CAR_Public/130621.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 21, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 122

                             Headlines


ACTAVIS INC: High Court Says 11th Cir. Erred in Tossing FTC Suit
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Merger Suit
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Awaits Ruling in "Pain Clinic" Suit
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: "PHI" Parties Proceeding With Discovery
AMERICAN EQUITY: Might Lose $17.5MM Due to "Improper Sales" Suit

ASSURED GUARANTY: Jefferson County's Sewer Debt Suit Still Stayed
ASSURED GUARANTY: "MDL 1950" Remains Pending in New York Court
BARBARA'S BAKERY: Prelim. Injunction Bid in False Ad Suit Denied
BEBELOVE: Recalls 5,600 Baby Bath Seats Due to Drowning Hazard
BUY BUY BABY: Recalls Idea Baby Bath Seats Over Drowning Risk

CANADA: Class Action Against RCMP May Take Years Before Trial
CAPITAL ONE: Gets Favorable Ruling in "Lynch" Debt Collection Suit
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Discovery in "Leathermon" Ready to Proceed
CHELSEA & SCOTT: Recalls 1,950 Idea Baby Bath Seats
CHICAGO TITLE: Judge Ups Award Against Capital Title to $1.3-Mil.

CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 1.56 Million Older-Model Jeeps
CINTAS CORP: 6th Cir. Rejects Gender Bias Class Suit
COLUMBIA BANKING: West Coast Bancorp Merger Suit Consolidated
DERMATECH: McCarthy Tetrault Discusses Class Action Ruling
DERMATECH: McMillan Discusses Class Action Ruling

DFC GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Canada vs. Units
DUN & BRADSTREET: Enters Accord to Settle TCPA Violations Suit
DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Starts in O&R Antitrust Lawsuit
EBAY INC: Judge Tosses Sellers' Class Action Over Listing Charges
FOREST RIVER: Recalls 221 Forester and Other Models of Motorhomes

FREDDIE MAC: Discovery Proceeds in "OPERS" Securities Suit
FREDDIE MAC: No Summary Judgment Yet in Kuriakose Suit
FREDDIE MAC: May Have to Indemnify Goldman et al. in IPO Suit
FREDDIE MAC: Lawsuits Over Real Estate Transfer Taxes Stayed
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 3,456 GMC, Chevrolet, Buick and Saab SUVs

HANSEN MEDICAL: Securities Suit Parties Yet to File Settlement
HEALTH NET: Obtains Final Approval of "Eddings" Suit Settlement
HSBC USA: Readies Portion of Settlement in Antitrust Suit
HSBC USA: Moves to Consolidate Checking Account Overdraft Suit
HSBC USA: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Lender-Placed Insurance

HSBC USA: Court Yet to Rule on Plaintiffs' Appeal in Madoff Suit
INNOVATION VENTURES: Hermida Suit Stayed Pending Transfer to MDL
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Dismissal Sought in Retirement System's Suit
KERYX BIOPHARMA: Motion for Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Pending
MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Investor Class Action Hearing Begins

MCKESSON CORPORATION: Settles Suit Over PSS World Acquisition
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: May Face Class Action Over TASE Delisting
METABOLIX INC: Awaits Decision on Bid to Dismiss "Coyne" Suit
MORGAN STANLEY: ERISA Litigation Dismissed
MORGAN STANLEY: "Coulter" Action Dismissed

MORGAN STANLEY: Files Answer to Amended Pass-Through Cert. Suit
MORGAN STANLEY: IndyMac MBS Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Talks
MORGAN STANLEY: BofA Settles Suit v. Countrywide Financial
NATIONAL BEEF: Recalls 22,737 Pounds of Raw Ground Beef Products
NATURA PET: Recalls Specialized Dry Pet Foods Due to Health Risk

NELNET INC: Unit's Bid to Appeal in "Yaakov" Suit Denied in May
NOVA SCOTIA HOME: Province Denies Responsibility in Abuses
NOVATION COMPANIES: Dismissal of Fund's Securities Suit Reversed
OSKRI CORP: Recalls Coconut, Fig and Almond Dark Chocolate Bars
PANTRY INC: Still Faces 5 Hot Fuel Class Suits

PANTRY INC: Suit Over FACT Act Violation Stayed Pending Appeal
PAPA JOHN'S: Enters Settlement in Suit Over "Unsolicited" Text Ad
PAPA JOHN'S: 14,000 Plaintiffs Could Be Added in FLSA Suit
PAPA'S GRILL: N.C. Appeals Court Weighs Spam Faxes Class Action
PEABODY ENERGY: Moves to Dismiss New Claims in ERISA Lawsuit

PET VALU: Stikeman Elliot Discusses Opt-Out Period Ruling
PROLOR BIOTECH: Faces Six Class Suits Over Proposed OPKO Merger
QUALITY INN: Worker Justice Center Files Class Action
RANGE RESOURCES: Settles Class Action for $87.5 Million
SEALED AIR: Awaits Settlement Funding in Canadian Asbestos Suit

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: 'Flonase' Antitrust Suit Deal Gets Final Okay
SOUTHERN CO: Appeal From Hurricane Katrina Suit Dismissal Pending
SOUTHERN STAR: Continues to Defend Price I and II Litigation
STARBUCKS CORP: ADA Violations Suit to Include Calif. Stores
STEC INC: Court Approves $35.8MM Settlement of Securities Suit

STEC INC: State Securities Claims Could Be Released
STERLING FINANCIAL: Awaits Order on Motion to Junk Stock Suit
STERLING FINANCIAL: July 11 Hearing on ERISA Suit Settlement
TAMARA YOUNKER: Dental Class Action Nears Resolution
TANGOE INC: Connecticut Court Consolidated 3 Securities Suits

TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Awaits Prelim. OK of Merger Suits Settlement
TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Continues to Defend Two Securities Suits
TIP TOP: Recalls 18,000 Pounds of Roasted Chicken Product
UNITED ONLINE: Completes Distribution of Settlement in Fraud Suit
UNITED ONLINE: June Hearing Set in Suit Over "Unfair Competition"

UNITED ONLINE: No Trial Date Yet in "Trilegiant" Suit
UNITED ONLINE: Awaits Court Ruling on Consolidation Motion
UNITED STATES: ACLU Files Class Action Over Border Patrol Coercion
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Plans to Seek Review of Antitrust Suit Ruling
WILLIAM COMPANIES: Estimates $32MM Loss in Dispute v. FHRA

WILLIS: Faces Another Class Action Over Stanford Ponzi Scheme

* Battea Reports $678MM Settlement Distributions in 1st Qtr. 2013
* Consumer Goods Manufacturers Face Class Action Risks
* Firm Launches Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Claims Website
* U.S. Supreme Court Grapples With Class Actions


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Specialty Products Wants $1BB Appeal In 3rd Cir.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metex Mfg. Can Join in Home Insurance Proceeding
ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Asbestos Indemnification For Celotex Corp.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Company Continues to Defend PI Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Corp. Paid $740,000 to Settle Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OP-TECH Paid $100,000 Settlement to Labor Dept.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Int'l. Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J. C. Penney Recorded $20MM Liability Estimate
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Dumped Near Sydney Childcare Centre

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Fibro Scare on Harbour Bridge
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Concerns on Deadly Dust After Newcastle Explosion
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Secondary Exposure Suit Filed by Worker's Ex-wife
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in 80% of Schools in Warrington
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipyard Workers Urged to Call Victims Center

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worcester Meso Victim Wins Compensation Battle
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hampshire Killed by Toxic Dust & Cigarettes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Probes Fibro Claims at Lahaina Surf
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Nurse Seeks Former Colleagues' Help
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Agent Censured on Asbestos Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wife Exposed to Asbestos Wins $27MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Victim Gives Voice to Other Victims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Bids in for Armory
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thieves Broke Asbestos Panels in Garage
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baron and Budd Calls Attention to Fibro Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tow Law Fire Destroys Fibro-Containing Building
ASBESTOS UPDATE: For One Victim, Justice is a Moving Target
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cwmcarn High School Removal Action "Frustration"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Outrage Over Denial of Compensation to Veterans
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Cleaned Up in Bendigo Street

ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Australian Jails Pose Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Most Philippine Schools Still Use Fibro in Labs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Fibro an NBN Issue, Says Liberals
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Gets 2013 Silver Stevie(R) Award
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Wave of Australian Meso Victims Diagnosed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Architect Denies Darwin Bldg. Contains Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Halts Demolition at Ivy Ridge Nursing Home
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovery Could Slow Down Ind. Fire Probe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov. Furious as Cwmcarn Asbestos Saga Goes On
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Panels Dumped at Newbiggin Land

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asons Solicitors Warn of Secondary Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Drug House" Asbestos Spurs Rising Frustration
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Remanded Over Ambiguous Contract Provisions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Allowed to Amend Answer to Widow's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal From Dismissal of Suit v. Developer Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Rules on Insurance Issue in Lukens PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Integrity Not Required to Pay Congoleum Claims


                             *********


ACTAVIS INC: High Court Says 11th Cir. Erred in Tossing FTC Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A divided U.S. Supreme Court on June 17, 2013, issued a ruling in
the case, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. ACTAVIS, INC., ET AL., No.
12-416.  In a 43-page decision, the Supreme Court held that the
Eleventh Circuit erred in affirming the dismissal of the FTC's
complaint.

According to Actavis' May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the State of
California on January 29, 2009, filed a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
(Federal Trade Commission, et al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al., USDC Case No. CV 09-00598) alleging that the Company's
September 2006 patent lawsuit settlement with Solvay
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., related to AndroGel 1% (testosterone gel)
CIII is unlawful.

The complaint generally alleged that the Company improperly
delayed its launch of a generic version of Androgel in exchange
for Solvay's agreement to permit the Company to co-promote
Androgel for consideration in excess of the fair value of the
services provided by the Company, in violation of federal and
state antitrust and consumer protection laws.

The complaint sought equitable relief and civil penalties. On
February 2 and 3, 2009, three separate lawsuits alleging similar
claims were filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California by various private plaintiffs
purporting to represent certain classes of similarly situated
claimants (Meijer, Inc., et al., v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al., USDC Case No. EDCV 09-0215); (Rochester Drug Co-Operative,
Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., Case No. EDCV 09-
0226); (Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. Inc. v. Unimed
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al, Case No. EDCV 09-0228) .

On April 8, 2009, the Court transferred the government and private
cases to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. On April 21, 2009 the State of California
voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against the Company without
prejudice. The Federal Trade Commission and the private plaintiffs
in the Northern District of Georgia filed amended complaints on
May 28, 2009.

The private plaintiffs amended their complaints to include
allegations concerning conduct before the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office, conduct in connection with the listing of
Solvay's patent in the Food and Drug Administration's "Orange
Book," and sham litigation.

Additional actions alleging similar claims have been filed in
various courts by other private plaintiffs purporting to represent
certain classes of similarly situated direct or indirect
purchasers of Androgel (Stephen L. LaFrance Pharm., Inc. d/b/a SAJ
Dist. v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-1507);
(Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance
Trust Fund v. Unimed Pharms. Inc., et al.,D. NJ Civ. No. 09-1856
); ( Scurto v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-
1900 ); ( United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers
Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D.
MN Civ. No. 09-1168 ); ( Rite Aid Corp. et al. v. Unimed Pharms.,
Inc. et al., M.D. PA Civ. No. 09-1153); (Walgreen Co., et al. v.
Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al., MD. PA Civ. No. 09-1240 ); (
Supervalu, Inc. v. Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al, ND. GA Civ. No. 10-
1024); ( LeGrand v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al ., ND. GA Civ. No.
10-2883); ( Jabo's Pharmacy Inc. v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al ., Cocke County, TN Circuit Court Case No. 31,837).

On April 20, 2009, the Company was dismissed without prejudice
from the Stephen L. LaFrance action pending in the District of New
Jersey. On October 5, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred all actions then pending outside of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
to that district for consolidated pre-trial proceedings (In re:
AndroGel Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL Docket No. 2084 ), and
all currently-pending related actions are presently before that
court.

On February 22, 2010, the judge presiding over all the
consolidated litigations related to Androgel then pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
granted the Company's motions to dismiss the complaints, except
the portion of the private plaintiffs' complaints that include
allegations concerning sham litigation. Final judgment in favor of
the defendants was entered in the Federal Trade Commission's
action on April 21, 2010. On April 25, 2012, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the dismissal.

On December 7, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the FTC's
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. The hearing on the petition was
held on March 25, 2013.

On July 20, 2010, the plaintiff in the Fraternal Order of Police
action filed an amended complaint adding allegations concerning
conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, conduct in
connection with the listing of Solvay's patent in the Food and
Drug Administration's "Orange Book," and sham litigation similar
to the claims raised in the direct purchaser actions.

On October 28, 2010, the judge presiding over MDL 2084 entered an
order pursuant to which the LeGrand action, filed on September 10,
2010, was consolidated for pretrial purposes with the other
indirect purchaser class action as part of MDL 2084 and made
subject to the Court's February 22, 2010 order on the motion to
dismiss.

In February 2012, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs and
the defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and on
June 22, 2012, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs, including
Fraternal Order of Police, LeGrand and HealthNet, filed a motion
for leave to amend and consolidate their complaints. On September
28, 2012, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of
the defendants on all outstanding claims. The plaintiffs have
appealed.

According to the Supreme Court:

     (a) Although the anti-competitive effects of the reverse
settlement agreement might fall within the scope of the
exclusionary potential of Solvay's patent, this does not immunize
the agreement from antitrust attack.

   (b) While the Eleventh Circuit's conclusion finds some support
in a general legal policy favoring the settlement of disputes, its
related underlying practical concern consists of its fear that
antitrust scrutiny of a reverse payment agreement would require
the parties to engage in time-consuming, complex,
and expensive litigation to demonstrate what would have happened
to competition absent the settlement.

     (c) The Supreme Court declines to hold that reverse payment
settlement agreements are presumptively unlawful.

A copy of the ruling is available at:

   http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-416_m5n0.pdf

BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY,
GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.  ROBERTS, C. J.,
filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ.,
joined.  ALITO, J., took no part in the consideration or decision
of the case.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Merger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., is awaiting a court
decision on its motion to dismiss a merger-related class action
lawsuit, according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

On May 2, 2012, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company,
Glen Tullman, the former Chief Executive Officer, and William
Davis, the former Chief Financial Officer of the Company, by the
Bristol County Retirement System for itself and on behalf of a
purported class consisting of stockholders, who purchased
Allscripts common stock between November 18, 2010, and April 26,
2012.  The Complaint alleges that the Company, Mr. Tullman and Mr.
Davis made materially false and misleading statements and/or
omissions during the putative class period regarding the Company's
progress in integrating Allscripts' and Eclipsys Corporation's
business following the August 24, 2010 merger and that the Company
lacked a reasonable basis for certain statements regarding the
Company's post-merger integration efforts, operations, results and
projections of future financial performance.  A lead plaintiff has
been appointed and on January 10, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint.  On March 14, 2013, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the lead plaintiff's amended complaint.  The Company
says it intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.
-- http://www.allscripts.com/-- is a provider of clinical,
financial, connectivity and information solutions and related
professional services that empower hospitals, physicians and post-
acute organizations to deliver world-class outcomes.  The
Company's businesses deliver innovative solutions that provide
physicians and other healthcare professionals with just-right,
just-in-time information, connect them to each other and to the
entire community of care, and transform healthcare by improving
the quality and efficiency of patient care.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Awaits Ruling in "Pain Clinic" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., is awaiting a court
decision on Pain Clinic of Northwest Florida, Inc.'s motion
seeking leave to file a second amended complaint, according to the
Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On December 27, 2012, Pain Clinic of Northwest Florida, Inc. filed
a Complaint in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in
and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, against the Company.  On
January 29, 2013, a First Amended Complaint was filed in this
lawsuit through which the following three additional plaintiffs
were added: American Pain Care Specialists, LLC; Advanced Pain
Specialists, Inc.; and South Baldwin Family Practice, LLC.  The
four plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all similarly situated
physician-customers that purchased the MyWay product and seek
damages for various claims, including breach of warranty and
unjust enrichment.  On February 5, 2013, the Company filed a
motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay the lawsuit
during arbitration, and a motion to stay discovery during
arbitration, which were both denied by the trial court.  The
Company has appealed the denial of the motion to compel
arbitration and to dismiss or stay the lawsuit during arbitration,
and is currently pursuing that appeal before Florida's Third
District Court of Appeal.  On April 19, 2013, the plaintiffs filed
a motion seeking leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, through
which the plaintiffs intend to drop the claim for breach of
warranty, and add claims for tortious interference with business
relationships, violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act (Fla. Stat. Section 501.201, et seq.), and
violations of various other states' consumer protection laws.

In the event the trial court grants that motion, the Company will
thereafter file an appropriate response to the Second Amended
Complaint.  The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.
-- http://www.allscripts.com/-- is a provider of clinical,
financial, connectivity and information solutions and related
professional services that empower hospitals, physicians and post-
acute organizations to deliver world-class outcomes.  The
Company's businesses deliver innovative solutions that provide
physicians and other healthcare professionals with just-right,
just-in-time information, connect them to each other and to the
entire community of care, and transform healthcare by improving
the quality and efficiency of patient care.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: "PHI" Parties Proceeding With Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the class action lawsuit initiated by Physicians
Healthsource, Inc. are proceeding with discovery, according to
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.'s May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On May 1, 2012, Physicians Healthsource, Inc. ("PHI") filed a
class action Complaint in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against the Company.  The Complaint alleges
that on multiple occasions between July 2008 and December 2011,
Allscripts or its agent sent advertisements by fax to the
Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated persons, without first
receiving the recipients' express permission or invitation in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
Section 227 ("TCPA").  The Complaint seeks $500 for each alleged
violation of the TCPA, treble damages if the Court finds the
violations to be willful, knowing or intentional, and injunctive
and other relief.  Allscripts was served with the Complaint and
PHI's Motion for Class Certification on May 7, 2012.  Discovery in
this matter had been stayed pending a decision of the 7th Circuit
Court of Appeals in the case of Holtzman v. Turza, which could
address claims at issue in this case.  Although a decision in the
Holtzman case has not yet been issued, on March 28, 2013, the
Court effectively lifted the stay, requiring the Company to file
its responsive pleading and respond to written discovery
promulgated in June 2012.  Allscripts filed its Answer and
Affirmative Defenses on April 19, 2013.  The parties are
proceeding with discovery.  The Company says it intends to
vigorously defend against these claims.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.
-- http://www.allscripts.com/-- is a provider of clinical,
financial, connectivity and information solutions and related
professional services that empower hospitals, physicians and post-
acute organizations to deliver world-class outcomes.  The
Company's businesses deliver innovative solutions that provide
physicians and other healthcare professionals with just-right,
just-in-time information, connect them to each other and to the
entire community of care, and transform healthcare by improving
the quality and efficiency of patient care.


AMERICAN EQUITY: Might Lose $17.5MM Due to "Improper Sales" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Equity Investment Life Holding Company estimates a
probable loss of $17.5 million in relation to its possible
settlement of In Re: American Equity Annuity Practices and Sales
Litigation, according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In recent years, companies in the life insurance and annuity
business have faced litigation, including class action lawsuits,
alleging improper product design, improper sales practices and
similar claims. The company is currently a defendant in a
purported class action, McCormack, et al. v. American Equity
Investment Life Insurance Company, et al., in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division and Anagnostis v. American Equity, et al., coordinated in
the Central District, entitled, In Re: American Equity Annuity
Practices and Sales Litigation, in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, Western Division
(complaint filed September 7, 2005) (the "Los Angeles Case"),
involving allegations of improper sales practices and similar
claims.

The Los Angeles Case is a consolidated action involving several
lawsuits filed by individuals, and the individuals are seeking
class action status for a national class of purchasers of
annuities issued by the company; however, no class has yet been
certified. The named plaintiffs in this consolidated case are
Bernard McCormack, Gust Anagnostis by and through Gary S.
Anagnostis and Robert C. Anagnostis, Regina Bush by and through
Sharon Schipiour, Lenice Mathews by and through Mary Ann Maclean
and George Miller.

The allegations generally attack the suitability of sales of
deferred annuity products to persons over the age of 65. The
plaintiffs seek rescission and injunctive relief including
restitution and disgorgement of profits on behalf of all class
members under California Business & Professions Code section 17200
et seq. and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act;
compensatory damages for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting of breach of fiduciary duty; unjust enrichment and
constructive trust; and other pecuniary damages under California
Civil Code section 1750 and California Welfare & Institutions
Codes section 15600 et seq.

The company participated in mediation sessions with plaintiffs'
counsel since 2011 where potential settlement terms have been
discussed. Based upon the current status of those discussions, the
$17.5 million litigation liability represents the Company's best
estimate of probable loss with respect to this litigation.

However, a formal settlement has not been reached, the potential
settlement has not been reviewed by the court and other factors
could potentially result in a change in this estimate as further
developments take place. In light of the inherent uncertainties
involved in the pending purported class action lawsuit, there can
be no assurance that such litigation, or any other pending or
future litigation, will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, financial condition, or results of operations.


ASSURED GUARANTY: Jefferson County's Sewer Debt Suit Still Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2008, a number of financial institutions and other
parties, including Assured Guaranty Ltd.'s subsidiary, Assured
Guaranty Municipal Corp. ("AGM"), and other bond insurers, were
named as defendants in a civil action brought in the circuit court
of Jefferson County, Alabama, relating to the County's problems
meeting its sewer debt obligations: Charles E. Wilson vs. JPMorgan
Chase & Co et al (filed the Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Alabama), Case No. 01-CV-2008-901907.00, a putative class action.
The action was brought on behalf of rate payers, tax payers and
citizens residing in Jefferson County, and alleges conspiracy and
fraud in connection with the issuance of the County's debt.  The
complaint in this lawsuit seeks equitable relief, unspecified
monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.  On
January 13, 2011, the circuit court issued an order denying a
motion by the bond insurers and other defendants to dismiss the
action.  The Defendants, including the bond insurers, have
petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to the
circuit court vacating such order and directing the dismissal with
prejudice of plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing.  On
January 23, 2012, the Alabama Supreme Court entered a stay pending
the resolution of the Jefferson County bankruptcy.  The Company
says it cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, that may arise from this lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 10, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Assured Guaranty Ltd. -- http://www.assuredguaranty.com/-- is a
Bermuda-based holding company incorporated in 2003 that provides,
through its subsidiaries, credit protection products to the United
States and international public finance, infrastructure and
structured finance markets.  The Company applies its credit
underwriting judgment, risk management skills and capital markets
experience to offer insurance that protects holders of debt
instruments and other monetary obligations from defaults in
scheduled payments, including scheduled interest and principal
payments.


ASSURED GUARANTY: "MDL 1950" Remains Pending in New York Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
During 2008, nine putative class action lawsuits were filed in
federal court alleging federal antitrust violations in the
municipal derivatives industry, seeking damages and alleging,
among other things, a conspiracy to fix the pricing of, and
manipulate bids for, municipal derivatives, including guaranteed
investment contracts ("GICs").  These cases have been coordinated
and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York as MDL 1950, In re
Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-2516
("MDL 1950").

Five of these cases named both Assured Guaranty Ltd.'s
subsidiaries, Assured Guaranty Municipal Holdings Inc. ("AGMH")
and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. ("AGM"): (a) Hinds County,
Mississippi v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (b) Fairfax County, Virginia
v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (c) Central Bucks School District,
Pennsylvania v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (d) Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore, Maryland v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; and (e) Washington
County, Tennessee v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.  In April 2009, the MDL
1950 court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on the
federal claims, but granted leave for the plaintiffs to file a
second amended complaint.  In June 2009, interim lead plaintiffs'
counsel filed a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint; although the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint currently describes some of AGMH's and AGM's activities,
it does not name those entities as defendants.  In March 2010, the
MDL 1950 court denied the named defendants' motions to dismiss the
Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.  In March
2013, the putative class plaintiffs served a Third Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint that does not list AGMH or AGM.
The complaints in these lawsuits generally seek unspecified
monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.  The
Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss, if any, or
range of loss that may arise from these lawsuits.

Four of the cases named AGMH (but not AGM) and also alleged that
the defendants violated California state antitrust law and common
law by engaging in illegal bid-rigging and market allocation,
thereby depriving the cities or municipalities of competition in
the awarding of GICs and ultimately resulting in the cities paying
higher fees for these products: (f) City of Oakland, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; (g) County of Alameda, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; (h) City of Fresno, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; and (i) Fresno County Financing
Authority v. AIG Financial Products Corp.  When the four
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in September 2009, the
plaintiffs did not name AGMH as a defendant.  However, the
complaint does describe some of AGMH's and AGM's activities.  The
consolidated complaint generally seeks unspecified monetary
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.  In April
2010, the MDL 1950 court granted in part and denied in part the
named defendants' motions to dismiss this consolidated complaint.

In 2008, AGMH and AGM also were named in five non-class action
lawsuits originally filed in the California Superior Courts
alleging violations of California law related to the municipal
derivatives industry: (a) City of Los Angeles, California v. Bank
of America, N.A.; (b) City of Stockton, California v. Bank of
America, N.A.; (c) County of San Diego, California v. Bank of
America, N.A.; (d) County of San Mateo, California v. Bank of
America, N.A.; and (e) County of Contra Costa, California v. Bank
of America, N.A. Amended complaints in these actions were filed in
September 2009, adding a federal antitrust claim and naming AGM
(but not AGMH) and Assured Guaranty US Holdings Inc. ("AGUS"),
among other defendants.  These cases have been transferred to the
Southern District of New York and consolidated with MDL 1950 for
pretrial proceedings.

In late 2009, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named in
six additional non-class action cases filed in federal court,
which also have been coordinated and consolidated for pretrial
proceedings with MDL 1950: (f) City of Riverside, California v.
Bank of America, N.A.; (g) Sacramento Municipal Utility District
v. Bank of America, N.A.; (h) Los Angeles World Airports v. Bank
of America, N.A.; (i) Redevelopment Agency of the City of Stockton
v. Bank of America, N.A.; (j) Sacramento Suburban Water District
v. Bank of America, N.A.; and (k) County of Tulare, California v.
Bank of America, N.A.

The MDL 1950 court denied AGM and AGUS's motions to dismiss these
eleven complaints in April 2010.  Amended complaints were filed in
May 2010. On October 29, 2010, AGM and AGUS were voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice from the Sacramento Municipal Utility
District case only.  The complaints in these lawsuits generally
seek or sought unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and other expenses.  The Company cannot reasonably
estimate the possible loss, if any, or range of loss that may
arise from the remaining lawsuits.

In May 2010, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named in
five additional non-class action cases filed in federal court in
California: (a) City of Richmond, California v. Bank of America,
N.A. (filed on May 18, 2010, N.D. California); (b) City of Redwood
City, California v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on May 18, 2010,
N.D. California); (c) Redevelopment Agency of the City and County
of San Francisco, California v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on
May 21, 2010, N.D. California); (d) East Bay Municipal Utility
District, California v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on May 18,
2010, N.D. California); and (e) City of San Jose and the San Jose
Redevelopment Agency, California v. Bank of America, N.A (filed on
May 18, 2010, N.D. California).  These cases have also been
transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated
with MDL 1950 for pretrial proceedings.  In September 2010, AGM
and AGUS, among other defendants, were named in a sixth additional
non-class action filed in federal court in New York, but which
alleges violation of New York's Donnelly Act in addition to
federal antitrust law: Active Retirement Community, Inc. d/b/a
Jefferson's Ferry v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on September 21,
2010, E.D. New York), which has also been transferred to the
Southern District of New York and consolidated with MDL 1950 for
pretrial proceedings.  In December 2010, AGM and AGUS, among other
defendants, were named in a seventh additional non-class action
filed in federal court in the Central District of California, Los
Angeles Unified School District v. Bank of America, N.A., and in
an eighth additional non-class action filed in federal court in
the Southern District of New York, Kendal on Hudson, Inc. v. Bank
of America, N.A.  These cases also have been consolidated with MDL
1950 for pretrial proceedings.  The complaints in these lawsuits
generally seek unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and other expenses.  The Company cannot reasonably
estimate the possible loss, if any, or range of loss that may
arise from these lawsuits.

In January 2011, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named
in an additional non-class action case filed in federal court in
New York, which alleges violation of New York's Donnelly Act in
addition to federal antitrust law: Peconic Landing at Southold,
Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A.  This case has been consolidated
with MDL 1950 for pretrial proceedings.  The complaint in this
lawsuit generally seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses.  The Company cannot
reasonably estimate the possible loss, if any, or range of loss
that may arise from this lawsuit.

In September 2009, the Attorney General of the State of West
Virginia filed a lawsuit (Circuit Ct. Mason County, W. Va.)
against Bank of America, N.A. alleging West Virginia state
antitrust violations in the municipal derivatives industry,
seeking damages and alleging, among other things, a conspiracy to
fix the pricing of, and manipulate bids for, municipal
derivatives, including GICs.  An amended complaint in this action
was filed in June 2010, adding a federal antitrust claim and
naming AGM (but not AGMH) and AGUS, among other defendants.  This
case has been removed to federal court as well as transferred to
the S.D.N.Y. and consolidated with MDL 1950 for pretrial
proceedings.  The complaint in this lawsuit generally seeks civil
penalties, unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and other expenses.  The Company cannot reasonably
estimate the possible loss, if any, or range of loss that may
arise from this lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 10, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Assured Guaranty Ltd. -- http://www.assuredguaranty.com/-- is a
Bermuda-based holding company incorporated in 2003 that provides,
through its subsidiaries, credit protection products to the United
States and international public finance, infrastructure and
structured finance markets.  The Company applies its credit
underwriting judgment, risk management skills and capital markets
experience to offer insurance that protects holders of debt
instruments and other monetary obligations from defaults in
scheduled payments, including scheduled interest and principal
payments.


BARBARA'S BAKERY: Prelim. Injunction Bid in False Ad Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Silber and Olympia Moro initiated related actions as proposed
class actions against Barbara's Bakery, Inc. on November 5 and
December 11, 2012, respectively.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendant falsely represents the content and quality of its
products as "All Natural," when, in fact, the products contain
purportedly "unnatural" ingredients.  According to the Plaintiffs,
consumers relied on these misrepresentations and were deceived
into purchasing the Defendant's products during the period of time
beginning September 21, 2006, and continuing through the
conclusion of the action. On March 18, 2013, the Plaintiffs moved
for a Preliminary Injunction to enjoin the Defendant from
continuing to propagate allegedly fraudulent and misleading
marketing statements in connection with its cereal products.

District Judge William F. Kuntz, II, denied the Plaintiffs' motion
in all respects, saying the Plaintiffs are required to show, but
have not shown, irreparable injury.  Rather, he said, the
Plaintiffs may be adequately compensated through monetary damages.
Moreover, he added, the Defendant would be severely burdened by
having to alter its product packaging on a nationwide scale, which
burden would clearly exceed any hardship to the Plaintiffs caused
by waiting to adjudicate these cases on their merits.

"As the parties are well aware, a Settlement Agreement is pending
in Trammell v. Barbara's Bakery, Case No. 3:12-cv-02664 (N.D. Cal.
May 23, 2012) (Breyer, J.), an earlier filed case in the Northern
District of California (the "Proposed Settlement")," Judge Kuntz
further said.

"The Proposed Settlement was noticed on both the instant E.D.N.Y.
dockets on April 26, 2013, and it includes a motion before the
District Court for the Northern District of California to enjoin
Moro and Silber. In its briefing before this Court, Defendant
notes Trammell was initiated 5 months before Silber (and 6 months
before Moro). . . .  The parties in Trammell reached a settlement
in principle in January 2013 through arm's length negotiations,
which resulted in a 45-page settlement agreement with hundreds of
pages of exhibits, submitted to the Northern District of
California District Court on April 19, 2013. Id. The Proposed
Settlement contemplates the same relief requested by Plaintiffs
here namely, that the Court enjoin Defendant from using the words
"All Natural," "No Artificial Additives," "No Artificial
Preservatives," and "No Artificial Flavors" from its product
labels and advertisements. . . .  Defendant has already agreed to
this condition per the Proposed Settlement, and will be under
court order to comply if and when the settlement is approved by
the Northern District of California court.

"Accordingly, although this settlement does not influence this
Court's decision that Plaintiffs are not entitled to preliminary
injunctive relief, this Court looks forward with interest to the
Northern District of California court's ruling on the Trammell
parties' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement," Judge
Kuntz concluded.

The related cases are ERIN SILBER, Plaintiff, v. BARBARA'S BAKERY,
INC., Defendant, NOS. 12-CV-5511 (WFK) (RLM), (E.D.N.Y.), and
OLYMPIA MORO, Plaintiff, v. BARBARA'S BAKERY, INC., Defendant,
12-CV-6087 (WFK) (RLM), (E.D.N.Y.).

Olympia Moro is represented by Juan Eneas Monteverde, Esq. --
jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com -- Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. --
nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com -- & Javier O. Hidalgo, Esq. --
jhidalgo@faruqilaw.com -- at Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP.

Barbara's Bakery, Inc., is represented by Barbara A. Lukeman, Esq.
-- blukeman@nixonpeabody.com -- at Nixon Peabody LLP, Clement Leo
Glynn, Esq. -- cglynn@glynnfinley.com & James Michael Hanlon, Esq.
-- jhanlon@glynnfinley.com -- at Glynn & Finley, LLP.

A copy of the District Court's June 14, 2013 Decision and Order is
available at http://is.gd/sAMgs8from Leagle.com.


BEBELOVE: Recalls 5,600 Baby Bath Seats Due to Drowning Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
BeBeLove, of Pico Rivera, California, announced a voluntary recall
of about 5,600 Baby Bath Seats.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The bath seats fail to meet federal safety standards, including
the requirements for stability.  Specifically, the bath seats can
tip over, posing a risk of drowning to babies.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall includes all BeBeLove E-Zee(TM) Bath Seats.  The
recalled products are plastic bath seats designed for children
between 5 and 10 months old.  They have a white base with suction
cups on the bottom, a back/arm support, a detachable back support
bar that folds under the seat for storage and a detachable T-bar
front stabilizer that folds forward for entry.  The back/arm
support is gray, blue or pink.  "Made in Taiwan" and "BBL" are
engraved on the underside of the seat base and "BeBeLove" is
printed on a sticker in the center of the back/arm support.
Picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://is.gd/XrF3Sm

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
Amazon.com, Diapers.com, Overstock.com and other online retailers
from May 2011 through November 2012 for between $19 and $30.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bath seats
and contact BeBeLove for a full refund.  BeBeLove may be reached
toll-free at (888) 464-1218, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pacific
Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.bebeloveusa.com/and click on the Recall Contact tab at
the top of the page for more information.


BUY BUY BABY: Recalls Idea Baby Bath Seats Over Drowning Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Buy Buy Baby and importer, Liberty Procurement Co. Inc., of Union,
New Jersey, announced a voluntary recall of about 34,000 Idea Baby
Bath Seats.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The bath seats fail to meet federal safety standards, including
the requirements for stability.  Specifically, the bath seats can
tip over, posing a risk of drowning to babies.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall includes Idea Baby brand infant bath seats.  The
recalled product is a bath seat designed for children five months
to ten months old.  The seat is made of pink or blue plastic and
has four suction cups on the bottom.  An oval-shaped arm rail runs
from the seat back and connects two side posts and the seat front
post.  Two star-shaped spinning toys are on the front of the seat
rail above the front post.  Between the two spinning toys is a
round, inset plastic disc with the words "www.ideababy.com," "Idea
Baby" and "Made in Italy."  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at: http://is.gd/wOMd96

The recalled products were manufactured in Italy and sold at Buy
Buy Baby and Bed Bath & Beyond stores and online at buybuybaby.com
and bedbathbeyond.com from September 2012 through April 2013 for
about $40.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bath seats.
If purchased at a Buy Buy Baby store or online, consumers should
return the bath seats to any Buy Buy Baby store to receive a store
credit.  If purchased at a Bed Bath & Beyond store, consumers
should return the bath seats to the store where purchased to
receive a store credit.  Buy Buy Baby, toll-free at (877) 328-9222
anytime, or online at http://www.buybuybabycom/or at
http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/then click on Safety and Recalls
at the bottom of the homepage of either site for more information.


CANADA: Class Action Against RCMP May Take Years Before Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Press reports that the lawyer representing a former RCMP
officer who claims she was sexually harassed on the job says a
proposed class-action lawsuit could take years before it makes it
to trial.

Janet Merlo, who left the RCMP in 2010 after a 19-year career on
the force, has filed a lawsuit that alleges years of name-calling,
sexist pranks and requests for sexual favors, and she wants to
have the case certified as a class action.  But the case is
already bogged down by legal arguments from both sides, including
a motion from the federal government to strike parts of Ms.
Merlo's claim and potentially have the case thrown out because
Merlo didn't file it in time.

Ms. Merlo's lawyer, David Klein, is accusing the federal
government of trying to delay the case, and he says Ottawa and the
RCMP should instead sit down with Merlo and other women and
negotiate a fair end to the lawsuit.

Mr. Klein says roughly 300 current and former RCMP officers have
approached him with stories of harassment.

A hearing to determine whether to certify the case as a class
action won't happen until at least December, and Mr. Klein says it
could be years before the case -- if it proceeds -- actually makes
it to trial.

The RCMP has also issued denials in several sexual abuse and
harassment lawsuits against the force and its officers.  But an
internal report, released last year in response to the number of
high-profile allegations of sexual harassment, suggests gender-
based harassment was common among the female officers who
participated in a study where they detail their experiences of
being bullied by colleagues and superiors.

In response to the report's recommendations, Deputy Commissioner
Craig Callens announced the creation of a 100-member team
dedicated to investigating harassment complaints.

The highest-profile sexual abuse and harassment lawsuit involves
Cpl. Catherine Galliford, a former spokeswoman for the Air India
and Robert Pickton cases.

Cpl. Galliford filed a lawsuit last year alleging years of abuse
by numerous officers.

Const. Karen Katz also has a lawsuit alleging a colleague harassed
and sexually assaulted her, as well as a second lawsuit that
alleges more widespread abuse spanning her entire career.


CAPITAL ONE: Gets Favorable Ruling in "Lynch" Debt Collection Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN T. LYNCH, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., et
al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-992, (E.D. Penn.), stems from
allegedly fraudulent actions taken by Capital One Bank and Capital
One Services and Capital One's collection attorneys against Mr.
Lynch in a collection lawsuit within the Bucks County Court of
Common Pleas.  Mr. Lynch seeks to bring his claim as a class
action on behalf of "[a]ll persons who have been the subject of
collection law suits [sic] brought by Defendants for which the
Defendants attach as corroborative exhibits and/or as evidence
written agreements . . ." which are inapplicable.

Capital One filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second
amended complaint on September 6, 2012.

On June 14, 2013, District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg granted
Capital One's motion but provided the Plaintiff with leave to
amend.

"Because the second amended complaint fails to assert facts that
would plausibly establish an injury that was proximately caused by
a misrepresentation by Capital One, Plaintiff's RICO claims will
be dismissed. Further, because Plaintiff has not established that
he justifiably relied upon the alleged misrepresentation, leading
to an injury, Plaintiff's UTPCPL claims shall also be dismissed.
Finally, because Plaintiff has agreed to withdraw his claim for
breach of contract, we will dismiss this claim as well," ruled
Judge Goldberg.

"We find, however, that Plaintiff could potentially state a claim
if he relied upon Capital One billing statements that calculated
payments pursuant to an inapplicable Cardmember Agreement, and if
such reliance proximately caused a financial injury to Plaintiff.
Accordingly, we will grant leave to amend," he added.

Brian T. Lynch is represented by Stuart A. Eisenberg, Esq., at
McCullough Eisenberg LLC.

Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. and Capital One Services, LLC, are
represented by Kevin Batik, Esq. -- kbatik@mcguirewoods.com -- at
McGuire Woods, LLP.

A copy of the District Court's June 14, 2013 Memorandum Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/iTK6tifrom Leagle.com.


CARRIAGE SERVICES: Discovery in "Leathermon" Ready to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the suit Leathermon, et al. v. Grandview Memorial
Gardens, Inc., et al. Case No. 4:07-cv-137 is ready to proceed,
according to Carriage Services, Inc.'s May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On August 17, 2007, five plaintiffs filed a putative class action
against the current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery in
Madison, Indiana, including Carriage Services, Inc.'s subsidiaries
that owned the cemetery from January 1997 until February 2001, on
behalf of all individuals who purchased cemetery and burial goods
and services at Grandview Cemetery.

Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and claim that the
cemetery owners performed burials negligently, breached
Plaintiffs' contracts and made misrepresentations regarding the
cemetery. The Plaintiffs also allege that the claims occurred
prior, during and after the company owned the cemetery.

On October 15, 2007, the case was removed from Jefferson County
Circuit Court, Indiana to United States District Court, Southern
District of Indiana. On April 24, 2009, shortly before Defendants
had been scheduled to file their briefs in opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Plaintiffs moved to
amend their complaint to add new class representatives and claims,
while also seeking to abandon other claims. The company, as well
as several other Defendants, opposed Plaintiffs' motion to amend
their complaint and add parties. In April 2009, two Defendants
moved to disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel from further representing
Plaintiffs in this action.

On June 30, 2010, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel. In that order, the Court gave
Plaintiffs 60 days within which to retain new counsel. On May 6,
2010, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals seeking relief from the trial
court's order of disqualification of counsel. On May 19, 2010, the
Defendants responded to the petition of mandamus.

On July 8, 2010, the Seventh Circuit denied Plaintiffs' petition
for writ of mandamus. Thus, pursuant to the trial court's order,
Plaintiffs were given 60 days from July 8, 2010 in which to retain
new counsel to prosecute this action on their behalf.

Plaintiffs retained new counsel and the trial court granted the
newly retained Plaintiffs' counsel 90 days to review the case and
advise the Court whether or not Plaintiffs would seek leave to
amend their complaint to add and/or change the allegations as are
currently stated therein and whether or not they would seek leave
to amend the proposed class representatives for class
certification.

Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend both the class representatives
and the allegations stated within the complaint. Defendants filed
oppositions to such amendments. The Court issued an order
permitting the Plaintiffs to proceed with amending the class
representatives and a portion of their claims; however, certain of
Plaintiffs' claims have been dismissed.

Discovery in this matter will now proceed.


CHELSEA & SCOTT: Recalls 1,950 Idea Baby Bath Seats
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Chelsea & Scott Ltd., of Lake Bluff, Illinois, announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,950 Idea Baby Bath Seats.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The bath seats fail to meet federal safety standards, including
the requirements for stability.  Specifically, the bath seats can
tip over, posing a risk of drowning to babies.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall includes Idea Baby brand infant bath seats made for
One Step Ahead.  The recalled bath seat is designed for children
five months to ten months old.  The seat is made of white plastic
with blue trim and has four suction cups on the bottom.  An oval-
shaped arm rail runs from the seat back and connects two side
posts and the seat front post.  Two star-shaped spinning toys are
on the front of the seat rail above the front post.  Between the
two spinning toys is a round, inset plastic disc with the words
"www.onestepahead.com," "One Step Ahead," "Idea Baby" and "Made in
Italy."  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/RAnkyz

The recalled products were manufactured in Italy and sold
exclusively at Onestepahead.com from February 2013 through May
2013 for about $40.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bath seats
and contact Chelsea & Scott for instructions to receive a full
refund.  Chelsea & Scott may be reached toll-free at (866) 271-
4536, 8:00 a.m. to midnight Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday, or online at
http://www.onestepahead.com/,then click on Safety and Recalls at
the bottom of the page for more information.


CHICAGO TITLE: Judge Ups Award Against Capital Title to $1.3-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Heallen, writing for Law360, reports that a Texas federal
judge on June 3 upped an award against Capital Title of Texas LLC
to about $1.3 million for its refusal to honor an agreement to
defend Chicago Title Insurance Co. against a class action
involving premium discounts.

U.S. District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater awarded $615,000 in
attorney's fees and costs to Chicago Title while upholding a
$748,000 judgment it recovered against Capital after a jury found
the latter contractually liable for defense fees and costs Chicago
Title incurred warding off the failed class action.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 1.56 Million Older-Model Jeeps
------------------------------------------------------
Christina Rogers of The Wall Street Journal reports that Chrysler
Group LLC said June 18, 2013, it would recall 1.56 million older-
model Jeeps with fuel tanks positioned behind the rear axle to
resolve a dispute with federal regulators who said the vehicles
posed an unacceptable risk of fires in rear-end crashes.

The decision reverses the auto maker's previous rejection of a
regulator's request to recall of as many as 2.7 million Jeeps.
The recall covers 1993-1998 model year Jeep Grand Cherokee and
2002-2007 Jeep Liberty sport-utility vehicles.

Chrysler said its dealers will install towing hitches on the back
of vehicles that don't have them, putting more metal between the
fuel tank and the rear of the car to absorb an impact.  In
addition, Chrysler said dealers would inspect and if needed
replace at no cost to the owner non-Chrysler Mopar brand towing
hitches on 1.14 million 1999-2004 Jeep Grand Cherokees.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said it would
continue the nearly three-year-long inquiry, "pending the agency's
review of the documents provided by Chrysler in its recall
action."

In a statement, the agency said "consumers impacted by the safety
recall and customer satisfaction campaign should have their
vehicles serviced promptly once they received notification."

Chrysler, majority owned by Italy's Fiat SpA, reiterated in a
statement that its Jeeps aren't defective.

In a June 3 letter, NHTSA requested that Chrysler recall the
vehicles based on the Government's analysis that the Jeeps had a
much higher rate of fire in rear-end crashes than similar midsize
SUVs, such as the Ford Explorer and Toyota 4Runner.

NHTSA linked the fuel tank placement and design to fiery rear-end
collisions that led to 51 deaths.  Chrysler, in a rebuttal
released earlier this month, said NHTSA's analysis was flawed, and
that the Jeeps in question met all federal safety standards, and
had better safety records than similar vehicles.

A day after the agency issued its recall request, the driver of a
1993 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo was killed in Houston when his
stalled vehicle was struck from behind by a Dodge Ram 4500 tow
truck.

"The force of the collision caused the Jeep to catch fire,"
according to the report prepared by the Harris County Sheriff's
Office.  The driver "died at the scene due to injuries sustained
in the collision," it continued.

NHTSA said it "is in communication with the local authorities who
are investigating the crash."  The agency declined to comment
further on the recall request.

A Chrysler spokesman said: "Reports indicate this was a high-
speed, high-energy crash with a truck."

"Notwithstanding those factors, we still are confident in the
safety and integrity of our vehicles.  Getting hit by a truck at
highway speeds is a severe, high-energy crash that usually ends in
tragedy."

Chrysler's initial decision to reject the recall request was
unusual but not unprecedented.  Most auto makers agree to conduct
recalls at NHTSA's request.

Chrysler Chief Executive Sergio Marchionne endorsed the decision
to fight NHTSA in a June 4 statement that was accompanied by what
Chrysler called a "white paper" detailing what the company said
were flaws in NHTSA's analysis.

It is unclear how much the recall would cost Chrysler.  Dealers
said they expect a trailer hitch assembly to cost about $200 or
less per vehicle.

Clarence Ditlow, executive director for the Washington, D.C.-based
nonprofit Center for Auto Safety, which had asked NHTSA to probe
the Jeep fuel tank design in August 2010, said regulators should
test the Company's recommended fix.

"We call on NHTSA to do crash tests of Chrysler's proposed remedy,
just as it did with Ford's proposed remedy for the Pinto in 1978,"
he said.

Dealers said ahead of Tuesday's recall decision that potential
buyers of Jeep's current models, which have their gas tanks
located in front of the rear axle, haven't been put off by the
controversy.

"Honestly, I haven't been asked once about it," said Blake
Helfman, general sales manager at River Oaks Chrysler Jeep Dodge
Ram in Houston.  "Sales are rocking and rolling for Jeep," he
added.


CINTAS CORP: 6th Cir. Rejects Gender Bias Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Carlyn Kolker, writing for Reuters, reports that the 6th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals has knocked out a proposed class action
against Cintas Corp, which makes corporate uniforms and apparel,
over alleged discrimination in the company's hiring.

The decision, which gives heavy deference to the Supreme Court's
2011 Dukes v. Wal-Mart decision, affirmed a trial court ruling
that denied class certification to female job applicants who said
they were rejected from sales representative positions because of
their gender.

The case had a long trajectory through the court system.
Applicant Blanca Nelly Avalos first filed a hiring discrimination
case against Cintas in federal court in California in 2004.  The
case was later transferred to Michigan, where it was consolidated
with similar cases, with Tanesha Davis as name plaintiff.

U.S. District Judge Sean Cox denied the proposed class in 2010,
and the 6th Circuit heard an appeal in January 2012, six months
after the Supreme Court in Dukes v. Wal-Mart limited the ability
of plaintiffs in a discrimination case to sue as a group.

The 6th Circuit took nearly 1-1/2 years to reach its decision,
published on May 30.  Written by U.S. appeals court Judge Danny
Boggs and joined by Judges John Rogers and Jeffrey Sutton, it
referenced Dukes v. Wal-Mart 37 times.

Citing Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion in the Dukes case, the 6th
Circuit said that the plaintiffs in the Cintas case did not meet
the bar to show commonality under the federal rules of civil
procedures governing class actions.

The 6th Circuit also said that the plaintiffs' attempt to show
discrimination in the hiring process based on the lack of women
hired by the company was not appropriate because it would have
denied Cintas's right to present individual defenses.

The decision is "a two-pronged reinforcement of Dukes," said
Heather Morgan, an attorney at Paul Hastings who represented
Cintas.

                        Subjective Criteria

The 6th Circuit also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the
company's use of subjective criteria in its hiring process had a
so-called disparate impact, adversely affecting women.

Gregory Mersol -- gmersol@bakerlaw.com -- a partner at Baker &
Hostetler who represents employers in litigation, said that was
important for employers because "in almost any area you are going
to have 'subjective criteria' in the hiring process."

"It's going to remain hard for plaintiffs to attack subjective
criteria, but that doesn't mean that employers can rest easy,"
said Mr. Mersol, who is not involved in the Cintas case.  He noted
that Cintas continues to face litigation by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.

Judson Miner of Miner -- jminer@lawmbg.com -- Barnhill & Galland,
who represented Davis, did not return a call for comment.

The 6th Circuit's Cintas ruling has already been cited as
precedent in one of the regional cases that plaintiffs are
pursuing against Wal-Mart after the national Dukes case was
dismantled.

In the regional California case, Wal-Mart on June 3 submitted an
opposition to class certification in federal court in San
Francisco, referencing the Cintas decision in a section on the
standards of proving commonality.

The case is Tanesha Davis v. Cintas Corporation, U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 6th Circuit, No. 10-1662.

For plaintiffs: Judson Miner and Sarah Siskind of Miner, Barnhill
& Galland and Morris Baller and Roberta Steele --
rsteele@gbdhlegal.com -- of Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen &
Dardarian.

For defendant Cintas Corporation: Nancy Abell --
nancyabell@paulhastings.com -- and Heather Morgan
-- heathermorgan@paulhastings.com of Paul Hastings and Rachel Rowe
-- rrowe@kmklaw.com -- of Keating, Muething & Klekamp.


COLUMBIA BANKING: West Coast Bancorp Merger Suit Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in lawsuits filed over the acquisition of West Coast
Bancorp by Columbia Banking System, Inc. agreed to consolidate the
lawsuits in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah
County, according to Columbia Banking's May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On October 3, 2012, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah
against West Coast, its directors, and the Company challenging the
merger: Gary M. Klein v. West Coast Bancorp, et al., Case No.
1210-12431.

The complaint names as defendants West Coast, all of the current
members of West Coast's board of directors, and the Company. The
complaint alleges that the West Coast directors breached their
fiduciary duties to West Coast and West Coast shareholders by
agreeing to the proposed merger at an unfair price.

The complaint also alleges that the proposed merger is being
driven by an unfair process, that the directors approved
provisions in the merger agreement that constitute preclusive deal
protection devices, that certain large shareholders of West Coast
are using the merger as an opportunity to sell their illiquid
holdings in West Coast, and that West Coast directors and officers
will obtain personal benefits from the merger not shared equally
by other West Coast shareholders. The complaint further alleges
that West Coast and the Company aided and abetted the directors'
alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.

Thereafter, a second lawsuit challenging the merger was filed in
the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Clackamas County:
Leoni v. West Coast Bancorp et al., Case No. CV12100728. The
parties have previously stipulated to the consolidation of the two
lawsuits for all purposes in the Circuit Court of the State of
Oregon for Multnomah County, and the Company and West Coast have
consented to the filing of an unopposed motion to consolidate both
lawsuits and extending the time for defendants to file a
responsive pleading until July 5, 2013.


DERMATECH: McCarthy Tetrault Discusses Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Kain, Esq. -- bkain@mccarthy.ca -- at McCarthy Tetrault
LLP reports that the B.C. Court of Appeal has ruled that
plaintiffs in a certified class action cannot compel the
production of information about class members from the third party
physicians who treated them.  The decision in Logan v. Hong, 2013
BCCA 249 is an important reaffirmation of the confidentiality
principle inherent in the physician-patient relationship, and a
reminder that class proceedings legislation cannot derogate from
substantive rights.

Background

The Logan class action was certified in 2011, as Logan v.
Dermatech, Intradermal Distribution Inc., 2011 BCSC 1097.  The
class consisted of all persons injected with the anti-wrinkle
product "Dermalive", who thereafter developed granulomas (or red
bumps) in the areas injected.

In 2012, the plaintiff obtained an order requiring numerous third
party physicians and clinics throughout Canada to provide the
names, addresses and other contact information of persons to whom
they had administered Dermalive.  The purpose of the order was
allow the plaintiff to provide the notice of certification
required under s. 19 of the B.C. Class Proceedings Act to the
class members by direct mailing.  The physicians were granted
leave to appeal that order to the Court of Appeal.

The Logan Decision

In reasons dated May 27, 2013, the Court of Appeal set the
production order aside, finding that it "impermissibly pierces the
physician-patient relationship in circumstances that do not meet
the high test for such interference".  Saunders J.A., who
delivered judgment for the Court, held that the order was
problematic even though it did not require disclosure of medical
records per se, and related to a cosmetic treatment rather than
one of a more sensitive nature (e.g., for mental health, sexual or
procreative issues).  She also found it irrelevant what proportion
of the patients whose names were expected to be produced were
members of the class.  According Saunders J.A.:

. . . [T]he judge erred in principle by elevating the purposes of
the Class Proceedings Act and the search for legal redress above
the fundamental principle of confidentiality that adheres, for the
benefit of the community, to the physician-patient relationship
. . .

The value of redress through the justice system is significant.
However, in my respectful view, one cannot say that recovery of
money trumps the rights of the patient to keep private both the
nature of medical services received and contact information held
by the physician. (paras. 11 and 18)

Significance

The ruling in Logan will be important in future medical products
and pharmaceutical class actions where plaintiffs seek information
from third party physicians about the treatments provided to
individual class members.  The Court of Appeal's reasons are a
clear indication that such information cannot be compelled in
violation of patient confidentiality rights merely in order to
facilitate the procedural aims of class actions.  The principle of
access to justice, in other words, has limits; it does not enable
access to private medical information from third parties regarding
patients who may or may not be members of the class.


DERMATECH: McMillan Discusses Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------
Joan M. Young, Esq. -- joan.young@mcmillan.ca -- at McMillan LLP
and Linda G. Yang (Summer Law Student), report that in a case that
pitted privacy rights against the efficacy of class notification,
the British Columbia Court of Appeal has come down squarely on the
side of upholding privacy rights.  Two years ago, the British
Columbia Supreme Court certified a class proceeding against
Dermatech, a French manufacturer, and its Canadian distributors,
Intradermal Distribution Inc. and Vivier Pharma Inc., where it was
alleged that the Defendants were negligent in the manufacture and
distribution of Dermalive, a medical cosmetic product designed to
be injected into patients to reduce wrinkles: Logan v Dermatech,
Intradermal Distribution Inc.

The class was approved for class members who developed granulomas
in the areas injected with Dermalive.  The potential class was
estimated at 600, calculated on a study that indicated 5.5% of
Dermalive users developed complications.  Just under 11,000
syringes of Dermalive were distributed in Canada before sales
ceased in 2007.

Upon certification, the Plaintiff proposed to use direct mailing
as the most effective way to give notice to class members.  To do
this, the Plaintiff successfully applied for an order forcing a
large number of doctors who may have injected patients with
Dermalive to provide the names, addresses, and other contact
information of their patients to the class representative.  None
of the doctors was a party to the class proceedings.

The doctors who were the subjects of this order applied
successfully to the Court of Appeal to set aside the disclosure
order.

In analyzing the reasons for granting disclosure, the Court of
Appeal held that the need for the representative class plaintiff
to provide notice to the class did not meet the high threshold
test for piercing the confidentiality of the doctor-patient
relationship.  In coming to this conclusion, the Court gave full
weight to the principles of confidentiality and privacy guarding
this relationship.  These principles trump both the purposes of
the Class Proceedings Act and the value of legal redress (i.e.,
recovery of money), especially since nearly 95% of those proposed
patients to be contacted were not even expected to be class
members.  The Court added that the outcome would be the same even
if the vast majority (e.g., 95%) of the patients were expected to
be class members.

The key driver for this result was the finding by the Court that
maintaining confidentiality and privacy within the doctor-patient
relationship is a fundamental principle that can only be
overridden where there are serious health or safety concerns, or
express legislative provisions compelling the release of
information in the public interest.  This has been a long-standing
and significant part of the common law in Canada.  The Court
relied on historical case law, such as Halls v Mitchell, where
Canada's highest court held that the patient has an absolute right
to require that medical information be kept secret, unless there
is some paramount reason which overrides it, such as individual or
public safety, and McInerney v MacDonald, where it was held that
medical information is highly private; going to the personal
integrity and autonomy of the individual.  The patient has a basic
and continuing interest in the usage of and access to this
information.

The Court of Appeal made reference to the Canadian Medical
Association's Code of Ethics which states similar principles in
"Privacy and Confidentiality" as part of the "Fundamental
Responsibilities" of doctors.  The Class Plaintiff attempted to
argue that there was a distinction to be drawn between releasing
confidential medical records and releasing less sensitive patient
contact information.  The Court rejected this assertion, noting
that the disclosure of contact information would still reveal the
fact of a particular medical treatment.  The nature of the medical
treatment was also not viewed as a useful factor because privacy
and confidentiality apply to cosmetic medical treatments as well
as to the treatment of other medical issues.

Previous decisions in which non-parties have been required to turn
over confidential information for the purposes of identifying
class members were distinguished by the Court, including Hoy v
Medtronics Inc., where a judge ordered the defendant manufacturer
to provide the names of the doctors and clinics to whom it had
sold its product, noting that the manufacturer did not have a
doctor-patient relationship with these doctors and clinics, who in
turn were not in any way compelled to provide patient information
as a result of the disclosure order.  In Dalhuisen v Maxim's
Bakery Ltd., where a judge ordered the BC Centre of Disease
Control (CDC) to disclose the names and addresses of people
infected with salmonella from eating the defendant's products, the
Court noted that the information was transmitted to the CDC in the
interest of public safety, a long-recognized reason to override
doctor-patient confidentiality.  In addition, since the CDC is a
public body, the release of information was governed by the
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which is not
applicable to individual doctors.

Finally, the Court of Appeal distinguished two cases in which
physician-patient confidentiality was not even an issue.  The
first was Farkas v Sunnybrook & Women's College Health Sciences
Centre, an Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in which
only one thing was clear: the information sought related only to
class members.  The second was Dominguez v Northland Properties
Corporation, in which the order to disclose involved information
held by the defendant employer and related solely to class
members.  The Court of Appeal pointed out that confidentiality
issues in the employment context do not rise to the level of
doctor-patient privilege.

The Court of Appeal left two significant issues to be decided:
whether ordering non-parties to disclose information is an
impermissible transfer of class litigation costs, and whether it
is within the jurisdiction of the court to order physicians
outside British Columbia to provide the requested information.
These interesting questions will be left to another case.


DFC GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Canada vs. Units
---------------------------------------------------------------
DFC Global Corp. continues to defend its subsidiaries against
class action lawsuits pending in Canada, according to the
Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In 2003 and 2006, purported class actions were brought against the
Company's wholly owned indirect Canadian subsidiary, National
Money Mart Company ("NMM"), and Dollar Financial Group, Inc. in
the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Canada, on behalf of a
class of consumers who obtained short-term loans from NMM in
Alberta, alleging, among other things, that the charge to
borrowers in connection with such loans was usurious under
Canadian federal law (the "Alberta Litigation").  The actions seek
restitution and damages, including punitive damages.  In April
2010, the plaintiffs in both actions indicated that they would
proceed with their claims.  Demands for arbitration were served on
the plaintiff in each of the actions, and NMM filed motions to
enforce the arbitration clause and to stay the actions, which were
denied in October 2012.  In January 2013, NMM filed appeals of
those rulings.  To date, neither case has been certified as a
class action.  The Company is defending these actions vigorously.

In 2004, an action was filed against NMM in Manitoba on behalf of
a purported class of consumers who obtained short-term loans from
NMM.  In early February 2012, a separate action was filed against
NMM and DFG in Manitoba on behalf of a purported class of
consumers which substantially overlaps with the purported class in
the 2004 action.  The allegations in each of these actions are
substantially similar to those in the Alberta Litigation and, to
date, neither action has been certified as a class action.  If
either or both of these actions proceed, the Company intends to
seek a stay on the grounds that the plaintiffs entered into
arbitration and mediation agreements with NMM with respect to the
matters which are the subject of the actions.  The Company intends
to defend these actions vigorously.

As of March 31, 2013, an aggregate of approximately CAD31.9
million is included in the Company's accrued expenses and other
liabilities relating to the purported Canadian class action
proceedings pending in Alberta and Manitoba and for the settled
class actions in Ontario, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia and Newfoundland that were settled by the Company in 2010.
The settlements in those class action proceedings consisted of a
cash component and vouchers to the class members for future
services.  The component of the accrual that relates to vouchers
is approximately CAD18.4 million, the majority of which is
expected to be non-cash.

Although the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to
the claims in the purported class proceedings in Alberta and
Manitoba and intends vigorously to defend against such remaining
pending claims, the ultimate cost of resolution of such claims may
exceed the amount accrued at March 31, 2013, and additional
accruals may be required in the future.

Berwyn, Pennsylvania-based DFC Global Corp. is an international
non-bank provider of alternative financial services, principally
unsecured short-term consumer loans, secured pawn loans, check
cashing, money transfers and reloadable prepaid debit cards,
serving primarily unbanked and under-banked consumers through the
Company's retail storefront locations and its multiple Internet
platforms in nine countries across Europe and North America.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Enters Accord to Settle TCPA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation reached a settlement in the suit
Nicholas Martin v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. and Convergys Customer
Management Group, Inc., No. 12 CV 215, according to Dun &
Bradstreet's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

On January 11, 2012, Nicholas Martin filed suit against Dun &
Bradstreet, Inc. and Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc.
("Convergys") in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that Defendants
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") (47 U.S.C.
227) because Convergys placed a telephone call to Plaintiff's cell
phone using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") and
because Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. authorized the telephone call.

The TCPA generally prohibits the use of an ATDS to place a call to
a cell phone for nonemergency purposes and without the prior
express consent of the called party. The TCPA provides for
statutory damages of $500 per violation, which may be trebled to
$1,500 per violation at the discretion of the court if the
plaintiff proves the defendant willfully violated the Act.

Plaintiff sought to bring this action as a class action on behalf
of all persons who Defendants called on their cell phone using an
ATDS, where the Defendants obtained the cell phone number from
some source other than directly from the called party, during the
period January 11, 2010, to the present. Both Dun & Bradstreet,
Inc. and Convergys answered the complaint on March 2, 2012. The
matter has settled in principle.

The proposed settlement agreement will be subject to approval by
the Court. In accordance with ASC 450, "Contingencies," as of
March 31, 2013, a reserve has been accrued by the company in this
matter, which is reflected in our consolidated financial
statements. The amount of such reserve is not material to the
company's financial statements and an estimate of the additional
loss or range of loss cannot be made.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Starts in O&R Antitrust Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Formal discovery has begun and is in an early stage in the lawsuit
O&R Construction, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation,
et al., No. 2:12 CV 02184, according to The Dun & Bradstreet
Corporation's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

On December 13, 2012, plaintiff O&R Construction LLC filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against D&B and an unaffiliated
entity. The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants
violated the antitrust laws, used deceptive marketing practices to
sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products and allegedly
misrepresented the nature, need and value of the products.

The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of CreditBuilder and seeks recovery of damages and
equitable relief.  On February 18, 2013, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 5, 2013, plaintiff filed
an amended complaint in lieu of responding to the motion.

The amended complaint dropped the antitrust claims and retained
the class action and deceptive practices allegations. The Company
filed a new motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 3,
2013. The parties exchanged initial disclosures and completed the
initial case management process in March 2013. Formal discovery
has begun and is in an early stage. This litigation is at a very
preliminary stage.


EBAY INC: Judge Tosses Sellers' Class Action Over Listing Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hood, writing for ConsumerAffairs, reports that a federal
judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit that claimed eBay
should not have charged sellers each time it renewed listings for
their products.

The case involves eBay's "Good Til Canceled" feature, which
automatically renewed unsold products' listings each month and
charged a 35-cent "insertion fee" unless the seller canceled the
post or sold the item.  Sellers also got hit with charges for any
extras they had chosen when listing their items.

The lead plaintiff in the case, Richard Noll, claimed eBay didn't
disclose the recurring charge and claimed the feature was offered
at "no extra cost."

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila dismissed charges of fraud,
unfair competition and false advertising in 2012 but did not
dismiss charges of breach of contract but let some of the other
charges stand.

Mr. Noll filed an amended complaint in June 2012.  eBay then moved
to dismiss the complaint, which Judge Davila granted.  However, he
granted Mr. Noll and his attorneys leave to amend some of the
claims in the suit.


FOREST RIVER: Recalls 221 Forester and Other Models of Motorhomes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 18, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Motorhome
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           221
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013211
TC ID number:             2013211

On certain motorhomes, the Battery Isolation Manager (located
inside the Battery Control Center) may develop a short circuit,
which could result in a fire causing property damage and/or
personal injury.  Correction: Dealers will replace the Battery
Isolation Manager with an updated version.

Affected products:

           Makes and models affected
   -------------------------------------------
                                    Model year
   Make              Model          affected
   ----              -----          --------
   FOREST RIVER      LEXINGTON        2014
   FOREST RIVER      SUNSEEKER        2014
   FOREST RIVER      FORESTER         2014
   FOREST RIVER      SOLERA           2014


FREDDIE MAC: Discovery Proceeds in "OPERS" Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the putative securities class action Ohio
Public Employees Retirement System ("OPERS") vs. Freddie Mac,
Syron, et al., according to Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac
stock from August 1, 2006 through November 20, 2007.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making false and misleading statements
concerning our business, risk management and the procedures
Freddie Mac put into place to protect the company from problems in
the mortgage industry. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and
interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney
and expert fees.

On April 10, 2008, the Court appointed OPERS as lead plaintiff and
approved its choice of counsel. On September 2, 2008, defendants
filed motions to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint. On
November 7, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.
On November 19, 2008, the Court granted Federal Housing Finance
Agency's motion to intervene in its capacity as Conservator. On
April 6, 2009, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint.

On January 23, 2012, the Court denied defendants' motions to
dismiss. On March 28, 2012, the plaintiff filed its third amended
complaint, which included allegations based on a non-prosecution
agreement entered into between Freddie Mac and the SEC on December
15, 2011. On April 26, 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss
the third amended complaint. The Court denied the motions on May
25, 2012. On August 17, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to certify
a class of plaintiffs comprised of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock
from August 1, 2006 through November 20, 2007, which Freddie Mac
has opposed. On April 10, 2013, the presiding judge in the case
recused himself, and the case was assigned to a different judge.
Discovery is ongoing.


FREDDIE MAC: No Summary Judgment Yet in Kuriakose Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York is
yet to rule on motions for class certification or summary judgment
in Kuriakose vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, Piszel and Cook, according to
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Another putative class action lawsuit was filed against Freddie
Mac and certain former officers on August 15, 2008 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York for alleged
violations of federal securities laws purportedly on behalf of a
class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from November 21, 2007
through August 5, 2008.

The plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false and misleading
statements about Freddie Mac's business that artificially inflated
the price of Freddie Mac's common stock, and sought unspecified
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. On February 6, 2009, the
Court granted Federal Housing Finance Agency's motion to intervene
in its capacity as Conservator. On May 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed
an amended consolidated complaint, purportedly on behalf of a
class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from November 20, 2007
through September 7, 2008. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint on February 24, 2010.

On March 30, 2011, the Court granted without prejudice the
defendants' motions to dismiss all claims, and allowed the
plaintiffs the option to file a new complaint, which they did on
July 18, 2011. On October 13, 2011, the defendants filed motions
to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint. On February
17, 2012, the plaintiffs served a motion seeking leave to file a
third amended consolidated complaint based on the non-prosecution
agreement entered into between Freddie Mac and the SEC on December
15, 2011.

On September 24, 2012, the Court granted with prejudice
defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended
complaint in its entirety, denied plaintiffs' motion to file a
third amended complaint, and directed that the case be closed.

Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants on September 27,
2012. On October 26, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

At present, it is not possible for the company to predict the
probable outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on
Freddie Mac's business, financial condition, liquidity, or results
of operations. In addition, it is unable to reasonably estimate
the possible loss or range of possible loss in the event of an
adverse judgment in the foregoing matter due to the following
factors, among others: the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial
litigation in the event plaintiffs' appeal is granted and the case
is remanded to the District Court; and the fact that the parties
have not briefed and the District Court has not yet ruled upon
motions for class certification or summary judgment.

In particular, absent the certification of a class, the
identification of a class period, and the identification of the
alleged statement or statements that survive dispositive motions,
we cannot reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of
possible loss.


FREDDIE MAC: May Have to Indemnify Goldman et al. in IPO Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation may face a possible
indemnification request in a suit against Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
according to Freddie Mac's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On December 16, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission
announced that it had charged three former executives of Freddie
Mac with securities laws violations. These executives are former
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Richard F.
Syron, former Executive Vice President and Chief Business Officer
Patricia L. Cook, and former Executive Vice President for the
single-family guarantee business Donald J. Bisenius.

By letter dated October 17, 2008, Freddie Mac received formal
notification of a putative class action securities lawsuit, Mark
vs. Goldman, Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., filed on September 23, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, regarding
the company's November 29, 2007 public offering of $6 billion of
8.375% Fixed to Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred
Stock. On January 29, 2009, a plaintiff filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York styled Kreysar vs. Syron, et al.

On April 30, 2009, the Court consolidated the Mark case with the
Kreysar case, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint on July 2, 2009. The consolidated complaint alleged that
three former Freddie Mac officers, certain underwriters and
Freddie Mac's auditor violated federal securities laws by making
material false and misleading statements in connection with the
company's November 29, 2007 public offering of $6 billion of
8.375% Fixed to Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred
Stock.

The complaint further alleged that certain defendants and others
made additional false statements following the offering. The
complaint named as defendants Syron, former Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer Anthony S. Piszel, Cook,
certain underwriters, and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. After a
series of motions and amendments to the complaint, only Syron and
Piszel remain as defendants.

On April 4, 2011, Piszel filed a motion for partial judgment on
the pleadings. The Court granted that motion on April 28, 2011.
The plaintiffs moved for class certification, which motion was
ultimately denied by the Court. On May 31, 2012, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' motion for leave
to appeal the denial of class certification. In August 2012,
plaintiffs sought leave to file another motion for class
certification, which request the Court denied on September 25,
2012.

Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in the consolidated
lawsuit, but the underwriters previously gave notice to Freddie
Mac of their intention to seek full indemnity and contribution
under the underwriting agreement in this case, including
reimbursement of fees and disbursements of their legal counsel.


FREDDIE MAC: Lawsuits Over Real Estate Transfer Taxes Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits filed against Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae over real estate
transfer taxes have been stayed pending an appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit of a summary judgment
rendered against Federal Housing Finance Agency as conservator,
according to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's May 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Beginning in 2011 in Michigan, states have been filing lawsuits
challenging Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae's statutory exemption from
real estate transfer taxes imposed on the transfer of real
property for which Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae was the grantor or
grantee. Currently, approximately 45 lawsuits are pending in 21
states and the District of Columbia. The company received
favorable rulings in several cases, and one unfavorable ruling (in
Michigan, as discussed below). Several appeals are pending.

Plaintiffs in these cases are generally seeking a declaration that
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are not exempt from transfer taxes,
damages for unpaid transfer taxes, as well as other items, which
may include penalties, interest, liquidated penalties, pre-
judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

On June 20, 2011, Oakland County (Michigan) and the Oakland County
Treasurer filed a lawsuit against Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
alleging that the enterprises failed to pay real estate transfer
taxes on transfers of real property in Oakland County where the
enterprises were the grantors. Federal Housing Finance Agency
later intervened as Conservator for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

On November 10, 2011, Genesee County (Michigan) and the Genesee
County Treasurer filed a class action lawsuit in the same court on
behalf of itself and the other 82 Michigan counties raising
similar claims against FHFA (as Conservator), Freddie Mac, and
Fannie Mae. The Court later certified the class, with two Michigan
counties opting out. The Michigan Department of Attorney General
and the Michigan Department of Treasury intervened in both actions
against the defendants.

In both actions, FHFA, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae asserted that
they were not liable for the transfer taxes based on federal
statutory tax exemptions applicable to each. On March 23, 2012,
the Court granted summary judgment against FHFA (as Conservator),
Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae in both actions, determining that the
statutory exemptions did not exempt them from Michigan's state and
county transfer tax.

The plaintiffs in both cases subsequently filed amended complaints
to cover purportedly taxable transactions where Freddie Mac and
Fannie Mae received property as grantees through a Michigan
Sheriff's deed or a deed in lieu of foreclosure. FHFA (as
Conservator), Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae filed an appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the District
Court has stayed the actions pending resolution of the appeal. The
District Court has not yet addressed the amount of damages the
plaintiffs contend are owed in either case.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 3,456 GMC, Chevrolet, Buick and Saab SUVs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                June 17, 2013
Type of communication:        Recall
Subcategory:                  SUV
Notification type:            Safety Mfr
System:                       Electrical
Units affected:               3,456
Source of recall:             Transport Canada
Identification number:        2013210
TC ID number:                 2013210
Manufacturer recall number:   12180

On certain vehicles, the driver's door module could short circuit
and fail.  An electrical short could result in a vehicle fire
causing property damage and/or personal injury.  Correction:
Dealers will test the driver's window and door lock switches for
proper operation.  If the switches function correctly, a
protective coating will be applied to the door module.  If the
switches do not function properly, the door module will be
replaced.  Note: This recall affects vehicles not covered by 2012-
282 due to their geographic location.

Affected products:

               Makes and models affected
   ----------------------------------------------------
   Make        Model             Model year(s) affected
   ----        -----             ----------------------
   GMC         ENVOY             2006, 2007
   CHEVROLET   TRAILBLAZER       2006, 2007
   CHEVROLET   TRAILBLAZER EXT   2006
   GMC         ENVOY XL          2006
   BUICK       RAINIER           2006, 2007
   SAAB        9-7X              2005, 2006, 2007


HANSEN MEDICAL: Securities Suit Parties Yet to File Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated securities lawsuit against Hansen
Medical, Inc., are yet to file their settlement documents,
according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

Following the Company's October 19, 2009 announcement that it
would restate certain of its financial statements, a securities
class action lawsuit was filed on October 23, 2009, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
naming the Company and certain of its now former officers, Curry
v. Hansen Medical, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-05094.  The complaint
asserts claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of Hansen stock between May 1, 2008, and October 18,
2009, inclusive, and alleges, among other things, that the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to make disclosures regarding the Company's financial results and
compliance with GAAP while improperly recognizing revenue; that
these misstatements and/or nondisclosures resulted in
overstatement of Company revenue and financial results and/or
artificially inflated the Company's stock price; and that
following the Company's October 19, 2009 announcement, the price
of the Company's stock declined.

On November 4, 2009, and November 13, 2009, substantively
identical complaints were filed in the Northern District of
California by other purported Hansen stockholders asserting the
same claims on behalf of the same putative class of Hansen
stockholders, Livingstone v. Hansen Medical, Inc. et al., Case No.
09-05212 and Prenter v. Hansen Medical, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-
05367.  All three complaints seek certification as a class action
and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys
fees.  On December 22, 2009, two purported Hansen stockholders,
Mina and Nader Farr, filed a joint application for appointment as
lead plaintiffs and for consolidation of the three actions.

On February 25, 2010, the Court issued an order granting Mina and
Nader Farr's application for appointment as lead plaintiffs and
consolidating the three securities class actions.  On July 15,
2010, the Court entered an order granting the lead plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.  The Lead
plaintiffs' second amended complaint, in addition to alleging that
shareholders suffered damages as a result of the decline in the
Company's stock price following the October 19, 2009 announcement,
also alleges that shareholders suffered additional damages as the
result of share price declines on July 28, 2009, July 31, 2009,
January 8, 2009, July 6, 2009, and August 4, 2009, all of which
lead plaintiffs allege were caused by the disclosure of what they
claim was previously misrepresented information.  The Defendants
filed their motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on
October 13, 2010.  The Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss with leave to amend on August 25, 2011.  The Plaintiffs'
third amended complaint was filed on October 18, 2011.  The
Defendants filed their motions to dismiss on January 9, 2012.  On
August 10, 2012, the Court denied in part and granted in part
Defendants' motions to dismiss.  On January 4, 2013, lead
plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint to add certain of
Hansen's current and former directors and Hansen's former auditor.
Hansen filed an opposition to the lead plaintiffs' motion on
February 11, 2013.

On May 9, 2013, the parties entered a stipulation of settlement
pursuant to which the plaintiffs will receive an aggregate of $8.5
million, $4 million of which will be funded in cash by the
Company's insurer and other sources.  The Company will fund the
remaining portion by issuing $4.25 million worth of the Company's
common stock, the number of shares to be determined based on the
average closing price of the common stock for the 10 trading days
preceding final court approval of the settlement of the class
action, and paying $250,000 in cash.  The Company recorded a loss
on litigation settlement of $4.5 million for the three months
ended March 31, 2013.  A corresponding liability is included in
the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of
March 31, 2013.  The settlement is subject to court approval.
While the timing of the court decision is uncertain, the Company
expects to receive court approval of the settlement within
approximately six months.

                   About Hansen Medical, Inc.

Hansen Medical, Inc., based in Mountain View, California, is the
global leader in intravascular robotics, developing products and
technology designed to enable the accurate positioning,
manipulation and control of catheters and catheter-based
technologies.


HEALTH NET: Obtains Final Approval of "Eddings" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Josephine Staton Tucker granted final approval of a
settlement in the class action captioned SHAUNETTA EDDINGS,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. HEALTH NET, INC., et al. Defendants,
CASE NO. CV 10-1744-JST (RZX), (C.D. Cal.).

Under the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants have agreed to pay
$600,000 as the total settlement fund, without admitting any
liability, and to deposit the money with a settlement
administrator following approval.  Each Class Member's share of
the Settlement is based on a pro rata share of the funds based on
that Class Member's time worked within the relevant time period,
his or her rate of pay, and multipliers including whether he or
she worked in California, whether he or she opted in to the FLSA
claim, and his or her standing as a terminated employee within the
applicable statute of limitations period to maintain a claim for
penalties under California Labor Code Section 203.  The average
award provided to each Class Member will exceed $150.

The Settlement further provides that funds remaining after
distribution to Class Members, including checks uncashed after 320
days and checks returned as undeliverable, are to be distributed
in cy pres to the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center.

An "enhancement award" of up to $6,000 for Plaintiff Shaunetta
Eddings, based on her service as class representative and in
consideration for her execution of a general release, is approved.

The Court approves $25,000 for Simpluris, as Settlement
Administrator.

The Court further approved an award of attorneys' fees in the
amount of $150,000.

Class Members who do not opt-out agree to release the Defendants
from liability for all unpaid wage claims related to rounding of
time, including self-rounding, during the period before July 18,
2008, excluding the FLSA claims of Class Members who did not
affirmatively opt-in to this lawsuit.

USA, Plaintiff, is represented by Alka Sagar, Esq. --
alka.sagar@usdoj.gov -- of AUSA - Office of US Attorney & Steven R
Welk, Esq. -- Steven.Welk@usdoj.gov -- AUSA - Office of US
Attorney.

A copy of the District Court's June 13, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/1ub3Xjfrom Leagle.com.


HSBC USA: Readies Portion of Settlement in Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. deposited its portion of the class settlement amount
into an escrow account for payment in In re Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation in the
event the class settlement is finally approved, according to the
company's May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Since June 2005, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC
North America and HSBC, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. and
MasterCard Incorporated, have been named as defendants in four
class actions filed in Connecticut and the Eastern District of New
York: Photos Etc. Corp. et al v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.(D.
Conn. No. 3:05-CV-01007 (WWE)); National Association of
Convenience Stores, et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.(E.D.N.Y.
No. 05-CV 4520 (JG)); Jethro Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-4521(JG)); and American
Booksellers Asps' v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-
5391 (JG)).

Numerous other complaints containing similar allegations (in which
no HSBC entity is named) were filed across the country against
Visa Inc., MasterCard Incorporated and other banks. Various
individual (non-class) actions were also brought by merchants
against Visa Inc., and MasterCard Incorporated. These class and
individual merchant actions principally allege that the imposition
of a no-surcharge rule by the associations and/or the
establishment of the interchange fee charged for credit card
transactions causes the merchant discount fee paid by retailers to
be set at supracompetitive levels in violation of the Federal
antitrust laws.

These suits were consolidated and transferred to the Eastern
District of New York. The consolidated case is: In re Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL
1720, E.D.N.Y. ("MDL 1720"). On February 7, 2011, MasterCard
Incorporated, Visa Inc., the other defendants, including HSBC Bank
USA, and certain affiliates of the defendants entered into
settlement and judgment sharing agreements (the "Sharing
Agreements") that provide for the apportionment of certain defined
costs and liabilities that the defendants, including HSBC Bank USA
and our affiliates, may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the
event of an adverse judgment or global settlement of one or all of
these actions.

The parties engaged in a mediation process and the putative class
plaintiffs filed a class settlement agreement with the District
Court on October 19, 2012, and the District Court entered an order
preliminarily approving the class settlement on November 27, 2012.
The class settlement is subject to final approval by the District
Court.

Pursuant to the class settlement agreement and the Sharing
Agreements, the company deposited its portion of the class
settlement amount into an escrow account for payment in the event
the class settlement is approved. On October 22, 2012, a
settlement agreement with the individual merchant plaintiffs
became effective, and pursuant to the Sharing Agreements the
company deposited its portion of that settlement amount into an
escrow account.


HSBC USA: Moves to Consolidate Checking Account Overdraft Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate all of federal complaints
related to "overdraft fees" on checking accounts to the Eastern
District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings, according to the company's May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In February 2011, an action captioned Ofra Levin et al v. HSBC
Bank USA, N.A. et al (E.D.N.Y. 11-CV-0701) was filed in the
Eastern District of New York against HSBC Bank USA, HSBC USA and
HSBC North America on behalf of a putative nationwide class and
New York sub-class of customers who allegedly incurred overdraft
fees due to the posting of debit card transactions to deposit
accounts in high-to-low order.

The plaintiffs (the "Levin Plaintiffs") dismissed the federal
court action after the case was transferred to the multi-district
litigation pending in Miami, Florida, and re-filed the case in New
York state court on March 1, 2011. The action captioned Ofra Levin
et al v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 650562/11),
alleges a variety of common law claims on behalf of a New York
class, including breach of contract and the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, conversion and unjust enrichment, and
a violation of the New York deceptive acts and practices statute.

In May 2011, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
The court denied in part and granted in part the motion to
dismiss, granting the Levin Plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint with regard to their claims for conversion and unjust
enrichment. On July 26, 2012, the company appealed the court's
order. The appeal is still pending.

On August 27, 2012, the Levin Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint asserting the same causes of action. In October 2012,
counsel for the Levin Plaintiffs sought to withdraw as their
counsel and to amend the complaint to, among other things,
substitute a new named plaintiff, Darek Jura ("Jura") and amend
the case caption.

The court granted counsel's requests-they are no longer counsel
for the Levin Plaintiffs, Jura has been added as a named plaintiff
and the action is now captioned In Re HSBC Bank USA, N.A. Checking
Account Overdraft Litigation (the "Overdraft Litigation"). On
November 9, 2012, Jura filed a motion for class certification.
HSBC's deadline to respond to the motion for class certification
was May 2, 2013.

On December 3, 2012, the Levin Plaintiffs, represented by new
counsel, filed a motion to dismiss the Overdraft Litigation solely
on the basis that the Levin Action is pending. The Levin
Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss was denied on April 2, 2013.
On November 19, 2012, the Levin Plaintiffs filed a new action
captioned Ofra Levin et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al.
(E.D.N.Y. 12-CV-5696) in the Eastern District of New York (the
"Levin Action"). The Levin Action seeks relief for a nationwide
class and asserts the same claims as in the Overdraft Litigation
as well as alleges that deposited funds are not made available
pursuant to the company's funds availability disclosures.

On December 21, 2012, the Levin Plaintiffs filed their first
amended complaint. On February 11, 2013, the company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion is fully briefed and
oral argument has been requested. On March 13, 2013, the Levin
Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint. This motion is also currently pending.

On December 18, 2012, Jura filed a new action captioned Darek Jura
v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al. (E.D.N.Y. 12-CV-6224) in the Eastern
District of New York (the "Jura Action"). On December 28, 2012,
Jura filed a motion to consolidate this action with the Levin
Action. Jura also filed a motion to appoint his counsel as interim
class counsel. The company filed a non-opposition to the motion to
consolidate and motion to appoint Jura's counsel as interim class
counsel.

The Levin Plaintiffs filed a partial opposition to the motion to
consolidate-they do not oppose consolidation, but seek to have
their own attorney appointed as interim lead class counsel. The
motions are still pending. On February 26, 2013, the company filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint and it will be fully briefed on
April 16, 2013. Oral argument has been requested for the motion to
dismiss.

On February 20, 2013, an action captioned Hanes v. HSBC Bank USA,
N.A. (E.D. Va. 13-CV-00229) was filed in the Eastern District of
Virginia only as to HSBC Bank USA. The company is required to
respond to the complaint by April 15, 2013.

On April 3, 2013, the company filed a motion with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate all of the
federal actions to the Eastern District of New York for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings ("MDL Petition").
Plaintiffs response to the MDL Petition were due on April 25,
2013. On April 4, 2013, the company filed motions to stay the
federal actions while the MDL Petition is pending.


HSBC USA: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Lender-Placed Insurance
-----------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. continues to face new lawsuits related to lender-
placed insurance, according to the company's May 7, 2013, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Lender-placed insurance involves a lender obtaining an insurance
policy (hazard or flood insurance) on a mortgaged property when
the borrower fails to maintain their own policy. The cost of the
lender-placed insurance is then passed on to the borrower.

Industry practices with respect to lender-placed insurance are
receiving heightened regulatory scrutiny from both federal and
state agencies. Beginning in October 2011, a number of mortgage
servicers and insurers, including our affiliate, HSBC Insurance
(USA) Inc., received subpoenas from the New York Department of
Financial Services (the "NYDFS") with respect to lender-placed
insurance activities dating back to September 2005.

HSBC USA Inc. said it will continue to provide documentation and
information to the NYDFS that is responsive to the subpoena.
Additionally, in March 2013, the Massachusetts Attorney General
issued a Civil Investigative Demand ("MA LPI CID") to HSBC
Mortgage Corporation (USA) seeking information about lender-placed
insurance activities. The company anticipates providing
documentation and information responsive to the MA LPI CID as
well.

Between June 2011 and April 2013, several putative class actions
related to lender-placed insurance were filed against various HSBC
U.S. entities, including actions against HSBC USA, Inc. and
certain of our subsidiaries captioned Montanez et al v. HSBC
Mortgage Corporation (USA) et al. (E.D. Pa. No. 11-CV-4074); West
et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) et al. (South Carolina
Court of Common Pleas, 14th Circuit No. 12-CP-00687); Weller et
al. v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. et al. (D. Col. No. 13-CV-
00185); and Hoover et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al. (N.D.N.Y.
13-CV-00149); and Lopez v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al. (S.D. Fla
13-CV-21104).

These actions relate primarily to industry-wide practices, and
include allegations regarding the relationships and potential
conflicts of interest between the various entities that place the
insurance, the value and cost of the insurance that is placed,
back-dating policies to the date the borrower allowed it to lapse,
self-dealing and insufficient disclosure.

Private Mortgage Insurance Matters Private Mortgage Insurance
("PMI") is insurance required to be obtained by home purchasers
who provide a down payment less than a certain percentage
threshold of the purchase price, typically 20 percent. The
insurance generally protects the lender against a default on the
loan.

In January 2013, a putative class action related to PMI was filed
against various HSBC U.S. entities, including HSBC USA, Inc and
certain of our subsidiaries captioned Ba v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et
al (E.D. Pa. No. 2:13-cv-00072PD). This action relates primarily
to industry-wide practices and includes allegations regarding the
relationships and potential conflicts of interest between the
various entities that place the insurance, self-dealing,
insufficient disclosures and improper fees.


HSBC USA: Court Yet to Rule on Plaintiffs' Appeal in Madoff Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A decision is expected this year on the appeal by plaintiffs
against the dismissal of all remaining claims against HSBC
defendants in In re Herald, Primeo and Thema Funds Securities
Litigation, according HSBC USA Inc.'s May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In December 2008, Bernard L. Madoff ("Madoff") was arrested for
running a Ponzi scheme and a trustee was appointed for the
liquidation of his firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities
LLC ("Madoff Securities"), an SEC-registered broker-dealer and
investment adviser.

Various non-U.S. HSBC companies provided custodial, administration
and similar services to a number of funds incorporated outside the
United States whose assets were invested with Madoff Securities.
Plaintiffs (including funds, funds investors and the Madoff
Securities trustee) have commenced Madoff-related proceedings
against numerous defendants in a multitude of jurisdictions.

Various HSBC companies have been named as defendants in suits in
the United States, Ireland, Luxembourg and other jurisdictions.
Certain suits (which include U.S. putative class actions) allege
that the HSBC defendants knew or should have known of Madoff's
fraud and breached various duties to the funds and fund investors.

In November 2011, the District Court judge overseeing three
related putative class actions in the Southern District of New
York, captioned In re Herald, Primeo and Thema Funds Securities
Litigation (S.D.N.Y. Nos. 09-CV-0289 (RMB), 09-CV-2558 (RMB)),
dismissed all claims against the HSBC defendants on forum non
conveniens grounds, but temporarily stayed this ruling as to one
of the actions against the HSBC defendants -- the claims of
investors in Thema International Fund plc -- in light of a
proposed amended settlement agreement between the lead plaintiff
in that action and the relevant HSBC defendants (including,
subject to the granting of leave to effect a proposed pleading
amendment, HSBC Bank USA).

In December 2011, the District Court lifted this temporary stay
and dismissed all remaining claims against the HSBC defendants,
and declined to consider preliminary approval of the settlement.
In light of the District Court's decisions, HSBC has terminated
the settlement agreement. The Thema plaintiff contests HSBC's
right to terminate. Plaintiffs in all three actions filed notices
of appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, where the actions are captioned In re Herald, Primeo and
Thema Funds Securities Litigation (2nd Cir, Nos. 12-156, 12-184,
12-162).

Briefing in that appeal was completed in September 2012 and oral
argument was held in April 2013. A decision is expected in 2013.


INNOVATION VENTURES: Hermida Suit Stayed Pending Transfer to MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The matter JUNIOR HERMIDA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. INNOVATION VENTURES, LLC,
Defendant, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-47-FTM-38UA, (M.D. Fla.), came before
the Court on an agreed motion to stay proceedings pending transfer
to multidistrict litigation filed on March 6, 2013. The Parties
sought a stay of all proceedings pending transfer and coordination
of the action with the Multidistrict Litigation case in the
Central District of California concerning other marketing and sale
of the Defendant's product, 5-Hour Energy(R) cases.

District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell ruled that the relief will
be granted for a period of time to allow a decision of the JPML
regarding transfer.

Specifically, Judge Chappell concluded that:

(1) the Agreed Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Transfer to
    Multidistrict Litigation is granted to the extent that the
    case is stayed for a period of 90 days from the date of the
    Order. If the case is not otherwise transferred within the
    time period, the Parties may seek to continue the stay upon
    expiration of the time period.

(2) as the matter is stayed, the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for
    Extension of Time for Plaintiff to File Motion for Class
    Certification is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiff may
    re-file the request for extension of time if the action is not
    transferred to the Central District of California for
    consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Junior Hermida is represented by Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. --
cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- at Levin Fishbein Sedran and Berman, John
R Climaco, Esq. -- jrclim@climacolaw.com -- and John A Peca, Jr.,
Esq. -- japeca@climacolaw.com -- at Climaco Wilcox Peca Tarantino
and Garofoli Co LPA, & Jordan Lucas Chaikin, Esq., at Parker
Waichman LLP.

Innovation Ventures LLC is represented by Amy Lane Hurwitz, Esq.
-- ahurwitz@carltonfields.com -- & David Matthew Allen, Esq. --
mallen@carltonfields.com -- at Carlton Fields PA.

A copy of the District Court's June 3, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/nQI7pWfrom Leagle.com.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Dismissal Sought in Retirement System's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the securities suit City of Royal Oak
Retirement System v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., Case No.
11-cv-04003-LHK, is before the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, according to Juniper
Networks, Inc.'s May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

On August 15, 2011, a purported securities class action lawsuit,
captioned City of Royal Oak Retirement System v. Juniper Networks,
Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-04003-LHK, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
naming the Company and certain of its officers and directors as
defendants.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
prospects. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of monetary
damages on behalf of the purported class. On January 9, 2012 the
Court appointed City of Omaha Police and Fire Retirement System
and City of Bristol Pension Fund as lead plaintiffs. Lead
plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and misleading
statements about the Company's business and future prospects, and
failed to adequately disclose the impact of certain changes in
accounting rules. Lead plaintiffs purport to assert claims for
violations of Sections 10 (b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Juniper Networks' common stock
between July 20, 2010 and July 26, 2011, inclusive.

On March 14, 2012, Defendants filed motions to dismiss lead
plaintiffs' amended complaint. On July 23, 2012, the Court issued
an order dismissing the action and giving lead plaintiffs leave to
file an amended complaint. Lead plaintiffs filed their second
amended complaint on August 20, 2012. Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint on September 17, 2012, and
lead plaintiffs filed their opposition on October 22, 2012.
Defendants filed their reply brief on November 8, 2012. A hearing
on the motion to dismiss was scheduled for May 16, 2013.


KERYX BIOPHARMA: Motion for Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Plaintiff's Counsel in
securities suits against Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. are
presently pending, according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On February 1, 2013, a lawsuit was filed against the company and
its chief executive officer on behalf of a putative class of all
of our shareholders (other than the defendants) who acquired our
shares between June 1, 2009 and April 1, 2012, Smith v. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-CV-0755-TPG
(S.D.N.Y.).

On February 26, 2013, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed
against the company and its chief executive officer as well as our
chief financial officer, Park v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:13-CV-1307-TPG (S.D.N.Y.).

The company anticipates the court will consolidate the actions.

Both complaints assert claims against (i) the company for alleged
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii)
the officers for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. Both complaints are premised on
general allegations that the company and the individual defendants
participated directly or indirectly in the preparation and/or
issuance of purportedly false and misleading earnings reports, SEC
filings, press releases, and other public statements, which
allegedly caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially
inflated prices. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
damages.

Motions to appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Plaintiff's Counsel
were filed on April 2, 2013, and are presently pending. Following
the appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Plaintiff's Counsel, a
Consolidated Amended Complaint will be filed that will serve as
the operative complaint in this matter.


MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Investor Class Action Hearing Begins
--------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Tedesco, writing for Financial Post, reports that
almost four years after irate investors launched a C$500-million
claim against Manulife Financial Corp. over its risk management
policies and practices, an Ontario court was set to hear arguments
as it determines whether the case can proceed as a class action.

Three days of hearings were scheduled before Ontario Superior
Court Justice Edward Belobaba beginning June 5, forcing Canada's
once most-venerated life insurer to revisit a tumultuous time that
stemmed from the turmoil of the 2008 global financial meltdown and
culminated in a tense battle between regulators, Manulife's
legendary former chief executive Dominic D'Alessandro and the
company's blue-chip board of directors.

Filed in 2009 by Siskinds LLP on behalf of shareholders who
acquired Manulife shares from Jan. 26, 2004 to Feb. 12, 2009, the
lawsuit seeks millions in damages from the giant insurance
company, 66-year-old Mr. D'Alessandro and former chief financial
officer Peter Rubenovitch.  At issue is Manulife's controversial
hedging strategy for variable annuity and segregated funds
products.  The claim alleges, among other things, that the giant
insurer "negligently made representations" regarding its risk
management practices and policies.  A similar class-action suit in
the U.S. was dismissed last September.

The court hearing is the first among many preliminary steps
aggrieved investors will be required to take before going to
trial.  In seeking leave from the court to certify the class
action, the plaintiffs must demonstrate their claim has been
brought forward in good faith for the purposes of recovering
losses.  Justice Belobaba, who is expected to defer his decision,
will weigh the preliminary evidence to determine whether the case
has a reasonable chance of success at trial.  Furthermore, if the
judge rules in favor of the class action, it will likely still be
years before any of the allegations against Manulife are tested or
proven in court.

"The company believes that its disclosure satisfied applicable
disclosure requirements, and intends to vigorously defend itself
against any claims based on these allegations," Manulife spokesman
Graeme Harris said in an email.

Even so, for three days, Manulife will be forced to relive the
drama of an era of explosive growth that forged the firm into the
largest life insurer in North America under the tutelage of
Mr. D'Alessandro -- and the global financial havoc that knocked
the company off its pedestal.

Like other Canadian insurers, Manulife was sideswiped by the 2008
financial crisis mostly due to its exposure to guaranteed annuity
products, especially in North America and Asia.  A major player in
segregated funds and variable annuities, the company developed an
unusually high exposure to stock markets.  It was simple
demographics: aging Baby Boomers flocked to products that enhanced
their retirement portfolios with investments that featured wealth
protection guarantees.  In turn, insurers who offered the products
were required to pad their capital reserves to cover guaranteed
payouts in the event markets crashed.

However, in 2004, Manulife dispensed with the industry practice of
hedging its equity position in the variable annuity business.  Two
years later, it faced growing risk exposure caused by the gap
between the amount it promised to pay its variable annuity clients
in the future and the amount set aside to meet those guarantees.

In late 2007, the insurer took measured steps to bridge the
growing chasm by hedging in a small percentage of its business.
But it was too little, too late.  By 2008, Manulife's risk
exposure had widened significantly after global stock markets
plunged into freefall, shaving as much as 50% from leading market
indices.  By September, 2008 Manulife's net exposure of guarantees
from segregated funds was $72-billion to be paid out in seven to
30 years.  Meanwhile, its capital levels sank as a result of the
massive stock performance associated with the variable annuities.

Inevitably, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions, Canada's much feared -- and revered -- financial
watchdog took notice.  In a series of aggressive moves over
several months in late 2008 to 2009, the regulator forced Manulife
to shore up its capital position.  By the end of that turbulent
time, the insurer had hedged all of its new variable annuity
business and restored its capital to more comfortable levels.

Even so, OSFI ratcheted up its oversight and supervision by
subjecting the company's senior management, led by
Mr. D'Alessandro, and its blue-chip board of directors to
unprecedented scrutiny.  For the mercurial CEO, it was an
especially difficult time.  Widely celebrated in Canadian business
circles for building Manulife into a financial powerhouse,
Mr. D'Alessandro faced unaccustomed criticism that cast a pall
over a stellar career, and led to his "bittersweet" exit.

By the time Mr. D'Alessandro retired in May, 2009 -- a year later
than he had planned -- Manulife had ceased selling annuities to
clients.  His successor Donald Guloien ushered in a conservative
management style that signaled a dramatic shift in an attempt to
rebuild Manulife's bruised balance sheet and repair strained
relations with OSFI.  Armed with his repeated mantra of building
"fortress capital," Mr. Guloien steadily rooted out risk, rebuilt
capital, slashed the dividend in half and raised $2.5-billion in a
share offer that at the time was the second largest in Canadian
history.

In the ensuing three years, Manulife has emerged a different
company.  No longer the largest in Canada by market
capitalization, it is nonetheless a steady, stable player.  But
there's no running from the past, at least for the foreseeable
future.


MCKESSON CORPORATION: Settles Suit Over PSS World Acquisition
-------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation agreed in principle to settle as a non-opt
out class action a lawsuit in relation to its agreement to acquire
PSS World Medical, according to the company's May 7, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In connection with the Company's execution of an agreement to
acquire PSS World Medical, a putative class action complaint was
filed on December 5, 2012, in Florida state court, Duval County,
by an alleged public shareholder of PSS World Medical against PSS
World Medical, members of PSS World Medical's board of directors,
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co, and the
Company, Baltimore County Employees' Retirement System v. Gary A.
Corless, et al. (No.16-2012-CA-013015).

The suit alleges that PSS World Medical and its board members
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder
value and by failing to disclose material information in the
preliminary proxy statement, and that the Company and others aided
and abetted various fiduciary duty breaches in connection with the
proposed merger.

In addition to monetary damages in an unspecified amount and other
remedies, the suit seeks to enjoin consummation of the merger.

On February 8, 2013, the parties agreed in principle to settle the
action as a non-opt out class action, subject to court approval,
with enhanced disclosures, a request for attorneys' fees, and no
affect on the consideration to be received by PSS shareholders as
a result of the Company's agreement to acquire PSS. The agreement
includes an express denial of any liability on the part of the
Company. The parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of
settlement that will be presented to the court for final approval.


MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: May Face Class Action Over TASE Delisting
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shmulik Shelach, writing for Globes, reports that the decision by
Mellanox Technologies Ltd. to delist from the TASE continues to
make waves.  On June 20, lawyers representing investors sent a
letter threatening a class-action suit against the company, which
plans to delist from the TASE in September.

"The company's board of directors should have prevented Eyal
Waldman [Mellanox's chairman, president and CEO] from exercising
his childish caprices, and made it clear to him that it is
absolutely unacceptable to delist the company for reasons of
caprice and games of ego," states the letter.  "We find is
astonishing and serious that the board of directors of such a
respected and successful company lent their support to such an
embarrassing and childish act, which is liable to cause the
company and its shareholders serious damage."

In the letter, the shareholders demand that Mellanox cancel the
decision to delist, give the petitioners material related to the
decision, and compensate the shareholders, because the
announcement of the delisting "caused the shareholders huge losses
amounting to hundreds of millions of shekels."


METABOLIX INC: Awaits Decision on Bid to Dismiss "Coyne" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Metabolix, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit commenced by Hilary Coyne in
Massachusetts, according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On February 17, 2012, a purported shareholder class action, Hilary
Coyne v. Metabolix, Inc., Richard P. Eno, and Joseph Hill, Civil
Action 1:12-cv-10318 (the "class action"), was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming
the Company and certain officers of the Company as defendants.
The class action alleges that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the
Company's disclosures during the period from March 10, 2010,
through its January 12, 2012 press release announcing that Archer
Daniels Midland Company ("ADM") had given notice of termination of
the Telles LLC joint venture for PHA biopolymers, all in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5.  The class action seeks certification as a class
action, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, the
plaintiff's costs and attorneys' fees, and unspecified equitable
or injunctive relief.  The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
October 15, 2012, that supersedes the initial complaint and
demands identical relief based on substantially similar
allegations.  On December 14, 2012, the defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint, which the plaintiffs opposed,
and on which the court has not yet ruled.

Headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Metabolix, Inc. is an
innovation-driven bioscience company focused on delivering
sustainable solutions to the plastics, chemicals and energy
industries.  The Company has core capabilities in microbial
genetics, fermentation process engineering, chemical engineering,
polymer science, plant genetics and botanical science.


MORGAN STANLEY: ERISA Litigation Dismissed
------------------------------------------
On March 28, 2013, the court presiding in both In re Morgan
Stanley ERISA Litigation and Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co.
Incorporated et al. granted defendants' motions to dismiss.  In
each case the court allowed plaintiffs the opportunity to file an
amended complaint with respect to certain claims, according to the
company's May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Morgan Stanley disclosed on its February 26, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012, that beginning in December 2007,
several purported class action complaints were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"SDNY") asserting claims on behalf of participants in the
Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against
the Company and other parties, including certain present and
former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In February 2008, these
actions were consolidated in a single proceeding, styled In re
Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation.

The consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company's
subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes
allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal
controls, accounting and other matters. The consolidated complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Company's common stock was
not a prudent investment and that risks associated with its common
stock and its financial condition were not adequately disclosed.
Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification,
unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On
March 26, 2012, defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the
complaint.


MORGAN STANLEY: "Coulter" Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------
On March 28, 2013, the court presiding in both In re Morgan
Stanley ERISA Litigation and Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co.
Incorporated et al. granted defendants' motions to dismiss. In
each case the court allowed plaintiffs the opportunity to file an
amended complaint with respect to certain claims, according to the
company's May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Morgan Stanley disclosed in its February 26, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012, that on March 16, 2011, a purported
class action, styled Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated
et al., was filed in the SDNY asserting claims on behalf of
participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock
ownership plan against the Company and certain current and former
officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants knew or
should have known that from January 2, 2008 to December 31, 2008,
the plans' investment in Company stock was imprudent given the
extraordinary risks faced by the Company and its common stock
during that period. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief,
class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs,
interest and fees. On July 20, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint and on October 28, 2011, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.


MORGAN STANLEY: Files Answer to Amended Pass-Through Cert. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley on March 8, 2013, filed an answer to the fourth
amended complaint in In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates Litigation, according to the company's
May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Morgan Stanley disclosed on its February 26, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012, that on May 7, 2009, the Company was
named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought
under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act"), which is now styled In re Morgan
Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Litigation and is
pending in the SDNY.

The third amended complaint, filed on September 30, 2011, alleges,
among other things, that the registration statements and offering
documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-
through certificates in 2006 contained false and misleading
information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed
these securitizations. The plaintiffs seek, among other relief,
class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary
damages, costs, interest and fees.

On January 11, 2013, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration which sought to expand the offerings at issue in
the litigation based on recent precedent from the Second Circuit.
On January 31, 2013, plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint,
in which they purport to represent investors who purchased
approximately $7.82 billion in mortgage pass-through certificates
issued in 2006 by 14 trusts.


MORGAN STANLEY: IndyMac MBS Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Talks
----------------------------------------------------------------
On November 16, 2012, the court presiding in In re IndyMac
Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation denied without prejudice
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration seeking to expand the
offerings at issue in the litigation. On March 26, 2013, the court
entered an order staying the litigation for 60 days in order for
the parties to engage in settlement discussions, according to
Morgan Stanley's May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

Morgan Stanley disclosed on its February 26, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012: "In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed
Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to
offerings of mortgage pass-through certificates issued by seven
trusts sponsored by affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp during 2006 and
2007. On June 21, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in
part the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated class action complaint.

"The Company underwrote approximately $46 million of the principal
amount of the offerings currently at issue. In July 2011, certain
putative additional plaintiffs appealed the court's June 2011
order denying the motion to add them as additional plaintiffs as
to the Company. The Company is opposing the appeals. On August 17,
2012, the court granted class certification. On October 12, 2012,
the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to expand the offerings at
issue in the litigation, relying on recent precedent from the
Second Circuit. Defendants have opposed the motion.

"If the motion is granted and the offerings are included in the
class that is certified, the principal amount of the offerings
underwritten by the Company at issue in the litigation will be
approximately $1.68 billion."


MORGAN STANLEY: BofA Settles Suit v. Countrywide Financial
----------------------------------------------------------
On April 17, 2013, Bank of America announced an agreement to
settle several matters, including the Luther, et al. v.
Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. litigation, according to
Morgan Stanley's May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval.

Morgan Stanley disclosed on its February 26, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012, that Luther, et al. v. Countrywide
Financial Corporation, et al., pending in the Superior Court of
the State of California, was filed on November 14, 2007 and
involves claims related to the Company's role as an underwriter of
various residential mortgage backed securities offerings issued by
affiliates of Countrywide Financial Corporation. The amended
complaint includes allegations that the registration statements
and the offering documents contained false and misleading
statements about the residential mortgage loans backing the
securities. The Company underwrote approximately $6.3 billion of
the principal amount of the offerings at issue.

On December 19, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.
In February 2012, defendants moved to stay the case pending
resolution of a securities class action brought by the same
plaintiffs, styled Maine State Retirement System v. Countrywide
Financial Corporation, et al., in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California. In June 2012, the
defendants removed the case to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California. The motion to remand the
matter was denied in August 2012.


NATIONAL BEEF: Recalls 22,737 Pounds of Raw Ground Beef Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Beef Packing Co., a Liberal, Kansas establishment, is
recalling approximately 22,737 pounds of raw ground beef products
that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced.

The following products are subject to recall:

   * 10 lb. packages of "National Beef" 80/20 Coarse Ground
     Chuck, package code "0481."

   * 10 lb. packages of "National Beef" 81/19 Coarse Ground Beef,
     package code "0421."

   * 10 lb. packages of "National Beef" 80/20 Fine Ground Chuck,
     package code "0484."

All these products have a "USE BY/SELL BY DATE" of June 14, 2013,
and bear the establishment number "EST. 208A" inside the USDA mark
of inspection.  The products were produced on May 25, 2013, and
shipped to various institutions and retail establishments in
Texas, Tennessee, Kansas, Mississippi, Illinois, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, and Arizona.
FSIS and the establishment are concerned that some product may be
frozen and in shoppers' freezers.

The problem was discovered through routine FSIS monitoring which
confirmed a positive result for E.coli O157:H7.  An investigation
determined the firm was the sole supplier of the source materials
used to produce the positive product.  FSIS and the Company have
received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of
these products.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS Web site at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls/

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat
products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef
that has been cooked to a temperature of 160 degrees F.  The only
way to confirm that ground beef is cooked to a temperature high
enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that
measures internal temperature.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
dehydration, bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps 2-8 days (3-4
days, on average) after exposure to the organism.  While most
people recover within a week, some develop a type of kidney
failure called HUS.  This condition can occur among persons of any
age but is most common in children under 5-years old and older
adults.  Symptoms of HUS may include fever, abdominal pain, pale
skin tone, fatigue and irritability, small, unexplained bruises or
bleeding from the nose and mouth, decreased urination, and
swelling.  Persons who experience these symptoms should seek
emergency medical care immediately.

Consumers with questions should contact the Company at (877) 857-
4143 for details about the recall and their return and
reimbursement policy.  Media with questions regarding the recall
should contact the company's spokesperson, Keith Welty, at (816)
713-8631.  Additional information can be found at
http://www.nationalbeef.com/.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov.
The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-
888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a
day.


NATURA PET: Recalls Specialized Dry Pet Foods Due to Health Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Natura Pet Products is voluntarily recalling specific lots of dry
pet food because it has the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella.

Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and there is
risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially
if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having
contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these
products.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever.
Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including
arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye
irritation, and urinary tract symptoms.  Consumers exhibiting
these signs after having contact with this product should contact
their healthcare providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting.  Some pets will have only
decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain.  Infected but
otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or
humans.  If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has
these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

These products were packaged in a single production facility.
During routine FDA testing, a single lot tested positive for the
presence of Salmonella.  There have been no reports of pet or
human illness associated with this product.  In an abundance of
caution, Natura is voluntarily recalling all products with
expiration dates prior to June 10, 2014.

The affected products are sold in bags through veterinary clinics,
select pet specialty retailers, and online in the United States
and Canada.  No canned wet food is affected by this announcement.

The affected products are:

BRAND                 LOT CODE/UPC/SIZES        EXPIRATION
-----                 ------------------        ----------
Innova Dry dog and    All Lot Codes, All UPCs   All expiration
cat food and          All package sizes         dates prior to
biscuits/bars/treats                            6-10-2014

EVO dry dog, cat      All Lot Codes, All UPCs   All expiration
and ferret food and   All package sizes         dates prior to
biscuits/bars/treats                            6-10-2014

California Natural    All Lot Codes, All UPCs   All expiration
dry dog and cat       All package sizes         dates prior to
foods and                                       6-10-2014
biscuits/bars/treats

Healthwise dry dog    All Lot Codes, All UPCs   All expiration
and cat foods         All package sizes         dates prior to
                                                 6-10-2014

Karma dry dog         All Lot Codes, All UPCs   All expiration
foods                 All package sizes         dates prior to
                                                 6-10-2014

Mother Nature         All Lot Codes, All UPCs   All expiration
biscuits/bars/treats  All package sizes         dates prior to
                                                 6-10-2014

Consumers who have purchased the specific dry pet foods listed
should discard them.

For further information or a product replacement or refund call
Natura toll-free at 800-224-6123, Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. to
5:30 p.m. Central Standard Time.

                    About Natura Pet Products

Natura Pet Products is recognized as a trusted name behind natural
and holistic pet foods and treats.  Founded more than 20 years ago
by John and Ann Rademakers and Peter Atkins, Natura is dedicated
to providing the best natural nutrition.  Natura is committed to
making premium pet foods and treats based on nutritional science
and high-quality ingredients, combined with trusted manufacturing
processes, for complete pet health.  Lines include: Innova(R),
California Natural(R), EVO(R), HealthWise(R), Mother Nature(R) and
Karma(R).  To learn more about Natura Pet Products visit
http://www.NaturaPet.com/


NELNET INC: Unit's Bid to Appeal in "Yaakov" Suit Denied in May
---------------------------------------------------------------
A petition brought by a Nelnet, Inc. subsidiary for permission to
seek an interim appeal with an appellate court was denied in May
2013, according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

On January 4, 2011, a complaint against Peterson's Nelnet, LLC
("Peterson's"), a subsidiary of the Company, was filed in the U.S.
federal District Court for the District of New Jersey (Bais Yaakov
of Spring Valley v. Peterson's Nelnet, LLC).  The complaint
alleges that Peterson's sent six advertising faxes to the named
plaintiff in 2008-2009 that were not the result of express
invitation or permission granted by the plaintiff and did not
include certain opt out language.  The complaint also alleges that
such faxes violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(the "TCPA"), purportedly entitling the plaintiff to $500 per
violation, trebled for willful violations for each of the six
faxes.  The complaint further alleges that Peterson's had sent
putative class members more than 10,000 faxes that violated the
TCPA, amounting to more than $5 million in statutory penalty
damages and more than $15 million if trebled for willful
violations.  The complaint seeks to establish a class action.  As
of May 10, 213, the District Court has not established or
recognized any class.

On April 14, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
(the "Appeals Court"), which has jurisdiction over the District
Court, issued an order in an unrelated TCPA case which remanded
that case to the District Court to determine whether the statutory
provisions of the TCPA limit whether or to what extent a TCPA
claim can be heard as a class action in federal court where
applicable state law would impose limitations on a class action if
the claim were brought in state court.  The District Court denied
a subsequent motion by Peterson's to dismiss the complaint, but
granted a motion enabling Peterson's to file a petition for
permission to seek an interim appeal with the Appeals Court
regarding questions of law that may affect the outcome of the
case, which petition the Appeals Court denied on May 8, 2013.
Peterson's intends to continue to contest the lawsuit vigorously.

Due to the preliminary stage of this matter and the uncertainty
and risks inherent in class determination and the overall
litigation process, the Company believes that a meaningful
estimate of a reasonably possible loss, if any, or range of
reasonably possible losses, if any, cannot currently be made.

Nelnet, Inc., is an education services company focused primarily
on providing fee-based processing services and quality education-
related products and services in four core areas: loan financing,
loan servicing, payment processing, and enrollment services.  The
Company is headquartered in Lincoln, Nebraska.


NOVA SCOTIA HOME: Province Denies Responsibility in Abuses
----------------------------------------------------------
Eva Hoare, writing for The Chronicle Herald, reports that the
province of Nova Scotia opposes the class action against Nova
Scotia Home for Colored Children.

June Elwin still remembers the "entertainment" that would show up
at the Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children.

"White people used to come out there and paint themselves black
and think that they were entertaining us," Ms. Elwin said.

The black-faced group would sing "Way down upon the Swanee River,"
said the former resident of the Dartmouth home, who was six or
seven years old at the time.

"I knew they were making fun of us."

Ms. Elwin said she couldn't bear to watch the plaid-suited men
perform.  Decades later, she doesn't think much has changed.

Ms. Elwin is one of three former home residents who are lead
plaintiffs in a proposed class action against the province that
was headed to court on June 10 for certification.  The others are
Deanna Smith and Harriet Johnson.

Ms. Elwin, 72, of Whitby, Ont., said she hopes she and other
residents will get their day in court because she has no faith in
the Nova Scotia government, its lawyers or the premier.

The province opposes the class action and is trying to have all or
portions of Ms. Elwin's and other residents' affidavits struck
from the case.

In a submission to Nova Scotia Supreme Court on May 31, the
province said it never had a responsibility to Ms. Elwin and
roughly 139 others involved in the class action.  Instead,
provincial lawyers Catherine Lunn and Peter McVey said that duty
belonged to children's aid societies and/or municipalities.

The residents "erroneously assume" that those in the orphanage
were "wards of the province," Ms. Lunn and Mr. McVey wrote.  "It
is not correct in fact or in law."

The province contends it had an "indirect" relationship with
residents and was only there to "encourage, assist and advise."
It didn't "supervise, regulate or direct their (homes')
operations."

And when a Crown minister was appointed to oversee such
operations, the lawyers said his work was more about "higher-level
appointments and financial matters."

Also, the province said, Ms. Elwin, Ms. Smith and Ms. Johnson
can't "fairly or adequately" represent their fellow claimants.
Ms. Elwin and Ms. Johnson were never wards of the province so they
don't qualify, the lawyers maintain.  Under previous cross-
examination, Smith said other residents harmed her while she was
at the orphanage, so she is in "conflict," the lawyers said.

Ms. Lunn and Mr. McVey also laid out a lengthy argument on
everything from legal definitions of class actions and those who
can be involved, to the history of governmental responsibility and
various legislative acts relating to child care in Nova Scotia.

Meanwhile, a group representing Elwin and other former residents
says any hope of healing will be lost if the government keeps
fighting them in court.

Tony Smith, a co-chairman of Voices, said he's urged the province
to stop denying that residents were abused because waging a legal
battle while declaring a desire for reconciliation doesn't work.

It's his hope the province will end its opposition to the class
action.

Ms. Elwin, who was getting ready for her court appearance, was
enraged that the province's lawyers want to wipe out her affidavit
and those of other residents.  Most of those documents allege
everything from sexual and physical abuse to racism, and some
allude to medical malpractice.

Premier Darrell Dexter has previously described the lawyers' move
to strike the affidavits as routine, but Ms. Elwin said it's not
routine to try to expunge what she says happened to her at the
home.

"You're trying to hide evidence," she said.

Originally from Liverpool, she arrived at the home as a toddler in
the 1940s, remaining until 1953.

Records of a litany of events alleged to have occurred at the
orphanage seem to have vanished, she said.  For example, she said,
there's no evidence of medical procedures a doctor performed on
children on a playroom table. (Ms. Elwin later became a nurse.)

"They dropped ether to put you to sleep," she said.  "They took
out our tonsils like (it was) a butcher shop.  They didn't have a
nurse."

Ms. Smith has accused the government of trying to obstruct a
potential public inquiry, which he says would delve into the
alleged abuse and why it happened.

Instead, the province said it's forming an independent panel, a
process that has already begun.

Ms. Elwin just wants the government to get down to the business of
finding the truth.

"They should really settle this thing out of court," she said of
the lawsuit. (The home itself has already agreed to a C$5-million
payout to former residents, a settlement that will go before the
court this month for approval.)

Mr. Dexter has said he's concerned about costs related to the
entire case, including the possibility of calling a public
inquiry, but Elwin believes a dragged-out court case would end up
costing more.

"If he wants to save money, well, settle it out of court," she
said.

Otherwise, she said, she and other black Nova Scotians will be
left with only one belief -- that they don't matter.

"He's sending a strong message that he doesn't care about black
people and what happened to them," Ms. Elwin said.  "Blacks are
transparent, blacks have no value."


NOVATION COMPANIES: Dismissal of Fund's Securities Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appellate court reversed an order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss a
securities suit filed by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund,
according to Novation Companies, Inc.'s May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated. Defendants in the case included
NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation ("NMFC") and its individual
directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the Company
("affiliated defendants") and several unaffiliated investment
banks and credit rating agencies.

The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages,
alleging that the defendants violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly false
statements regarding mortgage loans that served as collateral for
securities purchased by the plaintiff and the purported class
members.

On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011,
with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint on May 16, 2011, and the Company again filed a motion to
dismiss. On March 29, 2012, the court dismissed the plaintiff's
second amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to
replead. The plaintiff filed an appeal.

On March 1, 2013, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the
lower court, which had dismissed the case. Also, the appellate
court vacated the judgment of the lower court which had held that
the plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class representative, to
sue on behalf of investors in securities in which plaintiff had
not invested, and the appellate court remanded the case back to
the lower court for further proceedings.


OSKRI CORP: Recalls Coconut, Fig and Almond Dark Chocolate Bars
---------------------------------------------------------------
OSKRI Corp. of Lake Mills, Wisconsin, is recalling "Coconut Bar
Dark Chocolate", "Coconut Bar Dark Chocolate Minis", "Fig Dark
Chocolate Bars" and "Almond Dark Chocolate Bars" because the dark
chocolate contains milk.  People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The recalled "Coconut Bar Dark Chocolate", "Coconut Bar Dark
Chocolate Minis", "Fig Dark Chocolate Bars" and "Almond Dark
Chocolate Bars" was distributed nationwide to retail stores.

The product comes in a 1.9 ounce, flexible plastic wrapper, UPC
666016-300703 (Coconut Bar Dark Chocolate), UPC 666016-400311
(Coconut Bars Dark Chocolate Minis), UPC 666016-300307 (Fig Dark
Chocolate Bars) and UPC 666016-300420 (Almond Dark Chocolate Bars)
marked with the following stamp, which can be found on the front
of the wrapper:

          P 1/1/13 through 6/6/13
          EXP 7/7/14 through 12/12/14
          LOT 001 through 164

There have not been any complaints of allergic reactions to this
product.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the "Coconut
Bar Dark Chocolate", "Coconut Bar Dark Chocolate Minis", "Fig Dark
Chocolate Bars" and "Almond Dark Chocolate Bars" may contain milk
in the product.  Subsequent investigation indicates the problem
was caused by a temporary breakdown in the Company's production
process.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged to return it
to Oskri for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may contact
Laura Pineda at Oskri's Quality Department by e-mailing
quality@oskri.com

Please return products to: Oskri, 528 E. Tyranena Park Road, Lake
Mills, WI 53551


PANTRY INC: Still Faces 5 Hot Fuel Class Suits
----------------------------------------------
The Pantry, Inc. remains a defendant in five cases over motor fuel
delivered in non-temperature adjusted gallons pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Kansas, according
to the company's May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 28,
2013.

Since the beginning of fiscal 2007, over 45 class action lawsuits
have been filed in federal courts across the country against
numerous companies in the petroleum industry. Major petroleum
companies and significant retailers in the industry have been
named as defendants in these lawsuits.

Initially, the company was named as a defendant in eight of these
cases, three of which have recently been dismissed without
prejudice. The company remains a defendant in five cases: one in
North Carolina (Neese, et al. v. Abercrombie Oil Company, Inc., et
al., E.D.N.C., No. 5:07-cv-00091-FL, filed 3/7/07); one in Alabama
(Cook, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., N.D. Ala., No. 2:07-
cv-750-WKW-CSC, filed 8/22/07); one in Georgia (Rutherford, et al.
v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., et al., No. 4:07-cv-00113-HLM, filed
6/5/07); one in Tennessee (Shields, et al. v. RaceTrac Petroleum,
Inc., et al., No. 1:07-cv-00169, filed 7/13/07); and one in South
Carolina (Korleski v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al.,
D.S.C., No 6:07-cv-03218-MDL, filed 9/24/07).

Pursuant to an Order entered by the Joint Panel on Multi-District
Litigation, all of the cases, including those in which the company
is named, have been transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Kansas and consolidated for all pre-
trial proceedings. The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege
that they are retail purchasers who received less motor fuel than
the defendants agreed to deliver because the defendants measured
the amount of motor fuel they delivered in non-temperature
adjusted gallons which, at higher temperatures, contain less
energy.

These cases seek, among other relief, an order requiring the
defendants to install temperature adjusting equipment on their
retail motor fuel dispensing devices. In certain of the cases,
including some of the cases in which the company is named,
plaintiffs also have alleged that because defendants pay fuel
taxes based on temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons, but
allegedly collect taxes from consumers on non-temperature adjusted
gallons, defendants receive a greater amount of tax from consumers
than they paid on the same gallon of fuel.

The plaintiffs in these cases seek, among other relief, recovery
of excess taxes paid and punitive damages. Both types of cases
seek compensatory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and
costs and prejudgment interest. The defendants filed motions to
dismiss all cases for failure to state a claim, which were denied
by the court on February 21, 2008.

A number of the defendants, including the Company, subsequently
moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in
the alternative, for summary judgment on the grounds that
plaintiffs' claims constitute non-justiciable "political
questions."  The Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on
political question grounds on December 3, 2009, and defendants
request to appeal that decision to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit was denied on August 31, 2010.


PANTRY INC: Suit Over FACT Act Violation Stayed Pending Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama court has stayed a case over claims The Pantry, Inc.,
printed receipts containing the first four and last four digits of
their credit and/or debit card numbers pending the resolution of a
petition against the dismissal of the case before the United
States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, according to the
company's May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 28, 2013.

On October 19, 2009, Patrick Amason, on behalf of himself and a
putative class of similarly situated individuals, filed suit
against The Pantry in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, Western Division (Patrick Amason v.
Kangaroo Express and The Pantry, Inc. No. CV-09-P-2117-W). On
September 9, 2010, a first amended complaint was filed adding
Enger McConnell on behalf of herself and a putative class of
similarly situated individuals.

The plaintiffs seek class action status and allege that The Pantry
included more information than is permitted on electronically
printed credit and debit card receipts in willful violation of the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, codified at 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1681c(g). The amended complaint alleges that: (i) plaintiff
Patrick Amason seeks to represent a subclass of those class
members as to whom the Company printed receipts containing the
first four and last four digits of their credit and/or debit card
numbers; and (ii) plaintiff Enger McConnell seeks to represent a
subclass of those class members as to whom the Company printed
receipts containing all digits of their credit and/or debit card
numbers.

The plaintiffs seek an award of statutory damages of $100 to
$1,000 for each alleged willful violation of the statute, as well
as attorneys' fees, costs, punitive damages and a permanent
injunction against the alleged unlawful practice. On July 25,
2011, the court denied the plaintiffs' initial motion for class
certification but granted the plaintiffs the right to file an
amended motion.

On October 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed an amended motion for class
certification seeking to certify two classes. The first purported
class, represented by Mr. Amason, consists of (A) all natural
persons whose credit and/or debit card was used at an in-store
point of sale owned or operated by the Company from June 4, 2009
through the date of the final judgment in the action; (B) where
the transaction was in a Company store located in the State of
Alabama; and (C) in connection with the transaction, a receipt was
printed by Retalix software containing the first four and last
four digits of the credit/debit card number on the receipt
provided to the customer.

The second purported class, represented by Ms. McConnell, consists
of (A) all natural persons whose credit and/or debit card was used
at an in-store point of sale owned or operated by the Company from
June 1, 2009 through the date of the final judgment in the action;
and (B) in connection with the transaction, a receipt was printed
containing all of the digits of the credit/debit card numbers on
the receipt provided to the customer. The Company has opposed the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification and has made a motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims on the basis that the plaintiffs
lack standing.

On March 11, 2013, the court denied our Motion to Dismiss For Lack
of Standing and certified the issue for interlocutory appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The
company filed a petition with the 11th Circuit to take up the
appeal of the Motion to Dismiss at this juncture, rather than at
the end of the case. That petition is still pending before the
11th Circuit. The trial court has stayed the case pending the
resolution of the petition and any resulting interlocutory appeal.

If, following the appellate practice, there are further
proceedings before the trial court, the trial court has indicated
that it will schedule a hearing on the plaintiffs' pending motion
for class certification.


PAPA JOHN'S: Enters Settlement in Suit Over "Unsolicited" Text Ad
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Papa John's International, Inc. tentatively agreed to the
financial terms of a settlement of a suit alleging violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Washington State
telemarketing laws, according to the company's May 7, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Agne v. Papa John's International, Inc. et al. is a class action
filed on May 28, 2010 in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington seeking damages for violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Washington State
telemarketing laws alleging, among other things that several Papa
John's franchisees retained a vendor to send unsolicited
commercial text message offers primarily in Washington and Oregon.

The court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification in
November 2012; the company filed a petition for permission to
appeal the court's ruling on class certification to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On February 13, 2013, the parties tentatively agreed to the
financial terms of a settlement of the litigation, with additional
terms to be finalized, subject to Court approval. A reasonable
estimate of the total cost of the settlement was provided for at
December 30, 2012.  Actual costs will be impacted by the claimant
participation rate, but the company does not expect actual costs
to be materially different from our estimates. The company expects
the majority of the settlement payments to be made in 2013.


PAPA JOHN'S: 14,000 Plaintiffs Could Be Added in FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
A motion to certify five additional state classes over alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by Papa John's
International, Inc. could result in another 14,000 plaintiffs if
granted, according to the company's May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

Perrin v. Papa John's International, Inc. and Papa John's USA,
Inc. is a conditionally certified collective action filed in
August 2009 in the United States District Court, Eastern District
of Missouri, alleging that delivery drivers were reimbursed for
mileage and expenses in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Approximately 3,900 drivers out of a potential class size of
28,800 have opted into the action. A motion to certify five
additional state classes is pending and could result in another
14,000 plaintiffs if granted.


PAPA'S GRILL: N.C. Appeals Court Weighs Spam Faxes Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Bagley, writing for Triangle Business Journal, reports that
class-action lawsuits may be at the top of businesses' "most
hated" list, but mass unsolicited faxes surely come close.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals got its own chance to weigh
the two against each other on June 4, and it turned back a class
action attempt against two Durham restaurants that are being
accused of faxing advertisements to nearly 1,000 fax machines in
and around the city.

The case dates to April 2004, when faxes were used somewhat more
commonly than they are today.  Jonathan Blitz has been attempting
to sue on behalf of about 980 people who allegedly received faxed
coupons for Papa's Grill and Front Street Cafe, both on Hillandale
Road north of downtown.  Courts have turned down several of
Mr. Blitz's attempts over the years.

The court ruled on June 4 that the 980 would-be plaintiffs don't
have enough in common to move forward as a class.  In particular,
it isn't clear that the faxes to any of the other would-be
plaintiffs were unsolicited, Judge Ann Marie Calabria wrote for
the unanimous three-judge panel.  Mr. Blitz is suing under the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which requires a
plaintiff to establish that a fax was unsolicited.  The list of
the 980 fax recipients comes from an outside contractor that the
restaurants hired.

Mr. Blitz could move forward with his lawsuit as an individual,
but he'd be able to recover damages only for himself.  He had
estimated the average plaintiff's damages at $500.

The two restaurants no longer exist in the same form.  Their
owner, Agean Inc., now runs the Blue Olive restaurant on the same
site.


PEABODY ENERGY: Moves to Dismiss New Claims in ERISA Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Peabody Energy Corporation updated its motion to dismiss a suit
filed by the United Mine Workers of America to respond to new
allegations, according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On October 23, 2012, eight individual plaintiffs and the United
Mine Workers of America filed a putative class action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
against the Company, one of its subsidiaries and an unrelated coal
company.

The lawsuit seeks to have the court obligate the defendants to
maintain certain Patriot benefit plans at their current levels and
to find the defendants' actions in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

On January 7, 2013, the Company defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. The plaintiffs thereafter amended their
complaint to include new allegations and name two more individuals
as plaintiffs.

The Company defendants updated their motion to dismiss to respond
to the new allegations and filed it on February 20, 2013. The
Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and will vigorously
defend against it.


PET VALU: Stikeman Elliot Discusses Opt-Out Period Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Ingrid Minott, Esq. -- iminott@stikeman.com -- at Stikeman Elliott
LLP reports that in its decision released on May 3, 2013, the
Court of Appeal for Ontario confirmed that communications between
class members during the opt-out period are acceptable and
overturned the decision of Justice George R. Strathy of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice which had invalidated certain
opt-out notices received during the period for opting out of the
class proceeding.

Background

In January 2011, Strathy J. (as he then was) certified a class
action against Pet Valu Canada Inc. which alleged that Pet Valu
had breached its contractual duty to class members by failing to
share with its franchisees certain volume discounts and rebates
that it received from suppliers and manufacturers.

During the 60 day opt-out period, a group of Pet Valu franchisees
who opposed the class action and who identified themselves as
Concerned Pet Valu Franchisees ("CPVF") waged a campaign to try to
persuade class members to opt-out of the class action.  As a
result of the CPVF's opt-out campaign, more than half of the class
submitted opt-out notices.  A significant time after the opt-out
period expired, the representative plaintiff moved for an order
setting aside the opt-out notices received after the commencement
of the CPVF's campaign on the basis that the CPVF had mislead and
intimidated class members into opting out.

Strathy J. invalidates opt-out notices

Strathy J. held that there was a "reasonable probability" that
franchisees had decided to opt-out of the class action as a result
of misleading information and unfair pressure amounting to
intimidation caused by the CPVF's campaign.  Relying on the
informed and voluntary test for opting out of a class proceeding
established in 176560 Ontario Ltd. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co.
of Canada Ltd.,1 Strathy J. invalidated the opt-out notices
received after the commencement of the CPVF's campaign on the
basis that class members were entitled to opt-out of the class
action on an informed, voluntary basis, free from undue influence.

Court of Appeal sets aside order invalidating opt-out notices

The Court of Appeal concluded that because Strathy J. evaluated
the fairness of the opt-out process based on the incorrect belief
that the viability of the class action was in peril, the CPVF's
actions appeared more troubling that they actually were.  The
Court of Appeal held that the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 does not
contemplate the politicization of the opt-out process and as such,
the viability of a class action does not depend on majority
support.  The reduction of the class size during the opt-out
period does not preclude the class action from proceeding.
Therefore, while the CPVF was attempting to undermine the opt-out
process by politicizing it, Strathy J. erred in his depiction of
the impact of the opt-out process on the survival of the class
proceeding.

Regarding the timing of the motion to invalidate the opt-out
notices, the Court of Appeal held that if the representative
plaintiff had concerns about the nature of the CPVF's
communications during the opt-out period he had a duty to protect
the interest of class members by bringing the issue to the
attention of the supervising judge on a timely basis.  However,
due to the representative plaintiff's dilatory conduct in bringing
the issue to the attention of the supervising judge, Strathy J.
was not afforded an opportunity to develop measures to address the
problem of improper communications to the class.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that while Strathy J. was correct in
scrutinizing the CPVF's campaign according to the fully informed
and voluntary test, he misapplied the test.  His Honour's
conclusion that the CPVF's campaign was misleading and
intimidating was based on an inference that class members were
misled or pressured into opting out of the class action by the
CPVF's campaign.  However, the evidence did not support an
inference that the campaign was coercive.  The plaintiffs failed
to adduce direct evidence from class members establishing that
they had been misled or intimidated into opting out.  In addition,
there was no evidence that any class member perceived a threat
that Pet Valu might take retaliatory action against them for
remaining in the class.  Further, Strathy J.'s consideration of
the power imbalance inherent in the franchisor/franchisee
relationship in assessing the effect of the CPVF's communications
was improper given his finding that Pet Valu had not been
"responsible for, or connected to," the CPVF's campaign.

Significantly, the Court of Appeal commented that Strathy J.
incorrectly held the CPVF to a standard of objectivity with regard
to its communications with class members.  The communications at
issue amounted to no more than opinion regarding the
undesirability from a business perspective of pursing the lawsuit,
rather than an attempt to address the technical merits of the
action:

[The CPVF] were former class members [and] had an unassailable
right to speak out in opposition to the class proceeding in an
attempt to convince other class members to opt out, subject only
to the overriding principles set out in A &P. (para 73)

Conclusion

The decision of the Court of Appeal makes it clear that during the
opt-out period, class members have the right to engage in debate
and express their opinions about whether or not to opt-out of a
class proceeding.  This type of intra-class debate need not be
fair or balanced.  However, comments that disparage the technical
merits of the class action in an effort to persuade class members
to opt-out will likely be subject to greater scrutiny . Moreover,
while class members are entitled to express their opinions,
communications by plaintiffs and defendants with class members
will be held to the higher standard of objectivity.


PROLOR BIOTECH: Faces Six Class Suits Over Proposed OPKO Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prolor Biotech, Inc., is facing six putative class action lawsuits
arising from its proposed merger with OPKO Health, Inc., according
to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

On April 23, 2013, the Company, OPKO Health, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("OPKO"), and POM Acquisition, Inc., a Nevada
corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of OPKO ("POM"),
entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger
Agreement").  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, POM will be merged
with and into the Company (the "Merger") and the Company will be
the surviving corporation and OPKO's wholly owned subsidiary.

Six putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the Merger: (i) Peter Turkell v. Prolor Biotech, Inc., et al.
(Case No. A-13-680860-B), filed April 29, 2013, in the Eighth
Judicial District Court in and for Clark County, Nevada; (ii)
Floyd A. Fried v. Prolor Biotech, Inc., et al., (Case No. A-13-
681060), filed May 1, 2013, in the Eighth Judicial District Court
in and for Clark County, Nevada; (iii) Marc Henzel v. Prolor
Biotech, Inc., et al. (Case No. A-13-681020-C), filed May 1, 2013,
in the Eighth Judicial District Court in and for Clark County,
Nevada; (iv) Bradford W. Baer, et al., v. Prolor Biotech, Inc. et
al. (Case No. A-13-681218-B, filed May 3, 2013, in the Eighth
Judicial District Court in and for Clark County, Nevada; (v) James
Hegarty v. Prolor Biotech, Inc., et al (Case No. A-13-681250-C),
filed May 6, 2013, in the Eighth Judicial District Court in and
for Clark County, Nevada; and (vi) Jorge L. Salas, et al. v.
Prolor Biotech, Inc., et al. (Case No. A-13-681279-C), filed
May 6, 2013, in the Eighth Judicial District Court in and for
Clark County, Nevada.

All six lawsuits name the Company, the members of its board of
directors, OPKO and POM as defendants.  All six lawsuits are
brought by purported holders of the Company's common stock, both
individually and on behalf of a putative class of the Company's
stockholders, alleging that its board of directors breached its
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed Merger by
purportedly failing to maximize stockholder value, and that the
Company, OPKO and POM aided and abetted the alleged breaches.  All
six lawsuits seek equitable relief, including, among other things,
to enjoin consummation of the Merger, rescission of the Merger
Agreement and an award of all costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees.  Certain of the complaints additionally seek
compensatory and/or rescissory damages, and/or imposition of a
constructive trust for any benefits improperly received by the
defendants.

While the Company believes that the claims made in these lawsuits
are without merit and intends to defend such claims vigorously,
there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail in its
defense.  Further, it is possible that additional claims beyond
those that have already been filed will be brought by the current
plaintiffs or by others in an effort to enjoin the proposed Merger
or seek monetary relief from the Company.  An unfavorable
resolution of any such litigation surrounding the proposed Merger
could delay or prevent the consummation of the Merger.  In
addition, the cost to the Company of defending the litigation,
even if resolved in the Company's favor, could be substantial.
Such litigation could also substantially divert the attention of
the Company's management and its resources in general.  Due to the
preliminary nature of all six lawsuits, the Company is unable at
this time to estimate their outcome.

Prolor Biotech, Inc., is a development stage biopharmaceutical
company, utilizing an exclusive license from Washington University
to patented technology in the development of longer-acting
versions of already-approved therapeutic proteins, through its
Israeli subsidiary, Prolor Biotech Ltd.  The Company was
incorporated in 2003 under the laws of the state of Nevada and is
headquartered in Nes-Ziona, Israel.


QUALITY INN: Worker Justice Center Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Mid-Hudson News reports that the Worker Justice Center of New
York, based in Kingston, has filed a civil class action lawsuit
against two Kingston-based hotel franchises alleging that they
underpaid their housekeeping and laundry staff.

Co-Executive Director Milan Bhatt said on June 4 that the hotel's
workforce, mostly immigrant women, performed work ranging from
cleaning rooms, laundry, and other tasks and were paid substandard
wages.

"I can tell you this is one of the more gross and stark set of
labor violations that we have seen in some time, certainly when it
comes to the minimum wage violations, it's rare that we see a
situation like this where the actual rates paid to the women and
other workers at the hotels were in many instances less than $5 an
hour," Ms. Bhatt said.

The lawsuit against the local franchises of Quality Inn and
Superlodge hotels was filed in the federal court in the Northern
District of New York in Albany.


RANGE RESOURCES: Settles Class Action for $87.5 Million
-------------------------------------------------------
Jim Fuquay, writing for Star-Telegram, reports that Fort Worth-
based Range Resources said on June 4 that it has taken steps to
settle an Oklahoma class-action lawsuit for $87.5 million.

Plaintiffs in the suit, filed in 2010, had sought $160 million in
alleged royalty underpayments on sales of natural gas.  According
to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
independent oil and gas producer said the suit was related to
marketing costs and includes interest on the alleged
underpayments.

In April, Range said it set aside $35 million in potential
expenses related to the case.  At that time, the company said that
while Oklahoma law allowed the deduction of expenses after
production, the extent of those deductions could be something a
judge or jury must determine.

In the June 4 filing, Range said it reached a memorandum of
understanding that sets forth a final settlement of $87.5 million.
As a result, Range will take an additional charge of $52.5 million
in the second quarter.

The company also said it expects to book an $87 million gain
during the same quarter on an unrelated sale of properties in West
Texas.


SEALED AIR: Awaits Settlement Funding in Canadian Asbestos Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation is awaiting the release of funds from W. R.
Grace & Co. to settle a suit filed by Canadian residents affected
by asbestos or asbestos-containing products, according to the
company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013. The
release will become operative upon the effective date of a plan of
reorganization in Grace's United States Chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceeding.

In November 2004, the Company's Canadian subsidiary Sealed Air
(Canada) Co./Cie learned that it had been named a defendant in the
case of Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File
No. CI04-01-39818), pending in the Manitoba Court of Queen's
Bench. Grace and W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn. Are also named as
defendants.

The plaintiff brought the claim as a putative class proceeding and
seeks recovery for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian
resident, other than in the course of employment, as a result of
Grace's marketing, selling, processing, manufacturing,
distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing
products in Canada prior to the Cryovac Transaction.

A plaintiff filed another proceeding in January 2005 in the
Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench naming the Company and specified
subsidiaries as defendants. The latter proceeding, Her Majesty the
Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. The Attorney General
of Canada, et al. (File No. CI05-01-41069), seeks the recovery of
the cost of insured health services allegedly provided by the
Government of Manitoba to the members of the class of plaintiffs
in the Thundersky proceeding.

In October 2005, the company learned that six additional putative
class proceedings had been brought in various provincial and
federal courts in Canada seeking recovery from the Company and its
subsidiaries Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie, as
well as other defendants including W. R. Grace & Co. and W. R.
Grace & Co. - Conn., for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian
resident, other than in the course of employment (except with
respect to one of these six claims), as a result of Grace's
marketing, selling, manufacturing, processing, distributing and/or
delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada
prior to the Cryovac transaction.

Grace and W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn. Have agreed to defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the Company and its affiliates in
respect of any liability and expense, including legal fees and
costs, in these actions.

In April 2001, Grace Canada, Inc. had obtained an order of the
Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, Toronto (the "Canadian
Court"), recognizing the Chapter 11 actions in the United States
of America involving Grace Canada, Inc.'s U.S. parent corporation
and other affiliates of Grace Canada, Inc., and enjoining all new
actions and staying all current proceedings against Grace Canada,
Inc. related to asbestos under the Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act. That order has been renewed repeatedly.

In November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada, Inc., the Canadian
Court ordered an extension of the injunction and stay to actions
involving asbestos against the Company and its Canadian affiliate
and the Attorney General of Canada, which had the effect of
staying all of the Canadian actions. The parties finalized a
global settlement of these Canadian actions (except for claims
against the Canadian government).

That settlement, which has subsequently been amended (the
"Canadian Settlement"), will be entirely funded by Grace. The
Canadian Court issued an Order on December 13, 2009 approving the
Canadian Settlement. The company does not have any positive
obligations under the Canadian Settlement, but it is a beneficiary
of the release of claims. The release in favor of the Grace
parties (including the company) will become operative upon the
effective date of a plan of reorganization in Grace's United
States Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding.

As filed, the PI Settlement Plan contemplates that the claims
released under the Canadian Settlement will be subject to
injunctions under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. The
Bankruptcy Court entered the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order
on January 31, 2011 and the Clarifying Order on February 15, 2011
and the District Court entered the Original District Court
Confirmation Order on January 30, 2012 and the Amended District
Court Confirmation Order on June 11, 2012. The Canadian Court
issued an Order on April 8, 2011 recognizing and giving full
effect to the Bankruptcy Court's Confirmation Order in all
provinces and territories of Canada in accordance with the
Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order's terms.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the PI Settlement Plan has not
become effective, and the company can give no assurance that the
PI Settlement Plan (or any other plan of reorganization) will
become effective. Assuming that a final plan of reorganization
(whether the PI Settlement Plan or another plan of reorganization)
does become effective, if the final plan of reorganization does
not incorporate the terms of the Canadian Settlement or if the
Canadian courts refuse to enforce the final plan of reorganization
in the Canadian courts, and if in addition Grace is unwilling or
unable to defend and indemnify the Company and its subsidiaries in
these cases, then the company could be required to pay substantial
damages, which it cannot estimate at this time and which could
have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
condition and results of operations.


SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: 'Flonase' Antitrust Suit Deal Gets Final Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Anita B. Brody granted final approval and judgment
to a settlement agreement and allocation plan resolving IN RE
FLONASE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, CASE NO. 08-CV-3149 (DIRECT),
(E.D. Penn.).

American Sales Company, Inc., Meijer, Inc., and Meijer
Distribution, Inc. brought this suit on behalf of a class of 33
companies that purchase medications directly from the manufacturer
in this case, purchasers of Flonase, the brand-name version of
fluticasone propionate (FP), a nasal corticosteroid used to treat
nasal inflammation caused by allergies.  The suit claimed that
Defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline PLC
(GSK) improperly delayed the entry of generic FP, resulting in
overcharges to the direct purchasers. The Plaintiffs allege that
this allowed GSK to unlawfully maintain monopoly power in the
American FP market; maintain the price of Flonase at above-
competitive levels; and overcharge the direct purchasers millions
of dollars by blocking unrestricted competition and access to less
expensive generic versions of FP.

This case has an extensive litigation history. American Sales
filed the first complaint against GSK for its anticompetitive
behavior in 2008. Extensive discovery began in late 2008 and
continued through mid-2010, including 30 depositions of current
and former employees of GSK and Roxane Laboratories, the maker of
generic FP. Over a dozen expert reports and rebuttals were
submitted. After oral argument, a class of 33 direct purchasers of
Flonase was certified on November 12, 2010.  In 2011, two separate
GSK motions for summary judgment, one on causation, and one on
Noerr-Pennington immunity were denied.  The case was set for trial
in early 2013, and both sides submitted over a dozen motions in
limine.  With the court's assistance, the parties reached a
settlement agreement in November 2012, whereby GSK agreed to pay
$150 million in exchange for the settlement of all direct
purchaser claims.

Following nearly five years of antitrust class action litigation
between the makers of branded Flonase nasal spray, the makers of a
generic brand version, indirect purchasers of the drug, and direct
purchasers, the parties reached a global settlement and was
preliminarily approved on January 14, 2013.

The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs filed a Corrected Motion for
Approval of Settlement and Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees,
Reimbursement of Expenses, and Payment of Incentive Awards to the
Representative Plaintiffs.

After holding a fairness hearing on June 3, 2013, and reviewing
the Plaintiffs' submissions, Judge Brody approved the final
settlement agreement and allocation plan as fair, reasonable and
adequate to Class members. She also granted counsel's request for
attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and incentive awards
for class representative, although the incentive payment awarded
was modified.

Under the Settlement, the "Class" is defined as: All persons or
entities in the United States and its territories who purchased
Flonase nasal spray directly from Defendant (or any of its
predecessors or affiliates) at any time from May 19, 2004 until
March 6, 2006, excluding defendant, its predecessors, directors,
management, employees, subsidiaries, parent or affiliates, and
government entities or persons.

To Class counsel, the Court awards a fee of 33 1/3 percent of the
settlement fund, in the amount of $50,000,000, plus interest
accrued thereon, if any.

Furthermore, Class counsel are awarded $2,069,433 from the
settlement fund to reimburse them for the expenses they incurred
in the prosecution of the lawsuit, which expenses the Court finds
to be fair, and reasonably incurred to achieve the benefits to the
Class obtained in the settlement to the Class.

Class representative American Sales is awarded $50,000 from the
Settlement Fund. Class representative Meijer is awarded $40,000
from the Settlement Fund.

Edward W. Mullinix, as Special Master, came to the court pro se.

American Sales Company, Inc. was represented by Casandra A.
Murphy, Esq., and Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq., of Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check LLP; David S. Nalven, Esq., Edward Notargiacomo,
Esq., Lauren Guth Barnes, Esq., Terence S. Ziegler, Esq., Thomas
M. Sobol, Esq., and Kristen Johnson Parker, Esq., of Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP; & Michael M. Buchman, Esq., of Pomerantz
Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP.

Meijer, Inc., is represented by David S. Nalven, Esq., of Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq., of Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP; Peter Barile, Esq., of Grant &
Eisenhofer; David P. Germaine, Esq., of Vanek Vickers & Masini PC;
John D. Radice, Esq., of Radice Law Firm; Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.,
of Vanek Vickers & Masini PC; & Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. at Grant &
Eisenhofer PA.

Meijer Distribution, Inc., is represented by David S. Nalven,
Esq., of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.,
of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP; David P. Germaine, Esq., of
Vanek Vickers & Masini PC; John D. Radice, Esq., of Radice Law
Firm; Joseph M. Vanek, Esq., of Vanek Vickers & Masini PC; & Linda
P. Nussbaum, Esq. at Grant & Eisenhofer PA.

Smithkline Beecham Corporation is represented by Edward D. Rogers,
Esq., Leslie E. John, Esq., Roger P. Thomasch, Esq., Stephen J.
Kastenberg, Esq., Arthur Makadon, Esq., Jason A. Leckerman, Esq.,
Jessica Moltisanti Anthony, Esq. & Marcel S. Pratt, Esq., at
Ballard, Spahr, Andrews and Ingersoll LLP.

Copies of the District Court's June 14, 2013 Memorandum, and Final
Order and Judgment are available at http://is.gd/B9e4ESand
http://is.gd/HVZPCdfrom Leagle.com.


SOUTHERN CO: Appeal From Hurricane Katrina Suit Dismissal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005, immediately following Hurricane Katrina, a lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi by Ned Comer on behalf of Mississippi residents
seeking recovery for property damage and personal injuries caused
by Hurricane Katrina.  In 2006, the plaintiffs amended the
complaint to include Southern Company and many other electric
utilities, oil companies, chemical companies, and coal producers.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants contributed to climate
change, which contributed to the intensity of Hurricane Katrina.
In 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi dismissed the case.  On appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a three-judge panel reversed the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi,
holding that the case could proceed, but, on rehearing, the full
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the
plaintiffs' appeal, resulting in reinstatement of the decision of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
in favor of the defendants.  In 2011, the plaintiffs filed an
amended version of their class action complaint, arguing that the
earlier dismissal was on procedural grounds and under Mississippi
law the plaintiffs have a right to re-file.  The amended complaint
was also filed against numerous chemical, coal, oil, and utility
companies, including The Southern Company's subsidiaries: Alabama
Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company and
Southern Power Company.

In March 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Mississippi dismissed the plaintiffs' amended complaint.  In
April 2012, the plaintiffs appealed the case to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 10, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Each Southern Company entity named in the lawsuit believes that
these claims are without merit.  While each Southern Company
entity named in the lawsuit believes the likelihood of loss is
remote based on existing case law, it is not possible to predict
with certainty whether any Southern Company entity named in the
lawsuit will incur any liability in connection with this matter.
The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this
time.

Atlanta, Georgia-based The Southern Company --
http://www.southerncompany.com/-- is an energy company serving
the Southeast.  A leading U.S. producer of electricity, Southern
Company businesses include electric utilities in four states and a
growing competitive generation company, as well as fiber optics
and wireless communications.


SOUTHERN STAR: Continues to Defend Price I and II Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Star Central Corp. continues to defend a subsidiary
against two class action lawsuits brought by Will Price, et al.,
according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

The two lawsuits are:

   (1) Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al.,
       Case No. 99 C 30, District Court, Stevens County, Kansas,
       or Price Litigation I; and

   (2) Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al.,
       Case No. 03 C 23, District Court, Stevens County, Kansas,
       or Price Litigation II.

In the Price Litigation I, filed May 28, 1999, the named
plaintiffs, or Plaintiffs, have sued over 50 defendants, including
the Company's subsidiary, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline,
Inc., or Central.  Asserting theories of civil conspiracy, aiding
and abetting, accounting and unjust enrichment, their Fourth
Amended Class Action Petition alleges that the defendants have
under measured the volume of, and therefore have underpaid for,
the natural gas they have obtained from or measured for the
Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages,
attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the
right to plead for punitive damages.

On August 22, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf
of Central.  Despite a denial by the Court on April 10, 2003, of
their original motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs
continued to seek the certification of a class.  The Plaintiffs'
motion seeking class certification for a second time was fully
briefed and the Court heard oral argument on the motion on
April 1, 2005.  On September 18, 2009, the Court denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The Plaintiffs filed
a motion to reconsider that ruling on October 2, 2009.  The
defendants, including Central, filed a response in opposition to
the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on January 18, 2010.
The Plaintiffs filed a reply and oral argument, which was
presented before a different judge, was heard on February 10,
2010.  By order dated March 31, 2010, the Court denied the
Plaintiffs' October 2, 2009 motion to reconsider the earlier
denial of class certification.  The Plaintiffs did not file for
interlocutory review of the March 31, 2010 order, but through
their counsel they have initiated certain discovery to which
Central and other defendants have objected.  In late June of 2011,
certain defendants other than Central filed motions for summary
judgment seeking, among other things, a ruling on the legal issue
of whether or not Plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim could be
based upon their underlying unjust enrichment claim.

In January of 2012, the Court issued an order concluding that
under Kansas law a conspiracy claim could be so based.  These
defendants petitioned for interlocutory review of that ruling, but
the Court of Appeals of Kansas denied their request on
February 23, 2012.  It is unknown whether the Plaintiffs will
follow through on discovery and/or otherwise proceed with the
litigation on a non-class basis.  Central cannot predict the
outcome of this litigation or estimate a range of reasonably
possible losses, if any.

In the Price Litigation II, filed May 12, 2003, the named
Plaintiffs from Case No. 99 C 30 have sued the same defendants,
including Central.  Asserting substantially identical legal and/or
equitable theories, as in Price Litigation I, this petition
alleges that the defendants have under measured the British
thermal units, or Btu, content of, and therefore have underpaid
for, the natural gas they have obtained from or measured for the
Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages,
attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the
right to plead for punitive damages.  On November 10, 2003, an
answer to that pleading was filed on behalf of Central.

The Plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification, along with
Plaintiffs' second class certification motion in Price Litigation
I, was fully briefed and the Court heard oral argument on this
motion on April 1, 2005.  On September 18, 2009, the Court denied
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The Plaintiffs
filed a motion to reconsider that ruling on October 2, 2009.  The
defendants, including Central, filed a response in opposition to
the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on January 18, 2010.
The Plaintiffs filed a reply and oral argument, which was
presented before a different judge, was heard on February 10,
2010.  By order dated March 31, 2010, the Court denied the
Plaintiffs' October 2, 2009 motion to reconsider the earlier
denial of class certification. The Plaintiffs did not file for
interlocutory review of the March 31, 2010 order, but through
their counsel they have initiated certain discovery to which
Central and other defendants have objected.

In late June of 2011, certain defendants other than Central filed
motions for summary judgment seeking, among other things, a ruling
on the legal issue of whether or not the Plaintiffs' civil
conspiracy claim could be based upon their underlying unjust
enrichment claim.  In January of 2012, the Court issued an order
concluding that under Kansas law a conspiracy claim could be so
based.  These defendants petitioned for interlocutory review of
that ruling, but the Court of Appeals of Kansas denied their
request on February 23, 2012.  It is unknown whether the
Plaintiffs will follow through on discovery and/or otherwise
proceed with the litigation on a non-class basis.  Central cannot
predict the outcome of this litigation or estimate a range of
reasonably possible losses, if any.

Based in Owensboro, Kentucky, Southern Star Central Corp. was
incorporated in Delaware in September 2002 and operates as a
holding company for its regulated natural gas pipeline operations.
Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., is Southern Star's only
subsidiary and the sole source of its operating revenues and cash
flows.


STARBUCKS CORP: ADA Violations Suit to Include Calif. Stores
------------------------------------------------------------
A district court judge ruled that a class action lawsuit against
Starbucks Corporation may proceed to include all California stores
containing pickup counters in excess of the height permitted under
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

United States District Court Judge Dean D. Pregerson ruled on
Friday, June 14, 2013, that a class action lawsuit against
Starbucks Corporation alleging violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and Unruh Civil Rights Act may proceed to
include all California stores containing pickup counters in excess
of the height permitted under the ADA.

The underlying class action lawsuit was filed on May 10, 2012, and
seeks to force Starbucks to lower the height of its pickup
counters.  The plaintiffs contend that these higher counters,
which are used to pass hot liquids, discriminate against disabled
customers and pose safety risks.  Starbucks claimed that the
plaintiffs only had standing to proceed against stores that they
had visited.  The Court's ruling rejected this position and was in
conjunction with the plaintiffs' request to amend their Complaint
to allege that the purported violations of the ADA and Unruh Act
resulted from common design plans implemented by Starbucks at its
stores.

The Complaint alleges that Starbucks has known about the problems
with its counters since at least 2005, yet "eight years later,
hundreds of stores in California still have unlawful counters."
In the interim, Starbucks has continued to discriminate "against
tens, if not, hundreds of thousands of disabled patrons in
wheelchairs."

Vineet Dubey, counsel representing the putative class action
members, said, "It is an unfortunate reality that it often takes a
class action lawsuit to force large-scale violators to address
systematic abuses.  We hope that Friday's ruling will expedite
proceedings and ultimately force Starbucks to immediately lower
the beverage pick-up counters at all of its coffee shops."

Cliff Burrows, Starbucks group president, Americas, Europe, Middle
East and Africa (EMEA), and Teavana, and executive sponsor of
Starbucks Access Alliance, a group at Starbucks dedicated to
accessibility issues, speaks to the counter height issue in a
video posted on Starbucks' corporate site, stating "steps we've
taken at store development across the globe, have introduced a
lower-height hand-off plane."

Mr. Dubey addressed the claims by Mr. Burrows saying, "We were
surprised to learn that Starbucks has known about the issues that
its high counters posed for customers in wheelchairs and even
claimed to have introduced lower hand-off counters (referenced in
a Starbucks blog).  Yet, years later, stores across the country
still have these inaccessible counters, creating problems and
safety risks for disabled individuals."

As part of their case, the plaintiffs claim that in order to build
out stores quickly and inexpensively, Starbucks created pre-
fabricated modular pieces that were designed to adapt to any store
size.  Starbucks then used the pieces, including the high pickup
counters, in stores throughout the country.  Starbucks has denied
that the widespread issue with the height of its pickup counters
resulted from a common design.


STEC INC: Court Approves $35.8MM Settlement of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted preliminary approval to a $35.8 million
settlement of a securities suit filed against sTec, Inc.,
according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

From November 6, 2009 through March 2, 2010, seven class action
complaints were filed against the Company and several of its
senior officers and directors in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California. The Court consolidated the
complaints and appointed certain plaintiffs as the representative
plaintiffs for the class (the "Lead Plaintiffs").

The Court replaced the former Lead Plaintiffs with a new Lead
Plaintiff. The new Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint that the Court dismissed without prejudice. Thereafter,
on February 22, 2011, the new Lead Plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint, on behalf of all persons and entities who
acquired the Company's common stock between June 16, 2009 and
February 23, 2010. The second amended complaint alleges claims
against the Company and several of its senior officers and
directors for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and related claims against several of its senior
officers and directors for violations of the control person
provisions of Section 20A and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

In addition, the second amended complaint alleges claims against
the Company, several of its senior officers and directors, and
four of its underwriters for violations of Section 11 and Section
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), and
related claims against several of the Company's senior officers
and directors for violations of the control person provisions of
Section 15 of the Securities Act. The second amended complaint
alleges generally that the Company and the individual defendants
made materially false or misleading public statements and/or
failed to disclose material facts in public statements relating to
the Company and its business, in the case of the Exchange Act
claims, during the period of June 16, 2009 through February 23,
2010, and, in the case of the Securities Act claims, in the
Company's registration statement filed under the Securities Act.

The second amended complaint seeks compensatory damages for all
damages sustained as a result of the defendants' alleged actions
and further seeks reasonable costs and expenses, rescission,
counsel fees, and other relief the Court deems just and proper.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss and on June 17, 2011, the
Court entered an order granting the underwriters' motion to
dismiss the Securities Act claims without prejudice and denying
the Company's motion to dismiss the Exchange Act claims. The
defendants answered the second amended complaint on July 15, 2011.
On November 21, 2011, the new Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification and appointment of class counsel.

On January 12, 2012, the plaintiff in the class action lawsuit
pending in the Superior Court of Orange County, California filed a
motion for leave to intervene. The defendants opposed both of
these motions. On March 7, 2012, the Court denied both motions
without prejudice and stayed the action, other than discovery, to
allow the new Lead Plaintiff to cure the issue that resulted in
the order denying its motion for class certification.

On March 23, 2012, the new Lead Plaintiff sought permission from
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to appeal
from the order denying without prejudice its motion for class
certification. The defendants opposed this request, which the
Ninth Circuit denied on June 14, 2012. On June 19, 2012, the Court
entered an order granting the new Lead Plaintiff's motion and
certifying a class consisting of all persons and entities that,
between June 16, 2009 and February 23, 2010, inclusive, purchased
or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of sTec,
Inc., and were damaged thereby.

On July 30, 2012, the parties to the federal class action attended
a mediation to explore a potential settlement. During the July 30
mediation, the parties considered a settlement that would create a
fund for the benefit of the settlement class, with no admission or
concession of wrongdoing by the Company or the other defendants,
in exchange for a full and complete release of all claims that
were or could have been asserted in the federal class action,
including claims under both the Exchange Act and the Securities
Act.

On October 5, 2012, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Settlement Agreement") to settle the
federal class action. The Settlement Agreement provides for the
resolution of all the pending claims in the federal class action
litigation, without any admission or concession of wrongdoing by
the Company or the other defendants.

The Company and the other defendants have entered into the
Settlement Agreement to eliminate the uncertainty, distraction,
burden and expense of further litigation. The Settlement Agreement
provides for a fund of $35.8 million in exchange for a full and
complete release of all claims that were or could have been
asserted in the federal class action. During 2012 the Company had
recorded an estimated settlement accrual of $35.8 million and an
insurance claim receivable of $20.6 million, resulting in a net
charge of $15.2 million recorded as a component of other expense.

During the first quarter of 2013 the Company and its insurance
carriers transferred $15.2 million and $20.6 million,
respectively, into an escrow account in the custody of the Court
in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The
Settlement Agreement remains subject to final court approval and
certain other conditions, including an opportunity for class
members to object to or opt out of the settlement.

On February 11, 2013, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement. The final approval and fairness hearing
was set for May 20, 2013. The Company has made an assessment of
the probability of incurring any additional losses as remote and
accordingly, no additional accrued liabilities have been recorded
in sTec's consolidated financial statement for this federal class
action.

The Company expects the settlement of the federal class action
will also result in a full release of the class claims asserted in
the previously disclosed class action in the Superior Court of
Orange County, California. The settlement does not resolve the
related federal and state shareholder derivative litigation.


STEC INC: State Securities Claims Could Be Released
---------------------------------------------------
STec, Inc. believes that the contemplated settlement of the
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California would result in a release of
the class claims asserted in a suit filed in the Superior Court of
Orange County, California, according to the company's May 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On July 1, 2011, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and several of its senior officers and directors in the
Superior Court of Orange County, California. The complaint alleges
claims against the Company, several of its senior officers and
directors, and four of its underwriters for violations of Section
11 and Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and further alleges
claims against several of the Company's senior officers and
directors for violations of the control person provisions of
Section 15 of the Securities Act.

The complaint, which arises out of the same underlying factual
allegations as the federal court class action, seeks compensatory
damages and rescission or a rescissory measure of damages where
applicable, reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees
and expert fees, and other relief the Court may deem just and
proper. On August 4, 2011, the defendants removed the action to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. The plaintiffs moved to remand and on October 7, 2011,
the Court entered an order remanding the case back to the Superior
Court of Orange County, California.

On November 16, 2011, the defendants moved to stay the case
pending the resolution of the class action lawsuit pending in
federal court. On November 16, 2011, the defendants also filed a
general demurrer to the complaint. On February 17, 2012, the Court
granted the defendants' motion to stay and declined to rule on the
defendants' general demurrer.

The Company believes that the contemplated settlement of the
federal class action, would result in a release of the class
claims asserted in this Superior Court action. Accordingly, the
Company has made an assessment of the probability of incurring any
additional losses as remote and accordingly, no accrued
liabilities have been recorded in sTec's consolidated financial
statements for this Superior Court action.


STERLING FINANCIAL: Awaits Order on Motion to Junk Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington has not yet to rule on a motion to dismiss a securities
lawsuit filed against Sterling Financial Corporation,
according to the company's May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On December 11, 2009, a putative securities class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington against Sterling and certain of our current and former
officers.

The court appointed a lead plaintiff on March 9, 2010. On June 18,
2010, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint (the
"Complaint"). The Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Sterling's
stock during the period from July 23, 2008 to October 15, 2009.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to
disclose the extent of Sterling's delinquent commercial real
estate, construction and land development loans, properly record
losses for impaired loans, and properly reserve for loan losses,
thereby causing Sterling's stock price to be artificially inflated
during the purported class period.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and costs.
Sterling believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend against it vigorously.

On August 30, 2010, Sterling moved to dismiss the Complaint. On
March 2, 2011, after complete briefing, the court held a hearing
on the motion to dismiss. The court has not yet issued an order on
the motion, but indicated that it intends to do so in the near
future. Failure by Sterling to obtain a favorable resolution of
the claims set forth in the complaint could have a material
adverse effect on our business, results of operations and
financial condition. Currently, a loss resulting from these claims
is not considered probable or reasonably estimable in amount.


STERLING FINANCIAL: July 11 Hearing on ERISA Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing is set for July 11, 2013 in the $3 million
settlement of a class action alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against Sterling Financial
Corporation, according to the company's May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On January 20 and 22, 2010, two putative class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington against Sterling, as well as certain of
Sterling's current and former officers and directors. The two
complaints were merged in a Consolidated Amended Complaint (the
"Complaint") filed on July 16, 2010 in the same court.

The Complaint does not name all of the individuals named in the
prior complaints, but it is expected that additional defendants
will be added. The Complaint alleges that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under sections 404 and 405 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), with
respect to the Sterling Savings Bank Employee Savings and
Investment Plan (the "401(k) Plan") and the FirstBank Northwest
Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP") (collectively, the
"Plans"). Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants
breached their duties by investing assets of the Plans in
Sterling's securities when it was imprudent to do so, and by
investing such assets in Sterling securities when defendants knew
or should have known that the price of those securities was
inflated due to misrepresentations and omissions about Sterling's
business practices.

The business practices at issue include alleged over-reliance on
risky construction loans; alleged inadequate loan reserves;
alleged spiking increases in nonperforming assets, nonperforming
loans, classified assets, and over 90-day delinquent loans;
alleged inadequate accounting for rising loan payment shortfalls;
alleged unsafe and unsound banking practices; and a capital base
that was allegedly inadequate to withstand the significant
deterioration in the real estate markets.

The putative class periods are October 22, 2007 to the present for
the 401(k) Plan class, and October 22, 2007 to November 14, 2008
for the ESOP class. The Complaint seeks damages of an unspecified
amount and attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 26, 2012, Sterling received a letter from the U.S.
Department of Labor (the "Department of Labor") containing similar
allegations as those set forth in the Complaint, demanding that
the violations alleged in the Department of Labor's letter be
corrected and notifying Sterling that the Department of Labor may
take legal action in connection with such allegations, including
assessing a civil money penalty.

Failure by Sterling to obtain a favorable resolution of the claims
set forth in the Complaint or in the letter from the Department of
Labor could have a material adverse effect on Sterling's business,
results of operations, and financial condition.

In January 2013, a tentative settlement was reached, pursuant to
which Sterling agreed to pay $3.0 million to settle the claims.
The settlement is subject to approval by the court and the
Department of Labor. On March 29, 2013, the Court preliminarily
approved the settlement, with the final fairness hearing set for
July 11, 2013.

TAMARA YOUNKER: Dental Class Action Nears Resolution
----------------------------------------------------
WAND News reports that one previous Macon County dentists made
plea agreements to official misconduct.  One was last year and the
other was in 2011.  This came after patients found out a dental
assistant was not licensed.  Now, nearly three years later, a
class action lawsuit against them is finally coming to a close.

Doctor Kenneth Webb and his then assistant Tamara Younker were
lying to their patients.  Patients said, she was performing x-rays
and pulling teeth, without the proper paperwork.  Now patients are
finally getting paid, but not what they may have hoped for.

"We have a fund of $100,000 that's subject to the following,
attorney's fees and costs, which reduced that settlement to a
little over $60,000 which is to be distributed among claims"
Attorney William Hourigan said.

That money will be spread thin.  The attorney has 120 clients, but
anyone for about eight years with no permanent injury can file a
claim.

"Class members will have to fill out a form indicating that they
received dental from Tamara Younker and get that form to the claim
administrator before the time has ended," Mr. Hourigan added.

However, former patients don't have to file the claim if you think
you deserve more money.  There will be a provision on the form on
how to opt out

"If you don't opt out of the class and they don't file a claim
form, they won't be able to file a lawsuit later," Mr. Hourigan
told WAND News.

The attorney also gave his thought regarding filing a lawsuit.

"The dentist has lost his license to practice in Illinois and I
think he's going to lose it in Missouri, so it's unlikely that
he's going to have a personal fund to compensate people.  So my
thought is that this is going to be it and that's life.  It's
better than nothing," Mr. Hourigan said.

Ms. Younker's probation continues.  Doctor Webb made a plea
agreement to official misconduct.  His probation ended last May.

The attorney will be mailing out notices for his clients.  If you
think you may qualify for a share of this class action lawsuit,
there are notice and claim forms at both the Macon County Health
Department and the Macon County Circuit Clerk's Office.  You must
submit a claim form to the class action administrator.


TANGOE INC: Connecticut Court Consolidated 3 Securities Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has
consolidated three securities class action lawsuit against Tangoe,
Inc., according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

On March 1, 2013, Lewis Stein, a purported purchaser of the
Company's common stock, filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut against the
Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer and its Chief
Financial Officer, Stein v. Tangoe, Inc., Albert R. Subbloie, Jr.
and Gary R. Martino.  The plaintiff alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange
Act.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of purchasers of
the Company's common stock from December 20, 2011, through
September 5, 2012, and alleges that during this period the market
price of the Company's common stock was inflated by false or
misleading statements principally concerning the results of the
Company's business.  On April 30, 2013, Mr. Stein and another
purported purchaser of the Company's common stock, James Gibson,
filed a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiffs in connection
with this putative class action and to have their attorneys
approved as lead counsel.  The court has scheduled a hearing for
May 13, 2013, to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for all
of the cases consolidated with this action.  The outcome of this
matter is not presently determinable.

On March 15, 2013, Calvin Rector, a purported purchaser of the
Company's common stock, filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut against the
Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer and its Chief
Financial Officer, Rector v. Tangoe, Inc., Albert R. Subbloie, Jr.
and Gary R. Martino.  The plaintiff alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under the Exchange Act.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a class
of purchasers of the Company's common stock from December 20,
2011, through September 5, 2012, and alleges that during this
period the market price of the Company's common stock was inflated
by false or misleading statements principally concerning the
results of the Company's business.  On April 3, 2013, the Court
consolidated this case with the Stein case.  The outcome of this
matter is not presently determinable.

On April 12, 2013, Timothy Kelley, a purported purchaser of the
Company's common stock, filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut against the
Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer and its Chief
Financial Officer, Kelley v. Tangoe, Inc., Albert R. Subbloie, Jr.
and Gary R. Martino.  The plaintiff alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under the Exchange Act.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a class
of purchasers of the Company's common stock from December 20,
2011, through September 5, 2012, and alleges that during this
period the market price of the Company's common stock was inflated
by false or misleading statements principally concerning the
results of the Company's business.  On April 26, 2013, the court
consolidated the case with the Stein case.  The outcome of this
matter is not presently determinable.

Tangoe, Inc. -- http://www.tangoe.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation based in Orange, Connecticut.  Tangoe is a global
provider of communications lifecycle management software and
services to a wide range of large and medium sized commercial
enterprises and governmental agencies.


TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Awaits Prelim. OK of Merger Suits Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tempur-Pedic International Inc. is awaiting preliminary court
approval of its settlement of a consolidated merger-related
lawsuit in Delaware, according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On September 27, 2012, the Company announced that it had entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") to
acquire Sealy Corporation ("Sealy"), by merging Sealy with a
newly-formed subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger")
(collectively, the "Sealy Acquisition").  Sealy owns some of the
most recognized bedding brands in the world, and manufactures and
markets a broad range of mattresses and foundations that appeal to
a broad range of consumers under the Sealy(R), Sealy
Posturepedic(R), Sealy Embody(TM), Optimum(TM) by Sealy
Posturepedic(R), Stearns & Foster(R), and Bassett(R) brands.  In
addition to traditional innerspring mattresses, Sealy leverages
its brand portfolio to also manufacture and market in the U.S. and
internationally specialty (non-innerspring) latex and viscoelastic
bedding products.  Sealy is also a leading global brand with top
market positions in Canada, Mexico and Argentina.  Sealy operates
through wholly-owned subsidiaries in the U.S., Canada, Mexico,
Puerto Rico, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile and through joint
ventures and licensee partners in other international markets.

The Company is aware of six purported class action lawsuits
relating to the Merger with Sealy, one in North Carolina state
court and five in the Delaware Court of Chancery, filed by
purported stockholders of Sealy against Sealy, Sealy's directors,
the Company and Silver Lightning Merger Company, a subsidiary of
the Company (the "Merger Sub").  The six lawsuits are:

   (1) Benjamin B. Clarke, Individually and On Behalf of All
       Others Similarly Situated v. Lawrence J. Rogers, Richard
       W. Roedel, John B. Replogle, Paul J. Norris, Dean B.
       Nelson, Gary E. Morin, James W. Johnson, Deborah G.
       Ellinger, Simon E. Brown, Sealy Corporation, Tempur-Pedic
       International Inc. and Silver Lightning Merger Company,
       filed October 2, 2012;

   (2) Robert A. Justewicz, Individually and On Behalf of All
       Others Similarly Situated v. Sealy Corporation, Lawrence
       J. Rogers, Paul J. Norris, James W. Johnson, Simon E.
       Brown, Gary E. Morin, Dean B. Nelson, Richard W. Roedel,
       Deborah G. Ellinger, John B. Replogle, Silver Lightning
       Merger Company and Tempur-Pedic International Inc., filed
       Oct. 3, 2012;

   (3) Deno Singh, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
       Situated v. Lawrence J. Rogers, Richard W. Roedel, John B.
       Replogle, Paul J. Norris, Dean B. Nelson, Gary E. Morin,
       James W. Johnston, Deborah G. Ellinger, Simon E. Brown,
       Sealy Corporation, Tempur-Pedic International Inc. and
       Silver Lightning Merger Company, filed October 15, 2012;

   (4) Jay M. Plourde, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
       Similarly Situated v. Sealy Corporation, Lawrence J.
       Rogers, Paul Norris, James W. Johnston, Simon E. Brown,
       Gary E. Morin, Dean B. Nelson, Richard Roedel, Deborah G.
       Ellinger, John B. Replogel, Tempur-Pedic International
       Inc., Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. and Silver
       Lightning Merger Company, filed October 15, 2012;

   (5) Keith Gamble, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
       Similarly Situated v. Lawrence J. Rogers, Richard W.
       Roedel, John B. Replogle, Paul J. Norris, Dean B. Nelson,
       Gary E. Morin, James W. Johnston, Deborah G. Ellinger,
       Simon E. Brown, Sealy Corporation, Tempur-Pedic
       International Inc. and Silver Lightning Merger Company,
       filed October 16, 2012; and

   (6) Curtis Nall, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
       Situated Shareholders of Sealy Corporation v. Lawrence C.
       Rogers, James W. Johnston, Simon E. Brown, Gary E. Morin,
       Dean B. Nelson, Richard Roedel, Deborah G. Ellinger, John
       B. Replogle, Paul J. Norris, Sealy Corporation,
       Tempur-Pedic International Inc., KKR Millennium GP LLC,
       KKR & Co. L.P., and Silver Lightning Merger Company, filed
       October 17, 2012.

Justewicz v. Sealy Corp., et al. ("North Carolina Action") was
filed on October 3, 2012, in the General Court of Justice,
Superior Court Division in North Carolina ("North Carolina
Court").  On November 13, 2012, the Delaware Court of Chancery
consolidated all five Delaware actions into a single action, which
is now styled as In re Sealy Corporation Shareholder Litigation
("Delaware Action").  The Plaintiff in the North Carolina Action
and plaintiffs in the Delaware Action allege, among other things,
that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to
Sealy's stockholders and that Sealy, the Company and Merger Sub
aided and abetted the Sealy directors' alleged breach of fiduciary
duties.  The complaints also claim that the consideration to be
paid in the Merger to Sealy stockholders (the "Merger
Consideration") is inadequate, that the Merger Agreement contains
unfair deal protection provisions, that Sealy's directors are
subject to conflicts of interests, and that the preliminary
information statement filed by Sealy with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 30, 2012, omits material
information concerning the negotiation process leading to the
proposed transaction and the valuation of Sealy.

On October 12, 2012, the plaintiff in the North Carolina Action
brought a Motion for Expedited Discovery and for a Hearing and
Briefing Schedule on the Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction.  On October 24, 2012, the defendants in the North
Carolina Action brought a Motion to Stay the North Carolina Action
in favor of the Delaware Action.  On November 7, 2012, the North
Carolina Action plaintiff amended his complaint to add allegations
claiming that the preliminary information statement filed by Sealy
on October 30, 2012, did not provide sufficient information.
Following briefing and a hearing on November 8, 2012, the North
Carolina Court stayed the North Carolina Action.  On November 19,
2012, the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action filed a consolidated
amended complaint, a motion for expedited proceedings, and a
motion for a preliminary injunction.

The Company believes that the allegations in these lawsuits are
entirely without merit.  On January 22, 2013, solely to avoid the
burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and
without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the parties to the
Delaware Action entered into a memorandum of understanding setting
forth an agreement-in-principle providing for a settlement of the
Delaware Action (the "Proposed Settlement").  In connection with
the Proposed Settlement, Sealy agreed to include certain
supplemental disclosures in the information statement to be sent
to Sealy stockholders.  The Proposed Settlement provides for the
release of all claims by Sealy stockholders concerning the Merger
Agreement, the Merger, and the disclosures made in connection with
the Merger, including all claims that were asserted or could have
been asserted in the Delaware Action and the North Carolina
Action.  The Proposed Settlement does not provide for the payment
of any additional monetary consideration to Sealy stockholders and
the Proposed Settlement does not affect the rights of any Sealy
stockholder to seek appraisal pursuant to Section 262 of the DGCL.
The Proposed Settlement is subject to approval by the Delaware
Court of Chancery and a hearing has been scheduled for May 30,
2013, to approve the Settlement.

The outcome of the litigation is uncertain, however, and although
the Company does not currently expect to incur a loss with respect
to these matters, the Company cannot currently predict the manner
and timing of the resolution of the Merger Lawsuits, an estimate
of a range or losses or any minimum loss that could result in the
event of an adverse verdict in these lawsuits, or whether the
Company's or Sealy's applicable insurance policies will provide
sufficient coverage for these claims.  Accordingly, the Company
can give no assurance that these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of
operations.

Tempur-Pedic International Inc. is a manufacturer, marketer and
distributor of premium mattresses and pillows, which it sells in
approximately 80 countries under the TEMPUR(R) and Tempur-Pedic(R)
brands.  The Company is headquartered in Lexington, Kentucky.


TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Continues to Defend Two Securities Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Tempur-Pedic International Inc. continues to defend itself against
two securities class action lawsuits pending in Kentucky,
according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On June 20 and 25, 2012, two lawsuits were filed against the
Company and two named executive officers in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, purportedly
on behalf of a proposed class of shareholders who purchased the
Company's stock between January 25, 2012, and June 5, 2012.  The
lawsuits are:

   (1) Norfolk County Retirement System, Individually and on
       behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
       Tempur-Pedic International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and Dale
       E. Williams; filed June 20, 2012; and

   (2) Arthur Benning, Jr., Individually and on behalf of all
       others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic
       International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams;
       filed June 25, 2012.

The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging, among other things,
false and misleading statements and concealment of material
information concerning the Company's competitive position,
projected net sales, earnings per diluted share and related
financial performance for the Company's 2012 fiscal year.  The
plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, attorney's fees, expert
fees and unspecified equitable/injunctive relief.

The Company strongly believes that the shareholder lawsuits lack
merit and intends to defend against the claims vigorously.  The
outcome of these matters is uncertain, however, and although the
Company does not currently expect to incur a loss with respect to
these matters, the Company cannot currently predict the manner and
timing of the resolution of the lawsuits, an estimate of a range
of losses or any minimum loss that could result in the event of an
adverse verdict in these lawsuits, or whether the Company's
applicable insurance policies will provide sufficient coverage for
these claims.  Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that
these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position or results of operations.

Tempur-Pedic International Inc. is a manufacturer, marketer and
distributor of premium mattresses and pillows, which it sells in
approximately 80 countries under the TEMPUR(R) and Tempur-Pedic(R)
brands.  The Company is headquartered in Lexington, Kentucky.


TIP TOP: Recalls 18,000 Pounds of Roasted Chicken Product
---------------------------------------------------------
Tip Top Poultry, Inc., a Rockmart, Georgia establishment, is
recalling approximately 18,000 pounds of mechanically separated
chicken product that may contain pieces of plastic, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
announced.

The following product is subject to recall:

   * 250 - lb. drums of Tip Top roasted mechanically separated
     chicken.

The product subject to recall was packaged on April 29, 2013, and
was distributed to one establishment for further processing for
institutional use.  Cases can be identified by the case code
55252, pack date 04/29/13, and the establishment number P-17453
within the mark of inspection.

The pieces of plastic are from a washer that broke.  The problem
was discovered at the further processing establishment as they
were using the product to formulate a soup base.

FSIS has received no reports of illness due to consumption of
these products.  Anyone concerned about an illness should contact
a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that recalled product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and members of the media who have questions regarding
the recall can contact Laura Holder, Public Relations, at (770)
579-4289.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at
http://www.AskKaren.gov/ "Ask Karen" live chat services are
available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-
MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and
can be reached from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day.


UNITED ONLINE: Completes Distribution of Settlement in Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The distribution to all settlement claimants in the lawsuit
alleging violations of California Business and Professions Code
against United Online, Inc. was completed in March 2013, according
to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

In October 2008, Anthony Michaels filed a purported class action
complaint against Classmates Online, Inc., now known as Memory
Lane, Inc., Classmates Media Corporation and United Online, Inc.
in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging causes of action for intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence,
fraudulent concealment, and for violations of California Business
and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 et seq.

In December 2008, Xavier Vasquez filed a purported class action
complaint against Classmates Online, Inc., Classmates Media
Corporation and United Online, Inc. in Superior Court of
Washington, Kings County, alleging causes of action for violation
of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law, violation of California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment and violation of
California Civil Code section 1694, dealing with dating services
contracts. In both actions, the plaintiffs sought injunctive
relief and damages.

In April 2009, the United States District Court of the Western
District of Washington consolidated the Michaels and the Vasquez
actions and designated the Michaels action as the lead case. In
March 2010, the parties entered into a comprehensive class action
settlement agreement. In February 2011, the court denied final
approval of such settlement agreement. In March 2011, the parties
entered into a revised settlement agreement and, in July 2011, the
court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the revised
settlement agreement. The parties subsequently modified the
settlement agreement in August 2011.

In June 2012, the District Court issued an order granting final
approval of the settlement and certifying the class. In July 2012,
four separate notices of appeal of the District Court order were
filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. Such appeals have since been resolved and the order
granting final approval of the settlement and certifying the class
is final. The settlement administrator is in the process of paying
the claimants. The distribution to all claimants was completed in
March 2013.


UNITED ONLINE: June Hearing Set in Suit Over "Unfair Competition"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date of June 18, 2013 had been set in a suit alleging
false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
section 1125, and state and common law unfair competition against
United Online, Inc., according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In June 2011, Memory Lane, Inc., a California corporation, filed a
complaint in United States District Court, Central District of
California, against Classmates International, Inc., Classmates
Online, Inc. and the Company's Memory Lane, Inc. subsidiary
("Memory Lane"), alleging false designation of origin under the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1125, and state and common law
unfair competition. The complaint includes requests for an award
of damages and for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

Notwithstanding the request for preliminary injunctive relief, no
motion for such relief has been filed. Memory Lane responded to
the complaint in September 2011. In October 2011, the plaintiff
amended its complaint to, among other things, dismiss Classmates
International, Inc. and add United Online, Inc. as a defendant.
The discovery cut-off date was in October 2012. A trial date of
June 18, 2013 has been set.


UNITED ONLINE: No Trial Date Yet in "Trilegiant" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
No trial date has been set in the suit In re Trilegiant
Corporation, Inc. after defendants responded to a consolidated
amended complaint, according to United Online, Inc.'s May 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

                       "Kelm Class Action"

In March 2012, Hope Kelm, Barbara Timmcke, Regina Warfel, Brett
Reilly, Juan M. Restrepo, and Jennie H. Pham filed a purported
class action complaint (the "Kelm Class Action") in United States
District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following
defendants:

(i) Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Capital One
Financial Corporation, Citigroup, Inc., and Citibank, N.A.
(collectively,2 the "Credit Card Company Defendants");

(ii) 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., United Online, Inc., Memory Lane,
Inc., Classmates International, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Days Inns
Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, PeopleFindersPro,
Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc.,
IAC/InterActiveCorp, and Shoebuy.com, Inc. (collectively, the "E-
Merchant Defendants"); and

(iii) Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. ("Trilegiant"), Affinion Group,
LLC ("Affinion"), and Apollo Global Management, LLC ("Apollo").
The complaint alleges:

       (1) violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO") by all defendants, and aiding and
abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Company
Defendants;

       (2) aiding and abetting violations of federal mail fraud,
wire fraud and bank fraud statutes by the Credit Card Company
Defendants;

       (3) violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
("ECPA") by Trilegiant, Affinion and the E-Merchant Defendants,
and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card
Company Defendants;

       (4) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act by Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, and the E-Merchant
Defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the
Credit Card Company Defendants;

       (5) violation of California Business and Professions Code
section 17602 by Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, and the E-Merchant
Defendants; and

       (6) unjust enrichment by all defendants.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution and
disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received
from plaintiffs, damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts
awarded.

                      "Miller Class Action"

In March 2012, Debra Miller and William Thompson filed a purported
class action complaint (the "Miller Class Action") in United
States District Court, District of Connecticut, against the
following defendants:

(i) Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, Vertrue, Inc., Webloyalty.com,
Inc., and Adaptive Marketing, LLC (collectively, the "Membership
Companies");

(ii) 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc.,
Classmates International, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., FTD
Group, Inc., IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc.,
Peoplefinderspro, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc., Shoebuy.com, Inc.,
United Online, Inc., Wells Fargo & Company, and Wyndham Worldwide
Corporation (collectively, the "Marketing Companies"); and

(iii) Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corporation,
Chase Bank USA, N.A., and Citibank, N.A. (collectively, the
"Credit Card Companies"). The complaint alleges:

       (1) violations of the RICO by all defendants, and aiding
and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Companies;

       (2) aiding and abetting violations of federal mail fraud,
wire fraud and bank fraud statutes by the Credit Card Companies;

       (3) violations of the ECPA by the Membership Companies and
the Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of
such act by the Credit Card Companies;

       (4) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act by the Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies, and
aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card
Companies;

       (5) violation of California Business and Professions Code
section 17602 by the Membership Companies and the Marketing
Companies; and

       (6) unjust enrichment by all defendants. The plaintiffs
seek class certification, restitution and disgorgement of all
amounts wrongfully charged to and received from plaintiffs,
damages, treble damages, punitive damages, preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and
pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded.

In April 2012, the Kelm Class Action and the Miller Class Action
were consolidated with a related case under the case caption In re
Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. In September 2012, the plaintiffs
filed their consolidated amended complaint and named five
additional defendants. The defendants have responded to the
consolidated amended complaint. No trial date has been set.


UNITED ONLINE: Awaits Court Ruling on Consolidation Motion
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff David Frank is awaiting a ruling on its motion to
consolidate the suit he filed with the In re Trilegiant
Corporation, Inc. action, according to United Online, Inc.'s May
8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In addition, in December 2012, David Frank filed a purported class
action complaint (the "Frank Class Action") in United States
District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following
defendants: Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo (collectively, the "Frank
Membership Companies"); 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media
LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Classmates International, Inc., Days Inn
Worldwide, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Hotwire, Inc.,
IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide,
LLC, PeopleFindersPro, Inc., Priceline.com, Inc., Shoebuy.com,
Inc., TigerDirect, Inc., United Online, Inc., and Wyndham
Worldwide Corporation (collectively, the "Frank Marketing
Companies"); Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial
Corporation, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Chase Paymentech Solutions,
LLC, Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, Inc., and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
(collectively, the "Frank Credit Card Companies").

The complaint alleges:

(1) violations of RICO by all defendants;

(2) aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit
Card Companies;

(3) aiding and abetting commissions of mail fraud, wire fraud and
bank fraud by the Frank Credit Card Companies;

(4) violation of the ECPA by the Frank Membership Companies and
the Frank Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations
of such act by the Frank Credit Card Companies;

(5) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by
the Frank Membership Companies and the Frank Marketing Companies,
and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit
Card Companies;

(6) violation of California Business and Professions Code section
17602 by the Frank Membership Companies and the Frank Marketing
Companies; and

(7) unjust enrichment by all defendants.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution and
disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received
from plaintiffs, damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts
awarded.

On January 23, 2013, the plaintiff moved to consolidate the Frank
Class Action with the In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. action.
In response, the court ordered the plaintiff to show cause as to
why, among other things, the plaintiff should be afforded named
plaintiff status. The plaintiff filed his response to the order to
show cause on February 15, 2013. The court has not yet ruled upon
the request for consolidation or the order to show cause.


UNITED STATES: ACLU Files Class Action Over Border Patrol Coercion
------------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Burke, Maureen Cavanaugh and Peggy Pico, writing for
Fronteras Desk, report that the American Civil Liberties Union of
San Diego and Imperial Counties has launched a new project to
insure that people here illegally are not exploited.  The Border
Litigation Project will focus on how immigrants in custody are
treated by law enforcement.

In that spirit, the ACLU on June 4 announced a class-action
lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security for allegedly
intimidating people arrested by the Border Patrol into signing
away their rights.

The complaint alleges that Border Patrol agents and Immigration
and Customs Enforcement officers regularly pressure immigrants
being held in detention facilities to sign a "voluntary departure"
form.  By signing the form, the person waives his or her right to
have a case heard before an immigration judge.  They are deported
sometimes within hours and are banned from returning to the United
States for 10 years.

"It's unconscionable that immigration agents perpetually fail to
tell individuals with the most to lose that there are direct and
certain consequences of taking voluntary departure," said Sean
Riordan, staff attorney for the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial
Counties.

"One of the most serious of those consequences is a 10-year bar
prohibiting return to the United States.  No one should have to
make such a critical decision without knowing all the
repercussions," he said.

The ACLU said all of the seven plaintiffs in the case were
approached by Border Patrol or Immigration and Customs Enforcement
officers while "doing routine daily activities, such as waiting
for a bus."

A spokesperson for Immigration and Customs Enforcement says the
agency will send a statement in response to this lawsuit.  This
story will be updated with that statement when it is received.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Plans to Seek Review of Antitrust Suit Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. intends either to request an en banc
rehearing before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or to seek a
writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court against a ruling
that permitted plaintiffs to pursue certain state antitrust claims
for natural gas sales, according to the company's May 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states
filed class actions in Nevada federal district court against WPX
and others alleging the manipulation of published gas price
indices and seeking unspecified amounts of damages.

In 2011, the Nevada district court granted WPX's joint motions for
summary judgment to preclude the plaintiffs' state law claims
because the federal Natural Gas Act gives the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission exclusive jurisdiction to resolve those
issues. The court also denied the plaintiffs' class certification
motion as moot.

The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling and on April 10, 2013,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and
remanded the cases to the district court to permit the plaintiffs
to pursue their state antitrust claims for natural gas sales that
were not subject to FERC jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act.

WPX and the other defendants intend either to request an en banc
rehearing before the Ninth Circuit or to seek a writ of certiorari
from the U.S. Supreme Court.


WILLIAM COMPANIES: Estimates $32MM Loss in Dispute v. FHRA
----------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. currently estimates that its
reasonably possible loss exposure in pursuing claims against Flint
Hills Resources Alaska, LLC (FHRA) in relation to a suit over an
Alaska refinery contamination could range from an insignificant
amount up to $32 million, according to the company's May 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In January 2010, James West filed a class action lawsuit in state
court in Fairbanks, Alaska on behalf of individual property owners
whose water contained sulfolane contamination allegedly emanating
from the Flint Hills Oil Refinery in North Pole, Alaska.

The suit named the company's subsidiary, Williams Alaska Petroleum
Inc. (WAPI), and Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC (FHRA), a
subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., as defendants. The company
owned and operated the refinery until 2004 when it sold it to
FHRA. The company and FHRA have made claims under the pollution
liability insurance policy issued in connection with the sale of
the North Pole refinery to FHRA.

The company and FHRA also filed claims against each other seeking,
among other things, contractual indemnification alleging that the
other party caused the sulfolane contamination.

In 2011, the company and FHRA settled the James West claim. The
company's claims against FHRA and their claims against the company
remain outstanding. The company and FHRA filed motions for summary
judgment on the other's claims, but the motions are unlikely to
resolve all the outstanding claims. An April 2013 trial date had
been scheduled but has been stricken and has not been reset.

The company currently estimates that its reasonably possible loss
exposure in this matter could range from an insignificant amount
up to $32 million, although uncertainties inherent in the
litigation process, expert evaluations, and jury dynamics might
cause its exposure to exceed that amount.


WILLIS: Faces Another Class Action Over Stanford Ponzi Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Insurance Insider reports that Willis has been hit by another
class action suit accusing the broker of helping perpetuate Allen
Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme.

A group of 64 plaintiffs filed the complaint in the Southern
District Court of Florida on May 21 collectively claiming over
$83.5 million in damages.

The plaintiffs claim to have purchased Stanford-issued
certificates of deposit (CDs) based on Stanford's alleged
misrepresentations that the notes were safe and liquid
investments.


* Battea Reports $678MM Settlement Distributions in 1st Qtr. 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Battea -- Class Action Services, LLC, a provider of securities
class action recovery services for institutional investors,
reported quarterly securities class action settlement fund payouts
for first quarter 2013 and fourth quarter 2012.

During the first quarter of 2013, there were primary distributions
in 27 cases, representing total settlement funds of approximately
$678 million.  The average settlement fund size was approximately
$25 million, with the largest settlement exceeding $205 million. A
total of six settlements were disbursed in January, ten
settlements in February and 11 settlements in March.

The table below lists the five largest securities class action
settlements that distributed in the first quarter of 2013:

Disbursement  Company                  Ticker       Settlement
Date                                                Fund

1/16/2013     CENTRO PROPERTIES GROUP   CNP AU      205,120,000

3/4/2013      MF GLOBAL, LTD.            MF          90,000,000

              MFS MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL
              SERVICES COMPANY - MUTUAL
3/29/2013     FUNDS                      MFS FUNDS    75,042,250

              ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN MUTUAL
3/14/2013     FUNDS                      AB FUNDS     74,586,650

2/28/2013     SIGMA PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD. SIP AU       59,000,000

During the fourth quarter of 2012, there were primary
distributions in 30 cases, representing total settlement funds of
over $1.9 billion.  The average settlement fund size was
approximately $63 million, with largest settlement exceeding $620
million.  A total of six settlements were disbursed in October,
ten settlements in November, and 14 settlements in December.

The table below lists the five largest securities class action
settlements that were distributed in the fourth quarter of 2012:

Disbursement      Company               Ticker       Settlement
Date                                                 Fund

                  COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL
12/26/2012        CORP                   CFC        624,000,000

                  IPO SECURITIES
11/30/2012        LITIGATION      Multiple Tickers  586,000,000

                  MORGAN KEEGAN STATES
11/5/2012         FUND                    RHIIX     100,000,000

10/10/2012        DEL MONTE FOODS CO.     DLM        89,400,000

11/13/2012        CREDIT SUISSE GROUP     CS         70,000,000

            About Battea - Class Action Services, LLC

Battea -- Class Action Services, via its proprietary technology
platform, The Claims Engine(R), automates class action settlement
award recovery across all asset classes for more than 300
institutional investors, including hedge funds, asset management
firms, sovereign and pension funds, endowments and family offices.
The Company provides a full-service solution for the entire
securities class action award recovery process -- calculating
recognized loss for every claim through the confirmation, receipt
and delivery of settlement payouts, all with unparalleled
transparency around the settlement recovery process.

CONTACT: Battea -- Class Action Services, LLC
         Jennifer Carberry
         Telephone: 203-987-4949
         E-mail: jcarberry@battea.com


* Consumer Goods Manufacturers Face Class Action Risks
------------------------------------------------------
Kristen E. Polovoy, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that
the defense costs associated with consumer product class action
lawsuits, along with the financial pressure to settle if
plaintiffs achieve class certification, are confronting consumer
goods manufacturers nationwide.

Don't overlook the following preparatory measures.

The risks to consumer goods companies of being a target make the
consumer fraud product labeling class action trend reminiscent of
Titanic Captain Edward J. Smith's chilling words: "I cannot
imagine any condition which would cause a ship to founder.  I
cannot conceive of any vital disaster happening to this vessel."
Product labeling litigation can be the unexpected iceberg to any
company.

The defense costs associated with these lawsuits, along with the
financial pressure to settle if plaintiffs achieve class
certification (in order to avoid the risk of juries' damages
awards), are forcefully hitting the wallets of consumer goods
manufacturers nationwide.  In-house counsel should prepare the
lifeboats now to better position the organization should it become
a defendant in one of these class actions by considering the
following issues.

Obtaining Insurance Coverage For Defense Costs And/Or Liability
Judgments In Labeling Litigation

In most consumer product companies' coverage action cases against
their insurers, courts have denied coverage because:

   * "Advertising injury" coverage does not encompass the claims:
"Advertising injury" insurance in general liability policies
covers publication of material that disparages another's products
or wrongful use of another's advertising ideas in one's own
marketing.  However, product labeling consumer fraud class actions
allege: (i) that companies misrepresented their own product, not
another's goods; or (ii) that defendants made false claims or
misused terms in their own advertising to promote their own
products, not that they misappropriated another's advertising or
business ideas.

There is generally no advertising injury coverage in these
scenarios.  Giovanni Cosmetics Inc. v. Arch Ins. Co., CV 09-5548
GAF (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2010). But cases' specific facts are what
ultimately control the issue. E.piphany Inc. v. St. Paul Fire &
Marine Insurance Co., 590 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (N.D. Cal. 2008)
(claims of "superiority" over competitors was within advertising
injury coverage); Vector Products, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.,
397 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2005) (claims of superiority over the
"leading brand" was within advertising injury coverage).

   * Media policies do not cover the claims: Media or professional
services wrongful act coverage in media policies covers
disparagement or misappropriation of competitors' ideas.  However,
product labeling class actions challenge the allegedly fraudulent,
false, or misleading content of companies' own labels.  Thus,
these class action complaints do not fall within the scope of
media policies. Courts have also found that professional services
coverage is not intended to cover claims by competitors . Welch
Foods Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 09-12087-
RWZ, 2010 WL 3928704 (D. Mass. Oct. 1, 2010).

   * D&O insurance does not cover the claims: Exclusions in D&O
policies often preclude coverage for claims arising out of "unfair
competition or deceptive trade practices." Consumer fraud class
actions alleging fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive product
labels fall squarely within the plain language of this exclusion.
Again, there is usually no coverage under D&O policies.

Of course, coverage in each case turns upon its specific facts as
well as the language in the particular policy and the complaint.

Company counsel should review the language of its existing
policies and if there are gaps that would exclude coverage of
defense and liability costs in the typical product labeling class
action, reach out to insurers to explore availability of ways to
bridge those gaps.  In-house counsel must assume responsibility
for educating corporate decision-makers on the potential exposure
in these cases, regardless of existing insurance policies.
Personal Liability For Individual Officers

Institutional exposure from consumer fraud product labeling class
actions is not the only problem. Individual officer and employee
liability is also a risk.

For example, regulatory violations of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act may result in individual liability for corporate
employees, officers, and owners when the violation at issue
implicates the personal behavior of individual actors.  Allen v. V
and A Brothers, Inc., 208 N.J. 114, 26 A.3d 430 (2011); Kort v.
Van Aswegen, 2011 WL 5137833, at *3 (N.J. App. Div. Nov. 1, 2011)
(a company president signed a contract omitting provisions
required by statutory regulations).

Other jurisdictions also permit individual liability in certain
circumstances under those states' consumer protection statutes.
See, e.g., Polonetsky v. Better Homes Depot, Inc., 97 N.Y.2d 46,
55, 760 N.E.2d 1274, 1278-79 (2011) (corporate president liability
under New York's Consumer Protection Law); Jackson v. Harkey, 41
Wash. App. 471, 480, 704 P.2d 687, 692 (1985) (individual officer
liability under Washington's Consumer Protection Act); State ex.
Rel. McLeod v. VIP Enterprises, Inc., 286 S.C. 501, 506, 335
S.E.2d 243, 245 (S.C. Ct. App. 1985) ("controlling person"
liability under South Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act).

The risks of personal liability from consumer fraud product
labeling class actions underscore the need for:

   * Intra-company training about product labeling lawsuits and
the pertinent states' consumer fraud statutes.

   * Periodic review of policies, procedures, and form contracts
to minimize potential individual (and corporate) liability.

   * Investigation of insurance products that could offer defense
and indemnification coverage to individual officers and employees.

Watch FTC/FDA Actions As A Signal For Civil Litigation

Consumer fraud class action practitioners frequently file private
product labeling class actions after the Food and Drug
Administration or Federal Trade Commission issues public posts,
such as agency warnings letters about a company's or industry's
food or beverage marketing.  In-house corporate compliance teams
should regularly review these postings, such as those at fda.gov
in order to forecast possible activity against their industry or
their label's language, to educate corporate decision-makers, and
to recommend adjustments to language in labels and ads, if
necessary as a proactive, defensive measure.

Even with utmost diligence, there is no guarantee of a
satisfactory or fiscally friendly outcome.  Even if you feel your
company's product label is truthful, accurate, and not misleading,
the possibility of a class action remains.  That said, while your
company or its competitors may not presently be under attack,
upper management and company counsel should consider the issues
detailed in both parts of this article.  In the words of Boy
Scouts founder Robert Baden-Powell, "A Scout is never taken by
surprise; he knows exactly what to do when anything unexpected
happens."

Kristen E. Polovoy is of counsel to Montgomery, McCracken, Walker
& Rhoads in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, and serves as chairperson of
the Camden County Bar Association's Class Action Practice
Committee.  Her practice concentrates on class action defense.


* Firm Launches Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Claims Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP, with its principal office in
Houston, Texas, on June 4 disclosed that they have launched
http://www.MySpillClaim.com

This website allows the public to determine whether they meet the
"V-Shaped Revenue Test" set forth in the Class Action Settlement
Agreement relating to the April 20, 2010, Gulf Oil Spill, as
referenced in the Deepwater Horizon Economic Settement.
Businesses and Charities who pass this test -- and who are also
members of the Class Action -- are eligible to receive
compensation from the Deepwater Horizon Court Supervised Claim
Center.

"We are very excited about MySpillClaim.com," stated Armistead
"Armi" Easterby, who manages the Oil Spill Claims Team within
Williams Kherkher.  "Previously businesses, charities, and
individuals had to pay an attorney or accounting firm to see if
they pass the V-Shaped Revenue Test.  Now they can get a real time
result with no cost or obligation; we think the public has the
right to find out if they qualify without having to first hire a
lawyer or accountant."

"You don't have to be right on the beach to qualify," explained
Mr. Easterby.  "In fact, most businesses and charities located
anywhere in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and the Western
counties of Florida are included in the Class Action Settlement,
and should run their numbers through MySpillClaim.com to see
whether they pass the test."

In order to complete the V-Shaped Revenue Test a potential
claimant need only enter their monthly gross revenue for the
period between May 2007 and December 2011.  Many Gulf State
businesses and charities mistakenly believe that they have to be
located directly on the Gulf of Mexico to qualify, or have to
prove the Oil Spill directly damaged their business or charity.
"Neither of these misperceptions are accurate," explained
Mr. Easterby.

"A typical claimant can run this calculation on MySpillClaim.com
in less than 5 minutes" continued Mr. Easterby.  "Virtually all
businesses and charities maintain their monthly gross revenue, and
getting this information is typically a matter of a few mouse
clicks, or a call to their accountant or bookkeeper."

While the Class Action Settlement Agreement does contain other
tests to qualify for compensation, the "V-Shaped Revenue Test"
used by MySpillClaim.com is the most common, and the only one that
is based solely on gross revenues for the aforementioned time
period.  Per the terms of the Class Action Settlement Agreement
eligible claimants must submit a claim on or before April 22,
2014.  "If you don't file your claim before the deadline, you
forfeit your right to compensation and the money that is owed to
you will revert back to BP" stated Mr. Easterby.

"We encourage all businesses and charities in the Gulf States to
visit the site and take 5 minutes to see if they qualify,"
concluded Mr. Easterby.  "So far only a small fraction of eligible
businesses and charities have filed their Oil Spill Claims, and we
encourage businesses and charities to educate themselves about
whether they qualify for compensation."

For additional information on the site, visit
http://www.MySpillClaim.com

For a full copy of the Class Action Settlement, visit
http://www.laed.uscourts.gov/OilSpill/OilSpill.htmfor details on
MDL 2179.


* U.S. Supreme Court Grapples With Class Actions
------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that since the passage of the Class Action Fairness
Act in 2005, the federal courts have been grappling with cases
that have sought to identify the scope and boundaries of class
actions.  The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a series of opinions
in the last two years regarding class actions and currently has
before it two cases that have been briefed and argued that address
the availability of "class arbitrations."


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Specialty Products Wants $1BB Appeal In 3rd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Santo of BankruptcyLaw360 reported that Specialty Products
Holding Corp. sought permission to go directly to the Third
Circuit with its appeal of a Delaware bankruptcy court's decision
pegging its asbestos-related liability at $1.1 billion, saying a
quick resolution of the issue has implications for its case and
others.

According to the report, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith K.
Fitzgerald issued an opinion May 20 estimating Specialty Products'
current and future liability for asbestos-related mesothelioma
claims at $1.1 billion, a figure that eclipsed its various
projections by hundreds of millions of dollars.

                     About Specialty Products

Cleveland, Ohio-based Specialty Products Holdings Corp., aka RPM,
Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of RPM International Inc.  The
Company is the holding company parent of Bondex International,
Inc., and the direct or indirect parent of certain additional
domestic and foreign subsidiaries.  The Company claims to be a
leading manufacturer, distributor and seller of various specialty
chemical product lines, including exterior insulating finishing
systems, powder coatings, fluorescent colorants and pigments,
cleaning and protection products, fuel additives, wood treatments
and coatings and sealants, in both the industrial and consumer
markets.

The Company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. D.
Del. Case No. 10-11780) on May 31, 2010.  Gregory M. Gordon, Esq.,
Dan B. Prieto, Esq., and Robert J. Jud, Esq., at Jones Day, serve
as bankruptcy counsel.  Daniel J. DeFranceschi, Esq., and Zachary
I. Shapiro, Esq., at Richards Layton & Finger, serve as co-
counsel.  Logan and Company is the Company's claims and notice
agent.  The Company estimated its assets and debts at $100 million
to $500 million.

The Company's affiliate, Bondex International, Inc., filed a
separate Chapter 11 petition on May 31, 2010 (Case No. 10-11779),
estimating its assets and debts at $100 million to $500 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metex Mfg. Can Join in Home Insurance Proceeding
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Burton R. Lifland of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York authorized Metex Mfg. Corporation to
use estate assets to seek intervention and participate in a
disputed claims proceeding for the purpose of protecting their
interest in certain insurance policies issued by The Home
Insurance Company that provide coverage for asbestos personal
injury claims against Kentile Floors, Inc.

Kentile has coverage under five umbrella insurance policies issued
by The Home.  Each of The Home Policies has a $5 million limit,
excess of five now exhausted $1 million primary policies, bringing
the total aggregate limits of The Home Policies to $25 million.
The Home Policies provide coverage for Kentile asbestos personal
injury claims.

In 2003, The Home became, and remains, the subject of a
liquidation proceeding in the Merrimack County Superior Court,
State of New Hampshire.  Roger A. Sevigny, the Commissioner of the
Insurance for the State of New Hampshire, was appointed by the
Superior Court as the liquidator for The Home.  On June 10, 2004,
Metex filed a timely proof of claim in The Home Liquidation
Proceeding seeking insurance coverage for, inter alia, the
asbestos personal injury claims that have been made against
Kentile.

The Debtor relates that there is a pending claims dispute in The
Home Liquidation Proceeding, which could result to the impairment
of the limits of The Home Policies and, therefore, result in a
dollar for dollar reduction in the amount that will be paid by to
the Debtor.

                            About Metex

Great Neck, New York-based Metex Mfg. Corporation, formerly known
as Kentile Floors, Inc., started business in the late 1800's as a
manufacturer of cork tile, and thereafter progressed to making
composite tile for commercial and residential use.  It filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 12-
14554) on Nov. 9, 2012.  The petition was signed by Anthony J.
Miceli, president.  The Debtor estimated its assets and debts at
$100 million to $500 million.  Judge Burton R. Lifland presides
over the case.

Affiliate Kentile Floors, Inc., filed a separate Chapter 11
petition (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 92-46466) on Nov. 20, 1992.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Asbestos Indemnification For Celotex Corp.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Alston of BankruptcyLaw360 reported that the New Jersey
Supreme Court ruled that a defunct insurance company could not be
held responsible for a $5 million policy it had issued to a
manufacturer of building products containing asbestos, saying the
matter had already been decided in other venues.

According to the report, New Jersey's high court ruled in favor
of the now-bankrupt Integrity Insurance Co., which issued a
$5 million excess insurance policy to the also-bankrupt Celotex
Corp., which once manufactured building and roofing materials
containing asbestos.  Celotex's product spawned thousands of
product liability claims, the report said.

                        About Celotex Corp.

The Celotex Corporation manufactured, marketed, and distributed
building products.  Carey Canada Inc. mined asbestos until it
ceased operations in 1986.  Celotex and Carey Canada sought
chapter 11 protection (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Case No. 90-10016) on
Oct. 12, 1990.  At the time of the filing, Celotex and Carey
Canada had been named as defendants in thousands of lawsuits filed
by Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, and in hundreds of lawsuits
filed by Asbestos Property Damage Claimants.  On Dec. 6, 1996, the
Bankruptcy Court entered an Order Confirming the Modified Joint
Plan of Reorganization for Celotex and Carey Canada.  A principal
feature of the confirmed Plan was the creation of the Asbestos
Settlement Trust under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 524(g) "to address,
liquidate, resolve, and disallow or allow and pay Asbestos Claims,
which will operate in accordance with the Asbestos Claims
Resolution Procedures."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation continues to defend itself against lawsuits
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013.

The Company states: "We have been named as a defendant in certain
lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
allegedly contained in 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 are
similar to 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."

Graham Corporation (Graham) designs, manufactures and sells
custom-built vacuum and heat transfer equipment to customers
worldwide. The Company's products include steam jet ejector vacuum
systems, surface condensers for steam turbines, vacuum pumps and
compressors, various types of heat exchangers, including helical
coil heat exchangers marketed under the Heliflow name, and plate
and frame heat exchangers. The Company's products produce a
vacuum, condense steam vapor or transfer heat, or perform a
combination of these tasks. The Company's products are available
in a range of metals and non-metallic corrosion resistant
materials. The Company's two wholly owned subsidiaries include
Graham Vacuum and Heat transfers Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Company Continues to Defend PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
The Toro Company continues to defend itself against claims
involving asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended May 3, 2013.

The company is party to litigation in the ordinary course of
business. Litigation occasionally involves claims for punitive as
well as compensatory damages arising out of use of the company's
products. Although the company is self-insured to some extent, the
company maintains insurance against certain product liability
losses. The company is also subject to litigation and
administrative and judicial proceedings with respect to claims
involving asbestos and the discharge of hazardous substances into
the environment. Some of these claims assert damages and liability
for personal injury, remedial investigations or clean up and other
costs and damages. The company is also typically involved in
commercial disputes, employment disputes, and patent litigation
cases in which it is asserting or defending against patent
infringement claims. To prevent possible infringement of the
company's patents by others, the company periodically reviews
competitors' products. To avoid potential liability with respect
to others' patents, the company regularly reviews certain patents
issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO")
and foreign patent offices. Management believes these activities
help minimize its risk of being a defendant in patent infringement
litigation.

The Toro Company (Toro) designs, manufactures, and markets
professional turf maintenance equipment and services, turf
irrigation systems, agricultural micro-irrigation systems,
landscaping equipment and lighting, and residential yard and snow
removal products. The Company operates in three business segments:
Professional, Residential, and Distribution. Its products are
advertised and sold at the retail level under the names of Toro,
Exmark, Irritrol, Hayter, Pope, Lawn-Boy and Lawn Genie. On June
24, 2011, the Company completed the acquisition of certain assets
of Lawn Solutions Commercial Products, Inc. On January 17, 2011,
Toro completed the acquisition of certain assets of Unique
Lighting Systems, Inc. In February 2012, the Company acquired
certain utility and underground product assets of Astec
Underground, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Astec Industries,
Inc. In April 2012, it acquired light construction and hardscape
product assets of Stone Construction Equipment, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Corp. Paid $740,000 to Settle Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Met-Pro Corporation has paid $740,000 in settlement for cases
involving asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended April 30, 2013.

Beginning in 2002, the Company 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
the Company, 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 the Company'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 through April 30, 2013 for
cases involving asbestos-related claims were $740,000, which
together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel
expenses, have been paid by the Company's insurers. The average
cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was approximately
$25,000.

Based upon the most recent information available to the Company
regarding those claims, there were a total of 164 cases pending
against the Company as of April 30, 2013 (with Connecticut, New
York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of
cases), as compared with 157 cases that were pending as of January
31, 2013. During the current fiscal year commencing February 1,
2013 through April 30, 2013, 18 new cases were filed against the
Company, and the Company was dismissed from 11 cases and settled
zero cases. Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the
early stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on
schedules leading to, or are scheduled for trial. The Company
believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for the cases
currently pending against the Company and for the foreseeable
future, assuming a continuation of the current volume, nature of
cases and settlement amounts. However, the Company has no control
over the number and nature of cases that are filed against it, nor
as to the financial health of its insurers or their position as to
coverage. The Company also presently believes that none of the
pending cases will have a material adverse impact upon the
Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.

Met-Pro Corporation (Met-Pro) manufactures and sells product
recovery and pollution control equipment for purification of air
and liquids, fluid handling equipment for corrosive, abrasive and
high temperature liquids, and filtration and purification
products. The Company markets and sells its products through its
own personnel, distributors, representatives and agents. The
Company's products are sold worldwide primarily in industrial
markets. The Company operates in three segments: product
recovery/pollution control technologies, fluid handling
technologies and mefiag filtration technologies; with the other
segment being filtration/purification technologies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OP-TECH Paid $100,000 Settlement to Labor Dept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
OP-TECH Environmental Services, Inc., made a settlement for
$100,000 with the New York State Department of Labor related to
asbestos operations, according to the Company's Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company said ts asbestos handling license is current and in
compliance.

OP-TECH Environmental Services, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the
"Company"), a Delaware corporation headquartered in Syracuse, New
York, provides comprehensive environmental and industrial services
predominately in New York, New England, Pennsylvania, and New
Jersey.  The Company performs industrial cleaning of hazardous and
non-hazardous materials and provides varying services relating to
plant facility closure, including interior and exterior demolition
and asbestos removal.  In addition, the Company provides
remediation services for sites contaminated by hazardous and non-
hazardous materials and provides 24-hour emergency spill response
services.  The Company's revenues are derived from state agencies,
industrial companies and municipalities facing complex
environmental clean-up problems associated with hazardous and non-
hazardous materials as required by various governmental agencies.
The Company's services include assessing the regulatory,
technical, and construction aspects of the environmental issue,
and performing the necessary remediation activities.  The Company
seeks to provide its clients with remedial solutions which
integrate the various aspects of a project and are well-
documented, practical, cost effective, and acceptable to
regulatory agencies and the public.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Int'l. Continues to Defend PI Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation continues to defend itself
against asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended April 30, 2013.

The Company states: "Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we
have been subject to an increased number of asbestos-related
claims in recent years. In general, these claims relate to
illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from
component parts found in older vehicles, although some cases
relate to the alleged presence of asbestos in our facilities. In
these claims, we are generally not the sole defendant, and the
claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of
a wide variety of products allegedly containing asbestos. We have
strongly disputed these claims, and it has been our policy to
defend against them vigorously. Historically, the actual damages
paid out to claimants have not been material in any year to our
financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. It is
possible that the number of these claims will continue to grow,
and that the costs for resolving asbestos related claims could
become significant in the future."

Navistar International Corporation (NIC) is a holding company,
whose principal operating subsidiaries are Navistar, Inc. and
Navistar Financial Corporation (NFC). The Company is a
manufacturer of International brand commercial and military
trucks, IC Bus (IC) brand buses, MaxxForce brand diesel engines,
Workhorse Custom Chassis (WCC) brand chassis for motor homes and
step vans, and Monaco RV (Monaco) recreational vehicles (RV), as
well as a provider of service parts for all makes of trucks and
trailers. In addition, it is a private-label designer and
manufacturer of diesel engines for the pickup truck, van and sport
utility vehicle (SUV) markets. It also provides retail, wholesale,
and lease financing of trucks and parts. NIC operates in four
segments: Truck, Engine, Parts and Financial Services. In February
2013, Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd purchased the Navistar Group's
stake in Mahindra Navistar Automotives Ltd (MNAL) and Mahindra
Navistar Engines Pvt Ltd (MNEPL).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J. C. Penney Recorded $20MM Liability Estimate
---------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc., recorded an estimate of $20 million
that covered potential liabilities primarily related to
underground storage tanks, remediation of environmental
conditions, and asbestos removal, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended May 4, 2013.

The Company states: "As of May 4, 2013,  we estimated our total
potential environmental liabilities to range from $18 million to
$25 million and recorded our best estimate of $20 million in other
liabilities in the unaudited Consolidated Balance Sheet as of that
date. This estimate covered potential liabilities primarily
related to underground storage tanks, remediation of environmental
conditions involving our former drugstore locations and asbestos
removal in connection with approved plans to renovate or dispose
of our facilities. We continue to assess required remediation and
the adequacy of environmental reserves as new information becomes
available and known conditions are further delineated. If we were
to incur losses at the upper end of the estimated range, we do not
believe that such losses would have a material adverse effect on
our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or
capital resources."

J. C. Penney Company, Inc. (jcpenney), is a holding company. The
Company is a retailer, operating 1,102 department stores in 49
states and Puerto Rico as of January 28, 2012. Its business
consists of selling merchandise and services to consumers through
its department stores and through its Internet Website at jcp.com.
It sells family apparel and footwear, accessories, fine and
fashion jewelry, beauty products through Sephora inside jcpenney
and home furnishings. As of January 28, 2012, its supply chain
network operated 27 facilities at 18 locations, of which nine were
owned, with multiple types of distribution activities housed in
certain owned locations. Its operating subsidiary is J. C. Penney
Corporation, Inc. In November 2011, it completed acquired the
worldwide rights for the Liz Claiborne family of trademarks and
related intellectual property, as well as the United States and
Puerto Rico rights for the Monet trademarks and related
intellectual property.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Dumped Near Sydney Childcare Centre
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Walker, writing for The Daily Telegraph, reported that
asbestos was illegally dumped on two roads in western Sydney just
metres from a childcare centre early morning on June 14.

According to the report, sheets of the deadly material were found
lying in the middle of the road on Wilson Avenue and Wilson Lane
just off Canterbury Road in Belmore.

The asbestos was dumped next to a sign on Wilson Avenue pointing
to the nearby Canterbury Children's Cottage about 25 metres away,
the report said.

Asbestos removal contractors were called in by Canterbury Council
to remove it by hand with removal by machinery deemed too
dangerous, the report related.

Firemen in white plastic hazardous material suits and half face
masks carried out the initial containment of the material.

Entrances to both roads were blocked by police cars and a fire
truck while firemen hosed down the asbestos and then covered it
with sheets of black plastic to prevent it from blowing into the
air.

The NSW Environmental Protection Authority stipulates asbestos
waste be 'wetted and sealed in heavy-duty plastic prior to
transportation to a lawful waste facility such as a licensed
landfill.'

Police are appealing for any witnesses to the dumping, or anyone
with information about those responsible, to contact Campsie
Police Station.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Fibro Scare on Harbour Bridge
----------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that up to 40 Sydney
Harbour Bridge workers have walked off the job over concerns two
apprentices were exposed to asbestos on the iconic structure, the
construction union says.

According to the report, the CFMEU said between 35 and 40 Roads
and Maritime Services workers downed tools on the bridge in
response to the incident.

The two apprentice workers were exposed to asbestos when
contractors were brought on to the bridge to do plumbing work, the
union said, the report related.

"These are two young apprentices on the start of their working
life and they now have the spectre of asbestosis and mesothelioma
above them," CFMEU organiser Bard Parker said in a statement.

He said a "lack of care and proper planning by Roads Maritime
Services management" was to blame for the incident.

Mr Parker said uncovered asbestos had been "piled up" near the
workers' lunchroom and toilets.

He said workers on the site were "rightly upset" that they might
have unwittingly carried asbestos fibres home in their clothes.
There would be no further work on the bridge until a meeting with
RMS, the union said.

RMS released a statement confirming a "small amount" of asbestos
was found during plumbing repair work on the bridge.

The agency said samples of the potentially lethal substance were
taken for testing.

"Given the location, there was no risk to the safety of workers of
the public," RMS said.

It said a licensed contractor was removing the asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Concerns on Deadly Dust After Newcastle Explosion
------------------------------------------------------------------
Newcastle Herald reported that police are still determining what
caused an explosion at a Tuncurry home on the Lakes Way on the
morning of June 14, killing at least one person.

"A deceased person was found amongst the debris but is yet to be
identified," Manning Great Lakes Inspector Neil Stephens said at
the scene, the report said.

"Police Rescue specialists from Newcastle are en route to the
scene and they will conduct the retrieval of the body. A dog was
also located deceased. The neighbouring properties have been
evacuated and there were no other injuries sustained in the
explosion," the report cited Mr. Stephens as saying on the day of
the incident.

Emergency services were called to The Lakes Way at around 11am on
June 14 after an explosion rocked Tuncurry.  Fire and Rescue NSW
extinguished the blaze and the body of the deceased was located in
the ruins soon after.

"Shortly before 11am we received numerous 000 calls regarding an
explosion in Tuncurry," Inspector Stephens said.

"Police arrived on the scene to find a house completely destroyed
with just a pile of rubble remaining. There was debris all over
the road up to 100 metres away from the explosion. Much of the
debris is pieces of fibro and asbestos so the incident has been
declared a HAZMAT incident."

It is not yet known what caused the explosion.

"The cause is yet to be determined but at this stage we're
investigating the possibility of a gas related explosion,"
Inspector Stephens said.

Inspector Stephens refuted any suggestions that drugs were
involved.

"There is nothing to indicate that drug activity was involved in
the explosion."

Specialised vacuum machinery was being brought from Newcastle to
help clear the asbestos debris spread by the explosion and The
Lakes Way remained closed as police carried out investigations at
the site where the body was uncovered.

Great Lakes Council's Andrew Blatch, speaking from the site, said
two specialist asbestos operators had been brought in to deal with
the debris, one local and one from Newcastle. Mr Blatch said most
of the debris would have to be removed by hand.

Traffic has been stopped in both directions, with school buses
brought into local schools early to take students home via a
longer detour.

The house, which was destroyed in the explosion, will be fenced
off and will have to be demolished, Mr Blatch said.

The Environmental Protection Authority is also attending the scene
due to the asbestos concerns.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Secondary Exposure Suit Filed by Worker's Ex-wife
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for The Louisiana Record, reported that a
St. Tammany Parish woman is suing a number of companies her ex-
husband where her ex-husband worked for the lung cancer she claims
she contracted through exposure to asbestos he brought home from
those jobs.

According to the report, Julie Lavigne, individually and on behalf
of her minor children, filed suit against Shell Oil Company, Shell
Chemical, Shell Chemical Company, Kellogg Brown & Root Inc., Brown
& Root Inc., Lenny's Plumbing Inc. and American Do All Corporation
in the 24th Judicial District Court on April 18.

Lavigne claims she shared a home with Michael Kenneth Lavigne from
1990 until 2008 and that during that time he worked for Kellog
Brown & Root Inc., Shell Oil Company and Shell Chemical that
included removing pipes and insulation, repairing old pipes that
were insulated with asbestos and the handling and removal of the
asbestos insulation itself, the report said.

On Aug. 6, 2012 the plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a
type of lung cancer caused by asbestos exposure, the report
related.

The defendant is accused of failing to warn employees regarding
the health hazards associated with asbestos exposure, failing to
warn their employees against bringing asbestos-contaminated
clothes home for laundering, failing to provide special work
clothes which could be removed at the end of the work day, and not
require home laundering, failing to provide showers at the
workplace to enable employees to clean off asbestos dust and
fibers before returning home, failing to advise employees that
asbestos was an extremely dangerous substance, failing to
implement adequate engineering controls to eliminate or
substantially reduce their employee's exposure to asbestos,
failing to use asbestos-free insulation and other building
products and failing to totally isolate and work activity to
prevent asbestos exposure.

An unspecified amount in damages is sought for physical pain and
suffering, mental pain and suffering, emotional distress, fear of
dying, loss of enjoyment of life, medical expenses, disfigurement,
embarrassment, physical impairment, loss of wage compensation,
loss of fringe benefits, lost earning capacity, physical
disability, mental disability, emotional and psychological anguish
and distress, expert expenses, litigation costs, medical costs,
loss of society, wrongful death and survival.

The plaintiff is represented by L. Eric Williams of the Metairie-
based Williams Law Office LLC and Richard J. Fernandez of the
Metairie-based Law Offices of Richard J. Fernandez LLC.

The case has been assigned to Division H Judge Glenn B. Ansardi.

Case no. 726-087.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in 80% of Schools in Warrington
------------------------------------------------------------
Warrington Guardian reported that deadly asbestos is present in
80% of the schools in Warrington, research has revealed.

According to the report, a total of 72 out of 90 primary and
secondary schools in the area contain the potentially dangerous
material.

Information, collected via a Freedom of Information request to
Warrington Borough Council, also discovered that more than 20,900
school children in the area could potentially be exposed to
asbestos in their classrooms on a daily basis, the report said.

Michael Lees, from campaign group Asbestos in Schools, said: "You
are aware that asbestos exists, but you are certainly not aware of
the dangers, and the fact that just the simple act of going to
school, you can die of an industrial disease."

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral used in buildings
between 1950 and 2000, but only poses a threat to an individual's
health once it's exposed and starts to crumble.

The fear is that as the condition of these buildings continues to
deteriorate so does the condition of the asbestos contained within
them.

A spokesman for Warrington Borough Council said: "The presence of
asbestos in school buildings is not uncommon and Warrington is no
different to many other areas across the UK.

"However, we do take the issue of asbestos seriously and schools
are required by health and safety legislation to manage safely the
presence of asbestos within buildings and this is carried out in
line with guidance provided by the HSE. " According to figures
from the Health and Safety Executive, 128 school teachers died
from the asbestos-related lung cancer mesothelioma between 2002
and 2010 in the UK but it is argued that this figure does not even
come close to the reality of the situation.

Asbestos in Schools has claimed that this figure underestimates
the true scale of mesothelioma deaths among teachers because it
does not include those aged 75 and over.

Britain has the highest rates of mesothelioma in the world, with
someone dying from the disease every five hours.

Recent research by the Government's Committee on Carcinogenicity
has revealed that a child of five is more than five times more
likely to develop the incurable disease by the age of 80 than a
teacher aged 30.

A recent Freedom of Information request has revealed that the
following schools contain asbestos.

Community Primary Schools: Alderman Bolton Community Primary
School, Appleton Thorn Community Primary School, Barrowhall
Community Primary School, Beamont Community Primary School, Bewsey
Lodge Primary School, Bradshaw Community Primary School, Brook
Acre Community Primary School, Broomfields Junior Primary School,
Bruche Community Primary School, Burtonwood Community Primary
School, Callands Primary School, Cherry Tree Primary School, Croft
Primary School, Culcheth Community Primary School, Dallam
Community Primary School, Evelyn Street Primary School, Gorse
Covert Primary School, Locking Stumps Community Primary School,
Meadowside Community Primary School, Newchurch Community Primary
School, Oakwood Avenue Community Primary School, Oughtrington
Community Primary School, Park Road Community Primary School,
Penketh Community Primary School, Penketh South Community Primary
School, Ravenbank Community Primary School, Statham Community
Primary School, The Cobbs Infant Primary school, Thelwall
Community Infant Primary School, Thelwall Community Junior Primary
School, Twiss Green Community Primary School, Westbrook Old Hall
Primary School, Woolston Community Primary School

Voluntary Aided Primary Schools: Birchwood CE Primary School,
Christ Church CE Primary School, Cinnamon Brow CE Primary School,
Glazebury CE Primary School, Grappenhall St. Wilfrid's CE Primary
School, Hollins Green St. Helen's CE Primary School, Latchford CE
St James CE Primary School, Our Lady's Catholic Primary School,
Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School, Sankey Valley St. James' CE
Primary School, St. Alban's Catholic Primary School, St. Andrew's
CE Primary School, St. Augustine's Catholic Primary School, St.
Benedict's Catholic Primary School, St. Bridget's Catholic Primary
School, St. Joseph's Catholic Primary School, St. Lewis' Catholic
Primary School, St. Margaret's CE Primary School, St. Monica's
Catholic Primary School, St. Oswald's Catholic Primary School, St.
Paul of the Cross Catholic Primary School, St. Peter's Catholic
Primary School, St. Stephen's Catholic Primary School, St. Thomas'
CE Primary School, St. Vincent's Catholic Primary School, Stretton
St. Mathew's CE Primary School, Warrington St. Ann's CE Primary
School, Warrington St. Barnabas CE Primary School, Winwick CE
Primary School, Woolston CE Primary School

Community High Schools: Bridgewater High School, Birchwood High
School

Voluntary Aided High Schools: Cardinal Newman High School, Sir
Thomas Boteler CE High School, St. Gregory's Catholic high School

Other establishments: Fox Wood School, Green Lane School,
Grappenhall Hall School, New Horizons Centre

The following schools were found not to contain asbestos: Culcheth
High School, Grappenhall Heys Primary School, Great Sankey Primary
School,  St. Elphin's Primary School, St. Philip (Westbrook)
Primary School,

What is asbestos?

A hazardous material regularly used in buildings from the 1950s
until the late 1990s.

Mainly used for fireproofing and insulation and, if disturbed, can
cause fatal illnesses.

It was mainly used in ceiling tiles, pipe insulation, boilers,
sprayed coatings and garage roof tiles.

Its usage was banned in 1999.

As long as the asbestos is well maintained and not disturbed or
disintegrating it does not present any immediate hazard to health.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipyard Workers Urged to Call Victims Center
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center says, "We are trying to
alert all diagnosed victims of mesothelioma, or any type of lung
cancer to call us immediately if they were exposed to asbestos
while working at a shipyard, especially if the shipyard was
involved in US Navy ship overhauls, because substantial
compensation can be available for these types of individuals.
Aside from shipyard workers we also want to talk to individuals
who worked in manufacturing facilities, or industrial facilities
with the common denominator being exposure to asbestos, if they
have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, or asbestos related lung
cancer. In the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, and for a good part of the
1980's these types of workplaces were loaded with asbestos." If a
diagnosed victim of mesothelioma, or any type of lung cancer had
long term exposure to asbestos in their workplace the Lung Cancer
Asbestos Victims Center will direct the victim, or their family
members to the nation's most skilled, and results driven
mesothelioma lawyers, or asbestos exposure law firms that all have
an established record of achieving superior results for their
clients. For more information diagnosed victims of mesothelioma,
lung cancer victims, or their family members are urged to call the
Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center at 866-714-6466.

The States With The most Shipyards:

California
Virginia
Washington
Maine
Louisiana
Alabama

Special note from the Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center: "We
need to emphasize when it comes to shipyard workers, US Navy
Veterans, or any other diagnosed victim of mesothelioma, or
asbestos exposure lung cancer, the individual could live in any
state. Because the vast majority of these individuals are now
retired they could now live in Florida, Arizona, Texas, West
Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, New York, New
Jersey, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, Maryland, Virginia,
Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, Indiana,
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota,
Kansas, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, New Mexico, Utah,
Oregon, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, or any other state."
http://LungCancerAsbestosVictimsCenter.Com

The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center says, "Aside from
shipyards, high risk workplaces for asbestos exposure include the
US Navy, power plants, manufacturing factories, chemical plants,
oil refineries, mines, smelters, aerospace manufacturing
facilities, demolition construction work sites, railroad work
sites, automotive manufacturing facilities, or auto brake shops.
With mesothelioma, or lung cancer caused by asbestos exposure the
cancer may not show up until decades after the exposure. As long
as the diagnosed victim of mesothelioma, or lung cancer victim, or
their family members can prove the exposure to asbestos, we will
do everything possible to help them get what might be substantial
financial compensation." For more information please call the Lung
Cancer Asbestos Victims Center anytime at 866-714-6466.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worcester Meso Victim Wins Compensation Battle
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Smee, writing for Worcester Standard, reported that a
pensioner who contracted an incurable cancer linked to asbestos
during his time working at a Worcester factory has won his battle
for compensation.

According to the report, Fred Penn who worked for Worcester
Engineering in the 1970s, before the company was acquired by the
Bosch Group in 1992, spent several years working in an environment
thick with asbestos dust without any protection.

The 73-year-old spent time assembling wall-mounted boilers, a role
which included handing sheets of asbestos on a regular basis, but
last year he began to display symptoms of poor health and was
diagnosed with mesothelioma -- an incurable cancer which affects
the lining of the lungs, the report related.

Mr Penn contacted industrial disease specialists Thompsons
Solicitors who were successful in settling the case out of court
for an undisclosed but "significant" sum, the report further
related.

Mr Penn said: "I worked for the firm for almost thirty years so
when I was diagnosed with mesothelioma I knew that I'd been
exposed to the stuff during my career there.

"When I thought back over my work history I remembered spending
five years working with the asbestos boards. I wasn't given any
protective equipment and nobody warned me that years later it
would affect my health the way it has.

"I worked hard for many years to ensure financial security for my
wife and family and to be diagnosed with cancer as a result of my
job is a bitter blow. It was very important to me to claim
compensation, not for me but for my wife. I had to make sure she
would be cared for in the future."

Dave Fisher from Thompsons Solicitors who represented Mr Penn
added: "The legacy of asbestos in the Midlands has meant that too
many people have been left suffering from asbestos-related
diseases like mesothelioma.

"We know how important it is for sufferers to claim compensation
during their lifetime so they can make provisions for their
family, and are pleased we've been able to achieve this outcome
for Mr Penn."

Carl Arntzen, managing director of Bosch Thermotechnology Ltd,
said: "Mr Penn retired in 2004 after 29 years of service, but is
still a well-respected and active member of our retirement club
attending all ex-employee events.

"We will continue to support Fred and his family as he was a much-
liked and valued member of staff, working across a number of
different departments."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hampshire Killed by Toxic Dust & Cigarettes
------------------------------------------------------------
This Is Hampshire reported that a Hampshire man died as a result
of asbestos exposure and cigarette smoking, an inquest heard.

According to the report, Raymond Tizard, of Sandringham Road,
Bittern Park, was employed by Brazier and Son for about 25 years.

After carrying out demolition work in the city, the court heard
that he would return home to his wife Valerie, the report said.

"I could not wash his overalls because the dust was caked on. I
have had to have an x-ray too," she told the hearing at Winchester
on Wednesday (June 12).

The inquest was also told that Mr Tizard had been a heavy smoker.
He spent the last week of his life at Countess Mountbatten
Hospital, West End, and died on March 19, aged 73.

Grahame Short, coroner for central Hampshire, recorded a verdict
of death due to industrial disease.  He said: "It's clear that he
was exposed to asbestos while he was working and in light of the
pathologist's findings, I record a verdict of death due to
industrial disease. He died due to non-small cell lung carcinoma
due to exposure to asbestos and cigarette smoking."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Probes Fibro Claims at Lahaina Surf
----------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Tanji, writing for The Maui News, reported that a state
official with the Occupational Safety and Health Division was on
Maui to investigate complaints from a once high-ranking Hale
Mahaolu employee alleging that the organization has not taken
appropriate steps to remove asbestos from a Lahaina low-income
housing complex.

According to the report, the employee, Kula resident Robyne
Nishida Nakao, also alleges that she was demoted in retaliation
for continuously pressing the safety issue with Hale Mahaolu
Executive Director Roy Katsuda.

Nishida Nakao filed complaints with the state Department of Labor
and Industrial Relations' Hawaii Occupational Safety and Health
Division over the inappropriate removal of asbestos from the
ceilings and floor tiles at the Lahaina Surf Apartments, the
report related. Her complaints include her charge that Katsuda
demoted her from deputy executive director to development director
in April.

The demotion came after months of being "alienated," she said
while on medical leave for stress and anxiety, the reort further
related.

Katsuda, the longtime head of the nonprofit, could not be reached
for comment despite multiple calls and messages from The Maui
News.  But Katsuda told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser that there
was no retaliation against Nishida Nakao, and that corrections to
housing units were made properly.

Hale Mahaolu manages 14 affordable housing properties for the
elderly and families, or approximately 1,000 rental units in Maui
County. It also has support service programs. It has an
approximately $88 million annual operation budget, according to
Nishida Nakao, who has worked at the agency for 20 years.

Nishida Nakao's "notice of alleged safety or health hazards"
complaint to the state Department of Labor and Industrial
Relations' Hawaii Occupational Safety and Health Division
maintains that employees were not trained in proper remediation
and disposal of suspected asbestos. Nevertheless, they removed the
material at the Lahaina site as well as at Hale Mahaolu Akahi and
Elua in Kahului. She also alleges that the air is not being
monitored as required during asbestos removal and employees do not
have proper equipment.

Nishida Nakao said that the asbestos abatement is immediately
needed in two or three Lahaina Surf units. Around 88 percent of
the 112 living units have asbestos, she said. Twenty-two units at
Lahaina Surf are managed by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development's housing assistance program for very low income
families, seniors and those with disabilities.

Bill Kunstman, spokesman for the state Department of Labor and
Industrial Relations, said that the department has 90 days to act
on the discrimination complaint and six months to act on the
asbestos issue.

After Nishida Nakao's story was made public, another employee,
Rick Nowak, a maintenance supervisor for Hale Mahaolu, also went
public in substantiating Nishida Nakao's complaints. He also is on
medical leave, saying he has been "stressed and depressed" over
the issue.

Nishida Nakao, 39, has sought legal counsel and has retained
Wailuku attorney James Fosbinder. Nowak said he will retain
Fosbinder as well.

Nowak, who oversees maintenance for four Hale Mahaolu properties,
said that he was told by Katsuda to keep the issue of asbestos
removal at the Lahaina Surf Apartments "hush, hush" and that
Katsuda had preferred that the organization's employees -- who
Nowak said have minimal training and are ill-equipped -- do some
of the removal, citing cost issues that would prevent the
organization from removing all the asbestos from the Lahaina Surf.

Asbestos abatement per unit was estimated to cost nearly $14,000,
Nishida Nakao said.  She agreed with Nowak, saying that Katsuda
told employees to keep quiet about asbestos at the Lahaina
property.

"They felt that having proper abatement would be a public
nightmare," Nishida Nakao said.  She added that Katsuda "wanted to
do this as discretely as possible" so the matter would not be an
attention-getter and cause panic.

Nowak said that when he and Nishida Nakao got involved with the
Lahaina Surf property in 2011 as part of Nishida Nakao's duties of
remedying ongoing management issues, they discovered residents
there had been complaining about building issues. Those involved
the ceilings and floors containing asbestos, Nowak said.

Nothing had been done despite complaints made over the years, he
said. He added that there was an instance in which a tenant had to
be moved out of her unit because "the ceiling (which contains
asbestos) was falling in her food as she ate." He added that tile
filled with asbestos from another unit was removed, but the
tenant's furniture remained in the unit.

Nishida Nakao said that after hearing a complaint from a worker
about asbestos, she turned to Katsuda, who gave her a letter dated
in 1981 noting that an asbestos assessment was done and that the
Lahaina Surf was at acceptable levels.

When she took the letter to show staff, she was told that the
standards are now stricter. So she did research and contacted the
state Department of Health. It confirmed the stricter rules.

Noting that the Lahaina Surf was old, Nishida Nakao said she
determined it would be better if all asbestos were removed at
once. She said that, with an old building, many repairs are
necessary that may involve workers dealing with asbestos issues.
So it was better to clean the place up, she said.

Nishida Nakao tried to get Katsuda to agree to estimates for
asbestos testing but he denied it.  She said that, often during
the process, Katsuda said there was no money for the work.

But Fosbinder said that the organization has money for these types
of purposes and would not have had to seek outside funding or
raise rents.

Nishida Nakao said that Katsuda told her to proceed with the tests
using Hale Mahaolu employees to collect the samples.

According to a letter Fosbinder has sent to Hale Mahaolu's board
of directors, Nishida Nakao coordinated asbestos training for
Lahaina Surf staff members after they removed the samples but
before the receipt of test results.

The letter said that certified asbestos management instructor Mark
Muranaka warned that it takes only one asbestos spore to be
inhaled to develop adverse health problems, including the risk of
cancer.  The letter reported that Katsuda stated that for someone
to be adversely affected by asbestos, someone would need long-term
exposure to it or "eat it."

Test results by Globeteck through its INALAB confirmed that there
were asbestos fibers in excess of allowable levels, and that
asbestos was present in 10 of 17 samples, the letter said. It was
recommended that the asbestos material be removed by a certified
asbestos abatement contractor with a special license.

After some back and forth between Nishida Nakao and Katsuda on the
best way to remedy the issue, unlicensed asbestos contractors
began remedial work on one of the buildings in 2012, according to
Nishida Nakao.

When she asked about the removal of asbestos in other buildings
that had tested positive, Katsuda demanded that she transition out
of the Lahaina Surf and focus on development projects.

Nishida Nakao, who at one point teared up while speaking with The
Maui News at Fosbinder's office in Wailuku, said it wasn't easy
coming forward. She said that Katsuda had been her mentor.

"He taught me a lot of things. It's very emotional," she said,
adding that she was motivated to come forward for the welfare of
others.

"For me, the health and safety of the staff and the community and
the residents. That's the motive," she said.

As a mother, she said, she looks at her son when she comes home
from work and thinks about the health of the children at the
Lahaina Surf and wonders if they will become sick from the
asbestos.

"I think it is easily preventable if you do it the right way," she
said of the asbestos removal.

Fosbinder said that Nishida Nakao has been a model employee and
has worked hard through the years and has accumulated hundreds of
hours in vacation and sick leave because she never leaves work.

She was named among Women of Excellence in 2013 by the Committee
on the Status of Women in Maui County, and she was a finalist this
year in Pacific Business News' "2013 Women Who Mean
Business/Nonprofit Businesswoman of the Year." She also was among
Pacific Business News' awardees for its "2013 Forty under 40"
awards to honor Hawaii's best and brightest young businesspeople.

"Hale Mahaolu is my heart and soul. This is something very
difficult. It's like a divorce," Nishida Nakao said. "I care about
the company and the residents. . . . It's hard to be away from the
family."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Nurse Seeks Former Colleagues' Help
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Ford, writing for Nursing Times, reported that a former
nurse with an incurable asbestos-related disease is calling for
anyone who worked with her to come forward with information about
the hospitals she worked at in the 1960s and 1970.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Agent Censured on Asbestos Claims
--------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Ellingham, writing for Manawatu Standard, reported that a
Palmerston North real estate agent has been reprimanded, ordered
to repay expenses and attend a training course, after
misrepresenting the possible presence of asbestos in a property
she was selling.

According to the report, the Real Estate Agents Authority has
found Rachel Wright guilty of unsatisfactory conduct over a sale
completed in January last year.

As well as reprimanding her, the authority ordered Ms Wright to
pay $2900 to the buyer as "part relief" for their expenses, the
report said.

In the next year she must also finish a real estate national unit
standard course to "demonstrate knowledge of misleading and
deceiving conduct and misrepresentation," the report related.

The identities of the buyer and seller have been withheld by the
authority, as has the location of the property in question.

At the time of the transaction, Ms Wright was working for Property
Brokers, but she now works for Unique Realty, trading as the
Professionals.

According to the the authority judgment, Ms Wright misrepresented
what the seller was saying about the presence of asbestos in the
ceiling, telling the buyer the area had been checked, did not
contain the material, and that there was a report saying this.

Testing revealed there was asbestos in the ceiling and the results
were sent to the buyer after the sale went unconditional.

After discussions among the parties, the final property price was
reduced by $25,000, which was what it cost to remove the asbestos,
while the real estate agency's commission was reduced by $15,000.

The buyer also complained to the authority.

Later Ms Wright conceded she was told, when she initially viewed
the property, asbestos could have been present. But she thought
the seller had a report saying the material wasn't present, which
the seller denied telling her.

Either way, the authority says Ms Wright should have been more
exact about the matter, as implying there was written proof would
have given confidence to the buyer.

"Some degree of culpability has been accepted by the [seller]
. . . but significant responsibility lay with [Ms Wright] as a
real estate professional to determine the validity of important
and fundamental information being passed on to the [buyer]."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wife Exposed to Asbestos Wins $27MM
----------------------------------------------------
Sylvia Hsieh, writing for Lawyers.com, reported that a worker's
wife who developed mesothelioma from second-hand asbestos exposure
won a $27 million jury award.

According to the report, for several years in the 1950s, Martin
Gregg worked as an insulation installer handling Kaylo brand
insulation products. All those years, his wife, Rose-Marie, shook
out and washed her husband's clothes.

At 82, Rose-Marie now suffers from mesothelioma, a cancer of the
lung's lining that is caused by asbestos exposure, the report
related.

The couple sued Owens-Illinois, the maker of Kaylo products.

Their attorney, Joseph D. Satterley, argued that the company knew
as early as 1930 that asbestos exposure could kill and that test
results on Kaylo showed that the products' asbestos content could
cause fatal illness.

He also argued that the company advertised Kaylo products as "non-
toxic" and its package did not say it contained asbestos or warn
about health hazards associated with asbestos.

"If we live in a society where product manufacturers are not held
responsible for products once those products leave their
possession, the world we live in is a dangerous place," Satterly
told the jury.

The jury agreed, finding that Owens-Illinois made a defective
product and failed to warn Mrs. Gregg about risks of asbestos
exposure. It awarded $12 million to Mrs. Gregg, $4 million to Mr.
Gregg for loss of consortium and $342,000 in economic damages.

The jury also added $11 million in punitive damages after finding
that the manufacturer intentionally withheld information about the
health hazards linked to Kaylo products and acted with malice,
oppression or fraud toward Mrs. Gregg.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Victim Gives Voice to Other Victims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Druce, writing for The Border Mail, reported that Lou
Williams is slowly choking to death.

According to the report, tumours are growing like cauliflower in
her lungs, and they will eventually solidify and crush her organs.

After 10 years of chemotherapy and surgery, doctors have told Mrs
Williams that she should focus on her quality of life, not
quantity, the report said.

The 58-year old, who divides her time between Greens Beach and
central Victoria, has been to at least 60 funerals for people who
have died from asbestos-related diseases.

She can't explain why her own case of mesothelioma hasn't killed
her yet. But she says she will raise awareness for asbestos and
its dangers until her last breath.

Mrs Williams's advocacy role with the Bernie Banton Foundation has
taken her across the globe, her campaign giving a voice to
thousands of victims and families.

In March, she was a guest speaker at the international Asbestos
Disease Awareness Organisation forum, travelling to the US,
despite finding it difficult to walk up a set of stairs.

Mrs Williams is also lobbying the federal government to remove
asbestos from houses and public buildings.  She said her goal was
to see the removal, storage and transport of the hazardous
material heavily subsidised for homeowners and renovators.

"Medically, we are well aware of what asbestos can do, but the
general public is still so blaise," she said. "Things like home
renovations -- no one wants pay a big fee for someone to come and
inspect and remove asbestos.

"People say it's all hype and hysteria -- but the reality is, you
only need minimal exposure to be affected."

Mrs Williams said her first contact with asbestos was as a small
child in the 1950s, when her father built her a cubbyhouse from
leftover fibro sheeting.

In the 1970s, she unknowingly worked at a Melbourne office that
was riddled with the toxic material.

For three years she breathed in invisible asbestos particles
dislodged from the suspended ceilings and insulator cables.

"Back then no one gave asbestos a second thought," she said. "We
just didn't know. But already it has been too late for thousands
and thousands of people, who were all exposed without being
aware."

High-profile court cases throughout the 1980s set a precedent for
civil damages to be awarded to sufferers of asbestos-related
diseases by their former employers.

Mrs Williams's father succumbed to mesothelioma in 1985, aged 54,
after years in the plastering trade.

"He went down fast, and it was a very painful death," she said.

Throughout the 1990s, Mrs Williams herself suffered unexplained
fatigue and headaches, as well as unusual swelling in the
abdominal area.  But it wasn't until 2003 when advanced scans
revealed tumours in her stomach and diaphragm.

"Even then, mesothelioma was relatively unknown -- my doctor could
not even pronounce it," she said. Mrs Williams was told she had
two to three months to live if her treatment was not successful.

A marathon 18 sessions of chemotherapy put the disease temporarily
at bay, but in 2009, it returned to her right lung.  She endured
three more surgeries and 12 more sessions of chemotherapy.

In September last year she learned that her left lung and
diaphragm were affected.

"I've been told there is nothing more that can be done -- no
doctor will touch me," she said. "I'm not sure how much time I've
got left."

Mrs Williams will travel to Melbourne to explore a radical
radiotherapy option -- one that would be painful and cause
irreparable damage to her organs, the report said.  But she said
she was determined to keep fighting.

"There are so many people who have not been as lucky as I am.

"There is still a lot to do. I want to be a voice for people."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Bids in for Armory
-------------------------------------------------
Tesa Glass, writing for Mt. Vernon Register News, reported that
the city council will hear bids on asbestos removal at the former
Armory during its meeting.

According to the report, six companies provided bids for the
removal of the asbestos, with General Waste Services, Inc., the
lowest bidder, coming in at $159,120.

"We have received a 50-50 grant for the abatement, up to $144,000
from the state," City Manager Ron Neibert said, the report
related. "With a bid of $159,000, we will not be using all the
grant money. Our cost should be about $80,000."

The report added that plans are underway to determine the best use
for the facility, which was deeded to the city by the state. Some
ideas for the facility has been to turn it into a Broadway Market
or a venue for events.

"Asbestos abatement is the first step to do anything with the
building, regardless of the course the city takes with the
building," Neibert said. "The asbestos needs to be removed."

At this time, the gym floor in the building is being bid, with
bids being opened on June 26. Neibert said there is no asbestos
near the gym flooring and concrete was beneath the floor.

"There is asbestos with the piping, insulation, tiles and tiling,"
Neibert said. "It is also in the caulk on the windows, so the
glass will be removed and the windows sealed for now."

Neibert said the city is working on a program to allow local
artists to paint the sealed windows, "so we can make it more
attractive as we decide on how to move forward with the building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thieves Broke Asbestos Panels in Garage
--------------------------------------------------------
Richard Watt, writing for The Courier, reported that thieves who
stole a double garage from a 150-year-old former country house
stumbled through a layer of deadly asbestos, it has emerged.

According to the report, Orchardbank House, tucked away on an
industrial estate in Forfar, was the scene of the disappearance of
the 60-section garage over a two-week period.

Council officials have been called to examine the remnants after
it emerged the thieves broke large asbestos panels while
dismantling the building, the report said.

The derelict house, built in 1864, is the property of Angus
Council and workers discovered the theft on June 13.

A council spokeswoman said: "We have made an assessment of the
asbestos, which was scattered across the land and appointed the
appropriate contractor to remove it."

The European Union banned all use of asbestos as well as the
extraction, manufacture and processing of asbestos products. The
first diagnosis of asbestosis was made in the UK in 1924.

Britain regulated ventilation and made asbestosis an excusable
work-related disease by the 1930s. The term mesothelioma was first
used in medical literature in 1931 and its association with
asbestos was first noted a decade later.

Police confirmed the prefab was the subject of an investigation.

"Between 9am on Tuesday May 28 and 11.35am on Thursday June 13, a
prefabricated double garage was dismantled and stolen," a
spokeswoman said.

"A pair of 6ft ornate metal gates and four concrete paving slabs
were also taken. It's likely that whoever is responsible carried
out the dismantling over a period of days.

"Officers are keen to speak to anyone who may have seen or heard
anything suspicious in the area."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baron and Budd Calls Attention to Fibro Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The mesothelioma attorneys at Baron and Budd are advocating for
awareness of potential asbestos in construction materials after an
onslaught of tornadoes in Oklahoma. Cleanup has begun in Moore,
Oklahoma, after a mile-wide EF-5 tornado struck the small town on
May 20, killing 24. This was followed by another tornado on May
31, causing ten more deaths in a similar region.

"There can't be progress in rebuilding until miles of debris are
cleared and properly disposed of," the lawyers say. "This means
possible contact with asbestos. We recommend taking protective
measures If contact is unavoidable, but it is best to get
professional help."

Tornadoes ripped open undisturbed infrastructures, whipping the
contents in high winds and potentially releasing carcinogenic
asbestos fibers into the air where they could be inhaled or
ingested. People who inhale or ingest asbestos fibers are at risk
for a cancer called mesothelioma. (The American Cancer Institute,
"Asbestos Exposure and Cancer Risk," 2013:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/asbestos).

While a survivor's knee jerk reaction after a natural disaster is
to start digging through rubble in search of belongings, people
need to be aware of dangers like asbestos that might be hidden in
debris. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emphasizes that
people should be careful when cleaning debris and that asbestos-
containing materials should not be disturbed. These materials
could include insulation, fireproofing, floor tiles, and roofing
(The Environmental Protection Agency:
http://www.epa.gov/naturalevents/returnhomeadvisory.htm).

                    About Baron and Budd

National mesothelioma law firm Baron and Budd, with offices in
Texas, California and Louisiana, is recognized on National Law
Journal's list of 2012 "100 Top Verdicts." A platinum-level
sponsor of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, the firm
supports ADAO in urging greater public awareness of the health
risks associated with asbestos exposure. Call 866.855.1229 (day or
night) or please visit: http://baronandbudd.com/areas-of-
practice/mesothelioma-attorney/.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tow Law Fire Destroys Fibro-Containing Building
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITV.com reported that a building in Tow Law, County Durham, has
been destroyed by a fire. Smoke was visible for miles when crews
arrived from Crook, Consett and Durham.

According to the report, the commercial building had an asbestos
tiled roof which is potentially harmful and difficult to move.

The fire, which is not being treated as suspicious, happened just
before 5pm on 14th June, the report said. Nobody was injured.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: For One Victim, Justice is a Moving Target
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dionne Searcey, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reported that
when Bill McQueen sought medical treatment for a dull chest pain
he couldn't seem to shake, he hoped it was just an old rib
fracture flaring. The actual diagnosis was devastating:
mesothelioma, an incurable and fatal cancer that was encasing his
left lung.

According to the report, that day, on Feb. 28, 2011, set in motion
a two-year whirlwind including a major surgery halfway across the
country to strip the tumor from the lining of his lung; numerous
chemotherapy sessions; constant, crushing chest pain; and a legal
battle that could end up being worth millions of dollars for his
wife and two daughters.

The McQueen family has sued the companies they think are
responsible for the dangerous asbestos fibers that Dr. McQueen, an
ear, nose and throat surgeon, inhaled at some point in his 64
years, the report said.

Dr. McQueen represents a new breed of plaintiff in the asbestos
litigation complex, now four decades old but still a thriving,
multibillion-dollar enterprise. Unlike the steelworkers and
shipbuilders who worked with vast quantities of asbestos decades
ago -- and could easily single out likely corporate culprits --
the latest round of mesothelioma sufferers tend to be more
idiosyncratic.

A study by economic consultant Bates White of asbestos filings in
a Philadelphia court found that 49% of mesothelioma claims between
2006 and 2010 were filed by plaintiffs citing exposures from do-
it-yourself construction projects or shade-tree mechanic work in
addition to industrial exposures. Those types of plaintiffs made
up just 3% of mesothelioma claims between 1991 and 2000.

A tinkerer who as a youth worked alongside his father, Dr. McQueen
figured he likely inhaled deadly asbestos fibers decades ago while
laboring in a greenhouse and during home-improvement projects. The
disease can take many years to show up after exposure.

The New York law firm he hired to fight his case, Weitz &
Luxenberg PC, is among the most prolific filers of asbestos-
related lawsuits in the nation, and a well-known presence in
television advertising. It sought early on to hold 29 companies --
including paint makers, flooring manufacturers and boiler
companies -- responsible for Dr. McQueen's disease.

Since May 2011, Dr. McQueen's lawsuit has been working its way
through the court system as his wife, Karen McQueen, and two
daughters tended to his ailing health from an illness that they
knew from the start was a death sentence.

In the throes of shuttling her husband to doctor's appointments,
running the household and juggling calls from plaintiffs'
attorneys and well-wishers, an exhausted Ms. McQueen last year
summed up her family's lot: "We're just in the machine."

In 2011, roughly 2,250 mesothelioma lawsuits were filed in U.S.
courts, a nearly 20% increase from five years prior, according to
Navigant Consulting Inc., NCI +1.13% a Chicago-based consulting
firm that analyzes asbestos litigation for corporate clients. The
pace shows no sign of slowing down, according to other experts who
track the suits, even though new mesothelioma diagnoses are
actually on the wane.

There is big money to be made for law firms. Weitz & Luxenberg,
with about 90 attorneys and 400 other employees, handles as many
as 500 mesothelioma cases a year from its offices in New York, New
Jersey, Delaware and California, according to co-founder Perry
Weitz. The value of each case varies widely, he said, but on
average is worth between $1 million and $10 million. Law firms
typically charge a fee of between one-third and 40% of the payout.

Mr. Weitz, who owns a 9-1/2-bathroom mansion on 500 acres in
Snowmass, Colo., said his firm sometimes sues 50 to 100 companies
in a single asbestos lawsuit and settles 98% of the cases before
they go to trial.

Mr. Weitz got into asbestos litigation in the 1980s after he
worked for unions to successfully lobby state legislators to
expand laws to allow more asbestos-related suits. His union ties
provided a steady client base as he began representing
construction, powerhouse and shipyard workers with asbestos
claims.

More than two decades ago, he secured a bombshell $75 million
award for three dozen clients claiming they were sickened by
working in asbestos-lined boiler rooms on ships at the Brooklyn
Navy Yard. Spooked by the outcome, defendants settled another
5,000 cases, Mr. Weitz said.

Such abundant client reserves have all but dried up. The U.S.
shipbuilding industry is on the decline, and those who would have
worked with asbestos before the dangers were well known are
elderly and dying. Clients in other lines of work where asbestos
was used frequently in the mid-1900s, such as Navy seamen or
steelworkers, will soon be scarce.

Rarely do attorneys come across what they call "trifecta" clients
-- a mesothelioma patient who worked on asbestos-lined boilers in
the Navy, then went on to work jobs in the shipyards and in steel
mills -- and their potential for racking up defendants and big
verdicts or settlement dollars.

The new types of cases are tougher to prove. Mr. Weitz said his
firm has 10 full-time investigators dedicated to figuring out how
clients were exposed to asbestos. "They tear apart houses and test
products," he said.

"That's why this litigation is more difficult today than in the
old days. If you had a Brooklyn Navy Yard case or a powerhouse
case, it was all laid out for you," Mr. Weitz said. "Today, you
have to do a lot more homework."

Dr. McQueen, a former Air Force surgeon who collected Native
American arrowheads and once hunted Kodiak bear in Alaska, was
already deep in the grip of the disease when his wife started
scouting for a suitable lawyer. In April 2011, he traveled to
Philadelphia, where he underwent an operation to strip the half-
pound tumor from around his left lung. After several hours in
surgery, Dr. McQueen suffered complications and was in intensive
care when his wife decided she needed to act. She emailed Weitz &
Luxenberg.

Dr. McQueen woke up from a medically induced coma to find a lawyer
and a notary public alongside his hospital bed.

"I could barely write my signature, I was so weak," Dr. McQueen
recalled.

Daniel Wasserberg, a 35-year-old native Texan who at the time had
been at the firm barely six months, started to build his case.
Sitting at the McQueen's dining room table in their hillside home
in north San Antonio, he prodded Dr. McQueen to conjure old
memories of how he could have come into contact with asbestos.

The McQueens pulled out photos from a trip they took to an old
Ohio family farm. The photos showed rusty paint cans and bags of
cement and insulation that Dr. McQueen had worked with years ago.

Mr. Wasserberg researched the items and found that many of the
companies that made the products long ago had filed for bankruptcy
after being sued so many times by asbestos victims. He would be
able to tap the bankruptcy trusts they had set up to pay claims,
but they would be worth a fraction of their potential value in a
courtroom setting. Pinpointing solvent defendants that could offer
big settlements was crucial.

He kept prodding Dr. McQueen, who mentioned that as youths he and
his brother, who himself died of mesothelioma in 1999, worked in a
greenhouse and were in charge of cleaning the flue of the
facility's boiler. The brand name of the boiler, "Kewanee," stuck
in his head.

Mr. Wasserberg's research found that parts of Kewanee boilers
allegedly contained asbestos. He decided to sue the boiler
manufacturer's parent company, Illinois-based Oakfabco Inc.

After a series of conversations with Dr. McQueen about his
recollections from years ago, the list of potential defendants
mounted. They included CertainTeed Corp., a company that he said
made siding his father used on the Ohio farmhouse that Dr. McQueen
scraped and painted over after it flaked.

In May 2011, armed with a list of more than two dozen defendants,
the Weitz firm filed Dr. McQueen's case in Delaware Superior
Court, a popular venue for plaintiffs' attorneys suing myriad
defendants because many corporations are based there.

For Dr. McQueen, it was a race against time. He knew his cancer
was bound to return and that defendants would be more motivated to
settle their case if he was alive to tell a jury in person about
his suffering. Over doughnuts last spring at a Krispy Kreme near
his home, Dr. McQueen wept quietly when he contemplated his fate.
Would he be too sick to visit his brother's grave in Vermont one
last time? Would he see his youngest daughter graduate from
college? From high school?

"I can't plan anything," he said.

The lawsuit progressed and Dr. McQueen braced himself for a
lengthy deposition, which Mr. Wasserberg called "the centerpiece
of the whole case." The more details Dr. McQueen could recall
about numerous asbestos products he may have used or worked
around, the more likely it would be that defendants would offer
big settlements. He knew lawyers for the defendants would be
skeptical because, like most asbestos plaintiffs, his brushes with
the deadly fibers occurred decades ago.

Weitz & Luxenberg last year issued a news release to let asbestos
victims know that "it isn't necessary to be able to recall the
full details" of their exposure to file suit.

"Our position as asbestos lawyers is that if a mesothelioma or
asbestos lung-cancer victim can recall at least a few details of
the exposure, we may be able to fill in the gaps with appropriate
research," the firm said in the release.

In July 2011, for a day and a half at an airport Embassy Suites
hotel conference room in San Antonio, Dr. McQueen sat before a
dozen defense attorneys and at least a dozen more listening in on
the phone who, one by one, grilled him on his alleged encounters
with asbestos during his military career and at his family's farm.

Jon Winter, an attorney representing Oakfabco, questioned Dr.
McQueen about his memory of the Kewanee boiler. What was the
address of the greenhouse that housed the boiler? How large was
the greenhouse? How large was the boiler room? How tall was the
boiler? What shape was it? Was it metal or cast iron?

"It looks just like -- if you see an old fashioned steam engine,
it's just like that," said Dr. McQueen, according to a transcript
of the deposition.

What was the model number? Mr. Winter asked.

"I just remember seeing Kewanee -- my brother and I were always
interested in Indian stuff, so we'd had all these crazy Indian
names we'd do, and that was one I remember," said Dr. McQueen,
pointing out that the word was stamped on the boiler in raised
lettering.

Dr. McQueen's memory of the boiler was meticulous. He recalled the
positioning of the flues, the water tanks, details about the
outside skin of the boiler, among other things. He said he would
stick a long bristle brush inside the flue to clean it, knocking
against and loosening insulation and breathing in the dust.

"You always got a lot of dust, you know, around -- just around the
back end of the boiler there, and we'd wipe that off or dust it
off," Dr. McQueen said, according to the deposition.

Questions from another defense attorney, William Jones, were more
successful for his clients. Dr. McQueen had remembered working
around an asbestos-paneled fire door that he could see had "little
fibers sticking up on it," he said, when he was living at a U.S.
Air Force base in England. One of Mr. Jones's defendant clients
manufactured fire doors years ago.

But Dr. McQueen struggled to pinpoint the door as one made by any
companies he had sued. He couldn't recall specific details about
the door or seeing any labeling that would indicate it was made
with asbestos or who manufactured it.

"What's the reason that you believe that that panel contained
asbestos?" Mr. Jones asked.

"I don't know," said Dr. McQueen. "The Brits do crazy things."

Mr. Jones shot back, "Well, do you have any reason to believe
besides that?"

"I don't know. I have no idea," Dr. McQueen answered.

Sometimes in naming companies as defendants, Mr. Wasserberg said
in an interview, "We kind of speculate."

"You plow forward as quickly as you can work to get the
information, and you don't always know the answers at the
beginning of the case," he added. "It's a discovery process. What
we're trying to do is figure it all out."

In the months following the deposition, the case was dismissed
against several defendants. One was A.O. Smith Corp., AOS +1.27%
which Dr. McQueen had identified as the maker of an asbestos-lined
water heater in the basement of his family farm. After an
inspection of the farm, Mr. Wasserberg told lawyers for the
company he would stop pursuing it.

At least one of the attorneys representing defendants in the case
privately conceded a fear of having Dr. McQueen testify before a
jury. Not only was he smart and personable but he also had a lot
to lose should he succumb to the disease: a young wife, two
daughters, Kalli and Mariana, who live at home, as well as a
thriving medical practice. All of that would be considered when
factoring compensation.

At the McQueen house in San Antonio, settlement checks from
defendants and from asbestos bankruptcy trust funds slowly started
to arrive. The first was just over $26,000 from the trust set up
by insulation-maker Johns Manville, then a handful of others, one
for $6,000 and one for $2,000. And more recently, the McQueens
received word that CertainTeed, the siding maker, wanted to settle
its case. A spokesman for the company said it disputes that the
siding on the McQueen house contained asbestos but that it
included this lawsuit in a group of cases it decided to settle all
at once.

Dr. McQueen's suit is still playing out, with a trial scheduled
for November. The fate of a handful of defendants, including
boiler-manufacturer Oakfabco, is unresolved. A person affiliated
with the company declined to comment.

But Dr. McQueen's battle against cancer is over. Several months
ago he noticed small sunflower seed-like bumps near his surgery
scar. It was cancer. Scans showed the tumor growing again in his
lung as well as spreading to a lymph node. He applied to several
clinical trials but was too sick to qualify.

By February, the McQueen household was transformed into a medical
setting with a hospital bed and several oxygen concentrator tanks
scattered across the living room. At one point, Dr. McQueen had
tubes from four of the machines in his mouth. "He physically
couldn't get enough oxygen," Ms. McQueen said.

On the evening of March 23, Ms. McQueen went to sleep on the
couple's king-size bed pushed alongside her husband's hospital bed
and awakened to find he wasn't breathing. "I grabbed his face and
put it between my hands and said, 'Honey, honey, honey!' I was
screaming bloody murder, 'Oh my God, he's gone. He's gone.'"


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cwmcarn High School Removal Action "Frustration"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that council bosses say they are frustrated no
agreement has been reached about how to remove asbestos from a
south Wales, which may delay the return of pupils.

According to the report, Caerphilly County Borough Council blames
"lack of progress" by decision makers at Cwmcarn High while
governors claim the council has introduced "onerous terms and
conditions".

Pupils are being taught 12 miles (19km) away in Ebbw Vale.

Both sides are due to meet to discuss the issue.

Councillor Rhianon Passmore, the council's cabinet member for
education, said pupils, parents and staff were "concerned about
the delay".

"The education and wellbeing of the children is paramount but
unfortunately we are still awaiting a decision.

                        'Decisive action'

"Time is running out if pupils are to return 'home' to Cwmcarn for
the start of the new term in September," she said.

Meanwhile, the school governing body said it was "extremely
frustrated," having twice been close to signing an agreement with
the council before hurdles had been put in the way.

A statement on the school website said: "The school's contractors
have been given approval to start work and the school's
contractors have confirmed that the school can be ready for the
start of the school year, but the council are objecting to them
starting work."

In April, Caerphilly councillors agreed to spend around 1m on the
asbestos removal work and temporary classrooms so the school's 900
pupils could return by September.

Council acting chief executive Nigel Barnett and the school's
governing body have already met twice over the issue.

"I would urge the school leadership to take decisive action before
we miss our window of opportunity to get the work done in time,"
said Mr Barnett.

Cwmcarn High School closed after a council-commissioned report
found that asbestos posed a potential health risk.

But in February this year a Health and Safety Executive report
said the site was essentially free of asbestos contamination.

Another report in March found there was little difference between
the two documents, apart from the conclusions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Outrage Over Denial of Compensation to Veterans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mirror News reported that ministers face urgent calls to end the
"outrage" of 200 military veterans being denied compensation
despite developing a deadly asbestos disease after serving their
country.

According to the report, many servicemen were exposed to asbestos
while working on shipbuilding sites for the Royal Navy but current
rules mean sailors, soldiers and airmen who develop the fatal
condition mesothelioma cannot get payouts from the MoD if they
were exposed to asbestos before 1987.

Mesothelioma leads to a slow and agonising death and can take 40
years to show symptoms, the report noted.

The arbitrary deadline does not apply to MoD civilians -- only
servicemen, the report related.

A new Government Bill going through the House of Lords will award
3,500 civilian sufferers more than GBP350million even if they
cannot trace a liable employer.

But it fails to help pre-1987 veterans and their families.

Labour MP Thomas Docherty said: "It's an outrage that MoD
bureaucracy is falling to close this unacceptable loophole. These
men and their families are not being given the support from their
country that they deserve."

And Shadow Defence Minister Jim Murphy said last night: "Those who
give so much for our country should always be looked after."

There is speculation that the Government will back a Tory peer's
amendment to the Bill "to allow a once-and-for-all opportunity for
justice".


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Cleaned Up in Bendigo Street
--------------------------------------------------------
Bendigo Advertiser reported that Garsed street was been re-opened
after asbestos was found in the street.

According to the report, the southern block of Garsed Street,
including the unnamed laneway parallel with Myrtle Street, has
been cleaned up and re-opened.

The City of Greater Bendigo will work with the owner of the
Gillies/Crystal Ice site to help them understand their
responsibilities to secure the site, the report related.

Planning and Development Director Prue Mansfield thanked
neighbouring property owners who remained indoors until the
situation was resolved.

She also thanked all agencies and the accredited asbestos
contractors for their quick response.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Australian Jails Pose Risk
------------------------------------------------
Beatrice Thomas, writing for The West Australian, reported that
all but four of WA's 16 prisons have been identified as having
some form of asbestos contamination, with two facilities rated as
high-risk, it has emerged.

According to the report, after revelations last month that fixing
asbestos contamination at Hakea Prison would cost taxpayers $2.5
million, the Department of Corrective Services has confirmed a
further 11 prisons have asbestos-containing materials or suspected
contamination "to some degree".

Pardelup Prison Farm, near Mt Barker, and Roebourne Prison have a
high-risk rating, the report said.

The other jails with asbestos -- Bandyup, Bunbury, Wooroloo,
Karnet, Albany, Broome, Eastern Goldfields, Greenough and Walpole
Work Camp -- are medium to low-risk.

The department said remediation work at the two high-risk jails
was scheduled to be done by the end of this month.

The work included the removal of asbestos rather than sealing and
capsulation.

It said an asbestos exposure register set up in 2009 had 20
reports "from people who had potentially been exposed to
asbestos".

When details emerged last month of the asbestos exposure at Hakea,
including the discovery of friable asbestos in the ceiling spaces
of the blocks inspected, the Asbestos Diseases Society called for
the affected blocks to be closed immediately.

Shadow corrective services minister Paul Papalia said a
comprehensive register was needed to deal with the "threat of
asbestos in the older buildings".

"Not just of people who have gone into roof spaces but, in
conjunction with experts in the field, a register that is
comprehensive in the event a prison officer, a prisoner or staff
member is exposed and later in life succumbs to the illness," he
said.

Mr Papalia called for health checks for prison officers and
prisoners exposed or potentially exposed to asbestos.

However, the department said this was not recommended in the
current code of practice.

Corrective Services Minister Joe Francis said that work was done
under strict guidelines and precautions taken to ensure the safety
of staff and prisoners.

"I'm committed to ensuring that works are carried out in
accordance with WorkSafe's directions," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Most Philippine Schools Still Use Fibro in Labs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Carcamo, writing for The Philippine Star, reported that
most public and private schools still use asbestos, a toxic
substance, in their laboratories despite the pledge of the
Department of Education in November 2011 that asbestos would be
removed from campuses, a labor group said.

According to the report, Allan Tanjusay, advocacy officer of the
Associated Labor Unions-Trade Union Congress of the Philippines,
said their team visitsed  four public and four private schools in
Metro Manila last June 3 and June 10 and discovered that these
schools still employ asbestos in Chemistry and Biology classes.

"The ban campaign urges the DepEd, Commission on Higher Education
and private school officials to ensure that the directive and the
memorandum they issued in removing these wire gauzes from campuses
are enforced to the letter.

"We should not sacrifice the health of our future citizens and
that of our teachers and non-teaching school personnel," Tanjusay
said.

The ALU-TUCP partners with the Building and Wood Workers
International in pushing for the ban of  asbestos in the country,
the report related.

Tanjusay said that asbestos wire gauzes function as heat insulator
and regulator of beakers from direct heat.

"Kapag tumigas na 'yan after heating experiment tapos hinawakan at
ipagpag, and dust nito ay malanghap ng mga estudyante at titser,"
Tanjusay said, noting that an asbestos fiber is 5,000 times
smaller than a strand of hair.

He also cited that the World Health Organization and International
Agency for Research on Cancer have both affirmed that exposure to
asbestos causes diseases and cancers in the lungs, larynx, and the
ovaries.

The WHO also said that all types of asbestos cause lung cancer,
mesotheliama (deterioration of lining of internal organs), cancer
of the larynx and ovary, and asbestosis (fibrosis of the lungs).

At the time, there is no law to ban, but only to regulate, the use
of asbestos in the country, Tanjusay said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Fibro an NBN Issue, Says Liberals
---------------------------------------------------------
Annabel Hepworth, writing for The Australian, reported that
embattled NBN Co faces potential legal liability for asbestos
issues in the National Broadband Network rollout under federal
workplace health and safety law, the Coalition warns as it
launches a fresh assault on the "unstable" governance of the
government company.

According to the report, in comments set to fuel fears that
liability for the asbestos problems could fall to the
commonwealth, the opposition has taken aim at claims by the
Gillard government and Telstra that responsibility for the
asbestos problems lies with Telstra, declaring NBN Co could have a
liability under the Work Health and Safety Act.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Gets 2013 Silver Stevie(R) Award
------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), which combines
education, advocacy, and community as the leading U.S.
organization serving as the voice of asbestos victims, was
presented with a Silver Stevie(R) Award in the Company of the Year
? Non-Profit or Government Organizations category at the 11th
Annual American Business Awards in Chicago last night. Since 2004,
ADAO has been dedicated to preventing mesothelioma and other
asbestos-related diseases.

The American Business Awards are the nation's premier business
awards program. Nicknamed the Stevies for the Greek word for
"crowned," the trophies were presented to honorees during a gala
banquet on Monday, June 17 at the Fairmont Chicago Millennium Park
Hotel. More than 500 nominees and their guests attended.

"With profound gratitude, ADAO is delighted to share this award
with our global community," said Linda Reinstein, ADAO Co-Founder
and President. "Our community, which includes hundreds of
volunteers, patients, and members of the scientific and medical
community, is the strength of ADAO. These individuals truly fuel
our work with their contributions in, hours, thought, action, and
funding. Together, we have leveraged innovation and social media
advocacy in an effort to achieve our vision of a world free of
asbestos-related disease. We want asbestos to be banned in the
U.S. and around the world, and we continue to press toward that
goal."

More than 3,200 nominations from organizations of all sizes and in
virtually every industry were submitted for consideration in a
wide range of categories. Stevie Award winners were selected by
more than 320 executives nationwide who participated in the
judging process this year.

"This year's American Business Awards was outsized in every way,"
said Michael Gallagher, Stevie Awards founder and president. "More
entries and more judges than ever before, and I'd have to say the
most impressive collection of nominations we've ever received. We
congratulate all of this year's Stevie winners for their
outstanding work."

Details about The American Business Awards and the lists of Stevie
Award winners who were announced on June 17 are available at
www.StevieAwards.com/ABA.

          About Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization

Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) was founded by
asbestos victims and their families in 2004. ADAO seeks to give
asbestos victims and concerned citizens a united voice to raise
public awareness about the dangers of asbestos exposure. ADAO is
an independent global organization dedicated to preventing
asbestos-related diseases through education, advocacy, and
community. For more information, visit
www.asbestosdiseaseawareness.org.

                   About the Stevie Awards

Stevie Awards are conferred in four programs: The American
Business Awards, The International Business Awards, the Stevie
Awards for Women in Business, and the Stevie Awards for Sales &
Customer Service. A fifth program, the Asia-Pacific Stevie Awards,
will debut this year. Honoring organizations of all types and
sizes and the people behind them, the Stevies recognize
outstanding performances in the workplace worldwide. Learn more
about the Stevie Awards at www.StevieAwards.com.

Sponsors and partners of The 2013 American Business Awards include
the Business TalkRadio Network, Callidus Software, Citrix Online,
Dynamic Research Corporation, Experian, John Hancock Funds,
LifeLock, PetRays, and SoftPro.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Wave of Australian Meso Victims Diagnosed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lucinda Schmidt, writing for Illawara Mercury, reported that two
years ago, when she was 45, Jane Krsevan finally discovered the
reason for her stabbing back pains and the excess fluid in her
lungs. After a frustrating decade of worsening health and
conflicting medical opinions, Krsevan's ninth doctor started
asking questions about her childhood. When she told him her father
was a builder who made insulation boxes for hot water units, he
immediately ordered a 3D body scan and a lung biopsy.

The diagnosis was devastating, the report noted. Krsevan had
malignant mesothelioma, an incurable cancer caused by asbestos.
Forty years earlier, while she watched her dad cut asbestos cement
sheeting in the garage, she was inhaling puffs of "devil's dust"
containing asbestos fibres up to 200 times thinner than a human
hair. So were her parents and three siblings, but it is only she
who has developed mesothelioma.

Appallingly unlucky? Yes. But Krsevan is by no means an isolated
example. The number of mesothelioma cases is rising in Australia -
- which already has the highest per capita rate in the world -- as
the so-called "third wave" of victims is diagnosed.

First came the miners, many from the deadly Wittenoom blue
asbestos mine in Western Australia's Pilbara, which closed in
1967. Next were the people who worked directly with asbestos, in
factories, unloading it at the docks, or as builders, plumbers,
electricians and carpenters.

Now, the third or "bystander" wave is engulfing people such as
Krsevan and includes home renovators and women who washed their
husband's dust-laden overalls. Australian mountaineer Lincoln
Hall, for example, died last year from asbestos exposure decades
earlier, when he helped his father build two cubbyhouses using
asbestos cement sheets.

He famously survived 12 hours wandering lost near the summit of
Mount Everest in 2006, but succumbed to mesothelioma at the age of
56.

The recent furore over shoddy asbestos disposal by NBN contractors
working in Telstra's pits is a distressing reminder that the
asbestos scourge is nowhere near over. Although Australia stopped
mining asbestos in 1983, phased out its use in building products
by 1989 and banned it entirely from 2004, the long lag before
symptoms develop means new cases will continue to rise each year
until at least 2020.

And, as the Telstra debacle also highlights, asbestos is
everywhere in Australia's built environment. The miracle fibre --
named from the ancient Greek word for "inextinguishable" -- was
heat resistant, cheap, strong and flexible, making it the prefect
material for more than 3000 products, including insulation, carpet
underlay, brake linings, roof tiles and cement sheeting.

Until recently, government policy has leaned towards letting
sleeping dogs lie. Asbestos is only dangerous when its fibres
float free, usually from cutting, drilling or sanding it. Now,
however, a push is under way to proactively remove asbestos, and
to properly record how and when people are exposed to its ghastly
needles of death.

On July 1, the new Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency will
begin work on a national strategic plan to remove asbestos from
government and commercial buildings, increase asbestos awareness
and tackle illegal dumping of the toxic waste.

It will also oversee the National Asbestos Exposure Register,
launched on June 7, which allows anyone to record details of
incidents where they may have breathed in asbestos fibres.

Barry Robson, president of the Asbestos Diseases Foundation, is
relieved that asbestos is back on the political agenda. "After the
campaign against Hardies everything died down, everyone thought it
was all over, the victims had won," he says, referring to the $4
billion compensation scheme eventually set up in 2007 by James
Hardie Industries, which manufactured the bulk of Australia's
asbestos products.

Bernie Banton, who spearheaded the campaign against James Hardie's
initially inadequate and misleading compensation fund, died of
mesothelioma the same year, and asbestos faded from the public
spotlight. It briefly returned when James Hardie directors,
including then chairwoman Meredith Hellicar, were slapped with
corporate bans in 2009 (upheld on appeal to the High Court last
year), but then things went quiet. "Everyone thought the asbestos
problem had gone away," Robson says. "We were screaming, 'It's not
over, it's still a problem."'

His biggest worry is the lack of awareness in the general
community about just how much asbestos is around and the dangers
of disturbing it. Asbestos was widely used in Australian buildings
between 1945 and 1980 and, as the increasing numbers of bystander
claims show, there is no safe level of exposure to loose asbestos
fibres. "Anything built before 1987, you can be 99 per cent
certain it's got some asbestos in it," he says.

Robson's own home, a 1970s brick veneer in Sydney's west, is
riddled with the stuff. He's vigilant when tradesmen do any work
on his house.

But Robson frets about the tens of thousands of DIY home
renovators gleefully taking sledgehammers to old bathrooms, sheds
and chook houses -- often with their children watching and
helping.

Indeed, a website about asbestos awareness funded by James Hardie
as part of its compensation agreement is directed exclusively at
home owners playing "renovation roulette".

It was exactly this scenario that lawyer Andrew Dimsey describes
as one of his most upsetting cases. His client was a 40-year-old
man whose only exposure to asbestos was standing near his father
years earlier when he was doing some small home improvements. The
father was fine, but his son contracted mesothelioma and died aged
41.

Dimsey, the national head of asbestos litigation at law firm
Maurice Blackburn, describes asbestos-induced cancer as a lottery.
"It's like walking across a freeway without looking left or right.
You can do it once and get cleaned up, or do it every day for
months and be fine."

When he first started working on asbestos compensation claims 12
years ago, most clients were miners and wharfies aged in their
60s, 70s and 80s. Then came the builders and plumbers. Now,
Maurice Blackburn's Victorian practice sees about 50 new
mesothelioma clients a year, quadruple the number a decade ago --
and the asbestos exposure often has nothing to do with their work.

"The really striking thing over the last couple of years is that
the new norm is for people with quite light exposure, the
bystanders, the home renovators," Dimsey says. "That includes a
sprinkling of clients in their 40s and 50s who were exposed as
children."

Margaret Kent, the head of Slater & Gordon's Melbourne asbestos
practice, paints a similar picture. "I've done this work for 16
years and when I began it was all occupational [exposure]," she
says. "Now a substantial proportion is home renovators and
bystanders."

She has seen clients who had only a few hours' exposure when they
built a rabbit hutch or demolished an outdoor toilet. Other
clients simply walked past James Hardie's asbestos products
factory in Brooklyn on their way to and from school.

"It's less and less about clients telling me where they worked and
more about clients saying, 'I don't know how I was exposed'," Kent
says.

For asbestos lawyers such as Kent and Dimsey, the third wave
bystander claims are much harder to prove and often require
detailed interviews with siblings, neighbours and friends about
home renovations completed 30 or 40 years ago.

Doctors, too, face challenges in accurately diagnosing asbestos-
induced cancer in patients with no asbestos work history,
especially if they are smokers.

Professor Nico van Zandwijk, director of the Asbestos Diseases
Research Institute in Sydney, says about 700 people annually are
diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in Australia, a figure that
is projected to rise for another 10 or so years. The only known
cause of malignant mesothelioma is asbestos exposure.

But the asbestos epidemic is far worse than that. Van Zandwijk
says malignant mesothelioma is difficult to recognise and studies
have shown that about 10 per cent of cases go undiagnosed.

Further, he says that for every mesothelioma diagnosis, at least
two lung cancer patients are also victims of asbestos exposure.
While mesothelioma is a distinctive type of cancer mainly
affecting the lining of the lungs or stomach, lung cancer looks
the same whether it is caused by asbestos or cigarettes.

"It's taken a long time, 20 or 30 years, to be clearer about
this," van Zandwijk says. "For the majority of lung cancer
patients, the cause is cigarette smoking. But some lung cancer is
caused by asbestos."

On the best figures available, van Zandwijk estimates that about
15,000 Australians have died of malignant mesothelioma since 1950.
Add in the hidden victims of lung cancer caused by asbestos
exposure, and the death toll is at least 45,000.

Sadly, there are many more deaths to come. Announcing an extra
$10.5 million in funding for asbestos protection in the federal
budget, Employment and Workplace Relations Minister Bill Shorten
noted that up to 40,000 Australians would be diagnosed with
asbestos-related disease over the next 20 years.

"There are children not yet born who'll die of an asbestos-related
disease," he warned.

Astonishingly, despite the overwhelming evidence for more than a
century of the dangers of asbestos and the rising death rate from
bystander exposure, asbestos is still mined by a handful of
countries and widely used for building products in many developing
nations, including Vietnam and India. In May, a group of seven
countries led by Russia (the world's biggest asbestos producer)
blocked a move by the UN's Rotterdam Convention to list
chrysotile, or white asbestos, as a hazardous substance.

The five other types of asbestos, including the deadliest blue and
brown varieties, are already listed. It was the fourth time an
attempt to list chrysotile had failed: on the previous three
occasions, Canada opposed the ban but reversed its position after
closing its last asbestos mine last year.

Meanwhile, at the Asbestos Diseases Research Institute and
elsewhere, scientists are desperately searching for ways to better
diagnose and treat asbestos-induced cancers. The ADRI helps
oversee a mesothelioma register, established in 2010, where
patients are interviewed about how they were exposed to asbestos.
It's still early days, but after data from about 300 patients, van
Zandwijk says it is clear that the number of cases with no
occupational exposure is increasing.

At the start of June, ADRI researchers presented a new treatment
for mesothelioma (details of which they would not disclose) to the
American Society of Clinical Oncologists' annual meeting in
Chicago. Van Zandwijk is wary of generating false hope, but
describes the potential treatment as "a positive note", with
clinical trials scheduled to begin later this year.

For Krsevan, a treatment that is -- at best -- years away, may
well come too late. "Things are looking OK, hopefully I'm in
remission, but I don't know how long that will last," says the
mother of two. "I just try not to think about it because otherwise
I'd get too depressed." When she first developed fluid on her
lungs when she was 34, she thought it was payback for smoking, and
immediately gave up. Later, when the stabbing pains began in her
back, a doctor told her she had probably pulled a muscle. Another
doctor put her on high doses of steroids to ease the pain, with
little effect.

Since the mesothelioma diagnosis, Krsevan has had chemotherapy,
radiotherapy and surgery to remove part of one lung and half her
diaphragm. Recently, she spent 17 days in hospital with pneumonia,
and has been coughing for the past six months. Just before
Christmas, Slater & Gordon finalised a compensation deal with
James Hardie, the manufacturer of the asbestos sheeting used by
Krsevan's father. The amount is confidential but, as she points
out, no amount of money can compensate for the loss of her health.

Instead, she is keen to get across to others the message about the
dangers of asbestos. "I just want people to be careful. Some
people think it will never happen to them."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Architect Denies Darwin Bldg. Contains Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conor Byrne, writing for NT News, reported that a building's
architect has denied union reports that asbestos has been found at
a central Darwin building site.

According to the report, the four-storey Paspaley Building has
been under demolition for the last few weeks in preparation for
building the 18 or 20-storey Charles Darwin Centre on the corner
of Smith and Bennett streets.

The building's height is undecided.

Chief Minister Adam Giles had planned a staged media walk-through
of the site for lunchtime, but cancelled it at 11.25am.

Officials from the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
said they took samples from the site and sent them for laboratory
examination this morning, which they said identified them as
chrysotile, or "white asbestos".

But building architect Ross Connolly said Worksafe NT has declared
the site safe and that the union was "stirring the pot".

"They allegedly discovered some asbestos sheet," he said.

He said the material found was harmless cellulose fibre cement.

"Worksafe has confirmed that the material found was not asbestos,"
he said.

Worksafe has been contacted for comment.

He said the site had been certified asbestos-free by a certified
removalist who removed asbestos from the remains of the three
buildings about four or five weeks ago.

"Clearly when you do an asbestos register there's always the risk
that there might be some asbestos that might be not evident at the
time the register was prepared," he said.

"The contract for the removal makes it incumbent on the operator
to obviously deal with anything that turns up in the removal
process.

"There's a later risk that when you demolish a floor slab or
something underneath, given that we're talking about a part of the
town that was around in the war, there could be some asbestos
sheeting in the soil underneath the building that was neither
undiscoverable at the time of the asbestos register preparation
nor at the removal."

He said there was protocol for any asbestos discovery by workers,
and that no reports had been made by workers to the site manager.

Mr Connolly has said work has resumed, but the union has said the
site was shut.

CFMEU assistant secretary Jade Ingham said the site was "riddled"
with asbestos.

"I can tell you we've better things to do than stir the pot and
turn up on sites," he said.

"If they were resolute why did they shut the site?" CFMEU official
Ben Laokes said they found 10cm x 10cm sheets of material on the
site.

"The document provided to us saying the asbestos was removed but
then you walk through and see sheeting everywhere," he said.

"It didn't take us long to find it. We took four steps into the
site and we found it. It's all broken up.

"The workers there had concerns about it."

Asbestos was used as a fire retardant building material until it
was banned in 1989 because of health risks from inhaling asbestos
fibres.

The Paspaley Building is understood to have been built in the
early 1980s or earlier.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Halts Demolition at Ivy Ridge Nursing Home
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Z. Quinn, writing for NewsWorks, reported that demolition of
the former Ivy Ridge Personal Care Center got underway earlier
this month, but stopped abruptly after a city site inspection
found asbestos on the site.

According to the report, several pieces of heavy machinery and a
big pile of rocks and building material are now at 5627 Ridge
Ave., slated to become the Kingsley Court development, but the
work site is silent. Part of the rear of the building and a fire-
damaged carriage house are already down but no work has been done
since June 12, when a city inspector shut the site down and posted
green violation notices -- including on an excavator.

Stephen Goldner, the project's architect who represented the plan
before local civic groups, said there was an asbestos removal plan
in place on the property and removal work had been ongoing even
before the city made its inspection, but referred further
questions to contractors, the report related. NewsWorks is
reaching out to them for comment.

In the days after the fatal Market Street collapse, the city
Department of Licenses and Inspections mobilized to conduct
inspections of every site with an open demolition permit, the
report said.

The 3.5-acre site will become Kingsley Court, a 32-home
neighborhood of twin carriage houses. Goldner previously told
NewsWorks several of the homes were sold or pending.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovery Could Slow Down Ind. Fire Probe
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fox59 reported that federal investigators are now sifting through
the rubble at the site of that massive warehouse fire on Belmont
Avenue.

According to the report, the fire broke out on June 15 and proved
to be a real battle for all of the responding fire fighters.

Local Homeland Security officials tell us they have since found
asbestos on scene, so more protective gear is a must, the report
said. The discovery might also slow down the investigation, which
is expected to take a minimum of seven to 10 days.

"The ATF investigators and our fire investigators are equipped
with respirators and they would prefer not to wear them because
it's much easier to work with something not on your face but their
health is a priority for us," said Captain Rita Burris, the report
cited.

Asbestos exposure risks for nearby homeowners have been described
as "minimal".

EPA is expected to release air quality test results.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov. Furious as Cwmcarn Asbestos Saga Goes On
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Mackintosh, writing for South Wales Argus, reported that
governors of Cwmcarn High School met again in a bid to end a
stalemate over who will complete GBP1 million worth of asbestos
repairs at the site.

According to the report, a war of words has sparked between the
governors, their specialist advisors Ensafe and Caerphilly council
in recent weeks, as each accuses the other of changing its
demands, despite GBP1 million works to remove airborne asbestos
being formally agreed in April.

The council announced on June 6 that it would no longer deal with
Ensafe because it said they kept asking for improvements that had
not been agreed to, and which could be deemed preferential in
light of the 21st Century Schools programme, the report said.

Ensafe spokesman Greg Kirkman responded that the works were
necessary as a consequence of removing asbestos and to comply with
building regulations, the report related.

Meanwhile, pupils are still being bussed to Ebbw Vale while they
wait for the governors to choose whether Ensafe or the council
will carry out the works, eight months after the school closed in
October last year, the report added.

Governors failed to come to a decision, prompting the authority to
issue a statement in which acting chief executive Nigel Barnett
said time was running out, the report related.  The governors also
hit back on the school's website, describing the council's stance
as aggressive and accusing it of using delaying tactics which are
detrimental towards the school.

In a statement chairman of governors Gary Thomas said: "The
governing body was twice ready to sign a copy of the grant
agreement provided by the council on May 16 and 23.

"However, the council has continually introduced new and even more
onerous terms and conditions, thus preventing the governing body
from signing it."

The governors have received additional legal health and safety
guidance from the Health and Safety Executive but said the council
has not responded to requests to clarify who is legally
responsible.

"This has left the school with an impossible situation," said the
statement.

A Caerphilly council spokesman said he was unable to comment until
after a meeting had taken place.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Panels Dumped at Newbiggin Land
------------------------------------------------------
News Post Leader reported that asbestos roofing sheets were among
several items found dumped on open land in Newbiggin.

According to the report, council workers are now appealing for
anyone with information on the fly-tipping to report information.

The asbestos sheets were left at Spittal Burn Park on or around
June 5, the report related.

The sheets formed the bulk of the rubbish, alongside wooden
shelving and green waste.

The council is appealing for information regarding the origins of
the waste and any vehicle that was seen carrying it.

Coun Deidre Campbell, policy board member for street care and
environment at Northumberland County Council, said: "Fly-tipping
shows a total disregard for residents and the environment.

"It is not only an eyesore, but poses a serious risk to people's
health.

"I would encourage anyone who may have any information to get in
touch so we can make Northumberland cleaner and safer for
everyone."

Anyone with any information about this or fly-tipping in general
can call the council on 0845 600 6400. Calls will be treated in
confidence.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asons Solicitors Warn of Secondary Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
Debbie Brewer, 53, spent seven years fighting the asbestos related
illness, a rare cancer that affects the lining of the lungs.

She was contaminated with asbestos fibres as a child after
welcoming her father Phillip Northmore home from work, once he had
finished work as an asbestos lagger.

This initial contamination led to the eventual development of
mesothelioma.

Most cases of mesothelioma arise in people who come into direct
contact with asbestos, this usually occurs within their working
environment. These workers will usually have mined asbestos,
created asbestos-containing products, or used asbestos materials
during construction.

But Asbestos.com warns that people can contract an asbestos
related illness without ever working with or near the toxic
material. Secondary exposure, or indirect exposure, can be just as
dangerous.

It is believed she contracted the disease as a child; when hugging
her father, asbestos fibres were released into the air from his
clothing, where they were then inhaled when she was between 3 and
6.

Mr Northmore died from asbestos-related lung cancer at the age of
68 in 2006 -- the same year that Ms Brewer was diagnosed with the
long-dormant mesothelioma.

Mesothelioma can lie dormant for up to 40 years, and when it does
emerge, the prognosis is generally poor -- where the condition is
usually fatal within about two years.

Suzanne Yates stated that:

"While any kind of exposure is much less common today, women faced
an increased risk for secondary asbestos exposure when asbestos
was used frequently during the mid-20th century. After a day of
working with asbestos related products, workers could potentially
carry home asbestos fibres on their hair, skin and clothes and
create a secondary exposure risk for their families."

According to asbestos.com between 1941 and 1954, Mount Sinai
Medical Center in New York City studied the health of 679 people
related to 1,664 workers employed at a factory in Patterson, New
Jersey. The researchers discovered five cases of mesothelioma
among the family members. Sources of asbestos dust were also
discovered in the homes of former Patterson factory workers as
much as 20 years after the factory was closed.

Responsible for a large proportion of mesothelioma cases among
women, secondary asbestos exposure has also affected the lives of
children. If exposed at an early age, people are much more likely
to develop an asbestos related illness in the future. Some of the
most common ways a family member may have experienced secondary
asbestos exposure included coming into contact with contaminated
clothing, furniture and tools.

While family members who receive secondary exposure do not have
any direct contact with asbestos-containing products, the amount
of asbestos dust brought home is enough to cause mesothelioma or
other asbestos-related illnesses later in life.

Asons Solicitors suggest that if someone would like to learn more
about the asbestos related illness claims process, or if they
would like to better understand asbestos related illness, that
information is available at http://www.asons.co.uk,or via an
expert helpline on 01204 521 133

Asons Solicitors is a Bolton-based law practice that specialises
in personal injury and industrial disease claims. Founded by
brothers Imran Akram and Kamran Akram, Asons Solicitors has
developed to become a young and dynamic law firm that delivers
practical solutions to clients in times of difficulty. Their
continued focus on their staff has seen them awarded with the
Investors in People "Gold Award"; which is reflected in the
professional and personable approach they take in working with
clients. They strive to grow and to develop, and their
supportiveness and attention to detail ensures that their clients
use them time and again.

For further information contact:
Email: info (at) asons (dot) co.uk
Website: http://www.asons.co.uk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Drug House" Asbestos Spurs Rising Frustration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Iliana Stilitano, writing for Camden-Narellan Advertiser, reported
that Camden council has been unsuccessful in its bid to have the
owner of a Catherine Field property remove exposed asbestos on the
site.

According to the report, a pile of rubble still remains on the
Springfield Road property after a house, which police said was
used as a drug lab, burnt down in October last year.

A resident who asked not to be named said the council had a duty
of care to remove the asbestos, the report related.

"Council has the authority to clean it up off their own bat," the
resident said.

"They rarely use that authority, but I think in this case it
should be done, because the asbestos fibres are exposed. At the
very least they should cover it with plastic."

A council spokeswoman said orders that were issued to the owner
had so far been ignored.

In a statement, the spokeswoman said: "At this stage the works
have not been undertaken, but council officers will continue to
follow up."

The Advertiser asked the council to say when the orders were
issued and how long before it would take further action on the
owner, who had so far ignored the council's request. The
Advertiser also asked whether the council thought the asbestos
posed a threat to the community.

The spokeswoman said: "At this time council is not able to
disclose any further information as it is legal in privilege.

"We can say that orders for the property remain in place (and)
council has taken, and will continue to take, all legal avenues
available to deal with this issue."

Police said the house had been used to manufacture amphetmines.

No arrests have yet been made.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Remanded Over Ambiguous Contract Provisions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth
District, Houston, issued an opinion dated June 11, 2013, granting
an appeal from a trial court's ruling denying the summary judgment
motions by the successors of parties to an asset stock purchase
agreement.

The appeal arises from a contract dispute between Diamond Offshore
Company and Kaneb Management Company, L.L.C., concerning an asset
and stock purchase agreement between their predecessors.  Kaneb
provided contract drilling services to the oil-and-gas industry.
Directly or through subsidiaries, it owned a number of offshore
drilling rigs, barge rigs, some yard facilities, personal
property, and equity in other companies.  In 1989, Diamond bought
Kaneb's assets.  Some of Kaneb's workers continued to work for
Diamond after the sale.  Some individuals who had been employed by
Kaneb before the sale but did not work for Diamond after the sale
later sued Diamond for personal injuries they allegedly sustained
as a result of their exposure to asbestos while employed by Kaneb.
Diamond sued Kaneb and its parent company NuStar Energy L.P.,
seeking declaratory judgment that under the terms of the
Agreement, Diamond did not assume liability for claims by
"Employees" that were "[b]ased upon injuries identifiably
sustained prior to the Closing Date" and that resulted from
Kaneb's "ownership or operation of the assets prior to the Closing
Date."  Diamond also asked for a declaration that Kaneb assumed
liability for these claims.  Kaneb counterclaimed, asking for a
declaration that Diamond assumed liability for claims that
allegedly arose from asbestos exposure before the Closing Date,
but that accrued after the Closing Date.

In its first issue, Kaneb argues that its interpretation of the
Agreement is the only reasonable one, and thus, the trial court
erred in denying its summary-judgment motion and granting
Diamond's cross-motion.  As an alternative, Kaneb argues in its
second issue that its interpretation of the Agreement is at least
a reasonable one, and thus, the trial court erred in granting
summary judgment to Diamond.  As a further alternative, Kaneb
asserts in its third issue that the Court of Appeals must reverse
the ruling and remand the case because the particular declarations
recited in the judgment do not resolve the parties' dispute.

The Court of Appeals found that because the Agreement is ambiguous
and the ambiguity is not resolved by other contract provisions,
case law interpreting the liability-insurance policies, statute,
or extrinsic evidence, neither party is entitled to summary
judgment.  The case is remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings.

The case is NuSTAR ENERGY, L.P., AND KANEB MANAGEMENT COMPANY,
L.L.C., Appellants, v. DIAMOND OFFSHORE COMPANY, Appellee, NO. 14-
12-00657-CV (Tex. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/hDjBB2from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Allowed to Amend Answer to Widow's Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos action titled ROSIE K. SWEREDOSKI, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of DOUGLAS A. SWEREDOSKI, and
Individually Recognized as Surviving Spouse, v. ALFA LAVAL, INC.,
et al., C.A. NO. PC 2011-1544 (R.I. Super.)., Defendant Crane Co.,
filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer to the
Plaintiff's fourth amended complaining to plead a new affirmative
defense.  The Plaintiff opposes the Motion, arguing that the
Defendant waived all affirmative defenses not pled in its first
Answer, and she will be unduly prejudiced by the Defendant's
proposed amendment at this late stage of the litigation.

From 1964 to 1968, Robert Sweredoski served in the United States
Navy where he worked as a fireman and boiler operator in the
ship's boiler rooms.  During his time in the Independence's boiler
rooms, Sweredoski replaced the packing and gaskets in steam valves
allegedly designed and manufactured by the Defendant.  Both the
packing and gaskets contained asbestos.  The Plaintiff alleges
that as a result of Mr. Sweredoski's exposure to these asbestos-
containing packing and gaskets, he developed malignant
mesothelioma and eventually died from the disease.

The Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence, SC, on May 22,
2013, granted the Defendant's Motion to amend its answer holding
that despite the Defendant's delay in seeking to amend its answer,
the Plaintiff has failed to carry its burden of showing that she
would be prejudiced by the Defendant's proposed amendment.  The
Plaintiff, according to the Superior Court, has adequate time to
prepare a response for trial and that she was not unfairly
surprised by the Motion because she had notice of general and
specific facts tending to show that the government contractor
defense could be in issue in the instant case.

A full-text copy of the Superior Court's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/R47uoRfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal From Dismissal of Suit v. Developer Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 19, 2008, 18 plaintiffs filed a complaint for damages
against (1) Lennar Corporation; Lennar-BVHP, LLC; Lennar Homes of
California, Inc.; Lennar Associates Management, LLC; and Lennar
Communities, Inc.; Gordon N. Ball, Inc.; and (3) CH2M Hill.  The
complaint included causes of action for public nuisance,
negligence (environmental racism), intentional and negligent
infliction of emotional distress, and battery.  The Plaintiffs
alleged that they were injured by dust containing naturally
occurring asbestos, which became airborne as a result of the
Defendants' grading-related activities on a parcel of land in San
Francisco.  The Plaintiffs further alleged that they had suffered
various physical symptoms from the asbestos, including headaches,
red eyes, bronchitis and other respiratory problems, sinus
infections, nosebleeds, cardiac pain, and skin rashes.

Each of the three Defendants filed separate motions for summary
judgment, which were granted by the trial court.  The Plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal.

In a decision dated May 22, 2013, the Court of Appeals of
California, First District, Division Two, denied the Appeal
holding that because the Plaintiffs did not satisfy their burden
of raising a triable issue of material fact as to causation on any
of their causes of action, the trial court property granted
summary judgment in favor of all the Defendants.  The Court of
Appeals noted that the Plaintiffs' evidence, which lacks competent
expert testimony or any other evidence showing causation, failed
to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether (1) any of the
Plaintiffs were exposed to particular toxins in the dust from the
property at sufficient levels to cause harm, and (2) that toxic
dust was a substantial factor in any of the Plaintiffs' illnesses.

The case is MARSAE SCOTT et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
LENNAR CORPORATION et al., Defendants and Respondents, NO. A133890
(Cal. App.).  A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals Decision is
available at http://is.gd/MC0xstfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Rules on Insurance Issue in Lukens PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Co., Utica Mutual
Insurance Co., and Republic Franklin Insurance Co., filed a
complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that D.N. Lukens, Inc., a
distributor/supplier of raw materials serving the coatings,
plastics, graphic arts and other industries, must contribute its
pro rata share of any payments made to settle or satisfy any
judgment that may enter against it in five toxic tort suits, and
any future toxic tort claims or suits that may be made or filed
against Lukens in which the coverage of any of the Plaintiff-
insurers is implicated.

The five lawsuits, which are pending in Massachusetts Superior
Court, alleged significant injuries from exposure to toxic
substances owned, supplied, sold or controlled by Lukens.  Of the
five lawsuits, one sought redress for injuries from a variety of
chemicals and toxic metals, while the remaining four suits alleged
harm by exposure to asbestos.

Lukens denies that it should share in the payments and has
asserted counterclaims under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A against Utica
based on their conduct with respect to the settlement of one of
the toxic tort cases, their failure to establish conflict screens
between the claims handlers in the cases and the claims handlers
for the declaratory judgment action, and for their refusal to
relinquish control of the litigation of the remaining cases.
Lukens has also brought Chapter 93A actions against Nominal
Defendants for their failure to cede control of the defense of the
five lawsuits, and against AIPIC and Granite State, individually,
for their conduct with respect to the settlement of the toxic tort
case.  The Defendants have filed separate motions for summary
judgment seeking the same relief.

In a finding and order dated May 29, 2013, Judge Timothy S.
Hillman of the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted the motions in part and denied them in part.

Judge Hillman said the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's
decision on the case Boston Gas Co. v. Century Indem. Co., 454
Mass. 337 (2009) applies in the instant case.  That decision,
according to Judge Hillman, dramatically changed the landscape for
insurance coverage over progressive injury claims.  The SJC held
that insurers and insureds alike must contribute to any judgment
entered in a progressive injury claim on a pro rata basis,
calculated by the length of time each was "on the risk."
Accordingly, Judge Hillman granted Utica's motion and entered a
declaration that the methodology outlined in Boston Gas applies to
two asbestos lawsuits filed by Donna MacDowell and Patricia
MacDowell, both of which are pending in Middlesex Superior Court,
and that the "continuous trigger" approach should be used to
determine when the injuries occurred, thereby obligating Lukens to
pay its proportionate share of any judgment entered in either
suit.  With respect to one of the asbestos lawsuit filed by Frank
Mastrogiacomo, Judge Hill declared that Lukens is not bound to pay
a proportionate share of the settlement entered in the case.

Judge Hillman also granted the motions for summary judgment as to
Luken's counterclaims that allege damages for Utica's failure to
cede the defense of the asbestos cases and deny the motions for
summary judgment in all other respects.

The case is GRAPHIC ARTS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. UTICA MUTUAL
INSURANCE CO., and REPUBLIC FRANKLIN INSURANCE CO., Plaintiffs, v.
D.N. LUKENS, INC., Defendant, and ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY,
AMERICAN INTERNATION PACIFIC INSURANCE CO., and GRANITE STATE
INSURANCE CO., Nominal Defendants/Interested Parties, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 11-CV-10460-TSH (D. Mass.).

Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company, Utica Mutual Insurance
Company, and Republic Franklin Insurance Company, Plaintiffs, are
represented by Kurt B. Fliegauf, Esq. --
kfliegauf@connkavanaugh.com -- and Russell F. Conn, Esq. --
rconn@connkavanaugh.com -- at Conn, Kavanaugh, Rosenthal, Peisch &
Ford, LLP.

D.N. Lukens, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Douglas T.
Radigan, Esq., and James P. Hoban, Esq., at Bowditch & Dewey.

American International Pacific Insurance Company and Granite State
Insurance Company, Defendants, are represented by Julie S.
Selesnick, Esq. -- jselesnick@jackscamp.com -- and Kristan
Cassidy, Esq. -- kcassidy@jackscamp.com -- at Jackson & Campbell
PC.

Frank Mastrogiacomo, Movant, is represented by Michelle L. Newton,
Esq. -- MLN@StoneInjury.com -- Jason Stone Injury Lawyers.

Arrowood Indemnity Company, Interested Party, is represented by
Michael F. Aylward, Esq. -- maylward@morrisonmahoney.com -- at
Morrison Mahoney LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Integrity Not Required to Pay Congoleum Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Integrity Insurance Company issued policies to Congoleum
Corporation.  Congoleum submitted timely proofs of claim for which
it sought coverage under the policies.  The liquidator of
Integrity Insurance, relying on In the Matter of the Liquidation
of Integrity Insurance Co., 193 N.J. 86 (2007), issued seven
notices of determination (NODs) disallowing the incurred but not
reported claims for insufficient supporting documentation, failure
to document the exhaustion of limits of coverage of the underlying
policy to the Integrity policy, and allowance of contingent claims
is prohibited by New Jersey statute.

As a result of the approval of Congoleum's bankruptcy plan of
reorganization, effective July 1, 2010, The Congoleum Plan Trust,
is the successor-in-interest to the policies Integrity issued to
Congoleum.  The Trust timely filed an objection to the NODs.  The
liquidator declined to amend his decision and submitted the
Trust's objection to the special master for consideration.  In a
February 25, 2011 written determination, the special master upheld
the liquidator's decision.  The special master determined that
Congoleum's claims could not be allowed because they were not
"absolute claims" as defined by Integrity Insurance's Amended
Liquidation Closing Plan.

The special master rejected Congoleum's contention that its claims
were third-party claims allowable under N.J.S.A. 17:30C-28(b),
stating that the statute is inapplicable to the case at hand.

The Trust appealed to the liquidation court.  In an April 29, 2011
order and written opinion, the court confirmed the special
master's determination.  The court noted that pursuant to the
Amended LCP, a claim would only be considered if it became
absolute on or before June 30, 2009.  The court found that the
special master had properly determined that Congoleum did not
submit absolute claims as defined in the Amended LCP and
determined in In the Matter of the Liquidation of Integrity
Insurance Co.  The court held: "Congoleum Corporation's claims
still do not have fixed liability and have not been settled or
adjudicated."  The court rejected Congoleum's argument that its
bankruptcy should be considered in evaluating the claims.  The
court also agreed that N.J.S.A. 17:30C-28(b) did not apply because
Congoleum's claims were not third-party claims.

On appeal, Congoleum raises the same arguments as those raised and
decided in Commissioner of Insurance of the State of New Jersey v.
Integrity Insurance Co./W.R. Grace & Co., (W.R. Grace), No. A-
2505-10 (App. Div. Jan. 11, 2012) (slip op. 16 to 25), certif.
denied, 211 N.J. 607 (2012).

For reasons expressed in W.R. Grace, the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Appellate Division, in a June 17, 2013 decision, denied
the appeal raised by the Appellant and held that:

"We reject the Trust's argument that this case differs from W.R.
Grace because here, the Trust is only seeking approval for claims
that were identified, processed and settled prior to the bar date.
A claim is not an 'absolute claim' unless 'liability and value has
been fixed by actual payment by the Claimant or by judgment of a
court of law' before the June 30, 2009 bar date.  Although some
claims may have been identified and processed before the bar date,
liability and value were not fixed by actual payment before that
date because Congoleum was in bankruptcy and the bankruptcy court
did not approve Congoleum's reorganization plan, which included
the settlements, until July 1, 2010."

The case is IN THE MATTER OF THE LIQUIDATION OF INTEGRITY
INSURANCE COMPANY, NO. A-5273-10T1 (N.J. Super. App. Div.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/fiIMth
from Leagle.com.

Robert M. Horkovich, Esq. -- rhorkovich@andersonkill.com -- and
Robert Y. Chung, Esq. -- rchung@andersonkill.com -- at Anderson
Kill & Olick, P.C., argued the cause for appellant The Congoleum
Plan Trust.

David M. Freeman, Esq., and John D. Gagnon, Esq., at Mazie Slater
Katz & Freeman, LLC, argued the cause for respondent Thomas B.
Considine, Commissioner of Banking and Insurance of the State of
New Jersey in his capacity as Liquidator of Integrity Insurance
Company.


                             *********

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. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman,
Editors.

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *