CAR_Public/141003.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, October 3, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 197

                             Headlines

AEROFLEX HOLDING: MOU Reached in Suit Over Cobham Merger
AIR NEW ZEALAND: Court Denied Judgment Bids in Antitrust Suit
ALTAIR NANOTECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
AMERICAN APPAREL: Final Judgment on Settlement Entered
AMERICAN APPAREL: Final Approval Hearing in Wage Suits Held

AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Plaintiffs Settle Red-Light Camera Suit
ANGELICA TEXTILE: Settles Overtime Class Action for $3 Million
ATP OIL: Judge Refuses to Split Securities Class Action
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Sued Over Promissory Notes Transfers
BLYTH INC: To Pay 80% of Legal Fees on ViSalus' Behalf

CARRIER CORPORATION: Sued Over Defective Air Conditioning Units
CHINA INTEGRATED: Court Nixes Plaintiff's Class Certification Bid
CIGNA HEALTHCARE: Accused of Using Bait & Switch Tactics in Cal.
COMPETITOR GROUP: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
CYTEC ENGINEERED: Faces "Mataiumu" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

DOW CHEMICAL: 10th Cir. Upholds Certification of Urethane Class
DUNKIN' DONUTS: Assistant Manager Files Overtime Class Action
EFT HOLDINGS: Li, et al. v. EFT Suit Currently Pending
EFT HOLDINGS: Li, et al. v. Qin, et al. Suit Currently Pending
FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Dismissal of Email Snooping Class Action

FORDS BOATHOUSE: Fla. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
FOREST OIL: New York Actions Over Sabine Merger Consolidated
FOREST OIL: Class Action Filed in Colorado Over Sabine Merger
FOREST OIL: No Date Yet for Oral Arguments in "Augenbaum" Case
FOX'S ON THE RIVER: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Camacho" Suit Claims

FULL STEAM: Faces Two Employment-Related Suits in California
GLENOAK ENTERPRISES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
GREEN MOUNTAIN: Sued Over Unlawful Sale of Single-Serve Beverage
GROWLIFE INC: Rosen Law Firm Appointed Lead Counsel
GROWLIFE INC: Facing Section 16(b) Claims

HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Judge Raises Concerns Over Settlement
HOME DEPOT: Faces "Earls" Suit in N. D. Cal. Over Data Breach
INNOVATIVE ELECTRICAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
JACK FLATS: Faces Class Action Over Tip Pooling Policy
JOLLEY CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

JUBILEE FIRST: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
K12 INC: Oral Arguments Heard on Motion to Dismiss
KEMPER CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Pro Rata Share
KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Case by Rosen Law Firm in Discovery Stage
L-3 SERVICES: Ethnic Serbs Can't Prosecute Genocide Claim in US

LEGGETT & PLATT: Reaches Tentative Settlement of Antitrust Claims
LIBERTY TAX: ERC Class Action Litigation in Early Stages
LIBERTY TAX: TCPA Class Action Litigation in Early Stages
LIVECAREER LTD: Wins Dismissal of Third-Party Class Action Claims
MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: MOU Reached in Suit Over TE Merger Deal

NAVISTAR INT'L: Faces N&C Class Action Over EGR Warranty
NAVISTAR INT'L: Faces MaxxForce Engine Class Actions
NAVISTAR INT'L: Court to Rule on Dismissal Bid in February 2015
NAVISTAR INT'L: Parties in "Griffin" Case Filed Status Report
NEW YORK STATE GAMING: Sued Over Misleading Game Card Packaging

OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Dismissed From Appeal in Case Against Genaera
OSRAM SYLVANIA: Class Action Settled for $30MM; March Hearing Set
PACIFIC PROCESS: "Andrews" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
PANGOR BAN: "Brundege" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
PAT O'BRIEN'S BAR: Faces "Frudge" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Mass. Court Junks K. Lewis et al. Suit
PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Mass. Court Junks E. Alberts et al. Suit
PFIZER INC: Illegally Prolongs Patent Protection, IUOE Claims
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Product Packaging
QR ENERGY: Brodsky & Smith Law Firm Files Class Action in Texas

SCORES HOLDING: Says $93,949 Receivable in Class Action Deal
SCORES HOLDING: Defending Against "Maldonado" Gender Bias Case
SCORES HOLDING: Dismissal of "Shiflett" Case Under Appeal
SCORES HOLDING: Fact Discovery in "Love" Case to Close in Nov.
SEARS OUTLET: Faces "Patton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

SEMPRIS LLC: Court Refused to Junk Suit Over Membership Programs
SIGMA-ALDRICH CORP: Faces Merger-Related Shareholder Class Suit
SOUTHWEST BANK: Goebel Filed Motion to Intervene in Lamb Suit
STATE FARM: Seeks Dismissal of TCPA Class Action
SUSSER HOLDINGS: Memorandum of Understanding Reached

TESLA MOTORS: Judge Dismisses Securities Suit
TIMBER BAY: Former Students Can Still Apply for Class Action
TL CANNON: Applebee's Employees File Class Action Over Rest Break
TOWERS WATSON: Resolution of Dugan, Allen & Pao Actions Now Final
TOWERS WATSON: Trial in Teck Metals Employees Suit Began in Sept

TUMINO'S TOWING: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
UNITED ONLINE: No Hearing Date on Bid for Interlocutory Review
US BANCORP: Did Not Pay Commission to Sales Associates, Suit Says
USUAL RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
VARNER PARKER: Action by Clinton Firm Dismissed With Prejudice

VENOCO INC: Trial in Class Action Expected to Occur in 2015
WEBLOYALTY.COM INC: 2nd Amended Complaint by K. Park Dismissed
WORLD PIZZA: Faces "Canelas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
XRS CORP: Being Sold for Too Little to Omnitracs, Suit Claims


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Appeal Plant Insulation Plan Terminated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Has 62,180 American Optical PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Continues to Defend Gibsonburg Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Inc. Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 43,730 Pending Claims at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Had 4,217 PI Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Had 7,732 "Brandon" Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Continues to Defend Unit's Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Inc. Has 2,569 New Claims at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Has 37 Exposure Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southern Star Records $1.6MM ARO Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Inc. Unit Has 1,130 Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: LSB Industries Accrues $308MM ARO Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had 8,574 Fibro Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Has 15 Fibro Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Next Bankruptcy Could See Garlock-style Fight
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NIC Continues to Defend Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Continues to Defend Fibro Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FedEx Continues to Defend Fibro Criminal Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. High Ct. Affirms Ruling in "Walston" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal App Flips Ruling in Insurance Coverage Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in "New" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Grants Summary Judgment in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Law Firm's Suit v. Trusts Granted

ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Denies Discovery Bid in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Court Denies Bid to Remand "Landry" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Court Dismisses Inmate's Suit Again
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Affirms Ruling in IMO Insurance Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arizona Court Dismisses "Rivera" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Affirms Jury Verdict Against Ford
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Grants Bid to Remand "Dougherty" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pro Hac Vice Motion OK'd in Ford-Garlock Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Ct. Refuses to Remand "Humphries" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Partially OK'd in Coverage Suit


                            *********


AEROFLEX HOLDING: MOU Reached in Suit Over Cobham Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
Aeroflex Holding Corp. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2014, that the
Company on May 19, 2014, entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Cobham plc ("Cobham") and
Army Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Cobham
("Merger Sub").  On the terms and subject to the conditions set
forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and
into the Company, and as a result the Company will continue as the
surviving corporation (the "Merger"). As a result of the Merger,
the Company will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cobham.

On June 3, 2014 two putative stockholder class action lawsuits
were filed in connection with the Merger:  (i) Ramon Acevedo v.
Aeroflex Holding Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9730-VCL (the "Delaware
Action"), which was commenced against the Company, the Company's
directors, Cobham and Merger Sub in the Delaware Court of Chancery
(the "Delaware Court"); and (ii) Tom Turberg v. Aeroflex Holding
Corp. et al., Index No. 602528/2014 (the "New York Action"), which
was commenced against the Company, the Company's directors,
Cobham, and Merger Sub in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of Nassau (the "New York Court").

On or about July 17, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action
and the New York Action agreed to coordinate efforts in Delaware
in exchange for defendants agreeing to expedited discovery in the
Delaware Action.  On July 22, 2014, the New York Court entered an
order staying the New York Action through the pendency of the
Delaware Action.

On August 15, 2014, the parties in the Delaware Action entered
into a memorandum of understanding (the "Memorandum of
Understanding") regarding the settlement of the Delaware Action,
memorializing a settlement which is subject to the approval of the
Delaware Court and would preclude further proceedings, and release
claims, in both the Delaware Action and New York Action.

The Memorandum of Understanding provides for, among other things,
an amendment of the Merger Agreement (i) to change the definition
of "Company Termination Fee" from "$32,000,000" to "$18,000,000",
and (ii) to reduce the "matching rights" provision set forth in
Sec. 6.2(d) of the Merger Agreement from four business days to
three business days.  In addition, the Memorandum of Understanding
provides that the defendants will make certain supplemental
disclosures related to the proposed Merger, which shall be filed
as Definitive Additional Materials on Schedule 14A with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") simultaneously
herewith and which should be read in conjunction with the
Definitive Proxy Statement.

The Company and its Board of Directors believe that the claims in
the Delaware Action and New York Action are entirely without merit
and, in the event the settlement does not resolve them, intend to
vigorously defend these actions.

In connection with the Memorandum of Understanding, on August 15,
2014, the Company, Cobham and Merger Sub entered into an Amendment
No. 1 (the "Merger Agreement Amendment") to the Merger Agreement
to (i) reduce the Company Termination Fee payable under specified
circumstances by the Company to Cobham from $32,000,000 to
$18,000,000, and (ii) reduce the "matching rights" provision set
forth in Sec. 6.2(d) of the Merger Agreement from four business
days to three business days.

Other than as expressly modified pursuant to the Merger Agreement
Amendment, the Merger Agreement, which was filed as Exhibit 2.1 to
the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC by the Company
on May 20, 2014, remains in full force and effect as originally
executed on May 19, 2014.


AIR NEW ZEALAND: Court Denied Judgment Bids in Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arvin Temkar, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge denied several airline companies' attempts to reach
summary judgment in a class-action lawsuit accusing the companies
of fixing prices for international travel between the United
States and the Asia-Oceania region.

In a Sept. 24 order, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer denied
most of Air New Zealand, All Nippon Airways (ANA), China Airlines,
EVA Air and Philippine Airlines' arguments for summary judgment,
ruling that the filed rate doctrine -- which provides a defense
against antitrust suits -- does not apply.

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs -- all airline passengers --
accused the defendants of agreeing to impose air fare hikes and
fuel surcharge increases that "were in substantial lockstep both
in their timing and amount."

The defendants, in five individual motions, argued for summary
judgment based on the filed rate doctrine, which forbids a
regulated entity to charge a rate other than the one it filed with
a regulatory agency.  The companies said that because Congress
gave the U.S. Department of Transportation authority over airline
rates, those rates can't be challenged under federal antitrust
law.  The doctrine is traditionally applied to utilities like
telecommunications and gas and power companies, not the airline
industry, Breyer said in his order.

The defendants asked the court to apply the filed rate doctrine to
filed and unfiled air fares, fuel surcharges, and discount fares
given by ANA.

Breyer ruled that the Department of Transportation exercised its
authority over rates filed by defendants, but the agency didn't
exercise authority over rates the defendant didn't file, including
fuel surcharges and ANA's special discount rates.

The case is In Re Transpacific Passenger Air Transportation
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:07-cv-05634-CRB, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.


ALTAIR NANOTECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 26 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Altair Nanotechnologies, Inc. and certain
of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under
14-cv-7828, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased Altair securities between May 15, 2013 and
September 4, 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 Altair securities during
the Class Period, you have until November 25, 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.

Altair designs, manufactures and delivers energy storage systems
for clean, efficient power and energy management.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies, and
internal controls over financial reporting.  Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the Company was experiencing significant
executive management and accounting level turnover in 2013 which
led to a lack of segregation of duties throughout the Company and
resulted in a lack of controls to perform a timely review of
transactions at an appropriate level of precision; (2) the Company
did not implement adequate procedures and controls over the 2013
year-end financial close and reporting process to ensure timely
filings in compliance with its financial reporting requirements;
(3) the Company did not implement adequate procedures and controls
to appropriately evaluate routine and non-routine transactions,
and as a result, did not detect the material misstatements that
were identified by its auditor during its audit process; (4) the
Company did not implement adequate procedures and controls to
ensure accurate and timely communication with its subsidiaries in
China; and as a result of the foregoing, (5) the Company did not
implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure the
completeness and accuracy of its consolidated financial statements
and related subsequent events.

On September 4, 2014, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC
announcing that on August 28, 2014, Crowe Horwath LLP, the
independent registered public accounting firm of Altair, resigned
as the Company's independent registered public accounting firm.
According to the Form 8-K, Crowe's resignation letter to the
Company's management and the Audit Committee of the Company's
Board of Directors advised the Company that it was resigning due
to its inability to complete the audit of the Company's financial
statements for the year ended 2013 in part due its inability to
perform sufficient procedures to determine the completeness of
reporting of subsequent events transactions that may have occurred
in China.  Moreover, Crowe indicated that it was resigning in part
due to the Company's material weakness relative to implementing
controls and procedures to ensure accurate and timely
communications between the Company's subsidiaries in China and its
U.S.-based accounting team.

On this news, NASDAQ halted Altair's shares during the trading day
on September 4, 2014 at $4.30 per share.  Shares of Altair resumed
trading on September 24, 2014, and as a result of this news,
immediately fell $3.35 per share, a drop of nearly 78% from the
halted price of $4.30 on September 4, 2014, to close at $0.95 on
September 24, 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.


AMERICAN APPAREL: Final Judgment on Settlement Entered
------------------------------------------------------
American Apparel Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that four putative class
action lawsuits (Case No. CV106352 MMM (RCx), Case No. CV106513
MMM (RCx), Case No. CV106516 MMM (RCx), and Case No. CV106680 GW
(JCGx)) were filed in fall of 2010 in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California ("USDC") which were
subsequently consolidated for all purposes into a case entitled In
re American Apparel, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No.
CV106352 MMM (JCGx) (the "Federal Securities Action"). The lead
plaintiff appointed by the USDC alleges two causes of action for
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated under Section 10(b), arising out of alleged
misrepresentations contained in the Company's press releases,
public filings with the SEC, and other public statements relating
to (i) the adequacy of the Company's internal and financial
control policies and procedures; (ii) the Company's employment
practices; and (iii) the effect that the dismissal of over 1,500
employees following an Immigration and Customs Enforcement
inspection would have on the Company. Plaintiff seeks damages in
an unspecified amount, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and
equitable relief as the USDC may deem proper.

On November 6, 2013, the USDC issued an order staying the case
pending ongoing settlement discussions between the parties.
Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion of preliminary approval which
was granted on April 16, 2014 without oral argument. On July 28,
2014, the USDC approved the settlement, and final judgment was
entered on July 30, 2014. The settlement will result in a payment
by the Company's insurance carrier of $4,800,000.

Should the above matters (i.e., the Federal Securities Action) be
decided against the Company in an amount that exceeds the
Company's insurance coverage, or if liability is imposed on
grounds which fall outside the scope of the Company's insurance
coverage, the Company could not only incur a substantial
liability, but also experience an increase in similar suits and
suffer reputational harm. The Company is unable to predict the
financial outcome of these matters at this time, and any views
formed as to the viability of these claims or the financial
exposure which could result may change from time to time as the
matters proceed through their course. However, no assurance can be
made that these matters, either individually or together with the
potential for similar suits and reputational harm, will not result
in a material financial exposure, which could have a material
adverse effect upon the Company's financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows.


AMERICAN APPAREL: Final Approval Hearing in Wage Suits Held
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Apparel Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in April 2014, the five
former employees' wage and hour cases including Guillermo Ruiz,
Antonio Partida, Emily Truong, Jessica Heupel, and Anthony Heupel
have been settled on an aggregate and class-wide basis for
$850,000, and a final approval was granted by the presiding
arbitrator. The parties are now seeking final court approval in
September 2014 in order to have binding claim preclusion on future
similar claims. There is no guarantee that such approvals will be
obtained. The Company does not have insurance coverage for this
matter.


AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Plaintiffs Settle Red-Light Camera Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Ken Leiser, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
plaintiffs challenging red-light camera laws in Missouri cities
have agreed to a settlement with American Traffic Solutions Inc.
on behalf of its 27 municipal customers, officials said.

The settlement will release claims against municipalities across
the state that have contracted with American Traffic Solutions
(ATS).  It was unclear on Sept. 26 what effect the settlement will
have on local red-light camera laws going forward.

Once the class is certified, members who received red-light camera
tickets should be eligible for a partial refund, or about $20 per
ticket, said plaintiff attorney Ryan Keane.  The settlement will
apply to violations dating back to 2005, the parties said in a
joint statement.

"This settlement will allow us and our customers to put these
issues in the rear-view mirror," George Hittner, general counsel
for ATS, said in the joint statement.  "Assuming the court
approves the settlement, this resolves all class action claims
against ATS and any similar claims against the Missouri cities we
serve, including those not previously included in the current
class-action lawsuits."

Missouri cities included in the settlement were: Arnold, Bellerive
Acres, Bel-Nor, Beverly Hills, Brentwood, Bridgeton, Calverton
Park, Clayton, Country Club Hills, Creve Coeur, Dellwood,
Ellisville, Excelsior Springs, Ferguson, Florissant, Grandview,
Hazelwood, Kansas City, Moline Acres, Northwoods, Richmond
Heights, St. Ann, St. John, St. Joseph, St. Louis, Sugar Creek and
Washington.

A recent round of Missouri appeals court decisions underscored
discrepancies between some municipal ordinances and state laws
governing moving violations.

ATS is in effect settling the claims on behalf of the cities.  In
reaching the settlement, neither the company nor the named cities
are admitting to allegations raised by in the lawsuits.

The tentative settlement does not affect cases pending before the
Missouri Supreme Court, Mr. Keane said.  Those involve the city of
St. Peters, which contracts with ATS competitor Redflex; the city
of St. Louis, whose ordinance is subject to an injunction; and a
speed camera case in Moline Acres.

Mr. Keane and fellow plaintiffs' attorney Russ Watters said the
settlement "puts these civil class action claims to rest statewide
and we believe offers the class members a partial refund that is
fair, adequate and reasonable under the circumstances."

Court papers still must be filed to notify everyone who paid one
of the fines to inform them of their rights under the settlement,
Keane said.

Plaintiffs' lawyers in the case referenced the "uncertainty of
continued litigation" in their joint statement.


ANGELICA TEXTILE: Settles Overtime Class Action for $3 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law360, reports that laundry company
Angelica Textile Services Inc. has agreed to pay $3 million to
resolve claims it failed to fully pay overtime to hourly
employees, according to a class action settlement approved on
Sept. 25 by a federal judge in California.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal signed off on a settlement
resolving allegations that Angelica had violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The suit alleged that Angelica used an uneven
rounding method for calculating wages that led some hourly
employees to be short-changed on overtime.

Under the terms of the settlement, Angelica agreed to pay up to $3
million, with about $2.2 million going directly to class members
and the remainder covering costs, attorneys' fees and a $7,500
enhancement award to Albert Solorio, who served as the named
plaintiff in the suit.

"The court grants final approval of the settlement and finds the
terms of the settlement to be fair reasonable, and adequate,"
Judge Grewal said in an order Sept. 25.

The settlement resolves a suit that dates back to July 2012, when
Mr. Solorio filed a putative class action against Angelica,
alleging the company, which provides medical laundry services and
health care linen, violated the FLSA and California state wage
law.  The wage claims stemmed from the company's alleged system
for tracking employees' hours, which involved employees punching
in and out to mark the time they had worked each day.

The punch times, the suit said, were rounded to the nearest
quarter of an hour, and that rounding system allegedly short-
changed employees, stripping them of the pay, including overtime,
they deserved for all the hours they worked.

"Angelica followed a practice of rounding punch times to the
nearest quarter hour increment and, if the original punch time
would have resulted in a rounding upwards favorable to the
employee, modifying the punch time so that the rounding was
downward to the detriment of the employee," the July 2012
complaint said.  "As a result of such uneven rounding practices,
[Solorio] was not paid for all the hours he actually worked but
was paid for substantially fewer hours than he actually worked."

Following the filing of the suit, the two sides eventually entered
into settlement discussions, participating in mediation sessions
in June 2013 and October 2013.  In February, the court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement, and after some
modifications, the two sides in August sought a final signoff.

The settlement includes two classes -- one focused on the FLSA
claims and another focused on California claims.  Both classes
include groups of hourly employees who worked for Angelica between
July 2008 and February 2014.

Up to $2.17 million would go to the employees in those classes,
and $750,000 would go toward the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees,
according to a settlement filing from August.

The employees are represented by Gregory N. Karasik of Karasik Law
Firm.

Angelica is represented by Jeremy T. Naftel --
jnaftel@cdflaborlaw.com -- of Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger
LLP.

The case is Solorio v. Angelica Textile Services Inc. et al., case
number 5:12-cv-03569, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


ATP OIL: Judge Refuses to Split Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reports that a Louisiana federal
judge on Sept. 26 refused to split a consolidated securities class
action alleging the bankrupt ATP Oil & Gas Corp. misled investors
ahead of a $1.5 billion notes exchange about its liquidity and
business prospects following drilling moratoriums enacted after
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

U.S. District Judge Sarah S. Vance rejected the lead plaintiffs'
request to sever claims in the consolidated class action against
ATP's top brass that were raised under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 from the claims raised under Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Judge Vance ruled that the interests of judicial economy to be
achieved by consolidating what was four separate class actions
alleging ATP's board of directors misled investors about a $1.5
billion senior notes exchange in 2010 outweigh any potential
prejudice to the lead plaintiffs that lobbed the Section 11
claims, according to the order.

"In sum, the court finds that consolidation, not separation, best
serves the interest of judicial economy," the judge said.  "The
court further finds that the Section 11 plaintiffs will not suffer
any prejudice if the actions remained consolidated."

Judge Vance didn't buy the plaintiffs' attempt to challenge the
court's consolidation order by arguing that severance was
warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, saying their
attempt to rely on that rule was misguided because that rule
doesn't apply here given that the suits were consolidated under
Rule 42(a).

Ultimately, the Section 11 and Section 10(b) actions share common
questions of law and fact, so it's much more efficient for the
court to hear a consolidated case, the judge said.

"Here, given the significant factual overlap between the Section
11 and Section 10(b) actions, the court finds that continued
consolidation will save significant time and effort, especially
with regard to discovery," Judge Vance said.  "Moreover, the court
finds that any delay, inconvenience or additional cost caused by
continued consolidation will be negligible."

The Firefighters Pension & Relief Fund of the City of New Orleans
kicked off the litigation by filing suit in May 2013 alleging the
bankrupt ATP's board and top executives misled investors ahead of
a $1.5 billion note exchange in 2010 by downplaying the impact on
its business, liquidity and ability to continue as a going concern
following the U.S. government's drilling moratorium enacted after
the April 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

The pension fund claimed ATP's top executives made false and
misleading statements in the company's filings with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with that
December 2010 exchange offer, in which ATP issued 11.875 percent
senior second lien exchange notes and exchanged those notes for
$1.5 billion of privately placed notes which had been sold by ATP
in April 2010, according to court documents.

The pension fund and others that took part in the December 2010
notes exchange claimed they suffered more than $1 billion in
losses on the notes, which were trading at just four cents on the
dollar at the time the complaint was filed.

ATP ultimately filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in
August 2012, citing dramatically reduced cash flows from the
deepwater drilling moratorium placed on the Gulf of Mexico after
the 2010 oil spill.

Lead plaintiff Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund is
represented by Darren J. Robbins, Robert R. Henssler Jr., Cody R.
LeJeune -- clejeune@rgrdlaw.com -- and Christopher D. Stewart --
cstewart@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and by
Louis P. Malone of O'Donoghue & O'Donoghue LLP.

The Firefighters Pension Fund is represented by David R. Scott,
Joseph P. Guglielmo and Donald A. Broggi of Scott + Scott LLP.

Defendants T. Paul Bulmahn, Albert L. Reese, Jr., and Keith R.
Godwin are represented by Paul R. Bessette, Michael J. Biles,
Yusuf Bajwa and James P. Sullivan of King & Spalding LLP and by
Roy Clifton Cheatwood and Matthew A. Woolf of Baker Donelson
Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz.

The consolidated case is Firefighters Pension & Relief Fund of the
City of New Orleans v. T. Paul Bulmahn et al., case number 2:13-
cv-03935, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana.


BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Sued Over Promissory Notes Transfers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Recorder of Deeds by and Through
Nancy J. Becker, In Her Official Capacity as the Recorder of Deeds
of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, on its own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Bank of New York
Mellon, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-05500 (E.D. Pa., September 24,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to create and
timely record mortgage assignments in connection with transfers of
promissory notes secured by mortgages on Pennsylvania real estate.

The Bank of New York Mellon is among the most active participant
in the mortgage-backed securities (MBS) industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph C. Khon, Esq.
      Robert J. LaRocca, Esq.
      William E, Hoese, Esq.
      Craig W. Hillwig, Esq.
      Barbara L. Gibson, Esq.
      KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, PC
      One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
      Philadelphia, PA 19107-3304
      Telephone: (215) 238-1700
      Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
      E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
              rlarocca@kohnswift.com
              whose@kohnswift.com
              chillwig@kohnswift.com
              bgibson@kohnswift.com

         - and -

      William H. Lamb, Esq.
      James C. Sargent, Esq.
      Maureen M. McBride, Esq.
      LAMB MCERLANE PC
      24 E. Market Street
      West Chester, PA 19381
      Telephone: (610) 430-8000
      Facsimile: (610) 629-0877
      E-mail: wlamb@lambmcerlane.com
              jsargent@lambmcerlane.com
              mmcbride@lambmcerlane.com

          - and -

      Jeffrey D. Schaffer, Esq.
      SAFFREN & WIENBERG
      815 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 22
      Jenkintown, PA 19046
      Telephone: (215) 576-0100
      Facsimile: (215) 576-6288
      E-mail: jeff@saffwein.com


BLYTH INC: To Pay 80% of Legal Fees on ViSalus' Behalf
------------------------------------------------------
Blyth, Inc., said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2014, that the Company,
ViSalus, Inc., and certain holders of the Series B Redeemable
Convertible Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 per share, of ViSalus
(the "Series B Holders") reached on September 2, 2014, an
agreement in principle to complete a recapitalization transaction,
as described below (the "Recapitalization Transaction"). In
connection with the Recapitalization, it is expected that the
Company will enter into the agreements.

The agreement in principle is non-binding and is subject to a
number of conditions including, without limitation, entry into the
below-described agreements. There can be no assurance that the
Recapitalization Transaction will be consummated or, if
consummated, that the Recapitalization Transaction will positively
impact the results of either Blyth or ViSalus.

Recapitalization Agreement

It is expected that Blyth, ViSalus and the Series B Holders will
enter into a Recapitalization Agreement (the "Recapitalization
Agreement"). Pursuant to the Recapitalization Agreement, ViSalus
would be recapitalized (the "Recapitalization") by effecting the
mandatory exchange of each issued and outstanding share of the
Series A Redeemable Convertible Preferred Stock, par value $0.01
per share, and the Series B Redeemable Convertible Preferred
Stock, par value $0.01 per share, (collectively the "Preferred
Stock") of ViSalus for 38.23233 shares of Class B Common Stock of
ViSalus, thereby (i) reducing Blyth's ownership interest in
ViSalus from approximately 80.9% to approximately 10% and
increasing the ownership interest of the holders of the Preferred
Stock from approximately 19.9% to approximately 90% and (ii)
eliminating the obligation of ViSalus to redeem the Preferred
Stock in 2017 (for approximately $143.2 million) and the related
guaranty by Blyth of ViSalus's performance of such obligation.
Pursuant to the Recapitalization Agreement, (i) Blyth would agree
to reimburse and pay on behalf of ViSalus 80% of the legal fees
and disbursements reasonably charged by its legal counsel in
connection with the Recapitalization and the transactions related
thereto, up to a maximum amount of $200,000, (ii) Blyth would
agree to reimburse and pay on behalf of ViSalus 80% of the legal
fees and disbursements reasonably charged by ViSalus's legal
counsel and reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by ViSalus
in defending ViSalus and certain others against the claims
asserted by the plaintiffs in a putative class action that is now
pending in the United States District Court in the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, up to a maximum amount of
$4.0 million, (iii) Blyth would agree to indemnify and hold
harmless ViSalus, the Series B Holders and certain others from and
against any losses arising out of, attributable to, or resulting
from (x) the failure of any of the representations and warranties
made by Blyth in the Recapitalization Agreement to be true and
correct in all respects, or (y) the breach or alleged breach by
Blyth of any covenant or agreement set forth in such agreement,
(iv) Blyth would agree to defend, indemnify and hold ViSalus, each
of the Series B Holders and certain others harmless from and
against, and pay to such indemnified persons, the amount of any
losses arising out of, attributable to or resulting from claims
relating to the Recapitalization that are asserted against such
indemnified persons by persons or entities that are not parties to
such agreement (a "Third Party"), and might settle, compromise or
otherwise resolve any such claim and (v) Blyth and ViSalus would
terminate certain intercompany agreements.


CARRIER CORPORATION: Sued Over Defective Air Conditioning Units
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emrah Sumer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Carrier Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-04271 (N.D.
Cal., September 23, 2014), seeks to obtain damages and injunctive
relief related to the Defendant's sale and marketing of Air
Conditioning Units containing defective evaporator coils.

Carrier Corporation is engaged in the business of manufacturing,
marketing, and distributing heating, air-conditioning, and
refrigeration solutions under the brand names Carrier, Bryant, and
Payne.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 564-2300
      Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
      E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com

         - and -

      Jamie E. Weiss, Esq.
      Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
      Richard Joseph Burke, Esq.
      Zachary Jacobs, Esq.
      QUANTUM LEGAL LLC
      513 Central Avenue, 3rd Floor
      Highland Park, IL 60035
      Telephone: (847) 433-4500
      Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
      E-mail: Jeff@Qulegal.com


CHINA INTEGRATED: Court Nixes Plaintiff's Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Brown, et al. v. China Integrated Energy, Inc. et al.,
(Consolidated Class Action), District Court for the Central
District of California; Case No. CV-11-02559-MMM-PLAx, is a
putative shareholder consolidated class action initiated on March
25, 2011 against the Company, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and its former auditors alleging
violations of the United States securities laws (including alleged
misrepresentations as to the Company's financial condition and the
non-disclosure of related-party transactions in violation of
sections 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 ).

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint, filed on December 20,
2011, seeks the recovery of unspecified compensatory damages, as
well as the costs of suit, primarily based upon short-seller
analyst reports published in or about March 2011 (which reports
prompted a thorough independent review by the Company's audit
committee).

On February 22, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
action for failure to state a legally viable claim.  By Order
dated April 2, 2012, the Court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss. Thereafter, the proceeding has entered into the discovery
phase, and on August 15, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. Defendants filed a motion to exclude the
declarations and testimony of the two experts upon whom plaintiff
relied in seeking class certification.

By order dated August 4, 2014, the Court granted defendants'
motion to exclude plaintiff's experts and denied plaintiff's
motion for class certification, without prejudice to renewal,
China Integrated Energy said in its Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 2
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3,
2014, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the claims. "As of this
date, and given the ongoing and early stages of discovery in the
action, we are unable to provide an evaluation of the likely
outcome or give a range of potential loss," the Company said.

China Integrated Energy is a non-state-owned integrated energy
company in China engaged in three business segments, the wholesale
distribution of finished oil and heavy oil products, the
production and sale of biodiesel and the operation of retail gas
stations.


CIGNA HEALTHCARE: Accused of Using Bait & Switch Tactics in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Cigna Healthcare of
California used bait and switch tactics to get people to sign up
for "inadequate" health care insurance, a class action claims in
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles.


COMPETITOR GROUP: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yvette Joy Liebesman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Competitor Group, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-
01653 (E.D. Mo., September 23, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Competitor Group, Inc. is a for-profit corporation that runs the
Rock 'n' Roll series of marathons and half-marathons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John R. Phillips, Esq.
      Bryant Kyle Bass, Esq.
      SIMMONS AND HANLY, LLC
      One Court Street
      Alton, IL 62002
      Telephone: (618) 259-6377
      Facsimile: (314) 259-2251
      E-mail: jphillips@simmonsfirm.com
              kbass@simmonsfirm.com


CYTEC ENGINEERED: Faces "Mataiumu" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Malaeloa Mataiumu and Miguel Vera, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated v. Cytec Engineered Materials, Inc., Case
No. 8:14-cv-01548 (C.D. Cal., September 24, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation.

Cytec Engineered Materials, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is
engaged in manufacturing business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
      Lisl R. Duncan, Esq.
      WEINBERG ROGER AND ROSENFELD APC
      800 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1320
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 380-2344
      Facsimile: (213) 443-5098
      E-mail: drosenfeld@unioncounsel.net
              lduncan@unioncounsel.net

         - and -

      Florice Hoffman, Esq.
      FLORICE HOFFMAN LAW OFFICES
      8502 East Chapman, Suite 353
      Orange, CA 92869
      Telephone: (714) 282-1179
      Facsimile: (714) 282-7918
      E-mail: fhoffman@socal.rr.com


DOW CHEMICAL: 10th Cir. Upholds Certification of Urethane Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 13-3215, is an
antitrust class action, which stems from an allegation that Dow
Chemical Company conspired with competitors to fix prices for
polyurethane chemical products. Over Dow's objection, the district
court certified a plaintiff class including all industrial
purchasers of polyurethane products during the alleged conspiracy
period. The action went to trial, and the jury returned a verdict
against Dow. The district court entered judgment for the
plaintiffs, denying Dow's motions for decertification of the class
and judgment as a matter of law.

Dow filed an appeal, raising four arguments:

     (1) contending that the class certification was improper;

     (2) arguing that the district court should have excluded the
testimony of the plaintiffs' expert witness on statistics;

     (3) challenging the sufficiency of the evidence regarding
liability; and

     (4) asserting that the damages award lacked an evidentiary
basis and that the resulting judgment violated the Seventh
Amendment.

In a Sept. 29, 2014 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court's order, rejecting Dow's
challenges to the order for class certification, the refusal to
decertify the class, the admission of statistical expert Dr. James
McClave's testimony, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the
award of damages.

The 10th Circuit opined, "the award $400,049,039 was supported by
the evidence. Dr. McClave calculated even greater damages
($496,680,486), and the jury had an evidentiary basis for reducing
this figure to $400,049,039."

"In allocating this award, the court did not violate the Seventh
Amendment; and Dow has no interest in the method of distributing
the aggregate damages award among the class members," the 10th
Circuit added.

The appeals case is DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. SEEGOTT
HOLDINGS, INC.; INDUSTRIAL POLYMERS, INC.; QUABAUG CORPORATION,
(Class Plaintiffs), Appellees, and CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE
UNITED STATES and AMERICAN INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ALLIANCE, Amici
Curiae (10th Cir.)

The appellate panel is comprised of Judge Carlos F. Lucero, Senior
Judge Michael Murphy, and Judge Robert Bacharach.

A copy of the 10th Circuit's Sept. 29 Order is available at
http://is.gd/qZgxTPfrom Leagle.com.

Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. -- jselbin@lchb.com , Jason L. Lichtman,
Esq. -- jlichtman@lchb.com -- of Lief Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP's New York unit; Jordan Elias, Esq. --
jelias@lchb.com -- of Lief Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP's
San Francisco, CA unit; and Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq. --
imcloughlin@shulaw.com -- Rachel M. Brown, Esq. --
rbrown@shulaw.com -- of Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP, in Boston, MA,
filed an Amicus Curiae brief for the American Independent Business
Alliance.


DUNKIN' DONUTS: Assistant Manager Files Overtime Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a former
assistant manager is suing Dunkin' Donuts for allegedly failing to
pay overtime pay and wrongfully classifying her as exempt from
overtime pay.

Helen Rambo was employed by Heartland Restaurant Group, which is
doing business as Dunkin' Donuts, from Jan. 15, 2012, until
April 19, first as a shift leader and then as an assistant
manager, according to a complaint filed Sept. 19 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

As a shift leader, Ms. Rambo was paid an hourly rate, plus
overtime.  However, as an assistant manager, she says she was paid
only a salary of $462.50 per week, with no overtime pay, according
to the suit.

Ms. Rambo claims she was scheduled by the defendant to work 50
hours per week and normally worked five days per week.  She also
said sometimes she worked six days per week, for 55 to 65 hours
each workweek, and sometimes more than that.

"The time records maintained by defendant would normally show 50
hours per week, but these records were knowingly false," the
complaint states.  "Defendant would alter the time records to
reflect only 50 hours per week even when plaintiff would work in
excess of 50 hours."

The defendant told Ms. Rambo she was exempt from overtime because
she was an assistant manager and was salaried, according to the
suit.

Ms. Rambo claims the defendant classified her as an exempt
executive employee within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

The classification was improper and Ms. Rambo did not manage the
requisite number of employees to be exempt under the FLSA and the
PMWA, according to the suit.

"Plaintiff's primary duties were to perform various functions such
as baking, working the cash register, preparing food and serving
food, the same duties normally performed by the hourly (non-
exempt) employees," the complaint states.  "Even if defendant were
to assert the administrative exemption to the FLSA and the PMWA,
plaintiff did not meet the requirements for the administrative
exemption."

Ms. Rambo claims she did not make decisions relative to management
policy or general business operations of the defendant and also
did not regularly exercise independent judgment and/or discretion
in the performance of her duties, as the performance of the duties
she was assigned was strictly controlled and dictated by the
defendant's policies and practices, automated management systems
and procedures and daily instructions.

Considering the hours she worked, Ms. Rambo made the same or even
less per hour than the hourly employees, particularly when the
hourly employees also earned overtime pay, according to the suit.

Ms. Rambo claims she did not meet the requirements for any of the
exemptions within the FLSA or PMWA and the defendant has known
since before she became an assistant manager that she was non-
exempt.

"Improperly claiming plaintiff was exempt was a deliberate act by
defendant to avoid the payment of overtime hours to plaintiff,"
the complaint states.  "Defendant has known since at least
September 2011 that it has been in violation of the FLSA and PMWA
and has acted in reckless disregard of the FLSA and the PMWA with
respect to the classification and payment of plaintiff."

With respect to the other assistant managers, the plaintiff worked
directly with several of them at other stores and observed their
duties, according to the suit.

Ms. Rambo claims based on these observations, the primary duties
of the other assistant managers at the other stores were the same
as hers, which was production.

"Plaintiff was also told by management that the other assistant
managers were assigned to do the same basic tasks plaintiff
performed," the complaint states.  "Like plaintiff, the other
assistant managers did not regularly supervise two or more full-
time workers."

Ms. Rambo claims that improperly claiming she and other assistant
managers in the Pittsburgh area to be exempt is a deliberate act
by the defendant to avoid the payment of overtime hours to the
assistant managers and to avoid having to pay additional overtime
to hourly employees.

"By requiring plaintiff and other assistant managers in the
Pittsburgh area to perform the same primary duties as hourly
employees yet work well in excess of 40 hours each week(scheduled
for 50 hours) without overtime pay, defendant can and does reduce
the amount of overtime pay paid to its non-exempt hourly employees
and, overall, reduces overhead," the complaint states.

Ms. Rambo is seeking class certification and compensatory damages.
She is represented by Joseph H. Chivers and John R. Linkosky of
Employment Rights Group.

The case is assigned to District Judge Mark R. Hornak.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case
number 2:14-cv-01257


EFT HOLDINGS: Li, et al. v. EFT Suit Currently Pending
------------------------------------------------------
EFT Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a class action entitled
Li, et al. v. EFT Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed on November 27,
2013, on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of one or
more of the Company's products against the Company and Jack Qin in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  The amended complaint, filed on July 11, 2014,
alleges, among other things, violation of unfair competition law
and false advertising law and fraud.  The complaint seeks, among
other things, compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive
relief.  The case is currently pending.  The Company believes that
the claims asserted are without merit and intends to defend
against them vigorously.

EFT Holdings, Inc., formerly EFT Biotech Holdings, Inc., was
incorporated in the State of Nevada on March 19, 1992.  The
Company's business is classified by management into two reportable
segments: online and beverage. These reportable segments are two
distinct businesses, each with a different customer base,
marketing strategy and management structure. Substantially all of
the Company's revenue is generated from Mainland China.


EFT HOLDINGS: Li, et al. v. Qin, et al. Suit Currently Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
EFT Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a class action entitled
Li, et al. v. Qin, et al. was filed on November 27, 2013, on
behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of the Company's
products against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.  The amended complaint, filed on
July 11, 2014, adds certain other persons and entities as
defendants and alleges, among other things, operation of an
endless chain scheme, fraud, corporate waste and gift, and
violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act. The complaint seeks, among other things,
compensatory and punitive damages.  The case is currently pending.
The Company believes that the claims asserted are without merit
and intends to defend against them vigorously.

EFT Holdings, Inc., formerly EFT Biotech Holdings, Inc., was
incorporated in the State of Nevada on March 19, 1992.  The
Company's business is classified by management into two reportable
segments: online and beverage. These reportable segments are two
distinct businesses, each with a different customer base,
marketing strategy and management structure. Substantially all of
the Company's revenue is generated from Mainland China.


FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Dismissal of Email Snooping Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that U.S. District
Judge Phyllis Hamilton was set to be the latest jurist in the
Northern District of California to grapple with how decades-old
federal wiretapping laws apply to today's technology.
On Sept. 24, Judge Hamilton was scheduled to hear oral arguments
on Facebook Inc.'s motion to dismiss a lawsuit claiming the
company scanned users' messages illegally.

Plaintiffs lawyers, headed up by Michael Sobol at Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, sued Facebook in December 2013 on behalf of a
proposed class of the social network's users.  They claimed the
company illegally intercepted private messages sent via Facebook
whenever users included a link to an outside website.

Facebook's lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher have pooh-poohed the
allegations, calling the case a "copycat suit" that echoes
accusations of email snooping that have been advanced against
other tech companies, but largely floundered in court.

Plaintiffs lawyers lined up to bring suits targeting Facebook and
Yahoo Inc. after U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh gave a green light
last September to a similar case against Google over the company's
scanning of Gmail messages.  But in the wake of Judge Koh's
ruling, the spate of litigation seems to have sputtered: Judge Koh
denied class certification in the Gmail suit in March and tossed
federal wiretap claims from a suit against Yahoo in August.

Judge Hamilton's take on the Facebook case could help resolve just
how far Internet companies can go in screening users' personal
messages before running afoul of privacy laws that carry statutory
damages as high as $10,000 per violation.

The complaint against Facebook cited an October 2012 Wall Street
Journal report showing that when users included links to websites
in private Facebook messages, those links registered as a "Like"
on other sites that displayed Facebook's "Like" button.  "By
scanning users' private messages, and inferring 'Likes' from the
content of those messages, Facebook has been able to glean from
its users data that they otherwise would not have shared, allowing
Facebook to generate even more robust, and accordingly more
valuable, user profiles," the plaintiffs lawyers wrote in the
consolidated amended complaint filed in April.

The complaint alleged Facebook violated the federal Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, the 1986 update to the Federal Wiretap
Act of 1968, and California privacy and unfair-competition laws.
Plaintiffs lawyers have asked for an injunction, actual damages
and statutory damages, which can go as high as $10,000 per
violation under the ECPA.

Facebook's lawyers at Gibson Dunn argued in their motion to
dismiss that the only basis for the plaintiffs' claims was the
display of "an aggregate -- and anonymous -- count" of "Likes" and
shares of links to particular websites on Facebook.  "Plaintiffs
do not contend-nor could they-that anyone other than the recipient
of the message learned that a particular user had shared a URL,"
they wrote.

Since the "Like" count appeared as an anonymous tally on other
sites, Facebook's lawyers argued, the plaintiffs hadn't suffered
any harm.  "Plaintiffs' real complaint is not that Facebook
receives and processes their messages (obviously it does, and it
must), but that Facebook used those messages in a manner that they
challenge (i.e., by increasing the 'Like' count)," they wrote.
Ordinary course of business

Facebook's lawyers argued that the company's actions fall under an
exemption in the ECPA for things done "in the ordinary course of
its business" by electronic communications services.  Facebook,
they argued, must receive and process messages in the normal
course of offering a messaging service.  The plaintiffs maintain
that scanning messages for URLs doesn't fall within the exemption.
Judge Koh and U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal have already
weighed in on what sorts of activity they find fits into the
"ordinary course of business" in two separate cases involving
Google.  Judge Koh found that Google's scanning of Gmail to help
sell targeted ads wasn't exempt activity for a company providing
email services.  Judge Grewal, however, dismissed a lawsuit
targeting Google's tracking of users' personal data across its
various services.  Judge Grewal found there's "broad immunity" for
electronic communication services under the exemption.

Judge Koh's ruling, seemingly a huge win for plaintiffs, came in
multidistrict litigation consolidated before her in 2013.
Plaintiffs lawyers quickly brought similar claims against Yahoo
and Facebook.  But Judge Koh stopped the Gmail case cold earlier
this year, denying a motion to certify a class of Gmail users.
Last month, Judge Koh allowed plaintiffs to move forward with some
claims against Yahoo, but knocked out allegations under the
federal Wiretap Act.  She sidestepped the question of whether
Yahoo's message scanning fell under the "ordinary course of
business" exemption.  Yahoo is represented by Morrison & Foerster.
Facebook, which brought on Gibson Dunn's Ashlie Beringer as deputy
general counsel for litigation, regulation and product issues late
last year, turned to her former partners Joshua Jessen and
Christopher Chorba as defense counsel.

They argued in Facebook's motion that plaintiffs consented to any
alleged interception as part of the company's data use policy.
The state privacy act claims also fail, they argued, since users
gave their consent.  The unfair-competition claim should be
dismissed, they claimed, since Facebook is a free service and the
plaintiffs have not lost any money or property.

Plaintiffs counsel pushed back against the "copycat" label in
their reply brief filed in July.  They argued that the complaint
focused on practices unique to Facebook.  The company, they wrote,
"added code to its messaging process that was unnecessary for any
purpose other than to enable it to analyze the substance of its
users' messages and determine their meaning, as well as to tie
that meaning back to the users."  Plaintiffs noted that Facebook
changed its practice without amending its consent disclosures
after the Wall Street Journal report.

"These acts are the twenty-first-century equivalent of AT&T
eavesdropping on each of its customers' phone conversations, or of
a common carrier taking information from private correspondence;
acts which would uniformly be condemned as egregious and illegal
invasions of privacy under any circumstance," the plaintiffs
lawyers wrote.

Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy's Ara Jabagchourian --
ajabagchourian@cpmlegal.com -- says that these lawsuits attempt to
apply decades-old laws to technology that wasn't contemplated at
the time they were enacted. "The right answer is going to have to
be new legislation," said

Mr. Jabagchourian, who brought a similar lawsuit against Yahoo
over its email scanning practices but dropped it before the
pleading stage.  "Why are we treating email different from phone
calls?" he said.  "Why are we treating email different from
faxes?"


FORDS BOATHOUSE: Fla. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
George Stoner, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Fords Boathouse Cape Coral LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, Case No. 2:14-cv-00556 (M.D. Fla., September 23, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, an additional equal amount
as liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs.

Fords Boathouse Cape Coral LLC is a new and used boat and car
dealer doing business in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bill B. Berke, Esq.
      BERKE LAW FIRM, PA
      Suite 300, 1003 Del Prado Blvd
      Cape Coral, FL 33990
      Telephone: (239) 549-6689
      Facsimile: (239) 549-3331
      E-mail: Berkelaw@yahoo.com


FOREST OIL: New York Actions Over Sabine Merger Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Oil Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that since the announcement
of the Company's merger agreement with Sabine, six putative
shareholder class action complaints have been filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York by purported Forest common
shareholders. These actions are captioned Stourbridge Investments
LLC v. Forest Oil Corp., et al., Index No. 651418/2014, filed May
7, 2014; Raul, et al. v. Carroll, et al., Index No. 651446/2014,
filed May 9, 2014; Rothenberg v. Forest Oil Corp., et al., Index
No. 651499/2014, filed May 15, 2014; Gawlikowski v. Forest Oil
Corp., et al., Index No. 651506/2014, filed May 16, 2014; Edwards
v. Carroll, et al., Index No. 651523/2014, filed May 16, 2014; and
Jabri v. Forest Oil Corp., et al., Index No. 651551/2014, filed
May 20, 2014.

On July 8, 2014, the New York Court consolidated the New York
actions and captioned the case In re Forest Oil Corporation
Shareholder Litigation, Index No. 651418/2014, and on July 17,
2014, the New York plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint (the "New York Action"). The New York Action names as
defendants each of the current directors of Forest, as well as
Sabine and certain of its affiliates and investors, and seeks,
among other things, to enjoin the combination transaction or, in
the event the combination transaction is consummated, to recover
damages. The action alleges, among other things, that the members
of the Forest board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
to Forest shareholders by agreeing to the original transaction
announced by Forest and Sabine on May 6, 2014 for inadequate
consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process, that the
revised transaction structure announced by Forest and Sabine on
July 10, 2014 was structured to deprive Forest shareholders of
their right to vote on the combination transaction, and that the
disclosures made by Forest in the Schedule 14A proxy statement
filed on July 16, 2014 were inadequate.

The New York Action also includes allegations challenging the
Company's sale of its Texas Panhandle assets to Templar Energy,
which closed on November 25, 2013. The New York Action further
alleges that Sabine and certain of its affiliates aided and
abetted these alleged breaches.

Forest Oil is an independent oil and gas company engaged in the
acquisition, exploration, development, and production of oil,
natural gas, and natural gas liquids ("NGLs") primarily in North
America.


FOREST OIL: Class Action Filed in Colorado Over Sabine Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Oil Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on putative shareholder
class action complaint has been filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado by two purported
Forest common shareholders (the "Colorado Action"), captioned
Olinatz v. Forest Oil Corp., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-01409, filed
May 19, 2014. The plaintiffs in the Colorado Action filed an
amended complaint on June 13, 2014.

The Colorado Action names as defendants each of the current
directors of Forest, as well as Forest, Sabine Holdings, and
certain of their respective affiliate entities. The action seeks,
among other things, to enjoin the original transaction or, in the
event the original transaction is consummated, to recover damages.
The action alleges, among other things, that the members of the
Forest board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Forest shareholders by agreeing to sell Forest transaction for
inadequate consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process,
and that certain of the entity defendants, including Sabine
Holdings and certain of its affiliates, aided and abetted these
alleged breaches. In addition, the Colorado Action further alleges
violations of the federal securities laws in connection with
Forest's disclosures in the Form S-4 registration statement filed
by Forest on May 29, 2014.

Forest Oil is an independent oil and gas company engaged in the
acquisition, exploration, development, and production of oil,
natural gas, and natural gas liquids ("NGLs") primarily in North
America.


FOREST OIL: No Date Yet for Oral Arguments in "Augenbaum" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Oil Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on March 26, 2014, the
judge overseeing the lawsuit styled Augenbaum v. Lone Pine
Resources Inc. et al., granted defendants' motion to dismiss, with
prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. The original claim was brought on May 25, 2012, as a
purported class action in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, New York County against Forest, Lone Pine, certain of Lone
Pine's current and former directors and officers (the "Individual
Defendants"), and certain underwriters (the "Underwriter
Defendants") of Lone Pine's initial public offering (the "IPO"),
which was completed on June 1, 2011. The class action was
subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleged that Lone Pine's registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the IPO contained untrue
statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts
relating to forest fires that occurred in Northern Alberta in May
2011, the rupture of a third-party oil sales pipeline in Northern
Alberta in April 2011, and the impact of those events on Lone
Pine, that the alleged misstatements or omissions violated Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), and that
Lone Pine, the Individual Defendants, and the Underwriter
Defendants are liable for such violations. (The complaint was
subsequently amended to drop the allegation regarding the forest
fires.) The complaint further alleged that the Underwriter
Defendants offered and sold Lone Pine's securities in violation of
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and the putative class
members seek rescission of the securities purchased in the IPO
that they continue to own and rescissionary damages for securities
that they have sold. Finally, the complaint asserted a claim
against Forest under Section 15 of the Securities Act, alleging
that Forest was a "control person" of Lone Pine at the time of the
IPO. The complaint alleged that the putative class, which
purchased shares of Lone Pine's common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to Lone Pine's registration statement and prospectus,
was damaged when the value of the stock declined in August 2011.
Plaintiff has appealed the verdict, and appellate briefs have been
submitted. A date for oral arguments has not yet been set.

Forest Oil is an independent oil and gas company engaged in the
acquisition, exploration, development, and production of oil,
natural gas, and natural gas liquids ("NGLs") primarily in North
America.


FOX'S ON THE RIVER: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Camacho" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Camacho on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Fox's on The River, Inc.
d/b/a Fox's Orland Park Restaurant and Pub, Fox's on Wolf, Inc.,
777 N. York Road LLC d/b/a Fox's in Hindsdale and Fox's on York;
and Francis F. Fox, Case No. 1:14-cv-07406 (N.D. Ill., September
23, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 per work week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and pub doing business
within the State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
      CAFFARELLI & SIEGEL LTD
      Two Prudential Plaza, 180 North Stetson, #3150
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 540-1230
      E-mail: acaffarelli@cslaw.com


FULL STEAM: Faces Two Employment-Related Suits in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Full Steam Staffing, Priority Workforce, and Workforce Outsourcing
face two employment class actions, in Monterey County Court,
Courthouse News Service reports.


GLENOAK ENTERPRISES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Cabrera, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. Glenoak Enterprises LLC d/b/a 2000 Hand Car Wash,
Phenomena Wash, Ltd d/b/a Savvy Car Wash, and Arthur Stein, Case
No. 1:14-cv-05599 (E.D.N.Y., September 24, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a car wash shop located at 17504
Horace Harding Expressway, Fresh Meadows. NY 11365.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1188
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


GREEN MOUNTAIN: Sued Over Unlawful Sale of Single-Serve Beverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Davidson v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. and Keurig
Incorporated, Case No. 1:14-cv-07750 (S.D.N.Y., September 24,
2014), arises out of the Defendants' monopolization of the
U.S. market for the sale of single-serve and portion-pack coffee,
tea, cocoa, and other beverages used in single-serve brewing
systems through an anticompetitive and unlawful scheme that has
restrained, and continues to restrain, competition in the single-
serve beverage market place.

Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. manufactures and sells "K-
Cups," Portion Packs designed for use in K-Cup Single-Serve
Brewers.

Keurig Incorporated manufactures and sells Vue Brewers, which are
marketed for home or office use like K-Cup Brewers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam C. Belsky, Esq.
      Monique Alonso, Esq.
      Terry Gross, Esq.
      GROSS & BELSKY LLP
      180 Montgomery Street, Ste 2200
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 544-0200
      Facsimile: (415) 544-0201
      E-mail: adarn@gba-law.com
              monique@gba-law.com
              terry@gba-law.com


GROWLIFE INC: Rosen Law Firm Appointed Lead Counsel
---------------------------------------------------
GrowLife, Inc. shareholder Bryan Chong was appointed as Lead
Plaintiff, Laurence M. Rosen of the Rosen Law Firm, P.A. was
appointed as Lead Counsel and all three class actions alleging
violations of federal securities laws, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 18, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

The Company said, "On April 18, 2014, a class action lawsuit
alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed against
us in the United States District Court, Central District of
California (Randy Romero v. Growlife, Inc., et al.; Case No.:
2:14-cv-03015) (the "Romero Action")."

"On May 30, 2014, the United States District Court, Central
District of California (the "Court") ordered the Romero Action
consolidated with another class action alleging securities
violations also filed with the Court against us entitled Gerald
Young v. Growlife, Inc., et al. (Case No.: 2:14-cv-03183) (the
"Young Action").  The Young Action was filed on April 25, 2014 but
not served on us."

Per the Court's May 30, 2014 order, any subsequently filed
securities law class actions were to be consolidated into the
above actions. The Court further ordered a hearing to determine
the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel
prior to the filing of a single, consolidated complaint for us to
defend against.

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

A hearing was held on July 21, 2014 in United States District
Court in Los Angeles on a Motion for Appointment of Lead Counsel
and Lead Plaintiff and to consolidate cases. The purpose of the
hearing was to choose a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
counsel and to formally consolidate the three actions into one.
At the hearing, shareholder Bryan Chong was appointed as Lead
Plaintiff, Laurence M. Rosen of the Rosen Law Firm, P.A. was
appointed as Lead Counsel and all three cases were consolidated
into one.

Lead Counsel will have 60 days to file a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint with the input of the other two plaintiffs and their
counsel.  "This Consolidated Complaint will combine the claims of
all three matters into one single pleading for our response.
After being served with the Consolidated Complaint we will have 60
days to file a responsive pleading," the Company said.

GrowLife aims to become the nation's largest cultivation facility
service provider for cultivating organics, herbs and greens and
plant-based medicines.


GROWLIFE INC: Facing Section 16(b) Claims
-----------------------------------------
GrowLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company has
received four demand letters from potential plaintiffs regarding
alleged Section 16(b) short-swing violations by Sterling Scott.
The Company believes the claims are without merit and has
responded to the Section 16(b) claims accordingly. Two of the four
claims have acknowledged the Company's position and have been
withdrawn.  There has been no response to the Company's position
from the remaining two potential plaintiffs.

It is possible that additional class actions or lawsuits may be
filed and served against the Company, GrowLife said.

GrowLife aims to become the nation's largest cultivation facility
service provider for cultivating organics, herbs and greens and
plant-based medicines.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Judge Raises Concerns Over Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that lawyers
trying to settle shareholder derivative claims against Hewlett-
Packard Co. are back at the drawing board after a federal judge
questioned the deal's fairness on Sept. 26.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer voiced concerns that the
settlement would release HP officers from too broad a range of
claims.  The release extends far beyond the direct scope of the
instant litigation, Judge Breyer said, which is HP's ill-fated
acquisition of British software firm Autonomy.

"The release appears to be staggering in its breadth," Judge
Breyer said.  "[If] any of the released parties violated or
purportedly violated federal or state securities laws, which would
give rise to a derivative claim, it would be released.  Even if
it's not connected to the Autonomy acquisition."

After the hearing, lawyers for HP and plaintiffs counsel with
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd said
in a joint filing that they would revise the settlement's release
terms by this week.

It's the second time Judge Breyer has shot down the proposed
settlement.  In August, Judge Breyer said there was no way he
would approve a deal that promised plaintiffs lawyers $18 million
plus up to $30 million in contingency fees to team up with HP in
its pursuit of former Autonomy executives.  The parties axed that
arrangement and returned with a settlement based solely on
governance reforms.

The parties have now agreed to resolve attorney fees through
arbitration.  However, in a filing on Sept. 25, plaintiffs lawyers
disclosed Cotchett Pitre wants $7.2 million in fees and costs and
Robbins Geller is asking for $1.6 million.  Judge Breyer steered
clear of that issue on Sept. 26.  He also sidestepped a handful of
motions to intervene filed by parties seeking to derail the
settlement, saying he would first rule on preliminary approval.
The would-be intervenors include former Autonomy executive
Sushovan Hussain, who is represented by John Keker --
jkeker@kvn.com -- of Keker & Van Nest.

The judge instead focused on the scope of the release and the
governance reforms promised in the settlement.

"I have the impression that . . .  Hewlett-Packard has instituted
a number of procedures that were not in place at the time that the
Autonomy acquisition was achieved," Judge Breyer said.  "Are they
in any way contingent on the outcome of this litigation?"

The HP board already has adopted reforms, said the company's lead
lawyer, Marc Wolinsky -- MWolinsky@wlrk.com -- of Wachtell,
Lipton, Rosen & Katz.  But the settlement guarantees their
implementation and ensures the reforms will remain in place for
four years, unless the board decides they aren't working.


HOME DEPOT: Faces "Earls" Suit in N. D. Cal. Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shonna Earls and John Holt Sr., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. The Home Depot, Inc. and Home Depot
U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-04315 (N.D. Cal., September 24,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to have a
security precautions that will protect customers' debit and credit
card information.

The Home Depot, Inc., is one of the top five largest retailers in
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
      Matthew B. George, Esq.
      Jennifer L. McIntosh, Esq.
      GIRARD GIBBS LLP
      601 California Street, 14th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 981-4800
      Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
      E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com
              mbg@girardgibbs.com
              jlm@girardgibbs.com


INNOVATIVE ELECTRICAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kernan Charlery, William Jereis, and Eriks Markevics, individually
and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated v.
Innovative Electrical Services LLC, Anthony Bartolomeo, and Chez
Degennaro, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-07699
(S.D.N.Y., September 23, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Innovative Electrical Services LLC provides commercial and
residential electrical installation and service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JACK FLATS: Faces Class Action Over Tip Pooling Policy
------------------------------------------------------
Mandy Miles, writing for Florida Keys News, reports that a series
of lawsuits filed on behalf of former employees against the owners
of five Key West restaurants have been consolidated into a class
action lawsuit involving more than 200 workers.

Miami labor attorney Eddy Marban filed the class action suit last
year against Joe Walsh and his wife, Winnie Dement, who own
Mangoes, Fogarty's, Jack Flats, Caroline's and Red Fish Blue Fish.

Since then, some of the minor allegations have been settled with
several employees receiving checks between $200 and $1,200.  But
some more significant questions remain, and could be costly for
the defendants if they lose at trial.

Parties involved could not comment on pending litigation, but in
the suit, Mr. Marban claims Mr. Walsh and Ms. Dement deducted $3
per shift from each tipped employee, a deduction that brought the
pay of the workers below the required minimum wage.

In addition, former restaurant managers testified in depositions
that the $3 collected from each tipped employee per shift was
improperly redistributed to nontipped employees, with some of the
undistributed funds being taken back to the corporate offices by
Dement.

The class action suit also charges that Mr. Walsh and Ms. Dement
are not entitled to take advantage of a tip credit that allows a
restaurant owner to pay tipped employees $3.02 less than the
federal minimum wage, assuming the employee's tips make up for the
difference.

Employers are only allowed to claim this tip credit, and pay wait
staff the lower wage, if they notify the employees of their intent
to utilize the tip credit, and if the employers do not take
control of employees' cash tips.

In the lawsuit, Mr. Marban alleges that Ms. Dement often withheld
employees' cash tips and instead included those amounts in the
employees' biweekly paycheck.

A 2012 Department of Labor investigation revealed the minimum wage
violations caused by the $3-per-shift deduction, but Mr. Walsh and
Ms. Dement maintained their policy is an acceptable form of tip
pooling.

According to the Department of Labor report, Mr. Walsh and
Ms. Dement agreed to pay back wages of about $8,000 stemming from
minor improper wage deductions for uniforms and improper overtime
calculations.

But the owners refused to pay an estimated $76,000 in back wages
that resulted from the $3-per-shift deduction from employees, the
report states.

"I informed Mrs. DeMent that such deduction taken out of cash
wages is not permissible because it cuts into (employees') minimum
wage," the labor investigator reported.  "Mrs. DeMent disagrees
with our position and requested a meeting with my supervisor to
discuss this matter.  However, Mrs. DeMent did stop this ($3 per-
shift) deduction and now has increased the tip out percentage from
3 percent to 3.5 percent from tips to tip out bussers, hostesses
and the bar."

The amount of back pay owed by Walsh and Dement could increase
exponentially above the $76,000 if Mr. Marban wins his class
action case at trial, and successfully invalidates the employers'
use of the tip credit.

If that happens, the damages would be calculated by giving each
plaintiff an additional $3.02 per hour worked.  The class action
case involves more than 200 employees at five restaurants over a
five-year period.

Also, as Mr. Marban is seeking liquidated damages, the calculated
amounts owed are automatically doubled as a matter of law, and
therefore could top $1 million or so -- but only if Mr. Marban
wins at trial.

Attorneys for both sides suffered a minor setback on Sept. 26 when
U.S. Magistrate Judge Chris McAliley of Miami denied both sides'
request for summary judgment, which would have avoided a trial if
the judge was comfortable deciding the case as presented.

Judge McAliley on Sept. 26 ruled there was too much insufficient
or conflicting evidence for him to issue a summary judgment.

A trial date is expected to be set in the coming months in Miami,
unless a settlement agreement is reached before then.


JOLLEY CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ubaldo C. Cruz-Sumano, an individual v. Jolley Construction, LLC,
an Oregon limited liability corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01520
(D. Or., September 23, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jolley Construction, LLC is engaged in contracting and
construction business based in Washington County, Oregon.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric D. Wilson, Esq.
      ERIC WILSON, P.C.
      1500 SW First Ave., Suite 1170
      Portland, OR 97201
      Telephone: (503) 880-9372
      Facsimile: (503) 222-6029
      E-mail: ewilson@oregonemploymentlaw.com

         - and -

      Robert K. Meyer, Esq.
      ROBERT K. MEYER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
      1001 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 1100
      Portland, OR 97204
      Telephone: (503) 471-2818
      Facsimile: (503) 220-1815
      E-mail: robertmeyer@gmail.com


JUBILEE FIRST: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diego Franco, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Jubilee First Avenue Corporation and Ilda Araujo, Case No.
1:14-cv-07729 (S.D.N.Y., September 24, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jubilee First Avenue Corporation and Ilda Araujo own and operate
Jubilee restaurant located in Manhattan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
      Yosef Nussbaum, Esq.
      JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER, & KIRSCHENBAUM
      233 Broadway, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 688-5640x2548
      Facsimile: (212) 688-5639
      E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com
              jnussbaum@jhllp.com


K12 INC: Oral Arguments Heard on Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------
Parties in a class action lawsuit against K12 Inc. have completed
briefing a motion to dismiss and the Court heard oral arguments on
the motion on August 8, 2014, the Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
15, 2014, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014.

A securities class-action lawsuit captioned Oklahoma Firefighters
Pension & Retirement System v. K12 Inc., et al., was filed on
January 30, 2014, against the Company, four of its officers and
directors, and a former officer, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, In re K12 Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:14-CV-108-AJT-JFA.

On April 24, 2014 the Court appointed the Oklahoma Firefighters
Pension and Retirement System as lead plaintiff, and on May 23,
2014 the lead plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint
("Amended Complaint").  The Company said, "The plaintiff purports
to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired our common stock between February 5, 2013 and October 8,
2013, inclusive, and alleges violations by the defendants of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The Amended Complaint alleges, among other
things, that the defendants made false or misleading statements of
material fact, or failed to disclose material facts, about (i) our
enrollment and revenue growth prospects for fiscal 2014, and (ii)
our compliance with state regulations governing enrollment. The
plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief."

"We intend to defend vigorously against the claims asserted in the
Amended Complaint, and filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint on June 20, 2014. The parties have completed briefing
the motion to dismiss and the Court heard oral arguments on the
motion on August 8, 2014."

K12 is a technology-based education company.


KEMPER CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Pro Rata Share
-----------------------------------------------------------
Omar Barreto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kemper Corporation, Kemper Services Group and,
Financial Indemnity Company, Case No. 8:14-cv-01552 (C.D. Cal.,
September 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay pro rata share of litigation costs and fees as it pertains
to medical payment coverage reimbursements as to indicate a
general business practice.

The Defendants are insurance companies doing business in Orange
County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq.
      Gouya Ranekouhi, 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
              mike@kazlg.com
             gouya@kazlg.com

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


KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Case by Rosen Law Firm in Discovery Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Rosen Law
Firm filed on November 15, 2011, a class action suit, alleging the
Company had violated federal securities laws by issuing materially
false and misleading statements and omitting material facts with
regard to disclosure of related party transactions and
effectiveness of internal controls in past public filings.

"The case is currently at the discovery stage, located in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, and we believe there is no basis to the suit filed by
the Rosen Law Firm and intend to contest the case vigorously," the
Company said.


L-3 SERVICES: Ethnic Serbs Can't Prosecute Genocide Claim in US
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ethnic Serbs who claim a military consultant based in the United
States trained and equipped Croatian forces to commit genocide
during the breakup of Yugoslavia cannot sue in U.S. courts,
reports Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service, citing a
federal court ruling.

In 2010, ethnic Serbians filed a class action in the federal court
in Chicago on behalf of all Serbs residing in the Krajina region
of Croatia in 1995.

MPRI, a military consulting firm run by former U.S. military
officers, allegedly devised the battle plan, and trained and
equipped Croatian forces for "Operation Storm," the last major
battle of the Croatian War of Independence.

Croatian leaders clearly told MPRI, now owned by L-3
Communications, that their goal was to "drive the Serbs out of
[the] country," according to the complaint.  Planning for the
operation allegedly took place at MPRI's Virginia headquarters as
well as in Croatia.

"Operation Storm resulted in the largest act of ethnic cleansing
in Europe since World War II," the plaintiffs say.  "Thousands of
innocent civilians were attacked, injured, and killed," forcing an
estimated 300,000-350,000 ethnic Serbs to flee the Krajina area,
which is now a part of Croatia.

"Whether MPRI personnel took part in the genocide is not known and
not alleged here; What is known definitively is that MPRI provided
the means that enabled the genocide to occur," they continue.

The plaintiffs sought $10.4 billion in damages, plus accrued
interest since 1995.  But U.S. District Judge John Lee said
despite the "tragic and horrific" allegations, he lacked
jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs' claims.

"Although plaintiffs allege that MPRI negotiated its contract with
the Croatian leadership in Virginia and conducted some planning
and development activities in Virginia, defendants' involvement
occurred 'also within and from Croatia itself,' culminating in ten
different trips to Croatia, with MPRI 'plac[ing] its personnel on
the ground,'" the judge said.  "Thus, taking plaintiffs'
allegations as true, the substantial part of MPRI's challenged
conduct occurred extraterritorially, and not in Virginia."

Last year in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that torture victims could not sue Shell Petroleum
under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) because none of the activity
underlying the suit took place in the U.S.

Similarly, "the court finds that the focus of plaintiffs' claims
are the alleged atrocities that took place in Croatia, and MPRI's
limited domestic conduct is insufficient to overcome Kiobel's
presumption," the judge said.

However, Lee upheld plaintiffs' state civil conspiracy claims to
commit trespass to land and conversion.

Croatian forces allegedly "systematically looted and destroyed
Serbian-owned homes, businesses, crops and livestock in the
Krajina region, including those owned by the named plaintiffs.
Many of these homes subsequently were expropriated by the Croatian
military," Lee found.

The case is Milena Jovic, et al. v. L-3 Services, Inc. and
Engility Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-05197, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.


LEGGETT & PLATT: Reaches Tentative Settlement of Antitrust Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt said in a regulatory filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 19, 2014, that:

     * Tentative agreement reached to settle U.S. polyurethane
foam direct purchaser class portion of antitrust cases for $39.8
million (pre-tax)

     * 3Q EPS impact expected to be approximately $.18 per share

     * The company denies all allegations, but has settled to
avoid the uncertainty, expense and distraction of litigation

     * Apart from this charge, Leggett reiterated its 2014 EPS
guidance issued in July

Leggett & Platt expects to record a $39.8 million (pre-tax), or
approximate $.18 per share, third quarter accrual for the
settlement of the U.S. direct purchaser class portion of the
polyurethane foam antitrust claims filed against the company and
numerous other defendants. This claim is partially related to the
former Prime Foam Products business, which was sold in the first
quarter of 2007. Accordingly, approximately one-quarter of the
charge is expected to be reflected in discontinued operations.
Apart from this charge, the company reiterated the underlying full
year EPS guidance issued in July.

Leggett & Platt, along with many other companies, is a defendant
in a series of civil antitrust lawsuits involving the sale of
polyurethane foam. The company continues to deny all allegations
in all of the cases, but has reached a tentative settlement in the
U.S. direct purchaser class cases to avoid the uncertainty,
expense and distraction of litigation. The company has agreed to
pay a total amount of $39.8 million, including plaintiff
attorneys' fees and costs. The settlement is subject to Court
approval.

Leggett remains a defendant in other previously disclosed
antitrust cases involving the sale of polyurethane foam.

"Because of the complexity involved in the remaining cases, we are
unable to reasonably determine the probable outcome or the amount
of loss, or range of loss associated with these cases. However, we
believe the remaining cases collectively represent lower total
sales of polyurethane foam from Leggett & Platt than the cases
included in this settlement," the Company said.

Leggett & Platt (NYSE: LEG) is a diversified manufacturer (and
member of the S&P 500) that conceives, designs and produces a
variety of engineered components and products that can be found in
most homes, offices, and automobiles. The 131-year-old firm is
comprised of 19 business units, 19,000 employee-partners, and 130
manufacturing facilities located in 18 countries.

Leggett & Platt is the leading U.S. manufacturer of: a) components
for residential furniture and bedding; b) office furniture
components; c) drawn steel wire; d) automotive seat support and
lumbar systems; e) carpet underlay; f) adjustable bed bases; and
g) bedding industry machinery.


LIBERTY TAX: ERC Class Action Litigation in Early Stages
--------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Tax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2014, that the Company was sued in November
2011 in federal courts in Arkansas, California, Florida and
Illinois, and additional lawsuits were filed in federal courts in
January 2012 in Maryland and North Carolina, in February 2012 in
Wisconsin, and in May 2012 in New York and Minnesota, since the
initial filings. In April 2012, a motion to consolidate all of the
then-pending cases before a single judge in federal court in the
Northern District of Illinois was granted, and in June 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a new complaint in the consolidated action.

The consolidated complaint alleges that an electronic refund check
("ERC") represents a form of refund anticipation loan ("RAL")
because the taxpayer is "loaned" the tax preparation fee, and that
an ERC is therefore subject to federal truth-in-lending disclosure
and state law requirements regulating RALs. The plaintiffs
therefore allege violations of state-specific RAL and other
consumer statutes. The lawsuit purports to be a class action, and
the plaintiffs allege potential damages in excess of $5.0 million,
but the Company may be able to recover any damages from the
providers of the financial products that designed the programs and
related disclosures.

The Company is aware that virtually identical lawsuits have been
filed against several of its competitors. The Company has not
concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor has
the Company accrued a loss contingency related to this matter. The
Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in this
case, and intends to defend the case vigorously, but there can be
no assurances as to the outcome or the impact on the Company's
consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash
flows. The case is at an early procedural stage, and the Company
is presently appealing a ruling related to the ability to
arbitrate certain of the claims.

Liberty Tax was incorporated in Delaware in September 2010 as a
holding company engaged through its subsidiaries as a franchisor
and operator of a system of income tax preparation offices located
in the United States and Canada. In July 2014, the corporate name
was changed to Liberty Tax, Inc. from JTH Holding, Inc. The
Company's principal operations are conducted through JTH Tax, Inc.
(d/b/a Liberty Tax Service), the Company's largest subsidiary.
Through this system of income tax preparation offices, the Company
also facilitates refund-based tax settlement financial products,
such as instant cash advances, refunds transfer products, and
personal income tax refund discounting. The Company also offers
online tax preparation services.


LIBERTY TAX: TCPA Class Action Litigation in Early Stages
---------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Tax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2014, that the Company was sued in September
2013 in federal court in Illinois in connection with alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff
alleges that the Company inappropriately made autodialed telephone
calls to cellular telephones, seeks the certification of a
nationwide class action, and claims statutory damages of $500-
$1,500 per violation.

The Company tendered the defense of this litigation to a third
party entity that had contracted with the Company to solicit
potential franchisees, and that third party entity has
acknowledged its defense and indemnification obligations to the
Company. However, because the third party contractor may not have
the financial resources to satisfy its defense and indemnity
obligations, the Company has concluded that it cannot rely fully
upon the fulfillment of those obligations.

The Company has not concluded that a loss related to this matter
is probable, nor has the Company accrued a loss contingency
related to this matter. The Company intends to defend the case
vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome or
the impact on the Company's consolidated financial position,
results of operations and cash flows. The case is at an early
procedural stage.

Liberty Tax was incorporated in Delaware in September 2010 as a
holding company engaged through its subsidiaries as a franchisor
and operator of a system of income tax preparation offices located
in the United States and Canada. In July 2014, the corporate name
was changed to Liberty Tax, Inc. from JTH Holding, Inc. The
Company's principal operations are conducted through JTH Tax, Inc.
(d/b/a Liberty Tax Service), the Company's largest subsidiary.
Through this system of income tax preparation offices, the Company
also facilitates refund-based tax settlement financial products,
such as instant cash advances, refunds transfer products, and
personal income tax refund discounting. The Company also offers
online tax preparation services.


LIVECAREER LTD: Wins Dismissal of Third-Party Class Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alston & Bird client LiveCareer, Ltd., won dismissal with
prejudice of third-party claims in a class action lawsuit
involving alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act by defendant Job.com.  The ruling was made by U.S. District
Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill in California in the case Peter Olney v.
Job.com, Inc., et al.

Job.com had accused LiveCareer -- one of the country's top
Internet career portals -- of negligent misrepresentation and
sought indemnification for potential damages.  In granting the
firm's motion to dismiss, Judge O'Neill held that Job.com failed
to allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face."  The dismissal effectively relieves
LiveCareer from any liability in the case.


MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: MOU Reached in Suit Over TE Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Measurement Specialties, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2014,
Measurement Specialties, Inc. (the "Company"), TE Connectivity Ltd
("TE") and Wolverine-Mars Acquisition, Inc., an indirect wholly-
owned subsidiary of TE ("Merger Sub"), on June 18, 2014, entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement").
Upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the
Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company,
with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation and an
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of TE (the "Merger").

On July 24, 2014, the Company filed a definitive proxy statement
(the "Proxy Statement") under cover of a Schedule 14A with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC").

Since the announcement of the Merger, three putative class action
complaints have been in filed in state court in New Jersey (in
Essex and Mercer Counties) against the Company, its directors, TE
and Merger Sub. On August 6, 2014, the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Essex County, Chancery Division (the "Court") consolidated
these three actions under the caption In re Measurement
Specialties, Inc. Stockholder Litigation (the "Consolidated
Action"). The Consolidated Action alleges that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
shareholders in connection with the Merger and that the Company,
TE, and Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches.

In support of these claims, the Consolidated Action alleges, among
other things, that the Merger is the result of an inadequate sales
process, that the price to be paid in the Merger is inadequate,
and that the Merger Agreement includes deal-protection provisions
that preclude a potential topping bid and unduly favor TE. In
addition, the Consolidated Action alleges that the SEC disclosures
relating to the Merger omit certain material information. The
Consolidated Action requests that the Merger be enjoined, or, in
the event it is consummated, that it be rescinded or that the
class be awarded rescissory damages.

On August 15, 2014, the parties to the Consolidated Action entered
into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") reflecting the
terms of an agreement, subject to final approval by the Court and
certain other conditions, to settle the Consolidated Action.
Pursuant to the MOU, and without admitting any wrongdoing or that
these supplemental disclosures are material or required to be
made, defendants agreed to include in this amendment to the Proxy
Statement certain supplemental disclosures requested by plaintiffs
in the Consolidated Action. The MOU further provides that, among
other things, (a) the parties will negotiate a definitive
stipulation of settlement (the "Stipulation") and will submit the
Stipulation to the Court for review and approval; (b) the
Stipulation will provide for dismissal of the Consolidated Action
with prejudice; (c) the Stipulation will include a general release
of defendants of claims relating to, among other things, the
Merger and the Merger Agreement; and (d) the settlement is
conditioned on, among other things, consummation of the Merger,
completion of confirmatory discovery, class certification and
final approval by the Court after notice to the Company's
shareholders.

Defendants believe that the allegations and claims in the
litigation are without merit and, if the settlement does not
receive final approval, intend to defend them vigorously.
Defendants are entering into the settlement solely to eliminate
the burden and expense of further litigation and to put the claims
that were or could have been asserted to rest. The settlement will
not affect the timing of the Merger or the amount of consideration
to be paid in the Merger.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Faces N&C Class Action Over EGR Warranty
--------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2014, that on June 24,
2014, N&C Transportation Ltd. filed a putative class action
lawsuit against Navistar International Corporation, Navistar,
Inc., Navistar Canada Inc., and Harbour International Trucks in
Canada in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the "N&C
Action").   The N&C Action seeks to certify a class of persons in
British Columbia who purchased heavy duty Class 8 trucks equipped
with Navistar EGR engines. N&C alleges that vehicles with engines
using EGR technology had pervasive quality issues and defects, and
that the defendants knew of such engine problems but failed to
disclose them to consumers and failed to cure the defects. N&C
asserts claims based on theories of breach of contract,
misrepresentation, unfair competition, and negligence. For relief,
the N&C Action seeks monetary damages and an order rescinding
purchase agreements for the trucks in question. The N&C Action
also seeks special and punitive damages, interest, and costs. The
Company has not yet been served in the N&C Action.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Faces MaxxForce Engine Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2014, that Par 4
Transport, LLC filed on July 7, 2014, a putative class action
lawsuit against Navistar, Inc. in the District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "Par 4 Action"). The Par 4
Action seeks to certify a class of persons or entities in the
United States who purchased or leased a ProStar vehicle between
2010 and 2013 equipped with a MaxxForce 13-liter diesel engine.
Par 4 alleges that the MaxxForce Advanced EGR engines are
defective and that Navistar, Inc. failed to disclose and correct
the defect. Par 4 asserts claims against Navistar, Inc. based on
theories of breach of warranty, consumer fraud, and declaratory
relief. For relief, the Par 4 Action seeks monetary damages,
declaratory relief, interest, fees, and costs.

After the Par 4 Action was filed, two additional putative class
action lawsuits were filed in July in the same District Court. The
proposed classes in the two additional lawsuits are somewhat
broader in time and engine scope than the class proposed in the
Par 4 Action, but the two additional lawsuits are otherwise
substantially similar to the Par 4 Action.

First, on July 9, 2014, Denis Gray Trucking, Inc., Carmichael
Leasing Co., Inc. d/b/a Carmichael Nationalease, and GTL
Enterprises Inc. filed a putative class action against Navistar
International Corporation seeking to certify a nationwide class,
and also seeking to certify state-wide subclasses in Illinois,
California, and Washington.

Second, on July 30, 2014, B&T Express, Inc., OMCO Enterprises,
LLC, ALJEN Enterprises, LLC, A.T.T. Trucking, LLC, H.J. O'Malley
Trucking, LLC, and Traficanti Trucking, LLC filed a putative class
action against Navistar International Corporation seeking to
certify a nationwide class, and also seeking to certify a state-
wide subclass in Ohio.

All three of these MaxxForce Engine putative class action lawsuits
have been assigned to the same judge and are pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Navistar's deadline to respond or otherwise plead to all three
lawsuits was September 10, 2014.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Court to Rule on Dismissal Bid in February 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2014, that a putative
class action complaint, alleging securities fraud was filed in
March 2013 against the Company by the Construction Workers Pension
Trust Fund - Lake County and Vicinity, on behalf of itself and all
other similarly situated purchasers of the Company's common stock
between the period of November 3, 2010 and August 1, 2012. A
second class action complaint was filed in April 2013 by the
Norfolk County Retirement System, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated purchasers of the Company's common
stock between the period of June 9, 2010 and August 1, 2012. A
third class action complaint was filed in April 2013 by Jane C.
Purnell FBO Purnell Family Trust, on behalf of itself and all
other similarly situated purchasers of the Company's common stock
between the period of November 3, 2010 and August 1, 2012.

The Company said, "Each complaint named us as well as Daniel C.
Ustian, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, and
Andrew J. Cederoth, our former Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer as defendants. These complaints (collectively,
the "10b-5 Cases") contain similar factual allegations which
include, among other things, that we violated the federal
securities laws by knowingly issuing materially false and
misleading statements concerning our financial condition and
future business prospects and that we misrepresented and omitted
material facts concerning the timing and likelihood of EPA
certification of our EGR technology to meet 2010 EPA emission
standards. The plaintiffs in these matters seek compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees, among other relief."

In May 2013, an order was entered transferring and consolidating
all cases before one judge and in July 2013, the Court appointed a
lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. The lead plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended complaint in October 2013.  The
consolidated amended complaint enlarged the proposed class period
to June 9, 2009 through August 1, 2012, and named fourteen
additional current and former directors and officers as
defendants.

The defendants filed Motions to Dismiss on December 17, 2013. On
July 22, 2014, the Court granted the defendants' Motions to
Dismiss and gave the lead plaintiff leave to file a second
consolidated amended complaint by August 22, 2014.

On August 22, 2014, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint, which narrows the claims in two ways. First, the
plaintiff abandoned its claims against the majority of the
defendants. The plaintiff now brings claims against only Navistar,
Dan Ustian, A.J. Cederoth, Jack Allen, and Eric Tech. The
plaintiff also shortened the putative class period.

In the prior complaint, the class period began on June 9, 2009. In
the Second Amended Complaint, it begins on March 10, 2010.
Defendants expected to file their Motion to Dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint on September 23, 2014.  The Court has ordered a
briefing schedule and set a ruling date for February 17, 2015.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Parties in "Griffin" Case Filed Status Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2014, that Abbie Griffin
filed in August 2013 a derivative complaint in the State of
Delaware Court of Chancery, on behalf of the Company and all
similarly situated stockholders, against the Company, as the
nominal defendant, and certain of the Company's current and former
directors and former officers.

The Company said, "The complaint alleges, among other things, that
certain of our current and former directors and former officers
committed a breach of fiduciary duty, in relation to similar
factual allegations made in the 10b-5 Cases. The plaintiff in this
matter seeks compensatory damages, certain corporate governance
reforms, certain injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees, among
other relief."

Pursuant to a court order in August 2013, this matter has been
stayed until the outcome of any motion to dismiss in the 10b-5
Cases.

On August 5, 2014, the parties filed a status report with the
court requesting that the August 2013 stay order remain in place
pending a ruling on the anticipated motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint in the 10b-5 cases.


NEW YORK STATE GAMING: Sued Over Misleading Game Card Packaging
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elena Zaka, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
New York State Gaming Commission, Case No. 1:14-cv-05576
(E.D.N.Y., September 23, 2014), arises from the Defendant's
misleading marketing and packaging of its Franklin's Fortunes
scratch card lottery game.

New York State Gaming Commission develops and manufactures lottery
products for consumers, providing multi-jurisdictional games, in-
house draw games, video lotteries, and instant games products
throughout the United States through a network of suppliers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Fl.
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: 212-465-1188
      Facsimile: 212-465-1181


OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Dismissed From Appeal in Case Against Genaera
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in June 2012, the
Company was named, along with other parties, as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit being brought, as amended, on behalf
of the Genaera Liquidating Trust ("Trust").  The Company said, "We
purchased biotechnology assets from the Trust in 2009. On August
12, 2013, the court dismissed each of the plaintiff's claims
against the Company. An appeal of the dismissal is pending;
however, the plaintiff, on April 25, 2014, agreed to dismiss the
Company from that appeal. The court approved the dismissal
stipulation by order entered on May 7, 2014, dismissing the
Company from the appeal with prejudice. The litigation has ended
with respect to the Company, and management believes that it is
unlikely that the litigation continuing with other parties will
have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial
condition."

Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on the
development of the Company's previously acquired compounds and
technologies with a focus on the clinical and preclinical
development of ophthalmology products.


OSRAM SYLVANIA: Class Action Settled for $30MM; March Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Osram
Sylvania Inc. has agreed to a $30 million settlement in a class
action lawsuit alleging it falsely claimed its headlights were
superior and lured customers into overpaying.  The settlement
provides substantial monetary and injunctive relief to the class,
according to the settlement document filed July 11 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

After deduction of administration and notice costs; attorneys fees
and expenses; and the class representatives' incentive awards,
eligible class members will be entitled to a pro rata share of the
settlement fund, the settlement document states.

"The anticipated recovery for each eligible class member is $10,
representing a substantial recovery for the class," the document
states.  "Eligible class members may receive additional
compensation if the claims administrator issues a secondary
distribution pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement."

On Sept. 22, 2011, Imran Chaudhri filed a complaint against Osram
Sylvania Inc. and Osram Sylvania Products Inc. alleging unjust
enrichment, misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and
breach of express warranty, according to the settlement document.

On Jan. 9, 2012, Mr. Chaudhri filed an amended complaint alleging
that Sylvania misled and deceived consumers regarding the
performance characteristics of its premium automotive lighting.
He claimed Sylvania also omitted material information regarding
the lighting's lifespan.

On Feb. 13, 2012, Sylvania moved to dismiss the complaint and on
June 14, 2012, District Judge Susan D. Wigenton only dismissed the
claim for unjust enrichment and allowed all other claims to
proceed.

A first mediation was held was held between January and April and
a second mediation settlement was held on May 7-8.  The second
mediation was resulted in an agreement.

Mr. Chaudhri, Deidra Ross, Richard Smith, Larry Byrd, David
Christopher, Derek Hahn and Lee S. Kelly may seek incentive awards
in the aggregate amount of up to $25,000 to be paid from the gross
settlement fund

Attorneys must file an application for attorneys fees and costs by
Jan. 9.

The plaintiffs are represented by Barry R. Eichen of Eichen
Crutchlow Zaslow & McElroy LLP; and John E. Keefe Jr. of Keefe
Bartels LLC.

Sylvania is represented by David C. Kistler --
Kistler@BlankRome.com -- and Stephen M. Orlofsky --
Orlofsky@BlankRome.com -- of Blank Rome LLP.

A fairness hearing is scheduled for March 20.

The case is assigned to District Judge Madeline C. Arleo

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey case number:
2:11-cv-05504


PACIFIC PROCESS: "Andrews" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Andrews, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pacific Process Systems, Inc., Case No.
2:14-cv-01308 (W.D. Pa., September 24, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Pacific Process Systems, Inc. is an oilfield services company
proving well related services to oil companies and operators.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 766-1455
      Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
      E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


PANGOR BAN: "Brundege" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Christie Lynn Brundege, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Pangor Ban, LLC d/b/a The Blue Parrot
Cabaret and John E. Baron, Case No. 1:14-cv-00163 (N.D. W. Va.,
September 24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Pangor Ban owns and operates a night club in Morgantown, West
Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Garry G. Geffert, Esq.
      114 S. Maple Ave., PO Box 2281
      Martinsburg, WV 25402
      Telephone: (304) 262-4436
      Facsimile: (304) 262-4436
      E-mail: geffert@wvdsl.net

         - and -

      Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
      ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
      836 Bonifant Street
      Silver Spring. Maryland 20910
      Telephone: (301) 587-9373
      Facsimile: (304) 587-9397
      Email: ggreenberg@zipinlaw.com


PAT O'BRIEN'S BAR: Faces "Frudge" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Fruge and Michael Harris, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Pat O'Brien's Bar, Inc. and Shelly
Oechsner Waguespack, Case No. 2:14-cv-02186 (E.D. La., September
23, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
minimum wage and overtime pay as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Pat O'Brien's Bar, Inc. owns and operates the oldest and most
popular bars in New Orleans and famous for inventing the Hurricane
cocktail.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Michael Thomas Tusa Jr., Esq.
       SUTTON & ALKER, LLC
       4080 Lonesome Road, Suite A
       Mandeville, LA 70448
       Telephone: (985) 727-7501
       E-mail: mtusa@sutton-alker.com


PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Mass. Court Junks K. Lewis et al. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr. has dismissed the putative
class action captioned KIMBERLY LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. COLLECTIVE
BRANDS, INC. and PAYLESS SHOESOURCE, INC., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 13-12702-GAO (D. Mass.)

The Action brought by Kimberly Lewis, purportedly on behalf of
herself and a proposed class, asserts that Payless Shoesource,
Inc.'s policy of requesting and recording customer zip codes
concurrent with credit card purchases for the purpose of mailing
customers unsolicited marketing materials violates Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 93, Section 105(a).  Lewis's three-count
complaint includes a claim under Chapter 93A, as well as claims
for unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment.

A copy of the Sept. 29, 2014 Opinion and Order is available at
http://is.gd/ZzVWn8from Leagle.com.

Defendant Payless Shoesource, Inc., is represented by Ana M.
Francisco, Esq. -- afrancisco@foley.com -- and Geoffrey M. Raux,
Esq. -- graux@foley.com -- of Foley & Lardner, LLP.


PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Mass. Court Junks E. Alberts et al. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr. has dismissed the putative
class action captioned ERIN ALBERTS, Plaintiff, v. PAYLESS
SHOESOURCE, INC., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-12262-GAO
(D. Mass.)

The case arises from Payless Shoesource, Inc.'s alleged policy to
request and record customer zip codes concurrent with credit card
purchases for the purpose of mailing customers unsolicited
marketing materials.  Plaintiff Erin Alberts, on behalf of herself
and a proposed class, asserts that Payless's practices violate
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93, Section 105(a), which
prohibits a business from requesting personal identification
information not required by the credit card issuer and recording
such information on a credit card transaction form.   The
complaint alleges a single count for relief under Chapter 93.

A copy of the Sept. 29, 2014 Opinion and Order is available at
http://is.gd/ek6zWwfrom Leagle.com.

Defendant Payless Shoesource, Inc., is represented by Ana M.
Francisco, Esq. -- afrancisco@foley.com -- and Geoffrey M. Raux,
Esq. -- graux@foley.com -- of Foley & Lardner, LLP.


PFIZER INC: Illegally Prolongs Patent Protection, IUOE Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 138 Welfare
Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
Pfizer, Inc., G.D. Searle LLC, and Pfizer Asia pacific Pte. Ltd.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-01264 (E.D. Va., September 24, 2014), alleges
that the Defendants implemented a scheme to unlawfully prolong
patent protection for Celebrex (celecoxib) to avoid the
consequences of the Federal Circuit ruling invalidating its patent
and allowing earlier competition into the market for Celebrex.

The Defendants are engaged in the worldwide marketing, production,
and distribution of pharmaceutical products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Seth Devore, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Ave NW
      Suite 500, West Tower
      Washington, DC 20005-3965
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
      E-mail: jdevore@cohenmilstein.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Product Packaging
----------------------------------------------------------------
Desta Tjokronolo and John Doe, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble and Procter & Gamble
Productions, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-05577 (E.D.N.Y., September 23,
2014), arises out of the Defendants' misleading packaging of their
Gillette Odor Shield Invisible Solid, Old Spice High Endurance
Invisible Solid and Old Spice Classic anti-perspirants and
deodorants.

The Defendants manufacture, market, sell and distribute various
consumer products under well-known household brand names such as
Gillette and Old Spice.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Fl.
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: 212-465-1188
      Facsimile: 212-465-1181


QR ENERGY: Brodsky & Smith Law Firm Files Class Action in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC on Sept. 26 disclosed that on
September 8, 2014, a class action was commenced on behalf of all
unit holders of QR Energy, LP common units in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas relating to the
proposed acquisition by Breitburn Energy Partners LP and its
affiliates, docket number 4:14-cv-02243.

QR Energy is a limited partnership formed to acquire oil and
natural gas assets to enhance and exploit oil and gas properties.
On July 24, 2014, QR Energy and Breitburn entered into a
definitive agreement whereby Breitburn would acquire all of QR
Energy's outstanding units.  Thereafter, on August 20, 2014,
defendants caused the Registration Statement on Form S-4 to be
filed with the SEC and disseminated in connection with the
upcoming unit holder vote on the Proposed Transaction.

The complaint alleges that QR Energy, the Board, Breitburn and its
affiliates breached their duties, and/or aided and abetted such
breaches, in connection with their attempt to consummate the
Proposed Transaction pursuant to an unfair process and for an
unfair price.  In addition, the complaint alleges QR Energy and
the Board disseminated a false and misleading Registration
Statement on Form S-4 in violation of securities laws by omitting
a number of material facts necessary to make statements made
therein not false and misleading, including the events leading to
the Merger Agreement, the analyses conducted by the Board's
financial advisor, and QR Energy's prospective financial
information.

If you are a QR Energy common unit holder and wish to serve as
lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from
November 25, 2014, to be a lead plaintiff.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Jason
Brodsky or Evan Smith of Brodsky & Smith, LLC at (877) LEGAL-90 or
via e-mail at clients@brodsky-smith.com

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive and equitable relief on behalf of all
QR Energy unit holders.  The plaintiff is represented by Brodsky &
Smith, LLC -- http://www.brodsky-smith.com-- which has litigated
hundreds of stockholder class and derivative actions from
violations of corporate and fiduciary duties.


SCORES HOLDING: Says $93,949 Receivable in Class Action Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
On September 26, 2011, Scores Holding Company, Inc., Richard
Goldring and Elliot Osher (Goldring and Osher were formerly two of
the Company's principal shareholders) (collectively the
"Defendants") and Sari Diaz et al. (the "Plaintiffs") entered into
a Court approved Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release (the
"Settlement Agreement") relating to a purported class action and
collective action on behalf of all tipped employees filed by
Plaintiffs, pursuant to which Defendants agreed to make a
settlement payment of $450,000 to resolve and settle awards to
Plaintiffs and related Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. Additionally,
the Defendants agreed to pay the employer portion of payroll taxes
on approximately $300,000 in distributions, approximately $15,600.

In a settlement payment agreement among the Company, Goldring and
Osher, the Company agreed to advance all of the Defendants'
obligations under the Settlement Agreement and to pay $64,500 of
Goldring's and Osher's legal fees to their designated attorney. In
consideration for the Company's payment of these obligations,
Goldring and Osher agreed, jointly and severally, to pay the
Company $440,000 plus interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the
unpaid balance of such amount, in 40 equal monthly payments of
$11,965 per month.

To secure his obligations under this agreement, Goldring agreed to
assign to the Company a portion of his interests in a promissory
note dated September 14, 2009 in the principal amount of
$2,400,000 made by a third party to Goldring (the "Note") and to
grant the Company a security interest in the Note, which will
remain in effect until his obligations under this settlement
payment agreement are paid in full.

As of June 30, 2014, the settlement receivable is $93,949, Scores
Holding said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 18, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2014.

On December 29, 2011 the Company entered into a Promissory Note
with Goldring for $30,000 plus interest at the rate of 5% per
annum on the unpaid balance. To secure his obligations under this
agreement, Goldring agreed to assign to the Company a portion of
his interests in a promissory note dated September 14, 2009 in the
principal amount of $2,400,000 made by a third party to Goldring
(the "Note") and to grant the Company a security interest in the
Note, which will remain in effect until his obligations under this
settlement payment agreement are paid in full. Three payments of
$11,965 are due beginning March 2015.

As of June 30, 2014, this promissory note balance is $33,564, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report.

Since 2003, Scores Holding Company, Inc. has been in the business
of licensing the "Scores" trademarks and other intellectual
property to fine gentlemen's nightclubs with adult entertainment
in the United States.


SCORES HOLDING: Defending Against "Maldonado" Gender Bias Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scores Holding Company, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Christina
Maldonado, a former front door receptionist/coat checker at Scores
New York, located in New York NY filed on June 14, 2011, a civil
lawsuit against the Company and I.M. Operating LLC ("IMO")
alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, New York
State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law, New York City
Human Rights Law and the New York City Administrative Code, based
on allegations of sexual discrimination and sexual harassment.
The lawsuit further alleges that both the Company and IMO were her
employers. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for alleged loss
of past and future earnings and emotional distress and
humiliation.

The Company disputes that that it was an employer of the plaintiff
and categorically denies all allegations of sexual discrimination
and sexual harassment. The Company responded to the complaint and
later filed an amended complaint and asserted a cross claim
against IMO. The Company is vigorously defending itself in this
litigation and does not expect that the outcome will be material.

Since 2003, Scores Holding Company, Inc. has been in the business
of licensing the "Scores" trademarks and other intellectual
property to fine gentlemen's nightclubs with adult entertainment
in the United States.


SCORES HOLDING: Dismissal of "Shiflett" Case Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Scores Holding Company, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Elizabeth
Shiflett, a former cocktail waitress, filed on June 14, 2013, a
civil lawsuit against the Company in the S.D.N.Y. alleging
violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title
VII"), as amended, the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL")
and the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL") based upon
allegations of sexual discrimination, creating a hostile work
environment based upon plaintiff's sex and race and unlawful
retaliation against plaintiff. The lawsuit further alleges that at
all material times the Company was the employer of the plaintiff.
The lawsuit had been preceded by a Determination of the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") on January 25, 2013
that there was reasonable cause to believe that the Company had
violated Title VII as a result of the complained-of conduct. The
lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that the practices complained
of violated Title VII, the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL, an injunction
enjoining the Company from engaging in future unlawful acts of
discrimination, harassment and retaliation, unspecified
compensatory damages for plaintiff's alleged loss of past and
future earnings, emotional distress, humiliation and loss of
reputation, punitive damages as a result of the Company's alleged
disregard of plaintiff's protected civil rights, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

The Company disputes that it was an employer of the plaintiff and
categorically denies all allegations of sexual discrimination,
sexual and racial harassment and retaliation. In an order dated
April 10, 2014, the Court dismissed all federal claims.

In May 2014, Ms. Shiflett filed an appeal. The Company will
vigorously defend itself in this litigation and does not expect
that the outcome will be material.

Since 2003, Scores Holding Company, Inc. has been in the business
of licensing the "Scores" trademarks and other intellectual
property to fine gentlemen's nightclubs with adult entertainment
in the United States.


SCORES HOLDING: Fact Discovery in "Love" Case to Close in Nov.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scores Holding Company, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Kiana Love, a
former entertainer and masseuse at The Penthouse Executive Club
and Scores New York, both located in New York, NY, filed on or
about March 7, 2014, a civil lawsuit in the SDNY against us, The
Executive Club, LLC, Go West Entertainment, Inc., Scores
Entertainment, Inc., Entertainment Management Services, Inc., 333
East 60th Street., Inc., I.M. Operating, LLC, Richard Goldring,
Elliot Osher, Robert Gans and Mark Yackow (collectively
"Defendants"), alleging, for the time during which she performed
as a masseuse, violations of the state and federal wage and hour
laws, including the New York Labor Law and Fair Labor Standards
Act, based upon allegations of failure to pay minimum wage,
uniform related expenses, and allegations of improper wage
deductions and tip misappropriation as well as record keeping
violations.

The lawsuit further alleges that at all material times Defendants
were employers of Ms. Love, the plaintiff, while she performed
massage services at Scores New York as well as The Penthouse
Executive Club.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory
damages for plaintiff's alleged loss of past wages and
reimbursement of allegedly unlawful deductions.

The Company said, "We dispute that we were an employer of the
plaintiff, who was at all material times an independent
contractor, and categorically deny all allegations of violations
of law, including the wage and hour laws, improper tip taking, and
violations related to uniforms."

The Complaint in the action was served in June 2014. Certain
defendants, including Scores Holding Company, Inc. answered on
July 21, 2014. The Executive Club LLC and I.M. Operating, LLC each
interposed a counterclaim for offset / unjust enrichment which
Plaintiff answered on August 13, 2014. The parties are presently
exploring settlement while they simultaneously engage in the
discovery process. Fact discovery is scheduled to close in
November 2014.

Since 2003, Scores Holding Company, Inc. has been in the business
of licensing the "Scores" trademarks and other intellectual
property to fine gentlemen's nightclubs with adult entertainment
in the United States.


SEARS OUTLET: Faces "Patton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Randye Patton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sears Outlet Stores, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-01176 (E.D.
Wis., September 23, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

Sears Outlet Stores, LLC operates three Sears Outlet stores in the
state of Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
      Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL SC
      222 E Erie St-Ste 210, PO Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
      Telephone: (414) 271-8650
      Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
      E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
              smurshid@hq-law.com
              tmaynard@hq-law.com


SEMPRIS LLC: Court Refused to Junk Suit Over Membership Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge refused to dismiss a class action against a
company that allegedly defrauds customers with expensive
membership programs, reports Molly Willms, writing for Courthouse
News Service.

Georgia resident Carol Maher claims in the complaint that she was
sold the service when she called a number from an infomercial to
order a dietary supplement.

The representative processing Maher's purchase offered her a
membership in Taste for Savings for $1.95, but deflected questions
about the program's specific costs and benefits.  Maher said she
was told to expect information on the program in the mail.

Though she allegedly never received information on Taste for
Savings, Maher said she noticed some months later that she was
incurring $24.95-per-month charges on her credit card for the
program.

Unable to cancel her membership, Maher had to cancel her credit
card to avoid further charges, the complaint alleged.

Maher filed suit against the program's creator, Sempris, and the
company that she had called about the dietary supplement, Health
Pure Products.

U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery refused to dismiss the claims
against Sempris on September 24, 2014.

Though Sempris had claimed that Maher did not connect it to the
as-yet unknown call-center company that employed the customer-
service representative who took Maher's informercial order,
Montgomery disagreed.

"Essentially, Maher alleges Sempris undertook the responsibility
of fulfilling the representations John Doe made to Sempris
customers, thus it is plausible that Sempris took an active role
and interest in the representations made by the John Doe entity,"
the opinion states.

Sempris also failed to sway the court by claiming that Maher's
home state of Georgia does not allow consumer class actions.

Noting the lack of clarity as to whether the laws conflict "in any
meaningful way," Montgomery said that the relationships between
Maher, the company and the call center should undergo discovery
before the court can make such a ruling.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alicia E. Hwang, Esq.
          EDELSON P.C.
          350 North LaSalle, 13th floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: ahwang@edelson.com

               - and -

          Craig S. Davis, Esq.,
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: csdavis@locklaw.com

Defendant Sempris, LLC is represented by:

          David Jimenez-Ekman, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK
          353 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654-3456
          Telephone: (312) 222-9350
          Facsimile: (312) 527-0484
          E-mail: djimenez-ekman@jenner.com

               - and -

          Elsa M. Bullard, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          2200 Wells Fargo Center
          90 S. Seventh Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          E-mail: elsa.bullard@FaegreBD.com
          Telephone: (612) 766-7000
          Toll free: (800) 328-4393
          Facsimile: (612) 766-1600

The case is Carol Maher v. Sempris, LLC, Health Pure Products,
LLC, John Doe, Case No. 0:13-cv-02202-ADM-JJK, in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota.


SIGMA-ALDRICH CORP: Faces Merger-Related Shareholder Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Sigma-
Aldrich too cheaply through an unfair process to Merck, for $140
per share or $16.7 billion, shareholders claim in a class action
in St. Louis City Court.


SOUTHWEST BANK: Goebel Filed Motion to Intervene in Lamb Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Bank, as Trustee of the Hugoton Royalty Trust (NYSE -
HGT) disclosed in a regulatory filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 19, 2014, that a lawsuit was filed
on September 12, 2012, against Bank of America as trustee and XTO
Energy styled Harold Lamb v. Bank of America and XTO Energy Inc.,
in the U.S. District Court - Western District of Oklahoma. The
plaintiff, Harold Lamb, is a unitholder in the trust and alleges
that XTO Energy failed to properly pay and account to the trust
under the terms of the net overriding royalty conveyances on
certain Kansas and Oklahoma properties and that Bank of America,
N.A., as trustee, failed to properly oversee such payment and
accounting by XTO Energy. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that
Bank of America, N.A. and XTO Energy breached a fiduciary duty to
the trust based on the allegations found in the Fankhouser class
action discussed in the most recent Form 10-Q. The plaintiffs
sought unspecified amounts for actual/compensatory damages,
punitive damages, disgorgement and injunctive relief.
Subsequently, the plaintiff dismissed Bank of America, N.A. from
the lawsuit.

The court granted XTO Energy's motion to transfer venue and
transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas. The Court granted XTO's motion to dismiss and
dismissed the case citing the plaintiff's failure to make a
sufficient pre-suit demand on the trustee.

Subsequent to the dismissal, attorneys for Mr. Lamb sent a letter
to Bank of America, N.A. demanding that the trustee initiate
proceedings against XTO Energy. Bank of America, N.A. declined to
do so, and on December 31, 2013, the plaintiff filed a new lawsuit
against Bank of America as trustee (as nominal defendant) and XTO
Energy styled Harold Lamb v. XTO Energy Inc. and Bank of America
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. XTO
Energy and Bank of America, N.A. have appeared in the lawsuit and
are currently seeking dismissal of all claims. XTO Energy has
informed the trustee that it believes that XTO Energy has strong
defenses to this lawsuit and intends to vigorously defend its
position. The trustee will vigorously defend any claims that may
be asserted against the trustee.

Sandra Goebel, another unitholder of the trust, has filed a motion
to intervene in Lamb's lawsuit and to stay the action in favor of
her lawsuit pending in the Dallas County District Court or, in the
alternative, for the court to appoint her attorneys lead counsel
in Lamb's lawsuit. XTO Energy and Bank of America, N.A. have
opposed the motion with respect to Goebel's request to stay, while
Lamb has opposed the motion with respect to Goebel's requests to
intervene, to stay, and to be appointed lead counsel.

The terms of the trust indenture provide that Bank of America,
N.A. and/or the trustee shall be indemnified by the trust and
shall have no liability, other than for fraud, gross negligence or
acts or omissions in bad faith as adjudicated by final non-
appealable judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.


STATE FARM: Seeks Dismissal of TCPA Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Emily Field and Allison Grande, writing for Law360, report that
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. once again asked an
Illinois federal court on Sept. 25 to dismiss a Telephone Consumer
Protection Act class action alleging it is vicariously liable for
telemarketing calls made by a third party.

The insurance company said in its motion to dismiss that the
plaintiffs' class definition is an improper fail-safe class and
that it would be impossible to determine who belongs in the class
without investigating each alleged call made on behalf of State
Farm.

"No amount of discovery can change the inherently fact-specific
nature of the plaintiffs' vicarious liability claims, and their
class allegations should be stricken so as avoid unnecessary
litigation," State Farm said.

State Farm's motion to dismiss comes a month after it failed to
escape the consolidated class action complaint filed by seven
named plaintiffs alleging violations of the TCPA.

U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve granted motions filed by
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Farmers Insurance Exchange, Fire
Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange and Mid-Century
Insurance Co. to dismiss the suit but said the plaintiffs had
alleged sufficient facts to support holding State Farm vicariously
liable for telemarketing calls made by lead-generator marketing
company Variable Marketing LLC under a subagency theory.

Judge St. Eve ruled that the plaintiffs' allegations made it
plausible that State Farm's insurance agents had its actual or
apparent authority to appoint Variable as a subagent for
telemarketing purposes, including that the agents' hiring and
firing of Variable coincided with the insurer's recommendations.

In its current motion to dismiss, State Farm maintains that the
plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts to support their
claims that the insurance company violated the TCPA by retaining
Variable to make automated marketing calls on its behalf.

"Plaintiffs Friedman and Clark have alleged no facts to support
any vicarious liability claim against State Farm, whether based on
a subagency, apparent authority, or ratification theory," State
Farm said. "Indeed, neither Friedman nor Clark alleges any facts
connecting the phone calls they allegedly received to State Farm."

Plaintiffs Jennifer Smith and four others filed an amended
complaint on Sept. 4 alleging that they had received prerecorded
phone calls on their cellphones advertising auto insurance quotes
from State Farm without their consent.

"State Farm emailed the quote directly to Smith. This quote from
the defendant was precipitated by Variable's call," the complaint
said. "State Farm therefore actively participated in the
telemarketing scheme that is the subject of this case."

Two of the plaintiffs placed their cellphone numbers on the
National Do Not Call Registry, according to the complaint.

The suit seeks an injunction barring State Farm from future
violations of the TCPA, as well as $500 in statutory damages for
each call and $1,500 for every willful violation of the act.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jonathan D. Selbin, Douglas I.
Cuthbertson and Daniel M. Hutchinson of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP and Alexander H. Burke of Burke Law Offices LLC.

State Farm is represented by Ronald S. Safer, Joseph A. Cancila
Jr., James P. Gaughan and Virginia O. Hancock of Schiff Hardin
LLP.

The case is Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.,
case number 1:13-cv-02018, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.


SUSSER HOLDINGS: Memorandum of Understanding Reached
----------------------------------------------------
Susser Holdings Corporation filed its Form 8-K Report with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2014, in
connection with a memorandum of understanding (a "memorandum of
understanding") regarding the settlement of certain litigation
relating to, among other things, the Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the "merger agreement"), dated as of April 27, 2014, by and among
Susser Holdings Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"
or "Susser"), Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. ("ETP"), Energy
Transfer Partners GP, L.P. ("ETP GP"), Heritage Holdings, Inc.
("HHI"), Drive Acquisition Corporation ("Merger Sub"), and, for
limited purposes set forth therein, Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.
("ETE"), providing for the merger (the "merger") of Merger Sub
with and into the Company.

As disclosed in the definitive proxy statement/prospectus filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") by the
Company on July 30, 2014 (the "proxy statement/prospectus"), two
putative stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery and were consolidated under the caption
In re Susser Holdings Corp. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 9613-
VCG (the "Consolidated Action"). Plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Action name Susser, members of the board of directors of Susser,
ETP, ETP GP, Merger Sub, HHI, and ETE as defendants. On June 17,
2014, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint.

Plaintiffs generally allege that the Susser director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care and good
faith owed to Susser's stockholders by allegedly approving the
merger agreement at an unfair price and through an unfair process,
failing to conduct a reasonably informed evaluation of whether the
merger was in the best interests of Susser stockholders, failing
to fully disclose all material information to stockholders, acting
in bad faith and for improper motives to secure material benefits
not shared by other Susser stockholders, discouraging other
strategic alternatives, taking steps to avoid competitive bidding,
and agreeing to allegedly unreasonable deal protection devices.
Plaintiffs also allege that ETP and certain of its affiliates
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by
Susser's directors.

On August 18, 2014, the parties to the Consolidated Action entered
into a memorandum of understanding regarding the settlement of
these putative stockholder class actions against Susser and
Susser's directors, ETP, ETP GP, Merger Sub, HHI, and ETE. Susser
believes that the claims asserted in the Consolidated Action are
without merit and that no further disclosure is required to
supplement the proxy statement/prospectus under applicable laws.
However, to avoid the risk that the putative stockholder class
actions may delay or otherwise adversely affect the consummation
of the merger and to minimize the expense of defending such
action, Susser has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the proposed
settlement, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to
the proposed merger.

The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
court approval following notice to Susser's stockholders. In the
event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a
hearing will be scheduled at which the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved
by the court, it will resolve and release all claims in all
actions that were or could have been brought challenging any
aspect of the proposed merger, the merger agreement, and any
disclosure made in connection therewith (but excluding claims for
appraisal under Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation
Law), among other claims, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed
to stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In
addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses. Susser will pay or cause to be paid
any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware. There can be no assurance that the
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or
that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will approve
the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.


TESLA MOTORS: Judge Dismisses Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that the
accusations centered on electric car fires, but it was the
securities suit against Tesla Motors Inc. that crashed and burned
on Sept. 26 in federal court.

Tesla executives didn't cover up fire risks posed by batteries in
the company's luxury Model S cars, U.S. District Judge Charles
Breyer said, dismissing the complaint without leave to amend.  Nor
were company statements lauding the cars' safety false, despite
three car fires reported in 2013.

"I'm at a total -- I mean total -- loss understanding the basis
for this lawsuit," Judge Breyer said.

Extreme circumstances, including a 100-mph crash, caused the fires
at the heart of the litigation, not a battery defect.  In fact,
Judge Breyer said, Tesla cars seem to have contributed to the
survival of the cars' occupants.  In each case, the victims walked
away without serious injuries before the cars ignited.

"Tesla said that this car was found to be one of the safest cars
ever developed," Judge Breyer said.  "That seems to be the case.
There's no evidence that that's not true."

Plaintiffs attorney Matthew Tuccillo, a partner in Pomerantz's New
York office, countered that Tesla CEO Elon Musk didn't disclose a
fire during a factory test "that spun wildly out of control and
required 23 first responders."

But Judge Breyer remained unconvinced.  "How many fires have
occurred with this very dangerous battery" that were not caused by
crashes or road debris striking the battery in the car's
undercarriage, he asked.

"The answer during the class period and since is zero," said Tesla
attorney David Siegel -- dsiegel@irell.com -- a partner in Irell &
Manella's Los Angeles office.  "That risk has never realized."

Mr. Tuccillo also accused Mr. Musk of misleading shareholders when
answering questions about a car battery that ignited in Washington
state in October 2013.  Mr. Musk already knew of a second battery
fire, but failed to mention it, Mr. Tuccillo said.  But Judge
Breyer brushed that off, saying federal securities law doesn't
require executives to provide "a stream of consciousness
disgorgement about everything everyone knows about everything."


TIMBER BAY: Former Students Can Still Apply for Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Laskowski, writing for CJME, reports that people who
attended a Montreal Lake school can still apply for class action
after a provincial Court of Appeal's reversal, and a lawyer is
considering suing the churches that ran it.

Timber Bay Children's Home and Timber Bay School operated from
1952 to early 1992, with Metis students attending the day school
and residence in the Montreal Lake area.

"Many of these students were sexually abused, they were sexually
abused by staff, they were sexually abused by older students, they
weren't protected from other students.  They were physically
abused, their culture was denigrated.  They were really
psychologically impacted and almost destroyed," Tony Merchant, a
Regina lawyer with Merchant Law Group, said.

The home was operated by numerous religious institutions, first by
the Northern Canada Evangelical Mission (NCEM) and later the
Brethren in Christ Conference (BCC).  Staff was hired by the board
of these institutions.

The school and home were funded in part but not exclusively by the
federal and provincial governments.  Those governments were the
only institutions named as defendants in the class action
application that had been struck down by a judge in 2013.

This year, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Justice, J.A. Ottenbreit
ruled against the 2013 refusal to certify the class action.  This
means Mr. Merchant can re-apply for class action certification on
behalf of the more than 2,000 people who attended Timber Bay
school and home during its run.

Both governments had taken the stance that as funders, they did
not have responsibility for the actions of those who received the
money to operate the home.

"It strikes me as ridiculous," Mr. Merchant said to that.

The 2013 application rejection agreed that governments are not
liable based solely on financing.

However, Justice Ottenbreit's recent ruling stated in some
instances children were not placed in the home voluntarily.  In
part, the decision to grant leave for an application was because
there is evidence some students were forcefully placed there by
social services, and because funding did entail responsibility.

Justice Ottenbreit's ruling read the previous judge's conclusion
that government funding was the only role played "appears to be at
odds with the clear acknowledgement by him in at least two places
in his decision that some children were placed in the home by the
province as wards of the province."

As for why the NCEM and BCC were not named as defendants,
Mr. Merchant said as a "leader" in Indian Residential School
Settlement Agreements (IRSSA) his law group decided early on to
not name religious groups "which almost invariably" ran the
schools.

"We found all that did was slow the process and it was very
difficult to get money from church groups, they didn't have
money."

Although Justice Ottenbreit defended the class action application
for not choosing to sue the churches, Mr. Merchant said he's
reconsidering bringing in the Mennonite Brethren because of the
role they played in Timber Bay.

That process started around 1995, but Timber Bay's school and home
was not included in the classification as a residential school.

Legal action for Timber Bay, starting in the form of the failure
to classify its school and home as a residential school and
progressing to a class action suit, dates back 13 years.  The
current class action through Mr. Merchant has undergone three
revisions.

Through separate action, the Lac La Ronge Indian Band was
unsuccessful with securing IRSSA compensation in 2013.  They are
currently appealing that decision.

Compensation for the cultural suppression and abuse at Timber Bay
or any other school shouldn't be restricted to only status
Indians, he said.

"This school, Timber Bay, Montreal Lake, is different because
mostly it was Metis and non-status Indians who attended the school
and they're the same.  They speak Cree, they have the same,
similar backgrounds and the battle, in part, is to get
compensation for them that's the same as First Nations students
who were sexually and physically abused in their schools, just as
the people who attended Timber Bay, Montreal Lake," Mr. Merchant
said.

Despite the positive news they can reapply, the road for those
named in the class action suit is far from over.

"We're only back on the trail so a lot of struggles are ahead yet
but for those who were wronged it gives us hope again that we'll
be able to achieve closure and compensation for them," he said.


TL CANNON: Applebee's Employees File Class Action Over Rest Break
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Michelman, Esq. of Public Citizen Litigation Group, in an
article for The Legal Broadcast Network, reports that a number of
present and former employees of Applebee's restaurants in New York
state have filed a class action under New York law.  The case,
Roach v. T.L. Cannon Corp., is before the 2nd Circuit Court of
Appeals for determination whether a class action will be
certified.  Scott Michelman discusses the case and the
significance of the class action question.

Mr. Michelman explains that the employees in the lawsuit have been
denied several rights to which they are entitled under NY law.
One of these practices was to charge employees for rest break time
whether the employees actually take the breaks.  Another issue is
so-called "spread time," where an employee who works a ten-hour
day is entitled to an additional hour of pay.  The employees were
denied the spread time hour.

This case involves only New York employees, Mr. Michelman says,
covering 53 stores throughout the state.

The class action question relates to the district court's refusal
to certify a class because of the court's understanding of Comcast
Corp. v. Behrend, decided by the Supreme Court in 2013.  In
Comcast, the Court refused to certify a class in an antitrust case
because the measure of damages proposed by the plaintiffs was too
complicated.

In the Roach case, the Comcast problem is not present.  The
measure of damages is not complicated, Mr. Michelman opines.  The
trial court's decision, if it is allowed to stand, would be very
damaging to class action cases in the future.  The disagreement
about class certification is the crux of the appeal.


TOWERS WATSON: Resolution of Dugan, Allen & Pao Actions Now Final
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution and dismissal of the Dugan, Allen and Pao Actions as
against all defendants is now final, Towers Watson & Co. said in
its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 15, 2014, for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2014.

A putative class action lawsuit filed by certain former
shareholders of Towers Perrin (the "Dugan Action") previously was
reported in Amendment No. 3 to the Registration Statement on Form
S-4/A (File No. 333-161705) filed on November 9, 2009 by the
Jupiter Saturn Holding Company (the "Registration Statement"). As
reported in the Registration Statement, the complaint was filed on
November 5, 2009 against Towers Perrin, members of its board of
directors, and certain members of senior management in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The named Plaintiffs in this action were former members of Towers
Perrin's senior management, who left Towers Perrin at various
times between 1995 and 2000. The Dugan plaintiffs sought to
represent a class of former Towers Perrin shareholders who
separated from service on or after January 1, 1971, but prior to
certain changes in Towers Perrin's capital structure that occurred
in January 2005, and who also meet certain other specified
criteria. The complaint does not contain a quantification of the
damages sought.

On December 9, 2009, Watson Wyatt was informed by Towers Perrin of
a settlement demand from the plaintiffs in the Dugan Action.
Although the complaint in the Dugan Action did not contain a
quantification of the damages sought, plaintiffs' settlement
demand, which was orally communicated to Towers Perrin on December
8, 2009 and in writing on December 9, 2009, sought a payment of
$800 million to settle the action on behalf of the proposed class.
Plaintiffs requested that Towers Perrin communicate the settlement
demand to Watson Wyatt.

On December 17, 2009, four other former Towers Perrin
shareholders, all of whom voluntarily left Towers Perrin in May or
June 2005 and all of whom were excluded from the proposed class in
the Dugan Action, commenced a separate legal proceeding (the
"Allen Action") in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging the same claims in
substantially the same form as those alleged in the Dugan Action.
A fifth plaintiff joined this action on August 29, 2011. These
plaintiffs were proceeding in their individual capacities and did
not seek to represent a proposed class.

On January 15, 2010, another former Towers Perrin shareholder who
separated from service with Towers Perrin in March 2005 when
Towers Perrin and EDS launched a joint venture that led to the
creation of a corporate entity known as ExcellerateHRO ("eHRO"),
commenced a separate legal proceeding (the "Pao Action") in the
United States District Court of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania alleging the same claims in substantially the same
form as those alleged in the Dugan Action. Towers Perrin
contributed its Towers Perrin Administrative Solutions ("TPAS")
business to eHRO and formerly was a minority shareholder (15)% of
eHRO. Pao sought to represent a class of former Towers Perrin
shareholders who separated from service in connection with Towers
Perrin's contribution to eHRO of its TPAS business and who were
excluded from the proposed class in the Dugan Action. Towers
Watson was also named as a defendant in the Pao Action. On January
20, 2010, the court consolidated the three actions for all
purposes under the Dugan Action file number.

Pursuant to the Towers Perrin Bylaws in effect at the time of
their separations, the Towers Perrin shares held by all plaintiffs
were redeemed by Towers Perrin at book value when these
individuals separated from employment. The complaints alleged
variously that there was a promise that Towers Perrin would remain
privately owned in perpetuity and an implied or actual promise
that in the event of a change to public ownership plaintiffs would
receive compensation. Plaintiffs alleged that by agreeing to sell
their shares back to Towers Perrin at book value upon separation,
they and other members of the putative classes relied upon these
alleged promises, which they claim were breached as a result of
the consummation of the Merger between Watson Wyatt and Towers
Perrin. The complaints all asserted claims for breach of contract,
breach of express trust, breach of fiduciary duty, promissory
estoppel, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, and constructive
trust, and seek equitable relief including an accounting,
disgorgement, rescission and/or restitution, and the imposition of
a constructive trust.

On February 22, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaints in their entireties. By order dated September 30, 2010,
the court granted the motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claim for a
constructive trust and denied the motion with respect to all other
claims alleged. Pursuant to the court's September 30, 2010 order,
defendants also filed answers to plaintiffs' complaints on October
22, 2010. Discovery in the case was bifurcated, with fact
discovery to proceed before expert witness and damages discovery.

Neither the plaintiffs in the Dugan Action nor the plaintiff in
Pao Action moved for class certification. Defendants filed a
motion for summary judgment on all claims in all actions on
December 23, 2011. The court heard argument on June 19, 2012, and
on December 11, 2012 granted defendants' motion, and entered
judgment in favor of defendants on all claims. On January 10,
2013, plaintiffs filed a joint notice of their intent to appeal
the court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. On February 13, 2013, the parties were notified that the
appeal had been assigned for mediation pursuant to the Third
Circuit's mediation program. During the mediation session held on
May 7, 2013, the parties reached agreement on settlement terms
that include payment of an aggregate $10 million to an agreed
settlement class (including all persons in the classes as defined
in the respective complaints in the Dugan Action and the Pao
Action, plus additional former Towers Perrin shareholders who
separated from Towers Perrin between January 1971 and June 2005)
estimated to potentially include more than 1,000 former Towers
Perrin shareholders, which payment would also cover legal fees of
plaintiffs' attorneys, as determined by the court, and expenses
incurred to administer the settlement.

The cases were then returned to the district court for
consideration of the proposed settlement. On September 24, 2013,
the court preliminarily certified the settlement class and
preliminarily approved the parties' proposed settlement.

At a hearing on February 12, 2014, the court gave its final
approval to the settlement. The final order and judgment approving
the settlement and dismissing the Dugan, Allen and Pao Actions
with prejudice was entered on February 18, 2014. No appeal was
taken from that final order and judgment during the applicable
appeal period, and the resolution and dismissal of the cases as
against all defendants is now final.


TOWERS WATSON: Trial in Teck Metals Employees Suit Began in Sept
----------------------------------------------------------------
Towers Watson & Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2014, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, that a class action is currently
pending against the Company in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia.

On July 14, 2009, James Weldon, an employee of Teck Metals, Ltd.
("Teck") commenced an action against Teck and Towers Perrin Inc.
(now known as Towers Watson Canada Inc.). On October 17, 2011,
Leonard Bleier, a former employee of Teck, sued Teck and Towers
Perrin.

Aside from their employment status, the allegations in the action
commenced by Bleier (retired from Teck in 2006) are substantively
similar in all material respects to those in the action commenced
by Weldon (employed by Teck at the time the action commenced).
Both actions were brought in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, and that court consolidated the actions on June 21,
2012.

On October 1, 2012, the Company filed a response to the
plaintiffs' consolidated and amended claim denying the legal and
factual basis for the plaintiffs' claim. On December 21, 2012, the
court certified the consolidated case as a class action.
At all times relevant to the plaintiffs' claim, Towers Perrin
acted as the actuarial advisor for Teck's defined benefit pension
plan. According to the plaintiffs' allegations, in 1992 and on
Towers Perrin's advice, Teck offered its non-union, salaried
employees a one-time option to continue participation in Teck's
defined benefit pension plan or to transfer to a newly established
defined contribution plan. The plaintiffs also allege that Towers
Perrin assisted Teck in preparing-and that Towers Perrin approved-
informational materials and a computer-based modeling tool that
Teck distributed to eligible employees prior to the employees
electing whether to transfer. Several hundred employees elected to
transfer from the defined benefit pension plan to the defined
contribution plan on January 1, 1993.

The plaintiff class comprises current and former Teck employees
who elected to transfer from the defined benefit pension plan to
the defined contribution plan. As of August 6, 2014, the Company
understands there to be 470 individuals in the class.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, allege that Towers Perrin
was professionally negligent and that Teck and Towers Perrin
breached statutory and fiduciary duties and acted deceitfully by
providing incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading information to
participants in Teck's defined benefit plan regarding the option
to transfer to the defined contribution plan. Principally, the
plaintiffs allege that the risks of the defined contribution plan-
including investment risk and annuity risk-were downplayed, either
negligently or with the specific intent of causing eligible
employees to transfer to the defined contribution plan.
The plaintiffs seek assorted declaratory relief; an injunction
reinstating them and all class members into the defined benefit
plan with full rights and benefits as if they had not transferred;
disgorgement against Teck; damages in the amount necessary to
provide the plaintiffs and all class members with the pension and
other benefits they would have accrued if they had not
transferred; interest as allowed by law; and such further and
other relief as to the court may seem just. To date, the
plaintiffs have not quantified the damages they seek.

A trial of the issues common to the class-including professional
negligence, breach of fiduciary and statutory duty, deceit, the
appropriate method for calculating any damages, and entitlement to
injunctive relief-was scheduled to commence on September 22, 2014.
The amount of damages, if any, will not be assessed at this common
issues trial.

Based on all of the information to date, the Company believes that
a material loss is unlikely. Given the stage of the proceedings,
the Company is currently unable to provide an estimate of the
reasonably possible loss or range of loss. The Company is
vigorously defending against these allegations.


TUMINO'S TOWING: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Montalvo v. Tumino's Towing, Inc., and John Tumino, Case
No. 2:14-cv-05955 (D.N.J., September 24, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants did not properly compensate employees, for all overtime
hours worked in a work week.

Tumino's Towing, Inc. provides towing services throughout the
state of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP
      Building 2, Suite 220
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com


UNITED ONLINE: No Hearing Date on Bid for Interlocutory Review
--------------------------------------------------------------
No date has been set for a hearing on Plaintiff's motion for
interlocutory review in a class action lawsuit, United Online Inc.
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 18, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2014.

In March 2012, Hope Kelm, Barbara Timmcke, Regina Warfel, Brett
Reilly, Juan M. Restrepo, and Jennie H. Pham filed a purported
class action complaint (the "Kelm Class Action") in United States
District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following
defendants: (i) Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.,
Capital One Financial Corporation, Citigroup, Inc., and Citibank,
N.A. (collectively, the "Credit Card Company Defendants"); (ii) 1-
800-Flowers.com, Inc., United Online, Inc., Classmates, Inc.,
Classmates International, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Days Inns
Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, PeopleFindersPro,
Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc.,
IAC/InterActiveCorp, and Shoebuy.com, Inc. (collectively, the "E-
Merchant Defendants"); and (iii) Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.
("Trilegiant"), Affinion Group, LLC ("Affinion"), and Apollo
Global Management, LLC ("Apollo"). The complaint alleges (1)
violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO") by all defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of
such act by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (2) aiding and
abetting violations of federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank
fraud statutes by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (3)
violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA")
by Trilegiant, Affinion and the E-Merchant Defendants, and aiding
and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Company
Defendants; (4) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act by Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, and the E-Merchant
Defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the
Credit Card Company Defendants; (5) violation of California
Business and Professions Code section 17602 by Trilegiant,
Affinion, Apollo, and the E-Merchant Defendants; and (6) unjust
enrichment by all defendants. The plaintiffs seek class
certification, restitution and disgorgement of all amounts
wrongfully charged to and received from plaintiffs, damages,
treble damages, punitive damages, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and pre- and
post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded.

In March 2012, Debra Miller and William Thompson filed a purported
class action complaint (the "Miller Class Action") in United
States District Court, District of Connecticut, against the
following defendants: (i) Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, Vertrue,
Inc., Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Adaptive Marketing, LLC
(collectively, the "Membership Companies"); (ii) 1-800-
Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Classmates
International, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., FTD Group, Inc.,
IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Classmates, Inc., Peoplefinderspro,
Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc., Shoebuy.com, Inc., United Online, Inc.,
Wells Fargo & Company, and Wyndham Worldwide Corporation
(collectively, the "Marketing Companies"); and (iii) Bank of
America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corporation, Chase Bank USA,
N.A., and Citibank, N.A. (collectively, the "Credit Card
Companies"). The complaint alleges (1) violations of RICO by all
defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the
Credit Card Companies; (2) aiding and abetting violations of
federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud statutes by the
Credit Card Companies; (3) violations of the ECPA by the
Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies, and aiding and
abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Companies; (4)
violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by the
Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies, and aiding and
abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Companies; (5)
violation of California Business and Professions Code section
17602 by the Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies; and
(6) unjust enrichment by all defendants. The plaintiffs seek class
certification, restitution and disgorgement of all amounts
wrongfully charged to and received from the plaintiffs, damages,
treble damages, punitive damages, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and pre- and
post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded.

In April 2012, the Kelm Class Action and the Miller Class Action
were consolidated with a related case under the case caption In re
Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. In September 2012, the plaintiffs
filed their consolidated amended complaint and named five
additional defendants. The defendants responded to the
consolidated amended complaint by joining in motions to dismiss
filed by other defendants in December 2012.

In addition, in December 2012, David Frank filed a purported class
action complaint (the "Frank Class Action") in United States
District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following
defendants: Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo (collectively, the "Frank
Membership Companies"); 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media
LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Classmates International, Inc., Days Inn
Worldwide, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Hotwire, Inc.,
IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Classmates, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide,
LLC, PeopleFindersPro, Inc., Priceline.com, Inc., Shoebuy.com,
Inc., TigerDirect, Inc., United Online, Inc., and Wyndham
Worldwide Corporation (collectively, the "Frank Marketing
Companies"); Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial
Corporation, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Chase Paymentech Solutions,
LLC, Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, Inc., and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
(collectively, the "Frank Credit Card Companies"). The complaint
alleges (1) violations of RICO by all defendants; (2) aiding and
abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit Card
Companies; (3) aiding and abetting commissions of mail fraud, wire
fraud and bank fraud by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (4)
violation of the ECPA by the Frank Membership Companies and the
Frank Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of
such act by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (5) violations of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by the Frank Membership
Companies and the Frank Marketing Companies, and aiding and
abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit Card
Companies; (6) violation of California Business and Professions
Code section 17602 by the Frank Membership Companies and the Frank
Marketing Companies; and (7) unjust enrichment by all defendants.
The plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and
disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received
from plaintiff, damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts
awarded.

In January 2013, the plaintiff moved to consolidate the Frank
Class Action with the In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. action.
In March 2014, the Court granted the motion to consolidate the
Frank Class Action with the In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.
action, with the latter designated as the lead case.

On March 28, 2014, the Court issued an order in the In re
Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. action dismissing for lack of Article
III standing, and inadequately pled corporate parent liability for
its subsidiary's actions, Plaintiffs' claims against United
Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc. (subsequently renamed Classmates,
Inc.), FTD Group, Inc., and Classmates International, Inc. The
Court ruled that because none of the named Plaintiffs alleged they
used services from or were otherwise injured by any of those
defendants, the claims against them are dismissed. The Court's
dismissal was without prejudice. The deadline for Plaintiffs to
file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order expired on
April 11, 2014, without any such motion being filed.

On April 28, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking entry of
partial final judgment on, and certification for interlocutory
appeal of, the Court's March 28, 2014 orders dismissing the RICO
claims and RICO conspiracy claims, the claims against the Credit
Card Company Defendants, the nationwide Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act class action allegations, and the claims of
plaintiffs Warfel, Reilly, Restrepo and Brian Schnabel based on
their participation in a previous class action settlement.

On May 5, 2014, the Court summarily granted Plaintiff's motion for
entry of partial final judgment and certification for
interlocutory appeal, but subsequently vacated that order and set
a May 23, 2014 deadline for the remaining defendants to file their
oppositions to Plaintiff's motion.

On May 23, 2014, the remaining defendants filed their opposition
briefs to the motion for interlocutory review and, on June 5,
2014, the Plaintiff filed a reply brief.  No date has been set for
a hearing on Plaintiff's motion. The Plaintiffs' motion did not
seek entry of a partial final judgment on, nor certification for
interlocutory review of, the Court's dismissal of Plaintiffs'
claims against United Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc.
(subsequently renamed Classmates, Inc.), FTD Group, Inc., and
Classmates International, Inc., for lack of Article III standing
and inadequately pled corporate parent liability for its
subsidiary's actions.


US BANCORP: Did Not Pay Commission to Sales Associates, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that US Bancorp failed to pay
sales associates earned commissions after their employment ended,
a class claims.

The case is Fariba Madison v. US Bancorp; US Bancorp Insurance
Services; US Bancorp Investments, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Alameda.


USUAL RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Torres, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective v. The
Usual Restaurant, Inc., Ioannis Halkias and Minas Halkias, Case
No. 1:14-cv-05601 (E.D.N.Y., September 24, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime and minimum wages, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Usual Restaurant, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant located
at 637A Vanderbilt Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, 11238.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 465-1188
     Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
     E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


VARNER PARKER: Action by Clinton Firm Dismissed With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David Bramlette granted the motions for summary
judgment filed by the Defendants and dismissed, with prejudice,
the civil action captioned as, J. PAUL CLINTON and STOKES and
CLINTON, P.C., Plaintiffs, v. W. RICHARD JOHNSON, SR.; DAVID M.
SESSUMS; VARNER, PARKER & SESSUMS, P.A.; and TAMRA WARNOCK,
Defendants, Civil Action No: 3:13-CV-871(DCB)(MTP)(S.D. Miss.).

According to the Complaint, plaintiff J. Paul Clinton, who is
licensed to practice law, sued and took a default judgment for his
client, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, against
defendant Tamra Warnock in Mississippi in 2006, in relation to a
car accident in which Warnock was alleged to have been involved.
Ms. Warnock was represented by defendants W. Richard Johnson as
well as David Sessums and his firm, Varner, Parker & Sessums.

Subsequently, Warnock, represented by Johnson and Varner, Parker &
Sessums, filed a class-action Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO") lawsuit in a Mississippi district court
against Clinton and his law firm, which included allegations that
Clinton committed wire and mail fraud in his communications with
Warnock.  The Court opined that Warnock could not produce any
evidence of the commission of two or more incidents of fraud and
thus could not show a pattern of racketeering activity and thus,
the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Clinton.

Clinton avers that not only did he spend $789,429.44 on defending
a meritless case, but also his malpractice premium increased 300%
as a result of the lawsuit.

Based on these allegations, Clinton brought seven claims against
the defendants. In a previous Memorandum Opinion and Order,
Clinton v. Johnson, 2013 WL 870361 (S.D. Miss. March 7, 2013), the
Court dismissed four of the claims, leaving only malicious
prosecution, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress. Clinton seeks the following compensatory
damages: fees incurred in defending the RICO lawsuit; the cost of
the increase in his malpractice insurance premium; compensation
for the harm to his reputation; and compensation for general pain,
anguish, and emotional distress suffered as a result of the
lawsuit. He also seeks punitive damages, alleging willful and
malicious conduct on the part of the defendants.

The defendants have filed an Amended Counter-Claim against the
plaintiffs for malicious prosecution in the bringing of the
plaintiffs' Complaint.

"Because there has been no final judgment in the proceeding
brought by the plaintiffs, the defendants' malicious prosecution
claim is premature and must be dismissed without prejudice.  The
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is therefore moot," the
District Court opined in its Sept. 29 Order.

Moreover, the District Court opines that "the claims put forward
by the defendants in their RICO action, based on the facts they
then believed existed, were not unreasonably asserted, even if
they were ultimately found to be without merit."  They were at
least arguably valid, which leads the Court to conclude that, as a
matter of law, the defendants had probable cause to institute the
RICO action.

A copy of the Sept. 29 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available
at http://is.gd/ZbFH1zfrom Leagle.com.

Stokes and Clinton, P.C., Counter Defendant, is represented by
Harry Vincent Satterwhite, Esq., at Satterwhite & Associates, LLC.


VENOCO INC: Trial in Class Action Expected to Occur in 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trial in a class action involving Venoco, Inc. and Denver Parent
Corporation is expected to occur in 2015, the Companies said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 18, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2014.

In August 2011, Timothy Marquez, the then- Chairman and CEO of
Venoco, submitted a nonbinding proposal to the board of directors
of Venoco to acquire all of the shares of Venoco he did not
beneficially own for $12.50 per share in cash (the "Marquez
Proposal"). As a result of that proposal, three lawsuits were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery in September 2011 against
Venoco and each of its directors by shareholders alleging that
Venoco and its directors had breached their fiduciary duties to
the shareholders in connection with the Marquez Proposal.

On January 16, 2012, Venoco entered into a Merger Agreement with
Mr. Marquez and certain of his affiliates pursuant to which
Venoco, Mr. Marquez and his affiliates would effect the going
private transaction. Following announcement of the Merger
Agreement, five additional suits were filed in Delaware (three in
January and two in February) and three suits were filed in federal
court in Colorado (two in January and one in February) naming as
defendants Venoco and each of its directors.

In March 2013 the plaintiffs in Delaware filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint in which they requested that the
court determine among other things that (i) the merger
consideration is inadequate and the Merger Agreement was entered
into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants and is
therefore unlawful and unenforceable and (ii) the merger should be
rescinded or in the alternative, the class should be awarded
damages to compensate them for the loss as a result of the breach
of fiduciary duties by the defendants. The Colorado actions have
been administratively closed pending resolution of the Delaware
case.

Venoco has reviewed the allegations contained in the amended
complaint and believes they are without merit. Trial in this
matter is expected to occur in 2015.

Venoco is an independent energy company primarily engaged in the
acquisition, exploration, exploitation and development of oil and
natural gas properties.


WEBLOYALTY.COM INC: 2nd Amended Complaint by K. Park Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Larry Alan Burns granted in part the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the putative class action KEVIN PARK, Plaintiff,
v. WEBLOYALTY.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 12CV1380-LAB (S.D.
Cal.).  The District Court ruled the proposed Second Amended
Complaint is dismissed, but without prejudice and not with
prejudice as requested in the motion.

Mr. Park alleges that Webloyalty obtained his billing information
directly from Gamestop.com through the "data pass" process.  Mr.
Park claims that he never intended to join any membership program,
and was not even aware that he had been redirected away from the
website Gamestop.com.  Mr. Park says in April 2011, he discovered
unauthorized charges to his bank account totaling $264.  These
were the charges made by Webloyalty.  He requested a refund, and
Webloyalty granted him only a partial refund of $48.

Mr. Park brought this putative class action, with the putative
class consisting of all persons who did not directly provide their
billing information to Webloyalty, but who were charged for a
subscription based program at any time since December 29, 2010.

The original complaint was dismissed for failure to allege
jurisdictional facts.

Subsequently, Webloyalty sought dismissal of the Second Amended
Complaint.

In a Sept. 29, 2014 Order available at http://is.gd/9HhOOc, Judge
Burns opines that the Second Amended Complaint does not state a
claim.

The District Court further rules that Mr. Park may not amend his
Complaint unless he first obtains leave to do so.  He may seek
leave to amend by filing an ex parte motion showing that amendment
would not be futile. The motion should address all defects noted
in this order. If he believes limited discovery into the exhibits'
authenticity is appropriate, he may request that in the motion and
must show why it is appropriate. But if he is prepared to amend
immediately, he should attach his proposed third amended complaint
as an exhibit to his motion. The ex parte motion must be filed
within 28 days of Sept. 29, 2014, or the Court will assume that
Mr. Park realizes he cannot successfully amend, and the complaint
will be dismissed with prejudice as to Park's claims, and without
prejudice as to the putative class claims.  If Mr. Park moves for
leave to amend, Webloyalty may file a response within 14 calendar
days.

Defendant Webloyalty.com, Inc., is represented by Aaron Shawn
Thompson, Esq. -- aaron.thompson@wilmerhale.com , James W.
Prendergast, Esq. -- james.prendergast@wilmerhale.com , John J.
Regan, Esq. -- john.regan@wilmerhale.com , Seth B. Orkand, Esq. --
seth.orkand@wilmerhale.com , Eric Grant Penley, Esq. --
eric.penley@wilmerhale.com -- and Eugene Marder, Esq. --
eugene.marder@wilmerhale.com of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP.


WORLD PIZZA: Faces "Canelas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Canelas, on behalf of himself FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. World Pizza, Inc. d/b/a Pizza 2000 and John
Diluna, Case No. 1:14-cv-07748 (S.D.N.Y., September 24, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

World Pizza, Inc. owns and operates a pizzeria in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1188
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


XRS CORP: Being Sold for Too Little to Omnitracs, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling XRS
Corp. too cheaply through an unfair process to Omnitracs, for
$5.60 a share or $178 million, shareholders claim in Hennepin
County Court.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Appeal Plant Insulation Plan Terminated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division, on September 23,
approved a Stipulation and Order terminating the extension of time
for appellants OneBeacon Insurance Co., et al., to lodge an appeal
from the order affirming confirmation of the Amended and Restated
Second Amended Plan of Reorganization of Plant Insulation Company,
as modified.

The District Court's order affirming the Bankruptcy Court's
Confirmation Order, was entered on August 18, 2014.  The parties
have settled their disputes pending the expiration of a
reconsideration period for any party to object to the settlements,
which period expired on September 19, 2014.

The parties agreed that OneBeacon et al. would have through and
including October 17, 2014 to file an appeal from the Affirmation
Order.  Judge Seeborg approved that stipulation in a Sept. 11
Order.

Pursuant to the Sept. 23 stipulation, the parties agree that the
the extension for filing an appeal is terminated and OneBeacon et
al. will have no further right to appeal from the Affirmation
Order.

The Plan provides two avenues for compensating existing and future
asbestos injury claimants: (1) from a trust established under Sec.
524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, and (2) by preserving claimants'
right to file tort actions against Plant and insurers that refuse
to settle such claims by making cash contributions to the Trust.

The case is ONEBEACON INSURANCE CO., et al., Appellants, v. PLANT
INSULATION CO., et al., Appellees (In re PLANT INSULATION
COMPANY), CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01200-RS, BK. CASE NO. 3:09-BK-31347
TEC (N.D. Calif.).

Andrew T. Frankel, Esq. -- afrankel@stblaw.com -- at SIMPSON
THACHER & BARTLETT LLP, represents United States Fidelity and
Guaranty Company.

A full-text copy of Judge Seeborg's Sept. 11, 2014, order is
available at http://is.gd/2DvpFRfrom Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of Judge Seeborg's Sept. 23, 2014, order is
available at http://is.gd/iUL7asfrom Leagle.com.

San Francisco, California-based Plant Insulation Company
manufactured insulation products and services.  It is formerly
involved in the sale, installation, repair, and distribution of
products containing asbestos.  The Company filed for Chapter 11
protection (Bankr. N.D. Calif. Case No. 09-31347) on May 20, 2009.
Michaeline H. Correa, Esq., Peter J. Benvenutti, Esq., and Tobias
S. Keller, Esq., at Jones Day, represent the Debtor in its
restructuring effort.  The Debtor estimated assets and debts
ranging from $500 million to $1 billion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Has 62,180 American Optical PI Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. has 62,180 asbestos-related personal injury claims
arising from products manufactured by American Optical
Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 29, 2014.

Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned American Optical
Corporation, which manufactured and sold respiratory protective
devices and asbestos safety clothing. In connection with the sale
of American Optical in 1982, Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify
the purchaser for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos-
related and other claims. As of June 29, 2014, approximately
62,180 claims naming American Optical and numerous other
defendants were pending in various federal and state courts
seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to
asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials. Warner-Lambert
is actively engaged in the defense of, and will continue to
explore various means to resolve, these claims.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Continues to Defend Gibsonburg Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. continues to defend itself against numerous asbestos-
related lawsuits arising from products manufactured by Gibsonburg
Lime Products Company, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 29, 2014.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Inc. Continues to Defend PI Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits alleging
exposure to asbestos in facilities it owns or formerly owns,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 29, 2014.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 43,730 Pending Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had approximately 43,730 pending asbestos claims
as of June 30, 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014.

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

Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period. The Company does not report as pending those claims on
inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some
jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or
no impairment. As of June 30, 2014, the Company had pending
approximately 43,730 asbestos claims, as compared with
approximately 45,150 as of December 31, 2013 and 45,320 as of June
30, 2013. During the second quarter of 2014, the Company received
approximately 1,010 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive
docket approximately 2,550 claims. The Company reports claims as
closed when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has been
entered by a court or when the Company has reached agreement with
the claimants on the material terms of a settlement. Settlement
costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the
basis of the claim, the quality of evidence supporting the claims
and other factors. The Company's total costs for the years 2013
and 2012 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after
insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were approximately
$29 million and $21 million, respectively. The Company's costs for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year
and insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period
as the insured portion of the expenses.

The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are adequate
to cover its asbestos liabilities. This belief is based upon many
factors and assumptions, including the number of outstanding
claims, estimated average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims
by disease type, historic claim filings, costs per claim of
resolution and the filing of new claims. While the number of
asbestos claims filed against the Company has trended down in the
past five to ten years and has remained flat in recent years, it
is difficult to predict future asbestos liabilities, as events and
circumstances may occur including, among others, the number and
types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims, which
could affect the Company's estimate of its asbestos liabilities.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Had 4,217 PI Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. had resolved 4,217 pending asbestos-
related personal injury claims, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

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

"We were defending 4,217 claims as of June 30, 2014.

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

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

"While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurer,
Liberty Mutual, has defended each case and funded settlements
under a standard reservation of rights. As of June 30, 2014 we had
resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 36,752 claims. The
total cost of resolving all claims was $9.2 million. Of this
amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier. The
Company's insurer has confirmed that although the coverage limits
under two (of approximately 23) primary insurance policies have
been exhausted, there still remains approximately $3 million in
coverage limits under other applicable primary policies, and $140
million in coverage under excess umbrella coverage policies that
should be available with respect to current and future asbestos
claims."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Had 7,732 "Brandon" Fibro Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. had 7,732 asbestos claims relating to
products manufactured by its Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc.,
subsidiary, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2014.

The Company states: "Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc., a subsidiary of
Geschmay Corp., which is a subsidiary of the Company, is also a
separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which Albany
is named as a defendant. Brandon was defending against 7,732
claims as of June 30, 2014. We acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly
known as Wangner Systems Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Geschmay Corp. In 1978, Brandon acquired
certain assets from Abney Mills, a South Carolina textile
manufacturer. Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were
assets of Abney's wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc.
which had sold, among other things, dryer fabrics containing
asbestos made by its parent, Abney. Although Brandon manufactured
and sold dryer fabrics under its own name subsequent to the asset
purchase, none of such fabrics contained asbestos. Because Brandon
did not manufacture asbestos-containing products, and because it
does not believe that it was the legal successor to, or otherwise
responsible for obligations of Abney with respect to products
manufactured by Abney, it believes it has strong defenses to the
claims that have been asserted against it. As of June 30, 2014,
Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 9,873
claims for a total of $0.2 million. Brandon's insurance carriers
initially agreed to pay 88.2% of the total indemnification and
defense costs related to these proceedings, subject to the
standard reservation of rights. The remaining 11.8% of the costs
had been borne directly by Brandon. During 2004, Brandon's
insurance carriers agreed to cover 100% of indemnification and
defense costs, subject to policy limits and the standard
reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for all indemnity
and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related to these
proceedings.

"We do not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the
range of possible loss with respect to these remaining claims."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Continues to Defend Unit's Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. continues to defend itself against
lawsuits alleging exposure from its Mount Vernon Mills subsidiary,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014.

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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle Continues to Defend PI Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company continues to defend itself against
numerous lawsuits alleging injuries resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2014.

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

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company ("Scotts Miracle-Gro") and its
subsidiaries (collectively, together with Scotts Miracle-Gro, the
"Company") are engaged in the manufacturing, marketing and sale of
consumer branded products for lawn and garden care. The Company's
primary customers include home centers, mass merchandisers,
warehouse clubs, large hardware chains, independent hardware
stores, nurseries, garden centers and food and drug stores. The
Company's products are sold primarily in North America and the
European Union. The Company also operates the Scotts
LawnService(R) business, which provides residential and commercial
lawn care, tree and shrub care and limited pest control services
in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Inc. Has 2,569 New Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., received approximately 2,569 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
June 30, 2014.

MLIC 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. MLIC has never engaged in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC 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 MLIC's
employees during the period from the 1920's through approximately
the 1950's and allege that MLIC 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.
MLIC 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 MLIC. MLIC 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 MLIC have included negligence, intentional
tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with
asbestos. MLIC's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that: (i) MLIC 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 MLIC; (iii) MLIC'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 MLIC, while other trial courts
have denied MLIC's motions. There can be no assurance that MLIC
will receive favorable decisions on motions in the future. While
most cases brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue
to defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure,
including defending claims at trials.

MLIC received approximately 5,898 asbestos-related claims in 2013.
During the six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, MLIC received
approximately 2,569 and 3,129 new asbestos-related claims,
respectively. The number of asbestos cases that may be brought,
the aggregate amount of any liability that MLIC 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 MLIC 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 MLIC 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. MLIC'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 MLIC, including claims settled but not
yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for
asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC
believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal
defense costs associated with the foregoing claims. Significant
assumptions underlying MLIC'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.

MLIC 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, MLIC has
updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through
June 30, 2014.

MetLife, Inc. (MetLife) is a provider of insurance, annuities and
employee benefit programs, serving 90 million customers in over 50
countries. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife
operates in the United States, Japan, Latin America, Asia Pacific,
Europe and the Middle East. It is organized into six segments:
Insurance Products, Retirement Products, Corporate Benefit Funding
and Auto & Home (collectively, U.S. Business), and Japan and Other
International Regions (collectively, International). U.S. Business
provides insurance and financial services products, including
life, dental, disability, auto and homeowner insurance. In
September 2013, MetLife Inc and Thayer Lodging Group acquired the
365-room Hilton Los Cabos Beach & Golf Resort in Cabo San Lucas,
Mexico in a joint venture. In October 2013, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya
Argentaria SA sold its entire 64.3% interest in Administradora de
Fondos de Pensiones Provida SA (AFP Provida) to Metlife Inc's
subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Has 37 Exposure Suits at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Noble Corporation plc had 37 asbestos exposure lawsuits, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 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 June 30, 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. In August 2014, the Company
announced that it has completed the spin-off of Paragon Offshore
plc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southern Star Records $1.6MM ARO Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------
Southern Star Central Corp. recorded $1.6 million asset retirement
obligation liability for the remediation of asbestos existing on
its system, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2014.

In accordance with the Asset Retirement and Environmental
Obligations Topic 410 of the ASC, Central recorded an asset
retirement obligation, or ARO, for the remediation of asbestos
existing on its system. The asbestos existing on Central's system
is primarily in building materials and pipe coatings used prior to
the Clean Air Act of 1973. The Clean Air Act of 1973 established
the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, or
NESHAPs, that regulate the use of asbestos. The amount of the
regulatory asset and the related ARO liability on the accompanying
Consolidated Balance Sheets at June 30, 2014 was $0.1 million and
$1.6 million, respectively. The amount of the regulatory asset and
the related ARO liability on the accompanying Consolidated Balance
Sheets at December 31, 2013 was $0.4 million and $1.7 million,
respectively.

Southern Star Central Corp., or Southern Star, is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of MSIP-SSCC Holdings, LLC, or Holdings, which is owned
by Morgan Stanley Infrastructure Partners and certain other
affiliated investment funds managed by Morgan Stanley
Infrastructure, Inc., or MSIP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Inc. Unit Has 1,130 Fibro Suits
------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Valhi, Inc., has 1,130 cases alleging asbestos-
related personal injuries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

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

* facts concerning historical operations,

* the rate of new claims,

* the number of claims from which we have been dismissed, and

* our prior experience in the defense of these matters.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: LSB Industries Accrues $308MM ARO Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
LSB Industries, Inc.'s accrued liability for asset retirement
obligations was $308,000,000, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

The Company states: "Currently, we have various legal requirements
related to operations of our Chemical Business facilities,
including the disposal of wastewater generated at certain of these
facilities. Additionally, we have certain facilities in our
Chemical Business that contain asbestos insulation around certain
piping and heated surfaces, which we plan to maintain or replace,
as needed, with non-asbestos insulation through our standard
repair and maintenance activities to prevent deterioration.
Currently, there is insufficient information to estimate the fair
value for most of our asset retirement obligations ("AROs"). In
addition, we currently have no plans to discontinue the use of
these facilities, and the remaining life of the facilities is
indeterminable. As a result, a liability for only a minimal amount
relating to AROs associated with these facilities has been
established. However, we will continue to review these obligations
and record a liability when a reasonable estimate of the fair
value can be made. In addition, our Chemical Business owns working
interests in certain natural gas properties. We recognized AROs
associated with the obligation to plug and abandon wells when the
natural gas reserves in the wells are depleted. At June 30, 2014
and December 31, 2013, our accrued liability for AROs was
$308,000,000 and $304,000,000 respectively."

LSB Industries, Inc. is a diversified holding company involved in
manufacturing and marketing operations through its subsidiaries.
The Company together with its wholly owned subsidiaries owns
Chemical Business and Climate Control Business. Chemical Business
manufactures and sells nitrogen-based chemical products produced
from four facilities located in El Dorado, Arkansas; Cherokee,
Alabama; Pryor, Oklahoma, and Baytown, Texas for the agricultural,
industrial, and mining markets. Climate Control Business
manufactures and sells a range of heating, ventilation and air
conditioning (HVAC) products in the niche markets the Company
serves consisting of geothermal and water source heat pumps,
hydronic fan coils, large custom air handlers, modular geothermal
and other chillers and other related products used to control the
environment in commercial/institutional and residential new
building construction, renovation of existing buildings and
replacement of existing systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Had 8,574 Fibro Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation had 8,574 pending asbestos claims,
according to the Company's 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2014.

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

Total asbestos claims pending at the six-months ended June 30,
2014, were 8,574.

The Corporation and its Air & Liquid subsidiary are parties to a
series of settlement agreements ("Settlement Agreements") with
insurers that have coverage obligations for Asbestos Liability
(the "Settling Insurers"). Under the Settlement Agreements, the
Settling Insurers accept financial responsibility, subject to the
terms and conditions of the respective agreements, including
overall coverage limits, for pending and future claims for
Asbestos Liability. The Settlement Agreements encompass the
substantial majority of insurance policies that provide coverage
for claims for Asbestos Liability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on the analyses, the Corporation's reserve at December 31,
2012 for the total costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos
Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2022
was $181,022, of which approximately 73% was attributable to
settlement costs for unasserted claims projected to be filed
through 2022 and future defense costs. The reserve at June 30,
2014 was $146,645. While it is reasonably possible that the
Corporation will incur additional charges for Asbestos Liability
and defense costs in excess of the amounts currently reserved, the
Corporation believes that there is too much uncertainty to provide
for reasonable estimation of the number of future claims, the
nature of such claims and the cost to resolve them beyond 2022.
Accordingly, no reserve has been recorded for any costs that may
be incurred after 2022.

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

For the six-months ended June 30, 2014, the Company's asbestos-
related insurance receivables was $101,046,000.

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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Has 15 Fibro Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. has 15 pending asbestos cases,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous
defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to
silica or to asbestos containing materials. The Company currently
has 102 pending silica cases and 15 pending asbestos cases. These
totals include 30 silica cases and one asbestos case against AMCOL
International Corporation and/or its subsidiary, American Colloid
Company, that were pending on the date we acquired AMCOL and were
not previously reported by us. To date, 1,394 silica cases and 35
asbestos cases have been dismissed, not including any lawsuits
against AMCOL or American Colloid Company dismissed prior to our
acquisition of AMCOL. No new asbestos or silica cases were filed
in the second quarter of 2014.

Most of these claims do not provide adequate information to assess
their merits, the likelihood that the Company will be found
liable, or the magnitude of such liability, if any. Additional
claims of this nature may be made against the Company or its
subsidiaries. At this time management anticipates that the amount
of the Company's liability, if any, and the cost of defending such
claims, will not have a material effect on its financial position
or results of operations.

The Company has not settled any silica or asbestos lawsuits to
date (not including any that may have been settled by AMCOL prior
to completion of the acquisition). We are unable to state an
amount or range of amounts claimed in any of the lawsuits because
state court pleading practices do not require identifying the
amount of the claimed damage. The aggregate cost to the Company
for the legal defense of these cases since inception continues to
be insignificant. The majority of the costs of defense for these
cases, excluding cases against AMCOL or American Colloid, are
reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. pursuant to the terms of certain
agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial
public offering in 1992. Of the 14 pending asbestos cases
excluding the case against AMCOL / American Colloid, all allege
liability based on products sold largely or entirely prior to the
initial public offering, and for which the Company is therefore
entitled to indemnification pursuant to such agreements. Our
experience has been that the Company is not liable to plaintiffs
in any of these lawsuits and the Company does not expect to pay
any settlements or jury verdicts in these lawsuits.

Minerals Technologies Inc. is a resource- and technology-based
company that develops, produces and markets worldwide a broad
range of specialty mineral, mineral-based and synthetic mineral
products and supporting systems and services. The Company has two
reportable segments: Specialty Minerals and Refractories. In May
2014, the Company acquired AMCOL International Corp.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Next Bankruptcy Could See Garlock-style Fight
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that when the next asbestos-related bankruptcy occurs, the Garlock
Sealing Technologies case and Bondex International case will
provide the debtor with two separate approaches for resolving
disputes over asbestos liability.

"What approach (debtors) adopt (in future bankruptcy proceedings)
will be determined by what there is to protect, personalities of
the players involved and their assessment of the best way to get
the desired outcome and liabilities," bankruptcy attorney David
Christian said.

He added that debtors will also select their approach to
bankruptcy proceedings based on how "aggressive" Garlock is in
getting its plan of reorganization approved, "if it is more
palatable to these decision-makers."

Garlock's approach to estimating liability in bankruptcy court
highlights its fight to prove plaintiffs attorneys engaged in
fraudulent activity during asbestos litigation over the years
leading up to its bankruptcy in order to increase settlement
amounts.

On Jan. 10, Judge George Hodges of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Western District of North Carolina concluded that Garlock
needed to put $125 million in its bankruptcy trust, which is more
than $1 billion less than what plaintiffs' attorneys requested as
Garlock's liability.

Judge Hodges ruled that the amount of previous awards and
settlements paid by the company in the civil justice system were
not reliable because plaintiffs attorneys had withheld exposure
evidence in order to maximize recovery against Garlock.

"This occurrence was a result of the effort by some plaintiffs and
their lawyers to withhold evidence of exposure to other asbestos
products and to delay filing claims against bankrupt defendants'
asbestos trusts until after obtaining recoveries from Garlock,"
Judge Hodges wrote.

"It appears certain that more extensive discovery would show more
extensive abuse. But that is not necessary because the startling
pattern of misrepresentation that has been shown is sufficiently
persuasive."

Bondex, on the other hand, chose to reach a settlement agreement
in an effort to protect its parent company, RPM International Inc.

On July 28, RPM announced its agreement with the bankruptcy
representatives of current and future asbestos claimants in order
to resolve Bondex-related asbestos liability. According to the
agreement, RPM would pay $797.5 million over four years and
resolve all present and future asbestos personal injury claims
related to its subsidiary Bondex. The case is currently being
litigated in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware.

Christian, founder of the David Christian Attorneys law firm, said
that Bondex's approach to bankruptcy estimation can grow out of
Garlock's approach to bankruptcy estimation.

"History teaches us that there are debtors who go into chapter 11
[bankruptcy] saying they will fight," he said, "but they get a
better deal often for the sake of protecting equity."

This is exemplified by Bondex, which started out with a
disagreement over its liability before ultimately cutting a deal.

Bondex's settlement stemmed from a May 2013 ruling by former U.S.
Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald, who estimated Bondex's
liability at $1.166 billion. However, Bondex argued during the
estimation proceedings that its actual liability amounted to $135
million.

RPM appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, arguing Judge Fitzgerald reached the escalated
number by placing too much weight on past settlement agreements.
In fact, many of those settlements were reached to push aside
nuisance lawsuits, it claimed.

Judge Fitzgerald was unconvinced, concluding that "if a
mesothelioma claim was settled by debtors for a nominal amount,
there must have been some evidence of exposure against other
defendants in the tort system but, because debtors made a payment
nonetheless, debtors must have determined that the claimant either
was exposed to a Bondex product or that Bondex was not going to
contest exposure. That is, the settlement indicates that Bondex
was either agreeing that there was some liability, which would be
its defense in the tort system. Therefore, the settlements are
relevant to estimation because they place a value on the claims."

Prior to the RPM/Bondex estimation proceeding, the debtors filed
discovery requests for access to information from the plaintiffs
firms that have filed asbestos claims against them in order to
determine their appropriate liability.

The debtors argued that the information would have shown they
settled prepetition claims on an inflated basis, even though they
concede they investigated the claims before they settled.

The plaintiffs objected, claiming discovery would be burdensome
and beyond what the debtors need in order to establish a trust.

They also argued that the information was confidential and had no
relevance to the debtors' liability.

Judge Fitzgerald agreed and denied the debtors request for
discovery.

Christian added that the Garlock bankruptcy proceeding isn't over,
and that the debtors may still follow in Bondex's footsteps if its
plan of reorganization isn't approved by the asbestos claimants
voting on the matter.

"While it's true that there are chapter 11 debtors that adopted a
much more cooperative attitude with their claimant
constituencies," Christian said, "the lesson of the last decade-
and-a-half is that ultimately, a deal gets cut."

He added that while companies typically settle, the terms of the
deals will vary the outcomes for each debtor.

Christian doesn't think all remaining solvent asbestos defendants
will enter bankruptcy protection

"I don't expect every defendant to end up in bankruptcy," he said,
"but I expect that it is a tool that will continue to be on the
menu and will be used by some."

Christian explained that the bankruptcy tool will continue to be
attractive depending on how much insurance a company has left,
especially if an asbestos defendant has a wealthy parent that
needs a shield of liability.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NIC Continues to Defend Fibro Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation (NIC) continues to defend
itself against numerous 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 July 31, 2014.

The Company states: "Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we
have been subject to an increased number of asbestos-related
claims in recent years. In general, these claims relate to
illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from
component parts found in older vehicles, although some cases
relate to the alleged presence of asbestos in our facilities. In
these claims, we are generally not the sole defendant, and the
claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of
a wide variety of products allegedly containing asbestos. We have
strongly disputed these claims, and it has been our policy to
defend against them vigorously. Historically, the actual damages
paid out to claimants have not been material in any year to our
financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. It is
possible that the number of these claims will continue to grow,
and that the costs for resolving asbestos related claims could
become significant in the future."

Navistar International Corporation (NIC) is a holding company,
whose principal operating subsidiaries are Navistar, Inc. and
Navistar Financial Corporation (NFC). The Company is a
manufacturer of International brand commercial and military
trucks, IC Bus (IC) brand buses, MaxxForce brand diesel engines,
Workhorse Custom Chassis (WCC) brand chassis for motor homes and
step vans, and Monaco RV (Monaco) recreational vehicles (RV), as
well as a provider of service parts for all makes of trucks and
trailers. In addition, it is a private-label designer and
manufacturer of diesel engines for the pickup truck, van and sport
utility vehicle (SUV) markets. It also provides retail, wholesale,
and lease financing of trucks and parts. NIC operates in four
segments: Truck, Engine, Parts and Financial Services. In February
2013, Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd purchased the Navistar Group's
stake in Mahindra Navistar Automotives Ltd (MNAL) and Mahindra
Navistar Engines Pvt Ltd (MNEPL).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Continues to Defend Fibro Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joy Global Inc. continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related product liability cases, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended August 1, 2014.

The Company states: "We and our subsidiaries are involved in
various unresolved legal matters that arise in the normal course
of operations, the most prevalent of which relate to product
liability (including approximately 3,050 asbestos and silica-
related cases), employment and commercial matters. We and our
subsidiaries also become involved from time to time in proceedings
relating to environmental matters. In addition, as a normal part
of operations, our subsidiaries undertake contractual obligations,
warranties and guarantees in connection with the sale of products
or services. Although the outcome of these matters cannot be
predicted with certainty and favorable or unfavorable resolutions
may affect our results of operations on a quarter-to-quarter
basis, we believe that the outcome of such legal and other matters
will not have a materially adverse effect on our consolidated
financial position, results of operations, or liquidity."

Joy Global Inc. (the "Company") is a manufacturer and servicer of
high-productivity mining equipment for the extraction of coal and
other minerals and ores. The Company manufactures and markets
original equipment and parts and performs services for both
underground and surface mining, as well as certain industrial
applications. The Company's equipment is used in major mining
regions throughout the world to mine coal, copper, iron ore, oil
sands, gold and other minerals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FedEx Continues to Defend Fibro Criminal Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation continues to defend itself against a criminal
case arising from asbestos-related regulatory violations,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 31, 2014.

On January 14, 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") issued
a Grand Jury Subpoena to FedEx Express relating to an asbestos
matter previously investigated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. On May 1, 2014, the DOJ informed the Company
that it had determined to continue to pursue the matter as a
criminal case, citing seven asbestos-related regulatory violations
associated with removal of roof materials from a hangar in Puerto
Rico during cleaning and repair activity, as well as violation of
waste disposal requirements. Loss is reasonably possible; however,
the amount of any loss is expected to be immaterial.

FedEx Corporation (FedEx) is a holding company. The Company
provides a portfolio of transportation, e-commerce and business
services under the FedEx brand. The Company operates in four
segments: FedEx Express, FedEx Ground, FedEx Freight and FedEx
Services. Federal Express Corporation (FedEx Express) is an
express transportation company, offering time-certain delivery
within one to three business days and serving markets. FedEx
Ground Package System, Inc. (FedEx Ground) is a provider of small-
package ground delivery service. FedEx Ground provides day-certain
service to every business address in the United States and Canada.
FedEx Freight Inc (FedEx Freight) is a provider of less-than-
truckload (LTL) freight services. FedEx Corporate Services, Inc.
(FedEx Services) provides the Company's other companies with
sales, marketing, information technology, communications and back-
office support. In May 2014, the Company acquired Supaswift
businesses in South Africa and six other countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. High Ct. Affirms Ruling in "Walston" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 1911, the legislature passed the Industrial Insurance Act,
Title 51 RCW, creating a no-fault system for efficiently
compensating workers injured on the job.  As part of that system,
employers receive immunity from civil suits resulting from on-the-
job injuries.  However, the legislature specified that employers
that deliberately injure their employees are not immune from suit.
Under the Supreme Court of Washington's precedent, namely Birklid
v. Boeing Co., 127 Wn.2d 853, 865, 904 P.2d 278 (1995), an
employer deliberately injures an employee if "the employer ha[s]
actual knowledge that an injury [is] certain to occur and
willfully disregard[s] that knowledge."

In a case, Gary G. Walston was exposed to asbestos while working
at The Boeing Company and was later diagnosed with mesothelioma.
The Court of Appeals held that pursuant to the IIA, Boeing was
immune from suit because Walston had not raised a material
question of fact as to whether Boeing had actual knowledge that
injury was certain to occur.

The Washington Supreme Court agreed with the lower court stating:
"[w]orkers who are injured on the job are compensated through the
workers' compensation system except in those egregious cases where
the employer deliberately intended to injure the workers.
Applying the standard set out in Birklid, we conclude that Walston
has not raised a question of material fact as to whether Boeing
had actual knowledge of certain injury resulting from the asbestos
exposure.  Therefore, Walston has not shown that Boeing
deliberately intended to injure him and cannot pursue a claim
outside of the workers' compensation system.  We affirm the Court
of Appeals and remand for entry of an order granting summary
judgment to Boeing on Walston's claims."

The case is DONNA WALSTON, individually and as personal
representative of the Estate of Gary G. Walston, Petitioner, v.
THE BOEING COMPANY; and SABERHAGEN HOLDINGS, INC., as successor to
TACOMA ASBESTOS COMPANY and THE BROWER COMPANY, Respondents, NO.
88511-7 (Wash.).  A full-text copy of the Decision dated Sept. 18,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/ygpWORfrom Leagle.com.

An Amicus Curiae was filed by the following parties on behalf of
COAlition for Litigation Justice, Inc.:

         Mark Behrens, Esq.
         Cary Silverman, Esq.
         David Bartley Eppenauer, Esq.
         SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP
         1155 F. Street Nw Suite 200
         Washington, DC, 20004
         Email: mbehrens@shb.com
                csilverman@shb.com
                beppenauer@shb.com

            -- and --

         Sheldon Gilbert
         National Chamber Litigation Center
         1615 H. Street Nw
         Washington, DC 20062

            -- and --

         H. Sherman Joyce
         American Tort Reform Association
         1101 Connecticut Avenue Nw, Suite 400
         Washington, DC, 20036

            -- and --

         Colleen Reppen Shiel
         Property Casualty Insurers
         8700 West Bryn Mawr, Suite 1200s
         Chicago, IL, 60631

            -- and --

         Donald Evans
         American Chemistry Council
         700 Second Street Ne
         Washington, DC, 20002

            -- and --

         Karen Harned
         N.F.I.B.L.F.
         1201 F. Street Nw Ste 200
         Washington, DC, 20004

            -- and --

         Elizabeth Milito
         Nat. Federation of Indep. Business
         1201 F. Street Nw Ste 200
         Washington, DC, 20004

            -- and --

         Allan Stein
         American Insurance Association
         2101 L. Street Nw, Suite 400
         Washington, DC, 20037

            -- and --

         Gregg Dykstra
         Nat. Ass'n of Mutual Ins. Co.
         3601 Vincennes Rd.
         Indianapolis, IN, 46268


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal App Flips Ruling in Insurance Coverage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trustees of the Western Asbestos Settlement Trust, charged with
paying bodily injury claims against companies that distributed
asbestos-containing building materials, sought coverage under the
companies' insurance policies and, in 2004, after the insurer was
declared insolvent, brought a declaratory relief action against
California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) to determine
CIGA's obligation to pay the insolvent insurer's policy
obligations.  After CIGA filed an answer denying an obligation,
the proceedings against CIGA remained dormant for almost six
years.  In May 2011, the Western Trust dismissed its complaint
against CIGA without prejudice.  A declaratory relief action was
filed by the Western Trust against CIGA in February 2013.  CIGA
demurred on the ground, among others, that the complaint is barred
by the statute of limitations.  On this ground a trial court in
California sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and
dismissed the action.

The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division
Three, reversed the judgment, holding that: "[t]o preserve a claim
for coverage by CIGA, an insured must give CIGA notice of its
potential claim by the deadline for filing a claim in the
insolvent insurer's liquidation proceedings. This notice permits
CIGA to take such steps as it deems appropriate to ascertain the
facts and protect its interests in responding to an eventual
demand for payment. The time within which the insured must submit
its claim for payment, however, does not commence until the
insured possesses a "covered claim" within the meaning of the
statute. CIGA must be presented with a timely claim for payment
and affirmatively deny coverage before a breach of its duty can
occur. An insured's complaint seeking a declaration of duty, and
the defendant's answer disputing its duty, does not constitute the
submission and denial of a claim sufficient to trigger the statute
of limitations."

The Court of Appeals remanded the case with directions for the
lower court to overrule the demurrer insofar as it is based on the
statute of limitations, without prejudice to considering other
defenses and issues as may be appropriate.  The Court of Appeals
also ruled that Western Trust will recover costs incurred on
appeal upon timely application in the trial court.

The case is STEPHEN M. SNYDER et al., as Trustees, etc.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE
ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Respondent, NO. A139263 (Cal. App.).  A
full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' Decision dated Sept. 17,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/jIvyePfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in "New" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs John and Beth New claim that John New contracted lung
cancer after being exposed to asbestos while working at various
automobile parts and repair businesses throughout Kansas and
Missouri.  The Plaintiff filed a fourcount lawsuit in Jackson
County, Missouri state court, against the various defendants that
supplied the products that allegedly caused his injuries.
Defendant Ford Motor Company removed the case to the district
court, alleging diversity jurisdiction.  Defendant Hennessy
Industries filed a motion for summary judgment.

Judge Greg Kays of the U.S. District for the Western District of
Missouri, Western Division, denied without prejudice Hennessy's
motion, holding that, considering certain significant problems and
the unique manner in which they arose, the best course of action
is to deny the summary judgment motion without prejudice and allow
Hennessy to refile.  This, according to Judge Kays, will afford
the parties sufficient time to more thoroughly research and
analyze the potential choice-of-law issue, while also providing
the Plaintiffs the opportunity to respond to arguments advanced in
Hennessy's most recent filing.

The case is JOHN NEW, and BETH NEW, Plaintiffs, v. BORG-WARNER
CORPORATION, et. al., Defendants, NO. 13-00675-CV-W-DGK (W.D.
Mo.).  A full-text copy of Judge Kays' order dated Sept. 12, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/6TeYYLfrom Leagle.com.

International Truck & Engine Corporation, Defendant, represented
by James T. Seigfreid, Jr., Esq., at Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice,
LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Grants Summary Judgment in PI Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Alan and Donna McMann allege that Mr. McMann "was
exposed to asbestos from work performed by [Saberhagen tradesmen]
as they worked with asbestos-containing products in close
proximity and without warning to Mr. McMann. . . ."  On Aug. 14,
2014, Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., filed a motion for summary
judgment arguing that there was no evidence that Mr. McMann ever
worked with or around Saberhagen employees.  The McManns failed to
respond.

Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Tacoma, granted the motion for
summary judgment, holding that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law when the nonmoving party fails to make
a sufficient showing on an essential element of a claim in the
case on which the nonmoving party has the burden of proof.

The case is ALAN McMANN and DONNA McMANN, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. C14-5429 BHS (W.D. Wash.).  A full-text copy
of Judge Settle's Order dated Sept. 17, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/hZ9rnGfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Law Firm's Suit v. Trusts Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Mandelbrot and The Mandelbrot Law Firm filed an action
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against six asbestos
settlement trusts.  Each of the Defendants is a trust "formed as a
vehicle for the payment of claims related to personal injury
resulting from exposure to asbestos contained in products
manufactured by companies that had sought protection from
creditors under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code."
The beneficiaries of the trusts "must submit a claim form and
supporting documentation to substantiate that the claimant meets
the specified criteria," and the Defendants are authorized to
develop auditing procedures to ensure the reliability of submitted
claims.  The Defendants filed motion to dismiss the suit for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure on the grounds that the plaintiffs
lacks standing.

Judge Gregory M. Sleet of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, with
leave for the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint by naming a
plaintiff with Article III standing.

Judge Sleet agreed with the Defendants and held that "that there
is no contractual relationship between the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants, express or implied.  The Distribution Procedures of
the asbestos trusts do not require that a claimant be represented
by an attorney; rather, they are in place only to guide claimants.
Although the Plaintiffs argue that the Distribution Procedures are
highly technical and even by their terms envision lawyer
involvement, the involvement is purely as assistance to the
claimant.  This role is confirmed by the language of the
Distribution Procedures, which expressly limits the "rights and
benefits" to the "holders" of the claims.  In the absence of a
contractual relationship between the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants, breach of the Distribution Procedures does not furnish
the Plaintiffs a cause of action, and there is no standing."

The case is MICHAEL J. MANDELBROT, MANDELBROT LAW FIRM,
Plaintiffs, v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY
SETTLEMENT TRUST, BABCOCK & WILCOX ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY
SETTLEMENT TRUST, OWENS CORNING/FIBREBOARD ASBESTOS PERSONAL
INJURY TRUST, FEDERAL MONGUL ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST,
UNITED STATES GYPSUM ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY SETTLEMENT TRUST,
CELOTEX ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST, Defendants, C.A. NO. 13-1032-
GMS (D. Del.).  A full-text copy of Judge Sleet's memorandum dated
Sept. 12, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/W1fsohfrom
Leagle.com.

Celotex Asbestos Settlement Trust, Defendant, represented by
Kathleen Campbell Davis, Campbell & Levine.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Denies Discovery Bid in PI Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in an asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed a
motion to compel discovery responses and for attorney's fees
directed to defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation.  The motion is
denied essentially because, without presenting factual basis to
conclude that the decedent was actually exposed to an asbestos-
containing component of an aircraft it manufactured, the
Plaintiffs' discovery requests are nothing more than a classic
fishing expedition.

The case is ROYCE LEONARD, ET AL v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL & MECHANICAL COLLEGE, ET
AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-565-JJB-SCR (M.D. La.).  A full-text copy
of the Sept. 17, 2014 ruling by Magistrate Judge Stephen C.
Riedlinger of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana is available at http://is.gd/mqINuGfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Court Denies Bid to Remand "Landry" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Landry was employed at the Avondale shipyards for one month
in 1948 and nearly two months in 1949.  In 2012, Mr. Landry was
diagnosed with mesothelioma.  He died several months later.  On
January 29, 2013, Mr. Landry's surviving spouse and children filed
an action in Louisiana state court against Huntington Ingalls
Inc., Columbia Casualty Company, and Eagle Inc.  The Plaintiffs
allege that Mr. Landry was exposed to asbestos during his
employment at Avondale, that Eagle manufactured the asbestos, and
that Columbia insured Avondale during the period that Mr. Landry
was employed there.  The Plaintiffs claim that Mr. Landry's
asbestos exposure in 1948 and 1949 caused his mesothelioma and his
subsequent death.  On January 29, 2014, HII removed the suit to a
federal district court, alleging that it was completely diverse
from the Plaintiffs and that the remaining defendants had been
fraudulently joined in an effort to prevent removal.

The Plaintiffs responded with a motion to remand and a motion for
sanctions, both of which were denied by the federal district
court, and the Plaintiffs' claims against Columbia Casualty
Company and Eagle, Inc. are dismissed without prejudice.

The case is AGNES LANDRY, ET AL., v. COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY, ET
AL., Section: "H"(3), CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-220 (E.D. La.).  A full-
text copy of the Sept. 18, 2014 order and reasons penned by Judge
Jane Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana is available at http://is.gd/HnKYDOfrom
Leagle.com.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Brian
C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III,
Blue Williams, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams,
LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP & Laura M. Gillen, Blue
Williams, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Court Dismisses Inmate's Suit Again
----------------------------------------------------------
On June 2, 2014, Plaintiff Benjamin Jacob Appell, who is confined
in the Maricopa County Durango Jail, filed a pro se civil rights
Complaint and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.  In his
complaint, the Plaintiff alleges, among other things, the presence
of asbestos in the jail and that he suffered bodily injury as a
result to asbestos exposure.  In a July 7, 2014 Order, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona granted the Application
to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint because the Plaintiff had
failed to state a claim.  The Court gave the Plaintiff 30 days to
file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified
in the Order.


On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint,
which the District Court, on September 18, 2014, again dismissed
the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The case is Benjamin Jacob Appell, Plaintiff, v. Maricopa County,
et al., Defendants, NO. CV 14-1218-PHX-DGC (MEA)(D. Ariz.).  A
full-text copy of the Sept. 18 Decision penned by U.S. District
Judge David G. Campbell is available at http://is.gd/PsXQAOfrom
Leagle.com.

Benjamin Jacob Appell, also named as: Benjamin Appell, Plaintiff,
Pro Se.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Affirms Ruling in IMO Insurance Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several parties appeal from a final judgment determining insurance
coverage for asbestos-related personal injury claims.  IMO
Industries, Inc., is the insured and the successor to a
manufacturer of industrial products that contained asbestos.  The
Defendants are primary and excess liability insurers, as well as
Transamerica Corporation, the former parent company of the
predecessor manufacturer.  Over the years, IMO purchased a total
of $1.85 billion in insurance coverage from all the defendant
insurers.  That amount is sufficient to pay for its anticipated
liabilities and defense costs for asbestos-related personal injury
claims.  Nonetheless, IMO initiated the litigation to establish
its rights under those insurance policies and to recover money
damages.

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, having
considered the record and the parties' written and oral arguments,
found no ground to reverse the many rulings of the several judges
who presided over the litigation.  Accordingly, the Superior Court
affirmed the final judgment of the Law Division.

The case is IMO INDUSTRIES INC., Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-
Respondent, v. TRANSAMERICA CORPORATION, TIG INSURANCE COMPANY,
f/k/a TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, A.C.E. INSURANCE COMPANY,
LTD., THE CENTRAL NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF OMAHA, INSURANCE
COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, ACE LTD., as successor-in-interest to
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, INDUSTRIAL UNDERWRITERS
INSURANCE COMPANY, CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S OF LONDON,
CERTAIN LONDON MARKET INSURANCE COMPANIES, PACIFIC EMPLOYERS
INSURANCE COMPANY, SERVICE FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ZURICH AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS,
as successor-in-interest to ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, as successor-in-interest to
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, as
successor-in-interest to ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, ZURICH
INTERNATIONAL LTD., ZURICH INSURANCE GROUP, as successor-in-
interest to ZURICH INTERNATIONAL LTD., ACE PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, as successor-in-interest to AETNA INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendants-Respondents/Cross-Appellants, and PYRAMID
INSURANCE COMPANY OF BERMUDA, LTD., a/k/a PYRAMID INSURANCE
COMPANY, LTD., AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, a/k/a TRAVELERS
CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY
f/k/a AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, TRAVELERS PROPERTY
CASUALTY CORP., as successor-in-interest to AETNA CASUALTY AND
SURETY COMPANY and TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY,
FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, INTERSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY, PURITAN INSURANCE COMPANY, WESTPORT INSURANCE
CORPORATION, as successor-in-interest to PURITAN INSURANCE
COMPANY, TRANSPORT INDEMNITY COMPANY, MISSION AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY, as successor-in-interest to TRANSPORT INDEMNITY COMPANY,
ASSOCIATED INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INTEGRITY INSURANCE
COMPANY, THE NEW JERSEY PROPERTY-LIABILITY GUARANTY ASSOCIATION on
behalf of INTEGRITY INSURANCE COMPANY in insolvency, MIDLAND
INSURANCE COMPANY, THE NEW JERSEY PROPERTY-LIABILITY GUARANTY
ASSOCIATION on behalf of MIDLAND INSURANCE COMPANY in insolvency,
MISSION INSURANCE COMPANY, THE NEW JERSEY PROPERTY-LIABILITY
GUARANTY ASSOCIATION on behalf of MISSION INSURANCE COMPANY in
insolvency, WESTERN EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, THE NEW JERSEY
PROPERTY-LIABILITY GUARANTY ASSOCIATION on behalf of WESTERN
EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY in insolvency, YOSEMITE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendants-Respondents, and ALLIANZ UNDERWRITERS, INC.,
ALLIANZ UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, as successor-in-interest
to ALLIANZ UNDERWRITERS, INC., ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS US INSURANCE
COMPANY, as successor-in-interest to ALLIANZ UNDERWRITERS
INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA,
AMERICAN EMPIRE SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, as successor-in-
interest to GREAT AMERICAN SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY,
AMERICAN EMPIRE SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, XL INSURANCE
COMPANY, L.T.D., as successor-in-interest to AMERICAN EXCESS
INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN RE-
INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL UNDERWRITERS, AIU
INSURANCE COMPANY, as successor-in-interest to AMERICAN
INTERNATIONAL UNDERWRITERS, AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, as
successor-in-interest to AIU INSURANCE COMPANY, EMPLOYERS MUTUAL
CASUALTY COMPANY, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, FIRST STATE INSURANCE
COMPANY, GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, GREAT AMERICAN SURPLUS
INSURANCE COMPANY, CITY INSURANCE COMPANY, THE HOME INSURANCE
COMPANY, as successor-in-interest to CITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY, COVENANT MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
COVENANT INSURANCE COMPANY, as successor-in-interest to COVENANT
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GREAT AMERICAN SURPLUS INSURANCE
COMPANY, CITY INSURANCE COMPANY, THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, as
successor-in-interest to CITY INSURANCE COMPANY, COLUMBIA CASUALTY
COMPANY, COVENANT MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, COVENANT INSURANCE
COMPANY, as successor-in-interest to COVENANT MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, GREENWICH INSURANCE COMPANY, as successor-in-interest to
HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY, HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY, INTERNATIONAL
SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
as successor-in-interest to INTERNATIONAL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE
COMPANY, CRUM AND FORSTER INSURANCE COMPANY, as successor-in-
interest to INTERNATIONAL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY,
HIGHLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY, HUDSON INSURANCE COMPANY, THE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, LANDMARK INSURANCE
COMPANY, LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY,
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA,
NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, as
successor-in-interest to NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY, ROYAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, as
successor-in-interest to ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ROYAL INDEMNITY
COMPANY, as successor-in-interest to ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, X.L., REINSURANCE AMERICA, INC., as
successor-in-interest to SERVICE FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONAL
AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, as successor-in-interest
to MISSION AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY,
S&H INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY COMPANY, as successor-in-interest to S&H INSURANCE
COMPANY, TRANSAMERICA PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY, as successor-in-
interest to PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY, TIG PREMIER INSURANCE
COMPANY, as successor-in-interest to TRANSAMERICA PREMIER
INSURANCE COMPANY, TRANSCONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants,
NO. A-6240-10T1 (N.J. Super. App. Div.).

A full-text copy of the Superior Court's Decision dated Sept. 30,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/mPReMxfrom Leagle.com.

Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A., attorneys for amicus curiae
Independent Energy Producers of New Jersey (Robert Mahoney, Esq. -
- rmahoney@nmmlaw.com -- on the brief).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arizona Court Dismisses "Rivera" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
On March 20, 2014, Plaintiff Ricardo Rivera, who is confined in
the Maricopa County Durango Jail, filed a pro se civil rights
Complaint and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.  The
Plaintiff alleges among other things the presence of asbestos in
the jail.  In a May 30, 2014 Order, the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona granted the Application to Proceed and
dismissed the Complaint because the Plaintiff had failed to state
a claim.  The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended
complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order.

On July 8, 2014, the Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint.
The Court, on September 29, 2014, dismissed the First Amended
Complaint with leave to amend for failure to state a claim.

The case is Ricardo Rivera, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M. Arpaio, et
al., Defendants, NO. CV 14-0579-PHX-SMM (BSB)(D. Ariz.).  A full-
text copy of the Sept. 29 Decision penned by U.S. District Judge
Stephen M. McNamee is available at http://is.gd/nVbZWffrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Affirms Jury Verdict Against Ford
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co. appeals from a jury verdict finding that plaintiff-
appellee Brett Walker is entitled to participate in the Ohio
workers' compensation system for the condition of Hodgkin's
lymphoma due to his occupational exposure to asbestos while
working for Ford.  Ford asserts that the trial court failed to
properly apply Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and
abused its discretion in admitting unreliable, unscientific expert
testimony in support of Walker's claim that his Hodgkin's lymphoma
was caused by his exposure to asbestos at Ford.  Ford also
contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying its motion for
a directed verdict based on Walker's alleged failure to present
admissible evidence of proximate cause and (2) the jury's verdict
should be vacated because it was not supported by sufficient
evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, in
an opinion dated Sept. 25, 2014, affirmed the trial court's
judgment, after finding that the jury's verdict was supported by
competent, credible evidence going to all the material elements of
Walker's claim.

The appeals case is BRETT H. WALKER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. FORD
MOTOR CO., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, NO. 100759 (Ohio App.).
A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/1bbk74from Leagle.com.

Michael DeWine, Ohio Attorney General, BY: Michael J. Zidar,
Assistant Attorney General, 615 West Superior Avenue, 11th Floor,
Cleveland, Ohio 44113, Attorney for Bureau of Workers'
Compensation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Grants Bid to Remand "Dougherty" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. removed the state court asbestos litigation styled
FRANCIS J. DOUGHERTY and ELIZABETH F. DOUGHERTY, Plaintiffs, v.
A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CIV. NO. 13-1972-SLR-
SRF (D. Del.), to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware pursuant to the federal officer removal statute.  The
Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand.  Magistrate Judge Fallon,
upon review of the motion to remand, first determined that Crane
had asserted a colorable federal defense to certain of plaintiffs'
claims and, therefore, Crane's removal of this action was proper
but nevertheless, concluded that remand was appropriate based on
the plaintiffs' post-removal disclaimer of any claims relative to
Mr. Dougherty's alleged exposure to asbestos during his service in
the U.S. Navy and on any federal job sites and vessels.

Consistent with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation,
U.S. District Judge Sue L. Robinson found no error in the
recommendation to remand to state court the case.  Therefore,
Judge Robinson granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand.

A full-text copy of Judge Robinson's memorandum dated Sept. 8,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/5ho9zxfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pro Hac Vice Motion OK'd in Ford-Garlock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, granted J.
Samuel Gorham, III's Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Charles
B. Walther in the lawsuit captioned FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, DOCKET NO. 3:14-CV-00401-MOC (W.D. N.C.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Cogburn's Decision dated Sept. 22, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/6LZrKsfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Ct. Refuses to Remand "Humphries" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Humphries filed a lawsuit against more than a dozen
companies, including E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, after
being diagnosed with asbestos-related mesothelioma on or about
June 3, 2013.  The complaint alleges that, during the course of
his employment with DuPont and his subsequent employment with
DuPont's co-defendant, Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Company, "John
Humphries was exposed to dangerously high levels of toxic
substances, including asbestos, and asbestos-containing products
sold, manufactured, and/or distributed by" the defendants.

The Plaintiff alleges that part of his exposure is attributable to
Elliott Company as it occurred while he was working as a turbine
operator, and Elliott sold asbestos-containing turbines to DuPont
for use at the Savannah River facility which DuPont operated in
South Carolina.  The Savannah River plant was used by the Atomic
Energy Commission for the manufacture of nuclear materials.
Elliott asserts that it is entitled to a government contractor
defense, and that jurisdiction is proper pursuant to the federal
officer removal statute.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana previously remanded the case after DuPont, the only
defendant to file a notice of removal, settled with the plaintiff.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed that
order, holding that Elliott had not waived its right to a federal
forum merely by failing to join in the notice of removal.  The
Plaintiff then filed the instant motion to remand based on
Elliott's alleged failure to comply with the federal officer
removal statute's requirements.

U.S. District Judge Lance M. Africk, in an order and reasons dated
Sept. 23, 2014, denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand, after
holding that he cannot conclude that Elliott knew of any asbestos-
related dangers of which the government did not know during the
time period at issue.  Accordingly, there was no information that
Elliott withheld, and nothing about which it was required to warn
the government, Judge Africk said.  In sum, Judge Africk found
that Elliott has made a colorable claim to each of the three
prongs of the government contractor defense.

The case is JOHN HUMPHRIES, v. ONEBEACON AMERICA INSURANCE
COMPANY, ET AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-5426 (E.D. La.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Africk's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/xzR5UGfrom Leagle.com.

Elliott Company, Defendant, represented by Martin James Dempsey,
Jr., Esq. -- jimmy@cs-law.com -- at Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC,
John D. Cosmich, Esq. -- cos@cs-law.com -- at Cosmich Simmons &
Brown, PLLC, Lauren Ann McCulloch, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius & Todd
S Holbrook, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Partially OK'd in Coverage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a reinsurance coverage action involving a bulk settlement of
asbestos bodily injury claims, Plaintiff National Union Fire
Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, moves for summary judgment on
its complaint against defendant Sirius America Insurance Company,
dismissing Sirius' counterclaims, and for attorney's fees.  Sirius
cross-moves for an order compelling National and Lexington
Insurance Company to respond to outstanding document requests and
to appear for depositions.

Judge Saliann Scarpulla of the Supreme Court, New York County, in
a decision and order dated Sept. 15, 2014, granted in part and
denied in part National's motion and directed counsel for the
parties to appear for a status conference.

The case is LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY and NATIONAL UNION FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, v. SIRIUS AMERICA INSURANCE
COMPANY, DOCKET NO. 651208/2012, SEQ. NO. 003 (N.Y. Sup.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Scarpulla's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/XiAjJIfrom 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  * * *