---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 11, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 137

                             Headlines


1ST UNITED: Being Sold to Valley for Too Little, Suit Claims
AIG PROPERTY: Sued in Kansas Over Violations of ADA and FMLA
ALL POWER: Recalls Snow Throwers Due to Fire Hazard
ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Faces Suit Over Denial of Insurance Coverage
AMERICAN SIGNATURE: Recalls Table Lamps Due to Risk of Shock

ANNIE'S INC: Fails to Disclose Company's Business, Suit Claims
ANNIE'S INC: Made False & Misleading Statements, Suit Claims
AUTO LIQUIDATORS: "Myrter" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Costoso" Suit Over Payday Loans
BEN'S LUXURY: "Barahona" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

BIG LOTS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
BIG LOTS: Recalls Ottomans Due to Fall Hazard
BROOKS FURNITURE: Recalls Glider Rockers Due to Fall Hazard
CANON USA: Faces "Robertson" Suit Over Product Liability Claims
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Cheated Landowners of Royalties, Lessors Claim

CHINA AGRITECH: Faces "Resh" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
COST PLUS: Recalls Bubble Knobs Due to Laceration Hazard
CRAIG COOPER: Sued for Falsely Advertising Prostate Supplements
DELL FINANCIAL: 9th Circuit Revived Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

EXPRESS FASHION: Violates Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, Suit Says
FAIRFIELD GREENWICH: PwC Can't Contest $50-MM Deal, 2nd Cir. Says
FERRELLGAS LP: Manipulates Propane Tank Prices, Suit Claims
FIFTH THIRD: Fiduciaries Not Presumed to Have Acted Prudently
FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Firing of Pregnant Woman

FOOT LOCKER: Consolidated FLSA "Violation" Suit in Discovery
FOOT LOCKER: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in "Osberg" ERISA Suit
FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: Seeks to Dismiss Stock Suit in New York
GERBER PRODUCTS: Court Refused to Certify Class in Labeling Suit
GROWLIFE INC: Still Faces Securities Suit in California Court

HERTZ CORP: Supreme Court Vacated Stay in "Sobel" Class Suit
ILLINOIS: Cannot Force Medicaid Providers to Pay Union Costs
JULIE VOS: Recalls Women's Scarves Due to Flaming Hazard
KELLY SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Caballero" Suit Claims
LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over False Claims on Storage Capacity

LINEAR EXPANDS: Recalls Personal Emergency Reporting Transmitters
M AND P INNOVATIVE: "Mainer" Suit Seeks to Recover Back Wages
MARTIN MARIETTA: Inks MoU to Settle Texas Suit Over TXI Merger
MARTIN MARIETTA: Faces Shareholder Suit in N.Y. Over TXI Merger
MCCARTHY BURGESS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

MULTICARE HEALTH: Faces "Ikuseghan" Suit Over TCPA Violations
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Parties Spar Over Effect of Paying Athletes
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Taps Nobel Laureate Economist as Expert
NATIONAL RIFLE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Reo" Suit Claims
NEIMAN MARCUS: Sept. Hearing Set in "Monjazeb" Labor Suit Accord

NEIMAN MARCUS: Provides Updates on Suits Over 2013 Cyber Attack
NEUTROGENA: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on Sunscreen
NEW YORK: Ontario County Settles Claim for Indigent Defense
NIKE RETAIL: Illegally Misclassifies Staff as "Exempt," Suit Says
NOKIA INC: Recalls Tablet Travel Chargers Due to Electrocution

NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Rabbi's Class Action Dismissed
OMNIAMERICAN BANCORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Say
P F CHANG'S: Fails to Secure Costumer's Fin'l Data, Suit Says
P F CHANG'S: Allowed Hackers to Steal Customers' Info, Suit Says
PHH MORTGAGE: Sued in N.J. Over Intrusive Telemarketing Practices

PHOENIX IMPORTS: Recalls Mock Sword Fireworks Due to Impact
PREMIUM LAWN: Does Not Pay Workers Overtime, "Medrano" Suit Says
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
REDBOX: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Collecting Customers' ZIP Codes
REEBOK-CCM: Recalls Throat Collars Due to Laceration Hazard

ROLAND CORPORATION: Recalls Pianos Due to Electrical Shock Hazard
ROSS STORES: Still Faces Collective Suit as at Quarter Ended May
SCOTT USA: Recalls Bicycles with SR Suntour Front Forks
SONY ELECTRONICS: Recalls VAIO Flip PC Laptops Due to Fire Hazard
SONY MUSIC: Faces Class Action from Michael Jackson's Fan

STATE FARM: Removed "Wilcox" Suit to Minnesota District Court
TELEXELECTRIC LLLP: Faces "Githere" Suit Over Pyramid Scheme
TEXAS: Group Files Class Suit Over Deficient Language Program
TEXAS: Muslim-Discriminating Policy to Stay, Supreme Court Rules
TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Inks MoU to Settle Lawsuit Over Martin Merger

TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit Over Martin Merger
TILLY'S INC: Faces Amended Claim Over Customer Info Disclosure
TILLY'S INC: Seeks to Compel Arbitration in Cal. Labor Lawsuit
TRANE US: Recalls Air Conditioning Systems Due to Shock Hazard
TWININGS NORTH: Removed "Craig" Suit to Arkansas District Court

UNITED STATES: Interior Dep't Sued for Swindling Royalties
VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Faces "Graiser" Suit Over Deceptive Ads
WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Action Over Sharing Video Viewing Records
WE SECURITY: Faces "Al-Salman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WINCO: Recalls Contraband 24 Canister Shell Fireworks Kit

ZAMIAS SERVICES: Violates Disabilities Act, Class Suit Claims


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Budd Co. To Get Personal Injury Claimants' Panel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany International Had 4,208 Pending PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Unit Has 7,732 Pending PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Has 29,048 Pending Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Corp. Had $993MM Fibro Claims Reserves

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Unit Paid $929.7MM to WR Grace Trusts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Had 124,280 U.S. Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Had 278 U.K. Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Unit Continues to Defend "Take Home" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Auto Parts Units Continue to Defend Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Continue to Defend Miss. Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Ltd. Unit Has 853 Pending PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Oust Monticello Mayor from Office Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Morvant" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Won't Advisory Opinion in Insurance Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GM's Request for Writ of Mandamus Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRC's Bid to Force NICO to Arbitrate Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Grants Bid to Remand "Barabin" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Grants Rehearing in 2 PI Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Awarded Summary Judgment in "Barnes" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colorado Inmate Directed to Amend Complaint
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Reverses Ruling in "Folta" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Hasenberg" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HLC Fails in Insurance Suit Against Continental

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pro Hac Vice Applications OK'd in Garlock Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Awarded Summary Judgment in "Miller" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Proctor" Suit Allowed to Continue Against Andal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H&V Dropped as Defendant in "Ricks" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CERCLA Suit v. ARG Corp. to Proceed to Trial


                            *********


1ST UNITED: Being Sold to Valley for Too Little, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling 1st
United Bancorp too cheaply through an unfair process to Valley
National Bancorp, in a stock swap valued at $312 million,
shareholders claim in Palm Beach County Court.


AIG PROPERTY: Sued in Kansas Over Violations of ADA and FMLA
------------------------------------------------------------
Sheila Blackmer v. AIG Property and Casualty Insurance Agency,
Inc., a New Jersey for Profit Corporation, 17200 W. 119th Street,
Olathe, Kansas 66061; William Hughes, 17200 W. 119th Street,
Olathe, Kansas 66061; and Gloria West, 17200 W. 119th Street,
Olathe, Kansas 66061, Case No. 2:14-cv-02323 (D. Kan. July 7,
2014) is brought for appropriate legal and equitable relief under
the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Family Medical
Leave Act of 1993.

Ms. Blackmer is a resident of Johnson County, Kansas, and was an
employee of AIG at all times pertinent to the lawsuit.

AIG is a New Jersey corporation operating an insurance business in
Kansas.  The Defendants were the Plaintiff's employer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Mark Nasteff, Jr., Esq.
          Jonathan K. McCoy, Esq.
          Amy D. Quinn, Esq.
          MKL, PC
          2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 440
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 472-7788
          Facsimile: (816) 472-1956
          E-mail: marknasteff@mkllaw.com
                  amyquinn@mkllaw.com


ALL POWER: Recalls Snow Throwers Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
All Power America Steele Products, a subsidiary of Jaing Dong
North America (JDNA), announced a voluntary recall of about 10,000
Single Stage Snow Thrower.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Exposure to Chinese gasoline for extended periods of time while
testing the product overseas caused the carburetor needle to
become corroded and allow fuel to leak, posing a fire hazard to
consumers.

The company has received 58 reports of carburetor leaks.  No fires
or injuries have been reported.

The recall involves All Power brand single stage snow throwers.
The snow throwers are black and yellow and have a red cap on the
gas tank.  They have a 20 inch wide snow clearing width and an
87cc, 4 cycle engine.  The model number of the recalled snow
throwers is SB044P which is printed on a yellow and black sticker
located on the top of the unit with the phrase "20 Inch Clearing
Width."

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Menards Stores and independent hardware retailers from Sept. 2012
through Dec. 2013 for about $200.

Consumers should immediately stop using their snow thrower and
contact All-Power to obtain a free repair.


ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Faces Suit Over Denial of Insurance Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Andrew Thompson reports a
federal class action claims Allstate unfairly denies coverage to
people hurt in auto accidents "because they could not produce a
disinterested witness to verify the facts" of the accidents.

Lead plaintiff Susan Pilidis claims that creates an impossibly
high hurdle for injured policyholders.  Pilidis claims Allstate
rejected her claim for damages from an accident caused by an
uninsured motorist, though she was covered under Allstate's
Uninsured Motorist plan.  The policy requires that the damages be
caused by contact between the vehicles or that there be a
"disinterested witness" to corroborate the claim, according to the
lawsuit.

Pilidis, who veered away from the speeding driver while both were
driving on an icy country road in Pennsylvania with no witnesses,
says she suffered a severe concussion when her car flipped.  No
contact between vehicles was made.  Pilidis claims that in 1992, a
trial court ruled that a driver who swerved to avoid an oncoming
vehicle was entitled to present the facts of his case regardless
of a lack of corroboration or vehicle contact, and ordered that
Allstate change its policy, which it did not do.

Allstate continues to issue the stipulations in its policy "in
knowing violation of state law," Pilidis claims, and is
"wrongfully and wantonly selling UM policies that provided less
coverage than required by law."

She seeks declaratory judgment and damages for breach of contract,
bad faith, consumer law violations, and unfair trade.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          Stephen H. Schwartz, Esq.
          Barbara L. Gibson, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
          E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
                  sschwartz@kohnswift.com
                  bgibson@kohnswift.com

The case is Susan Pilidis, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance
Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-03929-PD, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


AMERICAN SIGNATURE: Recalls Table Lamps Due to Risk of Shock
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
American Signature Inc., of Columbus, Ohio, announced a voluntary
recall of about 730 26-inch Table Lamp.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Improper wiring can pose shock and fire hazards to consumers.

The firm has received three reports of the power dial switch on
the lamp causing a short to the ground wire or popping a circuit
breaker.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves 26-inch table lamps.  The lamp has a 16-inch
tall, rectangular shade and a square dark wood and mirror base
with a mirrored circle pattern on the front.  A silver on/off dial
is on the lower front of the lamp's base.  A label on the
underside of the lamp base has "NOVA, Item Number 1010154 and UL
E312412."  The description on the customer sales invoice reads,
"26" TBL LAMP-MIRROR CIRCLE."

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/JgMML8

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Value
City Furniture and American Signature Furniture stores nationwide
from Feb. 2013 to March 2014 for about $100.

Consumers should immediately unplug and stop using the recalled
lamps and return the lamp to the nearest Value City Furniture or
American Signature Furniture store for a full refund or store
credit equal to their purchase price.  American Signature is
contacting all known consumers directly.


ANNIE'S INC: Fails to Disclose Company's Business, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------

Donna L. Weiss, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Annie's, Inc., John M. Foraker,
Kelly J. Kennedy, and Zahir M. Ibrahim, Case No. 5:14-cv-03001
(N.D. Cal., June 30, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Annie's, Inc., is a natural and organic food company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100,
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-2722
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: info@glancylaw.com




ANNIE'S INC: Made False & Misleading Statements, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Donna L. Weiss, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Annie's, Inc., John M. Foraker,
Kelly J. Kennedy, and Zahir M. Ibrahim, Case No. 3:14-cv-03001
(N.D. Cal., June 30, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Annie's, Inc., is a natural and organic food company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-2722
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: info@glancylaw.com


AUTO LIQUIDATORS: "Myrter" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Myrter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Auto Liquidators of Stuart, Inc., a Florida
corporation, and Jeffrey A. Freedman, individually, Case No. 2:14-
cv-14258 (S.D. Fla., June 28, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, liquidated damages or pre-judgment interest, post-judgment
interest, reasonable attorney's fee and costs.

Auto Liquidators of Stuart, Inc., is a used cars dealer in
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Brian Jay Militzok, Esq.
      MILITZOK & LEVY, P.A.
      3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 727-8570
      Facsimile: (954) 241-6857
      E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Costoso" Suit Over Payday Loans
-------------------------------------------------------
Jeanette Costoso, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 2:14-cv-
04100 (E.D.N.Y., July 2, 2014), alleges that the Defendant
processes debits on its customers' bank accounts from payday
lenders it knew were making unlawful payday loans in New York.

Bank of America, N.A., is a federally chartered national banking
association headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Lawrence Berger, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      485 Lexington Avenue
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 722-8522
      Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
      E-mail: dberger@gelaw.com


BEN'S LUXURY: "Barahona" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Walter Barahona and Alfredo Sanchez, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Ben's Luxury Car and Limousine
Service, Inc., The Estate of Henry Zilberman, Avi Masouss, Peni
Godi, and John And Jane Does 1-100, Case No. 1:14-cv-04045
(E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys fees and all other
appropriate legal and equitable relief pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Ben's Luxury Car and Limousine Service, Inc., offers automobile
transportation services to mostly corporate clients in the New
York metropolitan area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Samuel Carlo Parkhurst, Esq.
      GILES LAW FIRM LLC
      825 Third Avenue, 4th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (201) 577-2644
      Facsimile: (212) 480-8560
      E-mail: jparkhurst@gileslawfirmllc.com


BIG LOTS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss a securities complaint
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, and that motion is fully briefed and awaiting a decision,
according to the company's June 13, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 3, 2014.

On July 9, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
on behalf of persons who acquired the company's common shares
between February 2, 2012 and April 23, 2012. This lawsuit was
filed against the company, Lisa Bachmann, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Fishman
and Mr. Haubiel. The complaint in the putative class action
generally alleges that the defendants made statements concerning
the company's financial performance that were false or misleading.
The complaint asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and seeks damages
in an unspecified amount, plus attorneys' fees and expenses. The
lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 4, 2013, which
added Mr. Johnson as a defendant, removed Ms. Bachmann as a
defendant, and extended the putative class period to August 23,
2012. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the putative
class action complaint, and that motion is fully briefed and
awaiting a decision.


BIG LOTS: Recalls Ottomans Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Big Lots, of Columbus, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of about
14,000 Wilson and Fisher brand Cayman Resin Wicker Ottoman.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The center of the ottoman can collapse during normal use, posing a
fall hazard to consumers.

Big Lots has received 19 reports of consumers falling through the
centers of ottomans.  Six reported minor injuries such as back
strain, scratches, bruises or contusions.

The Wilson and Fisher brand ottomans are dark brown resin wicker
with cream colored cushions.  They are part of a six-piece Cayman
Resin Wicker seating set consisting of two ottomans, two chairs, a
sofa and a table.  The recalled sets will have item number DA13-
015-6S-2CO and SKU 810140754, which can be found in the
instructions that accompany the sets.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/mHm7cp

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Big Lots stores nationwide from Feb. 2014 through
March 2014 for about $320 per set.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ottomans and
return them to any Big Lots store for a $50 refund each.
Customers will be allowed to keep the remaining pieces in the
sets.


BROOKS FURNITURE: Recalls Glider Rockers Due to Fall Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Brooks Furniture Mfg. Inc. of Tazewell, Tenn., announced a
voluntary recall of about 350 Brooks Furniture Glider Rockers.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The spindles in the glider base can separate while rocking, posing
a fall hazard to the user.

The firm has received 29 reports of the chair's spindles
separating or loosening on the base of the glider rockers.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recall includes two styles of Brooks Furniture glider rockers
1529P and 1529V-LM.  The 1529P glider rocker has a maple wood
frame with blue fabric upholstery.  The 1529V-LM glider rocker has
a maple wood frame with beige vinyl upholstery and a locking
mechanism to disengage the glider.  Both recalled chairs have the
style number and manufacture date between 1/1/2011 and 12/31/2012
printed under the chair's seat.  Brooks Furniture is printed on a
label attached to the seat cushions.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/XdaPf3

The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold
exclusively through Kaplan Early Learning Co .nationwide from
October 2011 to Dec. 2012 for about $390 to $540 depending on
style.

Consumers should stop using the glider rocker and contact Brooks
Furniture to receive a free replacement base.


CANON USA: Faces "Robertson" Suit Over Product Liability Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Robertson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00607-
SS (W.D. Tex., June 27, 2014) asserts product liability claims.

In another report, Courthouse News Service says that Canon sold 16
models of defective printers that display the fatal error message:
"Wrong printhead error."

Mr. Robertson is represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Cheated Landowners of Royalties, Lessors Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corp. and its subsidiary Access Midstream
Partners cheated Pennsylvania landowners of more than $5 billion
in gas and oil royalties through inflated and unreasonable fees, a
RICO class action claims in Federal Court, according to Erin
Mcauley, writing for Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff, the Suessenbach Family Limited Partnership, seeks
damages for racketeering, unjust enrichment, mail fraud, wire
fraud, honest services fraud, conversion and civil conspiracy.

Chesapeake is the nation's second-largest producer of natural gas.

The complaint states: "Since at least 2010 Chesapeake engaged in
unlawful conduct to improperly extract billions of dollars in
royalties owed to plaintiffs and other lessors by artificially
manipulating and deducting from royalty payments the cost of
'marketing,' 'gathering,' and 'transporting' natural gas.  The
marketing, gathering and transportation deductions at issue in
this action were both unreasonable and inflated."

The Suessenbachs claim that "Chesapeake's subsidiaries have paid
fees, which are then charged to lessors, for gas pipeline
transport to Access Midstream that are many multiples of Access
Midstream's actual costs."

In one case, the family claims, the markup was more than 3,000
percent.

"These deductions were inflated, improper, completely unrelated to
the 'cost of services,' did not serve to enhance the marketability
of gas, and instead, merely served to enrich the co-conspirators
who devised the scheme," the complaint states.

It continues: "The benefit to Access Midstream is clear.  Access
Midstream's predominant source of revenue is gathering fees and
Chesapeake accounts for approximately 84 percent of Access
Midstream's business."

Under the Guaranteed Minimum Royalty Act, the complaint states,
there are two kinds of land leases entered into for natural gas
extraction with landowners that promise a royalty to the
landowners based on oil and gas price realized by Chesapeake's
subsidiaries.  By law, the leases allow search and extraction of
natural gas with royalty deductions for production, transport,
treatment and process of gas, "but nowhere does either lease
permit deductions in excess of actual cost or which are
unreasonable."

Through the leases, companies purchase or lease mineral rights to
gain access to natural deposits of gas and build profitable wells.
Once gas is accessed, it is moved from well through gathering
pipes and transported through an interstate transmission pipeline
which connects to major interstate transmission pipelines and
transports natural gas throughout the United States.

According to the complaint, "While federal rules limit fees that
can be charged on the interstate pipelines to prevent gouging,
drilling companies levy fees on local pipelines known as gathering
lines.  However, even where such fees are deducted, they must be
reasonable and actual."

While processing can include certain services to make gas suitable
for entry into the interstate pipeline system, such as dehydration
when the natural gas has a high water content, the Suessenbachs
say that Access Midstream conceded, "[i]n general, the natural gas
in the northern Marcellus Shale is lean and typically requires
little to no treatment to remove contaminants."

The Suessenbachs claim that "defendants, under the guise of
Chesapeake's subsidiaries' agreements with lessors, exploited
deductions language from the lease agreements to, among other
things, shift repayment of Chesapeake's off-balance sheet loan
from Access Midstream to the lessors."

According to the complaint, Chesapeake got into money trouble
almost five years ago when "Despite their dominant role in natural
gas extraction in the United States, Chesapeake was experiencing
severe financial difficulty, including funding gaps, reportedly
due to major capital expenditures and lower natural gas prices and
cash flow.  As a result, Chesapeake needed cash quickly to service
its outstanding debt and fund its operations.

"On Aug. 3, 2010, Chesapeake formed Access Midstream and began
spinning off its midstream assets, which included its natural gas
gathering and intrastate pipeline operations, through a series of
sales to Access Midstream in order to fund its ongoing operations.
During this time, Chesapeake was using its subsidiaries to
artificially inflate deductions charged to lessors."

In seeking to spin off its gathering operations, Chesapeake sold a
couple of its subsidiaries and their assets the following year.
Included in the transactions were "post-spinoff agreements between
Chesapeake and Access Midstream [to] guarantee that Chesapeake and
certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates get a rebate of some of
the monies they will pay out to Access Midstream in the form of
payments for services and additional assets," according to the
complaint.

"Notably, Access Midstream is managed and directed by former and
current Chesapeake officers, has made extensive use of other
Chesapeake employees in conducting its operations, and continues
to pay Chesapeake and other affiliates and subsidiaries for a
variety of services," the complaint states.

Once Access Midstream acquired Chesapeake's operating assets, it
replaced Chesapeake as the beneficiary of certain contractual
obligations and entered into gas gathering agreements with several
Chesapeake subsidiaries who agreed to pay Access Midstream for
natural gas gathering and transportation services, including
intrastate transport.

These fees for services are misleading, according to the
complaint, as they are "intended to provide Access Midstream with
a guaranteed, above-market return as an incentive and
consideration for the payments it made to Chesapeake."

According to ProPublica, an independent, nonprofit news source
cited in the complaint, a rival company executive described the
gas-gathering agreements this way: "Chesapeake had found a way to
make the landowners pay the principal and interest on what amounts
to a multi-billion loan to the company from Access Midstream."

The Suessenbachs claim that Chesapeake "pledged to pay Access
enough in fees to repay the $5 billion plus a 15 percent return on
its pipelines."

"Chesapeake's ability to follow through on its promise to lock in
Access Midstream's rate of return relies on continued inflation of
gathering costs and other services paid to Access Midstream and
deducted from oil and gas lessors' royalty payments," according to
the complaint.

"Fully aware of the true market rates of such services, Chesapeake
and its subsidiaries agreed to this above-market rate of return
and then Chesapeake agreed to pay Access Midstream supra-
competitive prices for natural gas gathering and transportation
services, as part of the renewed agreement with Access Midstream
and to repay the off-balance sheet loan provided by Access
Midstream to Chesapeake's subsidiaries, such as Chesapeake
Appalachia, have, in turn, passed the costs of the services along
to Pennsylvania oil and gas lessors, such as plaintiffs, by
deducting the inflated expenses built into the Marcellus fee from
lessor's royalty payments," the complaint states.

ProPublica, reported in March this year that "Chesapeake executed
an adroit escape, raising nearly $5 billion . . . [b]y gouging
many rural landowners out of royalty payments they were supposed
to receive."

According to the complaint, "Chesapeake conspired with Access
Midstream to continue its scheme to extract inflated royalty
deductions from lessors . . . in order to . . . satisfy an off-
balance-sheet loan from Access Midstream that was disguised as
asset sales.  The purpose of the off-balance sheet loan was to
hide Chesapeake's need to 'raise billions of dollars quickly'
without alerting the market to its financial troubles when it was
already saddled with billions of dollars in debt."

Confused by the answers he received after writing to Chesapeake
CEO Robert Lawler, Gov. Tom Corbett asked Attorney General
Kathleen Kane to investigate Chesapeake's deductions from royalty
payments.  State Senator Gene Yaw also wrote to Kane about
Chesapeake, describing its royalty deductions as "cheating,"
"stealing," and "fraud," the complaint states.

The Suessenbachs claim that "Access Midstream, Chesapeake's co-
conspirator, was more than eager to participate in the scheme.  In
return for 'purchasing' $4.76 billion in gas transportation lines
from Chesapeake, Access Midstream was guaranteed to recover $5
billion plus a 15 percent return on its pipelines over the next
decade -- all of which would be shouldered by inflated expenses
charged to the class."

The Suessenbachs seek class certification, an injunction,
disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and damages.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert D. Schaub, Esq.
          ROSENN, JENKINS & GREENWALD, LLP
          15 South Franklin Street
          Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711
          Telephone: (570) 826-5652
          E-mail: rschaub@rjglaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: jmeltzer@btkmc.com

The case is The Suessenbach Family Limited Partnership; James S.
Suessenbach, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; and Gina M. Suessenbach, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Access Midstream Partners, L.P.,
and Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01197-MEM, in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.


CHINA AGRITECH: Faces "Resh" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael H. Resh, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. China Agritech, Inc.; Yu Chang; Yau-Sing Tang; Gene
Michael Bennett; Xiao Rong Teng; Ming Fang Zhu; Lun Zhang Dai; Hai
Lin Zhang; Charles Law; Zheng Anne Wang; and DOES 1 to 10,
Inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-05083 (C.D. Cal., June 30, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for issuing false and misleading
financial statements about the company during the class period.

China Agritech, Inc., purports to manufacture and sell organic
compound fertilizers and related agricultural products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN AND HERZ LLP
      750 B Street Suite 2770
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 239-4599
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
      E-mail: manifold@whafh.com


COST PLUS: Recalls Bubble Knobs Due to Laceration Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cost Plus Management Services Inc., of Oakland, Calif., announced
a voluntary recall of about 251,400 Glass Bubble Knobs.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The knobs can break and expose sharp pieces of glass, posing a
risk of laceration to the consumer.

The firm has received five reports of broken knobs resulting in
five reports of hand and/or finger lacerations.

The recall involves glass bubble knobs used on cabinet doors and
drawers.  The knobs were sold in two sizes and six colors
including: blue, amethyst, pink, green, smoke and clear.  The
larger knobs are about 1.25 inches in diameter.  The smaller knobs
are about .75 inches in diameter.  The glass knobs are attached to
bronze-colored hardware.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold
exclusively at Cost Plus World Market and World Market stores
nationwide from October 2010 to April 2014 for between $2 and $4.

Consumers should immediately stop using the glass knobs and return
them to any Cost Plus World Market or World Market store for a
full refund.


CRAIG COOPER: Sued for Falsely Advertising Prostate Supplements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fernand Page, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Craig Cooper and Prostate Research Labs, LLC; Prostate
Cancer Institute, LLC and Does 1-100, Case No. BC550178 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 27, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants engage in an unlawful scheme whereby they intentionally
mislead consumers into making purchases of their products,
including Prost-p10x and Every Day Male, by falsely promising
through Internet advertising that the Supplements were clinically
proven to reduce prostate size and aide in the treatment of
prostate cancer.

Craig Cooper is the registered owner/benefactor of numerous of the
offending Web-sites, including Prostate.net, which comprise the
bases for Plaintiffs complaint.  Prostate Research Labs, LLC is
located in California and is the manufacturer and distributor of
Prost-p10x.  Prostate Cancer Institute, LLC, located in
California, publishes a purported independent newsletter rating
prostate supplements and directing consumers how to treat prostate
cancer.

In reality, Mr. Page alleges, Prostate Cancer Institute, LLC, is
owned and operated by Craig Cooper and is a mere hidden
advertising medium for Prost-p10x.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Perry C. Wander, Esq.
          Mitch Kalcheim, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PERRY C. WANDER
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse Suite
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310)274-9985
          Facsimile: (310)274-9987
          E-mail: pcwlaw@msn.com
                  mitch@kallawgroup.com


DELL FINANCIAL: 9th Circuit Revived Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
collection letters that misidentify a debtor's original creditor
violate federal debt-collection law, citing a 9th Circuit ruling.
The debt that led to the class action in question stemmed from
David Tourgeman's purchase of a Dell computer while he was living
in Mexico.

Tourgeman had financed the computer in question through Dell
Financial Services LP and had it shipped to his parent's house in
California.

Dell Financial eventually sold Tourgeman's alleged debt and 85,000
other similar cases to Collins Financial Services Inc., whose
affiliate, Paragon Way Inc., mailed three collection letters to
Tourgeman's parents in California.

When Tourgeman failed to respond, Paragon brought in Nelson &
Kennard to file a collection lawsuit against him in San Diego
County Superior Court.  Though the law firm ended up dismissing
the complaint, Tourgeman found out during the proceedings about
the three collection letters that had been sent to his parents.

Tourgeman filed his federal class action in San Diego, seeking
statutory damages for violations of the federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

While Dell Financial and Tourgeman disagreed as to whether he ever
paid off the debt, they settled their issues and Dell escaped
being named in the complaint.

Tourgeman claimed that the defendants had misidentified his
original creditor in the letters sent to his parents and in the
state-court complaint against him.  He also argued that Nelson &
Kennard lied when it said an attorney reviewed its collection
letter.

After certifying a class, U.S. District Judge Cathy Bencivengo
ruled for the defendants on cross-motions for summary judgment.

A three-member panel with the federal appeals court reversed 2-1
on June 25, 2014.

"We are persuaded that, in the context of debt collection, the
identity of a consumer's original creditor is a critical piece of
information, and therefore its false identification in a dunning
letter would be likely to mislead some consumers in a material
way," according to the opinion by U.S. District Judge Paul
Friedman, sitting on the panel by designation from Washington,
D.C.

"Unlike mislabeling portions of a total debt as principal rather
than interest -- literally false, but meaningful only to the
'hypertechnical' reader -- the factual errors in Paragon Way's
letters to Tourgeman could easily cause the least sophisticated
debtor to suffer a disadvantage in charting a course of action in
response to the collection effort."

The panel concluded that the lower court should have ruled for
Tourgeman against Paragon Way and Nelson & Kennard, and remanded
the case to San Diego for briefing on whether Tourgeman is
entitled to judgment against Collins Financial Services for
vicarious liability.

In a three-sentence dissent, Judge Jerome Farris wrote simply
that, "As I view the record, the trial court got it right."

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Brett M. Weaver, Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          110 West "A" Street, Suite 750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
          E-mail: BrettW@JohnsonandWeaver.com

               - and -

          Daniel P. Murphy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL MURPHY
          4691 Torrey Cir.
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (619) 379-2460

Defendant-Appellee Nelson & Kennard is represented by:

          Tomio B. Narita, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Topor, Esq.
          SIMMONDS & NARITA LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3010
          San Francisco, CA  94104
          Telephone: (415) 283-1010
          Facsimile: (415) 352-2625
          E-mail: tnarita@snllp.com
                  jtopor@snllp.com

The appellate case is David Tourgeman v. Collins Financial
Services, Inc., DBA Precision Recovery Analytics, Inc., a Texas
corporation; Nelson & Kennard, a partnership; Paragon Way, Inc.;
Collins Financial Services USA, Inc., and Dell Financial Services,
LP, Case No. 12-56783, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.  The original case is David Tourgeman v.
Collins Financial Services, Inc., DBA Precision Recovery
Analytics, Inc., a Texas corporation; Nelson & Kennard, a
partnership; Paragon Way, Inc.; Collins Financial Services USA,
Inc., and Dell Financial Services, LP, Case No. 3:08-cv-01392-CAB-
NLS, in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California.


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pinchas Greenberg, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Case No.
1:14-cv-04166 (E.D.N.Y. July 7, 2014) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


EXPRESS FASHION: Violates Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Staveley, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Express Fashion Apparel, LLC, Case No. 2:14-
cv-05258 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2014) alleges violations of the Song-
Beverly Credit Card Act.

According to Top Class Actions, Mr. Staveley accuses Express, a
clothing retailer, of having a "uniform policy" of asking its
customers' personal information during credit card transactions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fishcer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ml@kazlg.com


FAIRFIELD GREENWICH: PwC Can't Contest $50-MM Deal, 2nd Cir. Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers and Citco lack standing to contest the
terms of a $50.3 million settlement that an investor class reached
with a feeder fund linked to Bernie Madoff's enormous Ponzi
scheme, reports Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service, citing a
ruling entered on June 27, 2014, by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Fairfield Greenwich Ltd., a hedge fund that reportedly funneled
$7 billion into Madoff's fraud, was sued by its investors a month
after the Ponzi schemer's December 2008 arrest.  The lawsuit also
leveled federal and state allegations at its accountants,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, as well as Citco and GlobeOp, which
offered other financial services to the hedge fund.

A settlement that the investors reached with GlobeOp late last
year is not related to the appellate court's most recent decision.
Fairfield had agreed in November 2012 to resolve the investors'
lawsuit for $50.3 million, plus an additional $30 million if that
money is not used to resolve other legal claims, Bloomberg
reported at the time.

Before the settlement was approved, lawyers tweaked the language
of a clause regarding investors submitting to a New York court's
jurisdiction in order to collect.  Foreign investors worried that
this stipulation would leave them open to claw-back actions by
Madoff trustee Irving Picard.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero approved the terms of the
revised settlement, which limited this vulnerability.

Appealing this green light, holdouts PricewaterhouseCoopers and
Citco "contended that they were currently facing claims in
litigation in the Netherlands and were entitled to argue that any
entity that participated in the New York settlement could not
pursue claims in any other jurisdiction," the 2nd Circuit
summarized on June 27, 2014.

Writing for a three-judge panel, Judge Barrington Parker dismissed
this argument.

"Nothing in the final order precludes the non-settling defendants
from asserting in the District Court or in other litigation any
claims or defenses that may be available to them," the 14-page
opinion states.  "Similarly, nothing in that order requires that
they forbear from asserting in the Dutch proceedings, or in any
future proceedings in other courts, that participation in the
settlement approved by the district court bars subsequent or
parallel proceedings."

Lawyers for Fairfield and PricewaterhouseCoopers did not
immediately respond to a request for comment.

The appellate case is Pricewaterhousecoopers, L.L.P., et al. v.
Jitendra Bhatia, et al., Case No. 13-1642-cv, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


FERRELLGAS LP: Manipulates Propane Tank Prices, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hartig Drug Company, Inc., individually and on behalf of a class
of all others similarly situated v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., a
limited partnership; Ferrellgas, L.P., a limited partnership, also
doing business as Blue Rhino; Amerigas Partners, L.P., a limited
partnership, also doing business as Amerigas Cylinder Exchange;
and UGI Corporation, a corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-04164 (W.D.
Mo., June 30, 2014), arises out of a conspiracy to fix the price
of propane sold in exchangeable portable steel tanks commonly
referred to as "propane exchange tanks."

Ferrellgas, L.P., operates a national propane distribution
business, and owns or has access to distribution locations
nationwide under the Blue Rhino name.

Amerigas Partners, L.P., operates a national propane distribution
business through its subsidiary, AmeriGas Propane, L.P.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
      WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, PC
      1100 Main St., Ste 2500, P.O. Box 26188
      Kansas City, MO 64196
      Telephone: (816) 421-6620
      Facsimile: (816) 421-4747
      E-mail: tbender@wbsvlaw.com


FIFTH THIRD: Fiduciaries Not Presumed to Have Acted Prudently
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that after
Fifth Third Bancorp workers lost most of their retirement savings
in the market crash, plan fiduciaries are not presumed to have
acted prudently, citing a Supreme Court ruling entered on June 25,
2014.

The market crash caused Fifth Third's stock price to fall by 74
percent between July 2007 and September 2009, and Fifth Third's
retirement plan was hit especially hard because its assets were
invested primarily in an employee stock ownership plan, or ESOP,
which puts funds back into company stock.

John Dudenhoeffer and other former Fifth Third employees and ESOP
participants brought a class action against the financial services
firm in Ohio, alleging violations of the duties of loyalty and
prudence imposed by the Employee Retirement Income and Security
Act (ERISA).

Both a federal judge and the 6th Circuit found that the plan
fiduciaries enjoy a "presumption of prudence," but the appellate
court went further by saying that the employees could overcome the
presumption by merely showing that "a prudent fiduciary acting
under similar circumstances would have made a different investment
decision."

The unanimous Supreme Court vacated that holding on June 25, 2014,
saying that "ESOP fiduciaries are subject to the same duty of
prudence that applies to ERISA fiduciaries in general, except that
they need not diversify the fund's assets."

Though lawsuits of this nature could discourage employers from
offering retirement plans in the first place, the court rejected
Fifth Third's claim "that the presumption at issue here is an
appropriate way to weed out meritless lawsuits or to provide the
requisite 'balancing.'"

"The proposed presumption makes it impossible for a plaintiff to
state a duty-of-prudence claim, no matter how meritorious, unless
the employer is in very bad economic circumstances," Justice
Stephen Breyer wrote.  "Such a rule does not readily divide the
plausible sheep from the meritless goats.  That important task can
be better accomplished through careful, context-sensitive scrutiny
of a complaint's allegations.  We consequently stand by our
conclusion that the law does not create a special presumption of
prudence for ESOP fiduciaries."

Breyer added: "To the extent that the Sixth Circuit denied
dismissal based on the theory that the duty of prudence required
petitioners to sell the ESOP's holdings of Fifth Third stock, its
denial of dismissal was erroneous."

The case is Fifth Third Bancorp, et al. v. Dudenhoeffer, et al.,
Case No. 12-751, in the Supreme Court of the United States.


FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Firing of Pregnant Woman
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Ferreira v. Fitness International, LLC, d/b/a LA Fitness,
Case No. 30-2014-00725864-CU-WT-CJC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.,
May 30, 2014) arises from alleged wrongful termination of
employment.

According to Courthouse News Service, Ms. Ferreira was fired by
the Defendant after she became pregnant and required time off to
deal with morning sickness.


FOOT LOCKER: Consolidated FLSA "Violation" Suit in Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
In re Foot Locker, Inc. Fair Labor Standards Act and Wage and Hour
Litigation is in discovery, according to the company's June 13,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2014.

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

The Company is a defendant in additional purported wage and hour
class actions that assert claims similar to those asserted in
Pereira and seek similar remedies. With the exception of Hill v.
Foot Locker filed in state court in Illinois, Kissinger v. Foot
Locker filed in state court of California, Cortes v. Foot Locker
filed in federal court of New York, and McGlothin v. Foot Locker
filed in the state of California, all of these actions were
consolidated by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation with Pereira under the caption In re Foot Locker, Inc.
Fair Labor Standards Act and Wage and Hour Litigation. The
consolidated cases are in the discovery stages of proceedings. In
Hill v. Foot Locker, in May 2011, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion for certification of an opt-out class covering certain
Illinois employees only. The Company's motion for leave to appeal
was denied. The Company has had and may in the future have
discussions with plaintiffs' counsel in an attempt to determine
whether it will be possible to resolve the consolidated cases and
Hill.


FOOT LOCKER: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in "Osberg" ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit partly affirmed
the dismissal by the District Court of the suit Osberg v. Foot
Locker, Inc., according to the company's June 13, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 3, 2014.

The Company and the Company's U.S. retirement plan are defendants
in a purported class action (Osberg v. Foot Locker, filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York) in
which the plaintiff alleges that, in connection with the 1996
conversion of the retirement plan to a defined benefit plan with a
cash balance formula, the Company and the retirement plan failed
to properly advise plan participants of the "wear-away" effect of
the conversion. Plaintiff asserted claims for: (a) breach of
fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (ERISA); (b) violation of the statutory provisions
governing the content of the Summary Plan Description; (c)
violation of the notice provision of Section 204(h) of ERISA; and
(d) violation of ERISA's age discrimination provisions. In
September 2009, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the Section 204(h) claim and the age discrimination claim. In
December 2012, the court granted the Company's motion for summary
judgment on the remaining two claims, dismissing the action.
Plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, which issued a Summary Order on February 13, 2014 that
affirmed the judgment of the District Court in part, and vacated
and remanded in part.


FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: Seeks to Dismiss Stock Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Francesca's Holdings Corporation is seeking to dismiss a
consolidated securities suit filed against it in the United States
District Court for the  Southern District of New York, according
to the company's June 13, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3,
2014.

On September 27, 2013 and November 4, 2013, two purported class
action lawsuits entitled Ortuzar v. Francesca's Holdings Corp., et
al. and West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. Francesca's
Holdings Corp., et al. were filed in the United States District
Court for the  Southern District of New York against the Company
and certain of its current and former directors and officers for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws arising from
statements in certain public disclosures regarding the Company's
current and future business and financial  condition. On December
19, 2013, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On March 14,
2014, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint
purportedly on behalf of shareholders that purchased or acquired
the Company's publicly traded common stock between July 22, 2011
and September 3, 2013 against the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers. The consolidated
complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a) (2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 for allegedly false and misleading
statements in the Company's public disclosures concerning, among
other things, the Company's relationship with certain vendors. The
lawsuit seeks damages in an unspecified amount. On May 13, 2014
defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint.


GERBER PRODUCTS: Court Refused to Certify Class in Labeling Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the lawsuit styled Natalia Bruton, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gerber Products
Company, Case No. 12-CV-02412-LHK.

The Court agrees with the Defendant's contention that the
standards for class certification have not been met because, among
other things, Ms. Bruton has failed to define an ascertainable
class.

Ms. Bruton brought the putative class action against Gerber
alleging that the Defendant's product labeling is unlawful,
deceptive, and misbranded in violation of federal and California
law.  She moved to certify a class of California consumers, who
purchased Gerber products from May 11, 2008, to the date of notice
to the class.

Gerber claims to be "the world's most trusted name in baby food"
and reportedly controls between 70 and 80 percent of the baby food
market in the United States.  Gerber packages and sells retail
food products specifically intended for infants and children under
two years of age.


GROWLIFE INC: Still Faces Securities Suit in California Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Growlife, Inc. faces a consolidated securities suit in the United
States District Court, Central District of California, according
to the company's June 13, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On April 18, 2014, a class action lawsuit alleging violations of
federal securities laws was filed against GrowLife, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company") in the United States District
Court, Central District of California (Randy Romero v. Growlife,
Inc., et al.; Case No.: 2:14-cv-03015) (the "Romero Action"). The
Romero Action was previously disclosed via Current Report on Form
8-K dated May 8, 2014.

On May 30, 2014, the United States District Court, Central
District of California (the "Court") ordered the Romero Action
consolidated with another class action alleging securities
violations also filed with the Court against the Company entitled
Gerald Young v. Growlife, Inc., et al. (Case No.: 2:14-cv-03183)
(the "Young Action").  The Young Action was filed on April 25,
2014 but not served on the Company. Counsel for Romero and Young
will work in concert with the Court to determine a Lead Plaintiff
and file a consolidated complaint.

On June 5, 2014, the Company entered a general appearance in
connection with a third class action alleging securities
violations filed with the Court entitled Rochelle Wolf v.
Growlife, Inc., et al. (Case No.: 2:14-cv-04112)(the "Wolf
Action").  The Wolf Action has also been consolidated into the
Romero Action as was done with the Young Action based on the
Court's standing order and procedural rules.  As a result, the
allegations from all three actions will be consolidated into a
single complaint for the Company to defend.


HERTZ CORP: Supreme Court Vacated Stay in "Sobel" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court on June 26, 2014, vacated a stay entered in the
efforts to settle an 8-year-old class action against car-rental
giant Hertz, reports Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News
Service.

Filed by Janet Sobel and Daniel Dugan in 2006, the class action
took issue with Hertz's practice of quoting rental rates to
customers who rent cars at the Reno and Las Vegas airports.

Since Hertz must pay the airports concession fees for the right to
operate there, the car-rental company passes those fees to its
customers as a concession-recovery surcharge.

A federal judge in Nevada agreed that the practice of "unbundling"
that surcharge from its base rental rates violated state law, and
the court granted a subsequent settlement preliminary approval in
November 2010.

The court denied the settlement final approval in 2011, however,
noting that nearly 2.5 million notices were sent to class members,
but that only "35,482 Hertz and Advantage customers had registered
for the benefits of the settlement -- coupons whose value depended
on the number of rentals that the customer had purchased."

The court found on September 12, 2013, that "class members are
entitled to the restitution of any airport concession recovery
fees they paid to Hertz during the class period," covering
October 13, 2003, to September 20, 2009.

In that order, U.S. District Judge Larry Hicks partially approved
the notice proposed by the plaintiffs and refused to let Hertz
file a surreply.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy stayed that order on
June 25, 2014, pending an appeal to the 9th Circuit. Upon referral
by Kennedy, however, the court denied the stay and vacated his
order on June 26, 2014.

The original case is Janet Sobel and Daniel Dugan, Ph.D.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Hertz Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:06-CV-00545-
LRH-RAM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.


ILLINOIS: Cannot Force Medicaid Providers to Pay Union Costs
------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that Illinois
cannot force providers of Medicaid-subsidized rehabilitation
services to pay costs for a union they opted not to join, the
Supreme Court ruled on June 30, 2014.

Supreme Court precedent already allows unions to collect fees from
nonmembers, but personal assistants who work for Illinois agencies
argued in the present case that they are actually employees of
their patients, not the state.

A majority of the approximately 20,000 personal assistants who
work for the Division of Rehabilitation Services had voted to
designate SEIU Healthcare Illinois & Indiana as their
representative in 2003.  Six years later, a majority of the 4,500
personal assistants working for the Division of Developmental
Disabilities rejected such representation.

Even though disabilities assistants do not currently pay for any
representation, members of both groups filed suit.  The lead
plaintiff in the class action is Pamela Harris.  They claimed that
requiring all assistants to pay "fair share" fees violates the
First Amendment by compelling their association with, and speech
through, the union.

A three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit disagreed in 2011,
affirming dismissal of the case by citing the 1977 Supreme Court
decision Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.

In reversing 5-4 on June 30, 2014, however, the Supreme Court
declined to extend Abood in this manner.

The decision notes various ways in which Illinois denies personal
assistants rights and benefits that are otherwise available to
"full-fledged state employees."

In addition to excluding personal assistants from statutory
retirement and health insurance benefits, Illinois also excludes
personal assistants from group life insurance and "a host of
benefits under a variety of other state laws, including the State
Employee Vacation Time Act; the State Employee Health Savings
Account Law; the State Employee Job Sharing Act; the State
Employee Indemnification Act; and the Sick Leave Bank Act."

"Personal assistants are apparently not entitled to the protection
that the Illinois Whistleblower Act provides for full-fledged
state employees," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.

"A deferred compensation program, full worker's compensation
privileges, behavioral health programs" and other benefits
likewise fall "within the provision of the Rehabilitation Program
declaring that personal assistants are not state employees for
'any purposes' other than collective bargaining," Alito added.

The 39-page opinion slams the U.S. solicitor general for
contending in an amicus brief for Illinois "that union speech that
is germane to collective bargaining does not address matters of
public concern and, as a result, is not protected."

"This argument flies in the face of reality," Alito wrote.  "In
this case, for example, the category of union speech that is
germane to collective bargaining unquestionably includes speech in
favor of increased wages and benefits for personal assistants.
Increased wages and benefits for personal assistants would almost
certainly mean increased expenditures under the Medicaid program,
and it is impossible to argue that the level of Medicaid funding
(or, for that matter, state spending for employee benefits in
general) is not a matter of great public concern."

If the court were to affirm, it "would approve an unprecedented
violation of the bedrock principle that, except perhaps in the
rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be
compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does
not wish to support.  The First Amendment prohibits the collection
of an agency fee from personal assistants in the Rehabilitation
Program who do not want to join or support the union."

Though it reversed as to that issue, the Supreme Court affirmed
the 7th Circuit's finding "that the First Amendment claims of the
petitioners who work [in] . . . the 'Disabilities Program, are not
ripe."

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Ruth
Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, which says
Abood does apply.

"Abood held that a government entity may, consistently with the
First Amendment, require public employees to pay a fair share of
the cost that a union incurs negotiating on their behalf for
better terms of employment,' Kagan wrote.  "That is exactly what
Illinois did in entering into collective bargaining agreements
with the Service Employees International UnionHealthcare (SEIU)
which included fair-share provisions. Contrary to the court's
decision, those agreements fall squarely within Abood's holding.
Here, Illinois employs, jointly with individuals suffering from
disabilities, the in-home care providers whom the SEIU represents.
Illinois establishes, following negotiations with the union, the
most important terms of their employment, including wages,
benefits, and basic qualifications.  And Illinois's interests in
imposing fair-share fees apply no less to those caregivers than to
other state workers.  The petitioners' challenge should therefore
fail."

Kagan also bristled at the Alito's remark that Abood is "something
of anomaly."

"Rather, the lines it draws and the balance it strikes reflect the
way courts generally evaluate claims that a condition of public
employment violates the First Amendment," she wrote.  "Our
decisions have long afforded government entities broad latitude to
manage their workforces, even when that affects speech they could
not regulate in other contexts.  Abood is of a piece with all
those decisions: While protecting an employee's most significant
expression, that decision also enables the government to advance
its interests in operating effectively-by bargaining, if it so
chooses, with a single employee representative and preventing free
riding on that union's efforts."

Kagan did note relief in the failure by the petitioners to
overrule Abood.

"The Abood rule is deeply entrenched, and is the foundation for
not tens or hundreds, but thousands of contracts between unions
and governments across the nation," she wrote.  "Our precedent
about precedent, fairly understood and applied, makes it
impossible for this court to reverse that decision."


JULIE VOS: Recalls Women's Scarves Due to Flaming Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Julie Vos, of New York, announced a voluntary recall of about 324
Julie Vos women's scarves.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The scarves fail to meet the federal flammability standard for
wearing apparel and pose a risk of burn injury to consumers.

There has been one report of a shawl catching fire.  No injuries
have been reported.

The recall involves Julie Vos women's scarves.  The scarves are
100 percent modal fabric, a type of rayon, and were sold in two
prints, Anchor and Sierra.  Anchor was sold in three colors,
including blue, green and orange.  Sierra was sold in four colors,
including raspberry/magenta, orange/peach, cream/gray and
blue/purple.  The scarves measure 75 inches long by 45 inches
wide. Julie Vos is printed on a tag sewn into the back of the
scarf.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/K6DS5S

The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold at
specialty boutiques nationwide and online from Jan. 2014 through
February 2014 for about $165.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled scarves and
contact Julie Vos to arrange to return the scarves for a full
refund. Julie Vos will provide a pre-paid postage label for
shipping.


KELLY SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Caballero" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Caballero, on behalf of herself and others similarly situate
v. Kelly Services, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-01828 (S.D. Tex., June
30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Kelly Services, Inc., is a Texas-based recruitment company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg M. Rosenberg, Esq.
      ROSENBERG SPROVACH
      3518 Travis, Suite 200
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 960-8300
      Facsimile: (713) 621-6670
      E-mail: gregg@rosenberglaw.com


LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over False Claims on Storage Capacity
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Liebler v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-03500-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., June 2, 2014)
asserts claims for breach of contract.

Courthouse News Service reports that LG Electronics pushes its
Android smartphones with false claims about their storage
capacity, which may be "as little as 11% of what LG advertises."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq.
          1072 Madison Avenue, Suite 1
          Lakewood, NJ 08701
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


LINEAR EXPANDS: Recalls Personal Emergency Reporting Transmitters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Linear LLC, of Carlsbad, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of
about 175,000 (an additional 48,000 previously recalled in
December 2013) Personal Emergency Reporting System (PERS)
Transmitters.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The batteries used in the transmitters can fail to emit a low
battery warning leading the user to believe the transmitter is
functioning and not generate a warning.

Linear received one report of a transmitter that failed to
operate.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled Linear PERS transmitters are components of Linear
PERS or personal emergency solutions products and allow users to
push a button on the transmitter to summon assistance.  The
transmitter may be worn as a pendant on a lanyard around the
user's neck, on a band around the user's wrist or as a belt clip.
The recall includes model numbers DXS-62A (black wristband and a
gray pendant), DXS-62A1 (ivory plastic belt clip pendant) and DXS-
64 (gray plastic pendant with a green circle in the center) which
all have batteries that are sealed into the products.  The
manufactured date range of the recalled products is from June 2008
through April 2011 written as a date code.  For example the date
code MD1105 represents YYMM format or a manufacture date of May
2011.  The date code, model number, Linear LLC and other
information are found on the back of the transmitter.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/vUHi0P

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
independent PERS distributors and dealers nationwide from June
2008 through July 2011 for about $45.

Consumers should immediately contact Linear to receive a new
replacement transmitter at no cost.


M AND P INNOVATIVE: "Mainer" Suit Seeks to Recover Back Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Mainer, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
M and P Innovative Enterprises, a Georgia Profit Corporation,
Cherry Pearson, Individually, Case No. 3:14-cv-00060 (M.D. Ga.,
June 30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid back wages, an additional
equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

M and P Innovative Enterprises, operates a preschool/daycare
center in Clayton County, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
     600 N. Pine Island Rd., Suite 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Telephone: (954) 318-0268
     Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
     E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com


MARTIN MARIETTA: Inks MoU to Settle Texas Suit Over TXI Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. entered into an Memorandum of
Understanding to settle a shareholder lawsuit filed against it in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas over its merger with Texas Industries, Inc., according to
Martin's June 11, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Following announcement of the Merger Agreement, a purported
stockholder of TXI filed a putative class action lawsuit against
TXI and members of the TXI board, and against Martin Marietta and
one of its affiliates (collectively, the "Defendants"), in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
(the "Court"), captioned Maxine Phillips, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Texas Industries, Inc.,
et al., Case 3:14-cv-00740-B (the "Phillips Action").  The
plaintiff in the Phillips Action (the "Plaintiff") alleges in an
amended complaint, among other things, (i) that members of the TXI
board breached their fiduciary duties to TXI's stockholders by
failing to fully disclose material information regarding the
proposed transaction and by adopting the Merger Agreement for
inadequate consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process,
(ii) that Martin Marietta and one of Martin Marietta's affiliates
aided and abetted the TXI board in their alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty and (iii) that the Registration Statement on Form
S-4 filed with the SEC on March 21, 2014 in connection with the
Merger contains certain material misstatements and omissions in
violation of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
Plaintiff seeks, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining
TXI and Martin Marietta from proceeding with the Merger,
rescission in the event the Merger is consummated, damages and an
award of attorneys' and other fees and costs.

On June 10, 2014, counsel for the Defendants entered into the MOU
with counsel for the Plaintiff pursuant to which Martin Marietta
and TXI have agreed to make the disclosures concerning the Merger.
The MOU also provides that, solely for purposes of settlement, the
Court will certify a class consisting of all persons who were
record or beneficial shareholders of TXI at any time between March
25, 2013 and the consummation of the Merger (the "Class").  In
addition, the MOU provides that, subject to approval by the Court
after notice to the members of the Class (the "Class Members"),
the Phillips Action will be dismissed with prejudice and all
claims, including derivative claims, that the Class Members may
possess with regard to the Merger will be released.  In connection
with the settlement, the Plaintiff's counsel has expressed its
intention to seek an award by the Court of attorneys' fees and
expenses.  The amount of the award to the Plaintiff's counsel will
ultimately be determined by the Court.  This payment will not
affect the amount of merger consideration to be received by any
TXI stockholder in the Merger.  There can be no assurance that the
parties will ultimately enter into a definitive stipulation of
settlement or that the Court will approve the settlement.  In the
absence of either event, the proposed settlement as contemplated
by the MOU may be terminated.

The Defendants each have denied, and continue to deny, that they
have committed or aided and abetted in the commission of any
violation of law or breaches of duty or engaged in any of the
alleged wrongful acts and the Defendants expressly maintain that
they diligently and scrupulously complied with their fiduciary,
disclosure and other legal duties.  The Defendants are entering
into the MOU and the contemplated settlement solely to eliminate
the risk, burden and expense of further litigation.  Nothing in
the MOU, any settlement agreement or any public filing, is or
shall be deemed to be an admission of the legal necessity of
filing or the materiality under applicable laws of any of the
additional information or in any public filing associated with the
proposed settlement of the Phillips Action.


MARTIN MARIETTA: Faces Shareholder Suit in N.Y. Over TXI Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. is facing a shareholder lawsuit in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York
over its merger with Texas Industries, Inc., according to Martin's
June 11, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On May 30, 2014, a purported stockholder of Martin Marietta filed
a putative class action lawsuit against Martin Marietta and
members of the Martin Marietta board, and against TXI, in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York,
captioned City Trading Fund, on Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. C. Howard Nye, et al., Index No. 651668/2014
(the "City Trading Fund Action").  The plaintiff in the City
Trading Fund Action alleges that Martin Marietta and its board
members breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose
material information in the Definitive Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, and that TXI aided and abetted such breach.
The plaintiff in the City Trading Fund Action seeks, among other
things, injunctive relief enjoining TXI and Martin Marietta from
proceeding with the Merger absent additional disclosures, damages
and an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs.  Martin
Marietta and TXI believe the lawsuit is without merit.


MCCARTHY BURGESS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Surber, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals v. McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
00309 (S.D. Ala. July 7, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Earl P. Underwood, Jr., Esq.
          21 South Section Street
          Fairhope, AL 36532
          Telephone: (251) 990-5558
          Facsimile: (251) 990-0626
          E-mail: epunderwood@gmail.com


MULTICARE HEALTH: Faces "Ikuseghan" Suit Over TCPA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jumapili Ikuseghan, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MultiCare Health System, a Washington nonprofit
corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-05539 (W.D. Wash. July 7, 2014)
alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
          Chase Christian Alvord, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS
          1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
          E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
                  calvord@tousley.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Parties Spar Over Effect of Paying Athletes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Maria Dinzeo reports that as
the NCAA antitrust trial heads into its final days, attorneys for
both sides presented dueling assessments of the effect of paying
student athletes for appearing on TV in competition.

Continuing his testimony from June 24, 2014, was survey expert Jon
Dennis, whose said his survey of 4,255 people revealed that nearly
7 out of 10 opposed paying student athletes beyond the cost of
attending college.

"Of that 69 percent opposed to paying student athletes, a majority
of them feel very strongly about this," Dennis said on June 25,
2014.  "One of the striking things for me is it's a small fraction
that feels strongly about their opinion in terms of paying student
athletes.  The individuals who favor paying student athletes feel
less strongly in their intensity compared to those who oppose."

Dennis was brought in by the NCAA to try to show U.S. District
Judge Claudia Wilken that fan interest will wane if college
athletes are no longer unpaid amateurs.

Headed by former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon, a class of student
athletes is suing the governing body for college athletics for the
right to a share in the television broadcast revenue for their
names, images and likenesses.

Dennis' survey did not ask respondents how they felt about student
athletes being compensated for the use of their name, image and
likeness, but was, as he put it, a very deliberately created
question.  It states roughly: "Some people are in favor of paying
student athletes on men's college football or basketball teams.
Some are opposed to paying student athletes on men's college
football or basketball teams.  Which of these statements comes
closer to your opinion?"

Dennis said he didn't bother to ask about name, image and likeness
because it was a complex legal question that would just confuse
people.

"It would be a very complicated matter to include questions around
name, image and likeness rights," Dennis said.  "It appears to be
very tricky, disputed legal territory filled with jargon,
difficult to follow.  There's elusive concepts in here that would
be difficult to explain to a respondent."

But, he added, "I did look at the data one more time and did a
what-if analysis and it turns out the results don't change at all.
The actual favor and oppose rates only changed by one tenth of
1 percent."

Nor did Dennis ask about the concept of deferred compensation, in
which money would be put into a trust fund that student athletes
can access after graduation.  "It didn't need to be in there
anyway," Dennis said.

To rebut Dennis, plaintiff attorneys brought in Hal Poret, a
survey researcher and senior vice president of ORC International.
Poret blasted Dennis' survey, particularly the questions he didn't
ask.  Poret said respondents may have been confused by the
question of payment, taking it to mean illicit or illegitimate
payments, not structured compensation for name and image
licensing.

"The reason it's more difficult is exactly the reason why it's so
necessary," he said.  "Consumers are not used to thinking about
issues of name, image and likeness, but that's exactly why it's so
problematic.  You can't ask a question that is so broad that it
covers all sorts of things people might have different opinions
on.  The phrase 'paying money to student athletes' does not convey
the idea of paying for name, image and likeness; it conveys the
idea of students receiving improper, illicit payments."

Poret added that respondents may have meant that they were opposed
to paying student athletes salaries, but would have no problem
with the idea of a trust fund.  Poret also slammed Dennis on the
viewership impact portion of his survey, where he gave respondents
three scenarios: student athletes were paid $20,000, $50,000 or
$200,000.  The results showed that 38 percent were less likely to
watch and attend games if the players were paid $20,000.  The
numbers jumped to 47 percent if they were paid $50,000 and 53
percent if paid $200,000.

"When payment levels increase so does the resistance from fans,"
Dennis testified.

Poret wasn't buying the question or the answers.

"You're asking people to predict their future behavior and people
are notoriously bad at predicting their future behavior.  It is so
easy for people to click a button that says I'll be less likely to
do something," he said.  "In real life, to change your behavior is
a difficult thing."

Poret said fans were hugely resistant to the idea of corporate
sponsors naming college football bowls and claimed in polls that
they would stop watching, but such threats were not borne out in
real life.

On cross-examination, NCAA attorney Carolyn Luedtke showed Poret a
recent Alabama Today reader poll taken from its website.  The poll
asked, "If college athletes were paid, would you lose interest?"

Before Wilken shut down the Luedtke's attempt to question him on
that poll, Poret drew guffaws from the courtroom audience as he
dismissed it as an "embarrassing, junk science question."

                      Monopoly or Monopsony?

Ramona Young-Grindle, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that testimony in the NCAA antitrust trial ended on June 27, 2014,
with U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken questioning plaintiffs'
and NCAA attorneys on the antitrust theory that could decide the
future of college sports.

Wilken opened the afternoon session on June 27, 2014, the
fifteenth day of the trial, saying, "The question is only whether
an antitrust situation has happened."

She then asked what was the product and what was the market in
this situation.

At issue are the value of the names, images and likenesses rights
of student athletes, which are appropriated by the NCAA and the
colleges, and broadcast on TV, presumably in exchange for a
college education and the opportunity to play.

Former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon is lead plaintiff for
the class.

"This is a complicated transaction, depending on who is the buyer
and who is the seller," Wilken said.  "There are elements in which
the student is buyer and the student is seller."

She postulated that the price of the educational service is not
reduced by the value the athlete brings to the transaction.

"The athlete is paying the full cost of tuition, in essence.  The
athlete is saying, 'That is not really enough to cover what I am
bringing in exchange.'"

This led to a complicated exchange between Wilken and NCAA
attorney Glenn Pomerantz, and Michael Hausfeld and Bill Isaacson
for the student athletes.

Wilken asked if this was a case of a monopoly or its opposite, a
monopsony, in which a single buyer can choose between multiple
sellers.

"What do you want your theory to be?" she asked Hausfeld.

He replied: "It is difficult to unbundle both forces together.  We
would assert it is both a monopoly and a monopsony."

The NCAA's Pomerantz asked: "What is the antitrust injury or
impact?"

Isaacson replied: "The label does not matter, the result is the
same, the impact is the same."

Pomerantz rebutted that it would be inappropriate to allow the
plaintiffs to change their theory to a monopsony case.

"Their claim is monopoly, it is not connected to the restraint,
which is NIL [name, image and likeness]," he said.

When Pomerantz asked what the remedy would be if the case were a
monopsony, the judge's response that "it could be remedied with a
new trial" drew groans from seat-weary observers.

Hausfeld said again that the name of the market does not matter,
the restraint is the same.

"One restraint is on the student going to college and the
opportunity to participate in athletics," he said in an apparent
reference to Isaacson's earlier remark that "if you want to play
professional sports you must go to an NCAA school."

Wilken's question: "Why did you go with the NIL thing instead of
saying, 'Why don't you pay us more,'" sent a light ripple of
laughter through the courtroom that quickly died as the questions
of law continued to fly.

Pomerantz wanted to know if the plaintiffs had proven there had
been an anticompetitive effect.  He maintained that if there had
been no effect on the consumer, the plaintiffs had not proven the
anticompetitive effect.

"It's too bad for them because they aren't getting paid, but it's
not too bad for the TV viewers because they are getting plenty of
broadcasts," Wilken said.

She then returned to questions of who was being harmed, the
sellers or the consumers, and whether the injury could be traced
to less output and less choice for the consumer.

"If the market is the group license, is the product the video
game?" Wilken asked.

"The group license does not exist in a vacuum; it goes along with
the product," Hausfeld said.

Wilken then postulated less-restrictive possibilities, such as
putting name, image and likeness revenue into a trust for students
after graduation, putting a cap on it, revenue sharing, or
negotiating with the students for what would happen to their NILs
after they graduate.

"The less-restrictive alternatives are only relevant if they allow
the pro-competition benefits to be achieved, and they must also
not themselves be antitrust violations," Pomerantz replied.

Wilken gave both parties until July 10 to file closing briefings.
She is expected to rule in mid-August.

Outside the courthouse, NCAA chief legal officer Donald Remy said:
"It's day 15 and we're way ahead. . . .  The NCAA has put forth a
case that sustains its policies."

Lead plaintiff O'Bannon was also upbeat, saying: "I think it went
great.  We took a huge step forward.  Players, athletes, students,
whatever anyone wants to call them, we took a step forward in a
positive direction.  Whether you play, used to play or will play
in the future, players will be taken care of, and I think that's
the biggest thing."


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Taps Nobel Laureate Economist as Expert
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that NCAA attorney
Glenn Pomerantz was careful to ensure that his economics expert
included the words "name, image and likeness" in his definition of
pay-for-play during his testimony in the NCAA antitrust trial on
June 26, 2014.  U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken seems very
interested in the subject and has asked questions about it during
the trial.

Wilken has questioned Nobel laureate economist James Heckman about
whether being paid for one's name, image and likeness is "the same
as being paid for the activity itself."

On June 26, 2014, she asked economist Daniel Rubinfeld why he kept
using "pay for play" when referring to student athlete payments.

"I'm having trouble with the use of the term pay for play.  Do you
include in that the use of pay for name, image and likeness?"
Wilken asked, interrupting Rubinfeld after he'd said: "The market
has spoken.  There are lots of amateur institutions and none of
them allow pay for play."

Rubinfeld said that in his mind, they're the same thing.

The issue stems from a lawsuit brought by a class of student
athletes led by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon, who
claim they should be paid for the use of their names and images in
TV broadcasts.  After settling claims with sports video game maker
EA, their claims remain against the NCAA for rights to a share in
the revenue from television broadcasts.

Rubinfeld said that other collegiate athletic associations, high
school associations, and even the amateur tennis league in which
he competes disallow compensation as part of their tenet of
amateurism.

Amused by Rubinfeld saying he had only been paid in the form of
reimbursement for a can of tennis balls, Wilken asked, "You mean
there wasn't a bobble head?"

Questioning got serious as Rubinfeld delved into the economic
issues of the case.  He touted the "pro-competitive benefits" of
NCAA rules that prohibit payment to student athletes beyond the
cost of attending school.  He said the rules increase the number
of teams, the number of games, the popularity of college sports
and the happiness of fans, arguably the consumers in this
situation.

If those restrictions are lifted, as the O'Bannon class asks, it
would "reduce output" and "harm consumer welfare," Rubinfeld said.

"It's likely that output would diminish if those rules were
changed, because we would be in a world where there was pay for
play and that would lead to competition that would have some
schools choosing to pay substantial sums to recruit athletes and
some schools choosing not to participate for financial or
philosophical reasons."

Pomerantz asked: "What if the payments were for name, image and
likeness rights? Would your answer be any different?"

"No," Rubinfeld answered.

Wilken stopped Rubinfeld to ask about competitive balance.  She
seemed hung up on Pomerantz's argument that wealthier schools with
bigger programs would end up winning more games and hurting
competitive balance.

"Payments to the players wouldn't make the school have less
money," Wilken said.  "It might be allocated differently, but they
wouldn't have any more or less money."

The judge pointed out that as it is now, wealthier schools already
use all sorts of tactics that require money to attract the best
prospects, such as paying skilled coaches and building new
facilities.

Pomerantz answered: "All it would do is show the cash payments
that would go to the student athletes for their NIL [name, image
and likeness] rights, if the rules were changed as the plaintiffs
are asking.  So they would pay cash."

Rubinfield added: "The resources will be the same but in the world
we're describing more money would be available to recruit athletes
directly.  This is a prediction about the future, which economists
do all the time."

On cross-examination, Rubinfeld insisted that the NCAA is not a
cartel.  He had already testified that it was, by definition, as
it consists of entities that join together and agree to form
restraints on a market, but he pushed another characterization
with plaintiff attorney Michael Hausfeld.

Rubinfeld said he would call the NCAA a joint venture, kind of an
offshoot of a cartel, but one where the restraints it imposes
produces competitive benefits.

Hausfeld drew chuckles from the courtroom when he asked if
Rubinfeld had heard of Adam Smith. He quoted from Smith's "Wealth
of Nations," saying, "People of the same trade seldom meet
together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation
ends in a conspiracy against the public."

"Regardless of the name used," Hausfeld said, when combinations of
competitors get together to enforce agreements, restraint of trade
inevitably results.


NATIONAL RIFLE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Reo" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Reo, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated v. National Rifle Association of America, Case No. 1:14-
cv-01445 (N.D. Ohio, June 30, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for negligently contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's
cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

National Rifle Association of America is a national cruise sales
company in the State of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP
      Ste. D1, 245 Fischer Avenue
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ml@kazlg.com


NEIMAN MARCUS: Sept. Hearing Set in "Monjazeb" Labor Suit Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing has been set for September 18, 2014 in a
settlement reached in an employment lawsuit filed by Sheila
Monjazeb against Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC, according to the
company's June 11, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2014.

On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and
Equitable Relief was filed against the Company, Newton Holding,
LLC, TPG Capital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus LLC in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California by Sheila
Monjazeb, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated. On July 12, 2010, all
defendants except for the Company were dismissed without
prejudice, and on August 20, 2010, this case was dismissed by Ms.
Monjazeb and refiled in the Superior Court of California for San
Francisco County. This complaint, along with a similar class
action lawsuit originally filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007,
alleges that the Company has engaged in various violations of the
California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code, including
without limitation, by (1) asking employees to work "off the
clock," (2) failing to provide meal and rest breaks to its
employees, (3) improperly calculating deductions on paychecks
delivered to its employees and (4) failing to provide a chair or
allow employees to sit during shifts. The Monjazeb and Tanguilig
class actions have been deemed "related" cases and are pending
before the same trial court judge.  On October 24, 2011, the court
granted the Company's motion to compel Ms. Monjazeb and Juan
Carlos Pinela (a co-plaintiff in the Tanguilig case) to arbitrate
their individual claims in accordance with the Company's Mandatory
Arbitration Agreement, foreclosing their ability to pursue a class
action in court.  However, the court's order compelling
arbitration did not apply to Ms. Tanguilig because she is not
bound by the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement.  Further, the court
determined that Ms. Tanguilig could not be a class representative
of employees who are subject to the Mandatory Arbitration
Agreement, thereby limiting the putative class action to those
associates who were employed between December 2003 and July 15,
2007 (the effective date of the company's Mandatory Arbitration
Agreement).  Following the court's order, Ms. Monjazeb and Mr.
Pinela filed demands for arbitration with the American Arbitration
Association (AAA) seeking to arbitrate not only their individual
claims, but also class claims, which the Company asserted violated
the class action waiver in the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement.
This led to further proceedings in the trial court, a stay of the
arbitrations, and a decision by the trial court, on its own
motion, to reconsider its order compelling arbitration. The trial
court ultimately decided to vacate its order compelling
arbitration due to a recent California appellate court decision.
Following this ruling, the Company timely filed an appeal with the
Court of Appeal, asserting that the trial court did not have
jurisdiction to change its earlier determination of the
enforceability of the arbitration agreement. While the appeal
process had stayed most of the claims in Ms. Tanguilig's case, the
trial court decided to set certain civil penalty claims asserted
by Ms. Tanguilig for trial on April 1, 2014. In these claims, Ms.
Tanguilig sought civil penalties under the Private Attorneys
General Act based on the Company's alleged failure to provide
employees with meal periods and rest breaks in compliance with
California law. On December 10, 2013, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss all of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, including the civil
penalty claims, based on her failure to bring her claims to trial
within five years as required by California law. After several
hearings, on February 28, 2014 the court dismissed all of Ms.
Tanguilig's claims in the case and vacated the April 1, 2014 trial
date. The court has awarded the Company its costs of suit in
connection with the defense of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, but denied
its request of an award of attorneys' fees from Ms. Tanguilig. Ms.
Tanguilig filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal of all her
claims, which is pending before the Court of Appeal. Should the
Court of Appeal reverse the trial court's dismissal of all of Ms.
Tanguilig's claims, the litigation will resume, and Ms. Tanguilig
will seek class certification of the claims asserted in her Third
Amended Complaint. If this occurs, the scope of her class claims
will likely be reduced by the class action settlement and release
in the Monjazeb case; however, that settlement does not cover
claims asserted by Ms. Tanguilig for alleged Labor Code violations
from approximately December 19, 2003 to August 20, 2006 (the
beginning of the settlement class period in the Monjazeb case). At
present, the Court of Appeal has not set dates for the parties to
file briefs, or a date for oral argument, in Ms. Tanguilig's
appeal.

In Ms. Monjazeb's class action, a settlement was reached at a
mediation held on January 25, 2014. After several hearings, the
trial court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and
directed that notice of settlement be given to the settlement
class. A final approval hearing has been set for September 18,
2014.

In addition, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has been
pursuing a complaint alleging that the Mandatory Arbitration
Agreement's class action prohibition violates employees' rights to
engage in concerted activity, which was submitted to an
administrative law judge (ALJ) for determination on a stipulated
record. Recently, the ALJ issued a recommended decision and order
finding that the Company's Arbitration Agreement and class action
waiver violated the National Labor Relations Act. The matter has
now been transferred to the NLRB for further consideration and
decision.

On December 6, 2013, a third putative class action was filed
against the Company in the San Diego Superior Court by a former
employee. The case is entitled Marisabella Newton v. Neiman Marcus
Group, Inc., et al., and the complaint alleges claims similar to
those made in the Monjazeb case. The company filed an answer to
the complaint in the Newton case and are investigating Ms.
Newton's claims.

The company will continue to vigorously defend its interests in
these matters. Based upon the pending settlement agreement with
respect to Ms. Monjazeb's class action claims, the company
recorded the company's currently estimable liabilities with
respect to both Ms. Monjazeb's and Ms. Tanguilig's employment
class actions litigation claims in the third quarter of fiscal
year 2014, which amount was not material to the company's
financial condition or results of operations. The company will
continue to evaluate these matters, and the company's recorded
reserves for such matters, based on subsequent events, new
information and future circumstances.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Provides Updates on Suits Over 2013 Cyber Attack
---------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC provides updates on lawsuits filed
against it over the criminal cyber-attack on its computer systems
in 2013 at its June 11, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3,
2014.

Three class actions relating to a criminal cyber-attack on the
company's computer systems in 2013 (the Cyber-Attack) were filed
in January 2014 and later voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs
between February and April 2014. The plaintiffs had alleged
negligence and other claims in connection with their purchases by
payment cards. Melissa Frank v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et
al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on January 13, 2014, but was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff on April 15, 2014, without prejudice to
her right to re-file a complaint. Donna Clark v. Neiman Marcus
Group LTD LLC was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia on January 27, 2014 but was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on March 11, 2014, without
prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint. Christina Wong v.
The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et al., was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
January 29, 2014, but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff
on February 10, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-file a
complaint. Three new putative class actions relating to the Cyber-
Attack were filed in March and April 2014, also alleging
negligence and other claims in connection with plaintiffs'
purchases by payment cards. The first case, Hilary Remijas v. The
Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, was filed on March 12, 2014 and served
on March 13, 2014. The Company moved to dismiss the Remijas
complaint on April 2, 2014, and in response the plaintiff has
moved to file an amended complaint that would add three additional
plaintiffs. The second case, Katerina Chau v. Neiman Marcus Group
LTD, Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on March 14, 2014 and served on
April 23, 2014. The Company has until June 13, 2014 to file or
move with respect to the Chau complaint. The third case, Michael
Shields v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California on
April 1, 2014 and was voluntarily dismissed on May 16, 2014,
without prejudice to his right to refile a complaint.


NEUTROGENA: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on Sunscreen
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Neutrogena's sunscreen is
not water-resistant, as advertised, a class action claims in
Federal Court in Miami.


NEW YORK: Ontario County Settles Claim for Indigent Defense
-----------------------------------------------------------
The New York Civil Liberties Union settled with one of the five
counties named in a lawsuit faulting the state for providing
inadequate counsel to indigent defendants, reports Marlene
Kennedy, writing for Courthouse News Service.

The agreement followed Ontario County's creation of a Public
Defender's Office in 2010 and a Conflict Defender's Office last
year.  The latter will open for business July 1 to handle cases
when public defenders have a conflict.

"We applaud Ontario County for taking steps to provide public
defense services to its most vulnerable residents in the face of
the state's inaction," NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman
said in a statement.

The group filed its class-action lawsuit against New York in 2007
in Albany County Supreme Court and added the five counties in
2008: Onondaga, which includes the city of Syracuse in central New
York; Ontario, near Rochester in the western part of the state;
Schuyler, near Ithaca in south-central New York; Suffolk, on Long
Island; and Washington, northeast of Albany bordering Vermont.

The complaint seeks to remedy New York's "persistent failure to
guarantee meaningful and effective legal representation to
indigent people accused of crimes, as required by the New York
State Constitution and the United States Constitution."

Lead plaintiff Kimberly Hurrell-Harding, a 31-year-old mother of
two in Rochester, was sentenced to 4 months in jail for a felony -
though she had committed a misdemeanor -- because of the
inadequacy of her public defense, the NYCLU said.  She lost her
job and home as a result.

The complaint says New York "once was a leader" in guaranteeing
counsel to poor felony defendants, writing it into state criminal
procedure law 80 years before the U.S. Supreme Court's Gideon v.
Wainwright right-to-counsel decision in 1963.

"Sadly, today . . . the leadership and humanity New York State
showed in the past have badly eroded," the complaint states.

The NYCLU claims that began in 1965 when New York "abdicated its
responsibility" by making all 62 counties in the state "establish,
fund and administer their own public defense programs, with little
or no fiscal and administrative oversight or funding from the
state."

As a result, indigent defendants have been harmed by not having
representation "at all critical stages of the criminal justice
process," the complaint states.

"This complaint focuses on how the state's failure to provide
funding and fiscal and administrative oversight has created a
broken public defense system in Onondaga, Ontario, Schuyler,
Suffolk and Washington counties, but the failings in those
counties and the types of harms suffered by the named plaintiffs
are by no means limited or unique to the named counties," the
complaint states.  "The state's failure to provide funding or
oversight to any of New York's counties has caused similar
problems throughout the state."

The complaint was filed a year after New York's then-chief judge,
Judith Kaye, received the final report from a commission she
convened to look into defense services for the poor.

The so-called Kaye Commission concluded that "the indigent defense
system in New York State is both severely dysfunctional and
structurally incapable of providing each poor defendant with the
effective legal representation that he or she is guaranteed by the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of
the State of New York."

To counteract what the commission called a "crisis," it
recommended a fully state-funded, statewide defender system.

That has not happened, though a state Office of Indigent Legal
Services was established in 2011.  The office makes grants to
counties to help them hire public defenders to meet caseload
demands.

The NYCLU settlement with Ontario County, announced on June 26,
2014, needs final approval from the Albany County Supreme Court
and the Ontario County Board of Supervisors.

The NYCLU said its lawsuit against the state and the four other
counties will proceed to trial in the fall.

The case is Kimberly Hurrell-Harding, et al. v. The State of New
York, Case No. 8866-07, in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of Albany.


NIKE RETAIL: Illegally Misclassifies Staff as "Exempt," Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Nike Retail Services
illegally misclassifies its staff as "exempt" from overtime, a
class action claims in California Superior Court.


NOKIA INC: Recalls Tablet Travel Chargers Due to Electrocution
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Nokia Inc., of Sunnyvale, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of
500 Travel Charger Kits for Nokia Lumia 2520 Tablets.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The plastic cover on the charger's exchangeable plugs can come
loose and separate, exposing internal components that pose an
electrocution hazard if touched while the plug remains in a live
socket.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall includes the Travel Charger kit sold separately for the
Nokia Lumia 2520 tablet, also called the AC-300 charger accessory
kit.  The kit includes four different plugs for use in electrical
outlets in the U.S., U.K., EU and Australia.  The black plastic
chargers measure about 2.75 inches high by 2.3 inches wide. U.S.
chargers that were sold with the Nokia Lumia 2520 tablet are not
included in the recall.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/UefT7l

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at AT&T
and Verizon Wireless authorized dealers and retailers nationwide
and online and Verizon.com from January 2014 to May 2014 for about
$50.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chargers and
contact Nokia for instructions on receiving a full refund from
Verizon Wireless or a credit from AT&T for the travel chargers and
both will provide a free replacement U.S.-only charger for their
Nokia Lumia 2520 tablet.


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Rabbi's Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that, heeding a Supreme Court
reversal, the 9th Circuit refused to let a rabbi sue the airline
that penalized him for complaining too much.

Rabbi S. Binyomin Ginsberg had filed a class action against
Northwest, which Delta acquired in 2009, after it dismissed him
from the WorldPerks frequent-flier program.  The airline justified
its June 2008 expulsion of the rabbi based on his supposed "abuse"
of frequent-flying perks.

It wrote that the rabbi had complained 24 times in the last six
months about supposed travel problems, including nine incidents of
his bag arriving late at the luggage carousel.

"Since December 3, 2007, you have continually asked for
compensation over and above our guidelines," the letter stated.
"We have awarded you $1,925.00 in travel credit vouchers, 78,500
WorldPerks bonus miles, a voucher extension for your son, and
$491.00 in cash reimbursements. . . .  Due to our past generosity,
we must respectfully advise that we will no longer be awarding you
compensation each time you contact us."

Ginsberg claimed that the cancelation of his membership amounted
to breach of contract, bad faith and misrepresentation.  He sought
$5 million in damages, but U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino in
San Diego dismissed the case, finding that the Airline
Deregulation Act (ADA) pre-empted most of the rabbi's claims.  The
remaining contract claim meanwhile failed under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Though the 9th Circuit initially revived Ginsberg's bad-faith
claim in 2011, the Supreme Court deemed the case properly
dismissed this past April.

"When the application of the implied covenant depends on state
policy, a breach of implied covenant claim cannot be viewed as
simply an attempt to vindicate the parties' implicit understanding
of the contract," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.

"For these reasons, the breach of implied covenant claim in this
case cannot stand."

Alito had emphasized that a free-market economy protects the
rights of consumers, who can always enroll in rival programs that
they deem more favorable.  Ginsberg's breach-of-contract claim
alone did not give rise to pre-emption issues, but the court said
it could not consider that dismissal because the appeal concerned
only the bad-faith count.  Citing that reversal and "the resulting
judgment," the 9th Circuit affirmed dismissal of Ginsberg's claim.


OMNIAMERICAN BANCORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling
OmniAmerican Bancorp too cheaply through an unfair process to
Southside Bancshares, in a cash and stock deal valued at $307
million, shareholders claim in Baltimore City Court.


P F CHANG'S: Fails to Secure Costumer's Fin'l Data, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Kosner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
04923 (N.D. Ill., June 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to secure and safeguard its customers' personal
financial data, including credit and debit card information.

P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., is the largest full service,
casual dining Chinese restaurant chain in the United States, with
211 domestic and more than a dozen international locations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Kyle Alan Shamberg, Esq.
       Katrina Carroll, Esq.
       LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
       211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
       Chicago, IL 60606
       Telephone: (312) 750-1265
       E-mail: kshamberg@litedepalma.com
               kcarroll@litedepalma.com


P F CHANG'S: Allowed Hackers to Steal Customers' Info, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that lax security at P.F. Chang's China Bistro allowed hackers to
steal up to 7 million customers' credit and debit card numbers,
and the restaurant waited nine months to tell customers about the
security breach, a class action claims in Illinois Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff John Lewert sued P.F. Chang's China Bistro on
June 25, 2014.

The complaint states: "On June 12, 2014, P.F. Chang's disclosed a
data breach involving the theft of customers' credit-card and
debit-card data with an unknown number of compromised customer
accounts.  While the cause of the security breach is presently
uncertain, P.F. Chang's claims to have learned of the compromise
on June 10, 2014.  However, the security breach likely began as
far back as September of 2013 -- potentially impacting 7 million
credit and debit card accounts."

P.F. Chang's operates a full-service restaurant of the same name,
plus Pei Wei restaurants, both of which serve Chinese food.

"P.F. Chang's security failures enabled hackers to steal financial
data from within P.F. Chang's systems and, on information and
belief, subsequently make unauthorized purchases on customers'
credit cards and otherwise put class members' financial
information at serious and ongoing risk.  The hackers continue to
use the information they obtained as a result of P.F. Chang's
inadequate security to exploit and injure class members across the
United States," the complaint states.

"The security breach was caused and enabled by P.F. Chang's
knowing violation of its obligations to abide by best practices
and industry standards in protecting customers' personal
information.  P.F. Chang's failed to comply with security
standards and allowed their customers' financial information to be
compromised, all in an effort to save money by cutting corners on
security measures that could have prevented or mitigated the
Security Breach that occurred."

Lewert claims that P.F. Chang's failed to notify customers of the
security breach until June, leaving them unable to protect their
financial information in a timely manner.

He wants P.F. Chang's to pay for three years worth of credit card
monitoring services for all class members, plus punitive damages
for breach of implied contract, and violations of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Gregg M. Barbakoff, Esq.
          Gregory W. Jones, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 267-1906
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  gbarbakoff@siprut.com
                  gjones@siprut.com

The case is John Lewert, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-04787, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.


PHH MORTGAGE: Sued in N.J. Over Intrusive Telemarketing Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip J. Charvat on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-04165
(D.N.J., June 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for the
proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices.

PHH Mortgage Corporation provides mortgage outsourcing solution.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Steven Arons, Esq.
      ARONS & ARONS LLC
      76 South Orange Avenue, Suite 100
      South Orange, NJ 07079
      Telephone: (973) 762-0795
      E-mail: ja@aronslaw.net


PHOENIX IMPORTS: Recalls Mock Sword Fireworks Due to Impact
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Phoenix Imports, of Fort Mill, South Carolina, announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,040 units Big Sword Fountain Devices.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The handheld fountain device can unexpectedly explode, posing a
risk of impact and burn to the user.

The firm has received two reports of the fountain exploding while
in use.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Big Sword fireworks devices.  The mock sword
is a handheld fountain that is intended to emit sparks from the
tip of the sword.  The blue and yellow sword has the Big Fireworks
logo and the words "Big Sword" printed on the front.  A yellow
cardboard tag attached to the handle of the device has "Big Sword"
and a caution statement printed on it.  The sword measures 30
inches and has model number 3609 printed above the product's
barcode.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/a8HAP1

The recalled products were manufactured in China sold at Big
Fireworks retailers and wholesale distributors nationwide from
April 2014 to June 2014 for about $13.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled fireworks
devices and return them to the place of purchase to receive a full
refund.


PREMIUM LAWN: Does Not Pay Workers Overtime, "Medrano" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saul Medrano, Jose Yarza, and Richard Yarza, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated persons, known and
unknown v. Premium Lawn Services, LLC, and Leroy J. Holetzky, JR.,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-04914 (N.D. Ill., June 30, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Premium Lawn Services, LLC, provides lawn care and landscaping
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Raisa Alicea, Esq.
       CONSUMER LAW GROUP
       6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
       Chicago, IL 60646
       Telephone: (312) 878-1263
       E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


PROTECTIVE LIFE: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that directors are selling
Protective Life Corp. too cheaply through an unfair process to
Dai-Ichi Life Insurance Co., for $70 a share or $5.7 billion,
shareholders claim in Jefferson County Court in Birmingham, Ala.


REDBOX: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Collecting Customers' ZIP Codes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Redbox did not violate California law by requiring customers to
provide a ZIP code to rent DVDs, a divided panel of the 9th
Circuit ruled.

With some 30,000 self-service kiosks around the country, movie-
and game-renting service Redbox is owned by Outerwall, which also
controls Coinstar and ecoATM device-recycling stations.  Redbox
brought the company $515.7 million last quarter, up 1.5 percent
from 2013.

Hoping to represent a class in federal court, John Sinibaldi and
Nicolle DiSimone claimed that Redbox Automated Retail violated
California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act by collecting its
customers' personal information.

U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Nguyen dismissed the case in Los
Angeles and the Pasadena-based federal appeals court affirmed,
2-1.  Transactions in which a credit card is being used as a
deposit against loss or damage are exempt from the law, the
majority found.

"The Redbox transaction fits within that exception," Judge Richard
Clifton wrote for the majority.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt dissented based on his view that "the
credit card is being used, as pleaded in the complaint, to secure
the charges that constitute the primary agreement between the
customer and Redbox, charges that are therefore unrelated to
'default, loss, damage, or similar occurrence.'"

Redbox escaped a somewhat similar class action in 2012 when the
7th Circuit dismissed claims that the company illegally stored and
distributed customers' personal information.

Though Redbox profits jumped 11.7 percent last quarter, with its
kiosks generating about 200 million rentals, up 1.2 percent from
its first-quarter performance in 2013, Outerwall cut 251 jobs in
December and slashed three of emerging kiosk outfits, GeekWire
reported.


REEBOK-CCM: Recalls Throat Collars Due to Laceration Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Reebok-CCM of Montpelier, Vt., announced a voluntary recall of
about 3,300 in the United States and 8,100 in Canada Reebok TCPRE
Senior and Junior Goalie Throat Collars.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Throat collars have been decertified by BNQ in Canada due to the
risk that a skate blade could penetrate the collar, posing a
laceration hazard to the throat.

Reebok-CCM has received no reports of product-related injuries or
complaints from consumers or retailers.

The recalled Reebok TCPRE Senior (SR) and Junior (JR) Goalie
Throat Collars are black with white trim and the word "Reebok" is
embroidered at the base of the collar.  They have the BNQ
certification mark screen printed and the words "Ballistic Nylon
Ballistique", "TCPRE SR or JR" and sizing information on the right
side of the collar base.  Affected products have the model number
K101SR TCPRE or K101JR TCPRE located on the label sewn on the
inside of each throat collar pad and on the outside of a polybag
in which the product may have been sold at retail stores.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/rLP9yS

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
retail stores nationwide from April 2012 through May 2014, for
about $50 for the SR model and $40 for the JR model.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled throat
collars and contact their local hockey dealer to return the
product for a full refund or replacement, or contact Reebok-CCM
for information on how to return the product directly to Reebok-
CCM for a replacement or full refund.


ROLAND CORPORATION: Recalls Pianos Due to Electrical Shock Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Roland Corporation U.S., of Los Angeles, announced a voluntary
recall of 640 Digital Electric Piano.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The AC power cord can be connected to the XLR output jacks, posing
an electrical shock hazard.

Roland received one report of a consumer connecting the power cord
to an XLR output jack.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Roland model RD-800 Electronic Digital Pianos.
The recalled product is an electronic piano keyboard that is 55
inches wide, 14.5 inches deep and 5.5 inches high.  It is black
and has 88 black and white keys.  The front of the piano has a
control panel with a color liquid crystal display (LCD) in the
center.  Pianos within the following serial number ranges are
being recalled:

Z6D0015 to Z6D0019
Z7D0174 to Z7D0423
Z8D1 056 to Z8D1255
Z9D2131 to Z9D2333

The model number is on the front left of the piano.  "Roland" and
the model number are in large type on the back of the piano.  The
serial number and model number are on a data plate on the right
side of the rear of the piano between the XLR output connectors
and the AC IN connector.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/Ee3ycO

The recalled products were manufactured in Japan and Indonesia and
sold at American Musical Supply Inc., Cascio Interstate, Full
Compass Systems Ltd, Guitar Center Inc., Kraft Keyboard Center,
Musicians Friend Inc., Sam Ash Inc. and Sweetwater Sound Inc.
stores nationwide from Jan. 2014 to April 2014 for about $3,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the pianos, unplug the
power cord from the wall outlet and the piano and contact Roland
U.S. for a free repair kit or to locate an authorized dealer or
service center to have the repair kit installed free of charge.


ROSS STORES: Still Faces Collective Suit as at Quarter Ended May
----------------------------------------------------------------
Like many California retailers, Ross Stores, Inc. has been named
in class action lawsuits alleging violation of wage and hour and
other employment laws. Class action litigation remains pending as
of May 3, 2014, according to the company's June 11, 2014, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 3, 2014.


SCOTT USA: Recalls Bicycles with SR Suntour Front Forks
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Scott USA Inc. of Ketchum, Idaho and Trek Bicycle Corp., of
Waterloo, Wis., announced a voluntary recall of about 5,200 forks
on Scott bicycles and about 120,000 forks on Trek bicycles.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The front fork can break, posing a crash hazard.

Scott has received one report of a broken SR Suntour fork.  No
injuries were reported.  Trek has received 28 reports of broken
forks.  Five injuries have been reported, including minor bruises,
a separated shoulder and broken bones.

The recall involves SR Suntour front forks on 13 models of Scott
and 11 models of Trek 2011, 2012 and 2013 bicycles.

Recalled Scott bicycles have 700c wheels, disc brakes and one of
the following Suntour front fork models: NEX or NCX.  Bicycle
model names and numbers are on the main frame of each bicycle in a
location that varies by model.  The model year can be identified
by the color scheme of the bicycle frame.  The fork's model name
is printed on the outer sides of the fork.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and Taiwan and
sold at bicycle stores nationwide from Oct. 2010 to Nov. 2013 for
between $450 and $1,100 for Scott bicycles and from May 2010 to
June 2014 for between $600 and $1,370 for Trek bicycles.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles.
Consumers with recalled Scott bicycles should take them to an
authorized Scott dealer for a free repair of the NEX model or a
free replacement lower fork for the NCX model.  Consumers with
recalled Trek bicycles should take them to an authorized Trek
dealer for a free repair of NEX, XCM and XCT models or a free
replacement of the NRX model.


SONY ELECTRONICS: Recalls VAIO Flip PC Laptops Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Sony Electronics Inc. of San Diego, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of 680 personal computers.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The computers' lithium-ion batteries can overheat, posing fire and
burn hazards.

Sony is aware of four incidents, which occurred in Asia, of
computers overheating, resulting in units smoking, catching on
fire and melting.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall includes Sony's VAIO Flip PC laptops with model number
(product name) SVF11N13CXS.  The computers were sold in three
colors silver, black and pink.  They have a Panasonic-manufactured
lithium-ion battery and a folding touch screen that measures about
11.6 inches diagonally and a backlit keyboard.  The VAIO logo is
etched on the outer top of the computer, near the hinge.  The
model and serial numbers are printed on a black label with white
lettering on the underside of the screen.  To locate the label,
consumers should open the computer, move the switch from the lock
to the release position and flip the display.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/dYJs0y

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Sony
retail stores nationwide and online from Feb. 2014 to April 2014
for about $800.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled personal
computers, shut it down and unplug it; and contact Sony for
instructions on how to arrange for an inspection free of charge to
the consumer and a free repair or full refund of the computer's
purchase price.


SONY MUSIC: Faces Class Action from Michael Jackson's Fan
---------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
by representing that the King of Pop sang on three tracks on
"Michael," the 2010 posthumous album of previously unreleased
material, Sony Music Entertainment defrauded Michael Jackson fans,
a woman claims in court.

In a class action complaint for violation of consumer laws, unfair
competition and fraud, Vera Serova claims that she bought a CD of
"Michael" in 2011, believing that Jackson had performed vocals on
the tracks "Breaking News," "Monster" and "Keep Your Head Up."
The songs are described in the complaint as the Cascio tracks,
named for the family in whose basement studio Jackson is said to
have recorded them.  Serova questions, however, whether he
actually performed on the tracks.

Sony Music Entertainment represented that Jackson performed on the
tracks as did Edward Cascio and James Porte, both of whom
allegedly co-authored the three songs with Jackson, according to
the complaint.  Serova also names MJJ Productions and Angelikson
Productions as defendants, and John Branca, the co-executor of
Jackson's estate.

"On November 5, 2010, Sony responded to the questions regarding
the authenticity of the Cascio tracks by stating 'We have complete
confidence in the results of our extensive research as well as the
accounts of those who were in the studio with Michael that the
vocals on the new album are his own,'" the June 12 lawsuit states.

Later that year, an attorney for Jackson's estate allegedly
released a statement citing expert testimony of Jackson's
producers, musical director, two forensic musicologists and others
who claimed that Jackson sang on the three tracks.  But record
producer Cory Rooney and Jackson's nephew Taryll Jackson have said
that several of Jackson's producers and engineers agree that
Jackson did not perform on the songs, according to the complaint.
Upon learning of the competing opinions, Serova says she hired
audio expert Dr. George Papcun to analyze the tracks.

"After comprehensive assessment, Dr. Papcun prepared a report and
concluded that it was very likely that Michael Jackson did not
sing the lead vocals on the Cascio tracks.  Counsel subsequently
had Dr. Papcun's expert report peer reviewed by another well-
credentialed independent audio expert who concluded that
Dr. Papcun's methodologies and conclusions were reasonable," the
complaint states.

Serova wants class certification for consumers who bought
"Michael," or purchased the songs on iTunes or on a collection of
Jackson's music released in 2013.

She seeks an injunction, attorneys' fees, restitution, punitive
damages and costs.

Ray Gallo of San Rafael firm Gallo filed the lawsuit on her
behalf.


STATE FARM: Removed "Wilcox" Suit to Minnesota District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Wilcox, et al. v. State Farm Fire
and Casualty Company from the District Court of Dakota County,
Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-
02798-RHK-FLN to the proceeding.

The Complaint purports to assert individual and class claims
against State Farm for breach of contract, for violations of
Minnesota Statutes, and for a declaratory judgment.  The
Plaintiffs purport to allege claims allowing for the recovery of
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees, as well as injunctive
and declaratory relief.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kelly A. Lelo, Esq.
          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          30 E 7th St., Suite 2800
          St Paul, MN 55101-4922
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          Facsimile: (651) 312-6618
          E-mail: klelo@larsonking.com
                  sraiter@larsonking.com
                  jsnodgrass@larsonking.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Todd A. Noteboom, Esq.
          W. Anders Folk, Esq.
          Jeffrey G. Mason, Esq.
          STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
          150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 335-1500
          Facsimile: (612) 335-1657
          E-mail: todd.noteboom@stinsonleonard.com
                  anders.folk@stinsonleonard.com
                  jeffrey.mason@stinsonleonard.com


TELEXELECTRIC LLLP: Faces "Githere" Suit Over Pyramid Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Reverend Jeremiah Githere, Joseph Shikhman, and Christopher
McCormick, individually and as putative class representatives and
those similarly situated v. Telexelectric, LLLP, Telex Mobile,
Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-12825 (D. Mass., June 30,
2014), alleges that the Defendants carried out an unlawful,
unfair, and deceptive pyramid Ponzi scheme.

Telexelectric, LLLP, is a multi-level marketing company selling
local and international telephone service plans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq.
      BONSIGNORE, LLC
      193 Plummer Hill Road
      Belmont, NH 03220
      Telephone: (781) 856-7650
      E-mail: rbonsignore@class-actions.us


TEXAS: Group Files Class Suit Over Deficient Language Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
English as a Second Language courses in Texas middle and high
schools are so poorly supervised that students "continue to
perform abysmally," the League of United Latin American Citizens
claims in a federal class action.

LULAC sued the state, Texas Education Agency Commissioner Michael
Williams and two San Antonio-area school districts -- Southwest
Independent School District and North East Independent School
District.

LULAC claims English language learner (ELL) students across the
state perform so poorly "due to the grossly deficient language
programs" at the local level and that the state fails to monitor
and intervene effectively in failing programs.

"Consequently, tens of thousands of ELL students across Texas are
not acquiring English proficiency as required under the Equal
Educational Opportunities Act and little is being done about it,"
the 27-page complaint states.

The suit is a continuation of a 2006 lawsuit that made similar
allegations against the Texas Education Agency.

A federal trial judge ruled in LULAC's favor in 2008, but the 5th
Circuit reversed two years later, concluding that the agency's
monitoring had been in effect for only two years and needed more
time.

LULAC's attorney, David G. Hinojosa with the Mexican American
Legal Defense and Education Fund in San Antonio, said that the 5th
Circuit remanded instead of dismissing it outright because of the
"alarming" performance of ELL students.

The New Orleans-based appeals court suggested LULAC add school
districts to the lawsuit to better assess fault for the poor
performances, Hinojosa said.

"When one out of every two long-term ELL students is not advancing
in English today, this shows that things have not changed,"
Hinojosa said in a statement.  "This lawsuit should be the wake-up
call that is needed to spur positive, affirmative action by the
school districts and the state of Texas once and for all."

LULAC claims the two defendant school districts do not have well-
trained, ESL-certified teachers in secondary schools.  Neither
school district provides essential materials and textbooks for the
ESL programs, not do they give teachers necessary resources to
implement effective programs, according to the complaint.

"Statewide, a large percentage of ELL students who are reported to
have attended U.S. schools for six or more years did not progress
at least one proficiency level on the TELPAS [Texas English
Language Proficiency Assessment System] from 2013 to 2014," the
complaint states.  "According to the 2014 TELPAS Statewide
Preliminary Summary Report, more than one out of every two ELL
students (56%) in grades three through twelve failed to advance at
least one proficiency level."

Southwest Independent School District spokeswoman Adriana Garcia
said that her school district has not been served.  "We believe in
the education of all students from all backgrounds and we look
forward to sharing our academic progress," Garcia said.

Brian Gottardy, North East Independent School District
superintendent, said that the school district had not been served
with the lawsuit yet.  He said his district is "fully committed to
equal educational opportunities for all students."

LULAC seeks a declaration that the state's ESL monitoring is
insufficient under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act and an
injunction imposing corrections.


TEXAS: Muslim-Discriminating Policy to Stay, Supreme Court Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
a Texas prison policy found to discriminate against Muslim inmates
will remain in effect pending the state's appeal, the U.S. Supreme
Court said.

The order issued late on June 25, 2014, comes in the 1969 class
action that an inmate named Bobby Brown brought over the treatment
of Muslim inmates in Texas.

Brown's challenge led to a 1977 consent decree that requires the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice or TDCJ to treat Muslim
inmates the same as it treats adherents of Catholic, Protestant
and Jewish faiths.  Among other things, the consent decree
required Texas to include copies of the Quran in prison libraries,
hire five Muslim chaplains, provide pork-free diets, and let
adherents possess Islamic literature and keepsakes.

After the TDCJ moved to terminate the consent decree in August
2012, automatically staying several of its provisions, the
department implemented a new policy against inmate gatherings in
groups of more than four for religious services unless a guard,
chaplain or outside volunteer is present.  The change effectively
reduced religious services for Muslim inmates to one hour a week
based on the availability, or lack thereof, of Muslim chaplains
and volunteers.  Inmates belonging to other faiths meanwhile
continued to enjoy the weekly average of six hours of religious
activities because they had more volunteers and chaplains
available.

Finding that the new policy effectively prohibited Muslim inmates
from practicing this tenant of their faith, U.S. District Judge
Kenneth Hoyt refused on April 30 to terminate the consent decree.
The ruling reinstated three provisions of the consent decree and
enjoined application of the new policies to Muslim and Jehovah's
Witness inmates.

Though Hoyt refused to stay his decision pending the state's
appeal, the 5th Circuit granted such a stay on May 27.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined late on June 25, 2014, to vacate
that stay.


TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Inks MoU to Settle Lawsuit Over Martin Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Industries, Inc. entered into an Memorandum of Understanding
to settle a shareholder lawsuit filed against it in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas over its
merger with Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., according to TXI's
June 11, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Following announcement of the Merger Agreement, a purported
stockholder of TXI filed a putative class action lawsuit against
TXI and members of the TXI board, and against Martin Marietta and
one of its affiliates (collectively, the "Defendants"), in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
(the "Court"), captioned Maxine Phillips, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Texas Industries, Inc.,
et al., Case 3:14-cv-00740-B (the "Phillips Action").  The
plaintiff in the Phillips Action (the "Plaintiff") alleges in an
amended complaint, among other things, (i) that members of the TXI
board breached their fiduciary duties to TXI's stockholders by
failing to fully disclose material information regarding the
proposed transaction and by adopting the Merger Agreement for
inadequate consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process,
(ii) that Martin Marietta and one of Martin Marietta's affiliates
aided and abetted the TXI board in their alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty and (iii) that the Registration Statement on Form
S-4 filed with the SEC on March 21, 2014 in connection with the
Merger contains certain material misstatements and omissions in
violation of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
Plaintiff seeks, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining
TXI and Martin Marietta from proceeding with the Merger,
rescission in the event the Merger is consummated, damages and an
award of attorneys' and other fees and costs.

On June 10, 2014, counsel for the Defendants entered into the MOU
with counsel for the Plaintiff pursuant to which Martin Marietta
and TXI have agreed to make the disclosures concerning the Merger.
The MOU also provides that, solely for purposes of settlement, the
Court will certify a class consisting of all persons who were
record or beneficial shareholders of TXI at any time between March
25, 2013 and the consummation of the Merger (the "Class").  In
addition, the MOU provides that, subject to approval by the Court
after notice to the members of the Class (the "Class Members"),
the Phillips Action will be dismissed with prejudice and all
claims, including derivative claims, that the Class Members may
possess with regard to the Merger will be released.  In connection
with the settlement, the Plaintiff's counsel has expressed its
intention to seek an award by the Court of attorneys' fees and
expenses.  The amount of the award to the Plaintiff's counsel will
ultimately be determined by the Court.  This payment will not
affect the amount of merger consideration to be received by any
TXI stockholder in the Merger.  There can be no assurance that the
parties will ultimately enter into a definitive stipulation of
settlement or that the Court will approve the settlement.  In the
absence of either event, the proposed settlement as contemplated
by the MOU may be terminated.

The Defendants each have denied, and continue to deny, that they
have committed or aided and abetted in the commission of any
violation of law or breaches of duty or engaged in any of the
alleged wrongful acts and the Defendants expressly maintain that
they diligently and scrupulously complied with their fiduciary,
disclosure and other legal duties.  The Defendants are entering
into the MOU and the contemplated settlement solely to eliminate
the risk, burden and expense of further litigation.  Nothing in
the MOU, any settlement agreement or any public filing, is or
shall be deemed to be an admission of the legal necessity of
filing or the materiality under applicable laws of any of the
additional information or in any public filing associated with the
proposed settlement of the Phillips Action.


TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit Over Martin Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Industries, Inc. is facing a shareholder lawsuit in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York over
its merger with Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., according to
TXI's June 11, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On May 30, 2014, a purported stockholder of Martin Marietta filed
a putative class action lawsuit against Martin Marietta and
members of the Martin Marietta board, and against TXI, in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York,
captioned City Trading Fund, on Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. C. Howard Nye, et al., Index No. 651668/2014
(the "City Trading Fund Action").  The plaintiff in the City
Trading Fund Action alleges that Martin Marietta and its board
members breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose
material information in the Definitive Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, and that TXI aided and abetted such breach.
The plaintiff in the City Trading Fund Action seeks, among other
things, injunctive relief enjoining TXI and Martin Marietta from
proceeding with the Merger absent additional disclosures, damages
and an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs.  Martin
Marietta and TXI believe the lawsuit is without merit.


TILLY'S INC: Faces Amended Claim Over Customer Info Disclosure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit against Tilly's, Inc. over its alleged
request for customer personal identification information have
amended a complaint and discovery is in the early stages,
according to the company's June 11, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 3, 2014.

Kristin Christiansen and Shellie Smith, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated vs. World of Jeans & Tops,
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, Case No. 34-
2013-00139010 . On January 29, 2013, the plaintiffs in this matter
filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company alleging
violations of California Civil Code Section 1747.08, which
prohibits requesting or requiring personal identification
information from a customer paying for goods with a credit card
and recording such information, subject to exceptions. In June
2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to strike portions of
the plaintiffs' complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to amend.
Plaintiffs have amended the complaint and discovery is in the
early stages. The complaint seeks certification of a class,
unspecified damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.


TILLY'S INC: Seeks to Compel Arbitration in Cal. Labor Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. has appealed the denial of a motion to compel
arbitration in a labor suit filed by Maria Rebolledo in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange,
according to the company's June 11, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 3, 2014.

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


TRANE US: Recalls Air Conditioning Systems Due to Shock Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Trane U.S. Inc., of Tyler, Texas, announced a voluntary recall of
about 100,600 Trane XB300 and American Standard Silver SI Air
Conditioning Systems.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The ground screws used in some units do not have the two threads
required to provide sufficient grounding, posing a shock hazard to
consumers.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves 37 models of Trane XB300 and American Standard
brand Silver SI split system outdoor cooling units.  The units are
gray and have a black grated front.  The units were sold in two
sizes: 25.5 inches deep by 23.5 inches wide by 28.83 inches tall
and 28.83 inches deep by 28.48 inches wide by 29.28 inches tall.
The Trane or American Standard logo is affixed to the front and
model numbers are printed on the silver nameplate on the back of
the unit.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/O893NT

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold through
Trane and American Standard independent distributors and dealers
nationwide from Feb. 2010 to March 2014 for between $890 and
$1,000.

Consumers should immediately turn off the cooling unit via the
main breaker switch and check the model information.  Consumers
with recalled air conditioning systems should contact Trane or
their installer or service dealer for instructions on scheduling a
free inspection and repair.


TWININGS NORTH: Removed "Craig" Suit to Arkansas District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Craig v. Twinings North America,
Inc., Case No. CV14-928-4, was removed from the Washington County
Circuit Court to the U. S. District Court for the Western District
of Arkansas (Fayetteville).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 5:14-cv-05214-TLB to the proceeding.

Jenny Craig brought the action on behalf of a statewide class of
Arkansas consumers, who purchased any Twinings tea products
labeled with the nutrient claim "Natural source of antioxidants,"
"Tea is a natural source of antioxidants."  She contends that the
claims on the labels are false and unlawful.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth R. Shemin, Esq.
          SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603
          Rogers, AR 72758
          Telephone: (479) 845-3305
          Facsimile: (479) 845-2198
          E-mail: ken@sheminlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
          E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kevin A. Crass, Esq.
          FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK
          2000 Regions Center
          400 West Capitol Avenue
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3493
          Telephone: (501) 376-2011
          Facsimile: (501) 376-2147
          E-mail: crass@fridayfirm.com


UNITED STATES: Interior Dep't Sued for Swindling Royalties
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. government turned its back on the descendants of freed
slaves of Native Americans, swindling them out of lucrative land
royalties allotted to them as children, a class action claims in
Federal Court in Washington, according to Ryan Abbott at
Courthouse News Service.

Leatrice Tanner-Brown and the Harvest Institute Freedman
Federation sued Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewel and
Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Kevin Washburn, seeking an
accounting of revenue from leases on land promised to children of
Freedmen, who were liberated by members of the so-called "Five
Civilized Indian Tribes."

According to the complaint: "The Five Civilized Tribes allied
themselves with the Confederacy during the Civil War and attempted
to maintain slaves following the War.  As a result of the Tribes'
disloyalty to the United States during the Civil War all territory
owned by the Tribes was forfeited.  The status of the Tribes was
reestablished under treaties entered in 1866."

Some of the forfeited land was allotted to the freed slaves and
their descendants.

The Department of Interior in 1908 agreed to keep track of revenue
from leases on land granted to Freedmen minors or their
descendants.

"Notwithstanding demand from plaintiffs for an accounting of
revenue from leases on restricted lands during the period that
these lands were held by Freedmen minors and not subject to
alienation, defendants have failed to provide the requested
accounting," the complaint states.

"Under the Act of May 27, 1908, restrictions against alienation of
Freedmen allotments . . . were not removed. Accordingly, any
royalties derived from leases on [Freedmen] allotments should have
been accounted for by the Department of Interior under the terms
of the Sections 2 and 6 of the 1908 Act," according to the
complaint.  "These failures were not innocent.  They were the
result of a deliberate strategy to swindle land and money from
Freedmen."

The claims says many of these allotments were for oil-rich land,
and the government allowed grafters and speculators "anxious to
obtain oil-rich lands for little or no payment to allottees" to
exploit the often unsophisticated and uneducated Freedmen.

According to the complaint, there were 23,405 Freedmen in 1914.

"Defendants breached their duty to avoid conflicts of interests
and to monitor Freedmen allotments in favor of alienation of
European settlers, Oklahoma statehood, and corporate interests,"
the class claims.

They want an accounting of money collected from the allotted lands
and declaration of the government's fiduciary duties.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul A. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          5 N 3rd St., Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103-2698


VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Faces "Graiser" Suit Over Deceptive Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott Graiser, 3626 Bendemeer Road, Cleveland, Ohio 44118 v.
Visionworks of America, Inc., c/o CT Corporation System, 1300 E.
Ninth St., Cleveland, Ohio 44114, Case No. CV-14-828880 (Ohio Ct.
of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty., June 24, 2014) is a class action
lawsuit purely for injunctive relief brought under the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act's private enforcement provisions.

The case is brought on behalf of a class of consumers, who shop
and may shop online or at one of Visionworks' 12 Ohio stores
offering optical products.  The Plaintiff contends that
Visionworks' "Buy One Get One Free" advertisements are deceptive.

Visionworks of America, Inc., is a Texas corporation headquartered
in San Antonio, Texas.  Visionworks is an eye care corporation,
owning and operating more than 620 optical retail stores in 40
states and the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Schlachet, Esq.
          3515 Severn Road
          Cleveland, Ohio 44118
          Telephone: (216) 225-7559
          Facsimile: (216) 514-6406
          E-mail: mschlachet@gmail.com


WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Action Over Sharing Video Viewing Records
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the Disney Channel application on the Roku streaming device shares
information on viewing habits with third parties without users'
consent, a man claims in a federal class action.

James Robinson accuses The Walt Disney Company of "brazen
disregard" of the Video Privacy Protection Act, under which it is
unlawful for companies to share customer's video viewing records
without permission.

"Unbeknownst to its users, each time they use the Disney Channel
to watch Disney videos or television shows, Disney discloses their
personally identifiable information -- including a record of every
video clip viewed by the user (collectively, 'PII') -- to
unrelated third parties," according to the complaint in Manhattan
Federal Court.

Robinson calls the violations "particularly flagrant," and says
users' records are sent to a data analytics company Adobe.

"The business models of such 'big data' analytics companies center
on the collection of disparate pieces of uniquely identifying
information and online behavioral data about individual consumers,
which they then compile to form comprehensive profiles about a
person's entire digital life.  These profiles can then be used for
targeted advertising, sold as a commodity to other data brokers,
or both," the complaint states.

According to Robinson, Roku states in its privacy policy that it
shares information about consumers too.

"Accordingly, in this context Adobe may use data obtained from
both the Disney Channel and Roku to personally identify its users
and associate their video viewing selections with a personalized
profile in its databases," the lawsuit states.

Robinson, who lives in New York state, seeks class certification,
an injunction and statutory damages.

He is represented by Fred Weinstein with Kurzman Eisenberg Corbin
& Lever of White Plains, N.Y.


WE SECURITY: Faces "Al-Salman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hassan A. Al-Salman, and all others similarly situated v. We
Security, Inc.; Western Eagle Security; Amerom, Inc.; Ameron,
Inc.; osama M. Malak; Mohammad M. Malak; Mazen M. Malak; And Rim
Mazan Malak, Case No. 4:14-cv-01813 (S.D. Tex., June 29, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Western Eagle Security, Amerom, Inc., and Ameron, Inc., are Texas
corporations that provide security personnel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
     One Arena Place
     7322 Southwest Frwy, Suite 1920,
     Houston, TX 77074
     Telephone: (713) 223-1300
     Facsimile: (713) 255-0013
     E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


WINCO: Recalls Contraband 24 Canister Shell Fireworks Kit
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Winco Fireworks International LLC, of Prairie Village, Kan.,
announced a voluntary recall of 4,500 Canister shell fireworks
kits.  Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The shell can blow up in the tube during firing, posing impact and
burn hazards to the user and bystanders.

The firm has received two reports of the firing tubes being too
narrow, including one report of a shell blowing up in a tube and
causing minor burns and cuts to the legs of a store employee.

The recall involves Contraband 24 fireworks kits with canister
shells and firing tubes that are designed to be used multiple
times.  Shells are put into each tube one by one and lit.  The
shells are about 1 1/4 inches in diameter.  The tubes in some kits
may be too narrow and not allow the shell to drop to the bottom of
the tube when loaded.  When fired, the shell can blow a hole in
the tube.  Each kit contains 24 60-gram shells with fuses attached
and four fiberglass firing tubes with wooden bases.  The kit came
in a brown cardboard box about 28 inches tall, 9 inches wide and
about 5 inches deep.  The front of the box has the words
"Contraband 24," "24 Cannister Shells," "Maximum Powder Load"
printed in black and red.  The front also has a warning stating
the product should only be used under close adult supervision and
outdoors.  Model number JP-933 is printed on the left front of the
box above the warning.  The back of the box has color photos and
descriptions the effect each shell should create.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/hsEiR6

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Pyro
City and other fireworks retailers from February 2014 to June 2014
for about $80.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled fireworks
kits and return them to the place of purchase to receive a full
refund.


ZAMIAS SERVICES: Violates Disabilities Act, Class Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Mielo, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Zamias Services Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-
00142-KRG (W.D. Pa. July 7, 2014) is brought pursuant to The
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Budd Co. To Get Personal Injury Claimants' Panel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge Jack B. Schmetterer green-lighted the appointment
of an Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants in
the Chapter 11 case of The Budd Company, Inc.

An Ad Hoc Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants filed
the request.  Budd Co. objected.  Joinders in the Debtor's
objection were filed by Thyssenkrupp North America, Inc., the
Debtor's parent; and The Committee of Executive & Administrative
Retirees.

By letter dated April 16, 2014, counsel for the Ad Hoc committee
requested the U.S. Trustee to appoint an official committee of
asbestos personal injury claimants.  By a letter dated May 7,
2014, the U.S. Trustee declined the request.  The U.S. Trustee has
not appointed an official committee of general unsecured
creditors.

According to the Court, the Movant has met its burden to show that
the asbestos claimants are not adequately represented in this case
and that the cost to the estate of appointing the proposed
committee is justified.  Most important is the consideration that
an Asbestos Committee will be able to obtain sophisticated expert
to supply information helpful in evaluating the necessary plan
treatment of asbestos claims."

The Debtor ceased all manufacturing activities in 2006 and is said
to have no current employees.  The Debtor filed this bankruptcy
case to liquidate its assets in an orderly manner and dispose of
creditor claims.  It asserts that its significant case assets
likely will be insufficient to satisfy its long-term liabilities,
most of which are owed to its retirees.

The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America acts as the authorized
representative for the Debtor's union retirees, and the Retiree
Committee represents the interests of the Debtor's non-union
retirees.

Although the Debtor has some environmental and asbestos related
liabilities, the vast majority of the Debtor's creditors are its
former employees, and the vast majority of the Debtor's
liabilities (by dollar amount) arise from medical, pension, and
other post-retirement obligations owed to its former employees.
The Debtor estimates that the retiree benefit and pension
obligations for union and non-union retirees comprise
approximately 97% of the Debtor's total liabilities. However, the
Debtor also estimates the value of its asbestos liabilities to be
approximately $23 million net of insurance coverage.

According to Brian Bastien's (CEO and President of Debtor)
Declaration, as of the Petition Date, the Debtor had approximately
$384 million in cash and had, as of September 30, 2013, book-value
liabilities of approximately $1.2 billion.  The Debtor appears to
have claims against TKNA to fund pension and health claims and a
motion is pending to approve an agreement to resolve these claims.

In its Schedules, Debtor scheduled approximately 578 creditors
holding asbestos claims, as disputed, contingent and unliquidated.
In Bastien's Declaration, the Debtor notes that there are
approximately 356 pending asbestos personal injury claimants with
claims valued by the Debtor at $23 million net of insurance
coverage. In an April 28, 2014 letter, the Debtor's counsel states
that, as of the Petition Date, the Debtor was a defendant in 336
such actions.

The Ad Hoc committee states that it consists of lawyers
representing more than 950 asbestos personal injury claimants
holding claims which the Committee asserts to be valued at $50
million.

According to the Debtor, "as of September 30, 2013, the book value
of its asbestos liabilities comprised less than 2% of the book
value of its total liabilities," and "approximately 50% of this
book value is a reserve for defense costs."

According to the Bankruptcy Court, even at the Ad Hoc committee's
estimated value the asbestos claims would be only approximately 4%
of the unsecured claims, but they require a reorganization plan to
deal in some way with the net value of these claims in excess of
insurance coverage.

The U.S. Trustee argues that the asbestos claims are speculative,
contingent and unliquidated, and cites to the April 28, 2014
letter from the Debtor's counsel as the source for its belief that
"historically 95% of such claims have been dismissed without
payment and the remaining actions have generally settled for less
than $5,000."

The Ad Hoc committee asserts that the Debtor has underestimated
its asbestos liability, while the Debtor asserts that the Ad Hoc
committee has overestimated the Debtor's liability after
insurance.

The Ad Hoc committee contends that, absent the formation of an
official committee, it will be difficult for asbestos claimants to
have any meaningful participation in the case.  The Ad Hoc
committee cites the claimants' age, health and dispersion across
the country as a reason for their inability to individually
participate in the case.  It also argues that the claimants are of
modest means, and while they are able to retain personal injury
counsel on a contingent fee basis, they cannot pay the hourly
charges of bankruptcy counsel.

The Debtor argues that even without appointment of an official
committee, the asbestos claimants may continue to monitor and
participate in the case.  The Debtor further argues that the
Movant members have many years of asbestos litigation experience,
and several firms represented by such members have significant
experience in Chapter 11 cases as well (citing as examples Steven
Kazan as one such member who advertises bankruptcy experience in
his firm biography and Peter G. Angelos as one such member
involved in a successful bankruptcy appeal before the Second
Circuit).  The Debtor also contends that there are more than
10,000 retirees who are also elderly and who rely upon the Debtor
for their benefits and health care.

But, in contrast to the asbestos claimants, the 10,000 retirees
cited by the Debtor have representative voices in the case through
the Retiree Committee, the UAW and the PBGC.  The Ad Hoc committee
is comprised of seven lawyers, but not all attorneys and firms
that represent individual asbestos claimants.  To require each
attorney for all claimants to participate in the case will likely
become chaotic and opens the risk of inequitable treatment
depending on the sophistication and experience in bankruptcy of
the particular counsel.  Instead, the Court has determined that it
would benefit the asbestos claimants and the bankruptcy process to
have one voice represent all asbestos claimants.

No plan has been filed in this case and at this early state the
Debtor has not indicated how it plans to handle the asbestos
claims.

The Bankruptcy Judge held that the Debtor may or may not propose a
trust under 11 U.S.C. 524(g).  Because this is a liquidating case,
the asbestos claims will not "pass through" the bankruptcy to
allow the claimants to have the ability to seek recovery from a
reorganized Debtor entity.  The Debtor must propose some treatment
of the asbestos claims.

A copy of the Court's July 7, 2014 Memorandum Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/xH0HlBfrom Leagle.com.

The Budd Company, Inc., a former supplier to the automotive
industry, filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. N.D.
Ill. Case No. 14-11873) on March 31, 2014, with a deal to settle
potential claims against its parent, ThyssenKrupp AG.

The company -- which ceased manufacturing operations in 2006 and
does not have any current employees, facilities or customers --
has obligations consisting largely of medical and other benefits
to approximately 10,000 former employees.

Liabilities amount to approximately $1 billion with assets of
approximately $400 million.  Most of the debt consists largely of
medical and other benefits to approximately 10,000 former
employees.

The Debtor disclosed $387,555,681 in assets and $1,107,350,034 in
liabilities as of the Chapter 11 filing.

The Hon. Jack B. Schmetterer oversees the case.  The Debtor has
tapped Proskauer Rose LLP as Chapter 11 counsel, Dickinson Wright
PLLC as special counsel, Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions, LLC as
noticing, claims and balloting agent, and Conway MacKenzie
Management Services, LLC's Charles M. Moore as CRO.

The U.S. Trustee appointed five individuals to serve on the
Committee of Executive & Administrative Retirees.  The Segal
Company (Eastern States), Inc. serves as the Committee's actuarial
consultant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany International Had 4,208 Pending PI Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There were 4,208 asbestos-related personal injury claims against
Albany International Corp., according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "Albany International Corp. is a defendant in
suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs
who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we previously
manufactured. We produced asbestos-containing paper machine
clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from
1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills. Such fabrics
generally had a useful life of three to twelve months.

We were defending 4,208 claims as of March 31, 2014.

We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the
Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to
predict the number and timing of such future claims.

Exposure and disease information sufficient to meaningfully
estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is
typically not available until late in the discovery process, and
often not until a trial date is imminent and a settlement demand
has been received. For these reasons, we do not believe a
meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible
loss with respect to pending or future claims.

While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurer,
Liberty Mutual, has defended each case and funded settlements
under a standard reservation of rights. As of March 31, 2014 we
had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 36,746 claims.
The total cost of resolving all claims was $8.8 million. Of this
amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier. The Company
has over $125 million in confirmed insurance coverage that should
be available with respect to current and future asbestos claims,
as well as additional insurance coverage that we should be able to
access."

Albany International Corp. is an advanced textile and material
processing company. The Company's business is a producer of
custom-designed fabrics and belts essential to paper and
paperboard production. The consumable fabrics are used to
manufacture all grades of paper from lightweight paper to
heavyweight containerboard. The Company has five segments: Paper
Machine Clothing segment (PMC), Engineered Composites (AEC),
Albany Door Systems (ADS), Engineered Fabrics (EF) and PrimaLoft
Products. Albany International supplies the worldwide pulp and
paper industry, as well as other process industries, with
technologically advanced structured materials and related
services. The Company maintains manufacturing facilities in
Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy,
Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Sweden, Turkey, and the United
States. On January 11, 2012, the Company sold its assets in the
Albany Door Systems (ADS) segment to ASSA ABLOY AB.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Unit Has 7,732 Pending PI Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
There were 7,732 pending asbestos-related claims against a
subsidiary of Albany International Corp., according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc., a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp.,
which is a subsidiary of the Company, is also a separate defendant
in many of the asbestos cases in which Albany is named as a
defendant. Brandon was defending against 7,732 claims as of March
31, 2014.

The Company states, "We acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as
Wangner Systems Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Geschmay Corp. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain
assets from Abney Mills ("Abney"), a South Carolina textile
manufacturer. Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were
assets of Abney's wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc.
which had sold, among other things, dryer fabrics containing
asbestos made by its parent, Abney. Although Brandon manufactured
and sold dryer fabrics under its own name subsequent to the asset
purchase, none of such fabrics contained asbestos. Because Brandon
did not manufacture asbestos-containing products, and because it
does not believe that it was the legal successor to, or otherwise
responsible for obligations of Abney with respect to products
manufactured by Abney, it believes it has strong defenses to the
claims that have been asserted against it. As of March 31, 2014,
Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 9,872
claims for a total of $0.2 million. Brandon's insurance carriers
initially agreed to pay 88.2% of the total indemnification and
defense costs related to these proceedings, subject to the
standard reservation of rights. The remaining 11.8% of the costs
had been borne directly by Brandon. During 2004, Brandon's
insurance carriers agreed to cover 100% of indemnification and
defense costs, subject to policy limits and the standard
reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for all indemnity
and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related to these
proceedings.

With respect to Albany's claims, as well as the fact that no
amounts have been paid to resolve any Brandon claims since 2001,
we do not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the
range of possible loss with respect to these remaining claims.

In some of these asbestos cases, the Company is named both as a
direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount
Vernon Mills ("Mount Vernon"). We acquired certain assets from
Mount Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by
asbestos-containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount
Vernon many years prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is
contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any
liability arising out of such products. We deny any liability for
products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the
Mount Vernon assets. Pursuant to its contractual indemnification
obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims.
On this basis, we have successfully moved for dismissal in a
number of actions.

Although we do not believe, based on currently available
information, that a meaningful estimate of a range of possible
loss can be made with respect to such claims, based on our
understanding of the insurance policies available, how settlement
amounts have been allocated to various policies, our settlement
experience, the absence of any judgments against the Company or
Brandon, the ratio of paper mill claims to total claims filed, and
the defenses available, we currently do not anticipate any
material liability relating to the resolution of the
aforementioned pending proceedings in excess of existing insurance
limits.

Consequently, we currently do not anticipate, based on currently
available information, that the ultimate resolution of the
aforementioned proceedings will have a material adverse effect on
the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of
the Company. Although we cannot predict the number and timing of
future claims, based on the foregoing factors and the trends in
claims against us to date, we do not anticipate that additional
claims likely to be filed against us in the future will have a
material adverse effect on our financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows. We are aware that litigation is
inherently uncertain, especially when the outcome is dependent
primarily on determinations of factual matters to be made by
juries."

Albany International Corp. is an advanced textile and material
processing company. The Company's business is a producer of
custom-designed fabrics and belts essential to paper and
paperboard production. The consumable fabrics are used to
manufacture all grades of paper from lightweight paper to
heavyweight containerboard. The Company has five segments: Paper
Machine Clothing segment (PMC), Engineered Composites (AEC),
Albany Door Systems (ADS), Engineered Fabrics (EF) and PrimaLoft
Products. Albany International supplies the worldwide pulp and
paper industry, as well as other process industries, with
technologically advanced structured materials and related
services. The Company maintains manufacturing facilities in
Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy,
Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Sweden, Turkey, and the United
States. On January 11, 2012, the Company sold its assets in the
Albany Door Systems (ADS) segment to ASSA ABLOY AB.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Has 29,048 Pending Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 29,048 lawsuits alleging exposure to
asbestos against General Cable Corporation, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2014.

Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits
alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by the
Company. As of March 28, 2014, the Company was a defendant in
approximately 29,048 cases brought in Federal District Courts
throughout the United States. In the three months ended March 28,
2014, 33 asbestos cases were brought against the Company. In the
calendar year 2013, 133 asbestos cases were brought against the
Company. In the last 20 years, General Cable has had no cases
proceed to verdict. In many of the cases, General Cable was
dismissed as a defendant before trial for lack of product
identification. As of March 28, 2014, 22,037 asbestos cases have
been dismissed. In the three months ended March 28, 2014, 104
asbestos cases were dismissed. As of December 31, 2013, 21,933
cases were dismissed. With regards to the approximately 29,048
remaining pending cases, General Cable is aggressively defending
these cases based upon either lack of product identification as to
General Cable manufactured asbestos-containing product and/or lack
of exposure to asbestos dust from the use of General Cable
product.

For cases outside the Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") as of March
28, 2014, Plaintiffs have asserted monetary damages in 359 cases.
In 217 of these cases, plaintiffs allege only damages in excess of
some dollar amount (about $356 thousand per plaintiff); in these
cases there are no claims for specific dollar amounts requested as
to any defendant. In the 141 other cases pending in state and
federal district courts (outside the MDL), plaintiffs seek
approximately $438.0 million in damages from as many as 50
defendants. In one case, plaintiffs have asserted damages related
to General Cable in the amount of $10.0 million. In addition, in
relation to these 359 cases, there are claims of $320.0 million in
punitive damages from all of the defendants. However, many of the
plaintiffs in these cases allege non-malignant injuries. As of
March 28, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the Company had accrued, on
a gross basis, approximately $5.2 million and $5.2 million,
respectively, and as of March 28, 2014 and December 31, 2013, had
recovered approximately $0.5 million and $0.5 million of insurance
recoveries for these lawsuits, respectively. The net amount of
$4.7 million and $4.7 million, as of March 28, 2014 and December
31, 2013 represents the Company's best estimate in order to cover
resolution of current and future asbestos-related claims.

The components of the asbestos litigation reserve are current and
future asbestos-related claims. The significant assumptions are:
(1) the number of cases per state, (2) an estimate of the judgment
per case per state, (3) an estimate of the percentage of cases per
state that would make it to trial and (4) the estimated total
liability percentage, excluding insurance recoveries, per case
judgment. Management's estimates are based on the Company's
historical experience with asbestos related claims. The Company's
current history of asbestos claims does not provide sufficient and
reasonable information to estimate a range of loss for potential
future, unasserted asbestos claims because the number and the
value of the alleged damages of such claims have not been
consistent. As such, the Company does not believe a reasonably
possible range can be estimated with respect to asbestos claims
that may be filed in the future.

Settlement payments are made, and the asbestos reserve is
relieved, when the Company receives a fully executed settlement
release from the Plaintiff's counsel. As of March 28, 2014 and
March 29, 2013, aggregate settlement costs were $9.1 million and
$8.7 million, respectively. For the three months ended March 28,
2014 and March 29, 2013, settlement costs totaled $0.1 million and
$0.1 million, respectively. As of March 28, 2014 and March 29,
2013, aggregate litigation costs were $23.4 million and $21.7
million, respectively. For the three months ended March 28, 2014
and March 29, 2013, litigation costs were $0.4 million and $0.3
million, respectively.

In January 1994, General Cable entered into a settlement agreement
with certain principal primary insurers concerning liability for
the costs of defense, judgments and settlements, if any, in all of
the asbestos litigation. Subject to the terms and conditions of
the settlement agreement, the insurers are responsible for a
substantial portion of the costs and expenses incurred in the
defense or resolution of this litigation. In recent years one of
the insurers participating in the settlement that was responsible
for a significant portion of the contribution under the settlement
agreement entered into insurance liquidation proceedings. As a
result, the contribution of the insurers has been reduced and the
Company has had to bear a larger portion of the costs relating to
these lawsuits. Moreover, certain of the other insurers may be
financially unstable, and if one or more of these insurers enter
into insurance liquidation proceedings, General Cable will be
required to pay a larger portion of the costs incurred in
connection with these cases.

General Cable Corporation is engaged in the development, design,
manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and
fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy,
industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets.
The Company additionally engages in the design, integration, and
installation on a turn-key basis for products, such as high and
extra-high voltage terrestrial and submarine systems. The Company
operates in three segments: America, Europe and Mediterranean, and
Rest of World (ROW). The Company's product portfolio includes more
than 100,000 products. As of December 31, 2013, the Company
operated 56 manufacturing facilities, which included four
facilities owned by companies in which the Company has an equity
investment, in 25 countries with regional distribution centers
around the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Corp. Had $993MM Fibro Claims Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation had $993 million reserves for asbestos
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

Allstate's reserves for asbestos claims were $993 million and
$1.02 billion, net of reinsurance recoverables of $467 million and
$478 million, as of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013,
respectively. Reserves for environmental claims were $204 million
and $208 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of $60 million,
as of both March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013. Approximately 55%
of the total net asbestos and environmental reserves as of both
March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013 were for incurred but not
reported estimated losses.

Management believes its net loss reserves for asbestos,
environmental and other discontinued lines exposures are
appropriately established based on available facts, technology,
laws and regulations. However, establishing net loss reserves for
asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines claims is
subject to uncertainties that are much greater than those
presented by other types of claims. The ultimate cost of losses
may vary materially from recorded amounts, which are based on
management's best estimate. Among the complications are lack of
historical data, long reporting delays, uncertainty as to the
number and identity of insureds with potential exposure and
unresolved legal issues regarding policy coverage; unresolved
legal issues regarding the determination, availability and timing
of exhaustion of policy limits; plaintiffs' evolving and expanding
theories of liability; availability and collectability of
recoveries from reinsurance; retrospectively determined premiums
and other contractual agreements; estimates of the extent and
timing of any contractual liability; the impact of bankruptcy
protection sought by various asbestos producers and other asbestos
defendants; and other uncertainties. There are also complex legal
issues concerning the interpretation of various insurance policy
provisions and whether those losses are covered, or were ever
intended to be covered, and could be recoverable through
retrospectively determined premium, reinsurance or other
contractual agreements. Courts have reached different and
sometimes inconsistent conclusions as to when losses are deemed to
have occurred and which policies provide coverage; what types of
losses are covered; whether there is an insurer obligation to
defend; how policy limits are determined; how policy exclusions
and conditions are applied and interpreted; and whether clean-up
costs represent insured property damage. Management believes these
issues are not likely to be resolved in the near future, and the
ultimate costs may vary materially from the amounts currently
recorded resulting in material changes in loss reserves. In
addition, while the Company believes that improved actuarial
techniques and databases have assisted in its ability to estimate
asbestos, environmental, and other discontinued lines net loss
reserves, these refinements may subsequently prove to be
inadequate indicators of the extent of probable losses. Due to the
uncertainties and factors, management believes it is not
practicable to develop a meaningful range for any such additional
net loss reserves that may be required.

The Allstate Corporation (Allstate) is a holding company for
Allstate Insurance Company. The Company's business is conducted
principally through Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Life
Insurance Company and their affiliates. It is engaged, principally
in the United States, in the property-liability insurance, life
insurance, retirement and investment product business. Allstate's
primary business is the sale of private passenger auto and
homeowners insurance. The Company also sells several other
personal property and casualty insurance products, select
commercial property and casualty coverages, life insurance,
annuities, voluntary accident and health insurance and funding
agreements. Allstate primarily distributes its products through
exclusive agencies, financial specialists, independent agencies,
call centers and the Internet. In April 2014, Allstate completed
sale of Lincoln Benefit Life company to Resolution Life Holdings
Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Unit Paid $929.7MM to WR Grace Trusts
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Sealed Air Corporation's subsidiary, Cryovac, Inc., made payments
on February 3, 2014, consisting of aggregate cash payments in the
amount of $929.7 million to the Asbestos PI Trust and the Asbestos
PD Trust established for W.R. Grace & Co., and the transfer of 18
million shares of Sealed Air common stock to the PI Trust,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

On February 3, 2014, the PI Settlement Plan implementing the
Settlement agreement became effective with W. R. Grace & Co.
emerging from bankruptcy on such date. As a result, the
injunctions and releases provided by the PI Settlement Plan became
effective.

The Company states: "On November 27, 2002, we reached an agreement
in principle with the Committees appointed to represent asbestos
claimants in the bankruptcy case of W. R. Grace & Co., known as
Grace or WRG, to resolve all current and future asbestos-related
claims made against the Company and our affiliates in connection
with the Cryovac transaction.  The Settlement agreement provided
for the resolution of the fraudulent transfer claims and successor
liability claims, as well as indemnification claims by Fresenius
Medical Care Holdings, Inc. and affiliated companies, in
connection with the Cryovac transaction. On December 3, 2002, our
Board of Directors approved the agreement in principle. We
received notice that both of the Committees had approved the
agreement in principle as of December 5, 2002. The parties
subsequently signed the definitive Settlement agreement as of
November 10, 2003 consistent with the terms of the agreement in
principle.

We recorded a pre-tax charge of approximately $850 million as a
result of the Settlement agreement on our condensed consolidated
statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2002. The
charge consisted of the following items:

* a charge of $513 million covering a cash payment that we were
required to make under the Settlement agreement upon the
effectiveness of an appropriate plan of reorganization in the
Grace bankruptcy. Because we could not predict when a plan of
reorganization would become effective, we recorded this liability
as a current liability on our condensed consolidated balance sheet
at December 31, 2002. Under the terms of the Settlement agreement,
this amount accrued interest at a 5.5% annual rate from December
21, 2002 to the date of payment. We recorded this interest in
interest expense on our condensed consolidated statements of
operations and in Settlement agreement and related accrued
interest on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. The accrued
interest, which was compounded annually, was $412 million at
December 31, 2013 and $364 million at December 31, 2012.

* a non-cash charge of $322 million representing the fair market
value at the date we recorded the charge of nine million shares of
Sealed Air common stock would issue under the Settlement agreement
upon the effectiveness of an appropriate plan of reorganization in
the Grace bankruptcy, which was adjusted to eighteen million
shares due to our two-for-one stock split in March 2007. These
shares were subject to customary anti-dilution provisions that
adjusted for the effects of stock splits, stock dividends and
other events affecting our common stock. The fair market value of
our common stock was $35.72 per pre-split share ($17.86 post-
split) as of the close of business on December 5, 2002. We
recorded this amount on our condensed consolidated balance sheet
at December 31, 2002 as follows: $0.9 million representing the
aggregate par value of these shares of common stock reserved for
issuance related to the Settlement agreement, and the remaining
$321 million, representing the excess of the aggregate fair market
value over the aggregate par value of these common shares, in
additional paid-in capital.

* $16 million of legal and related fees as of December 31, 2002.

On February 3, 2014, the Company's subsidiary, Cryovac, Inc., made
the payments contemplated by the Settlement agreement, consisting
of aggregate cash payments in the amount of $929.7 million to the
WRG Asbestos PI Trust and the WRG Asbestos PD Trust and the
transfer of 18 million shares of Sealed Air common stock (the
"Settlement Shares") to the PI Trust, in each case reflecting
adjustments made in accordance with the Settlement agreement. In
connection with the issuance of the Settlement Shares and their
transfer to the PI Trust by Cryovac, the Company entered into a
Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of February 3, 2014 (the
"Registration Rights Agreement"), with the PI Trust as initial
holder of the Settlement Shares. Under the Registration Rights
Agreement, the Company was required to use reasonable best efforts
to prepare and file with the SEC a shelf registration statement
covering resales of the Settlement Shares on or prior to 60 days
after the Effective Date, and to use reasonable best efforts to
cause such shelf registration statement to be declared effective
by the SEC as soon as reasonably practicable. This shelf
registration statement was filed with the SEC on April 4, 2014,
and became effective on such date.

We intend to deduct the payment in our 2014 consolidated U.S.
income tax return. As a result, we expect to incur a net operating
loss for U.S. tax purposes in 2014 and intend to carry back a
significant portion of this loss. We have classified the resulting
anticipated tax refund of approximately $200 million as a non-
current income tax receivable, included in other assets, net in
the condensed consolidated balance sheet at March 31, 2014. The
income tax receivable will be classified as a current asset in the
reporting period that the Company believes the related cash tax
benefit will be received within one year from the applicable
reporting date."

A copy of the Company's regulatory filing is available at:

                       http://is.gd/MREGJr

Sealed Air Corporation is engaged in food safety and security,
facility hygiene and product protection business. The Company
serves a range of end markets, including food and beverage
processing, food service, retail, health care and industrial,
commercial and consumer applications. The Company's brands include
bubbles Wrap brand cushioning, Cryovac brand food packaging
solutions and Diversey brand cleaning and hygiene solutions. The
Company operates in four segments: food care, diversey care,
product care and other category, which includes its medical
applications and new venture businesses. During the year ended
December 31, 2013, the Company's operations generated
approximately 65% of its revenue from outside the United States,
including approximately 26% of its revenue from developing
regions. These developing regions are Africa, Asia (excluding
Japan and South Korea), Central and Eastern Europe, and Latin
America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Had 124,280 U.S. Fibro Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG had 124,280 open U.S. asbestos-related claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

The Company states, "Some of our U.S. and U.K. subsidiaries are
defendants in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits and out-of-court
informal claims pending in the U.S. and the U.K. Plaintiffs claim
damages for personal injury alleged to have arisen from exposure
to or use of asbestos in connection with work allegedly performed
by the Company's subsidiaries during the 1970s and earlier.

For the three months ended March 31, 2014, the Company had 124,280
open U.S. claims.

As of March 31, 2014, the Company recorded a $265,359,000 total
U.S. asbestos-related liabilities. Total U.S. asbestos-related
liabilities are estimated through the first quarter of 2029.
Although it is likely that claims will continue to be filed after
that date, the uncertainties inherent in any long-term forecast
prevent us from making reliable estimates of the indemnity and
defense costs that might be incurred after that date.

"We have worked with Analysis, Research & Planning Corporation, or
ARPC, nationally recognized consultants in the U.S. with respect
to projecting asbestos liabilities, to estimate the amount of
asbestos-related indemnity and defense costs at each year-end
based on a forecast for the next 15 years. Each year we have
recorded our estimated asbestos liability at a level consistent
with ARPC's reasonable best estimate. Our estimated asbestos
liability decreased during the first three months of 2014 as a
result of indemnity and defense cost payments totaling
approximately $14,800, partially offset by the impact of an
increase in the liability related to our rolling 15-year asbestos-
related liability estimate of approximately $2,000. The total
asbestos-related liabilities are comprised of our estimates for
our liability relating to open (outstanding) claims being valued
and our liability for future unasserted claims through the first
quarter of 2029.

Our liability estimate is based upon the following information
and/or assumptions: number of open claims, forecasted number of
future claims, estimated average cost per claim by disease type -
mesothelioma, lung cancer and non-malignancies - and the breakdown
of known and future claims into disease type - mesothelioma, lung
cancer and non-malignancies, as well as other factors. The total
estimated liability, which has not been discounted for the time
value of money, includes both the estimate of forecasted indemnity
amounts and forecasted defense costs. Total defense costs and
indemnity liability payments are estimated to be incurred through
the first quarter of 2029, during which period the incidence of
new claims is forecasted to decrease each year. We believe that it
is likely that there will be new claims filed after the first
quarter of 2029, but in light of uncertainties inherent in long-
term forecasts, we do not believe that we can reasonably estimate
the indemnity and defense costs that might be incurred after the
first quarter of 2029.

Through March 31, 2014, total cumulative indemnity costs paid,
prior to insurance recoveries, were approximately $835,900 and
total cumulative defense costs paid were approximately $414,600,
or approximately 33% of total defense and indemnity costs. The
overall historic average combined indemnity and defense cost per
resolved claim through March 31, 2014, has been approximately
$3.3. The average cost per resolved claim is increasing and we
believe it will continue to increase in the future.

Over the last several years, certain of our subsidiaries have
entered into settlement agreements calling for insurers to make
lump-sum payments, as well as payments over time, for use by our
subsidiaries to fund asbestos-related indemnity and defense costs
and, in certain cases, for reimbursement for portions of out-of-
pocket costs previously incurred. As our subsidiaries reach
agreements with their insurers to settle their disputed asbestos-
related insurance coverage, we increase our asbestos-related
insurance asset and record settlement gains.

Asbestos-related assets under executed settlement agreements with
insurers due in the next 12 months are recorded within accounts
and notes receivable-other and amounts due beyond 12 months are
recorded within asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable.
Asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable also includes our
best estimate of actual and probable insurance recoveries relating
to our liability for pending and estimated future asbestos claims
through the first quarter of 2029. Our asbestos-related assets
have not been discounted for the time value of money.

Our insurance recoveries may be limited by future insolvencies
among our insurers. We have not assumed recovery in the estimate
of our asbestos-related insurance asset from any of our currently
insolvent insurers. We have considered the financial viability and
legal obligations of our subsidiaries' insurance carriers and
believe that the insurers or their guarantors will continue to
reimburse a significant portion of claims and defense costs
relating to asbestos litigation. As of March 31, 2014 and December
31, 2013, we have not recorded an allowance for uncollectible
balances against our asbestos-related insurance assets. We write
off receivables from insurers that have become insolvent; there
were no such write-offs during the three months ended March 31,
2014, or 2013. Insurers may become insolvent in the future and our
insurers may fail to reimburse amounts owed to us on a timely
basis. If we fail to realize the expected insurance recoveries, or
experience delays in receiving material amounts from our insurers,
our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows could be materially adversely affected.

Our net asbestos-related provision during the three months ended
March 31, 2014 and 2013 was approximately $2,000,000 in both
periods and the provision in each period was the result of the
accrual of our rolling 15-year asbestos liability estimate.

The Company's approximate U.S. asbestos-related net asbestos-
related proceeds was $14,800,000 for the three months ended
March 31, 2014.

We expect to have net cash outflows of $32,100 during the full
year 2014 as a result of asbestos liability indemnity and defense
payments in excess of insurance proceeds. This estimate assumes no
settlements with insurance companies and no elections by us to
fund additional payments. As we continue to collect cash from
insurance settlements and assuming no increase in our asbestos-
related insurance liability, the asbestos-related insurance
receivable recorded on our consolidated balance sheet will
continue to decrease.

The estimate of the liabilities and assets related to asbestos
claims and recoveries is subject to a number of uncertainties that
may result in significant changes in the current estimates. Among
these are uncertainties as to the ultimate number and type of
claims filed, the amounts of claim costs, the impact of
bankruptcies of other companies with asbestos claims,
uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, as well as potential
legislative changes. Increases in the number of claims filed or
costs to resolve those claims could cause us to increase further
the estimates of the costs associated with asbestos claims and
could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows.

Based on our December 31, 2013, liability estimate, an increase of
25% in the average per claim indemnity settlement amount would
increase the liability by $40,300 and the impact on expense would
be dependent upon available additional insurance recoveries.
Assuming no change to the assumptions currently used to estimate
our insurance asset, this increase would result in a charge on our
consolidated statement of operations of approximately 85% of the
increase in the liability. Long-term cash flows would ultimately
change by the same amount. Should there be an increase in the
estimated liability in excess of 25%, the percentage of that
increase that would be expected to be funded by additional
insurance recoveries will decline."

Foster Wheeler AG (Foster Wheeler) is a supplier of engineering,
construction and project management contractor and power
equipment. It operates through two business groups: Global
Engineering and Construction Group (Global E&C Group), and Global
Power Group. Its Global E&C Group, which operates worldwide,
designs, engineers and constructs onshore and offshore upstream
oil and gas processing facilities, natural gas liquefaction
facilities and receiving terminals, gas-to-liquids facilities, oil
refining, chemical and petrochemical, pharmaceutical and
biotechnology facilities and related infrastructure. Its Global
Power Group designs, manufactures and erects steam generators and
auxiliary equipment for electric power generating stations,
district heating and power plants and industrial facilities
worldwide.In May 2014, the Company announced that a subsidiary of
its Global Power Group acquired Siemens Environmental Systems and
Services business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Had 278 U.K. Fibro Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG had 278 open U.K. asbestos-related claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

The Company states, "Some of our U.S. and U.K. subsidiaries are
defendants in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits and out-of-court
informal claims pending in the U.S. and the U.K. Plaintiffs claim
damages for personal injury alleged to have arisen from exposure
to or use of asbestos in connection with work allegedly performed
by the Company's subsidiaries during the 1970s and earlier.

Some of our subsidiaries in the U.K. have also received claims
alleging personal injury arising from exposure to asbestos. To
date, 1,059 claims have been brought against our U.K.
subsidiaries, of which 278 remained open as of March 31, 2014.
None of the settled claims have resulted in material costs to us.

As of March 31, 2014, the Company recorded a $31,704,000 total
asbestos-related liabilities for its U.K. subsidiaries.

The liability estimates are based on a U.K. House of Lords
judgment that pleural plaque claims do not amount to a compensable
injury. If this ruling is reversed by legislation, the total
asbestos liability recorded in the U.K. would increase to
approximately $51,200, with a corresponding increase in the
asbestos-related asset.

Foster Wheeler AG (Foster Wheeler) is a supplier of engineering,
construction and project management contractor and power
equipment. It operates through two business groups: Global
Engineering and Construction Group (Global E&C Group), and Global
Power Group. Its Global E&C Group, which operates worldwide,
designs, engineers and constructs onshore and offshore upstream
oil and gas processing facilities, natural gas liquefaction
facilities and receiving terminals, gas-to-liquids facilities, oil
refining, chemical and petrochemical, pharmaceutical and
biotechnology facilities and related infrastructure. Its Global
Power Group designs, manufactures and erects steam generators and
auxiliary equipment for electric power generating stations,
district heating and power plants and industrial facilities
worldwide.In May 2014, the Company announced that a subsidiary of
its Global Power Group acquired Siemens Environmental Systems and
Services business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Unit Continues to Defend "Take Home" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
One of Pepco Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiaries continues to defend
itself against a "take home" suit pending in the New Jersey
Superior Court, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2014.

In September 2011, an asbestos complaint was filed in the New
Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, against ACE (among other
defendants) asserting claims under New Jersey's Wrongful Death and
Survival statutes. The complaint, filed by the estate of a
decedent who was the wife of a former employee of ACE, alleges
that the decedent's mesothelioma was caused by exposure to
asbestos brought home by her husband on his work clothes. New
Jersey courts have recognized a cause of action against a premise
owner in a so-called "take home" case if it can be shown that the
harm was foreseeable. In this case, the complaint seeks recovery
of an unspecified amount of damages for, among other things, the
decedent's past medical expenses, loss of earnings, and pain and
suffering between the time of injury and death, and asserts a
punitive damage claim. At March 31, 2014, ACE has concluded that a
loss is probable with respect to this matter and has recorded an
estimated loss contingency liability, which is included in the
liability for general litigation as of March 31, 2014. However,
due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation, ACE is unable to
estimate a maximum amount of possible loss because the damages
sought are indeterminate and the matter involves facts that ACE
believes are distinguishable from the facts of the "take-home"
cause of action recognized by the New Jersey courts.

Pepco Holdings, Inc. (PHI) is a holding company, that, through
regulated public utility subsidiaries, is engaged primarily in the
transmission, distribution and default supply of electricity and
the distribution and supply of natural gas (Power Delivery):
Potomac Electric Power Company (Pepco), Delmarva Power & Light
Company (DPL) and Atlantic City Electric Company (ACE). As of
December 31, 2012, the Company segments include Power Delivery,
consisting of the operations of Pepco, DPL and ACE, engaged in the
transmission, distribution and default supply of electricity and
the distribution and supply of natural gas, Pepco Energy Services
and Other Non-Regulated, consisting primarily of the operations of
PCI. PHI Service Company, a subsidiary service company of PHI,
provides a range of support services, including legal, accounting,
treasury, tax, purchasing and information technology services, to
PHI and its operating subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Auto Parts Units Continue to Defend Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to defend
themselves against several lawsuits involving asbestos-related
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 29, 2014.

A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, Automotive Specialty
Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary
Whitney Automotive Group, Inc., are named defendants in several
lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of
brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's that contained
asbestos. WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not manufacture any
brakes. WAG maintains liability insurance coverage to protect its
and the Company's assets from losses arising from the litigation
and coverage is provided on an occurrence rather than a claims
made basis, and the Company is not expected to incur significant
out-of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that would be
material to its consolidated financial statements.

U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. (U.S. Auto Parts) offers online
sources for automotive aftermarket parts and repairs information.
The Company principally sells its products, identified as stock
keeping units (SKUs), to individual consumers through its network
of Websites and online marketplaces. The Company's Websites
provide customers with a selection of approximately two million
SKUs with product descriptions and photographs. The Company has
developed a product database that maps its SKUs to product
applications based on vehicle makes, models and years. It offers a
selection of aftermarket auto parts. U.S. Auto Parts classifies
its products into three categories: body parts, engine parts, and
performance parts and accessories. The Company sources its
products from foreign manufacturers and importers located in
Taiwan and China, and from the United States manufacturers and
distributors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Continue to Defend Miss. Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of Transocean Ltd. continue to defend themselves
against asbestos-related cases pending in Mississippi state
courts, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were
named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in 21
complaints filed on behalf of 769 plaintiffs in the Circuit Courts
of the State of Mississippi and which claimed injuries arising out
of exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in drilling mud during
these plaintiffs' employment in drilling activities between 1965
and 1986. The Circuit Courts subsequently dismissed the original
21 multi-plaintiff complaints and required each plaintiff to file
a separate lawsuit. After certain individual claims were
dismissed, 593 separate lawsuits remained, each with a single
plaintiff. We have or may have direct or indirect interest in a
total of 20 cases in Mississippi. The complaints generally allege
that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos-containing
drilling mud additives for use in connection with drilling
operations and have included allegations of negligence, products
liability, strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act
and general maritime law. The plaintiffs generally seek awards of
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. In each of these
cases, the complaints have named other unaffiliated defendant
companies, including companies that allegedly manufactured the
drilling-related products that contained asbestos. With the
exception of cases pending in Jones and Jefferson counties, these
cases are being governed for discovery and trial setting by a
single Case Management Order entered by a Special Master appointed
by the court to preside over the cases. Of the 20 cases in which
we have or may have an interest, two have been scheduled for
trial. During the year ended December 31, 2013, one of these two
cases was resolved through a negotiated settlement for a nominal
sum. In the other case, we were not named as a direct defendant,
but the Special Master granted a Motion for Summary Judgment based
on the absence of medical evidence in favor of all defendants. The
resolution of these two cases leaves 18 remaining lawsuits in
Mississippi in which we have or may have an interest."

Transocean Ltd. (Transocean) is an international provider of
offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. The
Company operates in two segments: contract drilling services and
drilling management services. Contract drilling services, the
Company's primary business, involves contracting its mobile
offshore drilling fleet, related equipment and work crews
primarily on a dayrate basis to drill oil and gas wells. Its
drilling management services segment provides oil and gas drilling
management services on either a dayrate basis or a completed-
project, fixed-price (or turnkey) basis, as well as drilling
engineering and drilling project management services. As of
February 14, 2012, it owned or had partial ownership interests in
and operated 134 mobile offshore drilling units. On October 4,
2011, the Company acquired Aker Drilling ASA (Aker Drilling). In
February 2011, it sold the subsidiary that owns the High-
Specification Jackup Trident 20.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Ltd. Unit Has 853 Pending PI Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 853 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits were
pending against one of Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiary, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "One of our subsidiaries was involved in
lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary's involvement in the
design, construction and refurbishment of major industrial
complexes. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and
its operations discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no
remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in its
litigation, with its insurers and, either directly or indirectly
through a qualified settlement fund. The subsidiary has been named
as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits
alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure
to asbestos. As of March 31, 2014, the subsidiary was a defendant
in approximately 853 lawsuits, some of which include multiple
plaintiffs, and we estimate that there are approximately 1,784
plaintiffs in these lawsuits. For many of these lawsuits, we have
not been provided with sufficient information from the plaintiffs
to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims
against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the
nature of their alleged injuries. The first of the asbestos-
related lawsuits was filed against the subsidiary in 1990. Through
March 31, 2014, the costs incurred to resolve claims, including
both defense fees and expenses and settlement costs, have not been
material, all known deductibles have been satisfied or are
inapplicable, and the subsidiary's defense fees and expenses and
settlement costs have been met by insurance made available to the
subsidiary. The subsidiary continues to be named as a defendant in
additional lawsuits, and we cannot predict the number of
additional cases in which it may be named a defendant nor can we
predict the potential costs to resolve such additional cases or to
resolve the pending cases. However, the subsidiary has in excess
of $1.0 billion in insurance limits potentially available to the
subsidiary. Although not all of the policies may be fully
available due to the insolvency of certain insurers, we believe
that the subsidiary will have sufficient funding directly or
indirectly from settlements and claims payments from insurers,
assigned rights from insurers and coverage-in-place settlement
agreements with insurers to respond to these claims. While we
cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these
matters, we do not believe that the ultimate liability, if any,
arising from these claims will have a material impact on our
consolidated statement of financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."

Transocean Ltd. (Transocean) is an international provider of
offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. The
Company operates in two segments: contract drilling services and
drilling management services. Contract drilling services, the
Company's primary business, involves contracting its mobile
offshore drilling fleet, related equipment and work crews
primarily on a dayrate basis to drill oil and gas wells. Its
drilling management services segment provides oil and gas drilling
management services on either a dayrate basis or a completed-
project, fixed-price (or turnkey) basis, as well as drilling
engineering and drilling project management services. As of
February 14, 2012, it owned or had partial ownership interests in
and operated 134 mobile offshore drilling units. On October 4,
2011, the Company acquired Aker Drilling ASA (Aker Drilling). In
February 2011, it sold the subsidiary that owns the High-
Specification Jackup Trident 20.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related personal injury claims, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We have exposure in connection with a safety
respiratory products business that a subsidiary acquired from
American Optical Corporation ("AO") in an April 1990 asset
purchase transaction. The subsidiary manufactured respirators
under the AO brand and disposed of that business in July 1995. In
connection with its acquisition of the business, the subsidiary
agreed, in certain circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's
liabilities, including costs of legal fees together with amounts
paid in settlements and judgments, allocable to AO respiratory
products used prior to the 1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary.
As more fully described in our 2013 10-K, the respirator
liabilities involve claims for personal injury, including
asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's pneumoconiosis, allegedly
resulting from the use of respirators that are alleged to have
been negligently designed or labeled.

As of March 31, 2014, and September 30, 2013, there were
approximately 41,000 and 42,000 claimants, respectively, in
pending cases asserting claims against AO in connection with
respiratory products. We have a reserve to cover our expected
share of liability for existing and future respirator liability
claims. At March 31, 2014, and September 30, 2013, the reserve was
$9 million and $11 million, respectively, on a discounted basis
($13 million and $15 million on an undiscounted basis at March 31,
2014 and September 30, 2013, respectively). The reserve is being
accreted up to the undiscounted liability through interest expense
over the expected cash flow period, which is through 2065. Cash
payments related to this liability were $2 million and $1 million
in the first six months of fiscal 2014 and 2013, respectively."

Cabot Corporation (Cabot) is a global specialty chemicals and
performance materials company. The Company's principal products
are rubber and specialty grade carbon blacks, fumed metal oxides,
inkjet colorants, aerogels and cesium formate drilling fluids.
Cabot and its affiliates have manufacturing facilities and
operations in the United States and approximately 20 other
countries. The Company operates in four business segments: the
Core Segment, the Performance Segment, the New Business Segment
and the Specialty Fluids Segment. The Company is organized into
three geographic regions: The Americas; Europe, Middle East and
Africa, and Asia Pacific. On January 23, 2012, the Company sold
its Supermetals Business to Global Advanced Metals Pty Ltd. On
August 1, 2012, it acquired Norit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Oust Monticello Mayor from Office Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners, residents of the Village of Monticello in Sullivan
County, commenced a proceeding seeking to remove respondent from
the offices of Mayor and Village Manager, alleging that respondent
engaged in numerous acts of misconduct and generally abused the
authority vested in him by the offices at issue.  According to
petitioners, "[t]he debris from the demolition was laden with
asbestos, and was illegally dumped near drinking wells in
violation of numerous environmental laws," thereby exposing the
Village to fines and legal fees estimated to exceed $200,000.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third
Department, denied the motion to dismiss the case, and appointed
Hon. Eugene E. Peckham as Referee to take testimony regarding the
allegations contained in the petition.

The case is In the Matter of MICHAEL GRECO et al., Petitioners, v.
GORDON C. JENKINS, as Mayor and Village Manager of the Village of
Monticello, Respondent, 518276 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy
of the Decision dated June 26, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/HBvmWifrom Leagle.com.

Representing the petitioners is:

         Kirk O. Orseck, Esq.
         ORSECK LAW OFFICES
         1924 State Route 52
         Liberty, NY 12754
         Phone: 845-292-5800

Representing the respondent is:

         Michael H. Sussman, Esq.
         SUSSMAN & WATKINS
         1 Railroad Avenue, 3rd Floor
         PO Box 1005
         Goshen, NY 10924
         Tel: 845-294-3991
         Fax: 845-294-1623


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Morvant" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lance M. Africk of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana issued an order and reasons dated
June 18, 2014, denying in part a motion to dismiss, pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned MARY MORVANT,
v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY ET AL., SECTION I, CIVIL ACTION NO.
14-226 (E.D. La.).  In the June 18 Decision, Judge Africk deferred
ruling on the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(7).  A full-text copy of Judge Africk's June 18
Decision is available at http://is.gd/jQEhHrfrom Leagle.com.

Judge Africk, on July 3, ruled on the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(7)
and agreed with the Plaintiff that Louisiana's direct action
statute, as applied to the facts of the case, "grants substantive
rights that are dispositive here of the procedural question under
Rule 12(b)(7)."  Accordingly, Judge Africk denied the Defendants'
motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7).  A full-text copy of Judge
Africk's July 3 Decision is available at http://is.gd/m12Bvnfrom
Leagle.com.

Mary Morvant, Plaintiff, represented by Harold J. Flanagan, Esq.,
Anders F. Holmgren, Esq., Charles-Theodore N. Zerner, Esq., and
Sean Patrick Brady, Esq., at Flanagan Partners, LLP; and Amanda
Jones Ballay, Esq., Frank J. Swarr, Esq., Mickey P. Landry, Esq.,
and Philip C Hoffman, Landry, Esq., at Landry & Swarr, LLC.

Maryland Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by David P.
Salley, Esq., and Erika Lynn Mullenbach, Esq., at Salley, Hite,
Mercer & Resor LLC.

Federal Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Stephen
Porter Hall, Esq., and Jonathan B. Womack, Esq., at Phelps Dunbar,
LLP.

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Defendant, represented by
Simeon B. Reimonenq, Jr., Esq., and Katherine Osborne Hannan,
Esq., at Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard.

Continental Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Paula
Marcello Wellons, Esq., and Desiree Weilbaecher Adams, Esq., at
Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Century Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by James M.
Garner, Esq., Martha Y. Curtis, Esq., and Paul R. Trapani, III,
Esq., at Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Won't Advisory Opinion in Insurance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Hartford Casualty
Insurance Company, and Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest
filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking a declaratory
judgment that its duty to indemnify Defendant and Third-Party
Plaintiff Troy Belting & Supply Company for asbestos claims is
triggered by injury-in-fact and limited to Hartford's pro rata
time-on-the-risk share.

In a decision and order dated June 20, 2014, Judge Thomas J.
McAvoy of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of New York denied Hartford's motion after determining
that what Hartford seeks is an advisory opinion from the Court
that the Court is not permitted to provide.  Those advisory
opinions are within the province of the federal courts, and the
Court must decline to offer one, Judge McAvoy ruled.

The case is PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v.
TROY BELTING & SUPPLY COMPANY, HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY
COMPANY, HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, HARTFORD INSURANCE
COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, and ABC COMPANIES 1 THROUGH 20,
Defendants, NO. 1:11-CV-912 (N.D.N.Y.).  A full-text copy of Judge
McAvoy's Decision is available at http://is.gd/8VyOomfrom
Leagle.com.

Pacific Employers Insurance Company, Plaintiff and Counter
Defendant, represented by Brian G. Fox, Esq., and Scott E. Levens,
at Siegal, Park Law Firm; and David M. Cost, Esq. --
dcost@hblaw.com -- and Linda J. Clark, Esq. -- lclark@hblaw.com --
at Hiscock, Barclay Law Firm - Albany Office

Berkshire Mutual Insurance Group, Cross Defendant and Third Party
Defendant, represented by Lance J. Kalik, Esq. -- lkalik@riker.com
-- and Tracey K. Wishert, Esq. -- twishert@riker.com -- at Riker
Danzig, Scherer Hyland Perretti LLP.

Continental Casualty Company, Cross Defendant and Third Party
Defendant, represented by Kristin V. Gallagher, Esq. --
kgallagher@cmk.com -- and Joanna L. Young, Esq. -- Jyoung@cmk.com
-- at Carroll, McNulty & Kull.

Harleysville Group, Inc., Cross Defendant and Third Party
Defendant, represented by Lance J. Kalik, Esq., and Tracey K.
Wishert, Esq., at Riker, Danzig Law Firm - NJ Office.

Harleysville Insurance Company of New York, ThirdParty Defendant,
represented by Lance J. Kalik, Esq., and Tracey K. Wishert, Esq.,
at Riker, Danzig Law Firm - NJ Office.

Harleysville Insurance Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented
by Lance J. Kalik, Esq., and Tracey K. Wishert, Esq., at Riker,
Danzig Law Firm - NJ Office.

Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Defendant, Cross
Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented
by Edward B. Parks, II, Esq. -- eparks@goodwin.com -- James P.
Ruggeri, Esq. -- jruggeri@goodwin.com -- Mark K. Ostrowski, Esq.
-- mostrowski@goodwin.com -- and Michele L. Backus, Esq. --
mbackus@goodwin.com -- at Shipman & Goodwin LLP; and James P.
Youngs, Esq. -- jyoungs@hancocklaw.com -- at Hancock Estabrook
LLP.

Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented by Edward B.
Parks, II, Esq., James P. Ruggeri, Esq., Mark K. Ostrowski,
Shipman, Esq., and Michele L. Backus, Esq., at Shipman, Goodwin
Law Firm - DC Office; and James P. Youngs, Esq., at Hancock,
Estabrook Law Firm.

Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Defendant, Cross
Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented
by Edward B. Parks, II, Esq., James P. Ruggeri, Esq., Mark K.
Ostrowski, Esq., and Michele L. Backus, Esq., at Shipman, Goodwin
Law Firm - DC Office; and James P. Youngs, Esq., at Hancock,
Estabrook Law Firm.

Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., Cross Defendant and Third Party
Defendant, represented by Lloyd A. Gura, Esq. --
lgura@moundcotton.com -- and Mark J. Weber, Esq. --
mweber@moundcotton.com -- at Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass.

QBE Americas, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Barbara
L. Schifeling, Esq. -- bschifeling@damonmorey.com -- and Hedwig M.
Auletta, Esq. -- hauletta@damonmorey.com -- at Damon Morey LLP.

St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Cross Defendant and
Third Party Defendant, represented by Barbara M. Almeida, Esq. --
barbara.almeida@clydeco.us -- and Daren S. McNally, Esq. --
daren.mcnally@clydeco.us -- at Clyde & Co. US LLP.

The Hartford Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by James P. Youngs, Esq., at Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm.

The North River Insurance Company, Cross Defendant and Third Party
Defendant, represented by:

         Dianne C. Bresee, Esq.
         O'CONNOR, O'CONNOR, BRESEE & FIRST, P.C.
         20 Corporate Woods Boulevard
         Albany, NY 12211
         Tel: 518-465-0400
         Fax: 877-886-4029

Troy Belting & Supply Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, Counter Claimant, and Third Party Plaintiff, represented
by:

         Timothy S. Brennan, Esq.
         PHELAN, PHELAN & DANEK, LLP
         302 Washington Ave. Ext., Suite 3
         Albany, NY 12203
         Phone: (518) 640-6900
         Fax: (518) 640-6955

Unigard Insurance Company, Cross Defendant and Third Party
Defendant, represented by Barbara L. Schifeling, Esq., and Hedwig
M. Auletta, Esq., at Damon, Morey Law Firm - Buffalo Office.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GM's Request for Writ of Mandamus Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County,
issued a decision on June 26, 2014, denying a request for a writ
of mandamus in the case captioned State of Ohio ex rel. General
Motors Company, Relator, v. Dionicia Webster and Industrial
Commission of Ohio, Respondents, NO. 13AP-931 (Ohio App.).
Relator, General Motors Company, filed the action in mandamus,
seeking a writ to compel the Industrial Commission of Ohio to
recalculate the average weekly wage of Bill Webster, who died from
complications associated with mesothelioma.  Mr. Webster got
mesothelioma as a result inhaling asbestos particles while he
worked for GM.  The Ohio Court of Appeals denied the request
adopting a magistrate judge's decision, which denied GM's request,
after determining that the commission properly calculated Mr.
Webster's average weekly wage.  A full-text copy of the Ohio Court
of Appeals' Decision is available at http://is.gd/Gl1yKkfrom
Leagle.com.

Mark S. Barnes, Esq. -- mbarnes@bugbeelawyers.com -- at Bugbee &
Conkle, LLP, for relator.  Mary Brigid Sweeney, Esq., at Mary
Brigid Sweeney Co. LLC, for respondent Dionicia Webster.  Michael
DeWine, Attorney General, and Stephen D. Plymale, for respondent
Industrial Commission of Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRC's Bid to Force NICO to Arbitrate Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Insurance Company and Transatlantic Reinsurance
Company originally entered into a blanket casualty excess of loss
reinsurance agreement, providing that TRC would indemnify
Continental with respect to net excess liability accrued by
Continental in a variety of classes of general and specialty
casualty insurance business.  The Reinsurance Agreement contains a
provision providing that if any dispute will arise between
Continental and TRC with reference to the interpretation of their
agreement or their rights with respect to any transaction
involved, the dispute will be submitted to arbitration.

In 2010, Continental entered into two separate transactions with
National Indemnity Company.  The first was a "Loss Portfolio
Transfer" transaction whereby Continental purchased reinsurance
from NICO for asbestos and environmental risks.  In 2012, TRC
stopped making payments to Continental under the Reinsurance
Agreement for certain classes of business including asbestos- and
environmental-related claims.  In March 2013, Continental
commenced arbitration against TRC, seeking payment of all balances
due of approximately $136,000 and any amounts accrued through the
date of the hearing.  In February 2014, TRC demanded that NICO
join the Continental-TRC Arbitration as a Petitioner, and in
March, TRC filed a lawsuit seeking to compel NICO to arbitrate as
a party in the Continental-TRC Arbitration.

Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied TRC's
motion to compel NICO to be added as a party to the arbitration,
holding that, because NICO's benefit is only indirectly related to
the reinsurance agreement, NICO is not estopped from refusing to
arbitrate.

The case is TRANSATLANTIC REINSURANCE CO., Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL
INDEMNITY CO., Defendant, NO. 14 C 1535 (N.D. Ill.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Gettleman's memorandum opinion and order dated June
24, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/dwxl5Wfrom Leagle.com.

Transatlantic Reinsurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Scott
Andrew Hanfling, Esq. -- shanfling@kfplegal.com -- and Mark A.
Kreger, Esq. -- mkreger@kfplegal.com -- at Kerns, Frost &
Pearlman, LLC.

National Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Eric Arnold
Haab, Esq. -- ehaab@foley.com -- and Benjamin B. Folsom, Esq. --
bfolsom@foley.com -- at Foley & Lardner.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Grants Bid to Remand "Barabin" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Barabin was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2006.  Mr.
Barabin and his wife, Plaintiff Geraldine Barabin, filed a
personal injury lawsuit against 22 defendants in December 2006,
alleging that Mr. Barabin developed mesothelioma as a result of
exposure to defendants' asbestos-containing products.  After
multiple settlement agreements, only two defendants remained:
AstenJohnson, Inc., and Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc.

While the personal injury action was on appeal to the Ninth
Circuit, Mr. Barabin died.  Ms. Barabin filed a wrongful death
action in King County Superior Court on March 18, 2014.  In the
second action, Ms. Barabin joins as defendants not only Asten and
Scapa, but also numerous other defendants not included in the
first lawsuit.  At least one of these defendants, namely, Wright
Schuchart Harbor, is a citizen of Washington State.  Scapa and
Asten removed the wrongful death action to federal court,
asserting that the court has diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. Section 1332 because the other defendants are fraudulently
joined.  The Plaintiff moves to remand the case on the basis of
the forum defendant rule and Wright's Washington citizenship.

Judge James L. Robart of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, issued an order dated
June 30, 2014, granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand, after
finding that because the Defendants raise a legitimate doubt as to
the right of removal, the case must be remanded to state court.

The case is GERALDINE BARABIN, as personal representative for the
Estate of HENRY BARABIN, Plaintiff, v. ASTENJOHNSON, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. C14-0557JLR (W.D. Wash.).  A full-text copy
of Judge Robart's Decision is available at http://is.gd/bDcra0
from Leagle.com.

Geraldine Barabin, represented by:

         Meredith B Good, Esq.
         BRAYTON PURCELL LLP
         222 Rush Landing Rd.
         Tel: (415) 898-1555

AstenJohnson Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian Bernard Smith,
Esq. -- bsmith@foleymansfield.com -- Daniel Ruttenberg, Esq. --
druttenberg@foleymansfield.com -- J. Scott Wood, Esq. --
swood@foleymansfield.com -- and Jan Elizabeth Brucker, Esq. --
jbrucker@foleymansfield.com -- at FOLEY & MANSFIELD.

Goulds Pumps Inc, Defendant, represented by Christine E Dinsdale,
Esq. -- dinsdale@sohalang.com -- and Michael Ryan O'Clair, Esq. --
oclair@sohalang.com -- at SOHA & LANG PS.

Grinnell LLC, formerly known as Grinnell Corporation also known as
Grinnell Fire, Defendant, represented by Ronald C Gardner, Esq. --
rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com -- at GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

Harder Mechanical Contractors Inc, Defendant, represented by Beth
M Strosky, Esq. -- bstrosky@kellerrohrback.com -- and Benjamin J
Lantz, Esq. -- blantz@kellerrohrback.com -- at KELLER ROHRBACK;
and Guy A. Randles, Esq. -- garandles@stoel.com -- at STOEL RIVES.

Metalclad Insulation Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Katherine M. Steele, Esq. -- ksteele@williamskastner.com -- at
WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Richard G Gawlowski, WILSON SMITH COCHRAN & DICKERSON.
Paramount Supply Co, Defendant, represented by Jason H Daywitt,
RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc, Defendant, represented by George S.
Pitcher, Esq. -- gpitcher@williamskastner.com -- and Zackary A
Paal, Esq. -- zpaal@williamskastner.com -- at WILLIAMS KASTNER &
GIBBS; and M Elizabeth O'Neill, Esq. -- eoneill@hptylaw.com -- at
HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP.

Sequoia Ventures Inc, Defendant, represented by Anthony Todaro,
Esq. -- atodaro@corrcronin.com -- and Kevin C Baumgardner, Esq. --
kbaumgardener@corrcronin.com -- at CORR CRONIN MICHELSON
BAUMGARDNER & PREECE.

Wright Schuchart Harbor, Defendant, represented by Diane Catherine
Babbitt, Esq. -- dbabbitt@jjrlaw.com -- at JACKSON JENKINS
RENSTROM LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Grants Rehearing in 2 PI Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a
corrected order June 6, 2014, granting the petition for rehearing
en banc in the asbestos-related lawsuits styled JOYCE BARLOW
Plaintiff-Appellee v. COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY Defendant-
Appellant and JOHN CRANE-HOUDAILLE, INCORPORATED; E.L. STEBBING &
COMPANY, INC.; HAMPSHIRE INDUSTRIES, INC., f/k/a John H. Hampshire
Company; UNIVERSAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY; J.H. FRANCE REFRACTORIES
COMPANY; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, f/k/a Kelly
Springfield Tire Company; MCIC, INC., and its remaining Director
Trustees, Robert I. McCormick, Elizabeth McCormick and Patricia
Schunk; CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation f/k/a Viacom,
Inc., Successor by merger to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania
Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation; METROPOLITAN
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY; CERTAINTEED
CORPORATION, individually and as successor to Bestwall Gypsum Co.;
KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION;
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, individually and as successor in
interest to Champion International Corporation and U.S. Plywood
Corp.; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., individually and as successor in
interest to Benjamin Foster Co., Amchem Products, Inc., H.B.
Fuller Co., Aventis CropScience USA, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc AG
Company, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. and Rhodia, Inc.; COOPER
INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and as successors in interest to
Crouse Hinds Co.; PFIZER CORPORATION; SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA,
INC., f/k/a Square D Company, individually and as successor in
interest to Electric Controller and Manufacturing Co.; GEORGIA-
PACIFIC, LLC, individually and as successor to Bestwall Gypsum
Co.; FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION; THE WALLACE & GALE ASBESTOS
SETTLEMENT TRUST; CONWED CORPORATION; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY;
GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION, individually and as successor in
interest to Bestwall Gypsum Co. Defendants; and CLARA G. MOSKO
Plaintiff-Appellee v. COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY Defendant-
Appellant and JOHN CRANE-HOUDAILLE, INCORPORATED; E.L. STEBBING &
CO., INCORPORATED; HAMPSHIRE INDUSTRIES, INC., f/k/a John H.
Hampshire Company; UNIVERSAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY; J.H. FRANCE
REFRACTORIES COMPANY; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, f/k/a
Kelly Springfield Tire Company; MCIC, INC., and its remaining
Director Trustees, Robert I. McCormick, Elizabeth McCormick and
Patricia Schunk; CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation f/k/a
Viacom, Inc.,f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation; METROPOLITAN
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY; CERTAINTEED
CORPORATION, individually and as successor to Bestwall Gypsum Co.;
KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION;
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, individually and as successor in
interest to Champion International Corporation and U.S. Plywood
Corp.; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., individually and as successor in
interest to Benjamin Foster, Co., Amchem Products, Inc., H.B.
Fuller Co., Aventis Cropscience USA, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc AG
Company, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. and Rhodia, Inc.; COOPER
INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and as successors in interest to
Crouse Hinds Co.; PFIZER CORPORATION; SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA,
INC., f/k/a Square D Company, individually and as successor in
interest to Electric Controller and Manufacturing Co.; FOSTER
WHEELER CORPORATION; THE WALLACE & GALE ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST;
CONWED CORPORATION; GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC, individually and as
successor to Bestwall Gypsum Co.; 3M COMPANY; MALLINCKRODT, INC.;
CROWN, CORK & SEAL CO., INC.; KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.; WALTER E.
CAMPBELL CO., INC.; KRAFFT-MURPHY COMPANY, individually and as
successor to National Asbestos Company, a dissolved Delaware
Corporation; AC&R INSULATION CO., INC.; COTY, INC.; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; LUZENAC AMERICA INC.; R.T. VANDERBILT COMPANY, INC.;
BAYER CORPORATION, as successor in interest to Sterling Drug,
Inc., and Sterling-Winthrop Inc.; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
Defendants, NOS. 13-1839 (L), 13-1840 (4th Cir.).

The cases are tentatively calendared for oral argument for the
September 2014 session, September 16-19, 2014.  A full-text copy
of the Circuit Court's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/wDajPCfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Awarded Summary Judgment in "Barnes" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jerome B. Simandle of the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey, in an opinion dated June 30, 2014,
granted the motion for summary judgment filed by General Electric
Company, a defendant in the asbestos-related lawsuit styled
Kimberly M. Barnes, Executor of the Estate of John W. Barnes, Jr.,
and John W. Barnes III, Administrator of the Estate of Jeanette
Barnes, Plaintiffs, v. Foster Wheeler Corp., et al., Defendants,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-1285 (JBS/JS)(D.N.J.).  The Plaintiffs'
failure to identify any asbestos-containing product manufactured
or supplied by GE favored towards granting GE's summary judgment
motion.  A full-text copy of Judge Simandle's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/6o8YVQfrom Leagle.com.

Attorney for Plaintiffs Kimberly M. Barnes and John W. Barnes III
is:

         James J. Pettit, Esq.
         LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC
         801 North Kings Highway
         Cherry Hill, NJ 08002

Attorneys for Defendant General Electric Company is Joanne
Hawkins, Esq., at SPEZIALI, GREENWALD & HAWKINS P.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colorado Inmate Directed to Amend Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold A. Cary, a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado
Department of Corrections at the correctional facility in
Sterling, Colorado, was directed by Magistrate Judge Boyd N.
Boland of the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado to amend his complaint, which, among other things,
alleges that he was exposed to airborne friable asbestos while
engaged in work at the correctional facility.  A full-text copy of
the magistrate judge's decision is available at
http://is.gd/YhLgUyfrom Leagle.com.

The case is ARNOLD A. CARY, Plaintiff, v. JOHN HICKENLOOPER,
Governor, State of Colorado, RICK RAEMISCH, Executive Director,
CDOC, JAMES FALK, Warden, SCT, MAURICE FAUVEL, D.O., SCT,
Physician, KERI MCKAY, P.A., SCF, Physician Assistant, KELSEY
PRUSHA, R.N., SCF, Registered Nurse, KEVIN VORWALD, Captain, SCF,
LT. PAGE, Lieutenant, SCF, LT. MOON, Lieutenant, SCF, LT. LUECK,
Case Manager, SCF, and LT. HERREA, Case Manager, SCF, Defendants,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-CV-00411-BNB (D. Colo.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Reverses Ruling in "Folta" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff James Folta was allegedly exposed to asbestos at a plant
owned by defendant Ferro Engineering from 1966 to 1970.  Forty-one
years after leaving the employ of Ferro Engineering, on May 17,
2011, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma.
By this time, any potential asbestos-related workers' compensation
claim against Ferro Engineering was time-barred by the Workers'
Compensation Act's 25-year statute of repose for asbestos-related
injuries and the three-year statute of repose for asbestos-related
diseases under the Workers' Occupational Diseases Act.  Thus,
instead of filing a workers' compensation claim, the Plaintiff
filed an action in the circuit court of Cook County on June 29,
2011, against Ferro Engineering and 14 other defendants that
allegedly supplied Ferro Engineering with products or equipment
containing asbestos.  Ferro Engineering filed a motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's counts against it, which was granted by the trial
court.

In an opinion dated June 27, 2014, the Appellate Court of
Illinois, First District, Fifth Division, reversed the trial
court's decision insofar as the Appellate Court finds that the
Plaintiff's suit against Ferro Engineering is not barred by the
exclusivity provisions of the Act and the Workers' Occupational
Diseases Act, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The case is ELLEN FOLTA, Individually and as Special Administrator
of the Estate of James Folta, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
FERRO ENGINEERING, a division of on Marine Services Company,
Defendant-Appellee, NO. 1-12-3219 (Ill. App.).  A full-text copy
of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/qq2awnfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Hasenberg" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William and Linda Hasenberg filed suit in Illinois state court
against 35 Defendants, seeking to recover for injuries William
allegedly sustained from exposure to asbestos-containing products
from 1968 to 2013.  On June 25, 2014, the Plaintiffs' filed a
stipulation for dismissal of their claims against one Defendant,
The Sherwin-Williams Company, and a stipulation for dismissal as
to a second Defendant, AutoZone, Inc.

Judge Michael J. Reagan of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois, in an order dated June 26,
2014, acknowledged that the Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed
their case/claims against AutoZone, without prejudice, and their
case/claims against Sherwin-Williams without prejudice.

The case is WILLIAM HASENBERG, JR., and LINDA HASENBERG,
Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. 13-CV-1325-MJR-SCW (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Reagan's Decision is available at http://is.gd/8JL8l5from
Leagle.com.

William Hasenberg, Jr., and Linda Hasenberg, Plaintiffs,
represented by Eric D. Jackstadt, Esq., at Napoli Bern, et al.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl,
Royster et al.

Autozone Inc, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Beth Kamp Esq., at Veath, Brown & James.

Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., as successor-by-merger to Borg-Warner
Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Donald W. Ward, Esq., Gary L. Smith, Esq., Justin
Andrew Welply, Esq., and Mary Ann Hatch, Esq., at Herzog, Crebs et
al..

Brand Insulations, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Thomas L. Orris, Esq. --
torris@wvslaw.com -- Kenneth M. Nussbaumer, Esq. --
knussbaumer@wvslaw.com -- and Mary D. Rychnovsky, Esq. --
mrychnovsky@wvslaw.com -- atWilliams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Esq., at Royster et
al.

Continental Teves, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et
al.

Crane Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, Esq., Carl J. Geraci, Esq.,
Eric D. Rosser, Esq., and Noel L. Smith, Jr., Esq., at HeplerBroom
LLC.

Cummins Inc., formerly known as Cummins Engine Co., Defendant and
Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at
Segal, McCambridge et al.

Flowserve Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et al.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by David W. Ybarra, Esq., at Greensfelder,
Hemker et al.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., at Segal, McCambridge et
al.

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Bradley R. Bultman, Esq., and William R. Irwin, Esq., at Segal,
McCambridge et al.

Georgia Pacific, LLC, formerly known as Georgia-Pacific
Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., Benjamin J. Wilson, Esq.,
and Carl J. Geraci, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC.

Hennessy Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Todd Nelson, Esq., at Gordon & Rees LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Esq., Allison K.
Sonneveld, Esq., Kathleen Ann Hardee, Esq., and Kirra N. Jones,
Esq., at Polsinelli PC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Michael J Chessler, Esq., Benjamin J.
Wilson, Esq., and Carl J. Geraci, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Sean P. Fergus, Esq. -- sean@otmblaw.com -- at
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Kelsey-Hayes Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Andrew M. Voss, Esq., at Greensfelder, Hemker et al. - St.
Louis.

Maremont Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Ryan T.
Barke, Esq., at Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale PC - Swansea.

Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Maureen A. McGlynn, Esq. --
mo@kmblaw1.com -- and Joseph B. McGlynn, Jr., Esq. --
jbm@mcglynnlaw.com -- at Kortenhof McGlynn & Burns LLC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Esq., at Joley,
Nussbaumer, et al..

Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Ross S. Titzer, Esq., at Williams Venker & Sanders
LLC.

Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Andrew M. Voss, Esq., at Greensfelder, Hemker et
al. - St. Louis.

Trane US, Inc., formerly known as American Standard, Inc.,
Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented
by Michael J Chessler, Esq., Benjamin J. Wilson, Esq., and Carl J.
Geraci, Esq., at HeplerBroom LLC.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Esq., Justin S. Zimmerman, Esq.,
and Matthew J. Morris, Esq., at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al..

Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Keith B. Hill, Esq., at Heyl, Royster et al..

York International Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Esq., Justin Andrew
Welply, Esq., and Mary Ann Hatch, Esq., at Herzog, Crebs et al..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HLC Fails in Insurance Suit Against Continental
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Continental Casualty Company's and National Fire
Insurance Company of Hartford's filed a motion to dismiss an
action for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith
arising out of the alleged failure of Continental and National to
fulfill their obligations under two stop gap liability policies
issued to plaintiff Homer Laughlin China Company for an underlying
asbestos claim filed by one of HLC's former employees.

Judge John Preston Bailey of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of West Virginia, Wheeling, in an order
dated June 27, 2014, granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint, after determining that because the Plaintiff does not
allege that Patricia D. Little's last day of last exposure to
asbestos occurred during the policy period, Continental is not
responsible to indemnify HLC for the settlement in the underlying
lawsuit styled Patricia D. Little and Kenneth P. Little, her
husband, v. A.O. Smith Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 12-C-865,
in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia.  As a final
matter, having found no breach of contract, HLC's claim for breach
of the duty of good faith and fair dealing must also fail, Judge
Bailey said.

The case is THE HOMER LAUGHLIN CHINA COMPANY, Plaintiff, v.
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY and NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF HARTFORD, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-
13.(BAILEY)(N.D.W.Va.).  A full-text copy of Judge Bailey's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/IDx2E3from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pro Hac Vice Applications OK'd in Garlock Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr., of the United States District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, issued
an order dated June 30, 2014, granting the "Application[s] for
Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice" requesting admission of
Charles B. Walther, Fred L. Alvarez, and Tony L. Draper,
respectively.  Representatives of Legal Newsline, et al., are
seeking to appear in the Chapter 11 case of Garlock Sealing
Technologies, LLC, to pursue their requests for information
relating to information filed by asbestos personal injury
claimants.

The case is LEGAL NEWSLINE, et al., Plaintiff, v. GARLOCK SEALING
TECHNOLOGIE, LLC, Defendant, NO. 3:13-CV-464 (W.D.N.C.).  A full-
text copy of Judge Cogburn's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/q7IFxIfrom Leagle.com.

Ford Motor Company, Consol Plaintiff, represented by E. Duncan
Getchell, Jr., Esq., Karen Elizabeth Sieg, Esq., Kirk Gibson
Warner, Esq., and Michael H. Brady, Esq., at McGuireWoods, LLP.

Garrison Litigation Management, Ltd, Consol Plaintiff, represented
by Garland Stuart Cassada, Esq., Jonathan C. Krisko, Esq., and
Richard Charles Worf, Jr., Esq., at Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson,
P.A.

The Anchor Packing Company, Consol Plaintiff, represented by
Garland Stuart Cassada, Esq., Jonathan C. Krisko, Esq., and
Richard Charles Worf, Jr., Esq., at Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson,
P.A.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Consol Plaintiff, represented
by Teresa E. Lazzaroni, Esq. -- tlazzaroni@hptylaw.com -- at
Hawkins & Parnell LLP.

Everest Reinsurance Company, Consol Plaintiff, represented by
Charles Brittain Walther, Esq., Fred L. Alvarez, Esq., J. Samuel
Gorham, III, Esq., and Tony L. Draper, Esq., at Walker Wilcox
Matousek, LLP.

Legal Newsline, Appellant, represented by Alan W. Duncan, Esq. --
amber.duncan@smithmoorelaw.com -- at Smith Moore LLP; Andrew May,
Esq., and Steven Pflaum, Esq., at Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP;
and Stephen M. Russell, Jr., Esq. -- srussell@turningpointlit.com
-- at Van Laningham Duncan PLLC.

Belluck & Fox, LLP, Defendant, represented by G. Martin Hunter,
Esq., at Shuford Hunter, PLLC.

Shein Law Center Ltd, Defendant, represented by G. Martin Hunter,
Esq., at Shuford Hunter, PLLC.

Mark Iola, LLP, Defendant, represented by G. Martin Hunter, Esq.,
at Shuford Hunter, PLLC.

Mt. McKinley Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Charles
Brittain Walther, Esq., Fred L. Alvarez, Esq., and Tony L. Draper,
Esq., at Walker Wilcox Matousek, LLP; and J. Samuel Gorham, III,
Gorham & Crone, PLLC.

Resolute Management, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by George
Dudley Humphrey, III, Allman Spry Davis Leggett & Crumpler, PA,
Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee, Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto, P.A.,
Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Allman Spry Leggett & Crumpler, PA & John
S. Favate, Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto P.A..

AIU Insurance Company, Consol Defendant, represented by George
Dudley Humphrey, III, Allman Spry Davis Leggett & Crumpler, PA,
Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee, Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto, P.A.,
Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Allman Spry Leggett & Crumpler, PA & John
S. Favate, Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto P.A..

American Home Assurance Company, Consol Defendant, represented by
George Dudley Humphrey, III, Allman Spry Davis Leggett & Crumpler,
PA, Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee, Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto,
P.A., Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Allman Spry Leggett & Crumpler, PA
& John S. Favate, Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto P.A..

Birmingham Fire Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, Consol
Defendant, represented by George Dudley Humphrey, III, Allman Spry
Davis Leggett & Crumpler, PA, Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee, Hardin
Kundla McKeon & Poletto, P.A., Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Allman
Spry Leggett & Crumpler, PA & John S. Favate, Hardin Kundla McKeon
& Poletto P.A..

Granite State Insurance Company, Consol Defendant, represented by
George Dudley Humphrey, III, Allman Spry Davis Leggett & Crumpler,
PA, Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee, Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto,
P.A., Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Allman Spry Leggett & Crumpler, PA
& John S. Favate, Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto P.A..

Lexington Insurance Company, Consol Defendant, represented by
George Dudley Humphrey, III, Allman Spry Davis Leggett & Crumpler,
PA, Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee, Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto,
P.A., Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Allman Spry Leggett & Crumpler, PA
& John S. Favate, Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto P.A..

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., Consol
Defendant, represented by George Dudley Humphrey, III, Allman Spry
Davis Leggett & Crumpler, PA, Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee, Hardin
Kundla McKeon & Poletto, P.A., Jodi Danielle Hildebran, Allman
Spry Leggett & Crumpler, PA & John S. Favate, Hardin Kundla McKeon
& Poletto P.A..

Honeywell International, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by H.
Lee Davis, Jr., Davis & Hamrick, L.L.P. & Nava Hazan, Squire
Patton Boggs (US) LLP.

Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, Appellee, represented by Albert
Franklin Durham, Rayburn, Cooper & Durham, P.A., Ashley Kerns
Neal, Rayburn, Cooper & Durham, P.A., Garland Stuart Cassada,
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P. A., John R. Miller, Jr., Rayburn,
Cooper & Durham, P.A., Jonathan C. Krisko, Robinson, Bradshaw &
Hinson, P. A., Louis Adams Bledsoe, III, Robinson, Bradshaw &
Hinson, P. A., Richard Charles Worf, Jr., Robinson Bradshaw &
Hinson, P.A., Ross Robert Fulton, Rayburn, Cooper & Durham, P.A.,
Shelley Koon Abel, Rayburn, Cooper & Durham & William Samuel
Smoak, Jr., Rayburn, Cooper & Durham, P.A..

Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants,
Appellee, represented by Travis Waterbury Moon, Moon Wright &
Houston, PLLC, Trevor W. Swett, III, Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered,
Andrew Thomas Houston, Moon Wright & Houston, PLLC & Richard
Steele Wright, Moon Wright & Houston, PLLC.

Coltec Industries, Inc., Intervenor, represented by E. Taylor
Stukes, Moore & Van Allen, PLLC & Mark Andrew Nebrig, Moore & Van
Allen.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Awarded Summary Judgment in "Miller" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James D. Peterson of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Wisconsin issued an opinion and order
dated June 23, 2014, granting the motions for summary judgment
filed by R. T. Vanderbilt Co., Inc., and American Art Clay Co.,
Inc., defendants in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit
styled CARY MILLER and WESTERN NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Co-Personal
Representatives of the Estate of DON PETER MILLER, Deceased, and
JANE E. MILLER, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN ART CLAY CO INC., et al.,
Defendants, NO. 12-CV-516-JDP (W.D. Wis.).

Judge Peterson ruled that because the Plaintiffs lack sufficient
evidence to show that the Defendants' products were a substantial
factor contributing to Don Peter Miller's mesothelioma, the
Plaintiffs' claims of negligence and failure to warn must be
dismissed on summary judgment.  Judge Peterson further ruled that
because the Plaintiffs cannot prove causation, their claim based
on the Defendants' willful and wanton conduct must also be
dismissed on summary judgment.

A full-text copy of Judge Peterson's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/ABX1Xnfrom Leagle.com.

Jane E. Miller, Cary Miller, as personal representative of the
estate of Don Peter Miller, and Western National Trust Company, as
personal representative of the estate of Don Peter Miller,
Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants, represented by Lynn R.
Laufenberg, and Michael L. Laufenberg, Esq., at Laufenberg,
Stombaugh & Jassak, S.C.; Darren Patrick McDowell, Esq., Gregory
W. Lisemby, Esq., Kevin W. Paul, Esq., and Tiffany Newlin
Dickenson, Esq., at Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC.

American Art Clay Co Inc., an Indiana corporation, Defendant,
Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Anissa Marie
Mediger, Esq. -- amediger@murname.com -- and Kathryn Rose Downey,
Esq. -- kdowney@murname.com -- at Murnane Brandt.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a New York corporation,
Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by
William P. Croke, von Briesen & Roper, s.c..

RT Vanderbilt Company, Inc., sued individually and as successor-
in-interest to International Talc Company, Defendant, Cross
Claimant, and Cross Defendant, represented by Dustin T. Woehl,
Kasdorf, Lewis & Swietlik, S.C. & James J. Kriva, Kasdorf, Lewis &
Swietlik, S.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Proctor" Suit Allowed to Continue Against Andal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In an asbestos personal injury action, defendant Andal Corporation
moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-
claims asserted against it on the ground that plaintiff James
Proctor has failed to identify Andal or any of its alleged
predecessor companies as a source of his exposure.  In a decision
and order dated June 26, 2014, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the
Supreme Court, New York County, denied Andal's motion having
determined that the evidence presented on the motion raises
material triable issues of fact whether Andal, as successor-in-
interest to the Circle corporate entities, is responsible for Mr.
Proctor's asbestos exposure at the WTC site by reason of Circle
Floors and Star Circle.

The case is JAMES AUGUSTUS PROCTOR and JOY C. PROCTOR, Plaintiffs,
v. ALCOA, INC., et al, Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190040/13, MOTION
SEQ. 005 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/rV6KHKfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H&V Dropped as Defendant in "Ricks" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Hollingsworth & Vose Company filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction an action ariseing out of plaintiff John Sam
Ricks, Jr.'s exposure to asbestos-containing products alleged to
be manufactured or otherwise attributable to over 30 defendants of
which H&V is one.  In an order dated June 24, 2014, Judge Terrence
W. Boyle of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Eastern Division, granted the motion,
holding that H&V's manufacture of paper materials in Massachusetts
and shipment of those materials to Victor in states other than
North Carolina establishes no intentional connection between H&V
and North Carolina.  That it entered its paper proucts into the
stream of commerce with the knowledge that they would be
incorporated into products later sold in North Carolina is not
sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction, Judge Boyle said.

The case is JOHN SAM RICKS, JR. and BRENDA RICKS, Plaintiffs, v.
ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC.; AURORA PUMP COMPANY; et al.,
Defendants, NO. 4:14-CV-37-BO (E.D.N.C.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Boyle's Decision is available at http://is.gd/Butd3bfrom
Leagle.com.

John Sam Ricks, Jr., and Brenda Ricks, Plaintiffs, represented by
Kevin W. Paul, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Janet
Ward Black, Ward Black Law.

Armstrong International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy
Peck, Esq. -- tim.peck@smithmoorelaw.com -- at Smith Moore
Leatherwood LLP.

Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Tracy E. Tomlin,
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante,
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP & William Michael Starr,
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman,
Evert Weathersby Houff.

Coen Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr.,
Pinto, Coates, Kyre & Bowers, PLLC.

Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy
W. Bouch, Leath Bouch & Seekings.

Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Charles M.
Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A..

Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, Defendant,
represented by Keith E. Coltrain, Wall Templeton & Haldrup, P.A..
Flowserve US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark S. Thomas,
Williams Mullen.

FMC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Peter A. Santos, Nexsen
Pruet, PLLC.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher R.
Kiger, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan & Kirk G.
Warner, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan.
Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Jennifer M. Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Goulds Pumps, Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Charles M.
Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A..

Hobart Brothers Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by H. Lee
Davis, Jr., Davis & Hamrick, LLP.

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sarah M. Bowman,
Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A..

IMO Industries, Inc., sued individually and as successor-in-
interest to Delaval Turbine, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Joshua H. Bennett, Bennett & Guthrie, PLLC.

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck,
Esq., at Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen B. Williamson,
Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes & Davis, P.A..

The Lincoln Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer
M. Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Wall Templeton & Haldrup, P.A..

Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy E. Tomlin, Nelson
Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante, Nelson
Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP & William Michael Starr, Nelson
Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Pneumo Abex LLC, sued as successor-in-interest to Abex
Corporation, Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch, Leath
Bouch & Seekings.

SPX Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary L. Beaver, Nexsen
Pruet, PLLC.

Sterling Fluid Systems (USA), LLC, Defendant, represented by Peter
A. Santos, Nexsen Pruet, PLLC.

Terex Corporation, Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Esq.,
at Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

Trane US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Esq., at
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles M.
Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A..

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck,
Esq., at Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

Wabco Holdings Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Esq.,
at Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy
E. Tomlin, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP & William
Michael Starr, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by David B.
Oakley, Poole Mahoney PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CERCLA Suit v. ARG Corp. to Proceed to Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Government spent hundreds of thousands of
dollars cleaning up hazardous waste at an old factory site in
South Bend, Indiana.  The government filed a suit against ARG
Corporation under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act seeking to recover the money the
Environmental Protection Agency spent on the clean-up.  Whether or
not the government can recover from ARG depends on whether a
"disposal" of hazardous waste occurred while ARG owned the
property.  The government has filed for summary judgment arguing
that the facts show that a disposal occurred.  ARG has also filed
for summary judgment arguing that the facts show that a disposal
didn't occur.

Judge Philip P. Simon of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, issued an
opinion and order on June 27, 2014, finding that the dispute is a
disputed issue of fact that will have to be decided at trial.
Therefore, Judge Simon denied the parties' cross motions for
summary judgment.

The case is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ARG
CORPORATION and NORBERT R. TOUBES, Defendants, CAUSE NO. 3:10-CV-
311 (N.D. Ind.).  A full-text copy of Judge Simon's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/vVLR2nfrom Leagle.com.

United States of America, Plaintiff, represented by Katherine Ann
Abend, US Department of Justice, Kristin M Furrie, US Department
of Justice & Wayne T Ault, US Attorney's Office.

ARG Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert W Mysliwiec,
Robert W Mysliwiec PC.

Norbert R Toubes, as distributee of ARG Corporation's assets,
Defendant, represented by Robert W Mysliwiec, Robert W Mysliwiec
PC.

Norbert R Toubes, as a distributee of ARG Corporation's assets,
ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Robert W Mysliwiec, Robert W
Mysliwiec PC.

City of South Bend acting through its Department of Redevelopment,
ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Cheryl A Greene, City of
South Bend Attorney's Office.

City of South Bend, acting through its Department of
Redevelopment, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Daniel Philip
Cory, Plews Shadley Racher & Braun, Jeffrey D Claflin, Plews
Shadley Racher & Braun & Thao Trong Nguyen, Plews Shadley Racher &
Braun.


                             *********

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.  Ma. Cristina
Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. 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  * * *