CAR_Public/130927.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, September 27, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 192

                             Headlines


24 HOUR FITNESS: $17.4 Mil. Settlement in Overtime Suit Okayed
AMERICAN EQUITY: Signs Deal to Settle Suits Over Sales Practices
AMERICAN HOME: Denial of Bonzon's Matrix Benefits Upheld
AMERIGAS PARTNERS: UGI Continues to Face "Swigers" Lawsuit
BAYER CORP: Reed Smith Discusses Ascertainability in Class Action

BIOSANTE PHARMACEUTICALS: LibiGel-Related Suit May Be Amended
BLYTH INC: Still Faces Suit Filed by Shareholders in Connecticut
BOEING COMPANY: 401(k) Plan Participants Get Class Certification
CARGILL INC: Settles Class Action Over Truvia Natural Claims
CARRIAGE SERVICES: "Leathermon" Suit Discovery Will Now Proceed

COLORADO: Class Action Challenges COGCC's Constitutionality
COLORTYME INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Spy" Program Class Action
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Accused of Misleading Shareholders
ENERGY TRANSFER: Atty. Fees in Sunoco Merger Suits Paid in July
ENERGY TRANSFER: Discovery in Southern Union Merger Suit Ongoing

ENERGY TRANSFER: Unit Continues to Defend "Price" Class Suit
FARM BOY 2012: Recalls Plain Croissants Over Undeclared Allergens
FRITO-LAY: Court Narrows Claims in Deceptive Labeling Suit
GARDEN FRESH: Expands Recall to Specific Product Packages
GOGO LLC: Misleads Consumers on Internet Charges, Suit Says

INTERMEC INC: Continues to Defend Honeywell Merger-Related Suits
IPPOLITO FRUIT: Recalls Spinach Over Salmonella Presence
JONES FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of Securities Suit Accord
JONES FINANCIAL: "Ezersky" Suit v. Edward Jones in Pleading Stage
JONES FINANCIAL: Edward Jones Settles Lehman Brothers-Linked Suit

JONES FINANCIAL: Oct. 9 Case Management Hearing in "Maxwell" Suit
JUNIPER NETWORKS: "Royal Oak" Securities Suit Dismissed in May
LEXMARK INT'L: Appeal From Attorneys' Fee Award Remains Pending
MEDIVATION INC: Still Awaits Oral Argument in Securities Suit
MINNESOTA: Judge Dismisses Driver's Privacy Class Action

MORGAN STANLEY: Still Faces Antitrust Lawsuit in Illinois
MORGAN STANLEY: Plaintiffs in ERISA Suit Appeal Court Judgment
MSG HOLDINGS: Accused of Not Paying Minimum and Overtime Wages
NAVISTAR INT'L: Objectors to Liability Suit Deal Must Post Bond
NEW YORK: Court Enters Remedies Opinion in Floyd and Ligon Cases

NONG SHIM: Sued Over Alleged Korean Noodle Price-Fixing
OHR PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Dismisses Amended "Schmidt" Class Suit
PATH: Faces Class Action Over Alleged TCPA Violation
PETROCHINA COMPANY: Pomerantz Firm Files Class Action in New York
PEYTO EXPLORATION: Aware of Potential New Open Range Class Action

PORTLAND GENERAL: Still Faces Suits by Electric Service Customers
PORTLAND GENERAL: Plaintiffs Balk at $33.1MM Refund Order
QANTAS AIRWAYS: Mediation in Air Freight Fixing Suit Set for Nov.
REVEL ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Class Suit Over Refund Promises
RITE AID: "Moore" and "Goode" Suits Are Related, Judge Says

SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Sued by Sale Agents of Zaltrap(R) Over Bonus
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Ruling in Lead Paint Suit Expected by Year-End
STELLARONE CORP: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in Virginia
SUBURBAN PROPANE: Defends Class Suit Alleging Consumer Claims
SUBURBAN PROPANE: Settlement Proceeds Distribution Began Aug. 7

TOWER GROUP: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
UMG RECORDINGS: Court Resolves Discovery Dispute in "James" Suit
UNFI CANADA: Recalls Bob's Red Mill Sorghum Flour
WALTER INVESTMENT: Faces "Cummings" Class Suit in Florida
WELLS FARGO: Faces Suit in California Over Short Sale of Property

YAHOO! INC: Appeal From Dismissal of Stockholder Suit Pending

* "Rigorous Analysis" Buzzword in Class Action Jurisprudence


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Tobacco Faces $8MM Verdict in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Poteet Public Library
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removed from St. Ignatius Retreat House
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro at Whiteside County's Landfill Gets OK
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Mesothelioma Victim Warns of Risk

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Delays Start of Glick Bldg. Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Feared When Church Is Demolished
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Fibro Found at Brisbane Primary School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Residents Angered Over Fibro Left in Streets
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Removed From Houston Hall

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare Closes Aylmer Police Station
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Testifies to Congress to Aid Fibro Ban
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Village Hall, Fire House Need Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussies Not Protecting Themselves From Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Teachers Duct Tape Peeling Fibro Carpeting

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Detection Halts Sydney Cruise Wharf
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grimsby Swimming Pool Closed Over Fibro Fears
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colorado Waives Fibro Cleanup for Flood Recovery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Fibro Exposure Leads to Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Disturbed at Maroochydore High School

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Roofing in Malta Building Removed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dying Worker Wins $38MM for Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust "Buried at Golf Course"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transfer of Former Riverview Property Approved
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Electricians, et al., at Risk for Fibro Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Shipyard Worker Sues Former Employer, Others
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Shipyard Worker Sues Eagle Inc., Others
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Displaces West Anchorage Residents
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stainforth Court Complex Needs Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazardous Waste Abound in Subic

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foundation Launches Drive to Cut Fibro Death Toll
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plant Removal Continued Despite Fibro Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: South West Rocks Homeowner Counts Clean-up Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vermiculite Concerns Discussed in Online Video
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Worker Asked to Cover Up Deadly Dust

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Slater Junior High to Close for Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Halts Plans for Carolina Sharpe House
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utica Mutual Sues Clearwater in Reinsurance
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in Weitz Luxenberg Cases Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tolling of Time to Perfect Appeal Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Reargument in NY Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Affirms Ruling in "Gillenwater" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Affirmed Judgment in "Watts" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Caire" Suit Remanded to State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate's Civil Rights Action Dismissed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kansas Court Denies Inmate's Reconsideration Bid
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Court Junks Inmate's Civil Rights Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Va. Court Affirms Ruling in "Seckman" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Affirms Ruling in "Brown" Suit


                             *********


24 HOUR FITNESS: $17.4 Mil. Settlement in Overtime Suit Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that a
federal judge has approved a $17.4 million settlement over claims
that 24 Hour Fitness refused to pay overtime.

Gabe Beauperthuy led a 2006 class action accusing the gym chain of
illegally classifying its managers, sales counselors and trainers
as exempt from overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti approved a final settlement that
awards each of the 862 claimants $20,000 and attorneys' fees of
more than $5 million, plus fees and costs, for a total of more
than $17.4 million.

Conti called the settlement "fair, reasonable and adequate," and
said it received "overwhelming approval" from 851 of the 862
claimants.

"The reaction of the plaintiffs to the proposed settlement
strongly supports the conclusion that the proposed settlement is
fair, reasonable and adequate," Conti wrote.  "Accordingly, the
court hereby grants final approval of the settlement and orders
the parties to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement."

The Special Master, Hon. James Larson, is represented by:

          James Larson, Esq.
          JAMS
          Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 982-5267
          Facsimile: (415) 982-5287
          E-mail: jlarson@jamsadr.com

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William M. Lukens, Esq.
          Jennifer Lee Jonak, Esq.
          LUKENS LAW GROUP
          One Maritime Plaza, Suite 1600
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3506
          Telephone: (415) 433-3000
          Facsimile: (415) 781-1034
          E-mail: wlukens@lukenslaw.com
                  jenny@jonak.com

               - and -

          Justin Potter Karczag, Esq.
          Thomas G. Foley, Jr., Esq.
          FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
          15 West Carrillo Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 962-9495
          Facsimile: (805) 965-0722
          E-mail: jkarczag@foleybezek.com
                  tfoley@foleybezek.com

               - and -

          Stephanie Rae Hanning, Esq.
          FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE AND CURTIS
          575 Anton Blvd., Suite 710
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 556-1700
          Facsimile: (714) 546-5005
          E-mail: shanning@foleybezek.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
          Thomas John Welch, Esq.
          DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES
          440 West First, Suite 101
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 953-1010
          E-mail: rdonahoo@donahooandassoc.com
                  twelch@donahoo.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory William Knopp, Esq.
          Rex S. Heinke, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 552-6436
          Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
          E-mail: gknopp@akingump.com
                  rheinke@akingump.com

               - and -

          Henry D. Lederman, Esq.
          Lisa Chagala, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
          Walnut Creek, CA 94597
          Telephone: (925) 932-2468
          Facsimile: (925) 946-9809
          E-mail: hlederman@littler.com
                  lchagala@littler.com

               - and -

          Garry George Mathiason, Esq.
          Laura Emily Hayward, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          E-mail: gmathiason@littler.com
                  lhayward@littler.com

               - and -

          John C. Kloosterman, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          50 W. San Fernando, 15th Floor
          San Jose, CA 95113-2303
          Telephone: (408) 998-4150
          Facsimile: (408) 288-5686
          E-mail: jkloosterman@littler.com

               - and -

          Sarah Rebecca Nichols, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART
          Steuart Tower, One Market Plaza, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-4810
          Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
          E-mail: sarah.nichols@ogletreedeakins.com

               - and -

          James Y. Wu, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES Y. WU
          1839 Ygnacio Valley Road, #388
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Telephone: (925) 658-0300
          Facsimile: (925) 954-6551
          E-mail: james@jameswulaw.com

The case is Beauperthuy, et al. v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00715-SC, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco).


AMERICAN EQUITY: Signs Deal to Settle Suits Over Sales Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Equity Investment Life Holding Company entered into a
settlement agreement to resolve a consolidated lawsuit alleging
improper sales practices, according to the Company's August 8,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

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

The Los Angeles Case is a consolidated action involving several
lawsuits filed by individuals, and the individuals are seeking
class action status for a national class of purchasers of
annuities issued by the Company; however, no class has yet been
certified.  The named plaintiffs in this consolidated case are
Bernard McCormack, Gust Anagnostis by and through Gary S.
Anagnostis and Robert C. Anagnostis, Regina Bush by and through
Sharon Schipiour, Lenice Mathews by and through Mary Ann Maclean
and George Miller.  The allegations generally attack the
suitability of sales of deferred annuity products to persons over
the age of 65.  The plaintiffs seek rescission and injunctive
relief including restitution and disgorgement of profits on behalf
of all class members under California Business & Professions Code
section 17200 et seq. and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act; compensatory damages for breach of fiduciary
duty and aiding and abetting of breach of fiduciary duty; unjust
enrichment and constructive trust; and other pecuniary damages
under California Civil Code section 1750 and California Welfare &
Institutions Codes section 15600 et seq.

On July 30, 2013, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
and stipulated to certification of the case as a class action for
settlement purposes only.  Based upon the terms of the settlement
agreement, the $17.5 million litigation liability represents the
Company's best estimate of probable loss with respect to this
litigation; however, the settlement is contingent upon court
approval which has not yet been granted.  Additionally, other
factors could potentially result in a change in this estimate as
further developments take place.  In particular, part of the
settlement involves a claims process for individual class members,
and it is difficult to predict the amount of the liabilities that
will ultimately result from that process.  In light of the
inherent uncertainties involved in the pending purported class
action lawsuit, there can be no assurance that such litigation, or
any other pending or future litigation, will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, or
results of operations.

American Equity Investment Life Holding Company --
http://www.american-equity.com/-- through its subsidiaries,
underwrites fixed annuity and life insurance products in the
United States and the District of Columbia.  The Company was
founded in 1995 and is based in West Des Moines, Iowa.


AMERICAN HOME: Denial of Bonzon's Matrix Benefits Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Karen Bonzon, a class member under
the Diet Drug Nationwide Class Action Settlement Agreement with
Wyeth, seeks benefits from the AHP Settlement Trust.

Based on the record developed in the show cause process, the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania must determine whether Ms. Bonzon has demonstrated a
reasonable medical basis to support her claim for Matrix
Compensation Benefits and, if so, whether she met her burden of
proving that her claim was not based, in whole or in part, on any
intentional material misrepresentation of fact.

In an August 12, 2013 Memorandum available at http://is.gd/2EJyzQ
from Leagle.com, District Judge Harvey Bartle III concludes that
Ms. Bonzon has not met her burden of proving that there is a
reasonable medical basis for finding that she had moderate mitral
regurgitation.  Therefore, the Trust's denial of Ms. Bonzon's
claim for Matrix Benefits and the related derivative claim
submitted by her spouse is affirmed, he said.

This ruling relates to SHEILA BROWN, et al. v. AMERICAN HOME
PRODUCTS CORPORATION, CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-20593, NO. 2:16 MD 1203.

ANGELA JENSEN, Claimant, represented by STEVEN L. BUNOSKI.

JOANN READ, Claimant, represented by STEVEN L. BUNOSKI.

JOYCE MAUDIE, Claimant, represented by:

   MICHAEL L. HODGES, Esq.
   HODGES LAW FIRM, CHARTERED
   13420 Santa Fe Trail Drive
   Lenexa, KS 66215 USA
   Phone: 1-800-221-5560
   Fax: 913-888-7100

CINDY SORENSON, Claimant, represented by:

   WAYNE H. BRAUNBERGER, Esq.
   BRAUNBERGER BOUD & DRAPER PC.
   765 E 9000 S STE A-1
   SANDY, UT 84094


AMERIGAS PARTNERS: UGI Continues to Face "Swigers" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
An insurance subsidiary of UGI Corporation continues to face a
suit alleging violations of the West Virginia Insurance Unfair
Trade Practice Act, according to Amerigas Partners, L.P.'s
Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In 2005, Samuel and Brenda Swiger (the "Swigers") filed what
purports to be a class action in the Circuit Court of Harrison
County, West Virginia, against UGI, an insurance subsidiary of UGI
Corporation, certain officers of UGI and the General Partner, and
their insurance carriers and insurance adjusters.

In this lawsuit, the Swigers are seeking compensatory and punitive
damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged violations of
the West Virginia Insurance Unfair Trade Practice Act, negligence,
intentional misconduct, and civil conspiracy.

The Court has not certified the class and, in October 2008, stayed
the lawsuit pending resolution of a separate, but related class
action lawsuit filed against AmeriGas OLP in Monongalia County,
which was settled in Fiscal 2011. The company believes it has good
defenses to the claims in this action.


BAYER CORP: Reed Smith Discusses Ascertainability in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Boranian, Esq. at Reed Smith LLP reports that class actions
are strange and dangerous things.  A cornerstone of American
jurisprudence is that the government (including its courts) cannot
deprive people (such as our clients) of their property without due
process of law.  In civil litigation, the question of what process
is "due" is easy, answered by the right to a jury trial in most
instances.  Defendants get to put plaintiffs to their burdens of
proof, and defendants are generally guaranteed the opportunity to
challenge that proof on an individual basis and introduce cases of
their own, all before the court will invoke the power to the state
to transfer wealth from one party to another, or not, depending on
the proof and the verdict.

Class actions turn this neat and impeccably fair model on its
head.  In a class action, one person presents his case alone,
purporting to represent others "similarly situated," and the
result can be binding on people who are complete strangers to the
litigation.  Depending on the outcome, absent class members can
lose their right to pursue claims for their own benefit, even
though they had no involvement and no voice in the proceeding.
Worse yet, a defendant can be obligated to pay money to people --
maybe thousands of people -- who have done nothing to prove their
entitlement to payment at the defendant's expense.  We watched a
little bit of the U.S. Open tennis tournament over the weekend,
and the signature phrase of a great player turned broadcaster
comes to mind: "You cannot be serious!"

The rules underlying class actions, and particularly class
certification, exist to protect against these travesties of
justice.  We all know the familiar quartet of numerosity of class
members, commonality of issues, typicality of claims, and adequacy
of representation.  These requirements aim to ensure that a class
action judgment cannot bind absent class members or force
collective remedies on defendants without first guaranteeing that
the class action is the worthwhile and best way to proceed.  They
also see that proof of one person's claim stands as a fair proxy
for the absent many and that individual class representatives
pursuing their individual interests do not sell out the absent
class members.  There are many other requirements -- a proper
class definition, predominance of common issues, the superiority
of a class action over other proceedings, manageability of a class
action trial, fair and adequate notice, the opportunity to opt
out.  Together these rules protect defendants and absent class
members against the obvious abuses that class actions invite, and
they protect rights of a Constitutional dimension.  That is why we
find it genuinely disappointing, if not outrageous, when
plaintiffs' lawyers treat class action rules as mere formalities,
as though the class action procedure is a flexible tool they can
twist and bend to ease or eliminate their burdens.

A recent case from the Third Circuit gives us an outstanding
treatment of yet another class action rule, one that does not
often garner the limelight, but is critical nonetheless:
Ascertainability of class membership.  The marquee argument in
opposition to class certification usually is that individual
issues predominate over common issues, but we often argue in
addition the plaintiffs' proposed class is not ascertainable.  We
recall one class action involving an implanted medical device
where the plaintiffs defined their class as all patients treated
with the device, excluding those with injuries "associated with"
the device.  In other words, you had to determine injury and
causation for every patient just to figure out who would be the
class.  That was an ascertainability problem.  Class certification
denied.

But back to the recent Third Circuit case.  The only issue on
appeal inCarrera v. Bayer Corporation, No. 12-2621, 2013 WL
4437225 (3d Cir. Aug. 21 2013), was whether the plaintiffs'
proposed class was ascertainable, and while the district court had
ruled that it was, the Third Circuit disagreed and reversed.  The
plaintiffs had purchased an over-the-counter diet supplement and
filed a class action claiming remedies under the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act.  However, because the defendant
did not sell the product directly to consumers, it had no list of
purchasers, and consumers themselves were unlikely to have
documentary proof of purchase either.  Id. at *1.  Again, the
product was an OTC dietary supplement, but this issue arises with
prescription drugs and medical devices all the time.  Medical
device manufacturers and particularly drug manufactures almost
never know the identity of the end users of their products, nor do
they usually have the ability to find out even if they wanted to.

That is an ascertainability problem, but the district court
certified a class of all persons who purchased the product in
Florida anyway.  To the district court, ascertainability presented
"speculative issues with case management" that were insufficient
to prevent class certification.  Id. at *2.

If you were wondering why we went on for a while at the beginning
of this post about the importance of class certification rules, we
were leading up to this holding.  A class action cannot be fair
and should not be certified if it is impossible to know who will
be bound and who the defendant will be obligated to pay.  This is
not a mere issue of "case management," and if speculation is
required to ascertain the scope of the class, that should be the
end of the analysis.  We fear that this district court was swayed
by the prospect of capturing thousands of claims with the stroke
of a pen, but the rules that protect absent class members and
defendants alike simply do not permit it.

The Third Circuit understood this and brought the analysis back to
center.  "[A]n essential prerequisite of a class action, at least
with respect to actions under Rule 23(b)(3), is that the class
must be currently and readily ascertainable based on objective
criteria. . . .  'If class members are impossible to identify
without extensive and individualized fact-finding or "mini-
trials," then a class action is inappropriate.'"  Id. at *2.  The
Third Circuit explained the rationale of this observation as
follows:

First, [the ascertainability requirement] eliminates serious
administrative burdens that are incongruous with the efficiencies
expected in a class action by insisting on the easy identification
of class members.  Second, it protects absent class members by
facilitating the best notice practicable . . . .  Third, it
protects defendant by ensuring that those persons who will be
bound by the final judgment are clearly identifiable.

Id. at *3.

The beauty of the Third Circuit's opinion is how it ties
ascertainability to the plaintiffs' burdens and the importance of
preserving the defendants' rights to a defense.  According to the
court, "A defendant in a class action has a due process right to
raise individual challenges and defenses to claims, and a class
action cannot be certified in a way that eviscerates this right of
masks individual issues."  Id. at *4.   This is a due process
issue, and ascertainability provides due process by allowing a
defendant to test the reliability of the evidence submitted prove
the class membership.

The plaintiffs proposed two solutions.  First, they argued that
the class could be ascertained from retailer records of sales made
with loyalty cards, holding out CVS as an example.  The Third
Circuit rejected this option because there was no evidence that a
single class member could be identified through such records.  Id.
at *5.  Maybe retailer records can prove class members in some
cases, maybe they can't in others.  Either way, this is a helpful
reminder that plaintiffs bear the burden of proving the elements
of class certification with evidence and that the district court
is to apply a "rigorous analysis" to determine whether the
requirements are met.  Vague assurances that everything will work
out in the end or that plaintiffs intend to meet Rule 23 in the
future do not cut it.

Second, the plaintiffs argued that class members could submit
affidavits attesting to their purchases of the product, reasoning
that class members "will be unlikely to submit fraudulent claims"
and that the defendant's total liability was capped at its total
sales of the product in any event.  Id. at *6. We paraphrase this
proposal as follows:  "Just trust us.  The most you have to lose
is everything."  The court correctly rejected this suggestion
because it ignored that the defendant must be able to challenge
the evidence, which a cold affidavit would not permit, and because
fraudulent claims would harm both the defendant and "true class
members" by diluting their potential recovery.  Id at **6-7.  A
proposed "screening model" was likewise insufficient because it
could not establish that the affidavits would be reliable either.
Id. at *7.

The Third Circuit vacated the order certifying the class and
remanded to give the plaintiffs another opportunity to establish
ascertainability.  We cannot see why the court gave the plaintiffs
a second chance, especially after so carefully dismantling the
class in a published opinion.  But let's hope that this proposed
class never again sees the light of day.  As we said at the
outset, ascertainability does not get a lot of press, but we
should consider it in every class action involving pharmaceutical
products and medical devices.  The Third Circuit has provided a
very useful roadmap.


BIOSANTE PHARMACEUTICALS: LibiGel-Related Suit May Be Amended
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that
shareholders must amend their complaint against a drugmaker that
allegedly exaggerated the performance of its drug to improve
womens' sex drive.

BioSante is a pharmaceutical company focused on developing
products for female sexual health and oncology.  Over the past
decade, BioSante has been developing LibiGel, a drug designed to
improve the sex drive of women suffering from female sexual
dysfunction, specifically hypoactive sexual desire disorder
('HSDD').

LibiGel is a gel formulation of testosterone designed to be
absorbed through the skin.

Shareholders claim BioSante "consistently misled investors about
the commercial viability, effectiveness, and market potential for
LibiGel.  Defendants boasted about LibiGel's efficacy over
placebo, and provided supposedly concrete 'data' regarding the
drug's 'statistically significant' effect on increasing the
'number of satisfying sexual events' for women suffering from
HSDD.

"These purportedly positive clinical trial results furthered
defendants' claims of LibiGel being 'the most clinically advanced
pharmaceutical product in the U.S.' Defendants raised investors'
expectations by analogizing the female market for LibiGel to such
blockbuster drugs as 'Viagra, Levitra, and Cialis,'" according to
complaint.

BioSante's share price reached a high of $3.81 in July 2011,
before it revealed the drug was no more effective than a placebo,
and shares fell to a low of $0.38 per share.

But U.S. District Judge Joan Gottschall dismissed the complaint
without prejudice last week, finding that plaintiffs' practice of
italicizing or bolding phrases or sentences of large quoted blocks
of text from defendant's public filings and press releases did not
clearly indicate which statements were allegedly false or
misleading.

"It appears that the plaintiffs intend the court and the
defendants to parse through their complaint in an attempt to: (1)
locate reasons why the plaintiffs believe that the
italicized/bolded statements are misleading; and (2) find specific
facts corresponding to those statements that 'giv[e] rise to a
strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state
of mind.'. . .

"The salient point is that the court cannot ascertain which
allegations are meant to match up with the italicized/bolded
portions of the complaint," the judge said.

The effect of this method leaves the reader guessing as to which
statements are challenged, and which are merely context or
background, the court found.

"The complaint is deficient as the court -- and BioSante -- should
not have to speculate about the contours of the plaintiffs' fraud
claims," Gottschall concluded.  The shareholders were given 28
days to amend their complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amelia Susan Newton, Esq.
          Leigh R. Lasky, Esq.
          Norman Rifkind, Esq.
          LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD.
          351 West Hubbard Street, Suite 401
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 634-0057
          E-mail: newton@laskyrifkind.com
                  lasky@laskyrifkind.com
                  rifkind@laskyrifkind.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David H. Kistenbroker, Esq.
          Ashley John Burden, Esq.
          Carl E. Volz, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          77 West Wacker, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 646-5800
          E-mail: david.kistenbroker@dechert.com
                  ashley.burden@dechert.com
                  carl.volz@dechert.com

The case is Lauria v. BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:12-cv-00772, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Chicago).


BLYTH INC: Still Faces Suit Filed by Shareholders in Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blyth, Inc. continues to face a shareholder lawsuit filed against
it in federal district court in Connecticut, according to the
company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The Company, certain of its officers, FVA Ventures, Inc. ("FVA"),
ViSalus Holdings, LLC and ViSalus were named as defendants in a
putative class action filed in federal district court in
Connecticut on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period March to November 2012.

On June 3, 2013, the Company and the other defendants moved to
dismiss the then-operative amended complaint.  In lieu of
responding to the motion to dismiss, plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint, which is currently operative and names as
defendants the Company, certain of its officers, ViSalus Holdings,
LLC, ViSalus, and a ViSalus co-founder/promoter.

The second amended complaint, which seeks unspecified damages and
asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
alleges certain misstatements and omissions by certain defendants,
including concerning ViSalus's operations and prospects, and
further alleges that certain defendants engaged in a fraudulent or
deceptive "scheme."  The Company believes that it has meritorious
defenses to the claims asserted against it and it intends to
defend itself vigorously. The company cannot state with certainty,
however, what will be the eventual outcome of the currently
pending matters.


BOEING COMPANY: 401(k) Plan Participants Get Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nationally recognized attorneys at Schlichter, Bogard & Denton,
LLP have successfully obtained class certification for
participants in the Boeing Company 401(k) Plan, one of the largest
in the United States, regarding claims that the Plan had excessive
fees and imprudent investments.  The decision in Spano v. Boeing
Co., Case No. 06-743 (S.D.Ill.) follows the Seventh Circuit's
recent ruling that a similar claim on behalf of participants in
another large 401(k) plan was suitable for class action treatment,
Abbott v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 12-3736 (7th Cir. Aug. 7,
2013)

On September 19, 2013, Chief Judge David R. Herndon of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
granted class certification to participants in the Boeing 401(k)
Plan, regarding claims that Boeing personnel responsible for
managing the plan breached their fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), by: (1) causing
the Plan to pay unreasonable and excessive administrative fees to
its recordkeeper, CitiStreet; (2) squandering the Plan's massive
bargaining power by including certain retail mutual funds in the
Plan which charged excessive fees and paid revenue sharing
"kickbacks" to CitiStreet, instead of superior, low-cost
institutional investments that were available to the Plan; (3)
including an undiversified and imprudent Technology Fund in the
Plan; (4) selecting an imprudent Small Cap Fund, which Boeing
included in the Plan in order to further its corporate
relationship with the fund manager, State Street, by allowing it
to collect grossly excessive fees from the fund; and (5)
imprudently holding high levels of low-yielding cash and allowing
State Street to collect multiple layers of fees for "managing" the
Boeing Company Stock Fund. Spano v. Boeing, Case No. 06-743
(S.D.Ill.).

According to the firm's founding partner, who is handling the
case, Jerome Schlichter,"the ruling is a victory for 401(k)
investors concerned about having a meaningful retirement plan."
Mr. Schlichter also stated, "The case will now proceed for all the
employees and retirees plan participants who allegedly suffered
harm from Boeing's behavior."

The Boeing case was one of a number of cases filed by Schlichter,
Bogard & Denton, which launched the field of 401(k) fiduciary
breach litigation for excessive fees.  After years of litigation,
Schlichter, Bogard, & Denton recently won a $50 million judgment
from ABB and Fidelity in a case on behalf of ABB employees and
retirees in ABB's 401(k) plan, after the first full trial of a
401(k) excessive fee claim in the country. Tussey v. ABB, Inc.,
Case No. 06-4305 (W.D. Mo.) The firm has also settled cases on
behalf of participants in the 401(k) plans of Cigna, Caterpillar,
General Dynamics, Kraft Foods, and Bechtel totaling over $90
million. Nolte v. Cigna Corp., Case No. 07-2046 (C.D.Ill.); Martin
v. Caterpillar, Inc., Case No. 07-1009 (C.D.Ill.); Will v. General
Dynamics Corp., Case No. 06-698 (S.D.Ill.); Kanawi v. Bechtel
Corp., Case No. 06-5566 (N.D.Ca.); George v. Kraft Foods Global,
Inc., Case Nos. 07-1713 & 08-3799 (N.D.Ill.).  The recent $35
million Cigna 401(k) plan settlement is the largest ever for
401(k) plan investors.

             About Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP

Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP is a national law firm that
represents individuals, including 401(k) plan investors, whose
plans suffer from excessive fees or imprudent investment options.
Its attorneys are dedicated to helping employees and retirees
secure the retirement benefits they deserve.


CARGILL INC: Settles Class Action Over Truvia Natural Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gelski, writing for Food Business News, reports that Cargill
argued that erythritol, a bulk sweetener, is natural and not
produced from bioengineered corn while agreeing to a settlement in
a court case involving natural claims for Cargill's Truvia
sweeteners.

Truvia contains erythritol, stevia leaf extracts and natural
flavors. Erythritol has become a common complementary sweetener to
stevia plant extracts, which are high-intensity sweeteners.  Food
and beverage companies may believe the combination of erythritol
and stevia allows their finished products to retain all-natural
status.

In the Sept. 19 filing in the U.S. District court for the district
of Minnesota, Cargill agreed to pay a total of $5.3 million
although the Wayzata, Minn.-based company denied that its
marketing, advertising and/or labeling of Truvia consumer products
is false, deceptive or misleading to consumers or violates any
legal requirement.  Cargill said it wanted to avoid the time and
expenses associated with further litigation.

Erythritol is the largest ingredient by weight in Truvia natural
sweeteners.  It provides bulk and sugar-like crystalline
appearance.  Erythritol is produced through a natural fermentation
process, Cargill said.

"The erythritol used in in Truvia natural sweetener is produced by
a yeast organism that is found in nature," Cargill said.  "The
yeast ferments or digests dextrose and other nutrients.  In other
words, dextrose is the food for the yeast, much like corn may be
food for a cow that produces meat or milk.  The dextrose used as
the feedstock for the yeast is a simple sugar that is derived from
the starch component of U.S.-grown corn.

"Although genetically enhanced corn and non-transgenic corn are
grown in the U.S. today, erythritol is not derived from corn or
dextrose feedstock (just as milk is not derived from cattle feed).
It is derived from the yeast organism.  Erythritol is not
genetically modified and does not contain any genetically modified
proteins."

Cargill did agree to modify the description of erythritol on all
Truvia consumer product packaging to the following phrase or
similar phrase: "Erythritol is a natural sweetener, produced by a
fermentation process.  Erythritol is also found in fruits like
grapes and pears."  The current phrase, which will be replaced,
is, "Erythritol is a natural sweetener, produced by a natural
process, and is also found in fruits like grapes and pears."

The lawsuit's origin dates to Feb. 12 when plaintiff Molly Martin
alleged in the Hennepin county, Minnesota state district court
that she bought Truvia products and was deceived by label
statements claiming the products were natural.  She alleged the
products were not natural because they contained ingredients that
were "highly processed" and/or derived from bioengineered
ingredients.  Lauren Barry made a similar allegation against the
products in California.

On Sept. 18 Ms. Martin and Ms. Barry filed the action Martin, et
al. v. Cargill, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota on a proposed nationwide class.  The Sept. 19 filing
involves an agreement that would encompass any related actions.
Related actions would include, but not be limited to, a lawsuit
filed July 8 in Hawaii with Denise Howerton as the plaintiff and
Cargill as the defendant.

Under the agreement reached in the Sept. 19 filing, Cargill has
agreed to establish an administrative fund of $300,000 and a
settlement fund of $5 million.  The settlement fund would include
voucher redemptions for 40-count and 80-count packages of Truvia
natural sweetener packets and any sizes of the Truvia natural
sweetener spoonable jars and baking blends.

Cargill also would modify Truvia consumer products labels and the
Truvia consumer products web site.

Cargill would modify the tag line "Nature's Calorie-Free
Sweetener" on certain areas of its packet boxes and spoonable jar
labels in one of two ways, in combination or alone, at Cargill's
discretion.

One option involves adding an asterisk after the tag line.  The
asterisk will reference "*For more information about our
ingredients go to Truvia.com/FAQ."

Another option involves changing "Nature's Calorie Free Sweetener"
on all Truvia natural sweetener packaging to a similar phrase such
as "Calorie-Free Sweetener From the Stevia Leaf" or "Calorie-Free
Sweetener from Stevia" or "Calorie-Free Sweetness from the Stevia
Leaf" or "Calorie-Free Sweetness from Stevia."


CARRIAGE SERVICES: "Leathermon" Suit Discovery Will Now Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carriage Services, Inc. said in its August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013, that discovery in the class action
lawsuit filed by Leathermon, et al., will now proceed.

On August 17, 2007, five plaintiffs filed a putative class action
against the current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery in
Madison, Indiana, including the Company's subsidiaries that owned
the cemetery from January 1997 until February 2001, on behalf of
all individuals who purchased cemetery and burial goods and
services at Grandview Cemetery.  The lawsuit is captioned
Leathermon, et al. v. Grandview Memorial Gardens, Inc., et al.,
United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Case
No. 4:07-cv-137.  The Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and
claim that the cemetery owners performed burials negligently,
breached Plaintiffs' contracts and made misrepresentations
regarding the cemetery.  The Plaintiffs also allege that the
claims occurred prior, during and after the Company owned the
cemetery.  On October 15, 2007, the case was removed from
Jefferson County Circuit Court, Indiana to the Southern District
of Indiana.  On April 24, 2009, shortly before the Defendants had
been scheduled to file their briefs in opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs moved
to amend their complaint to add new class representatives and
claims, while also seeking to abandon other claims.  The Company,
as well as several other Defendants, opposed the Plaintiffs'
motion to amend their complaint and add parties.  In April 2009,
two Defendants moved to disqualify the Plaintiffs' counsel from
further representing the Plaintiffs in this action.  On June 30,
2010, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to disqualify the
Plaintiffs' counsel.  In that order, the Court gave the Plaintiffs
60 days within which to retain new counsel.  On May 6, 2010, the
Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals seeking relief from the trial court's
order of disqualification of counsel.  On May 19, 2010, the
Defendants responded to the petition of mandamus.  On July 8,
2010, the Seventh Circuit denied the Plaintiffs' petition for writ
of mandamus.  Thus, pursuant to the trial court's order, the
Plaintiffs were given 60 days from July 8, 2010, in which to
retain new counsel to prosecute this action on their behalf.

The Plaintiffs retained new counsel and the trial court granted
the newly retained Plaintiffs' counsel 90 days to review the case
and advise the Court whether or not Plaintiffs would seek leave to
amend their complaint to add and/or change the allegations as are
currently stated therein and whether or not they would seek leave
to amend the proposed class representatives for class
certification.  The Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend both the
class representatives and the allegations stated within the
complaint.  The Defendants filed oppositions to such amendments.
The Court issued an order permitting the Plaintiffs to proceed
with amending the class representatives and a portion of their
claims; however, certain of Plaintiffs' claims have been
dismissed.  Discovery in this matter will now proceed.

The Company says it intends to defend this action vigorously.
Because the lawsuit is in its preliminary stages, the Company is
unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome to the
Company or to estimate the amount or range of any potential loss,
if any, at this time.

Carriage Services, Inc. -- http://www.carriageservices.com/-- was
incorporated in Delaware in 1993 and is based in Houston, Texas.
The Company is a provider of death care services and merchandise
in the United States, such as funeral and cemetery services and
products on both an "at-need" (time of death) and "preneed"
(planned prior to death) basis.


COLORADO: Class Action Challenges COGCC's Constitutionality
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Colson, writing for PostIndependent.com, reports that a
planned class action lawsuit is being prepared by two local
critics of the oil and gas industry, who hope to challenge the
constitutionality of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission (COGCC).

The two, former oil and gas industry employee Carl McWilliams of
Silt and political activist Anita Sherman of Glenwood Springs, on
Friday submitted to Colorado Attorney General John Suthers and
Daniel Domenico, the state's solicitor general, a formal "Notice
of Intent" to file a federal class action suit against Colorado
Gov. John Hickenlooper, alleging that the statutes creating the
COGCC are in violation of the Colorado Constitution and the U.S.
Constitution.

Mr. McWilliams, who was severely injured while working at a gas
drilling rig in 2009, has long maintained that the oil and gas
industry is acting irresponsibly in drilling for gas near homes,
schools and towns before the full effect of those drilling
activities are known through scientific testing.

Ms. Sherman, a former officer of the local Democratic Party, has
been an active opponent of some oil and gas industry practices.

The draft text of the suit cites a 1992 Colorado Supreme Court
finding that the City of Greeley could not legally prevent oil and
gas exploration within the city's boundaries, even though the
city's electorate had approved an ordinance banning such industry
activities.

By ruling that the COGCC's rules and regulations took precedence
over the rights of the electorate of a home rule city, as Greeley
was and is, the draft lawsuit argues, the court failed to uphold a
basic tenet of constitutional law.

That tenet, according to the draft lawsuit, holds that citizens of
the state and the country have "inalienable" right to vote on and
make decisions about issues facing their communities, and that the
ruling by the Supreme Court essentially invalidates that right in
favor of the needs of the oil and gas industry.

The Supreme Court, according to the suit, has effectively acted to
rescind the rights and powers of home rule communities, and put
the COGCC's powers above those of the electorate.

According to the suit, it is being filed as a class action on
behalf of more than five million Colorado residents.

The plaintiffs, according to Ms. Sherman, already have received
promises of support and participation by others who have similar
views, although Ms. Sherman did not name any of those making the
promises.

"There are significant monetary costs associated with this
lawsuit," Ms. Sherman wrote in an email.

"As stated in the working draft this is a citizens federal class
action by "We the People of Colorado" for federal court Judicial
Review of the COLORADO OIL & GAS CONSERVATION ACT which created
the COGCC," she continued.  "Dozens of concerned citizens are
pledging and donating money to have their names on this historic
federal class action lawsuit," wrote Ms. Sherman in an e-mail.


COLORTYME INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Spy" Program Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
an invasion of privacy claim involving the alleged interception
and transmission of a Washington state woman's emails and
communications by a company in Pennsylvania -- via a "spy" program
on a rent-to-own computer -- cannot be dismissed based on lack of
jurisdiction, a federal judge in Pennsylvania has ruled.

In the proposed class action Arrington v. ColorTyme, U.S. District
Judge Cathy Bissoon of the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled
that a motion to dismiss made by CMG Rentals LLC, a franchisee of
ColorTyme Inc., should be denied because the allegedly intercepted
communications were transmitted to the now-defunct company
DesignerWare LLC, formerly in Pennsylvania, putting the case
within the realm of the court's jurisdiction.

Judge Bissoon wrote in her opinion that the business relationship
between CMG and DesignerWare, the company that sold the activity-
monitoring program PC Rental Agent to CMG, was substantial enough
to warrant jurisdiction in Pennsylvania.

"Although CMG's contacts with Pennsylvania occurred solely through
electronic media, they are sufficient to establish the type of
'continuing obligations' that permit the exercise of personal
jurisdiction in a manner consistent with the 14th Amendment,"
Judge Bissoon said.

Plaintiff Leslie Arrington, a resident of Clarkston, Wash.,
alleged that on March 11, 2011, she entered a rent-to-own
agreement with CMG for a laptop computer at CMG's Clarkston retail
location, according to Judge Bissoon.  At the time of the
agreement, Arrington was unaware that the PC Rental Agent program
was installed on the computer.

Arrington explained that the program permits the installer to
remotely initiate a "detective mode" over the Internet, allowing
the installer to choose from multiple levels of surveillance upon
the computer, according to Judge Bissoon.  Some of the varieties
of surveillance include taking photographs with the computer's
webcam, recording keystrokes and capturing screen shots.

In her complaint, according to Judge Bissoon, Arrington said that
once DesignerWare obtained information through the detective mode,
it stored it in the DesignerWare servers in Pennsylvania and
relayed the information to the licensee who activated the product,
sometimes as often as every two minutes.

Judge Bissoon said that the defendants' motion to dismiss was
based in part on language found in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(2), relating to personal jurisdiction.

Gary C. Hughes, a principal of CMG, said in an affidavit that the
company had "never acted in concert with DesignerWare except as a
customer," according to Judge Bissoon, and that CMG never used the
detective mode feature on any of its leased computers.

Judge Bissoon said that the affidavit did not explain what Hughes'
duties were at CMG, nor did it describe his experience with PC
Rental Agent, but it did claim that CMG had never conducted
business in Pennsylvania, nor had any of its employees ever
visited DesignerWare in Pennsylvania.

"The essential thrust of the affidavit is that CMG never engaged
in any injurious conduct toward [Arrington], and that none of the
ill effects of ColorTyme's arrangement with DesignerWare can be
traced back to CMG because it never used the software to intercept
private information," Judge Bissoon said.  "CMG has not submitted
any additional evidence, however, to corroborate the factual
assertions in Mr. Hughes' affidavit."

However, CMG admitted that it purchased the PC Rental Agent
software from DesignerWare, an admission that, according to
Bissoon, puts CMG at odds with its claims that it has never done
business with the formerly Pennsylvania-based company.

Judge Bissoon also contended that CMG's conduct was more than just
a series of random intervals of surveillance.

"Although CMG's method of contacting Pennsylvania may have been
remote and spatially imperceptible, the benefit CMG stood to
obtain from its contacts certainly was not," she said.

Judge Bissoon explained that by contacting DesignerWare in
Pennsylvania through PC Rental Agent, CMG allegedly could,
whenever it wanted and for whatever reason, acquire its customers'
private communications and other data.

Additionally, Judge Bissoon cited Burger King v. Rudzewicz, in
which the U.S. Supreme Court said that "parties who reach out
beyond one state and create continuing relationships with the
citizens of another state are subject to regulation and sanctions
in the other state for the consequences of their activities."

Arrington also claimed that the alleged collaboration between the
defendants not only violated her privacy under the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, but also constituted a civil
conspiracy, according to Judge Bissoon.

Judge Bissoon said that in response to Arrington's allegations,
"CMG has issued only general unsubstantiated denial with no
evidentiary support" and that those denials were not enough to
effectively challenge the court's jurisdiction in the matter.

Arrington's attorney, Frederick S. Longer -- flonger@lfsblaw.com
-- of Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman in Philadelphia, said he
was "extraordinarily pleased" that the court denied the motion to
dismiss.

"I think it bears repeating that the activities that the defendant
engaged in are a criminal act, albeit with a civil remedy,"
Mr. Longer said.  "Their reprehensible conduct needs to be
addressed."

Mr. Longer said that the case would be moving into the class-
certification phase in October.

The attorneys for the defendants did not return calls seeking
comment.


EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Accused of Misleading Shareholders
--------------------------------------------------------
Shaun McCracken, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., Michael A.
Mussallem, and Thomas M. Abate, Case No. 8:13-cv-01463-JST-RNB
(C.D. Cal., September 18, 2013) is a securities fraud class action
lawsuit brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock between April 25, 2012, and April 23, 2013.

The Defendants made false and misleading statements and concealed
material information relating to the prospects, projected sales
and adoption of the Company's Edwards SAPIEN transcatheter aortic
heart valve, and related projections of financial performance for
the Company's operations, the Plaintiff alleges.  As a result of
the Defendants' false statements and omissions, the Plaintiff
contends, the Company's common stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

Shaun McCracken purchased the publicly traded common stock of
Edwards Lifesciences at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period.

Edwards Lifesciences is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Irvine, California.  Edwards Lifesciences is a medical device
maker that designs and markets, among other things, artificial
heart valves for implantation in patients with advance
cardiovascular disease.  The Company designed the SAPIEN valve and
the related delivery systems for patients with certain risk
factors that make traditional surgery inadvisable.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Zevi Glancy, Esq.
          Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
          Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW AND GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
          Rachel A. Avan, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
                  mstocker@labaton.com
                  ravan@labaton.com


ENERGY TRANSFER: Atty. Fees in Sunoco Merger Suits Paid in July
---------------------------------------------------------------
The payment of $950,000 in attorneys' fees in lawsuits arising
from the Sunoco Merger was made in July 2013, according to Energy
Transfer Partners, L.P.'s August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

On October 5, 2012, Sam Acquisition Corporation, a Pennsylvania
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Energy Transfer
Partners, L.P. ("Energy Transfer Partners," the "Partnership," or
"ETP"), completed its merger with Sunoco, Inc. (the "Sunoco
Merger").  Under the terms of the merger agreement, Sunoco
shareholders received a total of approximately 55 million ETP
Common Units and $2.6 billion in cash.

Following the announcement of the Sunoco Merger on April 30, 2012,
eight putative class action and derivative complaints were filed
in connection with the Sunoco Merger in the Court of Common Pleas
of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.  Each complaint names as
defendants the members of Sunoco's board of directors and alleges
that they breached their fiduciary duties by negotiating and
executing, through an unfair and conflicted process, a merger
agreement that provides inadequate consideration and that contains
impermissible terms designed to deter alternative bids.  Each
complaint also names as defendants Sunoco, ETP, Energy Transfer
Partners GP, L.P. ("ETP GP," the general partner of ETP), Energy
Transfer Partners, L.L.C. ("ETP LLC," the general partner of ETP
GP) and Sam Acquisition Corporation, alleging that they aided and
abetted the breach of fiduciary duties by Sunoco's directors; some
of the complaints also name Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. ("ETE," a
publicly traded partnership and the owner of ETP LLC) as a
defendant on those aiding and abetting claims.

In September 2012, all of these lawsuits were settled with no
payment obligation on the part of any of the defendants following
the filing of Current Reports on Form 8-K that included additional
disclosures that were incorporated by reference into the proxy
statement related to the Sunoco Merger.  Subsequent to the
settlement of these cases, the plaintiffs' attorneys sought
compensation from Sunoco for attorneys' fees related to their
efforts in obtaining these additional disclosures.  In January
2013, Sunoco entered into agreements to compensate the plaintiffs'
attorneys in the state court actions in the aggregate amount of
not more than $950,000 and to compensate the plaintiffs' attorneys
in the federal court action in the amount of not more than
$250,000.  The payment of $950,000 was made in July 2013.

Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. -- http://www.energytransfer.com/
-- a Delaware limited partnership, is one of the largest publicly
traded master limited partnerships in the United States in terms
of equity market capitalization.  The Company, which is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas, is managed by its general partner,
Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P., and ETP GP is managed by its
general partner, Energy Transfer Partners, L.L.C., which is owned
by Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., another publicly traded master
limited partnership.  The Company's activities, which are
conducted through its wholly owned operating subsidiaries include
natural gas operations, transportation of natural gas liquids,
storage and fractionation services and refined product and crude
oil operations.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Discovery in Southern Union Merger Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated class action lawsuit
arising from the Southern Union Merger, according to Energy
Transfer Partners, L.P.'s August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

In June 2011, several putative class action lawsuits were filed in
the Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, naming as
defendants the members of the Southern Union Board, as well as
Southern Union Company and Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. ("ETE").
The lawsuits were styled Jaroslawicz v. Southern Union Company, et
al., Cause No. 2011-37091, in the 333rd Judicial District Court of
Harris County, Texas and Magda v. Southern Union Company, et al.,
Cause No. 2011-37134, in the 11th Judicial District Court of
Harris County, Texas.  The lawsuits were consolidated into an
action styled In re: Southern Union Company; Cause No. 2011-37091,
in the 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.  The
Plaintiffs allege that the Southern Union directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Southern Union's stockholders in connection
with the Merger and that Southern Union and ETE aided and abetted
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The amended petitions
allege that the Merger involves an unfair price and an inadequate
sales process, that Southern Union's directors entered into the
Merger to benefit themselves personally, including through
consulting and noncompete agreements, and that defendants have
failed to disclose all material information related to the Merger
to Southern Union stockholders.  The amended petitions seek
injunctive relief, including an injunction of the Merger, and an
award of attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to other
relief.  On October 21, 2011, the court denied ETE's October 13,
2011 motion to stay the Texas proceeding in favor of cases pending
in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Also in June 2011, several putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming as defendants the
members of the Southern Union Board, as well as Southern Union and
ETE.  Three of the lawsuits also named Merger Sub as a defendant.
These lawsuits are styled: Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority, et al. v. Southern Union Company, et
al., C.A. No. 6615-CS; KBC Asset Management NV v. Southern Union
Company, et al., C.A. No. 6622-CS; LBBW Asset Management
Investment GmbH v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6627-
CS; and Memo v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6639-CS.
These cases were consolidated with the following style: In re
Southern Union Co. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 6615-CS, in
the Delaware Court of Chancery.  The consolidated complaint
asserts similar claims and allegations as the Texas state-court
consolidated action.  On July 25, 2012, the Delaware plaintiffs
filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of all claims without
prejudice.  In the notice, plaintiffs stated their claims were
being dismissed to avoid duplicative litigation and indicated
their intent to join the Texas case.

The Texas case remains pending, and discovery is ongoing.

Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. -- http://www.energytransfer.com/
-- a Delaware limited partnership, is one of the largest publicly
traded master limited partnerships in the United States in terms
of equity market capitalization.  The Company, which is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas, is managed by its general partner,
Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P., and ETP GP is managed by its
general partner, Energy Transfer Partners, L.L.C., which is owned
by Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., another publicly traded master
limited partnership.  The Company's activities, which are
conducted through its wholly owned operating subsidiaries include
natural gas operations, transportation of natural gas liquids,
storage and fractionation services and refined product and crude
oil operations.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Unit Continues to Defend "Price" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Will Price, an individual, filed actions in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas for damages against a number of
companies, including Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP,
alleging mis-measurement of natural gas volumes and Btu content,
resulting in lower royalties to mineral interest owners.
Panhandle's parent, Southern Union Company, is a subsidiary of
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.  On September 19, 2009, the Court
denied plaintiffs' request for class certification.  The
Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration, which the
Court denied on March 31, 2010.  Panhandle believes that its
measurement practices conformed to the terms of its Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission ("FERC") natural gas tariffs, which were
filed with and approved by the FERC.  As a result, Southern Union
believes that it has meritorious defenses to the Will Price
lawsuit (including FERC-related affirmative defenses, such as the
filed rate/tariff doctrine, the primary/exclusive jurisdiction of
the FERC, and the defense that Panhandle complied with the terms
of its tariffs).  Panhandle will continue to vigorously defend the
case.  Southern Union believes it has no liability associated with
this proceeding.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. -- http://www.energytransfer.com/
-- a Delaware limited partnership, is one of the largest publicly
traded master limited partnerships in the United States in terms
of equity market capitalization.  The Company, which is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas, is managed by its general partner,
Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P., and ETP GP is managed by its
general partner, Energy Transfer Partners, L.L.C., which is owned
by Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., another publicly traded master
limited partnership.  The Company's activities, which are
conducted through its wholly owned operating subsidiaries include
natural gas operations, transportation of natural gas liquids,
storage and fractionation services and refined product and crude
oil operations.


FARM BOY 2012: Recalls Plain Croissants Over Undeclared Allergens
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 24, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Farm Boy 2012 Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Affected products: Farm Boy Plain Croissants that is sold in
packages of 6 units (300 g) with packed on date from 2013.SE.20 to
2013.SE.23, inclusive.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Farm Boy 2012 Inc.
are warning people with allergies to eggs and milk not to consume
the Farm Boy brand Plain Croissants.  The affected product
contains egg and milk which are not declared on the label.

This product was sold only at Farm Boy, 499 Terry Fox Drive,
Kanata, ON.

There has been one reported illness associated with the
consumption of this product.

Consumption of this product may cause a serious or life-
threatening reaction in persons with allergies to eggs and milk.

The retailer, Farm Boy 2012 Inc., Ottawa, ON, is voluntarily
recalling the affected product from the marketplace.  The CFIA is
monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.


FRITO-LAY: Court Narrows Claims in Deceptive Labeling Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the consolidated multi-district litigation -- IN RE FRITO-LAY
NORTH AMERICA, INC. ALL NATURAL LITIGATION -- plaintiffs bring a
putative class action grounded in various federal and state-law
claims, alleging that defendant Frito-Lay North America Inc., and
its parent company, defendant PepsiCo, Inc., deceptively labeled
and marketed as "All Natural" various Tostitos, SunChips, and
Fritos Bean Dip products when, in fact, the products contained
unnatural, genetically-modified organisms.

Before the Court are defendants' motions to dismiss, and to take
judicial notice of certain documents in support of their motion to
dismiss.

In an August 29, 2013 Memorandum & Order available at
http://is.gd/NaeUEBfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Roslynn R.
Mauskopf granted the motion to take judicial notice, and granted
in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss as follows:

1. All claims against defendant PepsiCo are dismissed without
   prejudice;

2. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim (Count I) is dismissed
   with prejudice;
3. The New York General Business Law claims (Counts II and III)
   are dismissed with prejudice only as to non-New York
   plaintiffs;

4. The New York warranty claim (Count VIII) is dismissed with
   prejudice only as to non-New York plaintiffs. This claim is
   otherwise dismissed without prejudice;

5. The Florida warranty claim (Count X) is dismissed without
   prejudice;

6. The New York intentional misrepresentation claim (Count XI) is
   dismissed with prejudice only as to non-New York plaintiffs.
   This claim is otherwise dismissed without prejudice;

7. The California and Florida intentional misrepresentation claims
   (Counts XII and XIII) are dismissed without prejudice;

8. To the extent the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising
   Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Florida Deceptive and
   Unfair Trade Practices Act claims (Counts IV, V, VI, and VII)
   are predicated on "All Natural" representations appearing
   anywhere other than on the products' packaging, the claims are
   dismissed without prejudice; and

9. All other claims shall proceed consistent with the Memorandum
   and Order.

The case is In re Frito-Lay North America, Inc. All Natural
Litigation United States District Court, E.D. New York, NO. 12-MD-
2413 (RRM)(RLM).

Alyssa Schwartz, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Michael
Lopatin -- lopatin@hwrlawoffice.com -- The Law Offices of Howard
W. Rubinstein, P.A. and:

   Larry De-Wayne Layfield, Esq.
   Law Office of L. DeWayne Layfield
   Beaumont, TX 77701-2228, 0801724431

Julie Gengo, Plaintiff, represented by Andrei V Rado, Milberg LLP,
Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg LLP, David E Azar, Milberg LLP & Henry
Jan Kelston, Milberg LLP.

Chris Shake, Plaintiff, represented by Kim Richman, Reese Richman
LLP & Michael Robert Reese, Reese Richman LLP.

Valarie Zuro, Plaintiff, represented by Julio Ramos, Law Office of
Julio Ramos & Paul E. Dans, Law Office of Paul E. Dans.

David Foust, Plaintiff, represented by Angela Valentina Arango-
Chaffin, Chaffin Law Firm & Howard W Rubinstein, The Law Officers
of Howard W. Rubinstein.

Steve Berkowitz, Plaintiff, represented by Angela Valentina
Arango-Chaffin, Chaffin Law Firm & Howard W Rubinstein, The Law
Officers of Howard W. Rubinstein.

Kelli Altman, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Harris Eggnatz, The
Eggnatz Law Firm.

Kimberly Fleishman, Plaintiff, represented by Eric C. Brunick,
Freed & Weiss LLC.

Dennis Patrick, Plaintiff, represented by Reginald Von Terrell,
The Terrell Law Group.

William Roman, Plaintiff, represented by Eric C. Brunick, Freed &
Weiss LLC.

Allan Mooney, Plaintiff, represented by Paul R Hansmeier, Class
Action Justice Institute LLC.

Stayce Deaton, Plaintiff, represented by Scott E. Poynter, Emerson
Poynter LLP & William Thomas Crowder, Emerson Poynter LLP.

Frito-Lay North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew
Santo Tulumello, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Benjamin E Gurstelle,
Briggs & Morgan, PA, Casey Reeder Lennox, Chad W. Pekron,
Quattlebaum Grooms Tull & Burrow PLLC, Christopher Chorba, Gibson
Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Jason Robert Meltzer, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Jenna Musselman Yott, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
Molly E. Thompson, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Robert Maurice Fulton,
Hill Ward & Henderson, Robert Ryan Younger, Quattlebaum Grooms
Tull Burrow PLLC, Steven W. Quattlebaum, Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull
& Burrow PLLC, Thomas Raymond Hill, Dykema Gossett PLLC & Troy J
Hutchinson, Briggs & Morgan, PA.

Pepsico Inc, Defendant, represented by Andrew Santo Tulumello,
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Benjamin E Gurstelle, Briggs & Morgan,
PA, Chad W. Pekron, Quattlebaum Grooms Tull & Burrow PLLC, Jason
Robert Meltzer, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Robert Ryan Younger,
Quattlebaum Grooms Tull Burrow PLLC, Steven W. Quattlebaum,
Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow PLLC & Troy J Hutchinson,
Briggs & Morgan, PA.


GARDEN FRESH: Expands Recall to Specific Product Packages
---------------------------------------------------------
Garden-Fresh Foods is initiating an expansion to its voluntary
recall on various ready-to-eat salads, slaw, and dip products sold
under various brands and code dates.  The products may be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism that can
cause serious and sometimes-fatal infections in young children,
frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.
Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal
pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

Products are sold in various size containers (6oz to 18oz
packages).  The products were distributed in the following states:
WI, MN, IA, IL, OH, IN, TX, FL, MA, MO, MI, PA, AZ, CA, and
distributed to retail stores and food services.

Consumers who have purchased any of the suspect products are urged
to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Currently there has been no illness or complaints related to this
recall.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-645-3367
Monday through Friday between the hours 8:00AM- 4:30 PM

Products included in this recall:

  -- 16 oz Market Pantry Macaroni Salad;
  -- 16 oz Market Pantry Mustard Potato Salad;
  -- 16 oz Market Pantry American Style Potato Salad;
  -- 15 oz Market Pantry Coleslaw;
  -- 14 oz Market Pantry Italian Style Pasta Salad;
  -- 16 oz Market Pantry Baked Beans;
  -- 12 oz Market Pantry Tuna Salad;
  -- 12 oz.Market Pantry All White Meat Chicken Salad;
  -- 12 oz.Market Pantry Egg Salad;
  -- 16 oz Market Pantry Reduced Fat Macaroni Salad;
  -- 16 oz Market Pantry Reduced Fat Mustard Potato Salad;
  -- 16 oz Market Pantry Reduced Fat American Potato Salad;
  -- 15 oz Market Pantry Reduced Fat Coleslaw;
  -- 16 oz Archer Farms Steakhouse Potato;
  -- 8 oz Archer Farms Steakhouse Potato;
  -- 11 oz Archer Farms Artichoke Spinach Dip;
  -- 18 oz Archer Farms Artichoke Spinach Dip;
  -- 11 oz Archer Farms Smoked Salmon Dip;
  -- 16 oz Archer Farms Rotisserie Chicken Salad;
  -- 6 oz Archer Farms Rotisserie Chicken Salad;
  -- 11 oz Archer Farms Bacon Parmesan Dip;
  -- 11 oz Archer Farms Spinach Dip;
  -- 18 oz Archer Farms Spinach Dip;
  -- 11 oz Archer Farms Feta & Roasted Red Pepper Dip;
  -- 12 oz Archer Farms Vanilla CrÅ me Dip
  -- 14 oz D'Amico and Sons Chicken Salad with Rosemary;
  -- 14 oz D'Amico and Sons Chicken & Dried Cherry Pasta;
  -- 6 oz D'Amico and Sons Chicken & Dried Cherry Pasta;
  -- 14 oz D'Amico and Sons Ranch Pasta Salad with Chicken,
       Spinach & Bacon;
  -- 6 oz D'Amico and Sons Ranch Pasta Salad with Chicken, Spinach
     & Bacon
  -- 12 oz Roundy's Artichoke Spinach Dip;
  -- 12 oz Roundy's Taco Dip;
  -- 12 oz Roundy's Dill Dipc
  -- 16 oz Grandpa's German Potato Salad;
  -- 16 oz Grandpa's Cole Slaw;
  -- 16 oz Grandpa's Macaroni Salad;
  -- 16 oz Grandpa's Deviled Egg Potato Salad;
  -- 16 oz Grandpa's Potato Salad;
  -- 16 oz Grandpa's Red Skin Potato Salad;
  -- 16 oz Grandpa's Steakhouse Potato Salad;
  -- 12 oz Maggie's White Fruit Dip;
  -- 12 oz Maggie's Taco Dip
  -- 15 oz Fresh Salsa Serrano Spicy
  -- 16 oz Finest Traditions Deluxe Potato Salad;
  -- 8 oz Finest Traditions Dill Dip;
  -- 12 oz Finest Traditions Ham Salad Spread;
  -- 16 oz Finest Traditions Homemade-Style Cole Slaw;
  -- 8 oz Finest Traditions Southwest Dip;
  -- 8 oz Finest Traditions Spinach Dip;
  -- 16 oz Finest Traditions Smoky Baked Beans;
  -- 16 oz Finest Traditions Homestyle Potato Salad;
  -- 16 oz Finest Traditions Macaroni Salad;
  -- 8 oz Finest Traditions Taco Dip;
  -- 6 x 12 oz Finest Traditions Tuna Salad Spread
  -- 12 oz Chef's Kitchen Cucumber Dill Dip
  -- 16 oz Garden-Fresh Macaroni Salad;
  -- 16 oz Garden-Fresh American Potato Salad;
  -- 12 oz Garden Fresh Ham Salad with Sweet Relish;
  -- 16 oz Garden-Fresh Mustard Potato Salad;
  -- 16 oz Garden-Fresh Creamy Cole Slaw;
  -- 16 oz Garden-Fresh German Potato Salad
  -- 16 oz Weis Creamy Cole Slaw;
  -- 16 oz Weis Orginal Potato Salad;
  -- 16 oz Weis Orginal Macaroni Salad;
  -- 16 oz Weis Potato with Egg Salad;
  -- 16 oz Weis Amish Macaroni Salad;
  -- 16 oz Weis Amish Potato Salad;
  -- 16 oz Weis Red Potato Salad;
  -- 16 oz Weis Old Fashion Cole Slaw;
  -- 8 oz Weis Ham Salad;
  -- 6 x 8 oz Weis Tuna Salad
  -- 16 oz Spartan American Potato Salad;
  -- 16 oz Spartan Cole Slaw;
  -- 16 oz Spartan Macaroni Salad;
  -- 16 oz Spartan Mustard Potato Salad; and
  -- 16 oz Portillo's Gourmet Red Skin Potato Salad


GOGO LLC: Misleads Consumers on Internet Charges, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Welsh, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Gogo LLC, Case No. 2:13-cv-06889 (C.D. California,
September 18, 2013) accuses Gogo of misleading consumers about
recurring charges for its in-flight Internet service.

Gogo misleads customers into purchasing a service that
automatically charges a customer's credit card or other payment
source on a recurring, monthly basis without notice, Mr. Welsh
alleges.  He contends that Gogo presents customer account
information on its Web site in a misleading manner that does not
indicate the recurring charges.

Mr. Welsh is a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes, California.

Gogo LLC, known as Aircell LLC until 2011, is an operating
subsidiary of Gogo Inc., a public company.  Gogo is a Delaware
company based in Itasca, Illinois.  The Company provides in-flight
Internet connectivity and wireless in-cabin digital-entertainment
services, as well as voice-communication and video streaming
services to travelers on various airlines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN LLP
          875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reeserichman.com


INTERMEC INC: Continues to Defend Honeywell Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intermec, Inc. continues to defend itself against merger-related
class action lawsuits, according to the Company's August 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On December 9, 2012, Intermec, Inc. entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Honeywell
International Inc. ("Honeywell") and Hawkeye Merger Sub Corp., a
wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell ("Merger Sub").  Under the
Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into Intermec,
with Intermec continuing as the surviving corporation and wholly
owned subsidiary of Honeywell (the "Merger").  After completion of
the Merger, Honeywell will own 100% of Intermec's outstanding
stock, and current stockholders will no longer have any interest
in Intermec.

On December 13, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
on behalf of the Company's stockholders in the Superior Court of
Snohomish County, Washington, docketed as NECA-IBEW Pension Trust
Fund (The Decatur Plan) v. Intermec, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-2-
01841-1.  Five days later, on December 18, 2012, another purported
class action lawsuit on behalf of the Company's stockholders was
filed in the Superior Court of Snohomish County, docketed as
Settle v. Intermec, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-2-09793-1.  The next
day, on December 19, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit on
behalf of the Company's stockholders was filed in the Superior
Court of King County, Washington, docketed as Grauel v. Barnes,
Case No. 12-2-40170-5 SEA.

The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Company's Board
of Directors breached its fiduciary duties to stockholders by
failing to take steps to maximize stockholder value or to engage
in a fair sale process before approving the proposed acquisition
of Intermec by Honeywell.  Specifically, the lawsuits allege that
the consideration paid by Honeywell is grossly inadequate in light
of Intermec's recent performance.  The lawsuits also allege that
the process was designed to ensure that Honeywell had the only
opportunity to acquire the Company and that the use of certain
deal protection mechanisms precluded the Company from seeking out
competing offers.  The lawsuits also allege that Intermec's
preliminary and definitive proxy statements omit certain
purportedly material information.  The lawsuits allege that the
Board was aided and abetted in its breaches of fiduciary duty by
Intermec and Honeywell.  Each of the complaints names the Company,
the members of the Company's Board of Directors, Honeywell
International Inc., and Hawkeye Merger Sub Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Honeywell, as defendants.

The plaintiffs in these various actions seek relief that includes,
among other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of
the proposed merger, rescission to the extent the Merger terms
have already been implemented, damages for the breaches of
fiduciary duty, and the payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
costs.  The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously.  There can be no
assurance, however, with regard to the outcome of these lawsuits.

Intermec moved to stay the Snohomish County actions in favor of
the consolidated action in Delaware but the motion was denied by
the Superior Court of Snohomish County on January 11, 2013.  The
Superior Court consolidated the Snohomish County cases under the
name, In re Intermec, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No.
12-2-01841-1, and lead counsel was appointed.

On January 11, 2013, the King County case was transferred to
Snohomish County for the purpose of being consolidated into the In
re Intermec, Inc. Shareholder Litigation.  On February 24, 2013,
the Court entered a stipulated confidentiality order.  On
February 28, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint.  On March 1, 2013, plaintiffs in the Washington State
action filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a hearing
on this motion was held on March 15, 2013, in the Superior Court
of Washington for Snohomish County.  The Plaintiffs' motion was
denied.  The Company conducted a Special Meeting of Stockholders
on March 19, 2013, at which adoption of the Agreement and Plan of
Merger between Intermec and Honeywell was approved.

The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and intends to
defend them vigorously.  There can be no assurance, however, with
regard to the outcome of these lawsuits.

Intermec, Inc. -- http://www.intermec.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Everett, Washington.  The Company
designs, develops, integrates, and sells wired and wireless
automated identification and data collection solutions through its
suite of products, voice technologies and related software and
services.  The Company's solutions products are designed for
rugged environments and to maintain connectivity, preserve
computing capability and retain data despite harsh conditions and
heavy use.


IPPOLITO FRUIT: Recalls Spinach Over Salmonella Presence
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 23, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Ippolito Fruit & Produce Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario, Quebec, May be National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Affected products:

  Brand name      Size    Code(s) on product      UPC
  ----------      ----    ------------------      ---
  Frisco's        284 g   Lot Code/Best Before    0 33383 65201 6
                           2 D66258/2013 SE 30
  Frisco's        170 g   Lot Code/Best Before    0 33383 45041 4
                           2 D66258
  Queen Victoria  227 g  Lot Code/Best Before     0 60556 00227 9
                           2 D66258/2013 SE 30
  Metro           171 g  Lot Code/Best Before
                           2 D66258/2013 SE 30    0 59749 89955 0

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Ippolito Fruit and
Produce Ltd., are warning the public not to consume the Frisco's,
Queen Victoria and Metro brands spinach because they may be
contaminated with Salmonella.

These products have been distributed in Ontario and Quebec.  These
products may also have been distributed to other provinces.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

The manufacturer, Ippolito Fruit and Produce Ltd., Burlington,
Ontario, is voluntarily recalling the affected products from the
marketplace.  The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the
recall.


JONES FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of Securities Suit Accord
----------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a securities suit against Edward Jones are awaiting the
approval of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California for a proposed settlement, according to The Jones
Financial Companies, L.L.L.P.'s Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

There have been four cases filed against Edward Jones (in addition
to numerous other issuers and underwriters) asserting claims under
the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") in
connection with registration statements and prospectus supplements
issued for certain mortgage-backed certificates issued between
2005 and 2007.

Three cases are purported class actions (David H. Luther, et al.
v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. filed in 2007.; Maine
State Retirement System, et al. v. Countrywide Financial
Corporation, et al. filed in 2010; and Western Conference of
Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. Countrywide Financial Corporation,
et al. filed in 2010).

All three cases remain pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California. All three cases, however, have
been tentatively settled, and the parties are awaiting court
approval of the proposed settlement. It is expected that the Court
will take several months before entering a final approval of the
proposed settlement, which: (1) establishes a fund to be paid
exclusively by Countrywide, (2) contains a complete release for
all defendants in all three cases, including Edward Jones, (3)
contains proposals for the administration of the settlement fund,
and (4) provides for the dismissal of all three cases once the
court enters the final approval of the settlement and enters a
final judgment.

Because Edward Jones was being indemnified and defended in all
three cases, Edward Jones is not required to pay, and will not be
paying, any money into the settlement fund.


JONES FINANCIAL: "Ezersky" Suit v. Edward Jones in Pleading Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The suit filed by Daniel Ezersky, individually and on behalf of
certain Missouri residents who purchased certain life insurance
products from Edward Jones is in the pleading stage, according to
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P.'s Aug. 2, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On March 14, 2013, Edward Jones was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of St. Louis
County, Missouri. The Petition alleges that Edward Jones breached
its fiduciary duties and was unjustly enriched through the use of
an online life insurance needs calculator that plaintiff claims
inflated the amount of insurance he needed.

Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of Missouri residents who
purchased certain life insurance products from Edward Jones
between March of 2008 and the present, including: actual damages,
or alternatively, judgment in an amount equal to profits gained
from the sale of term, whole life or universal life insurance to
plaintiff/damages class; punitive damages; injunctive relief;
costs, including reasonable fees and expert witness expenses; and
reasonable attorneys' fees. The litigation is in the pleading
stage and no class has been certified.


JONES FINANCIAL: Edward Jones Settles Lehman Brothers-Linked Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Jones and certain other defendants executed an agreement to
settle the claims asserted against them in an action related to
its underwriting of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., according to
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P.'s Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Edward Jones was named as a defendant in three actions related to
its underwriting of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. ("Lehman
Brothers") notes that are or were pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY").

Two of the suits were putative class action suits originally
brought by plaintiffs in state court in Arkansas (the "Arkansas
Plaintiffs"), which asserted Securities Act claims based upon two
offerings of Lehman Brothers' notes in 2007. The Court dismissed
those actions on December 11, 2012. The Arkansas Plaintiffs have
appealed the dismissal. The third suit was amended in October 2011
to assert a Section 11 claim against Edward Jones related to three
offerings of Lehman bonds in January and February 2008.

Plaintiffs, American National Life Insurance Company of Texas,
Comprehensive Investment Services Inc., The Moody Foundation, and
American National Insurance Company, allege to have purchased $3
million of securities in these offerings, but did not make any of
these purchases through Edward Jones. This action names several
other purported underwriters as defendants, as well as Lehman
Brothers' former auditor.

On January 6, 2012, Edward Jones and other defendants moved to
dismiss this action. On March 27, 2013, the court dismissed claims
against Edward Jones related to two offerings. Claims related to
one offering remained pending. On July 12, 2013, Edward Jones and
certain other defendants executed an agreement to settle the
claims asserted against them in this action. The settlement
remains subject to finalization. Edward Jones' payment under the
settlement agreement will not have any adverse material impact on
its consolidated financial condition.


JONES FINANCIAL: Oct. 9 Case Management Hearing in "Maxwell" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An October 9, 2013 case management conference is scheduled in a
case filed by Nicholas Maxwell, individually and on behalf of a
putative class alleging unlawful wage deductions, according to The
Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P.'s Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Edward Jones was named as a defendant in a putative class action
complaint in Alameda Superior Court. The complaint asserted causes
of action for unlawful wage deductions (Labor Code sections 221,
223, 400-410, 2800, 2802, Cal. Code Reg. title 8, section
11040(8)); California Unfair Competition Law violations (Business
and Professions Code sections 17200-04); and waiting time
penalties (Labor Code sections 201-203).

Plaintiff alleges that Edward Jones improperly charged its
California financial advisors fees, costs, and expenses related to
trading errors or "broken" trades, and failed to timely pay wages
at termination; however, plaintiff does not allege a specific
amount of damages. Plaintiff filed the complaint on December 18,
2012 and Edward Jones filed its answer on February 6, 2013.
Plaintiff has not yet filed his motion for class certification.
There is a case management conference scheduled for October 9,
2013.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: "Royal Oak" Securities Suit Dismissed in May
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned City of Royal Oak Retirement
System v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al., was dismissed in May
2013, according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

On August 15, 2011, a purported securities class action lawsuit,
captioned City of Royal Oak Retirement System v. Juniper Networks,
Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-04003-LHK, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
naming the Company and certain of its officers and directors as
defendants. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
prospects. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of monetary
damages on behalf of the purported class. On January 9, 2012 the
Court appointed City of Omaha Police and Fire Retirement System
and City of Bristol Pension Fund as lead plaintiffs. Lead
plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and misleading
statements about the Company's business and future prospects, and
failed to adequately disclose the impact of certain changes in
accounting rules. Lead plaintiffs purport to assert claims for
violations of Sections 10 (b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Juniper Networks' common stock
between July 20, 2010 and July 26, 2011, inclusive. On March 14,
2012, Defendants filed motions to dismiss lead plaintiffs' amended
complaint. On July 23, 2012, the Court issued an order dismissing
the action and giving lead plaintiffs leave to file an amended
complaint. Lead plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on
August 20, 2012. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint on September 17, 2012, and lead plaintiffs filed
their opposition on October 22, 2012. Defendants filed their reply
brief on November 8, 2012. On May 17, 2013, the Court granted
Defendants' motion, dismissed the second amended complaint with
prejudice, and entered judgment on Defendants' behalf.

Juniper Networks, Inc., designs, develops, and sells products and
services that together provide its customers with network
infrastructure.  The Company is headquartered in Sunnyvale,
California.


LEXMARK INT'L: Appeal From Attorneys' Fee Award Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from an award of damages and attorneys' fees in the
class action lawsuit titled Molina v. Lexmark International, Inc.,
remains pending, according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On August 31, 2005, former Company employee Ron Molina filed a
class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court for Los
Angeles under a California employment statute which in effect
prohibits the forfeiture of vacation time accrued.  This statute
has been used to invalidate California employers' "use or lose"
vacation policies.  The class is comprised of less than 200
current and former California employees of the Company.  The trial
was bifurcated into a liability phase and a damages phase.  On
May 1, 2009, the trial court Judge brought the liability phase to
a conclusion with a ruling that the Company's vacation and
personal choice day's policies from 1991 to the present violated
California law.  In a Statement of Decision, received by the
Company on August 27, 2010, the trial court Judge awarded the
class members approximately $8.3 million in damages which included
waiting time penalties and interest but did not include post
judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees.  On November 17,
2010, the trial court Judge partially granted the Company's motion
for a new trial solely as to the argument that current employees
are not entitled to any damages.  On March 7, 2011, the trial
court Judge reduced the original award to $7.8 million.  On
October 28, 2011, the trial court Judge awarded the class members
$5.7 million in attorneys' fees.

The Company filed a notice of appeal with the California Court of
Appeals objecting to the trial court Judge's award of damages and
attorneys' fees.  The appeal is pending.

The Company believes an unfavorable outcome in the matter is
probable.  The range of potential loss related to this matter is
subject to a high degree of estimation.  In accordance with the
accounting guidance for contingencies, if the reasonable estimate
of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is a
better estimate, the minimum amount of the range is accrued.
Because no amount within the range of potential loss is a better
estimate than any other amount, the Company has accrued $1.8
million for the Molina matter, which represents the low-end of the
range.  At the high-end of the range, the class has sought $16.7
million in damages along with $5.7 million in attorneys' fees,
plus post judgment interest.  Thus, it is reasonably possible that
a loss exceeding the $1.8 million already accrued may be incurred
in this matter, ranging from $0 to $22.4 million, excluding post
judgment interest, costs and any additional attorneys' fees which
may be assessed against the Company.

Since its inception in 1991, Lexmark International, Inc., has
become a leading developer, manufacturer and supplier of printing,
imaging, device management, managed print services, document
workflow, and more recently business process and content
management solutions.  The Company operates in the office printing
and imaging, and enterprise content management, business process
management, document output management, intelligent data capture
and search software markets.  The Company is headquartered in
Lexington, Kentucky.


MEDIVATION INC: Still Awaits Oral Argument in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medivation, Inc. is still awaiting oral argument date related to
an appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit, according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In March 2010, the first of several putative securities class
action lawsuits was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company
and certain of its officers.  The lawsuits are largely identical
and allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.  The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the
defendants disseminated false and misleading statements about the
effectiveness of dimebon for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.
The plaintiffs purport to seek damages, an award of their costs
and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of stockholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
September 21, 2006, and March 2, 2010.  The actions were
consolidated in September 2010 and, in April 2011 the court
entered an order appointing Catoosa Fund, L.P. and its attorneys
as lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  Thereafter, the lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, which was
dismissed without prejudice as to all defendants in August 2011.
The lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in November
2011.  In March 2012, the court dismissed the second amended
complaint with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of
defendants.  The Lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in April 2012.
The appeal is fully briefed, and the Company is awaiting notice of
the date for oral argument.

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

While the Company believes it has meritorious positions with
respect to the claims asserted against it and intends to advance
its positions in these lawsuits vigorously, including on appeal,
the process of resolving matters through litigation or other means
is inherently uncertain, and it is not possible to predict the
ultimate resolution of any such proceeding.  The actual cost of
defending the Company's position may be significant, and the
Company may not prevail.  The Company believes it is entitled to
coverage under its relevant insurance policies with respect to the
putative securities class action lawsuits, subject to a $350,000
retention, but coverage could be denied or prove to be
insufficient.

Medivation, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
rapid development and commercialization of novel therapies to
treat serious diseases for which there are limited treatment
options.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in San Francisco, California.


MINNESOTA: Judge Dismisses Driver's Privacy Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Tad Vezner, writing for Pioneer Press, reports that a federal
judge dismissed five class-action lawsuits on Sept. 20 filed by
Minnesotans whose private driver's license data was illegally
accessed by a state Department of Natural Resources employee over
several years.

U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen ruled that private individuals
cannot sue state agencies under the federal Drivers' Privacy
Protection Act.  She wrote that only by the U.S. attorney general
can impose a civil penalty on a state department of motor
vehicles.

The act, enacted in 1994, sought to protect private citizens' data
from unauthorized access, and set minimum damages for misuse of
citizens' personal driver's license data at $2,500 per incident.

The lawsuit pertained to misuses of such data by former DNR
enforcement officer John Hunt, who officials said searched
driver's license data on private citizens 19,000 times over five
years, for purposes other than work.  State officials feared
damages from the class-action suit would top $47 million.
Mr. Hunt was fired in January and faces criminal charges.
Mr. Hunt himself could still be sued under the act.

"While the alleged scale of private data misuse by law enforcement
personnel may well raise legitimate concerns, the structure of the
DPPA signals that Congress did not intend the civil action
provision to serve as the means to remedy systemic problems of the
type to which the complaint alludes," Judge Ericksen wrote.

The act was passed in 1994 after several crimes tied to abuse of
license data like stalking and harassment.  Among those was the
murder of 21-year-old actress Rebecca Schaeffer by an obsessed fan
who located her through driver's license records.

Meanwhile, cities and counties across Minnesota are facing a wave
of litigation stemming from the unauthorized accessing of driver's
license data by public employees, mostly in law enforcement.

According to StarTribune.com's Eric Roper, Judge Ericksen said the
state could not be held liable for Hunt's actions.  "The complaint
alleges no facts that make it plausible that the defendants
'knowingly' gave defendant Hunt database access 'for a purpose not
permitted' by the DPPA [Drivers Privacy Protection Act]."

The suits were brought on behalf of the 5,000 people who received
data breach letters.  Judge Ericksen granted a motion by Attorney
General Lori Swanson's office to dismiss the cases on Sept. 20.


MORGAN STANLEY: Still Faces Antitrust Lawsuit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley continues to face antitrust suits pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On May 5, 2013 and July 11, 2013, 12 financial firms (including
the Company), as well as ISDA and Markit, were named as defendants
in two purported antitrust class actions styled Sheet Metal
Workers Local No. 33 Cleveland District Pension Plan vs. Bank of
America Corporation et al., and Unipension Fondsmaeglerselskab
A/S. et al v. Bank of America Corporation et al, respectively.

Both actions are pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois and allege that defendants
violated United States antitrust laws from 2008 to present in
connection with their alleged efforts to prevent the development
of exchange traded CDS products. The complaints seek, among other
relief, certification of a class of plaintiffs who purchased CDS
from defendants in the United States, treble damages and
injunctive relief.


MORGAN STANLEY: Plaintiffs in ERISA Suit Appeal Court Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
On May 30, 2013, judgment in defendants' favor was entered in both
In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation and Coulter v. Morgan
Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al. and plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal with respect to each judgment on June 27, 2013, according
to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On May 2, 2013, certain offerings that had previously been
dismissed in In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation
were reinstated in light of recent precedent from the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. There are now four
offerings underwritten by the Company at issue, with a principal
amount of $1.68 billion.


MSG HOLDINGS: Accused of Not Paying Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Fraticelli, individually and on behalf of other
persons similarly situated who were employed by MSG Holdings, L.P.
and The Madison Square Garden Company and/or any other entities
affiliated with or controlled by MSG Holdings, L.P. and The
Madison Square Garden Company v. MSG Holdings, L.P. and The
Madison Square Garden Company, and/or any other entities
affiliated with or controlled by MSG Holdings, L.P. and The
Madison Square Garden Company, Case No. 1:13-cv-06518-JMF (S.D.
N.Y., September 16, 2013) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages owed to
the Plaintiff and all similarly situated persons, who are
presently or were formerly employed by the Defendants.

Beginning in approximately 2007 and continuing through the
present, the Defendants have wrongfully withheld wages from him
and other similarly situated individuals, who worked for the
Defendants, Mr. Fraticelli alleges.  He contends that the
Defendants have wrongfully classified him and others as exempt
from minimum and overtime wage requirements.

Christopher Fraticelli, a resident of New York, was employed by
the Defendants from September 2011 until January 2012.

MSG Holdings and Madison Square Garden are foreign business
corporations organized in Delaware and authorized to do business
in New York.  The Defendants are engaged in the sports and
entertainment industry.  They own and operate various teams, event
venues, and media outlets, including the New York Knicks, New York
Rangers, New York Liberty, Madison Square Garden, MSG Networks,
MSG Media, Fuse, Radio City Music Hall, and The Beacon Theatre.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq.
          Suzanne Brooke Leeds, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          111 Broadway, Suite 1403
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
                  sleeds@vandallp.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Kevin Brown, Esq.
          Daniel Harris Markowitz, Esq.
          Michael Alexander Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          Facsimile: (516) 747-5024
          E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  dmarkowitz@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  mtompkins@lmblaw.com


NAVISTAR INT'L: Objectors to Liability Suit Deal Must Post Bond
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain objectors to the court-approved settlement in IN RE
NAVISTAR DIESEL ENGINE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION have filed
notices of appeal. Under the terms of the settlement agreement
between the plaintiff class and defendant Ford Motor Company, the
pendency of an appeal operates as a stay on carrying out the
settlement terms, including payment of claims by class members.
Plaintiffs argue that the appeals are frivolous, and they contend
that the delay caused by the appeals will increase the costs of
administration by a significant amount.

The Plaintiffs have asked the Court to require the objectors to
post a bond. Specifically, they ask the Court to require the
objectors "to each post an appeal bond pursuant to Rule 7 of the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure as security to ensure against
the additional taxable appellate costs and administrative costs
that these frivolous appeals will inflict."  Plaintiffs argue that
the appropriate amount of the bond is $77,000, $25,000 of this
representing what plaintiffs argue will be "the direct taxable
costs of the appeal" and $52,000 representing "the administrative
costs of the delay caused by the appeal."

District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly granted the Plaintiffs' motions
for bond in part and denies them in part.  Each appellant in the
case was directed to post, a bond in the amount of $5,000 to cover
taxable costs on appeal. The Court otherwise denies plaintiffs'
motions.

The case is IN RE NAVISTAR DIESEL ENGINE PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION CASE NO. 11 C 2496, MDL NO. 2223, (N.D. Ill.).

A copy of the District Court's August 12, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at http://is.gd/MDORoqfrom Leagle.com.

Navistar 6.0 L Diesel Engine Products Liability Litigation, In Re,
represented by:

   Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
   Caddell & Chapman
   1331 Lamar Street, Suite 1070
   Houston, TX 77010
   Phone: 713-581-8295
   Toll Free: 877-553-3057
   Fax: 713-751-0906

Carrol Duhon, Plaintiff, represented by Richard J Arsenault --
rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com -- Neblett Beard & Arsenault & Robert
Kinney Shelquist -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grundal
Nauen & Holstein PLLP.

Daniel Sheeder, Plaintiff, represented by Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo
-- charlesl@cuneolaw.com -- Gilbert & LaDuca, Charles E. Schaffer
-- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin, Fishbaein, Sedran & Berman &
Victoria Romanenko -- vicky@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca, LLP.

County of Holmes, Plaintiff, represented by:

   Richard Runft Barrett, Esq.
   Law Office Of Richard R. Barrett, Pllc
   2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1011
   Oxford, MS 38655
   Phone: 662.380.5018
   Fax: 866.430.5459
   E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.net

Eduardo Colon-Rivera, Plaintiff, represented by John F. Nevares --
jfnevares-law@microjuris.com -- John F. Nevares & Associates.

Ulises Matta-Laureano, Plaintiff, represented by John F. Nevares,
John F. Nevares & Associates.

Jaime Noel Sanchez-Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by John F.
Nevares, John F. Nevares & Associates.

Travel Services, Plaintiff, represented by John F. Nevares, John
F. Nevares & Associates.

Jose Torres-Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by John F. Nevares,
John F. Nevares & Associates.

Luis A. Soler-Cruz, Plaintiff, represented by John F. Nevares,
John F. Nevares & Associates.

Nstor Rodrguez-Medina, Plaintiff, represented by John F. Nevares,
John F. Nevares & Associates.

Betty Ann Gould, Plaintiff, represented by Erik A. Christiansen --
echristiansen@parsonsbehle.com -- Parsons Behle & Latimer & Roy A
Katriel -- rak@katriellaw.com -- The Katriel Law Firm PLLC.

Kem Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn M Raiter --
sraiter@larsonking.com -- Larson & King, LLP

   Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
   Nicholas R. Rockforte, Esq.
   Patrick Wayne Pendley, Esq.
   Stan Baudin, Esq.
   PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, L.L.P.
   P.O. Drawer 71
   24110 Eden Street
   Plaquemine, Louisiana 70765
   Telephone: (225) 687-6396
   Facsimile: (225) 687-6398

Mark E Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph J Rego --
joerego@regolaw.com -- Law Office of Joseph Rego, APC, Inc..

Russell Mayfield, Plaintiff, represented by:

   Bruce C. Betzer, Esq.
   The Law Office Of Bruce C. Betzer
   3129 Bore Street
   Metairie, LA 70001
   Phone: 504-264-9523
   Toll Free: 866-603-3792
   Fax: 504-304-9964

Charles Idelman, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas P. Thrash --
TomThrash@sbcglobal.net -- Thrash Law Firm.

Deborah Charles, Plaintiff, represented by Roy A Katriel, The
Katriel Law Firm PLLC.

Wayne Weatherford, Plaintiff, represented by Roy A Katriel, The
Katriel Law Firm PLLC.

Brandon Burns, Plaintiff, represented by Roy A Katriel, The
Katriel Law Firm PLLC.

Joe Waggoner, Plaintiff, represented by Roy A Katriel, The Katriel
Law Firm PLLC.

Dennis Tacker, Plaintiff, represented by Roy A Katriel, The
Katriel Law Firm PLLC.

Johnny Quiroz, Plaintiff, represented by Roy A Katriel, The
Katriel Law Firm PLLC.

Forrest Pace, Plaintiff, represented by Roy A Katriel, The Katriel
Law Firm PLLC.

Rhonda Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph J Rego, Law Office
of Joseph Rego, APC, Inc..

Jonathan Aldrich, Plaintiff, represented by:

   Alexander Wells Peet, Esq.
   Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq.
   Lovelace Law Firm PA
   12870 US HWY 98 W STE 200
   Miramar Beach, FL 32550
   Telephone: (850) 837-6020
   Facsimile: (805) 837-4093
   E-mail: courtdocs@lovelacelaw.com

Custom Underground, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Michael A.
Caddell, Caddell & Chapman.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Brian C. Anderson --
banderson@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Cynthia Ann Merrill
-- cmerrill@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Dmitry Shifrin --
shifrin@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli Shughart P.C., Edwin L.
Lowther, Jr. -- elowther@wlj.com -- Wright, Lindsey & Jennings
LLP, Gary D. Marts, Jr., Wright Lindsey & Jennings Llp, Janet L.
Conigliaro -- jconigliaro@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, John M.
Thomas -- jthomas@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett Pllc, Jonathan H
Singer -- jsinger@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers Llp, Richard P.
Cassetta -- richard.cassetta@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave Llp,
Robert F Walker -- rwalker@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER, DONELSON,
BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC & Thomas J. Palazzolo --
tjpalazzolo@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave Llp.

Service List,, represented by Alexander Wells Peet, Lovelace Law
Firm PA, Brian C. Anderson, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Bruce C.
Betzer, The Law Office Of Bruce C. Betzer, Camilo K. Salas, III,
Salas & Co LC, Carmelo B Sammataro, Turner Padget Graham and
Laney, Cathleen M. Combs, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin,
LLC, Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, Charles E.
Schaffer, Levin, Fishbaein, Sedran & Berman, Christine R. Davis
Graves, Carlton Fields PA, Christopher L. Coffin, Pendley, Baudin
& Coffin, L.L.P., Christopher Ray Kiger, Smith Anderson, Cory S.
Fein, Caddell & Chapman, Cynthia B. Chapman, Caddell & Chapman,
Cynthia Ann Merrill, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, D. Scott Kalish, Scott
Klaish Co., L.L.C., D. Alan Thomas, Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart,
LLP, Dan H Ball, Bryan Cave, LLP, Dana F. Strout, Rubin & Strout,
P.A., Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Becnel Law Firm, LLC, Daniel A.
Edelman, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, Daniel W.
Olivas, Lewis, King, Krieg, & Waldrop, P.C., David L Marcus,
Bartle & Marcus LLC, Dewitt M. Lovelace, Lovelace Law Firm PA,
Dmitry Shifrin, Polsinelli Shughart P.C., Edward Craig Stewart,
Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, Edwin L. Lowther, Jr., Wright,
Lindsey & Jennings LLP, Edwin E. Wallis, III, Glassman, Edwards,
Wade & Wyatt, P.C., Eric D. Holland, Holland, Groves & Schneller,
LLC, Erik A. Christiansen, Parsons Behle & Latimer, Francis
Richard Greene, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, Frank E
Piscitelli, Jr, Piscitelli Law Firm, Fred R. Rosenthal, Parker
Waichman Alonso LLP, Gary D. Marts, Jr., Wright Lindsey & Jennings
Llp, HERBERT L. WAICHMAN, PARKER, WAICHMAN & ALONSO, LLP, J Thad
Heartfield, The Heartfield Law Firm, J. Barton Goplerud, Hudson,
Mallaney & Shindler, P.C., James M. Campbell, Campbell, Campbell,
Edwards & Conroy, P.C., James L. Deese, James O. Latturner,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, Jay Scott Bowen, Bowen
Hayes & Kreisberg, PLC, Jeffrey A. Long, Bray & long, PLLC,
Johanna Searle Fowler, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell &
Jern, John Randolph Bibb, Jr., Lewis, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.c.,
John S. Cherry, Jr., Barber, McCaskill, Jones & Hale, P.A., John
R. Climaco, Climaco Lefkowitz Peca Wilcox & Garofoli Col, LPA,
John F Nevares, John F. Nevares & Assoc., PSC, John Isaac
Southerland, Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP, John E. Wade, Jr.,
Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, John R Whaley, Neblett Beard &
Arsenault, John a. Peca, Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino &
Garofoli Co., Lpa, Joseph Kenneth Carter, Jr, Turner Padget Graham
and Laney, Joseph J Rego, Law Office of Joseph Rego, APC, Inc.,
Keith W. McDaniel, McCranie, Sistrunk, Kirk Gibson Warner, Smith
Anderson, M. Stephen Dampier, Law Offices of M. Stephen Dampier,
P.C., M. Dru Montgomery, The Heartfield Law Firm, Mark P. Chalos,
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Matthew V. Bartle,
Graves Bartle Marcus & Garrett, LLC, Michael A. Caddell, Caddell &
Chapman, Michelle I. Schaffer, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards &
Conroy, P.C. -MA, Mitchell A. Toups, Weller Green Toups & Terrell,
Nathan F. Garrett, Graves Bartle Marcus & Garrett, LLC, Nicholas
Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Nicholas R.
Rockforte, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., Nicholas R.
Rockforte, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., Patrick E Knie,
Patrick E. Knie, P.a., Patrick Wayne Pendley, Pendley, Baudin &
Coffin, LLP, Patrick G. Warner, Climaco Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino &
Garofoli Co., Paul D. Morris, Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP,
Peter J. Cambs, Sr., Senior Litigation Counsel, Rebecca Cameron
Blount, The Blount Law Firm, PC, Richard J Arsenault, Neblett
Beard & Arsenault, Richard Runft Barrett, Law Office Of Richard R.
Barrett, Pllc, Richard P. Cassetta, Bryan Cave Llp, Robert J.
Cecala, Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch, Robert J. Hoffman,
Bryan Cave LLP, Robert Kinney Shelquist, Lockridge Grundal Nauen &
Holstein PLLP, Robert F Walker, BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL
& BERKOWITZ, PC, Roy A Katriel, The Katriel Law Firm PLLC, Ryan N.
Clark, Lewis, King, Krieg, & Waldrop, P.C., Sach D. Oliver, Bailey
Oliver Law Firm, Samuel Brent Wakefield, Barber, McCaskill, Jones
& Hale, P.A., Scott Hammack, O'melveny & Myers Llp, Stan Baudin,
Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., Thomas P. Thrash, Thrash Law
Firm, Thomas Christopher Tuck, Richardson Patrick Westbrook and
Brickman, Tim Edwards, Glassman, Edwards, Wade & Wyatt, P.C.,
Timothy D. Miltenberger, Coan, Lewendon, Gulliver & Miltenberger,
Timothy P. Mitchell, Themis Law Group, Todd B. Murrah, Glassman
Edwards Wyatt Tuttle & Cox PC, Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca, LLP & William E Hopkins, Jr, Hopkins Law Firm, LLC.

Brent Jones, Movant, represented by Patrick E Knie --
pknie@knielaw.com -- Patrick E. Knie, P.a. & William E Hopkins --
wehopkins@hopkinscampbell.com -- Jr, Hopkins Law Firm, LLC.

Debbie Pawlaczyk, Movant, represented by Jeffrey A. Long --
jlong@braylong.com -- Bray & long, PLLC, Patrick E Knie, Patrick
E. Knie, P.a. & William E Hopkins, Jr, Hopkins Law Firm, LLC.

Bill Pawlaczyk, Movant, represented by Jeffrey A. Long, Bray &
long, PLLC, Patrick E Knie, Patrick E. Knie, P.a. & William E
Hopkins, Jr, Hopkins Law Firm, LLC.

Jeff Chandonait, Movant, represented by Patrick E Knie, Patrick E.
Knie, P.a. & William E Hopkins, Jr, Hopkins Law Firm, LLC.

Alexander Evans, Movant, represented by Jeffrey A. Long, Bray &
long, PLLC, Patrick E Knie, Patrick E. Knie, P.a. & William E
Hopkins, Jr, Hopkins Law Firm, LLC.

Phillip P. Morrison, Movant, represented by Patrick E Knie,
Patrick E. Knie, P.a. & William E Hopkins, Jr, Hopkins Law Firm,
LLC.

Carla W. Morrison, Movant, represented by Patrick E Knie, Patrick
E. Knie, P.a. & William E Hopkins, Jr, Hopkins Law Firm, LLC.

Mark Morris, Movant, represented by Frank E Piscitelli, Jr,
Piscitelli Law Firm, John R. Climaco, Climaco Lefkowitz Peca
Wilcox & Garofoli Col, LPA, John a. Peca, Climaco, Wilcox, Peca,
Tarantino & Garofoli Co., Lpa & Patrick G. Warner, Climaco Wilcox,
Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli Co..

Mr. Mario Polanco Patron, Movant, represented by Timothy P.
Mitchell -- TimMitchellEsq@hotmail.com -- Themis Law Group.

Michael Mahoney, Movant, represented by Michael R. Karnuth --
mike@krislovlaw.com -- Krislov & Associates, Ltd. and:

   Lauren A Ungs, Esq.
   Steve B Mikhov, Esq.
   O'Connor & Mikhov LLP
   640 S San Vicente Blvd Ste 350
   Los Angeles, CA 90048
   Phone: (323) 936-2274
   Fax:   (323) 939-7973
   E-mail: LaurenU@omlawllp.com

Nancy and Jadie Sullivan, Movant, represented by Lauren A Ungs,
O'Connor & Mikhov LLP, Steve B Mikhov, O'Connor & Mikhov LLP &
Michael R. Karnuth, Krislov & Associates, Ltd..

Scott Tinturin, Movant, represented by Lauren A Ungs, O'Connor &
Mikhov LLP, Steve B Mikhov, O'Connor & Mikhov LLP & Michael R.
Karnuth, Krislov & Associates, Ltd..

Steven Fisher, Movant, represented by Lauren A Ungs, O'Connor &
Mikhov LLP, Steve B Mikhov, O'Connor & Mikhov LLP & Michael R.
Karnuth, Krislov & Associates, Ltd..

Teresa & Randy Baker, Movant, represented by Lauren A Ungs,
O'Connor & Mikhov LLP, Steve B Mikhov, O'Connor & Mikhov LLP &
Michael R. Karnuth, Krislov & Associates, Ltd..

Arden Beavers, Movant, represented by Lauren A Ungs, O'Connor &
Mikhov LLP, Steve B Mikhov, O'Connor & Mikhov LLP & Michael R.
Karnuth, Krislov & Associates, Ltd..

Cindy and David Parker, Movant, represented by Lauren A Ungs,
O'Connor & Mikhov LLP, Steve B Mikhov, O'Connor & Mikhov LLP &
Michael R. Karnuth, Krislov & Associates, Ltd..

Lawrence Reed, Movant, represented by Lauren A Ungs, O'Connor &
Mikhov LLP, Steve B Mikhov, O'Connor & Mikhov LLP & Michael R.
Karnuth, Krislov & Associates, Ltd..

Alana and Dan Santos, Movant, represented by Lauren A Ungs,
O'Connor & Mikhov LLP, Steve B Mikhov, O'Connor & Mikhov LLP &
Michael R. Karnuth, Krislov & Associates, Ltd..

Martin Slanina, Movant, represented by Lauren A Ungs, O'Connor &
Mikhov LLP & Michael R. Karnuth, Krislov & Associates, Ltd..

Gene & Sissy Bennett, Movant, represented by Lauren A Ungs,
O'Connor & Mikhov LLP, Steve B Mikhov, O'Connor & Mikhov LLP &
Michael R. Karnuth, Krislov & Associates, Ltd..

Jared & Miranda Walden, Movant, represented by Lauren A Ungs,
O'Connor & Mikhov LLP, Steve B Mikhov, O'Connor & Mikhov LLP &
Michael R. Karnuth, Krislov & Associates, Ltd..

Anthony Anderson, Movant, represented by Lauren A Ungs, O'Connor &
Mikhov LLP, Steve B Mikhov, O'Connor & Mikhov LLP & Michael R.
Karnuth, Krislov & Associates, Ltd..

Dave & Gari Stinebaugh, Movant, represented by Lauren A Ungs,
O'Connor & Mikhov LLP, Steve B Mikhov, O'Connor & Mikhov LLP &
Michael R. Karnuth, Krislov & Associates, Ltd..

California Consumers, Movant, represented by Lauren A Ungs,
O'Connor & Mikhov LLP & Steve B Mikhov, O'Connor & Mikhov LLP.


NEW YORK: Court Enters Remedies Opinion in Floyd and Ligon Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin issued a "remedies" opinion in
DAVID FLOYD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant,
and JAENEAN LIGON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et
al., Defendants, NOS. 08 CIV. 1034 (SAS), 12 CIV. 2274 (SAS),
(S.D.N.Y.).

In an Opinion issued August 12, 2013, Judge Scheindlin found the
City of New York liable in the Floyd case for violating the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the plaintiff class because of
the way the New York City Police Department (NYPD) has conducted
stops and frisks over the past decade (the Liability Opinion).

In an Opinion issued in January 2013, Judge Scheindlin found that
the Ligon plaintiffs, representing a putative class of people
stopped outside buildings participating in the Trespass Affidavit
Program (TAP) in the Bronx, were entitled to preliminary
injunctive relief based on violations of their Fourth Amendment
rights.

The purpose of the "Remedies Opinion" is to determine what
remedies are appropriate in these cases, Judge Scheindlin says.

"I address both cases in one Opinion because the remedies
necessarily overlap. Each requires that the NYPD reform practices
and policies related to stop and frisk to conform with the
requirements of the United States Constitution. I stress, at the
outset, that the remedies imposed in this Opinion are as narrow
and targeted as possible. To be very clear: I am not ordering an
end to the practice of stop and frisk. The purpose of the remedies
addressed in this Opinion is to ensure that the practice is
carried out in a manner that protects the rights and liberties of
all New Yorkers, while still providing much needed police
protection," he said.

The defendant in Floyd and the defendants in Ligon are ordered to
comply with the remedial orders, says Judge Scheindlin.

A copy of the District Court's August 12, 2013 Opinion and Order
is available at http://is.gd/3aaqU9from Leagle.com.

Christopher Dunn, Esq., Alexis Karteron, Esq., Taylor Pendergrass,
Esq., Daniel Mullkoff, Esq., New York Civil Liberties Union, New
York, NY, Mariana Kovel, Esq., The Bronx Defenders, Bronx, NY,
Juan Cartagena, Esq., Foster Maer, Esq., Roberto Concepcion, Jr.,
Esq., LatinoJustice PRLDEF, New York, NY, John A. Nathanson Esq.,
-- john.nathanson@shearman.com  -- Tiana Peterson, Esq. --
tiana.peterson@shearman.com -- Mayer Grashin, Esq. --
mayer.grashin@shearman.com -- Shearman & Sterling LLP, New York,
NY, for Ligon Plaintiffs.

Darius Charney, Esq., Sunita Patel, Esq., Baher Azmy, Esq., Rachel
Lopez, Esq., Ghita Schwarz, Esq., Chauniqua Young, Esq., Center
for Constitutional Rights New York, NY, Philip I. Irwin, Esq. --
pirwin@cov.com -- Eric Hellerman, Esq. -- ehellerman@cov.com --
Gretchen Hoff Varner, Esq. -- ghoffvarner@cov.com -- Kasey
Martini, Esq. -- kmartini@cov.com -- Bruce Corey, Jr., Esq. --
bcorey@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP, New York, NY, Jonathan
Moore, Esq. -- jmoore@blhny.com -- Jenn Rolnick Borchetta, Esq. --
Jborchetta@blhny.com -- Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP, New York,
NY, for Floyd Plaintiffs.

Brenda Cooke, Linda Donahue, Heidi Grossman, Morgan Kunz, Joseph
Marutollo, Suzanna Publicker, Lisa Richardson, Cecilia Silver,
Judson Vickers, Richard Weingarten, Mark Zuckerman, Assistant
Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department, New York, NY,
for Ligon and Floyd Defendants.


NONG SHIM: Sued Over Alleged Korean Noodle Price-Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------
Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that in recent
years, large plaintiffs shops have sued Asian manufacturers for
alleged price-fixing of products including optical disk drives,
LCD screens and lithium ion batteries.

The latest collusion conspiracy outlined in a Northern District
complaint targets something less high tech -- noodles.

Burlingame-based Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy has sued four leading
Korean noodle companies alleging they cooked up a plot to charge
more for their instant meals, hiking prices 54 percent over seven
years.  S.F. solo Steven Sherman and Reich Radcliffe & Kuttler of
Newport Beach filed follow-on suits on Sept. 17.

The suits capitalize on a July 2012 order issued by the Korean
Fair Trade Commission, which found that noodle makers Nong Shim
Co., Ottogi Co., Samyang Foods Co. and Korea Yakult colluded to
raise prices and ordered them to pay a total of $120 million.  In
a report explaining its findings, the Korean government detailed
how the companies raised prices six times between 2001 and 2008.
In addition to swapping hundreds of emails, the companies
solidified their plans at the Ramen Conference, an industry
meeting.

"The March 2008 Ramen Conference ensured that the raised prices
remained inflated in the future," Cotchett partner Steven Williams
-- swilliams@cpmlegal.com -- wrote in Pitco Foods v. Nong Shim
Co., 13-4148.

The firm represents lead plaintiff Pitco Foods, a San Jose-based
wholesaler that claims it purchased noodles at inflated prices as
a result of the scheme.  Although the companies were allegedly
conspiring in Korea, Mr. Williams argues that the effects of their
scheme spilled over to the United States.

"During the class period, the South Korean defendants shipped
price-fixed Korean noodles directly to their wholly owned and
controlled subsidiaries in the United States for resale in this
country," the complaint states.

The Korean noodle makers had set their sights on American
consumers to drive up sales, the complaint alleges.  Nong Shim,
for example, drew 34.1 percent of its sales outside of Korea from
the U.S.

But American consumers were clueless about the companies' scheme
to inflate prices, the complaint alleges.  The Korean companies
took the unusual step of issuing press releases before they raised
prices, attributing the hikes to the soaring costs of ingredients.
Because the companies covered up their collusion with false
statements, plaintiffs' claims should not be subject to statutes
of limitations, Pitco Foods argues.

"When a party speaks on a subject matter, it must speak the whole
truth," the complaint states.

The Cotchett firm has been on a pricefixing tear.  Earlier this
month, the firm, which is co-lead class counsel in the lithium
battery MDL, filed another antitrust suit in the Northern
District, this time alleging that a group of companies in the
vehicle carrier industry conspired to raise the price of their
services.  That suit is Tuan Nguyen v. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki
Kaisha, 13-4245.


OHR PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Dismisses Amended "Schmidt" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Berle M. Schiller granted motions to dismiss an
amended complaint in ALAN SCHMIDT, Plaintiff, v. JOHN A. SKOLAS,
et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-3265, (E.D. Pa.).

Alan Schmidt, a former shareholder of Genaera Corporation and a
former unitholder of the Genaera Liquidating Trust, filed an
Amended Verified Class Action and Shareholder Derivative Complaint
for Damages and Rescission of Sales of Assets to Ohr and Dipexium
against John A. Skolas, Leanne Kelly, John L. Armstrong, Jr., Zola
B. Horovitz, Osagie O. Imasogie, Mitchell D. Kaye, Robert F.
Shapiro, Paul K. Wotton, Robert DeLuccia, Griffin Securities,
David Luci, Steve Rouhandeh, Jeffrey Davis, Mark Alvino, GLT,
Biotechnology Value Fund, Inc., Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Xmark Capital Partners, LLC, Argyce LLC, Ohr Pharmaceuticals, John
L. Higgins, Genaera, SCO Financial Group, Dipexium
Pharmaceuticals, LLC, MacroChem Corporation, Access
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Mark N. Lampert for breach of their
fiduciary duties, as well as aiding and abetting thereof, arising
out of the liquidation of Genaera.

Eight groups of Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint
on grounds including statute of limitations and lack of personal
jurisdiction.

A copy of the District Court's August 12, 2013 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/Bv30W1from Leagle.com.

ALAN SCHMIDT, Plaintiff, represented by BRIAN J. MCCORMICK, JR. --
bjmccormick@sheller.com -- SHELLER PC, GARRY T. STEVENS, JR. --
garry@sfclasslaw.com -- SQUITIERI & FEARON LLP & LEE SQUITIERI,
SQUITIERI & FEARON LLP.

JOHN A. SKOLAS, Defendant, represented by CAROLYN E. BUDZINSKI --
carolyn.budzinski@dechert.com -- DECHERT LLP & MICHAEL L. KICHLINE
-- michael.kichline@dechert.com -- DECHERT LLP.

LEANNE KELLY, Defendant, represented by CAROLYN E. BUDZINSKI,
DECHERT LLP & MICHAEL L. KICHLINE, DECHERT LLP.

JOHN L. ARMSTRONG, JR., Defendant, represented by CAROLYN E.
BUDZINSKI, DECHERT LLP & MICHAEL L. KICHLINE, DECHERT LLP.

ZOLA B. HOROVITZ, PH.D., Defendant, represented by CAROLYN E.
BUDZINSKI, DECHERT LLP & MICHAEL L. KICHLINE, DECHERT LLP.

OSAGIE O. IMASOGIE, Defendant, represented by CAROLYN E.
BUDZINSKI, DECHERT LLP & MICHAEL L. KICHLINE, DECHERT LLP.

MITCHELL D. KAYE, Defendant, represented by ALFRED W. ZAHER --
Zaher@BlankRome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP, DONALD A. CORBETT --
dcorbett@lowenstein.com -- LOWENSTEIN SANDLER PC, RICHARD C.
WOLTER -- rwolter@lowenstein.com -- LOWENSTEIN SANDLER PC &
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL GUTH -- Guth@BlankRome.com -- BLANK ROME, LLP.

ROBERT F. SHAPIRO, Defendant, represented by CAROLYN E. BUDZINSKI,
DECHERT LLP & MICHAEL L. KICHLINE, DECHERT LLP.

PAUL K. WOTTON, Defendant, represented by CAROLYN E. BUDZINSKI,
DECHERT LLP & MICHAEL L. KICHLINE, DECHERT LLP.

ROBERT DELUCCIA, Defendant, represented by DENEAN K. STURINO --
dsturino@ohaganlaw.com -- O'HAGAN SPENCER LLC, JOSEPH E. VAUGHAN
-- jvaughan@ohaganlaw.com -- O'HAGAN LLC & AMY C. LACHOWICZ --
alachowicz@ohaganlaw.com -- O'HAGAN LLC.

DAVID LUCI, Defendant, represented by DENEAN K. STURINO, O'HAGAN
SPENCER LLC, JOSEPH E. VAUGHAN, O'HAGAN LLC & AMY C. LACHOWICZ,
O'HAGAN LLC.

STEVE ROUHANDEH, Defendant, represented by JOHN S. SUMMERS --
jsummers@hangley.com -- HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL & PUDLIN, JORDAN
D. HERSHMAN -- jordan.hershman@bingham.com -- BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN
LLP, MICHAEL D. BLANCHARD -- michael.blanchard@bingham.com --
BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP, CHRISTOPHER M. WASIL --
christopher.wasil@bingham.com -- BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP & ROBERT
WIYGUL -- rwiygul@hangley.com -- HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL & PUDLIN.

JEFFREY DAVIS, Defendant, represented by JOHN S. SUMMERS, HANGLEY
ARONCHICK SEGAL & PUDLIN, JORDAN D. HERSHMAN, BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN
LLP, MICHAEL D. BLANCHARD, BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP, CHRISTOPHER M.
WASIL, BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP & ROBERT WIYGUL, HANGLEY ARONCHICK
SEGAL & PUDLIN.

MARK ALVINO, Defendant, represented by JOHN S. SUMMERS, HANGLEY
ARONCHICK SEGAL & PUDLIN, JORDAN D. HERSHMAN, BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN
LLP, MICHAEL D. BLANCHARD, BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP, CHRISTOPHER M.
WASIL, BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP & ROBERT WIYGUL, HANGLEY ARONCHICK
SEGAL & PUDLIN.

GENAERA LIQUIDATING TRUST, Defendant, represented by CAROLYN E.
BUDZINSKI, DECHERT LLP.

BIOTECHNOLOGY VALUE FUND, INC., Defendant, represented by JEFFREY
G. WEIL -- jweil@cozen.com -- COZEN O'CONNOR, JOSEPH P. DEVER --
jdever@cozen.com -- JR., COZEN O'CONNOR & TAMAR S. WISE --
twise@cozen.com -- COZEN O'CONNOR.

LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant, represented by COLLEEN C.
SMITH -- colleen.smith@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, JOHN T.
RYAN, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP & PAUL G. NOFER -- pnofer@klehr.com --
KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG LLP.

XMARK CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant, represented by ALFRED W.
ZAHER, BLANK ROME LLP, DONALD A. CORBETT, LOWENSTEIN SANDLER PC,
RICHARD C. WOLTER, LOWENSTEIN SANDLER PC & CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL
GUTH, BLANK ROME, LLP.

ARGYCE LLC, Defendant, represented by CAROLYN E. BUDZINSKI,
DECHERT LLP & MICHAEL L. KICHLINE, DECHERT LLP.

OHR PHARMACEUTICALS, Defendant, represented by ABRAHAM J. REIN,
POST & SCHELL PC & JONATHAN M. PROMAN, HAHN & HESSEN LLP.
JOHN L. HIGGINS, Defendant, represented by COLLEEN C. SMITH,
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, JOHN T. RYAN, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP & PAUL G.
NOFER, KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG LLP.

GENAERA CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by CAROLYN E.
BUDZINSKI, DECHERT LLP & MICHAEL L. KICHLINE, DECHERT LLP.
DIPEXIUM PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, Defendant, represented by DENEAN K.
STURINO, O'HAGAN SPENCER LLC, JOSEPH E. VAUGHAN, O'HAGAN LLC & AMY
C. LACHOWICZ, O'HAGAN LLC.

MACROCHEM CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JOHN S. SUMMERS,
HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL & PUDLIN, JORDAN D. HERSHMAN, BINGHAM
MCCUTCHEN LLP, MICHAEL D. BLANCHARD, BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP,
CHRISTOPHER M. WASIL, BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP & ROBERT WIYGUL,
HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL & PUDLIN.

ACCESS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant, represented by JOHN S.
SUMMERS, HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL & PUDLIN, JORDAN D. HERSHMAN,
BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP, MICHAEL D. BLANCHARD, BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN
LLP, CHRISTOPHER M. WASIL, BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP & ROBERT WIYGUL,
HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL & PUDLIN.

MARK N. LAMPERTBVF INC., Defendant, represented by JEFFREY G.
WEIL, COZEN O'CONNOR, JOSEPH P. DEVER, JR., COZEN O'CONNOR & TAMAR
S. WISE, COZEN O'CONNOR.


PATH: Faces Class Action Over Alleged TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for Online Media Daily, reports that for the
third time this year, mobile social network Path has been hit with
a potential class-action lawsuit for allegedly spamming cell phone
users.

In this latest case, San Diego resident Karen Montes alleges that
the company sent her a message stating that someone else --
Paris Tobin -- wants to share photos with her on Path.  Ms. Montes
says that Path's message violates the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, which prohibits companies from using automated
dialers to send SMS ads to people's cell phones without their
consent.  Ms. Montes filed suit in the Southern District of
California and is seeking class-action status.

Earlier this year, Illinois resident Kevin Sterk filed a similar
lawsuit, which is now pending in federal court in that state.  A
second case, filed this summer by other consumers, was recently
withdrawn without prejudice -- meaning that the consumers can
bring it again.

Path has moved to dismiss Mr. Sterk's case, arguing that it didn't
initiate the message sent to him, but merely transmitted it on
behalf of Mr. Sterk's friend.  The company adds that the message's
content -- telling him that his friend wanted to share photos with
him -- proves "it was solely an informational text message," as
opposed to an ad.

But Mr. Sterk counters in court papers that the text message
linked to Path's site, which urged him to "submit personal
information and register an account for Path's services."

Path also contends that it doesn't use the type of automated
dialing service covered by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
That matter is pending in front of U.S. District Court Judge
Samuel Der-Yeghiayan in the Northern District of California.

Path is one of many companies to face litigation allegedly
violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Yahoo, Viacom
and Google are among a host of others to face text-spam lawsuits.
Google recently agreed to pay $6 million to settle a lawsuit
alleging that its social apps company Slide used an automated
dialing service to send SMS messages to people without first
obtaining their consent.


PETROCHINA COMPANY: Pomerantz Firm Files Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Sept. 20
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against The
Petrochina Company Ltd. and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, and docketed under 13-cv-6180, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Petrochina between April 26, 2012
and August 27, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks
to recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Petrochina securities
during the Class Period, you have until November 2, 2013 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, 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.

Petrochina is China's largest oil and gas producer and
distributor, playing a dominant role in the oil and gas industry
in the People's Republic of China.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and financial performance.  Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company's senior officials were in non-compliance
with the Company's corporate governance directives and code of
ethics; (2) as a result, the Company was subject to investigation
and disciplinary action by various governmental and regulatory
authorities; (3) the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading as they contained direct
references to the Company's Code of Ethics, and statements
regarding its compliance with regulations and internal governance
policies; (4) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and (5), as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

Then, on August 27, 2013, the Company announced that the State-
Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC),
which oversees China's state companies, launched an investigation
of three senior officials, Vice-President and Secretary to the
Board of Directors, Li Hualin, Executive Director and Vice-
President Ran Xinquan, and PetroChina chief geologist Wang Daofu,
for "severe breaches of discipline", a code word for corruption in
the PRC. The company further reported that all three officials had
resigned their positions effective immediately.  As a result of
this investigation, trading in Petrochina shares was halted on
August 27, 2013.

On this news, Petrochina shares declined $3.92 per share, or over
3.5%, to close at $107.82 on August 28, 2013.

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

CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby
         Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP
         rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


PEYTO EXPLORATION: Aware of Potential New Open Range Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peyto Exploration & Development Corp. on Sept. 20 disclosed that
it has received correspondence from a law firm representing two
shareholders of Poseidon Concepts Corp. advising that such counsel
has been instructed to finalize and file an application to seek
leave of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench to pursue a class
action lawsuit against Peyto, as a successor to new Open Range
Energy Corp.

The proposed action contains various claims relating to alleged
misrepresentations in disclosure documents of Poseidon (not New
Open Range), which claims are also alleged in class action
lawsuits filed in February 2013 against Poseidon and certain of
its current and former directors and officers, and underwriters
involved in a public offering of common shares of Poseidon
completed in February 2012.

Pursuant to a plan of arrangement announced on September 6, 2011
and completed on November 1, 2011, Poseidon (formerly named Open
Range Energy Corp.) completed a corporate reorganization resulting
in two completely separate publicly-traded companies: Poseidon,
which continued to carry on the energy service and supply
business; and New Open Range, a corporation incorporated on
September 14, 2011 for purposes of participating in the
arrangement, which carried on Poseidon's former oil and gas
exploration and production business.  Peyto acquired all of the
issued and outstanding common shares of New Open Range
approximately one year later, on August 14, 2012.  On April 9,
2013, Poseidon obtained creditor protection under the Companies'
Creditor Protection Act.

Among the allegations in the proposed class action are that New
Open Range (a separate and distinct legal entity from Poseidon)
knowingly influenced Poseidon, or persons acting on behalf of
Poseidon, to release certain disclosure documents which are
alleged to include misrepresentations, or influenced the directors
or officers of Poseidon to authorize, permit or acquiesce in such
release.  The proposed class action seeks various declarations and
damages including compensatory damages which the plaintiffs
estimate at $651 million and punitive damages which the plaintiffs
estimate at $10 million, which damage amounts appear to be
duplicative of damage amounts claimed in the class actions against
Poseidon, certain of its current and former directors and
officers, and underwriters involved in a public offering of common
shares of Poseidon completed in February 2012.

The application seeking leave to pursue the proposed class action
against Peyto has not been filed.  If the application is filed,
Peyto intends to vigorously oppose the application.  Peyto
believes the claims against it (as successor to the newly formed
New Open Range) are unprecedented and are without merit.  If,
despite Peyto's opposition, the application to pursue the proposed
class action is granted, the proposed class action still cannot
proceed unless certified by the Court.  Such certification will
also be strongly opposed, as will all steps the plaintiffs may
take to pursue such a claim against Peyto.  Peyto will continue to
aggressively protect its interests and the interests of its
shareholders and will seek all available legal remedies against
the plaintiffs, including recovery of all costs incurred by Peyto
in defending the threatened action.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Still Faces Suits by Electric Service Customers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company continues to face suits filed in
Marion County Circuit Court on behalf of two classes of electric
service customers, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed in Marion
County Circuit Court against PGE in 2003 on behalf of two classes
of electric service customers. The class action lawsuits seek
damages totaling $260 million, plus interest, as a result of the
Company's inclusion, in prices charged to customers, of a return
on its investment in Trojan.

In 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling ordering the
abatement of the class action proceedings until the Public Utility
Commission of Oregon (OPUC) responded to the 2002 Order. The
Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the OPUC has primary
jurisdiction to determine what, if any, remedy can be offered to
PGE customers, through price reductions or refunds, for any amount
of return on the Trojan investment that the Company collected in
prices.

[2002 Order: In 2000, PGE entered into agreements to settle the
litigation related to recovery of, and return on, its investment
in Trojan. The settlement, which was approved by the OPUC, allowed
PGE to remove from its balance sheet the remaining investment in
Trojan as of September 30, 2000, along with several largely
offsetting regulatory liabilities. After offsetting the investment
in Trojan with these liabilities, the remaining Trojan regulatory
asset balance of approximately $5 million (after tax) was
expensed. As a result of the settlement, PGE's investment in
Trojan was no longer included in prices charged to customers,
either through a return of or a return on that investment. The
Utility Reform Project (URP) did not participate in the settlement
and filed a complaint with the OPUC challenging the settlement
agreements. In 2002, the OPUC issued an order (2002 Order) denying
all of the URP's challenges. In 2007, following several appeals by
various parties, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued an opinion
that remanded the 2002 Order to the OPUC for reconsideration.]

The Oregon Supreme Court further stated that if the OPUC
determined that it can provide a remedy to PGE's customers, then
the class action proceedings may become moot in whole or in part.
The Oregon Supreme Court added that, if the OPUC determined that
it cannot provide a remedy, the court system may have a role to
play. The Oregon Supreme Court also ruled that the plaintiffs
retain the right to return to the Marion County Circuit Court for
disposition of whatever issues remain unresolved from the remanded
OPUC proceedings. The Marion County Circuit Court subsequently
abated the class actions in response to the ruling of the Oregon
Supreme Court.

On February 6, 2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued an opinion
that upheld the 2008 Order [The OPUC then issued an order in 2008
(2008 Order) that required PGE to provide refunds, including
interest from September 30, 2000, to customers who received
service from the Company during the period from October 1, 2000 to
September 30, 2001]. Because the opinion remains subject to a
possible appeal by the plaintiffs and the class actions described
remain pending, management believes that it is reasonably possible
that the regulatory proceedings and class actions could result in
a loss to the Company in excess of the amounts previously recorded
and discussed. Because these matters involve unsettled legal
theories and have a broad range of potential outcomes, sufficient
information is currently not available to determine PGE's
potential liability, if any, or to estimate a range of potential
loss.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Plaintiffs Balk at $33.1MM Refund Order
---------------------------------------------------------
Class Action Plaintiffs filed petitions with the Oregon Supreme
Court seeking review of the decision by the Oregon Court of
Appeals to uphold an order requiring Portland General Electric
Company to refund $33.1 million to customers, according to the
company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The suit is Citizens' Utility Board of Oregon v. Public Utility
Commission of Oregon and Utility Reform Project and Colleen
O'Neill v. Public Utility Commission of Oregon, Public Utility
Commission of Oregon Docket Nos. DR 10, UE 88, and UM 989, Marion
County Oregon Circuit Court, Case No. 94C-10417, the Court of
Appeals of the State of Oregon, the Oregon Supreme Court, Case No.
SC S45653.

As a result of its reconsideration of the Settlement Order, the
OPUC issued an order in September 2008 that required PGE to refund
$33.1 million to customers. The Company completed the distribution
of the refund to customers, plus accrued interest, as required.

In October 2008, the URP and the Class Action Plaintiffs
separately appealed the September 2008 OPUC order to the Oregon
Court of Appeals. On February 6, 2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals
issued an opinion that upheld the September 2008 OPUC order. On
May 31, 2013, the Court of Appeals denied the appellants' April 3,
2103 request for reconsideration. On July 25, 2013, the appellants
filed petitions with the Oregon Supreme Court seeking review of
the February 6, 2013 Oregon Court of Appeals decision.


QANTAS AIRWAYS: Mediation in Air Freight Fixing Suit Set for Nov.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that a dozen international
airlines including Qantas will be taken to the Federal Court next
year over allegations of fixing air freight surcharges.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn filed a class action against the
airlines in February 2007.

Qantas, Air New Zealand, Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific,
British Airways and Lufthansa Cargo are alleged to have engaged in
cartel conduct between January 2000 and early 2007.  The class
action seeks damages on behalf of air freight customers who paid
more than AU$20,000 to have goods transported to Australia.

"This has been a long haul, but we are determined to see the group
of members, mostly shippers of freight from small businesses to
large multinationals, get compensation for the losses they allege
they suffered at the hands of this notorious cartel," Maurice
Blackburn principal Brooke Dellaveodova said in a statement.

Justice John Middleton has ordered the parties to attend mediation
on November 25 and 26, ahead of a Federal Court hearing set to
start in October 2014.

Maurice Blackburn are operating on a "no win, no charge" basis
with litigation firm IMF Australia.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has been
investigating possible price collusion among the airlines for many
years, resulting in fines of nearly AU$100 million.

                           *     *     *

The Malaysian Insider reports that Malaysia Airlines and
Singapore's SIA are among several international airlines named in
a class action filed in 2007 in Australia.  They will be taken to
the Federal Court next year over allegations of fixing air freight
surcharges, Bernama quoted law firm Maurice Blackburn as saying.

The court recently granted leave to some of the defendants to
cross-claim against other airlines, including Malaysian Airlines
Cargo Sdn Bhd.


REVEL ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Class Suit Over Refund Promises
----------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Cheryl Armstrong reports that
an Atlantic City casino made millions by promising gamblers that
it would refund their slot machine losses, but it never paid up, a
class claims in Federal Court.

Revel Entertainment Group LLC and Chatham Asset Management LLC are
the co-owners and operators of Revel Atlantic City Hotel, Resort &
Casino.

After posting losses of $149 million last year, the companies
aggressively promoted "Gamblers Wanted" this past summer to
attract more customers and emerge from bankruptcy, according to
the complaint.

"This marketing campaign was conducted during June and July 2013
through various media outlets, including advertisements on
television, radio, internet and outdoor posters and billboards,"
the complaint states.

During July 2013, Revel allegedly promised customers that it would
"refund all losses over $100 incurred at the Revel slot machines."

Various advertisements ran that stated one of the following: "If
you lose we'll give it all back," "In July refund all slot
losses," "In July, you can't lose" and "All July slot losses
refunded," the complaint states.

Lead plaintiffs Margaret and Nicholas Peragine say the campaign
was a hit, bringing consumers from all over to the Revel Casino in
Atlantic City.

"Revel's gross gaming revenue increased 33%, gross table revenue
increased 36% and slot machine revenue increased 32% when compared
to July 2012," according to the complaint.  "Upon information and
belief, Revel's slot machine revenue in July 2012 was
approximately $17.5 million."

The Peragines said they visited the Revel in July 2013 to "take
advantage" of the defendants' promotion and both lost more than
$100 on the slot machines.

When they contacted Revel to receive their refund, however, a
representative allegedly told them that "they would receive slot
play dollars instead of cash and that the slot play dollars had no
cash value and could only be used by gambling at the Revel Casino
slot machines."

The representative also told them that a flyer would be mailed to
each of them further explaining the refund process, according to
the complaint.

"The flyer stated that plaintiffs would receive their 'refund' in
the form of free slot play dollars in the amount of 5% of the
total loss incurred during July 2013," the Peragines claim.  "In
order to claim the free slot dollars, plaintiffs had to 'Come to
Revel each week to play [their] slot refund coupon."

To receive their $100 in slot play dollars, the Peragines
allegedly have to travel to the Revel for 20 straight weeks,
according to the complaint.  Missing a week would allegedly result
in the total and permanent forfeiture of that week's slot play
dollars.

"None of the 'Gamblers Wanted' campaign advertisements stated
there were any restrictions or limitations on the Slot Refund
Offer, other than that the Slot Refund Offer only applied to
losses of greater than $100 incurred during July 2013.  Some, but
not all, of defendants 'Gamblers Wanted' advertisements set forth
other limitations and restrictions in conflicting and virtually
unreadable fine print that was displayed too quickly for consumers
to read and/or displayed in a font too small to be readable," the
complaint states.

While the miniscule font flashed for two seconds on television and
Internet video advertisements, the online press release contained
no disclaimer, restrictions or limitations, and the radio
advertisements told listeners only to visit the Player's Club for
details, the Peragines say.

"A reasonable customer who viewed or heard defendants' 'Gamblers
Wanted' advertisements would interpret such advertisements to mean
that any slot losses incurred in excess of $100 during July 2013
would be immediately refunded to the customer in either cash or a
cash equivalent," the complaint states.

"Defendants' purposefully created and disseminated the 'Gamblers
Wanted' advertisements that promised refund slot losses during
July 2013 with the intention of never fulfilling such promises."

The class seeks punitive damages for violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, the New Jersey Truth-In-Consumer Contract, the
Warranty and Notice Act, and the New York General Business Law, as
well as breach of contract, unjust enrichment and bad faith.

Chatham Asset Management declined to comment on the pending
litigation, while Revel Entertainment Group did not return a
request for comment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The case is Peragine, et al. v. Revel Entertainment Group LLC, et
al., Case No. 1:13-cv-05451-NLH-AMD, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey (Camden).


RITE AID: "Moore" and "Goode" Suits Are Related, Judge Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal judge refused to assign a class action accusing
Rite Aid of using an illegal LexisNexis background check on
prospective employees to a new judge, saying it's similar enough
to a case already before him.

U.S. District Judge Jan DuBois in Philadelphia said the newer
class action, filed in March, "shares a central core of common
facts" with a 2011 class action filed against LexisNexis Risk &
Information Analytics Group.

"Both are putative class actions concerning LexisNexis's
employment adjudications using the Esteem database," DuBois wrote,
referring to a LexisNexis database that classifies individuals as
thieves based on alleged "admission statements" submitted by
employers.

In the March lawsuit against Rite Aid and LexisNexis Search
Solutions Inc., lead plaintiff Kyra Moore claimed the retailer
refused to hire her when a background check using the Esteem
database deemed her "noncompetitive."  She said she'd never stolen
from her previous employer, CVS, but may have set aside some items
for future purchase that were later put back on the shelves or
taken by someone else.

Moore designated the case as related to Goode v. LexisNexis Risk &
Information Analytics Group Inc., an action filed by former Forman
Mills and Dollar General employees also accused of theft.

The plaintiffs in that lawsuit accuse LexisNexis of violating the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by denying them the opportunity
to contest the Esteem reports.  They say LexisNexis has a
"contractual quid pro quo" arrangement with subscribers, whereby
Esteem subscribers are required to contribute new records of theft
incidents in exchange for database access to vet job applicants.

DuBois refused to dismiss the Goode case last year.

In a five-page order dated September 10, 2013, he rejected motions
by Rite Aid and LexisNexis to have Moore's complaint randomly
assigned to another judge and to strike its designation as related
to the Goode complaint.

"Rite Aid asserts that Goode and Moore are unrelated because of
differences in the parties, allegations, time period, and
requested remedies," DuBois wrote.  "By concentrating on how the
cases diverge, defendant's arguments miss the mark: related cases
need not be identical."

The two cases are related, he said, because they "contain a
central event with a core of similarity."

"The central legal question in each is whether LexisNexis's
employment evaluations, as structured, violate provisions of the
FCRA.  Whether LexisNexis or its clients are alleged to have
violated the FCRA, LexisNexis's practices when collecting
information, creating reports, and providing notice are at issue
in the two cases," DuBois wrote.

"In short, the cases are related because the harm alleged to have
been sustained by both putative classes stems from the same facts-
the use of LexisNexis's employment adjudication services and
whether such conduct violates the FCRA," he concluded.

Rite Aid, the country's third-largest retail drugstore chain,
reportedly operated 4,623 stores and made more than $25 million in
revenue in 2012 as of March.  The 4,100-employee LexisNexis Risk
Solutions reported nearly $1.5 billion in revenue in 2012.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Searles, Esq.
          Erin Amanda Novak, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          James A. Francis, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          Land Title Building, 19th Floor
          100 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          E-mail: dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com
                  enovak@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Irv Ackelsberg, Esq.
          LANGER GROGAN & DIVER PC
          Three Logan Square
          1717 Arch St., Suite 4130
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 320-5660
          Facsimile: (215) 320-5703
          E-mail: iackelsberg@langergrogan.com


          Nadia Hewka, Esq.
          Sharon M. Dietrich, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES
          1424 Chestnut St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 981-3793
          Facsimile: (215) 981-0434
          E-mail: nhewka@clsphila.org
                  sdietrich@clsphila.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jonathan D. Wetchler, Esq.
          Alison C. Morris, Esq.
          Caroline Austin, Esq.
          Sean Zabaneh, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          30 South 17th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 979-1886
          Facsimile: (215) 405-3734
          E-mail: jwetchler@duanemorris.com
                  acmorris@duanemorris.com
                  caustin@duanemorris.com
                  sszabaneh@duanemorris.com

The case is Moore v. Rite Aid Hdqtrs Corp. et al., Case No. 2:13-
cv-01515-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).


SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Sued by Sale Agents of Zaltrap(R) Over Bonus
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Overton and Merribeth Bazzell, individually, and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S.,
LLC d/b/a Sanofi US, Case No. 3:13-cv-05535-PGS-DEA (D.N.J.,
September 17, 2013) is brought on behalf of all current or former
employees of Sanofi, who were eligible to receive commissions,
bonuses, payments, benefits, or other compensation related to the
sales of Zaltrap(R) in the third and fourth quarters of 2012.

The Wage Payment Law required Sanofi to give advance notice to the
Plaintiffs and Class Members of any change in the method by which
his or her compensation was calculated, before putting the change
into effect, the Plaintiffs note.  In violation of the Wage
Payment Law, Sanofi retroactively changed the agreed-upon uncapped
pay-per-vial commission structure the day before compensation
checks were owed and almost three months after the conclusion of
the pay period for this compensation was earned, the Plaintiffs
allege.

Lisa Overton is a resident of Glen Allen, Virginia.  She was
employed by Sanofi as an Oncology Key Account Lead for the
Washington D.C. sales territory.  Merribeth Bazzell is a resident
of Mandeville, Louisiana.  She was employed by Sanofi as Senior
Clinical Product Specialist, Oncology, for the New Orleans
territory.  The Plaintiffs and Class Members were employed by
Sanofi to, among other things, promote and sell Zaltrap(R), which
was being launched in the United States in August 2012.

Sanofi is a Delaware limited liability corporation doing business
as Sanofi US.  The Company is engaged in research, development,
manufacturing, marketing and sales of a variety of pharmaceutical
and healthcare products in New Jersey and throughout the United
States of America.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam M. Slater, Esq.
          Matthew Ross Mendelsohn, Esq.
          MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN LLC
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 228-9898
          E-mail: aslater@mskf.net
                  mmendelsohn@mskf.net


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Ruling in Lead Paint Suit Expected by Year-End
----------------------------------------------------------------
James R. Hagerty and Dionne Searcey at The Wall Street Journal
report that lawyers for makers of house paint were due to make
their final arguments on Sept. 23 in an effort to avoid a court
ruling requiring them to spend as much as $2.5 billion to remove
lead paint from hundreds of thousands of homes in California.

While makers of cigarettes and products containing asbestos have
been required to pay billions of dollars in damages to people hurt
by those items, paint companies so far have been successful in
fending off lawsuits blaming them for the health problems of
people exposed to lead.  Since 1978, the use of lead has been
banned in residential paint in the U.S.  Lawsuits have failed in
Rhode Island, Missouri, Illinois, New Jersey and Wisconsin, often
because plaintiffs couldn't establish that lead was a public
nuisance, a legal standard that requires them to show the product
interferes with public health and safety.

The 13-year-old court battle in California marks one of the most
ambitious legal challenges yet for the paint industry.  The case
finally went to trial in mid-July in a state Superior Court in San
Jose.  The judge, James Kleinberg, who is presiding over the case
without a jury, is expected to issue his ruling before year-end.

Asbestos cases are brought by individuals suffering from illnesses
such as mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lungs that
most doctors believe is caused solely by asbestos exposure.
Similar suits against tobacco makers that were brought by
individuals flopped, but the litigation was successful when state
attorneys general began suing tobacco defendants in the 1990s, and
a massive settlement was reached.

Plaintiffs in lead-paint litigation have struggled to get the
courts to accept that lead is a public nuisance, but in California
the courts have allowed the lawsuit to proceed as a public-
nuisance case, though plaintiffs will still have to prove the
paint companies are liable.

The suit, filed by 10 city and county governments in California,
seeks a court order requiring the defendants -- current or former
makers or distributors of paint and pigments -- to pay to remove
lead-paint hazards from homes and other buildings in Los Angeles
County, San Francisco and other places where local governments
have joined the legal action.

The defendants are Sherwin-Williams Co., NL Industries Inc.,
ConAgra Grocery Products Co., DuPont Co. and Atlantic-Richfield
Co., which is owned by BP PLC.

Expert witnesses have said the cleanup efforts demanded by the
suit could cost between $1 billion and $2 billion.  Motley Rice, a
law firm that has reaped large fees in asbestos and tobacco
litigation, is representing the California plaintiffs on a
contingency-fee basis.

The suit says lead paint can "severely and permanently" damage
children's mental and physical development and alleges that the
defendants promoted the use of lead paint despite knowing about
the risks.

The suit quotes an internal Sherwin-Williams publication in 1904
describing lead in paint as "poisonous in a large degree, both for
the workmen and for the inhabitants of a house painted with lead
colors."  A lawyer for Sherwin-Williams said that remark was in an
article about a study that was later "disproven."

The city and county governments aren't seeking the complete
removal of lead paint from all homes.

Instead, they want lead paint to be replaced or sealed on
"friction surfaces," such as doors, windows and floors, where
frequent movement could dislodge the paint.

The defendants have argued that they couldn't have known 50 or
more years ago the full risks of lead, and that the use of lead
paint began declining after the 1920s as knowledge of the hazards
grew.  They say lead levels in children's blood in California
generally have declined to minuscule amounts.

They also note that old paint isn't the only source of lead risk
to children; gasoline containing lead, also now banned, left
residues in soil, for instance.

California already has an effective program to deal with
lead-paint hazards, the defendants argue, and the suit would
create an overlapping layer of regulation.  The cities and
counties respond that current government programs "lack the
resources to force homeowners to remove all lead paint from
homes."

The lawsuit argues that action is needed "before children are
harmed," rather than only after they are exposed to lead.

An unintended consequence, the defendants argue, is that landlords
might be less inclined to keep old homes properly painted and
maintained if they believe the industry would be required to pay
for a cleanup.

"This is a slumlord bailout," Antonio Dias -- afdias@jonesday.com
-- a Jones Day partner representing Sherwin-Williams, said in an
interview.

The defendants also say that efforts to remove old paint could
backfire by releasing hazardous material that now is buried under
layers of modern, lead-free paint.  The plaintiffs say hazards can
be removed safely.

Christopher Connor, chief executive of Sherwin-Williams, told
analysts in July that the industry's past legal victories in Rhode
Island and other states provide precedents for the California
battle.

Sherwin-Williams hasn't created a reserve to pay for a possible
court-ordered cleanup, he said, adding:

"We've never created a reserve for lead lawsuits."


STELLARONE CORP: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------
StellarOne Corporation is facing a merger-related class action
lawsuit in Virginia, according to the Company's August 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On June 9, 2013, StellarOne Corporation ("StellarOne") and Union
First Market Bankshares Corporation ("Union") entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement")
pursuant to which StellarOne will merge with and into Union (the
"Merger").

In June 2013, a purported shareholder of StellarOne filed a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Virginia captioned "Jaclyn Crescente v. StellarOne Corporation, et
als."  This lawsuit names StellarOne, members of StellarOne's
board of directors, and Union First Market Bankshares Corporation
as defendants, and is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative
class of StellarOne's common shareholders and seeks a declaration
that the lawsuits are properly maintainable as a class action with
the named plaintiff as the proper class representative. The
lawsuit alleges that StellarOne, StellarOne's board of directors,
and Union First Market Bankshares Corporation breached duties
and/or aided and abetted such breaches by failing to properly
value the shares of StellarOne and agreeing to certain terms of
the transaction.  StellarOne believes that the claims are without
merit.

StellarOne Corporation -- http://www.stellarone.com/-- is a
Virginia bank holding company headquartered in Charlottesville,
Virginia.  The Company's sole banking affiliate is StellarOne Bank
headquartered in Christiansburg, Virginia.  Additional
subsidiaries include VFG Limited Liability Trust and FNB (VA)
Statutory Trust II, both of which are associated with the
Company's subordinated debt issues.


SUBURBAN PROPANE: Defends Class Suit Alleging Consumer Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Suburban Propane Partners, L.P., is defending itself against a a
class action lawsuit alleging contractual and consumer statute
claims, according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 29, 2013.

Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership") currently is a
defendant in a putative class action in which the court has denied
class certification without prejudice.  The Partnership believes
such lawsuit is without merit.  In the putative class action, the
Partnership has been successful in eliminating several of the
claims such that only certain contractual and consumer statute
claims remain.  The Partnership is contesting this putative class
action vigorously and has determined, based on the allegations and
discovery to date, that no reserve for a loss contingency other
than for legal defense fees and expenses is required.  The
Partnership is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, arising from this litigation.

Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. is a publicly traded Delaware
limited partnership principally engaged, through its operating
partnership and subsidiaries, in the retail marketing and
distribution of propane, fuel oil and refined fuels, as well as
the marketing of natural gas and electricity in deregulated
markets.  The Company is headquartered in Whippany, New Jersey.


SUBURBAN PROPANE: Settlement Proceeds Distribution Began Aug. 7
---------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of settlement proceeds to class members commenced on
August 7, 2013, according to Suburban Propane Partners, L.P.'s
August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2013.

The operations of Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. (the
"Partnership") are subject to operating hazards and risks normally
incidental to handling, storing and delivering combustible liquids
such as propane.  The Partnership has been, and will continue to
be, a defendant in various legal proceedings and litigation as a
result of these operating hazards and risks, and as a result of
other aspects of its business.  In this last regard, on May 9,
2013, a California trial court approved the settlement of a class
action in which were alleged several claims relating to two fees
charged by the Partnership in connection with its residential
propane business in California.  During the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2012, to avoid both the continued expenses and burden of
defending that action and the uncertainty inherent in all
litigations, the Partnership entered into an agreement to settle
that California action on a class-wide basis in return for the
payment of a monetary sum and certain non-monetary consideration,
and established an accrual of $4.5 million for the estimated cost
of the settlement.  Distribution of settlement proceeds to the
class members commenced on August 7, 2013.

Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. is a publicly traded Delaware
limited partnership principally engaged, through its operating
partnership and subsidiaries, in the retail marketing and
distribution of propane, fuel oil and refined fuels, as well as
the marketing of natural gas and electricity in deregulated
markets.  The Company is headquartered in Whippany, New Jersey.


TOWER GROUP: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gardy & Notis, LLP on Sept. 20 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Case No. 13-CV-05852, on behalf of
Robert P. Lang, and all similarly-situated persons and entities
who purchased or acquired Tower Group International, Ltd. or its
predecessor company Tower Group Inc. common stock between July 30,
2012 and August 8, 2013, inclusive.  The action alleges that Tower
and certain of its executive officers committed violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Any Tower investor wishing to serve as lead plaintiff in the above
lawsuit must apply to the Court no later than October 21, 2013.
If you are a Tower shareholder and wish to discuss this lawsuit or
have any questions concerning your rights and interests, you may
contact our Firm by calling 212-905-0509, or contacting the
attorneys named below.

Tower is a Bermuda-based insurance and reinsurance holding company
that offers commercial, personal and specialty insurance products
and services in the U.S. through its U.S. insurance subsidiaries
and also offers reinsurance products globally.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period Tower and
certain controlling individuals of Tower made fraudulent material
misrepresentations and omissions regarding Tower's business and
operations.  Among other things, the complaint alleges that
defendants materially misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the
following adverse facts: (i) that the Company failed to properly
estimate its loss reserve provisions as required by Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles, and (ii) that the Company failed
to properly allocate its goodwill and certain deferred tax assets.

On August 7, 2013, Tower issued a press release announcing that it
was postponing the release of its financial results for the second
quarter of 2013 and its previously scheduled conference call to
discuss the results, originally scheduled for August 8, 2013.  In
the press release, the Company stated that, "additional time is
needed to review matters relating to the estimate of its loss
reserves and, primarily due to the integration of the Canopius
Bermuda merger, its allocation of goodwill and certain tax
accounts."  The Company also stated that it does not expect to
file its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013 by the required filing date of August 9, 2013.
On August 8, 2013, the Company provided guidance on its second
quarter 2013 results wherein it disclosed that the Company may
record adverse reserve development of 60 million to 110 million
pre-tax.  The Company also disclosed that it had hired an
independent actuarial firm to review selected areas of its loss
reserves as of June 30, 2013.  Following this news, the price of
Tower's shares dropped 5.20 per share, or more than 24%, to a
closing price of 16.41 per share on August 8, 2013.  On August 9,
2013, the Company filed a Notification of Late Filing on Form 12b-
25 with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  On
August 13, 2013, the rating agency A.M. Best Co. put the ratings
of the subsidiaries of Tower under review with negative outlook.
The negative rating action also reflects the ratings agency's
concern about an anticipated prior-year loss reserve charge of
approximately 60 million to 110 million pre-tax.  The Company's
results might suffer from reserve leverage and the increased
uncertainty with respect to future reserve charges.

On September 17, 2013, Tower announced that it planned to release
its second quarter 2013 financial results during the week of
October 7, 2013.  In the press release, Tower also reaffirmed that
it is not providing and does not expect to provide any information
with respect to its results for the second quarter, including the
amount of any adjustments for its estimates of loss reserves and
amounts of goodwill, until it releases its earnings for the second
quarter during the week of October 7, 2013.  As a result of this
news, shares of Tower closed down nearly 30% on September 18,
2013.

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

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

GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
Jonathan A. Adler, Esq.
501 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1408
New York, New York 10017
Telephone: 212-905-0509
E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com
Website: http://www.gardylaw.com


UMG RECORDINGS: Court Resolves Discovery Dispute in "James" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James issued an order regarding a
joint discovery dispute letter filed on July 18, 2012, in the case
captioned RICK JAMES, by and through THE JAMES AMBROSE JOHNSON,
JR., 1999 TRUST, his successor in interest, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UMG
RECORDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, NO. C 11-1613
SI (MEJ), (N.D. Cal.).

This is a consolidated putative class action for breach of
contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
and statutory violations of various state laws against defendant,
UMG Recordings, Inc., and its affiliated and subsidiary entities
filed by plaintiff recording artists and producers, who allege
that UMGR underpaid licensing royalties on digital downloads of
Plaintiffs' recordings by paying them at the lower "records sold"
rate, instead of at the higher "licensing" rate in their
contracts.

The parties have been unable to resolve their discovery disputes
without assistance from the Court.  The Court's August 29, 2013
Order concerns the most recent dispute, in which UMGR seeks an
order compelling further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 29-35.
These interrogatories seek information and damages calculations
concerning Plaintiffs' implied breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing claims.

A copy of the District Court's August 29, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/seoDnyfrom Leagle.com.

Rick James, Plaintiff, represented by Cecilia Han -- chan@lchb.com
-- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine & Given LLP, Eric B. Fastiff -- efastiff@lchb.com --
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,LLP, Kara M Wolke, Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Leonard B. Simon, The Law Offices of
Leonard B. Simon PC, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine & Given LLP,
Nicole Diane Reynolds, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Robyn C. Callahan, Phillips, Erlewine & Given LLP & Roger Norton
Heller, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Carlton Douglas Ridenhour, 11-5321, Plaintiff, represented by
David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine & Given LLP, Leonard B. Simon,
The Law Offices of Leonard B. Simon PC, Aaron M. Sheanin, Pearson,
Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Arthur Nash Bailey, Jr., Hausfeld LLP, Bruce
L. Simon, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson
Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bruce J. Wecker, Hausfeld LLP, Clifford H.
Pearson, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP, Daniel L. Warshaw, Pearson,
Simon & Warshaw, LLP, James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, Michael
Paul Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicole Diane Reynolds, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Robyn C. Callahan, Phillips, Erlewine &
Given LLP, Roger Norton Heller, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP & William James Newsom, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw,
LLP.

Dave Mason, 11-2431, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Hilary
Tuzin, Phillips Erlewine and Given LLP, Cecilia Han, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine &
Given LLP, Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein,LLP, Kara M Wolke, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Leonard
B. Simon, The Law Offices of Leonard B. Simon PC, Michael W.
Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas A. Carlin,
Phillips Erlewine & Given LLP, Nicole Diane Reynolds, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Robyn C. Callahan, Phillips,
Erlewine & Given LLP & Roger Norton Heller, Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein, LLP.

Whitesnake Productions (Overseas) Limited, 11-2431, Plaintiff,
represented by Alexander Hilary Tuzin, Phillips Erlewine and Given
LLP, Cecilia Han, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, David M.
Given, Phillips Erlewine & Given LLP, Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,LLP, Kara M Wolke, Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP, Leonard B. Simon, The Law Offices of Leonard B.
Simon PC, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine & Given LLP, Nicole Diane
Reynolds, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Robyn C.
Callahan, Phillips, Erlewine & Given LLP & Roger Norton Heller,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Ron Tyson, 12-1289, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron M. Sheanin,
Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Arthur Nash Bailey, Jr., Hausfeld
LLP, Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bruce J.
Wecker, Hausfeld LLP, Clifford H. Pearson, Pearson, Simon &
Warshaw LLP, Daniel L. Warshaw, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP,
David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine & Given LLP, Douglas Lowell
Johnson, Johnson & Johnson LLP, James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP,
James Timothy Ryan, Johnson & Rishwain LLP, Jeffrey Alan Koncius,
Leonard B. Simon, The Law Offices of Leonard B. Simon PC, Michael
D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld LLP, Michael Paul Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP,
Neville L. Johnson, Johnson & Johnson LLP, Raymond Paul Boucher,
Kiesel Boucher Larson LLP, William James Newsom, Pearson, Simon &
Warshaw, LLP, Nicole Diane Reynolds, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Robyn C. Callahan, Phillips, Erlewine & Given LLP
& Roger Norton Heller, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.
William McLean, Plaintiff, represented by Nicole Diane Reynolds --
nreynolds@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Robyn C. Callahan -- rcc@phillaw.com -- Phillips, Erlewine & Given
LLP, Roger Norton Heller -- rheller@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & David M. Given -- dmg@phillaw.com --
Phillips Erlewine & Given LLP.

Andres Titus, Plaintiff, represented by Nicole Diane Reynolds,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Robyn C. Callahan,
Phillips, Erlewine & Given LLP, Roger Norton Heller, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine & Given LLP.

Robert Walter "Bo" Donaldson, Plaintiff, represented by Nicole
Diane Reynolds, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Robyn C.
Callahan, Phillips, Erlewine & Given LLP, Roger Norton Heller,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine & Given LLP.

THE TUBES, 11-2431, Intervenor Pla, represented by David M. Given,
Phillips Erlewine & Given LLP, Elliot Perry Cahn, Law Ofc Elliot
Cahn & Nicole Diane Reynolds, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP.

UMG Recordings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey D. Goldman
-- JGoldman@JMBM.com -- Jeffer Mangels Butler Mitchell LLP, Brian
Meredith Yates -- BYates@JMBM.com -- Jeffer, Mangels, Butler &
Marmaro & Ryan Scott Mauck -- rmauck@jmbm.com -- Jeffer Mangels
Butler Mitchell LLP.


UNFI CANADA: Recalls Bob's Red Mill Sorghum Flour
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 18, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Gluten
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           UNFI Canada Central Region
Distribution:             Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland
                          and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario,
                          Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8334

Affected products: Bob's Red Mill 'Sweet' White Sorghum Flour
623 g. with sell by date of 11/07/2014


WALTER INVESTMENT: Faces "Cummings" Class Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
Walter Investment Management Corp. is facing a shareholder class
action lawsuit in Florida, according to the Company's August 8,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On July 24, 2013, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida against the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles
Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Marc Helm and Robert Yeary captioned
Cummings, et al. v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al.,
8:13-cv-01916-JDW-TBM.  The Complaint asserts federal securities
law claims against the Company and the individual defendants under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder; additional claims are asserted against
the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The complaint alleges that between May 9, 2012, and June 6, 2013,
the Company and the individual defendants made material
misstatements or omissions about the integrity of the Company's
financial reporting, including the reporting of expenses
associated with certain financing transactions, and the
liabilities associated with the Company's acquisition of Reverse
Mortgage Solutions, Inc., or RMS.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of the individuals or entities which purchased
or otherwise acquired the Company's securities from May 9, 2012,
through June 6, 2013.  The Company intends to defend the matter
vigorously.

Headquartered in Tampa, Florida, Walter Investment Management
Corp. -- http://www.walterinvestment.com/-- is a full-service,
fee-based provider to the residential mortgage industry.  The
Company's primary business provides value-added specialty
servicing to the forward residential loan market across several
product types including agency, non-agency, first and second lien
and manufactured housing loans.  The Company's specialty servicing
business focuses on credit-sensitive residential mortgages.


WELLS FARGO: Faces Suit in California Over Short Sale of Property
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo conditions the short sale of property on being paid a
security that offsets the deficiency between the amount due on the
underlying purchase money loan and the price obtained through the
short sale, a class claims.

The case is Jason Hunt v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.; Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage, in the California Superior Court for Sacramento County.


YAHOO! INC: Appeal From Dismissal of Stockholder Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated stockholder class
action lawsuit remains pending, according to Yahoo! Inc.'s
August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Since June 6, 2011, two purported stockholder class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain officers
and directors of the Company by plaintiffs Bonato and the Twin
Cities Pipe Trades Pension Trust.  In October 2011, the District
Court consolidated the two actions under the caption In re Yahoo!
Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed the Pension Trust Fund
for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff.  In a consolidated
amended complaint filed December 15, 2011, the lead plaintiff
purports to represent a class of investors who purchased the
Company's common stock between April 19, 2011, and July 29, 2011,
and alleges that during that class period, defendants issued
statements that were materially false or misleading because they
did not disclose information relating to Alibaba Group's
restructuring of Alipay.  The complaint purports to assert claims
for relief for violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and for violation of Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and seeks
unspecified damages, injunctive and equitable relief, fees, and
costs.  On August 10, 2012, the court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  The
Plaintiffs have appealed.

Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com/-- together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a digital media company that delivers
personalized digital content and experiences through various
devices worldwide.  Yahoo offers online properties and services to
users; and a range of marketing services to businesses.  The
Company's communications and communities offerings include Yahoo!
Mail, Yahoo! Messenger, Yahoo! Groups, Yahoo! Answers, Flickr, and
Connected TV.  The Company was founded in 1994 and is
headquartered in Sunnyvale, California.


* "Rigorous Analysis" Buzzword in Class Action Jurisprudence
------------------------------------------------------------
D. Matthew Allen, Esq. -- mallen@carltonfields.com -- and Amanda
Arnold Sansone, Esq. -- asansone@carltonfields.com -- at Carlton
Fields report that without a doubt, the term "rigorous analysis"
has become a buzzword in current class action jurisprudence.  In
recent years, the Supreme Court has issued landmark class action
decisions in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and Comcast Corp. v.
Behrend that further entrenched the phrase into the lexicon of
class action practitioners.  But do these most recent "rigorous
analysis" decisions signal a sea change in class action
jurisprudence? We think not.  Rather, we see Comcast, Wal-Mart,
and even a decision many observers consider an outlier, Amgen,
Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, as a natural
progression of the slow evolution of the class action device.
This article describes that progression.

Historically speaking, we see judicial treatment of class actions
under Rule 23 in terms of four distinct phases: the Innovation
Phase (1966 to early 1970s), the Realistic Phase (mid-1970s to
early 1980s), the Formalism Phase (early 1980s to 1995), and, most
recently, the Rigorous Analysis Phase (1995 to present).  Based on
recent Supreme Court precedent, the Rigorous Analysis Phase is not
going away anytime soon.

Phase 1: Innovation Phase
(1966 to early 1970s)

During the Innovation Phase, courts viewed the class action device
as an exciting new tool to efficiently manage and resolve complex
cases -- and also to advance social justice.  Courts in this phase
emphasized the virtue of the class action as opening the door to
the courthouse to litigants who otherwise would be precluded from
bringing their claims.

At the same time, courts in the Innovation Phase dismissed
potential management difficulties associated with the trial of
multiple, diverse claims at one time, particularly in such areas
as injury, causation and damages.  For example, in Siegel v.
Chicken Delight, Inc., an early antitrust class action, the
defendants argued that there were "immense difficulties and
complexities" in determining the amount of damages actually
suffered as a result of an alleged antitrust violation.  The
district court responded -- in language that would be repeated in
multiple decisions -- that "any detailed discussion of the subject
at this juncture of the proceedings would be premature."  The
courts in the Innovation Phase were confident that whatever
difficulties were predicted by defendants, they would not
materialize in practice or would be worked out down the road.

These assumptions, of course, proved unduly optimistic.  One
commentator of the day reported in 1973 that more than 53 percent
of the class actions filed in 1966 were still pending in 1971,
observing that "this is certainly not the kind of increased
efficiency which the framers of the amended Rule had in mind."
These difficulties led Second Circuit Chief Judge Lumbard to write
in dissent from the reversal of the district court's denial of
certification in Eisen v. Carlisle and Jacquelin that he
considered the case to be a "Frankenstein monster posing as a
class action."

So what did courts do to get a handle on management difficulties?
They tried innovative techniques.  One proposed method was to try
common issues first and save individual issues for later
determination.  Another was to permit plaintiffs to recover
aggregate damages under a fluid recovery concept.  Eventually,
many courts and commentators alike recognized that these
innovations did not make unmanageable class actions more
manageable.  Instead, they made settlements more likely.

Phase 2: Realistic Phase
(mid-1970s to early 1980s)

As the excesses of the Innovation Phase became apparent, in the
late 1970s, the courts moved into a new phase -- the Realistic
Phase.  This Phase is characterized by retrenchment as courts and
commentators began to better appreciate some of the limits of the
class action device.  Indeed, in this phase, notably in antitrust
cases, several courts of appeal began to caution district courts
against too-quick certification decisions.  The Ninth Circuit,
among others, warned that treating class members collectively
without consideration of individual issues "significantly alters
substantive rights," and such "enlargement or modification of
substantive . . . rights by procedural devices is clearly
prohibited by the Enabling Act that authorizes the Supreme Court
to promulgate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

The culminating case in this phase was the Supreme Court's 1982
decision in Gen. Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon.11 In that
case, the district court had certified an employment
discrimination class action. Some members of the class were denied
promotion allegedly because they were Mexican-American.  Others
allegedly were denied being hired altogether because of their
race.  They were lumped together in the same class based on an
"across the board" rule that a named plaintiff employee
complaining of one allegedly discriminatory practice could
represent class members complaining of a different practice.  This
across the board rule was based on a presumption that all the
class claims were fairly encompassed within the named plaintiff's
claim, satisfying Rule 23(a)(3) typicality.  The Supreme Court
rejected the rule and its presumption of discrimination.  The
Court made two important pronouncements in doing so. First, it
stated: "Actual, not presumed, conformance with Rule 23(a) remains
. . .  indispensable."12 Second, it announced that district courts
are to undertake a rigorous analysis before certifying a class
under Rule 23(a).

Phase 3: Formalism Phase
(early 1980s to 1995)

Eventually, Falcon would lay the foundation for the current
Supreme Court attitude of healthy skepticism toward certification
of broad, diverse classes.  In the immediate aftermath, however,
courts merely gave lip service to Falcon.  And beginning in the
early 1980s, district courts began to abandon the carefully
crafted, fact-driven framework established by the circuit courts
in the Realistic Phase of the late 1970s.  In Phase 3, the
Formalism Phase, certification decisions were more driven by
pigeon-holing cases into wooden legal categories rather than
engaging in fact-intensive analysis.

This phase is characterized by an unusual deference to plaintiff's
allegations and experts.  Courts' analyses tended to consist
primarily of repeated legal pronouncements from prior opinions,
building on one another, but often pieced together in a
formalistic, uncritical way without substantial consideration of
whether the facts and circumstances of one case truly apply to
another.

Courts throughout the country emphasized several dubious legal
principles that stacked the deck in favor of certification.  Those
legal principles included, for example, that the court cannot
prejudge the merits, that the court must accept the facts in the
complaint as true, that doubtful cases should be certified, that
liability is the overriding issue over causation and damages, and
that plaintiff's expert testimony should be given deference.  And
these decisions were essentially unreviewable. Until the enactment
of Rule 23(f) in 1998, there was no vehicle to appeal a class
certification decision other than go to trial and judgment first.
Very few defendants were willing to take that risk.

Phase 4: Rigorous Analysis Phase
(1995 to present)

By 1995, though, the appellate courts had had enough. In a three-
year period, from 1995 to 1997, the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth
and Eleventh Circuits had all decertified major, ambitious mass
tort products liability and race discrimination class actions.
What made several of these decisions even more extraordinary is
that they were decided on writs of mandamus, before the enactment
of Rule 23(f).  This was the advent of the Rigorous Analysis
Phase, which took hold in fits and starts in various subject areas
and which has accelerated over the past three years.

In 1997 and 1999, the Supreme Court joined the fray, issuing
landmark opinions that decertified two massive settlement classes
in Amchem Products v. Windsor20 and Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp.
Amchem is a fascinating case because it was never intended to be
litigated.  It was prepackaged as a settlement class when filed.
The case involved a global settlement of all then-current and
future asbestos-related claims in the entire federal court system.

It was the most ambitious settlement reached under the auspices of
Rule 23.  The settlement involved something for everyone.  But not
equally.  Future claimants, for example, received far less in
compensation than already injured claimants.  The district court
approved the certification of a settlement class over numerous
objections. The Third Circuit reversed because the Rule 23
adequacy and predominance requirements were not satisfied.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Third Circuit.  It held that the
district court had improperly substituted fairness and efficiency
concerns for an evaluation of the Rule 23 requirements, which had
to be satisfied even in the settlement context.  The court
forcefully reminded trial courts that they "are not free to amend
a rule outside the process Congress ordered, a process properly
tuned to the instruction that rules of procedure 'shall not
abridge . . . any substantive right.'"  The court concluded its
analysis with the not too subtle warning that "the rulemakers'
prescriptions for class actions may be endangered by 'those who
embrace [Rule 23] too enthusiastically just as [they are] by those
who approach [the rule] with distaste.'"

In 1998, Rule 23(f) was enacted, giving litigants the right to
seek permission to appeal class certification decisions to the
courts of appeals.  But it took 13 years after the enactment of
Rule 23(f) for the next significant class action appeal to reach
the Supreme Court.  That case was Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
in 2011.

By 2011, the federal courts of appeals had brought some sense of
stability to much of class action jurisprudence.  Many federal
courts took seriously the Supreme Court's admonition in Falcon
that rigorous analysis was required before a class could be
certified.  Frankly, most of the problem cases were in the state
courts.  Then, after years of failed attempts, in 2005, Congress
passed the Class Action Fairness Act, which made it easier to get
state law class actions into federal court under a relaxed
diversity jurisdiction standard.  So things were better. But every
now and then a decision like the California district court's Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc. decision would pop up.

In 2000, a 54-year-old worker at a California Wal-Mart Store,
Betty Dukes, alleged that she was a victim of sex discrimination.
She had six years of positive performance reviews.  Nonetheless,
she was denied the training she needed to advance to a higher
salary position.  Wal-Mart argued that she was denied the
opportunity to advance because she clashed with a female
supervisor and was disciplined for returning late from lunch
breaks.  Ms. Dukes argued that Wal-Mart had a policy of
discriminating against women.  She filed a lawsuit in San
Francisco district court, along with three other women, seeking to
represent 1.6 million women who worked or previously had worked at
a Wal-Mart store since 1998.  The plaintiffs sought on behalf of
this massive, sprawling class injunctive relief, a declaratory
judgment, backpay, and punitive damages.

In June 2004, the district court certified under Rule 23(b)(2) the
largest employment discrimination class in history.  In 2007, the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the class certification in a split decision
2-1.  In 2009, the full Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc
and voted 6-5 to affirm the certification.26 The Supreme Court
reversed.

There are a number of significant features to the decision:

The court put to rest the old saw that class certification can be
based on the allegations of the complaint, which are taken as
true, along with the language from the 1970s Eisen decision that
was so prevalent in the formalistic decisions of the 1980s and
early 1990s -- that the court could not examine the merits in
determining whether to certify a class.  The court flatly declared
that the Rule 23 analysis is not a pleading standard.  And
rigorous analysis, the court said, often requires a preliminary
peek at the merits in order to determine whether the Rule 23
requirements are met.  Most of the federal circuits had already
reached these conclusions.  But the Supreme Court's emphasis
rooted out the last vestiges of the deferential standard that so
characterized the Formalistic Phase cases.

The court resurrected the long-dormant Rule 23(a)(2) commonality
requirement.  Class action lawyers on both the plaintiff and
defense side had long considered commonality to be a throw-away
element that was easily satisfied for the plaintiff and most often
conceded by the defendant.  The thinking was, as long as a
plaintiff could dream up one hypothetical common question that
could be asked, that was sufficient.  But the Supreme Court
declared that commonality does not merely require the recital of
any common question relating to the case.  Any competently crafted
class action complaint can satisfy this standard.  Instead,
commonality requires a common answer to the common question.  In
the case before the court, it required a showing that all class
members suffered the same injury.  That simply was not the case.
There was no evidence of a general policy of discrimination at
Wal-Mart.  There could not have been, because hiring and promotion
decisions were decentralized, made at a store-by-store level, not
at the home office;

The court strongly suggested but stopped short of explicitly
requiring a Daubert inquiry into expert testimony at the class
certification stage.  In so suggesting, the court put to rest the
pronouncement of the Phase 3 trial courts that considerable
deference should be given to plaintiff's experts and that the
court should avoid a battle of the experts in deciding whether to
certify a class;

The court rejected the notion advocated by the plaintiff that
manageability problems with a large class action can be solved by
trying the claims of a sample group of plaintiffs and applying the
formula established in those trials to the remainder of the class.
Trial by formula was a violation of the defendant's right to
present all its available defenses, irrespective of whether those
defenses made a class action more or less likely; and,

The court said that claims for individualized money damages are
not suitable for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2).  Because
the plaintiff sought back pay for the class, that was an effective
claim for individualized money damages, and such money damages
claims could only be certified under (b)(3), not (b)(2).

Sea Change in Law?

Was Wal-Mart a sea change in class action law? Yes and no.

On commonality, the Wal-Mart opinion represented a significant
change -- and tightening -- of the prior understanding of the Rule
23(a)(2) requirement.  In the two years since the decision was
issued, there have been over 500 cases citing the new commonality
standard. Many undoubtedly come out the same way they would have
before Wal-Mart.  But not all do.  At least three circuits, the
Fourth, Fifth and Eighth, have reversed certification decisions
precisely because the district court did not sufficiently
rigorously analyze commonality after the change in standard
announced in Wal-Mart.37

Other than its tightening of the commonality requirement of Rule
23(a), Wal-Mart was actually not that novel.  With respect to the
other four points highlighted above, the decisive trend in the
circuit courts already was to hold the same way as the Supreme
Court did.  And yet, at the level of ethos, Wal-Mart is terribly
important.  What Wal-Mart did was solidify in the minds of
district judges that the Court meant what it said a long time ago
in Falcon that rigorous analysis requires a close application of
the detailed factual record to the precise elements of the cause
of action, not just on commonality but on all the elements of Rule
23.

Two cases decided by the Supreme Court this year prove the point.
They reach seemingly disparate results, but when viewed closely
against the framework of rigorous analysis that we have outlined,
they graphically illustrate how this works.

Taking the second decided case first, in Comcast v. Behrend,38
cable TV consumers alleged that their cable provider Comcast
violated the antitrust laws by conspiring with other cable systems
to increase Comcast's share of the Philadelphia market.  The
plaintiffs offered four theories of anticompetitive conduct.  But
the district court ruled that only one theory -- deterring
overbuilders (companies that build over an existing cable
company's geography) -- was capable of common treatment.  The
plaintiffs presented expert economic testimony to show classwide
impact and damages.  The district court certified a class even
though the plaintiff's expert conceded that his modeling did not
allocate classwide damages among the four different theories of
anticompetitive conduct, and did not identify damages specifically
attributable to the overbuilder theory.

The Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting Comcast's argument that the
court had to perform a Daubert analysis of the plaintiff's expert
testimony at the class certification stage.  Many observers were
hoping that the Supreme Court would expand on its statement in
Wal-Mart that a Daubert hearing is required to evaluate expert
testimony at the class certification stage.  They were
disappointed. But they may have gotten something even better.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the certification.
Although the court ducked the Daubert issue, it did hold that,
under the rigorous analysis standard, there was not a close fit
between the plaintiffs' liability theory and its causation or
impact analysis. In both Falcon and Wal-Mart, the Supreme Court
had cited the rigorous analysis requirement in the context of
applying the Rule 23(a) typicality and commonality requirements.
In Comcast, for the first time, the court said the same analytical
principles applied in the 23(b)(3) context and then added that
(b)(3) predominance is even more demanding.  Effectively, the
Supreme Court has now declared that all the Rule 23 elements
require a searching factual analysis, whether the procedural
posture is a litigation class or settlement class, whether the
class certification inquiry overlaps with the merits or not.  Many
observers believe that after Comcast and Wal-Mart, class
certification hearings will become increasingly evidence-intensive
and will require searching examination under Daubert of expert
testimony.

The other case is Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirements Plans and
Trust Funds.  The question in that case was whether plaintiffs in
securities fraud class cases are required to prove at the class
certification stage that the defendant made a material
misstatement before the fraud on the market presumption could be
triggered that would permit the plaintiff to rely on a presumption
of reliance.  The theory is that in an efficient market, the
market price will reflect all publicly available information.
Therefore, in Basic v. Levinson, the court had long ago decided
that in an efficient market, the plaintiff is entitled to a
rebuttable presumption that all purchasers of the security relied
on the alleged misstatement in making their purchase.  In Amgen,
the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the plaintiffs do not have to
prove materiality.  Why? Because, according to the court,
materiality is inherently a common question. It is an objective
inquiry based on the significance of the misrepresentation to the
reasonable investor.

Amgen does not signal a retreat from the healthy skepticism
signaled in Wal-Mart.  Rather, the decision is simply a function
of the present nature of securities litigation as a matter of
substantive law.

In other contexts, the courts have jettisoned procedural
presumptions that support class certification in most contexts.
The across the board presumption in the employment discrimination
context is gone after Falcon.  The "Bogosian shortcut" that allows
an assumption of presumed impact in price-fixing cases is gone as
well, for the most part.

These and other presumptions so common in the earlier, more
activist periods have gradually been rejected or ignored by the
courts, clearing the way for defendants to vigorously defend
against class certification by arguing that, on the critical
question of predominance, individual issues of impact and damages
predominate over supposed common issues of liability.  But the
fraud on the market presumption in securities cases is not a
procedural presumption designed to aid class certification, it is
a substantive law presumption applicable to all securities cases,
class actions or otherwise.  The Supreme Court in Basic expressly
grounded the presumption -- not on the convenience of obtaining
certification under Rule 23 -- but on "the congressional policy
embodied in the 1934 Act."  Ominously for plaintiffs, Justice
Alito said in concurrence in Amgen that it may be time to
reconsider the fraud on the market theory,43 which many scholars
consider to be outdated and resting on a shaky economic
foundation.

Be that as it may, one thing the Supreme Court has emphasized over
and over is that the class action device is purely procedural and
cannot impinge upon the substantive requirements of the cause of
action -- either to aid the plaintiffs, as in Amchem, or to aid
the defendants, as in Amgen.  In other words, the Supreme Court
continues to insist that class action litigants take very
seriously the explicit requirements of the cause of action in
analyzing whether a class should be certified.  The bottom line,
in our opinion, is that Amgen does not weaken Wal-Mart's
constraints on class certification.  This was confirmed when the
court decided Comcast after Amgen.

So where does this leave us? We have a solid body of federal law
jettisoning the formalistic line drawing of the early 1970s and
the late 1980s and focusing heavily on how the case practically
will be tried -- the application of the substantive elements of
the cause of action to the specific facts of the claim.  This
means more up-front discovery in most cases.  It means the class
decision is pushed back to later in most cases.  It means expert
fights in most cases.  But for the foreseeable future in federal
class action jurisprudence, rigorous analysis remains the
watchword.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Tobacco Faces $8MM Verdict in PI Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adolfo Pesquera, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
an $8 million verdict that burdened Lorillard Tobacco Co. with a
major portion of fault was hailed by the plaintiffs attorney as
the largest award against a cigarette maker for an asbestos-
related injury.

From 1952 to 1956, Lorillard produced a version of its Kent brand
cigarettes using a filter containing asbestos fibers.

Richard Delisle, 74, of Leesburg was diagnosed in July 2012 with
mesothelioma, a fatal lung cancer caused by asbestos. He contended
the Kents he smoked as a teenager contributed to his disease.

Lorillard attorney Ricardo Cedillo -- rcedillo@lawdcm.com -- of
Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza in San Antonio, Texas, noted Mr. Delisle
told health care providers he did not start smoking until about
1960.

Mr. Cedillo alleged Mr. Delisle never smoked Kents with asbestos
in filters.  Even if he did, Mr. Cedillo said tests showed the
amount of fibers released during smoking was negligible. He
insisted Mr. Delisle must have contracted the illness from one of
the other defendants.

Defendants included Crane Co., a paper mill operator in
Massachusetts where Mr. Delisle worked in the early 1960s fitting
pipes.  The gaskets he worked on contained asbestos.

The jury found Lorillard 22% at fault and Hollingsworth & Vose
Co., the filter manufacturer, also 22% at fault.  The trial was
heard before Broward Circuit Judge John Murphy.

Because of a joint venture indemnity agreement between the two
companies, Hollingsworth's liability shifted to Lorillard, said
David Jagolinzer of Ferraro Law in Coral Gables, Mr. Delisle's
attorney.

Crane was found 16% at fault, Mr. Jagolinzer said.  No liability
was assigned to Mr. Delisle, and the remaining 40% was against
Fabre defendants.

The 44% portion against Lorillard, or $3.52 million, is the
largest jury judgment ever awarded against a tobacco company in a
mesothelioma case, Mr. Jagolinzer said.

"There's never been one tried in Florida before," he said.  "I
picked a jury for one in Hillsborough, but the case settled before
trial.  In the nation, there have only been about five cases that
have ever been successful.  The highest verdict was for $1.2
million in a case in California."

The case was filed in Broward because a defendant that was
dismissed before trial, Premix-Marbletite Manufacturing Co., is
based in Pompano Beach.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Poteet Public Library
-----------------------------------------------------
Adrian Delgado, writing for Pleasanton Express, reported that when
Carol Merchant, longtime resident of Poteet, Texas, and former
teacher, stepped onto the Poteet library floor in August, she
instantly recognized what she thought was asbestos appearing to be
underneath the tiles.

According to the report, Merchant said the floor tiles were dirty
and what appeared to be asbestos was "shredding, peeling and
powdering". She called the Texas Department of State Health
Services and requested an inspection. Ruth Murray of the TDSHS
Asbestos Program visited the Poteet library on August 16th. Murray
took photos and filed a report on her findings. Merchant gave
Murray a Chemical Analysis that Chester Rackley of MARC III
conducted on the library in 2011. The survey stated that 3%
chrysotile asbestos was found in the brown floor tiles and the
black mastic that adhered them to the floor.

Chrysotile is the most common form of asbestos according to the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The International
Agency for Research on Cancer and the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services consider asbestos to be a carcinogen and link
it to a number of lung related diseases. For size comparison, a
red blood cell is 6 micrometers.

The report related that after the inspection Murray then sent an
email to Poteet City Administrator Scott Moore requesting he
conduct a new survey of the asbestos situation and to submit an
asbestos management report within 90 days to the TDHHS.

On August 18th, friends of Merchant called her as late as midnight
to tell her that people had been in the Poteet library even though
the library is normally closed on Sundays.

Merchant found that the tile was cleaned off. Merchant contends
that someone came in and cleaned the tile. It is her opinion that
the survey that was requested of the City of Poteet will be
inaccurate because it was cleaned.

Ruth Murray returned to take more pictures and file another report
after the tiles were cleaned. Soon after, Murray transferred to a
different department with TDSHS and her position was filled by Ken
Ofunrein.

While 3% asbestos was indeed found in the library, TDSHS Press
Officer Chris Van Deusen says that the amount of asbestos doesn't
violate TDSHS rules. "Our rules really apply when there are
renovations going on." According to The Texas Department of State
Health Services Asbestos Regulatory Regulations, issued February
15, 2011, special precautions are required to remove tile and
mastic that contains over 1% asbestos. Those special precautions
prohibit contractors from using methods that would crumble,
pulverize, or otherwise break up materials containing asbestos
into small pieces.

As of Sept. 16, Poteet City Administrator Scott Moore says that
the city had hired Chester Rackley to do an asbestos survey on the
library again in August. "When he [Rackley] came back out in
August, he did not see that had changed significantly, so he
really didn't give me an indication that we needed another
assessment."

Mr. Rackley recommended that the City of Poteet take one of two
possible options: either write up an asbestos management plan, or
remove the floor tile completely.

According to Moore, the city of Poteet is choosing to remove the
tile from the library. Moore is currently in the process of
collecting estimates on what it would cost to take out the tile.

Moore also said that the city is also in the process of filing
paperwork with the US Department of Agriculture to obtain funds
for a new library and community center.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removed from St. Ignatius Retreat House
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bart Jones, writing for Long Island Newsday, reported that workers
are removing asbestos from the North Shore's historic St. Ignatius
Retreat House, prompting fears among preservationists and
community groups that the wrecking ball isn't far off.

According to the report, North Hills Mayor Marvin Natiss said the
work is legal and doesn't endanger the health of nearby residents.
The village is sending out a letter to that effect.

"Everything is being done absolutely in accordance with state
regulations and law," under the supervision of the state Labor
Department, Natiss said. "The residents are certainly protected."
But preservationists and local civic groups view the work as
bringing the 93-year-old former Jesuit estate where a future pope
once stayed a step closer to demolition.

"That is one of the things you do before you demolish a building,"
said John Bralower, vice chairman of the North Shore Land Alliance
preservation group. "I would be shocked if it were not a prelude
to demolition."

The new owners of the mansion, Manhasset Bay Group Inc., which
bought the 33-acre property for $36.5 million in July from the New
York province of Jesuit priests, declined to comment.

Natiss said he doesn't think the asbestos removal necessarily
indicates the building will be torn down, since it would have to
be removed even if the building was to be renovated. Officials
have said the developers plan to turn the property into 66
upscale, single-family homes.

Several local officials are now calling for the 87-room mansion,
also known as Inisfada, to be saved. Nassau Legis. Richard J.
Nicolello (R-New Hyde Park) wrote to state officials supporting a
bid to put the building on the state and national registers of
historic places.

"This is not just a magnificent structure worthy of preservation
because of its astounding architectural beauty, but it has also
been a spiritual heart of the Long Island community for decades,"
Nicolello wrote.

Assemb. Michelle Schimel (D-Great Neck) called St. Ignatius a
"rare jewel" and said replacing it with a housing development
could burden local schools with more students.

"Already faced with a 2 percent cap that does not consider
increasing enrollment as a factor, how can the school budget be
sustainable if student enrollment balloons under this
development?" she said.

Natiss said he has no legal right to stop either the demolition or
the planned development. He said that since the Jesuits removed a
chapel where the future Pope Pius XII prayed in 1936, the house
has little historical value.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro at Whiteside County's Landfill Gets OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Giuliani, writing for saukvalley.com, reported that asbestos
may be on its way to Whiteside County's landfill -- at least from
Prophetstown.

According to the report, on Sept. 17, the County Board agreed to
ask the state to allow asbestos at the landfill. This effort was
prompted by Prophetstown's need to dispose of asbestos from the
rubble of a downtown fire in July.

Last month, county officials called the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency and were told it would take a long time to get
approval for asbestos.  Then they got political help.

County Board Chairman Jim Duffy, D-Sterling, contacted Rep. Mike
Smiddy, D-Hillsdale, who represents Whiteside County. Smiddy later
got top IEPA officials on a conference call. And the state
promised to fast-track the county's request.

When the county started the landfill in the early 1990s, it banned
asbestos as a way to alleviate neighbors' concerns.  Houston-based
Waste Management, which runs the landfill, is helping the county
with its request.

Mike Wiersema, the landfill's manager, said asbestos is a human
health issue, not an environmental risk. It would be buried under
other trash so that it doesn't go airborne, he said.

"Prophetstown has done a good job of separating it. They have
loads standing by," Wiersema said.

Officials expect the IEPA to respond to the request within 3
weeks. If it's approved, then the county wouldn't have to go back
to the agency. It could then develop rules for acceptance of
asbestos, "so there isn't a free-for-all," Wiersema said.

Duffy said the fast-tracking of the permit change wouldn't have
been possible without Smiddy's help. The state officials, he said,
wondered why the landfill didn't accept more special waste than it
does.

"That rather surprised me," he said. "They thought we were being
too restrictive."

Whiteside County's landfill is one of the few that doesn't accept
asbestos. Lee County's is among those that do.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Mesothelioma Victim Warns of Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amy Dyduch, writing for This Is Local London, reported that a
widow, whose husband died a painful death 50 years after he was
exposed to asbestos, has warned others to get themselves checked.

According to the report, Peter Blackburn died aged 71 in the
Princess Alice Hospice in Esher on January 30, after a painful
battle with mesothelioma -- a rare form of cancer most commonly
caused by exposure to asbestos.

An inquest held at West London Coroner's Court on September 17,
his 25th wedding anniversary, gave the cause of death as
bronchopneumonia and asbestos-related malignant mesothelioma.

Mr Blackburn's widow Susan, 58, said: "I want to say to anyone if
they get breathless and they've had exposure to asbestos then to
go to see their doctor as soon as possible because I would hate
anyone to go down Peter's route."

The inquest heard Mr Blackburn, who was born in Barnes and spent
his later life in Richmond, had worked as a builder and ripped out
underground boilers that were covered in asbestos in 1963.

Coroner Jeremy Chipperford said: "It is clear to me that this was
an indiscriminate disease and that is the verdict that will be
recorded.

"This was a painful and distressing experience that he went
through, both for the family and those treating him."

The UK has one of the highest rates of mesothelioma in the world,
largely because asbestos use continued in the UK long after it was
halted in other parts of the world.

Academics have suggested the number of mesothelioma cases might
rise as those exposed to asbestos years ago begin to suffer the
symptoms.

Mr Blackburn, a fit and healthy man, had six trips to hospitals
after he suffered from breathlessness and pain on his right side.
He underwent a number of procedures including the fitting of a
chest drain and had a Pet scan, but was always sent home.

The inquest heard Mr Blackburn's case was a catch-22 because
doctors did not have tissue evidence to administer cancer
treatment drugs, which can kill patients who are frail if they do
not have cancer.

Mrs Blackburn said: "He was such a strong person and he wouldn't
want anyone to suffer like he has.

"It is the medical anguish he went through -- he said he wouldn't
wish it on his worst enemy."

The couple met in the Bull's Head Pub in Barnes in 1980, married
eight years later and had two sons.

Mr Blackburn served in the Army's second battalion for four years
and when they later moved to Richmond, the couple would often
enjoy walks in Kew Gardens and by the river.

Mrs Blackburn said: "He had a fantastic sense of humour, was very
loyal, hardworking, trustworthy, loved his family, loved
travelling -- he was a happy bunny.

"I really want people to be aware of asbestos because it is
insidious and a really wicked thing."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Delays Start of Glick Bldg. Demolition
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Short, writing for Hancock County Journal-Pilot, reported
that the demolition of the Glick building on Main St. will take
place once the asbestos removal has been completed, but there
could be a short delay.

According to the report, the contractor removing the asbestos
floor tiles in the building discovered more asbestos in a transit
pipe. The Carthage City Council approved and additional $3,690 to
remove the asbestos source.

With the demolition of the Glick building looming, there is
concern for the public's safety for those shopping next door at
The Christmas Shop.

The Christmas Shop opens Oct. 1 through December, and owner Dan
Gillogly has been approved $1,500 per month to rent the former
Country Pastimes building on the north side of the square through
the holiday season.

There have been some issues with internet service for the Carthage
Fire Department, and members are willing to discontinue their cell
phones in exchange for better internet service.

As of now, the speed of service with the current supplier is too
slow to do any training. It was mentioned that all city
departments are having the same issue.

City Clerk Kathy Graham will investigate a current promotion being
offered from Frontier, and cell phone service for the Fire
Department will be cancelled and new internet service will be
provided if the offer is deemed acceptable.

The Fire Department will also be discussing and voting on whether
they want to be involved with the First Responder program through
Blessing Hospital. If the department participates, the city will
support their decision and allow them to utilize one piece of
equipment to go out on any call in.

The Fire Department has also been hired to paint parking lines
around the square for $2,000.

Mayor Jim Nightingale reported that Shannon Duncan from the
Western Illinois Regional Council (WIRC) had informed him that a
grant number had been assigned to the emergency waterline project.

The grant number means that the money has been designated for this
project from the state, but the timeline is still unknown. Once
the funding arrives, bids will be solicited.

Community Development Director Amy Graham updated the council on
the Chamber of Commerce activities as well as the Hometown Teams
Exhibit from the Smithsonian and the Mayor's Round Table and its
plans to proceed with the mapping program.

It was announced the first mapping session will be held on Oct. 21
at Lake Hill Winery. The fee for this program will be shared among
various groups and the city.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Feared When Church Is Demolished
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Burr, writing for This Is Local London, reported that
people living near a church containing asbestos fear they could be
exposed to the dust when it is demolished.

According to the report, the poisonous material was found in the
ceiling of the hall of Chingford Hatch Methodist Church in
Connington Crescent just before it was due to be knocked down to
make way for a care home.

People only found out when a resident spotted a folder belonging
to the company marked 'Asbestos' in the church hall.  They became
concerned when sub-contractors were spotted burning materials in
the rear of the church, causing smoke and dust to blow into their
gardens.

London Demolition, the company responsible for the works,
immediately ordered the fire to be put out as it broke company
policy.  It has also moved to reassure the public, insisting
measures are in place to ensure there is no threat to health.

But Pam Mitchell, 63, is not convinced.  She said: "Everybody's
worried about it. There are children living nearby.

"They say there's going to be sprinklers and glue but they don't
know what the weather's going to be like, there could be asbestos
dust everywhere."

Sue Honour, 61, also of Connington Crescent, also remains anxious
about the demolition.  "It's very disconcerting when they light a
bonfire and you get dust and smoke coming into your garden. That
really did concern me because I didn't know what they were
burning," she added.

A 71-year-old man who also lives in the street but who refused to
give his name, discovered there was asbestos in the church when he
found a folder belonging to the demolition company inside the hall
labelled 'asbestos'.  "People see the word asbestos and they
panic," he said.

London Demolition has revealed the steps it will take to deal with
the asbestos.  Thomas Greenham, from the firm, said: "Before
demolition works are carried out a refurbishment and demolition
asbestos survey is carried out. This survey is carried out to
identify the presence of any asbestos.

"A refurbishment and demolition survey was carried out on June 20
2013 for 20 Connington Crescent. This survey identified 4sq m of
asbestos cement in one of the room's ceilings.

"We have soft stripped the building which will now enable the safe
removal of the asbestos cement ceiling. This item will be removed
in whole sections and will not be broken, which prevents the
release of any asbestos fibres.

"In addition to this the product will be sprayed with a PVA Glue
water solution as an extra precaution before removal which further
prevents and supresses any fibre release. The asbestos cement will
then be double bagged and taken to a licenced landfill for safe
disposal.

"We were due to carry out these works but some residents have
raised concerns about the presence of asbestos and as a result we
have ceased works on site and have arranged to meet with the
concerned residents to reassure them that we are carrying out the
works safely by going through the health and safety procedures and
method statement that will be carried out which will ensure the
health and safety of our operatives, neighbours and the general
public."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Fibro Found at Brisbane Primary School
------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that more asbestos has
been found at a Brisbane primary school.

According to the report, excavators discovered the asbestos while
digging trenches to lay down pipes behind one of the buildings at
Graceville Primary School.

The area and a nearby playground at the school have been closed
off.  This comes a week after construction workers found the
potentially deadly substance while doing works to lay down the
foundations for new classrooms.  This resulted in the closure of
the school's oval. The oval has since been reopened.

Education Queensland says the latest contaminated area will be
professionally cleaned.  "Education Queensland has very strict
asbestos management guidelines in place and ensures the safety of
students and staff is its number one priority," the department's
statement says.

Material containing asbestos exists in most buildings constructed
before 1990 and is not considered dangerous unless damaged or
disturbed.

Asbestos-related disease is slow to appear and can take more than
20 years before victims develop symptoms.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Residents Angered Over Fibro Left in Streets
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Baynes, writing for Your Local Guardian, reported that
outraged families have condemned "negligent" Croydon Council (in
South London, England) for failing to clear up potentially lethal
asbestos for six weeks after it was dumped near their homes.

According to the report, safety campaigners have also criticised
the inadequate response to dozens of calls from concerned Coulsdon
residents about the toxic material, which can cause cancer, that
was left in a public alleyway by fly-tippers.

Experts have said the waste material should have been cleaned up
within 24 hours and was particularly dangerous because it had been
broken up. But instead council contractors refused to touch the
dangerous corrugated asbestos sheets when they visited the alley
-- where children regularly play -- in early August.

The council finally arranged for the sheets to be collected after
being contacted by the Croydon Guardian and MP Richard Ottaway.

Furious residents are now considering complaining to the Local
Government Ombudsman.

The council apologised and blamed "miscommunication" for the
delay, which it admitted was "clearly alarming".

More than 4,500 people a year are thought to die from asbestos-
related diseases, caused by the inhalation of dangerous fibres.

It is understood a renegotiation of the contract between the
council and the contractor is partly being blamed for the
situation.

Contractors only collected a pile of harmless building waste
thrown into the alley, where children regularly play, which
connects Westleigh Avenue and Chipstead Valley Road, when they
first visited.

Dad-of-two Colin Jakeman, 36, of nearby Chipstead Close, said:
"Not everyone knows what asbestos looks like. It can be really
nasty stuff.

"It has been there for the best part of two months - it is not
like the council can plead ignorance. It is a public health hazard
- there are drains, kids play there and everyone is still using
the alley.

"The council were called and came out and cleared all the rubbish
- everything except the asbestos. They obviously recognised it as
asbestos and said 'oh no, we're not touching that' and left it."

Judi Yates, 68, of Westleigh Avenue, said: "There are a lot of
children along this road, as well as pregnant mums.

"It can be really dangerous, especially when you have got big
trucks trundling over it.

"I feel the council have been negligent. We made that many
phonecalls and they didn't seem to be do anything."

Mrs Yates said a council call handler had told her the authority's
contract with its hazardous waste disposal firm had expired and
not been replaced.

Another resident, Mario Celiberdi, claimed he had contacted the
council several times a week before the asbestos was collected.

A council spokesman denied it had let the contract lapse, but
admitted a review of the contract had been "one of a number of
factors" in delaying the collection.

Tony Whitson, chairman of the Asbestos Victim Support Groups
Forum, said the type of asbestos dumped was usually a low-level
danger but could become "like a bottle of poison" when broken.  He
said: "All asbestos can be dangerous, so it has got to be treated
seriously.

"If asbestos sheets are left they are vulnerable to damage -
either by children or anyone else - and that creates a problem.

"It is like a bottle of poison. Leave the top off the bottle,
you're fine - take it off, you're in trouble. When asbestos is
broken and damaged the fibres can be released.

"The reprehensible thing about the council in this case is to
leave it there. They should deal with it expeditiously, within 24
hours. It is unacceptable."

Margaret Sharkey, spokeswoman for London Hazards Centre, said: "It
is not the heaviest industrial exposure, but there is no safe
level and if you were in the vicinity you could have breathed in
the fibres.

"It is dangerous and people are right to be worried, especially
because kids are more likely to develop the illnesses."

A spokesman for Croydon Council said: "Unfortunately,
miscommunication between officers and the contractors led to this
flytipping not being removed as quickly as it should, and for this
we apologise.

"We can confirm that it has now been safely disposed of."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Removed From Houston Hall
------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Gottfried, writing for The Tufts Daily, reported that
workers contracted by the university abated asbestos in Houston
Hall this summer during a routine renovation project.

Asbestos is a mineral that was widely used in construction until
1973, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began to
regulate its use due to its ability to cause lung and other
organic diseases.

Director of Facilities Services Bob Burns explained that
abatement, or removal, of asbestos in buildings during renovation
projects happens frequently and follows standard procedure.

"There [were] asbestos found, but that isn't uncommon," he said.
"For many buildings built prior to the 1980s, asbestos was used
and has many different applications. Unless it is airborne, which
is called 'friable' [asbestos], it isn't an issue."

According to Burns, when renovation projects occur, the
possibility arises that asbestos will be disturbed.

"Our policy is, if there is asbestos in a space and we have to
pull up the carpeting or any minor demolition, then we would abate
the asbestos," Burns said. "You don't have to deal with asbestos
just because it is under the floor. You have to deal with asbestos
if you pull up the floor, and we always do that when we renovate
any of our buildings."

The project was completed over the summer when no students were
residing in the hall, he added.

"We do most of our renovations when students and faculty are
gone," he said. Residents of Houston Hall were contacted last year
informing them that the renovations and removal would occur
following their departure from the dorm, according to a Resident
Assistant in Houston Hall who wished to remain anonymous.

"All we saw was preparation," he said. "I don't think there was
any danger. The act or removal didn't take place until everyone
was out."

Burns said that he gives advance notice if a project will be
occurring during the academic year.

"When the activity is occurring, we inform all occupants," Burns
said. "If we had to go into an academic building right now for
whatever reason -- if something came loose -- our policy is to
give everyone between ten days and two weeks' notice. But because
[the Houston renovations] occurred this summer when no one was
living there, we just took care of it."

The renovations in Houston included updating bathrooms, common
spaces and a number of rooms, he said.

According to Burns, the Department of Facilities Services deals
with asbestos cases regularly when it conducts renovations.

"In the course of doing business, we know that there is asbestos
because of when the buildings were constructed, but when we find
it or encounter it, then we have to deal with it," he said. "You
don't have to go looking for it."

Burns said that Facilities brings in outside contractors for the
abatement process.

"We have to bring a contractor in who is trained to deal with this
material and pull it off," he said. "It has to be contained and
treated -- you can't just throw it in a dumpster somewhere."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare Closes Aylmer Police Station
---------------------------------------------------------
Laura Armstrong, writing for Ottawa Citizen, reported that
Gatineau's Aylmer sector police station was closed indefinitely at
midday on Sept. 19 after insulating material that could
potentially contain asbestos was found during renovations.

According to the report, in an email to the Citizen, communication
officers from the City of Gatineau said the police station at 625
ch. D'Aylmer, was pre-emptively closed to the public until further
notice. The city, they said, uses an expert to carry out tests to
determine the presence of asbestos in the building.

Gatineau police said residents in Aylmer should call 819-246-0222
before travelling to a police station outside their sector.
Depending on circumstances and need, Gatineau police will dispatch
a patrol or have the caller travel to the police station in Hull,
where the Aylmer station's officers and civilian personnel were
moved temporarily.

The station's closing will not affect territorial coverage and
regular patrols, said Gatineau police. The emergency phone outside
the Aylmer station is working and acts as a direct line to the
emergency call centre.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Testifies to Congress to Aid Fibro Ban
------------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma News reported that the day that asbestos is banned
within the United States might be coming closer thanks to the work
of Linda Reinstein, head of the Asbestos Disease Awareness
Organization.  Linda testified at the House of Representatives
Subcommitte hearing on Sept. 18 over the dated Toxic Substances
Control Act, a bill that was implemented in 1976 and is in dire
need of reform as our knowledge of dangerous toxins and
carcinogens has expanded profoundly in the last 39 years.

"Founded in 2004, ADAO is the largest independent, non-profit
organization in America committed to bringing a voice to those
hurt by asbestos. Since asbestos-related illnesses in America such
as mesothelioma are more rare (albeit fatal and preventable)
compared to other cancers, previously, many victims of asbestos
and their loved ones felt alone, uninformed, unheard. Now, these
individuals have a place to learn more about asbestos,
mesothelioma and their treatment options; they have a place to
share stories of their loves ones who have passed; they have a
place to take action and contribute by helping to educate our
communities and government officials on the very serious dangers
at hand.

With ADAO and the dedicated work of its head Linda Reinstein, we
have a place from which we can share our stories, inspire others,
start the process of healing and, perhaps most importantly, make
sure that this never happens again. Some of this work towards
banning asbestos must be done by our government officials who are
pushed towards the right path by lawyers who represent those
injured by asbestos in court. But the work of lawyers like those
at Baron and Budd is incomplete without the testimony and shared
stories of those injured by mesothelioma and their loved ones.

Perhaps the most inspiring thing about Linda Reinstein, the ADAO
and her testimony at the House Subcommitte is that Linda is not a
lawyer, doctor, scientist, lobbyist or any other figurehead we
typically associate with starting the seeds of change within U.S.
law. Instead, Linda is simply a widow of mesothelioma. And from
that intimate place of experience with the disease, Linda is
perhaps the best person to face Washington with her story.

Real change must be made within our government to protect our
citizens from asbestos. A ban on asbestos use, manufacturing and
importation must be enacted. At this time there is no ban in the
current Toxic Chemical Reform Bill. As the Subcommittee reflects
on Linda's testimony we ask them to take a page from Linda's
playbook: House Subcommittee debating the need for TSCA reform,
turn your country's pain into something positive for our future.
Ban asbestos so that the people suffering from asbestos-related
illnesses are heard; ban asbestos so that the loved ones of people
suffering from asbestos-related illnesses may know that their
suffering will not go unnoticed. We hope that the nearly four
decades it took to consider amending the Toxic Substances Control
Act of 1976 are put to good use, just as Linda turned her personal
tragedy into a public service for good. We hope that in the
decades to come, there will be no more mesothelioma."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Village Hall, Fire House Need Fibro Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Moore, writing for Lindenhurst (N.Y.) Patch, reported that
the moving of the Old Village Hall to its new home in Irmisch Park
will be delayed for awhile, according to village officials, after
asbestos in the building was found.

According to the report, the building dates back nearly 100 years,
when asbestos was used heavily in the construction of buildings,
and it must be removed before the village can move the building
into Irmisch Park, said administrator Shawn Cullinane.

"The problem is the buildings are really old," Cullinane said.
"The firehouse has been built, and rebuilt, several different
times in the last 80 years."

While the movement of the Old Village Hall will not be a major
undertaking, Cullinane said the bigger concern was the main fire
house, which is scheduled to be taken down and rebuilt.

"When you demolish a building, you can't just let it fly into the
air," Cullinane noted. "

The fire house, due its large size, would have a ten-day posting
period to let the public know of the removal. Afterwards, the
removal will begin and the ongoing project would move on.

Asbestos is a fire-resistant and insulating material that was used
in construction during the early 1900's. It was later found to
cause a slew of health maladies, including lung cancer and other
organ problems.

The removal of the harmful material will cost over $88,500 for the
fire department's main house and over $18,000 for the Old Village
Hall.

The village had a contingency budget in place for the firehouse
project in case of unforeseen costs such as this, which includes
the moving of the Old Village Hall.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussies Not Protecting Themselves From Fibro
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Guth, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that in a country
where the rate of asbestos-caused cancer is higher than anywhere
else in the world, little is being done to be certain that the
next few generations of Australians are not subject to the same
hazards as their parents and grandparents.

According to the report, a recent study of New South Wales
Residents, with results reported in the Sydney Morning Herald,
indicated that those who participate in do-it-yourself projects at
their homes or businesses rarely take steps to protect themselves
from exposure to asbestos.

"The study of almost 860 people who recently completed a do-it-
yourself renovation found more than 61 per cent said they had been
exposed to asbestos. More than one in five said their children had
been exposed," the study reports. Co-author Dr. Anthony Johnson
said he was appalled by the findings.

"There is no safe level of exposure," said Dr Johnson, a
respiratory physician from the Liverpool area. "We don't want to
scare people, because the overall health risks are low, but we do
see people who have mesothelioma and the only exposure they can
recall is something like this."

Noting that it takes an average of 42 years for mesothelioma to
develop, Dr. Johnson fears that the disease is likely to be
present in Australia for decades to come because of the careless
attitude of those who encounter the material and believe it to be
safe.

"Asbestos was removed from fibro around 1984," he added. "But we
are worried we are going to keep seeing cases for the next 40
years if people keep getting exposed. [Mesothelioma] is a horrible
disease but it's completely preventable."

The study showed that exposure occurs most often when DIYers cut,
drill, or sand asbestos-containing building products such as
insulation, roofing, tiles, and other similar items. More than
half of those surveyed said they never, or only sometimes, wore
protective masks while performing this work.

Asbestos Diseases Research Institute director Nico van Zandwijk
said the study was a warning to people who enjoy doing their own
renovations or do so to save money.

"The fact that more than 60 per cent of people said they were
exposed - and that's just the people who could recall they were
exposed - means that the level of awareness about the dangers of
asbestos is insufficient," he said. "People need to think before
they cut."

DIY enthusiasts in the U.S. might also encounter asbestos during
their renovations, depending on the age of their home. Individuals
should always schedule a pre-renovation inspection of their home
if it was built prior to about 1980 and they suspect that asbestos
products may have been used.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Teachers Duct Tape Peeling Fibro Carpeting
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Griffin, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that in a
desperate bid to protect the health and safety of the students,
faculty and staff of the Fairfield School District in Ohio are
turning to duct tape to stave off any asbestos contamination in
the classrooms. Peeling asbestos carpeting, no air conditioning,
cramped space and general disrepair are forcing Fairfield School
officials to consider replacing aging buildings.

According to the report, though faculty recognize the implicit
danger and incredible health hazards the deteriorating asbestos
carpeting poses, sealing the peeling carpet with duct tape is not
recommended. The bootstrap fix will not shield students and
teachers from the dangers of asbestos exposure. Inhaling asbestos
dust generated from a damaged asbestos-containing product can lead
to mesothelioma cancer.

Asbestos is not the only hurdle teachers face on a daily basis:
cramped classrooms cramp learning; no air conditioning means that
some classrooms in the aging buildings reach potentially deadly
temperatures; and one elementary school must rely on lunches
provided by another school since it does not have a kitchen. In
the elementary school, the crumbling roof allows water to seep in
causing mold.

Before the Fairfield School District can move forward with razing
and rebuilding the Central Elementary School and Freshman School,
and building a brand new elementary school, district officials
must ensure its financing. The Ohio School Facilities Commission
has offered -- and the Fairfield School District has already
accepted -- $19 million towards the $73 million overall project
total leaving the district liable for the remaining $54 million.

To help defray the enormous price tag, the Fairfield School
District placed a $2.62 million bond on the November 5 ballot.
Voters will have to decide whether the additional financial burden
is worth funding the necessary repairs. For a $100,000 home, the
bond will ultimately cost a homeowner $91.70 annually. Some
residents agree that the school district needs new buildings but
are against seeing the cost of the project reflected in an
increased tax bill. Alternatives to levying a bond to pay for the
project are also being considered by district officials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Detection Halts Sydney Cruise Wharf
----------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Boggs, writing for Lloyd's List Australia, reported that
discovery of a small amount of bonded-asbestos has led Sydney
Ports management to immediately take action ensuring excavations
at Sydney Overseas Passenger Terminal northern sea wall pose no
threat to people.

According to the report, a spokesperson for Sydney Ports told
Lloyd's List Australia while bonded-asbestos is common in landfill
and poses the least risk of the asbestos types, the company has
decided to modify its site works to ensure there is no further
excavation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grimsby Swimming Pool Closed Over Fibro Fears
--------------------------------------------------------------
Grimsby Telegraph reported that Grimsby swimming pool closed after
independent experts discovered a small amount of asbestos dust in
the main pool hall.

According to the report, specialist contractors were carrying out
routine survey work and had found asbestos within non-operational
parts of the building. Remedial work is underway, and immediate
measures were taken to restrict access to those areas. These areas
were not accessible by the public and clear signage is in place to
avoid any risk of unauthorised entry.

As part of this ongoing work, further tests have confirmed the
need to take precautionary measures to temporarily close the pool
hall area on health and safety grounds.

Councillor Chris Shaw, leader of the Council, said, "An inspection
by independent experts has found a small amount of asbestos dust
in the main pool hall. We have acted quickly and taken immediate
precautionary steps to close the building. Our first priority is
the safety and wellbeing of the people who use Grimsby swimming
pool."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colorado Waives Fibro Cleanup for Flood Recovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keli Rabon, writing for TheDenverChannel.com, reported that
relaxed state requirements for asbestos cleanup and removal have
paved the way for a speedier recovery for homeowners and
businesses affected by the devastating floods. But cleanup
professionals say the trade-off could be putting people at risk.

"You can't see it, taste it or smell it. There's no way you'll
know without having a certified person come in and test for it,"
says an industrial hygienist and state-certified asbestos
inspector whose name was withheld because he fears retaliation for
speaking out, according to the report.

On average, he says one in three homes in the state contains
asbestos, and despite a common misconception that asbestos-
containing products are no longer manufactured, the products are
often shipped in from Canada and Mexico.

"If you don't know if a material has asbestos in it, you have to
assume the material does, and treat it as an asbestos-containing
material until it can be sampled and proven to not have asbestos
in it," the inspector said.

But in flood cleanup guidance released, the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment said, "To enable timely cleanup of
flood debris . . . the department will temporarily not enforce
certain regulatory requirements."  When it comes to asbestos
contamination, the document states that, "If this is not known,
the material may be handled as non-asbestos flood debris, and
disposed of at a permitted landfill."

But the asbestos inspector disagreed.

"Just removing the gross materials doesn't guarantee that all the
asbestos fibers are going to be gone from the structure," the
inspector said.

"So there could still be asbestos in the home, even though the
materials are taken out?" Call7 Investigator Keli Rabon asked.

"Absolutely, because it's a microscopic fiber," he said.

If inhaled, those microscopic asbestos fibers can cause chronic
lung disease or cancer, like mesothelioma. Studies show it can
take 20 to 30 years before symptoms appear.

"Through this policy, is the state putting people at risk?" Rabon
asked.

"Absolutely," the inspector said.

"I don't agree with that at all. The safety of our citizens,
first-responders and cleanup crews is our number one priority,"
said Will Allison, CDPHE's Director of Air Pollution Control.

Allison says the safest option is to clean flood debris as quickly
as possible.

"We've seen 20,000 homes damaged or destroyed by the recent
flooding, and since that's not the traditional type of remodel we
would see, we recognize that in some stances, traditional
regulations, it's not practical to have them apply," Allison said.

Previous guidance from the state has said, "Buildings of any age,
even those newly built, may have asbestos containing material."

Allison admits many people may not know if asbestos is in their
home.

"This may be another area where we provide some updated guidance
in the near future," Allison said.

The inspector told Call7 Investigators he hopes that revised
guidance comes quickly. Otherwise, he fears people may face the
impact of the flooding once again, many years down the road.

"It just takes one fiber to get in there and start working its way
through your lung to give you mesothelioma. Obviously, I'm not a
medical expert, but I wouldn't want to gamble that with my
children or myself," the inspector said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Fibro Exposure Leads to Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that an employee of Empire District
Electric Co. alleges in a lawsuit that the utility exposed its
employees to asbestos and other hazardous materials at a plant in
southeast Missouri.

According to the report, the lawsuit was filed in Jasper County
Circuit Court by Les Rider, of Diamond. It seeks class-action
status for employees who worked at the utility's Riverton plant.

The lawsuit alleges that asbestos is peeling and flaking
throughout the Riverton plant. It says Rider and other employees
were told to get rid of various scrap materials in a way that
environmental oversight employees would not find them, and that
work exposed workers to asbestos fibers.

Amy Bass, spokeswoman for Empire, told the Joplin Globe the
company does not comment on pending litigation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Disturbed at Maroochydore High School
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Noosa News reported that workers repaired and cleaned a classroom
at Maroochydore High School (Queensland, Australia) overnight
after the discovery of a small amount of asbestos dust.

According to the report, a teacher and two year eight students
disturbed the dust when they were lowering an overhead projector
screen and the screws supporting one of the brackets suddenly
pulled out of the wall.

The material, less than a teaspoon full, originated from the six
screw holes where the screen bracket had been secured to the wall.
Testing of the powder confirmed it was asbestos.

The Department of Education said the school had acted immediately
to safeguard the teacher and students by enacting its asbestos
management guidelines.  They were provided with showers and
replacement clothes and encouraged to consult a doctor if they had
any concerns.

The school immediately contacted the parents of both Year eight
boys and will purchase new clothing for all three involved.

Education Queensland has strict asbestos management guidelines and
ensures the safety of students and staff is its number one
priority.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Roofing in Malta Building Removed
--------------------------------------------------------
Times of Malta reported that the asbestos roofing adjacent to
Mizzi House, which houses the Malta Competition and Consumer
Affairs Authority, in Blata l-Bajda has been removed.

According to the report, PT Matic Environmental Services Ltd,
which was entrusted with the job, said in a statement that
materials were removed with minimum breakage. A dust suppressant
was sprayed to the panels and debris to minimise any fibre
release.

Upon completion of works, a thorough environmental clean-up was
conducted.  All asbestos waste was double wrapped in thick gauge
polythene, labelled and loaded into a steel container for disposal
within a licensed landfill site in the EU.

Several tests were undertaken prior to, during, and subsequent to
the removal works in all the areas, for the personnel's safety and
to ensure that no damage is done to the environment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dying Worker Wins $38MM for Fibro Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sylvia Hsieh, writing for Lawyers.com, reported that a South
Carolina worker who has less than a year to live after being
diagnosed with mesothelioma won a $38 million jury award against
the makers of equipment containing asbestos.

According to the report, Lloyd Strom Garvin, 74, was exposed to
asbestos in equipment like pumps and valves that he used during
years of work on his family farm and in a factory.

He originally sued 13 manufacturers, but most settled or dropped
out before trial.

Three defendants that make asbestos-containing equipment -- Durco,
Crane Co. and Byron Jackson -- remained to face trial.

Lawyers Jessica Dean and Theile McVey argued that the companies
should have known about the risks of abestos but failed to warn
workers that used their products.

Garvin testified by video because he is recovering from double
pneumonia and is not expected to survive his cancer for more than
another year.

Mesothelioma is a particularly deadly form of cancer of the lung's
linings. The only known cause is exposure to asbestos.

Dean asked the jury to award $1 million to Garvin for every year
that he would have lived if he had not gotten cancer. He was
expected to live another 10 to 11 years, she told the jury.

After four hours of deliberation, the jury came back and awarded
Garvin $10 million in actual damages and $1 million to his wife of
50 years, Velda, for loss of consortium. Jurors added punitive
damages to that, ordering Durco and Crane Co. to pay $11 million
each and Byron Jackson to pay $5 million.

An attorney for Crane Co., Terry Budd, called the verdict "flawed"
and said the company will "definitely appeal."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust "Buried at Golf Course"
----------------------------------------------------
Tim Barlass, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported that
when the new Gibraltar Hotel next to the council golf course in
Bowral was completed last May, the opening was attended by Premier
Barry O'Farrell, Minister for Small Business Katrina Hodgkinson
and local MP Pru Goward.

According to the report, developer John Uliana, who now sits as an
independent on the Wingecarribee Shire Council, and wife Liz
looked on as the Premier said: "If you have an idea and work
bloody hard, you can generally achieve your goal, do well for your
family and contribute to the community, and ultimately that seems
to be what John and Liz have done despite every obstacle thrown at
them."  But exactly how Cr Uliana, who runs Bowral Country Living
Pty Ltd with his wife, achieved those goals has been put under
close scrutiny.

The report related that complaints from another independent
councillor made to the Independent Commission Against Corruption
claim the developer, also leasee of the adjacent golf course,
buried asbestos on the course before the new hotel was built.

In documents seen by The Sun-Herald, councillor Garry Turland
writes: "During the course of construction of the hotel adjacent
to the course by Councillor Uliana's company a number of older
buildings were demolished. This involved the removal and treatment
of asbestos. The statements of the former golf course
superintendent indicate that the asbestos was buried on the golf
course site."

Cr Turland said: "The clubhouse was full of asbestos. He dug a
hole and buried it."

Former course superintendent Glen Wright told The Sun-Herald he
knew where the asbestos was and that staff had told him about it.
"If it was just fibro you would not bury it," he said.

"Someone has gone to a lot of trouble of burying it and putting a
lot of shit on top of it."

The documents also allege Cr Uliana dumped waste from other
building sites on the golf course and that he had breached terms
of the golf course lease. They also accuse Wingecarribee Shire
Council of handling the issues in private rather than in open
council meetings.  But Cr Uliana said it was untrue that he had
removed asbestos from the clubhouse or that he had buried asbestos
on the golf course. He also said only a small amount of work
required under the lease had not been completed because of
drainage issues to be addressed by the council.

He said he had reluctantly taken on the lease of the golf course
so that houses wouldn't be built on it.

"The original linings of the building are still there, they have
not been demolished," he said.

Cr Uliana said the allegations were politically inspired to try to
remove him from the delicately balanced council. "I welcome any
investigation, they will find that what has happened here is
political. Evil prospers when good men do nothing."

ICAC wrote to Cr Turland earlier this month saying it would
conduct an initial assessment but that not all matters it received
resulted in an investigation.

The Wingecarribee council said a small triangle of bonded asbestos
fibrous cement was found near the greenkeeper's shed after it
received a complaint. As a precautionary measure, a company had
recently been engaged to prepare an asbestos remediation strategy,
which had been submitted to the Environment Protection Authority.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transfer of Former Riverview Property Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jo Ann Bobby-Gilbert, writing for The Review, reported that the
former Riverview Florist property on Parkway will be transferred
from the city to its Community Improvement Corporation as part of
a deal approved on Sept. 19.

According to the report, the CIC's board of trustees agreed during
its meeting to contribute $6,000 toward the estimated $12,000 cost
of asbestos removal on the property with the stipulation that the
property be transferred to the board.

An offshoot of city government, the CIC has the authority to buy
and sell property without adhering to the bidding procedures
mandated for governing bodies.

The board's executive committee met prior to the trustees' meeting
and approved the contribution and transfer, but not without some
debate.

Committee member Don Heldman said he had heard the company which
identified the asbestos sites, J&J Asbestos Abatement, isn't
authorized to "do this work," complaining also that he has heard
other members say that "all our meetings have to be in a hurry
because everything is cut and dried and we can't vote 'no' because
we're gonna get a black eye."

Member Sherrie Curtis pointed out that all information is mailed
to members for their review prior to meetings.

Trustee Fred Kane also said J&J Asbestos Abatement is only
licensed to determine what needs abated but is not certified to do
the abatement, and no certification from the Environmental
Protection Agency has been obtained.

Kane also said he believes the cost will be greater than $12,000
since there are more than 80 acres that "need cleaned up," which
could result in other environmental issues.

Service-Safety Director Ryan Estell explained that the steps to
which Kane and Heldman were referring take place now that J&J
Asbestos has identified the areas which need abated, including
hiring a contractor to perform the abatement and acquiring EPA
permits.

He stressed that a Phase I environmental study was completed by a
Pittsburgh firm which looked for any underground tanks, oil spills
and other issues, with none found.

Asbestos was found by J&J Asbestos only in the greenhouses on pipe
wraps and window caulking, Estell emphasized.

Ultimately, the measure passed unanimously by both the committee
and board of trustees.

City Council will meet in special session to consider the property
transfer to the CIC. A streets/lands and buildings committee will
meet at 6:30 that night to review the property transfer which
would then have to be forwarded for council's consideration.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Electricians, et al., at Risk for Fibro Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyersandsettlements.com reported that electricians and
electrical cable installers may not know it, but they are at risk
for being exposed to asbestos through repair, demolition or
installation work. This lethal, fibrous material was used in
felted asbestos insulation or asbestos tape to insulate wiring. So
working on old power lines, old wiring or breaker boxes would put
electricians at risk for asbestos exposure. Older arc chutes also
contain asbestos. It was used in circuit breakers, for example,
before the mid-1980's, when they were made of asbestos-containing
plastic molding compound.

According to the report, boiler technicians, sadly, are also at
risk from materials in the workplace. According to the
Environmental Protection Agency, insulation blankets (the outside
covering or shell), door gaskets, duct insulation, and tape at
duct connections of furnaces and boilers can all contain asbestos.
Technicians who worked on repairing boilers and furnaces in the
past would have been at risk for asbestos exposure.

Asbestos was used between 1930 and 1972 as high-temperature
insulation for oil, coal, or wood furnaces, generally found in
older homes. Steam and hot water pipes were insulated with
asbestos-containing material, particularly at elbows, tees, and
valves. Pipes may also be wrapped in an asbestos "blanket", or
asbestos paper (which looks very much like corrugated cardboard).
Asbestos-containing insulation has also been used on and inside
round and rectangular furnace ducts. Sometimes the duct itself may
be made of asbestos-containing materials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Shipyard Worker Sues Former Employer, Others
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyersandsettlements.com reported that George Joseph Van Houten
has filed an asbestos lawsuit alleging his former employers failed
to take proper safety precautions to reduce or eliminate his risk
for asbestos exposure. Van Houten has, as a result of his asbestos
exposure, developed malignant asbestos mesothelioma.

Van Houten alleges in his lawsuit that he was exposed to injurious
levels of asbestos while working at Avondale Shipyards from 1964-
1969. During this period, he alleges, he used and handled and/or
was in the vicinity of others using or handling asbestos or
asbestos-containing products at these facilities in ship engine
rooms and where fibers in the ambient air could be breathed in. He
was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in March of 2013.

One of the defendants, Avondale Inc, is accused of "negligently,
recklessly, willfully and/or because of gross and wanton
negligence, fault, or strict liability, fail[ing] to properly
discharge its duties to the Plaintiff in failing to provide a safe
workplace." Specifically, the company allegedly neglected to
provide safety instructions for eliminating or reducing risks of
exposure to products that contained fibrous, incombustible,
chemical-resistant substances, failed to provide adequate measures
to control the level of infiltration into the ambient air and to
the plaintiff's home, and failure to deliver medical monitoring
and air monitoring. Avondale also allegedly failed to inspect
products, to test for defects or hazards, to accurately report the
results of those tests and medical studies; and further, allegedly
failed to design the products without asbestos where alternate and
equally suitable products were available, in addition to
improperly packaging, transporting, handling, storing, and
disposing of the product.

Van Houten is seeking an undisclosed amount for all medical costs
and expenses, lost earnings, mental suffering, anguish, physical
pain and suffering, loss of consortium, loss of quality of life
and all other forms of relief deemed appropriate.

The defendants in the lawsuit include: Avondale Industries Inc.,
Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Armstrong International,
Asbestos Corporation, Aurora Pump Company, Inc., Buffalo Forger,
Inc., BW/IP, Inc., CBS Corporation, Cleaver, Brooks, Inc., Cooper
US, Copes-Vulcan, Inc., Crane Company, Crosby Valve, Inc., CSR,
Inc., Eagle, Inc., Eaton Corporation, Inc., The Fairbanks Company,
Inc., FMC Corporation, Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Company, Goulds Pumps Inc., Hopeman Brothers Inc.
IMP Industries Inc., Ingersoll-Rand Company, International Paper
Company, John Crane Inc., Joy Technologies Inc., McCarty
Corporation, Mine Safety Appliances Company, The Nash Engineering
Company, Owens Illinois Inc. Reilly-Benton Company, Inc.,
Schneider Electric USA Inc., SpiraxSarco, Inc., Sterling Fluid
Systems (USA) LLC., Taylor-Seidenbach Inc., Trane US Inc., Union
Carbide Corporation, Uniroyal Inc., Velan Valve Corporation,
Warren Pumps LLC, The Wm. Powell Company, American Employers,
American Insurance Company, Home Insurance Company, OneBeacon
Insurance Company, the Stonewall Insurance Company and executives
with Avondale/Huntington Inglass/Northrop Gunman Ship Systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Shipyard Worker Sues Eagle Inc., Others
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyersandsettlements.com reported that Mr. Ora Ham, a former
shipyard welder who was recently diagnosed with asbestos-related
disease, has filed an asbestos suit against Eagle Inc., Reilly-
Benton Company Inc., Taylor-Seidenback Inc. and Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company in the Orleans Parish Civil District Court.

Ham alleges he was exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing
products while working as an insulator and welder from
approximately 1963-1979 at several shipyards and drilling
companies in Louisiana and Texas.

The lawsuit contends that the defendants allowed dangerous
asbestos fibers to escape from their custody, control, and guard
by designing, evaluating, manufacturing, packaging, furnishing,
storing, handling, transporting, installing, distributing, selling
and/or supplying asbestos-containing products to Ham's job sites.

In his lawsuit, Ham alleges the defendants are strictly liable for
manufacturing and selling defective products and for systematic
negligence by failing to properly test their products, warn
against the dangers inherent in their use, provide proper
instructional material and safety devices to reduce the dangers of
those products especially when other similar, non-asbestos-
containing products would have served as high heat insulation.

Ham also claims the defendants "knew that their products would
have to be cut, sawed, broken, sprayed, hammered into place and
generally handled in such a manner as to created dust which when
ingested or inhaled into the body would cause severe and disabling
diseases."

Ham is seeking an undisclosed amount for physical pain and
suffering, mental pain and anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and
medical expenses.

The companies named in the suit as job sites include: Gulfport
Shipyard, Wards Drilling Company, Livingston Shipyard, Texaco,
Chevron, Mobil, Motiva, LeBlanc Welding, Lee Towing Company,
Action Construction, H. B. Zachary, International Maintenance
Company, Inland Marine and Diamond Offshore Drilling.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Displaces West Anchorage Residents
---------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Turner, writing for Channel 2 News, reported that
homeowners in West Anchorage are familiar with their noisy
neighbor: Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport.

According to the report, since 2001, the Alaska Department of
Transportation has made efforts to reduce the impact of aircraft
noise with its Residential Sound Insulation Program.

In late July, a construction company contracted by the DOT started
to sound proof Charlie Volkheimer's house in the Lake Hood area,
the report related.  The work should have been finished in a
couple of weeks, but Volkheimer had concerns after seeing debris
in his HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) system.

"We asked them to come out and do asbestos testing in the house
because of all of the sheet rock dust and all the messes they left
behind," Volkheimer said.

Volkheimer's contractor shared with him the original environmental
survey of his home, which was done last February. He says it
indicated his house was an "asbestos hotspot."  Volkheimer says he
met with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

"We're aware of the situation and we're looking at options to see
how we can assist," said the EPA in a released statement.

As for the alleged asbestos claim, the DOT says it's investigating
the situation.

"Right now, the Department of Transportation facilities care
deeply about the safety of all Alaska residents and it's in the
process of investigating this internally," Jeremy Woodrow, DOT
Communication Officer, said. "At this time, it's too early in the
process to provide any details but the department will investigate
this issue fully so it can provide answers and bring closure to
everyone involved."

Volkheimer says the EPA sealed off his house and he's now living
out of a hotel. He says if test results come back positive for
lead and asbestos poisoning, he could be left with nothing.

"I want the other people that are involved in this program to know
that they did this to us and they might be potentially at risk
also," Volkheimer said. "The other homeowners that are involved in
this should do their due diligence and make sure their homes are
tested."

The only certainty to emerge is that Volkheimer's home improvement
project meant to keep things quiet has become an issue that has
stirred up a lot of noise.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stainforth Court Complex Needs Fibro Removal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Smith, writing for Herald Sun, reported that the budget to
rejuvenate Tasmania's most troubled housing complex has blown out
from $5 million to $8.5 million.

According to the report, Housing Minister Cassy O'Connor announced
the additional money on Sept. 21 as 10 of the 84 units to be
renovated at the Stainforth Court complex at Cornelian Bay were on
show for the first time.

Ms O'Connor said the additional money was needed for asbestos
removal, landscaping and retro-fitting of the units to make them
disability friendly.

"We have increased the scope of the project," Ms O'Connor said.

"The original tender was for $5 million but we also budgeted for
it to be a $7 million project.

"But with the need to remove asbestos, the desire to have platinum
disability units here and some extra money that we thought would
be well spent toward landscaping we have increased the budget from
within our existing funds.

"To reach platinum level, the units had to achieve all 16 elements
of the Liveable Housing Design Guidelines.

"There's also been funding made available to upgrade fire safety,
install video intercom in all units and much-improved communal
facilities including a community room, landscaped grounds and a
barbecue area."

Ms O'Connor denied there was a budget blow-out.

"A 'blow-out' would involve only doing the works we originally
planned and completing them over-budget," she said.

"Instead, we've actually improved and expanded this re-development
-- using extra money from the existing housing budget."

Stainforth Court had gained a reputation for violence, drug use
and crime. The units were earmarked for the wrecking ball in 2010
when former State Government minister Lin Thorp suggested they
could be torn down.

Premier Lara Giddings said the apartments had not been renovated
since they were built in 1954.

"This is critical to modernise them and create a space where
people feel respected," Ms Giddings said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazardous Waste Abound in Subic
------------------------------------------------
Jonathan L. Mayuga, writing for Business Mirror, reported that the
Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority and the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources have so far taken no concrete action to
prevent the mishandling and illegal transport and disposal of
hazardous waste at the old decommissioned power plant in the
former US naval base turned international free port.

According to the report, while the DENR's office in Region 3 sent
an inspection team to check the premises of the old power plant
complex, it was learned that the team only checked for
polychlorinated biphenyl substance but not asbestos.

Worse, the DENR Region 3 team did not conduct an inspection of the
truck of the company contracted to demolish the old power plant
that was seized by the Customs Intelligence and Investigation
Service on August 5 for alleged nonpayment of proper taxes,
sources in Subic said. The company was also allowed to salvage of
the scrap metal in the vintage power facility.

It will be recalled that the Action for Consumerism and
Transparency for Nation Building, said they are concerned that
asbestos and other hazardous materials such as PCBs, that are
certain to be present in the power plant are not being handled
properly and disposed of by Bonapor.

Action said the Bureau of Customs (BOC) CIIS on August 5 impounded
the truck, for allegedly shipping out of the free port scrap
materials from the former Subic Power Plant without paying taxes
and other fees.

Bonapor is now under investigation by the CIIS-Subic Collection
District. Action said the SBMA and the BOC should check if the
company has the requisite licenses to handle hazardous and
dangerous chemicals, as well as to dispose of such material.

Action said the fact that the company was cavalier in its attitude
with paying taxes may be an indication of the questionable level
of professionalism and standards of the company.

The group said the CIIS should also make an effort to check the
contents of the truck that was seized on August 5, if these
included asbestos.

Asbestos is the name given to a group of naturally occurring
minerals used in certain products such as building materials and
vehicle brakes to resist heat and corrosion. Asbestos includes
chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite asbestos,
anthophyllite asbestos and actinolite asbestos. The US Department
of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration, in an
asbestos advisory issued in 2002, said the inhalation of asbestos
fibers by workers in factories using the mineral compound can
cause serious diseases of the lungs and other organs that may
appear years after the exposure has occurred.

The US's Center for Public Integrity has lamented that while more
than 50 countries have banned asbestos, the US has not phased out
the use of the toxic mineral in building materials, insulation,
automobile brakes and other products. PCBs, on the other hand, is
a group of chemicals that contain 209 individual compounds (known
as congeners) with varying harmful effects.

PCBs are no longer produced or used in the United States. The
major source of exposure to PCBs today is the redistribution of
PCBs already present in soil and water. Long-term exposure to some
PCB formulations by inhalation in humans results in respiratory
tract, gastro-intestinal, liver, skin and eye ailments.
Epidemiological studies indicate an association between dietary
PCB exposures and developmental effects.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foundation Launches Drive to Cut Fibro Death Toll
------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Prior, writing for Construction Enquirer, reported that the
British Lung Foundation launched a major asbestos campaign in a
bid to cut the current toll of 20 construction workers a week
dying from the effects of exposure.

According to the report, the Take 5 and Stay Alive campaign is
aimed at tradespeople.

The foundation said that every week on average 20 tradesmen -- six
electricians, four plumbers and eight joiners die in the UK from
exposure to asbestos.

The material was outlawed in 2000 but thousands of building still
contain asbestos.

Federation research showed a worrying lack of information and
training among small employers and sole traders, with workers not
seeing it as a big risk or worrying about losing jobs and money if
they raise concerns, and not knowing how to identify asbestos and
what to do if they find asbestos.

When disturbed and inhaled, asbestos fibres can cause a range of
illnesses, including the terminal chest cancer mesothelioma.

The tiny invisible particles stick to clothes, meaning that as
well as risking their own lives, workers can be unknowingly
putting their family members, colleagues and friends at risk.

The Take 5 and Stay Alive campaign aims to ensure tradespeople
have the knowledge to act safely and responsibly, ensuring they
can identify asbestos and determine what type it is, and assess
whether they have the training and equipment to deal with it
safely.

British Lung Foundation Chief Executive Dr Penny Woods said:
"Twice as many people die from asbestos-related illnesses than on
the roads each year in Britain.

"It's the biggest work-related killer, and the numbers of deaths
associated with it are rising each year.

"Sole traders and people working for small companies are often
under particular pressure to take jobs and deliver quickly, and
this can sometimes put them at particular risk of asbestos
exposure.

"But it's not just tradespeople putting their own lives at risk.
If asbestos is disturbed the particles can affect others too, and
we know several women who have died after years of washing their
husbands' contaminated overalls.

"Our Take 5 and Stay Alive campaign aims to give tradespeople the
tools to act responsibly. We want to ensure they can identify
asbestos wherever and in whatever form it might be present, and
know how to deal with it safely.

"Our message is simple -- taking just five minutes to assess the
situation could save your life, and keep your family, friends,
clients and business safe from exposure to potentially fatal
asbestos dust."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plant Removal Continued Despite Fibro Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Poynter Construction Safety reported that Poole Investments
plc has been fined GBP60,000 and ordered to pay GBP20,000 in
prosecution costs after plant dismantling work exposed workers to
asbestos fibres at a disused tile factory in the Poole.

According to the report, a series of people and workers were
allowed on to the site despite the company being aware of the
presence of asbestos materials from a survey it commissioned.

Bournemouth Magistrates heard (Sept 17) the company agreed to sell
redundant plant at the factory site to a local trader. Between
October 2010 and the following April 2011 the trader unwittingly
released asbestos dust and fibres whilst demolishing part of a
disused pottery kiln to access the redundant plant.

Poole Investments had commissioned an asbestos survey but allowed
work to take place on site and next to the damaged kiln before the
survey was completed. In addition, after the company received the
survey report workers were allowed to continue activities at the
premises.

Poole Investments plc, of Anglo Office Park, White Lion Road,
Amersham, Buckinghamshire, was fined GBP60,000 and ordered to pay
a further GBP20,000 in costs after pleading guilty to three
breaches of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector, James Powell said:

"Poole Investments plc committed safety failings that led to
workers being needlessly exposed to dangerous asbestos dust and
fibres.

They failed to identify that asbestos containing material was
present on the site before the work started, resulting in failure
to properly manage the work or provide appropriate protection for
workers. Worse still, they allowed this work to continue even
after they were in possession of a report showing asbestos was
present and advising that the area should be made out of bounds.

Asbestos-related diseases kill more people than any other single
work-related cause. All types of asbestos can be dangerous if
disturbed. The danger arises when asbestos fibres become airborne.
They form a very fine dust. Breathing asbestos dust can cause
serious damage to the lungs and cause cancer."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: South West Rocks Homeowner Counts Clean-up Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Connaughton, writing for The Macleay Argus, reported that
asbestos contamination of properties in an exclusive South West
Rocks St (NSW) has left one homeowner with a big bill for the
clean-up and neighbours out of pocket and upset.

According to the report, the contamination occurred after a
contractor with a high-pressure water cleaner began washing down
the asbestos roof of a house in Seaview St.

Neighbours quickly became concerned when water mixed with asbestos
began to rain down on their properties.

One neighbour, who does not wish to be named, was aware the roof
was made of asbestos and contacted  Kempsey Shire Council to voice
his alarm.

"I was told by the person I spoke to that the council only had
jurisdiction over the work if it was the owner actually doing it,"
the neighbour said.

"If it was a contractor then it was a problem for WorkCover. So I
contacted the WorkCover office in Port Macquarie. They were very
concerned and sent someone straight up to see what was going on.

"The man doing the pressure washing had left by then but WorkCover
took control of the situation and ordered a clean-up."

WorkCover engaged a professional asbestos decontamination service
to undertake the clean-up, which, the agency told South West Rocks
News, is  almost complete.

Meanwhile an investigation into the incident is  continuing.

"WorkCover directed the property owner to engage an occupational
hygienist and licensed asbestos removalist to safely remove
asbestos from the property and issue a clearance certificate
declaring the site safe," the spokesman said, referring to the
decontamination operation.

"WorkCover is also providing advice to the owners of neighbouring
properties."

Meanwhile the owners of  one of the adjoining properties, a
holiday rental, say  they have had to cancel more than $5000 worth
of school holiday bookings.

Further information on asbestos in homes and how to manage it
before undertaking renovations or maintenance can be found at
www.asbestosawareness.com.au

A Kempsey Shire Council spokesman said the council was dealing
with the matter under the Protection of the Environment Operations
Act but did not wish to comment further.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vermiculite Concerns Discussed in Online Video
---------------------------------------------------------------
The IAQ Video Network and Cochrane & Associates on Sept. 22
announced the release of another online video to help educate
people about issues that may impact their health.  The latest
educational video discusses vermiculite insulation and potential
exposure to asbestos fibers.

Vermiculite is a type of mineral that has been a commercial
commodity throughout the world for well over 50 years. When heated
to a high temperature, flakes of vermiculite expand as much as
8-30 times their original size. The expanded vermiculite is a
light-weight, fire-resistant, and odorless material and has been
used in numerous products, including insulation for attics and
walls.

"A mine in Montana was the source for over 70 percent of all
vermiculite sold in the United States from 1919 to 1990," reported
Paul Cochrane, President of Cochrane and Associates, the company
behind the IAQ Video Network and the new public outreach video.
"Unfortunately, there was also a deposit of asbestos at that mine,
so the vermiculite was contaminated with asbestos. Vermiculite
from this mine was used in the majority of vermiculite insulation
in the United States. We hope this video helps to shed some light
on vermiculite insulation and potential asbestos exposure concerns
if the insulation is disturbed."

To view this video please visit: http://youtu.be/WDNVhBwKmpc

To view over 250 past videos that have been viewed more than
586,000 times about microbial pathogens, environmental, health &
safety topics, please visit:
http://www.youtube.com/iaqmarketer

This educational video was sponsored by a number of organizations
and leading industry professionals that help protect the public's
health. Sponsors include: EMSL Analytical, LA Testing, Mold
Solutions, Clark Seif Clark, MBM Insurance Resource Center,
Healthy Indoors magazine and BioCure Environmental to name a few.

To learn more, or to inquire about IAQ Video Network sponsorship
opportunities and customized videos, please visit
http://www.IAQTV.comor http://www.cochraneassoc.com,email
info@cochraneassoc.com or call (602)510-3179.

About Cochrane & Associates, LLC & the IAQ Video Network
Cochrane & Associates is a business development, public relations
and marketing consulting firm that specializes in the
environmental, HVAC, mold and indoor air quality industries. The
company has worked with many of the industries' leading
institutions and companies and continues to be an innovator in the
industry. They are also the driving force behind the IAQ Video
Network.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Worker Asked to Cover Up Deadly Dust
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that a former
northwestern NSW council worker claims he was asked to cover up
dumped asbestos with green waste and garbage.

According to the report, Mark Sankey said he worked at landfill
sites for Gwydir Shire Council from 2008 until March this year.

On numerous occasions he alleges he was asked to cover dumped
asbestos with garbage, green waste, push it into walls and
sometimes burn it.

"When I was first in that job I was exposed to asbestos many, many
times," he told AAP.

"They would ask me to just push the asbestos under the garbage so
people couldn't see it."

He said only two landfills in the shire were locked, allowing
dumping to occur overnight.  It was only after he began receiving
training on how asbestos was to be properly disposed of that he
began questioning the requests.

"When I asked questions they threatened me with my job."

In March, Mr Sankey said he was made redundant after being told
his skills were no longer required.

Gwydir Shire Council was not immediately available to comment on
Mr Sankey's claims, which come after the Asbestos Diseases
Foundation of Australia (ADFA) accused the council of unsafe work
practices and illegal dumping, which is potentially putting the
residents at risk.

ADFA president Barry Robson said worried Warialda locals had
reported council workers cutting asbestos cement pipes in a
residential street without safety equipment or warnings.  He also
said there were reports asbestos was being illegally dumped or
"simply being tossed over the fence of local tips".

But Gwydir Shire Mayor John Coulton dismissed the reports as
"unfair and misleading", saying safety concerns had been fully
investigated.

"The council is confident that no staff member or member of the
public has been endangered during the water pipe replacement
program in Warialda," he said in a statement.

He also rubbished allegations workers in the small town were told
to misclassify asbestos waste to minimise disposal costs.

WorkCover NSW and the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)
have both confirmed they were looking into the claims.

The EPA said it received a report from Gwydir Shire Council on
September 19 saying the council had inadvertently deposited about
10 cubic metres of soil with bonded asbestos pipe on council-owned
lands at Warialda.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Slater Junior High to Close for Abatement
----------------------------------------------------------
The Valley Breeze reported that school officials will shut down
Slater Junior High School on Sept. 30, and Oct. 1, so workers can
address a ceiling containing asbestos, a silicate mineral that can
be harmful to human health.

According to the report, in an email to Slater staff, Supt.
Deborah Cylke said that crews working on demolishing the ceiling
in the boys' locker room discovered a concealed ceiling above. The
hidden ceiling was tested for asbestos and came back positive.

Air quality tests were conducted outside the locker room, as
required by the Environmental Protection Agency, and came back
negative, according to Cylke.

Asbestos is dangerous if disturbed, said Cylke, so abatement
practices are strictly regulated. She has been advised that it's
safe to do the work with people in the building, but is "aware
that what is safe and what is perceived as safe may not be the
same," said Cylke.

Since the work to take care of asbestos in the locker rooms cannot
be done over the weekend, Cylke said she has decided to close
school for the first two days of the school week. School will only
reopen upon completion of acceptable air quality tests, she said.

School officials have advised the Department of Education that
NECAP tests have to start as scheduled on Oct. 2.

"No one dislikes a three-day weekend; however, I wish it was not
because of additional ceiling repair issues," wrote Cylke. "A safe
school environment and your safety are my priorities."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Halts Plans for Carolina Sharpe House
------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Perring, writing for St. Albans & Harpenden Review,
reported that the long-awaited rebuild to improve a sheltered
housing scheme in St Albans has been halted because building
contractors have found traces of asbestos.

According to the report, demolition of the current Caroline Sharpe
House to make way for a brand new elderly residential home has
begun. However the find of asbestos behind window frames in the
Chiltern Road care home has meant works have stopped.

In May 2009, 24 residents in the current Caroline Sharpe house
were moved into temporary accommodation and by the end of 2009 the
majority had been temporarily relocated to Linley Court, in Valley
Road.

The new home, which includes a new front entrance, an extra floor
of, a roof garden and balcony is due to be completed by North
Hertfordshire Homes in July next year.

John Foster, Sandridge parish councillor, said: "Three years ago
all the residents were decanted and it has been a sorry saga of
delays.

"My concern and concerns among residents is the impact this halt
will have on works. We just hope this won't affect the scheduled
hand over.

"Residents are really looking forward to seeing their new home and
hopefully the contractors can make up for lost time."

However Keeley Hale, project development manager at North
Hertfordshire Homes, reassured residents "delays would be
absorbed."

She said: "The asbestos is being professionally removed by HSE
after the find of asbestos behind one of the window frames.

"We are hopeful that we have enough in the programme to absorb the
delay."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utica Mutual Sues Clearwater in Reinsurance
------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that in a newly filed action,
Utica Mutual Insurance Co. is demanding more than $1 million in
reinsurance proceeds from Clearwater Insurance Co. for the
settlement of asbestos claims brought against Goulds Pumps Inc.

In a Sept. 20 complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York, Utica asserts Clearwater is
obligated under the reinsurance contracts to "follow the
settlements."

Between 1978 and 1982, Utica issued four consecutive umbrella
liability policies to Goulds Pumps that were in effect from
Jan. 1, 1978, to Jan. 1, 1982.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in Weitz Luxenberg Cases Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York dismissed
the appeal in the case captioned IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS
LITIGATION -- ALL WEITZ & LUXENBERG CASES IN WHICH BLACKMER PUMP
COMPANY IS A Defendant, MOTION NO. M-4013 (N.Y. App. Div.), unless
perfected for the January 2014 Term; motion otherwise denied.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated Sept. 17, 2013, is
available at http://is.gd/Am76vlfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tolling of Time to Perfect Appeal Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, denied enlargement of the time to perfect appeal in
the case captioned IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION:
DUMMITT v. A.W. CHESTERTON -- CRANE CO. -- ESTATE OF DUMMITT,
MOTION NO. M-3566 (N.Y. App. Div.).

A full-text copy of the Decision dated Sept. 17, 2013, is
available at http://is.gd/T7CtTrfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Reargument in NY Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, denied reargument or other relief requested in the
case captioned IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION -- WEITZ &
LUXENBERG, P.C., v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC, MOTION NO. M-3551 (N.Y.
App. Div.).

A full-text copy of the Decision dated Sept. 17, 2013, is
available at http://is.gd/GmaH8lfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Affirms Ruling in "Gillenwater" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Charles Gillenwater, suffers from mesothelioma, which he
contracted by inhaling airborne fibers from an asbestos-containing
product.  He brought a personal-injury action against defendants,
Honeywell International, Inc., Owens-Illinois, Inc., and Pneumo
Abex, LLC, all manufacturers of asbestos-containing products.  He
sought compensation from them on the theory that they had been in
a civil conspiracy with one another to conceal the respiratory
dangers of asbestos.  Charles Gillenwater's alternate theory --
alternate to the theory that the three defendants conspired
together -- was that Owens-Illinois entered into the same
conspiracy with a nonparty, Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation,
the manufacturer of Kaylo, an asbestos-containing insulation to
which he also was exposed during his career as a pipefitter.

The other plaintiff, Donita Gillenwater, is Charles Gillenwater's
wife.  She alleged a loss of consortium as a result of her
husband's contracting mesothelioma.

The trial court entered summary judgment in the Defendants' favor
on Donita Gillenwater's claims of loss of consortium.  The case
then went to trial on the remaining claims, and the jury returned
a verdict in Charles Gillenwater's favor and against the three
defendants.  The jury awarded him compensatory damages in the
amount of $9.6 million and also awarded him punitive damages in
the amounts of $20 million against Honeywell, $40 million against
Owens-Illinois, and $20 million against Abex.

Honeywell, Owens-Illinois, Abex, and Crane filed motions for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and the trial court granted
the motions by Honeywell, Owens-Illinois, and Abex but denied the
motion by Crane.  The court entered judgment in Charles
Gillenwater's favor and against Crane in the amount of $8,425,000.

Charles Gillenwater appeals from the trial court's decision to
grant the motions by Honeywell, Owens-Illinois, and Abex for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict.  Donita Gillenwater appeals
from the summary judgment in favor of Honeywell, Owens-Illinois,
and Abex on her claims of loss of consortium.

Looking at all the evidence in the light most favorable to Charles
Gillenwater and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor,
the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District, concluded that
the evidence so overwhelmingly favors the Defendants that no
verdict against them could ever stand.  As for Donita
Gillenwater's claims of loss of consortium, the Defendants were
entitled to summary judgment because they owed her no duty, given
that she was not yet married to Charles Gillenwater at the time he
was exposed to asbestos-containing products, the Court ruled.
Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

The case is CHARLES GILLENWATER and DONITA GILLENWATER,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.; PNEUMO
ABEX, LLC; and OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., Defendants-Appellees, and
JOHN CRANE, INC., Defendant, NO. 4-12-0929 (Ill. App.).  A full-
text copy of the Decision dated Sept. 18, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/3oepBLfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Affirmed Judgment in "Watts" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant-appellant, Hebert Brothers Engineers, Inc., appeals a
trial court's judgment awarding to plaintiffs-appellees, Rosa Lee
Watts and her children, the survival action damages of the
decedent, Alfred Watts, after his death from lung cancer
contracted as a result of his employment with Hebert Brothers on
the Dow Chemical Company premises located in Plaquemine,
Louisiana.

In a decision dated Sept. 16, 2013, the Court of Appeals of
Louisiana, First Circuit, amended the judgment to reflect Hebert
Brothers' virile portion and, as amended, affirmed the trial
court's ruling.

The case is ALFRED WATTS AND ROSA LEE WATTS, v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC
CORP. (INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR TO BESTWALL GYPSUM COMPANY);
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY
CORPORATION; MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY (A/K/A
"3M"); NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY; GENERAL REFRACTORIES
COMPANY; HARBISON-WALKER REFRACTORIES COMPANY (FORMERLY A DIVISION
OF INDRESCO INC.); UNIROYAL, INC. (SUCCESSOR TO U.S. RUBBER
COMPANY); THE McCARTY CORPORATION; RAPID AMERICAN CORPORATION, ET
AL, NO. 2012 CA 0620 (La. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision
is available at http://is.gd/V6Uwtufrom Leagle.com.

Denyse F. Clancy, Esq., and Lindsey Goldstein, Esq., in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Appellees Alfred Watts,
Rosa Lee Watts et al.

H. Alston Johnson, III, Esq., and Daina Bray, Esq., in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, Attorneys for Defendants/Appellants Hebert
Brothers Engineers, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Caire" Suit Remanded to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff, Ronald R. Caire, Sr., filed a motion to remand his
action to the 34th Judicial District Court for St. Bernard Parish,
Louisiana from where it was removed.  Defendants, Murphy Oil USA,
Inc., David Mendrek, and William Turnage oppose the motion.

The Plaintiff filed the suit against Murphy and Defendants Robert
Landry, David Mendrek, William Turnage, (collectively called
"Employee-Defendants), Eagle, Inc., The McCarty Corporation,
Reilly Benton Company, Anco Insulators, Inc., and Taylor-
Seidenbach, Inc., (collectively called "Insulator Defendants"),
seeking damages for his development of bladder cancer allegedly
caused by exposure to toxic and carcinogenic substances while
working at the Murphy Oil Refinery in St. Bernard Parish,
Louisiana.  The Plaintiff brought the suit for negligence and
strict liability and claims damages for physical pain and
suffering, mental pain and suffering and emotional distress, loss
of enjoyment of life, disability, medical expenses, and loss of
earnings.

The Plaintiff claimed he has developed cancer due to occupational
exposure to asbestos is sufficient to establish that the
jurisdictional minimum will be exceeded.  In their opposition to
the Plaintiff's motion to remand, the Defendants argue that the
Plaintiff cannot show a causal connection between exposure to
asbestos, allegedly contained in the Insulator Defendants'
products and the contraction of bladder cancer.

Having found that neither the Employee-Defendants, nor the
Insulator Defendants are improperly joined, complete diversity is
destroyed, thus the matter must be remanded to state court, Judge
Helen G. Berrigan of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana said in a Sept. 23, 2013, order and
reasons, a full-text copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/b8Ysbmfrom Leagle.com.

The case is RONALD R. CAIRE, SR. v. MURPHY OIL USA, INC., ROBERT
LANDRY, DAVID MENDREK, WILLIAM TURNAGE, EAGLE, INC., THE McCARTY
CORPORATION f/k/a McCARTY-BRANTON, INC., REILLY BENTON CO., INC.,
ANCO INSULATORS, INC., AND TAYLOR-SEIDENBACH, INC., SECTION C,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-4765 (E.D. La.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate's Civil Rights Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff David Cullivan, an inmate currently incarcerated at
Vienna Correctional Center filed a pro se civil rights action
pursuant arising from the conditions of his confinement at Vienna.
The Plaintiff, among other things, complain of asbestos presence
in Vienna.  The Plaintiff seeks $70 million in damages and release
from prison.

In a memorandum and order dated Sept. 9, 2013, Judge G. Patrick
Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.  Defendant Vienna is also
dismissed with prejudice from the action.

The case is DAVID CULLIVAN, #S-03907, Plaintiff, v. VIENNA
CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-00666-GPM (S.D.
Ill.).  A full-text copy of Judge Murphy's Decision is available
at http://is.gd/8yj08Ifrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kansas Court Denies Inmate's Reconsideration Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas granted summary
judgment to the defendants in the case captioned BYRON SMITH,
Plaintiff, v. E.J. GALLEGOS, et. al., Defendants, CASE NO. 06-
3061-JTM (D. Kan.), on February 7, 2013, finding the Defendants
entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any
clearly established Eighth Amendment right and did not subject
Smith to a wanton infliction of unnecessary pain when Smith was
minimally exposed to asbestos dust during a work assignment at the
U.S. Penitentiary at Leavenworth.

Smith filed a motion to reconsider and a motion for hearing on
March 7, 2013, claiming that the court misapprehended the facts of
the case and the law.  Smith claims that the court misapprehended
the extent of his exposure, the Defendants' culpability, and the
Defendants' knowledge about the location of asbestos.  He also
claims that the court misapprehended the law because the
Defendants were aware of the risk to him and the law clearly
establishes an Eighth Amendment right to be free of any levels of
friable asbestos.

In a memorandum and order dated Sept. 10, 2013, Judge J. Thomas
Marten of the United States District Court for the District of
Kansas denied the motions, holding that the court did not
misapprehend the facts of the case.  Further, the court did not
err in finding no clearly established constitutional right to be
free from such a limited exposure to friable asbestos, Judge
Marten said.  The court's previous analysis used the incorrect
qualified immunity standard, but this does not change the result,
Judge Marten added.  Applying the proper legal standard, the court
finds that Smith cannot show that the defendants were aware of
relevant facts from which an inference could be drawn that a
substantial risk of serious harm existed, let alone that the
defendants actually drew that inference, Judge Marten further
held.

A full-text copy of Judge Marten's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/KBn6U2from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Court Junks Inmate's Civil Rights Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Phil Gilbert of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois dismissed without prejudice all Federal Tort
Claim Act claims and claims of negligence and gross negligence and
the complaint filed by Plaintiff Anthony Patrick, an inmate in the
custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and housed at
Vienna Correctional Center.  The Plaintiff filed the action for
deprivation of his constitutional rights and the FTCA.  The
Plaintiff also alleged that he was being exposed to asbestos
during his stay at the correctional.  Judge Gilbert also dismissed
without prejudice Defendant Randy Davis from the complaint.

The case is ANTHONY PATRICK, No. M38082, Plaintiff, v. RANDY
DAVIS, Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-00844-JPG (S.D. Ill.).  A full-
text copy of Judge Gilbert's Sept. 11, 2013, memorandum and order
is available at http://is.gd/WuLPr1from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Va. Court Affirms Ruling in "Seckman" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner Ronald Seckman appeals the decision of the West
Virginia Workers' Compensation Board of Review, in which the Board
affirmed an order of the Workers' Compensation Office of Judges.
In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims
administrator's decision, which held Mr. Seckman's claim
compensable on a non-medical basis, but determined that the claim
was not subject to the presumption set out in West Virginia Code
Section 23-4-8c(b) (2009), and that Mr. Seckman's date of last
exposure was October 30, 1990.

Mr. Seckman, in 2007, filed an application for workers'
compensation benefits based on being diagnosed with occupational
pneumoconiosis by his doctor.  Mr. Seckman alleged that he had
been exposed to asbestos, smoke from rolling mills, and welding
fumes throughout his work at Alcan Rolled Products.

In a Sept. 12, 2013, memorandum decision, the Supreme Court of
Appeals of West Virginia, affirmed the decision of the Board of
Review.  The Court agreed with the conclusion of the Board of
Review and the findings of the Office of Judges.  Although Mr.
Seckman presented evidence that he had been exposed to the hazards
of occupational pneumoconiosis, his evidence has been successfully
contradicted by the sampling and testing of Mr. Merrifield who
demonstrated that Mr. Seckman was not exposed to harmful levels of
dust and particulate matter after October 30, 1990.  The Office of
Judges made this finding based on a preponderance of the evidence
and did not commit any reversible error, the Court said.  Based on
this finding, the Office of Judges was correct to hold that Mr.
Seckman was not entitled to the presumption that he suffered from
occupational pneumoconiosis under West Virginia Code Section 23-4-
8c(b), because the period of January 26, 1981, to October 30,
1990, is an insufficient length of time under the statute, the
Court added.

The Court found that the decision of the Board of Review is not in
clear violation of any constitutional or statutory provision, nor
is it clearly the result of erroneous conclusions of law, nor is
it based upon a material misstatement or mischaracterization of
the evidentiary record.

The case is RONALD SECKMAN, Claimant Below, Petitioner v. ALCAN
ROLLED PRODUCTS -- RAVENSWOOD, LLC, Employer Below, Respondent,
NO. 11-1631 (W. Va.).  A full-text copy of the Decision dated
Sept. 12, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/4ZzGPNfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Affirms Ruling in "Brown" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff-appellant, Barron Brown, appeals from the judgment of
the Court of Claims of Ohio granting a motion to dismiss filed by
defendant-appellee, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction.

According to the Appellant's complaint, he is currently
incarcerated at Chillicothe Correctional Institution where he is
serving a mandatory 20-year sentence.  The complaint asserts that,
arising out of litigation in federal court, he and a class of
inmates housed at CCI entered into a settlement agreement with
appellee wherein appellee agreed to remediate asbestos in several
CCI housing units.  In this action, appellant seeks compensation
for "Negligent Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress," due
to the alleged exposure of "unreasonable dangerous levels of
unabated, exposed, and fiable [sic] asbestos" at CCI, where he has
been housed for the previous eight years.  According to
appellant's complaint, because of such prolonged exposure, he now
suffers from "CANCERPHOBIA."

The Appellee filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court
granted, after finding that the Appellant's complaint failed to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

In a decision dated Sept. 17, 2013, the Court of Appeals of Ohio,
Tenth District, Franklin County, affirmed the judgment of the
trial court, agreeing with the trial court that the Appellant's
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The case is Barron Brown, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ohio Department
of Rehabilitation and Correction, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 12AP-815
(Ohio App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/C7HEzyfrom 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  * * *