CAR_Public/130719.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 19, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 141

                             Headlines



AEROPOSTALE INC: Continues to Defend "Providence" Class Suit
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Tax Delinquency Suit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Antitrust Suit Over US Airways Merger
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Baker Donelson Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
ANGEL'S TOUCH: Decorative Lamps Among Recently Recalled Products

AUTOZONE INC: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Class Suits
BAHAMAS: Lawyer Mulls Class Action v. Customs Over Processing Fee
BIG LOTS: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit in Ohio
BOAR'S HEAD: Faces Class Action Over "Reduced Sodium" Label
CANADA: 60's Scoop Children's Class Action Back in Toronto Court

COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed
COMVERSE INC: Continues to Defend Israeli Optionholders' Suits
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Debt Collection Suit Gets Class Action Status
EAST ST. LOUIS: Faces Class Action Over Nuisance Citations
FOOT LOCKER: Continues to Defend Class Action Suits by Employees

FOOT LOCKER: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of "Osberg" Class Suit
GOOGLE INC: Must Defend Call-Recording Class Action in State Court
GREAT SOUTHERN: Directors Get Favorable Ruling in Insurance Suit
INDYMAC MBS: Mayer Discusses Supreme Court Class Action Ruling
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Settles Suit Over Medicine Recall for $22.9MM

LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
MPG OFFICE: Continues to Face Merger-Related Class Action Suits
MONTREAL MAINE: Merchant Mulls Lac-Megantic Class Action
NEW NEWSCORP: Continues to Defend Ebooks Suits vs. HarperCollins
NEW NEWSCORP: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Wilder" Suit

NEWCREST MINING: Slater & Gordon Mulls Class Action
NICK'S ENGLISH: Sued Over Lack of ATM Fee-Disclosure Sticker
PAYDAY FINANCIAL: Sued Over Unlawful Financial Practices
POWER-ONE INC: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Action
ROSS STORES: Class Action Litigation Still Pending in California

SAC CAPITAL: Scott+Scott Amends Securities Class Action
TILLY'S INC: Awaits Order on Bid to Strike in "Christiansen" Suit
TILLY'S INC: Continues to Defend "Lyddy" Suit in California
TILLY'S INC: Motion for Arbitration in "Rebolledo" Suit Denied
TOYS R US: Toy Helicopters Among Recently Recalled Products

UNITED STATES: Goodwin to File Suit v. Secretary of Labor Nominee
VICTORIA: Landowner to Join Bushfire Overlay Class Action
WHOLE FOODS: FDA Investigates Cheese-Linked Listeria Outbreak

* Attorney's Fee Awards Bane for Defendants in Class Actions
* Bill May Hit Asbestos Victims' Bid for Fair Compensation
* Hawaii Hotel Workers' Suit Over Tips Can Proceed as Class Action


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock, Creditors Gear Up for Liability Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parties Disagree on Present & Future PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Class Suits v. Companies Not Possible in Russia
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Inc. Had 135 Pending Cases as of May 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Fears Aired for Beagle Bay Kids

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charles Passmore Family Call for Compensation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Performs Fibro Testing on Bueker Annex
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Troy Landfill Still a Concern in Lincoln County
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Names 154 Defendants in Personal Injury Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Vet Files $5MM Suit for Lung Disease in Saipan

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Philly Police Facility Possibly Contaminated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK's HSE Consults on Consolidated Regulations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Myrtle Beach Renovation Leads to Criminal Charges
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Opposes Chemical Safety Improvement Act
ASBESTOS UPDATE: West Dunbartonshire Houses Likely to Have Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Debris From Deadly Philly Collapse
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Musical Delayed as Fibro Removed from Theatre
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Roofing Delays Demoliton of Town Eyesore
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Warns of Deadly Dust Dangers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Junks Trane's Bid for Summary Judgment

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Los Angeles Court Must Revise Order
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Denies Bid to Remand "Thomasson" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Defendants Dropped From "Phillips" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Morton's Summary Judgment Bid in CERCLA Suit OK'd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgment to Mesothelioma Victim's Family Affirmed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Court Denies Wife's Consortium Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Flips Verdict in "Take Home" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Order in "Lee" Suit Affirmed


                             *********


AEROPOSTALE INC: Continues to Defend "Providence" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Aeropostale, Inc., continues to defend itself against a securities
class action lawsuit commenced by the City of Providence,
according to the Company's June 12, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 4, 2013.

In October 2011, Aeropostale, Inc. and senior executive officers
Thomas P. Johnson and Marc D. Miller were named as defendants in
an action amended in February 2012, City of Providence v.
Aeropostale, Inc., et al., No. 11-7132, a class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.  The lawsuit
was filed in New York federal court on behalf of purchasers of
Aeropostale securities between March 11, 2011, and August 18,
2011.  The lawsuit alleges that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and prospects and failed to disclose that Aeropostale was
experiencing declining demand for its women's fashion division and
increasing inventory.  A motion to dismiss was denied on March 25,
2013.  In the opinion of management, disposition of this matter is
not expected to have a material effect on the Company's financial
positions, results of operations or cash flows.  The Company is
vigorously defending this matter.

New York-based Aeropostale, Inc. -- http://www.aeropostale.com/--
is a primarily mall-based, specialty retailer of casual apparel
and accessories, principally targeting 14 to 17 year-old young
women and men through its Aeropostale stores and 4 to 12 year-old
kids through its P.S. from Aeropostale stores.  Aeropostale
maintains control over its proprietary brands by designing,
sourcing, marketing and selling all of its own merchandise.


ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Tax Delinquency Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reports that lead plaintiffs in a
class action challenging a local government's authority to collect
attorneys' fees in delinquent tax proceedings will be allowed to
benefit from a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling in their favor
despite subsequent legislative changes nullifying the decision, a
state appeals court said on July 15.

In a precedential opinion, a three-judge Commonwealth Court panel
said that Pentlong Corp. and Weitzel Inc. -- the two lead
plaintiffs in a class action challenging Allegheny County's
efforts to collect property tax liens and related fees by
contracting with an outside company -- were entitled to relief
after a 2003 decision by the state's highest court finding that
local governments and their agents did not have statutory
authority to collect attorneys' fees from delinquent taxpayers.

While the Pennsylvania General Assembly later passed a law known
as Act 20 which nullified the so-called Pentlong II decision, the
Commonwealth Court ruled on July 15 that the judge overseeing the
case nonetheless had a responsibility to enter judgment in favor
of the challengers.

"On remand, the trial court should have afforded Pentlong and
Weitzel the fruits of their labor, in this case a favorable
decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court," the panel ruled in an
opinion crafted by Judge P. Kevin Brobson.  "On remand, as to
Pentlong and Weitzel, the trial court must follow Pentlong II and
fashion an appropriate order on the attorneys' fees claim
consistent with this opinion."

Pentlong and Weitzel filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of
Common Pleas in 1998 accusing GLS Capital Inc., a company hired by
the county to collect approximately $35 million in delinquent
taxes, of charging unreasonable and illegal fees in excess of the
amount owed.  While a trial court dismissed the suit, it was later
revived by the Commonwealth Court on appeal in 2001.  Its revival
was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Pentlong II decision,
along with a finding that state statute did not allow local
governments to collect attorneys' fees as part of delinquent tax
collection action.

Three months after the case was remanded by the Supreme Court back
to Allegheny County, then-Gov. Ed Rendell signed Act 20 into law.
The bill amended the state's Municipal Claims and Tax Liens Act by
authorizing local governments to collect reasonable attorneys'
fees from delinquent taxpayers.

While Pentlong and Weitzel argued that they were entitled to
partial judgment pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision, the
trial court rejected their motion and allowed the case to
continue.  In 2006, the judge certified a class in the case that
encompassed all Allegheny County property owners whose liens were
transferred to GLS for collection.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of GLS in 2010,
which landed the case once again in front of Commonwealth Court.

While the plaintiffs argued that the Supreme Court's decision in
Pentlong II should apply to the entire class, the Commonwealth
Court disagreed after finding that the opinion issued by the
justices could not be considered a final order in the case and
noting that the trial court had not yet certified a class in the
dispute when the 2003 opinion was issued.

"When the Supreme Court decided Pentlong II, the trial court had
not yet certified this matter as a class action," the opinion
said.  "Even if we were to characterize the Supreme Court's
decision in Pentlong II as a judgment, it would be binding only on
the named parties and not the class, which was not certified until
after the law in effect at the time of Pentlong II changed through
Act 20.  Thus, the class cannot rely on Pentlong II to avoid Act
20."

Louis Tarasi, an attorney with Tarasi & Tarasi PC in Pittsburgh
representing the plaintiffs, declined to comment on the case when
reached, saying he'd not yet seen the opinion.

Attorneys for GLS did not immediately return messages seeking
comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Louis Tarasi of Tarasi & Tarasi
PC; and Bernard Rubb.

GLS Capital Inc. is represented by Michael McCabe --
mmccabe@grblaw.com -- Stacey Vernallis -- svernallis@grblaw.com --
and Mandi Scott -- mscott@grblaw.com -- of Goehring, Rutter &
Boehm.

Allegheny County is represented by in-house counsel George
Janocsko and Byron Xides.

The case is Pentlong Corp. et al. v. County of Allegheny et al.,
case No. 891 CD 2012 in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Antitrust Suit Over US Airways Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Ahles, writing for Star-Telegram, reports that a lawsuit
filed on July 2 in federal court in California seeks to block the
merger between American Airlines and US Airways, claiming it would
be bad for passengers.

Joseph Alioto, an antitrust attorney who has challenged other
airline mergers, said the proposed deal to create the nation's
biggest airline would hurt consumers and drive up ticket prices.

Thirty-eight plaintiffs, including four Texas residents, are named
in the suit, which was filed against US Airways.  American and its
parent company, AMR Corp., were not named as defendants because
the Fort Worth-based carrier is operating under bankruptcy
protection.

"The combination is not going to be good for business travelers,"
Alioto said in an interview on July 2.  "The availability of
flights is going to be less, the capacity will be less, and prices
will be higher."

US Airways spokesman Ed Stewart said that the lawsuit is without
merit and that the carrier expects the merger to close in the
third quarter as planned.

"As is often the case with high-profile mergers, lawsuits
containing baseless allegations such as these are filed and they
are successfully defended," Mr. Stewart said.

Mr. Alioto's firm filed similar suits trying to stop mergers
between Northwest Airlines and Delta Air Lines, United Airlines
and Continental Airlines, and Southwest Airlines' purchase of
AirTran Airways.  In the latter case, the court ruled in
Southwest's favor and ordered Mr. Alioto's firm to pay $67,495.30
in attorney fees.

Some of the plaintiffs in the US Airways-American Airlines lawsuit
also appeared on other lawsuits filed by Mr. Alioto.

In the lawsuit against US Airways, Mr. Alioto argues that the top
three airlines will control more than 80 percent of domestic air
travel if the merger is approved.  And including Southwest, 96
percent of the domestic market would be controlled by four
carriers.

"The proposed merger would be the fourth mega-merger in five years
in the airline industry," the suit says.  "This action is the only
remaining avenue available to 'arrest' the march to monopoly power
in the airline industry."

The Justice Department is reviewing the proposed merger.  Texas
Attorney General Greg Abbott is leading 19 state attorneys general
in investigating the antitrust issues related to the merger to
determine whether the deal may lead to cuts in air service and
higher fares for consumers.

The shareholders of US Airways are scheduled to vote on the merger
at a meeting July 12, and executives at both airlines expect to
close the deal in September.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Baker Donelson Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathlyn Perez, Esq., at Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &
Berkowitz PC, reports that businesses often use arbitration
agreements as a tool to lessen the burden and cost of future
litigation.  On June 20, 2013, the Supreme Court released its
opinion in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant,
which confirms that agreements between parties to resolve their
disputes individually and in arbitration are enforceable.  The
Court held that an arbitration agreement was enforceable
regardless of the fact that the cost of pursuing a successful
claim individually (rather than as a class) could effectively kill
a party's incentive to bring that claim.  This ruling has far
reaching implications and will likely lead to an increased use of
arbitration agreements as a means to secure individualized
treatment of potential future claims and avoid the cost of class
litigation by consumers, merchants, employees and the like.

                    Background and Holding

Italian Colors Restaurant brought suit against American Express in
a purported class action alleging that American Express violated
antitrust law by forcing merchants to accept its debit cards as a
condition of accepting its charge cards.  American Express moved
to compel arbitration on an individualized basis because the
arbitration agreement in the parties' contract contained a class
action waiver.  The plaintiffs opposed the motion on the grounds
that the expert evidence needed to prevail in the case would cost
more than an individual plaintiff's likely average recovery.
While the trial court granted the motion to compel individual
arbitration, the Second Circuit reversed, reasoning that the
plaintiffs' claims "cannot reasonably be pursued as individual
actions, whether in federal court or in arbitration," because the
cost of doing so would be prohibitive and therefore the class
action waiver would "effectively preclude any action seeking to
vindicate the statutory rights asserted by the plaintiffs."  In re
Am. Express Merchs.' Litig., 554 F.3d 300, 304 (2d Cir. 2009); see
also See In re Am. Express Merchs.' Litig., 634 F.3d 187 (2d Cir.
2011); See In re Am. Express Merchs.' Litig., 667 F.3d 204 (2d
Cir. 2012).

The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit, and upheld the
arbitration agreement containing the class waiver.  The opinion,
written by Justice Scalia, starts from the basic tenet that
arbitration is a matter of contract law.  Consistent with contract
interpretation principles, the Supreme Court has stated its
support for "'rigorously enfor[cing]' arbitration agreements
according to their terms."  Slip Op. at 3 (citing Dean Witter
Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U. S. 213, 221 (1985)).  In this case,
the contract between the parties stated that there "shall be no
right or authority for any Claims to be arbitrated on a class
action basis."  While the plaintiffs claimed that "requiring them
to litigate their claims individually -- as they contracted to do
-- would contravene policies of the antitrust laws," (Slip Op. at
4, emphasis added), the Court noted that the antitrust laws
neither guarantee an affordable path to bringing a successful
claim, nor evidence an intention to preclude a waiver of the use
of class actions.

The Court also addressed what is known as the "effective
vindication" exception to enforcing an arbitration agreement where
for "public policy" reasons the Court may still invalidate the
agreement if it operates "as a prospective waiver of a party's
right to pursue statutory remedies."  Slip Op. at 6 (emphasis in
original) (quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-
Plymouth, Inc., 473 U. S. 614, 628 (1985)).  Here, the plaintiffs
claimed that enforcing the class action waiver impairs the
effective vindication of their rights under the antitrust laws
because they have no economic incentive to pursue their claims
individually in arbitration.  However, the Court found no
prospective waiver of the right to pursue an antitrust claim: the
plaintiffs clearly have the opportunity to bring their claims,
just not in court and not joined together as a class.  If the
parties had prospectively waived any right to bring a claim, or
the filing fees and administrative costs of arbitration were so
high that the plaintiffs did not have access to the forum, then
the "effective vindication" exception to enforcing the arbitration
provision may apply.  However, the Court distinguished the
opportunity to pursue a claim from the opportunity to successfully
pursue a claim:  the fact that "it is not worth the expense
involved in proving [the claim] does not constitute the
elimination of the right to pursue that remedy."  Slip Op. at 5, 7
(emphasis in original).

            Implications on Business and Consumer Law

Consumer transactions often involve the signing of a standardized
agreement with a company in order to engage the company's services
or purchase its product.  Already many of these agreements require
arbitration.  Like in American Express, arbitration agreements can
now also be used to contract with consumers and other businesses
to avoid costly class actions.

In addition to consumer transactions, arbitration agreements
including class waivers are also likely to become prevalent in
contracts for the purchase of products to avoid class action cases
related to defective products.  Another type of case likely to be
impacted by this decision is securities class actions, where a
group of investors who have allegedly been injured as a result of
alleged corporate mismanagement or wrongdoing sue the company on
behalf of the investors.

                Implications on Employment Law

In recent years, Fair Labor Standards Act collective actions over
employee wages and overtime have risen in popularity due primarily
to the relative ease of getting class certification, and the
availability of attorneys' fees and large penalties.  Other
popular class actions in the employment realm include claims for
discrimination or harassment, safety violations and the like.
Given the American Express holding, employers can craft
arbitration agreements with employees that secure arbitration as
the forum for the lawsuit, and also secure individualized
treatment of any claim, rather than class or collective treatment.
However, companies considering such an agreement with their
employees should be careful to avoid the "effective vindication"
exception to enforcing the agreement.  In particular, the
agreement should ensure that employees still have the right to
pursue their claims by lessening any financial or other burdensome
hurdles to bringing individual claims in arbitration.


ANGEL'S TOUCH: Decorative Lamps Among Recently Recalled Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a line of decorative lamps with
exposed wiring posing a fire hazard and toy helicopters with a
rechargeable battery that can overheat are among recently recalled
consumer products.  Others include potentially defective hammocks.

Here's a more detailed look:

LAMPS DETAILS: "Butterfly Clip Light" lamps with SKU# 416593 and
"Shell Clip Light" lamps with SKU #416955 that feature a stained
glass shade resembling a seashell or a multicolored butterfly.
Both lamps use a 7-watt type C bulb and have a plug-in cord with a
cord-mounted on/off thumb-switch.  The SKU number can be found on
the product's packaging.  They were sold exclusively at Cracker
Barrel Old Country Store locations nationwide and online at
www.crackerbarrel.com from November 2012 through February 2013,

WHY: The lamps have exposed wiring at the base, which poses shock
and fire hazards.

INCIDENTS: None reported.

HOW MANY: About 8,000. FOR MORE: Call Angel's Touch Collections at
877-474-2133 or visit www.angeltouchcollections.com and click on
"Recall Notice" for more information.  Consumers can also send an
e-mail to ATCrecall@gmail.com.

TOY HELICOPTERS DETAILS: Fast Lane FA-005 radio control 3-channel
helicopters with gyro stabilizer and charger, model number
5F5F2F5.  The model number is printed on the front of the product
packaging and on the underside of the helicopter.  The double-
rotor helicopters are blue and white, approximately 9-inches high
and have the Fast Lane logo on the top of the helicopter.  They
were sold at Toys R Us stores nationwide and online at
www.toysrus.com from September 2012 through January 2013.

WHY: The rechargeable battery inside the helicopters can overheat,
posing fire and burn hazards.

INCIDENTS: 11 reports worldwide of the rechargeable battery
overheating.  No injuries have been reported.

HOW MANY: About 6,500 in the U.S. and 900 in Canada.

FOR MORE: Call Toys R Us at 800-869-7787 or visit www.toysrus.com
and click on "About Us," then select "Safety" at the top of the
page, and then "Click here" under Product Recalls for more
information.

HAMMOCKS DETAILS: Outdoor Solutions hammock with sunshade.  It is
a stand-alone, light-brown canvas hammock that sits inside a steel
and plastic frame.  A tag affixed to the outside of the canvas bag
includes the product name, model number 147184, and UPC number
4122088609.  They were sold exclusively at Texas H-E-B stores
between February 2013 and June 2013.

WHY: The seam in the lounge of the hammock can open and rip,
posing a fall hazard.

INCIDENTS: Two reports of seams tearing. Bruising and discomfort
were reported in one incident.

HOW MANY: About 700.

FOR MORE: Call H-E-B at 800-432-3113 or visit http://www.heb.com
and go to "About Us" and click on "Our Company" and then "Recalls"
for more information.


AUTOZONE INC: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
AutoZone, Inc., is involved in various other legal proceedings
incidental to the conduct of its business, including several
lawsuits containing class-action allegations in which the
plaintiffs are current and former hourly and salaried employees
who allege various wage and hour violations and unlawful
termination practices.  The Company does not currently believe
that, either individually or in the aggregate, these matters will
result in liabilities material to the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 12, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 4, 2013.

AutoZone, Inc. -- http://www.autozone.com/-- is the nation's
leading retailer, and a leading distributor, of automotive
replacement parts and accessories in the United States.  Each of
the Company's stores carries an extensive product line for cars,
sport utility vehicles, vans and light trucks, including new and
remanufactured automotive hard parts, maintenance items,
accessories and non-automotive products.  The Company was
incorporated in Nevada and is headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.


BAHAMAS: Lawyer Mulls Class Action v. Customs Over Processing Fee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Hartnell, writing for Tribune 242, reports that a well-known
QC is studying whether Customs latest "intrusion" warrants a
'class action lawsuit' for breaching both the Hawksbill Creek
Agreement and the constitutional rights of 3,500 Freeport
businesses.

Fred Smith QC, the Callenders and Co attorney and partner, told
Tribune Business he was examining "the legality" of Customs' new 1
per cent administrative processing fee, its new document fee and
the Government's so-called 'Environmental Levy'.  He said that if
there were grounds for a lawsuit, rather than go it alone he would
"try to persuade" the Grand Bahama Port Authority's (GBPA)
licensees to join in a class action lawsuit against both Customs
and the Government.

And Mr. Smith also called on the GBPA, as Freeport's quasi-
governmental authority, to "stand up" and protect its private
sector licensees against the Government's attempts to impose taxes
on them.

"As a licensee of the Grand Bahama Port Authority, I am
considering the legality of this new processing fee," Mr. Smith
told Tribune Business.

"In addition, my companies are looking at the new [Customs]
document fee and the Environmental Levy, given that Freeport is a
tax-free zone.

"It appears to be yet another Customs intrusion into our tax-free
status, as the Government tries to kill what is left of Freeport's
golden goose."

And he added: "Customs hold such a lock on importation and
exports, and they are able to suffocate a business effectively at
the point of importation.

"This is also what Immigration, exchange control and the
Investments Board do to stifle Freeport's growth."

Mr. Smith said the Government appeared to be going out of its way
to "studiously avoid the use of the word 'tax'" in describing many
of the Budget's introductions, instead employing language such as
'processing fee', 'document fee' and 'levy'.

Urging people not to be fooled, he told this newspaper: "If it
quacks like a tax, if it looks like a tax, it is a tax.  And, if
they are in breach of the Hawksbill Creek Agreement, rest assured
Customs will be sued.

"On this occasion, my companies will try to persuade the other
3,500 licensees of Freeport to participate in a general licensee
class action suit, not only against Customs but the Government --
who are in control of Customs -- for their persistent and abusive
treatment of licensees."

Emphasizing that any legal action would not be grounded solely on
the Hawksbill Creek Agreement, Mr. Smith added: "We have vested
rights protected by the Constitution, and we will be looking at
mounting another action under Article 27 for deprivation of our
property and our property rights, and to seek general damages
against the Government and Grand Bahama Port Authority for
breaches of our rights under the Hawksbill Creek Agreement and our
constitutional laws."

Calling on the GBPA to disassociate itself from the Government's
taxation drive, the noted QC added: "It is about time that the
Port Authority not only collects license fees, but stands up for
licensees against Customs and the Government's terror taxation
tactics."


BIG LOTS: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc., disclosed in its June 12, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 4, 2013, that it has filed a motion to dismiss a
securities class action lawsuit.

On July 9, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
on behalf of persons who acquired the Company's common shares
between February 2, 2012, and April 23, 2012.  This lawsuit was
filed against the Company, Lisa M. Bachmann, the Company's
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer; Joe R.
Cooper, Executive Vice President and President of Big Lots Canada,
Inc.; Steven S. Fishman, the Company's Chairman, Chief Executive
Officer and President; and Charles W. Haubiel II, the Company's
Executive Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer and
Corporate Secretary.  The complaint in the putative class action
generally alleges that the defendants made statements concerning
the Company's financial performance that were false or misleading.
The complaint asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and seeks damages
in an unspecified amount, plus attorneys' fees and expenses.  The
lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 4, 2013, which
added Timothy A. Johnson, the Company's Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer, as a defendant, removed Ms. Bachmann as a
defendant, and extended the putative class period to August 23,
2012.  The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the putative
class action complaint.

The Company believes that the putative class action lawsuit is
without merit, and the Company intends to defend itself vigorously
against the allegations levied in the lawsuit.  While a loss from
the lawsuit is reasonably possible, at this time, the Company
cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any loss that may result
or whether the lawsuit will have a material impact on its
financial statements.

Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com/-- is one of North
America's largest broadline closeout retailer.  The Columbus,
Ohio-based Company operates stores in the United States of America
and Canada.


BOAR'S HEAD: Faces Class Action Over "Reduced Sodium" Label
-----------------------------------------------------------
Drew Singer, writing for Law360, reports that deli meat producer
Boar's Head was hit with a putative class action on July 12,
alleging its "reduced sodium" label is a load of bologna and
violates New York law concerning deceptive acts and practices.

Some of the company's low-sodium products actually have as much
sodium as their traditional counterparts, the complaint alleges,
while other products boast reduction figures exaggerated by more
than 10%.

"Defendant has made eating healthy and lower sodium a focal point
of its marketing campaigns," the suit said.  "Ironically, one of
defendant's current ad campaigns encourages consumers to 'trust'
the brand."

The Boar's Head website tells readers to "Pile on the flavor, not
the salt."

The lawsuit asks for an injunction requiring Boar's Head to comply
with state law.  The lawsuit does not request a specific figure
for damages, but New York general business law allows for payment
of actual damages or $50, whichever is greater, for harm caused by
deceptive ads.  The law also allows a judge to triple damages up
to $1,000 and assess attorneys' fees.

Lead plaintiff Scott Mackles came upon a brochure listing Boar's
Head nutrition facts, where he noticed the company's low-sodium
turkey products had virtually the same amount of sodium as its
normal turkey products, according to the July 12 filing.

The complaint alleges that when Mackles contacted Boar's Head
looking for an explanation, he was told all labels were approved
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

When Mackles sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the
USDA, asking for the most recent information on its approval of
Board's Head low-sodium labels, he received a letter stating that
"a search by knowledgeable staff in [the agency's Food Safety and
Inspection Service] failed to locate any documents that would be
responsive to your request."

A USDA representative allegedly later informed Mackles' counsel
that even if the USDA had given its approval, companies are still
responsible for assuring the accuracy of their own labels.

The lawsuit demands a jury trial and lists all consumers of Boar's
Head low-sodium products as potential class members, and in
particular anyone who has eaten Golden Catering Style Oven Roasted
Turkey Breast -- 47% Lower Sodium, Premium 47% Lower Sodium Oven
Roasted Turkey Breast -- Skinless, Hickory Smoked Black Forest
Turkey Breast 40% Lower Sodium, and Branded Deluxe Ham 42% Lower
Sodium.

Based in Florida, Boar's Head produces meats, cheeses and
condiments to delis and grocery stores under the slogan
"Compromise Elsewhere."

Boar's Head spokeswoman Elizabeth Ward did not respond to a
request for comment.

Information on Boar's Head's attorneys was not immediately
available.

Scott Mackles and the putative class are represented by Jeffrey
Squire -- squire@bespc.com -- and David Stone -- stone@bespc.com
-- of Bragar Eagel & Squire PC.

The case is Scott Mackles v. Boar's Head Provisions Co. Inc, case
number 1:13-cv-04855. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


CANADA: 60's Scoop Children's Class Action Back in Toronto Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a class action lawsuit filed on the basis
that young First Nations people were deprived of their cultural
identity was expected to be in the courts on July 15.

Between 1965 and 1985, an estimated 16,000 Aboriginal children in
Ontario were removed from their homes and placed in other --
mostly non-native -- communities in what is called by some "the
60s scoop."

Chief Marcia Brown-Martel of the Beaverhouse First Nation and
Robert Commanda were two of those children taken from their
families.  They launched an attempt at a class action lawsuit in
February 2009.

In May 2010 a judge conditionally granted a motion to certify the
action as a class proceeding.  But in December 2011, it was ruled
that conditional certification of a class action proceeding should
not have been granted.

Ms. Brown-Martell and Mr. Commanda were expected to present their
case before a new judge at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
in Toronto.

"I am dismayed that the Government of Canada has taken the
position that there is no justifiable claim because its actions
were in the best interests of me and 16,000 other children who
were taken from our homes and raised far away from our communities
without regard for our cultural identity," said Ms. Brown-Martel
in a press release issued by the Nishnawbe Aski Nation.

"Canada's argument that it had no capacity and no obligation to
protect our Aboriginal cultural rights is reprehensible [and] is a
continuation of the assimilation policies inflicted upon First
Nations through the Residential School system."

A website has been established to help First Nations people
register and obtain more information on the class action
proceedings.


COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated lawsuit styled In re Columbia Laboratories, Inc.,
Securities Litigation was dismissed last month, according to the
Company's June 12, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Columbia Laboratories, Inc. announced in June 2013, that the
previously disclosed putative class action lawsuit filed against
the Company, Actavis, Inc. and certain officers of both companies
(the "Defendants") in the United States District Court, District
of New Jersey, entitled In re Columbia Laboratories, Inc.,
Securities Litigation, has been dismissed without prejudice.  The
plaintiffs have been granted 30 days within which to file an
amended complaint.

As previously reported, between February 1, 2012, and February 6,
2012, two putative securities class action complaints were filed
against Columbia and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
These actions were filed under the captions Wright v. Columbia
Laboratories, Inc., et al., and Shu v. Columbia Laboratories,
Inc., et al and assert claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act
on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of the Common Stock
during the period from December 6, 2010, through January 20, 2012.

Both actions have been consolidated into a single proceeding
entitled In re Columbia Laboratories, Inc., Securities Litigation,
under which Actavis, Inc., and one of its officers have been added
as defendants.  The complaint alleges that Columbia and one of its
officers and a director omitted to state material facts that they
were under a duty to disclose, and made materially false and
misleading statements that related to the results of Columbia's
PREGNANT study and the likelihood of approval by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") of a new drug application to market
progesterone vaginal gel 8% for the prevention of preterm birth in
women with premature cervical shortening.  According to the
complaint, these alleged omissions and misleading statements had
the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Common Stock.  The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf
of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses,
including attorney's fees.

                   About Columbia Laboratories

Columbia Laboratories, Inc. -- http://www.columbialabs.com/-- is
a publicly traded specialty pharmaceutical company with a
successful history of developing proprietary, vaginally
administered products for women's health indications.  The Company
receives sales and royalty revenues from CRINONE(R) (progesterone
gel), which is marketed by Actavis, Inc. in the United States and
by Merck Serono S.A. in over 60 foreign countries.  The Company is
headquartered in Livingston, New Jersey.


COMVERSE INC: Continues to Defend Israeli Optionholders' Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Comverse, Inc., continues to defend itself against class action
lawsuits brought by optionholders in Israel, according to the
Company's June 13, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2013.

The Company's parent, Comverse Technology, Inc. (CTI) and certain
of its former subsidiaries, including Comverse Ltd. (a subsidiary
of the Company), were named as defendants in four potential class
action litigations in the State of Israel involving claims to
recover damages incurred as a result of purported negligence or
breach of contract due to previously-settled allegations regarding
illegal backdating of CTI options that allegedly prevented certain
current or former employees from exercising certain stock options.
The Company intends to vigorously defend these actions.

Two cases were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against CTI on
March 26, 2009, by plaintiffs Katriel (a former Comverse Ltd.
employee) and Deutsch (a former Verint Systems Ltd. employee).
The Katriel case (Case Number 1334/09) and the Deutsch case (Case
Number 1335/09) both seek to approve class actions to recover
damages that are claimed to have been incurred as a result of
CTI's negligence in reporting and filing its financial statements,
which allegedly prevented the exercise of certain stock options by
certain employees and former employees.  By stipulation of the
parties, on September 30, 2009, the court ordered that these
cases, including all claims against CTI in Israel and the motion
to approve the class action, be stayed until resolution of the
actions pending in the United States regarding stock option
accounting, without prejudice to the parties' ability to
investigate and assert the unique facts, claims and defenses in
these cases.  On May 7, 2012, the court lifted the stay, and the
plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint and motion to certify a
class of plaintiffs in a single consolidated class action.  The
defendants responded to this amended complaint on November 11,
2012, and the plaintiffs filed a further reply 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 28, 2013, a preliminary
mediation meeting was held with the mediator, during which the
mediator met with all parties together and with the defendants
separately.  The mediation process is currently ongoing.

Separately, on July 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion
seeking an order that CTI hold back $150 million in assets as a
reserve to satisfy any potential damage awards that may be awarded
in this case, but did not seek to enjoin the Share Distribution.
The Company does not believe that the motion has merit.  On
July 25, 2012, the court indicated that it will not rule on the
motion until after it rules on the plaintiffs' motion to certify a
class of plaintiffs.  On August 16, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to appeal the court's order to the Israeli
Supreme Court and on November 11, 2012, CTI responded to
plaintiff's motion.  The parties are awaiting a decision.

Two cases were also filed in the Tel Aviv Labor Court by
plaintiffs Katriel and Deutsch, and both sought to approve class
actions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurred
as a result of breached employment contracts, which allegedly
prevented the exercise by certain employees and former employees
of certain CTI and Verint stock options, respectively.  The
Katriel litigation (Case Number 3444/09) was filed on March 16,
2009, against Comverse Ltd., and the Deutsch litigation (Case
Number 4186/09) was filed on March 26, 2009, against Verint
Systems Ltd.  The Tel Aviv Labor Court has ruled that it lacks
jurisdiction, and both cases have been transferred to the Tel Aviv
District Court.  These cases have been consolidated with the Tel
Aviv District Court cases.  The Company did not accrue for these
matters as the potential loss is currently not probable or
estimable.

Additional cases have been filed by individual plaintiffs
similarly seeking to recover damages up to an aggregate of $3.6
million allegedly incurred as a result of the inability to
exercise certain stock options.  The cases generally allege the
same causes of actions alleged in the potential class action.  The
Company did not accrue for these matters as the potential loss is
currently not probable or estimable.

Comverse, Inc. -- http://www.comverse.com/-- is a provider of
telecom business enablement solutions for communication service
providers through a portfolio of product-based solutions and
associated services in these domains: Business Support Systems,
Digital and Value Added Services, Data Management and Monetization
Solutions and Professional and Managed Services.  The Company is
headquartered in Wakefield, Massachusetts.


CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Debt Collection Suit Gets Class Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Hubbard, writing for The Omaha World Herald, reports that
a lawsuit against a Grand Island debt collector can proceed as a
class action that might include as many as 27,000 eligible
Nebraska consumers, U.S. District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon has
ruled.

The ruling on July 12 stems from a 2011 lawsuit filed in U.S.
District Court in Omaha by three Omaha residents against Credit
Management Services.

They say in the suit that Credit Management violated federal debt
collection laws by saying payment requests were sent 90 days
before the filing of collection lawsuits, when they weren't.  The
consumers also say in their suit that Credit Management requested
detailed financial information, such as copies of tax returns and
pay stubs, after it had filed collection suits.

Request for such information violate federal debt collection laws
and "deceive the unsophisticated consumer into believing such
information must be provided in order to defend the collection
lawsuit," the lawsuit reads.

John Guthery, an attorney for Credit Management with the Lincoln
firm Perry Guthery, declined to comment on the class-action
certification.  His side has argued in court papers that the
lawsuit is flawed.

The court is still considering a motion by Credit Management to
rule summarily in its favor because the suit, according to case
documents, "constitutes a collection of conclusory statements
which purport to establish alleged violations but, ultimately,
lack sufficient facts or applicable law to support them."

That motion is pending and unaffected by the class-action status
ruling.

Credit Management employs about 180 people, according to the
company website, and works with about two-thirds of Nebraska's
hospitals.  The company says it has 1,800 clients across the
region.

The suit says the company wrote in its standard collection
lawsuits filed against consumers that more than 90 days had
elapsed between demand for payment and the filing of the legal
action.

"In fact, defendants do not routinely send a 'claim' to consumers
prior to filing the county court collection lawsuit," the consumer
suit says.

Also, the suit says, attempts to collect interest or attorney fees
didn't comport with the law.

Court documents say lawyers for consumers contend 27,000 people
were sued in Nebraska by Credit Management during the relevant
periods, which extend as far back as four years.  Credit
Management, documents say, contends there are only 5,000.

Last month, an Omaha woman sued another Grand Island debt
collector, General Collection, in U.S. District Court in Omaha.
That suit is seeking class-action status, citing collection
letters the woman said led her to believe she had to dispute a
debt or the court would automatically consider the obligation as
valid.


EAST ST. LOUIS: Faces Class Action Over Nuisance Citations
----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports
that Belleville lawyer Alvin Paulson has opened a class action
against East St. Louis and Waste Management on behalf of landlord
Edwin Sieron.

In a suit Mr. Paulson filed at U.S. District Court in East St.
Louis on July 2, three Sieron companies claim the city improperly
issued nuisance citations.

"The citations are given indiscriminately and force city residents
to come to the city's municipal building, costing those affected
time and money," Mr. Paulson wrote.

"This practice is a form of harassment and unduly burdens low
income individuals and minorities," he wrote.

The plaintiffs are identified as Raven Securities, Hawk
Properties, and Falcon Ltd.

The suit alleges 17 counts against the city and two against Waste
Management, claiming the city acts as debt collector for Waste
Management.

According to the suit, the city issues citations to those on a
list that Waste Management submits.

Mr. Paulson wrote that the list includes residents who do not have
trash service and Waste Management customers with delinquent
bills.

"No Illinois state statute requires a person to have a trash
service provider," he wrote.

Mr. Paulson proposes to represent all who received citations for
failure to have trash service, estimating their number in hundreds
if not thousands.  He calls on the court to determine whether the
city issues citations at the behest of Waste Management and
whether the city and Waste Management colluded.  He also calls on
the court to determine whether plaintiffs are entitled to punitive
damages and injunctive relief.

The suit alleges that the city violates federal debt collection
law through false representations.

Mr. Paulson wrote the city disgraces customers by falsely
representing that they committed crimes.  He wrote that Waste
Management violates the same law by providing to the city a list
of customers who allegedly refuse to pay debts.

In addition, the city allegedly violates state debt collection law
by acting as a collection agent without a license.  The suit
alleges fraud and fraudulent concealment, claiming the city knows
that failure to have trash service does not violate its
ordinances.  It also claims slander, alleging that the city
furnishes citations with malice and intent to harm plaintiffs and
other class members.

In another slander count, Mr. Paulson wrote that the city also
maliciously communicates false information to a credit agency.  He
alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress, calling the
city's conduct extreme and outrageous.  He also alleges
interference with a prospective business advantage, writing that
plaintiffs have a reasonable expectation of return on investment
through leasing homes to own.

Mr. Paulson didn't take on the most sympathetic client in East St.
Louis.

The state's high risk insurance pool, "FAIR Plan," ceased insuring
Sieron's properties in 2002, according to a suit that Hanover Fire
and Casualty filed against Sieron in 2006.

In the suit, Hanover alleged that Sieron's businesses had a
history of losses substantially in excess of other high risk
policyholders in the same geographic area.

Hanover and Sieron settled in 2007.

The suit alleged that Sieron developed a scheme to continue
obtaining FAIR Plan insurance through applications that
misrepresented the identities of applicants.

Hanover also alleged that FAIR Plan denied damage claims made by
those applicants and rescinded their policies.

The insurer also alleged that FAIR Plan initiated litigation
against Sieron and his entities, resulting in summary judgment in
favor of the FAIR Plan.  It also alleged that it hired Sieron as
an agent, paying him $32,000 in commissions while he forwarded
more than 100 applications that contained misrepresentations.

The company fired him as agent in 2005, due to a loss ratio that
exceeded 100 percent in 2004 and 2005, according to Hanover.

Hanover sued him and nine of his entities in federal court in
Pennsylvania, and a judge transferred the case to the Southern
District of Illinois.

Sieron's suit against East St. Louis presents a tough test for the
city's new law firm.

City manager Deletra Hudson terminated a contract with the Hinshaw
and Culbertson firm in April, and hired State Senator James
Clayborne's firm.

Mr. Clayborne, John Sabo, Michael Wagner, Heidi Eckert, and
Jennifer Barbieri had left Hinshaw and Culbertson to start the
firm of Clayborne, Sabo and Wagner.


FOOT LOCKER: Continues to Defend Class Action Suits by Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc., continues to defend itself and its subsidiaries
against employee-related class action lawsuits, according to the
Company's June 12, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 4, 2013.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are defendants in a number
of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts containing various
class action allegations under federal or state wage and hour
laws, including allegations concerning unpaid overtime, meal and
rest breaks, and uniforms.

The Company is a defendant in one such case in which plaintiff
alleges that the Company permitted unpaid off-the-clock hours in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state labor laws.
The case, Pereira v. Foot Locker, was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2007.  In his
complaint, in addition to unpaid wage and overtime allegations,
plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.  In 2009, the Court
conditionally certified a nationwide collective action.  During
the course of 2010, notices were sent to approximately 81,888
current and former employees of the Company offering them the
opportunity to participate in the class action, and approximately
5,027 have opted in.

The Company is a defendant in additional purported wage and hour
class actions that assert claims similar to those asserted in
Pereira and seek similar remedies.  With the exception of Hill v.
Foot Locker filed in state court in Illinois in 2011, Kissinger
filed in state court of California, Ghattas filed in state court
of California, and Cortes v. Foot Locker filed in federal court of
New York, all of these actions were consolidated by the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation with Pereira
under the caption In re Foot Locker, Inc. Fair Labor Standards Act
and Wage and Hour Litigation.  The consolidated cases are in the
discovery stages of proceedings.  In Hill v. Foot Locker, in May
2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for certification of an
opt-out class covering certain Illinois employees only.  The
Company's motion for leave to appeal was denied.  The Company has
had and continues to have discussions with plaintiff's counsel in
an attempt to determine whether it will be possible to resolve the
consolidated cases and Hill.  Meanwhile, the Company is vigorously
defending these class actions.  Due to the inherent uncertainties
of such matters, and because fact and expert discovery have not
been completed, the Company is currently unable to make an
estimate of the range of loss.

Management does not believe that the outcome of any such legal
proceedings pending against the Company or its consolidated
subsidiaries, including In re Foot Locker, Inc. Fair Labor
Standards Act and Wage and Hour Litigation, Hill, Cortes,
Kissinger, and Ghattas, would have a material adverse effect on
the Company's consolidated financial position, liquidity, or
results of operations, taken as a whole.

Headquartered in New York, Foot Locker, Inc., through its
subsidiaries, operates in two reportable segments -- Athletic
Stores and Direct-to-Customers.  The Athletic Stores segment is
one of the largest athletic footwear and apparel retailers in the
world, whose formats include Foot Locker, Lady Foot Locker, Kids
Foot Locker, Champs Sports, Footaction, and CCS.  The Direct-to-
Customers segment sells, through its affiliates, directly to
customers through its Internet Web sites, mobile devices and
catalogs.  This segment also operates Web sites aligned with the
brand names of its store banners -- footlocker.com,
ladyfootlocker.com, kidsfootlocker.com, footaction.com,
champssports.com and ccs.com.


FOOT LOCKER: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of "Osberg" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit from the dismissal of the class action lawsuit
styled Osberg v. Foot Locker, Inc., according to the Company's
June 12, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 4, 2013.

The Company and the Company's U.S. retirement plan are defendants
in a purported class action (Osberg v. Foot Locker, filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York) in
which the plaintiff alleges that, in connection with the 1996
conversion of the retirement plan to a defined benefit plan with a
cash balance formula, the Company and the retirement plan failed
to properly advise plan participants of the "wear-away" effect of
the conversion.  The Plaintiff asserted claims for: (a) breach of
fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (ERISA); (b) violation of the statutory provisions
governing the content of the Summary Plan Description; (c)
violation of the notice provision of Section 204(h) of ERISA; and
(d) violation of ERISA's age discrimination provisions.  In
September 2009, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the Section 204(h) claim and the age discrimination claim.  In
December 2012, the court granted the Company's motion for summary
judgment on the remaining two claims, dismissing the action.  The
Plaintiff has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd
Circuit.  Because of the inherent uncertainties of such matters
and the current status of this case, the Company is currently
unable to make an estimate of loss or range of loss for this case.

Management does not believe that the outcome of any such legal
proceedings pending against the Company or its consolidated
subsidiaries, including Osberg, would have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial position,
liquidity, or results of operations, taken as a whole.

Headquartered in New York, Foot Locker, Inc., through its
subsidiaries, operates in two reportable segments -- Athletic
Stores and Direct-to-Customers.  The Athletic Stores segment is
one of the largest athletic footwear and apparel retailers in the
world, whose formats include Foot Locker, Lady Foot Locker, Kids
Foot Locker, Champs Sports, Footaction, and CCS.  The Direct-to-
Customers segment sells, through its affiliates, directly to
customers through its Internet Web sites, mobile devices and
catalogs.  This segment also operates Web sites aligned with the
brand names of its store banners -- footlocker.com,
ladyfootlocker.com, kidsfootlocker.com, footaction.com,
champssports.com and ccs.com.


GOOGLE INC: Must Defend Call-Recording Class Action in State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Drew Singer, writing for Law360, reports that a putative class
action alleging that Google and TeleTech Services Corp. recorded
customer service phone calls without consent will be argued in
state court, a California federal judge ruled on July 12, citing a
"local controversy" exception to what would otherwise be federal
jurisdiction.

When TeleTech moved the case from state to federal court in
February, it successfully argued that the Class Action Fairness
Act gives the federal court jurisdiction because the suit purports
to involve more than 100 class members and has more than $5
million at stake.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar on July 12 ruled that, despite those
facts, he must send the case back to the state system because it
qualifies as a "local controversy" under CAFA.

"This action does not present questions of national importance,"
Judge Tigar wrote.  "While claims brought under one state's
consumer protection laws . . . may be actionable under the
consumer protection laws of other states, claims for the unlawful
recordation of telephone calls under California Penal Code Section
632, like the ones here, are not similarly actionable nationwide."

TeleTech tried to argue that the action is not "local" because it
made the calls at issue as part of a nationwide marketing
campaign, and thus faces liability in other state.

But even if the phone calls were made nationwide, the members of
the class are all from California and their alleged injuries all
occurred in California, triggering the "local controversy"
exception, Judge Tigar wrote.

In February, California resident David Calkins filed a lawsuit in
state court alleging that Google and TeleTech have a policy or
practice of recording phone conversations between customer service
representatives calling on behalf of Google and the call
recipients, without notifying recipients at the outset that the
conversation is being recorded.

As a result, he and other class members "did not consent to the
recording of their telephone conversations but had an objectively
reasonable expectation that their telephone conversations were not
being recorded and were thus confidential," said the amended
complaint, filed in October, which accuses the defendants of
violating California Penal Code section 632.

Mr. Calkins contends that he and other class members are entitled
to $5,000 in statutory damages for each invasion of their privacy
without having to prove they suffered or were threatened with any
actual monetary damages.

Attorneys for Google, TeleTech and the plaintiff could not be
immediately reached for comment on July 15.

The plaintiffs are represented by Gregory Karasik of Karasik Law
Firm.

Google is represented by Whitty Somvichian --
wsomvichian@cooley.com -- Abigail E. Pringle --
apringle@cooley.com -- and Michael Graham Rhodes --
rhodesmg@cooley.com -- of Cooley LLP.  TeleTech is represented by
Miles D. Scully -- mscully@gordonrees.com -- Allison F. Borts and
Justin D. Lewis of Gordon & Rees LLP.

The case is Calkins v. Google Inc. et al., case number 5:13-cv-
00760, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


GREAT SOUTHERN: Directors Get Favorable Ruling in Insurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lawyer reports that the NSW Court of Appeal has considered
whether NSW legislation that creates a statutory charge over
insurance moneys in favor of third-party claimants applies to
advancement of defense costs under a D&O policy.  This was a
significant issue for directors and officers.  If the charge
applied, it would mean that insurers could not safely advance
defense costs if the potential claim liability was greater than
the insurance cover, thereby effectively depriving directors and
officers of one of the principal benefits of their insurance
cover.

This issue came up for consideration in the Great Southern class
action.  The insurers of directors and officers joined as
defendants in those proceedings sought a ruling on whether the
statutory charge applied.

The court held unanimously that the NSW legislation only applies
to proceedings brought in NSW courts, which means that directors
currently defending proceedings in the Great Southern class action
and other litigation before the Victorian and WA Supreme Courts
will not be prevented from accessing their D&O defense costs,
despite the existence of potential third-party claims on the same
policy.


INDYMAC MBS: Mayer Discusses Supreme Court Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua D. Yount, Esq. -- jdyount@mayerbrown.com -- at Mayer Brown
reports that under the American Pipe rule, in federal court the
filing of a class action tolls the statute of limitations for
would-be class members. Otherwise, the Supreme Court reasoned in
American Pipe, putative class members would have to intervene or
file their own individual actions during the pendency of the class
action in case class certification is denied to avoid having their
claims become time-barred.

But does the American Pipe rule also apply to statutes of repose,
which create an absolute right to be free from liability after a
certain time frame? District courts had reached conflicting
decisions on this issue with respect to the statute of repose for
the Securities Act-Section 13.

The Second Circuit has now provided its answer.  In Police & Fire
Retirement System of City of Detroit v. IndyMac MBS, Inc. (pdf),
-- F.3d -- 2013 WL 3214588 (2d Cir. June 27, 2013), the Second
Circuit held that the filing of a class action does not toll
Section 13's statute of repose.  Nor does intervention under Rule
24 or "relation back" under Rule 15(c) allow absent class members
to avoid application of the statute of repose to claims dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction.

The IndyMac case involved allegations by plaintiffs that offering
documents for a host of IndyMac MBS mortgage pass-through
certificates contained misstatements that violated the Securities
Act.  The district court dismissed the claims as to many of the
certificates because the named plaintiff did not purchase those
certificates and thus lacked standing to assert the claims.
Several putative class members who purchased certificates beyond
those purchased by the named plaintiff then moved to intervene in
the suit and amend the complaint pursuant to the "relation back"
doctrine of Rule 15(c).  The district court denied the motion
based on Section 13's statute of repose, which had expired during
the pendency of the case.

In affirming, the Second Circuit first rejected the argument that
Section 13 should be tolled by the filing of a class action.  The
court reasoned that, whether the American Pipe tolling rule is
"equitable" or "legal" in nature, it cannot be applied to Section
13.  The Supreme Court has expressly held that equitable tolling
principles do not apply to the repose period in Section 13.  And
the Rules Enabling Act does not allow a court to use Rule 23 --
the source of any "legal" tolling -- to "abridge, enlarge or
modify any substantive right," which by the Second Circuit's
reckoning includes the repose promised by Section 13.

The Second Circuit also rejected the argument that the would-be
intervenors should be allowed to "relate back" their proposed
amended complaint to the prior, timely complaint.  The court
explained that untimely intervention could not cure the
jurisdictional defect that led to dismissal of the claims that the
proposed intervenors wanted to assert.

As sensible and welcome as the Second Circuit's tolling and
intervention holdings are, their importance is diminished somewhat
by the same court's decision in NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v.
Goldman Sachs & Co., 693 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2012), which (as we
have noted) allows named plaintiffs to bring some class claims
regarding certain securities that the named plaintiff did not
purchase.  Still, the IndyMac decision offers a valuable tool to
prevent belated expansion of securities class actions.  And it may
even be of use in other areas of the law when plaintiffs' lawyers
try to either prop up expansive class actions after a repose
period has expired or use tolling to shop successive class actions
in different courts until a favorable forum appears.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Settles Suit Over Medicine Recall for $22.9MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that Johnson & Johnson
has agreed to pay $22.9 million to end a lawsuit from investors
who claimed the company concealed quality-control failures that
culminated in a broad recall of children's medicines, according to
court filings.

The proposed settlement was filed on July 15 in a U.S. federal
court in New Jersey, and must be approved by the judge overseeing
the case.  Johnson & Johnson did not admit any liability or
wrongdoing in the settlement, court filings said.

"We maintain that the claims in this action are without merit, and
settled this case in order to avoid the expense, distraction and
time associated with continuing litigation," Johnson & Johnson
spokesman Ernie Knewitz said in a statement.

Johnson & Johnson took more than 40 nonprescription products off
store shelves in 2010, including Children's Tylenol, in what the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration has characterized as the largest
recall of children's medicine in the agency's history.

The recalls came after FDA inspectors found multiple problems at
the company's Fort Washington, Pennsylvania, plant, including
bacterial contamination of ingredients and filthy equipment.  The
facility was later shut down.

Shareholders filed a proposed class action against the company
several months later, saying Johnson & Johnson cut back on
quality-control measures prior to the recalls, and took steps to
conceal that from investors and the public.  Once the extent of
the recalls came to light, share prices fell, investors said.

The company was also accused of trying to avoid publicity by
concealing facts about the recalls, including the orchestration of
a "phantom recall" of Motrin products, in which third-party
contractors covertly removed suspect containers from stores.

The proposed settlement "provides a substantial benefit to the
class and is a favorable result," plaintiffs said in the court
filing.


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC on July 15 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased
Lululemon Athletica common stock between March 21, 2013 and June
10, 2013.  The complaint alleges that a series of statements made
during that time regarding Lululemon's business, operations and
prospects were false and misleading.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that Lululemon misrepresented and failed to adequately
disclose: (a) The Luon quality defects resulted in part from
Lululemon's efforts to cut costs to raise profit margins to the
detriment of product quality and brand reputation; (b) Lululemon
was being forced to sell yoga pants at a discounted price during
the Class Period to obtain sales and protect market share; and (c)
there were serious discussions concerning Defendant Day's
continued employment at the Company and the Company was
considering replacing Defendant Day.

If you purchased LULU common stock between March 21, 2013 and June
10, 2013 you have the legal right to petition the Court to be
appointed a "lead plaintiff."  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Any such request must satisfy certain
criteria and be made no later than September 3, 2013.  Any member
of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you are a LULU
investor and would like to discuss a potential lead plaintiff
appointment, or your rights and interests with respect to the
lawsuit, you may contact Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., or Marshall
P. Dees, Esq. via e-mail at mfistel@holzerlaw.com or
mdees@holzerlaw.com or via toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832.

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com-- is an
Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation.


MPG OFFICE: Continues to Face Merger-Related Class Action Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
MPG Office Trust, Inc., continues to face merger-related class
action lawsuits, according to the Company's June 12, 2013, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On April 24, 2013, the Company and MPG Office, L.P. (the
"Operating Partnership") entered into a definitive merger
agreement pursuant to which a newly formed fund, Brookfield DTLA
Holdings L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("Brookfield DTLA"),
controlled by Brookfield Office Properties Inc. ("Brookfield")
agreed to acquire the Company.  The Company will merge with and
into Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust Inc., a Maryland
corporation ("REIT Merger Sub"), with REIT Merger Sub surviving.
Brookfield DTLA will have the option, in its sole discretion and
without requiring further consent, to request that the Company
agree to change the direction of the merger so that the Company is
the surviving entity.  The agreement also provides for a merger of
Brookfield DTLA Fund Properties LLC, a Maryland limited liability
company ("Partnership Merger Sub"), with and into the Operating
Partnership, with the Operating Partnership surviving the
partnership merger.  The merger is expected to close in the third
quarter of 2013.

After the announcement of the execution of the merger agreement,
five putative class actions were filed against the Company, the
members of the Company's board of directors, the Operating
Partnership, Brookfield, Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust
Investor Inc. ("Sub REIT"), Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust Inc.
("REIT Merger Sub"), Brookfield DTLA Fund Properties LLC
("Partnership Merger Sub") and Brookfield DTLA Inc.  Two of these
lawsuits, captioned Coyne v. MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No.
BC507342 (the "Coyne Action"), and Masih v. MPG Office Trust,
Inc., et al., No. BC507962 (the "Masih Action"), were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California in Los Angeles County on
April 29, 2013, and May 3, 2013, respectively.  The other three
lawsuits, captioned Kim v. MPG Office Trust, Inc. et al., No.
24-C-13-002600 (the "Kim Action"), Perkins v. MPG Office Trust,
Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-002778 (the "Perkins Action") and
Dell'Osso v. MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-003283
(the "Dell'Osso Action") were filed in the Circuit Court of the
State of Maryland in Baltimore on May 1, 2013, May 8, 2013, and
May 22, 2013, respectively.

In each of these lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that the Company's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger by failing
to maximize the value of the Company and ignoring or failing to
protect against conflicts of interest, and that the relevant
Brookfield parties named as defendants aided and abetted those
breaches of fiduciary duty.  The Kim Action further alleges that
the Operating Partnership also aided and abetted the breaches of
fiduciary duty by the Company's board of directors and the
Dell'Osso Action further alleges that the Company and the
Operating Partnership aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary
duty by the Company's board of directors.  The Dell'Osso Action
also alleges that the preliminary proxy statement filed by the
Company with the SEC on May 21, 2013, is false and/or misleading
because it fails to include certain details of the process leading
up to the merger and fails to provide adequate information
concerning the Company's financial advisor.  The plaintiffs in the
five lawsuits seek an injunction against the proposed merger,
rescission or rescissory damages in the event the merger has been
consummated, an award of fees and costs, including attorneys' and
experts' fees, and other relief.

Headquartered in Los Angeles, California, MPG Office Trust, Inc.,
is a self-administered and self-managed real estate investment
trust, and operates as a REIT for federal income tax purposes.
Through its controlling interest in MPG Office, L.P., of which the
Company is the sole general partner, and the subsidiaries of the
Operating Partnership, the Company owns, manages and leases real
estate located primarily in the greater Los Angeles area of
California, which primarily consists of office properties, parking
garages and land parcels.


MONTREAL MAINE: Merchant Mulls Lac-Megantic Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a motion to file a class-action
lawsuit has been registered by two Lac-Megantic residents in the
opening shot of what could be a long and complex legal battle.

The motion has been filed by two men who want to sue the owners of
the train that derailed in their town, killing an estimated 50
people.

One of them is Yannick Gagne, who owned the Musi-Cafe bar where
many people died in the tragedy; the other is Guy Ouellet, whose
partner of five years, Diane Bizier, lost her life.

Three of Mr. Gagne's employees also died in the fire.

Messrs. Gagne and Ouellet would not speak to reporters about the
lawsuit on July 15, referring all inquiries to their legal team.

The defendants include the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic railway,
company chairman Edward Burkhardt and president Robert Grindrod.

Also cited as a defendant is train operator Tom Harding.

Mr. Harding's role is a central question in ongoing investigations
into the tragedy; his own company called him a hero one day, then
announced the next he had been suspended amid concerns about his
role in the disaster.

Yves Bourdon, a member of MMA's board of directors, said Monday he
was not in a position to comment.

"No one has been authorized to make any comments at this stage,"
he said, adding he had not seen the lawsuit.

Mr. Bourdon said the whole team, including Mr. Burkhardt, were
told not to make any comments.

"Mr. Burkhardt can do what he wants, but we are all under the same
orders," he said.

The court documents were filed in Quebec Superior Court in
Sherbrooke on July 15.

No financial sum is mentioned.

The action seeks recovery for damages sustained by people who lost
loved ones in the explosion and on behalf of people who were
injured.  Claims are also being sought for property and business
losses.

Lead lawyer Daniel Larochelle, who has lived and practiced law in
Lac-Megantic for more than 15 years, knew many of the victims.

"The suffering endured by this community and the suffering that is
still ongoing has been truly incomprehensible," he said in a
statement.

"I want this legal action to bring some hope to my community as we
start to rebuild."

Law firms are lining up to get a piece of potentially lucrative
lawsuits in the wake of the tragedy.

Just over a week after the deadly train derailment, there's
growing competition on both sides of the border to represent the
families of those who died in the accident.

What's less clear is where civil litigation will be most actively
pursued.

Lawsuits could be filed in Quebec, where the accident took place.
They could also be filed in Maine, at the headquarters of
Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway; or even in Illinois, where the
company's parent company is located.

One Chicago law firm that specializes in transportation disasters
says plaintiffs could stand to gain millions by taking the company
to court in the United States.

"I think the best way to phrase it is that Illinois does not have
limits on wrongful-death damages," said Bradley Cosgrove, a
partner at Clifford Law Offices.

In 1999, his firm won a C$29-million settlement in Illinois for
violinist Rachel Barton, who lost a leg and had the other mangled
after she got caught in the door of a moving commuter train.

Mr. Cosgrove said the chances for fair compensation are better in
his home state rather than Quebec, where settlements are
traditionally lower.

Compensation in Maine, meanwhile, is capped at C$500,000.

While he hadn't had contact with any Lac-Megantic residents,
Cosgrove said his firm had been in touch with a few Quebec lawyers
about the possibility of legal action in Illinois.

Dimitri Lascaris, a lawyer at Siskinds LLP based in London, Ont.,
explained he would have been "very surprised" if a class-action
lawsuit hadn't been filed by the end of July.  Mr. Lascaris said
the process is hurried by Quebec's "first-to-file" rule, which
stipulates that the first law firm to file a class action usually
gets precedence over any other subsequent motions.

Mr. Lascaris said filing a lawsuit in the United States wouldn't
make sense because all the evidence and records were collected in
Canada.  He said his firm, which has an office in Montreal, has
been weighing the possibility of filing a lawsuit.

"We certainly from a distance have been monitoring the situation,"
he said last weekend, before the July 15 announcement.

"We haven't gone to the community to take further steps to explore
the possibility of a class action because we think it's premature
to do that."

Tony Merchant of Regina-based Merchant Law Group LLP said his firm
has talked to some residents of the town.  His firm specializes in
class-action suits but he said that avenue won't work for
everyone.  His firm is also mulling over how to proceed.

"The court may take the view that these actions are strong enough
on their own that they can proceed individually, so we're still
considering class proceedings and I think we will proceed but it
depends on people's individual circumstances," he said.

There's also still the possibility of criminal charges.  That
could include charges against corporations involved, said Graham
Creedy, a University of Ottawa professor specializing in hazardous
accidents.

A 2004 amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada means
organizations, including big corporations, can face serious
penalties for safety violations that result in injuries or death.

The change was made following a public inquiry into the 1992
Plymouth, N.S., coal-mine explosion that killed 26 people, Creedy
said.

"If an organization of some size, like a railroad, is successfully
prosecuted, and the directors and managers are fined, that would
certainly make people sit up and take notice," he said.

                      Chairman Apologizes

According to Reuters' Phil Wahba, 37 bodies have so far been
recovered from the blackened remains of the town's historic
downtown, with around 13 people still missing and presumed dead in
what is one of the worst railway disasters in Canada's history.

The railway's chairman, Edward Burkhardt, apologized to the town
of about 6,000 and acknowledged corporate liability.  The company
has said the engineer who parked the train in a nearby town uphill
from Lac-Megantic likely failed to set sufficient hand brakes.

The center of Lac-Megantic remains closed to residents and
visitors as police and investigators sift through wreckage and
tear down buildings considered structurally unsound after the
explosions, which have reopened the debate over the safety of
moving crude oil by rail.  The probe, which could take months to
complete, is also likely to also spur tougher regulations for
companies operating in the railway industry.

                Emergency Checks Cut by Province

According to CBC News, immediate compensation started to trickle
into Lac-Megantic in the form of emergency checks issued by the
provincial government to residents devastated by the train
derailment and explosion.

Up to 1,500 checks for emergency assistance are expected to be
issued to families who were evacuated from the center of town in
the wake of the disaster.  Officials had handed out 390 checks by
3:00 p.m. on July 15 and expect to provide another 500 every day.

About 70 checks for C$1,000 -- intended to offset immediate needs
like shelter and food -- were issued this morning at the temporary
provincial office set up in town.

The Quebec government has promised a three-tiered, C$60-million
plan to help the residents of Lac-Megantic manage in the wake of
the emergency and to rebuild the town.

It includes c$25 million for urgent relief, C$25 million for
rebuilding the devastated downtown core, and C$10 million for
longer-term economic aid.

Some of the payments were available to residents on July 15, but
there were some glitches.

CBC's Peter Tardif said he spoke with one resident who lives in
the designated area but wasn't on the list of approved recipients.

Quebec's Public Security Minister Stephane Bergeron, on site in
Lac-Megantic on July 15, said that problem has since been
resolved.

Bergeron said he met with people waiting in line to receive the
cheques, and they seemed appreciative.

"Everyone is being very patient," he said.  "We're certainly
trying to give them all the support possible in these
circumstances. You have to understand that many people are living
through an absolutely horrible tragedy."

There will be a memorial mass on July 27 for the victims disaster.

A parish priest announced the event, which will be held at 11 a.m.
two Saturdays from now.  Father Steve Lemay made it clear that the
event will not be a group funeral, nor will urns be brought to the
church.  He said it will be a chance for the community -- and for
Quebecers as a whole -- to grieve together.  He added that
victims' families, however, will have priority seating in St.
Agnes church for the mass.

"This ceremony will allow the community here, as well as all the
Quebec public, to offer a collective tribute to the victims of the
tragedy," Father Lemay said on July 15.

                    A Slow Recovery Process

The incredible amount of destruction at the scene has also made
the recovery process slow, with the official death toll rising by
a few every day.

Authorities demolished two buildings on July 14 because they were
said to be unstable and posed a threat to crews working there.


NEW NEWSCORP: Continues to Defend Ebooks Suits vs. HarperCollins
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Newscorp Inc continues to defend a subsidiary against
antitrust lawsuits and investigations related to ebooks, according
to the Company's June 13, 2013, Form 10-12B/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Commencing on August 9, 2011, twenty-nine purported consumer class
actions have been filed in the U.S. District Courts for the
Southern District of New York and for the Northern District of
California, which relate to the decisions by certain publishers,
including HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. ("HarperCollins"), to
begin selling their eBooks pursuant to an agency relationship.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has transferred the
various class actions to the Honorable Denise L. Cote in the
Southern District of New York.  On January 20, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, again alleging
that certain named defendants, including HarperCollins, violated
the antitrust and unfair competition laws by virtue of the switch
to the agency model for eBooks.  The actions seek as relief treble
damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees.  On June 25, 2012,
Judge Cote issued a scheduling order for the multi-district
litigation going forward.  Additional information about In re MDL
Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 11-md-
02293 (DLC), can be found on Public Access to Court Electronic
Records (PACER).  The final judgment in the State Attorneys
General matter bars consumers from states and territories covered
by the settlement from participating in the class actions.

Following an investigation, on April 11, 2012, the Department of
Justice (the "DOJ") filed an action in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against certain publishers,
including HarperCollins, and Apple, Inc.  The DOJ's complaint
alleges antitrust violations relating to defendants' decisions to
begin selling eBooks pursuant to an agency relationship.  This
case was assigned to Judge Cote.  Simultaneously, the DOJ
announced that it had reached a proposed settlement with three
publishers, including HarperCollins, and filed a Proposed Final
Judgment and related materials detailing that agreement.  Among
other things, the Proposed Final Judgment requires that
HarperCollins terminate its agreements with certain eBook
retailers and places certain restrictions on any agreements
subsequently entered into with such retailers.  On September 5,
2012, Judge Cote entered the Final Judgment.  Additional
information about the Final Judgment can be found on the DOJ's Web
site.

Following an investigation, on April 11, 2012, 16 State Attorneys
General led by Texas and Connecticut (the "AGs") filed a similar
action against certain publishers and Apple, Inc. in the Western
District of Texas.  On April 26, 2012, the AGs' action was
transferred to Judge Cote.  On May 17, 2012, 33 AGs filed a second
amended complaint.  As a result of a memorandum of understanding
agreed upon with the AGs for Texas and Connecticut, HarperCollins
was not named as a defendant in this action.  Pursuant to the
terms of the memorandum of understanding, HarperCollins entered
into a settlement agreement with the AGs for Texas, Connecticut
and Ohio on June 11, 2012.  By August 28, 2012, forty-nine states
(all but Minnesota) and five U.S. territories had signed on to
that settlement agreement.  On August 29, 2012, the AGs
simultaneously filed a complaint against HarperCollins and two
other publishers, a motion for preliminary approval of that
settlement agreement and a proposed distribution plan.  On
September 14, 2012, Judge Cote granted the AGs' motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and approved the
AGs' proposed distribution plan.  Notice was subsequently sent to
potential class members, and a fairness hearing took place on
February 8, 2013, at which Judge Cote gave final approval to the
settlement.  The settlement is now effective, and the final
judgment bars consumers from states and territories covered by the
settlement from participating in the class actions.

On October 12, 2012, HarperCollins received a Civil Investigative
Demand from the Attorney General from the State of Minnesota.
HarperCollins complied with the Demand on November 16, 2012, and
is cooperating with that investigation.  While it is not possible
to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of
the inquiry, HarperCollins believes it was compliant with
applicable antitrust laws.

The European Commission conducted an investigation into whether
certain companies in the book publishing and distribution
industry, including HarperCollins, violated the antitrust laws by
virtue of the switch to the agency model for eBooks.
HarperCollins settled the matter with the European Commission on
terms substantially similar to the settlement with the DOJ.  On
December 13, 2012, the European Commission formally adopted the
settlement.

Commencing on February 24, 2012, five purported consumer class
actions were filed in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia,
Quebec and Ontario, which relate to the decisions by certain
publishers, including HarperCollins, to begin selling their eBooks
in Canada pursuant to an agency relationship.  The actions seek as
relief special, general and punitive damages, injunctive relief
and the costs of the litigations.  While it is not possible to
predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of these
class actions, especially given their early stages, HarperCollins
believes it was compliant with applicable antitrust and
competition laws and intends to defend itself vigorously.

In July 2012, HarperCollins Canada, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
HarperCollins, learned that the Canadian Competition Bureau
("CCB") had commenced an inquiry regarding the sale of eBooks in
Canada.  HarperCollins currently is cooperating with the CCB with
respect to its inquiry.  While it is not possible to predict with
any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of the inquiry,
HarperCollins believes it was compliant with applicable antitrust
and competition laws.

On February 15, 2013, a purported class of independent bricks-and-
mortar bookstores filed an action in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York entitled The Book House of
Stuyvesant Plaza, Inc, et. al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al, which
relates to the digital rights management protection ("DRM") of
certain publishers', including HarperCollins', e-books being sold
by Amazon.com Inc.  The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on
March 21, 2013.  The case involves allegations that certain named
defendants in the book publishing and distribution industry,
including HarperCollins, violated the antitrust laws by virtue of
requiring DRM protection.  The action seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.

On April 1, 2013, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint.  The court heard oral argument on Defendants' motion to
dismiss on April 25, 2013.  While it is not possible to predict
with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this class
action, HarperCollins believes it was compliant with applicable
antitrust laws and intends to defend itself vigorously.

The Company says it is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or
cost of the HarperCollins matters.  During the nine months ended
March 31, 2013, and 2012, the legal and professional fees and
settlements incurred in connection with these matters were not
material, and as of March 31, 2013, the Company did not have a
material accrual related to these matters.

New York-based New Newscorp Inc is a Delaware corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of News Corporation.  The Company will
hold these Parent's businesses: newspapers, information services
and integrated marketing services, digital real estate services,
book publishing, digital education and sports programming and pay-
TV distribution in Australia.  New News Corporation was organized
as New Newscorp LLC, a limited liability company under the laws of
the State of Delaware, and has been converted to New Newscorp Inc,
a Delaware corporation.


NEW NEWSCORP: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Wilder" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Wilder v. News Corp., et al. was filed on behalf of all purchasers
of New Newscorp Inc's parent, News Corporation ("Parent"), between
March 3, 2011, and July 11, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  The plaintiff brought claims
under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act, alleging that false and misleading statements were issued
regarding alleged acts of voicemail interception at The News of
the World.  The lawsuit named as defendants Parent, Rupert
Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and sought compensatory
damages, rescission for damages sustained, and costs.

This litigation and certain other Parent stockholder lawsuits are
all now before the same judge.  On June 5, 2012, the court issued
an order appointing the Avon Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead
plaintiff in the litigation and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as
lead counsel.  Thereafter, on July 3, 2012, the court issued an
order providing that an amended consolidated complaint was to be
filed by July 31, 2012.  Avon filed an amended consolidated
complaint on July 31, 2012, which among other things, added as
defendants the Company's subsidiary, NI Group Limited, and Les
Hinton, and expanded the class period to include February 15,
2011, to July 18, 2011.  The Defendants filed their motion to
dismiss on September 25, 2012, and the parties have completed
briefing on the motion.  The motion is pending.

Parent and New News Corporation management believe these Parent
stockholder claims are entirely without merit and intend to
vigorously defend this action.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 13, 2013,
Form 10-12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

New York-based New Newscorp Inc is a Delaware corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of News Corporation.  The Company will
hold these Parent's businesses: newspapers, information services
and integrated marketing services, digital real estate services,
book publishing, digital education and sports programming and pay-
TV distribution in Australia.  New News Corporation was organized
as New Newscorp LLC, a limited liability company under the laws of
the State of Delaware, and has been converted to New Newscorp Inc,
a Delaware corporation.


NEWCREST MINING: Slater & Gordon Mulls Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Business Spectator, citing The Australian Financial Review,
reports that the embattled miner Newcrest Mining Ltd. is facing
the possibility of a second class action lawsuit stemming from the
company's disclosure practices as Slater & Gordon considers
pursuing a class action case.

The miner has faced accusations that it selectively briefed
analysts over Newcrest's 2014 gold production numbers missing
market forecasts.

Half a dozen broking firms cut their Newcrest gold production
estimates in the days leading up to the miner's public
announcement, where it disclosed a shift in strategy to lower cost
production alongside $6 billion in writedowns.

Shortly after the scandal broke out last month, law firm Maurice
Blackburn said it was considering a class action lawsuit on behalf
of shareholders.

However, the AFR reported that Slater & Gordon is also
investigating Newcrest's record on disclosure and may launch a
class action suit.

A spokesman for Slater & Gordon confirmed it was conducting an
investigation, but declined to provide any further comment, the
AFR reported.


NICK'S ENGLISH: Sued Over Lack of ATM Fee-Disclosure Sticker
------------------------------------------------------------
The Indianapolis Business Journal reports that Nick's English Hut
is facing a class action.  Jon Pike withdrew cash from the ATM at
Nick's English Hut on Sept. 27, 2010, paying a $1.50 transaction
fee in the process.

That seemingly humdrum moment touched off a legal odyssey for the
iconic Bloomington watering hole that nearly three years later
might finally be reaching a conclusion.

Mr. Pike ended up filing a class action federal lawsuit charging
Nick's ATM lacked a fee-disclosure sticker, putting it in
violation of the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act.  The suit
argues that Nick's "frequent and persistent" non-compliance with
the law entitles Mr. Pike and hundreds or thousands of other users
of the machine to damages far greater than what they paid in fees.

After the taking of depositions and dozens of filings by the
parties, the case is now set for a three-day jury trial beginning
Oct. 22 in Indianapolis.

If that weren't bad enough, Nick's also is fending off a lawsuit
filed by its insurer, Wisconsin-based Society Insurance, which
wants a federal court to declare the issues at play in the Pike
suit are outside those covered under its policies providing
millions of dollars in coverage.

If there is any consolation for the owners of Nick's, it's that
scores of business owners across the country feel their pain.
American Banker estimates that attorneys filed as many as 2,000
ATM-sticker lawsuits before Congress in December 2012 eliminated
the requirement, concluding it was unnecessary given that modern
ATMs give users the right to opt out of transactions if they deem
fees are too high.

Many of the suits were brought by the same handful of attorneys.
For instance, the counsel for Pike -- Eric Calhoun of the Dallas
law firm Travis & Calhoun -- also represented Zachary Couch, who
sued the Indianapolis Indians and its ATM vendor in July 2011,
citing the absence of stickers disclosing a $2 fee.

The parties settled that case last October, with the defendants
setting up a $35,000 settlement fund that provided users of the
ATMs $14.50 for each transaction.  Attorneys for the class
received the biggest payday, $50,000, which covered fees as well
as expenses.

It's not clear how much Nick's has racked up in legal fees or
whether the restaurant is trying to settle in advance of the
trial.  Messages left with Nick's co-owner Susan Bright and the
restaurant's attorney, Thomas Rosta of Metzger Rosta LLP in
Noblesville, were not returned.  Calhoun and Pike, who in the
spring wrapped up his second year as a student at Indiana
University's medical school, did not respond to inquiries.

Earlier this year, Magistrate Judge Mark Dinsmore granted partial
summary judgment to Pike, narrowing the field of issues to be
decided at trial to Nick's net worth and its legal liability.
Nick's wasn't able to refute Pike's central claim -- that there
was no fee sticker on the ATM the day of his transaction -- but
there is uncertainty whether a sticker was missing the entire one-
year period for which ATM users would be eligible for a recovery.

During a deposition, Ms. Bright said she had known there was a law
called the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and knew it required
disclosure of ATM fees "in some way," but thought disclosure
during the transaction was sufficient.  She said she eventually
put a sticker on the machine.  Asked if that occurred before Pike
sued in September 2011, she said, "Maybe.  Maybe not."


PAYDAY FINANCIAL: Sued Over Unlawful Financial Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Peter Harriman, writing for ArgusLeader.com, reports that a high-
interest lender being sued by the federal government for
attempting to use the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's sovereign
status as a shield to conduct unlawful financial practices now
faces a federal civil class-action lawsuit as well.

Pierre lawyer Wade Fischer filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of South Dakota.

Martin "Butch" Webb, owner and president of Payday Financial,
headquartered in Timber Lake, already faced a Federal Trade
Commission complaint filed in 2011, in addition to lawsuits filed
by state officials in Colorado, West Virginia, Maryland and
Washington on behalf of residents of those states.

The FTC complaint alleges companies under the Payday Financial
banner -- including a company that advertises in South Dakota,
Western Sky Financial -- illegally attempted to garnish wages of
people to whom the companies lent money.  The complaint also
alleges the companies revealed consumers' supposed debts to their
employers and deprived them of the right to dispute the debts or
make payment arrangements.

U.S. Attorney Brendan Johnson said his office is acting as local
counsel in that case, and he said he is aware of the class-action
suit.  But Mr. Johnson added "the challenge I run into is I can't
comment on pending litigation."

The class-action lawsuit also links Mr. Webb's enterprise to an
Anaheim, Calif., corporation, CashCall.  The lawsuit says CashCall
provides the funds Mr. Webb's companies loan and developed the
process to manage the loans.  It owns the webservers Mr. Webb's
companies use, and the websites cross-market each other.

The class-action lawsuit lists plaintiffs from Minnesota and
Virginia who received loans from Mr. Webb's companies in the past
two years that charged interest greater than those states' usury
limit of 8 percent, and plaintiffs from Texas who received loans
charging interest greater than that state's 10% limit.

The loans, in fact, had minimum annual percentage rates ranging
from 89.68 percent to 342.86 percent, the lawsuit says.

"The precise number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiffs.
However, upon information and belief, each sub-class is in excess
of 100 individuals," the complaint reads.

Plaintiffs are seeking "declaratory, injunctive and monetary
relief" based on a belief the extremely high interest rate renders
the loans void, and because the lender engaged in deceptive
marketing practices that violate state consumer protection laws.

Trying to dodge those laws is the reason why Mr. Webb, an enrolled
member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, based his business on
the reservation in Timber Lake.  He contends the tribe has
exclusive jurisdiction over the loan contracts.

Undercutting the argument in the eyes of legal scholars such as
Nathalie Martin, a University of New Mexico School of Law
professor, is the fact while Mr. Webb is a tribal member, his loan
businesses are not tribally owned.

The class-action lawsuit also challenges jurisdiction from the
point of view of arbitration.  According to the lawsuit, loan
agreements contain language specifying arbitration will be
conducted by three tribal elders, in accordance with Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe consumer rules.  Even if that were upheld, the
FTC charge points out it severely burdens loan clients around the
country with disputes if they have to come to Timber Lake to
resolve them.

Furthermore, in the class-action complaint Mr. Fischer, writes
"Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Nation's consumer rules do not exist.

"Placing exclusive jurisdiction of disputes with the Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe, but at the same time, requiring arbitration
pursuant to nonexistent arbitration rules, creates a conflict
within the loan agreement."

Jurisdictional issues make the case acutely interesting to state
attorney generals.  South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley is
among those watching developments.

Mr. Jackley said on July 11, "As recently as two days ago, I spoke
to individuals regarding what is going on" with the federal, state
and class-action litigation against Webb's enterprises. Also,
later this month, "we have an attorneys general meeting in
Colorado where that's an agenda item," he adds.

"There is a chance if there is further litigation our offices will
be involved.  We're interested in monitoring it and seeking a
resolution ahead of time."

Mr. Jackley is watching in particular to see whether the civil
case sets precedent regarding criminal jurisdiction.

"One can say civil won't affect criminal, but it can have an
affect," he said.  "A civil case can affect criminal jurisdiction.
That's why we're monitoring and discussing this.  . . . Everybody
is watching to see where some of this initially goes."


POWER-ONE INC: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Weaver, LLP on July 16 disclosed that it filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of shareholders of Power-One, Inc., seeking
remedies under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint charges Power-One and its Board of Directors with
violations of the Act.  On April 22, 2013, the Board announced its
agreement to a merger transaction in which Power-One will be
acquired by Verdi Acquisition Corporation, a wholly owned
subsidiary of ABB Ltd., for $6.35 per share in cash or $1.028
million equity value.

The complaint alleges the Board filed materially false and
misleading proxy statements describing the Merger with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 23, 2013 and June 20,
2013, that were intended to induce Power-One's shareholders to
approve the Merger.  The complaint further alleges that the
proposed consideration to be paid to Power-One's shareholders in
the Merger is below the fair value of Power-One, and that the
members of the Board breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing
to the unfair Merger, the terms of which include deal protection
devices that prevent alternative transactions.

The plaintiff is represented by Johnson & Weaver, which has
expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive
experience in actions involving financial fraud.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff in the class action, you must move the
Court no later than 60 days from July 16, 2013.  If you wish to
discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact Jim Baker, Lead
Analyst, at (619) 230-0063, or via e-mail at
jimb@johnsonandweaver.com

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

Based in San Diego, Johnson & Weaver --
http://www.johnsonandweaver.com-- is active in major litigations
pending in federal and state courts throughout the country and has
taken a lead role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded
investors, consumers, and companies.


ROSS STORES: Class Action Litigation Still Pending in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Like many California retailers, Ross Stores, Inc. has been named
in class action lawsuits alleging violation of wage and hour and
other employment laws.  Class action litigation remains pending as
of May 4, 2013.

In the opinion of management, the resolution of pending class
action litigation and other currently pending legal and regulatory
proceedings is not expected to have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial condition, results of operations, or cash
flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 12, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 4, 2013.

Ross Stores, Inc. operates two brands of off-price retail apparel
and home fashion stores -- Ross Dress for Less(R) and dd's
DISCOUNTS(R).  Ross, which is headquartered in Pleasanton,
California, is a large off-price apparel and home fashion chain.


SAC CAPITAL: Scott+Scott Amends Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP on July 15 disclosed that it
has filed an amended class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
all persons who sold or otherwise divested the common stock of
Wyeth (formerly NYSE:WYE) contemporaneously with the Defendants'
unlawful trades from July 1, 2006 through and including July 18,
2008.  The action seeks remedies under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  Scott+Scott previously filed an action on December 21,
2012, on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Wyeth between July 21, 2008
and July 29, 2008, inclusive, and by order dated June 17, 2013,
the Court appointed City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief
System as Lead Plaintiff.

If you sold or otherwise divested Wyeth common stock during the
Class Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action,
you must move the Court no later than September 13, 2013.  Any
member of the investor class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of its choice or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have questions concerning this notice or your
rights, please contact Scott+Scott at scottlaw@scott-scott.com or
(800) 404-7770, (860) 537-5537) or visit the Scott+Scott website
for more information.  There is no cost or charge to you for
contacting Scott+Scott.

The securities class action complaint alleges that CR Intrinsic
Investors, LLC, together with its affiliates, including but not
limited to, SAC Capital Associates, LLC and SAC Capital Advisors,
L.P., violated the securities laws by trading Wyeth shares based
on material, non-public information ahead of a July 29, 2008
announcement disclosing disappointing clinical trial results for
the drug bapineuzumab (AAB-001) ("bapi").  Bapi was an Alzheimer's
disease treatment that was being jointly developed by Wyeth and
Elan Corporation, plc.

Specifically, the complaint charges that, during the Class Period,
defendants established substantial long positions in Wyeth
securities while in possession of material non-public information
concerning the bapi Phase II clinical trial, acquiring over 3
million shares.  As of June 30, 2008, Defendants held over $373
million in Wyeth stock.

On June 17, 2008, Wyeth released top-line summary results from the
Phase II clinical trial of bapi.  The market's reaction was
favorable and Wyeth's common stock rose 10.7% after the
announcement. Detailed trial results were to be released at a
conference on July 29, 2008.

Shortly before the July 29, 2008 conference, Defendants obtained
additional non-public final Phase II clinical results from the
bapi trial, which were strongly and unexpectedly negative.
Defendants aggressively sold their Wyeth shares ahead of the
public announcement of the bapi results, completely liquidating
their positions.  In addition, Defendants opened large short
positions in Wyeth.

On July 29, 2008, after the close of the U.S. securities markets,
the disappointing Phase II clinical results of bapi were announced
to the public.  On July 30, 2008, the next trading day, Wyeth's
share price fell 41.8% from its prior close on July 29th.

Scott+Scott has significant experience prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide.

CONTACT: If you have any questions regarding this matter,
         please contact:

         Michael Burnett, Esq.
         Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP
         Telephone: (800) 404-7770
                    (860) 537-5537
         E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com
                 mburnett@scott-scott.com


TILLY'S INC: Awaits Order on Bid to Strike in "Christiansen" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to strike
portions of the complaint filed by Kristin Christiansen and
Shellie Smith, according to the Company's June 13, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 4, 2013.

On January 29, 2013, the plaintiffs in the matter captioned
Kristin Christiansen and Shellie Smith, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated vs. World of Jeans & Tops,
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, Case No. 34-
2013-00139010, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the
Company alleging violations of California Civil Code Section
1747.08, which prohibits requesting or requiring personal
identification information from a customer paying for goods with a
credit card and recording such information.  In May 2013, the
Company filed a motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs'
complaint.  The Company intends to defend this case vigorously.

Headquartered in Irvine, California, Tilly's, Inc. --
http://www.tillys.com/-- operates a chain of specialty retail
stores featuring casual clothing, footwear and accessories for
teens and young adults.  The Company operated more than a hundred
stores, which are located in malls, lifestyle centers, 'power'
centers, community centers, outlet centers and street-front
locations.  The Company's Customers may also shop online, where
the Company features a similar assortment of product as is carried
in its brick-and-mortar stores.


TILLY'S INC: Continues to Defend "Lyddy" Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc., continues to defend a class action lawsuit
commenced by Deborah Lyddy, according to the Company's June 13,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 4, 2013.

In October 2011, plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Deborah Lyddy v. World of Jeans & Tops and Tilly's,
Inc., Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (37-2011-
00098812-CU-BT-CTL), against the Company alleging various causes
of action based on its California gift card redemption policies.
The lawsuit is ongoing and the Company intends to defend this case
vigorously.

Headquartered in Irvine, California, Tilly's, Inc. --
http://www.tillys.com/-- operates a chain of specialty retail
stores featuring casual clothing, footwear and accessories for
teens and young adults.  The Company operated more than a hundred
stores, which are located in malls, lifestyle centers, 'power'
centers, community centers, outlet centers and street-front
locations.  The Company's Customers may also shop online, where
the Company features a similar assortment of product as is carried
in its brick-and-mortar stores.


TILLY'S INC: Motion for Arbitration in "Rebolledo" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration in the class action
lawsuit initiated by Maria Rebolledo was denied in May 2013,
according to the Company's June 13, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 4, 2013.

On December 5, 2012, the plaintiff in the matter captioned Maria
Rebolledo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and on behalf of the general public vs. Tilly's, Inc.;
World of Jeans & Tops, Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Orange, Case No. 30-2012-00616290-CU-OE-CXC, filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company alleging
violations of California's wage and hour, meal break and rest
break rules and regulations, and unfair competition law, among
other things.  An amended complaint was filed on February 28,
2013, to include enforcement of California's private attorney
general act.  The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages
and penalties.  In April 2013, the Company filed a motion to
compel arbitration, which was denied in May.  The Company intends
to defend this case vigorously.

Headquartered in Irvine, California, Tilly's, Inc. --
http://www.tillys.com/-- operates a chain of specialty retail
stores featuring casual clothing, footwear and accessories for
teens and young adults.  The Company operated more than a hundred
stores, which are located in malls, lifestyle centers, 'power'
centers, community centers, outlet centers and street-front
locations.  The Company's Customers may also shop online, where
the Company features a similar assortment of product as is carried
in its brick-and-mortar stores.


TOYS R US: Toy Helicopters Among Recently Recalled Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a line of decorative lamps with
exposed wiring posing a fire hazard and toy helicopters with a
rechargeable battery that can overheat are among recently recalled
consumer products.  Others include potentially defective hammocks.

Here's a more detailed look:

LAMPS DETAILS: "Butterfly Clip Light" lamps with SKU# 416593 and
"Shell Clip Light" lamps with SKU #416955 that feature a stained
glass shade resembling a seashell or a multicolored butterfly.
Both lamps use a 7-watt type C bulb and have a plug-in cord with a
cord-mounted on/off thumb-switch.  The SKU number can be found on
the product's packaging.  They were sold exclusively at Cracker
Barrel Old Country Store locations nationwide and online at
www.crackerbarrel.com from November 2012 through February 2013,

WHY: The lamps have exposed wiring at the base, which poses shock
and fire hazards.

INCIDENTS: None reported.

HOW MANY: About 8,000. FOR MORE: Call Angel's Touch Collections at
877-474-2133 or visit www.angeltouchcollections.com and click on
"Recall Notice" for more information.  Consumers can also send an
e-mail to ATCrecall@gmail.com.

TOY HELICOPTERS DETAILS: Fast Lane FA-005 radio control 3-channel
helicopters with gyro stabilizer and charger, model number
5F5F2F5.  The model number is printed on the front of the product
packaging and on the underside of the helicopter.  The double-
rotor helicopters are blue and white, approximately 9-inches high
and have the Fast Lane logo on the top of the helicopter.  They
were sold at Toys R Us stores nationwide and online at
www.toysrus.com from September 2012 through January 2013.

WHY: The rechargeable battery inside the helicopters can overheat,
posing fire and burn hazards.

INCIDENTS: 11 reports worldwide of the rechargeable battery
overheating.  No injuries have been reported.

HOW MANY: About 6,500 in the U.S. and 900 in Canada.

FOR MORE: Call Toys R Us at 800-869-7787 or visit www.toysrus.com
and click on "About Us," then select "Safety" at the top of the
page, and then "Click here" under Product Recalls for more
information.

HAMMOCKS DETAILS: Outdoor Solutions hammock with sunshade.  It is
a stand-alone, light-brown canvas hammock that sits inside a steel
and plastic frame.  A tag affixed to the outside of the canvas bag
includes the product name, model number 147184, and UPC number
4122088609.  They were sold exclusively at Texas H-E-B stores
between February 2013 and June 2013.

WHY: The seam in the lounge of the hammock can open and rip,
posing a fall hazard.

INCIDENTS: Two reports of seams tearing. Bruising and discomfort
were reported in one incident.

HOW MANY: About 700.

FOR MORE: Call H-E-B at 800-432-3113 or visit http://www.heb.com
and go to "About Us" and click on "Our Company" and then "Recalls"
for more information.


UNITED STATES: Goodwin to File Suit v. Secretary of Labor Nominee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodwin Weber PLLC on July 15 disclosed that according to a number
of Department of Justice (DOJ) employees, the Civil Rights
Division, at the direction of Thomas Perez and his senior staff,
began a widespread campaign of disparate and discriminatory
treatment earlier this year against Civil Rights Division
employees who struggled with mobility, hearing, vision, emotional,
physical or mental challenges and disabilities, as well as those
under protected status based on race, gender, age, and/or parental
status.

"Upon opposing this widespread and unlawful discrimination, DOJ
employees have been subjected to an exceptionally hostile work
environment and unlawful retaliation," said the DOJ employees'
attorney, David P. Weber of Goodwin Weber PLLC.  "We call on
Congress to investigate these serious allegations, hold
Mr. Perez's nomination pending investigation, and demand that the
Attorney General take immediate steps to curtail the
discrimination and retaliation."

"Thomas Perez has been nominated to be the protector of the
American workforce," Mr. Weber added, "yet my clients have
reported to Congress that under his direction, the Civil Rights
Division rampantly discriminated against its own workforce, and
retaliated against those brave enough to raise their hand and
speak out."

According to more than 15 DOJ employees, the Perez actions are
directed at preserving the positions of political appointees who
have "burrowed" into the Civil Rights Division through Perez's
patronage, said Mr. Weber.  "Now that they're under fiscal
constraints," added Weber, "Perez has directed senior DOJ staff to
constructively terminate career staff in order to protect the
political appointees from a Reduction in Force."

Six of the DOJ employees have filed EEO complaints or alleged
mistreatment, including physical assault.  The DOJ employees
include two senior trial attorneys, one African American female,
one Hispanic male, a white disabled female sign language
interpreter, a disabled former Voting Rights Section analyst, a
disabled former paralegal specialist, and the DOJ's only disabled
African American architect. Each of these employees is over age 40
and thus protected under th e Age Discrimination in Employment
Act.  The Hispanic trial attorney is a founder of the national
Hispanic Bar Association and a founder of the local District of
Columbia Hispanic Bar Association.

In addition, according to the DOJ employees, shortly after
arriving at the DOJ, Mr. Perez began apparent attempts at
suppressing documentation of EEO violations within the Civil
Rights Division.  "What first appeared to be numerous individual
cases of discrimination have now aggregated over time to reveal a
systemic practice of intentional noncompliance with federal sector
EEO policies applicable to all federal agencies," said Mr. Weber.
"In this manner, DOJ deflected and minimized the nature and
severity of employee requests for EEOC compliance, creating a
false and misleading appearance of model-agency compliance within
the Civil Rights Division."

Added Mr. Weber, "The compromised integrity of DOJ civil rights
and EEOC compliance results not only in past and current harm to
my clients who have received retaliation for coming forward, but
deceived Congress and the American public by presenting under-
reported, inaccurate information to Congress."

                    About Goodwin Weber PLLC

Goodwin Weber PLLC -- http://www.goodwinweberlaw.com-- is a
boutique law firm with offices in Montgomery County, Maryland, New
York City, and the District of Columbia.  Mr. Weber is the
principal attorney and a certified fraud examiner in Goodwin
Weber, PLLC's Washington, D.C. Office. He is licensed to practice
law in New York, Maryland and the District of Columbia, as well as
before the United States Supreme Court.  Mr. Weber is the former
Assistant Inspector General for Investigations at the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, and himself a prominent
whistleblower.  Mr. Weber additionally teaches fraud, forensic
investigation and accounting at the University of Maryland
University College.


VICTORIA: Landowner to Join Bushfire Overlay Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that a South Gippsland landowner, who is unable
to build on his property, says he will join a class action to
fight the Victorian Government for compensation.

Chris Owens paid about AUD300,000 for his 70 hectare property,
north of Foster, in 2007.  However, like other affected Victorian
landholders pushing for a class action, Mr. Owens has been unable
to build since the introduction of the Bushfire Management Overlay
in 2010.  He says the Country Fire Authority has told him any
plans to build will be rejected because of the overlay.

"Where I live at the moment is far more dangerous than the
property we were going to build but because I've got an existing
dwelling, you know I'm one of the lucky ones, if I was trying to
build again from scratch, I'd be in the same position, all you're
doing is ensuring people only have the option of old existing
housing stock to choose from," he said.

He says his land is now effectively worthless.

"Well it means that I can't retire, I've got an asset that I can't
develop, I can't sell, I can't do anything with it," he said.

"I still get rated on it based on its original council valuation,
so yes it's meant that I've got to continue working."


WHOLE FOODS: FDA Investigates Cheese-Linked Listeria Outbreak
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) along with the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and state and local
officials are investigating a multi-state outbreak of Listeria
monocytogenes infections.  The FDA moving quickly to learn as much
as possible and prevent additional people from becoming ill. We
recognize that people will be concerned about this outbreak, and
we will continue to provide updates and advice.

What is the Problem and What is Being Done?

The FDA is currently engaged in a fast-breaking investigation of a
multi-state outbreak of Listeria monocytogenes infections linked
to Les Freres, Petit Frere, and Petit Frere with Truffles cheese
distributed by Crave Brothers Farmstead Cheese Company of
Waterloo, Wisconsin.  The FDA is conducting an inspection at the
firm's processing facility in cooperation with the Wisconsin
Department of Agriculture.

According to the CDC, as of July 3, 2013, five persons infected
with the same strain of Listeria monocytogenes infection
(listeriosis) have been identified in four Midwestern states.

    The number of ill persons identified in each state is as
follows: Illinois (1), Indiana (1), Minnesota (2), and Ohio (1).

    Ill persons range in age from 31 years to 67 years.

    Dates for ill persons' diagnoses ranged from May 20, 2013 to
June 17, 2013.

    Five ill persons have reported being hospitalized, and one
death has been reported.

    One illness in a pregnant women resulted in a miscarriage.

The pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) subtype of Listeria
monocytogenes, or the bacteria's "DNA fingerprint," isolated from
cases in the cluster is indistinguishable from isolates retrieved
during 2010 and 2011 environmental sampling efforts by the FDA at
Crave Brothers Farmstead Classics Cheese.

Laboratory tests conducted by the Minnesota Department of
Agriculture on samples of Les Freres and Petit Frere with Truffles
cheeses made by Crave Brothers from two retail stores indicate the
presence of the outbreak strain of Listeria monocytogenes.
Further testing and confirmation of the results are pending.

On July 3, 2013, Crave Brothers Farmstead Cheese Company has
recalled the following products:

    Les Freres (LF225 2/2.5#) with a make date of 7-1-13 or prior,
packaged in white plastic with a green and gold label.

    Petit Frere (PF88 8/8 oz) with a make date of 7-1-13 or prior,
packaged in small round wooden boxes.

    Petit Frere with Truffles (PF88T 8/8 oz) with a make date of
7-1-13 or prior, packaged in small round wooden boxes.

These products were distributed nationwide through retail and
foodservice outlets as well as by mail orders.

On July 5, 2013, Whole Foods Market announced a recall of Crave
Brothers Le Freres cheese sold at Whole Foods Market stores.
Signage is posted in Whole Foods Market stores to notify customers
of this recall.  Customers who have purchased this product from
Whole Foods Market should discard it, and may bring their receipt
to a Whole Foods Market location for a full refund.

What are the Symptoms of Listeriosis?

Listeriosis is a rare and serious illness caused by eating food
contaminated with the bacteria called Listeria monocytogenes.
Persons in a higher-risk category, including pregnant women,
people with weakened immune systems, and older adults, who
experience fever within 2 months after eating Les Freres, Petit
Frere, and Petit Frere with Truffles cheeses manufactured by Crave
Brothers Farmstead Cheese Company, should seek medical care and
tell the health care provider about eating the contaminated
cheese.

Who is at Risk?

Listeriosis can be fatal, especially in certain high-risk groups.
These groups include older adults, people with weakened immune
systems and certain chronic medical conditions (such as cancer),
unborn babies and newborns.  In pregnant women, listeriosis can
cause miscarriage, stillbirth, premature labor, and serious
illness or death in newborn babies, though the mother herself
rarely becomes seriously ill.

What Do Consumers Need To Do?

Using the information available at this time, CDC recommends that
consumers do not eat the following cheeses manufactured by Crave
Brothers Farmstead Cheese Company of Waterloo, Wisconsin:

    Crave Brothers Farmstead Classics Les Freres cheese
    Crave Brothers Farmstead Classics Petit Frere cheese
    Crave Brothers Farmstead Cheese Classics Petit Frere with
Truffles cheese

Consumers should check their homes for these cheeses and discard
them.  According to Crave Brothers Farmstead Cheese Company
consumers may also return the cheese to the place of purchase for
a full refund.

If more specific information becomes available, CDC will share it
with the public and take steps to prevent additional illnesses.

Recommendations for preventing listeriosis are available at the
CDC Listeria website: http://www.cdc.gov/listeria/prevention.html.

Listeria can grow at refrigerator temperatures, about 40 degrees
Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celsius).  The longer ready-to-eat
refrigerated foods are stored in the refrigerator, the more
opportunity Listeria has to grow.

It is very important that consumers clean their refrigerators and
other food preparation surfaces and cheese cutting utensils
thoroughly that may have come in contact with the contaminated
cheese.  Consumers should follow these simple steps:

    Wash hands with warm water and soap for at least 20 seconds
before and after handling food.

    Wash the inside walls and shelves of the refrigerator, cutting
boards and countertops; then sanitize them with a solution of one
tablespoon of chlorine bleach to one gallon of hot water; dry with
a clean cloth or paper towel that has not been previously used.

    Wipe up spills in the refrigerator immediately and clean the
refrigerator regularly.

    Always wash hands with warm water and soap following the
cleaning and sanitization process.

What Do Retailers Need To Do?

Do not sell or serve the recalled cheese.  If you do not know the
source of your cheese, check with your supplier.

    Dispose of the recalled cheese.

    Wash and sanitize cheese display cases and refrigerators where
contaminated cheese was stored.

    Wash and sanitize cutting boards, surfaces, and utensils used
to cut, serve, or store contaminated cheese.

    Wash hands with warm water and soap following the cleaning and
sanitation process.

Retailers, restaurants, and other food service operators who have
cut and packaged this cheese need to be concerned about cross
contamination of cutting surfaces and utensils through contact
with the recalled cheese.  Regular frequent cleaning and
sanitizing of cutting boards and utensils used in cutting may help
to minimize the likelihood of cross-contamination.

Listeria can grow in cut cheese at room and refrigerator
temperatures.  Listeria can also spread to other cheeses cut and
served on the same cutting board or stored in the same area.  For
that reason, retailers, restaurants, and other food service
operators may wish to consider whether other cheeses available for
sale could have been cross-contaminated from the recalled cheese
and should be discarded.

Because Listeria can grow at refrigeration temperatures in foods
like cheeses, the FDA recommends and many state codes require that
cheeses be discarded within 7 days of the date that they are
opened in a retail establishment.

See the FDA Bulletin, Advice to Food Establishments that Sell or
Repackage Cheese Products, for additional information.

Who Should be Contacted?

Consumers with questions about the Crave Brothers Farmstead Cheese
Company recall may contact the company at 920-478-4887, Monday
through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. CDT.

Questions about the Whole Foods Market recall can call the company
at 512-477-5566 ext. 20060, Monday-Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
CDT.

The FDA encourages consumers with questions about food safety to
call 1-888-SAFEFOOD Monday through Friday between 10 a.m. and 4
p.m. Eastern time, or to consult the fda.gov website: www.fda.gov


* Attorney's Fee Awards Bane for Defendants in Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mallow, Esq. -- mmallow@loeb.com -- and Livia Kiser, Esq.
-- lkiser@loeb.com -- at Loeb & Loeb LLP reports that in class
action litigation, attorneys' fee awards are the bane of
defendants' existence, the salt in the open wound.  Defendants
have to pay for their own counsel, and then, if they elect to
resolve a case via settlement, they are on the hook not only for
the costs of settlement, but plaintiffs' fees as well!

The way to avoid this result is to eschew class settlements.
Indeed, many companies openly espouse a "never settle" philosophy,
and for good reason.  The reputational hit to a company-turned-
defendant is often substantial, especially in consumer cases.
Many consumers believe that a settlement reflects a tacit
admission of wrongdoing by the company or an acknowledgement that
a product is, in fact, somehow defective.  Companies rightly
factor these intangible costs into their analyses when making
strategic litigation decisions.  When a company obtains a
dismissal of a class lawsuit or defeats class certification, it
feels like what it is: a victory, a degree of vindication.

But here is the reality: even when a class lawsuit is weak on the
merits, a defendant can have legitimate reasons for wanting to
make it go away.  The negative media attention that often
accompanies these types of claims, the cost of discovery
(frequently exorbitant, always one-sided), the allocation of
resources -- both human and financial -- to defend a case, the
ongoing distraction of litigation that likely will take years to
resolve, the potential of making "bad law" that could impact the
business now and in the future -- these and other factors
sometimes will cause a company to seek resolution through the
certainty of settlement even though the company sincerely believes
it has not done anything wrong and ultimately would prevail on the
merits.

For their part, plaintiffs' attorneys have their own motivations
to come to the settlement table.  For one thing, their
compensation is contingent on results: If they lose on the merits,
they do not obtain any compensation for the work they did
prosecuting the case.  A settlement, if approved, brings with it a
guarantee of at least some compensation.  In addition, plaintiffs'
attorneys recognize that they sometimes can negotiate a "better"
result for consumers via settlement, particularly when (in the
interest of resolution) a company agrees to change behavior going
forward.  Where the risks (as quantified by the parties) overlap,
a deal can be done.

               The Use of Coupons in Settlements

Coupons have long been a component of class settlements.
Defendants like them not only because they reinforce brand loyalty
via potential future product use, but also because coupons can
provide substantially more value at lesser cost than a small cash
payment.  Plaintiffs' attorneys like them largely for the same
reasons -- a coupon for $5 off sounds like a better deal than a
check in the mail for 50 cents.  Because value to the class -- the
"benefit conferred" -- is what drives a court's determination of a
reasonable plaintiffs' attorneys' fee, plaintiffs' attorneys have
every interest in trying to maximize the benefit conferred to the
settlement class.  In addition, because settlement agreements
typically contain a "clear sailing" provision (i.e., a clause in a
settlement agreement indicating the highest amount of attorneys'
fees that plaintiffs' counsel can request to which the defendant
will not object), the parties' interests in promoting the
settlement's value to the court usually are substantially aligned.

Coupon settlements, however, have been extensively criticized.4
The provisions in the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA)
regulating coupon settlements are based on congressional findings
that include, "Class members often receive little or no benefit
from class actions, and are sometimes harmed, such as where  . . .
counsel are awarded large fees, while leaving class members with
coupons or other awards of little or no value."5 Accordingly, by
its terms, CAFA limits attorneys' fees in coupon settlements.
Although the term "coupon" is not defined in the statute, a coupon
settlement is typically understood as one in which defendants pay
settlement class members in coupons or vouchers that are
redeemable by making additional, qualifying purchases of
defendants' products.  When coupons provide the sole basis for
relief to the class, CAFA requires the attorneys' fee award to "be
based on the value to class members of the coupons that are
redeemed."  If the settlement includes both coupons and other
relief (such as injunctive or equitable relief), attorneys' fees
may be based in part on the value of the coupons redeemed and in
part on a calculation of a reasonable fee based upon the "lodestar
method."  CAFA also authorizes a court to augment the lodestar by
a reasonable multiplier where appropriate.

Notwithstanding the legitimate concerns motivating Congress's
findings, not all coupons are valueless, and not all coupon
settlements are inappropriate, a reality CAFA seems to tacitly
acknowledge.  For example, coupons that are valid for an extended
period, are transferable and/or stackable, or are sufficiently
large enough to purchase an entire product or service, provide
meaningful value to settlement class members, as courts have
recognized.  On the other hand, where there are legal or factual
infirmities that would undermine class certification or the
merits, courts have been willing to approve coupon settlements
where the benefit conferred is arguably minimal on the theory that
something is better than nothing.

A district court evaluates a proposed class settlement through the
lens of a fiduciary in protecting and representing the interests
of the settlement class.  Post-CAFA, some courts evaluating
coupon-based class action settlements have interpreted CAFA to
require a "heightened scrutiny" of coupon settlements.  On the
other hand, other courts have concluded that the CAFA requirements
for evaluating coupon settlements simply track the traditional
Rule 23(e) requirements of fairness, reasonable and accuracy.

The devil in the details of a coupon-based settlement subject to
CAFA, of course, is trying to determine the value attributable to
the coupons prior to final approval.  Plaintiffs' counsel
sometimes use expert testimony to try to establish the "redemption
value" of the coupons in order to provide courts with evidence to
support their requested fee award. In addition, the settlement
agreement nearly always allows settlement class members to "claim
in" prior to final approval (i.e., file a claim for benefits) so
the number of settlement class members requesting coupons in
advance of final approval will be known to the court.
Historically, courts have considered these and other factors when
determining the "value" of settlements that contain a coupon
component for purposes of determining a reasonable attorneys' fee.

             Ninth Circuit Requires Coupon Redemption
               Before Determining Benefit Conferred

In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit interpreted CAFA in a
manner that could significantly limit the use of coupons in
settlements. In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation is a consolidated
proceeding that resolved pursuant to a nationwide class settlement
providing coupons and injunctive relief to the settlement class
members.

In connection with final approval of the settlement, the district
court approved a $1.5 million attorneys' fee award (and nearly
$600,000 in costs).  Certain objectors appealed the order granting
final approval of the settlement and the attorneys' fee award. The
Ninth Circuit agreed with the objectors and vacated, reversed and
remanded the order awarding the fee.  The court held that the
portion of the attorneys' fees attributable to the coupon
component must be based on the actual redemption value of the
coupons (rather than with reference to the "ultimate value" of the
settlement) in order to comply with CAFA.

        District Court: Attorneys' Fee Can Be Determined
             Based Upon 'Ultimate Value' of Settlement

In re HP Inkjet Litigation consolidated three separate consumer
class actions alleging that HP engaged in unfair business
practices relating to its inkjet printers' use of ink cartridges.
In August 2012, more than five years after the first action was
filed and after extensive motion practice and discovery, the
parties agreed to a class settlement that included: (1) up to $5
million in "e-credits" (ranging in value from $2 to $6) redeemable
by eligible settlement class members for printers and printer
supplies on HP's website; (2) injunctive relief requiring HP to
make certain disclosures regarding the inkjet printers and
cartridges; (3) up to $950,000 for class notice and settlement
administration costs and (4) up to $2.9 million in attorneys' fees
and expenses.21

After the district court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and directed notice be provided to settlement class
members, it held a fairness hearing to determine whether to grant
final approval to the settlement.  Five objectors formally
objected to the settlement, including specifically to class
counsel's requested fee award.  The district court overruled the
objections and entered an order granting final approval of the
settlement.  In addition, in a separate ruling that was not
released for publication, the district court substantially reduced
the requested attorneys' fee from $2.3 million to $1.5 million.22

In calculating the attorneys' fee award, the district court held
that the "lodestar method" (i.e., calculating a fee award by
multiplying hours the attorneys reasonably spent by a reasonable
hourly rate) was applicable based upon Section 1712(b)(1) of CAFA,
and that the results actually achieved are the key consideration
for determining the reasonableness of the attorneys' fee.  In this
case, the parties had structured the settlement so that the claim
period expired prior to the fairness hearing, so the district
court knew how many claims had been submitted requesting the
"e-credits" (122,410 claims out of a settlement class of more than
13,000,000 people).  Acknowledging that the e-credits were coupons
worth significantly less than their face value, but also
recognizing the injunctive relief did confer some benefit on class
members, the court estimated the ultimate value of the settlement
to be $1.5 million.  Concluding that it could not properly award
fees in an amount greater than the value of the settlement itself,
the court ordered HP to pay a reduced lodestar amount of $1.5
million and $596,990.70 in costs.

                   Ninth Circuit: Redeemed Value
           of Coupons Drives Reasonable Attorneys' Fees

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reviewed the lower court's attorneys'
fee award and concluded that the district court had misinterpreted
Section 1712 of CAFA, the provision pertaining to attorneys' fees.
At the outset, the court had no difficulty finding that the e-
credits operated as coupons for purposes of CAFA, and further
observed that they likely would provide little value to class
members because they were low value, non-transferable, expired
within a short time after their issuance, and could not be
aggregated.

The court then interpreted Section 1712 of CAFA.  Under subsection
1712(a), if a district court awards any attorneys' fees
"attributable to" the award of coupons in the settlement, then
(according to the Ninth Circuit) CAFA requires the court to
calculate the fee award by using the actual redemption value of
the coupons.  In cases in which the settlement includes non-coupon
relief, subsection 1712(b)(1) applies, and a district court must
calculate that portion of the payment not attributable to the
coupon relief "based on the amount of time class counsel
reasonably expended working on the action" -- i.e., using the
lodestar method adjusting upwards or downwards depending on the
settlement value relative to the lodestar.  Subsection 1712(b)(2)
allows a court, in its discretion, to apply an appropriate
multiplier to any lodestar amount it awards under subsection
(b)(1) for obtaining non-coupon relief.29

Finally, in cases involving "mixed" settlements (i.e., a
combination of coupon and other relief), subsection 1712(c)
applies and a district court must adopt a hybrid approach when
determining the attorneys' fee award:

The practical effect of Sec. 1712(c) is that the district court
must perform two separate calculations to fully compensate class
counsel.  First, under subsection (a), the court must determine a
reasonable contingency fee based on the actual redemption value of
the coupons awarded. Second, under subsection (b), the court must
determine a reasonable lodestar amount to compensate class counsel
for any non-coupon relief obtained.  This lodestar amount can be
further adjusted upwards or downwards using an appropriate
multiplier. . . . In the end, the total amount of fees awarded
under subsection (c) will be the sum of the amounts calculated
under subsections (a) and (b).30

Applying this rule to the situation before it, the Ninth Circuit
agreed with the objectors that the district court erred because
its value determination was based upon an overall settlement value
for both the injunctive and coupon relief that was tied to class
counsel's lodestar.  Here, because the coupons could not be
redeemed until after the settlement became final, the Ninth
Circuit determined the actual relief obtained by the settlement
class attributable to the e-credits was not ascertainable, so
class counsel would not be permitted to seek compensation for the
value of the coupon relief obtained for the class.

Judge Berzon dissented, arguing that the district court's fee
award did not violate Section 1712 because it did not award a
contingency fee calculated as a percentage of the purported value
of the total class recovery, but rather awarded a lodestar fee,
calculated on the basis of hours worked and rates charged, and
carefully limited that fee award by a fair estimate of the amount
of the benefit received by the class.

                     Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda

Although the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of Section 1712 is not
without support in the statutory text, it fails to take into
account key practical and legal considerations.  Class counsel can
no longer obtain "credit" towards their fee for a coupon component
unless coupons are actually redeemed prior to final approval, but
defendants will not want to issue relief to a proposed settlement
class before a settlement is in all respects final, and
justifiably so.  Indeed, the case itself proves the wisdom of that
rule, because objectors were ultimately able to forestall final
approval of the settlement.  Had HP allowed settlement class
members to redeem coupons prior to the settlement becoming final,
it would have provided consideration to the settlement class
without actually securing a resolution of the dispute.

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit interpreted the statute in a way that
removes considerable discretion from the trial court, even though
CAFA acknowledges the trial court is in the best position to
evaluate a class settlement to determine whether it is fair,
reasonable and adequate.  Subsection 1712(e) of CAFA authorizes a
trial court to approve a coupon settlement provided that it (1)
holds a hearing and (2) issues a written opinion finding the
settlement to be fair, reasonable and adequate for class members.
In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation limits a district court's
discretion to make its own independent determination of a coupon's
"value," foreclosing other reasonable means of assessment that
could otherwise be employed.

Finally, the overall result is somewhat in tension with the long-
standing judicial attitude favoring class action settlements.
Even if the Ninth Circuit determined that the district court
failed to apply the appropriate standard, it could still have
remanded the case without foreclosing the assignment of any value
to the coupons.  In addition, the Ninth Circuit could have defined
what does (and does not) qualify as a "coupon," and could have
excluded from its definition such things as (1) vouchers for free
products or services that do not require an additional investment
by the settlement class member; (2) rebates that are paid from a
"common fund," with any balance remaining in the fund reverting to
a cy pres distribution; or (3) transferable certificates of
sufficient value that they could be traded and/or sold.  These and
other, similar alternatives address the concerns raised by the
Ninth Circuit regarding perceived abuses in the use of coupons in
class actions while remaining true to other, competing policies
such as favoring settlement and keeping discretion in the trial
court where it belongs.


* Bill May Hit Asbestos Victims' Bid for Fair Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Freidin, Dobrinsky, Brown &
Rosenblum, P.A. at Consumer Fraud, a bill made it through the
House of the Judiciary Committee last month that would make it
harder for plaintiffs injured by asbestos to get fair
compensation.

The bill was designed to eliminate fraud and abuse, but no
evidence that shows any significant fraud or abuse.  According to
the New York Times Editorial Board, Congress ought to commission a
study of whether there is even a problem that needs fixing before
protecting asbestos companies.

Millions of workers were injured by asbestos over the years and
thousands of suits have been filed against asbestos companies,
which were often aware of the dangers but hid them from workers
and the public.  Many companies, that went bankrupt, established
trusts to pay present and future claims against them.

The bill, known as the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act
(FACT) would allow asbestos companies to demand information from
the trusts for any reason, which will slow the process of paying
claims.  The bill will also increase the burden on claimants to
supply information.

The bill puts no burden on the asbestos companies like requiring
them to reveal where their products were used and when, so workers
know which companies or trusts might be liable for their injuries.

Consumer fraud and consumer class action suits are civil actions
brought by one or more individuals on behalf of themselves and a
larger group who have had the same or similar experience.  The
purpose of a class action is to secure a judicial remedy which may
eliminate the wrong against the individuals involved, compensate
them for the wrong, and also provides these remedies for all
others in the definable class who have suffered as a result of the
same practice or action.

Consumer fraud and class actions can involve hundreds, thousands
and even millions of people with comparable claims.  When a court
certifies a class action they are permitting claims to be heard in
a single trial.

Examples of consumer fraud and class actions include cases against
manufacturers for defective or hazardous products (child safety
seats, tobacco, medical devices, and vioxx), toxic torts
(asbestos, pesticides and chemicals), securities fraud (churning,
failure to diversify and unauthorized trading), employer
discrimination (racial, age, gender and worker's compensation),
pyramid schemes, misleading franchise or business opportunities,
travel scams, timeshare resale, overcharges, illegal fees,
fraudulent telemarketing, and false or misleading advertising
claims.


* Hawaii Hotel Workers' Suit Over Tips Can Proceed as Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Matthews, writing for KHON2, reports that thousands of former
and current Hawaii hotel workers could be in line for big bucks.

The Hawaii State Supreme Court ruled on July 15 that a class
action lawsuit against certain hotels "can" move forward.

This is not the final word on a class action lawsuit that began in
2000 and stalled in court in 2009.  The holdup began when one
hotel chain argued that the law impacting tips to wait staff came
under a different jurisdiction.

The case was referred to the State Supreme Court which ruled on
July 15 that the class action suit could move forward and that
could eventually mean thousands of employees are due millions of
dollars in lost tips.

Local 5 Union Financial Secretary-Treasurer Eric Gill said that
since the original suit was filed, many island hotels have worked
out agreements with the union about how tips are distributed.

"This is very important Hawaii's working people.  Many of us work
for tips and rely on them.  And of course, if management takes a
share and doesn't say so, then the guest thinks they've given a
tip and the worker doesn't get it," Local 5 Union Financial
Secretary-Treasurer Eric Gill said.

But a number of chains continue to battle the suit.  Some hotels
pool the tip money and keep some of it for administrative costs.

In the end, thousands of hotel workers -- past and present --
could be affected by the ongoing suit.

"The customers when they give a good tip, want to reward good
service, that's what it's for.  They assume they've already paid
management by paying the check price and so on," Mr. Gill said.

Hotel representatives did not return our calls.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock, Creditors Gear Up for Liability Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Palank, writing for Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review,
reported that Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC will argue at an
upcoming trial that it owes no more than $125 million in asbestos
liabilities, though personal-injury claimants say that number is
closer to $1.3 billion.

According to the report, starting July 22, the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court in Charlotte, N.C., will preside over a trial that seeks to
resolve a crucial issue that must be resolved before Garlock can
exit Chapter 11 protection: how much, if anything, it owes
individuals who have been or will be diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Thousands of people have alleged that their exposure to asbestos
in Garlock's gaskets, conveyor belts and other products caused the
rare and deadly cancer, the report said.  Because it can be
several decades after exposure before mesothelioma develops, more
personal-injury claims could be filed in the future.

In a pretrial brief filed this week, Garlock said it will argue
that "it has little or no responsibility" for the claims, the
report related.  It said the claimants can't prove that its
products caused their cancer.

"This estimation trial will be a search for truth. And in truth,
Garlock bears little if any responsibility for claimants'
mesotheliomas," the company said, the report cited.

Garlock also said it would ask the court to set a "conservative
upper bound" of its potential current and future liability at $125
million, a number it arrived at based on assumptions it says are
"highly" friendly to the personal-injury claimants.

Those who have already filed asbestos claims against Garlock will
argue that their claims alone are worth $210 million, and they say
future claims may top $1 billion. Garlock's total liability should
be pegged at $1.265 billion, they say, a number that is in line
with the $1.292 billion total liability that the representative of
future asbestos claimants has estimated.

At the trial, the asbestos claimants' attorneys said they will
fight what they say is a quest by Garlock and its affiliates to
duck liability.

"In this Chapter 11 case, after all, Garlock is attempting to cap
its tort liability by obtaining a discharge from thousands of
pending claims and an extraordinary injunction that would not only
channel future claims to a limited-fund trust, but also insulate
its direct and indirect parents from derivative responsibility for
Garlock's torts," the attorneys wrote in their pretrial brief.

Following the trial, it will be up to the bankruptcy court to
estimate the amount of Garlock's current and future asbestos
liability. Based upon that amount, the court can later take up
Garlock's bankruptcy-exit plan, which proposes to set aside $270
million to satisfy personal-injury claims.

Garlock says the plan is an "eminently fair" solution to the
asbestos battle, but current asbestos claimants say the plan has
no chance of securing bankruptcy-court approval.

Garlock, a subsidiary of EnPro Industries Inc. (NPO), sought
Chapter 11 protection in June 2010 after several decades of
asbestos-related litigation. Its Chapter 11 filing came about a
decade after a wave of asbestos bankruptcies filed by companies
like Armstrong World, Owens Corning, Federal-Mogul Corp. (FDML)
and USG Corp. (USG).

Garlock has long argued that asbestos claimants have targeted it
for cash after their claims against the other manufacturers were
tied up in bankruptcy--an argument its asbestos claimants call
"artful fiction."

                      About Garlock Sealing

Headquartered in Palmyra, New York, Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC is a unit of EnPro Industries, Inc. (NYSE: NPO).  For more
than a century, Garlock has been helping customers efficiently
seal the toughest process fluids in the most demanding
applications.

On June 5, 2010, Garlock filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition
(Bankr. W.D.N.C. Case No. 10-31607) in Charlotte, North Carolina,
to establish a trust to resolve all current and future asbestos
claims against Garlock under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code.  The Debtor estimated $500 million to $1 billion in assets
and up to $500 million in debts as of the Petition Date.

Affiliates The Anchor Packing Company and Garrison Litigation
Management Group, Ltd., also filed for bankruptcy.

Albert F. Durham, Esq., at Rayburn Cooper & Durham, P.A.,
represents the Debtor in their Chapter 11 effort.  Garland S.
Cassada, Esq., at Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, serves as counsel
for asbestos matters.

The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants in
the Chapter 11 cases is represented by Travis W. Moon, Esq., at
Hamilton Moon Stephens Steele & Martin, PLLC, in Charlotte, NC,
Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, in New
York, and Trevor W. Swett III, Esq., Leslie M. Kelleher, Esq., and
Jeanna Rickards Koski, Esq., in Washington, D.C. 20005.

Joseph W. Grier, III, the Court-appointed legal representative for
future asbestos claimants, has retained A. Cotten Wright, Esq., at
Grier Furr & Crisp, PA, and Richard H. Wyron, Esq., and Jonathan
P. Guy, Esq., at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, as his co-
counsel.

About 124,000 asbestos claims are pending against Garlock in state
and federal courts across the country.  The Company says majority
of pending asbestos actions against it is stale and dormant --
almost 110,000 or 88% were filed more than four years ago and more
than 44,000 or 35% were filed more than 10 years ago.

Garlock said in the Disclosure Statement that all asbestos claims
must be paid in full.  Full payment enables the plan to allow
continued ownership by parent EnPro Industries Inc.

The Plan will create a trust to fund payment to present and future
asbestos claimants.  For currently existing claims, the trust will
have insurance proceeds plus cash from Garlock together with a
promise from EnPro to provide up to $30 million over time.  For
future claims, the trust will receive $60 million from Garlock
plus a secured promise by Garlock to supply an additional
$140 million.  The promise will be secured by 51% of Garlock's
stock.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parties Disagree on Present & Future PI Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News,
reports that Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC and the official
representatives of claimants disagree by a factor of 10-to-1 about
the company's liability for present and future asbestos claims.
To resolve the dispute, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Charlotte,
North Carolina, will hold a trial beginning July 22 to estimate
the extent of Garlock's liability and determine whether the
company's proposed Chapter 11 plan will cover the claims.

Garlock is a subsidiary of EnPro Industries Inc.  So EnPro can
retain ownership, Garlock proposed a Chapter 11 plan paying
claimants in full.  EnPro isn't in bankruptcy.

The report notes that to prove the plan is feasible, Garlock will
proffer Dr. Charles E. Bates as its expert witness.  He pegs
Garlock's liability at $125 million.  Investors may be buying into
Garlock's arguments because EnPro's stock made a record closing
high July 10.  The expert witness for existing asbestos claimants
comes up with an estimate of $1.265 billion.  The expert for
future claimants projects the claims at $1.292 billion.

The report relates that the future claimants told the court how
Mr. Bates' methodology was rejected in May by U.S. Bankruptcy
Judge Judith K. Fitzgerald in the reorganization of Specialty
Products Holding Corp. and Bondex International Inc.  Dr. Bates
failed to persuade Judge Fitzgerald that the company had no actual
liability and therefore the history of settlements should be
disregarded in calculating claims to be handled in a Chapter 11
plan.

The report says that Garlock is arguing to U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
George R. Hodges in Charlotte that the company "has little or no
responsibility for the claims that have been and will be asserted
against it."  Garlock believes the "vast majority" of claimants
can't produce enough evidence to be entitled to a jury trial "on
the issue of causation."  Garlock said it filed bankruptcy "not
because it has significant liability."  Rather, the company sought
out the bankruptcy court "because it could not obtain a fair and
efficient adjudication of its liability in the tort system after
2000," Garlock said in a pretrial brief.  Garlock says it has
proposed a plan funded by $270 million, "more than double the less
than $125 million for which" it could be held liable.

The report discloses that the claimants say their estimates are
based on Garlock's "claim resolution history."  They say the
$125 million is "less than what Garlock actually paid in any two
years between 2006 and 2010."

                       About Garlock Sealing

Headquartered in Palmyra, New York, Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC is a unit of EnPro Industries, Inc. (NYSE: NPO).  For more
than a century, Garlock has been helping customers efficiently
seal the toughest process fluids in the most demanding
applications.

On June 5, 2010, Garlock filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition
(Bankr. W.D.N.C. Case No. 10-31607) in Charlotte, North Carolina,
to establish a trust to resolve all current and future asbestos
claims against Garlock under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code.  The Debtor estimated $500 million to $1 billion in assets
and up to $500 million in debts as of the Petition Date.

Affiliates The Anchor Packing Company and Garrison Litigation
Management Group, Ltd., also filed for bankruptcy.

Albert F. Durham, Esq., at Rayburn Cooper & Durham, P.A.,
represents the Debtor in their Chapter 11 effort.  Garland S.
Cassada, Esq., at Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, serves as counsel
for asbestos matters.

The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants in
the Chapter 11 cases is represented by Travis W. Moon, Esq., at
Hamilton Moon Stephens Steele & Martin, PLLC, in Charlotte, NC,
Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, in New
York, and Trevor W. Swett III, Esq., Leslie M. Kelleher, Esq., and
Jeanna Rickards Koski, Esq., in Washington, D.C. 20005.

Joseph W. Grier, III, the Court-appointed legal representative for
future asbestos claimants, has retained A. Cotten Wright, Esq., at
Grier Furr & Crisp, PA, and Richard H. Wyron, Esq., and Jonathan
P. Guy, Esq., at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, as his co-
counsel.

About 124,000 asbestos claims are pending against Garlock in state
and federal courts across the country.  The Company says majority
of pending asbestos actions against it is stale and dormant --
almost 110,000 or 88% were filed more than four years ago and more
than 44,000 or 35% were filed more than 10 years ago.

Garlock said in the Disclosure Statement that all asbestos claims
must be paid in full.  Full payment enables the plan to allow
continued ownership by parent EnPro Industries Inc.

The Plan will create a trust to fund payment to present and future
asbestos claimants.  For currently existing claims, the trust will
have insurance proceeds plus cash from Garlock together with a
promise from EnPro to provide up to $30 million over time.  For
future claims, the trust will receive $60 million from Garlock
plus a secured promise by Garlock to supply an additional
$140 million.  The promise will be secured by 51% of Garlock's
stock.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Class Suits v. Companies Not Possible in Russia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew E. Kramer, writing for The New York Times, reports that the
city of Asbest in Russia -- city of about 70,000 people on the
eastern slopes of the Ural Mountains -- is a pleasant enough place
to live except for one big drawback: when the wind picks up,
clouds of carcinogenic dust blow through.

Asbest means asbestos in Russian, and it is everywhere here.
Residents describe layers of it collecting on living room floors.
Before they take in the laundry from backyard lines, they first
shake out the asbestos.  "When I work in the garden, I notice
asbestos dust on my raspberries," said Tamara A. Biserova, a
retiree.  So much dust blows against her windows, she said, that
"before I leave in the morning, I have to sweep it out."

The town is one center of Russia's asbestos industry, which is
stubbornly resistant to shutting asbestos companies and phasing in
substitutes for the cancer-causing fireproofing product.

In the United States and most developed economies, asbestos is
handled with extraordinary care.  Until the 1970s, the fibrous,
silicate mineral was used extensively in fireproofing and
insulating buildings in America, among other uses, but growing
evidence of respiratory ailments due to asbestos exposure led to
limits.  Laws proscribe its use and its disposal and workers who
get near it wear ventilators and protective clothes.  The European
Union and Japan have also banned asbestos. (A town called Asbestos
in Quebec, Canada, has stopped mining asbestos, though it hasn't
changed its name.)

But not here, where every weekday afternoon miners set explosions
in a strip mine owned by the Russian mining company Uralasbest.
The blasts send huge plumes of asbestos fiber and dust into the
air.  Asbest is one of the more extreme examples of the
environmental costs of modern Russia's deep reliance on mining.

"Every normal person is trying to get out of here,"
Boris Balobanov, a former factory employee, now a taxi driver,
explained.  "People who value their lives leave.  But I was born
here and have no place else to go."

Of the half-dozen people interviewed who worked at the factory or
mine, all had a persistent cough, a symptom of exposure to what
residents call "the white needles." Residents also describe
strange skin ailments.  Doctors interviewed at a dermatology ward
say the welts arise from inflammation caused by asbestos.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is a branch
of the World Health Organization, is in the midst of a multiyear
study of asbestos workers in Asbest.  Because of the large number
of people exposed in the city, the researchers are using the
location to determine whether the asbestos causes ailments other
than lung cancer, including ovarian cancer.  "All forms of
asbestos are carcinogenic to humans," the group said.

Standing on the rim of the world's largest open pit asbestos mine
provides a panoramic scene.  Opened in the late 1800s, it is about
half the size of the island of Manhattan and the source of untold
tons of asbestos. The pit descends about 1,000 feet down slopes
created by terraced access roads.  Big mining trucks haul out
fibrous, gray, raw asbestos.

The Uralasbest mine is so close by that a few years ago the
mayor's office and the company relocated residents from one
outlying area to expand its gaping pit.

So entwined is the life of the town with this pit that many
newlyweds pose on a viewing platform on the rim to have their
pictures taken.  The city has a municipal anthem called "Asbestos,
my city and my fate."  In 2002, the City Council adopted a new
flag: white lines, symbolizing asbestos fibers, passing through a
ring of flame.  A billboard put up by Uralasbest in Asbest
proclaims "Asbestos is our Future."

The class-action lawsuits that demolished asbestos companies in
the United States are not possible in Russia's weak judicial
system, which favors powerful producers.  Russia, which has the
world's largest geological reserves of asbestos, mines about a
million tons of asbestos a year and exports about 60 percent of
it.  Demand is still strong for asbestos in China and India, where
it is used in insulation and building materials.  The Russian
Chrysotile Association, an asbestos industry trade group, reports
that annual sales total about 18 billion rubles, or $540 million.
And the business is growing, mostly because other countries are
getting out of the business.

The mine and the factory Uralasbest owns are the principal
employers.  The town depends on the jobs that mining asbestos and
making asbestos products bring.  Nationwide, the industry employs
38,500 Russians directly while about 400,000 people depend on the
factories and mines for their livelihood, if supporting businesses
in the mining towns are counted. About 17 percent of Asbest
residents work in the industry.

Asbest is a legacy of the philosophy known as gigantism in Soviet
industrial planning. Many cities wound up with only one, huge
factory like this town's sprawling asbestos plant.  The cities,
known as monotowns, were an important engine of the economy.  A
Russian government study counted 467 cities and 332 smaller towns
that depend on a single factory or mine.  A total of 25 million
people out of Russia's population of 142 million people live in
towns with only one main industry that cannot close, even if it is
polluting.

In a sign of just how scarce other employment options are in
Asbest, a guard requires cars leaving the factory to open their
trunks, lest anyone try to steal scrap metal for resale.  That is
about the only other way to make a meager living in Russia's old
industrial towns.

The trade association says that the type of asbestos mined in
Russia, called chrysotile, is less harmful than other types.  The
United States, though, has tightly restricted its use.  The
country imports about 1,000 tons of asbestos, mainly from Brazil,
for use in aerospace and automotive industries for items like
clutch pads.  "They consider it dangerous but we consider it
safe," said the association's spokesman, Vladimir A. Galitsyn.
Russia has three research institutes dedicated to studying uses
for asbestos.

"As a representative of the industry, I don't see any problem," he
said. Properly handled, asbestos is safe, he said, and it saves
lives in fires.  "We are not the enemy of our workers.  If they
died, then people would be afraid to work for us."

Valentin K. Zemskov, 82, worked at the mine for 40 years and
developed asbestosis, a respiratory illness caused by breathing in
asbestos fibers, which scar lung tissue.  "There was so much dust
you couldn't see a man standing next to you," he said of his
working years.  For the disability, the factory adds 4,500 rubles,
or about $135, to his monthly retirement check, which would be
enough to cover only a few restaurant meals.

Still, he said the city had no other choice.  "If we didn't have
the factory, how would we live?" he said, gasping for air as he
talked in the yard of a retirement home.  "We need to keep it open
so we have jobs."

A monument to residents who died was made, grimly, of a block of
asbestos ore, with the inscription "Live and Remember."

"Of course asbestos dust covers our city," said Nina A. Zubkova,
another resident of the retirement home.  "Why do you think the
city is named Asbest?"


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Inc. Had 135 Pending Cases as of May 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
GenCorp Inc., is a defendant in 135 asbestos cases, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2013.

The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing
operations. The majority of cases are pending in Texas and
Pennsylvania. There were 135 asbestos cases pending as of May 31,
2013.

Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases for the first
half of fiscal 2013 were $0.3 million.

Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as
to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed
against the Company, the Company is unable to make a reasonable
estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted
claims. Accordingly, no estimate of future liability has been
accrued.

In 2011, Aerojet received a letter demand from AMEC, plc, the
successor entity to the 1981 purchaser of the business assets of
Barnard & Burk, Inc., a former Aerojet subsidiary, for Aerojet to
assume the defense of sixteen asbestos cases, involving 271
plaintiffs, pending in Louisiana, and reimbursement of over $1.7
million in past legal fees and expenses. AMEC is asserting that
Aerojet retained those liabilities when it sold the Barnard & Burk
assets and agreed to indemnify the purchaser therefor. Under the
relevant purchase agreement, the purchaser assumed only certain,
specified liabilities relating to the operation of Barnard & Burk
before the sale, with Barnard & Burk retaining all unassumed pre-
closing liabilities, and Aerojet agreed to indemnify the purchaser
against unassumed liabilities that are asserted against it. Based
on the information provided, Aerojet declined to accept the
liability and requested additional information from AMEC
pertaining to the basis of the demand. On April 3, 2013, AMEC
filed a complaint for breach of contract against Aerojet in
Sacramento County Superior Court, AMEC Construction Management,
Inc. v. Aerojet-General Corporation, Case No. 342013001424718.
Although AMEC served the complaint on Aerojet, Aerojet was granted
an open extension of time in which to file a response in order to
facilitate additional sharing of information and potential
settlement negotiations. No estimate of liability has been accrued
for this matter as of May 31, 2013.

GenCorp Inc., incorporated in 1915, is a manufacturer of aerospace
and defense products and systems with a real estate segment that
includes activities related to the re-zoning, entitlement, sale,
and leasing of its excess real estate assets. The Company develops
and manufactures propulsion systems for defense and space
applications, and armaments for precision tactical and long range
weapon systems applications. The Company operates in two segments:
Aerospace and Defense, and Real Estate. Its defense system
products include liquid, solid, and air-breathing propulsion
systems and components. Its space system products include liquid,
solid, and electric propulsion systems and components. In June
2013, United Technologies Corp announced it has closed on the sale
of substantially all operations of its Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne
unit to GenCorp Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Fears Aired for Beagle Bay Kids
------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that residents of the Beagle Bay community are
concerned children are playing inside a decaying building
containing asbestos.

According to the report, the structure has sat abandoned on
Aboriginal Lands Trust property for years.  The building is close
to the Sacred Heart School and children are often seen playing in
it before and after school, the report said.

Kimberley MP Josie Farrer says the crumbling walls could be
exposing the children to asbestos particles, the report added.
She says she is trying to establish who owns the structure so it
can be shifted.

"It is an asbestos fibro-built building and I think there's major
concern in the community that something needs to be done with it,
whether it gets renovated or moved somewhere else so it can be
utilised," she told the news agency.

It is understood the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has
organised for samples of the building materials to be tested, the
report said.  The results are not yet back.

The Shire of Broome has said in a written statement that while
Beagle Bay buildings are not its responsibility, it has asked to
be kept informed of whether asbestos is found, the report related.
It will then be able to advise the Government and the community on
what needs to be done to ensure the site is safe.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charles Passmore Family Call for Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News Devon reported that the family of a Devon man who died
from an asbestos-related disease is calling for compensation.

According to the report, Charles Passmore, 82, worked as a stoker
at South West Gas sites in Barnstaple and Swindon in the 1950s and
1960s and died at the end of last year.  His family said they
believed working there could have meant he came into contact with
asbestos, the report related.

National Grid, which now owns South West Gas, said that if
contacted, they would "carry out a full investigation," the report
added.

Kevin Passmore, Mr. Passmore's son, said: "It was a shock when the
coroner came back with asbestosis.  "You still grieve for your
father. It's only recently I picked up his ashes. There's shock,
anger and upset."

Mr. Passmore died from cancer, caused by the asbestos dust, on 19
December, Swindon coroners' office confirmed, the report said.  He
worked for South West Gas in Barbican Road, Barnstaple as a stoker
between 1957-1959 and carried out the same role at the Gypsy Lane
site in Swindon between 1960-1970.

His family is now appealing to former employees of South West Gas
in Barnstaple and Gypsy Lane, Swindon to come forward and confirm
the presence of asbestos at the sites.

Brigitte Chandler, of Swindon firm, Charles Lucas & Marshall which
is acting for the family, said: "The symptoms of asbestos-related
illnesses can take between 15 to 60 years to emerge.

"We are keen to speak to anyone who can confirm there was asbestos
at the South West Gas sites during these dates."

In a statement National Grid, the successor company of South West
Gas, said: "We haven't received any correspondence from Mr.
Passmore's family however, if they contact us we will carry out a
full investigation into their claim."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Performs Fibro Testing on Bueker Annex
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Restrepo, writing for The Marshall Democrat-News, reported
that the Marshall School District is moving forward in its process
to remove Bueker Middle School's old annex amidst health concerns
brought up at a recent board of education meeting.

According to the report, Titan Environmental Services, a Kansas
City-based company, tested the building Wednesday, July 3, to
find an accurate measure of the asbestos in the structure.
Superintendent Ryan Huff said those results have not come in yet.

"The first step we have to do is actually get the building
evaluated and make sure there aren't any other unknown asbestos
items in the building before we can start tearing it down," Huff
said, the report cited. "The asbestos as far as we know is in the
tile on the floor. As long as that is not being disturbed, then
there is no health risk to anyone. Over the course of the last
year we noticed the tile was beginning to pop out in places and
beginning to break. That is a health concern to where we need to
get it taken care of so that we don't have health issues.

The report said the board of education has not officially voted on
tearing the building down, but Huff said everyone in the board
seems to believe it is the right move.

"I don't think there's anybody who doesn't think it needs to come
down," Huff said.

After obtaining results on the levels of asbestos in the annex,
those will be submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency,
which will give the district permission to move forward with the
removal process.

Huff said once all the asbestos has been removed, the board may
decide to tear the building down with its own resources. He
estimates removing the annex's asbestos will cost approximately
$8,000.

With classes starting soon, Huff reassured parents that students
would not be in any danger while the asbestos is removed from the
annex.

"Whenever they remove the asbestos, they lock the building (annex)
down and they create a negative pressure inside the building so it
keeps the particles inside the building," Huff said. "There could
be classes held around the facility."

To have additional space, classes will be held in three temporary
trailer classrooms, which will cost the district $21,000.
Approximately 150 students occupied the annex for classes.

Huff said students and staff were not in any immediate danger at
the annex. Rather, he said, the board is working in a preventive
fashion to avoid any health problems that could stem from the
building.

He said he understood parents and staff concerns in that matter
because several teachers who used to teach in the annex developed
cancer. Huff, however, said none of those cases are linked to
asbestos.

"But the perception is there and the fear is there from our
teaching staff and the community in general," Huff said. "With the
issues of roof leaking and removing asbestos and it being an old
building and the fear, the best thing is to close it and go a
different route."

The annex dates back to approximately 1966 or 1965, when it was
referred to as "the Math Annex," in what at the time was Marshall
High School. An article from the school's newspaper, The Mar-
Saline, speaks of the need for the building.

At the time, the Math Annex cost $61,500 and was put in place "to
fulfill the needs of the ever expanding classes," according to a
Mar-Saline story from Sept. 17, 1966.

The article promotes the annex as a good addition to the school.

"Although some comment has been made about the annex distracting
from the beauty of the original building, soon everyone will
become used to it and think of it just as part of MHS," the
article states.

That sentiment has changed.

"It's a building that is old," Huff said. "It was built to be
temporary and 47 years is beyond temporary. Temporary to me is 10
to 15 years if that even. This building has outlived its lifespan
by far."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Troy Landfill Still a Concern in Lincoln County
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Wilson, writing for KAJ News, reported that Libby County
Commissioners still have a big question for the EPA to answer
during a County Commission meeting.

For months, they've been waiting on a letter confirming that a
large woodpile, in the Troy landfill, is not contaminated with
asbestos, the report said, but they still haven't received that
letter.

According to the EPA, activity-based testing concluded the wood
chips were not contaminated. But the Montana DEQ is challenging
those results, the report related.  Commissioner Tony Burget says
the EPA must reach an agreement with the DEQ before a letter can
be submitted.

In a separate report by KAJ News, Federal officials assured
Lincoln County Commissioners that they would soon have a letter
confirming that a large pile of wood in Troy is not contaminated
with asbestos.

EPA officials report activity-based testing concluded the wood
chips located at the dump were not contaminated, the report said,
although the Montana DEQ is challenging those results.

The issue had been delayed because the state of Montana disagreed
with the EPA on whether or not the site was contaminated, the
report added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Names 154 Defendants in Personal Injury Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for The West Virginia Record, reported that a
St. Albans man is suing 154 companies he claims are responsible
for his lung cancer diagnosis.

According to the report, Richard P. Wade was diagnosed with lung
cancer in June 2012, according to a complaint filed June 14 in
Kanawha Circuit Court.  Wade claims the 154 defendants caused his
lung injury.  The defendants exposed Wade to asbestos and/or
asbestos-containing products during his employment, according to
the suit, the report related.

Wade claims the defendants failed to advise him of the dangerous
characteristics of their asbestos and asbestos-containing
products; failed or omitted to provide Wade with the knowledge as
to what would be reasonably safe and sufficient wearing apparel
and proper protective equipment and appliance; and failed or
omitted to place any warnings or sufficient warnings on their
containers, the report further related.

As a direct and proximate result of Wade's development of lung
cancer, he suffered severe conscious physical pain and suffering
and lost earnings and net accumulations, according to the suit,
the report said.

Wade is seeking compensatory and punitive damages with pre- and
post-judgment interest. He is being represented by Brian A. Prim
of Prim Law Firm PLLC and Michael J. Gallucci of Savinis, D'Amico
& Kane LLC.

The case has been assigned to a visiting judge.

The 154 defendants in the suit include 84 Lumber Company; A.O.
Smith Corporation; A.R. Wilfley & Sons Inc.; Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation; Ajax Magnethermic Corporation; Allied Glove
Corporation; American Electric Power Company Inc.; American-Marsh
Pumps; American Optical Corporation; and Anderson Greenwood & Co.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number: 13-C-1132


ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Vet Files $5MM Suit for Lung Disease in Saipan
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ferdie de la Torre, writing for Saipan Tribune, reported that a
U.S. veteran based in Thailand has filed a $5-million lawsuit in
federal court against the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and
the U.S. Navy for his lung disease that he allegedly incurred
after being exposed to asbestos fibers when he served in a U.S.
Navy vessel in 1972 and 1973.

According to the report, Johannes Weber is suing the U.S. Navy for
negligence because he was allegedly under orders from his then
military superiors to perform work in the engineering spaces of a
U.S. Navy vessel where he was exposed to asbestos without proper
safety equipment.

In a complaint he filed without a lawyer in the U.S. District
Court for the NMI, Weber asked the court to require the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs to pay him for his medical cost
associated with treatment of a service connected disability, the
report said.  He asked the court to award damages to his common-
law wife, Khawannuedee Boonjan, who is in Thailand, should he die
before the court can rule on the lawsuit, the report related.

Weber said his lung disease caused him to be 100 percent disabled.
He said he was discharged under honorable conditions and was
represented by the Disabled American Veterans and granted a non-
service connected pension on July 31, 2003, the report further
related.  He said the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
discontinued his pension after falsely accusing him of owing the
Veteran Affairs over $37,000 in overpayments.

Weber said he needs regular aid and can no longer travel on
commercial airlines because of the pressure it exerts on his
lungs.  He alleged that the Department of Veterans Affairs is not
paying for his medical costs in Thailand for his service connected
injury.

Weber said he filed an application for compensation with the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs, but never received a response.  It
was not clear yet why Weber filed his lawsuit on Saipan, the
report noted.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Philly Police Facility Possibly Contaminated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Walt Hunter, writing for CBS Philly, reported that city officials
say final results are expected on tests for possible asbestos
contamination at Philadelphia Police Accident Investigation
Headquarters at 26th and Master Streets in North Philadelphia.

According to the report, several of the more than 50 officers
assigned to the unit raised concerns after they found their desks
covered with plastic, and coated with dust and debris, which had
fallen through holes in the ceiling, as a new air conditioning
system was being installed.

The report said that out of an "abundance of caution," the Mayor's
Press Secretary Mark McDonald confirmed that officers had been
temporarily relocated while tests for asbestos were conducted.

Fraternal Order of Police Vice President John McGroady says
pictures taken by FOP officers show what he called "deplorable"
conditions, the report added.

City officials say, initially, they have found no indications of
"asbestos containing materials."

The new air conditioning system is part of a $10 million program
in fiscal 2013 to help refurbish police facilities citywide.

Officer Jeff Hannah, an AID investigator and police union
director, says beyond the concerns over asbestos, he and two
fellow officers have complained in recent months about health
problems they believe are related to conditions in the aging
building where they work.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK's HSE Consults on Consolidated Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Construction Index reported that Health & Safety Executive has
launched a consultation on changes to the content of an asbestos-
related approved code of practice that will consolidate two
existing documents.

According to the report, following an initial consultation in June
2012, the HSE Board agreed that a number of ACOPs would be
revised, consolidated or withdrawn, in line with a recommendation
by Professor Ragnar Lofstedt in his report Reclaiming health and
safety for all.

For the ACOPs dealing with the Control of Asbestos Regulations
2012 (CAR 2012), L127 (The management of asbestos in non-domestic
premises) and L143 (Work with materials containing asbestos), the
proposal to consolidate the two ACOPs into a single revised ACOP
(L143) was approved, the report said.

The new draft ACOP provides guidance on how dutyholders can comply
with the requirements of CAR 2012, meet their legal obligations
and so reduce the risks of over compliance, the report related.
Legal responsibilities to protect workers' health and safety are
not altered by any changes to ACOPs.

The consolidated draft is now subject to a 12-week consultation
ending on 30 September 2013, the report further related.
Depending on the outcome of the consultation and ministerial
approval, the ACOP will be published by the end of the year.

A consultative document and draft version of the consolidated ACOP
are available at:www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/cd255.htm


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Myrtle Beach Renovation Leads to Criminal Charges
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Wren, writing for Myrtle Beach Online, reported that
renovation of the oceanfront Regency Towers condominium building
here has led to criminal charges against a Little River man
accused of knowingly creating a health risk for workers and
residents and letting friable asbestos blow onto the beach, the
building's landscaped areas and its parking lot, according to an
indictment in federal court.

The report related that David Braswell and his company, Cool Cote
LLC, face seven violations of the federal Clean Air Act related to
work they did at Regency Towers in March 2009. Braswell also faces
two felony charges of making false statements to federal agents
investigating the matter. The charges carry a combined maximum of
45 years in prison.

The report further related that Braswell pleaded not guilty to the
charges during a court hearing last month and is free on an
unsecured $35,000 bond while awaiting trial. Greg Harris, a
Columbia lawyer who represents Braswell, declined to comment on
the case because it still is in the early stages.

According to an indictment filed on May 22, Braswell started
renovation work at Regency Towers without conducting an asbestos
inspection or filing a written notice with the S.C. Department of
Health and Environmental Control, as required by law. Cool Cote
also pressure-washed the building's exterior without properly
securing the area to prevent a release of friable asbestos,
defined by the EPA as material that would readily release asbestos
fibers when damaged or disturbed.

"The workers for Cool Cote Inc. were not provided with respiratory
protection, nor were the residents of Regency Towers informed of
the danger and provided personal or environmental protection," the
indictment states.

Prosecutors say Braswell and other Cool Cote employees knew about
the presence of at least 35 cubic feet of asbestos-containing
material in the building's exterior coating but proceeded with the
renovation without taking legally required precautions.

The indictment also states that Braswell lied to criminal
investigators with the federal Environmental Protection Agency on
two occasions, saying "he had no knowledge of the presence of
asbestos on the siding of Regency Towers."

DHEC spokesman Jim Beasley said the agency typically does not
comment on pending legal matters, but did work with the EPA to
investigate the incident "and referred the case to the U.S.
Attorney's Office for criminal prosecution."

Cool Cote was registered as a Florida corporation at the time it
did the renovation work at the nearly 40-year-old Regency Towers
building at 2511 S. Ocean Blvd. Florida officials administratively
dissolved the company in 2010 because it failed to file an annual
report. Cool Cote then filed its corporation documents in South
Carolina.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Opposes Chemical Safety Improvement Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, which combines
education, advocacy and community as the leading U.S. organization
serving as the voice of asbestos victims, began its formal
opposition to the Chemical Safety Improvement Act with the release
of its position paper detailing how the bill is critically flawed.
ADAO urges Congress to stand up to the chemical industry on behalf
of asbestos victims by implementing a ban to end the use,
importation, and exportation of asbestos.

"Asbestos kills. In fact, 10,000 Americans die annually from
preventable asbestos-related diseases. In 1989, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency issued a final rule under Section
6 of the Toxic Substance Control Act banning most asbestos-
containing products," said Linda Reinstein, President and
Co-Founder of ADAO. "However, that rule was vacated and remanded
by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the asbestos ban was
overturned. Thus, TSCA, the principal federal law governing the
use and safety of the thousands of chemicals we are exposed to in
our everyday lives, failed to ban asbestos and occupational,
environmental, and consumer asbestos exposure continues today."

"Everyone agrees TSCA must be reformed to enable the EPA to
protect Americans from toxic chemicals; however, the Chemical
Safety Improvement Act (S. 1009) is the wrong bill for the job,"
continued Reinstein. "Not only do the same hurdles that prevented
the EPA from banning asbestos in 1989 remain in S. 1009, the bill
would also prevent states from taking steps to complement federal
efforts and protect their citizens from toxic chemicals, such as
asbestos."

ADAO's position paper details five ways that CSIA fails to give
the EPA the authority it needs to ban asbestos, which are as
follows:

   * Next to Impossible to Phase Out or Ban Harmful Chemicals. The
CSIA would make it impossible for the EPA to ban or phase out the
worst of the worst toxic chemicals on the market.

   * Grossly Inadequate Safety Standard. The CSIA's safety
standard would place a heavy burden on the EPA to find that a
chemical such as asbestos is unsafe, rather than shifting the
burden to chemical companies to show chemicals are safe.

   * Lack of Deadlines to Ensure Safety. The CSIA is virtually
devoid of any deadlines that would require the EPA to act quickly
to assess and restrict the use of harmful chemicals such as
asbestos.

   * Unworkable Standard of Court Review. The CSIA would retain
the unworkable standard of court review found in TSCA, which
ultimately prevented the EPA from being able to ban asbestos in
1989.

   * Freeze on State Efforts to Protect People from Chemicals. The
CSIA contains far-reaching language that would paralyze states
from being able to enforce existing laws, as well as pass new
ones, to increase protections against harmful chemicals such as
asbestos.

"Asbestos continues to be used in consumer products throughout the
United States and imported from abroad. The problems discussed in
our position paper represent just a handful of the ways that the
CSIA would fail to deliver meaningful reform," concluded
Reinstein. "For that reason, the Asbestos Disease Awareness
Organization, the largest U.S. independent asbestos victims'
organization, cannot support the bill as written."

                           About ADAO

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) was founded by
asbestos victims and their families in 2004. ADAO seeks to give
asbestos victims a united voice to help ensure that their rights
are fairly represented and protected, and raise public awareness
about the dangers of asbestos exposure and the often deadly
asbestos-related diseases. ADAO is funded through voluntary
contributions and staffed by volunteers. For more information,
visit http://www.asbestosdiseaseawareness.org/


ASBESTOS UPDATE: West Dunbartonshire Houses Likely to Have Fibro
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Foulds, writing for Lennox Herald, reported that asbestos is
likely to be present in many council houses, a new report has
revealed.

According to the report, a Scottish Housing Regulator team says
West Dunbartonshire Council has been slow in providing asbestos
information to tenants, adding that the large amount of non-
traditional construction in its housing stock will mean that the
material will be in many homes.

The report said they found that despite social landlords having a
statutory duty to manage asbestos in common areas since 2004, the
council is only now carrying out detailed surveys and developing
an action plan.

The report comments: "The council has been slow to develop its
approach to providing asbestos information to its tenants.

"This is a weakness and a risk to the council."

It also states the council has told the Health and Safety
Executive of two incidents where there had been failures in its
management of asbestos, which were the result of maintenance staff
who had not followed council policy.

A spokeswoman said all properties will be checked for asbestos as
part of its ongoing stock condition survey, and if any materials
containing asbestos are found to be damaged, they will be removed
or sealed and made safe.  She said: "The council will keep
residents fully informed and will supply tenants with a guidance
leaflet relating to asbestos in the home.

"The leaflet will be a clear, factual guide and inform residents
that asbestos materials found in properties that are in a good
condition and not damaged, will present no danger to the tenant.

"In addition, all relevant staff have attended asbestos awareness
courses, which have equipped them to identify materials that may
contain asbestos.

"A register will be held on properties found to contain asbestos
and this information will be shared with the tenant."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Debris From Deadly Philly Collapse
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Griffin, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that
during the on-going clean up efforts of the deadly Philadelphia
collapse that claimed six lives in June contractors discovered
asbestos debris among the rubble. Uncovering asbestos from the
collapsed building has raised some serious questions: chiefly, how
did the owners of the building receive the proper demolition
permits with asbestos still on the premises?

According to reports submitted in January 2013 by STB Investment
Corp. -- owner of the collapsed building -- asbestos was not found
at the site. Kenneth Hudson, an accredited inspector, conducted an
asbestos assessment of the property.

After the collapse, STB Investment Corp. hired Geppert Bros. Inc.
to begin clean up efforts, the report said. A subcontractor began
removing asbestos from the debris in early July.

James F. Kenney, Philadelphia City Councilman said that the report
submitted by STB Investment Corp. back in January "isn't worth the
paper it was written on."

Immediately following the deadly collapse, fire fighters, police,
emergency medical technicians and other first responders began
sifting through the rubble for survivors. Since paperwork filed
with the city claimed the site was free from asbestos
contamination, the first responders did not wear gear that would
protect them from asbestos exposure.

Further, it is not known what state the asbestos debris was in
since it was removed by contractors. If the asbestos was damaged
during the collapse or during the initial clean up efforts, then
any person who has come into contact with the site may have been
unintentionally exposed.

Asbestos exposure is the leading cause of pleural mesothelioma,
the most commonly diagnosed type of mesothelioma cancer. Pleural
mesothelioma affects the pleura or the protective lining
surrounding the lungs. Tiny airborne asbestos particles lodge in
the pleura causing widespread damage.

Is rare that pleural mesothelioma develops after a short asbestos
exposure episode, as it is the case with the Philadelphia
collapse. However, in some cases, breathing in asbestos
contaminated air once can later develop into mesothelioma.

At this time, it is unclear whether legal action will be taken
against STB Investment Corp. or any other parties involved in the
emerging asbestos scandal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Musical Delayed as Fibro Removed from Theatre
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Barwise, writing for News & Star, reported that asbestos has
failed to stop a musical society's latest show -- but it has
delayed the performance.

According to the report, a major development of Workington's
Carnegie Theatre is currently underway but, after contractors
found asbestos on site, the finish date has been put back two
weeks.  And due to the delay, Workington and District Amateur
Musical Society's production of Little Shop of Horrors has had to
be rescheduled.

Philip Martin-White, from the society, said that it had been a
"challenge" to rearrange dates with the scenery hire company and
also the licensee holder for Little Shop of Horrors.

"However, despite the challenge we have managed to do everything
we needed to do and are pleased to announce that our production
will still go ahead," he added.

Because of the date change, the society has also taken the
opportunity to increase the number of performances from four to
five, as early indications indicated it would a popular show.

A spokeswoman for Allerdale council said that the asbestos which
was found on site has been safely "dealt with" and work is well
underway.

"The council wanted to give Workington and District Amateur
Musical Society as much notice as possible that there was a risk
the completion of the work could be delayed so that the group
could plan for that eventuality," she added.

"We're sorry that there may be a delay but have worked with WADAMS
and understand that they are able to reschedule their production
until a little later in September.

"We're really looking forward to seeing them on stage in the first
show in the new-look Carnegie."

Little Shop of Horrors is almost fully cast, with Maryport
teenager Ben Hall taking on his first principal role of Seymour.

Former Flimby man, Clark Wilkinson, is currently taking a break
from the West End to direct the show which takes place from
Tuesday, September 17 to Saturday, 21. For tickets contact the
Carnegie box office on 01900 602122.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Roofing Delays Demoliton of Town Eyesore
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Guth, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that a massive
dilapidated structure in downtown Aurora, Colorado will have to
remain standing a bit longer before it's demolished because
there's lots of asbestos in the roof, officials say. The
announcement was greeted with groans by locals who were hoping the
old Fanfare complex, once a vibrant indoor mall, would soon be a
thing of the past.

An article in the Denver Post reports that the complex, which
stands in a busy area at East Third Avenue and North Havana
Street, includes roofing and insulation materials that are
contaminated with large quantities of the toxic material. Though
the city has already cleaned up much of the interior and had hoped
the wrecking ball could take care of the rest, the discovery of
the asbestos in the roof means that the material will need to be
addressed in the proper manner before the 118,000-square-foot
complex can be totally reduced to rubble.

Colorado state environmental officials note that there needs to be
a plan in place to safely encapsulate the asbestos before
demolition, the report said.  The asbestos in the roof area is in
bad condition and is crumbling, which means that fibers could be
released into the air if the material is handled improperly. When
asbestos dust permeates the air, it can be inhaled by anyone
working or living in the vicinity and, as a result, those who
inhale the fibers could eventually develop a related disease, such
as asbestosis or mesothelioma.

"I'm a little disappointed," City Councilwoman Marsha Berzins,
told the news agency. "We wanted it down this spring. I know the
citizens want it down, and the neighborhood and the businesses
around there want it down. But I also understand when you get
involved in a project like this, commonly it can take a lot longer
than you want it to."

Unfortunately, the oddly-shaped building has been sitting vacant
for nearly 30 years. It's not only been an eyesore but also a
source of tension for the community and also a potential health
hazard as well. Once it finally comes down, the area will be
cleared for new development.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Warns of Deadly Dust Dangers
---------------------------------------------------
West Sussex Gazette reported that a hospital worker chose national
mesothelioma day to raise awareness of the dangers of asbestos
exposure, after losing her husband to the disease in January.

According to the report, Rita Ryder,60, of Hamilton Road in
Lancing, wants to alert businesses and employers to the dangers of
the substance, and the serious consequences of being exposed to
it.

Rita's husband Colin died of Mesothelioma at the age of 66,
shortly after retiring, and had been looking forward to spending
more time with his family, the report said.

Colin was exposed to asbestos through three different industrial
maintenance jobs that he had during his career, during which time
no one had explained to him the dangers of the chemical, the
report related.

After contracting the disease, Colin was determined not to give in
but, despite undergoing chemotherapy, he sadly lost the battle,
the report said.

Rita said: "It was hard to believe what was happening, as we'd
only just celebrated our 25th wedding anniversary, which was an
incredibly happy time.

"I was just so sad and angry at the same time.

"It felt really unfair that Colin had always looked after himself
and had been active to try to maintain his health."

After discovering Colin had contracted the disease, the couple
sought compensation through legal firm Moore Blatch Resolve.

Rita is urging employers and organisations to do whatever they can
to reduce the risk of future exposure to the substance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Junks Trane's Bid for Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
denied Defendant Trane US, Inc., f/k/a American Standard, Inc.'s
motion for summary judgment dismissing a complaint in the action
titled JOHN VELLUCCI and LINDA VELLUCCI, Plaintiffs, v. BORG
WARNER CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190201/12,
MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 (N.Y. Sup.), and all cross-claims against it
on the ground that plaintiffs have failed to establish that
plaintiff Joseph Vellucci was exposed to an asbestos containing
product manufactured, sold, supplied, and/or distributed by Trane
or any predecessor of Trane.

Judge Heitler ruled that Trane's interrogatory responses show that
its predecessor company, Ideal, provided asbestos cement to be
used with Ideal boilers at least until 1930.

A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision and Order dated June
12, 2013, is available for free at http://is.gd/PC44VSfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Los Angeles Court Must Revise Order
----------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Seven, issued a writ of mandate directing the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County to vacate its prior order granting the motion
for summary adjudication, and to enter a new and different order
denying the motion.

The case is ONEBEACON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; ROCKWELL
AUTOMATION CORPORATION, et al., Real Parties in Interest, NO.
B244628, (Calif. App.), involving an insurance litigation on the
coverage of asbestos claims.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated June 19, 2013, is available
at http://is.gd/PLGjBnfrom Leagle.com.

Selman Breitman, Esq., Jeffrey C. Segal, Esq., and Ilya A. Kosten,
Esq., for Petitioner.  G. Andrew Lundberg, Esq. --
andy.lundberg@lw.com -- and Karen R. Leviton, Esq. --
karen.leviton@lw.com -- at Latham & Watkins, for Real Parties in
Interest.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Denies Bid to Remand "Thomasson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jerome B. Simandle, Chief District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, issued an order
denying a motion to remand filed by plaintiffs in an asbestos
personal injury action after finding that the defendants in the
action filed their notice of removal in accordance with the 30-day
requirement of Section 1446(b) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code.

The case is HAROLD THOMASSON and CLAIRE THOMASSON, Plaintiffs, v.
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP. a/k/a BUFFALO PUMPS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CIVIL NO. 13-1034 (JBS/JS)(D.N.J.).  A full-text copy
of Judge Simandle's Decision dated June 17, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/uaXEQ5from Leagle.com.

Robert Gitelman, Esq. -- RGitelman@NapoliBern.com -- at NAPOLI
BERN RIPKA SCHKOLNIK, LLP, in New York, for Plaintiffs Harold
Thomasson and Claire Thomasson

Michael A. Tanenbaum, Esq. -- michael.tanenbaum@sedgwicklaw.com --
at SEDGWICK LLP, in Newark, New Jersey, for Defendants CBS
Corporation, Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, General Electric
Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Defendants Dropped From "Phillips" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Martin L.C. Feldman of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana granted the motions of the City of
Grand Island and Nebraska Public Power District to dismiss an
action arising from exposure to asbestos after finding that the
Court, based on facts presented as evidence, does not have
personal jurisdiction over the two defendants.

The case is CAROL PHILLIPS, ET AL. v. ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING,
INC., CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-594 (E.D.La.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Feldman's June 17, 2013 Order is available for free at
http://is.gd/DPNKvIfrom Leagle.com.

Carol Phillips and Robert Lee Phillips, Plaintiffs, are
represented by Leandre Michael Millet, Sr., Esq., Attorney at Law;
and Timothy S. Madden, Esq. -- tmadden@kingkrebs.com -- at King,
Krebs & Jurgens, PLLC.

ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc., Defendant, is represented by
Larry Gene Canada, Esq. -- lcanada@gjtbs.com -- at Galloway,
Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith.

Centerpoint Energy, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Brady
Sherrod Edwards, Esq. -- bedwards@morganlewis.com -- Alexandra L.
Farias, Esq. -- afarias@morganlewis.com -- Denise U. Scofield,
Esq. -- dscofield@morganlewis.com -- Patrick Kenneth Elkins, Esq.
-- pelkins@morganlewis.com -- at Winstol D. Carter, Jr., Esq. --
wcarter@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.

Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc., Defendant, is represented
by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Esq. -- dkuchler@kuchlerpolk.com --
Lee Blanton Ziffer, Esq. -- lziffer@kuchlerpolk.com -- and Robert
Edward Guidry, Esq. -- rguidry@kuchlerpolk.com -- at Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Morton's Summary Judgment Bid in CERCLA Suit OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary L. Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey granted Morton International, Inc.'s motion for
summary judgment in a case filed by the United States of America
against D.S.C. of Newark Enterprises, Inc., and Friction Division
Products, Inc., alleging violations of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act seeking
response costs incurred by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency during the cleanup of a three-acre industrial
site located at 40 Enterprise Avenue in Trenton, New Jersey.

D.S.C. filed a third-party complaint against third-party
defendants, including Morton, seeking contribution and cost
recovery under CERCLA and contribution and indemnification under
New Jersey state law.

Judge Cooper ruled that there are no genuine disputes of material
fact with respect to whether there was a disposal during Morton's
operations through asbestos dust left either on the ground or
inside the baghouses at the site.  Without a disposal during the
time Morton owned or operated the Site, Morton cannot be a former
owner or operator as defined under Section 107 of the CERCLA,
Judge Cooper said.  Thus, Morton cannot be liable for contribution
under Section 113 as a "former owner or operator" of the Site,
Judge Cooper concluded.

The case is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. D.S.C. OF
NEWARK ENTERPRISES, INC., AND FRICTION DIVISION PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendants; D.S.C. OF NEWARK ENTERPRISES, INC., Third-Party
Plaintiff, v. CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION (SUCCESSOR TO ST.
REGIS PAPER COMPANY), MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INC. (SUCCESSOR TO
THIOKOL CHEMICAL COMPANY), DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, DYNAMIC
AUTOMOTIVE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., MONTROSE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, AND
WILLIAM CARNEY, Third-Party Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-2270
(MLC)(D.N.J.).  A full-text copy of Judge Cooper's Memorandum
Opinion dated June 12, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/tCTNi8
from Leagle.com.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, is represented by PATRICIA A.
MCKENNA, Esq., ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION, and
TYLER MATTHEW TARRANT, Esq., U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

D.S.C. OF NEWARK ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, Third-party
Plaintiff, Cross Claimant, and Counter Defendant, is represented
by DENNIS M. TOFT, Esq. -- dtoft@wolffsamson.com -- and JOHN A.
MCKINNEY, JR., Esq. -- jmckinney@wolffsamson.com -- at WOLFF &
SAMSON, P.C.

FRICTION DIVISION PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
and WILLIAM CARNEY, ThirdParty Defendant, are represented by DAVID
JAMES KENNY, Esq. -- dkenny1954@att.net -- at HARTSOUGH & KENNY,
ESQS..

MORTON INTERNATIONAL INC., Third-Party Defendant, Cross Claimant,
Counter Claimant, and Cross Defendant, and DOW CHEMICAL CO.,
ThirdParty Defendant, Cross Claimant, Counter Claimant, Cross
Defendant, are represented by NICOLE R. MOSHANG, Esq. --
nmoshang@mankogold.com -- at MANKO GOLD KATCHER & FOX LLP.

CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, and
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, Cross Claimant and Counter Claimant,
are represented by CAMILLE V. OTERO, Esq. -- COtero@gibbonslaw.com
-- at Gibbons PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgment to Mesothelioma Victim's Family Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Seven, affirmed a jury verdict in favor of the family of a
construction worker who died from peritoneal mesothelioma from
exposure to Calidria, a chrysotile asbestos product manufactured
by Union Carbide Corporation and used in certain drywall joint
compounds.  The affirmation of the lower court's ruling arose from
Union Carbide's appeal from the ruling, contending that the family
failed to prove exposure to Calidria was a substantial factor
contributing to the deceased's risk of developing peritoneal
mesothelioma.

According to the Court of Appeals, there was substantial evidence
from which the jury could conclude the deceased's exposure to
Calidria played more than a negligible or theoretical part in his
risk of developing peritoneal mesothelioma.

The case is LINDA S. STRICKLAND et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents, v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant and
Appellant, NO. B234459 (Calif. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision dated June 18, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/7jmyYl
from Leagle.com.

David M. Axelrad, Esq. -- daxelrad@horvitzlevy.com -- and Daniel
J. Gonzalez, Esq. -- dgonzalez@horvitzlevy.com -- at Horvitz &
Levy; and Morton D. Dubin, Esq. -- mdubin@orrick.com -- and
Catherine Morris Krow, Esq. -- ckrow@orrick.com -- at Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dean A. Hanley, Esq., at Paul & Hanley; and Ted W. Pelletier,
Esq., at Law Office of Ted W. Pelletier, for Plaintiffs and
Respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Court Denies Wife's Consortium Claim
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge James S. Moody, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, granted a motion for
partial summary judgment on a consortium claim filed by the
plaintiff in an asbestos-related product liability case.

The case, filed by Plaintiffs Mark and Linda Flomenhoft, alleges
that Mr. Flomenhoft was exposed to asbestos-containing products
manufactured by defendant Georgia-Pacific LLC in 1970.  Mr.
Flomenhoft was diagnosed with mesothelioma, an incurable form of
cancer caused by asbestos exposure, in August 2012.  Mrs.
Flomenhoft also asserts a consortium claim arising from her
husband's illness.  Georgia-Pacific moves for summary judgment
dismissing the consortium claim, arguing that Mrs. Flomenhoft was
not married to her husband at the time of his asbestos exposure.

In granting Georgia-Pacific's motion, Judge Moody explained that
under Florida common law a spouse seeking damages for loss of
consortium must have been married to his or her spouse at the time
of the injury at issue.  Judge Moody noted that it would be more
logical and fair to apply Florida's discovery rule to the marriage
requirement in a spouse's loss of consortium claim; in other
words, the fairer test would be whether the plaintiffs were
married at the time the injured plaintiff was diagnosed with the
asbestos-related disease, which is the same time that the cause of
action based on the asbestos-related disease accrued.  Judge
Moody, however, said the Court's hands are tied; it cannot ignore
binding Florida law on this issue.

The case is MARK FLOMENHOFT and LINDA FLOMENHOFT, Plaintiffs, v.
GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC and UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendants, NO.
8:12-CV-2496-T-30EAJ (M.D. Fla.).  A copy of Judge Moody's
Decision dated July 10, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/iqqXAw
from Leagle.com.

Mark Flomenhoft and Linda Flomenhoft, Plaintiffs, are represented
by David A. Jagolinzer, Esq., Marc Phillip Kunen, Esq., at The
Ferraro Law Firm.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, formerly known as Georgia-Pacific
Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Jana Marie Fried, Esq.,
at JFried Law, and Laura E. Eggnatz, Esq., at JFried Law.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Kevin P.
McCoy, Esq. -- kmccoy@carltonfields.com -- Matthew Conigliaro,
Esq. -- mconigliaro@carltonfields.com -- and Stephen J. Krigbaum,
Esq. -- skrigbaum@carltonfields.com -- at Carlton Fields, PA.

Honorable Herbert Stettin serves as Mediator.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Flips Verdict in "Take Home" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the case, GEORGIA PACIFIC, LLC, F/K/A GEORGIA-
PACIFIC CORPORATION, v. JOCELYN A. FARRAR, NO. 102, SEPTEMBER
TERM, 2012 (Md.), asserts that during her teenage years, she was
exposed to asbestos from the work clothes of grandfather who
worked as a mechanic in the construction industry.  According to
Ms. Farrar, she and her sister shared the task of shaking out of
their grandfather's work clothes, which were covered with
asbestos-laden dust, laundering them, and sweeping the dust from
the floor.  In 2008, Ms. Farrar was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Georgia Pacific was named as one of the defendants in the case.
By the time of trial, only Ms. Farrar's strict liability and
negligence claims against Georgia Pacific and its cross-claims
against three settling defendants remained at issue.  Following a
two-week trial, the jury returned a substantial verdict in Ms.
Farrar's favor.  After various adjustments, a judgment was entered
against Georgia Pacific for over $5 million.

Georgia Pacific had moved for judgment in its favor based, in
part, on the lack of a duty to warn Ms. Farrar of the danger from
its product, which the court denied.  Following the verdict, the
court denied the company's motion for judgment NOV.  Georgia
Pacific appealed, claiming both that it had no duty to warn Ms.
Farrar and that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish
that its Ready-Mix product was a substantial contributing factor
in causing Ms. Farrar's mesothelioma.  Rejecting both claims, the
Court of Special Appeals affirmed the circuit court judgment,
Georgia-Pacific v. Farrar, 207 Md.App. 520, 53 A.2d 424 (2012).

In a certiorari to review the intermediate appellate court's
judgment, the Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the judgment
on the ground that, at the relevant time, there was no duty to
warn persons like Ms. Farrar.  Because there was no duty for
Georgia-Pacific to warn, the Court need not address the second
issue of whether the evidence sufficed to show that exposure to
asbestos fibers emanating from the Ready-Mix product was a
substantial contributing cause of Ms. Farrar's mesothelioma.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated July 8, 2013, is available
at http://is.gd/xWaqI8from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Order in "Lee" Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Lee, plaintiff in the case captioned MARY LEE et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CLARK RELIANCE CORPORATION,
Defendant and Respondent, NO. B241656 (Calif. App.), appeals from
the judgment against her entered after the trial court granted the
motion for summary judgment brought by defendant Clark Reliance
Corporation, a successor-in-interest to Jerguson Gage & Valve
Company.

In her lawsuit, plaintiff alleged that her husband, decedent
Richard Lee, was exposed to asbestos while serving on the USS
Eversole where he removed and replaced gaskets on Jerguson boiler
sight-glass gauges.  Clark's motion for summary judgment
demonstrated that the Plaintiff was unable to establish the
essential element of causation because she had no evidence that
Lee was exposed to an asbestos-containing gasket manufactured or
supplied by Jerguson.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Three, holding that there is no dispute of material fact with the
result the trial court properly granted summary judgment, affirmed
the judgment.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated July 15, 2013, is available
at http://is.gd/DXBgN6from Leagle.com.

Cindy Saxey, Esq., Josiah Parker, Esq., and Benno Ashrafi, Esq.,
at Weitz & Luxenberg, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.  Thomas G.
Scully, Esq. -- tscully@wfbm.com -- Karen M. Johnson, Esq. --
kjohnson@wfbm.com -- and Michelle A. Burns, Esq. --
mburns@wfbm.com -- at Walsworth Franklin Bevins & McCall, for
Defendant and Respondent.



                             *********

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  * * *