CAR_Public/180817.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, August 17, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 165

                            Headlines

AARON'S INC: Continues to Defend Winslow Class Action
ACADIA PHARMA: RM Law Files Class Action Over Nuplazid
AFFINION GROUP: Petition for Rehearing Denied in Connecticut Suit
AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC: Settles Physician Members' Class Action
ANALOGIC CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Fraud Suit

ASSET RECOVERY:  Face Sandri FDCPA Suit in Wisconsin
AUSTRALIA: Defense Dept. Sued Over PFAS Exposure
AUSTRALIA: Lawyers Urges Gov't to Settle Juvenile Detention Case
BAHAMAS: Faces Class Action Over Shanty Town Evictions
BHH LLC: Court Narrows Expert Testimonies in Pest Repellers Suit

BHP BILLITON: Wants Samarco Class Action Delayed
BLOOMFIELD, MI: Judge Issues Ruling in Water, Sewer Bill Case
BWAY CORPORATION: Illegally Collects Biometric Data, Burton Says
CAMDEN OPERATIONS: Court Narrows Claims in Ouachita Residents' Suit
CANADA: Alberta Government Faces Class Action Over Craft Beer

CELGENE CORP: Faces 2 Securities Class Suits in New Jersey
CELGENE CORP: Still Defends Thalomid and Revlimid Antitrust Suits
CHRISTIAN WILLIAM VARIN: Quebec Investors Can Proceed with Suit
CIBA INSURANCE: Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
COTIVITI HOLDINGS: Rosenblatt Suit Challenges Sale to Verscend

CRESCENT CONSULTING: Lange Seeks Unpaid OT Premiums Under FLSA
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Faces 87 Suits Related to Thomas Fire
EQT CORP: Trial in Kay Company Class Suit Set for Nov. 28
EQUIFAX INC: Bid to Dismiss N.D. Georgia Class Suit Underway
FIRST ALARM: Nguyen Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code

FLINT, MI: Dismissal of B. Boler's Unjust Enrichment Suit Affirmed
FLORIDA: Parents Appeal Prepaid Tuition Plan Case Ruling
FORTIS: Dec. 31 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
FREEDMAN SEATING: Faces Mims Suit Over Use of Biometric Data
GDS HOLDINGS: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action

GDS HOLDINGS: Kaskela Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Nov. 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
GERDAU AMERISTEEL: Class Settlement Has Final Court Approval
GLOBAL TELLINK: Stuart Appeals Orders and Judgment to 8th Cir.
GOOD EATS: Quintanilla Suit Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA

GOOGLE LLC: Fails to Block Rejected Job Applicants' Class Suit
HEBEI WELCOME: SCOTUS Vacates Judgment in Vit C Antitrust Suit
HELIOS AND MATHESON: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit
ILLINOIS: Court Denies Class Certification in Inmate's ADA Suit
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Lawsuit Survives Motion to Dismiss

JUDICIAL CRISIS: Faces Class Action Over Mass Robotext
JUUL LABS: Faces Class Action Over False Safety Claims
KATALINA CLEANERS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Armontes Says
KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Wage Suit
LATIUM NETWORK: Levi & Korsinsky Files Lawsuit Over ICO

LIBRE BY NEXUS: Sued Over Exorbitant Ankle Tracker Fees
LIVE NATION: Continues to Defend Kathryn Poser Suit
LUCKY STRIKE: Olsen Says Website not Blind-friendly
MARK DERRICK: Sued for Allegedly Running "Debtors" Prison
MDL 2262: Settlement with Citi Has Preliminary Court Approval

MDL 2672: 9th Cir. Affirms Approval of Bosch Settlement
MEDNAX INC: Sept. 10 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
MERCURY SYSTEMS: Sept. 10 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
MERCURY SYSTEMS: Thornton Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
MID CITY NISSAN: Mazurkiewicz Sues Over Use of Biometric Data

MIDLAND CREDIT: 2nd Cir. Affirms Summary Ruling Against L. Huebner
MISSOURI: Court Certifies Class in Foster Care Kids' Suit
MISSOURI: Seeks Eighth Circuit Review of Ruling in MB Suit
MOL AMERICA: Elite's Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Submission
MRI INT'L: Condo Unit Deposit Be Moved to "Takiguchi" Deal Account

NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Fraud Suit
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Panzarella Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
NEW ENGLAND: Ex-Employees Sue Over Sudden Closure of Mass. Plant
NEW FRESCA: Xing Seeks OT Pay, Withheld Tips, Reimbursements
NEW ORLEANS, LA: OPCDC Defendants Class Certified in "Cain" Suit

PERMANENTE MEDICAL: Seeks Final OK of $2.95-M Wolf Suit Settlement
PINDUODUO INC: May Face Class-Action Suits in U.S.
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Age Discrimination Class Action Tossed
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Suit Over UIMPD Remains in District Court
PROVIDENT CAPITAL: Settles Investor Class Action

PURDUE PHARMA: Orland Fire District Joins Class Action Suit
QUALCOMM INC: Kaskela Law Files Securities Fraud Suit
RAYMOUR & FLANIGAN: Motion to Transfer Class Action Venue OK'd
RAYONIER ADVANCED: Securities Fraud Suit Transferred to M.D. Fla.
REALOGY HOLDINGS: "Dodge" Settlement Awaits Final Court Okay

REGIONAL MEDICAL: Class Certification Sought in Sandusky Suit
RENO HOUSING: Roces Appeals D. Nevada Ruling to Ninth Circuit
ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
SBC FOOD SERVICE: Obando Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
SERVE U BRANDS: Court OKs Amendment to Delivery Drivers' FLSA Suit

SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Faces Class Action Lawsuits Over Ad Sales
SKECHERS USA: Suit by Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan Pending
SLEEP NUMBER: Still Defends Spade Class Action
SMITH TRANSPORT: Wins Bid to Dismiss Ratliff FCRA Class Suit
SOUTHERN NEVADA: Court Orders Amendments on Class Settlement

SPARK ENERGY: Court Dismisses Gillis Class Action Claims
SPARK ENERGY: Discovery in Veilleux Class Action Still Ongoing
SPARK ENERGY: Jurich Class Suit v. Verde Companies Still Ongoing
SPARK ENERGY: Richardson Suit v. Verde Companies Remains Ongoing
SPECTRA ENERGY: Derivative Claim vs General Partner Still Ongoing

SPRINT NEXTEL: R. Sibley's Class Certification Bid Sustained
STATOIL USA: Court Won't Consolidate Royalties Suits
SUNTRUST BANKS: Class Status Granted in Combined Mutual Funds Suit
TESARO INC: Still Defends Roger Bowers Class Action
TETRAPHASE PHARMA: Sept. 25 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

TIVITY HEALTH: Weiner Class Action Still Ongoing
TOOTSIE ROLL: Junior Mints Suit Gets Tossed by Federal Judge
TRAVEL DAYS: Ward Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
UNDER ARMOUR: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Drop Securities Class Suit
UNITED STATES: DC Ct. Grants Mother-Son's Immediate Reunification

UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Travel Ban Waivers
UNITED STATES: Lake County Joins PILT Class Suit
UNITED STATES: Lucas Files Class Certification Bid in Suit v. HHS
UNITED STATES: Ordered to Focus on Reuniting Deported Parents
UNITIL CORP: Still Defends Bellermann Class Action

VEREIT INC: Realistic Partners Class Action Still Pending
VEREIT INC: Sept. 9 Trial Date Set for SDNY Securities Class Suit
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Lowinger Seeks to Halt Vertex Merger Deal
VICHINO III LLC: Pearson Files Suit Under FLSA
VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Oct. 24 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

WADDELL & REED: Defends 401(k) Plan Class Action Litigation
WALGREENS: Gets More Time to Respond to Shareholder Class Action
WALT DISNEY: Want Class Action Over Weinstein Misconduct Tossed
WELLS FARGO: ATM Access Fee Suit Still Ongoing in District Court
WELLS FARGO: Awaits Court OK of $480M Securities Suit Settlement

WELLS FARGO: Class Actions over Order of Posting Still Ongoing
WELLS FARGO: Defends Class Suits over Auto Loan Insurance
WELLS FARGO: Interchange Litigation Still Pending in E.D.N.Y.
WELLS FARGO: Interest Rate Lock Class Action Pending in Oregon
WELLS FARGO: Mortgage Bankruptcy Loan Modification Lawsuit Pending

WESTJET AIRLINES: Law Firms Consider Class Suits for FAs
WILLIS TOWERS: UC Regents Appeal Ruling in Cambridge Class Suit

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $4.6B Asbestos-Talcum Exposure Verdict Sought
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $81K Fine for Illegal Asbestos Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10 Sussex School Bldgs Have High Risk Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 64 Years Old Dies of Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abandoned Factory with Asbestos Prompts Action

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIA Says EPA Should Impose Blanket Ban on Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos at Old Nursing Quarters Pose No Threat
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Claims Dropping in LA County
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Old McDonough Bldg
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in $22MM Public Works Building

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Playskool Crayons
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Products Makers Sued for Negligence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal Creates Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos System Still Invites Shenanigans
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cos May Be Liable for Asbestos Components

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 29,920 Pending Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of LEM's Bid for Summary Judgment Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Evidence Does Not Link Pecora to Condon's Disease
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Department Evacuated Due to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had US$610MM Bendix Claims at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Has $565MM Liabilities at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Still Defends Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J. Poage's Suit vs. Crane Co. Settled in 2Q 2018
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l Paid $1.9MM for Lawsuits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maddox Sues ABB Over Injurious Effects of Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mitigation Plan After Asbestos Fragments Found
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Cross Claim Burdens Asbestos Defendants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Appeals Court Imposes Duty on Asbestos Warning
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Retains Jurisdiction of Asbestos Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Non-Party Wins Right to See Asbestos Documents

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Defends 1,160 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parts of Fort Regent Closed After Asbestos Find
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Units Had 600 Pending Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Had 420 Open Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: R. DeLisle's Suit v. Crane Co. Pending at July 23

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reinsurer Sued for $900K Loss in Settlement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Self-Employed Carpenter Dies of Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Senate Learns of Report on Centre Block Asbestos


                            *********

AARON'S INC: Continues to Defend Winslow Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Aaron's Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in
a class action suite entitled, Michael Winslow and Fonda Winslow v.
Sultan Financial Corporation, Aaron's, Inc., John Does (1-10),
Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC.

In Michael Winslow and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial
Corporation, Aaron's, Inc., John Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees
and Designerware, LLC, filed on March 5, 2013 in the Los Angeles
Superior Court, plaintiffs assert claims against the Company and
its independently owned and operated franchisee, Sultan Financial
Corporation (as well as certain John Doe franchisees), for
unauthorized wiretapping, eavesdropping, electronic stalking, and
violation of California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and
Fraud Act and its Unfair Competition Law. Each of these claims
arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software. The
plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and damages as well as
certification of a putative California class.

In April 2013, the Company removed this matter to federal court. In
May 2013, the Company filed a motion to stay this litigation
pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, and a motion to strike certain
allegations in the complaint. The Court subsequently stayed the
case. The Company's motions to dismiss and strike certain
allegations remain pending. In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to lift the stay, which was denied in July 2015.

Aaron's, Inc. operates as an omnichannel provider of lease-purchase
solutions. It operates through three segments: Progressive Leasing,
Aaron’s Business, and DAMI. The company engages in the sale,
lease ownership, and specialty retailing of furniture, consumer
electronics, home appliances, and accessories. Aaron's, Inc. was
founded in 1955 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


ACADIA PHARMA: RM Law Files Class Action Over Nuplazid
------------------------------------------------------
Mark Terry, writing for BioSpace, reports that Berwyn, Pennsylvania
attorneys RM Law, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit against Acadia
Pharmaceuticals. The suit was filed on behalf of "all persons or
entities" that bought company stock between July 17, 2014, and July
3, 2018.

The Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation on July 9, wrote,
"San-Diego-based Acadia portrays itself as a pharmaceutical company
but a Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation investigation has
revealed that this is merely a clever facade. What lies below is a
ruthless marketing entity whose pursuit of regulatory approval is
best described as 'loophole-centric.'"

The focus of the investigation and the lawsuit is on the company's
Nuplazid, its only commercial product, for episodic hallucinations
and delusions associated with Parkinson's disease psychosis. Back
in April, CNN reported that during a Congressional budget hearing,
FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb was asked about Nuplazid. This
followed another CNN report citing an increasing number of patient
deaths and adverse events related to the drug. Gottlieb promised
the agency would take another look at the drug.

During the FDA's original review of the drug, the lead physician,
Paul Andreason, "warned that patients taking the drug during the
company's clinical trials experienced serious outcomes, including
death, at more than double the rate of those taking the placebo.
The company's limited testing, he said, had not convinced him that
the benefits outweighed the risks."

But the committee voted 12 to 2 and recommended approval based on a
six-week study of about 200 patients. Some of the committee members
who voted to recommend the drug expressed concern, but felt that
patients and family members would think the risk was worth it. The
drug came on the market in June 2016.

However, soon after its release, "adverse events" reports grew,
including deaths, life-threatening incidents, falls, insomnia,
nausea and fatigue. Patients reported still having hallucinations
while on the drug in more than 1,000 reports. It is still unclear
if all of these are directly related to the drug, because they are
often also associated with end-stage Parkinson's disease.

In November 2017, nonprofit healthcare organization the Institute
for Safe Medication Practices cited 244 deaths had been "reported
to the FDA between the drug's launch and March 2017."

Since that report, FDA data indicates the number of reported deaths
passed 700 (as of April 2018). The company argues that the benefits
outweigh the risks and that the reason for the death reports is
that Parkinson's disease psychosis is seen most often in patients
with the most advanced stages of the disease, who, as a result, are
at a high risk of death.

Despite the reports, Acadia is working to get the drug approved for
a larger patient population, those who have psychosis related to
dementia, such as Alzheimer's disease.

Stephanie Fox-Rawlings, a senior fellow at the National Center for
Health Research, told CNN in their April story that "she
understands how desperate families in these situations are, but she
does not think Nuplazid is the answer based on her review of
Acadia's public research. She and Zuckerman said that, after
previous studies didn't show it was effective, the drugmaker
changed the way the medication's ability to improve psychosis was
measured, which resulted in a positive outcome. Acadia said its
studies have had different objectives and all of them have used
'consistent, appropriate, and validated assessment methodology.'"

RM Law's class action suit alleges that "throughout the Class
Period, the defendants failed to disclose that: (1) adverse events
and safety concerns related to Nuplazid threatened the drug's
initial and continuing FDA approval; (2) Acadia engaged in business
practices likely to attract regulatory scrutiny; and (3) as a
result of the foregoing, the defendants' statements about Acadia's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis."

The firm encourages members of the class to have the Court appoint
you as a lead plaintiff of the class no later than September 17,
2018, with contact information enclosed in its press statement.
[GN]

AFFINION GROUP: Petition for Rehearing Denied in Connecticut Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the court of appeals
has denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing.

On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant") in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The
complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a putative
nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with
the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including claims
under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA'"), the Racketeer
Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition
Law, the California False Advertising Law, and for unjust
enrichment.

On April 26, 2012, the court consolidated two additional lawsuits
making substantially similar allegations that were filed against
the Company, Trilegiant, and numerous other defendants. An
additional lawsuit, which was identical in all respects to these
cases, was also consolidated on March 28, 2014.

On December 7, 2012, all defendants filed motions seeking to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On March 28, 2014, the
court entered orders granting in part and denying in part the
motions to dismiss. After the motions, claims under the ECPA and
CUTPA and for unjust enrichment remained pending against the
Company and Trilegiant.  

On February 29, 2016, the Company filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment on the claims of the remaining named plaintiffs. On August
23, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion for Summary
Judgment as to all remaining claims against the defendants.  

Plaintiffs appealed and the court of appeals held oral arguments on
October 27, 2017. On April 27, 2018, the court of appeals issued a
decision affirming the judgment of the district court. Plaintiffs
filed a petition for rehearing, which the court of appeals denied
on June 11, 2018.

Affinion Group, Inc. designs, administers, and fulfills loyalty,
customer engagement, and insurance programs and solutions. The
company operates through four segments: Global Loyalty, Global
Customer Engagement, Insurance Solutions, and Legacy Membership and
Package. The company is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.
Affinion Group, Inc. is a subsidiary of Affinion Group Holdings,
Inc.


AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC: Settles Physician Members' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Morris on July 30 announced the settlement of the Osteopathic
Physicians Class Action against the American Osteopathic
Association, Talone, et. al v. American Osteopathic Association.
The Court has granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and
members of the class and sub-classes will be receiving notice of
the settlement in the coming weeks.

The settlement is a resolution of the claims the class
representatives asserted against the AOA that was negotiated over a
period of approximately four months, and that provides a range of
benefits to tens of thousands of DOs. Those benefits are estimated
in value to be worth significantly more than $35,000,000.

In addition to agreeing to end its practice of conditioning AOA
board certification on purchasing annual membership in the AOA,
which was at the center of the lawsuit, the AOA has also agreed to
provide a host of other economic benefits to the more than 45,000
class members, such as, for three years reducing its annual dues by
$90 and waiving a $90 board certification fee; for two years
offering AOA members two free CME courses of up to 12 aggregate
credits and contributing not less than $2 million to an osteopathic
awareness campaign; and eliminating distinctions between online and
in-person CME for purposes of AOA membership. Weighed against the
uncertainty and expense of protracted litigation, the valuable
benefits the AOA has agreed to provide to resolve the claims
against it demonstrate that the settlement is in the best interest
of the class and sub-classes, as well as the AOA.

Duane Morris is greatly appreciative of the four class
representatives, who devoted time and effort to vigorously pursue
the claims of the class and sub-classes, and were instrumental in
negotiating the significant benefits their fellow DOs will receive
as a result of the settlement.

                        About Duane Morris

Duane Morris LLP provides innovative solutions to today's
multifaceted legal and business challenges through the collegial
and collaborative culture of its more than 800 attorneys in offices
across the United States and internationally.  The firm represents
a broad array of clients, spanning all major practices and
industries. [GN]

ANALOGIC CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notified investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Analogic Corporation,
("Analogic" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ALOG) for alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty in connection with the proposed sale of the
Company to Altaris Capital Partners, LLC ("Altaris"). Investors who
held common stock on May 11, 2018, the record date to vote on the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/alog.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On April 10, 2018, Analogic revealed that it had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with Altaris, under which each share
of Analogic common stock would be converted into the right to
receive $84 in cash (the "Transaction"). The Transaction
consideration signified a 12.5% discount to Analogic stock's $96.05
per share closing price right before the Transaction was
publicized. On May 16, 2018, defendants filed a Definitive Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A with the SEC (the "Proxy") to solicit
shareholder approval of the Transaction.

According to the complaint, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements in the Proxy about the merger process and specifically
misrepresented material information in connection with: (1) the
sales process for the Company; and (2) certain financial forecasts
prepared by Analogic and relied upon by Citi. The complaint
continues to allege that by including the statements in the Proxy,
defendants encouraged shareholders to accept to the Board's
recommendation to vote in favor of the unfairly priced Transaction.
Following the uninformed shareholder vote, defendants completed the
Transaction on June 22, 2018.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/alog or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Analog
you have until August 21, 2018 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Contact:
         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Telephone: 212-697-6484
         Email: info@bgandg.com
                peretz@bgandg.com [GN]

ASSET RECOVERY:  Face Sandri FDCPA Suit in Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------
JOHN SANDRI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, an Illinois limited
liability company; BUREAUS INVESTMENT GROUP PORTFOLIO NO. 15, LLC,
an Illinois limited liability company; and JOHN DOES, Case No.
1:18-cv-01182-WCG (E.D. Wisc., August 1, 2018), arises from the
Defendants' alleged illegal practices that violate the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Defendants' illegal practices include using false, deceptive,
and misleading practices in connection with its attempts to collect
alleged consumer debts from the Plaintiff and other Wisconsin
consumers, the Plaintiff contends.

Asset Recovery is a limited liability company existing pursuant to
the laws of the state of Illinois and headquartered in Des Plaines,
Illinois.  Bureaus is a limited liability company existing pursuant
to the laws of the state of Illinois that maintains its principal
business address in Northbrook, Illinois.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are yet unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Defendants collect, and attempt to collect, defaulted debts
incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, for personal, family,
or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the U.S. Mail,
telephone, and the Internet.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com
                  francis@sternthomasson.com
                  philip@sternthomasson.com


AUSTRALIA: Defense Dept. Sued Over PFAS Exposure
------------------------------------------------
Elias Clure, Lucy Marks and Emily Smith, writing for ABC NEWS,
report that every resident of the Northern Territory town of
Katherine will be included in a class action against the Department
of Defence over widespread PFAS contamination.

PFAS was a chemical used in firefighting foam on Defence bases up
until 2010, and a Defence Department risk assessment showed the
chemical seeped into waterways and soil in the Top End.

Since it was revealed the chemicals had leached into the
environment and residents' blood streams from the RAAF Base Tindal,
the residents of Katherine were offered alternative drinking water
and blood tests.

Special counsel for Shine Lawyers Josh Aylward,Esq. told ABC Radio
Darwin they would be seeking compensation and damages for Katherine
residents through the lawsuit, which was filed August 3.

The monetary value of those claims has yet to be determined.

"The key arguments, it's really simple: it's that the Defence Force
has, since around 1987, used these firefighting foam chemicals on
the base," Mr Aylward said.

"And that these chemicals have spread throughout the Katherine
community . . . the people of the Katherine community have been
affected by this . . .  their property values have been affected
and that their businesses have been affected.

"And that Defence knew, long before they even started using these
chemicals, that they shouldn't be letting them escape into the
environment."

The class action, filed in the Federal Court of Australia, is an
"open class" -- which means every resident of Katherine is
included.

Mr Aylward said anyone who did not want to be included would have
the chance to opt out later.

In July last year Shine Lawyers filed a class action against the
Department of Defence on behalf of about 450 residents in the
south-east Queensland town of Oakey, seeking up to $200 million in
damages over PFAS contamination.

In New South Wales, residents near the RAAF Williamtown base
launched a class action in November 2016.

Mayor: 'We know nothing about it'

Following an interview with Mr Aylward on ABC Radio, Katherine Town
Council mayor Fay Miller phoned in, saying she knew nothing of the
lawsuit.

Although Shine Lawyers had held town meetings about it, Ms Miller
said she had been too busy to attend and believed it would have
been "good manners" for the firm to reach out to the town leaders.

"They've come to my town. And I think they would have done the
courtesy of at least contacting us and making an appointment to
explain what it was they're going to do," she said.

"I just find it really strange that this would be happening in
Katherine and we know nothing about it."

Another Katherine resident called Bob who spoke to ABC Radio said
he was "not particularly happy" about the lawsuit.

"I have a property, my bore is very highly contaminated, but I will
say this: Defence has bent over backwards to manage the problem and
as far as I know anybody with contaminated bores, they have done
the same thing," he said.

"I think we've got to start speaking the positives of what Defence
is actually doing to rectify the problem."

But local doctor Peter Stafford said the matter had to be "taken to
the courts" to ensure those exposed to PFAS contamination were
adequately compensated.

"We are left with no other option, individuals are suffering . . .
if anyone is ignoring anything, I would say the council has ignored
the plight of the people here," he said.

"I've got a patient who wants to invest in his own business here
and needs to get a loan from the bank.

"They said 'what are you going to use as collateral?' and he said
'my property' and they [the bank] literally laughed at him and said
'it's not worth anything'."

Health effects disputed

The Department of Defence has maintained that there is no evidence
to link PFAS exposure to human disease.

In May, an independent panel of health experts concluded there was
mostly limited or in some cases no evidence that human exposure to
PFAS was linked to disease, but health effects could not be ruled
out.

Yet other countries such as the United States, Germany and England
take a much more precautionary approach to the chemicals.

Shine Lawyers insists the chemical has been adversely affecting
residents' wellbeing.

In a statement, the law firm said exposure to the chemicals has
been linked to immune dysfunction, hormonal interference, thyroid
disruption and certain types of cancer.

"It follows an investigation that revealed that thousands of
Katherine locals had been exposed to toxic chemicals, which have
permeated land and water supplies, food sources, and bloodstreams,
with potentially catastrophic consequences," it said.

Shine Lawyers said it expected the Defence Department to file its
defence within months.

The Department of Defence said it was advised about the proceedings
relating to alleged land contamination in Katherine.

It said at this time no formal documentation had been served on the
Commonwealth, but the claim would be handled in accordance with the
Attorney-General's Legal Services Directions 2017 and it would make
no further public comment at this stage.[GN]

AUSTRALIA: Lawyers Urges Gov't to Settle Juvenile Detention Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
9 News reports that lawyers leading a class action against the
Northern Territory over the abuse of young people in juvenile
detention have called on the government to settle the case.

Ben Slade, Esq., representing the two teenage boys who are the lead
applicants, said the 20-month legal stoush and delays in bringing
the matter to trial were denying his clients justice.

"What we want is to get into court so we can have the case heard or
sit down with the Northern Territory government and talk about a
resolution for these children's cases," Mr Slade said outside the
Federal Court in Adelaide on August 3.

"For these kids who have suffered so, can't we sit down and talk
about a regime that will make them better, compensate them for the
wrong that was done to them so at least they will be able to move
on."

The class action has been brought by two teenage boys who were held
in the infamous Don Dale detention centre in Darwin.

While there it's alleged they were subjected to abusive treatment
including being punched, grabbed by the throat and unnecessarily
shackled or placed in isolation.

The action has been joined by more than 30 other youths but is also
seeking compensation for all 1300 detained at various times over a
period of 12 years.

In court on August 3, counsel for the NT government, David
McClure,Esq. asked for some sections of the claim to be struck out
- telling the court that the Territory remained unclear exactly
what it was being asked to defend and had "grave" doubts about some
of the allegations being made.

"If they can't articulate it and we can't understand it, we can't
be expected to prepare a case to meet it," he said.

Mr McClure also objected to a demand from the applicants for the
Territory to hand over more material, including detention records
of the two boys who were 15 and 16 at the time.

He said some of the requested material had already been supplied
and, more broadly, the claim sought to impose an "intrusive, vast
and expensive discovery exercise" on the government.

Mr Slade said the documents would be helpful, but would not make or
break the case.

"The documents will be helpful to make the case out that we have
specifically pleaded for each of the representative applicants," he
told reporters.

"But it's not the end of the world, their cases are fairly clear,
their position has been put and it would just increase the claims
they've made in terms of the damages payout."

Justice Richard White has reserved his decision on both the strike
out and disclosure applications to a date to be fixed.[GN]

BAHAMAS: Faces Class Action Over Shanty Town Evictions
------------------------------------------------------
Taneka Thompson, writing for Tribune 242, reports that human rights
attorney Fred Smith, QC -- fsmith@callenders.net -- has asked
Attorney General Carl Bethel and other government officials to
agree in writing that they will not evict shanty town residents or
bulldoze their homes until a looming class-action lawsuit is heard
in court.

Mr Smith, in a letter sent to Prime Minister Dr Hubert Minnis, Mr
Bethel and other government members, said "unless we receive
suitable undertakings which we can lay before the court" his
clients are prepared to apply for an urgent injunction to maintain
the status quo pending a trial or order of the court.

The government has given shanty town residents in New Providence
until August 10 to vacate their homes before the structures are
bulldozed.

Several weeks ago, Mr Smith threatened a class-action suit against
what he has called an "indiscriminate and arbitrary" push to
"destroy the lives of thousands of legal" residents.

In his July 29 letter to the government, he said the policy to
eradicate unregulated communities "is unconstitutional and
infringes the guarantee against freedom from discrimination
embodied" in the Constitution.

He said the Minnis administration's plan to evict these residents
in August, shut off their utilities and bulldoze their homes is
unconstitutional for many reasons, including the fact the
government has not proven, nor does it have, any immediate legal
right to possession of the land.

He also claimed there is no provision of the Buildings Regulation
Act that entitles the government to take possession of land.
Mr Smith said by making the blanket decision to eradicate shanty
towns, "the government has fettered its discretion, failed to
consult and failed to consider the individual circumstances of
particular buildings and occupiers," adding the government is
denying the legitimate expectation of the residents in question to
occupy the land and to be consulted in advance of any proposed
eviction.

He said he intends to file an action in the Supreme Court on behalf
of his clients as soon as possible.

"At the same time, unless we receive suitable undertakings which we
can lay before the court, our clients will apply for an urgent
injunction for the purpose of maintaining the status quo pending
trial or until further order of the court," Mr Smith wrote.

He then asked the attorney general and each utility company or
service provider involved to state in writing that until the matter
is brought before the Supreme Court, the government will not seek
to possess any land constituting a shanty town "other than by due
process of law through the courts"; demolish any of these
structures; disconnect any utility supplies "other than pursuant to
governing statutory law"; or interfere "with the quiet enjoyment of
the home and property of any person living in such an unregulated
community."

Earlier in July, Mr Smith -- partner at Callenders & Co -- said
there were around 50 families who had come together to launch legal
action in a bid to block the evictions. Since then, The Tribune has
been told this number has grown considerably.

In the wake of Mr Smith's legal threat, Mr Bethel has cast doubt on
its success while suggesting to reporters the government was more
concerned about curing the country of these substandard living
conditions.

"The courts are there and if anybody has a right to take an issue
to court they are welcome to do so," Mr Bethel said.

"When I last weighed in on this matter there was the suggestion
that there was some possibility that there was some class action
law suit and I just made the point that our law on class action
suits is very strenuous and it's very detailed. You have to have
exactly the same interests in everybody.

"Now someone who claims that they have been squatting on someone
else's land for a period of time, if they meet the criteria and of
course are able to go to court and have whatever right to continued
occupancy that they wish to assert, defended or upheld by the
court.

"But that won't cure the issue of not having built in accordance
with code. That won't cure the issue of having an unsafe structure.
That in and of itself won't cure the issue of the overall
atmosphere, the overall conditions in shanty towns and that would
be something that would be peculiar to the individual not to the
shanty town.

"We're not going to try and adjudicate individual people's rights,
that's their right to do for themselves. Our job is to clean up the
environment to ensure that wherever there is building, just like
with every other person in this country, is building according to
code with appropriate permissions from appropriate technical
officers in the Ministry of Public Works and in conformity with the
building code, that conditions in every community are to the best
of our able ability to ensure it is sanitary and that proper
standards are maintained. That's what we are doing," Mr Bethel
said.

Earlier in July, the government delayed its July 31 deadline for
shantytown evictions until August, to ensure that it covered "all
legal grounds," according to Labour Minister Dion Foulkes.

Mr Foulkes, head of the Shanty Town Action Task Force, has also
said all the properties being used for unregulated communities,
with the exception of one, is constituted as Crown land leased by
the government to Bahamians for the purpose of farming. [GN]

BHH LLC: Court Narrows Expert Testimonies in Pest Repellers Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Motion to
Exclude Expert Testimonies in the case captioned JOANNE HART and
SANDRA BUENO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. BHH, LLC d/b/a BELL + HOWELL, et al.,
Defendants, No. 15cv804 (S.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs move to preclude expert testimony from Dr. Paul
Borth and Dr. Philip Whitford, repeller-efficacy experts for
Defendants BHH, LLC and Van Hauser, LLC (BHH).

This class-action lawsuit involves ultrasonic pest repellers
manufactured and sold by BHH and purchased by the Plaintiffs
(Products). The Plaintiffs claim the Products are ineffective and
that BHH committed fraud and breached warranties. As such, both
parties seek to introduce expert testimony regarding the Products'
efficacy.

The heart of the Plaintiffs' argument is that Borth and Whitford
relied on a series of efficacy tests conducted by BHH in China
(Tests), which the Plaintiffs claim are unreliable. BHH conducted
seven Tests, all with a similar design: various pests were able to
choose between two rooms, one with a Product turned on and one with
a Product turned off. Two of the Tests were conducted in empty dorm
rooms in which the pests could roam free, and five of the Tests
were conducted using two Plexiglas chambers connected by a tunnel.
Each Test included a pre- and post-test period, during which the
Products were turned off.

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert
and other scientific or technical testimony: "If scientific,
technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of
fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a
witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an
opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient
facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable
principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the
principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case."

Dr. Borth and Dr. Whitford

The Tests

The bulk of the Plaintiffs' moving papers is dedicated to the Tests
relied on by Borth and Whitford. Specifically, the Plaintiffs argue
that their opinions are inadmissible because they are founded on
unreliable Tests. The Plaintiffs raise a host of arguments
concerning unreliability: (1) the Tests lacked experimental
controls; (2) for the Tests using tunnels, pests found in the
tunnels, rather than in chambers, were counted as repelled; (3)
harborage was not used during the Tests; (4) multiple pests were
kept in the same enclosures during the Tests; (5) the Tests failed
to memorialize the species of pests used; (6) dead pests were
replaced mid-test; and (7) the Tests were not replicated.

The Plaintiffs' arguments regarding the method of counting pests
and the use of harborage go to weight, not admissibility. These
were merely choices regarding the Tests' design and do not affect
reliability. BHH's experts cannot testify that the Products were
effective even if harborage were used, given that the Tests were
run without harborage, but that is not what they seek to do.

Rather, Borth and Whitford seek to testify that the Test results
demonstrate the repellers affected the pests. On cross-examination,
the Plaintiffs are free to inquire about whether counting
non-chambered pests inflated the Test results, or whether an empty
room is a realistic test. But that does not mean the tests were
unreliable instead, they were slight modifications of an otherwise
reliable method.

Borth's Other Opinions

Ballard Study

The Plaintiffs contend the Ballard Study does not conclude that the
Products are effective, so Borth cannot use it to support such a
conclusion. However, the Ballard Study states that cockroach
activity was increased by the active ultrasound-emitting device.
And, as the Plaintiffs concede, Borth states that Ballard (1984)
found that cockroach activity was increased by the active
ultrasound-emitting device.

Specific Opinions

The Plaintiffs challenge five specific opinions in Borth's report
namely, Opinions 2, 6, 7, 9, and 12, as well as Borth's opinions
regarding consumer understanding. The Plaintiffs contend that these
opinions are inadmissible factual interpretations or legal
conclusions.

This Court agrees.

Experts are not percipient witnesses. They are witnesses who, by
virtue of specialized expertise, are able to provide opinions or
information beyond the ken of the layperson. It is therefore
inappropriate for experts to act as a vehicle to present a factual
narrative of interesting or useful documents for a case, in effect
simply accumulating and putting together one party's story.

The same holds true for legal conclusions the use of expert
testimony is not permitted if it will usurp the role of the trial
judge in instructing the jury as to the applicable law. When an
expert undertakes to tell the jury what result to reach, this does
not aid the jury in making a decision, but rather attempts to
substitute the expert's judgment for the jury's. When this occurs,
the expert acts outside of his limited role.

As such, this Court requires the exclusion of testimony which
states a legal conclusion.

Whitford's Home Study

The Plaintiffs argue that Whitford should be precluded from relying
on his Home Study because it used different repellers than those at
issue in this litigation and it lacked adequate experimental
controls.  

These arguments are unpersuasive.

First, experts may rely on analyses of similar technologies to the
technology at issue in rendering their opinions.  

Second, the Home Study used experimental controls Whitford turned
the devices on during 2009 and off during 2010. It is not required
that an expert categorically exclude each and every possible
alternative cause in order to render the proffered testimony
admissible.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion seeking to exclude Borth and
Whitford's expert testimony is granted in part and denied in part.
Opinions 2, 6, 7, 9, and 12 of the Borth Report, as well as Borth's
opinions regarding consumer understanding, are excluded at trial.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 19, 2018 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7bdltnb from
Leagle.com.

Joanne Hart, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Frederick John Klorczyk --
fklorczyk@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Joshua David Arisohn
-- jarisohn@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher P.A., Neal Jamison
Deckant -- ndeckant@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Yitzchak
Kopel -- ykopel@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A. & Joseph
Ignatius Marchese -- jmarchese@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Sandra Bueno, Plaintiff, represented by Yitzchak Kopel , Bursor &
Fisher, P.A.

BHH LLC, doing business as Bell + Howell & Van Hauser LLC,
Defendants, represented by Howard B. Randell , Leahy, Eisenberg &
Franenkel, Ltd., pro hac vice, Jeffrey S. Pavlovich , Leahy,
Eisenberg & Fraenkel, Ltd., Robert J. Ostojic , Leahy Eisenberg &
Frankel, Ltd. & Scott Wing , Leahy, Eisenberg & Franenkel, Ltd.,
pro hac vice.

BHP BILLITON: Wants Samarco Class Action Delayed
------------------------------------------------
Peter Ker, writing for the Australian Financial Review, reports
that BHP Billiton will seek to have an Australian class action into
the Samarco dam disaster delayed in a bid to avoid prejudicing
homicide charges laid against current and former executives in
Brazil.

The miner flagged in Melbourne's Federal Court on August 3 that it
was likely to request a stay of proceedings on the class action
filed by lawyers at Phi Finney McDonald, which now faces a
competing class action claim run by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers.

Class action litigants have sought compensation for losses they
incurred when trading BHP shares before and after the 2015 dam
collapse, which killed 19 people in Brazil's Minas Gerais region,
destroyed several towns and bridges and polluted the River Doce.

In October 2016, Brazilian authorities charged 22 people with
criminal offences over the disaster, including eight past or
present BHP executives.

Those facing the charges include two current vice presidents at
BHP, Margaret Beck and Tony Ottaviano and three Brazilian based
employees Sergio Fernandes, Andre Cardoso and Guilherme Ferreira.

The two biggest names charged were former group management
committee members Jimmy Wilson and Marcus Randolph, who are now in
leadership roles at CBH Group and Boart Longyear respectively.

BHP has sought to have the most severe of the charges terminated
and continues to fight the matter in Brazilian courts, and BHP's
lawyer Wendy Harris QC -- harriswa@vicbar.com.au -- highlighted
that situation on August 3 when flagging plans to ask Justice Mark
Moshinsky for a stay of proceedings to ensure "individuals in
Brazil would not be prejudiced by that proceeding".

The request for a delay will be formally argued in October, but if
granted the class actions could be delayed years until the
Brazilian charges are resolved.

In the meantime Maurice Blackburn and Phi Finney McDonald look set
to battle for primacy in the action.

Maurice Blackburn said it expected its action would attract
significant support from institutional and retail investors, and
said its claim would have litigation funding rates of between 10
and 15 per cent.

"We have good reason to believe the company should have informed
the market of serious problems at the dam as early as August 2014,"
said Maurice Blackburn's principal lawyer Brooke Dellavedova,Esq.

Maurice Blackburn's class action is focused on a shorter period of
time (between August 2014 and November 2015) than Phi Finney
McDonald's, which seeks to capture investors trading BHP shares
between October 2013 and November 2015.

The Australian class actions follow similar class actions that have
been launched in the US over the Samarco tragedy.

Mr Randolph recently told The Australian Financial Review that he
felt for his former subordinates at BHP, who were still trying to
forge careers whilst defending homicide charges.

"It isn't that difficult for me, I was already the chairman of
Boart Longyear when that lawsuit started and I continue to be, and
I am not looking for full time work. The people I really feel sorry
for are the ones that used to work for me, the people that were
there with me, that are younger than me, and are still actively
engaged in trying to have a career," he said in May.

"That is a hell of thing to try and explain in a job interview;
'Why have you got a murder charge against you?'[GN]

BLOOMFIELD, MI: Judge Issues Ruling in Water, Sewer Bill Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Runkle, writing for The Oakland Press, reports that both sides
of a class action lawsuit over water and sewer bills in Bloomfield
Township are declaring victory after an Oakland County Circuit
Court judge issued an opinion earlier in July.

Bill Hampton, township attorney, says Judge Daniel O'Brien sided
with the plaintiffs in four of seven issues raised in Jamila
Youmans v. Charter Township of Bloomfield.

But, he says, the judge did not order the township to give water
and sewer customers a refund for bills that the plaintiffs claim
were inflated over a period of several years. And, Mr. Hampton
says, the judge did not order the township to substantially change
the way it calculates water and sewer charges.

Judge O'Brien has not ruled yet on several points raised in the
lawsuit and wants the two sides to try to come to an agreement on
those unresolved issues, Hampton said.

He said either the township or the plaintiffs can appeal to the
Michigan Court of Appeals and then to the Michigan Supreme Court.

He said the case could drag on for years, and he doubts it will
ultimately result in much change for Bloomfield Township
residents.

He acknowledged that the judge's opinion said the township needed
to be more transparent with residents in how their water and sewer
charges are calculated.

The plaintiffs were represented by Kickham Hanley, a Royal Oak firm
that has handled similar class action lawsuits against other
Detroit-area cities and townships.

Representatives of Kickham Hanley could not be reached for comment.
But the firm posted a summary of the judge's opinion on its website
that indicates the judge did order Bloomfield Township to give
water and sewer customers a refund. [GN]

BWAY CORPORATION: Illegally Collects Biometric Data, Burton Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JERMAINE BURTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BWAY CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2018CH09797 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., August 1, 2018), wants to
put a stop to the Defendant's alleged unlawful collection, use, and
storage of the Plaintiff's and the putative class members'
sensitive biometric data.

BWAY is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
located in Oak Brook, Illinois.

BWAY manufactures and markets metal, plastic, and rigid containers
for the industrial packaging industry in North America.  BWAY
manufactures over 300 products in its 26 manufacturing facilities,
including three facilities in Illinois.

The Court will commence a hearing on November 29, 2018, at 10:00
a.m.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
                  ewadescott@edelson.com

               - and -

          David Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 355-7590
          Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  jkunze@fishlawfirm.com


CAMDEN OPERATIONS: Court Narrows Claims in Ouachita Residents' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas, El Dorado Division, granted in part and denied in part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned ADDIE EDWARDS, as
Personal Representative of the Estate of Ozie Edwards and on behalf
of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Ozie Edwards and all others
similarly situated; and DEBRA WHEELINGTON, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Buele Cross and on behalf of the
wrongful death beneficiaries of Buele Cross and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CAMDEN OPERATIONS, LLC, d/b/a
Ouachita Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-CV-01054 (W.D. Ark.).

Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Separate
Defendants Camden Operations, LLC d/b/a Ouachita Nursing and
Rehabilitation Center and Sub-Ten Holdings, LLC (Camden
Defendants).

The Plaintiffs bring claims in their capacities as personal
representatives of the estates of two former residents of the
Ouachita Nursing and Rehabilitation Center (Facility) as well as on
behalf of a proposed class consisting of all residents and estates
of residents who resided at Camden Operations, LLC and
Camden-Progressive Eldercare Services, Inc. both d/b/a Ouachita
Nursing and Rehabilitation Center.

In the Third Amended Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert
causes of action for: (1) violations of the Arkansas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act (ADTPA); (2) breach of the admission agreement
(3) illegal exaction under Article Sixteen, section Thirteen of the
Arkansas Constitution; (4) civil conspiracy/acting in concert and
(5) unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants
chronically understaffed the Facility, which led to the injury of
residents.

The Camden Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs' claims against
them warrant dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b).

Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act Claims

The Camden Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs have failed to
plead the elements of an ADTPA claim and that, therefore, the
Plaintiffs' claims against the Camden Defendants for alleged ADTPA
violations should be dismissed. The Camden Defendants also argue
that the Plaintiffs rely on insufficient group pleading instead of
alleging specific conduct of any one defendant.

Failure to Plead the Elements of an ADTPA Claim

To prevail on an ADTPA claim based on omission, a plaintiff must
show that: (1) the plaintiff has sustained damages; (2) the
defendant concealed, suppressed, or omitted a material fact in
connection with the sale or advertisement of services; (3) the
defendant intended that others rely upon the concealment,
suppression, or omission; and (4) the defendant's conduct was a
proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages.

Sufficiency of Damages Allegations

The Camden Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs have failed to
plead any actual damage or injury suffered by Ozie Edwards or Buele
Cross as a result of any instance of understaffing and that the
Plaintiffs instead make allegations of general injuries suffered by
Plaintiffs and the proposed class.

The Plaintiffs argue that their allegations of damages are
sufficient.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' damage allegations are
insufficient. Although it is true that the Plaintiffs have
generally alleged that they suffered damages and injuries, many of
those assertions are conclusory. The one instance the Plaintiffs
cite and that the Court has quoted above in which they list
specific physical injuries allegedly suffered by Ozie Edwards and
Buele Cross contains little factual content other than the bare
assertion that the injuries were allegedly suffered. Further,
without some context, these allegations are largely vague.

For instance, the Plaintiffs aver that Ozie Edwards suffered
multiple infections but do not state the type of infection,
duration of illness, any relevant dates, or any other facts that
would allow the Defendants to meaningfully respond to the
allegation. Similarly, the Plaintiffs state that Buele Cross
suffered severe pain, but provide no context to establish what they
mean by severe pain or what instances of "severe pain" they
reference. Finally, although the Plaintiffs state that Ozie Edwards
and Buele Cross died while residents of the Facility, they do not
explain the circumstances of the decedents' deaths or otherwise
explain how decedents died so as to allow Defendants to mount a
defense against such allegations or otherwise meaningfully answer
the complaint.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
plead the damages element of an ADTPA claim sufficiently to comply
with the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b). However, even
if the Plaintiffs' damages allegations were sufficient, their ADTPA
claims would still be subject to dismissal.

Breach of Contract

The Camden Defendants further assert that the Plaintiffs' Third
Amended Class Action Complaint fails to meet the federal pleading
standards as it contains only conclusory allegations as to the
Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim.

The Plaintiffs argue that the complaint alleges the existence of a
contract that obligated the defendants to provide services and that
the defendants failed to provide the services outlined in the
admission agreement, causing damage to the plaintiffs.

Under Arkansas law, in order to state a cause of action for breach
of contract, the complaint need only assert the existence of a
valid and enforceable contract between the plaintiff and the
defendant, the obligation of defendant thereunder, a violation by
the defendant, and damages resulting to plaintiff from the breach.

Breach of Contract Claim of Plaintiff Addie Edwards

Read as a whole with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of
the Plaintiffs, it is evident that Plaintiff Addie Edwards asserts:
(1) the existence of a valid and enforceable contract, namely the
admission agreement, between Plaintiff Edwards and the Facility,
which was owned and operated by Separate Defendant Camden
Operations, LLC; (2) that Separate Defendant Camden Operations,
LLC, as the owner of the Facility at the time of Ozie Edwards's
residency, was obligated under that contract to provide personal
care to Ozie Edwards; (3) that Separate Defendant Camden
Operations, LLC failed to provide that care; and (4) that damages
resulted in that Ozie Edwards did not receive the contracted-for
care. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff Addie Edwards has
stated a breach of contract claim against Separate Defendant Camden
Operations, LLC.

Therefore, the instant motion should be denied insofar as it seeks
dismissal of Plaintiff Addie Edwards' breach of contract claim
against Separate Defendant Camden Operations, LLC.

Breach of Contract Claim of Plaintiff Debra Wheelington

The Plaintiffs did not attach the Admission Agreement relevant to
Buele Cross to their Third Amended Class Action Complaint and there
appears to be no specific allegation that Buele Cross entered into
an admission agreement with Separate Defendant Camden Operations,
LLC. Accordingly, there is no indication that Buele Cross and
Separate Defendant Camden Operations, LLC were ever parties to a
valid and enforceable contract.

Therefore, to the extent the Plaintiffs meant to assert a breach of
contract claim in relation to Buele Cross against Separate
Defendant Camden Operations, LLC, that claim should be dismissed.

Illegal Exaction

The Camden Defendants assert, in relevant part, that the
Plaintiffs' illegal exaction claim fails because their complaint
does not identify any Arkansas law that is allegedly being violated
by the expenditure of public funds, and does not allege any
wrongdoing by a governmental actor in expending state funds.

In response, the Plaintiffs assert that the Camden Defendants'
arguments were rejected by the Arkansas Supreme Court in Nelson v.
Berry Petroleum Co., 413 S.W.2d 46 (Ark. 1967)

Article Sixteen, section Thirteen of the Arkansas Constitution
provides that any citizen of any county, city or town may institute
suit, in behalf of himself and all others interested, to protect
the inhabitants thereof against the enforcement of any illegal
exactions whatever.

It appears that in order to state an illegal exaction claim a
plaintiff must allege some wrongdoing on the part of a State actor.
Bowerman, 442 S.W.3d 839. The parties disagree on this point. The
Camden Defendants rely heavily on Bowerman v. Takeda
Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., while Plaintiffs rely exclusively on Nelson
v. Berry Petroleum Co. In Bowerman, the Arkansas Supreme Court
found that the plaintiff could not proceed on an illegal exaction
cause of action.

The Plaintiffs do not assert that these expenditures by the State
were unlawfully disbursed by the State, misapplied by the State, or
arbitrarily used by the State. As in Bowerman, the Plaintiffs do
not allege any wrongdoing on the part of the State in expending
these funds. All the wrongdoing that the Plaintiffs allege is on
the part of the Defendants.

THe Plaintiffs' illegal exaction claims fail.

Civil Conspiracy/Acting in Concert

The Camden Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' civil conspiracy
claims must be dismissed.

In Tuohey v. Chenal Healthcare, LLC, et al., 173 F.Supp.3d 804
(E.D. Ark. 2016) a case, similar to the case at bar, concerning
alleged understaffing of a nursing facility the Honorable J. Leon
Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Arkansas, observed that:

Civil conspiracy is an intentional tort requiring a specific intent
to accomplish the contemplated wrong. To state a claim for civil
conspiracy, one must allege the existence of an agreement to
accomplish a purpose that is unlawful or oppressive or to
accomplish some purpose, not in itself unlawful, oppressive, or
immoral, by unlawful, oppressive or immoral means, to the injury of
another. Civil conspiracy is not a separate tort; it must be based
on the underlying tortious activity. A plaintiff alleging a claim
for civil conspiracy must state a prima facie case for the
underlying tort in order to support a conspiracy claim.

In the instant case, the Camden Defendants assert that the
Plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claims fail because there is no
underlying intentional tort. In response, the Plaintiffs assert
that a civil conspiracy claim may proceed where a plaintiff asserts
some underlying tortious activity, and does not require that an
intentional tort be alleged in the complaint.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claims fail
under both the parties' theories. If the Court were to agree with
the Camden Defendants that in order to state a claim for civil
conspiracy the Plaintiffs must allege an underlying intentional
tort, the Plaintiffs claims would fail because they have alleged no
cause of action for an intentional tort. Likewise, if the Court
were to find that a civil conspiracy claim must simply be based on
underlying tortious activity such as statutory violations under the
ADTPA, as the Plaintiffs argue, the Plaintiffs claims would fail
because the Plaintiffs' ADTPA claims must be dismissed.

The Plaintiffs' civil conspiracy/acting in concert claims must be
dismissed.

Unjust Enrichment

The Camden Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment
claims must be dismissed.
Upon review of the parties' briefing on this issue, the Court finds
that it need not address the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims
in regard to the Camden Defendants. In their response to the
instant motion, the Plaintiffs state that they: "are not pursuing
unjust enrichment claims against the Defendants who were a party to
the Admission Agreement, namely Defendants Camden Operations, LLC
d/b/a Ouachita Nursing and Rehabilitation Center and
Camden-Progressive Eldercare Services, Inc. d/b/a Ouachita Nursing
and Rehabilitation Center. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have alleged
claims of unjust enrichment against only Defendants Progressive
Eldercare Services, Inc.; JEJ Investments, LLC; Advanced Practice
Solutions, LLC; ProCare Therapy Services, LLC; Southern
Administrative Services, LLC; Ponthie Holdings, LLC; Professional
Nursing Solutions, LLC; CarePlus Staffing Services, LLC; Ross
Ponthie; and John Ponthie."

The Plaintiffs explicitly state that they do not pursue unjust
enrichment claims against Separate Defendant Camden Operations,
LLC. Likewise, in specifically noting which the Defendants are
subject to their unjust enrichment claims, the Plaintiffs have not
included Separate Defendant Sub-Ten Holdings, LLC. Thus, the Court
need not determine whether Plaintiffs have stated a claim against
the Camden Defendants.

The Court finds that the Camden Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
should be and is granted in part and denied in part.  Accordingly,
Plaintiffs' ADTPA claims, illegal exaction claims, civil
conspiracy/acting in concert claims, and unjust enrichment claims
against the Camden Defendants are dismissed without prejudice.
Likewise, Plaintiff Debra Wheelington's breach of contract claim
against the Camden Defendants is dismissed without prejudice.

However, Plaintiff Addie Edwards has sufficiently stated a breach
of contract claim against Separate Defendant Camden Operations, LLC
d/b/a Ouachita Nursing and Rehabilitation Center and her claim
against that separate defendant remains for further consideration.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 19, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y96c8277 from
Leagle.com.

Addie Edwards, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ozie
Edwards and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Ozie
Edwards and all other similarly situated & Debra Wheelington, as
personal represenative of the estate of Buele Cross and behalf of
the wrongful death beneficiaries of Buele Cross and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Brian D. Reddick ,
Reddick Moss, PLLC, H. Gregory Campbell , Campbell Law Firm P.A.  &
Robert William Francis , Reddick Moss PLLC.

Camden Operations, LLC, doing business as Ouachita Nursing and
Rehabilitation Center, Defendant, represented by Andrew King --
Andrew.King@KutakRock.com -- Kutak Rock LLP, Vicki Bronson --
vbronson@cwlaw.com -- Conner & Winters, LLP, Dale W. Brown, II --
Dale.Brown@KutakRock.com -- Kutak Rock LLP, Jeff Fletcher --
Jeff.Fletcher@KutakRock.com -- Kutak Rock LLP & Mark W. Dossett --
Mark.Dossette@KutakRock.com -- Kutak Rock LLP.

CANADA: Alberta Government Faces Class Action Over Craft Beer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rochon Genova LLP on July 30 announced the filing of a proposed
class action in Calgary, Alberta, against the Government of Alberta
and the Alberta Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Commission in respect
of the sale of out-of-province beer in Alberta.

The claim arises from allegedly unlawful mark-ups and rebates
implemented by the Alberta government in 2015 and 2016, which
applied to the sale of craft beer manufactured outside the
province. The claim alleges that these measures unlawfully
discriminate against out-of-province craft brewers, their agents as
well as Alberta bars and restaurants and consumers who purchase
out-of-province craft beer in Alberta. These measures have
previously been held to contravene the Agreement on Internal Trade
(AIT) and were held to be unconstitutional by the Alberta Court of
Queen's Bench.

Ron Podolny -- rpodolny@rochongenova.com -- partner at Rochon
Genova LLP in Toronto, commented: "In this time of rising trade
tensions among provinces and internationally, it is important to
uphold the cornerstone Canadian constitutional principles
concerning free trade. Provinces are not permitted to enact
protectionist policies that favour their domestic industries over
competitors from other provinces. Goods manufactured in one
province must be permitted to be sold in another, free of
discrimination. When these principles are violated by governments,
and artificial internal trade barriers are erected, Canadians who
have suffered resulting financial harm deserve compensation."

The proposed class action has been brought on behalf of all persons
who imported craft beer manufactured in another province into
Alberta, as well as all residents of Alberta who purchased
out-of-province craft beer in Alberta. [GN]

CELGENE CORP: Faces 2 Securities Class Suits in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company is facing
two putative class action lawsuits in New Jersey.

On March 29, 2018, the City of Warren General Employees' Retirement
System filed a putative class action against the company and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making misstatements and/or omissions concerning
(1) trials of GED-0301, (2) 2020 outlook and projected sales of
OTEZLA(R), and (3) the new drug application for Ozanimod.

On May 3, 2018, a similar putative class action lawsuit against the
company and certain of its officers was filed by Charles H.
Witchcoff in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by making material misstatements and/or omissions concerning
(1) trials of GED-0301, (2) 2020 outlook and projected sales of
OTEZLA(R), and (3) the new drug application for Ozanimod.

The date by which defendants will be obligated to answer or
otherwise respond to the claims against them will be set after the
court appoints a lead plaintiff, which has not yet occurred.

Celgene Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, engages in the
discovery, development, and commercialization of therapies for the
treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases worldwide. The
company was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Summit, New
Jersey.


CELGENE CORP: Still Defends Thalomid and Revlimid Antitrust Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend antitrust litigation over the sales of Thalomid and
Revlimid.

On November 7, 2014, the International Union of Bricklayers and
Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB) filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey alleging that the company violated
various antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws
by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive supply contract with Seratec
S.A.R.L. so that Barr Laboratories allegedly could not secure its
own supply of thalidomide active pharmaceutical ingredient, (b)
allegedly refusing to sell samples of the company's THALOMID(R) and
REVLIMID(R) brand drugs to various generic manufacturers for the
alleged purpose of bioequivalence testing necessary for ANDAs to be
submitted to the FDA for approval to market generic versions of
these products, and (c) allegedly bringing unjustified patent
infringement lawsuits in order to allegedly delay approval for
proposed generic versions of THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R). IUB, on
behalf of itself and a putative class of third party payers, is
seeking injunctive relief and damages.

In February 2015, the company filed a motion to dismiss IUB's
complaint, and upon the filing of a similar putative class action
making similar allegations by the City of Providence (Providence),
the parties agreed that the decision in the motion to dismiss IUB's
complaint would apply to the identical claims in Providence's
complaint. In October 2015, the court denied the company's motion
to dismiss on all grounds.

The company filed its answers to the IUB and Providence complaints
in January 2016. On June 14, 2017, a new complaint was filed by the
same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the IUB case, making
similar allegations and adding three new plaintiffs - International
Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health
and Welfare Trust Fund (Local 39), The Detectives' Endowment
Association, Inc. (DEA) and David Mitchell.

Plaintiffs added allegations that the company's settlements of
patent infringement lawsuits against certain generic manufacturers
have had anticompetitive effects. Counsel identified the new
complaint as related to the IUB and Providence cases and, on August
1, 2017, filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of IUB,
Providence, Local 39, DEA, and Mitchell. On September 28, 2017, the
same counsel filed another complaint, which it identified as
related to the consolidated case, and which made similar
allegations on behalf of an additional asserted class
representative, New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund (NEC).
The NEC action has been consolidated with the original action
involving IUB, Providence, DEA, Local 39, and Mitchell into a
master action for all purposes.

On October 2, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for certification
of two damages classes under the laws of 13 states and the District
of Columbia and a nationwide injunction class. On February 26,
2018, the company filed its opposition to the plaintiffs' motion
and a motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing all state law
claims where the plaintiffs no longer seek to represent a class.
The plaintiffs filed their opposition to the company's motion for
judgment on the pleadings on April 2, 2018, and the company filed
its reply on April 13, 2018. The plaintiffs filed their reply in
support of their class certification motion on May 18, 2018.

Fact discovery in these cases closed on May 17, 2018. The
plaintiffs filed opening expert reports on June 18, 2018;
responsive and rebuttal reports are due on August 27, 2018 and
October 15, 2018, respectively. Expert discovery in these cases is
scheduled to close on October 29, 2018. No trial date has been
set.

Celgene Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, engages in the
discovery, development, and commercialization of therapies for the
treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases worldwide. The
company was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Summit, New
Jersey.


CHRISTIAN WILLIAM VARIN: Quebec Investors Can Proceed with Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Giuseppe Valiante, writing for CTV News, reports that a group of
Quebec inventors has been given the green light by a judge for a
class action lawsuit against an industry organization and its
president for alleged fraud.

Inventors were allegedly duped into paying membership fees and
other costs related to registering patents but received nothing or
little in return, Marc-Antoine Cloutier, who is representing the
plaintiffs, said on August 3.

"These inventors paid annual membership fees and paid for services
that simply didn't exist," he said. "It was like a scam, with the
objective of taking money from people as opposed to giving them a
service."

The lawsuit alleges the federation of Quebec inventors and its
president, Christian William Varin, "systemically exploited the
vulnerability of neophyte inventors."

Inventors discovered they paid money to Varin to help them obtain a
patent only to learn their idea was either not patentable or had
already been claimed by someone else, Cloutier said.

"They all realized in the end they received nothing, or things
weren't done properly," said Cloutier, who added that Varin
allegedly misrepresented his services, prices, and network of
contacts.

About 120 people have registered for the class action, said
Cloutier, who added he expects many more to come forward.

The Quebec Superior Court lawsuit is seeking $2,000 for each
inventor as well as other costs associated with their attempts to
monetize their ideas.

Justice Frederic Bachand authorized the class action on August 2.

The allegations contained in the lawsuit have not been proven in
court.

Varin's lawyer, Normand Hache,Esq. said in an email his office was
closed for the holidays and would not comment on the class action.

Quebec's consumer protection bureau confirmed in an email it
received 56 complaints against Varin's company over the last two
years.

Spokesman Charles Tanguay said the agency couldn't confirm nor deny
it had opened an investigation into the federation and its
president.

Montreal La Presse reported in June that an inventor north of
Montreal, Robert Boudreau, is suing Varin and his federation for
more than $600,000 for allegedly botching his attempt to secure a
patent for his product.

Attempts to contact Boudreau or his lawyer were unsuccessful.[GN]

CIBA INSURANCE: Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Greg Land, writing for The Recorder, reports that a putative class
action accusing California-based CIBA Insurance of operating a
"Ponzi scheme" in concert with other licensed insurance carriers
has been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in federal court
in San Franciso nearly four months after it was filed.

The lawsuit filed in April accused the Commercial Industrial
Building Owners Alliance Inc -- which operates as CIBA in 48 states
-- of collecting tens of millions of dollars in premiums even as it
evades insurance laws in California and other states.

The complaint also named Germany-based Great Lakes Insurance SE as
a co-defendant.

The suit was filed by a group of attorneys from California, Florida
and Arizona, and said CIBA and its business partners issued
coverage for more than $50 billion in property, but only had $1
billion available in coverage per occurrence for the entire pool of
insureds.

The plaintiff and would-be class representative was Sage Apts LLC,
a Wyoming apartment complex.

CIBA's attorney, Michael Kennick, Esq. -- mkennick@kennicklaw.com
-- of Fullerton, California's Kennick & Associates, said when it
was filed that the complaint was baseless and part of a pattern of
spurious lawsuits being filed against the company.

A hearing on CIBA's motion to dismiss was slated for Aug. 9.

In a statement released on August 1, Kennick said the defendants
"have maintained that the lawsuit was without merit and filed
motions to dismiss asserting there was no factual or legal basis
supporting the lawsuit, that CIBA's insurers retain ultimate
responsibility for paying claims, and that the plaintiffs had
suffered no loss of money or property and therefore had no standing
to pursue their claims."

The complaint was filed in California’s Northern District by a
group of lawyers including William Levin, Esq. --
wlevin@levinsimes.com -- Laurel Simes, Esq. --
lsimes@levinsimes.com -- and Rachel Abrams, Esq. --
rabrams@levinsimes.com -- of San Francisco's Levin Simes; William
Merlin, Esq. -- cmerlin@MerlinLawGroup.com -- and Michael Poli,
Esq. -- mpoli@MerlinLawGroup.com -- of Los Angeles' Merlin Law
Group; Adam Moskowitz, Howard Bushman and Adam Schwartzbaum of
Coral Gables, Florida's Moskowitz Law Firm --
info@moskowitz-law.com -- and Andrew Friedman, Esq. --
afriedman@bffb.com -- of Phoenix, Arizona’s Bonnett, Fairbourn,
Friedman & Balint.

In an email, Moskowitz said he and his co-counsel "have been
contacted by many different people and consumers and are carefully
reviewing all of the options and possibilities for our
clients."[GN]

COTIVITI HOLDINGS: Rosenblatt Suit Challenges Sale to Verscend
--------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. COTIVITI HOLDINGS, INC., DAVID SWIFT, J.
DOUGLAS WILLIAMS, ELIZABETH CONNOLLY ALEXANDER, MALA ANAND, KENNETH
GOULET, RUBEN J. KINGSHAW, JR., JOHN MALDONADO, JAMES PARISI,
CHRISTOPHER PIKE, and HALSEY WISE, Case No. 1:18-cv-01149-UNA (D.
Del., August 1, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction pursuant
to which Cotiviti will be acquired by Verscend Technologies, Inc.
("Parent") and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Rey Merger Sub, Inc.

On June 19, 2018, Cotiviti's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Verscend.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, if the Proposed
Transaction is approved by Cotiviti's shareholders and completed,
Cotiviti's stockholders will receive $44.75 in cash for each share
of Cotiviti common stock they own.  The special stockholder meeting
at which Cotiviti's stockholders will vote on the Proposed
Transaction is set for August 24, 2018.

Cotiviti is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Atlanta, Georgia.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.

Cotiviti is a leading provider of analytics-driven payment accuracy
and spend management solutions, focused primarily on the healthcare
sector, which comprised 89% of the Company's revenue in 2017.  The
Company's integrated solutions help clients enhance payment
accuracy in an increasingly complex healthcare environment.

Verscend is a portfolio company of Veritas Capital and a leader in
data-driven healthcare solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com


CRESCENT CONSULTING: Lange Seeks Unpaid OT Premiums Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Langen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Crescent Consulting, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-00541 (W.D. Tex., June 1, 2018), seeks to recover minimum
wages, overtime compensation, withheld tips, liquidated damages and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Crescent is an oil and gas exploration and production company
operating in Texas and Oklahoma. Crescent failed to pay Langen
overtime for those hours exceeding 40 in a workweek as a result of
misclassifying him as an independent contractor, notes the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 352-1100
      Fax: (713) 352-3300
      Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
             rschreiber@mybackwages.com

             - and -

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


EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Faces 87 Suits Related to Thomas Fire
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edison International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company, together
with Southern California Edison Company (SCE), is facing 87
lawsuits related to Thomas Fire.

As of July 23, 2018, SCE was aware of at least 87 lawsuits,
representing approximately 2,000 plaintiffs, related to the Thomas
Fire naming SCE as a defendant.

The cases involve those affected by the fire that started Dec. 4
and deadly mudslides Jan. 9 in Montecito, with attorneys for
mudslide victims alleging the fire was to blame, according to a
report by VCStar.com.

Thirty of these lawsuits also name Edison International as a
defendant and at least four of the lawsuits were filed as purported
class actions. The lawsuits, which have been filed in the superior
courts of Ventura, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties allege,
among other things, negligence, inverse condemnation, trespass,
private nuisance, and violations of the public utilities and health
and safety codes. By order of the Chair of the California Judicial
Council, the lawsuits have been coordinated in the Los Angeles
Superior Court.

Edison International, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in the
United States. It generates electricity through hydroelectric,
diesel/liquid petroleum gas, natural gas, nuclear, and photovoltaic
sources. Edison International was founded in 1886 and is based in
Rosemead, California.


EQT CORP: Trial in Kay Company Class Suit Set for Nov. 28
---------------------------------------------------------
EQT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that trial is scheduled for
November 28, 2018, in the case, Kay Company, LLC, et al. v. EQT
Production Company, et al., United States District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia.

On January 16, 2013, several royalty owners who have entered into
leases with EQT Production Company, a subsidiary of the Company,
filed a gas royalty class action in the Circuit Court of Doddridge
County, West Virginia.

The suit alleges that EQT Production Company and a number of
related companies, including the Company, EQT Energy, LLC, EQT
Gathering Holdings, LLC, EQT Investments Holdings, LLC and EQM,
have failed to pay royalties on the fair value of the gas produced
from the leases and have taken improper post-production deductions
from the royalties paid.

The suit seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, and other
relief. EQT denies that it underpaid royalties or that it took
improper deductions and is vigorously defending the case.

On May 31, 2013, the EQT defendants removed the lawsuit to federal
court. On September 6, 2017, the district court granted the
plaintiffs' motion to certify the class and granted plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment, finding that EQT Production Company
and its marketing affiliate EQT Energy, LLC are alter egos of one
another.

The EQT defendants sought immediate appeal of the class
certification. On November 30, 2017, the court of appeals declined
the request for an immediate review.

Trial is scheduled for November 28, 2018.

EQT said, "In the event of an adverse judgment, the EQT defendants
intend to appeal the class certification, alter ego ruling, and any
assessment of liability."

EQT Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates in
natural gas industry in the United States. The company was founded
in 1925 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


EQUIFAX INC: Bid to Dismiss N.D. Georgia Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the defendants in the consolidated
putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia have moved to dismiss the
complaint.

A consolidated putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of
the federal securities laws in connection with statements regarding
the company's cybersecurity systems and controls is pending against
the company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.

The consolidated complaint seeks certification of a class of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Equifax securities from
February 25, 2016 through September 15, 2017 and unspecified
monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The defendants have
moved to dismiss the complaint.

Equifax said, "We dispute the allegations in the complaint and
intend to defend against the claims."

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments,
and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S.
Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions,
and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


FIRST ALARM: Nguyen Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TRI NGUYEN, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated
individuals, and the general public v. FIRST ALARM SECURITY &
PATROL, INC., d/b/a FIRST SECURITY SERVICES, and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. 18CV332369 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.,
August 1, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages under the
California Labor Code.

FASP is a California corporation with its principal place of
business in San Jose, California.  The Plaintiff does not know the
true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Defendants control and operate business and establishments in
locations within the state of California, including the County of
Santa Clara, for the purposes of providing security guard
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Theodore R. Tang, Esq.
          Adam M. Rose, Esq.
          Emanuel Starr, Esq.
          FRONTIER LAW CENTER
          23901 Calabasas Road, Suite #2074
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 914-3433
          Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
          E-mail: theodore@frontierlawcenter.com
                  adam@frontierlawcenter.com
                  Manny@frontierlawcenter.com


FLINT, MI: Dismissal of B. Boler's Unjust Enrichment Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Michigan affirmed the District Court's
dismissal of the case captioned BEATRICE BOLER, EDWIN ANDERSON,
ALLINE ANDERSON, and EPCO SALES, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
GOVERNOR, STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,
and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendants-Appellees,
and DANIEL WYANT, LIANE SHEKTER-SMITH, ADAM ROSENTHAL, STEPHEN
BUSCH, PATRICK COOK, MICHAEL PRYSBY, BRADLEY WURFEL, ED KURTZ,
DARNELL EARLEY, GERARD AMBROSE, LOCKWOOD, ANDREWS & NEWMAN, P.C.,
and LOCKWOOD, ANDREWS & NEWMAN, INC., Defendants, and DAYNE
WALLING, HOWARD CROFT, MICHAEL GLASGLOW, DAUGHERTY JOHNSON III, and
CITY OF FLINT, Defendants-Appellants, No. 337383 (Mich. App.).

Defendants, Dayne Walling, Howard Croft, Michael Glasglow,
Daugherty Johnson III and the City of Flint  appeal as of right the
trial court's sua sponte order dismissing plaintiffs' claims
against them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired to keep the
seriousness of the pollution and contamination from the plaintiffs
and allowed the water supply to keep being delivered, risking the
plaintiffs' health and causing them damages. The specific causes of
action were breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory
relief.

Darnell Earley, Gerard Ambrose, and the defendants moved for
summary disposition in lieu of answering the complaint. Relevant to
the instant matter, before a decision was rendered on that motion,
the court, on its own motion, dismissed the plaintiffs' claims
against the defendants in accordance with the August 25, 2016
opinion and order issued in Collins v City of Flint, et al.,Court
of Court of Claims Docket No. 16-115-MZ and Vale v City of Flint,
Court of Claims Docket No. 16-116-MK.

In those cases, the plaintiffs commenced intended class action
lawsuits in Genesee Circuit Court against the Governor, the State
of Michigan, the City of Flint, the City's former emergency
managers, and several City employees regarding the water crisis in
Flint.

The Plaintiffs asserted that defendants breached a contract with
residents to provide potable water, breached an implied warranty of
fitness for a particular purpose, violated the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act, and unjustly enriched the City. The City
transferred the claims against the City, the former emergency
manager, and city employees from Genesee Circuit to the Court of
Claims.

The Plaintiffs challenged the validity of the notice of transfer
contending that the City was an arm of the state as set forth in
MCL 600.6419(1)(a). The Plaintiff in the Vale case sought summary
disposition for lack of the Court of Claims subject matter
jurisdiction. The Court of Claims found that the City was not an
arm of the state and that the claims against the City and its
employees were within the exclusive subject matter jurisdiction of
the circuit court.
Defendants assert that municipalities act as arms of the state
whenever they act in the name of public health and municipalities
operate waterworks in the name of public health.
The Defendants additionally assert that the state's emergency
management of a municipality under the Local Financial Stability
and Choice Act transforms the municipality into an arm of the state
and that the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over claims
brought against arms of the state.

No function or purpose of the state was accomplished in the
emergency manager overseeing the City. The City was instead always
operating as a means through which functions of its own entity were
accomplished. The state simply engaged a state employee to
temporarily assist the City in performing its functions and serving
its local purposes for its citizens. Moreover, were we to find that
whenever a state employee assists in, or even temporarily takes
over the management of a private (for lack of a better word) entity
that entity becomes an arm of the state, we would be opening the
State of Michigan up to liabilities that were never intended and
undermining the Governmental Tort Liability Act.

The Court thus does not find that the state's emergency management
of a municipality under the Local Financial Stability and Choice
Act transforms the municipality into an arm of the state thereby
granting exclusive jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims against
the defendants in the Court of Claims.

A full-text copy of the Mich. App.'s June 14, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydxhl5qy from Leagle.com.

VALDEMAR L. WASHINGTON -- vwashington@gunder.com -- for BEATRICE
BOLER, Plaintiff-Appellee.

NATHAN A. GAMBILL , TODD R. MENDEL , for GOVERNOR,
Defendant-Appellee.

NATHAN A. GAMBILL , for STATE OF MICHIGAN, Defendant-Appellee.

MICHAEL J. PATWELL -- mpattwell@clarkhill.com -- for DANIEL WYANT,
Defendant.

THADDEAUS MORGAN -- tmorgan@fraserlawfirm.com -- for LIANE
SHEKTER-SMITH, Defendant.

FLORIDA: Parents Appeal Prepaid Tuition Plan Case Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Solochek, writing for Tampa Bay Times, reports that
families that bought a Florida Prepaid tuition plan before 2007
thought they'd get the full value of an in-state degree even if
their children attended an out-of-state school. The state tuition
law changed, though, and some of the parents contend they've been
shortchanged. They lost the first round of their class action suit,
which now is on appeal. [GN]



FORTIS: Dec. 31 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------
Notice that the Fortis Settlement has been declared binding
pursuant to article 1017(3) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure,
at the request and instruction of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal
(the "Court").

This notice is addressed to all natural and legal persons that
purchased or held Fortis shares at any time between February 28,
2007 close of business and October 14, 2008 close of business
(referred to as the "eligible shareholders").

Binding declaration of the Agreement

The Court has declared the settlement agreement entered into
between Ageas (formerly Fortis), Dutch Investors' Association
(VEB), Deminor, SICAF, FortisEffect and Stichting FORsettlement
(the "Agreement") to be irrevocably binding in a judgment of  July
13, 2018.

Content of the Agreement

Under certain conditions, the Agreement grants the eligible
shareholders compensation in connection with the events that
occurred in 2007 and 2008 at what was formerly Fortis (now Ageas).
These are events that may have affected the price of the shares, in
particular Fortis' communication (or lack thereof) and policy with
regard to its financial position, the run-up to the break-up of
Fortis and the takeover of ABN AMRO, as described in greater detail
in the Agreement.

Consequences of binding declaration

As the Court has declared the Agreement binding, all eligible
shareholders are, in principle, bound by the Agreement.  The
Agreement entitles the eligible shareholders to compensation under
the conditions set out therein.  In return, the eligible
shareholders grant full and final discharge to Ageas, the (former)
officers of Ageas and the coordinating banks in the manner set out
in the Agreement for the events that occurred at Fortis in 2007 and
2008.

Claiming compensation

All those wishing to be eligible for compensation under the
Agreement must submit a claim form.  A claim form can be downloaded
from the website www.forsettlement.com or can be requested by
telephone via the numbers listed below (see under "Additional
information and contact").  The fully completed and signed claim
form (along with the evidence requested) must be sent to the Claims
Administrator at the postal address mentioned below (see under
"Additional information and contact") or via the website
www.forsettlement.com.  The claim form may be filed as from July
27, 2018 and must be received by the Claims Administrator no later
than on July 28, 2019 or bear the postmark of that date.  Eligible
shareholders failing to timely submit a claim form in the
prescribed manner are not or no longer entitled to compensation.
Additional information on submitting the claim form can be found on
the claim form and in the corresponding instructions.

'Opt-out' possibility

If an eligible shareholder does not wish to be bound by the
Agreement, that shareholder must deliver a notice to that effect
(an "opt-out notice") to the Claims Administrator within five
months, i.e. no later than on December 31, 2018.  Eligible
shareholders who validly submit an opt-out notice are not bound by
the Agreement, nor are they entitled to compensation pursuant to
the Agreement nor may they derive any other right from the
Agreement.

An opt-out notice may be submitted to the Claims Administrator
electronically via the email address
forsettlement@computershare.com or by post at the postal address
mentioned below (see under "Additional information and contact").

For an opt-out notice, eligible shareholders are requested to use
the opt-out notice form that can be downloaded from
www.forsettlement.com or requested by telephone via the numbers
indicated below (see under "Additional information and contact").
The opt-out notice must include the name, address, telephone number
and email address of the eligible shareholder.  In addition,
eligible shareholders are requested to indicate the number of
Fortis shares they held on certain dates listed in the Agreement
and to state whether they are represented by VEB, Deminor, SICAF
and/or FortisEffect.

Additional information and contact

The Court's judgment in which the settlement was declared binding
and the Agreement can be accessed, downloaded and printed at
www.rechtspraak.nl (via the search term "WCAM Fortis") and
www.forsettlement.com.  The latter website also provides other
relevant documentation.  We urge you to consult
www.forsettlement.com to keep up to date on further
communications.

The Claims Administrator's postal address is:

          Computershare Investor Services plc PO Box 7148
          3109 AC Schiedam
          The Netherlands

               - or -

          Computershare Investor Services plc PO Box 304
          2800 Mechelen
          Belgium

For answers to frequently asked questions, please visit
www.forsettlement.com/page/support.  Please contact the
FORsettlement Contact Centre via the contact form at
www.forsettlement.com/page/contact or via the telephone numbers
below if you have further questions:

Belgium: 0800 26 83 2
The Netherlands: +31 30 252 53 59
International: +32 2 557 59 00

FREEDMAN SEATING: Faces Mims Suit Over Use of Biometric Data
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA MIMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FREEDMAN SEATING COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Case
No. 2018CH09806 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., August 1, 2018), seeks
to put a stop to the Defendant's alleged unlawful collection, use,
and storage of the Plaintiff's and the proposed class members'
sensitive biometric data.

Freedman Seating is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the state of Illinois.  Freedman is a leading manufacturer
of transportation seating.  Freedman operates a manufacturing
facility in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Court will commence a hearing in the case on November 29, 2018,
at 10:00 a.m.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
                  ewadescott@edelson.com

               - and -

          David Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 355-7590
          Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  jkunze@fishlawfirm.com


GDS HOLDINGS: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing
investors nationwide, has filed a securities fraud class action
against GDS Holdings Limited ("GDS" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GDS)
and certain of its officers alleging violations of the federal
securities laws and encourages shareholders to contact Block &
Leviton ahead of the October 1, 2018 lead plaintiff deadline.

On July 31, 2018, Blue Orca Capital released a report alleging that
"GDS is borrowing crippling amounts of debt to enrich insiders by
acquiring data centers from undisclosed related parties which are
not nearly as valuable as the Company claims. We believe that since
becoming a public Company, GDS has borrowed recklessly to siphon
off at least RMB 696 million to insiders by inflating the purchase
price of undisclosed related party acquisitions."

Following this report, the Company's shares plunged more than 38%.

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court Southern
District of New York, captioned Allison v. GDS Holdings Limited et
al., Case No. 1:18-cv-06960, alleges that between November 2, 2016
and July 31, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company has overstated its utilization and occupancy rates;
(2) it has made acquisitions with related parties at inflated
prices; (3) it has used suspect capital and debt raisings despite
large off-shore cash reserves; (4) it has adopted unorthodox
accounts receivable and payable practices; and (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendant's statements about GDS'
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased GDS American Depositary Shares (ADSs) between
November 2, 2016 and July 31, 2018 and wish to serve as a lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 1, 2018.

Confidentiality to whistleblowers or others with information
relevant to this investigation is assured.

The court in which this case is pending is located at 40 Foley
Square, New York, New York 10007.

         Contact:
         John DeFelice, Esq.
         BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
         155 Federal Street, Suite 400
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 398-5600
         Links: http://shareholder.law/gds
                http://blockesq.com
         Email: john@blockesq.com [GN]

GDS HOLDINGS: Kaskela Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC disclsoed that an investor class action lawsuit has
been filed against GDS Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: GDS) ("GDS" or the
"Company") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between November 2, 2016 and July 31, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Investors who purchased GDS's securities during the Class Period
may, no later than October 1, 2018, seek to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff representative in the action.

GDS investors with investment losses in excess of $50,000 are
encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at
(484) 258-1585 or (888) 715-1740, or via email at
skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, to discuss this action and their legal
options.  Investors may also submit their information to the firm
online at http://kaskelalaw.com/case/gds-holdings/.

On July 31, 2018, Blue Orca Capital released a report alleging that
"GDS is borrowing crippling amounts of debt to enrich insiders by
acquiring data centers from undisclosed related parties which are
not nearly as valuable as the Company claims. We believe that since
becoming a public Company, GDS has borrowed recklessly to siphon
off at least RMB 696 million to insiders by inflating the purchase
price of undisclosed related party acquisitions."  Following this
news, shares of the Company's securities declined $12.92 per share,
or over 37% in value.

The investor class action complaint alleges that GDS and certain
other defendants made a series of false and misleading statements
during the Class Period and failed to disclose material adverse to
investors concerning the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.  Specifically, the defendants failed to disclose that
GDS: (1) has overstated its utilization and occupancy rates; (2)
has made acquisitions with related parties at inflated prices; (3)
has used suspect capital and debt raisings despite large off-shore
cash reserves; and (4) has adopted unorthodox accounts receivable
and payable practices.  The complaint further alleges that, as a
result of the foregoing, investors purchased GDS's securities at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and have
sustained investment losses.

GDS investors and individuals with information relevant to this
action are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC or visit the
firm's website at http://kaskelalaw.com/case/gds-holdings/.
Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in state and
federal courts throughout the country.  For additional information
about Kaskela Law LLC please visit www.kaskelalaw.com.

         Contact:
         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         201 King of Prussia Road
         Suite 650
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (484) 258-1585
                    (888) 715-1740
         Website: www.kaskelalaw.com
         Email: info@kaskelalaw.com
                skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]

GENERAL CHEMICAL: Nov. 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
If You Purchased Liquid Aluminum Sulfate From January 1, 1997
Through February 28, 2011, You Could Be Affected By A Proposed
Class Action Settlement.

Please read this entire Notice carefully.  Partial settlements of
the lawsuit may affect your rights.

A partial settlement in a lawsuit pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey ("the Court") against
the following Defendants, General Chemical Corporation; General
Chemical Performance Products, LLC; General Chemical LLC, GenTek
Inc., Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund; Chemtrade Logistics Inc.,
Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation; and Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC.;
Chemtrade Solutions, LLC; C&S Chemicals, Inc., USALCO, LLC, Kemira
Chemicals, Inc., Southern Ionics, Inc., GEO Specialty Chemicals,
Inc., Frank A. Reichl, Vincent J. Opalewski, Alex Avraamides, Amita
Gupta, Milton Sundbeck, Kenneth A. Ghazey, Brian C. Steppig,
American Securities LLC, Matthew Lebaron, and Scott Wolff.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit claim that Defendants hurt competition
and violated state antitrust, consumer protection, and other laws
by allocating customers and markets and fixing the price of Liquid
Aluminum Sulfate ("Alum"), thereby causing indirect purchasers to
pay too much for Alum. Defendants deny any wrongdoing.

A Settlement has been reached with Defendant GEO Specialty
Chemicals Inc. ("GEO"), Kenneth A. Ghazey ("Ghazey") and Brian C.
Steppig (the "GEO Settling Parties").  The lawsuit will continue
against the other Defendants (collectively, "Non-Settling
Defendants").

WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE CLASS? The Indirect Purchaser Settlement
Class consists of all persons or entities in AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO,
DC, FL, HI, IL, IA, KS, ME, MA, MI, MN, MS, NE, NV, NH, NM, NY, NC,
ND, OR, PR, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, WV, and WI that purchased
liquid aluminum sulfate, not for resale, which was manufactured,
produced or supplied by Defendants or their unnamed co-conspirators
from January 1, 1997 through February 28, 2011.  Excluded from the
Class are Defendants, co-conspirators and their respective parents,
subsidiaries, and affiliates.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? GEO and the Settling Parties
agreed to pay into an Escrow Account the sum of up to $4,375,000
(the "Settlement Funds") as follows.  GEO shall use its best
efforts to cause its insurers to pay $801,074 directly into the
Indirect Purchaser Escrow Account within thirty (30) days of Final
Judgment.  GEO shall also pay $898,926 into the Indirect Purchaser
Escrow Account (collectively, the "First Installment"). GEO shall
make one additional payment of $1,675,000 that shall be paid into
the Indirect Purchaser Escrow Account on or before the first
anniversary of the First Installment.  GEO will undertake a
marketing process for a sale of all or substantially all of its
equity interests, a merger of GEO and another entity, or a sale of
all or substantially all of its assets (collectively, a "Sale")
that will commence no later than thirty (30) days after entry of
Final Judgment.  If this marketing process is successful, upon the
closing of the Sale, the Indirect Purchaser Settlement Class shall
be entitled to receive from GEO additional compensation pursuant to
an equity value formula up to $1,000,000.

At this time, Interim IPP Lead Counsel are not seeking attorneys'
fees in connection with this Settlement.  Interim IPP Lead Counsel
intends to ask for reimbursement of certain of their out of pocket
expenses incurred so far in this litigation, including expert
witness expenses incurred to date, as well as service awards for
the class representatives of up to $25,000.00 each from the
Settlement Fund in recognition of their efforts to date on behalf
of the Class.  At a later date, Interim IPP Lead Counsel may seek
up to one-third of the aggregate of funds achieved for the Class,
and from any future recovery that may occur in this Class Action
against the Non-Settling Defendants.

HOW DO I RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM THE SETTLEMENT? No money will be
distributed yet.  The Interim IPP Lead Counsel will continue to
pursue the lawsuit against the Non-Settling Defendants.  All
Settlement Funds that remain after payment of the Court-ordered
attorneys' fees, incentive awards, costs, and expenses will be
distributed at the conclusion of the lawsuit or as ordered by the
Court.

You may visit the website www.LiquidAluminumSulfate.com for updates
on the status of the lawsuit.

WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS? If you wish to remain an Indirect Purchaser
Settlement Class Member, you need not take any action at this time.
You will give up your right to sue the GEO Settling Parties for
the claims that the Settlement with them will resolve.  If you want
to keep the right to sue or continue to sue the GEO Settling
Parties about the legal issues in this case, then you must exclude
yourself from the Class.  If you exclude yourself from the Indirect
Purchaser Settlement Class, you will not get any payment from the
Settlement.  To exclude yourself, you must send a letter to the
Settlement Administrator, postmarked no later than October 2, 2018.
You may also comment on or object to the proposed Settlement. Your
objections must be filed no later than October 2, 2018.  Details on
how to request exclusion, comment, or object to the Settlement are
available on the Settlement website,
www.LiquidAluminumSulfate.com.

WHO REPRESENTS ME? The Court appointed Jay B. Shapiro of Stearns
Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A. and Marvin A.
Miller of Miller Law LLC as Interim IPP Lead Counsel to represent
the Indirect Purchaser Settlement Class on an interim basis and for
purposes of the Settlement.  If you want to be represented by your
own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense.

The Court will hold a final fairness hearing to decide whether to
approve the terms of the Settlement at 10:00 a.m. on November 14,
2018, at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50
Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey 07101.  If there are objections,
the Court will consider them but may still approve the Settlement.
You may appear at the hearing, but you are not required to do so.
The hearing may be rescheduled without notice to the Class, so if
you plan to attend, please periodically check the Settlement
website for any updates.

This notice is only a summary.  For more information, please visit
the Settlement website, www.LiquidAluminumSulfate.com or call
1-866-217-4455.

GERDAU AMERISTEEL: Class Settlement Has Final Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
granted Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement in the
case captioned MICHAEL L. WODASZEWSKI, DARRELL LOUTSCH, JESSE A.
MONTEZ, JR., CHARLES NIPPOLDT, and RICKY CARL HAMBLIN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; and UNITED STEEL,
PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED
INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO/CLC,
Plaintiffs, v. GERDAU AMERISTEEL US INC., and GERDAU AMERISTEEL US
RETIREE MEDICAL PLAN, Defendants, Court File No.
17-cv-05564-MJD-KMM (D. Minn.).

This Court entered a Preliminary Approval Order  in which the
Court, among other things, preliminarily approved the settlement
contained in the Settlement Agreement, approved the form of notice
to Class Members and directed that notice of the settlement be
provided to Class Members, and set a hearing date for final
approval of the settlement.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and this Court's Order granting
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the following persons
are members of the Class:

   i. Subclass A. All former USW-represented employees who (i) were
hired on or before October 1, 2000; (ii) retired from the St. Paul
Mill; (iii) met the Eligibility Criteria to participate in the
Gerdau Ameristeel Retiree Medical Plan for St. Paul Union Retirees
(the Plan) at the time of their retirement; and (iv) for employees
who retired on or before June 1, 2016, continued to meet the
Eligibility Criteria for participating in the Plan as of August 7,
2017, as well as the Eligible Dependents of all such former
USW-represented employees.

  ii. Subclass B. All USW-represented employees of the St. Paul
Mill who were hired on or before October 1, 2000, and who meet the
Eligibility Criteria to participate in the Gerdau Ameristeel
Retiree Medical Plan for St. Paul Union Retirees upon their
retirement.

The Court finds the settlement set forth in the Settlement
Agreement to be, in all respects, fair, adequate, reasonable,
proper, and in the best interests of the Class, and approves the
settlement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 14, 2018 Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8lvpp23 from Leagle.com.

Michael L. Wodaszewski, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Darrell Loutsch, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Jesse A. Montez, Jr., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Charles Nippoldt, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Ricky Carl
Hamblin, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
& United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO/CLC, Plaintiffs, represented by Joel R. Hurt --
JHURT@FDPKLAW.COM -- Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC, pro hac
vice, John G. Engberg , Peterson Engberg & Peterson, Mark W. Bay ,
Peterson Engberg & Peterson & Ruairi McDonnell --
RMCDONNELL@FDPKLAW.COM -- Feinstein, Doyle, Payne & Kravec, LLC,
pro hac vice.

Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc. & Gerdau Ameristeel US Retiree Medical
Plan, Defendants, represented by Brian J. Kelly --
bkelly@frantzward.com -- Frantz Ward LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R.
Kelly -- dkelly@felhaber.com -- Felhaber Larson, Daniel A. Ward --
dward@frantzward.com -- Frantz Ward LLP, pro hac vice & Randi J.
Winter -- rwinter@felhaber.com -- Felhaber Larson.

GLOBAL TELLINK: Stuart Appeals Orders and Judgment to 8th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kaylan Stuart, et al., filed an appeal from a court
order dated June 29, 2018, judgment dated June 29, 2018, and order
dated July 17, 2018, in their lawsuit styled Kaylan Stuart, et al.
v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-05275-TLB, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas -
Fayetteville.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
allege in their complaint that GTL charged them unjust and
unreasonable rates for inmate phone-calling services at various
correctional facilities throughout the United States, in violation
of the Federal Communications Act and the common law of unjust
enrichment.

The appellate case is captioned as Kaylan Stuart, et al. v. Global
Tel*Link Corporation, Case No. 18-2640, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Kaylan Stuart, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and Dustin Murilla are represented
by:

          Susan L. Burke, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SUSAN L. BURKE (BURKE PLLC)
          1611 Park Avenue
          Baltimore, MD 21217
          Telephone: (410) 733-5444
          E-mail: sburke@burkepllc.com

               - and -

          Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
          Vess A. Miller, Esq.
          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          COHEN MALAD LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
          E-mail: sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com
                  vmiller@cohenandmalad.com
                  rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
                  ltoops@cohenandmalad.com

               - and -

          Andrew R. Lynch, Esq.
          ANDREW R. LYNCH, P.C.
          150 E. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 225
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 373-7735
          E-mail: andrew@atlnotguilty.com

               - and -

          Amy C. Martin, Esq.
          P.O. Box 765
          Fayetteville, AR 72702
          Telephone: (479) 422-4611
          E-mail: theamymartin@gmail.com

               - and -

          Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
          Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq.
          Amanda Trask, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: pmuhic@ktmc.com
                  dmoffa@ktmc.com
                  atrask@ktmc.com

               - and -

          James Radford, Esq.
          RADFORD & KEEBAUGH
          315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (678) 369-3609
          E-mail: james@decaturlegal.com

Plaintiff-Appellant Walter Chruby is represented by:

          Daniel Berger, Esq.
          Peter R. Kahana
          Barbara A. Podell, Esq.
          Yechiel Michael Twersky, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: danberger@bm.net
                  pkahana@bm.net
                  bpodell@bm.net
                  mitwersky@bm.net

               - and -

          Robert A. Braun, Esq.
          Benjamin Brown, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          West Tower, Suite 500
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005-3934
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: rbraun@cohenmilstein.com
                  bbrown@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Susan L. Burke, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SUSAN L. BURKE (BURKE PLLC)
          1611 Park Avenue
          Baltimore, MD 21217
          Telephone: (410) 733-5444
          E-mail: sburke@burkepllc.com

               - and -

          James Maro, Esq.
          Amanda Trask, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: jmaro@ktmc.com
                  atrask@ktmc.com

Plaintiffs-Appellants Walter Chruby and Rocky Hobbs are represented
by:

          Amy C. Martin, Esq.
          P.O. Box 765
          Fayetteville, AR 72702
          Telephone: (479) 422-4611
          E-mail: theamymartin@gmail.com

               - and -

          Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: pmuhic@ktmc.com

Defendant-Appellee Global Tel*Link Corporation is represented by:

          Robert J. Herrington, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586-7700
          Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
          E-mail: herringtonr@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Sklaire, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1750 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 1000
          McLean, VA 22102
          Telephone: (703) 749-1308
          E-mail: sklairem@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Marshall S. Ney, Esq.
          FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP
          3350 S. Pinnacle Hills Pkwy., Suite 301
          Rogers, AR 72758
          Telephone: (479) 644-6049
          E-mail: mney@fridayfirm.com



GOOD EATS: Quintanilla Suit Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE FREDDY QUINTANILLA and MAURO GONZALEZ, and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. GOOD EATS MEAL PLAN
CORP., d/b/a GOOD EATS, PAUL RIEDEL, AND JOHN MUNSON, Case No.
2:18-cv-04350 (E.D.N.Y., August 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, overtime compensation, and other penalties owed to the
Plaintiffs by the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York State Labor.

Good Eats Meal Plan Corp. is a business corporation incorporated in
New York with its principal place of business at 104 Merrick Road,
in Amityville, County of Suffolk, New York.  The Individual
Defendants are co-owners of Good Eats.

Good Eats is in the business of preparing, then shipping or
delivering, meals to customers.  Good Eats delivers to local
customers, but also ships meals to customers in other states.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew Weinick, Esq.
          FAMIGHETTI & WEINICK, PLLC
          25 Melville Park Road, Suite 235
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 352-0050
          E-mail: mbw@fwlawpllc.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: mtompkins@lmblaw.com




GOOGLE LLC: Fails to Block Rejected Job Applicants' Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Blumberg and Robert Burnson, writing for Business Day,
reports that Google failed to block a class-action lawsuit by
rejected job applicants who accuse the search engine giant of
systematically favouring younger candidates.

US district judge Beth Labson Freeman in California, issued a
ruling on August 1 throwing out the internet search giant's request
to deny group status to as many as 265 people 40 years and older
who sought to join the case. The judge said her decision will
remain sealed for now because it contains "highly confidential and
business-sensitive information", while directing both sides to
advise her what language should be redacted so that the ruling can
be made public.

The case is spearheaded by a woman engineer who was interviewed by
Google four times from 2007 to 2014, starting when she was 47. She
claims that because of her age, she was never offered employment
despite having "highly pertinent qualifications and programming
experience".

Cheryl Fillekes alleged that Google's hiring process -- even if it
appeared neutral -- resulted in a "practice and pattern" of
discrimination against older applicants. It did this in various
ways, including by emphasising abstract, theoretical interview
questions in line with current college engineering curriculums and
placing an emphasis on "Googleyness" and cultural fit, thereby
promulgating its youthful demographic, according to the complaint,
which put the median age of Google employees at 29.

Freeman allowed the woman's lawyers in 2016 to solicit other
job-seekers who claimed to have been denied employment because of
age. After evaluating the rejected applicants' claims, Google
argued there are too many variations among their allegations for
the case to hold together as a class action.

The company said that when its lawyers questioned dozens of job
seekers who sought to join the case, some said they performed well
on the company's technical engineering test and didn't criticise
it, unlike Fillekes. Google also said "some plaintiffs who
interviewed multiple times performed better after age 40 than when
under age 40."[GN]

HEBEI WELCOME: SCOTUS Vacates Judgment in Vit C Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the United States vacates the judgment of the
Court of Appeals reversing the District Court's Opinion denying
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in the case  captioned ANIMAL
SCIENCE PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL., Petitioners, v. HEBEI WELCOME
PHARMACEUTICAL CO. LTD., ET AL., No. 16-1220 (U.S.).

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that
the District Court erred in denying the Chinese sellers' motion to
dismiss the complaint.

Petitioners, U.S.-based purchasers of vitamin C (U.S. purchasers),
filed a class-action suit against four Chinese corporations that
manufacture and export the nutrient (Chinese sellers). The U.S.
purchasers alleged that the Chinese sellers, two of whom are
respondents here, had agreed to fix the price and quantity of
vitamin C exported to the United States from China, in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. Section 1.

The Chinese sellers moved to dismiss the U.S. purchasers' complaint
on the ground that Chinese law required them to fix the price and
quantity of vitamin C exports. Therefore, the Chinese sellers
urged, they are shielded from liability under U.S. antitrust law by
the act of state doctrine, the foreign sovereign compulsion
doctrine, and principles of international comity. The Ministry of
Commerce of the People's Republic of China (Ministry) filed a brief
as amicus curiae in support of the Chinese sellers' motion.

The District Court denied the Chinese sellers' motion to dismiss
the complaint in relevant part. That court acknowledged that the
Ministry's amicus brief was entitled to substantial deference. The
court, however, did not regard the Ministry's statements as
conclusive, emphasizing particularly that the U. S. purchasers had
submitted evidence suggesting that the price fixing was voluntary.
The record, the District Court determined, was too ambiguous to
foreclose further inquiry into the voluntariness of the Chinese
sellers' actions.

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that
the District Court erred in denying the Chinese sellers' motion to
dismiss the complaint.  The Court of Appeals determined that the
propriety of dismissal hinged on whether the Chinese sellers could
adhere to both Chinese law and U.S. antitrust law.

The appeals court noted that, if the Chinese Government had not
appeared in this litigation, the District Court's careful and
thorough treatment of the evidence before it in analyzing what
Chinese law required at both the motion to dismiss and summary
judgment stages would have been entirely appropriate.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1, adopted in 1966,
fundamentally changed the mode of determining foreign law in
federal courts. The Rule specifies that a court's determination of
foreign law must be treated as a ruling on a question of law,
rather than as a finding of fact. Correspondingly, in ascertaining
foreign law, courts are not limited to materials submitted by the
parties; instead, they may consider any relevant material or source
whether or not  admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Appellate review, as is true of domestic law determinations, is de
novo.

Advisory Committee's Note, at 892. Rule 44.1 frees courts to
re-examine and amplify material presented by counsel in partisan
fashion or in insufficient detail. The obvious purpose of the
changes Rule 44.1 ordered was to make the process of determining
alien law identical with the method of ascertaining domestic law to
the extent that it is possible to do so.

The Court of Appeals reasoned that a foreign government's
characterization of its own laws should be afforded the same
respect and treatment that the Court would expect the U.S.
government to receive in comparable matters. The concern for
reciprocity is sound, but it does not warrant the Court of Appeals'
judgment. Indeed, the United States, historically, has not argued
that foreign courts are bound to accept its characterizations or
precluded from considering other relevant sources.

The understanding that a government's expressed view of its own law
is ordinarily entitled to substantial but not conclusive weight is
also consistent with two international treaties that establish
formal mechanisms by which one government may obtain from another
an official statement characterizing its laws. Those treaties
specify that the information given in the reply shall not bind the
judicial authority from which the request emanated. Although the
United States is not a party to those treaties, they reflect an
international practice inconsistent with the Court of Appeals'
binding, if reasonable resolution.

Because the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court was
bound to defer to the Ministry's brief, the court did not consider
the shortcomings the District Court identified in the Ministry's
position or other aspects of the District Court's careful and
thorough treatment of the evidence before it. The correct
interpretation of Chinese law is not before this Court, and the
Court takes no position on it. But the materials identified by the
District Court were at least relevant to the weight the Ministry's
submissions should receive and to the question whether Chinese law
required the Chinese sellers' conduct.

Accordingly, the Court vacates the judgment of the Court of Appeals
and remand the case for renewed consideration consistent with this
opinion.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's June 14, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y87qlzmd from Leagle.com.

Michael Julian Gottlieb , Boies Schiller Flexner LLP --
mgottlieb@bsfllp.com -- Attorneys for Petitioner, Animal Science
Products, et al.

Jonathan M. Jacobson , Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. --
jjacobson@wsgr.com -- Attorneys for Respondent, Hebei Welcome
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al.

Richard M. Brunell , American Antitrust Institute --
rbrunell@antitrustinstitute.org -- for American Antitrust
Institute.

Timothy J. Droske , Dorsey & Whitney LLP -- droske.tim@dorsey.com
-- for Chinese Professors of Administrative Law YING Songnian, MA
Huaide, JIANG Ming'an, YU An, YANG Jianshun, and LI Honglei.

Samuel Estreicher , NYU School of Law -- samuel.estreicher@nyu.edu
-- for Professors Samuel Estreicher and Thomas Lee.

Noel J. Francisco , Solicitor General, United States Department of
Justice -- SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov -- for United States.

Jonathan S. Massey , Massey & Gail, LLP -- jmassey@masseygail.com
-- for Professors of International Litigation.

Brian Philip Murray , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP --
bmurray@glancylaw.com -- for Donald Clarke and Nicholas Calcina
Howson.

Carter G. Phillips , Sidley Austin LLP -- cphillips@sidley.com --
for Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China.

Neil Anthony Friedman Popovic , Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP -- npopovic@sheppardmullin.com -- for Professors of Conflict of
Laws and Civil Procedure.

Luke A. Sobota , Three Crowns LLP -- luke.sobota@threecrownsllp.com
-- for U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Sienho Yee , Wuhan University -- yee@sienhoyee.org -- for China
Chamber of International Commerce.

Jonathan S. Massey , Massey & Gail, LLP -- jmassey@masseygail.com
-- for Professors Williams S. Dodge and Paul B. Stephan.

HELIOS AND MATHESON: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. (NASDAQ: HMNY)
from August 15, 2017 through July 26, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Helios and
Matheson investors under the federal securities laws.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Helios and Matheson was touting MoviePass'
valuation and path to profitability; (2) MoviePass' business model
was not sustainable; (3) consequently, Helios and Matheson would
run out of cash; (4) defendants' actions were only reducing
shareholder value; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements
about Helios and Matheson's business, operations, and prospects
were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 1,
2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1386.html

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: 212-686-1060
         Toll Free: 866-767-3653
         Fax: 212-202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]

ILLINOIS: Court Denies Class Certification in Inmate's ADA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the
case captioned BARRY MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. JOHN BALDWIN, et al.,
Defendants, No. 17-1033-DRH (S.D. Ill.).

Pending before the Court is Report and Recommendation issued by
Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly recommending that the Court deny
Morris's motion for class certification.

Plaintiff Barry Morris brought this pro se action for deprivations
of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983,
the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act
(RA). According to the amended complaint, Morris alleges that he is
being denied reasonable accommodation under the ADA and the RA.
Morris suffers from a herniated disc and spinal stenosis, nerve
damage in his right hand/arm, which is also partially paralyzed,
benign prostatic hyperplasia and high blood pressure.

When determining whether to certify a class, a district court first
must find that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a)are met:

   (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable (numerosity);

   (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class
(commonality);

   (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class (typicality); and

   (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class (adequacy of representation).

After de novo review of the Report and Morris's in total 27 page
objection, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Daly was correct
in her application of why class certification is not proper. For
instance, Magistrate Judge Daly found that Morris did little more
that re-state the elements of law for class certification and found
that he does not describe the class with any detail other than the
proposed class is all ADA inmates at Menard as a whole from 2016
forward.

Further, Magistrate Judge Daly concluded, the Plaintiff also
alleges that the claims have common questions of law and fact as
every 'ADA inmate' is being denied accesss to certain
opportunities. However, the ADA requires 'reasonable
accommodations' based upon an individual's disabilities. The
required accommodations are different for different types of
disabilities. Each accommodation request requires a separate
consideration and raises different issues of fact. Based on the
record before the Court, it cannot determine that class
certification would be appropriate at this time.

Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety and denies
Morris's motion for class certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 14, 2018 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybstuwmr from
Leagle.com.

Barry Morris, Plaintiff, pro se.

John Baldwin, Director of IDOC, Illinois Department of Corrections,
Jacqueline Lashbrook, Warden of Menard CC, Holly Hawkins, ADA
Coordinator & Gail Walls, Health Care Administrator, Defendants,
represented by R. Levi Carwile , Illinois Attorney General's
Office.

Wexford Health Sources Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy P.
Dugan -- tdugan@cassiday.com -- Cassiday Schade LLP & Maxwell D.
Huber -- mhuber@cassiday.com -- Cassiday Schade LLP.

INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Lawsuit Survives Motion to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP is investigating
whether certain officers and directors of Insys Therapeutics, Inc.
(NasdaqGM: INSY) breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders.
Insys, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops and
commercializes supportive care products.

Investors filed a class action complaint against Insys for alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the
complaint, Insys promoted prescriptions of its drug Subsys for
off-label uses through a kickback scheme, even though the
reimbursement for Subsys was tightly regulated and limited to
on-label uses. When the government exposed and prosecuted the
scheme, Insys attempted to hide its declining financials by
publicly boasting its financial health in order to inflate its
revenues and earnings. On March 15, 2017, Insys revealed that it
would need to restate its financial statements. On June 12, 2018,
U.S. District Judge Paula A. Crotty denied defendants' motion to
dismiss plaintiff's complaint, paving the way for litigation to
proceed.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
https://www.robbinsarroyo.com/insys-therapeutics-inc-july-2018/

Insys 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.

         Contact:
         Leonid Kandinov,Esq.
         Robbins Arroyo LLP
         Telephone: (619) 525-3990
         Toll Free (800) 350-6003
         Website: www.robbinsarroyo.com
         Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]

JUDICIAL CRISIS: Faces Class Action Over Mass Robotext
------------------------------------------------------
Mark Alesia and Maureen Groppe, writing for Indianapolis Star,
report that a group campaigning in support of Supreme Court nominee
Brett Kavanaugh violated state and federal laws with a mass
robotext to Hoosiers, claims a class action lawsuit filed in
federal court in Indianapolis.

The lawsuit alleges that Judicial Crisis Network broke state law by
making the texts appear as if they came from a phone number for
Sen. Joe Donnelly's Washington, D.C., office.

The lawsuit also claims that JCN violated federal law by using an
"automatic telephone dialing system" to text people without their
prior consent.

The texts were sent earlier in July.

Carrie Severino, Chief Counsel and Policy Director for the
Washington, D.C.-based organization, said in a statement: "Judicial
Crisis Network used a peer-to-peer texting system that is identical
to the system used by Bernie Sanders and other Democratic
politicians -- contrary to the baseless allegations, we did not use
automatic dialers.

"Also, the allegation that we engaged in spoofing is false because
the number displayed on the text message was in fact owned by the
vendor who sent the text message. When that number was called, the
call was forwarded to Senator Donnelly's office to assist his
constituents in communicating with him."

Around July 10, the lawsuit says, an unknown number of Hoosiers
received a text message urging people to support Mr. Kavanaugh,
contact Donnelly and click on a website link.

The lawsuit alleges that JCN used "equipment that had the capacity
to store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random
or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers."

Last year, ZDNet reported that political campaigns could obtain
cellphone numbers if, for example, Facebook users granted certain
apps access to their personal information. The information could
have been sold by the apps to advertising companies.

Mr. Donnelly, who is running for re-election this year, is
considered a potentially vulnerable Democrat and is being pressured
by groups to support and oppose Kavanaugh's nomination for the U.S.
Supreme Court.

Mr. Donnelly's office directed inquiries to the senator's
campaign.

"If they truly had faith in their message, special interest groups
like Judicial Crisis Network wouldn't need to stoop to underhanded
tactics in order to influence Indiana voters,"
Will Baskin-Gerwitz, communications director for Donnelly's
campaign, wrote in a statement. "Hoosiers deserve the right to
determine where they stand free from shady and potentially illegal
tactics like those alleged in this lawsuit." [GN]

JUUL LABS: Faces Class Action Over False Safety Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Deanna Paul, writing for Washington Post, reports that when a San
Diego-based mother posted an emergency alert on Nextdoor, a
community discussion app, she hoped a Good Samaritan could help,
according to court filings. Her son was hysterical after losing a
flash drive with his homework near the local McDonald's, she wrote,
uploading a photo along with the message. A neighbor quickly
replied, explaining that the chewing-gum-sized object in the
picture was not a flash drive: It was a Juul vaping device.

"That's just an indication of how quickly Juuls became prevalent,"
recounted Esfand Nafisi, a lawyer who is handling two of three
lawsuits initiated against Juul Labs in June. "You blinked your
eye, and suddenly they were all over the place."

This has become a new kind of reality for those with children who
Juul, the verb used by fans of Juul Labs' trendy
USB-flash-drive-sized e-cigarette. The San Francisco-based company,
which launched in June 2015, grew sevenfold this year, according to
a study published by Tobacco Control.

Juul Labs has claimed its product is for adult smokers only, but
several lawsuits contradict that mission. The filings allege the
start-up deceptively marketed the Juul as safe and targeted youth
from the get-go. Juul Labs spokeswoman Victoria Davis told The Post
in an email that company officials "do not believe the cases have
merit and will be defending them vigorously." But researchers say
that Juul's sly age-verification technique and social media
marketing campaigns are most revealing of the company's true
intent.

One of Mr. Nafisi's cases against Juul is a nationwide class
action. The 10 named plaintiffs, who range from 14 years old to
adult users living in several states, allege that Juul caused
nicotine addiction in consumers. According to court documents, the
Juul device is "more potent than a cigarette," allowing high levels
of nicotine to enter the bloodstream at a faster speed than
cigarettes.

"How much nicotine is the Juul actually delivering into the
bloodstream of an average person?" Mr. Nafisi asked. "If it's far
more than a cigarette, we believe that's information that ought to
have been disclosed but was not."

The class action also alleges that Juul's advertising campaigns,
primarily through social media, targeted youths under the legal
smoking age. So does another suit filed in a New York federal court
in June by attorney Jason Solotaroff on behalf of a soon-to-be high
school sophomore identified only as D.P.

The 15-year-old tech aficionado, a jazz player and track star,
began attending a new high school where Juuling was rampant. It was
"on the school bus, in the bathrooms, outside school and even in
class," according to court documents. Mr. Solotaroff told The
Washington Post that it didn't take much time before the boy was
hooked and grew intensely addicted.

Juul currently controls 68 percent of the electronic cigarette
market in the United States, where it offers Juul pods that contain
5 percent nicotine, far higher than the 1.7 percent legal limit in
Britain or Europe. In early 2018, Juul entered the international
market, launching in Israel, which has no age restriction on the
advertising or selling of e-cigs to minors. The company also hit
United Kingdom shelves three weeks ago, after developing Juul pods
that complied with the European Union Tobacco Products Directive.

Despite public health concerns and increased scrutiny from the Food
and Drug Administration that have led to bans by local governments,
the Wall Street Journal reported that the start-up raised $650
million in funding earlier in July, valuing the firm at $15 billion
-- a figure well beyond the $1 billion valuation required to be
dubbed a Silicon Valley unicorn.

Juul Labs has since sidestepped several other obstacles:

Anecdotal accounts of teens sporting Juuls at school and reports of
use among minors have sparked broadsides against the product. Local
governments, including in California and New York, have voted to
ban flavored nicotine products. Members of Congress have called for
additional oversight. State lawmakers have launched investigations
into the start-up's practices. And China's trade war may draw
additional blows for the vaping device.

CEO Kevin Burns has stayed calm, assuring the Wall Street Journal
that the company remains committed to eliminating cigarette smoking
by providing adult smokers with an effective alternative. But
snowballing doubts loom around the sincerity of the Juul mission
statement: to improve the lives of the world's 1 billion adult
smokers.

"I think Juul has been insincere from the very beginning in saying
it's only for adult smokers," said Robert Jackler, principal
investigator at a Stanford University School of Medicine program
that studies the impact of tobacco advertising. He noted that Juul
Labs executives have boasted that they run "the most educated
company, the most diligent, the most well-researched."

According to Mr. Jackler, the company developed a stealthy email
technique that attaches to its screening process. To access and
sign up for Juul, the website requests all visitors' birthdays and
the last four digits of a social security number. If the person is
not old enough, the site denies access, yet it nevertheless adds
the visitor to Juul's email list-serve, he said. The underage
rejected visitor begins receiving promotional campaigns for new
fruity flavors and large discounts off the $49.99 starter kit.

A spokesperson from the company denied engaging in the practice:
"If a person fails the age verification process, he or she does not
get added to an email list-serve to receive information and
additionally would be unable to purchase product from us. JUUL is
intended for adult smokers only. We cannot be more emphatic on this
point: no minor or non-nicotine user should ever use JUUL."

Most smokers, according to the Centers for Disease and Control
Prevention, are over 25 and taper off by midlife.

"If you were designing an ad campaign to hit that target audience,
Juul's is misaligned," Mr. Jackler told The Post. The Stanford
program that researches tobacco ads has studied the company's
advertising, marketing and promotion, including early content that
has been scrubbed since its June 2015 unveiling, according to
Jackler. "There's an ample amount of evidence that Juul launched
with a promotional campaign aimed entirely at younger users and
spent its first six months establishing themselves in the youth
market."

The sweet flavors have a differential appeal to youth.

"If you walk down the cereal aisle in the grocery store, where the
Cocoa Krispies and Sugar Puffs are at knee level and Cornflakes and
Life are up high where adults see them, there's a different appeal
of sweet and fruity flavors to young people," Mr. Jackler said.

Although the company recently announced plans to offer Juul pods
with lowered nicotine levels of 3 percent, it intends to make them
only in tobacco and mint, flavors that the conventional cigarette
and menthol smoker would most likely purchase. The options
attractive to younger users — fruit medley, crème brulee, mango,
cool cucumber -- remain at 5 percent.

Lynn Kozlowski, former dean of University of Buffalo's School of
Public Health and Health Professions, told The Washington Post that
it is important to discourage tobacco use and make clear the risks
of nicotine use.


"It shouldn't be suggested that these products are safe, but
they're nowhere near as dangerous as cigarettes," he said. "If a
kid who otherwise would have been a cigarette smoker becomes a Juul
smoker, that's arguably a good thing for public health."

But is it?

Juuls could certainly be used as a tool to stop smoking cigarettes.
However, Mr. Jackler stressed, Juul exploits the business model of
addiction.

Most smoking-cessation programs -- such as patches and gums -- are
meant to be used for short stints as smokers wean themselves off
tobacco. Juul, however, wants its users to transition from
combustible tobacco to Juul and then sustain the addiction.

As research and development engineer Ari Atkins said before the
product's 2015 launch, according to The Verge: "We don't think a
lot about addiction here because we're not trying to design a
cessation product at all." [GN]

KATALINA CLEANERS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Armontes Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAIME TAPIA ARMONTES, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. KATALINA CLEANERS, INC. (D/B/A FOUR PARK
AVENUE CLEANERS) and KATHY YUN, Case No. 1:18-cv-06901 (S.D.N.Y.,
August 1, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiff worked for the
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the
hours that he worked.

Katalina Cleaners, Inc., is a domestic corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of New York.  Kathy Yun serves
or served as owner, manager, principal, or agent of the Defendant
Corporation.

The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a dry cleaner,
located at 4 Park Ave., #4, in New York City under the name "Four
Park Avenue Cleaners."  The Defendants' dry cleaner is located in
the Murray Hill neighborhood in Manhattan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, denied Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
in the case captioned VALERIE SAMPSON and DAVID RAYMOND, on their
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. C17-0028-JCC (W.D. Wash.).

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against their
former employers for allegedly violating several Washington wage
and hour laws. The Plaintiffs are Washington residents who worked
as commercial truck drivers for the Defendants.

Defendant Knight Transportation, Inc. (Transportation) is a
commercial trucking company that operates terminals across the
United States.  Defendant Knight Refrigerated, LLC ("Refrigerated")
is a subsidiary of Transportation and operates a terminal in Idaho
Falls, Idaho, where some of the putative class members worked as
long-haul drivers.  Defendant Knight Port Services, LLC ("Port
Services") is also a subsidiary of Transportation and operated a
terminal in Kent, Washington, where some of the putative class
members worked as short-haul drivers.  Transportation,
Refrigerated, and Port Services (collectively "Defendants") are
incorporated in Arizona and are overseen by the same core group of
executives.

The Plaintiffs assert their claim is supported by Washington's
Minimum Wage Act (MWA).  The Plaintiffs assert that the Washington
Supreme Court has determined that the MWA contains a choice of law
directive.  The Defendants respond that the MWA neither contains a
choice of law directive, nor did the Bostain Court create one.

The Plaintiffs' reading of Bostain goes beyond the case's holding.
First, the Supreme Court was not interpreting the MWA in the
context of a choice of law question; it was determining the
extraterritorial scope of that statute in the context of a
constitutional challenge. Second, the Court stated that whether a
Washington-based employee was subject to the MWA, was a question to
be decided by traditional choice of law principles. In arguing that
Bostain creates a choice of law directive, Plaintiffs attempt to
skip the threshold choice of law question.

The Plaintiffs are not only asking this Court to infer a statutory
choice of law directive regarding the MWA, but also to analogize
that directive to their wage and hour claims based on related laws.
The Court does not believe that Bostain created a choice of law
directive for the MWA, much less for other provisions of the
State's employment law.

Contacts under Restatement Section 145

When determining which state has the most significant relationship
to the parties and occurrence at issue, courts consider the
following contacts: (a) the place where the injury occurred, (b)
the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, (c) the
domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place
of business of the parties, and (d) the place where the
relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.

The place where the injury occurred

The Plaintiffs assert that Transportation and Refrigerated: (1)
failed to pay drivers minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failed
to pay all required overtime; (3) failed to pay drivers minimum
wage for a mandatory orientation program; (4) failed to provide
their drivers with paid rest breaks; (5) withheld wages from
drivers when they left the companies; (6) unlawfully deducted wages
from drivers under the companies' "per diem program"; and (7)
willfully withheld wages owed their drivers.

For a few of the claims, the putative class member's injuries
occurred in discrete locations. The Court agrees with the
Defendants that the injury underlying the orientation claims
occurred in Oregon and Idaho because Transportation and
Refrigerated drivers conducted their orientations at terminals in
those states. The Court also concludes that the injuries underlying
the Plaintiffs' unlawful deduction claims occurred in Arizona
because that is where the Defendants process employee payroll.

The place where the conduct causing the injury occurred

The Defendants argue that Oregon and Idaho were the relevant place
of injury because that is where Transportation and Refrigerated
drivers are managed and dispatched. The drivers' managers work out
of the Oregon and Idaho terminals and assign trips from those
locations. The trip assignments include the length of the trip,
mileage rate, and summary of extra duties that drivers must
perform. The manager's decisions are certainly relevant to the
Plaintiffs' claims because they go toward determining a driver's
compensation. The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, do not point to
any evidence that suggests that the conduct causing their injuries
occurred in Washington.

Accordingly, this factor is minimally important to the most
significant relationship test and militates toward the application
of Arizona, Oregon, and Idaho law.

The domicile, residence, or place of incorporation of the parties

The Plaintiffs were Washington residents when they worked for the
Defendants. The Plaintiffs had Washington State driver's licenses
and were prohibited by federal regulation from having a license
from another state. Based on these contacts, Washington bears a
clear relationship to all of the putative class members. By
contrast, the Defendants' contacts regarding this factor are split
across multiple states. While Transportation and Refrigerated each
operate terminals out of Oregon and Idaho, both companies are
incorporated and perform various administrative functions out of
Arizona.

Accordingly, this factor is moderately important to the most
significant relationship test and militates toward the application
of Washington law.

States' Policies and Interests under Restatement Section 6

The Court concludes that Washington has a clear interest in
providing the Plaintiffs with the protections of its wage and hour
laws. Courts have consistently recognized Washington's long and
proud history of being a pioneer in the protection of employee
rights. The Washington Supreme Court has also interpreted the MWA
broadly to apply the statute to Washington employees. Unlike most
states, Washington requires out-of-state companies, such as the
Defendants, to pay workers compensation for Washington residents.
Washington's interest is especially strong because all putative
class members are residents, the Defendants recruit from within the
state, and the Plaintiffs conduct some of their work inside
Washington.

The Court finds that Washington has the most-significant
relationship to the Plaintiffs' class claims. Accordingly, the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims asserted
against Transportation and Refrigerated is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 14, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7hs7qs2 from Leagle.com.

Valerie Sampson, on her own behalf and on the behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Erika L. Nusser --
enusser@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC,
Greg Alan Wolk , REKHI & WOLK, P.S, Hardeep S. Rekhi , REKHI &
WOLK, P.S. & Toby James Marshall -- tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
-- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.

David Raymond, Plaintiff, represented by Toby James Marshall ,
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.

Knight Transportation, Inc, an Arizona corporation, Knight
Refrigerated, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company & Knight
Port Services, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company,
Defendants, represented by Jeffrey B. DeGroot --
jeffrey.degroot@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER US LLP & Anthony Todaro
-- anthony.todaro@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER US LLP.

LATIUM NETWORK: Levi & Korsinsky Files Lawsuit Over ICO
-------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Latium Network, Inc. ("Latium" or "the Company") LatiumX ("LATX")
tokens pursuant to Latium's Initial Coin Offering between July 25,
2017 and March 1, 2018. You are hereby notified that a class action
has commenced in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey. To get more information go to:

http://www.zlk.com/pslra-sbm-cc/latium-network-inc

The complaint alleges that Latium violated Sections 12 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 by engaging in interstate commerce for
the purposes of offering, selling, or delivering unregistered
securities.

If you purchased LATX tokens pursuant to the ICO you have until
August 13, 2018 to request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]

LIBRE BY NEXUS: Sued Over Exorbitant Ankle Tracker Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a company that bails undocumented immigrants out of detention
must face class action claims it intimidates vulnerable people into
making exorbitant monthly lease payments on ankle trackers by
falsely implying they can be arrested if they fall behind on
payments, a federal judge ruled on Aug. 14.

Ruling from the bench in downtown Oakland, U.S. District Judge
Claudia Wilken denied a motion by Libre by Nexus Inc. to dismiss
the claim brought by three immigrants, finding they had adequately
alleged the company is a "debt collector" under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Judge Wilken, however, dismissed as time-barred a California
English Translation Act claim that the Virginia-based company
exploits the immigrants' limited English skills and lures them into
expensive post-release bond loans.  But she granted them leave to
amend to explain why the claim isn't subject to a one-year statute
of limitations.

"Even after they [the plaintiffs] got out of custody, they had
almost a year to figure out the 1-page document was a lot shorter
than the 21-page document," and that they should have had the
longer document translated into English sooner, Judge Wilken said.

According to the plaintiffs, Libre negotiates leases for GPS ankle
monitors with detainees in Spanish but forces them to sign a
21-page contract written in English, despite knowing they don't
understand the language.

The company gives them a 1-page document in Spanish that supposedly
lists the agreement's key terms, though the plaintiffs claim it
fails to disclose some including a $420 monthly lease payment for
an ankle monitor the complaint describes as a "heavy shackle" that
forces the wearer to be tethered to an electrical outlet for hours
each day for charging.

According to the June 2017 amended complaint filed by Honduran
immigrants Juan Quintanilla Vasquez and Gabriela Pedromo Ortiz and
Mexican national Victor Hugo Catalan Molin, Libre preys on
detainees' limited English and inexperience with bond companies to
manipulate them into signing contracts with unfavorable terms,
including a bond security payment of 20 percent and an $880
nonrefundable fee up front.

On a $10,000 bond, a client pays Libre about $9,000 in
nonrefundable fees in the first year, the plaintiffs claim.

Libre "is only able to foist this one-sided deal on consumers
because it engages in a systematic campaign of misrepresentation
and omission with its indigent, Spanish-speaking clientele, who are
under the duress of detention," the plaintiffs say in their
complaint.

On Aug. 14, Libre's attorney Michael Simmonds with Simmonds &
Narita asked Judge Wilken to toss the two claims in question as
invalid, and send the remaining claims to arbitration.

Addressing the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim,
Mr. Simmonds argued Libre isn't a "debt collector" under the
statute.  To qualify as a debt collector, a business must either
mainly collect its own debts or regularly collect debts owed to
other companies.

Neither scenario applies to Libre, he said, because the company
mainly leases ankle monitors and doesn't collect debts on behalf of
bond companies.

Moreover, he said, a company can't be a debt collector unless the
loan it's collecting is in default, and none of the loans in
question were in default.

Plaintiffs' attorney Jesse Newmark with Centro Legal de La Raza
countered that Libre was acting as a "middle man in terms of the
monthly payments to securitize on behalf of the bond company" after
arranging for the bond company to post bond.

He said he hasn't seen the contracts to prove his theory because
discovery has yet to happen, a remark that appeared to persuade
Judge Wilken into keeping the claim alive.

Immigrant detainees deemed to not pose a flight risk or a threat to
public safety are allowed to go free on bond while awaiting their
immigration hearing.  But many detainees must secure third-party
financing to pay the bonds, which can range up to $20,000.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, disgorgement
and punitive damages.  They are also suing under California's
Unfair Competition Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Judge Wilken said she will issue a written order.

LIVE NATION: Continues to Defend Kathryn Poser Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself in a class action suit entitled, Kathryn
A. Poser v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al.

In April 2018, a class action lawsuit, captioned Kathryn A. Poser
v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al., was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The complaint asserts claims against the
Company and certain individual officers for alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class of all persons
who acquired the Company's common stock during the alleged class
period of February 23, 2017 through March 30, 2018. The complaint
seeks damages allegedly caused by statements and/or omissions
pertaining to the Company's compliance with the terms of its
antitrust consent decree with the United States Department of
Justice related to its acquisition of Ticketmaster in 2010, as well
as its internal controls regarding compliance with the consent
decree.

The plaintiff claims the alleged misstatements and/or omissions
were materially misleading and operated to artificially inflate the
price paid for the Company's common stock during the alleged class
period, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees
and costs.

Live Nation said "Based on information presently known, the Company
does not believe that a loss is probable of occurring at this time,
and believes that the potential liability, if any, will not have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition, cash flows or
results of operations. Considerable uncertainty exists regarding
the validity of the claims and damages asserted against the
Company. As a result, the Company is currently unable to estimate
the possible loss or range of loss for this matter. The Company
intends to vigorously defend this action."

Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. operates as a live entertainment
company. It operates through Concerts, Sponsorship & Advertising,
and Ticketing segments. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. was
incorporated in 2005 and is headquartered in Beverly Hills,
California.


LUCKY STRIKE: Olsen Says Website not Blind-friendly
---------------------------------------------------
Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lucky Strike Manhattan,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04876, (S.D. N.Y., June 1, 2018), seeks
preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and
punitive damages and fines, 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 Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights
Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

Lucky Strike owns and operates bowling alleys throughout the United
States, including a location at 670 West 43rd Street, New York, New
York. It also provides a website  that provides information about
the bowling alleys' locations and hours of operation, making
reservations, reading press reviews, viewing promotions and
specials and viewing menus. Olsen browsed and intended to avail of
their services.

The Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that Defendant's website
cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
      Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
      LIPSKY LOWE LLP
      630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
      New York, NY 10017-6705
      Tel: (212) 392-4772
      Fax: (212) 444-1030
      Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
             chris@lipskylowe.com


MARK DERRICK: Sued for Allegedly Running "Debtors" Prison
---------------------------------------------------------
Erik de la Garza, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a class action filed on Aug. 9 accuses an Arkansas district
court judge of running an illegal 'debtors' prison' that punishes
residents with jail time and fines for being poor.

Kimberly Snodgrass, one of the six lead plaintiffs, says she has
spent one third of her life since 2014 in the White County
Detention Center, almost solely for compliance issues.  The single
mother of three has been convicted of failure to pay Judge Mark
Derrick 10 times, incurring additional debt and jail time with each
incident.

"Even with a job and even with my mother it's almost impossible,"
Ms. Snodgrass said in an interview on Aug. 9.  "It's stressful,
it's overwhelming and I just feel hopeless most of the time."

Ms. Snodgrass, of Judsonia, Arkansas, and five other area residents
with similar stories sued Derrick, who presides over the state's
23rd Judicial District, in Pulaski County Court.

They claim Judge Derrick's court-imposed punishments that they
can't afford violated their constitutional rights, leaving them
trapped "in a spiral of repetitive court proceedings,
incarceration, and inescapable debt."

Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said in an interview that a
2016 lawsuit challenging the Hot Checks Division of the Sherwood,
Arkansas District Court resulted in reforms that brought an end to
its system.

Judge Derrick, who was re-elected to a four-year term in 2016,
routinely requires people to remain jailed for failure to pay until
they can come up with the entire debt in cash without conducting an
individualized analysis of their ability to pay, the 50-page
lawsuit claims.

The plaintiffs also say he suspends people's driver's licenses upon
non-appearance without adequate notice, and disregards state law
requirements that he offer a defendant an appointed attorney.

"In our view, his policies are not just unlawful, they are
inhumane," Ms. Clarke said, noting that Derrick has ordered the
arrests of those struggling with untreated health issues and
addiction.

The lawsuit is the latest in a string of class actions across the
country accusing officials of reinstituting so-called modern-day
debtors' prisons.

The legal challenges stem from the protests after the death of
Michael Brown, an unarmed black man who was shot by a white police
officer in Ferguson, Arkansas, in August 2014.  His death sparked
national concern about policing in black communities using the
court system to generate revenue off the backs of poor black
people.

In December, a federal judge in Louisiana found the system used in
New Orleans to be unconstitutional for charging poor prisoners fees
they couldn't pay, then relying on those fees to fund the court and
pay salaries.

Sixteen percent of residents in White County, the ninth largest
county in Arkansas, live below the poverty line, according to U.S.
Census data.  The median household income in 2016 was $42,100 and
the per capita income was $22,500.

Still facing more than $700 in combined court debt each month,
Snodgrass says her legal troubles in Judge Derrick's court have
already caused her to lose two jobs.  She fears being jailed again
will result in a third lost job, and more time away from her
children.

"I don't want my kids to suffer anymore; they've been without me
for so many days over the past several years just for not paying on
my fines," she said.  "It's not fair and it's not right."

MDL 2262: Settlement with Citi Has Preliminary Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted Lender Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval on
Class Settlement in the case captioned In re: LIBOR-Based Financial
Instruments Antitrust Litigation, This Document Applies to: Lender
Action, Nos. 11 MD 2262 (NRB), 12 Civ. 5723 (S.D.N.Y.).

Before the Court is Lender plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of their settlements with (1) Citibank, N.A. and Citigroup
Inc. (2) HSBC Bank plc; and (3) Barclays Bank PLC.

At this stage, the Court needs only decide whether the terms of the
Proposed Settlement are at least sufficiently fair, reasonable and
adequate to justify notice to those affected and an opportunity to
be heard.

Before approving a class settlement agreement, a district court
must first determine whether the requirements for class
certification in Rule 23(a) and (b) have been satisfied. The found
that the Lender class satisfied the Rule 23(a)(1)-(3) requirements
of numerosity, commonality, and typicality.

The Court concludes, based only on GDB's participation in the
settlement process, that the adequacy of representation requirement
of Rule 23(a)(4) is met.

As to predominance and superiority, the Court finds that the
context of settlement is sufficient to tip the predominance
balance. Confronted with a request for settlement-only class
certification, a district court need not inquire whether the case,
if tried, would present intractable management problems precluding
findings of predominance under Rule 23(b)(3).  Those manageability
concerns do not stand in the way of certifying a settlement class.

Accordingly, the following class will be certified as to all three
settlements:

     All lending institutions headquartered in the United States,
including its fifty (50) states and United States territories, that
originated loans, held loans, held interests in loans, owned loans,
owned interests in loans, purchased loans, purchased interests in
loans, sold loans, or sold interests in loans with interest rates
based upon U.S. Dollar LIBOR between August 1, 2007 and May 31,
2010 (the Class Period).

Settlement Fairness

In considering preliminary approval, courts make a preliminary
evaluation of the fairness of the settlement, prior to notice.

While the Court would have appreciated a more detailed description
of the process by which the settlements were negotiated, the
nonetheless conclude that there is no suggestion thus far that the
negotiation process was anything other than serious and
non-collusive. Further, the settlements entitle all members of the
class to participate on a pro rata basis and bear no obvious
deficiencies.

Therefore, the Court concludes that the settlements bear sufficient
indicia of legitimacy such that preliminary approval is warranted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 19, 2018 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybu58pfl from Leagle.com.

FTC Capital GMBH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell --
CLovell@lshllp.com -- Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel
Hume -- dhume@kmllp.com -- Kirby McInerney LLP, David E. Kovel --
dkovel@kmllp.com -- Kirby McInerney LLP, Roger W. Kirby , Kirby
McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman -- Srudman@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Surya Palaniappan , Kirby
McInerney LLP.

Bank of America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Paul Steel
Mishkin -- paul.mishkin@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk & Wardwell
L.L.P., Abram Jeremy Ellis -- aellis@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher
& Bartlett LLP, Arthur J. Burke -- arthur.burke@davispolk.com --
Davis Polk & Wardwell, Edward Fu -- dao.fu@davispolk.com -- Davis
Polk & Wardwell LLP, Julie Saranow Epley , Davis Polk & Wardwell,
Neal Alan Potischman -- neal.potischman@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk
& Wardwell LLP, Patrick Wyatt Blakemore --
patrick.blakemore@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Peter
John Davis -- peter.davis@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk & Wardwell
LLP & Robert Frank Wise, Jr. -- robert.wise@davispolk.com -- Davis
Polk & Wardwell L.L.P.

MDL 2672: 9th Cir. Affirms Approval of Bosch Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the
District Court's judgment granting Final Approval of Settlement and
Attorney's Fees and Costs in the case captioned In re: VOLKSWAGEN
"CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. JASON HILL; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, JOLIAN
KANGAS, Objector-Appellant, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.;
et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 17-16279 (9th Cir.).

Kangas appeals the district court's final order approving the
settlement and order granting attorneys' fees and costs.

Jolian Kangas objected to one of three proposed class action
settlements arising out of Volkswagen's installation of defeat
devices in its 2.0- and 3.0-liter diesel cars. The settlement at
issue (Bosch settlement) is between the plaintiffs and Volkswagen
suppliers Robert Bosch GmbH and Robert Bosch LLC, two companies
that are alleged to have assisted Volkswagen in its defeat-device
scheme.

The Bosch settlement provides higher per-person compensation to
3.0-liter class members than to 2.0-liter class members.

Kangas argues that the district court erred in approving the Bosch
settlement because it released Bosch from claims whether or not
concealed or hidden by class members that arose from its alleged
role in supplying defeat devices.     

This concealed or hidden phrase is language that routinely appears
in settlement releases and appears to release Bosch from claims
that are not yet known to class members, not claims Bosch has
actively or fraudulently concealed. Approving the settlement with
this release was not an abuse of discretion.

Kangas argues that the district court erred in approving a fee
award because class counsel overtly favored the 3.0-liter class
members over the 2.0-liter class members.

Again, Kangas presents no evidence that class counsel exhibited any
such favoritism. His only argument for the existence of an
intraclass conflict the fact of the difference in allocation
between 3.0-liter and 2.0-liter class members is unpersuasive.
There is no evidence of conflict or favoritism showing that the
district court abused its discretion in awarding fees.

Kangas contends that the district court abused its discretion when
it approved a fee award that included a reserve of funds for class
counsel's anticipated work after the settlement was approved.
Kangas misunderstands the fee award. The district court calculated
fees as a percentage of the settlement, not by time worked or
projected to be worked. There was no reserve of funds.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's July 19, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yavuok5r from Leagle.com.

MEDNAX INC: Sept. 10 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclsoed that class actions have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following companies. If
you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

MEDNAX, Inc. (NYSE: MD)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 10, 2018
Class Period: February 4, 2016 and July 27, 2017

Get additional information about MD:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-c/mednax-inc?wire=3

         Contact:
         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Telephone: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN]

MERCURY SYSTEMS: Sept. 10 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Mercury Systems, Inc. (NASDAQGS:MRCY)
Class Period: October 24, 2017 - April 24, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 10, 2018
Join the action: http://www.zlk.com/pslra-d/mercury-systems?wire=3

About the lawsuit: During the class period, Mercury Systems, Inc.
allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) Mercury's decision to in-source
processing was adversely impacting Mercury's operating margins and
free cash-flow generation and conversion; (ii) Mercury's model was
becoming structurally more working capital intensive; (iii) as a
result of the foregoing, Mercury's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

To learn more about the MRCY class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

         Contact:
         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]

MERCURY SYSTEMS: Thornton Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thornton Law Firm LLP is investigating claims on behalf of
investors of Mercury Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: MRCY). A class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Mercury Systems in Andover, MA. The investigation and lawsuit
relate to whether Mercury Systems and certain officers or directors
committed securities fraud.

Investors who have purchased or acquired Mercury Systems stock are
encouraged to contact Thornton Law Firm LLP at
shareholder@tenlaw.com or 617-720-1333. If you wish to serve as
lead plaintiff, you must seek appointment by the Court no later
than September 10, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

Mercury Systems reported quarterly financial and operating results
on April 24, 2018 that conflicted with prior statements by the
company and its executives and may be proof that previous
statements made by Mercury or its officers were false and
misleading. Among other things, the Company reported on its free
cash flow, and indicated a net outflow of $2.6 million, compared to
a net inflow of $11.9 million for the same period in the prior
year. The Company's Chief Financial Officer stated that Mercury had
been aware for the "last couple quarters" of certain trends
involving its customers that were negatively impacting the
Company's cash flow, and that Mercury needed to reduce account
payables related to its inventory build.

Following this news, Mercury Systems stock price fell $8.02, or
18.68%, to close at $34.91 on April 25, 2018.

Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys specialize in representing
individual shareholders and institutional investors in recovering
damages caused by corporate fraud. Its attorneys have decades of
experience litigating securities fraud cases in courts throughout
the country and have a proven track record of recovering hundreds
of millions of dollars on behalf of shareholders. This may be
considered attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome.[GN]

MID CITY NISSAN: Mazurkiewicz Sues Over Use of Biometric Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA MAZURKIEWICZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MID CITY NISSAN, INC., an Illinois
corporation, Case No. 2018CH09798 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., August
1, 2018), seeks to put a stop to the Defendant's alleged unlawful
collection, use, and storage of the Plaintiff's and the proposed
class members' sensitive biometric data.

Mid City Nissan, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of
the state of Illinois with its principal place of business located
in Chicago, Illinois.

Mid City operates under the names of Mid City Subaru, Inc.,
Berman's Mid-City Nissan, Berman's Mid-City Subaru, Berman Nissan
of Chicago, Inc., Nissan of Chicago, Berman Subaru of Chicago, Inc,
and Chicago Nissan.  The Defendant operates a Subaru and Nissan
dealership in the Chicagoland area.

The Court will commence a hearing in the case on November 29, 2018,
at 10:00 a.m.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
                  ewadescott@edelson.com

               - and -

          David Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 355-7590
          Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  jkunze@fishlawfirm.com




MIDLAND CREDIT: 2nd Cir. Affirms Summary Ruling Against L. Huebner
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed the
judgment of the District Court granting Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment in the cases captioned LEVI HUEBNER, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiff-Appellant, POLTORAK PC, ELIE C. POLTORAK, Interested
Party-Appellants, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., MIDLAND
FUNDING, LLC., Defendants-Appellees, Nos. 16-2363-cv and 16-2367-cv
(2d Cir.).

Huebner, Poltorak, and Poltorak PC, appeal the district court's
grant of summary judgment.

Plaintiff-Appellant Levi Huebner (Huebner) is an attorney who has
litigated several cases under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA), which, among other things, prohibits debt collectors
from using false, deceptive, or misleading representations in
connection with the collection of any debt. Huebner called
Defendant-Appellee Midland Credit Management, Inc. (Midland) to
dispute a $131 debt that it had tried to collect from him.  Huebner
surreptitiously recorded the call. Asked why he disputed the debt,
Huebner would say only that the debt was nonexistent.

Huebner amended his complaint twice more. His third amended
complaint ultimately alleged that Midland had made multiple false
or misleading representations in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section
1692e. Concluding that Huebner had not raised a material issue of
fact as to any of his claims, the court granted summary judgment
for Midland.

Huebner argues on appeal that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment on each of his two principal theories under the
FDCPA: (1) that Elliott's questions about the nature of his credit
dispute amounted to a misleading communication about his debt; and
(2) that Midland failed to report to the credit reporting agencies
that he had disputed the debt.

Section 1692e of the FDCPA prohibits all false, deceptive, or
misleading representations or means in connection with the
collection of any debt. Apart from this blanket ban, Section
1692e(8) more specifically renders it unlawful for a debt collector
knowingly to communicate (or threaten to communicate false credit
information, while Section 1692e(10) bars deceptive means to obtain
information concerning a consumer. When interpreting Section 1692e,
the Court tests whether a communication is deceptive by asking how
the least sophisticated consumer would interpret it.

Huebner next argues that Midland violated Section 1692e(8), which
requires debt collectors to communicate that a disputed debt is
disputed, by failing to so inform the credit reporting agencies.
Nothing in the record, however, supports this meritless allegation
either. Midland marked Huebner's debt with the code 289 the day he
called, meaning that it deleted the account.

Midland also sent several messages to the credit reporting agencies
telling them to delete the debt, as well as a letter to Huebner
informing him of this. Huebner has not pointed to any record
evidence that creates a material question of fact on these issues.

As a result, the Courts hold that summary judgment was also
properly granted as to Huebner's second claim for relief.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's July 19, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yardsoa3 from Leagle.com.

LAWRENCE KATZ -- lkatz@ckmo.com -- Valley Stream, NY, for Levi
Huebner, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Elie C. Poltorak, Poltorak PC, Brooklyn, NY, pro se, for Interested
Party-Appellants.

ANDREW M. SCHWARTZ -- amschwartz@mdwcg.com -- Marshall Dennehey,
Warner, Coleman & Goggin, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, (Matthew B.
Johnson , New York, NY, on the brief), for Midland Credit

Management, Inc., Midland Funding LLC, for Defendants-Appellees.

Brian Melendez -- bmelendez@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC,
Minneapolis, MN, for ACA International, for Amicus Curiae.

MISSOURI: Court Certifies Class in Foster Care Kids' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Central Division, granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned M.B. by his next friend Ericka
Eggemeyer; K.C. by her next friend Kris Dadant; A.H. by her next
friend Kealey Williams, for themselves and those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Steve Corsi in his official capacity as
Acting Director of the Missouri Department of Social Services; Tim
Decker, in his official capacity as Director of the Children's
Division of the Missouri Department of Social Services, Defendants,
No. 2:17-cv-04102-NKL (W.D. Mo.).

The Plaintiffs, children in foster care, allege that Defendants,
the Acting Director of the Missouri Department of Social Services
and the Director of the Children's Division of the Missouri
Department of Social Services (CD), have failed to implement a
system of safeguards and oversight with respect to the
administration of psychotropic drugs to Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs move for certification of a class of plaintiffs
consisting of all children in Children's Division foster care
custody who presently are, or in the future will be, prescribed or
administered one or more psychotropic medications while in state
care.

Numerosity

Rule 23(a)(1) requires that a class be sufficiently numerous to
render joinder of all members impracticable.

As of December 2017, there were more than 13,500 children in CD's
legal custody. Defendants argue that approximately 77% of the
children in the Missouri foster care system are not taking
psychotropic medications. Transcript of Deposition of Christy
Collins, Vol. I, at 278:25-279:20. 23% of 13,500 is 3,105. Thus,
approximately 3,105 children in CD's foster care custody are being
administered psychotropic medications. Joinder of more than 3,000
children would be impracticable and unduly burdensome.

The Court finds that the numerosity requirement has been
satisfied.

Commonality

Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there be questions of law or fact
common to the class. Plaintiffs must show that their class claims
depend upon a common contention that is capable of class wide
resolution, such that determination of its truth or falsity will
resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the
claims in one stroke.

The Defendants' argument that the likelihood that not all children
in CD's foster care custody will be administered psychotropic drugs
means that the Plaintiffs have alleged only a mere possibility of
injury is, as a preliminary matter, addressed by the narrowed class
definition that the Plaintiffs have adopted. Moreover, the
possibility that not all children in the putative class may
actually suffer harm as a result of the policies and practices at
issue does not defeat commonality. The commonality requirement is
satisfied where, as the Plaintiffs allege here, the Defendants'
policies and practices uniformly subject members of the putative
class to a substantial risk of serious harm.

The Court finds that the commonality requirement is satisfied.

Typicality

The typicality requirement is met when the claims or defenses of
the representative party are typical of those of the class.  

In determining typicality, courts consider whether the named
plaintiff's claim arises from the same event or course of conduct
as the class claims, and gives rise to the same legal or remedial
theory.

The Defendants argue that the named plaintiffs' claims are not
typical because each named plaintiff is subject to a unique
defense. However, regardless of whether the named plaintiffs have
mental or physical health problems that are unusually severe, or
whether their juvenile court proceedings address psychotropic
medications, or when each child came into CD's foster care custody,
each continues to be subject to the same policies and procedures or
lack thereof that allegedly creates a substantial risk of harm. The
Plaintiffs are not litigating whether the named Plaintiffs should
have been administered psychotropic drugs; rather, they are
litigating whether the Defendants are obligated to provide
additional safeguards against the improper administration of
psychotropic medications to children in foster care, an issue that
equally concerns all of the named plaintiffs and the members of the
proposed class.

The typicality requirement therefore is satisfied.

Adequacy

Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the class representative and class
counsel fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

The Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs' counsel can
adequately represent the proposed class members. The Plaintiffs'
counsel have been prosecuting this action competently and
vigorously. They are qualified and experienced, including with
respect to issues surrounding children's rights and class actions.
Before filing this lawsuit, Children's Rights attorneys spent
nearly two years investigating the oversight of psychotropic
medications in the Missouri child welfare system testament to their
diligence and dedication. Counsel for the Plaintiffs have the
resources required to represent the class. The proposed class
counsel is well equipped to vigorously represent the plaintiffs in
this action.

The Court finds that the adequacy requirement is satisfied.

The Court certifies a class of plaintiffs consisting of: all
children in Children's Division foster care custody who presently
are, or in the future will be, prescribed or administered one or
more psychotropic medications while in state care.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 19, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8hdrxrn from Leagle.com.

M. B., by and through Next Friend, Ericka Eggemeyer, K. C., by and
through Next Friend, Kris Dadant & A. H., by and through Next
Friend, Kealey Williams, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron Finch --
afinch@childrensrights.org -- Children's Rights, pro hac vice,
Catherine Frizell -- cfrizell@childrensrights.org -- pro hac vice,
Daniel T. Fahner -- daniel.fahner@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis
& Bockius, LLP, pro hac vice, Danielle Rosenthal --
drosenthal@childrensrights.org -- pro hac vice, Elizabeth Pitman
Gretter -- egretter@childrensrights.org -- pro hac vice, Erin
McGuinness -- emcguinness@childrensrights.org -- Children's Rights,
pro hac vice, Leecia Welch -- lwelch@youthlaw.org -- pro hac vice,
Michael Sara Bartosz -- sbartosz@childrensrights.org -- Children's
Rights, Inc., pro hac vice, Poonam Juneja -- pjuneja@youthlaw.org
-- pro hac vice,Scott T. Schutte -- scott.schutte@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen Andrew Dixon
-- sdixon@childrensrights.org -- pro hac vice, William Grimm --
billgrimm@youthlaw.org -- pro hac vice & John J. Ammann --
ammannjj@slu.edu -- St. Louis University Legal Clinic.

Steven Corsi, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the
Missouri Department of Social Services & Tim Decker, in his
official capacity as Director of the Children's Division,
Defendants, represented by Jonathan Gilbert Bremer , Missouri
Attorney General's Office, Laura E. Elsbury , Missouri Attorney
General's Office, Russell J. Keller , Missouri Attorney General's
Office, Ryan Lee Bangert , Missouri Attorney General's Office &
David D. Dean , Missouri Attorney General's Office.

MISSOURI: Seeks Eighth Circuit Review of Ruling in MB Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Steve Corsi and Julie Lester filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit titled M.B., et al. v. Steve Corsi, et
al., Case No. 2:17-cv-04102-NKL, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
moved to certify a Plaintiff Class of:

     children under the age of eighteen who are or will be placed
in the custody of the state of Missouri due to a report that they
have suffered abuse or neglect in the homes of their parents,
guardians, or other legal custodians.

Steve Corsi is the Director of the Missouri Department of Social
Services.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs seek prospective injunctive
relief to address the Defendants' alleged failure to implement a
minimally adequate system of oversight to assure that psychotropic
medications are administered to children in Missouri foster care in
a manner that is safe and appropriate.

The appellate case is captioned as M.B., et al. v. Steve Corsi, et
al., Case No. 18-8009, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents M.B., by next friend Ericka Eggemeyer; K.C.,
by next friend Kris Dadant; and A.H., by next friend Kealey
Williams, for themselves and those similarly situated, are
represented by:

          John J. Ammann, Esq.
          SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LEGAL CLINIC
          100 N. Tucker Blvd., Suite 704
          Saint Louis, MO 63101-1911
          Telephone: (314) 977-2796
          E-mail: ammannjj@slu.edu

               - and -

          Sara M. Bartosz, Esq.
          Elizabeth Pitman Gretter, Esq.
          CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC.
          88 Pine Street, Suite 800
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (646) 942-4252
          E-mail: sbartosz@childrensrights.org
                  egretter@childrensrights.org

               - and -

          William Grimm, Esq.
          Poonam Juneja, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW
          405 14th Street, 15th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 835-8098
          Facsimile: (510) 835-8099
          E-mail: billgrimm@youthlaw.org
                  pjuneja@youthlaw.org

               - and -

          Scott T. Schutte, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK, LLC
          One IBM Plaza
          330 N. Wabash
          Chicago, IL 60611-0000
          Telephone: (312) 222-9350
          E-mail: sschutte@jenner.com

Defendants-Petitioners Steve Corsi, in his official capacity as
Acting Director of the Missouri Department of Social Services, and
Julie Lester, in her official capacity as Director of the
Children's Division of the Missouri Department of Social Services,
are represented by:

          Joshua Divine, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          207 W. High Street
          P.O. Box 899
          Jefferson City, MO 65102-0000
          Telephone: (573) 751-3321
          E-mail: Josh.Divine@ago.mo.gov

               - and -

          Dean John Sauer, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          111 N. Seventh Street
          Saint Louis, MO 63101-0000
          Telephone: (573) 751-3321
          E-mail: john.sauer@ago.mo.gov

               - and -

          Russell J. Keller, Esq.
          STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
          1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2900
          Kansas City, MO 64106-2150
          Telephone: (816) 842-8600
          E-mail: Russ.Keller@stinson.com


MOL AMERICA: Elite's Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Submission
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson has taken under submission the
Motion to Certify Class filed by the Plaintiff of the lawsuit
titled Elite Logistics Corporation v. MOL America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:11-cv-02952-DDP-PLA (C.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Wright, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: dcw@mccunewright.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Erich P. Wise, Esq.
          Alisa Manasantivongs, Esq.
          DELICH & WISE LLP
          One World Trade Center, Suite 1800
          Long Beach CA 90831-1800
          Telephone: (562) 435-2626
          E-mail: ErichW@fdw-law.com
                  alisam@fdw-law.com


MRI INT'L: Condo Unit Deposit Be Moved to "Takiguchi" Deal Account
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HIGE TAKIGUCHI, et. al, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarity Situated, Plaintiffs, v. MRI INTERNATIONAL,
INC., EDWIN J. FUJINAGA, JUNZO SUZUKI, PAUL MUSASHI SUZUKI, LVT,
INC., dba STERLING ESCROW, and DOES 1-500, Defendants, Case No.
2:13-cv-01183-HDM-NJK (D. Nev.), Judge Howard D. McKibben of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has entered the
parties' stipulated order regarding the payment of funds pursuant
to final approval of class action settlement.

On Dec. 11, 2017, the Suzuki Defendants entered into a Settlement
Agreement with the Plaintiffs by which they agreed to pay certain
funds and assign certain interests as consideration for resolution
the action.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Suzuki Defendants
assigned their interests in the $429,400 deposit they paid for the
attempted purchase of Unit 1402 of the One Ala Moana condominium
project located at 1555 Kapiolani Blvd., Honolulu, Hawaii 96814.

On May 22, 2018, the Court granted final approval of the class
action settlement with the Suzuki Defendants.

Therefore, the Parties stipulated and Judge McKibben granted that
Kapiolani Residential, LLC, Title Guaranty Escrow Services, Inc.,
and any other entity or individual that maintains custody,
possession or control of any portion of the One Ala Moana Deposit
is ordered to wire transfer the funds in its custody, possession or
control to the qualified settlement account designated by Heffler
Claims Group within five days from receipt of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 22, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ublyHN from Leagle.com.

Shige Takiguchi, Fumi Nonaka, Kaoruko Koizumi, Tatsuro Sakai &
Mitsuaki Takita, Plaintiffs, represented by James Edwin Gibbons --
jeg@manningllp.com -- Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP,
James R. Olson, Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko
Taenaka, Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law
Offices of Robert W. Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick --
sjrnull@nullmanningllp.com -- Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez,
Trester LLP.

Shizuuko Ishimori, Yoko Hatano, Yuko Nakamura, Hidehito Miura,
Yoshiko Tazaki, Masaaki Moriya, Hatsune Hatano, Satoru Moriya,
Hidenao Takama, Shigeru Kurisu, Saka Ono, Kazuhiro Matsumoto, Kaya
Hatanaka, Hiroka Yamajiri, Kiyoharu Yamamoto, Junko Yamamoto,
Koichi Inoue, Akiko Naruse, Toshimasa Nomura & Ritsu Yurikusa,
Plaintiffs, represented by James Edwin Gibbons, Manning & Kass
Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson, Olson, Cannon,
Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law Offices of Robert
W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen, APC &
Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP,
pro hac vice.

MRI International, Inc. & Edwin J Fujinaga, Defendants, represented
by Daniel L. Hitzke, Hitzke & Associates & Erick M. Ferran.

Junzo Suzuki, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A. Silvestri --
jsilvestri@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald Carano Wilson, Nicolas
Morgan -- nicolasmorgan@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP, pro
hac vice & Paul J. Georgeson -- pgeorgeson@mcdonaldcarano.com --
McDonald Carano Wilson LLP.

ICAG, INC., Defendant, represented by Jacob A. Reynolds --
jreynolds@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison & Steffen, Mark A. Hutchison
-- mhutchison@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison & Steffen, LLC & Robert
T. Stewart -- rstewart@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison & Steffen, LLC.

First Hawaiian Bank, Defendant, represented by Christopher R. Ramos
-- cramos@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price (CA), LLP, pro hac vice,
Rex Garner -- rex.garner@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Ariel E. Stern
-- ariel.stern@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Lisa M. Simonetti --
lsimonetti@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price, LLP.

Suzuki Enterprises, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, Defendant,
represented by Gregg D. Zucker -- gregg@foundationlaw.com --
Foundation Law Group & Robert A. Rabbat -- rrabbat@enensteinlaw.com
-- Enenstein Ribakoff LaVina & Pham.

Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert, Interested Party, represented by
Paul D. Alston -- PAlston@ahfi.com -- Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing,
Albert G. Marquis -- amarquis@maclaw.com -- Marquis & Aurbach,
Candice Renka -- crenka@maclaw.com -- Marquis & Aurbach & Nickolas
A. Kacprowski -- NKacprowski@ahfi.com -- Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing.

Mary Luszczyk, Material Witness, represented by Mark S. Dzarnoski,
Gordan & Silver, Ltd.

NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. reminds investors that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of stockholders of National
Beverage Corporation.  Stockholders have until Sept. 17, 2018, to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.

National Beverage Corp. (NASDAQ: FIZZ)
Class Period: July 17, 2014 – July 3, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 17, 2018

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the company
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, the company made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the company's sales claims and
the supposed underlying proprietary techniques lacked a verifiable
basis; (2) the company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Defendant Nick A. Caporella, engaged in a pattern of sexual
misconduct between 2014 and 2016; and (3) as a result, the
company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.  

To learn more about the National Beverage class action go to:
https://bespc.com/national-beverage/.

         Contacts:
         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Telephone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email: investigations@bespc.com
                fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com [GN]

NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Panzarella Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Panzarella and Joshua Panzarella, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Navient
Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00058 (S.D. Iowa, June 1,
2018), seeks compensatory damages including interest, reasonable
costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees
and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages and
such equitable/injunctive or other relief under the Telephone
Consumers Protection Act.

Defendants attempted to collect a debt incurred by the Panzarellas
arising from a student loan. They placed unauthorized calls using
an automatic telephone dialing system with a pre-recorded or
artificial voices. Plaintiffs expressly revoked any prior express
consent to receive calls to her cellular phone. [BN]

Navient Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.navient.com/about --
provides loan management, servicing and asset recovery solutions to
clients in higher education and business clients, as well as
federal, state, and local governments. The company offers financial
services in the areas of education loan, private student loan and
asset recovery.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David P. Mitchell, Esq.
      MANEY & GORDON, P.A.
      101 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3170
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 221-1366
      Fax: (813) 223-5920
      Email: David@MitchellConsumerLaw.com

             - and -

      Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
      ROBERT P. COCCO, P.C.
      1500 Walnut Street, Suite 900
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Tel: (215) 351-0200


NEW ENGLAND: Ex-Employees Sue Over Sudden Closure of Mass. Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karla Rendon-Alvarez, writing for NBC 10 Boston, reports that two
former New England Confectionary Company employees have filed a
lawsuit against the candymaker's owners for the sudden closure of
the Revere, Massachusetts plant.

The class action lawsuit, which was filed on July 27 by Dexter Main
and Francesco D'Amelio, states that Round Hill Investments and
Sweethearts Candy, both Delaware-based limited liability companies,
failed to warn employees ahead of time of NECCO's closure.

It was filed under the WARN Act, which requires at least a 60-day
notice for layoffs.

"Throughout the Bankruptcy Case and the acquisition by Round Hill,
the Employees were consistently told that operations were
continuing," the lawsuit stated.

The candy company was bought at a bankruptcy auction in May by
Round Hill Investments for $17.8 million; Round Hill formed
Sweethearts Candy Co. LLC in June to manage the operations at
NECCO, according to the lawsuit.

The Revere plant abruptly shut down its factory on July 24, leaving
its 230 workers stunned and unemployed. They were told to pick up
their final paychecks that same Friday.

In a statement on July 24, which was included in the lawsuit, Round
Hill said it was "excited" to have the NECCO brand, but added,
"After careful engagement and consideration, however, the firm
decided to sell the brands to another national confection
manufacturer and announced the closure of the operations in Revere,
Massachusetts." [GN]

NEW FRESCA: Xing Seeks OT Pay, Withheld Tips, Reimbursements
------------------------------------------------------------
Xing Long Lin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. New Fresca Tortillas Inc., Da Zhong Li, and
Cindy Li, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-03246, (E.D. N.Y., June 2,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime wage,
redress for breach of implied contract for reimbursement of all
costs and expenses of operating delivery vehicles on behalf of
Defendants, failure to provide a Time of Hire Notice detailing
rates of pay and payday, wage statements, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and/or attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, New York
Wage Theft Prevention Act and New York Labor Law.

Defendants own, operate, or control a restaurant, Fresca Tortillas,
located at 7009 Grand Avenue, Maspeth, NY 11378 where Xing was
employed as a deliveryman. He claims to be denied a fixed meal
break, overtime pay and was taken a tip credit towards the minimum
wage. Defendants allegedly failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and designating him as a delivery
worker with side jobs instead of non-tipped employees in order to
avoid the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay him the lower
tip credit. Xing's non-tipped work exceeded two hours or twenty
percent of his workday, notes the complaint.

Xing incurred out-of-pocket and unreimbursed gasoline and
motorcycle expenses as a requirement for employment, driving his
motorcycle an average of fifty to sixty miles a day to deliver, the
complaint adds. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Tel: (718) 762-1324
      Fax: (718) 762-1342
      Email: TroyLaw@TroyPllc.Com


NEW ORLEANS, LA: OPCDC Defendants Class Certified in "Cain" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sarah S. Vance entered an Order and Reasons in the lawsuit
titled ALANA CAIN, ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL., Case No.
2:15-cv-04479-SSV-JCW (E.D. La.), granting:

   -- the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and

   -- the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Count Six.

Plaintiffs Alana Cain, Ashton Brown, Reynaud Variste, Reynajia
Variste, Thaddeus Long, and Vanessa Maxwell filed this civil rights
putative class action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, challenging the
manner in which the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court (OPCDC)
collects post-judgment court debts from indigent criminal
defendants.  The Named Plaintiffs are former criminal defendants in
OPCDC.

This class is certified as to the first part of Count Five:

     all persons who owe or will incur court debts arising from
     cases adjudicated in OPCDC.

This subclass is also certified as to the second part of Count
Five:

     all class members whose debts are at least partly owed to
     the OPCDC Judicial Expense Fund.

There are two remaining claims in the Plaintiffs' operative second
amended complaint.  Count Five challenges the Judges' practice of
failing to inquire into ability to pay before criminal defendants
are imprisoned for nonpayment of court debts.  Count Five also
challenges the Judges' failure to provide a neutral tribunal to
adjudicate ability to pay.

Count Six, an equal protection claim, asserts that the Judges'
policy of jailing and threatening to imprison criminal defendants
for nonpayment of court debts imposes unduly harsh and punitive
restrictions on debtors whose creditor is the State, as compared to
debtors who owe money to private creditors.

Judge Vance dismissed with prejudice Count Six.



PERMANENTE MEDICAL: Seeks Final OK of $2.95-M Wolf Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit entitled DEBRA WOLF, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. THE
PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California corporation, Case No.
3:17-cv-05345-VC (N.D. Cal.), ask the Court to (1) grant final
approval to the Collective/Class Action Settlement Agreement
($2,950,000), and (2) grant final class certification and
collective action designation of the Settlement.

Named Plaintiff Debra Wolf and opt-in Plaintiff Natty Medrano and
the Defendant assert that they make this motion on the grounds that
the Settlement was reached after arm's-length negotiations by
counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Class and counsel for TPMG; the
Settlement is fair and reasonable, and has drawn a favorable
response from the Class; and should be given final approval by the
Court.

The Settlement, in the amount of $2,950,000, resolves litigation
over the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' claims that TPMG violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act and California wage-and-hour laws by
failing to pay the Plaintiffs and the Class Members for alleged
pre- and post-shift work performed off the clock.

As part of the Settlement and the Court's Preliminary Approval
Order, this settlement class was certified:

     All current and former hourly Teleservice Representatives
     who work or have worked for TPMG at one or more of its call
     centers located in Sacramento, San Jose or Vallejo,
     California, at any time from September 14, 2013, through the
     date on which the Court grants preliminary approval of the
     Settlement, excluding those individuals who already have
     resolved the claims asserted in the Action, whether by
     settlement or adjudication.

The Court will commence a hearing on September 6, 2018, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638-8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
          E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          Facsimile: (248) 436-8453
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                  kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq.
          Caitlin M. Wang, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          101 California Street, 48th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 856-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
          E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com
                  caitlinmarianwang@paulhastings.com

PINDUODUO INC: May Face Class-Action Suits in U.S.
--------------------------------------------------
Meng Yewen and Han Wei, writing for Caixin Global, reports that six
U.S. law firms are looking into potential securities claims and may
file class-action suits on behalf of people who bought Pinduoduo
Inc. shares on Nasdaq, the firms said on August 2.

The threat of shareholder suits adds to setbacks for the Chinese
discount e-commerce site. After Pinduoduo's high-profile Nasdaq
debut July 26, authorities in China opened investigations of the
company for allegedly selling counterfeit goods. The stock fell to
below the offering price.

The New York-based Rosen Law Firm said in a news release on
Business Wire that it is investigating potential claims related to
allegations that Pinduoduo may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public. In the statement,
Rosen invited Pinduoduo shareholders to sign up on its website to
join a lawsuit.

Pomerantz LLP, another New York law firm, said it is investigating
whether Pinduoduo and certain of its officers and directors engaged
in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. The
Schall Law Firm of Los Angeles is looking into whether Pinduoduo
issued false or misleading statements or failed to disclose
information pertinent to investors, Schall said in a statement.

Other firms reporting similar actions involving Pinduoduo include
the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith in Bensalem, Pennsylvania;
Faruqi & Faruqi LLP in New York; and Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman
LLC in Lake Hiawatha, New Jersey.

On August 1, China's State Administration for Market Regulation
ordered commerce regulators in Shanghai, where Pinduoduo is based,
to investigate the company for allegedly selling counterfeit
goods.

The news led to a sell-off of Pinduoduo's newly listed American
depositary receipts in New York. ADRs are negotiable certificates
issued by a bank and represent equity in a foreign company. In
intraday trading on August 1, Pinduoduo plunged more than 16% to
$18.68, falling below the offering price on July 26 of $19.
Pinduoduo's market cap has shrunk from a peak of $30.5 billion to
around $24 billion on August 2.

Pinduoduo's ADRs had finished their first trading day up more than
40% from the listing price. The $1.63 billion initial public
offering, one of the biggest flotations by a Chinese enterprise
this year, was oversubscribed 20-fold by investors that included
Fidelity Investments and the sovereign funds of Abu Dhabi.

Pinduoduo is one of the fastest-growing e-commerce sites in China
and had served 343.6 million shoppers by the end of June. The
three-year-old company is China's third-largest e-commerce business
in terms of sales, behind Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. and JD.com
Inc.

It is noted for its group-purchase model that encourages buyers of
groceries, electronics and other goods to invite friends to join
together in qualifying for discounts. But the company has been
surrounded by allegations of selling shoddy and knockoff products
on its platform.

On July 19, U.S. diaper maker Daddy's Choice filed a trademark
infringement lawsuit against Pinduoduo in a New York federal court
accusing the company of knowingly allowing the sale of knockoff
products bearing its name.

Colin Huang, founder and chairman of Pinduoduo, told media on July
31 that Pinduoduo has been working to remove fake products sold by
vendors on its platform. "I can't promise that there are zero
shoddy products on the platform, but in terms of proportion, it
will be lower and lower," he said.

Pinduoduo may become the latest Chinese company to face
class-action litigation in the U.S. In December, online
microlending platform Qudian was sued by law firms including Rosen
and Faruqi & Faruqi for allegedly making false and misleading
disclosures. The case was filed two month after Qudian's New York
IPO.

In 2015, Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba Group Holding Co. Ltd.
was sued in the U.S. for making allegedly false disclosures related
to fake products. The case was thrown out by the court in 2016.[GN]

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Age Discrimination Class Action Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Bramwell, writing for GoingConcern, reports that a federal
judge in San Francisco rejected class-action status to a group of
up to 14,000 older job applicants on July 26 who are accusing PwC
of favoring younger workers over individuals over the age of 40 for
entry-level positions within the firm.

The age discrimination lawsuit, which was filed in April 2016 by
CPA Steve Rabin, claims that PwC's practice of campus recruiting to
fill staff positions puts more seasoned workers at a disadvantage.
Mr. Rabin said he interviewed for an accounting job with PwC in
2013 when he was 50 years old but was turned down in favor of a
younger accountant.

But according to a Law.com report, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar of
the Northern District of California said the attorneys for Rabin
and co-plaintiff John Chapman, who also applied "numerous times"
for a PwC position while he was between the ages of 45 and 48 but
was never hired, "failed to prove how the proposed class members
were similarly situated."

Judge Tigar ruled against class-action status because "deterred and
unqualified candidates were included in the proposed class," the
article stated:

The named plaintiffs applied for positions and were rejected, so
therefore did not represent the entire proposed class, the judge
said.

But Judge Tigar is giving the plaintiffs and their attorneys a
second chance to construct a proposed class:

He indicated some of the plaintiffs arguments were persuasive. The
complaint alleged, among other things, PwC has uniform policies
that lead to hiring younger workers.

The law firm Outten & Golden, representing the plaintiffs, pointed
to on-campus recruiting efforts, witness declarations of comments
made during initial screening and statistical analysis that
purports to show the company's workforce skews young. The
plaintiffs estimate that the class ranged from 12,000 to 14,000
potential job applicants who were either rejected or deterred
because of the company's policies.

Judge Tigar found that the plaintiffs have "adequately shown a
uniform decision, policy or plan on the basis of PwC's centralized
and uniform hiring policies, and the substantial evidence of age
disparities in hiring." The company's arguments to the contrary
would be better addressed in later stages of the proceeding, he
said.

PwC contends that its hiring practices are merit-based and "have
nothing to do with age." In a statement to Law.com, Emily Nicklin
-- emily.nicklin@kirkland.com -- of Chicago-based law firm Kirkland
& Ellis, who argued for PwC during a class certification hearing in
February, said:

"We are pleased with the court's order to deny even preliminary
certification. The plaintiff's claims are simply false. PwC devotes
enormous resources to recruiting a diverse workforce that includes
people of all ages and experience levels. PwC is fortunate to be a
sought-after employer, and hires fewer than 5% of those who
apply."

Judge Tigar said the plaintiffs have 30 days to file any amended
motion for class certification "to cure the deficiencies identified
in this order," according to Law.com. [GN]

PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Suit Over UIMPD Remains in District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, denied Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and to
Strike Declaration in the case captioned MARK D. KLEINSASSER,
Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. C17-5499 BHS (W.D. Wash.).

The Plaintiff seeks to recover diminished value on a class-wide
basis and individual loss of use damages under the Underinsured
Motorists Property Damage (UIMPD) provision of his insurance
contract with Progressive. The Plaintiff alleged that the total
amount of compensatory damages would be approximately $3,010,903.

Although the Plaintiff moved to strike the supplemental declaration
of Silver for numerous reasons, his reply narrows the issues to
timeliness. The Plaintiff argues that because Progressive submitted
the declaration after the evidentiary hearing it is untimely and
prejudicial. The Plaintiff contends that the potential for
prejudice to the Plaintiff should be self evident.

A defendant generally may remove a civil action if a federal
district court would have original jurisdiction over the action.
The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) vests federal district courts
with original jurisdiction over class actions involving more than
100 class members, minimal diversity, and at least $5,000,000 in
controversy, exclusive of interests and costs.

In this case, the parties dispute the scope of the pleadings.
First, when Progressive bears the burden of establishing that
damages exceed a certain amount, it is placed in the unusual
position of arguing that the complaint should be construed in the
broadest manner possible. Thus, Progressive argues that the
ambiguities in the Plaintiff's complaint should be resolved in
favor of a larger class size and higher potential damages. For
example, Progressive contends that relevant claims are those that
it paid under UIMPD coverage and claims paid under
comprehensive/collision claims where an underinsured motorist
coverage feature was opened. The Plaintiff defined the class as all
insureds where the insured damages were covered under Underinsured
Motorist coverage.  

Progressive contends that this phrase is ambiguous when applied to
the facts of this case, and the Court agrees. The Plaintiff's claim
exemplifies the ambiguity. The Plaintiff was hit by an
underinsured/uninsured motorist and suffered damages that exceeded
his UIMPD coverage. In order to fully compensate the Plaintiff,
Progressive paid full coverage under UIMPD and the remainder under
comprehensive/collision, but only required the Plaintiff to pay the
UIMPD deductible. The Plaintiff did not specifically exclude dual
coverage claims in his class definition and resolving the ambiguity
in favor of the Plaintiff being in the class, the Court adopts
Progressive's position that dual coverage claims are included in
the class.

Regarding vehicle age, the class definition provides in relevant
part that the vehicle was no more than six years old. Although
Siskin testified that the phrase no more than six years old is
confusing, he claims that model year plus five clearly defines what
the Plaintiff meant.  The Court agrees to the extent that model
year plus five is not ambiguous whereas no more than six years old
is subject to multiple interpretations. For example, a 2010 model
year vehicle would qualify for the class for any accident in 2010
through 2015 if the class is restricted to model year plus five.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff fails to define the starting point
for the age description of a vehicle if the class is defined as
vehicles no more than six years old.   Is the starting point the
day the vehicle is manufactured or the day the vehicle is sold? If
the latter, then a 2010 model vehicle sold in 2012 would qualify
for any accident in 2012 through 2018.

Therefore, the Court adopts the interpretation of the complaint
that defines an ascertainable class and concludes that the class is
limited to all vehicles that were model year plus five when the
accident occurred.

Amount in Controversy

When determining the amount in controversy at the time of removal,
the district court must make findings of jurisdictional fact to
which the preponderance standard applies.

Class Size

The Plaintiff asserts that the class size is 3,052 and Progressive
asserts that the class size is 4,217. Neither of these numbers
withstand scrutiny. First, and most obviously erroneous, is
Progressive's estimate because it is based on the number of claims
as of November 30, 2017. The only significance of this date is that
it is the date Progressive's employee created the list.

The Court, however, is tasked with determining the class size as of
the date of removal, which was June 28, 2017. Progressive fails to
assert any grounds for an extension of law such that a court should
consider the number of claims approximately five months after
removal.

Second, the Plaintiff offers a starting list of 4,217 claims.
Siskin declares that this is the number of claims that appeared on
a spreadsheet that Progressive produced either on December 7, 2017
or sometime thereafter. Thus, it appears that the Plaintiff's
starting point (4,217) is Progressive's end point (4,217). If the
Plaintiff concedes this starting point, the Court will accept it
because Progressive's admitted inclusion of post-removal claims is
facially erroneous.

Siskin then accounted for claims knowable to Progressive on the
date of removal. Siskin declares that the class should be further
reduced to 3,529 claims. Progressive does not contest this
reduction based on claims at the time of removal. Thus, the Court
accepts this exclusion and reduces the class size to 3,529.

Progressive contends that the Court should reduce the class size by
1% to account for non-owned vehicles, which are vehicles that were
not owned by the insured at the time of the accident. The Plaintiff
does not contest this reduction. Therefore, the Court accepts
Progressive's exclusion of 1%.

Summary for Amount in Controversy

In sum, Progressive has met its burden to show that the amount in
controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of $5,000,000. The
Court concludes that the most reasonable number of claims at the
time of removal was 3,307. The Court finds that, based on the
requested relief in the complaint, the most reasonable number for
the average claim amount is $4,198.25. In combination, the average
number of claims times the average claim amount equals the
potential amount in controversy of $13,883,612.75. This number
easily exceeds the jurisdictional minimum, and the Court will not
address the question of first impression regarding class-wide
attorney's fees under RCW 4.84.015.

Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion to remand based on lack of
jurisdiction is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 19, 2018 Order is
available at
https://tinyurl.com/y9mz2crp from Leagle.com.

Mark D Kleinsasser, individually and as the representative of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen M.
Hansen , LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN,  Albers Mill, & Scott P.
Nealey , NEALEY LAW, pro hac vice.

Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by J.
Matthew Donohue -- Matt.Donohue@hklaw.com -- HOLLAND & KNIGHT,
Kristin Mariko Asai -- Kristin.Asai@hklaw.com -- HOLLAND & KNIGHT,
Kymberly Kochis -- kymberlykochis@eversheds-sutherland.com --
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP, pro hac vice, Michael R. Nelson --
mikenelson@eversheds-sutherland.com -- EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US)
LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Leslie Christie , CHRISTIE LAW GROUP PLLC
& Shannon Lea Armstrong -- Shannon.Armstrong@hklaw.com -- HOLLAND &
KNIGHT.

Progressive Max Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Kristin Mariko Asai , HOLLAND & KNIGHT, Kymberly Kochis , EVERSHEDS
SUTHERLAND (US) LLP, pro hac vice, Michael R. Nelson , EVERSHEDS
SUTHERLAND (US) LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Leslie Christie ,
CHRISTIE LAW GROUP PLLC & Shannon Lea Armstrong , HOLLAND & KNIGHT.

PROVIDENT CAPITAL: Settles Investor Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Tim Stewart, writing for Investor Daily, reports that Slater and
Gordon has agreed to settle its class action against collapsed
debenture issuer Provident Capital on behalf of about 1,800
investors.

Approximately 1,800 investors who invested with the now-collapsed
debenture issuer Provident Capital between 2010 and 2014 have
agreed to settle their class action.

The class action trial, brought by Slater and Gordon against the
trustee of Provident, Australian Executor Trustees, was due to
commence in the Supreme Court of NSW on July 30.

Three thousand investors lost money when Provident collapsed, but
only around 60 per cent (1,800) are covered by the Slater and
Gordon class action.

The settlement amount, which is subject to approval by the court,
has not been disclosed.

Slater and Gordon head of class actions Ben Hardwick described the
matter as "long-running, complex and difficult" with investigations
starting in 2012 and proceedings commencing in the Federal Court in
2014.

The action was then transferred to the Supreme Court of NSW in
2015.

"We began investigating the case in 2012 and after seeking
litigation funding support, elected to take it on 'no win-no fee'
with Slater and Gordon funding the disbursements and indemnifying
the lead plaintiff," Mr Hardwick said.

"The collapse of Provident caused substantial losses to many mum
and dad investors who invested in debentures issued by Provident,
including the plaintiff and the group members whom he represents,"
Mr Hardwick said.

"Our clients alleged that had AET acted earlier, such losses could
have been avoided altogether for some investors and minimised for
others," he said. [GN]

PURDUE PHARMA: Orland Fire District Joins Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Orland Fire Protection District joined 13 Illinois governments
including several from the Southwest Suburban in filing a class
action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County against Purdue
Pharma, one of the leading manufacturers of opioid-based
prescription drugs, 26 other pharmaceutical companies and three
doctors.

The lawsuit alleges that Purdue Pharma intentionally downplayed the
negative harm that their products would have on users, and engaged
in "a years' long campaign to misrepresent the risks of, and shift
public opinion on, the use of prescription opioids to treat chronic
non-cancer pain."

The class action lawsuit further asserts, "Defendant manufacturers
purposefully and aggressively marketed opioid products for
unapproved uses, buried unfavorable research, and employed a
network of phony front groups, opinion leaders, and sales
representatives to expand the market for opioids and obtain massive
profits."

Lead attorney James J. Roche who represents the Orland Fire
Protection District, said that the lawsuit, filed on July 19, 2018,
also targets doctors who allegedly over-prescribed opioids to their
patients.

"The opioid epidemic has caused extreme financial hardship and
personal tragedy throughout the fire district. Every time an
ambulance is deployed, paramedics and fire fighters must respond,"
said Roche, of James J. Roche Associates in Chicago. "The fire
district has received in excess of 80 calls per year due to this
epidemic."

Also represented in the class action lawsuit are the City of
Harvey, the Village of Broadview, the Village of Chicago Ridge, the
Village of Dolton, the Village of Hoffman Estates, the Village of
Maywood, the Village of Merrionette Park, the Village of North
Riverside, the Village of Orland Park, the City of Peoria, the
Village of Posen, the Village of River Grove, and the Village of
Stone Park.

Prescription opioids are devastating communities across the country
and in the State of Illinois. Since 1999, there have been more than
351,000 reported opioid-related deaths nationwide—more than 6
times the number of U.S. soldiers who died in the Vietnam War.

Today, an American dies from an opioid overdose every 19 minutes
and more than 60% of all drug overdose deaths in the United States
involve an opioid, according to the class action lawsuit. In
addition to the tragic loss of life and the heartbreaking impact on
children and loved ones, some estimates state that the opioid
crisis is costing governmental entities and private companies as
much as $500 billion per year.

The Orland Fire Protection District has had educational programs
through schools and public seminars now, in excess of 5 years. The
fire district has sued many of the manufacturers of these opioids,
along with certain doctors, alleging they had knowledge of the
damage caused by these opioids and put corporate profits in front
of public safety.

Also named as defendants along with Purdue Pharma are: Purdue
Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma, Inc., Purdue Frederick Company, Inc.,
Rhodes Pharmaceuticals, Cephalon, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Endo
International PLC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Johnson &
Johnson, Inc., Ortho-Mcneil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen
Pharmaeutica, Inc., Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Normaco, Inc., Endo
Health Solutions, Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Allergan PLC,
Actavis PLC, Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Laboratories,
Inc., Actavis Pharma, Inc., Actavis LLC, Mallinckrodt Plc,
Mallinckrodt LLC, Amerisourcebergen Corporation, Cardinal Health,
Inc., McKesson Corporation, and doctors Paul Madison, William
McMahon, and Joseph Giacchino.

The class action lawsuit alleges that "Defendants Paul Madison,
William McMahon, and Joseph Giacchino were working around the clock
to prescribe opioids to anyone who came through the door of their
clinic in Riverside, Illinois—whether or not they had a valid
need for them, were from out-of-state, or presented any number of
patently suspicious traits. The pill mill they operated distributed
thousands upon thousands of opioid prescriptions to countless
residents of Plaintiffs' communities, completing a chain of
indifferent profiteering that has marked the acts -- and omissions
-- of all Defendants' conduct in making, distributing, and selling
prescription opioids."[GN]

QUALCOMM INC: Kaskela Law Files Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC disclosed that a shareholder class action complaint
has been filed against QUALCOMM Incorporated (NASDAQ: QCOM)
("QUALCOMM" or the "Company") on behalf of investors who purchased
the Company's common stock between January 31, 2018 and March 12,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The shareholder class action complaint seeks to recover monetary
losses suffered by QUALCOMM investors who purchased the Company's
securities during the Class Period.  Investors who purchased
QUALCOMM's securities during the Class Period may, no later than
August 7, 2018, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff of the
class in this action.

Investors who purchased QUALCOMM's common stock between January 31,
2018 and March 12, 2018 and suffered an investment loss from such
purchases in excess of $50,000 are encouraged to immediately
contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (888) 715 –
1740, or via email at skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, to discuss their
rights and options with respect to this action.  Investors may also
submit their information online at
www.kaskelalaw.com/case/qualcomm.

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that QUALCOMM made a
series of materially false and misleading statements to investors
during the Class Period, and failed to disclose to investors that
the Company had secretly filed a unilateral notice with the
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States ("CFIUS") in a
brazen move designed to frustrate and prevent Broadcom from
acquiring QUALCOMM.

The complaint further alleges that, as a result of the foregoing,
investors purchased QUALCOMM's securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and suffered significant investment
losses once QUALCOMM's actions were revealed to the market in March
2018.

Investors who purchased QUALCOMM's common stock between January 31,
2018 and March 12, 2018 and suffered an investment loss from such
purchases in excess of $50,000 are encouraged to immediately
contact Kaskela Law LLC and/or to submit their information online
at www.kaskelalaw.com/case/qualcomm.

         Contact:
         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         201 King of Prussia Road
         Suite 650
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (484) 258-1585
                    (888) 715-1740
         Website: www.kaskelalaw.com
         Email: info@kaskelalaw.com
                skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]

RAYMOUR & FLANIGAN: Motion to Transfer Class Action Venue OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
in June, a federal district court in the State of New Jersey
granted a motion to transfer venue filed by Raymour & Flanigan
("Raymour"), pursuant to a forum-selection clause contained in its
Sweepstakes Official Rules ("Sweepstakes Agreement"). Evelyn
Manopla, the Plaintiff named in the sweepstakes law class action
against Raymour, argued that the Sweepstakes Agreement was
unenforceable because the hyperlink to the Sweepstakes Agreement
was not conspicuous and, therefore, its constituent forum selection
clause was invalid. The court found that the forum selection clause
was valid and transferred the case to the Northern District of New
York.

When have sweepstakes contest rules been agreed to?

Sweepstakes Lawsuit

In September 2017, New Jersey resident Evelyn Manopla sued Raymour
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Case No.
17-cv-07649) for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"). Ms. Manopla's putative sweepstakes law
class action complaint claims that Raymour delivered thousands of
unsolicited promotional text messages to consumers' mobile phones
without consent and/or after consumers revoked their consent in a
reasonable manner.

Raymour claims that Ms. Manopla entered one of its sweepstakes
promotions and, at that time, agreed to: (1) receive automated,
promotional text messages to her cell phone; and (2) be bound by
the Sweepstakes Agreement. Ms. Manopla argued that there was no
indication that she was agreeing to a forum selection clause in the
Sweepstakes Agreement.

Validity of Clickwrap Agreements

A clickwrap agreement is a message (a dialog box or pop-up window)
presented on the user's computer screen that requires the user to
manifest his or her affirmative assent to the terms of the
agreement by clicking on an icon. Generally, courts have enforced
forum selection clauses in clickwrap agreements because clickwrap
agreements typically provide "reasonable notice" of their
constituent terms. Courts have found clickwrap agreements to be
unenforceable where the terms are so unnoticeable that they
effectively conceal from the consumer that a specific clause lies
within. The Court found that the two marked hyperlinks leading to
the Sweepstakes Agreement was adequate notice and, therefore, that
Ms. Manopla should be bound by the forum selection clause at issue
in her sweepstakes law action.

Sweepstakes Law Liability

Promotional contests and sweepstakes have the potential to create
buzz for the sponsor, but also substantial legal liability. Many
sweepstakes-related legal risks can be minimized or eliminated by
working with experienced sweepstakes law and marketing counsel
before sponsoring a promotion. In the case at hand, Raymour was
able to enforce its forum-selection clause because of a
well-constructed clickwrap agreement. Litigating the lawsuit in New
York instead of New Jersey will save Raymour time and money moving
forward. [GN]

RAYONIER ADVANCED: Securities Fraud Suit Transferred to M.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, Nashville Division, granted Defendant's Motion to
Transfer Venue the case captioned CITY OF WARREN GENERAL EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RAYONIER ADVANCED MATERIALS,
INC., et al., Defendants, No. 3:17-cv-01167 (M.D. Tenn.), to the
Middle District of Florida.

Through the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert claims for
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, individually and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated stockholders of
Defendant Rayonier Advanced Materials, Inc. (RYAM). In addition to
RYAM, the Plaintiffs name Paul G. Boynton, Frank A. Ruperto, and
Benson K. Woo, officers of RYAM during the relevant period, as the
defendants.  The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants made certain
false and misleading statements and omissions that resulted in
economic losses to the class members.

The Court concludes the relevant factors weigh in favor of
transfer. Neither the plaintiffs, the defendants, nor the alleged
misconduct have a substantial connection to this District. The Lead
Plaintiffs are organizational shareholders that have no apparent
connection with this District, and the Plaintiffs have not
suggested a significant number of potential class members reside in
this District. Defendant RYAM and two of the three individual
defendants have no apparent connection with this District. On the
other hand, Defendant RYAM is headquartered in the Middle District
of Florida, and two of the individual defendants reside there.

Furthermore, the alleged misconduct, securities fraud, occurred in
the Middle District of Florida, and most of the witnesses regarding
the development of the allegedly fraudulent statements are likely
to be current and former employees of Defendant RYAM who are
located in that District.  Although the Lead Plaintiffs are not
located in the Middle District of Florida, they have not
demonstrated travel to this District from their locations in
Michigan and New York is significantly more convenient than travel
to the Middle District of Florida.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 14, 2018 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9ddng54 from Leagle.com.

City of Warren General Employees' Retirement System, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Christopher M. Wood -- cwood@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Mario Alba, Jr. -- malba@rgrdlawl.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Samuel H. Rudman --
srudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Thomas C.
Michaud -- tmichaud@vmtlaw.com -- Vanoverbeke, Michaud & Timmony,
P.C.

Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc., Paul G. Boynton & Frank A.
Ruperto, Defendants, represented by Allison Kernisky --
Allison.Kernisky@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight, LLP, Stephen Warren
-- Stephen.Warren@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight, LLP, Tracy Nichols
-- Tracy.Nichols@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight, LLP & W. Brantley
Phillips, Jr. , Bass, Berry & Sims

Benson K Woo, Defendant, represented by W. Brantley Phillips, Jr. ,
Bass, Berry & Sims.

REALOGY HOLDINGS: "Dodge" Settlement Awaits Final Court Okay
------------------------------------------------------------
A California Court was scheduled to hold a hearing August 16, 2018,
to consider final approval of the settlement of the purported class
action captioned, Dodge, et al. v. PHH Corporation, et al.,
formerly captioned Strader, et al. and Hall v. PHH Corporation, et
al. (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California).

According to Realogy Holdings Corp.'s Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3 ,2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, the case is a purported class
action brought by four California residents against 15 defendants,
including Realogy and certain of its subsidiaries, PHH Corporation
and PHH Home Loans, LLC (a joint venture between Realogy and PHH),
alleging violations of Section 8(a) of Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act.

On May 19, 2017, the parties held a mediation session, at which
they agreed in principle to a settlement of the action, pursuant to
which the Company would pay approximately US$8 million (or one-half
of the settlement).  In settling the matter, the Company
specifically denied any wrongdoing with respect to the claims
asserted in the case.  As a result of the settlement, the Company
accrued US$8 million in the second quarter of 2017 and the
liability is included in accrued expenses and other current
liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

On January 29, 2018, the Court issued an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement, directed class notices to be sent by
February 2018 and set the hearing on final approval of the
settlement for August 16, 2018.  Class notices were sent in
February 2018.

Realogy Holdings Corp. is a holding company for its consolidated
subsidiaries including Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC and
Realogy Group LLC and its consolidated subsidiaries.  Realogy,
through its subsidiaries, is a global provider of residential real
estate services.  Neither Realogy Holdings, the indirect parent of
Realogy Group, nor Realogy Intermediate, the direct parent company
of Realogy Group, conducts any operations other than with respect
to its respective direct or indirect ownership of Realogy Group.


REGIONAL MEDICAL: Class Certification Sought in Sandusky Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned SANDUSKY WELLNESS CENTER,
LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. REGIONAL
MEDICAL IMAGING, P.C., a Michigan professional corporation, Case
No. 2:18-cv-12391-BAF-MKM (E.D. Mich.), files with the Court its
"placeholder" motion for class certification and supporting brief.

Sandusky files this "placeholder" motion for class certification in
order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" plaintiffs' claims by tendering plaintiff individual (but
not classwide) relief.

The Court should allow the Motion to remain "pending" to protect
the putative class against any attempt to escape class
certification by buying off the Named Plaintiff, Sandusky
contends.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com




RENO HOUSING: Roces Appeals D. Nevada Ruling to Ninth Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Melisa Chavez, Juan Lopez, Judith Lopez, Joaquin Roces
and Jaime Villa filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled Joaquin Roces, et al. v. Reno Housing Authority, Case No.
3:15-cv-00408-RCJ-WGC, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada, Reno.

The appellate case is captioned as Joaquin Roces, et al. v. Reno
Housing Authority, Case No. 18-16442, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
filed an appeal from a ruling in their lawsuit.  That appellate
case is styled Joaquin Roces, et al. v. Reno Housing Authority,
Case No. 18-15525.

The lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for alleged failure to
properly pay all wages due in violation of the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by August 31, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on October 1, 2018;

   -- Appellants Melisa Chavez, Juan Lopez, Judith Lopez, Joaquin
Roces and Jaime Villa's opening brief is due on November 9, 2018;

   -- Appellee Reno Housing Authority's answering brief is due on
December 10, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JOAQUIN ROCES, JUDITH LOPEZ, JUAN LOPEZ,
JAIME VILLA and MELISA CHAVEZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          Mark Russell Thierman, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK, LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
          E-mail: josh@thiermanbuck.com
                  mark@thiermanbuck.com

Defendant-Appellee RENO HOUSING AUTHORITY is represented by:

          Stephen S. Kent, Esq.
          KENT LAW, PLLC
          201 West Liberty Street, Suite 320
          Reno, NV 89501
          Telephone: (775) 324-9800
          Facsimile: (775) 324-9803
          E-mail: skent@skentlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Robert Zeh, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES R. ZEH, ESQ.
          575 Forest Street, Suite 200
          Reno, NV 89509
          Telephone: (775) 323-5700
          Facsimile: (775) 786-8183
          E-mail: crzeh@aol.com



ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclsoed that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Rockwell Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ:RMTI)
Class Period: March 16, 2018 - June 26, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 25, 2018
Join the action:
http://www.zlk.com/pslra-d/rockwell-medical-inc?wire=3

The lawsuit alleges: Rockwell Medical, Inc. made materially false
and/or misleading statements throughout the class period and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Rockwell was aware that The Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services will not pursue Rockwell's
proposal for separate reimbursement for the drug Triferic; (2) the
estimated reserves in the first quarter 2018 10-Q are misstated;
(3) there was a material weakness in Rockwell's internal controls
over financial reporting; (4) consequently, Rockwell's internal
controls over financial reporting were ineffective during the Class
Period; (5) Defendant Chioini withheld material information
regarding Triferic from Rockwell's auditor, corporate counsel and
five independent directors of the Board; and (6) as a result,
Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked
reasonable bases at all relevant times.

To learn more about the RMTI class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court
appoint as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]

SBC FOOD SERVICE: Obando Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
Diana Obando, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SBC Food Service, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-00856, (M.D. Fla., June 1, 2018), seeks to recover from
Defendants minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, and
costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair
Labor Standards Act.

SBC Food Service operates as "Cabana Bar and Grill" in Kissimmee,
Osceola County FL where Obando worked as a bartender. She worked
more than 40 hours per week but was never was properly compensated
for overtime hours worked. Plaintiff was misclassified as an
independent contractor. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SERVE U BRANDS: Court OKs Amendment to Delivery Drivers' FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of New
York granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint in the case
captioned SKYLER LUSK, TIA COUNCIL, VIKTORIA O'BRIEN, and JUSTIN
BYROAD, on behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. SERVE U BRANDS, INC., INSOMNIA COOKIES,
LLC, and SETH BERKOWITZ, Defendants, No. 6:17-cv-06451-MAT
(W.D.N.Y.).

Named Plaintiffs former delivery drivers Defendant Insomnia
Cookies, LLC (Insomnia Cookies) commenced the instant action on
July 11, 2017, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), as well as violations of the state laws of New York,
Michigan, and Indiana.

The Court finds that Named Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged an
FLSA minimum wage claim and that Named Plaintiffs Lusk and O'Brien
have plausibly stated an FLSA overtime claim.
The Defendants set forth several reasons why Named Plaintiffs'
minimum wage allegations are allegedly deficient, none of which
have merit. First, the Defendants take issue with the Named
Plaintiffs' allegation that the Defendants cannot offset their
minimum wage obligation based on the additional wages paid, arguing
that this allegation is an inaccurate legal conclusion and
contravenes this Court's February 12th Decision and Order. However,
even taking into account the additional wages and charge tips paid
to the Named Plaintiffs, they have identified specific workweeks in
which they were allegedly paid less than the federal minimum wage.

Accordingly, the issue of whether the additional wages are rightly
counted towards the Defendants' payment obligations does not
ultimately impact the plausibility of the Named Plaintiffs' minimum
wage claims.

Lusk's calculations in the proposed amended complaint fail to take
into account his factual allegations regarding his actual rate of
pay.  Lusk affirmatively alleges that, taking into account the
money he expended on vehicle-related expenses and other "tools of
the trade," he was paid sub-minimum wage for all hours that he
worked for the Defendants.  Because (accepting the allegations of
the proposed amended complaint as true) Lusk's actual rate of pay
was below the statutory minimum, in calculating his overtime rate
of pay, the statutory minimum must be used as his regular rate.

However, Lusk's miscalculations do not render his overtime claim
implausible, because (again, accepting his allegations as true),
the Defendants failed to pay him one and a half times the federally
mandated overtime rate in any event. In particular, Lusk claims
that he was paid at an overtime rate of only $9.375, which is less
than one and half times the federal minimum wage. Because this
overtime rate is inadequate even taking into account Lusk's factual
allegations regarding his regular rate of pay, the Court finds that
Lusk's FLSA overtime claim is plausible when the proper legal
analysis is applied.

Turning to O'Brien's claim, she alleges that for the workweek from
September 21, 2015 through September 27, 2015, she worked 49.72
hours and was not paid at an overtime rate for any of them.
Defendants contend that these allegations are factually inaccurate,
and have submitted a declaration from their Payroll and Onboarding
Specialist, Katie Scheininger, that states O'Brien actually worked
only 31.37 hours from September 21, 2015 to September 27, 2015.
This factual dispute, which is based on submissions outside the
pleadings, is not amenable to resolution by the Court on a motion
for leave to amend. Accepting O'Brien's allegations as true, she
has plausibly alleged that Defendants' failed to pay her overtime
as required by the FLSA.

The Court concludes that the proposed amended complaint adequately
alleges an FLSA overtime claim on behalf of Lusk and O'Brien. The
Court therefore will permit Lusk and O'Brien's overtime claims to
proceed at this time.

The Named Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient, at this stage, to
state a plausible FLSA claim against Berkowitz. Although the Named
Plaintiffs do not allege that they personally interacted with
Berkowitz, the Second Circuit has made it clear that nothing in the
FLSA requires an individual defendant to have been personally
complicit in FLSA violations.  Instead, it is sufficient if an
individual defendant has "operational control over employees, which
does not mean that the individual 'employer' must be responsible
for managing plaintiff employees or, indeed, that he or she must
have directly come into contact with the plaintiffs, their
workplaces, or their schedules."

In this case, the Named Plaintiffs' allegations, taken as true,
satisfy the standard for qualifying Berkowitz as an employer under
the FLSA.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Named Plaintiffs have plausibly
stated FLSA claims against Berkowitz.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 14, 2018 Decision and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaltcfp3 from
Leagle.com.

Skyler Lusk, Tia Council, Viktoria O'Brien, Justin Byroad, on
behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly situated,
Christian Augustine, Darel Bailey, Brian Bonilla, Michael Bradett,
Avery Buggs, Dylan Burgett, Gabrielle Bustillos, Maria Cagigal,
Christopher Caldwell, Jordan Cavataio, John Clements III, Kelsey
Colley, Kamara Craig, Michael Crespo, Alexa Decatur, Lauren Dudley,
Papa Duncan, Eric Dunlap Jr., Darrian Eason, Noah Egan, Rudolph
Elmore Jr., Nathaniel Encarnacion, Christopher Erdman, Luayy Ziad
Fadel, Adam Friedman, David Given, Raeven Godette, Shane Golden,
Mirna Gonzalez, Morgan Hall, Lorenzo Hammond, Neal Harris, Tristan
Hendrix, Kyle Hodson, Hakeem Holmes, Joel Hopkins, Jake Hurley,
William Johannesen, Lauren Jonelis, Kit Keegan, Rezan Kflu, Ashlee
Kohler, Cory Lambrecht, Alesha Lee, Michael Lewis, Juwan Lockett,
Tevin Lucas, Nicolas Meyer, Cheyenne Miller, Marlon Morisset, Luke
Morse, Bradley Musabika, Shannon Obbagy, William Oliver, David
Page, Destiny Peden, Jerry Pierce III, Bryann Polttila, Ryan
Pomper, Conor Pounds, Imani Reed, Roberto Renfrew-Marquez, Bonnie
Robinson, Perry Rodriguez, Lydia Ruffner, Sean Ruona, Channen
Sarmiento, Mikai Sawyer, Ben Sehnert, Jory Shinpaugh, Donte
Singleton, Michelle Smith-Nobles, Hannah Stanger, Lucas Stromer,
Michael Stuckey Jr., Kendall Talbot, Andre Taylor, Ian Thrush,
Lacey Trull, Jeffrey Vannoy, Steven Villegas, Kathryn Watkins,
Dakota White, Ronada Wright & Brian Yarmak, Plaintiffs, represented
by J. Nelson Thomas , Thomas & Solomon LLP, Michael J. Lingle ,
Thomas & Solomon LLP, Sarah E. Cressman , Thomas & Solomon LLP &
Jessica Lynne Lukasiewicz , Thomas & Solomon LLP.

Mary Zottoli & Matthew Zuleger, Plaintiffs, represented by J.
Nelson Thomas , Thomas & Solomon LLP, Jessica Lynne Lukasiewicz ,
Thomas & Solomon LLP & Michael J. Lingle , Thomas & Solomon LLP.

Tyler Spreeman, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica Lynne Lukasiewicz
, Thomas & Solomon LLP.

Serve U Brands, Inc. & Insomnia Cookies, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Douglas J. Klein -- Douglas.Klein@jacksonlewis.com
-- Jackson Lewis LLP, Noel P. Tripp -- Noel.Tripp@jacksonlewis.com
-- Jackson Lewis LLP, Stephanie L. Goutos --
Stephanie.Goutos@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis LLP & William J.
Anthony -- William.Anthony@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis LLP.

Seth Berkowitz, Defendant, represented by Noel P. Tripp , Jackson
Lewis LLP & William J. Anthony , Jackson Lewis LLP.

SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Faces Class Action Lawsuits Over Ad Sales
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Eggerton, writing for Broadcasting Cable, reports that at
least a couple of class action suits, and there could be more, have
been filed against Sinclair, Tribune and other top TV station group
owners, stemming from a reported Justice Department investigation
into TV ad sales, which itself came out of the DOJ's vetting of the
Sinclair-Tribune deal.

One suit alleges the broadcasters colluded to raise ad prices, or
as Hollis Salzman, Esq. -- HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com -- of
representing law firm Robins Kaplan put it: "In today's media
landscape, spending on television ads is falling fast. Our client's
complaint alleges that the defendants tried to defy the gravity of
that decline by colluding to raise their prices."

The suit was actually filed by Robins Kaplan on behalf of another
law firm, Clay, Massey & Associates, of Mobile, Alabama, which said
it purchased some of the allegedly inflated advertising "from one
or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators" and "has
suffered monetary loss as a result of the antitrust violations
alleged herein."

The plaintiffs are seeking to enjoin the alleged action, which
appears based on the initial news account, as well as treble
damages (money) and other relief. The more members join the class,
the larger the damages would be.

Also cited in the complaint were Gray, Hearst and
Nexstar—together the five have over 500 TV stations.

Tribune and Hearst declined comment. Sinclair, Gray and Nexstar
could not be reached for comment at press time.

Given the news account of a broad DOJ investigation, that law firms
would be looking to capitalize is no surprise. The complaint was
filed only days after the Wall Street Journal reported that the DOJ
was investigating potential antitrust violations in local
television ad sales.

Elsewhere, a lawsuit has been filed by class action law firm
Kessler Topaz Melzer and Check on behalf of Little Rock lawyer
Peter Miller, Esq. -- pmiller@aristotle.net -- according to the
Arkansas Times. Miller also said he had bought local TV ads.

DOJ's concerns about Sinclair's control of inventory in markets
where it wanted to own two stations was one of the reasons Sinclair
restructured its merger agreement, according to a source familiar
with the review. But the Journal story suggested the investigation
was wider than just Sinclair and was looking into whether TV
stations coordinated efforts in a way that raised prices, which
would obviously implicate antitrust issues if true.

Sinclair had fueled speculation about a wider investigation, and
likely the class action efforts that followed, in its response to
the WSJ story, saying: "It is our understanding that this is not
specific to Sinclair but focuses on the larger broadcast
industry."

The Television Bureau of Advertising had no comment on the suits,
but said it had not been served with any actions and pointed out
that Sinclair, for one, is not a member of TV. [GN]

SKECHERS USA: Suit by Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action captioned Steamfitters Local 449
Pension Plan v. Skechers USA, Inc., Robert Greenberg and David
Weinberg remains pending, according to Skechers U.S.A., Inc.'s Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

The Company said, "On October 20, 2017, the Steamfitters Local 449
Pension Plan filed a securities class action, on behalf of itself
and purportedly on behalf of other shareholders who purchased
Skechers stock in a five-month period in 2015, against our company
and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, case number 1:17-cv-08107.  On
April 4, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated
complaint and plaintiffs are currently asking us to stipulate to
filing a second amended and consolidated complaint.  The lawsuit
alleges that, between April 23 and October 22, 2015, we made
materially false statements or omissions of material fact about the
anticipated performance of our Domestic Wholesale segment and
asserts claims for unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and
equitable relief based on two counts for alleged violations of
federal securities laws.  Given the early stage of this proceeding
and the limited information available, we cannot predict the
outcome of this legal proceeding or whether an adverse result in
this case would have a material adverse impact on our operations or
financial position.  We believe we have meritorious defenses and
intend to defend this matter vigorously.

"On October 27, 2017, Monique Cadle filed a securities class
action, on behalf of herself and purportedly on behalf of other
shareholders who purchased Skechers stock in a five-month period in
2015, against our company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, case
number 1:17-cv-08305.  The lawsuit alleges that, between April 23
and October 22, 2015, we made materially false statements or
omissions of material fact about the anticipated performance of our
Domestic Wholesale segment and asserts claims for unspecified
damages, attorneys' fees and equitable relief based on two counts
for alleged violations of federal securities laws.  Given the early
stage of this proceeding and the limited information available, we
cannot predict the outcome of this legal proceeding or whether an
adverse result in this case would have a material adverse impact on
our operations or financial position.  We believe we have
meritorious defenses and intend to defend this matter vigorously.
This suit is now consolidated with Steamfitters Local 449 Pension
Plan v. Skechers USA, Inc., Robert Greenberg and David Weinberg,
described above, and will be dropped as a separate entry from the
Company's next period filing with the SEC."

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide.  It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales.  Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.


SLEEP NUMBER: Still Defends Spade Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Sleep Number Corporation continues to face a purported class action
suit filed by David and Katina Spade, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiffs David and Katina Spade commenced a
purported class action lawsuit in New Jersey state court against
Sleep Number alleging that Sleep Number violated New Jersey
consumer statutes by failing to provide to purchasing consumers
certain disclosures required by the New Jersey Furniture
Regulations.  It is undisputed that plaintiffs suffered no actual
damages or in any way relied upon or were impacted by the alleged
omissions.

Nonetheless, on behalf of a purported class of New Jersey
purchasers of Sleep Number beds and bases, plaintiffs seek to
recover a US$100 statutory fine for each alleged omission, along
with attorneys' fees and costs.  Sleep Number removed the case to
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
which subsequently granted Sleep Number's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, which certified two questions of law to the New
Jersey Supreme Court relating to whether plaintiffs who have
suffered no actual injury may bring claims.

The New Jersey Supreme Court accepted the certified questions and
on April 16, 2018, ruled in the Company's favor on one of the two
questions, holding that a consumer only has standing to bring a
claim under the relevant statute if the consumer has been harmed by
the defendant's conduct.

The Third Circuit has remanded the case to the federal district
court for further analysis consistent with the New Jersey Supreme
Court's opinion.

The Company said, "As a result, we expect that the federal district
court will dismiss any claims that Plaintiffs attempt to pursue
consistent with the guidance set forth by the New Jersey Supreme
Court."

Sleep Number Corporation designs, manufactures, and markets a line
of air bed mattresses. The Company provides a variety of beds,
bedding, pillows, mattress pads and layers, sheets, duvets, bed
skirts, bases, furniture, bed accessories, and kids blankets.  The
company is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota.


SMITH TRANSPORT: Wins Bid to Dismiss Ratliff FCRA Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Charles R. Norgle grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the lawsuit styled JEROME RATLIFF JR., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly Situated v. SMITH TRANSPORT, INC., a
Pennsylvania corporation, and SMITH TRANSPORT U.S.A., INC., a
Pennsylvania corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-07199 (N.D. Ill.).

Mr. Ratliff filed his complaint on October 5, 2017, bringing this
putative class action against the Defendant for alleged violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Initially, the Court notes that the factual basis for the
Plaintiff's claim has been set forth in 17 nearly identical
complaints -- nine of which the Plaintiff also filed on October 5,
2017 -- alleging violations of the FCRA by various trucking
companies.  Except for the Defendants' information, the complaint
the Plaintiff filed in Ratliff v. Mesilla Valley Transportation,
Inc. et al., Case No. 17-cv-7192, is identical to the present
Complaint and was dismissed after the court determined that the
Plaintiff lacked standing to bring the claim (finding that the
Plaintiff lacked standing to bring the claim because he did not
allege any concrete injury).

The Court agrees with the thorough reasoning provided in the five
other identical cases where judges in this District dismissed the
Plaintiff's near identical claims for lack of standing.

There are no facts alleged that demonstrate that the Defendants'
violation of the FCRA goes against the interests Congress sought to
protect with its passage, i.e. dissemination of false information,
Judge Norgle notes.  Accordingly, Judge Norgle avers, the Plaintiff
fails to allege any concrete injury and does not have standing to
bring this claim.


SOUTHERN NEVADA: Court Orders Amendments on Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order amending the Settlement Agreement in the case captioned
DANIEL ACUNA; and JERRY SCHAFFER, as individuals, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHERN NEVADA T.B.A
CO., a Nevada Corporation, doing business as "TED WIENS TIRE & AUTO
CENTERS", Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00457-GWF (D. Nev.).

The Parties have encountered some delays in mailing the Notices of
Class Action Settlement and so asked the court approve a few
changes to the terms of settlement, all of which pertain to
administration of the settlement.

In order to move this settlement process along, the Parties request
the changes in Settlement administration set forth below, inter
alia:

   A. The parties request the Court amend the preliminary approval
Order to change the manner in which the Net Settlement Amount is
distributed. The Net Settlement amount is that portion of the
Maximum Settlement Amount to be paid to Subclass members.
Specifically, rather than making numerous monthly payments as
Defendant Wiens pays each of the ten (10) monthly installments of
the $295,000.00 Maximum Settlement Payment, all payments to counsel
and class members will be mailed 14 days after Defendant lodges the
last installment; with the exception that, as soon as monies
contributed through Wiens' installment payments reach a sufficient
amount, the Claims Administrator is authorized to pay (i) the
$2,000.00 total of Enhancement Payments to the two (2) named
Plaintiffs, assuming their appointments as Class Representatives
are approved in the final approval order; and (ii) reimburse Class
Counsel's costs of $17,100.00 assuming those costs are finally
approved. The costs figure represents out-of-pocket costs incurred
by Plaintiffs' counsel. This change will reduce the costs, which
are paid from the settlement, by at least $5,000.00 through
reduction of postage costs. There are 467 Class Members, all of
whom were slated to receive multiple checks over the 10-month
period, again depending upon the number of FLSA Subclass members
who opt in to the Settlement.

   B. Amendment to the costs to be paid to the Claims Administrator
bringing the costs to a total $12,500.00, a revised figure for the
costs of administration, given the cost of mailing the final
checks. The Claims Administrator's cost is included in Class
Counsel's costs in the amount of $17,100.00 discussed supra.

   C. Given the increase in claims administration costs, the
parties request an adjustment to $202,150.00 in the Class Fund for
Distribution. This is adjusted due to the change in the Claims
Administrator's costs, both of which are deducted from the total
settlement proceeds.

Accordingly, the Parties request the Court make the following
changes to settlement administration:

   A. That all payments to Class Counsel and Class Members be made
within 21 days following Defendant Wiens' final installment payment
of the Maximum Settlement amount, with the following exceptions:
that, as soon as monies contributed through Wiens' installment
payments reach a sufficient amount, the Claims Administrator is
authorized to pay (i) the $2,000.00 total of Enhancement Payments
to the two (2) named Plaintiffs, assuming their appointments as
Class Representatives are approved in the final approval order; and
(ii) reimburse Class Counsel's costs of $17,100.00 assuming those
costs are finally approved. The latter change is made in light of
the fact the costs figure represents out-of-pocket costs incurred
by Plaintiffs' counsel.

   B. Approval of $12,500.00, a revised figure for the costs of
administration, given the cost of mailing notices, reminder
notices, deficiency notices, and checks.

   C. Approval of a revised figure of $202,150.00 for the Net
Settlement Amount.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 19, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycq9gfzb from Leagle.com.

Daniel Acuna & Jerry Schaffer, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew L.
Rempfer , Law Offices of Steven J. Parsons, Joseph Nathan Mott ,
Law Offices of Steven J. Parsons & Steven J. Parsons , Law Office
Of Steven J. Parsons.

So. Nev. T.B.A. Supply Co., doing business as Ted Wiens Tire & Auto
Centers, Defendant, represented by Carol Davis Zucker , Kamer
Zucker & Abbott & Nicole Ann Young , Kamer Zucker Abbott.

SPARK ENERGY: Court Dismisses Gillis Class Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Respond Power LLC's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's class action
claims in the case captioned "Gillis et al. v. Respond Power, LLC"
has been granted by the court, according to Spark Energy, Inc.'s
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

Gillis et al. v. Respond Power, LLC is a purported class action
lawsuit that was originally filed on May 21, 2014 in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.  On June 23, 2014, the case was
removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  On September 15, 2014, the plaintiffs
filed an amended class action complaint seeking a declaratory
judgment that the disclosure statement contained in Respond Power,
LLC's variable rate contracts with Pennsylvania consumers limited
the variable rate that could be charged to no more than the monthly
rate charged by the consumers' local utility company.

The plaintiffs also allege that Respond Power, LLC (i) breached its
variable rate contract with Pennsylvania consumers, and the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing therein, by charging rates
in excess of the monthly rate charged by the consumers' local
utility company; (ii) engaged in deceptive conduct in violation of
the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law; and (iii) engaged in negligent misrepresentation and
fraudulent concealment in connection with purported promises of
savings.  The amount of damages sought is not specified.

By order dated August 31, 2015, the district court denied class
certification.  The plaintiffs appealed the district court's denial
of class certification to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.  The United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit vacated the district court's denial of class
certification and remanded the matter to the district court for
further proceedings.  The district court ordered briefing on
defendant's motion to dismiss.

On July 16, 2018, the court granted Respond Power LLC's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's class action claims.

Spark Energy said, "The Company currently cannot predict the
outcome or consequences of this case at this time.  The Company
believes it is fully indemnified for this litigation matter,
subject to certain limitations."

Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy services
company founded in 1999 and now organized as a Delaware corporation
that provides residential and commercial customers in competitive
markets across the United States with an alternative choice for
their natural gas and electricity.


SPARK ENERGY: Discovery in Veilleux Class Action Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the discovery procedure
in the case captioned as, Katherine Veilleux and Jennifer Chon,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v.
Electricity Maine. LLC, Provider Power, LLC, Spark HoldCo, LLC,
Kevin Dean and Emile Clavet, is scheduled to end in August 2018.

Katherine Veilleux and Jennifer Chon, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated v. Electricity Maine.  LLC, Provider
Power, LLC, Spark HoldCo, LLC, Kevin Dean and Emile Clavet is a
purported class action lawsuit filed on November 18, 2016 in the
United States District Court of Maine, alleging that Electricity
Maine, LLC, an entity acquired by Spark HoldCo, LLC in mid-2016,
enrolled and re-enrolled customers through fraudulent and
misleading advertising, promotions, and other communications prior
to the acquisition.  Plaintiffs further allege that some improper
enrollment and re-enrollment practices have continued to the
present date.

Plaintiffs alleged claims under RICO, the Maine Unfair Trade
Practice Act, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and breach of contract.
Plaintiffs seek damages for themselves and the purported class,
rescission of contracts with Electricity Maine, injunctive relief,
restitution, and attorney's fees.

By order dated November 15, 2017, the Court, pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6), dismissed all claims against Spark HoldCo except the
claims for violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act and
for unjust enrichment.  Discovery limited to issues relevant to
class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure is currently scheduled to end in August 2018.

Plaintiffs have recently filed a motion seeking leave to amend
their complaint to reassert RICO claims against Spark, in addition
to claims for civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and unfair trade
practices.  The proposed amended complaint involves allegations
relating to Spark's and Electricity Maine's door-to-door sales
practices in Maine.

Spark and Electricity Maine opposed the motion and the Court has
not yet ruled on these motions.  Spark HoldCo intends to vigorously
defend this matter and the allegations asserted therein, including
the request to certify a class.

The Company said, "We cannot predict the outcome or consequences of
this case at this time.  The Company believes it is fully
indemnified for this litigation matter, subject to certain
limitations."

Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy services
company founded in 1999 and now organized as a Delaware corporation
that provides residential and commercial customers in competitive
markets across the United States with an alternative choice for
their natural gas and electricity.


SPARK ENERGY: Jurich Class Suit v. Verde Companies Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action captioned Jurich v. Verde Energy USA, Inc.,
remains ongoing, according to Spark Energy, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

Verde Energy USA, Inc.; Verde Energy USA Commodities, LLC; Verde
Energy USA Connecticut, LLC; Verde Energy USA DC, LLC; Verde Energy
USA Illinois, LLC; Verde Energy USA Maryland, LLC; Verde Energy USA
Massachusetts, LLC; Verde Energy USA New Jersey, LLC; Verde Energy
USA New York, LLC; Verde Energy USA Ohio, LLC; Verde Energy USA
Pennsylvania, LLC; Verde Energy USA Texas Holdings, LLC; Verde
Energy USA Trading, LLC; and Verde Energy Solutions, LLC
(collectively, the "Verde Companies") operate as retail energy
providers and were formed on various dates from December 27, 2007
to November 13, 2014.  The Company acquired the Verde Companies on
July 1, 2017.

Jurich v. Verde Energy USA, Inc., is a class action originally
filed on March 3, 2015 in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut and subsequently re-filed on October 8,
2015 in the Superior Court of Judicial District of Hartford, State
of Connecticut.  The Amended Complaint asserts that the Verde
Companies charged rates in violation of its contracts with
Connecticut customers and alleges (i) violation of the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. Secs. 42-110a et seq.,
and (ii) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages for
the class and injunctive relief.  The parties have exchanged
initial discovery.

On December 6, 2017, the Court granted the plaintiffs' class
certification motion.  However, the Court opted not to send out
class notices, and instead directed the parties to submit briefing
on legal issues that could result in a modification or
decertification of the class.

On June 21, 2018, the Court issued an opinion granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment.  The Court granted the motion as to liability on a
limited and discrete issue (whether Verde's terms of service
complied with a Connecticut statute's requirement of sufficient
clarity regarding rates).

The Company said, "The full implications of that ruling are not yet
clear.  The Court has questioned whether such a statutory violation
could justify an award of any compensatory damages.  In its order,
the Court also rejected the Plaintiffs' principal theory that
Verde's Terms of Service obligated Verde to track Verde's wholesale
costs in setting its retail rates.  As part of an agreement in
connection with the acquisition of the Verde Companies, the
original owners of the Verde Companies are handling this matter,
and the Company is indemnified with certain limitations.  Given the
early stage of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome or
consequences of this case at this time."

Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy services
company founded in 1999 and now organized as a Delaware corporation
that provides residential and commercial customers in competitive
markets across the United States with an alternative choice for
their natural gas and electricity.


SPARK ENERGY: Richardson Suit v. Verde Companies Remains Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a purported class action styled Richardson et al v.
Verde Energy USA, Inc. are awaiting the Court's decision on the
pending dispositive motions on the named plaintiffs' claims,
according to Spark Energy, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

Verde Energy USA, Inc.; Verde Energy USA Commodities, LLC; Verde
Energy USA Connecticut, LLC; Verde Energy USA DC, LLC; Verde Energy
USA Illinois, LLC; Verde Energy USA Maryland, LLC; Verde Energy USA
Massachusetts, LLC; Verde Energy USA New Jersey, LLC; Verde Energy
USA New York, LLC; Verde Energy USA Ohio, LLC; Verde Energy USA
Pennsylvania, LLC; Verde Energy USA Texas Holdings, LLC; Verde
Energy USA Trading, LLC; and Verde Energy Solutions, LLC
(collectively, the "Verde Companies") operate as retail energy
providers and were formed on various dates from December 27, 2007
to November 13, 2014.  The Company acquired the Verde Companies on
July 1, 2017.

Richardson et al v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. is a purported class
action filed on November 25, 2015 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that the
Verde Companies violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
placing marketing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system
or a prerecorded voice to the purported class members' cellular
phones without prior express consent and by continuing to make such
calls after receiving requests for the calls to cease.

Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages for the purported class
and injunctive relief prohibiting Verde Companies' alleged conduct.
Discovery on the claims of the named plaintiffs closed on November
10, 2017, and dispositive motions on the named plaintiffs' claims
were filed on November 24, 2017.

The parties are now awaiting the Court's decision on the pending
dispositive motions.

As part of an agreement in connection with the acquisition of the
Verde Companies, the original owners of the Verde Companies are
handling this matter, and the Company is indemnified with certain
limitations.

The Company said, "Given the early stages of this matter, we cannot
predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time."

Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy services
company founded in 1999 and now organized as a Delaware corporation
that provides residential and commercial customers in competitive
markets across the United States with an alternative choice for
their natural gas and electricity.


SPECTRA ENERGY: Derivative Claim vs General Partner Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Spectra Energy Partners (DE) GP, LP, still remains a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit asserting Derivative claim in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, according to Spectra Energy Partners,
LP's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

The case is Paul Morris v. Spectra Energy Partners (DE) GP, LP,
Spectra Energy Corp, Defendants, and Spectra Energy Partners, LP,
Nominal Defendant.

The Company said, "A putative class action lawsuit asserting direct
and derivative claims was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery
in March of 2016 by Paul Morris (Plaintiff), a unitholder of SEP.
The claims in the lawsuit relate to a transaction in October 2015
whereby 33% ownership interests in the Sand Hills and Southern
Hills pipelines were sold by us to Spectra Energy Corp (SE Corp)
and, subsequent to that transaction, SE Corp contributed those
ownership interests to DCP Midstream, LLC, a joint venture in which
SE Corp owns a 50% ownership interest.  The lawsuit alleges that
the consideration paid to us by SE Corp in exchange for those
ownership interests was approximately US$525 million less than the
purported value of such ownership interests.  The lawsuit asserted
direct and derivative claims of breach of contract and breach of
the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing against SEP GP and
direct and derivative claims of tortious interference with the SEP
Limited Partnership Agreement against SE Corp.  SEP is also named
as a "nominal" defendant in the lawsuit for the derivative claims.

"On January 13, 2017, Plaintiff withdrew all of his direct claims
in the lawsuit.  On June 27, 2017, the Delaware Court of Chancery
issued a Memorandum Opinion dismissing the derivative claims of
tortious interference against SE Corp and the breach of the implied
duty of good faith and fair dealing against SEP GP, leaving only
the derivative claim for breach of the Limited Partnership
Agreement against SEP GP pending.  The relief sought in the
complaint includes rescission of the transaction, damages, interest
and attorneys' fees."

Spectra Energy Partners, LP operates as an investment arm of
Spectra Energy Corp. Spectra Energy Partners, LP, through its
subsidiaries, engages in the transportation of natural gas through
interstate pipeline systems, and the storage of natural gas in
underground facilities in the United States.  Spectra Energy
Partners (DE) GP, LP, operates as the general partner to Spectra
Energy Partners, LP. The company is based in Houston, Texas.


SPRINT NEXTEL: R. Sibley's Class Certification Bid Sustained
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROXIE SIBLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SPRINT NEXTEL
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 08-2063-KHV (D.
Kan.), Judge Kathryn H. Vratil of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas (i) sustained the Plaintiffs' motion for
certification and joint proposed amendment to the pretrial order,
and (ii) sustained in part the Plaintiffs' motion for approval of
proposed settlement notice process.

The matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion For Approval
Of Adequacy Of Settlement Notice Process filed May 21, 2018; the
Plaintiffs' Motion For Certification Of Settlement Subclasses filed
June 18, 2018; and The Parties' Joint Proposed Amendment To The
Pretrial Order filed June 18, 2018.

The Plaintiffs' unopposed motions seek approval of the proposed
settlement notice process and certification of settlement
subclasses comprised of (1) the class members who were correctly
paid or overpaid, (2) the class members who only worked in Period
65 and (3) the class members who had insufficient data to calculate
underpayment.  The parties also provide a joint amendment to the
pretrial order which defines these subclasses.

On May 9, 2018, the Court sustained in part the Plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement.  It withheld
preliminary approval because the parties had not demonstrated that
they deemed the settlement fair and reasonable.  The Court did not
address the adequacy of the Plaintiffs' proposed settlement notice
plan or set a final settlement hearing date.

On May 21, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the pending motion for
approval of the proposed notice plan and appointed three additional
class representatives -- one for each of the aforementioned groups.
The Plaintiffs did not file a joint proposed amendment to the
pretrial order as the Court directed or clarify whether they
intended to create subclasses or merely appoint the class
representatives to represent the interests of some class members.

On June 4, 2018, the Court ordered the parties to create the
subclasses comprised of class members who were correctly paid or
overpaid, the class members who only worked in Period 65 and class
members who had insufficient data to calculate underpayment and
revise the settlement agreement and notice of settlement
accordingly.

On June 18, 2018, the parties filed a motion to certify the
settlement subclasses, a revised settlement agreement, a revised
notice of settlement and a joint proposed amendment to the pretrial
order.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of these three settlement
subclasses:

     i. Settlement Subclass - Correctly Paid or Overpaid: The
Settlement Subclass is comprised of the Settlement Class Members
who, according to the Class Expert calculations, were correctly
paid or overpaid and is comprised of 4,482 Class Members. The
Settlement Subclass representative for this group is Henry Goins.

     ii. Settlement Subclass - Worked Only in Period 65 (August
2005): The Settlement Subclass is comprised of the Settlement Class
Members who, according to the Class Expert calculations, only
worked in Period 65 (August 2005) and is comprised of 274 Class
Members.  The Settlement Subclass Representative for the group is
Clayton Johnson.

     iii. Settlement Subclass - Insufficient Data: The Settlement
Subclass is comprised of the Settlement Class Members who,
according to the Class Expert calculations, had insufficient data
to calculate an underpayment and is comprised of 2,787 Class
Members.  The Settlement Subclass Representative for the group is
Anthony Scarpelli.

Judge Vratil finds that the settlement subclasses meet the
requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b).  She also finds that the
class counsel have consistently demonstrated their impartiality and
commitment to reaching a settlement agreement that provides
reasonable compensation for all class members.  Appointment of new
counsel for each subclass would delay recovery and incur higher
costs, which the class would bear.  Such delay and additional costs
outweigh any marginal benefit of appointing independent class
counsel for each subclass.  Thus, the Judge will appoint Nichols
Kaster, PLLP and Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP to represent the
subclasses.

In light of the foregoing, the Judge will sustain The Parties'
Joint Proposed Amendment To The Pretrial Order.

Despite the Court ordering its inclusion, the notice does not
clearly define the certified settlement subclasses.  Because the
requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B) are mandatory, the Judge cannot
must withhold approval of the proposed notice of settlement in
light of this omission.  Further, the notice of settlement should
allow class members to more easily ascertain if they are a member
of a subclass.  Accordingly, she will sustain in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion For Approval Of Adequacy Of Settlement Notice
Process.  On July 11, 2018, the Plaintiffs will submit a revised
notice of settlement which meets the requirements set forth in Rule
23(c)(2)(B).

For these reasons, Judge Vratil sustained the Plaintiffs' Motion
For Certification Of Settlement Subclasses filed June 18, 2018.
She amended the Court's Memorandum And Order filed Nov. 24, 2008 to
add the following settlement subclasses:

     i. Settlement Subclass - Correctly Paid or Overpaid: The
Settlement Subclass is comprised of the Settlement Class Members
who, according to the Class Expert calculations, were correctly
paid or overpaid and is comprised of 4,482 Class Members. The
Settlement Subclass representative for the group is Henry Goins.

     ii. Settlement Subclass - Worked Only in Period 65 (August
2005): The Settlement Subclass is comprised of the Settlement Class
Members who, according to the Class Expert calculations, only
worked in Period 65 (August 2005) and is comprised of 274 Class
Members.  The Settlement Subclass Representative for this group is
Clayton Johnson.

     iii. Settlement Subclass - Insufficient Data: The Settlement
Subclass is comprised of the Settlement Class Members who,
according to the Class Expert calculations, had insufficient data
to calculate an underpayment and is comprised of 2,787 Class
Members.  The Settlement Subclass Representative for this group is
Anthony Scarpelli.

The Judge also sustained the Parties' Joint Proposed Amendment To
The Pretrial Order filed June 18, 2018.  She amended the Pretrial
Order filed March 14, 2013 to include the settlement subclasses
defined.

The Judge sustained in part the Plaintiffs' Motion For Approval Of
Adequacy Of Settlement Notice Process filed May 21, 2018.  On July
11, 2018, the Plaintiffs will submit a revised notice of settlement
which meets the requirements set forth in Rule 23(c)(2)(B), Fed. R.
Civ. P.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/wVBsC5 from Leagle.com.

Roxie Sibley, individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio
-- abaggio@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac vice, George A.
Hanson -- hanson@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP,
Jonathan Moler -- jmoler@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac
vice, Michele Renee Fisher -- fisher@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster,
PLLP, pro hac vice, Paul J. Lukas -- lukas@nka.com -- Nichols
Kaster, PLLP, pro hac vice, Rebekah L. Bailey -- bailey@nka.com --
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac vice & Stephen N. Six --
six@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Jeanne Noel, individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated, Ernesto Bennett, individually and on behalf of
a class of others similarly situated & Jamie Williams, individually
and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Alexander M. Baggio, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac
vice, George A. Hanson, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Jonathan Moler,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac vice & Stephen N. Six, Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP.

Greg St. Julien, Tracie Hernandez, John Jasinski, Jay Richie &
Teisha King, Plaintiffs, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac vice, George A. Hanson, Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP, Jonathan Moler, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac vice,
Michele Renee Fisher, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac vice, Paul J.
Lukas, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, pro hac vice & Stephen N. Six, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP.

Sprint Nextel Corporation, a Kansas Corporation & Sprint/United
Management Company, a Kansas Corporation, Defendants, represented
by Brian P. Baggott -- brian.baggott@dentons.com -- Dentons US,
LLP, Christopher J. Willis , Rogers & Hardin LLP, pro hac vice,
Elise M. Bloom, Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory I. Rasin
-- grasin@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice,
Gregory T. Wolf -- gregory.wolf@dentons.com -- Dentons US, LLP,
Heather R. Hamilton, Sprint Corporation, Jacqueline M. Dorn --
jdorn@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice, Mark W.
Batten -- mbatten@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac
vice, Nicole A. Eichberger -- neichberger@proskauer.com --
Proskauer Rose LLP, pro hac vice, Steven D. Hurd, Proskauer Rose
LLP, pro hac vice & Wade P.K. Carr -- wade.carr@dentons.com --
Dentons US, LLP.

Dr. Chen Song, Miscellaneous, pro se.

STATOIL USA: Court Won't Consolidate Royalties Suits
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania denied Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate the case
captioned ALAN MARBAKER; CAROL MARBAKER; JERRY L. CAVALIER; and
FRANK HOLDREN, Plaintiffs, v. STATOIL USA ONSHORE PROPERTIES, INC.
f/k/a STATOILHYDRO USA ONSHORE PROPERTIES, INC., Defendant, Civil
Action No. 3:17-CV-01528 (M.D. Pa.), with the case currently
pending before Judge Mannion: Canfield v. Statoil USA Onshore
Properties, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-85.

The Marbaker Plaintiffs filed a class demand and complaint in
arbitration against Statoil USA Onshore Properties, Inc. (Statoil).
There, the Marbaker Plaintiffs alleged that Statoil systematically
underpaid oil and gas royalties in a scheme to enrich its parent
company in violation of its lease agreements.

In recognition of convenience and judicial economy, separate
actions may be consolidated when they present a common issue of law
or fact. A court may deny a motion to consolidate if the common
issue is not a principal one, if it will cause delay in one of the
cases, or will lead to confusion or prejudice.

Because the two cases the Marbaker Plaintiffs seek to consolidate
present two distinct questions, consolidation is inappropriate. In
a remarkably similar case, Demchak Partners Limited v. Chesapeake
Appalachia, LLC, Judge Mannion explained that consolidation of a
declaratory action and a putative class action was inappropriate.
There, a set of oil and gas leaseholders moved to consolidate a
declaratory action with a class action.  The declaratory action
concerned the availability of class-wide arbitration, and the class
action concerned the sufficiency of a proposed settlement. Judge
Mannion concluded that the issues presented in the actions are
distinct and separate-one seeks settlement on the merits of the
plaintiffs' claims while the other seeks to have the court
determine how the plaintiffs may proceed with their claim.

For this reason, Judge Mannion reasoned that the consolidation
would not promote judicial economy. Therefore, the motion to
consolidate in Demchak was denied.  

The facts present in this matter mirror those in Demchak: the
underlying actions concern oil and gas leases; the declaratory
action seeks to determine the state of the law with respect to
class arbitration; and the class action is ripe for settlement. I
find no reason to depart from the analysis set forth by Judge
Mannion in Demchak.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 14, 2018 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7bu3o35 from Leagle.com.

Alan Marbaker, Carol Marbaker, Jerry L. Cavalier & Frank K.
Holdren, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron D. Hovan , John J. Hovan,
Attorney At Law, Arleigh P. Helfer -- ahelfer@schnader.com --
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP, Ira Neil Richards --
irichards@schnader.com -- Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP,
John J. Hovan & Richard Layton Huffsmith .

Statoil USA Onshore Properties, Inc., formerly known as
StatoilHydro USA Onshore Properties, Inc., Defendant, represented
by John G. Dean -- jgd@elliottgreenleaf.com -- Elliott Greenleaf &
Dean, Matthew G. Boyd -- mgb@elliottgreenleaf.com -- Elliott,
Greenleaf & Dean & Ryan Shores -- ryan.shores@shearman.com --
Shearman & Sterling LLP.

SUNTRUST BANKS: Class Status Granted in Combined Mutual Funds Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that a court in Georgia on
June 27, 2018, granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the consolidated mutual funds class action
lawsuit.

On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors, and
employees of the Company were named in a putative class action
alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by
offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in
the Plan.  The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in
their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seek
to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly
incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual
Funds.  This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District
Court").  Subsequently, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a
substantially similar lawsuit against the Company naming two new
plaintiffs.

On June 27, 2014, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al.,
another putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties
associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as
investment options in the Plan, was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia but then was transferred to the
Georgia District Court.

After various appeals, the cases were remanded to the District
Court.

On March 25, 2016, a consolidated amended complaint was filed,
consolidating all of these pending actions into one case.  The
Company filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint on
June 6, 2016.  Subsequent to the closing of fact discovery,
plaintiffs filed their second amended consolidated complaint on
December 19, 2017 which among other things named five new
defendants.

On January 2, 2018, defendants filed their answer to the second
amended consolidated complaint.  Defendants' motion for partial
summary judgment was filed on January 12, 2018, and on January 16,
2018 the plaintiffs filed for motion for class certification.

Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment was granted by the
District Court on May 2, 2018, which held that all claims prior to
March 11, 2005 have been dismissed as well as dismissing three
individual defendants from action.

On June 27, 2018, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. operates as the holding company for SunTrust
Bank that provides various financial services for consumers,
businesses, corporations, and institutions in the United States.
It operates through two segments, Consumer and Wholesale.  SunTrust
Banks, Inc. was founded in 1891 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.


TESARO INC: Still Defends Roger Bowers Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
TESARO, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the Court has not set a trial date in the
putative class action initiated by Roger Bowers.

A putative class action complaint was filed on January 17, 2018 in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
captioned Roger Bowers v. TESARO Incorporated (sic), et al., Case
No. 18-10086.  The complaint alleges that the Company and its Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer violated certain
federal securities laws, specifically under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common
stock between March 14, 2016 and January 12, 2018.

On March 19, 2018, six separate applicants filed motions seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff.  Four of these applicants
subsequently withdrew their motions or indicated that they did not
oppose a competing motion filed by another applicant.  On May 4,
2018, the Court entered an order appointing one of the two
remaining applicants -- Zev Crawley -- as the lead plaintiff and
approving his selection of lead counsel for the class.

On June 8, 2018, the lead plaintiff moved the Court for an order
prohibiting the Company from enforcing the terms of its
confidentiality agreements against former Company employees who
provide information to the lead plaintiff in the course of his
investigation.  The Company opposed the motion and, on July 13,
2018, the Court entered an order denying the lead plaintiff's
motion and instructing the parties to meet and confer regarding
either a joint proposed order or competing proposals regarding
interviews with former Company employees.  The Court has not set a
trial date.

TESARO said, "The Company believes that the allegations contained
in the complaint are without merit and intends to defend the case
vigorously."

TESARO, Inc., an oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company,
identifies, acquires, develops, and commercializes cancer
therapeutics and oncology supportive care products in the United
States.  It was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Waltham,
Massachusetts.


TETRAPHASE PHARMA: Sept. 25 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC on July 30 notified investors
that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Tetraphase
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Tetraphase" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
TTPH) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired Tetraphase securities: 1) pursuant
and/or traceable to its registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with the its July 2017 secondary public
offering ("SPO" or the "Offering"); and/or, 2) acquired Tetraphase
securities between March 8, 2017 and February 13, 2018, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this
case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/ttph.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Tetraphase was increasing the patient enrollment
in its IGNITE3 trial from 1,000 patients to 1,200 patients to meet
the trial's primary endpoints (within the 10% non-inferiority
margin); (2) The enrollment of more patients in the trial indicated
that the existing population was inadequate to meet the trial's
primary endpoints; and (3) consequently, Defendants' statements
about Tetraphase's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/ttph or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Tetraphase you have until September 25, 2018 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. [GN]

TIVITY HEALTH: Weiner Class Action Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Tivity Health, Inc. still defends itself against a class action
initiated by Eric Weiner related to the United Press Release,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018.

On November 20, 2017, Eric Weiner, claiming to be a stockholder of
the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between February 24, 2017 and
November 3, 2017 ("Weiner Lawsuit").  The Weiner Lawsuit was filed
as a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, naming the Company, the Company's chief
executive officer, chief financial officer and chief accounting
officer as defendants.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act in making
false and misleading statements and omissions related to the United
Press Release.  The complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of
the purported class.

On April 3, 2018, the Court entered an order appointing the
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as lead
plaintiff, designated counsel for the lead plaintiff, and
established certain deadlines for the case.

Tivity Health, Inc. provides fitness and health improvement
programs in the United States.  It was formerly known as
Healthways, Inc. and changed its name to Tivity Health, Inc. in
January 2017.  Tivity Health, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


TOOTSIE ROLL: Junior Mints Suit Gets Tossed by Federal Judge
------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Fitz-Gibbon, writing for Lohud, reports that it doesn't take
a genius to figure out how much candy is in a Junior Mints box, a
federal judge said in court papers on August 1.

U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald tossed a class-action
lawsuit against the manufacturers of the chocolate-covered mint
candies, saying that a person "of ordinary intelligence" can figure
out how much candy is inside simply by reading the box.

The 44-page ruling was in response to claims by three consumers who
claimed the packages had too much air, or "slack fill," and not
enough candy.

"We can easily conclude, as a matter of law, that the slack-fill
enclosed in the products would not mislead a reasonable consumer,
as the product boxes provide more than adequate information for a
consumer to determine the amount of product contained therein,"
Buchwald wrote in papers filed in Manhattan federal court.

The lawsuit was initially filed in October by Biola Daniel against
Tootsie Roll Industries, the Chicago-based producer of Junior
Mints. Daniel claimed that she felt cheated after buying a
3.5-ounce package of candy for $1.49 while at a Duane Reade
pharmacy in Manhattan on Sept. 23.

She said the box "contained approximately 40 percent non-functional
slack fill."

In January, two more consumers -- Abel Duran of Queens and Trekeela
Perkins of Mississippi -- joined in the lawsuit, making similar
claims about the amount of candy contained in Junior Mints packages
they purchased.

The lawsuit claimed that other, comparable candies, such as Milk
Duds and Good & Plenty, contained significantly more candy and less
slack-fill.

In their response, lawyers for Tootsie Roll Industries said in
court papers in February that the lawsuit "does not pass muster,"
and should be thrown out.

"Contextually, based on the entirety of the Junior Mints packaging,
it is not plausible that a reasonable consumer would be mislead,"
the papers said. "The Junior Mints boxes accurately disclose the
weight of the candy in the boxes, and the candy in the box."

"Moreover," the attorneys wrote, "the empty space in the boxes is
obvious and tangible when handling them."

Buchwald agreed in her ruling this week.

"There is no suggestion that the displayed weight, serving size, or
number of servings per box do not accurately reflect the amount of
product the customer actually receives," she wrote. [GN]

TRAVEL DAYS: Ward Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
KYLE WARD, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
TRAVEL DAYS, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, Case No.
0:18-cv-61782-KMW (S.D. Fla., August 1, 2018), seeks to recover
from the Defendant minimum wage, overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

TD is a Florida Profit Corporation that operates in Broward County,
Florida.  TD hired the Plaintiff to sit inside its call center and
make phone calls to persons across the United States to sell travel
reservations and trips.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah E. Storch, Esq.
          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (866) 344-9243
          Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
          E-mail: Noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com


UNDER ARMOUR: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Drop Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of Under Armour, Inc. and other defendants seeking
dismissal of the amended complaint in a consolidated securities
class action is still pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3,
2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

On March 23, 2017, three separate securities cases previously filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland (the "Court") were consolidated under the
caption In re Under Armour Securities Litigation, Case No.
17-cv-00388-RDB (the "Consolidated Action").  On August 4, 2017,
the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action, North East Scotland
Pension Fund, joined by named plaintiff Bucks County Employees
Retirement Fund, filed a consolidated amended complaint (the
"Amended Complaint") against the Company, the Company's Chief
Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officers, Lawrence
Molloy and Brad Dickerson.

The Amended Complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) (and Rule
10b-5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act") and Section 20(a) control person liability under
the Exchange Act against the officers named in the Amended
Complaint, claiming that the defendants made material misstatements
and omissions regarding, among other things, the Company's growth
and consumer demand for certain of the Company's products.  The
class period identified in the Amended Complaint is September 16,
2015 through January 30, 2017.

The Amended Complaint also asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"),
in connection with the Company's public offering of senior
unsecured notes in June 2016.  The Securities Act claims are
asserted against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer, Mr. Molloy, the Company's directors who signed the
registration statement pursuant to which the offering was made and
the underwriters that participated in the offering.

The Amended Complaint alleges that the offering materials utilized
in connection with the offering contained false and/or misleading
statements and omissions regarding, among other things, the
Company's growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company's
products.

On November 9, 2017, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, which is still pending
with the Court.

Under Armour said, "The Company believes that the claims asserted
in the Consolidated Action are without merit and intends to defend
the lawsuit vigorously.  However, because of the inherent
uncertainty as to the outcome of this proceeding, the Company is
unable at this time to estimate the possible impact of the outcome
of this matter."

Under Armour, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
markets, and distributes branded performance apparel, footwear, and
accessories for men, women, and youth primarily in North America,
Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and Latin
America.  The Company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in
Baltimore, Maryland.


UNITED STATES: DC Ct. Grants Mother-Son's Immediate Reunification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of Columbia, granted
Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in the case
captioned JACINTO-CASTANON DE NOLASCO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 18-1536 (PLF)(D.D.C.).

The matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction, requiring the United States government to
immediately reunify plaintiff Alma Zuli Jacinto-Castanon de Nolasco
with her nine-year-old son and her eleven-year-old son, from whom
Ms. Jacinto-Castanon was forcibly separated shortly after crossing
the United States-Mexico border over two months ago.

The Plaintiffs in this action are Ms. Jacinto-Castanon and her two
sons, who were forcibly separated after crossing the border prior
to the issuance of the Executive Order. Ms. Jacinto-Castanon is
presently detained in Arizona, while her sons are detained in
California. They are being held solely as civil immigration
detainees and not in association with any criminal charge or
conviction. Ms. Jacinto-Castanon has passed a credible fear
interview the first step in the asylum process. There is no
evidence suggesting that Ms. Jacinto-Castanon is not the biological
mother of her sons. Nor is there any suggestion that she is an
unfit parent or poses a danger to her sons.

Likelihood of Success on the Merits

The Supreme Court has made clear that parents have a fundamental
liberty interest in family integrity, and in the care, custody, and
control of their children. Ms. Jacinto-Castanon and her sons
contend that their continued separation, absent a determination
that she is either an unfit parent or presents a danger to her
sons, impermissibly interferes with their fundamental right to
family integrity. Framed in this manner, the plaintiffs likely will
show that the defendants' actions implicate a fundamental liberty
interest that has been infringed.

The Defendants contend that the separation occurred because Ms.
Jacinto-Castanon was subject to lawful prosecution under 8 U.S.C.
Section 1325(a). They also argue that she remains separated from
her sons because she is subject to mandatory detention" pending
immigration proceedings. In a footnote, however, the defendants
acknowledge that Ms. Jacinto-Castanon's credible fear claim "has
been assessed and she is no longer subject to expedited removal or
mandatory detention."

In addition, the defendants do not dispute that all criminal
proceedings have concluded and that Ms. Jacinto-Castanon has served
her accompanying sentence. Furthermore, the defendants do not
dispute that Ms. Jacinto-Castanon's sons have not been charged with
any crime. So there is no criminal law enforcement reason to
maintain the separation of Ms. Jacinto-Castanon and her sons.
Moreover, the fact that Ms. Jacinto-Castanon may be subject to some
form of immigration detention does not explain why she must be
detained separately from her sons. The same goal of detention can
be accomplished, for example, by temporarily detaining families
together in family residential facilities.  

While the defendants have a legitimate interest in enforcing the
immigration laws and deterring unlawful immigration, nothing in
federal law suggests that deterring immigration by indefinitely
separating families once the parents have been transferred to
immigration custody is a compelling or legitimate government
objective. Moreover, the defendants' forced separation policy is
overbroad because it equally deters both lawful and unlawful
conduct.   

Indeed, the Executive Order names a less restrictive alternative:
temporarily detaining parents together with their children. The
fact that immigration officials administered the same statutes and
regulations through 2017 without routinely separating families
lends further support to the conclusion that the defendants'
actions are not narrowly tailored. The zero-tolerance immigration
policy therefore is likely not the least restrictive means for
furthering the defendants' purported interest in enforcing the
immigration laws.

The Court finds that Ms. Jacinto-Castanon and her sons likely will
succeed on their substantive due process claim premised on their
constitutional right to family integrity.

Irreparable Harm

As to whether the plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm
in the absence of preliminary relief, there can be no dispute.

The panic and desperation that Ms. Jacinto-Castanon has endured
will no doubt sound familiar to anyone who has ever, even
momentarily, lost sight of a child entrusted to his or her care.
But counsel for the plaintiffs have also offered evidence from
medical experts describing the profound and long-term consequences
that separation can have on a child's well-being, safety, and
development. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics,
"[t]he psychological distress, anxiety, and depression associated
with separation from a parent would follow the children well after
the immediate period of separation even after the eventual
reunification with a parent or other family. Detained immigrant
children may experience high rates of post-traumatic stress
disorder, anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation, in addition
to developmental delays or poor psychological adjustment.  Highly
stressful experiences, like family separation, can disrupt a
child's brain architecture and affect his or her short- and
long-term health. This type of prolonged exposure to serious stress
known as toxic stress can carry lifelong consequences for children.


Based on these concerns, the independent child advocate for Ms.
Jacinto-Castanon's sons appointed pursuant to the TVPRA  has
determined that it is in the best interest of Ms.
Jacinto-Castanon's sons to be immediately reunified with their
mother.

Separation irreparably harms the plaintiffs every minute it
persists. This evidence, combined with the constitutional violation
alleged, shows that the plaintiffs are not only likely but certain
to suffer irreparable injury if the requested preliminary
injunction does not issue.

The Balance of Equities

In considering whether to grant a preliminary injunction, the Court
must balance the competing claims of injury and consider the effect
on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested
relief. Where an injunction will not substantially injure other
interested parties, the balance of equities tips in the movant's
favor. Defendants cannot suffer harm from an injunction that merely
ends an unlawful practice.

The harm to Ms. Jacinto-Castanon and her sons is obvious and
intense. Every additional day of separation causes irreparable
harm. Lack of information is but one necessary consequence of
separation. Another consequence of separation is lasting damage to
the children's well-being and their relationship with their mother.
And the loss of constitutional freedoms, for even minimal periods
of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.

The Court recognizes that all of the children of class members are
suffering irreparable harm. But the record evidence compiled in
this case demonstrates that prompt reunification of Ms.
Jacinto-Castanon with her sons will not significantly interfere
with defendants' efforts to comply with the class action order. The
fact is that Ms. Jacinto-Castanon and her sons have met their
burden to show that every day of separation is causing serious and
potentially permanent harm. The balance of equities therefore
favors accelerated reunification of Ms. Jacinto-Castanon with her
sons.

The Public Interest

The final factor for consideration is the public interest. The
public's interest in enforcing the criminal and immigration laws of
this country would be unaffected by issuance of the requested
preliminary injunction. The Executive Branch remains free to
prosecute those who unlawfully enter the United States and
institute removal proceedings against them. But the public also has
an interest in ensuring that its government respects the rights of
immigrants to family integrity while their removal proceedings or
in this case, asylum proceedings are pending.  The public interest
in upholding and protecting such rights in the circumstances
presented here is served by issuing the requested injunction.

The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction. The Defendants must reunify Ms. Jacinto-Castanon with
her sons.  The Defendants are prohibited from removing plaintiffs
from the United States until further order of this Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 19, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7syozx5 from Leagle.com.

ALMA ZULI JACINTO-CASTANON DE NOLASCO, T.J.N.-J., a Minor &
D.E.N.-J., a Minor, Plaintiffs, represented by Clayton D. LaForge
-- clayton.laforge@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, Timilin K.
Sanders -- timilin.sanders@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP & Claudia
M. O'Brien -- claudia.o'brien@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP.

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES, OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT, THOMAS HOMAN,
Acting Director of ICE, HENRY LUCERO, Phoenix Field Office
Director, ICE, MICHAEL ZACKOWSKI, Phoenix Assistant Field Office
Director, ICE, KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary of DHS, JEFFERSON
BEAUREGARD SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States, L.
FRANCIS CISSNA, Director of USCIS, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Acting
Commissioner of CBP, WILLIAM K. BROOKS, Tucson Field Director, CBP,
ALEX AZAR, Secretary of HHS & SCOTT LLOYD, Director of ORR,
Defendants, represented by William Mark Nebeker , U.S. ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE.

UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Travel Ban Waivers
---------------------------------------------------------
Lorelei Laird, writing for ABA Journal, reports that dissenting
from Trump v. Hawaii, the "travel ban" case, U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that there's reason to believe that
the visa waiver program, granting exceptions to the ban in specific
situations, "is nothing more than a sham."

A new lawsuit, filed electronically July 29, argues that the waiver
program indeed is a sham, with little public information about how
to apply for a waiver, and many applicants reporting either being
denied without a chance to formally apply or having their
applications stuck in limbo forever. Only a tiny number of waivers
have been granted, says the proposed class in Emami v. Trump. Vox
has a story.

Though Emami is the first lawsuit over the travel ban to be filed
after the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Hawaii in June, it
doesn't directly challenge the legality of the ban. Rather, it
argues that the process for exceptions to the ban -- one basis for
the 5-4 majority's ruling in the case -- is deliberately designed
to provide few waivers.

The complaint notes that President Donald Trump's third travel ban
has been in effect since December of 2017, when the U.S. Supreme
Court stayed injunctions issued by lower courts. Since that time,
waivers are the only way into the United States for individuals
from the "banned" countries -- all majority-Muslim countries except
North Korea, which already tightly restricts travel to the United
States, and Venezuela, where only certain government officials and
their families are banned. Waivers are supposed to be granted to
people who do not pose a security or public safety threat, would
suffer undue hardship if rejected and whose admission would serve
the U.S. national interest.

But those waivers aren't truly available, the lawsuit charges, in
part because waivers are denied without any meaningful
individualized consideration. It says many visa applicants were
told a waiver was denied before they'd even applied for one. In
some cases, those were people whose visas were revoked after
initially being approved. As of July 29, the complaint says, the
rejection rate for people from banned countries was above 98
percent. Furthermore, the complaint says, there's evidence that
even the 2 percent who are cleared for waivers may not get visas
because waiver applications are languishing in bureaucracy.

The complaint quotes a sworn affidavit from a former consular
official, Christopher Richardson, who told a different federal
court that consular officers were ordered to find as few people as
possible eligible for a waiver. If a person did meet all the
criteria, he said, the application was to be sent to Washington,
D.C. for a final determination.

"There really is no waiver [process] and the Supreme Court was
correct to point out that the waiver [process] is merely 'window
dressing,'" Mr. Richardson's testimony says.

The lawsuit says this has resulted in separation of multiple
families. One plaintiff is a U.S. citizen who has been living in
Djibouti with his Yemeni wife because her waiver was denied before
she was able to apply for one. Their five-month-old son is a U.S.
citizen who has never been to the United States. Several others are
U.S. citizens forced to become single parents or separate from
their children because their spouses or children are stuck
overseas, sometimes in dangerous situations.

Several other plaintiffs are people who were approved for
"extraordinary ability" EB-1 visa -- the same kind of visa granted
to First Lady Melania Trump -- because of academic or artistic
work, but who were denied visas. One was outright told he was being
rejected because of the travel ban, but not permitted or instructed
in applying for a waiver.

The plaintiffs allege that this violates the Administrative
Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act and their due
process rights under the Fifth Amendment.

"As we've been talking to immigrants and assisting people with the
waiver process," Sirine Shebaya of plaintiffs' law firm Muslim
Advocates told Vox, "we've come to realize all the ways in which
there is no actual process -- and, to the extent there is a
process, it's designed to result in near-universal rejection." [GN]

UNITED STATES: Lake County Joins PILT Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
Jamey Malcomb, writing for Lake County News Chronicle, reports that
the Lake County Board of Commissioners voted to join a class action
lawsuit against the U.S. government during its meeting July 24 in
Two Harbors.

The lawsuit centers around underfunding by the federal government
of payments in-lieu of taxes (PILT) by the federal government to
local governments that offset losses in property taxes resulting
from nontaxable federal lands in their boundaries in the fiscal
years 2015-17.

The federal government is the largest landowner in Lake County,
owning approximately 58 percent of county land, according to the
Lake County website. Unlike some other counties in the lawsuit,
Lake County's PILT funds were underfunded by only about $10,000
during that time period and will recover less once attorney's fees
are paid.

In 2008, Congress mandated full PILT funding through 2014 and
repealed the original statute language that made the program
discretionary and a part of the yearly appropriations process,
according to the National Association of Counties website.

During 2015-17, PILT payments were not fully funded as a result of
insufficient appropriations. In 2017, Kane County, Utah, filed a
lawsuit seeking to recover the funding with the U.S. Court of
Federal Claims, which ruled in Kane County's favor in two
decisions.[GN]

UNITED STATES: Lucas Files Class Certification Bid in Suit v. HHS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order certifying the case
captioned LUCAS R., et al. v. ALEX AZAR, Secretary of U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services; et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-05741-DMG-PLA (C.D. Cal.), as a class action on behalf of
these classes of similarly situated persons:

   All children in the custody of the Office of Refugee
   Resettlement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
   Services ("ORR") pursuant to 6 U.S.C. Section 279 and/or 8
   U.S.C. Section 1232 --

   1) who are or will be placed in a secure facility,
      medium-secure facility, or RTC, or continued in any such
      facility for more than thirty days, without being afforded
      notice and an opportunity to be heard before a neutral and
      detached decisionmaker regarding the grounds for such
      placement; or

   2) whom ORR is refusing or will refuse to release to parents
      or other available custodians within thirty days of the
      proposed custodian's submitting a complete family
      reunification packet on the ground that the proposed
      custodian is or may be unfit; or

   3) who are or will be prescribed or administered one or more
      psychotropic medications without procedural safeguards,
      including but not limited to obtaining informed consent or
      court authorization prior to medicating a child, involving
      a neutral decisionmaker in the initial determination of
      whether to prescribe psychotropics to a child in ORR
      custody, and involving a neutral decision-maker to conduct
      periodic reviews of those medications as treatment
      continues; or

   4) who are natives of non-contiguous countries and to whom ORR
      is impeding or will impede legal assistance in legal
      matters or proceedings involving their custody, placement,
      release, and/or administration of psychotropic drugs.

The Court will commence a hearing on August 31, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carlos R. Holguin, Esq.
          CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
          256 South Occidental Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90057
          Telephone: (213) 388-8693
          E-mail: crholguin@centerforhumanrights.org

               - and -

          Holly S. Cooper, Esq.
          Carter C. White, Esq.
          UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS SCHOOL OF LAW
          One Shields Ave., TB 30
          Davis, CA 95616
          Telephone: (530) 754-4833
          E-mail: hscooper@ucdavis.edu
                  ccwhite@ucdavis.edu

               - and -

          Leecia Welch, Esq.
          Neha Desai, Esq.
          Poonam Juneja, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW
          405 14th Street, 15th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 835-8098
          E-mail: lwelch@youthlaw.org
                  ndesai@youthlaw.org
                  pjuneja@youthlaw.org

               - and -

          Crystal Adams, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW
          1313 L St. NW, Suite 130
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 868-4785
          E-mail: cadams@youthlaw.org

               - and -

          Summer Wynn, Esq.
          Mary Kathryn Kelley, Esq.
          Jon F. Cieslak, Esq.
          Megan L. Donohue, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121-1909
          Telephone: (858) 550-6000
          E-mail: swynn@cooley.com
                  mkkelley@cooley.com
                  jcieslak@cooley.com
                  mdonohue@cooley.com



UNITED STATES: Ordered to Focus on Reuniting Deported Parents
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Kullgren and Ted Hesson, writing for Politico, report that U.S.
District Court Judge Dana Sabraw on July 27 called for both parties
in a class-action lawsuit over family separations to focus on the
task of reuniting parents who were deported to their home countries
or released into the United States.

"That's the most pressing group," Judge Sabraw said, according to a
transcript of proceedings. "And all efforts have to be made to
identify and locate those parents and then to reunify as quickly as
possible." The Justice Department said on July 27 that it had
provided a list of 468 migrant parents outside the country to the
ACLU, which represents the plaintiffs. A separate group of 35
parents released into the U.S. haven't been located, a DOJ attorney
said on July 27. Judge Sabraw said that going forward both parties
must "devote enormous resources" to the undertaking.

Judge Sabraw praised the Trump administration's efforts to reunify
families it deemed "eligible" before a July 26 deadline for
children ages 5 to 17. The administration reunited at least 1,442
children with parents who were in custody of U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, according to a court filing, while another 378
were connected with parents or sponsors in the U.S. or turned 18
while in custody. The majority of reunited families were released
into the U.S., DOJ attorney Scott Stewart said in court.

But 650 children remain separated from their parents, Stewart said.
The legal proceedings will now turn to these cases, which include
children whose parents were deported and families that the
administration deemed ineligible for reunification. Any contested
cases will be addressed "on a rolling basis," Judge Sabraw said.
The judge said he will require weekly status reports every Thursday
and telephonic conferences every Friday until the missing parents
are located and other issues are resolved.

Eventually, Judge Sabraw said, the proceedings will develop a
protocol for DHS, DOJ and HHS to communicate with one another about
separated families. "There has to be a structure in place, because
family separation will continue for legitimate reasons," Judge
Sabraw said. "There are going to be people who keep coming into the
country, and there are going to be apprehensions."

What's next: Judge Sabraw said that he soon will rule on an ACLU
motion to delay deportations of reunited parents by seven days to
allow them time to decide whether to leave their child in the U.S.
The ACLU on July 28 filed an immigration attorney's declaration
that alleged some parents may have been coerced into accepting a
deportation. [GN]

UNITIL CORP: Still Defends Bellermann Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Unitil Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself in a putative class action suit entitled, Bellermann
et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company.

In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against
Unitil's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg, in Massachusetts'
Worcester Superior Court, (captioned Bellermann et al v. Fitchburg
Gas and Electric Light Company).

The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the
cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional
and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly
incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric
service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in
December 2008. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an
order denying class certification status in July 2016, though the
plaintiffs' individual claims remain pending.

The Company continues to believe these claims are without merit and
will continue to defend itself vigorously.

Unitil Corporation, a public utility holding company, engages in
the distribution of electricity and natural gas in the United
States. It operates through three segments: Utility Gas Operations,
Utility Electric Operations, and Non-Regulated. Unitil Corporation
was incorporated in 1984 and is headquartered in Hampton, New
Hampshire.


VEREIT INC: Realistic Partners Class Action Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
VEREIT, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that a stipulation "has not
occurred" regarding the settlement of a putative class action filed
by Realistic Partners.

In December 2013, Realistic Partners filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company and the then-members of its board of
directors in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, captioned
Realistic Partners v. American Realty Capital Partners, et al., No.
654468/2013.  The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the
board of the Company breached its fiduciary duties in connection
with the transactions contemplated under the Cole Merger Agreement
(in connection with the merger between a wholly owned subsidiary of
Cole Credit Property Trust III, Inc. and Cole Holdings Corporation)
and that Cole Credit Property Trust III, Inc. aided and abetted
those breaches.

In January 2014, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on behalf
of the alleged class of the Company's stockholders.  The proposed
settlement terms required the Company to make certain additional
disclosures related to the Cole Merger, which were included in a
Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company with the SEC on
January 17, 2014.

The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that the parties
would enter into a stipulation of settlement, which would be
subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery
and court approval following notice to the Company's stockholders,
and provided that the defendants would not object to a payment of
up to US$625,000 for attorneys' fees.

If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, which has
not occurred, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement.

The Company said, "There can be no assurance that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the court will approve
any proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be
under the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding."

VEREIT is a full-service real estate operating company which owns
and manages one of the largest portfolios of single-tenant
commercial properties in the U.S.


VEREIT INC: Sept. 9 Trial Date Set for SDNY Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The court has set a trial date for September 9, 2019 in the SDNY
Consolidated Securities Class Action, according to VEREIT, Inc.'s
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

Between October 30, 2014 and January 20, 2015, the Company and
certain of its former officers and directors, among other
individuals and entities, were named as defendants in ten
securities class action complaints filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The court
consolidated these actions under the caption In re American Realty
Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-MC-00040 (AKH) (the
"SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action").

The plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint on
December 11, 2015, which asserted claims for violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Certain defendants, including the
Company and the OP, filed motions to dismiss the second amended
class action complaint (or portions thereof), which were granted in
part and denied in part by the court.  The Company and the OP
answered the second amended class action complaint on July 29,
2016.

On September 8, 2016, the court issued an order directing
plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint to reflect certain
prior rulings by the court.  The third amended complaint was filed
on September 30, 2016 and the defendants were not required to file
new answers.  Discovery is ongoing.

Plaintiffs in the SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action filed a
motion for class certification and a hearing on the motion was held
on August 24, 2017.  On August 31, 2017, the court issued an order
granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Defendants' petitions seeking leave to appeal the court's order
granting class certification were denied on January 24, 2018.

During a status conference with the court on June 11, 2018, the
court ordered that all fact depositions should be completed by the
end of 2018 and set a trial date for September 9, 2019.  The next
status conference with the court is scheduled for November 29,
2018.

VEREIT is a full-service real estate operating company which owns
and manages one of the largest portfolios of single-tenant
commercial properties in the U.S.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Lowinger Seeks to Halt Vertex Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Lowinger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Verifone Systems, Inc., Robert W. Alspaugh,
Karen Austin, Ronald Black, Paul Galant, Alex W. Hart, Robert B.
Henske, Larry A. Klane, Jonathan I. Schwartz, Jane J. Thompson and
Rowan M. Trollope, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00829 (D. Del.,
June 1, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in
concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing
the acquisition of VeriFone Systems, Inc. by Vertex Holdco LLC,
Vertex Merger Sub LLC and affiliates of Francisco Partners, or
rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages
in the event defendants consummate the merger. The complaint
further seeks costs of this action, including reasonable allowance
for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Under the proposed transaction, VeriFone shareholders will receive
$23.04 in cash for each share of VeriFone common stock they own.

The complaint asserts that the proxy statement omitted financial
projections and the valuation analyses performed by the Company's
financial advisor, Qatalyst Partners, LP, including line item
projections for the metrics used to calculate the non-GAAP measures
or otherwise reconcile the non-GAAP projections to the most
comparable GAAP measures.

VeriFone provides payments and commerce solutions at the point of
sale by connecting payment devices to the cloud, merging the online
and in-store shopping experience and creating the next generation
of digital engagement between merchants and consumers. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Joseph Hrubiec, Esq.
     NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, LLC
     919 N. Market Street, Suite 1801
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 330 8025
     Email: RHrubiec@NapoliLaw.com

            - and -

     Aaron Brody, Esq.
     Michael J. Klein, Esq.
     STULL, STULL & BRODY
     6 East 45th Street
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel: (212) 687-7230
     Email: abrody@ssbny.com


VICHINO III LLC: Pearson Files Suit Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------
Branitra Pearson, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Vichino III LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-01819 (S.D. Tex., June 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Vichino III LLC operates as Amazing Lash Studio and Amazing Lash
Holding Company, LLC, in Harris County, Houston, Texas, providing
cosmetic work, including, but not limited to care for eye lashes
and/or eye brows where Pearson worked as a beautician. Defendants
failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's overtime rate of pay by
not including all applicable compensation in said calculation and
adjusted her time records and failed to maintain proper time
records. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Defreitas, Esq.
      Williams Tower
      2800 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 4100
      Houston, TX 77056
      Tel: (832) 794-6792
      Fax: (281) 784-3777
      Email: a.defreitas@lawyer.com


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Oct. 24 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
This case, In re Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 15-1249 (WHP), brought in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, arises out of
allegations that Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. ("Virtus"),
violated federal securities laws by making materially false and
misleading statements regarding certain mutual funds issued by
Virtus Opportunities Trust ("VOT").

The Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, Arkansas Teacher Retirement
System, on behalf of itself and the other members of the Settlement
Class (defined below), has reached a settlement with Defendants for
$22,000,000 in cash that resolves all claims in the Action (the
"Settlement").

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected and you may be eligible for a payment from the Settlement.
The Settlement Class consists of:

"all persons or entities that, during the period between January
25, 2013 and May 11, 2015, inclusive, purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of the publicly traded common stock of Virtus
Investment Partners, Inc. and were damaged thereby."

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
potentially eligible to receive a payment under the proposed
Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than
October 10, 2018.  Payments to eligible claimants will be made only
after the completion of all claims processing.  Please be patient,
as this process will take some time to complete.

Important Deadlines

October 10, 2018
Claim Filing Deadline To be eligible to receive a payment from the
Settlement Fund, you must mail the Claim Form and supporting
documentation, postmarked no later than October 10, 2018, in
accordance with the instructions in the Settlement Notice and Claim
Form.

October 3, 2018
Objection Deadline Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the
proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or the request for attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, must be received no later
than October 3, 2018, in accordance with the instructions in the
Settlement Notice.

October 24, 2018
Settlement Hearing To attend the Settlement Hearing and/or ask to
speak in Court about the fairness of the Settlement, see the
instructions in the Settlement Notice.  The hearing will be held on
October 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 20B of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel
Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New
York, NY 10007-1312.

A copy of the Settlement Notice is available at:

                      https://is.gd/g6Kmfx

WADDELL & REED: Defends 401(k) Plan Class Action Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc. continues to face the 401(k) Plan
Class Action Litigation initiated by Stacy Schapker, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2018.

In an action filed on June 23, 2017 and amended on June 26, 2017 in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, Schapker v.
Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc., et al, (Case No. 17-2365 D.  Kan.),
Stacy Schapker, a participant in the Company's 401(k) and Thrift
Plan, as amended and restated (the "401(k) Plan"), filed a lawsuit
against the Company, the Company's Board of Directors, the
Administrative Committee of the 401(k) Plan, and unnamed Jane and
John Doe Defendants 1-25.

The amended complaint, which is filed on behalf of the 401(k) Plan
and a proposed class of 401(k) Plan participants, purports to
assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited
transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended ("ERISA") based on the 401(k) Plan's offering of
investments managed by the Company or its affiliates from June 23,
2011 to present.

The amended complaint seeks, among other things, an order
compelling the disgorgement of fees paid to the Company and its
affiliates by the 401(k) Plan and the restoration of losses to the
401(k) Plan arising from defendants alleged ERISA violations,
attorneys' fees and other injunctive and equitable relief.  The
Company believes the allegations are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend this matter.

On October 6, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, and on February 22, 2018, the court denied the
motion to dismiss.

On March 8, 2018, the defendants filed their answer and defenses to
plaintiff's amended complaint, and on April 23, 2018, the court
entered an initial scheduling order.

The Company said, "In the opinion of management, the ultimate
resolution and outcome of this matter is uncertain.  Given the
preliminary nature of the proceedings and the Company's dispute
over the merits of the claims, the Company is unable to estimate a
range of reasonably possible loss, if any, that such matter may
represent.  While the ultimate resolution of this matter is
uncertain, an adverse determination against the Company could have
a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and
results of operations."

Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
investment management and advisory, investment product underwriting
and distribution, and shareholder services administration to mutual
funds, and institutional and separately managed accounts in the
United States.  The Company was founded in 1937 and is based in
Overland Park, Kansas.


WALGREENS: Gets More Time to Respond to Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd, writing for Penn Record, reports that Walgreens and
Rite Aid Corp. will have more time to answer claims in a
shareholder class action lawsuit alleging the pharmacies made false
and misleading statements during a failed merger in 2016, after a
federal judge refused to dismiss the case in June.

U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III granted motions for
more time on July 19 and 20, filed by the so-called Walgreens
defendants, George R. Fairweather and Stefano Pessina, and
Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc.

Mr. Fairweather is executive vice president and global chief
financial officer at Walgreens Boots Alliance. Mr. Pessina is
executive vice chairman of the board and chief executive office at
Walgreens.

The defendants' motion was unopposed in Pennsylvania's Middle
District and came with the concurrence in-motion of Walgreens
defendants.

On June 11, Judge Jones declined a motion to dismiss by the
Walgreen defendants in Jerry Hering v. Rite Aid Corp., a class
action filed following allegedly false and misleading statements
plaintiff shareholders claim both Walgreens and Rite Aid made
during the merger attempt.

A merger deal between the two pharmacy chains failed to received
regulatory approval but a revised plan was signed off on last fall.


By late last March, Rite Aid announced the transfer of "all 1,932
stores and related assets" to Walgreens Boots Alliance as part of a
$4.1 billion cash deal had been completed.

Transfer of Rite Aid's three distribution centers is scheduled to
begin Sept. 1, according to the announcement, though problems with
the transfer have been reported.

Judge Jones' 31-page June memorandum and order did grant the motion
to dismiss filed by Rite Aid Corp. and other so-called "Rite Aid
Defendants": John T. Standley, David R. Jessick, Joseph B.
Anderson, Jr., Bruce G. Bodaken, Kevin E. Lofton, Myrtle S. Potter,
Michael N. Regan, Frank A. Savage, and Marcy Syms.

Walgreens and Rite Aid defendants all claimed immunity to liability
under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's "safe harbor"
provision.

"With respect to false or misleading statements, the defendants
suggest that the statements are opinions or expressions of optimism
that are not actionable," Judge Jones said in his memorandum and
order.

"They also contend that many of the statements are protected under
the PSLRA's 'safe harbor' provision for forward-looking
statements."

Judge Jones wrote that all of the contested statements to
shareholders by Rite Aid and many of those made by Walgreens during
the merger process did fall under the PSLRA's safe harbor
provision. However, Walgreens left the safe harbor provision in
October 2016 when it questioned media reports about a Federal Trade
Commission Review that suggested the merger might be faltering and,
instead, expressed continued confidence in the process.

"The Walgreens defendants ventured into actionable territory when
they openly contradicted news reports of regulatory trouble by
alluding to their non-public 'inside' knowledge of the FTC's
review," Judge Jones' memorandum and order said.

"Plaintiff alleges that Walgreens, by the time of the statements,
had ample reason to understand that the merger was in trouble.
Indeed, once the FTC raised concerns and the original terms of the
merger needed to be revised, one would expect the Walgreens
defendants to soften their aggressively confident stance. Instead,
the Walgreens defendants seemed to double-down and disputed reports
that the transaction may falter." [GN]

WALT DISNEY: Want Class Action Over Weinstein Misconduct Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that Disney
contends that allegations only serve to highlight Weinstein's
"autonomy" when Miramax was a subsidiary.

The Walt Disney Company demands to be dismissed from a putative
class action brought by alleged victims of Harvey Weinstein. On
July 27, the studio giant argued that the suing women haven't
sufficiently detailed the case for Disney's liability.

Caitlin Dulany, Larissa Gomes and Melissa Thompson are the three
lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit. On June 1, they filed claims in New
York at a time when a similar class action from other women had
stalled thanks to the bankruptcy of The Weinstein Company. The
other case was unpaused after Harvey Weinstein's employment deal
became public record, but this second case does at least have one
distinguishing element -- the involvement of Disney, which once
owned Weinstein's studio Miramax Film.

According to the plaintiffs, Disney should be held responsible for
negligent supervision. The lawsuit alleges that Disney "knew or
should have known not only that Weinstein was unfit or incompetent
to work directly with women and posed a particular risk of sexually
harassing and assaulting them, but also that this unfitness created
a particular risk."

The complaint also points to Weinstein's employment agreements
where Disney is defined as a "co-obligor" of Miramax.

In a motion to dismiss, Disney argues the allegations aren't
supported with facts, nor have the plaintiffs pierced the corporate
veil.

"Notably absent are alleged facts that Disney employed Weinstein,
that Disney knew or should have known about Weinstein's alleged
misconduct or that Weinstein's alleged misconduct involved Disney's
premises or property," states Disney's memorandum. "Allegations
about Disney's former subsidiary, Miramax, are irrelevant to the
claims against Disney because Miramax and Disney are separate
corporate entities."

Disney, represented by Cravath attorneys Evan Chesler --
echesler@cravath.com -- and J. Wesley Earnhardt --
wearnhardt@cravath.com -- contends that allegations only serve to
highlight Weinstein's "autonomy" when Miramax was a subsidiary in
the 1990s and early 2000s, and that even if a connection could be
established, the negligent supervision claim is time-barred by a
three-year statute of limitations. [GN]

WELLS FARGO: ATM Access Fee Suit Still Ongoing in District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company continues to face the ATM Access Fee
Litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018.  The case has been previously dismissed by the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia but was revived
after passing through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court.

In October 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action, Mackmin,
et al. v. Visa, Inc.  et al., against Wells Fargo & Company, Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., Visa, MasterCard, and several other banks in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Plaintiffs allege that the Visa and MasterCard requirement that if
an ATM operator charges an access fee on Visa and MasterCard
transactions, then that fee cannot be greater than the access fee
charged for transactions on other networks violates antitrust
rules.

Plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees where available under federal and state law.  Two
other antitrust cases that make similar allegations were filed in
the same court, but these cases did not name Wells Fargo as a
defendant.

On February 13, 2013, the district court granted defendants'
motions to dismiss the three actions.  Plaintiffs appealed the
dismissals and, on August 4, 2015, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the district
court's decisions and remanded the three cases to the district
court for further proceedings.

On June 28, 2016, the United States Supreme Court granted
defendants' petitions for writ of certiorari to review the
decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia.

On November 17, 2016, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the
petitions as improvidently granted, and the three cases returned to
the district court for further proceedings.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions.  The Company was founded
in 1852 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WELLS FARGO: Awaits Court OK of $480M Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company is awaiting Court's preliminary approval of
the settlement for a consolidated securities fraud class action in
California, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

Wells Fargo shareholders are pursuing a consolidated securities
fraud class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging certain misstatements and
omissions in the Company's disclosures related to sales practices
matters.  The Company has entered into a settlement agreement to
resolve this matter pursuant to which the Company will pay US$480
million.  The amount was fully accrued as of March 31, 2018.
Plaintiffs have filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement by the court.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions.  The Company was founded
in 1852 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WELLS FARGO: Class Actions over Order of Posting Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the litigation proceedings related to the
bank's order of posting debit card transactions are still pending.

Plaintiffs filed a series of putative class actions against
Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as many
other banks, challenging the "high to low" order in which the banks
post debit card transactions to consumer deposit accounts.  Most of
these actions were consolidated in multi-district litigation
proceedings (MDL proceedings) in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.  The court in the MDL
proceedings has certified a class of putative plaintiffs, and Wells
Fargo moved to compel arbitration of the claims of unnamed class
members.  The court denied the motions to compel arbitration in
October 2016, and Wells Fargo appealed this decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.  In May 2018, the
Eleventh Circuit ruled in Wells Fargo's favor and found that Wells
Fargo had not waived its arbitration rights and remanded the case
to the District Court for further proceedings.  Plaintiffs have
filed a petition for rehearing to the Eleventh Circuit.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions.  The Company was founded
in 1852 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WELLS FARGO: Defends Class Suits over Auto Loan Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that it is facing a multi-district litigation
and a putative securities fraud class action related to automobile
collateral protection insurance policies.

On April 20, 2018, the Company entered into consent orders with the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to resolve, among other things,
investigations by the agencies into the Company's compliance risk
management program and its past practices involving certain
automobile collateral protection insurance (CPI) policies and
certain mortgage interest rate lock extensions.

The consent orders require remediation to customers and the payment
of a total of US$1 billion in civil money penalties to the
agencies.  In July 2017, the Company announced a plan to remediate
customers who may have been financially harmed due to issues
related to automobile CPI policies purchased through a third-party
vendor on their behalf.

Multiple putative class action cases alleging, among other things,
unfair and deceptive practices relating to these CPI policies, have
been filed against the Company and consolidated into one
multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.

A putative class of shareholders also filed a securities fraud
class action against the Company and its executive officers
alleging material misstatements and omissions of CPI-related
information in the Company's public disclosures.

Former team members have also alleged retaliation for raising
concerns regarding automobile lending practices.

In addition, the Company has identified certain issues related to
the unused portion of guaranteed automobile protection (GAP) waiver
or insurance agreements between the dealer and, by assignment, the
lender, which will result in refunds to customers in certain
states.

Allegations related to the CPI and GAP programs are among the
subjects of shareholder derivative lawsuits pending in federal and
state court in California.  These and other issues related to the
origination, servicing, and/or collection of consumer automobile
loans, including related insurance products, have also subjected
the Company to formal or informal inquiries, investigations, or
examinations from federal and state government agencies, including
a multi-state attorneys general group that is conducting an
investigation into CPI and GAP.

The Company anticipates it may continue to identify and remediate
issues related to historical practices concerning the origination,
servicing, and/or collection of consumer automobile loans.


Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions.  The Company was founded
in 1852 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WELLS FARGO: Interchange Litigation Still Pending in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the Interchange Litigation is still
ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.

Plaintiffs representing a putative class of merchants have filed
putative class actions, and individual merchants have filed
individual actions, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo &
Company, Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Wachovia Corporation regarding the
interchange fees associated with Visa and MasterCard payment card
transactions.  Visa, MasterCard, and several other banks and bank
holding companies are also named as defendants in these actions.

These actions have been consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.  The amended and
consolidated complaint asserts claims against defendants based on
alleged violations of federal and state antitrust laws and seeks
damages, as well as injunctive relief.

Plaintiff merchants allege that Visa, MasterCard, and payment card
issuing banks unlawfully colluded to set interchange rates.
Plaintiffs also allege that enforcement of certain Visa and
MasterCard rules and alleged tying and bundling of services offered
to merchants are anticompetitive.

Wells Fargo and Wachovia, along with other defendants and entities,
are parties to Loss and Judgment Sharing Agreements, which provide
that they, along with other entities, will share, based on a
formula, in any losses from the Interchange Litigation.

On July 13, 2012, Visa, MasterCard, and the financial institution
defendants, including Wells Fargo, signed a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiff merchants to resolve the consolidated
class action and reached a separate settlement in principle of the
consolidated individual actions.  The settlement payments to be
made by all defendants in the consolidated class and individual
actions totaled approximately US$6.6 billion before reductions
applicable to certain merchants opting out of the settlement.  The
class settlement also provided for the distribution to class
merchants of 10 basis points of default interchange across all
credit rate categories for a period of eight consecutive months.

The district court granted final approval of the settlement, which
was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit by settlement objector merchants.  Other merchants opted
out of the settlement and are pursuing several individual actions.

On June 30, 2016, the Second Circuit vacated the settlement
agreement and reversed and remanded the consolidated action to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
for further proceedings.

On November 23, 2016, prior class counsel filed a petition to the
United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the reversal of the
settlement by the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court denied the
petition on March 27, 2017.

On November 30, 2016, the district court appointed lead class
counsel for a damages class and an equitable relief class.  An
agreement in principle has been reached on certain primary terms to
resolve the money damages claims of the class action.  The
agreement in principle is subject to further negotiation of
remaining terms, full documentation, and court approval.

Several of the opt-out litigations were settled during the pendency
of the Second Circuit appeal while others remain pending.
Discovery is proceeding in the opt-out litigations and the remanded
class cases.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions.  The Company was founded
in 1852 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WELLS FARGO: Interest Rate Lock Class Action Pending in Oregon
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that it is facing a putative
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon related to the Mortgage Interest Rate Lock
Related Regulatory Investigation.

On April 20, 2018, the Company entered into consent orders with the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau to resolve, among other things,
investigations by the agencies into the Company's compliance risk
management program and its past practices involving certain
automobile CPI policies and certain mortgage interest rate lock
extensions.  The consent orders require remediation to customers
and the payment of a total of US$1 billion in civil money penalties
to the agencies.

On October 4, 2017, the Company announced plans to reach out to all
home lending customers who paid fees for mortgage rate lock
extensions requested from September 16, 2013, through February 28,
2017, and to provide refunds, with interest, to customers who
believe they should not have paid those fees.

The Company was named in a putative class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging violations of federal and state consumer fraud
statutes relating to mortgage rate lock extension fees.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss and the court granted the
motion.

Subsequently, a putative class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Oregon, raising similar
allegations.

In addition, former team members have asserted claims, including in
pending litigation, that they were terminated for raising concerns
regarding mortgage interest rate lock extension practices.

Allegations related to mortgage interest rate lock extension fees
are also among the subjects of two shareholder derivative lawsuits
filed in California state court.  This matter has also subjected
the Company to formal or informal inquiries, investigations or
examinations from other federal and state government agencies,
including a multi-state attorneys general group.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions.  The Company was founded
in 1852 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WELLS FARGO: Mortgage Bankruptcy Loan Modification Lawsuit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action styled Cotton, et al. v. Wells Fargo, et
al., remains pending, according to Wells Fargo & Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

Plaintiffs, representing a putative class of mortgage borrowers who
were debtors in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, filed a putative class
action, Cotton, et al. v. Wells Fargo, et al., against Wells Fargo
& Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina on June
7, 2017.

Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo improperly and unilaterally
modified the mortgages of borrowers who were debtors in Chapter 13
bankruptcy cases.  Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo implemented
these modifications by improperly filing mortgage payment change
notices in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, in violation of bankruptcy
rules and process.

The amended complaint asserts claims based on, among other things,
alleged fraud, violations of bankruptcy rules and laws, and unfair
and deceptive trade practices.  The amended complaint seeks
monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and declaratory and injunctive
relief.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions.  The Company was founded
in 1852 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WESTJET AIRLINES: Law Firms Consider Class Suits for FAs
--------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Stephenson, writing for Calgary Herald, reports that WestJet
flight attendants are hoping their new status as unionized
employees will bring changes to a system that currently compensates
them only for time spent in the air.

For months, flight attendants at the Calgary-based airline have
been raising concerns about their pay structure. While it is
industry-wide practice to base cabin crew pay on the hours spent
flying, most other airlines also provide some compensation for the
time flight attendants spend on the ground doing tasks such as
preparing airplanes for service or deplaning passengers.

A flight attendant who spoke to the Canadian Press in March, on
condition of anonymity, said WestJet does not compensate -- meaning
that a flight attendant earning a starting wage of just over $25 an
hour who only spends half of an eight-hour workday in the air is
essentially earning less than minimum wage.

On July 31, the Canadian Union of Public Employees became the
official bargaining agent for 3,000 WestJet flight attendants
nationwide after being granted an interim order by the Canada
Industrial Relations Board. The union had filed an application with
the board on July 10 to represent the flight attendants after a
majority signed cards stating they supported joining CUPE.

Janelle Godsman, a Calgary-based WestJet flight attendant and one
of the early supporters of the CUPE drive, said she is hopeful that
unionization will help the flight attendants negotiate what she
calls an "industry-standard contract."

"We would like to see a minimum pay guarantee per duty day,"
Godsman said. "Currently we're paid on block hours like the
majority of airlines, but there's no minimum pay guarantee. So if
we show up and do an hour-long flight, we only get paid for an hour
even though we're working more."

Two separate Toronto-based law firms, Koskie Minsky LLP and Charney
Lawyers, have been investigating the possibility of a class-action
suit on behalf of WestJet flight attendants related to unpaid work
hours.

On its website, Charney Lawyers said "off-the-clock" work
contradicts federal labour laws, and WestJet cabin crew should be
entitled to back pay going back at least two years or longer,
depending on provincial limitation periods.

However, senior partner Ted Charney,Esq. told Postmedia on August 1
that while his firm is still looking for flight attendants
interested in taking part in a class-action suit, the recent
successful unionization campaign may take some of the air out of
that movement.

"In light of the fact there's a union campaign that is having some
success, that may end up being the best route for the flight
attendants to go," Charney said. "We're still looking for flight
attendants who are interested in participating in litigation to get
in touch with us, but at the moment it seems their interest is to
go towards organizing."

Flight attendants are the second employee group to unionize this
year at the formerly non-union WestJet. Pilots, who are now
represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, agreed to a
settlement process in May after threatening job action. In a
conference call on July 31 to discuss the company's second-quarter
earnings, CEO Ed Sims said the threatened strike cost WestJet "tens
of millions of dollars" in lost bookings and cancellations.

Godsman, who is not part of any potential class action, said flight
attendants want "stability" for themselves and WestJet, and do not
want to see the situation deteriorate to the point of job action.

"We're very passionate about seeing our company succeed because
this is our career — this is what we do," she said. "It is our
goal to work positively with the company and just move forward."

In a statement, WestJet spokeswoman Lauren Stewart said cabin crew
members are a valued part of the WestJet team.

"We believe that our total compensation, along with the work-life
balance we provide our cabin crew, is generous and compares very
favourably to carriers of a similar size," Stewart said. "We will
be committed to working with the union to achieve a contract that
benefits our cabin crew members, shareholders and the company as a
whole."[GN]

WILLIS TOWERS: UC Regents Appeal Ruling in Cambridge Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Movant Regents of the University of California filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Cambridge Retirement System,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Willis
Towers Watson PLC, Towers Watson & Co., Willis Group Holding PLC,
ValueAct Capital Management, John J. Haley, Dominic Casserley and
Jeffrey W. Ubben, Case No. 1:17-cv-01338-AJT-JFA, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action seeks compensatory damages for alleged violation of the
Securities Exchange Act.  The case arises from the early 2016
merger between Towers and Willis.  The $18 billion merger required
the approval of a majority of Towers shareholders and it became
immediately apparent that many Towers shareholders were
dissatisfied with the consideration they would receive in the deal,
the lawsuit relates.  Recognizing the waning shareholder support
for the originally agreed upon merger, the Towers Board of
Directors authorized Towers Chairman and CEO John Haley to
renegotiate the deal terms, including both the exchange ratio and
the cash dividend. Towers shareholders were misled into accepting
consideration from the Merger due to Defendants' materially false
and misleading statements or misrepresentations, the lawsuit
claims.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Willis Towers Watson,
Case No. 18-1874, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff CAMBRIDGE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, and Movant-Appellant REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA are represented by:

          Susan R. Podolsky, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN R. PODOLSKY
          1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (571) 366-1702
          Facsimile: (703) 647-6009
          E-mail: spodolsky@podolskylaw.com

Defendants-Appellees WILLIS TOWERS WATSON PLC, TOWERS WATSON & CO.,
WILLIS GROUP HOLDING PLC, VALUEACT CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, JOHN J.
HALEY, DOMINIC CASSERLEY and JEFFREY W. UBBEN are represented by:

          Eric Harrison Feiler, Esq.
          Edward Joseph Fuhr, Esq.
          Johnathon Earl Schronce, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH, LLP
          951 East Byrd Street
          Richmond, VA 23219-4074
          Telephone: (804) 788-8200
          E-mail: efeiler@HuntonAK.com
                  efuhr@HuntonAK.com
                  jschronce@HuntonAK.com

Defendants-Appellees VALUEACT CAPITAL MANAGEMENT and JEFFREY W.
UBBEN are represented by:

          Ryan David Frei, Esq.
          Ashley P. Peterson, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          800 East Canal Street
          P. O. Box 3916
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-1134
          E-mail: rfrei@mcguirewoods.com
                  apeterson@mcguirewoods.com

Movants TAMESIDE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL AS THE ADMINISTERING
AUTHORITY OF GREATER MANCHESTER PENSION FUND and HUDSON BAY MASTER
FUND LTD. are represented by:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-3965
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com



                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $4.6B Asbestos-Talcum Exposure Verdict Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Barlyn of Insurance Journal reported that Wall Street is
trying to figure out whether the U.S. insurance industry will bear
any costs from a record $4.69 billion judgment against Johnson &
Johnson awarded to customers and their families who claimed that
asbestos-contaminated talc caused ovarian cancer.

Analysts have flagged talc litigation as a financial risk for
insurers, including Travelers Companies Inc,, Chubb Ltd, and The
Hartford Financial Services Group Inc.

On company earnings calls in recent days, they peppered executives
with questions about where exposure might lie. Many of the policies
were written decades ago, and some liability may have been
offloaded to reinsurers, making it hard to tell who might be on the
hook for payments.

"I wanted to get a sense as to whether this is going to turn into a
bigger deal and catch us by surprise," said Buckingham Research
Group analyst Amit Kumar, who asked about the issue during W.R.
Berkley Corp.s call. "The J&J news prompted us to revisit this
topic."

J&J has repeatedly denied that its talc products, including its
baby powder, contain asbestos or cause cancer.

Insurance executives have not given definitive answers, citing
uncertainty about how litigation will play out or what role
reinsurance might play. Policies that may cover asbestos liability
were underwritten at least as far back as the 1970s.

"In J&J's case, we would not be surprised if the plaintiffs' bar
found a way to trigger coverage under its old liability policies,
which we think could lead to additional exposure for insurers,"
Barclays analyst Jay Gelb wrote in a research note.

Travelers, Chubb and The Hartford may have exposure, Gelb said.

Representatives for Chubb, Travelers, the Hartford and W.R. Berkely
declined to provide additional comments beyond their executives'
remarks during the calls.

Asked whether the J&J judgment is launching a new era of risk for
insurers, Chubb Chief Executive Evan Greenberg said he is not
concerned. He noted that asbestos litigation against different
industries crops up every few years.

"It could have been Congoleum manufacturers who made floor tiles,"
Greenberg said.  "This gets a headline because it's baby powder."

The $4.69 billion verdict by a Missouri on July 12 is the largest
judgment against J&J to date over decades-long allegations that its
talc-based products cause cancer.

The New Jersey-based healthcare conglomerate has said it believes
the verdict will not stand on appeal.

"We are confident that there are multiple grounds for reversal of
this jury verdict and that, ultimately, the case will be reversed,"
J&J Chief Executive Alex Gorsky said.

The company has had previous success overturning large verdicts in
cases alleging harm from its products.

J&J, which faces 9,000 cases nationwide over talc, stopped buying
product liability coverage in 2005 because it was expensive and not
widely available, according to a regulatory filing. Instead, it has
a self-insurance program through a subsidiary, Middlesex Assurance
Company Ltd., according to a filing and court documents.

J&J spokesman Ernie Knewitz did not respond to requests for comment
on its insurance coverage.

It is unclear how much of a role reinsurance will play for insurers
or J&J.

The Hartford entered a reinsurance pact with Berkshire Hathaway
Inc.'s National Indemnity Company in 2016 for asbestos and
environmental claims. But the terms excluded coverage for "alleged
connections between talc and ovarian cancer," Hartford Chief
Financial Officer Beth Bombara said during a conference call.

The Hartford spokesman Matthew Sturdevant declined further comment.
Berkshire Hathaway's vice chairman for insurance operations, Ajit
Jain, declined to comment.

Other insurance executives said they have been monitoring talc
litigation for years and will continue to do so.

"The general theme is to let the process play out," Wells Fargo
analyst Elyse Greenspan said in an interview.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $81K Fine for Illegal Asbestos Work
----------------------------------------------------
Monica Ricci of WWLP.com reported that Town Fair Tire Centers of
Massachusetts will pay $81,000 in penalties to settle allegations
of illegal asbestos work during the expansion of their Springfield
store.

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey announced the
settlement.

Healey's office filed a lawsuit against Town Fair Tire alleging
that employees illegally removed and disposed of
asbestos-containing insulation during the Boston Road store
expansion, violating the state's clean air and solid waste
management laws.

"Shoddy and unlicensed asbestos removal endangers workers and the
public," Healey said in a news release sent to 22News. "Our office
enforces the law to protect residents from the serious health risks
of asbestos."

Healey alleges that the asbestos-containing insulation was thrown
away in unsecured commercial waste dumpsters behind the store, and
stayed there for two months until a licensed asbestos contractor.

In addition to the $81,000 payment in penalties to the state, Town
Fair Tire must also publish notifications in the New England Real
Estate Journal to inform the public about the need to strictly
follow the state's requirements for asbestos abatement projects to
protect people from asbestos exposure.

According to the Massachusetts Department of Health, asbestos is "a
naturally occurring, mostly fibrous mineral that has been used in a
variety of building products and industrial settings over the years
because of its resistance to heat, fire, and many caustic
chemicals."

When inhaled, Mass DEP says fibers can cause asbestosis, a chronic
lung condition, cancer, and mesothelioma.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10 Sussex School Bldgs Have High Risk Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hatton of Kent Live reported that Ten schools contain "high
risk" asbestos in East Sussex according to the council's
assessments.

Kent Live previously published a list of all the schools in the
county that are known to contain the substance.

These ten schools -- found in Crowborough, Uckfield, Maresfield,
Lewes, Bexhill, Robertsbridge, Northiam and Seaford -- can all now
be revealed as classified in the highest risk bracket in the
council's assessment system.

East Sussex County Council, which is responsible for 129 schools,
assigns all known to contain asbestos a risk ranking between 1 and
12.

Asbestos risk 10 to 12 is labelled red in the colour coded system
and they are classed as "high risk."

A spokesman for the council said any asbestos that is high risk and
in an easily accessible area would be removed, and those schools
with higher risk asbestos are checked more frequently.

What is asbestos

Asbestos is a natural rock that was commonly used in buildings
built before 1999, usually as an insulator or for fire protection.

It is often found in ceiling tiles, pipe insulation, boilers or
sprayed coatings.

The Health and Safety Executive, responsible for regulating and
enforcing asbestos controls in the UK says: "Inhalation of asbestos
fibres can cause cancers such as mesothelioma and lung cancer, and
other serious lung diseases such as asbestosis and pleural
thickening."

About 5,000 deaths are linked to asbestos exposure a year.

The disease can take years to develop and due to widespread uses
decades ago deaths are linked to asbestos exposure even though the
victim has not been exposed for a significant period of time.

'High risk' asbestos explained

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which regulates and enforces
asbestos regulations in the UK, says on its website: "A large
number of schools and other public buildings contain asbestos --
often in the fabric of the building.

"Its presence alone should not cause concern provided it is managed
properly."

East Sussex County Council said the risk assessment takes into
account the type of asbestos, the condition, and the location.

A council spokesman explained: "In terms of type of asbestos,
'blown' asbestos -- loose fibres of the type historically used for
lagging pipes -- is more of a risk than asbestos that is
encapsulated within a building element such as ceiling or floor
tiles.

"If asbestos starts to deteriorate or degrade, or has been damaged,
its condition would be classed as more high risk than asbestos
which is in a good condition.

"An example of a location which is high risk would be a squash
court with asbestos ceiling tiles, which would be likely to be
subject to regular impact from the squash ball.

"The risk assessment looks at all these factors, so you could have
an area which has the lower risk asbestos but is still classed with
a 'higher risk' rating because it's in an area that’s easily
accessible."

The spokesman said: "As well as the surveys the council does, all
schools do regular inspections of areas known to contain asbestos
to check for any signs of damage or degradation, which they would
alert us to so action can be taken.

"Any asbestos that is of a high risk that is in an easily
accessible area such as main school classrooms, hallways and
offices would be removed."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 64 Years Old Dies of Asbestos Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------
Daily Echo reported that Kenneth Deacon died on March 12 after
being diagnosed with a form of cancer linked to the dangerous
substance.

Winchester Coroner's Court heard that the 64-year-old, of Berry
Close, Hedge End, had been working in the manufacture of vans at a
Southampton factory between 1973 and 2009, where he inhaled
asbestos dust.

Senior coroner Grahame Short recorded a conclusion of death due to
industrial disease.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abandoned Factory with Asbestos Prompts Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Manzoni of NBC10 Boston reported that the owner of an
abandoned factory in Holbrook, Massachusetts, took action to
contain asbestos 48 hours after NBC10 Boston's report, town
officials said.

Several homeowners expressed concerns after more than a dozen
asbestos warning signs were plastered around the building at 55
High St.

The signs, which warn that asbestos can cause cancer and damage
lungs, rattled nearby residents.

"What are you going to go?" asked Carmela Silva, who lives across
the street from the factory. "Keep taping it? Tape does not work."

Documents obtained by NBC10 Boston show the town shut down asbestos
removal work on the property in December.

Three weeks later, a letter from the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection to the property owner read, in part, "The
town's cease and desist work order was disregarded. It is clear
that your firms either do not understand the state, federal and
local regulations or have intentionally chosen not to follow
them."

The DEP said it is reviewing the property owner's new asbestos
removal plan.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIA Says EPA Should Impose Blanket Ban on Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alissa Walke of Curbed reported that in the latest deregulation
effort by the Trump administration, the Environmental Protection
Agency hopes to allow new products to be manufactured with
asbestos, a building material and known carcinogen which the
architecture industry has largely shunned since the 1970s.

In a statement, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) decried
the move, asking the EPA to not only revoke the proposed rule, but
to completely eliminate asbestos in domestic settings: "The EPA
should use their existing regulatory authority to establish a
blanket ban on the use of asbestos."

As first reported by Fast Company, the EPA proposed a Significant
New Use Rule (SNUR) on June 11 which would approve the use of
asbestos in U.S. products on a case-by-case basis. Under the
earlier Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the use of asbestos to
make certain materials like plastics was tightly monitored and
frequently reviewed. The EPA's SNUR loosens those regulations in an
effort to encourage manufacturers to create new uses for asbestos,
increasing the potential of exposing workers to toxic chemicals.

Although asbestos was never banned outright in the U.S., the
building industry has taken great pains to remove and limit
exposure to the material, which was used as insulation for decades.
But the U.S. still imports a significant amount of asbestos due to
its wide range of applications in construction. Asbestos is used to
make chlorine, which is essential for producing polyvinyl chloride
(or PVC), a plastic material that can be found in virtually every
U.S. home, most commonly in pipes.

Today, it's estimated that asbestos is still responsible for the
deaths of 40,000 Americans annually. An estimated 3,000 people in
the U.S. each year are diagnosed with mesothelioma, an
asbestos-related lung cancer.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos at Old Nursing Quarters Pose No Threat
----------------------------------------------------------------
Filipe Naigulevu of Fiji Times reported that the National
Occupational Health and Safety Service confirmed that
asbestos-containing material was identified at the old CWM nursing
quarters but posed no threat to the health and safety of the
surrounding, stakeholders and general public.

The service under the Ministry of Employment, Productivity and
Industrial Relations made the confirmation in a Government
statement.

"The asbestos identified in the old quarters is intact and
well-contained within the building premises and does not pose any
threat to the health and safety of the public," said Minister for
Employment Jone Usamate said in the statement.

"Independent air monitoring results from the Consultant revealed
that there were no airborne asbestos fibres found around the
environment and within the surrounding vicinity," Mr Usamate said.

The Ministry has also issued a prohibition notice to the contractor
conducting works at the site -- which is currently at a
standstill.

The statement added that the remaining removal and disposal process
will be undertaken in line with the Code of Practice for the Safe
Removal of Asbestos and international best practices to safely
remove and dispose the asbestos-containing material.

Mr Usamate said the ministry will supervise each phase of the
removal and disposal process in accordance with the Code of
Practice and the Asbestos Removal Control Plan so that any risks of
asbestos exposure was eliminated or suitably controlled and
minimided to an insignificant level.

Continuous independent air monitoring will be conducted by the
National OHS Service to ensure that there is no air borne fibers
present in the environment and within the surrounding vicinity.

The old CWM nursing quarters was built in the early 1970's and the
use of asbestos was common in most buildings constructed or
renovated at that time.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Claims Dropping in LA County
------------------------------------------------------
John Breslin of Northern California Record reported that asbestos
litigation appears, by many measures, to have reached the top of
its curve, including in California, and particularly in Los
Angeles.

This is a national trend, according to one business advisory group
that tracks asbestos litigation across the country.

Two judges involved with the asbestos docket in the Los Angeles
Superior Court recently revealed figures that show a dramatic
decline in new cases, from 318 filed in 2012 to 133 last year. The
jurisdiction is no longer in the top 10 in the country for
filings.

There are various reasons for the decline nationally, and
specifically within Los Angeles County, according to legal
experts.

The numbers of people alleging they contracted asbestos-related
cancers from a workplace are finite, and becoming less as the years
pass.

Within Los Angeles County, this is true but also stiffer rules on
discovery may have added to the decline, while a landmark case on
what is described as "forum shopping," decided by the United States
Supreme Court could also be having an impact, according to Mark
Behrens, an attorney with expertise defending clients in
asbestos-related cases.

But Behrens, an attorney in the Washington DC-based office of
Shook, Hardy and Bacon, said the county remains in the top 10
counties for the filing of mesothelioma cases, which he described
as where significant money is earned by plaintiffs and lawyers.

"These are the high value cases," Behrens told the Northern
California Record.

The number of mesothelioma cases linked to asbestos dropped to 76
in 2017 in Los Angeles, from 91 the previous year.

Overall, filings at the Los Angeles County asbestos docket, known
as LAOSD, have declined 42 percent from 2012 through 2017. This
year, as of the end of June, 72 cases were filed, a recent
presentation by Judges John J. Kralik, of the Superior Court in Los
Angeles, and Brian S. Currey, LAOSD coordinating judge revealed.

The county has dropped out of the top 10 jurisdictions for overall
asbestos litigation, according to the latest figures produced by
KCIC, a Washington DC-based business advisory service.

In surveying the asbestos litigation landscape, Behrens said it is
"sometimes hard to see" what is happening. He questions whether the
decrease in those traditional magnet counties, such as Madison in
Illinois, and to a lesser extent Los Angeles, means the numbers are
dropping nationally.

KCIC states in its annual report on asbestos-related lawsuits
capture 90 percent of all those personal injury lawsuits filed
across the country.

But there was a major change when the U.S. Supreme Court, in what
is widely known as the Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) case, made it
much more difficult for a plaintiff to file in a jurisdiction where
they, and a defendant, are not residents.

In this case, BMS, which is not headquartered in California, was
initially sued by a number of state residents and hundreds of
non-residents over one of its products, Plavix.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the claim on the grounds of
lack of personal jurisdiction. A trial court dismissed the motion,
ruling that its continuous activities in the state meant that it
was subject to the jurisdiction, an appeals court and the
California Supreme Court largely affirmed.

The country's highest court disagreed, with a 8-1 majority, ruling
that the defendant did not have enough of a link to California for
it to be sued in that state.

This may be having an impact, Behrens said.

"What is happening in a state where there are not a lot of asbestos
cases, for example, Iowa?" Behrens asks. "There is a little less
predictability after BMS."

He suggested that, after BMS, cases are still being filed but they
are in jurisdictions on the top 10 list.

Overall, Behrens added, it is likely that the number of
work-related asbestos cases is on a "downward trend, possibly top
of the bell curve, followed by a long, slow, gradual decline."

In Los Angeles, there is also a rule introduced in 2015 that
increased the amount of information plaintiffs have to deliver
ahead of continuing with their claim.

The Los Angeles Superior Court decided that "facts elating to a
plaintiffs and/or decedent's alleged exposures to asbestos are not
privileged and are discoverable."

It added, "Plaintiffs are required to disclose all facts relating
to all of their alleged exposures to asbestos, whether to the
products or premises attributable to named defendants, or to
bankrupt or other entities, and regardless of whether those have
been, or ever will be, included in a claim to a third party for the
purpose of obtaining compensation for an asbestos-related injury."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Old McDonough Bldg
------------------------------------------------------
WDSU New Orleans reported that asbestos has plagued students at
Lafayette Academy not once, but twice.

The students were forced out of their school on South Carrollton
Avenue after construction accidents apparently disturbed the
asbestos in the building.

Charter and school board officials said the plan was to relocate
students to two alternate school campuses, one of them being the
former McDonogh 35 building on Kerlerec Street. Officials confirmed
Tuesday that asbestos was also found there.

According to officials with the Orleans Parish School Board, crews
were preparing the old McDonogh 35 building for the Lafayette
students when they came into contact with materials possibly
containing asbestos.

Officials said air tests were performed, coming back clear of
asbestos.

Other tests at the vacant building in Treme confirmed a small area
contained asbestos. That part of the building will be cleaned out
over the coming days, officials confirmed.

"As we complete this project, ongoing air monitoring will be
performed to provide the utmost assurance of the health and safety
at this facility," officials said.

School board officials were not able to confirm whether the
Lafayette students will still move into the old McDonogh building
or if they will have to find another campus.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in $22MM Public Works Building
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elise Linscott of MassLive.com reported that large amounts of
asbestos have been discovered scattered around the site of the new
$22 million department of public works building, and the town will
need to contain and clean up the Dwight Road parcel before
construction can continue.

Select board chairman Mark Gold said the town didn't know about the
asbestos until after it purchased the building, which was once the
Grande Meadows Tennis Club.

When groundbreaking started in July, coating on the rubberized
tennis courts was found to contain asbestos, and the material was
found throughout the property. Recent digging under the existing
blacktop parking area also exposed the asbestos-containing
material.

"There's been a significant amount of asbestos abatement," said
Town Manager Stephen Crane at the July 16 select board meeting.
"There's also chunks of the stuff hidden in the field away from our
view upon further inspection."

"We have no way of knowing how it became scattered around the
building, but it was our responsibility to clean it up," Gold said.


Gold said in an email that this rubberized surface material from
several tennis courts appeared to have been ground up and placed
around the building and covered by the asphalt parking lot.

The select board approved a change order to contain and remove the
asbestos.

Funds for the cleanup and disposal of the material will come from
the contingency fund within the project's budget. The select board
already approved nearly $290,000 to clean up the asbestos, and will
be reviewing options for removal, which could be up to an
additional $220,000.

Gold said they will not be asking town residents for more money to
pay for the cleanup, and the project is still projected to stay
within budget, not to exceed the $22 million approved at Town
Meeting.

The town will also be starting an investigation into whether or not
the material was disposed of improperly by previous building
owners.

In a statement, Gold said the material poses no safety threat to
town residents, since the asbestos is not airborne and is being
fully contained.

Tim Alix of project manager Colliers International said select
board meeting that contractors are working with the DEP to
stockpile the material until a suitable disposal site can be found.
The DEP and EPA may also contribute to funding the disposal.

"It will be covered with plastic on top and underneath so it
doesn't blow off," Alix said.

Once the contaminated material is removed, contractors will start
on the demolition of the old building and will then begin
constructing foundations and services for new building.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Playskool Crayons
----------------------------------------------------
Abha Bhattarai of Chicago Tribune reported that a popular brand of
crayons contains toxic levels of asbestos, according to a consumer
advocacy group that is calling on retailers such as Dollar Tree and
Amazon.com to pull the items from their shelves.

The U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG) Education Fund
says Playskool crayons tested positive for asbestos, which can lead
to lung cancer and mesothelioma if inhaled or ingested. The group
tested 36-packs of crayons purchased at a Dollar Tree store in
Chicago but noted that they are also being sold online at Amazon,
eBay and DollarDays.com. (Jeff Bezos, the founder and chief
executive of Amazon, owns The Washington Post.)

"There is no reason to be exposing kids to a known carcinogen,
especially in crayons," said Kara Cook-Schultz, toxics director for
U.S. PIRG.

A spokeswoman for Playskool's parent company, Hasbro, said it is
conducting a "thorough investigation" into the claims. Leap Year
Publishing, the Massachusetts-based manufacturer of the crayons,
said it is also reviewing its lab tests.

Dollar Tree executives, meanwhile, said independent tests have
indicated that its crayons do not contain asbestos.

"The safety of our customers and associates is our top priority,"
Randy Guiler, vice president of investor relations, wrote in an
email. "We are aware of the report and have since re-verified that
each of the listed products successfully passed inspection and
testing."

Amazon, eBay and DollarDays.com did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.

The findings come three years after a report from the Environmental
Working Group Action Fund found that four brands of crayons
manufactured in China contained toxic asbestos fibers. Amazon, Toys
R Us, Party City and Dollar Tree stopped selling the crayons as a
result. (The affected brands were Saban's Power Rangers Super
Megaforce Crayons; Disney Mickey Mouse Clubhouse Crayons;
Nickelodeon's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Crayons; and Amscan
Crayons.)

Although federal laws regulate the amount of asbestos in drinking
water, schools and some consumer products, there are no regulations
on the amount of asbestos allowed in children's products, according
to Cook-Schultz.

The group also tested five other crayon brands -- Crayola; Target's
Up & Up; Cra-Z-Art; Disney Junior Mickey and the Roadster Racers;
and Roseart -- that were found to be asbestos-free.

U.S. PIRG publishes an annual report on toy safety, which has led
to more than 150 product recalls and regulatory actions over the
past 30 years. In November, Target pulled two types of fidget
spinners from its shelves after the group found that they contained
as much as 330 times the federal legal limit for lead in children's
products.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Products Makers Sued for Negligence
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of Madison County Record reported that a special
administrator is suing manufacturers of asbestos-containing
products, citing alleged failure to warn and negligence.

Lisa McNichols, individually and as special administrator of the
estate of Nicholas Alexander, deceased filed a complaint on July 25
in the St. Clair County Circuit Court against the defendants
alleging that they breached their duties to exercise due care and
caution for the safety of others.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that at various
times during Alexander's life, he was exposed to and inhaled or
ingested asbestos fibers emanating from certain products
manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by defendants. That on
or about May 23, decedent first became aware that he developed lung
cancer, an asbestos-induced disease, and that the disease was
wrongfully caused. He died on July 7.

The plaintiff holds the defendants responsible because they
allegedly intentionally included asbestos fibers in their products
when they knew that it had toxic, poisonous and highly deleterious
effect to human's health and failed to provide adequate warnings
and instructions concerning the dangers of working with or around
products containing asbestos fibers.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensatory and
economic damages of more than $50,000 and any further appropriate
relief. She is represented by Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian &
Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 18-L-500

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal Creates Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
-------------------------------------------------------------------
13abc Action News reported that Highland Township Fire Department
was called to the Ayersville School on July 31, 2018 for possible
carbon monoxide poisoning. Employees of a contractor were removing
asbestos, while using a propane powered "make up" air unit.

Twenty-six workers were removed from the building, two were found
lying on the ground in a hallway of the old school. Defiance County
EMA and Hazmat team were called to the scene to provide
decontamination showers.

The building was inspected twice and released back to the
contractor.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos System Still Invites Shenanigans
----------------------------------------------------------
John Sammon of Legal News Line reported that while the recent
sentencing to prison of a once-powerful politician should help
discourage abuse in the realm of asbestos litigation, an attorney
following the issue says reform of the system is ultimately
necessary.

"Until the asbestos compensation system becomes transparent across
the country, many thousands of plaintiffs and their lawyers will
have strong financial incentives to game the system," David C.
Christian of Chicago-based David Christian Attorneys LLC told Legal
Newsline.

Former New York Assembly Speaker and prominent lawyer Sheldon
Silver was sentenced on July 27 in Manhattan federal court to seven
years in prison after being found guilty a second time of taking $5
million in kickbacks and bribes to help two law firms.

Silver had been found guilty of similar charges in 2015, but that
conviction was overturned by an appeals court after a U.S. Supreme
Court decision strengthened requirements to prove bribery cases.
However, Silver was retried and convicted earlier this year.

Silver was found to have entered into an illegal relationship with
Dr. Robert Taub, a physician specializing in the treatment of
asbestos-related diseases. Federal prosecutors alleged Silver used
his influence as a state official to issue state grants to Taub,
who would then refer asbestos patients to Silver at the New York
asbestos law firm Weitz & Luxenberg, where Silver was of counsel.

Under the deal, Silver allegedly arranged two New York State grants
of $250,000 to a nonprofit organization run by Taub, paid from a
secret fund controlled by Silver.

Weitz & Luxenberg paid Silver more than $3 million in referral fees
while denying knowledge of Silver’s relationship with Taub.

Asbestos is the nation's longest-running mass tort and shows no
signs of slowing down. In July, baby powder maker Johnson & Johnson
was ordered by a St. Louis court to pay $4.69 billion in
compensation to 22 women plaintiffs who claimed their ovarian
cancer came from talc powder use.

Johnson & Johnson will appeal the court verdict.

Honeywell -- a Morris Plains, N.J.-based producer of commercial and
consumer products, engineering and aerospace systems -- has also
been hit with asbestos claims totaling $1.1 billion in lawsuits,
primarily through companies it has purchased. These include Bendix,
a maker of brakes, and North American Refractories Company (NARCO),
a producer of fire-proof products.  

New York has a special court to try asbestos cases, the New York
Consolidated Asbestos Litigation (NYCAL) court. The Court has come
under fire from critics including businesses and reform groups who
consider it unfair to defendants.

Recently, NYCAL allowed plaintiffs to pursue punitive damages in
asbestos cases. Christian said the threat of punitive damages can
cause defendants to avoid trying cases.

"This threat can enable plaintiffs to package unmeritorious claims
with a more dangerous case for the defendant and extract payments
beyond what fairness and justice would dictate," he said.

"This creates an unhealthy system that bankrupts defendants and
exhausts insurance coverage so that compensation may not be
available to legitimate claimants."

Such a system, Christian said, makes little sense when the
companies principally responsible for the damages have almost all
gone through bankruptcy and established trusts to compensate
asbestos claimants, while the managers who made questionable
decisions about the use of asbestos are generally long retired or
deceased.

An asbestos transparency bill in the New York Legislature would
level the playing field between defendants and plaintiffs by
requiring plaintiffs to identify all sources of exposure to
asbestos before taking a case to trial, supporters claim.

The bill generated strong opposition from trial lawyers and has
apparently stalled in the Senate Finance Committee. Sixteen other
states have passed similar versions of the bill, which requires
plaintiffs to disclose other companies they are deeming responsible
for their injuries instead.

Evidence submitted by Garlock Sealing Technologies in 2013 during
its bankruptcy proceeding showed asbestos plaintiffs firms were
manipulating the recovery system in order to drive up the value of
settlements with and verdicts against solvent asbestos defendants,
a bankruptcy judge in Charlotte ruled in 2014.

Asbestos lawyers did this by delaying the submission of their
clients' claims to trusts set up by companies that went bankrupt
from their asbestos liabilities, the judge ruled.

Garlock claimed asbestos firms delayed filing these trust claims so
more blame could be pinned on defendants in civil lawsuits -- a
practice called "double-dipping."

The judge agreed in 2014 after Garlock had submitted evidence in 15
cases during a trial to determine how much it would need to place
in its trust.

Christian indicated that milking the asbestos court system for big
plaintiff payoffs is unfair to those who are forced to pay more
than they should.

"The gamesmanship is unfair to those forced to pay double-dipping
plaintiffs, as well as those injured persons who may not be able to
collect in the future as the asbestos litigation crisis continues
to bankrupt defendants and exhaust insurance policies purchased
decades ago," Christian said.

"As the situation involving Mr. Silver and the Weitz firm shows,
however, the games played by the plaintiffs' bar and its allies
sometimes go beyond fairness to fraud and even criminality."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cos May Be Liable for Asbestos Components
----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Wichert of Law 360 reported that companies may be liable for
failure to warn about the risks of asbestos-containing components
or replacement parts in their products even if they did not build
or distribute those parts, a New Jersey state appeals court said in
a published opinion reviving a product liability action against
Ford Motor Co. and other businesses.

The court found a manufacturer has such a duty to warn if a
plaintiff shows its product, as marketed, included
asbestos-containing components that were integral to the product's
function.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 29,920 Pending Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. has 29,920 pending asbestos-related claims as of June 30,
2018, according to the Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2018.

The Company states, "Of the 29,920 pending claims as of June 30,
2018, approximately 18,000 claims were pending in New York,
approximately 400 claims were pending in Texas, approximately 400
claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 200 claims
were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which legislation or
judicial orders restrict the types of claims that can proceed to
trial on the merits.

"The Company has tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts
by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court.  The
Company further has pursued appeals of certain adverse jury
verdicts that have resulted in reversals in favor of the defense."

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://is.gd/ALDsFF

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of LEM's Bid for Summary Judgment Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the appealed case Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc., V. Patrick Rossello,
No. 1191, September Term, 2016, (Md. Ct. Spec. App.), the Court of
Special Appeals of Maryland affirms the judgment of the trial court
denying appellant's motion for summary judgment.

Appellee, Patrick Rossello, brought suit in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City against appellant, Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc. ("LEM"),
alleging that his exposure to asbestos-containing products used by
LEM during construction at his workplace in 1974 caused the pleural
malignant mesothelioma with which he was diagnosed in 2013.

In 1973 Mr. Rossello enrolled in Union Trust Bank's management
trainee program. In the summer of 1974, was placed at the Union
Trust branch on Guilford Avenue in Baltimore City and tasked with
reviewing federal banking regulations. At that time, the
three-story bank building where he worked was undergoing
construction to add fourth and fifth floors.

Mr. Rossello was assigned a desk on the incomplete fourth floor of
the building, in an area sectioned off with hanging plastic sheets,
which plastic sheets separate the area where Mr. Rossello had his
desk, from ongoing drywall and electrical work. According to Mr.
Rossello, while he was at the site three or four LEM workers were
on the job every day, applying drywall with asbestos-containing
Georgia-Pacific Ready Mix joint compound and sanding the walls. The
dust from sanding, he said, would settle on the floor and on his
clothing and desk during his workday. He wiped off the dust from
his desk every morning and when he returned from outings from the
office. He also dusted off his suits each evening.

Mr. Rossello testified at trial that he knew that it was LEM
workers who performed the drywall work because he had seen LEM's
name on tool carts in the elevator and on the fourth floor and
frequently saw a truck with LEM's name on it parked near the
entrance to the work site. He also occasionally saw Georgia-Pacific
Ready Mix joint compound cans on the LEM tool carts. Mr. Rossello
produced invoices from Georgia-Pacific Corporation evidencing sales
of hundreds of containers of Ready Mix to LEM in 1974, although no
invoice showed a particular job site to which the containers were
delivered.

Mr. Rossello was diagnosed with pleural malignant mesothelioma in
2013. He filed suit against LEM in July 2014, with counts sounding,
inter alia, in strict liability and negligence, alleging that his
regular and frequent exposure to the asbestos-containing dust from
LEM's sanding and clean-up of the drywall work at the Union Trust
Bank in 1974 was a substantial contributing factor in the
development of his malignant mesothelioma. Mr. Rossello conceded,
during his November 2015 deposition and at trial, that he also had
pipes in the basement of his home that were wrapped with flaking
asbestos-containing material, but he said he had never touched the
pipes and "had it all removed" once he was diagnosed with
mesothelioma.

LEM moved for summary judgment, but after a hearing on the matter,
the trial court denied LEM's motion as to the counts of negligence
and strict liability.

On February 29, 2016, LEM filed a motion for summary judgment as to
all counts in Mr. Rossello's complaint, arguing that even after the
conclusion of all discovery, Mr. Rossello still could not produce
sufficient evidence to prove he had been exposed to any
asbestos-containing product for which LEM was responsible.

Mr. Rossello opposed the motion and asserted, inter alia, that very
little evidence of product nexus is required to withstand a motion
for summary judgment. He also asserted that he had, through
discovery, produced sufficient evidence of regular and frequent
exposure to asbestos-containing products used by LEM to support his
theories of liability. More specifically, he contended that his
deposition testimony in which he identified LEM as the drywall
contractor on the Union Trust Bank addition, by his observation of
trucks and tool carts bearing LEM's name, was sufficient to create
questions of material fact that a jury should resolve.

Following the ensuing trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of
Mr. Rossello, awarding him $8,114,167 in compensatory damages. The
trial court entered final judgment in the amount of $2,682,847.

LEM filed post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the
verdict ("JNOV"), a new trial, and/or remittitur arguing that Mr.
Rossello's trial testimony "contradicted all available documents
concerning the identity of contractors at that site," and also
contradicted the anticipated testimony of an excluded former
employee of LEM, Donald Hopkins. LEM further asserted that Mr.
Rossello's identification of LEM as the employer of the drywall
workers at the site was based only on his memory of seeing the name
"Lloyd E. Mitchell" on a cart and/or trucks. Such testimony,
according to LEM, amounted to unsupported speculation insufficient
to permit a reasonable juror to reach a legally-supportable
conclusion that LEM performed the drywall work.

LEM's request for remittitur was based on its claim that the jury's
award of non-economic damages in the amount of $7,500,000.00 was
excessive. LEM's motion for new trial was based, inter alia, on its
assertion that the trial court erred in excluding the trial
testimony of Donald Hopkins. LEM's post-trial motions were denied,
except for the reduction of the judgment to $2,682,847.26. The
court denied LEM's post-trial motions. Thereafter, LEM noted a
timely appeal.

LEM first contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion
for summary judgment on the counts of negligence and strict
liability because Mr. Rossello did not present sufficient evidence
to the motions court to prove that LEM was the drywall contractor
at the Union Trust Bank job site where Mr. Rossello was allegedly
exposed to mesothelioma-causing asbestos. According to LEM, the
court's denial of its motion invited Mr. Rossello to present trial
testimony that directly contradicted his own deposition testimony
and allowed plaintiff to connect LEM to the alleged asbestos
exposure without any direct or even circumstantial evidence of
LEM's involvement. The trial court's denial of LEM's motion, in its
view, permitted the jury to render a verdict based on sympathy.

The Court explains that ordinarily no party is entitled to a
summary judgment as a matter of law. It is within the discretion of
the judge hearing the motion, if he finds no uncontroverted
material facts, to grant summary judgment or to require a trial on
the merits. It is not reversible error for him to deny the motion
and require a trial. Thus, on appeal, the standard of review for a
denial of a motion for summary judgment is whether the trial judge
abused his] discretion and in the absence of such a showing, the
decision of the trial judge will not be disturbed.

The Court notes that the evidence before the motions court, taken
in the light most favorable to Mr. Rossello was that: (1) Mr.
Rossello was a Union Trust Bank management trainee in 1974; (2) he
was assigned workspace on the incomplete fourth floor of the
Guilford Avenue branch of the bank, which was being renovated
during his time there; (3) construction permits verified that LEM
was a contractor retained for the Union Trust Bank project; (4)
during Mr. Rossello's employment at the Guilford Avenue building,
contractors applied drywall using asbestos-containing joint
compound and sanded the walls, which created visible dust on the
fourth floor; and (5) Mr. Rossello contracted mesothelioma as a
result of exposure to asbestos.

The Court finds that during his deposition, Mr. Rossello testified
that only drywall and electrical work were being conducted on the
fourth floor during his employment at the Guilford Avenue bank
branch, and that the electrical work lasted only a few days, while
the drywall work was undertaken every day he worked in the
building. He said in his deposition that on a daily basis, during
his rotation at the branch, he saw several workers hanging drywall
using Georgia-Pacific joint compound. He identified the asbestos by
testifying that he saw the Georgia-Pacific logo and Ready Mix name
emblazoned on the metal cans of joint compound at the job site. In
his deposition, he testified that he knew that the drywall workers
were LEM employees because he saw at least one truck with LEM's
name on it, in the driveway outside the bank building while the
work was being done, along with tool carts on the fourth floor
bearing the LEM name. He also testified that he was exposed to
visible dust from the drywall sanding on a daily basis, and he had
to wipe it off his desk and clothes numerous times each day.

Thus, the Court concludes that if a jury were to believe Mr.
Rossello's testimony that after two or three days, only drywall
work was being done for the remaining part of four to six weeks,
and also believed that he had seen a truck with LEM's name on it
outside the bank building while the drywall work was being done,
and that he also saw tool carts with LEM's name on it during that
period, the jury could rationally infer that workers employed by
LEM were doing the drywall work while Mr. Rossello was at the site.
The Court also notes of the additional circumstantial evidence
showing the nexus between LEM and the site was: (1) LEM's own sales
brochures published in the 1974 period listed drywall work as one
of the services LEM provided; and (2) Georgia-Pacific invoices to
LEM evidencing sale of large amounts of Ready Mix joint compound to
LEM around the time of the bank construction. Accordingly, the
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland cannot say that the trial
court abused its discretion in denying LEM's motion for summary
judgment.

LEM argues that precluding Donald Hopkins from testifying at trial,
while allowing testimony from his 1994 deposition, was an abuse of
discretion. As mentioned, plaintiff's counsel was allowed to read
into evidence excerpts from Mr. Hopkins's 1994 deposition. This did
not violate any rule of evidence and LEM sets forth no valid reason
in its brief as to why plaintiff should have been prevented from
reading into evidence excerpts from the deposition. The Court finds
that Mr. Rossello was not a party-plaintiff when the deposition was
taken and therefore neither he, nor anyone acting on his behalf,
failed to ask Mr. Hopkins any questions in order to establish an
"impermissible inference."

The Court determines that summary judgment was appropriate in this
case due to the insufficiency of Plaintiff's identification
testimony regarding LEM as a drywall contractor at the jobsite. At
the close of evidence in this case, the only additional evidence
Plaintiff presented was testimony that directly contradicted his
prior deposition testimony. Specifically, prior to trial, he
testified that he had no idea how the drywall workers arrived at
the fourth floor. At trial, however, he testified that he saw the
drywall workers take ready-mix joint compound from a truck with
Lloyd E. Mitchell written on the side, put them onto a tool cart
with Lloyd E. Mitchell written on it, and take them on the elevator
to the floor where he was working.

Thus, it is clear that the judge would have been entirely justified
in denying the motion on the grounds that it was for the jury to
decide whether Mr. Rossello's trial testimony should be believed
inasmuch as: (1) the discrepancies at issue were thoroughly
examined by LEM's counsel during cross-examination and by counsel
for both sides in closing argument, and (2) the jury was properly
instructed in regard to the issue of whether a witness should be
believed or disbelieved. Under such circumstances, the Court finds
that LEM has failed to convince us that the trial judge abused her
very broad discretion when she denied the new trial motion.

A copy of the Opinion dated July 6, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc6y8z5p from Leagle.com.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Evidence Does Not Link Pecora to Condon's Disease
------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 19, 2014, a Law Division judge denied defendant Pecora
Corporation's motion for summary judgment. The matter proceeded to
trial on plaintiff William Condon's (Condon) complaint for damages
related to his mesothelioma, and his wife Debbie Condon's per quod
claim (collectively, plaintiffs). The jury, after apportioning
damages of two percent to Pecora, awarded plaintiffs compensatory
damages of $6.5 million. On plaintiffs' punitive damage claim, the
jury awarded Condon $1 million. The trial court molded that verdict
to $650,000, in accordance with the punitive damages cap under the
Punitive Damages Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.9 to -5.17.1 Accordingly,
plaintiffs recovered $783,067.83 from Pecora.

Now, the Appellate Division for the Superior Court of New Jersey
vacates the judgment and reverses the trial court's denial of the
motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, Pecora argues that plaintiffs have "not provided proofs
sufficient to allow a reasonable factfinder to determine that
[Condon] was exposed to any Pecora Cement, much less an amount of
Pecora Cement which would be sufficient to cause harm." For this
reason, Pecora contends the trial court erred in denying its
pre-trial motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs' complaint originally named ninety-seven defendants. Of
the defendants who settled with Condon, nine did so before trial.
The jury apportioned liability and damages between eleven
defendants, including Pecora. Other than the six who were
defendants at trial, the court granted the remainder summary
judgment and dismissed them from the case, or plaintiffs abandoned
the claims against them, or they were otherwise dismissed from the
litigation.

Pecora unsuccessfully moved for judgment notwithstanding the
verdict (JNOV) or a new trial on March 6, 2015. The judge denied
the motion. That decision, like the summary judgment decision
before it, was based on the judge's finding that Pecora was the
"exclusive supplier" of asbestos cement used in the Burnham
products to which Condon was exposed. The Court, however, concludes
that factual finding was not supported by the record.

The Court recounts the relevant facts drawn from the summary
judgment materials. These materials included Condon's deposition
and the deposition of a retired Burnham employee, Fred W. Kendall,
taken in unrelated asbestos litigation on August 8, 1991.

The Court finds that from 1972 to 1987, Condon worked for Fritze
Heating and Cooling (Fritze), which he described as a big company
that "did commercial and residential heating and air conditioning
installations." His work "mainly" included residential
installations. Condon did both residential and commercial jobs but
"was not involved with the commercial that much." He installed
systems in new homes and replaced them in existing homes. Condon
did not repair boilers because Fritze had "a specific service
department." He recalled repairing only one Burnham boiler that he
repaired because it leaked at installation. Most of the boilers
Condon installed were packaged boilers. He very rarely installed
boilers requiring on-site assembly.

Condon identified Weil-McLain, Peerless, Burnham, Utica, Florence,
A.O. Smith, and Hydrotherm as the brands of boilers that he
installed at Fritze during a six-month period. The only Burnham
boilers Condon recalled installing were residential packaged
boilers. During his years with Fritze, Condon installed hundreds of
boilers.

Condon testified he would use premixed, wet cement rather than dry
cement when he worked on furnaces rather than boilers. He also
applied the premixed cement with his hands, and it too would dry
and create dust when removed. The premixed cement he used was
supplied by Fritze, but the only manufacturer he recalled for the
product was DAP. The asbestos-containing products used by Condon
included a warning to keep away from children.

Pecora manufactured a premixed, heavy paste, which contained 1.25
percent asbestos. Pecora did not manufacture a dry cement product.
Condon did not specifically recall ever using premixed cement
manufactured by Pecora.

Plaintiffs concede the sole evidential link between Pecora and
Condon was through Burnham. Specifically, plaintiffs point to
Kendall's deposition. From 1967 to 1974, Kendall was a buyer, and
from 1974 to retirement, a senior buyer. He was familiar with the
types of asbestos-containing products that Burnham purchased during
the years he was employed there.

According to Kendall, Burnham had a residential steel boiler plant,
a commercial steel boiler plant, and a cast iron boiler plant.
Burnham purchased premixed, high-temperature, asbestos-containing
cement for use with those products. Kendall believed Burnham was
using Pecora cement in the cast iron plant since at least 1967
until sometime in the early 1980s.

At his deposition, Kendall was shown documents he identified as an
order and confirmation for sixty gallons of Pecora asbestos furnace
cement, purchased in gallon cans, that was shipped to the Burnham
cast iron plant in 1978. Kendall also identified a "travelling
requisition form" indicating Burnham purchased twelve cartons
containing twelve two-pound cans of Pecora premixed cement to be
used for "PF-5 SPECIAL Repairs."

Relying on this testimony, plaintiffs' counsel asserted, and the
trial court accepted, that Pecora was the "exclusive supplier of
asbestos cement to Burnham." More specifically, that Pecora was the
exclusive supplier of premixed, wet asbestos cement to Burnham. The
evidence also showed Burnham purchased quantities of dry asbestos
cement, which was not manufactured by Pecora.

The Court notes that Condon testified he used wet furnace cement on
occasion that dried on his hands and created dust when it flaked
off. If there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude some
of that wet furnace cement was manufactured by Pecora and not by
others, perhaps there would have been sufficient evidence to find
Pecora liable. But the Court finds no evidence necessary to
establish the link between Condon and Pecora's wet cement to the
extent required to demonstrate "frequency, regularity, and
proximity.

The trial court ruled: (1) between 1973 and 1984, Condon worked on
many Burnham boilers in the residential context; (2) these were
packaged boilers and "the majority of them" came packaged with
cement; (3) installation involved the use of cement; and (4) Pecora
"was the exclusive supplier of asbestos cement to Burnham." The
Court opines that the record did not, even drawing all inferences
in plaintiffs' favor, establish that Burnham boilers came packaged
with cement and that Pecora was the exclusive supplier of asbestos
cement to the company.

Condon testified he used premixed cement rather than dry cement,
which was manufactured by DAP. Thus, the Court concludes that the
sole possible link between Condon and Pecora was Burnham, and a
determination of Pecora's liability would have necessitated
findings by the jury that (1) the Burnham boilers were shipped with
trim kits, and (2) those trim kits included wet cement rather than
dry cement. Plaintiffs' proofs did not establish these points as
more likely than not.

The Court finds that the only evidence that could support a finding
that Burnham included trim kits with any of the boilers that Condon
installed was Condon's testimony that a majority of the various
brands of boilers he installed included such kits. Regarding
Burnham specifically, Condon recalled installing its residential
packaged boilers, but he did not remember whether those boilers
came with trim kits. Kendall, however, answered "not that I'm aware
of" when asked whether asbestos cement was "supplied with Burnham's
residential packaged boilers" in the relevant time frame. Thus, the
Court maintains that neither Condon nor Kendall established a
connection between Pecora and Condon's disease.

Even assuming a jury could conclude it was more likely than not
that the Burnham boilers Condon installed included trim kits, the
Court finds the evidence did not establish those trim kits
contained wet cement rather than dry cement. Condon testified the
asbestos cement typically came in a powder he had to mix with water
before use. He acknowledged he could not say, without speculating,
that Burnham provided a paste product to use instead. Kendall's
testimony was that Burnham purchased "7M" dry asbestos cement.
Therefore, if any trim kits supplied by Burnham to Condon would
have included a dry product, the jury had no basis to conclude it
was more likely than not that Burnham trim kits, atypically,
included wet cement manufactured by Pecora.

Moreover, although Kendall acknowledged Burnham purchased twelve
cartons of smaller cans of Pecora cement to be "shipped out for
repairs or assembly out in the field" specifically for a "special
model PF-5" boiler. The Court finds, however, that there is no
evidence linking Pecora cement to any other model of Burnham boiler
"out in the field" and no evidence linking Condon to this single
model of Burnham boiler. Condon testified he did not perform
"repairs" on boilers.

Thus, even drawing all inferences in plaintiffs' favor, the jury
would have had no basis to conclude it was more likely than not
that the Burnham boilers Condon installed were packaged with Pecora
cement. Accordingly, the trial judge should have granted summary
judgment to Pecora as a matter of law since there was no genuine
issue as to any material fact.

The appealed case is William P. Condon and Debbie Condon,
individually and as Executrix and Executrix ad Prosequendum for the
Estate of William P. Condon, Plaintiff-Respondent/Cross-Appellant,
v. Advance Thermal Hydronics, Inc., f/k/a The Hydrotherm
Corporation; Afton Pumps, Inc.; A.I.I. Acquisition, LLC, as
successor-in-interest to Holland Furnace Company; American
Refractories Co.; A.O. Smith Water Products Company; American
Premier Underwriters, Inc., f/k/a Penn Central Corp., f/k/a GK
Technologies, Inc., f/k/a General Cable Corp., individually and as
successor to Hydrotherm, Inc.; Arcy Manufacturing Inc.; Ashland,
Inc.; Atlas Turner; Aurora Pump; Automation Industries, Inc.,
individually and as successor to Hydrotherm, Inc.; Bechtel
Corporation; Belmont Packing & Rubber Company; Borg Warner Morse
TEC, as successor by merger to the Borg Warner Corporation;
Bradford-White Water Heaters, Inc.; Bryan Steam, LLC a/k/a Bryan
Boilers; Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, as successor by merger
to Buffalo Pumps, Inc.; Burnham LLC, individually and as successor
to Burnham Corporation, individually and as successor-in-interest
to Federal Boiler and Radiator Co.; Bryon Jackson Pumps And United
Pumps & Compressor; Calon Insulation Corporation; Cardone
Industries, Inc., individually and as successor to Cardo Automotive
Products Company; Carrier Corporation; CBS Corporation, a Delaware
Corporation, f/k/a Viacom, Inc., successor by merger to CBS
Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse
Electric Corporation; Certainteed Corporation, individually and as
successor to Keasbey & Mattison Co.; Cleaver Brooks Company, a
division of Aqua-Chem, Inc.; Columbia Boilers Company Of Pottstown;
Crane Co., Inc., and as successor to Jenkins Valves, Inc., a/k/a
Jenkins Bros.; Crane Packing Company; Crane Pumps And Systems,
Inc.; Dana Companies, LLC f/k/a Dana Corporation, individually and
as successor-in-interest to Victor and Spicer; DAP Products, Inc.,
individually and for its Tharco Product; DB Riley, Inc.,
individually and as successor to and/or f/k/a DB Riley Stoker
Corporation and as successor to, and/if f/d/b/a Union Iron Works;
Deming Pumps, a division of Crane Pumps Systems, Inc.; Ductmate
Industries, Inc.; Dunphey Smith Company; Eaton Corporation, as
successor-in-interest to Eaton Electrical, Inc., and Cutler-Hammer,
Inc.; ECR International, INC., f/k/a Dunkirk and Utica Boilers;
Flexible Technologies, Inc., individually and as successor to
Hydrotherm, Inc.; Flowserve Corporation; FMC Corporation, on behalf
of its former Peerless Pump and Northern Pump Business; Ford Motor
Company; Fort Kent Holdings, Inc., f/k/a Dunham Busch, Inc., as
successor-in-interest to Iron Fireman Combustion Products; Foster
Wheeler Energy Corp.; General Electric Company; Georgia Pacific
LLC; Goulds Pumps Incorporated; Hercules, Inc.; Hollingsworth &
Vose Company; Honeywell International, Inc., f/k/a Allied Signal,
Inc. as successor-in-interest to The Bendix Corporation;
Hydrotherm, Inc.; HB Smith, Inc.; IMO Industries, Inc., as
successor to and f/k/a Delaval Turbine, Transamerica Delaval and
IMO Delaval; Ingersoll-Rand Company; J.H. France Refractories
Company; John Crane, Inc.; Johnston Boiler Co.; Kaiser Gypsum;
Lawrence Pumps, Inc., as successor-in-interest to Ducan Heating
Corp.; Magnatrol Valve Corp.; McNally Industries, Inc.; Maremont
Corporation; Mestek, Inc., individually and as successor to
Hydrotherm, Inc.; OAKFABCO, INC., f/k/a Kewanne Boiler Corp.;
Pacific Steel Boilers, a division of Crane Company; PCC Technical
Industries, Inc., f/k/a Boiler Technologies, Inc., individually and
as successor to Hydrotherm, Inc.; Peerless Industries, Inc.;
Prestolite Performance, individually and for its Hays Brand; SOS
Products Co.; Raypak Inc.; Reed National Financial Corp.,
individually and as successor to Hydrotherm, Inc.; Roper Pump Co.;
SB Decking, Inc., f/k/a Selby Battersby & Company, a subsidiary of
Quaker Chemical Corporation; Superior Boiler Works; Sterling Fluid
Systems (USA) Inc., f/k/a LaBour Pump Co.; Taco Pumps; The Fulton
Companies, individually and as successor to Fulton Boiler Works,
Inc.; The Okonite Company; Thermco; Trane US, Inc., as successor to
American Standard Inc.; Tuthill Corporation; Union Carbide Corp.;
Union Pump Company; United Supply Corporation; Utica Boilers;
Viking Pump Co.; Wallwork Brothers, Inc.; Warren Pumps, Inc.,
individually and as successor to The Quimby Pump Company; Weil-Mc
Lain Company, Inc.; Weinman Pumps; Woolsulate Corporation;
Worthington Pump Corporation; Zurn Industries; Johnson Controls,
Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to York
International Corp.; Sequoia Ventures, Inc., f/k/a Bechtel
Corporation; BW/IP, INC., and its wholly owned subsidiaries;
Freeman Auto Parts; and USCO, Inc., Defendants, and Pecora
Corporation, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Respondent, No. A-3642-14T1,
(N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.).

A copy of the Decision dated July 9, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y93kjmgz from Leagle.com.

Patricia M. Henrich -- phenrich@rmh-law.com -- argued the cause for
appellant/cross-respondent (Reilly, Janiczek, McDevitt, Henrich &
Cholden, PC, attorneys; Patricia M. Henrich and Josette F. Spivak ,
on the briefs).

Amber R. Long argued the cause for respondent/cross-appellant
(Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein & Blader, PC, and Levy Konigsberg,
LLP, attorneys; Robert E. Lytle --  RLytle@szaferman.com  --  and
E. Elizabeth Sweetser , on the briefs).

Phil S. Goldberg -- pgoldberg@shb.com -- and Mark A. Behrens --
mbehrens@shb.com -- (Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP) of the District of
Columbia Bar, admitted pro hac vice, attorneys for amici curiae
Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., National Association of
Manufacturers, American Tort Reform Association, and NFIB Small
Business Legal Center (Philip S. Goldberg and Mark A. Behrens, on
the brief).

McCarter & English, LLP,  and Gibbons, PC, attorneys for amicus
curiae Honeywell International, Inc. ( John C. Garde --
jgarde@mccarter.com -- of counsel and on the joint briefs; Kim M.
Catullo and Ethan D. Stein , of counsel; Christopher A. Rojao --
crojao@mccarter.com -- and Elizabeth K. Monahan --
emonahan@mccarter.com -- on the joint briefs).

Caruso Smith Picini, PC, attorneys for amici curiae Union Carbide
Corporation and CertainTeed Corporation (Richard D. Picini --
rpicini@carusosmith.com -- and Anthony Caruso --
acaruso@carusosmith.com -- on the joint briefs).

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellot, LLC, attorneys for amici curiae
A.O. Smith and Superior Lidgerwood Mundy (David M. Katzenstein --
dkatzenstein@eckertseamans.com -- on the joint briefs).

Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin attorneys for amici
curiae Kaiser Gypsum Company, Riley Power, Jaeger Lumber and Supply
Company, and Warren Pumps (Paul C. Johnson -- pcjohnson@mdwcg.com
-- on the joint briefs).

Pascarella DiVita, PLLC, attorneys for amici curiae Ingersoll Rand
Company, Trane US, Inc., General Cable Corporation, and Rheem
Manufacturing Company (Lisa M. Pascarella --
lpascarella@pdltlaw.com -- and Stephanie A. DiVita --
sdivita@pdltlaw.com -- on the joint briefs).

Reilly, Janiczek, McDevitt, Henrich & Cholden, PC, attorneys for
amici curiae Aurora Pump Company and Cleaver Brooks (Patricia M.
Henrich -- phenrich@rmh-law.com -- and Brandy L. Harris , on the
joint briefs).

Sedgwick LLP, attorneys for amici curiae BorgWarner Morse TEC LLC,
Foster Wheeler LLC, survivor to a merger with Foster Wheeler
Corporation, and Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation (Christopher J.
Keale -- ckeale@tktrial.com -- on the joint briefs).

Diane M. Pompei (Lynch Daskal Emery LLP), attorney for amicus
curiae Georgia-Pacific LLP.

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, attorneys for amici
curiae Burnham LLC and Eaton Corporation (Nancy McDonald --
nmcdonald@mdmc-law.com -- on the joint briefs).

McGivney & Kluger, attorneys for amici curiae Ductmate Industries,
The Fairbanks Company, Herman Sommer, and Magid Glove and Safety
(Thomas McNulty -- tmcnulty@mklaw.us.com -- on the joint briefs).

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Department Evacuated Due to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------
Will Rubin of Centralia Chronicle reported that the Chehalis Fire
Department's station was evacuated and remains vacated after
asbestos was found while workers removed floor tiles as part of an
ongoing renovation process.

Per state Department of Labor and Industries Regulations, the fire
department cannot use the station until it's deemed clean by a
licensed asbestos abatement contractor.

Fire Chief Ken Cardinale relocated his department to the Lewis
County Fire District 6 station at 2123 Jackson Highway southeast of
Chehalis, where it will operate until it can move back into
headquarters.

"The level of cleaning needed will be dependent on whether or not
the asbestos fibers got airborne," Cardinale said. "We've been
following L&I and Southwest Clean Air Agency regulations to the
letter to ensure all employees and personnel are protected."

According to Cardinale, the asbestos testing company called in to
assess the facility does not believe the method used to remove
linoleum tiles from the floor would cause the type of asbestos
underneath to go airborne.

That said, the testing company spent testing every surface in the
building for contamination. If exposure is limited to flooring, the
cleaning process may only take a few days.

Cardinale contacted Fire District 6 shortly after evacuating the
building to makearrangements for his operation. Chehalis personnel
will be using a District 6 reserve engine to respond to calls
because all of their equipment and vehicles are unavailable pending
the test results.

The Riverside Fire Authority lent the Chehalis crew some spare
personal protective gear since that too had to stay behind.

Chehalis Fire normally staffs one engine on a given day, with the
others used as reserve vehicles or as-needed, Cardinale said.

"The only change is that we're coming from a little further away
than we normally would," he said. "Response times are a little
longer to the west side, but our existing mutual aid agreements are
in full effect."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had US$610MM Bendix Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded US$610 million at June 30,
2018 in asbestos-related liabilities involving 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 June 30, 2018.

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.  The methodology used to estimate the liability for
future claims is similar to that used to estimate the liability for
future NARCO-related asbestos claims.

"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/FwjXrb

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Has $565MM Liabilities at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company has total asbestos-related
liabilities of US$565.3 million as of June 30, 2018, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

Ingersoll-Rand states, "The Company's asbestos insurance
receivables related to Ingersoll-Rand Company and Trane were
US$130.5 million and US$125.5 million at June 30, 2018,
respectively, and US$138.5 million and US$127.9 million at December
31, 2017, respectively.

"The receivable attributable to Trane for probable insurance
recoveries as of June 30, 2018 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
approximately two-thirds 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/bMPfuE

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Still Defends Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that more than 80 percent of
the open claims against the Company are non-malignancy or
unspecified disease claims.

The Company states, "Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries and former
companies of ours 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.  None of our existing or previously-owned businesses were 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 June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, 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."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/bMPfuE

ASBESTOS UPDATE: J. Poage's Suit vs. Crane Co. Settled in 2Q 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. has settled the asbestos suit of James Poage in the
second quarter of 2018, according to the Company's Form 8-K filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2018.

The Company states, "On July 2, 2015, a St. Louis, Missouri state
court jury in the James Poage claim entered a US$1.5 million
verdict for compensatory damages against the Company.  The jury
also awarded exemplary damages against the Company in the amount of
US$10 million.  The Company filed a motion seeking to reduce the
verdict to account for the verdict set-offs.  That motion was
denied, and judgment was entered against the Company in the amount
of US$10.8 million.  The Company initiated an appeal.  Oral
argument was held on December 13, 2016.  In an opinion dated May 2,
2017, a Missouri Court of Appeals panel affirmed the judgment in
all respects.  The Court of Appeals denied the Company's motion to
transfer the case to the Supreme Court of Missouri.  The Company
sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Missouri, which
denied that request.  The Supreme Court of the United States denied
further review on March 26, 2018.  The Company settled the matter.
The settlement was reflected in the second quarter 2018 indemnity
amount."

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://is.gd/ALDsFF

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l Paid $1.9MM for Lawsuits at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. recorded US$1.9 million expense for
asbestos-related litigation for the six months ended June 30, 2018,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018.

The Company states, "We are involved in a number of claims and
lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses.  Insurance
coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such
claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and lawsuits,
based on experience involving similar matters and specific facts
known.

"Some of these claims and lawsuits allege personal injury or health
problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was integrated
into certain of our products.  We have never manufactured asbestos
and have not incorporated asbestos-containing components into our
products for several decades.  A substantial majority of these
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 six months ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, expense for
asbestos-related litigation was US$1.9 million and US$2.4 million,
respectively, net of probable insurance recoveries, for known and
future asbestos-related litigation and is recorded in Losses and
other expenses, net in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.
For the three months ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, expense for
asbestos-related litigation was US$(0.2) million and US$0.7
million, respectively, net of probable insurance recoveries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/VLUaHp

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maddox Sues ABB Over Injurious Effects of Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit Re: Asbestos Litigation, Case No. N18C-08-029 ASB (Del.
Super. Ct., Aug. 3, 2018), seeks to recover compensatory damages in
an amount to be proved at trial, but believed to exceed $100,000,
and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish Defendants
for their misconduct and to deter similarly situated parties from
committing like acts of misconduct in the future.

According to the complaint, Hurshil L. Maddox was allegedly exposed
to, inhaled, ingested, and otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers
emanating from various sources which were mixed, mined,
manufactured, distributed, sold, removed, installed, and/or used by
Defendants including, but not limited to: refractory brick,
insulation, and pipe covering.

Additionally, as a direct and proximate result of the conduct by
Defendants, Hurshil L. Maddox incurred damages in the form of the
cost of treatment for his diseases and injuries. As a result of the
damages to Hurshil L. Maddox and his death, Plaintiff Janine
Maddox, Debbie Cassarino, and Melinda Straub, as surviving heirs of
the Estate of Hurshil L. Maddox, deceased, have suffered and will
continue to suffer, damages in the form of, among other things,
mental anguish, loss of support, loss of services, loss of
companionship, hardship, strain, and emotional distress.

The case is captioned as JANINE MADDOX, Individually and as
Personal Representative of the Estate of HURSHIL L. MADDOX,
deceased, the Plaintiff, v. ABB, INC., as successor to ITE CIRCUIT
BREAKERS, INC.; APPLETON ELECTRIC COMPANY; CBS CORPORATION, a
Delaware Corporation, f/k/a VIACOM, INC., successor by merger to
CBS CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation, f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE
ELECTRIC CORPORATION, as successor in interest to THE BRYANT
ELECTRIC COMPANY; COOPER CROUSE-HINDS; CRANE CO.; EATON
CORPORATION, individually as successor in interest to
CUTLER-HAMMER, INC.; ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., individually,
and as successor to TAPPAN and COPES-VULCAN; FMC CORPORATION, on
behalf of its former CHICAGO PUMP & NORTHERN PUMP BUSINESSES;
FOSTER WHEELER LLC; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GOULD ELECTRONICS,
INC.; GOULDS PUMPS, LLC; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., f/k/a
ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., as successor in interest to THE BENDIX
CORPORATION; HUBBELL INCORPORATED, as successor in interest to THE
BRYANT ELECTRIC COMPANY; IMO INDUSTRIES, INC.; ITT LLC; ROCKWELL
AUTOMATION, INC., as successor by merger to ALLEN-BRADLEY COMPANY;
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC., individually and as successor in
interest to SQUARE D COMPANY; SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC., successor in
interest to SIEMENS ENERGY & AUTOMATION, INC.; UNION CARBIDE
CORPORATION; and WARREN PUMPS, LLC, the Defendants.

Defendants were at all times pertinent, directly or indirectly
engaged in the specification, mining, manufacturing, distribution,
sales, licensing, leasing, installation, removal, or use of
asbestos and asbestos-containing products.1 Defendants were also
engaged in the development, manufacture, distribution, sales,
licensing or leasing of equipment, procedures, or technology
necessary to mine, manufacture, sell, distribute, install, remove,
and use asbestos and asbestos-containing products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bartholomew J. Dalton, Esq.
          Ipek K. Medford, Esq.
          Andrew C. Dalton, Esq.
          Michael C. Dalton, Esq.
          DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          Cool Spring Meeting House
          1106 West Tenth Street
          Wilmington, DE 19806
          Telephone: (302) 652 2050
          E-mail: IMedford@BDaltonlaw.com

               - and -

          Adam Balick, Esq.
          Michael Collins Smith, Esq.
          Patrick J. Smith, Esq.
          BALICK & BALICK, LLC
          711 North King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 658 4265
          E-mail: abalick@balick.com

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mitigation Plan After Asbestos Fragments Found
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Burke of Sentinel & Enterprise reported that mitigation plan
is being developed after 10 fragments of asbestos siding were found
earlier this summer on a tract of field at Coolidge Park, officials
said.

Commissioner of Public Works Lenny Laakso said the 10 pieces of
asbestos siding were each about 1.5 by 1.5 inches. A youth soccer
coach discovered the fragments several weeks ago, he said.

It was confirmed the material contained asbestos after the coach
sent the material away for testing, according to Laakso, adding
that a visual inspection of the material confirmed that finding.

The fragments were found on grassy land behind the baseball
diamonds at Coolidge Park. Laakso said a specialist collected the
fragments, which together fit in the palm of his hand.

The siding fragments were found inside a section of recreational
land that has been fenced in since last fall. Last year, the city
put up orange plastic snow fencing around that section to sow new
grass, according to Laakso. The still fenced-in area appeared to be
about the size of a football field.

A procedure known as hydroseeding was performed there in the fall,
but the fence remained up when the grass failed to grow, likely
because it rained shortly after the treatment, said Laakso.

Laasko said he does not know how the asbestos got there.

"There's no way of knowing where the pieces came from," he said.

A horse race track was located at what is now Coolidge Park decades
ago, said Laakso, adding that the area in question was not home to
an industrial site.

Asbestos siding was a common building material that is still be
found on the exterior of some houses, he said.

Laasko said the siding may have been disbursed when the field was
leveled. The fragments did not come from the top soil, which is
periodically screened for debris, he said.

Asbestos can cause health problems when the fibrous material is
inhaled. The fibers go airborne when the asbestos material is
broken or otherwise disturbed.

"You'd have to be exposed to it for a long time for it to be an
issue," Laakso said.

City Solicitor Vincent Pusateri said the type of asbestos found on
the field was not "friable." "Friable" asbestos can be easily
crumbled by hand, whereas materials like siding are more durable.

The city brought on an industrial hygienist and site professional
to develop a mitigation plan, according to Pusateri.

That plan has been in the works for three weeks, said Laakso,
adding that it has taken longer than expected to complete and that
he hoped to receive the plan.

From there, the city will send the mitigation plan to the state
Department of Environmental Protection for approval, according to
Laakso.

The hygienist removed 10 siding fragments from the field and placed
them in plastic bags, he said. The hygienist believes removing the
siding fragments may be sufficient in terms of cleanup, according
to Laakso.

Laakso said he not aware of any fragments being found outside the
fenced-in area. He advised that park visitors to heed signs posted
nearby and remain outside the fence.

"It's not a very alarming situation, but just to be on the safe
side and to keep people away from the asbestos tiling, you should
stay away from the fenced area," he said.

Pusateri said there have been reports that a portion of the plastic
fence had been "brought down," but signs warning park visitors to
keep away remained posted along the exterior.

Recreation Director Nathan LaRose said the snow fencing "goes
around a wide area, much wider than the area where the asbestos was
found."

LaRose said children in the Summer Playground Program and
participants in a parent-led youth soccer program that practices at
Coolidge Park have been instructed not to go inside.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Cross Claim Burdens Asbestos Defendants
------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Guevara, Roy Viola and Edward Abbot of Law360 reported that
on June 29, 2018, the New Jersey Appellate Division brought
sweeping changes to the method by which defendants may prove
cross-claims at trial.

The new requirements will impose upon defendants the duty to call
live witnesses at trial, and limit the opportunity to utilize prior
testimony from corporate representatives. The ruling has already
created a firestorm within the defense bar, and prompted joint
action in an effort to have the case reviewed by the New Jersey
Supreme Court.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Appeals Court Imposes Duty on Asbestos Warning
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth of Law.com reported that in a victory for plaintiffs
seeking damages in connection with asbestos-related illnesses, a
New Jersey appeals court has ruled that a manufacturer has a duty
to warn about the risk of harm from exposure to asbestos-containing
replacement parts, even if the manufacturer did not make or
distribute those parts.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Retains Jurisdiction of Asbestos Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a mesothelioma lawsuit will
remain in federal court in light of a District Court ruling that
the removing defendants had raised a colorable government
contractor defense.

In the July 31 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey wrote that the evidence presented by the defendants was
sufficient to establish that a federal agency had approved
reasonably precise specifications for the products in question.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Non-Party Wins Right to See Asbestos Documents
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Times reported that documents that could reveal who at an
asbestos manufacturer knew about the dangers of the substance are
to be disclosed to a non-party in ongoing litigation.

The Court of Appeal decided that a representative of the Asbestos
Victims Support Group Forum UK had a legitimate interest in the
documents, in what lawyers described as a unique judgment.

The documents were used in a trial in which Cape Intermediate
Holdings, a global manufacturer of asbestos products, was a
defendant.

The Court of Appeal ruling upheld part of an earlier decision,
which lawyers said was the first time a non-party to a legal case
had established the entitlement to copies of such a large number of
documents used at trial.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Defends 1,160 Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc. continues to defend itself against
approximately 1,160 plaintiffs and claimants related to asbestos
matters, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018.

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 pipe and
block 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").

"Based on an analysis of the lawsuits pending as of December 31,
2017, approximately 89% 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 8% 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.

"As indicated by the foregoing summary, current pleading practice
permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary
damages.  The Company's experience resolving hundreds of thousands
of asbestos claims and lawsuits over an extended period
demonstrates that the monetary relief alleged in a complaint bears
little relevance to a claim's merits or disposition value.  Rather,
the amount potentially recoverable is determined by such factors as
the type and severity of the plaintiff's asbestos disease, the
plaintiff's medical history and exposure to other disease-causing
agents, the product identification evidence against the Company and
other co-defendants, the defenses available to the Company and
other co-defendants, the specific jurisdiction in which the claim
is made, and the plaintiff's firm representing the claimant.

"In addition to the pending claims, the Company has claims-handling
agreements in place with many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the
country.  These agreements require evaluation and negotiation
regarding whether particular claimants qualify under the criteria
established by such agreements.  The criteria for such claims
include verification of a compensable illness and a reasonable
probability of exposure to a product manufactured by the Company's
former business unit during its manufacturing period ending in
1958.  

"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 above description of pending matters
or in the following description of disposed matters.

"Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of June
30, 2018, has disposed of asbestos claims of approximately 399,500
plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment per claim
of approximately US$9,700.  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 2017, 2016 and 2015 were US$110 million, US$125
million, and US$138 million, respectively.  The Company's cash
payments per claim disposed (inclusive of legal costs) were
approximately US$83,000, US$71,000, and US$95,000 for the years
ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

"The Company's objective is to achieve, where possible, resolution
of asbestos claims pursuant to claims-handling agreements.  Failure
of claimants to meet certain medical and product exposure criteria
in the Company's administrative claims handling agreements has
generally reduced the number of claims that would otherwise have
been received by the Company in the tort system.  In addition,
certain court orders and legislative acts have reduced or
eliminated the number of claims that the Company otherwise would
have received by the Company in the tort system.  These
developments generally have had the effect of increasing the
Company's per-claim average indemnity payment over time."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/FqEvLV

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parts of Fort Regent Closed After Asbestos Find
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITV News reported that parts of Fort Regent have been closed off
after a possible asbestos related material was discovered in an
electrical cupboard.

The cupboard contained an air handling unit which was shut down to
prevent the spread of possible asbestos particles.

The toilets and changing rooms near the gym area have been closed
while the material is tested.

A number of storage areas have also been closed.

Asbestos is a heat-resistant fibre that was used for insulation on
an industrial scale before the dangers of the material were
realised. It causes lung related diseases and can dangerous if
breathed in.

The use of asbestos is now banned in many countries around the
world but it can still be found in buildings.

This weekend some free weights rooms will be sealed off to remove
material that could become a concern in the future. This follows an
inspection which raised concerns that bubbling paint in the area
could wear away and expose the harmful substance.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Units Had 600 Pending Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair plc's subsidiaries continue to face around 600
asbestos-related claims as of June 30, 2018, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018.

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 June 30, 2018, there were approximately 600 claims
outstanding against our subsidiaries.  This amount is not adjusted
for claims that are not actively being prosecuted, identified
incorrect defendants, or duplicated other actions, which would
ultimately reflect our current estimate of the number of viable
claims made against us, our affiliates, or entities for which we
assumed responsibility in connection with acquisitions or
divestitures.  In addition, the amount does not include certain
claims pending against third parties for which we have been
provided an indemnification."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/6Fss35

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Had 420 Open Claims at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2018, that it is aware of approximately 420 open and active
asbestos-related claims pending against the Company and certain of
its subsidiaries.

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 ceased 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 condensed
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/qrueF0

ASBESTOS UPDATE: R. DeLisle's Suit v. Crane Co. Pending at July 23
------------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is awaiting the court's decision on an asbestos lawsuit
filed by Richard DeLisle, according to the Company's Form 8-K filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2018.

The Company states, "On September 17, 2013, a Fort Lauderdale,
Florida state court jury in the Richard DeLisle claim found the
Company responsible for 16% of an US$8 million verdict.  The trial
court denied all parties' post-trial motions, and entered judgment
against the Company in the amount of US$1.3 million.  The Company
appealed and oral argument on the appeal took place on February 16,
2016.  On September 14, 2016 a panel of the Florida Court of
Appeals reversed and entered judgment in favor of the Company.
Plaintiff filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for rehearing
and/or certification of an appeal to the Florida Supreme Court,
which the Court denied on November 9, 2016.  Plaintiffs
subsequently requested review by the Supreme Court of Florida.
Plaintiffs' motion was granted on July 11, 2017.  Oral argument
took place on March 6, 2018, and the parties are awaiting the
court's decision."

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://is.gd/ALDsFF

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reinsurer Sued for $900K Loss in Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that Amerisure Mutual Insurance
Co. has sued a reinsurer in Michigan federal court for more than
$900,000 in loss and loss expense for its settlement of underlying
asbestos claims asserted against its insured.

In a June 21 complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Amerisure maintains that
Transatlantic Reinsurance Co. is obligated to reimburse it for
TransRe's portion of loss expenses in addition to loss payments,
and the loss payments are the only payments to which the limits
apply.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Self-Employed Carpenter Dies of Asbestos Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------------
LincolnshireLive reported that a self-employed carpenter and joiner
diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma as a result of asbestos
exposure has died.

Alan Toplis was diagnosed with the pleural mesothelioma in early
2017 after he visited his GP due to night sweats.

The 67-year-old from Spilsby had no known exposure to asbestos and
his work record showed he had been self-employed throughout most of
his life.

An inquest in to Mr Toplis' death held at Boston Coroners Court
heard he had undergone an operation to remove the rare form of
cancer from the right side of his chest but within months it had
returned.

Assistant coroner Richard Marshall said: "Mr Toplis was in
palliative care as he was at the end of life stage. It is believed
he was exposed to asbestos when he was working on new builds but it
is not clear."

The coroner concluded a narrative verdict and said that Mr Toplis
died as a result of mesothelioma.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Senate Learns of Report on Centre Block Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Naumetz of iPolitics.ca reported that the Senate says it first
received a report from a sweeping 2012 investigation that found
cancer-causing asbestos and other toxins throughout Parliament
Hill's Centre Block, following an inquiry by iPolitics.

The federal public works department that commissioned the survey in
advance of a massive rehabilitation of the 96-year-old building
provided a copy of the findings report to the House of Commons in
February 2014 -- a year after the company that conducted the study
provided the report to the department.

The department, now known as Public Services and Procurement Canada
(PSPC), delivered a copy of the survey report to the Senate, after
iPolitics obtained a copy of the report and both the Commons
administration and the department confirmed the House of Commons
had received a copy four years ago.

It was unclear as of this week why the Senate had not received a
copy of the vital report, after PSPC told iPolitics: "The findings
of designated substances are shared with the administrations of the
Parliamentary Partners. The findings of this report were shared
with the administration of the House of Commons in February 2014."

The report found two types of asbestos on all six floors of Centre
Block, and also throughout the basement: friable asbestos composed
of fibres that can easily spread through an environment if
disturbed and let free and non-friable asbestos once used in
plaster, caulking and tiles that contain the asbestos unless the
materials are shattered, cut or broken and the asbestos releases as
dust.

"We are still looking into what happened here," said Alison Korn,
issues manager and media relations advisor for the Senate.

"Given the fact that the Senate was initially advised that the
investigation was occurring, we are reviewing and verifying records
from that time, to determine why the Senate did not receive the
report when it was published," Korn said in an email exchange.

The survey by DST Consulting Engineers Ltd. of Ottawa, which
subcontracted laboratory analysis, found asbestos and leaded paint
on both the Commons and Senate sides of the Senate, including a
range of public and private areas.

The survey located friable asbestos in the ceiling of the office
that has been headquarters for the Leader of the Opposition in the
Senate since construction of Centre Block was completed in 1922 --
Room 367S only a few metres from a public gallery on the third
floor of the building.

The asbestos was found in ceiling tiles in the office, with higher
levels in anti-sweat pipe insulation behind the tiles and also in
air cell pipe insulation behind the ceiling tiles

The survey found two types of friable asbestos, amosite and
chrysotile, on four walls of acoustic tiles in a third floor Senate
committee space -- Room 354S only a few metres down a hall from the
office of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

There has been no indication that the House of the Commons
conducted any abatement measures over the past four years, and the
Senate had no map or report of the asbestos and toxin locations to
attempt abatement or removal.

The Commons administration told iPolitics the report was shared
with an internal committee responsible for workplace health and
safety.


                            *********

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.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***