CAR_Public/140801.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, August 1, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 152

                             Headlines


153 WOODCLEFT: Faces "Katsanos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
721 DELI & GROCERY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Two Law Firms File Androgel Class Action
ALLIANCE SECURITY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Bank" Suit Says
AQUI EN BELLA: Faces "Leon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Sued Over Excessive FX Deal Rates
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Aug. 12 Hearing on OT Class Action Accord
BENDIGO & ADELAIDE: Investors Welcome Class Action Settlement
BILLUND, DENMARK: Morbid Obesity Considered as Protected Class
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Suit Over Pradaxa Warning Label

CARE FIRST: Faces "Alfonso" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CHICHESTER SCHOOL: Parents Sue Over Transfer of Autistic Students
CINNABAR SERVICE: Class Action Over Property Appraisal Can Proceed
DAVIS BROTHERS: Does Not Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
DENBURY ONSHORE: 5th Cir. Remands Class Action to La. State Court

EBAY INC: Sued Over Failure to Secure Customers Information
EL RINCON: "Flores" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
FAMILY DOLLAR: Lawsuits Alleging FLSA "Violation" Remain in MDL
FAMILY DOLLAR: To Seek Approval for "Farley" Labor Suit Accord
FAMILY DOLLAR: Seeks Approval for "Hegab" Labor Suit Settlement

FAMILY DOLLAR: "Itterly" Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Lawsuit
FAMILY DOLLAR: Appeals Court Yet to Decide on "Premo" Labor Suit
FAMILY DOLLAR: "Scott" Gender Pay Litigation Back in Ala. Court
FEDEX CORP: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Wage-and-Hour "Violations"
FEDEX CORP: Updates on Labor Suits by Owner-Operators

FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Butch's Central Sues Over Tank Prices
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: J&V Sues Over Reduced Amount of Propane
FLUIDMASTER INC: Faces Class Action Over "NO-BURST" Pipes Defect
GUESS? INC: Files Motion to Dismiss TCPA Class Action
HSBC: Judge Appoints Co-Lead Counsel in Gold-Fix Class Action

HUMANA INC: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
HYUNDAI: Hearing Set to Address Class Action Settlement Issues
JAMES HAWKINS: Has Tried to Extort Applied Medical, Suit Claims
KANSAS: Proposes About $2-Mil. Overtime Class Action Settlement
LEHIGH VALLEY RESTAURANT: Court Won't Dismiss Tip-Pooling Suit

LEONA'S PIZZERIA: Faces "Lucero" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
KODIAK OIL: Facing Suit in Colo. Over Sale to Whiting Petroleum
KODIAK OIL: Facing Suit in Colo. Over Whiting Petroleum Deal
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Accused of Hiding Minor Leaguers' Wages
MIN TONG HARDWARE: "Zou" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

MSB RESTAURANT: "Cabrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Court Approved Brain Injury Class Settlement
NAVISTAR INC: Finkelstein Affirms Intent to Pursue Class Action
NORTH AMERICAN PIPELINE: Faces "McGeary" Suit Over Breach of FLSA
OCEAN POWER: Sued Over Violations of Securities Exchange Act

OHIO: Settles BWC Class Action for $420 Million
PANASONIC CORPORATION: Restraint Trade of Capacitors, Suit Claims
PANERA LLC: Sued Over Violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act
PELOZA CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Action Claims
POKERTEK INC: Inks MoU to Settle Suit Over Multimedia Merger

PRIMERICA LIFE: Faces Class Suit Over Insurance-Related Issues
QUEANBEYAN: May Face Class Action Over Supplementary Rates Bills
RIGHT CHOICE: Fails to Pay Non-Exempt Workers OT, Action Claims
ROUGHLOCK LLC: Faces "Kush" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SKOTINI INC: Faces "Bustamante" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

SOI GROUP: Faces "Meza" Suit in Tex. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
STUCHELL PRODUCTS: Faces "Betts" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SUBURBAN EATS: Faces "Padilla" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Sued Over Non-disclosure of Cancer Risks
TENNESSEE: Faces "Wilson" Suit for Delaying Health Coverage

U.S. BANCORP: Fails to Pay Co-Managers Overtime, Suit Claims
VIACOM INC: Consolidated Privacy MDL Complaint May Be Amended
VOXX INTL: Faces "Ford" Securities Litigation in New York Court
WD-40 CO: Faces Lawsuit in Cal. Over Communication "Recording"
WHITING PETROLEUM: Sued in Colo. Over Kodiak Oil Buyout

WHITING PETROLEUM: Sued in Colo. Over Acquisition of Kodiak Oil


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,515 Claims as of March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Has 1,130 Pending PI Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Inc. Continues to Defend Suits v. Units
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Obtains Dismissal of 44 Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 45,270 Pending Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $609MM Fibro Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 1,255 Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Inc. Subsidiary Has 1,130 Pending Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Subsidiary Has 8,601 Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh's Suit v. Insurers is Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $106MM Insurance Receivable
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Suit v. Arabian American Unit Remains Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Has 273 Exposure Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling Had 15 Fibro-Related Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Must Pay $500M to Resolve Asbestos Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Writ of Mandate v. Calif. City Upheld
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Gets Partial Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer's Appeal Nixed for Lack of Jurisdiction

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resolute Dropped as Defendant in Insurance Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. High Court Junks PI Suit v. Union Carbide
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Modified Order Issued in Illegal Removal Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Inmate's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TSG Allowed to Interneve in RCRA Suit v. Fluor

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Marquez" Suit Remanded to Cal. State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Awarding Death Benefits to Widow Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in "Collin" Suit Partially Reversed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Dougherty" Suit Remanded to State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Seeking to Unseal Garlock Docs Granted

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Issued in Inmate's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle's Bid to Dismiss "Herman" Suit Denied


                            *********


153 WOODCLEFT: Faces "Katsanos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edyta Katsanos, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. 153 Woodcleft Corp. d/b/a Sugar Daddy's
Gentlemen's Club; 4914 Queens Group, Inc., d/b/a Secrets
Gentlemen's Club; Review Entertainment, Inc., d/b/a Rouge
Gentlemen's Club; Antonio Causi; Dennis Conway; Thomas Devitt;
Gerald Monfort; Louis Pazienza; And David Scannapiego; jointly and
severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-04409 (E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2014), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wages overtime compensation, and such
other relief available under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

153 Woodcleft Corp. owns and operates bars or lounges doing
business as Sugar Daddy's Gentlemen's Club, Secrets Gentlemen's
Club, and Rogue Gentlemen's Club and located at 3621 Review
Avenue, Long Island City, New York; 4914 Queens Boulevard,
Woodside, New York; and 5561 58th Street, Maspeth, New York;
respectively.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
      Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, N.Y. 10007-2036
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
              jazeller@zellerlegal.com


721 DELI & GROCERY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Felipe Galindo, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. 721 Deli & Grocery Inc. and Mohammed
Hossain, Case No. 1:14-cv-05637 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2014), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

721 Deli & Grocery Inc. is a deli owned by Mohamed Hossain,
located at 721 2nd Avenue, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Stein, Esq.
      SAMUEL & STEIN
      38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 563-9884


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Two Law Firms File Androgel Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
McKenzie Lake Lawyers, LLP and Morganti Legal, P.C. have filed a
class action lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories Ltd., Abbott
Products Inc., Abbott Products Canada Inc., and Abbvie Products
LLC, the makers and sellers of Androgel on June 26, 2014.

Androgel is approved in Canada, since 2002, for use in the
treatment of low-testosterone conditions associated with
hypogonadism.  It is one form of testosterone replacement therapy:
other forms include injections, patches and pills.  Use of these
testosterone replacement therapies have been linked to an
increased risk of suffering heart attacks, blood clots, strokes
and death.  This is the first testosterone replacement therapy
class action commenced in Canada.

The Androgel Claim alleges that Abbott knew or should have known
of these risks and failed to warn the public.  The lawsuit also
claims Abbott aggressively marketed Androgel by misleading
potential users about the prevalence and symptoms of low
testosterone, along with the safety and efficacy of Androgel
treatment, ultimately failing to protect users from serious, life-
threatening, adverse medical events.

Andrew Morganti -- amorganti@morgantilegal.com -- of Morganti
Legal, P.C. says, "We believe that through this lawsuit, Abbott
will be required to explain to Canadian consumers what it knew
about the risks associated with using Androgel and when it first
became aware of those risks."

Matthew Baer -- baer@mckenzielake.com -- of McKenzie Lake Lawyers
explains: "In this case, as in all of these types of cases, we are
concerned about whether Canadians were adequately warned of the
risks associated with using this product."

It is too early to quantify the value of class member claims, but
it is anticipated that the amounts are significant.  Canadians,
who have experienced adverse events from using Androgel, or other
testosterone replacement products, are encouraged to visit
http://www.mckenzielake.comcall 1-844-672-5666, or e-mail
testosteroneclassaction@mckenzielake.com for more information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP
Matthew Baer (519) 777-3245 baer@mckenzielake.com
http://www.mckenzielake.com


ALLIANCE SECURITY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Bank" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Todd C. Bank, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Alliance Security Inc., Monitronics International,
Inc., UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., doing
business as GE Security, and Versatile Marketing Solutions, Inc.,
doing business as VMS Alarms, Case No. 1:14-cv-04410 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 23, 2014), arises out of telephone calls, made by or on
behalf of the Defendants, using an artificial or prerecorded voice
that delivered a message that advertised the commercial
availability or quality of a home-security system.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of installation,
service, monitoring of home-security systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd C. Bank, Esq.
      TODD C. BANK, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PC
      119-40 Union Turnpike
      Kew Garden, NY 11415
      Telephone: (718) 261-2482
      E-mail: tblaw101@aol.com


AQUI EN BELLA: Faces "Leon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Leon on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v.  Aqui En Bella Puebla, Inc., Bella Puebla, Inc.,
Argimiro G. Hernandez, and Daniel Gill, Case No. 1:14-cv-04432
(E.D.N.Y., July 23, 2014), seeks to recover minimum wages,
overtime compensation, spread-of hours pay, misappropriated
gratuities, unlawful deductions, and other damages for Plaintiff
and her similarly situated co-workers -- bartenders, bar backs,
and other "tipped workers".

Aqui En Bella Puebla, Inc. is a Mexican restaurant located at 94-
11 Roosevelt Avenue, Jackson Heights, NY 11372.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq.
      Frank Joseph Mazzaferro, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER LLP
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375
      Facsimile: (212) 564-5468
      E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com
              fmazzaferro@fslawfirm.com


BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Sued Over Excessive FX Deal Rates
----------------------------------------------------------
Landol D. Fletcher and all others similarly situated v. The Bank
Of New York Mellon, BNY Mellon, National Association, and DOES
1-20, Case No. 1:14-cv-05496 (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2014), alleges
that the Defendants charged excessive rates and markups on non-
negotiated Foreign Exchange (FX) transactions including what are
known as "standing instruction" transactions.  The lawsuit says
the Defendants did not report the market rate at which the
transaction occurred. Instead, they selected a price for their own
benefit.

The Bank of New York Mellon is a New York state chartered
bank, and is one of two principal bank subsidiaries of BNY Mellon
Corp.

BNY Mellon, National Association is a nationally-chartered bank
and is based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David S. Preminger, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
      140 Avenue of the Americas, Ninth Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (646) 380-6690
      Facsimile: (646) 380-6692
      E-mail: dpreminger@kellerrohrback.com

           - and -

      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
      T. David Copley, Esq.
      Margaret E. Wetherald, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: 206-623-1900
      Facsimile: 206-623-8986
      E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
              dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
              dcopley@kellerrohrback.com
              mwetherald@kellerrohrback.com

           - and -

      J. Brian McTigue, Esq.
      James A. Moore, Esq.
      McTIGUE LAW LLP
      4530 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Suite 300
      Washington, DC 20016
      Telephone: (202) 364-6900
      Facsimile: (202) 364-9960
      E-mail: bmctigue@mctiguelaw.com
              jmoore@mctiguelaw.com

           - and -

       Jonathan G. Axelrod, Esq.
       Regina M. Markey, Esq.
       BEINS, AXELROD, P.C.
       1625 Mass. Ave. NW
       Washington, DC 20036
       Telephone: (202) 328-7222
       E-mail: jaxelrod@beinsaxelrod.com
               rmarkey@beinsaxelrod.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Aug. 12 Hearing on OT Class Action Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scotiabank and the representative plaintiff Cindy Fulawka have
reached an agreement to settle the Fulawka v. The Bank of Nova
Scotia Overtime Class Action.  A hearing for approval of the
proposed settlement will take place on August 12.  The class
action was commenced against the Bank in December 2007 on behalf
of certain full-time retail branch bank employees in Canada who
held the positions of Personal Banking Officer, Senior Personal
Banking Officer, Financial Advisor or Account Manager Small
Business.

Scotiabank is participating in the settlement proposal to
reinforce its long standing commitment to pay employees for their
overtime work or provide time in lieu.  The Bank is confident that
its employee policies, including on overtime, have been applied
fairly and consistently.

The basis of the settlement, which is subject to approval on
August 12, is a claims process.  If the settlement is approved,
the Bank will encourage and invite all eligible class members to
make claims for any overtime that was worked but not previously
compensated during the claim period identified in the Class
Action.

Scotiabank -- http://www.scotiabank.com-- is a financial services
provider in over 55 countries and Canada's most international
bank.  Through our team of more than 86,000 employees, Scotiabank
and its affiliates offer a broad range of products and services,
including personal and commercial banking, wealth management,
corporate and investment banking to over 21 million customers.
With assets of $792 billion (as at April 30, 2014), Scotiabank
trades on the Toronto (TSX: BNS) and New York (NYSE: BNS)
Exchanges.


BENDIGO & ADELAIDE: Investors Welcome Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Smith, writing for The West Australian, reports that Bendigo
and Adelaide Bank investors have welcomed the settlement of a
class action which targeted its involvement in managed investment
schemes peddled by failed forestry group Great Southern
Plantations.

Deutsche Bank noted that the agreement had eliminated the risk of
a legal defeat "which would have had a material negative impact on
the company".

"It also removes the uncertainty of further appeals from the
borrowers," Deutsche said.

The settlement provides only a measure of financial relief to the
4350 investors who owe Bendigo $380 million in mainly overdue
loans taken out to invest in the Great Southern schemes.

While Bendigo will waive accrued penalty interest on overdue
borrowings, the investors covered by the class action have agreed
the loans are enforceable and released the bank from the threat of
future litigation.

The class action had sought to void the loans on the basis
investors were misled by Great Southern, which collapsed in May
2009.

Bendigo said the settlement endorsed its position.

"We have always maintained that the bank's conduct was at all
times appropriate and the bank is entitled to be repaid its loans
to Great Southern borrowers," managing director Mike Hirst said.

"The terms of this agreement endorse this position and we look
forward to working with borrowers as they repay their debts to
us."

The settlement is subject to the approval of the Victorian Supreme
Court, which had been due to rule on the class action.


BILLUND, DENMARK: Morbid Obesity Considered as Protected Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports that morbid obesity
is a protected class, an adviser to Europe's highest court ruled
on July 17, 2014, siding with a Danish worker seeking disability
status after his weight allegedly cost him a job.

Karsten Kaltloft claimed he was fired Nov. 22, 2010, after working
for the Municipality of Billund in Denmark as a "child-minder" for
15 years because he weighed 352 pounds.

Throughout his employment, Katloft was fat, with a body-mass index
of 54, and is therefore considered obese by the World Health
Organization.

Arguing that his morbid obesity is a "chronic and durable
illness," Katloft pointed out that obesity is considered a
disability under American law.

The municipality claimed that it fired him because of a reduction
in workload, but Katloft claimed that he was fired because of his
weight.  He sued in a Danish District Court, and the Retten I
Kolding Court in Denmark asked the Court of Justice last year to
clarify whether the antidiscrimination books in the EU cover
obesity.

Jaaskinen suggested on July 17, 2014, that obesity should be
included as a protected class.

"I am . . . of the opinion that, in cases where the condition of
obesity has reached a degree that it, in interaction with
attitudinal and environmental barriers, as mentioned in the
[United Nations] Convention, plainly hinders full participation in
professional life on an equal footing with other employees due to
the physical and/or psychological limitations that it entails,
then it can be considered to be a disability," he wrote.

It doesn't matter if the person's obesity is because of excessive
"energy intake," Jaaskinen added, stating that it is "irrelevant"
if a person's obesity is "self-inflicted" because a person eats
too many calories but exercises too little, if it's a
psychological or medical problem, or if it's a side-effect from
certain medications.

"Otherwise, physical disabilities resulting from conscious and
negligent risk-taking in traffic or in sports, for example, would
be excluded from 'disability'" under the law, he wrote.

The advocate general's opinion isn't binding on the European Court
of Justice, which now begins deliberations on Katloft's case.


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Suit Over Pradaxa Warning Label
-----------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed in
B.C. Supreme Court against the maker of a blood-thinning drug,
alleging that serious potential side effects aren't clearly
disclosed.

Gladys Chouinard, who lived in B.C., was prescribed Pradaxa
following a heart attack and a valve replacement.  The lawsuit
says she bled to death a month after she began taking the
medication.  Her daughter, Marilyn Tanguay, claims the company
didn't make it clear that there was no antidote for the drug in
the event of a major bleeding event -- a known side effect of many
blood thinners.

Bryan McPhadden, the lawyer representing the class action, says
the fact there is no antidote wasn't made clear on the drug's
labelling.

"It should be profiled in the warning section of the product
monographs, and that was not the case when Pradaxa first came on
the market," he said.  "For some unknown reason, it was contained
in the overdose section.  We say that is entirely unhelpful,
because overdose is not usually a problem."

Mr. McPhadden says the clearest labelling is essential for doctors
and patients to be able to make the right choices for themselves.

"If you were concerned about a possible bleeding event, you might
have not taken Pradaxa at all.  Or, if you suffered from bleeding,
at least you would know where to look."

Health Canada approved Pradaxa for use in 2008. It was one of the
first blood thinners that didn't require regular blood testing.

                       U.S. lawsuit settled

In May, the drug's manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim, agreed to
pay $650 million U.S. to settle lawsuits in the United States

When contacted by CBC, the company issued a written response
saying there are approximately 4,000 U.S. claims that the company
seeks to resolve with that settlement.

"BI expects most, if not all, of the plaintiffs to accept the
terms of the settlement and BI will vigorously defend against
those who do not."

"There are currently eight product liability claims in Canada
against Pradaxa.  These claims, as any other proceedings outside
the U.S., are not covered by the terms of the U.S. settlement and
we intend to continue to vigorously defend each and every case
outside the settlement agreement."

"Time and again, the benefits and safety of Pradaxa have been
confirmed," said the statement.

"BI stands resolutely behind Pradaxa and believed from the outset
that the plaintiffs' claims lacked merit.  Notwithstanding our
strong belief that we would prevail in these lawsuits, this
settlement allows BI to avoid the distraction and uncertainty of
lengthy litigation and focus on our mission of improving patients'
lives."


CARE FIRST: Faces "Alfonso" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ania Alfonso, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Care First Medical Center Inc., David Serrano, and Mabel Serrano,
Case No. 1:14-cv-22717 (S.D. Fla., July 22, 2014), seeks to
recover money damages for retaliation, unpaid overtime, minimum
wage, and straight wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Care First Medical Center Inc. owns and operates a walk-in clinic
located in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
      THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzlawfirm.com


CHICHESTER SCHOOL: Parents Sue Over Transfer of Autistic Students
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A suburban Philadelphia school district is transferring all of its
autistic elementary students to a single school, with little
preparation for students or parents, turning them into a "zoo
exhibit" for other students at the school, parents claim in a
federal class action, according to Andrew Thompson at Courthouse
News Service.

Parents Toni and Steven Streeter sued the Chichester School
District, its superintendent Barbara DiMarino, supervisor of
special education Christine Murrin, and director of pupil services
Siobhan Levy.

Chichester School District is in Bucks County, south of
Philadelphia.

The Streeters claim the school district told parents on May 20
that all autistic students would be moved from Linwood Elementary
to Boothwyn Elementary for the school year that begins in
September.  The district's program for autistic children is to be
consolidated in the one school.

The Streeters say that when they asked about the reasons for the
relocation, they were variously told: "The principal at Linwood
Elementary is overwhelmed and we want to lighten her load";
"Chichester School District has conducted an extensive study and
we find that this is the best location for the children"; and "We
want children at Boothwyn to see what it is like to interact with
autistic children."

The latter reason, according to the lawsuit, treats their child
"and others similarly situated as a zoo exhibit."

The parents claim it also violates the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by forgoing parental involvement
and by not following the Individual Education Plan -- a set of
accommodations established for each disabled student, as mandated
by IDEA.

"The problem with autism," the plaintiff's attorney Leonidas
Koletas told Courthouse News, "is that any break in the routine,
any break in the sameness, any break in the people you come in
contact with creates a confusion and withdrawal of the student.
It creates agitation, it creates emotional trauma to the student.
It's not a question of moving from building A to building B.  It's
about how they facilitated that move."

Typically, when autistic children are moved from elementary school
to junior high school, they are given an entire year to become
familiar with the new environment through a structured program of
relocation tailored to the challenges such relocation can pose for
children with autism, Koletas said.

The Linwood students are given only the summer between school
years to acclimate, according to the complaint.

Officials from the Chichester School District did not respond to
requests for comment.

Neither Koletas nor the complaint identified the number of
autistic children in the district.

The parents seek class certification, and want the kibosh put on
the transfers, plus costs.


CINNABAR SERVICE: Class Action Over Property Appraisal Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Hoberock, writing for Tulsa World, reports that an
appellate court ruled on July 24 that a class-action lawsuit
against a company charged with appraising property for buyout in
the mining-ravaged former town of Picher can proceed.

The northeastern Oklahoma town was dissolved in 2013 after its
residents were relocated due to environmental pollution.
Zinc and lead mining in the area began in 1891.  Between 1915 and
1930, it was the center of the largest zinc mining operations in
the world.

Mining ended in the area in the 1970s, but its effects devastated
the town.  Mountains of chat -- or mining waste -- were left
throughout the area, and sinkholes -- collapsing ground -- were
common.  Children in the Ottawa County town were found to have
elevated levels of lead in their bodies.

Picher is part of the Environmental Protection Agency's Tar Creek
Superfund site.  It has been declared one of the most toxic
locations in the country.

The federally funded relocation of area residents involved 878
buyout offers and cost $44.8 million.

A Tulsa County judge ruled earlier that the class could be
certified to pursue the lawsuit.

Tulsa-based Cinnabar Service Co., which appraised the properties
before the buyout offers were made, appealed that decision.  The
Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the district court's decision on
July 24.

Attorneys for Cinnabar could not be reached for comment.

About 260 plaintiffs sought to be certified as a class to pursue a
lawsuit alleging that the appraisals of their property were
consistently "lowballed," according to the appeals court's
opinion.  It defines lowballed as "a practice of deliberately
making low appraisals."

The appeal arose from the requirements of the Lead-Impacted
Communities Relocation Act, the opinion says.  One of the purposes
of the act was to provide incentives for those owning or leasing
property in areas affected by lead contamination to relocate to
safer areas, the opinion says.

The properties were to be sold to a trust for an amount equal to
the average cost of comparable housing elsewhere in the county,
according to the lawsuit.

The offers were approved by the Lead-Impacted Communities
Relocation Assistance Trust.  Taxpayer money was put into the
trust for distribution to property owners, according to court
documents.

Jeff Marr, an Oklahoma City attorney representing the former
property owners, said on July 24 that "obviously, we feel good
about the ruling.  We thought certification was appropriate."

The class members have waited patiently while the case makes its
way through the courts, he said, adding that the appraisal company
can further appeal the ruling to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

However, the fact that the July 24 opinion was unanimous bodes
well for the former property owners, Mr. Marr said.
"We are ready to go forward," he said.


DAVIS BROTHERS: Does Not Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steylin Gutierrez on his own behalf and others similarly situated
v. Davis Brothers Construction Company, a Florida Profit
Corporation, Rick Davis individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-22732 (S.D.
Fla., July 23, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages,
obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and
costs.

Davis Brothers Construction Company is a construction company
located in Miami Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Court House Tower, 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com


DENBURY ONSHORE: 5th Cir. Remands Class Action to La. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Zanki, writing for Law360, reports that the Fifth Circuit on
July 23 remanded a class action brought against oil and gas
producer Denbury Onshore LLC to Louisiana state court, denying a
bid by the company to remove the suit -- filed by lessors and
royalty owners claiming damages over the negligent operation of a
failed well -- to federal court under the Class Action Fairness
Act.

The three-member appellate panel's unanimous ruling cited an
exception to CAFA -- legislation that otherwise expands federal
jurisdiction over class actions -- involving state cases that
arises from a "local single event."  In doing so, the appellate
judges affirmed two rulings by district court and magistrate
judges.

Denbury argued the "local single event" exclusion did not apply
because the alleged infractions occurred in a series of events
over time.  The appellate judges rejected that interpretation as
semantics, saying an occurrence can include several connected
events rather than a single incident.

"In sum, we hold that there was an ongoing pattern of conduct that
was contextually connected, which when completed created one event
consistent with the ordinary understanding of the legislative
history of the exclusion," Judge E. Grady Jolly wrote on July 23.

The plaintiffs -- a group of 167 individuals, trusts and
associations who were lessors and royalty owners with interests in
mineral leases operated by Denbury -- entered into three leases
with Denbury between 2000 and 2001 to explore for oil, gas and
hydrocarbons in Louisiana, according to court documents.

Denbury, a subsidiary of Texas-based oil and gas producer Denbury
Resources Inc., in 2003 began drilling Rainbow Gun Club Well No.1.
The Cameron Parish well produced hydrocarbons from 2004 to 2006,
before being plugged and abandoned in 2008, court documents say.

Plaintiffs filed a civil suit in Cameron Parish in February 2013,
alleging the company and partners acted imprudently when drilling
the well because extraneous water was allowed to enter the gas
reservoir, ruining the productivity of the well.

Denbury responded by seeking to remove the case to U.S. District
Court in Louisiana, arguing the number of plaintiffs exceeded 100
and that the damages sought exceeded $5 million, consistent with
CAFA guidelines.

Plaintiffs responded by filing a motion to remand, granted in
August 2013 by U.S. Magistrate Judge Kathleen Kay.  She cited the
"local single event" exception to CAFA, a provision designed to
avoid clogging federal courts with local concerns.

U.S. District Court Judge Patricia Minaldi denied in March an
appeal by Denbury, which subsequently appealed to the Fifth
Circuit. Judges Jolly, Jerry Edwin Smith and Edith Brown Clement
issued the circuit court's ruling.

Plaintiffs' attorneys were pleased with the decision.

"The statute . . . clearly does not permit federal jurisdiction
over an event or occurrence that is purely local," said J. Michael
Veron of Veron Brice Palmer & Wilson LLC.

The suit also lists Specter Exploration Inc. and SKH Energy
Parnters LP as defendants.

Defense is represented by Roger E. Ishee, Karen D. Ancelet and
Kevin M. Blanchard of OneBane Law Firm.

Plaintiffs are represented by Veron, J. Rock Palermo, Alonzo P.
Wilson and Turner D. Brumby of Veron Bice Palmer & Wilson LLC;
Glenn Alexander of Jones & Alexander; and Edward Saal.

The case is Rainbow Gun Club Inc. et al v. Denbury Onshore LLC et
al, case number 14-30514, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.


EBAY INC: Sued Over Failure to Secure Customers Information
-----------------------------------------------------------
Collin Green, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. eBay, Inc., A Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-
01688 (E.D. La., July 23, 2014), is brought for failure to
properly secure identity information of its millions of customers.

eBay, Inc. is an e-commerce website that holds personal
information of is more than 120 million active customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric J. O'Bell, Esq.
      GAUTHIER, HOUGHTALING & WILLIAMS
      3500 N. Hullen St.
      Metairie, LA 70002
      Telephone: (504) 456-8600
      E-mail: ejo@obelllawfirm.com


EL RINCON: "Flores" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raul Flores, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
El Rincon Del Sabor Corp. d/b/a El Rincon Del Sabor and Cristian
Quizhpi, Case No. 1:14-cv-05505 (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2014), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and statutory
penalties and attorneys' fees and costs.

El Rincon Del Sabor Corp. owns a food/beverage establishment
located at 74 W. 47th Street, New York, NY 10036.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
     271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 576-1857
     Facsimile: (212) 576-1888


FAMILY DOLLAR: Lawsuits Alleging FLSA "Violation" Remain in MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
There are a total of 10 named plaintiffs and/or opt-ins in the
remaining cases in the Multi-district Litigation against Family
Dollar Stores, Inc. over alleged Fair Labor Standards Act
violation, for which federal court has not decided the class
certification or summary judgment issue, according to the
company's July 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2014.

Since 2001, the Company has been involved in a series of cases in
which certain store managers ("Store Managers") have alleged they
were improperly classified as exempt employees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Current and former Store Managers
have filed lawsuits alleging the Company violated the FLSA and/or
similar state laws, by classifying them as "exempt" employees who
are not entitled to overtime compensation. The majority of the
complaints also request recovery of overtime pay, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and court costs.

In April 2008, a Multi-District Litigation forum ("MDL") was
created in the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte
Division ("NC Federal Court") to handle cases alleging FLSA
violations against the Company. The first two of the MDL cases
were Grace v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and Ward v. Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., filed in May 2004 and June 2006, respectively. In
each of these cases, the court entered orders finding the
plaintiffs were not similarly situated and, therefore, neither
nationwide notice nor collective treatment under the FLSA was
appropriate. Since that time, the NC Federal Court has granted 60
summary judgments ruling Store Managers are properly classified as
exempt from overtime.

Presently, there are a total of 10 named plaintiffs and/or opt-ins
in the remaining cases in the MDL, for which the NC Federal Court
has not decided the class certification or summary judgment issue.


FAMILY DOLLAR: To Seek Approval for "Farley" Labor Suit Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the labor suit Farley, et al. v. Family Dollar
Stores of Colorado, Inc. were to file in the summer of 2014, a
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of a settlement reached in
the case, according to the company's July 10, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 31, 2014.

The Company is currently a defendant in four additional class
action lawsuits in four states alleging Store Managers should be
classified as non-exempt employees under various state laws. The
plaintiffs in these cases seek recovery of overtime pay,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and court costs.

In Farley, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of Colorado, Inc., was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on February 7, 2012, seeking unpaid overtime compensation
for a class of current and former Colorado Store Managers. On
March 21, 2013, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for class
certification. Class notice was issued in June 2013 and class
discovery concluded in January 2014. In May 2014, the parties
preliminarily agreed to resolve the litigation for an amount not
material to the Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements. The
parties will file a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of the
settlement in Summer 2014.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Seeks Approval for "Hegab" Labor Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the labor suit Hegab v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.
filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of a settlement with
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
according to the company's July 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 31, 2014.

The Company is currently a defendant in four additional class
action lawsuits in four states alleging Store Managers should be
classified as non-exempt employees under various state laws. The
plaintiffs in these cases seek recovery of overtime pay,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and court costs.

In Hegab v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 3,
2011. The plaintiff is seeking unpaid overtime for himself and
allegedly similarly situated current and former Store Managers
under New Jersey law. The matter was administratively dismissed
without prejudice. At the time of dismissal, no class had been
certified. On January 14, 2014, the parties preliminarily agreed
to resolve the litigation on a claims-made basis for an amount not
material to the Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements. On
June 6, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the settlement with the Court.


FAMILY DOLLAR: "Itterly" Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the labor suit Itterly v. Family Dollar Stores
of Pennsylvania, Inc. filed a Notice of Appeal with the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals against the dismissal of the case,
according to the company's July 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 31, 2014.

The Company is currently a defendant in four additional class
action lawsuits in four states alleging Store Managers should be
classified as non-exempt employees under various state laws. The
plaintiffs in these cases seek recovery of overtime pay,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and court costs.

In Itterly v. Family Dollar Stores of Pennsylvania, Inc., which
was formerly pending in the NC Federal Court, was remanded back to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on February 8, 2012. The plaintiffs are seeking
unpaid overtime for a class of current and former Pennsylvania
Store Managers whom the plaintiffs claim are not properly
classified as exempt from overtime pay under Pennsylvania law.
Discovery closed in June 2012. In August 2013, the Company filed
summary judgment requesting the Court rule that Itterly was
properly classified as exempt from overtime. The District Court
granted the Company's motion on January 30, 2014, and the case is
now dismissed. On February 1, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Notice
of Appeal with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Appeals Court Yet to Decide on "Premo" Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is yet to
decide on the proper venue of the labor lawsuit Premo v. Family
Dollar Stores of Massachusetts, Inc., according to the company's
July 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2014.

The Company is a defendant in four additional class action
lawsuits in four states alleging Store Managers should be
classified as non-exempt employees under various state laws. The
plaintiffs in these cases seek recovery of overtime pay,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and court costs.

In Premo v. Family Dollar Stores of Massachusetts, Inc., was filed
in Worcester County Superior Court in the State of Massachusetts
for alleged violations of the Massachusetts overtime law on April
26, 2013. The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime for a class
of current and former Massachusetts Store Managers whom plaintiffs
claim are not properly classified as exempt from overtime under
Massachusetts law. The Company removed the case to federal
district court in Massachusetts on May 28, 2013. The plaintiffs
challenged the removal to federal court. On March 28, 2014, the
court remanded the claim back to state court. On April 7, 2014,
the Company filed an interlocutory petition for appellate relief
from the remand decision to the United States Court of Appeals for
the 1st Circuit and await the appellate court's ruling. In the
interim, the Company filed its answer to the lawsuit on May 13,
2014.


FAMILY DOLLAR: "Scott" Gender Pay Litigation Back in Ala. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case Luanna Scott, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.
will now proceed back to the trial court for further proceedings
after the United States Supreme Court denied further review of the
case, according to the company's July 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 31, 2014.

On October 14, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court in Birmingham, Alabama captioned Scott, et al. v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc. alleging discriminatory pay practices with
respect to the Company's female Store Managers. This case was pled
as a putative class action or collective action under applicable
statutes on behalf of all Family Dollar female Store Managers. The
plaintiffs seek recovery of back pay, compensatory and punitive
money damages, recovery of attorneys' fees, and equitable relief.
The case was transferred to the United States District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina in November 2008.

Presently, there are 48 named plaintiffs in the Scott case. On
January 13, 2012, the trial court granted the Company's Motion to
Strike the class allegations asserted in the complaint based in
part upon the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Dukes v.
Wal-Mart. The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the Court's dismissal
of the class allegations to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit. On October 16, 2013, the Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeals partially reversed the trial court's ruling. While the
Fourth Circuit agreed the original Complaint should not proceed as
a class action, it remanded the case and instructed the trial
court to allow the amendment of the complaint, and then consider,
based upon the amended complaint, whether the case should proceed
as a class action. On November 14, 2013, the Fourth Circuit denied
further en banc review of the decision. On January 24, 2014, the
Company filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United
States Supreme Court. On June 30, 2014 the United States Supreme
Court denied further review of the Fourth Circuit's decision. The
case will now proceed back to the trial court for further
proceedings.

The Company has tendered the matter to its Employment Practices
Liability Insurance ("EPLI") carrier for coverage under its EPLI
policy. At this time, the Company expects the EPLI carrier will
participate in any resolution of the case. The Company has
exceeded its insurance retention and expects any additional legal
fees and settlements will be paid by the EPLI carrier. No reserve
is appropriate due to the status of the case.


FEDEX CORP: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Wage-and-Hour "Violations"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fedex Corporation remains a defendant in a number of lawsuits
containing various class-action allegations of wage-and-hour
violations, according to the company's July 14, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended May 31, 2014.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege, among other things, that
they were forced to work "off the clock," were not paid overtime
or were not provided work breaks or other benefits. The complaints
generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or
both.


FEDEX CORP: Updates on Labor Suits by Owner-Operators
-----------------------------------------------------
According to its July 14, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended May 31,
2014, Fedex Corporation provides updates on lawsuits filed against
FedEx Ground claiming that the company's owner-operators should be
treated as employees, rather than independent contractors.

FedEx Ground is involved in numerous class-action lawsuits
(including 26 that have been certified as class actions),
individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative
proceedings that claim that the company's owner-operators should
be treated as employees, rather than independent contractors.

Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal
court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana. The multidistrict litigation court granted class
certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases. On December
13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order addressing all
outstanding motions for summary judgment on the status of the
owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs. employee). In
sum, the court has now ruled on the company's summary judgment
motions and entered judgment in favor of FedEx Ground on all
claims in 20 of the 28 multidistrict litigation cases that had
been certified as class actions, finding that the owner-operators
in those cases were contractors as a matter of the law of 20
states. The plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these 20
cases. The Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas case in
January 2012 and, in July 2012, issued an opinion that did not
make a determination with respect to the correctness of the
district court's decision and, instead, certified two questions to
the Kansas Supreme Court related to the classification of the
plaintiffs as independent contractors under the Kansas Wage
Payment Act. The Kansas Supreme Court heard oral argument on
November 5, 2013. The other 19 cases that are before the Seventh
Circuit remain stayed pending a decision of the Kansas Supreme
Court.

The multidistrict litigation court remanded the other eight
certified class actions back to the district courts where they
were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not
completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits. Three
of those cases are now on appeal with the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, and one is on appeal with the Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit. The other four remain pending in their
respective district courts, but three of these four matters have
been settled for immaterial amounts. The courts have granted final
approval of two of the three settlements, while the other
settlement remains subject to court approval.

While the granting of summary judgment in favor of FedEx Ground by
the multidistrict litigation court in 20 of the 28 cases that had
been certified as class actions remains subject to appeal, the
company believes that it significantly improves the likelihood
that the company's independent contractor model will be upheld.
Adverse determinations in matters related to FedEx Ground's
independent contractors, however, could, among other things,
entitle certain of the company's owner-operators and their drivers
to the reimbursement of certain expenses and to the benefit of
wage-and-hour laws and result in employment and withholding tax
and benefit liability for FedEx Ground, and could result in
changes to the independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's
owner-operators in certain jurisdictions. The company believes
that FedEx Ground's owner-operators are properly classified as
independent contractors and that FedEx Ground is not an employer
of the drivers of the company's independent contractors. While it
is reasonably possible that potential loss in some of these
lawsuits or such changes to the independent contractor status of
FedEx Ground's owner-operators could be material, the company
cannot yet determine the amount or reasonable range of potential
loss. A number of factors contribute to this. The number of
plaintiffs in these lawsuits continues to change, with some being
dismissed and others being added and, as to new plaintiffs,
discovery is still ongoing. In addition, the parties have
conducted only very limited discovery into damages, which could
vary considerably from plaintiff to plaintiff. Further, the range
of potential loss could be impacted considerably by future rulings
on the merits of certain claims and FedEx Ground's various
defenses, and on evidentiary issues. In any event, the company
does not believe that a material loss is probable in these
matters.

In addition, the company is defending contractor-model cases that
are not or are no longer part of the multidistrict litigation, two
of which have been certified as class actions. These certified
class actions were settled for immaterial amounts in the first
quarter of 2014 and have received final court approval. The other
cases are in varying stages of litigation, and the company does
not expect to incur a material loss in any of these matters.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Butch's Central Sues Over Tank Prices
----------------------------------------------------------
Butch's Central Coastal, 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-04190 (W.D. Mo., July 22, 2014), alleges that the
defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix the price of propane
sold in exchangeable portable steel tanks commonly referred to as
"propane exchange tanks."

The Defendants sell propane, stored in propane exchange tanks,
directly to retailers across the United States, including grocery
stores, convenience stores, and gas stations. Defendants' propane
exchange tanks are available at tens of thousands of retail
locations nationwide.

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

         - and -

      Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
      William G. Caldes, Esq.
      Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
      SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
      1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 496-0300
      Email: espector@srkw-law.com
             bcaldes@srkw-law.com
             jspector@srkw-law.com

        - and -

     Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
     William H. London, Esq.
     FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
     2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
     Bannockburn, IL 60015
     Telephone: (224) 632-4500
     Email: skanner@fklmlaw.com
            blondon@fklmlaw.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: J&V Sues Over Reduced Amount of Propane
------------------------------------------------------------
J & V Management, LLC, an Alabama limited liability company,
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-04189 (W.D. Mo., July 22, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants reduce its exchange tanks from 17
pounds to 15 pounds without a corresponding price decrease.

The Defendants sell propane, stored in propane exchange tanks,
directly to retailers across the United States, including grocery
stores, convenience stores, and gas stations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tim J. Riemann, Esq.
      BERKOWITZ, OLIVER, WILLIAMS, SHAW & EISENBRANDT, LLP-KCMO
      2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Telephone: (816) 627-0232
      Facsimile: (816) 561-1888
      E-mail: triemann@berkowitzoliver.com


FLUIDMASTER INC: Faces Class Action Over "NO-BURST" Pipes Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Lowrey, writing for Law360, reports that Fluidmaster
Inc.'s "NO-BURST" pipes don't live up to their name because of a
design defect that causes the stainless steel-braided water supply
lines to corrode and explode, according to a putative class action
filed on July 24 in Pennsylvania federal court.

"Fluidmaster's NO-BURST lines are defective because they do
exactly what the name says they are not supposed to do: They
burst," the complaint said.  "The defect is a design flaw stemming
from Fluidmaster's use of substandard materials."

Pennsylvania plaintiffs Jeff Hungerman and Jared Sanborn are
seeking to establish a nationwide class and a subclass for their
home state.  Their claims include false advertising, design
defects and other allegations.

Mr. Hungerman had a Fluidmaster braided line installed in the
upstairs bathroom of his Pittsburgh home in 2010.  In May 2014,
"Mr. Hungerman came home to find water flowing out of his garage,"
the complaint said.

He discovered that the pipe had burst and gushed a river of water
that flowed through walls and the floor into downstairs rooms,
causing more than $10,000 in damage, the complaint said.

Mr. Sanborn installed a NO-BURST line under the kitchen sink of
his Matamoras, Pennsylvania, home in 2010.  In November 2013, the
pipe exploded, leaking water through the floor and into a finished
basement below, where electronic recording equipment was stored,
the complaint said.

The rupture caused some $19,000 in damages, Mr. Sanborn claims.

The pipes are prone to bursting because Fluidmaster uses an
"inferior grade of stainless steel" that corrodes from common,
household cleaners, and weak rubber tubing that can burst easily
once the steel corrodes, the complaint says.

The company began using the NO-BURST name in the 1980s,
registering the trademark in 1989, and claims the products are
chlorine-resistant, though the type of steel used weakens and
fractures when exposed to low levels of the chemical, the
complaint alleges.

Fluidmaster has not publicized the faults in its product, nor has
it issued recalls for it, the complaint says.

The claims in the suit include strict liability for a design
defect and failure to warn, negligence, false advertising, breach
of express and implied warranties under Pennsylvania law, and
unjust enrichment.

Scott McDonald, Fluidmaster's vice president of marketing and
product management, told Law360 on July 24 that the products'
failure rate is extremely low.

"We reviewed the specifics of the claims in that complaint and we
strongly believe they are without merit," Mr. McDonald said.  "We
are planning on vigorously defending our company and our
products."

The plaintiffs are represented by Shanon J. Carson, Lawrence
Deutsch, and Glen L. Abramson of Berger & Montague and Gregory F.
Coleman and Lisa A. White of Greg Coleman Law PC.

The case is Hungerman et al. v. Fluidmaster Inc., case number 14-
cv-00994, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.


GUESS? INC: Files Motion to Dismiss TCPA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Guess? Inc.
has filed a motion to dismiss in a class action lawsuit against it
for allegedly violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

"Plaintiff's non-conclusory factual allegations, however, are
contained in a mere two paragraphs in the First Amended
Complaint," the July 16 motion states.  "The remaining allegations
in the FAC are just recitals of the elements of a TCPA cause of
action or immaterial discussions of irrelevant matter."

Thus, the plaintiff's FAC is woefully short on specific factual
allegations that would raise her right to relief beyond mere
speculation, according to the motion.

Because Plaintiff's FAC contains nothing more than barebones
assertions that Guess? sent the plaintiff unsolicited text
messages, unsupported by any allegations of fact, the FAC should
be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim,
according to the motion.

"Plaintiff's FAC also fails to state a claim in light of
allegations in the complaint and judicially noticeable facts," the
motion states.  "It is well-established that if an individual
provides her phone number to a company, the act of disclosing the
phone number demonstrates that the person is consenting to be
called (or in this case be sent text messages) at that number."

Here, Guess? has a customer loyalty program which customers can
voluntarily enroll-in so that they can, among other things, earn
discounts on future purchases, according to the motion.

"As part of the Guess? loyalty program, plaintiff disclosed her
phone number to Guess? and thus expressly consented to receive
text messages from Guess? in order to receive updates regarding
her membership benefits," the motion states.  "As such, she cannot
state a claim under the TCPA."

In addition to dismissing the FAC, the court should strike the
plaintiff's class definition from the FAC, according to the
motion.

In recent years, marketers "stymied by federal laws limiting
solicitation by telephone, facsimile machine and e-mail have
increasingly looked to alternative technologies through which to
send bulk solicitations to consumers easily and cheaply,"
according to a complaint filed Jan. 3 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California at San Diego.

Farideh Haghayeghi claims text messaging is one of the newest bulk
marketing methods in advertising and, while the instantaneous
nature of text messaging makes it very appealing to telemarketers,
it is very annoying to consumers subjected to spam text messages.

Unlike other forms of advertisement, text messages actually cost
its recipients money, because cellular phone users must frequently
pay their wireless service providers either for each text message
or call they receive, or incur a usage allocation deduction to
their text plan, regardless of whether or not the message is
authorized, according to the suit.

Ms. Haghayeghi claims over the course of an extended period
beginning no later than 2009, the defendant and/or its agents
directed the mass transmission of text messages to cellular phones
nationwide in an attempt to reach customers or potential customers
of the defendant's products.

In 2013, Ms. Haghayeghi received several unsolicited text messages
on her cell phone from Guess?, which she claims constituted as
"calls" under the TCPA that were not for emergency purposes,
according to the suit.

Ms. Haghayeghi claims she did not provide Guess? or its agents
prior express consent to receive unsolicited text messages and the
defendant never told her that it would use her cell phone number
to send her promotional text messages.

Ms. Haghayeghi is seeking $500 for herself and each class member
in statutory damages.  She is represented by Karen E. Nakon --
knakon@slpattorney.com -- of Strategic Legal Practices.

Guess? is represented by Michelle C. Doolin -- doolinmc@cooley.com
-- Darcie A. Tilly -- dtilly@cooley.com -- and Timothy D. Hance --
thance@cooley.com -- of Cooley LLP.

The case has been assigned to District Judge John A. Houston.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California at San
Diego case number: 3:14-cv-00020


HSBC: Judge Appoints Co-Lead Counsel in Gold-Fix Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Jennemann, writing for The Bullion Desk, reports that US
District Judge Valerie E. Caproni appointed Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
& Sullivan LLP and Berger & Montague PC as co-lead counsel to
litigate a major class action lawsuit that alleges manipulation by
the banks that conduct the gold fix in London.

HSBC, Barclays, Societe Generale and Scotia-Mocatta currently set
the twice-daily gold fix, which has been in operation since
September 12, 1919.  Germany's Deutsche Bank withdrew from the
process earlier this year after failing to sell its seat.

On March 3, Kevin Maher, a former gold trader from New York, filed
the first lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  He alleges that the banks, since 2004, have
"combined, conspired and agreed with one another" to manipulate
gold prices and derivatives markets.

"Usually large spikes in spot gold prices have consistently
occurred during the afternoon gold fix.  This statistical pattern
was not observed prior to 2004, when Rothschild withdrew from the
Gold Fix and Barclays took over Chairman.  Such pattern is not
explained by news flow, fundamental analysis or a priori
explanation of how an efficient market operates," Mr. Maher's
attorney claimed in documents.

Since then numerous others have since lodged similar complaints.
Judge Caproni has combined 27 claims into a single case that will
be heard in New York.

"Given that the putative class is challenging the conduct of five
major banking institutions over a period of at least ten years,
successful prosecution of this litigation will require a massive
commitment of resources from interim class counsel," said Judge
Caproni when selecting the Quinn-Berger team, which has about 700
combined attorneys.

In addition to their significant resources, this legal team has
other advantages, the judge noted.

"First, the Quinn-Berger team's more creative approach in tying
its requested attorneys' fees to the size of any common fund
weighs in its favor.  The proposed structure more effectively
aligns counsels' incentives with those of the putative class,"
Judge Caproni said.

Second, with the exception of one associate, all of the Quinn
Emanuel attorneys are based out of New York.  And Berger &
Montague's attorneys are located in nearby Philadelphia.  This is
key given that the case will be heard in Manhattan.

"Finally, London Gold Market Fixing Ltd. and two of its five
members are headquartered in London.  The Court thus expects that
at least some discovery will take place in London.  Quinn
Emanuel's twenty-seven London attorneys compared with no London
presence for [the other candidate firms] will likely save costs
for the putative class," she added.

"In light of this litigation's scope, the resources available to
the Quinn-Berger team, the location of their attorneys, and the
proposed structure of their future requests for attorneys' fees if
they are successful, the Court concludes that the Quinn-Berger
team is best able to represent the putative class," the judge
concluded.


HUMANA INC: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Garcia, Jacqueline Pagan, and Rosa Castellanos,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. Humana, Inc., Humana Health Insurance Company Of Florida, Inc.,
and Defendant Does l-50, Case No. 0:14-cv-61666 (S.D. Fla., July
22, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act

Humana, Inc. is a Louisville, Kentucky based healthcare company
that markets and administers health insurance in the United
States.

Humana Health Insurance Company Of Florida, Inc. is a Florida
corporation with its principal place of business in Miramar,
Florida and is a subsidiary of Humana Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Shavitz Law Group
      1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: 447-8831
      E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com


HYUNDAI: Hearing Set to Address Class Action Settlement Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Watchdog attorneys representing consumers dissatisfied
with the proposed nationwide settlement of a class action against
Hyundai and Kia over misrepresenting the fuel economy of their
vehicles are continuing their advocacy in federal court in Los
Angeles, seeking additional improvements in the settlement.

The dispute dates back to complaints Consumer Watchdog received in
2011 from consumers who were disappointed that their vehicles were
not getting the advertised gas mileage.  After writing both the
White House and the EPA without response, Consumer Watchdog filed
suit against Hyundai for misrepresenting the fuel economy of its
vehicles.  However, on November 2, 2012, the EPA announced that
its investigation of the auto manufacturers determined that the
manufacturers' estimates were inflated.  Numerous other lawsuits
were filed across the country.  Shortly thereafter, the defendants
-- Hyundai and Kia -- and two law firms representing plaintiffs
announced that they had "settled" the case.  Consumer Watchdog
attorneys have been pressing for more information on the
settlement and better terms since that announcement; over the
subsequent 17 months, the parties to the settlement have made some
improvements in response.

On June 26, the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles held a hearing
on a request by Hyundai, Kia and law firms representing plaintiffs
that the court grant initial approval of the settlement.  The
court asked the parties to the settlement address a number of
issues and concerns, including those presented to the court in a
brief by Consumer Watchdog attorneys filed on May 30.  However,
the response by Hyundai, Kia and the plaintiffs supporting the
settlement did not fully address the issues raised by the Court,
the Consumer Watchdog lawyers said in a brief.

The July 25 hearing would address the following issues raised by
the Court and Consumer Watchdog attorneys:

The format and clarity of the notice and other forms that will be
directed to consumers who are part of the class action.  Though
the settling firms have made some improvements, the documents
remain confusing and unlikely to capture the attention of
recipients, Consumer Watchdog lawyers said.  Additionally, the
web-based claim system is not yet fully operational.

Whether class members should be required to fill out and file a
claim form in order to get the money they are entitled to under
the settlement.  Consumer Watchdog attorneys say the claim
requirement is an unnecessary hurdle.

Defendants have failed to provide detailed estimates of the total
value of the case and, if a claim form is required, the likely
amount of compensation the class will receive under the
settlement.

"The Court is carefully reviewing the fine print of the
settlement, and insisting on changes.  This is good news for
people who bought or leased Hyundai or Kia cars based on incorrect
representations of the gas mileage that the cars would get," said
Laura Antonini, one of the Consumer Watchdog attorneys
representing 13 consumers who have asked the Court to reject the
settlement unless further changes are made.  "We believe our
strenuous advocacy on behalf of our clients -- and the 900,000
consumers who will be part of the class -- has already improved
the settlement, but more changes are necessary."

Court review of class action settlements is a two-step process.
Courts engage in a preliminary review prior to class members
(consumers) receiving notice of their rights under the settlement.
At a future time, the court will engage in a final review of the
settlement for its overall fairness, considering concerns and
objections raised by class members.


JAMES HAWKINS: Has Tried to Extort Applied Medical, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers tried to extort Applied Medical by bringing a labor class
action against it "without an actual client," the company claims,
according to Courthouse News Service.

The case is Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. James Hawkins;
Alvin Lindsay, in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Orange.


KANSAS: Proposes About $2-Mil. Overtime Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Horsley, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that the
Kansas City Council is proposing to settle a class action lawsuit
over ambulance employees' overtime for nearly $2 million.

An ordinance with the proposed $1,975,000 settlement was
introduced on July 24, and the council's finance committee was to
formally consider it this week.  But the council has already
verbally authorized the settlement following a closed session
discussion.

"We're extremely happy about the resolution of this case," said
Michael Hodgson, one of the attorneys who represented nearly 110
plaintiffs in the case.

Mr. Hodgson said a judge must sign off on the settlement, and he
will work with the city to obtain that approval.

The case arose after the Fire Department merged with Metropolitan
Ambulance Services Trust in 2010.  The lawsuit was filed in 2011
and involved former MAST paramedics and emergency medical
technicians who worked 24-hour shifts for the Fire Department.
The plaintiffs accused Kansas City of violating federal law in its
overtime pay policies by failing to pay them for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours a week.  The city believed the employees
fell under the firefighter exemption in the Fair Labor Standards
Act and therefore should be paid overtime only after working more
than 49 hours a week.

But a federal judge ruled recently in the plaintiffs' favor on
that issue.  The parties agreed the actual wage damages were $1.3
million, and attorney fees were expected to reach $500,000 even
before a trial, which was scheduled for early August.

The Law Department recommended settling because it said that a
trial could find the city liable for greater damages and fees and
that the judgment could exceed $3.2 million.

The $1.3 million will come from the Fire Department budget and the
rest from a legal claims fund.

Fire Chief Paul Berardi said on July 24 that fire and city
officials and union representatives have been meeting to figure
out a way to cover the workload and provide reasonable response
times while assigning ambulance crews to 40-hour workweeks.

"We're confident we'll be able to do that," he said.


LEHIGH VALLEY RESTAURANT: Court Won't Dismiss Tip-Pooling Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a Red Robin franchisee in Pennsylvania must face claims from
servers made to tip out employees who rarely interact with
customers, citing a federal court ruling.

Matthew Ford and Elisabeth Yuscavage, former servers at Red Robin
restaurants in Wilkes-Barre and Dickson City, Pa., filed a federal
class action against the chain's owner-operator, Lehigh Valley
Restaurant Group Inc.

The pair says Lehigh's 19 franchises in eastern Pennsylvania pay
servers the minimum wage for tipped employees set by state law,
$2.83 per hour, and has servers retain their tips to meet the
federal minimum hourly wage of $7.25, thus giving the restaurant a
"tip credit" of $4.42 per hour worked.

A caveat to Lehigh's mandatory "tip credit" policy, however,
requires servers to give 3 percent of their gross sales to a "tip
pool," according to the complaint.

Lehigh then allegedly distributed that pool to bartenders,
expediters and busboys.

The corporation defines expediters or "expos" as "the go-between
for the guest and the kitchen . . . expected to fix any orders
that do not adhere to the Red Robin standard or recipe."

Expos must "help prepare food when the kitchen is extremely busy,
also check the flow of the tickets and make sure the orders match
what's on the plates," according to the company Web site.

Claiming that expos primarily work in the kitchen and rarely
interact with customers, however, the servers say their inclusion
in the tip pool violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The three-count complaint also alleges violations of
Pennsylvania's Minimum Wage Act and Wage Payment and Collection
Law, which the parties agreed to litigate in state court.

U.S. District Judge James Munley has refused to dismiss the FLSA
claim, noting that section 203(m) of the FLSA allows tip pooling
among employees who "customarily and regularly" receive tips.

"Taken as a whole, section 203(m)'s plain meaning beckons the
image of customer service employees who receive tips directly from
customers in a recurring fashion and as a matter of occupational
custom," Munley wrote.  "Furthermore, the addition of the word
'pooling,' which means 'to contribute' or 'make a common
interest,' signifies that all customer service employees with
direct customer interaction would 'contribute' the tips they
personally received into the 'common interest' or tip pool.  As
such, section 203(m)'s plain meaning requires that employees who
'customarily and regularly receive tips' have more than de minimis
direct customer interaction."

Lehigh failed to support its claim that expos qualify as regularly
"tipped employees" through their proceeds from the tip pool.

"We conclude that to properly take part in a tip pool a restaurant
employee must have direct customer interaction," Munley wrote.

The ruling cites the allegation "that '[e]xpos spend almost all of
their time working in or near the kitchen area and rarely interact
with restaurant customers.'"

"Viewing plaintiffs' allegations as true, this allegation, read in
conjunction with plaintiffs' remaining factual averments, may
establish a cause of action under the FLSA," Munley wrote.  "Ergo,
the court will deny defendant's motion to dismiss."

California employees filed a similar class action in Orange
County, Calif., last year, alleging that Red Robin International
stiffs employees for overtime and violates other labor laws.

Red Robin reported first quarter revenues of $340.5 million
earlier this year, having reaped $1.0 billion in annual revenue in
2013.

The case is Matthew Ford and Elisabeth Yuscavage, on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated employees v. Lehigh Valley
Restaurant Group, Inc., Case No. 3:14cv227, in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.


LEONA'S PIZZERIA: Faces "Lucero" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Lucero, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Leona's Pizzeria, Inc., and
Leon Toia, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05612 (N.D. Ill., July
22, 2014), alleges that the Defendants fail to pay Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated employees overtime wages for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Leona's Pizzeria, Inc. is owned by Leon Toia, and located at 3215
N. Sheffield, Chicago, Illinois 60657.

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


KODIAK OIL: Facing Suit in Colo. Over Sale to Whiting Petroleum
---------------------------------------------------------------
David J. Quigley and Robert Koelling, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated and Derivatively on Behalf of
Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp. v. Whiting Petroleum Corporation, 1007695
B.C. Ltd., Lynn A. Peterson, James E. Catlin, William J. Krysiak,
Rodney D. Knutson and Herrick K. Lidstone, Jr. and Kodiak Oil &
Gas Corp., a Canadian corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-02023 (D.
Colo., July 22, 2014), asserts breaches of fiduciary duty arising
out of the Defendants' efforts to complete the sale of the Company
to Whiting Petroleum Corporation pursuant to an unfair process and
for an unfair price.

The Defendants are energy companies focused on the exploration,
exploitation, acquisition and production of natural gas and crude
oil in the United States.

Whiting Petroleum announced in July it would acquire Kodiak Oil
for $3.8 billion in stock, and assume $2.2 billion of Kodiak Oil's
debt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kip Brian Shuman, Esq.
      Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
      SHUMAN LAW FIRM
      885 Arapahoe Avenue
      Boulder, CO 80302
      Telephone: (303) 861-3003
      Facsimile: (303) 484-4886
      E-mail: kip@shumanlawfirm.com
              rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

          - and -

      Randall J. Baron, Esq.
      A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
      David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
      Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423

           - and -

      Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
      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


KODIAK OIL: Facing Suit in Colo. Over Whiting Petroleum Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Fioravanti, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and Derivatively on Behalf of Kodiak Oil & Gas
Corp. v. William J. Krysiak, Rodney D. Knutson, Herrick K.
Lidstone, JR., Lynn A. Peterson, James E. Catlin, Whiting
Petroleum Corporation, and 1007695 B.C. Ltd., and Kodiak Oil & Gas
Corp., a Canadian Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-02037 (D. Colo.,
July 23, 2014), alleges breach of the Defendants' fiduciary duties
in connection with Whiting Petroleum Corporation's proposed
acquisition, via 1007695 B.C. LTD., of all the outstanding stock
of Kodiak Oil.

Whiting Petroleum in July announced it would acquire Kodiak Oil
for $3.8 billion in stock, and assume $2.2 billion of Kodiak Oil's
debt.

Whiting Petroleum is an independent oil and gas company that
acquires, explores, develops, and produces crude oil, natural gas
liquids, and natural gas in the United States.

Kodiak Oil Gas Corp. is an independent energy company focused on
the exploration, exploitation, acquisition, and production of
crude oil and natural gas primarily in the Williston Basin of
North Dakota in the United States.

The Individual Defendants are members of the Board of Directors of
Kodiak Oil Gas Corp.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Allen Berens, Esq.
      Robert J. Dyer III, Esq.
      Dyer & Berens, LLP
      303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 810
      Denver, CO 80203
      Telephone: (303) 861-1764
      Facsimile: (303) 395-0393
      E-mail: jeff@dyerberens.com
              bob@dyerberens.com

          - and -

      Kent A. Bronson, Esq.
      Steven Bentsianov, Esq.
      MILBERG LLP
      One Pennsylvania Plaza
      New York, NY 10119
      Telephone: (212) 594-5300
      Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
      Email: kbronson@milberg.com
             sbentsianov@milberg.com


MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Accused of Hiding Minor Leaguers' Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yadel Marti, Edgardo Baez, Helder Velazquez, Jorge Jimenez, Jorge
Minyety, Edwin Maysonet and Jose Diaz, individually and on behalf
of all those similarly situated v. Office of the Commissioner Of
Baseball, an unincorporated association doing business as Major
League Baseball; Allan Huber "Bud" Selig; Kansas City Royals
Baseball Corp., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-03289 (N.D. Cal., July
21, 2014) alleges that the Defendants suppressed minor leaguers'
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are members of or govern the cartel known as Major
League Baseball.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel Kornhauser, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAMUEL KORNHAUSER
      155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 981-6281
      Facsimile: (415) 981-7616

        - and -

      Brian David, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN DAVID
      33 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
      Chicago, IL 60610
      Telephone: (847) 778-7528
      Facsimile: (312) 346-8469


MIN TONG HARDWARE: "Zou" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bei Li Zou, Individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Min Tong Hardware, Inc., Xue Gui Jiang,
Cheng Liang Wang, Feng Gao, Qing Ci Wang, Case No. 1:14-cv-04425
(E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages for
overtime work and liquidated damages, declaratory relief, costs,
interest and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Min Tong Hardware, Inc. is owned by Xue Gui Jiang located at 41-18
Bowne Street, Flushing, NY 11354.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave, Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (918) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


MSB RESTAURANT: "Cabrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Cabrera and other similarly situated individuals v. MSB
Restaurant Corp. a Florida profit corporation and Hali Nguyen,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-22731 (S.D. Fla., July 23, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum
wage, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain
declaratory relief and reasonable attorney's fees and costs in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

MSB Restaurant Corp. is a restaurant owned by Hali Nguyen located
in Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Court House Tower
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Court Approved Brain Injury Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Rose Bouboushian reports that
the NFL must cover the next 65 years of medical bills for more
than 20,000 retired football players suffering from concussion-
borne degenerative diseases, citing a federal court ruling.

Despite knowing that concussive and subconcussive head injuries
often lead to Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Lou Gehrig's diseases;
early and moderate dementia; and chronic traumatic encephalopathy
(CTE), which can only be diagnosed postmortem, a class of players
has alleged that the NFL concealed those risks and failed to
protect players from them.

Thousands of former NFL players have filed more than 300 lawsuits
of this nature since July 2011.

The cases were consolidated in Philadelphia over two years ago,
and the parties soon reached a settlement for more than 20,000
retired players, representatives of deceased or incapacitated
players, and close family members.

Though the settlement would have the NFL shell out $760 million
over the course of 20 years, U.S. District Judge Anita Brody
rejected it as inadequate earlier this year.

Even with the NFL's promise to increase the $675 million fund with
another $37.5 million, if need be, Brody found that the settlement
would provide only a few hundred players with cash awards for 65
years.

Six months of "hard-fought" negotiation led to a new settlement
with an "uncapped" award fund, so the NFL must pay all valid
claims for the next 65 years, Brody has said.

The revised settlement also no longer bars class members from
suing amateur football organizations like the National Collegiate
Athletic Association for cognitive injuries.

Award levels, including up to $3.5 million for players diagnosed
with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, $1.5 million and $3 million for
those with dementia, $5 million for those with Lou Gehrig's
disease, and $4 million for those who died with CTE, remain the
same.

Age at diagnosis and the number of seasons played could, however,
diminish those figures.

The settlement also still includes a $10 million education fund
and $75 million to cover baseline neuropsychological and
neurological evaluations and treatment for retired players.

Notice expenses and attorneys' fees, plus claims administration
costs, will cost the NFL up to $116.5 million, according to the
new settlement.

"The revised proposed settlement is a significant improvement over
the proposed settlement presented in January," Brody wrote.  "The
new settlement ensures that there are sufficient funds available
to pay all claims through the 65-year term of the settlement and
improves the manner in which diagnoses are made to protect against
fraud.  The original proposed settlement with a monetary fund
'capped' at $675 million-no matter how well supported by the
parties' actuarial analyses-entailed some degree of uncertainty of
payment over the 65-year term.  That risk should not be imposed on
the settlement class members.  Under the revised proposed
settlement, the monetary award levels remain the same, but the NFL
parties have agreed to 'uncap' their obligation to pay monetary
awards to every claimant who demonstrates a bona fide compensable
condition.  The parties have satisfied my concern on this
fundamental issue."

In granting the deal preliminary approval, the court also
conditionally certified the class of tens of thousands of players.

"If the litigation were to continue, plaintiffs would be required
to demonstrate that retired players' injuries were caused by NFL
football play, as opposed to unrelated causes, the natural aging
process, or concussions or sub-concussive hits experienced in
youth or college football," Brody wrote.  "Therefore, the
significant legal challenges facing plaintiffs support preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement."

In a separate order, Brody said class counsel must notify the
public about the settlement via magazines such as Time and Sports
Illustrated, as well as television, radio and Internet ads by
Sept. 15.  A fairness hearing is slated for Nov. 19.

The multidistrict litigation is known as In Re: National Football
League Players' Concussion Injury Litigation, MDL No. 2323, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


NAVISTAR INC: Finkelstein Affirms Intent to Pursue Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Knutson of the national plaintiff's law firm Finkelstein &
Krinsk, the first to file a class action lawsuit against Navistar,
Inc., on behalf of Washington/California trucker client Par 4, on
July 24 affirmed the intent to recover all losses suffered by
trucking companies resulting from their purchasing or leasing
Navistar truck models 2008-2013 equipped with Navistar's MaxxForce
Advanced EGR diesel engines.

The MaxxForce engines contain a defective emission system that
causes trucks to underperform, break down or falter without good
reason.  These Navistar engines have cost buyers and lessees, from
large fleet owners to small businesses, millions of dollars in
damages.  The practice of Navistar threatens the livelihood and
reputation of innumerable businesses.  The firm intends to hold
Navistar responsible for the poor quality of its engines and
reimburse all those damaged by excessive down time, repairs and
tarnished good will.

The MaxxForce engine defect leads to repeated engine failure
causing constant repairs that, coupled with a lack of help and
direction by Navistar, is a constant business detriment.  Navistar
never did repair the emission system, replacing the engine defect
with an equally defective and failure prone system.  Some truckers
have spoken about dangerous road situations arising as a result,
and some have spoken of the noxious coolant and exhaust fumes that
migrate to the passenger compartment.

The Navistar truck models containing the defective MaxxForce
engines include models having the brand name "International
ProStar" and "Lonestar International Transstar", "International
Workstar" and "Paystar", and "International Loadstar" (these are
all Class 7 and 8 trucks -- the largest and heaviest made).

By proceeding via a class action, there are no costs and expenses
paid by our clients except from what we recover in an amount
decided by the Court.  We want to hear from you if you have
experienced a loss by owning or leasing the Navistar trucks
identified above.  Please call us toll free (1-877-493-5366) or
via email -- fk@classactionlaw.com -- to see if we can include
your claim within our Lead Case.  There is no obligation of any
kind.


NORTH AMERICAN PIPELINE: Faces "McGeary" Suit Over Breach of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory McGeary, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. North American Pipeline Inspection, LLC,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00992 (W.D. Pa., July 23, 2014), seeks all
available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

North American Pipeline Inspection, LLC, is a Florida Limited
Liability Corporation that operates a full service project
management inspection firm that employs welding, utility and
coating inspectors throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      Alexandra L. Koropey, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-4656
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: scarson@bm.net
              sschalman-bergen@bm.net
              akoropey@bm.net


OCEAN POWER: Sued Over Violations of Securities Exchange Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard F. Turner, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., Charles F.
Dunleavy and Mark A. Featherstone, Case No. 3:14-cv-04592 (D.N.J.,
July 22, 2014), alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act.

Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. develops and is seeking to
commercialize proprietary systems that generate electricity by
harnessing the renewable energy of ocean waves.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
      COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLP
      250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
      Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
      Telephone: (201) 845-9600
      Facsimile: (201) 845-9423
      E-mail: PSP@njlawfirm.com


OHIO: Settles BWC Class Action for $420 Million
-----------------------------------------------
Sarah Buduson, writing for newsnet5, reports that the state of
Ohio will pay $420 million to settle a class action lawsuit filed
against the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation.  According to
the agreement, the BWC will create a fund to distribute payments
to organizations that were overcharged by the state agency between
2001 and 2008.  The settlement will affect approximately 270,000
Ohio businesses, churches and charities.

The class action lawsuit was originally filed in 2007 by Earl
Stein, the owner of Corky & Lenny's in Woodmere Village.  The
lawsuit alleged the BWC charged individual employers higher
premiums to offset lower prices given to group employers.

Terry Delap owns the The Cleaning Authority in North Royalton.
He was happy to hear the lawsuit was settled.  He said the BWC
premiums nearly put him out of business.

"We didn't have money to pay extra people.  We didn't have money
for advertising, it was just strictly hampering the business from
normal expenditures that if you didn't have that burden, you'd be
able to pay and grow your business, so it really stagnated the
growth of our business for years and years," said Mr. Delap.

Mr. Delap is owed $20,000.

Ohio BWC Administrator Steve Buehrer issued the following
statement about the settlement:

"Ohio has made major changes to its workers' compensation system
over the past several years.  The policies that were at issue in
this litigation in 2007 are not the same ones in place today, and
we're pleased that we have reached a settlement so we can move
forward.  Improvements have been made to how premiums and
discounts are calculated, as well as to billing practices, and
premiums are continuing to go down as a result.  Sound management
of the trust fund made it possible to return $1 billion in rebates
to customers last year, and major investments in workplace safety
are helping employers do a better job of preventing injuries by
keeping their workers safe.  All of these improvements are paying
off for workers and businesses, and we're going to keep building
on them."

Any organization owed money in the settlement must file a claim
with the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court by September 22.


PANASONIC CORPORATION: Restraint Trade of Capacitors, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dependable Component Supply Corp., Plaintiff, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic
Corporation of North America, Sanyo Electric Group, Ltd., Sanyo
Electronic Device (U.S.A.), et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-03300 (N.D.
Cal., July 22, 2014), seeks damages and injunctive relief for the
collusive and concerted restraint of trade in aluminum and
tantalum electrolytic capacitors orchestrated by the Defendants.

The Defendants are foreign corporations that manufacture, sell and
distribute aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors either
directly or through subsidiaries, agents or affiliates to
customers throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Michael Purdy, Esq.
      James Gerard Beebe Dallal, Esq.
      Ryan James McEwan, Esq.
      Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
      JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM
      505 Montgomery Street
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 500-6800
      Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
      E-mail: apurdy@saverilawfirm.com
              jdallal@saverilawfirm.com
              rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com
              jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com


          - and -

      Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
      C. Andrew Dirksen, Esq.
      GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP
      595 Market Street, Suite 2300
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 777-2230
      Facsimile: (415) 777-5189
      Email: scera@gbcslaw.com
             cdirksen@gbcslaw.com

          - and -

      Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
      Ruthanne Gordon, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      Email: ecramer@bm.net
             rgordon@bm.net

           - and -

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

           - and -

      Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      1521 Locust Street, 7th Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (267) 519-8306
      Facsimile: (215) 569-0958
      Email: sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com

            - and -

      Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973) 623-3000
      Facsimile: (973) 623-0211
      Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com


PANERA LLC: Sued Over Violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarai Mack on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Panera, LLC a Foreign Profit Corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-
61672 (S.D. Fla., July 23, 2014), alleges violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

Panera, LLC, is foreign profit corporation that operates numerous
bakery-cafes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Bernard Celler, Esq.
      RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
      7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
      Davie, FL 33314
      Telephone: (954) 243-4295
      Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
      E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com


PELOZA CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Sanchez-Saavedra, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated v. Peloza Construction Co., Inc., and
David M. Peloza, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05586 (N.D. Ill.,
July 22, 2014), alleges that the Defendants fail to pay Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated employees overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Peloza Construction Co. is a construction company owned by David
M. Pelazo.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (877) 509-6422
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: consumerlawgroupllc@gmail.com


POKERTEK INC: Inks MoU to Settle Suit Over Multimedia Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Pokertek, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding to
settle a consolidated lawsuit over its merger with Multimedia
Games, Inc., according to the company's July 14, 2014, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

PokerTek, Inc., a North Carolina corporation ("PokerTek"),
Multimedia Games, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and 23
Acquisition Co., a North Carolina corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent ("23 Acquisition"), entered into that certain
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of April 29, 2014, (the
"Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which Parent agreed to acquire
all of the outstanding shares of PokerTek's common stock in an all
cash merger (the "Proposed Merger").

As described in the Definitive Proxy Statement, dated June 16,
2014, under the heading "Proposal I: The Merger - Litigation
Related to the Merger," a purported class action complaint on
behalf of PokerTek's shareholders was filed on May 9, 2014 in the
General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division in and for
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Case No. 14-CVS-8300,
captioned Robert Simmer, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PokerTek, Inc., Multimedia Games
Holding Company, Inc., Multimedia Games, Inc., 23 Acquisition Co.,
James Crawford, Joe Lahti, Lyle Berman, Lou White and Arthur L.
Lomax,  Defendants, and an purported amended class action
complaint was filed on June 6, 2014 ("Action #1").

A second purported class action complaint on behalf of PokerTek's
shareholders was filed on May 15, 2014 in the General Court of
Justice, Superior Court Division in and for Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina, Case No 14-CVS-8911, captioned Jeffrey Weber and
James Dabord, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PokerTek, Inc., Multimedia Games Holding
Company, Inc., Multimedia Games, Inc., 23 Acquisition Co., James
Crawford, Joe Lahti, Lyle Berman, Lou White and Arthur L. Lomax,
Defendants, and an purported amended class action complaint was
filed on June 6, 2014 ("Action #2").

A third purported class action complaint on behalf of PokerTek's
shareholders was filed on May 16, 2014 in the General Court of
Justice, Superior Court Division in and for Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina, Case No. 14-CVS-9215, captioned Herald J.
Stephens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, as Plaintiff, v. Mark D. Roberson, James T. Crawford
III, Joseph J. Lahti, Lyle A. Berman, Gehrig H. White, Arthur L.
Lomax, PokerTek, Inc., Multimedia Games, Inc., Multimedia Games
Holding Company, Inc. and 23 Acquisition Co., Defendants ("Action
#3").

A fourth purported class action complaint on behalf of PokerTek's
shareholders was filed on May 19, 2014 in the General Court of
Justice, Superior Court Division in and for Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina, Case No 14-CVS-9271, captioned Luis Lobo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, as
Plaintiff, v. PokerTek, Inc., James Crawford, Joe Lahti, Lyle
Berman, Gehrig White, Lee Lomax, Mark Roberson, Multimedia Games,
Inc. and 23 Acquisition Co., Defendants, and an purported amended
class action complaint was filed on June 6, 2014 (the "Action
#4").

A firth purported class action and shareholder derivative
complaint on behalf of PokerTek's shareholders was filed on June
9, 2014 in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division
in and for Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Case No 14-CVS-
10579, captioned Arkady Sandler, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, as Plaintiff, v. Joseph J. Lahti, Lyle
A. Berman, Gehrig H. White, Arthur L. Lomax, James T. Crawford
III,  Multimedia Games, Inc. and 23 Acquisition Co., Defendants
and PokerTek, Inc., Nominal Defendant ("Action #5").

Actions #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5 are collectively referred to herein
as the Actions.  On July 8, 2014, the Actions were consolidated
into a single action under the caption of Action #5.

On July 10, 2014, a substantially similar shareholder action was
filed in the United States District Court for the Western District
of North Carolina, captioned Clark v. PokerTek, Inc., Case No.
3:14 cv 00380 (W.D.N.C.) (the "Federal Action" and, together with
the Consolidated Action, the "Actions"), alleging breaches of
fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting thereof and related
violations of federal securities law, against Defendants relating
to the Proposed Transaction.  This action has not yet been served
on the defendants.

PokerTek believes that these lawsuits are without merit and that
no further disclosure is required to supplement the Definitive
Proxy Statement under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or
law.  However, to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties
inherent in such litigation, on July 13, 2014, the defendants
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "Memorandum of
Understanding") regarding settlement of the Consolidated Action.
The Memorandum of Understanding outlines the terms of the parties'
agreement in principle to settle and release all claims which were
or could have been asserted in the Consolidated Action and the
Federal Action.  In consideration for such settlement and release,
the parties to the Consolidated Action have agreed that PokerTek
will make certain supplemental disclosures to the Definitive Proxy
Statement, all of which are set forth below.  The Memorandum of
Understanding contemplates that the parties will attempt in good
faith to agree promptly upon a stipulation of settlement to be
submitted to the assigned Judge of the North Carolina Business
Court of the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina for approval at the earliest
practicable time.  The Stipulation will be subject to customary
conditions, including confirmatory discovery and approval by the
Court, which will consider the fairness, reasonableness and
adequacy of such settlement.  Under the terms of the proposed
settlement, following final approval by the Court, the
Consolidated Action will be dismissed with prejudice.  There can
be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into the
Stipulation or that the Court will approve the settlement even if
the parties were to enter into the Stipulation.  In such event, or
if the Merger is not consummated for any reason, the proposed
settlement will be null and void and of no force and effect.

The settlement will not affect the timing of the Special Meeting
or the amount of merger consideration to be paid to shareholders
of PokerTek in connection with the proposed Merger.


PRIMERICA LIFE: Faces Class Suit Over Insurance-Related Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Primerica Life Insurance
breaches contract on its term life insurance policies, a class
action claims in Orange County Court.


QUEANBEYAN: May Face Class Action Over Supplementary Rates Bills
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Butler, writing for The Queanbeyan Age, reports that angry
Queanbeyan ratepayers are planning to file a class action against
Queanbeyan City Council over supplementary rates bills recently
issued to some ratepayers as Council seeks to reclaim $3.7 million
in undercharged sewer, water and waste fees.

The Queanbeyan Age has spoken with two commercial property owners
who have been slugged with $10,000 bills for water and sewer
access backdated five years to 2009, and another who has been
charged $7,000.

The supplementary rates bills hit households on July 21, and an
accompanying letter from Council explained that a recent audit of
its property database had uncovered a litany of errors in charging
its 16,800 rateable properties over the last five years.  The
audit turned up 2,054 properties that will receive refunds for
overpayment of rates, while 860 properties have received bills for
outstanding accounts.

A Council finance spokesperson apologized for the error, but said
Council was required to recover the charges under the Local
Government Act.

"This database has never been thoroughly audited and has been
transferred through several systems over a number of years,
including the addition of a number of properties as a result of
previous boundary adjustments," the spokesperson said.

"Council apologizes for this error and will be undertaking six-
monthly audits of the property database from now on."

However affected residents are furious, and two John Bull Street
small business owners are investigating leading a class action to
fight the charges.

Small business owner Kim Morris, who runs an art restoration
business on John Bull Street, received a bill for $9,929 for
undercharged water and sewer access fees on July 21.  He told The
Queanbeyan Age he "wasn't prepared to take it lying down" and
would fight the bill.

"My question is . . . they've admitted they've made a mistake,
that's fine.  But why are you back dating it?

"We've always paid our rates in good faith.  Now they're saying
that due to their mistake, we owe another $10,000? I just think
it's completely unfair," he said.

His neighboring business owner, Lisa Robinson who runs an exercise
therapy business, received a similar bill for just under $7,000.
She said the move to backdate the charges was "unconscionable."

"It's not fair.  It's not even conscionable," she said.

"Small business run on the edge [financially], and it's not just
small, insignificant amount of money we're talking about.  It's a
major amount of money. And there's been no consultation."

Both business owners phoned Council staff to discuss the matter,
and both said they were willing to be charged at the new, higher
rate in the future according with the results of the audit.
However Ms. Robinson indicated to Council staff that she'd be
fighting the retrospective charges.

"I indicated there'd be a class action.  That's where I'd like to
go," she said.

"Four years ago when I bought this property, I based my decision
on a whole lot of things, including the viability of the rates.
It [the supplementary rates bill] affects everything, and I can't
go back and change my decision [to buy].  I can't now go back and
re-bill my customers at a new, higher rate."

Around 5.5 per cent of Queanbeyan's rateable properties have been
undercharged.  The total amount of outstanding charges is $3.7
million over the five-year period. 2,054 properties have been
overcharged and they will receive a credit note on their next
rates notice.  The value of refunds range from $15 to $60,000.

Council is offering a three-year interest-free payment plan to
those ratepayers who will struggle to pay their bill by its due
date at the end of August.

* Affected ratepayers interested in discussing their supplementary
rates bill should phone Queanbeyan City Council on 6285 6000.
Those interested in talking to Kim Morris or Lisa Robinson to
discuss their approach can reach Mr. Morris on 6297 7670 or
Ms. Robinson on 6162 0683.


RIGHT CHOICE: Fails to Pay Non-Exempt Workers OT, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Conner, Jr., individually, and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. Right Choice Staffing Group, LLC, a
domestic limited liability company, Adept Services Group, Inc, a
domestic profit corporation, jointly and severally, Case No. 5:14-
cv-12887 (E.D. Mich., July 23, 2014), is brought for failure to
pay non-exempt employees overtime compensation pursuant to Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Right Choice Staffing Group, LLC, and Adept Services Group, Inc.
are staffing service companies that provide their employees for
work in distribution, manufacturing and administrative support,
among other areas, for other companies to use.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Heidi T. Sharp, Esq.
      Zachary A. Hallman
      BURGESS & SHARP PLLC
      43260 Garfield, Suite 280
      Clinton Township, MI 48038
      Telephone: (586) 226-2627
      Facsimile: (586) 226-2630
      E-mail: heidi@burgess-sharp.com
              zachary@burgess-sharp.com


ROUGHLOCK LLC: Faces "Kush" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Kush, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Roughlock LLC d/b/a Black Door, Steeplechase, Inc.
d/b/a Park Bar, Joseph Regele, Raymond Patterson III, and Lawrence
Pease, Case No. 1:14-cv-05631 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2014), seeks to
recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, spread-of hours pay,
misappropriated gratuities, unlawful deductions, and other damages
for Plaintiff and her similarly situated co-workers - bartenders,
bar backs, and other "tipped workers".

Roughlock LLC owns and operates Bars with principal executive
office is located at 127 West 26th Street, New York, NewYork
10001.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
      Eric J. Gitig, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor I
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375


SKOTINI INC: Faces "Bustamante" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Bustamante, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Skotini, Inc., and Patty Markos,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05597 (N.D. Ill., July 22, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Skotini, Inc. operates a restaurant business in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (877) 509-6422
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: consumerlawgroupllc@gmail.com


SOI GROUP: Faces "Meza" Suit in Tex. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elvin Anacleto Mejia Meza and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Soi Group Incorporated d/b/a Star Outdoors
Star Outdoors Inc. and Phillip Thompson, Case No. 3:14-cv-02646
(N.D. Tex., July 22, 2014), is brought failure to pay Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated employees overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Soi Group Incorporated is doing business as Star Outdoors
Star Outdoors Inc. and is engaged in landscaping planning, design
and installation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq.
      J H ZIDELL PC
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


STUCHELL PRODUCTS: Faces "Betts" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Betts, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Stuchell Products, LLC (d/b/a) Sare Plastics
(c/o) Agent Bart Stuchell and Bart Stuchell and Mary Ann Stuchell,
Case No. 5:14-cv-01625 (N.D. Ohio, July 23, 2014), is brought for
failure to pay non-exempt employees overtime compensation pursuant
to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Stuchell Products, LLC provides custom plastic injection molding,
system and subsystem assembly, metal stalking and machine shop
services. They provide these services to commercial clients
throughout northeast Ohio and outside of Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
      Ryan A. Winters
      17410 Dorchester Drive
      Cleveland, OH 44119
      Telephone: (216) 650-3318
      Facsimile: (216) 664-2663
      E-mail: jfscld@yahoo.com
              rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com


SUBURBAN EATS: Faces "Padilla" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Padilla, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Suburban Eats Inc. d/b/a Suburban Eats, Timothy Caras
and Ivan Rodriguez, individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-04438
(E.D.N.Y., July 23, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Suburban Eats Inc. is engaged in the catering & restaurant
business which maintains a principal place of business at 610
Broadhollow Road, Melville, New York, 11747.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marijana F. Matura, Esq.
      SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
      510 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 499-9100
      Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
      E-mail: mm@shulmankessler.com


TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Sued Over Non-disclosure of Cancer Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Painters and Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care
Fund, third-party healthcare payor fund, Annie M. Snyder, a
California consumer, Rickey D. Rose, a Missouri consumer,
John Cardarelli, a New Jersey consumer, Marlyon K. Buckner, a
Florida consumer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, a Japanese
Corporation, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., an Illinois
corporation (fka Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.), Eli
Lilly and Company, an Indiana corporation, Case No. 6:14-cv-02359
(W.D. La., July 22, 2014), alleges that the Defendants lead an
illegal and fraudulent enterprise to sell the diabetes medication
Actos (generically known as pioglitazone), while concealing the
bladder cancer risks associated with Actos from consumers,
prescribers, third-party payors, and the United States Food and
Drug Administration.

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, a Japanese-based chemical
company, sought to expand its pharmaceutical presence in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Lin Baum, Esq.
      BAUM HEDLUND ET AL
      12100 Wilshire Blvd Ste 950
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 207-3233
      Facsimile: (310) 820-7444
      E-mail: mbaum@baumhedlundlaw.com

         - and -

      Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
      Nicholas R. Rockforte, Esq.
      PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
      1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400
      New Orleans, LA 70112
      Telephone: (504) 355-0086

          - and -

      T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
      Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
      LARSON KING, LLP
      30 East 7th Street
      St. Paul, MN 55101
      Telephone: (651) 312-6500


TENNESSEE: Faces "Wilson" Suit for Delaying Health Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Wilson, April Reynolds, Mohammed Mossa,Mayan Said; S.P.,
by next friend J.P.; K.P., by next friend T.V.; T.V. in her own
capacity; C.A., by next friends D.A.; D.A., in his own capacity;
S.V., by next friend M.M.; and S.G., by next friend L.G.;
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Darin Gordon, in his official capacity as the Deputy Commissioner
of the Tennessee Department of Finance and Administration and
Director of the Bureau of TennCare; Larry B. Martin, in his
official capacity as Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of
Finance and Administration; and DR. Raquel Hatter, Tennessee
Commissioner of Human Services, Case No. 3:14-cv-01492 (M.D.
Tenn., July 23, 2014), arises from the policies and practices that
delay and deny health coverage to individuals who are eligible for
Tennessee's federally funded Medicaid program, known as TennCare.

Darin Gordon is the Deputy Commissioner of the Tennessee
Department of Finance and Administration and is the Director of
that Department's Division of Health Care Finance and
Administration.

Larry B. Martin is the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of
Finance and Administration, of which Health Care Finance
Administration and the Bureau are subordinate agencies.

Dr. Raquel Hatter is the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department
of Human Services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher E. Coleman, Esq.
      Elizabeth Edwards, Esq.
      George Gordon Bonnyman Jr., Esq.
      Michele M. Johnson, Esq.
      Samuel Brooke, Esq.
      Sara Zampierin, Esq.
      TENNESSEE JUSTICE CENTER
      301 Charlotte Avenue
      Nashville, TN 37201
      Telephone: (615) 255-0331
      E-mail: ccoleman@tnjustice.org
              edwards@healthlaw.org
              gbonnyman@tnjustice.org
              mjohnson@tnjustice.org
              samuel.brooke@splcenter.org
              sara.zampierin@splcenter.org

          - and -

       Jane Perkins, Esq.
       Jay Singh, Esq.
       NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM
       101 E Weaver Street, Suite G-7
       Chapel Hill, NC 27510
       Telephone: (919) 968-6308
       E-mail: perkins@healthlaw.org
               jay.singh@splcenter.org


U.S. BANCORP: Fails to Pay Co-Managers Overtime, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Waggoner and Darbey Schultz, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v.  U.S. Bancorp, a foreign
corporation, and U.S. Bank National Association, a foreign
corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-01626 (N.D. Ohio, July 23, 2014),
seeks to recover overtime compensation for Plaintiffs and their
similarly situated co-workers who have worked as Co-Managers,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

U.S. Bancorp is the fourth largest bank in the United States based
on number of branches.

U.S. Bank National Association is a subsidiary of U.S. Bancorp, a
diversified financial services holding company, is doing business
in the state of Ohio and can be served at 425 Walnut Street,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 and/or 4000 W. Broadway, Robbinsdale,
Minnesota 55422.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      Robert E. DeRose , II, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ
      10th Floor, 250 East Broad Street
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com
              bderose@barkanmeizlish.com


VIACOM INC: Consolidated Privacy MDL Complaint May Be Amended
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that consumers
may amend claims that Google and Viacom violate children's privacy
by using cookies to track their Internet use and target them for
ads, citing a federal court ruling.

U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler in in Newark, N.J.., presides
over the multidistrict litigation against Google and Viacom, the
parent company of MTV, Comedy Central, Paramount Pictures and
Nickelodeon, among others.

One early class action alleged that the defendants secretly placed
a doubleclick.net cookie "id" on the computers of children who
registered and created profiles on Viacom-operated websites like
nick.com, nickjr.com, and neopets.com.

In addition to tracking the children's communications to those and
other websites, Viacom assigned each user a so-called "rugrat"
code based on his gender and age, according to the complaint.

The cookies let Google keep records of videos kids watch, then
show "targeted advertising to them based on their individualized
web usage communications, and videos requested and obtained," the
complaint said.

Chesler dismissed the action on July 2, tossing aside the claim
that because Google owns YouTube, it is a "video tape service
provider" under the Video Protection and Privacy Act.  He said the
plaintiffs failed to show that Viacom disclosed personally
identifiable information to Google by sharing age and gender
information from kids' profiles.

"All Google knows from the disclosure of this information (plus
the computer specific information discussed above) is 'a child's
username, sex, age, type of computer,' and IP address," Chesler
wrote.  "This is simply not information that, without more,
identifies a person -- an actual, specific human being -- as
having rented, streamed, or downloaded a given video, especially
given the absence of factual allegations regarding how (and if)
plaintiffs' unique usernames were linked to their actual names.
Certainly, this type of information might one day serve as the
basis of personal identification after some effort on the part of
the recipient, but the same could be said for nearly any type of
personal information; this court reads the VPPA to require a more
tangible, immediate link."

The Stored Communications Act claim failed as that law is "not
concerned with access of an individual's personal computer," the
39-page opinion states.

Chesler nixed the invasion-of-privacy claim "for the same reason
that the Wiretap Act claim fails -- there are no allegations that
plausibly demonstrate the interception of the 'contents or
meaning' of plaintiffs' communications."

As for the claim that the acquisition of personal information for
marketing purposes equates "property" damage under New Jersey's
Computer Related Offenses Act, Chesler said the defendants'
ability to monetize the plaintiffs' internet usage "does not mean
plaintiffs can do so as well."

The monetization is also neither clearly "offensive" nor evidence
of unjust enrichment, the court found.

Chesler gave the plaintiffs 45 days to amend the VPPA claim
against Viacom, as well as the intrusion-upon-seclusion and
Computer Related Offenses Act claims.

The consolidated case is captioned In Re Nickelodeon Consumer
Privacy Litigation, MDL No. 2443 (SRC), in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.


VOXX INTL: Faces "Ford" Securities Litigation in New York Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
VOXX International Corporation faces a securities lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
according to the company's July 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 31, 2014.

On July 8, 2014, a purported class action suit, styled Brian Ford
vs. VOXX International Corporation, et al., was filed against the
company and two of the company's present executive officers in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The suit
alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by
making false or misleading statements between May 15, 2013 and May
14, 2014 regarding the company's earnings guidance for fiscal 2014
and the anticipated future performance of the company's business.
Plaintiff claims that these statements artificially inflated the
price of the company's stock and that purchasers of the company's
stock during the relevant period were damaged when the stock price
later declined. Plaintiff seeks the award of unspecified amount of
damages on behalf of the alleged class, counsel fees and costs.
Although the company has not been formally served with the
lawsuit, based on the company's initial review the company
believes the claims are without merit and it intends to vigorously
defend against the lawsuit.


WD-40 CO: Faces Lawsuit in Cal. Over Communication "Recording"
--------------------------------------------------------------
WD-40 Company is facing a lawsuit in the Superior Court of
California for San Diego County (David Wolf v. WD-40 Company) that
alleges it violated the California Penal Code Section prohibiting
the interception and intentional recording of communication,
according to the company's July 10, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended May 31, 2014.

On February 25, 2014, a legal action was filed against the Company
in the Superior Court of California for San Diego County (David
Wolf v. WD-40 Company).  Mr. Wolf's complaint seeks class action
status and alleges that the Company violated California Penal Code
Section 632.7 which prohibits the interception and intentional
recording of "a communication transmitted between two cellular
radio telephones, a cellular radio telephone and a landline
telephone, two cordless telephones, a cordless telephone and a
landline telephone, or a cordless telephone and a cellular radio
telephone" without the consent of both parties to the
communication.  Mr. Wolf alleges that he called a toll free number
for the Company from his cellular radio telephone and that his
call was recorded by the Company without his consent in violation
of the statute. The California Penal Code provides for a private
right of action to persons who are injured by a violation of the
statute. If entitled to recover, the injured plaintiff may recover
the greater of $5,000 or three times the amount of actual damages
sustained by the plaintiff.


WHITING PETROLEUM: Sued in Colo. Over Kodiak Oil Buyout
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Fioravanti, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and Derivatively on Behalf of Kodiak Oil & Gas
Corp. v. William J. Krysiak, Rodney D. Knutson, Herrick K.
Lidstone, JR., Lynn A. Peterson, James E. Catlin, Whiting
Petroleum Corporation, and 1007695 B.C. Ltd., and Kodiak Oil & Gas
Corp., a Canadian Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-02037 (D. Colo.,
July 23, 2014), alleges breach of the Defendants' fiduciary duties
in connection with Whiting Petroleum Corporation's proposed
acquisition, via 1007695 B.C. LTD., of all the outstanding stock
of Kodiak Oil.

Whiting Petroleum in July announced it would acquire Kodiak Oil
for $3.8 billion in stock, and assume $2.2 billion of Kodiak Oil's
debt.

Whiting Petroleum is an independent oil and gas company that
acquires, explores, develops, and produces crude oil, natural gas
liquids, and natural gas in the United States.

Kodiak Oil Gas Corp. is an independent energy company focused on
the exploration, exploitation, acquisition, and production of
crude oil and natural gas primarily in the Williston Basin of
North Dakota in the United States.

The Individual Defendants are members of the Board of Directors of
Kodiak Oil Gas Corp.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Allen Berens, Esq.
      Robert J. Dyer III, Esq.
      Dyer & Berens, LLP
      303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 810
      Denver, CO 80203
      Telephone: (303) 861-1764
      Facsimile: (303) 395-0393
      E-mail: jeff@dyerberens.com
              bob@dyerberens.com

          - and -

      Kent A. Bronson, Esq.
      Steven Bentsianov, Esq.
      MILBERG LLP
      One Pennsylvania Plaza
      New York, NY 10119
      Telephone: (212) 594-5300
      Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
      Email: kbronson@milberg.com
             sbentsianov@milberg.com


WHITING PETROLEUM: Sued in Colo. Over Acquisition of Kodiak Oil
---------------------------------------------------------------
David J. Quigley and Robert Koelling, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated and Derivatively on Behalf of
Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp. v. Whiting Petroleum Corporation, 1007695
B.C. Ltd., Lynn A. Peterson, James E. Catlin, William J. Krysiak,
Rodney D. Knutson and Herrick K. Lidstone, Jr. and Kodiak Oil &
Gas Corp., a Canadian corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-02023 (D.
Colo., July 22, 2014), asserts breaches of fiduciary duty arising
out of the Defendants' efforts to complete the sale of the Company
to Whiting Petroleum Corporation pursuant to an unfair process and
for an unfair price.

The Defendants are energy companies focused on the exploration,
exploitation, acquisition and production of natural gas and crude
oil in the United States.

Whiting Petroleum announced in July it would acquire Kodiak Oil
for $3.8 billion in stock, and assume $2.2 billion of Kodiak Oil's
debt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kip Brian Shuman, Esq.
      Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
      SHUMAN LAW FIRM
      885 Arapahoe Avenue
      Boulder, CO 80302
      Telephone: (303) 861-3003
      Facsimile: (303) 484-4886
      E-mail: kip@shumanlawfirm.com
              rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

          - and -

      Randall J. Baron, Esq.
      A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
      David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
      Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423

           - and -

      Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
      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


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,515 Claims as of March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
There are 17,515 pending asbestos personal injury claims filed
against Harsco Corporation, 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 the United States, the Company has been named as one of many
defendants (approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal
actions alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne
asbestos over the past several decades, In their suits, the
plaintiffs have named as defendants, among others, many
manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of
equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit,
The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor
of asbestos fibers, Any component within a Company product that
may have contained asbestos would have been purchased from a
supplier, Based on scientific and medical evidence, the Company
believes that any asbestos exposure arising from normal use of any
Company product never presented any harmful levels of airborne
asbestos exposure, and, moreover, the type of asbestos contained
in any component that was used in those products was protectively
encapsulated in other materials and is not associated with the
types of injuries alleged in the pending suits, Finally, in most
of the depositions taken of plaintiffs to date in the litigation
against the Company, plaintiffs have failed to specifically
identify any Company products as the source of their asbestos
exposure.

The majority of the asbestos complaints pending against the
Company have been filed in New York, Almost all of the New York
complaints contain a standard claim for damages of $20 million or
$25 million against the approximately 90 defendants, regardless of
the individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without
specifically identifying any Company product as the source of
plaintiff's asbestos exposure.

As of March 31, 2014, there are 17,515 pending asbestos personal
injury claims filed against the Company, Of these cases, 17,129
are pending in the New York Supreme Court for New York County in
New York State, The other claims, totaling 386, are filed in
various counties in a number of state courts, and in certain
Federal District Courts (including New York), and those complaints
generally assert lesser amounts of damages than the New York State
court cases or do not state any amount claimed.

As of March 31, 2014, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation, or summary judgment prior to trial, in 27,307 cases.

In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation nationwide, the
Company expects to continue to receive additional claims, However,
there have been developments during the past several years, both
by certain state legislatures and by certain state courts, which
could favorably affect the Company's ability to defend these
asbestos claims in those jurisdictions, These developments include
procedural changes, docketing changes, proof of damage
requirements and other changes that require plaintiffs to follow
specific procedures in bringing their claims and to show proof of
damages before they can proceed with their claim, An example is
the action taken by the New York Supreme Court (a trial court),
which is responsible for managing all asbestos cases pending
within New York County in the State of New York, This Court issued
an order in December 2002 that created a Deferred or Inactive
Docket for all pending and future asbestos claims filed by
plaintiffs who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant
condition or discernible physical impairment, and an Active or In
Extremis Docket for plaintiffs who are able to show such medical
condition, As a result of this order, the majority of the asbestos
cases filed against the Company in New York County have been moved
to the Inactive Docket until such time as the plaintiffs can show
that they have incurred a physical impairment, As of March 31,
2014, the Company has been listed as a defendant in 218 Active or
In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County, The Court's Order
has been challenged by some plaintiffs.

Except with regard to the legal costs in a few limited,
exceptional cases, the Company's insurance carrier has paid all
legal and settlement costs and expenses to date related to the
Company's U.S. asbestos cases, The Company has liability insurance
coverage under various primary and excess policies that the
Company believes will be available, if necessary, to substantially
cover any liability that might ultimately be incurred on these
claims.

Harsco Corporation is a diversified, multinational provider of
industrial services and engineered products serving global
industries. The Company operates in four segments: Harsco Metals &
Minerals, Harsco Infrastructure, Harsco Rail and Harsco
Industrial. The Company's principal lines of business include
outsourced, on-site services to steel mills and other metals
producers; resource recovery technologies for the re-use of
industrial waste stream by-products; industrial abrasives and
roofing granules; engineered scaffolding, concrete forming and
shoring, and other access-related services, rentals and sales;
railway track maintenance services and equipment; industrial
grating products; air-cooled heat exchangers, and heat transfer
products. In January 2014, the Company acquired Hammco Corp.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Has 1,130 Pending PI Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc., disclosed that it has 1,130 pending asbestos-
related personal injury cases, 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 been named as a defendant in various
lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a
result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured
by our former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed
dust. In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos
from working in various facilities previously owned and/or
operated by us. There are 1,130 of these types of cases pending,
involving a total of approximately 1,643 plaintiffs. In addition,
the claims of approximately 8,298 plaintiffs have been
administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in
Ohio, Indiana and Texas state courts. We do not expect these
claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts'
medical criteria for asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued
any amounts for this litigation because of the uncertainty of
liability and inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if
any, To date, we have not been adjudicated liable in any of these
matters. Based on information available to us, including: (i)
facts concerning historical operations, (ii) the rate of new
claims, (iii) the number of claims from which we have been
dismissed, and (iv) our prior experience in the defense of these
matters.

"We believe that the range of reasonably possible outcomes of
these matters will be consistent with our historical costs (which
are not material). Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably
possible outcome would involve amounts material to our
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity. We have sought and will continue to vigorously seek,
dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from each claim. In
addition, from time to time, we have received notices regarding
asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former
subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which we
have entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance
policies, These insurers may seek indemnification from us. For a
discussion of other legal proceedings to which we are a party,
refer to our 2013 Annual Report.

"In addition, we and our affiliate are also involved in various
other environmental, contractual, product liability, patent (or
intellectual property), employment and other claims and disputes
incidental to present and former businesses. In certain cases, we
have insurance coverage for these items, although we do not expect
additional material insurance coverage for environmental matters.

"We currently believe the disposition of all of these various
other claims and disputes, individually and in the aggregate,
should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
financial position, results of operations or liquidity beyond the
accruals already provided."

NL Industries, Inc. (NL) is a holding company. The Company
operates in the component products industry through its majority-
owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc. The Company operates in
the chemicals industry through its non-controlling interest in
Kronos Worldwide, Inc. As of December 31, 2011, it owned 87%
interest in CompX International Inc and 30% interest in Kronos
Worldwide, Inc. The Company also owns 100% of EWI RE, Inc., an
insurance brokerage and risk management services company. CompX is
a manufacturer of engineered components utilized in a variety of
applications and industries. Kronos is a global producer and
marketer of value-added titanium dioxide pigments. In July of
2011, CompX completed the acquisition of an ergonomic component
products business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Inc. Continues to Defend Suits v. Units
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. continues to defend itself against asbestos-related
lawsuits arising from exposure to products manufactured by its
subsidiaries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 30, 2014.

Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned American Optical
Corporation, which manufactured and sold respiratory protective
devices and asbestos safety clothing. In connection with the sale
of American Optical in 1982, Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify
the purchaser for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos-
related and other claims. As of March 30, 2014, approximately
64,000 claims naming American Optical and numerous other
defendants were pending in various federal and state courts
seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to
asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials. Warner-Lambert
is actively engaged in the defense of, and will continue to
explore various means to resolve, these claims.

Numerous lawsuits are pending against Pfizer in various federal
and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from
exposure to products containing asbestos and other allegedly
hazardous materials sold by Gibsonburg Lime Products Company
(Gibsonburg). Gibsonburg was acquired by Pfizer in the 1960s and
sold products containing small amounts of asbestos until the early
1970s.

There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to
asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its
subsidiaries.

Pfizer Inc. (Pfizer) is a research-based, global biopharmaceutical
company. The Company manages its operations through five segments:
Primary Care; Specialty Care and Oncology; Established Products
and Emerging Markets; Animal Health, and Consumer Healthcare. The
Company's diversified global healthcare portfolio includes human
and animal biologic and small molecule medicines and vaccines, as
well as nutritional products and consumer healthcare products. Its
Animal Health business unit discovers, develops and sells products
for the prevention and treatment of diseases in livestock and
companion animals. Primary Care operating segment includes
revenues from human prescription pharmaceutical products primarily
prescribed by primary-care physicians. In November 2012, the
Company acquired NextWave Pharmaceuticals, Inc. On November 30,
2012, the Company completed the sale of its Nutrition business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Obtains Dismissal of 44 Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc., has obtained a dismissal in 44
asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2014.

The Company is defending 44 lawsuits in different jurisdictions,
alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos.  The
complaints in these cases typically name a large number of
defendants and do not identify any particular Company products as
a source of asbestos exposure. As of March 30, 2014, the Company
has obtained a dismissal in every case before it has reached trial
because discovery has failed to yield evidence of substantial
exposure to any Company products.

Watts Water Technologies, Inc. (Watts)is a supplier of products
for use in the water quality, water safety, water flow control and
water conservation markets in both North America and Europe with a
presence in Asia. It operates in three geographic segments: North
America, Europe and Asia. Watts has manufacturing facilities, such
as Mexico, China, Bulgaria and Tunisia. Its products are sold to
wholesale distributors and dealers, do-it-yourself (DIY) chains
and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). During the year ended
December 31, 2012, it began classifying its many products into
four universal product lines. These product lines are residential
and commercial flow control products, heating, ventilation and air
conditioning (HVAC) and gas products, drains and water re-use
products and water quality products. On January 31, 2012, it
completed the acquisition of tekmar Control Systems (tekmar). In
December 2012, it sold its subsidiary Flomatic Corporation, to
Boshart Industries Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 45,270 Pending Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had 45,270 pending 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.

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal
injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly
occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor
a manufacturer of asbestos. The Company is typically named as one
of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases.
In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not
identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a
claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been
identified principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by
asbestos-containing insulating material in turbines sold for
power-generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos-
containing grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in
commercial ships.

Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period. The Company does not report as pending those claims on
inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some
jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or
no impairment. As of March 31, 2014, the Company had pending
approximately 45,270 asbestos claims, as compared with
approximately 45,150 as of December 31, 2013 and 46,070 as of
March 31, 2013. During the first quarter of 2014, the Company
received approximately 910 new claims and closed or moved to an
inactive docket approximately 790 claims. The Company reports
claims as closed when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has
been entered by a court or when the Company has reached agreement
with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement.
Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that
form the basis of the claim, the quality of evidence supporting
the claims and other factors. The Company's total costs for the
years 2013 and 2012 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims
after insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were
approximately $29 million and $21 million, respectively. The
Company's costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims may
vary year to year and insurance proceeds are not always recovered
in the same period as the insured portion of the expenses.

Filings include claims for individuals suffering from
mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly
increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may
be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be
asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are
substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of
individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly asbestos-
related disease. The predominant number of claims against the
Company are non-cancer claims. In a substantial number of the
pending claims, the plaintiff has not yet identified the claimed
injury. The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are
adequate to cover its asbestos liabilities. This belief is based
upon many factors and assumptions, including the number of
outstanding claims, estimated average cost per claim, the
breakdown of claims by disease type, historic claim filings, costs
per claim of resolution and the filing of new claims. While the
number of asbestos claims filed against the Company has trended
down during the past five to ten years and has remained flat in
recent years, it is difficult to predict future asbestos
liabilities, as events and circumstances may occur including,
among others, the number and types of claims and average cost to
resolve such claims, which could affect the Company's estimate of
its asbestos liabilities.

CBS Corporation is a mass media company. The Company has
operations in segments, which include Entertainment, Cable
Networks, Publishing, Local Broadcasting and Outdoor. During the
year ended December 31, 2011, contributions to the Company's
consolidated revenues from its segments were Entertainment 52%,
Cable Networks 11%, Publishing 6%, Local Broadcasting 19% and
Outdoor 13%. During 2011, it generated approximately 15% of its
total revenues from international regions. Effective March 26,
2013, the Company acquired 50% interest in The TV Guide Network
from Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. In June 2013, the Company
acquired TV Guide Digital, which includes the popular TVGuide.com
and TV Guide Mobile properties. In October 2013, Platinum Equity
and CBS Corporation announced that an affiliate of Platinum Equity
acquired the assets of CBS Outdoor International (CBSO
International).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Continues to Defend PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company continues to defend itself against
a number of cases alleging asbestos-related injuries, 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.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of cases
alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted from exposure
to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on the Company's
historic use of vermiculite in certain of its products. In many of
these cases, the complaints are not specific about the plaintiffs'
contacts with the Company or its products. The Company believes
that the claims against it are without merit and is vigorously
defending against them. It is not currently possible to reasonably
estimate a probable loss, if any, associated with these cases and,
accordingly, no reserves have been recorded in the Company's
Consolidated Financial Statements. The Company is reviewing
agreements and policies that may provide insurance coverage or
indemnity as to these claims and is pursuing coverage under some
of these agreements and policies, although there can be no
assurance of the results of these efforts. There can be no
assurance that these cases, whether as a result of adverse
outcomes or as a result of significant defense costs, will not
have a material effect on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, (Scotts Miracle-Gro) is a
manufacturer and marketer of branded consumer lawn and gardens
products. The Company segments include Global Consumer and Scotts
LawnService. The Company sells its consumer products primarily to
home centers, mass merchandisers, warehouse clubs, large hardware
chains, independent hardware stores, nurseries, garden centers and
food and drug stores through both a direct sales force and its
network of brokers and distributors. The Company also operates the
Scotts LawnService business, which provides residential and
commercial lawn care, tree and shrub care and limited pest control
services in the United States. The primary distribution centers
for the Company's Global Consumer business internationally are
located in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Austria and
Australia and are also managed by third-party logistics providers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $609MM Fibro Reserves
-----------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Duke Energy Corporation has recognized asbestos-
related reserves of $609 million, 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.

Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for
indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos
exposure. These claims relate to damages for bodily injuries
alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in
connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted
on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of March 31,
2014, there were 112 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with
the cumulative relief sought of up to $25 million, and 29 asserted
claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up
to $10 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas' experience, it is
expected that the ultimate resolution of most of these claims
likely will be less than the amount claimed.

Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of
$609 million at March 31, 2014 and $616 million at December 31,
2013. These reserves are classified in Other within Deferred
Credits and Other Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities
on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are
based upon the minimum amount of the range of loss for current and
future asbestos claims through 2033, are recorded on an
undiscounted basis and incorporate anticipated inflation. In light
of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast,
management does not believe they can reasonably estimate the
indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2033
related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy
Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded
reserves.

Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an
aggregate self-insured retention of $476 million. Duke Energy
Carolinas' cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance
retention in 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be
reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. The insurance
policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries
indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $897 million in
excess of the self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance
recoveries were $649 million at both March 31, 2014 and December
31, 2013. These amounts are classified in Other within Investments
and Other Assets and Receivables on the Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any
uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims.
Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset is
probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a
strong financial strength rating.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy) is an energy company. Duke
Energy operates in the United States primarily through its direct
and indirect wholly owned subsidiaries, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
(Duke Energy Carolinas), Carolina Power & Light Company d/b/a
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (Progress Energy Carolinas),
Florida Power Corporation d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc.
(Progress Energy Florida), Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy
Ohio), and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (Duke Energy Indiana), as
well as in Latin America through Duke Energy International, LLC
(DEI). Duke Energy's segment includes U.S. Franchised Electric and
Gas (USFE&G), Commercial Power and International Energy. In
December 2012, the Company's subsidiary acquired CGE Group's
Iberoamericana de Energia Ibener S.A. (Ibener) subsidiary in
Chile. In June 2013, Duke Energy Corp acquired an undisclosed
minority stake in Clean Power Finance Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc., continues to defend itself against
several multi-defendant asbestos-related product liability
lawsuits, 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.

Additionally, the Company has been named as a defendant in several
multi-defendant asbestos related product liability lawsuits. In
certain instances, the Company is indemnified by a former owner of
the product line in question. In the remaining cases the plaintiff
has not been able to establish any exposure by the plaintiff to
the Company's products. The Company is uninsured with respect to
these claims but believes that it will not incur any material
liability with respect to these to claims.

Manitex International, Inc. is engaged in providing engineered
lifting solutions. The Company operates in two segments: Lifting
Equipment segment and Equipment Distribution segment. The Company,
in its Lifting Equipment segment, designs, manufactures and
distributes a group of products that serve different functions and
are used in a variety of industries. Through its subsidiary,
Manitex, Inc., the Company markets a line of boom trucks and sign
cranes. Manitex's boom trucks and crane products are primarily
used for industrial projects, energy exploration and
infrastructure development, including roads, bridges and
commercial construction. The Company, in its Equipment
Distribution segment, operates a crane dealership located in
Bridgeview, Illinois that distributes Terex rough terrain and
truck cranes, Fuchs material handlers, and Manitex boom trucks and
sky cranes. In December 2013, the Company announced that it has
completed the acquisition of Valla, SpA, of Piacenza, Italy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 1,255 Fibro Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Steel Partners Holdings L.P. had 1,255 alleged
asbestos-related toxic-tort 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.

BNS Sub has been named as a defendant in 1,255 and 1,234 alleged
asbestos-related toxic-tort claims as of March 31, 2014 and
December 31, 2013, respectively. The claims were filed over a
period beginning 1994 through September 30, 2013. In many cases
these claims involved more than 100 defendants. Of the claims
filed, 1,053 and 1,023 were dismissed, settled or granted summary
judgment and closed as of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013,
respectively. Of the claims settled, the average settlement was
less than $3. There remained 202 and 211 pending asbestos claims
as of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively. There
can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the
related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be
consistent with the experience to date of existing claims.

BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims
for years beginning 1974 through 1988 with estimated aggregate
coverage limits of $183,000, with $2,082 at March 31, 2014 and
December 31, 2013 in estimated remaining self-insurance retention
(deductible). There is secondary evidence of coverage from 1970 to
1973 although there is no assurance that the insurers will
recognize that the coverage was in place. Policies issued for BNS
Sub beginning in 1989 contained exclusions related to asbestos.
Under certain circumstances, some of the settled claims may be
reopened. Also, there may be a significant delay in receipt of
notification by BNS Sub of the entry of a dismissal or settlement
of a claim or the filing of a new claim. BNS Sub believes it has
significant defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on the
merits. None of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and,
therefore, there can be no assurance that these defenses will
prevail. In addition, there can be no assurance that the number of
future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or
judgments will be consistent with the experience to date of
existing claims, and that BNS Sub will not need to increase
significantly its estimated liability for the costs to settle
these claims to an amount that could have a material effect on the
consolidated financial statements.

BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits from its
insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims accruals
as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates of the
ultimate settlement and defense costs for the then-existing claims
are revised. As of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013 BNS Sub
has accrued $1,403 relating to the open and active claims against
BNS Sub. This accrual represents the Company's best estimate of
the likely costs to defend against or settle these claims by BNS
Sub beyond the amounts accrued by the insurance carriers and
previously funded, through the retroactive billings by BNS Sub.
However, there can be no assurance that BNS Sub will not need to
take additional charges in connection with the defense, settlement
or judgment of these existing claims or that the costs of future
claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments
will be consistent with the experience to date relating to
existing claims. These claims are now being managed by the
Liquidating Trust formed by BNS.

Steel Partners Holdings L.P. (SPH) is a global diversified holding
company. The Company is engaged in multiple businesses through
consolidated subsidiaries, associated companies and other
interests. The Company owns and operates businesses and has
interests in companies in various industries, including
diversified industrial products, energy, defense, banking,
insurance, food products and services, oilfield services, sports,
training, education, and the entertainment and lifestyle
industries. The Company operates in three segments: Diversified
Industrial, Financial Services and Other. The Company's
subsidiary, SPH Services, Inc., through its subsidiary, SP
Corporate Services LLC (SP Corporate), provides certain executive
and corporate management services to it and some of its companies.
On July 5, 2011, its ownership interest in DGT Holdings Corp.
increased to 51.1%.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Inc. Subsidiary Has 1,130 Pending Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
A wholly-owned subsidiary of Valhi, Inc., has 1,130 pending
asbestos-related cases, 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: "NL Industries, Inc., has been named as a
defendant in various lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging
personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure primarily
to products manufactured by our former operations containing
asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust. In addition, some plaintiffs
allege exposure to asbestos from working in various facilities
previously owned and/or operated by NL. There are 1,130 of these
types of cases pending, involving a total of approximately 1,643
plaintiffs. In addition, the claims of approximately 8,298
plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed or placed on the
inactive docket in Ohio, Indiana and Texas state courts. We do not
expect these claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet
the courts' medical criteria for asbestos-related claims. We have
not accrued any amounts for this litigation because of the
uncertainty of liability and inability to reasonably estimate the
liability, if any. To date, we have not been adjudicated liable in
any of these matters. Based on information available to us,
including: (i) facts concerning historical operations, (ii) the
rate of new claims, (iii) the number of claims from which we have
been dismissed, and (iV) our prior experience in the defense of
these matters.

"We believe that the range of reasonably possible outcomes of
these matters will be consistent with our historical costs (which
are not material). Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably
possible outcome would involve amounts material to our
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity. We have sought and will continue to vigorously seek,
dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from each claim. In
addition, from time to time, we have received notices regarding
asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former
subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which we
have entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance
policies. These insurers may seek indemnification from us."

Valhi, Inc. is a holding company. It operates in three segments:
Chemicals, Component Products and Waste Management. The Company's
chemicals segment is operated through Kronos Worldwide, Inc.,
which is a global producer and marketer of titanium dioxide
pigment (TiO2). The Company operates in the component products
industry through its majority control of CompX International Inc.
Waste Control Specialists LLC is the Company's subsidiary, which
operates a West Texas facility for the processing, treatment,
storage and disposal of a range of low-level radioactive,
hazardous, toxic and other wastes. The Company operates through
its wholly owned and majority owned subsidiaries, including NL
Industries, Inc., Kronos Worldwide, Inc., CompX International Inc.
and Waste Control Specialists LLC (WCS). In July of 2011, CompX
International Inc. acquired 100% of the stock of a Canadian
ergonomic component products company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Subsidiary Has 8,601 Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
There were 8,601 pending asbestos claims asserted against Ampco-
Pittsburgh Corporation's inactive 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.

Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos-containing components historically used in some
products of predecessors of the Corporation's Air & Liquid
subsidiary.  Those subsidiaries, and in some cases the
Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants, often
in excess of 50) in cases filed in various state and federal
courts.

For the three months ended March 31, 2014, there were 8,601
pending asbestos claims asserted against an inactive subsidiary in
dissolution.  A substantial majority of the settlement and defense
costs was reported and paid by insurers. Because claims are often
filed and can be settled or dismissed in large groups, the amount
and timing of settlements, as well as the number of open claims,
can fluctuate significantly from period to period.

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates in two segments: Forged and
Cast Rolls, and Air and Liquid Processing. Forged and Cast Rolls
segment is operated by Union Electric Steel Corporation and Union
Electric Steel UK Limited. The Air and Liquid Processing segment
includes Aerofin, Buffalo Air Handling and Buffalo Pumps, all
divisions of Air & Liquid Systems Corporation. Aerofin produces
highly-engineered heat-exchange coils for a variety of users,
including electric utility, HVAC, power generation, industrial
process and other manufacturing industries. Buffalo Air Handling
makes custom-designed air handling systems for commercial,
institutional and industrial building markets. Union Electric
Steel Corporation produces forged hardened steel rolls used in
cold rolling by producers of steel, aluminum and other metals
throughout the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh's Suit v. Insurers is Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed by Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation and a subsidiary
against insurance companies remains pending, 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 Corporation and its Air & Liquid subsidiary are parties to a
series of settlement agreements ("Settlement Agreements") with
insurers that have coverage obligations for Asbestos Liability
(the "Settling Insurers"). Under the Settlement Agreements, the
Settling Insurers accept financial responsibility, subject to the
terms and conditions of the respective agreements, including
overall coverage limits, for pending and future claims for
Asbestos Liability. The Settlement Agreements encompass the
substantial majority of insurance policies that provide coverage
for claims for Asbestos Liability.

The Settlement Agreements include acknowledgements that Howden
North America, Inc. ("Howden") is entitled to coverage under
policies covering Asbestos Liability for claims arising out of the
historical products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge,
a former subsidiary of the Corporation (the "Products"). The
Settlement Agreements do not provide for any prioritization on
access to the applicable policies or any sublimits of liability as
to Howden or the Corporation and Air & Liquid, and, accordingly,
Howden may access the coverage afforded by the Settling Insurers
for any covered claim arising out of a Product. In general, access
by Howden to the coverage afforded by the Settling Insurers for
the Products will erode coverage under the Settlement Agreements
available to the Corporation and Air & Liquid for Asbestos
Liability.

On February 24, 2011, the Corporation and Air & Liquid filed a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania against thirteen domestic insurance
companies, certain underwriters at Lloyd's, London and certain
London market insurance companies, and Howden. The lawsuit seeks a
declaratory judgment regarding the respective rights and
obligations of the parties under excess insurance policies that
were issued to the Corporation from 1981 through 1984 as respects
claims against the Corporation and its subsidiary for Asbestos
Liability and as respects asbestos bodily-injury claims against
Howden arising from the Products. The Corporation and Air & Liquid
have reached Settlement Agreements with all but two of the
defendant insurers in the coverage action. Those Settlement
Agreements specify the terms and conditions upon which the insurer
parties are to contribute to defense and indemnity costs for
claims for Asbestos Liability. One of the Settlement Agreements
entered into by the Corporation and Air & Liquid also provided for
the dismissal of claims, without prejudice, regarding two upper-
level excess policies issued by one of the insurers. The Court has
entered Orders dismissing all claims in the action filed against
each other by the Corporation and Air & Liquid, on the one hand,
and by the settling insurers, on the other. Howden also reached an
agreement with eight domestic insurers addressing asbestos-related
bodily injury claims arising from the Products, and claims as to
those insurers and Howden have been dismissed. Various
counterclaims, cross claims and third party claims have been filed
in the litigation and remain pending although only two domestic
insurers and Howden remain in the litigation as to the Corporation
and Air & Liquid. On September 27, 2013, the Court issued a
memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying in part
cross motions for summary judgment filed by the Corporation and
Air & Liquid, Howden, and the insurer parties still in the
litigation. The September 27, 2013, ruling is not a final ruling
for appellate purposes, but when final it could be appealed by the
parties to the litigation.

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates in two segments: Forged and
Cast Rolls, and Air and Liquid Processing. Forged and Cast Rolls
segment is operated by Union Electric Steel Corporation and Union
Electric Steel UK Limited. The Air and Liquid Processing segment
includes Aerofin, Buffalo Air Handling and Buffalo Pumps, all
divisions of Air & Liquid Systems Corporation. Aerofin produces
highly-engineered heat-exchange coils for a variety of users,
including electric utility, HVAC, power generation, industrial
process and other manufacturing industries. Buffalo Air Handling
makes custom-designed air handling systems for commercial,
institutional and industrial building markets. Union Electric
Steel Corporation produces forged hardened steel rolls used in
cold rolling by producers of steel, aluminum and other metals
throughout the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $106MM Insurance Receivable
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's insurance receivable related to
asbestos was $105,546,000, 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 2006, the Corporation retained Hamilton, Rabinovitz &
Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized expert in the
valuation of asbestos liabilities, to assist the Corporation in
estimating the potential liability for pending and unasserted
future claims for Asbestos Liability. Based on this analysis, the
Corporation recorded a reserve for Asbestos Liability claims
pending or projected to be asserted through 2013 as at December
31, 2006. HR&A's analysis has been periodically updated since that
time. Most recently, the HR&A analysis was updated in 2012, and
additional reserves were established by the Corporation as at
December 31, 2012, for Asbestos Liability claims pending or
projected to be asserted through 2022. The methodology used by
HR&A in its projection in 2012 of the operating subsidiaries'
liability for pending and unasserted potential future claims for
Asbestos Liability, which is substantially the same as the
methodology employed by HR&A in prior estimates, relied upon and
included the following factors:

* HR&A's interpretation of a widely accepted forecast of the
population likely to have been exposed to asbestos;

* epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely
to develop asbestos-related diseases;

* HR&A's analysis of the number of people likely to file an
asbestos-related injury claim against the subsidiaries and the
Corporation based on such epidemiological data and relevant claims
history from January 1, 2010 to December 20, 2012;

* an analysis of pending cases, by type of injury claimed and
jurisdiction where the claim is filed;

* an analysis of claims resolution history from January 1, 2010 to
December 20, 2012 to determine the average settlement value of
claims, by type of injury claimed and jurisdiction of filing; and

* an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement
value of claims, at an annual inflation rate based on the
Congressional Budget Office's ten year forecast of inflation.

Using this information, HR&A estimated in 2012 the number of
future claims for Asbestos Liability that would be filed through
the year 2022, as well as the settlement or indemnity costs that
would be incurred to resolve both pending and future unasserted
claims through 2022. This methodology has been accepted by
numerous courts.

In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Corporation also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its Asbestos Liabilities. In developing the
estimate, the Corporation considered HR&A's projection for
settlement or indemnity costs for Asbestos Liability and
management's projection of associated defense costs (based on the
current defense to indemnity cost ratio), as well as a number of
additional factors. These additional factors included the
Settlement Agreements then in effect, policy exclusions, policy
limits, policy provisions regarding coverage for defense costs,
attachment points, prior impairment of policies and gaps in the
coverage, policy exhaustions, insolvencies among certain of the
insurance carriers, and the nature of the underlying claims for
Asbestos Liability asserted against the subsidiaries and the
Corporation as reflected in the Corporation's asbestos claims
database, as well as estimated erosion of insurance limits on
account of claims against Howden arising out of the Products. In
addition to consulting with the Corporation's outside legal
counsel on these insurance matters, the Corporation consulted with
a nationally-recognized insurance consulting firm it retained to
assist the Corporation with certain policy allocation matters that
also are among the several factors considered by the Corporation
when analyzing potential recoveries from relevant historical
insurance for Asbestos Liabilities. Based upon all of the factors
considered by the Corporation, and taking into account the
Corporation's analysis of publicly available information regarding
the credit-worthiness of various insurers, the Corporation
estimated the probable insurance recoveries for Asbestos Liability
and defense costs through 2022. Although the Corporation believes
that the assumptions employed in the insurance valuation were
reasonable and previously consulted with its outside legal counsel
and insurance consultant regarding those assumptions, there are
other assumptions that could have been employed that would have
resulted in materially lower insurance recovery projections.

Based on the analyses, the Corporation's reserve at December 31,
2012 for the total costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos
Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2022
was $181,022, of which approximately 73% was attributable to
settlement costs for unasserted claims projected to be filed
through 2022 and future defense costs. The reserve at March 31,
2014 was $151,708. While it is reasonably possible that the
Corporation will incur additional charges for Asbestos Liability
and defense costs in excess of the amounts currently reserved, the
Corporation believes that there is too much uncertainty to provide
for reasonable estimation of the number of future claims, the
nature of such claims and the cost to resolve them beyond 2022.
Accordingly, no reserve has been recorded for any costs that may
be incurred after 2022.

The Corporation's receivable at December 31, 2012 for insurance
recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Corporation's
Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the
portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Settlement
Agreements in effect through December 31, 2012, and the probable
payments and reimbursements relating to the estimated indemnity
and defense costs for pending and unasserted future Asbestos
Liability claims, was $118,115. The Corporation increased its
receivable at September 30, 2013 by $16,340 to take into account
the effect of the Settlement Agreements reached in August 2013.

For the three months ended March 31, 2014, the Company's insurance
receivable related to asbestos was $105,546,000.

The insurance receivable recorded by the Company does not assume
any recovery from insolvent carriers or carriers not party to a
Settlement Agreement, and a substantial majority of the insurance
recoveries deemed probable was from insurance companies rated A -
(excellent) or better by A.M. Best Corporation. There can be no
assurance, however, that there will not be further insolvencies
among the relevant insurance carriers, or that the assumed
percentage recoveries for certain carriers will prove correct. The
difference between insurance recoveries and projected costs is not
due to exhaustion of all insurance coverage for Asbestos
Liability. The Corporation and the subsidiaries have substantial
additional insurance coverage which the Corporation expects to be
available for Asbestos Liability claims and defense costs that the
subsidiaries and it may incur after 2022. However, this insurance
coverage also can be expected to have gaps creating significant
shortfalls of insurance recoveries as against claims expense,
which could be material in future years.

The amounts recorded by the Corporation for Asbestos Liabilities
and insurance receivables rely on assumptions that are based on
currently known facts and strategy. The Corporation's actual
expenses or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or
lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Corporation's
or HR&A's calculations vary significantly from actual results. Key
variables in these assumptions are identified and include the
number and type of new claims to be filed each year, the average
cost of disposing of each such new claim, average annual defense
costs, compliance by relevant parties with the terms of the
Settlement Agreements, the resolution of remaining coverage issues
with insurance carriers, and the solvency risk with respect to the
relevant insurance carriers. Other factors that may affect the
Corporation's Asbestos Liability and ability to recover under its
insurance policies include uncertainties surrounding the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case
to case, reforms that may be made by state and federal courts, and
the passage of state or federal tort reform legislation.

The Corporation intends to evaluate its estimated Asbestos
Liability and related insurance receivables as well as the
underlying assumptions on a regular basis to determine whether any
adjustments to the estimates are required. Due to the
uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation and insurance, these
regular reviews may result in the Corporation incurring future
charges; however, the Corporation is currently unable to estimate
such future charges. Adjustments, if any, to the Corporation's
estimate of its recorded Asbestos Liability and/or insurance
receivables could be material to operating results for the periods
in which the adjustments to the liability or receivable are
recorded, and to the Corporation's liquidity and consolidated
financial position.

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates in two segments: Forged and
Cast Rolls, and Air and Liquid Processing. Forged and Cast Rolls
segment is operated by Union Electric Steel Corporation and Union
Electric Steel UK Limited. The Air and Liquid Processing segment
includes Aerofin, Buffalo Air Handling and Buffalo Pumps, all
divisions of Air & Liquid Systems Corporation. Aerofin produces
highly-engineered heat-exchange coils for a variety of users,
including electric utility, HVAC, power generation, industrial
process and other manufacturing industries. Buffalo Air Handling
makes custom-designed air handling systems for commercial,
institutional and industrial building markets. Union Electric
Steel Corporation produces forged hardened steel rolls used in
cold rolling by producers of steel, aluminum and other metals
throughout the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Suit v. Arabian American Unit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit against Arabian
American Development Company's subsidiary remains pending,
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 September 14, 2010, South Hampton received notice of a lawsuit
filed in the 58th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County,
Texas which was subsequently transferred to the 11th Judicial
District Court of Harris County, Texas. The suit alleges that the
plaintiff became ill from exposure to asbestos. There are
approximately 44 defendants named in the suit. South Hampton has
placed its insurers on notice of the claim and plans to vigorously
defend the case.

Arabian American Development Company is engaged in manufacturing
various specialty petrochemical products. As of December 31, 2011,
the Company owned a 37% interest in Al Masane Al Kobra Mining
Company and a 55% interest in Pioche Ely Valley Mines, Inc (PEVM).
The Company's United States activities are primarily conducted
through a wholly owned subsidiary, Texas Oil and Chemical Co. II,
Inc. (TOCCO). TOCCO owns of South Hampton Resources Inc. (South
Hampton), and South Hampton owns of Gulf State Pipe Line Company,
Inc. (Gulf State). South Hampton owns and operates a specialty
petrochemical facility near Silsbee, Texas, which is used in the
production of polyethylene, packaging, polypropylene, expandable
polystyrene and poly-iso/urethane foams. Gulf State owns and
operates three pipelines that connect the South Hampton facility
to a natural gas line, to South Hampton's truck and rail loading
terminal and to a petroleum products pipeline owned by an
unaffiliated third party.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Has 273 Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
There were 273 asbestos exposure cases pending against Park-Ohio
Holdings 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: "We were a co-defendant in approximately 273
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 618 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are only eight asbestos cases, involving 27 plaintiffs,
that plead specified damages. In each of the eight cases, the
plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a
variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In three
cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the
amount of $3.0 million for four separate causes of action and $1.0
million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the
amount of $10.0 million. In the fourth case, the plaintiff has
alleged against each named defendant, compensatory and punitive
damages, each in the amount of $10.0 million, for seven separate
causes of action. In the fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged
compensatory damages in the amount of $20.0 million for three
separate causes of action and $5.0 million for another cause of
action and punitive damages in the amount of $20.0 million. In the
sixth case, plaintiffs have alleged compensatory and punitive
damages in the amount of $10.0 million for each of the five counts
and one count of $5.0 million for the sixth count. In the
remaining two cases, the plaintiffs have each alleged against each
named defendant, compensatory and punitive damages, each in the
amount of $50.0 million, for four separate causes of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-
containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.
We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe
we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such
cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome
of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos-
related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that
the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of
operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching
this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being
dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the bases mentioned; (b)
many cases have been improperly filed against one of our
subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been unable to
establish any causal relationship to us or our products or
premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or
compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have
incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and
(e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and,
in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to
individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the
amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful
indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed
typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's
injury, if any.

Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date
and, based upon available information, our management does not
expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or
financial position."

Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. (Holdings) conducts its business
primarily through the subsidiaries owned by its direct subsidiary,
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. (Park-Ohio). It is an industrial supply
chain logistics and diversified manufacturing business operating
in three segments: Supply Technologies, Aluminum Products and
Manufactured Products. Supply Technologies provides the Company's
customers with Total Supply Management services for a range of
specialty production components. Its Aluminum Products business
manufactures cast and machined aluminum components, and the
Company's Manufactured Products business is a manufacturer of
engineered industrial products. The Company's businesses serve
industrial original equipment manufacturers in a variety of
industrial sectors. On March 26, 2012, it acquired Fluid Routing
Solutions Inc. In April 2013, the Company Fluid Routing Solutions
(FRS) business acquired all of the assets of Bates Acquisition LLC
and Bates Real Estate Acquisition, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling Had 15 Fibro-Related Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
There were 15 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits pending
against Parker Drilling Company, 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 are from time to time a party to various
lawsuits in the ordinary course of business that are incidental to
our operations in which the claimants seek an unspecified amount
of monetary damages for personal injury, including injuries
purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs
and associated facilities. At March 31, 2014, there were
approximately 15 of these lawsuits in which we are one of many
defendants. These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in
the states of California, Illinois and Mississippi.

"We intend to defend ourselves vigorously and, based on the
information available to us at this time, we do not expect the
outcome to have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, we are
unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits. No
amounts were accrued at March 31, 2014."

Parker Drilling Company (Parker) is a provider of contract
drilling and drilling-related services. The Company operates in
six segments: Rental Tools, U.S. Barge Drilling, U.S. Drilling,
International Drilling, Technical Services and Construction
Contract. During year ended December 31, 2012, the Company
operated in 12 countries. The Company has operated in over 50
foreign countries and the United States. The Company's
international drilling business includes operations related to
Parker-owned and operated rigs, as well as customer-owned rigs.
The Company's U.S. Drilling segment primarily consists of two new-
design Arctic Alaska Drilling Unit (AADU) land rigs. The Company's
construction contract segment includes only the BP-owned Liberty
extended-reach drilling rig construction project. In April 2013,
the Company announced the acquisition of International Tubular
Services Limited and certain affiliates (ITS), subsidiaries of ITS
Tubular Services (Holdings) Limited.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Must Pay $500M to Resolve Asbestos Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
insurers for the now-defunct top manufacturer of asbestos must pay
more than $500 million to resolve settlement agreements in
longstanding tort litigation, the 2nd Circuit ruled.

For about 60 years, Johns-Manville Corp. was the largest supplier
of raw asbestos and the largest manufacturer of asbestos-
containing products in the United States. Studies linking asbestos
to respiratory disease in the 1970s spurred thousands of lawsuits
against Manville and its insurers, including Travelers Indemnity
and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company.

In 1982, Manville filed for bankruptcy protection and
reorganization.

Late U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Burton Lifland set up a trust that
would pay all asbestos claims against Manville, which, as of five
years ago, paid out more than $3.2 billion to more than 600,000
claimants.

The parties still, however, contest the interpretation of a
settlement reached in 1986.

Under its terms, insurers agreed to contribute $770 million to the
bankruptcy estate, $80 million of which came from Travelers. The
bankruptcy court issued an injunction in return barring all
insurance-related claims stemming from their association with
Manville.

These injunctions did not stop new "direct action" lawsuits
against Travelers under the consumer-protection laws of several
states, most of which alleged the insurer's wrongdoing rather than
of Manville's.

Travelers agreed to pay another $445 million to settle 26 direct
actions on the condition that the bankruptcy court issue a
"clarifying order" stating that the direct actions were prohibited
by the initial settlement order.

While the bankruptcy judge endorsed the settlement, disputes over
his jurisdiction to issue such an order went up to the Supreme
Court, which affirmed his decision in 2009.

"The bankruptcy court correctly understood that the direct actions
fall within the scope of the 1986 orders, as suits of this sort
always have," former Justice David Souter wrote at the time for
the majority.

The ruling did not end litigation over the interpretation of the
clarifying order.

A unanimous panel of the 2nd Circuit found that Travelers must pay
more than $500 million, more than $65 million of which was pre-
judgment interest.

U.S. Circuit Judge Ralph Winter wrote for the panel that it "would
defy logic" not to consider the clarifying order final.

Lawyers for the parties did not immediately respond to a request
for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Writ of Mandate v. Calif. City Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island filed a petition for
writ of mandate, contending that City and County of San Francisco
and respondent and real party in interest Treasure Island
Development Authority failed to certify a legally adequate
environmental impact report for the Treasure Island/Yerba Buena
Island Project, and therefore violated the California
Environmental Quality Act.

CSTI claims that the EIR does not describe the existing location
and nature of all hazardous materials in the Project.  CSTI also
pointed out that it is well documented that soil, groundwater, and
existing structures on the Project are contaminated with hazardous
materials, such as heavy metals, asbestos, and low-level
radiological material.

The petition for writ of mandate was denied by the trial and the
denial was affirmed by Court of Appeals of California, First
District, Division Four, in an opinion dated July 7, 2014.  In
affirming the trial court's decision, the Court of Appeals found
that the EIR is legally sufficient, regardless of whether it is a
project or a program EIR.

The case is CITIZENS FOR A SUSTAINABLE TREASURE ISLAND, Plaintiff
and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al.,
Defendants and Respondents; TREASURE ISLAND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
LLC et al., Real Parties in Interest, NO. A137828 (Cal. App.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/uNQtvQ
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Gets Partial Summary Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California issued an order on July 21,
2014, granting in part and denying in part defendant Foster
Wheeler Energy Corporation's motion for summary judgment filed in
the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled DONALD WILLIS
AND VIOLA WILLIS Plaintiffs, v. BUFFALO PUMPS INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 12CV744 BTM (DHB)(S.D. Calif.).

In support of his decision, Judge Moskowitz stated: "Based on this
evidence, a jury could reasonably conclude that Defendant's
managing agents initiated and continued the sale of boilers with
asbestos components and replacement parts without providing a
warning of the dangers of asbestos despite knowing about those
dangers, and that Defendant thereby engaged in "despicable conduct
. . . with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or
safety of others." Cal. Civ. Code Section 3294(c). The Court does
not hold that such facts are true. Rather, the Court merely finds
that Plaintiff has presented sufficient clear and convincing
evidence to withstand summary judgment and have the question of
whether Defendant actually engaged in such conduct resolved by a
jury."

Viola Willis, Plaintiff, represented by Lance Randall Stewart,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & William Y. Sung, Napoli Bern Ripka
Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.

Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Glen R. Powell,
Gordon & Rees, LLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Charles Park, Brydon Hugon & Parker.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
Andrew S. Russell, Hawkins, Parnell, Thackston & Young, LLP, Julia
A. Gowin, Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP & Michael B.
Giaquinto, Hawkins Parnell Tackston and Young LLP.

Metalcad Insulation Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Bradford J. DeJardin, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP,
Courtney Vaudreuil, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP & Mary T.
McKelvey, Polsinelli LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by
John F. Hughes, Law Offices of Gordon & Rees, LLP.

Yarway Corporation, Defendant, represented by Meghan Phillips,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP.

Crane, Co., Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Stephen
P. Farkas, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, LLP,
Bradley William Gunning, K & L Gates LLP & Kathleen L.
Beiermeister, Meagher and Geer PLLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer's Appeal Nixed for Lack of Jurisdiction
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant-appellant OneBeacon Insurance Company appeals the
decision of the trial court granting partial summary judgment in
favor of plaintiff-appellee The William Powell Company, which
carried liability insurance issued by OneBeacon's predecessor for
costs in asbestos litigation.  Powell filed a complaint seeking a
declaratory judgment of its rights under the policies.

In an opinion dated July 9, 2014, the Court of Appeals of Ohio,
First District, Hamilton County, dismissed OneBeacon's appeal
because the Court cannot reach the merits of its assignments of
error for lack of jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The appeals case is THE WILLIAM POWELL COMPANY, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. ONEBEACON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, and
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Intervenor, APPEAL NO. C-
130681 (Ohio App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available
at http://is.gd/CntRRHfrom Leagle.com.

Vorys, Sater, Seymour, and Pease LLP, Daniel J. Buckley, Robert C.
Mitchell and Joseph M. Brunner, for Plaintiff-Appellee.  Davis &
Young and Richard M. Garner, for Defendant-Appellant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resolute Dropped as Defendant in Insurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Westfield Insurance Company filed a Complaint seeking declaratory
relief concerning a Cost Sharing Agreement between it and
Continental Insurance Company.  The Agreement concerned two
insureds in particular, Mahoning Valley Supply Company and Hersh
Packing and Rubber Company.  Both Westfield and Continental issued
policies of insurance to the two insureds, and shared the
litigation defense expenses when MVS and Hersh were named as
defendants in lawsuits concerning asbestos-related injuries.
Defendant Resolute Management, Inc., which provided claims-
handling services for Continental's asbestos claims, moves to
dismiss, with prejudice, Counts I and II of the Complaint.

Count I seeks a declaration regarding defense costs incurred under
the Agreement, while Count II requests a declaratory judgment
determining the amount of indemnity coverage available to the
insured under Continental's predecessor policies.

In a memorandum opinion and order dated July 15, 2014, Judge
Donald C. Nugent of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted Resolute's
Motion to Dismiss, after finding that Resolute is not an
interested party to the action as Resolute has no rights or
obligations under any Continental policies.

The case is WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. THE
CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:13-
CV-02367 (N.D. Ohio).  A full-text copy of Judge Nugent's Decision
is available at http://is.gd/D8UlxKfrom Leagle.com.

Westfield Insurance Company, Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,
represented by J. Stephen Teetor, Esq. -- steetor@isaacwiles.com
-- James H. Ledman, Esq. -- jledman@isaacwiles.com -- and Mark A.
Glumac, Esq. -- mglumac@isaacwiles.com -- at Isaac Wiles
Burkholder & Teetor; and Jennifer Sardina Carlozzi, Esq. --
jcarlozzi@davisyoung.com -- at Davis & Young.

Mahoning Valley Supply Company, Plaintiff, represented by J.
Stephen Teetor, Esq., James H. Ledman, Esq., and Mark A. Glumac,
Esq., at Isaac Wiles Burkholder & Teetor.

Continental Insurance Company, as successor in interest to other
Buckeye Union Insurance Company, Defendant and Counter-Claimant,
represented by Eileen King Bower, Esq. --
eileen.bower@troutmansanders.com -- and Danielle N. Twait, Esq. --
danielle.twait@troutmansanders.com -- at Troutman Sanders; and
Richard C.O. Rezie, Esq. -- rrezie@gallaghersharp.com -- at
Gallagher Sharp.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. High Court Junks PI Suit v. Union Carbide
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation an interlocutory appeal after the Multi-
District Litigation pre-trial court denied its motion to dismiss
the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by plaintiffs
Daisy E. Synatzske, et al., individually and as representatives
and co-executrixes of the estate of Joseph Emmite, Sr.  On
interlocutory appeal the court of appeals affirmed, holding that
the Plaintiffs did not file a compliant report, but that the
report requirement was unconstitutionally retroactive as applied
to the Plaintiffs' claims.

In an opinion delivered on July 3, 2014, the Supreme Court of
Texas agreed with the court of appeals that a statutorily
compliant report was not filed, but disagreed that, as applied in
this case, the report requirements are unconstitutional.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court
of appeals and dismissed the lawsuit.

The case is UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. DAISY E.
SYNATZSKE AND GRACE ANNETTE WEBB, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
REPRESENTATIVES AND CO-EXECUTRIXES OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH EMMITE,
SR., JOSEPH EMMITE, JR., DOROTHY A. DAY, VERA J. GIALMALVA AND
JAMES R. EMMITE, Respondents, NO. 12-0617 (Tex.).  A full-text
copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/3MkSwffrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Modified Order Issued in Illegal Removal Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Phillips was convicted of illegal removal of asbestos in
violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 7413(c)(1) and sentenced to
eighteen months in prison.  He is currently on supervised release.
A hearing was held on a petition to revoke his supervised release
on July 2, 2014, and in lieu of revocation, the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin modified the
conditions of his supervision to include the following additional
conditions:

   (1) That Michael Phillips cooperate in a psychological/
psychiatric evaluation to be arranged by his probation agent and
Phillips follow through on any treatment recommendations.

   (2) That Michael Phillips undergo a medical evaluation at one
of the free clinics available in the Milwaukee area and, unless
disabled, follow through with efforts to find employment.

The Court also concluded that in the interests of convenience to
the parties and minimizing further expense, the case should be
transferred to the Milwaukee Division for reassignment to one of
the judges in that division.

The case is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL
PHILLIPS, Defendant, CASE NO. 09-CR-201 (E.D. Wis.).  A full-text
copy of the July 3, 2014, Order penned by Chief District Judge
William C. Griesbach, is available at http://is.gd/HNpYRkfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Inmate's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Byron Smith appeals the district court's grant of
summary judgment on his Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), claim in favor
of defendants, who are employees and administrators at the Federal
Bureau of Prisons and the United States Penitentiary at
Leavenworth.  Smith alleges the defendants violated his Eighth
Amendment rights when he was exposed to asbestos while he was an
inmate at Leavenworth doing electrical work for the prison.  The
defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity,
and the district court granted it as to all defendants.  The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court's
decision, after determining that Smith did not meet his burden to
show that the constitutional right he claims was violated was
clearly established.

The appels case is BYRON SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLIAM E.
HOWELL, JR., Safety Manager, Federal Bureau of Prisons, in his
official and individual capacity; JOHN PARENT, Custodial
Maintenance Services Manager, Federal Bureau of Prisons, in his
official and individual capacity; TERESA HARTFIELD, Education
Administrator/Principle, Federal Bureau of Prisons, in her
official and individual capacity; JEFFERY SINCLAIR, Electric Shop
Supervisor, Federal Bureau of Prisons, in his official and
individual capacity; JOHN DOE, Education Staff Member, Federal
Bureau of Prisons, in his official and individual capacity; JANET
DURBIN, Education Staff Member, Federal Bureau of Prisons, in her
official and individual capacity; STEPHANIE WHEELER, Safety
Officer, Federal Bureau of Prisons, in her official and individual
capacity; EDDIE GALLEGOS, Acting Warden, in his individual
capacity; NEIL BUSTRAIN, BOP Officer/Card Holder, in his
individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-3251 (10th
Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/wZVJCtfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TSG Allowed to Interneve in RCRA Suit v. Fluor
---------------------------------------------------------------
Northern California River Watch brought an action pursuant to the
federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the federal
Clean Water Act against Fluor Corporation, alleging violations of
both statutory schemes arising out of Fluor's past industrial use
of real property located in Windsor, California.  RW alleges,
among other things, that Fluor operated a paint shop outside of
the Pond Site from 1962 to 1970, and that the operation of the
paint shop introduced toxins such as lead, cadmium, mercury, tin,
copper, arsenic, asbestos, DDT, and polychlorinated biphenyls into
the environment.  The Shiloh Group, which owns 28 acres situated
on the western-most portion of the property, filed a motion
seeking to intervene as a plaintiff.  Fluor filed a Motion to
Dismiss.

Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California in a decision dated
July 9, 2014, granted TSG's Motion to Intervene.  The magistrate
judge denied Fluor's Motion to Dismiss the RCRA claims at the
remainder of the Site, but granted, with leave to amend, the RCRA
claims within the Pond and Tower Sites.

The case is NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH, Plaintiff, v. FLUOR
CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 10-CV-05105-MEJ (N.D. Calif.).  A
full-text copy of the magistrate judge's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/2vM0xIfrom Leagle.com.

Northern California River Watch, Plaintiff, represented by Jack
Silver, Law Office of Jack Silver & Joseph Jerry Bernhaut, Law
Office of Jack Silver.

Fluor Corporation, Defendant, represented by Thomas Michael
Donnelly, Jones Day & Karen Ann Mignone, Verrill Dana, LLP.

The Shiloh Group, Intervenor, represented by Brian Charles Carter,
Esq. -- bcarter@pacific.net -- at Carter, Momsen Knight.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Marquez" Suit Remanded to Cal. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Marquez filed a complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court
against 18 defendants alleging causes of action relating to
asbestos exposure.  Shell Oil Company removed the action to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
contending that it determined the case was removable because
Marquez testified that he had worked on offshore oil platforms.
According to Shell, this newly discovered fact gives rise to
federal jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act,
Title 43 U.S.C. Section 1331 et seq.  Marquez contends that he was
not exposed to asbestos on any offshore platform, and that his
visits to these platforms were of a very limited duration.
Marquez filed a motion to remand.

Marquez suggests that "this Court may dismiss all federal claims
over which it has original jurisdiction, namely any allegations
that Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos on offshore platforms
located in federal waters, and remand the remaining claims to
state court."  Judge Manuel L. Real of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California agreed that what Marquez
suggested is the most appropriate course of action here.
Accordingly, Judge Real dismissed the claims as they relate to
platforms in federal water are dismissed and remanded the
remainder of the case.

The case is ANTHONY MARQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. CHEVRON U.S.A., INC.,
et al., Defendants, CASE NO. CV 14-3789-R (C.D. Calif.).  A full-
text copy of Judge Real's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/wD0hItfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Awarding Death Benefits to Widow Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Iddings Lipe was employed by Starr Davis Company, Inc., when
he became disabled due to multiple sclerosis and was no longer
able to work.  In January 1994, he was diagnosed with asbestosis.
He then filed an occupational disease claim with the Full
Commission of the North Carolina Industrial Commission, which
awarded him benefits of $404 per week.  In February 2010, Mr. Lipe
was diagnosed with lung cancer and died two months later.  His
widow, Shirley Lipe, thereafter filed a claim with the Commission
seeking death benefits based on Mr. Lipe's development of lung
cancer through his asbestos exposure while working at SDC.

The Deputy Commissioner entered an opinion and award on 14 March
2013, in which he determined that the Plaintiff was entitled under
N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 97-2(5) to benefits of $404 per week for
400 weeks.  The Defendant appealed to the Full Commission, which,
following a hearing on the matter, entered an opinion and award
consistent with the Deputy Commissioner's decision in all material
respects.

Travelers Casualty & Surety, appeals from an opinion and award of
the Commission ordering that SJC pay death benefits to Ms. Lipe.
In an opinion dated July 1, 2014, the Court of Appeals of North
Carolina affirmed the decision.

The case is SHIRLEY LIPE, Widow and Executrix of the Estate of
ROSS IDDINGS LIPE, Deceased Employee, Plaintiff, v. STARR DAVIS
COMPANY, INC., Employer, TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY (as Successor
to AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY), Carrier, Defendants, NO.
COA14-90 (N.C. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/Km8u7Tfrom Leagle.com.

Wallace and Graham, P.A., by Michael B. Pross, for Plaintiff.

Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo, LLP, by Hatcher Kincheloe,
Sarah P. Cronin, and M. Duane Jones, for Defendant Travelers
Casualty & Surety.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in "Collin" Suit Partially Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------
After Loren A. Collin was diagnosed with mesothelioma, he and his
wife Verna Lee Collin sued 22 entities for negligence, strict
liability, false representation, intentional tort/failure to warn,
alter ego, and loss of consortium, alleging Loren was exposed to
asbestos from the defendants' products or activities when he
worked in various construction trades.  The Plaintiff now appeals
from the grant of summary judgment in favor of four defendants:
CalPortland Company, Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., J-M
Manufacturing Company, Inc., and Formosa Plastics Corporation USA,
named as an alter ego of J-MM.

The Court of Appeals of California, Third District, Sacramento, in
an opinion dated July 1, 2014, concluded that summary judgment was
properly granted in favor of CalPortland and Kaiser Gypsum,
because they met their initial burdens on summary judgment and the
evidence and reasonable inferences would preclude a reasonable
trier of fact from finding (without speculating) that Loren was
exposed to one of their asbestos-containing products.  Regarding
J-MM and Formosa, the Court of Appeals, however, said the summary
judgment was not proper.  The evidence, viewed in the light most
favorable to the Plaintiff, demonstrates a triable issue of fact
as to whether Loren was exposed to asbestos from a J-MM product,
the Court of Appeals ruled.  In addition, J-MM and Formosa have
not established that they are entitled to summary adjudication as
a matter of law based on the sophisticated user defense, the Court
of Appeals further ruled.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments in favor
of CalPortland and Kaiser Gypsum and reversed the judgments in
favor of J-MM and Formosa.

The appeals cases are VERNA LEE COLLIN, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v. CALPORTLAND COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents, and
VERNA LEE COLLIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. J-M MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, INC., Defendant and Respondent, NOS. C063875, C065180
(Cal. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/AEbQghfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Dougherty" Suit Remanded to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Francis J. Dougherty and Elizabeth F. Dougherty filed a motion to
remand their asbestos-related personal injury action in response
to the notice of removal filed by Defendant Crane Company.  The
Plaintiffs contend that remand is appropriate because they
disclaimed any causes of action that could provide a basis for
federal subject matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, that Crane
has not met the requirements for removal.  Crane opposes the
Plaintiffs' Motion.

In a report and recommendation dated July 16, 2014, magistrate
judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District Court for the
District Delaware recommended that the court grant the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Remand, pointing out that because the litigation is in
its early states there is no indication that it would be
inconvenient to resolve the matter in state court.

The case is FRANCIS J. DOUGHERTY AND ELIZABETH F. DOUGHERTY,
Plaintiffs, v. A O SMITH CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 13-1972-SLR-SRF (D.Del.).  A full-text copy of the
magistrate judge's recommendation is available at
http://is.gd/4FqZFWfrom Leagle.com.

Francis J. Dougherty, Plaintiff, represented by Yvonne Takvorian
Saville, Weiss & Saville P.A..  Elizabeth F. Dougherty, Plaintiff
and Cross Defendant, represented by Yvonne Takvorian Saville,
Weiss & Saville P.A..

84 Lumber Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Robert Alexander Ranieri, Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, P.C..
Armstrong International Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Robert Alexander Ranieri, Dickie McCamey &
Chilcote, P.C..

Burnham LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Robert
S. Goldman, Phillips, Goldman & Spence, P.A..

Certain-Teed Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Crane Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas
E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Francis J. Dougherty, Cross Defendant, represented by Yvonne
Takvorian Saville, Weiss & Saville P.A..

General Electric Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Grinnell LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Kelly
A. Costello, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Cross
Defendant, represented by Joelle Florax, Rawle & Henderson LLP.

ITT Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by David A. Bilson, Phillips, Goldman & Spence, P.A.
& Robert S. Goldman, Phillips, Goldman & Spence, P.A..

John Crane Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon.

Peerless Industries Inc., formerly known as Peerless Heater
Company, Defendant, represented byNicholas E. Skiles, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

Riley Power Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Joel M. Doner, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Spirax Sarco Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC
&Antoinette D. Hubbard, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Superior Boiler Works Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien,
Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill,
O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Warren Alloy Valve & Fitting Company L.P., Defendant, represented
by Brian Tome, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Weil-Mclain Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Matthew P. Donelson, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

York International Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Peter S. Murphy, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott,
LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Seeking to Unseal Garlock Docs Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a memorandum of decision and order dated July 23, 2014, Judge
Max O. Cogburn of the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, granted the
appeals seeking reversal of a bankruptcy court's order denying the
requests to unseal the trial transcripts and exhibits from where
the bankruptcy court based his order estimating the asbestos
liability of Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC.  Judge Cogburn
reversed all the orders of the bankruptcy court sealing evidence,
hearings, transcripts, or filings, or excluding the press or the
public from the hearings.

The case is LEGAL NEWSLINE, Plaintiff(s), v. GARLOCK SEALING
TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Defendant(s), DOCKET NO. 3:13-CV-00464-MOC
(W.D.N.C.).  A full-text copy of Judge Cogburn's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/xxAJYmfrom Leagle.com.

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

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

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

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Consol Plaintiff, represented
by Alice Sacks Johnston, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP &
Teresa E. Lazzaroni, Hawkins & Parnell LLP.

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

Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, Consol Plaintiff, represented by
D. Blaine Sanders, Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P. A., Garland
Stuart Cassada, Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P. A., Jonathan C.
Krisko, Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P. A. & Richard Charles Worf,
Jr., Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A..

Legal Newsline, Appellant, represented by Alan W. Duncan, Smith
Moore LLP, Andrew May, Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP, Stephen M.
Russell, Jr., Van Laningham Duncan PLLC & Steven Pflaum, Neal,
Gerber & Eisenberg LLP.

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

Shein Law Center Ltd, Defendant, represented by Daniel T. Brier,
Myers, Brier & Kelly, LLP, Donna A. Walsh, Myers, Brier & Kelly,
LLP, G. Martin Hunter, Shuford Hunter, PLLC, John B. Dempsey,
Myers, Brier & Kelly, LLP & Sara Wyche Higgins, Higgins & Owens,
PLLC.

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

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

Waters & Kraus, Consol Defendant, represented by Ashley McMillian,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, G. Martin Hunter, Shuford Hunter, PLLC, Sara
Wyche Higgins, Higgins & Owens, PLLC, Stephen D. Susman, Susman
Godfrey L.L.P. & Vineet Bhatia, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

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.

Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, Consol Defendant, represented
by Avery B. Pardee, Jones, Walker LLP, Mark A. Cunningham, Jones
Walker, LLP, Michael W. Magner, Jones Walker LLP & Sara Wyche
Higgins, Higgins & Owens, PLLC.

Jeffery B Simon, Consol Defendant, represented by Avery B. Pardee,
Jones, Walker LLP, Mark A. Cunningham, Jones Walker, LLP, Michael
W. Magner, Jones Walker LLP & Sara Wyche Higgins, Higgins & Owens,
PLLC.

David C Greenstone, Consol Defendant, represented by Avery B.
Pardee, Jones, Walker LLP, Mark A. Cunningham, Jones Walker, LLP,
Michael W. Magner, Jones Walker LLP & Sara Wyche Higgins, Higgins
& Owens, PLLC.

Estate of Ronald C Eddins, Consol Defendant, represented by Avery
B. Pardee, Jones, Walker LLP, Mark A. Cunningham, Jones Walker,
LLP, Michael W. Magner, Jones Walker LLP & Sara Wyche Higgins,
Higgins & Owens, PLLC.

Jennifer L Bartlett, Consol Defendant, represented by Avery B.
Pardee, Jones, Walker LLP, Mark A. Cunningham, Jones Walker, LLP,
Michael W. Magner, Jones Walker LLP & Sara Wyche Higgins, Higgins
& Owens, PLLC.

Jordan Fox, Consol Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Voce-
Gardner, Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP, Caroline E. Reynolds, Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP, James Sottile, Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP & Sara Wyche
Higgins, Higgins & Owens, PLLC.

Joseph W. Belluck, Consol Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Voce-Gardner, Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP, Caroline E. Reynolds,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, James Sottile, Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP &
Sara Wyche Higgins, Higgins & Owens, PLLC.

Michael L Armitage, Consol Defendant, represented by Ashley
McMillian, Susman Godfrey, LLP, Sara Wyche Higgins, Higgins &
Owens, PLLC, Stephen D. Susman, Susman Godfrey L.L.P. & Vineet
Bhatia, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

C Andrew Waters, Consol Defendant, represented by Ashley
McMillian, Susman Godfrey, LLP, Sara Wyche Higgins, Higgins &
Owens, PLLC, Stephen D. Susman, Susman Godfrey L.L.P. & Vineet
Bhatia, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Peter A Kraus, Consol Defendant, represented by Ashley McMillian,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Sara Wyche Higgins, Higgins & Owens, PLLC,
Stephen D. Susman, Susman Godfrey L.L.P. & Vineet Bhatia, Susman
Godfrey, LLP.

Stanley Iola, LLP, Consol Defendant, represented by Ashley
McMillian, Susman Godfrey, LLP, Sara Wyche Higgins, Higgins &
Owens, PLLC, Stephen D. Susman, Susman Godfrey L.L.P. & Vineet
Bhatia, Susman Godfrey, LLP.

Mark Iola, Consol Defendant, represented by Ashley McMillian,
Susman Godfrey, LLP, Sara Wyche Higgins, Higgins & Owens, PLLC,
Stephen D. Susman, Susman Godfrey L.L.P. & Vineet Bhatia, Susman
Godfrey, LLP.

Benjamin P. Shein, Consol Defendant, represented by Daniel T.
Brier, Myers, Brier & Kelly, LLP, Donna A. Walsh, Myers, Brier &
Kelly, LLP, John B. Dempsey, Myers, Brier & Kelly, LLP & Sara
Wyche Higgins, Higgins & Owens, PLLC.

Bethann Schaffzin Kagan, Consol Defendant, represented by Daniel
T. Brier, Myers, Brier & Kelly, LLP, Donna A. Walsh, Myers, Brier
& Kelly, LLP, John B. Dempsey, Myers, Brier & Kelly, LLP & Sara
Wyche Higgins, Higgins & Owens, PLLC.

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., 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: Summary Judgment Issued in Inmate's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Sgt. Marvin Simpkins filed a motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit filed by
Kenneth L. Henderson who is currently incarcerated at the Maryland
Correctional Training Center and who alleged that he was exposed
to asbestos while incarcerated.  Judge Catherine C. Blake of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, on July 24,
2014, issued a memorandum granting Simpkins' motion for summary
judgment.

The case is KENNETH L. HENDERSON #409-972 v. SGT. MARVIN SIMPKINS,
CIVIL ACTION NO. CCB-13-1421 (D. Md.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Blake's Decision is available at http://is.gd/AyQF9xfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle's Bid to Dismiss "Herman" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos personal injury action styled ELIZABETH HERMAN and
FRED HERMAN, Plaintiffs, v. ABEX CORPORATION, et al., Defendants,
DOCKET NO. 190218/12, MOTION SEQ. NO. 018 (N.Y. Sup.), defendant
Motion Control Industries, Inc., sued as Carlisle Motion Control
Industries, Inc. and Carlisle Industrial Brake & Friction, moves
for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims
asserted against it on the ground that there is no evidence to
show that plaintiff Elizabeth Herman was exposed to asbestos from
Carlisle brake linings.

Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York, in a
decision and order dated July 15, 2014, denied Carlisle's motion
holding that a reasonable inference can be drawn that Mr. Herman
(and in turn his wife) were exposed to asbestos-laden dust
released from Carlisle brakes.

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


                              *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  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  * * *