CAR_Public/130726.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 26, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 146

                             Headlines


5 STAR KIDS: Recalls Hooded Jackets Due to Strangulation Hazard
AMERICAN HONDA: Expands Recall of Compact Fit Hatchback
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Exec Downplayed Role in Disaster, Court Ruled
ASIANA AIRLINES: Baum Hedlund Lawyer Mulls Suit Over July 6 Crash
APPLE INC: To Appeal E-Book Price-Fixing Ruling in Second Circuit

BEST BUY: Judge Wants Litigants in TFT-LCD MDL to Step Up
BOEING CO: Outcome of Asiana Crash Lawsuits May Take a Year or Two
BOWERS COS: Appeals Court Narrows Claims in Wage and Hour Suit
BP AMERICA: Appeal From "Eatinger" Suit Ruling Dismissed as Moot
BRAZILIAN BLOWOUT: Sept. 23 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set

CADBURY ADAMS: Canada's Multijurisdictional Protocol Used in Suit
CADDELL DRY: N.Y. Appeals Ct. Reverses Ruling in Workers' Suit
CANADIAN RED CROSS: Lerners Discusses Class Action Settlement
CARNIVAL CRUISE: Sued Over Bacteria-Infested Cruise Hot Tubs
CREDIT SUISSE: Sued Over Grossly Inflated Appraisal of Resort

CRM HOLDINGS: Bid to Appeal in Securities Litigation Rejected
CRUSADER SERVICING: Aug. 5 Hearing Set for Tax Lien Settlement
DENNIS GINGOLD: Owes $4.5MM From $3BB Cobell Suit Deal, Suit Says
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Plaintiffs Filed 3rd Amended Antitrust Complaint
FANNIE MAE: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action

FORD MOTOR: Faces "Watson" Suit Over MyFord Touch Systems
FULTON COUNTY, GA: "Sovereign Immunity" Ruling Appealed
GOOGLE INC: Suit Over Call Recording Remanded to Superior Court
HAWAII: Class Action Over Delayed Homestead Leases Can Proceed
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Must Pay $14MM Damages to Airbag Failure Victim

INDIANA: BMV Suspends PLP Program Amid Hoosier Class Action
INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION: Recalls LED Lanterns Due to Fire Hazard
INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Arbitration Denial in "Avery" Suit Affirmed
JAMES HARDIE: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suit vs. Unit
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend 2011 Securities Suit

K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend PPFG Securities Suit
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Suits Over FDA Inspection
LEAR CORP: Loses Dismissal Bid in Auto Parts Antitrust Litigation
LEAR CORP: Dist. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Dealership Actions
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Second Circuit Rejects Retirees' ESOP Suit

LG ELECTRONICS: Recalls Kenmore Dehumidifiers Due to Fire Risk
LINN ENERGY: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action
LINN ENERGY: Emerson Poynter Files Securities Class Action
MACY'S MERCHANDISING: Recalls Infant Jackets Due to Choking Hazard
MASTERBUILT MANUFACTURING: Recalls 11,000 Smokers Due to Fire Risk

MIDWEST-CBK: Recalls 18 Distressed Greywash Bistro Chair
MONSANTO CO: Appeal From Settlement Approval Remains Pending
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Lawyer Comments on Decision to End EA License
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Lawyer Says Suit Threatens College Sports
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Lawyer Lauds New Group of Athlete Plaintiffs

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Athletes' Lawyers Want Concussion Suit Expanded
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Disputes Concussion Suit; Defends Safety Record
NESTLE USA: Accused of Misrepresenting "All Natural" Labels
NEW LEAF: Suit Over Lead Content in Products Remains Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Smoker's Son Entitled to $12.8MM Loss of Consortium

PILOT FLYING J: Speedy Rebate Suit Settlement Unusual, Lawyer Says
OFFICE DEPOT: Signs MOU to Settle OfficeMax Acquisition Suits
OFFICEMAX INC: Signs MOU to Settle Suits Over Office Depot Merger
PFIZER INC: New Jersey Court Dismisses Protonix Class Action
PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Settles Securities Class Action for $10-Mil.

RESTAURANT.COM: Avoids Class Action Over Gift Certificates
SCH CORP: Dist. Court Says CFI's Appeal on Case Dismissal Is Moot
SCS DIRECT: Recalls Thermobaby Bath Seats Due to Drowning Hazard
SMART TECHNOLOGIES: Hearings on IPO Suits Deal Set for September
SONY CORP: Defends Antitrust Suits Over Batteries vs. Unit

SONY CORP: Defends Class Suits Arising From 2011 Cyber-Attack
SONY CORP: Defends Class Suits Over Optical Disk Drive Business
STERLING BANCORP: Faces Suit in New York Over Overdraft Fees
STEVEN J. BAUM: "Shadow Docket" Foreclosure Class Action Tossed
TOYOTA MOTOR: Sudden Acceleration Bellweather Case to Go to Trial

TV GUIDE: Arkansas Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in "Roller" Suit
UNION CARBIDE: Obtains Favorable Appeals Court Ruling in Tort Suit
UNITED STATES: Nurses File Age Bias Suit v. Veterans Affairs
UNITED STATES: EFF's Suit Challenges NSA Surveillance
WALT DISNEY: Disneyland's Ban of Segway Upheld in California

WELLS FARGO: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action
YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls 626 BOLT and BOLT R Models

* "Black Swan" Ruling Prompts More Unpaid Internship Suits
* FDA Cracks Down on Illegal Diabetes Treatments
* McMillan Sees Rise in Privacy Law Class Actions in Quebec
* Missed Diagnosis Top Reason for Medical Malpractice Claims
* Newark, NJ to Publish Stop-and-Frisks Monthly Data Online


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Russian City Unable to Kick Deadly Fibro Habit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warren Fined for Failing to Warn Firm of Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Joiner Seeks Details as He Fights Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Waikato Firefighters Exposed to Deadly Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Risk Alert Due to Fibro Dumping in Mexico

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Telstra Denies "Payback" Against Whistleblower
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lung Cancer Case Filed in St. Clair County
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thunderbird Hotel Owner Fined for Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quigley Seeking Federal Court OK of Exit Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removed From Montville High School

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Seaford High School Fibro Removal Moves Forward
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parish Councillor Dies of Fibro-Related Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nottingham Developer Prosecuted for Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Clean Up at McCrory's Push Back Renovations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm's Mesothelioma Research Donations Hits $1MM

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Fibro Found on Bathurst High School Gym
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Sue Oregon Hospital for Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids to Reconsider Summary Judgment Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Youngstown Superintendent Addresses Fibro Issues
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Cites Ford's Buffalo Plant Over Deadly Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Delays Tyne Tunnel Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cwmcarn High School Safe Despite Fibro, Says HSE
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Battersea Mum's Fears Over Deadly Dust Discovery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Keighley Milkman Dies of Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Reaches Verdict in Favor of Crane Co.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Balks at Confidentiality Designations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Radiologists Study Libby Victims Exposed as Kids
ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Africans Protest Toxic Dumping Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bronxville Approves Fibro Abatement Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Uses Other Claims as Defense

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Sealing Estimation Trial Begins
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuit Results in $1.4-Mil. Jury Award
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Illegally Dumped in Minchinbury
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Won't Consolidate 2 Cases for Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Old Hillsboro Jail Building

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Saskatchewan Disposal Rules Not as Deep as Others
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thousands to Lose Out Due to UK Mesothelioma Bill
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Proposed Standards for Libby Tougher Than Ever
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Letham Resident Warns of Deadly Fibro "Time Bomb"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Victim's Daughter Calls for Help

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for New Trial in "O'Malley" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Porter" PI Suit Remanded to State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids for Summary Judgment in "Logan" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Court Renders Decision in 3 Inmate Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurance Judgment vs. Lloyd's London Affirmed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Junks "Take Home" Suit v. Lockheed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Denies Ch. 7 Case Dismissal for Hidden Assets
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Dropped as Defendant in "Friedman" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reinsurers Suit Will Proceed to Arbitration
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Ct. Refuses to Amend Prior Ruling in PI Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Motion in Limine Partially Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Order in "Kurns" Suit Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Ex-Worker's Claims


                             *********


5 STAR KIDS: Recalls Hooded Jackets Due to Strangulation Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
5 Star Kids Apparel, LLC dba Mecca 5 Star, of New York, N.Y.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 48,000 Boy's long sleeve
hooded jackets.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product

The recalled jackets have drawstrings with toggles inside the
bottom hem and neck area, posing a strangulation hazard to
children.  In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines about
drawstrings in children's upper outerwear.  In 1997, those
guidelines were incorporated into a voluntary standard.  Then in
July 2011, based on the guidelines and voluntary standard, CPSC
issued a federal regulation.  CPSC's actions demonstrate a
commitment to help prevent children from strangling or getting
entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in upper outerwear, such
as jackets and sweatshirts.

There were no incidents/injuries that were reported.

The recall involves boy's long sleeve hooded jackets sizes 2T to
XL.  The word "Mecca" is embroidered on the front chest of the
garment and on the interior label sewn into the neck of the
jacket.   There are elastic drawstrings around the neck and waist.
The style number can be found on a label sewn into the jacket one
inch above the bottom seam on the left side.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/tAZejC

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at A&E
stores, All Kids Inc 27, Bergen Kids LLC, Children's Town,
Cititrends Inc., Concord Stores, Fordham Kids, Hudson Operating
Corp, Kiddie Outlet, Modecraft/Burlington, Myrtle Kids, Pitkin
Kids, Suitmart and Youngland from August 2010 through March 2011
for about $30.

Consumers should remove the drawstrings immediately, cut
drawstrings out of the garment including toggle and continue to
use jackets once both are removed.  Customers can return the
product to the store where purchased for a full refund.


AMERICAN HONDA: Expands Recall of Compact Fit Hatchback
-------------------------------------------------------
David Undercoffler, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that
Honda is expanding an earlier recall of its compact Fit hatchback,
saying another 48,000 vehicles need to have their stability
control software updated.

The July 18 announcement brings to 91,920 the number of Honda Fits
from the 2012 and 2013 model years that are affected by the
recall.  The vehicles need a software update to the vehicle's
electronic stability control system, Honda said in a statement.

The first recall was issued in April and affected only the more
premium Sport versions.  Honda initially tested all Fit models as
a result of the April recall, but found no reason to recall
anything other than the Sport models.

But the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration then put
the Fit through a more extreme battery of tests Honda didn't
account for, according to Honda spokesman Chris Martin.

After reviewing and duplicating the results from the more rigorous
testing, Honda voluntarily agreed to the July 18 expanded recall,
Mr. Martin said.

At issue was the vehicles' software that may allow the car's body
to roll too much before intervening, possibly causing the driver
to lose control.  No crashes or injuries have been reported as a
result of the issue, Honda said.

Owners will be notified by mail in early August, according to the
automaker.  They can take their cars to a Honda dealer to have the
software update done free of charge.


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Exec Downplayed Role in Disaster, Court Ruled
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Barron at Courthouse News Service reports that an Anadarko
Petroleum Corp. executive opened the company to securities fraud
claims by downplaying its role in the Deepwater Horizon disaster,
a federal judge ruled.

The oil and gas producer owned a 25 percent interest in the
Macondo Prospect, a well that dumped 4.1 million barrels, or 172
million gallons, of oil into the Gulf of Mexico over 87 days after
the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded on April 20, 2010.

Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers and the Employees'
Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands lead a
class action accusing Anadarko of deceiving investors before and
after the explosion that killed 11 people and set off the worst
oil spill in U.S. history.

Though Anadarko never admitted liability, it reached a $4 billion
settlement with BP in 2011.

Looking at the shareholder action, U.S. District Judge Keith
Ellison explained that, "while laying blame for the Deepwater
Horizon disaster at Anadarko's feet is a prominent theme in the
complaint, it is not the focus of the liability alleged therein."

Ellison had before him 28 statements listed by the plaintiffs as
examples of misrepresentations by Anadarko.  The judge identified
a single statement by an Anadarko executive during an earnings
conference call that could hold up.

The complaint attributes the comment to Senior Vice President of
Worldwide Exploration Robert Daniels, who addressed Anadarko's
involvement in the design of the Macondo and its operating
procedures.

"When you typically approve these as a nonoperator, you basically
approve just the capital spending level in the targeted zones from
a geological perspective, as opposed to looking at the detail,
well design or procedures," Daniels allegedly stated on May 4,
2010.  "We were not involved in that at all on this well."

Ellis agreed on July 15, 2013, to advance only the claim regarding
this statement, tossing all of the shareholders' other
allegations.

"The court agrees that plaintiffs have sufficiently identified the
way in which Daniels's quote was misleading," Ellison wrote.
"Additionally, viewing the statement in isolation, the inference
that Daniels spoke with knowledge that his statement was
misleading, or with reckless disregard for whether it was true, is
'cogent and compelling' -- particularly because he spoke so
directly and did not use any qualifying or hedging words."

There are nevertheless other factors weighing against this claim,
according to the 44-page order.

"The above statement was apparently an isolated occurrence, not
repeated by Daniels or any other Anadarko executive," Ellis wrote.
"Moreover, Daniels is not alleged to have engaged in any
suspicious trading activity.  This suggests that Daniels simply
misspoke on the conference call, and that the statement was not
part of a coordinated scheme to blunt the effect of the oil spill
on Anadarko's share price.  Although the court agrees that this
inference is compelling, it cannot determine that it is more
compelling than the alternative."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kim Elaine Miller, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK AND FOTI LLC
          500 5th Avenue, Suite 1810
          New York, NY 10110
          Telephone: (212) 696-3730
          E-mail: kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com

               - and -

          Michael Arthur McGuane, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          206 Covington Street
          Madisonville, LA 70447
          Telephone: (212) 696-3730
          Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
          E-mail: michael.mcguane@ksfcounsel.com

               - and -

          Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas, 38th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554-1282
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Brett Van Benthysen, Esq.
          Jeremy P. Robinson, Esq.
          John Christopher Browne, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMAN LLP
          1285 Ave of the Americas, 38th Flr
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          E-mail: brett@blbglaw.com
                  jeremy@blbglaw.com
                  JohnB@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas Robert Ajamie, Esq.
          AJAMIE LLP
          711 Louisiana St, Ste 2150
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 860-1600
          Facsimile: (713) 860-1699
          E-mail: tajamie@ajamie.com

               - and -

          Gregory Alan Frank, Esq.
          MURRAY FRANK LLP
          275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 682-1818
          Facsimile: (212) 682-1892
          E-mail: gfrank@frankandbianco.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP (NYC)
          Four Times Square, 42nd floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-2628
          Facsimile: (212) 735-2000
          E-mail: jay.kasner@skadden.com

               - and -

          Charles W. Schwartz, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          1000 Louisiana, Suite 6800
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 655-5160
          Facsimile: (713) 483-9160
          E-mail: schwartz@skadden.com

               - and -

          Susan Leslie Saltzstein, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP (NYC)
          Four Times Square, 42nd floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-4132
          Facsimile: (917) 777-4132
          E-mail: susan.saltzstein@skadden.com

The case is Goodwin v. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 4:12-cv-00900, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas (Houston).


ASIANA AIRLINES: Baum Hedlund Lawyer Mulls Suit Over July 6 Crash
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the family members of two men killed in the first crash
involving a new civilian helicopter model have filed a wrongful
death lawsuit, alleging that defects in the engine and fuel system
caused a mechanical malfunction soon after takeoff.

The suit, filed on July 9 in Los Angeles County, Calif., Superior
Court, came as the same attorneys evaluated potential litigation
stemming from the July 6 crash of Asiana Airlines Inc. Flight 214
in San Francisco.  Officials with the U.S. National Transportation
Safety Board are investigating that crash, which killed two and
injured 181 from among the 307 crew and passengers on board the
Boeing 777.

Many of the injuries reported among the passengers were severe,
including paralysis.

"Those could be really big cases," said John Greaves, of counsel
at Los Angeles-based Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman.  He
estimated that damages could reach in the tens of millions of
dollars.

Baum Hedlund, which specializes in representing air crash victims,
filed the suit involving a Robinson Helicopter Co. model R66 that
took off from an airport in Columbia and crashed near the town of
Flandes on July 12, 2011, killing both occupants, friends Jose
Ricardo Cabrera and Juan Pablo Gaviria Aristizabal.

The Columbia accident was the first to involve a Robinson R66
helicopter, introduced to the market in 2010 with a more powerful
engine than its predecessors.

The suit alleges that the mechanical failure at takeoff caused an
"uncontrollable power loss" in the 30 seconds leading to the
crash.  Five inspections of the aircraft during the last 1 1/2
years found that the fuel system was defective, causing the engine
to go through "extreme cycles indicating uncontrollable full
power."

Mr. Cabrera, a certified pilot who moved to Columbia from the
United States in 2009, left behind a wife and four adult children,
according to the firm.  Mr. Gaviria, former president of a
nonprofit organization that flies doctors to remote communities,
had a wife and three children.

Those family members have sued Robinson Helicopter Co. Inc., based
in Torrance, Calif.; the engine makers, Rolls-Royce Corp. of
Indianapolis, Rolls-Royce North America Inc. of Reston, Va., and
Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC of London; and the manufacturers of the
aircraft's fuel system component parts, Honeywell International
Inc. of Morristown, N.J., and Honeywell Aerospace of Phoenix.

Robinson spokeswoman Loretta Conley declined to comment.  Calls to
Rolls-Royce and Honeywell spokespeople were not returned.

Model R66 choppers have crashed three more times since then,
according to the suit.  In all four crashes -- the others were in
South Dakota, Brazil and New Zealand -- either the pilot or a
passenger, or both, were killed.

Ronald Goldman, senior partner at Baum Hedlund, said he expected
to seek damages of tens of millions of dollars for the families of
each man.

Mr. Goldman, who leads the aviation group at his firm, also plans
to be lead trial counsel in the anticipated litigation over the
Asiana Airlines flight, which was carrying 141 Chinese citizens,
77 citizens of South Korea, 64 from the United States, three from
Canada, three from India, and one each from Japan, France and
Vietnam.

"We're following it quite closely and expected to be quite
involved," he said.

Asiana Airlines, based in South Korea, has apologized to the
victims of the crash and said it "continues to actively cooperate
with all Korean and U.S. governmental institutions in the ongoing
investigation."

The 1999 Montreal Convention dictates where passengers of an
international flight can file suit -- typically based on a
passenger's residence, where the ticket was bought or the location
of the passenger's ultimate destination.  The location is
important because U.S. courts offer significantly more damages
awards for passengers.

The jurisdiction also depends on whether the fault for the crash
ends up with Asiana or any number of manufacturers involved in
assembling the aircraft, including The Boeing Co.

The NTSB investigation has so far indicated that the pilots failed
to intervene when the automated speed of the plane plummeted.
Given that finding, Mr. Greaves, of Baum Hedlund, said that
lawyers for the crash victims could have a "pretty strong case
against Asiana."

"These pilots completely abrogated their responsibilities," he
said.  "They didn't fly the airplane. It's just that simple."

He said the crash was the latest example of a "cultural problem
with Korean pilots," many of whom in earlier accidents have failed
to question the captain about problems with the plane until too
late.  He cited a Boeing 747 cargo plane flown by Korean Air Lines
Co. that crashed in 1999 and another flown by Korean Air that
crashed near Guam, killing 228 passengers in 1997.

"Asiana is a lot newer, but they've had several incidents, too,"
Greaves said.

Robert Clifford, partner at Chicago's Clifford Law Offices,
cautioned against blaming the pilots too quickly.  He said there
was a "strong argument" that the plane should have been equipped
with an alert system warning the pilots visually and audibly about
the dropping air speed.  The NTSB, he said, has been urging the
Federal Aviation Administration to require such alerts for years.

"It's insufficient and incomplete to say these guys were too low
and too slow," said Clifford, whose firm has already been
contacted by victims of the Asiana Airlines crash.  "That is an
incomplete analysis.  If that is the only analysis, and we didn't
pay attention to the high likelihood of human error -- the
possibility that people make mistakes -- you wouldn't wear a
seatbelt in your car."


APPLE INC: To Appeal E-Book Price-Fixing Ruling in Second Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
Apple violated antitrust laws when it orchestrated a conspiracy to
fix e-book prices with five major publishers, Southern District
Judge Denise Cote ruled on July 10.

Following a June bench trial in which Judge Cote heard testimony
about a quickly assembled plan by Apple to plunge into the e-book
market by combining with publishers fed up with the $9.99 price
charged by Amazon, the judge said in United States v. Apple, 12
Civ. 2826, that "the evidence is overwhelming that Apple knew of
the unlawful aims of the conspiracy and joined the conspiracy with
the specific intent to help it succeed."

The decision, which Apple said it would challenge at the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sets up a hearing on
injunctive relief and damages, which is expected to include the
government's request for a multi-year ban on most-favored-nation
clauses -- whereby publishers were allowed to match a competitor's
decision to drop prices but Apple still retained its 30 percent
cut.

Judge Cote's ruling came in an action brought by the U.S. Justice
Department's Antitrust Division and State of Texas v. Penguin
Group (USA), 12 Civ. 3394, brought by 33 states and U.S.
territories.

In addition to Penguin, the other publishers, all of whom settled
in the year running up to trial, are Hachette, HarperCollins,
Macmillan and Simon & Schuster.

In a statement, assistant attorney general William Baer called the
decision "a victory for millions of consumers who choose to read
books electronically."

"Apple did not conspire to fix e-book pricing and we will continue
to fight against these false accusations," said an Apple
spokesman.

"When we introduced the iBookstore in 2010, we gave customers more
choice, injecting much needed innovation and competition into the
market, breaking Amazon's monopolistic grip on the publishing
industry," the spokesman said.  "We've done nothing wrong and we
will appeal the judge's decision."

Apple's lead lawyer, Orin Snyder -- osnyder@gibsondunn.com -- of
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, could not immediately be reached for
comment.  Assistant attorneys general Mark Ryan and
Lawrence Buterman led the government's case.

Judge Cote recounted strategies employed by the publisher
defendants to combat the Amazon price structure from January 2009
until December 2010 as Apple was developing iBooks and planning to
open the iBookstore.

Apple first met with publishers on Dec. 15 and 16, 2009, in New
York and discussed moving to the agency model that included use of
most favored nation clauses -- an arrangement that enabled the
publishers to force Amazon, then dominating the market for e-books
with its Kindle reader, to switch from its wholesale model to the
agency model.  The publishers were able to make Google do the same
in late January 2010 just as Apple was launching the iPad and the
iBookstore.

"Apple seized the moment and brilliantly played its hand," said
Cote.  "It provided the Publisher Defendants with the vision, the
format, the timetable, and the coordination they needed to raise
e-book prices."

Key to the judge's ruling were documents Cote said make it
"difficult for either Apple or the Publisher defendants to deny
they worked together to achieve the twin aims of eliminating
retail price competition and raising the prices for trade
e-books."

She said that "many of the trial's fact witnesses who are employed
by Apple and the Publisher Defendants were less than forthcoming,"
but the record "was replete with admissions about their scheme."

For example, she quoted one executive with Penguin, which settled
on the eve of trial, as saying, "Agency is anti-price war
territory.  We don't need to compete with other publishers on the
price of our books."

Leading the charge for Apple in talks with the publishers was
Eddie Cue, Apple's senior vice president of Internet software and
services, who initiated discussions with publishers and was an
important witness at trial.

"As Cue admitted at trial, raising e-book prices was simply 'all
part of' the bargain in creating the iBookstore," Judge Cote said.

Judge Cote said Apple chairman Steve Jobs, who died in October
2011, was "frank in explaining how the scheme worked" when he
spoke to his biographer Walter Isaacson the day after the launch
in January 2010.

Mr. Jobs described the plan as an "a[i]kido move" to eliminate
price competition with Amazon."

"Amazon screwed it up," Mr. Jobs said.  "It paid the wholesale
price for some books, but started selling them below cost at
$9.99.  The publishers hated that -- they thought it would trash
their ability to sell hardcover books at $28."

Mr. Jobs said that, even before Apple "got on the scene, some
booksellers were starting to withhold books from Amazon."

"So we told the publishers, 'We'll go to the agency model, where
you set the price, and we get our 30 percent, and yes, the
customer pays a little more, but that's what you want anyway.'"

Mr. Jobs said the publishers then went to Amazon and said, "You're
going to sign an agency contract or we're not going to give you
the books."

                      Sudden Price Increase

Judge Cote said Apple at trial had "struggled mightily to
reinterpret Mr. Jobs's statements in a way that will eliminate
their bite.  Its efforts have proven fruitless."

When the iBookstore opened in April 2010, Judge Cote said, there
was "a sudden and uniform price increase" for e-books.  The same
was later true for Random House, a holdout that eventually adopted
the agency model in January 2011.  The judge again quoted Mr. Cue,
this time in an e-mail.  "When we get Random House, it will be
over for everyone," he wrote.

Judge Cote said the plaintiffs carried their burden in showing
that Apple committed a "per se" violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.

"There is overwhelming evidence that the Publisher Defendants
joined with each other in a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy,"
she wrote, adding later, "Apple not only willingly joined the
conspiracy but forcefully facilitated it."

She said Apple offered a shifting defense of its actions,
abandoning several arguments over the course of the trial,
including the contention it was unaware the publishers would use
their new pricing authority to raise prices.

The judge rejected Apple's argument that the rapid-fire
negotiations with the publishers were contentious, especially on
price caps, evidence there was no meeting of the minds to forge a
conspiracy.

"The fact that provisions, even key provisions, in the Agreements
were the focus of hard-fought negotiations does not preclude a
finding of liability," she said.

Ankur Kapoor, a partner at Constantine Cannon who specializes in
antitrust counseling and litigation who is not involved in the
Apple case, said the case wasn't complicated "although the
magnitude of the industry and the players makes it a landmark case
however you look at it."

Mr. Kapoor said this is one of only a "handful of cases where a
company has been found liable by participating in an alleged
conspiracy not among its competitors in the same level of
distribution, but a conspiracy with its suppliers."

He added, "I think it cautions companies to be very, very careful
about how they communicate with, not just their competitors, but
to be extremely careful in communicating with their suppliers and
distributors."

The significant question on appeal, Mr. Kapoor said, will be the
degree to which there was agreement.

"There was a conspiracy to raise prices, but the question is: Did
Apple share that same goal -- did they agree with the publishers
to screw consumers by raising prices? I don't see evidence of
that," he said.

But David Balto, another antitrust attorney not involved in the
litigation, said Apple has a steep hill to climb at the Second
Circuit.

"I think Apple has a prayer but it's a pretty long prayer," said
Mr. Balto, a former trial attorney with the U.S. Justice
Department and policy director for the Federal Trade Commission
now in private practice in Washington D.C.  "Cartels are the most
pernicious forms of activity under the antitrust laws and Apple
will have a difficult time explaining why this was beneficial to
the consumer."

Mr. Balto called it a "concrete victory for the Justice
Department" that was secured in less than a year and a sign of
stepped up enforcement against major companies that had been
lacking during the George W. Bush administration.

"Apple was using its muscle to stifle competition and raise costs
for the consumer," said Mr. Balto.  "This case sends a clarion
call to e-commerce companies that they have to fight hard in the
marketplace and not take the easy road by arranging treaties with
their rivals."'

The decision also buoyed the prospects of lawyers who have sued
Apple in putative class actions.

Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro is lead counsel in a
putative class action against Apple, Petrus v. Apple, 11-cv-09016,
one of 27 cases before Cote under the multidistrict litigation of
In re: Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation, 11 MD 2293.  Lawyers
with Hagens Berman and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll have combined
on pretrial litigation in the consumer suits.

Mr. Berman issued a statement saying "we believe that this ruling
is binding on the consumer case."

"Once we receive class certification, the only issue that will
remain is for a jury to assess damages, which under federal law
are trebled, or tripled," he said.


BEST BUY: Judge Wants Litigants in TFT-LCD MDL to Step Up
---------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Blum, writing for The Recorder, reports that U.S. District
Judge Susan Illston is giving litigants some tough love as they
ready to try a piece of the massive multidistrict litigation over
price-fixing in the market for TFT-LCD screens.

The cases poised for trial July 22 pit retailers Best Buy Co. and
Target Corp. and now-bankrupt camera designer Eastman Kodak Co.
against several manufacturers of the liquid crystal display
screens used in cellphones, televisions and other consumer
electronics.

Judge Illston, who has presided over three LCD price-fixing trials
since early 2012, was in no mood for posturing from the lawyers
who filed into her courtroom for a pretrial hearing.  After just a
few minutes of unsatisfactory back-and-forth, the judge
interrupted counsel and asked if their clients were in the room.
The time had come, she said, to stop pretrial bickering and "get
down to work, to present the case to the jury."

Judge Illston -- who set a 50-hour time limit for each side at
trial -- cautioned the teams there would be consequences for
"being unreasonable about things that ought not be disputed."

"I have only so many weeks to give you," Judge Illston said.  "And
if we don't have enough time in this trial," she added, "it's
going to have to come out of somebody's hide."

The retailers and Kodak, which purchased finished products
containing LCD panels and then resold them, allege they paid too
much because defendants conspired to fix the prices of the
screens.  The plaintiffs opted out of class action cases, which
yielded more than $1 billion in settlements, and are pursuing
damages directly against Toshiba Corp.; LG Display Co.; HannStar
Display Corp.; and AU Optronics Corp.

The four companies have already paid more than $700 million
combined to settle civil class actions.  With the exception of
Toshiba, each has admitted or been convicted of criminal antitrust
violations and subjected to nearly $1 billion in total fines.

Toshiba's lead lawyer, White & Case partner Christopher Curran,
told Judge Illston that defense lawyers have been working
together, but each of the screen manufacturers has a different
strategy for trial.  For instance, Tokyo-based Toshiba, which was
never indicted in the criminal probe, denies participating in the
conspiracy and will fight liability.

AUO has settled with Best Buy and Target on claims related to
large LCD screens.  However, the Taiwanese company intends to
fight the charges as they relate to smaller panels used in Kodak's
digital cameras.  HannStar and LG, the world's largest panel
maker, will focus on proving the retailers passed on any
overcharges to their customers, who have already been compensated.

At the July 9 hearing, Judge Illston referenced the complexities
of the case -- but also suggested the territory should be familiar
to those involved, after the previous litigation.

"It seems like it ought to be more streamlined this time," she
said.

In addition to White & Case, the defense lineup for the six-week
trial includes Munger, Tolles & Olson for LG; Browne George Ross
and Nossaman for AUO; and Freitas Tseng & Kaufman for HannStar.
On the plaintiffs side, Best Buy is represented by Robins, Kaplan,
Miller & Ciresi; Target and its affiliates by Crowell & Moring;
and Kodak by Nixon Peabody.

Addressing the legal army, Judge Illston said it was time for the
generals to step up.

"We all know what can happen when there are too many cooks on the
broth," she said.  "It's really important by the time you actually
go to trial, that there be somebody in charge of each case.  And
it's usually helpful if that person has been through a trial or
two before."

One legal heavyweight with a long history in the LCD case took a
position on the front line recently.

Former Northern District U.S. Attorney Joseph Russoniello, who
opened an S.F. office for Browne George & Ross last month, will be
lead trial counsel for AUO.  But first his name must be redacted
from documents generated in the government's criminal antitrust
cases that might be used as evidence, including the indictment of
his own client.

Mr. Russoniello, who led the U.S. attorney's office under
President Ronald Reagan and during parts of both Bush
administrations, told Judge Illston that he was recused from the
investigation when he assumed office in 2007 and his name appears
on the indictment as a "mere formality."

"It just would be a little awkward, if the jury were to see that,"
said LG's lead lawyer, Brad Brian -- Brad.Brian@mto.com -- an
L.A.-based Munger Tolles partner, suggesting the redaction.

Target's lawyer, Crowell partner Janet Levine, said she saw no
immediate issue with Mr. Russoniello entering the case.

Ruling on motions in limine, Judge Illston again reminded the
lawyers she would not look kindly on parties fighting to keep out
documents that are clearly admissible and authentic.

"The time to fool around with things like that is past," she said.

As the roughly two-hour hearing concluded, the veteran trial judge
who this month assumed senior status bestowed some final wisdom on
clients in attendance.

"You should all settle your cases," she said.  "Look at the number
of lawyers in this room.  And then, there's the experts.  I mean,
the experts are so expensive, the lawyers don't even want to let
the jury know how much they were paid.  So, if there's anything
that this court can do to help you see your way clear to go out
and resolve the case, I'll be happy to do that."

"I'm here to try it," she continued.  "But, you would all be well
advised to settle."


BOEING CO: Outcome of Asiana Crash Lawsuits May Take a Year or Two
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Snider, Esq., writing for FindLaw, reports that in the wake
of the Asiana Airlines crash, 83 passengers are taking steps to
sue Boeing, the plane's manufacturer, alleging a mechanical defect
caused the disaster.

The passengers filed a petition in Chicago, marking the start of a
long legal battle that will seek compensation for those injured in
the July 6 crash at San Francisco International Airport, reports
the Los Angeles Times.

What theories do these passengers offer for Boeing's fault, and
will they be able to recover?

Alleged Mechanical Failure

Although an official complaint has yet to be filed, the law firm
representing the passengers asserted that preliminary
investigations suggest the auto-throttle of the Boeing 777
malfunctioned and may have caused the crash, reports the Times.

As the manufacturer, Boeing bears the responsibility of not
releasing a dangerous or defective product.  If a defect is
confirmed, then the corporation could potentially have to
compensate the passengers for injuries.

Luckily for Boeing, the company will have a good amount of time to
coordinate its defense, as NTSB officials have estimated the crash
review will take at least 12 months.

Possible Pilot Error?

The injured passengers may also seek damages from the pilot and
Asiana Airlines in addition to suing Boeing, under a theory that
the pilots violated their duty to use reasonable care in landing
the plane.

Already, two passengers -- a woman and her son -- have filed such
a lawsuit. The suit, filed in federal court in San Francisco,
claims the pilots were negligent in failing to react to flight
conditions, among other assertions, Bloomberg reports.

Aside from the pilots' negligence, injured passengers could also
potentially sue Asiana Airlines over alleged negligence in
training and supervising the pilots.

These parties' alleged negligence would not necessarily absolve
Boeing, however.  Investigations will eventually determine which
parties or mechanical parts caused the crash.

Must Prove Causation

In order for any party to be successfully sued for damages arising
from the Flight 214 crash, the injured passengers must prove
causation.

For Boeing, passengers will have to prove that but for the
defective part, the Boeing 777 would not have crashed.

That may prove difficult, especially if evidence of the defect has
been destroyed in fiery crash.  But the 83 injured may still be
able to make their case by introducing evidence that eliminates
other possible causes (e.g., pilot error).

Although many of the victims need compensation for medical
injuries now, the outcome of their lawsuits will likely take at
least a year or two to be resolved.


BOWERS COS: Appeals Court Narrows Claims in Wage and Hour Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs and appellants Williams Gonzales and Joshua Kahane took
an appeal from the a court order denying their motion to certify
five separate classes against Plaintiffs' former employers,
defendants and respondents Bowers Companies, Inc. and Pacific
Ambulance, Inc.

The Court of Appeals of California for the Fourth District
reverses the trial court's order denying Plaintiffs' motion to
certify classes based on the Defendants' alleged failure to pay
straight time using the proper regular hourly rate and the
Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime compensation for all
overtime hours worked. Justice Aronson held that the Defendants
concede they paid the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
employees regular and overtime compensation based on uniform
policies consistently applied to readily ascertainable groups of
employees. As a result, the Plaintiffs' challenges to the legality
of those uniform policies present common issues properly subject
to class treatment.

The Appeals Court remands the matter to the trial court with
directions to certify the Plaintiffs' regular hourly rate and
overtime classes based on modified class definitions consistent
with the Appeals Court's views.

Moreover, the Appeals Court affirms the trial court's order
refusing to certify classes based on the Defendants' alleged
failure to provide proper meal breaks and paystubs and the
Defendants' alleged failure to pay all wages due upon termination
or resignation.  According to Justice Aronson, substantial
evidence supports the trial court's finding Plaintiffs' theories
of recovery on these claims do not present common issues amenable
to class treatment.

In the interest of justice, all parties shall bear their own costs
on appeal, Justice Aronson added.

The case is IN RE BOWERS COMPANIES WAGE AND HOUR CASES, NO.
G046104.  A copy of the Appeals Court's June 27, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/HZTmkcfrom Leagle.com.

Joseph Antonelli -- jantonelli@antonellilaw.com -- Janelle C.
Carney at Law Offices of Joseph Antonelli; Richard E. Quintilone
II -- req@quintlaw.com -- Jesse M. Bablove at Quintilone &
Associates; Kevin T. Barnes -- Barnes@kbarnes.com -- Gregg Lander
at Law Offices of Kevin T. Barnes; Roger R. Carter at Carter Law
Firm; Marc H. Phelps at Phelps Law Group; and Scott B. Cooper --
scott@cooper-firm.com -- at Cooper Law Firm for Plaintiffs and
Appellants.

Steven A. Silverstein, Mark W. Huston and Robert I. Cohen at
Silverstein & Huston for Defendants and Respondents.


BP AMERICA: Appeal From "Eatinger" Suit Ruling Dismissed as Moot
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appellants Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Chesapeake Operating,
Inc., and Chesapeake Royalty, L.L.C., took an appeal from a
district court order that excludes them from a class action
settlement in the case, EATINGER v. BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY.

Shortly after reaching settlement and filing a joint motion for
approval of the settlement agreement, the Class filed a motion
seeking to redefine the Class to exclude the Chesapeake entities
from the settlement agreement.  This motion was based on the
Class's belief that the Chesapeake entities were adverse to the
interests of the Class in that they would object to Class
counsel's fee and the Class representative's incentive fee as they
had done in other class action lawsuits, thereby delaying
distribution to the other Class members.  Over the Chesapeake
entities' opposition, the district court granted the Class's
motion.  The Chesapeake entities appeal, arguing the district
court erred in excluding them from the Class.

In light of post-appeal developments, the Class filed three
motions to dismiss the appeal arguing, among other things, that
the appeal is now moot.

"We agree with the Class that, in light of the post-appeal
developments in this case, we are unable to grant any effectual
relief to Appellants. Since the filing of this appeal, the
district court approved the settlement agreement between the Class
and Defendant and, accordingly, dismissed the case with prejudice;
Class counsel's fees and expenses and the Class representative's
incentive award were paid; and distribution checks were mailed to
all Class members entitled to recover under the settlement
agreement. There is, therefore, no effectual relief we can grant
to Appellants," rules the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit.

The Appeals Court grants the Class's motions to dismiss, and
dismisses the appeal as moot.

The case is GENE R. EATINGER, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated royalty owners, Plaintiff-Appellee, and
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION; CHESAPEAKE OPERATING, INC.;
CHESAPEAKE ROYALTY, L.L.C., excluded unnamed class members,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee, No. 12-3243.

A copy of the Appeals Court's June 27, 2013 Order and Judgment
is available at http://is.gd/YQK9AJfrom Leagle.com.


BRAZILIAN BLOWOUT: Sept. 23 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Muldoon, writing for The Oregonian, reports that those who
bought or used Brazilian Blowout, a salon hair straightening
product on or before June 6, 2012, may be entitled to a cash
payment under a $4 million class-action settlement.

Problems with the product came to light in 2010, after a Portland
hair stylist complained it caused her to have the first nosebleed
of her life.

When Oregon Health & Science University's Center for Research on
Occupational and Environmental Toxicology and the Oregon
Occupational Safety & Health Division analyzed samples from the
stylist's salon and two other Portland hair shops, they found that
even though the product was labeled "formaldehyde free," it
contained alarmingly high levels of the gas.

Formaldehyde is used in many products, from plywood to cosmetics,
but exposure to large amounts can cause serious health problems.
It's a known carcinogen.

Last week, topclassactions.com reported on the settlement, noting
that those exposed to the product have until Sept. 23 to submit a
claim form and supporting documents.  The Web site provided the
following details:

Class members of the Brazilian Blowout settlement include stylists
in the United States who bought Brazilian Blowout products from
GIB or one of its authorized distributors on or before June 6,
2012, and who underwent a treatment using the products on or
before that date.

The settlement will provide cash payments to stylists and
consumers out of a $4,225,000 settlement fund.

Stylists who submit a valid claim form, according to the Web site,
will receive $75 for each purchase of a Brazilian Blowout product.
They may also forfeit their cash refund and return, at no expense,
unopened bottles for an exchange with a bottle of new Brazilian
Blowout Zero.

Consumers who submit a valid claim form will receive $35 for each
Brazilian Blowout treatment they received, up to a maximum of
three treatments, or $105.

Stylists or consumer also can claim up to $2,000 in medical
reimbursement if they include records that reasonably demonstrate
medical expenses incurred as a result of short-term symptoms or
conditions caused by exposure to the formaldehyde.  Qualifying
symptoms or conditions for medical reimbursement include:

** Eye disorders, such as irritation, increased tearing, blurred
vision, hyperemia.

** Nervous system disorders, such as headache, burning sensation,
dizziness, syncope.

** Respiratory tract disorders, such as cough, nasal discomfort,
wheezing, throat irritation.

** Nausea hypotrichosis, chest pain, chest discomfort, vomiting,
rash.

The only way to receive a cash award from the Brazilian Blowout
settlement is to submit a valid claim form and supporting
documents no later than Sept. 23.


CADBURY ADAMS: Canada's Multijurisdictional Protocol Used in Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Louise Moher, Esq. and Rory Wasserman, student-at-law, at Lerners
report that Osmun v. Cadbury Adams Canada Inc., 2012 ONSC 3837,
marks the first use of Canada's Multijurisdictional Class Action
Protocol.

The Canadian Judicial Protocol for the Management of
Multijurisdictional Class Actions was developed in August 2011 by
the Canadian Bar Association, in consultation with the Canadian
judiciary and the legal profession, and has been approved as a
best practice by the CBA.

In Osmun v. Cadbury Adams, the Hershey Company sought
certification and settlement approval of three parallel class
actions brought against it in Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec
for allegations of price-fixing in the chocolate industry.  Class
Counsel also sought approval of their fees.

Courts of each jurisdiction used the Protocol to coordinate and
conduct the certification and settlement approval hearings.  The
courts each issued substantially similar case management orders,
which directed approvals to be sought under a combined title of
proceedings and hearings to proceed concurrently before all courts
by joint video conference or teleconference.

On May 28, 2012, the Hershey certification and settlement approval
hearing was held by way of a joint video conference before the
Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec courts.  Submissions on
certification and settlement approval were made by Class Counsel
in Toronto. Submissions on approval of counsel's fees were made by
Class Counsel in Vancouver.  During the hearing, questions were
addressed to counsel from the bench in any of the three
jurisdictions.  Fee approval for Quebec counsel was determined on
a separate hearing.

Following submissions, counsel for all parties advised that they
had no objection to the judges discussing the motion by conference
call without counsel being present.  This took place within ten
days of the hearing and there was no difference of opinion between
the judges concerning the disposition of the motions.

The motions were granted and the approvals were obtained. The
courts and counsel agreed that the adoption of the Protocol and
teleconference resulted in an efficient hearing.

Just two years earlier, the Cadbury and ITWAL settlement approval
hearings in this action were heard without the benefit of the
Protocol (2010 ONSC 2643,  2010 BCSC 816, and 2010 QCCS 4454).
The hearings were conducted at different times in Ontario, Quebec
and British Columbia.  At each hearing, submissions were made to
the court and the approval decisions were made without discussion
of the judges of the other courts.


CADDELL DRY: N.Y. Appeals Ct. Reverses Ruling in Workers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In DE LA CRUZ v. CADDELL DRY DOCK & REPAIR CO., INC., plaintiffs
were employed by defendant Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co. Inc.,
which operates six floating dry docks on Staten Island, where
workers repair, refurbish and maintain vessels for various tug and
barge companies, and for the City of New York.

In September 2002, plaintiffs, as third-party beneficiaries of
contracts between Caddell and New York City agencies, began this
action against Caddell and its sureties, seeking enforcement of
contractual provisions requiring the payment of the prevailing
rate of wages and supplemental benefits. Plaintiffs, relying on
Labor Law Section 220 and article I, Section 17 of the New York
State Constitution, contend that the vessels they labored on were
"public works" within the meaning of those laws. They sued
individually and on behalf of a putative class of approximately
750 Caddell employees who repaired and maintained New York City
vessels under contracts between Caddell and City agencies.

Following discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint on the ground that no "public work" was
involved. Plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment as
to liability. The Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' cross motion
and granted defendants' motion, dismissing the complaint. The
Appellate Division affirmed.

The Court of Appeals of New York holds that a municipal vessel is
a public work within the meaning of Labor Law Section 220 and
article I, Section 17 of the State Constitution so that workers
involved in its construction, maintenance or repair must be paid
prevailing wages if the vessel's primary objective is to benefit
the general public.

Accordingly, New York Appeals Court rules that the order of the
Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability
granted.

The case is MANUEL DE LA CRUZ, ET AL., Appellants, v. CADDELL DRY
DOCK & REPAIR CO., INC., ET AL., Respondents, NO. 134.

A copy of the Appeals Court's June 27, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/UNI7U0from Leagle.com.

James Emmet Murphy -- jmurphy@vandallp.com -- for appellants.

Richard V. Singleton, II -- RSingleton@BlankRome.com -- for
respondents.


CANADIAN RED CROSS: Lerners Discusses Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Louise Moher, Esq. and Rory Wasserman, student-at-law, at Lerners
report that in Canadian Red Cross Society (Re), 2012 ONSC 7124,
the court was asked to determine who should receive the unclaimed
trust funds of a class action settlement.

In September 2000, a class action was settled by the establishment
of five trusts to pay individuals who allegedly received
contaminated blood transfusions.

Eleven years later, the trustee sought directions from the court
as to who should receive surplus funds held by the Claims
Administrator.  From over $68 million in the funds, approximately
164 checks, totaling $483,983, were never cashed or the intended
recipient could not be located.  The uncashed checks ranged in
amount from $100 to over $10,000.

The court was asked to consider three options for the distribution
of the $483,983 in unclaimed funds:

Option A would direct the money to other known class members whose
claims had been partially paid.  That would result in an
additional $750 per ascertained class member.  A drawback was that
if missing claimants later surfaced, the trust would be completely
depleted. However, claimants were obliged to update their contact
information and the missing claimants had failed to do so.

Option B involved the transfer of unclaimed funds to various
government organizations in Canada and the United States where
missing claimants were last known to reside.  The organizations
would hold the funds and try to locate the claimants.  In some
jurisdictions, unclaimed funds would eventually escheat to the
government.  The trustee proposed that after three years any
unclaimed funds would be paid to a charity of his choice.  Class
counsel supported this option.

Option C, which was a hybrid approach, involved the transfer of
some funds to government organizations in Ontario, Quebec and
British Columbia, with the remainder distributed to the partially
paid claimants.

The court chose Option A.  Guided by the principle of
proportionality, the court considered the amount at issue and
balanced the costs and benefits of each of the options.  The court
stated that the most appropriate direction would be one that
provided the majority of the funds to class members.  Options B
and C had a chance of providing the funds to the intended
recipients, however, they would involve time and expense and there
was no guarantee that the missing claimants would be found.
Further, the searches would be conducted by non-court supervised
parties.  The court found that Option A ensured that funds would
go to class members.  The court decided that any remaining balance
was to be paid to a charity selected by the trustee in
consultation with Class Counsel.


CARNIVAL CRUISE: Sued Over Bacteria-Infested Cruise Hot Tubs
------------------------------------------------------------
Billera Law on July 19 disclosed that a new Class Action Law Suit
claims that Carnival Cruise Lines Hot Tubs are infested with
dangerous, flesh-eating bacteria. (US District Court, Case #1:12-
cv-24408-CMA)

Tab Lankford, who was cruising on the ship Paradise on
December 17, 2011, claims he contracted "hot tub folliculitis"
from a Carnival whirlpool.  The severe infection nearly cost him
his leg.  "The entire leg turned black and they wanted to
amputate," said his attorney, John Billera.  After a week in the
hospital and $70,000 in medical bills later, Mr. Lankford's leg
was saved, but he still bears the scars from the flesh-eating
infection.  When Mr. Lankford contacted Carnival regarding his
infection, he claims a guest relations specialist told him that
there were more than fifty other passengers on the same cruise who
came down with the same illness from using the hot tubs.

And the infested hot tubs are not just limited to one ship.  The
suit alleges that on the May 12, 2012 voyage of Carnival's ship
the Fascination, Maria Osoriocano and Andrew Smith became severely
infected with MRSA and staphylococcus aureus from using its hot
tub.  Sean Cleary, their attorney, along with Mr. Billera have now
filed a class action seeking the names of all persons who have
suffered from a bacterial infection after using a Carnival hot
tub.  "Our clients -- and we believe many others -- have suffered
horrendous infections from bathing in Carnival's hot tubs," said
Mr. Cleary.  "One problem is that these infections may take a few
days to surface.  By the time the passengers know they have been
exposed, it is often too late to report the problem on the ship."

If you or someone you know suffered a rash, outbreak, pimples,
boils, or other types of infection or illness after using a
Carnival Cruise Lines hot tub, please feel free to contact:

          Billera Law
          Telephone: 561-218-4639
          Web site: http://www.billeralaw.com

               - or -

          The Law Offices of Sean M. Cleary
          Telephone: 305-416-9805
          Web site: http://www.clearypa.com


CREDIT SUISSE: Sued Over Grossly Inflated Appraisal of Resort
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Credit Suisse blindsided
lenders by concocting and approving an unreasonable and grossly
inflated appraisal of a Nevada development to market a $540
million loan it arranged, the assignee, Claymore Holdings LLC,
claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William T. Reid IV, Esq.
          Lisa S. Tsai, Esq.
          Nathaniel J. Palmer, Esq.
          REID COLLINS & TSAI LLP
          1301 S. Capital of Texas Hwy.
          Building C, Suite 300
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 647-6100
          Facsimile: (512) 647-6129
          E-mail: wreid@rctlegal.com
                  ltsai@rctlegal.com
                  npalmer@rctlegal.com

The case is Claymore Holdings LLC vs. Credit Suisse AG, et al.,
Case No. DC-13-07858, in the 134th Judicial District Court of
Dallas County, Texas.


CRM HOLDINGS: Bid to Appeal in Securities Litigation Rejected
-------------------------------------------------------------
On September 19, 2010, Brent Brandes, Beverly L. Munter, and B&B
Investors LP (Plaintiffs), a proposed class of stockholders in CRM
Holdings, Ltd., filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint against CRM
and also against CRM fiduciaries Daniel G. Hickey, Jr., Daniel G.
Hickey, Sr., Martin D. Rakoff, and James J. Scardino (the
Individual Defendants).

The Complaint alleged one cause of action against both the
Individual Defendants and CRM under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78, and two additional
Securities Exchange Act claims against the Individual Defendants
alone.  The Plaintiffs' claims against the Individual Defendants
were dismissed by Court Order on May 10, 2012. The Court's
"decision [wa]s confined to the claims levied against the
Individual Defendants" because the action against CRM had been
stayed when CRM filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of
Title 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant
to Rule 6.3 of the Local Civil Rules of the Southern District of
New York, and also a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule
59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court denied
both of these motions in an Opinion dated March 4, 2013.

The Plaintiffs now seek to appeal the Court's decision dismissing
their claims against the Individual Defendants. In a revised
motion for entry of Rule 54(b) Judgment, the Plaintiffs argue that
there is no just reason to delay their appeal of the Court's
decision to dismiss their claims against the Individual
Defendants.

In consideration of the strong prescription against the potential
for piecemeal appeals discussed in Rule 54(b) and by controlling
legal precedent, and in consideration of the Plaintiffs'
representations that a stipulation withdrawing their Proof of
Claim from Bankruptcy Court is forthcoming, District Judge Robert
P. Patterson, Jr., denied the Plaintiffs' Rule 54(b) motion
without prejudice to counsel submitting such a motion after the
filing of a stipulation withdrawing their bankruptcy claim against
CRM.

The case is IN RE CRM HOLDINGS, LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION, NO. 10
CIV 00975 (RPP), (S.D.N.Y.).  A copy of the District Court's June
14, 2013 Opinion & Order is available at http://is.gd/xOsWK1from
Leagle.com.

Beverly L. Munter, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Philip Murray,
Murray Frank LLP, Gregory Bradley Linkh, Murray, Frank & Sailer,
LLP, Howard G. Smith, Smith & Smith & Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy &
Binkow Goldberg LLP.

Beverly L. Munter, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Brian Philip
Murray, Murray Frank LLP & Gregory Bradley Linkh, Murray Frank
LLP.

Beverly L. Munter, on behalf of all others similalrly situated,
Lead Plaintiff, represented by Howard G. Smith, Smith & Smith.
Beverly L. Munter, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Z.
Glancy, Glancy & Binkow Goldberg LLP.

Brett Brandes, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy,
Glancy & Binkow Goldberg LLP & Gregory Bradley Linkh, Murray,
Frank & Sailer, LLP.

B&B Investors, LP, Plaintiff, represented by Ex Kanos S Sams, II,
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP (CA), Gregory Bradley Linkh, Murray,
Frank & Sailer, LLP, Kevin F. Ruf, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP &
Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy & Binkow Goldberg LLP.

CRM Holdings, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Arthur Harlod
Aufses, III, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, Jonathan Louis
Fried, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP & Marjorie E. Sheldon,
Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel, LLP.

Daniel G. Hickey, Jr., Defendant, represented by Arthur Harlod
Aufses, III, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, Jonathan Louis
Fried, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP & Marjorie E. Sheldon,
Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel, LLP.

Martin D. Rakoff, Defendant, represented by Arthur Harlod Aufses,
III, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, Jonathan Louis Fried,
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP & Marjorie E. Sheldon,
Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel, LLP.

James J. Scardino, Defendant, represented by Arthur Harlod Aufses,
III, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, Jonathan Louis Fried,
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP & Marjorie E. Sheldon,
Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel, LLP.

Daniel G. Hickey, Sr., Defendant, represented by Arthur Harlod
Aufses, III, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, Jonathan Louis
Fried, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP & Marjorie E. Sheldon,
Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel, LLP.


CRUSADER SERVICING: Aug. 5 Hearing Set for Tax Lien Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lillian Shupe, writing for Hunterdon County Democrat, reports that
several defendants in a class action suit regarding municipal tax
lien certificates (TSCs) have reached agreements on settlement
proposals.

A dozen New Jersey homeowners are now parties in a suit claiming
that they were victims of a conspiracy.  The homeowners were
either facing foreclosure or had been foreclosed upon.

Many of the more than two dozen defendants in the federal suit are
among those pleading guilty to federal criminal charges.

One defendant, Crusader Servicing Corp., purchased a lien in
Lebanon Township.  In March 2012, the owner of that home was the
first to file suit in Superior Court in Hunterdon County.  The
suit was transferred to federal court and then consolidated with
other suits like it.

So far, 17 defendants have reached six different settlement
agreements.  Attorneys for the property owners are asking the
court to certify the proposed settlement class and to give
preliminarily approval to five of the most recent settlement
agreements.

A hearing is scheduled on the matter for Aug. 5.

Under the proposed settlements the tax lien holders will offer
discounts of 10% to 15% for property owners to redeem the
certificates.  The lien holders also agreed to delay any
foreclosure proceedings until at least 90 to 120 days following
approval of the settlement.

The defendants also made payments to a settlement fund.

Due to the number of property owners involved, the attorneys are
seeking a delay of having to notify all the potential class
members until the settlement fund reaches at least $1 million, or
for two years, whichever comes first.

So far the settlement fund totals $955,000.

Attorneys are still negotiating with the other defendants.

The Department of Justice said that the conspiracy limited
competition in public auctions for municipal tax liens so the
liens could be purchased at higher interest rates, many at the
maximum 18% interest rate.

When the owner of real property fails to pay taxes on that
property, the municipality in which the property is located may
attach a lien for the amount of the unpaid taxes.  If the taxes
remain unpaid after a waiting period, the lien may be sold at
auction.

State law requires that investors bid on the interest rate
delinquent homeowners will pay upon redemption.  By law, the bid
opens at 18 percent interest and, through a competitive bidding
process, can be driven down to zero percent.  If a lien remains
unpaid after a certain period of time, the investor who purchased
the lien may begin foreclosure proceedings against the property to
which the lien is attached.

"Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Class are New Jersey
taxpayers who became delinquent on their real property tax
obligations, often as a result of disability and/or economic
hardship.  Because of the unlawful conspiracy, Class members
either paid or owe Defendants an inflated amount in order to
redeem their TSCs, and keep their home or other property from
falling into the possession of one of the Defendants.  Indeed,
some class members have already lost their properties as a result
of Defendants' illegal behavior," the complaint says.

The tax lien auction process is meant to create "competitive
bidding in an effort to try and help the delinquent tax payer who
is already likely experiencing financial difficulty," the
complaints says.  Even in the absence of collusion, the lien
process can often lead to harsh results for the property owner,
the complaint says.  Some of the defendants failed to pay a few
hundred dollars in taxes and ended up owing the lien holder tens
of thousands, according to the complaint.

"The Defendants' conspiracy alleged herein acted to make it even
more punitive by colluding and artificially raising the interest
rate associated with the property owner's delinquent obligation.
Quite simply, the defendants' conspiracy was akin to pouring salt
in the wounds of plaintiffs and the members of the Class," the
complaint says.

According to the court documents, the defendants conspired with
others not to bid against one another at municipal tax lien
auctions in New Jersey.  Because the conspiracy permitted the
conspirators to purchase tax liens with limited competition, each
conspirator was able to obtain liens which earned a higher
interest rate. Property owners were therefore made to pay higher
interest on their tax debts than they would have paid had their
liens been purchased in open and honest competition.

A violation of the Sherman Act carries a maximum penalty of $100
million criminal fine for corporations.  The maximum fine for a
Sherman Act violation may be increased to twice the gain derived
from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims if either
amount is greater than the statutory maximum.

A dozen guilty pleas have been entered as part of the DOJ's
investigation.  Most recently, in April Norman T. Remick, of
Barnegat, pleaded guilty.

Crusader, two other companies and eight individuals -- Isadore H.
May, Richard J. Pisciotta, Jr., William A. Collins, Robert W.
Stein, David M. Farber, Robert E. Rothman, Stephen E. Hruby, and
David Butler -- previously pleaded guilty.


DENNIS GINGOLD: Owes $4.5MM From $3BB Cobell Suit Deal, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Iulia Filip reports that a
family-owned foundation sued the lead counsel in the $3.4 billion
Cobell v. Salazar Indian Trust Fund litigation, claiming Dennis
Gingold and Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton owe it $4.5 million
from the giant settlement.

The Lannan Foundation sued Gingold, of Rockville, Md., and
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, of Washington, D.C., in Federal
Court.

The complaint calls the defendants' refusal to repay the Lannan
Foundation "a shameful breach of not only defendants' contractual
obligations, but also the trust placed in them by the foundation
and the fiduciary duties defendants owe their clients".

Founded in 1960, the Lannan Foundation provides financial
assistance to tribes and nonprofits that serve Native American
communities, and supports contemporary artists and writers.

From 1998 to 2009, Lannan gave more than $7 million in grants to
the Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund, a nonprofit created to
bring claims against the United States for mismanaging lands held
in trust for Native Americans, according to the complaint.

Lead plaintiff Elouise Cobell was a member of the Blackfoot Nation
and a great-granddaughter of legendary Blackfoot leader Mountain
Chief.

As treasurer of the Blackfoot Nation, Cobell discovered that the
federal government had mismanaged Individual Indian Money accounts
used to collect and disburse money derived from the sale or lease
of land the government held in trust for Native Americans.

The General Allotment Act of 1887 authorized the president to
divide tribal lands into parcels and allocate them to individual
members, who could not sell or lease them without government
approval.  The allotment practice was later abolished, but the
federal government continued to hold the lands in trust and manage
them for the benefit of Native Americans.

Cobell concluded that the exact number of IIM accounts and their
value or balance was unknown due to inadequate recordkeeping and
reconciliation procedures, according to the complaint.

After petitioning the federal government for nearly 20 years to
reform the IIM account system, Cobell sued the United States in
1996 on behalf of an estimated 300,000 IIM account holders.

Cobell enlisted the help of the Lannan Foundation, which
contributed millions for accounting and expert witness fees, and
funded a public education campaign for the benefit of the
plaintiffs, according to the complaint.

The foundation claims that Gingold, who acted as lead counsel from
1996 until 2012, agreed that up to half of any attorneys' fees and
costs recovered by judgment or settlement would be used to repay
the foundation's grants in full.

Kilpatrick Townsend, an international firm whose attorneys have
been representing the plaintiffs since 1996, also agreed to the
repayment terms, according to the complaint.

The foundation claims that since the lawsuit was settled after
almost 14 years of litigation, plaintiffs' attorneys have received
$85.4 million out of a $99 million attorneys' fees award, but have
refused to repay the foundation's grants in full.

The government agreed to a $3.4 billion settlement in 2009, with
$1.4 billion going to class members and attorneys' fees, and $2
billion allotted for purchase and consolidation of lands for
Native American tribes.

"Despite receiving millions of dollars from the attorneys' fees
award issued in the Indian Trust Fund Litigation, defendants have
refused to repay the grants as set forth in the grant agreements,"
the complaint states.  "Instead, defendants have taken the
position that, contrary to the clear terms of the agreements, the
foundation has no right to be repaid from the $99 million
attorneys' fees award, and instead may pursue repayment only from
the personal assets of the class representatives (or, in the case
of Ms. Cobell, who passed away in October 2011, her estate)."
(Parentheses in complaint).

The foundation claims the plaintiffs' attorneys repaid $1.8
million toward the grants, but refused to pay the remaining $4.5
million.

It claims Gingold denied any obligation to repay the grants from
attorneys' fees, and withdrew as counsel for the plaintiffs in
December 2012, without notifying the foundation.

Kilpatrick Townsend also claimed the foundation has no right to
any portion of its attorneys' fees, according to the complaint.

The foundation says the lawyers argued that the attorneys' fees
were paid from a trust administration fund, and thus did not come
from a settlement or judgment.

But the foundation claims the money came directly from the U.S.
Treasury, and is a result of the settlement between the federal
government and the Cobell plaintiffs.

"The position defendants apparently wish to take -- that the
foundation would be required to seek recovery from the class
representatives of their incentive awards rather than defendants'
repaying the foundation a sum totaling less than 5 percent of the
$99 million awarded to class counsel -- is a shameful breach of
not only defendants' contractual obligations, but also the trust
placed in them by the foundation and the fiduciary duties
defendants owe their clients, including the late Ms. Cobell," the
complaint states.  "The foundation made this litigation and the
resulting settlement possible.  Defendants themselves admit that
the foundation 'generously and loyally backstopped Ms. Cobell in
this case when no one else would,' and provided continued funding
'for what appeared to be an infinite or indeterminate duration.'"

The foundation seeks compensatory and punitive damages for breach
of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations,
breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Catherine A. Bernard, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1999 K Street NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3405
          E-mail: cbernard@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Reginald R. Goeke, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-1101
          Telephone: (202) 263-3241
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5241
          E-mail: rgoeke@mayerbrown.com

The case is Lannan Foundation v. Gingold et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-
01090-TFH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Plaintiffs Filed 3rd Amended Antitrust Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that former college athletes led
by UCLA's Ed O'Bannon filed a 213-page third amended complaint in
support of their long-running antitrust class action against the
National Collegiate Athletic Association and Electronic Arts and
College Licensing Co.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Celeste H.G. Boyd, Esq.
          THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC
          1340 Environ Way
          Chapel Hill, NC 27517
          Telephone: (505) 501-8176
          E-mail: cboyd@smplegal.com

               - and -

          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4519
          E-mail: doug@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Leonard W. Aragon, Esq.
          Robert B. Carey, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 840-5900
          Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
          E-mail: leonard@hbsslaw.com
                  rob@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Wozniak, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN, LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4507
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
          E-mail: rwozniak@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Stuart McKinley Paynter, Esq.
          THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC
          1200 G Street NW, Ste 800
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 626-4486
          E-mail: stuart@smplegal.com

               - and -

          Allan Steyer, Esq.
          STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
          One California Street, Ste 300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 421-3400
          E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com

               - and -

          Amanda Heather Kent, Esq.
          Thomas V. Girardi, Esq.
          GIRARDI AND KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-0211
          Facsimile: (213) 481-1554
          E-mail: amarz@girardikeese.com
                  tgirardi@girardikeese.com

               - and -

          Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
          ARTHUR N. BAILEY & ASSOCIATES
          111 West Second Street, Suite 4500
          Jamestown, NY 14701
          Telephone: (716) 664-2967
          Facsimile: (716) 716-2983

               - and -

          Arthur Nash Bailey, Jr., Esq.
          Bruce J. Wecker, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: abailey@hausfeldllp.com
                  bwecker@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
          Carmen Anthony Medici, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Ste 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: bonnys@rgrdlaw.com
                  cmedici@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Bruce Lee Simon, Esq.
          Thomas Kay Boardman, Esq.
          PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
          E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com
                  tboardman@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Carl A. Taylor Lopez, Esq.
          LOPEZ & FANTEL
          1510 14th Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98122-4024
          Telephone: (206) 322-5200
          E-mail: clopez@lopezfantel.com

               - and -

          Christopher Theo Hellums, Esq.
          PITTMAN DUTTON AND HELLUMS, P.C.
          2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 322-8880
          E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com

               - and -

          Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Ste 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1949
          E-mail: clebsock@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Daniel Cohen, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: danielc@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel Simon Mason, Esq.
          ZELLE, HOFMANN, VOELBEL, MASON & GETTE LLP
          44 Montgomery St., #3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 693-0700
          E-mail: dmason@zelle.com

               - and -

          Derek G. Howard, Esq.
          MINAMI TAMAKI LLP
          360 Post Street, 8th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 788-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 398-3887
          E-mail: dhoward@minamitamaki.com

               - and -

          Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
          NASTLAW LLC
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 923-9300
          Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
          E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com

               - and -

          Donald Scott Macrae, Esq.
          STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
          One California Street, 3rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 421-3400
          E-mail: smacrae@bamlawlj.com

               - and -

          Edgar Dean Gankendorffv, Esq.
          PROVOSTY & GANKENDORF LLC
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2700
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 410-2795
          Facsimile: (504) 410-2796
          E-mail: egankendorff@provostylaw.com

               - and -

          Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP
          1717 Arch St., Ste. 3610
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 864-2144
          Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
          E-mail: emeriwether@caffertyclobes.com
                  bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          Jay S. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
          Jeffrey Lawrence Spector, Esq.
          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, PC
          1818 Market Street, 25th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
                  jcohen@srkw-law.com
                  jcorrigan@srkw-law.com
                  jspector@srkw-law.com
                  bcaldes@srkw-law.com

               - and -

          Gabriel Dash Zeldin, Esq.
          STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ SMITH LLP
          1 California St., Ste. 300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 421-3400
          Facsimile: (415) 421-2234
          E-mail: gzeldin@steyerlaw.com

               - and -

          Hilary K. Scherrer, Esq.
          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Sathya S. Gosselin, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, N.W., Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: hratway@hausfeldllp.com
                  mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
                  sgosselin@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Jack Simms, Esq.
          William A. Isaacson, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Ave, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 237-2727
          E-mail: jsimms@bsfllp.com
                  llaing@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Jay L. Himes, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0834
          E-mail: jhimes@labaton.com

               - and -

          Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Esq.
          ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Ste 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1920
          E-mail: ahou@zelle.com

               - and -

          Joel Cary Meredith, Esq.
          MEREDITH & ASSOCIATES
          1521 Locust Street, 8th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564-5182
          Facsimile: (215) 569-0958
          E-mail: jmeredith@mcgslaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT AND LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          SAVERI LAW FIRM
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 500-6803
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kimberly Kralowec, Esq.
          THE KRALOWEC LAW GROUP
          188 The Embarcadero, Suite 800
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 546-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 546-6801
          E-mail: kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Paul Lehmann, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Ste 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Mitchell J. Rapp, Esq.
          Shawn D. Stuckey, Esq.
          ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
          500 Washington Ave South, Ste 4000
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 339-2020
          E-mail: mrapp@zell.com
                  sstuckey@zelle.com

               - and -

          Morissa R. Falk, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          E-mail: mfalk@labaton.com

               - and -

          Renae Diane Steiner, Esq.
          Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
          E-mail: rsteiner@heinsmills.com
                  vesades@heinsmills.com

               - and -

          Robert G. Eisler, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
          E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Robert William Finnerty, Esq.
          GIRARDI KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-0211
          Facsimile: (213) 481-1554
          E-mail: rfinnerty@girardikeese.com

               - and -

          Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
          10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 779-1414
          E-mail: aranoff@bernlieb.com

               - and -

          Stanley M. Chesley, Esq.
          WAITE SCHNEIDER BAYLESS & CHESLEY
          1513 Fourth & Vine Tower
          1 West Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 621-0267
          Facsimile: (513) 381-2375

               - and -

          Tanya Chutkan, Esq.
          Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Ste 800
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 237-6131
          E-mail: tchutkan@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Wilbert Benjamin Markovits, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC
          119 East Court Street, Suite 530
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          E-mail: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com

               - and -

          Austin B. Cohen, Esq.
          Howard J. Sedran, Esq.
          LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: acohen@lfsblaw.com
                  hsedran@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          David Haym Weinstein, Esq.
          Jeremy S. Spiegel, Esq.
          Mindee Jill Reuben, Esq.
          WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Ste 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 545-7200
          Facsimile: (215) 545-6535
          E-mail: weinstein@wka-law.com
                  spiegel@wka-law.com
                  reuben@wka-law.com

               - and -

          Donald L. Perelman, Esq.
          FINE KAPLAN AND BLACK, RPC
          One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          E-mail: dperelman@finekaplan.com

               - and -

          Gerald J. Rodos, Esq.
          Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
          BARRACK RODOS AND BACINE
          2001 Market St.
          3300 Two Commerce Sq
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          E-mail: grodos@barrack.com
                  jgittleman@barrack.com

               - and -

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Ste 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Karl Olson, Esq.
          RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-4949
          Facsimile: (415) 433-7311
          E-mail: kolson@ramolson.com

               - and -

          Robert Joseph LaRocca, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT AND GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
          E-mail: rlarocca@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          FINE KAPLAN AND BLACK, RPC
          1835 Markel Street, 28th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
          E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Asher, Esq.
          WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Ste 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 545-7200
          E-mail: asher@wka-law.com

               - and -

          Tracy Tien, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          100 Bush Street, Ste 1450
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 398-8700
          E-mail: ttien@finkelsteinthompson.com

               - and -

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          505 Montgomery St., Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 398-8704
          E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com

               - and -

          Brian Douglas Henri, Esq.
          HENRI LAW GROUP
          624 University Ave
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (650) 485-2767
          Facsimile: (650) 485-2768
          E-mail: brianhenri@henrilg.com

               - and -

          Gordon Ball, Esq.
          BALL & SCOTT
          550 W. Main Avenue, Suite 601
          Bank of America Center
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Telephone: (865) 525-7028
          Facsimile: (865) 525-4679
          E-mail: gball@ballandscott.com

               - and -

          Michael Paul Lehmann, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
          Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: efastiff@lchb.com
                  kdermody@lchb.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Jason Kilene, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  jkilene@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          608 Second Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Lee Albert, Esq.
          Brian Philip Murray, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com
                  bmurray@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.net

               - and -

          Joshua P. Davis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA P. DAVIS
          437A Valley Street
          San Francisco, CA 94131
          Telephone: (415) 422-6223
          E-mail: davisj@usfca.edu

               - and -

          Kendall S. Zylstra, Esq.
          Stephen E. Connolly, Esq.
          FARUQI AND FARUQI, LLP
          101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 600
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 277-5770
          Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
          E-mail: kzylstra@faruqilaw.com
                  sconnolly@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Garrett D. Blanchfield , Jr., Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          322 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joe Sibley, Esq.
          Kiwi Alejandro Danao Camara
          CAMARA & SIBLEY LLP
          2339 University Boulevard
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 893-7973
          E-mail: sibley@camarasibley.com
                  camara@camarasibley.com

               - and -

          Donald Chidi Amamgbo, Esq.
          AMAMGBO & ASSOCIATES
          7901 Oakport Street, Suite 4900
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Telephone: (510) 615-6000
          Facsimile: (510) 615-6025
          E-mail: donald@amamgbolaw.com

               - and -

          Reginald Von Terrell, Esq.
          THE TERRELL LAW GROUP
          Oakland, CA 94661
          Telephone: (510) 237-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 237-4616
          E-mail: reggiet2@aol.com

               - and -

          Tesfaye Wolde Tsadik, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TESFAYE TSADIK
          Post Office Box 13315, PMB #148
          1736 Franklin Street, 10th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 839-3922
          Facsimile: (510) 444-1704
          E-mail: ttsadik@pacbell.net

               - and -

          Terence Richard Coates, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          119 East Court Street, Suite 530
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert James Slaughter, Esq.
          Daniel E. Jackson, Esq.
          Robert Adam Lauridsen, Esq.
          Robert Addy Van Nest, Esq.
          Steven A. Hirsch, Esq.
          KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          Facsimile: (415) 397-7188
          E-mail: rslaughter@kvn.com
                  djackson@kvn.com
                  alauridsen@kvn.com
                  rvannest@kvn.com
                  shirsch@kvn.com

               - and -

          Juan Carlos Araneda, Esq.
          MECKLER BULGER TILSON MARICK & PEARSON LLP
          575 Market Street, Suite 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Facsimile: (415) 644-0978
          E-mail: juan.araneda@mbtlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert James Wierenga, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          350 South Main Street, Suite 210
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 222-1507
          Facsimile: (734) 222-1501
          E-mail: rwierenga@schiffhardin.com

               - and -

          David P. Borovsky, Esq.
          Glen Robert Olson, Esq.
          LONG & LEVITT LLP
          465 California Street, Ste 500
          San Francisco, CA 94104-1814
          Telephone: (415) 397-2222
          E-mail: dborovsky@longlevit.com
                  golson@longlevit.com

               - and -

          Frederick Richard Juckniess, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          350 S. Main Street, Suite 210
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 222-1504
          Facsimile: (734) 222-1501
          E-mail: rjuckniess@schiffhardin.com

               - and -

          Gregory L. Curtner, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          350 South Main Street, Suite 210
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 222-1506
          Facsimile: (734) 222-1501
          E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com

               - and -

          Jason Alex Geller, Esq.
          MECKLER BULGER TILSON MARICK & PEARSON LLP
          575 Market Street, Suite 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 644-0914
          Facsimile: (415) 644-0978
          E-mail: jason.geller@mbtlaw.com

               - and -

          Jessica Anne Sprovtsoff, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          350 S. Main St., Suite 210
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 222-1500
          Facsimile: (734) 222-1501
          E-mail: jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com

               - and -

          Kimberly K. Kefalas, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          350 South Main Street, Suite 210
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 222-1505
          Facsimile: (734) 222-1501
          E-mail: kkefalas@schiffhardin.com

               - and -

          Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market St.
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1159
          E-mail: mweiler@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Rocky N. Unruh, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          Thirty-Second Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 901-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 901-8701
          E-mail: runruh@schiffhardin.com

               - and -

          Suzanne Wahl, Esq.
          MILLER CANFIELD PADDOCK & STONE PLC
          101 N. Main St., 7th Floor
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 668-8938
          Facsimile: (734) 663-8624
          E-mail: swahl@schiffhardin.com

               - and -

          Amber Melia Trincado, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          101 Second Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 318-1200
          Facsimile: (415) 318-1300
          E-mail: atrincado@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Christina E. Fahmy, Esq.
          KILPATRICK TOWNSEND
          607 14th Street, NW, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20005-2018
          Telephone: (202) 508-5834
          E-mail: cfahmy@kilpatricktownsend.com

               - and -

          Cindy Dawn Hanson, Esq.
          KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP
          1100 Peachtree Street, Ste 2800
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 815-6470
          E-mail: chanson@kilpatrickstockton.com

               - and -

          Constance K. Robinson, Esq.
          KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP
          607 14th Street, NW, Ste 900
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 508-5822
          E-mail: CRobinson@kilpatrickstockton.com

               - and -

          Courtney Elizabeth Curtis, Esq.
          LECLAIRRYAN LLP
          725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 350
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 488-0503
          Facsimile: (213) 624-3755
          E-mail: courtney.curtis@leclairryan.com

               - and -

          Gregory S. Gilchrist, Esq.
          KILPATRICK TOWNSEND AND STOCKTON LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, Eighth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 576-0200
          Facsimile: (415) 576-0300
          E-mail: ggilchrist@kilpatricktownsend.com

               - and -

          James C. Potepan, Esq.
          LECLAIRRYAN LLP
          725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 350
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 488-0503
          Facsimile: (213) 624-3755
          E-mail: james.potepan@leclairryan.com

               - and -

          Peter M. Boyle, Esq.
          KILPATRICK STOCKTON LP
          607 14th Street, NW, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 508-5831
          Facsimile: (202) 585-0057
          E-mail: pboyle@kilpatrickstockton.com

               - and -

          R. Charles Henn, Jr., Esq.
          Sara M. Vanderhoff, Esq.
          KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP
          1100 Peachtree Street, Ste 2800
          Atlanta, GA 30309-4501
          Telephone: (404) 815-6500
          E-mail: chenn@kilpatrickstockton.com

               - and -

          Robert James Slaughter, Esq.
          KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          Facsimile: (415) 397-7188
          E-mail: rslaughter@kvn.com

               - and -

          Svetlana S. Gans, Esq.
          KILPATRICK STOCKON LLP
          607 14th Street, NW, Ste 900
          Washington, DC 20005-2018
          Telephone: (202) 639-4732
          E-mail: sgans@kilstock.com

               - and -

          William Howard Brewster, Esq.
          KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP
          1100 Peachtree Street, Ste 2800
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 815-6500
          E-mail: bbrewster@kilpatrickstockton.com

               - and -

          David R. Singer, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-2206
          Facsimile: (213) 239-5199
          E-mail: dsinger@jenner.com

               - and -

          Andrew S. Rosenman, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 South Wacker Dr.
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782-0600
          E-mail: arosenman@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Leane Capps Medford, Esq.
          POLSINELLI PC
          2501 N. Harwood St., Suite 1900
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 397-0030
          E-mail: lmedford@polsinelli.com

               - and -

          Milton Winter, Esq.
          BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 393-2840
          E-mail: mit.winter@bingham.com

               - and -

          Scott P. Cooper, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
          Telephone: (310) 557-2900
          Facsimile: (310) 557-2193
          E-mail: scooper@proskauer.com

               - and -

          Mark Steven Lee, Esq.
          MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS
          11355 W Olympic Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-4128
          E-mail: mlee@manatt.com

               - and -

          Cindy Hamilton, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1900 University Avenue, 5th Floor
          East Palo Alto, CA 94303
          Telephone: (650) 289-7859
          Facsimile: (650) 462-7859
          E-mail: hamiltonc@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Jose R. Allen, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          525 University Avenue, Suite 1100
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (650) 470-4500
          Facsimile: (650) 470-4570
          E-mail: jrallen@skadden.com

The case is Keller, et al. v. Electronic Arts Inc. et al., Case
No. 4:09-cv-01967-CW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (Oakland).


FANNIE MAE: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class
action in United States Court of Federal Claims, docketed under
13-cv-00496-MMS, on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise held shares of Federal
National Mortgage Association and/or Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation Junior Preferred Stock prior to, and as of August 17,
2012 all dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages against the Government of The United States of America for
just compensation for violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S.
constitution.  The Complaint alleges that the Government, by
imposing the Net Worth Sweep, took Plaintiff's and Class' vested
property rights without just compensation.

If you are a shareholder who purchased shares of Fannie Mae or
Freddie Mac Junior Preferred securities during the Class Period,
please contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire
by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

The Complaint alleges that in September of 2008, the Government
(acting through the FHFA) placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into
conservatorship, putting it under the control of the FHFA, which
is an agency of the Government.

In connection with the conservatorships, the Government
(specifically, the U.S. Treasury) entered into substantially
identical Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements with both Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac.  Under these Agreements, the Treasury acquired
from each company preferred stock that (i) is senior in priority
to all other series of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac preferred stock
(all such other series of Fannie and Freddie preferred stock shall
be referred to as the "Junior Preferred Stock"), (ii) was given an
initial face value of $1 billion, but also provided that this face
value would be increased by any amount the Treasury invested in or
advanced to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, (iii) would receive
preferential liquidation rights (i.e., would receive face value,
as increased by any Treasury investments or advances, as a
liquidation preference prior to any monies going to the holders of
Junior Preferred Stock or Common Stock), and (iv) would earn an
annual dividend of 10% of the face value (as increased by any
Treasury investments or advances).  In addition, each of the
Agreements provided the Treasury with warrants that could be
exercised at any time to allow the Treasury to acquire 79.9% of
the Common Stock of Fannie and Freddie, respectively, for a
nominal price.

Between the start of the conservatorship in September 2008 through
the beginning of 2012, the Government advanced Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac more than $188 billion -- most of which was advanced
to cover accounting losses reflecting excessive write-downs of
assets that have turned out to be worth far more than their
written down amounts.  These advances increased the face value of
the Senior Preferred Stock held by the Government to approximately
$189 billion, entitling the Government to an annual dividend of
approximately $19 billion, which translates to a quarterly
dividend of just under $5 billion.

By 2012, the housing market was well on its way to recovery and
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had become profitable again, reporting
increasing profits through 2011 and 2012.  Indeed, by the second
quarter of 2012, Fannie and Freddie made a combined quarterly
profit of approximately $8.3 billion.  This was the first quarter
for which Fannie and Freddie reported a combined quarterly profit
that exceeded the just under $5 billion quarterly dividend payable
to the Treasury on its Senior Preferred Stock.  Thus, by no later
than the end of the second quarter of 2012, Fannie and Freddie
were generating sufficient profits to pay a dividend to the
holders of their Junior Preferred Stock (or to payout in a
liquidation distribution, in the event of any liquidation,
dissolution, or winding up of Fannie or Freddie).  However, on
August 17, 2012, the Government unilaterally amended the terms
of its Agreements with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and mandated
that, beginning on January 1, 2013, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
would have to pay the Government dividends equal to their entire
net worth, leaving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with no funds to
redeem the Government's Senior Preferred Stock or to distribute to
the holders of Junior Preferred Stock, whether by dividend,
redemption, or in a liquidation.  The Government's August 2012
action appropriated the valuable contractual and property rights
owned by the holders of Junior Preferred Stock for no
consideration.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates
its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  It has offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and San Diego.


FORD MOTOR: Faces "Watson" Suit Over MyFord Touch Systems
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard Decker Watson and Megan Raney-Aarons, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
Case No. 2:13-cv-05243-ABC-MAN (C.D. Cal., July 19, 2013) is a
consumer class action concerning the alleged affirmative
misrepresentations and intentional nondisclosures made by Ford
concerning its MyFord Touch, MyLincoln Touch, and MyMercury Touch
systems (collectively, "MyFord Touch") installed in the
Defendant's Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles.

Although Ford represents that its My Ford Touch system will
provide consumers a host of advanced features, including
navigation, audio, phone integration and safety features, in
reality, MyFord Touch suffers from numerous defects that render
the system inoperable, the Plaintiffs contend.  They argue that as
a result of Ford's misrepresentations and omissions, owners of the
Class Vehicles have suffered, and continue to suffer, losses in
money and property.

Richard Decker Watson is a resident of Los Angeles, California.
Megan Raney-Aarons is a resident of Venice, California.

Ford is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of
business located in Dearborn, Michigan.  Ford is one of the
world's largest automotive manufacturers and is in the business of
designing, manufacturing and distributing vehicles, including the
Class Vehicles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roland Tellis, Esq.
          Mark Pifko, Esq.
          Natasha Mehta, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 839-2333
          Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
          E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com
                  mpifko@baronbudd.com
                  nmehta@baronbudd.com


FULTON COUNTY, GA: "Sovereign Immunity" Ruling Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Coston of Courthouse News Service reports that class action
attorneys told the Georgia Court of Appeals that a trial court
ruling was wrong, "illegal and clearly unconstitutional," to grant
Fulton County sovereign immunity from lawsuits over its mandatory
electronic filing system through Lexis Nexis Courtlink.

The original complaint was filed in 2007 and re-filed several
times.  In it, plaintiffs accused Reed Elsevier and Lexis Nexis
Courtlink of creating an unfair monopoly by forcing an e-filing
system on the public and charging excessive fees for certain
lawsuits filed in Fulton Superior and Fulton State Court.

The case is Best Jewelry Manufacturing Company Inc. vs. Fulton
County Georgia and Reed Elsevier Inc. dba Lexis Nexis Courtlink.

The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration,
found Fulton County entitled to sovereign immunity and granted
summary judgment against plaintiffs.

It also ruled that state laws on pricing and collection of court
fees do not apply to electronic filing; that the e-filing fees are
separate from the mandated fees clerks charge litigants; that the
defendants do not share e-filing fees; and that e-filing fees are
permissible.

In opening remarks to the court, attorneys claimed that Fulton
County is not entitled to sovereign immunity because Georgia
O.C.G.A 15-6-77 satisfies the conditions for a waiver of the
immunity.

"The e-filing system's implementation is illegal because it
prohibits paper filing, charges enormous fees and charges fees
that are not listed in O.C.G.A. 15-6-77," plaintiffs' attorney
Irwin Stolz told the court.

The statute covers what fees can be collected by all Georgia
superior courts, and the standard price list for filings and
copies for complaints.

It includes the statement: "No fees, assessments, or other charges
may be assessed or collected except as authorized in this Code
section or some other general law expressly providing for same,"
O.C.G.A 15-6-77 (k).

Filing documents through Fulton County State and Superior Courts
using the LexisNexis File & Serve system costs from $7 to $11
apiece, for mandatory e-filing cases imposed by orders from Fulton
County State and Superior Courts and authorized by Fulton County.

Judge Steven Dillard asked: "Where is the explicit waiver in the
this statute?"

Plaintiffs' attorney Shuli Green replied: "There is no waiver
required.  You don't have to have 'magic words' to make the waiver
implicit."

Judge Carla Wong McMillian asked: "Well, isn't this similar to
when you purchase concert tickets from Ticketmaster and you are
charged a convenience fee along with the price of the tickets?"

Green responded, "This is not a convenience fee; this is a
mandatory scheme where certain cases have to be e-filed.

"There is no alternative to File & Serve offered and the public
access terminals are so burdensome.  Lexis can charge whatever
they want, basically, or you can drive four hours to the
courthouse, if you are not in Fulton County and live somewhere
else but have to file a case here."

Attorneys for Reed Elsevier and Fulton County argued that O.C.G.A.
15-6-77 is not implicit as it relates to sovereign immunity.

"Clearly, the statute does not waive sovereign immunity and the
language is not clear in the statute as well," said Fulton County
attorney Kristen Williams.

"Just because the appellant doesn't like it doesn't mean it is
illegal," Williams said.

Judge Dillard asked: "Doesn't this system put a burden on lawyers
outside of Fulton County?  Doesn't it make this cost prohibitive,
if you have large documents?,"  Williams replied: "The court does
not have the jurisdiction on cases with 1,000 pages or more, and
if you cannot use e-file, you can still send a courier if needed."

Reed Elsevier attorney Leland Kynes said the system is neither
illegal nor unconstitutional, and challenged plaintiffs' assertion
that the fees constitute a waiver of immunity.

"Plaintiff has no claim because it is the county's policy decision
to let the vendor charge fees.  The usage fees for the license for
the software is separate from filing fees for the e-filing
process," Kynes said.

Part of the oral argument focused on the trial court's application
of the principle of "acquired immunity," relying on case law cited
in Abercrombie v. Ledbetter-Johnson Co., a Georgia Court of
Appeals case from 1967.

In Abercrombie, the Court of Appeals ruled that a contractor
performing a public works project under a state contract cannot be
held liable for damage to private property, unless the contractor
has been negligent or willfully caused harm.

"File & Serve is not a public works project," Green said.
"Defendants have committed willful torts."

In its oral argument and its brief , plaintiffs argued that the
trial court's reliance on Abercrombie is misplaced, and that the
facts in the present case can be distinguished from Abercrombie in
several ways, primarily in that Fulton County's e-filing system is
not a "public works" project, and that there was no damage to
private property.

In its brief, LexisNexis claims that Abercrombie does apply, that
"the rationale underlying the doctrine applies with equal force in
a more modern contract for public works like the one in this
case."

Kynes said: "There is no willful tort; There is no intent to
injure.  Any money paid to Lexis was made through the agreement
with Fulton County."

Plaintiffs disagreed, citing C.W. Matthews Contracting Company v.
Wells, a 1978 Court of Appeals ruling, stating that the
"Abercrombie rule does not apply where trespassing defendant is
not contractor engaged in public work."

The plaintiffs seek repayment and restitution for overpayment of
court fees.

A ruling is expected by the end of 2013.

The Georgia Court of Appeals is the last step below the state
supreme court.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven J. Newton, Esq.
          Shuli L. Green, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN J. NEWTON, P.C.
          215 14th Street NW
          Atlanta, GA 30318
          Telephone: (404) 874-5006
          Facsimile: (404) 521-4477

               - and -

          Irwin W. Stolz Jr., Esq.
          HURT, STOLZ & CROMWELL LLC
          Phone: 706-395-2750
          650 Oglethorpe Avenue, Suite 6
          Athens, GA 30606
          Telephone: (706) 395-2755
          E-mail: istolz@hurtstolz.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Larry W. Ramsey, Jr., Esq.
          Kaye Woodard Burrell, Esq.
          Kristen Williams, Esq.
          FULTON COUNTY ATTORNEYS

Reed Elsevier and Lexis Nexis are represented by:

          Leland H. Kynes, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          One Atlantic Center, Suite 2000
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 817-8591
          Facsimile: (813) 229-0134
          E-mail: leland.kynes@hklaw.com

The case is The Best Jewelry Manufacturing Company, Inc. V. Fulton
County, Georgia, et al., Case No. A13A1395, in the Court of
Appeals of the state of Georgia.


GOOGLE INC: Suit Over Call Recording Remanded to Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that a
California state court should determine whether Google and
TeleTech Services must face a class action over allegedly recorded
marketing calls, a federal judge ruled.

Lead plaintiff David Calkins sued the companies in Santa Clara
County Superior Court, claiming that they record customer service
calls without permission.

The complaint alleges that, three days after Calkins registered
for Google's AdWords service, he received two separate phone calls
from TeleTech customer service representatives and had no idea the
calls were being recorded.

Calkins, who hopes to represent a class of at least 500 members,
said the recordings violate California Penal Code, entitling each
member of the class to statutory damages of $5,000 per call.

TeleTech removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California in February 2013 under the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA), but Calkins claimed that Teletech has
not met its burden and that the court must remand the action under
CAFA's local controversy exception.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar agreed on July 12, 2013.

"First, Calkins has showed that more than two-thirds of the
proposed class members likely are California citizens," Tigar
wrote.  "Second, Calkins has showed that at least one defendant
whose conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted,
and from whom significant relief is sought, is a citizen of
California.  No party disputes that Google is a citizen of
California."

Finally, most of the alleged class injuries occurred in
California, according to the ruling.

"Calkins has shown that the principle injuries at issue occurred
in California, as the class definition includes only individuals
who received calls 'in California,'" Tigar wrote.

Since the allegations furthermore do not qualify as a question of
national importance, under California penal code, they cannot be
tried nationwide, the court found.

"For this reason, even if TeleTech made nationwide calls on
Google's behalf, the court concludes that the principle injuries
in this case were suffered in California," Tigar wrote.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
          KARASIK LAW FIRM
          11835 W Olympic Boulevard Ste 1275
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-6800
          Facsimile: (310) 943-2582
          E-mail: greg@karasiklawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Whitty Somvichian, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          101 California Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 693-2061
          Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
          E-mail: wsomvichian@cooley.com

               - and -

          Abigail E Pringle, Esq.
          Michael Graham Rhodes, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          101 California Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 693-2000
          Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
          E-mail: apringle@cooley.com
                  rhodesmg@cooley.com

               - and -

          Justin Daniel Lewis, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          101 W Broadway Ave #2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 696-6700
          E-mail: jlewis@gordonrees.com

               - and -

          Allison Feldman Borts, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          101 West Broadway, Suite 1600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 696-6700
          Facsimile: (619) 696-7124
          E-mail: aborts@gordonrees.com

               - and -

          Miles D. Scully, Esq.
          GORDON & REES L.L.P.
          101 W. Broadway, Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 696-6700
          Facsimile: (619) 696-7124
          E-mail: mscully@gordonrees.com

The case is Calkins et al. v. Google, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:13-
cv-00760-PSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Jose).


HAWAII: Class Action Over Delayed Homestead Leases Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Perez, writing for Honolulu Star-Advertiser, reports that a
state judge presiding over a class-action lawsuit against the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands has ruled that plaintiffs who
waited years for homestead leases can be treated as a group in
determining damages, effectively eliminating the possibility that
as many as 2,700 separate trials will be held.

The recent ruling by Circuit Judge Virginia Crandall is being
hailed by one of the plaintiffs' attorneys as the most significant
development in the case since the court in 2009 determined the
state failed to meet its trust obligation by not issuing leases in
a timely fashion.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Must Pay $14MM Damages to Airbag Failure Victim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nadia-Elysse Harris, writing for Medical Daily reports, that a
jury ruled that Hyundai Motor America must pay $14 million in
damages to the family of Zachary Duncan, who suffered a brain
injury as the result of his vehicle's airbag not deploying.  The
decision means that jurors felt the car was "unreasonably
dangerous" to drive.

Mr. Duncan, a native of Pulaski County, Va. was 16 years old at
the time of the accident in 2010.  According to the Roanoke Times,
Duncan's car ran off the right side of the road after he sped off
in the hopes of getting ahead of a car that his friend was
driving.  Mr. Duncan's car then hit a snow bank, rolled down a
hill, and collided into a tree before stopping.  The side airbags
on Duncan's Hyundai Triburon failed to deploy.  His friends found
him and his passenger (who escaped uninjured) at the scene and
called 9-1-1.

Mr. Duncan's attorney Ari Casper said that his brain injury could
have been prevented if the car's airbag sensor would have worked
because it would have stopped the teenager's head from hitting the
roof rail.  But, since the sensor was defective, the airbag never
deployed and Duncan suffered traumatic brain damage.

Mr. Duncan, now 20 years old, had to relearn how to walk and talk
after the accident.  He keeps his head down and has trouble making
eye contact.  He also has short-term memory problems, which cause
him to retell the same stories over and over.  His parents have
paid over $100,000 in medical expenses to date.

"We can't replace [Duncan's] frontal lobes, but we can pay to take
care of him," Mr. Casper told jurors.

Hyundai, who has had to issue a series of recalls based on
defective airbag sensors, says that the jury's verdict was
incorrect and the company intends to appeal it.  "While we are
sympathetic to this young man and his family, the facts are that
(Zachary) Duncan rolled his car into a tree.  The roof was crushed
by the tree and impacted his head," said Hyandai spokesman Jim
Trainor.  "No side airbag in the world would have prevented his
injury."

Mr. Casper, though, insists that the award was correct based on
the severity of the injury and the defective airbag.  "If you put
an old, antiquated technology in a car, someone gets hurt, and
then you have to pay for it," Mr. Casper said in his closing
argument.

"This is an important victory for our client and for public
safety," Mr. Casper said.  "Hopefully, this will cause automobile
manufacturers to really make sure they're putting safe vehicles on
the road."


INDIANA: BMV Suspends PLP Program Amid Hoosier Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
WANE reports that The Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV)
announced a temporary suspension of the BMV's Personalized License
Plate (PLP) program on July 19.

R. Scott Waddell, Commissioner of the Indiana Bureau of Motor
Vehicles (BMV), issued the following statement:

The PLP program is one of the BMV's longest standing programs.
However, the program has come under scrutiny as a result of a
recently filed class action lawsuit challenging the
constitutionality of certain aspects of the PLP program.  In
response, BMV is suspending the PLP program pending the outcome of
the litigation.

Indiana is not the first state to see its PLP statutes challenged,
as this has become a widespread topic of debate across the nation.
In order to protect Hoosier taxpayers from the considerable
expense that these types of lawsuits bring, BMV will suspend its
program pending the outcome of the class action lawsuit.

Individuals who currently have a PLP will be able to keep and
renew their existing plate, if desired.  Effective at 6:00 p.m.
EST on July 19, the BMV will not accept any new applications for a
personalized plate until a determination can be made on this most
recent filing.


INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION: Recalls LED Lanterns Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Industrial Revolution Inc., of Tukwila, Wash. announced a
voluntary recall of about 2,300 UCO Arka LED lanterns.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The lantern's wall charger plug can fail during normal use, posing
a fire hazard.

There were no incidents/injuries that were reported.

The recalled UCO Arka LED lantern can be used as a flashlight, a
lantern or a USB charger.  It has a red cap around the flashlight
lens, a collapsible clear plastic lantern top and a black base
with red extendable feet.  It comes with a rechargeable 3.7V 4Ah
Lithium-ion battery, a USB cable and a wall charger.  The lantern
is 7.7 inches tall and 2.5 inches in diameter.  It collapses to
5.25 inches tall when closed.  "UCO" and an image of a flame are
printed in red on the base.  There are two USB ports (USB-A and
USB-mini) under recessed caps on the base of the lantern, just
above the red ring at the bottom.  The wall charger is a one-inch
black plastic cube with a white-faced plug. Model number "A1265 "
is printed above the plug's prongs and a small green dot appears
below on the lower corner.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/guG3S3

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at REI stores nationwide and online from April to May
2013 for about $70.

Consumers should immediately stop using the chargers, unplug them
and contact REI to receive a free replacement charger plug.
REI is contacting customers directly.


INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Arbitration Denial in "Avery" Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In ALEXANDRA AVERY et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v.
INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants and
Appellants, No. G046202, Defendants and appellants appeal from an
order denying their motions to compel plaintiffs and respondents
to individually arbitrate the wage and hour claims they allege in
their class action.

Integrated relies on an arbitration policy contained in an
employee handbook issued by Tenet Healthcare Corporation, the
previous owner of the four hospitals where Plaintiffs work, and a
revised arbitration policy Integrated issued as part of a new
employee handbook. Integrated contends Plaintiffs agreed to the
arbitration policy by signing various documents acknowledging and
agreeing to the policy.

The Court of Appeals of California for the Fourth District
affirms the trial court's decision denying Integrated's motions
saying Integrated failed to establish that Plaintiffs agreed to
the specific arbitration agreement Integrated submitted to the
trial court. Initially, Appeals Court concludes that Integrated is
limited to the arbitration policy contained in the employee
handbook issued by the prior owner of the hospitals because
Integrated issued the revised employee handbook and arbitration
policy after Plaintiffs' claims accrued and the original class
action complaint was filed.

"Substantial evidence in the record establishes one Plaintiff did
not sign any document acknowledging or agreeing to the original
arbitration policy. Moreover, she did not impliedly agree to that
policy by continuing to work at the hospitals because she did not
receive notice of its existence. As for the other seven
Plaintiffs, Integrated submitted a confusing patchwork of
acknowledgments and other forms these Plaintiffs signed, but none
of these documents refer to the specific employee handbook
Integrated filed as the source of the arbitration policy. To the
contrary, the documents Plaintiffs signed either refer to an
entirely different document as the source of the arbitration
policy or fail to meet the legal standards for incorporating by
reference an arbitration policy or other document. Without
sufficient evidence of the actual arbitration policy to which
Plaintiffs agreed when they signed the acknowledgments and other
documents, we may not enforce the policy against Plaintiffs,"
wrote the Appeals Court's Justice Aronson.

Plaintiffs shall recover their costs on appeal.

A copy of the Appeals Court's June 27, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/4nR73ffrom Leagle.com.

Richard J. Simmons -- rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com -- Derek R.
Havel -- dhavel@sheppardmullin.com -- and Daniel J. McQueen --
dmcqueen@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton for Defendants and Appellants.

Niall P. McCarthy -- nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com -- Justin T. Berger --
jberger@cpmlegal.com -- Eric J. Buescher -- ebuescher@cpmlegal.com
-- at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy; Frank J. Coughlin --
frank.coughlin@fjclaw.com -- Kim-Thao T. Le -- kim.le@fjclaw.com
-- at Coughlin Law Firm; Jerry K. Cimmet -- cimmet@att.net; John
M. Kelson at Law Offices of John M. Kelson; and Gerald M. Werksman
-- werksmanlaw@gmail.com -- for Plaintiffs and Respondents.


JAMES HARDIE: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suit vs. Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries plc continues to defend a subsidiary
against a class action lawsuit alleging product liability,
according to the Company's June 27, 2013, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
March 31, 2013.

As of March 2013, one of the Company's U.S. subsidiaries has been
named as a defendant in eleven related lawsuits in eight separate
U.S. federal district courts.  Four of the lawsuits were filed
between March 2012 and March 2013, adding to the seven lawsuits
already pending as of the end of March 2012.  Each lawsuit has a
different set of facts and circumstances; however, the lawsuits
all relate to products allegedly manufactured by the subsidiary,
raise virtually the same claims and are brought by generally the
same underlying plaintiffs' counsel.  In addition to the
individually-named plaintiffs, each lawsuit seeks to pursue claims
on behalf of a purported but unidentified class of homeowners.

The plaintiffs moved to transfer and consolidate all of the
related actions within one federal district court, and their
motion was granted in June 2012.  However, no class has been
certified.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to each lawsuit
and in opposition to class certification, and intends to
vigorously defend the actions.  Based on available information and
circumstances presently known, the Company believes that the
outcome of these related actions will not have a material adverse
effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.

James Hardie Industries plc, formerly known as James Hardie
Industries SE -- http://www.jameshardie.com/-- manufactures fibre
cement siding and backerboard.  The Company's current primary
geographic markets include the United States, Australia, New
Zealand, the Philippines, Europe and Canada.  The Company is
headquartered in Dublin 2, Ireland.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend 2011 Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
K-V Pharmaceutical Company continues to defend itself against the
2011 Securities Litigation, according to the Company's June 27,
2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On August 8, 2012, K-V Pharmaceutical Company and certain of its
wholly-owned domestic subsidiaries (collectively, the "Debtors")
filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of
the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Bankruptcy
Court").

On July 24, 2012, Lori Anderson, as Court-appointed lead plaintiff
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for
Violations of Federal Securities Laws (the "2011 Securities
Litigation Complaint") in the 2011 Securities Litigation (which is
captioned In re K-V Pharmaceutical Company Securities Litigation,
11-cv-01816-AGF) on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise
acquired KV securities between February 14, 2011, and April 4,
2011, inclusive, and were allegedly damaged thereby.  The 2011
Securities Litigation Complaint asserts violations of the federal
securities laws, including Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against one of the Debtors, KV,
and against certain non-Debtor individuals identified in the 2011
Securities Litigation Complaint as being officers of one or more
of the Debtors, including Gregory Divis, Thomas McHugh, and Scott
Goedeke.  The lead plaintiff in the 2011 Securities Litigation and
the class of investors she seeks to represent seek to recover for
the harm allegedly suffered as a result of the alleged misconduct
described in the 2011 Securities Litigation Complaint from
applicable insurance, including any directors and officers
insurance maintained for the benefit of any of defendants
currently named in the 2011 Securities Litigation Complaint or who
may be added through the filing of a future complaint, among other
sources of potential recovery.  In order to participate in any
potential recoveries obtained in the 2011 Securities Litigation,
each member of the putative class will be required to submit a
proof of claim form in the 2011 Securities Litigation
demonstrating a recognized loss.  The Debtors dispute the
allegations set forth in the 2011 Securities Litigation Complaint.

K-V Pharmaceutical Company -- http://www.kvpharmaceutical.com/--
is a fully integrated specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures, markets, and acquires technology-
distinguished branded and generic/non-branded prescription
pharmaceutical products.  The Company is headquartered in
Chesterfield, Missouri.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend PPFG Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
K-V Pharmaceutical Company continues to defend itself against a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit styled PPFG
Securities Litigation, according to the Company's June 27, 2013,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On August 8, 2012, K-V Pharmaceutical Company and certain of its
wholly-owned domestic subsidiaries (collectively, the "Debtors")
filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of
the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Bankruptcy
Court").

On December 2, 2008, Joseph Mas filed a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri (the "Missouri District Court"), on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, against KV and certain then current
and former officers and directors of KV, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (collectively, the "Federal
Securities Laws").  Thereafter, two additional securities class
actions (Herman Unvericht, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. KV Pharmaceutical Co., et al., Civil
Action No. 4:09-cv-00061-RWS, and Norfolk County Retirement
System, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v.
KV Pharmaceutical Co., et al., Civil Action No. 4:09-cv-00138-CAS)
were filed in the Missouri District Court against KV and certain
then current and former officers and directors of KV alleging
similar violations of the Federal Securities Laws.  On April 15,
2009, the Missouri District Court consolidated these securities
class actions into the PPFG Securities Litigation and appointed
the Public Pension Fund Group (comprised of the State-Boston
Retirement System and the Norfolk County Retirement System) as
Lead Plaintiff (the "PPFG Litigation Lead Plaintiff").

On May 22, 2009, the PPFG Litigation Lead Plaintiff, on behalf of
all persons who purchased publicly traded securities of KV between
June 14, 2004, and January 23, 2009, filed a consolidated amended
complaint for alleged violations of the Federal Securities Laws
against KV and certain current or former officers and directors of
KV (the "Non-Debtor Defendants").  Thereafter, the Missouri
District Court entered an order granting motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint filed by KV and the Non-Debtor
Defendants.  On June 4, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the
Missouri District Court order and remanded the matter to the
Missouri District Court.

On August 10, 2012, following the Debtors' bankruptcy filing, the
Missouri District Court issued an order, sua sponte, staying the
PPFG Securities Litigation as to the Non-Debtor Defendants (the
"PPFG Stay Order").  On December 6, 2012, PPFG Litigation Lead
Plaintiff filed a motion in the PPFG Securities Litigation (the
"PPFG Stay Order Modification Motion") to modify the PPFG Stay
Order so as to proceed against Mr. M. Hermelin (the sole-remaining
Non-Debtor Defendant).  Mr. M. Hermelin and KV objected to the
PPFG Stay Order Modification Motion.

On March 22, 2013, the Missouri District Court issued a Memorandum
and Order granting the PPFG Stay Order Modification Motion and
vacating the PPFG Stay Order solely as to Mr. M. Hermelin, thereby
permitting PPFG Litigation Lead Plaintiff to proceed with the PPFG
Securities Litigation in the Missouri District Court solely as to
Mr. M. Hermelin.  The PPFG Litigation Lead Plaintiff and the
individual members thereof (State-Boston Retirement System and the
Norfolk County Retirement System) timely filed class and
individual proofs of claim against KV for, inter alia, alleged
violations of the Federal Securities Laws.  The Debtors dispute
the allegations underlying this litigation.

K-V Pharmaceutical Company -- http://www.kvpharmaceutical.com/--
is a fully integrated specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures, markets, and acquires technology-
distinguished branded and generic/non-branded prescription
pharmaceutical products.  The Company is headquartered in
Chesterfield, Missouri.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Suits Over FDA Inspection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Securities class action lawsuits related to inspections of K-V
Pharmaceutical Company's facilities by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration remain pending, according to the Company's June 27,
2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On August 8, 2012, K-V Pharmaceutical Company and certain of its
wholly-owned domestic subsidiaries (collectively, the "Debtors")
filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of
the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Bankruptcy
Court").

In 2008 and thereafter, a number of investors commenced
stockholder class actions against KV and certain of its current
and former directors and officers for purportedly making false or
misleading statements to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") related to inspections of the Company's facilities in
violation of the federal securities laws.  As of the Petition
Date, several other class actions, or purported class actions, are
pending against the Company and certain current and former
officers and directors in multiple jurisdictions.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest
regulatory filing.

K-V Pharmaceutical Company -- http://www.kvpharmaceutical.com/--
is a fully integrated specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures, markets, and acquires technology-
distinguished branded and generic/non-branded prescription
pharmaceutical products.  The Company is headquartered in
Chesterfield, Missouri.


LEAR CORP: Loses Dismissal Bid in Auto Parts Antitrust Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Marianne O. Battani issued an opinion and order
denying Lear Corporation's motion to dismiss claims against it in
IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, NO. 2:12-CV-00100,
(E.D. Mich.).

The opinion relates to all Wire Harness Cases.

Judge Battani denied Lear's Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion
to Dismiss (Case No. 12-02311) all claims advanced against it in
the Direct Purchasers Plaintiffs' (DPPs) Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint, the Automobile Dealer Plaintiffs' (ADPs)
Consolidated Class Action Complaint, and the End-Payor Plaintiffs'
(EPPs) Corrected Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.

Plaintiffs allege that Lear engaged in overt acts by selling wire
harness systems after it emerged from bankruptcy in November 2009
at supracompetitive prices.

"Each sale after November 2009 allegedly involved an unlawfully
inflated price, so conduct by Lear after bankruptcy confirmation
may fall within the ambit of the conspiracy. If Plaintiffs succeed
in proving these allegations, Lear's conduct post-bankruptcy
cannot be protected by the discharge. Therefore, the Court denies
Lear's request for dismissal," rules Judge Battani.

A copy of the District Court's June 6, 2013 Opinion and Order is
available at http://is.gd/86iUTqfrom Leagle.com.

In re Wire Harness - Lead Case, represented by Adam T. Schnatz,
The Miller Law Firm.

In re Wire Harness - Lead Case, represented by Bernard Persky,
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Brendan H. Frey, Mantese
and Rossman, PC, Brian P. Murray, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP,
David F. Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, E. Powell Miller, The Miller
Law Firm, Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc., Hollis L Salzman,
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP, Marc M. Seltzer, Susman
Godfrey, L.L.P., Sheldon L. Miller, William E. Hoese, Kohn, Swift,
& William Reiss, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P..

Martinez Manufacturing, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Darryl
Bressack, Fink + Associates Law, David H. Fink, Douglas A.
Abrahams, Kohn, Swift and Graf, P.C., Gregory P. Hansel, Preti
Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP & Joseph C. Kohn, Kohn, Swift,.

Martinez Manufacturing, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Randall B.
Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios.

Martinez Manufacturing, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by William E.
Hoese, Kohn, Swift, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A., Eugene
A. Spector, Spector Rosemam Kodroff & Willis, P.C., Jonathan M
Jagher, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C., Michael E.
Moskovitz, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Michael L. Silverman,
Freed kanner London & Millen LLC, Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King,
LLP, Steven A. Kanner, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Warren T.
Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP, William Caldes, Spector Roseman
Kodroff & Willis, P.C. & William H. London, Freed Kanner London &
Millen LLC.

Mexican Industries In Michigan, Incorporated, Plaintiff,
represented by Darryl Bressack, Fink + Associates Law, David H.
Fink, Fink + Associates Law, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty
Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau
& Pachios, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A., Eugene A.
Spector, Spector Rosemam Kodroff & Willis, P.C., Jonathan M
Jagher, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C., Michael E.
Moskovitz, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Michael L. Silverman,
Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King,
LLP, Steven A. Kanner, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Warren T.
Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP, William Caldes, Spector Roseman
Kodroff & Willis, P.C. & William H. London, Freed Kanner London &
Millen LLC.

T.M. MORRIS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, represented by
Darryl Bressack, Fink + Associates Law.

T.M. MORRIS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., 12-101; 12-10130,
Plaintiff, represented by David H. Fink, Fink + Associates Law &
Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP.

T.M. MORRIS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, represented by
Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, Solomon B.
Cera, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidenar LLP, Don Barrett, Barrett Law
Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Timberline Manufacturing Companpy, Plaintiff, represented by Jason
J. Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Lance C. Young, Steven A.
Kanner, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, W. Joseph Bruckner,
Lockridge Grindal Nauen, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A.,
Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman
Godfrey, LLP.

Cesar-Scott, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jason J. Thompson,
Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Lance C. Young, Steven A. Kanner, Freed
Kanner London & Millen LLC, W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge Grindal
Nauen, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A., Eugene A. Spector,
Spector Rosemam Kodroff & Willis, P.C., Jonathan M Jagher, Spector
Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C., Michael E. Moskovitz, Freed Kanner
London & Millen LLC, Michael L. Silverman, Freed kanner London &
Millen LLC, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios,
Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP, Warren T. Burns, Susman
Godfrey, LLP, William Caldes, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis,
P.C. & William H. London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC.

Paesano Connecting Systems, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jason
J. Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Lance C. Young, Steven A.
Kanner, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, W. Joseph Bruckner,
Lockridge Grindal Nauen, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A.,
Eugene A. Spector, Spector Rosemam Kodroff & Willis, P.C.,
Jonathan M Jagher, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C., Michael
E. Moskovitz, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Michael L.
Silverman, Freed kanner London & Millen LLC & Randall B. Weill,
Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios.

Paesano Connecting Systems, Inc., 12-101; 12-10201, Plaintiff,
represented by Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP.

Paesano Connecting Systems, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Warren
T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP, William Caldes, Spector Roseman
Kodroff & Willis, P.C. & William H. London, Freed Kanner London &
Millen LLC.

CRAFT-CO ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Darryl
Bressack, Fink + Associates Law.

CRAFT-CO ENTERPRISES, INC., 12-101; 12-10336, Plaintiff,
represented by David H. Fink, Fink + Associates Law.

CRAFT-CO ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Gregory P.
Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill,
Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group,
P.A., Eugene A. Spector, Spector Rosemam Kodroff & Willis, P.C.,
Jonathan M Jagher, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C., Michael
E. Moskovitz, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Michael L.
Silverman, Freed kanner London & Millen LLC, Shawn M. Raiter,
Larson King, LLP, Steven A. Kanner, Freed Kanner London & Millen
LLC, Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP, William Caldes, Spector
Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. & William H. London, Freed Kanner
London & Millen LLC.

South Star Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Jason J.
Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group,
P.A., Eugene A. Spector, Spector Rosemam Kodroff & Willis, P.C. &
Jonathan M Jagher, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C..

South Star Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Lance C. Young.

South Star Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Michael E.
Moskovitz, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Michael L. Silverman,
Freed kanner London & Millen LLC, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty
Beliveau & Pachios, Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP, Steven A.
Kanner, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Warren T. Burns, Susman
Godfrey, LLP, William Caldes, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis,
P.C. & William H. London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC.

Landers Auto Group Number One, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Don
Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A., Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Shawn M.
Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Martens Cars of Washington, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Joel
Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group,
P.A., Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Shawn M.
Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Superstore Automotive, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Joel
Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert
& Laduca, LLP, Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP, Don Barrett,
Barrett Law Group, P.A. & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Hammett Motor Company, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Don Barrett,

Barrett Law Group, P.A. & Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca.
Hammett Motor Company, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan W.
Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP.

Hammett Motor Company, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn M.
Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Rainbow Chevrolet, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H.
Frey, Mantese and Rossman, PC, David F. Hansma, Mantese and
Rossman, Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc., Joshua Paul Lushnat,
Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Kathryn Eisenstein,
Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., Don Barrett, Barrett
Law Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T.
Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Susan Lacava, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller, The
Miller Law Firm, Seth R. Gassman, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Todd F.
Flood, Flood Lanctot Connor Stablein, Don Barrett, Barrett Law
Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Meredith Heller, Plaintiff, represented by Paul F. Novak, Milberg
LLP, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson
King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Halley Ascher, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick E. Cafferty,
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Don Barrett, Barrett
Law Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T.
Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Carol Ann Kashishian, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller,
The Miller Law Firm, S. Thomas Wienner, Weinner, Gould,, Don
Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King,
LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Meetesh Shah, Plaintiff, represented by Sheldon L. Miller, Adam J.
Zapala, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, Don Barrett, Barrett Law
Group, P.A., Frank C. Damrell, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP,
Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP, Steven N. Williams, Cotchett,
Pitre & McCarthy, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Ellis Winton McInnis, Plaintiff, represented by David E. Plunkett,
Williams, Williams,, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A. & Shawn
M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP.

Ellis Winton McInnis, Plaintiff, represented by Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Gary Arthur Herr, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick E. Cafferty,
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Don Barrett, Barrett
Law Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T.
Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Michael Tracy, Plaintiff, represented by Don Barrett, Barrett Law
Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Ifeoma Adams, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick E. Cafferty,
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP.

Ifeoma Adams, Plaintiff, represented by Don Barrett, Barrett Law
Group, P.A..

Ifeoma Adams, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn M. Raiter, Larson
King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Jennifer Chase, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony L. DeLuca,
Anthony L. DeLuca, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A., Shawn M.
Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Curtis Gunnerson, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony L. DeLuca,
Anthony L. DeLuca.

Curtis Gunnerson, Plaintiff, represented by Don Barrett, Barrett
Law Group, P.A..

Curtis Gunnerson, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn M. Raiter,
Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Kelly Klosterman, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony L. DeLuca,
Anthony L. DeLuca, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A., Shawn M.
Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Darrel Senior, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony L. DeLuca,
Anthony L. DeLuca, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A., Shawn M.
Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Curtis P. Boudreaux, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller,
The Miller Law Firm.

Curtis P. Boudreaux, 12-103; 11-15445, Plaintiff, represented by
Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A..

Curtis P. Boudreaux, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn M. Raiter,
Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Tommy N. Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller, The
Miller Law Firm, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A., Shawn M.
Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Tenisha Burgos, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick E. Cafferty,
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Don Barrett, Barrett
Law Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T.
Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Jason Grala, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick E. Cafferty,
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Don Barrett, Barrett
Law Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T.
Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Darcy Sherman, Plaintiff, represented by Alyson L. Oliver, Daniel
E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Don Barrett, Barrett Law
Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP.

RD Automotive, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Alyson L. Oliver,
Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson
King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Lucha Bott, Plaintiff, represented by Don Barrett, Barrett Law
Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Jane M Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by Don Barrett, Barrett Law
Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Jude Anheluk, Plaintiff, represented by Don Barrett, Barrett Law
Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Margaret A Sirmon, Plaintiff, represented by Hugh P. Lambert,
Lambert & Nelson, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A., Shawn M.
Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

John Janes, Plaintiff, represented by Hugh P. Lambert, Lambert &
Nelson & Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A..

John Janes, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn M. Raiter, Larson
King, LLP.

John Janes, Plaintiff, represented by Warren T. Burns, Susman
Godfrey, LLP.

Scott M Quinn, Plaintiff, represented by Hugh P. Lambert, Lambert
& Nelson, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter,
Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Bradford Brewer, Plaintiff, represented by Hugh P. Lambert,
Lambert & Nelson, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A., Shawn M.
Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Sam Davis, Jr, Plaintiff, represented by Hugh P. Lambert, Lambert
& Nelson, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter,
Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

John Hollingsworth, Plaintiff, represented by Don Barrett, Barrett
Law Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T.
Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Estaban Maravilla, Plaintiff, represented by Don Barrett, Barrett
Law Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T.
Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Tony Maravilla, Plaintiff, represented by Don Barrett, Barrett Law
Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Gretha Wilkerson, Plaintiff, represented by Don Barrett, Barrett
Law Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T.
Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Craig Kelly, Plaintiff, represented by Don Barrett, Barrett Law
Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Gary Brock, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth K. Kilbert, Babst,
Calland,.

Gary Brock, Plaintiff, represented by Don Barrett, Barrett Law
Group, P.A. & Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP.

Gary Brock, Plaintiff, represented by Warren T. Burns, Susman
Godfrey, LLP.

Richard W Keifer, Plaintiff, represented by Don Barrett, Barrett
Law Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T.
Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Zahira Crespo, Plaintiff, represented by John F. Nevares, John
Nevares and Associates PSC, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A.,
Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman
Godfrey, LLP.

Stacey R Nickell, Plaintiff, represented by Don Barrett, Barrett
Law Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T.
Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Robert Rice, Plaintiff, represented by Don Barrett, Barrett Law
Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Janne Rice, Plaintiff, represented by Don Barrett, Barrett Law
Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Roger D. Olson, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony L. DeLuca,
Anthony L. DeLuca, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A., Shawn M.
Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Susan B. Olson, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony L. DeLuca,
Anthony L. DeLuca & Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A..

Susan B. Olson, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn M. Raiter, Larson
King, LLP.

Susan B. Olson, Plaintiff, represented by Warren T. Burns, Susman
Godfrey, LLP.

Phillip G. Young, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony L. DeLuca,
Anthony L. DeLuca, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A., Shawn M.
Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Kathleen Tawney, Plaintiff, represented by Mark J. Schirmer,
Straus & Bois, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A. & Shawn M.
Raiter, Larson King, LLP.

Kathleen Tawney, Plaintiff, represented by Warren T. Burns, Susman
Godfrey, LLP.

Paul Gustafson, Plaintiff, represented by Mark J. Schirmer, Straus
& Bois, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter,
Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Michael Wick, Plaintiff, represented by Paul F. Novak, Milberg
LLP, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson
King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Alena Farrell, Plaintiff, represented by Paul F. Novak, Milberg
LLP, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson
King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Melissa Barron, Plaintiff, represented by Terry Gross, Rabinowitz,
Boudin, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter,
Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Cindy Prince, Plaintiff, represented by Hassan A. Zavareei, Tycko
& Zavareei LLP, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, P.A., Shawn M.
Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Scott Lamson, Plaintiff, represented by Don Barrett, Barrett Law
Group, P.A., Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Lee Pontiac-Oldsmobile-GMC Truck, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca, LLP.

Westfield Dodge City, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Joel
Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert
& Laduca, LLP.

V.I.P. Motor Cars Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by Joel Davidow,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca, LLP.

Desert European Motorcars, Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by Joel
Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert
& Laduca, LLP.

Landers McLarty Fayetteville TN, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca, LLP.

Dale Martens Nissan Subaru, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Joel
Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert
& Laduca, LLP.

Green Team of Clay Center Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Joel
Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert
& Laduca, LLP.

McGrath Automotive Group, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Joel
Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert
& Laduca, LLP.

Table Rock Automotive, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Joel
Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert
& Laduca, LLP.

Archer-Perdue, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Joel Davidow, Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP.

Lee's Summit Chrysler Jeep Dodge, Plaintiff, represented by Joel
Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert
& Laduca, LLP.

Bonneville and Son, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Joel Davidow,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca, LLP.

Holzhauer Auto and Truck Sales, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca, LLP.

Pitre, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert
& Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP.

Patsy Lou Chevrolet, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Joel Davidow,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca, LLP.

John Greene Chrysler Dodge Jeep, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca, LLP.

SLT Group II, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Joel Davidow, Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca.

SLT Group II, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan W. Cuneo,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP.

Herb Hallman Chevrolet, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Joel
Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert
& Laduca, LLP.

Charles Daher's Commonwealth Motors, Inc., Plaintiff, represented
by Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca, LLP.

Commonwealth Volkswagen, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Joel
Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert
& Laduca, LLP.

Commonwealth Nissan, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Joel Davidow,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca, LLP.

Ramey Motors, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Joel Davidow, Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP.

Thornhill Superstore, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Joel
Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert
& Laduca, LLP.

Dave Heather Corporation Plaintiff, represented by Joel Davidow,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca, LLP.

Central Salt Lake Valley GMC Enterprises, LLC, Plaintiff,
represented by Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W.
Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP.

Capitol Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Joel
Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert
& Laduca, LLP.

Capitol Dealerships, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Joel Davidow,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca, LLP.

Beck Motors, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Joel Davidow, Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca & Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP.
Findlay Industries, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Eugene A.
Spector, Spector Rosemam Kodroff & Willis, P.C., Jonathan M
Jagher, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C., Michael E.
Moskovitz, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Michael L. Silverman,
Freed kanner London & Millen LLC, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty
Beliveau & Pachios, Steven A. Kanner, Freed Kanner London & Millen
LLC, William Caldes, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. &
William H. London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC.

Technical Aids to Independence, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Jason J. Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C. & Lance C. Young.
End-Payor Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by End-Payor
Plaintiffs.

Furukawa Electric Company, Limited, Defendant, represented by
Craig D. Bachman, Lane Powell PC, Kenneth R. Davis, II, Lane
Powell PC, Larry S. Gangnes, Lane Powell PC, Connor B. Shively,
Lane Powell, Masayuki Yamaguchi, Lane Powell PC, Richard D. Bisio,
Kemp, Klein, & Ronald S. Nixon, Kemp, Klein,.

American Furukawa, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig D.
Bachman, Lane Powell PC, Kenneth R. Davis, II, Lane Powell PC,
Larry S. Gangnes, Lane Powell PC, Connor B. Shively, Lane Powell,
Masayuki Yamaguchi, Lane Powell PC, Richard D. Bisio, Kemp, Klein,
& Ronald S. Nixon, Kemp, Klein.

Lear Corporation, Defendant, represented by Andrew Marovitz, Mayer
Brown LLP, Howard B. Iwrey, Dykema Gossett & Dante A. Stella,
Dykema Gossett.

Yazaki Corporation, Defendant, represented by John V. Biernacki,
Jones Day, John M. Majoras, Jones Day & Michelle K. Fischer, Jones
Day.

S-Y Systems Technologies, GmbH, Defendant, represented by Anita F.
Stork, Covington & Buling LLP, Charles A. Bieneman, Bejin,
VanOphem & Bieneman, John A. VanOphem, Bejin VanOphem & Bieneman
PLC, Michael J. Fanelli, Covington & Burling LLP & Thomas E.
Bejin, Bejin, VanOphem & Bieneman.

Denso International America, Incorporated, Defendant, represented
by Stephanie K. Wood, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Door LLP,
Steven F. Cherry, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, David
P. Donovan, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & Steven M.
Zarowny, Denso International America, Inc..

Leoni AG, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Turco, Brooks
Wilkins Sharkey & Turco & Michael F. Tubach, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP.

Sumitomo Electric Industries, Limited, Defendant, represented by
Daniel M. Wall, Latham & Watkins, Marguerite M. Sullivan, Latham &
Watkins, Daniel Glad, Latham & Watkins LLP, Elizabeth A. Favaro,
Giarmarco, Mullins, & William H. Horton, Giarmarco, Mullins &
Horton, P.C..

TRAM, Incorporated, Defendant, represented by David F. DuMouchel,
Butzel Long (Detroit).

TRAM, Incorporated, Defendant, represented by George B. Donnini,
Butzel Long, Sheldon H. Klein, Butzel Long & W. Todd Miller, Baker
& Miller PLLC.

Fujikura Ltd., Defendant, represented by James L. Cooper, Arnold &
Porter LLP, Joanne G. Swanson, Kerr, Russell, (Detroit), Matthew
L. Powell, Kerr, Russell, & William A. Sankbeil, Kerr, Russell,
(Detroit).

Denso Corporation, Defendant, represented by David P. Donovan,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Stephanie K. Wood,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Door LLP & Steven F. Cherry,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.

Sumitomo Electric Wintec America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Daniel Glad, Latham & Watkins LLP, Daniel M. Wall, Latham &
Watkins, Elizabeth A. Favaro, Giarmarco, Mullins,, Marguerite M.
Sullivan, Latham & Watkins & William H. Horton, Giarmarco, Mullins
& Horton, P.C..

Tokai Rika Company, Ltd., Defendant, represented by David F.
DuMouchel, Butzel Long (Detroit), George B. Donnini, Butzel Long,
Sheldon H. Klein, Butzel Long & W. Todd Miller, Baker & Miller
PLLC.

Sumitomo Wiring Systems (U.S.A.) Inc., Defendant, represented by
Daniel Glad, Latham & Watkins LLP, Daniel M. Wall, Latham &
Watkins, Elizabeth A. Favaro, Giarmarco, Mullins,, Marguerite M.
Sullivan, Latham & Watkins & William H. Horton, Giarmarco, Mullins
& Horton, P.C..

Fujikura America, Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Howard
N. Cayne, Arnold & Porter, James L. Cooper, Arnold & Porter LLP,
Joanne G. Swanson, Kerr, Russell, (Detroit), Matthew L. Powell,
Kerr, Russell, & William A. Sankbeil, Kerr, Russell, (Detroit).

Yazaki North America, Incorporated, Defendant, represented by John
M. Majoras, Jones Day, Michelle-NA K. Fischer, LEAD ATTORNEY &
Michelle K. Fischer, Jones Day (Cleveland).

Kyungshin-Lear Sales and Engineering, LLC, Defendant, represented
by Jeffrey G. Heuer, Jaffe, Raitt,, Peter M. Falkenstein, Jaffe
Raitt Heuer & Weiss, PC & William P. Sanders, Smith, Gambrell &
Russell, LLP.

Leoni Wiring Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael R.
Turco, Brooks Wilkins Sharkey & Turco & Michael F. Tubach,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Leonische Holding, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael R.
Turco, Brooks Wilkins Sharkey & Turco & Michael F. Tubach,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Leoni Kabel, Defendant, represented by Michael F. Tubach,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

K&S Wiring Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Glad,
Latham & Watkins LLP, Daniel M. Wall, Latham & Watkins, Elizabeth
A. Favaro, Giarmarco, Mullins,, Marguerite M. Sullivan, Latham &
Watkins & William H. Horton, Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, P.C..

G.S. Electech, Inc., Defendant, represented by Donald M. Barnes,
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP, John Monica, Jr., Porter Wright
Morris & Arthur LLP, Molly Crabtree, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur
& Salvatore A. Romano, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP.

G.S.W. Manufacturing, Inc., Defendant, represented by Donald M.
Barnes, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP, John Monica, Jr.,
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP, Molly Crabtree, Porter Wright
Morris & Arthur & Salvatore A. Romano, Porter Wright Morris &
Arthur LLP.

Sumitomo Electric Wiring Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Daniel Glad, Latham & Watkins LLP, Daniel M. Wall, Latham &
Watkins, Elizabeth A. Favaro, Giarmarco, Mullins,, Marguerite M.
Sullivan, Latham & Watkins & William H. Horton, Giarmarco, Mullins
& Horton, P.C..

Sumitomo Wiring Systems, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Daniel
Glad, Latham & Watkins LLP, Daniel M. Wall, Latham & Watkins,
Elizabeth A. Favaro, Giarmarco, Mullins,, Marguerite M. Sullivan,
Latham & Watkins & William H. Horton, Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton,
P.C..

G.S. Wiring Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Donald M.
Barnes, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP, John Monica, Jr.,
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP, Molly Crabtree, Porter Wright
Morris & Arthur & Salvatore A. Romano, Porter Wright Morris &
Arthur LLP.

Michael Tracy, Defendant, represented by James L. Kauffman, Levin
Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor PA.


LEAR CORP: Dist. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Dealership Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Marianne O. Battani issued an opinion and order
denying Kyungshin-Lear's motion to dismiss all complaints in IN
RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.  This pertains to the
Dealership Actions End-Payor Actions in the Wire Harness Cases.

In support of its Motion to Dismiss all Complaints (Case No.
12-02311), Defendant Kyungshin-Lear Sales and Engineering, LLC
(KL Sales) asserted that Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs),
Automobile Dealer Plaintiffs (ADPs) and End-Payor Plaintiffs
(EPPs) failed to set forth sufficient facts to meet their pleading
requirements under Rule 12(b)(6).

After briefing was completed, DPPs filed Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal (Case No. 12-00101). Accordingly, the Court limited its
consideration to the arguments advanced relative to Automobile
Dealers' Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (Case No.
12-02311), and End-Payors' Corrected Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint (Case No. 12-02311).

According to Judge Battani, dismissal is not required merely
because Plaintiffs did not name each Defendant in the allegations
pleaded in support of their Sherman Act claim.

"Even though neither Lear nor KL Sales has pleaded guilty, IPPs
have included allegations that render KP Sales' involvement
plausible when viewed in light of the allegations of market
conditions that show a concentration of market shares, high
barriers to entry, and the capability of producing products for
use in any vehicle, as well as opportunities to conspire at auto
and industry trade," she said.

A copy of the District Court's June 6, 2013 Opinion and Order is
available at http://is.gd/ByTk57from Leagle.com.

In re Wire Harness - End-Payor Actions, represented by Adam T.
Schnatz, The Miller Law Firm, Bernard Persky, Robins, Kaplan,
Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Brendan H. Frey, Mantese and Rossman, PC,
Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Darryl Bressack, Fink
Associates Law, David H. Fink, David F. Hansma, Mantese and
Rossman, E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, Gerard V. Mantese,
Mantese Assoc., Hollis L Salzman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi
LLP, Jonathan M Jagher, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C.,
Marc M. Seltzer, Susman Godfrey, L.L.P., Sheldon L. Miller, W.
Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge Grindal Nauen & William Reiss, Robins,
Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P..

Susan Lacava, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller, The
Miller Law Firm, Seth R. Gassman, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Todd F.
Flood, Flood Lanctot Connor Stablein, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti
Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty
Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Meredith Heller, Plaintiff, represented by Paul F. Novak, Milberg
LLP, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP,
Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T.
Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Halley Ascher, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick E. Cafferty,
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Gregory P. Hansel,
Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti
Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey,
LLP.

Carol Ann Kashishian, Plaintiff, represented by Adam T. Schnatz,
The Miller Law Firm.

Carol Ann Kashishian, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller,
The Miller Law Firm.

Carol Ann Kashishian, Plaintiff, represented by S. Thomas Wienner,
Weinner, Gould,, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau &
Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios
& Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Meetesh Shah, Plaintiff, represented by Sheldon L. Miller, Adam J.
Zapala, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, Frank C. Damrell, Cotchett,
Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau &
Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios,
Steven N. Williams, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP & Warren T.
Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Ellis Winton McInnis, Plaintiff, represented by David E. Plunkett,
Williams, Williams,, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau &
Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios
& Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Gary Arthur Herr, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick E. Cafferty,
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Gregory P. Hansel,
Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti
Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey,
LLP.

Michael Tracy, Plaintiff, represented by Sheldon L. Miller.

Michael Tracy, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory P. Hansel, Preti
Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP.

Michael Tracy, Plaintiff, represented by James L. Kauffman, Levin
Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor PA.
Michael Tracy, Plaintiff, represented by Randall B. Weill, Preti
Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey,
LLP.

Ifeoma Adams, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick E. Cafferty,
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Gregory P. Hansel,
Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP & Randall B. Weill, Preti
Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios.

Ifeoma Adams, Plaintiff, represented by Warren T. Burns, Susman
Godfrey, LLP.

Jennifer Chase, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony L. DeLuca,
Anthony L. DeLuca, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau &
Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios
& Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Curtis Gunnerson, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony L. DeLuca,
Anthony L. DeLuca, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau &
Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios
& Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Kelly Klosterman, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony L. DeLuca,
Anthony L. DeLuca, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau &
Pachios, LLP & Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau &
Pachios.

Kelly Klosterman, Plaintiff, represented by Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Darrel Senior, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony L. DeLuca,
Anthony L. DeLuca, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau &
Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios
& Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Curtis P. Boudreaux, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller,
The Miller Law Firm, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau &
Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios
& Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Tommy N. Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller, The
Miller Law Firm, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau &
Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios
& Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Tenisha Burgos, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick E. Cafferty,
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Gregory P. Hansel,
Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti
Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey,
LLP.

Jason Grala, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick E. Cafferty,
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Gregory P. Hansel,
Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti
Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey,
LLP.

Darcy Sherman, Plaintiff, represented by Alyson L. Oliver, Daniel
E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti
Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty
Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

RD Automotive, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Alyson L. Oliver,
Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Randall
B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T. Burns,
Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Lucha Bott, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory P. Hansel, Preti
Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty
Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Jane M Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory P. Hansel, Preti
Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty
Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Jude Anheluk, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory P. Hansel, Preti
Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty
Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Margaret A Sirmon, Plaintiff, represented by Hugh P. Lambert,
Lambert & Nelson, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau &
Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios
& Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

John R Janes, Plaintiff, represented by Hugh P. Lambert, Lambert &
Nelson, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP,
Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T.
Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Scott M Quinn, Plaintiff, represented by Hugh P. Lambert, Lambert
& Nelson, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios,
LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios & Warren
T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Bradford Brewer, Plaintiff, represented by Hugh P. Lambert,
Lambert & Nelson, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau &
Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios
& Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Sam Davis, Jr, Plaintiff, represented by Hugh P. Lambert, Lambert
& Nelson.

Sam Davis, Jr, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory P. Hansel, Preti
Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty
Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

John Hollingsworth, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory P. Hansel,
Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti
Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey,
LLP.

Tony Maravilla, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory P. Hansel, Preti
Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty
Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Gretha Wilkerson, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory P. Hansel,
Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti
Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey,
LLP.

Gary Brock, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory P. Hansel, Preti
Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty
Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.
Zahira Crespo, Plaintiff, represented by John F. Nevares, John
Nevares and Associates PSC, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty
Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau
& Pachios & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Stacey R Nickell, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory P. Hansel,
Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti
Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey,
LLP.

Robert Rice, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory P. Hansel, Preti
Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty
Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Janne Rice, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory P. Hansel, Preti
Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty
Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Roger D. Olson, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony L. DeLuca,
Anthony L. DeLuca, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau &
Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios
& Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Susan B. Olson, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony L. DeLuca,
Anthony L. DeLuca, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau &
Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios
& Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Phillip G. Young, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony L. DeLuca,
Anthony L. DeLuca, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau &
Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios
& Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Kathleen Tawney, Plaintiff, represented by Mark J. Schirmer,
Straus & Bois, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau &
Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios
& Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Paul Gustafson, Plaintiff, represented by Mark J. Schirmer, Straus
& Bois, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP,
Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T.
Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Michael Wick, Plaintiff, represented by Paul F. Novak, Milberg
LLP, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP,
Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T.
Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Alena Farrell, Plaintiff, represented by Paul F. Novak, Milberg
LLP, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP,
Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T.
Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Melissa Barron, Plaintiff, represented by Terry Gross, Rabinowitz,
Boudin, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP,
Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T.
Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Cindy Prince, Plaintiff, represented by Hassan A. Zavareei, Tycko
& Zavareei LLP, Gregory P. Hansel, Preti Flaherty Beliveau &
Pachios, LLP, Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios
& Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Scott Lamson, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory P. Hansel, Preti
Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP.

Scott Lamson, Plaintiff, represented by Randall B. Weill, Preti
Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios & Warren T. Burns, Susman Godfrey,
LLP.

End-Payor Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Steven N.
Williams, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP.

Furukawa Electric Company, Limited, Defendant, represented by
Craig D. Bachman, Lane Powell PC, Kenneth R. Davis, II, Lane
Powell PC, Larry S. Gangnes, Lane Powell PC, Connor B. Shively,
Lane Powell, Darin Sands - NOT SWORN, Lane Powell PC, Masayuki
Yamaguchi, Lane Powell PC, Richard D. Bisio, Kemp, Klein, & Ronald
S. Nixon, Kemp, Klein,.

Lear Corporation, Defendant, represented by Howard B. Iwrey,
Dykema Gossett, Andrew Marovitz, Mayer Brown LLP & Dante A.
Stella, Dykema Gossett.

Sumitomo Electric Industries, Limited, Defendant, represented by
Daniel M. Wall, Latham & Watkins, Daniel Glad, Latham & Watkins
LLP, Elizabeth A. Favaro, Giarmarco, Mullins,, Marguerite M.
Sullivan, Latham & Watkins & William H. Horton, Giarmarco, Mullins
& Horton, P.C..

Yazaki Corporation, Defendant, represented by John V. Biernacki,
Jones Day, John M. Majoras, Jones Day & Michelle K. Fischer, Jones
Day.

Yazaki North America, Incorporated, Defendant, represented by John
M. Majoras, Jones Day & Michelle K. Fischer, Jones Day.
American Furukawa, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig D.
Bachman, Lane Powell PC, Kenneth R. Davis, II, Lane Powell PC,
Larry S. Gangnes, Lane Powell PC, Connor B. Shively, Lane Powell,
Masayuki Yamaguchi, Lane Powell PC, Richard D. Bisio, Kemp, Klein,
& Ronald S. Nixon, Kemp, Klein,.

Denso International America, Incorporated, Defendant, represented
by David P. Donovan, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP,
Stephanie K. Wood, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Door LLP,
Steven F. Cherry, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP &
Steven M. Zarowny, Denso International America, Inc..

TRAM, Incorporated, Defendant, represented by David F. DuMouchel,
Butzel Long, George B. Donnini, Butzel Long & W. Todd Miller,
Baker & Miller PLLC.

Denso Corporation, Defendant, represented by David P. Donovan,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Stephanie K. Wood,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Door LLP & Steven F. Cherry,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.

Fujikura Ltd., Defendant, represented by James L. Cooper, Arnold &
Porter LLP , Joanne G. Swanson, Kerr, Russell, Matthew L. Powell,
Kerr, Russell & William A. Sankbeil, Kerr, Russell.

Leoni Wiring Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael R.
Turco, Brooks Wilkins Sharkey & Turco & Michael F. Tubach,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP .

Leonische Holding, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael R.
Turco, Brooks Wilkins Sharkey & Turco.

Sumitomo Wiring Systems, Ltd, Defendant, represented by Daniel
Glad, Latham & Watkins LLP, Daniel M. Wall, Latham & Watkins,
Elizabeth A. Favaro, Giarmarco, Mullins,, Marguerite M. Sullivan,
Latham & Watkins & William H. Horton, Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton,
P.C..

Sumitomo Electric Wiring Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Daniel Glad, Latham & Watkins LLP, Daniel M. Wall, Latham &
Watkins, Elizabeth A. Favaro, Giarmarco, Mullins,, Marguerite M.
Sullivan, Latham & Watkins & William H. Horton, Giarmarco, Mullins
& Horton, P.C..

K&S Wiring Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Glad,
Latham & Watkins LLP, Daniel M. Wall, Latham & Watkins, Elizabeth
A. Favaro, Giarmarco, Mullins,, Marguerite M. Sullivan, Latham &
Watkins & William H. Horton, Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, P.C..
Sumitomo Wiring Systems (U.S.A.) Inc., Defendant, represented by
Daniel Glad, Latham & Watkins LLP, Daniel M. Wall, Latham &
Watkins, Elizabeth A. Favaro, Giarmarco, Mullins,, Marguerite M.
Sullivan, Latham & Watkins & William H. Horton, Giarmarco, Mullins
& Horton, P.C..

Leonische Holding Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael F.
Tubach, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Michael R. Turco, Brooks Wilkins
Sharkey & Turco.

Sumitomo Electric Wintec America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Daniel Glad, Latham & Watkins LLP, Daniel M. Wall, Latham &
Watkins, Elizabeth A. Favaro, Giarmarco, Mullins,, Marguerite M.
Sullivan, Latham & Watkins & William H. Horton, Giarmarco, Mullins
& Horton, P.C..

Tokai Rika Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by David F.
DuMouchel, Butzel Long, George B. Donnini, Butzel Long & W. Todd
Miller, Baker & Miller PLLC.

G.S. Electech, Inc., Defendant, represented by Donald M. Barnes,
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP, John Monica, Jr., Porter Wright
Morris & Arthur LLP, Molly Crabtree, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur
& Salvatore A. Romano, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP.

G.S. Wiring Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Donald M.
Barnes, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP, John Monica, Jr.,
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP, Molly Crabtree, Porter Wright
Morris & Arthur & Salvatore A. Romano, Porter Wright Morris &
Arthur LLP.

G.S.W. Manufacturing, Inc., Defendant, represented by Donald M.
Barnes, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP, John Monica, Jr.,
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP, Molly Crabtree, Porter Wright
Morris & Arthur & Salvatore A. Romano, Porter Wright Morris &
Arthur LLP.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Second Circuit Rejects Retirees' ESOP Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for The New York Law Journal, reports that
Lehman Brothers retirees failed to state a plausible claim that
executives and directors at the firm breached their fiduciary
duties and caused the loss of plaintiffs' retirement savings
during the collapse of Lehman stock in the economic meltdown of
2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled
Monday.

The circuit upheld the dismissal of a suit claiming members of
Lehman's Employee Benefit Plans Committee (ESOP) breached their
duty by failing to "eliminate or curtail" their investment in
Lehman stock as the firm's situation became dire.

The court held that plaintiffs failed to state a claim against the
fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29
U.S.C. Secs. 1001, as well as against the executives and directors
who appointed the committee, and knew or should have known of the
impending fallout from Lehman's disastrous investments in
mortgage-backed securities.

Judges Robert Sack, Richard Wesley and Southern District Judge
Alison Nathan, sitting by designation, upheld the 2011 decision by
Southern District Judge Lewis Kaplan to dismiss the case.

Judge Wesley wrote the panel's 41-page opinion in Rinehart v.
Akers, 11-4232-cv.

At issue was one of several funds Lehman employees could choose
from in setting aside part of their salaries to invest for their
retirement -- the Lehman Stock Fund, LSF, which was entirely made
up of Lehman stock.

Those retirement savings were wiped out in September 2008 when
Lehman declared bankruptcy.

Plaintiffs charged that members of the Lehman's Employee Benefit
Plans Committee and the people who appointed them, including
Richard Fuld, Lehman's then-CEO, violated their fiduciary duties
not just by failing to bail out of Lehman stock but also breached
their duty of disclosure.  And those defendants who were also
directors, they alleged, breached their duties to appoint, monitor
and inform the plan managers.

Judge Wesley said the class period ran from March 16, 2008, when
"Bear Stearns was acquired by JPMorgan Chase (in lieu of total
collapse)" and June 10, 2009, when the benefit committee
liquidated the Lehman stock in the fund.

It was the collapse of Bear Stearns, plaintiffs charged, that
should have told the defendants that the heavy investment in
Lehman stock was "imprudent" and should have triggered an
investigation that would have revealed Lehman's troubles,
especially as management scrambled to get an infusion of capital
or sell the company leading up to bankruptcy.

Judge Kaplan dismissed the case on Oct. 5, 2011, and the
plaintiffs' appeal was heard at the circuit on March 14, 2013.

U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis submitted an amicus brief
arguing that reasonable investigation by the committee would have
uncovered the truth about Lehman's situation.

                      Possibility of Conflict

Judge Wesley said there was an obvious tension between the normal
requirement that ERISA fiduciaries act prudently by diversifying
investments and ESOPs, which offer employer securities only.

"The possibility of a serious conflict is apparent; an ERISA
fiduciary of an ESOP can easily become torn between the duties to
'protect [] retirement assets and encourag[e] investment in
employer stock,'" he said, citing In re Citigroup ERISA Litig.,
662 F. 3d 128 (2d Cir. 2011).

In In re Citigroup, he said, the Second Circuit adopted the
solution to this conflict chosen by the Third Circuit in Moench v.
Robertson, 62 F.3d 553 (1995) -- minimal judicial review for
challenges to a fiduciary's management of an ESOP.

The Moench court said that "if the trust requires the fiduciary to
invest in a particular stock, the trustee must comply unless
compliance would be impossible or illegal."

"Moench applies here," Judge Wesley said in the Lehman opinion,
and it applies at the pleading stage.

But before applying the presumption, Judge Wesley addressed two
questions.

First, can plaintiffs claim the benefit committee defendants knew
or should have known about problems at Lehman based on inside
information?

The answer, Judge Wesley said, is no.

"Fiduciaries are under no obligation to either seek out or act
upon inside information," he wrote.

The second question centered on how specific plaintiffs must be in
claiming those defendants knew or should have known Lehman was in
a "dire situation."

Here, he said, Judge Kaplan was satisfied that, the red flag of
Bear Stearns aside, the plaintiffs failed to allege facts
sufficient to show the committee defendants "knew or should have
known that Lehman was in a dire situation at any point within the
class period."

Judge Wesley then applied Moench presumption, noting that "the
fact that Lehman ultimately declared bankruptcy must not be
allowed to influence our assessment of whether the Benefit
Committee Defendants acted prudently during the class period."

He continued, "Armed with the information available in the months
preceding bankruptcy, the Benefit Committee Defendants risked
liability for action (violating the terms of the ESOP by limiting
Plaintiffs' investment) or inaction (remaining invested and
exposing plan-participants to what may have been unintended
risk)."

Judge Wesley noted that, after Bear Stearns was sold on March 17,
2008, Lehman stock was trading at $31.75 per share.  Although the
share price was volatile, within six weeks, Lehman's stock price
had risen to $47.52.

"Had the Benefit Committee Defendants sold Lehman stock
immediately after Bear Stearns was sold, for example, plan-
participants might have protested and claimed the fiduciaries
erroneously violated the terms of the Plan and deprived them of
the subsequent increase in the value of Lehman's stock," he said.

The plaintiffs also claimed that, given their experience and
positions, the benefit committee defendants should have known
about Lehman's alleged 30-1 leverage ratio, its exposure to the
subprime mortgage market, its inability to cover potential losses
and questionable accounting practices.

But Judge Wesley said the circuit agreed with Kaplan that the
allegations were conclusory.

"Regardless, they merely show that the members of the Benefit
Committee would have possessed comparable knowledge to the market
analysts and investors who helped maintain Lehman's substantial
market capital even immediately prior to the company's
bankruptcy," he said.

Mark Rifkin -- rifkin@whafh.com -- of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz argued for the plaintiffs.

"We're obviously disappointed in the result," Mr. Rifkin said.
"We will be exploring our next move."

Adam Wasserman of Dechert represented all of the director
defendants but for Richard Fuld, who was represented by Patricia
Hynes -- patricia.hynes@allenovery.com -- of Allen & Overy.

Jonathan Youngwood of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, who represented
benefit committee defendants, said the circuit's decision takes
the discussion on insider trading and the interaction between
securities law and ERISA one step further than prior rulings and
"actually comes up with a test."

The panel also said "you don't make a decision on ERISA, or in
securities law, on what happened [later], you have to base it on
the facts and circumstances known at the time you made the
investment decision," Mr. Youngwood said.


LG ELECTRONICS: Recalls Kenmore Dehumidifiers Due to Fire Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
LG Electronics USA Inc. and Sears, announced a voluntary recall of
about 795,000 Kenmore dehumidifiers.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The dehumidifiers can overheat, smoke, melt and catch on fire,
posing fire and burn hazards to consumers.

Sears has received seven additional incident reports of shorting
and fire associated with the dehumidifiers, including one incident
with a severe burn to a consumer's foot and three fires resulting
in more than $300,000 of property damage.

The recall involves Kenmore brand 35-, 50- and 70-pint
dehumidifiers made by LG and manufactured between 2003 and 2005.
The dehumidifiers are made of white plastic and are between 21 and
24 inches tall, about 15 inches wide and about 13.5 inches deep.
They have a fan, humidity controls and a Kenmore logo on their top
front panels.  They come with front-loading water buckets.  Some
models include remote controls.  The model number can be found on
the right side of the interior of the unit once the bucket has
been removed.  Recalled units have the following model numbers:

   -- 35-pint (2004) - 580.54351400;
   -- 50-pint (2003) - 580.53509300;
   -- 70-pint (2003) - 580.53701300;
   -- 70-pint (2004) - 580.54701400; and
   -- 70-pint (2005) - 580.54701500

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/8zwWOt

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Sears and Kmart stores nationwide and Sears.com and
Kmart.com from 2003 to 2009 for between $140 and $220.

Consumers should immediately turn off and unplug the dehumidifiers
and contact the Recall Fulfillment Center to receive a Sears gift
card for either $75, $80, $90 or $100, which may be used at any
Sears or Kmart store or at Sears.com or Kmart.com.  The gift card
amount will depend on the capacity and year of the dehumidifier.
In lieu of a gift card, consumers may request a check for the
refund amount.  All consumers with recalled units will also
receive a $25 coupon that may be used at Sears Department Stores
or Sears.com toward the purchase of a new Kenmore dehumidifier.


LINN ENERGY: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on July 19 filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Texas, on behalf of all persons who purchased master
limited partnership units of Linn Energy LLC between February 24,
2011 and July 1, 2013, inclusive, against the Company and certain
of the Company's officers and directors, alleging securities fraud
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act [15
U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78t(a)] and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
the SEC [17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5].

The case name is Catherine A. Fisher Trustee U/A DTD May 29, 1993
Catherine A. Fisher Trust v. Linn Energy LLC, et al., Civil Action
No. 13-cv-02125.  A copy of the complaint filed in this action is
available from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Web site at http://www.whafh.com

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Company
issued materially misleading statements and omissions in its press
releases, Securities and Exchange Commission filings and other
public statements, which were endorsed and approved by the
Company's Chief Executive Officer Mark E. Ellis, Chief Financial
Officer Kolja Rockov and Chief Accounting Officer David B.
Rottino.  The complaint explains how Linn enticed investors into
purchasing the Company's units through its use of non-Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles accounting measures and concealment
of material information concerning the effect of the Company's
actual capital expenditures and derivative investment costs on its
distributable cash flow.  As the Complaint alleges, the Company's
use of non-GAAP measures enabled it to entice investors with its
unduly high and unsustainable distributable cash flow.

On June 4, 2013, the Company filed a Form S-4/A with the SEC in
connection with its proposed acquisition of Berry Petroleum
Company.  Buried within this filing, the Company disclosed for the
first time some of the actual costs associated with its derivative
hedging strategy.  This previously undisclosed information
confirmed earlier reports by Barron's that the Company was
overstating its distributable cash flow figures and had been
misleading investors.

Finally, on July 1, 2013, Linn disclosed in an amended filing with
the SEC that the SEC had opened an informal investigation into the
Company's non-GAAP accounting practices, its hedging strategy and
the proposed acquisition of Berry jointly with its affiliate,
LinnCo LLC. Following this revelation, the Company's per unit
market price fell $10.50 per unit, or 31.5%, down to a close of
$22.79 per unit on July 3, 2013.

If you purchased Linn master limited partnership units during the
Class Period, you may request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff by September 9, 2013.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class.  Under certain
circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as
"lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in any recovery is not,
however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a
lead plaintiff.  You may retain Wolf Haldenstein, or other counsel
of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has approximately 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and
offices in Chicago, New York City, and San Diego. The reputation
and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class
litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which
have appointed it to major positions in complex securities, multi-
district and consolidated litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please
contact:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, New York 10016
          Telephone: (800) 575-0735
          E-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com

All e-mail correspondence should make reference to Linn Energy.


LINN ENERGY: Emerson Poynter Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Poynter LLP, a national law firm with offices in Little
Rock, Arkansas and Houston, Texas, on July 19 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
Linn Energy, LLC units during the period between February 25, 2010
and July 1, 2013.

The complaint charges Linn Energy and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Linn Energy
describes itself as a top-15 U.S. independent oil and natural gas
development company whose mission is to acquire, develop and
maximize cash flow from its portfolio of long-life oil and natural
gas assets.  Linn Energy, a limited liability company, became a
public entity when it issued "units" representing its limited
liability company interests to the public in 2006.  The units are
listed and traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market.

The complaint further alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's operations and business.  Specifically,
defendants misrepresented and failed to make public the following
adverse facts: (i) that the Company failed to sufficiently
disclose how its reported distributable cash flow, or DCF, and its
distribution coverage ratio were derived; (ii) that the Company
failed to disclose that its reported adjusted EBITDA included the
financial benefits of its hedging strategies while the financial
costs were not included; (iii) that the Company failed to disclose
known events or uncertainties associated with its reported cash
flows; (iv) that as a result of (i)-(iii) above, defendants
materially misrepresented the true risk associated with the
Company's ability to continue to issue stable or increasing cash
distributions; (v) that the Company's disclosure controls were
materially deficient, and its representations concerning them were
materially false and misleading; and (vi) that based on the
foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive
statements about the Company, its cash flows, distributions and
future financial prospects.

On July 1, 2013, after the market closed, the Company issued a
press release announcing that the SEC had commenced an informal
inquiry and it "ha[d] requested the preservation of documents and
communications that are potentially relevant to, among other
things, . . . Linn Energy's . . . use of non-GAAP measures and
hedging strategy." In reaction to this news, Linn Energy units
fell $6.24 per unit, or nearly 19%, to close at $27.05 per unit on
July 2, 2013.  The next day, the price of Linn Energy units fell
an additional $4.26 per unit, or nearly 16%, to close at $22.79
per unit on July 3, 2013.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Linn Energy units during the Class Period.

If you purchased Linn Energy units during the class period
(February 25, 2010 to July 1, 2013) and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 9,
2013.  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.

Emerson Poynter LLP has a national and international class action
legal practice with offices in Little Rock, Arkansas and Houston,
Texas.  Emerson Poynter handles complex commercial litigation with
a concentration in those cases that involve violations of federal
and state securities or antitrust laws, the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), and consumer protection
laws.  The Firm has substantial experience in litigating large
complex class-action cases and serves in a leadership position in
numerous cases.


MACY'S MERCHANDISING: Recalls Infant Jackets Due to Choking Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Macy's Merchandising Group, Inc., of New York, N.Y. announced a
voluntary recall of about 8,700 Infants' First Impressions Varsity
Jackets.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The snaps on the jackets can come off, posing a choking hazard.

The recall involves infants' snap-up jackets with hoods.  The
hooded jackets come in navy blue with green and turquoise trim, or
gray with yellow sleeves and navy and yellow trim.  Style number
1300 is found on the label sewn into the side seam and the UPC
code is found on the product hangtag.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/oaF428

The recalled products were manufactured in China and Sold
exclusively at Macy's stores nationwide, on the firm's website
http://www.macys.comand at Military Exchanges between September
and November 2012 for between $25 and $52.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled products and
return them to the place of purchase for a refund of the purchase
price.  Consumers who purchased the product from
http://www.macys.comshould return the recalled products to their
nearest Macy's store or use the return shipping label enclosed
with their original mail order.


MASTERBUILT MANUFACTURING: Recalls 11,000 Smokers Due to Fire Risk
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Masterbuilt Manufacturing Inc. of Columbus, Ga. announced a
voluntary recall of about 11,000 Electric Smokehouse Smokers.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The wood chip tray can fail to slide securely into the smoker,
causing the wood to combust and the smoker's cabinet door to blow
open, posing a fire hazard.

Masterbuilt has received six reports of fires occurring in the
smoker causing the door to blow open.  No injuries were reported.

The upright electric smoker is a rectangular, black matte colored
cabinet with a stainless steel door with a glass window.  The
smokers were sold with a remote control and have a control panel
on the top front of the unit.  The 20070312 model smoker measures
about 32- inches high by 17-inches wide by 15-inches deep.  The
20070512 model smoker measures about 40 inches high by 22-inches
wide by 16-inches deep.  Model number 20070312 or 20070512 is
printed on the serial plate located on the rear panel of the
smoker.  The smokers have a screen printed Masterbuilt logo on the
window and on the serial plate.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/OkhCnC

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Bass
Pro Shops and Cabelas stores nationwide from May 2012 through
August 2012 for between $270 and $430.

Masterbuilt has received six reports of fires occurring in the
smoker causing the door to blow open.  No injuries were reported.


MIDWEST-CBK: Recalls 18 Distressed Greywash Bistro Chair
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 17, 2013
Posting date:             July 17, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-34653

Affected Products: Distressed Greywash Bistro Chair, which has a
metal frame and a wooden seat.  The product's model number is #
304136, and the UPC is # 738449304136.

The metal frame of the chairs may bend and/or break during use,
posing a fall hazard to consumers.

Neither Midwest-CBK, LLC nor Health Canada has received any
reports of incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use
of this product.

A total of 18 chairs have been sold to Canadian retailers.

The recalled chairs were sold from 2011 through 2013 and .

Companies:

   Manufacturer:     Fuzhou Goldencity Arts and Crafts Co., Ltd.
                     CHINA

   Distributor:      Midwest-CBK, LLC
                     Cannon Falls
                     Minnesota
                     UNITED STATES


MONSANTO CO: Appeal From Settlement Approval Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the approval of Monsanto Company's settlement of a
class action lawsuit remains pending, according to the Company's
June 27, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2013.

On December 17, 2004, 15 plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit, styled Virdie Allen, et al. v. Monsanto, et al., in the
Putnam County, West Virginia, state court against Monsanto,
Pharmacia and seven other defendants.  Monsanto is named as the
successor in interest to the liabilities of Pharmacia LLC, the
Company's former parent.  The alleged class consists of all
current and former residents, workers, and students who, between
1949 and the present, were allegedly exposed to dioxins/furans
contamination in counties surrounding Nitro, West Virginia.  The
complaint alleges that the source of the contamination is a
chemical plant in Nitro, formerly owned and operated by Pharmacia
and later by Flexsys, a joint venture between Solutia and Akzo
Nobel Chemicals, Inc. (Akzo Nobel).  Akzo Nobel and Flexsys were
named defendants in the case but Solutia was not, due to its then
pending bankruptcy proceeding.  The lawsuit seeks damages for
property cleanup costs, loss of real estate value, funds to test
property for contamination levels, funds to test for human
exposure, and future medical monitoring costs.  The complaint also
seeks an injunction against further contamination and punitive
damages.  Monsanto has agreed to indemnify and defend Akzo Nobel
and the Flexsys defendant group, but on May 27, 2011, the judge
dismissed both Akzo Nobel and Flexsys from the case.  The class
action certification hearing was held on October 29, 2007.  On
January 8, 2008, the trial court issued an order certifying the
Allen (now Zina G. Bibb et al. v. Monsanto et al., because Bibb
replaced Allen as class representative) case as a class action for
property damage and for medical monitoring.  On November 2, 2011,
the court, in response to defense motions, entered an order
decertifying the property class.

After the trial for the Bibb medical monitoring class action began
on January 3, 2012, the parties reached a settlement in principle
as to both the medical monitoring and the property class claims.
The proposed settlement provides for a 30 year medical monitoring
program consisting of a primary fund of up to $21 million and an
additional fund of up to $63 million over the life of the program,
and a three year property remediation plan with funding up to $9
million.  On February 24, 2012, the court preliminarily approved
the parties' proposed settlement.  A fairness hearing was held
June 18, 2012, resulting in the trial court's final approval of
the settlement, however, that final approval has been appealed by
two objectors to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.

St. Louis, Missouri-based Monsanto Company, along with its
subsidiaries, is a leading global provider of agricultural
products for farmers.  Monsanto's seeds, biotechnology trait
products, and herbicides provide farmers with solutions that
improve productivity, reduce the costs of farming, and produce
better foods for consumers and better feed for animals.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Lawyer Comments on Decision to End EA License
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman on July 18 disclosed that Steve Berman, managing
partner of law firm Hagens Berman and co-lead counsel in a class-
action lawsuit filed by former college athletes against the
National Collegiate Athletic Association and Electronic Arts
alleging the gaming giant's games used their likenesses without
permission issued the below statement regarding the NCAA's
decision not to continue its license for EA-published NCAA
Football games after the current agreement expires in 2014.

"It's apparent to us that the NCAA's decision to end its long and
hugely profitable relationship with EA is tied directly to the
pressure our litigation is bringing the bear.

"Our suit illustrates how the cabal between the NCAA and EA has
exploited student athletes for years, using their images in video
games without compensation.  While we are heartened they've
stopped the practice, we believe they owe those student athletes a
great deal more than their implied promise to stop stealing their
images.

"This announcement makes plain that the NCAA is attempting to
mitigate the damage by ducking its responsibilities.  We look
forward to taking this case to trial and winning compensation for
student-athletes whose likenesses were used without their
permission, in violation of both the NCAA's rules and the law."


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Lawyer Says Suit Threatens College Sports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Axon and Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY Sports,
report that a day after the plaintiffs' lawyers in an antitrust
lawsuit against the NCAA and two co-defendants filed an amended
complaint regarding the use of athletes' names, images and
likenesses, the association's general counsel responded by
acknowledging the threat the case presents to the collegiate model
of amateurism.

"College sports today are valued by the student-athletes who
compete and all of us who support them," Donald Remy, the NCAA's
vice president for legal affairs, said in a statement.  "However,
the plaintiffs' lawyers in the likeness case now want to make this
about professionalizing a few current student-athletes to the
detriment of all others.  Their scheme to pay a small number of
student-athletes threatens college sports as we know it.

"In particular, we would lose the very real opportunity for at
least 96% of NCAA male and female student-athletes who do not
compete in Division I men's basketball or FBS football to play a
sport and get an education, as they do today."

Michael Hausfeld, an attorney for plaintiffs, dismissed Mr. Remy's
comments as "nonsense" and "a total scare tactic."

Mr. Hausfeld contended that giving athletes revenue generated from
their sport does not make them a professional as long as they are
students and matriculating at the school.

"It's hypocritical. . . . It's all they have left," Mr. Hausfeld
said in a phone interview with USA TODAY Sports.  "They're
desperate.  That statement was an expression of desperation."

The lawsuit, filed in 2009, alleges the defendants conspired to
set at zero the compensation football and men's basketball players
could receive from the use of their names, likenesses and images
while they are in school.  Among its named plaintiffs are former
UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon and Basketball Hall of Famers
Bill Russell and Oscar Robertson.

The lawsuit is awaiting a decision from U.S. District Court Judge
Claudia Wilken regarding its bid for class-action certification.
Both sides made arguments in federal court in California on
June 20.

If granted, the class-action status could potentially bring
thousands of former and current football and men's basketball
players into the case and put billions of dollars in damages at
stake.

Six active players joined the lawsuit on July 18.  The plaintiffs'
lawyers also amended their complaint to include several new
allegations against the NCAA, video-game manufacturer Electronic
Arts and the nation's leading collegiate trademark licensing firm,
Collegiate Licensing Co. (CLC).

In a July 5 ruling, Judge Wilken allowed the plaintiffs to amend
their complaint to include new plaintiffs and for their attorneys
to address some arguments made by the NCAA, EA and CLC.

Arizona linebacker Jake Fischer, Arizona kicker Jake Smith,
Clemson defensive back Darius Robinson, Vanderbilt linebacker
Chase Garnham, Minnesota tight end Moses Alipate and Minnesota
wide receiver Victor Keise joined the lawsuit.

The amended lawsuit includes new material likely to escalate and
already increasingly contentious dispute.  Among the plaintiffs'
allegations:

-- Former NCAA president Myles Brand "conceded" in "public
remarks" in 2008 that "(t)he right to license or sell one's name,
image and likeness is a property with economic value."

The allegation comes in response to an argument made by the NCAA
in the June hearing that state laws and legal precedents say
athletes have no property rights for appearing in live, unscripted
events and therefore have nothing that the NCAA and its member
schools are infringing upon.

-- EA and CLC allegedly "actively lobbied for, and obtained,
administrative interpretations of those rules that permitted
greater uncompensated exploitation of student-athletes' names,
images and likenesses.  Where their formal efforts were
unsuccessful, EA and CLC obtained agreement from the NCAA to
permit greater uncompensated exploitation of student-athletes'
names, images and likenesses notwithstanding the rules."

EA and CLC previously made an argument that as business partners
of the NCAA, they simply followed the NCAA's rules pertaining to
the use of athletes' names and likenesses.  Several additional
allegations from the plaintiffs seek to make the case that the
NCAA, EA and CLC conspired "to usurp the student-athletes' name,
image and likeness rights without compensation to the athletes."


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Lawyer Lauds New Group of Athlete Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Russell Westerholm at University
Herald, ESPN's Outside the Lines reported that six current college
football players have joined Ed O'Bannon's lawsuit against the
NCAA, possibly putting damage claims over a billion dollars.

Arizona linebacker, Jake Fischer and kicker Jake Smith, Vanderbilt
linebacker Chase Graham, Clemson cornerback Darius Robinson and
Minnesota tight end Moses Alipate and wide receiver Victor Keise
all joined the class action suit on July 18.

Filed in 2009, Mr. O'Bannon, a former UCLA basketball star,
claimed the NCAA, EA Sports and Collegiate Licensing Co. broke
anti-trust laws by using his likeness, image and name and awarded
him with nothing for it.

The suit accused the NCAA of setting the amount to be paid to
current and former athletes for royalties at zero.  Last year, the
plaintiffs amended the suit to argue that current players deserve
a share of the billions of dollars of revenue brought into the
NCAA with television deals.

Last month, Judge Claudia Wilken asked Mr. O'Bannon to add current
players to the suit and said she would decide later in the summer
whether the class of current and former players will be certified
or not. If allowed, the suit would be pursued as a class action
lawsuit and the group of plaintiffs could be tried as a group
instead of individually.

That move would likely bring the amount of money claimed in
damages into the billions.

"Honestly, I stepped forward for the future well-being, safety and
health of student-athletes," Mr. Fischer said.  "We have both met
a ton of people since we've been here who have lingering effects
from injuries, not getting a great education, not having all the
capabilities or the opportunities that a regular student would
have, and honestly, we would just like to try to fix that."

Messrs. Fischer and Smith told Athletic Director Greg Byrne and
Rich Rodriguez, the University of Arizona head football coach,
they would be joining the lawsuit and they both commended the
students.

"Jake and Jake came to my house the other day and talked to me
about the case and their involvement," he said.  "They're two
conscientious guys, and they're both really appreciative of
playing college ball.  It's not like they're disenchanted with the
system.  They love being student-athletes.  But with the likeness
issue, they wanted to see if they could have a voice for college
athletes, and I said I support that.

Michael Hausfield, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs also
commended the new group of current collegiate athletes to join the
suit.

"These athletes are incredibly brave," he said.  "They are well-
aware of the risks of standing up to the NCAA, and yet they felt
that this was the right thing to do."

NCAA spokeswoman Stacey Osburn said the collegiate sports
association would not comment until they have fully reviewed the
amended lawsuit.  She said the business relationship the NCAA had
with EA Sports was just for the logo and name.

"Student-athletes were never a part of this relationship and
plaintiffs' attorneys know it," she said in a statement.
"Further, the $545,000 paid annually to the NCAA for the use of
the logo and name goes right back to support student-athletes
across all three divisions."


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Athletes' Lawyers Want Concussion Suit Expanded
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that attorneys suing the NCAA over
its handling of head injuries asked a federal judge on July 19 to
let them expand the lawsuit nationwide to include thousands of
plaintiffs in a case they contend could change college sports
forever.

The motion seeking class-action status was filed in U.S. District
Court in Chicago, where the original lawsuit was filed two years
ago on behalf of several former athletes, including former Eastern
Illinois football player Adrian Arrington.  His attorney,
Joseph Siprut, said he doesn't want to see the demise of college
contact sports, including football, but safety is paramount.

"If changes aren't made, the sport is going to slowly die," he
said.  If they can't be reassured football is safe, parents will
stop their kids from playing "and when the talent well dries up,
that's how the sport dies."

The NCAA late on July 19 did not immediately have a comment.

Concussions have become a major issue in sports in recent years.
The NFL, NHL and college football, among others, have implemented
stricter rules on hits to the head and player safety.  But the NFL
is mired in a lawsuit involving more than 4,000 former players
seeking millions of dollars for problems they blame on head
injuries during their careers.

The NCAA could wind up in a similar situation.

Attached to the class-action request is a report for the
plaintiffs by a leading authority on concussions, Robert Cantu,
who cites an internal NCAA survey from 2010.  He said the NCAA
found that nearly half of the college trainers who responded
indicated they put athletes showing signs of a concussion back in
the same game.

"It is well settled in the scientific community that an athlete
must never be returned to play on the same day after a concussion
diagnosis," said Mr. Cantu, who is medical director of the
National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research in Chapel
Hill, N.C.

The plaintiffs say the NCAA was lax in establishing a clear policy
about dealing with concussions, leaving key decisions to
individual schools or leagues.

"That is tantamount to doing nothing or even worse," said
Mr. Siprut.  "It creates the misperception that they have taken
adequate measures when they haven't."

Mr. Arrington contends he suffered "numerous and repeated
concussions" at Eastern Illinois, which is perhaps best known as
the alma mater of Dallas Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo and Saints
coach Sean Payton.  Mr. Arrington is seeking unspecified monetary
damages and changes in policy including the establishment of a
long-term medical monitoring program for injured athletes and new
concussion guidelines for schools and coaches.

The lawsuit accuses the NCAA of failing student-athletes and
"choosing instead to sacrifice them on an altar of money and
profits" by neglecting to adopt stricter standards.  Responding to
Arrington's lawsuit in 2011, the NCAA said it found "gross
misstatements" and said the governing body has been "concerned
about the safety of all of its student-athletes, including those
playing football, throughout its history."

The NCAA has taken recent steps to beef up awareness of how to
treat possible head injuries, from legislation and outreach
efforts to new rules on the playing field.  Earlier on July 19,
the NCAA said it was awarding a $399,999 grant to fund a study
into the long-term effects of head injuries in college sports.

Last fall, the NCAA said the rate of football-related concussions
has remained steady over an eight-year period -- with 2.5
concussions reported for every 1,000 game-related exposures in
2011.  The NCAA says there are estimates that between 1.6 million
and 3.8 million concussions occur in sports and recreation-related
activities every year.

The concussions lawsuit is just one of several legal headaches for
the NCAA.  On July 18, six current college football players were
added as plaintiffs to a high-profile antitrust lawsuit that
claims the NCAA owes billions of dollars to former players for
allowing their likenesses to be used without compensation.  The
federal judge in that case is still mulling whether to turn the
lawsuit into a class action.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Disputes Concussion Suit; Defends Safety Record
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tampa Bay Times reports that rejecting claims made in a lawsuit
concerning concussions, the NCAA said on July 20 that it has taken
steps to protect student-athletes from head injuries and that
player safety is among the sports association's core principles.

Attorneys suing the NCAA over its handling of head injuries asked
a federal judge on July 19 to let them expand the lawsuit to
include thousands nationwide.

The motion seeking class-action status was filed in U.S. District
Court in Chicago, where the original suit was filed in 2011 on
behalf of former Eastern Illinois football player Adrian Arrington
and several other former athletes.

"Student-athlete safety is one of the NCAA's foundational
principles," spokeswoman Stacey Osburn said.  "The NCAA has been
at the forefront of safety issues throughout its existence."

She said the association has addressed the issue of head injuries
through a combination of playing rules, equipment requirements and
medical practices.  The NCAA does not believe the legal action is
appropriate, Mr. Osburn said.


NESTLE USA: Accused of Misrepresenting "All Natural" Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maritza Pelayo, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Nestle USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Nestle
Prepared Foods Company, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation; Buitoni
North America, Inc., an Ohio corporation, Case No. 2:13-cv-05213-
JFW-AJW (C.D. Cal., July 18, 2013) alleges that the Defendants'
"All Natural" representation in their "Buitoni" pasta products is
false and misleading.

The Defendants declare that "BUITONI(R) Pasta is made with simple,
all natural ingredients with no preservatives," Ms. Pelayo
asserts.  However, she alleges, Buitoni Pastas contain at least
two common ingredients that are unnatural, artificial and
synthetic.  She argues that due to the deceptive "All Natural"
claims, the Defendants were able to charge a premium price for
their Buitoni Pastas over other comparable all natural and regular
pasta products.

Ms. Pelayo is a resident of Pomona, California.  In late
June/early July 2013, she purchased certain Buitoni Pastas.

Nestle USA is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Glendale,
California.  Nestle Prepare Foods is a Pennsylvania corporation
headquartered in Solon, Ohio.  Nestle manufactures, markets, sells
and distributes refrigerated pastas under their "Buitoni" brand
name.  Buitoni North America, an Ohio corporation headquartered in
Solon, Ohio, distributes Buitoni Pastas to consumers nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          Lindsey M. Gomez-Gray, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN AND BALINT, P.C.
          2325 East Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: eryan@bffb.com
                  psyverson@bffb.com
                  lgomez-gray@bffb.com

               - and -

          Manfred Patrick Muecke, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN AND BALINT, P.C.
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-7748
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: mmuecke@bffb.com

               - and -

          Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
          STEWART M. WELTMAN, LLC
          53 W. Jackson, Suite 364
          Chicago, IL 60604
          E-mail: sweltman@weltmanlawfirm.com


NEW LEAF: Suit Over Lead Content in Products Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit alleging New Leaf Brands, Inc., failed to
disclose the amount of lead in one of its products remains
pending, according to the Company's June 27, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On January 29, 2009, the Company was notified that it was named as
a defendant, along with 54 other defendants, in a class action
lawsuit under California Proposition 65 for allegedly failing to
disclose the amount of lead in one of its products.  The Company
has responded to discovery requests from the Attorney General of
California.  To date, no trial date has been set.  The Company is
currently investigating the merits of the allegation and is unable
to determine the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or a range
of possible loss.  This matter remains pending.

Old Tappan, New Jersey-based New Leaf Brands, Inc. develops
markets and distributes healthy and functional ready-to-drink
beverages.  The Company distributes its products through
independent distributors both internationally and domestically.


PHILIP MORRIS: Smoker's Son Entitled to $12.8MM Loss of Consortium
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the son of a smoker who won a $3 billion jury verdict against
Philip Morris USA Inc. in 2001 is entitled to an additional $12.8
million for the loss of his father's relationship, an intermediate
California appeals court has ruled.

Richard Boeken died of lung cancer in 2002 while Philip Morris was
appealing a Los Angeles jury's award granting him $3 billion in
punitive damages and $5.5 million in compensatory damages -- at
the time the largest verdict to date in million a smoker case.

That verdict was later reduced to $50 million.  His son, Dylan
Boeken, in a subsequent wrongful death suit against Philip Morris,
alleged he was deprived of his father's consortium in the years
leading to his death.  A jury awarded $12.8 million on that claim
in 2011.

On appeal, Philip Morris insisted that the jury had been
erroneously instructed on damages under California law.  The
company also cited the California Supreme Court's 1922 decision in
Blackwell v. American Film Co. as preventing such a double
recovery.

But the Second District Court of Appeal, in a July 9 opinion,
found that Philip Morris misinterpreted Blackwell, which pertained
only to economic damages, not those for loss of consortium.

"According to Philip Morris, had Richard lived without lung
cancer, but been killed instantly by some other tortious means,
Dylan would have been entitled to recover against the tortfeasor;
but because Richard died a long, agonizing death caused by Philip
Morris, Dylan is entitled to no recovery," the appeals court
wrote.

"Or, as argued by Dylan, under Philip Morris's contention, if two
people are hit in a crosswalk by an automobile and one is killed
instantly and the other dies in a week from severe injuries, the
child of the first accident victim would be entitled to loss of
consortium damages but the child of the second accident victim
would not."

Philip Morris attorneys Patrick Gregory, a partner at Shook, Hardy
& Bacon in San Francisco, and Daniel Collins of Munger Tolles &
Olson in Los Angeles did not return calls for comment.  Brian May,
a spokesman for Altria Group Inc., the parent corporation of
Philip Morris, declined to comment.

Neither Michael Piuze of the Law Offices of Michael J. Piuze in
Los Angeles nor Stuart Esner of Esner, Chang & Boyer in Pasadena,
Calif., returned calls for comment on behalf of Dylan Boeken.

In Richard Boeken's case, the jury found that Philip Morris failed
to warn him about the health dangers of smoking when he took up
the habit as a teenager in 1969.  The jury also found fraud and
negligence by Philip Morris.

The $3 billion verdict was reduced twice -- first by a Los Angeles
County, Calif., Superior Court judge to $100 million, and then by
a California appeals court to $50 million.

Following Richard Boeken's death, his widow, Judy Boeken, filed a
wrongful death action against Philip Morris on behalf of herself
and Dylan.  The California Supreme Court found in 2010 that her
prior dismissal of loss of consortium claims in Richard Boeken's
case precluded her from raising loss of companionship and
affection in the wrongful death case.

In arguing that Dylan Boeken was not entitled to damages, Philip
Morris cited Blackwell, in which the state high court found that
"where the defendant has already been required to fully compensate
the decedent for the harm of reducing him from his pre-injury
healthy condition to his pre-death diminished condition, his heirs
cannot collect a second time for that reduction in the decedent's
condition in a wrongful death case."

The Second District disagreed with that interpretation and cited
the California Supreme Court's Krouse v. Graham decision in 1977,
in which the court found that damages for mental and emotional
distress, including grief and sorrow, were prohibited in wrongful
death actions, but that loss of consortium was not.

"The services of children, elderly parents, or nonworking spouses
often do not result in measurable net income to the family unit,
yet unquestionably the death of such a person represents a
substantial 'injury' to the family unit for which just
compensation should be paid," the appeals court held, quoting
Krouse.

In an unpublished portion of the opinion, the appeals court
rejected Philip Morris' claims concerning the jury's instruction
on what is recoverable under California's wrongful death laws and
the application of collateral estoppel.

The appeals court also rejected Dylan Boeken's argument that he
was entitled to prejudgment interest because the jury award
exceeded his previous offer to Philip Morris.  Before trial, he
offered to settle for $4.95 million, but Philip Morris refused.
The appeals court found that the offer was invalid because Philip
Morris did not sign the acceptance provision as required under
California's Code of Civil Procedure section 998.


PILOT FLYING J: Speedy Rebate Suit Settlement Unusual, Lawyer Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas L. Johnson II, writing for The Associated Press, reports
that the nation's largest diesel retailer reached a speedy
settlement with some customers cheated out of rebate money, which
experts say is all the better for Cleveland Browns owner Jimmy
Haslam and his brother, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam, whose family
owns the truck stop chain.

Jimmy Haslam runs Pilot Flying J, which was founded by his father.
Gov. Bill Haslam left the company to run for Knoxville mayor in
2003 and still has an ownership stake.  Their prominent positions
certainly give them incentive to put the scandal behind them as
quickly as possible: Bill Haslam has a looming re-election
campaign, and Jimmy Haslam could face sanctions from the NFL if it
isn't dealt with.

A judge has given initial approval to a class-action settlement to
reimburse customers with interest, though there is no guarantee
all those wronged will join.  That settlement was approved on
July 16, just three months after a scheme among Pilot's sales
force to cheat customers was made public in an embarrassing blow
to the company's reputation.

Don Barrett, a Mississippi attorney for the plaintiffs who reached
a settlement, told knoxvillebiz.com that the deal was the best
he'd seen in his 44 years of practicing law.

The federal lawsuits against Pilot have been filed in Arkansas,
Alabama, Mississippi, Illinois, Florida, Ohio and Tennessee.

Pilot seems to be trying to reach a resolution in a matter of
months -- even though the average class-action suit takes three
years to settle, Vanderbilt University Law School professor
Brian Fitzpatrick said.

"All this has happened very quickly," he said.  "This is very
unusual."

Public relations experts said the swift movement could benefit the
company, which has more than 600 truck stops across the country
and is frequented by countless travelers daily.

"Whenever you have something . . . that could play over into an
election year or into upcoming business transactions, what you
want to do is clear the deck," said David Johnson, CEO of
Strategic Vision in Suwanee, Ga.  "You want to settle it."

Furthermore, the scandal could attract more lawsuits the longer it
remains unresolved, Mr. Johnson said.

"You have people coming out of the woodwork saying any kind of
allegation, and those sometimes are more damaging than the initial
raid and lawsuit," he said.

Gov. Bill Haslam, who will run for re-election next year, has
attempted to distance himself from the scandal, saying he has not
been involved in day-to-day operations for 15 years.  His personal
share in the privately held company has not been released, though
it is kept outside of the blind trust established for his other
investments and is not publicly disclosed.

Meanwhile, Jimmy Haslam also has denied any wrongdoing -- though
he could find himself in trouble with the NFL if he faced criminal
charges.  Owners have faced reprimand in the past, including
former San Francisco 49ers owner Eddie DeBartolo Jr.  He was
suspended for a year in 1999 after being found guilty of failing
to report a bribe by a government official, a felony.

So far, the NFL has not considered any sanctions for Mr. Haslam or
made contingency plans regarding the Browns' ownership.

Mr. Haslam can move quickly because the private company doesn't
have to answer to shareholders or a board.

However, he has only so much control over the situation.

For instance, there is no guarantee the class-action settlement
will resolve all the claims.  Trucking companies can opt out of
accepting the settlement to pursue their own lawsuits.

"They can try to make it as sweet a deal that people may be
inclined to accept it, but they don't have any authority to
prevent people from exercising their rights," said Dick Williams,
chairman of Common Cause Tennessee, a group that advocates for
open government.


OFFICE DEPOT: Signs MOU to Settle OfficeMax Acquisition Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Office Depot, Inc., said in its June 27, 2013, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it entered
into a memorandum of understanding regarding the settlement of
certain litigation relating to the Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of February 20, 2013 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and
among Office Depot, Inc. ("Office Depot"), Dogwood Merger Sub
Inc., Dogwood Merger Sub LLC, Mapleby Holdings Merger Corporation,
Mapleby Merger Corporation and OfficeMax Incorporated
("OfficeMax"), providing for the merger of equals between Office
Depot and OfficeMax in which, through a series of transactions,
OfficeMax will become an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of
Office Depot.

As disclosed in the registration statement on Form S-4 of Office
Depot, that was declared effective on June 7, 2013, and the
definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2013 (the "joint
proxy statement/prospectus"), eight putative class action lawsuits
challenging the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement
were filed on behalf of a putative class consisting of OfficeMax
stockholders.

Six lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth
Judicial Circuit of DuPage County, Illinois (the "State Court"):
(i) Venkata S. Donepudi v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case
Number 2013L000188), filed on February 25, 2013; (ii) Beth Koeneke
v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 2013CH000776),
filed on February 28, 2013; (iii) Marc Schmidt v. Saligram, et al.
(Case Number 2013MR000411), filed on March 13, 2013; (iv) The
Feivel & Helene Gottlieb Defined Benefit Pension Plan v. OfficeMax
Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 2013L000246), filed on March 14,
2013; (v) Norman Klumpp v. Bryant et al. (Case Number 2013CH1107),
filed on March 28, 2013; and (vi) J. David Lewis v. OfficeMax
Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 2013CH001123), filed on
March 29, 2013.  The actions have been consolidated in Venkata S.
Donepudi v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number
2013L000188) (the "State Action").  A consolidated amended class
action complaint was filed in the State Action on April 25, 2013.

Two lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division: (i) Eric
Hollander v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 1:13-cv-
03330), filed on May 2, 2013; and (ii) Thomas and Beverly DeFabio
v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 1:13-cv-03385),
filed on May 6, 2013 (the "Federal Actions").

The State Action and the Federal Actions named Office Depot,
OfficeMax and the directors of OfficeMax, among others, as
defendants. Each of the lawsuits was brought by a purported holder
or holders of OfficeMax common stock, both individually and on
behalf of a putative class of OfficeMax stockholders.  The
lawsuits generally alleged, among other things, that the directors
of OfficeMax breached their fiduciary duties to OfficeMax
stockholders by agreeing to a transaction with inadequate and
unfair consideration and pursuant to an inadequate and unfair
process, and that Office Depot and OfficeMax, among others, aided
and abetted the OfficeMax directors in the breach of their
fiduciary duties.  In addition, the lawsuits alleged that the
disclosure in the joint proxy statement/prospectus was inadequate.

Office Depot believes that these lawsuits are without merit and
that no further disclosure is required to supplement the joint
proxy statement/prospectus under applicable laws; however, to
eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in such
litigation, on June 25, 2013, the defendants entered into the
Memorandum of Understanding regarding the settlement of the State
Action and the Federal Actions.  The Memorandum of Understanding
outlines the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to
settle and release all claims which were or could have been
asserted in the State Action and the Federal Actions.  In
consideration for such settlement and release, the parties to the
State Action and the Federal Actions have agreed that Office Depot
and OfficeMax will make certain supplemental disclosures to the
joint proxy statement/prospectus.  The Memorandum of Understanding
contemplates that the parties will attempt in good faith to agree
promptly upon a stipulation of settlement to be submitted to the
State Court for approval at the earliest practicable time.  The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including approval by the State Court, which will consider the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of such settlement.  The
stipulation of settlement will provide that OfficeMax (or its
successors in interest) will pay, on behalf of all defendants, the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses, subject to approval by
the State Court, in the amount of $735,000, following dismissal of
both the State Action and the Federal Actions with prejudice.
There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the State Court will
approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.  In such event, or if the transactions contemplated
by the Merger Agreement are not consummated for any reason, the
proposed settlement will be null and void and of no force and
effect.

Office Depot, Inc. -- http://wwww.officedepot.com/-- together
with its subsidiaries, supplies office products and services.  The
Company's North American Retail division sells an assortment of
merchandise, such as general office supplies, computer supplies,
business machines and related supplies, and office furniture under
various labels, including Office Depot, Viking Office Products,
Foray, and Ativa through its chain of office supply stores.  The
Company also provides printing, reproduction, mailing, shipping,
and other services, as well as personal computer support and
network installation service.  The Company was founded in 1986 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.


OFFICEMAX INC: Signs MOU to Settle Suits Over Office Depot Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OfficeMax Incorporated disclosed in its June 27, 2013, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it
entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding the
settlement of certain litigation relating to the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of February 20, 2013, by and among Office
Depot, Inc., Dogwood Merger Sub Inc., Dogwood Merger Sub LLC,
Mapleby Holdings Merger Corporation, Mapleby Merger Corporation
and OfficeMax Incorporated, providing for the merger of equals
between Office Depot and OfficeMax in which, through a series of
transactions, OfficeMax will become an indirect, wholly-owned
subsidiary of Office Depot.

As disclosed in the registration statement on Form S-4 of Office
Depot, that was declared effective on June 7, 2013, and the
definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2013 (the "joint
proxy statement/prospectus"), eight putative class action lawsuits
challenging the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement
were filed on behalf of a putative class consisting of OfficeMax
stockholders.

Six lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth
Judicial Circuit of DuPage County, Illinois (the "State Court"):
(i) Venkata S. Donepudi v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case
Number 2013L000188), filed on February 25, 2013; (ii) Beth Koeneke
v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 2013CH000776),
filed on February 28, 2013; (iii) Marc Schmidt v. Saligram, et al.
(Case Number 2013MR000411), filed on March 13, 2013; (iv) The
Feivel & Helene Gottlieb Defined Benefit Pension Plan v. OfficeMax
Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 2013L000246), filed on March 14,
2013; (v) Norman Klumpp v. Bryant, et al. (Case Number
2013CH1107), filed on March 28, 2013; and (vi) J. David Lewis v.
OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 2013CH001123), filed
on March 29, 2013.  The actions have been consolidated in Venkata
S. Donepudi v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number
2013L000188) (the "State Action").  A consolidated amended class
action complaint was filed in the State Action on April 25, 2013.

Two lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division: (i) Eric
Hollander v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 1:13-cv-
03330), filed on May 2, 2013; and (ii) Thomas and Beverly DeFabio
v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 1:13-cv-03385),
filed on May 6, 2013 (the "Federal Actions").

The State Action and the Federal Actions named OfficeMax, Office
Depot and the directors of OfficeMax, among others, as defendants.
Each of the lawsuits was brought by a purported holder or holders
of OfficeMax common stock, both individually and on behalf of a
putative class of OfficeMax stockholders.  The lawsuits generally
alleged, among other things, that the directors of OfficeMax
breached their fiduciary duties to OfficeMax stockholders by
agreeing to a transaction with inadequate and unfair consideration
and pursuant to an inadequate and unfair process, and that
OfficeMax and Office Depot, among others, aided and abetted the
OfficeMax directors in the breach of their fiduciary duties.  In
addition, the lawsuits alleged that the disclosure in the joint
proxy statement/prospectus was inadequate.

OfficeMax believes that these lawsuits are without merit and that
no further disclosure is required to supplement the joint proxy
statement/prospectus under applicable laws; however, to eliminate
the burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in such litigation,
on June 25, 2013, the defendants entered into the Memorandum of
Understanding regarding the settlement of the State Action and the
Federal Actions.  The Memorandum of Understanding outlines the
terms of the parties' agreement in principle to settle and release
all claims which were or could have been asserted in the State
Action and the Federal Actions.  In consideration for such
settlement and release, the parties to the State Action and the
Federal Actions have agreed that OfficeMax and Office Depot will
make certain supplemental disclosures to the joint proxy
statement/prospectus.  The Memorandum of Understanding
contemplates that the parties will attempt in good faith to agree
promptly upon a stipulation of settlement to be submitted to the
State Court for approval at the earliest practicable time.  The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including approval by the State Court, which will consider the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of such settlement.  The
stipulation of settlement will provide that OfficeMax (or its
successors in interest) will pay, on behalf of all defendants, the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses, subject to approval by
the State Court, in the amount of $735,000, following dismissal of
both the State Action and the Federal Actions with prejudice.
There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the State Court will
approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.  In such event, or if the transactions contemplated
by the Merger Agreement are not consummated for any reason, the
proposed settlement will be null and void and of no force and
effect.

OfficeMax Incorporated -- http://www.officemax.com/-- is a leader
in both business-to-business and retail office products
distribution.  The Naperville, Illinois-based Company provides
office supplies and paper, print and document services, technology
products, solutions and office furniture and facilities products
to large, medium and small businesses, government offices and
consumers.


PFIZER INC: New Jersey Court Dismisses Protonix Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Mayer, Esq., at McDermott Will & Emery, reports that
plaintiffs in a putative class action against Pfizer, Inc. and
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., related to acid reflux drug Protonix,
will no longer give the two companies any heartburn.  The
plaintiffs stipulated to dismissal from New Jersey federal
district court after a settlement in related proceedings that held
the patent-in-suit valid and enforceable.  Fawcett v. Altana
Pharma AG, No. 2:07-cv-06133-JLL-CCC.

The plaintiffs had premised their claims on Takeda's patent--
licensed to Pfizer--being invalid and obtained by fraud on the
patent office.  The court put the suit on hold while Takeda and
Pfizer litigated the validity of the patent in an infringement
action against generic drug-makers Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
Ltd. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.  In 2010, a judge
found that patent to be valid, and last month the parties reached
a settlement in the damages litigation with Teva and Sun agreeing
to pay Pfizer and Takeda $2.15 billion.

The settlement prompted the New Jersey court to ask why it should
not dismiss as moot the putative class action.  The parties
replied that they were preparing to stipulate to dismissal, which
the court granted on July 14, 2013.


PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Settles Securities Class Action for $10-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a Form 8-K SEC Filing, Prosper Marketplace, Inc. disclosed that
on July 19, 2013, in order to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, PMI agreed to enter into a Stipulation
and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release related to
the action captioned Christian Hellum, David Booth, Brian Russom,
and Michael del Greco, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Prosper Marketplace, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, Christian Larsen, Ed Giedgowd, Kirk T. Inglis, Doug
Fuller, James W. Breyer, Larry W. Cheng, Robert C. Kagle, and John
and Jane Does 1-100, No. CGC-08-482329, which is currently pending
in San Francisco Superior Court.

The class members in the Lawsuit alleged that PMI offered and sold
unqualified and unregistered securities in violation of the
California and federal securities laws.  The class members in the
Lawsuit sought rescission damages against PMI and the other named
defendants, as well as treble damages against PMI and the award of
attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest.  In exchange for a full release of the Claims
as to all class members against all defendants, and subject to
Court approval, PMI agreed to pay settlement consideration in the
total amount of $10 million according to the following schedule:
(i) $2 million within 10 days of entry of an order by the Court
granting preliminary approval of the settlement; (ii) $2 million
on the one-year anniversary of Preliminary Approval; (iii) $3
million on the two-year anniversary of Preliminary Approval; and
(iv) $3 million on the three-year anniversary of Preliminary
Approval.


RESTAURANT.COM: Avoids Class Action Over Gift Certificates
----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Dahlman, writing Loop North News, reports Restaurant.com
promises the "best deal, every meal," but a suburban Chicago
company owned by two River North residents is often served
complaints from customers of its Web site that sells gift
certificates to restaurants.

Founded in 1999, Restaurant.com sells certificates for restaurants
in cities throughout the United States.  On its Web site, a buyer
can select from 18,000 restaurants, select the dollar amount of
the gift certificate, pay for it, and print the certificate.  The
company then gets a cut from each certificate sold.

According to a recent news release, RDC "is the trusted and valued
source connecting restaurants and diners nationwide."  Offering
more than 50,000 gift certificate options, the company claims to
have saved its customers more than $1 billion.

As recently as 2008, the company had annual revenues in the range
of "several million dollars," according to a U.S. District Court
document.

Complaints against the company include selling gift certificates
for restaurants that have gone out of business and certificates to
restaurants that had not agreed to participate.

In 2010, a customer filed a lawsuit, claiming RDC was selling gift
certificates with expiration dates in violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act.  Effective January 1,
2008, the act made it illegal for a business to issue a gift
certificate with an expiration period of less than five years from
the date of issue.

Mariam Munsif-Toscano claimed that two gift certificates she
purchased on May 21, 2009, had expiration dates of one year from
when they were issued.  She sued the company on May 28, 2010,
initially on behalf of herself and others but was unable to get
the case certified as a class action lawsuit.

Continuing on her own, she logged into her RDC account one day to
print a copy of an unused gift certificate, to serve as an exhibit
in her lawsuit, and discovered the Web site had changed its terms
and had made her certificate non-expiring.  She says she was not
notified of the change and had she not logged into her account,
she would have assumed the gift certificate was unusable.

The court dismissed the case, saying Ms. Munsif-Toscano had not
suffered any actual damages within the meaning of the law.  She
appealed but on April 26, 2012, an appellate judge upheld the
decision of the trial court.

RDC is not safe yet from class action lawsuits.  On July 9, 2013,
New Jersey's state Supreme Court ruled that restaurant gift
certificates purchased online are written consumer contracts and
subject to state law. That case was over gift certificates --
purchased from RDC by two New Jersey residents -- that expired in
one year.  Under New Jersey law, gift certificates must be valid
for two years.

RDC opposed the argument, saying online transactions cannot be
considered consumer contracts because they are not in writing.
The ruling paves the way for a class action suit the attorney for
the residents says he will file, as reported by The Star-Ledger,
that could affect thousands of consumers who have purchased gift
certificates from RDC since 2006.

                Expiration dates an issue for RDC

Gift certificates with expiration dates were the focus of a 2005
lawsuit, eventually settled out of court, against Restaurant.com.
To pay off a debt to Intagio Trading Network, RDC had agreed to
give them $55,000 worth of certificates with no expiration dates.
Each certificate would expire but only after one year following
its sale by Intagio to a consumer.

Intagio claimed that when they received from RDC a spreadsheet
containing Internet links to the certificates, the links worked
but expired one year later even if they had not yet been sold.

The more than 40 restaurants in the deal included MK and Pizzeria
Ora in River North and Exchequer Restaurant & Pub in the Loop.

That is not the extent of complaints against the company.  In the
past three years, the Better Business Bureau has received 584
complaints against RDC -- including 66 complaints in the past 12
months.  According to the BBB, the complaints are mostly about
advertising and sales issues related to the company's product.

"In the complaints, consumers allege that various restaurants
featured on Restaurant.com will not honor coupons they had
purchased from your company," reads the BBB review.
"Additionally, consumers allege that the company has refused to
provide refunds for coupons that were not honored by these
restaurants. Restaurant owners have also alleged that the
company's sales staff has misrepresented the frequency of
discounts offered by Restaurant.com and that the company has sold
coupons for higher amounts than they had agreed upon with the
company's sales staff."

On July 7, 2013, a St. Louis television station reported that one
of its city's restaurants had said that "several" customers showed
up with gift certificates from RDC that were not valid.  KMOV News
4 reported that RDC had advertised and sold coupons for Miami
Grill without the permission of the restaurant's owners.  The next
day, RDC removed Miami Grill from its site and an unnamed
spokesperson for the company told KMOV it was a "communication
error."

       Started by entrepreneurs, taken over by a lawyer

According to the RDC Web site, Dr. Kenneth Chessick, a lawyer and
board-certified general surgeon, is a "prime creator of the
company."  On his LinkedIn page, Kenneth describes himself as "one
of the founding entrepreneurs of Restaurant.com."

"We have provided millions of dollars in savings for restaurant
customers, created thousands of jobs in our company, saved or
created tens of thousands of jobs in restaurants, and helped build
the American economy."

Likewise, his wife, Ellen Chessick, considers herself "among the
founders" of the company.  When she ran this year for re-election
to the condo board at Marina City, Ellen described her occupation
as "Vice President of Strategic Growth" for RDC and claimed to
have "over 24 years of business management experience."

In a campaign letter to condo unit owners, Ellen described how she
and her husband "took Restaurant.com from a new idea in the year
2000 to a company headquartered in the Chicago suburbs, with
18,000 restaurants, operating in all 50 states, with over 350
employees and 1,500 independent consultants."

One of the actual original founders, who did not want to be named,
disagrees with this.  He says four people, none of whom are the
Chessicks, founded Restaurant.com.

The initial idea for the company came from a man who was a former
restaurateur and ex-advertising executive who retired, moved to
Florida and later to a suburb of Denver, where he started a
successful chain of New York style bagel cafes.  Rather than
advertise just one restaurant, he imagined a platform that would
contain many restaurants.  That idea evolved into Restaurant.com.

Needing money and people to help him build this vision, he got in
touch with a friend of his son who owned a mortgage company.  The
friend in turn brought in two other men, one from New York and the
other from Chicago.

The Chicago native had a friend whose uncle was Kenneth Chessick.
With several million dollars, Kenneth became one of the company's
first investors.  Over time, he bought out other shareholders and
eventually owned more than 50 percent of RDC.

Working with Kenneth, says one of the founders, was at times "very
difficult."

"The guys who took their life savings and invested themselves 100
percent to start this thing and went without paychecks for a year
and a half," he says, "that was not the Chessicks."

                     Conflict over ideology

In the early years, as RDC was still trying to find a business
model and was not profitable, the founder we spoke with says they
were given "full rein" by Kenneth Chessick to run the company as
they needed.  Mr. Chessick was described as "largely uninvolved on
a daily basis" and probably knew that the company he had invested
in might fail.

That changed when the company started making money. "The team
managed to pull it off and we did turn a corner. We did invoke
some very interesting and creative ideas.  We worked tenaciously
and we . . . turned this thing into a profitable business."

When that happened, Kenneth suddenly became "a very interested,
active investor who wanted to take on more involvement, further
invest, and acquire the shares of others."

Newly married, he assigned his wife to a seat on the company's
board of directors and promoted his nephew to president.

Did that benefit the company? No, says the founder.  "There was a
lack of full understanding of the business and a lack of real
pride and love for what the company was doing for the consumer and
for the industry.  It wasn't about how we can help the merchant,
how can we help millions of people save money on dining out, and
more toward 'how can we make more at the bottom line?'"

As for Ellen Chessick, "She didn't have a specific role or much
involvement. She held a board seat but short of showing up to a
quarterly board meeting she had very little, in fact, almost no
involvement in the business. In fact, at that point, Ken had
little involvement as well."

"Are you aligned with your consumers? Are you aligned with the
merchants who are your partners, the lifeblood? Or are you aligned
with simply generating a bottom line? Sometimes, unfortunately in
business, you have to make a choice, which one is the right one to
adhere to.  I regret to say that the Chessicks, I think,
unfortunately, put in the order of priority, the bottom line
first."

It is a reality that every business owner faces, he says, but the
original RDC founders "were more inclined to focus on the
obligation to their partners, the restaurants, and to the
customers, the people buying the gift certificates. The generally
held belief was that if we do right by each of those constituents,
the money on the bottom line would happen."

                            LoopNet

The company, "growing with an incredible trajectory," says the
founder, did do well enough to eventually attract outside
interest.  While the founders had always believed the right
acquisition would allow the company to further develop, Kenneth,
he says, "was always very much opposed."

How to fix RDC? Original founder has suggestions.

The short answer is to "go right back to the roots and stay true
to them," but the original founder of RDC who we spoke with says
it is more complicated than that.

"The conundrum they fall into is that in order for the model to
work, you need lots of restaurants. In order to get lots of
restaurants you sometimes have to flex and give them terms that
make it more favorable for the restaurateur."

Flexibility, he says, could include agreeing to restrictions on
the gift certificate to get the merchant on board. "The more
restrictions on a certificate, the less attractive it is to the
customer and so the less valuable it is when trying to sell it."

It is a careful balancing act.  "You want to make it compelling
enough that the merchant sees the benefit of being part of the
program but at the same time, hold your ground so they don't push
you too far on the restrictions such that the consumer still has
an appetite -- no pun intended -- to want to buy the certificate."

Ellen Chessick did not respond to multiple requests for comment.


SCH CORP: Dist. Court Says CFI's Appeal on Case Dismissal Is Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a July 8, 2013 Memorandum Order available at
http://is.gd/6jJ1HHDistrict Judge Sue L. Robinson granted Carl
Singley's motion to dismiss the appeal filed by CFI Class Action
Claimants.

CFI's appeal challenged a bankruptcy court's oral ruling denying
CFI's motion to dismiss the bankruptcy cases of SCH Corp., et al.
CFI's appeal is equitably moot, the judge held.

Mr. Singley is the disbursing agent, litigation designee and
responsible officer for Liquidating Debtors SCH Corp., American
Corrective Counselling Services, Inc. and ACCS Corp.  The Debtors
filed for bankruptcy on Jan. 19, 2009 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No.
09-10198).  The Debtors obtained confirmation of an amended
Chapter 11 plan on Nov. 2, 2009, which plan was declared effective
on Dec. 21, 2009.  Before filing for bankruptcy, class action
litigations against the debtors occurred in various states,
alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
similar state statutes.  The Plaintiffs in California, Florida and
Indiana were given the acronym "CFI Claimants".

The appeals case is CFI CLASS ACTION CLAIMANTS, Appellants,
v. CARL SINGLEY, Appellee, Civ. No. 12-1577-SLR.

CFI Class Action Claimants are represented by Christopher D.
Loizides, Esq., of Loizides & Associates.

Carl Singley is represented by Anthony Michael Saccullo, Esq., and
Thomas Henry Kovach, Esq., of A M Saccullo Legal, LLC; as well as
Daniel Kevin Astin, Esq. -- dastin@ciardilaw.com, John Daniel
McLaughlin, Jr., Esq. -- cmclaughlin@ciardilaw.com, and Joseph J.
McMahon, Jr. -- jmcmahon@ciardilaw.com -- of Ciardi Ciardi &
Astin.


SCS DIRECT: Recalls Thermobaby Bath Seats Due to Drowning Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
SCS Direct Inc., of Milford, Conn., announced a voluntary recall
of about 7,500 Thermobaby Aquababy Bath Ring Seats.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

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

There were no incidents/injuries that were reported.

The recall includes Aquababy Bath Ring seats in pink or blue
designed for children five months to ten months old.  The seat is
made of white plastic with blue, pink or green trimming and has
four suction cups on the bottom.  An oval-shaped arm rail runs
from the seat back and connects two side posts and the seat front
post.  There are three spinning toys on the front of the seat rail
above the front post.  "Thermobaby Z.I. De Kerbois, " "Aquababy"
and "Ref. 1953 Made in France" is engraved underneath the bath
seat.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/PXKIQj

The recalled products were manufactured in France and sold
exclusively at Amazon.com from June 2012 through January 2013 for
about $35.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bath seats
and contact the firm for instruction on returning the bath seat
and receiving a $35 refund.


SMART TECHNOLOGIES: Hearings on IPO Suits Deal Set for September
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hearings will be held in September 2013 to determine the final
approval of SMART Technologies Inc.'s settlement of litigations
arising from its initial public offering, according to the
Company's June 27, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

              Settlement of IPO-Related Litigations

On March 13, 2013, the Company announced that an agreement in
principle had been reached with the plaintiffs in the U.S. and
Canadian shareholder class action lawsuits involving the Company,
In re SMART Technologies Inc. Shareholder Litigation, pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, and Tucci v. SMART Technologies Inc., et al., pending in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Actions").  Pursuant to
the settlement terms, the parties have agreed to settle the
Actions, releasing the alleged claims and all related claims,
subject to various conditions, including appropriate class notice,
court approvals and the dismissal of related putative class claims
in Harper v. SMART Technologies Inc., et al., currently pending in
the Superior Court of the State of California.  The proposed
settlement will be funded entirely by insurance maintained by the
Company.

On May 23, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York ("US Court") issued an order preliminarily
approving a proposed settlement in the U.S. class action
proceeding, In Re SMART Technologies Inc. Shareholder Litigation.
The US Court will hold a hearing on September 17, 2013, in New
York City to determine, among other things, whether the proposed
settlement should be given final approval and whether the court
should enter final judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice.

On May 13, 2013, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ("Canadian
Court") issued an order preliminarily approving a proposed
settlement in the Canadian class action proceeding, Tucci v. SMART
Technologies Inc. et al.  The Canadian Court will hold a hearing
on September 13, 2013 in Toronto, Ontario to determine, among
other things, whether the proposed settlement should be given
final approval and whether the court should enter final judgment
dismissing all claims with prejudice.

In addition to obtaining approval from the U.S. Court and Canadian
Court, the proposed settlement requires as a pre-condition that
the class allegations in Harper v. SMART Technologies Inc., et
al., pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, be
dismissed with prejudice with all appeal rights exhausted.  The
California court has stayed all proceedings in that case until the
U.S. Court issues its final ruling on the settlement after the
September 17 hearing.

       In re SMART Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation

Starting in December 2010, several putative class action
complaints against the Company and other parties were filed in the
U.S. District Courts in New York and Illinois on behalf of the
purchasers of the Class A Subordinate Voting Shares in the
Company's initial public offering.  The complaints alleged certain
violations of federal securities laws in connection with the IPO.
After a series of motions, the court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, the
City of Miami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees'
Retirement Trust, filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint in the New York court in November 2011.  A motion to
dismiss the case was filed by the defendants on January 6, 2012,
and, on April 3, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in
part the motion.  A Second Amended Complaint was filed on
April 23, 2012, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended claims on May 11, 2012.  On August 21, 2012, the Court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss the amended claims.  On
January 11, 2013, the Court issued an order certifying a class
defined as: "All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired (and did not sell) SMART common stock in the United
States prior to November 10, 2010, pursuant or traceable to the
Offering Materials. With respect to claims brought under section
12(a)(2), the class is limited to U.S. purchasers of SMART stock
in the July 14, 2010, initial public offering."  In light of the
proposed settlement, the Court has stayed all proceedings and will
be considering a motion seeking approval of the settlement.  The
motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement, and
authorizing notice to the class, was filed with the Court on
April 30, 2013.

            Tucci v. SMART Technologies Inc., et al.

In February 2011, a class proceeding was commenced in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice on behalf of purchasers of the Class A
Subordinate Voting Shares issued in conjunction with the IPO (the
"Lefever/Runnels Action").  A second class proceeding was
subsequently initiated by the same law firm with an Ontario-based
representative plaintiff in May 2011 (the "Tucci Action").  The
certification motion in the Tucci Action was heard on February 1,
2013.  While the parties consented to certain terms of
certification, including terms dismissing the Lefever/Runnels
Action, the court heard arguments as to whether secondary market
purchasers should be included in the class definition to be
certified in the Tucci Action.  On February 4, 2013, the court
released its decision and certified a class limited to primary
market purchasers of SMART shares during the IPO from underwriters
domiciled in Canada.  The court refused to certify the claims
alleged on behalf of secondary market purchasers in the Tucci
Action.  On February 12, 2013 the plaintiff in the Tucci action
served a notice of motion for leave to appeal the certification
decision.  However, the motion is in abeyance as a result of the
proposed settlement.

            Harper v. SMART Technologies Inc., et al.

In September 2011, an additional putative class proceeding was
commenced in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Francisco on behalf of purchasers of the Class A
Subordinate Voting Shares.  The Company is of the view that this
proceeding is not materially different than the matter being heard
in the Southern District of New York.  In October 2011, the
defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  Thereafter, the defendants filed
a motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, and plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand the case to California state court.  On September 28, 2012,
the Court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to
California state court, where it is now pending, and denied as
moot the defendants' motion to transfer.  In November 2012, the
defendants filed a motion to stay the Harper action pending
resolution of SMART Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation in the
Southern District of New York.  That motion remains pending.  The
dismissal of the class claims in Harper is a condition of the
proposed settlement of the In re SMART Technologies and Tucci v.
SMART Technologies cases.

As a result of the U.S. and Canadian class action IPO litigations,
the Company may be required, subject to certain limitations, to
indemnify the following parties: the underwriters pursuant to the
underwriting agreement entered into in connection with the IPO;
Intel Corporation, Apax Partners and IFF Holdings Inc. pursuant to
a registration rights agreement entered into in 2007 and amended
and restated in connection with the IPO; and the directors and
officers of SMART Technologies Inc. pursuant to indemnification
agreements entered into by the Company and each director and
officer on or about the time of their appointment to their
respective office.

SMART Technologies Inc. -- http://www.smarttech.com/-- is a
provider of integrated hardware and software solutions that
facilitate collaboration and learning in classrooms and meeting
rooms.  The Alberta, Canada-based Company introduced the world's
first interactive whiteboard in 1991 and the Company remains a
global leader in the interactive display market, with over 2.7
million interactive displays shipped to date.


SONY CORP: Defends Antitrust Suits Over Batteries vs. Unit
----------------------------------------------------------
Sony Corporation is defending a subsidiary against antitrust class
action lawsuits relating to batteries, according to the Company's
June 27, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2013.

In May 2011, Sony Corporation's U.S. subsidiary, Sony Electronics
Inc., received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice
("DOJ") Antitrust Division seeking information about its secondary
batteries business.  Sony understands that the DOJ, the European
Union and certain other governmental agencies outside the United
States are investigating competition in the secondary batteries
market.  Subsequently, a number of direct and indirect purchaser
class action lawsuits were filed in certain jurisdictions,
including the United States, in which the plaintiffs allege that
Sony Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries violated
antitrust laws and seek recovery of damages and other remedies.
Based on the stage of these proceedings, the Company says it is
not possible to estimate the amount of loss or range of possible
loss, if any, that might result from adverse judgments,
settlements or other resolution of all of these matters.

Established in Japan in May 1946 as Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo Kabushiki
Kaisha, Sony Corporation -- http://www.sony.net/-- changed its
name to Sony Kabushiki Kaisha ("Sony Corporation" in English) in
January 1958.  The Tokyo, Japan-based Company is engaged in the
development, design, manufacture, and sale of various kinds of
electronic equipment, instruments, and devices for consumer,
professional and industrial markets as well as game hardware and
software.  Sony is also engaged in the development, production and
acquisition, manufacture, marketing, distribution and broadcasting
of image-based software, including motion picture, home
entertainment and television product, as well as the development,
production, manufacture, and distribution of recorded music.


SONY CORP: Defends Class Suits Arising From 2011 Cyber-Attack
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sony Corporation is defending itself and its subsidiaries against
class action lawsuits arising from a 2011 cyber-attack, according
to the Company's June 27, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31,
2013.

Starting in early 2011, the network services of
PlayStation(R)Network, Qriocity(TM), Sony Online Entertainment LLC
and Web sites of other subsidiaries came under cyber-attack.  As
of June 27, 2013, Sony has not received any confirmed reports of
customer identity theft issues or misuse of credit cards from such
cyber-attacks.  However, in connection with certain of these
matters, Sony has received inquiries from authorities in a number
of jurisdictions, including orders for reports issued by the
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan as well as the
Financial Services Agency of Japan, formal and/or informal
requests for information from Attorneys General from a number of
states in the United States and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission,
various U.S. congressional inquiries and others.  Additionally,
Sony Corporation and/or certain of its subsidiaries have been
named in a number of purported class actions in certain
jurisdictions, including the United States.  Based on the stage of
these inquiries and proceedings, it is not possible to estimate
the amount of loss or range of possible loss, if any, that might
result from adverse judgments, settlements or other resolution of
all of these matters.

Established in Japan in May 1946 as Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo Kabushiki
Kaisha, Sony Corporation -- http://www.sony.net/-- changed its
name to Sony Kabushiki Kaisha ("Sony Corporation" in English) in
January 1958.  The Tokyo, Japan-based Company is engaged in the
development, design, manufacture, and sale of various kinds of
electronic equipment, instruments, and devices for consumer,
professional and industrial markets as well as game hardware and
software.  Sony is also engaged in the development, production and
acquisition, manufacture, marketing, distribution and broadcasting
of image-based software, including motion picture, home
entertainment and television product, as well as the development,
production, manufacture, and distribution of recorded music.


SONY CORP: Defends Class Suits Over Optical Disk Drive Business
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sony Corporation is defending itself and its subsidiaries from
class action lawsuits relating to its optical disk drive business,
according to the Company's June 27, 2013, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
March 31, 2013.

In October 2009, Sony Corporation's U.S. subsidiary, Sony Optiarc
America Inc., received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of
Justice ("DOJ") seeking information about its optical disk drive
business.  Sony understands that the DOJ, the European Union and
certain other governmental agencies outside the United States are
investigating and/or have investigated competition in optical disk
drives.  Subsequently, a number of direct and indirect purchaser
lawsuits, including class actions, were filed in certain
jurisdictions, including the United States, in which the
plaintiffs allege that Sony Corporation and certain of its
subsidiaries violated antitrust laws and seek recovery of damages
and other remedies.  Based on the stage of these proceedings, it
is not possible to estimate the amount of loss or range of
possible loss, if any, that might result from adverse judgments,
settlements or other resolution of all of these matters.

Established in Japan in May 1946 as Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo Kabushiki
Kaisha, Sony Corporation -- http://www.sony.net/-- changed its
name to Sony Kabushiki Kaisha ("Sony Corporation" in English) in
January 1958.  The Tokyo, Japan-based Company is engaged in the
development, design, manufacture, and sale of various kinds of
electronic equipment, instruments, and devices for consumer,
professional and industrial markets as well as game hardware and
software.  Sony is also engaged in the development, production and
acquisition, manufacture, marketing, distribution and broadcasting
of image-based software, including motion picture, home
entertainment and television product, as well as the development,
production, manufacture, and distribution of recorded music.


STERLING BANCORP: Faces Suit in New York Over Overdraft Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Katzman, Pasta Authority Inc. D/B/A The New York Pasta
Authority, Crown Storage Inc. and Platinum Plus Designs, LLC, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Sterling
Bancorp and Sterling National Bank, Case No. 1:13-cv-05013-RMB
(S.D. N.Y., July 18, 2013) seeks monetary damages, restitution and
injunctive relief from the Defendants, arising from their alleged
unfair, deceptive and unconscionable assessment and collection of
excessive overdraft fees.

The assessment and collection of overdraft fees employed by
Sterling and other banks have developed into a pattern and
practice of bad faith and inequitable conduct practiced on
unwitting customers, the Plaintiffs assert.  They allege that in
an effort to cause as many overdrafts as possible, Sterling
manipulates and reorders debits from highest to lowest during the
course of a day.

Moshe Katzman is a citizen of the state of New York.  Pasta
Authority and Crown Storage are New York corporations based in
Brooklyn.  Platinum Plus is a New York limited liability company
based in New York.

Sterling Bancorp is a New York corporation based in New York.
Sterling National Bank is an FDIC-insured subsidiary of Sterling
Bancorp.  Sterling has operations in the New York metropolitan
area and conducts business throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lee S. Shalov, Esq.
          Amalia Goldvaser, Esq.
          MCLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
          260 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 448-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 448-0066
          E-mail: lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com
                  agoldvaser@mclaughlinstern.com

               - and -

          Howard A. Raphaelson, Esq.
          RAPHAELSON & LEVINE
          14 Penn Plaza
          New York, NY 10122
          Telephone: (212) 268-3222
          Facsimile: (212) 268-3313
          E-mail: howard@raphaelsonlaw.com


STEVEN J. BAUM: "Shadow Docket" Foreclosure Class Action Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Brush, writing for Law360, reports that two New York City
homeowners who filed a class action against a law firm they claim
subjected them to increased loan penalties by leaving them stuck
in New York's bank foreclosure "shadow docket" saw their claims
under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act dismissed on
July 12.

The dismissal came after U.S. District Judge Sandra L. Townes
ruled plaintiffs Imogene Cole and Georgia Brown failed to state a
colorable claim against Steven J. Baum PC and its principal Steven
J. Baum under the FDCPA and declined to exercise jurisdiction over
their state-law claim.

The plaintiffs said the law firm violated federal and state laws
by initiating foreclosures but failing to file a Request for
Judicial Intervention -- a procedural move that brings the case
before a judge -- causing delays that saw them incur increased
loan penalties and unnecessary fees and expenses.

Noting that the FDCPA is designed as a consumer protection
statute, but does not apply directly to procedural matters such as
the filing of an RJI, Judge Townes found no actionable federal
claim.

"Although defendants may be debt collectors, and their alleged
violation . . .  may be characterized as unfair, defendants'
violation of this state procedural provision neither resulted in,
nor contributed to, the sort of unfair debt collection practices
prohibited by the FDCPA," the judge said.

But the judge noted that the plaintiffs are free to redraw their
case in state court under a 2008 state law -- passed in New York
in the wake of the mortgage foreclosure crisis -- that requires a
mandatory conference within 60 days after a bank hires a lawyer to
prosecute a foreclosure.

While still being targeted in litigation, the Baum firm closed its
doors at the end of 2011, after agreeing to pay New York state $4
million to settle allegations it brought unverified foreclosure
proceedings against homeowners and failed to timely file court
intervention requests.

The "shadow docket" in New York has drawn the attention of New
York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, who sued HSBC Bank USA
in June, accusing the bank in state court of foreclosing on
homeowners without filing papers that could have led to quick
settlements.

HSBC isn't the only bank that has been linked to these alleged
practices, which date back to the dark days of the mortgage crisis
and have left as many as 25,000 families facing foreclosure as
their cases languish just outside the courthouse doors, according
to legal experts.

Meanwhile a bill that burdens attorneys representing banks with
ascertaining that their clients not only have standing to begin a
foreclosure -- by producing the instrument of debt related to the
loan -- and requiring them to declare a reasonable basis for
commencement of an action has passed the New York legislature and
awaits Gov. Andrew Cuomo's possible signature.

The plaintiffs are represented by Robert I. Harwood --
rharwood@hfesq.com -- and James G. Flynn -- jflynn@hfesq.com -- of
Harwood Feffer LLP and Elizabeth M. Lynch and Adam H. Cohen of MFY
Legal Services Inc.

The defendants are represented by Brett A. Scher --
bscher@kdvlaw.com -- of Kaufman Dolowich Voluck & Gonzo LLP.

The case is Cole et al. v. Baum, case number 1:11-cv-03779, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Sudden Acceleration Bellweather Case to Go to Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a so-called "bellwether" case to
go to trial that could determine whether Toyota Motor Corp. should
be held liable for sudden unintended acceleration in its vehicles

Noriko Uno was afraid of driving fast, often avoiding the freeway
and taking the same route every day from her Upland home to and
from her family's sushi restaurant.  She had put only 10,000 miles
on her 2006 Camry in about four years.

So when her car unexpectedly accelerated to speeds up to 100 mph
on a street with a posted limit of 30, the 66-year-old bookkeeper
did everything she could to slow down, stepping on the brake pedal
and pulling the emergency brake handle as she swerved to avoid
other vehicles.

Mrs. Uno was killed when her car went onto a median and struck a
telephone pole and a tree.

Hers is the first so-called "bellwether" case to go to trial that
could determine whether Toyota Motor Corp. should be held liable
for sudden unintended acceleration in its vehicles -- a claim made
by motorists that plagued the Japanese automaker and led to
lawsuits, settlements and recalls of millions of its cars and
SUVs.

"Toyota decided to make safety an option instead of a standard on
their vehicles," said attorney Garo Mardirossian, who is
representing Mrs. Uno's husband and son.  "They decided to save a
few bucks, and by doing so, it cost lives."

Toyota has said there was no defect in Mrs. Uno's Camry.  The
automaker has blamed such crashes on accelerators that got stuck,
floor mats that trapped the gas pedal and driver error.  The
company has settled some wrongful death cases and agreed to pay
more than $1 billion to resolve lawsuits where owners said the
value of their vehicles plummeted after Toyota's recalls because
of sudden-acceleration concerns.

The Uno trial, starting with jury selection, is expected to last
two months.  The proceeding represents the first of the bellwether
cases in state courts, which are chosen by a judge to help predict
the potential outcome of other lawsuits making similar claims.

Other cases expected to go to trial in state courts this year
include one in Oklahoma and another in Michigan.  There are more
than 80 similar cases filed in state courts.

The Toyota litigation has gone on parallel tracks in state and
federal court, with both sides agreeing to settlements so far.  A
federal judge in Orange County is dealing with wrongful death and
economic loss lawsuits that have been consolidated.  He's expected
to give final approval to the economic loss settlement this week.

Federal lawsuits contend that Toyota's electronic throttle control
system was defective and caused vehicles to surge unexpectedly.
Plaintiffs' attorneys have deposed Toyota employees, reviewed
software code and pored over thousands of documents.

Toyota has denied the allegation and neither the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration nor NASA found evidence of
electronic problems.  A trial in one of the lead cases is
scheduled for November.

The Uno trial will likely focus on why Toyota didn't have a
mechanism to override the accelerator if the gas and brake pedals
are pressed simultaneously in Camrys sold in the U.S.  The
automaker put the brake override system in its European fleet,
Mr. Mardirossian said.

Toyota said Mrs. Uno's vehicle was equipped with a "state-of-the-
art" braking system and denied that any defect played a role in
her death.

"We are confident the evidence will show that a brake override
system would not have prevented this accident and that there was
no defect in Mrs. Uno's vehicle," the automaker said in a
statement about the upcoming trial.

Legal observers said Mrs. Uno's attorneys won't necessarily have
to prove what was wrong with the vehicle, but show that the
accident could have been prevented with a brake override system.

"If the plaintiff succeeds in convincing a jury it wasn't human
error, that it was attributed to the car, I think they have a
strong case," said Gregory Keating, a law professor at the
University of Southern California.  "Jurors, as drivers, are
likely to believe strongly that cars shouldn't become
uncontrollable in this way."

Toyota has been successful in court before.  Two years ago, a
federal jury in New York found the automaker wasn't responsible
for a 2005 crash that the driver blamed on the floor mats or
defects with the electronic throttle system.

It was nearly four years ago when Mrs. Uno, who was out grocery
shopping and depositing receipts from the restaurant, died.
Witnesses told police they saw Mrs. Uno swerve to avoid hitting an
oncoming truck, according to the lawsuit.

Mr. Mardirossian said Uno was a cautious driver and neither floor
mats nor driver error were to blame.  He said witnesses heard the
Camry engine racing and saw brake lights going on and off. Pulling
the handbrake had "zero effect," Mrs. Mardirossian said.

"Imagine her strapped into her Toyota Camry driving 100 mph
knowing the next move would be fatal," he said.  "She saved many
lives by veering off into that center median knowing that death
was near."

That same day -- Aug. 28, 2009 -- off-duty California Highway
Patrol Officer Mark Saylor and three family members were killed on
a suburban San Diego freeway when their 2009 Lexus ES 350 reached
speeds of more than 120 mph, struck a sport utility vehicle,
launched off an embankment, rolled several times and burst into
flames.  A 911 call captured Saylor's brother-in-law telling the
others to pray before the car crashed.

Toyota, which makes the luxury Lexus brand, agreed to settle a
lawsuit filed by the victims' family for $10 million.  An inquiry
into the crash led to recalls of millions of Toyota vehicles.
Investigators said a wrong-size floor mat trapped the accelerator
and caused the accident.

The Uno family lawsuit, which claims product liability and
negligence, seeks general and punitive damages.  Mr. Mardirossian
said Uno's relatives want to have a jury decide that the crash was
not her fault.

"They want to make sure to get their loved one's name cleared," he
said.


TV GUIDE: Arkansas Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in "Roller" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Arkansas, in an opinion delivered June 27,
2013, reversed a lower court ruling in -- and remanded the case
captioned -- SHARON ROLLER, VALERIE MURPHY, AND EMILY SMITH,
APPELLANTS, v. TV GUIDE ONLINE HOLDINGS, LLC, APPELLEE, NO.
CV-12-306.

Appellants Sharon Roller, Valerie Murphy, and Emily Smith took an
appeal from the judgment and order of the Washington County
Circuit Court, granting appellee TV Guide Online Holdings' motion
to dismiss. On appeal, appellants assert that the circuit court
erred in granting TV Guide's motion to dismiss because (1)
appellants properly pleaded subject-matter jurisdiction and venue
in their complaint, and (2) TV Guide did not meet its burden of
proof to establish that venue was improper in Washington County,
Arkansas.

Appellants filed a class-action complaint against TV Guide,
claiming that they represented a class of people who had accessed
TV Guide's website. They assert that, upon their access of the
website, TV Guide downloaded a "Flash cookie" onto their computers
without their knowledge, permission, or consent. The Flash cookie
had the capacity to monitor, capture, and report information
concerning appellants' activity on the Internet. Appellants'
complaint alleged that each of the three appellants were citizens
and residents of Washington County and that a substantial part of
the events or omissions giving rise to their claims occurred in
Washington County.

TV Guide filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the appellants
had not pleaded facts sufficient to show that venue was proper in
Washington County.  On January 3, 2012, the circuit court entered
its order granting the motion to dismiss "for the reasons stated
on the record during the hearing." Appellants filed a motion to
reconsider. The circuit court, after a hearing, denied appellants'
motion.  Appellants then filed this timely appeal.

"In sum, because subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be created or
waived by agreement between the parties, and because TV Guide has
not met its burden to show that an enforceable agreement existed
between it and appellants relating to the proper venue in which to
bring claims, the circuit court erred in granting TV Guide's
motion to dismiss," wrote Associate Justice Karen R. Baker.

Special Justice Edward Allen Gordon joins in the opinion.

Justice Goodson is not participating.

A copy of the Supreme Court's June 27, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/DyeK5xfrom Leagle.com.

William B. Putnam -- wbputman@taylorlawpartners.com -- at Taylor
Law Partners, LLP for appellants.

Clifford W. Plunkett -- plunkett@fridayfirm.com -- and Seth Haines
-- shaines@fridayfirm.com -- at Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP for
appellee.


UNION CARBIDE: Obtains Favorable Appeals Court Ruling in Tort Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Janki Bai Sahu and several others similarly situated
brought a tort suit to recover from injuries allegedly caused by
exposure to soil and drinking water polluted by hazardous wastes
produced by the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant
in Bhopal, India.  Sahu sought monetary damages and an injunction
requiring remediation and medical monitoring from the Union
Carbide Corporation (Union Carbide), which was formerly a majority
owner of UCIL, and from Warren Anderson (together with the Union
Carbide Corporation, UCC), Union Carbide's former CEO.  Sahu now
appeals from a June 27, 2012 order of the District Court granting
summary judgment to UCC.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms
the June 27, 2012 judgment of the District Court saying Sahu and
many others living near the Bhopal plant may well have suffered
terrible and lasting injuries from a wholly preventable disaster
for which someone is responsible. After nine years of contentious
litigation and discovery, however, all that the evidence in the
case demonstrates is that UCC is not that entity.

The case is JANKI BAI SAHU, on behalf of herself, her family, as
guardian of her minor children, and all other similarly situated,
et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION,
WARREN ANDERSON, Defendants-Appellees, No. 12-2983-CV.

A copy of the Appeals Court's June 27, 2013 Summary Order is
available at http://is.gd/XfLOqzfrom Leagle.com.

Richard L. Herz -- rick@earthrights.org -- Curtis Victor Trinko --
ctrinko@trinko.com -- at Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, New
York, NY; H. Rajan Sharma -- rajan@sharmadeyoung.com -- Neal
DeYoung -- neal@sharmadeyoung.com -- at Sharma & DeYoung LLP, New
York, NY; Matthew K. Handley -- mhandley@cohenmilstein.com --
Thomas N. Saunders, at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
Washington, DC; Richard S. Lewis -- rlewis@hausfeldllp.com --
Reena A. Gambhir -- rgambhir@hausfeldllp.com -- at Hausfeld LLP,
Washington, DC; EarthRights International, Washington, DC., for
Plaintiffs-Appellants.

William A. Krohley -- wkrohley@kelleydrye.com -- William C. Heck
-- wheck@kelleydrye.com -- at Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, New,
York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.


UNITED STATES: Nurses File Age Bias Suit v. Veterans Affairs
------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Prochilo, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs was hit with a proposed class action on
July 16 in federal court by five nurses of one of its New York
state health care systems who allege the department refused to
promote them and threatened to fire them on account of their age.


UNITED STATES: EFF's Suit Challenges NSA Surveillance
-----------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Blum, writing for The Recorder, reports that legal
challenges are mounting to the federal government's widespread
collection of telephone call data.

The latest comes from the Electronic Frontier Foundation on behalf
of a cluster of diverse political, religious and environmental
entities, all claiming the government's sweeping collection of
telephone communications data chills their members' First
Amendment right to free association.

In that way, the case, filed on July 16 in San Francisco federal
court, takes a different tack than prior Northern District
litigation backed by EFF, which focused on individual privacy
rights of AT&T customers, said Cindy Cohn, EFF's legal director.

People are less likely to associate "when they know the government
is watching," Ms. Cohn said.  "Our suit seeks to apply the right
of association in the digital age," she said.

The new suit, First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. NSA,
challenges the constitutionality of "dragnet electronic
surveillance" by the National Security Agency and follows a bevy
of similar actions in the weeks since NSA contractor Edward
Snowden leaked details of the secret government program to news
outlets.

The suit also comes in the wake of a July 8 decision from U.S.
District Judge Jeffrey White in San Francisco rejecting the
government's attempt in the AT&T case to invoke a state secrets
privilege and block the litigation from proceeding.  Judge White
concluded the mechanisms for handling classified information in
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act preempt the privilege.

Judge White's ruling should help the new case advance more
quickly, Cohn said.  The coalition hopes the court will also look
to the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous 1958 decision in NAACP v.
Alabama, which barred the state government from compelling
disclosure of the NAACP's membership list because of its
suppressive effect on free association. The new suit could land in
White's court but so far a district judge has not been assigned to
the case.

EFF is backed by a team from Keker & Van Nest and Bay Area civil
rights lawyers.  A Justice Department spokesperson could not be
reached for comment.

The 20-page complaint references a June 6 statement from Director
of National Intelligence James Clapper that confirmed broad
collection of "telephony metadata," such as the numbers dialed and
length of calls.

In addition to the First Amendment claim, EFF attacks the "secret
legal interpretation" of Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act that
the Obama administration has relied on to justify the
surveillance.

Administration officials have insisted the program is governed by
a robust legal regime and authorized under the Patriot Act.
However, EFF contends the secret interpretation makes the law
unconstitutionally vague, fails to give law enforcement clear
standards, and leaves people and groups "uncertain about where a
reasonable expectation of privacy from government intrusion begins
and ends."

"The statute on its face gives no notice that it could be
construed to authorize the bulk collection of telephone
communications information for use in future investigations," the
complaint states.

Nineteen groups are suing the NSA, Clapper, Attorney General Eric
Holder and other administration officials.  Among the eclectic
plaintiffs are First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles; the Bill of
Rights Defense Committee; CalGuns Foundation Inc.; the Council on
American Islamic Relations Foundation Inc., Greenpeace Inc.; Human
Rights Watch; and the National Association for the Reform of
Marijuana Laws.

The suit alleges violations of the First, Fourth and Fifth
amendments and emphasizes the chilling effect of the data
collection on citizens' freedom to communicate, associate and
engage in political advocacy without government interference.

It's not just privacy at stake, Ms. Cohn said.  She added: "We're
hoping to start a national conversation about something broader."


WALT DISNEY: Disneyland's Ban of Segway Upheld in California
------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
safety concerns properly led Disneyland officials to bar a
disabled woman from using her Segway to tour the park, a state
appeals court ruled.

In 2006, Tina Baughman, who suffers from limb-girdle muscular
dystrophy, called Disneyland to ask if she could tour the park
using her Segway.  Her disability causes a gradual weakening of
the large muscles in her arms and legs, and while she uses a cane
to walk short distances, she has difficulty getting up from a
seated position and prefers not to use a wheelchair.

Officials told Baughman that Disneyland policy bars guests from
using two-wheeled devices to navigate the park.  After writing
letters and speaking to several Disney representatives Baughman
sued in 2007, alleging violations of the Americans With
Disabilities Act, California's disability and civil rights laws
and negligence per se.

Disney successfully removed the ADA action to Federal Court, where
U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney sided with Disney in 2010.  Last
year, however, the 9th Circuit unanimously reversed, ordering
Disneyland to embrace new technologies to assist guests of the 58-
year-old park.

"We have every confidence that the organization that, half a
century ago, brought us the Carousel of Progress and Great Moments
with Mr. Lincoln can lead the way in using new technology to make
its parks more welcoming to disabled guests," Chief Judge Alex
Kozinski wrote in that opinion.  "As the man who started it all
said, 'Disneyland will never be completed as long as there is
imagination left in the world.'"

Meanwhile, an Orange County Superior Court judge dispensed with
Baughman's remaining claims before trial, finding that Disney met
its burden of proving that Segways are inherently dangerous in a
crowded park visited by nearly 16 million people in 2012 alone.

Disney's chief safety officer, Gregory Hale, testified that while
the park made specific accommodations for motorized scooters and
electric wheelchairs, park officials decided Segways are unsafe
and pose an unacceptable risk of injury to guests, including the
user.

Hale, who claimed to be a personal friend of Segway inventor Dean
Kamen, noted in his testimony that the Segway is inherently
unstable and "can tip over rapidly" in the event of a "sudden or
unexpected input."

"In addition, if any part of the onboard computer fails, the
Segway will not work properly and may, again, tip over or move
unexpectedly," Hale added.

He likened the device to a unicycle in that both require constant
movement by the rider to stay upright.  Disney also submitted
evidence that the owner of the company that makes Segways, British
tycoon Jimi Heselden, died in 2010 after losing control of his
Segway and plunging off a cliff.

On appeal, a three-judge panel of the 4th District Court of
Appeals ruled for Disney, saying the "undisputed expert evidence
showed Segways cannot be used safely in Disneyland crowds due to
its method of operation."

"Disney produced expert evidence to the effect that Segways pose a
substantial risk of injury in the crowded confines inside the park
due to the vehicle's design," Judge Eileen Moore wrote for the
panel.  "Baughman did not counter this evidence with expert
evidence of her own.  Instead, she offered her own declaration to
the effect that she has never had an accident on her Segway."

The judges were unconvinced by Baughman's evidence that Disney is
Segway's biggest customer, with employees using them on back lots
and giving tours of the California Adventure theme park before it
opened.

"[T]he issue is whether Segways can be used safely by guests
inside the park," Moore wrote.

"The public is not present on Disney's back lots where Segways may
be used by employees.  More telling is the fact that Disney's
'backstage' Segway users 'cannot go on stage at all while guests
are in the parks,' and even when Disney gave Segway tours in the
past, the tours were limited to a predesignated route in
California Adventure Park, adjacent to Disneyland, involved
'constant supervision' in 'a roped off area away from other
guests' and were conducted in the early morning hours before the
park opened to the general public."

Disney need only make reasonable accommodations for its disabled
guests, the panel added, not "any and all possible accommodations
that would provide full and equal access" to the park.

"In the present case, Disney's evidence demonstrated that given
the crowds at Disneyland and the intrinsic characteristics of
Segways, the device poses a danger to the guests of the park,
including the operator of the Segway," Moore concluded.

In 2012, the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit approved a class-action
settlement allowing Disney to continue its ban on Segways while it
develops its own four-wheel electric standup vehicle.  The device
is intended for disabled guests who cannot use a wheelchair,
scooter or other mobility device that requires sitting.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          David G. Geffen, Esq.
          DAVID GEFFEN LAW
          530 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 205
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 434-1111
          Facsimile: (310) 434-1115
          E-mail: geffenlaw@aol.com

The Defendant-Respondent Walt Disney World Co. is represented by:

          Daniel F. Fears, Esq.
          PAYNE & FEARS LLP
          Four Park Plaza Ste 1100
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 797-1222
          Facsimile: (949) 851-1212
          E-mail: DFF@paynefears.com

The appellate case is Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co., Case No.
G046470, in the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate
District.  The lower court case is Baughman v. Walt Disney World
Co., Case No. 07CC08601, in the Superior Court of Orange County.


WELLS FARGO: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
On July 12, 2013, the San Francisco employment lawyers at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action against
Wells Fargo Insurance Services USA, Inc. or allegedly failing to
pay their Account Executive overtime wages.  Morales v. Wells
Fargo Insurance Services USA, Inc., Case No. CGC-13-532814 is
currently pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court for
the State of California.

The class action complaint alleges that under the California Labor
Code, Wells Fargo is required to pay all persons employed in the
job position of Account Executive overtime wages for their time
worked in excess of eight hours in a workday and hours worked in
excess of forty hours in any workweek.  The lawsuit further claims
that the Account Executives employed by Wells Fargo are "managers
in name only" and that Wells Fargo allegedly misclassified the
Account Executives because these employees fail to meet all the
criteria under any of the exemptions to overtime pay in
California.  As a result, the Complaint requests that these
employees should be paid for all the overtime hours they have
worked for Wells Fargo.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges "[t]he Account Executives
perform menial day-to-day sales related tasks and report to sales
people to assist these sales people in selling Wells Fargo's
Products."

Norman Blumenthal, the founding partner of Blumenthal Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik, said, "an example of improper classification of employees
involves an person labeled as a salaried manager with few
management duties."

The San Francisco labor attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik represent employees in the State of California in various
lawsuits including class actions for unpaid overtime, unpaid
business expenses, and missed meal and rest breaks.  If you would
like free California labor law advice, call one of their
experienced attorneys today at (415) 935-3957.


YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls 626 BOLT and BOLT R Models
------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                July 17, 2013
Starting date:                July 16, 2013
Type of communication:        Recall
Subcategory:                  Motorcycle
Notification type:            Safety Mfr
System:                       Electrical
Units affected:               626
Source of recall:             Transport Canada
Identification number:        2013246
TC ID number:                 2013246
Manufacturer recall number:   M13-03

Affected products:

   Maker      Model       Model year(s) affected
   -----      -----       ----------------------
   YAMAHA     BOLT        2014
   YAMAHA     BOLT R      2014

On certain motorcycles, a wire harness may have been routed too
close to the rear exhaust and could be damaged due to heat.  This
could result in engine stalling and a loss of vehicle propulsion
which, in conjunction with traffic and road conditions, and the
rider's reactions, could increase the risk of a crash causing
property damage and/or personal injury.

Dealers will install retaining bands to position the wire harness
away from the exhaust.


* "Black Swan" Ruling Prompts More Unpaid Internship Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Ross Perlin, writing for The New York Times, reports that a
federal judge in New York ruled last month that unpaid interns on
the movie "Black Swan" should have received at least the minimum
wage.  The judge also allowed a class-action suit to go forward
against the Fox Entertainment Group, the parent company of the
film's production division.

Gutsy and improbable when it was first filed two years ago, the
"Black Swan" case was a pioneering direct challenge to the
internship system.  Now more than 15 other lawsuits have followed
in its wake, according to an online database maintained by
ProPublica, the investigative journalism Web site.

The companies being sued operate in a wide range of intern-heavy
industries.  Global brands, famous television and fashion
personalities, multinational subsidiaries flush with profits --
these are some of the employers that have refused to pay young
workers at least $7.25 an hour.  How have they done this for so
long?

The federal law is clear: if internships at profit-making
companies are to be unpaid, they must foster an educational
environment. (The rules are different for nonprofit and
governmental agencies.)

Good internships are out there -- ones that pay, ones that train
and ones that lead to real jobs at the end.  But many others fall
far short -- and more people are taking action.  "I think enough
people have finally seen what a trap this has become," said
Eric Glatt, one of the victorious interns in the "Black Swan"
case.

In addition to filing lawsuits, interns are organizing beyond the
courtroom, using some of the same strategies as fast-food workers,
freelancers and various groups of part-time, temporary or guest
workers.

For example, two students at New York University recently created
a petition demanding that the university stop advertising unpaid
internships on campus; more than a thousand people signed in a
matter of days.

With the Obama administration now pushing to increase the minimum
wage, some activists are focusing on what they see as government
hypocrisy.  Washington is a hub for overworked, unpaid interns,
the White House and Congress included.  What good is a minimum-
wage increase when so many people work and make no wages at all?

"There are lots of people who care about this issue; there's a lot
of anger about this issue.  We want to build a movement," said
Mikey Franklin, co-founder of the new Fair Pay Campaign, who plans
to hire professional organizers to galvanize interns in hubs like
New York and Los Angeles.  He hopes for support from organized
labor, whose leaders, he said, are waking up to the issue's
mobilizing potential.

And Intern Labor Rights, a New York-based group formed out of the
Occupy Wall Street movement, is forming a coalition with like-
minded groups in Canada, Britain, France, Switzerland, the
Netherlands and Austria.  In all of those countries, campaigns to
make internships fairer are also under way.

What interns are demanding is hardly a mystery: respect for their
work.  In short, it's time to start envisioning and putting into
practice a healthy, effective internship culture.  For better or
worse, pay is the fundamental currency of respect in every modern
economy.  Unless it's a bona fide training or volunteer position,
an internship should be paid, open to all and transparently
advertised -- and should never result in the displacement of other
employees.

Training, mentoring, experience and opportunity are particularly
vital for interns, which is precisely why many of them are willing
to work longer, harder and for lower wages, running errands and
doing other menial tasks.  Interns know that they're starting at
the bottom, but they need employers to meet them halfway.

Those who can't afford to work without pay are eager for the
chance to break into the intern-heavy fields that are now all but
closed to them.  The demand for meaningful career options --
coupled with a willingness to work hard for them -- has never been
stronger.

And yet, for too many people, internships have become slightly
shameful, with overtones of menial work, immaturity, parental
dependence and being stuck.

As long as the current system remains stubbornly in place, expect
the intern revolt to continue.


* FDA Cracks Down on Illegal Diabetes Treatments
------------------------------------------------
Matthew Perrone, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
the Food and Drug Administration is cracking down on more than a
dozen companies that market illegal treatments for diabetes,
ranging from bogus dietary supplements to prescription drugs sold
online without a prescription.

All of the products aim to cash in on the country's diabetes
epidemic, which affects nearly 26 million Americans.  Regulators
worry that consumers who buy such unapproved products could put
off getting legitimate medical care, which could exacerbate heart
disease, kidney failure and other deadly complications.

The FDA sent warning letters to 15 companies, both in the U.S. and
abroad, ordering them to stop selling diabetes treatments which
violate U.S. drug laws.

Three of the products targeted are marketed as "natural"
supplements, but actually contain unlisted pharmaceutical
ingredients.  For example, Diexi, which is sold as a traditional
Indian "herbal formula," actually contains metformin, the most
common prescription drug used to treat diabetes. The product is
sold by Amrutam Life Care, of Surat, India.

"Consumers should exercise caution before using products claiming
to be herbal or all-natural alternatives to FDA-approved
prescription drugs," the agency said in a statement on July 23.
"These products should be considered unsafe and should not be
used."

Other products include genuine dietary supplements that make
unproven claims to treat or prevent diabetes.  For example,
Diabetes Daily Care is a capsule-based supplement containing
cinnamon extract and other herbs.  Its manufacturer, Nature's
Health Supply Inc., claims it "safely and effectively improves
sugar metabolism."

Under U.S. law, only FDA-approved medicines are permitted to make
claims for treating or preventing disease.

Other companies targeted by the FDA run online pharmacies that
sell prescription drugs for diabetes without a prescription.  The
FDA issued a warning letter to www.bestcheapmedsonline.com for
marketing unapproved versions of diabetes drugs like Januvia, from
Merck & Co. Inc.

The FDA warns patients against buying prescription medications on
the Internet.  Only 3 percent of online pharmacies actually comply
with all U.S. pharmacy laws, according to a review by the National
Association of Boards of Pharmacy.

People with diabetes are unable to properly break down
carbohydrates, either because their bodies do not produce enough
insulin or because they've become resistant to the hormone, which
controls blood sugar levels. These patients face higher risks of
heart attacks, kidney problems, blindness and other serious
complications.

Many diabetics require multiple drugs to control their blood sugar
levels.

The U.S. market for prescription diabetes drugs is the largest in
the world, with sales of $22 billion last year. Sales have
ballooned more than 60 percent in the last four years from $13.6
billion in 2008, according to health data firm, IMS Health.

The FDA said it has not received any reports of injury or illness
connected with the products, but is taking action as a
precautionary measure.

The FDA sent the warning letters to the companies last week, but
posted them online Tuesday morning.  The letters gives each
company 15 business days to reply and explain how they will come
into compliance with U.S. law.  FDA warning letters are not
legally binding, but the agency can take companies to court if
they are ignored.


* McMillan Sees Rise in Privacy Law Class Actions in Quebec
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eloise Gratton, Esq. -- eloise.gratton@mcmillan.ca -- and Jillian
Friedman, student-at-law, at McMillan LLP report that as the
amount of personal information available to and used by businesses
continues to increase exponentially, protection of individual
privacy is a rapidly spreading concern thanks in part to
intensified media attention on security breaches and the ways in
which personal information may be misused.  A consequence has been
a rise in privacy law class actions in North America.  This trend
has recently appeared in Quebec, where robust privacy laws and the
possibility of punitive damages increase the risk of costly and
time consuming litigation.

Different types of security violations can propel a privacy class
action.  Some are initiated after a security breach involving
personal information, such the one recently filed in Quebec
following the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization's
(IIROC) breach in April 2013, which was widely reported by the
provincial and national media.  In this instance, an employee lost
an unencrypted laptop containing the financial information of over
52 000 brokerage firm clients.

Other privacy class actions are challenging the models that
digital service providers rely on to store, transmit or use
personal information.  An accusation that has most enraged
consumers is that programs may not only store their personal
information, they may also transmit the information to third-party
businesses for targeted advertising purposes; all without prior
consent, or even knowledge that it is being collected.

The most recent decision that is likely a precursor to litigation
regarding new technologies and privacy law was an authorization
for a class action against Apple and Apple Canada by the Quebec
Superior Court on June 27.  The suit alleges that Apple has
violated users' right to privacy by transmitting or allowing Apps
to transmit private data to advertisers.  The lawsuit mirrors
those filed in the United States; all flow from a Wall Street
Journal investigation.  The court will consider whether Apple
caused or facilitated the creation of personally identifiable
profiles of Class Members, and whether they failed to disclose the
tracking and compiling of information by the App.

                     What Are the Damages?

A major challenge for members in privacy class actions is proving
their damages.  The reality is that despite a privacy breach,
courts may, in certain situations, find that there is no damage
whatsoever and that monetary relief is not an appropriate remedy.
We note that a number of class action privacy lawsuits in the U.S.
have been unsuccessful due to class members' failure to prove
"actual harm".

Establishing a tangible prejudice is also important to Canadian
courts in privacy class actions.  In the Quebec case of LaRose c.
Banque Nationale du Canada, the Superior Court authorized a class
action in connection with the theft of a laptop which contained
the personal information of a group of mortgagees of National
Bank.  The judgment stated that under Quebec law, fear of identity
theft or fraud did not constitute a harm or injury in and of
itself and thus could not provide the foundation for a class
action.  Only because there was evidence of actual identity theft
was authorization granted.

In the Apple lawsuit, in addition to punitive damages, the class
claims material damage for prejudice caused by the device's
resources being consumed by the third parties, misrepresentation
of the value of the device, and an injunction requiring Apple to
cease authorizing Apps to use personal information.  On the
privacy front, a more subjective type of harm is claimed, that
Apple allowed third parties to collect and disseminate the
personally identifiable information of its users, maintained a log
of their movements, and allowed third parties to access this
information.  That this claim is filed in Quebec is interesting
because the province's privacy framework is tougher than in the
rest of Canada.

                Privacy Legal Framework in Quebec

Quebec has one of the most stringent legal frameworks for privacy
in Canada, not to mention a Consumer Protection Act that shields
consumers more than most jurisdictions do.  Until now, the amounts
granted by courts for privacy breaches in individual claims have
usually been low.  However, in the context of class action privacy
suits, the amount of damages usually awarded for a breach for a
single individual might raise dramatically given the high amount
of members.

For instance, the Apple class action authorizes two groups: (i)
all Quebec residents who have purchased or otherwise acquired an
iPhone or iPad and who have downloaded free Apps from the App
Store onto their devices since December 1, 2008 through to the
present; and (ii) all residents in Quebec who have purchased or
otherwise acquired an iPhone and turned Location Services off on
their iPhones prior to April 27, 2011 and have unwittingly, and
without notice or consent transmitted data to Apple's servers.
Privacy class actions of this nature have potentially thousands or
even hundreds of thousands of class members, meaning the sum total
in damages, if the claims eventually succeed, may be significant.

Claimants in Quebec privacy class actions can invoke sections 35
or 36 of the Civil Code of Quebec as the basis for their invasion
of privacy claims.  The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and
Freedoms3 can also be used to obtain punitive damages as a result
of privacy violations, where there has been an "unlawful and
intentional interference".  As the objective of punitive damages
is prevention, they are determined in light of all the
circumstances, particularly the gravity of the fault, the debtor's
patrimonial situation, and the extent of the reparation for which
he is already liable to the creditor.5 In a handful of judgments,
Quebec courts have awarded punitive damages for privacy
violations, specifically upon illegal transfers of personal
information taking place.

While it remains to be seen what kind of damages will be granted,
businesses should realize that these types of privacy class
actions often involve a high number of members and therefore, the
amount in damages at stake may be quite high.  Their increasing
popularity and the court's willingness to authorize them might
encourage businesses to invest in prevention measures and
implement proper privacy policies that encourage best practices.
Preventive measures may involve more comprehensive analyses of the
privacy issues of a product before it is marketed at large, and
increasing transparency by ensuring that customers are properly
informed and consent to the collection and disclosure of their
information through their technology use.  More training of
employees to better detect and avoid potential security breaches
may also be in order.  Surely such prudence is preferable to
cleaning up the reputational fallout after a widely reported
security breach or being a defendant in a privacy class action,
with all the costs that it implies.


* Missed Diagnosis Top Reason for Medical Malpractice Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Rachael Rettner, writing for Fox News, reports that the most
common reason patients give for suing their doctors is a delay or
failure to diagnose a disease, such as cancer, a new study finds.

The study which reviewed information on medical malpractice claims
against primary care doctors in the United States, Australia,
France and Canada found that between 26 and 63 percent of claims
were related to missed diagnoses.

The most frequently missed diseases, according to the claims, were
cancer (particularly breast, colon, melanoma and lung cancers) and
heart attacks in adults; and meningitis in children.  The most
common outcome for patients as a result of the alleged malpractice
was death.

The second most common reason for a lawsuit was medication errors,
such as prescription-related errors or adverse drug reactions.

The researchers emphasized that malpractice suits should not be
conflated with actual medical errors the majority of malpractice
suits (about two-thirds in the United States) do not hold up in
court.

In addition, most patients who experience adverse events do not
file medical malpractice claims, said study researcher Dr. Emma
Wallace, of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, in Dublin.

But understanding malpractice suits can help doctors identify
situations that may result in adverse events for patients, as well
as systems that can be put into place to help prevent errors from
happening, said Dr. David Troxel, medical director at The Doctors
Company, the largest physician-owned medical malpractice insurer
in the United States, located in Napa, Calif.

Dr. Troxel cited heart attacks in women as an example of how suits
regarding missed diagnoses led to greater awareness among doctors.
Women are more likely to have "atypical" heart attack symptoms
such as gastrointestinal problems, which differ from the classic
signs of a heart attack of chest or arm pain, Dr. Troxel said.

"Part of that information came out of seeing that some claims in
which [heart attacks] were being missed were in women," Dr. Troxel
said.  Doctors who reviewed these malpractice claims could then
relay that information to other doctors through talks or in
educational settings, he said.

"Ultimately [the process of analyzing malpractice claims] can
contribute to improving the quality of medical practice,"
Dr. Troxel said.

The new study may also help identify areas of medicine that may
benefit from better risk management systems, such as computer
systems that let doctors check what medications a patient is
already taking before prescribing another drug, Dr. Wallace said.

However, the threat of a lawsuit may cause doctors to overtreat
patients ordering tests that aren't really needed which is often
called "defensive medicine."

"Physicians, once they become aware of the fact that they can be
sued for not ordering a test, they may change their behavior," and
order a test every time they see a patient with a particular
symptom, Dr. Troxel said.

"There is a real cost to defensive medicine," Dr. Troxel said.

The new study was published July 18 in the journal BMJ Open.


* Newark, NJ to Publish Stop-and-Frisks Monthly Data Online
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Flatow, writing for ThinkProgress, reports that as national
attention focuses around the disproportionate use of police
stop-and-frisks against minorities in New York City, nearby
Newark, New Jersey has announced a policy to voluntarily release a
raft of data about stops by the state's largest police department.

According to an order approved by the City Council on July 9, the
police department will release data every month that includes not
just statistics about the nature of stops and frisks, but also
information about internal complaints filed, and the results of
those complaints.  Newarks' internal complaints process has
weathered particular criticism, with a 2011 ACLU review showing
that out of 261 complaints filed over the course of two years on
excessive force or improper policing, only one was sustained.  A
federal investigation of the procedure is ongoing, but new
statistics posted on a Web site will allow the public to better
monitor policing.  Monthly statistics will document every stop,
the reason for the stop, whether there was a subsequent frisk, and
whether force was used.  The reports will also include information
on the race, sex, age, and language proficiency of the subjects,
as well as whether the individual stopped was a student.

Wayne Fisher, a professor at the Rutgers Police Institute, told
the Newark Star-Ledger that no other police department publishes
information this detailed this often.

The New York Police Department, whose controversial and rampant
stop-and-frisk practices are now under review in a major class
action lawsuit, was forced to release 10 years of data about stop-
and-frisks in 2008.  It now publishes a database with police logs
of stops in paper release quarterly, and on its Web site annually.
Statistics about the NYPD program showed that officers stopped
more young black men in 2011 than there are young black men in the
city, and the program continues to disproportionately target
blacks and Latinos, even though stops of whites are more than
twice as likely to yield a weapon, and the overwhelming majority
of stops result in no charges at all.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Russian City Unable to Kick Deadly Fibro Habit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew E. Kramer, writing for The New York Times, reported that
Asbest, Russia, a 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.

According to the report, 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, the
report related.

In the United States and most developed economies, asbestos is
handled with extraordinary care, the report noted.  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: Warren Fined for Failing to Warn Firm of Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mitch Hotts, writing for The Oakland Press, reported that the city
of Warren was fined for failing to notify a contractor about the
presence of asbestos in a dilapidated house the firm was hired to
demolish, according to city and state documents.

The report related that the Michigan Department of Licensing and
Regulatory Affairs issued a citation to Warren for not notifying
Roseville-based Universal Consolidated Enterprises about cancer-
causing asbestos in a house and shed at 11533 Fisher Avenue prior
to a demolition project earlier this year.

State officials said the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health
Administration opened an investigation after receiving a complaint
about employee exposure to asbestos, the report said.

MIOSHA then discovered that a written notification-to-demolish had
not been submitted to the state's asbestos program, Andrea Miller,
spokeswoman for the state licensing department said in an email,
the report added. The notification is required as part of
regulations for handling of asbestos in construction projects.

According to the report, Warren officials -- under the impression
the requirements didn't apply to the city -- did not take steps to
determine the presence, location and quantity of asbestos-
containing materials at the work site.

The violation was listed as "serious." Violations are classified
as willful, which means the act was committed with an intentional
disregard to regulations; serious, which means a hazard exists
that has a likelihood of causing serious physical harm or death;
repeat serious, a violation of the same rule within three years;
and other-than-serious, a hazard exists and could cause injury,
but most likely would not result in death or serious physical
harm.

Asbestos is classified as a known carcinogen. Studies have shown
exposure to asbestos can increase the risk to lung cancer or
mesothelioma, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

City officials had declared the house a public nuisance and
ordered the property owner to clean it up. After the owner failed
to take action, the city contracted Universal Consolidated
Enterprises to tear it down.

State regulations call for the building owner to conduct an
asbestos survey prior to demolition of older residential homes and
make that information available to the demolition firm.

But Warren officials claimed the city was not the owner and its
notification was proper, Assistant City Attorney Annette Gattari-
Ross said in a memo to the Warren City Council.

The Michigan licensing department issued a $1,500 fine. Warren's
legal department filed an appeal, asking for a dismissal, saying
there had been a good faith belief that the notice requirements
did not apply to the city.

State officials said since there was no case law on the subject
for this type of case, they agreed to settle the matter with a
reduced penalty of $875.

The Warren City Council approved payment of the fine with no
discussion at its July 9 meeting.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Joiner Seeks Details as He Fights Cancer
------------------------------------------------------------
Berwick Advertiser reported that a retired Coldstream carpenter is
urging ex-colleagues to share details of their working conditions
after being diagnosed with asbestos-related cancer.

According to the report, Andrew Scott, now of north
Northumberland, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in April 2013
after tests to find out why he was feeling constantly breathless.

The 85-year-old says he regularly came into contact with asbestos
in the 1940's and 1950's when he worked for carpenter and joinery
firm J & A Gray in Coldstream, the report related.  He has now
taken legal advice and is appealing for his ex-work mates to come
forward with any further information about his working conditions,
and whether anything more could have been done to protect him from
the deadly dust, the report said.

Andrew began his joinery apprenticeship in 1942 aged 14, the
report further related. He worked at the firm for five years and
his job entailed cutting and fitting corrugated roofing sheets
onto the roofs of new buildings. He particularly remembers working
on a new dairy in Coldstream where he had to cut asbestos sheets
to size.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Waikato Firefighters Exposed to Deadly Dust
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Bowen, writing for Waikato Times, reported that seven
firefighters were decontaminated when they were exposed to
asbestos following a blaze at an unused Mangakino depot.

According to the report, 13 fire trucks and about 50 firefighter
from stations as far away as Rotorua, Benneydale and Putaruru were
called to the depot on Lake Rd just before 3am on July 14.

An investigation into what caused the ignition is underway, the
repot said.  Because there was no power to the unoccupied building
it is being treated as suspicious.

Fire service assistant area commander Hamish Smith said the
building was a single storey warehouse measuring about 10 by 18
metres.  It is understood its roof was tainted with asbestos.  The
structure was totally destroyed and it is now a contaminated site.

Mr Smith said conditions in the morning were cold, damp and a a
large amount of water had been applied to the site from above so
the asbestos dust particles were highly unlikely to become
airborne.  But he warned resident to stay away from the site until
local authorities have dealt with the toxic ashes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Risk Alert Due to Fibro Dumping in Mexico
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Latin American Herald Tribune, citing Reforma newspaper, said more
than 800 tons of asbestos from Russia were dumped eight months ago
at the Mexican Gulf coast port of Veracruz and represents a health
risk for the population.

In its front-page story, the Mexican daily said the material was
imported by the Mexalit company, which makes construction
materials.  According to the article, the product was stored in
Veracruz in October 2012 when Mexalit asked a transport company to
keep it at the port because its warehouses were full.

The transport company, which the daily did not identify,
apparently did so but filed a complaint this year with the
Veracruz state Attorney General's Office for Mexalit's failure to
pay the storage, according to the article.

Faced with that situation, the transporter dumped the asbestos in
the port's Supply Center loading zone, located on the Veracruz-
Xalapa highway, in a populated area, the paper said.

Reforma said the material is being handled with little protection
by the Center's workers and remains outdoors, with its packing
deteriorating and with no measures being taken to avoid its fibers
drifting into the air.

The newspaper cited a note by the World Health Organization, or
WHO, which says that prolonged exposure to asbestos fibers, which
do not decompose easily nor can be diluted in water and can remain
airborne for a considerable time, can cause grave damage to the
respiratory system.

All forms of asbestos are carcinogenic for humans and may cause
mesothelioma and cancer of the lungs, larynx and ovaries, the WHO
document says.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Telstra Denies "Payback" Against Whistleblower
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glen Humphries, writing for The Border Mail, reported that
Telstra has denied the claims of a former employee that the
telecommunications company is engaged in "payback" since he spoke
out about its numerous asbestos pits in the Illawarra.

According to the report, Dave Cox worked for Telecom, Telstra's
previous incarnation, for 23 years and left in 1982. On June 11,
the Mercury ran a story in which Mr Cox alleged there were
"thousands" of asbestos pits on the South Coast.

"These things are everywhere," he said at the time.

"They're still there because Telstra doesn't do maintenance any
more. Telstra only work on an as-required or as-necessary basis."

Mr Cox said that, a day or so after that story, his landline phone
and internet service stopped working properly.

"I didn't have my broadband working, I lost my internet," he said.

"I rang them and reported it. For an hour they both worked again
and then my internet worked and my phone didn't. It's been that
way ever since -- I get a little bit of phone or I get a little
bit of internet."

Mr Cox said he had been using his mobile phone to make calls for
the past month and claimed Telstra had told him it would take
another month before the fault was fixed.

"Telstra says there's a major fault in Corrimal exchange, but the
funny thing is the phone numbers either side of me, in the same
bank of equipment, they're all working fine," he said.

"No one else has got a fault anywhere around here. Nobody has got
any problems at all.

"They can't fix it for another month, they say.

"But I know there's nothing wrong in there. It's just payback for
me for tipping the tin on them over the asbestos around here," he
said.

A Telstra spokeswoman denied Mr Cox's claims.

"That is definitely not the way Telstra operates," she said.

A technician was sent out at the weekend to check both Mr Cox's
line and the Corrimal exchange, and Mr Cox's phone and internet
were working again.

The spokeswoman apologised for any inconvenience and said the
delay in fixing Mr Cox's phone line was due to an increase in
workload because of "weather-related issues".

She said it was possible for individual customers to have issues
with their phone lines, but Mr Cox's issue was not due to any
problems at his local exchange.

"We've spoken to our field operatives responsible for repair and
maintenance in the Corrimal area and they are not aware of any
issues affecting the Corrimal exchange," she said.

"However, there was a fault in a roadside cabinet in the area that
required attention but we do not believe it would have impacted Mr
Cox's service."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lung Cancer Case Filed in St. Clair County
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reported
that another asbestos lawsuit has been added to St. Clair County's
asbestos docket.

According to the report, Ronald and Linda Ogletree filed an
asbestos lawsuit July 1 in St. Clair County Circuit Court against
29 defendant corporations. The Ogletrees do not specify where they
reside.  They are represented by Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of
Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, the report said.

In their complaint, the Ogletrees allege the defendant companies
caused Ronald Ogletree to develop lung cancer after his exposure
to asbestos-containing products throughout his career, the report
related.

Ronald Ogletree worked in the U.S. Army from 1963 until 1967, as a
mail sorter in the civil service from 1967 until 1970, as a
laborer and control room operator at Honeywell from 1970 until
2001 and performed occasional home remodeling repairs, according
to the complaint, the report said.

The defendants should have known of the harmful effects of
asbestos, but failed to exercise reasonable care and caution for
the plaintiff's safety, the suit states.

As a result of his asbestos-related diseases, Ronald Ogletree
became disabled and disfigured, incurred medical costs and
suffered great physical pain and mental anguish, the complaint
says. In addition, he was prevented from pursuing his normal
course of employment and, as a result, lost large sums of money
that would have accrued to him, the plaintiff claims.

In their 10-count complaint, the Ogletrees are seeking a judgment
of more than $100,000, economic damages of more than $200,000,
punitive and exemplary damages of more than $100,000, compensatory
damages of more than $100,000, punitive damages in an amount
sufficient to punish the defendants, plus costs and other relief
the court deems just.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case numbers: 13-L-334.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thunderbird Hotel Owner Fined for Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Manning, writing for OPB.org, reported that ten months after a
major hotel fire in North Portland, state regulators have fined
the hotel's owners over problems with the demolition and cleanup.

According to the report, the Thunderbird Hotel on Hayden Island
erupted in flames last September. Work crews cleaned it up in the
weeks that followed.  But Oregon's Department of Environmental
Quality has fined the hotel owners more than $29,000 for not
properly dealing with asbestos at the site.

Esther Westbrook with DEQ says, "By having workers do the
demolition, rather than having an asbestos abatement contractor
come in and remove all of that asbestos -- the companies saved
around $8000," the report cited.

Westbrook says the owner can't claim ignorance -- because
Thunderbird's operators received an asbestos report in 2006,
showing where asbestos was on the property, the report related.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quigley Seeking Federal Court OK of Exit Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peg Brickley, writing for Dow Jones Newswires' Daily Bankruptcy
Review, reported that Pfizer Inc. is on track to shake billions of
dollars' worth of asbestos liabilities, as its long-defunct
subsidiary Quigley Co. seeks federal court approval of a Chapter
11 plan already confirmed by a bankruptcy judge in New York.

Judge Stuart M. Bernstein in late June overruled objections from a
group of personal injury plaintiffs who said the Chapter 11 plan
was the latest in a long-line of "afflicted" strategies devised by
Pfizer to shield itself from asbestos liabilities.

Chapter 11 has helped many companies survive an onslaught of suits
over asbestos personal injuries, and the Quigley bankruptcy
allowed Pfizer to hold up court action for years, the report said.
Pfizer, however, was accused of cutting favorable deals with some
asbestos plaintiffs that allegedly tainted Quigley's bankruptcy.
The company has denied wrongdoing and said it can't be held
accountable for damages from Quigley products.

In all, Pfizer paid $1.25 billion to large groups of asbestos
plaintiffs outside of the bankruptcy process, according to Schulte
Roth & Zabel LLC , the firm that represented Quigley through a
bankruptcy that began in 2004, the report said.  Quigley's Chapter
11 plan calls for Pfizer to contribute an additional $964 million
worth of cash, insurance and other assets to fund a trust that
will pay asbestos personal-injury claims.

Decades ago, Pfizer 's Quigley unit made industrial products that
used the toxic material, which causes cancer and lung disease, and
makes injuries slow to manifest, the report related.  Along with
its parent, Quigley was targeted with hundreds of thousands of
injury claims, seeking more than $1 billion in damages. Estimates
during the bankruptcy put the potential liability for future
damage claims at more than $4 billion.

If the plan is put into effect, those liabilities will be
channeled to a trust and away from Pfizer and Quigley, the report
added.

Judge Bernstein, who rejected an earlier version of the Quigley
plan in part due to settlements that swayed plan-voting results,
confirmed Quigley's Chapter 11 plan June 26 at a hearing in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan. Because Quigley's Chapter 11
plan resolves personal injury claims, it must be approved by a
federal district judge as well.

Quigley has started the process of getting a federal judge to sign
off on the Chapter 11 plan, filing papers in the U.S. District
Court in New York that say the sole objector to the plan when it
was considered by the bankruptcy court has said it will not
appeal.

The confirmed plan boosts Pfizer 's contribution to the trust and
follows a separate $860 million settlement with asbestos claimants
that had blocked the earlier plan.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removed From Montville High School
---------------------------------------------------------
Dirk Langeveld, writing for Montville Patch, reported that
asbestos removal took place in a classroom at Montville High
School.

In a letter from the Montville Public Schools to parents and staff
members, Superintendent Pamela Aubin said mastic removal would be
removed from the background of chalkboards in Room 412 to
eradicate asbestos, the report related.

The asbestos abatement work will be done by Haz-Pros Inc., of West
Hartford. It will also be monitored by Mystic Air Quality
Consultants, a Groton company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Seaford High School Fibro Removal Moves Forward
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Coen, writing for Wantagh-Seaford Patch, reported that an
asbestos abatement project at Seaford High School first announced
in May is moving forward this summer.

According to the news agency, Seaford Superintendent Brian Conboy
said in his administrative report during the July 11 school board
meeting that Ronkonkoma-based 192 Branch Interior Services has
been selected at a bid of $382,000 to perform removal of the
asbestos in the 1957-built building.  The project is being funded
by $528,428 leftover from a $21.5 million capital improvements
proposition that voters approved in December 2007.

Conboy said the the Seaford High School staff who work during the
summer have been moved to other buildings in anticipation of the
asbestos removal, the report related.  He said the project should
be completed well before when students are scheduled to return to
school in early September.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parish Councillor Dies of Fibro-Related Cancer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tewkesbury Admag reported that a parish councillor died at the age
of 64 from an asbestos-related cancer after being exposed to the
substance when serving in the Royal Navy and Merchant Navy.

According to the report, an inquest heard that in one incident,
Alan Edmonds had been one of 10 officers who were exposed when
asbestos dust escaped into accommodation on a ship in 1988 when he
was in the Merchant Navy.

Mr Edmonds, of Church Street, Weston-sub-Edge, near Chipping
Campden, had been fit and well until he developed breathing
problems in August 2011, the report related.  Malignant
mesothelioma, a cancer associated with asbestos, was later
diagnosed and Mr Edmonds died in Cheltenham General Hospital on
January 30 this year, the report said.  Mr Edmonds would have been
exposed to asbestos lagging on pipework aboard ship and asbestos
during maintenance of engineering spaces, the report further
related.

Gloucester deputy coroner David Dooley said he had a clear history
of asbestos exposure between 1964 and 2007, the report added.  He
recorded a verdict of death from the industrial disease malignant
mesothelioma.

Mr Edmonds' widow, Elizabeth, paid tribute to her husband.

"He was on the parish council and they are planning to put a
plaque on a tree in the village in his memory," she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nottingham Developer Prosecuted for Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
H&V News reported that a Nottinghamshire property developer who
pleaded guilty to exposing employees to asbestos has been given an
eight-month suspended prison sentence and been ordered to pay
fines and costs of GBP100,000.

According to the report, Nottingham Crown Court was told on
July 16 that James Roger Carlton, also known as Roger Stephen
Parry, 64, of Meeting House Lane, South Leverton, disregarded the
presence of asbestos insulation board at the site of the former
King Edward VI School on London Road, Retford.

The Health and Safety Executive visited the school, which was
being converted into a retirement complex, on 1 March 2012 during
a construction safety initiative, the report related.

An inspector identified the type of building which is known to
contain asbestos, and gave Mr Carlton advice on what he needed to
do to comply with the relevant legislation surrounding its
removal, the report said.

Eight days later, on 9 March, a complaint was received by HSE from
a member of the public advising that the asbestos was not being
removed properly, the report further related.

Mr Carlton, trading as Heathcliff Developments, was told to have
surveys carried out and to arrange for the licensed removal of the
material, the report added.  However, when inspectors re-visited
the site on 17 May they found building rubble containing asbestos
that had not been properly disposed off in this way.

A Prohibition Notice was immediately served to stop all work with,
or liable to disturb, the material asbestos and a direction to
'Leave Undisturbed' was imposed on the piles of contaminated
rubble.

HSE inspectors made a third unannounced visit on 13 October and
found workers in breach of the Prohibition Notice.

Mr Carlton pleaded guilty to single breaches of the Health and
Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and Control of Asbestos Regulations
2006, and 10 breaches of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012
-- 12 charges in total -- at an earlier hearing.

He was sentenced to eight months in prison, suspended for two
years, for the breach of the Prohibition notice. He was also fined
GBP55,000 and ordered to pay a further GBP45,000 in costs.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Kevin Wilson said:
"Asbestos is the single greatest cause of work-related deaths in
the UK.

"Building owners and contractors have a duty to ensure they
protect their workers from risk of exposure. Mr Carlton failed in
that duty by choosing to ignore the dangers of this hidden
killer."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Clean Up at McCrory's Push Back Renovations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Taylor, writing for Lewiston-Auburn Sun Journal, reported
that some unexpected cleanup work at the old McCrory's department
building on Lisbon Street will push renovations back a bit, but
not by much.

"Lo and behold, they made the floor tiles in the building out of
asbestos," developer Jason Levesque said, according to the report.
"So we had to go in and get those abated and find a company, and
that pushed everything back."

Levesque, chief executive officer of Argo Marketing, said he hopes
to close on the building by Aug. 16 and begin the $2.4 million
renovations in earnest, turning the the 100-year-old structure
into space for up to 250 jobs, a cafe and retail storefronts, the
report related.

He's hoping for a New Year's grand opening, the report said.

"We are really pushing for Jan. 1," he said, the report cited.
"It might only be partially open, the meat-and-potatoes customer
center, that's what we're shooting for. We can keep administration
in our old building for the time being. "

City councilors voted to change the development agreement for the
building, moving the closing date back from Aug. 1 to Aug. 16.

According to the original agreement, the city is providing a
facade grant of up to $150,000, a life safety grant of up to
$100,000 under the same terms and 10-year tax-increment financing
agreement projected to return $147,000 in property taxes to Argo
over a decade.

But Levesque said his biggest concern now is finding people to
fill jobs at this call center. He currently has 120 employees at a
call center in Pittsfield and 110 in the Lewiston offices on
Lisbon Street.

"But I need at least 100 more," he said. "I had to open a
satellite facility in Portland about a month ago. We have 60
employees there and it's taking the stress off of Lewiston-Auburn.
But strategically, I need 300 to 500 employees in Lewiston."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm's Mesothelioma Research Donations Hits $1MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The national asbestos law firm of Levy Phillips & Konigsberg LLP
is proud to announce that the firm's lifetime donations to
mesothelioma research now total more than $1 million dollars.
Founded in 1986, LPK represents victims of mesothelioma nationwide
and has secured record-setting verdicts and settlements. "We are
proud that our firm is continuing to support vital mesothelioma
research efforts in order to find a cure for this asbestos-related
cancer. There are many law firms who advertise themselves as
'mesothelioma law firms'. Our firm has been passionately
representing victims of mesothelioma for over 25 years. We believe
it is important to support the search for a cure and we encourage
other law firms to join us in this cause," commented LPK partner
Jerome H. Block.

The largest recipient of LPK's mesothelioma research donations is
the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation (MARF). MARF is the
only non-profit organization in the United States that uses an
Independent Scientific Advisory Board to allocate funds for
research grants that have the most potential to cure the disease
and limit the suffering of patients. Each year MARF hosts an
International Symposium in which top mesothelioma doctors present
their research to the patient and medical community. Because of
donors such as LPK, MARF has been able to fund millions of dollars
in mesothelioma research that has led to important medical
discoveries in the battle to find a cure. The asbestos law firm of
Levy Phillips & Konigsberg LLP has also made an educational grant
to MARF to bring together medical experts and the patient
community at the first ever New York City Mesothelioma Conference
in September of 2012. LPK has made another educational grant to
fund the second Annual New York City Mesothelioma conference
scheduled for September 27, 2013.

LPK has also donated money to charitable events that have raised
money for mesothelioma research. These events include the 5K
Walk/Run for Hope in Long Island, NY, which LPK supports each
year. This event is led by two inspiring women, Erica Iacono and
Janice Malkotsis, who each lost their father from mesothelioma.
The asbestos law firm of Levy Phillips & Konigsberg LLP has also
donated to a 10K run in Florida founded by Larry Davis, a
visionary fighter and leader for mesothelioma research who loved
to run marathons. LPK is also proud to have given money to support
the Norm Kulig 2Young2Go Foundation's 5k Run, named after a 42-
year-old Pennsylvania man who died of mesothelioma.

Last year, LPK also donated funds to help support the
International Mesothelioma Interest Group (IMIG) Conference in
Boston, Massachusetts, which brought together top mesothelioma
researchers from around the world. LPK has also donated money for
several years to the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization
("ADAO") to help raise awareness about asbestos disease and to
help ban asbestos worldwide.

LPK is very proud to be an acknowledged funding source for a
groundbreaking medical article published in 2012 in the New
England Journal of Medicine by lead author Dr. Harvey I. Pass,
M.D., from the New York University Medical Center. The study
identified for the first time bio-markers that can potentially be
used in the future to diagnose mesothelioma at early stages, when
it is most treatable.

In addition to its philanthropic work for the mesothelioma
community, the asbestos law firm Levy Phillips & Konigsberg LLP is
also recognized for its excellence in providing legal
representation to victims of mesothelioma. In 2013, LPK was named
Law Firm of the Year by U.S. News & World Report in the area of
plaintiff's product liability law.

If you or a loved has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, and need
to speak to a law firm that cares about asbestos patients and has
successfully handled mesothelioma cases for decades, please
contact LPK's national asbestos hotline at 1-800-637-6529 or
submit an electronic inquiry at http://www.lpklaw.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Fibro Found on Bathurst High School Gym
---------------------------------------------------------------
Murray Nicholls, writing for Western Advocate, reported that work
on Bathurst High School's new $7.4 million gymnasium has been
disrupted after asbestos was found on the site.

According to the report, parents at the school were delivered the
news in a text message from principal Geoff Hastings late July 17.
The text simply read: "Notice to parents: asbestos found in new
gym site. No risk to students. Material secured."  Parents were
then directed to the school's website for further information.

The report related that work on the new gymnasium only started in
June with a special sod-turning ceremony attended by Mr Hastings,
Member for Bathurst Paul Toole, Denison College of Secondary
Education principal Craig Petersen, Public Works project director
James Smith and Hines Constructions managing director David Hines.

A letter to parents published on the school's website says the
asbestos was found well below ground level, the report said.

"The asbestos was under one metre of soil and we think it is left
over from the demolition of temporary buildings that were
demolished about 30 years ago," Mr Hastings said in the letter.

"It has been covered since by the soil and grass and as a result
has not been a threat to anyone.

"The construction of the gym and the excavation has disturbed the
material that had been buried.

"The advice provided by the site construction company and by
officers of Public Works, who supervise the construction, is that
the material is in the safest form of asbestos and it was
contained when it was exposed due to its structure and the wetness
of the soil during the past week.

"As a result it was not a risk to anyone on or near the site. Our
students have not been at risk."

Mr Hastings said properly qualified workers would remove the
asbestos at the weekend.  He said the material had already been
secured.

"There are monitoring stations being installed on all borders of
the site that detect any asbestos in the air and the removal of
material is being supervised by relevant authorities.

"The material will be removed on a weekend under strict
environmental conditions so that normal school operations can
continue."

The new gym is expected to take 18 months to complete.  It will
include a fitness laboratory, two classrooms, a seminar room and
amenities, and a 380-seat performing arts centre with banked
seating and state-of-the-art lighting.  The facility will meet
energy efficiency requirements and support the development of the
school curriculum.

Mr Hastings invited any parents who wanted to discuss the issue to
contact him at the school on 6331 3755.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Sue Oregon Hospital for Fibro Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Wihtol, writing for The Register-Guard, reported that
Five Lane County construction workers are suing McKenzie-
Willamette Medical Center and a Utah construction contractor,
saying deceitful and irresponsible oversight of a demolition and
remodeling job at the Springfield hospital exposed workers to
airborne asbestos fibers.

The workers are seeking up to $10 million stemming from McKenzie-
Willamette's and Layton Construction's violations of the federal
Employer Liability Law and the Oregon Safe Employment Act, the
report related, citing a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in
Eugene.

According to the report, the dispute centers around improper
handling of asbestos during demolition and renovation work last
year to the hospital's second floor and basement. Layton was the
general contractor hired by McKenzie-Willamette for the project.

After an extensive investigation, state occupational safety and
health regulators earlier this year fined McKenzie-Willamette and
Layton each more than $25,000 in the case. The asbestos was in the
sealant and tape used in old duct work of the hospital's HVAC
system, the state said.

In their lawsuit, the five workers said they were exposed to
asbestos-contaminated dust generated by the demolition.

Unaware of the asbestos, the five "handled the demolition material
as if it did not contain asbestos -- allowing dust to be freely
spread through the work area as well as throughout public areas of
the hospital," the lawsuit states.

McKenzie-Willamette declined to comment on the lawsuit, the report
said.  Layton said it had not seen the lawsuit and declined to
comment on it. "Layton takes the health and safety of all
employees on our projects very seriously," spokesman Alan
Rindlisbacher said.

Asbestos, a fire retardant found in a variety of building
materials, can cause respiratory disease and cancer if the
minuscule fibers are released into the air and inhaled.

Regulators fined McKenzie-Willamette $26,960 for seven violations,
including failure to inform custodians, housekeepers, operating
staff and other employees working near the construction zone about
the presence of asbestos.

Regulators fined Layton -- a large national contractor with
projects in 17 states -- $25,200 for five violations, including
failing to inform subcontractors about the asbestos in the second-
floor work area and failing to inform subcontractors of asbestos
in the basement within 24 hours of discovering it there.

Both firms paid the fines and did not contest them, according to
the state.

Three workers in the lawsuit -- Steven Shoemaker, Anthony Storey
and Edward Thompson -- worked for a subcontractor doing sheetmetal
work and were at the site between March and July 2012, according
to the lawsuit.

The two other workers -- Allen Foy and Nathanael Fisher -- worked
for an electrical subcontractor and were at the site between April
and July 2012, according to the lawsuit.

Both McKenzie-Willamette and Layton knew there was asbestos in the
areas where the demolition would be conducted and the men would be
working, but didn't take steps to remove the asbestos or alert
subcontractors and workers about the asbestos, according to the
lawsuit.

Layton "falsely reported that testing had confirmed the absence of
asbestos-containing materials," the lawsuit alleges.

Layton and McKenzie-Willamette failed to ensure that federal or
state-required safety procedures were followed, such as use of
enclosures and wetting agents to stop the spread of asbestos dust,
the lawsuit alleges. Also, Layton failed to provide federally
required respiratory equipment, the lawsuit states.

"Each plaintiff inhaled asbestos fibers that have remained in his
lungs and caused a present physiological effect and/or harm, which
has caused each plaintiff to suffer anxiety, distress,
interference with relations, sleeplessness, anger, agitation,
hypervigilance, lack of appetite and loss of enjoyment of life,
all to his noneconomic damage," the lawsuit says.

The amount of damages would be determined by a jury, but under
federal rules cannot exceed $10 million, said Meagan Flynn, an
attorney for the plaintiffs.

In its investigation, the state found that McKenzie-Willamette CEO
Maurine Cate, as well as representatives of the hospital's parent
company, Community Health Systems, were aware that materials
containing asbestos had been found in the second-floor duct work.

McKenzie-Willamette "showed a plain indifference to employee
safety and health because they were aware asbestos was present,
they were aware of its location and they failed to communicate
this to employees" working in or near the construction area, the
state document said. State regulators found that Layton also
"showed a plain indifference to employee safety and health."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids to Reconsider Summary Judgment Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Utah federal court has
refused to reconsider four asbestos defendants' motions for
summary judgment, which were denied by the national Asbestos
Products Liability Multidistrict Litigation judge prior to
remanding the case.

According to the report, in the July 15 order, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah noted that an MDL Court's ruling
should only be overruled when there is "clear error."

The plaintiffs allege that Joseph Alexander Anderson Jr. developed
mesothelioma after he was exposed to asbestos, the report related.

The case is ARVA ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et.
al., Defendant, CASE NO. 2:06-CV-00741 (D. Utah).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Youngstown Superintendent Addresses Fibro Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Giesy, writing for WFMJ.com, reported that the Diocese of
Youngstown released a statement to ease fears about asbestos in
the current Cardinal Mooney High School.

According to the report, superintendent of schools for the
diocese, Nicholas Wolsonovich, said in the statement that the EA
Group of Cleveland found air quality in the school exceeded
Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards.

Wolsonovich noted that the high school was constructed during a
time when asbestos was commonly used in buildings, the report
related.  He said that "any and all the asbestos issues" are being
addressed and the school will be ready for teachers and students
come the first day of classes, the report said.

The statement is following a previous statement from Bishop George
Murray giving the prohibitive cost of asbestos remediation as one
reason the Diocese may have to reconsider its decision to remain
at its current location in Youngstown, the report further related.

An alumni committee has been looking at possibly moving Cardinal
Mooney to a suburban location, the report said.  According to the
bishop's statement, a full report is due by the end of the month.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Cites Ford's Buffalo Plant Over Deadly Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that federal safety officials have
cited Ford Motor Co.'s Buffalo-area plant for alleged asbestos
violations.

According to the report, the Labor Department's Occupational
Safety and Health Administration has proposed fines of $41,800.

OSHA officials say inspectors found eight violations, the report
said.  One involved a pipefitter who they say was exposed to
asbestos while working on a steam line. In other cases, OSHA says
workers didn't wear respiratory protection while exposed to
asbestos and that the company did not properly monitor work areas
for the potentially cancer-causing substance.

Ford has 15 business days to respond, according to the AP report.

The Dearborn, Mich.-based automaker didn't initially respond to a
request for comment, AP said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Delays Tyne Tunnel Work
------------------------------------------------------
Terry Kelly, writing for The Shields Gazette, reported that work
on refurbishing the Tyne Pedestrian and Cycle Tunnels has been
delayed while asbestos is removed.

According to the report, staff from contractors, GB Building
Solutions, are removing asbestos from the ceiling voids in the
rotunda buildings.

As a result the tunnels, which closed in May for a GBP4.9m revamp,
are not now expected to reopen until August 2014, the report
related.

Paul Fenwick, project director for the tunnels' owners, the Tyne &
Wear Integrated Transport Authority, told the news agency: "We
were aware of the existence of asbestos and were originally
advised that it would be possible to work around it.

"However, our main contractor for the refurbishment works, GB
Building Solutions, was concerned that the works themselves and
the need to manoeuvre equipment and materials in such a confined
space could damage the ceiling and disturb the asbestos.

"I have agreed that the removal of the asbestos by specialist
contractors is the best way forward. Unfortunately this will mean
a delay to the reopening of the tunnels.

"In the meantime, our free, timetabled replacement shuttle bus
service which operates 7 days a week between 6am and 8pm will
continue to operate until the tunnels re-open."

The refurbishment of the grade-II listed tunnels will see two of
the original wooden-step escalators replaced with inclined lifts,
and other works including new lighting.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cwmcarn High School Safe Despite Fibro, Says HSE
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News South East Wales reported that a school which has been
shut since October over asbestos health concerns is "essentially
uncontaminated", say experts.

According to the report, the Health and Safety Executive's new
report into Cwmcarn High School, in Caerphilly county, said there
should be no problems if properly managed.  The HSE said asbestos
was present, as it was in other public buildings, but it did not
present a risk.

Pupils are due to return after the summer holidays, the report
noted.

The school closed over fears its 900 pupils were at risk and they
have since been taught 12 miles (19km) away at Coleg Gwent's Ebbw
Vale campus, the report related.  But various reports on the
asbestos have drawn mixed conclusions regarding safety.

Caerphilly Council agreed to pay GBP1m to remove the asbestos
leading to plans to reopen the school after the summer holidays.

Jane Lassey, HSE head of operations for Wales, said the latest
report was the culmination of several months' work.

It took into account reports published by others, the results of
tests conducted by the Health and Safety Laboratory and the
findings of HSE's own investigation, she said.

"We have concluded that the occupied areas of the school are
essentially uncontaminated and that there is no evidence of
elevated airborne asbestos fibre levels being released from the
ceiling voids," she said.

                          Removal work

"The presence of asbestos alone should not be a cause for concern
if it is properly managed."

Caerphilly council is paying GBP1m to deal with the asbestos, with
pupils expected back for the autumn term in September.

The school closed after a council-commissioned report found that
asbestos posed a potential health risk.

But in February this year a previous HSE report said the site was
essentially free of asbestos contamination.

Another report in March found there was little difference between
the two documents, apart from the conclusions.

The council has been asked to comment on the findings of the
latest HSE report.

The school has said work to move pupils back was going well.

An update on its website said: "The council's IT team and other
key officers will get the school ready for re-occupation once
contractors have finished their asbestos removal work."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Battersea Mum's Fears Over Deadly Dust Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Henderson, writing for Your Local Guardian, reported that a
young mum has pleaded with Wandsworth Council to move her out of
her flat after asbestos was discovered so her daughter's asthma
does not deteriorate.

According to the report, Rochelle Davess, from Selworthy House, in
Battersea Church Road, has lived in her two-bedroom council flat
for the last two years with her daughter Angel, 3.

The 25-year-old complained to her local authority six weeks ago
about the air quality after finding damp and mold throughout her
property, the report related.

A workman came round within days of contacting the council and
assessed her flat but Ms Davess was shocked when a letter from the
council's director of environment and communities arrived on June
20 stating that an asbestos insulation board was found in her
kitchen.

The letter classified the level of asbestos as Priority Code 'F',
which is so serious it is required to be removed, within a maximum
of 20 working days of discovery, by July 18, the report said.  But
since then Miss Davess has been told the work will not be
undertaken for another month, causing her further concern.

She said: "I now have proof there is asbestos here and I've read
up on how dangerous it is. It's got to the stage where I'm just
really worried about my daughter.

"The letter said it has a priority code which means it is pretty
serious.

"All I really want is to be moved to a flat that doesn't have
asbestos, mold and damp in it. That isn't too much to ask is it?

A spokesman for the council said: "We've carried out exhaustive
tests at this property and established that what Miss Davess
thought was asbestos in her ceiling was actually just plaster, so
there is no need for her to be concerned about that.

"We did however find a small piece of asbestos board behind one of
her kitchen cupboards, which does not pose any risk whatsoever in
normal day-to-day living and we are arranging for this to be
removed.

"This is fairly routine and should only take one day to be
completed.

"There is absolutely no risk to her or her family. We have spoken
to her and explained what we are doing and the timescale involved
and she accepted these arrangements."

But Miss Davess disputed these claims.  She said: "They have
barely told me anything, I have had to research it online all
myself and I will have to be out of my flat all day while they fix
it."

"If they are right and it is not dangerous to anyone, why are they
taking it out?"


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Keighley Milkman Dies of Mesothelioma
------------------------------------------------------
Keighley News reported that a 94-year-old man who died from
mesothelioma would have been exposed to asbestos at some point in
his life, an inquest was told.

According to the report, William Traynor died at his home in
Sutton on May 31 shortly after being diagnosed with the disease,
an inquest in Skipton heard.  His daughter, Patricia McCormack,
said Mr Traynor had been a milkman for the last 22 years of his
working life, and she was unaware of him ever being in contact
with asbestos, the report related.  She said he had also worked as
a driver in a scrapyard and at a mill in Keighley, the report
further related.

Coroner Rob Turnbull, who concluded Mr Traynor had died as a
result of an industrial disease, said it was impossible to say
when he had been exposed to asbestos, and it could have happened
many years ago, the report said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Reaches Verdict in Favor of Crane Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an upstate New York jury has
reached a defense verdict in favor of Crane Co., rejecting claims
that the decedent's mesothelioma was caused by exposure to
asbestos in the defendant's valves.

According to the report, the New York Supreme Court for Erie
County jury reached the verdict on July 19 after a three-and-a-
half-week trial and several hours of jury deliberations.

Judge Frederick J. Marshall presided over the trial, the report
related.

The plaintiffs asserted the claims on behalf of Joseph Tucholski,
who was allegedly exposed to asbestos while serving in the U.S.
Navy from 1956 to 1959, the report said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Balks at Confidentiality Designations
--------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that Garlock Sealing Technologies
has asked a bankruptcy court to remove confidentiality
designations from evidence relating to asbestos trust claims,
saying that "the problem of discrepancies between tort disclosures
and Trust claims and other bankruptcy filings has become an issue
of major public concern."

But in their opposition filed July 17 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, the plaintiffs called
Garlock's motion a "transparent attempt to use information that
was provided in discovery under stringent protections and solely
for use in this lawsuit in other fora and for other purposes," the
report said.

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: Radiologists Study Libby Victims Exposed as Kids
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alice Miller, writing for The Missoulian, reported that three new
doctors have joined the Libby Epidemiology Research Program,
bringing expertise that will help better understand lung disease
in people exposed to amphibole fibers from vermiculite mining in
Libby.

According to the report, when Dr. Stephen Levin died last year,
the program was left without a primary investigator.

In June, Dr. Raja Flores took over that role for the project,
which is part of Libby's Center for Asbestos Related Disease and
tends to victims of lung diseases resulting from decades of mining
by W.R. Grace and Co, the report said.

Flores, chief of thoracic surgery at Mount Sinai Medical Center in
New York City, has been ranked in the top percent in his field,
the report related.

Drs. Claudia Henschke and David Yenkelevitz, both professors of
radiology at Mount Sinai, bring lung imaging experience from their
international lung cancer screening study that revolutionized the
approach for early detection, said Brad Black, the Libby clinic's
CEO and medical director, the report further related.

Bringing such high-level health care professionals onto Libby's
team is a winning combination for research and health care in the
town where so many already have died from lung diseases, he said,
the report added.

"To have them on board is tremendous, just tremendous," he said.

The three join the program in the fourth year of a five-year, $5
million grant from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.

Their work will help collect statistical information to form a
baseline for understanding and comparison of lung disease from
exposure to amphibole fibers in Libby.

"And then hopefully, there's some treatment. But you can only get
there by improving imaging," Black said.

People exposed to amphibole asbestos in Libby who develop lung
disease largely suffer from pleural fibrosis, in which amphibole
fibers migrate out of the lungs and invade the pleural, or
outside, lining. They cause a layer of tissue, or scarring, around
the lung. As the layer gets thicker, it loses elasticity and makes
it more difficult for the lungs to expand. Patients experience
shortness of breath and even death, Black said.

Amphibole fibers are composed of three different types of fibers.
The needle-like fibers don't deteriorate or dissolve, but do break
apart into slivers.

Lung disease caused from amphibole is difficult to see because it
develops subtly and forms a thin layer along the chest wall, where
it may blend in with shadows, Black said.

Scarring of the lungs is progressive in Libby patients who were
exposed to asbestos fibers, so being able to see the scars and
gauge its growth through scans is important for care, he said.

"What we need now is better imaging to see this," he said.

The LERP research project seeks to enable doctors to quantify the
scarring behavior to better understand the disease.

"We set up a project where we'll have baseline CT scans, and then
we'll repeat those in three to four years," Black said.

The program looks at people who had environmental exposure outside
of direct participation in W.R. Grace's mining operations,
including people who were exposed as children and then moved away
from Libby. Those patients are compared to people who were heavily
exposed to chrysotile, more commonly known as a form of commercial
asbestos, in Mount Sinai.

Research also examines autoimmune outcomes, which could hold the
key to why some people react differently to the amphibole fibers,
Black said.

People in Libby have more autoimmune antibodies than the rest of
the population with no exposure, as well as people who have been
exposed to different kinds of fibers, he said.

"We don't know what it means yet, but there are certainly
indications that this fiber does something different when it gets
in the body," he said.

The findings in Libby could have larger implications for helping
doctors across the country better diagnose people who were exposed
to the amphibole fibers and moved away or were exposed to the
fibers through one of the many products made with asbestos from
the northwest Montana mine.

Doctors might not recognize the more progressive form of lung
disease caused by amphibole fibers, instead believing patients
were exposed to chrysotile fibers, which make up 95 percent
asbestos use, Black said.

"Ultimately, this may lead us to intervention that could benefit
people," he said.

For more on the research and clinic, go to www.libbyasbestos.org.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Africans Protest Toxic Dumping Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Tania Page, writing for Aljazeera, reported that South Africa is
struggling with a dirty dilemma -- what to do with half a million
tonnes of toxic waste.

According to the report, a state transport company is awaiting
approval from the government to dump asbestos in the country's
Northern Cape province.  But that plan in drawing anger and
concern for public health, and residents have started a petition
against it.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bronxville Approves Fibro Abatement Project
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris McHugh, writing for Bronxville-Eastchester Patch, reported
that the Bronxville School District is working on a number of
projects to upgrade its facilities for students and teachers. The
building of a press box and concession stand is underway at the
sports field. Also at the field, bleachers are being replaced.

According to the report, the Bronxville Board of Education has
approved of an asbestos abatement project. The project is
connected to the science and auditorium renovation projects.

"This accelerated approach, recommended by our architects and
construction manager, will increase the likelihood of renovating
the science labs with minimal disruption to school operations next
summer," said Superintendent David Quattrone, the report related.

The District's Board has okayed a study that will analyze the
feasibility of lights at Chambers Field, the report said.  The
results of the study will be looked at this fall.

A FEMA project to prevent flooding in the area was approved by the
Village of Bronxville, the report added.  The project's goal is to
protect the school grounds and village from flooding.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Uses Other Claims as Defense
-----------------------------------------------------
Dionne Searcey, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reported
that when the bankruptcy hearings of Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC begin, the maker of asbestos gaskets hopes to show that
plaintiffs' lawyers have already found someone else to blame for
cases of cancer caused by the fibers.

According to the report, to further its case, the company has used
subpoenas to peer into dozens of trusts set up by other corporate
defendants of asbestos litigation, hoping to prove that some
victims and their lawyers have accused multiple firms at the same
time of single-handedly causing victims' cancer.

It is a $1 billion debate that will play out over the next three
weeks in federal bankruptcy court in North Carolina between
Garlock and an asbestos claimants committee made up of plaintiffs'
attorneys whose clients are victims of asbestos exposure, the
report noted.

Garlock filed for Chapter 11 protection in 2010 under the crush of
thousands of lawsuits from people who had inhaled cancer-causing
asbestos fibers and pinned the blame on working with its gaskets
and packing materials.

The company has already paid millions of dollars to settle many of
those claims. In order to exit bankruptcy, Garlock must establish
its future liability for people expected to fall victim to
mesothelioma, a fatal cancer of the lining of the lungs caused by
asbestos exposure.

A special provision of the bankruptcy code was created to allow
companies to shed asbestos liability by setting up trusts to pay
the claims of people who fall ill in the future.

Garlock estimates its future claims will total $125 million; the
claimants committee predicts claims against Garlock will reach
about $1.3 billion.

The company hopes to limit liability by showing federal bankruptcy
judge George Hodges that plaintiffs who filed suits solely blaming
Garlock for their asbestos illness -- and in some cases extracting
large settlements from Garlock -- went on to blame other
companies, too.

To bolster its case, Garlock has successfully subpoenaed details
about plaintiffs' claims to numerous bankruptcy trusts set up by
companies that also made asbestos products and went bankrupt when
inundated with lawsuits. Garlock company officials didn't respond
to requests for comment.

Garlock has cracked open the secretive trust system in hopes of
showing it has paid more than its fair share for exposing people
to asbestos. In court filings, Garlock says its gaskets and
packing material had a "low-dose" of asbestos and were barely
responsible, if at all, for causing anyone's mesothelioma.

It says it settled mesothelioma lawsuits because fighting them
would have been too costly. In a July 8 filing Garlock said it was
paying an average of $70,000 to settle each claim in 2010 when it
filed for bankruptcy protection.

Garlock obtained details about trust claims and claims to other
companies in bankruptcy, and according to court filings, it plans
to show that some plaintiffs suing it were exposed to products
that had higher levels of more dangerous types of asbestos that
were far more likely to sicken victims than Garlock's products.

Asbestos fibers lodged in lungs can't simply be traced to a
specific product, and most doctors in the U.S. say there is no
known minimum threshold that causes disease.

Failing to disclose claims to trusts "artificially inflated
Garlock's cost of defense and its trial risk in the cases that
presented the greatest financial burden over the past decade," the
company said in a court filing earlier this month. Garlock has
proposed putting aside $270 million for personal-injury claims.

More than 45 trusts have been established by makers of asbestos
tile, insulation and other products, altogether holding roughly
$18 billion. A recent government study said that at the end of
2010, the trusts had paid out 3.3 million claims valued at $17.5
billion, and more trusts have been established in the years since.
As lawyers for the claimants, plaintiffs' attorneys play key roles
in overseeing the trusts.

Despite the massive amount of money changing hands, most trusts
don't disclose details about the claims they pay, leading to
allegations of fraud. A Wall Street Journal analysis earlier this
year found numerous inconsistencies in claims to trusts that often
benefited asbestos victims and their attorneys, who collect
contingency fees.

Plaintiffs' attorneys who have key roles in many trusts dispute
accusations of outright fraud but say there are bound to be errors
considering the huge volume of claims.

Attorneys defending companies in civil court cases have stepped up
their fight for more disclosure of trust claims to try to limit
liability for their clients. By seeking to subpoena various
trusts, they hope to show their clients weren't alone in exposing
plaintiffs.

Asbestos victims often tap numerous defendants because typically
they worked as shipbuilders, construction workers or in other
fields where worksites contained numerous asbestos products.

At least two states in recent months have passed laws requiring
more disclosure of trust claims in court cases, and Congress is
considering a measure that would mandate more detailed information
about claims.

Elihu Inselbuch, an attorney at Caplin & Drysdale, argued before a
House Judiciary panel earlier this year that such measures would
stall payments to mesothelioma victims who have only months to
live. Plaintiffs' attorneys view trust claims as settlements and
say they should be secret.

Caplin & Drysdale is leading the claimants committee in the
Garlock bankruptcy case. The committee said in court filings that
Garlock's estimate of its future liability "has no foundation in
reality."

Mr. Inselbuch didn't respond to requests for comment, the report
said.

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: Garlock Sealing Estimation Trial Begins
--------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Daneman, writing for Democrat and Chronicle, reported that
a trial that could lead to the end of Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC's bankruptcy starts in a North Carolina courtroom.

According to the report, at issue is how much the company likely
will have to end up paying to settle a variety of personal injury
claims alleging that asbestos Garlock once used in its manufacture
of gaskets and seals caused numerous cases of mesothelioma.

Palmyra-based Garlock filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in June
2010. In an affidavit at the time, Chief Financial Officer Donald
G. Pomeroy II said Garlock was actually not in business distress,
but it instead was "overwhelmed by the financial and institutional
costs of defending and resolving tens of thousands of asbestos
claims in state and federal courts across the country."
Bankruptcy, Pomeroy said, is a way "of resolving their alleged
asbestos liability in a single forum that offers an efficient and
fair means of determining and satisfying (Garlock's)
responsibility for the mass of asbestos personal injury claims
pending against them and expected to be filed in the future."

Though it denies any responsibility, arguing that there's no
evidence that contact with its products was to blame for any
health problems, Garlock has proposed putting together a $270
million fund to pay claims, though the company also says that it
believes that conservatively it might end up paying less than $125
million. The committee representing claimants in Garlock's
bankruptcy has been pushing an estimate closer to $1.3 billion.

Garlock in a court document said it has been paying, on average,
$70,000 per settlement the past four years. "It was cheaper for
Garlock to pay ... settlements than to spend the money necessary
to demonstrate it had no liability," the company said.

Also as part of the trial, Garlock is seeking to block the use of
information that it is reserving money toward asbestos-related
costs as evidence against it. In a court filing, Garlock argued
that such information about its loss reserves "is ... irrelevant
because it was based on estimates of prospective settlement
payments, not on assessments of any underlying legal liability."

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: Exposure Lawsuit Results in $1.4-Mil. Jury Award
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Turner, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that
an asbestos lawsuit has resulted in a $1.4 million award to the
family of a man who developed lung cancer after asbestos exposure.
Although the man did not survive his asbestos cancer, his family
continued with the lawsuit and a jury sided with the family in its
asbestos claims.

According to the Bloomington Pantagraph (6/26/13), Jake Lilienthal
worked for the GM&O Railroad in Bloomington from 1957 to 1972. He
was then transferred to Kentucky. It was during his employment at
GM&O that he was exposed to asbestos, the family claims, which
then allegedly resulted in his developing lung cancer. Lilienthal
died in 2009, but his family continued with the lawsuit, claiming
GM&O knew about the risks associated with asbestos, but did not
warn employees.

A jury sided with Lilienthal's family, awarding them $1.4 million.

Meanwhile, workers in Oregon have filed a lawsuit against a
hospital and a contractor, alleging they were exposed to asbestos
during a demolition project. According to the lawsuit, reported on
by The Register-Guard (7/18/13), the workers did not know there
was asbestos in the hospital's HVAC system and therefore handled
the material as though there was no asbestos in it, allowing
asbestos particles to be spread throughout the worksite.

The lawsuit alleges the hospital and the contractor knew there was
asbestos at the demolition site but did not warn workers and
further failed to ensure safety procedures were followed to
minimize or prevent asbestos exposure. Both the medical center and
the contractor were reportedly fined for allowing the workers to
be exposed to asbestos.

Asbestos has been linked to serious health problems including
mesothelioma, asbestosis and lung cancer, all of which are fatal.
Workers exposed to asbestos, which is often used as a fire
retardant or insulator, can go for decades without showing signs
of asbestosis or mesothelioma. Asbestos fibers can also adhere to
workers' clothing, exposing family members to the carcinogen.

According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, asbestos is
used in building materials, friction products, packaging and heat-
resistant fabrics. The material is frequently found in attic and
wall insulation, vinyl floor tiles, roofing and siding shingles,
and automobile clutches and brakes. When asbestos-containing
material is disturbed, the asbestos can be released into the air,
providing the opportunity for people in the area to inhale the
particles, which can result in asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung
cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Illegally Dumped in Minchinbury
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kylie Stevens, writing for St. Marys-Mt Druitt Star, reported that
dumping asbestos isn't just littering -- it puts lives at risk,
and community leaders have called for a crackdown.

According to the report, Blacktown councillor Charlie Lowles said
sheeting asbestos was dumped in John Hines Avenue, Minchinbury.
The council removed the asbestos after Cr Lowles had called for a
report into illegal dumping.

The site has since been listed as part of Operation Rosenberg, a
joint operation with the Environment Protection Authority,
targeting illegal dumping hotspots, the report said.  It targets
illegal dumping areas using covert surveillance cameras.

"People are dying because they've been exposed to asbestos," Cr
Lowles said.

"What if children found it? They wouldn't know what it was."

He said illegal dumpers were irresponsible.

"They're putting lives in danger for the sake of a few dollars,"
he said.

Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia president Barry Robson
said part of the problem was the recycling levy on asbestos.

"People don't want to pay the fees so they dump it in bushland or
on the side of the road," he said.

"These people should be charged in the criminal system as they're
giving members of the public a death sentence. Ratepayers have to
pick up the cost and it puts council workers at risk."

Mr Robson, who lives in Blackett, urges people to look out for
illegal dumpers.

"The public are the best eyes and ears for local councils," he
said.

A spokeswoman said asbestos waste dumped on public land was
removed as soon as the council is told. Fines range from $750 to
$5000.

Facilities that take asbestos include Blacktown Waste Services,
Marsden Park, SITA and Dial A Dump in Eastern Creek.

Ring the council on 9839 6000 to report illegal dumping.

What you said on the St Marys-Mt Druitt Star Facebook page about
illegal dumping of asbetsos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Won't Consolidate 2 Cases for Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a New York City judge has
denied a motion to consolidate two asbestos cases for trial,
opining that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that "common
issues predominate over individual ones."

According to the report, in a one-page order issued July 19, Hon.
Barbara Jaffe of the New York Supreme Court for New York County
noted that "the two plaintiffs did not work at a common worksite,
nor did they have similar occupations; their periods of exposure
differ; one is alive and suffering from lung cancer while the
other died of mesothelioma . . . ."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Old Hillsboro Jail Building
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aleen Ratzlaff, writing for Hillsboro Free Press, reported that
County Commissioners were told at their meeting on July 22 that an
inspection at the old jail building revealed the insulation
contains asbestos, which needs to be eradicated before the
building is demolished.

According to the report, Tonya Richards, director of
planning/zoning and environmental health, reported that after
taking samples of ceiling tile, wall surface and insulation at the
old jail, results for the insulation were positive.

"Asbestos in commercial buildings must be removed by licensed
contractors," said Richards, who presented commissioners with a
list of qualified contractors in the state, the report related.

Richards said she's only aware of one local trained person --
Stuart Isaac of Supreme Flooring Co. in Hillsboro. But, she added,
he would need to acquire a license, which would cost him $1,000.

The commission voted 3-0 to seek bids to remove asbestos from the
old jail building, the report said.

Marion City Administrator Doug Kjellin and Economic Development
Director Roger Holter attended the meeting to discuss sharing
costs to rebuild Fourth Street, which borders the new county jail
and courthouse. Although work won't begin until the old jail is
demolished, Kjellin said he plans to consult an engineer about the
project and needs to know what the county is willing to do.

Kjellin had first proposed the joint effort a year ago, and he
wanted to know whether the county was still amenable to work
together on the project, which would involve surfacing streets
from Williams to Fourth and round the courthouse by the library.
He estimated the project would total about $184,000, and the city
will be requesting additional bonding for improvements.

Commissioners Randy Dallke and Dan Holub both said they were
concerned about adequate parking for the public. Holub asked
Kjellin to consider whether making Fourth a one-way street might
allow for angle parking there.

The commissioners voted to contribute $32,000 for street repairs,
to provide base material and to allow use of county equipment.

"This is a fairly large project," Kjellin said, adding that he
planned to accept bids in mid-September.

The timeline, he said, is dependent on the old jail being torn
down.

In response, Dallke said, "The county hopes to have the jail down
by December."

Renee Lippencott of the Kansas Department of Commerce gave on
update on the Rural Opportunity Zone Program, which offers
financial incentives of Kansas income tax waivers up to five years
and student loan repayments up to $15,000 to new full-time
residents in participating counties such as Marion.

As of July 1, Lippencott said, 23 counties were added to the
program, bringing the total to 73 in Kansas.  She reported funds
now can be raised by local nonprofit foundations to accumulate
money toward the match.

"Those on the waiting list are what will be funded first," she
said.

Also, future employers can contribute to a match, which would
allow them to attract personnel with required qualifications.

Marion County, she said, has had one of the longest waiting list
of people wanting to apply to apply. The most current count of
applicants includes 24 approved, seven pending and 11 denied.

Marion County's location to larger urban areas is an advantage
over some counties, she said, so the program can be a catalyst to
bring new residents here.

"You have to embrace your future," Lippencott said.

After meeting with County Attorney Susan Robson and Economic
Development Director Teresa Huffman, commissioners approved 2-1 a
minimum bid of $5,000 for a tax sale on the motel in Florence,
with Holub voting against. More than $25,000 is owed to the
county.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Saskatchewan Disposal Rules Not as Deep as Others
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adriana Christianson, writing for NewsTalk 980 CJME, reported that
a Regina man who asked not to be named is questioning how the city
landfill handles asbestos waste, saying it doesn't look safe.

"The bags were just thrown in a bunch together out on top of the
landfill," he explained, the report related. " A D8 cat comes
along and pushes dirt over top of them, you know all the bags are
going to break."

It was a windy day and he worried a thin layer of dirt wouldn't be
enough cover in case the bags did break, the report said.
Concerned that the cancer-causing material could get into the air,
he called News Talk Radio.

The report said they started digging into the rules for asbestos
disposal and discovered that the regulations for getting rid of
asbestos don't go as deep as other provinces.

The Regina man also believed asbestos waste should be buried in a
pit because that is the rule in other provinces. In Alberta and
Ontario asbestos waste requires an immediate cover of 25
centimeters or about 10 inches. Plus a final cover of 125 cm or
just over four feet. In B.C. it requires a cover of a foot and a
half of dirt.

Wes Kotyk is the executive director of the environmental
protection branch at Sask Environment. He explained that the rules
for asbestos disposal do not require a minimum depth.

"We don't currently specify that, our concern is that it's
immediately buried and that it's buried appropriately so that it
will not be disturbed," he said.

Technically asbestos is more dangerous after it is disturbed
rather than when it's inside a wall because it's easier for the
dust and fibres to get into the air.

There are pages of rules regarding how you handle asbestos when
it's inside buildings and how to remove it. This year the
Saskatchewan Government also introduced new provincial registry
for public buildings containing asbestos called Howard's Law.
However, once you take asbestos out of a wall and deliver it to
the dump there are only two rules.

"We do ask that they be double bagged and that they be immediately
buried on disposal," Kotyk explained.

Lisa Legault is the Manager of Landfill Operations for the City of
Regina. She says special permits outline all of the rules for
safely transporting asbestos to the dump. She also noted that
landfill staff members have plenty of experience dealing with
asbestos waste because they take in approximately three loads
every week.

"We create a berm and then we place the asbestos into the berm and
then cover the asbestos," she said,

With no exact rule on how deep to bury asbestos waste, Legault
says their standard practice is to cover it with at least one foot
of dirt.

A foot of cover is not what our tipster witnessed, so what
happened? Legault says on that particular day, June 28, landfill
staff waited an hour and a half so they could cover two loads of
asbestos at once.

So if it's not buried very deep, how do they make sure the bags
won't burst?

Legault explains unlike regular garbage, compacting machinery
never drives over the isolated asbestos area. She adds that they
make sure bags are fully sealed heavy six-mil polyethlyne bags
when they arrive.

The question remains, how much dirt is enough to keep asbestos
underground? While the provincial government piles on more laws
about asbestos inside buildings, could they be digging deeper for
regulations on safe disposal?


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thousands to Lose Out Due to UK Mesothelioma Bill
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paddy McGuffin, writing for Morning Star, reported that
campaigners fighting for compensation for asbestos victims warned
the government that thousands of people would be denied justice if
it didn't strengthen its new Mesothelioma Bill.

According to the report, until now, many victims of mesothelioma
-- a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos fibres -- have been
unable to receive compensation from former employers because they
have been unable to trace them or their insurers.  However the new
legislation, which passed through the Lords this week, will allow
compensation to those who were negligently exposed to asbestos but
cannot trace the employer or the company's insurer through a
scheme funded by a levy on current insurers.

The Bill will award 70 per cent compensation pay-outs to around
300 victims of diffuse mesothelioma every year, the report
related.  But only those diagnosed on or after July 25 2012 are
covered by the compensation scheme.

Work and Pensions Minister Lord Freud hailed the Bill as a "major
step forward."  He said: "The issue of poor record-keeping in the
industry has for too long prevented mesothelioma sufferers from
receiving the compensatory payments due to them.

"This Bill represents substantial progress in rectifying this
injustice."

But while campaigners welcome any compensation granted to some
victims, they argue that the Bill doesn't go far enough, the
report said.

In its current form the Bill excludes half of all asbestos victims
-- those suffering with asbestos-related lung cancer, asbestosis
and pleural thickening.

Asbestos Victims Support Group Forum chairman Tony Whitston said
that the mesothelioma sufferers and their families were "bitterly
disappointed" at the insurers' refusal to pay 100 per cent
compensation and to backdate those payments to at least February
2010.

He said: "The government should have forced insurers to accept
full liability for the insurance premiums they wantonly destroyed.

"We are calling on Lord Freud to honour the commitment he gave in
debate to look to increase payments at least up to 3 per cent of
gross working premium, the figure that insurers say they can
afford.

"This is the very least that should be done. We will not let up on
our fight for 100 per cent justice as the Mesothelioma Bill
continues its passage through Parliament, and thereafter with a
new government, if necessary."

Ucatt general secretary Steve Murphy said: "It is deeply
disappointing that the government has not listened to concerns and
strengthened the Mesothelioma Bill.

"Hundreds of asbestos victims will be denied any compensation if
this Bill is not changed."

He added: "The losers are people who have developed a fatal
asbestos disease through absolutely no fault of their own and the
winners are the insurance industry who this government appears to
be in hock to."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Proposed Standards for Libby Tougher Than Ever
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Guth, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new clean-up
standard for the asbestos-laden town of Libby that will be 5,000
times tougher than what has been used in past projects regarding
the clean-up of airborne asbestos.

According to the report, environmental experts proclaim this to be
a move that finally represents a victory for those who've fought
hard against companies like W.R. Grace and Co., a Maryland-based
manufacturer that showed little regard for employees and for the
environment in regards to asbestos exposure and contamination in
Libby.

In the town of Libby, contamination from Grace's vermiculite mine
has already resulted in the deaths of more than 400 individuals
with nearly 1,800 other area residents or former workers sickened
by some sort of asbestos-related disease, including mesothelioma,
the report related. Grace officials, however, object to the
current proposal, which they say is going too far and could result
in extremely expensive clean-ups at sites throughout the United
States.

Others, however, believe the EPA is doing the right thing in
demanding that the concentrations of airborne asbestos be as low
as possible.

"In many respects, it would be like banning it, getting it so
low," said former assistant U.S. Surgeon General Richard Lemen.
"EPA is being realistic and saying, 'Look, we know there's
asbestos out there and we're not going to get rid of all of it,
but let's put our concentration as low as we possibly can.'"

The article, citing The Missoulian, notes that the new standards
would declare that airborne asbestos concentrations exceeding two-
100,000ths of a fiber per cubic centimeter pose a health risk.
Previously, action was taken only when the substance was airborne
in amounts greater than one-10th of a fiber per cubic centimeter.
This is an issue that is crucial to the health of Libby residents.

In addition, the EPA proposal, for the first time, sets a risk
level for non-cancer illnesses, such as the lung disease
asbestosis, which has already killed dozens of individuals in and
around the town and has sickened hundreds more.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Letham Resident Warns of Deadly Fibro "Time Bomb"
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Perthsire Advertiser reported that a former police officer
warned that Perth kids could be facing an asbestos 'ticking
timebomb'.

According to the report, taxi driver Murdo MacDonald claims lock-
up garages owned by Perth and Kinross Council contain decaying
asbestos in their roofs.  He says children use the garages as a
play area and risk inhaling dust from the lethal mineral by
disturbing rubble.  Mr MacDonald returned to Perth five years ago
after a career with the police force in London. He started his own
taxi business and needed a garage to keep his cab.  He was able to
rent a council-owned lock-up in Brahan Terrace.

Mr MacDonald said: "Three years ago, I wanted to rent another one
to use as a cleaning facility for my taxi, but I was told none
were available.

"Looking around Rannoch Road in Letham I had my doubts. I felt
there was something not right there as I knew of several unused
garages.

"After another two years, there was still no movement on my
request to rent, so I involved my local councillor, Dave Doogan,
as I was convinced those garages were empty.

"We had a meeting and he kindly said he'd investigate. Cllr Doogan
ordered that council officers break open the lock-up in Rannoch
Road.

"He went in and they were pristine inside, empty, so why weren't
any available to rent? Next the council said the reason was 'there
might be asbestos'."

The report related that Mr MacDonald claims the council has lost
revenue worth GBP35,000 over the ten years the lock-ups at Rannoch
Road have been bolted and unrentable.  He said: "I based that on
my rent of GBP40 a month for the Brahan Terrace lock-up.

"Over the ten years those nine garages have been off their rental
books.

"That would be GBP10,500 for the three years I've been keen to
hire one. I think that's a lot of money to be just letting go."

Mr MacDonald paid for an independent company to carry out asbestos
tests around Letham, each at GBP15. He asserts that three tests
found asbestos present in the roof of council-owned garages, one
being the garage he rented in Brahan Terrace.

"Everyone knows how dangerous that stuff is, it only shows up
years after exposure," he said.

"One lungful of the particles can kill you and you might never
even know where you got it from. Boys from Letham are playing
football at the garages, it's got to be stopped, the council are
doing nothing to protect them from breathing it in."

A PKC spokesperson said: "The lock-ups on Rannoch Road are
generally in a poor condition and not fit for use, therefore we
are not offering them for rent. In common with many buildings of
the period, the majority of lock-ups were built with roofs made of
corrugated asbestos cement sheeting which is safe as long as it is
not disturbed. If we receive any reports of damage we will have
this checked and will organise safe disposal if necessary.

"We are currently concluding a major review of all the council's
lock-ups and garage sites to determine whether these should be
upgraded, used for other purposes or demolished.

"As a result of the Rannoch Road garages becoming unavailable for
rental, the council has seen a loss of around GBP6800 in rent in
the past three years.

"Once the surveys of the buildings are concluded we will be
consulting with the relevant tenants and residents and will report
our findings to the housing and health committee, with
recommendations for the future of lock-ups and garage sites.

"The lock-up rented by Mr MacDonald is secure and, as we have no
indications that the asbestos on his roof has been disturbed, can
continue to be used safely. We will confirm this with Mr McDonald.

"Following the completion of the review, if the decision is made
to replace some or all the lock-ups, the proposal would be to
include new roofs.

"We have not received any reports of children playing football
around the garages in Letham. However, community wardens will be
carrying out additional patrols in the interests of discouraging
any youngsters from playing around the garages."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Victim's Daughter Calls for Help
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anuji Varma, writing for Birmingham Mail, reported that the
daughter of a Birmingham man who died from a work-related disease
has appealed for information about the former Birmingham bus
company where her family fear he may have come into contact with
asbestos.

According to the report, widower John Field worked at Midland Red
Bus Company, based in Bearwood, and told his family before his
death that he remembered being exposed to the deadly dust.

The 83-year-old, from Winson Green, died in September 2011, from
mesothelioma, a cancer on the lining of the lungs caused by
exposure to asbestos, the report said.

John suffered from shortness of breath and fatigue in early 2011
and had to give up his love of ballroom dancing, the report
related.  Tests confirmed he had mesothelioma and he died less
than a month later.

His daughter, Lesley Hinder, said: "John was a great character
with a love for life, particularly his ballroom dancing. The
illness took hold very quickly but before he died he thought back
to where he could have been exposed to asbestos dust and said he
could remember working with it at the Midlands Red Bus Company and
Jones and Rooke Ltd.

The grandfather-of-one worked for the bus company as a maintenance
fitter in the early 1940s.  He could remember allegedly being
exposed to asbestos while working on heating pipes and also during
maintenance on brake linings which contained the material for its
heat resistant properties.

He could also remember apparently working with asbestos during his
employment with Jones and Rooke Ltd -- which may previously have
been known as Lawleys -- when he was a maintenance fitter at its
factories on Unit Street and Garrison Lane from 1949 and 1965.

Anyone who can help is asked to contact Hayley Hill at Irwin
Mitchell on 0121 214 5407 or email Hayley.hill@irwinmitchell.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for New Trial in "O'Malley" Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael P. McCuskey of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of Illinois, Urbana Division, in an opinion dated
June 19, 2013, denied and recharacterized a motion for new trial
filed by a defendant in a criminal case involving violations of
regulations pertaining to the removal of regulated asbestos-
containing materials as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
the sentence finding him guilty of the criminal charges.

Judge McCuskey explained that a motion for new trial under Rule 33
of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, like the one filed by
the defendant, is designed to rectify factual injustice, not to
correct legal error.  The Court pointed out that none of the
defendant's arguments relate to evidence of his innocence, per se.
Instead, his arguments are a collateral attack on his due process
right to a fair trial.  Judge McCuskey stated that "a defendant
whose argument is not that newly discovered evidence supports a
claim of innocence, but instead that he has new evidence of a
constitutional violation or other ground of collateral attack, is
making a motion under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 no matter what caption
he puts on the document."

The case is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DUANE L.
O'MALLEY, et al. Defendants, CASE NO. 10-CR-20042 (C.D. Ill.).  A
full-text copy of Judge McCuskey's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/Te7Taffrom Leagle.com

USA, Plaintiff, is represented by Eugene L Miller, Esq., US ATTY,
Gail Linn Noll, Esq., US ATTY, and James Jinhan Cha, Esq., US
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Porter" PI Suit Remanded to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Walter J. Gex, III, of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi, Western Division, remanded an
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned MARK PORTER,
Plaintiff, v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, et al.,Defendants, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 5:12CV116WJG-RHW (S.D. Miss.), to the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, Mississippi, at the request of the Plaintiff,
after determining that the defendant who removed the case from the
state court has been dismissed from the case, and no other
defendant joined in the remand of the case to the federal court.

A full-text copy of Judge Gex's Decision dated June 19, 2013, is
available at http://is.gd/vsdMWifrom Leagle.com

Mark Porter, Plaintiff, is represented by Patrick Cash Malouf,
Esq. -- patrick@portermalouf.com -- John T. Givens, Esq. --
johnny@portermalouf.com -- and Timothy W. Porter, Esq. --
tim@portermalouf.com -- at PORTER & MALOUF.

Phillips 66 Company, Phillips Petroleum Company, and Conoco
Phillips Company, Defendants, are represented by Bernard H. Booth,
IV, Esq. -- bernard.booth@arlaw.com -- and Lindsey N. Oswalt, Esq.
-- lindsey.oswalt@arlaw.com -- at ADAMS AND REESE, LLP; Louis B.
Lanoux, Esq. -- llanoux@watkinseager.com -- Michael O'Mara Gwin,
Esq. -- mgwin@watkinseager.com -- and Richard T. Lawrence, Esq. --
rlawrence@watkinseager.com -- at WATKINS & EAGER; and John G.
Corlew, Esq. -- jcorlew@cmslawyers.com -- at CORLEW MUNFORD &
SMITH, PLLC.

Drilling Specialties Company, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by
Bernard H. Booth, IV, Esq., and Lindsey N. Oswalt, Esq., at ADAMS
AND REESE, LLP.

Montello, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey P. Hubbard,
Esq., at HUBBARD, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS & STRAIN, PLLC.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Richard L.
Forman, Esq. -- rforman@fpwk.com -- Donald C. Partridge, Esq. --
partridgedc@fpwk.com -- Fred Krutz, III, Esq. -- fred@fpwk.com --
Jordan V. Mason, Esq. -- masonjm@fpwk.com -- Laura DeVaughn
Goodson, Esq. -- goodsonld@fpwk.com -- Marcy B. Croft, Esq. --
croftmb@fpwk.com -- Thomas W. Tardy, III, Esq. -- ttardy@fpwk.com
-- and Walter G. Watkins, Jr., Esq. -- wwatkins@fpwk.com -- at
FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY, LLP.

Dow Chemical Company, Defendant, represented by Michael Edward
Whitehead, Esq. -- Michael.Whitehead@pmp.org -- at PAGE, MANNINO,
PERESICH & MCDERMOTT, PLLC.

Baker Hughes, Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Michael N.
Watts, Esq. -- mwatts@holcombdunbar.com -- and and Jonathan S.
Masters, Esq. -- jmasters@holcombdunbar.com -- at HOLCOMB DUNBAR,
P.A..

Oilfield Service and Supply Company, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Jason Eric Fortenberry, Esq. -- jfortenberry@babc.com -- at
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP; and Ricky G. Luke, Esq., at
WATSON & JONES, PA.

Mississippi Mud Inc., Defendant, represented by Marcy B. Croft,
Esq., Mary Margaret Gay, Esq. -- gaymm@fpwk.com -- and Stefan G.
Bourn, Esq. -- bournsg@fpwk.com -- at FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS,
KRUTZ & TARDY; and Robert V. Greenlee, Esq., at SESSUMS, DALLAS &
MORRISON, PLLC

Penrod Drilling Corporation, Defendant, represented by Todd G.
Crawford, Esq. -- tcrawford@frfirm.com -- and Lewie G. Negrotto,
IV, Esq. -- snegrotto@frfirm.com -- at FOWLER RODRIGUEZ VALDES-
FAULI.

Baker-Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Jonathan S. Masters, Esq., at HOLCOMB DUNBAR, P.A.

Kaneb Management Company, LLC, successor by merger to Diamond M
Drilling Company, Defendant, represented by James Joseph McNamara,
IV, Esq. -- jim.mcnamara@arlaw.com -- at ADAMS AND REESE.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids for Summary Judgment in "Logan" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
separately denied motions for summary judgment filed by Union
Carbide Corporation and Georgia-Pacific, LLC, and Blackmer Pump
Company, in the asbestos-related personal injury case titled JOHN
LOGAN and GAIL LOGAN Plaintiffs, v. A.P. MOLLER-MAERSK, INC., et.
al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190203/12, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 (N.Y.
Sup.).

In denying UCC and Georgia-Pacific's motion for summary judgment,
Judge Heitler pointed out that she has already addressed near-
identical issues in Vega v Georgia Pacific, LLC, et. al., Index
No. 190409/11 (Sup.Ct. NY Co. January 10, 2013), and in Macek v
CBS Corp., et. al., Index No. 190085/11 (Sup.Ct. NY Co. March 22,
2013).  In those cases, Judge Heitler held that while UCC had an
affirmative duty to warn its customers of the dangers associated
with Calidria asbestos, the adequacies of any those warnings were
questions of fact to be determined by the jury.  In addition,
Judge Heitler held that UCC could not free itself of its duty to
warn in light of evidence which indicated that UCC may have
withheld highly relevant information from its customers regarding
Calidria's health effects.  As in Vega and Macek, the submissions
on UC's motion show that UCC may not have provided GP with
relevant information regarding health concerns associated with its
asbestos product.

In denying Blackmer's motion for summary judgment, Judge Heitler
ruled that the submissions Blackmer made would appear that
Blackmer has failed in the first instance to unequivocally show
that its product could not have contributed to the Plaintiff's
injury.

A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision pertaining to UCC and
Georgia-Pacific, dated June 17, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/aQlov6from Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision pertaining to
Blackmer, dated July 9, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/C0bDzB
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Court Renders Decision in 3 Inmate Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
entered two separate orders involving three inmates who alleged,
among other things, the presence of asbestos in the ceiling of the
Vienna Correctional Center where they are currently incarcerated.

The first order, penned by Judge J. Phil Gilbert in the case
captioned JOSHUA WILLIAMS, No. M13271, Plaintiff, v. JUDGE OBISS,
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, ILLINOIS PROSECUTING RONALD S. KALES, COOK
COUNTY POLICE DEPT., COOK COUNTY, COOK COUNTY COURT, CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS, VIENNA, ILLINOIS, JOHNSON COUNTY, VIENNA CORRECTIONAL
CENTER, COOK COUNTY JAIL, and STATE OF ILLINOIS, Defendants, CIVIL
NO. 13-CV-00509-JPG (S.D. Ill.), dismissed, without prejudice, Mr.
William's complaint after finding that the complaint "lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact."  A full-text copy of
Judge Gilbert's June 27, 2013 Decision is available at
http://is.gd/cgBg0zfrom Leagle.com

The second order, penned by Judge Michael J. Reagan in the case
TYRONE BETHEA, # K-80900, Plaintiff, v. STATEVILLE RNC and VIENNA
CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-629-MJR (S.D.
Ill.)., directed Tyrone Bethea to amend his complaint to separate
his claims arising against Vienna and the Stateville RNC.  A full-
text copy of Judge Reagan's July 3, 2013 Decision is available at
http://is.gd/yCF9Pkfrom Leagle.com

The third order, also penned by Judge Reagan in the case BOBBY LEE
DICKERSON, No. M35352, Plaintiff, v. VIENNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
and VIENNA MEDICAL CARE, Defendants, CIVIL NO. 13-CV-00557-MJR
(S.D. Ill.) dismissed Bobby Lee Dickerson's Federal Tort Claims
Act claim for failure to state a claim.  A full-text copy of Judge
Reagan's July 8, 2013 Decision is available at http://is.gd/rqpTGV
from Leagle.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurance Judgment vs. Lloyd's London Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company was a defendant in litigation
involving allegations of exposure to and inhalation of airborne
asbestos fibers by workers at the Bogalusa Paper Mill, which
consisted of different areas and pieces of equipment. From 1936 to
1965, CB&I built or installed numerous vessels or structures at
the Bogalusa Mill and these structures held asbestos-containing
parts or insulation.  Several claims against CB&I were dismissed
without a finding of liability and others were settled.
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London and Certain London Market
Insurance Companies had insured CB&I through numerous liability
insurance policies.  CB&I sued London for reimbursement of amounts
expended to defend against and settle the asbestos claims.  The
parties chose 10 representative claimants from the Bogalusa Mill
case to determine whether CB&I settled an otherwise covered loss
in reasonable anticipation of personal liability.  A jury found
that the settlement amounts CB&I paid were not reasonable and
determined which amounts were reasonable.  The parties reached a
stipulation regarding the remaining Bogalusa Mill claims.

The trial court entered a judgment in accordance with summary
judgment rulings, directed verdict rulings, and the jury's
verdict.  In its judgment, the trial court found that London
breached its contract with CB&I and awarded CB&I damages.  In
seven appellate issues, London challenges several of the trial
court's legal and evidentiary rulings and the dismissal of its
defenses.  In its cross-appeal, CB&I contends that claims based on
CB&I's completed operations constitute one occurrence.

In an opinion dated June 27, 2013, the Court of Appeals of Texas,
Ninth District, Beaumont, affirmed the trial court's judgment
after finding that the trial court did not err by determining that
London's definite claim defense failed as a matter of law.

The case is CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON AND CERTAIN
LONDON MARKET INSURANCE COMPANIES, Appellants, v. CHICAGO BRIDGE &
IRON COMPANY, Appellee, NO. 09-12-00121-CV (Tex. App.).  A full-
text copy of the Opinion dated June 27, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/3qNMeifrom Leagle.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Junks "Take Home" Suit v. Lockheed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington granted Lockheed Shipbuilding Company's
motion for summary judgment dismissing the take-home action filed
by a daughter and wife who alleged that she developed mesothelioma
from exposure to asbestos her father and ex-husband took home from
their work places.

According to Judge Zilly, the Washington Supreme Court would
recognize that an employer has a duty to prevent "take home"
exposure to asbestos if harm to an employee's family member was
reasonably foreseeable.  In this case, the Plaintiff has failed to
raise a genuine issue of material fact whether Lockheed knew or
should have known of the risk posed by "take home" exposure to
asbestos during the 1950s when the Plaintiff's exposure occurred.
Judge Zilly granted Lockheed's motion for summary judgment because
the risk of harm to the Plaintiff was not reasonably foreseeable
to Lockheed.

The case is LORETTA HOYT, Plaintiff, v. LOCKHEED SHIPBUILDING
COMPANY, Defendant, NO. C12-1648 TSZ (W.D. Wash.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Zilly's Decision dated June 26, 2013, is available
at http://is.gd/Mwyt2Ufrom Leagle.com

Loretta Hoyt, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Robert Couture,
Esq., and Brian Weinstein, Esq., at WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC; and
Erica V. Cesaro, Esq., Sharon J. Zinns, Esq., and Mark A. Abell,
Esq., at LEVY PHILLIPS & KONIGSBERG LLP.

Lockheed Shipbuilding Company, Defendant, represented by Guy
Glazier, Esq. -- glazier@glazieryee.com -- at GLAZIER YEE; and
Jeffrey D Dunbar, Esq. -- jdunbar@omwlaw.com -- and Robert Gregory
Andre, Esq. -- randre@omwlaw.com -- at OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Denies Ch. 7 Case Dismissal for Hidden Assets
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Howard R. Tallman of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Colorado denied a motion to dismiss a bankruptcy case
or, in the alternative, to stay that bankruptcy case pending the
resolution of another action in a California court.

The motion was filed by Joseph Anthony Garza and Jessica L.
Heller, as substituted Chapter 7 debtors for Joseph G. Garza and
Mary L. Garza, now both deceased, and Brayton Purcell, LLP.  The
Debtors filed their bankruptcy case in 2005.  Their schedules
reflected minimal assets, which they valued at $1,175.  The
Debtors' Statement of Financial Affairs affirmatively stated that
neither debtor had been party to any suits or administrative
proceedings within the prior year.  The Debtors scheduled a
handful of unsecured credit card creditors with debts totaling
$45,898 and no secured or priority creditors.  The schedules
reflected that both debtors were retired and receiving combined
monthly Social Security benefits of $1,567.

More than six years later, in December of 2011, David J. Cook and
Cook Collection Attorneys, PLC, notified the Chapter 7 Trustee
that the Debtors had been awarded a significant judgment in an
asbestos lawsuit.  The Trustee moved to reopen the Debtors' case
to administer the newly discovered assets.  That personal injury
action had been filed by the Debtors less than two months before
they filed their petition under chapter 7.

In denying the motion to dismiss the Chapter 7 case, Judge Tallman
said the Court is acutely aware that there is no good result to be
had in the present case.  "Because of the passage of time, it is
impossible to place this case back in the proper posture for the
administration of assets on behalf of the pre-petition creditors.
But the relief requested by the Movants is the worst of the
available options.  To grant the Motion would be to grant a
benefit to the Movants as a direct result of the Debtors' failure
in their duty of full and candid disclosure of assets to the Court
and the Trustee.  The best of the unappealing options is to allow
the process to run its course in this Court since, at bottom, the
Settlement Proceeds are an asset of this chapter 7 bankruptcy
estate," Judge Tallman stated.

"Under the extraordinary and unique circumstances of this case,
the Court finds that the Motion fails to allege any circumstances
that can constitute cause for dismissal of this case under 11
U.S.C. Sec. 707(a) or that dismissal is appropriate under 11
U.S.C. Sec. 305(a)(1).  Nor have the Movants shown good cause to
hold proceedings in this case in abeyance," Judge Tallman further
stated.

The case is In re: JOSEPH ANTHONY GARZA, Personal Representative
of the Probate Estate of Joseph G. Garza, JESSICA L. HELLER,
Successor Personal Representative of the Probate Estate of Debtor
Mary L. Garza, Chapter 7, Substituted Debtors, CASE NO. 05-14970
HRT (Bankr. D. Colo.).  A full-text copy of Judge Tallman's
Decision dated June 21, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/142hI5
from Leagle.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Dropped as Defendant in "Friedman" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
granted Graybar Electric Co., Inc.'s motion for summary judgment
and dismissed it as defendant in the asbestos-related personal
injury action titled STANLEY FRIEDMAN and PHYLLIS FRIEDMAN,
Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, DOCKET
NO. 190187/12, MOTION SEQ. 003 (N.Y. Sup.), after determining
that, based on the testimonies provided in the case, the
Plaintiffs have not created a reasonable inference that any
Graybar product was the source of Mr. Friedman's asbestos
exposure.  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision and Order
dated June 26, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/1IDM8Cfrom
Leagle.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reinsurers Suit Will Proceed to Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
Between 1966 and 1986, OneBeacon American Insurance Company had a
treaty reinsurance program known as "Multiple Line Excess Cover"
under which it entered into annual reinsurance contracts with
various reinsurers.  National Casualty Company, Employers
Insurance Company of Wausau and Swiss Re America Corporation
participated in the MLEC Program as reinsurers.  The wording of
the 1973-74 Reinsurance Agreement to which Wausau was a party is
identical in all relevant respects to the wording of the
Reinsurance Agreement to which Swiss Re was a party, including the
definition of "occurrence."

In 2007, OneBeacon demanded arbitration under its Reinsurance
Contract with Swiss Re (OneBeacon v. Swiss Re, No. 09-cv-11495) to
seek reinsurance recovery for losses arising out of claims against
it by several policyholders, including ALCOA and Plant Insulation.
The ensuing arbitration between Swiss Re and OneBeacon resulted in
a final decision in which the arbitration panel "reject[ed]
OneBeacon's aggregation under Section 5(d) of the [Reinsurance
Contract] of an insured's asbestos and silica losses on the basis
that the mere presence of asbestos (or silica) is the `same
causative agency,'" and ruled that "[a]ccordingly, Swiss Re
America is not obligated to pay the aggregated asbestos and silica
nonproducts bodily injury losses under Section 5(d) . . . in the
manner ceded by OneBeacon."

National Casualty and Wausau have brought a complaint seeking
declaratory relief regarding (1) the preclusive effect of the
judgment entered by the court in Swiss Re Arbitration on the
impending arbitration, (2) the parties' conduct during umpire
selection and (3) breach of the arbitration agreement, and a
petition to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration
Act.  Defendants OneBeacon, Employers Commercial Union Insurance
Company, American Employers Insurance Company, Employers' Fire
Insurance Company, Northern Assurance Company of America and
Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, have filed a motion to
dismiss the Reinsurers' issue preclusion or collateral estoppel
claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and a cross-petition to compel arbitration.

In a memorandum and order dated July 1, 2013, Judge Denise J.
Casper of the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted OneBeacon's motion to dismiss and granted in
part and denied in part the Reinsurers' petition and granted in
part and denied in part OneBeacon's cross-petition.

Judge Casper held that the fact that a final judgment was entered
in the Swiss Re Arbitration is not determinative and does not
warrant deviation from the general rule that the preclusive effect
of a prior arbitration is a matter for the arbitrator to decide.

The case is NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY, and EMPLOYERS INSURANCE
COMPANY OF WAUSAU, Plaintiffs, v. ONEBEACON AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY, EMPLOYERS COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN
EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, THE EMPLOYERS' FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY, THE NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, and EMPLOYERS
LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-
11874-DJC (D. Mass.).  A full-text copy of Judge Casper's Decision
is available at http://is.gd/cCEFFCfrom Leagle.com

National Casualty Company and Employers Insurance Company of
Wausau, Plaintiffs, are represented by Natasha C. Lisman, Esq. --
lisman@srbc.com -- and Susan A. Hartnett, Esq. --
hartnett@srbc.com -- at Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C.

OneBeacon American Insurance Company, Employers Commercial Union
Insurance Company, American Employers Insurance Company, The
Employers Fire Insurance Company, The Northern Assurance Company
of America, and Employers Liability Assurance Corporation,
Defendants, are represented by Kevin J. O'Connor, Esq. --
koconnor@hermesnetburn.com -- and Kevin P. Polansky, Esq. --
kpolansky@hermesnetburn.com -- at Hermes, Netburn, O'Connor &
Spearing; and Michael A. Knoerzer, Esq. --
michael.knoerzer@clydeco.us -- at Clyde & Co.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Ct. Refuses to Amend Prior Ruling in PI Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a decision dated July 8, 2013, Judge James J. Brady of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana denied a
motion to amend and certify a prior order on motions for summary
judgment for interlocutory review and to amend that ruling to
state that the conditions for interlocutory review have been met.
The motion was filed by Defendants OneBeacon America Insurance
Company, in its capacity as an alleged insurer of James O'Donnell
and Huntington Ingalls Incorporated.

Judge Brady found that the Plaintiffs' claims were not pre-empted
by the Longshore Harbor Workers Compensation Act.  In its prior
ruling, the Court explained that because Robert Legendre was
exposed to asbestos in 1957 and again in 1964 through 1969, his
cause of action accrued at that time.  The LHWCA did not apply to
land-based workers prior to 1972.  Thus, because Mr. Legendre's
cause of action accrued before 1972, the LHWCA is inapplicable and
does not pre-empt the Plaintiffs' state law survivorship claims.
The Defendants now seek to have the Court certify its ruling for
immediate interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b).

Judge Brady explained that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b) authorizes a
district court to certify an order for interlocutory appeal if the
order "involves a controlling question of law as to which there is
substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate
appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate
termination of the litigation."  In support of their argument, the
Defendants reiterate many of the arguments that were presented in
support of their motions for summary judgment.  The Court found
that there is no issue for interlocutory appeal because there is
no substantial basis for difference of opinion, nor is there any
contradictory or conflicting precedent.  The law is clear and
these issues were addressed more than adequately in the Court's
prior ruling, Judge Brady said.

The case is ROBERT LEGENDRE, ET AL. v. ANCO INSULATIONS, INC., ET
AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-94-JJB (M.D. La.)  A full-text copy of
Judge Brady's Decision is available at http://is.gd/Gah37lfrom
Leagle.com

Robert Legendre, Marion L. Legendre, Tina Lafatut, Ricky Legendre,
Robert S. Watts, and James Warren, Plaintiffs, are represented by
Cameron Ray Waddell, Esq., Jeffery R. Nicholson, Esq., and Jody E.
Anderman, Esq., at Waddell Anderman, LLC; Allison N. Benoit, Esq.
-- allison.benoit@keanmiller.com -- at Kean, Miller, Hawthorne,
D'Armond; and Christopher C. Colley, Esq. -- ccolley@baronbudd.com
-- Denyse F. Clancy, Esq. -- dclancy@baronbudd.com -- and J.
Burton LeBlanc, IV, Esq. -- bleblanc@baronbudd.com -- at Baron &
Budd, P.C.

Anco Insulations, Inc., Defendant, represented by Margaret Moran
Joffe, Esq. -- mjoffe@dkslaw.com -- at Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles.

BASF Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary A. Bezet, Esq. --
gary.bezet@keanmiller.com -- at Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond,
McCowan & Jarman.

Bechtel Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, is represented
by John J. Hainkel, III, Esq. -- jhainkel@frilot.com -- Angela M.
Bowlin, Esq. -- abowlin@frilot.com --James H. Brown, Jr., Esq. --
jbrown@frilot.com -- Meredith Kathryn Keenan, Esq. --
mkeenan@frilot.com -- Peter R. Tafaro, Esq. -- ptafaro@frilot.com
-- and Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Esq. -- rzotti@frilot.com -- at
Frilot L.L.C.

CBS Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, is represented by
John J. Hainkel, III, Frilot, Partridge, LC.

Commercial Union Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Gordon Peter Wilson, Esq. -- gwilson@leefutrell.com -- Anita A.
Cates, Esq. -- acates@leefutrell.com -- Gary A. Lee, Esq. --
glee@leefutrell.com -- Richard M. Perles, Esq. --
rperles@leefutrell.com -- at Lee, Futrell & Perles; and Samuel M.
Rosamond, III, Esq. -- srosamond@twpdlaw.com -- at Taylor Wellons
Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Eagle, Inc., The McCarty Corporation, Defendants and Cross
Defendants, are represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Esq. -- suek@spsr-
law.com -- and Douglas R. Kinler, Esq. -- dkinler@spsr-law.com --
at Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, is
represented by Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy.

Lexington Insurance Company and National Union Fire Insurance Co,
Defendants and Cross Defendants, are represented by Michael E
Hill, Esq. -- egieger@glllaw.com -- at Gieger, Laborde &
Laperouse, L.L.C.

Owens-Illinois Inc, Defendant and Cross Defendant, is represented
by Forrest Ren Wilkes, Esq. -- ren@fpwk.com -- at Forman, Perry,
Watkins, Krutz & Tardy.

Royal Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline
Romero, Esq. -- jromero@pugh-law.com -- at Pugh, Accardo, Haas,
Radecker, Carey, Loeb & Hymel.

Turner Industries Group, L.L.C., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Cynthia Cleland Branch, Esq., at Spyridon, Koch,
Palermo, & Dornan, LLC; and Paul D. Palermo, Esq. --
ppalermo@bluewilliams.com -- at Blue Williams, LLC.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, Third Party Plaintiff and
Cross Defendant, is represented by Lexi T. Holinga, Esq. --
lexi.holinga@bblawla.com -- Anthony Joseph Lascaro, Esq. --
anthony.lascaro@bblawla.com -- David Mark Bienvenu, Jr., Esq. --
David.Bienvenu@bblawla.com -- John Allain Viator, Esq. --
John.Viator@bblawla.com -- Katie Dampier Chabert, Esq. --
Katie.chabert@bblawla.com -- and Tam Catherine Bourgeois, Esq. --
Tam.Bourgeois@bblawla.com -- at Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator
and Holinga, APLLC; and Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson.

Zurich Insurance Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Glen Mercer, Esq. -- gmercer@shmrlaw.com -- at
Salley, Hite & Mercer, LLC.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Defendant, Third Party Plaintiff,
Cross Claimant, represented by Brian C. Bossier, Esq. --
bbossier@bluewilliams.com -- Christopher T. Grace, III, Esq. --
cgrace@bluewilliams.com -- and Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Esq. --
eellinghausen@bluewilliams.com -- at Blue Williams, LLP, Gary A.
Lee, Esq., and Gordon Peter Wilson, Esq., at Lee, Futrell &
Perles.

Meadwestvaco Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, is
represented by David Mark Bienvenu, Jr., Esq., and Tam Catherine
Bourgeois, Esq., at Bienvenu Bonnecaze Foco Viator & Holinga,
APLLC.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and Hopeman Brothers, ThirdParty
Defendants, are represented by Blaine A. Moore, Esq. --
bmoore@courington-law.com -- Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Esq. --
jmclaughlin@courington-law.com -- and Jonathan P. Hilbun, Esq. --
jhilbun@courington-law.com -- at Courington, Kiefer & Sommers,
LLC.

OneBeacon American Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Douglas R. Kinler, Esq., at Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn,
LLP; and Gary A. Lee, Esq., and Gordon Peter Wilson, Esq., at Lee,
Futrell & Perles.

Cemex, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by William L. Schuette,
Jr., Esq. -- wschuette@joneswalker.com -- at Jones Walker LLP.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Gulf Oil Corporation, Cross Defendant,
represented by Gary A. Bezet, Esq., Allison N. Benoit, Esq. --
allison.benoit@keanmiller.com -- Carol Louise Galloway, Esq. --
carol.galloway@keanmiller.com -- Janice Marie Culotta, Esq. --
janice.culotta@keanmiller.com Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Esq. --
jay.jalenak@keanmiller.com -- and Sarah K. Weissman, Esq. --
sarah.weissman@keanmiller.com -- at Kean, Miller, Hawthorne,
D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman LLP.

Crown Cork and Seal Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
John Michael Grimley, Jr., Esq. -- mgrimley@gjtbs.com -- at
Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith.

Shell Chemical, and Shell Oil Company, Cross Defendants, are
represented by Gary A. Bezet, Esq., at Kean, Miller, Hawthorne,
D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman.

Travelers Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Elia
Demetria Diaz-Yaeger, Esq. -- ediaz-yaeger@lawla.com -- at
Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Motion in Limine Partially Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos case captioned ROSIE K. SWEREDOSKI, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of DOUGLAS A. SWEREDOSKI, and
Individually Recognized as Surviving Spouse, v. ALFA LAVAL, INC.,
et al., C.A. NO. PC 2011-1544 (R.I. Super.), Defendant Crane Co.
filed a motion in limine seeking to admit evidence at trial of the
fault of settled defendants and bankrupt entities for contribution
or apportionment purposes pursuant to the Rhode Island
Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act.  The Defendant has also
filed a Motion to Compel production of copies of certain
bankruptcy trust claims forms, arguing that the forms contain
evidence relevant to the action.  The Plaintiff opposes both
Motions, arguing with regard to the Motion in Limine that the Act
should not apply to the bankrupt entities because they are not
"joint tortfeasors" under the Act, and public policy disfavors
apportioning fault to the bankrupt entities.  Concerning the
Motion to Compel, the Plaintiff contends that the bankruptcy trust
claims forms are inadmissible settlement documents, and the
probative value of the information sought by the Defendant is
outweighed by the danger of confusing the jury.

The Superior Court of Rhode Island, PROVIDENCE, SC, found that the
Defendant may present evidence at trial of the fault of the
settled defendants in the case.  The Court said that although it
does not have before it the subject liability releases given to
the settled defendants by the Plaintiff, the Act entitles the
Defendant to a judgment reduction and authorizes the trier of fact
to consider the relative liability of the defendants in the action
to properly apportion fault among the parties.

The Court also found that the Act should not be extended to cover
the bankrupt entities, however, because the entities are not
"joint tortfeasors" within the meaning of the Act and public
policy dictates that no fault be apportioned to the entities.
Thus, the Defendant may not introduce evidence of the bankrupt
entities' fault at trial.

Moreover, the Court found that the bankruptcy trust claims forms
sought by the Defendant are not discoverable because the Defendant
has failed to demonstrate the relevance of the identified
information to the Plaintiff's burden of causation.  Because the
Defendant is the only remaining active defendant in this
litigation, the Plaintiff is only required to present evidence of
her husband's exposure to the Defendant's asbestos products to
establish causation at trial.

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

Robert J. Sweeney, Esq., For Plaintiff.  David A. Goldman, Esq.,
and Kendra A. Christensen, Esq., For Defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Order in "Kurns" Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in an
opinion dated July 17, 2013, affirmed an order dated May 8, 2008,
granting summary judgment to Soo Line Railroad in the asbestos
case filed by Gloria Gail Kurns, as executrix of the estate of
George M. Corson, who was diagnosed with and passed away due to
mesothelioma.

The facts of the case state that the Plaintiff has filed an appeal
from similar summary judgment orders in favor of two other
defendants to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed
the order dismissing.  The Plaintiff appealed the Third Circuit's
decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which also affirmed the Third
Circuit's decision.

According to the Superior Court, "[a]n appellant cannot pursue in
a subsequent appeal matters which he or she could have pursued in
a prior appeal."  Therefore, if the Plaintiff could have
challenged the grant of summary judgment in her appeal to the
Third Circuit, she cannot now challenge it in the Superior Court.

Moreover, the Superior Court said that removal of the case to the
district court transformed, for all intents and purposes, the
trial court's order granting Soo Line's motion for summary
judgment into an order of the district court.  Appellate review of
that order, then, was properly sought in the Third Circuit along
with review of the district court's orders granting summary
judgment to the two other defendants, the Superior Court added.

The case is GLORIA GAIL KURNS, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE
M. CORSON, DECEASED, Appellant, v. SOO LINE RAILROAD, Appellee,
NO. 2010 EDA 2012, 2013 PA Super 193.  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/EiIikCfrom Leagle.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Ex-Worker's Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims filed by a former
worker of the Philadelphia Housing Authority who alleged that,
while working at PHA's Hill Creek facility, he was exposed to
friable asbestos and other harmful substances.  The former worker
also alleged that PHA and its executive director, Carl R. Greene,
were aware of the dangers posed by the working conditions at the
Hill Creek facility, chose not to remove workers from that
facility, and agreed to conceal the facts related to asbestos
exposure.

The worker, Robert Smith, alleged that his constitutional rights
under the substantive components of the Due Process Clause were
violated when PHA and Mr. Greene deliberately and consciously
concealed a known danger, the presence of friable asbestos, at his
workplace.  According to the Third Circuit, the Plaintiff's claims
fall squarely under the holding of Collins v. City of Harker
Heights, Texas, 503 U.S. 115, 120 (1992), under which the Supreme
Court stated that there is no duty under the substantive component
of the Due Process Clause to provide a safe work environment for
government employees and that failure to warn about known risks
does not rise to the conscience-shocking level.

The case is ROBERT SMITH, Appellant, v. PHILADELPHIA HOUSING
AUTHORITY; CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; CARL R. GREENE, PHA Executive
Director; UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA;
EDWARD CORYELL, Executive Secretary Treasurer and Business
Manager, NO. 12-3531 (3rd Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Decision
dated July 23, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/R6472Mfrom
Leagle.com.


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman,
Editors.

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *