CAR_Public/130705.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 5, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 132

                             Headlines


AIR CANADA: Bersenas Jacobsen Discusses Class Action Ruling
ANZ: Faces NZD250MM Class Action Over Exception & Dishonor Fees
ANZ: 3,000 People Sign Up to Join Default Fee Class Action
BABY MATTERS: Recalls 165,000 Baby Recliners
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Foreclosure Bonuses

BAYER AG: More People Join Class Action Over Birth Control Pill
BEST BUY: Recalls 5,100 MacBook Pro Replacement Batteries
BETHEL NUTRITIONAL: Initiates Recall of Weight Loss Pills
CARTER'S INC: October 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
CBS CORP: Faces "Hrycko" Suit Over Asbestos Exposure

CHICAGO TITLE: Rouse Hendricks Wraps Up $2.9-Mil. Settlement
CHINA AUTOMOTIVE: Bid to Certify Securities Class Remains Pending
CHRYSLER GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in Autumn Burton Lawsuit
CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalled 2.7 Million Older Model Jeeps
CITIGROUP INC: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Seek Approval of $146MM in Fees

CNL LIFESTYLE: Defends Florida Suit Alleging Unjust Enrichment
COLE CREDIT: Defends Class Suits Over Merger With Cole Holdings
COLE CREDIT: Defends Suits Over Proposed Merger With Spirit
COMCAST CORP: "Behrend" Ruling Beneficial for Employers
CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: Robins Geller Files Class Action in Texas

DELL INC: SJC Issues Opinion on Arbitration Agreement
DELL INC: Pierce Atwood Discusses Class Action Ruling
DOLLAR GENERAL: EEOC Files Suits Over Criminal Background Checks
DS WATERS: Court Allows Workers to File First Amended Complaint
DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Calif.

DYNEGY INC: Class Representative Can't Object to Bankruptcy
ELBIT IMAGING: Defends Suits Over Suspension of Interest Payments
EQT PRODUCTION: Va. AG's Role in Class Action Raises Questions
FOX SEARCHLIGHT: Ruling Reflects 2010 Fact Sheet Reasoning
GENERAL MILLS: Recalls Cinnamon Toast Crunch Products

GOOGLE INC: Disco Mobile App Suit Settlement Gets Final Court OK
GOOGLE INC: Settles Shareholder Class Action Over Stock Split
HERTZ EQUIPMENT: $76.5-MM Deal on Rental Coverage Suit Approved
IGATE CORP: Faces Class Action Over CEO's "Improper Relationship"
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Has Paid $2.5-Mil. Due Under "Gilmor" Suit Deal

INFOCISION: Wage Class Action Settlement Approved
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Wins Final OK of $500,000 Pact in "Carr" Suit
JAPAN: NGOs File Class Action v. PM Over Fishing Rights Violation
JP MORGAN: Gets Preliminary Approval of "Pulley" Class Suit Deal
LORILLARD TOBACCO: Massachusetts Court Ruling May Spur More Suits

MACMILLAN: CEO Testifies in E-Book Price-Fixing Trial
MERCK & CO: Canadian Finasteride Suit Awaits Certification
MONSANTO CO: Center for Food Safety Wheat Farmers File Suit
NEW YORK, NY: Settles Class Action Over Police Pension Benefits
NTS INC: Still Awaits OK of Settlement in "Tzur" Suit vs. Xfone

NW MANAGEMENT: Farm Workers Get Favorable Ruling in Class Action
OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Suit vs. Genaera Trust
OXFORD HEALTH: Fisher Phillips Discusses Class Action Ruling
OXFORD HEALTH: Proskauer Discusses Arbitration Provision Issue
PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Texas Court Certifies Investor Class Action

PAPA JOHN'S: Settles Text Spamming Class Action for $16.5 Million
PENINSULA LINK: Residents Launch Class Action Over House Damage
PFIZER INC: Ontario Court Approves Neurontin Settlement
POLARIS FUTURES: "Abu Dhabi" Class Suit Dismissed in April
SAC CAPITAL: Scott & Scott Named Lead Counsel in Class Action

SEARS OUTLET: "Gonzales" Suit Goes Back to State Court
SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in New York
SOMERSET HILLS: Signs MOU to Settle Lakeland Merger-Related Suit
SOUTH CAROLINA: High Court Confirms Motorists' Privacy Protection
STARBUCKS CORP: N.Y. Ct. Issues Opinion on Tip-Splitting Policy

STARBUCKS CORP: Court Allows ADA Class Action to Proceed
STELLARONE CORP: Law Firms Investigate Potential Fiduciary Breach
STEREOTAXIS INC: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk "Pound" Suit
TRAVELOCITY.COM: Judge Orders Plaintiffs to Arbitrate Claims
UNITED STATES: Sen. Paul May Face Hurdles in Privacy Suit v. NSA

UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in AIG Shareholder Suit
VANGUARD HEALTH: Being Sold to Tenet for Too Little, Suit Says
VENOCO INC: Continues to Defend Class Suits Related to Merger
VIACOM INC: Six Suits Over Privacy Issues Will Be Heard in N.J.
VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: 9th Cir. Returns Class Suit to Dist. Ct.

WARNER MUSIC: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Internships
WARNER MUSIC: Digital Download Prices Suit's Discovery Ongoing
WARNER MUSIC: Discussions to Resolve Suits Over Royalties Ongoing
WELLS FARGO: "Vuong" Suit Won't Proceed as Class Action
WET SEAL: Settles Discrimination Class Action for $7.5 Million

XUMANII: George Sharp Files Motion to Strike Class Actions
ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Warfarin Tablets in US

* Appeals Courts Set to Decide on Two Consumer Class Actions
* Bicycle Forks, Sandals, Heaters Among Recently Recalled Products
* Class Action Lawyer Network Launches Vaginal Mesh Campaign
* FDA Fails to Address "Natural" Issue in Food Labeling
* Invalid Claims Dilute Class Action Settlement Recovery

* Larry Klayman Sees Class Actions as Means to Unite Against Feds
* New "Express Content" Interpretation to Increase TCPA Liability


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Allowed to File Additional Expert Report
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 More Actions Consolidated Into Detainees' Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial on John Crane's Exhaustion Suit Continues
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Junks Prisoner's Skeletal Complaint
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Affirms Order Dismissing Insurer's Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal From NYCAL Doc Production Order Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer, et al., Cannot Recover From G-I Holdings
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queanbeyan Homes Still Contain Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Legacy of Unsafe Fire Safety Techniques
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tiling to be Replaced at Casterlin School

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Ex-Warminster Soldier in Payment Fight
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Guilford Starts Removing Deadly Dust From Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clean Up Could Come Soon for Pueblo Neighborhood
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lower Light Residents Angry Over Lack of Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roofer From Stoke Rochford Hid Fibro Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sri Lanka Agency Mulls Fibro Alternatives
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Men Face Jail Time for Fibro Dumping
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scrapper Gets Year in Prison for Fibro Release
ASBESTOS UPDATE: A Look at Workers' Compensation for Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Government Reviewing Fibro Removal Records

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Near Dalby School Raises Concern
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal at Tunbridge Wells Has Progress
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shocking Rise in Asbestos Cancer in Manchester
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Urges Technicians to Call About Payment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal Work Begins at Cwmcarn High School

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Causes Concern in Washington State
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sydney Fibro Dumpers to Face Two Years in Jail
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Timboon P-12 School Shut Down Over Deadly Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Clean Up Charred Debris in Neighborhoods
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family to Sue Dundee City Council for Dad's Death

ASBESTOS UPDATE: SC Won't Review Pfizer's Bid to Block Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australia's Asbestos Agency Begins Operations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Planned for CPH's EJ Noble Building
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare at Worksite in Monaro Street
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Apprentices Threw Asbestos Around, Inquest Hears

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Lawyers Team Launches Website
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Telstra Uncovers More Contaminated Soil
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reducing Risk of Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Fibro Dumped Near Campbelltown School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wollongong Greens Councilor Warns of Fibro Danger

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taree City Council Tracks Down Illegal Dumper
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firefighter Dad Exposed to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Altona Parents Fearful After Rain Uncovers Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Costs Revive Talks on Moving Mooney
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Razing of Homestead Nursing Home Delayed by Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro at Columbia Courthouse Driving up Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jindabyne Trail Closed Due to Possible Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Drilling Mud Exposes Workers to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bodmin Football Club Vandals Warned Over Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids for DHS Abatement Tossed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Telstra Begins Clean-up
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Underway at Clearwater School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 793 Suits Filed in Madison County for First Half
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Companies Fined $60K+ for Removal Violations


                             *********


AIR CANADA: Bersenas Jacobsen Discusses Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carlos P. Martins, Esq. -- cmartins@lexcanada.com -- at Bersenas
Jacobsen Chouest Thomson, Blackburn LLP, reports that on January
14, 2011, Ashlyn O'Mara was a passenger on Air Canada flight AC878
from Toronto to Zurich.  Onboard the aircraft were 95 passengers,
six flight attendants and two crew members.  The flight gave rise
to a proposed class action following an incident.

The statement of claim in the proposed class action alleged that
three hours after departure, the first officer advised the captain
that he needed to rest, and went to sleep.  Approximately 75
minutes later, the captain made a mandatory position report to
Shanwick Oceanic Control.  Around the same time, a US Air Force
Boeing C-17 appeared on the Air Canada collision avoidance system.
The captain immediately alerted the first officer to this
development.

The statement of claim further alleged that in the next minute or
so, the captain adjusted the map scale on the aircraft's
navigational system and attempted to locate the oncoming C-17
visually through the windscreen.  The claim also alleged that the
first officer mistook the planet Venus for the C-17, despite the
captain's advice that the C-17 was at the 12 o'clock position,
1,000 feet below the altitude of the Air Canada aircraft.

The pleadings further alleged that the first officer continued to
interpret the C-17's position erroneously as being above and
descending towards the Air Canada aircraft.  As a result, the
first officer was alleged to have aggressively pushed forward on
the control column, causing the aircraft to enter into a 46-second
steep dive which required the captain to execute an emergency
manoeuvre to bring the aircraft back to straight and level flight.

The dive caused many passengers and objects in the cabin to be
violently tossed about for the duration of the dive.  The claim
also alleged that for the remaining three hours of the flight,
many of the passengers were terrified and feared for their lives.

Following the incident, an Air Canada spokesman publicly stated
that the incident was the result of unexpected turbulence.  The
claim alleged that no further explanation was given by Air Canada,
and that many passengers settled claims with Air Canada on the
basis of the allegedly false information provided by the Air
Canada spokesperson.

Class action

A class action was commenced claiming that the incident was an
'accident' within the meaning of the Warsaw and Montreal
Conventions.  The class members sought to recover damages for
"personal, physical and psychological injuries".

The class members also claimed for damages in negligence, as well
as "punitive and/or aggravated and/or exemplary damages" for,
among other things, misleading the passengers about the true cause
of the accident.

The class members also sought a declaration setting aside any
signed releases on the basis that they were void ab initio because
they were signed under false pretenses.

On receipt of the claim and before filing a defense, Air Canada
brought a motion to strike all claims for punitive, aggravated and
exemplary damages, as well as to strike all claims for pure
psychological injury (arguing that none of these were recoverable
under the conventions).

Decision

The plaintiffs' first argument was that aggravated damages are a
form of compensatory damages and, as such, are permitted under the
conventions.  As to the claims for punitive and exemplary damages,
the plaintiffs' position was that the damages sought were for the
alleged "cover-up" that occurred after the flight was concluded --
and therefore were not excluded by the conventions.

After some examination of well-settled jurisprudence, the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice confirmed that on a motion to strike on
the grounds that the claim discloses no cause of action, all
allegations in the claim must be taken as capable of proof.  The
claim will be stricken only if it is "plain and obvious" that it
is doomed to failure.  No evidence may be adduced on a motion of
this sort.

In making its determination on the motion, the court went through
the usual analysis relating to enforceability of the conventions
in Canada, recognizing the Canadian cases where the conventions
were applied.  It held that "it is important that there be
consistency in interpretation from one country to another, and,
thus there must be a very sound reason to depart from the
precedents established around the world".

The court then cited numerous international cases relating to the
applicability of Article 17 and concluded that "it is plain and
obvious that Ms. O'Mara's claim under the Conventions for pure
psychological injury is legally untenable".

The court ruled that all references to psychological and emotional
injuries be deleted from the statement of claim so that class
members would be under no misapprehension that there could be
compensation for purely psychological injuries.

The matter then turned to the issue of whether aggravated damages
were recoverable under the conventions.

In considering the definition of 'aggravated damages', the court
made reference to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in
Norberg v Wynrib (2 SCR 226), where Justice LaForest held:

"Aggravated damages may be awarded if the battery has occurred in
humiliating or undignified circumstances.  These damages are not
awarded in addition to general damages.  Rather, general damages
are assessed 'taking into account any aggravating features of the
case and to that extent increasing the amount awarded' . . . These
must be distinguished from punitive or exemplary damages.  The
latter are awarded to punish the defendant and to make an example
of him or her in order to deter others from committing the same
tort."

Air Canada did not dispute the plaintiffs' ability to make a claim
for aggravated damages; rather, it argued that such damages are an
augmentation of general damages and not a separately calculable
head of damages.

The court accepted Air Canada's argument in this regard, citing
the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in McIntyr v Grigg ((2006),
83 OR (3d) 161), in which it was held that "a court may separately
identify what aggravates damages but, in principle, aggravated
damages are not assessed separately from general damages".

Accordingly, all paragraphs relating to aggravated damages were
ordered to be struck from the claim.

The court made short work of finding that claims for punitive and
exemplary damages (both of which are non-compensatory in nature)
were not recoverable under the conventions.  The trickier analysis
related to whether the plaintiffs could recover punitive and
exemplary damages for Air Canada's alleged negligence in covering
up the cause of the incident.  They argued that because this act
took place after the passengers had disembarked the aircraft, the
conventions no longer applied to this portion of the claim.

Air Canada had two counterarguments.  The first was that if the
convention applied to the action at all, then it applied to the
so-called 'cover-up' because where the conventions apply, they
apply exclusively and they preclude the application of domestic
law, including negligence.

The second counterargument, which was similar to the first, was
that the conventions are a complete code for claims arising from
the international carriage by air of passengers, and if there is
no claim available under the conventions, there is no common law
claim either.

The court accepted both of these arguments outright.  In support
of its finding, the court cited the well-known cases of Sidhu v
British Airways plc ([1997] 1 All ER 193 (HL)) and El Al Israel
Airlines Ltd v Tseng (525 US 155 (1999)), in which the UK House of
Lords and the US Supreme Court held that the conventions were the
exhaustive source of remedies for damages sustained as a result of
international carriage by air.

In this regard, the court also cited the Federal Court of Appeal's
decision in Air Canada v Thibodeau (2012 FCA 246) (under appeal to
the Supreme Court of Canada), in which that court held that the
conventions constitute:

"a complete code as concerns the aspects of international air
carriage that it expressly regulates, such as the air carrier's
liability for damages, regardless of the source of this liability.
The purpose of the Montreal Convention, following the example of
the one preceding it (the Warsaw Convention), is to provide for
consistency of certain rules regarding the liability incurred
during international carriage."

The court specifically found that "to determine the scope of the
Conventions, Courts use a chain of causation analysis, and if the
alleged wrongdoing is connected to the flight then it is covered
by the Conventions".

In the concluding section of the reasons for judgment, the court
noted that since the alleged cover-up could not have occurred but
for the aircraft's steep dive, the conventions applied and the
claim for negligence was precluded (O'Mara v Air Canada, 2013 ONSC
2931 (CanLII)).

For further information on this topic please contact Carlos P
Martins at Bersenas Jacobsen Chouest Thomson Blackburn LLP by
telephone (+1 416 982 3800), fax (+1 416 982 3801) or email
(cmartins@lexcanada.com).


ANZ: Faces NZD250MM Class Action Over Exception & Dishonor Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Banking Day reports that lawyers campaigning to build Australian-
style class action lawsuits against banks in New Zealand over
exception and dishonor fees have announced they would file legal
action against ANZ over damages they claim could reach NZ$250
million.

The Fair Play on Fees campaign was launched in March by Auckland
lawyer Andrew Hooker and Australian class action specialist Slater
and Gordon.  It is funded by Litigation Lending Services.

The campaign has signed up 25,000 bank customers, including 11,000
customers from ANZ and its now merged subsidiary National Bank.


ANZ: 3,000 People Sign Up to Join Default Fee Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that about 3,000 more ANZ
customers have registered interest in a class action against their
bank in a 24-hour period.

Organizers behind the campaign to recruit ANZ New Zealand
customers for the class action over default fees say more than
3,000 people have signed on in the day since it was announced that
court documents were set to be filed.

The Fair Play on Fees campaign says ANZ Bank has overcharged
hundreds of millions of dollars in the past six years for
unarranged overdrafts, bounced checks, rejected payments or late
payments.

ANZ is vigorously defending the fees, saying they are fair and
carefully calculated.

Fair Play on Fees lawyer Andrew Hooker says banks charge an
average of NZD15 for an overdrawn account, late credit card
payment or bounced check, but by law the fees must reflect the
actual cost to the party and he says the actual cost is just a few
cents.

ANZ and former National Bank customers had until June 24 to
register online to be included in the class action.


BABY MATTERS: Recalls 165,000 Baby Recliners
--------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a children's product maker is
recalling about 165,000 baby recliners linked to at least five
infant deaths and dozens of reports of children falling or hanging
over the side of the seats.

Baby Matters LLC of Berwyn, Pa., in June announced the recall of
its Nap Nanny and Nap Nanny Chill infant recliners as part of a
settlement with the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Since 2009, the commission said it received at least 92 incident
reports involving the products.  The commission said four infants
died in Nap Nanny Generation Two recliners and a fifth died using
the Chill model.

Four national retailers agreed to recall more than 150,000 of the
recliners last year after the commission said the manufacturer was
unable or unwilling to participate.  The manufacturer is no longer
in business.

According to Reuters' Adam Kerlin, Baby Matters LLC is voluntarily
recalling its line of infant recliners as part of a settlement
with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, resolving litigation
brought by the commission against the now shuttered company.

In December, the commission filed an administrative complaint,
claiming that Baby Matters' Nap Nanny and Nap Nanny Chill infant
recliners had design defects that presented significant safety
risks to children.

The settlement requires the company, which went out of business
shortly after the suit was filed in December, to set aside $13,000
to maintain a website approved by the CPSC at napnanny.com for
five years and fund a social media outreach notifying consumers of
the defects.

Baby Matters denied allegations that its products were hazardous
to children.

The commission had received 92 incident reports about the
company's recliners since 2009, including five deaths, according
to the settlement.  The CPSC is urging consumers to immediately
stop using and dispose of the recliners.

The settlement also bars the company and its former owner, Leslie
Gudel, a sports reporter for Comcast SportsNet covering the
Philadelphia Phillies, from manufacturing or distributing the
products or their parts in the future.

The agreement releases Ms. Gudel from all personal liability
stemming from complaints about Baby Matters' products.

The complaint alleged that the harness system the recliners used
didn't keep babies from climbing over the edge of the recliners,
which could result in injuries and death by hanging.

The recliners also had warning labels that were insufficient, too
small to read and placed on the bottom of the recliners, making it
hard for consumers to see, the complaint said.

"The warnings and instructions on the subject products are
inadequate and defective because they do not and cannot
effectively communicate to parents and caregivers the hazard
associated with the subject products if the harness is not used or
is not snugly secured around the infant," the complaint said.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Foreclosure Bonuses
------------------------------------------------------------
Hugh Son and David McLaughlin, writing for Bloomberg News, report
that Bank of America Corp., the second-biggest U.S. lender,
rewarded staff with cash bonuses and gift cards for meeting quotas
tied to sending distressed homeowners into foreclosure, former
employees said in court documents.

Mortgage workers falsified records and were told to delay U.S.
loan-assistance applications by requesting paperwork that the
Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank had already received,
according to statements from ex-employees filed in federal court
in Boston.  The lender improperly disqualified applicants to the
Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, according to a
May 23 statement from Simone Gordon, a loss-mitigation specialist
who left the company in 2012.

"We were regularly drilled that it was our job to maximize fees
for the bank by fostering and extending delay of the HAMP
modification process by any means we could," Ms. Gordon said.
Managers instructed staff to "delay modifications by telling
homeowners who called in that their documents were 'under review,'
when in fact, there had been no review," she said.

Bank of America, which has spent more than $45 billion to settle
claims tied to its 2008 takeover (BAC) of Countrywide Financial
Corp., is being sued by homeowners who didn't receive permanent
loan modifications after making payments under trial programs,
according to court papers.  Statements from seven former loan
employees were included in a filing as part of plaintiffs' attempt
to gain class-action status.  The lender has denied the
allegations.

                            Gift Cards

Bank of America has helped the most homeowners under HAMP and is
committed to assisting customers at risk of foreclosure, Rick
Simon, a company spokesman, said yesterday in an e-mail.

"At best, these attorneys are painting a false picture of the
bank's practices and the dedication of our employees (BAC)," Simon
said.  "While we will address the declarations in more depth when
we file our opposition to the plaintiffs' motion next month,
suffice it to say that each of the declarations is rife with
factual inaccuracies."

The lender unsuccessfully tried to dismiss the complaint in 2011.
U.S. District Judge Rya Zobel ruled that the case could proceed
while dismissing some claims.  Judge Zobel is scheduled to
consider the class-certification request at an Aug. 1 hearing.

Loan collectors who put at least 10 customers into foreclosure,
including those who were in trial modifications, were given a $500
bonus, said Ms. Gordon, who worked at Bank of America for more
than four years.  Other rewards included gift cards for retailers
including Target (TGT) and Bed, Bath and Beyond, she said.

                      'Falsify Information'

Another former employee, Theresa Terrelonge, said loan officers
were given restaurant gift cards and $25 cash awards for denying
loan applications.  The incentives moved workers to improperly
reject applicants, Ms. Terrelonge said in a May 15 statement.

"I witnessed employees and managers change and falsify information
in the systems of record, and remove documents from homeowners'
files to make the account appear ineligible for a loan
modification," said Ms. Terrelonge, a loan servicing
representative. This allowed managers to meet quotas for closed
cases, she said.

Bank of America instructed employees to delay applications and
mislead customers "as part of a deliberate practice of stringing
homeowners along," lawyers said in a June 7 filing.

                         Private Loans

The law firm is in contact with more than 1,000 Bank of America
customers who said they completed requirements for a trial and
were denied permanent modifications, attorney Steve Berman of
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP said in a court filing.  Lawyers
supported their claims with declarations from the seven employees,
many of whom said they had access to the bank's software, which
allowed them to understand the process.

"I personally reviewed hundreds of files in which the computer
systems showed that the homeowner had fulfilled a trial-period
plan" before being denied, said William Wilson, a loan manager who
left the firm in August.  "On many occasions, homeowners who did
not receive the permanent modification that they were entitled to
ultimately lost their homes."

The bank offered some applicants who should've gotten HAMP
modifications a more-expensive private loan that charged as much
as 5 percent interest, compared with 2 percent under the U.S.
program, said Mr. Wilson, a case-management leader overseeing 13
others.

The bank held a twice-monthly "blitz" in which thousands of cases
were improperly denied, Mr. Wilson said.  Employees would certify
to the U.S. Treasury Department false reasons for rejections, he
said.


BAYER AG: More People Join Class Action Over Birth Control Pill
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Malone, writing for News Talk 650 CKOM, reports that Yaz and
Yasmin birth control pills are suspected to be linked to the
deaths of 23 women in Canada and now other families are coming
forward.

Brian Stoodley's daughter Deborah died seven years ago after
taking Yaz, a popular birth control pill.

"We got a phone call from her husband saying 'Deb isn't doing
well'," he said.

Mr. Stoodley said Deborah was a healthy and active 42-year-old
wife and mother.  One Friday in October she had a pain in her leg.
By Sunday she had passed out and was taken to hospital.

"When we got to see her she had tubes and all this sort of stuff
in her," said Mr. Stoodley.

"From the first time I touched her she felt cool, I was pretty
sure then, she was just as still as can be."

Testing at the hospital showed that Deborah had no brain activity
and the family decided to take her off of life support.  By
midnight, she passed away.

"The doctor seemed very shaken.  She told us how much she liked
Deborah.  I felt that she was probably fearful that she was facing
a lawsuit," said Mr. Stoodley.

"We said we aren't those kind of people we just want to know what
killed her."

He said the doctor informed the family the death was likely linked
to Yaz birth control.

Mr. Stoodley said he contacted a lawyer in his home city of
Calgary a few months after his daughter's death.

"He told me that it probably wouldn't be worth my while because
those folks are so heavily armed with high priced lawyers . . .
they'd say it would be all her fault," he said.

Since learning of the second class-action lawsuit against the
pharmaceutical company Bayer lead by Regina-based lawyer Tony
Merchant, Mr. Stoodley has decided to pursue legal action.

"When I saw that there was the Canadian class-action, I thought to
myself: 'I want to join this.  Somehow or another I want to join
this,'" he said.

"Because I feel like that chemical killed my daughter."

He said he will be joining in Deborah's name and for his
granddaughter, Michelle.

"This is the seventh year and it still hurts big time," he said.


BEST BUY: Recalls 5,100 MacBook Pro Replacement Batteries
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that Best Buy is recalling 5,100
replacement batteries for the MacBook Pro due to a fire risk.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said on June 19 that
there have been 13 reports that the battery caught fire.  One
consumer suffered a serious burn on the leg.

Best Buy Co. is voluntarily recalling both black and white ATG
lithium-ion replacement batteries for the notebook computers.  The
batteries were sold online or shipped to customers through its
Geek Squad services from September of 2008 through June of 2012
for about $50.

Best Buy said it is contacting customers to ask them to return the
batteries for replacement or for a Best Buy gift card.  Company
spokesman Jeff Shelman noted that Best Buy is only one of many
retailers that may have sold the batteries.

The model number "MC-MBOOK13B" is on the label of the black
battery and "MC-BOOK13W" is on the label of the white battery.
The ATG logo is on both.


BETHEL NUTRITIONAL: Initiates Recall of Weight Loss Pills
---------------------------------------------------------
PBR reports that Bethel Nutritional Consulting has initiated a
voluntary recall of its Bethel 30 green capsule, a weight loss
herb supplement, following the discovery of unsafe ingredients in
the pills by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The two drug ingredients, Sibutramine and Phenolphthalein, have
been classified as controlled substances and were removed from the
market for safety reasons.

The supplement has not yet been approved by the FDA, but is
marketed as a natural herb, manufactured with a pharmaceutical &
Nutraceuticals laboratory and sold directly to individual
customers in the firm's New York sales office and online.

FDA said that the products may pose a threat to consumers like
substantial increase in blood pressure and/or pulse rate in some
patients and may also interact, in life-threatening ways, with
other medications.

The company said that it remains committed to the health and
safety of its customers and is working diligently to make
available an appropriate Natural Herbal replacement product
manufactured in the US.


CARTER'S INC: October 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP on June 19 announced a
Summary Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement
with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
In re CARTER'S, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-2940-AT

To: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY TRADED SECURITIES OF
CARTER'S, INC. DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 16, 2005 THROUGH
NOVEMBER 10, 2009, INCLUSIVE, AND WERE ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED THEREBY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that the above-
captioned action has been preliminarily certified as a class
action and that a Settlement for $3.3 million with
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP has been proposed.  The proposed
Settlement resolves all remaining claims in a class action lawsuit
concerning an alleged scheme to mislead investors regarding the
financial condition and practices of Carters, Inc. during the
period from March 16, 2005 through November 10, 2009, inclusive.
A hearing will be held before the Honorable Amy Totenberg of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
in the Richard B. Russell Federal Building and United States
Courthouse, 75 Spring Street, SW, Atlanta, GA 30303-3309, at 11:00
a.m., on October 8, 2013, in Courtroom 2308 to, among other
things, determine whether the proposed settlement should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; determine
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the
Settlement proceeds should be approved as fair and reasonable; and
to consider the application of Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees
and payment of expenses.  The Court may change the date of the
hearing without providing another notice.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR
RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE
SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS.  If you have not yet received the full
printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement
with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses or a Proof of Claim and Release form (if you did not
already submit one in connection with the previously approved
settlement with Carter's, you may obtain copies of these documents
by contacting the Claims Administrator:

In re Carter's Inc. Securities Litigation Claims Administrator PO
Box 5110 Portland, OR 97208-5110 (866) 833-7918
http://www.carterssecuritieslitigation.com

The Claims Administrator can also help you if you have questions
about these documents.  Inquiries, other than requests for the
forms of Notice and Proof of Claim or help with a claim, may be
made to Lead Counsel:

          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          Jonathan Gardner
          140 Broadway New York
          New York 10005
          Telephone: (888) 219-6877
          E-mail: settlementquestions@labaton.com
          Web site: http://www.labaton.com

If you are a Settlement Class Member, to participate in the
proposed Settlement and be eligible to receive a recovery, you
must either (1) have already submitted a claim in connection with
the Carter's Settlement; or (2) if you did not previously submit a
claim, submit a Proof of Claim in the proposed Settlement
postmarked no later than October 3, 2013.  To exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice such that it is received or postmarked no later than
September 17, 2013.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do
not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be bound
by the Court's Final Order and Judgment as to
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.  Any objections to the Settlement,
Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's application for attorneys'
fees and payment of expenses must be filed with the Court and
served on counsel for the Settling Parties in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice, such that they are received
or postmarked no later than September 17, 2013.  If you are a
Settlement Class Member and do not submit an acceptable claim, you
will not share in the Settlement but you nevertheless will be
bound by the Court's Final Order and Judgment as to
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the Claims
Administrator.

Dated: June 19, 2013
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                  NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA


CBS CORP: Faces "Hrycko" Suit Over Asbestos Exposure
----------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for Pennsylvania Record, reports that a
Montgomery County man who says he was diagnosed with a specific
form of lung cancer earlier this year that is connected to
asbestos exposure has filed a civil suit against various companies
engaged in the manufacture and distribution of products containing
the fiber.

Attorney Benjamin Shein, of the Philadelphia-based Shein Law
Center, filed a short-form mass tort complaint May 29 at state
court in Philadelphia on behalf of Lansdale, Pa. resident Michael
A. Hrycko, and Hrycko's wife, Joyce.

The lawsuit, filed in the master asbestos litigation at Common
Pleas Court, says that Michael Hrycko was advised by doctors at
Grandview Hospital back in February that he has malignant
mesothelioma, a type of cancer usually associated with asbestos
exposure that attacks the cells that line the lungs.

The disease, the suit states, is causing the plaintiff to
experience "physical symptoms, impairment and disability."

Mr. Hrycko's work history, which is contained within the short-
form complaint shows that he worked as a machinist at various
companies between 1960 and 2007.

Those companies are Hatfield, Pa.-based Rudo Associates,
Sellersville, Pa.-based Pennfield Precision, and Davro Instrument
Corp. and Palco Precision, both of which are based in Lansdale,
Montgomery County.

The complaint alleges that it was Mr. Hrycko's exposure to
asbestos dust and fibers during his working years that led to his
eventual mesothelioma diagnosis.

Mr. Hrycko turned 72 years old on May 18, the record shows.

The defendants named in the suit are as follows: CBS Corp.,
Industrial Holdings Corp., Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,
Plastics Engineering Co., Saint-Gobain Abrasives Inc., and Union
Carbide Corp.

The plaintiffs seek damages as set forth in the master asbestos
litigation at Philadelphia's Common Pleas Court.

The case ID number is 130503008.


CHICAGO TITLE: Rouse Hendricks Wraps Up $2.9-Mil. Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Koepp, writing for Kansas City Business Journal, reports that
Rouse Hendricks German May PC wrapped up a $2.9 million settlement
on June 18 of a class action lawsuit involving the over-collection
of recording fees by a title company.

The settlement resolves any appeals and wraps up proceedings in a
case that went to trial in January, resulting in a $1.1 million
verdict for 40,000 Missouri consumers.  Rouse Hendricks partner
Kirk May represents the class.

The verdict was a disappointment for the firm, which had sought
more than $200 million in punitive damages from Chicago Title
Insurance Co.  It will collect up to $1.9 million in attorney fees
in the case, which dates back to 2005.

May also represents a class in a similar suit that is set for
preliminary approval of a $10.6 million settlement on June 14.
Attorney fees in that case against Old Republic National Title
Insurance Co. are $3.4 million.

Husch Blackwell LLP represents Chicago Title, and Armstrong
Teasdale LLP represents Old Republic.

Rouse Hendricks' foray into mortgage-industry class actions has
been less lucrative than that of Walters Bender Strohbehn &
Vaughan PC, which has racked up $260 million in settlements for
claims that lenders charged impermissible fees to Missouri
homeowners who took out second mortgages.


CHINA AUTOMOTIVE: Bid to Certify Securities Class Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs motion to certify a purported class in the
securities lawsuit pending in New York remains pending, according
to China Automotive Systems, Inc.'s May 14, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

On October 25, 2011, a purported securities class action (the
"Securities Action") was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers
of the Company's securities between March 25, 2010, and March 17,
2011.  On February 24, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, changing the purported class period to between May 12,
2009, and March 17, 2011.  The amended complaint alleges that the
Company, certain of its present officers and directors and the
Company's former independent accounting firm violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
rules promulgated thereunder, and seeks unspecified damages.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was
fully briefed on April 18, 2012.  On August 8, 2012, the court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On
September 4, 2012, the Company filed an answer to the amended
complaint.  On January 15, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify the purported class.  That motion is currently pending as
the parties engage in discovery.  On October 12, 2012, the court
issued an order scheduling a starting date of October 25, 2013,
for a trial.

The Company continues to believe that the allegations in the
complaint are without merit and intends to defend itself
vigorously against the claims.

Based in Hubei Province, People's Republic of China, China
Automotive Systems, Inc. is a supplier of power steering systems
and components to China automotive industry, operating through
nine subsidiaries.  The Company's product offering encompasses a
full range of auto parts incorporated into steering systems for
both passenger automobiles and commercial vehicles.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in Autumn Burton Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge Stuart M. Bernstein issued a memorandum decision
and order granting in part and denying in part a motion to dismiss
a second amended complaint in the adversary proceeding titled
AUTUMN BURTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHRYSLER GROUP, LLC,
Defendant, ADV. PROC. NO. 13-01109 (SMB), in OLD CARCO LLC's
Chapter 11 case.

Judge Bernstein ruled that the plaintiffs have not asserted any
assumed products liability claims, and the Sale Order -- or the
order authorizing the sale of substantially all of the Debtors'
Assets entered in the Chrysler bankruptcy case dated June 1, 2009
-- bars all other pre-closing claims except Repair Warranty claims
and Lemon Law claims relating to vehicles manufactured within five
years of the June 10, 2009.  Accordingly, the breach of implied
warranty claims asserted in Counts VI, VII and VIII with respect
to vehicles manufactured and sold before the closing are
dismissed, as are the claims asserted on behalf of the same owners
in Counts I and V that New Chrysler failed to extend the Technical
Service Bulletins ("TSBs") to these owners or breached a duty to
warn. With respect to all other claims, any repair claims are not
dismissed to the extent that they are based on the Repair
Warranty. Finally, the Sale Order does not affect any claims based
on the manufacture or sale of vehicles by New Chrysler after the
closing or based on a duty that New Chrysler assumed after the
closing under the TSBs or otherwise. The Court has considered the
remaining arguments made by the parties and concludes that they
lack merit.

The Court directed the parties to arrange for a status conference
to discuss whether any further proceedings in the Court are
necessary or appropriate under the transfer order.

A copy of the Bankruptcy Court's June 26, 2013 Memorandum Decision
is available at http://is.gd/rcNoa8from Leagle.com.

Kenneth R. Puhala, Esq. -- kpuhala@schnader.com -- Barry E.
Bressler, Esq. -- bbressler@schnader.com -- Richard A. Barkasy,
Esq. -- rbarkasy@schnader.com -- Eric A. Boden, Esq. --
eboden@schnader.com -- Of Counsel, at SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL &
LEWIS LLP, in New York, NY, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Steven L. Holley, Esq. -- holleys@sullcrom.com -- Benjamin R.
Walker, Esq. -- walkerb@sullcrom.com -- Of Counsel, at SULLIVAN &
CROMWELL LLP, in New York, Attorneys for Defendants.

                       About Chrysler Group

Chrysler Group LLC, formed in 2009 from a global strategic
alliance with Fiat Group, produces Chrysler, Jeep(R), Dodge, Ram
Truck, Mopar(R) and Global Electric Motorcars (GEM) brand vehicles
and products.  Headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan, Chrysler
Group LLC's product lineup features some of the world's most
recognizable vehicles, including the Chrysler 300, Jeep Wrangler
and Ram Truck.  Fiat will contribute world-class technology,
platforms and powertrains for small- and medium-sized cars,
allowing Chrysler Group to offer an expanded product line
including environmentally friendly vehicles.

Chrysler LLC and 24 affiliates on April 30, 2009, sought Chapter
11 protection from creditors.  In connection with the bankruptcy
filing, Chrysler reached an agreement to sell all assets to an
alliance between Chrysler and Italian automobile manufacturer
Fiat.  Under the terms approved by the Bankruptcy Court, the
company formerly known as Chrysler LLC in June 2009, formally sold
substantially all of its assets to the new company, named Chrysler
Group LLC.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalled 2.7 Million Older Model Jeeps
------------------------------------------------------
Tom Krisher and Dee-Ann Durbin, writing for The Associated Press,
reported that Chrysler abruptly agreed to recall 2.7 million older
model Jeeps on June 18, reversing a defiant posture and avoiding a
possible public relations nightmare over fuel tanks that can catch
fire in a rear-end collision.

In deciding on the recall, Chrysler avoided a showdown with
government safety regulators that could have led to public
hearings with witnesses giving details of deadly crashes involving
the Jeeps.  The dispute ultimately could have landed in court and
hurt both Chrysler's image and its finances.

Earlier in June, the company refused the government's request to
recall Jeep Grand Cherokees from model years 1993 through 2004 and
Jeep Libertys from 2002 through 2007.  The company said calls from
concerned customers played a part in its reversing course.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the agency
that monitors vehicle safety, contends that the Jeep's gas tank
can rupture if hit from the rear, causing a fire.  NHTSA said a
three-year investigation showed that 51 people had died in fiery
crashes in Jeeps with gas tanks positioned behind the rear axle.

Chrysler earlier said that the vehicles aren't defective, despite
prior statements to the contrary from NHTSA.  The company vouched
for the vehicles safety again on June 17.  Chrysler said that
dealers will inspect the vehicles and install trailer hitches to
protect the gas tanks.  The company said vehicles without hitches
will get them, as will those with broken hitches or hitches that
aren't from Chrysler.  Chrysler wouldn't say how much the trailer
hitches would cost.


CITIGROUP INC: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Seek Approval of $146MM in Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that lawyers who
secured a $730 million class action settlement for Citigroup Inc.
investors have asked a federal judge to approve $146 million in
fees.

The fees, requested by Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann,
would be the 10th largest ever awarded to lawyers in a federal
securities class action, according to NERA Economic Consulting.

The award would also be the latest big payout for Bernstein
Litowitz in a case stemming from the financial crisis, after a
federal judge in April approved $160.5 million in fees and
expenses for the law firm and two others in a $2.43 billion
settlement with Bank of America Corp.

The Citigroup fee request amounts to 20 percent of the settlement,
according to a motion filed in Manhattan federal court.  The
lawyers are also seeking $7.29 million in expenses.

The settlement resolves claims by investors in Citigroup bonds and
preferred stock.  The investors accused the bank of misstating the
value of its collateralized debt obligations and understating its
loss reserves by tens of billions of dollars between 2006 and mid-
November 2008.

Citigroup announced the settlement in March and U.S. District
Court Judge Sidney Stein granted preliminary approval a week
later.  A hearing on final approval of the settlement is set for
July 23.

Bernstein Litowitz filed a motion seeking approval of the fee
award on June 7.  It called the $730 million settlement "an
outstanding result" for its clients, representing a "substantial
percentage" of the investors' likely recoverable damages.

The settlement ranked as the second largest in a class action by
debt holders and the third largest in a case that did not involve
a financial restatement, Bernstein Litowitz said.

It is also among the 15 largest securities class action
settlements in U.S. history, the firm said in its motion.

Part of the requested fees would go to firms that represented
other groups of investors, including Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
and Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross.

Bernstein Litowitz partners Max Berger and Steven Singer declined
to comment.

The settlement on behalf of bondholders is separate from a $590
million accord reached by Citi shareholders stemming from similar
claims. In that case, Stein is weighing a $100 million fee request
by Kirby McInerney.

The case is In re Citigroup Inc Bond Litigation, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York, No. 08-09522.

For the plaintiffs: Max Berger, Steven Singer, John Browne and
John Rizio-Hamilton of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann.

For Citigroup: Brad Karp, Richard Rosen, Charles Davidow and
Susanna Buergel of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.


CNL LIFESTYLE: Defends Florida Suit Alleging Unjust Enrichment
--------------------------------------------------------------
CNL Lifestyle Properties, Inc., is defending itself against a
class action lawsuit alleging unjust enrichment, according to the
Company's May 14, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

A purported class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who
purchased shares under the Company's distribution reinvestment
plan ("DRP") on or after April 1, 2010, Allyn v. CNL Lifestyle
Properties, Inc. et al., was filed on January 18, 2013, in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors.  The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary
duty against the directors and constructive trust and unjust
enrichment against the Company.  The factual assertions in the
complaint consist primarily of the allegation that the price for
shares purchased under the DRP was inflated.  The complaint seeks
an unspecified amount of damages and other relief relating to the
purported inflation.  The Company intends to defend vigorously
against such claims and is not able to determine the ultimate
outcome at this time.

CNL Lifestyle Properties, Inc. --
http://www.cnllifestyleproperties.com/-- is a Maryland
corporation headquartered in Orlando, Florida.  The Company was
formed primarily to acquire lifestyle properties in the United
States that the Company generally leases on a long-term, triple-
net basis (generally five to 20 years, plus multiple renewal
options) to tenants or operators that the Company considers to be
industry leading.  The Company also engages third-party managers
to operate certain properties on its behalf as permitted under
applicable tax regulations.


COLE CREDIT: Defends Class Suits Over Merger With Cole Holdings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cole Credit Property Trust III, Inc., is defending itself against
merger-related lawsuits, according to the Company's May 14, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On March 5, 2013, the Company, Cole Holdings Corporation
("Holdings"), an Arizona corporation that was originally wholly
owned by Christopher H. Cole, the chairman of the board of
directors, chief executive officer and president of the Company
(the "Holdings Stockholder"), CREInvestments, LLC, a Maryland
limited liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Company ("Merger Sub"), and the Holdings Stockholder entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement").  The
Merger Agreement provides for the merger of Holdings with and into
Merger Sub (the "Merger"), with Merger Sub surviving and
continuing its existence under the laws of the state of Maryland
as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company.  The Merger
Agreement, and the transactions contemplated thereby, were
approved by the Company's board of directors at the recommendation
of a special committee of the board of directors comprised solely
of independent directors.  On April 5, 2013, the Company
consummated the Merger and acquired the business conducted by
Holdings.  The Company intends to list its shares of common stock
on the New York Stock Exchange (the "NYSE").

Effective April 5, 2013, the Company closed the Merger and entered
into a registration rights agreement and an escrow agreement in
connection with the completion of the Merger. As a result of the
Merger, certain of Holdings' executive officers, including Marc T.
Nemer and D. Kirk McAllaster, Jr., who are each executive officers
of the Company, became entitled to a portion of the consideration
that otherwise would have been paid to the Holdings Stockholder in
the Merger.  In the Merger, the Holdings Stockholder and such
executive officers (collectively, the "Holdings Executives")
received a total of $20.0 million in cash, subject to adjustment,
and approximately 10.7 million newly-issued shares of common stock
of the Company (the "Upfront Stock Consideration").

On March 19, 2013, the Company's board of directors received an
unsolicited proposal from American Realty Capital Properties, Inc.
("ARCP") to acquire the Company for a combination of cash and
shares of ARCP common stock.  On March 27, 2013, ARCP submitted a
revised unsolicited proposal to acquire the Company, and on
April 2, 2013, the Company's board of directors received a second
revised unsolicited proposal to acquire the Company.  The special
committee of the board of directors, comprised solely of
independent directors, reviewed and ultimately rejected each of
these proposals; in each case the special committee determined
that the proposal was not in the best interests of the Company and
its stockholders.  On April 11, 2013, ARCP withdrew its offer to
acquire the Company.

In connection with the Merger, on March 20, 2013, a putative class
action and derivative lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Maryland against and purportedly on behalf of the
Company captioned Strub, et al. v. Cole Holdings Corporation, et
al. ("Strub").  The complaint names as defendants Holdings; CR III
Advisors; Merger Sub; Cole Capital Advisors, Inc., Equity Fund
Advisors, Inc. (an affiliate of Holdings), Cole Capital, and Cole
Realty Advisors, Inc. (together, "Cole Holding Entities"); each of
the directors of the Company; and the Company.  Among other
allegations, Strub alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties of loyalty, candor and due care by causing the
Company to enter into the Merger Agreement, failing to implement
appropriate measures to ensure that the Company's relationship
with CR III Advisors did not become a vehicle for wrongful self-
dealing, failing to consider and explore strategic alternatives to
the Merger, failing to seek stockholder approval of the Merger,
and by engaging in self-interested and otherwise conflicted
actions.  Strub seeks, among other relief, a declaration that the
conduct of the defendants is a breach of fiduciary duty or aiding
and abetting such breaches and that the Merger Agreement is null
and void; awarding damages and restitution, and disgorgement by
each director; and an award of plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys'
fees.  On March 28, 2013, Strub sought a temporary restraining
order against the Merger closing until stockholder approval was
obtained.  The court denied the motion for injunction on April 5,
2013, finding that stockholder approval was not required in order
for the Merger to be consummated.

On March 25, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland captioned Rodgers
v. Cole Credit Property Trust III, et al. ("Rodgers").  This
complaint names as defendants the Company; CCPT III OP; CR III
Advisors; Merger Sub; and each of the Company's directors.  Among
other allegations, Rodgers alleges that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the Merger
Agreement, failing to provide transparency and a stockholder vote,
structuring the transaction to prevent other potential buyers from
buying the Company, and failing to disclose to stockholders a
third party's interest in acquiring the Company.  Rodgers seeks,
among other relief, a declaration that the defendants have
committed a gross abuse of trust and have breached and/or aided
and abetted breach of fiduciary duties; that the Merger is
therefore unlawful and unenforceable, and that the Merger and any
related agreements should be rescinded and invalidated; imposing a
constructive trust in favor of the plaintiff and class on any
benefits, property or value improperly received by defendants as a
result of wrongful conduct; enjoining defendants from consummating
the Merger until the Company has a process to obtain a merger
agreement providing best possible terms to stockholders;
rescinding the Merger to the extent implemented or granting
rescissory damages; awarding compensatory damages and interest;
awarding costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees; and granting
further equitable relief that is deemed just and proper.

On March 27, 2013, a putative derivative action was filed in the
US District Court, Arizona District, captioned Carter v. Cole
Holdings, et al. ("Carter").  This complaint names as defendants
Holdings; CR III Advisors; Merger Sub; each of the Company's
directors, and the Company as nominal defendant.  Carter alleges,
among other claims, breach of fiduciary duty; against the
Company's directors, abuse of control, corporate waste, and unjust
enrichment; against Holdings and Merger Sub, aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty; and against CR III Advisors, breach of
contract/implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  Carter
seeks, among other relief, a declaratory judgment that none of the
Company's directors were independent and therefore lacked
authority to approve the Merger, and that the defendants were
required to seek stockholder approval of the Merger and the ARCP
proposals; damages against all defendants; restitution,
disgorgement of all illicit proceeds generated as a result of the
alleged wrongful conduct, and punitive damages.

On March 28, 2013, a putative class action and derivative action
was filed in the circuit court for Baltimore City, Maryland
captioned Fortner v. Andruskevich, et al. ("Fortner").  This
complaint names as defendants the directors of the Company, Merger
Sub, Holdings, and the Company as nominal defendant.  Fortner
alleges, among other causes of action, breach of fiduciary duty
and aiding and abetting of breach of fiduciary duty; and unjust
enrichment. Fortner seeks, among other relief, class
certification; an injunction against transactions contemplated by
the Merger; an injunction against any agreements or acquisitions
that inhibit maximization of stockholder value; any acquisition of
a related entity without stockholder vote; damages, restitution;
and certain costs and expenses.

On April 8, 2013, a putative class action and derivative action
was filed in the US District Court, Arizona District, captioned
Schindler v. Cole Holdings Corporation, et al. ("Schindler").
Schindler names as defendants Holdings; CR III Advisors: Merger
Sub; the directors of the Company; and the Company as nominal
defendant.  The complaint alleges, among other causes of action,
violations by the Company's directors of Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (relating to proxy solicitation);
by the Company's directors, CR III Advisors and Holdings of
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (relating to
controlling person liability and aiding and abetting); breaches of
fiduciary duty; unjust enrichment; and corporate waste.  Schindler
seeks, among other relief, class certification; a declaration that
the Company's proxy statements are false and misleading;
disclosure changes in proxy materials and an injunction regarding
the stockholder vote until such changes are made; changes in
corporate governance; and restitution.  On April 19, 2013,
Schindler filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to
enjoin the Company from proceeding with the stockholder votes
scheduled to take place on June 19, 2013.  On May 6, 2013,
defendants responded by opposing the motion for a preliminary
injunction and by partially moving to dismiss Plaintiff's
complaint.

On May 1, 2013, the plaintiff in the Carter action filed a motion
to designate the Schindler action as a related action pursuant to
Arizona local rules.

On April 17, 2013, all parties in the Strub, Rodgers, and Fortner
actions stipulated that, except for allegations pertaining to the
plaintiffs, the actions are substantially similar, and jointly
sought consolidation of the actions in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City.  On April 30, 2013, the actions were consolidated
by order of the Court and now are named In Re Cole Credit Property
Trust, III, Inc. Derivative And Class Litigation.  On May 8, 2013,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action and
derivative complaint.  The consolidated complaint names as
defendants Holdings; CR III Advisors; Merger Sub; the Cole Holding
Entities; each of the directors of the Company; and the Company as
a nominal defendant.  The consolidated amended complaint includes
claims against the defendants including breaches of fiduciary
duties; aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties; unjust
enrichment; corporate waste; breaches of the charter and advisory
agreement; and, breach of the duty of candor.  The plaintiffs
seek, among other relief, class certification; an injunction
against defendants from taking any action to make additional
Merger consideration payments that are contingent upon the
Company's listing; an injunction against defendants from entering
into any contractual agreements or acquisitions that would inhibit
defendants' ability to maximize stockholder value, an injunction
against the June 19, 2013 stockholder vote until defendants have
made full disclosure of the Merger and related matters pertinent
to the charter amendment; compensatory damages, together with pre-
and post-judgment interests; restitution from the directors; and
plaintiffs' costs, expenses, and disbursements.

The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit and
will present a vigorous defense, but the ultimate outcome of these
matters cannot be predicted.  While losses and legal expenses may
be incurred, at this time no provisions for losses have been
recorded in the Company's condensed consolidated unaudited
financial statements that are part of this Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q.

Cole Credit Property Trust III, Inc., is a Maryland corporation
headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, that was formed on January 22,
2008.  The Company has elected to be taxed, and currently
qualifies, as a real estate investment trust for federal income
tax purposes.  Substantially all of the Company's business is
conducted through Cole REIT III Operating Partnership, LP, a
Delaware limited partnership.  Cole REIT Advisors III, LLC, the
advisor to the Company, is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
Cole Holdings Corporation, and is the sole limited partner and
owner of an insignificant noncontrolling partnership interest of
CCPT III OP.


COLE CREDIT: Defends Suits Over Proposed Merger With Spirit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cole Credit Property Trust II, Inc., is defending itself against a
putative class action and derivative lawsuit arising from its
proposed merger with Spirit Realty Capital, Inc., according to the
Company's May 14, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On January 22, 2013, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Spirit Realty
Capital, Inc. ("Spirit"), a publicly-listed real estate investment
trust ("REIT").  The Merger Agreement provides for the merger of
Spirit with and into the Company, with the Company continuing as
the surviving corporation (the "Merger").  Upon consummation of
the Merger, each share of Spirit common stock issued and
outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of the Merger
will be canceled and converted into the right to receive 1.9048
shares of the Company's common stock (which equates to an inverse
exchange ratio of 0.525 shares of Spirit common stock for each
share of the Company's common stock) and each share of Company
common stock issued and outstanding shall represent a share of the
surviving corporation.  Upon the closing of the Merger, the
surviving corporation will list its shares on the New York Stock
Exchange (the "NYSE") and trade under Spirit's existing ticker
"SRC".

In connection with the Company's Merger with Spirit, a putative
class action and derivative lawsuit was filed on March 5, 2013, in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, against and
purportedly on behalf of Spirit captioned Kendrick, et al. v.
Spirit Realty Capital, Inc., et al.  The complaint was amended on
April 26, 2013, and names as defendants Spirit, the members of the
board of directors of Spirit, Spirit Realty, L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership (the "Spirit Partnership"), the Company and
Cole OP II, and alleges that the directors of Spirit breached
their fiduciary duties by engaging in an unfair process leading to
the Merger Agreement, failing to disclose sufficient material
information for Spirit stockholders to make an informed decision
regarding whether or not to approve the Merger, agreeing to
consummation of the Merger at an opportunistic and unfair price,
allowing draconian and preclusive deal protection devices in the
Merger Agreement, retaining a self-interested and conflicted
financial advisor, and by engaging in self-interested and
otherwise conflicted actions.  The complaint alleges that the
Company, Cole OP II and the Spirit Partnership aided and abetted
those breaches of fiduciary duty.  The complaint seeks a
declaration that defendants have breached their fiduciary duties
or aided and abetted such breaches and that the Merger Agreement
is unenforceable, an order enjoining a vote on the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, rescission of the
transactions in the event they are consummated, imposition of a
constructive trust, an award of fees and costs, including
attorneys' and experts' fees and costs, and other relief.

Headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, Cole Credit Property Trust II,
Inc., was formed in September 2004 to acquire and operate
commercial real estate primarily consisting of freestanding,
single-tenant, retail properties net leased to investment grade
and other creditworthy tenants located throughout the United
States.  The Company qualifies as a real estate investment trust
for federal income tax purposes.


COMCAST CORP: "Behrend" Ruling Beneficial for Employers
-------------------------------------------------------
HR.BLR.com reports that a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme
Court (SCOTUS) in a class action lawsuit was, as often, a close
one -- 5 to 4.  The suit, Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, No. 11-864
(3/27/13), involved Philadelphia plaintiffs contending that
Comcast had either bought or pushed out all potential competitors,
leaving the company free to overcharge their customers there.

What's this got to do with employers?

The plaintiffs, potentially a class of 2 million, offered an
expert to testify about the anticompetitive effect on Comcast's
pricing of cable TV service.  It's been said that the testimony
was somewhat flawed, but not so badly as to be misleading.

The majority of the justices ruled that it could not be presented
to a jury, not because it was flawed but because the jury needed
to hear from the plaintiffs themselves what the overpricing effect
was on each of them. (Imagine hearing from 2 million plaintiffs!)

The 3rd Circuit, which covers Delaware, New Jersey, and
Pennsylvania, had certified the class, but the conservative judges
said "No," basing their view on the huge Wal-Mart v. Dukes
rejected class action suit.  In that case, which was intended to
include 1.5 million women nationwide who worked for Wal-Mart, the
charge was that women had been consistently underpaid and failed
to be promoted.

The fact that individual store managers made major personnel
decisions for their stores seemed to be the major factor that
scuttled the class status for that case, which we find
understandable.

The ruling in the Comcast case is less clear, but Justice Antonin
Scalia, speaking for the majority, pointed to his contention in
Dukes that a "rigorous analysis of any models proffered by the
plaintiffs claiming damages on a class-wide basis" must be
conducted. But wait until you see the impact that the Comcast
decision has had on employment cases.

Ruling has impacted wage and hour class action suits.

Plaintiffs' lawyers have had a field day with class action suits
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as you probably know.
Common scenario: A nonexempt plaintiff or two from a worksite
complain that their 30-minute meal breaks are automatically
deducted from their paychecks but that they rarely, if ever, get
to have those uninterrupted breaks.  So they sue for back pay,
alleging at the same time that all or most of their other
nonexempt coworkers have the same problem.  Their lawyers then go
trolling for further clients and take the employer to court in the
hope of collecting both huge damages for their clients and huge
fees for themselves.

SCOTUS's decision in Comcast has, for now anyway, halted that
entire movement.  Just 5 days after that decision, the justices
applied the same principle to an employment wage and hour suit in
Ross v. RBS Citizens.  Two groups of bank employees sued -- one
for several kinds of off-the-clock work and the other for
misclassification as exempt instead of nonexempt.

A closer look

The bank in Ross v. RBS Citizens argued exactly as Justice Scalia
had in Comcast -- that neither of the complaining groups could be
certified as a class because individual issues predominated over
common issues.

And, of course, despite the 7th Circuit's certification of both
groups as classes, in the U.S. Supreme Court, the majority of
justices voted against certification.  And that ruling has been
followed by several others -- it's as though the domino effect is
toppling wage and hour class action suits throughout the courts.

The day after the Comcast ruling was issued, a federal judge in
Massachusetts refused to allow a group of more than 65 delivery
drivers claiming unlawful pay deductions to be considered a class
for the purposes of a lawsuit.  That case was Martins v. 3PD, Inc.

Then in Roach v. T.L. Cannon Corp., restaurant workers claimed
their employer denied them extra pay that was required by state
law when they worked more than 10 hours a day and, further, that
the restaurant chain deducted nonexistent rest periods from their
time records.  In that case, too, the federal district judge for
the Northern District of New York relied on Comcast and refused to
allow a class action suit, saying that each individual would have
to prove his or her own damages.

And the list goes on: A federal district judge in Illinois
refused, in Smith v. Family Video Movie Club, Inc., to allow two
former employees of the rental store chain to turn their claims of
off-the-clock work and miscalculation of overtime into a class
action suit, which other employees could then join.

The judge noted that Comcast requires that "damages must be
susceptible to measurement across the entire class, and individual
damages calculations cannot overwhelm questions common to the
class."

On April 17, in Ginsburg v. Comcast Cable Communications
Management LLC, a district judge in Seattle, Washington, turned
down the request of two customer account representatives -- call
center employees -- to include in their class more than 2,000
similarly situated employees who worked or had worked in three
different state locations since 2007.

They complained of being required to perform unpaid work before
their shifts formally started.  The defendant, a subsidiary of the
Comcast in the suit on which the Supreme Court ruled, argued, in
part, that 50 similar employees were ready to testify that they
had been told never to work before their shift began.

For the time being, it seems clear that courts are going to rule
against most wage and hour class action lawsuits.  So employers
may sleep a bit better while the Comcast decision holds sway.


CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: Robins Geller Files Class Action in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on June 17 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas on behalf of all holders of
Crestwood Midstream Partners LP common units on May 6, 2013, in
connection with the proposed takeover of Crestwood by Inergy, L.P.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from June 17.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins
of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail
at djr@rgrdlaw.com

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Crestwood and the Board of Directors of
Crestwood's general partner, Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC, with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Crestwood is a
master limited partnership focused on providing midstream
infrastructure solutions for the development of North American
shale and unconventional resource basins.

The complaint alleges that Crestwood, the Board, Inergy and its
affiliates, and Crestwood's financial advisor breached their
fiduciary duty, and/or aided and abetted such breaches, in
connection with their attempt to consummate the proposed
acquisition of Crestwood by Inergy pursuant to an unfair process
and for an unfair price. In addition, the complaint alleges
Crestwood and the Board disseminated a false and misleading proxy
statement in violation of Sec. 14(a) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and
SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder in connection with the
Proposed Acquisition.

On May 6, 2013, Crestwood and Inergy announced that they had
entered into a definitive agreement whereby Inergy would acquire
all of Crestwood's outstanding units.  Thereafter, on May 29,
2013, defendants caused a Registration Statement on Form S-4 to be
filed with the SEC and disseminated in connection with the
upcoming unitholder vote on the Proposed Acquisition.  The
complaint alleges the S-4 contains a number of false and
misleading statements that are material to unitholders who are
expected to rely upon the S-4 to determine whether to approve the
Proposed Acquisition.  The S-4 omits a number of material facts
necessary to make statements made therein not false and
misleading, including the events leading to the Merger Agreement,
the analysis conducted by the Board's financial advisors, and the
conflicts of interest burdening the various parties to the deal,
including one of Crestwood's financial advisors, Citigroup Global
Markets Inc.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive and equitable relief on behalf of all
holders of Crestwood common units on May 6, 2013.  The plaintiff
is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  With nearly 200 lawyers in
nine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $2 trillion.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
recoveries in history and has been ranked number one in the number
of shareholder class action recoveries in MSCI's Top SCAS 50 every
year since 2003.

CONTACT: Robbins Geller
         Darren Robbins
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Telephone: 800/449-4900
                    619/231-1058
         E-mail: djr@rgrdlaw.com


DELL INC: SJC Issues Opinion on Arbitration Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Scott Nelson at Consumer Law &
Policy Blog, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued
two opinions addressing whether there remain any circumstances in
which an arbitration agreement that bans class actions can still
be challenged after the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility
LLC v. Concepcion.  The SJC strongly aligned itself with the view
that Concepcion does not make class action bans unassailable. The
court held that if a class action ban in an arbitration agreement
effectively prevents plaintiffs from obtaining a remedy under
state law, it is unenforceable.  The court struck down a class
action ban under this standard in one of the two cases, Feeney v.
Dell Inc., finding that the plaintiffs had carried their burden of
showing the class action ban would effectively prevent them from
pursuing their claims.  In the other case, Machado v. System4 LLC,
the court held the arbitration agreement containing the class
action ban was enforceable because the plaintiffs had not shown
that their claims could not be pursued on an individual basis in
arbitration.

In the lead opinion, Feeney, the SJC presented a comprehensive
discussion of the Supreme Court's arbitration jurisprudence up to
and including Concepcion, as well as case law and commentary in
the wake of Concepcion.  The court stated that, after Concepcion,
a general public-policy-based prohibition on class-action bans
could not be sustained. However, the court concluded that the
principle that arbitration procedures must not effectively
preclude plaintiffs from pursuing their claims survives
Concepcion.

Importantly, the court rejected the suggestion that this principle
applies only to federal statutory rights.  The court reasoned that
the objectives of the Federal Arbitration Act do not include
denying remedies available under state law, and thus a state court
does not erect any obstacles to the accomplishment of the FAA's
aims when it strikes down provisions of an arbitration agreement
that prevent the assertion of claims.  Thus, according to the
court, there is no "irreconcilable conflict between the FAA's
interest in ensuring the enforceability of agreements to arbitrate
and a State's interest in voiding contracts that create de facto
immunity from private civil liability for violations of State law
merely because that immunity was procured through the device of an
arbitration clause."

The court thus concluded that a "case-specific factual showing"
that a class-action ban would preclude plaintiffs from obtaining
remedies to which they were entitled under state law suffices to
permit invalidation of an arbitration agreement.  In Feeney, a
consumer class action involving complex, small-dollar claims, the
court found this burden had been met, but in Machado, involving
more substantial monetary claims, it had not been.

The SJC joined the Missouri Supreme Court and the Second Circuit
in recognizing that there are circumstances under which a class
action ban is invalid.  Of course, the Second Circuit's decision
in Amex that a class action ban that prevents vindication of
federal-law rights is unenforceable is currently before the U.S.
Supreme Court, and the decision in Amex may have much to say about
whether reasoning like the SJC's is viable.  But for various
reasons, Amex may not fully resolve these issues, and if so the
SJC's decisions will be a significant development.


DELL INC: Pierce Atwood Discusses Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------
Donald R. Frederico, Esq. -- dfrederico@pierceatwood.com -- at
Pierce Atwood LLP reports that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court recently issued two long-awaited decisions concerning the
enforceability of class action waivers in arbitration agreements.
Feeney v. Dell, Inc. (Feeney II) was the Court's post-Concepcion
decision in a consumer class action that the Court, pre-
Concepcion, had held must go forward despite a class action waiver
because the waiver violated Massachusetts public policy.
Confronted with the Supreme Court's controversial decision, the
SJC held that "Concepcion precludes the invalidation of class
waiver provisions in arbitration clauses in consumer contracts,
such as the one at issue here, where the reason for invalidation
is that such waivers are contrary to the fundamental public policy
of the Commonwealth."  However, the Court also held that "a court
is not foreclosed from invalidating an arbitration agreement that
includes a class action waiver where a plaintiff can demonstrate
that he or she effectively cannot pursue a claim against the
defendant in individual arbitration according to the terms of the
agreement, thus rendering his or her claim nonremediable."

Because the court found that plaintiffs had met their burden of
establishing, on the facts of the case, that the combination of
the complexity of the claims and the modest amounts of their
individual damages meant that they could not pursue their claims
in individual arbitration, Concepcion did not preclude the class
action waiver's invalidation.

Machado v. System4 LLC, in contrast, involved claims under the
Massachusetts Wage Act brought on behalf of individuals who had
entered into "local franchise agreements" with defendants to
provide commercial janitorial services to third parties, and who
contended that they had been misclassified as independent
contractors and wrongfully denied pay under the Act.  The Court
applied its holding in Feeney II, but on these facts found that
the plaintiffs had not met their burden of establishing that the
class action waiver rendered their claims unremediable.  The Court
distinguished Feeney II because the consumer case involved
individual damages claims of $13.65 and $215.55, while the Wage
Act case involved individual damages claims of four and five
figures.  In addition, the Court relied on the Wage Act's
provisions mandating awards of treble damages, attorneys' fees and
costs for successful plaintiffs.

As the trial court had in Feeney II, the SJC relied in part on the
absence of the kinds of safeguards that were present in the
Concepcion arbitration agreement which made arbitration of the
individual claims feasible.  Those safeguards included a
requirement that AT&T pay claimants a minimum of $7,500 and twice
their attorneys' fees if they obtain an arbitration award greater
than AT&T's last settlement offer.

Authored by Justice Cordy, Feeney II and Machado are carefully-
reasoned and well-written decisions.  Although their precedential
value may be limited to putative class actions pending in
Massachusetts state court, which are relatively few in our post-
CAFA world, their sheer craftsmanship will likely give them
persuasive authority beyond state boundaries.  Whatever one thinks
of the policies behind these decisions, their faithfulness to
Concepcion remains in doubt, and the outcome of any further review
that might take place in the United States Supreme Court is not at
all clear.  Unless and until the Supreme Court overrules them,
either directly or by further clarification in other cases,
companies wishing to avoid class litigation in Massachusetts would
do well to imbue their class action waivers with safeguards at
least as strong as those in the AT&T arbitration agreement upheld
in Concepcion.


DOLLAR GENERAL: EEOC Files Suits Over Criminal Background Checks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Hananel, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed lawsuits on June 11
against discount retailer Dollar General Corp. and a BMW
manufacturing plant in South Carolina over their use of criminal
background checks to screen out job applicants or fire employees.

In both cases, the agency claims the practice discriminates
against African-Americans, who have higher arrest and conviction
rates than whites.

The two lawsuits are the first since the agency issued revised
guidance last year to warn employers against using overly broad
criminal checks in a way that could limit job opportunities for
people with past convictions.  The commission says it wants to
reduce barriers to employment for those with past criminal records
who "have been held accountable and paid their dues."

The EEOC alleges that BMW's policy affected dozens of employees
working for a contractor that staffed a BMW warehouse in
Spartanburg, S.C.  The contractor's policy was not to employ
anyone with a criminal record within the past seven years.  When a
new contractor took over the company, BMW ordered a new round of
criminal background checks and fired anyone with a criminal record
from any year.

Of the 88 workers fired, 70 were black.  Some had worked for BMW
-- through the contractor -- for more than a decade, the EEOC
alleged in a lawsuit filed in federal district court in
Spartanburg.  The commission claims the BMW policy is a "blanket
exclusion" without any regard for the nature and gravity of the
crimes, how old they are, or whether they are relevant to the type
of work being performed.

BMW spokeswoman Sky Foster said the company "believes that it has
complied with the letter and spirit of the law and will defend
itself against the EEOC's allegations of race discrimination."

In the Dollar General case, the EEOC filed a nationwide lawsuit in
federal district court in Chicago based on charges of
discrimination filed by two rejected black job applicants.  One
applicant was offered employment even though she disclosed a 6-
year-old conviction for possession of a controlled substance, the
EEOC said.  But her job offer was allegedly revoked because Dollar
General's policy was to disqualify anyone who had that type of
conviction within the past 10 years.

Another applicant to Dollar General was fired by the company
despite the fact that a report showing she had a felony conviction
was wrong, the EEOC said.  Even after she advised Dollar General
of the mistake, the company did not reverse its decision to fire
her, the agency claimed.

"Overcoming barriers to employment is one of our strategic
enforcement priorities," EEOC spokeswoman Justine Lisser said.
"We hope that these lawsuits will further educate the public and
the employer community on the appropriate use of conviction
records."

A Dollar General spokesman did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.

The EEOC says it attempted to resolve both cases through
settlement before filing lawsuits.  It is seeking back pay for the
rejected applicants and for those fired, as well as injunctive
relief to prevent future discrimination.

The new EEOC guidelines issued last year urge employers to give
job applicants a chance to explain past criminal misconduct before
they are rejected. It also recommends that employers stop asking
about past convictions on job applications.

Some employers see the checks as a way to weed out unsavory
workers and prevent negligent hiring claims.


DS WATERS: Court Allows Workers to File First Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen approved a stipulation permitting
the Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint in the case
captioned HECTOR SARINANA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DS WATERS OF AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-00905-EMC, (N.D. Cal.).

This is a breach of contract action brought on behalf of a
nationwide class consisting of all current and former overtime and
incentive eligible employees whose incentive payments were not
included in their overtime compensation who are, or were employed
by DS Waters of America, Inc. or its parent, subsidiaries,
divisions, related or successor companies, during the applicable
statutory coverage period beginning from the time this action was
originally filed until the time the action is certified as a class
action.

A copy of the District Court's June 26, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/3MEnPUfrom Leagle.com.

WYNNE LAW FIRM, Edward J. Wynne -- ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com -- and
J.E.B. Pickett, in Greenbrae, CA and DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC, Pro
Hac Vice, Peter F. Klett, Esq., at Nashville, Tennessee, Attorneys
for Plaintiff, HECTOR SARINANA.

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Catherine M. Dacre -- cdacre@seyfarth.com --
Eric E. Hill -- ehill@seyfarth.com -- in San Francisco, CA,
Attorneys for Defendant, DS WATERS OF AMERICA, INC.


DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on June 18 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Dynavax Technologies Corporation common stock during the period
between April 26, 2012 and June 10, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from June 18.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins
of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail
at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/dynavax/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Dynavax and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Dynavax, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, discovers and
develops products to prevent and treat infectious and inflammatory
diseases.  Dynavax's lead product candidate is HEPLISAV(TM), a
Phase 3 investigational adult hepatitis B vaccine designed to
provide higher and earlier protection with fewer doses than
licensed vaccines.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
violated the federal securities laws by disseminating false and
misleading statements to the investing public about the viability
of HEPLISAV.  As a result of defendants' false statements, Dynavax
stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period, reaching a high of $5.26 per share on May 2, 2012.

On April 26, 2012, Dynavax announced it had submitted a Biologics
License Application to the Food and Drug Administration for
HEPLISAV, seeking approval for the vaccine against all known
subtypes of the hepatitis B virus in adults ages 18 to 70.  On
November 15, 2012, Dynavax announced that while the FDA's Vaccines
and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee had voted 13 to
1 that the data supported the efficacy of HEPLISAV, the committee
voted 8 to 5 that there was not sufficient data to adequately
support the safety of HEPLISAV.  On this news, Dynavax stock fell
$2.19 per share to close at $2.44 per share on November 16, 2012.
On February 25, 2013, Dynavax announced that it received a
Complete Response Letter from the FDA regarding its BLA for
HEPLISAV, which stated that, among other things, HEPLISAV could
not be approved for the full adult label of 18-70 years old
without additional safety data, though the FDA indicated a
willingness to consider approving the drug under a restricted-use
label.  Then, on June 10, 2013, Dynavax announced that it had
recently conducted a follow-up meeting with the FDA regarding its
BLA license for HEPLISAV.  According to the Company, the FDA would
require Dynavax to conduct additional safety trials before the FDA
would even consider approving HEPLISAV.  On this news, Dynavax
stock fell another $1.07 per share to close at $1.40 per share on
June 10, 2013, a one-day decline of 43%.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, included that the clinical trial for HEPLISAV was
flawed as it was not representative of the population in the
United States and lacked information concerning concomitant use of
HEPLISAV with other vaccines, and Dynavax failed to provide the
FDA with sufficient data concerning its manufacturing processes
and controls for HEPLISAV on its BLA.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Dynavax common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  With nearly 200 lawyers in
nine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $2 trillion.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
recoveries in history and has been ranked number one in the number
of shareholder class action recoveries in MSCI's Top SCAS 50 every
year since 2003.

Contact: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Robbins Geller, Esq.
         Darren Robbins, Esq.
         Telephone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
         E-mail: djr@rgrdlaw.com


DYNEGY INC: Class Representative Can't Object to Bankruptcy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce M. Sabados, Esq., and Dean N. Razavi, Esq., at Katten Muchin
Rosenman LLP, report that the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York affirmed an order rejecting an objection to
the confirmation of a Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization for
Dynegy, Inc. and Dynegy Holdings, LLC (together, Dynegy) for a
lack of standing.

In March 2012, a putative securities class action was filed
against Dynegy and its officers.  A lead plaintiff was appointed
in that action in July.  Contemporaneously, Dynegy filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy, staying the securities litigation against
itself, but not the individual defendants.  The US Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York approved a disclosure
statement which included releases of claims against the individual
defendants in the securities action.  The lead plaintiff in the
securities action, Stephen Lucas, opted out of the release. Lucas
also objected to the release on behalf of the putative class in
the securities action.  The bankruptcy court overruled his
objection.

The District Court affirmed, holding that Mr. Lucas did not have
standing to object to the release.  Mr. Lucas could not object on
his own behalf; having already opted out, the issue was moot as to
him.  Additionally, Mr. Lucas lacked standing to object in the
bankruptcy action on behalf of the putative securities class
because he never attempted to certify that class before the
bankruptcy court.  Mr. Lucas could not use his status to "have his
cake and eat it too -- to opt out of the [r]elease personally but
also to challenge its validity in the separate bankruptcy
proceeding."

In re Dynegy Inc., No. 12 Civ. 8908(JGK), 2013 WL 2413482
(S.D.N.Y. 2013).


ELBIT IMAGING: Defends Suits Over Suspension of Interest Payments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elbit Imaging Ltd. is defending two class action lawsuits arising
from its suspension of principal and interest payments to its Note
holders, according to the Company's May 14, 2013, Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on February 25, 2013,
by one of the Company's Note holders in the Tel Aviv District
Court against the Company, its controlling shareholders, officers
and others.  The complaint requests that the Court recognize the
lawsuit as a valid class action and alleges, among other things,
that the Company's announcements on February 5, 2013, and
February 19, 2013, that the Company would suspend principal and
interest payments to its Note holders, respectively, constituted a
breach of the trust agreements relating to its Series A and Series
B notes.  The lawsuit seeks damages in the amount of NIS240
million (approximately $64 million).

In addition, a purported class action was filed on April 11, 2013,
by a holder of the Company's Series B notes in the Court against
the Company, based on the non-payment of amounts due under the
Notes and alleging that the Company's suspension of payments on
the Series A and B notes resulted from its failure to timely
identify and react to the decline in its business and that its
Notes repurchase program had wasted its assets.  The lawsuit seeks
damages in the amount of approximately NIS82 million
(approximately $22 million).  On April 18, 2013, the plaintiff
under this claim requested the Court to consolidate the other
class action with this action and to hold the hearing as to both
cases jointly.  At this point, the Court has ordered a response
from all parties with respect to the joint hearing of the two
claims.

Elbit Imaging Ltd. -- http://www.elbitimaging.com/-- was
incorporated in 1996 in Israel and is headquartered in Bnei Brak
51261, Israel.  The Company operates primarily in these principal
fields of business: Commercial and Entertainment Centers; Hotels;
Medical Industries; Residential Projects; and Fashion Apparel.


EQT PRODUCTION: Va. AG's Role in Class Action Raises Questions
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to Washington Post, the conduct of the Virginia attorney
general's office under Ken Cuccinelli (R) has raised eyebrows
almost from the start of his tenure.  There was the troubling
investigation of a global warming researcher, the ideological
attacks on abortion and gay rights, the belated recusal from a
case in which Mr. Cuccinelli may have had a conflict of interest.
Add now to the list criticism from a federal judge about the
dubious role of the attorney general's office in advising energy
companies being sued by southwestern Virginia landowners.  A
footnote is the revelation that the parent company of one firm is
a major contributor to Mr. Cuccinelli's campaign for governor.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent took aim at the
relationship, revealed in a series of e-mails between an assistant
attorney general who advises the Virginia Gas and Oil Board,
Sharon Pigeon, and the two Pittsburgh-area companies, EQT
Production Co. and CNX Gas Co., involved in a series of lawsuits
over natural gas royalties.  "Shockingly," wrote the magistrate in
a June 5 opinion recommending certification of the cases as a
class-action suit, "these emails show that the Board, or at least
Pigeon, has been actively involved in assisting EQT and CNX with
the defense of these cases, including offering advice on and
providing information for use on the Motions before the court."
At stake in the case, according to the Associated Press, are tens
of millions of dollars that attorneys for the plaintiffs say are
owed to thousands of landowners for extraction of methane gas from
underground coal beds.

The state is not a defendant in the case and, according to a
statement from the attorney general's office, intervened for the
limited purpose of defending the constitutionality of Virginia's
gas and oil law: "Our office's role is not to provide advice to
any private party in this case."  After the Bristol Herald Courier
published the e-mails that seemingly showed legal advice being
offered (one subject line read "Confidential Joint Defense Atty
Work Product"), the attorney general's statement was amended to
acknowledge that the "emails may have come across as a bit
overzealous."

The statement rejected "in the strongest possible terms" any
suggestion that campaign contributions to Mr. Cuccinelli's
gubernatorial campaign ($111,044 from 2012 and 2013, according to
the Virginia Public Access Project) from Consol Energy Inc., of
which CNX is a subsidiary, affected the handling of this case.
Don Barrett, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, told the Washington
Post that issues about the constitutionality of Virginia law were
long ago settled and that another attorney representing the state,
not Ms. Pigeon, was involved.  He branded as "nonsense" any notion
Ms. Pigeon cooperated with both sides, noting the e-mails were
obtained by subpoena.  "I'm not involved in Virginia politics, he
said, "(it's) not my business and I don't know Mr. Cuccinelli or
[Democratic candidate for governor Terry) McAuliffe. . . but we
have been outraged that the state of Virginia chose to get in bed
with companies trying to cheat these people."

"Shockingly" was the word employed by the judge.  But, given
Mr. Cuccinelli's track record in office, it was not entirely
unexpected.


FOX SEARCHLIGHT: Ruling Reflects 2010 Fact Sheet Reasoning
----------------------------------------------------------
Dylan Matthews, writing for The Washington Post, reports that
unpaid internships are increasingly a fact of life for college
students.  The National Association of Colleges and Employers
found that 55 percent of the class of 2012 had an internship or
co-op during their time in college.  Almost half of those -- 47
percent -- were unpaid.  A third of internships at for-profit
companies were unpaid.

Depending on how you look at it, this is either massive
exploitation of young people by powerful corporations that worsens
inequality, or a valuable opportunity for on-the-job training at a
lower cost than a degree or certificate at a college or
university.

But whatever your moral leanings, a judge confirmed on June 11
what intern advocates have been alleging for years: A lot of these
programs are illegal.

Judge William Pauley III of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York ruled that Fox Searchlight's use of
interns in producing the movies "Black Swan" and "(500) Days of
Summer" violated minimum-wage and overtime laws, and that those
interns can file a class-action lawsuit against the studio.

He concluded that they had served the same functions as paid
employees and required no special training.  While the employer
got the benefit of their work, the interns "received nothing
approximating the education they would receive in an academic
setting or vocational school," the judge wrote.

The legal tests being hinted at there -- of whether an internship
provides valuable training, or whether it benefits the firm or the
intern more -- reflect the reasoning of a 2010 fact sheet put out
by the Labor Department's wage and hour division, which enforces
these laws.  The fact sheet sets up six criteria to determine
whether an unpaid internship is legal, including that the employer
"derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern"
and that the "internship experience is for the benefit of the
intern."

Judge Pauley cited that fact sheet, reproduced all six points and
then proceeded to determine whether the internships in this case
satisfied all six requirements.  Perhaps the most important result
of the ruling is that it effectively treats the fact sheet as a
binding interpretation of federal law regarding internships.

Many different factors

Some employment attorneys think that is a mistake.  "You've got to
consider a lot of different factors, including these six factors,"
said Camille Olson, a partner at Seyfarth Shaw who frequently
defends companies in wage-and-hour cases.

A better analysis, she argued, can be found in Xuedan Wang v. the
Hearst Corporation, a case in which Wang, a former unpaid intern
at Harper's Bazaar, tried to put together a class-action lawsuit
on behalf of the Hearst's unpaid interns.  The judge in that case,
Harold Baer Jr. (also of the Southern District of New York),
didn't discount the six factors in the fact sheet, but he also
argued that one must look at the "totality of circumstances."

Judge Baer ruled that Ms. Wang couldn't file a class action
because she couldn't show that all of Hearst's interns faced
similar enough conditions for them to file suit together.  But
more important for future cases, he denied summary judgment for
the plaintiffs.  That is, unlike Pauley, he declined to rule,
without a trial, that Wang and her prospective co-plaintiffs were
employees covered by minimum-wage and overtime laws.

That trial has been adjourned indefinitely -- although Juno
Turner, one of Wang's attorneys at the firm of Outten & Golden,
which also represents the interns in the Fox case, said that
they're planning on going forward with a jury trial.  All of which
reinforces Ms. Olson's point that Pauley is just one judge, in
just one district, and it's hard to predict how appeals court
judges will rule in any of these cases.

Nonprofits may be in violation

Interns' advocates disagree vehemently with Ms. Olson's suggestion
that the reasoning in the Pauley ruling was weak.  "I think the
reasoning will stand up strongly and clearly," said Ross Perlin,
author of "Intern Nation" and a critic of unpaid internships.

Mr. Perlin argued that even nonprofit employers -- which are
allowed to have unpaid "volunteers" -- are probably in violation
of the law if they have actual unpaid interns.  "Just because
you're working for somebody who's been classified as a 501(c)3
doesn't mean you don't have to treat them like workers," he said,
though he conceded that "interns would have the burden of proving
they're not volunteers.  Somebody is going to have to step up and
make the case."

A logical place to start, he said, would be the District of
Columbia.  "Congress has exempted its own interns from the Fair
Labor Standards Act," he said.  "That's something waiting to be
addressed."

Ms. Olson thinks that's far-fetched.  "We've had volunteers at
hospitals and not-for-profits that are performing
responsibilities, and never had a claim to paid work," she said.
"It would be a first, but I don't think there's a strong argument
to be made there."

But the two agree that there are many for-profit companies in
violation of the law, even if Fox Searchlight and Hearst aren't
among them.  "In the last three to four years, for-profit
companies are really reviewing their internship programs and
eliminating unpaid internships more and more, because they don't
want to run the risk that there's not enough benefit for the
worker," she said.  "Of the ones that do offer internships, many
have revised them so they are paying minimum wage."

That's largely an effect of media scrutiny, she said, which has
heightened awareness and motivated companies to make their
programs compliant.  That could be the most direct way to bring
about change.  Ms. Olson and Mr. Perlin said the Labor Department
has not shown any new aggressiveness in enforcement, and added
that lawsuits are an expensive and time-consuming way to protect
someone's rights.  Ms. Olson noted that some settlements in such
cases have been as paltry as $1,100.

Talk to human resources

She advised interns who think their companies are running afoul of
the law to talk to their human-resources department, perhaps
through an anonymous tip, or to contact their state or federal
wage and hour department to get answers on what's required, and
whether the company is violating the rules.  Potentially, the
matter could be resolved without the cost of a lawyer.

Otherwise, the worst thing that might happen if an intern files an
internal complaint is to lose the unpaid internship -- and the $0
in future compensation that went along with it.

"In the last three to four years, for-profit companies are really
reviewing their internship programs and eliminating unpaid
internships more and more, because they don't want to run the risk
that there's not enough benefit for the worker."


GENERAL MILLS: Recalls Cinnamon Toast Crunch Products
-----------------------------------------------------
Nathalie Tadena, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that
General Mills Inc. (GIS) is voluntarily recalling a small quantity
of single-serve reduced-sugar Cinnamon Toast Crunch "bowlpaks"
after a supplier recalled an ingredient due to the possible
presence of salmonella.

The packaged-food maker said no illnesses have been associated
with this finding and that the recall is being taken as a
precaution.

The recall affects approximately 168 cases of the product with
"Better if Used By" dates of Aug. 31 and Sept. 2.  No other
varieties or sizes of Cinnamon Toast Crunch or other General Mills
products are affected.

Food-service operators or consumers who have the affected product
are urged to dispose of it and contact General Mills at 1-800-328-
1144 for a replacement.

The maker of Cheerios cereal, Betty Crocker baking products and
Green Giant frozen vegetables has struggled to mitigate higher
raw-material costs with price increases as pushback from budget-
conscious consumers challenged sales volume.  But General Mills'
profit has improved in recent quarters due in part to the
performance of newly acquired businesses overseas and improving
results in its home market.

In March, General Mills reported its fiscal third-quarter earnings
rose 1.8% as the company sold more products in its base business,
as measured by weight, for the first time in two years, a sign the
packaged-food industry is continuing its steady, but, slow
improvement.


GOOGLE INC: Disco Mobile App Suit Settlement Gets Final Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted final approval of a
class action settlement in NICOLE PIMENTAL and JESSICA FRANKLIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation, and SLIDE,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, CASE NO. 11-CV-02585-
YGR, (N.D. Cal.).

The court granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for award of
attorneys' fees, expenses, and incentive awards. Specifically, the
Court approved a Fee Award to Class Counsel in the amount of
$1,500,000, inclusive of $16,996 in costs, which the Court found
to be fair and reasonable. The Court found this amount to be
reasonable in that it represents 25% of the $6 million common fund
established for the benefit of the Class.

The Court approved the payment by the Defendants of $5,000 to each
of the Class Representatives as an incentive award for taking on
the risks of litigation and helping achieve the results made
available to the Settlement Class.  The Court said the requested
$5,000 incentive payment for each of the Class Representatives is
reasonable.

The Settlement Class consisting of: All Persons who received the
Disco Mobile App Text or other text messages sent by or through
the Disco Messaging Service informing such Persons about the Disco
Messaging Service.

Excluded from the Settlement Class are the following: the
Defendants, Class Counsel and Supporting Counsel, the Settlement
Administrator, the Mediator, and any respective parent,
subsidiary, affiliate or control person of the Defendants or their
officers, directors, agents, servants, or employees as of the date
of filing of the Action, any judge presiding over the Action, all
Person(s) whose claims against the Defendants have been fully and
finally adjudicated and/or released, and the immediate family
members of any such Person(s).

A copy of the District Court's June 26, 2013 Final Judgment Order
is available at http://is.gd/MgItgWfrom Leagle.com.

Nicole Pimental, Plaintiff, is represented by Sean Patrick Reis,
Esq. -- sreis@edelson.com -- at Edelson LLC; Christopher Lillard
Dore, Esq. -- cdore@edelson.com -- at Edelson LLC; Jay Edelson,
Esq. -- jedelson@edelson.com -- at Edelson, LLC; Leigh Anne
Parker, Esq. -- lparker@weisslawllp.com -- at WeissLaw LLP; Rafey
Sarkis Balabanian, Esq. -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- at Edelson
LLC; and Scott D. Owens, Esq. -- scott@scottowens.com -- at Law
Offices of Scott D. Owens, Esq.

Jessica Franklin, Plaintiff, is represented by Sean Patrick Reis,
at Edelson LLC, Christopher Lillard Dore, at Edelson LLC, Jay
Edelson, at Edelson, LLC, Leigh Anne Parker, at WeissLaw LLP,
Rafey Sarkis Balabanian, at Edelson LLC & Stefan Coleman --
law@stefancoleman.com -- at Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, Esq.

Google, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Bobbie Jean Wilson,
Esq. -- BWilson@perkinscoie.com -- at Perkins Coie LLP; Debra Rae
Bernard, Esq. -- dbernard@perkinscoie -- at Perkins Coie LLP; and
Joshua A. Reiten, Esq. -- jreiten@perkinscoie.com -- at Perkins
Coie LLP.

Slide, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Bobbie Jean Wilson,
Esq., at Perkins Coie LLP; Debra Rae Bernard, Esq., at Perkins
Coie LLP; and Joshua A. Reiten, Esq., at Perkins Coie LLP.


GOOGLE INC: Settles Shareholder Class Action Over Stock Split
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erika Morphy, writing for E-Commerce Times, reports that finally
bringing the months-long saga to a close, Google has now settled a
class-action shareholder lawsuit over the stock split it announced
over a year ago.  As part of the resolution, Google will
compensate holders of its new "Class C" stocks if, after a year,
their shares are worth less.  Voting rights, however, are still
not included with the new stocks.

Google has settled the class-action shareholder lawsuit that had
been blocking a stock split it originally announced last year, the
company said Monday, paving the way for it to move forward with
the split as planned.

The suit's settlement was an 11th-hour development in this 14-
month storyline, which included the imminent prospect of a trial
in Delaware chancery court over the issue.

                        An Unequal Class

Google's plan for the stock split was to create a new "Class C" of
non-voting capital stock that would be listed on NASDAQ.  These
shares were to be distributed via a stock dividend to all existing
stockholders such that the owner of each existing share would
receive one new share of the non-voting stock, giving investors
twice the number of shares they had before.

Class A shares would continue to trade under the "GOOG" ticker
symbol, but the new Class C shares would trade under a different
ticker symbol.  Class C stockholders would be able to trade their
shares and have the same rights as Class A and Class B
stockholders, except for voting rights.

Google argued the structure was being put in place to allow the
company to continue to make the investments it deemed necessary in
emerging technology.

Not everyone was convinced, however. Led by Brockton Retirement
Board in Massachusetts and Philip Skidmore, the shareholder suit
alleged that the stock split was designed to unfairly benefit
Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin.

                       Still No Voting Power

The resolution to the suit, which won't be settled for several
weeks until final court approval, requires Google to compensate
Class C shareholders if, after a year, their shares are worth
less.

Google is pleased to have reached an agreement to settle the
litigation, it said.

"We've always believed our founder-led approach gives us the
freedom to make long-term bets, like Android, Chrome and YouTube,
that benefit consumers and shareholders alike," said the company
in a prepared statement provided to the E-Commerce Times by
spokesperson Matt Kallman.

Some, however, view the resolution as less than favorable to the
disgruntled shareholders.

In particular, the agreement didn't resolve the issue of voting
power, or lack thereof, among the Class C shareholders, noted
David Cadden, a professor in the School of Business at Quinnipiac
University.

"This means that the original founders of Google would essentially
retain the same level of control that they currently possess,"
Cadden told the E-Commerce Times.

                    'Seldom an Ideal World'

The agreement does allow for compensation to the shareholders
should the new stock become less valuable, he continued -- which
in an ideal world would be a win-win for both the founders of
Google and prospective stockholders.

"However, this is seldom an ideal world," Cadden said.

Of course, Google shareholders can always turn to the court for
readdress.  As for Google, it is acutely aware that its actions
will be scrutinized.

"It is clear that Google has an active minority shareholder
population that is watching the company's and its majority
shareholders' actions quite closely," Jenice Malecki, an attorney
at Malecki Law, told the E-Commerce Times.  "To the extent that
the majority shareholders are led astray from acceptable 'best
laid plans,' I have no doubt that the legal community will be re-
engaged into this battle."
A Non-Issue

Assuming that the Class C shares do maintain their value, as
Google argues they will, this stock split -- like most -- should
be a non-issue for shareholders.

"Halving the price of Google shares and doubling the number of
shares outstanding does not change the value of the business,"
Daniel Beckerman, a Covestor model manager and registered
investment advisor, told the E-Commerce Times.  "If Google shares
did not split, that does not limit its growth prospects."

Investors need to look at a stock price in concert with factors
such as its earnings per share, number of shares outstanding,
returns on equity and so on, Beckerman explained.  "Otherwise, the
stock price itself is meaningless.  You can have a higher-priced
stock that is cheaper fundamentally than a lower-priced stock."


HERTZ EQUIPMENT: $76.5-MM Deal on Rental Coverage Suit Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation can pay $76.5 million to
settle claims that it overcharged customers for loss and damage
waivers and fake environmental recovery fees, a federal judge
ruled.

In a 2006 class action, Miguel Pro and Davis Landscape Ltd.
claimed that Hertz's loss and damage waiver provided illusory
coverage for a premium price, and that its environmental recovery
fee did not reflect any expenses actually related to protecting
the environment.

With Carella Byrne, Complex Litigation Group LLC and Seeger Weiss
serving as co-lead counsel, the parties reached a settlement in
March 2013.

U.S. District Judge Dennis in Newark, N.J., quickly granted the
deal preliminary approval and finalized the settlement on June 20,
2013.

Hertz has agreed to reimburse certain customers up to 75 percent
-- totaling up to $3 million -- of loss and damage waiver
deductibles that they paid for damaged rented equipment.

One-time or sporadic customers, on the other hand, may elect to
receive either discounts on up to four future rentals -- totaling
half of all loss and damage waivers they purchased -- or a cash
payment of 15 percent of the total they paid for waivers.

Hertz agreed to pay about $65 million in economic relief to the
class, plus $11.5 million in attorneys' fees, including $1.3
million in hard costs class counsel incurred.

The Company also agreed to plainly state the waiver and fee's
deductible amounts on the first page of its disclosure documents
from now on.

Judge Cavanaugh said the offer met all nine factors the 3rd
Circuit identified in the 1975 ruling, Girsh v. Jepson.

"This court finds that the settlement agreement satisfies Rule
23(e) because the relief it provides the class is 'fair, adequate,
and reasonable' pursuant to the 3rd Circuit's nine-factor Girsh
test," Cavanaugh wrote.  "Notably, none of the members of the
class, numbering in the hundreds of thousands, have objected to
the terms of the settlement."

Class counsel have had plenty of time -- more than six years -- to
conduct discovery in the matter, the judge found.

"This matter has been extensively litigated through certification
and multiple summary judgment motions, and numerous depositions of
witnesses and experts have been conducted," Cavanaugh wrote.
"Counsel was well-versed in the merits and complexities of this
matter before beginning negotiations."

A trial is not necessary in this case, the court ruled.

"The risks of litigation in this matter include the risk of losing
at trial or reversal on appeal," Cavanaugh wrote.  "The settlement
agreement provides substantial monetary and injunctive benefits
without the inherent risk of being unable to establish liability
during litigation.  Accordingly, this factor also weighs in favor
of approval."

Hertz is to pay class counsel within 10 days of final approval,
the judgment states.

"It is clear that class counsel has been extensively involved in
each aspect of this case from its inception more than six years
ago," Cavanaugh wrote.  "The court is therefore satisfied that the
attorneys' fees requested are fair and reasonable."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William L'E Wertheimer, Esq.
          DUGHI, HEWIT & DOMALEWSKI, P.C.
          340 North Avenue
          Cranford, NJ 07016
          Telephone: (908) 272-0200

               - and -

          Scott A. George, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS, LLP
          550 Broad Street, Suite 920
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 639-9100
          E-mail: sgeorge@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  ltaylor@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Julie Diane Miller, Esq.
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC
          513 Central Avenue, Suite 300
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: juliem@complexlitgroup.com

The Defendants were/are represented by:

          Alan E. Kraus, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
          One Newark Center, 16th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07101-3174
          Telephone: (973) 639-7293
          E-mail: alan.kraus@lw.com

               - and -

          Jason B. Lattimore, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS
          One Newark Center, 16th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07101
          Telephone: (973) 639-1234
          E-mail: jason.lattimore@lw.com

               - and -

          Kevin Harry Marino, Esq.
          John D. Tortorella, Esq.
          MARINO TORTORELLA & BOYLE, PC
          437 Southern Boulevard
          Chatham, NJ 07928-1488
          Telephone: (973) 824-9300
          Facsimile: (973) 824-8425
          E-mail: kmarino@khmarino.com
                  jtortorella@khmarino.com

The case is Davis Landscape, Ltd. v. Hertz Equipment Rental
Corporation, Case No. 2:06-cv-03830-DMC-JAD, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.


IGATE CORP: Faces Class Action Over CEO's "Improper Relationship"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PTI reports that outsourcing firm iGate has been slapped with a
class action lawsuit in the US for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws in view of its sacked CEO Phaneesh
Murthy's "improper relationship" with a subordinate employee.

The suit has been filed on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased or acquired securities of iGate between March 14, 2012
and May 21, 2013.

The New York-Based law firm, Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom
& Gross LLP, filed the class action lawsuit against US-based iGate
Corporation and some of its officers in the US district court of
Northern District of California on June 14.

According to the law firm, the complaint has alleged that
throughout the class period, defendants (iGate) had made
materially false and misleading statements regarding its business,
operational and compliance policies.

"Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that" (i) the company's chief executive
officer and president 'Murthy' was involved in an improper
relationship with a subordinate employee in violation of iGATE's
explicit policies to the contrary.

"(ii) Murthy's improper conduct created a risk that he would be
terminated from the company, jeopardizing the company's future
success."  iGate had sacked Mr. Murthy on May 20 for allegedly
failing to report a relationship with a subordinate employee.

"The class action, filed in United States district court, Northern
District of California, and docketed under CV 13 2737 PSG LHK, is
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of iGATE between
March 14, 2012 and May 21, 2013 both dates inclusive," the law
firm said in a statement.

It further added that the action seeks to "recover damages against
the company and certain of its officers and directors as a result
of alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder."

When contacted, an iGate spokesperson said: "We believe that this
claim has no merit, and we intend to vigorously defend this
action.  No other similar claims have been filed."

On being asked whether there was a lapse on its part in hiring
Murthy, who was earlier involved in a similar controversy, the
spokesperson said iGate investigated the sexual harassment claims
made against him before his joining.

"Murthy was part of the management team acquired with the Quintant
acquisition.  Prior to the acquisition, iGate conducted due
diligence into the prior sexual harassment claims made against
Mr. Murthy.

A subsequent investigation was conducted by one of our major
shareholders," he added.

Share price for iGate fell after the announcement of Mr. Murthy's
termination as the CEO was made in May, said the law firm, which
has offices in New York, Chicago, Florida and San Diego.

It specializes in corporate, securities and antitrust class
litigation.

It said that on May 20, iGate disclosed that its board of
directors terminated employment of Mr. Murthy following an
internal investigation, which revealed he had a relationship with
a subordinate employee and a claim of sexual harassment in
violation of its policies and his employment contract.

"On this news, iGATE securities declined $1.58 per share or nearly
10%, to close at $14.82 per share on May 21, 2013," the law firm
added.

On May 22, iGate further revealed that the termination of the CEO
was 'for cause,' and Murthy is not entitled to severance payment
under the terms of his Employment Agreement with the company, it
said.

Mr. Murthy in to his termination acknowledged that he had a
personal relationship with a company employee, which was against
company policy, the firm added.

"On this news, iGATE securities declined an additional $0.64 per
share or more than 4%, to close at $14.18 per share on May 22,
2013," it said.

The firm is already facing an investigation by another law firm,
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, to ascertain whether the company
and its employees violated federal securities laws.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Has Paid $2.5-Mil. Due Under "Gilmor" Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., disclosed in its May 14, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013, that it has satisfied $2.5
million in payments due under a settlement agreement resolving the
class action lawsuit styled Gilmor, et al. v. Preferred Credit
Corp., et. al.

On June 27, 2000, a purported class action was filed entitled
Gilmor, et al. v. Preferred Credit Corp., et. al., alleging the
originator of various second mortgage loans in Missouri and other
assignees of the loans charged fees and costs in violation of
Missouri's Second Mortgage Loan Act, with the court eventually
granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On
March 6, 2013, the court granted final approval of the Company's
settlement in the sum of $3.0 million.  As of April 2013, the
Company has satisfied $2.5 million in payments due under the
settlement agreement with the remaining payments to be made
through July 2014.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.impaccompanies.com/--
is a Maryland corporation headquartered in Irvine, California.
The Company is an established independent residential mortgage
lender.  The Company originates, sells and services residential
mortgage loans through its subsidiaries.


INFOCISION: Wage Class Action Settlement Approved
-------------------------------------------------
Ohio.com reports that a class-action lawsuit against InfoCision
was filed Dec. 10, 2010, in U.S. District Court, Northern District
of Ohio, and presided over by Judge Sara Lioi.  It was settled
May 9, 2012.

The lead plaintiff was Marlene Zuccaro of Mentor, who worked for
InfoCision from February to June 2010.

She and the 317 other plaintiffs were represented by Anthony
Lazzaro and Jason Bristol of Cleveland and Thomas Downie of
Chagrin Falls.

InfoCision was defended by four lawyers from Kastner, Westman &
Wilkins in Akron.

The settlement was approved with the stipulation that the
financial terms remain confidential.  InfoCision agreed to pay the
plaintiffs' legal fees.

The main allegations in the initial complaint were that:

    * InfoCision failed to pay its hourly, nonexempt employees
      minimum wages and overtime.

    * InfoCision failed to include performance bonuses in the
      calculation of the regular pay rate.

    * InfoCision failed to make, keep and preserve records of the
      unpaid work.

While denying that it violated federal law, InfoCision admitted in
court documents that the lead plaintiff "may not have been, in all
instances, expressly compensated for 'follow-up time,' logging
into and out of her computer, 'short breaks,' 'being away from her
desk,' 'downtime' and time during which she had computer
problems."


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Wins Final OK of $500,000 Pact in "Carr" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada
granted final approval to the settlement of the lawsuit captioned
CARR v. INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY.

District Judge Robert C. Jones approved the Settlement, which
includes the payment of $500,000 by or on behalf of Defendants.
The Court approves the maintenance of the Action as a non-opt-out
class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)
with the Settlement Class being defined as:

All persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan
at any time between November 1, 2007, through and including April
23, 2009, and whose individual Plan accounts included investments
in the IGT Stock Fund at any time between November 1, 2007,
through and including April 23, 2009, excluding Defendants and
their immediate family members.

The Court dismissed the Complaint and the Action against the
Defendants with prejudice on the merits, and awarded the
Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of $150,000;
and reimbursement of expenses in the sum of $33,327.25.  The
Plaintiffs are each awarded a case contribution award in the
amount of $2,500.

The case is CHRISTOPHER CARR, ROXANNE CLAYTON and BRIAN BENNETT,
on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
[PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL Plaintiffs, v. INTERNATIONAL GAME
TECHNOLOGY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:09-CV-00584-RCJ-WGC;
and RANDOLPH K. JORDAN and KIMBERLY J. JORDAN, on Behalf of
Themselves and a Class of Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
v. INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY, et al., Defendants., CASE NO.
3:09-CV-00585-RCJ-WGC.

A copy of the District Court's June 26, 2013 Final Approval Order
and Judgment is available at http://is.gd/vyE5b1from Leagle.com.

Int'l Game Tech is represented by Boris Feldman, Esq. --
boris.feldman@wsgr.com -- at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati; and
Jacob Thayer Veltman, Esq. -- jveltman@wsgr.com -- at Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

Plaintiffs Christopher Carr and Brian Bennett are represented by
Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- at Gainey
McKenna & Egleston; Matthew L. Sharp, Esq. --
sharplaw@sbcglobal.net -- at Matthew L. Sharp, Ltd.; Michael J.
Klein, Esq. -- mklein@ssbny.com -- at Stull, Stull & Brody; and
Patrice L. Bishop, Esq. -- pbishop@ssbla.com -- at Stull, Stull &
Brody.

Plaintiffs Randolph K. Jordan and Kimberly J. Jordan are
represented by J. Stewart White, Esq., and Geoffrey White, Esq.,
at White Meany & Wetherall, LLP; Matthew L. Sharp, Esq., at
Matthew L. Sharp, Ltd.; Michael J. Klein, Esq., and Patrice L.
Bishop, Esq., at Stull & Brody; and Thomas J. McKenna, at Gainey
McKenna & Egleston.

Plaintiff is represented by Geoffrey White, at White Meany &
Wetherall, LLP, Matthew L. Sharp, at Matthew L. Sharp, Ltd.,
Michael J Klein, at Stull, Stull & Brody, Patrice L. Bishop, at
Stull, Stull & Brody & Thomas J. McKenna, at Gainey McKenna &
Egleston.

International Game Technology, Defendant, is represented by Boris
Feldman, at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Bret F Meich --
bmeich@armstrongteasdale.com -- at Armstrong Teasdale, LLP,
Cynthia A Dy -- cdy@wsgr.com -- at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati, David S. Steuer -- dsteuer@wsgr.com -- at Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich Rosati, Diane Walters -- dwalters@wsgr.com -- at Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Jacob Thayer Veltman, at Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, Lance Maiss, at Maiss Law Group Ltd, Nikki
Stitt Sokol, at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati & Richard G.
Campbell, Jr. -- rcampbell@armstrongteasdale.com -- at Armstrong
Teasdale, LLP.

Thomas J. Matthews, Defendant, is represented by Boris Feldman, at
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Bret F Meich, at Armstrong
Teasdale, LLP, David S. Steuer, at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati,
Diane Walters, at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Jacob Thayer
Veltman, at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Nikki Stitt Sokol,
at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati; and Richard G. Campbell, Jr.,
at Armstrong Teasdale, LLP.

Defendants Robert A. Bittman, Richard R. Burt, Patti S. Hart,
Robert A. Mathewson, Robert Miller, David E. Roberson, IGT Profit
Sharing Committee, David D. Johnson, Daniel R. Siciliano, Philip
G. Satre, and Leslie S. Heisz are represented by Boris Feldman,
Esq., at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati; Bret F. Meich, Esq., at
Armstrong Teasdale, LLP; David S. Steuer, Esq., Diane Walters,
Esq., Jacob Thayer Veltman, Esq., and Nikki Stitt Sokol, Esq., at
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati; and Richard G. Campbell, Jr.,
Esq., at Armstrong Teasdale, LLP.


JAPAN: NGOs File Class Action v. PM Over Fishing Rights Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Taipei reports that Taiwanese fishermen and three
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) filed a class action suit
against Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in Taiwan on June 17
for Japan's violation of Taiwan's territorial sovereignty and
fishing rights.


JP MORGAN: Gets Preliminary Approval of "Pulley" Class Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James I. Cohn granted the plaintiffs' motion for
(1) preliminary approval of a class action settlement, (2)
certification of settlement class, and (3) approval of class
notice in the lawsuit captioned PHILIP PULLEY, DEBRA PULLEY,
JEROME DAVIS, and SUSAN DAVIS, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and CHASE BANK USA, N.A.; CHASE
INSURANCE AGENCY; JP MORGAN INSURANCE AGENCY; ASSURANT, INC.;
AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY; and VOYAGER INDEMNITY
INSURANCE COMPANY. Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-CV-60936-JIC,
(S.D. Fla.).

The Court conditionally certifies the Class defined as: All
persons in the United States that have or had a residential
mortgage loan or line of credit serviced by the Chase Defendants
and secured by property on which wind insurance was lender-placed
at any time between January 1, 2008 and March 4, 2013.
Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) the
Defendants and their respective board members, directors, and
officers; and (b) borrowers whose wind lender-placed insurance
policy was cancelled in its entirety so that any premiums
collected were fully refunded to the borrower.

The Court appoints the Plaintiffs Philip Pulley, Debra Pulley,
Jerome Davis, and Susan Davis as Settlement Class representatives,
who will represent the Settlement Class for purposes of
implementing the Settlement Agreement. The Court appoints the law
firm of Meredith & Narine as Settlement Class Counsel.

A $4,750,000 Settlement Fund will be established, which will fund:
(a) all Notice and Administrative Costs, including the cost of
Notice; (b) all payments to Settlement Class Members; (c) the Case
Contribution Awards, if any, to Plaintiffs; and (d) Attorneys'
Fees and Expenses, if any, awarded to counsel for Plaintiffs and
the Settlement Class.

Any Settlement Class Member who does not opt out of the Settlement
may object to the Settlement.

Defendants agree not to oppose an application for the award of
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses in the Action not to exceed a total
of $1,425,000 (not including expenses), to be paid from the
Settlement Fund.

A hearing is scheduled for November 22, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., to
finally determine whether the Settlement Agreement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and should be approved by the Court.

A copy of the District Court's June 26, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/iwNooPfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Philip Pulley, Devra Pulley, Susan Davis, and Jerome
Davis are represented by Joel Meredith, Esq. -- jmeredith@m-
npartners.com -- at Meredith & Narine; Krishna B. Narine, Esq. --
knarine@m-npartners.com -- at Meredith & Narine; Garrett Ari
Barten, Esq. -- gbarten@cwiplaw.com -- at Christopher & Weisberg;
and Alan Michael Weisberg, Esq. -- aweisberg@cwiplaw.com -- at
Christopher & Weisberg.

Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Chase Bank USA, N.A., Chase
Insurance Agency, Inc., and JP Morgan Insurance Agency are
represented by Robert Mark Brochin, Esq. --
rbrochin@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis & Bockius; and Brian
M. Ercole, Esq. -- bercole@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan, Lewish,
Brockius, LLP.

Defendants Assurant, Inc., American Security Insurance Company,
and Voyager Indeminty Insurance Company represented by Franklin G.
Burt, Esq. -- fgb@jordenusa.com -- at Jorden Burt LLP; Farrokh
Jhabvala, Esq. -- fj@jordenusa.com --  at Jorden Burt LLP; and
Landon King Clayman, Esq. -- lkc@jordenusa.com -- at Jorden Burt
LLP.


LORILLARD TOBACCO: Massachusetts Court Ruling May Spur More Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that Massachusetts'
highest court has ruled that cigarettes' addictive qualities do
not give cigarette makers "special protection" from product
liability claims, a move that could make the state a hotbed for
tobacco plaintiffs.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court on June 11 affirmed a $35 million
compensatory award to Willie Evans, the son of Marie Evans, who
died in 2002 at the age of 54 from lung cancer caused by smoking
Newport cigarettes.

While the high court struck down an $81 million award in punitive
damages against defendant Lorillard because of a jury instruction
error, plaintiffs see the ruling as a boon for product liability
claims against tobacco makers in Massachusetts, thanks to language
in the decision that said Lorillard could be held liable because
it could have made a safer cigarette.

"(A) reasonable jury could find from the evidence presented that a
low tar, low nicotine cigarette constituted a safer reasonable
alternative to Lorillard's Newport cigarettes," the ruling stated.

"The tobacco industry has been arguing for years that if you take
the addictiveness out of a cigarette, it's not a cigarette
anymore," said Micah Berman, an assistant professor of law at The
Ohio State University's Center for Public Health and Moritz
College of Law, who is not involved in the case.  "This decision
flatly rejected that."

                   'Incredibly Significant'

The lawsuit was brought in 2004 by Marie Evans's estate against
Lorillard.  The suit alleged various causes of action, including
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability due to design
defect and inadequate warning.

To make a case that a product was defectively designed under
Massachusetts case law, plaintiffs must prove that a
"technologically feasible and practical alternative design
(exists) that would have reduced or prevented the plaintiff's
harm," according to the ruling.

At trial, Mr. Evans argued that the Newport cigarettes his mother
smoked were designed to deliver addictive levels of nicotine and
tar, and that cigarette companies could feasibly have made and
sold cigarettes that delivered non-addictive levels of those
chemicals, the ruling said.

The jury awarded the plaintiffs a total of $71 million in
compensatory damages and $81 million in punitive damages.  The
compensatory damages were later reduced to $35 million.

Lorillard appealed, arguing that even if an equivalent non-
addictive cigarette were technically feasible, addictive levels of
tar and nicotine were inherent qualities of cigarettes.  Typical
smokers would shun cigarettes that did not contain sufficient
levels of nicotine, the company said.

The court rejected Lorillard's argument.

"We declined to place addictive chemicals outside the reach of
product liability and give them special protection akin to
immunity based solely on the strength of their addictive
qualities," Justice Ralph Gants wrote in the opinion. "To do so
would eliminate any incentive for cigarette manufacturers to make
safer perhaps the most dangerous product lawfully sold in the
market through reasonable alternative designs."

While Massachusetts hasn't typically been seen as a hotbed of
tobacco litigation in the past, Mr. Evans could change that.

The result of the ruling is that nearly all cigarettes sold in the
state could be declared defective, Mr. Berman said.

"It's incredibly significant," Mr. Berman said of the decision.
"There are not many courts out there who have found that there is
an available alternative design to cigarettes."

Mark Gottlieb, director of the Tobacco Products Liability Project
at Northeastern University School of Law, agreed that the decision
could confer an advantage on plaintiffs "that they didn't have
before."

                        Wave of Litigation

David Geiger, Esq. -- dgeiger@foleyhoag.com -- a partner in Foley
Hoag's product liability and complex tort practice group, authored
an amicus brief on behalf of the Product Liability Advisory
Council, which represents manufacturers on important product
liability issues.

Mr. Geiger said he agreed with the principle that companies can't
be liable for a defective design under Massachusetts law unless
plaintiffs prove that a feasible alternative design exists that
would preserve the product's essential qualities.  He said,
however, the decision disregarded the essential nature of
cigarettes.

The ruling was a "tortured application of a sound principle," he
said.

The Massachusetts court acknowledged in its ruling that few courts
had addressed the addicitiveness issue, in part because few legal
products are as addictive as nicotine.

In 2006, the Florida affirmed a jury's finding that addictive
levels of nicotine in a cigarette qualified as an alleged design
defect.  The court, however, did not explain its reasoning,
according to the Massachusetts opinion.

The Florida ruling came in the well-known Engle family of tobacco
cases, in which a class of smokers was decertified but allowed to
use previous jury findings to bring individual lawsuits against
the cigarette industry.  Thousands of individual lawsuits were
later filed in the state.

The Evans ruling could cause a similar wave of litigation in
Massachusetts, Mr. Berman said.

Mr. Geiger agreed.

"This makes it tremendously easy for anyone to make out a design
defect case," he said.  "It really makes Massachusetts an
extremely inhospitable place to commerce in cigarettes."

Lorillard said in a statement that it was gratified with the
punitive damages ruling, and was considering its options with
respect to the compensatory damages award.  A lawyer for Evans did
not immediately return a request for comment.

The case is Evans v. Lorillard, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court, No. 11179.

For the plaintiffs: Michael Weisman and Thomas Frisardi --
tfrisardi@davismalm.com

For the defendants: Paul Ware, Kevin Martin and Andrew McElaney.


MACMILLAN: CEO Testifies in E-Book Price-Fixing Trial
-----------------------------------------------------
Hillel Italie, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Macmillan CEO John Sargent, who testified this week at a trial
over alleged price-fixing of e-books, was no one's idea of a
friendly witness.

Of the five publishers the U.S. Justice Department sued last year,
Macmillan was the last to settle and the most defiant.  The
government alleged that Macmillan, HarperCollins, Simon &
Schuster, Penguin Group (USA) and Hachette Book Group illegally
conspired to raise wholesale prices in an effort to help Apple
make headway against Amazon in the e-books market.  Speaking last
month at BookExpo America, the publishing industry's annual
convention, Mr. Sargent labeled the government's view of the e-
market as "extraordinarily myopic."

"They carried the water for Amazon, when it had 92 percent of the
market," he said, criticizing the justice department for caring
more about price than a possible monopoly.  "The senior guys,
(Attorney General) Eric Holder, are just incompetent."

Apple is the only defendant left in the antitrust suit, filed in
response to the 2010 launch of the iBookstore and a new "agency"
pricing system.  Publishers, who had worried that Amazon's pricing
of some new e-book releases at $9.99 was crippling to the
industry, welcomed the arrival of Apple and an "agency" model that
allowed publishers, not retailers, to set the cost of e-books.
Many new releases were sold for $12.99 or $14.99, a change the
government has cited as unfair to consumers.

Apple has insisted that its entrance into the e-book market
improved the online book industry and stabilized prices for the
long term.

Mr. Sargent, 56, has said he only settled because Macmillan, owned
by the German-based Holtzbrinck Publishers, was "not large enough
to risk a worst-case judgment," an opinion he clearly still held
on the stand.  Whether under direct or cross testimony in U.S.
District Court on Monday and Tuesday, the lean, graying
Mr. Sargent changed neither his posture nor manner of speaking.
His dark, deep-set eyes stared right at the questioning attorney,
his head was erect, chin upturned, his answers crisp and often
terse.

"What I'm doing here is negotiating," he said in response to
questions from Justice Department lawyer Mark Ryan about exchanges
he had with Apple over contract terms.

Mr. Sargent is seasoned in conflict.  In January 2010, soon before
Apple announced its e-book store, Mr. Sargent became the point man
in the publishers' dispute with Amazon when the online retailer
disabled the "buy" tabs for releases by Bill O'Reilly, Jonathan
Franzen and other Macmillan authors.

Mr. Sargent said that he had proposed that Amazon either accept
the agency model or face a "window" of seven months before new
e-books would become available -- a policy that had become common
among publishers in 2009 because of fears that cheap e-books of
new releases were harming the hardcover market.  The standoff
ended after a few days with Amazon agreeing to the agency system.

Mr. Sargent acknowledged that his initial discussions with Amazon
did not "go well" and that having four other major publishers sign
with Apple would strengthen Macmillan's position in negotiations.
But he resisted suggestions by Justice Department lawyer Mark Ryan
that he had forced Amazon to adopt the agency system.  When Mr.
Mr. Ryan suggested that Apple pressured Mr. Sargent into making
Amazon accept agency, the Macmillan CEO said that such a scenario
was "completely alien" to him.

Mr. Sargent also denied that he consulted with Apple on his
negotiations with Amazon. He said that the practice of telling one
client about his talks with a rival client was bad business and
bad ethics, if only because an executive for one retailer might
take a job with another retailer and reveal what Sargent had said.

"There's no trust left (if that happens)," Mr. Sargent explained.

The rise of e-books is the trial's backdrop, from Amazon's
introduction of the Kindle reading device in 2007, to the
explosive growth of digital sales in 2008 and 2009.  All the
while, publishers' feared that Amazon was dominating the market
and selling books at unsustainable prices.

Both Mr. Ryan and Apple attorney Orin Snyder noted a Macmillan
strategic memo from 2009 that referred to the e-book market as
"fluid" and to the likely emergence of Barnes & Noble, Google and
other new competitors.  Asked by Mr. Ryan whether the memo
contradicted Mr. Sargent's pre-trial testimony that Amazon was
consolidating its hold, Sargent said it didn't.  He called Barnes
& Noble's entry a question mark because the superstore chain had
no experience designing electronic devices. Sony, an early maker
of e-readers, was "clearly failing."  And Google, he said, has
never showed a knack for retail.

"They're very good at running search engines," Mr. Sargent said.

With publishers accused of collusion on prices, Mr. Sargent found
himself discussing the shifting relationships among rival houses.
They might fight to sign up a given author, or juggle release
schedules of popular books in hopes of gaining a coveted No. 1
spot on one of the New York Times' best-seller lists.  At other
times, they are business partners with common goals, whether
fighting piracy or censorship.

Overall, publishers do not view the market as a zero sum game in
which the purchase of a Macmillan book comes at the expense of one
from Simon & Schuster or Random House.  They are more likely to
see a sale for one publisher as helpful to others, what economists
might call a "multiplier effect." Just as reading often begets
more reading, the sale of a book, hopefully, leads to the sale of
more books.

Referring to Amazon's disabling of the "buy" tabs in 2010, Mr.
Ryan asked Mr. Sargent whether he was worried a customer who might
have bought a Macmillan book would instead buy one from a
different publisher.

No, Mr. Sargent responded, he worried only that the customer
didn't buy a Macmillan book.


MERCK & CO: Canadian Finasteride Suit Awaits Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a
Canadian man who claimed to have suffered diminished sex drive at
the age of 25 from his use of Proscar (finasteride) has been
successful in having his finasteride lawsuit approved as a class
action in Canada.  Proscar is a sibling to Propecia, the latter
also containing finasteride, although in a lower dose.

According to the Prince George Citizen, Michael Miller was 25 when
he was prescribed Proscar 5 mg.  Court records indicate he was
advised to cut the 5 mg tablet into four pieces, making it roughly
the same dosage as the 1 mg found in the more expensive Propecia.

Miller had been taking the cut-down Proscar for about a month in
2008 when he began experiencing issues akin to Propecia side
effects in men -- this, according to a written decision from the
pen of BC Supreme Court Justice Robert Punnett, in a ruling issued
March 28.  "Approximately one month after using Proscar the
plaintiff alleges he experienced a diminished sex drive," said
Justice Punnett.  "Over the ensuing months, he became completely
disinterested in sexual activity and was unable to maintain an
erection."

Proscar (finasteride) is prescribed to treat prostate cancer.
However, finasteride was also found to have a positive impact on
male pattern baldness (MPB), giving young balding men a treatment
option that quickly grew in popularity.  While Propecia patients
held fast to the promise of a slowing of their MPB, no one was
prepared for what was to follow for many Propecia users: a
diminished sex drive and Propecia impotence.

Mr. Miller, according to the report, conducted some online
sleuthing and discovered that other Propecia and Proscar patients
were experiencing the same Propecia side effects -- and for some,
adverse reactions that continued long after finasteride was
stopped.

Undaunted, Mr. Miller stopped taking Proscar at the end of January
2009, hoping that his alleged symptoms would eventually disappear.
When they didn't, Miller launched his finasteride class-action
lawsuit.

Mr. Miller asserts that Propecia and Proscar manufacturer Merck
was aware of the potential for Propecia long-term side effects,
but failed to adequately warn consumers.  Warning labels mandated
by Health Canada, the equivalent to the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), referenced "so-called side effects"
identified as "uncommon and do not effect most men" that could
potentially include impotence, decreased semen and problems with
ejaculation.  The plaintiff holds that such warnings were
insufficient.

There was also allegedly no mention of prolonged Proscar impotence
or Propecia long-term side effects continuing after medication was
stopped.  Health officials in Sweden were reported to have asked
Merck in 2007 to include in product labeling the possibility of
persistent erectile dysfunction after the medication was
discontinued.  Merck is said to have agreed to the label change
for the Swedish market in 2008.

The Proscar/Propecia lawsuit has thus been approved as a class
action, but certification remains pending.  Latest numbers suggest
that 300 men have come forward and shown interest in joining the
lawsuit in Canada.  A similar Propecia lawsuit was filed in
Ontario Superior Court by plaintiffs Sean Ramsaran and Chris
Asimakopoulos in 2011.

Last November, while reporting Q3 earnings, Merck revealed the
existence of 265 Propecia lawsuits in New York and New Jersey
alone.

The Canadian class-action lawsuit was approved in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia, Docket S110437, on March 28 and awaits
certification.  As of March 5, there were 140 actions pending in
the Propecia MDL (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New
York, MDL 2331 - IN RE: Propecia (Finasteride) Products Liability
Litigation).


MONSANTO CO: Center for Food Safety Wheat Farmers File Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Linda Larsen, writing for Food Poisoning Bulletin, reports that
the Center for Food Safety and Pacific Northwest wheat farmers
have filed a class action lawsuit against Monsanto.  In May,
illegal genetically engineered, glyphosate-resistant wheat plants
were found growing in Oregon.  That what has not been approved for
sale or commercial production in the U.S. Importers such as South
Korea, Japan, and the EU enacted restrictions on American wheat
after the discovery.

Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety
said in a statement, "Monsanto has put our farmer's wheat export
at grave risk.  Billions of dollars, and our food supply, is at
risk because of Monsanto's negligence.  They must be held
accountable."

The wheat was grown in field tests in 16 states from 1998 to 2005.
Monsanto gave up its pursuit of regulatory approval in May 2004
after meeting market resistance.  Many wheat farmers and consumer
groups have said that GE wheat could contaminate conventional
wheat.  Since many markets around the world reject GE products,
fewer buyers lowers the price of American wheat.

Dr. Martha Crouch, a consultant for CFS said, "The discover of
unapproved Roundup Ready wheat in a farmer's field in Oregon,
years after Monsanto terminated field testing, is one more example
of Monsanto's inability to keep their engineered genes under
control.  Until Monsanto and USDA begin to take gene flow from
field tests more seriously, we can expect escaped genes to
continue to cause havoc."

The farmers are suing for diminished prices for soft white wheat
as well as increased costs from trying to maintain integrity of
the conventional soft white wheat supply.  Opponents of GE wheat
have said this would happen.  A 2005 study estimated that the
wheat industry could lose up to $272 million if GE wheat were
introduced.  Past transgenic contamination involving GE corn and
rice have caused more than $1 billion in losses.


NEW YORK, NY: Settles Class Action Over Police Pension Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Prochilo, writing for Law360, reports that the Manhattan U.S.
Attorney's Office announced on June 17 it had reached a proposed
settlement with New York City resolving a class action alleging
the city failed to pay full pension benefits to police officers
summoned to perform military service.

The terms of the agreement, which is subject to court approval,
would not only apply to the roughly 1,500 members of the New York
City Police Department who were called to serve in the National
Guard and other branches of the U.S. military since 9/11, but also
to all municipal workers who served since the terrorist attacks,
according to the settlement.

"Under the law, these dedicated public servants should not be
penalized with a reduction in pension benefits for fulfilling a
service to their nation," U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said in a
statement, commending the city for reaching an agreement "that
achieves the best possible result not only for NYPD officers, but
for all employees of the city who have chosen or may in the future
choose to devote themselves to military service."

According to the U.S. Attorney's Office, which filed the suit in
July 2010, the city, its police department and the New York City
Police Pension Fund improperly calculated the pension benefits of
the officers who were in the armed forces by only including their
base pay, instead of overtime and night differential pay that they
would have likely earned had they not been serving in the
military.

Mr. Bharara announced in August he was adding class allegations,
suing on behalf of all current and retired NYPD officers who have
performed active military service since September 11, 2001, or who
will do so in the future.

That decision was made days after District Judge Richard Sullivan
allowed the suit -- which was initially brought on behalf of David
Goodman, an officer who had done military service -- to be amended
and made a class action.  The separate suits filed by Michael
Doherty and Robert Black in March 2011, which made similar
allegations as Goodman's complaint, were then merged into a single
action, according to the settlement.

Mr. Bharara said the city's conduct violated the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, which requires
that, in calculating pension benefits, an employer take into
account the compensation that a service member would likely have
earned had he or she not been performing military service.

Under the tentative agreement, the city consented to recalculate
the pension benefits of the roughly 300 retirees within the
proposed class to include overtime, additional night shift pay and
other factors.  Their future benefits will be adjusted to reflect
any increase resulting from accounting for that added
compensation.

The city also agreed to apply the new pension determination
formula to the retirement systems for teachers, firefighters and
other municipal workers so that every city employee who has been
or will be called up for active duty will receive all the
earnings, including extras beyond their base pay such as longevity
pay and compensation for worked vacation time, they would have
gotten had they not been serving in the military.  The number of
other New York City employees who the settlement would cover was
unavailable on Tuesday.

In addition to filing the putative settlement, Mr. Bharara also
motioned for the court to certify the class and to authorize that
notice of the settlement be sent out to all the class members.

Assistant Corporation Counsel for the city's law department, Keri
Reid McNally, said in a statement that the city "initially
disagreed with the United States' interpretation of the statute at
issue; however, we believe this resolution is fair and in the best
interests of the city, NYPD and Police Pension Fund, as well as
the proposed class members who served our country."

How much the settlement would increase the pension fund's
obligations was not immediately clear on June 18.

The police officers were represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys
Tara LaMorte and Arastu Chaudhury of the Civil Rights Unit of the
U.S. Attorney's Office.

The city was represented by Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo
and Assistant Corporation Counsel Keri McNally.

The case is David Goodman et al. v. the City of New York et al.,
case number 1:10-cv-05236 before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


NTS INC: Still Awaits OK of Settlement in "Tzur" Suit vs. Xfone
---------------------------------------------------------------
NTS, Inc., is still awaiting court approval of a settlement of the
class action lawsuit captioned Eliezer Tzur et al. vs. 012 Telecom
Ltd., et al., filed against its former Israel-based subsidiary,
according to the Company's May 14, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On January 19, 2010, Eliezer Tzur et al. (the "Petitioners") filed
a request to approve a claim as a class action (the "Class Action
Request") against Xfone 018 Ltd. ("Xfone 018"), the Company's
former 69% Israel-based subsidiary, and four other Israeli telecom
companies, all of which are entities unrelated to the Company
(collectively with Xfone 018, the "Defendants"), in the Central
District Court, Israel (the "Israeli Court").  The Petitioners'
claim alleges that the Defendants have not fully fulfilled their
alleged legal requirement to bear the cost of telephone calls by
customers to the Defendants' respective technical support centers.
One of the Petitioners, Mr. Eli Sharvit ("Mr. Sharvit"), seeks
damages from Xfone 018 for the cost such telephone calls allegedly
made by him during the 5.5-year period preceding the filing of the
Class Action Request, which he assessed at NIS54.45 (approximately
$15).  The Class Action Request, to the extent it pertains to
Xfone 018, states total damages of NIS7,500,000 (approximately
$2,055,921) which reflects the Petitioners' estimation of damages
caused to all customers that (pursuant to the Class Action
Request) allegedly called Xfone 018's technical support number
during a certain period defined in the Class Action Request.

On February 22, 2012, Xfone 018 and Mr. Sharvit entered into a
settlement agreement, which following the instructions of the
Israeli Court was supplemented on May 3, 2011, and amended on
July 18, 2011, and on March 21, 2012 (the "Settlement Agreement").
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Xfone 018 agreed to
compensate its current and past registered customers of
international calling services who called its telephone service
center from July 4, 2004, until February 21, 2010, due to a
problem with the international calling services, and were charged
for such calls.  The Compensation includes a right for a single,
up to ten minutes, free of charge, international call to one
landline destination around the world, and shall be valid for a
period of six months.  In addition, Xfone 018 agreed to pay Mr.
Sharvit a one-time special reward in the amount of NIS10,000
(approximately $2,741) (the "Reward").  Xfone 018 further agreed
to pay Mr. Sharvit attorneys' fee for professional services in the
amount of NIS40,000 (approximately $10,965) plus VAT (the
"Attorneys Fee").  In return, Mr. Sharvit and the members of the
Represented Group (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) agreed
to waive any and all claims in connection with the Class Action
Request.  As required by Israeli law in such cases, the Settlement
Agreement is subject to the approval of the Israeli Court.  On
April 30, 2012, the Israeli Court appointed a CPA as an examiner
to review and assess the Settlement Agreement (the "Examiner").
The Examiner was instructed to advise the Israeli Court whether in
his opinion the Settlement Agreement is reasonable.

On October 18, 2012 the Examiner submitted his assessment to the
Israeli Court.  According to the Examiner's assessment, there are
a number of impediments that will deter the Represented Group from
making use of the right to a free call including the low value of
the call and its limited utility.  According to the Examiner, the
appropriate solution would have been to compensate the specific
affected customers for the damage caused.  However, since the
Examiner recognizes that, pursuant to Xfone 018's claims, the
solution is impractical, the Examiner proposes to consider
revising the manner in which the alleged damage, which he
estimates at NIS98,000 (approximately $26,864), will be paid for
by Xfone 018.  Following the Examiner's assessment, Xfone 018 and
Mr. Sharvit have agreed to amend the Settlement Agreement, by
giving the Israeli Court the discretion to decide whether Xfone
018 shall grant the free call benefit or donate a sum of NIS49,000
(approximately $13,432) to Ezer  Mizion, a non-profit organization
("Ezer Mizion") (the "Amended Settlement Agreement").  The Amended
Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Israeli Court,
which ruled that a notice to the general public concerning the
Amended Settlement Agreement shall be published in two daily
papers.  The said notices have been published and the period for
submitting objections to the Amended Settlement Agreement has
expired.  The Company is awaiting a final decision from the
Israeli Court regarding the two alternatives and expects the
Israeli Court to approve the Amended Settlement Agreement.

On May 14, 2010, the Company entered into an agreement (including
any amendment and supplement thereto, the "Agreement") with
Marathon Telecom Ltd. for the sale of the Company's majority (69%)
holdings in Xfone 018.  Pursuant to Section 10 of the Agreement,
the Company is fully and exclusively liable for any and all
amounts, payments or expenses incurred by Xfone 018 as a result of
the Class Action Request.  Section 10 of the Agreement provides
that the Company shall bear any and all expenses or financial
costs which are entailed by conducting the defense on behalf of
Xfone 018 and/or the financial results thereof, including pursuant
to a judgment or settlement (it was agreed that in the event that
Xfone 018 will be obligated to provide services at a reduced
price, the Company shall bear only the cost of such services).
Section 10 of the Agreement further provides that the defense by
Xfone 018 shall be performed in full cooperation with the Company
and with mutual assistance.  It is agreed between the Company and
Xfone 018 that subject to and upon the approval of the Amended
Settlement Agreement by the Israeli Court, the Company shall bear
and/or pay: (i) the costs of the free call benefit or donation;
(ii) the Reward; (iii) the Attorneys Fee; and (iv) Xfone 018
attorneys' fees for professional services in connection with the
Class Action Request, estimated at approximately NIS75,000
(approximately $20,559); and (v) any other related costs (such as
publication expenses and the Examiner's fees).

In the event the Amended Settlement Agreement is not approved by
the Israeli Court, Xfone 018 intends to vigorously defend the
Class Action Request.

NTS, Inc., was incorporated in Nevada in September 2000 under the
name Xfone, Inc.  In February 2012, the Company changed its name
to "NTS, Inc."  The Company provides, through its subsidiaries,
integrated communications services, which include voice, video and
data over the Company's Fiber-To-The-Premise and other networks.
The Company is based in Lubbock, Texas.


NW MANAGEMENT: Farm Workers Get Favorable Ruling in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Dininny, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
federal judge has ruled that a class of more than 650 farm workers
should have had information about wages and other job conditions
disclosed to them by the company that hired them.

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Rice of Spokane ruled on June 17
that N.W. Management and Realty Service Inc. failed to register as
a farm labor contractor or provide written documentation about
wages and other conditions of the work.

The workers were hired to labor in two orchards near Sunnyside,
about 40 miles southeast of Yakima.  The orchards are owned by
John Hancock Insurance Co., which leased them to Farmland
Management Services, a national farm management company with
offices in Turlock, California, and Champaign, Illinois Farmland
then subleased the orchards to N.W. Management and Realty Service,
a Pasco farm management company that operates in Eastern
Washington.

Judge Rice also ruled that John Hancock and Farmland Management
are liable in the case and set a July hearing to determine
damages.

Telephone messages were left at all three companies seeking
comment.

If you are a landowner and you are benefiting from the land by
selling a crop, you're also responsible for making sure your
contractors are complying with basic requirements of Washington
state law, said Lori Isley, a Columbia Legal Services lawyer
representing the farm workers.

"What's really important here is that the court determined the
workers are entitled to these real basic and simple disclosures
about what the requirements of the job are, so they don't run into
problems later," she said.  "We're very pleased the court has
recognized the importance of this law for the farm worker
community."

Several workers filed suit last July 2012, alleging they were
fired by N.W.  Management in retaliation for calling police
because an orchard foreman was intimidating employees by
displaying and brandishing a gun.  They also claimed that the
company had shorted their wages and failed to document all their
work.

The court approved class-action status on the latter claims in
February.  According to Columbia Legal Services, workers could
each receive between $1,000 and $3,000 for the violations.

A November trial has been scheduled for five workers who claim
they were fired in retaliation.


OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Suit vs. Genaera Trust
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit brought against the Genaera Liquidating
Trust, according to the Company's May 14, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

In July 2012, the Company received notice that it was being named,
along with twenty six other parties, as a defendant in a class
action lawsuit being brought against the Genaera Liquidating Trust
("Trust").  The Company purchased biotechnology assets from the
Trust in 2009.  The Company does not believe the allegations
against the Company in the complaint have merit and intends to
defend the case vigorously.  Recognizing that the outcome of
litigation is uncertain, management believes that the litigation
is unlikely to have a materially adverse impact to the Company's
financial statements.

Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in New York.  Ohr is a biotechnology company focused on the
development of its previously acquired compounds with a focus on
the clinical development of its two later stage lead products,
OHR/AVR118 for the treatment of cancer cachexia (multi-symptom
wasting disorder), and Squalamine for the treatment of the wet
form of age-related macular degeneration using an eye drop
formulation.


OXFORD HEALTH: Fisher Phillips Discusses Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher & Philips LLP reports that on June 10, 2013 a unanimous
decision of the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the standard of
review federal courts will use when reviewing an arbitrator's
decision about whether parties contemplated class arbitration when
they entered into a broadly worded mandatory-arbitration
provision.  Though the case involved an arbitration provision
outside the employment context, this decision has implications for
employers using mandatory arbitration agreements in employment
contracts and other agreements with employees.

Based on the Court's holding in this case, which essentially
eliminates federal court review of an arbitrator's decision
regarding whether an arbitration clause permits class arbitration,
employers should reevaluate their current mandatory arbitration
language to ensure that the company's intent is explicit.  Oxford
Health Plans LLC v. Sutter.

Background

In this case, Oxford Health Plans included a mandatory arbitration
clause in its Primary Care Physician Agreement governing the
reimbursement of medical fees to doctors under the system.  The
arbitration clause provided that:

No civil action concerning any dispute arising under this
Agreement shall be instituted before any court, and all such
disputes shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration in
New Jersey, pursuant to the Rules of the American Arbitration
Association with one arbitrator.

In 2002, Dr. John Sutter filed a class action lawsuit against
Oxford, alleging that the company engaged in a practice of
improperly denying, underpaying, and delaying reimbursement of
physicians' claims for the provision of medical services.  Oxford
successfully argued that this dispute should be decided by an
arbitrator, rather than a state court.

The arbitrator's first task was to determine whether the
arbitration clause in the agreement allowed for class arbitration.
Despite the fact that the arbitration clause did not explicitly
say so, the arbitrator found that the broad language contained in
the agreement included all conceivable court actions, including
class actions.

Oxford challenged the arbitrator's decision in federal court,
arguing that the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his authority by
allowing class arbitration.  While the parties were litigating
this issue, the Supreme Court issued two important decisions.
Supreme Court's Prior Arbitration Decisions

In Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp, the Court
clarified that parties must explicitly agree to class arbitration
and held that "a party may not be compelled under the FAA to
submit to class arbitration unless there is a contractual basis
for concluding that the party agreed to do so."  But in Stolt-
Nielsen, unlike Oxford Health Plans, the parties stipulated that
they did not contemplate class arbitration.  The Court correctly
noted that arbitration "is a matter of consent, not coercion."
See our Legal Alert on the Stolt-Nielsen decision.

One year later, in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the Court
recognized that companies generally would not benefit from class
arbitration and noted that "the differences between bilateral and
class-action arbitration are too great for arbitrators to presume
. . . that the parties' mere silence on the issue of class-action
arbitration constitutes consent to resolve their disputes in class
proceedings."  Our prior Legal Alert contains a full discussion of
Concepcion.

Supreme Court's Clarified Standard

Despite the Supreme Court's decisions holding that parties must
agree to class action arbitration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 3rd Circuit upheld the arbitrator's decision that the
arbitration clause drafted by Oxford permitted class arbitration.
Oxford petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that 1) the 3rd
Circuit used an improper legal standard to review the arbitrator's
decision; and 2) the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his
authority by deciding that the arbitration agreement allowed for
class arbitration.

In this case, a unanimous Supreme Court affirmed the 3th Circuit's
decision, holding that the federal court's review of an
arbitrator's decision is extremely limited -- the federal court
may only review "whether the arbitrator (even arguably)
interpreted the parties' contract, not whether he got its meaning
right or wrong."  According to the Court, the arbitrator's
decision regarding whether the parties contemplated class
arbitration, however "good, bad, or ugly," is binding on the
federal court, so long as the arbitrator was "arguably construing"
the contract.

The Court indicated that there is still an open question as to
whether the availability of class arbitration is a "question of
arbitrability," meaning whether the federal courts should decide
this issue, rather than the arbitrator.  The Court found, however,
that Oxford waived this argument by asking the arbitrator to
decide whether the contract permitted class arbitration.  Justices
Alito and Thomas concurred in the unanimous decision, but
indicated that had Oxford not waived the issue of arbitrability,
they would have found that the contract did not authorize the
arbitrator to decide whether to conduct class arbitration.
What This Decision Means For Employers

The arbitration agreement in this case was drafted in 1998 at a
time when class action arbitration was not a widely-used practice
and therefore was not specifically considered.  Today, employees
often pursue class arbitration for a variety of employment-related
claims including wage and hour issues.  Therefore, many employers
have adjusted by drafting mandatory arbitration provisions to
explicitly exclude class arbitration and avoid any uncertainty.

If your company's mandatory arbitration agreement does not address
class actions or class arbitration, you should consider revising
your agreement to explicitly prohibit employees from bringing such
actions in either forum.  Allowing an arbitrator to decide whether
your agreement encompasses class arbitration, especially under the
Supreme Court's clarified standard providing limited or no
judicial review, is not advisable.

But drafting such agreements can be tricky.  The National Labor
Relations Board has found that class waivers in arbitration
agreements may violate Section 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act because employees have a substantive right to litigate
employment disputes collectively.

Although federal courts have been reluctant to adopt the NLRB's
reasoning, you should carefully review your mandatory arbitration
agreement to ensure that your company's interest in avoiding class
action litigation is protected, while also minimizing the risk
that the agreement will be found unlawful by the Board.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about
your specific circumstances.


OXFORD HEALTH: Proskauer Discusses Arbitration Provision Issue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Hirschhorn, Esq. -- rhirschhorn@proskauer.com -- and
Jacquelyn Weisman, Esq. -- jweisman@proskauer.com -- at Proskauer
report that ERISA plan sponsors, and employers more broadly, have
been anxiously awaiting two rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court
that they hope would clarify the ability to enforce class action
waivers in arbitration agreements.  On June 11, the Court issued
the first of these decisions in Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter,
a case in which Sutter alleged on behalf of himself and a class of
health care providers that Oxford and other insurers had breached
their contract and committed various state law violations.  The
Supreme Court determined that an arbitrator had interpreted the
arbitration provision at issue as allowing class actions and thus
there was no basis to conclude that the arbitrator had exceeded
his powers.

Although the decision does not expressly address the underlying
issues that employers and ERISA plan sponsors had hoped it would,
the Court's decision may be most important for what was not said.
In particular, the Court's decision to leave intact an
arbitrator's ruling that allowed a class action to proceed in
arbitration and not comment (or even suggest) that a prohibition
on class action waivers would be inappropriate could be a signal
that the Court would enforce an appropriately drafted arbitration
agreement that requires the arbitration of all claims and, at the
same time, precludes class action arbitrations.  There remains
hope that the Court will further address this issue in the second
ruling expected by the end of the Court's term in June.  That case
is American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant and there the
Court is expected to address in an anti-trust action whether a
class action waiver is enforceable even if plaintiffs could
demonstrate that the practical effect of enforcement would be to
preclude them from vindicating their federal statutory rights.


PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Texas Court Certifies Investor Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce M. Sabados, Esq. -- bruce.sabados@kattenlaw.com -- and Dean
N. Razavi, Esq. -- dean.razavi@kattenlaw.com -- at Katten Muchin
Rosenman LLP, report that the US District Court for the Western
District of Texas certified a class of common stock purchasers in
an action against Pain Therapeutics, Inc. and its directors.  The
plaintiff's complaint, which alleges that PTI misled investors
concerning its efforts to obtain Federal Drug Administration
approval for the painkiller REMOXY.

Among the requirements for certifying a class is that the "claims
or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the
claims or defenses of the class," and "the representatives will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class."  PTI
argued that the proposed plaintiff class could not meet these
elements because the general partner of the lead plaintiff was a
sophisticated investor.  In rejecting the argument and certifying
the class, the court found that Congress, in the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act, expressed a desire for
sophisticated plaintiffs in class action securities case.  The
court found that the plaintiff's "sophistication makes it more
suitable to serve as a lead plaintiff, not less."

KB Partners I, L.P. v. Barbier, No. A-11-CA-1034-SS, 2013 WL
2443217 (W.D. Tex. 2013).


PAPA JOHN'S: Settles Text Spamming Class Action for $16.5 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Kase, writing for Lawyers.com, reports that Papa John's has
settled for $16.5 million a class action lawsuit alleging that the
pizza chain illegally spammed its customers with text messages.
If the settlement is approved by a judge, each class member will
receive $50 and a free pizza.

The suit was filed in Seattle last year, seeking $250 million on
claims that the pizza company violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by sending out unwanted texts to people who had
recently purchased pies, breadsticks and other fare.

"After I ordered from Papa John's, my telephone started beeping
with text messages advertising pizza specials.  Papa John's never
asked permission to send me text message advertisements," a
plaintiff alleged.  Others said they would get over a dozen texts
in a row, sometimes in the middle of the night.

Papa John's, nationally known for its garlic dipping sauce, put
the blame for the texts on a marketing company used by some of the
franchises.  The pizza chain also claimed that customers gave
consent for advertising when they gave their phone numbers while
ordering.

The settlement includes no admission of liability by the company.

                       Prior Express Consent

The class action was made possible by federal law that attempts to
shield consumers from unwanted phone solicitation.

"In a nutshell, the TCPA prohibits various forms of
telemarketing," says Matthew P. McCue, an attorney in
Massachusetts who specializes in consumer rights lawsuits.

The text message rules under the Act are crystal clear: "A
telemarketer can only send texts to your cell if they have prior
express consent- or an existing business relationship," McCue
says.

The Act also prohibits robocall marketing, marketing by calling
random numbers, marketing to numbers on the Do Not Call list and
unsolicited junk faxes.

The TCPA provides for damages of between $500 and $1500 per text
violation; however, it doesn't provide for attorney fees.
"Accordingly, consumers seeking to enforce their rights under the
TCPA often face off against some of the largest firms in the U.S.
hired by telemarketers to defend these claims," says Mr. McCue.
"The class mechanism, however, allows consumers to aggregate their
claims and retain competent counsel who agree to pay all expenses
of the litigation and assume the risk that they will only get paid
at the end of the case if they win."

                       Vicarious Liability

Mr. McCue recently represented a plaintiff before the FCC, which
resulted in a ruling clarifying that companies who contract other
firms to make illegal phone calls can still be held liable under
the TCPA.

The rule could have hurt Papa John's claim that it was their
marketing contractor, not them, which sent the unwanted texts, had
the lawsuit ever gone to trial.

The FCC ruling further noted that the company selling the product
in question is more likely to be held vicariously liable for phone
calls or texts if it authorized the marketers to act on its behalf
and use its brand name, and if it helped design training sessions
or provide information about the product to the people actually
making the calls.

"This Order is very significant for consumers as it sets forth the
circumstances pursuant to which defendants will be liable for
telemarketing acts of third parties in violation of the TCPA," the
attorney says."  Enforcement of the TCPA is the only realistic
means in which consumers can address and prevent illegal
telemarketing."


PENINSULA LINK: Residents Launch Class Action Over House Damage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Tatman, writing for Frankston Standard Leader, reports
that residents are launching a class action over damage to their
houses they claim was caused by Peninsula Link.

Residents in Dunsterville Cres, which partly runs parallel to
Peninsula Link, want compensation for a range of damages to their
houses including cracked walls, damaged slabs and movement between
cupboards and architraves.

The residents, led by Simon Soroka, allege the damage was caused
by vibrations made by heavy equipment during the construction of
Peninsula Link.

Mr. Soroka told the Leader he feared his house was no longer
habitable.

"I am worried we cannot live in the house.  The floor is creaking
badly . . . it's nearly every step," he said.

"I just want our house fixed up. We are just after reinstatement
of our house."

Fellow resident Phil Taylor said damage to his house included
cracking in the bathroom and the carport pillars along with his
laundry window frame had dropped.

"Everything was OK until they vibrated the house.  I want
something done about it," Mr. Taylor said.

Mr. Soroka expects up to 40 residents to join the class action.

A spokesperson for Abigroup, which built the road, declined to
comment.

However, Peninsula Link project director Graeme Chambers wrote to
both Mr. Soroka in 2011 and Mr. Taylor in 2013, stating that
Peninsula Link was "not responsible for the damage to your
property".

Jennings Property Inspections carried out investigations at both
properties on behalf of Peninsula Link.

In a letter to Mr. Soroka, Mr. Chambers said the cracking of the
plaster walls was likely to have already been there: "The cracking
in the cupboards was as a result of movement between two different
materials, and the mortar and cracked concrete were pre-existing
issues".


PFIZER INC: Ontario Court Approves Neurontin Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP on June 19 disclosed that a Settlement Agreement in
the Canada wide Neurontin class action has now been approved by
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  The class action was
previously certified on behalf of Canadians who were prescribed
and ingested the drug Neurontin prior to August 5, 2004 in respect
of allegations that use of Neurontin, a prescription
anticonvulsant commonly prescribed for off-label uses, results in
an increased risk of experiencing suicidal behavior.

"We are very pleased with this result and look forward to moving
ahead with the implementation of the compensation program" says
Matt Baer, one of the Class Counsel responsible for negotiating
the settlement.  "We would like to commend the Defendants for
putting this compensation program in place for Canadians even
though they deny any liability and this settlement is not an
admission of any liability."  "Formal notice of the settlement is
being disseminated which provides details, including deadlines, of
how claimants are able to submit a claim."

Please see www.classaction.ca/neurontin (English and French), or
contact Matt Baer (English enquiries) at (519) 660-7782 or Ursula
Anzigbamo (French enquiries) at (519) 672-2121 ext 2409.


POLARIS FUTURES: "Abu Dhabi" Class Suit Dismissed in April
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al.
v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al., was dismissed in April 2013,
according to Polaris Futures Fund L.P.'s May 14, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Polaris Futures Fund L.P. (the "Partnership") commenced trading
operations on August 1, 2007, in accordance with the terms of its
Limited Partnership Agreement (the "Limited Partnership
Agreement").  Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC is doing business as
Morgan Stanley Wealth Management ("Morgan Stanley Wealth
Management") and serves as placement agent to the Partnership.
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("MS&Co.") acts as clearing commodity
broker of each of the Partnership's trading companies.  Morgan
Stanley & Co. International plc ("MSIP") acts as each Trading
Company's commodity broker to the extent it trades on the London
Metal Exchange (collectively, MS&Co. and MSIP are referred to as
the "Commodity Brokers").  Each Trading Company's over-the-counter
foreign exchange spot, options, and forward contract counterparty
is either MS&Co. and/or Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. ("MSCG")
to the extent a Trading Company trades options on over-the-counter
foreign currency forward contracts.

On August 25, 2008, Morgan Stanley and two ratings agencies were
named as defendants in a purported class action related to
securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne
Finance PLC and Cheyne Finance LLC (together, the "Cheyne SIV").
The case was styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan
Stanley & Co. Inc., et al.  The complaint alleged, among other
things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the
Cheyne SIV were false and misleading, including because the
ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the
subprime residential mortgage backed securities held by the Cheyne
SIV. The plaintiffs asserted allegations of aiding and abetting
fraud and negligent misrepresentation relating to approximately
$852 million of securities issued by the Cheyne SIV.  On April 24,
2013, the parties reached an agreement to settle the case, and on
April 26, 2013, the court dismissed the action with prejudice.
The settlement does not cover certain claims that were previously
dismissed.

New York-based Polaris Futures Fund L.P. was formed in February
2007 in Delaware as a multi-advisor commodity pool created to
profit from the speculative trading of domestic commodities and
foreign commodity futures contracts, forward contracts, foreign
exchange commitments, options on physical commodities and futures
contracts, spot (cash) commodities and currencies, exchange of
futures contracts for physicals transactions, exchange of
physicals for futures contracts transactions, and any rights
pertaining thereto through its investments in affiliated trading
companies.


SAC CAPITAL: Scott & Scott Named Lead Counsel in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Max Stendahl, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge has named Scott & Scott LLP as lead counsel in a putative
class action against SAC Capital Advisors over an alleged $276
million insider trading scheme at the hedge fund involving Wyeth
Ltd. stock, according to a June 17 order.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero appointed Scott & Scott as lead
counsel and the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System, a
Wyeth investor, as lead plaintiff.  The complaint in New York
federal court stems from a federal government investigation of
Mathew Martoma, a former SAC portfolio manager accused in November
of trading on confidential information about a trial for an
Alzheimer's drug being developed by Wyeth and Elan Corp.

The price of Wyeth and Elan shares plummeted when the companies
announced in July 2008 that the trial had gone poorly.
Mr. Martoma, who had shorted the stocks based on an inside tip,
earned the hedge fund $276 million in profits and avoided losses,
according to prosecutors.

The class action was filed April 12 by the Birmingham Retirement
and Relief System on behalf of other investors who purchased Wyeth
stock in the year preceding the announcement.  Elan investors have
launched a separate class action in New York over the alleged
scheme.  The two suits have been consolidated by the court but are
proceeding on behalf of separate classes.

"Upon consideration of the motion and the memorandum and
declaration in support, the court finds good cause to appoint City
of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System as lead plaintiff, and
the law firm Scott and Scott Attorneys at Law LLP as lead counsel
for the class," Judge Marrero wrote in an order on June 17
granting the parties' requests.

The defendants named in the suit are SAC, its founder Steven A.
Cohen, several units of the hedge fund, Mr. Martoma, and Sidney
Gilman, a professor of neurology at the University of Michigan
Medical School who chaired the committee overseeing the drug trial
and allegedly provided the key tips.

Mr. Martoma has denied wrongdoing, while SAC has agreed to a $600
million civil settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission without admitting or denying the agency's allegations.
Cohen has not been charged.

Mr. Gilman, for his part, struck a nonprosecution agreement and
has cooperated with prosecutors.

Prosecutors say Mr. Martoma corrupted Mr. Gilman, and that at Mr.
Mr. Martoma's urging, SAC unit CR Intrinsic invested more than
$700 million in Wyeth and Elan, an investment opposed by all but
Mr. Martoma.  After the portfolio manager learned about problems
with the drug trial, CR Intrinsic unwound nearly its entire
position and shorted the two companies.

Mr. Martoma allegedly met Mr. Gilman through an expert networking
firm, and paid the doctor $100,000 for 42 consultations on the
pharmaceutical sector.

The Birmingham Retirement and Relief System is represented by
Joseph P. Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- David R.
Scott -- drscott@scott-scott.com -- and Donald Broggi --
dbroggi@scott-scott.com -- of Scott & Scott LLP.

The plaintiffs in the Elan case are represented by Ethan D. Wohl
-- ewohl@wohlfruchter.com -- Krista T. Rosen --
krosen@wohlfruchter.com -- and Sara J. Wigmore --
swigmore@wohlfruchter.com -- of Wohl & Fruchter LLP, and by Marc
I. Gross -- migross@pomlaw.com -- Jason S. Cowart --
jscowart@pomlaw.com -- and Emma Gilmore -- egilmore@pomlaw.com --
of Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP.

The Wyeth case is Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. SAC
Capital Advisors LLC et al., case number 13-cv-02459, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The Elan
case is Kaplan v. SAC Capital Advisors LP et al., case number
12-cv-09350, in the same court.


SEARS OUTLET: "Gonzales" Suit Goes Back to State Court
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Otis D. Wright, II, issued an order remanding the
case JOHNNY GONZALES, Plaintiff, v. SEARS OUTLET STORES, LLC, and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-04293-ODW
(MANX), (C.D. Cal.), to Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Sears Outlet filed a Notice of Removal but the Court determined
that Sears has failed to satisfy its burden of establishing
federal jurisdiction.

A copy of the District Court's June 26, 2013 Remand Order is
available at http://is.gd/KeQ0XBfrom Leagle.com.

Johnny Gonzales, Plaintiff, is represented by Joseph Ray Becerra,
Esq. -- jbecerra@jrbecerralaw.com -- at Law Office of Joseph R.
Becerra; and Torey Joseph Favarote, Esq. --
tjf@gfemploymentlawyers.com -- at Gleason and Favarote LLP.

Sears Outlet Stores LLC, Defendant, is represented by Brian Lee
Johnsrud, Esq. -- bjohnsrud@curleyhessinger.com -- at Curley
Hessinger and Johnsrud LLP; and Lindsey Katherine Schroeder, Esq.
-- lschroeder@curleyhessinger.com -- at Curley Hessinger and
Johnsrud LLP.


SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SkyPeople Fruit Juice, Inc., is defending itself against a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's May 14, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On April 20, 2011, plaintiff Paul Kubala (on behalf of his minor
child N.K.) filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York
against the Company, certain of its individual officers and/or
directors, and Rodman & Renshaw, LLC, the underwriter of the
Company's follow-on public offering consummated in August 2010,
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  On June 20, 2011, plaintiff Benjamin
Padnos filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York against the
Company, certain of its current and former officers and/or
directors, the Company's former independent auditors Child Van
Wagner & Bradshaw, PLLC and BDO Limited, and Rodman & Renshaw,
LLC, the underwriter of the Company's follow-on public offering
consummated in August 2010, alleging violations of Sections10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  On August 30, 2011, the Court consolidated the two
actions and appointed Zachary Lewy as lead plaintiff.

On September 30, 2011, pursuant to the Court's order, the Lead
Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint, which names the Company,
Rodman & Renshaw, LLC, BDO Limited, Child Van Wagoner & Bradshaw
PLLC and certain of the Company's current and former directors
and/or officers and majority shareholders as defendants, and
alleges violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and the
rules promulgated thereunder.  The Consolidated Complaint seeks,
among other things, compensatory damages, and reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in the action.  On December 21, 2011, the
Company and certain of the individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.  On May 3, 2012, the Lead
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claims against BDO Limited and
Child Van Wagoner & Bradshaw PLLC.  On September 10, 2012, the
Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.

On January 11, 2013, defendant Rodman & Renshaw LLC filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and, on January 18, 2013, the
court imposed an automatic stay on the Plaintiffs claims against
Rodman pursuant to Section 326(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Company believes the allegations against the Company are
baseless and is contesting the case vigorously.  The Company has
made no accrual for any potential contingencies.

Headquartered in Xi'an, China, SkyPeople Fruit Juice, Inc., is
engaged in the production and sales of fruit juice concentrates,
fruit beverages, and other fruit related products in and from
China.  The Company's fruit juice concentrates, which include
apple, pear and kiwifruit concentrates, are sold to domestic
customers and exported directly or via distributors.


SOMERSET HILLS: Signs MOU to Settle Lakeland Merger-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Somerset Hills Bancorp entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle a merger-related class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's May 14, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On January 29, 2013, the Company and Lakeland Bancorp, Inc.
("Lakeland"), the parent company of Lakeland Bank, announced that
the companies have entered into a definitive Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which the Company
will be merged with and into Lakeland, with Lakeland as the
surviving bank holding company.  The Merger Agreement provides
that the shareholders of Somerset Hills Bancorp will receive, at
their election, for each outstanding share of Somerset Hills
Bancorp common stock that they own at the effective time of the
merger, either 1.1962 shares of Lakeland common stock or $12.00 in
cash, subject to proration as described in the Merger Agreement,
so that 90% of the aggregate merger consideration will be shares
of Lakeland common stock and 10% will be cash.  The Merger
Agreement also provides that immediately after the merger of the
Company into Lakeland, the Bank will merge with and into Lakeland
Bank, with Lakeland Bank as the surviving bank.

On February 8, 2013, a Complaint was filed against the Company and
the members of its Board of Directors in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Somerset County, seeking class action status and asserting
that the Company and the members of its Board had violated their
duties to the Company's shareholders in connection with the
proposed merger with Lakeland Bancorp, Inc.

The Complaint also alleged that Lakeland Bancorp, Inc.
("Lakeland") had aided and abetted the individual defendants in
their alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.  On March 27,
2013, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, alleging, among
other things inadequate disclosure in the definitive joint proxy
statement and prospectus (the "Proxy Statement") mailed to the
shareholders of the Company and Lakeland for their respective
Annual Meetings of Shareholders scheduled for May 8, 2013.

All defendants vigorously deny all liabilities with respect to the
facts and claims alleged in the lawsuit, and specifically deny
that any supplemental disclosure is required under any applicable
rule, statute, regulation or law in connection with the Annual
Meetings of the Shareholders of the Registrant and the Company.
However, solely to avoid the risk of delaying or adversely
affecting consummation of the merger and to minimize the expense
of defending the lawsuit, the defendants have agreed to a
settlement.

On April 26, 2013, the defendants entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the lead plaintiff regarding settlement of the
action.  As part of the settlement, Lakeland agreed to make
certain additional disclosures to the Proxy Statement.  The
Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to
customary conditions, including the consummation of the merger and
court approval following notice.  In the event that the parties
enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be
scheduled at which the Court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement which, if finally
approved by the Court, will resolve all of the claims that were or
could have been brought in the action being settled, including all
claims relating to the merger, the merger agreement and any
disclosures made in connection therewith.  The Court will also
need to approve the conditional certification of the class of
plaintiffs at such hearing.  In addition, in connection with the
settlement, the parties contemplate that the lead plaintiff's
counsel will petition the Court for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses to be paid by the Company and/or the Registrant.
There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve
the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such a
stipulation.  In the event that neither of these occurs, the
proposed settlement as contemplated by the Memorandum of
Understanding may be terminated.  The settlement will not affect
the timing of consummation of the merger or the amount or nature
of the merger consideration to be paid to the shareholders of the
Company in the merger.

Somerset Hills Bancorp -- http://www.somersethillsbank.com/-- is
a one-bank holding company incorporated in New Jersey in January
2000 to serve as the holding company for Somerset Hills Bank.  The
Company's only significant operation is its investment in the
Bank, and its main office is located in Bernardsville, New Jersey.


SOUTH CAROLINA: High Court Confirms Motorists' Privacy Protection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Newspaper.com reports that the US Supreme Court issued a
ruling on June 17 confirming federal privacy protections for the
personal information stored by state motor vehicle departments.
The justices considered the issue in a case where one group of
lawyers found a way to file a $200 million class action lawsuit
against another group of lawyers that also files class action
lawsuits.

It all started in 2006 when a group of drivers had received a
solicitation from attorneys hunting for people who had recently
purchased a car in the hopes of enticing them to join a class
action lawsuit against automobile dealers.  These attorneys
received the names, addresses and telephone numbers of 34,000
drivers, along with information on their automobiles and when and
where they purchased them from the South Carolina Department of
Motor Vehicles (DMV).

Ordinarily, the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA)
prohibits the disclosure of personal information from motor
vehicle records, unless it is for law enforcement or public safety
purposes.  The law does have an additional exemption for
"investigation in anticipation of litigation."  Lawyers for
drivers who received the letters sued on the belief that this
exemption did not apply because the letters were advertisements of
the sort prohibited in another section of the statute (and because
they stood to share in a massive judgment of up to $2500 per
violation).  The high court justices agreed in a 5-4 decision.

"As this opinion explains in more detail, the statute itself, in
(b)(12), treats bulk solicitation absent consent as a discrete act
that the statute prohibits," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for
the majority.  "And the limited examples of permissible litigation
purposes provided in (b)(4) are distinct from the ordinary
commercial purpose of solicitation."

The majority argued that the attorneys were acting not as officers
of the court but as a commercial enterprise when sending out the
advertisements.  As such, they were soliciting new business, not
litigating.

"Here, as will be the case for most solicitations, the attorneys
acted without court authorization or supervision and cast a wide
net, sending letters to over 30,000 car purchasers to let them
know the attorneys' names and the attorneys' interest in
performing legal services for them," Kennedy wrote.

The majority also noted that the litigation exemption allows
disclosure of Social Security numbers and medical history
information that is highly sensitive and not appropriate for use
in a solicitation without undermining the privacy protection
Congress intended with the statute.

"Petitioners and other state residents have no real choice but to
disclose their personal information to the state DMV, including
highly restricted personal information," Justice Kennedy wrote.
"The use of that information by private actors to send direct
commercial solicitations without the license holder's consent is a
substantial intrusion on the individual privacy the act protects."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, arguing the majority used a
tortured reading of a simple statute to achieve an incorrect
result.


STARBUCKS CORP: N.Y. Ct. Issues Opinion on Tip-Splitting Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of New York issued an opinion regarding two
questions posed by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit concerning the legality of Starbucks Corporation's
tip-splitting policy under Labor Law Section 196-d:

"1. What factors determine whether an employee is an 'agent' of
his employer for purposes of N.Y. Labor Law Section 196-d and,
thus, ineligible to receive distributions from an employer-
mandated tip pool? In resolving this question for purposes of this
case, the Court of Appeals may also consider the following
subsidiary questions:

"a. Is the degree of supervisory or managerial authority exercised
by an employee relevant to determining whether the employee is a
'manager [or] supervisor' under N.Y. Labor Law Section 2 (8-a)
and, thus, an employer's 'agent' under Section 196-d?

"b. If an employee with supervisory or managerial authority
renders services that generate gratuities contributed to a common
tip pool, does Section 196-d preclude that employee from sharing
in the tip pool?

"c. To the extent that the meaning of 'employer or his agent' in
Section 196-d is ambiguous, does the Department of Labor's New
York State Hospitality Wage Order constitute a reasonable
interpretation of the statute that should govern disposition of
these cases?

"d. If so, does the Hospitality Wage Order apply retroactively?

"2. Does New York Labor law permit an employer to exclude an
otherwise eligible tip-earning employee under Section 196-d from
receiving distributions from an employer-mandated tip pool?"

According to the N.Y. Appeals Court, an employee whose personal
service to patrons is a principal or regular part of his or her
duties may participate in an employer-mandated tip allocation
arrangement under Labor Law Section 196-d, even if that employee
possesses limited supervisory responsibilities. But an employee
granted meaningful authority or control over subordinates can no
longer be considered similar to waiters and busboys within the
meaning of section 196-d and, consequently, is not eligible to
participate in a tip pool.

On the second question, the N.Y. Appeals Court held it generally
agrees with the District Court's reading of the statute but leave
open the possibility that there may be an outer limit to an
employer's ability to excise certain classifications of employees
from a tip pool. For example, the DOL suggests that an employer
should not be permitted to "give all of the distributions from a
tip-splitting arrangement to only the highest-ranking eligible
employee."  Thus, it is clear that Starbucks' decision to exclude
assistant store managers from the tip pool is not contrary to
Labor Law Section 196-d.

The Opinion was issued by Judge Graffeo. Chief Judge Lippman and
Judges Read, Pigott and Abdus-Salaam concurred. Judge Smith
dissented in part in an opinion. Judge Rivera also dissented in
part in a separate opinion.

The cases are JEANA BARENBOIM ET AL., & C., Appellants, v.
STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Respondent. EUGENE WINANS, ET AL., & C.,
Appellants, KENNISHA LAWRENCE, Plaintiff, v. STARBUCKS
CORPORATION, Respondent, NO. 122, 2013 NY Slip Op 04754.

A copy of the Appeals Court's June 26, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/9mf6Czfrom Leagle.com.

Shannon Liss-Riordan, for appellants Barenboim et al.

Adam T. Klein, for appellants Winans et al.

Steven C. Wu, for amicus curiae New York State Department of
Labor.

Rex S. Heinke -- rheinke@akingump.com -- for respondent.

New York State Restaurant Association, Inc.; UNITE HERE Local 100,
Align Alliance for a Greater New York et al.; New York City
Hospitality Alliance, amici curiae.


STARBUCKS CORP: Court Allows ADA Class Action to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
United States District Court Judge Dean D. Pregerson ruled on
June 14 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 this
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
this 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.

For information about the Starbucks class action lawsuit, please
contact:

Vineet Dubey -- dubey@custodiolaw.com -- at the Law Offices of
Miguel A. Custodio, Jr. -- http://www.cd-lawyers.com


STELLARONE CORP: Law Firms Investigate Potential Fiduciary Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Schwartz, writing for Richmond BizSense, reports that
almost as soon as news broke of the biggest Richmond banking deal
in years, at least a half-dozen law firms from New York to New
Orleans announced that they are "investigating" the StellarOne
Corp. board of directors related to the company's proposed $445
million acquisition by Richmond-based Union First Market
Bankshares.

It didn't take long for the lawyers to pick up on the scent.

In an attempt to entice StellarOne shareholders to sign on as lead
plaintiffs in potential class action lawsuits, the firms all zero
in on what they say are potential breaches of fiduciary duty by
the StellarOne board.  They question whether the deal maximizes
StellarOne shareholder value, whether the company adequately
shopped itself around and whether Union is underpaying for the $3
billion Christiansburg bank.

The announcements illustrate a side of the legal industry that's
potentially lucrative for lawyers but an increasingly common and
expensive thorn in the side of companies doing deals.

"Anytime you see a significant takeover or a drop in share price,
the class action guys start looking for cases," said Andrew
Stoltmann -- Andrew@stoltlaw.com -- an attorney with Stoltmann Law
Offices, a securities litigation firm in Chicago.

"They are primarily trolling for cases and clients. Right now, the
lawyers are looking for a lead plaintiff."

Some firms, like Brower Piven, set up automated hotlines for
curious shareholders.

"If you are shareholder inquiring about a recent press release and
would like further information . . ." the automated menu offers.

It's an act first, ask questions later approach, Mr. Stoltmann
said.

"When you see the big deal announced, [the law firms] assume
there's liability, and then they look for a client and try to find
the liability after that," he said.

Mr. Stoltmann said lead plaintiffs are found in such instances
about 50 percent of the time.  But that doesn't mean a case will
go anywhere.

"Sometimes those actions are dismissed.  Sometimes they're settled
for relatively [minimal] amounts and sometimes for significant
amounts."

Although Union First Market Bank and its parent company haven't
been targeted for potential litigation in this deal, Union chief
executive Billy Beale said both his bank and StellarOne were ready
for such a response.

"The sad thing is you budget for it," Mr. Beale said.  "You set
aside a certain amount of money based on what everybody's best
guess is what it would take to settle it out."

Both banks have their lawyers geared up to deal with potential
cases.  Union uses LeClairRyan, and StellarOne has Troutman
Sanders on its side.

Sometimes it's cheaper and more beneficial to settle, Beale said.

"Deep in your heart of hearts, I think all of us want to fight it
-- because it's without basis," he said.  "But the problem is then
you end up in protracted litigation.  It's going to take time and
money and slow down the process of getting the deal done."

Robert Harwood's -- rharwood@hfesq.com -- New York firm Harwood
Feffer is one of the firms that jumped into the fray last week.

"I look to see if a deal has been fairly priced," Harwood said.
"If I think it hasn't been, we continue on from there."

He declined to comment further on the StellarOne-Union deal
specifically.

"I'm in the process of looking at it," he said.

Attorney Michael Palestina -- michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com --
of Kahn Swick & Foti said his firm looks to see how executives and
insiders at a company being acquired might benefit financially
from a deal.  They also try to discern whether any potential
payoffs for those insiders, often called golden parachutes, might
have influenced their decisions.

"Right now we're just looking back at past SEC filings," Mr.
Palestina said.  He declined to discuss exactly how the firm
builds its case and identifies clients.

"That's something we do internally and wouldn't normally share,"
he said.

Valued at about $445 million, Union's proposed acquisition would
pay StellarOne shareholders 0.97 shares of Union common stock for
each of their StellarOne shares.

Shareholders and regulators must still approve the deal.  It is
expected to close by early 2014.


STEREOTAXIS INC: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk "Pound" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stereotaxis, Inc., is still awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit initiated by
Kevin Pound, according to the Company's May 14, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On October 7, 2011, a purported securities class action was filed
against the Company and two of the Company's past executive
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri by Kevin Pound, a purported shareholder of the Company.
On December 29, 2011, the court granted an unopposed motion
appointing Local 522 Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff in the action
and granting Lead Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint,
which Lead Plaintiff filed on March 19, 2012.  The Amended
Complaint alleges that, during the period from February 28, 2011,
through August 9, 2011, the Company and certain of its officers
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial condition and future business prospects, in
violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.  The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified
damages, costs, attorneys' fees and such other relief as the Court
may deem appropriate.  On May 18, 2012, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the Amended Complaint.  On July 24, 2012, the Lead
Plaintiff filed its response to the motion to dismiss, and on
August 30, 2012, the Company filed its reply brief in support of
the motion to dismiss.

The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.  However, litigation is inherently
uncertain and it is too early in this proceeding to predict the
outcome of this lawsuit or to reasonably estimate possible losses,
if any, related thereto.  In addition, the Company has
obligations, under certain circumstances, to indemnify the
individual defendants with respect to claims asserted against them
and otherwise to the fullest extent permitted under Delaware law
and the Company's bylaws and certificate of incorporation.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, Stereotaxis, Inc. --
http://www.stereotaxis.com/-- designs, manufactures, and markets
cardiology instrument control systems for use in a hospital's
interventional surgical suite or interventional lab for the
treatment of arrhythmias and coronary artery diseases in the
United States and internationally.


TRAVELOCITY.COM: Judge Orders Plaintiffs to Arbitrate Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Schaal, writing for Skift, reports that a federal judge in
Dallas ruled that plaintiffs suing Travelocity over allegations
that it engaged in price-fixing with hotels would have to take
their claims to arbitration in Tarrant County, Texas, where the
online travel agency is headquartered.

U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle ruled June 15 that the provisions
of Travelocity's user agreement of February 4, 2010, require
customers to individually arbitrate claims when the amount in
dispute is less than $10,000.

In fact, if you want to book a hotel on Travelocity.com, you must
consent to the user agreement, which bars participation in class
action lawsuits.

The ruling is a blow to plaintiffs who seeks class action status
for an amended complaint filed May 1 alleging that most-favored
nation clauses between hotels and online travel agencies that bar
the hotels from offering distribution partners lower rates than
they do on the hotels' own websites amount to a price-fixing
scheme.

The ruling, however, appears to apply solely to Travelocity and
the particulars of its user agreement, leaving other defendants,
including Expedia, Hotels.com, Priceline.com, Booking.com, Orbitz,
Wyndham, Carlson, Best Western, Choice Hotels, Hyatt Hotels,
Starwood, Marriott, Trump Hotels, Hilton Kimpton, and
EyeForTravel, still in play.

And, the ruling doesn't necessarily remove Travelocity from the
line of fire, either; the judge ordered the parties to provide
updates on the arbitration proceedings every 90 days.

The plaintiffs unsuccessfully argued that Travelocity's motion to
compel arbitration, filed in April, would usurp their rights to
file their claims as a class, and that it was unfair to compel
arbitration in the same county where Travelocity has its
headquarters.

It's unclear if other defendants, to the extent that their own
user agreements have provisions similar to Travelocity's, will now
likewise file motions to force arbitration.

Regulatory authorities in the U.K. are investigating similar
hotel-price fixing issues involving online travel agencies and
hotels.


UNITED STATES: Sen. Paul May Face Hurdles in Privacy Suit v. NSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Lane, writing for Tribune Review, reports that the bane of
Big Government, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is inviting Americans to
join him in a class-action lawsuit to stop what he says are
unconstitutional invasions of privacy by the National Security
Agency.  "I'm going to be seeing if I can challenge this at the
Supreme Court level," he declared on June 9 on Fox News.

Who would win Paul and 10 Million Citizens v. NSA?

Sen. Paul's first problem would be a lack of standing to sue in
federal court.  It's not enough to claim that the government is
threatening your rights; applicable precedent says you have to
show a "concrete and particularized" violation of those rights or,
at least, an imminent one.

A few months ago the Supreme Court threw out a lawsuit by lawyers,
journalists and human rights activists seeking to strike down the
2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,
under which the NSA conducts data-collection programs --
including, we now know, PRISM.  These plaintiffs called the NSA's
activities a "dragnet," much as Sen. Paul likens them to one of
King George III's general warrants.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices dismissed the complaint as "a
speculative chain of possibilities."  The plaintiffs in that case,
Clapper v. Amnesty International, were protesting surveillance of
potential conversations with people overseas, whereas Paul says
his focus is all-American communications. That might make a
difference -- but at a minimum, this brand-new precedent cuts
against Paul.

Nor do things look promising on substance.  The government needs a
court-issued warrant, based on probable cause, to listen in on
phone calls.  Consistent with that, the 2008 FISA amendments say
that the government has to get a warrant if it wants to query one
of its digital databases and examine the content of an American
communication.

But since the 1979 ruling in Smith v. Maryland, it has been well
settled that the government does not need a warrant to look at
phone records -- information about, say, the duration and
direction of calls that companies routinely gather from their
customers, who therefore have no reasonable expectation of
privacy.

To the extent that the NSA is gathering only "metadata" about
people's phone calls and their activities on social media, Smith
v. Maryland is on the government's side.

True, the FISA court works in secret -- not ideal for a purist
civil libertarian.  But remember that the court was established as
a remedy for the unchecked executive-branch snooping of the 1960s
and 1970s and that it was further empowered under the 2008
amendments to remedy perceived excesses of the George W. Bush
administration.

Metadata and private content travel together on the Internet, so
it's technically easy to look at the latter after accumulating the
former.  But the 2008 statute requires the government to take
steps -- known as "minimization" -- to limit warrantless access to
private data.

Maybe those procedures are routinely violated.  Yet for all his
claimed knowledge of wrongdoing, leaker Edward Snowden has yet to
specify a single such instance.

Paul's best argument would be that the Obama administration
stretched the meaning of the 2008 FISA amendments when it sought,
and obtained, a FISA court order requiring Verizon to turn over
phone records so that the government could use them to create a
searchable (with a warrant) database.

As Benjamin Wittes and Robert Chesney argue in The New Republic,
this might be more than Congress intended when it authorized the
government to seek "tangible things" that are certifiably
"relevant" to a national security investigation.

Still, it would be of significance at the Supreme Court that the
administration persuaded a federal judge to accept its reading of
the statute and that at least some members of Congress acquiesced
as well.

In short, Paul would be asking the justices not only to revise
decades of constitutional doctrine but also to second-guess FISA
court orders and the will of Congress.  That would be a tall order
since, as Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote in the Steel Seizure
Case of 1952, the executive branch's authority is "at its maximum"
when it acts according to duly enacted statute.

Paul should reread Jackson's opinion, written just after the
United States had defeated Nazism and was preparing to confront
another global threat, Soviet communism.  What he'll find are the
reflections of a deeply experienced lover of liberty who
understood that the Constitution was not, as he put it elsewhere,
"a suicide pact."

It ordains both individual freedom and collective safety -- and
hence a democratic process, subject to judicial review, through
which Americans and their representatives decide how much liberty,
if any, to trade for protection against terrorism and other
threats.

Jackson's morally serious words remind us that it's much harder to
make such choices -- and be held accountable for them -- than it
is to sit in the back benches of the Senate and criticize.


UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in AIG Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starr International Company, Inc. filed a lawsuit against the
United States in November 2011, challenging the Government's
economic bailout of American International Group, Inc. ("AIG")
that began in September 2008. During the time periods relevant to
this case, Starr was one of the largest shareholders of AIG common
stock. Starr alleges that the Government's actions in acquiring
control of AIG constituted a taking without just compensation and
an illegal exaction in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Starr's
claims consist of shareholder derivative claims brought on behalf
of AIG, and direct claims brought on behalf of Starr and two
classes of AIG shareholders.

Judge Thomas C. Wheeler of the United States Court of Federal
Claims grants AIG's and the Government's motions to dismiss
Starr's shareholder derivative claims, but denies the Government's
motion to dismiss the direct claims. Although the derivative
claims are dismissed, the Court notes that Starr has raised some
concerns worthy of thoughtful consideration. First, the Court said
it is troubled that counsel for the Treasury Department (the
defendant agency) made threatening statements to AIG's Board
members when the Board was fulfilling its legal obligation to
consider entry into this lawsuit.  Further, AIG attached to its
motion a host of articles indicating a "media frenzy" in reaction
to the proposition that AIG would join this lawsuit against the
United States. These articles carried titles such as "Lawsuit
Fiasco Mars AIG 'Thank You' Campaign," "Washington's Jaw Drops at
Possibility of AIG Lawsuit," and "How About Charging AIG With
Treason?"

"The articles contain inflammatory quotations from a number of
public figures and elected officials who apparently lacked any
understanding that AIG was required to consider entry into the
lawsuit under the demand process of Delaware law. It is
unfortunate that AIG's Board members had to deal with this
misplaced pressure and public outcry," said Judge Wheeler.

Also of concern to the Court is the low evaluation of Starr's
potential success on the merits, presented to the Board by its
advising counsel. AIG retained some of the finest counsel and
expert consultants available to weigh the strengths and weaknesses
of Starr's case. Some of these persons assessed the case as having
a very low probability of success, even placing small percentages
on Starr's likelihood of prevailing. These counsel and consultants
then shared their assessments with AIG's Board. Although
professionals surely can opine on the pros and cons of a lawsuit,
the Court cannot see how anyone could have made a precise
assessment of this fact-dependent case without knowing what all of
the evidence ultimately will show. To be sure, the Court's
ultimate disposition of this case will be based upon the evidence
admitted at trial, not upon someone else's assessment of the
merits. The granting of AIG's motion does not mean that the Court
endorses any of the information presented to AIG's Board, Judge
Wheeler clarified.

"Overall, however, AIG's Board employed a rigorous review process
and reached a reasonable decision, well explained in filings with
the Court. In the circumstances presented, Delaware law requires
the Court to give deference to AIG's Board under the business
judgment rule. The Board was free to consider all relevant
factors, including business factors unrelated to the merits of the
lawsuit, and it did so. Not only did AIG reach an informed and
reasonable decision, its Board members fulfilled their fiduciary
duty while dealing with difficult outside pressures, Judge Wheeler
concluded.

The case is STARR INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, INC., on its behalf and
on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, and AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP,
INC., Nominal Defendant, NO. 11-779C.

A copy of the Court's June 26, 2013 Opinion and Order is available
at http://is.gd/lYx2qXfrom Leagle.com.

STARR INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, INC, Plaintiff, is represented by
David Boies, II, Esq. -- dboies@bsfllp.com -- at Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP.  Robert J. Dwyer, Esq. -- rdwyer@bsfllp.com --
Nicholas A. Gravante, Jr. , Esq. -- ngravante@bsfllp.com -- Alanna
C. Rutherford, Esq. -- arutherford@bsfllp.com -- Julia C.
Hamilton, Esq. -- jchamilton@bsfllp.com -- Hamish P. M. Hume, Esq.
-- hhume@bsfllp.com -- and Samuel C. Kaplan, , Esq. --
skaplan@bsfllp.com -- at Schiller & Flexner LLP, in Armonk, New
York, and John L. Gardiner, Esq. -- john.gardiner@skadden.com --
at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, also represent Starr.

USA, Defendant, is represented by Brian A. Mizoguchi --
brian.mizoguchi@usdoj.gov -- at the U.S. Department of Justice -
Civil Div.

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., Third Party Defendant, is
Joseph S. Allerhand, Esq. -- joseph.allerhand@weil.com -- Stephen
A. Radin, Esq. -- stephen.radin@weil.com -- and Jamie L. Hoxie,
Esq., at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, in New York.

Brian A. Mizoguchi, Assistant Director, with whom were Joyce R.
Branda, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson,
Director, Scott D. Austin, Assistant Director, Timothy P. McIlmail
and John J. Todor, Senior Trial Counsel, David D'Alessandris,
Renee Gerber, Vincent D. Phillips, and Matthew F. Scarlato, Trial
Attorneys, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., appeared for the
Defendant.


VANGUARD HEALTH: Being Sold to Tenet for Too Little, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Vanguard Health Systems is
selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Tenet
Healthcare, for $21 a share or $4.5 billion, shareholders claim in
Davidson County Chancery Court.

On June 24, 2013, Tenet (NYSE:THC) and Vanguard (NYSE:VHS)
announced that they have signed an agreement whereby Tenet
Healthcare Corporation will acquire Vanguard for $21 per share in
an all cash transaction.

A press statement sent out by Shareholders Foundation, Inc., on
July 3, says an investor, who currently holds Vanguard shares,
filed a lawsuit in effort to halt the proposed takeover by Tenet.

Investors who purchased shares of Vanguard Health Systems, Inc.
(NYSE:VHS) prior to June 24, 2013 , and currently hold any of
those NYSE:VHS shares have certain options and should contact the
Shareholders Foundation at mail@shareholdersfoundation.com or call
+1(858) 779 - 1554.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties owed to NYSE:VHS stockholders arising out of the attempt to
sell Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. at an unfair price via an
unfair process.

The plaintiff claims that the $21-offer is too low and undervalues
the company. Indeed, Vanguard Health Systems' performance improved
lately. In fact, it reported that its Total Revenue increased from
over $3.22 billion for the 12 months period that ended on June 30,
2010 to over $5.94 billion for the 12 months period that ended on
June 30, 2012 and that its Net Loss of $49.20 million for the 12
months period that ended on June 30, 2010 turned into a Net Income
of $57.30 million for the 12 months period that ended on June 30,
2012.

Shares of Vanguard Health Systems closed on July 2, 2013, at
$20.74 per share.

Those who are current investors in Vanguard Health Systems, Inc.
(NYSE:VHS), have certain options and should contact the
Shareholders Foundation.

Contact:

     Shareholders Foundation, Inc.
     Joelle Day
     Media and CR Manager
     3111 Camino Del Rio North - Suite 423
     92108 San Diego
     Tel: +1-(858)-779-1554
     Fax: +1-(858)-605-5739
     E-mail: mail@shareholdersfoundation.com

Shareholder rights attorneys at Robbins Arroyo LLP said on June 24
they are investigating the acquisition.  The firm said the deal
may not be in the best interests of Vanguard shareholders.

On June 25, Ryan & Maniskas, LLP issued a statement saying the
firm is investigating potential claims against the board of
directors of Vanguard concerning possible breaches of fiduciary
duty and other violations of law related to the Company's efforts
to sell the Company to Tenet.  The $4.3 billion deal includes
assumption of $2.5 billion in debt.

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm.
It may be reached at:

         RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
         Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
         995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311
         Wayne, PA 19087
         Tel: 877-316-3218
         E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com

Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC also announced on June 28 it is
investigating potential claims against Vanguard's Board.


VENOCO INC: Continues to Defend Class Suits Related to Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Venoco, Inc., continues to defend itself from merger-related class
action lawsuits, according to the Company's May 14, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In August 2011, Timothy Marquez, the then-Chairman and chief
executive officer of the Company, submitted a nonbinding proposal
to the board of directors of the Company to acquire all of the
shares of the Company he did not beneficially own for $12.50 per
share in cash (the "Marquez Proposal").  As a result of that
proposal, four lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery in 2011 against the Company and each of its directors by
shareholders alleging that the Company and its directors had
breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders in connection
with the Marquez Proposal.  On January 16, 2012, the Company
entered into a Merger Agreement with Mr. Marquez and certain of
his affiliates pursuant to which the Company, Mr. Marquez and his
affiliates would effect the going private transaction.  Following
announcement of the Merger Agreement, four additional lawsuits
were filed in Delaware and three lawsuits were filed in federal
court in Colorado naming as defendants the Company and each of its
directors.

In March 2013, the plaintiffs in Delaware filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint in which they requested that the
court determine among other things that (i) the merger
consideration is inadequate and the Merger Agreement was entered
into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants and is
therefore unlawful and unenforceable and (ii) the merger should be
rescinded or in the alternative, the class should be awarded
damages to compensate them for the loss as a result of the breach
of fiduciary duties by the defendants.  The Colorado actions have
been administratively closed pending resolution of the Delaware
case.  The Company has reviewed the allegations contained in the
amended complaint and believes they are without merit.

Founded in 1992 and headquartered in Denver, Colorado, Venoco,
Inc. -- http://www.venocoinc.com/-- is an independent energy
company primarily engaged in the acquisition, exploration,
exploitation and development of oil and natural gas properties.


VIACOM INC: Six Suits Over Privacy Issues Will Be Heard in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that six class
actions alleging that Google and Viacom violate children's privacy
by using cookies to track their Internet use and target them for
ads will be heard in New Jersey, a federal judge ruled.

Viacom, one of the world's largest media conglomerates, owns MTV,
Comedy Central, Paramount Pictures, Nickelodeon and other outlets.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation sent federal
actions filed in six states to New Jersey, in its June ruling.

Stephanie Fryar filed a nationwide class action against Viacom and
Google on behalf of her two children, both of then younger than
13, in Houston, Texas, in December 2012.

Fryar claimed that when her sons registered and created profiles
on three Viacom-operated Web sites -- nick.com, nickjr.com, and
neopets.com -- the defendants placed a doubleclick.net cookie "id"
on the children's computers to track their communications to those
Web sites and others.

Google uses the cookies to keep records of videos kids watch, then
show "targeted advertising to them based on their individualized
web usage communications, and videos requested and obtained,"
according to the complaint.

Fryar sought class damages for violations of the Wiretap Act and
Video Privacy Protection Act, intrusion upon seclusion, and unjust
enrichment.

Similar class actions were filed against the corporations in
California, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Viacom wanted to centralize the litigation in New Jersey, but all
responding plaintiffs sought centralization in the Northern
District of California.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation sided with Viacom
on venue.

"Centralization of this consumer privacy litigation is consistent
with our recent decisions involving the allegedly unlawful
tracking of individuals' internet activity," U.S. District Judge
John Heyburn, of the Western District of Kentucky, wrote for the
panel.  "Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve tile resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary.

"We are persuaded that the District of New Jersey is an
appropriate transferee district for this litigation," Heyburn
added.  "The district is a convenient and accessible forum,
relatively close to potential witnesses and evidence located in
New Jersey and New York City.  The district also has the resources
and capacity to efficiently handle this litigation.  Finally,
centralization before Hon. Stanley R. Chesler permits the panel to
assign the litigation to an able jurist with prior MDL
experience."

Ms. Fryar is represented by:

          Adam Q. Voyles, Esq.
          LUBEL VOYLES LLP
          5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 800
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 284-5200
          Facsimile: (713) 284-5250
          E-mail: avoyles@lubelvoyles.com

The case is In Re: Nickelodeon Consumer Privacy Litigation, MDL
No. 2443, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.


VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: 9th Cir. Returns Class Suit to Dist. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action accusing the maker of Zero Impact protein bars of grossly
understating the product's impact on blood sugar belongs in
federal court, the 9th Circuit ruled Tuesday, July 2, 2013.

A three-judge panel in Pasadena, Calif., overturned a federal
judge's decision to send the case back to Los Angeles Superior
Court.

In its notice of removal to federal court, bar maker Vital
Pharmaceuticals submitted two declarations supporting its claim
that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, a requirement
for federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act
(CAFA).

The first declaration was from its lawyer, asserting "legal
certainty" that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, and
the second from its controller, claiming nationwide sales of the
bars for the last four years topped $5 million.

The district court, unconvinced by what it viewed as vague
assertions, sent the case back to state court.

But the 9th Circuit said the controller's declaration alone "was
sufficient to establish that CAFA's $5 million amount in
controversy requirement is met in this case."

In an unsigned opinion, it reversed and remanded with instructions
for the district court to exercise jurisdiction.

Judge Raymond Fisher dissented in part, saying it wasn't clear
that the district court had considered the controller's
declaration.

"I do not believe that the declaration is sufficient as a matter
of law to establish that Vital met its burden of proving the
amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence," Fisher
added.

The underlying class action claimed that the Zero Impact bars were
mislabeled as having little to no impact on blood sugar when they
"actually contained large amounts of undisclosed sugars and
carbohydrates, making them have a substantial impact on blood
sugar and insulin."

The "aggregate damages . . . are likely in the millions of
dollars," according to the lawsuit, and there are likely "tens of
thousands" of class members.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Marc Lawrence Godino, Esq.
          Casey Edwards Sadler, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG, LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  csadler@glancylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Anthony Gerard Brazil, Esq.
          Richard H. Nakamura, Jr., Esq.
          David James Vendler, Esq.
          MORRIS POLICH & PURDY LLP
          1055 West Seventh Street, 24th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2503
          Telephone: (213) 891-9100
          E-mail: abrazil@mpplaw.com
                  rnakamura@mpplaw.com
                  dvendler@mpplaw.com

The case is Gabe Watkins v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No.
13-55755, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.


WARNER MUSIC: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Internships
--------------------------------------------------------
Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
Manhattan-based solo practitioner Maurice Pianko has a beef with
companies that hire unpaid interns, and he hasn't been shy about
it.  He insists he's more interested in labor reform than
generating litigation paydays, warning that even small-time
employers should be worried.  But that didn't stop Mr. Pianko from
going after a big new target on June 17.

Along with co-counsel at Virginia & Ambinder, Mr. Pianko brought a
putative class action against Warner Music Group Corp. in New York
Supreme Court, seeking to recover hourly wages and overtime pay
for more than 100 of the record label's former interns.  The
complaint -- the first of its kind aimed at the music industry --
alleges violations of New York labor laws on behalf of interns
supposedly tasked with "answering telephones, making photocopies,
making deliveries, preparing coffee, getting lunch for paid
employees, and other similar duties."

In an interview, Mr. Pianko said that the lawsuit is the tenth of
its kind nationwide, and the fourth that he's been directly
involved in.  He attracts clients through his Web site, Intern
Justice.  And he hunts for defendants partly by scanning job
postings on Craigslist.  "I'll see dozens upon dozens of postings
advertising positions that are identical to paid positions, except
at the end it'll say 'this is an unpaid internship.'" he told us.

Mr. Pianko currently shares the niche with the much larger
plaintiffs-side firm Outten & Golden, which on June 11 won a
groundbreaking ruling certifying a class of former interns at Fox
Searchlight Pictures, and which two days later brought a similar
case against the magazine publisher Condé Nast.  Outten is also
fighting to revive a parallel case it brought on behalf of unpaid
Hearst Corporation interns.

Two of Mr. Pianko's cases seek class action status, and his
targets have been diverse.  He's helped sue fashion designers, as
well as the Portela Law Firm in Manhattan.  Some of his cases were
brought in federal court, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, while others, like the June 17 Warner Music suit,
are premised on state law.  Mr. Pianko says he likes filing
federal cases, because they have a greater precedential impact,
but that New York labor law is friendlier to plaintiffs, partly
because of a lengthy statute of limitations.

"The idea behind Intern Justice was not to cherry pick lucrative
cases and try to make a windfall," Mr. Pianko said.  "Mega-sized
corporations are where the money is for class actions lawyers, but
I don't want them to be only ones being held accountable."

We wondered if Mr. Pianko, a 2009 graduate of Fordham Law School,
soured on unpaid internships based on personal experience.  He
says he did a perfectly legal unpaid internship with a judge
during law school, and relished the opportunity.  He has, however,
sued a law firm he worked for right after law school, alleging
they bilked him out of wages.  The lawsuit has been a "painful"
experience, he said, and gave him a newfound appreciation for "the
plight of unpaid interns, who do real work and are told it's not
worth anything."


WARNER MUSIC: Digital Download Prices Suit's Discovery Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated lawsuit in New York over pricing of digital music
downloads is currently in discovery, according to Warner Music
Group Corp.'s May 14, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

On December 20, 2005, and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General
of the State of New York served the Company with requests for
information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as
to the pricing of digital music downloads.  On February 28, 2006,
the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served
the Company with a Civil Investigative Demand, also seeking
information relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded music.
Both investigations were ultimately closed, but subsequent to the
announcements of the investigations, more than thirty putative
class action lawsuits were filed concerning the pricing of digital
music downloads.  The lawsuits were consolidated in the Southern
District of New York.  The consolidated amended complaint, filed
on April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to
delay the release of their content for digital distribution,
inflate their pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble
damages.  On October 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order
dismissing the case as to all defendants, including the Company.
However, on January 12, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the
judgment of the District Court and remanded the case for further
proceedings and on January 10, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the
defendants' petition for Certiorari.

Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the
Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among
other things, plaintiffs' state law claims and standing to bring
certain claims.  The renewed motion was based mainly on arguments
made in defendants' original motion to dismiss, but not addressed
by the District Court.  On July 18, 2011, the District Court
granted defendants' motion in part, and denied it in part.
Notably, all claims on behalf of the CD-purchaser class were
dismissed with prejudice.  However, a wide variety of state and
federal claims remain, for the class of Internet Music purchasers.
The parties have filed amended pleadings complying with the
court's order, and the case is currently in discovery.

The Company says it intends to defend against these lawsuits
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these
lawsuits.  Regardless of the merits of the claims, this and any
related litigation could continue to be costly, and divert the
time and resources of management.  The potential outcomes of these
claims that are reasonably possible cannot be determined at this
time and an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of
loss cannot presently be made.

New York-based Warner Music Group Corp. was formed in November
2003.  The Company is the direct parent of WMG Holdings Corp.,
which is the direct parent of WMG Acquisition Corp.  Acquisition
Corp. is one of the world's major music-based content companies.


WARNER MUSIC: Discussions to Resolve Suits Over Royalties Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Discussions are still ongoing to resolve a consolidated class
action lawsuit alleging Warner Music Group Corp. improperly
calculated royalties from sales of digital music, according to the
Company's May 14, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Five putative class action lawsuits have been filed against the
Company in Federal Court in the Northern District of California
between February 2, 2012, and March 10, 2012.  The lawsuits, which
were brought by various recording artists, all allege that the
Company has improperly calculated the royalties due to them for
certain digital music sales under the terms of their recording
contracts.  The named plaintiffs purport to raise these claims on
their own behalf and, as a putative class action, on behalf of
other similarly situated artists.  The Plaintiffs base their
claims on a previous ruling that held another recorded music
company had breached the specific recording contracts at issue in
that case through its payment of royalties for music downloads and
ringtones.  In the wake of that ruling, a number of recording
artists have initiated lawsuits seeking similar relief against all
of the major record companies, including the Company.  The
Plaintiffs seek to have the interpretation of the contracts in
that prior case applied to their different and separate contracts.

On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss various
claims in one of the lawsuits, with the intention of filing
similar motions in the remaining lawsuits, on the various
applicable response dates.  Meanwhile, certain plaintiffs' counsel
moved to be appointed as interim lead counsel, and other
plaintiffs' counsel moved to consolidate the various actions.  In
a June 1, 2012 Order, the Court consolidated the cases and
appointed interim co-lead class counsel.  The Plaintiffs filed a
consolidated, master complaint on August 21, 2012.  All deadlines
were stayed until June 27, 2013, to allow for settlement of this
dispute.  If a settlement has not been reached by that date and if
the parties agree that further settlement discussions would be
fruitful, the parties can file a joint statement/stipulation
seeking additional time for further settlement negotiations.  In
the alternative, the parties would file a joint statement/
stipulation with the Court alerting the Court to the fact that
settlement could not be reached and resetting a litigation
schedule.  Settlement discussions are ongoing.

The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits vigorously,
but is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits.
Regardless of the merits of the claims, this and any related
litigation could continue to be costly, and divert the time and
resources of management.  The potential outcomes of these claims
that are reasonably possible cannot be determined at this time and
an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss
cannot presently be made.

New York-based Warner Music Group Corp. was formed in November
2003.  The Company is the direct parent of WMG Holdings Corp.,
which is the direct parent of WMG Acquisition Corp.  Acquisition
Corp. is one of the world's major music-based content companies.


WELLS FARGO: "Vuong" Suit Won't Proceed as Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California for the First District affirmed
a trial court order denying a motion for class certification in
KATHY VUONG et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., Defendant and Respondent, NO. A135353.

Kathy Vuong and Stacey Fleming, former employees of defendant
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. who worked in the Service Manager Two (SM2)
classification, filed a putative class action, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, alleging defendant had
misclassified them as employees exempt from California's overtime
pay requirements and that, as a result of this misclassification,
the defendant was liable for violation of various provisions of
the Labor Code and the Business and Professions Code. They also
asserted violations of meal and rest break laws. They took an
appeal from the order of the trial court denying their motion for
class certification and sought reversal of that order, contending
that the court erred in determining that common questions of fact
were not predominant in the case.

The Appeals Court found no error in the trial court's order and
affirmed it in its entirety.

A copy of the Appeals Court's June 26, 2013 Decision is available
at http://is.gd/CwdvIufrom Leagle.com.


WET SEAL: Settles Discrimination Class Action for $7.5 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Diebold, writing for ThinkProgress, reports that
California-based clothing retailer Wet Seal will pay $7.5 million
and make a series of changes aimed at reducing racial
discrimination after a federal court approved a settlement.

A California district court gave preliminary approval to the
national class action settlement in the case, Cogdell v. Wet Seal,
which alleged that Wet Seal "had a policy of denying equal pay and
promotion opportunities and firing African-American store
management employees" in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination
based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.  The
plaintiffs were represented by the NAACP Legal Defense and
Education Fund and two other law firms.  The court will decide in
November, after a review of the claims process, whether to grant
final approval.

If the settlement, which the two parties reached May 8, is
approved, at least $5.58 million of the $7.5 million in monetary
relief will be paid in damages to current and former managers of
Wet Seal outlets who are black or African-American.  The company
will also take several non-monetary steps, including expanding its
human resources department and tracking job applications to ensure
diversity in hiring and applications.

A three-year investigation by the Equal Employment and Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) into the store wrapped up last year.  The EEOC
concluded that the store had knowingly discriminated in its hiring
decisions, the Los Angeles Times reported:

In a three-year investigation, the commission found evidence that
Wet Seal corporate managers openly stated that to be profitable
the retailer had to retain workers with "the Armani look" --
meaning thin, blond and blue-eyed.

One high-level executive sent an email to underlings in 2009
pointing out that the dominance of African American workers was a
"huge issue."

"Managers were instructed to make employment decisions based on
race," the agency said in documents made public on June 17.

The case is the latest reminder of the difficulties African-
Americans face in the job market.  The black unemployment rate is
still more than double that for white people, and the EEOC
recently filed two suits against separate companies alleging they
unfairly used background checks to discriminate in hiring
decisions.


XUMANII: George Sharp Files Motion to Strike Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
George Sharp on June 18 disclosed that a Motion to Strike two
class action complaints brought against him on behalf of investors
alleged to have lost money in Xumanii, was filed on June 14, 2013
and June 18, 2013, respectively.

Confusing Mr. Sharp and his attorneys, two yet-to-be-served
identical complaints (San Diego County Division of California
Superior Court Case Nos. 37-2013-00050258-CU-SL-CTL and 37-2013-
00050405-CU-SL-CTL) were conspired and filed by Attorney Luan Phan
-- lphan@lkpgl.com -- of Los Angeles law firm LKP Global Law, LLP,
and Xumanii, identifying Tennessee resident, Waleed Ashari, as the
name plaintiff.  Mr. Sharp alleges that Mr. Ashari is a puppet in
a scheme concocted by Xumanii and LKP Global Law, to extend the
life of the ongoing Xumanii pump and dump campaign, and counter
Mr. Sharp's own complaint (San Diego County Division of California
Superior Court Case No. 37-2013-00048310-CU-MC-CTL) against
Xumanii for participating in a spam email promotion campaign.

Referring to the duplicate filings, Mr. Sharp commented, "It seems
that LKP Global Law does not understand the basic aspects of civil
procedure in the practice of law.  Two identical lawsuits with the
same allegations and plaintiffs were filed within days of each
other.  LKP Global Law later attempted to dismiss one of the
complaints by filing a Request For Dismissal on the first
complaint, which was subsequently rejected by the court.  What LKP
Global Law does not seem to understand is that in order to dismiss
a class action complaint, the firm is required to seek leave of
the court and not just file the paperwork appropriate when
dismissing an ordinary complaint.  This conduct is bound to result
in a reprimand from the court."

The Motions to Strike assert California Code of Civil Procedure
Section 425.16, commonly known as the anti-SLAPP (Strategic
Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute, intended to prevent
lawsuits designed to chill the right to free speech, something the
class action against Mr. Sharp feels was clearly designed to do.
Mr. Sharp believes that the conspirators intended to temporarily
lend credibility to the artificial trading volume and prices
created by the Awesome Penny Stocks promotion.  Mr. Sharp again
admonishes unsuspecting investors who tend to fall prey to such
schemes that all Awesome Penny Stock promotions create hundreds of
millions of dollars in losses to investors.  Under the provisions
of CCP Section 425.16, Mr. Ashari will become liable for
Mr. Sharp's attorney's fees and costs should the motion be
granted.

Mr. Sharp's special Motion to Strike also demonstrates that the
lawsuit is purely the creation of Xumanii, its CEO, and its
attorneys where they, and not Mr. Ashari, are the real plaintiffs;
and, by law, solicitation of a class representative and members
are grounds and reason alone to deny certification of the class.
Class action plaintiffs may not be mere puppets controlled by
their attorneys.  Pursuant to Howard Gunty Profit Sharing Plan v.
Sup. Ct. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 572, 578.,"A trail court acts
properly when it refuses to certify class actions in which the
named plaintiff is simply lending his name to a suit controlled
entirely by the class attorney."  Many published cases further
entrench this point of law, which seems to have been violated when
Xumanii issued a press release announcing their retention of LKP
Global Law, who then disseminated a draft complaint identifying
Xumanii President, Alexandre Frigon, as the name Plaintiff.

Finally, under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act
("SLUSA") the class action complaint seems to have been improperly
filed in State Court.  SLUSA requires that class action litigation
regarding the buying or selling of stock, MUST be filed in Federal
Court.

Mr. Sharp further commented, "This is not the first time that this
particular law firm has filed frivolous and under-researched
litigation against me on behalf of its clients, but I intend to
see that this time they are made to account for their malicious
actions in the course of their representation of clients with
dubious characteristics and undertakings."

Updates to Mr. Sharp's litigation may be viewed by following
Mr. Sharp's tweets at www.twitter.com/goniffs and his website at
www.AwesomePennyScams.com.

        CONTACT: George Sharp
                 E-mail: george@clippercp.com


ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Warfarin Tablets in US
-----------------------------------------------------
Sohini Das, writing for Business Standard, reports that Zydus
Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., a subsidiary of Ahmedabad-based pharma
major Cadila Healthcare (popularly known as Zydus Cadila), has
voluntarily recalled one lot of Warfarin 2 mg tablets as some
tablets of the above lot have been found to be oversized,
according to a notice issued by the US drug regulator.

Warfarin is used as a prophylaxis and treatment of venous
thrombosis and its extension.  Basically, it is a blood thinner
that is widely used to prevent blood clots in patients with
irregular heartbeats or a history of heart attack.

The company could not be reached for a comment.

The US Food and Drug Control Administration (USFDA) website says,
"four tablets of Warfarin 2mg tablets, Lot MM5767 have been found
to be oversized in one product complaint."  The website notice
further goes on to say that ingestion of a greater dose of
Warfarin could lead to an increased pharmacological effect of
Warfarin.  "As a result, patients would be more likely to develop
bleeding as an adverse reaction and in some patients that bleeding
into a critical organ (mostly the central nervous system) could be
fatal," the statement says.

The expiration date of the lot MM5767 is June 2014.  The product
was distributed nationwide in the United States to wholesalers,
distributors and retailers from November 2012 to December 2012.

Earlier, Zydus' manufacturing facility at Moraiya in the outskirts
of Ahmedabad had received a warning letter from the USFDA in June
2011 on grounds of non-conformity of the facility with USFDA
norms.  Following this, the drug regulator had inspected the
facility in February last year, and the warning was finally
revoked in July 2012.

Other cases of drug recall by Ahmedabad-based companies include
that of Claris Lifesciences, which had announced a nationwide
recall of all lots of Ciprofloxacin, Metronidazole and Ondansetron
from the US voluntarily following a report of its US distributor
Sagent Pharmaceuticals and its customer Pfizer that Metronidazole
injection USP IV bags were contaminated with fungi.

Claris had entered into a supply deal with Pfizer in 2009 to gain
access to markets like the US, Europe and Australia.  Post the
recall, Pfizer and Claris had reviewed the supply agreement in the
wake of import alert from its Bavla site and the supply agreement
was terminated.


* Appeals Courts Set to Decide on Two Consumer Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that a pair of cases
before the 6th and 7th Circuit Courts of Appeals could signal
whether it will become more difficult to certify product liability
and consumer actions in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's
recent ruling in Comcast v. Behrend.

The cases, Sears Roebuck & Co v. Butler and Whirlpool v. Glazer,
were brought by consumers who claimed they bought washing machines
with an alleged design defect that caused some machines to develop
a moldy odor.

After the 6th and 7th Circuits in 2012 allowed plaintiffs to
proceed as a class, Sears and Whirlpool both appealed to the
Supreme Court.  The companies argued that plaintiffs' alleged
injuries were too dissimilar to be tried as a class.

While their petitions were pending, the Supreme Court handed down
Comcast, in which it decertified a class of Comcast subscribers
that had accused the company of monopolizing the cable market in
Philadelphia.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the 5-4 majority Comcast opinion
that plaintiffs had failed to show that damages could be
accurately measured on a classwide basis.  In a joint dissent,
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer said the majority
decision should not disturb the "well-nigh universal" recognition
by courts that individual damages calculations do not preclude
class certification.

In a one-paragraph order on April 1 in Whirlpool and a nearly
identical June 3rd order in Sears, the Supreme Court vacated the
judgments and remanded the respective cases to the 6th and 7th
Circuit to decide the class certification question in the wake of
Comcast.

The outcome in both cases could help clarify whether judges will
apply Comcast beyond the antitrust arena to product liability and
other types of class action cases.

"You can read Comcast narrowly, or you can read it broadly," said
Sergio Campos, an associate professor at the University of Miami
School of Law who specializes in civil procedure and torts.  "The
appeals courts have the opportunity to pick the reading they like
the best."

Stephen Shapiro, a partner at Mayer Brown who represented the
Sears and Whirlpool defendants, said he believed the lower courts
should use Comcast to decertify classes where individual issues
outweigh the common ones.

"It isn't enough to just have an abstract question about whether a
product is defective, or if the warranty service was denied," Mr.
Shapiro said.

But Jonathan Selbin, a lawyer at Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein who represented the Sears and Whirlpool classes, said he
thought Comcast was meant to be applied narrowly and not to the
product liability claims in Whirlpool and Sears.

"What courts have always said is that the fact damages are going
to necessarily have some individual aspects to them can't preclude
class cert," Mr. Selbin said.

The Product Liability Advisory Council, a nonprofit group of
manufacturers that advocate on liability issues, filed an amicus
brief on behalf of Sears and Whirlpool, as did the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit legal
foundation.

John Beisner, who leads the mass tort practice at Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom and wrote the Product Liability Advisory
Council's amicus brief, agreed that such a ruling could make
classes more difficult to certify, but said that was precisely
what the Supreme Court intended to underscore in Comcast.

Reading between the lines, the Supreme Court in Sears and
Whirlpool sent a message to the lower circuits, Mr. Beisner said:
"We've spoken our piece on Comcast, now go apply it."

Regardless of how the 6th and 7th Circuits ultimately rule, the
stakes of each case could prompt the losing parties to appeal once
again to the Supreme Court, said William Narwold, who heads Motley
Rice's securities and consumer fraud practice groups.

While he thought the lower courts would be likely to let
certification stand in Whirlpool and Sears, "Were the courts to
say you have to prove damages on a classwide basis, that would be
a serious issue for consumer cases."

Mr. Campos agreed.

"Courts are already kicking out consumer class actions because
there are individual issues of injury," he said. A broad
application of Comcast "would make it that much harder to certify
classes."

The cases are Sears Roebuck & Co v. Butler and Whirlpool Corp v.
Glazer, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-1067, No. 12-322.

For the plaintiffs: Jonathan Selbin, Mark Chalos and Jason
Lichtman of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and Samuel
Issacharoff of New York University Law School.

For the defendants: Michael Williams, Galen Bellamy and Allison
Cohn of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell and Stephen Shapiro, Timothy
Bishop, Jeffrey Sarles and Joshua Yount of Mayer Brown.

The cases are Sears Roebuck & Co v. Butler, U.S. Supreme Court,
No. 12-1067 and Whirlpool Corp v. Glazer, U.S. Supreme Court, No.
12-322.

For the plaintiffs: Jonathan Selbin, Mark Chalos and Jason
Lichtman of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and Samuel
Issacharoff of New York University Law School.

For the defendants: Michael Williams, Galen Bellamy and Allison
Cohn of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell and Stephen Shapiro, Timothy
Bishop, Jeffrey Sarles and Joshua Yount of Mayer Brown.


* Bicycle Forks, Sandals, Heaters Among Recently Recalled Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a line of bicycle forks that
can bend and cause a rider to fall and propane heater/cookers that
pose a fire hazard are among the latest list of recalled products.

Here's a more detailed look:

BICYCLE FORKS

DETAILS: Salsa Vaya bicycle forks stamped with batch codes 2011 02
21, 2011 04 11, 2011 06 14, and 2011 09 09 and all Salsa La Cruz
bicycle forks stamped with the batch codes 2011 03 01, 2011 04 08,
2011 05 30, and 2011 09 09. The batch code is stamped on the
steerer tube.  The forks are made of tubular chromoly steel and
can be installed on any bicycle that takes a threadless 1 1/8 inch
steerer tube.  They were sold individually and as original
equipment on Salsa Vaya bicycles and framesets.  The
manufacturer's insignia "CWI" is stamped on the steerer tube.
"Salsa" is printed on the bicycle's frame.  They were sold from
February 2011 through June 2012.

WHY: The bicycle fork can bend above the disc brake mount, posing
a fall hazard to the rider.

INCIDENTS: Eight reports of forks bending above the disc brake
mount. No injuries have been reported.

HOW MANY: About 1,700.

FOR MORE: Call Salsa Cycles at 877-774-6208 or visit
www.salsacycles.com and click on the Fork Recall button for more
information.

SANDALS

DETAILS: "Joanna" girl's sandals with style number CG40723 (white
shoe) or CG40725 (brown shoe) printed on the underside of the
front shoe strap.  "StrideRite" appears on the bottom of the shoe.
They were sold from December 2011 through May 2013.

WHY: The metal flower on the shoe can detach, posing a choking
hazard.

INCIDENTS: Six reports of the flowers detaching and eleven reports
of flowers loosening. No injuries have been reported.

HOW MANY: About 7,500.

FOR MORE: Call Stride Rite at 800-365-4933, visit
www.striderite.com and click on Product Safety Information under
Customer Service for more information, or send email to
JoannaReturns@striderite.com.

PROPANE HEATER/COOKER

DETAILS: Cedar Lake Propane Heater/Cooker.  The dual use
heater/cooker consists of a single large ceramic burner with a
metal stand.  It measures 9 inches by 10.25 inches by 4.5 inches.
It has a fitting below the burner for a propane bottle of either
16.4 oz. or 14.1 oz. sizes.  The heater/cooker comes with a hose
and regulator for connecting the propane bottle and product number
#14219 is printed on the packaging

WHY: The regulator on the heater/cooker malfunctions when a user
switches from a cooking to heating option, or vice versa, the gas
propane turns to liquid, which can flare easily and pose a fire
hazard.

INCIDENTS: There was one incident of fire reported. No injuries
were reported.

HOW MANY: About 325.

FOR MORE: Call Texsport at 800-231-1402 or visit www.texsport.com
and click on RECALL link.


* Class Action Lawyer Network Launches Vaginal Mesh Campaign
------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Lawyer Network's vaginal mesh lawyers have
launched a nationwide outreach campaign to the largest cities in
the U.S. to reach every woman with a vaginal mesh.  According to a
Class Action Lawyer Network vaginal mesh lawyer" the vaginal mesh
MDL's are moving along and we do not want any women suffering from
a failed vaginal mesh to be left out".  According to Class Action
Lawyer Network a number of MDL'S have been formed and consolidated
under Judge Goodwin in West Virginia:

MDL -- 2325, IN RE: American Medical Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair
System Products Liability Litigation

MDL No. 2187 | In RE: CR Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products
Liability Litigation

MDL -- 2326 IN RE: Boston Scientific Corp. Pelvic Repair System
Products Liability Litigation

MDL -- 2327 IN RE: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products
Liability Litigation

MDL -- 2387 IN RE: Coloplast Corp. Pelvic Support Systems Products
Liability Litigation

Cook Medical Surgical will be the 5th MDL

The Class Action Lawyer Network, vaginal mesh lawsuit outreach
campaign will be targeting the following cities:  Boston, Atlanta,
Anaheim, Anchorage, Arlington, Austin, Baltimore, Billings,
Biloxi, Boston, Charlotte, Cleveland, Dallas, Detroit, Denver, El
Paso, Charlotte, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Colorado Springs,
Cincinnati, Denver, Fort Lauderdale, Fort Worth, Fresno, Honolulu,
Houston, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Long
Beach, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Mesa, Miami, Milwaukee, New York,
NYC, Orlando, Oakland, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Philadelphia,
Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Portland, Provo, Reno, San Antonio,
Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, Santa Barbara, San Diego,
San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, Tampa, Toledo, Tucson, Tulsa,
Virginia Beach, Washington DC, West Palm Beach, Winston Salem, and
Wichita.

Additional national campaigns will be launched by the Stryker Hip
Replacement lawyers of Class Action Lawyer Network for the recall
of the ABG II Modular Stems and Rejuvenate hip replacement
lawsuits.  Class Action lawyer Network is also looking at the
Byetta and Januvia lawsuits for pancreas cancer.  However,
according to Class Action Lawyer Network "the vaginal mesh
lawsuits may well be the largest mass MDL filing we have seen to
date from a financial standpoint as well as the extent of the
injuries."  Class Action Lawyer Network's vaginal mesh lawyers are
concerned about women with a failed vaginal mesh.  Class Action
Lawyer Network's goal is to see that every single one of them gets
justice.


* FDA Fails to Address "Natural" Issue in Food Labeling
-------------------------------------------------------
Glenn G. Lammi, writing for Forbes, reports that food makers' use
of "natural" on product labels and advertisements continues to
provide class action lawyers with litigation fodder.  Such a case-
by-case approach to determining what is and is not natural, we
have argued previously, poorly serves consumers and producers.
Recent judicial developments, described below, have done nothing
to sway our opinion that, regardless of how torturous it will be,
formal federal rulemaking is preferable to regulation-by-
litigation.

A Divided Food Court? As we noted in a May 22 WLF Legal Pulse
post, Northern District of California Judge Hamilton rejected
General Mills' request that Janney's class action be put on hold
under the "primary jurisdiction doctrine" to give the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) a chance to act.  Such a delay would be
"futile" in Judge Hamilton's words.  Janney v. General Mills.

Fast forward to June 7 in the same court, where Judge Rogers
issued a tentative ruling in Cox v. Gruma Corp. that she was
"inclined to order that this matter be stayed under the doctrine
of primary jurisdiction" for six months to await FDA action to
define natural.  Plaintiff Cox argues that Gruma's Mission
Tortilla products are mislabeled as natural because Gruma uses
genetically-modified grains.  Without referring to Janney, Judge
Rogers drew a distinction between the facts there, which involve
sweeteners, and in Cox, which involve so-called GMOs, a subject
"FDA has not addressed, even informally" with regards to
"natural."  FDA has been asked to address the issue, as Cox
herself cited in a potentially counterproductive June 10 response.
That filing referenced an agency website passage on a pending GMO
labeling citizen petition.  Judge Rogers asked for further
briefing to be completed by June 21.


* Invalid Claims Dilute Class Action Settlement Recovery
--------------------------------------------------------
Ted Frank, an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute Center for
Legal Policy, in an article for PointofLaw.com, says Sullivan v.
DB Investments, the Third Circuit en banc decision affirming a
class action settlement certification, was troubling, for reasons
noted by Andrew Trask last year.  Class members who had no cause
of action were grouped with class members who did have a cause of
action in a single settlement class, and got identical relief.
The Third Circuit found no intra-class conflict, despite the
obvious wealth transfer.  As Judge Scirica's concurrence reads:

[O]bjectors contend some class members do not have a valid cause
of action, but these class members with non-repealer state law
claims have lost nothing through inclusion in the class.
Objectors speculate inclusion of non-repealer state law claims
necessarily diminishes the settlement accrued to class members
whom they contend have undisputedly valid claims.  But they
provided no support for their assertion.

Objectors contend they seek to protect absent class members, but
fail to explain how absent class members -- all of whom claim
injury -- are harmed by the defendants' willingness to settle all
potential claims.

Judge Jordan had the obvious rejoinder:

The problem here is not that some absent class members who deserve
compensation are left out by the settlement.  The problem is that
some class members who deserve nothing are included in the
settlement and hence are diluting the recovery of those who are
entitled to make claims.  That harm is real, and the cause of it,
the overbreadth of the class, is akin to the problem in Amchem.

Now, over a year after the decision, checks have been mailed, and,
surprise, surprise, class members' claims have been diluted to
near nothing: a Consumerist poster, Laura Northrup, notes that a
class member with a $3000 claim (which would be trebled under the
antitrust laws), received a mere $48. (This is hardly surprising,
given that there were 67 million class members splitting about
$200 million.  If anything, $48 is surprisingly large.  Of course,
Ms. Northrup's friend might be in the $0 cross-subsidizing
subclass, rather than the subclass whose recovery was diluted.)
Meanwhile, the attorneys who won this nuisance settlement of
pennies on the dollar were compensated more than in full: $73
million.

The DC Circuit rejected a similar challenge in Cobell v. Salazar;
cert petitions were rejected in Cobell and voluntarily dismissed
in Sullivan, so the Supreme Court has not yet addressed appellate
courts' disregard of its precedents and the circuit split, but the
issue is likely to arise again in some pending megasettlements.


* Larry Klayman Sees Class Actions as Means to Unite Against Feds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Klayman, a former Justice Department prosecutor and the
founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, in a commentary in
WND, says that "The legality has been ensured (by the Department
of Justice and special federal courts set up to handle
surveillance issues, which) ruled and monitored these programs
and, again, ensured the legality. . . ."

This was the arrogant and typical Washington-establishment sworn
testimony of Robert Mueller, director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, on June 13 before the House Judiciary Committee.
Mueller -- who has fallen down on the job with an ever-increasing
number of terrorist attacks the FBI has failed to avert on U.S.
soil: 9/11, Fort Hood and the Boston Marathon bombing occurred
under Mr. Mueller's watch -- was covering his derriere and those
of other Washington bureaucrats who apparently spend more time
lunching and dining at fancy restaurants on our dime than
protecting the American people.  Ironically, it was notably the
ranking member of the committee, John Conyers, a liberal Democrat,
who principally shot back at Mueller, reminding this "political
tool" that "we are a nation of laws and not men."

Mr. Conyers' response underscores the seriousness of the newest
Obama administration scandal, which also implicates many
Republicans in Congress who knew of and approved of the widespread
spying of the National Security Agency on American citizens.  This
spying occurred by allowing the NSA total access to the telephone
and Internet records of nearly the entire American citizenry.
This violation of privacy and other constitutional rights of
freedom of association, unreasonable searches and seizures, and
due process under the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments is
unprecedented in U.S. history.  It's as if we are now living in
the "Big Brother" totalitarian state predicted by the famous
authors George Orwell in this book "1984" and Ayn Rand's "Atlas
Shrugged."

Mr. Klayman said "This most recent outrage is more than simply the
latest scandal in Washington.  It marks a critical turning point
in our nation.  We the People are no longer free, and the
government is determined to use whatever coercive means are
available, including but not limited to the NSA surveillance PRISM
scheme, to keep us down and subservient to it.  To make matters
even worse, large, greedy and corrupt corporations, which
obviously are receiving something in exchange for turning over the
most intimate details of our telephone and Internet records to the
NSA, are the government's accomplices in these crimes.  That is
how it works in our nation's capital, and all capitals of all
nations in world history.  You scratch my back and I'll scratch
yours, and let the people be damned and sent to hell."

"Earlier, I filed two class actions lawsuits over the NSA's PRISM
scheme.  Here is how one of my press releases described the cases
and the large stakes involved."

"Having already filed a $3 billion class action with regard to the
alleged government privacy abuse by the Obama administration and
Verizon, Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and now Freedom
Watch, and a former Justice Department prosecutor, filed a new $20
billion dollar companion class action suit in D.C. federal court
on June 14.  Like the prior class action suit concerning Verizon,
this new case names President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder,
the heads of the NSA and the 12 other companies who have
collaborated with the government in violating the privacy and
other constitutional rights of American citizens.  The companies
named in the suit which are tied to the government's PRISM-NSA
scheme are: Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T, Facebook, Google, Microsoft,
Skype, YouTube, Apple, PalTalk, AOL, and Yahoo.  The users and
subscribers of these companies comprise, combined with the Verizon
class plaintiffs, a majority of the entire U.S. citizenry and thus
these complementary class action suits pit the American people
against their government and corporate enablers."

"This and the Verizon class action will serve to unify all
political and social persuasions in our great nation to wage a
second American revolution, one that is peaceful and legal -- but
pursued with great resolve and force.  Government dishonesty and
tyranny against the people have reached historic proportions
during the last three administrations in particular, and the time
has come for We the People to rise up and reclaim control of our
nation.  If not, the government will control us, and this will
mark the end of individual liberties.  The American people can
thus use these class actions to 'man the barricades of freedom'
against the establishment government despots and their corporate
enablers who seek to enslave them through coercive abuses their
privacy. This Orwellian power grab can only be intended to
blackmail the masses into submission in order that these modern
day greedy tyrants achieve their corrupt ends."

"In this vein, it is important to remember that Adolf Hitler would
not have come to power in what became his Third Reich without the
backing and collaboration of the powerful industrialists and
financial institutions like Daimler-Benz, Bavarian Motor Works and
Deutche Bank, which promoted and financed his Nazi revolution, the
Holocaust and the concentration camps it spawned.  While I am not
equating President Obama and the rest of the establishment minions
in Washington, Democrat or Republican, to Adolf Hitler, this
example should serve as a warning that without peaceful resistance
and our own counterrevolution in the courts and elsewhere, our
great nation will be in similar jeopardy of being taken over by
evil despots and tyrants," Mr. Klayman said.

"And that is why these two class action suits I filed are so
important.  They have the potential of uniting the citizenry and
using non-violent means to expose, put a stop to and obtain
justice for these gross violations of our constitutional and basic
human rights.  These cases can and will likely spark the second
American revolution among all segments of the populace."

"In short, we all have a vital interest in not being coerced,
blackmailed and enslaved by the corrupt political establishment in
our nation's capital.  For now, we need to use our judicial
institutions to try to right the wrongs.  If this does not work,
then it is 1776 all over again!"


* New "Express Content" Interpretation to Increase TCPA Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP reports that plaintiffs
frequently sue businesses in class actions for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227.
The TCPA generally prohibits calls and text messages to cell
phones using automated systems or artificial or pre-recorded voice
unless the consumer gives "prior express consent."  The TCPA
imposes statutory penalties of $500 per negligent violation, and
up to $1,500 per knowing or willful violation.  In class actions,
the potential liability usually extends back four years prior to
the filing of the complaint.  The numbers can get very high, very
quickly -- for example, at least $500,000 for 1000 calls; at least
$5 million for 10,000 calls, etc.  Though the TCPA does not
authorize attorneys' fees itself, plaintiffs usually recover them
in class actions.

These cases often turn on whether the business has obtained "prior
express consent."  Since 1992, the Federal Communications
Commission, charged with implementing the TCPA, has interpreted
this to mean that "persons who knowingly give their phone number
have in effect given their invitation or permission to be called
at the number which they have given, absent instructions to the
contrary."  In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the TCPA, 7
FCC Rcd. 8752, 8769 (Oct. 16, 1992).

The FCC, however, is now set to reverse itself.  On June 11, 2012,
the FCC published a new interpretation of "prior express consent"
for telemarketing calls that will go into effect on October 16,
2013.  The FCC's new interpretation now requires a prior, signed,
written agreement, specifically agreeing to receive telemarketing
calls or text messages via auto-dialer and/or pre-recorded voice.
This rule does not apply to debt collection calls or texts, unless
such calls or texts include or introduce any type of advertisement
or marketing materials.

Under the new rule, 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(f)(8) specifically
provides:

The term prior express written consent means an agreement, in
writing, bearing the signature of the person called that clearly
authorizes the seller to deliver or cause to be delivered to the
person called advertisements or telemarketing messages using an
automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded
voice, and the telephone number to which the signatory authorizes
such advertisements or telemarketing messages to be delivered.

    (i) The written agreement shall include a clear and
conspicuous disclosure informing the person signing that:

        (A) By executing the agreement, such person authorizes the
seller to deliver or cause to be delivered to the signatory
telemarketing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or
an artificial or prerecorded voice; and

        (B) The person is not required to sign the agreement
(directly or indirectly), or agree to enter into such an agreement
as a condition of purchasing any property, goods, or services.

   (ii) The term "signature" shall include an electronic or
digital form of signature, to the extent that such form of
signature is recognized as a valid signature under applicable
federal law or state contract law.

What courts will do with the FCC's new interpretation remains to
be seen.  Courts are required to give deference to an agency's
interpretation of a statute, but only if the statute is unclear.
See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
467 U.S. 837, 842-843 (1984).

To date, most courts have followed the FCC's old interpretation
finding sufficient consent to be called if a cell phone number is
provided. See Emanuel v. Los Angeles Lakers, Inc., 2013 WL
1719035, *6 (C.D. of Cal., April 18, 2013) (telemarketing case;
court agreed with the "many federal courts" that "have concluded
that when a customer provides a company his or her phone number in
connection with a transaction, he or she consents to receiving
calls about that transaction" on the phone); Saunders v. NCO Fin.
Sys., 2012 WL 6644278, *3 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (debt collection case;
"the authorities are almost unanimous that voluntarily furnishing
a cellphone number to a vendor or other contractual counterparty
constitutes express consent"); Pinkard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
2012 WL 5511039, *5-6 (N.D. Ala. 2012) (telemarketing case;
"distributing one's telephone number is an invitation to be
called"); Greene v. DirecTV, Inc., 2010 WL 4628734, *3 (N.D. Ill.,
2010) (telemarketing case; plaintiff "expressly consented to the
. . . phone call by releasing her cell phone number as the one at
which she wished to be reached."); Ibey v. Taco Bell Corp., 2012
WL 2401972, *3 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (telemarketing case; "plaintiff
expressly consented to contact by Defendant when he initially
texted . . . to Defendant"); Ryabyschuck v. Citibank, 2012 WL
5379143, *3 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (telemarketing case; where "lone text
message at issue was sent to a number voluntarily provided by
Plaintiff to Defendant without caveat . . . These circumstances
unmistakably display some measure of prior consent"); Roberts v.
Paypal, Inc., 2013 WL 2384242, *7 (N.D.Cal.) (telemarketing case;
granting defendant's summary judgment motion finding that
plaintiff consented to receive text messages from defendant
"simply by providing his cell phone number."); Jamison v. First
Credit Services, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43978 *45 (N.D.Ill.,
2013)(debt collection case; court denied class certification in
suit against auto financing company, finding that "issues of
individualized consent predominate[d]" because Honda set forth
"evidence showing that a significant percentage of the putative
class consented to receiving calls on their cell phone" by
providing their cell phone numbers).

Other courts, however, have disagreed with the FCC's old
interpretation, requiring prior written consent to be called,
specifically via an auto-dialer or prerecorded voice, for both
telemarketing calls and debt collection calls.  In the debt
collection case of Leckler v. Cashcall, 554 F.Supp.2d 1025 (N.D.
Cal. 2008), the court held that the FCC's interpretation allows
for "implied" consent and "flies in the face of Congress' intent."
Id. at 1029-1030, vacated on other grounds 2008 WL 5000528.
"Although the Court does not doubt that by providing her cell
phone number in her loan application and in subsequent
correspondence plaintiff consented to be called by defendant, such
consent was implied through her actions and conduct . . . rather
than expressly given in words . . . explicitly stating that
plaintiff consented to be called with an autodialer or prerecorded
voice." Id. at 1030; see also Edeh v. Midland Credit Management,
Inc., 748 F.Supp.2d 1030, 1038 (D. Minn. 2010) (debt collection;
"express" means "explicit" and not "implicit;" defendant debt
collector "was not permitted to make an automated call" unless
debtor "had previously said something like this: 'I give you
permission to use an automatic telephone dialing system to call my
cellular phone.'"); Thrasher-Lyon v. CCS Commercial LLC, 2012 WL
5389722, *2 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (telemarketing case; "agreeing to be
contacted by telephone, which [plaintiff] effectively did when she
gave out her number, is much different than expressly consenting
to be robo-called."); Travel Travel Kirkwood, Inc. v. Jen N.Y.,
Inc., 206 S.W.3d 387, 392 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006) (telemarketing case;
"If consent is not manifested by explicit and direct words, but
rather is gathered only by implication or necessary deduction from
the circumstances, the general language, or the conduct of the
parties, it is not express consent. Rather, it is merely implied
consent.").

Plaintiffs' class action attorneys, of course, will take the most
aggressive position.  To avoid being sued in TCPA class actions,
businesses should consider adopting the elements of the new FCC
rule for both telemarketing and debt collection calls and texts.
Businesses should also consider an even broader consent agreement,
one in which the person agrees to receive calls or texts on the
particular cell phone number provided, regardless of whether it is
the signatory who receives this call or a friend or relative who
might be in possession of the cell phone at the time.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Allowed to File Additional Expert Report
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Arva Anderson, as wife and executrix of Joseph Alexander
Anderson's estate, filed a motion for leave to file additional
expert report in light of the death of Dr. Dikman, one of the
experts hired by her husband to testify regarding the cause of his
mesothelioma.  Defendant Crane Co. objected to the Plaintiff's
motion and Defendants Sepco Corporation and York International
Corporation have been granted leave to join Crane's objection.

Absent leave to obtain an additional expert, the Plaintiff asserts
that she will be "greatly prejudiced."  The Defendants counter
that a replacement expert is unnecessary and that allowing the
Plaintiff to add another expert at this juncture is unfair to the
Defendants.

On June 24, 2013, Judge Ted Stewart of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Utah, Central Division, issued a Memorandum
Decision and Order granting the Defendants' motion to exclude the
proposed specific causation testimony from the Plaintiff's
experts.  At issue was the question of whether the Plaintiff's
experts, Dr. Dikman and Dr. Horne, should be allowed to offer
"every exposure" testimony.  Under that theory, "every exposure"
to asbestos is a factual cause in the development of an
individual's mesothelioma.  The Defendants' objected to the
testimony arguing that the theory is not supported by "any
scientifically accepted approach to determining causation in a
toxic exposure case."  In his decision granting the Defendants'
motion, Judge Stewart limited the substance of the experts'
proposed testimony and concluded that the "every exposure theory
of causation does not meet the standards set by Rule 702 of the
Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert and must be excluded."

In light of Judge Stewart's recent decision and upon consideration
of the parties' arguments, Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead, in a
memorandum decision and ruling dated July 1, 2013, granted in part
the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an additional export
report and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion to the extent
that the Plaintiff's new expert intends to provide testimony
regarding the every exposure theory of causation.  While the
Plaintiff indicates that the testimony of her new expert "would be
in all respects consistent with the report of Dr. Dikman," the
Magistrate Judge cautions that every exposure theory testimony
will not be allowed and that any testimony provided must comport
with Judge Stewart's Ruling.

The case is ARVA ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et.
al., Defendant, CASE NO. 2:06-CV-00741 (D. Utah).

A full-text copy of Magistrate Judge Pead's July 1, 2013 Decision
is available at http://is.gd/tvcDvbfrom Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of Judge Stewart's June 24, 2013 Decision is
available at http://is.gd/AkDXe6from Leagle.com

Joseph Alexander Anderson, Jr., and Arva Anderson, Plaintiffs, are
represented by G. Patterson Keahey, Esq., at LAW OFFICES OF G
PATTERSON KEAHEY, Gary M. DiMuzio, Esq., at LAW OFFICES OF GARY
DIMUZIO, and Kenneth D. Lougee, Esq., at SIEGFRIED & JENSEN.

American Standard, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Kamie F.
Brown, Esq., -- kbrown@rqn.com -- RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER, Stewart
O. Peay, Esq. -- speay@swlaw.com -- and Tracy H. Fowler, Esq. --
tfowler@swlaw.com -- SNELL & WILMER, and Scott A. DuBois, Esq. --
dubois@wronalawfirm.com -- WRONA LAW FIRM.

Stewart O. Peay, Esq., and Tracy H. Fowler, Esq., at SNELL &
WILMER, also represent Flowserve Corp. and Westinghouse Electric
Corporation, Defendants, and Kaiser Gypsum Company, Interested
Party.

Kamie F. Brown, Esq., at RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER, also represents
Oakfabco, TH Agriculture & Nutrition, Utah Power & Light Company,
also known as PacifiCorp also known as Rocky Mountain Power, Utah
Power & Light Company, and Westinghouse Electric Corporation,
Defendants, and Kaiser Gypsum Company, Interested Party.

Bondex International, Defendant, is represented by Dennis H.
Markusson, Esq. -- markusson@mgjlaw.com -- MARKUSSON GREEN &
JARVIS, and Timothy C. Houpt, Esq. -- thoupt@joneswaldo.com --
JONES WALDO HOLBROOK & MCDONOUGH.

Borg Warner Corporation, Flowserve Corp., Hamilton Materials, and
SPX Cooling Technologies, Defendants, are represented by Melinda
A. Morgan, Esq. -- melinda@vantuslaw.com -- VANTUS LAW GROUP.

Durabala Manufacturing and Industrial Supply, Defendants, are
represented by Jonathan L. Hawkins, Esq. -- jhawkins@mmrj.com --
MORGAN MINNOCK RICE & JAMES.

Ford Motor Company and General Motors Corporation, Defendants, are
represented by Dan R. Larsen, Esq. -- larsen.dan@dorsey.com -- at
DORSEY & WHITNEY, and Karthik Nadesan, Esq. --
karthik@nadesanbeck.com -- at NADESAN BECK PC.

Flowserve Corp, Defendant, represented by Barbara K. Berrett,
Esq., at BERRETT & HANNA LC, Casey K. McGarvey, Esq. --
casey@edizone.com -- at EdiZONE LLC, and Rebecca L. Hill, Esq. --
rebecca.hill@chrisjen.com -- and Scot A. Boyd, Esq. --
scot.boyd@chrisjen.com -- at CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN PC.

Rebecca L. Hill, Esq., and Scot A. Boyd, Esq., at CHRISTENSEN &
JENSEN PC, also represent DaimlerChrysler, Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company, Hill Brothers Chemical, Warren Pumps, and Zurn
Industries, Inc., Defendants.

Crane Co., Carrier Corporation, Georgia Pacific Corporation, and
Hercules Inc., Defendants, are represented by Katherine E. Venti,
Esq. -- kventi@parsonsbehle.com -- and John P. Ball, Jr., Esq. --
jball@parsonsbehle.com -- at PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER.

Buffalo Pumps, Certainteed Corporation, Philips Electronics North
America Corporation, Sepco and Union Carbide Corporation,
Defendants, are represented by Mary Price Birk, Esq. --
mbirk@bakerlaw.com -- and Ronald L. Hellbusch, Esq. --
rhellbusch@bakerlaw.com -- at BAKER & HOSTETLER, and Patricia W.
Christensen, Esq. -- pchristensen@parrbrown.com -- PARR BROWN GEE
& LOVELESS.

Patricia W. Christensen, Esq., at PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, also
represent Fluor Corporation, Defendant.

York International Corporation, Defendant, is represented by
Dennis C. Ferguson, Esq., Timothy J. Bywater, Esq., and Mark R.
Anderson, Esq., at WILLIAMS & HUNT.

Foster Wheeler North America Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Mark J. Williams, Esq., at PRICE PARKINSON & KERR PLLC.

Garlock Sealing Technologies, Defendant, represented by Clinton A.
McAdams, Esq., Joseph J. Joyce, Esq., and Ryan J. Schriever, Esq.,
at J JOYCE & ASSOCIATES.

Henry Vogt Machine, Defendant, represented by Barbara K. Berrett,
Esq., at BERRETT & HANNA LC, and Mark D. Taylor, Esq. --
mtaylor@lewishansen.com -- LEWIS HANSEN WALDO PLESHE FLANDERS LLC.

Honeywell, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tonn K. Petersen, Esq.
-- TKPetersen@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE LLP.

Thermal West, Defendant, represented by Allan L. Larson, Esq. --
all@scmlaw.com -- Jill L. Dunyon, Esq. -- jdunyon@scmlaw.com --
and Kenneth L. Reich, Esq. -- kreich@scmlaw.com -- at SNOW
CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU.

Goulds Pumps, Defendant, represented by H. Scott Jacobson, Jr.,
Esq. -- sjacobson@strongandhanni.com -- at STRONG & HANNI.

Copeland Corp, Interested Party, represented by Richard K.
Glauser, Esq. -- rkg@smithglauser.com -- at SMITH & GLAUSER PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 More Actions Consolidated Into Detainees' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a June 3, 2013 order, Judge Joanna Seybert of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled that the
Plaintiffs in the actions titled FIDEL CASTRO BRITO, Plaintiff, v.
SUFFOLK COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, SHERIFF VINCENT F. DeMARCO
and S.C.C.F. MEDICAL STAFF, Defendants; COURTNEY FLANIGHAN,
Plaintiff, v. VINCENT F. DeMARCO, Suffolk County Sheriff,
Defendant; FOUNDATION McCLURE, Plaintiff, v. VINCENT F. DeMARCO,
Suffolk County Sheriff, JOSEPH P. CARACAPPA, Suffolk County
Sheriff, and JOHN P. MYERRICKS, Suffolk County Sheriff,
Defendants, NOS. 13-CV-0316 (JS)(GRB), 13-CV-2072 (JS)(GRB), 13-
CV-2515 (JS)(GRB)(E.D.N.Y.), are consolidated into the action
Butler, et al. v. DeMarco, et al., 11-CV-2602 (JS)(GRB).

The consolidated action asserts that the men detained in the
Suffolk County Correctional Facilities are subject to inhumane
conditions.  The men, among other things, are allegedly at risk of
exposure to asbestos from the leaking pipes, which are lined with
insulation believed to contain asbestos.  The leaking water has
caused floor tiles in the facility to turn upward, exposing the
glue underneath them, also believed to contain asbestos.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
long-term exposure to asbestos can cause a serious, progressive
disease that scars lung tissue and results in respiratory problems
of increasing severity.

A full-text copy of Judge Seybert's Order is available at
http://is.gd/pQ4gKafrom Leagle.com

Daniel Hector Rees LaGuardia, Esq. --
daniel.laguardia@shearman.com -- Edward Garth Timlin, Esq. --
edward.timlin@shearman.com -- Melissa Jane Godwin, Esq. --
melissa.godwin@shearman.com -- at Shearman & Sterling LLP, in New
York, for Plaintiffs.

Arlene S. Zwilling, Esq., at Office of the Suffolk County
Attorney, for Defendants.

Corey Stoughton, Esq., and Taylor Pendergrass, Esq., in New York,
for NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial on John Crane's Exhaustion Suit Continues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff John Crane, Inc., which once manufactured asbestos-
containing gaskets, appealed a circuit court's judgment contending
that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the parties could
not use the agreement concerning coverage to determine that
primary policies issued by Kemper, which is not a party to the
appeal, had been exhausted by November 2004; (2) determining that
a pro rata allocation of payments by excess and umbrella insurers
applies, rather than an "all sums" allocation; and (3) finding
that Zurich Insurance Co. v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 118 Ill.2d
23 (1987), requires Crane to prove all three trigger dates to
prove exhaustion of its primary policies.

Defendants Columbia Casualty Company, Continental Casualty
Company, Continental Insurance Company (collectively, "CAN
Defendants") also filed a cross-appeal in which it alleges that
the trial court erred in (1) determining that mere exposure to
asbestos constitutes bodily injury under Zurich; and (2) failing
to adopt an equitable continuous trigger.

In an opinion filed on March 5, 2013, the Appellate Court of
Illinois, First District, Second Division, affirmed the trial
court in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.

The CNA Defendants and Allianz Underwriters Insurance Company,
Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., f/k/a American Re-Insurance
Company, National Surety Corporation (collectively, "Allianz
Defendants") filed petitions for rehearing, which the Appellate
Court granted.  Crane filed a response and the CNA and Allianz
defendants filed their replies.

Upon consideration of the petitions for rehearing, the Appellate
Court, in an opinion dated June 4, 2013, affirmed in part, and
reversed in part, and remand the issue back to the circuit court.

On Crane's first issue, the Appellate Court ruled that the
horizontal exhaustion doctrine requires Crane to prove that all of
the triggered primary policies had been exhausted before the
umbrella or excess carriers could be required to contribute to any
settlement or judgment.  Crane failed to cite any case for the
proposition that, after a primary policy has been triggered, an
insured and a primary insurer may make an agreement which lessens
the amount of primary insurance required to be exhausted before
umbrella or excess insurance policies are implicated, the
Appellate Court noted.  In the trial court, Crane argued that, as
of their 2004 settlement agreement with Kemper, not only were all
primary insurance policies triggered, they were exhausted.  Crane,
however, made no argument that any of its  primary policies were
not triggered at the time they entered into the ACC, the Appellate
Court further noted.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's
holding that the horizontal exhaustion doctrine requires Crane to
prove that all of Kemper's primary policy limits, as written
before the parties entered into the ACC, were exhausted before the
umbrella or excess carriers would be required to contribute to any
settlement or judgment.

On Crane's second issue, the Appellate Court adhered to the
supreme court's ruling in Zurich and held that where coverage for
asbestos-related injury claims is triggered by bodily injury or
sickness or disease, all triggered policies are jointly and
severally liable, although the Appellate Court clarified that only
those carriers providing policies for the period at issue will be
liable.  The Appellate Court found that although not all of the
umbrella or excess policies at issue in the instant case contain
the "all sums" language found in Zurich, they provide for payment
of the amount of loss in excess of the loss payable by the
underlying policies based on the language in the underlying
primary policies which do contain the "all sums" language.
Moreover, the Appellate Court pointed out that as in the policies
in Zurich, the parties do no assert that any of the policies at
issue permit pro rata application.

On Crane's third issue, the Appellate Court concluded that Zurich
does not require an insured to prove all three triggers for
coverage and that coverage is triggered upon proof of exposure,
sickness, or disease.  A policy holder or primary insurer must
show that all triggered primary policies are exhausted before any
excess insurance policies can be required to respond to the claim,
the Appellate Court said.  Exhaustion occurs when there are no
other triggered primary policies available to cover the payments,
the Appellate Court held.

Ruling on Crane's cross-appeal, the Appellate Court declined to
revisit the first issue -- determination that mere exposure to
asbestos constitutes bodily injury under Zurich -- because the
evidence of injury has no bearing on the insurance coverage issue.
The Appellate Court remanded Crane's second issue -- on equitable
continuous trigger -- for the trial court to additionally consider
any judgments and settlements paid by Crane and by Kemper since
the last exhaustion trial.

The case is John Crane, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-
Appellee, v. ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN MOTORISTS
INSURANCE COMPANY, FIRST STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, HARTFORD
ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY, LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, and
TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS
OF LONDON, and CERTAIN LONDON MARKET INSURANCE COMPANIES,
Including Excess Insurance Company, Ltd., General Reinsurance
Corporation, River Thames Insurance Company, World Auxiliary
Insurance Corporation, and John Does 1 Through 400, Defendants
(Allianz Underwriters Insurance Company, Allstate Insurance
Company, AIU Insurance Company, American Re-Insurance Company,
Granite State Insurance Company, Lexington Insurance Company,
National Surety Corporation, National Union Fire Insurance Company
of Pittsburgh, PA, Insurance Company of North America, and TIG
Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees; Columbia Casualty
Company, Continental Casualty Company, and The Continental
Insurance Company, Defendants- Appellees and Cross-Appellants),
NO. 1-09-3240 (Ill. App.).

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/TdPbowfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Junks Prisoner's Skeletal Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a June 4, 2013 memorandum order, Judge Milton T. Shadur of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, dismissed the complaint filed by Jerome Bynum and his
action for failure to state a claim.

Mr. Bynum has used the Clerk's-Office-supplied form of 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1983 Complaint to sue the Cook County Department of
Corrections and alleged that "[w]e were sleeping and eating in a
condemned building with asbestos everywhere."

Judge Shadur held that, quite apart from the fact that the
Department is not a suable legal entity, the Complaint is so
skeletal in nature as to call for a sua sponte dismissal albeit
without prejudice to Mr. Bynum's possible ability to shape a claim
that would satisfy the plausibility standard announced in the
Twombly-Iqbal canon.

Even though Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)(per
curiam) calls for reading prisoners' pro se complaints through a
generous lens, that totally non-particularized assertion does not
qualify as a viable claim of the deprivation of a constitutional
right cognizable under Section 1983, Judge Shadur held.  Indeed,
Mr. Bynum has alleged so little that the Court could not even
begin to suggest what type of fleshing out might suffice to meet
the plausibility standard.

The case is JEROME W. BYNUM #20130525132, Plaintiff, v. COOK
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant, NO. 13 C 3967 (N.D.
Ill.).  A full-text copy of Judge Shadur's Decision is available
at http://is.gd/IECHp0from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Affirms Order Dismissing Insurer's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Century Indemnity Company, et al., appealed from the Supreme
Court, New York County's August 2011 order granting the motions by
Defendants Warren Pumps LLC and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
to dismiss a complaint on forum non conveniens grounds.

The complaint seeks judgment declaring the extent to which Liberty
Mutual is obligated to defend and indemnify defendant Warren
Pumps, who is alleged to have manufactured asbestos-containing
pumps, under certain primary liability insurance policies issued
before 1970.  The Plaintiffs are excess carriers who claim to have
been exposed to substantial liability by reason of Liberty
Mutual's settlement of a large number of asbestos-related claims
for a nominal sum.

In an opinion dated June 4, 2013, the Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court of New York, First Department, affirmed the lower's
court decision holding that the doctrine of forum non conveniens
permits a court to stay or dismiss an action "where it is
determined that the action, although jurisdictionally sound, would
be better adjudicated elsewhere," resting on considerations of
justice, fairness and convenience.

The complaint in this action calls for a judgment declaring
Liberty Mutual's "obligations to pay defense costs and indemnity
for the underlying asbestos claims."  The Plaintiffs also allege,
in support of their contribution claim, that Liberty Mutual paid
"inadequate compensation" in settling the underlying asbestos
claims under certain policies issued to Warren.  As acknowledged
in the Plaintiffs' brief, an issue in an action pending in a
Delaware court is whether Warren's primary insurance policies were
exhausted.  It is inescapable that the issue of Liberty Mutual's
indemnity and defense obligations set forth in the instant
complaint is inextricably tied to the issue of whether Warren's
coverage was exhausted under its policy with Liberty Mutual, the
Appellate Division ruled.

Although Liberty Mutual is no longer a party to the Delaware
action, it would be burdensome and wasteful to unnecessarily
require Warren to litigate intertwined issues in two different
fora, the Appellate Division said.  On the other hand, it would
not be a burden for the Plaintiffs to assert the claims they now
make in the Delaware action in which they are already third-party
defendants, the Appellate Division added.

The Appellate Division further ruled that the subject matter of
this action -- insurance coverage for liability relating to the
manufacture of products in Massachusetts -- has no substantial
connection to New York.  When the policies were issued, Warren was
a Massachusetts corporation and had its principal place of
business in that state.  Liberty Mutual, the insurer under the
policies at issue, is a Massachusetts corporation that has its
principal place of business in that state.  Both the Plaintiffs
are foreign corporations that maintain their principal places of
business in other states.

The case is CENTURY INDEMNITY COMPANY, ETC., ET AL., Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.,
Defendants-Respondents, CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS OF LLOYD'S AND LONDON
MARKET INSURANCE COMPANIES, ET AL., Defendants, 9380, 105491/10
(N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Appellate Division's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/bc0n95from Leagle.com.

Elizabeth S. Kim, Esq. -- ekim@omm.com -- at O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, in New York, for appellants.

David S. Douglas, Esq. -- dsd@gdblaw.com -- at Gallet Dreyer &
Berkey, LLP, in New York, for Liberty Mutual Insurance Company,
respondent.

Keith McKenna, Esq. -- kmckenna@kasowitz.com -- at Kasowitz,
Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, in New York, for Warren Pumps LLC,
respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal From NYCAL Doc Production Order Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Georgia-Pacific LLC appeals from the order of the
Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 12, 2011, which
confirmed recommendations of the Special Master directing an in
camera review of all internal attorney-client and work-product
documents identified on GP's privilege log and directing the
production of all materials and raw data underlying several
published studied funded by GP, and from the order, same court and
Justice, entered June 14, 2012, which denied GP's motion for
reargument.

The discovery dispute pertains to all of the Weitz & Luxenberg New
York City Asbestos Litigation cases in which GP is a defendant.

In an opinion dated June 6, 2013, Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court of New York, First Department, affirmed the motion
court's decision and found that the motion court providently
exercised its discretion when it denied GP's motions to vacate the
Special Master's recommendations and directed an in camera review
of certain internal communications identified in GP's privilege
log and the production to plaintiffs of certain underlying data
related to eight published research studies funded by GP
concerning the health effects of its joint compound.

According to the Appellate Division, the Plaintiffs will be
prejudiced if they are prevented from discovering the data,
protocols, process, conduct, discussion, and analyses underlying
these studies.  A significant expenditure of time and money would
be required to duplicate the studies, if they could be exactly
duplicated at all, whereas scrutiny of the underlying data may
provide a permissible manner in which to attack the findings that
would be consistent with the intent of the Case Management Order
entered in the NYCAL cases to minimize the cost of and streamline
discovery.

In this regard, the Appellate Division noted that the motion court
limited its ruling to the data, samples, and materials that relate
to those studies whose results have been published or will be
published.  GP, the Appellate Court further noted, is not required
at this juncture to produce to plaintiffs any internal
communications that portray its attorneys' or consultants' notes,
comments or opinions.  Moreover, GP will be free to make whatever
pretrial in limine application it deems appropriate, the Appellate
Court also noted.

The case IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. WEITZ &
LUXENBERG P.C., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC,
Defendant-Appellant, 40000/88, 9535 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text
copy of the Appellate Division's Decision is available for free at
http://is.gd/rDa4SFfrom Leagle.com.

Kathleen M. Sullivan, Esq. -- kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com --
at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, in New York, and Scott
Emery, Esq. -- emery@lawlynch.com -- at Lynch Daskal Emery LLP, in
New York, for appellant.

Jerry Kristal, Esq., and Alani Golanski, Esq., at Weitz &
Luxenberg P.C., in New York, for respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer, et al., Cannot Recover From G-I Holdings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appellants United States Gypsum Company, Pfizer, Inc., and Quigley
Company, Inc., and Appellee G-I Holdings, Inc., and other
companies were parties to asbestos personal injury lawsuits.  In
an effort to resolve these lawsuits efficiently, the companies
entered into a contract where they agreed to allocate the costs of
settling the thousands of asbestos personal injury claims against
them in an agreed upon formula.  Under the contract, the parties
agreed to create a claims handling organization, the Center for
Claims Resolution, that would manage the claims and send out bills
to the contracting parties for their share of settlement payments
owed under the contractually-agreed formula.

G-I subsequently filed for bankruptcy on January 5, 2001.  During
the course of G-I's bankruptcy proceeding, a payment dispute arose
between the CCR and G-1, which was settled.  Former members of the
CCR objected to this settlement; because the Former Members paid
an allocated share of G-I's contractual liability under the
Producer Agreement, they filed a claim against G-I for the amounts
paid on G-I's behalf for moneys they believe were owed to them,
not the CCR.  After initially objecting to the claims of the
Former Members in the Bankruptcy Court, G-I filed a motion for
summary judgment in support of its objection.  On August 13, 2012,
the Bankruptcy Court overseeing G-I's bankruptcy case issued its
Opinion granting the motion for summary judgment in favor of G-I.

The Bankruptcy Court made the following determinations:

   1. The Former Members did not have claims against G-I because
      they had waived, under the Producer Agreement, claims
      against other CCR members for contribution and indemnity
      with respect to "asbestos-related claims."

   2. The claims of the Former Members, under Delaware law, are
      "derivative" of claims of the CCR, rather than "direct"
      Claims.

   3. Allowing the Former Members to recover on claims against G-I
      would constitute an "impermissible double recovery" against
      G-I, since CR had already resolved its claims against G-I
      pursuant to the CCR settlement.

The appeals were timely filed.  The sole issue on appeal is
whether the Former Members of the CCR can assert a breach of
contract claim against G-I.

In an opinion dated June 26, 2013, Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh of
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
denied the appeal and affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's opinion.

The District Court agreed with the Bankruptcy Court's finding that
"the Producer Agreement signatories intended to establish a
cooperative, collective process for allocating asbestos liability,
and in furtherance of that process, delegated to the new corporate
entity the exclusive right to seek collection from a member that
did not make a payment required under the Producer Agreement's
allocation of a pro rata share of liability and expenses."

Moreover, the District Court held that in keeping with the purpose
of the Producer Agreement, the Former Members delegated to the CCR
enforcement of the share payment provisions, and the Producer
Agreement gives the CCR the power of enforcement to the Center and
the Center's Board of Directors on behalf of the Center's
Participating Producers.  While the Appellants argue that this
provision is permissible, there is no other provision in the
Producer Agreement that establishes any remedy for breach of a
payment obligation, and Section XIV 4 clearly provides an express
remedy, the District Court said.  Indeed the CCR has already
exercised that remedy on behalf of the Former Members, the
District Court noted.  Again reading the contract as a whole,
Judge Cavanaugh said, the District Court is not convinced that
this provision is merely permitting arbitration for a breach of a
payment obligation while leaving open the option for independent
members to bypass the sole authority of the CCR to remedy it on
their own.

The case is UNITED STATES GYPUM COMPANY, PFIZER, INC. and QUIGLEY
COMPANY, INC. Appellant, v. G-I Holdings, INC., Appellee, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 2:12-6933 (D. N.J.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Cavanaugh's Decision is available at http://is.gd/pFFXXTfrom
Leagle.com.

PFIZER INC. is represented by Alan J. Brody, Esq. --
brodya@gtlaw.com -- at GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP.

UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY, is represented by James N. Lawlor,
Esq. -- jlawlor@wmd-law.com -- at WOLLMUTH, MAHER & DEUTSCH, LLP.

QUIGLEY COMPANY, INC., is represented by John P. Di Iorio, Esq. --
jdiiorio@shapiro-croland.com -- at ORIO, SHAPIRO, CROLAND, REISER,
APFEL & DI IORIO, LLP.

G-I HOLDINGS, INC., and ACI, INC., Appellees, are represented by
Dennis Joseph O'Grady, Esq. -- dogrady@riker.com -- at RIKER,
DANZIG, SCHERER, HYLAND & PERRETTI, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queanbeyan Homes Still Contain Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------
Meredith Clisby, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that as
the ACT government spends $2 million removing a house containing
Mr. Fluffy asbestos, nothing is being spent to remediate homes
across the border that still contain the deadly fibres.

And Dr. Keith McKenry, who was in charge of the ACT's loose-fill
insulation removal program in the 1990s, has described the
inaction by NSW authorities to clean up the asbestos as
"criminally negligent," the report said.

The Canberra Times reported that the Bradfield Street home in
Downer was one of four that missed the $100 million loose-fill
asbestos removal program carried out in the territory in the early
'90s.

The program, which was not conducted in NSW, took place after a
business trading as Mr. Fluffy insulated about 1050 homes in
Canberra in the '70s with amosite asbestos, considered to be one
of the most dangerous forms of the substance.  But while ACT
residents have been warned again by the government to be wary of
the residual presence of the asbestos, the insulation still
remains in an unknown number of houses in Queanbeyan and on the
south coast.

Queanbeyan City Council says there are nine homes in the city
identified as containing loose-fill asbestos but it is up to the
owners to pay for remediation.

Maurice Blackburn asbestos lawyer Theodora Ahilas, who has
represented three clients in the region who contacted mesothelioma
from the insulation, says she has been approached by south coast
residents with the disease.

In 1968 a Canberra-based entrepreneur began to import pure amosite
-- also known as grey asbestos -- from South Africa and installed
it in the form of loose fluff as ceiling insulation.  Dr. McKenry
said while by the late 1960s there was a substantial growing body
of evidence about the dangers of exposure to asbestos neither the
federal nor NSW governments took any action to stop the company.

Mr. Fluffy stopped trading in 1978 when restrictions were placed
on the further installation of the material.

Dr. McKenry said political decisions had been made at the time for
the program to only cover residential leases in the ACT. Buildings
with commercial leases, such as schools and shops, and homes
across the border were not part of the clean-up.  But he said the
officials had left no stone unturned in cleaning the dangerous
houses in the ACT.

"If any have been missed that would have been some manner of
administrative error -- it would not have been deliberate," he
said.  He said the group had offered to survey Queanbeyan homes
but authorities had shown little interest -- a back-of-the-
envelope calculation estimated about 60 homes were likely to
contain Mr. Fluffy asbestos.

Residents had not agitated about the issue because of the
detrimental effect it would have on their ability to sell their
homes.

"Constantly the NSW government hasn't wanted to know about it;
constantly the Queanbeyan community hasn't agitated about it," he
said.

Dr. McKenry said people would buy the homes with no knowledge of
the insidiously dangerous substance, use their roof area for
storage spaces, and employ trades people to undertake work --
putting everybody at risk.

A Queanbeyan City Council spokesman said loose-fill asbestos had
been identified in nine homes in the city following a survey in
the 1990s. Estimates in 1996 suggested it would cost between
$35,000 and $40,000 to remove the asbestos in each home.  He said
in 2005 council had agreed to pay 25 per cent of the remediation
costs if the state and federal governments made similar
contributions -- these were not forthcoming.  The spokesman said
the council did not know whether the home owners had paid for the
homes to be remediated.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Legacy of Unsafe Fire Safety Techniques
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cherry Park, writing for IFSEC Fire, reported that the recent
prosecution of a Scottish health board after staff and contractors
were potentially exposed to toxic asbestos fibres at a Glasgow
children's hospital has drawn renewed attention to the risks
associated with the material.

According to the report, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde was fined
GBP6,000 after it ignored warnings of deterioration in the
condition of asbestos-containing materials at the Royal Hospital
for Sick Children. Positive air and swab samples for asbestos
fibres taken in a plant room in January 2011 were returned,
putting the room at high risk, but no remedial action was taken.

HSE Inspector Eve Macready commented, "Glasgow health board failed
in its duty to properly manage the risks of asbestos in its
premises and as a result a number of employees and external
contractors have potentially been exposed to harmful fibres."

According to the HSE, asbestos is the single greatest cause of
work-related deaths in the UK, at over 4,000 deaths each year from
previous exposure to the substance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tiling to be Replaced at Casterlin School
----------------------------------------------------------
Dave Brooksher, writing for Redwood Times, reported that at a
meeting in the district office, Southern Humboldt Unified School
District's Board of Trustees moved to remediate asbestos tiling in
the classroom and office floors at Casterlin School in Blocksburg.
Asbestos tiling in the kitchen area will be left in place for the
time being, but students do not have access to that part of the
school site.

"This is something we should all be concerned about. It's a health
issue. We need to fix it," said trustee Blake Lehman, the report
cited.

According to the report, asbestos is prevalent in older California
schools, and District Superintendent Catherine Scott says asbestos
tiling is present at all of SHUSD's sites. The move was prompted
by the North Coast Schools Insurance Group, a Joint Powers
Authority that manages the district's risk. They instructed the
SHUSD to remediate or cover the asbestos tiling at Casterlin,
citing their poor condition -- which aggravates the health hazards
posed by the material's presence.

The remediation project at Blocksburg will come at an estimated
cost of just under $25,000. Trustees considered flooring over the
tiles to seal them in at a lower cost, but the health hazards
involved would still have to be dealt with by a subsequent board.

The district has also resolved a recent conflict with the South
Fork High School Booster Club, a parents' organization that raises
most of the funding for school athletic programs by selling food
and refreshments at sports events. Construction plans called for
demolishing the current snack shack over this summer, which
booster president Michelle Bushnell feared would adversely affect
sports funding.

That plan has been modified so that the demolition will take place
after this year's football season. A new 720 square foot snack-
shack is expected to be in place for the 2014/15 school year so
that the booster's don't have to miss a football season -- which
they say is responsible for three-fourths of their annual
fundraising.

Trustees also reviewed change orders for construction projects at
Redway School. Plans for an additional parking lot have made it
necessary to replace the three-inch water main. The new
development will leave just a few inches of ground covering the
60-year-old steel pipe -- so trustees authorized $17,219.39 to dig
a deeper trench and replace the line with modern materials before
adding the new parking lot.

The district also realized roughly $8,250.00 in cost savings by
revising a recent change order and eliminating plans for roughly
300 lineal feet of fencing. The fence would have been an optional
expense, but was added to the plans as a way of separating the
Family Resource Center from the rest of the campus -- including a
portable classroom, which will soon be moved to a location near
the FRC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Ex-Warminster Soldier in Payment Fight
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Smith, writing for This is Wiltshire, reported that the
daughter of a former soldier struck down with an asbestos-related
cancer has appealed for help in her fight for compensation.

According to the report, Nichola Smith's father Phillip was
diagnosed with mesothelioma in December, a rare form of the
disease closely associated with asbestos exposure.

Mr. Smith, a former Staff Sergeant, worked for the MoD in
Warminster for 18 years, which is where his family believe he was
exposed to the hazardous material, the report said.

She said: "He worked for the MoD from 1982 to 2000. He spent six
years at the 27 District Workshop in Warminster, and then at Knook
Camp, in Lethbury.

"He would go round inspecting the campsite, waiting for the troops
to come in, so he would be going in where they were stripping down
the military vehicles, and we know there was asbestos there."

Before working for the MoD he served in the Army, and was
stationed in Germany and Hong Kong. Now aged 75, he currently
lives in Devizes.

His diagnosis came 18 months after he underwent surgery to remove
a cancerous tumour from his tongue.

Miss Smith said: "He recovered really well and got on with life
again, still playing skittles, but he's much frailer now. He still
manages to get out and about, but not as much as he did.

"He is quite well at the moment, but he will get worse and still
gets breathless easily.

"Compensation will keep him at home for as long as possible, and
we may have to consider a wheelchair at some stage, but he wants
to keep his independence. He has always been an independent man
and gone out and about and done what he wants."

The family is being helped in their fight for compensation by
Thrings Solicitors. They are appealing for former workmates of Mr.
Smith or anyone else with information on possible asbestos use at
these premises to contact Helen Grady of Thrings on 0800 884055.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Guilford Starts Removing Deadly Dust From Schools
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marquita Brown, writing for News & Record, reported that work to
remove asbestos is underway or planned for 30 school buildings
across the Guilford County district.

According to the report, the sites include Allen Middle School,
where parents and community members recently learned about efforts
to remove asbestos exposed during renovations.

"This summer, we replaced old carpet in the media center, two
computer labs and office areas. Since the carpet was older, the
adhesive used when it was installed contained asbestos," Gerald
Greeson, the district's maintenance director, said in an emailed
response to parents and questions from the News & Record.
"Some areas also had older tiles under the carpet, which also
contained asbestos."

Asbestos fibers pose a health hazard when inhaled, so there are
strict regulations about how materials containing the substance
should be maintained to prevent exposure and how it should be
removed.

The presence of asbestos in older buildings is not unusual. The
substance poses a threat when broken apart or crumbled, not when
left intact, according to the state Department of Health and Human
Services.

McElroy Hughes said he learned about it through his involvement at
the school. Otherwise, he said, there has been no notice to the
community or parents.

Parents, he said, are concerned about the extent of the removal
effort and whether there would be any lingering risks to students.
"We're being left out of the loop," he said.

Allen is undergoing a transformation of staff and has a new
principal because of academic troubles at the school.

The district has 91 school buildings and 11 administrative office
buildings that contain asbestos.

About 30 district school buildings have not been renovated for
about 30 years, according to the district.

The district typically removes asbestos when students are not in
the buildings, Greeson said.

At Allen, workers are sealing project areas with plastic sheeting
as required by state and federal guidelines. The air is being
contained and filtered before being released, Greeson said.

"Air quality is monitored before, during and after the work is
completed," he said.

The projects are closely monitored by the state, he said. The
state requires permits, and "the materials are removed by
certified, professional environmental experts who are licensed in
this specialized area," he said.

Under the federal Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, schools
are required to regularly inspect schools buildings for asbestos
containing materials and maintain a plan for containing asbestos,
among other things.

An outside company examines and tests those sites every three
years as required by state law, Greeson said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clean Up Could Come Soon for Pueblo Neighborhood
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alyse Rzemek, writing for KOAA.com, reported that for more than a
year, a burned down home in Pueblo has been a danger to neighbors.
The home on 1022 West 13th Street burnt down back in July of 2012,
but what was left is a major health risk to children and neighbors
on Pueblo's west side.

According to the report, when it burned to the ground last year,
investigators found trash, dirt and asbestos.

Neighbor Jennifer Murray moved into the area back in November and
says she has not seen anyone make an effort to clean the mess up.
"It's a biohazard affecting other people. It's not just an eyesore
it's affecting people and their health people and people's
children and it's not safe," Murray said. She wants to know what
the hold up is, "I'm not understanding why they collapsed it. If
there's asbestos. Putting it more into the air and the community."

Another neighbor, Wendy Mestas says when city crews found out
about the asbestos, they walked away from the property, leaving
people asking questions on when the clean up will begin. Mestas is
asking whose responsible for the delay. "There all just pointing
fingers at each other because no one wants to take
responsibility," Mestas said.

After our inquiries, Jan Staplemen with the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment said a cleanup request should be
completed in a few days, but neighbors want to know why it took a
whole year to get to this point. "If it was belmont or somewhere
else. It would've have been done and cleaned up but its not. it's
the west side and it's a poorer neighborhood so they're not in no
hurry to get it cleaned," Mestas said.

The Pueblo Health Department says asbestos clean up has to go to
the state level for removal. The permit for the asbestos removal
is being contracted out to Innovar Envirnomental Inc, and could be
underway as soon as July 8.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lower Light Residents Angry Over Lack of Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Noonan, writing for 7News Adelaide, reported that Lower Light
residents are outraged that material they believe is asbestos has
been left on Port Wakefield Rd -- four days after 7News exposed
the situation.

7News reported on how residents were concerned about their health
and that of motorists on Port Wakefield Rd with broken sheets of
the material scattered over the road near homes.

The Transport Department told the local council it was all clear,
the report said.

"So I went outside to have a look and sent back photos of the
asbestos still in place," local councilor Terry Keen said.

Lower Light resident Christine Lawrence said it was not good
enough.

"Nobody has done anything except put a marker out there so that we
can all see where it is and goodness me, we knew where it was in
the first place," she said.

The department acknowledged some of the material had been missed,
and they would finish the job.

While it is yet to be confirmed if the material is asbestos, the
Transport Department is proceeding as if it is.

Nearby residents believe the material is coming from trucks on
their way to a nearby dump.

Safework SA and the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) both
said it is a problem for the Transport Department.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roofer From Stoke Rochford Hid Fibro Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Grantham Journal reported that a retired roofer who worked with
asbestos was found to have died as a result of "industrial
disease".

According to the report, William Seddon Taylor, of Bede Cottages,
Stoke Rochford, died at Grantham Hospital on February 18 of this
year, aged 75.

The inquest heard Mr. Taylor had been suffering from mesothelioma
-- a cancer most commonly caused by exposure to asbestos.

On January 8 he was informed by a consultant oncologist he had
incurable cancer, the report said. On being advised chemotherapy
would only prolong his life by a few months, Mr. Taylor declined
the treatment.  He died a month later.

The inquest heard Mr. Taylor had denied ever working with asbestos
during his career as a roofer.

However, a statement was read out from a friend, Kenneth Poulton,
who said Mr. Taylor had told everyone, including Derbyshire
Asbestos Support Team, that he had never worked with asbestos
"because he did not want to get anyone into trouble".

Derbyshire Asbestos Support Team provided Mr. Taylor's work
history which showed he had been exposed to asbestos whilst
working for Sidall's Roofing between 1952 and 1954 and between
1956 and 1962, as well as while working for Bellamy Roofing of
Grantham between 1970 and 1980.

In concluding the inquest, Deputy Coroner Richard Marshall said:
"It seems to me clear on the evidence I have in front of me Mr.
Taylor was exposed to asbestos during the course of his working
life in more than one period of employment, although we know from
his friend Mr. Poulton he was reluctant to admit this as
apparently he did not want to get anybody into trouble.

"The reality is, on the balance of probabilities, this man's death
was as a result of his work record."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sri Lanka Agency Mulls Fibro Alternatives
----------------------------------------------------------
Sandun Jayawardana, writing for The Nation, reported that the
Consumer Affairs Authority is exploring the possibility of
recommending alternatives to asbestos due to the hazardous effects
of the material.

According to the report, CAA Chairman Rumy Marzook said the public
still hasn't been properly educated on the harmful effects of
asbestos, and the lack of affordable alternatives was making it
difficult to go for an outright ban on the material.

The World Health Organization estimates some 107,000 workers die
annually from asbestos-related diseases, mainly those who
encounter it in the workplace, the report related. Medical
professionals warn that prolonged inhalation of asbestos fibers
can cause serious illnesses including malignant lung cancer,
mesothelioma, and asbestosis .

The Nation also contacted several companies engaged in the
asbestos trade in Sri Lanka to obtain their side of the story.
However, most were reluctant to speak, citing the need to obtain
'prior approval' from company management.

One industry insider, who spoke on terms of anonymity, said some
companies do make an effort to adhere to international standards
such as ISO and OHAS standards. "We try to ensure that human touch
is very limited during the production process, where mostly
machinery is used. Employees are provided with adequate safety
gear. We also ensure that wastage during production is minimal,"
he claimed. The finished products (ex: roofing sheets) are not
harmful. The safety issues mostly arise during the production
process, he further added.

However, the insider admitted not all companies adhere to strict
safety standards and a proper monitoring mechanism needs to be put
in place by the government. The Central Environmental Authority
tries its best to conduct some form of monitoring, but more needs
to be done to ensure both the employees and the environment were
protected during the manufacturing process, he stressed.

Environmental Lawyer Jagath Gunawardena pointed out though
asbestos companies may have their own safety standards, there
seemed to be no proper mechanism to educate those who are involved
in handling asbestos outside the factories. Accordingly, persons
such as carpenters, laborers, and those working at building
demolishing sites were at serious risk of exposure to asbestos
fibers, he pointed out.

The use of 'blue asbestos', deemed extremely hazardous to human
health, has been banned in Sri Lanka since the late 1990s. The
variety used in Sri Lanka today is Chrysotile Asbestos, or 'white
asbestos', which is mainly used as roofing sheets. However,
medical professionals have warned even prolonged exposure to white
asbestos fibers was also highly dangerous.

Another industry insider admitted those outside the industry were
largely ignorant regarding the dangers of being exposed to
asbestos fibers. He admitted much more needed to be done to
educate high risk groups such as those mentioned above from
falling prey to potentially fatal illnesses from asbestos exposure
in future.

Those knowledgeable in the subject also stressed there was a
strong asbestos lobby, both locally and internationally, that
worked hard to stifle attempts to regulate the industry.
For example, Canada has been severely criticized for restricting
asbestos usage within its borders, while being one of the largest
exporters of the same material, mostly to developing nations, such
as Sri Lanka.

In June, 2011, members of the Canadian delegation blocked a move
at the Rotterdam Convention in Geneva to list Chrysotile Asbestos
as a hazardous material.

What is asbestos?

Asbestos is a set of six naturally occurring minerals used
commercially for their desirable physical properties.

Why is it relevant?

Asbestos became increasingly popular among manufacturers and
builders in the late 19th century because of its sound absorption,
average tensile strength, its resistance to fire, heat, electrical
and chemical damage, and affordability. It was used in such
applications as an electrical insulation for hotplate wiring and
in building insulation. When asbestos is used for its resistance
to fire or heat, the fibers are often mixed with cement (resulting
in fiber cement) or woven into fabric or mats. In our country, Sri
Lanka, it is widely used as a roofing material.

What is the problem with asbestos?

The prolonged inhalation of asbestos fibers can cause serious
illnesses including malignant lung cancer, mesothelioma, and
asbestosis. Studies have shown an increased risk of lung cancer
among smokers who are exposed to asbestos compared to nonsmokers.
As a person's exposure to fibers increases, because of being
exposed to higher concentrations of fibers and/or by being exposed
for a longer time, then that person's risk of disease also
increases. There is also a long latency period (incubation period
of an infectious disease, before symptoms appear) of about 12 to
20 years.

Which countries have taken action?

The European Union, New Zealand, Turkey, Japan, Singapore and
South Korea.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Men Face Jail Time for Fibro Dumping
-------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Griffin, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that two
men were sentenced in Federal Court for illegally dumping asbestos
waste along the Mohawk River in Upstate New York. Dominick Mazza,
owner of Mazza & Sons Inc., was sentenced to four or more years
behind bars and is required to pay nearly a half of a million
dollars in restitution and a one hundred thousand dollars in
fines. Cross NiCastro, the owner of the site of the dumping in
Herkimer County, was also charged in the illegal asbestos dumping
scheme and was sentenced to three years.

According to the report, Mazza's company was one of two businesses
involved in the widespread illegal asbestos dumping conspiracy
that began in New Jersey. Both Mazza and NiCastro were found
guilty of conspiring to dump asbestos in Herkimer County along the
Mohawk River, resulting in violations of the federal Clean Water
Act.

The illegal dumping of the asbestos took place in a three month
span in 2006 which resulted in millions of tons of asbestos.
Evidence presented by the prosecution found that the conspiracy to
dump the asbestos was supposed to continue for another five years,
the report related.

The asbestos originated from demolished homes and other buildings
in New Jersey, the report said.  However, the asbestos was not
removed from the debris before it was passed through a shredder.
This shredded material from New Jersey ended up in Upstate New
York.

Prosecutors also determined that with the amount of asbestos
already present at the Herkimer County location along with the
plans for future truckloads of New Jersey asbestos debris, Mazza,
NiCastro and others were setting up the location to become a
Superfund site. NiCastro had plans to redevelop the contaminated
riverfront into commercial spaces.

Asbestos is a highly toxic natural material that is commonly used
in building materials including floor and ceiling tile, roofing,
insulation and drywall. Handling and removing asbestos is closely
regulated by state and federal agencies because of the
carcinogenic nature of asbestos.

Exposure to friable or loosened asbestos fibers -- especially when
its improperly handled -- can lead to several forms of devastating
cancers including lung cancer and mesothelioma. Commonly
associated with asbestos exposure, mesothelioma cancer can lay
dormant for decades after the initial exposure episode.
Unfortunately, when indications of the disease become known it is
typically too late for any substantial treatment methods.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scrapper Gets Year in Prison for Fibro Release
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a federal judge in Grand Rapids
has sentenced a metro Detroit man to a year in prison for
conducting a salvage operation at an asbestos-filled building
without protecting workers and the environment from the toxic
insulating material.

According to the report, federal agencies say Judge Robert Holmes
Bell also ordered 34-year-old Anthony M. Davis of Canton to pay
$168,000 in restitution for violating the Clean Air Act.

Authorities say Davis bought a former paper mill in Otsego to
salvage scrap material from a powerhouse building containing large
boilers and turbines, the report related.

They say he had workers collect scrap without wetting the asbestos
with water and collecting it for proper disposal.

The Environmental Protection Agency says that released a
significant quantity of asbestos from several floors of the
building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: A Look at Workers' Compensation for Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Job-related illnesses, such as asbestosis and mesothelioma, affect
thousands of workers in the United States. Although asbestos was
more common on job sites many years ago, the effects of the
exposure received during the early years are just now starting to
manifest in some individuals. Those who have been injured by such
diseases as part of their jobs often seek to obtain financial help
by applying for workers' compensation.

However, due to changes in the law, it has become much more
difficult to prove injuries from job site asbestos exposure. But
individuals might be able to prove their cases with the assistance
of a legal professional who is familiar with the laws concerning
workers' comp for asbestos-related illnesses.

What is asbestos and who is at risk for exposure?

Asbestos was used in a number of products prior to the late 1980s.
The fibrous mineral was ultimately banned in the U.S. because of
rising health concerns that resulted in types of illnesses, such
as asbestosis and mesothelioma. Because the material still exists
in buildings and on construction sites in South Carolina and all
throughout the U.S., workers' comp claims related to asbestos
exposure are still made on a regular basis.

The dust from asbestos has been found in workers who perform job
functions in places such as:

-- Mining and milling operations

-- Textile manufacturing plants

-- Construction and demolition locations

-- Various locations that have drywall removal operations

Those who come in contact with asbestos as part of their jobs
might inhale the fibers and once those workers go home, their
families might be exposed to the fibers that remain on the
workers' clothing.

Obtaining workers' comp for asbestos-related injuries

According to the South Carolina Legislature, certain individuals
may be entitled to workers' compensation for the occupational
diseases they suffer. Unfortunately, the effects of ongoing
exposure to asbestos can be irreversible and permanent. In cases
involving asbestos exposure, the injured or ill employee needs to
alert the employer to his or her illness as soon as possible after
its discovery. The possible workers' comp benefits that a person
might receive include medical treatment, temporary or permanent
disability funds or vocational rehabilitation services, where
appropriate.

Individuals who seek workers' comp benefits should keep in mind
that such claims are subject to time limitations. The benefits
received for an asbestos-related workers' comp claim can vary
greatly depending on when the asbestos exposure occurred and when
the actual illness was discovered. Anyone with asbestosis or any
other asbestos-related illness may want to seek the assistance of
a lawyer to find out more about his or her entitlement to workers'
comp benefits.

Article provided by Ryan Montgomery, Attorney at Law, LLC
-- www.ryanmontgomerylaw.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Government Reviewing Fibro Removal Records
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Macdonald, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that the
ACT government is reviewing records of asbestos removal across
homes in the ACT from the mid-1980s as it spends $2 million
completely deconstructing and removing a home in Downer that was
missed during the screening.

According to the report, it is the fourth home found to contain
asbestos insulation since the federal government spent nearly $100
million cleaning 1000 homes in the ACT in the infamous "Mr.
Fluffy" loose asbestos insulation saga.

Installed in the 1960s and '70s, Mr. Fluffy's amosite asbestos
fibres are now known to be one of the most dangerous forms of
asbestos.

The Downer home, in Bradfield Street, will be encased in a giant
pressurised plastic bubble to contain any chance of contamination
as workers begin pulling the home down and disposing of it over
the next three months.

ACT Work Safety Commission Mark McCabe has been advising the
government on the removal process, which will be monitored by an
asbestos assessor and WorkSafe ACT.

The home has been vacant since November 2011 when its owners
discovered a substance they thought to be asbestos. They called in
a licensed assessor who confirmed it was. The house was then
sealed off and fenced. Air monitoring since the discovery has
found no asbestos fibres within or outside the home.

The homeowners left immediately after the asbestos was confirmed
and negotiated to sell the house and land to the ACT government at
market value, according to a spokeswoman for Attorney-General
Simon Corbell.

The ACT government sent notices to local residents to tell them
the house would be removed.

Mr. McCabe suggested the 18-month time frame between the discovery
of asbestos and its removal was due to negotiations with the
owners and the need to formulate a strategy for remediation.

"It's a quite lengthy and complicated process as obviously we
can't just bulldoze it," he said.

Mr. Corbell's spokeswoman said, "While it is unfortunate that
homes were missed, it is important to note that neither the ACT
nor Commonwealth Government gave any assurances that all homes
containing Mr. Fluffy would be identified during the program."
Another in a series of internal reviews of the removal program has
begun. Mr. Corbell's spokeswoman said that in the 2010 ACT
government review of its asbestos management strategy, a series of
recommendations had been made, including to review the information
available to owners of homes that were in the removal program.

However, the Downer house had not been identified as a result of a
review. The home is the fourth found to have missed the official
screening process which began in the late '80s to identify all
houses containing Mr. Fluffy insulation.

These include a house in Mawson, identified in 2009, a house in
Lyons identified in 2007 and a house in Yarralumla identified in
1996.

Mr. McCabe said screening processes at the time lacked the
stringency and sense of urgency of current asbestos handling.

"Typically, screening back then consisted of a visual inspection
when an inspector lifted roof tiles. In this case, and in the case
of the three other houses coming to light over the past 20 years,
it was missed."

Since 2004, all residential sales in the territory must include a
lease conveyance report advising buyers whether the house contains
loose-fill asbestos.

The Downer home had been found to have the roof insulation still
in place, as well as asbestos fibres at the base of the wall
cavities which had migrated from the roof.

Mr. McCabe warned that houses which had been part of the removal
program may still have residual asbestos fibres in places such as
wall cavities and caution needed to be exercised for even minor
repairs or renovations in these homes.

Loose asbestos residuals have also been discovered in the
subfloors of five ACT homes in the past four months.

Affected homeowners have called for a public awareness campaign
about the chances of fibres still being present in homes which
were part of the clean-up program.

Homeowners with questions about whether their home was part of the
program can contact ACT Planning and Land Authority.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Near Dalby School Raises Concern
-------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Machin, writing for The Chronicle, reported that the Western
Downs Regional Council has moved to allay concerns about asbestos
contaminated material located just 80 metres from a Dalby school.

According to the report, the material, unearthed from water mains
removed by the council during roadworks, has been placed in a JJ
Richards skip at the end of Bunya St, opposite South State School.

While the bin has no lid and is unfenced, the council maintains it
is using correct procedures to dispose of the contaminated
material, the report said.

Packages containing asbestos in the bin have been double-bagged
and labeled with "Asbestos. Do not inhale dust. Do not open or
damage."

The skip has been hired from JJ Richards, an authorised asbestos
material disposer.

A WDRC spokesperson said all staff were working within the law.

"The skip is collected by JJ Richards to appropriately dispose of
the asbestos at a designated facility in Toowoomba," the
spokesperson said.

"As proper processes and procedures have been carried out, council
is confident that no staff or members of the public have been
exposed to asbestos."

A council contractor contacted the Herald with concerns about the
proximity to the school, and the way the asbestos was being
managed.

"There's a few guys on the crew worried about dropping stuff off
to that bin," he said.

"I have spoken to our supervisor about getting it moved."

The worker also said he had seen children playing on large mounds
of dirt located beside the skip and expressed fears they could
tamper with the material.

"As a parent it doesn't make me real happy, not real happy at
all," he said.

"I'd like to see the bin moved, away from the school at least --
there are plenty of other more appropriate places in Dalby. Out in
the industrial area.

"I don't think they should have an open bin at all."

Kids Club Dalby operates directly opposite the skip in the South
State School grounds during the school holidays. Co-owner Elisha
Pedler said she was happy the skip had been inspected and was
considered above board.

Dalby South State School principal David Kucks said he could not
comment on the matter.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal at Tunbridge Wells Has Progress
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Young, writing for Kent and Sussex Courier, reported that
progress is being made on Tunbridge Wells's grotspot cinema site
but a supermarket tenant has still not been secured.

According to the report, work to remove asbestos from the Mount
Pleasant Road eyesore began July 1, almost two years after it was
bought for GBP10 million by developer Bellhouse Joseph and equity
firm the Carlyle Group.

The removal is expected to take ten weeks and bosses say it will
not affect traders.

It will at long last pave the way for demolition of the site, but
its owners say a tenant is still yet to be found, which has been a
key sticking point in the past.

David Neve, a Liberal Democrat borough councillor, said he was not
too excited given the owners' past record.

"It's quite a few weeks later than what we were originally told,"
he said. "They're well behind schedule."

Carlyle and Bellhouse Joseph have previously missed three of their
own deadlines for submitting a planning application.

As a result, they came under intense pressure from residents to
make progress on the site, prompting the Courier's Action on
Cinema Site campaign.

But they have always maintained demolition would not go ahead
until an "anchor tenant" -- previously believed to be Waitrose --
was signed up and negotiations are ongoing.

"Nothing will happen if they've not got the anchor tenant taking
it over," said Mr. Neve.

"We're going to get rid of the asbestos but we've not got this
tenant so it's seems like another false dawn."

A Bellhouse Joseph spokesman said: "The removal of asbestos from
the building is part of preparations required ahead of demolition
and redevelopment of the site. Negotiations with a number of
potential tenants are continuing."

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council leader David Jukes said: "Let's
hope that this is the beginning of the end of the derelict site.
Certainly the Bellhouse Joseph initiative in taking out the
asbestos heralds the start of the process of demolition and
perhaps we can look forward to a planning application for their
intentions in the very near future."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shocking Rise in Asbestos Cancer in Manchester
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rochdale Online reported that there has been an increase in deaths
due to cancer caused by asbestos in Greater Manchester.
Mesothelioma, which is a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos is
a fatal cancer of the pleura, the membrane surrounding the lung.

According to the report, over the last five years, there has been
a 55% increase of mesothelioma diagnosis in Grater Manchester with
138 people being diagnosed in 2012. Approximately 50,000 people
have died from mesothelioma to date and it is expected that
another 40,000 will have died from the cancer by 2050.

Action Mesothelioma Day takes place on July 5 in memory of all
those who have died from mesothelioma. Held in Manchester's
Lincoln Square, at 12:30pm, doves will be released by families
affected by mesothelioma and then at 1pm, the group will be
involved in a public discussion held at Manchester Town Hall about
protecting workers from asbestos. Rochdale MP Simon Dancjuk will
also be attending the event to address mesothelioma sufferers and
their families.

Greater Manchester was the home of large industries involved in
the production and use of asbestos: The Turner & Newall factory in
Rochdale produced vast quantities of asbestos products.

Graham Dring Greater Manchester Asbestos Victims Support Group co-
ordinator says: "This shocking increase in mesothelioma diagnoses
in Greater Manchester is testimony to the long history of asbestos
use in our area and the terrible consequences of that history. It
is a truly awful increase in this fatal cancer."

Annually, there are more deaths in the UK due to mesothelioma
(2,347 in 2010) than deaths caused by road accidents (1,754 in
2012) and annually, there are more than twice the number of
asbestos-related deaths in the UK than deaths caused by road
accidents.

Jason Addy, co-ordinator of the Save Spodden Valley Campaign said:
"As the birthplace of the world's modern asbestos textile
industry, the Turner Brothers asbestos site has a place in infamy.
The facts that have emerged about the company and those who helped
cover up disgraceful injustices show that asbestos remains an
important issue for our town. On Action Mesothelioma Day we
"remember the dead but fight for the living."

The Greater Manchester Asbestos Victims Support Group can be
contacted on 0161 636 7555 or 07887871501 for any information or
support you feel you need or to discuss any of the matters
addressed above.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Urges Technicians to Call About Payment
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center says, "In most instances
the victim of mesothelioma, or asbestos exposure lung cancer
victims were exposed to asbestos decades ago. As an example auto
brake technicians who repaired auto brakes or clutches in the
1950's, 1960's, 1970's, or 1980's probably had asbestos exposure
that was off the charts. Over the years we have talked to a
hundred plus auto brake repair people, and aside from the obvious
exposure to asbestos, most of them worked around auto brakes in
larges metro areas like New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago,
Minneapolis, Seattle, Cleveland, New Orleans, Atlanta, Miami,
Dallas, or Baltimore, or they worked in volume shops that
specialized in brake repairs nationwide. We are not aware of any
actual study based on auto brake technicians, and the incidence of
mesothelioma, or asbestos exposure forms of lung cancer-but we
think there should be studies done." The Lung Cancer Asbestos
Victims Center's number one goal is to make certain every
diagnosed victim of mesothelioma, or asbestos exposure forms of
lung cancer get the best possible compensation for their asbestos
exposure form of cancer. The way to do this is by making certain
diagnosed victims have access to the nation's most skilled, and
experienced mesothelioma, and or asbestos exposure law firms,
especially if they were exposed to asbestos while working on car,
or truck brakes, or clutches. For more information diagnosed
victims, or their family members are encouraged to contact the
Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center anytime at 866-714-6466.

Important Note From The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center: "If
you have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, or asbestos exposure
lung cancer do not think for one moment that a local personal
injury attorney can typically do a very good job on a financial
compensation claim for one of the illnesses. The nation's top
mesothelioma lawyers, or asbestos exposure law firms are
incredibly skilled specialists, and once you hire a attorney to
advance a mesothelioma, or asbestos exposure lung cancer please
call us, and we will suggest the most skilled experts in the
nation." http://LungCancerAsbestosVictimsCenter.Com

The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center says, "Aside from the auto
brake technicians, other high risk workplaces for asbestos
exposure include the US Navy, shipyards, power plants,
manufacturing factories, chemical plants, oil refineries, mines,
smelters, steel mills, aerospace manufacturing facilities,
demolition construction work sites, railroads, 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 victim, or
their family members can prove the exposure to asbestos, we will
do everything possible to help them get what might be significant
financial compensation." For more information please call the Lung
Cancer Asbestos Victims Center anytime at 866-714-6466.
http://LungCancerAsbestosVictimsCenter.Com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal Work Begins at Cwmcarn High School
-----------------------------------------------------------
Caerphilly Observer reported that work has started to remove
asbestos at Cwmcarn High School with pupils expected to return for
the start of the new school year in September.

According to the report, Chair of Governors Gary Thomas said:
"Local people will notice activity on the Cwmcarn site as
contractors start removing asbestos from within the building. This
is fantastic news and clearly shows that progress is being made
following our agreement to work with the council to get the school
back up and running at the start of September."

Cllr Rhianon Passmore, CCBC Cabinet Member for Education said, "We
said we would act swiftly to resolve this issue once a decision
was made and I am delighted that there are clear signs of
progress.

"There is a lot to be done in a short space of time, but we are
working closely with the school leadership and we are confident
that works will be completed on time and on budget."

The council and the governors had been in disagreement over the
works, with frustration expressed by both sides, but an agreement
was reached on June 17.

Cwmcarn High School was closed on October 12 last year after a
report by Santia Asbestos Management Ltd recommended that school
buildings should be demolished because of widespread airborne
asbestos. Since then, the school's pupils have relocated to the
former Coleg Gwent campus in Ebbw Vale.  But a report published by
the Health and Safety Executive laboratory (HSL) has said the
original findings by Santia may have been overstated.

In April councillors agreed to spend GBP700,000 on asbestos
removal and GBP300,000 on temporary classrooms.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Causes Concern in Washington State
---------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center reported that in the
western U.S., naturally-occurring asbestos isn't unusual and it
usually doesn't present a problem. But in northeastern Washington,
not far from the city of Bellingham, residents are concerned
because asbestos from a nearby mountain is washing into a creek
below, causing worry about contamination.

According to an article in the Bellingham Herald, a slowly moving
landslide on Sumas Mountain in the town of Nooksack, Washington
could represent a health risk, with microscopic asbestos fibers
making their way into Swift Creek below, which runs into the Sumas
River. That fact, say health officials, means something needs to
be done to keep the creek clean.

The article reports that after a flood in 2009, asbestos was found
in high levels in the soil deposited along the banks of the Sumas
River. The asbestos was found as far north as the Canadian border.
The material, experts stress, is killing most of the marine and
plant life in and along the creek, making it impossible to
cultivate a salmon habitat.

The county has been dredging the landslide material out of Swift
Creek and piling it along the creek's banks, the report said.
Unfortunately, however, say Whatcom County officials, they expect
to run out of room before long. In addition, the material can
eventually erode back into the stream, causing further concern.

"The county has been trying to figure out what is the long-term
solution to this problem," said Ellie Hale, a project manager at
the Environmental Protection Agency. "The old solutions no longer
really are acceptable."

Environmental experts are attempting to come up with new solutions
for the naturally-occurring asbestos situation, the article
reports. The cost is a concern as well, with estimates for
building sediment traps in the creek, adding sediment basins along
the creek's edge, and building levees to further contain the
sediment amounting to more than $7 million.

So far, there's no steadfast proof that the presence of asbestos
is causing health concerns or higher-than-normal rates of diseases
such as asbestosis and mesothelioma. Nooksack Mayor Jim Ackerman,
age 68, a native of the area, says he's strong and healthy and not
worried about asbestos exposure.

"I've worked around it, with it and in it all my life," Ackerman
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sydney Fibro Dumpers to Face Two Years in Jail
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vikki Campion, writing for The Daily Telegraph, reported that
callous "cowboys" illegally dumping tonnes of asbestos near Sydney
homes, schools and childcare centres are relying on cash-strapped
councils paying $75,000 a year to clean up the deadly waste.

According to the report, Sydney mayors are now renewing the hunt
for those brazenly flaunting disposal rules and leaving hazardous
material on the streets.

Bankstown Mayor Khal Asfour, has vowed to ensure jail time for
dumper, Dib Abdallah Hanna, who was given a three-month suspended
sentence for dumping 80 tonnes of waste found to contain asbestos,
the report said.

Bankstown's prosecution of Hanna, previously fined more than
$130,000 for four illegal dumpings, will be the first case to test
new laws aimed at giving serial dumpers jail time.

"Our legal advice is these new penalties will be able to be used
by the courts by the time we prosecute this cowboy," Mr. Asfour
told the news agency. "We are determined to put this guy behind
bars but now it's up to the courts. They (serial dumpers) deserve
to contemplate their actions in jail, not be slapped on the wrist
and allowed to continue using Sydney streets as a rubbish tip."

Environment Minister Robyn Parker said: "These laws will be the
strongest in the country and could see repeat offenders handed a
two-year jail sentence."

In mid June, 100kg of asbestos was left near a childcare centre at
Belmore, while split bags of asbestos were left near a public
school in Bondi.

Holroyd Mayor Ross Grove said the $395 per tonne disposal cost of
asbestos, four times that of regular waste, was a factor in the
spike in illegal dumping.

With asbestos found in one-in-three Sydney homes, authorities are
also considering a rebate program trial for households.

Mr. Grove said Holroyd Council was holding an asbestos amnesty to
stop it being thrown into household garbage bins.

Heads of Asbestos Co-ordination Authorities working group chair
Peter Dunphy said most homes have asbestos under eaves, tiles and
splashbacks, but a new scheme would give homeowners disposing of
asbestos rebates.

Waste Management Association of Australia CEO Val Southam said the
cost of asbestos disposal was necessary to secure the material,
the fibres of which can cause malignant lung cancer, mesothelioma,
and asbestosis.

The NSW government has budgeted $18 million to target asbestos
with an "orphan asbestos waste clean up fund" and asbestos
disposal pilot-trials to begin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Timboon P-12 School Shut Down Over Deadly Dust
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Drill and Wes Hosking, writing for Herald Sun, reported
that a county school riddled with asbestos has been shut
indefinitely over health and safety concerns.

According to the report, Timboon P-12 students were told that the
school's buildings weren't suitable for use and shifted to the
nearby town hall while others went home.

Parent Jay Baillie said it was about time something was done about
the buildings' poor quality, the report said.

"We were just told that the school was shut down. It hasn't had an
upgrade for 10 years, it's full of asbestos -- the school was
evacuated," he said.

"The school has got leaks in the roof."

Mr. Baillie, a father of two students at the school, said he did
not know when his children would be back in class.

"They have just cancelled school indefinitely. The kids are coming
home now," he said.

"There's a meeting up at the town hall tonight. The school's full
of asbestos, they've been on to it for a while now."

Principal Rosalie Moorfield in a letter to parents said WorkSafe
had issued a "prohibition notice" after an inspector initially
examining suspect toilet block eaves raised wider safety concerns.

Students were immediately taken across the road to the town hall
for the rest of the afternoon.

VCE students were taken to the town's community health centre.

An environmental assessor is now reviewing the condition of the
school's buildings.

"This means the school buildings cannot be used until WorkSafe is
satisfied they are completely safe," Ms Moorfield said.

"We do not know how long this will take."

It is hoped VCE classes can resume elsewhere.

Parents of younger students are being urged to make alternative
arrangements but children will be accommodated if sent to school.

School buses are operating as normal.

WorkSafe spokesman Peter Flaherty confirmed investigators had
visited the school over asbestos concerns and other general safety
concerns.

Shadow Minister for Education James Merlino said: "This calls into
question the quality of the statewide audit and the priorities set
by the government given this massive oversight with Timboon P-12.

"Almost as soon as coming to government the Napthine Government
abandoned the Victorian Schools Plan to renovate, rebuild or
modernise every Victorian government school."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Clean Up Charred Debris in Neighborhoods
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Proffitt, writing for TheIndyChannel.com, reported that
workers started the process of cleaning up the toxic materials
that were scattered across neighborhoods after a Belmont Avenue
warehouse fire.

According to the report, health officials were concerned about the
paper debris that contained asbestos that had spread both nearby
and as far as several miles away.

Employees of an environmental remediation company spread out over
the neighborhoods near the warehouse to start cleaning up the
debris, the report said.

The Marion County Health Department ordered the owner of the
building to clean up the debris, and the Environmental Protection
Agency also became involved to make sure that the materials
containing asbestos were picked up before they were reduced to
fine particles that could be inhaled.

"We will also be doing remediation of asbestos inside the plant,
but right now, we're focusing on the stuff outside in the
neighborhoods," said Jaime Brown with the EPA.

Officials warned citizens not to touch the material and added that
cutting grass or walking on the material could release harmful
fibers into the air.

"Some of it is paper-like and given the right conditions, it's
possible that some of it could be as far away as seven miles,"
Brown said.

The EPA said workers will scour neighborhoods and collect the
debris containing asbestos as long as necessary.

Investigators will continue their investigation into the cause and
origin of the fire.

Health officials said that anyone who finds charred debris should
wear protective gloves, pour water on the debris and dispose of
the material in a plastic bag.

Officials with the EPA said they believed most of the debris in
question was confined to neighborhoods near the warehouse.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family to Sue Dundee City Council for Dad's Death
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Courier reported that the family of a former Dundee City
Council employee is suing the local authority over his death.

According to the report, Peter Christie's family claim -- in a
lawsuit launched by Mr. Christie just before he died -- that he
breathed in asbestos while at work.

It is that, the family say, which caused the Ardler man to
contract lung cancer, the report said. Peter started out at the
council as an apprentice when he was 15 and was employed by the
local authority for his entire working life.

The electrician believed he had breathed in a chunk of asbestos
more than two decades ago while digging through some foundations,
the report related.

A city council spokesman said: "We cannot comment on an ongoing
legal matter."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SC Won't Review Pfizer's Bid to Block Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Kendall, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reported that
the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider a Pfizer Inc. appeal
that sought to block a series of asbestos lawsuits related to
products manufactured by its Quigley Co. subsidiary.

According to the report, at issue were lawsuits filed against
Pfizer in Pennsylvania on behalf of individuals allegedly harmed
by Quigley insulation products that contained asbestos.

Pfizer argued the claims should be barred by a bankruptcy-court
injunction related to Quigley's Chapter 11 proceedings, the report
related. The injunction barred plaintiffs from bringing Quigley-
related asbestos claims against Pfizer while Quigley's bankruptcy
case was ongoing.

Asbestos lawyer Peter Angelos argued that certain claims against
Pfizer could proceed because they were based on legal theories not
covered by the injunction, the report further related. The
lawsuits in question alleged that Pfizer itself was the product
manufacturer because its logo appeared on Quigley documents,
advertising and products.

The New York-based U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the
lawsuits could proceed, the report recalled.  The Supreme Court,
in a short written order, let that ruling stand without comment.

Pfizer's attempted appeal to the Supreme Court was Pfizer Inc. v.
Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, 12-300, U.S. Supreme Court
(Washington).  The appeal in the circuit court was Quigley Co.
Inc. v. Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos (In re Quigley Co. Inc.),
11-2635, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (Manhattan).  The
appeal in district court was In re Quigley Co. Inc., 10-cv-01573,
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

                         About Quigley Co.

Quigley Co. was acquired by Pfizer in 1968 and sold small amounts
of products containing asbestos until the early 1970s.  In
September 2004, Pfizer and Quigley took steps that were intended
to resolve all pending and future claims against the Company and
Quigley in which the claimants allege personal injury from
exposure to Quigley products containing asbestos, silica or mixed
dust. Quigley filed for bankruptcy in 2004 and has a Chapter 11
plan and a settlement with Chrysler.

Quigley filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. Case No. 04-15739) on Sept. 3, 2004, to implement a
proposed global resolution of all pending and future asbestos-
related personal injury liabilities.

Lawrence V. Gelber, Esq., and Michael L. Cook, Esq., at Schulte
Roth & Zabel LLP, represent the Debtor in its restructuring
efforts.  Elihu Inselbuch Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered,
represents the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.  When
the Debtor filed for protection from its creditors, it disclosed
$155,187,000 in total assets and $141,933,000 in total debts.

In April 2011, the bankruptcy judge approved a plan-support
agreement with Pfizer and an ad hoc committee representing 30,000
asbestos claimants.

A May 20, 2011 opinion by District Judge Richard Holwell concluded
that Pfizer was directly liable for some asbestos claims arising
from products sold by its now non-operating subsidiary Quigley.
The district court ruling was upheld in the appeals court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australia's Asbestos Agency Begins Operations
--------------------------------------------------------------
PS News reported that the new Asbestos Safety and Eradication
Agency will begin operations from 1 July following the passing of
new legislation in Parliament.

According to the report, the Agency will be tasked with
implementing the National Strategic Plan for Asbestos Awareness
and Management.

Workplace Relations, Bill Shorten welcomed the passing of the
Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Bill 2013, saying it was a
historic day for Australians, the report related.

"There will now be a national agency dedicated to working with
jurisdictions and stakeholders to create a nationally consistent
approach to the eradication, handling and awareness of asbestos,"
Mr. Shorten said.

"Australia is the first nation to progress towards the ultimate
elimination of asbestos-related diseases."

He said Australia was the most prolific user of asbestos
containing material in the world.

"It is estimated that one in three homes built in Australia
between the end of the Second World War and 1987 contain
asbestos," he said.

"The national plan aims to prevent exposure to asbestos fibres in
order to eliminate asbestos related disease in Australia."

Mr. Shorten said it aimed to increase public awareness of the
dangers posed by working with or being exposed to asbestos;
develop the implementation of a prioritised removal program across
Australia; and develop nationally consistent better practice in
asbestos handling and management.

He said it would also coordinate national research to minimise the
risk of exposure to asbestos for the Australian community; and
play a leadership role in a global campaign for a worldwide
asbestos ban.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Planned for CPH's EJ Noble Building
------------------------------------------------------------------
NCNow News reported that asbestos removal is in the works as parts
of the Main Street level of the west wing of Canton-Potsdam
Hospital's E. J. Noble Professional Building, 80 E. Main Street in
Canton, was closed.

According to the report, the work is part of renovations to west
wing of the building with new flooring, lighting, and fresh
finishes consistent with the new addition to the east.

Patients and visitors accessing the offices of Drs. Sayed Ali,
Robert Nordberg, and Thomas Nystrom should call before arriving to
receive instructions for access, the report said.

Patients of and visitors to the physical rehabilitation department
on the second floor of the building should park in the lower-level
parking lot at the rear of the building and use either the
stairwell or lower-level elevator.  Visitors to the studios of
North Country Public Radio should also park in the lower-level lot
and use the lower-level elevator or stairwell.

There will be no access to the Main Street-level elevator or Main
Street-level entrance to the west wing (adjacent to Dr. Nordberg's
office) and hallway leading to Dr. Ali's office.

The E. J. Noble Professional Building houses several primary care
practices in its east wing. To learn more, interested individuals
should consult the hospital's website at www.cphospital.org or
call 265-3300.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare at Worksite in Monaro Street
---------------------------------------------------------
The Queanbeyan Age reported that the Queanbeyan City Council was
called out to a worksite in Monaro Street following a report that
fibre cement sheeting suspected of containing asbestos was being
removed from the underside of a shop awning in an unsafe manner.

According to the report, council took steps to cordon off the
affected area and contacted NSW WorkCover who will determine if an
investigation is necessary. A licensed asbestos hygienist was
called to the site to carry out an assessment and has arranged for
a specialist removal team to clean up the area.

It appears that the work on the awning had been carried out
without seeking previous advice from Council or WorkCover, the
report said.

A Council spokespersons said the incident highlighted the need for
all residents and owners to be aware of the dangers of carrying
out work on sheeting that is likely to contain asbestos.

"Asbestos cement sheeting is a hazardous material which should
only be handled by appropriately trained personnel wearing
protective clothing," the spokesperson said.

The work was conducted at the site at the western end of Monaro
Street.  Anyone with concerns about asbestos exposure can call
WorkCover's information line on 131050


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Apprentices Threw Asbestos Around, Inquest Hears
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that a Hampshire man died from
industrial disease years after throwing asbestos around with
colleagues as a joke, an inquest heard.

According to the report, David Adams, 76, died at Winchester's
Royal Hampshire County Hospital on February 25 from a cancerous
tumour on his lung.

A report from Dr. Adnan Al-Badri, consultant pathologist at the
RHCH, said that asbestos was not found in Mr. Adam's lungs, but
that this did not exclude it as the cause of his cancer, the
report said.

The inquest in Winchester heard that Mr. Adams, of White Hart
Road, had worked for British Rail for 33 years.

In a statement made before his death, he said: "There were vast
amounts of asbestos dust. We apprentices threw it at each other on
occasions."

Deputy Coroner for Central Hampshire Simon Burge recorded a
verdict of death due to industrial disease.

Mr. Adams' widow, Annette, told the hearing: "It's very sad.
Friends of his have suffered the same fate."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Lawyers Team Launches Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
The launch of the website, Mesothelioma Lawyers Team,
http://www.mesotheliomalawyersteam.com, comes as an interesting
development for victims of Asbestos exposure who are showing signs
of Mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer that has been a leading
cause of death for American workers in the past few years.
The number of persons inflicted with Mesothelioma, which comes
primarily from exposure to asbestos, has been continuously rising
since its commercial use in the 1970's and it is not declining
even to this very day.

The new website features relevant and timely information aimed to
help victims understand how they can file a Mesothelioma lawsuit
should they have reasonable proof that they were exposed to
asbestos and inflicted with the disease as a consequence.
Offering free case reviews, MesotheliomaLawyersTeam.com provides a
helpful way for victims to determine if they qualify for
mesothelioma compensation. The new website has a simple yet
detailed online form plaintiffs can fill out. Once submitted, the
case is immediately evaluated by a legal representative.
According to the website, one reason victims are having a
difficult time filling a lawsuit is the complexity of cases
involving Asbestos exposure, requiring an experienced Asbestos
Lawyer .

In an article, the website owner Patricia Goldwing states:
"It usually takes between 20 and 50 years for asbestos-related
injuries to become apparent. Since asbestos was widely used in
many industries, one individual may have been exposed in several
different workplaces. As a rule, a lawsuit is filed in the
jurisdiction where the injury occurred, but if a person was
exposed in more than one jurisdiction, this may be problematic. An
experienced legal representative can help clients choose the best
jurisdiction to file their asbestos litigation in.
According to **statistics found in Asbestos.com, victims normally
experience a latency period of 25 to 50 years after their initial
exposure before symptoms start showing up. Only 1% of these
patients have a latency period lesser than 15 years.

The National Institute of Health (NIH) has also estimated that at
least 11 million people were exposed to asbestos between the years
1940 and 1978, so that around 14 to 30 people out of every million
will be affected by the cancer each year. Its frightening peak is
estimated to be around 2020, when symptoms of Mesothelioma will
likely to appear worldwide.

MesotheliomaLawyersTeam.com helps victims understand these crucial
facts and connect them with a knowledgeable Mesothelioma Lawyer
who can properly guide them.

The information and service offered by the website, though free of
charge, can be of enormous assistance to victims and their
families. For those who are seeking legal information about
Asbestos exposure and how to file a lawsuit, visit
www.mesotheliomalawyersteam.com today or contact them for further
details at 1-888-852-4176 .

                 About MesotheliomaLawyersTeam.com

A new consumer information website designed to help victims of
Asbestos exposure , which developed Mesothelioma, a rare yet
deadly form of cancer. The new website provides free case reviews
and serves as an online portal where victims can find an
experienced Mesothelioma Lawyer to handle their Mesothelioma case.
- See more at: http://www.lawfuel.com/asbestos-victims-get-new-
mesothelioma-website/#sthash.ny8vUjDa.dpuf


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Telstra Uncovers More Contaminated Soil
--------------------------------------------------------
Jake Sturmer, writing for ABC News, reported that Telstra has
discovered more asbestos in the soil around its telecommunications
pits in Sydney's west.

According to the report, in May, Telstra shut down its asbestos
removal program at telecommunications pits around the country,
after fears the community had been exposed to the deadly fibres
during remediation work.

One of the sites first to be shut down was Penrith, where several
residents had to be evacuated from their homes, the report said.

Telstra has now finished clean-up work at five pits in the area
but after an inspection of 16 others, the company says it found
more asbestos in the soil.  Telstra says 11 other pits in the area
will be cleaned up.

In a statement, the telco said it could not be sure the asbestos
came from its pits.

A review by Telstra in June found key contractors required more
supervision and improved supplies.

Telstra's chief operations officer Brendon Riley says Telstra will
ensure mandatory standards are met all staff.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reducing Risk of Asbestos Exposure
---------------------------------------------------
Colleen Schmidt, writing for CTV Calgary, reported that Alberta
Health Services is warning homeowners in flood-affected areas to
be cautious during the cleanup and to make sure that they handle
and dispose of asbestos properly.

According to the report, the AHS says houses built before the mid-
1980s may contain asbestos materials in drywall mud, ceiling
tiles, insulation and floor tiles.

Homeowners should contact an environmental consultant to assess
the property for asbestos and then hire a qualified contractor to
remove it, the report related.

The AHS says hiring professionals is the best method as the
contractors wear specialized personal protective equipment and
have expert knowledge and techniques to avoid exposure, the report
said.

For those people who decide to remove flood-damaged materials on
their own they should be sure to take actions to reduce the risk
of asbestos exposure.

Health officials say the risks are greatest when asbestos
particles are inhaled so people should avoid breaking materials
that may contain it.

They also recommend that people avoid using power tools or any
abrasive materials, like sanders, on items that may contain
asbestos.

Homeowners should keep materials wet as dry materials are more
likely to emit particles into the air and people should also bag
the materials in a thick plastic bag and ensure the bag is sealed.
Those who are worried that they may have already disturbed
asbestos during the cleanup, can reduce the risk by immediately
wetting materials and carefully placing them into sealed plastic
bags.

Also clean all home surfaces by wet-wiping with a cloth or using a
vacuum with a HEPA filter.

The AHS says that personal protective equipment does not
completely protect against asbestos, but it may lessen the risk of
exposure.

Gear like an N95 respirator mask, rubber gloves and coveralls can
help and most are available at the local hardware store.

Health officials also suggest homeowners change into clean
clothing when leaving the flood-affected property or area, to bag
soiled clothing until it can be washed, and shower as soon as
possible.

The AHS says that many older homes may have been renovated in the
past few years and any new materials are not likely to contain
asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Fibro Dumped Near Campbelltown School
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Dougherty, writing for Wollondilly Advertiser, reported that
a discarded bathroom containing asbestos was dumped near Broughton
Anglican College at Menangle Park.

According to the report, Menangle's Michael Abberton discovered
the pile outside the driveway of The Campbelltown Steam and
Machinery Museum and reported it to Campbelltown Council and the
police.  However, he wasn't impressed with the council's response.

"I was willing to move it for them but council didn't want me to
touch it," he told the Advertiser.

"I'm licensed to remove it because I work in construction
demolition.

"I felt I had a duty of care to move it because it was so close to
a school. It's very dangerous if not treated properly."

Campbelltown Council general manager Paul Tosi said the council
had companies which dealt with the removal of asbestos and
wouldn't give permission to members of the public to remove it,
the report said.  He said the council took the dumping of any
materials, especially ones with asbestos, seriously.

"When asbestos dumping is reported we deal with it immediately,"
he said. "We first found out about it and then removed it.  It was
obviously a bathroom renovation and dumped by someone who knew
what they were doing."

Mr. Tosi said members of the public should do what Mr. Abberton
did -- phone the council and report it straight away.

If you know anything about the dumping, call Crime Stoppers 1800
333 000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wollongong Greens Councilor Warns of Fibro Danger
------------------------------------------------------------------
Illawarra Mercury reported that illegal asbestos dumping could
rise in Wollongong if the council does not invest in a dedicated
asbestos waste facility, a Wollongong City councillor has claimed.

According to the report, Greens councillor Jill Merrin is
mystified as to why the council's Whytes Gully tip does not accept
asbestos waste, given Kiama, Shellharbour and Shoalhaven residents
are able to dump asbestos at their respective tips.

Cr Merrin is set to put a motion before the August council
meeting, calling for a report into the possibility of asbestos
disposal at the council's Kembla Grange tip, the report related.
She believes the current lack of facilities is providing a strong
incentive for residents to illegally dump asbestos on the city's
roadways and bushland, the report said.

"It's just encouraging bad behaviour," she said.

"There's no excuse for people doing the wrong thing but at the
moment, people either have to pay a private operator to have it
removed, which is costly, or they have to drive all the way to
Lucas Heights in Sydney to drop it off."

Cr Merrin claimed the council had long been "shirking its
responsibilities" for asbestos removal, simply relying on the
private sector to clean up after residents.  However, she believes
the council now has a good opportunity to solve the problem, as
construction of a new waste module at Whytes Gully is set to
begin.

"The city is large and we have a lot of residents and big
industrial areas; it's no-one else's problem to solve and we have
no-one else to blame so we need to look into it."

"If Shellharbour and Shoalhaven Councils can provide a disposal
service to their residents, there is no reason why we can't do the
same here in Wollongong."

A council spokesperson said the council's regulation and
enforcement arm investigated any illegal dumping in the city.  He
said the council had joined the Southern Council's Group Regional
Illegal Dumping squad, which investigates complaints of illegal
dumping.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taree City Council Tracks Down Illegal Dumper
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wingham Chronicle reported that greater Taree City Council is
seeking help in tracking down those who dumped asbestos material
in a table drain on the side of the Gloucester Road, about 300
metres towards Wingham from the Mount George turnoff.

According to the report, council rangers and environmental health
officers would appreciate any information from the public to
assist in identifying the offenders.

The dumping of the asbestos waste particularly in the table drain
can impact on waterways and the environment, and puts the public,
adjoining landholders and road users at risk, the report said.

The costs to clean up the waste can be considerable and impacts on
all ratepayers, the report related.

Any information regarding the incident would be greatly
appreciated. Please contact Philip Martin, senior environmental
health officer, Greater Taree City Council 6592 5272 or email
philip.martin@gtcc.nsw.gov.au


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firefighter Dad Exposed to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reported that a daughter, whose fireman
father died of lung cancer, filed an asbestos claim on the belief
that everyone should know the risks our firefighters take.

"I'm not looking for compensation -- something should be done
because even young firefighters are getting diagnosed with
asbestosis and mesothelioma.

"I really loved me dad so I guess I am also doing this for him,"
says Sheri, crying. "Firefighters get cancer at twice the rate of
everyone else. I know that these days they have better safety
equipment than back in the day when my dad was a fireman, but
asbestos could still be on their clothes. And they could still
bring asbestos fibers home with them. I've done a lot of research
online and all too often read about men in their 40s and 50s
diagnosed with mesothelioma and asbestosis as a direct result of
their job. What else could it be?"

Sheri's dad began working for the Milpitas Fire Department back in
1964, at a time when asbestos exposure wasn't a concern. As well,
back in the 1960s, firefighters didn't have the breathing
apparatus and safety equipment that is worn today.

"My dad worked for the City of Milpitas until 1992, and during
those years, he put out countless fires in houses that contained
asbestos," Sheri says. "I believe that breathing asbestos fibers
was unavoidable, and I believe that asbestos caused his lung
cancer. My dad didn't smoke and nobody in his family had cancer.

"It was around New Years, 1997, when I noticed something was wrong
with Dad. He was usually outgoing and the center of attention but
this time was different. We were at a family party and I found him
outside just staring into space. I asked him what he was doing and
he just said it was too noisy inside. But it was like someone else
was talking to me.

"A few days later my grandma slipped and fell and dad drove her to
hospital. Dad couldn't find the keys to the car when they left. He
eventually found them but got lost driving home. When they finally
got home, he tripped and this time he wound up in hospital. That
is when they found the cancer and it had gone to his brain. They
tried to operate but were unable to remove the tumor. Dad died on
March 5, 1998.

"I was researching asbestos and saw how prevalent it is with
firefighters -- so many have succumbed to lung cancer. I read how
chemicals are still in the air even after the fire has been
extinguished. My dad's Captain of the fire department, Ed Epple,
also died from lung cancer."

It really is tragic that as a consequence of our firefighters
saving lives they can lose their lives from exposure to asbestos.
Not only was safety gear often non-existent decades ago, but from
the 1930s through the 1970s, firefighter uniforms, including
helmets, coats, pants and boots, contained asbestos -- because it
could withstand high heat. The Mesothelioma Center says that some
protective firefighter clothing still contains asbestos, albeit in
smaller quantities than in the past.

As of 2011, there were 1.1 million firefighters in the United
States: 344,050 paid firefighters and 756,400 volunteers. It is
not known how many have passed away from asbestos-related
diseases, but in 2010, the William Dallas Jones Cancer Presumption
Act, or AB 2253, began a review with the hopes that the previous
statute of limitations pertaining to firefighter cancers will be
expanded. The AB 2253 bill "seeks to expand the existing statute
of limitations in a manner that more accurately reflects the
increased risk to firefighters and other public safety personnel
by those types of job-related cancers."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Altona Parents Fearful After Rain Uncovers Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Goya Dmytryshchak, writing for Maribyrnong & Hobsons Bay Weekly,
reported that parents have raised concerns about asbestos
uncovered by recent rain on Altona Primary School oval,  which is
expected to be removed while children are on school holidays.

According to the report, a parent, who asked not be named, said
she wanted to know how long the asbestos had been there and
whether children had been exposed.

"We have been left in the dark about where the asbestos has come
from," she said. "And, if it is in the soil, how dangerous is it
to our children's health? Most importantly, how long has it been
exposed to our children for and where has it come from?

"Are neighbours being made aware of the problem?"

The school referred the Weekly to the Education Department for
comment.

Department spokeswoman Vanessa O'Shaughnessy said some of the
topsoil washed away during recent rain, exposed pieces of concrete
sheeting found to contain asbestos.

"An immediate analysis showed the material contained asbestos and,
that night, the department had the oval fenced off and air-
monitoring installed and arrangements were made for the oval to be
scoured by a team of professional asbestos removal experts," she
said. "They removed the visible material and recommended the
removal of some patches of earth where the material was found in
higher concentrations.

"The contractors for this work have been engaged and, in
consultation with the school, will remove affected soil and
resurface the area at the department's expense.

"Until that happens in a week or so -- obviously not when children
are at school -- the area will remain fenced off."

All schools have asbestos management plans that parents are able
to view. The department audits asbestos on an ongoing basis, with
more than 300 audits scheduled to take place until June next year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Costs Revive Talks on Moving Mooney
----------------------------------------------------------
Denise Dick, writing for Vindy.com, reported that Bishop George V.
Murry's decision to keep Cardinal Mooney High School in the city
isn't a done deal.

According to the report, a statement from the Catholic Diocese of
Youngstown says that new information about the cost of asbestos
remediation to the school building has prompted the bishop to
review his June 4 decision to keep Mooney on Erie Street.

Bishop Murry has appointed a committee to review information
regarding the school renovation, the report said. The committee
includes a parent, a pastor and people with expertise in Catholic
school mission, education, finance and building construction.

Nicholas Wolsonovich, superintendent of schools for the diocese,
said that all buildings constructed in the 1950s contain asbestos
and by federal law, steps must be taken to address it, the report
related.

The school has abided by those laws.

"When you're looking at removing it and tearing apart the
building, that's when the costs increased," he said.

Information about the asbestos was given to the bishop by Mooney's
board of directors.

The committee is expected to report to Bishop Murry by July 31.
"If the recommendation from the committee is not to move, and the
bishop reaffirms his earlier decision, the president and board
will be asked to begin a capital campaign to raise money for the
necessary renovations," the diocese statement says.

If the committee's recommendation is to relocate the school to the
suburbs and it's approved by the bishop, the bishop will ask the
school president and board of directors to "conduct a feasibility
study to determine whether or not there are sufficient resources
to building a new school, in accord with Diocesan financial
policy," the statement says.

The whole process is expected to be completed in about two months.

Wolsonovich said the 2013-14 school year will begin as scheduled
in the existing location.

Several months ago, the estimated cost of building a new school in
southern Mahoning County was $25 million. The cost to renovate at
the city location was $18 million. Wolsonovich said that part of
the committee's charge is to determine the cost estimate for a
renovation that includes the asbestos remediation.

City Councilwoman Janet Tarpley, D-6th, doesn't want the school to
leave the city.

"The city has stated we'll do whatever we can to help," she said.
"We have in the past removed asbestos from houses that are being
demolished and there are also some grants from the state of Ohio."

Tarpley isn't sure if the school would qualify for any of those
public programs considering its religious affiliation, but said it
could be referred to the city's economic development department to
determine if anything can be done.

Wolsonovich said that since the bishop's decision earlier this
month, the diocese has heard both from people supporting the
school staying in the city and those who want it moved to the
suburbs -- and has listened to both sides.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Razing of Homestead Nursing Home Delayed by Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah McDermott, writing for Seacoast Online, reported that
nearly one month after the decrepit former Homestead Nursing Home
on Route 1 was supposed to be demolished, owner David Sowerby said
this week that he ran into asbestos issues, causing delays.

According to the report, Sowerby said he plans to complete the
work this summer, but he has yet to communicate his plans to town
officials, who ordered the building demolished last December and
then granted an extension that expired May 27.

Councilor Jeff Brake said the town has heard nothing from Sowerby,
yet the building sits open to vagrants and is infested with rats,
the report said.

"It's a frigging zoo in there," Brake said. "Sooner or later,
somebody's going to get hurt."

The Town Council deemed the structure a "dangerous building" under
state law in November, and in December, town attorney Duncan
McEachern issued an order requiring its removal within 60 days.

The following March, Sowerby successfully petitioned the council
for an extension of 60 days, saying demolition was too costly
while snow was on the ground. That extension ran out May 27, and
backhoes previously seen at the site are no longer there.

Sowerby said when the contractor began preparing the building for
demolition, he found asbestos material that "stopped the project."
He said an asbestos removal company was hired, but then he ran
into problems finding a place to send the material.

He said he is now sending it to Crossroads Landfill in
Norridgewock, Maine, which will add $90,000 in transportation
costs alone. He did not want to estimate the cost of demolition,
but said it will run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Sowerby said the company hired to remove the asbestos had to take
other jobs that had been lined up in advance and won't be able to
return to the Homestead site for several weeks.

Brake said he is hoping to bring the issue up at the next Town
Council meeting, because he feels that Sowerby has flaunted the
town's orders.

"We've played with it for too long. Now kids are out of school and
that place is going to be a target," he said.

Sowerby said he has asked the police department to make extra
patrols of the building because he agrees that it is open to the
elements and anyone can enter it.

"We're pushing and pushing and pushing to get this done. The
asbestos has made it incredibly difficult," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro at Columbia Courthouse Driving up Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Mayberg Hudson, writing for Register Star, reported that
the estimated $8 million renovation of the Columbia County
Courthouse project is proceeding on time and it may even be close
to the projected cost say the project manager and county
officials, but the asbestos removal is far above what was planned.

According to the report, current estimates for the asbestos work
continue to climb, with about $192,000 in change orders for
asbestos work, according to Columbia County Department of Public
Works Commissioner David Robinson. County supervisors on the
Public Works Committee heard from the project's architect about
the increasing costs.

"Asbestos continues to be a big problem," said John Cutsumpas, a
partner at the architectural firm of Lothrop Associates, which is
overseeing the project. "Every time you turn around, you find a
little more."

The county estimated $70,000 of asbestos abatement work, based on
projections by Albany consultant Alpine Environmental Services,
the report said.  However, Alpine continues to find more asbestos.
The additional $192,000 worth of work and counting is due to poor
planning, said Supervisor Michael Benson, R-New Lebanon.

Benson, who chairs the Public Works Committee, placed the blame on
Alpine for not doing a better job in surveying the courthouse for
asbestos beforehand. He said the county may have been able to bid
out the asbestos removal at a better price, if the proper
surveying had been done. "We've had nothing but surprises," he
said.

The asbestos work is part of three add-ons not planned for,
including a $500,000 new heating system and a $56,000 overrun for
electric design plans.

Supervisors also discussed replacing windows at the courthouse,
though they might not be identical to the existing ones. Benson
said he wants to hold off on moving forward with expending money
on new windows right now.

Despite all of the extra work, Cutsumpas said the project is on
target to meet a Jan. 7 completion.

"The project is going well," Benson said. "The asbestos is not."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jindabyne Trail Closed Due to Possible Fibro
-------------------------------------------------------------
Summit Sun reported that a small section of the Jindabyne Shared
Trail has been temporarily closed because of possible asbestos
contamination. The closed section is from the council Pump Station
Access Road to the Jindabyne Dam wall.

According to the report, this section has been closed due to
asbestos (fibro sheeting fragments) being found near "the pines"
on eastern side of Kosciusko Road.

As a precautionary measure, the Snowy River Shire Council has
temporarily closed public access to this section of Jindabyne
shared trail until the site has been assessed and it is safe for
public use, the report said.

The public are advised to avoid this area while further tests are
carried out to assess the extent of the contamination and removal
of the asbestos is undertaken by specialist contractors, the
report related.

Immediately after the contamination was identified all visible
remnants of fibro sheeting were removed. However, to be certain
the area is safe, further site inspections and remedial work will
be carried out over the coming weeks.

The council is working closely with land holders on this issue and
will keep the community informed about when the Jindabyne Shared
Trail near "the pines" will be re-opened.

Depending on the results of further site inspections and tests,
the Jindabyne Shared Trail at this location may be closed for up
to two months to ensure the area is safe.

The rest of the Jindabyne Shared Trail (including the Mill Creek
section) is open for public use.

Indicative location of possible contaminated material.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Drilling Mud Exposes Workers to Fibro
------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reported that while there are always
risks associated with various industrial activities such as
manufacturing, mining and drilling, less-obvious hazards often
prove to pose the most risk. With drilling, for oil and gas, the
use of drilling mud has evolved to an alleged silent killer due to
use of asbestos in the mud itself. Drilling mud is used to cool
drilling apparatus and arrives on site in powdered form, requiring
it to be mixed. It falls to the mud engineer to mix the material
and prepare the asbestos drilling mud for use. The process often
exposes the worker, unknowingly, to deadly asbestos.

According to the report, a drilling mud lawsuit, filed by a
plaintiff often appearing in court accompanied by an oxygen tank,
is the next logical step in pursuit of compensation.

Asbestos drilling, beyond any damage it does to the environment,
has proven to be an issue for the mud engineer or any employee
tasked with working in close proximity, without adequate
protection, to a product that contains asbestos, the report said.

Now there appears to be emerging an issue that has an eerie
parallel to the drilling mud problem noted above.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking -- the process of extracting
trapped reserves of oil and gas from underground rock by pumping
in various chemicals via highly compressed air to fracture the
rock and capture the booty that lay below. Much has been written
about the alleged contamination of groundwater stemming from this
growing practice, fallout captured as the essence of a major
motion picture last year.

However, akin to oil drilling mud and the hazards posed to workers
is the risk associated with exposure to dust with high levels of
respirable crystalline silica.

Forbes.com revealed the hazard alert issued by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration and the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health with regard to silica exposure. The
alert was issued on the first day of summer, last year.

"Hazardous exposures to silica can and must be prevented," said
Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational
safety and health, in a statement issued in tandem with the health
advisory. "It is important for employers and workers to understand
the hazards associated with silica exposure in hydraulic
fracturing operations and how to protect workers."

According to the report, the sand used in hydraulic fracking
contains up to 99 percent silica. Breathing air laced with silica
dust without adequate protection can cause silicosis, a lung
disease. NIOSH collected 116 full shift air samples at 11 fracking
sites in five states -- Arkansas, Colorado, North Dakota,
Pennsylvania and Texas.

Of the samples collected, 47 percent revealed silica exposures
greater than the calculated OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL),
while 79 percent showed silica exposures greater than the NIOSH
Recommended Exposure Limit (REL). Some 31 percent of all samples
presented silica exposures at 10 or more times the REL, with one
sample clocked in at more than 100 times the REL.

And exposure to silica is not confined to fracking either. A
report commissioned by the Insurance Information Institute called
"Silica Liability" and released nine years ago sounded the alarm
over silica exposure in various industries around the US. As for
the number, NIOSH speculated at the time that as many as 1.7
million US workers could be exposed to silica.

The Forbes.com report noted that deaths from silicosis are on the
decline. But that hasn't stopped silica-related claims from
rising.

There are other similarities linking asbestos drilling and
fracking. Beyond the hazards to the mud engineer and any worker
coming into close contact with asbestos drilling mud is the
eventual whereabouts of the drilling mud once it is spent.
Previous reports have revealed spent oil drilling mud is mixed
with soil and trucked away for use as fill in various
applications, although those applications were not identified.

According to Business Insurance, the potential fallout for
fracking is not limited to contamination of groundwater, as it is
often alleged. According to the insurance industry, environmental
risks can include air pollution from methane emissions at well
sites, and fumes from drilling equipment and trucks hauling
fracking fluid and wastewater; together with accidental wastewater
spills.

There have also been questions as to what to do with the millions
of gallons of "flowback" water produced by the fracking process.
Previously, according to the report, flowback has been dumped in
open evaporation pits, which carries the potential for overflow or
leakage. Flowback has also reportedly been injected into disposal
wells which, according to the report, have been linked to
earthquakes in three states.

Fracking companies are reportedly moving toward recycling of this
flowback, which can contain radioactive radium and benzene. The
latter can cause cancer.

All this has the insurance industry up in arms, while the legal
community is poised for service if needed.

That need may surface. Just like the drilling mud problem that has
seen the emergence of drilling mud lawsuits, as workers grapple
with irreversible asbestosis disease, issues surrounding fracking
extend beyond groundwater contamination. Air pollution near
evaporation pits, potential health issues from benzene and radium,
and exposure to silica on the part of fracking workers only adds
to the fray, putting issues involving hydraulic fracturing on an
ever-widening track.

Accidents involving drilling mud companies result in headlines, as
does the emerging fracking controversy. Less is known about the
health hazards of drilling mud additives to workers, in kind with
the silica hazards to fracking workers and other hazards of spent
fracking flowback water beyond contamination of groundwater.

But as the process of fracking continues to expand, shepherded by
oil and gas companies determined to access trapped supplies deep
underground, health and insurance issues will continue to come to
the fore much like they have over oil well drilling mud.
Regardless of the issue, when your health is grievously
compromised through no fault of your own, the legal community is a
welcome resource when justice is required, and deserved.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bodmin Football Club Vandals Warned Over Asbestos
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cornish Guardian reported that vandals are being warned they could
suffer long-term health problems after attacks on Bodmin Football
Club's grandstand, part of which is constructed from potentially
deadly asbestos.

Now, due to the high incidence of antisocial behaviour and damage
caused in the area, police have increased their patrols to crack
down on those causing problems at Priory Park, the report said.

According to the report, police say that despite metal gates being
erected, youths are still gaining entry to the grandstand, causing
damage to the structure and leaving behind a trail of debris,
broken bottles and rubbish.

Damage to the grandstand, built in 1958 in memory of the Dennison
family, has increased significantly in the past couple of months,
the report said. The roofs of newer dugouts have also been
damaged.

PCSO Pete Sobye, of the Bodmin Neighbourhood Policing Team, said:
"These people responsible don't realise the dangers they are
putting themselves in, and the costs involved in putting right the
damage they are causing.

"The roof and back of the grandstand are constructed of asbestos
sheeting.

"Breaking these sheets could potentially cause obvious problems
later on," he said.

"People seem to forget that unless there is a game on, the
grandstand and pitch are private property. Entering either and
causing damage is a serious offence, and one we will deal with
robustly."

Police have now designated the area around the football club pitch
as a "primary tasking" area, which means there will be a
significant police presence there.

PCSO Sobey said: "Anyone found on the pitch or in the grandstand
will be ejected and details taken, and the same will apply to boy
racers who congregate near the football club. We have had reports
of large groups of cars in the car park next to the football club,
revving their engines and wheel spinning.

"Anyone found behaving in such a manner will be the subject of a
Section 59 notice and could ultimately lose their vehicle."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids for DHS Abatement Tossed
----------------------------------------------
Rebeka Rutledge, writing for The Duncan Banner, reported that bids
for the asbestos abatement portion of the Duncan High School
renovation project were rejected during the regular meeting of the
Duncan Public Schools Board of Education.

According to the report, Superintendent Sherry Labyer informed the
board that only one bid was received and recommended the rejection
of it.

"I recommend that we go back out and advertise again," she said.
"I plan to be ready to come back with more bids at the next
meeting."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Telstra Begins Clean-up
----------------------------------------
Ean Higgins and Mitchell Nadin, writing for The Australian,
reported that Telstra has quietly begun a blitz to clean up
asbestos-riddled pits located in Sydney's west.

According to the report, Penrith streets were turned into a
futuristic scene of workers dressed head to toe in protective
clothing and facemasks as they began the mammoth task of cleaning
up the deadly fibre, which sat just outside the front doors of
homes and shops.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Underway at Clearwater School
--------------------------------------------------------
Wayne County Journal-Banner reported that an asbestos abatement
project is currently underway at Clearwater Elementary School. Two
crews, who are working for the same contractor, are removing
asbestos from the kindergarten wing and from the office areas.

According to the report, Superintendent Deborah Hand reported at
the Board of Education meeting that the project is more involved
than expected.

"When the crew started working in the office area, we knew there
was some overspray into the wooden walls," Hand said. "We thought
it could be taken care of by cutting 12 inches off the top of the
walls. When they got in there, they discovered asbestos from three
feet up on the 2x4s. So, we all agreed (architect, air quality
manager, and Hand) that they needed to be removed."

"All wooden office walls, except in one spot, have been removed,"
Hand continued. "The glass walls around my office are gone. The
walls that divide the areas in the office are gone. In Elizabeth
Chadbourne's office, the back part was OK, but the front part all
had to come down. The two rooms in the back of the library had to
be removed."

Hand said that leaves the elementary school with a dilemma with
its offices, the report related. The school district needs at
least five secure areas in order to be able to have confidential
meetings with parents.

Mrs. Chadbourne will remain in her office. Elementary Principal
Craig "Wesley" Johnson will move to Director of Special Services
Kelly Jenkins' old office. Jenkins and her secretary, Mary Reed,
will move into the office area that was shared by Ellen Koch and
Tim Sheets, adjacent to the nurse's office. The counselor's office
will be unaffected.

Eight-foot temporary walls will be built around the office area.
This area will house all of the elementary school's secretaries.
"We'll have to deal with this for one year until new offices are
built during the next phase of renovations," Hand said.

"One thing we have to address is ceilings in the kindergarten
rooms," Hand said. "I don't see any way that we can get ceilings
in there before school starts. (Maintenance man) Tim Sheets
suggested a drop ceiling. I believe that would be the least
expensive and the fastest way. We could install that over
Christmas break or any longer break that we have."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 793 Suits Filed in Madison County for First Half
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record,
reported that with nearly six months down and six to go, it
appears that Madison County is on track to at least match last
year's record-breaking number of asbestos filings.

According to the report, figures provided by Circuit Clerk Mark
Von Nida show that 793 asbestos suits had been filed as of late
June.  If the next six months bring the same number of suits, the
total for 2013 would beat last year's total of 1,563 by about two
dozen.

The number of asbestos filings in Madison County has been at a
relatively steady rise since 2006, with the exception of a slight
dip in 2010, the report said.

Records show that 325 asbestos suits were filed in 2006, a
substantial decrease from the 953 asbestos filings in 2003.  That
number jumped to 455 in 2007, 639 in 2008, 814 in 2009, 752 in
2010 and 953 in 2011.

Not only did 2012 mark a record-breaking year for asbestos filings
in Madison County, but it also included a change to the docket and
mirrored a national trend in asbestos litigation.

In March 2012, Associate Judge Clarence Harrison, who presides
over the asbestos docket, eliminated the long-time practice of
setting asbestos trial in advance.

Some defense attorneys expressed concerns that the change would
open up the door to more filings, but Harrison, as well as other
attorneys, said it was a procedural switch that would simply make
scheduling dockets more consistent in size and help make things
work more smoothly.

While the true effects of abolishing the advanced trial setting
are difficult to gauge, last year's asbestos filings did show that
a few new players had entered the game as a result of some out-of-
state firms setting up shop in Madison County and others
consolidating or splitting up.

In addition, a breakdown of last year's asbestos filings showed
that Madison County mirrored a nationwide, emerging trend of an
increase in the number of lung cancer-related asbestos suits as
opposed to traditional mesothelioma claims.

Based on the first six months of 2013, a few area asbestos
attorneys said it appears that trend will continue.

Brian Huelsmann, a defense attorney with HeplerBroom in
Edwardsville, said his firm's record of asbestos filings show 790
suits, three less than the figures provided by Von Nida.

Out of the 790 asbestos suits his firm has tracked so far this
year, Huelsmann said that 461 were mesothelioma-related and 329
were lung cancer related.

"It's consistent with what I saw last year," he said. "It is a
trend we anticipate is going to continue" based on the decreasing
number of mesothelioma diagnoses.

Raymond Fournie, a defense attorney at Armstrong Teasdale in St.
Louis, agreed. He said the spike in lung cancer asbestos suits
began in 2012 and is a trend he anticipates "we will continue to
see for some time into the future."

Both Fournie and Huelsmann said while it may not be a trend yet,
they have noticed at least a handful of asbestos suits being
removed to federal court under the federal officer provision.

This provision allows defendants to remove suits if they can prove
they acted under the direction of a federal officer, raise a
colorable federal defense to the claims and show a causal nexus
between the claims and acts performed.

Harrison said he didn't have the specific breakdown of lung cancer
v. mesothelioma asbestos suits or know exactly how many suits have
been removed under the federal officer provision, but said he
"people have pretty well adapted" to last year's docket change.

"I'm more concerned this year with getting out the old cases that
are pending," he said. "You always want to go ahead and close out
the older cases . . . for the courts, that's the issue and we've
been working on it."

In regards to the federal officer removal provision, Fournie said
the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in its 2012 ruling in Henry
Ruppel v. CBS Corporation gave federal courts "clear direction"
that this provision can allow for the removal of suits in certain
situations.

While he has seen several more asbestos suits removed based on
this provision, Fournie said he "doesn't expect a whole ton of
cases to be removed, but think there will definitely be more" than
last year.

Fournie said "federal court is a good place to be" and that so
far, the Ruppel ruling has simply given defense attorneys "one
more jurisdiction to deal with."

Huelsmann said the Ruppel decision marks "kind of a big change,"
but that the full outcome is yet to be known as these cases
continue to work their way through the federal court system.

In one of these cases, a federal judge earlier this month denied
the plaintiffs' motion to remand its asbestos suit back to state
court after the defendant had removed it to federal court under
the federal officer provision.

In this case -- Walter and Ruby Leggett v. United Technologies
Corp., U.S. District Judge Patrick Murphy denied the plaintiff's
remand request, saying he was "satisfied that defendant provided
adequate support for federal officer removal."

"It's been another busy year," Huelsmann said of the asbestos
docket so far this year. "With six months more to go, we are on
pace with last year."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Companies Fined $60K+ for Removal Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Gates, writing for Beverly Patch, reported that two
contractors have been fined a total of $64,200 for alleged
improper removal of asbestos-containing floor tile from a Tozer
Road building.

According to the report, the fine was issued to Columbia
Construction Company of North Reading and USA Demolition Inc. of
Woburn by the state Department of Environmental Protection.

Both companies were alleged to have improperly removed 3,000
square feet of asbestos-containing floor tile from 32 Tozer Road,
which was being converted for use from New England Biolabs to Cell
Signaling Technology, the report said.

The fine, $32,100 each for Columbia Construction Company and USA
Demolition Inc., will be lowered if both companies stay out of
trouble for the next year, according to the DEP.

Columbia will pay $9,700 of its penalty and MassDEP has agreed to
suspend the remaining $22,400 and USA Demolition will pay $8,700
of its penalty and MassDEP has agreed to suspend the remaining
$23,400.

The fines are the result of a DEP inspection on Aug. 5, 2011,
where Columbia was working as a general contractor doing
renovation work and USA Demolition was a subcontractor doing
demolition work.

Neither company properly notified DEP about the demolition work or
asbestos abatement work, as required, the DEP said in a news
release about the fines.

"In addition, the companies engaged in the improper removal,
collection, and disposal into a rolloff dumpster at the site of
the asbestos-containing floor tile," DEP said in announcing the
fines. "The work was done without any controls to prevent the
release of the loose, dry, friable, asbestos material into the
air."

That's when MassDEP ordered the work halted and the work area
cordoned off. The companies hired a licensed asbestos contractor
to prepare a plan to remediate the site in compliance with
asbestos removal and disposal regulations, DEP said.

"When asbestos is removed improperly, it creates emissions that
are known to be a health hazard to those who breathe that material
into their lungs," said Eric Worrall, director of MassDEP's
Northeast Regional Office in Wilmington in the DEP's written
statement. "The lack of notification, the lack of controls and the
careless disposal of this material are all violations and caused
an unacceptable public health risk to workers and anyone else in
the immediate area."


                             *********

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  * * *