part, in
accordance with the Trust procedures established under the PC
bankruptcy reorganization plan.  As a result of the foregoing, the
Company does not consider these three categories of claims to be
open or active litigation against it, although the Company cannot
now determine whether, or the extent to which, any of these claims
may in the future be reinstituted, reinstated, or revived such
that they may become open and active asbestos-related claims
against it."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ipPdVg


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 650 Claims vs. PPG Industries Active, Open
-----------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2017, that it is aware of approximately 650 open and
active asbestos-related claims pending against the Company and
certain of its subsidiaries as of March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "These claims consist primarily of non-PC
Relationship Claims and claims against a subsidiary of PPG.  The
Company is defending the remaining open and active claims
vigorously.

"Since April 1, 2013, a subsidiary of PPG has been implicated in
claims alleging death or injury caused by asbestos-containing
products manufactured, distributed or sold by a North American
architectural coatings business or its predecessors which was
acquired by PPG.  All such claims have been either served upon or
tendered to the seller for defense and indemnity pursuant to
obligations undertaken by the seller in connection with the
Company's purchase of the North American architectural coatings
business.  The seller has accepted the defense of these claims
subject to the terms of various agreements between the Company and
the seller.  The seller's defense and indemnity obligations in
connection with newly filed claims will cease with respect to
claims filed after April 1, 2018.

"PPG has established reserves totaling approximately US$180
million for asbestos-related claims that would not be channeled to
the Trust which, based on presently available information, we
believe will be sufficient to encompass all of PPG's current and
potential future asbestos liabilities.  These reserves include a
US$162 million reserve established in 2009 in connection with an
amendment to the PC plan of reorganization.  These reserves, which
are included within "Other liabilities" on the accompanying
consolidated balance sheets, represent PPG's best estimate of its
liability for these claims.  PPG does not have sufficient current
claim information or settlement history on which to base a better
estimate of this liability in light of the fact that the
Bankruptcy Court's injunction staying most asbestos claims against
the Company was in effect from April 2000 through May 2016.  PPG
will monitor the activity associated with its remaining asbestos
claims and evaluate, on a periodic basis, its estimated liability
for such claims, its insurance assets then available, and all
underlying assumptions to determine whether any adjustment to the
reserves for these claims is required.

"The amount reserved for asbestos-related claims by its nature is
subject to many uncertainties that may change over time, including
(i) the ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) the amounts required
to resolve both currently known and future unknown claims; (iii)
the amount of insurance, if any, available to cover such claims;
(iv) the unpredictable aspects of the litigation process,
including a changing trial docket and the jurisdictions in which
trials are scheduled; (v) the outcome of any trials, including
potential judgments or jury verdicts; (vi) the lack of specific
information in many cases concerning exposure for which PPG is
allegedly responsible, and the claimants' alleged diseases
resulting from such exposure; and (vii) potential changes in
applicable federal and/or state tort liability law.  All of these
factors may have a material effect upon future asbestos-related
liability estimates.  As a potential offset to any future asbestos
financial exposure, under the PC plan of reorganization PPG
retained, for its own account, the right to pursue insurance
coverage from certain of its historical insurers that did not
participate in the PC plan of reorganization.  While the ultimate
outcome of PPG's asbestos litigation cannot be predicted with
certainty, PPG believes that any financial exposure resulting from
its asbestos-related claims will not have a material adverse
effect on PPG's consolidated financial position, liquidity or
results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ipPdVg


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Still Faces PI Suits at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Badger Meter, Inc., still defends itself, among other defendants,
in asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Like other companies in recent years, the
Company is named as a defendant in numerous pending multi-
claimant/multi-defendant lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos, manufactured by third parties, and
in the past may have been integrated into or sold with a very
limited number of the Company's products.  The Company is
vigorously defending itself against these claims.  Although it is
not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters, the
Company does not believe the ultimate resolution of these issues
will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position or results of operations, either from a cash flow
perspective or on the financial statements as a whole.  This
belief is based in part on the fact that no claimant has proven or
substantially demonstrated asbestos exposure caused by products
manufactured or sold by the Company and that a number of cases
have been voluntarily dismissed."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/cdtOGe


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 81,720 U.S. Claims vs. Amec Foster Still Open
--------------------------------------------------------------
There are 81,720 open claims in the U.S. pending against Amec
Foster Wheeler plc at the end of 2016, according to Company's Form
6-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
April 25, 2017.  These include 59,660 non-malignancy claims
comprised of claims in inactive court dockets and claims over six
years old at December 31, 2016.  Mesothelioma and lung cancer
claims are considered malignant claims.

According to the Company, "The Group is subject to claims by
individuals who allege that they have suffered personal injury
from exposure to asbestos primarily in connection with equipment
allegedly manufactured by certain of the Group's subsidiaries
during the 1970s or earlier.

"We assumed the majority of our asbestos-related liabilities when
we acquired Foster Wheeler in November 2014.  Whilst some of these
claims have been and are expected to be made in the United
Kingdom, the overwhelming majority have been and are expected to
be made in the United States.  The disclosure is therefore
presented in respect of the US claims of the former Foster Wheeler
entities.  The estimates and averages presented have been
calculated on the basis of the total historical US asbestos claims
since the initiation of claims filed against such Foster Wheeler
entities.

"We expect to have net cash outflows of US$30.4m as a result of
asbestos liability indemnity and defence payments in excess of
insurance proceeds during 2017.  This estimate assumes no
additional settlements with insurance companies and no elections
by us to fund additional payments.  As we continue to collect cash
from insurance settlements, the asbestos-related insurance
receivable recorded on our consolidated balance sheet will
continue to decrease.  We have discounted the expected future cash
flows with respect to the asbestos-related liabilities and the
expected insurance recoveries using discount rates determined by
reference to appropriate risk-free market interest rates.

"We have worked with our independent asbestos valuation expert to
estimate the amount of asbestos-related indemnity and defence
costs at each year-end based on a forecast to 31 December 2050.
Each year we have recorded our estimated asbestos liability at a
level consistent with our expert's reasonable best estimate.  The
total asbestos-related liabilities are comprised of our estimates
for our liability relating to open (outstanding) claims being
valued and our liability for future un-asserted claims to 31
December 2050.

"For the period to 31 December 2016, total cumulative indemnity
costs paid, prior to insurance recoveries, were approximately
US$912m and total cumulative defence costs paid were approximately
US$474m, or approximately 34% of total defence and indemnity
costs.  The overall historic average combined indemnity and
defence cost per resolved claim through 31 December 2016 has been
approximately US$3.1k.  The average cost per resolved claim is
increasing and we believe it will continue to increase in the
future.

"Over the last several years, annual claim filings against these
Foster Wheeler entities have generally trended down.  Claims for
non-malignancies have decreased while claims for lung cancer and
mesothelioma are approximately in line with our expert's forecast.
Together with our independent asbestos valuation expert, we
continue to monitor claim filings to determine if any adjustments
to our expert's forecast are warranted.

"The estimate of the liabilities and assets related to asbestos
claims and recoveries is subject to a number of uncertainties that
may result in significant changes in the current estimates.  Among
these are uncertainties as to the ultimate number and type of
claims filed, the amounts of claim costs, the impact of
bankruptcies of other companies with asbestos claims,
uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, as well as potential
legislative changes.  Increases in the number of claims filed or
costs to resolve those claims could cause us to increase further
the estimates of the costs associated with asbestos claims and
could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows.

"As at 31 December 2016, the Group recognised:

  * an asbestos-related provision of GBP450m (after the effect of
discounting of GBP84m), which included estimates of indemnity
amounts and defence costs for open and yet to be asserted claims
expected to be incurred in each year in the period to 2050

  * insurance recoveries of GBP116m (after discounting of GBP3m)."

A full-text copy of the Form 6-K is available at
https://is.gd/eUB0rq


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has US$70MM Liability in PCC Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated has US$70 million current liability related
to asbestos matters under the reorganization plan of Pittsburgh
Corning Corporation (PCC), according to Corning Inc.'s Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.  The payment is due in the
second quarter of 2017.

The Company states, "Corning and PPG Industries, Inc. each owned
50% of the capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation
("PCC"). PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in 2000 and the
Modified Third Amended Plan of Reorganization for PCC (the "Plan")
became effective in April 2016.

"At December 31, 2015, the Company's liability under the Plan was
estimated to be US$528 million.  At December 31, 2016, this
estimated liability was US$290 million, due to the Company's
contribution, in the second quarter of 2016, of its equity
interests in PCC and Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. in the total
amount of US$238 million, as required by the Plan.  The remaining
US$290 million liability is for the series of fixed payments
required by the Plan.

"At December 31, 2016 and March 31, 2017, the total amount of the
payments due in years 2018 through 2022 is US$220 million and is
classified as a non-current liability.  The remaining US$70
million payment is due in the second quarter of 2017 and is
classified as a current liability.

"Corning is a defendant in certain cases alleging injuries from
asbestos unrelated to PCC (the "non-PCC asbestos claims") which
had been stayed pending the confirmation of the Plan.  The stay
was lifted on August 25, 2016.  Corning previously established a
US$150 million reserve for these non-PCC asbestos claims.  The
estimated reserve represents the undiscounted projection of claims
and related legal fees over the next 20 years.  The amount may
need to be adjusted in future periods as more data becomes
available; however, we cannot estimate any lesser or greater
liabilities at this time.  At December 31, 2016 and March 31,
2017, the amount of the reserve for these non-PCC asbestos claims
was US$149 million.

"Several of Corning's insurers have commenced litigation in state
courts for a declaration of the rights and obligations of the
parties under insurance policies related to Corning's asbestos
claims.  Corning has resolved these issues with a majority of its
relevant insurers, and is vigorously contesting these cases with
the remaining relevant insurers.  Management is unable to predict
the outcome of the litigation with these remaining insurers."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/4poC2D


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3,300 Claims vs. Pentair Plc Units Still Active
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair plc's subsidiaries continue to face approximately 3,300
asbestos-related claims as of March 31, 2017, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Our subsidiaries and numerous other companies
are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials.  These cases
typically involve product liability claims based primarily on
allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial
products that either contained asbestos or were attached to or
used with asbestos-containing components manufactured by third-
parties.  Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds of
corporate defendants.

"While we have observed an increase in the number of these
lawsuits over the past several years, including lawsuits by
plaintiffs with mesothelioma-related claims, a large percentage of
these suits have not presented viable legal claims and, as a
result, have been dismissed by the courts.  Our historical
strategy has been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at having
unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and, where appropriate, settling
suits before trial.  Although a large percentage of litigated
suits have been dismissed, we cannot predict the extent to which
we will be successful in resolving lawsuits in the future.

"As of March 31, 2017, there were approximately 3,300 claims
outstanding against our subsidiaries, of which approximately 2,800
relate to the Valves & Control business classified as held for
sale.  These amounts include adjustments for claims that are not
actively being prosecuted.  The amounts are not adjusted for
claims that identify incorrect defendants or duplicate other
actions.  In addition, the amounts do not include certain claims
pending against third parties for which we have been provided an
indemnification.

"Periodically, we perform an analysis with the assistance of
outside counsel and other experts to update our estimated
asbestos-related assets and liabilities.  Our estimate of the
liability and corresponding insurance recovery for pending and
future claims and defense costs is based on our historical claim
experience and estimates of the number and resolution cost of
potential future claims that may be filed.  Our legal strategy for
resolving claims also impacts these estimates.

"Our estimate of asbestos-related insurance recoveries represents
estimated amounts due to us for previously paid and settled claims
and the probable reimbursements relating to our estimated
liability for pending and future claims.  In determining the
amount of insurance recoverable, we consider a number of factors,
including available insurance, allocation methodologies and the
solvency and creditworthiness of insurers.

"Our estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was US$224.6
million and US$228.3 million as of March 31, 2017 and December 31,
2016, respectively, and was recorded in Non-current liabilities
held for sale in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for
pending and future claims and related defense costs.  Our
estimated receivable for insurance recoveries was US$107.4 million
and US$108.5 million as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016,
respectively, and was recorded in Non-current assets held for sale
in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

"The amounts recorded by us for asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance-related assets are based on our strategies for resolving
our asbestos claims and currently available information as well as
estimates and assumptions.  Key variables and assumptions include
the number and type of new claims filed each year, the average
cost of resolution of claims, the resolution of coverage issues
with insurance carriers, the amounts of insurance and the related
solvency risk with respect to our insurance carriers, and the
indemnifications we have provided to and received from third
parties.  Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables
are subject to greater uncertainty in the latter portion of the
projection period.

"Other factors that may affect our liability and cash payments for
asbestos-related matters include uncertainties surrounding the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case
to case, reforms of state or federal tort legislation and the
applicability of insurance policies among subsidiaries.  As a
result, actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be
significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions
used in our calculations vary significantly from actual results."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/6cFA0i


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Faces 1,400 Claimants at Mar. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc. has determined that it is a named defendant
in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving approximately 1,400
plaintiffs and claimants as of March 31, 2017, the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

Owens-Illinois states, "The Company is a defendant in numerous
lawsuits alleging bodily injury and death as a result of exposure
to asbestos.  From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former
business units commercially produced and sold approximately US$40
million of a high-temperature, calcium-silicate based insulation
material containing asbestos.  The Company sold its insulation
business unit at the end of April 1958.  The typical asbestos
personal injury lawsuit alleges various theories of liability,
including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and
seeks compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages in various
amounts (herein referred to as "asbestos claims").

"As of March 31, 2017, the Company has determined that it is a
named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving
approximately 1,400 plaintiffs and claimants.  Based on an
analysis of the lawsuits pending as of December 31, 2016,
approximately 88% of plaintiffs either do not specify the monetary
damages sought, or in the case of court filings, claim an amount
sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the trial
court.  Approximately 9% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages
above the jurisdictional minimum up to, and including, US$15
million or less, and 3% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages
greater than US$15 million but less than or equal to US$100
million.

"The Company has also been a defendant in other asbestos-related
lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring
claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants.  Based
upon its past experience, the Company believes that these
categories of lawsuits and claims will not involve any material
liability and they are not included in the description of pending
matters or in the following description of disposed matters.

"Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of March
31, 2017, has disposed of asbestos claims of approximately 398,000
plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment per claim
of approximately US$9,400.  The Company's asbestos indemnity
payments have varied on a per claim basis, and are expected to
continue to vary considerably over time.  Asbestos-related cash
payments for 2016, 2015 and 2014 were US$125 million, US$138
million, and US$148 million, respectively.  The Company's cash
payments per claim disposed (inclusive of legal costs) were
approximately US$71,000, US$95,000, and US$81,000 for the years
ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

"Beginning with the initial liability of US$975 million
established in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of
approximately US$4.9 billion through March 31, 2017, before
insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-related liability.  The
Company's estimates of its liability have been significantly
affected by, among other factors, the volatility of asbestos-
related litigation in the United States, the significant number of
co-defendants that have filed for bankruptcy, the inherent
uncertainty of future disease incidence and claiming patterns
against the Company, the significant expansion of the defendants
that are now sued in this litigation, and the continuing changes
in the extent to which these defendants participate in the
resolution of cases in which the Company is also a defendant.

"For the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company
concluded that accruals in the amount of US$692 million and US$817
million, respectively, were required.  These amounts have not been
discounted for the time value of money.  The Company's
comprehensive legal reviews resulted in charges of US$0 million,
US$16 million and US$46 million for the years ending December 31,
2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

"The Company believes it is reasonably possible that it will incur
a loss for its asbestos-related liabilities in excess of the
amount currently recognized, which is US$692 million as of
December 31, 2016.  The Company estimates that reasonably possible
losses could be as high as US$825 million.  This estimate of
additional reasonably possible loss reflects a legal judgment
about the number and cost of potential future claims and legal
costs.  The Company believes this estimate is consistent with the
level of variability it has experienced when comparing actual
results to recent near-term projections.  However, it is also
possible that the ultimate asbestos-related liability could be
above this estimate.

"The Company expects a significant majority of the total number of
claims to be received in the next ten years.  This timeframe
appropriately reflects the mortality of current and expected
claimants in light of the Company's sale of its insulation
business unit in 1958."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/jeNPw4


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Units Still Face Suits
------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company
continue to defend themselves against asbestos-related complaints,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of the
Company are named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in
state and federal courts.  In virtually all of the suits, a large
number of other companies have also been named as defendants.  The
vast majority of those claims have been filed against either
Ingersoll-Rand Company or Trane U.S. Inc. (Trane) and generally
allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain
historical products sold by Ingersoll-Rand Company or Trane,
primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes.  Neither
Ingersoll-Rand Company nor Trane was a producer or manufacturer of
asbestos.

"The Company engages an outside expert to assist in calculating an
estimate of the Company's total liability for pending and
unasserted future asbestos-related claims and annually performs a
detailed analysis with the assistance of an outside expert to
update its estimated asbestos-related liability.  The methodology
used to project the Company's total liability for pending and
unasserted potential future asbestos-related claims relied upon
and included the following factors, among others:

  * the outside expert's interpretation of a widely accepted
forecast of the population likely to have been occupationally
exposed to asbestos;

  * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely
to develop asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma and lung
cancer;

  * the Company's historical experience with the filing of non-
malignancy claims and claims alleging other types of malignant
diseases filed against the Company relative to the number of lung
cancer claims filed against the Company;

  * the outside expert's analysis of the number of people likely
to file an asbestos-related personal injury claim against the
Company based on such epidemiological and historical data and the
Company's most recent three-year claims history;

  * an analysis of the Company's pending cases, by type of disease
claimed and by year filed;

  * an analysis of the Company's most recent three-year history to
determine the average settlement and resolution value of claims,
by type of disease claimed;

  * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
value of claims, at a 2.5% annual inflation rate, adjusted
downward to 1.5% to take account of the declining value of claims
resulting from the aging of the claimant population; and

  * an analysis of the period over which the Company has and is
likely to resolve asbestos-related claims against it in the
future.

"At March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, over 80 percent of the
open claims against the Company are non-malignancy or unspecified
disease claims, many of which have been placed on inactive or
deferral dockets and the vast majority of which have little or no
settlement value against the Company, particularly in light of
recent changes in the legal and judicial treatment of such claims.

"The Company's asbestos insurance receivable related to Ingersoll-
Rand Company and Trane was US$127.4 million and US$137.6 million
at March 31, 2017, respectively, and US$129.6 million and US$142.9
million at December 31, 2016, respectively.

"Income and expenses associated with Ingersoll-Rand Company's
asbestos liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries are
recorded within discontinued operations, as they relate to
previously divested businesses, primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump,
which was sold by the Company in 2000.  During the first quarter
of 2016, the Company reached a settlement with an insurance
carrier related to Ingersoll-Rand Company asbestos matters.
Income and expenses associated with Trane's asbestos liabilities
and corresponding insurance recoveries are recorded within Other
income/(expense), net as part of continuing operations.
The receivable attributable to Trane for probable insurance
recoveries as of March 31, 2017 is entirely supported by
settlement agreements between Trane and the respective insurance
carriers.  Most of these settlement agreements constitute
"coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which the insurer signatories
agree to reimburse Trane for specified portions of its costs for
asbestos bodily injury claims and Trane agrees to certain claims-
handling protocols and grants to the insurer signatories certain
releases and indemnifications.

"In 2012 and 2013, Ingersoll-Rand Company filed actions in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, seeking a
declaratory judgment and other relief regarding the Company's
rights to defense and indemnity for asbestos claims.  The
defendants were several dozen solvent insurance companies,
including companies that had been paying a portion of Ingersoll-
Rand Company's asbestos claim defense and indemnity costs.  The
responding defendants generally challenged the Company's right to
recovery, and raised various coverage defenses.  Since filing the
actions, Ingersoll-Rand Company has settled with half of the
insurer defendants, and has dismissed one of the actions in its
entirety.

"The Company continually monitors the status of pending litigation
that could impact the allocation of asbestos claims against the
Company's various insurance policies.  The Company has concluded
that its Ingersoll-Rand Company insurance receivable is probable
of recovery because of the following factors:

  * Ingersoll-Rand Company has reached favorable settlements
regarding asbestos coverage claims for the majority of its
recorded asbestos-related insurance receivable;

  * a review of other companies in circumstances comparable to
Ingersoll-Rand Company, including Trane, and the success of other
companies in recovering under their insurance policies, including
Trane's favorable settlements;

  * the Company's confidence in its right to recovery under the
terms of its policies and pursuant to applicable law; and

  * the Company's history of receiving payments under the
Ingersoll-Rand Company insurance program, including under policies
that had been the subject of prior litigation.

"The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on currently
available information.  The Company's actual liabilities or
insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than
those recorded if assumptions used in the calculations vary
significantly from actual results.  Key variables in these
assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed
each year, the average cost of resolution of each such new claim,
the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, and the
solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers.
Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are
subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.
Other factors that may affect the Company's liability include
uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that may be made by
state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort
reform legislation.

"The aggregate amount of the stated limits in insurance policies
available to the Company for asbestos-related claims acquired over
many years and from many different carriers, is substantial.
However, limitations in that coverage, primarily due to the
considerations, are expected to result in the projected total
liability to claimants substantially exceeding the probable
insurance recovery."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/0t4JOZ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had 56,000 PI Claims at Mar. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. had 56,000 open claims filed against
it related to asbestos matters as of March 31, 2017, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.
These claims exclude the those filed against its indirect wholly-
owned subsidiary Hercules LLC.

The Company states, "To assist in developing and annually updating
independent reserve estimates for future asbestos claims and
related costs given various assumptions, Ashland retained
Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. (HR&A).  The methodology
used by HR&A to project future asbestos costs is based largely on
recent experience, including claim-filing and settlement rates,
disease mix, enacted legislation, open claims and litigation
defense.  The claim experience of Ashland are separately compared
to the results of previously conducted third party epidemiological
studies estimating the number of people likely to develop
asbestos-related diseases.  Those studies were undertaken in
connection with national analyses of the population expected to
have been exposed to asbestos.  Using that information, HR&A
estimates a range of the number of future claims that may be
filed, as well as the related costs that may be incurred in
resolving those claims.  Changes in asbestos-related liabilities
and receivables are recorded on an after-tax basis within the
discontinued operations caption in the Statements of Consolidated
Comprehensive Income.

"The claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to
asbestos asserted against Ashland result primarily from
indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with
the sale of Riley Stoker Corporation, a former subsidiary.

"From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results.  Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non-
discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance
of HR&A.

"During the most recent annual update of this estimate completed
during the June 2016 quarter, it was determined that the liability
for Ashland asbestos-related claims should be increased by US$37
million.  Total reserves for asbestos claims were US$397 million
at March 31, 2017 compared to US$415 million at September 30,
2016.

"Ashland has insurance coverage for certain litigation defense and
claim settlement costs incurred in connection with its asbestos
claims, and coverage-in-place agreements exist with the insurance
companies that provide substantially all of the coverage that will
be accessed.

"For the Ashland asbestos-related obligations, Ashland has
estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated
with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations
and estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance
coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance
carriers remain solvent.  Substantially all of the estimated
receivables from insurance companies are expected to be due from
domestic insurers, all of which are solvent.

"At March 31, 2017, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to US$144 million (excluding the Hercules receivable for
asbestos claims), of which US$4 million relates to costs
previously paid.  Receivables from insurers amounted to US$151
million at September 30, 2016.  During the June 2016 quarter, the
annual update of the model used for purposes of valuing the
asbestos reserve and its impact on valuation of future recoveries
from insurers was completed.  This model update resulted in a
US$16 million increase in the receivable for probable insurance
recoveries.

"Ashland entered into settlement agreements totaling US$5 million
and US$4 million with certain insurers during the March 2017 and
2016 quarters, respectively, which resulted in a reduction of the
Ashland insurance receivable within the Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets by the same amount.  During the June 2016 quarter,
Ashland placed US$4 million of the settlement funds into the
renewable annual trust."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/egY7Y8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Has 13,000 PI Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary Hercules
LLC had 13,000 open claims filed against it related to asbestos
matters as of March 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "To assist in developing and annually updating
independent reserve estimates for future asbestos claims and
related costs given various assumptions, Ashland retained
Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. (HR&A).  The methodology
used by HR&A to project future asbestos costs is based largely on
recent experience, including claim-filing and settlement rates,
disease mix, enacted legislation, open claims and litigation
defense.  The claim experience of Ashland and Hercules are
separately compared to the results of previously conducted third
party epidemiological studies estimating the number of people
likely to develop asbestos-related diseases.  Those studies were
undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population
expected to have been exposed to asbestos.  Using that
information, HR&A estimates a range of the number of future claims
that may be filed, as well as the related costs that may be
incurred in resolving those claims.  Changes in asbestos-related
liabilities and receivables are recorded on an after-tax basis
within the discontinued operations caption in the Statements of
Consolidated Comprehensive Income.

"Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury
caused by exposure to asbestos.  Such claims typically arise from
alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe
and tank products which were sold by one of Hercules' former
subsidiaries to a limited industrial market.  The amount and
timing of settlements and number of open claims can fluctuate from
period to period.

"From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results.  Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non-
discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance
of HR&A.  As a result of the most recent annual update of this
estimate, completed during the June 2016 quarter, it was
determined that the liability for Hercules asbestos-related claims
should be increased by US$25 million.  Total reserves for asbestos
claims were US$316 million at March 31, 2017 compared to US$321
million at September 30, 2016.

"For the Hercules asbestos-related obligations, certain
reimbursement obligations pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements
with insurance carriers exist.  As a result, any increases in the
asbestos reserve have been partially offset by probable insurance
recoveries.  Ashland has estimated the value of probable insurance
recoveries associated with its asbestos reserve based on
management's interpretations and estimates surrounding the
available or applicable insurance coverage, including an
assumption that all solvent insurance carriers remain solvent.
The estimated receivable consists exclusively of solvent domestic
insurers.

"As of March 31, 2017 and September 30, 2016, the receivables from
insurers amounted to US$63 million.  During the June 2016 quarter,
the annual update of the model used for purposes of valuing the
asbestos reserve and its impact on valuation of future recoveries
from insurers was completed.  This model update resulted in a US$7
million increase in the receivable for probable insurance
recoveries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/egY7Y8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX, Units Continue to Defend PI Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and six of its subsidiaries are presently named
as defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-
related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to
products manufactured with components that contained asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

IDEX states, "These components were acquired from third party
suppliers, and were not manufactured by the Company or any of the
defendant subsidiaries.

"To date, the majority of the Company's settlements and legal
costs, except for costs of coordination, administration, insurance
investigation and a portion of defense costs, have been covered in
full by insurance, subject to applicable deductibles.  However,
the Company cannot predict whether and to what extent insurance
will be available to continue to cover these settlements and legal
costs, or how insurers may respond to claims that are tendered to
them.

"Claims have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United
States.  Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed
without payment.  The balance have been settled for various
insignificant amounts.  Only one case has been tried, resulting in
a verdict for the Company's business unit.

"No provision has been made in the financial statements of the
Company, other than for insurance deductibles in the ordinary
course, and the Company does not currently believe the asbestos-
related claims will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/yVJexq


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Still Faces Asbestos Matters
---------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. continues to face asbestos-
related matters, according to its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company states, "Some facilities owned by CERC or its
predecessors contain or have contained asbestos insulation and
other asbestos-containing materials. CERC and its predecessor
companies are from time to time named, along with numerous others,
as defendants in lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who
claim injury due to exposure to asbestos, and CERC anticipates
that additional claims may be asserted in the future.

"Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time,
CERC does not expect these matters, either individually or in the
aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/rdxOvf


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Still Assessing Asbestos Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc., is currently analyzing its scope of potential
asbestos-related liability related its subsidiary Midwest
Generation, LLC, according to NRG's Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

NRG Energy states, "The Company, through its subsidiary, Midwest
Generation, may be subject to potential asbestos liabilities as a
result of its acquisition of EME.

"The Company believes that it has established an adequate reserve
for these cases."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/SRSbfM


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Illinois had US$22.0MM Fund at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Illinois Company had trust fund balance of US$22.0 million
at December 31, 2016 in its litigation rider for 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, "The Ameren Illinois asbestos-related
litigation rider includes a trust fund that was established when
Ameren acquired IP.

"At December 31, 2016 and 2015, the trust fund balance of US$22
million was reflected in "Other assets" on Ameren's and Ameren
Illinois' balance sheet. This balance is restricted only for the
use of funding certain asbestos-related claims.

"The rider is subject to the following terms: 90% of the cash
expenditures in excess of the amount included in base electric
rates is to be recovered from the trust fund. If cash expenditures
are less than the amount in base rates, Ameren Illinois will
contribute 90% of the difference to the trust fund."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/91m28V


ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Fire Had US$3.7MM A&E Reserve at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Fire Group, Inc. had reserve of US$3.7 million at December
31, 2016 for direct and assumed asbestos and environmental loss,
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, "Included in the other liability and assumed
reinsurance lines of business are reserves for asbestos and other
environmental losses and loss settlement expenses.  At December
31, 2016 and 2015, we had US$3.7 million and US$4.8 million,
respectively, in direct and assumed asbestos and environmental
loss reserves.  The estimation of loss reserves for environmental
claims and claims related to long-term exposure to asbestos and
other substances is one of the most difficult aspects of
establishing reserves, especially given the inherent uncertainties
surrounding such claims.

"Although we record our best estimate of loss and loss settlement
expense reserves, the ultimate amounts paid upon settlement of
such claims may be more or less than the amount of the reserves,
because of the significant uncertainties involved and the
likelihood that these uncertainties will not be resolved for many
years."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/jcxgCD


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Forum Energy Unit Still Faces at Most 200 Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
There are fewer than 200 asbestos-related lawsuits pending against
a subsidiary of Forum Energy Technologies, Inc., 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, "One of our subsidiaries has been named as one
of many defendants in a number of product liability claims for
alleged exposure to asbestos.  These lawsuits are typically filed
on behalf of plaintiffs who allege exposure to asbestos, against
numerous defendants, often 40 or more, who may have manufactured
or distributed products containing asbestos.  The injuries alleged
by plaintiffs in these cases range from mesothelioma and other
cancers to asbestosis.

"The earliest claims against our subsidiary were filed in New
Jersey in 1998, and our subsidiary currently has active cases in
Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Illinois.  These complaints do
not typically include requests for a specific amount of damages.
The trademark for the product line with asbestos exposure was
acquired in 1985.

"Our subsidiary has been successful in obtaining dismissals in
many lawsuits where the exposure is alleged to have occurred prior
to our acquisition of the trademark.  The law in some states does
not find purchasers of product lines to have tort liability for
incidents occurring prior to the acquisition date unless they
assumed the responsibility or in certain other circumstances.  The
law in certain other states on so called "successor liability" may
be different or ambiguous in this regard.  Most claimants alleging
illnesses due to asbestos sue on the basis of exposure prior to
1985, as by that date the hazards of asbestos exposure were well
known and asbestos had begun to fall into disuse in industrial
settings.

"Asbestos claims have not had a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash
flow, as our annual out-of-pocket costs over the last five years
has been less than US$200,000.  There are typically fewer than 100
cases filed against our subsidiary each year, and a similar number
of cases are dismissed, settled or otherwise disposed of each
year.

"We currently have fewer than 200 lawsuits pending against this
subsidiary.  Our subsidiary has over US$17 million in face amount
of insurance per occurrence and over US$23 million of aggregate
primary insurance coverage; a portion of the coverage has been
eroded by payments made by insurers.

"In addition, our subsidiary has over US$950 million in face
amount of excess coverage applicable to the claims.  There can be
no guarantee that all of this can be collected due to policy terms
and conditions and insurer insolvencies in the past or in the
future.

"In January 2011, we entered into an agreement with seven of our
primary insurers under which they have agreed to pay 80% of the
costs of handling and settling each asbestos claim against the
affected subsidiary.  After an initial period, and under certain
circumstances, our subsidiary and the subscribing insurers may
withdraw from this agreement."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/zwtQXs


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Intrepid Potash Facilities Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intrepid Potash, Inc., continues to play an active role in the
environmental remediation at its facilities, 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, "Many of our current facilities have been in
operation for a number of years.  Operations by us and our
predecessors have involved the historical use and handling of
potash, salt, related potash and salt by-products, process
tailings, hydrocarbons and other regulated substances.  Some of
these operations resulted, or may have resulted, in soil, surface
water, or groundwater contamination.  At some locations, there are
areas where process waste, building materials (including
asbestos-containing transite), and ordinary trash may have been
disposed or buried, and have since been closed and covered with
soil and other materials.

"At many of these facilities, spills or other releases of
regulated substances may have occurred previously and potentially
could occur at any of our facilities in the future, possibly
requiring us to undertake or fund cleanup efforts under CERCLA or
state laws governing cleanup or disposal of hazardous and solid
waste substances.

"We work closely with governmental authorities to obtain the
appropriate permits to address identified site conditions.  For
example, buildings located at our facilities in both Utah and New
Mexico have a type of siding that contains asbestos.  We have
adopted programs to encapsulate and stabilize portions of the
siding through use of an adhesive spray and to remove the siding,
replacing it with an asbestos-free material.  Also, we have
trained asbestos abatement crews that handle and dispose of the
asbestos-containing siding and related materials.  We have a
permitted asbestos landfill in Utah.  We have worked closely with
Utah officials to address asbestos-related issues at our Moab
mine."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/tAgBKN


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 845 Suits vs. US Steel Still Active at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation continues to defend in around 845
active asbestos litigation involving approximately 3,340
plaintiffs 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 vast majority of
these cases involve multiple defendants.

The Company states, "As of December 31, 2015, U.S. Steel was a
defendant in approximately 820 cases involving approximately 3,315
plaintiffs.  About 2,500, or approximately 75 percent, of these
plaintiff claims are currently pending in jurisdictions which
permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs.  Based upon
U.S. Steel's experience in such cases, it believes that the actual
number of plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims against U.S.
Steel will likely be a small fraction of the total number of
plaintiffs.

"During 2016, settlements and other dispositions resolved
approximately 225 cases, and new case filings added approximately
250 cases.  During 2015, settlements and other dispositions
resolved approximately 415 cases, and new case filings added
approximately 275 cases.

"Historically, asbestos-related claims against U.S. Steel fall
into three groups: (1) claims made by persons who allegedly were
exposed to asbestos on the premises of U.S. Steel facilities; (2)
claims made by persons allegedly exposed to products manufactured
by U.S. Steel; and (3) claims made under certain federal and
maritime laws by employees of former operations of U.S. Steel.

"The amount U.S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not
material to U.S. Steel's financial condition.  However, U.S. Steel
is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related
claims due to a number of uncertainties, including (1) the rates
at which new claims are filed, (2) the number of and effect of
bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending asbestos
claims, (3) uncertainties associated with the variations in the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4)
uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease
process with each claim, and (5) any new legislation enacted to
address asbestos-related claims.  Despite these uncertainties,
management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters
will not have a material adverse effect on U.S. Steel's financial
condition, although the resolution of such matters could
significantly impact results of operations for a particular
quarter."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/H82b2H


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Unit Still Faces 290 Claims at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Univar Inc. continues to defend in fewer than 290
single-plaintiff asbestos claims at December 31, 2016 related to
its 1986 purchase of McKesson Chemical Company from McKesson
Corporation, according to Univar'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 its 1986 purchase of McKesson Chemical
Company from McKesson Corporation, or McKesson, our wholly owned
subsidiary, Univar USA Inc., entered into an indemnification
agreement with McKesson.  Univar USA has an obligation to defend
and indemnify McKesson for claims alleging injury from exposure to
asbestos-containing products sold by McKesson Chemical Company, or
the asbestos claims.  Univar USA's obligation to indemnify
McKesson for settlements and judgments arising from asbestos
claims is the amount which is in excess of applicable insurance
coverage, if any, which may be available under McKesson's
historical insurance coverage.  In addition, we are currently
defending a small number of claims which name Univar USA as a
defendant.

"As of December 31, 2016, Univar USA has accepted the tender of,
and is defending McKesson in, eight pending separate-plaintiff
claims in multi-plaintiff lawsuits filed in the State of
Mississippi.  These lawsuits have multiple plaintiffs, include a
large number of defendants, and provide no specific information on
the plaintiffs' injuries and do not connect the plaintiffs'
injuries to any specific sources of asbestos.  Additionally, the
majority of the plaintiffs in these lawsuits have not put forth
evidence that they have been seriously injured from exposure to
asbestos.  No new claims in Mississippi have been received since
2010.  At the peak there were approximately 16,000 such claims
pending against McKesson.

"The costs for defending these cases have not been material, and
the cases that have been finalized have either been dismissed or
resolved with either minimal or no payments.  Although we cannot
predict the outcome of pending or future claims or lawsuits with
certainty, we believe the future defense and liability costs for
the Mississippi cases will not be material.  Univar USA has not
recorded a reserve related to these lawsuits, as it has determined
that losses are neither probable nor estimable.

"As of December 31, 2016, Univar USA was defending fewer than 290
single-plaintiff asbestos claims against McKesson (or Univar USA
as a successor in interest to McKesson Chemical Company) pending
in 15 states.  These cases differ from the Mississippi multi-
plaintiff cases in that they are single-plaintiff cases with the
plaintiff alleging substantial specific injuries from exposure to
asbestos-containing products.  These cases are similar to the
Mississippi cases in that numerous defendants are named and that
they provide little specific information connecting the
plaintiffs' injuries to any specific source of asbestos.  Although
we cannot predict the outcome of pending or future claims or
lawsuits with certainty, we believe the liabilities for these
cases will not be material.

"In 2016, there were 160 single-plaintiff lawsuits filed against
McKesson and 69 cases against McKesson which were resolved.  As of
December 31, 2016, Univar USA had reserved US$50,000 related to
pending asbestos litigation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/iccMax


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 850 Suits vs. US Steel Still Active at Mar. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation continues to defend in around 850
active asbestos litigation involving approximately 3,345
plaintiffs as of March 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017.  The vast majority of these
cases involve multiple defendants.

The Company states, "At December 31, 2016, U.S. Steel was a
defendant in approximately 845 active cases involving
approximately 3,340 plaintiffs.  About 2,500, or approximately 75
percent, of these plaintiff claims are currently pending in
jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers of
plaintiffs.  Based upon U.S. Steel's experience in such cases, it
believes that the actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately
assert claims against U.S. Steel will likely be a small fraction
of the total number of plaintiffs.

"During the three months ended March 31, 2017, settlements and
other dispositions resolved approximately 55 cases, and new case
filings added approximately 60 cases.  During 2016, settlements
and other dispositions resolved approximately 225 cases, and new
case filings added approximately 250 cases.

"Historically, asbestos-related claims against U.S. Steel fall
into three groups: (1) claims made by persons who allegedly were
exposed to asbestos on the premises of U.S. Steel facilities; (2)
claims made by persons allegedly exposed to products manufactured
by U.S. Steel; and (3) claims made under certain federal and
maritime laws by employees of former operations of U.S. Steel.

"The amount U.S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not
material to U.S. Steel's financial condition.  However, U.S. Steel
is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related
claims due to a number of uncertainties, including: (1) the rates
at which new claims are filed, (2) the number of and effect of
bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending asbestos
claims, (3) uncertainties associated with the variations in the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4)
uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease
process with each claim, and (5) any new legislation enacted to
address asbestos-related claims.  Despite these uncertainties,
management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters
will not have a material adverse effect on U.S. Steel's financial
condition, although the resolution of such matters could
significantly impact results of operations for a particular
quarter."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/NAkZnP




                         *********


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 Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *