CAR_Public/131004.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, October 4, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 197

                             Headlines


AMAZON.COM INC: Warehouse Employees File Overtime Class Action
APPLE REIT: Asks 2nd Cir. That Brief be Due October 25
AT&T MOBILITY: Suit Over A2P Messaging Stayed for Arbitration
ATLANTIC POWER: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Consolidate U.S. Suits
BANK OF NEW YORK: Continues to Defend ERISA Violations Suits

BANK OF NEW YORK: Got Medical Capital Suits Settlement's Final OK
BIG BLUE FISHERIES: Recalls Smoked Products Over Botulism Risk
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Awaits Summary Judgment Bid Ruling in IPO Suit
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Court Has Yet to Set Schedule in Antitrust Suit
BMW AG: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models

CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Pelican Bay Solitary Confinement Policy
CAMBRIDGE METALS: Recalls Motorcycle Training Wheels
CAMPBELL COUNTY: Camacho's State Law Claims Dismissed
CENTRAL VALLEY MEAT: Recalls 89,720 Pounds of Ground Beef
CITIZENS BANK: Begins Overdraft Class Action Settlement Payouts

CORIZON INC: "Dulak" Prisoner Civil Rights Case Dismissed
CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: Defends Inergy Merger-Related Class Suits
DAIMLER AG: V and VII Bus Models Recalled in Canada
FACEBOOK INC: Talk Show Host Mulls Suit Over Unpublished Page
FARMERS INSURANCE: Trial Court Ruling in Alexander Suit Upheld

FESTOOL USA: Recalls Plunge Cut Circular Saw
FORD MOTOR: Gets Favorable Ruling in Schmidt Class Action
GENERAL MOTORS: Sonic Model Cars Recalled in Canada
GENERAL MOTORS: Camaro Model Cars Recalled in Canada
GMAC MORTGAGE: N.Y. Judge Upholds Racketeering Class Action

GOOGLE INC: Calif. Court Refused to Dismiss Gmail Wiretap Suit
GREENWICH SENTRY: November 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
GROUPON INC: Appeal in Suit Over Sales Practices Remains Pending
GROUPON INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
GROUPON INC: "Weber" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed Without Prejudice

IBERIA LINEAS: Court Denies Bid to Strike Expert Report
KKR & CO: Awaits Ruling on Judgment Bid in Del. Shareholder Suit
KKR & CO: Summary Judgment Bid in Antitrust Suit Denied in July
LAKOTA: Charger, Charger SE and Hut Model Trailers Recalled
LENDER PROCESSING: Faces Suits Over Proposed Fidelity Merger

LENDER PROCESSING: Mulls Whether to Continue St. Clair Suit Deal
LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: Trial Court Erred in Wage Calculation
LINN ENERGY: "Assad Trust" Class Suit Administratively Closed
LINN ENERGY: Continues to Defend Suits Over Royalty Payments
LINN ENERGY: LinnCo Faces N.Y. Suits Over Initial Public Offering

LINN ENERGY: LinnCo Faces Tex. Suits Over Initial Public Offering
LINN ENERGY: Parties in "Hall" Suit Currently in Settlement Talks
MANDY STAR: Recalls "Good Taste" Plum Due to Undeclared Sulfites
MCGRAW HILL COS: Bid for Leave to Amend "Reese" Complaint Denied
MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Solodyn Product

MIDLAND CREDIT: Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Shetiwy" Suit
MILES INDUSTRIES: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Retirees Lose Interference & Bargaining Claims
NATIONAL TECHNICAL: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Aurora Merger
NEW HAMPSHIRE: "Lee" Suit Dismissed in its Entirety

NISSAN MOTOR: M35 and M45 Model Cars Recalled in Canada
NISSAN MOTOR: Pathfinder Model SUVs Recalled in Canada
NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Awaits Cert. Ruling in "Gielata" Suit
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Antitrust MDL
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Defends Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes

ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Plaintiffs Appealed "McAllister" Suit Dismissal
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Unit Faces Suit Over Hotel Taxes in Illinois
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Voluntarily Dismissed From "Miller" Suit
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Okla.
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Bid to Add Claims in "Kallick" Suit Pending

SEDGWICK CLAIMS: 6th Cir. Affirms Ruling in "Jackson" Suit
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Pain Reliever Suits to Stay in State Court
TORONTO COMMUNITY: Settles Fire Class Action for C$4.85 Mil.
TOYOTA MOTOR: Sienna Model Minivans Recalled in Canada
UNITED STATES: "Logue" Suit v US Marshals Dismissed

VANGUARD PIPING: Settles Suit Over Defective Brass Fittings
VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA: Expert Witnesses Take Stand in Abalone Suit
VINS ARISTA: Dublin's Pub Irish Apple Cider Recalled in Canada
WAL-MART STORES: Accused of Deceiving Equate Migraine Consumers


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Empire District Faces Class Suit Over Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Zurich Commercial Workers to Pursue Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Files Suit Over Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 3 PI Lawsuits & Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Stays Trial in "Kestenbaum" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss "Barraford" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. High Court Vacates Ruling in "Howard" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Flips Ruling in Improper Removal Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Malicious Prosecution Suit Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Disallowing Owens Trust Claims Affirmed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Evidence Precluded in GRC Insurance Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Fraudster Lawyers' Bid for Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Former Sappington Farmers Market
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare in Warialda Due to Illegal Disposal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Triples Fraud Verdict v. Attys, Radiologist

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Dumped at Two Tips in New South Wales
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worker Wins GBP127K Pay From Ex-Employers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Priority at Kerang Hotel Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Traveler Drops Claims v. Fireman's in DuPont Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tracking Software Lets NT Schools Breathe Easier

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yale Asked to Revoke Factory Owner's Degree
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Sentenced for Selling Fibro-Tainted Items
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minister Rejects Claims Fibro Sites Are Neglected
ASBESTOS UPDATE: LCCC Classes Rescheduled After Fibro Discovery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Justices Reaffirm Exposure Testimony Standard

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Claims Life of Peter Abbott
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sacramento County Fined for Fibro Incident
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Family Exposed to Fibro in Home Repair
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Short Cut Exposed Student Doctor to Killer Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY to Demolish Building on Albany Campus

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Charged Over Fibro Work at Kent Apartments
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Exposed Workers Must Go on Register
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Illegally Dumped by Roadside in Wales
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Iowa Firm Must Pay for Environmental Violations


                             *********


AMAZON.COM INC: Warehouse Employees File Overtime Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel and Ben James, writing for Law360, report that
Amazon.com Inc. was hit with a class action in Pennsylvania state
court on Sept. 30 over allegations that the online retailing giant
did not pay overtime wages to warehouse employees.

Neal Heimbach, a former employee at the company's fulfillment
center outside of Allentown, Pa., claims workers in the facility
are not compensated for a mandatory screening process that follows
the end of their shifts.

"As a result of the compensation practice utilized by defendants,
warehouse workers are not compensated for all time during which
they were required to be on the premises of the Amazon fulfillment
center," Mr. Heimbach says in the complaint.

Mr. Heimbach, who left Amazon in April as a result of a workplace
injury, worked at the Breinigsville, Pa., facility starting in
August 2010, according to the complaint.

In the suit, filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, he
detailed a site policy where hourly paid employees are subject to
mandatory screenings, designed to prevent theft, after clocking
out.  He said that this process, in which employees pass through
metal detectors and then are subject to bag searches, routinely
takes up to 10 or sometimes even 20 minutes, and that delays can
make it last even longer.

Mr. Heimbach also added that the screening process cuts into the
employees' 30-minute unpaid meal breaks, as they are also checked
before leaving the site or accessing the break room.  He said this
screening usually takes between 7 and 10 minutes.  He said that
the company employs more than 100 hourly workers at the site who
are not exempt from the wage and hour requirements of the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

The law entitles covered employees to receive compensation for all
the hours that they work and receive time-and-a-half wages for all
hours worked over 40.  The lawsuit, which also names staffing firm
Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. as a defendant, follows an April
Ninth Circuit ruling over security checks at a Nevada Amazon
facility.

In that case, Busk v. Integrity Staffing, the appellate court
revived a lawsuit accusing Integrity of illegally failing to pay
warehouse workers for time spent waiting to clear security
checkpoints.

The panel partially reversed a district court ruling against two
warehouse workers, noting that the trial court erred in assuming
there was a "blanket rule" that security clearance time isn't
compensable, as opposed to applying the appropriate test.

The Ninth Circuit ruling was a break from two earlier rulings from
the Second and Eleventh Circuits that found security clearance
time noncompensable.

Representatives from Amazon did not immediately respond to a
request for comment on Sept. 30.

Mr. Heimbach is represented by Peter Winebrake, Andrew Santillo
and Mark Gottesfeld of Winebrake & Santillo LLC.

Counsel information for Amazon and Integrity was not available on
Sept. 30.

The case is Heimbach v. Amazon.com Inc. et al, case number
130903526 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.


APPLE REIT: Asks 2nd Cir. That Brief be Due October 25
------------------------------------------------------
Apple REIT Eight, Inc. and other defendants have requested that
their appellate brief be due on October 25, 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 December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York ordered that three putative class
actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et
al., Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., and Leff v. Apple
REIT Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and amended the caption of
the consolidated matter to be In re Apple REITs Litigation.  The
District Court also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
the consolidated action and ordered lead plaintiffs to file and
serve a consolidated complaint by February 17, 2012.  The Company
was previously named as a party in the Kronberg, et al. v. David
Lerner Associates, Inc. et al. putative class action lawsuit,
which was filed on June 20, 2011.

On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In
re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO,
filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors,
Inc., Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., Apple
Fund Management, LLC, Apple REIT Six, Inc., Apple REIT Seven,
Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten, Inc., their
directors and certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc.
and David Lerner.  The consolidated complaint, which was dismissed
in April 2013, was purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers
of Units in the Company and the other Apple REIT Entities, or
those who otherwise acquired these Units that were offered and
sold to them by David Lerner Associates, Inc., or its affiliates
and on behalf of subclasses of shareholders in New Jersey, New
York, Connecticut and Florida, and alleges that the Apple REIT
Entities "misrepresented the investment objectives of the Apple
REITs, the dividend payment policy of the Apple REITs, and the
value of their Apple REIT investments."  The consolidated
complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as well as claims for breach of fiduciary
duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligence,
and unjust enrichment, and claims for violation of the securities
laws of Connecticut and Florida.  The complaint seeks, among other
things, certification of a putative nationwide class and the state
subclasses, damages, rescission of share purchases and other costs
and expenses.

On April 18, 2012, the Company, and the other defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated complaint in the In re Apple REITs
Litigation.  By Order entered on March 31, 2013, and opinion
issued on April 3, 2013, the Court dismissed the consolidated
complaint in its entirety with prejudice and without leave to
amend.  The Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals on April 12, 2013, and filed their Brief
for Plaintiffs-Appellants on July 26, 2013.  The Defendants-
Appellees have requested that their brief be due on October 25,
2013.

The Company believes that Plaintiffs' claims against it, its
officers and directors and other Apple REIT Entities were properly
dismissed by the lower court, and intends to vigorously defend the
judgment as entered.  In the event some or all of Plaintiffs'
claims are revived as a result of Plaintiffs' appeal, the Company
will, once again, defend against them vigorously.  At this time,
the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these
proceedings or provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss
or range of loss due to these proceedings, if any.

Apple REIT Eight, Inc. -- http://www.applereiteight.com/-- is a
Virginia corporation that was formed to invest in hotels and other
income-producing real estate in the United States.  The Richmond,
Virginia-based Company has elected to be treated as a real estate
investment trust for federal income tax purposes.

                           *     *     *

Apple REIT Seven, Inc. and other defendants have requested that
their appellate brief be due on October 25, 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 December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York ordered that three putative class
actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et
al., Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., and Leff v. Apple
REIT Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and amended the caption of
the consolidated matter to be In re Apple REITs Litigation.  The
District Court also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
the consolidated action and ordered lead plaintiffs to file and
serve a consolidated complaint by February 17, 2012.  The Company
was previously named as a party in the Kronberg, et al. v. David
Lerner Associates, Inc., et al. putative class action lawsuit,
which was filed on June 20, 2011.

On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In
re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO,
filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors,
Inc., Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., Apple
Fund Management, LLC, Apple REIT Six, Inc., Apple REIT Eight,
Inc., Apple REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten, Inc., their
directors and certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc.
and David Lerner.  The consolidated complaint, which was dismissed
in April 2013, was purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers
of Units in the Company and the other Apple REIT Entities, or
those who otherwise acquired these Units that were offered and
sold to them by David Lerner Associates, Inc., or its affiliates
and on behalf of subclasses of shareholders in New Jersey, New
York, Connecticut and Florida, and alleges that the Apple REIT
Entities "misrepresented the investment objectives of the Apple
REITs, the dividend payment policy of the Apple REITs, and the
value of their Apple REIT investments."  The consolidated
complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as well as claims for breach of fiduciary
duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligence,
and unjust enrichment, and claims for violation of the securities
laws of Connecticut and Florida.  The complaint seeks, among other
things, certification of a putative nationwide class and the state
subclasses, damages, rescission of share purchases and other costs
and expenses.

On February 16, 2012, one shareholder of the Company and Apple
REIT Six, Inc., filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Laurie Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:12-cv-782-ERK-RER, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against the Company, Apple REIT Six,
Inc., Glade M. Knight, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., David
Lerner Associates, Inc., and certain executives of David Lerner
Associates, Inc.  The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of
all purchasers of Units of the Company and Apple REIT Six, Inc.,
or those who otherwise acquired these Units, asserts claims for
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, negligence, breach of written
or implied contract (against the David Lerner Associates, Inc.
defendants only), and for violation of New Jersey's state
securities laws.  On March 13, 2012, by order of the court, Laurie
Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al. was consolidated
into the In re Apple REITs Litigation.

On April 18, 2012, the Company, and the other defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated complaint in the In re Apple REITs
Litigation.  By Order entered on March 31, 2013, and opinion
issued on April 3, 2013, the Court dismissed the consolidated
complaint in its entirety with prejudice and without leave to
amend.  The Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals on April 12, 2013, and filed their Brief
for Plaintiffs-Appellants on July 26, 2013.  The Defendants-
Appellees have requested that their brief be due on October 25,
2013.

The Company believes that Plaintiffs' claims against it, its
officers and directors and other Apple REIT Entities were properly
dismissed by the lower court, and intends to vigorously defend the
judgment as entered.  In the event some or all of Plaintiffs'
claims are revived as a result of Plaintiffs' appeal, the Company
will, once again, defend against them vigorously.  At this time,
the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these
proceedings or provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss
or range of loss due to these proceedings, if any.

Apple REIT Seven, Inc. -- http://www.applereitseven.com/-- is a
Virginia corporation formed in May 2005 to invest in income-
producing real estate in the United States.  The Richmond,
Virginia-based Company has elected to be treated as a real estate
investment trust for federal income tax purposes.

                           *     *     *

Apple REIT Nine, Inc. and other defendants have requested that
their appellate brief be due on October 25, 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 December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York ordered that three putative class
actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et
al., Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., and Leff v. Apple
REIT Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and amended the caption of
the consolidated matter to be In re Apple REITs Litigation.  The
District Court also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
the consolidated action and ordered lead plaintiffs to file and
serve a consolidated complaint by February 17, 2012.  The Company
was previously named as a party in all three of the class action
lawsuits.

On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In
re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO,
filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors,
Inc., Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., Apple
Fund Management, LLC, Apple REIT Six, Inc., Apple REIT Seven,
Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten, Inc., their
directors and certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc.
and David Lerner.  The consolidated complaint, which was dismissed
in April 2013, was purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers
of Units in the Company and the other Apple REIT Entities, or
those who otherwise acquired these Units that were offered and
sold to them by David Lerner Associates, Inc., or its affiliates
and on behalf of subclasses of shareholders in New Jersey, New
York, Connecticut and Florida, and alleges that the Apple REIT
Entities "misrepresented the investment objectives of the Apple
REITs, the dividend payment policy of the Apple REITs, and the
value of their Apple REIT investments."  The consolidated
complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as well as claims for breach of fiduciary
duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligence,
and unjust enrichment, and claims for violation of the securities
laws of Connecticut and Florida.   complaint seeks, among other
things, certification of a putative nationwide class and the state
subclasses, damages, rescission of share purchases and other costs
and expenses.

On April 18, 2012, the Company, and the other defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated complaint in the In re Apple REITs
Litigation.  By Order entered on March 31, 2013, and opinion
issued on April 3, 2013, the Court dismissed the consolidated
complaint in its entirety with prejudice and without leave to
amend.  The Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals on April 12, 2013, and filed their Brief
for Plaintiffs-Appellants on July 26, 2013.  The Defendants-
Appellees have requested that their brief be due on October 25,
2013.

The Company believes that the Plaintiffs' claims against it, its
officers and directors and other Apple REIT Entities were properly
dismissed by the lower court, and intends to vigorously defend the
judgment as entered.  In the event some or all of Plaintiffs'
claims are revived as a result of Plaintiffs' appeal, the Company
will, once again, defend against them vigorously.  At this time,
the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these
proceedings or provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss
or range of loss due to these proceedings, if any.

Headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, Apple REIT Nine, Inc. --
http://www.applereitnine.com/-- is a Virginia corporation that
was formed in November 2007 to invest in income-producing real
estate in the United States.  The Company has elected to be
treated as a real estate investment trust for federal income tax
purposes.


AT&T MOBILITY: Suit Over A2P Messaging Stayed for Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge stayed conspiracy claims related to short codes and the
application-to-person text messaging market, finding some issues
suitable for arbitration.

In 2003, wireless carriers in the United States established a
system of common short codes (CSC), five- or six-digit numbers
that businesses and institutions could use to send wireless
subscribers text messages in bulk.  The service is known as
application-to-person, or A2P, messaging.

Businesses interested in leasing short codes must sign a
registrant sublicense agreement with Neustar, an entity with the
exclusive right to issue and lease short codes, according to court
filings.

In a federal class action last year, three lessees accused five of
the six largest wireless service providers in the country,
including AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile USA, of monopolizing the CSC
system and using it to inflate text messaging fees at the expense
of consumers.

Trade association CTIA - The Wireless Association and Wireless
Media Consulting (WMC), a Virginia-based corporation that provides
CSC monitoring and compliance services to CTIA, were also named as
defendants.

The lawsuit accused the carriers of using CTIA, which they control
financially, to establish Neustar, the only entity that can issue
short codes, and to make consumers send high-volume messages
through a limited number of affiliates called "connection
aggregators," so they can charge senders unnecessary fees at
various levels.

According to the complaint, the defendants made a deal to bar A2P
text message transmission from traditional 10-digit numbers, and
required all lessees to transmit their A2P messages through
aggregators, which charged exorbitant connectivity and per-message
fees.  The defendants also allegedly imposed unnecessary audits,
conducted by Wireless Media Consulting, which further drove up
messaging costs.

The plaintiffs, Club Texting, iSpeedbuy and TextPower, filed the
lawsuit on behalf of thousands of short code lessees who had
leased common short codes from Neustar after April 5, 2008, and
had sent or received text messages through one or more
aggregators.

CTIA, WMC and the wireless carriers argued that the claims were
subject to arbitration, and asked the court to stay the lawsuit
pending resolution of those claims.

U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan granted their request on
September 16, 2013, rejecting claims that the defendants were not
direct signatories of the agreement that contained the arbitration
clause.

Nathan noted that the plaintiffs and putative class members had
all signed the registrant sublicense agreement, a legally binding
contract between nonparty Neustar and short code lessees.  And
although CTIA, WMC and the carriers had not signed the agreement
themselves, they can enforce its arbitration provision against the
plaintiffs as third-party beneficiaries.

"Plaintiffs' relationship with the carrier defendants, CTIA, and
WMC is sufficiently close to justify estopping plaintiffs from
denying their contractual obligation under the RS agreement to
arbitrate disputes of this kind," Nathan wrote.

What's more, the plaintiffs' claims arise directly from the
subject matter of the agreement, which implements the CSC system,
sets the fees and costs, and establishes the audit system and the
right to sanction violators, according to the 52-page opinion.

The fact that the plaintiffs have not included Neustar as a
defendant to avoid enforcement of the arbitration clause also
supports the defendants' theory, since the claims against them are
identical to those that could have been raised against Neustar,
according to the ruling.

Nathan also disagreed that the defendants' alleged misconduct
blocked equitable estoppel, and ruled that only wrongful actions
that relate to the arbitration agreement itself could bar its
enforcement.

A challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole, and not
specifically to the arbitration clause, must be decided by the
arbitrator, the opinion states.

Club Texting and its co-plaintiffs failed to persuade the court
that the arbitration clause was limited to claims under Virginia
law.  The plaintiffs must also arbitrate claims against the
individual aggregators based on arbitration clauses in service
agreements, according to the ruling.

The plaintiffs had also argued that the costs of individually
arbitrating the complex antitrust claims in the complaint would
make access to arbitration impracticable, thus denying them
"effective vindication."

But Nathan found no evidence that the filing fees and
administrative costs would be so high as to deny the plaintiffs
the right to pursue their claims.  The judge chose to stay --
rather than dismiss -- the nonarbitrable claims, per federal
arbitration rules.

Washington, D.C., law firm Wiley Rein, which represents the
carriers, called the decision "an important victory for the
wireless industry."

Attorneys and representatives for the parties did not return
requests for comment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          Elana Katcher, Esq.
          Gregory Keith Arenson, Esq.
          Richard Jo Kilsheimer, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP (NYC)
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
                  ekatcher@kaplanfox.com
                  garenson@kaplanfox.com
                  rkilsheimer@kaplanfox.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Luke A. Connelly, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP (NY)
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 294-6882
          Facsimile: (212) 294-4700
          E-mail: lconnelly@winston.com

               - and -

          Christopher B. Essig, Esq.
          Thomas James Frederick, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP (IL)
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 558-6229
          Facsimile: (312) 558-5700
          E-mail: cessig@winston.com
                  tfrederick@winston.com

               - and -

          Aaron Martin Panner, Esq.
          Brendan J. Crimmins, Esq.
          KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, P.L.L.C.
          1615 M Street, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 326-7941
          Facsimile: (202) 326-7999
          E-mail: apanner@khhte.com
                  bcrimmins@khhte.com

               - and -

          Andrew G. McBride, Esq.
          Thomas Ryan McCarthy, Esq.
          WILEY REIN LLP
          1776 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 719-7000
          Facsimile: (202) 719-7049
          E-mail: amcbride@wileyrein.com
                  tmccarthy@wileyrein.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Bierman, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP (NY)
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 839-5510
          Facsimile: (212) 839-5599
          E-mail: sbierman@sidley.com

               - and -

          John Walter Treece, Esq.
          Linton J. Childs, Esq.
          SIDLEY, AUSTIN LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603-2323
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
          E-mail: jtreece@sidley.com
                  lchilds@sidley.com

               - and -

          Archis A. Parasharami, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP(DC)
          1999 "K" Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3328
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5328
          E-mail: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          John E. Schmidtlein, Esq.
          Megan Anne Hughes, Esq.
          Michael V. Pinkel, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNELLY L.L.P.
          725 Twelfth Street N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
          E-mail: jschmidtlein@wc.com
                  mhughes@wc.com

               - and -

          Joel Murray Cohen, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL L.L.P.
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 450-4592
          Facsimile: (212) 450-3592
          E-mail: joel.cohen@dpw.com

               - and -

          Christopher Burch Hockett, Esq.
          Micah G. Block, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL (MENLO PARK)
          1600 El Camino Real
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: (650) 752-2000
          Facsimile: (650) 752-2111
          E-mail: chris.hockett@dpw.com
                  micah.block@davispolk.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Kill, Esq.
          Carrie Maylor DiCanio, Esq.
          ANDERSON KILL & OLICK, P.C.
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 278-1046
          Facsimile: (212) 278-1733
          E-mail: lkill@andersonkill.com
                  cmaylor@andersonkill.com

               - and -

          Scott Allan Martin, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (NYC)
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 801-2231
          Facsimile: (212) 805-9230
          E-mail: martinsc@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael D. McNeely, Esq.
          DLA PIPER US LLP (NJ)
          300 Campus Drive, Suite 100
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (202) 238-7788
          Facsimile: (202) 238-7700
          E-mail: mmcneely@graycary.com

               - and -

          Laura M. Kam, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          2525 East Camelback Road, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (480) 606-5100
          Facsimile: (480) 606-5101
          E-mail: laura.kam@dlapiper.com

               - and -

          Paolo Morante, Esq.
          DLA PIPER US LLP (NY)
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 335-4813
          Facsimile: (212) 884-8713
          E-mail: paolo.morante@dlapiper.com

               - and -

          Adam C. Hemlock, Esq.
          Steven Alan Reiss, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP (NYC)
          767 Fifth Avenue, 25th Fl.
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310-8281
          Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
          E-mail: adam.hemlock@weil.com
                  steven.reiss@weil.com

               - and -

          Dylan M. Carson, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          Metropoint 1, Suite 1325
          Denver, CO 80237
          Telephone: (720) 897-4371
          Facsimile: (720) 222-5242
          E-mail: dylan.carson@tuckerellis.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Pascarella, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          925 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1150
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 696-4936
          Facsimile: (216) 592-5009
          E-mail: pat.pascarella@tuckerellis.com

               - and -

          Robert L. Sills, Esq.
          Jeffrey Michael Prokop, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP (NYC)
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 506-5110
          Facsimile: (212) 506-5151
          E-mail: rsills@orrick.com
                  jprokop@orrick.com

               - and -

          David Smutny, Esq.
          Ross C. Paolino, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP (DC)
          1152 15th Street, N.W.,
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 339-8400
          Facsimile: (202) 339-8500
          E-mail: dsmutny@orrick.com
                  rpaolino@orrick.com

               - and -

          Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr., Esq.
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 225-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 225-3499
          E-mail: maofiling@cgsh.com

               - and -

          Peter Nicholas Flocos, Esq.
          Sarah Peck Kenney, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP (NYC)
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-6030
          Telephone: (212) 536-4025
          Facsimile: (212) 536-3901
          E-mail: peter.flocos@klgates.com
                  sarah.kenney@klgates.com

               - and -

          John C. Blessington, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP (MA)
          One Lincoln Street; State Street Financial Center
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 261-3108
          Facsimile: (617) 261-3175
          E-mail: john.blessington@klgates.com

               - and -

          Jennifer L. Stewart, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          500 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 937-2351
          Facsimile: (617) 937-2400
          E-mail: jstewart@cooley.com

               - and -

          Karl Geercken, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD, LLP (NYC)
          90 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 210-9400
          Facsimile: (212) 210-9444
          E-mail: karl.geercken@alston.com

               - and -

          Mark A. McCarty, Esq.
          Peter Kontio, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD, L.L.P.
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Telephone: (404) 881-7000
          Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
          E-mail: mark.mccarty@alston.com
                  peter.kontio@alston.com

               - and -

          Basileios Katris, Esq.
          HORWOOD MARCUZ & BERK CHARTERED
          500 W. Madison Street, Suite 3700
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 606-3211
          Facsimile: (312) 606-3232
          E-mail: bkatris@hmblaw.com

               - and -

          Karen H. Bromberg, Esq.
          Nathaniel P. T. Read, Esq.
          Thomas Edward Bezanson, Esq.
          COHEN & GRESSER, LLP
          800 Third Avenue 21st, Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 957-7600
          Facsimile: (212) 957-4514
          E-mail: kbromberg@cohengresser.com
                  NRead@CohenGresser.com
                  tbezanson@cohengresser.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Donovan, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP(NJ)
          200 Kimball Drive
          Parsippany, NJ 07054
          Telephone: (212) 808-7800
          Facsimile: (212) 808-7897
          E-mail: rdonovan@kelleydrye.com

               - and -

          Molly S. Boast, Esq.
          Sanket Jayshukh Bulsara, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP (NYC)
          7 World Trade Center
          250 Greenwich St.
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 230-8800
          Facsimile: (212) 230-8888
          E-mail: molly.boast@wilmerhale.com
                  sanket.bulsara@wilmerhale.com

The case is In Re A2P SMS Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:12-cv-
02656-AJN, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Foley Square).


ATLANTIC POWER: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Consolidate U.S. Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Power Corporation is awaiting a court decision on a
motion to consolidate securities class action lawsuits pending in
the U.S., 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 March 8, 14, 15 and 25, 2013, and April 23, 2013, five
purported securities fraud class action complaints were filed by
alleged investors in Atlantic Power common shares in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the
"District Court") against Atlantic Power and Barry E. Welch, the
Company's President and Chief Executive Officer and a Director of
Atlantic Power, in each of the actions, and, in addition to Mr.
Welch, some or all of Patrick J. Welch, the Company's former Chief
Financial Officer, Lisa Donahue, the Company's former interim
Chief Financial Officer, and Terrence Ronan, the Company's current
Chief Financial Officer, in certain of the actions (the
"Individual Defendants," and together with Atlantic Power, the
"Defendants") (the "U.S. Actions").

On March 19, 2013, April 2, 2013, and May 10, 2013, three notices
of action relating to Canadian securities class action claims
against the Defendants were also issued by alleged investors in
Atlantic Power common shares, and in one of the actions, holders
of Atlantic Power convertible debentures, with the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in the Province of Ontario.  On April 8,
2013, a similar claim issued by alleged investors in Atlantic
Power common shares seeking to initiate a class action against the
Defendants was filed with the Superior Court of Quebec in the
Province of Quebec (the "Canadian Actions").

On April 17, May 22, and June 7, 2013 statements of claim relating
to the notices of action were filed with the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice in the Province of Ontario.  The next steps in
the Ontario litigation will be directed toward determining which
firms and plaintiff or plaintiffs will have carriage of the
action.  The District Court complaints differ in terms of the
identities of the Individual Defendants they name, the named
plaintiffs, and the purported class period they allege (July 23,
2010, to March 4, 2013, in three of the District Court actions and
August 8, 2012, to February 28, 2013, in the other two District
Court actions), but in general each alleges, among other things,
that in Atlantic Power's press releases, quarterly and year-end
filings and conference calls with analysts and investors, Atlantic
Power and the Individual Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and omissions regarding the sustainability
of Atlantic Power's common share dividend that artificially
inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares.  The
District Court complaints assert claims under Section 10(b) and,
against the Individual Defendants, under Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The allegations in
the Canadian Actions are essentially the same as those asserted in
the District Court actions.

The parties to each District Court action have filed joint motions
requesting that the District Court set a schedule in the District
Court actions, including: (i) setting a deadline for the lead
plaintiff to file a consolidated amended class action complaint
(the "Amended Complaint"), after the appointment of lead plaintiff
and counsel; (ii) setting a deadline for Defendants to answer,
file a motion to dismiss or otherwise respond to the Amended
Complaint (and for subsequent briefing regarding any such motion
to dismiss); and (iii) confirming that Defendants need not answer,
move to dismiss or otherwise respond to any of the five District
Court complaints prior to the filing of the Amended Complaint.  On
May 7, 2013, each of six groups of investors (the "U.S. Lead
Plaintiff Applicants") filed a motion (collectively, the "U.S.
Lead Plaintiff Motions") with the District Court seeking: (i) to
consolidate the five U.S. Actions (the "Consolidated U.S.
Action"); (ii) to be appointed lead plaintiff in the Consolidated
U.S. Action; and (iii) to have its choice of lead counsel
confirmed.  On May 22, 2013, three of the U.S. Lead Plaintiff
Applicants filed oppositions to the other U.S. Lead Plaintiff
Motions, and on June 6, 2013, those three Lead Plaintiff
Applicants filed replies in support of their respective motions.
The District Court scheduled a hearing for August 9, 2013, to
address, among other issues, the Lead Plaintiff Motions.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
all discovery is stayed in the five District Court actions.  As of
May 6, 2013, the plaintiffs have not specified an amount of
alleged damages in the respective U.S. and Canadian Actions filed
on March 19, 2013, and April 2, 2013 (including the related
statement of claim filed on May 2, 2013), in which the plaintiffs
have alleged damages of CAD1,100,000,000 and CAD$208,500,000,
respectively, plus interest and costs.  However, because both the
U.S. and Canadian Actions are in their early stages, Atlantic
Power is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range
of losses, if any, arising from the litigation.  Atlantic Power
intends to defend vigorously against these actions.

Atlantic Power Corporation -- http://www.atlanticpower.com/--
owns and operates a diverse fleet of power generation and
infrastructure assets in the United States and Canada.  The
Company's power generation projects sell electricity to utilities
and other large commercial customers largely under long-term power
purchase agreements, which seek to minimize exposure to changes in
commodity prices.  The Company was incorporated in British
Columbia, Canada, and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.


BANK OF NEW YORK: Continues to Defend ERISA Violations Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation continues to defend itself
against class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 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.

BNY Mellon has been named as a defendant in several putative class
action federal lawsuits filed on various dates in 2011 and 2012.
The complaints, which assert claims including breach of contract
and ERISA and securities laws violations, all allege that the
prices BNY Mellon charged for standing instruction foreign
exchange transactions executed in connection with custody services
provided by BNY Mellon were improper.  In addition, BNY Mellon has
been named as a nominal defendant in several derivative lawsuits
filed in 2011 and 2012 in state and federal court in New York.  On
July 2, 2013, the court in the consolidated federal derivative
action dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims.  BNY Mellon has also
been named in a qui tam lawsuit filed on May 22, 2012, in
Massachusetts state court.  To the extent these lawsuits are
pending in federal court, they have been consolidated for pre-
trial purposes in federal court in New York.

New York-based The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation --
http://www.bnymellon.com/-- is a global investments company
dedicated to helping its clients manage and service their
financial assets throughout the investment lifecycle.  Whether
providing financial services for institutions, corporations or
individual investors, BNY Mellon delivers informed investment
management and investment services in 35 countries and more than
100 markets.


BANK OF NEW YORK: Got Medical Capital Suits Settlement's Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation received final approval of
its settlement of lawsuits in connection with its role as
indenture trustee for debt issued by affiliates of Medical Capital
Corporation was granted in June 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.

The Bank of New York Mellon was named as a defendant in a number
of class actions and non-class actions brought by numerous
plaintiffs in connection with its role as indenture trustee for
debt issued by affiliates of Medical Capital Corporation.  The
actions, filed in late 2009 and consolidated in federal court in
the Central District of California, alleged that The Bank of New
York Mellon breached its fiduciary and contractual obligations to
the holders of the underlying securities, and sought unspecified
damages.

On Dec. 21, 2012, The Bank of New York Mellon entered into a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs and the Federal Equity
Receiver for Medical Capital Corporation and its affiliates.
Under the terms of the settlement, The Bank of New York Mellon
made a payment of $114 million in exchange for a complete release
of claims.  Final court approval of the settlement was granted on
June 24, 2013.

New York-based The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation --
http://www.bnymellon.com/-- is a global investments company
dedicated to helping its clients manage and service their
financial assets throughout the investment lifecycle.  Whether
providing financial services for institutions, corporations or
individual investors, BNY Mellon delivers informed investment
management and investment services in 35 countries and more than
100 markets.


BIG BLUE FISHERIES: Recalls Smoked Products Over Botulism Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Big Blue Fisheries is recalling ALL smoked products from all lots
and codes, various sizes, in vacuum packages because the products
may not have been properly cooked and have the potential to be
contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium which can
cause life-threatening illness or death.  Consumers are warned not
to use the product even if it does not look or smell spoiled.
Because the products may not have been fully processed, product
contamination by spoilage organisms or pathogens could lead to
illness if consumed.

Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-vision
and trouble with speaking or swallowing.  Difficulty in breathing,
weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation
may also be common symptoms.  People experiencing these problems
should seek immediate medical attention.

Big Blue Fisheries initiated a voluntary recall after Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) conducted a
routine inspection and discovered that some of their products may
not have been properly cooked.  To date, there have been no
reported illnesses or consumer complaints.

The firm's products sold under Big Blue Fisheries brand and Sitka
Alaska Smoked Fish were distributed locally in Sitka, Alaska and
wholesale nationwide between 09/24/11 to 09/24/13.  Products were
also sold from internet through the website:
http://alaskasmokedfish.com

Products were sold in vacuum packed plastic packages with labels
located on the front that include the pack date and AK#604.

  Product Description         Weight            Pack Date
  -------------------         ------            ---------
  Pepper Smoked King Salmon   1/2 lb to 1 lb   Between 9/24/11 and
                                               9/24/13
  Hickory Smoked King Salmon
  Teriyaki Smoked King Salmon
  Hickory Smoked Black Cod
  Smoked Coho Salmon Bellies
  Smoked King Salmon Bellies
  Hickory Smoked Coho Salmon
  Pepper Smoked Coho Salmon
  Teriyaki Smoked Coho Salmon
  Smoked Wild Silver (Coho)
  Salmon Filet                 1lb to 2.5lbs
  Variety Smoke Pack           1.5lbs

Consumers who have purchased affected Big Blue Fisheries smoked
salmon products should discard or return them to the place of
purchase.

Media and consumers with questions about the recall, including
product returns, should contact Big Blue Fisheries, LLC 9 AM -
5 PM Alaska time Monday - Friday at (907) 966-9999.

The recall is being made with the knowledge of the Food and Drug
Administration and Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Awaits Summary Judgment Bid Ruling in IPO Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Blackstone Group L.P. is awaiting a court decision on its
motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss a consolidated
lawsuit relating to its initial public offering, 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 the spring of 2008, six substantially identical complaints were
brought against Blackstone and some of its executive officers
purporting to be class actions on behalf of purchasers of common
units in Blackstone's June 2007 initial public offering.  These
lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into one complaint
(Landmen Partners Inc. v. The Blackstone Group L.P., et al.) filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York in October 2008 against Blackstone, Stephen A. Schwarzman
(Blackstone's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer), Peter G.
Peterson (Blackstone's former Senior Chairman), Hamilton E. James
(Blackstone's President and Chief Operating Officer) and Michael
A. Puglisi (Blackstone's Chief Financial Officer at the time of
the IPO).  The amended complaint alleged that (1) the IPO
prospectus was false and misleading for failing to disclose that
(a) one private equity investment would be adversely affected by
trends in mortgage default rates, particularly for sub-prime
mortgage loans, (b) another private equity investment was
adversely affected by the loss of an exclusive manufacturing
agreement, and (c) prior to the IPO the U.S. real estate market
had started to deteriorate, adversely affecting the value of
Blackstone's real estate investments; and (2) the financial
statements in the IPO prospectus were materially inaccurate
principally because they overstated the value of the investments
referred to in clause (1).

In September 2009 the District Court judge dismissed the complaint
with prejudice, ruling that even if the allegations in the
complaint were assumed to be true, the alleged omissions were
immaterial.  Analyzing both quantitative and qualitative factors,
the District Court reasoned that the alleged omissions were
immaterial as a matter of law given the size of the investments at
issue relative to Blackstone as a whole, and taking into account
Blackstone's structure as an asset manager and financial advisory
firm.

In February 2011, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit
reversed the District Court's decision, ruling that the District
Court incorrectly found that plaintiffs' allegations were, if
true, immaterial as a matter of law.

The Second Circuit disagreed with the District Court, concluding
that the complaint "plausibly" alleged that the initial public
offering documents omitted material information concerning two of
Blackstone funds' individual investments and inadequately
disclosed information relating to market risks to their real
estate investments.  Because this was a motion to dismiss, in
reaching this decision the Second Circuit accepted all of the
complaint's factual allegations as true and drew every reasonable
inference in plaintiffs' favor.  The Second Circuit did not
consider facts other than those in the plaintiffs' complaint.  On
June 28, 2011, the defendants filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which was
subsequently denied.  On August 8, 2011, the defendants filed
their answer to the complaint and discovery commenced.  The
parties completed factual discovery on March 29, 2013, and expert
discovery on May 10, 2013.  Briefing on the defendants' motion for
summary judgment seeking to dismiss the case was completed on
June 21, 2013, and oral argument was scheduled for August 14,
2013.  In the event summary judgment is denied, the District Court
scheduled a trial to begin on September 16, 2013.

Blackstone believes that the pending lawsuits against it are
totally without merit and intends to defend them vigorously.

The Blackstone Group L.P. -- http://www.blackstone.com/-- is a
Delaware limited partnership that was formed on March 12, 2007,
and is headquartered in New York.  The Company is a global
alternative asset manager and provider of financial advisory
services.  The Company's alternative asset management businesses
include the management of private equity funds, real estate funds,
funds of hedge funds, credit-focused funds, collateralized loan
obligation and collateralized debt obligation vehicles and
separately managed accounts.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Court Has Yet to Set Schedule in Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts District Court has not yet established a
schedule for determining whether to certify the shareholder class
proposed by the plaintiffs in the antitrust class action lawsuit
involving The Blackstone Group L.P., 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 December 2007, a purported class of shareholders in public
companies acquired by one or more private equity firms filed a
lawsuit against a number of private equity firms and investment
banks, including The Blackstone Group L.P., in the United States
District Court in Massachusetts (Kirk Dahl, et al. v. Bain Capital
Partners, LLC, et al.).  The lawsuit alleges that, from mid-2003
through 2007, eleven defendants violated the antitrust laws by
allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private
equity financing, fix the prices for target companies at
artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged market for
private equity services for leveraged buyouts.  After the
conclusion of discovery, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
in June 2012, in which the plaintiffs sought damages on behalf of
public shareholders that tendered their shares in connection with
17 leveraged buyouts.  In March 2013, the court denied defendants'
joint motion for summary judgment and all but one individual
motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' overarching conspiracy
claim but narrowed the scope of plaintiffs' allegations.
Consequently, the number of transactions for which the plaintiffs
are seeking damages has been reduced from 17 to eight
transactions.  The court has previously dismissed claims against
Blackstone with respect to three of these eight transactions
because Blackstone was released from any and all claims by the
same shareholders in prior litigation.  In July 2013, the court
denied all but two defendants' renewed individual motions for
summary judgment (there remain eight defendants, including
Blackstone).  The court also denied the motion by Blackstone and
three other defendants for summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim
of a conspiracy with respect to the Hospital Corporation of
America (HCA).  The court has not yet established a schedule for
determining whether to certify the shareholder class proposed by
the plaintiffs.

Blackstone believes that the pending lawsuits against it are
totally without merit and intends to defend them vigorously.

The Blackstone Group L.P. -- http://www.blackstone.com/-- is a
Delaware limited partnership that was formed on March 12, 2007,
and is headquartered in New York.  The Company is a global
alternative asset manager and provider of financial advisory
services.  The Company's alternative asset management businesses
include the management of private equity funds, real estate funds,
funds of hedge funds, credit-focused funds, collateralized loan
obligation and collateralized debt obligation vehicles and
separately managed accounts.


BMW AG: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
---------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 27, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car, SUV
Notification type:        Safety TC
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           9376
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013330
TC ID number:             2013330

On certain vehicles, a defect in manufacturing could result in a
loss of oil supply to the vacuum pump.  If this were to occur, the
vacuum pump could fail, causing a loss of power assist to the
braking system.  This could cause increased stopping distances,
possibly resulting in a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property.

Dealers will install a camshaft seal disk locking ring.

Affected products:

  Maker     Model       Model year(s) affected
  -----     -----       ---------------------
  BMW       3 SERIES    2012, 2013, 2014
  BMW       5 SERIES    2012, 2013, 2014
  BMW       X3          2012, 2013, 2014
  BMW       Z4          2012, 2013, 2014
  BMW       X1          2012, 2013, 2014


CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Pelican Bay Solitary Confinement Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------
BayView reports that on Sept. 26, lawyers from the Center for
Constitutional Rights (CCR) urged a federal judge to grant class
action status to a lawsuit challenging prolonged solitary
confinement in California prisons.  The case, Ashker v. Brown, was
filed on behalf of 10 prisoners in the Security Housing Unit (SHU)
at the notorious Pelican Bay State Prison who have spent over 10
years, and as many as 29 years, in solitary confinement.

Aerial view of Pelican Bay State Prison 072709, web
In this aerial view of Pelican Bay State Prison, the X-shaped
white building is the notorious SHU, or Security Housing Unit.
Three weeks ago, California prisoners, including plaintiffs in
Ashker, suspended their third hunger strike protesting their
confinement and conditions, after 60 days.  More than 500 Pelican
Bay prisoners have been isolated in the SHU for over 10 years;
more than 200 have been there for over 15 years; and 78 have been
isolated in the SHU for more than 20 years.  Class certification
will allow remedies in the case to apply to all Pelican Bay SHU
prisoners who have been held in solitary confinement for more than
10 years.

"There are hundreds of prisoners at Pelican Bay who have been
suffering just as long and in the same appalling conditions as our
clients," said Center for Constitutional Rights Staff Attorney
Alexis Agathocleous, who argued on Sept. 28.  "If the length of
time prisoners are held in isolation and the conditions they live
under are unconstitutional, they are unconstitutional for
everyone, not just the 10 named plaintiffs in the suit, and any
remedies should apply to everyone affected."

The lawsuit alleges that prolonged solitary confinement violates
Eighth Amendment prohibitions against cruel and unusual
punishment, and that the absence of meaningful review for SHU
placement violates the prisoners' right to due process.  SHU
prisoners spend 22 1/2 to 24 hours a day in a cramped, concrete,
windowless cell.  They are denied telephone calls, contact visits,
and vocational, recreational or educational programming.
More than 500 Pelican Bay prisoners have been isolated in the SHU
for over 10 years; more than 200 have been there for over 15
years; and 78 have been isolated in the SHU for more than 20
years.

According to experts in the case, who have interviewed the
plaintiffs and other Pelican Bay SHU prisoners, long-term solitary
confinement is "well-known to cause severe psychiatric morbidity,
disability, suffering and mortality."  Further, "[t]he magnitude
of the suffering that [these prisoners] have endured . . . is
difficult to fathom. . . . [They] have lost a connection to the
basic sense of who they 'were.'"

Because SHU prisoners do not receive any meaningful review of
their placement, their isolation can effectively be permanent.
Though a prisoner's SHU placement is ostensibly reviewed once
every six years, prisoners are routinely placed and held in the
SHU without any gang activity, violent conduct or serious rule
infraction.  Rather, they are labeled "gang affiliates" and have
been confined in isolation for activities such as reading about
Black history, creating or possessing cultural artwork, or writing
in Spanish or Swahili.

In October 2012, the CDCR introduced a pilot program aimed at
addressing some of the issues raised in the suit, but the changes
are neither permanent, nor do they resolve the fundamental
deficiencies in the policies that have been in place for years,
say critics.

According to experts in the case, who have interviewed the
plaintiffs and other Pelican Bay SHU prisoners, long-term solitary
confinement is "well-known to cause severe psychiatric morbidity,
disability, suffering and mortality."

"The step down program does nothing to resolve the fundamental
wrong of keeping men in isolation in perpetuity based on flimsy
evidence, arbitrary decisions and policies designed to inflict
mental and physical abuse.  It is a glossy sugar coat over a
rancid practice," said attorney Charles Carbone.

SHU assignments disproportionately affect Black and Latino
prisoners.  The percentage of Latinos in the Pelican Bay SHU, for
example, was 85 percent in 2011, far higher than their
representation in the general prison population, which was 41
percent.

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, California Prison
Focus, Siegel & Yee, and the Law Offices of Charles Carbone are
co-counsel on the case.

Ashker v. Brown, amends an earlier pro se lawsuit filed by Pelican
Bay SHU prisoners Todd Ashker and Danny Troxell.  The case is
before Judge Claudia Wilken in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and
protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution
and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Founded in 1966 by
attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR
is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to
the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.


CAMBRIDGE METALS: Recalls Motorcycle Training Wheels
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 30, 2013
Posting date:             September 30, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Sports/Fitness
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Physical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-35943

Affected products: Motorcycle training wheels

The recall involves Moose Racing brand motorcycle training wheels
for youth motorcycles, and replacement wheel kits.

The training wheels have a black, one-piece, full-length metal
axle with a plate that attaches to the underside of the motorcycle
frame beneath the engine and two inflatable rubber wheels.  The
Moose Racing logo appears on the left and right sides of the axle.
The replacement wheel kit is a set of two tires mounted on the
wheel assembly.

Replacement wheel kits and training wheels that fit the following
youth motorcycle models are being recalled:

   -- Honda XR/CRF 50;
   -- Kawasaki KDX/Suzuki JR 50;
   -- KTM 50;
   -- Suzuki DRZ 70;
   -- Yamaha PW50; and
   -- Yamaha TT-R50

Note: Youth motorcycles themselves are NOT subject to the recall.

The bolts and nuts securing the wheel can loosen and cause the
rider to lose control, posing a crash hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor Cambridge Metals & Plastics have
received any reports of incidents or injuries in Canada.

Approximately 576 units of the recalled products were sold in
Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and
sold from July 2012 to September 2013.

Companies:

  Manufacturer     Cambridge Metals & Plastics
                   Cambridge
                   Minnesota
                   United States

Consumers should stop using the recalled product immediately,
remove the training wheels from the motorcycle and contact
Cambridge Metals & Plastics to have them repaired free of charge.


CAMPBELL COUNTY: Camacho's State Law Claims Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
BRAMBLE v. CAMPBELL COUNTY is an action by former detainees at the
Campbell County Detention Center against the jail, and against
Southern Health Partners, alleging cruel and unusual punishment in
violation of the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendment and plaintiffs'
civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Plaintiffs also allege
various state law claims.

The matter is before the Court on the motion of the Campbell
County defendants for summary judgment as to plaintiff, Martha
Camacho, and the motion for partial summary judgment of Southern
Health Partners, as to plaintiff, Martha Camacho.

District Judge William O. Bertelsman ruled that the motion of the
Campbell County defendants is granted as to plaintiff's federal
claim; the motion of Southern Health Partners is granted as to
plaintiff's federal claim; and Ms. Camacho's state law claims are
dismissed without prejudice.

The case is WILLIAM J. BRAMBLE, JR., ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
CAMPBELL COUNTY, KENTUCKY, ET AL., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO.
2010-183 (WOB-JGW), (E.D. Ky.).

A copy of the District Court's September 23, 2013 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/HS3AIVfrom
Leagle.com.


CENTRAL VALLEY MEAT: Recalls 89,720 Pounds of Ground Beef
---------------------------------------------------------
Central Valley Meat Company, a Hanford, Calif., establishment, is
recalling approximately 89,720 pounds of ground beef that may
contain small pieces of plastic, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The following FSIS-regulated products are subject to the expanded
recall:

   -- 40-lb. cases containing 10-lb. chubs of "Fine Ground Beef"

The products bear the establishment number "Est. 6063A" inside the
USDA Mark of Inspection.  The products were produced on July 23,
2013, and can be further identified by case code "6063A3204A" or
"6063A3204B" or "6063A3204C."  The products were shipped to
distribution centers in Arkansas, Nebraska, and North Carolina and
intended for use by the National School Lunch Program.

FSIS sampled the product as part of an on-going investigation.
FSIS and the company have received no reports of illness or injury
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about an
illness or injury should contact a health care professional.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Media and consumers with questions about the recall should contact
Brian Coelho, company general manager, at (559) 583-9624.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET.
The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline, 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854), is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached weekdays from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day.


CITIZENS BANK: Begins Overdraft Class Action Settlement Payouts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Banker & Tradesman reports that Citizens Bank customers who were
part of a class-action lawsuit charging the bank with assessing
"unfair and unconscionable overdraft charges" took to Twitter this
weekend to announce they'd received settlement checks.

"I told the Universe I wanted money and citizens bank [sic] sent
me a check.  I haven't had a bank account there in YEARS," one
Twitter user wrote.

Citizens agreed to send the checks -- the first of which went out
on Sept. 19 in order to settle several class-action lawsuits
alleging the bank assessed its customers unreasonable overdraft
charges, ordered transactions from highest to lowest in order to
assess more overdraft fees and failed to give customers the choice
to "opt out" of overdraft protection.

Citizens maintains there was nothing wrong with its approval of
transactions or the posting process they used.  The bank settled
earlier this year to the tune of $137.5 million, according to
information posted on CitizensOverdraftSettlement.com.

According to the complaint, the bank's overdraft policies often
cost its account holders hundreds of dollars in a matter of days,
or even hours, even when they had overdrawn by only a few dollars.
The complaint further alleged that Citizens used sophisticated
software to manipulate customers' transaction records so it could
maximize the number of overdraft fees assessed on each customer.

The class-action lawsuits covered all Citizens Bank customers with
accounts at branches in Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania and Vermont, as well as all Citizens Bank customers
in the United States who held a consumer deposit account with a
debit card between Jan. 1, 2002 and Aug. 13, 2010 and incurred
overdraft fees.


CORIZON INC: "Dulak" Prisoner Civil Rights Case Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith dismissed JAMES A. DULAK, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CORIZON, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-
13442, (E.D. Mich.), a purported class action over prisoner civil
rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  Dismissal is without
prejudice to the Plaintiffs filing individual complaints.

James A. Dulak, James E. Terry, and Gregory J. Richardson are
Michigan prisoners confined at the Gus Harrison Correctional
Facility in Adrian, Michigan.  The Plaintiffs filed a "motion for
certification of class", seeking to pursue relief for all
allegedly similarly situated prisoners within the Michigan
Department of Corrections.

Judge Goldsmith, however, denied the motion for certification of
class as moot.

A copy of the District Court's September 24, 2013 Opinion and
Order is available at http://is.gd/2BsRSJfrom Leagle.com.


CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: Defends Inergy Merger-Related Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crestwood Midstream Partners LP is defending itself against class
action lawsuits arising from its proposed merger with Inergy
Midstream, L.P., 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.

Prior to June 19, 2013, Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC, the
Company's general partner (General Partner), was owned by
Crestwood Holdings Partners LLC and its affiliates (Crestwood
Holdings).  On June 5, 2013, the Company's General Partner
distributed all of its common units and Class D units that it
owned in the Company to Crestwood Holdings.  On June 19, 2013,
Crestwood Holdings acquired the general partner of Inergy, L.P.
(NRGY) and contributed its ownership of the Company's General
Partner and incentive distribution rights to NRGY in exchange for
NRGY common units.

On May 5, 2013, the Company entered into a definitive merger
agreement under which the Company will be merged with a subsidiary
of Inergy Midstream, L.P. (NRGM) in a merger in which the
Company's unitholders receive 1.07 units of NRGM for each unit of
CMLP they own.  Additionally, under the merger agreement, the
Company's unitholders (other than Crestwood Holdings) will receive
a one-time approximately $35 million cash payment at closing of
the merger transaction, or $1.03 per unit, $25 million of which
will be payable by NRGM and approximately $10 million of which
will be payable by Crestwood Holdings.  The merger of NRGM and
CMLP is conditioned upon the approval of the holders of a majority
of the limited partner interests of CMLP and other customary
closing conditions.

Five putative class action lawsuits challenging the Crestwood-
Inergy merger have been filed, four in federal court in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas: (i)
Abraham Knoll v. Robert G. Phillips, et al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-
01528); (ii) Greg Podell v. Crestwood Midstream Partners, LP, et
al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-01599); (iii) Johnny Cooper v. Crestwood
Midstream Partners LP, et al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-01660); and (iv)
Steven Elliot LLC v. Robert G. Phillips, et al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-
01763), and one in Delaware Chancery Court, Hawley v. Crestwood
Midstream Partners LP, et al. (Case No. 8689-VCL).  All of the
cases name Crestwood, Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC, Crestwood
Holdings LLC, the current and former directors of Crestwood Gas
Services GP LLC, Inergy, L.P., Inergy Midstream, L.P., NRGM GP,
LLC, and Intrepid Merger Sub, LLC as defendants.  All of the
lawsuits are brought by a purported holder of common units of
Crestwood, both individually and on behalf of a putative class
consisting of holders of common units of Crestwood.  The lawsuits
generally allege, among other things, that the directors of
Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC breached their fiduciary duties to
holders of common units of Crestwood by agreeing to a transaction
with inadequate consideration and unfair terms and pursuant to an
inadequate process.  The lawsuits further allege that Inergy,
L.P., Inergy Midstream, L.P., NRGM GP, LLC, and Intrepid Merger
Sub, LLC aided and abetted the Crestwood directors in the alleged
breach of their fiduciary duties.

The lawsuits seek, in general, (i) injunctive relief enjoining the
merger, (ii) in the event the merger is consummated, rescission or
an award of rescissory damages, (iii) an award of plaintiffs'
costs, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, (iv) the
accounting by the defendants to plaintiffs for all damages caused
by the defendants, and (v) such further equitable relief as the
court deems just and proper.  Certain of the actions also assert
claims of inadequate disclosure under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Elliot case also
names Citigroup Global Markets Inc. as an alleged aider and
abettor.  The plaintiff in the Hawley action in Delaware filed a
motion for expedited proceedings but subsequently withdrew that
motion and then filed a stipulation voluntarily dismissing the
action without prejudice, which has been granted by the Court,
such that the Hawley action has now been dismissed.  The
plaintiffs in the Knoll, Podell, Cooper, and Elliot actions filed
an unopposed motion to consolidate these four cases, which the
Court granted.  The plaintiff in the Elliot action filed a motion
for expedited discovery, which remains pending.  These lawsuits
are at a preliminary stage.  Crestwood, Inergy Midstream and the
other defendants believe that these lawsuits are without merit and
intend to defend against them vigorously.

Crestwood Midstream Partners LP is a publicly traded Delaware
limited partnership headquartered in Houston, Texas.  The Company
is a growth-oriented midstream partnership, which owns and
operates predominately fee-based gathering, processing, treating
and compression assets servicing producers in the Marcellus Shale
in northern West Virginia, the Barnett Shale in north Texas, the
Fayetteville Shale in northwestern Arkansas, the Granite Wash in
the Texas Panhandle, the Avalon Shale/Bone Spring in southeastern
New Mexico and the Haynesville/Bossier Shale in western Louisiana.


DAIMLER AG: V and VII Bus Models Recalled in Canada
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 27, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           1500
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013336
TC ID number:             2013336

Affected products:

  Maker     Model           Model year(s) affected
  -----     -----           ----------------------
  ORION     VII     2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,
                    2011, 2012
  ORION     V       2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,
                    2011, 2012


FACEBOOK INC: Talk Show Host Mulls Suit Over Unpublished Page
-------------------------------------------------------------
Examiner.com reports that on Sept. 26, the patriot "Truckers to
Shutdown America" group said in a press release it intends to shut
down Facebook with a convoy to the social media site's
headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif., to coincide with its "Ride to
Washington, D.C." on October 11-13.  The release also said that
radio talk show host Pete Santilli intends to file a class action
lawsuit against Facebook in response to the site unpublishing the
group's page.

On Sept. 24, Examiner.com reported the page was yanked after
administrators said "Godspeed" and "God Bless America."
Administrators also repeatedly banned one agitator who kept
attacking the page.

According to the press release, Mr. Santilli is an employee rights
advocate and a former lead plaintiff in a $200 million class
action lawsuit against Coca-Cola.

In an e-mail to Examiner.com, Mr. Santilli said he was concerned
from the start about using Facebook to get the group's message
out.

"Indeed the site has been attacked by political adversaries, and
thanks to Facebook's failure and refusal to protect
Constitutionally protected freedoms of the majority of the members
of their 'Community' (their system standards), 86,000 people have
been cut off from our information and their dedicated cause --
without notice," he said.

Mr. Santilli said the 86,000 supporters of the page, along with
the truckers involved, have been harmed by Facebook's actions.

"Our constitutional rights have been intentionally violated as
Facebook's formulated policies clearly and publicly demonstrate,"
he said.  "Their entire privacy and user policy is defective and
we will easily be able to expose their Constitutional negligence
in a court of law."

According to Mr. Santilli, the lawsuit will also be filed on
behalf of those he said are "similarly situated and censored."
That could include a very large number of people.

As we have reported, one page, the pro-veteran "Uncle Sam's
Misguided Children," was shut down under questionable
circumstances last summer.  At the time, that page had over
614,000 supporters and reached millions of people every day.  Many
other pages have been pulled without warning for little or no
reason.  A number of Facebook users have reported being banned for
innocuous posts.  One blogger, for example, was banned after
thanking friends who wished her a happy birthday.

Mr. Santilli says he's serious about taking action against
Facebook.

"I am in direct consultation with Constitutional attorneys and
class action litigants who are very interested in bringing this
action against Facebook to stop them from harming the public any
further," he said.

Many have said that Facebook is a private company and can treat
its users any way it wants.  Mr. Santilli, however, disagreed.

"As a publicly held corporation, Facebook has as much of an
obligation in protecting the Constitutional rights of our citizens
as the government has," he explained.  "They are a publicly held
company which needs to conduct themselves as a responsible
corporate entity."

Mr. Santilli also believes the site's user agreement, or EULA, is
a "one sided contract which each of us has been coerced to
accept."

"I believe it to be null and void," he added.


FARMERS INSURANCE: Trial Court Ruling in Alexander Suit Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Eight, affirmed a trial court ruling in FRANCES MARC ALEXANDER et
al., Plaintiffs and Respondents v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants, NO. B239840.

Frances Marc Alexander and Thomas and Anna Downie brought the
class action lawsuit against Farmers Insurance Company, Inc. and
Fire Insurance Exchange alleging illegal adjusting practices. In
particular, the Plaintiffs alleged that Farmers failed to comply
with the method for determining actual cash value set forth in the
Insurance Code for a partial loss in a fire. Farmers moved to
compel an appraisal of the Plaintiffs' claims, contending that the
dispute centered on the value of the Plaintiffs' loss.  The trial
court denied Farmer's motion without prejudice to renewing it at a
later stage of the litigation.

A copy of the Appeals Court's September 23, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/pLjmyIfrom Leagle.com.

Barger & Wolen, Steven H. Weinstein -- sweinstein@bargerwolen.com
-- and Peter Sindhuphak -- psindhuphak@bargerwolen.com -- for
Defendants and Appellants Farmers Insurance Company and Farmers
Insurance Exchange.

Kerr & Wagstaffe, Michael Von Loewenfeldt -- mvl@kerrwagstaffe.com
-- Ivo Labar -- labar@kerrwagstaffe.com -- and Kelly Corcoran --
corcoran@kerrwagstaffe.com -- for Plaintiffs and Respondents
Frances Marc Alexander, et al.


FESTOOL USA: Recalls Plunge Cut Circular Saw
--------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Festool USA, of Lebanon, Ind., announced a voluntary recall of
about 5,200 in the U.S. and 500 in Canada TS 55 REQ Plunge Cut
Circular Saw.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The plunge lock can engage when not intended, causing the saw
blade to remain exposed from the housing following completion of
the plunge cut and posing a laceration hazard.

The firm has received no reports of injuries and one report of
property damage.

The TS 55 REQ is a small, portable, circular saw for woodcutting
with a 160 mm saw blade, aluminum guide rails and a plunge cut
feature.  It is 12 inches long and has a gray blade housing and a
midnight blue motor housing with a soft hand grip and green
accents.  The date code and serial number are found on a rating
plate on the saw's motor housing under the main handle.  Recalled
saws include date codes ranging from 02/13 to 05/13 and serial
numbers 40033594 through 40074108.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/i8NAIp

The recalled products were manufactured in Germany and sold at
hardware stores, woodworking stores and other independent
retailers, as well as online retailers such as
http://www.amazon.comfrom May 2013 to July 2013 for approximately
$585.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled saws and
contact Festool USA for details on how to get a free repair or
replacement product, or how to receive a refund.


FORD MOTOR: Gets Favorable Ruling in Schmidt Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company moves to dismiss various counts in SCHMIDT v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY: Count I -- breach of express warranty -- as to
all but Jason Schmidt; Counts II, IV, and V -- claims of breach of
implied warranty under Pennsylvania, California, and Arkansas law,
respectively; Counts VI, VII, and VIII -- claims of fraud and
violations of Pennsylvania, California, and Arkansas state
consumer protection laws, respectively; Counts IX, X, and XI --
claims of negligent misrepresentation under Pennsylvania,
Illinois, and California law, respectively; and Counts XII, XIII,
and XV -- claims of unjust enrichment/restitution under
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Arkansas laws, respectively.

In a memorandum dated September 20, 2013, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/SbOGN0from Leagle.com, District Judge
Eduardo C. Robreno granted the motion and dismissed Count I as to
all plaintiffs save Jason Schmidt, as well as Counts II, IV-XIII,
and XV.

The case is JASON SCHMIDT, et al., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-7222, (E.D. Pa.).


GENERAL MOTORS: Sonic Model Cars Recalled in Canada
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 27, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Fuel Supply
Units affected:           96
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013334
TC ID number:             2013334
Manufacturer recall
number:                   13296

Affected products: Chevrolet Sonic 2013 model


GENERAL MOTORS: Camaro Model Cars Recalled in Canada
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 27, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Airbag
Units affected:           255
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013333
TC ID number:             2013333
Manufacturer recall
number:                   13284

Affected products: Chevrolet Camaro 2013, 2014 models


GMAC MORTGAGE: N.Y. Judge Upholds Racketeering Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, reports that a New York
federal judge on Sept. 30 upheld a racketeering class action
targeting kickbacks Balboa Insurance Co. allegedly paid to GMAC
Mortgage LLC for force-placing hazard insurance policies, saying
the lender may have gouged borrowers when demanding reimbursement
for coverage.

U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan greenlit claims from a
putative class of homeowners that GMAC broke federal racketeering
laws by billing for the full cost of force-placed insurance
policies it purchased despite secretly receiving mortgage tracking
services from a Balboa affiliate for free.  As the suit alleges,
the free tracking services constituted a kickback from the
insurer.

In so ruling, Judge Nathan refused Balboa's argument that the
filed-rate doctrine -- holding government-approved premiums to be
unassailable in court -- was fatal to the suit.  Balboa's filed
rates were approved for policies sold to loan servicers and
lenders, while the plaintiffs reimbursed GMAC for force-placed
coverage as required by their mortgage loan agreements, according
to the order, a crucial distinction that the judge said vitiated
the filed-rate defense.

"It would be fair to infer from these facts that the filed and
approved rates were not meant to be directly applicable to
individual residential mortgage loan borrowers, like plaintiffs,
and that these rates were not approved for the direct application
to such individuals," the judge said.  "Defendants have provided
no authority to support the contention that the court can, should
or must grant 'per se reasonable' status to rates designed and
approved for lenders when those rates are secondarily billed by
the lenders to borrowers instead."

The ruling is the first in the New York district to address the
filed-rate doctrine's applicability in lender-placed insurance
suits, according to the order, and Judge Nathan relied heavily on
a ruling in Illinois federal court in August rejecting the defense
in a suit against Wells Fargo Bank NA and Assurant Inc.

After turning down the filed-rate defense, Judge Nathan declined
to dismiss the suit's Racketeer Influence and Corrupt
Organizations Act claims against Balboa, citing letters in which
GMAC allegedly demanded reimbursement of its hazard insurance
costs while concealing the free services it was obtaining from
Balboa.  The letters were sufficient to allege the predicate acts
needed for a RICO claim, according to the order.

"It is fair to infer from the facts alleged that defendants had a
strong financial interest in maintaining their relationship with
[GMAC], that they knew that the actual costs of [lender-placed
insurance] were lower than the amounts that were being asserted in
the letters sent to plaintiffs and that they sent the notices
containing the material misrepresentations," the judge said.

The judge then dismissed the suit's Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act claims, following other district courts that have
concluded the law offers no protections beyond the initial
property transaction.

GMAC allegedly admitted in testimony before New York regulators
probing force-placed insurance arrangements that it outsourced
tracking of borrowers' insurance coverage to Balboa affiliate
Newport Management Corp., which provided them for free.

The suit originally named GMAC as a defendant but was complicated
by GMAC parent Residential Capital LLC's May 2012 bankruptcy
filing, which forced the plaintiffs to drop GMAC from the suit in
favor of ResCap's nonbankrupt parent Ally Financial Inc. As part
of a proposed reorganization plan, Ally agreed to contribute $2.1
billion to the ResCap bankruptcy estate and is expected to receive
broad third-party releases barring creditor claims against Ally
and its affiliates.

The plaintiffs filed a claim in the bankruptcy case and also
lodged an objection to ResCap's disclosure statement, saying they
would argue when the time comes that the nondebtor entities
shouldn't be absolved of prepetition claims.

The issue of the third-party releases will likely be hotly
contested by potential claimants in the ResCap bankruptcy.  In the
meantime, the bankruptcy court will hear arguments on Nov. 19 on
whether the plaintiffs can pursue claims against Ally that could
wind up released by the Chapter 11 plan.  The case has been moving
forward in the interim against Balboa and its affiliates only.

"We're very pleased with the court's well-reasoned opinion, and
will continue to prosecute this case aggressively on behalf of the
borrowers who were victimized by this scheme," said Mark A.
Strauss -- mstrauss@kmllp.com -- of Kirby McInerney LLP, who
represents the putative class.

The plaintiffs are represented in district court by Mark A.
Strauss and J. Brandon Walker -- bwalker@kmllp.com -- of
Kirby McInerney LLP and in the bankruptcy case by Mary E.
Augustine and Garvan F. McDaniel of Bifferato Gentilotti LLC.

The insurers are represented by Ross E. Morrison --
rmorrison@buckleysandler.com -- Robyn C. Quattrone --
rquattrone@buckleysandler.com -- and Katherine L. Halliday --
khalliday@buckleysandler.com -- of BuckleySandler LLP.

Ally is represented by Richard G. Haddad -- rhaddad@otterbourg.com
-- of Otterbourg Steindler Houston & Rosen.

The case is Rothstein v. GMAC Mortgage LLC et al., case number
1:12-cv-03412, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


GOOGLE INC: Calif. Court Refused to Dismiss Gmail Wiretap Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Google cannot halt a sprawling class action accusing it of
violating wiretapping and privacy laws with its Gmail service, a
federal judge ruled Thursday, September 26, 2013.

Updates that Google made to its privacy policy last year drew a
series of class actions that accused the company of aggregating
the information it collects from users of its various applications
and platforms.  The plaintiffs in those cases claimed that the new
policy -- which went into effect in March 2012 -- violates various
state and federal computer fraud, eavesdropping and wiretap laws.

In California, lead plaintiffs Brad Scott and Todd Harrington
claim that the web-based service scans emails for words and
content, and intentionally intercepts messages between non-Gmail
subscribers and subscribers.

Describing such actions as wiretapping and eavesdropping, the
class there says Google is in violation of the California Invasion
of Privacy Act, or CIPA.  Google pointed out last year, however,
that Scott and Harrington cannot cloak themselves with California
privacy laws by filing suit in Marin County when they actually
reside in Alabama and Maryland, with no connection to the Golden
State.

The multi-district claims have since been combined into the
massive In re Google, Inc. - Gmail Litigation, which Google asked
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh to dismiss earlier this month.

Koh declined the majority of Google's request Thursday,
September 26, 2013, finding that Gmail's interceptions fall
outside the narrow "ordinary course of business" exception carved
out of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, known as ECPA.

"The statute explicitly limits the use of service observing or
random monitoring by electronic communication service providers to
mechanical and service quality control checks," Koh wrote.
"Accordingly, the statutory scheme suggests that Congress did not
intend to allow electronic communication service providers
unlimited leeway to engage in any interception that would benefit
their business models, as Google contends.  In fact, this
statutory provision would be superfluous if the ordinary course of
business exception were as broad as Google suggests."

Furthermore, the plaintiffs accuse Google of violating its own
policies, which list specific platforms from which it could mine
data -- and email is not on the list.  The new policies also
failed to explicitly elicit consent from consumers, another
exception to ECPA on which Google relied, Koh said.

"These new policies do not specifically mention the content of
users' emails to each other or to or from non-users; these new
policies are not broad enough to encompass such interceptions,"
the 43-page order states.  "Furthermore, the policies do not put
users on notice that their emails are intercepted to create user
profiles.  The court therefore finds that a reasonable Gmail user
who read the privacy policies would not have necessarily
understood that her emails were being intercepted to create user
profiles or to provide targeted advertisements.  Accordingly, the
court finds that it cannot conclude at this phase that the new
policies demonstrate that Gmail user Plaintiffs consented to the
interceptions."

Koh also rejected Google's contention that federal law pre-empts
causes of action brought under the California Invasion of Privacy
Act, or CIPA.  Given that Google does not own, operate or control
telephone and telegraph lines, it cannot hide behind the public
utilities exception in CIPA either.

But an interpretation by some courts that no Internet-based
communication can be considered confidential led the judge to find
that the plaintiffs failed to show a reasonable expectation of
privacy in their complaint.

"Plaintiffs have not alleged facts that lead to the plausible
inference that the communication was not being recorded because
email by its very nature is more similar to internet chats," Koh
wrote.  "Unlike phone conversations, email services are by their
very nature recorded on the computer of at least the recipient,
who may then easily transmit the communication to anyone else who
has access to the internet or print the communications."

The judge nevertheless gave the plaintiffs 21 days to show
differently, citing "an abundance of caution."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
          Hirlye R. (Ryan) Lutz, III, Esq.
          CORY WATSON CROWDER & DEGARIS, P.C.
          2131 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-2200
          Facsimile: (205) 324-7896
          E-mail: jtapley@cwcd.com
                  rlutz@cwcd.com

               - and -

          Kirk J. Wolden, Esq.
          Clifford Lee Carter, Esq.
          CARTER WOLDEN CURTIS, LLP
          1111 Exposition Blvd., Ste. 1
          Sacramento, CA 95815
          Telephone: (916) 567-1111
          Facsimile: (916) 567-1112
          E-mail: kirk@cwclawfirm.com
                  cliff@cwclawfirm.com

               - and -

          Christopher L. Travis, Esq.
          Peter Drake Mann, Esq.
          GILL RAGON OWEN, P.A.
          425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3801
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 376-3800
          E-mail: travis@gill-law.com
                  mann@gill-law.com

               - and -

          Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 924-3100
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: clay@justice4you.com

               - and -

          James Clark Wyly, Esq.
          Sean F. Rommel, Esq.
          WYLY-ROMMEL, PLLC
          4004 Texas Blvd.
          Texarkana, TX 75503
          Telephone: (903) 334-8646
          E-mail: jwyly@wylyrommel.com
                  srommel@wylyrommel.com

               - and -

          Kenneth Jay Grunfeld, Esq.
          Richard Moss Golomb, Esq.
          Tammi Ann Markowitz, Esq.
          GOLOMB HONIK
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 469-4169
          E-mail: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com
                  rgolomb@golombhonik.com
                  tmarkowitz@golombhonik.com

               - and -

          Michael Chad Trammell, Esq.
          THE TRAMMELL LAW FIRM, PLLC
          418 North State Line Ave
          Texarkana, AR 71854
          Telephone: (870) 779-1860
          E-mail: chad@thetrammellfirm.com

               - and -

          Perry D. Litchfield, Esq.
          PERRY D. LITCHFIELD LAW OFFICES
          1000 Fourth Street, Suite 875
          San Rafael, CA 94901
          Telephone: (415) 459-2000

               - and -

          Cameron Michael Kennedy, Esq.
          SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA ETC - TALLAHASSEE FL
          517 N Calhoun St.
          Tallahassee, FL 32301
          Telephone: (850) 224-7600
          Facsimile: (850) 224-7602
          E-mail: cmk@searcylaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Lance Gould, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS AND MILES PC
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: lance.gould@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          William Elvin Hopkins, Jr., Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN METHVIN ETC PC - MONTGOMERY AL
          272 Commerce St.
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: bill.hopkins@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Ryan Patrick Quinn, Esq.
          Kevin B. Gracie, Esq.
          SLOCUMB LAW FIRM LLC
          777 Sixth St NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 737-4141
          E-mail: rquinn@slocumblaw.com
                  kgracie@slocumblaw.com

               - and -

          Michael W. Slocumb
          SLOCUMB LAW FIRM LLC
          145 E Magnolia Ave., Suite 201
          Auburn, AL 36830
          Telephone: (334) 741-4110
          Facsimile: (334) 321-0131
          E-mail: mike@slocumblaw.com

               - and -

          Brady Richard Dewar, Esq.
          James Matthew Wagstaffe, Esq.
          Michael Kai Ng, Esq.
          KERR & WAGSTAFFE LLP
          100 Spear Street 18th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 371-8500
          Facsimile: (415) 371-0500
          E-mail: dewar@kerrwagstaffe.com
                  wagstaffe@kerrwagstaffe.com
                  mng@kerrwagstaffe.com

               - and -

          Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Kevin Paul Green, Esq.
          Mark Chandler Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG HELLER ANTOGNOLI AND ROWLAND, P.C.
          2227 S. State Route 157
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 656-5150
          E-mail: tom@ghalaw.com
                  kevin@ghalaw.com
                  mark@ghalaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Charles L. Babcock, Esq.
          Carl Christof Butzer, Esq.
          David T. Moran, Esq.
          Shannon Zmud Teicher, Esq.
          JACKSON WALKER
          901 Main St., Suite 6000
          Dallas, TX 75202-3797
          Telephone: (214) 953-6000
          Facsimile: (214) 953-5822
          E-mail: cbabcock@jw.com
                  cbutzer@jw.com
                  dmoran@jw.com
                  szmud@jw.com

               - and -

          George L. McWilliams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE L. MCWILLIAMS, P.C.
          406 Walnut
          P.O. Box 58
          Texarkana, TX 75504-0058
          Telephone: (903) 277-0098
          Facsimile: (903) 334-7007
          E-mail: gmcwilliams@pattonroberts.com

               - and -

          Kyle Christopher Wong, Esq.
          Maco Stewart, Esq.
          Michael Graham Rhodes, Esq.
          Raimondo Andre Sardo, Esq.
          Whitty Somvichian, Esq.
          COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP
          101 California St., 5th Fl.
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 693-2000
          Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
          E-mail: kwong@cooley.com
                  maco.stewart@cooley.com
                  rhodesmg@cooley.com
                  rsardo@cooley.com
                  wsomvichian@cooley.com

The case is in Re Google Inc. Gmail Litigation, Case No. 5:13-md-
02430-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Jose).


GREENWICH SENTRY: November 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following is being released pursuant to Order of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York in
Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited, 1:09-cv-00118 (VM).

NOTICE OF PROPOSED PARTIAL SETTLEMENT IN CLASS ACTION AGAINST
GLOBEOP FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC ON BEHALF OF INVESTORS IN
GREENWICH SENTRY. L.P. AND GREENWICH SENTRY PARTNERS, L.P.  FROM
OCTOBER 31, 2003 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1, 2006  (THE PERIOD IN WHICH
GLOBEOP ACTED AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FUNDS)

SUMMARY NOTICE

TO: All Persons who purchased or held interests in Greenwich
Sentry, L.P. or  Greenwich Sentry Partners, L.P. from October 31,
2003 through September 1, 2006, who were investors in the Funds as
of December 10, 2008 and suffered a Net Loss of principal invested
in the Funds.

A federal court authorized this Notice.  This is not a
solicitation from a lawyer.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a
hearing will be held on November 22, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., before
The Honorable Victor Marrero, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York,
for the purpose of determining (1) whether the proposed settlement
of claims against GlobeOp Financial Services LLC for $5,000,000
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate;
(2) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as to
GlobeOp and related persons pursuant to the terms and conditions
set forth in the Stipulation dated as of August 27, 2013; (3)
whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is
fair, reasonable and adequate and should be approved; and (4)
whether the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for the payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with the
claims and settlement against GlobeOp should be approved.

If you purchased or held interests in one or both of the Funds
from October 31, 2003 through September 1, 2006, and suffered a
Net Loss in principal on your investment, your rights may be
affected by this Settlement, including the release and
extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your
ownership interest in the Funds.  Net Loss means the total cash
investment made by an investor in the Funds, less the total amount
of any redemptions or withdrawals or recoveries by that investor
from or with respect to the Funds.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Proof of Claim and Release form that is received no later than
December 23, 2013, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion that is received by October 25,
2013.  Any objection to any aspect of the Settlement must be filed
with the Court no later than October 25, 2013.

If you wish to receive a detailed Notice concerning the terms of
the Settlement or the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may
obtain copies by writing to Fairfield Greenwich Securities
Litigation, c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 2874, Faribault,
MN 55021-8674, or by visiting
http://www.FairfieldGreenwichLitigation.com

DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE OR ANY OF THE
DEFENDANTS OR COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED: September 30, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


GROUPON INC: Appeal in Suit Over Sales Practices Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the approval of Groupon, Inc.'s settlement of a
consolidated class action lawsuit over sales practices 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.

The Company was named as a defendant in a series of class actions
that came to be consolidated into a single case in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.  The
consolidated case is referred to as In re Groupon Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation.  The Company denies liability, but the
parties agreed to settle the litigation for $8.5 million before
any determination had been made on the merits or with respect to
class certification.  Because the case had been filed as a class
action, the parties were required to provide proper notice and
obtain court approval for the settlement.  During that process,
certain individuals asserted various objections to the settlement.
The parties to the case opposed the objections and on December 14,
2012, the district court approved the settlement over the various
objections.

Subsequent to the entry of the order approving settlement, certain
of the objectors filed a notice of appeal, contesting the
settlement and appealing the matter to the Ninth Circuit of the
U.S. Court of Appeals, where the case remains pending.  The
Company believes that the settlement is valid and intends to
oppose the appeal.  The Plaintiffs also maintain that the
settlement is valid and will be opposing the appeal.  The
settlement, however, is not effective during the pendency of the
appeal.  The Company does not know when the appeal will be
resolved.  Depending on the outcome of the appeal, it is possible
that the settlement will be rejected, or that there will be
further proceedings in the appellate court or district court, or
that the settlement will be enforced at that time without further
objections or proceedings.

Groupon, Inc. -- http://www.groupon.com/-- is a local commerce
marketplace that connects merchants to consumers by offering goods
and services at a discount.  The Company distributes its deals to
customers primarily through three channels: e-mail, its mobile
platform and its Web sites.  The Company is based in Chicago,
Illinois.


GROUPON INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Groupon, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on a motion to dismiss
a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in
Illinois, 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.

The Company is currently a defendant in a proceeding pursuant to
which, on October 29, 2012, a consolidated amended class action
complaint was filed against the Company, certain of its directors
and officers, and the underwriters that participated in the
initial public offering of the Company's Class A common stock.
Originally filed in April 2012, the case is currently pending
before the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois: In re Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation.  The
complaint asserts claims pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Allegations in the consolidated
amended complaint include that the Company and its officers and
directors made untrue statements or omissions of material fact by
issuing inaccurate financial statements for the fiscal quarter and
the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011, and by failing to
disclose information about the Company's financial controls in the
registration statement and prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering of Class A common stock and in the Company's
subsequently-issued financial statements.  The putative class
action lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages,
reimbursement for fees and costs incurred in connection with the
actions, including attorneys' fees, and various other forms of
monetary and non-monetary relief.  The defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on January 18, 2013.
The motion to dismiss is fully briefed, and the Company awaits the
court's ruling.

Groupon, Inc. -- http://www.groupon.com/-- is a local commerce
marketplace that connects merchants to consumers by offering goods
and services at a discount.  The Company distributes its deals to
customers primarily through three channels: e-mail, its mobile
platform and its Web sites.  The Company is based in Chicago,
Illinois.


GROUPON INC: "Weber" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Weber v. Groupon, Inc., was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in July 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 July 1, 2013, a putative class action captioned Weber v.
Groupon, Inc. pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice by the lead plaintiff.  The putative class action was
originally filed as two federal putative class action securities
complaints: Weber v. Groupon, Inc., et al (filed on December 21,
2012) and Earley v. Groupon, Inc. et al. (filed on January 22,
2013), consolidated as Weber v. Groupon, Inc., et al.  The actions
asserted claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the allegations included that
the Company and its officers and directors made untrue statements
or omissions of material fact, including with respect to the
Company's revenue growth and revenue mix.  The putative class
action lawsuit sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages,
reimbursement for fees and costs incurred in connection with the
actions, including attorneys' fees, and various other forms of
monetary and non-monetary relief.

Groupon, Inc. -- http://www.groupon.com/-- is a local commerce
marketplace that connects merchants to consumers by offering goods
and services at a discount.  The Company distributes its deals to
customers primarily through three channels: e-mail, its mobile
platform and its Web sites.  The Company is based in Chicago,
Illinois.


IBERIA LINEAS: Court Denies Bid to Strike Expert Report
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas M. Durkin denied a motion to strike an
expert's report filed in THEODOROS GIANNOPOULOS, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. IBERIA LINEAS AEREAS DE ESPANA, S.A., OPERADORA,
SOCIEDAD UNIPERSONAL, Defendant, NO. 11 C 775, (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs are four individuals who purchased airline tickets from
defendant Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana for travel between the
United States and Europe. Plaintiffs' flights were delayed, and
they bring a putative class action alleging violation of a
European Union regulation that requires compensation for airline
delays under certain circumstances. In support of their motion for
class certification, Plaintiffs proffer the expert report of Clint
Rhoden. Iberia moved to strike Rhoden's report.

A copy of the District Court's September 23, 2013 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/8V5wrKfrom
Leagle.com.


KKR & CO: Awaits Ruling on Judgment Bid in Del. Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
KKR & Co. L.P. is awaiting a court decision on its and other
defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings in the
consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit pending in Delaware,
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 May 23, 2011, KKR, certain KKR affiliates and the board of
directors of Primedia Inc. (a former KKR portfolio company whose
directors at that time included certain KKR personnel) were named
as defendants, along with others, in two shareholder class action
complaints filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
challenging the sale of Primedia in a merger transaction that was
completed on July 13, 2011.  These actions allege, among other
things, that Primedia board members, KKR, and certain KKR
affiliates, breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the
merger agreement at an unfair price and failing to disclose all
material information about the merger.  The Plaintiffs also allege
that the merger price was unfair in light of the value of certain
shareholder derivative claims, which were dismissed on August 8,
2011, based on a stipulation by the parties that the derivative
plaintiffs and any other former Primedia shareholders lost
standing to prosecute the derivative claims on behalf of Primedia
when the Primedia merger was completed.  The dismissed shareholder
derivative claims included allegations concerning open market
purchases of certain shares of Primedia's preferred stock by KKR
affiliates in 2002 and allegations concerning Primedia's
redemption of certain shares of Primedia's preferred stock in 2004
and 2005, some of which were owned by KKR affiliates.  With
respect to the pending shareholder class actions challenging the
Primedia merger, on June 7, 2011, the Court of Chancery denied a
motion to preliminarily enjoin the merger.

On July 18, 2011, the Court of Chancery consolidated the two
pending shareholder class actions and appointed lead counsel for
plaintiffs.  On October 7, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the
operative complaint in the consolidated shareholder class action.
The operative complaint seeks, in relevant part, unspecified
monetary damages and rescission of the merger.  On December 2,
2011, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which
similarly alleges that the Primedia board members, KKR, and
certain KKR affiliates breached their respective fiduciary duties
by entering into the merger agreement at an unfair price in light
of the value of the dismissed shareholder derivative claims.  That
amended complaint seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages.
On January 31, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  On May 10, 2013, the Court of Chancery denied the
motion to dismiss the complaint as it relates to the Primedia
board members, KKR and certain KKR affiliates.  On July 1, 2013,
KKR and other defendants filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings.

Additionally, in May 2011, two shareholder class actions
challenging the Primedia merger were filed in Georgia state
courts, asserting similar allegations and seeking similar relief
as initially sought by the Delaware shareholder class actions.
Both Georgia actions have been stayed in favor of the Delaware
action.

Led by Henry Kravis and George Roberts, KKR & Co. L.P. is a global
investment firm with $83.5 billion in AUM as of June 30, 2013, and
a 37-year history of leadership, innovation and investment
excellence.  The Company offers a broad range of investment
management services to its investors and provides capital markets
services to its firm, its portfolio companies and its clients.


KKR & CO: Summary Judgment Bid in Antitrust Suit Denied in July
---------------------------------------------------------------
KKR & Co. L.P.'s renewed motion for summary judgment in the
antitrust class action lawsuit pending in Massachusetts was denied
in July 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.

In December 2007, KKR, along with 15 other private equity firms
and investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported
class action complaint filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts by shareholders in certain
public companies acquired by private equity firms since 2003.  In
August 2008, KKR, along with 16 other private equity firms and
investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported
consolidated amended class action complaint.  The lawsuit alleges
that from mid-2003 defendants have violated antitrust laws by
allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private
equity financing, fix the prices for target companies at
artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged market for
private equity services for leveraged buyouts.  The amended
complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all persons who
sold securities to any of the defendants in leveraged buyout
transactions and specifically challenges nine transactions.  The
first stage of discovery concluded on or about April 15, 2010.  On
August 18, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to proceed
to a second stage of discovery in part and denied it in part.
Specifically, the court granted a second stage of discovery as to
eight additional transactions but denied a second stage of
discovery as to any transactions beyond the additional eight
specified transactions.  On October 7, 2010, the plaintiffs filed
under seal a fourth amended complaint that includes new factual
allegations concerning the additional eight transactions and the
original nine transactions.  The fourth amended complaint also
includes eight purported sub-classes of plaintiffs seeking
unspecified monetary damages and/or restitution with respect to
eight of the original nine challenged transactions and new
separate claims against two of the original nine challenged
transactions.  On January 13, 2011, the court granted a motion
filed by KKR and certain other defendants to dismiss all claims
alleged by a putative damages sub-class in connection with the
acquisition of PanAmSat Corp. and separate claims for relief
related to the PanAmSat transaction.  The second phase of
discovery permitted by the court is completed.

On July 11, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file
a proposed fifth amended complaint that seeks to challenge ten
additional transactions in addition to the transactions identified
in the previous complaints.  The Defendants opposed plaintiffs'
motion.  On September 7, 2011, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion in part and denied it in part.  Specifically, the court
granted a third stage of limited discovery as to the ten
additional transactions identified in plaintiffs' proposed fifth
amended complaint but denied plaintiffs' motion seeking leave to
file a proposed fifth amended complaint.  On June 14, 2012,
following the completion of the third phase of discovery,
plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint which, like their
proposed fifth amended complaint, seeks to challenge ten
additional transactions in addition to the transactions identified
in the previous complaints.  On June 22, 2012, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss certain claims asserted in the fifth
amended complaint.  On July 18, 2012, the court granted in part
and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing
certain previously released claims against certain defendants.

On March 13, 2013, the United States District Court denied
defendants' motion for summary judgment on the count involving
KKR.  However, the court narrowed plaintiffs' claim to an alleged
overarching agreement to refrain from jumping other defendants'
announced proprietary transactions, thereby limiting the case to a
smaller number of transactions subject to plaintiffs' claim.
Pursuant to the court's grant of permission to re-file, KKR filed
a renewed motion for summary judgment on April 16, 2013, which the
court denied on July 18, 2013.

Led by Henry Kravis and George Roberts, KKR & Co. L.P. is a global
investment firm with $83.5 billion in AUM as of June 30, 2013, and
a 37-year history of leadership, innovation and investment
excellence.  The Company offers a broad range of investment
management services to its investors and provides capital markets
services to its firm, its portfolio companies and its clients.


LAKOTA: Charger, Charger SE and Hut Model Trailers Recalled
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 27, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Travel Trailer
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Accessories
Units affected:           15
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013335
TC ID number:             2013335

Affected products: LAKOTA CHARGER 2013, 2014, 2013, 2014, 2013,
2014 models


LENDER PROCESSING: Faces Suits Over Proposed Fidelity Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Lender Processing Services, Inc., is facing class action lawsuits
arising from its proposed merger with Fidelity National Financial,
Inc., 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 January 21, 2011, a shareholder derivative lawsuit entitled
Michael Wheatley, Derivatively on Behalf of Lender Processing
Services, Inc. v. Jeffrey S. Carbiener, et al., was filed against
the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
officers and directors in the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial
Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida.  The complaint was
filed by a shareholder of the Company, and seeks damages for
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and alleged mismanagement.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company failed
to implement sufficient internal controls to prevent fraudulent
activity in connection with its default management services; that
the Company, in public filings and other statements, failed to
disclose material information, including information regarding the
Company's exposure to legal claims concerning allegedly improper
foreclosure activity; and that the Company had an improper
relationship with certain attorneys who provided services to the
Company's clients.  The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
damages, as well as other forms of relief.  The parties agreed to
a voluntary stay in this matter.

On February 12, 2013, a shareholder derivative lawsuit entitled
Steven Hill, Derivatively on Behalf of Lender Processing Services,
Inc. v. Lee A. Kennedy, et al., was filed against the Company and
certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  The complaint
was filed by a shareholder of the Company, and alleges breaches of
fiduciary duties based on the same alleged conduct as in the
Wheatley case, as well as other allegations related to the
Company's handling of foreclosure documentation and use of an
attorney network.  The complaint names certain defendants also
named in the Wheatley complaint, as well as Lorraine Brown, who
had been President of DocX, a former subsidiary of the Company.
The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, as well as
other forms of relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend
these matters.

                        Merger Litigation

On May 31, 2013, the plaintiff in Wheatley amended its complaint
to further allege that the directors of the Company breached their
fiduciary duties of care and loyalty to the shareholders of the
Company by voting in favor of the Company entering into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") dated
May 28, 2013, with Fidelity National Financial, Inc. ("FNF") and
Lion Merger Sub, Inc., a subsidiary of FNF ("Merger Subsidiary"),
pursuant to which Merger Subsidiary will be merged with and into
the Company, with the Company surviving as a subsidiary of FNF
(the "Proposed Merger").  The new claims allege that the directors
of the Company breached their fiduciary obligations by (i) failing
to adequately value the Company, (ii) preventing a competitive
bidding process for the Company, and (iii) ignoring conflicts of
interest stemming from the directors' interrelationships or
connections with the Proposed Merger.  The complaint also alleges
that FNF and Thomas H. Lee Partners LP aided and abetted the
directors' breach of their fiduciary obligations.  The new counts
in the Wheatley complaint seek to preliminarily and permanently
enjoin the parties from proceeding with and consummating the
Proposed Merger or, in the event the Proposed Merger is
consummated, to rescind or set it aside and/or award the plaintiff
class an unspecified amount of rescissory or compensatory damages.

On June 3, 2013, an individual plaintiff, on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated plaintiffs, filed a complaint titled
Pruitt v. Lender Processing Services, et al., in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, its
directors, FNF and Merger Subsidiary alleging that the directors
of the Company breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
the Proposed Merger based on the same conduct alleged in the new
counts of the Wheatley case.  Pruitt also alleges that the
Company, FNF and Merger Subsidiary aided and abetted such
misconduct.  On June 4, 2013, the Orlando Police Pension Fund, on
behalf of itself and other similarly situated plaintiffs, filed a
complaint in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in
and for Duval County, Florida against the Company, its directors,
FNF and Merger Subsidiary.  The Orlando Police Pension Fund v.
Lender Processing Services, Inc. case alleges that the directors
of the Company engaged in conduct similar to that alleged in
Pruitt, and thereby breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the Proposed Merger.  The complaint also alleges that the
Company, FNF and Merger Subsidiary aided and abetted such
misconduct.  The complaint in each of Pruitt and Orlando Police
Pension Fund seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the
parties from proceeding with and consummating the Proposed Merger
or, in the event the Merger is consummated, to rescind or set it
aside and/or award the plaintiff class an unspecified amount of
rescissory or compensatory damages.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend these matters.

Lender Processing Services, Inc. -- http://www.lpsvcs.com/-- is a
provider of integrated technology, data and services to the
mortgage lending industry, with a market leading position in
mortgage processing in the United States of America.  LPS was
incorporated in Delaware and is based in Jacksonville, Florida.


LENDER PROCESSING: Mulls Whether to Continue St. Clair Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lender Processing Services, Inc., disclosed 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 it is currently
evaluating whether to continue to go forward with its settlement
of a securities class action litigation brought by St. Clair
Shores General Employees' Retirement System.

On January 28, 2013, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Settlement Agreement") resolving the
securities class action litigation brought against the Company by
St. Clair Shores General Employees' Retirement System.  The
Settlement Agreement contains a termination provision that the
Company can exercise in the event that shareholders owning a
sufficient number of shares elect to opt out of the settlement.
The Company has recently received notice that an institutional
investor has opted out of the settlement and filed a separate
securities disclosure litigation complaint against the Company.
The number of shares owned by such institutional investor during
the class period is sufficient to trigger the Company's right to
terminate the settlement and the Company is currently evaluating
whether to continue to go forward with the settlement.  If the
Company does choose to go forward, the settlement remains subject
to the entry of a final order by the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend this matter.

Lender Processing Services, Inc. -- http://www.lpsvcs.com/-- is a
provider of integrated technology, data and services to the
mortgage lending industry, with a market leading position in
mortgage processing in the United States of America.  LPS was
incorporated in Delaware and is based in Jacksonville, Florida.


LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: Trial Court Erred in Wage Calculation
------------------------------------------------------------
Lexmark International, Inc., challenges a $7,777,620 amended
judgment entered against it by a trial court, which determined
that Lexmark's vacation policy between 1991 and 2009 constituted a
"use it or lose it policy" in violation of Labor Code section
227.3.  On appeal, Lexmark raises a number of issues including
whether the class was properly certified; the policy was a lawful
"accrual cap"; and damages were properly calculated and/or awarded
to all or some of the class members.  Lexmark also challenges
awards of costs in the amount of $145,341.93 and attorney fees in
the amount of $5,722,008.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Two
concluded that, with respect to the judgment as amended, the trial
court erred in calculating the wages to include commissions rather
than base rate of pay. In all other respects, the judgment as
amended is affirmed.  The Appeals Court also affirmed the
postjudgment awards of costs and attorney fees in their
entireties.

The case is, RON MOLINA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEXMARK
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant and Appellant, NOS. B227746,
B233272, B234675, B237836.  A copy of the Appeals Court's
September 19, 2013 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/XprHab
from Leagle.com.

Jackson Lewis, Frank M. Liberatore -- LiberatF@jacksonlewis.com --
Henry L. Sanchez -- SanchezH@jacksonlewis.com -- Sherry L. Swieca
-- SwiecaS@jacksonlewis.com -- and Sarine C. Sahatjian --
Sahatjis@jacksonlewis.com -- for Defendant and Appellant.

Law Offices of Sheila Thomas, Sheila Y. Thomas --
sheilayt@sbcglobal.net ; Lawson Law Offices, Antonio M. Lawson --
tony@lawsonlawoffices.com ; Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
Drooks & Lincenberg, Thomas R. Freeman -- trf@birdmarella.com --
Ekwan E. Rhow -- eer@birdmarella.com -- Bonita D. Moore --
bdm@birdmarella.com -- Karis A. Chi -- kac@birdmarella.com ; Law
Offices of Richard M. Pearl and Richard M. Pearl --
rpearl@interx.net -- for Plaintiff and Respondent.


LINN ENERGY: "Assad Trust" Class Suit Administratively Closed
-------------------------------------------------------------
LINN Energy, LLC 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 the class action lawsuit filed by Nancy P.
Assad Trust was administratively closed in May 2013.

On February 20, 2013, LinnCo, LLC ("LinnCo"), an affiliate of LINN
Energy, and Berry Petroleum Company ("Berry") entered into a
definitive merger agreement under which LinnCo would acquire all
of the outstanding common shares of Berry.

On March 21, 2013, a purported stockholder class action captioned
Nancy P. Assad Trust v. Berry Petroleum Co., et al. was filed in
the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado,
No. 13-CV-31365.  The action names as defendants Berry, the
members of its board of directors, Bacchus HoldCo, Inc., a direct
wholly owned subsidiary of Berry ("HoldCo"), Bacchus Merger Sub,
Inc., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of HoldCo ("Bacchus Merger
Sub"), LinnCo, LINN Energy and Linn Acquisition Company, LLC, a
direct wholly owned subsidiary of LinnCo ("LinnCo Merger Sub").
On April 5, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, which alleges
that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the transactions by engaging in an unfair sales
process that resulted in an unfair price for Berry, by failing to
disclose all material information regarding the transactions, and
that the entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches of
fiduciary duty.  The amended complaint seeks a declaration that
the transactions are unlawful and unenforceable, an order
directing the individual defendants to comply with their fiduciary
duties, an injunction against consummation of the transactions,
or, in the event they are completed, rescission of the
transactions, an award of fees and costs, including attorneys' and
experts' fees and expenses, and other relief.  On May 21, 2013,
the Colorado District Court stayed and administratively closed the
Nancy P. Assad Trust action in favor of the Hall action that is
pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Linn Energy, LLC, is an
independent oil and natural gas company.  The Company's properties
are located in the United States, primarily in the Mid-Continent,
the Permian Basin, Michigan, California and the Williston Basin.


LINN ENERGY: Continues to Defend Suits Over Royalty Payments
------------------------------------------------------------
LINN Energy, LLC has been named as a defendant in a number of
lawsuits, including claims from royalty owners related to disputed
royalty payments and royalty valuations.  The Company has
established reserves that management currently believes are
adequate to provide for potential liabilities based upon its
evaluation of these matters.  For a certain statewide class action
royalty payment dispute where a reserve has not yet been
established, the Company has denied that it has any liability on
the claims and has raised arguments and defenses that, if accepted
by the court, will result in no loss to the Company.  Discovery
related to class certification has concluded.  Briefing and the
hearing on class certification have been deferred by court order
pending the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals' resolution of
interlocutory appeals of two unrelated class certification orders.
As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or
range of possible loss, if any.  In addition, the Company is
involved in various other disputes arising in the ordinary course
of business.  The Company is not currently a party to any
litigation or pending claims that it believes would have a
material adverse effect on its overall business, financial
position, results of operations or liquidity; however, cash flow
could be significantly impacted in the reporting periods in which
such matters are resolved.

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.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Linn Energy, LLC, is an
independent oil and natural gas company.  The Company's properties
are located in the United States, primarily in the Mid-Continent,
the Permian Basin, Michigan, California and the Williston Basin.


LINN ENERGY: LinnCo Faces N.Y. Suits Over Initial Public Offering
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LinnCo, LLC, an affiliate of LINN Energy, LLC, is facing class
action lawsuits in New York relating to its initial public
offering, 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 10, 2013, David Adrian Luciano, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, against LINN Energy, LinnCo, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja
Rockov, David B. Rottino, George A. Alcorn, David D. Dunlap,
Terrence S. Jacobs, Michael C. Linn, Joseph P. McCoy, Jeffrey C.
Swoveland, and the various underwriters for LinnCo's initial
public offering (the "Luciano Action").  On July 12, 2013, Frank
Donio, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, against the same
defendants (the "Donio Action").  On July 19, 2013, John Cottrell,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, against LINN
Energy, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, and David B. Rottino (the
"Cottrell Action").  On July 23, 2013, Kevin Feldman, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York, against the same defendants as in
the Luciano Action (the "Feldman Action") (the Luciano Action,
Donio Action, Cottrell Action, and Feldman Action together, the
"New York Federal Actions").  The Donio Action and the Cottrell
Action assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act based on allegations that the Company made false or
misleading statements relating to its hedging strategy, the cash
flow available for distribution to unitholders, and the Company's
energy production.  The Luciano Action and the Feldman Action
assert claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 based on alleged misstatements relating to these issues in
the prospectus and registration statement for LinnCo's initial
public offering.  The cases are in their preliminary stages and it
is possible that additional similar actions could be filed.  As a
result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or
range of possible loss, if any.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Linn Energy, LLC, is an
independent oil and natural gas company.  The Company's properties
are located in the United States, primarily in the Mid-Continent,
the Permian Basin, Michigan, California and the Williston Basin.


LINN ENERGY: LinnCo Faces Tex. Suits Over Initial Public Offering
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LinnCo, LLC, an affiliate of LINN Energy, LLC, is facing class
action lawsuits in Texas relating to its initial public offering,
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 9, 2013, Anthony Booth, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas,
against LINN Energy, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, and David B.
Rottino (the "Booth Action").  On July 18, 2013, the Catherine A.
Fisher Trust, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Texas, against the
same defendants (the "Fisher Action").  On July 17, 2013, Don
Gentry, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court, Southern District of Texas, against LINN Energy,
LinnCo, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, David B. Rottino, George A.
Alcorn, David D. Dunlap, Terrence S. Jacobs, Michael C. Linn,
Joseph P. McCoy, Jeffrey C. Swoveland, and the various
underwriters for LinnCo's initial public offering (the "Gentry
Action") (the Booth Action, Fisher Action, and Gentry Action
together, the "Texas Federal Actions").  The Texas Federal Actions
each assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") based on
allegations that the Company made false or misleading statements
relating to its hedging strategy, the cash flow available for
distribution to unitholders, and the Company's energy production.
The Gentry Action asserts additional claims under Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged misstatements
relating to these issues in the prospectus and registration
statement for LinnCo's initial public offering.  The cases are in
their preliminary stages and it is possible that additional
similar actions could be filed.  As a result, the Company is
unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of possible loss, if
any.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Linn Energy, LLC, is an
independent oil and natural gas company.  The Company's properties
are located in the United States, primarily in the Mid-Continent,
the Permian Basin, Michigan, California and the Williston Basin.


LINN ENERGY: Parties in "Hall" Suit Currently in Settlement Talks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the class action lawsuit styled David Hall v. Berry
Petroleum Co., et al. are currently engaged in settlement
discussions, according to LINN Energy, LLC's August 8, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On February 20, 2013, LinnCo, LLC ("LinnCo"), an affiliate of LINN
Energy, and Berry Petroleum Company ("Berry") entered into a
definitive merger agreement under which LinnCo would acquire all
of the outstanding common shares of Berry.

On April 12, 2013, a purported stockholder class action captioned
David Hall v. Berry Petroleum Co., et al. was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, C.A. No. 8476-VCG.  The complaint
names as defendants Berry, the members of its board of directors,
Bacchus HoldCo, Inc., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Berry
("HoldCo"), Bacchus Merger Sub, Inc., a direct wholly owned
subsidiary of HoldCo ("Bacchus Merger Sub"), LinnCo, LINN Energy
and Linn Acquisition Company, LLC, a direct wholly owned
subsidiary of LinnCo ("LinnCo Merger Sub").  The complaint alleges
that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the transactions by engaging in an unfair sales
process that resulted in an unfair price for Berry, by failing to
disclose all material information regarding the transactions, and
that the entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches of
fiduciary duty.  The complaint seeks a declaration that the
transactions are unlawful and unenforceable, an order directing
the individual defendants to comply with their fiduciary duties,
an injunction against consummation of the transactions, or, in the
event they are completed, rescission of the transactions, an award
of fees and costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees and
expenses, and other relief.  After expedited discovery, the
plaintiffs in this case made a settlement proposal and the parties
are currently engaged in settlement discussions.  The Company is
unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of possible loss, if
any, at this time.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Linn Energy, LLC, is an
independent oil and natural gas company.  The Company's properties
are located in the United States, primarily in the Mid-Continent,
the Permian Basin, Michigan, California and the Williston Basin.


MANDY STAR: Recalls "Good Taste" Plum Due to Undeclared Sulfites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mandy Star Trading Inc., located at 349 Maujer Street Brooklyn NY
11206 is recalling "Good Taste" brand Plum, because it contains
undeclared sulfites and unallowed E124 (Acid Red 18) dye.  People
who have a severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious
or life-threatening allergic-like reactions if they consume this
product.  The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving
has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.

The recalled Mandy Star Trading Inc., "Good Taste" brand Plum is
sold in a 10.5 oz. clear and foil bag.  There is no production
code on the package.  The UPC code for this product is 3 867320
507650.  This item is a "Product of China".

This product was distributed in the New York City area.

The recall was initiated after a routine sampling by NYS
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by NYS Food Laboratory
personnel revealed the presence of sulfites and unallowed E124 -
(Acid Red 18) dye in packages of "Good Taste" brand Plum.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.  Consumers with questions may contact the company 646-
204-5888.


MCGRAW HILL COS: Bid for Leave to Amend "Reese" Complaint Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Nick DiVito reports that
supposed new evidence will not revive claims that Standard &
Poor's ratings of residential mortgage-backed securities defrauded
investors, a federal judge ruled.

The ruling Tuesday, September 24, 2013, from U.S. District Judge
Sidney Stein is a final nail to the lawsuit led by Claude Reese
and the Boca Raton Firefighters and Police Pension Fund.

Investors had first sued the McGraw Hill-owned credit-rating
agency and two of its executives -- Harold McGraw III and Robert
Bahash -- in 2007 to recover losses tied to Standard & Poor's
allegedly bogus ratings of mortgage-backed securities.  They
claimed S&P's ratings were motivated not by an interest in the
quality and accuracy of those ratings, but by its profits and need
to maintain market share.  The case eventually moved from
Washington, D.C., to New York.

Stein explained September 24, 2013, that he had dismissed the
second amended complaint in March 2012 after finding that "certain
alleged misstatements were commercial puffery," and that the class
failed to demonstrate the alleged misstatements were false.

The 2nd Circuit affirmed in December, but the investors claimed
that the discovery of new information entitled them to the
"exceptional remedy of relief from judgment."

That new information is the 119-page lawsuit against Standard &
Poor's that the Department of Justice filed in February 2013 in
Los Angeles.

The investors also cited deposition testimony that Frank Raiter,
head of RMBS ratings for S&P, gave during discovery in a different
lawsuit unsealed in July 2012.

Raiter allegedly claimed that S&P refused to implement a new,
superior ratings model because it was satisfied with its current
market share.

Stein nevertheless shot the investors down Tuesday, September 24,
2013.

"Plaintiffs' purported new evidence would not have changed the
outcome of the original decision because those allegations do not
correct the pleading defects for which the court dismissed its
previous complaint," he wrote.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven Richard Freeman, Esq.
          FREEMAN WOLFE & GREENBAUM, P.A.
          409 Washington Avenue, Suite 300
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 321-8400
          Facsimile: (410) 321-8407
          E-mail: srf@fwglaw.com

               - and -

          David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP(LI)
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: drosenfeld@csgrr.com
                  srudman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert Jeffrey Robbins, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP (FL)
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: rrobbins@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew S. Love, Esq.
          Susan K. Alexander, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP (SFRAN.)
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: alove@rgrdlaw.com
                  suzia@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          David Jude George, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: dgeorge@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Nancy M. Juda, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          1100 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 730
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 822-2024
          Facsimile: (202) 828-8528
          E-mail: nancyj@rgrdlaw.com

The Movants are represented by:

          Daniel Stephen Sommers, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC (DC)
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: dsommers@cohenmilstein.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Roy L. Regozin, Esq.
          Floyd Abrams, Esq.
          Jason Michael Hall, Esq.
          Susan Buckley, Esq.
          Tammy Lynn Roy, Esq.
          CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP
          80 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 701-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 269-5420
          E-mail: rregozin@cahill.com
                  fabrams@cahill.com
                  jhall@cahill.com
                  sbuckley@cahill.com
                  troy@cahill.com

The case is Reese, et al. v. Bahash, et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-
07202-SHS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Foley Square).


MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Solodyn Product
-----------------------------------------------------------------
City of Providence, Rhode Island, individually and on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corp.; Impax Laboratories, Inc.; Lupin Limited; Lupin
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Sandoz, Inc.; Mylan, Inc.; Matrix
Laboratories, Ltd.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.; Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Barr Laboratories, Inc.; Ranbaxy
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ranbaxy, Inc.; Ranbaxy Laboratories, Ltd.;
and Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-
01952-SRB (D. Ariz., September 24, 2013) is a civil antitrust
action seeking treble damages and other relief arising out of the
Defendants' alleged anticompetitive scheme to exclude competition
from the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended release
tablets, a prescription drug for the treatment of acne marketed by
Medicis under the brand name "Solodyn."

Medicis planned and carried out a complex and anticompetitive
scheme, undertaken alone and in conjunction with the Generic
Defendants, to illegally restrain trade and artificially maintain
and abuse Medicis' monopoly power in the market for Solodyn, the
Plaintiff alleges.  Because of this scheme, the Plaintiff
contends, the class of end-payor purchasers it seeks to represent
paid supracompetitive prices for the drug.

The City of Providence, Rhode Island, is a municipal corporation
with a principal address of 25 Donance Street, in Providence,
Rhode Island.  Providence is a self-insured health and welfare
benefit plan, and provides reimbursement for some or all of the
purchase price of prescription drugs including Solodyn.
Providence provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase
price of Solodyn for people, who reside in and purchased Solodyn
in various states including Rhode Island.  Providence contends
that it paid more for Solodyn than it would have absent the
Defendants' alleged unlawful anticompetitive conduct to prevent
generic entry and was injured as a result thereof.

Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. is a branded pharmaceutical drug
manufacturer incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in
Scottsdale, Arizona.  Medicis develops, manufactures, and markets
pharmaceutical and related products in the United States.  Impax
Laboratories, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Hayward, California.  Impax is in the business of developing,
manufacturing, and marketing pharmaceutical products, primarily
generic products, in the United States.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in
North Wales, Pennsylvania.  Teva USA is in the business of
developing, manufacturing, and marketing pharmaceutical products,
primarily generic products, in the United States.  Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.  Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
Ltd. is a corporation, headquartered and having a place of
business in Petach Tikva, Israel, engaged in the development,
manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of pharmaceuticals.
Through its subsidiaries, a large portion of Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries Ltd.'s sales are in the United States, and it has major
manufacturing operations in the United States.  Barr Laboratories,
Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., and is a Delaware corporation with offices located in
Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.  Barr is in the business of
developing, manufacturing, and marketing pharmaceutical products,
primarily generic drugs, in the United States.

Mylan Inc. is a generic drug manufacturer incorporated in
Pennsylvania and headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.  Mylan
is in the business of developing, manufacturing, and marketing
pharmaceutical products, primarily generic products, in the United
States.  Matrix Laboratories Ltd. is a majority owned subsidiary
of Mylan Inc. with its principal place of business in
Secunderabad, India.

Lupin Limited, is a business entity organized in Mumbai,
Maharashtra, India.  Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Virginia
corporation headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland.  Lupin
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is in the business of developing,
manufacturing, and marketing pharmaceutical products, primarily
generic products, in the United States.

Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a company organized and existing
under the laws of Florida, with its principal place of business at
9431 Florida Mining Blvd. East Jacksonville, Florida. Ranbaxy
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ranbaxy
Laboratories, Limited.  Ranbaxy Laboratories is organized in India
and is headquartered in Gurgaon-122001 (Haryana), India.  Ranbaxy,
Inc. is a Delaware corporation, having a place of business in
Princeton, New Jersey.  The Ranbaxy Entities are engaged in the
worldwide production and distribution of pharmaceuticals,
primarily generic products, including in the United States.

Sandoz Inc. is a Colorado corporation with its principal place of
business at address at 506 Carnegie Center, Princeton, NJ 08540.
Sandoz is in the business of developing, manufacturing, and
marketing pharmaceutical products, primarily generic products, in
the United States.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is a Canadian
corporation headquartered in Quebec, Canada.  Valeant's United
States headquarters are located in Bridgewater, New Jersey.
Valeant acquired Medicis in an all-cash transaction in December
2012.  The combined company's commercial dermatology operations
are located in Scottsdale, Arizona, and operate under the name
Medicis, a division of Valeant, with its dermatology research and
development operations in Scottsdale, Arizona, and Petaluma,
California, and corporate support is based in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Rusing, Esq.
          Timothy J. Reckart, Esq.
          Sarah J. Stanton, Esq.
          RUSING LOPEZ & LIZARDI, P.L.L.C.
          6363 North Swan Road, Suite 151
          Tucson, AZ 85718
          Telephone: (520) 792-4800
          Facsimile: (520) 529-4262
          E-mail: mrusing@rllaz.com
                  treckart@rllaz.com
                  sstanton@rllaz.com

               - and -

          Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
          Matthew B. Hamilton, Esq.
          MOTELY RICE LLC
          275 Seventh Ave., 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 577-0050
          Facsimile: (212) 577-0054
          E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com
                  mbhamilton@motleyrice.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Shetiwy" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin granted, in part, with leave to
amend, defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims in the
case, AMAL SHETIWY, LOUIS C. YEOSTROS, JOHN MURPHY, PLAMEN
PANKOFT, PATRICIA R. DIFFLEY, SPIROS ARGYROS, JOHANNA ARBELAEZ,
NICHOLAS DOUDALIS, NICOLE GAGNON, SAFET KOLJENOVIC, MAGDI ABDALLA,
AHMED HASSAN, EKATEREINE SKOTEDIS, VIELKA VARGAS, ROSE VILLANEUVA,
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, a/k/a MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, CALVARY PORTFOLIO SERVICE,
DEBTONE, LLC, CACH, LLC, NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, LVNV FUNDING, LLC,
ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, FIA CARD SERVICES, N.A., PORTFOLIO
RECOVERY, CHASE BANK, N.A., AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A., CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL ADVISORS, LLC, ASSOCIATED
RECOVERY SYSTEMS, CITIGROUP INC., CITIBANK, N.A., CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, GE CAPITAL CONSUMER LENDING, INC., and
EQUABLE ASSENT FINANCIAL, LLC, Defendants, NO. 12 CIV. 7068 (SAS),
(S.D.N.Y.).

According to Judge Scheindlin, many of the legal arguments and
factual allegations in plaintiffs' 88-page Amended Complaint are
difficult to discern. A significant portion of the Amended
Complaint consists of text copied and pasted, sometimes without
citation, from newspaper articles.

Judge Scheindlin ruled that plaintiffs are granted leave to amend
except with regard to (1) their due process claims, (2) their
claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against the
Creditor Defendants, and (3) their attempts to challenge and
vacate state court judgments.  The Court held that these pleadings
are legally invalid, and amendment would be futile.

Judge Scheindlin added that if plaintiffs choose to file a Second
Amended Complaint, they must do so by October 20, 2013.

"In order to avoid being dismissed with prejudice, I emphasize
that plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint must comply in full with
Rule 8 and Rule 9(b), as well as Rule 11, which prohibits
frivolous legal arguments and sets minimum standards for factual
contentions. If plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint displays the
confused, unintelligible, argumentative, speculative, or rambling
qualities of plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, the Second Amended
Complaint will be dismissed without leave to amend," Judge
Scheindlin concluded.

A copy of the District Court's September 19, 2013 Opinion and
Order is available at http://is.gd/OcXNkvfrom Leagle.com.

Phillip Jaffe, Esq. -- pjaffe47@gmail.com -- New York, NY, George
Bassias, Esq. -- gbassias@bassiaslaw.com -- Astoria, NY, for
Plaintiffs.

Andrew A. Ruffino, Esq. -- aruffino@cov.com -- Covington & Burling
LLP, New York, NY, Robert D. Wick, Esq. -- rwick@cov.com -- Laura
Brookover, Esq. -- lbrookover@cov.com -- Henry Liu, Esq. --
hliu@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC for
Defendant Chase Bank USA, N.A.

Casey D. Laffey, Esq. -- claffey@reedsmith.com -- Brian S.
Goldberg, Esq., Reed Smith LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant
Midland Credit Management, Inc.

Donald S. Maurice, Jr., Esq. -- dsm@mnlawpc.com -- Rachel Marin,
Esq. -- rmarin@mnlawpc.com -- Thomas R. Dominczyk, Esq. --
trd@mnlawpc.com -- Maurice & Needleman, PC, Flemington, NJ, For
Defendants Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC and Equable Ascent
Financial, LLC.

Jonathan J. Greystone, Esq. -- jgreystone@lawsgr.com -- Spector
Gadon & Rosen, PC, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant CACH, LLC.

W. Raley Alford, III, Esq. -- wra@stanleyreuter.com -- Stanley,
Reuter, Ross, Thornton & Alford LLC, New Orleans, LA, for
Defendant Debt One, LLC.

Concepcion A. Montoya, Esq. -- cmontoya@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw
& Culbertson LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant LVNV Funding, LLC.

For Defendants NCO Financial Systems, Inc., and Capital Management
Services, Aaron R. Easley, Esq. -- aeasley@sessions-law.biz --
Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, LLC, Flemington, NJ, and:

   Kevin Barry McHugh, Esq.
   Law Offices of Edward Barfinkel
   12 MetroTech Center, 28th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (718) 250-1100

Jill M. Wheaton, Esq. -- jwheaton@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett
PLLC, Ann Arbor, MI, Richard David Lane, Jr., Esq. --
rdlane@mdwcg.com -- Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin,
New York, NY, for Defendant Asset Acceptance LLC.

Gillian I. Biron, Esq. -- gillian.biron@bingham.com -- S. Elaine
McChesney, Esq. -- elaine.mcchesney@bingham.com -- (pro hac vice)
Jonathan M. Albano, Esq. -- jonathan.albano@bingham.com --(pro hac
vice) Bingham McCutchen LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants Bank of
America, N.A. and FIA Card Services, N.A.

For Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC:

   Christopher W. Madel, Esq., (pro hac vice)
   Jennifer M. Robbins, Esq., (pro hac vice)
   Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP
   800 LaSalle Avenue
   2800 LaSalle Plaza
   Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
   Tel: 612-349-8500
   Fax: 612-339-4181

     - and -

   Oren D. Langer, Esq.
   Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP
   601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400
   New York, NY 10022-4611
   Tel: 212-980-7400
   Fax: 212-980-7499

For Defendant American Express Company:

   Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr., Esq.
   Lauren K. Handelsman, Esq.
   CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
   New York, NY
   One Liberty Plaza
   New York, NY 10006
   Tel: 212-225-2000
   Fax: 212-225-3999

John E. Brigandi, Esq. -- jbrigandi@salvolawfirm.com -- The Salvo
Law Firm, PC, Fairfield, NJ Defendant ARS National Services, Inc.

Michael D. Hynes, Esq. -- michael.hynes@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper
LLP (US), New York, NY, for Defendant GE Capital Consumer Lending,
Inc.

Mark P. Ladner, Esq. -- mladner@mofo.com -- David J. Fioccola,
Esq. -- dfioccola@mofo.com -- Jessica L. Kaufman, Esq. --
jkaufman@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, New York, NY, for
Defendants Capital One Financial Corp. and Capital One Financial
Advisors, LLC.

Stephen C. Robinson, Esq. -- stephen.robinson@skadden.com --
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY, for
Defendants Citigroup, Inc. and Citibank, N.A.


MILES INDUSTRIES: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class Action Administration, Inc. disclosed that the United States
District Court, Northern District of California has granted
preliminary approval to a proposed settlement in a class action
lawsuit involving sealed glass-fronted gas fireplaces that were
manufactured and distributed by Miles Industries, of North
Vancouver, Canada.  The case is Rotandi v. Miles Industries Ltd.
No. 3:11-cv-02146-EDL.

The lawsuit claimed that Miles Industries concealed that the glass
fronts of these fireplaces get hot enough to cause serious burns.
Miles Industries denies that it did not warn consumers and it
denies that it did anything wrong.

Settlement Benefits
Under the terms of the settlement, owners of residences in which
Valor fireplaces were installed from January 2007 to August 16,
2013 are eligible to make a claim for a barrier screen.  The
screen complies with the new CSA/ANSI standard that all gas
fireplaces manufacturers will have to meet by 2015.

Who is Eligible?
Class Members are any individual who lives in the United States
and owns a home or other residential dwelling that you bought for
personal, family or household purposes and that home has one or
more Valor brand sealed glass-fronted fireplace(s) manufactured
and distributed by Miles Industries, Ltd. of North Vancouver,
Canada between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2012 and that was
installed between January 1, 2007 and August 16, 2013.

How to Receive a Benefit
To receive a benefit, you must complete and return a claim form to
the Settlement Administrator.  The deadline to submit a claim form
is February 10, 2014.  A copy of the claim form can be found on
the settlement website http://www.MilesFireplaceSettlement.com or
requested from the Settlement Administrator at 1-866-859-7390.

Class Members can exclude themselves from the class so that they
are not legally bound by the Settlement.  The deadline to exclude
yourself is October 25, 2013.  If you do not exclude yourself, you
will not be able to sue the Defendant for any claim related to the
lawsuit.

If you stay in the settlement, you may object to it by October 25,
2013.  The court will hold a hearing on December 10, 2013 to
consider whether to approve the settlement and a request for
attorneys' fees and expenses up to $1,890,000.

For more information, visit
http://www.MilesFireplaceSettlement.comor call the Settlement
Administrator toll free at 1-866-859-7390.  Please do not contact
the Court.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Retirees Lose Interference & Bargaining Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that the 8th
Circuit dismissed a lawsuit from retired NFL players who
challenged active players' right to bargain on their behalf,
finding that they had no reasonable expectation of winning more
retiree benefits by bargaining on their own.

The National Football League and the NFL Players Association in
2011 were unable to agree to terms of a new collective bargaining
agreement, and a lockout commenced.  It lasted from March to July
2011, when the parties signed a new collective bargaining
agreement, which included $900 million in increased benefits for
retired players.  But some retired players were unhappy with the
deal.

A class of 28 retired players, led by Carl Eller, sued the NFL
Players Association, Tom Brady and other active players in Federal
Court, claiming the active players "had no authority to negotiate
with the league the terms of pension, retirement, and disability
benefits with respect to the class of retired NFL players
described herein, something the NFLPA's counsel already have
conceded."

The Eller class also sued the NFLPA "for interfering intentionally
with the prospective economic advantage of the putative class
described herein and for breaches of fiduciary duties assumed by
the NFLPA with respect to NFL retirees."

Retirees sought medical monitoring for brain injuries, and
proposed that 2.5 percent of NFL revenue be set aside for
retirees.

The district court dismissed, finding that retired players "could
not reasonably have expected to enter into a contract based on
their own negotiating power as opposed to that of the active
players," and because "no reasonable jury could find the purported
interference here to be 'improper.'"

The 8th Circuit affirmed the ruling Monday, September 23, 2013.

"Given the undisputed history of labor relations and collective
bargaining involving the NFL and its players, the factual
allegations in plaintiffs lengthy complaint -- which we accept as
true -- provide no plausible reason to believe that the NFL,
having agreed with the active players to provide more than $900
million in increased contractual benefits for retired players in a
new CBA, would be willing to separately negotiate even greater
benefits directly with the retired player class," Judge James
Loken wrote for the three-judge panel.

In addition, retired players are not members of a collective
bargaining unit, and so could not negotiate their own agreement
under federal labor laws.

"Bargaining over pensioners' rights has become an established
industrial practice," Loken wrote, citing precedent, so the active
NFL players did not improperly interfere with retired players'
potential contract with the NFL.

Minnesota law also recognizes a special privilege for competitors:
that a competitor who causes a third party not to enter into a
contractual relation with defendant's competitor does not
tortiously interfere with their business relations.

"Plaintiffs alleged that the active players excluded retired
player representatives from settlement negotiations that included
retiree benefits in order to get a larger share of the total
player revenues for themselves," Loken wrote.  "Under the
competitor's privilege, these allegations that defendants engaged
in collective bargaining under the federal labor laws to further
their own economic interests, even at the expense of plaintiffs'
economic interests, did not state a claim for tortious
interference under Minnesota law."

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Arthur N. Bailey, Jr., Esq.
          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104-0000
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          E-mail: abailey@hausfeldllp.com
                  mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Hilary K. Scherrer, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LAW FIRM
          1700 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
                  hscherrer@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Mark Feinberg, Esq.
          Shawn D. Stuckey, Esq.
          ZELLE & HOFMANN
          500 Washington Avenue, S., Suite 4000
          Minneapolis, MN 55415-1152
          Telephone: (612) 339-2020
          E-mail: mfeinber@zelle.com
                  sstuckey@zelle.com

               - and -

          Daniel Simon Mason
          ZELLE & HOFMANN
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 693-0700
          E-mail: dmason@zelle.com

               - and -

          Jonathan W. Greenbaum, Esq.
          COBURN & GREENBAUM
          1710 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 657-5006
          E-mail: jg@coburngreenbaum.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Barbara Podlucky Berens, Esq.
          Justi Rae Miller, Esq.
          BERENS & MILLER PA
          80 S. Eighth Street, S., Suite 3720
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 349-6171
          E-mail: Bberens@berensmiller.com
                  Jmiller@berensmiller.com

               - and -

          David L. Greenspan, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Kessler, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 294-4616
          E-mail: dgreenspan@winston.com
                  jkessler@winston.com

               - and -

          James W. Quinn, Esq.
          WEIL & GOTSHAL
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153-0000
          Telephone: (212) 310-8000
          E-mail: james.quinn@weil.com

               - and -

          Andrew S. Tulumello, Esq.
          GIBSON & DUNN
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036-5306
          Telephone: (202) 955-8500
          E-mail: atulumello@gibsondunn.com

The appellate case is Carl Lee Eller, et al. v. NFL Players
Association, et al., Case No. 12-2487, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  The original case is Carl Lee
Eller, et al. v. NFL Players Association, et al., Case No. 0:11-
cv-02623-SRN, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota (Minneapolis).


NATIONAL TECHNICAL: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Aurora Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Castillo, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. National Technical Systems Inc., Aaron Cohen, John
Foster, John M. Gibbons, Justin C. Jacobs, Robert I. Lin, William
McGinnis, Donald J. Tringali, Norman S. Wolfe, Dan C. Yates, Nest
Merger Sub Inc., Aurora Capital Group, and Nest Parent Inc., Case
No. BC522351 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., September 24,
2013) is a shareholder class action lawsuit arising out of the
proposed merger between NTSC and Aurora.

The Company's Board of Directors has breached their fiduciary
duties to NTSC shareholders by failing to take steps to maximize
shareholder value before entering into the Proposed Transaction,
pursuant to which Aurora is underpaying for NTSC shares, Mr.
Castillo alleges.  He contends that both the value to NTSC
shareholders contemplated in the Proposed Transaction and the
process by which the Defendants propose to consummate the Proposed
Transaction are fundamentally unfair to him and the other public
shareholders of the Company.

Mr. Castillo is a shareholder of the Company.

NTSC is a California corporation headquartered in Calabasas.  NTSC
is a provider of testing solutions and highly trained technical
personnel for product design and evaluation, safety testing,
certification and supply chain management to enable customers to
sell their products in world markets.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.  Aurora is a Los
Angeles-based private equity firm managing over $2 billion of
capital across five separate funds.  Aurora has developed
significant expertise in several industries, including: Aerospace
and Defense, Energy, Healthcare, Industrial Services, Software and
Tech-Enabled Services, Specialty Manufacturing & Distribution, and
Transportation & Logistics.  Merger Sub is a California
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Aurora.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: dbower@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          David M. Sborz, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, Tenth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: jmonteverde@.faruqilaw.com
                  dsborz@faruqilaw.com


NEW HAMPSHIRE: "Lee" Suit Dismissed in its Entirety
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Steven J. McAuliffe approved the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty dated
August 29, 2013, in the case captioned Dennis Clifford Lee v.
State of New Hampshire, CASE NO. 13-CV-215-SM, (D.N.H.).

"[O]nly those issues fairly raised by the objections to the
magistrate's report are subject to review in the district court
and those not preserved by such objection are precluded on
appeal," ruled Judge McAuliffe.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed in its
entirety. The Motion for Class Action Status is denied. The Court
directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in accordance with
this order and close the case.

A copy of the District Court's September 23, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/ZnvQHPfrom Leagle.com.


NISSAN MOTOR: M35 and M45 Model Cars Recalled in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 27, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Engine
Units affected:           3452
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013332
TC ID number:             2013332
Manufacturer recall
number:                   R1306

Affected products:

  Maker      Model    Model year(s) affected
  -----      -----    ----------------------
  INFINITI   M45      2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010
  INFINITI   M35      2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010


NISSAN MOTOR: Pathfinder Model SUVs Recalled in Canada
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 27, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car, SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Airbag
Units affected:           141
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013331
TC ID number:             2013331
Manufacturer recall
number:                   PC243

Affected products: Nissan Pathfinder 2014 model


NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Awaits Cert. Ruling in "Gielata" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc., is awaiting a court
decision on Richard P. Gielata's motion to certify a class in his
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.

On May 21, 2010, Richard P. Gielata, an individual purporting to
act on behalf of stockholders, served a class action lawsuit filed
May 6, 2010, against the Company and various directors and
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware captioned In re Heckmann Corporation Securities Class
Action (Case No. 1:10-cv-00378-JJF-MPT) (the "Class Action").  On
October 8, 2010, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed an
Amended Class Action Complaint which adds China Water as a
defendant.  The Class Action alleges violations of federal
securities laws in connection with the acquisition of China Water.
The Company responded by filing a motion to transfer the Class
Action to California and a motion to dismiss the case.  On
March 31, 2011, the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's
report and recommendation to deny the motion to transfer.  On
May 25, 2012, the court entered a memorandum order adopting the
Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation denying the Company's
motion to dismiss.  On June 25, 2012, the court entered a
scheduling order setting forth a schedule for, among other things,
discovery and dispositive motions, and document discovery
commenced.  On July 9, 2012, the Company filed its Answer to the
Amended Class Action Complaint.  On September 19, 2012, the
Company filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and a Motion
for Proposed Briefing Schedule.  The Magistrate Judge denied the
Motion for Proposed Briefing Schedule on October 4, 2012, and the
Company filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's ruling.

On January 16, 2013, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's
ruling and denied the Company's request for a briefing schedule on
its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.  On October 19, 2012,
plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class and appoint class
representatives and class counsel.  On January 18, 2013, the
Company filed its opposition and a motion to exclude the
declaration of plaintiff's class certification expert.  On
February 19, 2013, plaintiff filed a reply brief.  A hearing on
plaintiff's motion to certify a class and appoint class
representatives and class counsel has not been scheduled.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this case.  The
Company has not recorded any liabilities for the Class Action
matter other than with respect to certain costs of counsel on the
basis that such liabilities are currently neither probable nor
estimable.  The Company has Directors and Officers insurance
coverage ("D&O coverage") applicable to the class action lawsuit,
which is currently being used to fund the Company's legal defense
fees.  Depending upon the magnitude of future legal fees and the
outcome of the litigation, it is possible that the Company will
exhaust the remaining limits of its D&O coverage, at which time
the Company would be responsible for any shortfall.

Headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona, Nuverra Environmental
Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.nuverra.com/-- is one of the
largest companies in the United States dedicated to providing
comprehensive and full-cycle environmental solutions to its
customers in energy and industrial end-markets.  The Company
focuses on the delivery, collection, treatment, recycling, and
disposal of restricted solids, water, waste water, used motor oil,
spent antifreeze, waste fluids and hydrocarbons.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Antitrust MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss an antitrust multidistrict litigation pending in Texas,
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 20, 2012, a putative consumer class action was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against certain major hotel chains, and the leading
online travel companies ("OTCs"), including Orbitz.  The complaint
alleged that the hotel chains and OTCs, including Orbitz, violated
antitrust and consumer protection laws by entering into agreements
in which OTCs agree not to facilitate the reservation of hotel
rooms at prices that are less than those found on the hotel chain
websites.  Following the filing of the initial complaint on
August 20, 2012, several dozen additional putative consumer class
action complaints were filed in federal courts across the country.
These cases were then consolidated for pretrial purposes by the
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation and transferred to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
On May 1, 2013, counsel for the Lead Plaintiff filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint.  On July 1, 2013, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint.

The Company says it cannot currently estimate a range of its
potential loss if the Company does not prevail in this litigation.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. --
http://www.corp.orbitz.com/-- is an online travel company that
uses innovative technology to enable leisure and business
travelers to search for and book a broad range of travel products
and services.  The Company's brand portfolio includes Orbitz,
CheapTickets, The Away Network and Orbitz for Business in the
United States; ebookers in Europe; and HotelClub and RatesToGo
based in Australia, which have operations globally.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Defends Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes
----------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. continues to defend itself against various
lawsuits alleging violations of hotel occupancy tax ordinances,
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.

The Company is a party to various cases brought by municipalities
and other state and local governmental entities in the U.S.
involving hotel occupancy or related taxes and the Company's
merchant hotel business model.  Some of the cases are class
actions (some of which have been confirmed on a state-wide basis
and some which are purported), and most of the cases were brought
simultaneously against other online travel companies ("OTCs"),
including Expedia, Travelocity and Priceline.  The cases allege,
among other things, that the Company violated the jurisdictions'
hotel occupancy tax ordinances, as well as related sales and use
taxes.  While not identical in their allegations, the cases
generally assert similar claims, including violations of local or
state occupancy tax ordinances, failure to pay sales or use tax,
and in some cases, violations of consumer protection ordinances,
conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition of a constructive trust,
demand for a legal or equitable accounting, injunctive relief,
declaratory judgment, and civil conspiracy.  The plaintiffs seek
relief in a variety of forms, including: declaratory judgment,
full accounting of monies owed, imposition of a constructive
trust, compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement,
restitution, interest, penalties and costs, attorneys' fees, and
where a class action has been claimed, an order certifying the
action as a class action.

The Company says an adverse ruling in one or more of these cases
could require the Company to pay tax retroactively and
prospectively and possibly pay interest, penalties, and fines.
The proliferation of additional cases could result in substantial
additional defense costs.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. --
http://www.corp.orbitz.com/-- is an online travel company that
uses innovative technology to enable leisure and business
travelers to search for and book a broad range of travel products
and services.  The Company's brand portfolio includes Orbitz,
CheapTickets, The Away Network and Orbitz for Business in the
United States; ebookers in Europe; and HotelClub and RatesToGo
based in Australia, which have operations globally.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Plaintiffs Appealed "McAllister" Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of a consumer class action
lawsuit known as the McAllister case, according to Orbitz
Worldwide, Inc.'s August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On May 23, 2013, Circuit Court of Saline County, Arkansas granted
the OTCs' motion for reconsideration and dismissed the complaint.
On June 19, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. --
http://www.corp.orbitz.com/-- is an online travel company that
uses innovative technology to enable leisure and business
travelers to search for and book a broad range of travel products
and services.  The Company's brand portfolio includes Orbitz,
CheapTickets, The Away Network and Orbitz for Business in the
United States; ebookers in Europe; and HotelClub and RatesToGo
based in Australia, which have operations globally.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Unit Faces Suit Over Hotel Taxes in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz Worldwide, Inc.'s subsidiary is facing an Illinois class
action lawsuit over hotel taxes, 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 8, 2013, the Villages of Bedford Park, Oak Lawn, Orland
Hills, and Willowbrook, the cities of Warrenville, Oakbrook
Terrace, and Rockford, Illinois, filed a putative class action
complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County against a group of
online travel companies, including Orbitz LLC and Trip Network,
Inc. (d/b/a Cheaptickets.com).

Based in Chicago, Illinois, Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. --
http://www.corp.orbitz.com/-- is an online travel company that
uses innovative technology to enable leisure and business
travelers to search for and book a broad range of travel products
and services.  The Company's brand portfolio includes Orbitz,
CheapTickets, The Away Network and Orbitz for Business in the
United States; ebookers in Europe; and HotelClub and RatesToGo
based in Australia, which have operations globally.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Voluntarily Dismissed From "Miller" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the consumer class action lawsuit titled Debra
Miller v. 1-800-Flowers.com, et al., voluntarily dismissed Orbitz
Worldwide, Inc. on May 31, 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.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. --
http://www.corp.orbitz.com/-- is an online travel company that
uses innovative technology to enable leisure and business
travelers to search for and book a broad range of travel products
and services.  The Company's brand portfolio includes Orbitz,
CheapTickets, The Away Network and Orbitz for Business in the
United States; ebookers in Europe; and HotelClub and RatesToGo
based in Australia, which have operations globally.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Okla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, Inc. is defending a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit in Oklahoma, 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 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
SandRidge Energy, Inc. and certain current and former executive
officers of the Company.  On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders,
filed a substantially similar putative class action complaint in
the same court and against the same defendants.  On March 6, 2013,
the court consolidated these two actions under the caption "In re
SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation" (the "Securities
Litigation") and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  By
order dated April 10, 2013, the court granted the lead plaintiff
until July 23, 2013, to file a consolidated amended complaint in
the action.  The consolidated amended complaint asserts a variety
of federal securities claims against the Company and certain of
its current and former officers and directors, among other
defendants, on behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers of
SandRidge common stock during the period from February 24, 2011,
to November 8, 2012, (b) purchasers of common units of SandRidge
Mississippian Trust I in or traceable to its initial public
offering on or about April 12, 2011, and (c) purchasers of common
units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II in or traceable to its
initial public offering on or about April 23, 2012.  The claims
are based on allegations that the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors, among other defendants,
are responsible for making false and misleading statements, and
omitting material information, concerning a variety of subjects,
including oil and natural gas reserves, the Company's capital
expenditures, and certain transactions entered into by companies
allegedly affiliated with the Company's former CEO Tom Ward.

Because the Securities Litigation has only been recently filed,
the Company says an estimate of reasonably possible losses
associated with it, if any, cannot be made until the facts,
circumstances and legal theories relating to the plaintiffs'
claims and available defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed.
The Company has not established any reserves relating to the
Securities Litigation.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. -- http://www.sandridgeenergy.com/-- is an
independent oil and natural gas company concentrating on
development and production activities in the Mid-Continent, Gulf
of Mexico and Permian Basin in west Texas.  The Company is
headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Bid to Add Claims in "Kallick" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Kallick's request for the court's permission to add
additional claims in his class action lawsuit against SandRidge
Energy, Inc. is currently 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 January 7, 2013, Gerald Kallick, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated stockholders, filed a putative class
action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against SandRidge Energy, Inc., and certain current and former
directors of the Company.  On January 31, 2013, the plaintiff
filed an amended class action complaint.  In his amended
complaint, the plaintiff seeks: (i) declaratory relief that
certain change-in-control provisions in the Company's indentures
and senior credit facility agreement are invalid and
unenforceable, (ii) declaratory relief that the directors breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to approve the slate of
directors proposed by TPG-Axon in its consent solicitation in
order to disable the change-in-control provisions, (iii) a
mandatory injunction requiring the directors to approve nominees
for the Board of Directors (the "Board") submitted by TPG-Axon,
(iv) a mandatory injunction prohibiting the Company from paying
the then current Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") his
change-in-control benefits under his employment agreement if the
CEO were removed as a director, but remained employed as the
Company's CEO, (v) a mandatory injunction enjoining the defendants
from impeding or interfering with the dissident stockholder's
consent solicitation, (vi) a mandatory injunction requiring the
defendants to disclose all material information related to the
change-in-control provisions in the Company's indentures and
senior credit facility agreement; and (vii) an order requiring the
Company's current directors to account to the plaintiff and the
putative class for alleged damages.

On March 8, 2013, the court granted plaintiff's motion for a
preliminary injunction, enjoining the Board, unless and until it
approved the TPG-Axon nominees for purposes of the change-in-
control provisions of the Company's outstanding debt agreements,
from (i) soliciting any further consent revocations in opposition
to TPG-Axon's consent solicitation, (ii) relying upon or otherwise
giving effect to any consent revocations received by the Company
as of March 11, 2013, and (iii) impeding the dissident
stockholder's consent solicitation in any way.  On March 9, 2013,
the Board approved TPG-Axon's nominees for purposes of the change-
in-control provisions in the Company's debt instruments.  On
March 13, 2013, TPG-Axon and the Board entered into a settlement
agreement under which TPG-Axon's consent solicitation was
withdrawn.

As a result of these actions, the Company believes that many of
the original claims asserted by the plaintiff in the Kallick
action have been rendered moot.  The plaintiff has asked for the
court's permission to add additional claims, which request is
currently pending.  Until such time as claims are known, the
Company is unable to estimate if any reasonably possible losses
exist.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. -- http://www.sandridgeenergy.com/-- is an
independent oil and natural gas company concentrating on
development and production activities in the Mid-Continent, Gulf
of Mexico and Permian Basin in west Texas.  The Company is
headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


SEDGWICK CLAIMS: 6th Cir. Affirms Ruling in "Jackson" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Clifton Jackson and Christopher Scharnitzke were employees of
Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. who suffered work-related injuries.
They applied for workers' compensation benefits from Coca-Cola
through Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Coca-Cola's third-
party benefit claims administrator. Sedgwick disputed both of
their claims and refused to pay benefits.  Jackson and Scharnitzke
sued, alleging that Coca-Cola and Sedgwick "engaged in a
fraudulent scheme involving the mail . . . to avoid paying
benefits to injured employees," in violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
1962(c).  They sued Coca-Cola, Sedgwick, and Dr. Paul Drouillard
-- a so-called "cut-off" doctor who allegedly colluded with Coca-
Cola and Sedgwick to discontinue Jackson's benefits -- in federal
district court pursuant to RICO's civil-remedy provision.

The district court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The Plaintiffs appealed.

A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit reversed in reliance on Brown v. Cassens Transport Co.,
675 F.3d 946 (6th Cir. 2012) (Brown II), which rejected many of
the legal arguments the district court relied upon in granting the
motion to dismiss.  As was true in Brown II, the panel was divided
over the proper resolution of the appeal.

The court granted the defendants' petition to rehear this case en
banc.

Because the plaintiffs have not pled an injury to their "business
or property" that is compensable under [Section] 1964(c), the
Sixth Circuit overruled Brown II and affirmed the district court's
judgment.

The case is CLIFTON E. JACKSON; CHRISTOPHER M. SCHARNITZKE, on
behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
INC.; COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES, INC., foreign corporations; DR. PAUL
DROUILLARD, jointly and severally, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 10-
1453.

Circuit Judge Julia Smith Gibbons delivered the opinion of the
Court, in which BATCHELDER, C. J., GUY, BOGGS, ROGERS, SUTTON,
COOK, McKEAGUE, GRIFFIN, and KETHLEDGE, JJ., joined. CLAY, J.
delivered a separate opinion concurring in the judgment only.
MOORE, J., delivered a separate dissenting opinion, in which COLE,
WHITE, STRANCH, and DONALD, JJ., joined.

A copy of the Circuit Court's September 24, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/pu1nSMfrom Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Marshall D. Lasser -- mlasserlaw@aol.com -- MARSHALL
LASSER, P.C., Southfield, Michigan, for Appellants.

Kathleen H. Klaus -- kklaus@maddinhauser.com -- MADDIN HAUSER
WARTELL, ROTH & HELLER, P.C., Southfield, Michigan, Matthew F.
Leitman -- Leitman@millercanfield.com -- MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK
AND STONE, P.L.C., Troy, Michigan, Daniel B. Tukel --
tukel@butzel.com -- BUTZEL LONG, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellees.

ON BRIEF for Appellants: Marshall D. Lasser, MARSHALL LASSER,
P.C., Southfield, Michigan, and:

  Jeffrey T. Stewart, Esq.
  SEIKALY & STEWART, P.C.
  30300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
  Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334
  Tel: (866) 671-8115

Kathleen H. Klaus, MADDIN HAUSER WARTELL, ROTH & HELLER, P.C.,
Southfield, Michigan, Matthew F. Leitman, Thomas W. Cranmer,
MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, P.L.C., Troy, Michigan,
Daniel B. Tukel, BUTZEL LONG, Detroit, Michigan, Michael F. Smith
-- smith@smithpllc.com -- THE SMITH APPELLATE LAW FIRM,
Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Mark F. Horning -- mhorning@steptoe.com -- Jeffrey M. Theodore --
jtheodore@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP, Washington, D.C.,
Allison M. Zieve, PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP, Washington,
D.C., Charles A. Rothfeld -- crothfeld@mayerbrown.com -- Brian J.
Wong, MAYER BROWN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Pain Reliever Suits to Stay in State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Tim Hull reports that
coordinating dozens of lawsuits over the pain drug propoxyphene
does not necessarily create a joint trial that triggers federal
jurisdiction, the 9th Circuit ruled.

After products containing the opioid, namely Darvocet and Darvon,
enjoyed nearly 40 years on the market, overdose concerns led the
Food and Drug Administration to take the pain relievers off the
shelves in 2010.  Teva Pharmaceuticals owned the rights to the
generic version of the drugs.

More than 40 lawsuits over the products containing propoxyphene
have been filed in California's state courts, and in late 2012 a
group of attorneys asked the California Judicial Council for a
"coordinated proceeding" of all of them.

Teva took the request as a proposal to try all of the cases
jointly, and thus sought to remove the case to federal court under
the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).  U.S. District Judge Philip
Gutierrez disagreed in Los Angeles and sent the case back to state
court, setting up a question of first impression for the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals.

A divided three-judge panel affirmed Tuesday, September 24, 2013,
finding that a petition for coordination in California state court
does not necessarily require the cases to be tried jointly under
the CAFA.

"California Code of Civil Procedure section 404 allows the
coordination of 'all of the actions for all purposes,'" Judge
Johnnie Rawlinson wrote for the panel.  "However, the plaintiffs'
petition for coordination stopped far short of proposing a joint
trial.  This fact is important because . . . both the Supreme
Court and our court recognize that the plaintiff is, and should
be, in control of selection of the litigation forum."

Noting that the lawyers' petition for coordination dealt largely
with discovery issues, Rawlinson added that "it is quite a stretch
to discern a request for joint trial when the clear focus of the
petition is on pretrial matters."

Writing in dissent, Judge Ronald Gould argued that the majority
had focused exclusively on the pretrial issues and left the
"reality" of the petition undiscovered.

"There is no applicable judicial precedent supporting the
majority's proposition that the focus of a coordination petition
mentioning pretrial matters in large part may override the reality
of a plaintiff's proposal to try claims jointly when the petition
seeks relief that would require joint trial," he wrote.

"The majority apparently would require an explicit request for a
joint trial, whereas I conclude that the substance of what was
done is controlling," Gould added.  "Recourse to the general
principle that doubts on removal should be resolved by favoring
the plaintiffs' forum choice simply does not answer that this case
fits CAFA removal like a glove under a reasonable assessment of
what is a proposal for joint trial."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Paul Sizemore, Esq.
          THE SIZEMORE LAW FIRM PLC
          2101 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 3290
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 322-8800

               - and -

          Andrew Nathan Chang, Esq.
          ESNER, CHANG & BOYER
          35 Quail Court
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 937-4477
          E-mail: achang@ecbappeal.com

               - and -

          Stuart Bruce Esner, Esq.
          ESNER, CHANG & BOYER
          234 East Colorado Boulevard
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 535-9860
          E-mail: sesner@ecbappeal.com

               - and -

          Elise R. Sanguinetti, Esq.
          KHORRAMI, LLP
          360 22nd Street
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 867-2000
          E-mail: esanguinetti@kbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Sill, Esq.
          SILL LAW GROUP
          14005 North Eastern Avenue
          Edmond, OK 73013
          Telephone: (405) 509-6300
          E-mail: matt@sill-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amy Bridget Alderfer, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586-7700
          E-mail: alderfera@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Karin Bohmholdt, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          2450 Colorado Avenue
          Santa Monica, CA 90404
          Telephone: (310) 586-3819
          E-mail: bohmholdtk@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Lori Gail Cohen, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          3290 Nortside Parkway
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: (678) 553-2100
          E-mail: cohenl@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Jose A. Isasi, II, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          77 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 476-5127

               - and -

          Victoria Davis Lockard, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          3333 Piedmont Road, NE
          Terminus 200
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (678) 553-2103
          E-mail: lockardv@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Ginger Pigott, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586-7760
          E-mail: pigottg@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Elliot H. Scherker, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG
          1221 Brickell Avenue
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 579-0579
          E-mail: scherkere@gtlaw.com

The appellate case is Judith Romo, et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
USA, Inc., Case No. 13-56310, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The original case is Judith Romo,
et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case No. 5:12-cv-02036-
PSG-E, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Los Angeles.


TORONTO COMMUNITY: Settles Fire Class Action for C$4.85 Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------
Betsy Powell, writing for Toronto Star, reports that more than 600
tenants, many with physical and mental health conditions, will
share C$4.85 million in compensation for lost property and
injuries suffered after a six-alarm fire in a high-rise at 200
Wellesley St. E. three years ago.

"It was just inescapable that there was very serious amounts of
damages to be confronted here," lawyer Brian Shell, who
represented the plaintiffs, said on Sept. 29.

"It's a very fair outcome especially with regard to the risks that
would have been present with a trial."

A class-action lawsuit launched against Toronto Community Housing
Corp. and Greenwin Property Management Inc., the building's former
operator, was settled in June, but the details are only coming to
light now in a "plan of distribution" approved by Ontario Superior
Court Justice Paul Perell.

"The proposed plan . . . is all of fair, reasonable, and in the
best interests of the class," Justice Perell wrote in his decision
released on Sept. 27.

Among the class members are 130 children.  Eighty-one will receive
checks for less than C$2,000.  One child will receive more than
C$10,000.  The majority of the recipients, 532, were awarded less
than C$20,000, including 241 due between C$1,000 and C$1,999.

"It means they didn't have property loss or suffer injuries,"
Mr. Shell said.

The fire, which caused more than C$1 million in damage, broke out
Sept. 24, 2010, in a 24th floor unit, after a discarded cigarette
landed on a balcony filled with an "excessive amount of
combustible materials," according to the Office of the Fire
Marshal.

The fire marshal's report noted Stephen Vassilev, the resident in
the unit where the fire started and whom neighbors and
investigators identified as a hoarder, complained to TCHC in 2009
about someone in the unit above "throwing broken bottle and
cigarette butts on his balcony."

Some of the 1,200 residents, who were displaced by the fire for
weeks or months, accepted the TCHC's initial compensation offer
after agreeing not to join the lawsuit or take further legal
action.

Seven of the class members were awarded between C$40,000 and
C$69,999.  Two will receive between C$70,000 and C$76,500.

Those people "generally suffered significant property loss, and
often significant personal injury," Mr. Shell said.

This case -- the fastest concluded class action proceeding in the
province's history -- is what the statute was about when it was
enacted 20 years ago, he said.

"It was designed to bring access to justice to people who
otherwise would not be able to get any," Mr. Shell said.  "It was
not designed for lawyers to make huge amounts of money and for
many thousands of people to recover $40."

Class members will begin receiving checks next week.  Any money
not collected by April will be given to charities.

Lead plaintiff Jo Ann Blair could not be reached for comment, but
she "is very happy with the result," Mr. Shell said.  "She was
trapped on her balcony for six hours and believed she was going to
die. The miracle of this fire is that nobody was killed."


TOYOTA MOTOR: Sienna Model Minivans Recalled in Canada
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 26, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Minivan
Notification type:        Safety TC
System:                   Powertrain
Units affected:           56216
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013329
TC ID number:             2013329
Manufacturer recall
number:                   220

On certain vehicles, the transmission may be shifted out of PARK
without first depressing the brake pedal.  This could result in
unintended vehicle movement, which could cause a crash resulting
in injury and/or property damage.

Dealers will replace the shift lock solenoid.

Affected products: Toyota Sienna 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009
models


UNITED STATES: "Logue" Suit v US Marshals Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
In LOGUE v. U.S. MARSHALS, District Judge Susan J. Dlott reviewed
the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Stephanie K. Bowman filed on August 1, 2013, to whom this case was
referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b).  Noting that no
objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing
objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) expired August 19, 2013,
Judge Dlott adopted the Report and Recommendation.  Judge Dlott
ruled that the amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted to the extent that
plaintiff has named the United States Department of Justice as a
defendant and seeks to bring a class action on behalf of other
persons "similarly situated", a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C.
Section 14141; a civil rights claim under Bivens and/or 42 U.S.C.
1983 based on the allegation that the May 22, 2012 compliance
check was conducted in a militaristic and "very threatening,
aggressive and frightening matter," and a claim challenging the
constitutionality of the registration and notification provisions
contained in the AWA, as codified in Ohio.

The case is Derek Logue, Plaintiff(s), v. U.S. Marshals, et al.,
Defendant(s), CASE NO. 1:13CV348, (S.D. Ohio).

A copy of the District Court's September 23, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/iOkBbVfrom Leagle.com.


VANGUARD PIPING: Settles Suit Over Defective Brass Fittings
-----------------------------------------------------------
KCC Class Action Services on Sept. 30 disclosed that a Settlement
has been reached with Vanguard Piping Systems, Inc., VG Pipe LLC
and Viega, LLC in Verdejo v. Vanguard Piping Systems, Inc., Case
No. BC448383 (L.A. Sup. Ct.) concerning allegedly defective
plumbing fittings or other components and sub-components made from
brass and similar copper alloys with a zinc content of 15+%
manufactured and/or distributed by Viega or affiliated entities.
The fittings include Vanguard PEX plumbing system fittings,
sometimes referred to as Vanguard F1807 fittings and Vanguard
yellow brass fittings.  Viega denies all of the claims and
allegations in the lawsuit and maintains that the Viega Brass
Fittings are not defective.  The Court has not made a
determination about the strengths or weaknesses of the allegations
and claims or any of Viega's defenses.  Instead, the parties have
entered into a compromise Settlement to end the litigation.

The Settlement Class INCLUDES: All Persons that own or have owned
buildings, homes, residences or any other structures located in
the United States that contain or have ever contained Viega Brass
Fittings.  Also included are all such Persons' spouses, joint
owners, heirs, executors, administrators, mortgagees, tenants,
creditors, lenders, predecessors, successors, subsequent owners or
occupants, lessees, trusts and trustees, attorneys, agents, and
assigns and all Persons who have vested legal rights such that
they have legal standing and are entitled to assert a claim on
behalf of such Persons.  Insurance carriers are Settlement Class
Members if they paid insurance claims for a Failure prior to
September 5, 2013 and obtained legally-vested subrogation rights.
Persons who seek contribution or indemnity from Viega on past
Settlements of claims with Settlement Class Members also are
included for those Failures if they paid those Settlements prior
to September 5, 2013.  Certain persons who meet the foregoing
definition are excluded from the Settlement Class, however.  This
information, as well as specifics as to all of the terms and
conditions of the settlement, eligibility and how to make a claim,
are available at http://www.VerdejoSettlement.comwhich has a link
to the actual Settlement Agreement that should be reviewed for all
details.

The Los Angeles Superior Court will hold a hearing on December 2,
2013 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 307, 600 South Commonwealth Ave.,
Los Angeles, CA 90005, to decide whether to give final approval to
the Settlement, so that the benefits can be issued.  As part of
the hearing, the Court will consider a request by Class Counsel
for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses of no more than $2.95
million. Payment of attorneys' fees and expenses will not reduce
the benefits to Settlement Class Members.  The Court will also
determine whether the Settlement is a "Good Faith Settlement" as
may be binding on persons located throughout the United States.
Those included in the Settlement Class have legal rights and
options, such as excluding themselves from or objecting to the
Settlement.  More information is in the detailed notice, motion
for preliminary approval and good faith settlement determination,
and Settlement agreement available at
http://www.VerdejoSettlement.com


VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA: Expert Witnesses Take Stand in Abalone Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Lynch, writing for The Age, reports that a Supreme Court
justice has urged parties in an AU$82 million class action over
the spread of a herpes-like abalone virus to "fight the case on a
real battleground" and not get bogged down with "basic
propositions" from expert witnesses.

Fourteen abalone license holders are suing the Victorian
government over its alleged failure to control the outbreak of the
disease in early 2006, which decimated about a third of
Australia's wild abalone industry and slashed the value of their
licenses from about AU$6 million to below AU$1 million.

The court heard last week that the farm, located on a headland
between two bays near Port Fairy, continued to pump 40 million
liters of disease infected water into the Southern Ocean after
reporting the outbreak to the Department of Primary Industries.

Justice David Beach issued fiery comments while the plaintiffs'
counsel was questioning an aquatic disease expert, Dr. John Jones.

David Curtain SC asked Dr Jones whether it would have been
reasonable to expect the Victorian government to quarantine the
farm where the virus originated.

The defense objected, sparking the ire of Justice Beach.

"Are we really going to sit here and argue about this?"
Justice Beach said.

"One is sort of reminded of one's school days when faced with a
proposition like that, someone might have said 'duh'.  Really is
it in dispute?

"If you polled 22 million Australians and said 'listen, there was
a really serious outbreak of disease, what do you reckon about
whether you should quarantine the farm on which the disease is
found?'

"You would get 22 million saying that's a pretty good idea.

"That doesn't mean your client loses, it just means as a
proposition it's beyond argument."

Justice Beach said there seemed to be an "enormous amount" of
expert evidence to be given about matters that "may not require
very much expertise, if at all".  He said the defense's case
hinged on if Victoria's former chief vet Hugh Millar and Fisheries
Victoria executive director Peter Appleford acted reasonably when
deciding not to shut down Southern Ocean Mariculture, which
unleashed the herpes-like virus into the wild.

"At the end of the day Dr. Appleford and Dr. Millar will give
their evidence as to their thought processes at the time, the
steps they took, what they thought was reasonable to what they
knew.

"That may provide them with a complete defense, it may not.
See your ad here

"But . . . we can't sit here for days going through this sort of
stuff when it doesn't seem to be all that much of great
significance."


VINS ARISTA: Dublin's Pub Irish Apple Cider Recalled in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 25, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Vins Arista
Distribution:             New Brunswick, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8343

Affected products: Dublin's Pub Irish Pub-Style Apple Cider 355
ml. with all codes where sulphites do not appear on the label.


WAL-MART STORES: Accused of Deceiving Equate Migraine Consumers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Boris and Tony Girard, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and
WalMart.com, Case No. 2:13-cv-07090-ABC-FFM (C.D. Cal.,
September 24, 2013) accuses the Defendants of deceptively and
falsely advertising and marketing Equate Migraine Relief ("Equate
Migraine") as being a superior and more-potent drug for headache
relief as compared to Equate Extra Strength Headache Relief
("Equate ES").

Despite the fact that the two pills are identical, the Defendants
prominently feature the word "Migraine" on the packaging and
labeling of Equate Migraine and, additionally, state that the
product is designed for the sole purpose of treating migraine
headaches, the Plaintiffs contend.  The Plaintiffs add that the
Defendants charge an enormous premium for Equate Migraine.

Timothy Boris is a resident Goleta, California.  Tony F. Girard is
a resident of Portage, Pennsylvania.  During the Class Period, the
Plaintiffs were exposed to the Defendants' advertising and
packaging of the Equate products.  The Plaintiffs purchased Equate
Migraine because it claimed to treat migraine headaches, from
which the Plaintiffs suffer and because they reasonably believed,
based upon the packaging and pricing of Equate Migraine, that it
was a superior, more potent, product as compared to Equate ES.

Wal-Mart is a Delaware corporation with headquarters in
Bentonville, Arkansas.  Walmart.com is a Wal-Mart subsidiary with
headquarters in San Bruno, California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan D. Miller, Esq.
          Jennifer M. Miller, Esq.
          NYE, PEABODY, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP
          33 West Mission St., Suite 201
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 963-2345
          Facsimile: (805) 563-5385
          E-mail: jonathan@nps-law.com
                  jennifer@nps-law.com

               - and -

          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
          DEL SOLE CAVANAUGH STROYD, LLC
          200 First Avenue, Suite 300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 261-2393
          Facsimile: (412) 261-2110
          E-mail: bsweet@dscslaw.com
                  ekilpela@dscslaw.com


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Empire District Faces Class Suit Over Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Richardson, writing for Cherokee Co. News-Advocate,
reports that an Empire District Electric Company employee is
starting a class action lawsuit against the company over alleged
asbestos exposure in the company's Riverton generating plant.

According to court documents, the lawsuit alleges that Empire
District Electric Company's Riverton Power Station knowingly
exposed employees to asbestos and other hazardous materials.

Like many plants built at the same time, the old coal-fired plant
in Riverton was build with asbestos as insulation both from heat
and in the wiring.  The Riverton plant was built in 1910, although
it has received upgrades over the years.

Employee, Les Rider, is alleging the insulation is not only common
but exposed -- and disintegrating.

In the lawsuit, Mr. Rider alleges, that he and other employees
were "repeatedly assigned tasks that brought them into close
contact with unreasonably dangerous concentrations of asbestos
fibers."

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Rier and other employees were
instructed to dispose of various scrap materials that were
excavated from the plant during the coal to natural gas
conversion.  Court documents say that plant manager Ed Eason said
he "wanted these materials to disappear so that Empire personnel
charged with environmental oversight would not find them.
Mr. Eason further said he wanted 'plausible deniability' so that
if these material were found he would not be held responsible for
their improper disposal."

The lawsuit alleges that Rider and other employees are facing a
"significantly higher risk of cancer" due to asbestos exposure.

According to the National Cancer Institute, exposure to asbestos
in the air may increase the risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma.

Attempts to reach Empire District for comment were unsuccessful.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Zurich Commercial Workers to Pursue Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
WalesOnline reports that a steelworks plant that operated during
the 1960s and 1970s is the source of a growing number of claims
for asbestos-related diseases, it has been claimed.

The British Steel-owned East Moors plant in Splott, Cardiff,
closed in 1978, but former workers are now coming forward to
pursue claims through the site's former owners', insurance company
Zurich Commercial, dating back to the 1960s and 1970s.

One law firm said it was representing 10 cases connected with the
site, and warned that more were likely to surface.

Conditions linked to asbestos exposure include mesothelioma,
asbestosis, pleural thickening and pleural plaque, and often
cannot be treated -- with symptoms often surfacing decades after
exposure.  It is feared that the numbers affected by diseases such
as mesothelioma, which is a rare form of cancer, will not peak
before 2016.

One of the men affected, William Tobutt, worked as a union
convener and a bricklayer at the East Moors site for more than 20
years before its closure in 1978 -- and said workers at the plant
were unaware of the risks associated with asbestos.  Mr. Tobutt,
now 83, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in January, with doctors
estimating his life expectancy to be between eight and 14 months.

"The [diagnosis] has hit me for six, it really has," Mr. Tobutt,
from Llanrumney in Cardiff, said.  "The doctor told me I had
mesothelioma, and said my life expectancy due to my age could be
between eight and 14 months, but now I am having chemotherapy."

He said he first knew something was wrong when he bent down to tie
his shoelaces and suffered breathing difficulties, with his wife
of 64 years Winifred, 85, also saying his breathing had become
labored at night.

Lawyers representing claimants say workers at the site were
regularly being exposed to the building material, which can cause
health issues when it is disturbed.

Peter Lodge, industrial disease specialist with Festival Law which
is representing 10 cases, said: "Although I have been pursuing
asbestos claims against the old East Moor plant for a number of
years, there now appears to be an increased number arising from
exposure to asbestos.

"Given that the anticipated number of asbestos claims is likely to
reach a peak in the next few years, sadly I can only see this
figure continuing to rise further."

The firm said it had been pursuing claims from the Cardiff area
for several years, and has represented former workers from
Aberthaw power station and Cardiff Docks.  Festival Law claims
there has been a rise in inquiries from former workers at East
Moors, which was formerly owned by Merthyr-founded GKN -- earning
the moniker of "Dowlais by the Sea" -- before being taken over by
the British Steel Corporation, which employed thousands of workers
at the site before its closure.

Workers were believed to have been exposed to the material as it
was widely used for lagging all pipe work, in a large number of
furnaces and roof sheeting.  Two of the firm's clients are
suffering from mesothelioma with others suffering a combination of
the other conditions.

Moves have already been made by Assembly Members to address
compensation arrangements for sufferers of asbestos-related
diseases, with a Private Member's Bill by Pontypridd AM
Mick Antoniw tabled to be debated this autumn.  The Bill aims to
get employers to pay for the treatment of workers who contract
asbestos-related diseases, but its passage through the Senedd has
been delayed after the Department for Work and Pensions raised
concerns.

Mr. Antoniw said he had heard examples from East Moors and other
sites in the 1960s where employees used to have "snowball fights"
with the material, as they were not aware of the dangers they were
exposed to.  He said: "Steelworks such as those at East Moors have
always been known as a significant source of some of the worst
examples of these types of conditions because of asbestos."

"I have heard of stories that came about with people having
snowball fights in the 60s -- young apprentices that would join a
workplace and then they'd have 'snow time' where they came in and
they'd tip asbestos down on him, because they didn't know about
it."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Files Suit Over Fibro Exposure
---------------------------------------------------
Holland Phillips, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that a
man recently diagnosed with terminal, incurable lung cancer
attributes his contraction of the illness to his nearly 30 years
of work at various companies where he was exposed to asbestos.

Charles J. Carrone Sr. filed suit against Asbestos Corporation
Limited, Eagle Inc., Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, McCarty
Corporation, Maryland Casualty Company as insurer of Marquette
Insulations Inc., Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Owens
Illinois Inc., Reilly-Benton Company, Taylor-Seidenbach Inc.,
General Electric, Boland Machine & Manufacturing Company Inc.,
Chiquita Brands International Inc., United Fruit Company, Coca-
Cola Company, Evan Cooperage, Evans Industries Inc. and Evans
Harvey Corporation in the Orleans Parish Civil District Court on
July 16.

Mr. Carrone claims that he was exposed to injurious levels of
asbestos from his occupational exposure while working as an
electrician from approximately 1950 to 1979.  The plaintiff
alleges he used, handled or was in the vicinity of others using or
handling asbestos on United Fruit Company vessels at the New
Orleans riverfront and that he was also exposed while working at
Evans Cooperage, at Coca-Cola in the construction of a canning
room and while pipefitters and insulators installed pipes
insulated with asbestos.  Mr. Carrone's duties also required that
he start the boilers and perform maintenance, which he did for
over 20 years in ares he asserts lacked proper ambient air
filtration.

Negligence and strict liability action is sought against each of
the defendants, who the plaintiff claims should not have designed,
tested, evaluated, manufactured, handled, transported, installed,
supplied and/or sold asbestos-containing products.  Moreover, they
should have disclosed critical medical and safety information,
removed the hazards, supervised for proper safety procedure,
mitigated the inhalation and transfer of the asbestos to the
plaintiff's home, and warned him about the known health hazards.
Instead, the defendants ostensibly "ignored or actively concealed
such information, or condoned such concealment, in order to sell
asbestos or asbestos-containing products and to avoid litigation
by those who were injured from asbestos inhalation."

An undisclosed amount is sought for all medical costs or related
expenses, lost earnings, mental suffering, anguish, pain,
suffering, physical pain and suffering, loss of quality of life
and disability.

The plaintiff is represented by David R. Cannella --
dcannella@landryswarr.com -- of New Orleans-based Landry Swarr &
Cannella LLC.

The case has been assigned to Division M Judge Paulette R. Irons.

Case no. 13-6517.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 3 PI Lawsuits & Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company has settled three asbestos-related lawsuits
and claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended August 31, 2013.

The Company states: "From time to time and in the ordinary course
of business, we are a party to, or a target of, lawsuits, claims,
investigations and proceedings, including product liability,
personal injury, contract, patent and intellectual property,
environmental, health and safety, tax and employment matters.
While we are unable to predict the outcome of these matters, we
have concluded, based upon currently available information, that
the ultimate resolution of any pending matter, individually or in
the aggregate, including the asbestos litigation, will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flow.

We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits in which plaintiffs
have alleged injury due to products containing asbestos
manufactured more than 30 years ago. The plaintiffs generally
bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek damages
(both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases,
plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any
compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result
of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are typically
dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment. If the
plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable injury
occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case is
generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of
the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to
products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other
defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has
been brought.

A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.

In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide
coverage for asbestos liabilities (including defense costs).
Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of our
defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation.
However, certain of our insurers are insolvent. We have entered
into cost-sharing agreements with our insurers that provide for
the allocation of defense costs and, in some cases, settlements
and judgments, in asbestos-related lawsuits. Under these
agreements, we are required in some cases to fund a share of
settlements and judgments allocable to years in which the
responsible insurer is insolvent. In addition, to delineate our
rights under certain insurance policies, in October 2009, we
commenced a declaratory judgment action against one of our
insurers in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota. Additional insurers have been brought into the action
to address issues related to the scope of their coverage.

For the 39 weeks ended August 31, 2013, there were 3 lawsuits and
claims settled. The settlement amount is $8,000.00 and the
insurance payments received or expected to be received is
$74,000.00.

We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the
aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us
because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured.
Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of
lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the
plaintiff. To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of
our probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we
establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable for
insurance recoveries.

Based on currently available information, we have concluded that
the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related
litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flow. However, adverse developments and/or
periodic settlements could negatively impact the results of
operations or cash flows in one or more future periods."

H.B. Fuller Company formulates, manufactures, and markets
adhesives, sealants, and other specialty chemical products
worldwide. It offers specialty adhesives, such as thermoplastic,
thermoset, reactive, water-based, and solvent-based products. The
company provides its industrial and performance adhesives products
for applications in various markets, including assembly,
packaging, converting, nonwoven and hygiene, performance wood,
flooring, textiles, graphic arts, and envelope markets. The
company also offers construction products comprising adhesives,
grouts, mortars, sealers, levelers, etc. that are used for tile
setting, as well as duct sealants, weather barriers, fungicidal
coatings, block fillers, etc. for heating, ventilation, air
conditioning, and insulation applications. In addition, it
provides caulks and sealants for the consumer market and
professional trade. H.B. Fuller Company sells its products through
direct sales force, distributors, and retailers. Its customers
include manufacturers of food and beverages, hygiene products,
clothing, appliances, filters, construction materials, wood
flooring, furniture, cabinetry, windows, doors, tissue and towel,
corrugation, tube winding, packaging, labels, and tapes. The
company was founded in 1887 and is headquartered in St. Paul,
Minnesota.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Stays Trial in "Kestenbaum" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, stayed the trial in the case captioned IN RE NEW YORK
CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to KESTENBAUM, v. DUREZ
CORPORATION, MOTION NO. M-4526 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy
of the Decision dated Sept. 19, 2013, is available at
http://is.gd/1vDSEyfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss "Barraford" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------
In the 1960s and 1970s, Daniel Barraford worked as an electrician
and senior engineer on the construction of the Prudential Center
in Boston.  He died in 2002 as a result of mesothelioma.  His
widow, Nora Barraford, has brought brought a product liability
suit, contending that asbestos products produced by T&N Limited
and TAF Limited International caused her husband's illness and
death.

The complaint asserts six claims: negligence; breach of express
and implied warranties; fraudulent concealment; malicious,
willful, wanton, and reckless conduct or gross negligence;
wrongful death; and loss of consortium.  The Defendants moved for
summary judgment and to strike certain items submitted by the
Plaintiff in opposition to that motion.

In a memorandum and order dated Sept. 24, 2013, Judge F. Dennis
Taylor, IV, of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, denied the motion for summary judgment, after
finding that the Plaintiff has provided sufficient proof of her
claims so that material claims are in dispute and the Defendants
are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Judge Taylor
also granted in part and denied in part the motion to strike.

The cases are NORA M. BARRAFORD, Individually and as Executrix of
the Estate of DANIEL M. BARRAFORD, by her agent THE FEDERAL-MOGUL
ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST, Plaintiff, v. T&N LIMITED, f/k/a
T&N PLC, f/k/a Turner & Newall Plc, and f/k/a Turner & Newall
Limited; and TAF INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, f/k/a Turners Asbestos
Fibres Limited, and Raw Asbestos Distributors Limited, Defendants,
CIVIL ACTION NOS. 12-CV-10013-FDS (D. Mass.); and KATHERINE LYDON,
Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of JOHN T. LYDON, JR.,
by her agent THE FEDERAL-MOGUL ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST,
Plaintiff, v. T&N LIMITED, f/k/a T&N PLC, f/k/a Turner & Newall
Plc, and f/k/a Turner & Newall Limited; and TAF INTERNATIONAL
LIMITED, f/k/a Turners Asbestos Fibres Limited, and Raw Asbestos
Distributors Limited, Defendants, 12-CV-10014-FDS (D. Mass.).

A full-text copy of Judge Taylor's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/DJTugFfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. High Court Vacates Ruling in "Howard" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District, vacated the
opinion of the Superior Court, reversed that order, and remanded
an asbestos lawsuit for reinstatement of the order of the Common
Pleas court.

The parties in the case want to resolve litigation and mutually
consented that the order of the Superior Court should be reversed.
The Common Pleas court awarded summary judgment in favor of
appellants Monsey Products Corporation, Ace Hardware Corporation,
and Pecora Corporation, reasoning that John C. Ravert's deposition
testimony failed to establish that he breated asbestos-containing
dust from the products manufactured or distributed by the
Appellants.  On appeal, the Superior Court reversed on the basis
that dust may have been invisible to the naked eye, and the expert
affidavits were sufficient to establish a material issue of fact
as to whether dust emanating from products associated with the
Appellants was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Ravert's
mesothelioma.

The Appellees concede that the factual record fails to demonstrate
regular and frequent enough exposures during which respirable
asbestos fibers were shed by the Appellants' asbestos-containing
products to defeat summary judgment.

The cases are MARGARET HOWARD AND ROBERT HOWARD, CO-EXECUTORS OF
THE ESTATE OF JOHN C. RAVERT, DECEASED, v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO.,
ACE HARDWARE CORP., MONSEY PRODUCTS CORP., PECORA CORP. AND UNION
CARBIDE CORP., APPEAL OF: MONSEY PRODUCTS CORPORATION, NOS. 48 EAP
2012 (Pa.); MARGARET HOWARD AND ROBERT HOWARD, CO-EXECUTORS OF THE
ESTATE OF JOHN C. RAVERT, DECEASED, v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO., ACE
HARDWARE CORP., MONSEY PRODUCTS CORP., PECORA CORP. AND UNION
CARBIDE CORP. APPEAL OF: ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION, 49 EAP 2012
(Pa.); and MARGARET HOWARD AND ROBERT HOWARD, CO-EXECUTORS OF THE
ESTATE OF JOHN C. RAVERT, DECEASED, v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO., ACE
HARDWARE CORP., MONSEY PRODUCTS CORP., PECORA CORP. AND UNION
CARBIDE CORP. APPEAL OF: PECORA CORPORATION, 50 EAP 2012 (Pa.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated Sept. 26, 2013, is available
at http://is.gd/CBBKnRfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Flips Ruling in Improper Removal Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Ohio appeals from a Mahoning County Common Pleas
Court decision finding that Ghassan Musleh did not improperly
remove asbestos-containing materials from a building he owns in
Youngstown, Ohio.

In an opinion dated Sept. 24, 2013, the Court of Appeals of Ohio,
Seventh District, Mahoning County, reversed the judgment of the
trial court and remanded the case with instructions to enter
judgment finding Musleh strictly liable on counts one through five
and for a determination of a fine or fines for those violations at
the trial court's discretion.  In any other respects, the case is
remanded for further proceedings according to law and consistent
with the Court's opinion.

The Court of Appeals explained, ". . . the state presented
competent, credible evidence establishing a renovation and removal
of regulated asbestos-containing material from Musleh's building.
Furthermore, in step with the Clean Air Act and federal law, Ohio
law imposes strict liability for violations of its version of the
Act found in R.C. Chapter 3704.  Therefore, because Musleh is the
owner of the building, he is strictly liable for any violations
stemming from the renovation and removal of regulated asbestos-
containing material from the building.  To the extent that Musleh
lacked any knowledge of those violations, the trial court is free
to consider that in determining how much to fine Musleh, but it
was not permitted to consider that in determining whether any
enforcement action should have been brought in the first place."

The case is STATE EX REL. MICHAEL DeWINE, OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. GHASSAN K. MUSLEH, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, NO.
12 MA 121 (Ohio App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/kRwaijfrom Leagle.com.

Cameron Simmons, Esq., Clint White, Esq., Assistant Attorneys
General, Environmental Enforcement Section, 30 E. Broad St., 25th
Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

No brief filed, for Defendant-Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in Malicious Prosecution Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keller, Fishback and Jackson, LLP, Stephen M. Fishback, Diran H.
Tashjian, and J. Bruce Jackson challenge a trial court's denial of
their motion to strike the malicious prosecution action filed by
respondent, Tulare SAG, Inc., doing business as Lampe Dodge-
Chrysler-Jeep, as a strategic lawsuit against public participation
under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. According to Keller
Fishback, Lampe Dodge did not meet its burden of establishing a
probability of prevailing on its claim.

Lampe Dodge's malicious prosecution claim arose out of a wrongful
death action prosecuted by Keller Fishback on behalf of the heir
of a decedent who died as a result of asbestos exposure.  The
asbestos complaint alleged that the decedent was improperly
exposed to asbestos while working as an automobile mechanic and
that Lampe Dodge was directly liable as a seller of asbestos
containing automobile parts.  On the day before trial, Keller
Fishback stipulated there was no evidence that Lampe Dodge was
directly liable and moved to amend the complaint to state a theory
of successor liability.  The trial court denied the motion to
amend and dismissed the complaint.  Thereafter, Lampe Dodge filed
the underlying complaint for malicious prosecution.

Keller Fishback contends Lampe Dodge did not establish the
elements of a malicious prosecution claim because: the asbestos
action was not terminated on the merits; Keller Fishback had
reasonable cause to continue pursuing the asbestos action; and
Keller Fishback did not act with malice.

The Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District, found that
contrary to Keller Fishback's position, Lampe Dodge established
that its claim has at least minimal merit.  Therefore, the Court
affirmed the order denying the motion to strike.

The case is TULARE SAG, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KELLER,
FISHBACK & JACKSON, LLP et al., Defendants and Appellants, NO.
F064726 (Cal App.).  A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals'
Opinion dated Sept. 30, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/J6bTlU
from Leagle.com.

Marshall C. Whitney, Esq. -- marshall.whitney@mccormickbarstow.com
-- Todd W. Baxter, Esq. -- todd.baxter@mccormickbarstow.com -- and
Scott M. Reddie, Esq. -- scott.reddie@mccormickbarstow.com -- at
McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth, for Defendants and
Appellants.

Michael J. Lampe, Esq., and Michael P. Smith, Esq., at Law Offices
of Michael J. Lampe, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Disallowing Owens Trust Claims Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Liquidator of defendant Integrity Insurance Company disallowed
asbestos-related non-products bodily injury claims made by
defendant The Owens Corning/Fibreboard Asbestos Personal Injury
Trust, as assignee for Owens Corning/Fibreboard, against
Integrity's excess insurance policies.  Owens Corning had already
received the full policy limits for asbestos-related products
claims arising from its manufacture and distribution of asbestos
products.  The Trust sought a second policy limits recovery for
Owens Corning's alleged non-products losses arising from Owens
Corning's decision to operate a supply and contracting division
that installed an insulation product containing asbestos at
nationwide construction sites.  The Special Master affirmed the
Liquidator's decision.  The Trust appeals from the liquidation
court's November 9, 2011 order, which confirmed the Special
Master's determination.

In a decision dated Sept. 26, 2013, a three-judge panel of the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the
Nov. 2011 order, holding that the liquidation court correctly
determined that the Trust failed to show that Owens Corning had
actual non-products losses and that claimants suffered injuries
during the S&C Division's operations.

The case is COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. INTEGRITY INSURANCE COMPANY, a stock
insurance company of New Jersey, THE INTEGRITY FINANCIAL GROUP,
INTEGRITY CREDIT CORPORATION, Defendants-Respondents, and
THE OWENS CORNING/FIBREBOARD ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST,
Defendant-Appellant, NO. A-1606-11T1 (N.J. Super. App. Div.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/yrmnOG
from Leagle.com.

Robert M. Horkovich, Esq. -- rhorkovich@andersonkill.com -- at
Anderson, Kill & Olick, P.C., argued the cause for appellant.

Daniel Hargraves, Esq. -- dhargraves@hm-law.com -- at Hargraves
McConnell & Costigan, P.C., argued the cause for respondent
Kenneth E. Kobylowski, Acting Commissioner of Banking and
Insurance of the State of New Jersey in his capacity as Liquidator
of Integrity Insurance Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Evidence Precluded in GRC Insurance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge L. Felipe Restrepo of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the "Motion in Limine
to Preclude Argument and Evidence that the Asbestos-Related
Exclusions at Issue Were 'Manuscript' Endorsements" filed by
Plaintiff, General Refractories Company, in the case captioned
GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY v. FIRST STATE INSURANCE CO., et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-3509 (E.D. Pa.).

Judge Restrepo also ordered that the Defendants are precluded from
proffering evidence and argument at trial that any insurance
policy form or language at issue in this case is a "manuscript"
form, and that "manuscript" policy forms are exempted from the
regulatory requirements of Pennsylvania's insurance laws - in
particular, 40 P.S. Sec. 477b.

A full-text copy of Judge Restrepo's Order dated Sept. 26, 2013,
is available at http://is.gd/q11sngfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Fraudster Lawyers' Bid for Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia denied a lawyer
defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the
alternative, for a new trial.

On December 20, 2012, a jury rendered a verdict in favor of the
plaintiff, CSX Transportation, Inc., finding that the conduct of
lawyer defendants Robert N. Peirce, Jr., and Louis A. Raimond, and
radiologist Ray Harron, M.D., violated the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  Further, the jury found
that the lawyer defendants were liable to CSX for fraud, and had
participated in a conspiracy to commit fraud with doctor
defendant.

In Mr. Pierce's motion, the lawyer defendants argue that: (1) the
jury's verdict is not supported by substantial admissible evidence
or, in the alternative, is against the weight of the evidence and
is a miscarriage of justice; (2) judgment must be entered for the
Defendants under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine; or, in the
alternative, (3) the jury verdict must be remitted from $429,240
to $95,368.

Judge Stamp noted that the lawyer defendants do not explain
exactly which elements CSX did not support with proper evidence.
The jury was presented with a great deal of evidence during the
two-week long trial that supported the jury's findings on the
RICO, fraud, and conspiracy claims.  Thus, Judge Stamp said he
cannot find that the jury only rendered a verdict in CSX's favor
as a result of passion and prejudice, as suggested by the lawyer
defendants.  Moreover, Judge Stamp found that the jury's award of
$429,240 was not against the weight of the evidence.

The case is CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. ROBERT N.
PEIRCE, JR., LOUIS A. RAIMOND, and RAY HARRON, M.D., Defendants,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:05CV202 (N.D. W.Va.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Stamp's Sept. 25, 2013, memorandum opinion and order is
available at http://is.gd/cJwvBrfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Former Sappington Farmers Market
--------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Miner, writing for Affton-Shrewbury Patch, reported that an
employee at Renditions Salon, next to the former Sappington
Farmers Market, in St. Louis, Missouri, said she knows asbestos is
being removed from the space because she used to smoke behind the
building, and now she's been pushed to a picnic table in the
front.

According to the report, a dumpster with asbestos warning signs
taped to it is parked in the back.

The Renditions employee said they've heard rumors the space will
be split in two, and a Dollar Tree will occupy one of the halves,
the report related. Also, that the whole mall will get face-lift.

Previously, a representative of Sachs Liermann Realty Group said,
"Nope, can't do that," when asked if he could say what plans are
for the space.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare in Warialda Due to Illegal Disposal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Green, writing for The Inverell Times, reported that Gwydir
Shire Council has come under fire by the Asbestos Diseases
Foundation Of Australia and the United Services Union amid
allegations that the council's handling and disposal practices
breached occupational health and safety laws.

According to the report, both organizations expressed their deep
concern that illegal disposal methods have potentially exposed
residents of Warialda, in New South Wales, Australia, to deadly
asbestos fibres and called for a full investigation by Workcover
and the Environment Protection Authority.

"There is no question in my mind that there needs to be an urgent
investigation into the practices of Gwydir Shire Council," Mr
Robson said.

"I was told of council workers using angle grinders to cut
asbestos cement water pipes in suburban streets, all without any
safety equipment or any warnings for local residents.

"There were also examples of asbestos being illegally dumped, or
simply being tossed over the fence of local tips when they weren't
open, and extremely worrying stories of large quantities of
asbestos sheeting simply disappearing, with no documentation to
show where or how it was safely disposed of."

Gwydir Shire mayor, John Coulton, has denied and dismissed the
reports.

"The allegations of a problem were first reported to Council on
August 27 and have been fully investigated and remedial action has
been taken where appropriate," Cr Coulton said.

"Each employee who may come into contact with asbestos material in
the course of his or her work has been appropriately trained,
accredited and has access to Council provided personal safety
equipment.

"The Council is confident that no staff member or member of the
public has been endangered during the water pipe replacement
program in Warialda. All work at the site was carried out in a
manner consistent with the Council's health and safety
obligations, but some cutbut essentially bonded material was
initially sent to an unauthorised site and later collected and
disposed of in an appropriate manner."

However, USU Northern Region manager, Stephen Hughes, has said
that now that the practices have been revealed it is absolutely
essential they be investigated.

"The risk isn't just to the health of workers, it's to their
families who may have come into contact with asbestos dust on
their clothes or the local people living nearby or simply walking
past a worksite," Mr Hughes said.

"All those people need to undergo appropriate testing and also be
added to the National Asbestos Register so that the cause of any
asbestos-related diseases can be confirmed.

"With all the information now available about the risks of
asbestos, there is absolutely no excuse for any council or company
failing to ensure work is carried out in a safe manner."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Triples Fraud Verdict v. Attys, Radiologist
------------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for West Virginia Record, reported that a
federal judge has tripled the damages awarded against two former
members of a Pittsburgh law firm and the radiologist they were
found to have conspired with to fabricate asbestos claims in West
Virginia.

According to the report, U.S. District Judge Frederick Stamp, of
the Northern District of West Virginia, issued a series of rulings
on Sept. 25 in CSX Transportation's fraud lawsuit against former
law partners Robert Peirce and Louis Raimond and radiologist Ray
Harron.

Stamp denied the defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of
law or in the alternative for a new trial and granted CSX's motion
to triple a nearly $430,000 jury award pursuant to the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the report related.

"The defendants' arguments that this Court should deny this motion
as it would be premature to amend the judgment prior to this Court
ruling on the issues contained in their post-judgment motions are
moot," Stamp wrote.

"This Court has since denied the defendants' motions as to those
issues and thus, it would not be premature to now amend the
judgment.

"Further, the defendants' argument concerning CSX's statements
during trial that this case was not about the money have no
bearing on the fact that based on the above-cited law, CSX is
entitled to treble damages."

The resulting amount is $1,287.721.41, plus post-judgment interest
at a rate of 0.15 percent per year since the December jury
verdict.

Stamp did not make a ruling on the most expensive motion -- CSX's
request that the defendants pay its more than $10 million legal
bill.  Stamp decided to postpone any decision on the motion until
exhaustion of any appeal.

"An examination of all the supporting documentation that the
parties provided in relation to the motion and bill of costs,
together with an examination of the legal issues involved in the
briefing of the motion and bill of costs, will require a great
amount of time and an analysis of numerous factual and legal
issues," Stamp wrote.

"If any appeal of the jury verdict and amended judgment is
successful, such time and effort expended ruling on these matters
will be a misuse of this Court's resources as at the very least
such rulings will need altered."

On Dec. 20, an eight-person jury found Peirce, Raimond and Harron
committed racketeering, conspiracy and fraud and ordered them
jointly and severally liable for a penalty of $429,240.27.

CSX's original complaint, filed in 2005, said Peirce's firm hid
nine fraudulent claims among other lawsuits filed by the law firm
in West Virginia.

The nine lawsuits were filed and settled from 2000-2006. Stamp
granted summary judgment to the Peirce firm in 2009, ruling a
four-year statute of limitations began when the Peirce firm began
targeting CSX.

However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
overturned that decision and gave new life to the lawsuit. The
U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the defendants' appeal of the
decision.

CSX amended its complaint to include two additional claims it said
were fraudulent. The Peirce firm filed counterclaims against the
company that said it was engaging in fraud by bringing and
conducting the lawsuit, though the jury ruled for CSX on them.

In 2005, federal court judge Janis Graham Jack made national
headlines when she uncovered duplicate and fraudulent silica
diagnoses in her Texas courtroom. Many of those diagnoses were
made by Harron and were made on plaintiffs who had already brought
asbestos claims.

In Jack's opinion dismissing the claims, she said "These diagnoses
were driven by neither health nor justice -- they were
manufactured for money."

Following Harron's admission that he did not even make the
diagnoses of the patients whose X-rays he read, Jack noted that
most of "these diagnoses are more the creation of lawyers than
doctors."

The defendants had also requested that if the verdict was allowed
to stand, then the amount should be reduced to $95,368.98 because
CSX should not be able to recover any damages on RICO claims that
post-dated July 5, 2007. Stamp also denied that request.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Dumped at Two Tips in New South Wales
------------------------------------------------------------
Darren Snyder, writing for Mudgee Guardian and Gulgong Advertiser,
reported that the Mid-Western Regional Council in New South Wales
has reminded residents there are hefty fines for illegally dumping
asbestos or handling it inappropriately.

According to the report, the call comes after Council staff
discovered two separate cases of asbestos dumping.

The report related that the Council staff noticed a sheet of
asbestos had been thrown over the fence at the Gulgong Flirtation
Hill reservoir site. This sheet had also partly broken up.
Council had also discovered asbestos sheeting buried in Gilbey
Park, Mudgee, along Madeira Road.

Council's corporate communications officer, Pip Goldsmith, said
the asbestos at Gilbey Park was not exposed until it was dug up by
Council workers and has been covered again to eliminate any
exposure until it can be disposed of properly.

General Manager Warwick Bennett said the dumping this is
infuriating considering it costs no more to take asbestos to a
local tip than it does to irresponsibly dump it in a public place,
putting other residents at risk.

"The asbestos buried in Mudgee appears to have been there for a
very long time, and was probably buried like this before the
dangers of asbestos were fully known," he said.

"But the discovery of this asbestos, along with the illegal
dumping in Gulgong, is a timely reminder of how to properly
dispose of the dangerous material.

"Domestic quantities of asbestos can be taken to Mudgee Waste
Transfer Station and dumped for free if it's been treated
properly. It's much easier to treat it properly and then take it
to the tip than it is to dump it somewhere stupid."

Asbestos needs to be wrapped and sealed when it arrives at
Council's waste facility. Council staff also appreciate being
given notice that asbestos will be delivered so that they can bury
it straight away.

"When we dispose of asbestos, it goes into a purpose-built trench
which is recorded with GPS co-ordinates. If Council can make sure
asbestos is disposed of properly, I don't think it's too much to
ask for residents to let us do our job, rather than making it
harder for everyone and dangerous for some," Mr Bennett said.

If residents would like assistance preparing asbestos for
disposal, they can contact Council or Work Cover NSW. The Work
Cover NSW website contains comprehensive information about all
aspects of working with asbestos.

"It is so lucky that Council found both these sites with asbestos
before anyone else did. We have fenced and contained both sites to
make sure no dust escapes or poses a risk for anyone in the area,"
Mr Bennett said.

"We're in the process of removing the asbestos from the Gulgong
site, and will also remove the asbestos from the Mudgee site as
soon as the wind drops enough to reduce any hazard of dust.

"This is only a stroke of luck. If children playing at either site
had come across the asbestos first, we would be in a completely
different situation.

"It just makes no sense to illegally dump asbestos. It's not
cheaper or quicker or easier for anybody. Selfish people who
illegally dump asbestos, especially in public places, create a
hazard to the community and the people who have to deal with it
later."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worker Wins GBP127K Pay From Ex-Employers
----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Thomas, writing for Liverpool Echo, reported that a dad-of-
three who worked with asbestos for decades has won GBP127,000
compensation from his former employers.

According to the report, Gordon Owen was exposed to asbestos dust
while working for Cammell Laird Shipbuilders and Capper Pipe
Service Company Limited between the 1950s and 1980s.

The 75-year-old won the payout after it was decided the firms
failed in their duty to protect him from the dangers of asbestos
exposure.

Mr Owen, who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, an incurable
form of cancer, welcomed the decision, which he said will help
provide for his family in the future.

He said: "It's been hard coming to terms with my diagnosis.

I'm always out of breath, I'm not active and I rely on my
children's support for most of my day-to-day tasks.

"All those years ago health and safety measures were not in place
to protect workers  like me from asbestos. It's gutting that I was
not warned of the serious health risk of what I was working with."

Mr Owen, who lives in Litherland, began work as an apprentice pipe
fitter for Cammell Laird Shipbuilders in 1953.  That firm no
longer exists and has no connection to the owners of the modern
day Cammell Laird.   He was exposed to asbestos dust while he
worked in boiler and engine rooms where other workers mixed and
applied asbestos lagging.

At Capper Pipe Service Mr Owen was employed as a pipe fitter and
welder, working at sites across the North West.  He would often
strip out and remove old asbestos lagging by hand to access pipes.

Mr Owen was diagnosed with mesothelioma last October, leading his
family to contact industrial disease specialists Thompsons
Solicitors, who secured the compensation.

Diana Fos, who represented Mr Owen, said: "The sad reality of
cases such as Gordon's is that workers were often exposed to
asbestos by employers who were well aware of the risks and it is
only now, decades later, that the damage to their health is being
diagnosed.

Gordon's account of his working history recalls men mixing
asbestos by hand and it being swept up in clouds of dust.

"I'm pleased we have been able to work with Mr Owen and his family
to get the justice they deserve because he should never have been
exposed to asbestos in that way with absolutely no protection in
the first place."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Priority at Kerang Hotel Site
------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Times reported that asbestos removal is continuing at the
fire-ravaged Kerang Hotel, in Victoria, Australia.

According to the report, masked specialist asbestos removers were
working on removing asbestos through the corner bar doorway and
then using the bucket on a hydraulic loader to place the asbestos
into a sealed skip.

The report related that the next stage of selected demolition will
be to lower the height of the corner chimney and remove unsafe
sections of the upstairs verandah to make the Nolan Street side of
the 85-year-old building safe.

Echuca company KGB Constructions started work on the site at the
corner of Nolan and Wellington Streets.  The company has sub-
contracted to another Echuca company, Macca's Demolition and
Asbestos Removal.  KGB Constructions site manager and occupational
health and safety officer, Cliff Bowers said that strong winds
created concerns for the contractors.

"We had two trucks parked [alongside the barriers on the Nolan
Street side] with ropes tied to the barriers because they were
sliding along the street.

Mr Bowers said the specialist Class A asbestos removalists were
protecting the perimeter of the site to ensure asbestos does not
become air-borne.  The majority of the internal part of the
original section of the town landmark was destroyed in an early-
morning fire on September 7.

About 50 fire-fighters fought for approximately 90 minutes to
contain the blaze.  Rubbish skips have been moved on site and
barriers covered protecting pedestrians and motorists from
construction works.

Gannawarra Shire Council director of infrastructure services Geoff
Rollinson was advised that there would be a meeting with
demolition contractors, engineers and the building owner's
insurance company to better understand the next process.

"There are concerns around traffic in the area, but safety is
paramount for all concerned at this point of time," he said.

Mr Rollinson said council was acutely aware of public concerns
about the continuing closure of the highway link to Wellington and
Nolan Streets and the impact it is having on businesses.

"We would love to see the road opened but must consider the safety
of the travelling public and pedestrians.

"We're advocating on the behalf of the community to see the
demolition works are moved as expediently as possible," he said.

"Until the building is brought down to an acceptable and safe
level, roads will remain closed."

State safety authority, WorkSafe inspected the gutted hotel site
in preparation for asbestos and rubble removal and for partial
demolition of the historic hotel.  Mr Bowers confirmed that the
bottle that was cemented into the corner of the chimney when work
was completed in 1928 will be removed carefully and handed to the
shire for safe-keeping.

Shire executive manager strategic development, Chris White said
that the initial plan was to remove the unstable second floor
walls to first-floor ceiling height.

A traffic management report has been forwarded to VicRoads.  Mr
White said that the shire had stressed the urgency of the roads
authority addressing the matter.

Parts of Wellington and Nolan Street, including the entrance from
the Murray Valley Highway, have been totally closed to traffic
since the devastating fire.

"I know I have said this often, but we are terribly aware of the
impact (of the road closure) on businesses, but we have a clear
mandate to look after public safety," Mr White said.

"We are looking for a quick answer whether it remains closed,
partially closed or fully opened."

Mr White said that it was too early to engage in consultation with
the owner about future plans for the site.

"We are working on the town centre master plan and we don't want
empty blocks, especially in that area," he said.

Signs indicating that Kerang is "open for business" have been
erected facing the highway and a sign placed at the base of the
memorial clock tower at the corner of Wellington and Victoria
Streets alerts motorists that Wellington Street shops remain open.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Traveler Drops Claims v. Fireman's in DuPont Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that Travelers Casualty and
Surety Co. has agreed to drop its claims against Fireman's Fund
Insurance Co. in an action seeking reinsurance coverage for the
settlement of asbestos claims asserted against E.I. DuPont de
Nemours & Co.

According to a Sept. 23 filing in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Travelers and Fireman's Fund stipulated
to dismissal with prejudice of Travelers' breach of contract
claim.

According to the complaint, Travelers issued two excess indemnity
umbrella policies to DuPont that were in effect from 1967 to 1970.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tracking Software Lets NT Schools Breathe Easier
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rohan Pearce, writing for TechWorld, reported that a new
centralized information management system is being deployed to
help maintain asbestos registries as an audit is conducted of
government-run schools in Northern Territory, Australia.

According to the report, 73 out 75 public schools in the territory
have buildings that are known to contain asbestos.

"As we all know, [builders] were supposed to stop using asbestos
in the mid '80s, but they kept using the product until they ran
out or had pressure put on them to stop using it," said Kevin
Anderson, a project manager for Building Services at the NT's
Department of Infrastructure, the report related.

Buildings that were completed before 31 December, 2003, may
contain asbestos, Anderson said. Mostly of the asbestos is non-
fibrous, though some buildings contain the more dangerous friable
or fibrous asbestos. Inhalation of asbestos can have deadly
consequences, including lung cancer and mesothelioma.

Details of asbestos and any asbestos-removal work at schools are
maintained in a hardcopy register that contractors carrying out
building or maintenance works need to familiarise themselves with
before any construction or refurbishment takes place.

Queensland-headquartered engineering and environmental consulting
firm OCTIEF won a $763,000 territory government tender in January
to carry out a full asbestos audit in public schools and put an
electronic register system in place and maintain it for 12 months.

To maintain the centralised register, a newly released software
system -- OCTFOLIO -- is being used.

"It's bringing the old, cumbersome hard copy asbestos register up
to today's standard in regards to making an electronic copy so we
can update it easily, and keep track of the asbestos removal,"
Anderson said.

Although the system allows for centralized tracking of known
asbestos in schools, hardcopy registers must still be maintained
for inducting builders before works are undertaken. Additionally,
Anderson said that an alert system lets schools know when their
register is due for auditing.

"Every year you're supposed to do an audit on your registers, then
every five years it's got to be audited by people who are trained
to be able to identify asbestos," he said.

Schools will be able to update their registers quickly and then
produce a hardcopy based on the central database, Anderson said.
"So contractors coming in [to the school] when they sign in, they
are actually indicating that they've viewed the asbestos register
and they're pretty confident it's up to speed and up to date."

"When you remove the asbestos-containing material, and there are
many, many forms of it, you can now update the register straight
away. That's the main thing -- with the old, manual system it just
was too hard for people to keep it up to date."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yale Asked to Revoke Factory Owner's Degree
------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Haar, writing for The Hartford (Conn.) Courant, reported that
17 years after Yale University gave Swiss billionaire Stephan
Schmidheiny an honorary doctorate of humane letters for
environmental stewardship, a group of asbestos illness survivors
and family members in Italy is asking the university to revoke the
degree.

According to the report, Yale awarded the honor in 1996 based on
Schmidheiny's work as a global leader, author and philanthropist
in sustainable development. But the dispute stems from the 1970s
and '80s, when Schmidheiny headed a large family business that
made cement products girded with asbestos.

Schmidheiny was put in charge of the Swiss Eternit Group at age 29
in 1976, and later inherited ownership of the company. Eternit
operated plants in Europe and Latin America, including four
factories in Italy that closed in 1986. Schmidheiny then created
several charitable foundations and nonprofit organizations
dedicated to ecological causes in Europe and Latin America.

In 2009, Schmidheiny was charged in Turin, Italy, with creating an
environmental disaster and failing to take precautionary measures
to stop the spread of asbestos, which causes cancer and a deadly
lung disease known as asbestosis. He was convicted of the charges
in 2012, although he did not attend the trial, and on June 3 of
this year, an appeals court in Turin upheld the environmental
disaster charge and sentenced Schmidheiny to 18 years in prison.

Schmidheiny, 65, is appealing the conviction in Italy's highest
court. But the organization of victims and family members in
Casale Monferrato, Italy, where the largest plant was located, say
the appeals court ruling is proof of Schmidheiny's guilt. More
than 2,000 people have died of asbestos-related illnesses in the
Casale area, which is part of Italy's Piedmont region.

Christopher Meisenkothen, a New Haven lawyer representing the
Casale group, sent the petition to Yale officials, including the
trustees of the Yale Corporation. The group, joined by others, is
asking Yale to revoke the degree and to meet with them this fall.

Schmidheiny has not commented publicly, but his defense lawyer and
a spokesman called the verdict a travesty and the charges absurd.
They said that the illnesses resulted from decades of legal
operation of the plants, and that the Italian justice system
stands alone in charging former asbestos business owners with a
crime.

In a written statement prepared after the Casale group announced
its intentions but before the petition was delivered, Yale
expressed support for Schmidheiny, and the university's decision
to confer the degree. Yale has never revoked an honorary degree,
spokesman Tom Conroy said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Sentenced for Selling Fibro-Tainted Items
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a Virginia man has been
sentenced to six months of house arrest for telling others to
resell asbestos-containing window frames during a 2007 building-
renovation job at Virginia Tech.

According to the report, Edward Durst of Chesterfield County was
sentenced in U.S. District Court in Roanoke.  He pleaded guilty in
April to improper disposal of regulated, asbestos-containing
materials in violation of the Clean Air Act, the Roanoke Times
reported.

Durst was working for Waco Inc. supervising a team working on
renovations of Cowgill Hall.  According to court documents, he
directed workers resell the tainted window frames instead of
disposing them at an approved facility in Peterstown, W.Va.

Prosecutors say Durst had other metal related to the Virginia Tech
project shipped off the job site for recycling, generating
payments of about $17,500.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minister Rejects Claims Fibro Sites Are Neglected
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chloe Hart, writing for ABC News, reported that the Minister for
Police in Ungarie, New South Wales, has rejected claims nothing is
being done to remediate the asbestos in police stations across the
state.

According to the report, a rally in Ungarie questioned progress on
fixing the problems.  The asbestos and lead paint in police
residence and station have been blamed for the small town being
without a police presence for 18 months, the report related.
Ungarie now has the highest crime rate in the local area.  Police
Minister Mike Gallacher says asbestos in police facilities around
the state is a massive problem but all sites have been reviewed.

"But what I did as Minister was to say we've got to start putting
money from capital works into repairing police stations," he said.

"Every station around this state has been checked."

"And we're now putting bout $100 million in total into the
remediation works for asbestos."

"So any suggestion it's not being done is simply not true."

Ungarie resident Anne McCartney says her house is constantly
broken into and she has had all her clothes, linen and gardening
tools stolen.

Ms McCartney says she fears what will happen to the town if a
police officer is not returned soon.

"We need it, you know desperately," she said.

"I can't afford it any longer you know you've got to replace
everything all the time then the damage that they do to your
property, it's not funny."

"But everybody else is copping it everywhere you know every time I
virtually I go to town they're in the house."

"They're the ones that are getting over the fence going around and
opening stuff up."

Anne McCartney says she lost everything in the floods of last year
and the tight knit community can't take much more.  Ms McCartney
says the constant thefts and break-ins are placing a great
financial strain on residents.

"Not only did I lose a lot of furniture and stuff in the flood
they got in and they ripped all my new sheets, bedspreads off the
beds," she said.

"And they got into my car, bashed all the braking system to pieces
and then took the number plate off my trailer and passed in onto
the RTA."

"They just want to clean the town out."

A former Riverina policeman says cuts to police services in
country New South Wales are going to hurt sooner or later.

Narrandera Shire Councillor Graeme Eipper says small stations are
being closed and there are fewer Narrandera-based police than when
he left the Force more than a decade ago.

"Somewhere along the way it's going to hurt us," he said.

"And council I know has taken it to RAMROC, which is our regional
voice for 18 different councils."

"They're taken a motion to the upcoming local government
conference." And hopefully that will be discussed, because it's
not convinced to just being local, it's a state wide issue we
believe."

The Minister for Police says the remediation of Ungarie's asbestos
ridden police station will be looked into.  But Minister Gallacher
can't say a police presence will be reinstated in Ungarie.

"Well in terms of the decisions in relation to where police are
placed that at the end of the day is a matter for the commissioner
for police," he said.

"He looks at what's happening in terms of growth in terms of crime
trends and whether there needs to be some reallocation."

"That is always a matter for him."

"I'm going to look at the total cost in terms of the works and
find out exactly what is happening there and seek some advice on
that."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: LCCC Classes Rescheduled After Fibro Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael P. Buffer, writing for CitizensVoice.com, reported that
Luzerne County Community College, in Pennsylvania, rescheduled
classes and laboratories planned for a renovated facility on the
Nanticoke campus after tests revealed trace amounts of asbestos,
spokeswoman Lisa Nelson said.

According to the report, the college expects Building 2 "to be
ready for classes in the very near future" and "courses will not
be impacted by this situation," Nelson said.

Building 2 was renovated over the summer to create a centralized
facility for the trades and technology programs, including
plumbing, heating and electrical technology.

Prior to opening the building for the fall semester, the college
conducted an air quality test in the building. After tests
revealed trace amounts of asbestos, an environmental-remediation
company cleaned the building.

The company completed its work, and the college was informed that
the building was safe for occupancy, but the college decided to
have another professional cleaning performed to eliminate dust
discovered in the area above the ceiling, which was not included
in the original cleaning, Nelson said.

No asbestos was found in that area, but it is being cleaned as a
precaution. Classes and laboratories scheduled for the fall
semester for Building 2 were rescheduled to other buildings prior
to the start of classes on Sept. 3, and equipment has been
relocated to those buildings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Justices Reaffirm Exposure Testimony Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Sept. 26
reaffirmed several guiding principles in asbestos exposure cases,
including the dismissal of the 'every breath' theory, as it issued
an order overturning a decision that reduced the burden plaintiffs
must bear when presenting expert testimony on causation.

According to the report, acting on consent of the parties involved
in the appeal, the justices overturned a decision by the Superior
Court that allowed plaintiffs in asbestos exposure cases to rely
on expert affidavits to survive summary judgment bids instead of
having to submit direct evidence.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Claims Life of Peter Abbott
--------------------------------------------------------
Mike Laycock, writing for The York Press, reported that a widow
has spoken out about York's terrible asbestos legacy following an
inquest into the death of her husband.

According to the report, Peter Abbott, of The Glade, Heworth, who
died in April, aged 73, started work at the former York
Carriageworks as a fitter in the repair shop in 1965 and worked
there until 1988.

His inquest was told that he regularly cut through carriages which
were lagged with blue asbestos and tests later found large
quantities of asbestos dust in rest areas, the report related.

York Coroner Donald Coverdale concluded he died of the industrial
disease, pulmonary fibrosis.

Mr Abbott's widow, June, who is keen to raise awareness of
asbestos, said: "Peter is one of many men who will die of asbestos
disease. We have seen many of his former workmates die of these
diseases.

"Peter thought he had only suffered minor asbestos disease when it
was first noticed in 2003.

"He went on to suffer terribly because of it."

Her solicitor, Howard Bonnett of Corries Solicitors Limited, said:
"Mr Abbot's death is another sad reminder of the legacy of
asbestos disease in York.

"The dose of blue asbestos he suffered clearly caused damage which
affected his later years and ruined what he had hoped to be a long
and loving retirement.

"This inquest has shown that asbestos disease can get worse after
diagnosis. People who are diagnosed with asbestos disease, even of
a minor degree, should keep an watchful eye on their condition and
seek professional help if their condition feels worse."

Paul Cooper, a former carriageworks union official who campaigns
on the asbestos issue, said: "The site remained contaminated with
asbestos and other chemicals until its closure and had to be
cleaned up by a specialist cleaning company at a cost of
GBP80,000.

"The recording of asbestos workplace exposure by GPs is vitally
important to identify and treat asbestos victims."

Another inquest was held into the death of John Greenhalgh, 72, of
Strensall, who worked as a coach builder at the works and died as
a result of the asbestos-related disease, peritoneal mesothelioma.

The asbestos timebomb from the carriageworks in Holgate Road,
which closed down in the 1990s, is thought to have claimed more
than 140 lives.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sacramento County Fined for Fibro Incident
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brad Branan, writing for The Sacramento Bee, reported that state
regulators have cited and fined Sacramento County for its
inadequate response last year to the collapse of a ceiling
containing the carcinogen asbestos.

According to the report, in August 2012, a water leak in the
county's old administrative building sent ceiling materials
tumbling to the floor of offices in the Department of Water
Resources. Because the building's central air was left running
after the accident, employees and the public might have been
exposed to asbestos, some safety inspectors have said.

The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health cited
the county in September for two violations of the state labor
code. The county failed to properly train employees how to protect
themselves from asbestos and failed to report the incident to Cal-
OSHA as required with any "potentially hazardous release of a
regulated carcinogen," the agency found.

Cal-OSHA fined Sacramento County $2,810.

The county has filed an appeal with the Occupational Safety and
Health Board, a three-member panel appointed by the governor.
Because of the pending appeal, the county declined to comment
about the citations and fine, county spokeswoman Chris Andis said.

More than a year after the accident, some of the 230 employees
working in the old administrative building continue to have
questions about whether they were exposed to the toxic materials.

"We're trying to figure out what's going on," said Sonia
Hernandez, president of the county chapter of the Association of
Professional Engineers, which includes people who worked near the
accident site. "Employees are concerned about whether they were
exposed."  She said she contacted Cal-OSHA and requested a meeting
to get questions answered. She said the agency will meet with
county employees in October.

Erika Monterroza, a Cal-OSHA spokeswoman, said that because of the
pending appeal, the agency could not comment on any risks the
employees might have faced.

Exposure to asbestos increases the risk of cancer and other
respiratory diseases. Risk of illness depends on the length and
intensity of the exposure, but short-term encounters can cause
serious illness, according to the federal Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.

As reported by The Sacramento Bee in April, county administrators
and some county safety inspectors have provided differing accounts
of what happened following the ceiling collapse. Three safety
inspectors provided written statements to Cal-OSHA saying that
asbestos was left on the floor with fans blowing on the material
and the building's central air left on.

County managers responsible for the cleanup, however, said the
material on the floor did not contain asbestos.  Cal-OSHA
apparently did not resolve the question, as its citation refers to
"potential" asbestos in the ceiling material.

Safety inspectors, in their complaint to Cal-OSHA, also said the
county failed to require janitors to wear protective gear while
cleaning up the material. County managers responded that the
protective gear wasn't necessary because asbestos wasn't present.

Cal-OSHA disagreed, finding that the county failed to use
"appropriate work practices, emergency and cleanup procedures, and
personal protective equipment" during the incident.

David Fletcher, a county asbestos worker, said he submitted
material for tests that revealed the presence of asbestos. After
the results were in, he said county managers ignored his request
to turn off the building's air units and clear people of the area.

"It was done all wrong," he said. "I'm an asbestos lead worker,
and I was basically overridden."

Jeff Rommel, a safety inspector who filed the report with Cal-
OSHA, said county managers are sticking to their original account,
despite the state's findings.

"I'm being harassed," he said. "I was told in an email from my
supervisor that I am to support my co-workers, the county and this
process in the affirmative.

"They've been harassing me ever since I filed the complaint."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Family Exposed to Fibro in Home Repair
----------------------------------------------------------
Brooke Gardiner, writing for 3News.com, reported that a young
Christchurch, New Zealand, family is demanding answers after
discovering they were exposed to asbestos when earthquake repair
work was done on their home.

According to the report, they say Fletcher Building and its
contractors failed to follow guidelines and now Canterbury's top
doctor is calling for a mandatory asbestos register.  It looks
harmless, but a panel cut from the ceiling of a Christchurch house
could be responsible for exposing up to 100 people to asbestos,
the report related.  Having warned earthquake contractors about
the possibility of asbestos, owners Daniel Moore and Nicola Allen
assumed tests were negative. But 18 months they later discovered
that was not the case.

"A lot of them didn't even have dust masks," says Mr Moore. "They
were sweeping up with brooms at the end of the day, so they were
making the stuff airborne. So they would have had a lot of
exposure and a lot of them still don't know until today that
they've been exposed."

Having moved in as soon as repairs were done, the couple hold
grave concerns for their health and that of their son who
developed respiratory issues soon after.

"My baby was six months old," says Ms Allen. "They don't have a
test on what that does to a developing lung. He's my baby."

Paperwork shows Fletchers and the company that carried out the
repair received a positive test result in June last year. They've
failed to respond to requests for an interview.

Mr Moore and Ms Allen's suspicions were confirmed when they
ordered their own tests in September.  "You'd think that they'd
follow proper policies," says Mr Moore. "They had policies in
place and they did not follow the policies."

The issue has raised the hackles of Canterbury's top doctor, who
is calling for a mandatory register of all concealed asbestos.

"Every tradesman needs to know if they're going to cut into a
ceiling, if there is asbestos underneath the gib. they should be
able to find that out very easily before they cut a hole in the
roof," says Alistair Humphrey.

He described asbestos as an insidious toxin and a silent killer.
"Short-term exposure you don't need to worry about, but long-term
exposure as some of these workers have, indeed as some of these
residents have, are likely to lead to a problem later on," says Dr
Humphrey.

The asbestos is still there. The contractors simply put up a new
false ceiling under the old one.  But the owners say it was a bad
job and that they are still being exposed to the stuff, and they
want their house properly repaired.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Short Cut Exposed Student Doctor to Killer Dust
----------------------------------------------------------------
Birmingham Mail (United Kingdom) reported that a corridor used as
a student short-cut may have played a part in a Birmingham
doctor's death, his grieving widow has claimed.

According to the report, Ian Pardoe said he had been exposed to
asbestos dust as he walked basement routes between the University
of Birmingham, where he studied medicine, and the old Queen
Elizabeth Hospital.

The doctor, a father-of-three and stepfather-of-two, made the link
before he died at the QE of mesothelioma, caused by inhaling
asbestos dust, aged just 51 in February last year, the report
related.

The university said it could not comment on the claim.  But Dr
Pardoe's wife Monisha Coelho, 40, has continued the fight for
answers over the illness which cost him his life.

"We were devastated by the diagnosis, particularly as Ian knew how
serious it was, but he was determined to fight it", she said.

"Ian thought long and hard about where he might have come into
contact with asbestos.

"He knew he had been exposed to the dust in the underground
corridors he used as a student to get to and from lectures.

"I just hope anyone who remembers working in the corridor or using
it like Ian did gets in touch because any information they have
could be absolutely vital.

"Ian and I should have had a long and happy married life together
but we've been robbed of that and his children have lost their
devoted father at such a young age."

Dr Pardoe, a researcher and specialist acupuncturist, was
diagnosed with mesothelioma in June 2011 after complaining of a
shortness of breath.  He underwent experimental treatment in a bid
to prolong his life but the cancer was too aggressive.

Asbestos expert Iain Shoolbred, of law firm Irwin Mitchell, said:
"We believe maintenance staff who worked in the underground
tunnels, as well as former students, may have evidence about the
presence of asbestos and the condition of the pipework that could
help Ian's family win justice."

A university spokesman said: "The University of Birmingham is
aware of this matter but is unable to comment further at this
time."

Mr Shoolbred can be contacted on 0870 1500 100.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY to Demolish Building on Albany Campus
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that New York officials expect to
spend about $2.3 million to demolish two buildings on the state's
Harriman office in Albany.

According to the report, the Office of General Services says
there's no long-term viable use for the three-story buildings that
were last occupied by civil service staff in 2005.

Commissioner RoAnn Destito says that will create a better option
for possible redevelopment though there are no current plans, the
report related.

The project is expected to start in January and finish in July,
costing $1.4 million for demolition and $900,000 for removing
asbestos.

The 167,000-square-foot building was built in 1956 and the
134,000-square-foot building was built in 1968.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Charged Over Fibro Work at Kent Apartments
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that the manager of a Kent,
Washington, apartment complex has been charged in federal court
with failing to take proper steps to protect workers and others
from asbestos during a renovation.

According to the report, Stanley Xu is the president of the
management company that oversaw Avante Apartment Homes. In 2009,
water pipes at the complex froze and burst, damaging the ceilings
of 43 units.

Federal prosecutors say Xu hired contractor T.J. Yoo, of The
Everlasting Construction LLC, to do the repair work but didn't
have the ceilings inspected for asbestos as required by law, the
report related. Authorities also say Yoo knew about the asbestos,
but didn't provide the day laborers he hired with respirators or
take other steps to protect them as they tore down the ceilings
with hammers.

State inspectors shut down the work in March 2010.

Yoo pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court to violating federal
asbestos-handling standards, before Xu and his property management
firm, Longwell Co., were charged. Xu is scheduled to appear in
court on Oct. 2.

The charge carries up to five years in prison.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Exposed Workers Must Go on Register
----------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Millet, writing for The Inverell Times, reported that
Gwydir Shire Council must add any potentially asbestos-exposed
employees and residents to the National Asbestos Register and
comply with a full review of its procedures, the Asbestos Diseases
Foundation of Australia says.

According to the report, the asbestos victims group said mayor
John Coulton's admissions of council workers inappropriately
handling asbestos should be more than enough reason to add them
and any nearby residents to the register.

ADFA president Barry Robson said it was also essential that
WorkCover and Environment Protection Authority inspectors be fully
assisted in their independent investigation of work practices at
Warialda and elsewhere in the shire.

Mr Coulton said that, in mid-August, workers had cut asbestos
cement water pipes and initially sent that material to an
"unauthorised site".  He also admitted that a contractor working
for the council had taken a "small quantity of asbestos piping" to
his property before it was appropriately disposed of.  However, he
denied that any worker or member of the public had been
endangered.

"If the mayor is correct in his assertions that there is no issue
with council work practices involving asbestos, then how can he
explain the two concerning safety breaches that he has now
admitted to the public?" Mr Robson said.

"Given he has admitted that asbestos piping from a council repair
job was illegally dumped at an unauthorised site, then later
removed and disposed of correctly, and that on another occasion
asbestos was taken to a contractor's home, rather than being
properly disposed of, it is clear there are issues warranting
investigation.

"ADFA believes the logical next step is to have all the workers
involved, and any nearby residents, informed of their potential
exposure and added to the National Asbestos Register."

Mr Robson said WorkCover and the EPA were investigating a further
series of allegations made by residents and former council
workers.  They included that a council contractor used to
transport asbestos waste had not been appropriately accredited for
the work.  Mr Robson said the ADFA planned to hold meetings in
Warialda in coming weeks to provide an update on the
investigations and give general advice to residents and workers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Illegally Dumped by Roadside in Wales
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wales This Week reported that councils spend millions of pounds
cleaning up illegally-dumped waste, but the cost to the
environment can be even more alarming. Now, enforcement officers
are closing in on fly tippers, using the latest technology and
sharing intelligence to catch them in the act.

According to the report, at this site on the roadside in the
Wentloog levels, between Cardiff and Newport, in Wales, United
Kingdom. There is plenty of evidence of illegal tipping.

Tonnes of asbestos sheets have been dumped in the area for the
twentieth time in the last 14 months, the report related.

"if it breaks down, the spores start travelling round in the air,
and that can be dangerous for public health . . . the people who
are disposing of this are probably not dealing with it correctly
themselves either, so they're quite likely to be at risk of all
sorts of diseases."

Fly tipping can lead to a prison sentence or a maximum fine of
GBP50,000, but last year there were just 106 prosecutions in
Wales.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Iowa Firm Must Pay for Environmental Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a West Des Moines company has
been ordered to pay $80,000 for violating state environmental laws
when it demolished a Williamsburg truck stop.

According to the report, Iowa District Court Judge Paul D. Miller
assessed the civil penalty on Sept. 30 against Jai Santoshi Ma
Inc. and owner Bhupen Patel.

Attorney General Tom Miller said in an April petition that Patel
and his business failed to inspect for asbestos when it arranged
for the demolition of the former Middle America Truck Stop in May
and June of 2012, the report related.  Testing later showed the
demolition waste included asbestos material.

The court ordered Patel and Jai Santoshi Ma to identify and
properly dispose of all asbestos-contaminated soil at the site.


                             *********

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  * * *