CAR_Public/191129.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, November 29, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 239

                            Headlines

AD ASTRA RECOVERY: Williams Files FDCPA Suit in Virginia
BOND VETERINARY: Fischer Alleges Violation under ADA
CALIBER HOME: Rivas Suit Challenges Charging of Illegal Fees
CENTRA TECH: Renewed Bid to Certify Class in Zowie Suit Denied
COOK COUNTY, IL: Alicea's Bid to Certify Detainees Class Denied

COUNTRY MUTUAL: Hansen's Bid to Certify Stricken; to Renew May 30
DAVIS AND GOLDMARK: Gross Files Suit in Virginia
DEUTSCHE BANK: Feb. 28, 2020 Hearing Set for Settlement Approval
DVL EXPRESS: Tsybikov Amends Bid to Certify Truck Drivers Class
FIDATO PARTNERS: Fajimolu May Renew Bid for Class Certification

FIRST NATIONAL: Taronis Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
FORTY FIVE: Nisbett Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Commodities-Related Suit Pending
HY-VEE INC: Grewing Files PI Suit in Missouri
JABIL INC: Moss Suit Removed to Northern District of California

JUUL LABS: Lewis Sues Over Exposure to Harmful Toxins From ENDS
LACI TRANSPORT: Stingley's Bid for Class Certification Granted
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Robles et al. Say COBRA Notice Non-Compliant
MILLER'S ALE: Sosa Files Suit under ADA in New York
MONEY SOURCE: Martinez Moves to Certify Class of Underwriters

MORRIS HALL: Jones Seeks OT Wages for Nursing Assistants
MV TRANSPORTATION: Shafer Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
NORDSTROM INC: Nisbett Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
OASIS ENERGY: Feb. 11, 2020 Hearing Set for Settlement Approval
PATAGONIA INC: Sosa Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act

PENNSYLVANIA: Massey Seeks Certification of SCI Prisoners Class
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Smith Alleges Violation under FDCPA
REALREAL INC: Faces Sanders Securities Suit Over IPO Price Drop
REJUVENATION INC: Lopez Alleges Violation under ADA
RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Singh Files Class Action Under FDCPA

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, CA: Pierce Files Civil Rights Suit in Calif.
SANDALGROVE LLC: McGregor FHA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
SICHUAN GOURMET: Liu Moves for Certification of Class Under FLSA
TALBOTS INC: Sosa Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act in New York
TIFFANY AND CO: Sosa Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act

TRADER JOE'S: Faces Meirose Suit for Failure to Pay Proper Wages
TRANS-CONTINENTAL CREDIT: Faces Saric Suit Over FDCPA Violations
TWEEN BRANDS: Mendez Files Suit in New York Under ADA
UNDER ARMOUR RETAIL: Sosa Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
UNITED STATES: Cissna Appeals Ruling in Galvez SIJS Suit to 9th Cir

UNITED STATES: Passut Seeks to Certify Class in Suit v. DeVos
WELLS FARGO: Issued Flawed Credit Reports, Moore FCRA Suit Claims

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 103 Suits v Sempra Energy Units Pending at Oct. 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 206 Cases vs. CECO Still Pending at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 242 Talcum Suits vs. Colgate-Palmolive Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 364 Cases vs. AK Steel Still Pending at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFG Records $18MM Increase for A&E Reserves in 3Q

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel's Appeal in Oklahoma Case Still Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Still Defends Lawsuits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Had 106 Pending Talc Suits at September 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bausch Health US Still Defends Gutierrez Talc Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Accrues $289MM for PI Matters at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Estimates $772MM Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Had 9,061 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Working with SEC on Claims Accounting
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Accrues $7MM Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Accrues $37MM for DuPont Suits at Sept 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $63.3MM Accrued Liability at Sept. 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 16,173 Unresolved Claims at Sept. 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Spent $16MM for Manhattan Incident
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $284MM Accrual at September 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 56,000 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Still Defends Suits at September 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Had $6.7MM Asbestos Coverage at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Had US$83MM Reserves at September 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FCX Unit Still Defends Talc Suits at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Had $827.8-Mil. Liability at September 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 24,000 Claims Pending at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaman Corp. Still Defends Suits at September 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 11,700 PI Cases at Sept. 27

ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Int'l Still Faces Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Had 2,493 New Claims in Jan-Sept 2019
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 91 Cases at Sept. 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Still Faces 594 Lawsuits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Still Responsible for Cases at Sept. 28

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Units Still Face Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Defends 113 Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regency Centers Has $9.7-Mil. Cleanup Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp Estimates $70.7MM Liability at Sept.30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had $‭70.7MM Liabilities at Oct. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 826 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Tech, Units Still Defends Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Had $539.9MM Asbestos Liability at Sept. 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 1,500 Fibro Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has $49.9MM Accrued Liabilities

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor's Appeal in Calif. Suit Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Has At Most 500 Cases in US, 50 in Europe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 356 Pending Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Defends 796 Active Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Solutions Has Less Than 77 Claims in Sept.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Still Defend Suits at Sept. 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wabtec Still Faces PI Claims at Sept. 30


                            *********

AD ASTRA RECOVERY: Williams Files FDCPA Suit in Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ad Astra Recovery
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Brittany Williams,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Ad Astra Recovery Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00858-REP (E.D., Va., Nov. 20, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Ad Astra Recovery Services, Inc. is a financial services company
based in Wichita, Kansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Aryeh Eliezer Stein, Esq.
   Meridian Law, LLC
   600 Reisterstown Road, Suite 700
   Baltimore, MD 21208
   Tel: (443) 326-6011
   Fax: (410) 653-1061
   Email: astein@meridianlawfirm.com


BOND VETERINARY: Fischer Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Bond Veterinary, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bond Veterinary, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-06573 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2019).

Bond Vet is the tech-enabled walk-in clinic for pets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
   New York, NY 10170-1830
   Tel: (212) 764-7171
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


CALIBER HOME: Rivas Suit Challenges Charging of Illegal Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
James Rivas, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00355 (S.D. Tex.,
Nov. 25, 2019), seeks injunctive, declaratory and compensatory
relief against Caliber for its breaches of contract and violations
of the Texas Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Defendant routinely and systematically breaches uniform
covenants in mortgages guaranteed by the Federal Housing
Administration by assessing fees to borrowers that are either not
authorized by or expressly prohibited by their mortgage agreement,
Mr. Rivas alleges. Mortgage servicer, such as Caliber, typically is
not owed the underlying debt but instead works for the creditor by
performing the everyday tasks of managing the loan, such as by
collecting payments, managing escrow accounts, reviewing
loan-modification applications, and handling foreclosures.

FHA rules expressly prohibit lenders and servicers of FHA loans
from charging any fee to a borrower for requesting two payoff
statements during a calendar year and, after those two, allow a
maximum fee of only $10.00 for each additional request during the
year. In October 2019, Caliber charged Mr. Rivas $24.00 for
requesting a payoff statement. Under no circumstances should that
fee have exceeded $10.00, says the complaint.

Jaime Rivas had an FHA-insured mortgage that was originated and
serviced by Caliber.

Caliber is one of the largest mortgage lenders and servicers of
residential mortgages in the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
          Hank Bates, Esq.
          Lee Lowther, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 W. 7th St.
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 312-8500
          Fax: (501) 312-8505
          Email: hbates@cbplaw.com
                 rpulliam@cbplaw.com
                 llowther@cbplaw.com


CENTRA TECH: Renewed Bid to Certify Class in Zowie Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert N. Scola, Jr., denies the Plaintiff's renewed
motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled Jacob Zowie,
Thomas Rensel and others v. Centra Tech, Inc., Case No.
1:17-cv-24500-RNS (S.D. Fla.).

On September 16, 2019, the Court entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification (the "Order").  The
Order denied the Plaintiffs' motion on two grounds: (1) the motion
was untimely, and (2) the Plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate
that their proposed class was ascertainable.

On October 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs, without seeking leave of Court,
filed a renewed motion for class certification.  The Renewed Motion
argues that the motion was indeed timely and provides additional
information to bolster its argument that the class is
ascertainable.

While it is true that Rule 23(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure empowers district courts to alter or amend class
certification orders at any time prior to a decision on the merits,
the rule contemplates new evidence, changed circumstances, or new
information about the class members' claims, Judge Scola opines,
citing Prado-Steiman v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, 1273 (11th Cir.
2000).

"The Plaintiffs' renewed motion does not demonstrate changed
circumstances or new evidence to merit the Court's consideration of
a renewed motion for class certification," Judge Scola says.  "The
Plaintiffs first argue that their motion is timely because a
scheduling order was never entered and discovery had been stayed
for a long period of time.  These are arguments more appropriate
for a motion for reconsideration as the Plaintiffs are arguing
directly against the position taken by the Court in its Order."

The Plaintiffs next argue that the class is ascertainable by
submitting an affidavit of a claims administrator, providing
greater detail about Centra Tech's business records, and
specifically addressing many of the Court's admonitions in the
denial order.  Judge Scola notes that the Plaintiffs dedicated less
than one page to their ascertainability argument in the first
motion for class certification.

"Now, based on the Court's Order denying their first motion, the
Plaintiffs' renewed motion dedicates seven pages to the issue,"
Judge Scola states.  "The Plaintiffs do not argue that this
information was previously unavailable to them, Judge Scola adds.

According to the Court, the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion specifically
addresses the Court's concerns in the Order.  "This, however, is an
inappropriate use of a renewed motion for class certification,"
Judge Scola explains.[CC]


COOK COUNTY, IL: Alicea's Bid to Certify Detainees Class Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ronald A. Guzman denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the lawsuit styled Elizabeth Alicea, Michelle
Urrutia, Katina Ramos, and Jack Artinian, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. County of Cook, and Thomas
J. Dart, individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of
Cook County, Case No. 1:18-cv-05381 (N.D. Ill.).

The proposed class is defined as:

     All persons who used a toilet in a holding cell in a
     courthouse in Cook County, Illinois since August 8, 2016,
     wherein any part of the toilet is visible in the camera feed
     monitoring the cell.

Judge Guzman rules that the Plaintiffs may renew their motion for
class certification with a revised proposed class definition no
later than December 13, 2019.  The Defendants may either respond to
the renewed motion for class certification or file a motion seeking
to proceed first with a determination on the merits.

Either way, the Defendants have until January 8, 2019, to submit
their filing, Judge Guzman rules.  At that time, the Court will
review the parties' filings and issue an order as to how it will
proceed.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order, Judge Guzman states that the
Court has reviewed the parties' recent submissions, their briefs on
class certification, and additional case law addressing the Fourth
Amendment as it relates to searches of pretrial detainees and
concludes that, as currently defined, the Plaintiff's class is
unable to be certified.

As the Court noted in its order of July 24, 2019, to be certified
as a class action, a proposed class must satisfy the requirements
of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and one of
the three alternative requirements in Rule 23(b), citing Messner v.
Northshore Univ. HealthSystem, 669 F.3d 802, 811 (7th Cir. 2012).

Upon further reflection, the Court finds that, as currently
defined, the proposed class is too broad to satisfy the commonality
requirement.  The Plaintiffs' proposed definition includes "all
persons"; apparently realizing the overbroad nature of their
definition, the Plaintiffs assert in their reply in support of
their motion for class certification that "persons" "clearly means"
"pretrial detainees."

The Court questions this assertion, but even accepting arguendo the
Plaintiffs' contention and substituting pretrial detainees for
"persons," it is clear that specificity in the confined-person's
status is necessary in the Fourth Amendment context.  While the
Defendants raised this issue in their response to the class
certification motion, the Plaintiffs do not address it in their
reply, Judge Guzman notes.

The Plaintiffs characterize themselves as "pretrial detainees" and
allege that "the vast majority" of putative class members were
"temporarily held," "have simply been arrested and are waiting to
go to court to post bond for their release," and "have not been
convicted of any crime."  But the term "pretrial detainee" could
include a variety of individuals--from those who have just been
arrested and are waiting to post bond to those who are unable to
make bond and are shuttling back and forth between the jail and the
courthouse for status hearings, Judge Guzman opines.  He adds that
the Fourth Amendment treats these individuals differently, but the
Plaintiffs' proposed definition does not account for this
difference.

Accordingly, Judge Guzman rules that the Plaintiffs may renew their
motion for class certification with a revised proposed class
definition no later than December 13, 2019.  The Plaintiffs are
directed to provide citations to Seventh Circuit case law in
support of their proposed definition in order to assist the Court
in determining whether a summary judgment motion should be briefed
before the renewed class certification motion.

Given the amount of money and effort that will be expended in
providing class notice as the Plaintiffs have outlined in their
supplemental filing, the Plaintiffs are directed to address in
their motion for class certification how their renewed proposed
class definition incorporates the anticipated evidence in this
case.[CC]


COUNTRY MUTUAL: Hansen's Bid to Certify Stricken; to Renew May 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Chad Hansen, et al. v. Country Mutual
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00244 (N.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer has stricken the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

According to the Court's Notification of Docket Entry, the parties
having agreed to an amended discovery schedule and to filing of a
renewed motion for class certification on May 30, 2020, the
Plaintiff's earlier motion for class certification is stricken
without prejudice.[CC]


DAVIS AND GOLDMARK: Gross Files Suit in Virginia
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Davis and Goldmark,
Inc. The case is styled as Samantha Gross, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Davis and
Goldmark, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00117-HCM-RJK (E.D., Va., Nov. 20, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Davis and Goldmark, Inc. is an Accounting firm in Riverside,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Aryeh Eliezer Stein, Esq.
   Meridian Law, LLC
   600 Reisterstown Road, Suite 700
   Baltimore, MD 21208
   Tel: (443) 326-6011
   Fax: (410) 653-1061
   Email: astein@meridianlawfirm.com



DEUTSCHE BANK: Feb. 28, 2020 Hearing Set for Settlement Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE GSE BONDS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION

Case No. 1:19-cv-01704 (JSR)

Summary Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Hearing on Proposed
Settlements and Attorneys' Fees Petition, and Right to Share in Net
Settlement Fund

If you entered into a GSE Bond Transaction with one or more
Defendants from January 1, 2009 through and including January 1,
2019 ("Settlement Class Period"), you may be affected by pending
class action settlements.

This Summary Notice is to alert you to a proposed Settlement
reached with Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. ("Deutsche Bank") and
its predecessors, successors, assigns, subsidiaries, and
affiliates, including Deutsche Bank AG and a separate proposed
Settlement reached with First Tennessee Bank, N.A. and with FTN
Financial Securities Corp. ("FTN") and its predecessors,
successors, assigns, subsidiaries, and affiliates, including First
Horizon National Corp.  Deutsche Bank and FTN deny that the
material allegations made against them in this Action have merit.
In total, Deutsche Bank and FTN have agreed to pay a total of $29.5
million into a settlement fund.  The litigation is continuing
against Barclays Capital Inc.; BNP Paribas Securities Corp.;
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC;
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC; J. P. Morgan Securities LLC; Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.; TD Securities (USA) LLC; Nomura
Securities International, Inc.; HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.; Cantor
Fitzgerald & Co.; SG Americas Securities LLC; Morgan Stanley & Co.,
LLC; and UBS Securities LLC ("Non-Settling Defendants," and
collectively with Deutsche Bank and FTN, "Defendants").
Non-Settling Defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing.

The Court has appointed the lawyers listed below to represent the
Settlement Class in this Action:

Christopher M. Burke
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
600 West Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619-233-4565
cburke@scott-scott.com

Vincent Briganti
Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: 914-733-7221
vbriganti@lowey.com

Who Is a Member of the Settlement Class?

Subject to certain exceptions, the proposed Settlement Class
consists of all persons and entities who or which entered into a
GSE Bond Transaction with a Defendant or a direct or indirect
parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or division of a Defendant during
the Settlement Class Period.

"GSE Bond Transaction" means any purchase, sale, or other
transaction in the secondary market with respect to any GSE Bond.
"GSE Bond" means any and each unsecured bond or debt instrument
(i.e., senior debt, subordinated debt, and junior subordinated
debt) regardless of currency or credit quality, issued by Federal
National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, Federal Farm Credit Banks, and Federal Home Loan
Banks.

The other capitalized terms used in this Publication Notice are
defined in the detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Hearing
on Proposed Settlements and Attorneys' Fees Petition, and Right to
Share in Net Settlement Fund ("Notice") and the Stipulations, which
are available at www.GSEBondAntitrustSettlement.com.

If you are not sure if you are included in the Settlement Class,
you can get more information, including the detailed Notice, at
www.GSEBondAntitrustSettlement.com or by calling toll-free
1-877-317-7944 (if calling from outside the United States or
Canada, call 1-414-961-6546).

Will I Get a Payment?

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not opt out, you
will be eligible for a payment under the Settlements if you file a
proof of claim form ("Claim Form").  The Settlements and Plan of
Distribution have been preliminarily but not finally approved by
the Court.  You also may obtain more information at
www.GSEBondAntitrustSettlement.com or by calling toll-free
1-877-317-7944 (if calling from outside the United States or
Canada, call 1-414-961-6546).

Claim Forms must be submitted online at
www.GSEBondAntitrustSettlement.com on or before 11:59 p.m. Eastern
time on February 5, 2020.

What Are My Rights?

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not opt out, you
will release certain legal rights against Deutsche Bank, FTN, and
the other Settling Defendants, as explained in the detailed Notice
and Stipulations, which are available at
www.GSEBondAntitrustSettlement.com. If you do not want to take part
in the proposed Settlements, you must opt out by January 16, 2020.
You may object to the proposed Settlements, Plan of Distribution,
and/or application for an award of attorneys' fees, Litigation
Expenses, and any service awards for Plaintiffs.  If you want to
object, you must do so by January 16, 2020.  Information on how to
opt out or object is contained in the detailed Notice, which is
available at www.GSEBondAntitrustSettlement.com.

When Is the Settlement Hearing?

The Court will hold a hearing at the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., Courtroom 14B, New York,
NY 10007, on February 28, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. to consider whether to
approve the proposed Settlements, Plan of Distribution, and
application for an award of attorneys' fees, Litigation Expenses,
and any service awards for Plaintiffs.  You or your lawyer may ask
to appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense, but you do
not have to.

For more information, call toll-free 1-877-317-7944 (if calling
from outside the United States or Canada, call 1-414-961-6546) or
visit www.GSEBondAntitrustSettlement.com.

**** Please do not call the Court or the Clerk of the Court for
information about the Settlements. ****

Dated: October 29, 2019

By Order of the Court

United States District Court Southern District of New York


DVL EXPRESS: Tsybikov Amends Bid to Certify Truck Drivers Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned AYUR TSYBIKOV and ALEH
LINIOU v. OLEKSANDR DOVGAL, ALINA KIM, DVL EXPRESS INC., and ALTEX
LOGISTICS INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-03334 (N.D. Ill.), file with the
Court their amended motion for class certification pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiffs as a class action on
behalf of an estimated 1,000 putative class members-truck drivers
alleging violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act, as well as a common law cause of action of Civil Conspiracy.

The proposed class, which the Named Plaintiffs represent, is
defined as:

    "All persons who have worked for Defendant companies as truck
     drivers and truck driver trainees in Illinois or otherwise
     have driven Defendant companies,' their predecessors,'
     successors,' subsidiaries' and/or affiliated companies'
     trucks at any time during the relevant statutory period, and
     who entered into an Independent Contractor agreement
     individually or on behalf of another entity, and personally
     provided freight cargo transportation services pursuant to
     that Agreement for Defendant companies and who have not been
     classified as employees of Defendant companies". (Count I).

    "All persons who have worked for Defendant companies as truck
     drivers and truck driver trainees in Illinois or otherwise
     have driven Defendant companies,' their predecessors,'
     successors,' subsidiaries' and/or affiliated companies'
     trucks at any time during the relevant statutory period, and
     personally provided freight cargo transportation services
     pursuant to that Agreement for Defendant companies and who
     have not been classified as employees of Defendant
     companies", against whom the Individual Defendants, on
     behalf of themselves and their Defendant companies,
     committed Civil Conspiracy to violate the IWPCA."
     (Count II).

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives and to appoint their counsel as Class Counsel.  The
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order for parties to initiate
and complete discovery limited in scope to the issues raised in the
instant Amended Motion to Certify the Class.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Julia Bikbova, Esq.
          BIKBOVA LAW OFFICES PC
          666 Dundee Rd., Suite 1604
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Telephone: (847) 730-1800
          E-mail: Julia@Bikbovalaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael A. Haber, Esq.
          Cara M. Gaziano, Esq.
          Jamie L. Ross, Esq.
          KALCHEIM HABER, LLC
          134 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-9445
          E-mail: mhaber@kalcheimhaber.com
                  cgaziano@kalcheimhaber.com
                  jross@kalcheimhaber.com


FIDATO PARTNERS: Fajimolu May Renew Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Mark A. Kearney denies without prejudice the Plaintiff's
motion for collective action in the lawsuit entitled OLAMIDE
FAJIMOLU v. FIDATO PARTNERS, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-04550-MAK (E.D.
Pa.).

According to the Order, considering that the Plaintiff's motion for
collective action is filed before a responsive pleading or before
allowing discovery, the Motion is denied without prejudice to be
renewed consistent either with the Defendant's consent or under a
scheduling order after a responsive pleading.[CC]


FIRST NATIONAL: Taronis Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First National
Collection Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as George Taronis, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
First National Collection Bureau, Inc. and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-20498-SDW-LDW (D. N.J., Nov. 19,
2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

First National Collection Bureau, Inc. is an agency that collects
debt on behalf of a variety of creditor clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
   280 Prospect Ave. 6G
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 803-6611
   Fax: (866) 596-4973
   Email: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com



FORTY FIVE: Nisbett Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------
Forty Five Ten Hy, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forty Five Ten Hy, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10785 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2019).

Forty Five Ten is a luxury boutique that merges fashion, art &
design while championing the new, the unconventional, the eclectic
& the inspired.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
   New York, NY 10170-1830
   Tel: (212) 764-7171
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Commodities-Related Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion
to dismiss a third consolidated amended complaint in the
Commodities-Related Litigation remains pending.

Goldman Sachs International (GSI) is among the defendants named in
putative class actions relating to trading in platinum and
palladium, filed beginning on November 25, 2014 and most recently
amended on May 15, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated federal antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in
connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate a benchmark for
physical platinum and palladium prices and seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified
amount.

Defendants moved to dismiss the third consolidated amended
complaint on July 21, 2017.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


HY-VEE INC: Grewing Files PI Suit in Missouri
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hy-Vee, Inc. The case
is styled as Gordon Grewing, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hy-Vee, Inc., an Iowa
Coporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00928-JTM (W.D., Mo., Nov.
19, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as P.I.: Other
filed pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Hy-Vee is a chain of more than 245 supermarkets located throughout
the Midwestern United States in Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.[NM]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Barbara Frankland, Esq.
   Rex A Sharp PA
   5301 W. 75th Street
   Prairie Village, KS 66208
   Tel: (913) 901-9099
   Fax: (913) 901-0419
   Email: bfrankland@midwest-law.com


JABIL INC: Moss Suit Removed to Northern District of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled as Larry Durant Moss, an individual on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. JABIL
INC., a Corporation and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive; Case No.
RG19039453, was removed from the Superior Court of California for
the Alameda County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on Nov. 25, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-07753 to the
proceeding.

The complaint asserts these causes of action: (1) unfair
competition; (2) failure to pay overtime wages, as well as a
derivative claim for failure to pay final wages under labor code;
(3) failure to pay minimum wages, as well as a derivative claim for
failure to pay final wages under the Labor Code; (4) failure to
provide required meal periods; (5) failure to provide required rest
periods; (6) failure to provide accurate itemized statements; and
(7) failure to reimburse employees for required expenses.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Evan R. Moses, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-239-9800
          Facsimile: 213-239-9045
          Email: evan.moses@ogletree.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Nader, Esq.
          Rabia Z. Reed, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Phone: 916.840.3150
          Facsimile: 916.840.3159
          Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com
                 rabia.reed@ogletree.com


JUUL LABS: Lewis Sues Over Exposure to Harmful Toxins From ENDS
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Lewis and XXX Lewis (a minor), individually and on behalf of
all putative class members residing in the State of Illinois v.
JUUL LABS, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-07787 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 25, 2019),
is brought for claims of negligence and strict product liability
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act relating to the
Defendant's sale of e-cigarette devices and accessories.

JUUL manufactures, markets and sells e-cigarette devices and
accessories to consumers in the United States and around the world.
The medical and public health communities in the U.S. commonly
refer to JUUL devices and accessories collectively as an Electronic
Nicotine Delivery System ("ENDS" or "System").

A JUUL ENDS heats a liquid contained within the System until the
liquid vaporizes into an aerosol, at which point the ENDS user
inhales the aerosol. When the JUUL ENDS user subsequently exhales
the aerosol, he or she discharges the residue into the ambient air,
releasing with that discharge dangerous chemical compounds,
including nicotine and numerous other toxins, some of which are
known carcinogens. Whereas traditional cigarette smoke leaves a
distinct odor and otherwise is easily perceptible to the senses,
JUUL ENDS Discharge ordinarily dissipates quickly and leaves no
meaningful smoke trail or odor. As a result, JUUL ENDS users can
(and do) use JUUL ENDS even in confined spaces without significant
risk of detection by teachers, parents, and peers.

Using the JUUL ENDS in the manner in which JUUL intended or
reasonably expected the JUUL ENDS to be used, JUUL ENDS users
routinely have released the toxic Discharge from JUUL ENDS in
confined spaces like high school bathrooms and classrooms, on
school buses and in other similar situations. The Plaintiffs, thus,
involuntarily have been exposed to nicotine and the other toxins in
JUUL ENDS Discharge and have suffered adverse health consequences
and are substantially certain to suffer adverse health consequences
in the future from inhalation of JUUL ENDS Discharge, according to
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of Illinois residents,
who were involuntarily exposed to nicotine and other harmful toxins
in JUUL ENDS Discharge in order to recover money damages for the
adverse effects of bodily injury resulting from exposure to JUUL
ENDS Discharge and for recovery of future costs reasonably likely
to be incurred in order to assess, diagnose and treat any adverse
physical effects from exposure to the Discharge that may manifest
in the future.

Ms. Lewis is the mother of Plaintiff XXX, a minor.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew R. Wildermuth, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF MATTHEW R. WILDERMUTH
          1900 75th Street
          Woodridge, IL 60517
          Direct: 630.324.9928
          Email: mrw@wildermuthlawoffices.com


LACI TRANSPORT: Stingley's Bid for Class Certification Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on November 19, 2019, in the case
titled Renee Stingley, et al. v. Laci Transport, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:18-cv-06221 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Sara L. Ellis.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Motion hearing was held on November 19, 2019;

   -- The Plaintiffs' motion for stage−one conditional
      certification and notice to putative class members is
      granted;

   -- The Defendants are to provide any additional identity
      information by December 3, 2019;

   -- The Plaintiffs are to send out notice to class by
      December 17, 2019; and

   -- Status hearing set for January 28, 2020, is stricken and
      reset to February 26, 2020, at 9:30 a.m., to report on
      notice.[CC]


LOWE'S COMPANIES: Robles et al. Say COBRA Notice Non-Compliant
--------------------------------------------------------------
MILTON ROBLES and DAYRA RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LOWE'S COMPANIES,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-02713-WFJ-AAS (M.D. Fla.,
Oct. 31, 2019), alleges that Defendant violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), by
failing to provide Milton Robles and Dayra Rivera, and the putative
class members they seek to represent, with a COBRA notice that
complies with the law.

Despite having knowledge of and access to the Department of Labor's
Model COBRA form, Defendant chose not to use the model form -- but
only to the extent it served Defendant's interests.

Rather than including all information required by law in a single
notice "written in a manner calculated to be understood by the
average plan participant," Defendant's COBRA notification process
instead provides only part of the legally required information in
haphazard, piece-meal fashion in disjointed documents mailed under
separate cover.

Unlike the Defendant's notice, the Model DOL notice provides a
nearly fool-proof way to elect COBRA coverage by providing in a
single document all statutorily-required information plan
participants need to enroll in COBRA coverage.

In sharp contrast, Defendant's multi-part COBRA notification system
is not foolproof, much less legally compliant. In fact, the
Defendant COBRA notice is broken into two separate mailings which
individually, and cumulatively, lack the information mandated by
law.

To compound the confusion, it is Defendant's pattern and practice
to send a second letter, containing information on COBRA.

Rather than utilizing the DOL Model Notice and sending a single
COBRA notice "written in a manner calculated to be understood by
the average plan participant" containing all required by law,
Defendant instead opted to break the information into multiple
documents, containing bits and pieces of information on COBRA.

In fact, the DOL Model Notice was designed to avoid precisely the
issues caused by Defendant's COBRA notification process.

As a result of receiving the COBRA enrollment notice, Plaintiffs
could not make an informed decision about health insurance and lost
health coverage.

The Plaintiffs suffered a tangible injury in the form of economic
loss, specifically the loss of insurance coverage and incurred
medical bills, due to Defendant's deficient COBRA election notice.

In addition to a paycheck, health insurance is one of the most
valuable things employees get in exchange for working for an
employer like Defendant. Insurance coverage has a monetary value,
the loss of which is a tangible and an economic injury.  And, not
only did Plaintiffs lose their insurance coverage, after they lost
their insurance they incurred medical bills resulting in further
economic injury, the lawsuit says.

Lowe's Companies, Inc., doing business as Lowe's, is an American
retail company specializing in home improvement. Headquartered in
Mooresville, North Carolina, the company operates a chain of retail
stores in the United States and Canada.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: 813-224-0431
          Facsimile: 813-229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com
                  reooke@wfclaw.com

MILLER'S ALE: Sosa Files Suit under ADA in New York
---------------------------------------------------
Miller's Ale House, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Miller's Ale House, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-10753 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2019).

Miller's Ale House is a Florida-based American restaurant and
sports bar chain which serves steaks, chicken, burgers, salads,
seafood, and similar items.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Zare Khorozian, Esq.
   Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
   1047 Anderson Avenue
   Fort Lee, NJ 07024
   Tel: (201) 957-7269
   Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com



MONEY SOURCE: Martinez Moves to Certify Class of Underwriters
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled ROBERTA MARTINEZ,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals v. THE MONEY SOURCE, INC., a corporation, Case No.
2:19-cv-00060-SVW-E (C.D. Cal.), moves, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, for entry of an order granting conditional
certification and approving a 60 day opt-in period for this
collective:

     All similarly situated current and former hourly wholesale
     underwriters who work or have worked for Defendant at any
     time in the past three years.

Ms. Martinez also asks the Court to: (1) require the Defendant to
identify all potential opt-ins within 14 days of the grant of
conditional certification by providing a list in electronic and
importable format, of their names, job titles, addresses, telephone
numbers, e-mail addresses, dates of employment, location of
employment, (2) approve the attached proposed form of notice and
authorizing it to be sent by U.S. Mail and e-mail to all potential
opt-in plaintiffs, along with a shortened text message notifying
each individual that the notice form was mailed and emailed; and
(3) allow a shortened reminder notice via e-mail and text message
to be sent 30 days thereafter to anyone, who did not respond.

The Court will commence a hearing on January 6, 2020, at 1:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 n. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Stoops, 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: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com


MORRIS HALL: Jones Seeks OT Wages for Nursing Assistants
--------------------------------------------------------
REGINA JONES, the Plaintiff, v. MORRIS HALL/ST. LAWRENCE, INC.,
d/b/a MORRIS HALL MEADOWS, Representative and/or Class Action
DARLENE HANLEY, THOMAS BOYLE, HUGH RONAN, and Unknown Supervisors
1-5 (names being fictitious), the Defendants, Case No.
MER-L-002110-19 (N.J. Super., Oct. 31, 2019), asserts claims
against Defendants' failure to pay premium pay for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, as required by the New Jersey Wage and
Hour Law both for Plaintiff and for all similarly situated Shabazim
and Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs). The Plaintiff seeks her
and the Class's earned but unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and interest, as well as
declaratory relief.

According to the claim, the bulk of the day-to-day care of the
elderly residents is provided by Shabazim, also known as a CNAs,
who engage in such activities as assisting in the feeding, bathing,
moving and taking basic medical measurements of the residents.

Each house at Morris Hall Meadows is staffed by a self-managed team
of workers called Shahbazim who are present at all times for the
needs, care and comfort of the elders. Each Shahbaz is carefully
selected for her or his ability to provide compassionate care to
each individual, and to thoughtfully monitor the elders'
well-being. They work in concert with the clinical support team to
constantly provide optimal care to each person in residence.

The Plaintiff and the other Shahbazim/CNAs were never paid for the
2.5 hours or more of work per week they performed and the services
rendered during their meal times.

The Defendants never paid Plaintiff and the other Shahbazim/CNAs
the premium pay for the 2.5 overtime time hours that Plaintiff and
and the other Shahbazim/CNAs worked each week, the lawsuit says.

Morris Hall is a duly licensed skilled nursing facility providing
residential care for its full-time residents.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          David Tykulsker, Esq.
          DAVID TYKULSKER & ASSOCIATES
          161 Walnut Street
          Montclair, NJ 07042
          Telephone: (973) 509-9292
          E-mail: David@dtesg.com

MV TRANSPORTATION: Shafer Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case titled TAMMY SHAFER, an individual; CARLOS SALAZAR, an
individual; and DOLORES FIERRO, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. MV TRANSPORTATION,
INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 19STCV37102, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 25, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-10070 to the
proceeding.

The Complaint asserts a single cause of action for civil penalties
under the California Private Attorneys General Act, asserting
claims for (1) failure to pay agreed-upon hourly rate of pay
outlined in the collective bargaining agreement in violation of
Labor Code; (2) failure to pay all earned overtime compensation in
violation of Labor Code; (3) failure to pay all earned wages at
least twice during each calendar month in violation of Labor Code;
(4) failure to furnish complete, accurate, itemized wage statements
in violation of Labor Code; and (5) failure to maintain accurate
payroll records in violation of Labor Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory G. Iskander, Esq..
          Michael W. Nelson, ESQ.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Treat Towers
          1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
          Walnut Creek, CA 94597
          Phone: 925.932.2468
          Facsimile: 925.946.9809
          Email: giskander@littler.com
                 mwnelson@littler.com


NORDSTROM INC: Nisbett Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nordstrom, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Kareem
Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Nordstrom, Inc. doing business as:
HauteLook, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10689 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 19,
2019).

Nordstrom Inc. is an American chain of luxury department stores,
also operating in Canada and headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
   New York, NY 10170-1830
   Tel: (212) 764-7171
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com



OASIS ENERGY: Feb. 11, 2020 Hearing Set for Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois disclosed that a Settlement has been reached in a class
action lawsuit, Albrecht v. Oasis Power, LLC d/b/a Oasis Energy,
No. 18-cv-1061 (N.D. Ill. 2018), about whether Oasis Power, LLC
d/b/a/ Oasis Energy incl. Censtar, Electricity Maine, Electricity
N.H., Major Energy, Perigee, Provider Power Mass, Respond Power,
Spark, and Verde (together, the "Oasis Entities") sent prerecorded
voicemail messages to mobile telephone numbers without prior
express written consent of the recipients in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 ("TCPA").
Oasis denies the allegations and any wrongdoing. The Court has not
decided who is right.

Who's Included?  Settlement Class Members include all individuals
within the United States (i) who were sent a prerecorded message,
also referred to a ringless voicemail, (ii) on his or her telephone
(iii) by or on behalf of the Oasis Entities advertising the Oasis
Entities' goods and services during the Class Period (February 12,
2014 through September 25, 2019).

Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Oasis Entities and their
affiliates, employees, officers, directors, agents, representatives
and their immediate family members; class counsel and the judge and
magistrate judge who have presided over the Action and their
immediate family members.

What does the Settlement provide?  To fully settle and release
claims of the Settlement Class Members, the Oasis Entities have
agreed to make payments to the Settlement Class Members and pay for
notice and administration costs of the Settlement, attorneys' fees
and expenses incurred by counsel for the Settlement Class, and a
service award for Plaintiff.  Defendant will make available
$7,000,000.00 (the "Settlement Fund"). Each Settlement Class Member
who submits a timely, valid, correct and verified Claim Form by the
Claim Deadline in the manner required by the Settlement Agreement
shall be sent a Cash Award.

What are the options of Settlement Class Members?  Settlement Class
Members have several options available to them as part of the
Settlement.  They can:

* File a claim. Members of the Settlement Class must submit a
completed Claim Form to receive a payment. Class Members may obtain
a Claim Form at the Settlement Website,
www.OasisEnergyTCPAsettlement.com, or by calling the Settlement
Administrator toll-free at 1-855-939-0540. Claim Forms can be
submitted by U.S. mail or through the Settlement Website, and must
be postmarked by February 20, 2020.

* Exclude themselves. Class Members who do not want benefits from
the Settlement, and want to keep the right to sue or continue to
sue the Oasis Entities on their own about the legal issues in this
case, must exclude themselves from the Settlement. Class Members
who exclude themselves cannot get money from this Settlement. To be
excluded from the Settlement, Class Members must send a letter
postmarked no later than December 7, 2019 to Oasis Energy TCPA
Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 4109, Portland, OR 97208-4109.

* Object. Settlement Class Member who do not exclude themselves
from the Settlement Class can object to any part of the Settlement.
All objections must be postmarked by December 7, 2019. The detailed
notice found at www.OasisEnergyTCPAsettlement.com further explains
how to object.

* Do nothing. Settlement Class members who do nothing, meaning they
do not file a timely Claim, will not get benefits from the
Settlement. Further, unless Class Members exclude themselves, they
will be bound by the judgment entered by the Court.

The Court has scheduled a Final Approval Hearing on February 11,
2020 to consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate. The Court will also consider the requests by Class
Counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses and for a Service Award to
the Class Representative.  Class Members do not need to attend the
hearing but they or their own attorney, if they have one, may ask
to appear and speak at the hearing at their own cost.

Getting more information? This Notice summarizes the proposed
Settlement. For a complete, definitive statement of the Settlement
terms, refer to the Settlement Agreement at
www.OasisEnergyTCPAsettlement.com  Class Members may also contact
the Settlement Administrator by calling the toll-free number,
1-855-939-0540, or by sending questions to Oasis Energy TCPA
Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 4109, Portland, OR 97208-4109.


PATAGONIA INC: Sosa Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------
Patagonia, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yony
Sosa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Patagonia, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10744
(S.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2019).

Patagonia, Inc. is an American clothing company that markets and
sells outdoor clothing. The company was founded by Yvon Chouinard
in 1973 and is based in Ventura, California. Its logo is the
outline of Mount Fitz Roy in the border between Chile and
Argentina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Zare Khorozian, Esq.
   Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
   1047 Anderson Avenue
   Fort Lee, NJ 07024
   Tel: (201) 957-7269
   Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com


PENNSYLVANIA: Massey Seeks Certification of SCI Prisoners Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled WESLEY A. MASSEY v. LEE ESTOCK,
et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00659-SPB (W.D. Pa.), seeks certification
of a class defined as:

     All persons who have been and are currently incarcerated at
     S.C.I. Pine Grove, who have been subject to the current
     "Razor Policy" and their storage in a communal box.  This
     includes any inmate that may have been exposed to or
     infected by infectious maladies or a venereal disease as a
     result of the razor policy.

Lee Estock is the superintendent at the State Correctional
Institution-Pine Grove, of the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections.

Mr. Massey also asks the Court to appoint class counsel, and seeks
injunctive relief on behalf of himself and the Class ordering the
Defendants to:

   (a) formulate and implement a policy that meets community
       standards and medical standards that control the handling
       of blood bourne pathogens, and reduces the risk of
       exposure to any infectious maladies;

   (b) provide treatment to members of the Class for any disease
       that was contracted during their incarceration at SCI Pine
       Grove with the appropriate medication and treatments at no
       cost to the plaintiffs/class; and

   (c) ensure that Class members receive ongoing monitoring and
       medical care per the standard of care required by each
       individual if they have been affected or exposed to any
       infectious maladies.  

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Smith Alleges Violation under FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Janice Smith, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-03333-BPG (D., Md., Nov. 20, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC provides debt recovery and
collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Aryeh E. Stein, Esq.
   Meridian Law LLC
   600 Reisterstown Road, Suite 700
   Baltimore, MD 21208
   Tel: (443) 326-6011
   Fax: (410) 653-9061
   Email: astein@meridianlawfirm.com


REALREAL INC: Faces Sanders Securities Suit Over IPO Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Sanders, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE REALREAL, INC., JULIE WAINWRIGHT, MATT GUSTKE,
STEVE LO, CHIP BAIRD, MAHA IBRAHIM, ROB KROLIK, MICHAEL KUMIN,
STEFAN LARSSON, NIKI LEONDAKIS, JAMES MILLER, CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA) LLC, BOFA SECURITIES, INC., UBS SECURITIES LLC,
KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC., STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, COWEN AND
COMPANY, LLC, and RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No.
3:19-cv-07737 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 25, 2019), is brought as a federal
securities on behalf of all persons and entities, other than the
Defendants, who purchased RealReal common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's Registration Statement issued in
connection with the Company's June 27, 2019 initial public
offering, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

On May 31, 2019, RealReal filed a registration statement for the
IPO on Form S-1, which, after several amendments, was declared
effective on June 27, 2019. On June 28, 2019, RealReal filed the
prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4, which incorporated and formed
part of the Registration Statement. By way of the Registration
Statement, the Defendants offered and sold 17.25 million shares at
$20 per share for approximately $345 million in gross offering
proceeds, which included the full exercise of the Underwriter
Defendants' over-allotment option to sell an additional 2.25
million shares. According the Company, the proceeds from the IPO
were to be used for general corporate purposes, including working
capital, operating expenses and capital expenditures.

The Registration Statement was negligently prepared and, as a
result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to
state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and
regulations governing its preparation, the Plaintiff contends.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's
employees received little training on how to spot fake items; (2)
the Company's strict quotas on its employees exacerbated product
authentication issues; (3) consequently, the potential for
counterfeit or mislabeled items to make it through Company's
authentication process was higher than disclosed; and (4) as a
result, the Defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On November 5, 2019, CNBC published an investigate report that
showed that the Company's authentication process was not as robust
as it led consumers to believe. CNBC spoke with "nearly three dozen
former employees and obtained internal company documents that show
not everything is authenticated by an expert and employees work
under strict quotas that lead to fakes being sold on the site."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.80 or over 19% over
the next two trading days to close at $19.37 on November 6, 2019.
Since the IPO, and as a result of the disclosure of material
adverse facts omitted from RealReal's Registration Statement,
RealReal's stock price has fallen below its IPO price, damaging the
Plaintiff and Class members, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased shares of RealReal common stock at
artificially inflated prices pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's IPO.

RealReal purports to operate as an online marketplace for consigned
luxury good.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 686-1060
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


REJUVENATION INC: Lopez Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
Rejuvenation Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Victor Lopez and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Rejuvenation Inc. d/b/a Rejuvenation Lighting &
Hardware, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10771 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 20,
2019).

Rejuvenation is an American manufacturer and direct marketer of
light fixtures and hardware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Singh Files Class Action Under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rubin & Rothman, LLC.
The case is styled as Surinder Singh, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rubin & Rothman, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-20552 (D., N.J., Nov. 20, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Rubin & Rothman, LLC is a New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and
Massachusetts creditor's rights law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
   17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
   Rutherford, NJ 07070
   Tel: (201) 507-6300
   Email: lh@hershlegal.com


SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, CA: Pierce Files Civil Rights Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against County of San
Francisco. The case is styled as Jillian Pierce, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. County of
San Francisco, Vicki Hennessy, San Francisco Sheriff's Department
Sheriff and Michele Fisher, San Francisco Sheriff's Department
Chief Deputy, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-07659-JSW (N.D., Cal.,
Nov. 20, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civil Rights:
Other filed pursuant to the Civil Rights Act.

San Francisco, officially City and County of San Francisco and
colloquially known as SF, San Fran, or "The City", is the cultural,
commercial, and financial center of Northern California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andrew Chan Kim, Esq.
   2603 Barclay Way
   Belmont, CA 94002
   Tel: (650) 339-2005
   Email: chan.a.kim@gmail.com


SANDALGROVE LLC: McGregor FHA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Jonaigh McGregor, individually and on behalf of
R.M., an infant, and all others similarly situated v. SANDALGROVE,
LLC; FRANKLIN JOHNSTON GROUP MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
SIGNATURE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; JOHN DOE 1-50; JOHN DOE
CORPORATION 1-50; JOHN DOE LLC 1-50; AND JOHN DOE ENTITY 1-50, was
removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit
in and for Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on Nov. 25, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:19-cv-62922-RAR to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings these claims: (a) Count 1--Fair Housing Act
discrimination against the Defendants; (b) Count 2--Breach of
implied warranty of habitability against the Defendants; (c) Count
3--Breach of express warranty against the Defendants; (d) Count
4--Nuisance against the Defendants; (e) Count 5--Strict liability
against John Doe defendants; (f) Count 6--Breach of implied
warranty against John Doe defendants; (g) Count 7--Violation of
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act against all
Defendants; (h) Count 8--Negligence per se against all the
Defendants; and (i) Count--Negligence against all the
Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel Rogatinsky, Esq.
          ROGATINSKY & MATTHEWS, PA
          3113 Stirling Road, Suite 103
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312
          Email: samr@rogatinskylaw.com

               - and -

          Renner K. Walker, Esq.
          LEVY KONIGSBERG, LLP
          800 3rd Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Email: rwalker@levylaw.com

               - and -

          Corey M. Stern, Esq.
          LEVY KONIGSBERG, LLP
          800 3rd Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Email: cstern@levylaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Benjamine Reid, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
          100 Southeast Second St., Suite 4200
          Miami, FL 33131-9101
          Phone: (305) 530-0050
          Facsimile: (305) 530-0055
          Email: bried@carltonfields.com

               - and -

          D. Matthew Allen, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
          Corporate Center Three at International Plaza
          4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 1000
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Phone: (813) 223-7000
          Facsimile: (813) 229-4133
          Email: mallen@carltonfields.com


SICHUAN GOURMET: Liu Moves for Certification of Class Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled LI LIU, Individually and on behalf of all
other employees similarly situated v. SICHUAN GOURMET II, LLC d/b/a
SICHUAN GOURMET, WEIXIANG YOU, YONGPENG XIA, ZHONG ZHUANG, Case No.
2:19-cv-01179-LPL (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff moves for class
certification.

The Plaintiff moves the Court for an order for conditional
collective action certification for the purpose of providing notice
to putative collective class members under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


TALBOTS INC: Sosa Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Talbots, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yony
Sosa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. The Talbots, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10748
(S.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2019).

Talbots is an American specialty retailer and direct marketer of
women's clothing, shoes and fashion accessories. As of 2018, the
company operated 495 Talbots stores in the United States: 425 core
Talbots stores, 65 Talbots Factory Outlets and five Talbots
Clearance stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Zare Khorozian, Esq.
   Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
   1047 Anderson Avenue
   Fort Lee, NJ 07024
   Tel: (201) 957-7269
   Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com


TIFFANY AND CO: Sosa Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany and Company is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yony
Sosa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Tiffany and Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10754
(S.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2019).

Tiffany & Co. is an American luxury jewelry and specialty retailer
headquartered in New York City. It sells jewelry, sterling silver,
china, crystal, stationery, fragrances, water bottles, watches,
personal accessories, and leather goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Zare Khorozian, Esq.
   Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
   1047 Anderson Avenue
   Fort Lee, NJ 07024
   Tel: (201) 957-7269
   Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com




TRADER JOE'S: Faces Meirose Suit for Failure to Pay Proper Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Meirose, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, a
California corporation; TRADER JOE'S EAST INC., a Massachusetts
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 19CV359018
(Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Nov. 25, 2019), is brought against
the Defendants for their failure to properly pay their employees,
in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants knew or should have known that the Plaintiff and
class members were entitled to receive certain wages for overtime
compensation and that they were not receiving certain wages for
overtime compensation. The Defendants knew or should have known
that they had a duty to compensate the Plaintiff and class members
for all hours worked, and that the Defendants had the financial
ability to pay such compensation, but willfully, knowingly, and
intentionally failed to do so, all in order to increase the
Defendants' profits, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly paid,
non-exempt Crew Member and Store Clerk from November 2009 to
December 2018.

The Defendants are a popular grocery store chain. The Defendants
have more than 184 store locations in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Drexler, Esq.
          Molly DeSario, Esq.
          Jonathan Lee, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          Email: Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com
                 Molly.DeSario@CapstoneLawyers.com
                 Jonathan.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com


TRANS-CONTINENTAL CREDIT: Faces Saric Suit Over FDCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Serge Saric, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. TRANS-CONTINENTAL CREDIT & COLLECTION CORP., Case No.
0:19-cv-62915-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 25, 2019), accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Defendant mailed a letter to the Plaintiff in an attempt to
collect an alleged consumer debt. The Collection Letter misstates
the law, and more critically, wrongfully causes the least
sophisticated consumer to believe that the Defendant is "permitted
under the law" to assume the underlying debt is valid if more than
30-days have passed since the Defendant sent the consumer its first
written notice concerning the underlying debt, the Plaintiff
contends.

In reality, the Defendant's ability to assume the validity of the
underlying debt does not arise until 30 days after the consumer
receives said written notice--not within 30 days of sending such
notice, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant falsely stated what it is permitted to do "under the
law," as well as misleads and/or deceives the least sophisticated
consumer with respect to the rights and/or protections afforded to
the consumer under the FDCPA.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, and a citizen of Broward County,
Florida.

The Defendant is a business entity engaged in the business of
soliciting consumer debts for collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-907-1136
          Fax: 855-529-9540
          Email: tom@jibraellaw.com
                 jibrael@jibraellaw.com


TWEEN BRANDS: Mendez Files Suit in New York Under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------
Tween Brands, Inc. d/b/a Justice is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Himelda Mendez, and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tween Brands, Inc. d/b/a Justice,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10767 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2019).

Tween Brands, Inc. operates Justice branded stores targeted towards
the tween girl market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com




UNDER ARMOUR RETAIL: Sosa Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Under Armour Retail, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Under Armour Retail, Inc. and Under Armour
Retail of New York, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10759 (S.D.
N.Y., Nov. 20, 2019).

Under Armour Retail, Inc. is an Activewear brand known for its
apparel, shoes & accessories designed for sports & fitness.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Zare Khorozian, Esq.
   Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
   1047 Anderson Avenue
   Fort Lee, NJ 07024
   Tel: (201) 957-7269
   Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com



UNITED STATES: Cissna Appeals Ruling in Galvez SIJS Suit to 9th Cir
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Lee Francis Cissna, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Leobardo Moreno Galvez, et al. v.
Lee Cissna, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00321-RSL, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Court
Judge Robert S. Lasnik granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.

The three named Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all
individuals who have been issued predicate Special Immigrant
Juvenile Status ("SIJS") orders by Washington state courts after
turning 18 years old but prior to turning 21 years old and have
submitted or will submit SIJS petitions to United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") prior to turning 21
years old.

The appellate case is captioned as Leobardo Moreno Galvez, et al.
v. Lee Cissna, et al., Case No. 19-35884, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees LEOBARDO MORENO GALVEZ, JOSE LUIS VICENTE
RAMOS and ANGEL DE JESUS MUNOZ OLIVERA, on behalf of themselves as
individuals and others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Matt Adams, Esq.
          Leila Kang, Esq.
          Aaron Korthuis, Esq.
          NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT
          615 Second Avenue, Suite 400
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 957-8608
          E-mail: matt@nwirp.org
                  leila@nwirp.org
                  aaron@nwirp.org

               - and -

          Meghan E. Casey, Esq.
          Tim Henry Warden-Hertz, Esq.
          NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT
          1119 Pacific Avenue, Suite 1400
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (206) 957-8651
          E-mail: meghan@nwirp.org
                  tim@nwirp.org

Defendants-Appellants LEE FRANCIS CISSNA, Director, United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary,
United States Department of Homeland Security; ROBERT COWAN,
Director, National Benefits Center; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; and UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
are represented by:

          Katelyn Masetta-Alvarez, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          450 5th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-0120

               - and -

          Matt Waldrop, Esq.
          DOJ-OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY
          700 Stewart Street
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 553-7970
          E-mail: james.waldrop@usdoj.gov


UNITED STATES: Passut Seeks to Certify Class in Suit v. DeVos
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled MARK PASSUT, et al. v. BETSY
DEVOS, in her official capacity as U.S. Secretary of Education, et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01606-RBW (D.D.C.), move for certification of
a class and for the appointment of their counsel as Class Counsel.

As stated in their Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs' proposed
Class consists of:

     [A]ll persons to whom the Department of Education issued
     loans to pay tuition or other expenses at schools owned or
     operated by ECA that were disbursed between June 12 and
     November 21, 2018 (the "interim recognition period").

The Education Corporation of America ("ECA") enrolled approximately
18,000 students, the majority of whom took out Department-issued
loans to pay tuition or other expenses for the Fall 2018 Term.  The
exact number and identity of the Class members is within the
Defendants' possession, the Plaintiffs assert.

This case turns on the legality of a single order issued by
Secretary Betsy DeVos on behalf of the Department of Education: her
April 2018 Order restoring the recognition of the Accrediting
Council of Independent Colleges and Schools ("ACICS").  Named
Plaintiffs Mark Passut and Mark Kaiser and the members of the
proposed Class were all enrolled at schools operated by the
Education Corporation of America ("ECA"), which were accredited
only by ACICS, and all took out loans from the Department to pay
tuition or other expenses to ECA schools during the fall of 2018.

The Plaintiffs contend that not one of those loans could have been
issued if not for Secretary DeVos's decision to restore ACICS's
recognition.  If Plaintiffs are correct that Secretary DeVos's
April 2018 Order was unlawful, rendering those loans void ab initio
or otherwise unenforceable, a single injunction or declaratory
judgment will provide relief to each member of the class, the
Plaintiffs point out.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey B. Dubner, Esq.
          John T. Lewis, Esq.
          DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION
          1333 H Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 448-9090
          E-mail: jdubner@democracyforward.org
                  jlewis@democracyforward.org

               - and -

          Eric Rothschild, Esq.
          Alexander S. Elson, Esq.
          NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK
          1015 15th Street NW, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 734-7495
          E-mail: eric@nsldn.org
                  alex@nsldn.org


WELLS FARGO: Issued Flawed Credit Reports, Moore FCRA Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nora Moore, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 3:19-cv-02252-JLS-MDD (S.D.
Cal., Nov. 25, 2019), is brought for damages arising out of the
systematic issuance of erroneous credit reports by the Defendant,
in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Defendant has erroneously reported continual monthly payment
obligations on accounts that have been closed and paid in full, the
Plaintiff asserts. Any violations by the Defendant were knowing and
intentional, the Plaintiff contends, adding the Defendant did not
maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid such violation.

The Plaintiff is a natural person who resided in the County of San
Diego, California.

The Defendant is a national bank authorizes to do business in the
State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (619) 233-7770
          Fax: (619) 297-1022
          Email: yana@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (619) 222-7429
          Fax: (866) 431-3292
          Email: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 103 Suits v Sempra Energy Units Pending at Oct. 28
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy's units have 103 asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuits pending as of October 28, 2019, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Certain EFH subsidiaries that we acquired as
part of the Merger are defendants in personal injury lawsuits
brought in state courts throughout the U.S. As of October 28, 2019,
103 such lawsuits are pending and 1,608 such lawsuits have been
filed but not served.  These cases allege illness or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos in power plants designed and/or
built by companies whose assets were purchased by predecessor
entities to the EFH subsidiaries, and generally assert claims for
product defects, negligence, strict liability and wrongful death.
They seek compensatory and punitive damages.  Additionally, in
connection with the EFH bankruptcy proceeding, approximately 28,000
proofs of claim were filed on behalf of persons who allege exposure
to asbestos under similar circumstances and assert the right to
file such lawsuits in the future.  We anticipate additional
lawsuits will be filed.  None of these claims or lawsuits were
discharged in the EFH bankruptcy proceeding."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ZhT04M


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 206 Cases vs. CECO Still Pending at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental Corp. is still defending itself against a total
of 206 asbestos-related cases pending as of September 30, 2019,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Our subsidiary, Met-Pro Technologies LLC
("Met-Pro"), beginning in 2002, began to be named in
asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a large number of
industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump
and fluid handling industries.  In management's opinion, the
complaints typically have been vague, general and speculative,
alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other defendants,
sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other
related actions which caused injuries (including death) and loss to
the plaintiffs.  Counsel has advised that more recent cases
typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma.  The
Company's insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the
Company, are vigorously defending these cases.  Many cases have
been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of
exposure to Met-Pro's products.  In those cases, where evidence has
been produced, the Company's experience has been that the exposure
levels are low and the Company's position has been that its
products were not a cause of death, injury or loss.  The Company
has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases.
Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through September 30, 2019
for cases involving asbestos-related claims were US$3.0 million, of
which, together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel
expenses, US$2.8 million has been paid by the Company's insurers.
The average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was
approximately US$35,000.

"Based upon the most recent information available to the Company
regarding such claims, there were a total of 206 cases pending
against the Company as of September 30, 2019 (with Illinois, New
York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of
cases), as compared with 208 cases that were pending as of December
31, 2018.  During the nine-months ended September 30, 2019, 51 new
cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed
from 45 cases and settled eight cases.  Most of the pending cases
have not advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although a
number of cases are on schedules leading to or scheduled for trial.
The Company believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for
the cases currently pending against the Company and for the
foreseeable future, assuming a continuation of the current volume,
nature of cases and settlement amounts.  However, the Company has
no control over the number and nature of cases that are filed
against it, nor as to the financial health of its insurers or their
position as to coverage.  The Company also presently believes that
none of the pending cases will have a material adverse impact upon
the Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial
condition."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/HQ29Bi


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 242 Talcum Suits vs. Colgate-Palmolive Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company is facing 242 individual cases pending in
state and federal courts throughout the United States as of
September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019.

Colgate-Palmolive states, "The Company has been named as a
defendant in civil actions alleging that certain talcum powder
products that were sold prior to 1996 were contaminated with
asbestos.  Most of these actions involve a number of co-defendants
from a variety of different industries, including suppliers of
asbestos and manufacturers of products that, unlike the Company's
products, were designed to contain asbestos.

"As of September 30, 2019, there were 242 individual cases pending
against the Company in state and federal courts throughout the
United States, as compared to 237 cases as of June 30, 2019 and 239
cases as of December 31, 2018.  During the three months ended
September 30, 2019, 26 new cases were filed and 21 cases were
resolved by voluntary dismissal, judgment in the Company's favor or
settlement.

"During the three months ended September 30, 2019, one case
resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the Company after a trial,
which has been appealed by the plaintiff.  During the nine months
ended September 30, 2019, 88 new cases were filed and 85 cases were
resolved by voluntary dismissal, dismissal by the court, judgment
in the Company's favor or settlement.  During the nine months ended
September 30, 2019, in addition to the jury verdict in favor of the
Company, which is now pending appeal, one case resulted in an
adverse jury verdict after a trial, which the Company is appealing.
The value of the settlements and of the adverse jury verdict in,
as applicable, the quarter and the year-to-date period presented
was not material, either individually or in the aggregate, to each
such period's results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/AL4LxD


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 364 Cases vs. AK Steel Still Pending at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation had 364 asbestos-related cases pending
at September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "...[S]ince 1990 we have been named as a
defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result
of exposure to asbestos.  The great majority of these lawsuits have
been filed on behalf of people who claim to have been exposed to
asbestos while visiting the premises of one of our current or
former facilities.  The majority of asbestos cases pending in which
we are a defendant do not include a specific dollar claim for
damages.  In the cases that do include specific dollar claims for
damages, the complaint typically includes a monetary claim for
compensatory damages and a separate monetary claim in an equal
amount for punitive damages, but does not attempt to allocate the
total monetary claim among the various defendants.

"Since the onset of asbestos claims against us in 1990, six
asbestos claims against us proceeded to trial in five separate
cases.  Five out of six claims concluded with a verdict in our
favor.

"Based upon present knowledge, and the factors above, we believe it
is unlikely that the resolution in the aggregate of the asbestos
claims against us will have a materially adverse effect on our
consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial
condition.  However, predictions about the outcome of pending
litigation, particularly claims alleging asbestos exposure, are
subject to substantial uncertainties.  These uncertainties include
(1) the significantly variable rate at which new claims may be
filed, (2) the effect of bankruptcies of other companies currently
or historically defending asbestos claims, (3) the litigation
process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case,
(4) the type and severity of the disease each claimant is alleged
to suffer, and (5) the potential for enactment of legislation
affecting asbestos litigation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/eHBtKh


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFG Records $18MM Increase for A&E Reserves in 3Q
------------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc.'s earnings before income taxes
include special charges of US$18 million in both the third quarter
of 2019 and 2018 to increase asbestos and environmental ("A&E")
reserves, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Ox6fNQ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel's Appeal in Oklahoma Case Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that its appeal remains pending
relating to a judgment entered on a jury verdict in an asbestos
case in state court in Oklahoma against a party that was
indemnified by the Company and another unrelated defendant.

The Company states, "On June 14, 2019, judgment was entered on a
jury verdict in an asbestos case in state court in Oklahoma against
a party that was indemnified by us and another unrelated defendant.
The judgment amount was US$8.1 against both defendants jointly and
severally.  We are appealing that judgment and intend to contest
the matter vigorously, which may include asserting contribution
claims against the other defendant.  We continue to vigorously
defend all asbestos claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/eHBtKh


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Still Defends Lawsuits at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019, that to date, no judgments have been rendered
against the Company as a result of any asbestos-related lawsuit.

AMETEK states, "The Company (including its subsidiaries) has been
named as a defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits.
Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business which was acquired
by the Company and do not involve products which were manufactured
or sold by the Company.  In connection with these lawsuits, the
seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the Company against
these claims (the "Indemnified Claims").  The Indemnified Claims
have been tendered to, and are being defended by, such seller.  The
seller has met its obligations, in all respects, and the Company
does not have any reason to believe such party would fail to
fulfill its obligations in the future.  To date, no judgments have
been rendered against the Company as a result of any
asbestos-related lawsuit.  The Company believes that it has good
and valid defenses to each of these claims and intends to defend
them vigorously."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ZPeGKv


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Had 106 Pending Talc Suits at September 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were 106 individual cases pending as of September 30, 2019
against Avon Products, Inc. related to allegations that certain
talc products the Company sold in the past were contaminated with
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

Avon Products states, "The Company has been named a defendant in
numerous personal injury lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, alleging
that certain talc products the Company sold in the past were
contaminated with asbestos.  Many of these actions involve a number
of co-defendants from a variety of different industries, including
manufacturers of cosmetics and manufacturers of other products
that, unlike the Company's products, were designed to contain
asbestos.  As of September 30, 2019, there were 106 individual
cases pending against the Company.  During the three months ended
September 30, 2019, 16 new cases were filed and 28 cases were
dismissed, settled, or otherwise resolved.  The value of our
settlements in this area thus far has not been material, either
individually or in the aggregate.  Additional similar cases arising
out of the use of the Company's talc products are reasonably
anticipated.

"We believe that the claims asserted against us in these cases are
without merit.  We are defending vigorously against these claims
and will continue to do so.  To date, the Company has not proceeded
to trial in any case filed against it and there have been no
findings of liability enforceable against the Company.  However,
nationwide trial results in similar cases filed against other
manufacturers of cosmetic talc products have ranged from outright
dismissals to very large jury awards of both compensatory and
punitive damages.  Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
we cannot predict the outcome of all individual cases pending
against the Company, and we are only able to make a reasonable
estimate for a small number of individual cases that have advanced
to the later stages of legal proceedings.  For the remaining cases,
we provide an estimate of exposure on an aggregated and ongoing
basis, which takes into account the historical outcomes of all
cases we have resolved to date.  Any accruals currently recorded on
the Company's balance sheet with respect to these cases are not
material.  Other than these accruals, we are at this time unable to
estimate our reasonably possible or probable losses.  However, any
adverse outcomes, either in an individual case or in the aggregate,
could be material.  Future costs to litigate these cases, which we
expense as incurred, are not known but may be significant, though
some costs will be covered by insurance."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3E7lJ4


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bausch Health US Still Defends Gutierrez Talc Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that subsidiary Bausch Health US,
LLC, continues to defend itself against a proposed class action in
California state court styled, Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson &
Johnson, et al., Case No. 37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL, related to
talcum powder products allegedly violating the California Safe
Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65).


The Company states, "On February 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a
pre-suit notice letter with the California Attorney General
notifying the Attorney General's office of their intent to file
suit after 60 days against the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries, alleging they committed violations of the California
Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition
65) by manufacturing and distributing Shower to Shower(R) that they
allege contained talc contaminated with asbestos, a listed
carcinogen.  That notice letter was served on the Company on
February 22, 2019.  By statute, a private lawsuit may not be filed
until at least 60 days have passed following service of this
pre-suit notice letter.

"In April 2019, rather than filing a lawsuit against Bausch Health
US, the plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaint in a
pending Proposition 65 lawsuit (Luna, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson,
et al., case 2:18-cv-04830-GW-KS) against Johnson & Johnson in
federal court in California to add Bausch Health US as a defendant.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit
without prejudice.  The court has ordered that the case be
dismissed without prejudice.

"On April 15, 2019, a plaintiff filed a pre-suit notice letter with
the California Attorney General notifying the Attorney General's
office of their intent to file suit after 60 days against the
Company and certain of its subsidiaries, alleging they committed
violations of Proposition 65 by manufacturing and distributing
Shower to Shower(R) that they allege contained silica, arsenic,
lead and chromium (hexavalent compounds), which they allege are
known to cause cancer and/or reproductive toxicity.  That notice
letter was served on the Company on April 18, 2019.  While the
statutory 60 days have passed before a private lawsuit may be
filed, no lawsuit has been filed to date.

"On June 19, 2019, plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in
California state court against Bausch Health US and Johnson &
Johnson (Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No.
37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL), asserting claims for purported
violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False
Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law in connection with their
sale of talcum powder products that the plaintiffs allege violated
Proposition 65 and/or the California Safe Cosmetics Act.  This
lawsuit was served on Bausch Health US on June 28, 2019 and was
subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, where it is currently pending.
Plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive
relief, and reimbursement/restitution.  The Company and Bausch
Health US dispute the claims against them and intend to defend this
lawsuit vigorously."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/0NdCBF


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Accrues $289MM for PI Matters at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC ("BNSF") has accrued US$289
million at September 30, 2019, for personal injury matters,
including asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019. The current portion of
this amount is US$85 million.

The Company states, "BNSF's personal injury liability includes the
cost of claims for employee work-related injuries, third-party
claims, and asbestos claims.  BNSF records a liability for asserted
and unasserted claims when the expected loss is both probable and
reasonably estimable.  Because of the uncertainty of the timing of
future payments, the liability is undiscounted.  Defense and
processing costs, which are recorded on an as-reported basis, are
not included in the recorded liability.  Expense accruals and
adjustments are classified as materials and other in the
Consolidated Statements of Income.

"Personal injury claims by BNSF Railway employees are subject to
the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)
rather than state workers' compensation laws.  Resolution of these
cases under the FELA's fault-based system requires either a finding
of fault by a jury or an out of court settlement.  Third-party
claims include claims by non-employees for compensatory damages and
may, from time to time, include requests for punitive damages or
treatment of the claim as a class action.

"BNSF estimates its personal injury liability claims and expense
using standard actuarial methodologies based on the covered
population, activity levels and trends in frequency, and the costs
of covered injuries.  The Company monitors actual experience
against the forecasted number of claims to be received, the
forecasted number of claims closing with payment, and expected
claim payments and records adjustments as new events or changes in
estimates develop.

"BNSF is party to asbestos claims by employees and non-employees
who may have been exposed to asbestos.  Because of the relatively
finite exposed population, the Company has recorded an estimate for
the full amount of probable exposure.  This is determined through
an actuarial analysis based on estimates of the exposed population,
the number of claims likely to be filed, the number of claims that
will likely require payment, and the cost per claim.  Estimated
filing and dismissal rates and average cost per claim are
determined utilizing recent claim data and trends.

"The amount recorded by the Company for the personal injury
liability is based upon the best information currently available.
Because of the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate outcome of
personal injury claims, it is reasonably possible that future costs
to resolve these claims may be different from the recorded amounts.
The Company estimates that costs to resolve the liability may
range from approximately US$245 million to US$345 million.

"Although the final outcome of these personal injury matters cannot
be predicted with certainty, it is the opinion of BNSF that none of
these items, when finally resolved, will have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial position or liquidity.  However,
the occurrence of a number of these items in the same period could
have a material adverse effect on the results of operations in a
particular quarter or fiscal year."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/dCEWP7


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Estimates $772MM Liability at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. estimates US$772 million as of September 30, 2019
for asbestos-related claims and associated costs through 2074,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Like many other industrial companies that have
historically operated in the United States, the Company, or parties
the Company is obligated to indemnify, continues to be named as one
of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions.
The Company has an estimated liability of US$772 million as of
September 30, 2019 for asbestos-related claims and associated costs
through 2074, which is the last date by which the Company currently
estimates it is likely to have resolved all asbestos-related
claims.  The Company additionally estimates that, as of September
30, 2019, it has aggregate insurance coverage available in the
amount of US$385 million to satisfy asbestos-related claims and
associated defense costs."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/VMdKYQ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Had 9,061 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. has 9,061 asbestos-related claims pending as of
September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Like many other industrial companies that have
historically operated in the United States, the Company, or parties
that the Company is obligated to indemnify, continues to be named
as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury
actions.  The Company vigorously defends against these claims.  The
Company has been successful in obtaining the dismissal of the
majority of the claims asserted against it without any payment.
Due to the nature of the fibers used in certain types of automotive
products, the encapsulation of the asbestos, and the manner of the
products' use, the Company believes that these products were and
are highly unlikely to cause harm.  Furthermore, the useful life of
nearly all of these products expired many years ago.  The Company
likewise expects that no payment on these claims will be made by
the Company or its insurance carriers in the vast majority of
current and future asbestos-related claims.  

"From the mid-2000s through September 30, 2019 and December 31,
2018, the Company incurred US$608 million and US$574 million,
respectively, in asbestos-related claim resolution costs (including
settlement payments and judgments) and associated defense costs.
During the nine months ended September 30, 2019 and 2018, the
Company paid US$32 million and US$37 million, respectively, in
asbestos-related claim resolution costs and associated defense
costs.  These gross payments are before tax benefits and any
potential insurance receipts.  Asbestos-related claim resolution
costs and associated defense costs are reflected in the Company's
operating cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/VMdKYQ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Working with SEC on Claims Accounting
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019, that it is cooperating with an SEC
investigation related to the Company's accounting for
asbestos-related claims not yet asserted.

The Company states, "On July 31, 2018, the Division of Enforcement
of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") informed the
Company that it is conducting an investigation related to the
Company's accounting for asbestos-related claims not yet asserted.
The Company is fully cooperating with the SEC in connection with
its investigation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/VMdKYQ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Accrues $7MM Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s subsidiary Consolidated Edison Company
of New York, Inc. (CECONY) had accrued liability of US$7 million
for asbestos suits at September 30, 2019, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

CECONY also deferred US$7 million as regulatory assets related to
asbestos suits at September 30, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/11vdLy


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Accrues $37MM for DuPont Suits at Sept 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company had an accrual of US$37 million related to
asbestos matters at September 30, 2019, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "In the separation, DuPont assigned its
asbestos docket to Chemours.  At September 30, 2019 and December
31, 2018, there were approximately 1,300 lawsuits pending against
DuPont alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos.  These
cases are pending in state and federal court in numerous
jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually set for trial.  A
small number of cases are pending outside of the U.S. Most of the
actions were brought by contractors who worked at sites between the
1950s and the 1990s.  A small number of cases involve similar
allegations by DuPont employees or household members of contractors
or DuPont employees.  Finally, certain lawsuits allege personal
injury as a result of exposure to DuPont products."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/rtYoGa


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $63.3MM Accrued Liability at Sept. 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had accrued asbestos-related liability of
US$63,339,000 as of September 27, 2019, compared with US$56,045,000
as of December 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2019.

The Company also disclosed long-term asbestos liability of
US$268,675,000 at September 27, 2019 compared with US$288,962,000
at December 31, 2018.

The accrued liability represents current accruals for probable and
reasonably estimable asbestos-related liability costs that the
Company believes the subsidiaries will pay, and unpaid legal costs
related to defending themselves against asbestos-related liability
claims and legal action against the Company's insurers, which is
included in Accrued liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets.

The Company states, "Management's analyses are based on currently
known facts and assumptions.  Projecting future events, such as new
claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving each
claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method in
which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies,
interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms
and limits and their interrelationships, the continuing solvency of
various insurance companies, the amount of remaining insurance
available, as well as the numerous uncertainties inherent in
asbestos litigation could cause the actual liabilities and
insurance recoveries to be higher or lower than those projected or
recorded which could materially affect the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flow."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/IUBSdS


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 16,173 Unresolved Claims at Sept. 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had 16,173 unresolved claims related to asbestos
matters as of September 27, 2019, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 27, 2019.

The Company also disclosed that in the nine months ended September
27, 2019, there were 3,360 claims filed and 3,604 resolved.

The Company states, "Claims filed include all asbestos claims for
which notification has been received or a file has been opened.

"Claims resolved include all asbestos claims that have been
settled, dismissed or that are in the process of being settled or
dismissed based upon agreements or understandings in place with
counsel for the claimants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/IUBSdS


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Liability at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc. had accrued liability of US$8 million for
asbestos suits at September 30, 2019, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.  The Company
also deferred US$8 million as regulatory assets related to asbestos
suits at September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Suits have been brought in New York State and
federal courts against the Utilities and many other defendants,
wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of
compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the
Utilities.  The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have
been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts
that were not, in the aggregate, material to them.  The amounts
specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of
dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are
greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims.

"At September 30, 2019, Con Edison and CECONY have accrued their
estimated aggregate undiscounted potential liabilities for these
suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15
years.  These estimates were based upon a combination of modeling,
historical data analysis and risk factor assessment.  Courts have
begun, and unless otherwise determined on appeal may continue, to
apply different standards for determining liability in asbestos
suits than the standard that applied historically.  As a result,
the Companies currently believe that there is a reasonable
possibility of an exposure to loss in excess of the liability
accrued for the suits.  The Companies are unable to estimate the
amount or range of such loss.

"In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or
are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged
disability from exposure to asbestos.  CECONY is permitted to defer
as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs
incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation
claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/11vdLy


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Spent $16MM for Manhattan Incident
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc. has incurred estimated operating costs of
US$16 million as of September 30, 2019, for property damage,
clean-up and other response costs related to the rupture of a steam
main owned by its subsidiary in Manhattan, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.  The
Company has also invested US$10 million in capital and retirement
costs as of September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "In July 2018, a CECONY steam main located on
Fifth Avenue and 21st Street in Manhattan ruptured.  Debris from
the incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos.  The
response to the incident required the closing of buildings and
streets for various periods.  The NYSPSC has commenced an
investigation.  As of September 30, 2019, with respect to the
incident, the company incurred estimated operating costs of US$16
million for property damage, clean-up and other response costs and
invested US$10 million in capital and retirement costs.  The
company has notified its insurers of the incident and believes that
the policies currently in force will cover the company's costs, in
excess of a required retention (the amount of which is not
material), to satisfy any liability it may have for damages to
others in connection with the incident.  The company is unable to
estimate the amount or range of its possible loss related to the
incident.  At September 30, 2019, the company had not accrued a
liability related to the incident."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/11vdLy


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $284MM Accrual at September 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. (fka Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc.) had an accrual
of $284 million for pending and future asbestos-related claims and
related legal costs as of September 30, 2019, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with
plaintiffs' counsel in certain jurisdictions with respect to claims
which are not yet filed, or asserted, against it.  However, Crown
Cork expects claims under these arrangements to be filed or
asserted against Crown Cork in the future.  The projected value of
these claims is included in the Company's estimated liability as of
September 30, 2019.

"As of September 30, 2019, the Company's accrual for pending and
future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was US$284,
including US$229 for unasserted claims.  The Company determines its
accrual without limitation to a specific time period.

"It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess
of the Company's accrual.  However, the Company is unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due
to uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the
Company's accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such
accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant (which was
not specified for approximately 81% of the claims outstanding at
the end of 2018), the Company and claimant's willingness to
negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other
defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy
filings of other defendants (which may result in additional claims
and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the nature of
pending and future claims (including the seriousness of alleged
disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos before
or during 1964 and the claimant's ability to demonstrate the
alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of the litigation
environment, the defense strategies available to the Company, the
level of future claims, the rate of receipt of claims, the
jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the effect of state
asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of
the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions,
where the substantial majority of the Company's asbestos cases are
filed)."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/erPHH8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 56,000 Claims at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. (fka Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc.) had 56,000
outstanding claims related to asbestos matters as of September 30,
2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. ("Crown Cork")
is one of many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed
throughout the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury as a result
of exposure to asbestos.  These claims arose from the insulation
operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown
Cork purchased in 1963.  Approximately ninety days after the stock
purchase, this U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was
later merged into Crown Cork.

"Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by
a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with
carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became
self-insured.  The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has no
remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

"In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger
to companies involved with asbestos.  The legislation limits the
successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset
value adjusted for inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly
more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired company's
adjusted asset value.

"In November 2004, the legislation was amended to address a
Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli v. AC&S Corporation,
et al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the statute violated the
Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive application.  The
Company cautions that the limitations of the statute, as amended,
are subject to litigation and may not be upheld.

"In June 2003, the state of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such
as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because
they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos.  The Texas legislation, which applies to
future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities
at the total gross value of the predecessor's assets adjusted for
inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly more for
asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its
predecessor's assets.

"In October 2010, the Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas
legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution when
applied to asbestos-related claims pending against Crown Cork when
the legislation was enacted in June 2003.  The Company believes
that the decision of the Texas Supreme Court is limited to
retroactive application of the Texas legislation to
asbestos-related cases that were pending against Crown Cork in
Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore, in its accrual, continues to
assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003.

"In recent years, the states of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West
Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming enacted legislation that limits
asbestos-related liabilities under state law of companies such as
Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they
are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos.  The legislation, which applies to future
and, with the exception of Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, South
Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming, pending claims, caps
asbestos-related liabilities at the fair market value of the
predecessor's total gross assets adjusted for inflation.  Crown
Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than
the total value of its predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation.
Crown Cork has integrated the legislation into its claims defense
strategy.

"The Company further cautions that an adverse ruling in any
litigation relating to the constitutionality or applicability to
Crown Cork of one or more statutes that limits the asbestos-related
liability of alleged defendants like Crown Cork could have a
material impact on the Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/erPHH8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Still Defends Suits at September 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that to date, the Company has not
been found liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement
in any case.

The Company states, "We have been named in pending lawsuits that
allege injury from exposure to asbestos.  To date, we have not been
found liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any
case.  We believe that the minimal use of asbestos in our past
operations as well as our acquired businesses and the relatively
non-friable condition of asbestos in our historical products make
it unlikely that we will face material liability in any asbestos
litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate.  We maintain
insurance coverage and indemnification agreements for these
potential liabilities and we believe adequate coverage exists to
cover any unanticipated asbestos liability."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/tBbdHa


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Had $6.7MM Asbestos Coverage at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enpro Industries, Inc. had approximately US$6.7 million of
insurance coverage for asbestos claims payments and certain expense
payments as of September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "The historical business operations of certain
of our subsidiaries resulted in a substantial volume of asbestos
litigation in which plaintiffs alleged personal injury or death as
a result of exposure to asbestos fibers.  In 2010, certain of these
subsidiaries, including Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC ("GST"),
filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of
the United States Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Western District of North Carolina (the "Bankruptcy Court").
An additional subsidiary filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition
with the Bankruptcy Court in 2017.  The filings were part of a
claims resolution process for an efficient and permanent resolution
of all pending and future asbestos claims through court approval of
a plan of reorganization to establish a facility to resolve and pay
these asbestos claims.

"These claims against GST and other subsidiaries were resolved
pursuant to a joint plan of reorganization (the "Joint Plan") filed
with the Bankruptcy Court which was consummated on July 29, 2017.
Under the Joint Plan, GST and EnPro Holdings retained their rights
to seek reimbursement under insurance policies for any amounts they
have paid in the past to resolve asbestos claims, including
contributions made to the asbestos claims resolution trust
established under the Joint Plan (the "Trust").  These policies
include a number of primary and excess general liability insurance
policies that were purchased by EnPro Holdings and were in effect
prior to January 1, 1976 (the "Pre-Garlock Coverage Block").  The
policies provide coverage for "occurrences" happening during the
policy periods and cover losses associated with product liability
claims against EnPro Holdings and certain of its subsidiaries.
Asbestos claims against GST are not covered under these policies
because GST was not a subsidiary of EnPro Holdings prior to 1976.
The Joint Plan provides that EnPro Holdings may retain the first
US$25 million of any settlements and judgments collected for
non-GST asbestos claims related to insurance policies in the
Pre-Garlock Coverage Block and EnPro Holdings and the Trust will
share equally in any settlements and judgments EnPro Holdings may
collect in excess of US$25 million.  To date, EnPro Holdings has
collected almost US$22 million in settlements for non-GST asbestos
claims from the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block and anticipates further
collections once the Trust begins making claims payments.

"As of September 30, 2019, approximately US$6.7 million of
available products hazard limits or insurance receivables existed
under primary and excess general liability insurance policies other
than the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block (the "Garlock Coverage Block")
from solvent carriers with investment grade ratings, which we
believe is available to cover GST asbestos claims payments and
certain expense payments, including contributions to the Trust.  We
consider such amount of available insurance coverage under the
Garlock Coverage Block to be of high quality because the insurance
policies are written or guaranteed by U.S.-based carriers whose
credit rating by S&P is investment grade (BBB-) or better, and
whose AM Best rating is excellent (A-) or better.  The remaining
US$6.7 million is available to pending and estimated future claims.
There are specific agreements in place with carriers regarding the
remaining available coverage.  Based on those agreements and the
terms of the policies in place and prior decisions concerning
coverage, we believe that all of the US$6.7 million of insurance
proceeds will ultimately be collected, although there can be no
assurance that the insurance companies will make the payments as
and when due.  Assuming the insurers pay according to the
agreements and policies, we anticipate that US$4.2 million will be
collected in the fourth quarter of 2019 and US$2.5 million will be
collected in 2020.

"We also believe that EnPro Holdings will bill, and could collect
over time, as much as US$10 million of insurance coverage for
non-GST asbestos claims to reimburse it for Trust payments to
non-GST Trust claimants.  After EnPro Holdings collects the first
approximately US$3 million of that coverage, remaining collections
for non-GST asbestos claims from the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block
will be shared equally with the Trust.

"GST has received US$8.8 million of insurance recoveries from
insolvent carriers since 2007, and may receive additional payments
from insolvent carriers in the future.  No anticipated insolvent
carrier collections are included in the US$6.7 million of
anticipated collections.  The insurance available to cover current
and future asbestos claims is from comprehensive general liability
policies that cover EnPro Holdings and certain of its other
subsidiaries in addition to GST for periods prior to 1985 and
therefore could be subject to potential competing claims of other
covered subsidiaries and their assignees."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/mI5opQ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Had US$83MM Reserves at September 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
had US$83 million at September 30, 2019 for asbestos-related bodily
injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019.

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

"At September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, Exelon and Generation
had recorded estimated liabilities of approximately US$83 million
and US$79 million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related
bodily injury claims.  As of September 30, 2019, approximately
US$25 million of this amount related to 257 open claims presented
to Generation, while the remaining US$58 million is for estimated
future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise
through 2055, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which
are updated on an annual basis.  On a quarterly basis, Generation
monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims
to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates whether
adjustments to the estimated liabilities are necessary."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/TwxIjh


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FCX Unit Still Defends Talc Suits at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (NYSE: FCX) disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that its indirect wholly owned
subsidiary remains a target in cases related to asbestos
contamination matters.

The Company states, "...[T]here has been a significant increase in
the number of cases alleging the presence of asbestos contamination
in talc-based personal care products and in cases alleging exposure
to talc products that are not alleged to be contaminated with
asbestos.  The primary targets have been the producers of those
products, but defendants in many of these cases also include talc
miners.  Cyprus Amax Minerals Company (CAMC), an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of FCX, and Cyprus Mines Corporation (Cyprus
Mines), a wholly owned subsidiary of CAMC, are among those targets.
Cyprus Mines was engaged in talc mining from 1964 until 1992 when
it exited its talc business by conveying it to a third party in two
related transactions.  Those transactions involved (i) a transfer
by Cyprus Mines of the assets of its talc business to a newly
formed subsidiary that assumed all pre-sale and post-sale talc
liabilities, subject to limited reservations, and (ii) a sale of
the stock of that subsidiary to the third party.  In 2011, the
third party sold that subsidiary to Imerys Talc America (Imerys),
an affiliate of Imerys S.A."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/pvPO1N


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation continues to defend itself against lawsuits
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly
contained in or accompanying its products, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly
contained in or accompanying our products.  We are a co-defendant
with numerous other defendants in these lawsuits and intend to
vigorously defend ourselves against these claims.  The claims in
our current lawsuits are similar to those made in previous asbestos
lawsuits that named us as a defendant.  Such previous lawsuits
either were dismissed when it was shown that we had not supplied
products to the plaintiffs' places of work or were settled by us
for immaterial amounts."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3Jy7DY


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Had $827.8-Mil. Liability at September 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Inc. had an undiscounted asbestos-related liability of US$827.8
million as of September 30, 2019, for pending claims and unasserted
claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2019.

The Company states, "Subsidiaries of ITT, ITT LLC and Goulds Pumps
LLC, are joined as a defendant with numerous other companies in
product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos
exposure.  These claims allege that certain of their products sold
prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a third party (e.g.,
a gasket) which contained asbestos.  To the extent these
third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was encapsulated
in the gasket (or other) material and was non-friable.  Frequently,
the plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC or Goulds Pumps
LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure.  In addition, a
large majority of claims pending against the Company's subsidiaries
have been placed on inactive dockets because the plaintiff cannot
demonstrate a significant compensable loss.  Our experience to date
is that a substantial portion of resolved claims have been
dismissed without payment by the Company's subsidiaries.

"We record a liability for pending asbestos claims and asbestos
claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years.  While it is
probable that we will incur additional costs for future claims to
be filed against the Company, a liability for potential future
claims beyond the next 10 years is not reasonably estimable due to
the variables and uncertainties inherent in the long-term
projection of the Company's asbestos exposures and potential
recoveries.  As of September 30, 2019, we have recorded an
undiscounted asbestos-related liability for pending claims and
unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years of
US$827.8 million, including expected legal fees, and an associated
asset of US$407.1 million which represents estimated recoveries
from insurers, resulting in a net asbestos exposure of US$420.7
million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/PyQYHb


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 24,000 Claims Pending at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Inc.'s subsidiaries had 24,000 pending asbestos-related claims
at September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Subsidiaries of ITT, including ITT LLC and
Goulds Pumps LLC, have been sued, along with many other companies
in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to
asbestos exposure.  These claims generally allege that certain
products sold by our subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part
manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained
asbestos.  To the extent these third-party parts may have contained
asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and
was non-friable.  As of September 30, 2019, there were
approximately 24 thousand pending claims against ITT subsidiaries,
including Goulds Pumps LLC, filed in various state and federal
courts alleging injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.

"Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC or
Goulds Pumps LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure.  Our
experience to date is that a majority of resolved claims are
dismissed without any payment from ITT subsidiaries.  Management
believes that a large majority of the pending claims have little or
no value.  In addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed in
large groups, the average cost per resolved claim can fluctuate
significantly from period to period.  ITT expects more
asbestos-related suits will be filed in the future, and ITT will
continue to aggressively defend or seek a reasonable resolution, as
appropriate.

"Asbestos litigation is a unique form of litigation.  Frequently,
the plaintiff sues a large number of defendants and does not state
a specific claim amount.  After filing a complaint, the plaintiff
engages defendants in settlement negotiations to establish a
settlement value based on certain criteria, including the number of
defendants in the case.  Rarely do the plaintiffs seek to collect
all damages from one defendant.  Rather, they seek to spread the
liability, and thus the payments, among many defendants.  As a
result of this and other factors, the Company is unable to estimate
the maximum potential exposure to pending claims and claims
estimated to be filed over the next 10 years."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/PyQYHb


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaman Corp. Still Defends Suits at September 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaman Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 27, 2019, that based on information currently available,
it does not believe that the resolution of any currently pending
asbestos-related matters will have a material adverse effect on its
business, financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.

The Company states, "Like many other industrial companies, the
Company and/or one of its subsidiaries may be named as a defendant
in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos within a facility of the Company or integrated into
certain products sold or distributed by the Company and/or the
named subsidiary.  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 rest have been
resolved for amounts that are not material to the Company, either
individually or in the aggregate.  Based on information currently
available, we do not believe that the resolution of any currently
pending asbestos-related matters will have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/riwNFp


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 11,700 PI Cases at Sept. 27
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc has approximately 11,700 asbestos-related cases
pending as of September 27, 2019, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 27, 2019.

The Company states, "Beginning with lawsuits brought in July 1976,
the Company is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits
based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials.  A
majority of the cases involve product liability claims based
principally on allegations of past distribution of products
containing asbestos.  A limited number of the cases allege premises
liability based on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos
while on the Company's property.  Each case typically names dozens
of corporate defendants in addition to the Company.  The complaints
generally seek monetary damages for personal injury or bodily
injury resulting from alleged exposure to products containing
asbestos.  The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been
limited because it did not mine or produce asbestos.  Furthermore,
in the Company's experience, a large percentage of these claims
have never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the
courts.  The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial
court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to continue
to defend these lawsuits.  When appropriate, the Company settles
claims; however, amounts paid to settle and defend all asbestos
claims have been immaterial.  As of September 27, 2019, there were
approximately 11,700 asbestos-related cases pending against the
Company.

"The Company estimates pending asbestos claims, claims that were
incurred but not reported and related insurance recoveries, which
are recorded on a gross basis in the unaudited condensed
consolidated balance sheets.  The Company's estimate of its
liability for pending and future claims is based on claims
experience over the past five years and covers claims either
currently filed or expected to be filed over the next seven years.
The Company believes that it has adequate amounts recorded related
to these matters.  While it is not possible at this time to
determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these
asbestos-related proceedings, the Company believes, given the
information currently available, that the ultimate resolution of
all known and anticipated future claims, after taking into account
amounts already accrued, along with recoveries from insurance, will
not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/p1U8p7


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Int'l Still Faces Suits at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019, that it is a defendant in numerous
lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos at various
locations.

The Company states, "We review and defend each case on its own
merits and make accruals based on the probability of loss and best
estimates of potential loss.  We do not believe any unresolved
asserted claim will have a material adverse effect on our future
results of operations, financial position or cash flow.  With
respect to unasserted asbestos claims, we cannot identify a
population of potential claimants with sufficient certainty to
determine the probability of loss or estimate future losses.  We do
not believe a risk of material loss is probable related to these
matters, and, accordingly, our reserves were not significant as of
September 30, 2019.  While we continue to pursue recovery for
recognized and unrecognized contingent losses through insurance,
indemnification arrangements and other sources, we are unable to
quantify the amount that we may recover because of the variability
in coverage amounts, limitations and deductibles or the viability
of carriers, with respect to our insurance policies for the years
in question."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/kzrK7z


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Had 2,493 New Claims in Jan-Sept 2019
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
received approximately 2,493 new asbestos-related claims during the
nine months ended September 30, 2019, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large
number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts.
These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs
suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and
seek both actual and punitive damages.  MLIC has never engaged in
the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC issued
liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products.  The lawsuits principally
have focused on allegations with respect to certain research,
publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC's employees
during the period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's
and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain
health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly
publicized or failed to disclose those health risks.  MLIC believes
that it should not have legal liability in these cases.  The
outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain
and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in
legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged
injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the
claims asserted against MLIC.  MLIC employs a number of resolution
strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking
resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling
individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate
circumstances.

"Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence, intentional
tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with
asbestos.  MLIC's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the
plaintiffs— it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs
and did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos
products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not
rely on any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause
of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred
after the dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable
time with respect to filing suit has expired.  During the course of
the litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions
dismissing claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have
denied MLIC's motions.  There can be no assurance that MLIC will
receive favorable decisions on motions in the future.  While most
cases brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to
defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure,
including defending claims at trials.

"As reported in the 2018 Annual Report, MLIC received approximately
3,359 asbestos-related claims in 2018.  For the nine months ended
September 30, 2019 and 2018, MLIC received approximately 2,493 and
2,558 new asbestos-related claims, respectively.  The number of
asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount of any
liability that MLIC may incur, and the total amount paid in
settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary
significantly from year to year.

"The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is
subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting
its liability can be dynamic and subject to change.  The
availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to
predict the numerous variables that can affect liability estimates,
including the number of future claims, the cost to resolve claims,
the disease mix and severity of disease in pending and future
claims, the impact of the number of new claims filed in a
particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in the
jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact of
tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs
to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to asbestos took place
after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the
impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts.

"The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure
declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in
the future.  In the Company's judgment, there is a future point
after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable.
It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to
asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos
liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may
be necessary.  While the potential future charges could be material
in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are
recorded, based on information currently known by management,
management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a
material effect on the Company's financial position.

"The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for asbestos-related claims.  MLIC's recorded
asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following
elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its
understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the
probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims
already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not yet
paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for
asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC
believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal
defense costs associated with the foregoing claims.  Significant
assumptions underlying MLIC's analysis of the adequacy of its
recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation include: (i)
the number of future claims; (ii) the cost to resolve claims; and
(iii) the cost to defend claims.

"MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from
asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience,
reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience
in the United States, assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos
liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its
asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis.
These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved in
asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the
number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of
new claims filed against it and other defendants and the
jurisdictions in which claims are pending.  Based upon its regular
reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has
updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through
September 30, 2019."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/c98gNd


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 91 Cases at Sept. 29
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. has 91 pending asbestos cases, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 29,
2019.

The Company states, "Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are
among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for
exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials.  The
Company currently has three pending silica cases and 91 pending
asbestos cases.  To date, 1,493 silica cases and 61 asbestos cases
have been dismissed, not including any lawsuits against AMCOL or
American Colloid Company dismissed prior to our acquisition of
AMCOL.  Twenty nine and forty nine new asbestos cases were filed
during the three and nine months ended September 29, 2019,
respectively, and 9 additional asbestos cases were filed subsequent
to the end of the third quarter.  Two asbestos cases and no silica
cases were dismissed during the first nine months of 2019.  Most of
these claims do not provide adequate information to assess their
merits, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable, or
the magnitude of such liability, if any.  Additional claims of this
nature may be made against the Company or its subsidiaries.  At
this time management anticipates that the amount of the Company's
liability, if any, and the cost of defending such claims, will not
have a material effect on its financial position or results of
operations.

"The Company has settled only one silica lawsuit, for a nominal
amount, and no asbestos lawsuits to date (not including any that
may have been settled by AMCOL prior to completion of the
acquisition).  We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts
claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading
practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed
damage.  The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of
these cases since inception continues to be insignificant.  The
majority of the costs of defense for these cases, excluding cases
against AMCOL or American Colloid, are reimbursed by Pfizer Inc.
pursuant to the terms of certain agreements entered into in
connection with the Company's initial public offering in 1992.  The
Company is entitled to indemnification, pursuant to agreement, for
sales prior to the initial public offering.  Of the 91 pending
asbestos cases, 76 of the non-AMCOL cases are subject to
indemnification, in whole or in part, because the plaintiffs claim
liability based on sales of products that occurred either entirely
before the initial public offering, or both before and after the
initial public offering.  In nine of the eleven remaining non-AMCOL
cases, the plaintiffs have not alleged dates of exposure
sufficiently to determine indemnity obligations at this time, and
in the remaining two non-AMCOL cases, exposure is alleged to have
been after the Company's initial public offering in 1992.  The
remaining four cases involve AMCOL only, so no Pfizer indemnity is
available.  Our experience has been that the Company is not liable
to plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits and the Company does not
expect to pay any settlements or jury verdicts in these lawsuits."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/rBhrxH


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Still Faces 594 Lawsuits at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
MRC Global Inc. is still facing approximately 594 asbestos-related
lawsuits involving approximately 1,170 claims as of September 30,
2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits that
plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries that
exposure to asbestos allegedly caused.  Plaintiffs and their family
members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume of
defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture,
distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos
containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly
caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos.  These plaintiffs
typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of
third-party manufactured products that our MRC Global (US) Inc.
subsidiary purportedly distributed.

"As of September 30, 2019, we are named a defendant in
approximately 594 lawsuits involving approximately 1,170 claims.
No asbestos lawsuit has resulted in a judgment against us to date,
with a majority being settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved.
Applicable third-party insurance has substantially covered these
claims, and insurance should continue to cover a substantial
majority of existing and anticipated future claims.  Accordingly,
we have recorded a liability for our estimate of the most likely
settlement of asserted claims and a related receivable from
insurers for our estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that
the amounts of recovery are probable.  It is not possible to
predict the outcome of these claims and proceedings.  However, in
our opinion, the likelihood that the ultimate disposition of any of
these claims and legal proceedings will have a material adverse
effect on our consolidated financial statements is remote."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/pW4W8y


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Still Responsible for Cases at Sept. 28
------------------------------------------------------------------
OfficeMax continues to retain its responsibility for all pending
and future asbestos-related proceedings related to a former
operation, according to Office Depot, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 28, 2019.

The Company states, "OfficeMax is named as a defendant in a number
of lawsuits, claims, and proceedings arising out of the operation
of certain paper and forest products assets prior to those assets
being sold in 2004, for which OfficeMax agreed to retain
responsibility.  Also, as part of that sale, OfficeMax agreed to
retain responsibility for all pending or threatened proceedings and
future proceedings alleging asbestos-related injuries arising out
of the operation of the paper and forest products assets prior to
the closing of the sale.  The Company has made provision for losses
with respect to the pending proceedings.  Additionally, as of
September 28, 2019, the Company has made provision for
environmental liabilities with respect to certain sites where
hazardous substances or other contaminants are or may be located.
For these liabilities, our estimated range of reasonably possible
losses was approximately US$10 million to US$20 million.  The
Company regularly monitors its estimated exposure to these
liabilities.  As additional information becomes known, these
estimates may change, however, the Company does not believe any of
these OfficeMax retained proceedings are material to the Company's
financial position, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/tl3vrp


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Units Still Face Suits at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries continue to defend themselves
in legal proceedings on alleged asbestos exposures, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2019.

The Company states, "We, and our subsidiaries, are defendants in
various other legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged
exposures to asbestos) incidental to our past and current business
activities.  As of September 30, 2019, December 31, 2018 and
September 30, 2018, our condensed balance sheets included accrued
liabilities for these other legal actions of US$13.2 million,
US$15.6 million and US$14.8 million, respectively.  These
liabilities do not include costs associated with legal
representation.  Based on our analysis, and considering the
inherent uncertainties associated with litigation, we do not
believe that it is reasonably possible that these other legal
actions will materially adversely affect our financial position,
cash flows or results of operations.  In connection with the
October 5, 2015 acquisition of Dow's U.S. Chlor Alkali and Vinyl,
Global Chlorinated Organics and Global Epoxy businesses, the prior
owner of the businesses retained liabilities related to litigation
to the extent arising prior to October 5, 2015."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/rUUs0j


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Defends 113 Cases at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. is a co-defendant in approximately 113
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 217 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to
production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought.  To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are three asbestos cases, involving 19 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages against named defendants.  In each of the
three cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of
action.  In two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at
US$3.0 million compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at
US$3.0 million compensatory and US$1.0 million punitive damages;
one count at US$1.0 million.  In the third case, the plaintiff has
alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of
US$20.0 million, for three separate causes of action, and US$5.0
million compensatory damages for the fifth cause of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing
product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.  We intend
to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will
continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation.  Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations.  Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases mentioned; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against
one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been
unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products
or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or
compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have
incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and
(e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and,
in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual
defendants.  Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts
claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of
our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear
no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date
and, based upon available information, our management does not
expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or
financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/WGcS60


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regency Centers Has $9.7-Mil. Cleanup Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regency Centers Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that together with its Investments
in real estate partnerships, it had accrued liabilities of US$9.7
million for its pro-rata share of environmental remediation, which
includes the existence of asbestos in older shopping centers.

The Company states, "We are subject to numerous environmental laws
and regulations as they apply to our shopping centers pertaining
primarily to chemicals used by the dry cleaning industry, the
existence of asbestos in older shopping centers, and underground
petroleum storage tanks.  We believe that the tenants who currently
operate dry cleaning plants or gas stations do so in accordance
with current laws and regulations.  Generally, we use all legal
means to cause tenants to remove dry cleaning plants from our
shopping centers or convert them to more environmentally friendly
systems.  Where available, we have been accepted into
state-sponsored environmental programs.  We have a blanket
environmental insurance policy for third-party liabilities and
remediation costs on shopping centers that currently have no known
environmental contamination.  We have also placed environmental
insurance, where possible, on specific properties with known
contamination, in order to mitigate our environmental risk.  We
monitor the shopping centers containing environmental issues and in
certain cases voluntarily remediate the sites.  We also have legal
obligations to remediate certain sites and we are in the process of
doing so.

"As of September 30, 2019 we and our Investments in real estate
partnerships had accrued liabilities of US$9.7 million for our
pro-rata share of environmental remediation.  We believe that the
ultimate disposition of currently known environmental matters will
not have a material effect on our financial position, liquidity, or
results of operations; however, we can give no assurance that
existing environmental studies on our shopping centers have
revealed all potential environmental liabilities; that any previous
owner, occupant or tenant did not create any material environmental
condition not known to us; that the current environmental condition
of the shopping centers will not be affected by tenants and
occupants, by the condition of nearby properties, or by unrelated
third parties; or that changes in applicable environmental laws and
regulations or their interpretation will not result in additional
environmental liability to us."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/1bWUiD


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp Estimates $70.7MM Liability at Sept.30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation estimates US$70.7 million asbestos-related
liability as of September 30, 2019, for all current and future
claims through 2058, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "We recognize a liability for asbestos-related
contingencies that are probable of occurrence and reasonably
estimable.  In connection with the recognition of liabilities for
asbestos-related matters, we record asbestos-related insurance
receivables that are deemed probable.

"The liability projection period covers all current and future
claims through 2058, which represents the expected end of our
asbestos liability exposure with no further ongoing claims expected
beyond that date.  This conclusion was based on our history and
experience with the claims data, the diminished volatility and
consistency of observable claims data, the period of time that has
elapsed since we stopped manufacturing products that contained
encapsulated asbestos and an expected downward trend in claims due
to the average age of our claimants, which is approaching the
average life expectancy.

"To date, the defense and settlement costs of our asbestos-related
product liability litigation have been substantially covered by
insurance.  Although we have exhausted coverage under some of our
insurance policies, we believe that we have applicable primary,
excess and/or umbrella coverage for claims arising with respect to
most of the years during which we manufactured and marketed
asbestos-containing products.  In addition, we have entered into a
cost sharing agreement with most of our primary, excess and
umbrella insurance carriers to facilitate the ongoing
administration and payment of claims covered by the carriers.  The
cost sharing agreement may be terminated by any party, but will
continue until a party elects to terminate it.  As of the filing
date for this report, the agreement has not been terminated, and no
carrier had informed us it intended to terminate the agreement.  We
expect to continue to exhaust individual primary, excess and
umbrella coverages over time, and there is no assurance that such
exhaustion will not accelerate due to additional claims, damages
and settlements or that coverage will be available as expected.  We
are responsible for uninsured defense, indemnity and settlement
costs, and we incurred an immaterial amount of expenses for each of
the three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2019 and
2018, respectively, related primarily to such costs.

"The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related liability and the
related insurance receivables are based on facts known at the time
and a number of assumptions.  However, projecting future events,
such as the number of new claims to be filed each year, the average
cost of disposing of such claims, the length of time it takes to
dispose of such claims, coverage issues among insurers and the
continuing solvency of various insurance companies, as well as the
numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation in the
United States, could cause the actual liability and insurance
recoveries for us to be higher or lower than those projected or
recorded."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/pRzw6z


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had $‭70.7MM Liabilities at Oct. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation disclosed in its press release dated October 30,
2019, that it has total asbestos-related liabilities of
US$‭70,651,000 and asbestos-related insurance receivables of
US$64,385 as of September 30, 2019.

Of the total asbestos-related liabilities, current portion is
US$5,547,000 and non-current portion is US$65,104,000.

Of the total asbestos-related insurance receivables, current
portion is US$4,138,000 and non-current portion is US$60,247,000.

A full-text copy of the Company's October 30, 2019 Press Release is
available at https://is.gd/VX7B3r


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 826 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation still faces 826 asbestos-related product
liability claims as of September 30, 2019, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "We, like many other industrial companies, have
been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in courts
across the country by persons alleging personal injury from
exposure to products containing asbestos.  We have never mined,
milled, manufactured or marketed asbestos; rather, we made and
provided to industrial users a limited number of products that
contained encapsulated asbestos, but we stopped manufacturing these
products in the late 1980s.  Most of the claims filed against us
involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred.

"For the nine months ended September 30, 2019, 123 claims were
dismissed and 24 claims were settled.  Settlements totaled
approximately US$2.2 million for the nine months ended September
30, 2019."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/pRzw6z


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Tech, Units Still Defends Suits at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Technologies, Inc. and its subsidiaries remain defendants,
along with numerous industrial companies, in asbestos-related
litigation claims in certain U.S. states, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "No significant resources have been required by
Roper to respond to these cases and Roper believes it has valid
defenses to such claims and, if required, intends to defend them
vigorously.  Given the state of these claims, it is not possible to
determine the potential liability, if any."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/s2cGAy


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Had $539.9MM Asbestos Liability at Sept. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
SPX Corporation recorded US$539.9 million for asbestos product
liability matters at September 28, 2019, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2019.

The Company states, "Numerous claims, complaints and proceedings
arising in the ordinary course of business have been asserted or
are pending against us or certain of our subsidiaries
(collectively, "claims").  These claims relate to litigation
matters (e.g., class actions and contracts, intellectual property,
and competitive claims), environmental matters, product liability
matters (predominately associated with alleged exposure to
asbestos-containing materials), and other risk management matters
(e.g., general liability, automobile, and workers' compensation
claims).  Additionally, we may become subject to other claims of
which we are currently unaware, which may be significant, or the
claims of which we are aware may result in our incurring
significantly greater loss than we anticipate.  While we (and our
subsidiaries) maintain property, cargo, auto, product, general
liability, environmental, and directors' and officers' liability
insurance and have acquired rights under similar policies in
connection with acquisitions that we believe cover a significant
portion of these claims, this insurance may be insufficient or
unavailable (e.g., in the case of insurer insolvency) to protect us
against potential loss exposures.  Also, while we believe we are
entitled to indemnification from third parties for some of these
claims, these rights may be insufficient or unavailable to protect
us against potential loss exposures.

"Our recorded liabilities related to these matters totaled US$583.7
million (including US$539.9 million for asbestos product liability
matters) and US$631.7 million (including US$587.5 million for
asbestos product liability matters) at September 28, 2019 and
December 31, 2018, respectively.  Of these amounts, US$556.6
million and US$600.3 million are included in "Other long-term
liabilities" within our condensed consolidated balance sheets at
September 28, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively, with the
remainder included in "Accrued expenses." The liabilities we record
for these claims are based on a number of assumptions, including
historical claims and payment experience and, with respect to
asbestos claims, actuarial estimates of the future period during
which additional claims are reasonably foreseeable.  While we base
our assumptions on facts currently known to us, they entail
inherently subjective judgments and uncertainties.  As a result,
our current assumptions for estimating these liabilities may not
prove accurate, and we may be required to adjust these liabilities
in the future, which could result in charges to earnings.  These
variances relative to current expectations could have a material
impact on our financial position and results of operations.

"Our asbestos-related claims are typical in certain of the
industries in which we operate or pertain to legacy businesses we
no longer operate.  It is not unusual in these cases for fifty or
more corporate entities to be named as defendants.  We vigorously
defend these claims, many of which are dismissed without payment,
and the significant majority of costs related to these claims have
historically been paid pursuant to our insurance arrangements.
During the nine months ended September 28, 2019, our payments for
asbestos-related matters, net of insurance recoveries of US$39.1
million, were US$9.8 million.  During the nine months ended
September 29, 2018, our payments for asbestos-related matters, net
of insurance recoveries of US$26.9 million, were US$5.3 million.  A
significant increase in claims, costs and/or issues with existing
insurance coverage (e.g., dispute with or insolvency of insurer(s))
could have a material adverse impact on our share of future
payments related to these matters, and, as such, have a material
impact on our financial position, results of operations and cash
flows.

"We have recorded insurance recovery assets associated with the
asbestos product liability matters, with such amounts totaling
US$502.8 million and US$541.9 million at September 28, 2019 and
December 31, 2018, respectively, and included in "Other assets"
within our condensed consolidated balance sheets.  These assets
represent amounts that we believe we are or will be entitled to
recover under agreements we have with insurance companies.  The
assets we record for these insurance recoveries are based on a
number of assumptions, including the continued solvency of the
insurers, and are subject to a variety of uncertainties.  Our
current assumptions for estimating these assets may not prove
accurate, and we may be required to adjust these assets in the
future, which could result in additional charges to earnings.
These variances relative to current expectations could have a
material impact on our financial position and results of
operations.

"During the three and nine months ended September 28, 2019 and
September 29, 2018, there were no changes in estimates associated
with the liabilities and assets related to our asbestos product
liability matters."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/CKBELD


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 1,500 Fibro Cases at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 1,500 cases were outstanding at September 30, 2019,
for which Standard Motor Products, Inc., may be responsible for any
related liabilities in connection to its former brake business,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which
we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation in the accompanying statement of operations.
When we originally acquired this brake business, we assumed future
liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business.
In accordance with the related purchase agreement, we agreed to
assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or after
September 2001.  Our ultimate exposure will depend upon the number
of claims filed against us on or after September 2001, and the
amounts paid for settlements, awards of asbestos-related damages,
and defense of such claims.

"At September 30, 2019, approximately 1,500 cases were outstanding
for which we may be responsible for any related liabilities.  Since
inception in September 2001 through September 30, 2019, the amounts
paid for settled claims are approximately US$30.5 million.  We do
not have insurance coverage for the indemnity and defense costs
associated with the claims we face."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/MG59un


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has $49.9MM Accrued Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc. disclosed in a press release dated
October 30, 2019, that its accrued asbestos liabilities were
US$49,894,000 as of September 30, 2019, compared with US$45,117,000
as of December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Loss from discontinued operations, net of
income taxes, in the third quarter of 2019 was US$7.9 million
compared to US$3.5 million in the comparable period last year.  The
loss pertains to asbestos-related liabilities from a brake
business, originally acquired in 1986 and subsequently divested in
1998, which are adjusted in the third quarter each year when the
Company engages an independent actuary to assess the Company's
exposure.  In the third quarter of 2019, the Company increased its
asbestos-related indemnity liability to US$52 million by recording
a non-cash US$9.7 million provision, or US$7.1 million net of
taxes."

A full-text copy of the Company's October 30, 2019 Press Release is
available at https://is.gd/qzgBQv


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor's Appeal in Calif. Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that it is pursuing "all rights of
appeal" in an asbestos liability case in California wherein the
Company was found liable for US$7.6 million in compensatory
damages.

The Company states, "As related to our potential asbestos-related
liability, in 2018, we were a defendant in an asbestos liability
case in California, in which we were found liable for US$7.6
million in compensatory damages.  We are pursuing all rights of
appeal of this case, and during the appeal process, interest will
accrue at a rate of ten percent (10%) per annum.  During the fourth
quarter of 2018, our actuarial firm revised the results of its
August 31, 2018 study.  Based upon the results of the revised
actuarial study, in December 2018, we increased our asbestos
liability to US$46.7 million and recorded an incremental pre-tax
provision of US$10.1 million in earnings (loss) from discontinued
operations.

"In accordance with our policy to perform an annual actuarial
evaluation in the third quarter of each year, an updated actuarial
study was performed as of August 31, 2019.  The results of the
August 31, 2019 study included an estimate of our undiscounted
liability for settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related
damages, excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from
insurance carriers, ranging from US$52 million to US$90.6 million
for the period through 2064.  The change from the revised prior
year study, which was performed in the fourth quarter of 2018, was
a US$5.3 million increase for the low end of the range and a US$6.7
million increase for the high end of the range.  The increase in
the estimated undiscounted liability from the revised prior year
study at both the low end and high end of the range reflects our
actual experience, our historical data and certain assumptions with
respect to events that may occur in the future.  Based upon the
results of the August 31, 2019 actuarial study, in September 2019,
we increased our asbestos liability to US$52 million, the low end
of the range, and recorded an incremental pre-tax provision of
US$9.7 million in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in
the accompanying statement of operations.  Future legal costs,
which are expensed as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from
discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of
operations, are estimated, according to the updated study, to range
from US$50.6 million to US$85.2 million for the period through
2064.

"We plan to perform an annual actuarial evaluation during the third
quarter of each year for the foreseeable future and whenever events
or changes in circumstances indicate that additional provisions may
be necessary.  Given the uncertainties associated with projecting
such matters into the future and other factors outside our control,
we can give no assurance that additional provisions will not be
required.  We will continue to monitor events and changes in
circumstances surrounding these potential liabilities in
determining whether to perform additional actuarial evaluations and
whether additional provisions may be necessary.  At the present
time, however, we do not believe that any additional provisions
would be reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our
liquidity or consolidated financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/MG59un


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Has At Most 500 Cases in US, 50 in Europe
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc.'s active and inactive asbestos-related cases are less
than 500 cases in the United States and less than 50 in Europe,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "For many years the Company has been and
continues to be subject to lawsuits initiated by claimants alleging
health problems as a result of exposure to asbestos.  The Company's
current docket of active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases
in the United States and less than 50 in Europe.

"With respect to the claims filed in the United States, the
substantial majority of the claims are related to alleged exposure
to asbestos in the Company's line of Walker(R) exhaust automotive
products although a significant number of those claims appear also
to involve occupational exposures sustained in industries other
than automotive.  A small number of claims have been asserted
against one of the Company's subsidiaries by railroad workers
alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars.  The
Company believes, based on scientific and other evidence, it is
unlikely that U.S. claimants were exposed to asbestos by the
Company's former products and that, in any event, they would not be
at increased risk of asbestos-related disease based on their work
with these products.  Further, many of these cases involve numerous
defendants.  Additionally, in many cases the plaintiffs either do
not specify any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar
amount for damages.

"With respect to the claims filed in Europe, the substantial
majority relate to occupational exposure claims brought by current
and former employees of Federal-Mogul facilities in France and
amounts paid out were not material.  A small number of occupational
exposure claims have also been asserted against Federal-Mogul
entities in Italy and Spain.

"As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users continue to go out of
business or file for bankruptcy, the Company may experience an
increased number of these claims.  The Company vigorously defends
itself against these claims as part of its ordinary course of
business.  In future periods, the Company could be subject to cash
costs or charges to earnings if any of these matters are resolved
unfavorably to the Company.  To date, with respect to claims that
have proceeded sufficiently through the judicial process, the
Company has regularly achieved favorable resolutions.  Accordingly,
the Company presently believes that these asbestos-related claims
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's annual
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/kWNJPd


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 356 Pending Cases at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation has 356 pending asbestos-related personal injury
cases as of September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "As of September 30, 2019, the Company was a
party to 356 pending cases involving an aggregate of 4,778 claims
primarily alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated
and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of its
subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical, refining and
exploration industries.

"In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition.  The Company believes that many of its
pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets were
distributed or used.

"The Company may be subjected to significant additional
asbestos-related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases
in which product identification can be made may increase, and the
Company may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors.  The Company is
unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary
claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things,
claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without
specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or
maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter
the amount sought.  The large majority of claims do not specify the
amount sought.  Of the 4,778 claims pending at September 30, 2019,
60 set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those stating
the statutory minimum or maximum).  At September 30, 2019, of the
60 claims that set forth specific amounts, there was one claim
seeking more than US$5 million for punitive damages.

"In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the
discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery
stage.

"Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 25 years ago, have been
approximately US$9.2 million.  All relief sought in the asbestos
cases is monetary in nature.  To date, approximately 40% of the
Company's costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos
litigation have been covered by its primary insurance.  Effective
February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-place
agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding the
coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related claims
when the primary insurance is exhausted.  The coverage-in-place
agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity insurance
coverage available to the Company that might otherwise be disputed
by the carriers and provides a methodology for the administration
of such expenses.  The Company's primary insurance exhausted in
November 2018, and the Company will be solely responsible for
defense costs and indemnity payments prior to the commencement of
coverage under this agreement, the duration of which would be
subject to the scope of damage awards and settlements paid.

"Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims
dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the
Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not
bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability.  Based
upon the Company's experience to date, including the trend in
annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other
available information (including the availability of excess
insurance), the Company does not believe these cases will have a
material adverse effect on its financial position and results of
operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/4Bd7Ve


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Defends 796 Active Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation continues to face 796 active
asbestos-related cases involving approximately 2,380 plaintiffs,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "As of September 30, 2019, U.S. Steel was a
defendant in approximately 796 active cases involving approximately
2,380 plaintiffs.  The vast majority of these cases involve
multiple defendants.  About 1,540, or approximately 65 percent, of
these plaintiff claims are currently pending in jurisdictions which
permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs.  At December 31,
2018, U.S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 755 cases
involving approximately 2,320 plaintiffs.  Based upon U.S. Steel's
experience in such cases, it believes that the actual number of
plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims against U.S. Steel will
likely be a small fraction of the total number of plaintiffs.

"Historically, asbestos-related claims against U.S. Steel fall into
three groups: (1) claims made by persons who allegedly were exposed
to asbestos on the premises of U.S. Steel facilities; (2) claims
made by persons allegedly exposed to products manufactured by U.S.
Steel; and (3) claims made under certain federal and maritime laws
by employees of former operations of U.S. Steel.

"The amount U.S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not
material to U.S. Steel's financial condition.  However, U.S. Steel
is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related
claims due to a number of uncertainties, including: (1) the rates
at which new claims are filed, (2) the number of and effect of
bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending asbestos
claims, (3) uncertainties associated with the variations in the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4)
uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease
process with each claim, and (5) any new legislation enacted to
address asbestos-related claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/8GSUYa


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Solutions Has Less Than 77 Claims in Sept.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Univar Solutions Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019, that there were fewer than 77
asbestos-related claims as of September 30, 2019 for which the
Company has liability for defense and indemnity pursuant to
indemnification obligation.  

Univar Solutions states, "The Company is subject to liabilities
from claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos.
The claims result primarily from an indemnification obligation
related to Univar USA Inc.'s ("Univar") 1986 purchase of McKesson
Chemical Company from McKesson Corporation ("McKesson").  Univar is
also a defendant in a small number of asbestos claims.  As of
September 30, 2019, there were fewer than 77 asbestos-related
claims for which the Company has liability for defense and
indemnity pursuant to the indemnification obligation.  The volume
of such cases has decreased in recent quarters.  Historically, the
vast majority of the claims against both McKesson and Univar have
been dismissed without payment.  The Company does incur costs in
defending these claims.  While the Company is unable to predict the
outcome of these matters, it does not believe, based upon currently
available facts, that the ultimate resolution of any of these
matters will have a material effect on its overall financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.  However, the
Company cannot predict the outcome of any present or future claims
or litigation and adverse developments could negatively impact
earnings or cash flows in a particular future period."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Ms4QsY


ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Still Defend Suits at Sept. 28
-------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.'s subsidiaries remain defendants in
lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of
brakes with asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 28, 2019.

The Company states, "A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company,
Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its
wholly-owned subsidiary Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. ("WAG"), are
named defendants in several lawsuits involving claims for damages
caused by installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early
1970's that contained asbestos.  WAG marketed certain brakes, but
did not manufacture any brakes.  WAG maintains liability insurance
coverage to protect its and the Company's assets from losses
arising from the litigation and coverage is provided on an
occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the Company is not
expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs in connection
with this matter that would be material to its consolidated
financial statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/AFGp7p


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wabtec Still Faces PI Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation ("Wabtec") and
certain of its affiliates continue to face asbestos-related claims
in the U.S., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Claims have been filed against the Company and
certain of its affiliates in various jurisdictions across the
United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products.  Further information and
detail on these claims are described in the Company's Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 filed on February
27, 2019.  During the first nine months of 2019, there were no
material changes to the information described in the Form 10-K
related to claims arising from asbestos exposure."

The Company said in its Form 10-K filing with the SEC for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, "Most of these claims have
been made against our wholly owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction
Products Corporation ("RFPC"), and are based on a product sold by
RFPC prior to the time that we acquired any interest in RFPC.  Most
of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are submitted to
insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to non-affiliated
companies that have retained the liabilities for the
asbestos-containing products at issue.  We cannot, however, assure
that all these claims will be fully covered by insurance or that
the indemnitors or insurers will remain financially viable.  Our
ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to these
claims, as is the case with most other pending litigation, cannot
be estimated."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/vW47hK



                            *********

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 2019. 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 ***