CAR_Public/140808.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, August 8, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 157

                             Headlines


AETNA INC: Terminated $120MM Settlement in MDL 2020
AM-PM TRUCKING: Faces "Seeling" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AMAZON.COM INC: Sued Over Illegal Sale of Weight Loss Products
APPLE INC: Faces E-Book Price-Fixing Class Actions in Canada
APPLE INC: Suit Over Unpaid Back Wages Obtains Class Action Status

AVX CORP: Has Fixed Prices for Capacitors, eIQ Energy Suit Says
ASTRAZENECA LP: Court Remands "Heller" Suit to LA Superior Court
BABALU LLC: "Martes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
BAR NONE: Court Declines to Impose Sanctions in "Ross" Suit
BARCLAYS PLC: Sued Over Misleading Dark Pool Operation Statements

BARCLAYS PLC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
BEST BUY: Says Recalled Products Being Sold After Recall Date
CAPITAL ONE: Sued in New York by VentureOne Card Accountholder
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Case
CHRYSLER GROUP: MLG Files Ignition Switch Class Action in Calif.

COPS MONITORING: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss TCPA Case
DIBRE AUTO: Trial Court Ruling in "Rontondi" Suit Upheld
DREAM ON ME: Recalls High Chairs Due to Strangulation Hazard
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Sued Over Untimely Write-Down for Turbo
DYNACRAFT BSC: Recalls Avigo Youth Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard

EAST COAST CYCLE: Recalls Mountain Bikes Due to Crash Hazard
EBAY INC: Faces "Green" Consumer Privacy Class Action
EMCOR GROUP: Unit Faces Employee Class Action
FAR EAST BROKERS: Recalls Glass Beverage Dispensers
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued Over Conspiracy to Fix Propane Price

FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued Over Conspiracy to Fix Propane Levels
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued Over Conspiracy to Fix Propane Price
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Dismissal of RESPA Case on Appeal
FOOT LOCKER: Asks for and Records Costumer's Info, Suit Claims
FRESH DEL MONTE: Ore. Supreme Court Denies Petition for Review

FRESH DEL MONTE: Summary Judgment Bid in Del. Case Still Pending
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued in Florida for Concealing Engine Defects
GOLDMAN SACHS: Responds to Female Employees' Discrimination Suit
GRAY GLASS: Recalls Lightolier Glass Lenses Over Laceration Risk
GUTHY-RENKER LLC: Products Make Hair Fall Out, Suit Claims

HARRIS PRODUCTS: Recalls Welding Torch Handles Due to Fire Hazard
HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages
INVESTORS BANCORP: October 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
JOHNSON OUTDOORS: Recalls Dive Computers Due to Injury Hazard
KAWASAKI MOTORS: Recalls Teryx4 Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles

LEBO AUTOMOTIVE: Arbitrator to Decide on Class Arbitration
LENNOX INTERNATIONAL INC: Defendant in Evaporator Coil Lawsuit
LOBB LAW FIRM: "Lafata" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
LOWE'S HIW: Accused of Failing to Provide Full Meal Periods
MACY'S CORPORATE: Sued for Illegally Recording Costumer's Info

MAYBORN USA: Recalls Baby Monitors Due to Strangulation Risk
MCKINNEY'S PUB: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
METABO CORP: Recalls Electric Angle Grinders Due to Injury Risk
MICHAELS STORES: Judge Tosses Data Breach Class Action
MICHOLDINGS INC: Faces "Aleobua" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

MIDLAND CREDIT: Sued Over Unfair Debt Collection Conduct
NAVIKA CAPITAL: "Chappell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
NEBRASKA: Faces Class Suit Over Processing of Food Stamps
NEW YORK, NY: AG Seeks Dismissal of Property Tax Class Action
OEUF LLC: Recalls Sparrow Cribs Due to Entrapment Hazard

PANDORA MEDIA: Lawsuit Over Phone App. Partialy Dismissed
PANDORA MEDIA: Appeal in Privacy Lawsuit Still Pending
PANERA LLC: Faces Class Action Over FCRA Violations
PARAMOUNT FOODS: "Armenta" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
PETSMART INC: Recalls Top Fin Plastic Aquarium Heaters

POTTERY BARN: Recalls Bar Stools Due to Fall Hazard
PRIME TRUST: Faces Class Action Over Corporate Law Breach
RITE AID: Suit Over LexisNexis Background Check May Be Amended
SAMSON INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Bar Stool Due to Fall Hazard
SIFY TECHNOLOGIES: IPO Lawsuit Exposure Settled by Insurer

SMITH & WESSON: Federal Court Reinstates Product Liability Suit
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Recalls About 5,000 Car Over Air Bag Defect
TAISHAN ENTITIES: Faces Drywall Class Action in Louisiana
TILLY'S INC: Trial Court Ruling in "Rebolledo" Suit Upheld
TRANS-NATIONAL INC: Faces "Pichl" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

UNITED STATES: Space & Rocket Center Faces Class Action
UNITIL CORP: Court Has Yet to Decide on Class Action
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Faces Chip-Tech and DCS Class Suits
WORLEYPARSONS: Faces Investor Class Action Over Profit Downgrade
XO HOLDINGS: September 29 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set

YARD MEN LAWN: Faces "Gigg" Suit Over Failure to Pay Workers OT
ZAMORA AUTOMOTIVE: Oct. 6 Final Fairness Hearing Set


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp. Has 71 Pending Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harbinger Group Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Records $372.8-Mil. Fibro Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Had 37 Pending Fibro-related Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Intricon Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carey Watermark's Fibro Removal ARO Was $0.5MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Locker Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Gets Summary Judgment in "Jones" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Continues to Defend "Edwards" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Has 1,366 Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Budd Co. Claimants Defer Filing Claim Form
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Estimation Trial Shouldn't Be Sealed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Estimates $36M Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $8MM Fibro Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Precision Castparts Has 94 PI Suits at March 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Upholds Ruling v. Garlock Sealing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in Take-Home Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard's Bid to Strike Allegations Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawaii Court Affirms Order Denying Atty Fees

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Allows Inmate to Amend Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Junks Duplicative Suit v. Arrowood
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Judgments for CalPortland, Kaiser
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Fisher" Suit Remanded to State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Upholds Ruling in FEHA Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diversified Directed to Pay Workers' Benefits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Court Allows Inmate to Amend Suit


                            *********


AETNA INC: Terminated $120MM Settlement in MDL 2020
---------------------------------------------------
Aetna Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed on July 29, 2014, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014, that the company was named as a defendant in
several purported class actions and individual lawsuits arising
out of its practices related to the payment of claims for services
rendered to its members by health care providers with whom we do
not have a contract.

Among other things, these lawsuits allege that "we paid too little
to our health plan members and/or providers for these services,
among other reasons, because of our use of data provided by
Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of our competitors ("Ingenix").
Other major health insurers are the subject of similar litigation
or have settled similar litigation," the company said.

"Various plaintiffs who are health care providers or medical
associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of-
network providers who provided services to our members during the
period from 2001 to the present.  Various plaintiffs who are
members in our health plans seek to represent nationwide classes
of our members who received services from out-of-network providers
during the period from 2001 to the present.  Taken together, these
lawsuits allege that we violated state law, the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and federal
antitrust laws, either acting alone or in concert with our
competitors.  The purported classes seek reimbursement of all
unpaid benefits, recalculation and repayment of deductible and
coinsurance amounts, unspecified damages and treble damages,
statutory penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, plus
interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and seek to disqualify us
from acting as a fiduciary of any benefit plan that is subject to
ERISA.  Individual lawsuits that generally contain similar
allegations and seek similar relief have been brought by health
plan members and out-of-network providers.

"The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007.  The
federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "MDL
Panel") has consolidated these class action cases in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey
District Court") under the caption In re: Aetna UCR Litigation,
MDL No. 2020 ("MDL 2020").   In addition, the MDL Panel has
transferred the individual lawsuits to MDL 2020.  On May 9, 2011,
the New Jersey District Court dismissed the physician plaintiffs
from MDL 2020 without prejudice.  The New Jersey District Court's
action followed a ruling by the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (the "Florida District Court")
that the physician plaintiffs were enjoined from participating in
MDL 2020 due to a prior settlement and release.  The United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has dismissed the
physician plaintiffs' appeal of the Florida District Court's
ruling.

"On December 6, 2012, we entered into an agreement to settle MDL
2020. Under the terms of the proposed nationwide settlement, we
would have been released from claims relating to our out-of-
network reimbursement practices from the beginning of the
applicable settlement class period through August 30, 2013. The
settlement agreement did not contain an admission of wrongdoing.
The medical associations were not parties to the settlement
agreement.

"Under the settlement agreement, we would have paid up to $120
million to fund claims submitted by health plan members and health
care providers who were members of the settlement classes. These
payments also would have funded the legal fees of plaintiffs'
counsel and the costs of administering the settlement. In
connection with the proposed settlement, the Company recorded an
after-tax charge to net income attributable to Aetna of
approximately $78 million in the fourth quarter of 2012.

"The settlement agreement provided us the right to terminate the
agreement under certain conditions related to settlement class
members who opted out of the settlement. Based on a report
provided to the parties by the settlement administrator, the
conditions permitting us to terminate the settlement agreement
were satisfied. On March 13, 2014, we notified the New Jersey
District Court and plaintiffs' counsel that we were terminating
the settlement agreement. Various legal and factual developments
since the date of the settlement agreement led us to believe
terminating the settlement agreement was in our best interests. We
intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the claims brought
by the plaintiffs. As a result of this termination, we released
the reserve established in connection with the settlement
agreement, net of amounts due to the settlement administrator,
which reduced first quarter 2014 other general and administrative
expenses by $67.0 million ($103.0 million pretax)."

Aetna also has received subpoenas and/or requests for documents
and other information from, and been investigated by, attorneys
general and other state and/or federal regulators, legislators and
agencies relating to its out-of-network benefit payment and
administration practices.  According to Aetna, it is reasonably
possible that others could initiate additional litigation or
additional regulatory action against the Company with respect to
its out-of-network benefit payment and/or administration
practices.

Aetna Inc., diversified health care benefits companies, serving an
estimated 45 million people with information and resources to help
them in consultation with their health care professionals make
better informed decisions about their health care.


AM-PM TRUCKING: Faces "Seeling" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Devon Seeling on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees v. AM-PM Trucking, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00084 (D.N.D.,
July 28, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

AM-PM Trucking, LLC, owns and operates a trucking business that
services the North Dakota oil industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dean J. Haas, Esq.
      LARSON LATHAM HUETTL, LLP
      PO Box 2056
      Bismarck, ND 58502-2056
      Telephone: (701) 223-5300
      E-mail: dhaas@bismarcklaw.com

         - and -

      Jerry E. MArtin, Esq.
      BARRET JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
      217 Second Avenue North
      Nashville, TN 37201
      Telephone: (615) 244-2202
      E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com

         - and -

      Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twining Road, Suite 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Sued Over Illegal Sale of Weight Loss Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Nicosia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-04513 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 28, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
take adequate measures to prevent the sale of weight loss products
containing sibutramine.

Products containing sibutramine have never been permitted for sale
without a prescription from a licensed physician. On October 8,
2010, the lone FDA-approved weight loss product containing
sibutramine was withdrawn from the United States market because it
was associated with a serious risk of cardiovascular events and
strokes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph S. Tusa, Esq.
      TUSA, P.C.
      POB 566, 53345 Main Rd, Ste 10-1
      Southhold, NY 11971
      Telephone: (631) 407-5100
      E-mail: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com

         - and -

      Peter D. St. Phillip Jr., Esq.
      Scott Vincent Papp, Esq.
      LOWEY DANNENBERG, ET. AL.
      One North Broadway
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Telephone: (914) 997-0500
      Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
      E-mail: pstphillip@lowey.com
              spapp@lowey.com

         - and -

      Gregory Duncan, Esq.
      GREGORY S. DUNCAN, ESQ.
      412 East Jefferson Street
      Charlottesville, VA 22902
      Telephone: (434) 979-8556
      E-mail: gregdun@ntelos.net

         - and -

      Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
      Paula M. Roach, Esq.
      BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
      701 B Street, Ste. 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619)338-1100
      E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
              proach@bholaw.com


APPLE INC: Faces E-Book Price-Fixing Class Actions in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Crawford & Company (Canada) Inc. on July 29 disclosed that class
action lawsuits covering all of Canada were commenced in Ontario,
British Columbia and Quebec against Apple Inc. and various
Publishers of E-Books, alleging that they conspired to fix,
maintain, increase or control the price of E-Books sold by them in
Canada from April 1, 2010 to September 22, 2014.

A proposed settlement was reached with the Publishers -- Hachette
Book Group Canada Ltd, Hachette Book Group Inc., HarperCollins
Canada Limited, HarperCollins Publishers LLC, Macmillan
Publishers, Inc., Penguin Group (USA) LLC (formerly Penguin Group
(USA), INC.), Penguin Canada Books, Inc. and Simon & Schuster
Canada, a division of CBS Canada Holdings Co. -- but must still be
approved by the Ontario and Quebec Courts to be effective.  The
class actions have been certified by the Courts for settlement
purposes in relation to the Publishers only.


APPLE INC: Suit Over Unpaid Back Wages Obtains Class Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Turner, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
a California labor lawsuit filed against Apple by former employees
has been certified a class-action lawsuit.  The lawsuit alleges
Apple violated federal and California labor laws by denying timely
payment of last paychecks and by not providing meal and rest
breaks.

According to RE/CODE, the lawsuit was filed in 2011 by Brandon
Felczer and other employees, who alleged Apple owed its retail and
corporate employees back wages.  As many as 20,000 workers could
be included in the class.

In allowing the class-action certification, San Diego Superior
Court Judge Ronald S. Prager broke the class into six subclasses:
a meal break class for retail employees, a meal break class for
corporate employees, a rest break class for retail employees, a
rest break class for corporate employees, a waiting time penalty
subclass and a wage statement subclass.

Brandon Felczer alleged in his lawsuit that he was forced to work
five hours or more at a time without a meal break, a violation of
California labor law.  Furthermore, he alleges that when he quit
his job he gave 72-hours notice but did not receive his final
paycheck until two days later and did not receive sufficient
waiting fees.

According to the judge's ruling, Apple argued that plaintiffs were
provided timely rest breaks.  The judge, however, found that under
Apple's meal period policy, non-exempt non-manager employees were
not told they were permitted to take their meal break within the
first five hours of every shift.  The policy reportedly stated
that non-exempt employees who work more than five hours at any
time during a work shift must take at least a 30-minute meal
period, and that meal periods cannot be taken at the end of a
shift to allow the employee to leave work early.

"Thus, as stated, it can be argued that Defendant's meal break
policy never authorized, permitted or made its non-exempt
employees aware that they had the right to take a meal period
within (italics in original) the first five hours prior to August
1, 2012," the judge noted in his ruling.

The lawsuit is Felczer et al vs Apple Inc., case number 37-2011-
00102593-CU-OE-CTL, in the Superior Court of California, County of
San Diego.

In 2013, Apple employees in California filed a lawsuit against the
company alleging they were wrongly denied overtime wages because
they were not paid for time they spent off-the-clock waiting for
security checks prior to leaving stores.


AVX CORP: Has Fixed Prices for Capacitors, eIQ Energy Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
eIQ Energy Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AVX Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-
04826-ES-MAH (D.N.J., August 1, 2014) arises from a conspiracy to
fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices for tantalum capacitors,
aluminum electrolytic capacitors and film capacitors sold in the
United States.

Capacitors are passive electronic components that are used to
store electricity and release it when required.  Capacitors are
incorporated into almost every electronic device, including
audio/video equipment, telecommunication equipment, computers and
automobiles.

The Defendants are AVX Corporation, Elna Co., Ltd., Elna America
Inc., Hitachi Chemical Company, Ltd., Hitachi AIC Incorporated,
Hitachi Chemical Co. America, Ltd., Kemet Corporation, Kemet
Electronics Corporation, Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd., Matsuo
Electronics of America, Inc., NEC Tokin Corporation, NEC Tokin
America Inc., Nichicon Corporation, Nichicon (America)
Corporation, Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation, United Chemi-Con, Inc.,
Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America,
Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., Sanyo Electric Device (U.S.A.)
Corporation, Rohm Company Limited, Rohm Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC,
Rubycon Corporation, Rubycon America Inc., TDK Corporation, TDK-
EPC Corporation, TDK U.S.A. Corporation, and Vishay Interchnology,
Inc.

AVX Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Fountain Inn, South Carolina.  The Defendants manufactured, sold
and shipped Capacitor Products in a continuous and uninterrupted
flow of interstate commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis J. Drasco, Esq.
          Arthur M. Owens, Esq.
          LUM, DRASCO & POSITAN, LLC
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068-1049
          Telephone: (973) 403-9000
          E-mail: ddrasco@lumlaw.com
                  AOwens@lumlaw.com

               - and -

          Howard J. Sedran, Esq.
          Austin B. Cohen, Esq.
          Keith J. Verrier, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: hsedran@lfsblaw.com
                  acohen@lfsblaw.com
                  kverrier@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          Donald L. Perelman, Esq.
          Gerard A. Dever, Esq.
          Paul Costa, Esq.
          Ria Momblanco, Esq.
          FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
          One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
                  dperelman@finekaplan.com
                  gdever@finekaplan.com
                  pcosta@finekaplan.com
                  rmomblanco@finekaplan.com

               - and -

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Post Office Box 4160 (36103)
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com


ASTRAZENECA LP: Court Remands "Heller" Suit to LA Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Kronstadt remanded the action captioned
Melvin V. Heller, et al. v. AstraZeneca LP, et al., CASE NO. LA
CV14-04170 JAK (SHX), (C.D. Cal.) to the Los Angeles County
Superior Court, Case No. BC501979, at the Central Civil West
Courthouse.

Plaintiffs filed this tort action on February 28, 2013, in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court, in which they named these
defendants: Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP; Astrazeneca, LP;
McKesson Corp.; and Does 1-50. Plaintiffs are 39 individuals for
whom Crestor was prescribed; it is a pharmaceutical drug that
lowers cholesterol levels in patients. Crestor is manufactured,
marketed, and distributed by Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that,
as a result of taking Crestor, each suffered various injuries,
including: myocardial infarction, cardiomyopathy, sudden cardiac
arrest, type II diabetes, and kidney and liver damage.

Prior to the time that Plaintiffs filed this action, 13 other
separate, but similar, lawsuits against defendants had been
coordinated by the California courts through Judicial Council
Coordinated Proceeding No. 4713 (JCCP 4713), pursuant to Cal. Civ.
Proc. Code Section 404, et seq. and Rules of Court 3.500, et seq.
See Declaration of Lowell W. Finson. On April 30, 2013, the
California courts added this case and four others to JCCP 4713.
On April 30, 2014, in another similar state court action, Gilbert,
et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., Case No.
BC536980, Plaintiffs' counsel moved for its coordination with the
JCCP 4713 (the Add-On Request).  On May 30, 2014, Defendants
removed the action. They assert that there is subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(11), a
provision of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA).

In Judge Kronstadt July 2, 2014 ruling, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/7XDqGQ from Leagle.com, he wrote that
the District Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this
dispute.

Melvin V. Heller, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson,
Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman
LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A
Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Neida Osoria Pizarro, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson,
Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman
LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A
Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Hilton Perez Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson,
Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman
LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A
Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Charlene Perry, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips
Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi
A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier,
Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Tomas Ponton, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips
Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi
A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier,
Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Carmen Quinones Lacourt, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W
Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and
Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP &
Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Miriam Vega Cruz, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson,
Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman
LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A
Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Angel Ramirez-Vasquez, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson,
Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman
LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A
Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Marlin Reaves, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips
Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi
A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier,
Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Oscar Rios Ramos, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson,
Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman
LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A
Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Hector Rivera Negron, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson,
Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman
LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A
Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Ramona Rivera Ramos, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson,
Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman
LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A
Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Jaime Rivera, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips
Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi
A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier,
Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Norma Rodriguez Bachier, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W
Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and
Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP &
Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Gilberto Rodriguez Mercado, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W
Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and
Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP &
Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Jose Rodriguez Planas, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson,
Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman
LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A
Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Marta Rojas Torres, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson,
Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman
LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A
Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Leticia Romero Borges, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson,
Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman
LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A
Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Luis Romero Morales, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson,
Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman
LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A
Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Clayton Sampy, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips
Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi
A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier,
Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Antonio Santiago Nieves, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W
Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and
Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP &
Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Larry Sinkhorn, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips
Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi
A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier,
Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Will Sledge, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips
Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi
A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier,
Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Alberto Stolle Carrasquillo, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W
Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and
Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP &
Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Chericia Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson,
Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman
LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A
Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Edga Torres Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson,
Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman
LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A
Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Hector Trujillo Miranda, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W
Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and
Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP &
Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Elinora Vaughn Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W
Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and
Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP &
Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Frankie Vazquez-Oronch, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson,
Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman
LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A
Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Anaminta Velasquez, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson,
Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman
LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A
Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Jose Viera Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson,
Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman
LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A
Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Zaida Villaznueva Collazo, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W
Finson, Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and
Grossman LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP &
Robert A Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Luis Vinas Serrano, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson,
Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman
LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A
Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Eugene Webber, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips
Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi
A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier,
Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Caroline White, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson, Philips
Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP, Randi
A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A Mosier,
Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

Aida De La Cruz Ramon, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell W Finson,
Philips Law Firm, Marc D Grossman, Sanders Viener and Grossman
LLP, Randi A Kassan, Sanders Viener and Grossman LLP & Robert A
Mosier, Sanders Viener Grossman LLP.

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Defendant, represented by Kristine
W Hanson, King and Spalding LLP, Peter A Strotz, King and Spalding
LLP, Steven D Park, King and Spalding LLP, William Edward Steimle,
King and Spalding LLP & Donald F Zimmer, Jr, King and Spalding
LLP.

AstraZeneca LP, Defendant, represented by Kristine W Hanson, King
and Spalding LLP, Peter A Strotz, King and Spalding LLP, Steven D
Park, King and Spalding LLP, William Edward Steimle, King and
Spalding LLP & Donald F Zimmer, Jr, King and Spalding LLP.

McKesson Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kristine W Hanson,
King and Spalding LLP, Peter A Strotz, King and Spalding LLP,
Steven D Park, King and Spalding LLP, William Edward Steimle, King
and Spalding LLP & Donald F Zimmer, Jr, King and Spalding LLP.


BABALU LLC: "Martes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leonel Martes v. Babalu, LLC, and Joseph Rivera, Individually,
Case No. 1:14-cv-05773 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Babalu, LLC, owns and operates a restaurant located in Bronx
County, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      Building 2, Suite 220
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com


BAR NONE: Court Declines to Impose Sanctions in "Ross" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In ROBERT ROSS, Plaintiff, v. BAR NONE ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Defendant, NO. 2:13-CV-00234-KJM-KJN, (E.D. Cal.), the court
issued an order on June 30, 2014, directing counsel for plaintiff
to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for their
failure to comply with the court's June 20, 2014 minute order
requiring the plaintiff to submit a corrected settlement agreement
within one week.

On July 3, 2014, counsel for plaintiff filed a declaration
attaching a corrected stipulation of class action settlement.  The
corrected settlement agreement is now on record and plaintiff's
motion for preliminary approval is submitted. The court will issue
an order on the matter in due course.

With regard to the court's order to show cause, the plaintiff's
counsel's declaration does not explain his failure to timely file
a corrected settlement agreement.

Given counsel's prompt filing of the corrected agreement once
reminded by the court, District Judge Kimberly J. Muller declined
to impose sanctions. "Counsel is cautioned however that future
failures to comply with court orders are unlikely to be met with
such restraint," she said in an order dated July 8, 2014, a copy
of which is available at http://is.gd/1NtEvqfrom Leagle.com.

Robert Ross, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Christian Thomas --
mark@brownsteinthomas.com -- Brownstein Thomas, LLP & Frank Scott
Moore, Law Offices Of Frank S. Moore, APC.

Bar None Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeremy Seth
Millstone -- jmillstone@mpwlaw.net -- Millstone Peterson & Watts,
LLP.


BARCLAYS PLC: Sued Over Misleading Dark Pool Operation Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Strougo, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Barclays PLC, Bob Diamond, Antony Jenkins,
Chris Lucas and Tushar Morzaria, Case No. 1:14-cv-05797 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 28, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse
facts regarding the Company's operation of its dark pool.

Barclays PLC is a global financial services provider engaged in
retail banking, credit cards, whole sale banking, investment
banking, wealth management and investment management services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis Paul McConville, Esq.
      Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
      Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: fmcconville@pomlaw.com
              jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


BARCLAYS PLC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 28 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Barclays PLC and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 14-cv-5797, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased
Barclays securities between August 2, 2011 and June 25, 2014,
inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages against
Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Barclays securities during
the Class Period, you have until September 26, 2014 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Barclays provides various financial products and services
worldwide.  The company primarily operates in UK Retail and
Business Banking; Europe Retail and Business Banking; Africa
Retail and Business Banking; Barclaycard; Investment Bank;
Corporate Banking; and Wealth and Investment Management segments.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts regarding the Company's operation of its
dark pool.  Specifically, during the Class Period, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Barclays engaged in a "systematic pattern of fraud and deceit"
by using its dark pool to favor high-frequency traders over its
other clients; (ii) the pools were promoted as offering investors
protection from predatory traders, while Barclays instead courted
HFT firms by charging them lower rates; (iii) Barclays falsely
understated the percentage of aggressive HFT activity in its dark
pool; (iv) Barclays failed to provide monitoring services it
promised to investors which would protect the dark pool from
aggressive, predatory HFTs; (v) Barclays routed a
disproportionately high percentage of client orders to its own
dark pool while falsely representing that it routed client orders
in a manner that did not favor Barclays LX; (vi) Barclays secretly
gave HFT firms informational and other advantages over other
clients trading in the dark pool; (vii) Barclays' practices
subjected it to regulatory scrutiny and significant reputational
harm; (viii) and as a result of the above, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On June 25, 2014, the New York State office of the Attorney
General ("NY AG") issued a press release announcing a lawsuit
against Barclays, arising from the operation of Barclays' dark
pool and other aspects of its electronic trading division.

The press release stated, in part, that "[T]he complaint alleges
Barclays has dramatically increased the market share of its dark
pool through a series of false statements to clients and investors
about how, and for whose benefit, Barclays operates its dark pool.
Contrary to Barclays' representations that it has implemented
special safeguards to protect clients from "aggressive" or
predatory high-frequency traders, Barclays is accused of operating
its dark pool to favor high-frequency traders."

On this news, Barclays' securities fell $1.16, or 7.38%, on
extraordinarily heavy volume, to close at $14.55 on June 26, 2014.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


BEST BUY: Says Recalled Products Being Sold After Recall Date
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Best Buy
are warning consumers that 10 different recalled products
continued to be sold or were resold by Best Buy, Magnolia stores
and liquidators Best Buy Private Auction, CowBoom and
TechLiquidators nationwide, and online, after they were recalled
in 2012 and 2013.  This involves about 200 units of the recalled
products and an undetermined number of recalled Canon cameras.
The recalling firms listed below fully complied with the
negotiated terms of their original recall.

Consumers should stop using the recalled products immediately and
contact the recalling firms listed to receive the remedies listed
in the recall, which is either a refund, replacement or repair.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

Canon EOS Rebel T4i Digital Cameras
Recall Date: August 14, 2012
Original Sale Dates: June 2012 through July 2012
Press Release #: 12-246
Hazard: A chemical used in the camera's rubber grips can result in
a reaction that changes the grips from black to white and poses a
risk of skin irritation to the consumer.
Remedy: Free replacement grips
Contact: Canon toll-free at (855) 902-3277 between 8 a.m. to
midnight ET Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. ET Saturday,
or visit the firm's website for more information.

Coby Televisions
Recall Date: December 12, 2013
Original Sale Dates: August 2011 through November 2013
Press Release #: 14-054
Hazard: An electronic component can fail, catch fire and ignite
nearby items, posing fire and burn hazards.
Remedy: Gift card for a replacement item
Contact: Best Buy at (800) 566-7498 BestBuy.com and click on
Product Recalls at the bottom of the page for more information.

Definitive Technology SuperCube 2000 Subwoofers
Recall Date: March 28, 2013
Original Sale Dates: November 2012 through Jan. 2013
Press Release #: 13-158
Hazard: An internal failure with the subwoofer' level input jack
(RCA jack) results in a shock hazard to consumers.
Remedy: Free replacement
Contact: Definitive Technology at (800) 228-7148 from 9:30 a.m. to
6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or online for more information.

GE Dishwashers
Recall Date: August 9, 2012
Original Sale Dates: March 2006 through Aug. 2009
Press Release #: 12-244
Hazard: An electrical failure in the dishwasher's heating element
can pose a fire hazard.
Remedy: Free repair
Contact: GE toll-free at (866) 918-8760 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday or visit the firm's website.

Gree Dehumidifiers
Recall Date: September 12, 2013
Original Sale Dates: Jan. 2005 through Aug. 2013
Press Release #: 13-283
Hazard: The dehumidifiers can overheat, smoke and catch fire,
posing fire and burn hazards to consumers.
Remedy: Refund
Contact: Gree toll-free at (866) 853-2802 from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday or online for more information.

iSi North America Twist'n Sparkle Beverage Carbonation Systems
Recall Date: July 5, 2012
Original Sale Dates: June 2010 through March 2012
Press Release #: 12-217
Hazard: The plastic bottles can explode under pressure, expelling
plastic parts, resulting in an injury hazard to anyone nearby.
Remedy: Refund or store credit
Contact: iSi at (800) 645-3595 anytime or visit the firm's website
for more information.

LG Electronics Electric Ranges
Recall Date: November 8, 2012
Original Sale Dates: January 2006 through June 2010
Press Release #: 13-031
Hazard: Burners on the electric ranges can fail to turn off after
being switched off and the temperature setting can increase
unexpectedly during use, posing burn and fire hazards to
consumers.
Remedy: Free Repair
Contact: LG toll-free at (855) 400-4638 from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. CT
Monday through Friday, and from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. Sat for more
information.

LG Electronics Gas Dryers
Recall Date: Aug. 21, 2012
Original Sale Dates: Nov. 2009 through Aug. 2010
Press Release #: 12-251
Hazard: The gas valve in the recalled dryers can fail to shut off
properly, continuing to heat the dryer and its contents after the
drying cycle is complete.  High temperatures inside and on the
exterior surface of the dryers can scorch the drum, as well as
burn or damage the dryer contents, posing a risk of burn, fire and
smoke inhalation.
Remedy: Free repair
Contact: LG toll free at (866) 223-5355 from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. CT
Monday through Friday, and from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. CT on Sat., or
visit the firm's website.

Samsonite Dual-Wattage Travel Converters
Recall Date: February 12, 2013
Original Sale Dates: Jan. 2011 through Dec. 2012
Press Release #: 13-119
Hazard: The converter can overheat if a load in excess of 50 watts
is applied to the converter while in the 50-watt setting.  This
poses a fire and burn hazard to consumers.
Remedy: Full Refund
Contact: Samsonite at (800) 382-7259 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday, by email or online.

Sauder Woodworking Company Gruga Office Chairs
Recall Date: Nov. 7, 2012
Original Sale Dates: Aug. 2009 through Sept. 2012
Press Release #: 13-030
Hazard: The seat plate can break, posing a fall hazard to
consumers.
Remedy: Free replacement seat plate
Contact: Sauder Woodworking Company toll-free at (888) 800-4590
from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday for more
information.


CAPITAL ONE: Sued in New York by VentureOne Card Accountholder
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abigail Strubel, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Case No. 1:14-
cv-05998-AJN (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2014) seeks redress for the
alleged illegal practices of Capital One Bank for providing to
customers of its VentureOne card accounts disclosures that
violated the Truth in Lending Act.

Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., is doing business in the state of
New York and throughout the United States, with a principal place
of business in Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Bromberg, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Miller, Esq.
          BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          26 Broadway, 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 248-7906
          Facsimile: (212) 248-7908
          E-mail: brian@bromberglawoffice.com
                  jonathan@bromberglawoffice.com

               - and -

          Harley J. Schnall, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF HARLEY J. SCHNALL
          711 West End Avenue
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 678-6546
          Facsimile: (212) 678-0322
          E-mail: schnall_law@hotmail.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a consolidated class action securities case, plaintiffs allege
that various corporate officers of Chesapeake Energy Corporation
materially misled the public about Chesapeake's real financial
condition in violation of federal securities laws. The district
court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, holding
that Plaintiffs had failed to plead with particularity facts
giving rise to a strong inference of scienter as required by the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. An appeal
followed.

The United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of the case in an opinion dated July 8,
2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/PV12WJfrom
Leagle.com.

The Tenth Circuit found that Plaintiffs have not shown anything
more than alleged knowledge of arguably material facts. It added
that wiewing all of the allegations in the complaint collectively,
it simply is not persuaded these allegations give rise to a cogent
and compelling inference of scienter.

The case is DVORA WEINSTEIN; STEVEN WEINSTEIN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AUBREY K.
McCLENDON; CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION; DOMENIC J. DELL'OSSO;
MARCUS ROWLAND; MICHAEL A. JOHNSON; JEFFREY L. MOBLEY; HENRY J.
HOOD, Defendants-Appellees, and ONTARIO TEACHERS' PENSION PLAN
BOARD, Movant-Appellant, and IBI AMBAN INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LTD;
CLAL PENSION & PROVIDENT FUND, LTD; ARKANSAS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM; STATE UNIVERSITIES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF
ILLINOIS; STATE OF OREGON, by and through the Oregon State
Treasurer and the Oregon Public Employee Retirement Board on
behalf of the Oregon Public Employee Retirement Fund; SHI YAN,
Movants, NO. 13-6121.

Joseph Alberto Fonti -- jfonti@labaton.com -- of Labaton Sucharow
LLP, New York, New York (Sean Connelly -- sconnelly@rplaw.com --
of Reilly Pozner LLP, Denver, Colorado, and Jonathan M. Plasse --
jplasse@labaton.com -- Javier Bleichmar -- jbleichmar@labaton.com
-- Serena P. Hallowell -- shallowell@labaton.com -- and Jeffrey R.
Alexander -- jalexander@labaton.com -- of Labaton Sucharow LLP,
New York, New York, with him on the briefs) for Movant-Appellant.

Robert P. Varian -- rvarian@orrick.com -- of Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP, San Francisco, California (Spencer F. Smith --
spencer.smith@mcafeetaft.com -- of McAfee & Taft, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, and M. Todd Scott -- tscott@orrick.com -- and Alexander
K. Talarides -- atalarides@orrick.com -- of Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP, San Francisco, California, with him on the briefs)
for Defendants-Appellees.


CHRYSLER GROUP: MLG Files Ignition Switch Class Action in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
MLG Automotive Law, APLC on July 28, 2014, filed a class action
lawsuit against Chrysler Group LLC for defective ignition switches
in the company's Jeep Grand Cherokee and Commander vehicles.  The
lawsuit, entitled Latoya Lumpkin v. Chrysler Group LLC, was filed
in U.S. District Court, Central District of California.

On July 22, 2014, Chrysler admitted that it had received over 100
complaints that its ignition switches were unexpectedly shutting
off, leaving consumers stranded in vehicles they could not
control.  When the ignition switch shuts off, it leaves the driver
without power, and cuts off the vehicle's power steering, power
brakes and airbags.  Chrysler has indicated that it will be
recalling 792,000 vehicles.  The affected vehicles are 2005-07
Jeep Grand Cherokees and 2006-07 Jeep Commanders.

Under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
regulations, a manufacturer has five days to report a safety
defect, or face a fine of up to $35 million.  Congress is
considering legislation that will significantly increase this
fine, and possibly add criminal liability.  Despite the NHTSA
requirement that the automaker notify regulators within five days
of learning of the defect, Chrysler waited years to come clean.
It is unknown how many people have died or been seriously injured
because of the defect.

In March, MLG Automotive Law filed a similar class action lawsuit
against GM for fraudulently concealing an ignition switch defect
in 1.4 million vehicles.  The GM class action alleges that GM had
known about the defect for years, but also failed to inform
regulators.  GM has admitted that its actions killed consumers.

"No one should be surprised," said Jonathan Michaels, founding
member of MLG Automotive Law.  "These manufacturers have no
interest in protecting the public, or doing what is morally right.
They are unconcerned that people will die and families will be
crushed.  They only care about financial gain.  We saw it with GM,
and we are now seeing it with Chrysler."

The class action lawsuit seeks damages for all owners of the
impacted vehicles for loss of use, repairs and diminished value.
MLG Automotive Law will also be asking the court to order that
Chrysler notify its customers that they should not drive the
vehicles until they are repaired.

                     About MLG Automotive Law

Located in Newport Beach, California, MLG Automotive Law is a full
service business law firm, focusing on the automotive industry.
MLG Automotive Law has litigated cases against nearly every major
manufacturer, and is counsel on the GM ignition switch class
action.  MLG Automotive Law also represents several terminated
Chrysler dealers against the U.S. for the 2009 taking of their
dealerships, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.


COPS MONITORING: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss TCPA Case
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Christina A. Snyder denied a motion to dismiss the
case captioned FLORENCIO PACLEB v. COPS MONITORING, ET AL., NO.
2:14-CV-01366-CAS(JCX), (C.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Florencio Pacleb filed this putative class action
against defendants Cops Monitoring and Does 1 through 10 on
February 24, 2014. The operative first amended complaint (FAC)
asserts claims for: (1) negligent violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227; (2) knowing
and/or willful violations of the TCPA; and (3) violations of
California Penal Code Section 632.7. In brief, plaintiff alleged
that he received numerous automated telephone calls to his
cellular telephone on December 19, 2013, from defendant, who was
"looking for [an individual named] Frank Arnold." Plaintiff
contended that defendant's acts represent negligent and/or knowing
and/or willful violations of the TCPA.

On May 13, 2014, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the FAC's
TCPA claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
and 12(b)(6).

A copy of Judge Snyder's July 7, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/S9XRcBfrom Leagle.com.

Florencio Pacleb, Plaintiff, represented by Lee Paul Mankin, IV,
Law Offices of L Paul Mankin IV, Nicholas J Bontrager --
nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Law Offices of Todd M
Friedman PC & Todd M Friedman --
tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Law Offices of Todd M
Friedman PC.

Cops Monitoring, Defendant, represented by Michael Lee Cypers --
mcypers@glaserweil.com -- Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs Avchen & Shapiro
LLP.


DIBRE AUTO: Trial Court Ruling in "Rontondi" Suit Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division affirmed a
trial court ruling in FIORELLA ROTONDI, on her own behalf and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff-
Respondent, v. DIBRE AUTO GROUP, L.L.C., d/b/a NORTH PLAINFIELD
NISSAN, Defendant-Appellant, and TD AUTO FINANCE, L.L.C.,
Defendant, NO. A-1051-13T1.

Dibre Auto Group, which owns and operates the car dealership named
North Plainfield Nissan, appealed from an order of the Law
Division denying without prejudice its motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's class action complaint and to compel arbitration of
her individual claims.

A copy of the Appellate Court's opinion dated July 9, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/Z7YRdQfrom Leagle.com.

According to the ruling, since the plaintiff did not file a cross-
appeal, the Appellate Court has no occasion to address whether the
trial court's denial of defendant's motion to compel arbitration
should have been with or without prejudice. The parties and the
trial court are free to address that issue in further proceedings
consistent with this decision, the Appellate Court said.

Thomas G. Russomano -- tgr@sp-lawyers.com -- argued the cause for
appellant (Schiller & Pittenger, P.C., attorneys; Jay B. Bohn --
bohn@sp-lawyers.com -- on the brief).

Leslie Hill argued the cause for respondent.


DREAM ON ME: Recalls High Chairs Due to Strangulation Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Dream On Me, of South Plainfield, N.J., announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,800 Dream On Me Dinah High Chairs.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The leg or side opening of the chair can allow a child's body to
pass through and become entrapped at the neck or fall from the
chair.  This poses a strangulation and fall hazard to young
children.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall includes Dream On Me Dinah high chairs made with a
steel, powder coated tubing open-framed base with white plastic
foot grips and black with white trim or red with white trim fabric
seats.  The chair has a white plastic tray, plastic footrest and a
white fabric five point adjustable safety strap.  "Dream On Me" is
printed on a label attached to the front of the tray.  There is a
color-coordinated black and white or red and white fabric storage
bin attached to the bottom of the chair legs.  The high chair can
be folded for storage.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/z6f7Gn

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively online by Walmart.com and Amazon.com from Nov. 2012 to
Nov. 2013 for about $60.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled high chairs
and contact Dream On Me to receive a free repair kit.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Sued Over Untimely Write-Down for Turbo
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Paddock, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc., Jeffrey
Katzenberg, and Lewis W. Coleman, Case No. 2:14-cv-06053-SJO-E
(C.D. Cal., August 1, 2014) alleges that during the Class Period,
the Defendants made false and misleading statements or failed to
disclose that:

   (1) DreamWorks failed to take a write-down for its Turbo
       movie in a timely fashion;

   (2) as a result, the Company's net income for the fiscal
       year of 2013 was materially overstated;

   (3) the Company lacked adequate internal and control over
       financial reporting; and

   (4) as a result, the Company's financial statements were
       materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. is a Delaware corporation engaged
in the development, production, and exploitation of animated films
and their associated characters worldwide.  The Company was
founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Glendale, California.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  fmcconville@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


DYNACRAFT BSC: Recalls Avigo Youth Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Dynacraft BSC Inc., of American Canyon, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 3,100 Avigo 20 Inch Turn N' Burn Youth
Bicycles.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The front wheel on the bicycle can detach, posing a fall hazard.

Dynacraft has received one report of a consumer who fell and
sustained scrapes and abrasions when the front wheel detached.

The recall involves 20 inch Avigo Turn N Burn youth bicycles with
model number 8107-62.  The model number and date of manufacture,
"08202013," are printed on a data label on the frame's seat tube.
The bicycles have a silver frame, blue handlebars and black front
fork with blue accents, hand brakes and a kickstand.  The serial
number can be found etched on the frame on the underside of the
bottom bracket shell. Serial numbers included in the recall have:
letters "DJFH" followed by a six-digit number between 026588 and
027104, and between 089533 through 090562;
or the letters "DJFI" followed by a six digit number between
015107 and 015552, and between 100093 and 101193.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Toys "R" Us stores nationwide and online at
ToysRUs.com between Sept. 2013 and June 2014 for $130.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycle and
contact Dynacraft to arrange for a free repair.


EAST COAST CYCLE: Recalls Mountain Bikes Due to Crash Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
East Coast Cycle Supply LLC, of Farmingdale, N.Y., announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,800 Mountain bikes.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The brakes can fail to stop riders within the distances required
by federal regulation, posing a crash hazard.

East Coast Cycle Supply has received one report of the braking
system taking longer to stop than allowed by federal regulation.
No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves all Trayl TRN 29-inch hardtail mountain bikes.
The bike has a black and green frame with a white front fork.  The
word Trayl is in white on the underside of the down tube and in
green on the top side of the down tube.  The Trayl logo appears as
the "Y" in the word.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/B9meTL

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Sports Authority between November 2013 and May 2014
for $650.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and
return them to Sports Authority for a free repair.  East Coast
Cycle Supply is contacting consumers directly.


EBAY INC: Faces "Green" Consumer Privacy Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
SC Magazine reports that eBay faces a class action lawsuit after a
high-profile data breach forced customers to reset their passwords
and the company attracted criticism for its tardiness in alerting
customers.

US citizen Collin Green has filed a consumer privacy class action
suit in US District Court accusing the e-commerce company of
failing to secure private information.  The suit noted that eBay
"holds personal information of more than 120 million active
customers in electronic files," and because the company didn't
protect the data properly it "has caused, and is continuing to
cause, damage to its customers."

The claim also provided a litany of information that eBay collects
and stores -- from credit card, shipping and location data to
statistics on page views, mobile phone numbers and community
discussions -- that could be used for identity theft.  It also
chided eBay for informing customers only after the breach had been
widely reported noting that the company was well aware of
reporting requirements and that it not only failed to protect data
but withheld notifying customers in an attempt to avoid negative
market perception.

"eBay's profit-driven decision to withhold its security lapse
further damaged the class members who were prevented from
immediately mitigating the damages from the theft," the suit
claims.

The combined claims of the proposed class members exceed US$5
million (A$5.32 million) exclusive of interest and costs.

In May, eBay reported that hackers had accessed a database
containing customer names, emails and physical addresses but
advised that there was no evidence that financial or credit card
information had leaked.  It asked customers to reset their
passwords.


EMCOR GROUP: Unit Faces Employee Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Emcor Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed on July 29, 2014,
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that one of the company's
subsidiaries, USM, Inc. ("USM") -- which does business in
California and provides, among other things, janitorial services
to its customers by having those services performed by independent
janitorial companies -- and one of its customers, which owns
retail stores, are co-defendants in a federal class action lawsuit
brought by employees of two of USM's California local janitorial
contractors.

The action was commenced on September 5, 2013 in a Superior Court
of California and was removed by USM on November 22, 2013 to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The employees allege in their complaint, among other
things, that USM and the Customer violated a California statute
that prohibits USM from entering into a contract with a janitorial
contractor when it knows or should know that the contract does not
include funds sufficient to allow the janitorial contractor to
comply with all local, state and federal laws or regulations
governing the labor or services to be provided.

The employees have asserted that the amounts USM pays to its
janitorial contractors are insufficient to allow those janitorial
contractors to meet their obligations regarding, among other
things, wages due for all hours their employees worked, minimum
wages, overtime pay and meal and rest breaks. These employees seek
to represent not only themselves, but also all other individuals
who provided janitorial services at the Customer's stores in
California during the relevant four year time period.

"We do not believe USM or the Customer has violated the California
statute or that the employees may bring the action as a class
action on behalf of other employees of janitorial companies with
whom USM contracted for the provision of janitorial services to
the Customer. However, if the pending lawsuit is certified as a
class action and USM is found to have violated the California
statute, USM might have to pay significant damages and might be
subject to similar lawsuits regarding the provision of janitorial
services to its other customers in California. The plaintiffs seek
a declaratory judgment that USM has violated the California
statute, monetary damages, including all unpaid wages and interest
thereon, restitution for unpaid wages, and an award of attorney
fees and costs," the company said.

Emcor Group, Inc., is one of the largest electrical and mechanical
construction and facilities services firms in the United States.


FAR EAST BROKERS: Recalls Glass Beverage Dispensers
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Far East Brokers and Consultants Inc., Jacksonville, Fla.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 4,000 Glass Beverage
Dispenser.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The metal stand supporting the glass dispenser can break, posing
an injury hazard to consumers.

The firm has received one report of a metal stand breaking.  The
consumer injured her shoulder attempting to catch the falling
dispenser.

The recall involves glass beverage dispenser set including, a
clear glass ovoid-like shaped container with a clear glass lid, a
silver spigot and a wire three-legged metal stand.  The glass
container holds up to 1.7 gallons of beverage and measures 13.5
inches high.  The item number 962826 FEB44496-01-113 and barcode
number 11546-34437 are both included on the packaging.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/L0QYXc

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Publix Super Markets stores nationwide from April
2014 through June 2014 for about $25.

Consumers should immediately stop using the glass beverage
dispenser and metal support stand and return the set to a Publix
Super Markets store for a full refund.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued Over Conspiracy to Fix Propane Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
CCLAS, Inc., doing business as Lake Liberty, 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-04198 (W.D. Mo., July 28, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants conspired to fix the price of propane sold in
exchangeable portable steel tanks commonly referred to as "propane
exchange tanks."

The Defendants operate a national propane distribution business,
and owns or has access to distribution locations nationwide. Its
business includes the filling, refilling, refurbishing, sale and
distribution of propane exchange tanks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued Over Conspiracy to Fix Propane Levels
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas R. Clark and Bryce Mander, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P.,
Ferrellgas, L.P. d/b/a Blue Rhino, Amerigas Partners, L.P., d/b/a
AmeriGas Cylinder Exchange, and UGI Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-
01775 (S.D. Cal., July 28, 2014), arises out of a conspiracy to
fix fill levels of exchangeable portable cylinder tanks containing
propane gas commonly referred to as "propane exchange tanks."

The Defendants operate a national propane distribution business,
and owns or has access to distribution locations nationwide. Its
business includes the filling, refilling, refurbishing, sale and
distribution of propane exchange tanks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Betsy Carol Manifold, Esq.
      Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
      Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
      Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN AND HERZ
      750 B Street, Symphony Towers Suite 2770
      San Diego, CA 92101-5050
      Telephone: (619) 239-4599
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
      E-mail: manifold@whafh.com
              gregorek@whafh.com
              rickert@whafh.com
              livesay@whafh.com

         - and -

      Fred T. Isquith, Esq.
      Thomas H. Burt
      Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 686-0114

          - and -

      Theodore R. Bell, Esq.
      Carl V. Malstrom, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
      55 W. Monroe St., Suite 1111
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 984-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 984-0001


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued Over Conspiracy to Fix Propane Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
OM Commercial Neenah Oil, Inc., Individually and on Behalf 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-04197 (W.D.
Mo., July 28, 2014), alleges that the Defendants conspire to fix
the price of propane sold in exchangeable portable steel tanks
commonly referred to as "propane exchange tanks."

The Defendants operates a national propane distribution business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
      Matthew Lee Dameron, Esq.
      WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
      1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone: (816) 876-2600
      E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com
              matt@williamsdirks.com

         - and -

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


         - and -

      Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      E-mail: mgoldberg@glancylaw.com


FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Dismissal of RESPA Case on Appeal
---------------------------------------------------
FlagStar Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q filed on July 29, 2014,
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that in May 2012, Flagstar Bank, FSB
and its subsidiary, Flagstar Reinsurance Company, were named as
defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging
a violation of Section 2607 of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act ("RESPA").

Section 2607(a) of RESPA generally prohibits anyone from
"accept[ing] any fee, kickback or thing of value pursuant to any
agreement or understanding, oral or otherwise, that business
related incident to or part of a real estate settlement service
involving a federally related mortgage loan shall be referred to
any person."

Section 2607(b) of RESPA also prohibits anyone from "accept[ing]
any portion, split, or percentage of any charge made or received
for the rendering of a real estate settlement service in
connection with a federally related mortgage loan other than for
services actually performed."

The lawsuit specifically alleges that the Bank and Flagstar
Reinsurance Company violated Section 2607 of RESPA through a
captive reinsurance arrangement involving (i) allegedly illegal
payments to Flagstar Reinsurance Company for the referral of
private mortgage insurance business from the Bank to private
mortgage insurers to Flagstar Reinsurance Company and (ii)
Flagstar Reinsurance Company's purported receipt of an unlawful
split of private mortgage insurance premiums.

On January 13, 2014, the company and Flagstar Reinsurance filed a
motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint based upon the
statute of limitations and equitable tolling. The Court granted
summary judgment on June 26, 2014, and dismissed the case, but
plaintiffs have since filed an appeal in the Circuit Court.

Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. the holding company for Flagstar Bank, FSB
(the "Bank") is a Michigan-based savings and loan holding company
founded in 1993.


FOOT LOCKER: Asks for and Records Costumer's Info, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joubin Mortezapour, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-
05868 (C.D. Cal., July 28, 2014), is brought for violation of the
California Civil Code, specifically by requesting the cardholder
to provide personal identification information during credit card
transactions and recording the personal identification information
of the cardholder.

Foot Locker Retail, Inc. operates retail stores throughout the
United States, including in the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE AND SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3609
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

           - and -

      Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
      245 Fischer Avenue Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

          - and -

      Sina Rezvanpour, Esq.
      RKR LEGAL
      245 Fischer Avenue Suite D-1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (866) 502-0787
      Facsimile: (866) 502-5065
      E-mail: sr@rkrlegal.com


FRESH DEL MONTE: Ore. Supreme Court Denies Petition for Review
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc., according to its Form 10-Q filed on
July 29, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2014, that a class action
complaint was filed on December 2007, against one of its
subsidiaries for unpaid wages in an action styled Maria Delgado
and Abdia Liberio, et al. v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. in
the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon.

"On October 5, 2009, a jury verdict was entered against our
subsidiary. The court entered judgments in favor of plaintiffs
consistent with the jury verdict. On January 2, 2014, the Oregon
Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments," the company said.

"Our subsidiary appealed the Court of Appeals decision to the
Oregon Supreme Court. On May 8, 2014, the Oregon Supreme Court
denied our subsidiary's petition for review. Our subsidiary
appealed the Court of Appeals decision to the Oregon Supreme
Court. On May 8, 2014, the Oregon Supreme Court denied our
subsidiary's petition for review. Our subsidiary will satisfy the
judgments in accordance with the final order of the court, which
remains pending."

The company is a producer, marketer and distributor of high-
quality fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as a
producer and marketer of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices,
beverages and snacks in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and
countries formerly part of the Soviet Union.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Summary Judgment Bid in Del. Case Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc., according to its Form 10-Q filed on
July 29, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2014, said that eight actions were
filed against one of the company's subsidiaries on May 31 and June
1, 2012 in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware on behalf of approximately 3,000 plaintiffs alleging
exposure to DBCP on or near banana farms in Costa Rica, Ecuador,
Panama, and Guatemala.

The Company and its subsidiaries have never owned, managed or
otherwise been involved with any banana growing operations in
Panama and were not involved with any banana growing operations in
Ecuador during the period when DBCP was in use. The plaintiffs
include claimants who had cases pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana which were
dismissed on September 17, 2012.

"On August 30, 2012, our subsidiary joined a motion to dismiss the
claims of those plaintiffs on the grounds that they have first-
filed claims pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana", company said.

"The motion was granted on March 29, 2013. On September 21, 2012,
company's subsidiary filed an answer with respect to the claims of
those plaintiffs who had not already filed in Louisiana. On May
27, 2014, the court granted a motion made by a co-defendant and
entered summary judgment against all plaintiffs based on the
September 19, 2013 affirmance by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the dismissal of related cases by
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana. On July 7, 2014, our subsidiary joined in a motion for
summary judgment as to all plaintiffs on the basis of the court's
May 27, 2014 ruling. That motion remains pending."

The company is a producer, marketer and distributor of high-
quality fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as a
producer and marketer of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices,
beverages and snacks in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and
countries formerly part of the Soviet Union.


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued in Florida for Concealing Engine Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Kosovec, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. General Motors, LLC; General Motors Holdings, LLC,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00354 (N.D. Fla., July 28, 2014), arises form
concealing a defect that caused its vehicles to have a sudden
engine and electrical system power loss.

General Motors, LLC and General Motors Holdings, LLC are engaged
in the business of designing, manufacturing, constructing,
assembling, marketing, warranting, distributing, selling, leasing,
and servicing automobiles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter J. Mougey Esq.
      LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL,
      RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A.
      316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
      Pensacola, FL 32502
      Telephone: (850) 435-7068
      Facsimile: (850) 436-6068


GOLDMAN SACHS: Responds to Female Employees' Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Steinberg, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. denied claims it has discriminated
against women in pay and promotion practices and questioned the
methodology two alleged victims used to back up the claims,
according to court documents filed on July 25.

"Far from being indifferent to women, the Firm has developed
programs and networks to help its women professionals succeed and
advance at every stage of their careers," lawyers for Goldman
wrote in a filing.

Goldman was responding to a motion filed earlier in July by two
former female employees seeking class-action status for a lawsuit.
In that motion, plaintiffs claimed Goldman promoted 23% fewer
women than men to the role of vice president between 2004 and 2008
and pays its female vice presidents an average of 21% less than
their male counterparts.

The two former employees in 2010 brought the suit against Goldman
in federal court in Manhattan, alleging gender discrimination,
unfair pay and promotion policies, and a sexualized work
environment that inhibited their careers.

The plaintiffs and their lawyers have spent the past four years
gathering internal Goldman records and documents, as part of the
legal process known as discovery.  Those materials formed the
basis for the allegations in the filing earlier in July, a lawyer
for the plaintiffs has said.

"We are confident in our position," said Cara Greene, a lawyer
representing the plaintiffs, adding that her team will file a
response to Goldman on July 22.

In one of the July 25 filings, Goldman took issue with the
plaintiffs' claims that Goldman employees attended strip clubs as
a way to entertain clients.  The plaintiffs' "emphasis on supposed
'strip club activity' is flatly contradicted by numerous accounts
from women who have worked" at the bank for years, lawyers wrote.

Goldman said the anecdotes offered by the plaintiffs in their
motion are "too weak" to prove discrimination.

"This case is a textbook example of why class certification
requires proof, not a broad brush and a bucket of mud," lawyers
wrote.

One of Goldman's main arguments rests on what it believes is the
plaintiffs' failure to establish the so-called commonality
required to get certified as a class-action lawsuit.  Lawyers for
Goldman say there are 140 business units represented in the
plaintiffs' purported class but that plaintiffs haven't proved a
"general policy of discrimination" across all of those units.

Goldman also objected to the methodology a plaintiffs' expert used
to determine the rate of promotions, arguing that he picked
specific data that would appear favorable to the plaintiffs'
cause.

The bank said the plaintiffs' expert didn't account for different
business units and their respective compensation processes in his
analysis and that his models are "incomplete."

A spokesman for Goldman declined to comment beyond the filing.  A
lawyer representing the plaintiffs has previously said he expects
the judge to rule by the end of the year on whether the case can
go forward as a class-action lawsuit.


GRAY GLASS: Recalls Lightolier Glass Lenses Over Laceration Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Gray Glass Company, of Queens Village, NY, announced a voluntary
recall of about 7,500 Philips "Lightolier" brand AF4SY Decorative
Glass Lens.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The decorative glass lens can shatter and result in falling pieces
of glass, posing a risk of laceration to the consumer.

Philips has received one report of the glass lens breaking.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Philips "Lightolier" brand AF4SY decorative
glass lenses used on various types of light fixtures.  The clear
glass lens, used to "soften" light with an additional lens layer,
is 4 3/4 inches in diameter and 1/8 inch thick.  The lenses were
manufactured between Jan. 2007 and Dec. 2013.  There are no
markings on the product.  The product number is on the packaging.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/41HT9b

The recalled products were manufactured in USA and distributed by
electrical wholesale distributors nationwide from Feb. 2007
through Dec. 2013 for between $25 and $50.

Consumers should immediately remove the recalled glass lens and
contact Philips Lighting for a free replacement unit.


GUTHY-RENKER LLC: Products Make Hair Fall Out, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Amy Friedman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Guthy-Renker LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-06009-MRP-AGR (C.D.
Cal., July 31, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Truth in Lending
Act.

Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action
claims that Guthy-Renker's Wen Cleaning Conditioner hair care
products (Sweet Almond Mint, Lavender, Pomegranate and Summer
Honey Peach) make one's hair fall out.

Plaintiff Amy Friedman is represented by:

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT AND LADUCA LLP
          300 North Tucker Boulevard, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com


HARRIS PRODUCTS: Recalls Welding Torch Handles Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Harris Products Group, of Gainesville, Ga., announced a voluntary
recall of about 13,000 in the U.S. and 350 in Canada Welding torch
handles.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The torch handles can leak oxygen or fuel, posing a fire hazard.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves two models of torch handles that were sold
under the Lincoln Electric and Harris Products Group brand names.
The torch handles are used in welding.  They are gold in color and
made out of brass.  Welding torch model numbers include 18-5 and
85. Manufacture date codes include FM, GA, GB and GC.  The model
number and date code are stamped on the torch handle at the end
closest to the flame.  The torch handles were sold individually
and also as part of the following kits.  Units with "0" above the
word "Harris" and to the right of the rivet head are not included
in this recall.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/1qECoh

The recalled products were manufactured in Poland and sold at Home
Depot and Lowes stores, industrial gas distributors including
Airgas, Praxair and Matheson and other retailers nationwide, and
online from Dec. 2013 through May 2014 for between $125 and $450
when sold individually and for between $250 and $1,230  when sold
as part of a kit.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled torch handles
and contact Harris Products Group to receive a free replacement.


HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reports that Hooters of America
LLC was hit on July 28 with a proposed class action in California
federal court accusing the restaurant chain of peppering consumers
with spam text messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Plaintiff Peyman Zandifaez alleges the Atlanta-based company
invaded his privacy this summer with two unsolicited texts
promoting events at the restaurant, despite the fact that he has
never eaten at Hooters or otherwise consented to be contacted by
the chain.

"The TCPA was designed to prevent calls like the ones described
within this complaint and to protect the privacy of citizens like
plaintiff," Mr. Zandifaez said, noting that Congress passed the
law in response to "voluminous complaints" from consumers about
abuses of telephone technology.

Hooters, best known for its chicken wings and the revealing attire
of its waitresses, allegedly first contacted the plaintiff on his
cellphone June 13, imploring him to "Celebrate Fathers Day at
Hooters" with a special deal on wings.  Less than a month later,
on July 5, Mr. Zandifaez received a second text advertising an
Ultimate Fighting Championship fight showing at Hooters
restaurants, according to the complaint.

Mr. Zandifaez alleges both messages were from texts sent en masse
to consumers, suggesting the chain used an automatic telephone
dialing system, a requirement for establishing a violation under
the TCPA.  He also claims he never provided his cellphone number
to Hooters, nor did he ever sign up for or use any of the
restaurant chain's products or services.

Mr. Zandifaez wants to represent all consumers in the U.S. who
received text messages within the last four years from Hooters
that are identical or substantially similar to the ones he
received, with the group divided into two subclasses based on the
two different texts.  His attorneys estimate tens of thousands of
consumers received such messages, if not more, according to the
complaint.

The suit alleges both negligent and willful violations of the
TCPA, seeking $500 and $1,500 in damages, respectively, for each
violation. It also seeks injunctive relief barring the restaurant
chain from sending such texts in the future.

Hooters, which boasts 430 locations in 28 countries, did not
immediately respond to a request for comment on July 28.

Mr. Zandifaez is represented by Abbas Kazerounian and Mona Amini
of Kazerouni Law Group APC; Joshua B. Swigart of Hyde & Swigart;
and the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC.

Counsel information for Hooters was not immediately available.

The case is Zandifaez v. Hooters of America, case number 8:14-cv-
01187, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.


INVESTORS BANCORP: October 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Investors Bancorp, Inc., the holding company for Investors Bank,
notifies all public record and beneficial holders of common stock
of Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc. at any time from August 17, 2011
(the date its merger into the Company was publicly announced) to
and including January 6, 2012 (the effective date of consummation
of the merger), but excluding all defendants in the consolidated
action pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of Kings, captioned Joseph Underwood and Russ Bastin,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Daniel O. Reich, Angelo J. Di Lorenzo, Gregg J. Wagner, Arthur R.
Williams, Rebecca Northey, Mark Hughes, Richard A. Kielty,
Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc., BFS Bancorp, MHC, Brooklyn Federal
Savings Bank, Investors Bancorp, Inc., Investors Bancorp, MHC, and
Investors Savings Bank, Index No. 500690/2011 and any person,
trust, corporation or other entity related to or affiliated with
any of them and their successors in interest.

The purpose of this notice is to inform you of the pendency of the
Action, which was brought by Brooklyn Federal Bancorp stockholders
for themselves and on behalf of the Class against Brooklyn Federal
Bancorp, the members of the Board of Directors of Brooklyn Federal
Bancorp, BFS Bancorp, MHC, Brooklyn Federal Savings Bank,
Investors Bancorp, Inc., Investors Bancorp, MHC, and Investors
Savings Bank.

The Action has now been settled pursuant to a Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release dated March 6,
2013, and is subject to the approval of the Court.  IF YOU ARE A
MEMBER OF THE CLASS, THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WILL AFFECT YOUR
RIGHTS.

Your interests are being represented in the Action by counsel for
the Plaintiffs who are Brian Kerr, Esq., Brower Piven, a
Professional Corporation, 475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor, New
York, New York 10016 and Evan J. Smith, Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 240
Mineola Boulevard, Mineola, New York 11501.

This notice is only a summary of the Notice of Pendency of Class
Action, Proposed Settlement and Settlement Hearing being provided
to members of the Class with respect to the Action.  If you are a
member of the Class and have not received the Notice, you may
obtain one by contacting Registrar and Transfer Company, 10
Commerce Drive, Cranford, New Jersey 07016, Telephone No. (908)
497-2300.  Please note that the deadline for any objections to the
settlement, class certification, or Plaintiffs' counsel's
application for fees and expenses is September 23, 2014, and the
hearing by the Court to consider the fairness of the settlement
will be held on October 23, 2014 at the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of Kings, located at 360 Adams Street,
Brooklyn, New York 11201.  Any individual or entity that is a non-
New York resident falling with the definition of the Class that
does not want to participate in the settlement may be excluded,
solely for the purpose of pursuing potential claims for monetary
damages, in the manner set forth in the Notice, no later than
September 23, 2014.


JOHNSON OUTDOORS: Recalls Dive Computers Due to Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Johnson Outdoors Diving Inc., of El Cajon, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 350 and about 40 in Canada Scubapro
Aladin2 dive computers, commonly referred to as Aladin Square dive
computers.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The dive computer can leak and stop working, posing a risk of
injury due to decompression sickness.

The firm has received four reports that the dive computers leaked
and stopped working.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves the Aladin2 wrist dive computer that monitors
depth, dive time, decompression status and temperature.  The
computer is 3 inches by 3 inches, rectangular, black, and mounted
on a black wristband.  SCUBAPRO is stamped on the top of the face
frame and Aladin2 is printed in white on the bottom of the face
frame.  The serial number is stamped in white on the back of the
unit and ends with 003.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/C3xYOj

The recalled products were manufactured in Indonesia and sold at
authorized Scubapro dealers nationwide from March 2014 through
June 2014 for about $450.

Consumers should immediately stop using the dive computers and
return them to an authorized SCUBAPRO dealer or contact Johnson
Outdoors Diving for a free replacement.


KAWASAKI MOTORS: Recalls Teryx4 Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Kawasaki Motors Corp. USA, of Irvine, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 11,000 recreational off-highway
vehicles.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The vehicle's floor boards can allow a stick or other debris to
break through and protrude into the foot rest area, posing an
injury hazard to the operator and front passenger.

Kawasaki has received four reports of debris breaking through
floor boards of the vehicles, including two injuries to riders'
toes and thighs.

The recalled vehicles are 2012 and 2013 Kawasaki Teryx4 750 4x4
recreational off-highway vehicles.  The four-wheel drive vehicles
have automobile-style controls, side-by-side seating for four
people, four doors, a roll bar with hand holds and a cargo bed.
The 2012 and 2013 models come in three different styles: non-EPS,
EPS and EPS LE.  The LE style has a roof and aluminum wheels.  The
2012 models were sold in the colors blue, camouflage, green, red
and yellow. The 2013 models were sold in the colors black,
camouflage, green, red, white and yellow.  The model name "Teryx4"
is on the driver's side of the hood.  For all colors of the EPS
model except camouflage, "EPS" appears on the driver and passenger
side cowling near the top front corner of the doors.  On the EPS
LE, "EPS" appears on the driver and passenger side cowling near
top front corner of the doors and "LE" appears on the hood on the
driver's side.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/4BQPOC

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Kawasaki dealers nationwide from October 2011 through July 2014
for about $13,400.  [Sold at]

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vehicles and
contact and authorized Kawasaki dealer to schedule a free repair,
consisting of the installation of floor board guards.


LEBO AUTOMOTIVE: Arbitrator to Decide on Class Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------
Corrie Erickson, Esq., Laura Izon Powell, Esq., Kristianne
Seargeant Kronick, Esq., of Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard, in an
article for JD Supra, report that a majority of the United States
Supreme Court has never reached agreement on whether the court or
an arbitrator should decide the issue of whether an agreement
allows or precludes class arbitration.  In Sandquist v. Lebo
Automotive, Inc., B244412, 2014 WL 3590152 (Cal. Ct. App. June 25,
2014), the California Court of Appeal followed the reasoning of a
Supreme Court plurality opinion to rule that the arbitrator, not
the court, should decide the issue.

Facts

In 2000, Timothy Sandquist began working in sales for Manhattan
Beach Toyota.  On his first day, Mr. Sandquist was told to fill
out the new employee paperwork quickly so that he could get out on
the sales floor.  Due to this rush, Mr. Sandquist did not review
the paperwork consisting of approximately 100 pages.  Within the
100 pages of paperwork were three separate arbitration agreements,
all of which Mr. Sandquist signed.  All three contained provisions
providing that any claim, dispute, or controversy arising from,
related to, or having any relationship or connection whatsoever
with his employment with the company would be submitted and
determined exclusively by binding arbitration.  The agreements
were silent regarding class action suits.

In 2011, Mr. Sandquist resigned from his position.  A year later,
he filed a suit asserting individual and class action claims for
hostile work environment and discrimination against his former
employer.  On August 14, 2012, the trial court compelled
individual arbitration, but dismissed the class action claims
finding no contractual basis to compel arbitration.  Mr. Sandquist
appealed.

On appeal, Mr. Sandquist argued that the trial court erred by
deciding the issue of whether the agreement provided for class
arbitration.  According to Mr. Sandquist, the issue should have
been left to an arbitrator.  Mr. Sandquist also argued that the
trial court incorrectly interpreted the agreement to include a
class action waiver.

Decision

In 2003, the United States Supreme Court decided Green Tree Fin.
Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003) in a plurality opinion.  In
that opinion, the plurality held that an arbitrator is the
appropriate decision-maker of whether an agreement allows or
precludes class arbitration.  Subsequent decisions called Bazzle
into doubt because the court spoke with only four votes, however.
For example, in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 559
U.S. 662 (2010), the court emphasized that the holding in Bazzle
is not binding authority.

The California Court of Appeal relied upon Bazzle as persuasive
authority to conclude that the arbitrator, not the court,
appropriately decides whether an arbitration agreement allows or
precludes class arbitration.  The court explained that a class
action is a procedural device, and it noted that procedural
questions arising out of the dispute are presumptively for an
arbitrator to decide.  On this basis, the court concluded that the
trial court improperly decided a procedural question and reversed
its decision.  The court of appeal did not decide the correct
interpretation of the agreement, leaving the interpretation to an
arbitrator.


LENNOX INTERNATIONAL INC: Defendant in Evaporator Coil Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc., is a defendant in an evaporator coil
class action lawsuit, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed
on July 21, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

The Company states, "We are the defendant in an attempted class
action lawsuit which alleges that evaporator coils in certain of
our residential air conditioning products are susceptible to a
type of corrosion that can result in coil leaks, and asserts
claims for relief. We dispute the allegations in the lawsuit. The
outcome related to this action is uncertain and we therefore
cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any potential impact."

Lennox International Inc. (LII) is a provider of climate control
solutions. The Company designs, manufactures and markets a range
of products for the heating, ventilation, air conditioning and
refrigeration (HVACR) markets. Its products and services are sold
through multiple distribution channels under brand names,
including Lennox, Armstrong Air, Ducane, Bohn, Larkin, Advanced
Distributor Products, Service Experts and others. The Company
operates in four segments: Residential Heating & Cooling,
Commercial Heating & Cooling, Service Experts, and Refrigeration.
On January 14, 2011, the Company acquired Kysor/Warren business
from The Manitowoc Company. Kysor/Warren is a manufacturer of
refrigerated systems and display cases for supermarkets throughout
North America and is included in its Refrigeration Segment. In
April 2012, it sold its Lennox Hearth Products business to Comvest
Investment Partners IV.


LOBB LAW FIRM: "Lafata" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Phyllis Lafata and Julie Baaki, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Joseph R. Lobb, P.C., d/b/a/
"The Lobb Law Firm," Joseph Lobb, and Cherie Lobb, Case No. 2:14-
cv-12945 (E.D. Mich., July 28, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation.

Joseph R. Lobb, P.C. is a law firm specializing in personal injury
law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Caitlin E. Malhiot, Esq.
      David A. Hardesty, Esq.
      Armin Halilovic, Esq.
      GOLD STAR LAW, PC
      2701 Troy Center Dr, Suite 400
      Troy, MI 48084
      Telephone: (248) 275-5200
      Facsimile: (248) 817-2765
      E-mail: cmalhiot@goldstarlaw.com
              dhardesty@goldstarlaw.com
              ahalilovic@goldstarlaw.com


LOWE'S HIW: Accused of Failing to Provide Full Meal Periods
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pramodh Dutt, an individual, appearing on behalf of himself and
all other aggrieved employees v. Lowe's HIW, Inc., a Washington
corporation; and Does 1-25, Case No. BC553191 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., July 31, 2014) alleges that the Defendants
failed to provide full meal periods to the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated aggrieved employees on a timely basis in
compliance with the Labor Code and applicable wage orders.

Lowe's HIW, Inc., is a Washington corporation with its principal
place of business located in North Carolina.  The Company is in
the business of selling home improvement supplies and products.
The Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the
Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg A. Farley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GREGG A. FARLEY
          880 Apollo Street, Suite 222
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 445-4024
          Facsimile: (310) 445-4109
          E-mail: gfarley@farleyfirm.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN
          18250 Ventura Blvd.
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


MACY'S CORPORATE: Sued for Illegally Recording Costumer's Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Maghen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Macy's Corporate Services, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-
05874 (C.D. Cal., July 28, 2014), alleges that the Defendants
request and record credit card numbers and personal identification
information from customers using credit cards.

Macy's Corporate Services, Inc. operates retail stores throughout
the United States, including in the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAYBORN USA: Recalls Baby Monitors Due to Strangulation Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Mayborn USA, Inc., announced a voluntary recall of about 25,000 in
the U.S. and 3,500 in Canada Tommee Tippee Monitor with Movement
Sensor Pad.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Child can pull sensor pad cord into crib and wrap around the neck,
posing a strangulation hazard.

There were no injuries that have been reported.

The recall involves two models of the Tommee Tippee Movement and
Sound Baby Monitors with Sensor Pads.  The product comes in three
parts; the baby unit, parent unit and the movement sensor pad.
The pad is white with a 10 foot cord that runs from the pad to the
baby monitor unit.  Both models come with a sensor pad that fits
under the baby's crib mattress and sounds an alarm if no movement
is detected for 20 seconds.  There is a keypad and small screen
above the keypad on both the baby unit and the parent unit.  The
recalled products include models 1082S and 1094S.  Model 1094S
includes a night-vision video camera.  Model numbers are located
on the bottom of the base of the recharger and also on the bottom
of the camera.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/78Xjeb

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Toys
"R" Us/Babies "R" Us stores and Amazon.com, since September 2011
for approximately $150.

Consumers should immediately make sure all monitor cords are out
of reach of the child and contact Mayborn USA for a free cord
cover kit that includes rigid protective cord covers through which
the sensor pad cords can be threaded, a new, permanent electric
cord warning label about the strangulation risk, and revised
instructions.


MCKINNEY'S PUB: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. McKinney's Pub, Ltd d/b/a
Chief O'Neill's Pub and Restaurant and Brendan McKinney,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05769 (N.D. Ill., July 28, 2014),
is brought for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week.

McKinney's Pub is doing business as Chief O'Neill's Pub and
Restaurant, located at 3471 N. Elston Ave., Chicago, Illinois
60618.

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


METABO CORP: Recalls Electric Angle Grinders Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Metabo Corp., of West Chester, Pa., announced a voluntary recall
of about 4,300 Metabo Ergo series 6-inch angle grinders.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The on/off switch can stick in the "On" position, posing a
laceration hazard.

Metabo has received two reports of the angle grinder switches
sticking in the "On" position.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Metabo W14-150 Ergo series 6-inch medium angle
grinders.  The angle grinders have a green body, a black and red
handle, and a silver head and wheel guard.  The grinders measure
about 16 inches long by 4 inches wide by 5 inches deep, have a
6-inch wheel capacity and weigh about eight pounds.  Metabo is
printed on the handle and Metabo 14-150 Ergo is printed on the
side of the grinder.  The grinders are used for grinding and
cutting metal.  Model numbers include 06251421 and 06251441 and
serial numbers include 3010000001 through 4020031488 for both
models.  The model and serial numbers are located on the rating
plate on the right side of the tool.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/OyFky9

The recalled products were manufactured in Germany and sold
through industrial, construction and welding distributors to
consumers from March 2013 through April 2014 for about $220.

Consumers should immediately stop using the angle grinders and
should contact Metabo to receive a free repair or replacement.


MICHAELS STORES: Judge Tosses Data Breach Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Teri Robinson, writing for SC Magazine, reports that Michaels
Stores has ducked a putative class-action lawsuit after a federal
judge ruled that the plaintiffs could demonstrate any kind of
"economic damage" from a breach that compromised the hobby
retailer's customer data between May 8, 2013 and Jan. 27, 2014.

Plaintiffs in Moyer v. Michaels had accused Michaels of breaking
Illinois's breach of contract and consumer fraud laws, claiming
that the breach exposing credit and debit card data for 2.6
million customers, left them vulnerable to identity theft and
other cyber crime.

But Judge Elaine Bucklo of the U.S. District Court of the Northern
District of Illinois tossed the suit, noting that they couldn't
show they suffered financial damage as those laws require.

Judge Bucklo did rule there are grounds to sue, saying the
increased risk of identity theft in the breach's aftermath "is
sufficiently imminent to give Plaintiffs standing."


MICHOLDINGS INC: Faces "Aleobua" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Aleobua and Amber Brown v. Micholdings, Inc, United
Wellness Community, LLC, Ikechukwu Odum, Sr., Ikechukwu Odum, JR.,
Nneka Odum and Naly Odum, Case No. 2:14-cv-12932 (E.D. Mich., July
28, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate adult foster care residences and the
conduct all business necessary or incidental to that purpose.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Lossia McManus, Esq.
      DIB AND FAGAN, P.C.
      25892 Woodward Ave.
      Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910
      Telephone: (248) 542-6300
      Facsimile: (248) 542-6301
      E-mail: jmcmanus@dibandfagan.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Sued Over Unfair Debt Collection Conduct
--------------------------------------------------------
Denise Willemsen on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:14-cv-04706 (D.N.J., July 28, 2014), seeks to redress
for Defendant's actions of using unfair and unconscionable means
to collect a debt.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a company that uses the mail,
telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the
principal purpose of which to attempt to collect debts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
      MARCUS LAW LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (732) 660-8169
      E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


NAVIKA CAPITAL: "Chappell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Chappell, Tyshella Harvey, Glynna Kyle, Latoya Maxwell,
Adriane Mcferrim, and Ashley Welch v. Navika Capital Group, LLC,
Premier Hotel Groups II, LLC, and Naveen C. Shah, Case No. 2:14-
cv-04199 (W.D. Mo., July 28, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation and related penalties
and damages.

The Defendants own and operate numerous hotels within the State of
Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Hodgson, Esq.
      THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
      6 NW Main St
      Lee's Summit, MO 64063
      Telephone: (913) 890-3529
      E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com

          - and -

      Howard L. Steele Jr., Esq.
      Tyrone L. Haynes, Esq.
      STEELE LAW GROUP, PLLC
      Bank of America Center, 700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
      Houston, Texas 77002
      Telephone: (713) 659-2600
      Facsimile: (713) 659-260
      E-mail: hsteele@steel-law-group.com


NEBRASKA: Faces Class Suit Over Processing of Food Stamps
---------------------------------------------------------
Nebraska provides such insufficient resources to process food
stamp applications and renewals that it misses its legal deadline
to do so 31% of the time, a class action claims in Nebraska
Federal Court, according to Courthouse News Service.


NEW YORK, NY: AG Seeks Dismissal of Property Tax Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Rubinstein, writing for Capital New York, reports that New
York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on July 28 moved to
dismiss a class action suit seeking to overturn existing city and
state property tax laws, which the plaintiffs contend is racially
discriminatory.

Mayor Bill de Blasio was expected to file a similar motion to
dismiss on July 28, too, according to Lucas Ferrara, one of the
attorneys representing the plaintiffs.

The class action suit in question, filed in February, seeks to
overturn a property tax system that is widely acknowledged to
benefit single family homeowners in wealthy neighborhoods at the
expense of homeowners in less wealthy ones.  It also benefits
homeowners as a class at the expense of condo and co-op owners
and, more to the point of this lawsuit, at the expense of renters,
a disproportionate number of whom are black and Hispanic.

One of the plaintiffs in the suit is a Bronx renter named
Ernest Robinson, who, at the time the suit was filed, paid $800
every month for his studio apartment.

Assuming, as the Rent Guidelines Board does, that roughly a third
of that went to pay his landlord's property taxes, then
Mr. Robinson's annual tax levy was about $2,880.  That's similar
to what Mayor de Blasio pays in taxes on one of his million-dollar
rowhouses in Park Slope.

Last year, the Citizens Budget Commission concluded that in fiscal
year 2014, the owners of one-, two- and three-family homes paid 15
percent of the city's property taxes, even though they comprised
46 percent of the city's real-estate value.

Apartment buildings paid 37 percent of the levy, even though they
comprised 24 percent of its value.

When, in April, Mayor de Blasio appointed Jacques Jiha his finance
commissioner, Jiha acknowledged the problem.

"It's a major issue," he said.  "We have a lot of unfairness and
inequity. We're going to look into every aspect of . . . property
taxes in New York to see what can be done."

Nevertheless, the de Blasio administration's motion to dismiss is
expected to be filed today and is expected to look a lot like
Mr. Schneiderman's, who contended in his filing that the court
lacks jurisdiction, that the plaintiffs have failed to state a
cause of action, and that the "injunctive relief sought by
Plaintiffs violates separation of powers principles."

"Instead of addressing a dysfunctional tax structure head-on, the
city and state have opted to play procedural games," said Ferrara.
"That kind of maneuver needlessly delays getting to the merits of
the lawsuit and, in effect, allows a discriminatory tax structure
to thrive while the court gets bogged down with technicalities."


OEUF LLC: Recalls Sparrow Cribs Due to Entrapment Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Oeuf LLC, of Brooklyn, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of about
14,000 Sparrow Cribs.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The slats/spindles and top rail can detach from the cribs and pose
an entrapment hazard to a child.

Oeuf received four reports of the slats/spindles and the top rail
detaching from the crib.  No injuries were reported.

The recall includes four models of Oeuf Sparrow cribs.  The cribs
were sold in the colors birch, grey, walnut and white.  The
recalled cribs were manufactured between July 2007 and Jan. 2014
and have one of the following model numbers: 1SPCR, 2SPCR, 4SPCR
or 5SPCR.  The manufacture date, in the MM-YYYY format, and the
model number are located on the warning label attached to the
crib's mattress support.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/rEL3jY

The recalled products were manufactured in Latvia and sold at
Independent juvenile specialty stores nationwide and online for
about $800.

Consumers should immediately stop using the cribs and contact Oeuf
to receive a free repair kit.


PANDORA MEDIA: Lawsuit Over Phone App. Partialy Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed on July 29, 2014
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative class action lawsuit
was filed against Pandora in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California in June 2011, alleging that
"our unlawfully accessed and transmitted personally identifiable
information of the plaintiffs in connection with their use of our
Android mobile application."

In addition to civil liability, the amended complaint includes
allegations of violations of statutes under which criminal
penalties could be imposed if the company found liable. The motion
to dismiss the first amended complaint was granted on March 26,
2013. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in May 2013,
which contains allegations similar to those contained in the
previous complaint. On March 10, 2014, the company's motion to
dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.

Pandora Media, Inc. provides an internet radio service offering a
personalized experience for each listener wherever and whenever
they want to listen to radio on a wide range of smartphones,
tablets, traditional computers and car audio systems, as well as a
range of other internet-connected devices.


PANDORA MEDIA: Appeal in Privacy Lawsuit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed on July 29, 2014
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative class action lawsuit
was filed against Pandora in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California alleging that it violated
Michigan's video rental privacy law and consumer protection
statute "by allowing our listeners' listening history to be
visible to the public."

"Our motion to dismiss the complaint was granted on September 28,
2012, judgment was entered on November 14, 2012. The plaintiff
appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. Briefing of the appeal was completed on August 2, 2013.
No date has been set for oral argument," according to the company.

Pandora Media, Inc. provides an internet radio service offering a
personalized experience for each listener wherever and whenever
they want to listen to radio on a wide range of smartphones,
tablets, traditional computers and car audio systems, as well as a
range of other internet-connected devices.


PANERA LLC: Faces Class Action Over FCRA Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Attorney Lester Rosen, Founder & CEO of Employment Screening
Resources (ESR), on July 28 disclosed that a Florida law firm
filed federal class action lawsuits in the same court against
three separate national employers on the same day, with two of
them naming the same consumer as the lead plaintiff, alleging
violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by
failure to obtain a valid background check consent on an online
application process.

The three complaints brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs as
well a class of similarly situated individuals essentially allege
the same type of violation -- that the employer failed to obtain a
valid consent on a standalone form that did not contain extraneous
information.  The FCRA is the federal law that regulates
background checks of job applicants by third party background
screening firms on behalf of employers.

In Mack vs. Panera, LLC, the lawsuit alleges that the defendant is
a national bakery-cafe chain.  The plaintiff applied using an
online system and the online system did not have a background
check consent authorization form specifically for a "consumer
report," which is the legal name for an employment background
check.  According to the legal complaint filed, the closest
language to a consent also discussed "at will" employment as well
as additional matters unrelated to the background report.  Mack
vs. Panera, LLC is Case No. 0:14-cv-61672-WJZ in United States
District Court Southern District of Florida Broward Division.
In Mack vs. American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (AMC), the same plaintiff
alleged that she applied online for employment at the company that
has more than 300 locations nationwide.  In a similar allegation,
the class action alleges that the online application process did
not contain standalone consent but had other language related to
employment and the employment process.  Mack vs. American Multi-
Cinema, Inc. (AMC) is Case No. 0:14-cv-61676-DPG in United States
District Court Southern District of Florida Broward Division.
In a third case, Rumph, vs. Nine West Holdings, a complaint was
filed against a national retail chain alleging consent language
was part of a web page that contained a number of links to Nine
West information on the website.  Rumph, vs. Nine West Holdings is
Case No. 0:14-cv-61673-UU in United States District Court Southern
District of Florida Broward Division.

The three class action lawsuits were all filed by Attorney Richard
Celler in Davie, Florida.

These three cases are just the latest in a series of class action
lawsuits filed against employers alleging a failure to adhere to
the basic requirements set forth in the FCRA.  Employers are being
sued in increasing numbers for violations such as failure to
obtain consent, failure to utilize a legal form for consent,
failure to engage in adverse action process, or utilizing outdated
notice forms.

Class action lawsuits typically seek damages on behalf of all
consumers who were treated in the same fashion.  Where the action
that forms the basis of the lawsuit is alleged to be willful, a
class action suit can seek from $100 to $1,000 per member of the
class for each violation of the FCRA.  Because large national
employers may have thousands of applicants, the allegations of
damages can quickly mount up.  Such lawsuits also request
attorney's fees and costs.

In addition, class action lawsuits also nearly always include
claims for punitive damages.  The U.S. Supreme Court in Safeco vs.
Burr 551 U.S. 47 (2007) ruled that an entity can face punitive
damages if it acts willfully under the FCRA by either knowingly or
recklessly disregarding its statutory duty.   Even if a screening
firm or employer believes it is acting lawfully that is NOT a
protection from an allegation of willful violation of the FCRA and
exposure to punitive damages if the defendant should have known it
was acting out of compliance.


PARAMOUNT FOODS: "Armenta" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Faustino Armenta, Francisco Romero Ponce, Consuelo Reyes
Maldonado, Efrain Dionisio Rodriguez, Guillermo Fernandez
Galindo and Cristian Reyes, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Paramount Foods Inc. (d/b/a Baluchi's) and
Rakesh Aggarwal, Case No. 1:14-cv-05766 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2014),
seeks to recover minimum wage, overtime, and liquidated damages
pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Paramount Foods Inc. owns, operates, and controls an Indian
restaurant located at 329 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10010
under the name Baluchi's.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


PETSMART INC: Recalls Top Fin Plastic Aquarium Heaters
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
PetSmart Inc., of Phoenix, announced a voluntary recall of about
33,000 aquarium heaters.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The heaters are insufficiently grounded, posing a risk of
electrical shock to the consumer.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves all 50-, 100-, 150-, 200- and 250-watt Top Fin
brand plastic aquarium heaters.  The heaters are black cylinders
about 1 1/2 inches in diameter and about 13 inches tall2.5 in L x
1.9 in W x 13.5 in H. Recalled heaters have model number HT50,
HT100, HT150, HT200 or HT250. Lot numbers for the recalled heaters
are 1839, 1901, 1903, 1904, 1907, 1908 and 1910. "Top Fin,"
"Premium Aquarium Heater," the model number and the heater's
wattage are printed on the side of the heater near the top.  Below
that, the lot number is printed beneath the words "Made in China."

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at PetSmart stores nationwide from March 2014 to April
2014 for between $27 and $37.

Consumers should immediately stop using the heater, unplug it,
remove it from the aquarium and return it to any PetSmart store
for a full refund.


POTTERY BARN: Recalls Bar Stools Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Pottery Barn, a division of Williams-Sonoma Inc., of San
Francisco, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 1,000
Donovan Bar Stools.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The bar stool footrest can break, posing a fall hazard to the
user.

Pottery Barn has received 26 reports of the footrest breaking.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Donovan model bar stools made from mahogany
wood and have a 15-inch round woven banana bark swivel seat that
rotates 360 degrees.  The stools were sold in five colors: red,
mahogany, Tuscan chestnut, antique white and black.  Each color
was sold in two sizes: counter height at 24 inches tall and bar
height at 30 inches tall.  SKU numbers are printed on the box, as
the item number on the shipping receipt and online in the
customer's account history.

   SKU Number   Size and Color
   ----------   --------------
   5419049      Bar Height: Red
   5419056      Bar Height: Mahogany
   5419577      Bar Height: Tuscan Chestnut
   5419601      Bar Height: Antique White
   5419692      Bar Height: Black
   5419734      Counter Height: Red
   5419825      Counter Height: Mahogany
   5419882      Counter Height: Tuscan Chestnut
   5419924      Counter Height: Antique White
   5419973      Counter Height: Black

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/E0hKOO

The recalled products were manufactured in Indonesia and sold at
Pottery Barn Outlet stores nationwide, online at PotteryBarn.com
and through the Pottery Barn catalog from March 2014 through June
2014 for between $230 and $250.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bar stools
and contact Pottery Barn for a replacement stool.  Pottery Barn is
notifying all known consumers.


PRIME TRUST: Faces Class Action Over Corporate Law Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Adam Schwab, writing for Crikey.com.au, reports that as the
Federal Court determines penalties for Bill Lewski and his fellow
directors of the collapsed Prime Retirement and Aged Care Property
Trust after they were found guilty of breaching corporate laws,
the trust's liquidator is also taking aim, launching a $100
million-plus class action.

The class action is backed by litigation funder LCM and directly
targets Mr. Lewski, as well.


RITE AID: Suit Over LexisNexis Background Check May Be Amended
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a former
CVS employee may amend a class action accusing Rite Aid of using
an illegal LexisNexis background check on prospective employees, a
federal judge ruled.

Kyra Moore filed a class action against Rite Aid and LexisNexis
Search Solutions Inc. on March 22, 2013, alleging the retailer
refused to hire her based on a background check.  Having worked
for CVS for four years, during an interview with loss-prevention
agents in July 2010, Moore said she'd never stolen from the store,
but may have set aside some items for future purchase that were
later put back on the shelves or taken by someone else.

The CVS agent and Moore drafted a handwritten "voluntary admission
statement," which was sent to LexisNexis for use in its "Esteem"
database, thus classifying Moore as a thief.  Moore was then sent
home and fired, according to the complaint.  She says that after
applying for a supervisor position at Rite Aid about a year later,
LexisNexis sent her a background check report scoring her "non-
competitive."

The attached initial notice letter, dated April 25, 2011, on Rite
Aid stationery, said that if she responded within five days, the
store would "consider whatever information you provide to us in
making our final decision whether to employ/terminate you."

Rite Aid then withdrew its offer of employment, and Moore's
attorney sent two letters to LexisNexis, dated May 23 and
July 28, disputing the accuracy of the Esteem report, she claims.

Though LexisNexis sent Moore a revised report scoring her
"eligible" over two years later, in October 2013, she was not
offered a position at Rite Aid, the complaint states.

Moore then voluntarily dismissed LexisNexis as a defendant on Oct.
28.  She designated her case as related to a 2011 class action
filed by former Forman Mills and Dollar General employees also
accused of theft, Goode v. LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics
Group Inc., which alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act (FCRA).

Having refused to dismiss the Goode case in Philadelphia in March
2012, U.S. District Judge Jan DuBois declined to assign Moore's
complaint to another judge on Sept. 10, 2013.

But DuBois granted Rite Aid's motion to dismiss Moore's suit on
July 30, finding that she failed to allege that Rite Aid took an
adverse action by using her LexisNexis classification.

"Although plaintiff argues in her response to the motion that
LexisNexis adjudications constitute adverse actions, plaintiff
does not allege that Rite Aid relied on those adjudications as
final employment decisions and that the five-day period provided
for in the initial notice letter was not a 'real opportunity' for
her 'to contest the adjudication,'" DuBois wrote.  "The closest
the complaint comes to such an allegation is the statement that
'LexisNexis and Rite Aid have designed this arrangement so that
the pre-adverse action notice always gets sent after LexisNexis
has scored the application and after LexisNexis has provided Rite
Aid with the applicant's background report.'  Such an allegation,
standing alone, is not sufficient to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted on this ground."  (Emphases in original).

Moore also failed to explain why she did not timely dispute the
report, the ruling states.

"Nowhere in the complaint does plaintiff allege that five days was
an insufficient amount of time to respond or that the paucity of
information in the Esteem report prevented her from making a
meaningful response," DuBois wrote.  "Therefore, the complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted on this
ground."

Moore has 15 days to amend that claim, however, as well as her
claims for statutory and punitive damages, the ruling states.

Rite Aid, the country's third-largest retail drugstore chain,
reported first quarter revenues of $6.5 billion as of May 31,
2014, having reaped $25.5 billion in annual revenue as of
March 1.

The case is Kyra Moore, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Rite Aid Hdqtrs Corp., doing business as "Rite Aid
Corporation," Case No. 2:13-cv-01515-JD, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


SAMSON INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Bar Stool Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Samson International, High Point, N.C., announced a voluntary
recall of about 800 Spencer Bar Stool.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The footrest can crack, compromising the strength of the bar
stool, posing a fall hazard.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves bar stools with a dark brown walnut finish
wood with a brown leather padded back and swivel seat cushion.
The stools have four legs with a footrest connecting each leg and
measure 21 inches wide, 48 inches high and 23 inches deep.  The
recall includes stools with Samson item number M3216604 and
Customer item number 845275 found on the bottom of the seat
cushion.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/A3Zlbb

The recalled products were manufactured in Bangladesh and sold
exclusively at Costco regionally in the Dallas and San Francisco
areas from May 2014 through June 2014 for about $150.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bar stools
and return them to the Costco store where the item was purchased
for a full refund.


SIFY TECHNOLOGIES: IPO Lawsuit Exposure Settled by Insurer
----------------------------------------------------------
Sify Technologies Limited Company's exposure during the year
ending March 31,2013, under the settlement with plaintiffs in a
securities class action lawsuit, has been settled by the insurer
as per the settlement agreement, according to the Company's Form
20-F filed on July 21, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors are named as
defendants in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. This action, which is captioned In re Satyam Infoway Ltd.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, also names several
of the underwriters involved in Company's initial public offering
of American Depository Shares as defendants. This class action is
brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Company's
ADSs from the time of Company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO") in
October 1999 through December 2000. The central allegation in this
action is that the underwriters in Company's IPO solicited and
received undisclosed commissions from, and entered into
undisclosed arrangements with, certain investors who purchased
Company's ADSs in the IPO and the aftermarket. The complaint also
alleges that Company violated the United States Federal Securities
laws by failing to disclose in the IPO prospectus that the
underwriters had engaged in these allegedly undisclosed
arrangements. More than 300 issuers have been named in similar
lawsuits.

On April 2, 2009, the parties lodged with the Court a motion for
preliminary approval of a proposed settlement between all parties,
including the Company and its former officers and directors.  The
proposed settlement provides the plaintiffs with $586 million in
recoveries from all defendants.  Under the proposed settlement,
the Issuer Defendants collectively would be responsible for $100
million, which would be paid by the Issuers' insurers, on behalf
of the Issuer Defendants and their officers and directors.

Accordingly, any direct financial impact of the proposed
settlement is expected to be borne by the Company's insurers.  On
June 12, 2009, the Federal District Court granted preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement. On October 6, 2009, the
District Court issued an order granting final approval of the
settlement.  Subsequent to the final approval of Settlement
agreement by the District court, there were several notices of
appeal filed.  Most were filed by the same parties that objected
to the settlement in front of the District Court. These appeals
were consolidated into a single appeal and briefing schedule was
held.

On January 9, 2012 the class counsel and objectors counsel entered
into a settlement agreement, which includes an agreement to
dismiss the above appeal. Thus the Appeal has been dismissed with
prejudice confirming the Settlement agreement entered before the
District Court.

During the year ending March 31, 2013, the exposure under this
settlement has been settled by the insurer as per the settlement
agreement.

Sify Technologies Limited (Sify) is an integrated Internet,
network and electronic commerce services companies in India. The
Company's services enable its business and consumers to
communicate, transmit and share information, access online content
and conduct business remotely using its private data network or
the Internet. It operates in four segments: Corporate network/data
services, which provides Internet, connectivity, security and
consulting, hosting and managed service solutions; Internet access
services, from homes and through cybercafes; Online portal
services and content offerings, and Other services, such as
development of e-learning software. The Company is a subsidiary of
MF Global Holdings Limited. The Company's wholly owned
subsidiaries include Sify Software Limited, Sify Technologies
(Singapore) Pte. Ltd. and Sify International Inc. In August 2012,
it sold MF Global Sify Securities India Pvt Ltd.


SMITH & WESSON: Federal Court Reinstates Product Liability Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a
federal court should have admitted a plaintiff expert's testimony,
even though it contradicted the plaintiff's own testimony
regarding the circumstances of his accident, says a federal
appeals court, in reinstating a products liability lawsuit against
gunmaker Smith & Wesson Corp.

Mark Lee was injured in November 2006 while target shooting with a
460XVR revolver manufactured by Springfield, Massachusetts-based
Smith & Wesson, according to the July 29 ruling by the 6th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in Mark D. Lee v. Smith &
Wesson Corp.  After firing his gun twice, Mr. Lee took a third
shot, and the gun discharged improperly, seriously injuring his
right eye, face and nose.

Mr. Lee filed suit against Smith & Wesson under the Ohio Product
Liability Act in state court in Ohio.  The case was subsequently
moved to federal District Court in Cleveland.

Mr. Lee's account of the accident differed from that of his own
expert witness, mechanical engineer Roy Ruel, according to the
ruling.  Mr. Lee testified he had closed the guns' cylinder,
locked it into place, cocked the hammer, pulled the trigger, and
fired.

Mr. Ruel's opinion was that the cylinder was open when the gun was
fired, which caused hot high-pressure gas to be expelled from the
revolver when it was fired, striking Mr. Lee in the face and
causing his injures.  He determined the revolver was defective in
both design and manufacture in part became it could be cocked and
fired with a pull of the trigger without its cylinder being closed
and locked.

Smith & Wesson moved to exclude Mr. Ruel's expert testimony
because of the inconsistency with Mr. Lee's.  The federal District
Court agreed and dismissed the case.  Mr. Lee agreed to the
dismissal, preserving his right to appeal.

"Ruel's expert testimony should have been admitted," said a three-
judge appeals panel in a 2-1 opinion.  "Ruel had the appropriate
qualifications, he used reliable methods and his opinion was based
on physical evidence from the accident," it said.

Regarding the inconsistencies between Mr. Ruel's and Mr. Lee's
testimony, under the law, a plaintiff is not precluded from
proving his case by contradictory evidence, said the ruling.
Mr. Lee may have been mistaken about the cylinder being open, it
said.  "In light of this possibility, a jury presented with no
believable alternative explanation could believe that Lee's
testimony was wrong," said the ruling.

A fact finder "could conclude that Lee thought he had closed the
chamber when in fact he did not, and instead overlooked the
opening, which Mr. Ruel suggests was the case in Mr. Lee's
accident, said the ruling, in noting that two witnesses supported
this version of the event.

"In this situation, the expert's evidence should have been
admitted," said the appellate court, reversing the lower court's
ruling and remanding the case for further proceedings.

The dissenting opinion said the judge properly excluded Mr. Ruel's
testimony on the basis it did not "fit" the facts of the case.


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Recalls About 5,000 Car Over Air Bag Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernie Woodall, writing for Reuters, reports that Subaru of
America said it is recalling about 5,000 older model cars with
passenger-side air bag inflators made by Takata Corp. that may
rupture and break into metal fragments that could harm passengers,
the automaker and U.S. safety regulators said on Aug. 5.

Subaru, a unit of Fuji Heavy Industries, said it will recall model
year 2003-2005 Legacy, Outback and Baja models as well as
2004-2005 Impreza that are or ever were registered in Florida,
Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

A Subaru of America spokesman said the company has not found
defective air bag inflators in any of its vehicles in the area
involved in the recall and is not aware of any injuries related to
this issue.

Subaru is conducting the recall "out of an abundance of caution"
the spokesman said.

The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in June
began asking automakers with Takata air bag inflators in their
vehicles to recall cars for inspection in the limited region
because high humidity may cause defective inflators to
malfunction.

A letter from NHTSA to Subaru dated on Aug. 4 shows that cars that
are brought in for inspection will have air bag inflators
replaced.  Also, it said, engineers will gather the older
inflators for analysis.


TAISHAN ENTITIES: Faces Drywall Class Action in Louisiana
---------------------------------------------------------
Herman, Herman & Katz on July 30 disclosed that a new class action
brought by Eduardo and Carmen Amorin on behalf of over 3,000
active U.S. homeowner litigants against Chinese defendants who
sold drywall to American consumers has been filed in a Louisiana
federal court.  Attorneys for the new action have taken steps to
force the Chinese into court, following action on July 17, 2014 by
a U.S. District Court that held Chinese companies in contempt for
attempting to flee jurisdiction.

Class representatives filed the new class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  Each
was an active litigant in prior Omnibus Class Action Complaints.
That action consolidated different suits into one proceeding known
as a multi-district litigation.  The new suit adds SASAC, the
Chinese State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration
Commission in that litigation.  Existing defendants include a
group of companies that SASAC owns or controls known as the
"Taishan Entities."  The suit seeks compensatory, statutory and
punitive damages allowed by law as well as other relief against
SASAC and the Taishan Entities arising out of their sale of
defective drywall to American consumers across the United States.

"The suit has important implications as it will test whether
Chinese government-owned companies who face adverse legal
judgments will fire their attorneys and flee the jurisdiction of
courts or respect the rule of law and judicial processes," said
lead counsel Arnold Levin -- alevin@lfsblaw.com -- of the
Philadelphia-based law firm of Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman.  He
said also: "This historic case raises grave legal and moral
issues.  Can those who do business with Chinese companies or the
Chinese government trust them to keep their word or to honor their
legal duties and responsibilities?"

Mr. Levin added: "This case has implications far beyond this
controversy, in which a federal court has taken unprecedented
action in holding Chinese companies in civil and criminal contempt
for refusing to show up in court and banning them from doing
business in the United States until they comply with their
responsibilities.  Chinese businesses claim the moral high ground
when they do business.  But who can afford the risk of doing
business with people who disrespect judicial process?"

Mr. Levin's co-counsel, Leonard Davis of the New Orleans-based law
firm Herman, Herman & Katz, added: "The Chinese government itself
owned these companies.  A federal court has already found as fact
that it calls the shots for them.  China's behavior should alarm
business people all over the world about the risk of doing
business with its government-owned companies.  If they will flee
the jurisdiction in this case, they'll do it with any other case."

A U.S. District Court entered a preliminary default judgment
against Taishan Entities China National Building Materials Group
Corporation (CNBM Group), and Beijing New Building Materials
(Group) Co., Ltd. (BNBM Group), China National Building Material
Co. Ltd (CNBM), Beijing New Building Materials Group Co., Ltd.
(BNBM) after they declined to appear in court and defend a series
of lawsuits filed over those claims.  The District Court and the
U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld a money judgment and
made a finding that the Taishan Entities were subject to U.S.
court jurisdiction.  Ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Eldon
Fallon to appear in court on July 17, 2014 for a Judgment Debtor
Examination as to the default judgment, Taishan fired its
attorneys and refused to show up. The new lawsuit adds SASAC as a
new defendant to the existing multi-district litigation.

The Court responded by holding Taishan Entities in civil and
criminal contempt, declaring their behavior "a direct contemptuous
act" that "harms both many other parties in this case and the
decorum of the Court."  The Court branded Taishan's misbehavior an
"affront to the Court's dignity," required Taishan to pay $15,000
in attorney's fees to Plaintiff's counsel who had sued Taishan and
slapped it with $40,000 as a penalty for contempt.  It enjoined
Taishan, its affiliates, or subsidiaries from "conducting any
business in the United States until it participates in this
judicial process."  The Court stated that if Taishan violates the
injunction, "it must pay a further penalty of 25% of the profits
earned by the Company or its affiliates who violate the order, for
the year of the order."


TILLY'S INC: Trial Court Ruling in "Rebolledo" Suit Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's Inc. and World of Jeans & Tops, Inc. (the Employer)
appealed from a trial court order denying its motion to compel
arbitration of Maria Rebolledo's putative class action regarding
statutory wage claims.

The Employer filed a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the
class claims on March 20, 2013. It supplied the arbitration
agreement Ms. Rebolledo signed in 2004 (the 2004 Agreement). Ms.
Rebolledo opposed the motion arguing the agreement expressly
excluded the claims made in her lawsuit and was invalid. In
addition, Ms. Rebolledo argued the agreement was unconscionable
for the following reasons: (1) due to language barriers, she did
not understand the terms; (2) the agreement did not attach any
rules of arbitration or specify which rules applied; (3) the
agreement lacked mutuality and unfairly favored Employer; (4) it
was an adhesion contract; and (5) it was substantively
unconscionable.

In its reply motion, the Employer refuted all the points raised by
Ms. Rebolledo. In addition, the Employer provided evidence
Rebolledo signed two additional arbitration agreements on June 28,
2001 (the 2001 Agreement), and on August 15, 2005 (the 2005
Agreement). The Employer noted Ms. Rebolledo also executed an
employment application in July 2000 in which she agreed to sign an
arbitration agreement if she were to be employed.  The Employer
asserted all the arbitration agreements contained in bold capital
letters above the signature line a clear warning to Ms. Rebolledo
that she was giving up her right to a jury trial and to appeal the
arbitrator's decision.

In an opinion dated July 8, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/KOEcHxfrom Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of
California, Fourth District, Division Three affirmed the trial
court ruling saying it agrees with the trial court's conclusion
the parties' arbitration agreement expressly excluded statutory
wage claims from the arbitration obligation.

According to the Appeals Court, the 2001 Agreement describes in
great detail the employment policy requiring the mediation and
arbitration of disputes. Unlike the other employment policy
provisions, there is no provision granting the Employer a similar
unilateral modification right to modify the arbitration terms. The
Appeals Court added that it agrees with the trial court's
interpretation of the agreement holding arbitration would fall
within the broad category of "employment policies" requiring the
signature of three executives for any modification. And because
the 2005 Agreement contains a material modification of the types
of claims that must be arbitrated, it required the signature of
three executives to be enforceable.

The case is MARIA REBOLLEDO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TILLY'S,
INC. et al., Defendants and Appellants, NO. G048625.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Ryan D. McCortney --
rmccortney@sheppardmullin.com -- and David Van Pelt --
dvanpelt@sheppardmullin.com -- for Defendants and Appellants.

The Cooper Law Firm and Scott B. Cooper -- scott@cooper-firm.com
-- The Carter Law Firm and Roger R. Carter --
rcarter@carterlawfirm.net -- The Phelps Law Group and Marc H.
Phelps -- marc@phelpslawgroup.com -- for Plaintiff and Respondent.


TRANS-NATIONAL INC: Faces "Pichl" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rochelle Pichl, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Trans-National, Inc., and Mary Wojewoda, in her
individual and professional capacities, Case No. 3:14-cv-04703
(D.N.J., July 28, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Trans-National, Inc. is owned by Mary Wojewoda with its principal
place of business located at 12 Crown Plaza, Suite 205, Hazlet,
New Jersey 07730.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael John Palitz, Esq.
     BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
     Great Neck, NY 11021
     Telephone: (516) 248-5550
     E-mail: mjp@employmentlawyernewyork.com


UNITED STATES: Space & Rocket Center Faces Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
WAFF reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against
one of the state's busiest and most popular tourist attractions,
the U.S. Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville.  Some current and
former employees have joined forces to sue the center for backed
pay -- specifically for extra income they say they earned for
working state holidays.  Three employees are listed in the suit
thus far, but attorneys said they expect more to join in.

The lawsuit said the center has about 120 employees currently, but
this could also impact past employees and even seasonal workers.
Those who filed the suit want to make sure the employees of the
U.S. Space & Rocket Center are paid according to state law.  The
suit claims that for decades, the center has disregarded the
state's observed paid holidays.  It includes dates such as
Robert E. Lee's Birthday, Confederate Memorial Day, and George
Washington's Birthday, among others.

It goes on to state that the center is a state-run entity and
should be following the law.  On top of that, the employees claim
the center has not been paying longevity pay.  This is a pay
increase for long-time workers.  The suit claims what the center
has been paying is not even close to the increase mandated by the
state.

Attorneys representing the employees who filed the suit said they
expect a state audit's findings to lead to changes at the Space &
Rocket Center.  The audit contained eight findings of non-
compliance, including the issues of longevity pay and state
holidays.

"Some of the holidays, certainly the Space & Rocket Center is
going to be open," said Eric Artrip -- artrip@mastandoartrip.com
-- of Mastando & Artrip, who is representing the workers.  "It's
their prerogative to make their employees work on these state
holidays, but if they do that, they should be paying them holiday
pay, and that would be fair."

Representatives for the Space & Rocket Center said it is their
policy not to comment on pending litigation.

Mr. Atrip said they will ask the judge to make a decision on how
far they will go back to collect if they win out.


UNITIL CORP: Court Has Yet to Decide on Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Katina Caraganis, writing for Sentinel & Enterprise, reports that
a group of 12 people who wish to file suit against Unitil
Corporation because of its response to the 2008 ice storm will
have to wait a little longer to learn whether the Supreme Judicial
Court will allow the group to proceed with a class-action lawsuit
against the utility.

In 2013, Worcester Superior Court Judge Douglas Wilkins ruled the
residents of Unitil's service territory could not bring a class-
action lawsuit in the case.

The group, led by Lunenburg resident Cathy Clark who formed the
group Get Rid of Unitil, appealed the decision all the way to the
Supreme Judicial Court.  The case was heard in March.

According to Unitil spokesman Alec O'Meara, the court has 130 days
from the time of the hearing to render a decision.

However, that time period has been waived, and a decision on the
case is yet to be made.

During the hearing in March, attorneys for Unitil argued that the
case should not win an appeal because while some residents were
without power for weeks after the 2008 ice storm, others had
electricity restored in hours.

In their suit, the plaintiffs allege that Unitil was unprepared
for the storm and subsequently fell short of obligations to
restore power quickly and provide people with necessary
information.

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 lays out the procedures for
class-action lawsuits.  According to the Fairness Act, a class-
action lawsuit can be filed when claims exceed $5 million and
involve plaintiffs or defendants from other states.  The
plaintiffs must all share a common complaint, and the defendants
must possess a similar defense for all the plaintiffs, according
to the act.

Mr. O'Meara declined to comment on whether the waiving of the 130-
day period is a good or bad thing for the utility company.

"I always say in cases like this that the court documents must
speak for themselves. It wouldn't be right to speculate," he said.


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Faces Chip-Tech and DCS Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., according to its Form 10-Q filed on
July 29, 2014, with the Securities and Exchange Commisition for
the quarterly period ended June 28, 2014, has been named as a
defendant in purported antitrust class action complaints by Chip-
Tech, Ltd. on July 18, 2014, and by Dependable Component Supply
Corp. on July 22, 2014, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.

The complaints allege restraint of trade in aluminum and tantalum
electrolytic capacitors by the Company and 27 other manufacturers,
and seek injunctive relief and unspecified joint and several
treble damages. The Company intends to defend vigorously against
the complaints.

Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., is a global manufacturer and
supplier of discrete semiconductors and passive components,
including power MOSFETs, power integrated circuits, transistors,
diodes, optoelectronic components, resistors, capacitors, and
inductors. Discrete semiconductors and passive components
manufactured by Vishay are used in virtually all types of
electronic products, including those in the industrial, computing,
automotive, consumer electronic products, telecommunications,
power supplies, military/aerospace, and medical industries.


WORLEYPARSONS: Faces Investor Class Action Over Profit Downgrade
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Durkin, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that engineering group WorleyParsons faces a fresh multimillion-
dollar class action for misleading investors ahead of a profit
downgrade that wiped $1.3 billion off the company's market value.

The latest legal action comes despite the company successfully
seeing off one class action in June after the Supreme Court of
Victoria threw out the case on a technicality.

Class action lawyers law firm ACA was set to announce on July 28
that it has secured litigation funding to sue the company for
withholding market information ahead of a 26 per cent crash in its
share price in November last year.

In August last year, the company's annual report predicted
increased growth and that optimism was reinforced at the October
2013 annual shareholder meeting.

The case will claim that by August, the company was already aware
that deteriorating market conditions and project delays would
materially impact its profits.  However it did not reveal the
impact of those changes until November 20 when it cut annual net
profits guidance to a range of $260 million to $300 million.  The
company had told investors it would deliver net profit of $322
million.


XO HOLDINGS: September 29 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Spanier, LLP on July 30 disclosed that the Supreme Court of
the State of New York County of New York has approved the
following announcement of a summary notice of class action on
behalf of certain holders of common stock of XO Holdings, Inc.:

Youlu Zheng et al. v. Carl C. Icahn et al., Index No. 650499/2010

SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION

If you held XO Holdings, Inc. common stock on July 25, 2008 and/or
on July 11, 2011, it is very important that you read this notice.
You must decide whether you want to remain a member of a class
action against Carl Icahn and other defendants.  Your decision may
affect your legal rights including the right to share in any
possible future recovery in this action.

This lawsuit affects: Class A: All persons that held XO common
stock on July 25, 2008; and Class B: All persons that held XO
common stock on July 11, 2011.

What is this lawsuit about? Plaintiffs brought this case on behalf
of XO minority stockholders to challenge (i) XO's July 25, 2008
$780 million private placement of XO Class B and Class C Preferred
stock; and (ii) the July 11, 2011 Merger between XO and Icahn's
affiliates.  Plaintiffs allege that in effecting the 2008
Recapitalization and the 2011 Merger, defendant Icahn, XO's
controlling shareholder, breached his fiduciary duties to XO's
minority shareholders in order to take for his own use and benefit
all of XO's assets including XO's net operating losses ("NOLs").
Plaintiffs allege that XO's minority shareholders were harmed by
Defendants' unfair dealing and breach of fiduciary duties.
Defendants deny all of plaintiffs' claims and allegations.

Who represents you? The Court has appointed Abbey Spanier, LLP as
Class Counsel.

What are your options? Option #1: If you wish to remain a member
of Class A and/or B, you do not need to do anything now.  Option
#2: You can exclude yourself from the Class.  If you ask to be
excluded from Class A and/or B, you will not share in any recovery
that may be obtained in the future, and you will not be bound by
any result obtained by the class(es).  To exclude yourself from
Class A and/or B, you must send a letter stating which class(es)
you wish to be excluded from, your name, address, phone number,
and the number of shares of XO stock you held at the close of
business on July 25, 2008 and/or July 11, 2011.  You must mail
your exclusion request postmarked no later than September 29, 2014
to Abbey Spanier, LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016.
For more information about this action you can visit
www.strategicclaims.net/xo or call Class Counsel toll free at
1-800-889-3701.


YARD MEN LAWN: Faces "Gigg" Suit Over Failure to Pay Workers OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Gigg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The Yard Men Lawn And Snow Services, LLC, and
Zachary Michael Matouka, Case No. 2:14-cv-12929 (E.D. Mich., July
28, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Yard Men Lawn And Snow Services, LLC provides landscaping and
similar services throughout Southeastern Michigan, including lawn
care and snow removal.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Caitlin E. Malhiot, Esq.
      GOLD STAR LAW, PC
      2701 Troy Center Dr, Suite 400
      Troy, MI 48084
      Telephone: (248) 275-5200
      Facsimile: (248) 817-2765
      E-mail: cmalhiot@goldstarlaw.com


ZAMORA AUTOMOTIVE: Oct. 6 Final Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge William B. Shubb granted preliminary approval of a
settlement in JOSE ONTIVEROS, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT ZAMORA; ZAMORA
AUTOMOTIVE GROUP; STOCKTON AUTO CARS, INC., dba Stockton Honda &
Stockton Mazda; AUTO TOWN, INC., dba Toyota Town & Stockton Scion;
HAMMER LANE VOLKSWAGEN, INC.; QUALITY MOTOR CARS OF STOCKTON, dba
Acura of Stockton, Go Hyundai, & Kia of Stockton; SATURN OF
STOCKTON, dba Saturn of Modesto; LODI MOTORS INC., dba Lodi Honda;
MERCED AUTO CARS, INC., dba Merced Toyota & Merced Scion; CLOVIS
AUTO CARS, INC., dba Clovis Volkswagen; and COUNTRY NISSAN, dba
Nissan Kia Country, Defendants, CIV. NO. 2:08-567 WBS DAD, (E.D.
Cal.).

The Court provisionally certified the class defined as: all
nonexempt automotive technicians who have been employed by one or
more defendants at any time between March 12, 2004, and the date
on which the Order is signed.

Plaintiff Jose Ontiveros is appointed as the representative of the
settlement class, and the law firm of Mallison & Martinez is
provisionally found to be a fair and adequate representative of
the settlement class and is appointed as class counsel for the
purposes of representing the settlement class.

Simpluris, Inc. is appointed as the settlement administrator.

A final Fairness Hearing will be held before the court on October
6, 2014, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 5 to determine whether the
proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should
be approved by the court.

The Settlement provides, among other things, that Defendants will
pay a gross settlement amount of $2,000,000. That amount will be
used to satisfy the claims of all participating settlement
members, class counsel's litigation expenses, any award of
attorney's fees to class counsel, an incentive award to plaintiff,
a payment to the state of California in satisfaction of
plaintiff's Private Attorney General Act claim, payroll taxes on
the portion of the settlement fund designated as wages, and claims
administration expenses. The total amount paid to class members
will depend upon the number of class members who opt out and the
amount of fees and expenses as determined by the court at the
final Fairness Hearing.

A copy of the District Court's July 7, 2014 memorandum and order
is available at http://is.gd/TFGJ8ifrom Leagle.com.

Jose Ontiveros, Plaintiff, represented by Hector Rodriguez
Martinez -- hectorm@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez,
Stanley S. Mallison -- stanm@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison and
Martinez, Joseph Donald Sutton -- jsutton@themmlawfirm.com --
Mallison & Martinez & Marco A. Palau -- mpalau@themmlawfirm.com --
Mallison & Martinez.

Robert Zamora, Defendant, represented by John E. Lattin, IV --
jlattin@laborlawyers.com -- Fisher & Phillips, Llp & Linda J
Gulledge -- lgulledge@laborlawyers.com -- Fisher & Phillips Llp.

Zamora Automotive Group, Defendant, represented by John E. Lattin,
IV, Fisher & Phillips, Llp & Linda J Gulledge, Fisher & Phillips
Llp.

Stockton Auto Cars, Inc., Defendant, represented by John E.
Lattin, IV, Fisher & Phillips, Llp & Linda J Gulledge, Fisher &
Phillips Llp.

Auto Town, Inc., Defendant, represented by John E. Lattin, IV,
Fisher & Phillips, Llp & Linda J Gulledge, Fisher & Phillips Llp.

Hammer Lane Volkswagen, Inc., Defendant, represented by John E.
Lattin, IV, Fisher & Phillips, Llp & Linda J Gulledge, Fisher &
Phillips Llp.

Quality Motor Cars of Stockton, Defendant, represented by John E.
Lattin, IV, Fisher & Phillips, Llp & Linda J Gulledge, Fisher &
Phillips Llp.

Saturn of Stockton, Defendant, represented by John E. Lattin, IV,
Fisher & Phillips, Llp & Linda J Gulledge, Fisher & Phillips Llp.

Lodi Motors, Inc., Defendant, represented by John E. Lattin, IV,
Fisher & Phillips, Llp & Linda J Gulledge, Fisher & Phillips Llp.

Merced Auto Cars, Inc., Defendant, represented by John E. Lattin,
IV, Fisher & Phillips, Llp & Linda J Gulledge, Fisher & Phillips
Llp.

Clovis Auto Cars, Inc., Defendant, represented by John E. Lattin,
IV, Fisher & Phillips, Llp & Linda J Gulledge, Fisher & Phillips
Llp.

Country Nissan, Defendant, represented by John E. Lattin, IV,
Fisher & Phillips, Llp & Linda J Gulledge, Fisher & Phillips Llp.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp. Has 71 Pending Fibro Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
There were 71 asbestos-related lawsuits pending against Ameren
Corporation and 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 31, 2014.

Ameren, Ameren Missouri and Ameren Illinois have been named, along
with numerous other parties, in a number of lawsuits filed by
plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury from asbestos
exposure at our present or former energy centers. Most have been
filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois. The total
number of defendants named in each case varies, with the average
number of parties being 85 as of March 31, 2014. Each lawsuit
seeks unspecified damages that, if awarded at trial, typically
would be shared among the various defendants.

As of March 31, 2014, there were a total of 71 the pending
asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the Ameren Companies. The
Company notes however, that the total does not equal the sum of
the subsidiary unit lawsuits because some of the lawsuits name
multiple Ameren entities as defendants.

At March 31, 2014, Ameren, Ameren Missouri and Ameren Illinois had
liabilities of $12 million, $5 million, and $7 million,
respectively, recorded to represent their best estimate of their
obligations related to asbestos claims.

Ameren Illinois has a tariff rider to recover the costs of IP
asbestos-related litigation claims, subject to the following
terms: 90% of cash expenditures in excess of the amount included
in base electric rates are to be recovered from a trust fund that
was established when Ameren acquired IP. At March 31, 2014, the
trust fund balance was $23 million, including accumulated
interest. If cash expenditures are less than the amount in base
rates, Ameren Illinois will contribute 90% of the difference to
the trust fund. Once the trust fund is depleted, 90% of allowed
cash expenditures in excess of base rates will be recovered
through charges assessed to customers under the tariff rider. The
rider will permit recovery from customers within IP's historical
service territory.

Ameren Corporation (Ameren) is a utility holding company. The
Company's principal subsidiaries are Union Electric Company
(Ameren Missouri) and Ameren Illinois Company (Ameren Illinois).
The Company's segments include Ameren Missouri and Ameren
Illinois. Ameren Missouri operates a rate-regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution business, and a rate-
regulated natural gas transmission and distribution business in
Missouri. Ameren Illinois operates a rate-regulated electric and
natural gas transmission and distribution business in Illinois.
AER consists of non-rate-regulated operations, including Ameren
Energy Generating Company (Genco), AmerenEnergy Resources
Generating Company (AERG) and Ameren Energy Marketing Company
(Marketing Company). In December 2013, the Company announced that
it has completed the divestiture of its merchant generation
business, formerly known as Ameren Energy Resources Company, LLC
(AER).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harbinger Group Continues to Defend PI Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harbinger Group Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits
alleging injury from exposure to asbestos, 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.

HGI is involved in other litigation and claims incidental to its
current and prior businesses. These include workers compensation
and environmental matters and pending cases in Mississippi and
Louisiana state courts and in a Federal multi-district litigation
alleging injury from exposure to asbestos on offshore drilling
rigs and shipping vessels formerly owned or operated by its
offshore drilling and bulk-shipping affiliates. Based on currently
available information, including legal defenses available to it,
and given its reserves and related insurance coverage, the Company
does not believe that the outcome of these legal and environmental
matters will have a material effect on its financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.

Harbinger Group Inc. (HGI) is a holding company. The Company's
operations are conducted through Spectrum Brands, the Company's
subsidiary, which provides branded consumer products, such as
batteries, personal care products, small household appliances, pet
supplies, and home and garden pest control products, and Fidelity
& Guaranty Life Holdings, Inc. (FGL), its wholly owned indirect
subsidiary, which provides life insurance and annuity products. In
addition, Salus Capital Partners, LLC (Salus), the Company's
wholly owned indirect subsidiary, is engaged in the business of
providing secured asset-based loans across a range of industries,
and Front Street Re Ltd (Front Street), its wholly owned indirect
subsidiary provide reinsurance to the specialty insurance sector
of fixed, deferred and payout annuities. The Company also own
97.9% of Zap.Com Corporation (Zap.Com). On November 8, 2012,
Spectrum Brands completed acquisition of 56% interest in Shaser
Biosciences, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Records $372.8-Mil. Fibro Reserve
-------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd., recorded a $372.8 million gross asbestos
loss reserves, 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: "With respect to asbestos only, at March 31,
2014, we had gross asbestos loss reserves of $372.8 million, or
95.0%, of total A&E reserves, of which $298.3 million was for
assumed business and $74.5 million was for direct business.

"Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities cannot be
accomplished using standard actuarial techniques. We believe that
our A&E reserves represent our best estimate of the ultimate
liability; however, there can be no assurance that ultimate loss
payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a significant
amount.

"Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E
reserves among companies with such liabilities. The survival ratio
is typically calculated by dividing a company's current net
reserves by the three year average of annual paid losses. Hence,
the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take
to exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to
continue at historical levels. Using this measurement, our net
three year asbestos survival ratio was 8.3 years at March 31,
2014. These metrics can be skewed by individual large settlements
occurring in the prior three years and therefore, may not be
indicative of the timing of future payments."

Everest Re Group, Ltd. through its subsidiaries, is principally
engaged in the underwriting of reinsurance and insurance in the
United States, Bermuda and international markets. The Company
underwrites reinsurance both through brokers and directly with
ceding companies. The Company operates in four segments: U.S.
Reinsurance, International, Bermuda and Insurance. The Company
underwrites insurance principally through general agent
relationships, brokers and surplus lines brokers. The Company's
principal operating subsidiaries include Bermuda Re, Everest
International Reinsurance, Ltd., Ireland Re, Everest Re, Everest
Insurance Company of Canada, Everest National Insurance Company,
Everest Indemnity Insurance Company, Everest Security Insurance
Company, Mt. McKinley and Heartland Crop Insurance, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Had 37 Pending Fibro-related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
There were 37 asbestos-related lawsuits pending against Noble
Corporation plc, 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 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 37 asbestos related lawsuits in
which we are one of many defendants. These lawsuits have been
filed in the United States in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi
and Texas. We intend to vigorously defend against the litigation.
We do not believe the ultimate resolution of these matters will
have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results
of operations or cash flows."

Noble Corporation plc is an offshore drilling contractor for the
oil and gas industry. The Company performs contract drilling
services through its subsidiaries. As of January 30, 2014, the
Company had a fleet of 77 offshore drilling units (including two
ultra-deepwater drill ships and four high-specification jackup).
Its offshore drilling services are located globally, including in
the United States Gulf of Mexico and Alaska, Mexico, Brazil, the
North Sea, the Mediterranean, West Africa, the Middle East, India,
Malaysia and Australia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Intricon Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related lawsuits related to its discontinued heat technologies
segment, 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 along with a number of other parties in
lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may have contracted
asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos
products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or more
named defendants. These lawsuits relate to the discontinued heat
technologies segment which was sold in March 2005. Due to the non-
informative nature of the complaints, the Company does not know
whether any of the complaints state valid claims against the
Company. Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that
the primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been
exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide defense and
insurance coverage under those policies. However, the Company has
other primary and excess insurance policies that the Company
believes afford coverage for later years. Some of these other
primary insurers have accepted defense and insurance coverage for
these suits, and some of them have either ignored the Company's
tender of defense of these cases, or have denied coverage, or have
accepted the tenders but asserted a reservation of rights and/or
advised the Company that they need to investigate further. Because
settlement payments are applied to all years a litigant was deemed
to have been exposed to asbestos, the Company believes that it
will have funds available for defense and insurance coverage under
the non-exhausted primary and excess insurance policies. However,
unlike the older policies, the more recent policies have
deductible amounts for defense and settlements costs that the
Company will be required to pay; accordingly, the Company expects
that its litigation costs will increase in the future. Further,
many of the policies covering later years (approximately 1984 and
thereafter) have exclusions for any asbestos products or
operations, and thus do not provide insurance coverage for
asbestos-related lawsuits. The Company does not believe that the
asserted exhaustion of some of the primary insurance coverage for
the 1970-1978 period will have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations.
Management believes that the number of insurance carriers involved
in the defense of the suits, and the significant number of policy
years and policy limits under which these insurance carriers are
insuring the Company, make the ultimate disposition of these
lawsuits not material to the Company's consolidated financial
position or results of operations."

IntriCon Corporation (IntriCon) is an international company
engaged in designing, developing, engineering and manufacturing
body-worn devices. IntriCon serves the body-worn device market by
designing, developing, engineering and manufacturing micro-
miniature products, microelectronics, micro-mechanical assemblies
and complete assemblies, primarily for bio-telemetry devices,
hearing instruments and professional audio communication devices.
The Company operates in one operating segment, the body-worn
device segment. The Company's core technologies is focused on
three main markets: medical, hearing health and professional audio
communications. In October 2012, it sold its 50% ownership
interest in Global Coils.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carey Watermark's Fibro Removal ARO Was $0.5MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carey Watermark Investors Incorporated's asset retirement
obligation for the removal of asbestos and environmental waste was
$0.5 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.

The Company states: "We have recorded an asset retirement
obligation for the removal of asbestos and environmental waste in
connection with one of our hotels. We estimated the fair value of
the asset retirement obligation based on the estimated economic
life of the hotel and the estimated removal costs. The liability
was discounted using the weighted-average interest rate on the
associated fixed-rate mortgage loan at the time the liability was
incurred. At March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, asset
retirement obligation was $0.5 million and $0.4 million,
respectively, and is included in Accounts payable, accrued
expenses and other liabilities in the consolidated balance
sheets."

Carey Watermark Investors Incorporated, or CWI, and, together with
its consolidated subsidiaries, is a publicly owned, non-listed
real estate investment trust, or REIT, formed as a Maryland
corporation in March 2008 for the purpose of acquiring, owning,
disposing of and, through our advisor, managing and seeking to
enhance the value of interests in lodging and lodging related
properties primarily in the United States, or U.S. The Company
conducts substantially all of its investment activities and own
all of its assets through CWI OP, LP, or its Operating
Partnership. The Company is a general partner and a limited
partner and own a 99.985% capital interest in the Operating
Partnership. Carey Watermark Holdings, LLC, or Carey Watermark
Holdings, which is owned indirectly by both W. P. Carey Inc., or
WPC, and Watermark Capital Partners, LLC, or Watermark Capital
Partners, holds a special general partner interest in the
Operating Partnership.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek, Inc., continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related lawsuits associated with its sold business operations,
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 has been named, along with multiple other defendants,
in asbestos-related lawsuits associated with business operations
previously acquired by the Company, but which are no longer owned.
During the Company's ownership, none of the businesses produced or
sold asbestos-containing products. With respect to these claims,
the Company believes that it has no such liability.  For such
claims, the Company is uninsured and either contractually
indemnified against liability, or contractually obligated to
defend and indemnify the purchaser of these former Magnetek
business operations.  The Company aggressively seeks dismissal
from these proceedings. Management does not believe the asbestos
proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will have a
material adverse effect on its financial position or results of
operations.  Given the nature of the above issues, uncertainty of
the ultimate outcome, and inability to estimate the potential
loss, no amounts have been reserved for these matters.

Magnetek, Inc. (Magnetek) is a provider of digital power control
systems that are used to control motion and power primarily in
material handling, elevator, and mining applications. The
Company's products are sold directly or through manufacturers'
representatives to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) for
incorporation into their products, to system integrators and
value-added resellers for assembly and incorporation into end-user
systems, to distributors for resale to OEMs and contractors, and
to end users for repair and replacement purposes. The Company is
an independent supplier of digital drives, radio controls,
software, and accessories for industrial cranes and hoists, and it
is also the supplier of digital direct current (DC) motion control
systems for elevators. The Company's products consist primarily of
programmable motion control and power conditioning systems used in
the overhead cranes and hoists; elevators; and coal mining
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Locker Continues to Defend PI Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Locker Group Incorporated continues to defend itself
against numerous 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.

Beginning in September 1998 and continuing through March 31, 2014,
the Company has been named as an additional defendant in
approximately 239 cases pending in state court in Massachusetts
and one in the state of Washington. The plaintiffs in each case
assert that a division of the Company manufactured and furnished
components containing asbestos to a shipyard during the period
from 1948 to 1972 and that injury resulted from exposure to such
products. The assets of this division were sold by the Company in
1973. During the process of discovery in certain of these actions,
documents from sources outside the Company have been produced that
indicate the Company appears to have been included in the chain of
title for certain wall panels that contained asbestos and were
delivered to the Massachusetts shipyards. Defense of these cases
has been assumed by the Company's insurance carrier, subject to a
reservation of rights. Settlement agreements have been entered in
approximately 37 cases with funds authorized and provided by the
Company's insurance carrier. Further, over 174 cases have been
terminated as to the Company without liability to the Company
under Massachusetts procedural rules. Therefore, the balance of
unresolved cases against the Company as of December 31, 2013, the
most recent date for which information is available, is
approximately 28 cases. While the Company cannot estimate
potential damages or predict what the ultimate resolution of these
asbestos cases may be because the discovery proceedings on the
cases are not complete, based upon the Company's experience to
date with similar cases, as well as the assumption that insurance
coverage will continue to be provided with respect to these cases,
at the present time, the Company does not believe that the outcome
of these cases will have a significant adverse impact on the
Company's operations or financial condition.

American Locker Group Incorporated is a manufacturer of lockers,
locks and keys with a range of applications for use in numerous
industries. The Company serves customers in a range of industries
in all 50 states and in Canada, Mexico, Europe, Asia and South
America. The Company's products can be categorized as either
mailboxes or lockers. Mailboxes are used for the delivery of mail,
packages and other parcels to multi-tenant facilities. Lockers are
used for applications other than mail delivery, and its lockers
are key-controlled checking lockers. The Company's products and
services include recreation lockers, coin operated keys and locks,
United States Postal Service (USPS) approved multi-tenant
mailboxes, private mail delivery mailboxes, electronic
distribution lockers, evidence lockers, laptop lockers and mini-
check lockers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Gets Summary Judgment in "Jones" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Electronics Corporation obtained approval of its motion for
summary judgment in the asbestos-related lawsuit pending in a
Rhode Island court, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2014.

In May 2013, Wayne F. Jones and Roberta Jones, filed a law suit in
the Superior Court of Providence County, Rhode Island, against 84
Lumber Company and over 120 other defendants, including the
Company, alleging that the Company processed, manufactured,
designed, tested, packaged, distributed, marketed or sold asbestos
containing products that contributed to their contraction of
asbestos-related mesothelioma and other asbestos-related
pathologies. The Company retained legal counsel and filed a
response to the complaint. In February 2014, Andrea sought and was
granted a Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Entry of
Final Judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b).

Andrea Electronics Corporation (Andrea) is engaged in designing,
developing and manufacturing microphone technologies and products
for improving speech-based applications software and
communications that require clear voice signals. The Company
operates in two segments: Andrea DSP Microphone and Audio Software
Products, and Andrea Anti-Noise Products. The Company's Andrea
Digital Signal Processing (DSP) Microphone and Audio Software
Products and Andrea Anti-Noise Products have been designed for
applications that are controlled by or depend on speech across a
range of hardware and software platforms. These products
incorporate its DSP, noise cancellation (NC), active noise
reduction (ANR) and active noise cancellation (ANC) microphone
technologies, and are designed to cancel background noise in a
range of noisy environments, such as homes, offices, factories and
automobiles.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Continues to Defend "Edwards" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Electronics Corporation continues to defend itself in an
asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Audrey Edwards, 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 December 2010, Audrey Edwards, Executrix of the Estate of Leon
Leroy Edwards, filed a law suit in the Superior Court of
Providence County, Rhode Island, against 3M Company and over 90
other defendants, including the Company, alleging that the Company
processed, manufactured, designed, tested, packaged, distributed,
marketed or sold asbestos containing products that contributed to
the death of Leon Leroy Edwards. The Company received service of
process in April 2011. The Company has retained legal counsel and
has filed a response to the compliant. The Company believes the
lawsuit is without merit and intends to file a Motion for Summary
Judgment to that affect. Accordingly, the Company does not believe
the lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position or results of operations.

Andrea Electronics Corporation (Andrea) is engaged in designing,
developing and manufacturing microphone technologies and products
for improving speech-based applications software and
communications that require clear voice signals. The Company
operates in two segments: Andrea DSP Microphone and Audio Software
Products, and Andrea Anti-Noise Products. The Company's Andrea
Digital Signal Processing (DSP) Microphone and Audio Software
Products and Andrea Anti-Noise Products have been designed for
applications that are controlled by or depend on speech across a
range of hardware and software platforms. These products
incorporate its DSP, noise cancellation (NC), active noise
reduction (ANR) and active noise cancellation (ANC) microphone
technologies, and are designed to cancel background noise in a
range of noisy environments, such as homes, offices, factories and
automobiles.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Has 1,366 Fibro Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 1,366
new asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has been a defendant in
a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or
plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the business of
manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or
asbestos-containing products nor has Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to
companies in the business of manufacturing, producing,
distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect
to certain research, publication and other activities of one or
more of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the
period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege
that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have
learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other
things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health
risks. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should
not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most
asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be
impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal
rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury
and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims
asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company employs a number of resolution strategies
to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution
of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual
or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances.

Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company have
included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning
the health risks associated with asbestos. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that: (i) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
owed no duty to the plaintiffs -- it had no special relationship
with the plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute
or sell the asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs;
(ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company; (iii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv)
plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were
known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has
expired. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts
have granted motions dismissing claims against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, while other trial courts have denied
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motions. There can be no
assurance that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company will receive
favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases
brought to date have settled, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on
asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 5,898
asbestos-related claims in 2013. During the three months ended
March 31, 2014 and 2013, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
received approximately 1,366 and 1,435 new asbestos-related
claims, respectively. The number of asbestos cases that may be
brought, the aggregate amount of any liability that Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company may incur, and the total amount paid in
settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary
significantly from year to year.

The ability of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to estimate its
ultimate asbestos exposure is subject to considerable uncertainty,
and the conditions impacting its liability can be dynamic and
subject to change. The availability of reliable data is limited
and it is difficult to predict the numerous variables that can
affect liability estimates, including the number of future claims,
the cost to resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of
disease in pending and future claims, the impact of the number of
new claims filed in a particular jurisdiction and variations in
the law in the jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the
possible impact of tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts
to allow plaintiffs to pursue claims against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company when exposure to asbestos took place after the
dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the impact of
any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts.

The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure
declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in
the future. In the Company's judgment, there is a future point
after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable.
It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to
asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos
liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may
be necessary. While the potential future charges could be material
in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are
recorded, based on information currently known by management,
management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a
material effect on the Company's financial position.

The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for asbestos-related claims. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's recorded asbestos liability is based on its
estimation of the following elements, as informed by the facts
presently known to it, its understanding of current law and its
past experiences: (i) the probable and reasonably estimable
liability for asbestos claims already asserted against
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, including claims settled but
not yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability
for asbestos claims not yet asserted against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, but which Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal
defense costs associated with the foregoing claims. Significant
assumptions underlying Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
analysis of the adequacy of its recorded liability with respect to
asbestos litigation include: (i) the number of future claims; (ii)
the cost to resolve claims; and (iii) the cost to defend claims.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company reevaluates on a quarterly and
annual basis its exposure from asbestos litigation, including
studying its claims experience, reviewing external literature
regarding asbestos claims experience in the United States,
assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos liability and
considering numerous variables that can affect its asbestos
liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis. These
variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved in
asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the
number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of
new claims filed against it and other defendants and the
jurisdictions in which claims are pending. Based upon its
reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has updated its liability
analysis for asbestos-related claims through March 31, 2014.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and its subsidiaries is a
leading provider of insurance, annuities and employee benefit
programs throughout the United States. The Company offers life
insurance and annuities to individuals, as well as group insurance
and retirement & savings products and services to corporations and
other institutions. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Budd Co. Claimants Defer Filing Claim Form
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Budd Company, Inc., sought to require some, but not all of its
creditors to file proofs of claim by October 15, 2014.

Reed Heiligman, Esq., at FrankGecker LLP, in Chicago, Illinois,
tells the Bankruptcy Court that without filing a plan or giving
any other indication of how it intends to treats its asbestos
victims, Budd Company sought to approve a 22-page proof of claim
form to be completed only by the unfortunate victims of asbestos.

Mr. Heiligman contends that the asbestos claim form request is
premature, as appointment of an official committee of asbestos
personal injury claimants has been ordered by the Court, but has
not yet occurred. The official asbestos creditors committee, when
formed, should be given an opportunity to respond to the
overreach, notes Mr. Heiligman.

Accordingly, the ad hoc committee of asbestos personal injury
claimants asks the Court that the asbestos claim form request
should be continued for status with a briefing schedule to be
determined after the formation of the official asbestos creditors
committee.

Mr. Heiligman points out that deficiencies in the asbestos claim
form request could potentially be addressed by an official
committee, including that:

   (a) The proposed asbestos proof of claim does not "conform
       substantially" with Official Form No. 10 as Rule 3001(a) of
       the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure requires;

   (b) The proposed 22-page asbestos proof of claim form seeks
       information far beyond the requirements for a prima facie
       valid proof of claim under the Bankruptcy Rules; and

   (c) Budd Company refuses to give its asbestos victims the same
       consideration as its retirees.

The ad hoc committee is represented by:

     Frances Gecker, Esq.
     Joseph D. Frank, Esq.
     Reed Heiligman, Esq.
     FRANKGECKER LLP
     325 North LaSalle Street, Suite 625
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Tel: (312) 276-1400
     Fax: (312) 276-0035
     Email: fgecker@fgllp.com
            jfrank@fgllp.com
            rheiligman@fgllp.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Estimation Trial Shouldn't Be Sealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, reported that a North Carolina
federal judge reversed a bankruptcy court's decision to close
proceedings last year to estimate the mesothelioma liability of
bankrupt Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, citing the public's
fundamental right to view documents filed in public courts.
According to the report, U.S. District Judge Max Cogburn sided
with arguments by the legal journal Legal Newsline, saying that
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges should put the onus on Garlock
to explain why estimation trial transcripts should be kept under
seal.

                      About Garlock Sealing

Headquartered in Palmyra, New York, Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC is a unit of EnPro Industries, Inc. (NYSE: NPO).  For more
than a century, Garlock has been helping customers efficiently
seal the toughest process fluids in the most demanding
applications.

On June 5, 2010, Garlock filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition
(Bankr. W.D.N.C. Case No. 10-31607) in Charlotte, North Carolina,
to establish a trust to resolve all current and future asbestos
claims against Garlock under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code.  The Debtor estimated $500 million to $1 billion in assets
and up to $500 million in debts as of the Petition Date.

Affiliates The Anchor Packing Company and Garrison Litigation
Management Group, Ltd., also filed for bankruptcy.

Albert F. Durham, Esq., at Rayburn Cooper & Durham, P.A.,
represents the Debtor in their Chapter 11 effort.  Garland S.
Cassada, Esq., at Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, serves as counsel
for asbestos matters.

The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants in
the Chapter 11 cases is represented by Travis W. Moon, Esq., at
Hamilton Moon Stephens Steele & Martin, PLLC, in Charlotte, NC,
Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, in New
York, and Trevor W. Swett III, Esq., Leslie M. Kelleher, Esq., and
Jeanna Rickards Koski, Esq., in Washington, D.C. 20005.

Joseph W. Grier, III, the Court-appointed legal representative for
future asbestos claimants, has retained A. Cotten Wright, Esq., at
Grier Furr & Crisp, PA, and Richard H. Wyron, Esq., and Jonathan
P. Guy, Esq., at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, as his co-
counsel.

Judge George Hodges of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of North Carolina on Jan. 10, 2014, entered an
order estimating the liability for present and future mesothelioma
claims against EnPro Industries' Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC
subsidiary at $125 million, consistent with the positions GST put
forth at trial.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Estimates $36M Fibro Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation estimates that its potential liability for the
asbestos-related claims is approximately $36.0 million, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013.

Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 1,000 claimants) are pending
in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to
alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos
in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by the
Company's Stearns division and/or its predecessor owners. Invensys
and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have paid 100% of
the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits. Similarly, the
Company's Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two pending multi-
defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal injuries due to
the alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly
manufactured by Prager. Additionally, there are numerous
individuals who have filed asbestos related claims against Prager;
however, these claims are currently on the Texas Multi-district
Litigation inactive docket. The ultimate outcome of these asbestos
matters cannot presently be determined. To date, the Company's
insurance providers have paid 100% of the costs related to the
Prager asbestos matters. The Company believes that the combination
of its insurance coverage and the Invensys indemnity obligations
will cover any future costs of these matters.

In connection with the acquisition of The Falk Corporation
("Falk"), Hamilton Sundstrand has provided the Company with
indemnification against certain products-related asbestos exposure
liabilities. The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity
obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to defend and
indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos claims, and
that, with respect to these claims, such indemnity obligations are
not subject to any time or dollar limitations.

Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in multiple
lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by Falk. There are approximately 100
claimants in these suits. The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits
cannot presently be determined. Hamilton Sundstrand is defending
the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity
obligations and has paid 100% of the costs to date.

Certain Water Management subsidiaries are also subject to asbestos
litigation. As of March 31, 2014, Zurn and numerous other
unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 7,000
asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 26,000
claims. Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by
exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly
manufactured by a segment of Zurn. Zurn did not manufacture
asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from
suppliers. These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense
strategy funded by insurers.

As of March 31, 2014, the Company estimates the potential
liability for the asbestos-related claims as well as the claims
expected to be filed in the next ten years to be approximately
$36.0 million of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to pay
approximately $29.0 million in the next ten years on such claims,
with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in
subsequent years. The $36.0 million was developed based on an
actuarial study and represents the projected indemnity payout for
claims filed in the next ten years. However, there are inherent
uncertainties involved in estimating the number of future asbestos
claims, future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense
strategies and settlement initiatives. As a result, actual
liability could differ from the estimate described herein.
Further, while this current asbestos liability is based on an
estimate of claims through the next ten years, such liability may
continue beyond that time frame, and such liability could be
substantial.

Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of March 31, 2014, is
approximately $251.2 million, and believes that all current claims
are covered by insurance. However, principally as a result of the
past insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance carriers,
certain coverage gaps will exist if and after the Company's other
carriers have paid the first $175.2 million of aggregate
liabilities.

As of March 31, 2014, the Company had a recorded receivable from
its insurance carriers of $36.0 million, which corresponds to the
amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery. However, there is no assurance that $251.2 million of
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed $251.2 million.
Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available
coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential
disputes with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and
insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers.

Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord) is a multi-platform industrial
company. The Company comprises of two platforms, Process & Motion
Control and Water Management. Rexnord's Process & Motion Control
product portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings,
aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and
conveying equipment, and are marketed and sold globally under
brands, including Rexnord, Rex, Falk and Link-Belt. Its Water
Management platform operates in the commercial construction market
for water management products and the municipal water and
wastewater treatment markets. Its Water Management product
portfolio includes drainage products, flush valves and faucet
products, backflow prevention pressure release valves, PEX piping
and engineered valves and gates for the water and wastewater
treatment markets. In April 2014, the Company acquired Green
Turtle Technologies Ltd., Green Turtle Americas Ltd. and Filamat
Composites Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $8MM Fibro Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation reported an approximate of
$8,854,000 for its asbestos-related aggregate liability, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.

Like many industrial manufacturers, the Company is involved in
asbestos-related litigation. In continually evaluating costs
relating to its estimated asbestos-related liability, the Company
reviews, among other things, the incidence of past and recent
claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the mix of the claimed
illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its recent and
historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending
against it, the status and results of broad-based settlement
discussions, and the number of years such activity might continue.
Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share of
liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related personal
injury claims. This estimate is highly uncertain due to the
limitations of the available data and the difficulty of
forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can
affect the range of the liability. The Company will continue to
study the variables in light of additional information in order to
identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact
on the range of liability that is probable and estimable.

Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between $7,000,000 and $12,000,000 using actuarial
parameters of continued claims for a period of 18 to 30 years from
March 31, 2014. The Company's estimation of its asbestos-related
aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance
with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates
$8,854,000, which has been reflected as a liability in the
consolidated financial statements as of March 31, 2014. The
recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential
favorable federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based
on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be
filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be
influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the
ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies,
and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement
program. Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos
liability payments of approximately $2,000,000 over the next 12
months. Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over
many years, management believes that the potential additional
costs for claims will not have a material effect on the financial
condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of
any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a
future period.

Columbus McKinnon Corporation is a global designer, manufacturer
and marketer of hoists, rigging tools, cranes, actuators, and
other material handling products serving a range of commercial and
industrial end user markets. The products include a range of
electric, lever, hand and air-powered hoists, hoist trolleys,
winches, industrial crane systems such as bridge, gantry and jib
cranes; alloy and carbon steel chain; closed-die forged
attachments, such as hooks, shackles, textile slings, clamps,
logging tools and load binders; industrial components, such as
mechanical and electromechanical actuators and rotary unions;
below-the-hook special purpose lifters; tire shredders; and light-
rail systems. The Company is a manufacturer and marketer of
hoists, alloy and high strength carbon steel chain and
attachments, and actuators in North America. In March 2014,
Columbus McKinnon Corp acquired privately-owned Unified
Industries, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Precision Castparts Has 94 PI Suits at March 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Precision Castparts Corp. had 94 pending asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended March 30, 2014.

As of March 30, 2014, there were approximately 94 lawsuits pending
against the Company alleging personal injury as the result of
exposure to particulates, including asbestos, integrated into our
premises or processes or into certain historical products. It is
frequently not possible at the outset of a case to determine which
of the plaintiffs actually will pursue a claim against the
Company. Typically, that can only be determined through discovery
after a case has been filed. Thus, in a case involving multiple
plaintiffs, unless otherwise expressed in the pleadings, the
Company accounts for the lawsuit as one claim against it. As of
March 30, 2014, the Company has 42 new claims, and disposed of 12
claims.

The Company considers that all such claims are tort claims while
noting that some claims, such as those filed in West Virginia,
were historically common law "employer liability" cases and are
now based on a statutory definition of requisite intent.

The Company states, "The particulates in question are no longer
incorporated into our products, and we have implemented safety
protocols to reduce exposure to remaining particulates in the
workplace. Based on the information available to us at the date of
filing of this report, we believe, based on our review of the
facts and law, that the potential exposure from the resolution of
any or all of these matters will not have a material adverse
effect on our consolidated financial position, results of
operations, cash flows or business."

Various claims and lawsuits arising during the normal course of
business are pending against us. In the opinion of management, the
outcome of these lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect
on our consolidated financial position, results of operations,
cash flows or business.

Precision Castparts Corp. (PCC) is a manufacturer of metal
components and products, provides investment castings, forgings
and fasteners/fastener systems for critical aerospace and
industrial gas turbine (IGT) applications. It also provides aero-
structures for the aerospace industry; investment castings and
forgings for general industrial, armament, medical and other
applications; nickel alloys in all standard mill forms from ingots
and billets to plate, sheet, strip, tubing, bar and wire, as well
as cobalt alloys, for the aerospace, chemical processing, oil and
gas, pollution control and other industries; seamless pipe for
coal-fired, industrial gas turbine, and nuclear power plants, as
well as oil and gas applications; revert management solutions
among others. In January 2014, Precision Castparts Corp acquired
SOS Metals Inc., a provider of metal recycling services. In
January 2014, the Company acquired Trans World Alloys Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Upholds Ruling v. Garlock Sealing
--------------------------------------------------------
Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, appeals the Marshall Circuit
Court's judgment in favor of Ava Nell Dexter and James M. Dexter,
executor of the estate of James G. "Dayton" Dexter.  Dayton worked
as a pipefitter from 1946 until 1984.  During the course of his
employment, Dayton was exposed to various products and materials
that contained asbestos.  Dayton was ultimately diagnosed with
lung cancer, which was attributed to a combination of his
occupational exposure to asbestos and his long-term cigarette
smoking.  At the conclusion of a trial, the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the estate on both products liability and
negligence.  The trial court entered judgment in accordance with
the jury verdict, ordering Garlock to pay the estate $874,507.

The Court of Appeals of Kentucky, in an opinion dated Aug. 1,
2014, concluded that Garlock was not entitled to a directed
verdict and that punitive damages were properly awarded.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.

The cases are GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Appellant, v. AVA
NELL DEXTER, INDIVIDUALLY; AND JAMES M. DEXTER, EXECUTOR OF THE
ESTATE OF JAMES G. DEXTER, DECEASED, Appellees, AND GARLOCK
SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Cross-Appellant, v. AVA NELL DEXTER,
INDIVIDUALLY; AND JAMES M. DEXTER, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES
G. DEXTER, DECEASED, Cross-Appellees, NOS. 2006-CA-000918-MR,
2006-CA-001025-MR (Ky. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/UmtBMDfrom Leagle.com.

Trevor W. Wells, Louisville, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLANT/CROSS-
APPELLANT.  Kenneth L. Sales, Louisville, Kentucky, BRIEF FOR
APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLEES.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in Take-Home Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a "take-home" or "secondary" asbestos exposure case styled
styled NORMA BOOTENHOFF and EUGENE BOOTENHOFF, Plaintiffs, v.
HORMEL FOODS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. CIV-11-
1368-D (W.D. Okla.), defendants Meadwestvaco Corporation and MW
Custom Papers, LLC, and International Paper Company, filed motions
for summary judgment.

Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma, granted the Defendants' motions
for summary judgment, ruling that lack of foreseeability and
additional policy considerations dictate that the Mead Defendants
and IPC did not owe a duty of care to Norma Bootenhoff.
Consequently, the Plaintiffs' negligence claim fails as a matter
of law, Judge DeGiusti ruled.  Because the Plaintiffs allege no
other claims against the Mead Defendants and IPC, they are
entitled to judgment in their favor and against Plaintiffs, Judge
DeGiusti further ruled.

A full-text copy of Judge DeGiusti's July 30, 2014, Decision
pertaining to IPC is available at http://is.gd/hF9F1ufrom
Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of Judge DeGiusti's Aug. 1, 2014, Decision
pertaining to the Mead Defendants is available at
http://is.gd/bwF7oVfrom Leagle.com.

Norma Bootenhoff and Eugene Bootenhoff, Plaintiffs, represented
by:

         Alex Barlow, Esq.
         John B. Black, Esq.
         HEARD ROBINS CLOUD & BLACK LLP
         2000 West Loop South, Suite 2200
         Houston, TX 77027
         Tel: (713) 650-1200
         Fax: (713) 650-1400

             - and -

         R Lyle Clemens, Esq.
         CLEMENS PATE LEEBRON & WOLFE

International Paper Company Inc, Defendant, represented by Brita H
Cantrell, Esq. -- brita.cantrell@mcafeetaft.com -- and Thomas E
Steichen, Esq. -- tom.steichen@mcafeetaft.com -- at McAfee & Taft;
and Kyle Christopher Steele, Esq., at Forman Perry Watkins Krutz &
Tardy LLP.

Meadwestvaco Corporation, Defendant, represented by:

         John D Cowan, Esq.
         Murray E Abowitz, Esq.
         ABOWITZ, TIMBERLAKE & DAHNKE, P.C.
         The Hightower Building, Tenth Floor
         105 North Hudson
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102
         Tel: (405) 236-4645
         Fax: (405) 239-2843

Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendant, Pro Se.

Cleaver-Brooks Inc, Defendant, represented by Clay White, Esq., at
White Shaver; and James B Buxton, II, Esq., at Buxton Carson PLLC.

MW Custom Papers LLC, Defendant, represented by John D Cowan,
Esq., and Murray E Abowitz, Esq., at Abowitz Timberlake & Dahnke
PC; and Kayce L. Gisinger, Esq., at Goolsby Proctor Heefner &
Gibbs PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard's Bid to Strike Allegations Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kenneth A. Marra of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, in an opinion and order dated
Aug. 1, 2014, denied Lorillard Tobacco Company's Motion to Strike
Certain Allegations from the First Amended Complaint in the
asbestos-related case styled HERBERT ROTHCHILD and AUDREY
ROTHCHILD, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. CRANE CO., FOSTER WHEELER
ENERGY CORPORATION; LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY; OWENS-ILLINOIS,
INC., f/k/a OWENS BOTTLE MACHINE CORP., f/k/a OWENS BOTTLE CO.,
f/k/a OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS CO.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION,
Defendants, CASE NO. 14-80271-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Marra's Decision is available at http://is.gd/iOcGSA
from Leagle.com.

Herbert Rothchild and Audrey Rothchild, Plaintiffs, represented by
James L. Ferraro, Esq., Marc Phillip Kunen, Esq., and James Louis
Ferraro, Jr., Esq., at The Ferraro Law Firm.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Rebecca Carrie Kibbe, Esq.,
and Kaylin S Grey, Esq., at K&L Gates.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Tanya
Michelle Lawson, Esq., at Sedgwick LLP.

Owens-Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward
Tomlin, Esq., at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Matthew John
Conigliaro, Esq., Stephen J. Krigbaum, Esq., and Ryan Stephen
Cobbs, Esq., at Carlton Fields PA.

Lorillard Tobacco Company, Defendant, represented by Sabrina R.
Ferris, Esq., at Greenberg Traurig.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawaii Court Affirms Order Denying Atty Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Y. Arakaki appeals from the April 18, 2013 "Order Denying
Walter Y. Arakaki, General Contractor, Inc.'s Renewed Motion for
Award of Attorneys' Fees Because of Abusive Litigation Practices"
entered in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit.

Arakaki contends the circuit court should have awarded attorneys'
fees because SCD-Olanani Corporation engaged in abusive litigation
practices.  Arakaki contends that SCD counsel's error regarding
SCD's expenditures on clean-up and remediation of asbestos on the
Property and the contents of the Clayton Report were evidence of
SCD's bad faith.  Arakaki notes that the Clayton Report stated
that its "assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized
environmental conditions in connection with this property."
However, the Clayton Report further stated that five tiles
containing asbestos were observed and that a "limited asbestos
survey" had been conducted, but that the "asbestos sampling was
limited in nature, and cannot be considered a comprehensive
asbestos inspection.  The results of the analyses should not be
interpreted to include all asbestos or all building materials."
At the March 13, 2013 hearing, SCD's counsel agreed with the
circuit court that the Clayton Report was inconclusive as to the
extent of asbestos contamination.

The Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai'I affirmed the ruling
after holding that SCD's counsel disclosed his error to the
circuit court at the March 13, 2013 hearing and the allegations of
bad faith litigation practices did not extend to SCD's counsel.

The case is WALTER Y. ARAKAKI, GENERAL CONTRACTOR, INC., A HAWAI'I
CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant/Appellant, v. SCD-
OLANANI CORPORATION, A HAWAI'I CORPORATION, STANFORD S. CARR,
Defendants/Cross-Claim Defendants/Appellees, and GE CAPITAL
HAWAI'I, INC., A HAWAI'I CORPORATION, Defendant/Counterclaim
Plaintiff/Cross-Claim Plaintiff/Appellee, and STEPHEN H. SWIFT,
Defendant/Cross-Claim Defendant/Appellee, and JOHN DOES 1-10, JANE
DOES 1-10, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, DOE
ENTITIES 11-10, AND DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-10, Defendants, GE
CAPITAL HAWAI'I, INC., A HAWAI'I CORPORATION, Defendant/Third-
Party Plaintiff/Appellee, v. STANFORD CARR DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, A HAWAI'I CORPORATION, Defendant/Third-Party
Defendant/Appellee, NO. CAAP-13-0000809 (Haw. App.).  A full-text
copy of the Decision dated July 31, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/5bDqGIfrom Leagle.com.

Melvin Y. Agena, and Brian K. Yomono, for Plaintiff/Counterclaim,
Defendant/Appellant.  Lyle S. Hosoda, Raina P.B. Gushiken, (Hosoda
& Morikone), for Defendants/Cross-Claim, Defendants/Appellees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Allows Inmate to Amend Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard L. Arnold, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed a
pro se civil rights action, alleging, among other things, that he
was required to work in an area containing asbestos without being
provided proper training and proper protective gear to shield him
against asbestos exposure.  Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on July 28,
2014, issued an order of dismissal with leave to amend.

The case is RICHARD L. ARNOLD, Plaintiff, v. BRAD SMITH; et al.,
Defendants, NO. C-13-4456 EMC (PR)(N.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy
of Judge Chen's Decision is available at http://is.gd/ktElPVfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Junks Duplicative Suit v. Arrowood
--------------------------------------------------------------
In 2010, a judgment was entered against The C.P. Hall Company in
the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, McLean County,
Illinois, Case No. 10-L-38, in the amount of $3,000,000, in favor
of Janet Shipley for injuries from her exposure to Hall's asbestos
products.  Arrowood Indemnity Company is the successor by merger
to Security Insurance Company of Hartford and New Amsterdam
Casualty Company, both of whom had extended Hall insurance
coverage through certain general liability policies.

As the successor to Security Insurance Company of Hartford and New
Amsterdam Casualty Company, Arrowood assumed the companies'
obligations to Hall arising under their general liability
insurance policies, such as the obligation to indemnify Hall for
certain types of judgments like the one obtained in the Shipley
Action.  Plaintiff, James Shipley, acting individually and as the
independent executor of the estate of the now-deceased Janet
Shipley, filed a garnishment summons in the Shipley Action in May
2011, seeking garnishment from Arrowood and another of Hall's
insurers, Great American Insurance Company, pursuant to the
judgment against Hall in the Shipley Action.  Magistrate Judge
Schanzle-Haskins issued a Report & Recommendation recommending
dismissal of the action.

Judge Joe Billy McDade of the United States District Court for the
Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division, adopted in part and
dismissed in part the Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation
because the matter is duplicative of Shipley v. Hall, et. al., No.
14-cv-1175.

The case is ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff/Garnishee, v.
JAMES SHIPLEY, Individually and as Independent Executor of the
Estate of Janet Shipley, Deceased, Defendant/Garnishor, and THE
C.P. HALL COMPANY, Defendant, CASE NO. 11-CV-1220 (C.D. Ill.).  A
full-text copy of Judge McDade's Decision dated July 25, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/v8J4C6from Leagle.com.

Arrowood Indemnity Company, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew
Keith Moskowitz, Esq. -- keith.moskowitz@dentons.com -- and John I
Grossbart, Esq. -- john.grossbart@dentons.com -- at Dentons US
LLP.  James Shipley, Defendant, represented by John A Slevin, Esq.
-- jslevin@vltslaw.com -- and M Michael Waters, Esq., at Vonachen
Lawless Trager & Slevin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Judgments for CalPortland, Kaiser
----------------------------------------------------------------
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, on
July 1, 2014, affirmed the judgments in favor of CalPortland and
Kaiser Gypsum.  The Court of Appeals reversed the judgments in
favor of J-MM and Formosa, holding that J-MM and Formosa failed to
persuade the Court that they are entitled to summary adjudication
as a matter of law based on the sophisticated user defense or
because the lack of warnings was not a legal cause for Loren's
injuries

The cases are VERNA LEE COLLIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
CALPORTLAND COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents, VERNA LEE
COLLIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
INC., Defendant and Respondent, NOS. C063875, C065180 (Cal. App.).

Paul B. Cook, Esq., and Michael B. Gurien, Esq., at Waters, Kraus
& Paul, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Robert H. Berkes, Esq., Steven M. Crane, Esq., and Barbara S.
Hodous, Esq., at Berkes Crane Robinson & Seal, for Defendant and
Respondent CalPortland Company.

Lisa Perrochet, Esq., and Dean A. Bochner, Esq., at Horvitz &
Levy; and Jennifer Judin, Esq., at DeHay & Elliston, for Defendant
and Respondent Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc.

Helen M. Luetto, Esq., and Ingrid K. Campagne, Esq., at Walsworth
Franklin Bevins & McCall, for Defendants and Respondents J-M
Manufacturing Company, Inc. and Formosa Plastics Corporation USA.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Fisher" Suit Remanded to State Court
------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Fisher filed an action for personal injury, allegedly caused
by exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products, against
more than two dozen corporate defendants and their alternate
entities conducting business in the State of California.  Although
the case was initially filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court,
the defendant, Crane Co. has removed the action to federal court.
Fisher filed a motion to remand.

Judge William G. Young of the United States District Court for the
Central District of California granted Fisher's motion to remand
the case to Los Angeles County Superior Court after determining
that Fisher promptly has clarified that no claim exists against
Crane that would warrant a federal defense.

The case is RALPH FISHER, Plaintiff, v. ASBESTOS CORPORATION
LIMITED, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02338-WGY-
(FFMX)(C.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy of the Decision dated
July 30, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/ENH7gEfrom
Leagle.com.

Ralph Fisher, Plaintiff, represented by Alan R Brayton, Esq.,
David R Donadio, Esq., Kimberly J Chu, Esq., and Richard M Grant,
Esq., at Brayton Purcell LLP.

Trane US Inc, Defendant, represented by Carla Lynn Crochet, Esq.,
Jeremy David Milbrodt, Esq., and Arpi Galfayan, Esq., at Prindle
Amaro Goetz Hillyard Barnes and Reinholtz LLP.

Cleaver-Brooks Inc, Defendant, represented by Gary D Sharp, Esq.,
Melanie L Ameele, Esq., and Shaun E Swiger, Esq., at Foley and
Mansfield PLLP.

Crane Co, Defendant, represented by Geoffrey M Davis, Esq., Henley
J Hansen, Esq., and Stephen P Farkas, Esq., at K&L Gates LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, represented by Charles S Park,
Esq., and Thomas Jeffrey Moses, Esq., at Brydon Hugo and Parker.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Kirsten Hicks Spira, Esq., and Lisa Marie Dowling, Esq., at
Steptoe and Johnson LLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Erin N Empting, Esq.,
Kevin D Jamison, Esq., and Kimberly Lynn Rivera, Esq., at Pond
North LLP.

Bayer Cropscience Inc, Defendant, represented by Deanna Mayer
Voziyan, Esq., at McKenna Long and Aldridge LLP; and Farah Sohaili
Nicol, Esq., Lesa M Meyers, Esq., Ryan S Landis, Esq., and Stephen
M Nichols, Esq., at Polsinelli LLP.

Weil McLain Company, Defendant, represented by David M Glaspy,
Esq., and Gary F Lundry, Esq., at Law Offices of Glaspy and Glaspy
Inc.

Oakfabco Inc, Defendant, represented by David M Uchida, Esq.,
Karen Lynn Finateri Silbiger, Esq., and Rod J Cappy, Esq., at
Selman Breitman LLP.

ITT Corporation, Defendant, represented by Arpi Galfayan, Esq.,
Carla Lynn Crochet, Esq., and Jeremy David Milbrodt, Esq., at
Prindle Amaro Goetz Hillyard Barnes and Reinholtz LLP.

Carrier Corporation, Defendant, represented by John K Son, Esq.,
at Tucker Ellis LLP.

York International Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
W Deane, Esq., Jerry C Popovich, Esq., and Lara M Kruska, Esq., at
Selman Breitman LLP.

Avocet Enterprises Inc, Defendant, represented by Henry D Rome,
Esq., and Ryan Kujawski, Esq., at Howard Rome Martin &and Ridley
LLP.

Duro Dyne Corporation, Defendant, represented by Karen Patricia
Agelson, Esq., Jennifer A Cormier, Esq., and Sean Christopher
McGah, Esq., at Walsworth Franklin Bevins and McCall LLP.

SPX Colling Technologies Inc, Defendant, represented by Michael
Joseph Estrada, Esq., and Roger P Downes, Esq., at Vasquez Estrada
and Conway LLP.

W. W. Grainger Inc, Defendant, represented by Peter Burton Logan,
Esq., at Logan Law Group PC.

AAF-McQuay Inc, Defendant, represented by Stephen Jude Kelley,
Esq., Susan Victoria Vargas, Esq., and John Andrew Eberlein, Esq.,
at Bowman and Brooke LLP.

J. T. Thorpe & Son Inc, Defendant, represented by Reshma A Bajaj,
Esq., at Bassi Edlin Huie and Blum LLP.

Fluor Corporation, Defendant, represented by Douglas G Wah, Esq.,
Thomas J Tarkoff, Esq., and Lauren C McLeod, Esq., at Foley and
Mansfield PLLP.

Syd Carpenter Marine Contractor Inc, Defendant, represented by
Arpi Galfayan, Esq., Carla Lynn Crochet, Esq., and Jeremy David
Milbrodt, Esq., at Prindle Amaro Goetz Hillyard Barnes and
Reinholtz LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Upholds Ruling in FEHA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
George Gerber, Jr., appeals from the judgment after the court
granted the summary judgment motions of defendants and respondents
Sweetwater Union High School District and Gary Gauger, Henry
"John" Allshouse, Todd Torgerson, Mike Kelley, Vincent Andrilli,
Fred Ferguson, Jr., Rip Courter and Jesus Gandara, on Gerber's
claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act and related
employment tort claims.

Gerber contended that in January, February and March 2006, per
District policy, he reported to his supervisors the presence of
asbestos at several repair sites within the District.  In early
March 2006, Gerber sought medical treatment for exposure to
asbestos while making a repair at a District school.  According to
Gerber, Allshouse was "furious" with him for seeking medical
attention regarding his alleged exposure to asbestos.  In mid-
March 2006, Gerber filed a complaint with OSHA regarding the
safety and asbestos issues he had encountered during his
employment with the District.  Gerber reported the District and
its supervisors were retaliating against him for reporting these
safety issues and as such, his work environment was becoming
increasingly hostile.  According to Gerber, the retaliation became
worse as he continued to report ongoing safety violations within
the District, including additional reports of asbestos, to
supervisors Allshouse, Kelley and Courter.

The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One,
in a decision dated July 29, 2014, concluded that the lower court
properly granted the motions for summary judgment in favor of the
District and the individual defendants.  Accordingly, the Court of
Appeals affirmed.

The case is GEORGE R. GERBER, JR., Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and
Respondents, NO. D063576 (Cal. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/JGFBJBfrom Leagle.com.

Amelia A. McDermott, Esq., Donald R. Holben, Esq., and William
Pabarcus, Esq., at Donald R. Holben & Associates, for Plaintiff
and Appellant.  Daniel R. Shinoff, Esq., Paul V. Carelli IV, Esq.,
and Lee T. Patajo IV, Esq., at Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, for
Defendants and Respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diversified Directed to Pay Workers' Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lead case in the consolidated action was commenced by the
Trustees of various employee benefit plans for Local 282 against
defendant Diversified Carting, Inc., to recover delinquent fringe
benefit contributions and union dues required to be paid pursuant
to a series of Collective Bargaining Agreements between the
parties.  The CBAs expressly provide that the Employer is bound to
the Trust Agreement as well.  Under the terms of the Trust
Agreement, if an Employer fails to remit required contributions,
it is liable for payment of those contributions in addition to
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  The
Employer is further required to submit to periodic audits.

Magistrate Judge William D. Wall of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York issued a memorandum and order
dated July 31, 2014, ruling that the Plaintiffs have established
unpaid contributions in the total amount of $122,144.  The
magistrate judge directed the Plaintiffs to submit additional
documentation regarding interest, liquidated damages, costs and
auditors' fees.  In addition, magistrate judge directed the
Plaintiffs to submit a request for reasonable attorneys' fees,
including all documentation necessary to support a request.

The case is THOMAS GESUALDI, ANTHONY D'AQUILA, LOUIS BISIGNANO,
MICHAEL O'TOOLE, BENNY UMBRA, JOSEPH FERRARA, FRANK FINKEL, MARC
HERBST, DENISE RICHARDSON and THOMAS CORBETT as Trustees and
Fiduciaries of the Local 282 Welfare, Pension, Annuity, Job
Training, and Vacation and Sick Leave Trust Funds, Plaintiffs, v.
DIVERSIFIED CARTING, INC., Defendant, NO. CV 10-2561
(WDW)(E.D.N.Y.).

Thomas Gesualdi, Frank Finkel, Trustees of Local 282 International
Brotherhood of Teamsters Welfare, Pension, Annuity, Job Training
and Vacation Sick Leave Trust Funds, Anthony D'Aquila, Louis
Bisignano, Benny Umbra, Michael O'Toole, Joseph Ferrara, Marc
Herbst, Denise Richardson, Thomas Corbett, as Trustees and
Fiduciaries of the Local 282 Welfare, Pension, Annuity, Job
Training, and Vacation and Sick Trust Funds, Consol Plaintiff,
represented by James Robert Grisi, Esq., at Trivella & Forte LLP.

Diversified Carting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ira A. Sturm,
Esq., at Raab Sturm & Goldman, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Court Allows Inmate to Amend Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kevin Jason Groch, who is confined in the Maricopa
County Durango Jail, filed a pro se civil rights complaint
alleging, among other things, the presence of asbestos and black
mold in vents and duct work in the facility.  Judge David G.
Campbell of the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona granted the plaintiff's Application to Proceed and
dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend.

The case is Kevin Jason Groch, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M. Arpaio,
Defendant, NO. CV 14-1469-PHX-DGC (MEA)(D. Ariz.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Campbell's Decision dated July 28, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/q0Mgzhfrom 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  * * *