CAR_Public/130712.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, July 12, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 136

                             Headlines



ABM INDUSTRIES: Appeals in "Augustus" Case Consolidated
ABM INDUSTRIES: $2.5MM Fees Awarded to "Bojorquez" Lawyers
ABM INDUSTRIES: No Schedule Yet on Oral Argument in "Bucio" Appeal
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Arbitration
AMERICAN INT'L: AG Can Pursue Civil Suit v. Former Executives

ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Sued Over High Fructose Corn Syrup Risks
ATLANTIC COAST: Faces Two Merger-Related Suits in Maryland
AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Krause" Securities Class Suit
BP PLC: Oil Spill Claims Attorney Resigns
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Arbitration Bids in WARN Suits Pending

BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: "Guzman" Class Suit Still in Discovery
CASH STORE: Class Suit Filed in SDNY Court Against Firm, D&Os
CHEVRON CORP: Patton Boggs Files Motion to Block Fraud Claims
CHEVRON CORP: Patton Boggs Accuses Burford of Betrayal

COPART INC: Settlement Funds Wired to Administrator
DOLLAR GENERAL: Settlement Talks Ongoing in "Richter" Suit
DOLLAR GENERAL: Still Defending "Marcum" FCRA Class Suit
EI DU PONT: Judge Certifies Employees' FLSA Class Action
FORD MOTOR: Faces Suit in California Over Defective Sync System

FORTEGRA FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Mullins" Suit Remains Pending
FORTEGRA FINANCIAL: Discovery Phase Continues in Georgia Suit
FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS: Awaits Ruling on Bid for Reconsideration
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Judge Okays $35-Mil. Flonase Antitrust Settlement
GREAT WOLF: Consolidated Merger-Related Suit in Del. Dismissed

HARVEST NATURAL: 6 Securities Class Suits Consolidated
INLAND AMERICAN: Faces Stockholder Class Suit in Illinois
JOS. A. BANK: Approval Sought in Settlement of "Holmes" Action
JOS. A. BANK: To Defend Against Amended "Camasta" Complaint
JOS. A. BANK: To Defend Against "Schneider" Class Action

KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: To Defend Against Rosen Class Suit
KMART HOLDING: Sued by Assistant Managers Over FLSA Violations
MANAGED FUTURES: "Abu Dhabi" Class Suit Dismissed in April
MONSTER BEVERAGE: Faces Suit Over Energy Drink-Related Death
NEIMAN MARCUS: NLRB Challenges Class Action Prohibition

ORIENT PAPER: $2-Mil. Settlement in Securities Suit Approved
PANTHEON INC: Dragged in Class Suit Against Unnamed Customer
PHILIP MORRIS: Marlboro Light Smokers' Suit Revived in Oregon
PRIMO WATER: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
RANGE RESOURCES: Has MOU to Settle Royalty Owners' Class Suit

SAIC INC: Has $10MM Loss Provision at May 3 re Data Privacy Suits
SAIC INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Litigation
TAYLOR MORRISON: Seeks Reimbursement of Chinese Drywall Costs
TEMPUR SEALY: Delaware Chancery Court Okays Accord in Merger Suit
TEMPUR SEALY: Defending "Hernandez" Wage-and-Hour Suit

TORO COMPANY: Management Continues to Evaluate Canadian Litigation
TRUNKBOW INTERNATIONAL: Defends Suits Over Executives' Stock Buy
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Faces Class Action Over Customer Zip Codes
UTI WORLDWIDE: Aug. 9 Final Hearing on Settlement
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Posts $69MM Loss Contingency Accruals for Suits

VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Sept. 20 Hearing to Appoint Lead Counsel
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Oct. 4 Case Management Conference in "Dolled"
VERINT SYSTEMS: Mediation Ongoing in Employees' Suit v. Unit
WAL-MART STORES: Filed Response to New Class Cert. Bid in "Dukes"
WAL-MART STORES: "Odle" Case Dismissed in October 2012

WAL-MART STORES: "Phipps" Case Dismissed in February 2013
WAL-MART STORES: "Love" Suit Over Gender Bias Still Pending
WAL-MART STORES: Court Dismisses "Ladik" Suit Over Gender Bias
WAL-MART STORES: No Decision Yet on Appeal in "Braun/Hummel" Suit
WELLS FARGO: Judge Wants New Class Action Plaintiffs Lawyers

WEST PUBLISHING: Kendrick & Nutley's Fee Opening Brief Due July 16
ZALE CORP: 2 Securities Suits in Texas Dismissed
ZALE CORP: Got $2.2MM From De Beers Accord During Past 3 Quarters
ZOETIS INC: Roxarsone-Related Class Suit Dismissed in March

* Generic Drug Makers Exempt From State Tort Suits, Sup. Ct. Rules
* Supreme Court Raises Bar for Job Discrimination Claims


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Hardie Slugged With More Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Responders Fear Exposure at Philadelphia Bldg
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asons Warns of Fibro Threat After Claim Payment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure to Deadly Dust Link to Plumber's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Mystery Shrouds Death of Ex-Wilsden GP

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Scheduled for Berlin High School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Underway at Guilford County Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queanbeyan Mayor Calls on NSW to Remove Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Possible Fibro Leak Closes Estevan Power Station
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Service Worried About Fibro Contamination

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro More Dangerous to Children Than Adults
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Weston Bldg. Firm Boss Fined Over Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found at Kensington Academy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Brummie Builders Fined Over Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Not Limited to Heavy Industry

ASBESTOS UPDATE: About 85% of Wales Schools Contain Deadly Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Razes Fibro-Laden Huddersfield Building
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victoria Refuses to Sign Plan to Rid of Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Campaigners Want Mesothelioma Bill Changed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wife Exposed to Fibro From Husband's Clothes

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Victim's Family Seeks Answers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Scare Closes Alice Springs Library
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sawbridgeworth Mum With Cancer Slams Meso Bill
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Cleanup of Belleville Fire Site to Start
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Dropped as Defendant in Ex-Navy's Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Court Refuses to Remand "Houser" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Ct. Denies NSI's Bid to Junk "Lund" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Denies Inmate's FTCA Claim Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Joyner" Claims v. Crane Remanded to State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Businessman's Bid for Early Termination Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: WECCO's Bid to Dismiss Insurance Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Krauss' Suit v. Tishman Liquidating Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Ct. Denies Motion to Remand "Barnes" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Bid to Bar Evidence Dismissed


                             *********


ABM INDUSTRIES: Appeals in "Augustus" Case Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------
New York-based ABM Industries Incorporated disclosed in its Form
10-Q report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2013, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, that an
appeals court agreed to consolidate appeals in the consolidated
cases of Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American Commercial Security
Services (ACSS) filed July 12, 2005, in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County.

The Augustus case is a certified class action involving
allegations that the Company violated certain state laws relating
to rest breaks. On February 8, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for summary judgment on the rest break claim, which sought damages
in the amount of $103.1 million, and the Company filed a motion
for decertification of the class.

On July 6, 2012, the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
County, heard plaintiffs' motion for damages on the rest break
claim and the Company's motion to decertify the class.  On July
31, 2012, the Superior Court denied the Company's motion and
entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of
approximately $89.7 million. This amount did not include
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

The Company filed a notice of appeal on August 29, 2012. The
plaintiffs filed three separate motions for attorneys' fees. One
motion sought attorneys' fees from the common fund. The common
fund refers to the approximately $89.7 million judgment entered in
favor of the plaintiffs. The other two motions sought attorneys'
fees from the Company in an aggregate amount of approximately
$12.4 million.  On October 12, 2012, the Company filed oppositions
to the two fee motions seeking attorneys' fees from the Company.

On January 14, 2013, the Superior Court heard all three fee
motions. It granted plaintiffs' fee motion with respect to the
common fund in full. The Superior Court denied one fee motion in
its entirety and reduced the other fee motion to approximately
$4.5 million. This $4.5 million is included in the range of loss
for all reasonably possible losses.

The Company has appealed the Superior Court's rulings and on
April 30, 2013, the Court agreed to consolidate the appeals. The
Company strongly disagrees with the decisions of the Superior
Court both with respect to the underlying case and with respect to
the award of attorneys' fees and costs. The Company firmly
believes that it has complied with applicable law.


ABM INDUSTRIES: $2.5MM Fees Awarded to "Bojorquez" Lawyers
----------------------------------------------------------
New York-based ABM Industries Incorporated disclosed in its Form
10-Q report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2013, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, that a
California state court has awarded plaintiff attorneys' fees in
the amount of $2.5 million in the matter, Bojorquez v. ABM
Industries Incorporated and ABM Janitorial Services-Northern
California, Inc. filed on January 13, 2010, in the San Francisco
Superior Court.

Plaintiff in the Bojorquez case brought suit for sexual
harassment, retaliation, and failure to prevent harassment and
discrimination.  On May 17, 2012, a jury awarded the plaintiff
approximately $0.8 million in damages. The Company has appealed
this decision.

On April 11, 2013, the Court awarded plaintiff attorneys' fees in
the amount of $2.5 million. If the Company prevails in its appeal
of the jury's verdict, the Court's award of plaintiffs attorneys'
fees will be reversed.


ABM INDUSTRIES: No Schedule Yet on Oral Argument in "Bucio" Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument relating to an appeal in the consolidated cases of
Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services filed on April 7,
2006, in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco, has not been scheduled, according to New York-based ABM
Industries Incorporated in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2013, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 5.

The Bucio case is a purported class action involving allegations
that the Company failed to track work time and provide breaks. On
April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class. At the conclusion of that hearing,
the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. On
May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which
was denied. The plaintiffs have appealed the class certification
issues. The trial court stayed the underlying lawsuit pending the
decision in the appeal. On August 30, 2012, the plaintiffs filed
their appellate brief on the class certification issues. The
Company filed its responsive brief on November 15, 2012.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Mauro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
continuing its warm embrace of arbitration and its disdain for
class actions, the Supreme Court on June 20 ruled that agreements
between companies and their customers can prohibit class action
arbitration, even if that makes it harder for plaintiffs to
vindicate their claims.

The 5-3 ruling in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors
Restaurant broke along usual ideological lines, with conservatives
forming the majority and liberals objecting.

The decision was a high-stakes follow-on to AT&T Mobility v.
Concepcion, the controversial 2011 ruling that the Federal
Arbitration Act pre-empts state laws barring the waiver of class
arbitration in consumer agreements.  Consumer groups complained
that without class action arbitration, the high cost of pursuing
individual complaints against a company, compared with the small
damages a single plaintiff might collect, would discourage claims
and effectively make companies immune from challenge on issues of
antitrust or labor and employment law.

The decision on June 20 was a win for the credit card company over
a group of merchants, led by an Oakland, California restaurant,
that accept American Express cards.  In spite of a class action
waiver in their agreements with American Express, the merchants
filed a class action challenging what they viewed as an illegal
"tying" arrangement on antitrust grounds.

Amex sought to compel individual arbitration, but the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled the class action waiver
was unenforceable because the cost of proving the antitrust
violation was so prohibitive that the plaintiffs could not
effectively pursue individual cases.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said "the fact
that it is not worth the expense involved in proving a statutory
remedy does not constitute the elimination of the right to pursue
that remedy."  Judge Scalia said that if class arbitration waivers
are tossed out, arbitration would get bogged down in preliminary
litigation in federal court over the cost of evidence and
testimony needed in the arbitration, compared with potential
damages.

"Such a preliminary litigating hurdle would undoubtedly destroy
the prospect of speedy resolution that arbitration in general and
bilateral arbitration in particular was meant to secure," Judge
Scalia wrote.

In a stinging dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said that the court had
turned the pursuit of individual claims against a company through
arbitration into a "fool's errand," with the result in this case
that "Amex has insulated itself from antitrust liability -- even
if it has in fact violated the law.  The monopolist gets to use
its monopoly power to insist on a contract effectively depriving
its victims of all legal recourse."

The majority, Justice Kagan added, was stating in effect, "Too
darn bad." She also said, "The FAA was never meant to product this
outcome." Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer joined
the dissent.  Justice Sonia Sotomayor recused in the case, likely
because she was a judge on the Second Circuit at earlier stages of
the litigation.

Some commentators saw the decision as another nail in the coffin
for some types of class actions.

"[Thurs]day, the Supreme Court took another big step down the road
of permitting companies to use arbitration agreements to entirely
insulate themselves from class action liability," said Vanderbilt
University School of Law professor Brian Fitzpatrick.  "The
writing is on the wall now more clearly than ever: there is little
future for consumer and employment class actions, and even
shareholder class actions may not survive."

Consumer advocates attacked the decision as a huge defeat for
consumers and another sign of the pro-business bias of the Roberts
Court.  "[Thurs]day, a majority of the Supreme Court expanded the
power of major corporations to deny Americans access to justice,"
Nan Aron, of the liberal Alliance for Justice, said in a
statement.  "It is the latest in a series of decisions that make
it significantly more difficult to hold big businesses accountable
for their actions.  Congress must act to ensure that the rights
our laws secure for all Americans are not subsumed by arbitration
clauses and a corporate-friendly Court."

But business advocates said the ruling will improve the efficiency
of arbitration and actually benefit consumers, who can pool
resources and expert testimony to mount individual cases.

"Small claims can be -- and increasingly are -- brought in
arbitration by lawyers making a business of recruiting large
numbers of clients using the Internet and social media," said
Mayer Brown partner Andrew Pincus, who argued for AT&T in the
Concepcion case.  "In American Express, for example, the
plaintiffs acknowledged that they could bring their claims
effectively in arbitration as long as they could share the same
lawyers and experts -- and American Express agreed that such
cost-sharing is completely permissible."

Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal
Reform, said, "The purpose of this case was to torpedo the ability
of two parties to resolve their disputes through arbitration
instead of litigation.  [Thurs]day's ruling yet again upholds
arbitration.  The only people who lose under [Thurs]day's decision
are those in the plaintiffs' bar who want to cash in by forcing
disputes into already overburdened courts."

Michael Kellogg, Esq. -- mkellogg@khhte.com -- at Kellogg, Huber,
Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, represented American Express before
the high court, and Paul Clement of the Bancroft firm argued on
behalf of the merchants challenging the company.


AMERICAN INT'L: AG Can Pursue Civil Suit v. Former Executives
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Caher, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that after
eight years of legal wrangling, the state Court of Appeals on
June 25 cleared the way for the state attorney general to pursue a
civil enforcement action against two former executives of American
International Group (AIG).

In a unanimous opinion by Judge Robert Smith, the court held that
the evidence that former AIG chairman and CEO Maurice "Hank"
Greenberg and former CFO Howard Smith perpetrated a fraud is
sufficient to withstand a summary judgment motion.

"We have no difficulty in concluding that, in this civil case,
there is evidence sufficient for trial that both Greenberg and
Smith participated in a fraud," Judge Smith wrote in People v.
Greenberg, 63.  "The credibility of their denials is for the fact
finder to decide."

The court also said Attorney General Eric Schneiderman can seek
injunctive relief, such as barring the defendants from the
securities industry, even after withdrawing the claim for money
damages in the wake of a federal court settlement.

"On the merits, we cannot say as a matter of law that no equitable
relief may be awarded," Judge Smith said in a terse, five-page
opinion.  "There is no doubt room for argument about whether the
lifetime bans that the Attorney General proposes would be a
justifiable exercise of a court's discretion; but that question,
as well as the availability of any other equitable relief that the
Attorney General may seek, must be decided by the lower courts in
the first instance."

AIG and its top executives were targeted in 2005 by then-Attorney
General Eliot Spitzer, who alleged that Mr. Greenberg and Judge
Smith approved two reinsurance transactions designed to obscure
the financial picture of what had been the largest insurance
company in the world.

One of the transactions involved Berkshire Hathaway's General
Reinsurance Corp. (GenRe) and was allegedly orchestrated to
conceal a decline in AIG's loss reserves.  The other involved the
CAPCO Reinsurance Co., an offshore firm controlled by AIG, and was
allegedly designed to mask underwriting losses as capital losses.

AIG admitted to structuring sham transactions and paid a record
$1.6 billion fine in 2005.  Mr. Greenberg had been removed as CEO
by that time but remained an AIG shareholder and strenuously
objected to the settlement.

Mr. Spitzer, followed by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and then
Schneiderman, persisted with an action under the Martin Act and
Executive Law Sec. 63 (12), New York's primary anti-fraud
statutes.  The action alleged that Greenberg and Smith were
involved in the deception, and sought damages on behalf of
investors.  Mr. Greenberg and Judge Smith countered that the state
anti-fraud provisions were preempted by federal securities law.

In October 2010, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Charles Ramos
refused to dismiss the case and the Appellate Division, First
Department, affirmed in a 4-1 decision in May 2012.  The First
Department held that the state's claim for damages was not
preempted, (95 AD3d 474), setting up a highly anticipated Court of
Appeals matter on the scope of the Martin Act and Executive Law
and the state's role in securities enforcement.

With the appeal pending, however, Southern District Judge Deborah
Batts approved a $115 million settlement in a federal class action
arising from parallel allegations, taking the Martin Act
preemption issue out of the case and prompting Mr. Schneiderman to
withdraw his damages claim in favor of an action seeking
injunctive relief.

At the Court of Appeals in May, attorneys for the defendants
argued that the attorney general had long ago abandoned any claim
for an injunctive or equitable remedy, and should not be permitted
to resurrect those issues this late in the game.  They also
claimed there was insufficient proof to proceed.

On June 25, the Court of Appeals disagreed.

Judge Smith said that Greenberg and Smith were identified as
unindicted coconspirators, but not defendants, in a federal
criminal case that resulted from the GenRe transaction, United
States v. Ferguson, 676 F3d 260 (2011).

In Ferguson, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
found the evidence legally sufficient to establish, under the
beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, that a fraudulent conspiracy
was initiated in a phone call from Greenberg to the CEO of GenRe,
Ronald Ferguson, Judge Smith observed.

                    Equitable Claim Preserved

Judge Smith acknowledged that until the recent settlement the
attorney general's claim for equitable relief was on the back-
burner and "not a major focus of any party's attention."  But he
said the claim was preserved and remains ripe for litigation.

Also on the panel were Judges Victoria Graffeo, Susan Phillips
Read, Eugene Pigott Jr., Jenny Rivera, Sheila Abdus-Salaam and
Justice William Mastro of the Appellate Division, Second
Department, sitting in for Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, who
recused himself for undisclosed reasons.

David Boies, Esq. -- dboies@bsfllp.com -- of Boies, Schiller &
Flexner argued for Mr. Greenberg.

Vincent Sama, Esq. -- vincent.sama@kayescholer.com -- of Kaye
Scholer appeared for Judge Smith.

Solicitor General Barbara Underwood argued for the attorney
general.

Damien LaVera, a spokesman for Mr. Schneiderman, said the decision
"means we will have an opportunity to establish in court Hank
Greenberg's role in this fraud and hold him accountable.  He
added, "Attorney General Schneiderman is committed to ensuring
that anyone who commits fraud is held accountable for their
actions no matter how wealthy they are or how many powerful
friends they have."

In a statement, Mr. Boies said he is "disappointed that the Court
of Appeals did not dismiss" the claims for injunctive relief, but
is "confident that the action will be dismissed by the lower
courts because the state cannot demonstrate that it is entitled to
injunctive or disgorgement remedies against Mr. Greenberg and
Mr. Smith."

Mr. Sama said he is confident the remainder of the case will be
dismissed.

"As we have maintained all along in this eight-year-old lawsuit
brought by the New York attorney general, there is no merit to the
case and no basis for any injunctive relief," Mr. Sama said in a
statement.  The AG "has never actively pursued any injunctive
relief against the defendants during the eight years this action
has been pending.  We are confident that the lower courts will
dismiss what remains of this case," he added.

The case had attracted a plethora of amici.

Connecticut and Vermont, along with the AARP, were among those
urging the court to allow the case to go forward.

On the other side, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a group of
mainly Republican former officials, including former Governor
George Pataki, former Massachusetts Governor William Weld, former
U.S. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh and former state Attorney
General Dennis Vacco, supported the defendants.

But the issue of primary interest to the amici -- the reach of the
Martin Act and the role of a state in securities enforcement vis-
a-vis the federal government -- was eliminated by the settlement.


ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Sued Over High Fructose Corn Syrup Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Caher, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that an
apparently novel claim filed in a Buffalo federal court alleges
that high fructose corn syrup is to blame for a dramatic increase
in Type 2 diabetes.  Buffalo attorney J. Michael Hayes on June 17
filed an action in the Western District on behalf of a 14-year-old
girl, alleging the diabetic illness she developed two years ago is
directly attributable to high fructose corn syrup, a commercial
sweetener used in scores of products since the late 1960s.

While the food industry claims the product is natural and safe,
Mr. Hayes, citing research to the contrary, notes there is no
naturally occurring fructose in corn.  His complaint in S.F. v.
Archer-Daniels-Midland, 1:13-cv-00634, alleges high fructose corn
syrup is a chemically manipulated substance, molecularly different
from organic sucrose, and its consumption leads to liver insulin
resistance.  It also claims a global increase in the incidence of
Type 2 diabetes since around 1970 mirrors the expanding use of
high fructose corn syrup in foods and beverages.

The products liability lawsuit pending before Judge William
Skretny alleges the manufacturers failed to warn consumers of the
dangers of high fructose corn syrup.  Mr. Hayes said he is unaware
of any other lawsuit making similar allegations.

Archer-Daniels-Midland, one of six corporate defendants, declined
comment.  The Corn Refiners Association, an industry trade group,
in a statement accused plaintiffs of "seeking to profit by making
claims that are contradicted by solid, credible research as well
as the Food & Drug Administration and the American Medical
Association."


ATLANTIC COAST: Faces Two Merger-Related Suits in Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Coast Financial Corporation is facing two merger-related
class action lawsuits in Maryland, according to the Company's
May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On February 25, 2013, the Company and its subsidiary, Atlantic
Coast Bank, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
Merger Agreement) with Bond Street Holdings, Inc. (Bond Street)
and its bank subsidiary, Florida Community Bank, N.A. (Florida
Community Bank).  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, the Company
will be merged with and into Bond Street (the Merger) and the Bank
will then merge with and into Florida Community Bank.

On March 7, 2013, Lucas Lindsey filed a stockholder class action
lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, Maryland, against
the Company, the Bank, the directors of the Company, Bond Street
and Florida Community Bank.  The lawsuit purports to be brought
directly on behalf of all of the Company's public stockholders and
derivatively on behalf of the Company.  The complaint alleges that
the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties to
the stockholders by failing to take steps necessary to obtain a
fair, adequate and maximum price for the common stock, and that
Bond Street and Florida Community Bank aided and abetted the
Company's directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The
lawsuit seeks to enjoin the proposed merger from proceeding and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the Company's
stockholders and/or rescission of the proposed merger transaction.

On April 4, 2013, Lucas Lindsey filed an amended complaint adding
new factual allegations and dropping the Company's directors Jay
Sidhu and Bhanu Choudhrie as defendants.  In particular, the
amended complaint alleges that the disclosures provided to the
Company's stockholders, as set forth in the preliminary proxy
statement filed with the SEC on March 27, 2013, failed to provide
required material information necessary for the Company's
stockholders to make a fully informed decision concerning the
merger.  The amended complaint also includes additional
allegations that the proposed common stock purchase price is
inadequate and unfair.

On April 15, 2013, the Lindsey lawsuit was removed from the
Circuit Court of Baltimore City to the Federal Court in the
District of Maryland.

On March 18, 2013, Jason Laugherty filed a stockholder class
action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, Maryland,
against the Company, the directors of the Company and Bond Street.
The lawsuit purports to be brought directly on behalf of all of
the Company's public stockholders and alleges that the directors
of the Company breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders
as a result of their attempt to sell the Company by means of an
unfair process and for an unfair price.  In addition, the lawsuit
alleges that Bond Street aided and abetted the Company's
directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The lawsuit seeks
to enjoin the proposed merger from proceeding and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of Atlantic Coast
Financial stockholders and/or rescission of the proposed merger
transaction.

Both the Company and Bond Street believe that both lawsuits are
meritless and intend to vigorously defend themselves against the
allegations.

Atlantic Coast Financial Corporation and its subsidiary, Atlantic
Coast Bank, attract retail deposits from the general public and
investing those funds primarily in loans secured by one- to four-
family residences originated under purchase and assumption
agreements by third party originators (warehouse loans), and, to a
lesser extent, first mortgages on owner occupied, one- to four-
family residences, home equity loans and automobile and other
consumer loans originated for retention in the Company's loan
portfolio.  The Jacksonville, Florida-based Company also
originates multi-family residential loans and commercial
construction and residential construction loans.


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Krause" Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Cambridge, Massachusetts-based AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
disclosed in a Form 8-K report with the Securities and Exchange
Commission filed June 4, 2013, that on May 31, 2013, a class
action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, captioned Christine Krause v. AVEO Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11320-JLT.  The complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's
common stock between January 3, 2012 and May 1, 2013.  The
complaint generally alleges that the Company and certain of its
officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false
and/or misleading statements concerning the phase 3 trial design
and results for the TIVO-1 study in an effort to lead investors to
believe that the drug would receive approval from the FDA. The
complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and other costs.  The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing
and intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However,
there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its
defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund
any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of this action.
Moreover, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or
reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time.


BP PLC: Oil Spill Claims Attorney Resigns
-----------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the resignation of a former staff attorney for the Deepwater
Horizon settlement fund who was accused of pocketing some of the
distributions came as BP PLC is challenging the method of
calculating damages on oil spill claims.

Lionel Sutton III, a staff attorney for the administrator of the
$7.8 billion fund, resigned on June 21 after being placed on
administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation,
according to Nick Gagliano, a spokesman for fund administrator
Patrick Juneau.  According to press reports, an anonymous
complaint accused Sutton of collecting portions of settlement
payments from a New Orleans law firm to which he had once referred
claims.

The revelation came as BP prepared to ask the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to reverse court orders upholding
the way in which payments for individual damages have been
calculated and then dispersed.  Specifically, BP claims that
Mr. Juneau's distribution method has resulted in "absurd" results
and "windfall" awards, as BP attorney Theodore Olson, Esq. --
tolson@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher put it in a
May 3 appellate brief.  Continuing to issue payments on claims
using that method could cost BP billions of dollars in "fictitious
losses," he wrote.

"The Deepwater Horizon settlement could serve as a positive
landmark in American jurisprudence because of its ambitious size,
its innovative nature, and the speed with which it was negotiated
to compensate injured parties.  Instead, it is poised to become an
indelible black mark on the American justice system," Mr. Olson
wrote. "Plaintiffs' lawyers across the Gulf region are now openly
advertising that the settlement is a way for claimants to collect
payouts even if they have no losses at all."

Mr. Olson and BP spokeswoman Ellen Moskowitz did not respond to
requests for comment.

Defending the calculations are Mr. Juneau and the plaintiffs'
steering committee, which obtained the settlement on behalf of
thousands of businesses near the Gulf of Mexico that suffered
economic damages following the oil spill in April 2010.  In a
May 24 brief, Mr. Juneau's attorney, Jennifer Thornton --
jlt@stanleyreuter.com -- of Stanley, Reuter, Ross, Thornton &
Alford in New Orleans, wrote that the fund administrator had
complied with court orders and the terms of the settlement and
that BP had on numerous occasions chosen not to challenge the
method of calculating claim payments.  Stephen Herman and James
Roy, co-lead plaintiffs' attorneys for the class, wrote that BP
has offered no alternative method.

"Contrary to BP's contention, the issue before this Court is not
an abstract evaluation of purported accounting principles, but the
agreement reached by the parties," Mr. Herman, of New Orleans-
based Herman, Herman & Katz, and Roy, of Domengeaux, Wright, Roy &
Edwards in Lafayette, La., wrote in a May 24 brief.  "Buyer's
remorse does not alter the deal that was struck."

Ms. Thornton and David Falkenstein, a spokesman for Herman and
Roy, did not respond to requests for comment.

On December 21, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier approved the
settlement with BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America
Production Company.  But BP soon began complaining about the
distributions.  Judge Barbier affirmed the distribution process on
March 5 over BP's objections and, on April 5, denied BP's request
for a permanent injunction that would have halted certain
settlement payments.  He dismissed a separate lawsuit BP filed
alleging that Mr. Juneau, through his policy decisions, had
breached the settlement agreement.

BP retained Mr. Olson to immediately petition the Fifth Circuit to
reverse Judge Barbier's rulings.  In April, the Fifth Circuit
denied BP's motion for an injunction pending its appeal but put
briefing on a fast track.  Oral arguments were scheduled for the
week of July 8.

According to BP, Mr. Juneau's policy decisions allow businesses to
make claims based on an inaccurate accounting of lost profits.
Specifically, the method allows them to compare revenue and
expenses for any three months in 2010 after the spill to the exact
same months during a prior year.  Under the calculation,
businesses with big lapses of time between when they earn revenue
and when they get paid -- such as farming, construction and
professional services, like law firms -- have "substantial errors"
in calculating actual lost profits, Mr. Olson wrote.  Thousands of
businesses could receive payments on claims despite having not
suffered any losses from the spill, he wrote.  He cited a rice
mill that received $21 million and an unnamed law firm that got
$3.3 million despite earning more profits in 2010 than in the
prior year it referenced.

And, Mr. Olson wrote, BP isn't the only one to suffer from the
policies.  By granting large payments to businesses with no
losses, other members of the class -- including those with
economic damages living or working in Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, and parts of Texas and Florida -- are being deprived of
their potential claims.

"Indeed, the district court's contractual interpretation would
jeopardize the class settlement itself, as the class could not be
certified if businesses with no losses at all stand to receive a
substantial portion of the settlement's benefits," Mr. Olson
wrote.

The appeal has attracted some amicus interest.  A dozen accounting
professors, represented by former U.S. solicitor general Paul
Clement, argued on BP's behalf in a May 16 brief that cash
receipts and distributions were "not the same thing as revenues
and expenses."

"Any judicial decision to the contrary is in conflict with well-
established accounting principles," wrote Clement, of Bancroft in
Washington.

On June 24, the Alabama Society of Certified Public Accountants
and the Louisiana Society of Certified Public Accountants,
representing thousands of accountants in the region, wrote that
the professors failed in their brief to discuss the terms of the
settlement in arguing for BP.

"The narrow discussion of one method of determining revenue and
expenses submitted by BP and its academic amici has no relevance
to the issue before the Court: the real-world interpretation of
the Settlement Agreement and its implementation by the Claims
Administrator," wrote their attorney, Christopher Guidroz, Esq. --
cguidroz@spsr-law.com -- of Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn of
New Orleans.

Also opposing BP's appeal were attorneys general of Louisiana,
Alabama and Mississippi.  In a May 31 brief, they argued that BP's
attempt at unraveling the settlement's terms would erode the
public's confidence in the claims process.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Arbitration Bids in WARN Suits Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
On October 24, 2012, a class action complaint was filed in
California Superior Court by former employee Marla Montano naming
the Company and Ashford University as defendants.  The case is
entitled Marla Montano v. Bridgepoint Education Inc. and Ashford
University.  The complaint asserts a putative class consisting of
former employees who were terminated in January 2012 and July 2012
as a result of a mass layoff, relocation or termination and
alleges that the defendants failed to comply with the notice and
payment provisions of the California Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act.  A substantially similar complaint,
entitled Dilts v. Bridgepoint Education and Ashford University,
was also filed in the same court on the same day by Austin Dilts
making similar allegations and asserting the same putative class.
The complaints seek back pay, the cost of benefits, penalties and
interest on behalf of the putative class members, as well as other
equitable relief and attorneys' fees.

The Company and Ashford University intend to vigorously defend
against these actions. On January 25, 2013, the Company filed
motions to compel binding arbitration with the Court, which are
currently pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 15, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Bridgepoint Education, Inc. --
http://www.bridgepointeducation.com/-- is a provider of
postsecondary education services.  The Company's institutions
deliver programs primarily online, as well as at their traditional
campuses.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in San Diego, California.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit remains pending, according to the
Company's May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On July 13, 2012, a securities class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by
Donald K. Franke naming the Company, Andrew Clark, Daniel Devine
and Jane McAuliffe as defendants for allegedly making false and
materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results, specifically the concealment of
accreditation problems at Ashford University.  The complaint
asserts a putative class period stemming from May 3, 2011, to
July 6, 2012.  A substantially similar complaint was also filed in
the same court by Luke Sacharczyk on July 17, 2012, making similar
allegations against the Company, Andrew Clark and Daniel Devine.
The Sacharczyk complaint asserts a putative class period stemming
from May 3, 2011, to July 12, 2012.  Finally, on July 26, 2012,
another purported securities class action complaint was filed in
the same court by David Stein against the same defendants based
upon the same general set of allegations and class period.  The
complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and seek unspecified monetary relief, interest, and
attorneys' fees.

On October 22, 2012, the Sacharczyk and Stein actions were
consolidated with the Franke action and the Court appointed the
City of Atlanta General Employees Pension Fund and the Teamsters
Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan as lead plaintiffs.  A
consolidated complaint was filed on December 21, 2012.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the
consolidated action and filed a motion to dismiss on February 19,
2013, which is currently pending.

Bridgepoint Education, Inc. --
http://www.bridgepointeducation.com/-- is a provider of
postsecondary education services.  The Company's institutions
deliver programs primarily online, as well as at their traditional
campuses.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in San Diego, California.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: "Guzman" Class Suit Still in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit initiated by Betty Guzman is still in
discovery, according to Bridgepoint Education, Inc.'s May 15,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In January 2011, Betty Guzman filed a class action lawsuit against
the Company, Ashford University and University of the Rockies in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
The complaint is entitled Guzman v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.,
et al, and alleges that the defendants engaged in
misrepresentation and other unlawful behavior in their efforts to
recruit and retain students.  The complaint asserts a putative
class period of March 1, 2005 through the present.  In March 2011,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was
granted by the Court with leave to amend in October 2011.

In January 2012, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
asserting similar claims and the same class period, and the
defendants filed another motion to dismiss.  In May 2012, the
Court granted the University of the Rockies' motion to dismiss and
granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by
the Company and Ashford University. The Court also granted the
plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint.  In August
2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint asserting
similar claims and the same class period.  The second amended
complaint seeks unspecified monetary relief, disgorgement of all
profits, various other equitable relief, and attorneys' fees.  The
defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the second amended
complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part.  The
lawsuit is proceeding to discovery.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.  However, because of the many
questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this
legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.  Based on the
information available to the Company at present, it cannot
reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and
accordingly has not accrued any liability associated with this
action.

Bridgepoint Education, Inc. --
http://www.bridgepointeducation.com/-- is a provider of
postsecondary education services.  The Company's institutions
deliver programs primarily online, as well as at their traditional
campuses.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in San Diego, California.


CASH STORE: Class Suit Filed in SDNY Court Against Firm, D&Os
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. disclosed in a regulatory
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a
proposed class action proceeding for violation of U.S. federal
securities laws has been commenced in the United States District
Court of the Southern District of New York against the Company and
certain of its present and former officers.  The claim is
substantially similar to the recently announced proposed class
action proceedings in Alberta and Ontario and the complaint filed
by Globis Capital Partners L.P.

The proposed U.S. class action concerns alleged misrepresentations
made in the Company's quarterly and annual financial statements
between Nov. 24, 2010, and May 13, 2013.  In particular, the U.S.
complaint alleges that Cash Store Financial overvalued the
consumer loan portfolio acquired from third party lenders,
overstated its net income, understated losses on its internal
consumer loan portfolio, and understated its liabilities
associated with the settlement of the British Columbia class
action.

The Company will defend itself vigorously against what it believes
are unfounded allegations.

                     About Cash Store Financial

Headquartered in Edmonton, Alberta, The Cash Store Financial is
the only lender and broker of short-term advances and provider of
other financial services in Canada that is listed on the Toronto
Stock Exchange (TSX: CSF).  Cash Store Financial also trades on
the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: CSFS).  Cash Store Financial
operates 512 branches across Canada under the banners "Cash Store
Financial" and "Instaloans".  Cash Store Financial also operates
25 branches in the United Kingdom.

Cash Store Financial is a Canadian corporation that is not
affiliated with Cottonwood Financial Ltd. or the outlets
Cottonwood Financial Ltd. operates in the United States under the
name "Cash Store".  Cash Store Financial does not do business
under the name "Cash Store" in the United States and does not own
or provide any consumer lending services in the United States.

Cash Store Financial employs approximately 1,900 associates.


CHEVRON CORP: Patton Boggs Files Motion to Block Fraud Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that Patton
Boggs fired back on June 18 against claims that the firm committed
fraud by seeking to enforce a $19 billion Ecuadorian judgment
against Chevron Corporation.

In a 45-page motion, Patton Boggs urged U.S. District Judge Lewis
Kaplan in Manhattan to exercise his discretion to block Chevron's
fraud claims against the firm.  It contends that the oil giant's
actions are procedurally improper, and that Chevron's legal theory
would invite liability for ordinary advocacy work.

Judge Kaplan is presiding over Chevron's long-running lawsuit
accusing the Ecuadorian plaintiffs and many of their lawyers of
fabricating evidence and paying bribes to secure their
environmental mega-judgment in 2011.  Patton Boggs, which is named
as a non-party conspirator in that case, separately sued Chevron
last February for malicious prosecution related to an injunction
Chevron sought.  It's in that case, also before Judge Kaplan, that
Chevron and its lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher want leave to
bring fraud claims against Patton Boggs.

Patton Boggs, as you might expect, isn't so keen on the idea.

"The Ecuadorian Plaintiffs insist that their judgment is
legitimate; Chevron strongly disagrees.  That is the nature of
litigation in an adversarial system," Patton Boggs's outside
lawyers at Leader & Berkon wrote in the June 18 brief.  "We cannot
have lawsuits against lawyers proliferating from lawsuits against
lawyers ad finitum because a party finds its litigation position
so unassailable that to challenge it as counsel is to 'join a
fraudulent scheme.'"

In 2010 Patton Boggs signed on to represent the Ecuadorian
plaintiffs alongside their lead U.S. counsel, Stephen Donziger.
The firm, led by partner James Tyrrell Jr., helped the plaintiffs
draft a post-trial brief in the Ecuadorian litigation, which
concerns the effects of toxic oil sludge in the Lago Agrio Amazon
region.  That brief included testimony from newly hired experts,
who vouched for the findings in a supposedly independent
environmental report (the Cabrera report) that Chevron claims was
ghostwritten by the plaintiffs' team.  Patton Boggs has also
advised the plaintiffs on their efforts to enforce $19 billion
judgment across the world (Chevron has virtually no assets in
Ecuador).

Chevron's fraud allegations against Mr. Donziger and his
Ecuadorian co-counsel have steadily expanded, including with
explosive new evidence of bribery introduced earlier this year.
Up to now, however, Patton Boggs has been threatened but never
served with similar claims.

Last year, Chevron signaled that it might seek Kaplan's permission
to bring counterclaims in Patton Bogg's malicious prosecution
suit.  Chevron followed through on May 10, the last day before a
court-imposed deadline.  Chevron formally accused Patton Boggs of
fraud, malicious prosecution, and violations of New York Judiciary
Law Sec. 487, a so called "lying lawyer" statute.  Chevron alleges
that Patton Boggs orchestrated "an effort to 'cleanse' the
'Cabrera Report' -- i.e., to whitewash the supposedly neutral
expert report by making false representations mischaracterizing
the relationship between the [plaintiffs] attorneys and Cabrera,
and by bringing in new experts who relied on Cabrera's data while
purporting to confirm Cabrera's conclusion on an independent basis
-- all without disclosing the fraudulent nature of the
ghostwritten report."

In the June 18 motion, Patton Boggs offered a slew of reasons why
Kaplan should block Chevron's counterclaims.  For one thing, the
firm argues that Chevron's allegations don't share a common set of
facts with Patton Boggs's original malicious prosecution theory,
so it makes little sense to cram everything into the same case.
Patton Boggs also argues that the thorny factual and legal
questions raised by Chevron's claims -- like whether the $19
billion judgment was fraudulent, or whether Ecuador's courts are
corrupt -- are at the heart of the fraud and racketeering case
Chevron continues to pursue against Mr. Donziger.  "Chevron
apparently hopes to end-run the consequences of its strategic
decision to identify Patton Boggs only as a 'non-party
conspirator,' and not a defendant, in the RICO action," Patton
Boggs alleges.  "To do so would transform this relatively limited
case into one resembling the complex and extraordinarily expensive
RICO Action that is the culmination of two decades of litigation.

Patton Boggs also argues that it's being targeted for simply doing
its job.  "[It's axiomatic that] representations or
characterizations of fact, even if proven incorrect, offered in
the course of an adversarial proceeding do not form the basis for
a common-law fraud claim against counsel," the firm's lawyers
wrote.  "Nor does counsel invite a common-law fraud claim by
offering his clients' side of a story without also volunteering
all facts that might be helpful to the adversary."

Chevron counsel Randy Mastro at Gibson Dunn declined to comment.
A Patton Boggs spokesperson told The Litigation Daily the June 18
motion "speaks for itself."


CHEVRON CORP: Patton Boggs Accuses Burford of Betrayal
------------------------------------------------------
Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
according to a declaration filed in April by Burford Capital Ltd.
CEO Christopher Bogart, his litigation funding firm abandoned the
case after it realized it had been duped by the Ecuadorians'
lawyers at Patton Boggs.  But in a new court filing, Patton Boggs
tells a very different story, saying that it was "[thrown] under
the proverbial bus" after Burford's involvement in the litigation
drew "unwanted attention."

In a partially redacted motion filed on June 20 in U.S. district
court in Manhattan, Patton Boggs urges Judge Lewis Kaplan to
strike Mr. Bogart's declaration, calling it "a PR ploy."  In the
alternative, Patton Boggs seeks permission to make public
confidential documents produced by Chevron during discovery that
supposedly "thoroughly discredit" Mr. Bogart's declaration.
Patton Boggs is being represented by Leader & Berkon in the case.

"Burford's internal communications reveal that it believes Patton
Boggs has done nothing wrong," the motion states.  "In fact, up
until March 2013, Mr. Bogart and Burford continued to seek out
opportunities to collaborate with Patton Boggs, and recommended
James Tyrrell, the firm's lead partner on the Ecuador matter, to
others."  The motion continues, "The only way to square this
conduct with the Bogart Declaration is to conclude that libeling
Patton Boggs was the price that Chevron demanded to spare Burford
from Chevron's legal and extra-judicial retaliation."

Mr. Bogart denied Patton Boggs's claims in a statement issued on
June 21, accusing the law firm of "selective quoting from
documents and overheated rhetoric."  Mr. Bogart added, "The simple
business reality is that Burford would not have participated in
the [matter] had it known at the time what it now knows, and what
it appears that Patton Boggs knew at the time."

Mr. Bogart also said, "We don't think there is any purpose in a
debate over these issues in the media; they will ultimately be
addressed in the appropriate legal fora and we do not intend to
add to the incivility that appears to characterize every part of
this epic matter."

Ecuadorians represented by U.S. plaintiffs lawyer Steven Donziger
won a $19 billion environmental judgment against Chevron in an
Ecuadorian court in 2011.  Since 2010, a Patton Boggs team led by
Mr. Tyrrell has advised the Ecuadorians on various aspects of
their legal strategy, including their effort to enforce the
judgment in foreign jurisdictions.  That same year, Burford agreed
to provide funding for the plaintiffs.  Under their respective
contracts with the plaintiffs, both Patton Boggs and Burford stood
to collect sizable awards if Chevron paid up.

Chevron has long argued that the mega-judgment is the product of
bribery and collusion, and brought a racketeering case against
Mr. Donziger two years ago in Manhattan federal court.  Chevron
didn't name Patton Boggs as a co-defendant in that case, which is
pending before Judge Kaplan.  But in May the oil giant sought
Kaplan's permission to bring fraud counterclaims against Patton
Boggs in a separate malicious prosecution case that the law firm
brought against Chevron.

Chevron's offensive got a boost in April when Mr. Bogart,
Burford's CEO, very publicly disclaimed any interest in the
Chevron litigation.  According to Mr. Bogart, his firm invested in
the legal fight based on misleading assurances from Mr. Tyrrell.
Mr. Bogart stated in his declaration that, way back in 2011, he
was appalled to learn that Mr. Donziger had admitted in a
deposition that representatives of the plaintiffs had ghostwritten
part of a supposedly independent expert report.  Mr. Tyrrell knew
about the extent of fraud and tried to hide it from Burford,
Mr. Bogart alleged in his April declaration.

In the June 20 filing, Patton Boggs says Mr. Bogart's version of
the events is directly contradicted by Burford's internal e-mails.
According to Patton Boggs, back in 2010 Burford did its due
diligence and decided on its own to invest in the Chevron battle.
Burford's chairman at the time, Selvyn Seidel, was supposedly a
proponent of plaintiff-side humans rights litigation.  Within a
few months, Mr. Seidel had left Burford, and the company welcomed
a new managing director, Ernest Getto, a former Latham & Watkins
partner who had represented Chevron in the past.  According to
Patton Boggs, Mr. Getto was skeptical of the Ecuadorian
litigation, particularly after Roger Parloff of Fortune Magazine
wrote a lengthy article exposing Burford's involvement.
"Ultimately, Burford made a business decision, calculating that
abandoning the [plaintiffs] and assisting Chevron would be
necessary to restore its relationships with key firms and to
secure the future of the industry."

If Burford turned on the plaintiffs way back in early 2011, as
Patton Boggs claims, why did Mr. Bogart wait until April 2013 to
file its public declaration? Mr. Tyrrell told us in an interview
that he thinks Chevron was keeping its alliance with Burford as
"an ace in its pocket."  He said that, for the last two years,
Chevron has used other methods for tarnishing the plaintiffs, like
extracting an admission of wrongdoing from the plaintiffs'
environmental consulting firm.  Once it became clear that Patton
Boggs wasn't going to abandon the case voluntarily, Chevron played
the Burford card in hopes of embarrassing the law firm, Mr.
Tyrrell said.

Patton Bogg's motion comes two days after it fired back at
Chevron's fraud counterclaims.


COPART INC: Settlement Funds Wired to Administrator
---------------------------------------------------
Funds for the settlement in a class action lawsuit commenced on
behalf of Copart Inc.'s facilities managers and assistant general
managers have been wired to the settlement administrator for
disbursement to the receiving parties, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2013,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5.

Robert Ortiz and Carlos Torres on September 21, 2010, filed suit
against Dallas, Texas-based Copart Inc. in Superior Court of San
Bernardino County, San Bernardino District, which purported to be
a class action on behalf of persons employed by the Company in the
positions of facilities managers and assistant general managers in
California at any time since the date four years prior to
September 21, 2010. The complaint alleges failure to pay wages and
overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks and rest breaks, in
violation of various California Labor and Business and
Professional Code sections, due to alleged misclassification of
facilities managers and assistant general managers as exempt
employees. Relief sought includes class certification, injunctive
relief, damages according to proof, restitution for unpaid wages,
disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, civil penalties, attorney's fees
and costs, interest, and punitive damages.

A mediation of the matter occurred on February 12, 2013, and
resulted in a settlement of the matter for an immaterial amount.
The settlement terms have been court approved and the appropriate
settlement instruments have been fully executed.

The Company provides vehicle sellers with a full range of services
to process and sell vehicles over the Internet through the
Company's Virtual Bidding Second Generation (VB2) Internet
auction-style sales technology.  Sellers are primarily insurance
companies but also include banks and financial institutions,
charities, car dealerships, fleet operators, and vehicle rental
companies.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Settlement Talks Ongoing in "Richter" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended May 3,
2013, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4,
Goodlettsville, Tenn.-based Dollar General Corporation disclosed
that mediations were conducted in January and April 2013 in the
matter Cynthia Richter, et al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., et al., at
which times the parties were unable to reach an agreement.  The
parties have continued to engage in settlement discussions, but if
the parties ultimately are unable to resolve the matter, plaintiff
has indicated her intention to appeal a decertification ruling to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

On August 7, 2006, the lawsuit entitled Cynthia Richter, et al. v.
Dolgencorp, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Case No. 7:06-cv-
01537-LSC), in which the plaintiff alleges that she and other
current and former Dollar General store managers were improperly
classified as exempt executive employees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and seeks to recover overtime pay,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 15,
2006, the Richter plaintiff filed a motion in which she asked the
court to certify a nationwide class of current and former store
managers. The Company opposed the plaintiff's motion. On March 23,
2007, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class. On
December 2, 2009, notice was mailed to over 28,000 current or
former Dollar General store managers. Approximately 3,950
individuals opted into the lawsuit, approximately 1,000 of whom
have been dismissed for various reasons, including failure to
cooperate in discovery.

On April 2, 2012, the Company moved to decertify the class.  The
plaintiff's response to that motion was filed on May 9, 2012.

On October 22, 2012, the court entered a Memorandum Opinion
granting the Company's decertification motion.  On December 19,
2012, the court entered an Order decertifying the matter and
stating that a separate Order would be entered regarding the opt-
in plaintiffs' rights and Cynthia Richter's individual claims.  To
date, the court has not entered such an Order.

The parties agreed to mediate the matter, and the court informally
stayed the action pending the results of the mediation.
Mediations were conducted in January and April 2013, at which
times the parties were unable to reach an agreement.  The parties
have continued to engage in settlement discussions, but if the
parties ultimately are unable to resolve the matter, plaintiff has
indicated her intention to appeal the decertification to the
Eleventh Circuit.

The Company believes that its store managers are and have been
properly classified as exempt employees under the FLSA and that
the Richter action is not appropriate for collective action
treatment. The Company has obtained summary judgment in some,
although not all, of its pending individual or single-plaintiff
store manager exemption cases in which it has filed such a motion.

However, at this time, it is not possible to predict whether
Richter ultimately will be permitted to proceed collectively, and
no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in
its defense of the action on the merits or otherwise. Similarly,
at this time the Company cannot estimate either the size of any
potential class or the value of the claims asserted in Richter.
For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential
loss or range of loss in the matter; however, if the Company is
not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of Richter
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
statements as a whole. The Company will continue to vigorously
defend its position in the Richter matter.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Still Defending "Marcum" FCRA Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended May 3,
2013, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4,
Goodlettsville, Tenn.-based Dollar General Corporation disclosed
that on April 9, 2012, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia entitled Jonathan Marcum v. Dolgencorp. Inc. (Civil
Action No. 3:12-cv-00108-JRS) in which the plaintiffs, one of
whose conditional offer of employment was rescinded, allege that
certain of the Company's background check procedures violate the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.  Plaintiff Marcum also alleges
defamation. According to the complaint and subsequently filed
first and second amended complaints, the plaintiffs seek to
represent a putative class of applicants in connection with their
FCRA claims. The Company filed its response to the original
complaint in June 2012 and moved to dismiss certain allegations
contained in the first amended complaint in November 2012.  That
motion remains pending.  The plaintiffs' certification motion was
due to be filed on or before April 5, 2013; however, plaintiffs
asked the Court to stay all deadlines in light of the parties'
ongoing settlement discussions, and the Court stayed the matter
until June 26, 2013.

The parties have engaged in formal settlement discussions on two
occasions, once in January 2013 with a private mediator, and again
in March 2013 with a federal magistrate.  Although these formal
discussions did not result in a resolution of the matter, the
parties have continued informally to discuss potential settlement.
Another formal settlement conference with a federal magistrate was
scheduled for June 26, 2013.  The Company's Employment Practices
Liability Insurance ("EPLI") carrier has been placed on notice of
this matter and participated in both the formal and informal
settlement discussions.  The EPLI Policy covering this matter has
a $2 million self-insured retention.

Dollar General said at this time, it is not possible to predict
whether the court ultimately will permit the action to proceed as
a class under the FCRA.  Although the Company intends to
vigorously defend the action, no assurances can be given that it
will be successful in the defense on the merits or otherwise.  At
this stage in the proceedings, the Company cannot estimate either
the size of any potential class or the value of the claims raised
by the plaintiff.  Based on settlement discussions and given the
Company's EPLI coverage, the Company believes that it is likely to
expend the balance of its self-insured retention in settlement of
this litigation or otherwise and, therefore, accrued $1.8 million
in the fourth quarter of 2012, an amount that is immaterial to the
Company's financial statements taken as a whole.


EI DU PONT: Judge Certifies Employees' FLSA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Zack Needles, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a
Middle District of Pennsylvania federal judge has certified a
class of E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. and Adecco USA Inc.
employees who have sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
alleging DuPont failed to pay them for both coming in early and
for time spent putting on and taking off equipment and uniforms.

In Smiley v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., U.S. District Judge
James M. Munley of the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted
the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a class including all
12-hour shift employees at DuPont's plant in Towanda, Pa., who
were not compensated for either coming in early for shift relief
or for time spent donning and doffing uniforms and protective
gear.

Judge Munley said in his June 18 opinion that plaintiffs Bobbi Jo
Smiley, Amber Blow and Kelsey Turner succeeded in meeting the
first, prediscovery step of the "similarly situated" test, set
forth by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the
2012 case Zavala v. Wal-Mart Stores, by making a "modest factual
showing" that other DuPont employees were not compensated for
coming in early to relieve shifts and for taking time beyond their
own shifts to put on and remove equipment.

"Here, plaintiffs' declarations, the declarations of 10 unnamed
class members and defendants' concession that DuPont's shift
relief [standard operating procedure] applies to all 12-hour shift
employees establishes ample evidence that plaintiffs and proposed
class members are similarly situated," Judge Munley said, adding
that the plaintiffs also met their burden by providing
declarations of 10 unnamed class members who stated that they were
subject to DuPont's don and doff policy without compensation.

In Smiley, according to Judge Munley, the plaintiffs alleged that
DuPont has a facility-wide policy requiring 12-hour shift
employees to be at work up to 15 minutes before the start of their
shift to provide "shift relief," but that they have not been paid
for the extra time.

The plaintiffs similarly alleged that DuPont requires all 12-hour
shift employees to spend extra time at the facility before and
after their shifts to put on and take off uniforms, boots and
safety goggles without compensation, Judge Munley said.

Also named as a defendant was Adecco, which employs hourly
contract employees to work at DuPont's Towanda plant subject to
all the same policies and procedures as DuPont employees.

In addition to the plaintiffs' submission of 10 class member
declarations with regard to the allegation of unpaid shift relief,
Blow has stated that she has worked on five separate 12-hour crews
over the past three years and that each one was subject to
DuPont's shift relief policy, according to Judge Munley.

The defendants also conceded that the policy applies to all
12-hour shift employees, Judge Munley said.

The defendants also agreed that the time employees spend donning
and doffing equipment is compensable under the FLSA, according to
Judge Munley.

However, Judge Munley said, the defendants argued that because the
U.S. Department of Labor regulations do not consider meal periods
to be compensable work time, their employees' paid 30-minute meal
breaks should serve to offset the extra time they are required to
spend at the facility beyond their scheduled shifts.

According to Judge Munley, employees at DuPont's Towanda plant get
three paid 30-minute meal breaks per 12-hour shift.

The defendants cited the Seventh Circuit's 1996 ruling in
Barefield v. Village of Winnetka and the Eleventh Circuit's 1994
ruling in Avery v. City of Talladega, both of which held that an
employer could use a paid meal break to offset other compensable
time, according to Judge Munley.

But Judge Munley said the Smiley litigation was at too early a
stage to consider that defense.  "In Barefield and Avery, the
circuit courts of appeals were addressing step two of the two-tier
'similarly situated' approach," Judge Munley said.  "In the
present case, the court is only at step one: determining whether
plaintiffs have made a modest factual showing that other employees
are similarly situated.  Defendants' setoff argument informs the
step-two analysis, and thus has no bearing on whether notice of
this action should be authorized."

That stage of the litigation does not typically occur until after
discovery, Judge Munley said.  Instead, Judge Munley said, the
court's task at stage one, under Zavala, is simply to determine
whether the plaintiffs have offered "some evidence, beyond pure
speculation, of a factual nexus between the manner in which the
employer's alleged policy affected them and the manner in which it
affected other employees."

Counsel for the plaintiffs, Patricia V. Pierce, Esq., at
Greenblatt, Pierce, Funt & Flores of Philadelphia, called the
defendants' argument that paid breaks should count as credits
toward unpaid overtime "a unique and disturbing defense."

"Essentially, what they're saying is we agreed to pay you for your
meal breaks but now we're going to renege on that and take it
back," Pierce said.

Ms. Pierce's co-counsel in the case, Thomas More Marrone of
Caroselli Beachler McTiernan & Conboy in Philadelphia, said he
thought Judge Munley's ruling showed that the judge "gets the
case."

"Now that we're past this phase we can get down to it,"
Mr. Marrone said.

Counsel for DuPont and Adecco, A. Patricia Diulus-Myers --
DiulusMP@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis in Pittsburgh, could
not be reached for comment.


FORD MOTOR: Faces Suit in California Over Defective Sync System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Whalen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. CV-13-3072
(N.D. Cal., July 2, 2013) is brought on behalf of a class of
current and former owners and lessees of Ford and Lincoln vehicles
equipped with the SYNC(R) and MyFord Touch(R) or MyLincoln
Touch(R) control systems.

The Sync System is a video interface that displays driving
directions, serves as a rear view camera when the vehicle is in
reverse gear, operates the radio, adaptive cruise control, phone
and other controls, and automatically calls for help in the event
of an emergency or accident.  The Sync System is an integral and
safety-related part of the Class Vehicles.

The Plaintiff says that Ford has aggressively touted the functions
and features of its Sync Systems in mass marketing campaigns
directed to consumers.  Unbeknownst to purchasers and lessees of
the Class Vehicles, however, the Plaintiff alleges that Sync
System suffers from a material design defect that prevents it from
working properly.  She contends that the action arises from Ford's
failure to disclose to her and other consumers that the Sync
Systems in the Class Vehicles are predisposed to a defect that
inevitably causes the Sync Systems in the Class Vehicles to stop
operating properly.

Jennifer Whalen is resident of Windsor, in Sonoma County,
California.  In April 2012, she purchased a new Model Year 2013
Ford Explorer, which came equipped with a Ford Sync System, from
Henry Curtis Ford, an authorized Ford dealer in Petaluma,
California.  Almost immediately after buying her vehicle, she
alleges that she began experiencing problems with her Sync System.

Ford is an automobile design, manufacturing, distribution and
servicing corporation headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.  The
Defendant designs, manufactures, distributes, markets and sells
passenger vehicles, including the Class Vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
          Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
          Cory S. Fein, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN
          1331 Lamar, Suite 1070
          Houston, TX 77010-3027
          Telephone: (713) 751-0400
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
          E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
                  cbc@caddellchapman.com
                  csf@caddellchapman.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
          E-mail: JGS@chimicles.com
                  MDS@chimicles.com
                  BFJ@chimicles.com


FORTEGRA FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Mullins" Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Fortegra Financial Corporation's appeal in the class action
lawsuit styled Mullins v. Southern Financial Life Insurance Co.
remains pending, according to the Company's May 15, 2013 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In its Payment Protection business segment, the Company is
currently a defendant in Mullins v. Southern Financial Life
Insurance Co., which was filed on February 2, 2006, in the Pike
Circuit Court, in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.  A class was
certified on June 25, 2010.  At issue is the duration or term of
coverage under certain policies.  The action alleges violations of
the Consumer Protection Act and certain insurance statutes, as
well as common law fraud.  The action seeks compensatory and
punitive damages, attorney fees and interest.  The parties are
currently involved in the merits discovery phase and discovery
disputes have arisen.  The Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Sanctions
on April 5, 2012, in connection with the Company's efforts to
locate and gather certificates and other documents from the
Company's agents.  While the court did not award sanctions, it did
order the Company to subpoena certain records from its agents.
The Company filed an appeal of this order, which was denied on
August 31, 2012.  The Company is currently appealing the denial in
the Kentucky Supreme Court.  To date, no trial date has been set.

Fortegra Financial Corporation, formerly known as Life of the
South Corporation, is a diversified insurance services company
headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida, that provides distribution
and administration services on a wholesale basis to insurance
companies, insurance brokers and agents and other financial
services companies primarily in the United States.  The Company
operates in three business segments: (i) Payment Protection, (ii)
Business Process Outsourcing and (iii) Brokerage.


FORTEGRA FINANCIAL: Discovery Phase Continues in Georgia Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The merits discovery phase continues in the individual, underlying
case related to class action lawsuits in Georgia, according to
Fortegra Financial Corporation's May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

In its Payment Protection business segment, the Company is
currently a defendant in lawsuits that relate to marketing and/or
pricing issues that involve claims for punitive, exemplary or
extra-contractual damages in amounts substantially in excess of
the covered claim.  Such litigation includes Lawson v. Life of the
South Insurance Co., which was filed on March 13, 2006, in the
Superior Court of Muscogee County, Georgia, and later moved to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia,
Columbus Division.  The allegations involve the Company's alleged
duty to refund unearned premiums on credit insurance policies,
even when the Company has not been informed of the payoff of the
underlying finance contract.  The action seeks an injunction
requiring remedial action, as well as a variety of damages,
including punitive damages and attorney fees and costs.  The
action was brought as a class action, however the Company's
May 11, 2012 Motion to Strike or Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Action
Allegations, or in the Alternative, to Deny Class Certification
was granted on September 28, 2012.  The Plaintiff's appeal of such
ruling was denied on December 7, 2012.  The merits discovery phase
continues in the individual, underlying case.

Fortegra Financial Corporation, formerly known as Life of the
South Corporation, is a diversified insurance services company
headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida, that provides distribution
and administration services on a wholesale basis to insurance
companies, insurance brokers and agents and other financial
services companies primarily in the United States.  The Company
operates in three business segments: (i) Payment Protection, (ii)
Business Process Outsourcing and (iii) Brokerage.


FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS: Awaits Ruling on Bid for Reconsideration
---------------------------------------------------------------
FriendFinder Networks Inc. is awaiting a court decision on a
motion to reconsider the dismissal of a shareholder class action
lawsuit, according to the Company's May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

On November 11, 2011, a putative shareholder class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida by Greenfield Children's Partnership, on behalf of
investors who purchased the Company's common stock pursuant to its
initial public offering, against the Company, Ladenburg Thalmann &
Co., Inc. and Imperial Capital LLC, the underwriters in the
initial public offering, and the Company's directors and certain
of the Company's executive officers.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the initial public offering documents contained
certain false and misleading statements and seeks an unspecified
amount of compensatory damages.  In March 2012, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint alleging all of the same causes of
action and adding additional factual allegations and in response
to the Amended Complaint the Company filed its Motion to Dismiss.
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to all claims and
is vigorously defending the lawsuit.  On or about November 15,
2012, the court granted the Motion to Dismiss and gave plaintiffs
fifteen days to amend portions of their Amended Complaint.  On or
about November 30, 2012, the plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Reconsideration or for Leave.  The Company awaits the court's
decision on this matter.

Headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, FriendFinder Networks Inc.,
together with Various, Inc. and its other wholly-owned
subsidiaries, is an Internet and technology company providing
services in the social networking and web-based video sharing
markets.  The business consists of creating and operating
technology platforms which run several Web sites throughout the
world appealing to users of diverse cultures and interest groups.
The Company is also engaged in entertainment activities consisting
of publishing, licensing and studio production and distribution.
The Company publishes PENTHOUSE and other adult-oriented magazines
and digests.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Judge Okays $35-Mil. Flonase Antitrust Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
days after approving a $150 million class action settlement
between direct purchasers of nasal spray Flonase and manufacturer
GlaxoSmithKline, a federal judge has approved a $35 million
settlement between GSK and the indirect purchasers of the drug.

In approving the $35 million settlement in In re Flonase Antitrust
Litigation, U.S. District Senior Judge Anita B. Brody of the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania also awarded nearly $11.7 million
in attorney fees and $1.85 million in expenses to the plaintiffs'
class counsel.  Fifteen firms worked on the case with lead counsel
Miller Law and Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross
logging the majority of the 37,762 hours worked over the nearly
five years of litigation.

The settlement was reached in January and Judge Brody gave her
preliminary approval at that time.  GSK had also agreed at that
time to an $11 million settlement with another class of indirect
purchasers, large health insurers, according to Brody's opinion.

The indirect purchaser class involved in the $35 million
settlement included lead plaintiffs A.F. of L.-A.G.C. Building
Trades Welfare Plan, IBEW-NECA Local 505 Health & Welfare Plan,
Painters District Council No. 30 Health & Welfare Fund and Andrea
Kehoe.  They alleged GSK filed sham citizen petitions with the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration to delay entry of a cheaper,
generic version of Flonase to the market.  That, they argued,
resulted in the indirect purchasers class being overcharged for
the nasal spray, according to the opinion.

In 2011, Judge Brody had denied two GSK motions for summary
judgment on causation and on Noerr-Pennington immunity, which
immunizes private entities from liability under antitrust laws.
The case was slated for trial in early 2013.

In her opinion approving the settlement, Judge Brody said the case
involved complex scientific, regulatory and legal issues that
presented a number of obstacles for the plaintiffs to succeed at
trial.  Judge Brody said there were two "particularly difficult
propositions" the plaintiffs would have to face: proving that
GSK's petitions to the FDA were objectively baseless and, "most
crucially," that the petitions were a substantial cause of any
delay in approval of generic versions of the drug.

"After facilitating these extensive settlement negotiations, I can
attest to the challenges plaintiffs would have faced in
establishing the amount of their damages," Judge Brody said.
"Given the complexity of these issues, there is no guarantee that
a jury would have found GSK liable, or how the jury would have
responded to the complicated economic data necessary to show
damages."

In approving the class counsel's petition for attorney fees, Judge
Brody noted the request of $11.65 million was actually less than
the lodestar amount would come out to when looking at the hours
they worked times their hourly rates.

The $11.65 million equals one-third of the $35 million settlement.
Judge Brody said the 15 firms charged different amounts based on
their average billable rates and the individual attorney or staff
member working on the assignment.  She said each firm's average
billable rate ranged from $275 to $750 an hour.

When multiplying the number of hours times the various hourly
rates, Judge Brody said the class counsel racked up nearly $17.3
million in fees.  The fact that the percentage fee award of $11.65
million is less than the regular billing rates "underscores the
risk counsel accepted to prosecute this case to trial," Judge
Brody said.

Judge Brody also approved the nearly $1.85 million in expenses in
full.  She reduced the request for incentive awards for class
representatives from, in most cases, $25,000 per plaintiff to
$10,000.  Individual class representative Kehoe's award was
reduced from $10,000 to $5,000.

A number of attorneys from Ballard Spahr represented GSK in the
litigation.

Judge Brody approved a $150 million settlement between GSK and the
33-member direct purchaser class over similar allegations the
drugmaker monopolized the market for Flonase.  As part of that
settlement, the judge also awarded $50 million in attorney fees.

GSK had earlier agreed to settle for $11 million claims from more
than 30 large, commercial health insurers.  Those insurers have
agreed to give $1 million of their recovery in fees to the
indirect purchaser class action counsel for "having created the
benefits to be received by the SHPs (settling health plans) and/or
under certain conditions for payment to the settlement class."


GREAT WOLF: Consolidated Merger-Related Suit in Del. Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated merger-related class action lawsuit filed in
Delaware has been dismissed, according to Great Wolf Resorts,
Inc.'s May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On May 4, 2012, the Company merged (the "Merger") with K-9
Acquisition, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Merger Sub") and
subsidiary of a fund managed by an affiliate of Apollo Global
Management, LLC (together with its subsidiaries, "Apollo").
Although the Company continued as the same legal entity after the
Merger, the Company's capital structure changed significantly as a
result of the Merger and the Company's financial statement
presentations distinguish between a "Predecessor" for periods
prior to the Merger and a "Successor" for periods subsequent to
the Merger.  As a result of the application of the acquisition
method of accounting as of the effective time of the Merger, the
financial statements for the Predecessor period and for the
Successor period are presented on different bases and are,
therefore, not comparable.

On and after March 14, 2012, the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors and, in some cases, some
or all of K-9 Investors, L.P., Apollo Management VII, L.P., Apollo
Global Management, LLC and K-9 and Merger Sub were named as
defendants in five class action lawsuits filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery which were ultimately consolidated into a single
class action (the "Delaware Action").  In the Delaware Action, the
plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of stockholders, sought
to enjoin the proposed transaction that was the subject of the
Merger Agreement.  Other lawsuits were filed in Wisconsin state
and federal court -- two in the Circuit Court, Civil Division for
Dane County, one of which was dismissed by the plaintiff prior to
settlement (the surviving action, "Wisconsin State Court Action"),
and one in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin (the "Wisconsin Federal Court Action").

On April 25, 2012, the parties to the Delaware Action and the
Wisconsin State Court Action reached an agreement in principle to
settle those cases.  The proposed settlement, which was subject to
court approval, provided for, among other things, the dismissal
with prejudice of the plaintiffs' complaints and of all claims
asserted therein, that all parties granted all applicable releases
of claims against all other parties, and that the parties to the
Delaware Action and the Wisconsin State Court Action acknowledged
that the plaintiffs and their counsel in those cases would
petition the appropriate court or courts for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses in connection with the cases.  Any
award of fees and expenses to the plaintiffs' counsel was subject
to approval by the appropriate court or courts.  Pursuant to an
order from the Delaware Court of Chancery, notice to the class was
mailed on October 19, 2012.

On April 30, 2012, the parties to the Wisconsin Federal Court
Action agreed to settle that case, subject to court approval of
the proposed class-wide settlement in the Delaware Action and
entry of a final order dismissing the Delaware Action in its
entirety.  Pursuant to their agreement, the parties to the
Wisconsin Federal Court Action filed with the court, on April 30,
2012, a stipulation providing that the Wisconsin Federal Court
Action be voluntarily dismissed with respect to all defendants and
that such dismissal would be with prejudice as to the plaintiff
upon the consummation of the settlement of the Delaware Action.

On September 27, 2012, the parties to the Delaware Action agreed
to settle that case.  Pursuant to their agreement, the parties to
the Delaware Action filed with the Delaware Court of Chancery on
September 27, 2012, a stipulation providing that the Delaware
Action be voluntarily dismissed with respect to all defendants and
that such dismissal be with prejudice as to the plaintiff.

On December 18, 2012, the Delaware Court of Chancery approved the
class-wide settlement in the Delaware Action and entered a final
order dismissing the Delaware Action in its entirety.  It awarded
counsel for the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action fees and
expenses in the amount of $1,940,000.

The Company, the members of the Board of Directors, Apollo
Management VII, L.P., Apollo Global Management, LLC, K-9 and
Merger Sub each have denied, and continue to deny, that they
committed or attempted to commit any violation of law or breach of
fiduciary duty owed to the Company and/or its stockholders, aided
or abetted any breach of fiduciary duty, or otherwise engaged in
any of the wrongful acts alleged in all of these cases.  All of
the defendants expressly maintain that they complied with their
fiduciary and other legal duties.  However, in order to avoid the
costs, disruption and distraction of further litigation, and
without admitting the validity of any allegation made in the
actions or any liability with respect thereto, the defendants
concluded that it is desirable to settle the claims against them
on the terms reflected in the settlements.

Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. is a family entertainment resort company
headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin.  The Company is an owner,
licensor, operator and developer in North America of drive-to,
destination family resorts featuring indoor waterparks and other
family-oriented entertainment activities based on the number of
resorts in operation.  The Company operates and licenses resorts
under its Great Wolf Lodge(R) brand name.


HARVEST NATURAL: 6 Securities Class Suits Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------
Houston, Texas-based Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., said in a
Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, that
six related class action lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court, Southern District of Texas between March 22 and
April 26, 2013:

     * John Phillips v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc.,
       James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (March 22, 2013);

     * Sang Kim v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A.
       Edmiston, Stephen C. Haynes, Stephen D. Chesebro', Igor
       Effimoff, H. H. Hardee, Robert E. Irelan, Patrick M.
       Murray and J. Michael Stinson (April 3, 2013);

     * Chris Kean v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A.
       Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 11, 2013);

     * Prastitis v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A.
       Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 17, 2013);

     * Alan Myers v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A.
       Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 22, 2013); and

     * Edward W. Walbridge and the Edward W. Walbridge Trust v.
       Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and
       Stephen C. Haynes (April 26, 2013).

The complaints allege that the Company made certain false or
misleading public statements and demand that the defendants pay
unspecified damages to the class action plaintiffs based on stock
price declines.  All of these actions have been consolidated into
the Phillips case.  The Company and the other named defendants
intend to vigorously defend the consolidated and other listed
lawsuits.

Harvest Natural is an independent energy company engaged in the
acquisition, exploration, development, production and disposition
of oil and natural gas properties since 1989, when it was
incorporated under Delaware law.


INLAND AMERICAN: Faces Stockholder Class Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc., is facing a class action
lawsuit commenced by two stockholders in Illinois, according to
the Company's May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

On April 26, 2013, two stockholders of the Company filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against the Company, and current
members and one former member of its board of directors ("the
Defendants").  The complaint seeks damages on behalf of plaintiffs
and similarly situated individuals who purchased additional shares
in the Company pursuant to the Company's Distribution Reinvestment
Plan ("DRP") on or after March 30, 2009.  The Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs
and to members of the putative class by inflating the yearly
estimated share price announced by the Company and by selling
shares in the DRP to plaintiffs and members of the putative class
at those allegedly inflated prices.  The Company believes that the
complaint lacks merit and intends to vigorously defend the case.

Inland American Real Estate Trust, Inc., was formed in October
2004 to acquire and manage a diversified portfolio of commercial
real estate, primarily retail, office, industrial, multi-family
(both conventional and student housing), and lodging properties,
located in the United States.  The Company was incorporated in
Maryland and is headquartered in Oak Brook, Illinois.


JOS. A. BANK: Approval Sought in Settlement of "Holmes" Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Holmes, a former employee of Hampstead, Maryland-based Jos.
A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, filed a Complaint on March 16, 2012, against
the Company in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, Case No. 112CV220780, alleging various violations of
California wage and labor laws. The Holmes Complaint seeks, among
other relief, certification of the case as a class action,
injunctive relief, monetary damages, penalties, restitution, other
equitable relief, interest, attorney's fees and costs.

On December 21, 2012, the parties accepted a mediator's proposal
to settle the case. The proposed settlement has been recorded by
the Company.  The parties entered into a settlement agreement on
April 19, 2013.

On May 13, 2013, Mr. Holmes moved the Superior Court for an order
granting preliminary approval of the settlement agreement,
scheduling a final approval hearing and taking certain other
action in furtherance of the settlement.

"Although we expect the Superior Court to approve the settlement
agreement, we cannot provide any assurance that it will do so,"
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers said in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended May 4, 2013, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 5.

Jos. A. Bank Clothiers is a nationwide designer, manufacturer,
retailer and direct marketer (through stores, catalog and
Internet) of men's tailored and casual clothing and accessories
and is a retailer of tuxedo rental products.


JOS. A. BANK: To Defend Against Amended "Camasta" Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
On August 29, 2012, Patrick Edward Camasta, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, filed
a putative class action complaint (the "Original Camasta
Complaint") against Jos. A. Bank Clothiers Inc. in the Circuit
Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois
(Case No. 12CH4405).  The Company removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division (Case No. 12 CV 7782).

The Original Camasta Complaint alleges, among other things, that
the Company's pattern and practice of advertising its normal
retail prices as temporary price reductions violate the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the
Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Original
Camasta Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the
case as a class action, actual and punitive damages, attorney fees
and costs and injunctive relief.

On February 7, 2013, upon the motion of the Company, the U.S.
District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing
the Original Camasta Complaint in its entirety, without prejudice.

On March 1, 2013, Camasta filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint in the United States District Court making substantially
the same allegations as in the Original Camasta Complaint.

"We intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously," Jos. A. Bank
Clothiers said in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period
ended May 4, 2013, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 5.

Jos. A. Bank Clothiers is a nationwide designer, manufacturer,
retailer and direct marketer (through stores, catalog and
Internet) of men's tailored and casual clothing and accessories
and is a retailer of tuxedo rental products.


JOS. A. BANK: To Defend Against "Schneider" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers said in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended May 4, 2013, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 5, that John E. Schneider, et al., on
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, filed a
putative class action complaint against the Company in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern
District (Case No. 1:13-cv-01175-SL).

The Schneider Complaint, filed on May 24, 2013, alleges, among
other things, deceptive sales and marketing practices by the
Company relating to its use of the words "free" and "regular
price". The Schneider Complaint seeks, among other relief,
certification of two classes of plaintiffs (one based on purchases
at a percentage or discount off an advertised "regular price" and
one based on purchases of an item at "regular price" in connection
with an offer of at least one other "free item"), compensatory
damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and costs and
disbursements (including attorneys' fees).

"We intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously," the Company said.

Jos. A. Bank Clothiers is a nationwide designer, manufacturer,
retailer and direct marketer (through stores, catalog and
Internet) of men's tailored and casual clothing and accessories
and is a retailer of tuxedo rental products.


KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: To Defend Against Rosen Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In November 2011, The Rosen Law Firm filed a class action lawsuit
against Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc., formerly Silver Pearl
Enterprises, Inc.  The Company, based in Ningbo, Zhejiang
Province, in China, said in its Form 10-K Annual Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2012, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 5, that it believes there is no basis
to the lawsuit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

The Company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of
petrochemical products in the People's Republic of China.


KMART HOLDING: Sued by Assistant Managers Over FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Fischer and Morrison Omoruyi, Individually and on Behalf of
All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Kmart Holding Corporation
and, Sears Holdings Corporation, Case No. 3:13-cv-04116-AET-DEA
(D. N.J., July 3, 2013), alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, the
Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

The Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to (i) unpaid
overtime wages for hours worked above 40 in a workweek, as
required by law, and (ii) liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA.
The class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of current and
former assistant managers and similarly situated current and
former employees holding comparable positions but different
titles, employed by the Defendants in the United States.

Amy Fischer is a resident of Bayville, New Jersey, and was
employed by Kmart as an assistant manager at the Defendants' store
located in Manahawkin, New Jersey.  Morrison Omoruyi is a resident
of Riverdale, Maryland, and was employed by Kmart as an assistant
manager at the Defendants' store located in Silver Spring,
Maryland.

Sears Holdings Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.  Kmart Holding Corporation is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Sears.  The Defendants operate a chain
of more than a thousand stores throughout the country.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
          Rachel E. Berlin, Esq.
          KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
          E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com
                  frudich@klafterolsen.com
                  MPalitz@klafterolsen.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          1625 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Suite 605
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-2294
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
                  nmigliaccio@wbmllp.com
                  jrathod@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
          David A. Roth, Esq.
          Charlie Gershbaum, Esq.
          HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
          192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-1199
          Facsimile: (212) 532-3801

               - and -

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884-2492


MANAGED FUTURES: "Abu Dhabi" Class Suit Dismissed in April
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al.
v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al., was dismissed in April 2013,
according to Managed Futures Premier BHM L.P.'s May 15, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Managed Futures Premier BHM L.P. (the "Partnership") is formerly
known as BHM Discretionary Futures Fund L.P.  Ceres Managed
Futures LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, serves as the
Partnership's general partner.  Demeter Management LLC ("Demeter")
previously served as the Partnership's general partner.  Demeter
was merged into Ceres effective December 1, 2010.  Ceres is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings
LLC ("MSSBH").  Morgan Stanley is the indirect majority owner of
MSSBH and Citigroup Inc. is the indirect minority owner of MSSBH.
Morgan Stanley expects to purchase, subject to regulatory
approvals, Citigroup Inc.'s remaining interest in MSSBH.

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.

Managed Futures Premier BHM L.P., formerly known as BHM
Discretionary Futures Fund L.P., was organized in August 2010 in
Delaware to engage in the speculative trading of a diversified
portfolio of commodity interests including futures contracts,
options, swaps and forward contracts.  Ceres Managed Futures LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, serves as the Partnership's
general partner.  Ceres is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Morgan
Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley is the indirect
majority owner of MSSBH and Citigroup Inc. is the indirect
minority owner of MSSBH.


MONSTER BEVERAGE: Faces Suit Over Energy Drink-Related Death
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a California woman has sued Monster Beverage Corp., claiming
her son's habit of drinking two 16 oz. cans a day of the company's
energy drink caused him to die from cardiac arrest last year.

The suit was filed on June 25 by the same attorneys who represent
the family of Anais Fournier, 14, who died in 2011 after drinking
Monster energy drinks.  In that case, Monster has insisted that
its energy drink played no role in Fournier's death.

"Both families are bringing the lawsuits because they want to make
sure this doesn't happen to other kids," said Kevin Goldberg of
Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester in Silver Spring, Md., who represents
the families of both teenagers.  "The public needs to know that
energy drinks are dangerous."

A call to Monster's headquarters in Corona, Calif., was not
returned.

Energy drinks have been under scrutiny for their high levels of
caffeine.  The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services'
Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration recently
reported that emergency room visits involving energy drinks are
up, and a study by the American Heart Association found that
energy drinks can alter heart rhythms and increase blood pressure.

In March, a group of 18 doctors and scientists wrote a letter to
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, urging regulatory action to
protect children and adolescents from energy drinks with high
amounts of caffeine.  The FDA announced a formal investigation on
May 3 into the safety of caffeine-containing food products on
children and adolescents.  The FDA previously indicated that as
many as five deaths between 2009 and 2012 might be linked to
Monster's energy drink; another 13 were associated with 5-Hour
Energy.

The June 25 lawsuit, which seeks punitive damages, was filed in
Alameda County, Calif., Superior Court on behalf of Paula Morris,
who is represented by Mr. Goldberg; Alexander Wheeler and Jason
Fowler of the R. Rex Parris Law Firm in Lancaster, Calif.; and
Michael Brown, Michael Blumenfeld and Joe Hovermill at Miles &
Stockbridge in Baltimore, Md.

According to the complaint, Alex Morris, 19, drank at least two
Monster energy drink cans per day for three years, including in
the 24 hours preceding his death on July 1, 2012.  He died "while
engaged in sexual activity with his girlfriend," the suit says.

On May 6, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera sued Monster
for marketing its drink to kids as young as six; the company had
preemptively sued the city on April 29.

Monster, Red Bull and Innovation Ventures, maker of 5-Hour Energy,
also face consumer class actions questioning claims made about
their products.

In March, Monster announced that it would market its drink as a
beverage, rather than a dietary supplement.  The change means
Monster no longer has to report deaths associated with its drink
but must include caffeine content in the labeling.


NEIMAN MARCUS: NLRB Challenges Class Action Prohibition
-------------------------------------------------------
On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and
Equitable Relief was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California by Sheila Monjazeb,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, against Neiman Marcus, Inc., Newton Holding,
LLC, TPG Capital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus LLC.  On July 12, 2010,
all defendants except for Neiman Marcus were dismissed without
prejudice, and on August 20, 2010, this case was re-filed in the
Superior Court of California for San Francisco County.

The re-filed complaint, along with a similar class action lawsuit
originally filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007, alleges that
Neiman Marcus has engaged in various violations of the California
Labor Code and Business and Professions Code, including without
limitation 1) asking employees to work "off the clock," 2) failing
to provide meal and rest breaks to its employees, 3) improperly
calculating deductions on paychecks delivered to its employees and
4) failing to provide a chair or allow employees to sit during
shifts.

On October 24, 2011, the court granted Neiman Marcus' motion to
compel Ms. Monjazeb and a co-plaintiff to participate in the
Company's Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, foreclosing a class
action in that case.  The court then determined that Ms. Tanguilig
could not represent employees who are subject to a Mandatory
Arbitration Agreement, thereby limiting the putative class action
to those associates who were employed between December 2004 and
July 15, 2007 (the effective date of a Mandatory Arbitration
Agreement).  Ms. Monjazeb filed a demand for arbitration as a
class action, which is prohibited under the Mandatory Arbitration
Agreement.

In response to Ms. Monjazeb's demand for arbitration as a class
action, the American Arbitration Association (AAA) referred the
resolution of such request back to the arbitrator.  Neiman Marcus
filed a motion to stay the decision of the AAA pending a ruling by
the trial court; the trial court determined that the arbitration
agreement was unenforceable due to a recent California case.
Neiman Marcus asserted that the trial court does not have
jurisdiction to change its earlier determination of the
enforceability of the arbitration agreement, and appealed the
court's decision.

In addition, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued
a complaint alleging that the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement's
class action prohibition violates employees' rights to engage in
concerted activity, which was originally set for hearing in Los
Angeles on March 18, 2013, but has been rescheduled to July 15,
2013.

Neiman Marcus said it will continue to vigorously defend its
interests in these matters.  "Currently, we cannot reasonably
estimate the amount of loss, if any, arising from these matters.
We will continue to evaluate these matters based on subsequent
events, new information and future circumstances," according to
Neiman Marcus in its Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period
ended April 27, 2013, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 4.


ORIENT PAPER: $2-Mil. Settlement in Securities Suit Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
Orient Paper, Inc.'s $2 million settlement of a securities class
action lawsuit received final approval in April 2013, according to
the Company's May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

On August 6, 2010, a stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company, certain current and former officers and
directors of the Company, and Roth Capital Partners, LLP.  The
complaint in the lawsuit, Mark Henning, et al. v. Orient Paper et
al., CV-10-5887 RSWL (AJWx), alleges, among other claims, that the
Company issued materially false and misleading statements and
omitted to state material facts that rendered its affirmative
statements misleading as they related to the Company's financial
performance, business prospects, and financial condition, and that
the defendants failed to prevent such statements from being issued
or corrected.  The complaint seeks, among other relief,
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and experts' fees.  The
Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of themselves and a class
consisting of the Company's stockholders (other than the
defendants and their affiliates).  The plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on January 28, 2011, and the Company filed a motion to
dismiss with the court on March 14, 2011.  On July 20, 2011, the
court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, thus, allowing the
litigation to proceed to discovery.

On June 21, 2012, the Company reached a proposed settlement of the
securities class action lawsuit with the plaintiffs.  The terms of
the proposed settlement call for dismissal of all the defendants
from the action in exchange for a $2 million payment from the
Company's insurer.  The court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement on November 5, 2012, and orally granted final
settlement approval at a hearing on March 25, 2013.  A formal
written order has been entered by the Court on April 29, 2013.
The settlement has no material impact on the Company's
consolidated financial statements.

Orient Paper, Inc. -- http://www.orientpaperinc.com/-- was
incorporated in Nevada under the name of Carlateral, Inc., and is
headquartered in Baoding City in the Hebei Province of The
People's Republic of China.  Carlateral started its business by
providing financing services specializing in subprime title loans,
secured primarily using automobiles as collateral.  The Company
became the holding company for Hebei Baoding Orient Paper Milling
Company Limited, a producer and distributor of paper products in
China.


PANTHEON INC: Dragged in Class Suit Against Unnamed Customer
------------------------------------------------------------
Durham, North Carolina-based Patheon Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q
filing for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2013, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, that one
putative class action and five individual plaintiff actions are
pending in the United States against one of the Company's
customers in connection with the recall of certain lots of
allegedly defective products manufactured by the Company for the
customer. The Company has also been named in the putative class
action and in three of the individual plaintiff actions.  The
customer has given the Company notice of its intent to seek
indemnification from the Company for all damages, costs and
expenses, pursuant to the manufacturing services agreement between
the customer and the Company.  As these cases are at an early
stage, Pantheon said it is unable to estimate the number of
potential claimants or the amount of potential damages for which
the Company may be directly or indirectly liable in the actions.

Pantheon did not identify the customer.

On December 14, 2012, Pantheon completed the acquisition of all of
the issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of Sobel USA
Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Banner Pharmacaps Europe B.V., a
private limited company organized under the laws of The
Netherlands from Sobel Best N.V. and VION Holding, N.V., each
corporations organized under the laws of The Netherlands, for a
net aggregate purchase price of approximately $269.0 million.
Banner is a pharmaceutical business focused on delivering
proprietary softgel formulations, with four manufacturing
facilities and a number of proprietary technologies and products.


PHILIP MORRIS: Marlboro Light Smokers' Suit Revived in Oregon
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff D. Gorman at Courthouse News Service reports that Philip
Morris must face a class action from consumers who smoked Marlboro
Lights since their introduction in 1971, an Oregon appeals court
ruled.

Marilyn Pearson and Laura Grandin hope to represent a class of
approximately 100,000 smokers who bought Marlboro Lights from 1971
to 2001.

The cigarettes had 13 mg of "tar," as opposed to 18 mg in regular
Marlboros.  The plaintiffs say Philip Morris mischaracterized the
cigarettes in violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Their argument relied on the fact that the amount of tar and
nicotine delivered can vary based on the different ways to smoke a
cigarette, such as covering the dilution holes in the filter.
They sought relief from the Oregon Court of Appeals after a
Multnomah County judge found no evidence that a class action would
be superior to individual lawsuits for the plaintiffs.

Judge Janice Wilson had also granted Altria, as the company is now
known, summary judgment based on her conclusion that federal law
pre-empts the plaintiffs' individual claims.

The Salem-based appeals appellate court roundly reversed on
June 19, 2013, after an en banc hearing.

"A jury could find that a person who had purchased what was
represented to be an inherently light cigarette but was actually
only a potentially light cigarette had suffered an ascertainable
loss because the person overpaid," Judge Rex Armstrong wrote for
the 10-person court.

"Contrary to the trial court, we have concluded that the
misrepresentation, ascertainable loss, and causation elements of
plaintiff's claim are all common issues, he added.  "Thus, the
entire liability portion of the claim can be litigated through
common evidence."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott A. Shorr, Esq.
          STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
          209 SW Oak St., Suite 500
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 227-1600
          Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
          E-mail: sshorr@stollberne.com

               - and -

          Charles S. Tauman, Esq.
          Charles S. Tauman PC
          PO Box 19631
          Portland, OR 97280
          Telephone: (503) 849-9281
          Facsimile: (503) 244-4260
          E-mail: ctauman@aol.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          William F. Gary, Esq.
          Sharon A. Rudnick, Esq.
          HARRANG LONG GARY RUDNICK P.C.
          360 E. 10th Avenue, Suite 300
          Eugene, OR 97401-3273
          Telephone: (541) 485-0220
          Facsimile: (541) 686-6564
          E-mail: william.f.gary@harrang.com
                  sharon.rudnick@harrang.com

The case is Pearson, et al. v. Philip Morris Inc., et al., Case
No. A137297, in the Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon.


PRIMO WATER: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Primo Water Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit pending in North
Carolina, according to the Company's May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On December 2, 2011, Primo, Billy D. Prim, Mark Castaneda, David
J. Mills, Richard A. Brenner, David W. Dupree, Malcolm McQuilkin,
David L. Warnock, Jack C. Kilgore, Culligan International Company,
Andrew J. Filipowski, Carl V. Santoiemmo, Stifel, Nicolaus &
Company, Inc., BB&T Capital Markets, Janney Montgomery Scott, LLC,
and Signal Hill Capital Group LLC were named as defendants in a
purported class-action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.  The complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.  The complaint asserts claims on behalf of a class of
persons who acquired the Company's common stock in or traceable to
its initial public offering and its secondary offering as well as
purchasers of the Company's common stock between November 4, 2010,
and August 10, 2011.  The complaint alleges that defendants
violated the federal securities laws by, among other things,
making misrepresentations about the Company's projected financial
results and business operations in order to artificially inflate
the price of the Company's stock.  The complaint requests
unspecified damages and costs.

The Company does not believe it has merit and plans to vigorously
contest and defend against it.  The Company has filed a motion to
dismiss all claims.  All briefing on the motion to dismiss has
been completed, and the motion has been submitted to the judge.
The Company says it is insured for potential losses subject to
limits, which it does not expect to reach.  The Company is
required to indemnify each of the named defendants that are party
to the lawsuit against losses and expenses they incur in
connection with the litigation.

Primo Water Corporation is a rapidly growing provider of multi-
gallon purified bottled water, self-serve filtered drinking water
and water dispensers sold through major retailers in the United
States and Canada.  The Company is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.


RANGE RESOURCES: Has MOU to Settle Royalty Owners' Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Range Resources Corporation along with its subsidiaries Range
Production Company and Range Resources - Midcontinent LLC and the
Class Representatives of the statewide class action styled James
A. Drummond and Chris Parrish v. Range Resources-Midcontinent LLC,
et al, Case No. CJ-2010-510, in the District Court of Grady County
of the State of Oklahoma, executed on May 31, 2013, a memorandum
of understanding setting forth a summary of final settlement terms
to be effected in the form of a definitive settlement agreement.
This class action was filed on behalf of royalty owners asserting
various claims for damages related to alleged costs of making gas
produced from wells owned or operated by Range Resources-
Midcontinent LLC or from which we separately marketed its share of
gas "marketable" along with recovery of interest on the disputed
amounts at 12% compounded annually for the life of each well. The
memorandum of understanding, which is expected to result in the
execution of a definitive settlement agreement provides for a cash
payment to the class in the amount of $87.5 million in exchange
for full release of all claims regarding the calculation,
reporting and payment of royalties from the sale of natural gas
and its constituents for all periods prior to May 31, 2013.

The Company accrued $35 million for this litigation in the first
quarter of 2013, therefore the settlement will result in an
incremental charge of $52.5 million in the second quarter of 2013.
The Company previously announced an estimated gain on the sale of
certain Delaware and Permian Basin producing properties in the
amount of $87.0 million which will also be recorded in the second
quarter 2013.


SAIC INC: Has $10MM Loss Provision at May 3 re Data Privacy Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Saic, Inc., and its 100%-owned subsidiary, Science Applications
International Corporation, disclosed in separate Form 10-Q reports
for the quarterly period ended May 3, 2013, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, that they remain as
defendants in a putative class action, In Re: Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC) Backup Tape Data Theft
Litigation, a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia.

The MDL action consolidates for pretrial proceedings the following
seven individual putative class action lawsuits filed against the
Company from October 2011 through March 2012: (1) Richardson, et
al. v. TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications
International Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et
al. in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; (2)
Arellano, et al. v. SAIC, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas; (3) Biggerman, et al. v. TRICARE
Management Activity, Science Applications International
Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al. in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia; (4) Moskowitz, et al.
v. TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications International
Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al. in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia; (5) Palmer, et al. v.
TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications International
Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al., in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia; (6) Losack, et al. v.
SAIC, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California; and (7) Deatrick v. Science Applications International
Corporation in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The lawsuits were filed following the theft of computer backup
tapes from a vehicle of a Company employee. The employee was
transporting the backup tapes between federal facilities under an
IT services contract the Company was performing in support of
TRICARE, the health care program for members of the military,
retirees and their families. The tapes contained personally
identifiable and protected health information of approximately
five million military clinic and hospital patients. There is no
evidence that any of the data on the backup tapes has actually
been accessed or viewed by an unauthorized person. In order for an
unauthorized person to access or view the data on the backup
tapes, it would require knowledge of and access to specific
hardware and software and knowledge of the system and data
structure.  SAIC has notified potentially impacted persons by
letter and has offered one year of credit monitoring services to
those who request these services and in certain circumstances, one
year of identity restoration services.

In October 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
in the MDL action, which supersedes all previously filed
complaints in the individual lawsuits. The consolidated amended
complaint includes allegations of negligence, breach of contract,
breach of implied-in-fact contract, invasion of privacy by public
disclosure of private facts and statutory violations of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the California Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act, California data breach notification
requirements, the California Unfair Competition Law, various state
consumer protection or deceptive practices statutes, state privacy
statutes, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Privacy Act of
1974. The consolidated amended complaint seeks monetary relief,
including unspecified actual damages, punitive damages, statutory
damages of $1,000 for each class member and attorneys' fees, as
well as injunctive and declaratory relief.

SAIC said it intends to vigorously defend itself against the
claims made in the class action lawsuits. In November 2012, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims against the Company
alleged in the consolidated amended complaint and all substantive
briefing on the motion has concluded. The Company has insurance
coverage against judgments or settlements relating to the claims
being brought in these lawsuits, with a $10 million deductible.
The insurance coverage also covers the Company's defense costs,
subject to the same deductible.

As of May 3, 2013, the Company has recorded a loss provision of
$10 million related to these lawsuits, representing the low end of
the Company's estimated gross loss. The Company believes that, if
any loss is experienced by the Company in excess of its estimate,
such a loss would not exceed the Company's insurance coverage. As
these lawsuits progress, many factors will affect the amount of
the ultimate loss resulting from these claims being brought
against the Company, including the outcome of any motions to
dismiss, the results of any discovery, the outcome of any pretrial
motions and the courts' rulings on certain legal issues.

The Company has been informed that the Office for Civil Rights
(OCR) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is
investigating matters related to the incident. OCR is the division
of HHS charged with enforcement of the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended (HIPAA) and
the privacy, security and data breach rules which implement HIPAA.
OCR may, among other things, require a corrective action plan and
impose civil monetary penalties against the data owner (Department
of Defense) and, in certain situations, against the data owners'
contractors, such as the Company. The Company is cooperating with
TRICARE in responding to the OCR investigation.


SAIC INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saic, Inc., and its 100%-owned subsidiary, Science Applications
International Corporation, disclosed in separate Form 10-Q reports
for the quarterly period ended May 3, 2013, they filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, that they have filed
a motion seeking dismissal of a consolidated securities complaint.

Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three
putative securities class actions. One case was withdrawn and two
cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in In re SAIC, Inc. Securities
Litigation.  The consolidated securities complaint names as
defendants the Company, its chief financial officer, two former
chief executive officers, a former group president, and the former
program manager on the CityTime program, and was filed purportedly
on behalf of all purchasers of SAIC's common stock from April 11,
2007 through September 1, 2011.

The consolidated securities complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on allegations that the Company and individual defendants
made misleading statements or omissions about the Company's
revenues, operating income, and internal controls in connection
with disclosures relating to the CityTime project. The plaintiffs
seek to recover from the Company and the individual defendants an
unspecified amount of damages class members allegedly incurred by
buying SAIC's stock at an inflated price. The Company intends to
vigorously defend against these claims and has filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities complaint.

The Company currently believes that a loss relating to the
stockholder matters is reasonably possible, but the Company cannot
reasonably estimate the range of loss in light of the fact that
these matters are in their early stages.

Between February and April 2012, six stockholder derivative
lawsuits also were filed, each purportedly on the Company's
behalf.  Two cases have been withdrawn and the four remaining
cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in In re SAIC, Inc. Derivative
Litigation. The consolidated derivative complaint asserts claims
against the Company's directors and current and former officers,
including the chief executive officer, two former chief executive
officers, the chief financial officer, a former group president,
the former program manager of the CityTime program, and the former
chief systems engineer of the CityTime program. The consolidated
derivative complaint claims that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company with respect to the CityTime
contract for various reasons, including failure to supervise the
adequacy of the Company's internal controls, allowing the Company
to issue misleading financial statements, and failure to exercise
their oversight responsibilities to ensure that the Company
complied with applicable laws, rules and regulations. The
complaint further claims that the defendants are liable to the
Company under theories of unjust enrichment, gross mismanagement,
abuse of control, and violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act.

SAIC has filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
because the respective plaintiffs did not serve a pre-suit demand
before filing the derivative complaints. The Company has also
received two stockholder demand letters related to CityTime (one
of which is also related to the TRICARE matter), which an
independent committee of the Company's board of directors
reviewed. The Company's lead director has notified both
stockholders' attorneys, on behalf of the board of directors, that
the Company has decided not to pursue the claims outlined in their
demand letters.


TAYLOR MORRISON: Seeks Reimbursement of Chinese Drywall Costs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Morrison Home Corporation said in its May 15, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013, that it continues to seek
reimbursement for costs that it has incurred to investigate and
repair homes with defective Chinese-made drywall.

Between approximately 2007 and 2012, the Company confirmed the
presence of defective Chinese-made drywall in several of its
communities, primarily in West-Florida homes, which were generally
delivered between May 2006 and November 2007 and initiated a
protocol to repair affected homes.  The Company has repaired all
homes identified containing defective Chinese-made drywall where
the homeowners have allowed the Company to do so.  A small number
of homeowners elected to participate in Multi District Litigation
proceedings in Federal District Court in New Orleans, Louisiana,
in lieu of accepting the Company's repair offer.  All of the
homeowners in the Multi District Litigation have now opted into a
global class action settlement recently approved by the Federal
District Court under which the Company is a released party.  The
Company continues to seek reimbursement from its subcontractors,
suppliers, insurers, and manufacturers for costs that the Company
has incurred to investigate and repair homes with defective
Chinese-made drywall.

The Company does not anticipate that it will incur any further
material costs related to defective Chinese-made drywall that
would be expected to have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Taylor Morrison Home Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona, was incorporated in November
2012 as a holding company for the purposes of facilitating an
initial public offering of common stock.  The Company's only
business following the IPO will be to control the business and
affairs of TMM Holdings II Limited Partnership and its
subsidiaries.  New TMM Holdings is the ultimate parent of Taylor
Morrison Communities, Inc., and Monarch Corporation.  Taylor
Morrison's principal business is residential homebuilding and the
development of lifestyle communities throughout the United States.
Monarch was founded in the province of Ontario in 1957 and is one
of the oldest names in Canadian homebuilding.


TEMPUR SEALY: Delaware Chancery Court Okays Accord in Merger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery on May 30, 2013, approved a
settlement and dismissed with prejudice six shareholder class
action lawsuits over Sealy Corporation's merger with Tempur-Pedic
International Inc., according to documents filed together with the
amended Form 8-K that the new company, Tempur Sealy International,
Inc., delivered to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
June 3.

Six purported class action lawsuits relating to the Merger, one in
North Carolina state court and five in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, filed by purported stockholders of Sealy Corp. against
Sealy, its directors, and Silver Lightning Merger Company, a
subsidiary of Tempur-Pedic (the "Merger Sub").  Justewicz v. Sealy
Corp., et al. ("North Carolina Action") was filed on October 3,
2012, in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division in
North Carolina ("North Carolina Court").

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

On October 12, 2012, plaintiff in the North Carolina Action
brought a Motion for Expedited Discovery and for a Hearing and
Briefing Schedule on Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction.  On October 24, 2012, defendants in the North Carolina
Action brought a Motion to Stay the North Carolina Action in favor
of the Delaware Action.

On November 7, 2012, the North Carolina Action plaintiff amended
his complaint to add allegations claiming that the preliminary
information statement filed by Sealy on October 30, 2012, did not
provide sufficient information. Following briefing and a hearing
on November 8, 2012, the North Carolina Court stayed the North
Carolina Action.

On November 19, 2012, plaintiffs in the Delaware Action filed a
consolidated amended complaint, a motion for expedited
proceedings, and a motion for a preliminary injunction.

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

On May 30, 2013, at the hearing to review the settlement agreed
upon by the parties, the Court approved the settlement and
dismissed with prejudice the six shareholder Plaintiff suits.

On September 27, 2012, Tempur-Pedic announced that it had entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger to acquire Sealy Corp., by
merging Sealy with a newly-formed subsidiary of Tempur-Pedic.

Sealy owns some of the most recognized bedding brands in the
world, and manufactures and markets a broad range of mattresses
and foundations that appeal to a broad range of consumers under
the Sealy(R), Sealy Posturepedic(R), Sealy Embody(TM), Optimum(TM)
by Sealy Posturepedic(R), Stearns & Foster(R), and Bassett(R)
brands.   Sealy leverages its brand portfolio to also manufacture
and market in the U.S. and internationally specialty (non-
innerspring) latex and visco-elastic bedding products.  Sealy is
also a leading global brand with top market positions in Canada,
Mexico and Argentina.  Sealy operates through wholly-owned
subsidiaries in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Argentina,
Uruguay and Chile and through joint ventures and licensee partners
in other international markets.

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


TEMPUR SEALY: Defending "Hernandez" Wage-and-Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------------
According to documents filed together with the amended Form 8-K
that Tempur Sealy International, Inc., delivered to the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, Hernandez et al v.
Sealy Mattress Manufacturing Co. was filed in March 2012 in
Superior Court in California with respect to some allegations of
improper wage and hour calculations in accordance with California
state law.  Sealy is vigorously defending this lawsuit and it is
too early to determine a potential liability related to this
action as there has been little discovery and the matter has not
yet been presented for class certification.

On September 27, 2012, Tempur-Pedic International Inc., announced
that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger to
acquire Sealy Corp., by merging Sealy with a newly-formed
subsidiary of Tempur-Pedic.

Sealy owns some of the most recognized bedding brands in the
world, and manufactures and markets a broad range of mattresses
and foundations that appeal to a broad range of consumers under
the Sealy(R), Sealy Posturepedic(R), Sealy Embody(TM), Optimum(TM)
by Sealy Posturepedic(R), Stearns & Foster(R), and Bassett(R)
brands.   Sealy leverages its brand portfolio to also manufacture
and market in the U.S. and internationally specialty (non-
innerspring) latex and visco-elastic bedding products.  Sealy is
also a leading global brand with top market positions in Canada,
Mexico and Argentina.  Sealy operates through wholly-owned
subsidiaries in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Argentina,
Uruguay and Chile and through joint ventures and licensee partners
in other international markets.

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


TORO COMPANY: Management Continues to Evaluate Canadian Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2010, individuals who claim to have purchased lawnmowers
in Canada filed class action litigation against The Toro Company
and other defendants that, similar to the class action litigation
previously filed by plaintiffs in the United States and settled by
the company pursuant to a settlement agreement that became final
in February 2011, (i) contains allegations under applicable
Canadian law that the horsepower labels on the products the
plaintiffs purchased were inaccurate, (ii) seeks certification of
a class of all persons in Canada who, beginning January 1, 1994
purchased a lawnmower containing a gas combustible engine up to 30
horsepower that was manufactured or sold by the company and other
defendants, and (iii) seeks under applicable Canadian law
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' costs
and fees, and equitable relief.

In its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended May 3,
2013, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5,
Bloomington, Minnesota-based The Toro Company said management
continues to evaluate this Canadian litigation and, in the event
the company is unable to favorably resolve this litigation, while
management does not currently believe that this litigation would
have a material adverse effect on the company's annual
consolidated operating results or financial condition, an
unfavorable resolution or outcome could be material to the
company's consolidated operating results for a particular period.

The Toro Company designs, manufactures, and markets professional
turf maintenance equipment and services, landscape equipment and
lighting, turf irrigation systems, agricultural micro-irrigation
systems, rental and construction equipment, and residential yard
and snow removal products.


TRUNKBOW INTERNATIONAL: Defends Suits Over Executives' Stock Buy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trunkbow International Holdings Limited is defending two lawsuits
in Nevada in relation to the acquisition by the chairman of its
board of directors and chief executive officer of all of the
outstanding shares of the Company's common stock not owned by
them, according to the Company's May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

On November 8, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
a purported Trunkbow shareholder in District Court, Clark County,
Nevada, captioned Hansen v. Trunkbow, et al., Case No. A-12-
671652-C.  The complaint named as defendants several directors and
officers of Trunkbow, namely, Wanchun Hou, Qiang Li, Jihong Bao,
Xin Wang, Albert Liu, Regis Kwong, Kokhui Tan, Iris Geng, Tingjie
Lv, Zhaoxing Huang and Dong Li (the "Individual Defendants").
Although Trunkbow was included among the defendants listed in the
caption, the complaint did not assert a cause of action against
the Company.  The plaintiff in Hansen seeks recovery on behalf of
all Trunkbow shareholders for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties
by the Individual Defendants in connection with the Proposed
Transaction in which the Chairman of Trunkbow's Board of
Directors, Wanchun Hou, and Trunkbow's CEO, Qiang Li, have offered
to acquire all of the outstanding shares of the Company's common
stock not currently owned by them.

On November 14, 2012, another putative class action lawsuit was
filed by a purported Trunkbow shareholder in District Court, Clark
County, Nevada, captioned Robert Davis v. Hou, et al., Case No. A-
12-671946-C.  Trunkbow is named as a defendant in this action,
along with each of the Individual Defendants named in the Hanson
complaint.  The plaintiff in Davis seeks recovery on behalf of all
Trunkbow shareholders for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by
the Individual Defendants in connection with the Proposed
Transaction, and for aiding and abetting such alleged breaches by
Trunkbow.  The plaintiffs in both cases allege that the share
price proposed by Hou and Li is inadequate in light of the
Company's intrinsic value and anticipated future growth.  Among
other things, the plaintiffs in both actions seek to enjoin the
Proposed Transaction until such time as the Individual Defendants
have acted in accordance with their fiduciary duties.  Only the
Company has been served in the actions, but it need not respond to
the complaints until after a transaction agreement has been
signed, if that occurs, and an amended complaint has been filed.

Trunkbow International Holdings Limited was incorporated in Nevada
in September 2004 and is headquartered Beijing, China.  The
Company provides technology platform solutions for mobile telecom
operators in China.  The Company's patented platforms provide a
comprehensive solution for Chinese telecom operators to deliver
and manage the distribution of various mobile value added service
applications to their subscribers.


URBAN OUTFITTERS: Faces Class Action Over Customer Zip Codes
------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Zoe Tillman at The Blog of Legal
Times, Urban Outfitters Inc. is facing a class action in
Washington federal court over allegations the clothing retailer
collected customer zip codes in violation of District of Columbia
consumer protection laws.

The complaint, filed June 21 in U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, accused Urban Outfitters Inc. of asking for
customer zip codes in a way that implied the information was
required to complete a credit card transaction.  The plaintiffs
claimed Urban Outfitters, which also owns Anthropologie-brand
stores, used the zip codes to track down customer addresses for
marketing purposes.

The lawsuit is the latest against a retailer over zip code
collection practices.  In March, the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court ruled retailers could be sued under Massachusetts
consumer privacy law for collecting zip codes during credit card
transactions, allowing a class action to proceed in Massachusetts
federal court against Michaels Stores Inc.

Scott Perry, Esq. -- scott@perrycharnoff.com -- at Perry Charnoff
in Arlington, Va., the lead plaintiffs' attorney in the D.C. case
against Urban Outfitters, said rulings from other state courts in
recent years were instructive on how courts were leaning, even
though the previous cases involved state-specific consumer
protection laws.

"It's one thing for a store to put someone on a mailing list with
their permission," Mr. Perry said.  "It's quite another to ask for
information that allows them to find this information out without
being transparent about it."

A representative of Urban Outfitters Inc., did not immediately
return a request for comment.

According to the complaint, customers at Urban Outfitters and
Anthropologie were asked for their zip codes when they paid with a
credit card.  The plaintiffs pointed to recent news reports
detailing how retailers can find a customer's address if they have
a name -- which is on a credit card -- and zip code.

Under the D.C. Code, the plaintiffs claimed, it's illegal for a
merchant to ask for a customer's address or telephone number as a
condition for processing a credit card transaction.  The
plaintiffs argue the law applies to their situation because a zip
code is part of an address.

"The purpose of the statute was to prevent name fraud and identity
fraud.  That's a huge issue these days, the privacy of peoples'
personal information," Mr. Perry said.  "It's a situation where,
you know, it leads to potentially all kinds of dangerous things."

The purported class would cover anyone who bought merchandise from
Urban Outfitters or Anthropologie beginning in June 2010 and were
asked for their zip codes during the payment process.  The
plaintiffs are seeking $1,500 per violation of the District of
Columbia Consumer Protection Act, $500 per violation of the local
consumer identification information law, punitive damages, and a
court order barring the Urban Outfitters Inc., stores from
collecting zip codes during credit card transactions.

The case is before U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell.


UTI WORLDWIDE: Aug. 9 Final Hearing on Settlement
-------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide Inc. (along with numerous other global logistics
providers) was named as a defendant in a federal antitrust class
action lawsuit filed on January 3, 2008 in the U.S. District Court
of the Eastern District of New York (Precision Associates, Inc.,
et. al. v. Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd., et. al.).
This lawsuit alleges that the defendants engaged in various forms
of anti-competitive practices and seeks an unspecified amount of
treble monetary damages and injunctive relief under U.S. antitrust
laws.

On December 5, 2012, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve the entire portion of the lawsuit against the
Company. The settlement has been preliminarily approved by the
Court and is subject to final judicial approval after proper
notice to the putative class.

UTi Worldwide Stores disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2013, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 7, that the Court has scheduled a
hearing to take place on August 9 to determine whether to issue
final approval of the settlement and to set the amount of class
action counsel fees.

The Company has denied any wrongdoing and has made no admission of
liability by entering into this settlement. The Company does not
expect there to be any material impact on the Company's
consolidated financial statements as a result of this settlement.

UTi Worldwide is an international, non-asset-based supply chain
services and solutions company that provides airfreight and ocean
freight forwarding, contract logistics, customs brokerage,
distribution, inbound logistics, truckload brokerage and other
supply chain management services.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Posts $69MM Loss Contingency Accruals for Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
San Jose, California-based VeriFone Systems, Inc., said in a Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2013, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, that during the
three months ended April 30, 2013, the Company estimated and
recorded additional loss contingency accruals totaling $69.0
million for litigation matters (excluding labor matters),
primarily related to the pending securities class action
captioned, In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation,
and a related Israel class action.

        In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc., Securities Litigation

On or after December 4, 2007, several securities class action
claims were filed against VeriFone and certain of its officers,
former officers, and a former director.  These lawsuits were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California and are currently captioned as In re VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, C 07-6140 MHP.  The original
actions were: Eichenholtz v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al.,
C 07-6140 EMC; Lien v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6195
JSW; Vaughn et al. v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6197
VRW (Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this complaint on March 7,
2008); Feldman et al. v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6218
MMC; Cerini v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6228 SC;
Westend Capital Management LLC v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al.,
C 07-6237 MMC; Hill v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6238
MHP; Offutt v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6241 JSW;
Feitel v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc., et al., C 08-0118 CW.  On
August 22, 2008, the court appointed plaintiff National Elevator
Fund lead plaintiff and its attorneys lead counsel.  Lead
plaintiff filed its consolidated amended class action complaint on
October 31, 2008, which asserts claims under the Securities
Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A and SEC Rule 10b-5 for
securities fraud and control person liability against VeriFone and
certain of its current and former officers and directors, based on
allegations that VeriFone and the individual defendants made false
or misleading public statements regarding the business and
operations during the putative class periods and seeks unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.

VeriFone filed a motion to dismiss on December 31, 2008.  The
court granted the motion on May 26, 2009 and dismissed the
consolidated amended class action complaint with leave to amend
within 30 days of the ruling.  The proceedings were stayed pending
a mediation held in October 2009 at which time the parties failed
to reach a mutually agreeable settlement.

Lead plaintiff's first amended complaint was filed on December 3,
2009 followed by a second amended complaint filed on January 19,
2010.  VeriFone filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint and the hearing on the motion was held on May 17, 2010.
In July 2010, prior to any court ruling on VeriFone's motion, lead
plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint on the basis that it had newly discovered evidence.
Pursuant to a briefing schedule issued by the court VeriFone
submitted the motion to dismiss the third amended complaint and
lead plaintiff filed its opposition, following which the court
took the matter under submission without further hearing. On March
8, 2011, the court ruled in VeriFone's favor and dismissed the
consolidated securities class action without leave to amend.

On April 5, 2011, lead plaintiff filed its notice of appeal of the
district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. On June 24 and June 27, 2011, lead plaintiff dismissed
its appeal as against defendants Paul Periolat, William Atkinson,
and Craig Bondy. Lead plaintiff filed its opening brief on appeal
on July 28, 2011. VeriFone filed an answering brief on September
28, 2011 and lead plaintiff filed its reply brief on October 31,
2011. A hearing on oral arguments for this appeal was held before
a judicial panel of the Ninth Circuit on May 17, 2012. On
December 21, 2012, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion reversing
the district court's dismissal of the consolidated shareholder
securities class actions against VeriFone and certain of its
officers and directors, with the exception of the dismissal of
lead plaintiff's claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act, which the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

On January 4, 2013, VeriFone filed a petition for en banc
rehearing with the Ninth Circuit. On January 30, 2013, the Ninth
Circuit denied the petition for rehearing. On February 8, 2013,
the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate returning this case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California for further
proceeding on lead plaintiff's claims, except for the dismissed
Section 20(a) claim.

The parties recently held two mediation sessions and have
determined to continue further settlement discussions under
confidential mediation for possible settlement of the action and
the claims in a related Israel class action.

During the three months ended April 30, 2013, based on the
settlement discussions held in the course of confidential
mediation, the Company recorded an accrual for amounts estimated
to be its probable loss above expected insurance coverage. The
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has
scheduled a case management conference for June 27, 2013.

                   In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc.
           Shareholder Derivative Litigation Proceedings

Beginning on December 13, 2007, several actions were also filed
against certain current and former directors and officers
derivatively on VeriFone's behalf. These derivative lawsuits were
filed in: (1) the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, as In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Shareholder
Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. C 07-6347 MHP, which
consolidates King v. Bergeron, et al. (Case No. 07-CV-6347),
Hilborn v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 08-CV-1132),
Patel v. Bergeron, et al. (Case No. 08-CV-1133), and Lemmond, et
al. v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 08-CV-1301); and
(2) California Superior Court, Santa Clara County, as In re
VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 1-07-
CV-100980, which consolidates Catholic Medical Mission Board v.
Bergeron, et al. (Case No. 1-07-CV-100980) and Carpel v. Bergeron,
et al. (Case No. 1-07-CV-101449).

VeriFone prevailed in its motion to dismiss the federal derivative
claims before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California and, on November 28, 2011, in ruling on lead
plaintiff's appeal against the district court's judgment
dismissing lead plaintiff's derivative claims, the Ninth Circuit
issued judgment affirming the dismissal of lead plaintiff's
complaint against VeriFone.  Lead plaintiff did not appeal the
Ninth Circuit's judgment and the federal derivative action is now
closed.

On October 31, 2008, the state derivative plaintiffs filed their
consolidated derivative complaint in California Superior Court for
the County of Santa Clara naming VeriFone as a nominal defendant
and bringing claims for insider selling, breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets and aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty against certain of VeriFone
current and former officers and directors and VeriFone's largest
stockholder as of October 31, 2008, GTCR Golder Rauner LLC.

On February 18, 2009, plaintiff Catholic Medical Mission Board
voluntarily dismissed itself from the action. In November 2008,
VeriFone filed a motion to stay the state court action pending
resolution of the parallel federal actions, and the parties agreed
by stipulation to delay briefing on the motion to stay until after
the issue of demand futility was resolved in the federal
derivative case.

On June 2, 2011, the court entered a stipulated order requiring
the parties to submit a case status report on August 1, 2011 and
periodically thereafter. The parties submitted status reports to
the court through February 1, 2013 as requested by the court.

On January 30, 2013, counsel for plaintiff informed VeriFone that
Mr. Carpel, the nominal plaintiff, had sold his shares in the
company and therefore no longer had standing to maintain a
derivative action against VeriFone.  On February 15, 2013,
plaintiff filed a motion for leave to publish notice to VeriFone's
stockholders seeking a new nominal plaintiff.  On May 10, 2013,
the court adopted its tentative order granting the motion to
publish notice, which was formally entered on May 17, 2013. Under
the terms of the order, the parties were ordered to publish notice
of the potential dismissal of the action and any qualifying
shareholder who wishes to intervene must notify the court within
90 days from the formal entry of the order. Otherwise, the action
will be dismissed.

                        Israel Class Action

On January 27, 2008, a class action complaint was filed against
VeriFone in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel on
behalf of purchasers of VeriFone stock on the Tel Aviv Stock
Exchange.  The complaint seeks compensation for damages allegedly
incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the publication of
erroneous financial reports.

VeriFone filed a motion to stay the action, in light of the
proceedings already filed in the United States, on March 31, 2008.
A hearing on the motion was held on May 25, 2008.  Further
briefing in support of the stay motion, specifically with
regard to the threshold issue of applicable law, was submitted on
June 24, 2008.

On September 11, 2008, the Israeli District Court ruled in
VeriFone's favor, holding that U.S. law would apply in determining
the Company's liability.

On October 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to appeal
the Israeli District Court's ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court.
VeriFone's response to plaintiffs' appeal motion was filed on
January 18, 2009. The Israeli District Court has stayed its
proceedings until the Israeli Supreme Court rules on plaintiffs'
motion for leave to appeal.

On January 27, 2010, after a hearing before the Israeli Supreme
Court, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for leave to
appeal and addressed the case back to the Israeli District Court.
The Israeli Supreme Court instructed the Israeli District Court to
rule whether the Israel class action should be stayed, under the
assumption that the applicable law is U.S. law.  Plaintiffs
subsequently filed an application for reconsideration of the
Israeli District Court's ruling that U.S. law is the applicable
law.

Following a hearing on plaintiffs' application, on April 12, 2010,
the parties agreed to stay the proceedings pending resolution of
the U.S. securities class action, without prejudice to plaintiffs'
right to appeal the Israeli District Court's decision regarding
the applicable law to the Israeli Supreme Court.  On May 25, 2010,
plaintiff filed a motion for leave to appeal the decision
regarding the applicable law with the Israeli Supreme Court.

In August 2010, plaintiff filed an application to the Israeli
Supreme Court arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Morrison et al. v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. __, 130
S. Ct. 2869 (2010), may affect the outcome of the appeal currently
pending before the Court and requesting that this authority be
added to the Court's record. Plaintiff concurrently filed an
application with the Israeli District Court asking that court to
reverse its decision regarding the applicability of U.S. law to
the Israel class action, as well as to cancel its decision to stay
the Israeli proceedings in favor of the U.S. class action in light
of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison.

On August 25, 2011, the Israeli District Court issued a decision
denying plaintiff's application and reaffirming its ruling that
the law applicable to the Israel class action is U.S. law. The
Israeli District Court also ordered that further proceedings in
the case be stayed pending the decision on appeal in the U.S.
class action.

On November 13, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended application for
leave to appeal addressing the Israeli District Court's ruling.
VeriFone filed an amended response on December 28, 2011. On
January 1, 2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered consideration
of the application by three justices. On July 2, 2012, the Israeli
Supreme Court ordered VeriFone to file an updated notice on the
status of the proceedings in the U.S. securities class action then
pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by
October 1, 2012. On October 11, 2012, VeriFone filed an updated
status notice in the Israeli Supreme Court on the proceedings in
the U.S. securities class action pending at the time in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On January 9, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court held a further
hearing on the status of the appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit and recommended that the parties meet and
confer regarding the inclusion of the Israeli plaintiffs in the
federal class action pending in the U.S.  On February 10, 2013,
the Israeli Supreme Court issued an order staying the case
pursuant to the joint notice submitted to the court by the parties
on February 4, 2013.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Sept. 20 Hearing to Appoint Lead Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------
Several putative plaintiffs and plaintiffs' law firms on May 6,
2013, filed motions to consolidate three securities class actions
and appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel, respectively, San
Jose, California-based VeriFone Systems, Inc., disclosed in a Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2013, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5.

The hearing on the lead plaintiff and lead counsel motions is set
for September 20, 2013.

A putative securities class action was filed on March 7, 2013, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
alleging claims in connection with the Company's February 20,
2013, announcement of preliminary financial results for the fiscal
quarter ended January 31, 2013.

The action, captioned Sanders v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al.,
Case No. C 13-1038, is brought on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of VeriFone securities between December 14, 2011 and
February 19, 2013 and asserts claims under the Securities Exchange
Act Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and SEC Rule 10b-5 for securities
fraud and control person liability.  The claims are brought
against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers, and are based on allegations that the Company and the
individual defendants made false or misleading public statements
regarding the business, operations, and financial controls during
the putative class period.  The complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.

Two additional class actions related to the same matter (Laborers
Local 235 Benefit Finds v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No.
CV 13-1676 and Bland v. VeriFone Systems, Inc., et al., Case No.
CV 13-1853) were filed in April 2013.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Oct. 4 Case Management Conference in "Dolled"
---------------------------------------------------------------
On April 19, 2013, a derivative action, Dolled v. Bergeron et al.,
Case No. 113-CV-245056, was filed in Superior Court of California,
County of Santa Clara in connection with VeriFone Systems, Inc.'s
February 20, 2013 announcement of preliminary financial results
for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2013.  The action,
brought derivatively on behalf of VeriFone, names VeriFone as a
nominal defendant and brings claims for insider selling, breach of
fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment variously against Douglas
Bergeron, Robert Dykes, Marc Rothman, Charles Rinehart, and
VeriFone's current directors.  The complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages, restitution and disgorgement of profits and
compensation paid to defendants, injunctive relief directing
VeriFone to reform its corporate governance, and payment of the
plaintiff's costs and attorneys' fees.

On May 30, 2013, the court entered the parties' stipulation and
proposed order, which appointed plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel
as lead plaintiff and lead counsel, respectively, in the
consolidated action, captioned In re VeriFone Systems, Inc.
Derivative Litigation, and which set a case management conference
for October 4, 2013, according to San Jose, California-based
VeriFone Systems' Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended
April 30, 2013, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on June 5.


VERINT SYSTEMS: Mediation Ongoing in Employees' Suit v. Unit
------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation process began on February 28, 2013, and, as of June 3,
remains ongoing in a consolidated action commenced by a former
employee of Melville, New York-based Verint Systems Inc.'s
subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited, against VSL; and a former
employee of Comverse Limited, a former subsidiary of Comverse
Technology, Inc., VSI's former parent company, against Comverse
Limited in the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court, according to
VSI's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the quarterly period ended
April 30, 2013, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 3.

According to VSI, "On March 26, 2009, legal actions were commenced
by Ms. Orit Deutsch, a former employee of our subsidiary, Verint
Systems Limited ("VSL"), against VSL in the Tel Aviv Regional
Labor Court (Case Number 4186/09) (the "Deutsch Labor Action") and
against CTI in the Tel Aviv Regional District Court (Case Number
1335/09) (the "Deutsch District Action"). In the Deutsch Labor
Action, Ms. Deutsch filed a motion to approve a class action
lawsuit on the grounds that she purports to represent a class of
our employees and former employees who were granted Verint and CTI
stock options and were allegedly damaged as a result of the
suspension of option exercises during our previous extended filing
delay period. In the Deutsch District Action, in addition to a
small amount of individual damages, Ms. Deutsch is seeking to
certify a class of plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to
their inability to exercise Verint and CTI stock options as a
result of alleged negligence by CTI in its financial reporting.
The class certification motions do not specify an amount of
damages. On February 8, 2010, the Deutsch Labor Action was
dismissed for lack of material jurisdiction and was transferred to
the Tel Aviv Regional District Court and consolidated with the
Deutsch District Action."

"On March 16, 2009 and March 26, 2009, respectively, legal actions
were commenced by Ms. Roni Katriel, a former employee of CTI's
former subsidiary, Comverse Limited, against Comverse Limited in
the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 3444/09) (the
"Katriel Labor Action") and against CTI in the Tel Aviv Regional
District Court (Case Number 1334/09) (the "Katriel District
Action").  In the Katriel Labor Action, Ms. Katriel is seeking to
certify a class of plaintiffs who were granted CTI stock options
and were allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option
exercises during CTI's previous extended filing delay period. In
the Katriel District Action, in addition to a small amount of
individual damages, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a class of
plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to
exercise CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by
CTI in its financial reporting. The class certification motions do
not specify an amount of damages. On March 2, 2010, the Labor
Court ordered the transfer of the case to the District Court in
Tel Aviv - Jaffa, based on an agreed motion filed by the parties
requesting such transfer."

On April 4, 2012, Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel filed an uncontested
motion to consolidate and amend their claims and on June 7, 2012,
the court allowed Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel to file the
consolidated class certification motion and an amended
consolidated complaint against VSL, CTI, and Comverse Limited.
Following CTI's announcement of its intention to effect the
Comverse share distribution, on July 12, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a motion requesting that the District Court order CTI to set
aside up to $150.0 million in assets to secure any future
judgment. The District Court ruled that it would not decide this
motion until the Deutsch and Katriel class certification motion
was heard. On August 16, 2012, in light of the announcement of the
signing of the CTI Merger Agreement, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for leave to appeal this District Court ruling to the Israeli
Supreme Court.  VSI filed its response to this motion on
September 6, 2012.

Prior to the consummation of the Comverse share distribution, CTI
either sold or transferred substantially all of its business
operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests
in us and Comverse) to Comverse or unaffiliated third parties. On
October 31, 2012, CTI completed the Comverse share distribution,
in which it distributed all of the outstanding shares of common
stock of Comverse to CTI's shareholders. As a result of the
Comverse share distribution, Comverse became an independent public
company and ceased to be a wholly owned subsidiary of CTI, and CTI
ceased to have any material assets other than its equity interest
in VSI.

VSI and the other defendants filed responses to the complaint on
November 11, 2012 and plaintiffs filed their replies on December
20, 2012. A pre-trial hearing for the case was held on December
25, 2012, during which all parties agreed to attempt to settle the
dispute through mediation.

On February 4, 2013, VSI completed the CTI Merger. As a result of
the CTI Merger, VSI has assumed certain rights and liabilities of
CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of the Deutsch
District Action and the Katriel District Action. However, under
the terms of the Distribution Agreement between CTI and Comverse
relating to the Comverse share distribution, VSI, as successor to
CTI, is entitled to indemnification from Comverse for any losses
VSI suffers in its capacity as successor-in-interest to CTI in
connection with the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel
District Action.

Verint is a global leader in Actionable Intelligence solutions and
value-added services.  Its solutions enable organizations of all
sizes to make more timely and effective decisions to improve
enterprise performance and make the world a safer place.


WAL-MART STORES: Filed Response to New Class Cert. Bid in "Dukes"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is a defendant in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., which was commenced as a class-action lawsuit in June 2001
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, asserting that the Company had engaged in a pattern
and practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay,
training, and job assignments, and seeking, among other things,
injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.  On June 21, 2004, the district court issued an
order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

As defined by the district court, the class included "[a]ll women
employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail store at any time since
December 26, 1998, who have been or may be subjected to Wal-Mart's
challenged pay and management track promotions policies and
practices."

The Company appealed the order to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals and subsequently to the United States Supreme Court. On
June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court issued an opinion decertifying
the class and remanding the case to the district court.

On October 27, 2011, the plaintiffs' attorneys filed an amended
complaint proposing a class of current and former female
associates at the Company's California retail facilities, and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss on January 13, 2012.  On
September 21, 2012, the court denied the motion.

Wal-Mart Stores disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2013, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 7, that the plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification on April 15, 2013, and the Company
filed its response on May 31, 2013.

Wal-Mart Stores operates retail stores in various formats around
the world.


WAL-MART STORES: "Odle" Case Dismissed in October 2012
------------------------------------------------------
On October 28, 2011, the attorneys for the plaintiffs in Dukes v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., filed a similar complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas entitled
Odle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., proposing a class of current and
former female associates employed in any Walmart region that
includes stores located in the state of Texas.

Wal-Mart Stores disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2013, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 7, that on October 15, 2012, the
court in the Odle case granted the Company's motion to dismiss,
dismissing with prejudice the plaintiffs' class-action allegations
and the individual claims of the lead plaintiff, Stephanie Odle.

Dukes asserts that the Company had engaged in a pattern and
practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay,
training, and job assignments, and seeking, among other things,
injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

Wal-Mart Stores operates retail stores in various formats around
the world.


WAL-MART STORES: "Phipps" Case Dismissed in February 2013
---------------------------------------------------------
On October 2, 2012, the attorneys for the plaintiffs in Dukes v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., filed a similar complaint in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
entitled Phipps v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., proposing a class of
current and former female associates employed in "Region 43,
centered in Middle and Western Tennessee."

Wal-Mart Stores disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2013, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 7, that on February 20, 2013, the
court in the Phipps case granted the Company's motion to dismiss,
dismissing with prejudice the plaintiffs' class action
allegations.

Dukes asserts that the Company had engaged in a pattern and
practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay,
training, and job assignments, and seeking, among other things,
injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

Wal-Mart Stores operates retail stores in various formats around
the world.


WAL-MART STORES: "Love" Suit Over Gender Bias Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
On October 4, 2012, the attorneys for the plaintiffs in Dukes v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., filed a similar complaint in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
entitled Love v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., proposing a class of
current and former female associates employed in certain
designated stores and clubs in regions centered in the state of
Florida.

On October 25, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Florida complaint.

No further updates were reported in the Company's Form 10-Q report
for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2013, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 7.

Dukes asserts that the Company had engaged in a pattern and
practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay,
training, and job assignments, and seeking, among other things,
injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

Wal-Mart Stores operates retail stores in various formats around
the world.


WAL-MART STORES: Court Dismisses "Ladik" Suit Over Gender Bias
--------------------------------------------------------------
On February 20, 2013, the attorneys for the plaintiffs in Dukes v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., filed a similar complaint in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin,
entitled Ladik v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., proposing a class of
current and former female associates employed in "Region 14, which
includes Wal-Mart retail stores located in parts of Wisconsin,
Illinois, Indiana and Michigan."

In its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended April 30,
2013, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 7,
the Company said that on May 24, 2013, the court in the Ladik case
granted the Company's motion to dismiss, dismissing with prejudice
the plaintiffs' class-action allegations.

Dukes asserts that the Company had engaged in a pattern and
practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay,
training, and job assignments, and seeking, among other things,
injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

Wal-Mart Stores operates retail stores in various formats around
the world.


WAL-MART STORES: No Decision Yet on Appeal in "Braun/Hummel" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No decision has been issued by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s bid to appeal a class certification ruling
in the suit, Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., according to
the Company's Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended
April 30, 2013, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on June 7.

Wal-Mart is a defendant in Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
a class action lawsuit commenced in March 2002 in the Court of
Common Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs allege
that the Company failed to pay class members for all hours worked
and prevented class members from taking their full meal and rest
breaks. On October 13, 2006, a jury awarded back-pay damages to
the plaintiffs of approximately $78 million on their claims for
off-the-clock work and missed rest breaks. The jury found in
favor of the Company on the plaintiffs' meal-period claims. On
November 14, 2007, the trial judge entered a final judgment in the
approximate amount of $188 million, which included the jury's
back-pay award plus statutory penalties, prejudgment interest and
attorneys' fees. By operation of law, post-judgment interest
accrues on the judgment amount at the rate of six percent per
annum from the date of entry of the judgment, which was
November 14, 2007, until the judgment is paid, unless the judgment
is set aside on appeal.

On December 7, 2007, the Company filed its Notice of Appeal. The
Company filed its opening appellate brief on February 17, 2009,
plaintiffs filed their response brief on April 20, 2009, and the
Company filed its reply brief on June 5, 2009. Oral argument was
held before the Pennsylvania Superior Court of Appeals on August
19, 2009.

On June 10, 2011, the court issued an opinion upholding the trial
court's certification of the class, the jury's back pay award, and
the awards of statutory penalties and prejudgment interest, but
reversing the award of attorneys' fees.

On September 9, 2011, the Company filed a Petition for Allowance
of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On July 2, 2012,
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the Company's Petition. The
Company served its opening brief in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
on October 22, 2012, plaintiffs served their response brief on
January 22, 2013, and the Company served its reply on February 28,
2013. Oral argument was held in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on
May 8, 2013.  No decision has been issued.

The Company believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses
to the claims at issue, and plans to continue pursuing appellate
review.

Wal-Mart operates retail stores in various formats around the
world.


WELLS FARGO: Judge Wants New Class Action Plaintiffs Lawyers
------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Blum, writing for The Recorder, reports that U.S. District
Judge William Alsup, the famously tough federal judge, is shopping
for new plaintiffs lawyers to pursue a class action against Wells
Fargo Bank because he isn't happy with the team that brought suit.

Judge Alsup on June 21 conditionally certified a class of
California residential borrowers who were automatically signed up
for flood insurance at above-market rates, while at the same time
seeking to replace the lawyers who filed the suit and sought
appointment as class counsel.

The Wagoner Law Firm, Owings Law Firm and Walker Law, all based in
Little Rock, Ark., and San Jose solo Sheri Kelly misled the court
regarding similar pending suits and gave a "lackluster
performance" in discovery, Judge Alsup stated in his order.  "The
court has had prior and disappointing experience with several of
the applicant firms and attorneys," he wrote, calling Lane v.
Wells Fargo, 12-4026, a "rare case" where class members best
interest might rest on the selection of new counsel.

Ms. Kelly, the group's local counsel, could not immediately be
reached for comment.  According to her web site, Ms. Kelly
previously practiced at Burlingame's Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Girard Gibbs, both highly regarded plaintiffs shops.

The group's suit before Judge Alsup challenges the Wells Fargo
practice of purchasing flood and hazard insurance for residential
properties securing loans it acquired from Fannie Mae or Freddie
Mac, a practice known as "force-placement."  Wells Fargo allegedly
received kickbacks from insurance providers on the policies.

Judge Alsup refused to certify a nationwide class due to
variations in state law.  He also denied a motion to certify a
class of Arkansas borrowers, finding those claims would be better
litigated in Arkansas.  In his order, Judge Alsup noted that
numerous class actions involving force-placed insurance on home
mortgages have been filed in recent years and said plaintiffs
lawyers had misrepresented their status to gain an advantage.

"For example," Judge Alsup wrote, "in plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, counsel cited seven different ongoing actions
alleging similar claims against defendant, but stated that 'these
cases do not overlap with this case in any manner.' This was and
remains inaccurate."

Moreover, he wrote, the same group of plaintiffs lawyers had
sought to derail a nationwide settlement in a similar suit against
Chase Home Finance because the settlement would hurt their own
action against Chase.

"This was a hold-up maneuver unworthy of Rule 23 practice,"
Judge Alsup wrote.

In securities class actions, it is the lead plaintiff who chooses
its counsel, Judge Alsup noted.  However, he wrote, the choice of
class counsel in consumer class actions is up to judges, who have
broad discretion to appoint lawyers who will fairly and adequately
represent the class.

Judge Alsup said the current plaintiffs lawyers could still seek
appointment and encouraged them to co-apply with other counsel
"preferably familiar with the successful conduct of class actions
in this district."

The deadline for applications is July 19.  Lawyers seeking
appointment should explain their experience in class action and
other complex litigation, their familiarity with the claims at
issue and their track record in achieving class verdicts or
settlements, Judge Alsup stated.


WEST PUBLISHING: Kendrick & Nutley's Fee Opening Brief Due July 16
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that as class members in the $49 million BAR/BRI settlement
continue to wait for their distribution checks, lawyers for five
individuals who succeeded in unraveling key portions of the deal
on appeal were granted immediate payment of more than $230,000 in
fees and costs.

Kendrick & Nutley, a Pasadena, Calif., law firm that represented
the five objectors, moved in May for enforcement of an order
earlier this year granting fees and costs for their work in the
case.  Specifically, for successfully arguing that McGuireWoods,
the lead counsel for the class, should have its fees cut for an
"egregious breach" of ethics highlighted by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit last year.

During a hearing on June 17, U.S. District Judge Manuel Real in
Los Angeles ordered that Kendrick & Nutley get paid within five
days.

The case involved claims that West Publishing Corp. and Kaplan
Inc. had conspired to monopolize the market for the BAR/BRI bar
review course in violation of the Sherman Act, the federal
antitrust law.  The class included about 300,000 students who paid
$1,000 on average in overcharges for the bar review course between
1997 and 2006.

The settlement, reached in 2007, originally included incentive
agreements for five class representatives worth $10,000 to
$75,000, depending on the value of the settlement.  Two additional
named plaintiffs, represented by New York's Zwerling Schachter &
Zwerling and Washington's Finkelstein Thompson, did not have such
agreements.

Judge Real approved the deal but not the incentive awards, citing
a potential appearance of conflict of interest.  The Ninth Circuit
agreed, but remanded as to the fees.

On remand, Judge Real denied all but $500,000 in fees to
McGuireWoods.  He denied all fees to most of the objectors.

Kendrick & Nutley was one of two firms that received about $8,000
in fees for their work in eliminating the incentive awards from
the settlement.  The other was solo practitioner John Davis of the
Law Office of John W. Davis in San Diego.

The more recent fee request related to Kendrick & Nutley's success
in reducing McGuireWoods' fees from an initial $12 million to
$500,000.

In an August 10 order, the Ninth Circuit upheld the $500,000 in
fees to McGuireWoods.  "The representation of clients with
conflicting interests and without informed consent is a
particularly egregious ethical violation that may be a proper
basis for complete denial of fees," Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta
wrote.

The court also upheld denial of fees to attorneys for objectors,
except for the five represented by Kendrick & Nutley who had
alerted Judge Real to the potential conflict.

On remand, Kendrick & Nutley sought about $1.79 million in fees
and $1,700 in expenses.  In a November 10 motion for fees, partner
James Kendrick argued that the amount represented 20 percent of an
estimated $8.9 million that the class saved by reducing
McGuireWoods' fees.  McGuireWoods partner Sidney Kanazawa --
skanazawa@mcguirewoods.com -- argued that the fees should be
closer to $180,000.

Judge Real rejected an analysis based on a percentage, and instead
asked the firm to submit its billing records associated with the
McGuireWoods fee arguments.  The firm submitted bills totaling
about $651,000, but McGuireWoods pared down that amount to between
$180,000 and $226,000.

During a January 14 hearing, Judge Real granted fees to Kendrick &
Nutley but told the lawyers that the award included only work that
had to do with McGuireWoods' fee -- about $236,000 in fees and
$1,700 in costs.  "He was determined not to pay us a dime for
anything not related to that," Nutley said.  Kendrick & Nutley has
appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit.

But in the meantime, the firm sought payment on that order.  In a
May 20 motion, Nutley wrote that payment should be made
immediately because McGuireWoods had not challenged the fees on
appeal or sought to stay Judge Real's order.  If McGuireWoods
continued to withhold payment of its fees, Kendrick & Nutley
deserved sanctions for its "recalcitrant behavior," he wrote.

McGuireWoods' Kanazawa, in opposing the request on May 29, argued
that the Ninth Circuit could lower Kendrick & Nutley's fees,
causing uncertainty as to how much would have to come out of the
settlement fund.  "Class Counsel's hesitance to disburse any
monies to third parties from the common settlement fund without
Court approval is not contempt or recalcitrance, but rather,
understandable caution," he wrote.

Nutley called that argument "utterly preposterous."  "They never
cited a single case that would suggest that," he said. "Judge Real
saw through it and did the right thing."

He said the firm was assisted in its work by solo practitioners
John Pentz in Maynard, Mass., and Scott Kessinger of Kapaa, Hi.

Meanwhile, Kendrick & Nutley's opening brief before the Ninth
Circuit is due on July 16.  Nutley said the firm would probably
seek $1.7 million.

"That's a matter of continued discussion," he said.  "But we'll
essentially try to get what we were seeking in the first place,
which we thought was very reasonable and well supported as to both
the law and the facts."

Kanazawa said the request amounts to more than what class counsel
received.  In addition to his own firm's $500,000, Zwerling
Schachter & Zwerling and Finkelstein Thompson were awarded a
combined $3.6 million in fees.

And Kendrick & Nutley's appeal of its fees, he said, is holding up
final distribution of the settlement fund, which now totals about
$13 million.

"That's the last thing that's stopping us from distributing the
fund is this appeal," he said.


ZALE CORP: 2 Securities Suits in Texas Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
In November 2009, Zale Corporation and four former officers, Neal
L. Goldberg, Rodney Carter, Mary E. Burton and Cynthia T. Gordon,
were named as defendants in two purported class-action lawsuits
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.  On August 9, 2010, the two lawsuits were
consolidated into one lawsuit, which alleged various violations of
securities laws arising from the financial statement errors that
led to the restatement completed by the Company as part of its
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 31,
2009.  The lawsuit requested unspecified damages and costs.  On
August 1, 2011, the Court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.

The plaintiffs appealed the decision and on November 30, 2012 the
United States Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision
and affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff's case.  The plaintiffs
did not appeal this ruling and the matter was therefore dismissed
with prejudice, according to the company's Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended April 30, 2013, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 7.

Zale Corp. is a leading specialty retailer of fine jewelry in
North America.


ZALE CORP: Got $2.2MM From De Beers Accord During Past 3 Quarters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in June 2004, various class-action lawsuits were filed
alleging that the De Beers group violated U.S. state and federal
antitrust, consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws.  Zale
Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2013, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 7, that during the three and nine
months ended April 30, 2013, received proceeds totaling $0.3
million and $2.2 million, respectively, as a result of a
settlement reached in the lawsuit.

Zale Corp. is a leading specialty retailer of fine jewelry in
North America.


ZOETIS INC: Roxarsone-Related Class Suit Dismissed in March
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit related to Zoetis Inc.'s Roxarsone
product was dismissed in March 2013, according to the Company's
May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

The Company is a defendant in nine actions involving approximately
140 plaintiffs that allege that the distribution of the medicated
feed additive Roxarsone(R)(3-Nitro) allegedly caused various
diseases in the plaintiffs, including cancers and neurological
diseases.  Other defendants, including various poultry companies,
are also named in these lawsuits.  Compensatory and punitive
damages are sought in unspecified amounts.

In September 2006, the Circuit Court of Washington County returned
a defense verdict in one of the lawsuits, Mary Green, et al. v.
Alpharma, Inc. et al.  In 2008, this verdict was appealed and
affirmed by the Arkansas Supreme Court.  Certain summary judgments
favoring the poultry company co-defendants in Mary Green, et al.
v. Alpharma, Inc. et al. were reversed by the Arkansas Supreme
Court in 2008.  These claims were retried in 2009 and that trial
also resulted in a defense verdict, which was affirmed by the
Arkansas Supreme Court in April 2011.  In October 2012, the
Company entered into an agreement to resolve these cases.  The
resolution is subject to the execution of full releases or
dismissals with prejudice by all of the claimants or the Company's
waiver of these requirements.  The trial schedule has been
suspended pending the outcome of the proposed settlement.

In June 2011, the Company announced that it would suspend sales in
the U.S. of Roxarsone (3-Nitro) in response to a request by the
U.S. FDA and subsequently stopped sales in several international
markets.

Following the Company's decision to suspend sales of Roxarsone (3-
Nitro) in June 2011, Zhejiang Rongyao Chemical Co., Ltd., the
supplier of certain materials used in the production of Roxarsone
(3-Nitro), filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey alleging that the Company is liable for
damages it suffered as a result of the decision to suspend sales.

In September 2012, the Company was named as defendants in a
purported class action in the Circuit Court of Arkansas County,
Arkansas.  The lawsuit alleges that the distribution of medicated
feed additives, including Roxarsone, caused chickens to produce
manure that contains an arsenical compound, which, when used as
agricultural fertilizer by rice farmers, degrades into inorganic
arsenic and allegedly caused contamination of rice produced by
Arkansas farmers.  Other defendants, including various poultry
companies, are also named in these lawsuits.  Compensatory
damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees are sought in an
unspecified amount.  On March 4, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to dismiss the class action without prejudice.  On March 7,
2013, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion and entered an
order dismissing the case without prejudice.

Based in Madison, New Jersey, Zoetis Inc. discovers, develops,
manufactures and commercializes animal health medicines and
vaccines, with a focus on both livestock and companion animals.
The Company markets its products in more than 120 countries,
including developed markets and emerging markets.


* Generic Drug Makers Exempt From State Tort Suits, Sup. Ct. Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Am Law Litigation Daily reports that once again, generic drug
makers have Kirkland & Ellis partner Jay Lefkowitz to thank for
closing off one of the few remaining avenues for plaintiffs to
bring product liability claims against them in state court.

On June 24, almost two years to the day after the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled 5-4 in Pliva v. Mensing that generic drug makers are
exempt from state tort lawsuits accusing them of failing to
provide adequate warning labels on their products, the same five
justices handed another victory to Mr. Lefkowitz and the generic
drug industry.  In the June 24 ruling in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co.
v. Bartlett, the Supreme Court extended Mensing to cover state
design defect claims against generics, reversing a 2012 decision
from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

In doing so, the Supreme Court also vacated a $21 million New
Hampshire verdict in favor of Karen Bartlett, a woman who claims
that generic sulindac, an anti-inflammatory drug, caused her to
sustain burns to over 60 percent of her body and left her almost
completely blind.  Ms. Bartlett was represented by Kellogg, Huber,
Hansen Todd, Evans & Figel; Shaheen & Gordon; and Jensen &
Associates.

Writing for Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin
Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito
concluded that Ms. Bartlett's lawyers were merely bringing forth a
failure-to-warn case under the guise of a design-defect claim.
Holding that all state law design-defect claims "that turn on the
adequacy of a drug's warnings are preempted by federal law under
Mensing," Justice Alito found that Mutual was in an impossible
situation.  On the one hand, federal statute required Mutual to
produce generic drugs that were identical to their brand name
counterparts in both chemical composition and packaging.  On the
other hand, New Hampshire state law required Mutual to make its
warnings more conspicuous or else it would face liability under
state design defect products liability laws.  Because it would
have been impossible for Mutual Pharmaceutical to strengthen its
warnings without altering its label in violation of federal law,
Justice Alito held that the New Hampshire law was preempted.

Ms. Bartlett's lawyers had argued that Mutual could have avoided
this problem by pulling its product from the shelves once it
realized it was selling a potentially dangerous drug.  Justice
Alito, however, found that this argument was irrelevant, and he
noted that the court turned down the same argument in Mensing.

"[Bartlett's] situation is tragic and evokes deep sympathy, but a
straightforward application of pre-emption law requires that the
judgment below be reversed," Justice Alito wrote in the June 24
53-page opinion.

In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was joined by Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsberg, criticized the court for extending Mensing
and giving pharmaceutical companies license "to sell a federally
approved drug free from common-law liability."  In a separate
dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justice Elena Kagan,
agreed with Bartlett's argument that Mutual could have decided not
to sell its product in New Hampshire.

Kirkland's Lefkowitz told The Am Law Litigation Daily on June 24
that the decision was the only logical outcome.  "Fundamentally,
the regime Congress created requires generic drugs to be the same
as their brand equivalents," said Mr. Lefkowitz.  "To have generic
drugs alter their labels unilaterally would cause tremendous
confusion."  Mr. Lefkowitz also said that, between Bartlett and
Mensing, the Supreme Court reinforced the notion that the Food and
Drug Administration, not states, have exclusive authority to
determine the safety and efficacy of drugs.

David Frederick of Kellogg Huber, who argued for Bartlett before
the high court, did not respond to a request for comment.


* Supreme Court Raises Bar for Job Discrimination Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
in back-to-back, divided rulings on June 24, the U.S. Supreme
Court raised the bar for employees seeking to prove discrimination
in their workplaces.

The justices split along ideological lines in two cases, one
concerning the definition of "supervisor" for purposes of Title
VII liability, and the other, involving the burden of proof in
Title VII retaliation claims -- the fastest growing category of
discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964.

In Vance v. Ball State University, the 5-4 majority, led by
Justice Samuel Alito Jr., held that an employee is a supervisor
when the employer has empowered that worker "to take tangible
employment actions against the victim" such as hiring, firing,
failing to promote, reassignment or some other action causing a
significant change in employment status.

Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and
justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas,
rejected the "nebulous," "open-ended" definition advocated by the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for the past 14 years.
Under the EEOC's definition, a supervisor could be either someone
who has authority to take a tangible employment action or someone
who exercises significant direction over another's work.

The narrower definition, Justice Alito wrote, is "easily workable;
it can be applied without undue difficulty at both the summary
judgment stage and at trial.  The alternative, in many cases,
would frustrate judges and confound jurors."

The majority disagreed with the dissenters' claim that its
approach would leave employees unprotected against harassment by
co-workers who have authority to inflict psychological injury by
assigning unpleasant tasks or altering the work environment in
objectionable ways.

"In such cases, the victims will be able to prevail simply by
showing that the employer was negligent in permitting this
harassment to occur," Justice Alito wrote.  He said the majority's
decision flowed from the court's 1998 rulings in Burlington
Industries v. Ellerth and Faragher v. Boca Raton.

The decision affirmed a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit against Maetta Vance, an African-American
woman who sued her employer claiming that a co-worker had created
a racially hostile work environment.  The circuit courts were
split over the definition of supervisor.

The same conservative majority, led this time by Kennedy, held in
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar that
Title VII retaliation claims require employees to prove that the
unlawful retaliation would not have occurred in the absence of the
employer's alleged wrongful action -- so-called "but for"
causation.

The but-for standard is a higher standard of proof than the one
advocated by the EEOC and used by many courts, but it is the same
standard that the court adopted for age discrimination claims in
its 2009 decision Gross v. FBL Financial Services.  In that 2009
decision under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, a divided
court held that a plaintiff must prove that age was the "but for"
cause of the employer's adverse action, meaning that age was the
single or determining motive.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Hardie Slugged With More Fibro Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gareth Hutchens, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported
that liabilities for a compensation fund set aside for victims of
James Hardies' asbestos products have increased by $117 million to
$1.7 billion.

According to the report, under an accounting formula, James Hardie
pays into the fund -- called the Asbestos Injuries Compensation
Fund -- a capped annual amount of 35% of its 'free cash flow.'
But the increase follows an unexpected spike in compensation
claims, the report said.

The company had believed the "peak year" for asbestos claims was
2010-11, but claims have increased by more than expected in the
last 12 months.

The readjustment is also partly due to a projected increase in the
future number of claims for a number of disease types, the report
added.  It means liabilities for the compensation fund set aside
for asbestos victims now stands at an estimated $1.7 billion, up
from $1.58 billion a year ago.

The news comes as Telstra said that more of its cabling pits,
which are being used to roll out the national broadband network
program, contain traces of the deadly asbestos fibre.

According to James Hardie's 2013 financial report, there were 542
new claims filed against the company since March last year,
compared with 456 claims filed in the previous 12 months.

The spike in the number and cost of claims has caught the company
off guard.

"During fiscal year 2013, mesothelioma claims reporting activity
has been above actuarial expectations for the first time since
fiscal year 2009," the company's annual report says.

"One of the critical assumptions used to derive the [claims]
estimate is the estimated peak year of mesothelioma disease
claims, which was targeted for 2010-11."

New claims from mesothelioma victims had been falling, from 494 in
financial year 2011 to 456 in the following year.

The average claim settlement has also jumped in the past 12
months.

In fiscal year 2013, the average claim settlement of $231,000 was
$12,000 more than the previous year.

The increase in the average claim settlement was due largely to
the rise in mesothelioma claims, which are "more costly to settle
and represented a larger proportion of total claims than in fiscal
year 2012".

Asbestos claims paid of $121.3 million for fiscal year 2013 were
consistent with the actuarial expectation of $122.2 million.

James Hardie moved its base to the Netherlands from Australia in
2001. Directors of the company were later found by a NSW Supreme
Court to have made misleading statements about the adequacy of the
compensation fund it set up in Australia for asbestosis sufferers.
Meanwhile, James Hardie chief executive Louis Gries said he was
confident the recent improvements seen in the US housing markets
were sustainable.

But he expressed caution over the building materials market in
Australia and parts of Asia which he described as "challenging"
with operating conditions likely to remain subdued.

James Hardie recently posted a full-year net profit of $US140.8
million, down from $144.3 million.

The group benefited from higher sales volumes in all major
markets, but with lower average selling prices in the key US and
European markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Responders Fear Exposure at Philadelphia Bldg
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Hairston and Karen Araiza, writing for NBC10, reported that
weeks after a deadly building collapse in Philadelphia, first
responders are worried about their health.

According to the report, they want to know if there was asbestos
in the building when it collapsed at 22nd and Market Streets on
June 5.

"I still don't know if it was in that building," Fire Commissioner
Lloyd Ayers said, the report cited. "I'm hoping it wasn't.

Ayers said firefighters who rushed to the collapse scene were not
wearing gear to protect themselves from asbestos, which is a
cancer-causing substance.

That day, according to Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, at the
height of the search there were 125 emergency crews at the site.
Some of them worked for hours as the rescue and recovery efforts
stretched from the morning of the fire until late the following
day.

Six people died that day when a four-story building that was being
demolished, came crashing down on the Salvation Army Thrift Shop
next door.

Kenneth Hudson, a licensed asbestos investigator, inspected the
building that collapsed before the demolition started. In his
report, obtained exclusively by NBC10's Harry Hairston, it reveals
there was no asbestos in the building.  Hudson admits he did not
conduct a test for asbestos because he says it wasn't necessary.

"What I see, I document, I take samples of it, if need be, if
there is suspect material. There wasn't any suspect material, so
there wasn't any reason for me to take a sample," Hudson said.

The City of Philadelphia has Hudson's inspection report, but
refuses to make it available to the public, citing the grand jury
investigation into the collapse.

City Councilman James Kenney is part of the council's
investigative committee conducting hearings on the collapse. He
has accused the Nutter Administration of hiding behind the grand
jury rather than participating in a way that would help the
committee make swift changes to avoid future disasters.

"If in fact it's determined it's germane to the grand jury, I
don't need to see it; they can at least say 'Yes' or 'No' they
have one," Kenney said.

Hudson said he has nothing to hide.

"I did my job as an asbestos inspector," Hudson says. "That's as
far as I can comment, professionally."

Mayor Nutter's office declined to comment for our story because of
the grand jury investigation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asons Warns of Fibro Threat After Claim Payment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The man, 73, was employed by a Worcester based domestic heating
and hot water products manufacturer, for almost 30 years. During
his career, he spent five years working within an environment
contaminated by asbestos dust. The lack of adequate protection
eventually led to a diagnosis of rare lung cancer.

Back in the 1970s, the engineer was responsible for the assembling
of wall-mounted boilers, a task which unfortunately included
handling sheets of asbestos on a daily basis.

The married father-of-two began to display symptoms of poor health
only last year and was diagnosed with mesothelioma -- an incurable
cancer which affects the lining of the lungs.

Questioned about the harmful experience, the claimant said:

"I worked for the firm for almost thirty years so when I was
diagnosed with mesothelioma I knew that I'd been exposed to the
stuff during my career there.

"When I thought back over my work history I remembered spending
five years working with the asbestos boards. I wasn't given any
protective equipment and nobody warned me that years later it
would affect my health the way it has.

"I worked hard for many years to ensure financial security for my
wife and family and to be diagnosed with cancer as a result of my
job is a bitter blow. It was very important to me to claim
compensation, not for me but for my wife. I had to make sure she
would be cared for in the future."

Commenting on the news, Tom Fairclough, Executive at Asons
Solicitors, said that:

"According to Worcester News' article, it is alleged that the
employer neither provided adequate protection nor warned about the
dangers of asbestos exposure. I strongly feel that no person
should suffer because of the effects of their profession and the
families should be fully compensated as a result. Those who have
been experiencing the same working conditions or have been
suffering from lung cancer after years spent in an asbestos-
contaminated working environment should not hesitate to make
asbestos claims."

Asons Solicitors have a dedicated team of industrial disease
specialists dealing with cases of asbestos related diseases,
giving people legal advice, particularly in the area of
mesothelioma claims. Exposure to asbestos can be deadly, and Asons
urge anyone who feels they may have been exposed to asbestos
fibres to consult their GP immediately for a consultation and
contact an industrial disease specialist for legal representation.

Asons Solicitors suggest that if someone would like to learn more
about the mesohelioma compensation process, or if they would like
to better understand the condition, that information is available
at http://www.asons.co.uk,or via an expert helpline on 01204 521
133

                   About Asons Solicitors

Asons Solicitors is a Bolton-based law practice that specialises
in personal injury and industrial disease claims. Founded by
brothers Imran Akram and Kamran Akram, Asons Solicitors has
developed to become a young and dynamic law firm that delivers
practical solutions to clients in times of difficulty. Their
continued focus on their staff has seen them awarded with the
Investors in People "Gold Award"; which is reflected in the
professional and personable approach they take in working with
clients. They strive to grow and to develop, and their
supportiveness and attention to detail ensures that their clients
use them time and again.

For further information contact:
Email: info (at) asons (dot) co.uk
Website: http://www.asons.co.uk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure to Deadly Dust Link to Plumber's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that a plumber died after being
continuously exposed to asbestos throughout his 24-year career in
the construction and ship industry.

According to the report, Geoffrey Wright, of Onslow Road in
Southampton, developed mesothelioma linked to breathing in the
deadly material, which was found to be the cause of his death on
March 8 this year.

Deputy coroner Gordon Denson recorded a verdict of death by
industrial disease, the report said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Mystery Shrouds Death of Ex-Wilsden GP
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kathie Griffiths, writing for Telegraph & Argus, reported that
mystery surrounds how a retired village GP was exposed to lethal
asbestos which led to his death.

According to the report, Dr Roger Selby, who was a senior partner
at Wilsden medical practice before he retired in 1989, could not
recall ever coming into contact with the toxic substance through
his working career at home and abroad or in any of the homes where
he lived.

Dr Selby, who was 83 when he died at his home in The Narrows,
Harden, was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in March, the
report said.

The inquest in Bradford heard how Dr Selby had successfully
claimed for compensation from a Government scheme for victims of
mesothelioma, despite no clear history of ever coming into contact
with asbestos, the report related.  An in-life statement by him,
read out to the inquest, described how he only went to the doctors
after losing his usual healthy appetite.

His GP then found he had fluid on one of his lungs which he said
"was a shock to both of us". After more tests and biopsies which
found the mesothelioma, he added: "I never expected to be told the
results. I could not recall if I have ever been exposed to
asbestos dust."

He had written how his brother had worked in the wool trade, but
did not remember him coming home dirty with dust, and he listed
all the hospitals he worked in, including Guys in London,
Darlington Memorial, military hospitals in Nairobi and in Nicosia
and at St Luke's Hospital in Bradford, but said he had never been
in their plant or boiler rooms and could not remember maintenance
work being carried out around him.

He also said as far as he was aware none of his four sons had been
exposed to asbestos and neither had his hospital doctor wife
Betty, now also retired.

Assistant Deputy Coroner Oliver Longstaff said in light of the
payout he had telephoned Dr Selby's solicitors and was told the
payout had not been from any employer or institution, but was from
a Government compensation scheme. He said sometimes mesothelioma
is caused by an environmental factor and, rarely, the condition
can also occur naturally.

He said there was not enough evidence to record Dr Selby's death
was from industrial disease so gave a narrative verdict that he
had died from malignant mesothelioma, but at the time of his death
had not been able to identify any exposure to asbestos in his
lifetime either during his work or in the environment around him.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Scheduled for Berlin High School
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Courant reported that asbestos will be removed this
summer from the high school as part of a $70 million renovation of
that 1960s facility.

According to the report, asbestos and another now-prohibited
insulation material, polychlorinated biphenyls, are in several
parts of the high school that will be affected on ongoing
renovation, Superintendent David Erwin said.

A hazardous materials abatement contractor will do the work, under
supervision by an environmental consultant, the report said. Erwin
said that continual monitoring will include pre-work inspection,
checking on air quality and building safety during the abatement
and post-work testing of air quality in the building.

The job should be completed before students return to the building
this fall, the report added. The first phase of the work --
construction of a small wing to use during interior renovations --
will be completed in August. Asbestos and PCBs are considered
cancer-causing toxins by health officials and banned from use for
years by federal law. Both materials are encapsulated in
insulation and pose no immediate threat to students and staff.

The monitoring will make sure none of the materials get into the
air during removal.

The larger part of the project is the top-to-bottom upgrade of the
school, which will take two years to complete. The abatement work
is in initial part of that second phase, Erwin said.

"It will start in earnest on Friday [July 7]. We don't have
activities in the school this summer and the abatement will be
done before classes resume," he said, the report cited. "There's a
lot of work going on already inside. And all the chairs have been
taken out of the auditorium to give us storage space this summer.
It will be a busy two, two and a half years but when it's done,
people will say it was worth it. The school will be in excellent
shape."

Earlier this year, the project cost was revised and exceeded the
$70 million approved by taxpayers in a 2011 referendum. In June,
the town learned the state had agreed to amend its reimbursement
formula and was awarding the town an additional $19 million for
the job, which covered all project costs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Underway at Guilford County Schools
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carter Coyle, writing for The Piedmont News Station, reported that
a handful of Guilford County schools are part of an extensive
asbestos removal project this summer.

"We have approximately 91 schools that contain asbestos in some
form or another," explained GCS Project Manager Ernest King, the
report related.

King says they are working to remove asbestos from 30 schools this
summer, the report said. He hopes the rest of schools can be
complete on weekends during the school year or next summer when
kids are out for break.

"All the kids, teachers, whoever is there we want to make sure
that they're safe," he said.

King explained unexposed asbestos is not hazardous for people in
the schools day-to-day. However, when tiles or carpets are
disturbed during demolition or renovations, asbestos fibers can be
released into the air.

"During the process and after it's over, we have air monitoring
where a third-party company comes in to check the air," King
added.

Principal Mark Harris works at Peeler Open Elementary School and
is excited to have new carpeting in the office, media center and
computer lab.

"Peeler's an open school so here, kids lay on the carpet and read,
they move around, it's not like a traditional school where folks
just sit in rows," Harris said.

GCS says there are 91 schools and 11 administrative buildings
containing asbestos, mostly in floor tiles and carpeting.

"If you're gonna have asbestos in a building, floor tile is where
you prefer to have because it's a low content of asbestos.
Normally ranges from 1-2%," explained King.

"We are thankful to have this done," added Harris.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queanbeyan Mayor Calls on NSW to Remove Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meredith Clisby, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that
Queanbeyan mayor Tim Overall will call on the NSW government to
pay for the clean-up of homes containing Mr Fluffy asbestos in the
city.  And he says while he would support a mandatory survey of
all homes built before 1980 to determine how many contained the
dangerous fibres, it would have to be carried out by the
government.

According to the report, Mr Overall said the council was not in a
position to pay for the clean-up of houses in the city.

"Local councils just don't have the financial capacity to address
this issue," he said. "We rely very much on council rates as the
premier source of revenue.

"We don't have the funds to pay these costs."

At least nine homes were identified in the 1990s as containing the
dangerous loose-fill asbestos used as insulation by a Canberra
company in the 1970s.

Two others have been discovered in the past few years by asbestos
testing company Robson Environmental.

While a Commonwealth government-initiated survey in the late 1980s
identified 1050 homes in the ACT with Mr Fluffy asbestos, NSW
homes were not examined.

A council estimate based on the proportion of Canberra homes
containing the substance puts the number of homes to at least 60.

Amosite, or "grey" asbestos is considered to be one of the worst
forms because it easily crumbles and the microscopic fibres take
little disturbance to become airborne.

While the Commonwealth and then ACT government funded the loose-
fill asbestos removal program in Canberra in the early '90s it was
not extended across the border.

As The Canberra Times reported this week, the ACT government will
spend $2 million deconstructing and removing a house in Downer
found to have missed the program.

But not a cent is being spent by the NSW government to clean up
homes in Queanbeyan and the council does not know how many homes
contain the substance.

Cr Overall told The Canberra Times it had been remiss of the
Commonwealth government in the 1990s not to include Queanbeyan and
the wider region in the loose-fill asbestos program.

Queanbeyan Council last approached the NSW government over the
issue of funding a loose-fill asbestos clean-up in 2005.

The council agreed to pay 25 per cent of the remediation costs of
the nine properties if the NSW and Commonwealth governments
contributed similar amounts -- but this was not forthcoming.

The NSW government also stopped running its free asbestos
identification service in 2005 and instead provided home owners
with a list of private companies.

As it stands, home owners do not have to inform potential
purchasers of the presence of the asbestos and the council says it
is a "buyers' beware" situation.

The mayor said he had already had an initial conversation with
local member for Monaro John Barilaro and intended to seek a "high
level meeting" with the NSW government to discuss the issue.

He said this would include the possibility of the government
funding the clean-up, providing no-interest loans for homeowners
to get the work done themselves and carrying out a mandatory
survey of homes to determine the actual number of Mr Fluffy
properties.

Robsons Environmental hazardous materials manager Ged Keane said
the company, which had tested the Downer home, had found two homes
containing amosite in Queanbeyan in the past few years.

"It's very rare to be honest and we haven't had any flood of phone
calls with people wanting to know," Mr Keane said. "I think a lot
of people don't want to know because it will affect their house
price."

He said that unlike the ACT, the company was not required to
disclose the presence of asbestos to the NSW government.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Possible Fibro Leak Closes Estevan Power Station
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that the discovery of a potential asbestos leak
has forced the closure of a portion of SaskPower's Boundary Dam
power station.

According to the report, the discovery of potential asbestos leak
has stopped work at SaskPower's Boundary Dam.

Contractors found the material while rebuilding a generator, the
report said.

"At this time we can't confirm or disprove the presence of the
substance in the air," said SaskPower spokesman Tyler Hopson.

Crews have closed down the area and cleared workers, Hopson added.

Samples of the substance have been sent to a lab so scientists can
confirm what it may be, however the tests will take some time.

"It's probably going to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of
several days to a week from now when we would know," Hopson said.

While samples are being tested, work in the area of the power
station near the discovery has been stopped.

"We want to first of all test and verify that substance, and in
the meantime, we've isolated that area so it's not being accessed
by employees," Hopson said.

The Boundary Dam Power Station, located near Estevan, Sask., is
the largest coal fired station owned by the utility.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Service Worried About Fibro Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Radio New Zealand News reported that the Fire Service in
Wellington is worried about asbestos contamination from a house
fire in the suburb of Wadestown.

Fire fighters were called to the blaze on Barnard Street in June,
and say they could have extinguished it more easily if they had
been called earlier.

The fire totally engulfed the house and spread to surrounding
scrub, forcing evacuations of neighbouring houses and the closure
of a road and nearby train line, the report said.

Fire crews are continuing to monitor the site to make sure it does
not flare up again, the report added.

Officers are also worried about contamination from asbestos
cladding and are discussing the possibility of demolishing the
building with Wellington City Council, the report further related.

Five investigators are at the scene, but the extent of the damage
means it could be difficult to determine the cause of the fire.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro More Dangerous to Children Than Adults
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Advice Helpline are seeking to remind people of the
dangers of exposure to asbestos, particularly in the wake of a
recent study by the Committee on Carcinogenicity (published
07/06/2013,
http://www.iacoc.org.uk/statements/documents/Asbestosinschoolsstat
ement.pdf) highlighting the increased danger it poses to children.

Exposure to asbestos can be up to five times more dangerous for a
five-year-old than a thirty-year-old, according to a recent study
from the Committee on Carcinogenicity published in June. The
report was the result of two years of work that admits a "number
of uncertainties and gaps", but nevertheless concludes that "due
to the increased life expectancy of children compared to adults,
there is an increased lifetime risk of mesothelioma as a result of
the long latency period of the disease."

Speaking on the report, Linda Fletcher of The Asbestos Advice
Helpline said: 'Asbestos and asbestos related diseases such as
mesothelioma are often associated with those over 40, particularly
males who have worked or are working in the construction industry.
This latest report emphasises the danger of exposure to children,
particularly when we take into account that approximately three-
quarters of England's 24,000 schools are estimated to have
asbestos in them.'

The Asbestos Advice Helpline was established to help those
suffering from asbestos and asbestos related diseases and may be
entitled to make a claim for compensation. Widely used until its
ban in 1988, many people might have come into contact with it
without realising, not just trade professionals who will have
worked with it before the ban. The Asbestos Advice Helpline
operate on a no win no fee policy to help those afflicted and
their families with the legal procedures of making a claim.
Asbestos kills around 4,500 people a year from related diseases
including asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung cancer.

Ms. Fletcher added, 'As asbestos can often take decades to show
signs of damage on the body, it is likely that many children will
grow up with the disease as it matures. The current government
ruling that it is safer to leave it where it is than remove it
needs to be re-evaluated, as even the smallest release of fibres
into the air can have massive consequences for any who breathe it
in.'

For more information, to make a claim with The Asbestos Advice
Helpline, or to contact them about any of their services, visit
them at their website, http://www.asbestosadvicehelpline.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Weston Bldg. Firm Boss Fined Over Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Makey, writing for Huntington, St. Ives & St. Neots News &
Crier, reported that exposing workers to potentially lethal
asbestos has cost a building firm boss more than GBP10,000 in
fines and costs.

According to the report, Michael Southern allowed workers to carry
on removing soffit boards on a house which was being refurbished,
despite being warned that they contained asbestos, a court has
been told.

Southern, 48, of Brington Road, Old Weston, near Huntingdon, had
not carried out a suitable survey to determine whether asbestos
was present, magistrates in Bedford heard, the report said.  He
admitted four offences of breaching the Control of Asbestos
Regulations on August 30 last year and was fined GBP7,015 and
ordered to pay GBP3,200 costs, the report related.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), told the court that
Southern, owner of Bedford-based PMF Cladding, exposed an employee
and a casual labourer to potentially fatal airborne asbestos
fibres while they were removing and replacing soffits on a house
at Sharnbrook.

He had not carried out a suitable survey in advance to see if
asbestos -- which causes around 4,500 deaths a year -- was in the
building and did not hold a licence to work with the dangerous
material.

The HSE said that a neighbour told Southern that the soffits were
made of asbestos insulating board but this did not stop him from
carrying on with the work.

A complaint was made to the HSE and work was halted immediately
after an inspector visited the site.

The HSE investigation found that Southern was aware from other
jobs that soffits may contain asbestos, but had not taken this
into account when assessing the job. He had also failed to provide
information and training to workers who could be exposed to
fibres.

After the hearing Gavin Bull, from the HSE, said: "Mr Southern, as
a person running a cladding installation business, should have
been in no doubt about the dangers posed by asbestos and of the
regulations governing work with this material.

"Despite this, he progressed this work without testing the
material to be removed for the presence of asbestos.

"This resulted in those working there being exposed to risk of
inhaling airborne asbestos fibres without taking any suitable
precautions."

Mr Bull said: "This incident was entirely preventable and
highlights the importance of having a robust asbestos management
system in place."

He said the type, location and condition of all asbestos-
containing materials should be established and precautions put in
place before work starts.

Mr Bull said higher-risk notifiable work should only be carried
out by a licensed contractor.

Asbestos is the single biggest cause or work-related deaths in the
UK, with the material still found in many buildings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found at Kensington Academy
--------------------------------------------------------
Camilla Horrox, writing for Kensington & Chelsea Chronicle,
reported that asbestos has halted building works to the
controversial Kensington Academy and Leisure Centre development
this week.

According to the report, in an e-mail to a resident of Grenfell
Tower, which sits in the centre of the major redevelopment,
contractors Leadbitters' Community Liaison Officer Liz Jeffs wrote
to say that asbestos had been discovered on site.

She states that work on the KALC "demolition zone" has been
temporarily suspended as a result of the asbestos discovered but
gives no further details as to the nature, quantity or exact
location of the find, the report said.

In her email to Francis, Liz Jeffs says: "No plant has been
operational on the demolition zone this week. We have encountered
asbestos which has resulted in us entering a notification process
to the HSE. Because of this, the subcontractor has elected to park
up his three machines, rather than remove them from site, which
would incur cost implications," the report related.

Resident of Grenfell Tower Francis O'Connor said: "We had wondered
why there was so little noise coming from that direction this
week, and now we know.

"This might have serious implications for residents who live in
the vicinity of the site and have been experiencing increased
levels of dust in the environment since the demolition of the
Sports Centre.

"Without knowing the details concerning levels of the asbestos
contamination or the location of the asbestos there must be
obvious health and safety concerns that dust containing asbestos
may have already gotten into the wider community.

"We are very disturbed by this news and need to find out more
about this eg where is the asbestos, what kind is it, how much is
there, is it in the ground or in the mountain of pulverised
demolition rubble on the site?"

Works have been well underway at the Kensington Academy and
Leisure Centre (KALC) site. Construction of the leisure centre
will run in parallel with the Academy so that both new buildings
are scheduled to open in 2014.

This has added to frustration felt by the Grenfell Tower Action
group who claim the promised and much needed GBP6m refurbishment
of the 40 year old tower has been consistently delayed with no
start date forthcoming from the council.

A Council spokesman said: "Asbestos was found in the old depot
attached to the leisure centre. It has now been tested and safely
removed by specialist contractors.

"Redevelopment projects of this kind nearly always involve the
routine removal of asbestos and this has been factored into the
construction timeline."

Highlights of the proposals include a new Academy providing much
needed school places as over 30 per cent of local students
currently travel outside the Royal Borough for their secondary
education. A state-of-the-art leisure centre to replace the
current facility. The creation of more usable green space and an
improved Lancaster Green, improving access and creating better
links to the area.

The Chronicle is awaiting comment from Leadbitters.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Brummie Builders Fined Over Fibro Removal
------------------------------------------------------------
The Construction Index reported that two self-employed builders
from Birmingham have been sentenced for exposing householders, as
well as themselves, to asbestos.

The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Harnek Ram of
Handsworth and Gulzar Singh of Smethwick, trading as G Builders,
after they illegally removed and broke up asbestos panels from a
home in Handsworth between 19 and 25 May 2012.

Birmingham Magistrates' Court heard that the householder, who does
not wish to be named, received a grant from Birmingham City
Council to convert his garage into a bedroom and bathroom for his
disabled father.

As part of the grant process, samples were taken on behalf of the
council to test for asbestos; the results revealed asbestos was
present. However, HSE's investigation concluded that by the time
the test results were known, Mr Ram and Mr Singh had already
broken up the asbestos insulating boards (AIBs) with a hammer and
removed them.

HSE told the court that neither Mr Ram nor Mr Singh held the
necessary licence to remove the asbestos boards. Nor did they
carry out, or ask to see, an asbestos survey, which is required by
law before any demolition or refurbishment work is undertaken.

In failing to take adequate steps to prevent both the exposure to
and spread of asbestos fibres generated by their work, they put
the householders, themselves and others at risk of inhaling the
potentially harmful airborne fibres. The subsequent clean-up of
the site cost the City Council more than GBP6,500.

Mr Harnek Ram of Mary Road, Handsworth, and Mr Gulzar Singh, of
Brian Road, Smethwick, both pleaded guilty to a breach of the
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Mr Harnek Ram was fined a total of GBP2,000 and ordered to pay
costs of GBP1,200. Mr Gulzar Singh was also fined GBP2,000 and
ordered to pay costs of GBP1,200.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Not Limited to Heavy Industry
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Turner, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reported that
when it takes decades for asbestosis to appear and an employee to
file an asbestosis lawsuit, it can be difficult to know which
employers or suppliers were primarily responsible for the
plaintiff's asbestos exposure. This is particularly true if the
employee worked in an industry where exposure to asbestos is
routine. But a study by one economic consultant suggests that it
is not just people who work in heavy industries who are exposed to
asbestos.

One lawsuit (Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 13-C-916) filed in
Charleston names 42 defendants and alleges the defendants exposed
the plaintiff to asbestos, resulting in him developing asbestosis,
the report said. The West Virginia Record reported that the
plaintiff worked in various trades during his career and was
exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products. Among the
allegations against the defendants are negligence, breach of
warranty and strict liability.

People are warned to steer clear of asbestos, which has been
linked to asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung cancer, but many times
employees find out too late that they have been exposed. In some
cases, they may not have been told they were working with the
carcinogen. In other cases, they may have been aware but may not
have been provided with adequate safety gear to protect
themselves.

But it is not just people who work in heavy industries who have
been filing lawsuits alleging asbestos exposure. A 2012 report by
Bates White, titled "The Philadelphia Story: Asbestos Litigation,
Bankruptcy Trusts And Changes in Exposure Allegations From 1991-
2010" noted, "Alleged exposure has increased in the construction
and automotive trades, as well as residential do-it-yourself
('DIY') home repair, remodeling, and shade tree automotive
maintenance."

According to their study of lawsuits filed in Philadelphia,
between 1991 and 2000, only three percent of plaintiffs cited
asbestos exposure from either DIY construction projects or shade-
tree mechanic work. Between 2000 and 2010, that jumped to
approximately 50 percent. In other words, people who took on their
own home improvement projects -- people of any occupation -- are
filing asbestos exposure lawsuits with much more frequency.

This means that even people who just tinkered around their homes
with their own repair projects could have been exposed to asbestos
and at risk of developing mesothelioma, asbestosis and lung
cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: About 85% of Wales Schools Contain Deadly Dust
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Post reported that a campaign claimed that children in Wales
are more at risk to exposure of asbestos in schools, than in
England.

According to the report, the 'Right to Know' campaign said there
is no guidance issued to local authorities in Wales as to the
management of asbestos in school buildings, unlike in England.

The group, which wants councils to publish a register of schools
containing asbestos, said the Department for Education put clear
guidelines in place in October 2012, the report related.

It is estimated that 85% of schools across Wales contain asbestos,
the report said.

A Welsh Government spokesperson said: "We take this issue very
seriously but there is no evidence to suggest that pupils in Wales
are more at risk from exposure to asbestos than pupils in
England."

Responsibility for the management of asbestos lies with the Health
and Safety Executive (HSE) which maintained the best approach to
asbestos in sound condition was to leave it well alone.

"Legislation and guidance from the HSE applies equally to schools
in England and Wales. The Welsh Local Government Association has
issued information on the management of asbestos which reflects
the HSE guidance."

Cenric Clement-Evans cited findings from leading experts that
children exposed to asbestos were more vulnerable to developing
the cancer mesothelioma than adults.

A report by the Committee on Carcinogenicity said that a five-
year-old is five times more likely than an adult of 30 to develop
mesothelioma if they are exposed to it at the same time, he said.

The Department for Education in England, intends to carry out a
review of its policy on asbestos in schools  in light of the
report, he said.

The Right to Know campaign wants parents to be able to access a
database online to check if asbestos is present in any school, and
whether an up-to-date management plan is in place.

Two Welsh councils, Monmouthshire and Torfaen, have committed to
publishing their asbestos in schools data on their websites.

Mr Clement-Evans said: "The issue of asbestos requires strong
leadership from the Welsh Government. Currently, we are not
receiving that level of leadership  and it is putting our children
and all those who work in schools at risk."

Local authorities or schools governing bodies in Wales have a
legal responsibility to have up-to date records on the location
and condition of asbestos containing material and to ensure
management plans are in place.

The public can ask local authorities or governing bodies to access
this information, the Welsh Government said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Razes Fibro-Laden Huddersfield Building
-------------------------------------------------------------
Halifax Courier reported that fire crews in Huddersfield were
called out to a farm blaze which involved asbestos.

According to the report, four jets battled flames at Hill Top
Farm, Cockley Hill Lane, after a building measuring 30 by 20
metres set alight.

The blaze involved asbestos, the report said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victoria Refuses to Sign Plan to Rid of Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------------
Farrah Tomazin, writing for The Age, reported that Victoria has
reignited tensions with the federal government by being the only
state refusing to sign up to a national plan designed to get rid
of asbestos over the next two decades.

According to the report, amid ongoing concerns about the health
threats associated with asbestos, Canberra recently set up a new
office of asbestos safety, which will oversee a national strategy
to remove the hazardous material from all public buildings by
2030.

But the Napthine government has confirmed it will not participate
in the federal plan, describing it as an "ineffective Labor
policy" and pointing out Victoria already had its own measures to
tackle the problem, the report said.

News of the state's resistance comes after The Sunday Age revealed
several cases in which asbestos has been inadequately managed in
schools. It also comes after work was halted on the National
Broadband Network in May, when several sites contaminated with
asbestos were not handled properly.

Federal Minister for Workplace Relations Bill Shorten accused the
state government of grandstanding, and urged Victoria to "do the
right thing" by joining all other state and territory
jurisdictions in a national attempt to "rid Australia of the fatal
fibre".

"Asbestos is a deadly scourge -- more Australians will be killed
by asbestos than gave their lives on the battlefield at Flanders.
It is no place for political posturing, and particularly not the
kind of negative politics we keep seeing come out of Treasury
Place," Mr Shorten said.

The so-called national strategic plan for asbestos management was
the key recommendation of a widescale review conducted by ACTU
assistant secretary Geoff Fary.

The review found up to 40,000 Australians are expected to be
diagnosed with asbestos-related lung disease over the next 20
years.

Asked why Victoria had not agreed to the national approach,
Assistant Treasurer Gordon Rich-Phillips said through his
spokeswoman that Victoria already had a targeted response to
asbestos, including a memorandum of understanding between the
Victorian WorkCover Authority, the Environment Protection
Authority, and the Victorian Department of Health.

"Victoria is supportive of continual cross-jurisdictional
discussion on this issue, but believes that it is in the best
interests of Victorians if any response to this issue is managed
at a state level," Kristy McSweeney said.

But Labor WorkCover spokesman Robin Scott said the state
government's resistance "shows just how far Denis Napthine will go
to try to score a political point".

"This government has been consulted throughout the process and
should get on board for this national approach to this most
important health issue," Mr Scott said.

Asbestos -- which is considered to be "low risk" provided it is
not disturbed -- was heavily used in commercial and domestic
buildings until it was banned in 2003. However, Australia has one
of the highest rates of asbestos disease per capita in the world,
and critics claim it is a ticking timebomb if anyone inadvertently
drills into or cuts around asbestos cement sheeting.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Campaigners Want Mesothelioma Bill Changed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lindsay Walsh, writing for The News, reported that a campaign
group is demanding that a government bill is tightened up.

According to the report, members of Hampshire Asbestos Support and
Awareness Group met at the Queen's Hotel in Southsea to talk about
the Mesothelioma Bill which is passing through parliament.

People who develop mesothelioma -- an asbestos-related cancer of
the lungs -- can claim compensation, but only if they can trace
their employers' insurers, the report said. As mesothelioma can
take decades to develop, these companies have often gone bust.

The bill aims to right this by allowing 70 per cent compensation
to people who were diagnosed with the disease after July 25, 2012
who cannot trace the insurers of the companies they were working
for when they contracted the disease, the report related.

But campaigners from Hasag say it should offer the same amount of
money as those who can trace insurers.  Hasag co-founder Lynne
Squibb said: 'The bill can be much improved -- it should provide
100 per cent payment.'

'It seems to be a huge injustice that insurance companies have got
away with not paying those suffering with mesothelioma.'

Portsmouth MP Mike Hancock also spoke about his personal
experiences regarding asbestos

'I have witnessed many of my friends who have suffered and died
from asbestos-related poisoning,' said Mr Hancock.

'I am bitterly disappointed that this struggle is still going on,
I was hoping that by now this issue would have been put to bed by
the government.'

The bill does not cover other asbestos-related diseases like
asbestosis or family members who fell ill through contact with
someone working with the substance.

Norma Smith, 70, from Cornfield, Fareham lost her husband to
mesothelioma in May.

'Compensation should be for everyone, if anyone is diagnosed they
should all get the same compensation.' said Norma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wife Exposed to Fibro From Husband's Clothes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reddith & Alcester Advertiser reported that the inquest into the
death of a Redditch woman who died from an asbestos-related
disease has closed.

According to the report, Veronica Giordan, aged 86, of Harport
Road, died on April 10.  She was exposed to asbestos from her
husband's clothing and developed mesothelioma, from which she
ultimately died, the report said.

The coroner for Worcestershire has ruled that she died as a result
of an industrial disease, the report added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Victim's Family Seeks Answers
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Star reported that relatives of a steelworker who died of an
asbestos-related cancer are appealing for his former colleagues to
provide them with information about the conditions he used to work
in.

According to the report, Walter Casterton, from Wickersley,
Rotherham, died in March at the age of 89, after suffering from
mesothelioma -- an asbestos-related cancer.  His family has
instructed specialist industrial illness lawyers at Irwin Mitchell
in a search for answers as to how Mr Casterton was exposed to
asbestos, the report said.

The pensioner's daughter Josie and her lawyers spoke out as
asbestos victims and their families marked Action Mesothelioma
Day.  They believe Mr Casterton may have been exposed to asbestos
during his working life.

He worked for the National Coal Board, as a carpenter for
Rotherham Council, and as a steelworker at Hadfields Ltd in
Attercliffe, at London & Scandinavian Metallurgical Co Ltd in
Rotherham, at the East Midlands Gas Board, and at Tinsley Wire
Industries Ltd in Sheffield, all between 1961 and 1977.

Simone Hardy, an expert asbestos lawyer at Irwin Mitchell, said:
"It's believed Mr Casterton may have been exposed to asbestos at
work but, unfortunately, because of his later Alzheimer's, he was
not able to give detailed evidence about his work history.

"Because it can be decades after exposure to asbestos that
mesothelioma finally takes hold, it is often difficult to recall
when the exposure occurred.

"We would like to speak to anyone who worked at those firms and
who knew Walter at work as they may be able to help us with the
legal case."

His daughter Josie said: "We just want to know how and where he
was exposed to asbestos."

Former colleagues should call Simone Hardy on 0114 2744420.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Scare Closes Alice Springs Library
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gail Liston, writing for ABC News, reported that the Alice Springs
Library has been closed after an asbestos scare.

According to the report, the town's mayor says a pocket of
encapsulated asbestos was found during the installation of a new
airconditioner unit.

Damien Ryan says an environmental company spent a day testing the
entire library and its contents, the report related.  He says the
results are negative but the library will remain closed for
another week until the asbestos has been removed, the report
further related.

"I'd like to encourage all of our library borrowers who have got
books that are due to be returned to hang on to them for another
week because the delivery box on the side of the library, that
room is now full from people returning things but we can't get
staff in there," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sawbridgeworth Mum With Cancer Slams Meso Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sinead Holland, writing for Herts and Essex Observer, reported
that a Sawbridgeworth mum-of-four with terminal cancer claims the
Government's new Mesothelioma Bill, currently passing through
parliament, is robbing her of her last chance to seek justice.

According to the report, Lorraine Berry was diagnosed with the
disease, caused by inhaling asbestos dust in April 2012, aged just
48. She has spent the past 14 months struggling to come to terms
with the fact that she will die prematurely because she was not
protected from the deadly material while she worked.

The cancer develops in the lining of the lungs and is caused by
inhaling asbestos fibres, the report related.  It is more commonly
diagnosed in people in their 60s 70s and 80s as it can take up to
50 years to develop, but is aggressive and incurable no matter
what age it strikes.

Lorraine, who is married to Jason, worked as an office
administration assistant for Stortford property development
company Pinecraven Ltd between 1983 and 1985.  She remembers being
exposed to asbestos there when she was based in a temporary office
in the old Rye Street Hospital in Bishop's Stortford while it was
being converted into flats.  She had to clean the office which was
always dusty because the office window was open and the
regeneration work created a lot of dust.  Determined to seek
justice, she instructed specialist asbestos lawyers at Irwin
Mitchell to help.

Pinecraven Ltd is no longer trading and so asbestos experts
attempted to trace the company's insurance policy. Employers
Liability Insurance was compulsory from 1972, however no insurance
could be found meaning that Lorraine will be unable to bring a
claim for the damages she is entitled to as a result of her
diagnosis.

It is estimated that more than 300 mesothelioma sufferers a year
miss out on justice because insurance documents for their employer
have disappeared.

Unfortunately, a new law that is meant to rectify this injustice
by helping mesothelioma sufferers who cannot trace their former
employer's insurers launch a claim only applies to those diagnosed
after 25 July 2012 -- meaning Lorraine is not eligible because she
was diagnosed three months before the cut off.

Lorraine says she is bitterly disappointed at the Mesothelioma
Bill announced in the Queen's Speech in April and is echoing Irwin
Mitchell's calls for it not to be pushed through parliament. She
says it is "unfair" and "punishes hard workers who were exposed to
asbestos through no fault of their own".

Rosemary Giles, a partner who specialises in helping asbestos
victims at Irwin Mitchell's London office, said: "It can take
several decades from the initial exposure to asbestos for symptoms
of illness to appear, but once they do the consequences are
devastating for those families affected.

"In some situations it is impossible to find evidence of victims'
employers' insurance records where firms have since ceased to
exist many years ago. While the Government has tried to address
this issue with the promise of a scheme to help those who cannot
trace an insurer, the law only applies to people who were
diagnosed with mesothelioma after 25 July 2012, which will leave
many asbestos victims high and dry."

Lorraine, who is undergoing chemotherapy to try and manage the
cancer, added: "I am disappointed that the Mesothelioma Bill will
simply not provide for many thousands of victims and their
families, including my own.

"Rather than helping asbestos victims it is robbing us of our
final chance to seek justice and provide our loved ones with
financial security. It is frustrating that there is a matter of
just three months preventing me from pursuing a claim.

"It's just totally unfair that people diagnosed a short time apart
with the same asbestos-related condition through no fault of their
own are set to be treated so differently.

"We're all absolutely devastated by my diagnosis and are finding
it so hard to come to terms with it because it's so unexpected.
I've always been very active doing pilates, gym and taking the dog
for long walks and to now have cancer because of something that is
not my fault makes me very angry.

"To know that I will miss out on so many important events, such as
my youngest daughter going to university and my children getting
married is impossible to come to terms with."

Ms Giles added: "It's important to remember that this is only the
tip of the iceberg and there is an ongoing government consultation
which is attempting to force the remaining mesothelioma cases to
run under a portal scheme which would mean a further impact on
access to justice for victims.

"Mesothelioma cases by their very nature are complex, often going
back 40 to 50 years and involving detailed investigations.

"Victims have faced many legal challenges in recent years. This is
yet another one. What they really deserve is full and fair
financial security for their families -- not to be fed into an
automated process which will short change innocent victims, which
is what is certain to happen if the Government continues to follow
this agenda."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Cleanup of Belleville Fire Site to Start
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Lee, writing for Bellville News-Democrat, reported that
cleanup at the site of a 2010 fire on East Main Street downtown
will start on July 17.

According to the report, a judge ruled in May that the property
owner of 205 E. Main St. had until June 20 to remove asbestos and
debris left at "the hole" at Jackson and Main streets after two
buildings were demolished after the fire.

The city of Belleville, which sued building owner Ronnie Phillips
over demolition and cleanup costs, granted Phillips an extension
for the cleanup, according to Julie Bruch, the city's attorney in
the case, the report related.

Phillip's attorney, Penni Livingston, has said that Phillips will
comply with St. Clair County Judge Vincent Lopinot's order, though
Phillips is appealing the judge's decision, the report said.

Phillips hired Envirotech for the cleanup and the work should last
five to 10 days, Bruch said.

Phillips also has to fill the site with dirt to grade level after
the asbestos and overgrown weeds are removed, Bruch said.

Belleville Mayor Mark Eckert said after Phillips' part of the work
is done, then the city will repair the sidewalk on Jackson Street.

In 2011, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency cited the
city, the two property owners and Hank's for releasing asbestos
into the air and not notifying the agency of the demolition, per
state law.

IEPA spokeswoman Maggie Carson said then that the asbestos is
embedded in the dirt where the building used to stand. And, as
long as the asbestos is not disturbed, the health risk to the
public is low.

After the May 26, 2010, fire, the city cited safety reasons and
had Hank's Excavating and Landscaping demolish Phillips' building
as well as Chester Nance's building at 201 E. Main St.

Phillips argued that there would be no asbestos problem if the
city did not illegally order the demolition without his
permission.

After Lopinot's order, Phillips turned over a $47,583 check issued
to him by State Farm to pay Hank's.

Nance's insurance company paid for part of Hank's demolition fee,
about $88,578.

Livingston said in May the cleanup would cost about $45,000. It's
unclear whether Nance will share Phillips' cleanup costs. The city
did not sue Nance.

The two buildings housed three businesses: the Classic Curl beauty
salon, a mental health center for Chestnut Health Systems and the
Hilltop Emporium thrift store.

No one has been charged in the arson case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Dropped as Defendant in Ex-Navy's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In an asbestos personal injury action commenced by William Ernest
Wubbe and his wife, Gloria Wubbe, defendant Crane Co. moves for
summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross-claims
against it on the ground that there is no evidence that Mr. Wubbe
was ever exposed to asbestos as a result of any product
manufactured, sold, or distributed by Crane.

Mr. Wubbe has testified that he was employed as an electronic
technician working aboard several ships, including the USS
Constellation and the USS Saratoga, at the Brooklyn Navy Yard from
1951 until 1965.  He said he mostly worked above deck and in the
ships' "electronic spaces" which housed the radar, communication,
and fire control systems.  As a result of his work in close
proximity to other trades working on board, including pipe laggers
and welders, he was exposed to asbestos-containing welding
blankets, gaskets, insulation, wires, and the dust released
therefrom.

The Defendant argues that summary judgment should be granted since
Mr. Wubbe failed to identify any Crane product as a source of his
asbestos exposure. In opposition the Plaintiffs rely on Mr.
Wubbe's testimony as well as documents from both Crane and the
United State Navy to show that Crane valves were present on some
of the ships on which Mr. Wubbe worked.

In a decision and order dated July 2, 2013, Judge Sherry Klein
Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York, granted the Defendant's
motion holding that Mr. Wubbe's testimony does not identify the
manufacturer of the valves nor their location aboard the
Constellation or the Saratoga.  In this case, the Defendant has
made a prima facie showing that the Plaintiffs have failed to
identify a Crane product.  Mr. Wubbe's testimony and the documents
submitted by the Plaintiffs are insufficient to rebut that showing
or to support a reasonable inference that a Crane valve was within
Mr. Wubbe's zone of exposure or that it contributed to his injury.
The Plaintiffs' claims against Crane Co. are thus speculative,
Judge Heitler ruled.

Accordingly, Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment is granted,
and the action and any cross-claims against Crane Co. are severed
and dismissed in their entirety.  The remainder of the action will
continue as against the remaining defendants.

The case is GLORIA WUBBE, and TERESA WAITE, Individually and as
Executrix of the Estate of WILLIAM ERNEST WUBBE, Plaintiffs, v. A.
W. CHESTERTON CO., INC., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 116162/05,
MOTION SEQ. 011 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/yD0Ngzfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Court Refuses to Remand "Houser" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard D. Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland denied Plaintiffs Frank and Ruth Houser's
motion to remand their personal injury action to the Circuit Court
of Baltimore.

The Plaintiffs initially filed the action against Defendant CBS
Corporation f/k/a Viacom Inc., successor by merger to CBS
Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation, as well as
numerous other entities in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.
The Plaintiffs allege claims of Strict Liability (Count I), Breach
of Warranty (Count II), Negligence (Count III), Aiding and
Abetting and Conspiracy (Count IV) and Loss of Consortium (Count
V) related to Frank Houser's exposure to asbestos dust and fibers
from the Defendants' asbestos products.

In their original Complaint served to Westinghouse on or around
September 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs merely state that Mr. Houser
worked at a U.S. Armed Forces site.  The first time Plaintiffs
provided any information about the specific U.S. Navy ships on
which Mr. Houser was allegedly exposed to asbestos was in their
verified Answers to Westinghouse's Interrogatories.

Westinghouse removed the action to the District Court pursuant to
Sections 1442 and 1446 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code on April 22,
2013.  The Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, arguing that
removal of the case by Westinghouse was untimely.

According to Judge Bennett, to remove a case, a defendant must
file a notice of removal within 30 days of receiving the "paper
from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which
is or has become removable."  Based on applicable case law, the
30-day clock of federal officer removability begins ticking when
the initial pleading or other appropriate paper reveals the nexus
between the plaintiff's claims and the actions allegedly taken by
the defendant under the direction of a federal officer.

In this case, the Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint on or
around August 20, 2012.  In the original Complaint and subsequent
four Amended Complaints, the Plaintiffs allege that, "[d]uring
portions of his working life as a student, welder, mechanic,
crewman, and laborer Mr. Houser worked at industrial and
commercial sites, including but not limited to the U.S. Armed
Forces[.]"  The Plaintiffs contend that this language put
Westinghouse on notice of federal officer removal availability by
revealing the connection between the military supply of asbestos
products and Mr. Houser's injuries.  Judge Bennett ruled that,
contrary to the Plaintiffs' claim, however, revealing the
connection between the military supply of asbestos products and
Mr. Houser's injuries did not put Westinghouse on notice of the
availability of federal officer removal.  Mentioning this
connection did not alert Westinghouse that it may have been acting
under the orders of a federal official when Mr. Houser was
allegedly exposed to Westinghouse's asbestos products, Judge
Bennett said.

Judge Bennett added that Westinghouse was eventually put on notice
of federal officer removal availability in their answers to
Westinghouse's interrogatories when the Plaintiffs revealed the
identity of the U.S. Navy ships on which Mr. Houser was allegedly
exposed to Westinghouse's asbestos products.

Westinghouse received the Plaintiffs' verified Answers to
Westinghouse's Master Interrogatories on or about March 22, 2013.
Westinghouse filed its Notice of Removal on April 22, 2013. Since
April 22, 2013 is within thirty days of March 22, 2013, removal
was timely, Judge Bennett further ruled.

The case is FRANK HOUSER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMMCO TOOLS,
a/k/a Hennessy Industries, Inc., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION
NO. RDB-13-1179 (D. Md.).  A full-text copy of Judge Bennett's
Decision dated July 2, 2013, is available for free at
http://is.gd/9C81FHfrom Leagle.com.

Frank Houser, and Ruth Houser, Plaintiffs, represented by Jason M
Weiner, Esq. -- JWeiner@NapoliBern.com -- at Napoli Bern Ripka
Shkolnik LLP.

Caterpillar Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer E Cameron,
Esq. -- jcameron@moodklaw.com -- and Richard P Seitz, Esq. --
rseitz@moodklaw.com -- at Marks, O'Neill O'Brien, Doherty, & Kelly
P.C.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Philip A Kulinski, Esq.
-- pakulinski@ewhlaw.com -- and Clare Marie Maisano, Esq. --
cmmaisano@ewhlaw.com -- at Evert Weathersby Houff.

Certainteed Corporation, and SB Decking Inc., Defendants,
represented by Leianne S McEvoy, Esq. --
lhelfrich@milesstockbridge.com -- at Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Cummins Inc., Defendant, represented by Malcolm Sean Brisker, Esq.
-- msb@gdldlaw.com -- and Thomas M Goss, Esq. -- tmg@gdldlaw.com
-- at Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alicia N
Ritchie, Esq. -- aritchie@milesstockbridge.com -- Matthew R.
Schroll, Esq. -- mschroll@milesstockbridge.com -- Matthew Thomas
Wagman, Esq. -- mwagman@milesstockbridge.com -- Michael Alan
Brown, Esq. -- mbrown@milesstockbridge.com -- at Miles and
Stockbridge PC.

Palmer International Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer M
Alexander, Esq. -- jalexander@brassellaw.com -- Jon W Brassel,
Esq. -- jbrassel@brassellaw.com -- and Jason A Steinhardt, Esq. --
jsteinhardt@brassellaw.com -- at Brassel Alexander & Rice LLC.

Yarway Corporation, Defendant, represented by Steven Andrew
Luxton, Esq. -- sluxton@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and
Bockius LLP.

Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Theodore F Roberts, Esq. -- tfroberts@Venable.com -- Brendan
Henderson Fitzpatrick, Esq. -- bhfitzpatrick@Venable.com -- and
Scott Mason Richmond, Esq. -- srichmond@Venable.com -- at Venable
LLP.

AC&R Insulation Co. Inc., Defendant, represented by Geoffrey S
Gavett, Esq. -- ggavett@gavettdatt.com -- and Katherine S Duyer,
Esq. kduyer@gavettdatt.com -- at Gavett Datt and Barish PC.

Higbee, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert E Scott, Jr., Esq.
-- rscott@semmes.com -- and Marisa Anne Trasatti, Esq. --
mtrasatti@semmes.com -- at Semmes Bowen and Semmes PC.

Hampshire Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Malcolm Sean
Brisker, Esq. -- msb@gdldlaw.com -- at Goodell DeVries Leech and
Dann LLP.

Hennessy Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Louis E
Grenzer, Jr., Esq. -- lgrenzer@bodie-law.com -- at Bodie, Dolina,
Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, P.C., and Thomas Peter Bernier, Esq. --
tbernier@smsm.com -- at Segal McCambridge Singer and Mahoney Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Ct. Denies NSI's Bid to Junk "Lund" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff William Lund alleges that he suffers from mesothelioma
as a result of asbestos exposure during his time working for the
U.S. Navy from 1958 to 1977.  During his time in the Navy, Mr.
Lund handled asbestos-containing products.  Mr. Lund alleges that
his work with these products occurred on a variety of Navy ships,
some of which were in California.  He alleges that he handled
gaskets, packing, and millboard containing asbestos provided by
Niantic Seal, Inc., individually and as a successor-in-interest to
Niantic Rubber Company and Northeast Rubber Products, Inc.

NSI moves to dismiss the Complaint against it based on a lack of
personal jurisdiction.  In response, the Plaintiffs seek
jurisdictional discovery to determine whether the Defendants have
sufficient California contacts.

In an order dated July 3, 2013, Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied
the Motion without prejudice and granted the Plaintiffs' request
for jurisdictional discovery.

Judge Pregerson explained that, in this case, the Plaintiffs ask
the court to allow discovery based on factual inconsistencies
between the testimony of Edmund M. Mauro III, one of NSI's
witnesses, and NSI's website:

   1. Mr. Mauro claimed that NSI does not have a relationship with
      Northeast Rubber Products Inc. However, NSI's website
      advertises Northeast Rubber Products, Inc. as a division of
      NSI.

   2. Mr. Mauro claimed that NSI was created in 2006 and did not
      exist in the 1950s-1970s; however, NSI's website claims it
      has been providing services "[f]or over 47 years", meaning
      that NSI, or one of its predecessors, could have been the
      company responsible for producing the asbestos-containing
      products that William Lund encountered between 1958 and
      1977.

In addition, the Plaintiffs point to Mr. Mauro's silence in his
affidavit about NSI's subsidiaries', including Niantic Rubber
Company and Northeast Rubber Products, Inc., connections to
California.

Judge Pregerson also pointed out that the inconsistencies support
a finding that more facts are needed to determine jurisdiction,
especially in light of the absence of any discussion regarding NSI
as a successor-in-interest to Niantic Rubber Company and Northeast
Rubber Products, Inc.  Judge Pregerson ruled that in addition to
clarifying NSI's relationship with California, jurisdictional
discovery may also shed light on two issues:(1) whether NSI is a
successor-in-interest or parent company to either Niantic Rubber
Company or Northeast Rubber Products, Inc. and (2) whether Niantic
Rubber Company or Northeast Rubber Products, Inc. have sufficient
California contacts that, if able to be imputed to NSI, would
allow the Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over NSI.

The case is WILLIAM LUND, an individual; VICTORIA LUND, an
individual, Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY a/k/a MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. CV 13-02776
DDP (VBKX)(C.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy of Judge Pregerson's
Decision is available for free at http://is.gd/xZhko3from
Leagle.com.

William Lund, and Victoria Lund, Plaintiffs, represented by Benno
B Ashrafi, Esq., Ksenia L Snylyk, Esq., and Tiffany Shanae Woods,
Esq., at Weitz and Luxenberg PC.

Hartford Fire Insurance Company, West American Insurance Company,
Safeco Insurance Company of America, Travelers Indemnity Co., and
Zurich American Insurance Co., Movants, represented by Jill James
Hoffman, Esq., Theodore Thomas Cordery, Esq., and Valerie Ruschke,
Esq., at Imai Tadlock Keeney and Cordery.

3M Company, Defendant, represented by Mordecai D Boone, Esq. --
mboone@gordonrees.com -- Kara Berger Persson, Esq. -- Kristine
Michelle Futoran, Esq. -- kfutoran@gordonrees.com -- P Gerhardt
Zacher, Esq. -- gzacher@gordonrees.com -- at Gordon and Rees LLP.

Air and Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Glen
R Powell, Esq. -- gpowell@gordonress.com -- at Gordon and Rees
LLP.

Alfa Laval Inc., and BW IP Inc., Defendants, represented by Frank
C Olah, Esq. -- folah@foleymansfield.com -- Keith M Ameele, Esq.
-- kameele@foleymansfield.com -- and Joshua R Shoumer, Esq. --
jshoumer@foleymansfield.com -- at Foley and Mansfield PLLP.

Amcord Inc. and Aurora Pump Company, Defendants, represented by
Brad D Bleichner, Esq. -- bbleichner@selmanbreitman.com -- and
Karen B Goldberg, Esq. -- kgoldberg@selmanbreitman.com -- at
Selman Breitman LLP.

Anchor Darling Valve Company, Defendant, represented by Stephanie
L Walker, Esq. -- swalker@abbeylaw.com -- at Abbey Weitzenberg
Warren and Emery PC.

Asbestos Corporation Limited, Defendant, represented by Mary Ellen
Gambino, Esq. -- mary.gambino@wilsonelser.com -- and Tanya Xiomara
Johnson, Esq. -- tanya.johnson@wilsonelser.com -- at Wilson Elser
Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker.

Blackmer Pump Company, Defendant, represented by James P
Cunningham, Esq. -- james.cunningham@tuckerellis.com -- at Tucker
Ellis LLP.

Calportland Company, Defendant, represented by Robert Harvey
Berkes, Esq. -- rberkes@bcrslaw.com -- and Carmen Santana, Esq. --
csantana@bcrslaw.com -- at Berkes Crane Robinson and Seal LLP.

Carrier Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jenny-Anne S
Flores, Esq. -- jenny-anne.sinson@tuckerellis.com -- and John K
Son, Esq. -- john.son@tuckerellis.com -- at Tucker Ellis LLP.

CBS Corporation and FMC Corporation, Defendants, represented by
Justin F Cronin, Esq. -- jcronin@pondnorth.com -- Kevin D Jamison,
Esq. -- kjamison@pondnorth.com -- and Kimberly Lynn Rivera, Esq.
-- krivera@pondnorth.com -- at Pond North LLP.

Crane Co, Defendant, represented by Geoffrey M Davis, Esq. --
geoff.davis@klgates.com -- Stephen Pavel Farkas, Esq. --
stephen.farkas@klgates.com -- at K and L Gates LLP.

Crossfield Products Corp, Defendant, represented by Georges Andrew
Haddad, Esq. -- ghaddad@adamsnye.com -- at Adams Nye Becht LLP.

Dana Companies LLC, Defendant, represented by Courtney E
Vaudreuil, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP & Bradford John DeJardin,
McKenna Long and Aldridge LLP.

Eckel Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by Christine Dianne
Calareso, Esq. -- ccalareso@selmanbreitman.com -- and Luis Alfonso
Barba, Esq. -- lbarba@selmanbreitman.com -- at Selman Breitman
LLP.

Elliot Company, Defendant, represented by Joseph Duffy, Esq. --
jduffy@morganlewis.com -- Tricia A Takagi, Esq. --
ttakagi@morganlewis.com -- and Lisa Rose Veasman, Esq. --
lveasman@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Flowserve US Inc, Defendant, represented by Anthony Dean Brosamle,
Esq. -- anthony.brosamle@tuckerellis.com -- Daniel J Kelly, Esq.
-- daniel.kelly@tuckerellis.com -- and Jenny-Anne S Flores, Esq.
-- jenny-anne.sinson@tuckerellis.com -- at Tucker Ellis LLP.

Gardner Denver Inc, Defendant, represented by Charles William
Jenkins, Esq. -- charles.jenkins@wilsonelser.com -- at Wilson
Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker LLP.

Goulds Pumps Inc, Defendant, represented by G Jeff Coons, Esq. --
jcoons@gordonrees.com -- at Gordon and Rees LLP.

Niantic Seal Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian S O'Malley, Esq.
-- bomalley@glaspy.com -- at McGivney Kluger and Glaspy.

Viad Corporation, Defendant, represented by Peter B Langbord, Esq.
-- plangford@foleymansfield.com -- and Anna K Milunas, Esq. --
amilunas@foleymansfield.com -- at Foley and Mansfield PLLP.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, represented by Glen R Powell, Esq. --
gpowell@gordonress.com -- at Gordon and Rees LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Denies Inmate's FTCA Claim Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit affirmed a lower court's decision denying an inmate's
motion for leave to amend his civil rights action by adding
Federal Tort Claims Act claim of asbestos exposure, finding that
the facts of the FTCA claim are wholly unrelated to the original
claims, and the only proper FTCA defendant is the United States,
which could not be sued in the original action.

The case is WILLIE KEITH JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JUAN
HERNANDEZ, Automotive Worker Supervisor, Federal Correctional
Institution La Tuna; A MARTINEZ, Factory Manager, Federal
Correctional Institution La Tuna; ARTURO BORREGO, Superintendent
of Industries, Federal Correctional Institution La Tuna; MR.
PARKER, Unit 3 Counselor, Federal Correctional Institution La
Tuna; MRS. ALLARD, Unit 1 Counselor, Federal Correctional
Institution La Tuna; H WATT, Administrative Remedy Coordinator,
Federal Bureau of Prisons Central Office, Defendants-Appellees,
NO. 12-50368 (5th Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Decision dated
July 5, 2013, is available for free at http://is.gd/UDrMdvfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Joyner" Claims v. Crane Remanded to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff James Joyner initiated an asbestos products-liability
action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in June 2012.  Two
months later defendant Crane Co. removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland under the federal
officer removal statute, on the basis of the government contractor
defense.  No other defendant joined in Crane Co.'s removal to
federal court.  Soon thereafter Joyner moved to remand the case --
either in toto or in part -- to the state court.  The District
Court then severed Joyner's claims against Crane Co. from the rest
of the suit and remanded the other claims to the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City.

The severance and dismissal led to a flurry of motions and
filings.  Defendants Crane Co. and Owens-Illinois, Inc. moved for
reconsideration two weeks later.  Without responding to those
motions, Joyner filed a "notice of abandonment of claims and
request for remand."  That putative notice announced that Joyner
would no longer seek damages related to Crane Co.'s alleged use of
asbestos in valves that it manufactured, distributed, or sold
while Joyner worked in the United States Coast Guard -- the valves
that gave rise to Crane Co.'s invocation of the government
contractor defense.  But Joyner continues to seek damages from
Crane Co. for its alleged use of asbestos in its Cranite gaskets.
He therefore asks the District Court to remand his gasket claim
against Crane Co. to the state court, which would end the federal
litigation.

Crane Co. and Owens-Illinois voiced procedural and substantive
objections to Joyner's attempt to abandon his claim against Crane
Co. with respect to its valves.  In its opposition, Crane Co.
argued that it would be inappropriate to permit Joyner to dismiss
or abandon his valve claim because, inter alia, Crane Co. can also
assert a federal defense with respect to its Cranite gaskets.
Crane Co. therefore contends that the case belongs in federal
court, with or without the valve claim.  Joyner then filed his
reply to the notice of abandonment, asking the Court to convert
the putative notice to a motion under Rule 15(a) or Rule 41(a)(2)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Taking umbrage with
Crane Co.'s belated assertion of the federal government contractor
defense with respect to its gaskets, though, Joyner also moved to
"strike any and all arguments pertaining to Crane Co.'s claim that
it is entitled to pursue the federal officer defense in connection
with its Cranite gaskets." That precipitated another round of
briefing.  These various motions have been fully briefed, and no
oral argument is necessary.

In a decision dated June 6, 2013, District Judge Catherine C.
Blake granted Joyner leave to amend his complaint to disclaim all
damages caused by Crane Co.'s valves.  As the master of his
complaint, Joyner may restrict its scope and sculpt its language
to avoid federal jurisdiction.  Judge Blake also remanded Joyner's
remaining claims against Crane Co. to the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, where they can be consolidated with the claims
against the other defendants that were previously remanded.

With respect to the motions for reconsideration, Judge Blake ruled
that the objections lodged by Owens-Illinois and Crane Co. in
their motions for reconsideration have become moot in light of the
disposition of Joyner's putative "notice of abandonment of claims
and request for remand."  Joyner's claims against Crane Co. with
respect to its gaskets will be remanded to state court.  The
remand terminates the federal litigation, and the parties no
longer need to conduct parallel litigations in state and federal
court.

The case is James E. JOYNER, v. A.C. & R. INSULATION CO., et al.,
CIVIL NO. CCB-12-2294 (D. Md.).  A full-text copy of Judge Blake's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/UQj7HQfrom Leagle.com.

James E. Joyner, Plaintiff, represented by Dawn Patricia O
Croinin, Esq., Jacqueline Gagne Badders, Esq., Jonathan
Ruckdeschel, Esq., and Z Stephen Horvat, Esq., at The Ruckdeschel
Law Firm LLC.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Clare Marie Maisano,
Esq. -- cmmaisano@ewhlaw.com -- at Evert Weathersby Houff.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Neil J MacDonald, Esq. --
nmacdonald@macdonaldlawgroup.com -- at MacDonald Law Group, LLC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Deborah K St
Lawrence Thompson, Esq. -- dstlawrence@milesstockbridge.com -- at
Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Owens-Illinios, Inc., Defendant, represented by Allyson N Ho, Esq.
-- aho@morganlewis.com -- and Steven Andrew Luxton, Esq. --
sluxton@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.

Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, Defendant, represented
by Brendan Henderson Fitzpatrick, Esq. --
bhfitzpatrick@Venable.com -- Scott Mason Richmond, Esq. --
srichmond@Venable.com -- and Theodore F Roberts, Esq. --
tfroberts@Venable.com -- at Venable LLP.

Yarway Corporation, Defendant, represented by Steven Andrew
Luxton, Esq. -- sluxton@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis and
Bockius LLP.

Crown Cork and Seal Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Theodore F Roberts, Esq. -- tfroberts@Venable.com
-- at Venable LLP.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, Cross Defendant, represented by
Theodore F Roberts, Esq. -- tfroberts@Venable.com
-- at Venable LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Businessman's Bid for Early Termination Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard J. Arcara of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York, in an order dated June 10, 2013, denied,
without prejudice, a businessman's motion for early termination,
finding that the business points to no new or unforeseen
circumstances justifying early termination of supervised release.

According to the businessman-defendant, Daniel A. Black, his
motion is based on his compliance with the terms and conditions of
supervised release during the first 14 months of the two-year term
of supervision and because a travel-restriction condition makes
business-related travel difficult for him.

The businessman pled guilty to charges of filing a false tax
return and Clean Air Act violation for his knowing failure to
conduct an inspection before commencement of renovation activity.
The second offense involved asbestos abatement in a building at
68 Blackstone Avenue, in Jamestown, New York, owned by defendant's
separately-incorporated business.  The business used four
temporary workers to remove steam pipes from the building that
were insulated with materials containing asbestos, but did not use
safe and lawful asbestos-handling and asbestos-disposal practices.

The case is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DANIEL A. BLACK,
Defendant, NO. 10-CR-303-A (W.D.N.Y.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Arcara's Decision is available at http://is.gd/rikyxgfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WECCO's Bid to Dismiss Insurance Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland, denied Walter E.
Campbell Company's motion to dismiss an insurance coverage
complaint.

WECCO's motion to dismiss the Complaint is premised on an argument
that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.  It is an
argument that WECCO makes in two steps: (1) WECCO asserts that the
parties to this action should be realigned so that WECCO should be
identified as the plaintiff and General Insurance Company of
America, Inc., as a defendant along with WECCO's other insurers;
and (2) WECCO argues that the Maryland Property & Casualty
Insurance Guaranty Corporation (PCIGC) is a necessary and
indispensable party and, once it is joined in the action,
diversity is destroyed because both WECCO and PCIGC are Maryland
corporations.

Judge Nickerson refused to realign the parties and determined that
WECCO has not met its burden of establishing that PCIGC is a
necessary and indispensable party.

The case is GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. THE WALTER E.
CAMPBELL COMPANY, INC. et al., CASE NO. WMN-12-3307 (D. Md.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Nickerson's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/m2qeFEfrom Leagle.com.

General Insurance Company of America, Plaintiff, represented by
Benjamin Rodes Dryden, Esq. -- bdryden@foley.com -- Ana M
Francisco, Esq. -- afrancisco@foley.com -- and Michael Thompson,
Esq. -- mxthompson@foley.com -- at Foley and Lardner LLP.

The Walter E. Campbell Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey S Raskin, Esq. and Steven Andrew Luxton, Esq. --
sluxton@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.

The Continental Insurance Company and National Indemnity Company,
Defendants, represented by Brandon D Almond, Esq. --
brandon.almond@troutmansanders.com -- Charles Thomas Blair, Esq.
-- tom.blair@troutmansanders.com -- and Prashant Kumar Khetan,
Esq. -- prashant.khetan@troutmansanders.com -- at Troutman Sanders
LLP.

Federal Insurance Company and United States Fire Insurance
Company, Defendants, represented by Jennifer Winter Persico, Esq.
-- jpersico@gordonrees.com -- Jacob C Cohn, Esq. --
jcohn@gordonrees.com -- and William Patrick Shelley, Esq. --
wshelley@gordonrees.com -- at Gordon & Rees.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., Defendant,
represented by David Bryan Applefeld, Esq. -- at
DApplefeld@AdelbergRudow.com -- and Danielle S Rosborough, Esq. --
drosborough@goodwin.com -- and James Pio Ruggeri, Esq. --
jruggeri@goodwin.com -- at Shipman and Goodwin LLP.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Defendant, represented
by Harry Lee, Esq. -- alee@steptoe.com -- and Catherine Cockerham,
Esq. -- ccockerham@steptoe.com -- at Steptoe and Johnson LLC.

Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company,
Defendant, represented by Allison R Radocha, Esq. --
aradocha@postschell.com -- John C Sullivan, Esq. --
jsullivan@postschell.com -- and Vincent Candiello, Esq. --
vcandiello@postschell.com -- at Post and Schell PC.

Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corporation, Cross
Defendant, represented by Albert J Mezzanotte, Jr., Esq. --
amezzanotte@wtplaw.com -- and Gardner M Duvall, Esq. --
gduvall@wtplaw.com -- at Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Krauss' Suit v. Tishman Liquidating Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
entered a decision and order dated June 12, 2013, granting Tishman
Liquidating Corporation, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a complaint and
all cross-claims against it in the case captioned WILLIAM E.
KRAUSS and JEANNE KRAUSS, Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190020/12, MOTION SEQ. NO. 012 (N.Y. Sup.).

Judge Heitler ruled that the Plaintiffs have provided no evidence
concerning William Krauss' exposure to asbestos by reason of any
products distributed or installed by Tishman or directed by
Tishman to be distributed or installed.

A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/HM5PcPfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Ct. Denies Motion to Remand "Barnes" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jerome B. Simandle, Chief District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an opinion
dated June 11, 2013, in the case captioned JOHN BARNES, JR. and
JEANETTE BARNES h/w, Plaintiffs, v. FOSTER WHEELER CORP., et al.,
Defendants, CIVIL NO. 13-1285 (JBS-JS)(D.N.J.), denying the
Plaintiffs' motion to remand the action to the New Jersey Superior
Court.

Judge Simandle found that, contrary to the Plaintiffs' contention
that Defendant General Electric Company untimely filed its notice
of removal, GE did file its notice of removal in accordance with
the 30-day requirement of 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b).

A full-text copy of Judge Simandle's Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/E4b9Ajfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Bid to Bar Evidence Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos action captioned ROSIE K. SWEREDOSKI, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of DOUGLAS A. SWEREDOSKI, and
Individually Recognized as Surviving Spouse v. ALFA LAVAL, INC.,
et al., C.A. NO. PC 2011-1544 (R.I. Super.), Defendant Crane Co.
filed a Motion in Limine seeking to bar admission of so-called
"each and every exposure" evidence at trial, contending it is
legally insufficient to prove causation and is based on
scientifically invalid reasoning.

The Plaintiff opposes the Motion and argues that the evidence is
not in issue in the instant case and, even if it were, it is
admissible as scientifically valid proof of the inherent dangers
of cumulative asbestos exposure.

In a decision dated June 13, 2013, the Superior Court of Rhode
Island, PROVIDENCE, SC, found that the "frequency, regularity,
proximity" test is the proper standard for proving causation in
asbestos cases in this state.  This test comports with the Supreme
Court's general causation jurisprudence and fairly balances the
interests of plaintiffs and defendants, the Superior Court said.

To meet the test, a plaintiff must present competent evidence
demonstrating exposure to a particular defendant's product, on a
regular basis, over an extended period of time, and in proximity
to where the plaintiff worked.  While a plaintiff may present
"each and every exposure" evidence at trial to establish the
inherent dangers of breathing in asbestos, that evidence will not
satisfy the causation standard adopted here unless it is
accompanied by sufficient evidence of the "frequency, regularity,
and proximity" of the plaintiff's exposure to asbestos to
establish that such exposure was a substantial factor in bringing
about the plaintiff's injury.

Accordingly, the Superior Court denied the Defendant's Motion.

A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/BRUzldfrom Leagle.com.


                             *********

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  * * *