CAR_Public/141128.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, November 28, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 237


                             Headlines

ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Claims Resolution Process Now Completed
AETERNA ZENTARIS: Sued Over Securities Exchange Act Violations
AGILYSYS INC: "Maynard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ALL AMERICAN VAN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: Court Denies Initial OK of Myles Suit Deal

AMARIN CORPORATION: To Defend Against Securities Litigation
AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Made $0.5MM Cash Payment in Stipulation
APPLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Moore" Class Action
AVX CORP: Parties Agree to Modification of Class Definition
BAHA PETROLEUM: Faces "Ross" Suit Over Violation of Labor Laws

BANK OF AMERICA: Approval of Securities Action Deal Affirmed
BARRETT BUSINESS: Sued in Wash. Over Misleading Financial Reports
CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in Total Bond Market Fund Case Pending
CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: "Hooker" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Plaintiff Filed Petition for Rehearing

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Participated in Mediation in Okla. Owners Case
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces 2 Class Actions in Pennsylvania
COMPUWARE CORP: Facing Action Related to Thoma Bravo Merger
COMPUWARE CORP: Co-Defendant in Class Action Against Covisint
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Plaintiffs Have Until Dec. 1 to Amend Suit

DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Wage and Hour Claim Pending in California
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Engaged in 48 Professional Liability Suits
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Settlement Has Not Yet Been Approved
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Arkansas Court Decertified Class
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Garland Action Remains in Early Stages

EA RENFROE: "McFaddin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ENDO HEALTH: Controls Availability of Generic Opana ER, Suit Says
ENECON NORTHEAST: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
FANNIE MAE: Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied
FANNIE MAE: Lead Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Settlement

FANNIE MAE: Agreement Reached in ERISA Litigation
FANNIE MAE: D.C. Circuit Consolidates Appeals
FIRST CLASS PARKING: "Rodriguez" Suit Alleges Failure to Pay OT
FIRST HORIZON: FTBNA a Defendant in Overdraft Fees Class Action
GENERAL NUTRITION: Calif. Class Certified in "Brewer" Case

HARVEST NATURAL: Court Dismissed Claims in "Sone" Case
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: ASB's Appeal Pending in Hawaii Supreme Court
HERCULES INC: Court OKs Entry of Lone Pine Case Mgmt Order
HILLS BANCORPORATION: Appeals Ruling to Iowa Supreme Court
HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Lead Plaintiff Responds to Motion to Dismiss

HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Parties Await Ruling on Motion to Consolidate
IDEAL IMAGE: Faces "Marlow" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
IMPACT GLASS: Faces "Casanova" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
INTEGRYS ENERGY: "Inman" Plaintiff Seeks Expedited Discovery
INTERCEPT YOUTH: Faces "Altice" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages

INTERLINE BRANDS: Order Denying Initial Deal Approval Revised
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Kleen Products Case in Discovery Stage
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Reaches Agreement to Settle U.S. Cases
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Canadian Cases in Preliminary Stage
INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Gets $3.8MM From Class Action Settlement

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Rappuchi" Case Remanded to Cal. Super. Ct.
KIMBALL INTERNATIONAL: Has $5.0 Million From Settlement Proceeds
KY MANI: Faces "Luo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LA REVISE: "Romero" Suit Settlement Gets Mag. Judge's Approval
LANNETT COMPANY: "Schaefer" Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed

LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Class Actions
LIN'S RESTAURANT: Does Not Pay Employees Properly, Suit Claims
M&T BANK: Wilmington Trust Case Proceeding With Discovery
MARIANI LANDSCAPE: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act
MISSION BAY: Summary Judgment Bid in Ex-Worker's Suit Denied

MONTGOMERY, AL: Court Enters Injunctive Relief in Mitchell Case
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Property Repair Costs
NATURE'S BOUNTY: Wins Dismissal of "Mazzeo" Class Action
NEW WHEY: Sued Over Deceptive Labeling of Whey Nutrition Products
NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Sued for Overcharging Electric Bill

OS RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Batista" Suit Says
PDC ENERGY: Oral Settlement Agreement Reached in Class Action
PFIZER INC: Plaintiffs in Celebrex and Bextra Case File Appeal
PFIZER INC: Bids to Dismiss Effexor XR End-Payor Claims Pending
PFIZER INC: To Resolve Consumer Actions Related to Neurontin

PFIZER INC: District Court Dismisses Remaining Lipitor MDL Claims
PFIZER INC: Suit by Plaintiffs With Diabetes Consolidated in MDL
PFIZER INC: Actions in Quebec, Alberta & British Columbia Stayed
PFIZER INC: Faces Class Actions Relating to Celebrex
PFIZER INC: Provides Update on Actions Relating to Reglan

PFIZER INC: Has Settlement With Opt-Out Direct Purchasers
PFIZER INC: Complaint Relating to Bapineuzumab Dismissed
PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Hearing Held to Name Lead Plaintiff
RADIAN GROUP: Court Stays "White" Case Pending Riddle Case Appeal
RADIAN GROUP: Court Stays " Menichino" Pending Riddle Case Appeal

RADIAN GROUP: Court Stays "Manners" Pending Riddle Case Appeal
RICHARD J. DONOVAN: Phillips Has 45 Days to Submit Amended Suit
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss Fully Briefed and Pending
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Derivative Case Seeks Class Suit Declaration
SOUTHSIDE BANCSHARES: Settles Litigation Over OmniAmerican Merger

SPARTANNASH COMPANY: Class Action Over Merger Now Closed
STEALTH SECURITY: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims
STUDIO NAILS: "Liu" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Meiser" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Rennie" Suit Over Defective Airbags

TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Young" Suit Over Defective Airbags
THORATEC CORPORATION: Court Has Not Ruled on Motion to Dismiss
TOTAL SYSTEM: Telexfree Cases Transferred to Massachusetts Court
TRINET GROUP: Defendant in Class Actions Related to WSEs
TRUSTMARK CORP: Stanford-Related Lawsuits in Preliminary Stages

TRUSTMARK CORP: Settlement Administrator Begins Fund Distribution
TURCO MEDITTERANEAN: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
U.S. BANCORP: $19MM Carrying Amount of Liability Related to Visa
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Scott and Scott LLP Named as Lead Counsel
WALGREEN COMPANY: Class Cert. Denial in Overtime Case Upheld


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. to Hear Arguments on Bid to Join Ford Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Received $17-Mil. Payment from Insurers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Recorded $24MM Liability for Aearo Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Units Continue to Defend Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Had 68,000 Pending Claims at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Records $10.8-Mil. Fibro Charges
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Has $727.2MM Estimated Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Estimates 41% Insurance Cost Recovery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACE Continues to Defend NJ Wrongful Death Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Davis" Suit v. Tampa Electric Remains Pending

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Spence" Suit v. American Vanguard Unit Junked
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has 2,200 Fibro Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Fibro Liability Upped to $36MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Had 118,760 U.S. Fibro Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Records $21.8MM Fibro Payments
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler's UK Units Had 276 Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Inc. Unit Increases Net Reserves by $28MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 3,275 PI Cases at Sept. 26

ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 2,679 MARDOC Suits at Sept. 26
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Had 570 PI Lawsuits as of Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Ruling in Take-Home Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Granted in La. PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trials in 2 NYCAL Suits Stayed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Ruling in "Izell" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Remand "Maguire" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Rules on Notice Issue in "Andrucki" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Modifies Ruling in "Berensman" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. App. Affirms Ruling in "Shipley" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Limits Reinsurer's Liability


                            *********


ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Claims Resolution Process Now Completed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc. said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that the claims resolution process in the class action
lawsuit relating to ChoiceDek(R) composite decking is now
completed.

The U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington (Seattle
Division) approved a class action settlement in January 2009
related to a purported class action lawsuit seeking to recover on
behalf of purchasers of ChoiceDek(R) composite decking for damages
allegedly caused by mold and mildew stains on their decks. The
settlement includes decking material purchased from January 1,
2004 through December 31, 2007, along with decking material
purchased after December 31, 2007 that was manufactured before
October 1, 2006, the date a mold inhibitor was introduced into the
manufacturing process.

In 2008, the Company accrued an estimated $2.9 million for
resolving claims. In the third quarter of 2009, the Company
increased its estimate of costs to be incurred in resolving claims
under the settlement by $5.1 million. The estimate was revised due
to events that occurred and information that became available
after the second quarter of 2009 concerning primarily the number
of claims received. The deadline for submitting new claims has now
passed. The claim resolution process had an annual net cost
limitation to the Company of $2.0 million. The claims resolution
process is now completed.

AERT, founded in 1988, recycles polyethylene plastic and develops,
manufactures, and markets composite building materials that are
used in place of traditional wood or plastic products for exterior
applications in building and remodeling homes and for certain
other industrial or commercial building purposes.


AETERNA ZENTARIS: Sued Over Securities Exchange Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bing Li, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Aeterna Zentaris, Inc., David A. Dodd, Juergen Engel,
Dennis Turpin, Jude Dinges, Richard Sachse, and Paul Blake, Case
No. 3:14-cv-07081 (D.N.J., November 11, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Securities Exchange Act.

Aeterna Zentaris, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company primarily
engaged in developing treatments in oncology and endocrinology.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Aeterna
Zentaris, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
      South Orange, NJ 07079
      Telephone: (973) 313-1887
      Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


AGILYSYS INC: "Maynard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Maynard, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals v. Agilysys, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03698 (N.D. Ga.,
November 17, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
declaratory relief, liquidated and actual damages for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Agilysys, Inc. is a provider of innovative hospitality software
solutions and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elizabeth L. Brown, Esq.
      Benjamin F. Barrett, Esq.
      Amanda A. Farahany, Esq.
      Elizabeth L. Brown, Esq.
      1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 500
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 214-0120
      Facsimile: (404) 214-0125
      E-mail: ben@bf-llp.com
              amanda@bf-llp.com
              lily@bf-llp.com


ALL AMERICAN VAN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Sair, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. All American Van Lines, Inc., Ronnie Aviram, and Zach
Doe, Case No. 2:14-cv-06766 (E.D.N.Y., November 18, 2014), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and
reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a moving business that provides
residential and commercial moving services and spa delivery
services to customers in Long Island and surrounding areas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Wisniewski, Esq.
      ROBERT WISNIEWSKI & ASSOCIATES P.C.
      225 Broadway, Suite 1020
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 267-2101
      Facsimile: (212) 267-8115
      E-mail: rw@rwapc.com


ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: Court Denies Initial OK of Myles Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James Donato denied preliminary approval of class
action settlement in JOAN MYLES, Plaintiff, v. ALLIEDBARTON
SECURITY SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 12-CV-05761-
JD, (N.D. Cal.).

Joan Myles filed this employment suit in November 2012 seeking
relief on behalf of herself and a putative class of security
officers employed by AlliedBarton Security Services.  About four
months before trial was scheduled to begin, Myles and AlliedBarton
submitted a proposed class settlement for the Court's review. The
Court advised the parties that the proposed settlement would not
be approved, and promised to issue a written order explaining why.

In his ruling entered November 12, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/prNdF5from Leagle.com, Judge Donato
held that since the proposed settlement fails to meet a
preliminary fairness determination, the Court need not reach
plaintiff's request for conditional certification of a class for
settlement. If the parties intend to submit another proposed
settlement, they are directed to review the Procedural Guidance
for Class Action Settlements, which is available on the Court's
website. That guide should be used to improve the next approval
request and the proposed notice to the class, with recommendations
to provide a website that has links to the notice, motions, and
any other important documents in the case, as well as proposed
language informing class members how to access the Court's docket,
Judge Donato said.

Joan Myles, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

AlliedBarton Security Services LP, Defendant, represented by
Jeremy T. Naftel -- jnaftel@cdflaborlaw.com -- Carothers DiSante &
Freudenberger LLP & Nicole A. Legrottaglie --
nlegrottaglie@cdflaborlaw.com -- Carothers DiSante Freudenberger
LLP.


AMARIN CORPORATION: To Defend Against Securities Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amarin Corporation plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company has
valid defenses and will vigorously defend against the Amarin
Corporation plc, Securities Litigation, but cannot predict the
outcome.

On November 1, 2013, a purported investor of Amarin filed a
putative class action lawsuit captioned Steven Sklar v. Amarin
Corporation plc et al., No. 13-cv-6954 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2013) in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Substantially similar lawsuits, captioned Bove v. Amarin
Corporation plc, Civ. No. 13-07882 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2013),
Bentley v. Amarin Corporation plc, Civ. No. 13-08283 (AT)
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2013) and Siegel v. Amarin Corporation plc, No.
3:13-cv-07210 (D.N.J. Nov. 27, 2013), were subsequently filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On December 9, 2013, the cases filed in the Southern District of
New York were transferred to the District of New Jersey and all
such cases are now consolidated as In re Amarin Corporation plc,
Securities Litigation, No. 3:13-cv-06663 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2013).
The plaintiffs assert claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and allege that Amarin and certain of its current and former
officers and directors made misstatements and omissions regarding
the FDA's willingness to approve Vascepa's ANCHOR indication and
related contributing factors and the potential relevance of data
from the ongoing REDUCE-IT trial to that approval. The lawsuit
seeks unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes that it has valid defenses and will
vigorously defend against this class action suit, but cannot
predict the outcome. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate
the loss exposure, if any, associated with the claims.

The Company has insurance coverage that is anticipated to cover
any significant loss exposure that may arise from this action
after payment by the Company of the associated deductible
obligation under such insurance coverage.

Amarin is a biopharmaceutical company with expertise in lipid
science focused on the commercialization and development of
therapeutics to improve cardiovascular health.


AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Made $0.5MM Cash Payment in Stipulation
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Superconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that
pursuant to a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, which
resolved class action lawsuits, the Company made a cash payment of
approximately $0.5 million for the decrease in value of the
Settlement Shares (as calculated under the Stipulation) as of the
Effective Date, and the Company issued the Settlement Shares.

Between April 6, 2011 and May 12, 2011, seven putative securities
class action complaints were filed against the Company and two of
its officers in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts (the "Court"); one complaint additionally
asserted claims against the underwriters who participated in its
November 12, 2010 securities offering. On June 7, 2011, the Court
consolidated these actions under the caption Lenartz v. American
Superconductor Corporation, et al., Docket No. 1:11-cv-10582-WGY.
On August 31, 2011, Lead Plaintiff, the Plumbers and Pipefitters
National Pension Fund, filed a consolidated amended complaint
against the Company, its officers and directors, and the
underwriters who participated in its November 12, 2010 securities
offering, asserting claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, as well as
under sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act.

On November 19, 2013, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation"), which resolved the
claims asserted against the Company, certain of its current and
former officers and directors, and the underwriters. The terms of
the Stipulation provided, among other things, a settlement payment
by the Company of $10.0 million, $8.2 million of which was to be
funded by the Company's insurers and $1.8 million of which was
paid through the issuance of 944,882 shares of its common stock
(the "Settlement Shares"). In the event that the value of the
Settlement Shares (as calculated under the Stipulation) decreased
as of the effective date of the settlement, the Company was
required to make a cash payment for the difference in value.

The effective date of the Stipulation was June 5, 2014 (the
"Effective Date").  Pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, (i)
on June 11, 2014, the Company made a cash payment of approximately
$0.5 million for the decrease in value of the Settlement Shares
(as calculated under the Stipulation) as of the Effective Date,
and (ii) on June 18, 2014, the Company issued the Settlement
Shares.  The issuance of the Settlement Shares was exempt from
registration pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act.
The aforementioned payments by the Company represented the final
amounts to be paid to the plaintiffs under the Stipulation.

American Superconductor Corporation is a provider of megawatt-
scale solutions that lower the cost of wind power and enhance the
performance of the power grid.


APPLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Moore" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Adrienne Moore brings a putative class action on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated against Apple, Inc. for tortious
interference with contract and violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
Before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint.

District Judge Lucy H. Koh, in an order dated November 10, 2014,
grants in part and denies in part defendant's motion to dismiss.
Specifically, Judge Koh grants with prejudice Defendant's motion
to dismiss Plaintiff's CLRA claim and UCL claim predicated on the
CLRA claim. The Court denies Defendant's motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's tortious interference with contract claim and UCL
claim predicated on the tortious interference claim. The Court
grants with prejudice Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's
UCL claim based on unfair business practices.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/Q3Mf2vfrom
Leagle.com.

The case is ADRIENNE MOORE, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. APPLE, INC., Defendant, CASE
NO. 14-CV-02269-LHK, (N.D. Cal.)

Adrienne Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Roy Arie Katriel --
rak@katriellaw.com -- The Katriel Law Firm.

Apple Inc., Defendant, represented by David Michael Walsh, Esq. --
dwalsh@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster, Kai Shields Bartolomeo --
kbartolomeo@mofo.com -- Morrison Foerster LLP & Tiffany Cheung --
tcheung@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Adam Backhaut, Interested Party, represented by Theodore H. Chase
-- tchase@audetlaw.com -- Audet and Partners, LLP.


AVX CORP: Parties Agree to Modification of Class Definition
-----------------------------------------------------------
AVX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that parties in a class
action agreed to seek Court modification of the definition of the
plaintiff class.

On November 27, 2007, a suit was filed in South Carolina State
Court by individuals as a class action with respect to property
adjacent to the Company's Myrtle Beach, South Carolina factory
claiming property values have been negatively impacted by alleged
migration of certain pollutants from the Company's property.
During the quarter ended June 30, 2014, the parties agreed to seek
Court modification of the definition of the plaintiff class. In
the event such modification is allowed by the Court, the parties
have also agreed to jointly recommend to the Court a settlement of
the action.  Any settlement will be subject to Court review and
approval.  Although the final amount of such settlement, if
approved by the Court, depends on the number of participating
class members, the maximum amount, if all class members
participate, would be $1,200.

"Accordingly, based on our estimate of potential outcomes, we have
$1,200 accrued with respect to this case as of September 30, 2014.
We can give no assurance, however, that this action will be
resolved on the terms indicated above.  If it is not so resolved,
we intend to continue to defend vigorously the claims asserted,"
the Company said.


BAHA PETROLEUM: Faces "Ross" Suit Over Violation of Labor Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Ross, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BAHA Petroleum Consulting Corp., Case No. 4:14-cv-
00147 (D.N.D., November 17, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of Fair Labor Standards Act.

BAHA Petroleum Consulting Corp. owns and operates a consulting
business that provides services for the oil industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark V. Larson, Esq.
      LARSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
      PO Box 2004
      Minot, ND 58702-2004
      Telephone: (701) 839-1777
      E-mail: larslaw@srt.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Approval of Securities Action Deal Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that on
November 5, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
affirmed the district court's final approval of the settlement of
the Consolidated Securities Class Action.


BARRETT BUSINESS: Sued in Wash. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shiva Stein, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., Michael L. Elich, and
James D. Miller, Case No. 3:14-cv-05912 (W.D. Wash., November 17,
2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Barrett Business Services, Inc. is a provider of business
management solutions, combining human resource outsourcing and
professional management consulting for its operational platform.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis P. McConville, Esq.
      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 616-1100
      E-mail: fmcconville@pomlaw.com
              jalieberman@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Dan Drachler, Esq.
      ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING
      1904 3rd Ave, Ste 1030
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 223-2053
      Facsimile: (206) 223-2053
      E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com


CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in Total Bond Market Fund Case Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal in the Total Bond Market Fund Litigation is
currently pending, The Charles Schwab Corporation said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM). The
lawsuit, which alleges violations of state law and federal
securities law in connection with the fund's investment policy,
names Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the fund's
shares) and CSIM as defendants. Allegations include that the fund
improperly deviated from its stated investment objectives by
investing in collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and
investing more than 25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed
securities without obtaining a shareholder vote. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified
equitable and injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees.

Plaintiffs' federal securities law claim and certain of
plaintiffs' state law claims were dismissed in proceedings before
the court and following a successful petition by defendants to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On August 8, 2011, the court dismissed plaintiffs' remaining
claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs have again appealed to the Ninth
Circuit, where the case is currently pending.

The Charles Schwab Corporation (CSC) is a savings and loan holding
company engaged, through its subsidiaries, in securities
brokerage, banking, money management, and financial advisory
services. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (Schwab) is a securities
broker-dealer with over 300 domestic branch offices in 45 states,
as well as a branch in each of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and
London, England.  In addition, Schwab serves clients in Hong Kong
through one of CSC's subsidiaries. Other subsidiaries include
Charles Schwab Bank (Schwab Bank), a federal savings bank, and
Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (CSIM), the investment
advisor for Schwab's proprietary mutual funds, which are referred
to as the Schwab Funds(R), and for Schwab's exchange-traded funds,
which are referred to as the Schwab ETFs(TM).


CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: "Hooker" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tasha Hooker and Dominique Shoals, on behalf of themselves, and
all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v.
Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-09252 (N.D.
Ill., November 18, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. is a nationwide fast food
restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq.
      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      120 S. State Street, Suite 400
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 513-9555
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com
              jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Plaintiff Filed Petition for Rehearing
---------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
plaintiff in the July 2008 Common Stock Offering Litigation filed
a petition for rehearing.

On February 25, 2009, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors along with
certain underwriters of the Company's July 2008 common stock
offering. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September
11, 2009 alleging that the registration statement for the offering
contained material misstatements and omissions and seeking damages
under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 of an
unspecified amount and rescission.

The action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma on October 13, 2009. Chesapeake and
the officer and director defendants moved for summary judgment on
grounds of loss causation and materiality on December 28, 2011,
and the motion was granted as to all claims as a matter of law on
March 29, 2013. Final judgment in favor of Chesapeake and the
officer and director defendants was entered on June 21, 2013, and
the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on July 19, 2013 in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

On August 8, 2014, the District Court dismissal was affirmed by
the Court of Appeals, and on September 8, 2014, the plaintiff
filed a petition for rehearing.

"We are currently unable to assess the probability of loss or
estimate a range of potential loss associated with this matter,"
the Company said.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Participated in Mediation in Okla. Owners Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company and the named plaintiff have participated in mediation
concerning the claims asserted in the putative class action
litigation filed in 2010 on behalf of Oklahoma royalty owners.

The Company and other natural gas producers have been named in
various lawsuits alleging royalty underpayment.  "The suits
against us allege, among other things, that we used below-market
prices, made improper deductions, used improper measurement
techniques and/or entered into arrangements with affiliates that
resulted in underpayment of royalties in connection with the
production and sale of natural gas and NGL," the Company said.
"The Company has resolved a number of these claims through
negotiated settlements of past and future royalties and has
prevailed in various other lawsuits."

"We are currently defending lawsuits seeking damages for royalty
underpayment in various states, including cases filed by
individual royalty owners and putative class actions, some of
which seek to certify a statewide class. The Company also has
received DOJ and state subpoenas seeking information on the
Company's royalty payment practices.

"Plaintiffs have varying royalty provisions in their respective
leases and oil and gas law varies from state to state. Royalty
owners and producers differ in their interpretation of the legal
effect of lease provisions governing royalty calculations, an
issue in a putative class action filed in 2010 on behalf of
Oklahoma royalty owners asserting claims dating back to 2004. In
July 2014, this case was remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings following the reversal on appeal of certification of a
statewide class.

"We and the named plaintiff have participated in mediation
concerning the claims asserted in the putative class action
litigation. Based on analysis we and outside advisors have
conducted, we have accrued a loss contingency of $100 million in
the Current Quarter condensed consolidated statement of
operations. Although we believe our estimate of the potential loss
is reasonable, the final resolution of the Oklahoma royalty claims
could differ from the amount accrued, and actual results, whether
by continued litigation or settlement, could differ materially
from management's estimate.

"We believe losses are reasonably possible in certain of the other
pending royalty cases for which we have not accrued a loss
contingency, but we are currently unable to estimate an amount or
range of loss or the impact the actions could have on our future
results of operations or cash flows.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces 2 Class Actions in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in
Pennsylvania, two putative statewide class actions and one
purported class arbitration were filed in 2014 on behalf of
royalty owners asserting various claims for damages related to
alleged underpayment of royalties as a result of the Company's
divestiture of substantially all of its midstream business and
most of its gathering assets in 2012 and 2013. These Pennsylvania
cases include claims for violation of and conspiracy to violate
the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

"Uncertainties in pending royalty cases generally include the
complex nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of
the class in class actions, the scope and types of the properties
and agreements involved, and the applicable production years," the
Company said.


COMPUWARE CORP: Facing Action Related to Thoma Bravo Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Compuware Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a number of
putative class action complaints have been filed by purported
shareholders against the Company related to the merger agreement
with Thoma Bravo.  The complaints generally allege that the Board
of Directors breached its fiduciary duties in negotiating and
approving the proposed merger transaction.  The Company believes
these lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against these claims.


COMPUWARE CORP: Co-Defendant in Class Action Against Covisint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Compuware Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company has
been named as a co-defendant in a consolidated class action
complaint filed against Covisint, its directors and certain
officers at the time of Covisint's initial public offering ("IPO")
alleging violation of securities laws in connection with
Covisint's IPO and seeking unspecified damages.  The Company
believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously
defend against it.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Plaintiffs Have Until Dec. 1 to Amend Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
Defendant, CASE NO. 12-CV-02908-BLF, (N.D. Cal.) is a putative
class action brought by Plaintiff Lisa Liddle1 against Costco,
alleging that eight of Defendant's food products are improperly
labeled in violation of both California and federal law. Presently
before the Court is Costco's Partial Motion to Dismiss two causes
of action asserted for the first time in Plaintiff's Third Amended
Complaint (TAC): breach of the implied warranty of merchantability
and negligent misrepresentation. In the alternative, Defendant
seeks partial summary judgment as to Plaintiff's claims relating
to six of the eight products at issue, contending that the safe
harbor provisions of California's Sherman Act and the federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) shield it from liability with
regard to any product for which it received certain vendor
guarantees. Additionally, Costco asks the Court to dismiss without
prejudice or stay Plaintiff's claims related to Costco's use of
the term "Evaporated Cane Juice," or ECJ, on the label of a
chocolate milk product.

In an order dated November 12, 2014, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/M7Csgnfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Beth Labson
Freeman grants the Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's seventh and eighth causes of action, with leave to
amend on these causes of action only. Plaintiff must file a Fourth
Amended Complaint no later than December 1, 2014. Plaintiff is not
permitted to add any new products or causes of action to her
Fourth Amended Complaint without leave of Court.

Moreover, Judge Freeman granted the Defendant's Motion to Stay
Plaintiff's ECJ claims. Plaintiff's ECJ claims are stayed until
the FDA releases its final guidance, after the comment period
closes on the Agency's 2009 draft guidance regarding ECJ. The
Defendant is further ordered to provide the Court notice when this
occurs.

The Court defers ruling on the Defendant's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment but directed the parties to meet and confer, and
file with the Court a discovery plan for the motion for partial
summary judgment. After receipt of the parties' discovery plan,
the Court says it will issue a schedule for briefing on
Defendant's motion.

Karen Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt
& Associates, David Malcolm McMullan, Jr., Don Barrett, P.A. & Guy
Gladstone Fisher -- gfisher@pulf.com

LISA LIDDLE, Plaintiff, represented by David Malcolm McMullan,
Jr., Don Barrett, P.A., Guy Gladstone Fisher & Ben F. Pierce Gore,
Pratt & Associates.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amanda L.
Groves -- agroves@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Luciona
Johnson -- lujohnson@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP & Sean D.
Meenan -- smeenan@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn.


DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Wage and Hour Claim Pending in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Davita Healthcare Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a wage and
hour claim, which has been styled as a class action, is pending
against the Company in the Superior Court of California.

The Company was served with the complaint in this lawsuit in April
2008, and it has been amended since that time. The complaint, as
amended, alleges that the Company failed to provide meal periods,
failed to pay compensation in lieu of providing rest or meal
periods, failed to pay overtime, and failed to comply with certain
other California Labor Code requirements.

In September 2011, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. Plaintiffs appealed that decision. In January
2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on
some claims, but remanded the case to the trial court for
clarification of its decision on one of the claims.

The Company reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the
claim that was remanded to the trial court, and that settlement
has been finalized. The amount of the settlement is not material
to the Company's consolidated financial statements.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the
remaining claims. Any potential settlement of the remaining claims
is not anticipated to be material to the Company's consolidated
financial statements.

Davita operates two major divisions, Kidney Care and HealthCare
Partners (HCP).


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Engaged in 48 Professional Liability Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as
of September 30, 2014, the Company is engaged in 48 professional
liability lawsuits. Seven lawsuits are currently scheduled for
trial or arbitration during the next twelve months, and it is
expected that additional cases will be set for trial or hearing.

"The ultimate results of any of our professional liability claims
and disputes cannot be predicted with certainty. A significant
judgment entered against us in one or more of these legal actions
could have a material adverse impact on our financial position and
cash flows," the Company said.

Diversicare Healthcare Services provides long-term care services
to nursing center patients in nine states, primarily in the
Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest.


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Settlement Has Not Yet Been Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
settlement in a stockholder class action complaint filed in the
Chancery Court for Williamson County, Tennessee (21st Judicial
District) has not yet been approved by the court.

In November 2012, a purported stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Chancery Court for Williamson County, Tennessee
(21st Judicial District) against the Company's Board of Directors.
This action alleges that the Board of Directors breached its
fiduciary duties to stockholders related to its response to
certain expressions of interest in a potential strategic
transaction from Covington Investments, LLC ("Covington"). The
complaint asserts that the Board failed to negotiate or otherwise
appropriately consider Covington's proposals. Plaintiff has filed
a motion seeking to certify the action as a class action, which is
not currently set for hearing.

On May 23, 2014, the plaintiff and defendants entered into a
memorandum of understanding outlining the terms of a settlement
subject to the execution of definitive documentation and court
approval. The agreement provides that the Company will adopt and
maintain certain corporate governance procedures for a period of
at least three years. This settlement has not yet been approved by
the court.

Diversicare Healthcare Services provides long-term care services
to nursing center patients in nine states, primarily in the
Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest.


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Arkansas Court Decertified Class
--------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Court conditionally certified a nationwide class of all of the
Company's hourly employees in the collective action complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas, but recently decertified the
class.

The Company said, "In June 2012, a collective action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas against us and certain of our
subsidiaries.  The complaint alleges that the defendants violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and seeks unpaid overtime
wages as well as liquidated damages.  The Court conditionally
certified a nationwide class of all of the Company's hourly
employees, but recently decertified the class.  The Company
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously."

Diversicare Healthcare Services provides long-term care services
to nursing center patients in nine states, primarily in the
Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest.


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Garland Action Remains in Early Stages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas
remains in its early stages and has not yet been certified by the
court as a class action.

In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center (the "Facility"). The complaint alleges that
the defendants breached their statutory and contractual
obligations to the patients of the Facility over the five-year
period prior to the filing of the complaints. The lawsuit remains
in its early stages and has not yet been certified by the court as
a class action. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.

Diversicare Healthcare Services provides long-term care services
to nursing center patients in nine states, primarily in the
Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest.


EA RENFROE: "McFaddin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline McFaddin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. E.A. Renfroe & Company, Inc., a Georgia
corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-02369 (C.D. Cal., November 17,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, premium pay
for meal breaks and rest breaks that were not provided,
prejudgment interest, penalties, injunctive and other equitable
relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

E.A. Renfroe & Company, Inc. specializes in insurance catastrophe
claims service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles H. Jung, Esq.
      Andrew R. Kislik, Esq.
      NASSIRI & JUNG LLP
      1055 West 7th Street, Suite 2800
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 626-6200
      Facsimile: (213) 284-3900
      E-mail: charles@njfirm.com
              andy@njfirm.com


ENDO HEALTH: Controls Availability of Generic Opana ER, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and
Blue Shield Of Louisiana, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Endo Health Solutions, Inc., Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co., and Impax
Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00721 (M.D. La., November 17,
2014), arises out of the Defendants' overarching anticompetitive
scheme to allocate and unreasonably delay competition in the
market for extended- release oxymorphone hydrochloride, which is
under the brand name Opana ER.

The Defendants are specialty healthcare solutions companies
focused on branded and generic pharmaceutical products and
devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Dugan II, Esq.
      David B. Franco, Esq.
      Chad Primeaux, Esq.
      Lanson Bordelon, Esq.
      THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC
      One Canal Place
      365 Canal Street, Suite 1000
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 648-0180
      Facsimile: (504) 648-0181
      E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com
              dfranco@dugan-lawfirm.com
              pcrimeaux@dugan-lawfirm.com
              lbordelon@dugan-lawfirm.com

         - and -

      Douglas R. Plymale, Esq.
      The Plymale Law Firm
      365 Canal St., Suite 1000
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 355-0092
      Facsimile: (504) 648-0181
      E-mail: drplymale@plymalelawfirm.com

         - and -

      Charles A. O'Brien, Esq.
      BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF LOUISIANA
      5525 Reitz Avenue, P.O. Box 98029
      Baton Rouge, LA 80809
      Telephone: (225) 295-2454


ENECON NORTHEAST: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Mendez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Enecon Northeast Applied Polymer Systems, Inc., Robert
Barr, and Michael Barr, each individual and professional
capacities, Case No. 2:14-cv-06736 (E.D.N.Y., November 17, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an application company, providing
maintenance and repair services to machinery, equipment and
structures damages by erosion, corrosion, and other wear and tear
through the use of high performance polymer composites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Patrick Malecki, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Blvd Ste 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: apm@employmentlawyernewyork.com


FANNIE MAE: Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied
-------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a
petition for rehearing en banc related to the Fannie Mae
Securities Litigation has been denied.

Fannie Mae was a defendant in a consolidated class action lawsuit
initially filed in 2004 that was pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia.  The Company said, "In the
consolidated complaint filed in 2005, lead plaintiffs Ohio Public
Employees Retirement System and State Teachers Retirement System
of Ohio alleged that we and certain former officers, as well as
our former outside auditor, made materially false and misleading
statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Plaintiffs contended that Fannie Mae's accounting
statements were inconsistent with GAAP requirements relating to
hedge accounting and the amortization of premiums and discounts,
and sought unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and
other fees and costs."

"On January 7, 2008, the court defined the class as all purchasers
of Fannie Mae common stock and call options and all sellers of
publicly traded Fannie Mae put options during the period from
April 17, 2001 through December 22, 2004. On October 17, 2008,
FHFA, as conservator for Fannie Mae, intervened in this case. In
September and December 2010, plaintiffs served expert reports
claiming damages to plaintiffs under various scenarios ranging
cumulatively from $2.2 billion to $8.6 billion. In 2011, the
parties filed various motions for summary judgment. On September
20, 2012, the court granted summary judgment to defendant Franklin
D. Raines, Fannie Mae's former Chief Executive Officer, on all
claims against him. On October 16, 2012, the court granted summary
judgment to defendant J. Timothy Howard, Fannie Mae's former Chief
Financial Officer, on all claims against him. On November 20,
2012, the court granted summary judgment to defendant Leanne
Spencer, Fannie Mae's former Controller, on all claims against
her.

"On April 10, 2013, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle this litigation, subject to court approval. On May 7,
2013, the parties filed a stipulation of settlement with the
court. On June 7, 2013, the court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement, approved the form and manner of notice to the
class, stayed non-settlement related proceedings, and set certain
other deadlines related to the settlement. On October 31, 2013,
the court held a hearing to evaluate the fairness of the
settlement to the class, and on December 5, 2013, granted final
approval of the settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and
entered an order and judgment effecting the settlement. Fannie
Mae's contribution to the settlement did not have a material
impact on our results of operations or financial condition.

"On January 9, 2014, Rinis Travel Service, Inc. Profit Sharing
Trust U.A. 61-1989, a purported class member, appealed the court's
approval order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, but voluntarily dismissed the appeal with prejudice on
March 13, 2014. On January 29, 2014, an individual purported class
member also appealed the settlement approval, and plaintiffs-
appellees moved to dismiss this appeal on February 6, 2014. The
motion to dismiss the appeal was granted on May 8, 2014. On June
9, 2014, the individual filed a petition for rehearing en banc.
That petition was denied on June 25, 2014."

The time for further appeals has expired and this matter is
concluded with respect to Fannie Mae.

Fannie Mae is a government-sponsored enterprise ("GSE") that was
chartered by Congress in 1938. Fannie Mae provides reliable,
large-scale access to affordable mortgage credit and indirectly
enables families to buy, refinance or rent homes.


FANNIE MAE: Lead Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
lead plaintiffs in the Fannie Mae 2008 Securities Litigation filed
a motion seeking preliminary approval of a settlement,
certification of the settlement classes, and approval of a notice
to be sent to class members.

The Company said, "In a consolidated amended complaint filed on
June 22, 2009, lead plaintiffs Massachusetts Pension Reserves
Investment Management Board and Boston Retirement Board (for
common shareholders) and Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System
(for preferred shareholders) alleged that we, certain of our
former officers, and certain of our underwriters violated Sections
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Lead plaintiffs
also alleged that we, certain of our former officers, and our
outside auditor, violated Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. Lead plaintiffs sought various forms of relief, including
rescission, damages, interest, costs, attorneys' and experts'
fees, and other equitable and injunctive relief. On October 13,
2009, the court entered an order allowing FHFA to intervene.
In 2009, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
Securities Act claims as to all defendants. In 2010, the court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to
dismiss the Securities Exchange Act claims. As a result of the
partial denial, some of the Securities Exchange Act claims
remained pending against us and certain of our former officers.
Fannie Mae filed its answer to the consolidated complaint on
December 31, 2010."

"Plaintiffs filed a second amended joint consolidated class action
complaint on March 2, 2012, renewing the remaining claims and
adding FHFA as a defendant. On August 30, 2012, the court denied
defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint,
allowing plaintiffs' Securities Exchange Act claims premised on
Fannie Mae's subprime and Alt-A disclosures to proceed along with
plaintiffs' claims premised on Fannie Mae's risk management
disclosures. Fannie Mae filed its answer to the second amended
complaint on October 29, 2012.

"On July 15, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle this litigation. The proposed settlement amount did not
have a material impact on our results of operations or financial
condition. On October 24, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a motion
seeking preliminary approval of the settlement, certification of
the settlement classes, and approval of a notice to be sent to
class members."

Fannie Mae is a government-sponsored enterprise ("GSE") that was
chartered by Congress in 1938. Fannie Mae provides reliable,
large-scale access to affordable mortgage credit and indirectly
enables families to buy, refinance or rent homes.


FANNIE MAE: Agreement Reached in ERISA Litigation
-------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs in
the Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation that would resolve this matter on
behalf of all parties.

The Company said, "In a consolidated complaint filed in 2009,
plaintiffs allege that certain of our current and former officers
and directors, including members of Fannie Mae's Benefit Plans
Committee and the Compensation Committee of Fannie Mae's Board of
Directors during the relevant time periods, as fiduciaries of
Fannie Mae's Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP"), breached
their duties to ESOP participants and beneficiaries by investing
ESOP funds in Fannie Mae common stock when it was no longer
prudent to continue to do so. Plaintiffs purport to represent a
class of participants and beneficiaries of the ESOP whose accounts
invested in Fannie Mae common stock beginning April 17, 2007. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other
fees and costs, and injunctive and other equitable relief."

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 2, 2012 adding two
current Board members and then-CEO Michael J. Williams as
defendants. On October 22, 2012, the court granted in part and
denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. The court dismissed
with prejudice claims against seven former and current directors
and officers who joined the Board of Directors or Benefit Plans
Committee after Fannie Mae was placed into conservatorship. The
court allowed plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty and failure to
monitor claims to go forward, but dismissed plaintiffs' conflict
of interest claim.

"On September 23, 2013, defendants filed a motion asking the court
to reconsider its October 22, 2012 order in light of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's decision in Rinehart v.
Akers (In re Lehman Bros. ERISA Litigation), 722 F.3d 137 (2d Cir.
2013). The court denied the motion for reconsideration on April
21, 2014.

"On October 31, 2014, we reached an agreement in principle with
the plaintiffs that would resolve this matter on behalf of all
parties. The proposed settlement amount did not have any impact on
our results of operations or financial condition."

Fannie Mae is a government-sponsored enterprise ("GSE") that was
chartered by Congress in 1938. Fannie Mae provides reliable,
large-scale access to affordable mortgage credit and indirectly
enables families to buy, refinance or rent homes.


FANNIE MAE: D.C. Circuit Consolidates Appeals
---------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit consolidated appeals by
Plaintiffs in Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Fannie Mae, and
plaintiffs in In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock
Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations with appeals in two
other cases involving the same subject matter, but to which the
Company is not a party.

A number of putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against us, FHFA as
our conservator, Treasury and Freddie Mac from July through
September 2013 by shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac
challenging the August 2012 amendment to each company's senior
preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury. These lawsuits
were consolidated and, on December 3, 2013, plaintiffs (preferred
and common shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac) filed a
consolidated class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia against us, FHFA as our conservator,
Treasury and Freddie Mac ("In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior
Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations"). The
preferred shareholder plaintiffs allege that the August 2012
amendments to the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase
agreements providing that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would pay
dividends equal to their entire net worth (minus a specified
capital reserve amount) ("the net worth sweep provisions")
nullified certain of the shareholders' rights, particularly the
right to receive dividends. The common shareholder plaintiffs
allege that the August 2012 amendments constituted a taking of
their property by requiring that all future profits of Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac be paid to Treasury.

The Company said, "Plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract
and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
against us, FHFA and Freddie Mac, a takings claim against FHFA and
Treasury, and a breach of fiduciary duty claim derivatively on our
and Freddie Mac's behalf against FHFA and Treasury. Plaintiffs
seek to represent several classes of preferred and/or common
shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac who held stock as of
the public announcement of the August 2012 amendments. Plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees."

"A non-class action suit, Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Fannie
Mae, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia on September 20, 2013 by preferred shareholders against
us, FHFA as our conservator, the Director of FHFA (in his official
capacity), Treasury, the Secretary of the Treasury (in his
official capacity) and Freddie Mac. Plaintiffs bring claims for
breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing against us, FHFA and Freddie Mac, and
claims for violation of the Administrative Procedure Act against
the FHFA and Treasury defendants, alleging that the net worth
sweep provisions nullified certain rights of the preferred
shareholders, particularly the right to receive dividends.
Plaintiffs seek damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

"On September 30, 2014, the court dismissed both lawsuits.
Plaintiffs in Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Fannie Mae filed a
notice of appeal on October 9, 2014, and plaintiffs in In re
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement
Class Action Litigations filed a notice of appeal on October 15,
2014. On October 27, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit consolidated these appeals with appeals in two other cases
involving the same subject matter, but to which we are not a
party.

"Given the stage of these lawsuits, the substantial and novel
legal questions that remain, and our substantial defenses, we are
currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range
of loss arising from this litigation."

Fannie Mae is a government-sponsored enterprise ("GSE") that was
chartered by Congress in 1938. Fannie Mae provides reliable,
large-scale access to affordable mortgage credit and indirectly
enables families to buy, refinance or rent homes.


FIRST CLASS PARKING: "Rodriguez" Suit Alleges Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andres A. Rodriguez and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. First Class Parking Systems LLC a/k/a 1st
Class Valet Service, Sebastian Lopez, and Jorge Zuluaga, Case No.
1:14-cv-24377 (S.D. Fla., November 18, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants provide valet parking services in Miami, serving
private events, hotels, restaurants, hotels and buildings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


FIRST HORIZON: FTBNA a Defendant in Overdraft Fees Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Horizon National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that
First Tennessee Bank National Association ("FTBNA") is a defendant
in a putative class action lawsuit concerning overdraft fees
charged in connection with debit card transactions. A key claim is
that the method used to order or sequence the transactions posted
each day was improper. The case is styled as Hawkins v. First
Tennessee Bank National Association, before the Circuit Court for
Shelby County, Tennessee, Case No. CT-004085-11. The plaintiff
seeks actual damages of at least $5 million, unspecified
restitution of fees charged, and unspecified punitive damages,
among other things.

FHN's estimate of reasonably possible loss for this matter is
subject to significant uncertainties regarding: whether a class
will be certified and, if so, the definition of the class; claims
as to which no dollar amount is specified; the potential remedies
that might be available or awarded; the ultimate outcome of
potentially dispositive early-stage motions such as motions to
dismiss; and the incomplete status of the discovery process.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Calif. Class Certified in "Brewer" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
General Nutrition Corporation ("GNC") is a retailer of nutritional
products such as vitamins and herbal supplements. Charles Brewer,
Jessica Bruns, Michael Mitchell, Michael Murphy, and Wayne Neal
are five former GNC employees who held positions as Sales
Associates and/or Assistant Managers at GNC retail stores. A civil
action arose from GNC's alleged failure to compensate putative
classes of Sales Associates and Assistant Managers for time worked
after store closing hours while performing "closing tasks" such as
making off-site bank deposits, as well as alleged failures to pay
overtime, supply meal and rest breaks, reimburse for mileage,
issue final paychecks within statutorily prescribed time limits,
or provide wage statements that comply with California law.

Before the Court are plaintiffs' Motion to Certify eight putative
classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; and GNC's
Motion to Decertify a collective action that the Court, in January
2013, initially certified under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Section 201 et seq.

In an order entered November 12, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/OG3RBNfrom Leagle.com, District Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted in part and denied in part the
Motion to Certify, holding that:

(a) As to Plaintiffs' proposed Wage Statement Class, Meal Period
Subclass, Rest Period Subclass, and Reimbursement Subclass the
motion is granted on the grounds that they present common
questions of law and fact, making them appropriate for class
treatment.

(b) As to plaintiffs' proposed Final Pay Subclass, the motion is
granted in part with respect to the portion of the class members
who were: (i) involuntarily discharged; and (ii) who quit and were
paid by direct deposit.

(c) The motion is denied as to plaintiffs' proposed Off-the-Clock
and Records Subclasses because they do not meet the commonality
and predominance requirements of Rule 23.

(d) The motion is denied as moot as to the Unfair Competition
Class since it is redundant of the Class and Subclasses otherwise
certified by the Court.

Moreover, the Court held that persons who have opted in to the
FLSA collective action are not similarly situated. As a
consequence, GNC's Motion to Decertify the FLSA Collective Action
is granted.

The case is CHARLES BREWER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL
NUTRITION CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 11-CV-3587 YGR, (N.D.
Cal.).

Charles Brewer, Plaintiff, represented by Chad Avery Pradmore --
cpradmore@employment-lawyers.com -- Hoffman Employment Lawyers
LLC.

Charles Brewer, Defendants, Plaintiff, represented by Leonard
Thomas Emma -- lemma@employment-lawyers.com -- Hoffman Employment
Lawyers LLC & Michael Robert Hoffman -- mhoffman@employment-
lawyers.com -- Hoffman Employment Lawyers LLC.

General Nutrition Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan L.
Germaise, McGuireWoods LLP & Christopher M. Michalik, McGuire
Woods LLP.


HARVEST NATURAL: Court Dismissed Claims in "Sone" Case
------------------------------------------------------
Harvest Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the court
issued an order dismissing plaintiffs' claims in the case, Kensho
Sone, et al. v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division.

On July 24, 2013, 70 individuals, all alleged to be citizens of
Taiwan, filed an original complaint and application for injunctive
relief relating to the Company's interest in the WAB-21 area of
the South China Sea. The complaint alleges that the area belongs
to the people of Taiwan and seeks damages in excess of $2.9
million and preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent the
Company from exploring, developing plans to extract hydrocarbons
from, conducting future operations in, and extracting hydrocarbons
from, the WAB-21 area. On August 8, 2014 the court issued an order
dismissing plaintiffs' claims.  Plaintiffs may appeal the
dismissal.

The following related class action lawsuits were filed on the
dates specified in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Texas: John Phillips v. Harvest Natural Resources,
Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (March 22, 2013)
("Phillips case"); Sang Kim v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc.,
James A. Edmiston, Stephen C. Haynes, Stephen D. Chesebro', Igor
Effimoff, H. H. Hardee, Robert E. Irelan, Patrick M. Murray and J.
Michael Stinson (April 3, 2013); Chris Kean v. Harvest Natural
Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April
11, 2013); Prastitis v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A.
Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 17, 2013); Alan Myers v.
Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C.
Haynes (April 22, 2013); and Edward W. Walbridge and the Edward W.
Walbridge Trust v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A.
Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 26, 2013). The complaints
allege that the Company made certain false or misleading public
statements and demand that the defendants pay unspecified damages
to the class action plaintiffs based on stock price declines. All
of these actions have been consolidated into the Phillips case.
The Company and the other named defendants have filed a motion to
dismiss and intend to vigorously defend the consolidated lawsuits.


HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: ASB's Appeal Pending in Hawaii Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. and Hawaiian Electric Company,
Inc. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

In March 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
First Circuit Court of the state of Hawaii by a customer who
claimed that American Savings Bank, F.S.B., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of American Savings Holdings, Inc., had improperly
charged overdraft fees on debit card transactions. ASB filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that as a bank
chartered under federal law, ASB believes its business practices
are governed by federal regulations established for federal
savings banks and not by state law.

In July 2011, the Circuit Court denied ASB's motion and ASB
appealed that decision. ASB's appeal is currently pending before
the Hawaii Supreme Court.

"The probable outcome and range of reasonably possible loss
remains indeterminable at this time," the Company said.


HERCULES INC: Court OKs Entry of Lone Pine Case Mgmt Order
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker granted a defendant's motion
for entry of a Lone Pine Case Management Order in the case
captioned DOROTHY ABNER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HERCULES, INC., et
al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14CV63-KS-MTP, (S.D. Miss.).

Lone Pine orders derive from a 1986 New Jersey Superior Court
decision, where the court entered a pretrial order that required
the plaintiffs to provide facts in support of their claims through
expert reports. Lore v. Lone Pine Corp., 1986 WL 637507 (N.J. Sup.
Ct. Law Div. Nov. 18, 1986). The United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit has noted that "Lone Pine orders are
designed to handle the complex issues and potential burdens of
defendants and the court in mass tort litigation." Acuna v. Brown
& Root Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir. 2000).

The Court found that entering a Lone Pine order is appropriate at
this time, and entry of the Lone Pine order does not create undue
burdens or expenses for the Plaintiffs.

A copy of the Court's November 10, 2014 opinion and order is
available at http://is.gd/DYaDSQfrom Leagle.com.


HILLS BANCORPORATION: Appeals Ruling to Iowa Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Hills Bancorporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that on April 24, 2014,
a suit was filed against the Bank in the Iowa District Court for
Johnson County by a customer alleging that the fees associated
with the Bank's automated overdraft program in connection with its
debit and ATM cards constitute unlawful interest in violation of
Iowa's usury laws and that the collection of such interest
violates the Iowa Debt Collection Practices Act. The suit seeks
class-action status for Bank customers who have paid overdraft
fees arising from debit or ATM card transactions on their consumer
accounts.  The Bank filed a motion to dismiss the case, which the
Court denied. The Bank is appealing the District Court's ruling on
the motion to dismiss through the filing of an application for
interlocutory appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court.

At this stage of the proceedings, it is not possible for
management of the Bank to determine the probability of a material
adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any potential
loss.

Hills Bancorporation is a holding company engaged in the business
of commercial banking.  The Company's subsidiary is Hills Bank and
Trust Company, Hills, Iowa (the "Bank"), which is wholly-owned.


HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Lead Plaintiff Responds to Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hyperdynamics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the lead
plaintiff in a shareholder class action filed a response to the
defendants' motion to dismiss, and the defendants filed their
reply.

The Company said, "On April 2, 2012, a lawsuit styled as a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against us and our chief executive officer
alleging that we made false and misleading statements that
artificially inflated our stock prices. The lawsuit alleges, among
other things, that we misrepresented the prospects and progress of
our drilling operations, including our drilling of the Sabu-1 well
and plans to drill the Baraka-1 well off the coast of the Republic
of Guinea.  The lawsuit seeks damages based on Sections 10(b) and
20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, although the specific
amount of damages is not specified."

"Although several lead plaintiffs were appointed by the Court and
then withdrew from the matter, a lead plaintiff has now been
appointed and a scheduling order governing briefing on a motion to
dismiss has been entered by the Court.

"On May 12, 2014, lead plaintiff filed his amended complaint, and
defendants filed their motion to dismiss on July 11, 2014. On
August 20, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a response to our motion
to dismiss, and we filed our reply on September 19, 2014.

"We have assessed the status of this matter and have concluded
that an adverse judgment remains reasonably possible, but not
probable. As a result, no provision has been made in the
consolidated financial statements. Given the early stage of this
dispute, we are unable to estimate a range of possible loss;
however, in our opinion, the outcome of this dispute will not have
a material effect on our financial condition and results of
operations."

Hyperdynamics has two wholly-owned subsidiaries, SCS Corporation
Ltd (SCS), a Cayman corporation, and HYD Resources Corporation
(HYD), a Texas corporation. Through SCS and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, SCS Guinea SARL (SCSG), which is a Guinea limited
liability company formed under the laws of the Republic of Guinea
("Guinea") located in Conakry, Guinea, Hyperdynamics focuses on
oil and gas exploration offshore the coast of West Africa.


HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Parties Await Ruling on Motion to Consolidate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hyperdynamics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the parties in
a class action lawsuit await a ruling on the motion to
consolidate.

The Company said, "Beginning on March 13, 2014, several lawsuits
styled as class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas against us and several officers of
the Company alleging that we made false and misleading statements
that artificially inflated our stock prices.  The lawsuits allege,
among other things, that we misrepresented our compliance with the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and anti-money laundering statutes
and that we lacked adequate internal controls.  The lawsuits seek
damages based on Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, although the specific amount of damages is not
specified."

"On May 12, 2014, a shareholder filed a motion for appointment as
lead plaintiff, which remains pending. Also, on May 12, 2014, lead
plaintiff in the April 2012 lawsuit filed a motion to consolidate
the March 2014 cases with the earlier case. The parties await a
ruling on the motion to consolidate.

"In addition to these lawsuits, we have received demands from
stockholders to inspect our books and records; however, no
proceedings have been instituted. We have assessed the status of
this matter and have concluded that an adverse judgment remains
reasonably possible, but not probable. As a result, no provision
has been made in the consolidated financial statements.

"Given the early stage of these disputes, we are unable to
estimate a range of possible loss; however, in our opinion, the
outcome of this dispute will not have a material effect on our
financial condition and results of operations.

Hyperdynamics has two wholly-owned subsidiaries, SCS Corporation
Ltd (SCS), a Cayman corporation, and HYD Resources Corporation
(HYD), a Texas corporation. Through SCS and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, SCS Guinea SARL (SCSG), which is a Guinea limited
liability company formed under the laws of the Republic of Guinea
("Guinea") located in Conakry, Guinea, Hyperdynamics focuses on
oil and gas exploration offshore the coast of West Africa.


IDEAL IMAGE: Faces "Marlow" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Denice Marlow, on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals v. Ideal Image Development Corp., Case No. 3:14-cv-
00540 (E.D. Tenn., November 17, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay its sales representative overtime
wages in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ideal Image Development Corp. offers state-of-the-art laser hair
removal services performed by licensed medical and nursing
professionals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brittany B. Skemp, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55427
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4878

         - and -

      Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55427
      Telephone: (612) 256-3205
      Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
      E-mail: lukas@nka.com


IMPACT GLASS: Faces "Casanova" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Casanova, Jose L. Quintana, and Ernesto Sanchez,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Impact
Glass Services LLC, a Florida corporation, Juan C. Llinas, and
Yussef Saieh Velez, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-24363 (S.D.
Fla., November 17, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a company established in Miami,
Florida that specializes in servicing, maintaining and repairing
commercial and residential glazing products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jose Alberto Socorro, Esq.
      Grissel Seijo, Esq.
      HUDSON & CALLEJA, LLC
      3211 Ponce de Leon Blvd, Suite 102
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 444-6628
      Facsimile: (305) 444-6627
      E-mail: jsocorro@hudsoncalleja.com
              gseijo@hudsoncalleja.com

          - and -

      Robert Wayne Hudson, Esq.
      HUDSON & CALLEJA, LLC
      355 Alhambra Circle, Suite 801
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 444-6628
      Facsimile: (305) 444-6627
      E-mail: rhudson@hudsoncalleja.com


INTEGRYS ENERGY: "Inman" Plaintiff Seeks Expedited Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
The case Inman v. Schrock, et al., was consolidated with the case
Amo v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., and the Inman plaintiff in the
consolidated Amo Action filed a motion for expedited discovery and
a preliminary injunction, Integrys Energy Group, Inc. said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

Since the June 23, 2014 announcement of the merger agreement, the
Company and its board of directors, along with Wisconsin Energy
Corporation (Wisconsin Energy), were named defendants in ten class
action lawsuits and/or derivative complaints brought by purported
Integrys Energy Group shareholders challenging the proposed
merger.

Two lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County,
Wisconsin, Amo v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al., (the "Amo
Action") and Inman v. Schrock, et al., (the "Inman Action"). Two
lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
Taxman v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al., and Curley v.
Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al., (the "Illinois Actions").
Three lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of Brown County,
Wisconsin: Rubin v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al.; Blachor
v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al.; Albera v. Integrys Energy
Group, Inc., et al. (the "Brown County Actions").

Three lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Steiner v. Budney, et al., and
Collison v. Schrock, et al., (the "Steiner and Collision
Actions"); and Tri-State Joint Fund v. Integrys Energy Group,
Inc., et al., (the "Tri-State Action").

The Company said, "The Amo Action and Illinois Actions allege,
among other things, that members of our board breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction, and
that the merger agreement involves an unfair price, was the
product of an inadequate sales process, and contains unreasonable
deal protection devices that purportedly preclude competing
offers. The complaints further variously allege that we, Wisconsin
Energy, and/or its acquisition subsidiaries aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs in these
lawsuits seek, among other things, (i) a declaration that the
merger agreement was entered into in breach of our directors'
fiduciary duties, (ii) an injunction enjoining our board from
consummating the merger, (iii) an order directing our board to
exercise their duties to obtain a transaction which is in the best
interests of our shareholders, (iv) an order granting the class
members any benefits allegedly improperly received by the
defendants, (v) a rescission of the merger or damages, in the
event that it is consummated, and/or (vi) an order directing
additional disclosure regarding the merger."

"The Inman Action generally asserts similar claims on behalf of
the purported class and derivatively on behalf of us and, in
addition, alleges that the registration statement omits material
information.

"The Steiner and Collison Actions generally allege that the
members of our board breached their fiduciary duties by conducting
an inadequate sales process that resulted in an unfair price and
by filing a materially deficient registration statement. The
Steiner and Collison Actions further allege that Wisconsin Energy
aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs
in the Steiner and Collison Actions, seek, among other things, to
enjoin the proposed transaction or an award of damages in the
event the merger is consummated. In addition, the Collison
complaint alleges that the members of our board were unjustly
enriched at the expense of us and seeks a court order directing
our board members to disgorge all benefits or compensation
obtained as a result of their purported breaches of fiduciary
duty.

"The Tri-State Action seeks to enjoin the proposed transaction and
alleges that we, our board, Wisconsin Energy, and Mr. Klappa (the
Wisconsin Energy Chief Executive Officer) violated Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder. It alleges, among other things, that the
registration statement misrepresented or omitted material facts,
including material information about the allegedly unfair and
conflicted sales process, the inadequate consideration offered in
the proposed transaction, and our actual intrinsic value.

"On August 6, 2014, we, our board, and Wisconsin Energy filed a
motion to dismiss or stay the Illinois Actions, in deference to
the Wisconsin Actions. On August 11, 2014, we, our board, and
Wisconsin Energy filed motions to dismiss the Amo Action. Also on
August 11, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Wisconsin Actions filed a
letter with the courts in which those actions are pending,
requesting that the Wisconsin Actions be stayed pending resolution
of the Illinois Actions. We, our board, and Wisconsin Energy filed
a letter opposing that request on August 12, 2014.

"On August 12, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Brown County Actions
voluntarily dismissed their suits without prejudice. On August 18,
2014, the plaintiff in the Amo Action moved the Wisconsin court to
stay his action in favor of the Illinois Actions. Following a
hearing on September 4, 2014, the Wisconsin court denied the
plaintiff's motion to stay the Amo Action.

"On August 27, 2014, the plaintiff in the Taxman action filed a
motion for leave to amend his complaint seeking to add allegations
that the defendants breached their fiduciary duty of candor by
filing a materially deficient registration statement.

"On September 30, 2014, the Illinois court dismissed the Illinois
Actions in favor of the Amo Action and Inman Action.

"On October 3, 2014, the plaintiff in the Amo Action, joined by
plaintiffs from the Brown County Actions, filed an amended class
action complaint adding allegations that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by filing a materially deficient
registration statement. On October 6, 2014, we, our board, and
Wisconsin Energy filed a motion for a protective order staying
discovery pending a decision on their motions to dismiss in the
Amo Action. On October 7, 2014, the plaintiff in the Amo Action,
joined by plaintiffs from the Brown County Actions, filed a motion
for limited expedited discovery.

"On October 8, 2014, we, our board, and Wisconsin Energy filed
motions to dismiss the Steiner and Collison Actions, in deference
to the Wisconsin Actions. On October 15, 2014, the Collison Action
was consolidated with the Steiner Action.

"On October 17, 2014, the Inman Action was consolidated with the
Amo Action. On October 21, 2014, the Inman plaintiff in the
consolidated Amo Action filed a motion for expedited discovery and
a preliminary injunction.

"We believe the claims asserted in each lawsuit have no merit and
intend to defend the actions vigorously."

Integrys Energy Group is a diversified energy holding company with
regulated natural gas and electric utility operations (serving
customers in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin), an
approximate 34% equity ownership interest in ATC (a federally
regulated electric transmission company), and nonregulated energy
operations.


INTERCEPT YOUTH: Faces "Altice" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Trippeer Altice, on her own behalf, and for all those
similarly situated pursuant to 29 Section 216(b) v. Intercept
Youth Services, Inc., Case No. 7:14-cv-00627 (W.D. Va., November
18, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Intercept Youth Services, Inc. provides mental health services
throughout the Commonwealth.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas Eugene Strelka, Esq.
      STRICKLAND DIVINEY & STRELKA
      P.O. Box 2866
      Roanoke, VA 24001
      Telephone: (540) 982-7787
      Facsimile: (540) 342-2909
      E-mail: thomas@strelkalaw.com


INTERLINE BRANDS: Order Denying Initial Deal Approval Revised
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James Donato entered on November 10, 2014, an
amended order denying preliminary approval of class settlement in
CORY STOKES, Plaintiff, v. INTERLINE BRANDS, INC., Defendant, CASE
NO. 12-CV-05527-JD, (N.D. Cal.).

The amended order withdraws in its entirety and replaces the order
previously entered in this case. The Court makes this amendment to
correct a citation error at page 8 of the original slip opinion.
The correction does not change in any way the Court's findings or
conclusions which held, among other things, that since the
proposed settlement fails to meet a preliminary fairness
determination, the Court need not reach plaintiff's request for
conditional certification of a class for settlement.

A copy of the Amended Order is available at http://is.gd/aYDa27
from Leagle.com.

Cory Stokes, on behalf of himself & all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Daniel H. Qualls -- dan@qualls-
workman.com -- Qualls & Workman, L.L.P., Aviva N. Roller --
aviva@workmanlawpc.com -- Workman Law Firm, PC, Robin Gibson
Workman -- robin@workmanlawpc.com -- Workman Law Firm, PC & Walter
Lewis Haines -- walter@whaines.com -- United Employees Law Group,
P.C.

Interline Brands, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew C. Kane,
McGuireWoods LLP, Catherine C. Smith, McGuireWoods LLP, Michael
David Mandel, McGuireWoods LLP, Sabrina Alexis Beldner,
McGuireWoods LLP & Sylvia Jihae Kim, McGuireWoods LLP.

Cleansource, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark S. Posard --
mposard@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Kleen Products Case in Discovery Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the the
federal action, Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America
(N.D. Ill.), is in the discovery stage and the action in state
court in Cocke County, Tennessee is in a preliminary stage.

In September 2010, eight containerboard producers, including
International Paper and Temple-Inland, were named as defendants in
a purported class action complaint that alleged a civil violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned Kleen
Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America (N.D. Ill.). The
complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in February 2004
through November 2010, conspired to limit the supply and thereby
increase prices of containerboard products. The alleged class is
all persons who purchased containerboard products directly from
any defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the
period February 2004 to November 2010. The complaint seeks to
recover an unspecified amount of treble actual damages and
attorney's fees on behalf of the purported class.

Four similar complaints were filed and have been consolidated in
the Northern District of Illinois.

Moreover, in January 2011, International Paper was named as a
defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Cocke County,
Tennessee alleging that International Paper violated Tennessee law
by conspiring to limit the supply and fix the prices of
containerboard from mid-2005 to the present. Plaintiffs in the
state court action seek certification of a class of Tennessee
indirect purchasers of containerboard products, damages and costs,
including attorneys' fees.

The Company disputes the allegations made and is vigorously
defending each action. "However, because the federal action is in
the discovery stage and the Tennessee action is in a preliminary
stage, we are unable to predict an outcome or estimate a range of
reasonably possible loss," the Company said.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Reaches Agreement to Settle U.S. Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the U.S. cases
alleging civil violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act against
Temple-Inland and a number of other gypsum manufacturers for an
immaterial amount.

Beginning in late December 2012, certain purchasers of gypsum
board filed a number of purported class action complaints alleging
civil violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act against Temple-
Inland and a number of other gypsum manufacturers. The complaints
were similar and alleged that the gypsum manufacturers conspired
or otherwise reached agreements to: (1) raise prices of gypsum
board either from 2008 or 2011 through the present; (2) avoid
price erosion by ceasing the practice of issuing job quotes; and
(3) restrict supply through downtime and limiting order
fulfillment. The alleged classes are all persons who purchased
gypsum board and/or gypsum finishing products directly or
indirectly from any defendant. The complainants seek to recover
unspecified treble actual damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of
the purported classes.

On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered transfer of all pending cases to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and
consolidated pretrial proceedings, and the direct purchaser
plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their
respective amended consolidated complaints in June 2013. The
amended consolidated complaints allege a conspiracy or agreement
beginning in or before September 2011.

In October 2014, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the U.S. cases for an immaterial amount. This settlement in
principle is subject to negotiation and execution of a definitive
settlement agreement, which would then be subject to court
approval.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Canadian Cases in Preliminary Stage
--------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in
September 2013, similar purported class actions were filed in
courts in Quebec, Canada and Ontario, Canada, with each suit
alleging violations of the Canadian Competition Act and seeking
damages and injunctive relief. The Company intends to dispute the
allegations made and to vigorously defend the litigation.

"Because these Canadian cases are in a preliminary stage, we are
unable to predict an outcome or estimate our maximum reasonably
possible loss. However, we do not believe that any material loss
is probable," the Company said.


INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Gets $3.8MM From Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Textile Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company received $3.8 million of cash from the settlement of a
class action lawsuit for use by the Company to pay fees and
expenses of various legal and other advisors in connection with
the Consolidated Action.

The Company was a party, as a nominal defendant only, to a
consolidated class action lawsuit and related derivative action
(together, the "Consolidated Action"), which consolidated three
factually identical lawsuits filed in 2008 and 2009 under the
caption In re International Textile Group, Inc. Merger Litigation,
in the Court of Common Pleas, Greenville County, South Carolina
(the "Court"), C.A. No. 2009-CP-23-3346. The Consolidated Action
related to the combination of the Company, which at the time was
named Safety Components International, Inc., and a company
formerly known as International Textile Group, Inc. ("Former
ITG"), which occurred in late 2006 (the "Merger"). The
Consolidated Action named as defendants, among others, certain
individuals who were officers and directors, and certain
stockholders, of Former ITG or the Company at the time of, and an
entity which was an independent financial advisor to the Company
in connection with, the Merger (the "Non-Company Defendants"). The
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Class Action contended that certain
of the Non-Company Defendants breached certain fiduciary duties,
and have also made related claims, in connection with the Merger.

The Company, as a nominal defendant, the plaintiffs and the Non-
Company Defendants entered into a Stipulation and Settlement
Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") relating to the
Consolidated Action, which was approved by the Court on August 29,
2014 and is no longer subject to appeal. Pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement, and in settlement of the Consolidated
Action, (i) certain of the Non-Company Defendants made an
aggregate $36.0 million cash payment (the "Cash Settlement"),
consisting of a $16.0 million cash payment from the independent
financial advisor and its insurers and a $20.0 million cash
payment from other Non-Company Defendants and their insurers, (ii)
$21.9 million in principal and accrued interest of the Company's
senior subordinated notes held by certain affiliates of the
Company (the "Affiliates"), (which are designated as "senior
subordinated notes -- related party" on the Company's balance
sheets and had a maturity date of June 6, 2015), were cancelled,
together with all additional interest that accrued on such notes
from December 31, 2013 through August 29, 2014 (collectively, the
"Cancelled Notes"), and (iii) 10,315,727 shares of the Company's
Series A Preferred Stock, having a liquidation value of $257.9
million as of December 31, 2013, and 11,488 shares of the
Company's Series C Preferred Stock, having a liquidation value of
$11.5 million as of December 31, 2013, in each case together with
additional shares of Series A Preferred Stock and Series C
Preferred Stock that accrued in arrears with respect to such
shares through August 29, 2014 (collectively, the "Cancelled
Preferred Stock"), all of which are held by the Affiliates, were
cancelled.

As a result of the approval by the Court of the Settlement
Agreement, the Cancelled Notes and the Cancelled Preferred Stock
were cancelled, and the Company's respective obligations, and the
Affiliates' respective rights, thereunder were terminated,
effective as of December 31, 2013. Such cancellations reduced the
Company's long-term debt and stockholders' deficit by the amount
of the Cancelled Notes, and reduced the aggregate liquidation
value of the Series A Preferred Stock and the Series C Preferred
Stock by the respective values of the Cancelled Preferred Stock.
During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, the
Company reversed $1.4 million of PIK interest expense that had
been recorded through the six months ended June 30, 2014 related
to the Cancelled Notes. In accordance with the Settlement
Agreement, the Company received $3.8 million of cash from the Cash
Settlement for use by the Company to pay fees and expenses of
various legal and other advisors in connection with the
Consolidated Action. Such amount was received on October 20, 2014,
and was recorded as a sundry receivable on the Company's September
30, 2014 consolidated balance sheet and included in "Other income
(expense) - net" in its consolidated statements of operations for
the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Rappuchi" Case Remanded to Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ninety-four individual Plaintiffs filed a complaint on February
13, 2014, in state court against Defendants Johnson & Johnson,
Ethicon, Inc., Ethicon, LLC, and Does 1 through 500, inclusive.
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs suffered a variety of
injuries from the surgical implantation of pelvic mesh devices
designed, tested, manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed by
Defendants.  On October 3, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay
this case, pending disposition of the Ninth Circuit's en banc
proceedings in Romo v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 13-
56310.  On October 17, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand
this case to state court, contending that removal pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act is improper.

District Judge Jesus G. Bernal, in an order dated November 13,
2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/D71Zktfrom
Leagle.com, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, denied as
moot Defendants' Motion to Stay, and remanded this action to the
Los Angeles County Superior Court, saying the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction and must remand the case to California
Superior Court.

The case is Violet Rappuchi, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al.,
NO. CV 14-7392 JGB (SPX), (C.D. Cal.)


KIMBALL INTERNATIONAL: Has $5.0 Million From Settlement Proceeds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimball International, Inc. announced net sales of $348.2 million
and net income of $8.0 million, or $0.21 per Class B diluted
share, for the first quarter of fiscal year 2015 which ended
September 30, 2014.  Excluding incremental after-tax costs related
to the spin-off of the Company's EMS segment of $1.5 million
($0.04 per Class B diluted share), the adjusted net income for the
first quarter of fiscal year 2015 was $9.5 million, or $0.25 per
Class B diluted share.

Kimball said Other General Income in the first quarter of fiscal
year 2014 included $5.0 million of pre-tax income resulting from
settlement proceeds related to two antitrust class action lawsuits
of which the Company was a class member. The class actions alleged
that certain EMS segment suppliers illegally conspired over a
number of years to raise and fix the prices of electronic
components, resulting in overcharges to purchasers of those
components several years ago.

Kimball International, Inc. is a manufacturer of design driven,
technology savvy, high quality furnishings sold under the
Company's family of brands, National Office Furniture, Kimball
Office and Kimball Hospitality.


KY MANI: Faces "Luo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Lizen Luo a/k/a Lily Luo, Ping Yu a/k/a Cindy Yu, individually and
on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. Ky Mani
Pedi Inc., d/b/a Bellissimo Nails & Spa, Youn Kang, John Does and
Jane Does # 1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-09129 (S.D.N.Y., November 17,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a spa, beauty and personal care
salon.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LA REVISE: "Romero" Suit Settlement Gets Mag. Judge's Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Romero sued La Revise Associates, LLC d/b/a Brasserie
Ruhlmann, Jean Denoyer, and Regis Marnier for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq. (FLSA),
and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). Plaintiff commenced the action
as an FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and a
putative class action as to the NYLL claims under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Romero seeks an order certifying the settlement class; approving
the class action settlement; approving the FLSA settlement; and
awarding a service award to named plaintiff Romero, attorneys'
fees and costs to class counsel, and fees to the claims
administrator.

According to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein's November 12,
2014 opinion & order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/6DCSoAfrom Leagle.com, the plaintiff's motion for
final certification of the settlement class, for approval of the
class action settlement, and for approval of the FLSA collective
action is granted. Plaintiff's motion for a class representative
service award is granted in the amount of $5,000. Plaintiff's
motion for attorneys' fees for class counsel Lee is granted in the
amount of $83,333, to be paid from the settlement fund.
Plaintiff's motion for an award of reimbursement of expenses is
granted in the amount of $4, 185 and his motion to approve the
payment of $25,000 in administration fees to Advanced Litigation
Strategies, LLC is also granted. Finally, the late opt-out of
Svjetlana Blagojevic is accepted, and she is excluded from the
settlement along with the individuals who timely opted out.

"This Opinion and Order shall constitute the 'Final Approval
Order' of the Settlement Agreement under paragraph 1.12 of the
Settlement Agreement. The parties shall proceed with the
administration of the settlement in accordance with the terms of
the Settlement Agreement. The Court retains jurisdiction over this
action for the purpose of enforcing the Settlement Agreement and
all other court orders relevant to effectuating the terms of the
settlement and the distribution of settlement funds," ruled
Magistrate Judge Gorenstein.

The case is dismissed with prejudice and the Court directed the
Clerk to enter judgment and to close the case captioned RUBEN
ROMERO, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the
Class, Plaintiff, v. LA REVISE ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. et al.,
Defendants, NO. 12 CIV. 8324 (GWG), (S.D. N.Y.).

Ruben Romero, Plaintiff, represented by:

   Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Telephone: (212) 465-1180
   Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

Vianey Rojas Mejia, Plaintiff, represented by C.K. Lee, Lee
Litigation Group, PLLC.

Charlotte Denoyer, Plaintiff, represented by C.K. Lee, Lee
Litigation Group, PLLC.

Hyeyoung Jun, Plaintiff, represented by C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation
Group, PLLC.

Emilie Jean, Plaintiff, represented by C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation
Group, PLLC.

Luis Filpo, Plaintiff, represented by C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation
Group, PLLC.

Svjetlana Blagojevic, Plaintiff, represented by C.K. Lee, Lee
Litigation Group, PLLC.

La Revise Associates, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Dean
Lawrence Silverberg -- DSilverberg@ebglaw.com -- Epstein, Becker &
Green, P.C. & Kenneth Welch DiGia -- kdigia@ebglaw.com -- Epstein,
Becker & Green, P.C.

Jean Denoyer, Defendant, represented by Dean Lawrence Silverberg,
Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C. & Kenneth Welch DiGia, Epstein,
Becker & Green, P.C.

Regis Marnier, Defendant, represented by Dean Lawrence Silverberg,
Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C. & Kenneth Welch DiGia, Epstein,
Becker & Green, P.C.


LANNETT COMPANY: "Schaefer" Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that David Schaefer, as
an alleged class representative, filed on August 27, 2014, a class
action complaint in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (14-cv-05008) against the Company and
certain of its officers, alleging violations of federal securities
laws arising out of statements about the Company made in its
securities filings during the period of September 10, 2013 through
July 16, 2014.  The complaint alleges that the statements were
false and misleading because the defendants allegedly knew at the
time the statements were made that the Company was in violation of
Connecticut antitrust laws relating to its sale of digoxin.  Mr.
Schaefer's complaint was voluntarily dismissed in September 2014.

Lannett Company, Inc. and subsidiaries develop, manufacture,
package, market, and distribute solid oral (tablets and capsules),
extended release, topical, and oral solution finished dosage forms
of drugs, that address a wide range of therapeutic areas.  The
Company also manufactures active pharmaceutical ingredients
through its Cody Laboratories, Inc. ("Cody Labs") subsidiary,
providing a vertical integration benefit.  Additionally, the
Company distributes products under various distribution
agreements, most notably the Jerome Stevens Distribution
Agreement.


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leucadia National Corporation said in a Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, that
the Company agreed to settle shareholder class actions relating to
the March 1, 2013 transaction through which Jefferies Group LLC
became the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary. The terms of the
settlement agreement as set forth below are subject to court
approval.

Seven class action lawsuits had been filed in New York and
Delaware on behalf of a class consisting of Jefferies Group's
stockholders concerning the transaction. The class actions named
as defendants Leucadia National Corporation, Jefferies Group,
certain members of the board of directors of Jefferies Group,
certain members of our board of directors and, in certain of the
actions, certain merger-related subsidiaries.

"On October 31, 2014, we and the remaining defendants in the
Delaware litigation entered into a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs in the Delaware litigation. The terms of that
agreement, which are subject to court approval, provide for an
aggregate payment of $70 million to certain former stockholders of
Jefferies Group, other than the defendants and certain of their
affiliates, along with attorneys' fees to be determined and
approved by the court. The agreement further provides that the
settlement will be paid, at our option, in either cash or our
common shares. If approved by the court, the settlement will
resolve all of the class-action claims in Delaware, and release
the claims brought in New York," the Company said.

"While we and the other defendants continue to deny each of the
plaintiffs' claims and deny any liability, we agreed to the
settlement solely to resolve the disputes, to avoid the costs and
risks of further litigation and to avoid further distractions to
our management."


LIN'S RESTAURANT: Does Not Pay Employees Properly, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Howell v. Lin's Restaurant, Inc., Amarillo Hayashi Realty,
LLC, Zheng Fa Zhong a/k/a Guo Chen, and Jennifer Lin, Case No.
2:14-cv-00236 (N.D. Tex., November 17, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wage at the rates
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
      Rachael Victoria Rustmann, Esq.
      THE YOUNG LAW FIRM
      1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
      Amarillo, TX 79101
      Telephone: (806) 331-1800
      E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com
              rachael@youngfirm.com


M&T BANK: Wilmington Trust Case Proceeding With Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------
The case In Re Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation (U.S.
District Court, District of Delaware, Case No. 10-CV-0990-SLR) is
now proceeding with discovery, M&T Bank Corporation said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

Wilmington Trust Corporation is a subsidiary of M&T.

Beginning on November 18, 2010, a series of parties, purporting to
be class representatives, commenced a putative class action
lawsuit against Wilmington Trust, alleging that Wilmington Trust's
financial reporting and securities filings were in violation of
securities laws. The cases were consolidated and Wilmington Trust
moved to dismiss. On March 29, 2012, the Court granted Wilmington
Trust's motion to dismiss in its entirety, but allowed plaintiffs
to re-file their Complaint. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a
Second, Third and Fourth Amended Complaint. Wilmington Trust moved
to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint on July 17, 2013. The
Court issued an order denying Wilmington Trust's motion to dismiss
on March 20, 2014. The case is now proceeding with discovery.


MARIANI LANDSCAPE: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Murillo, Jorge Rios Ruiz, and Luis Guillermo Trujillo, on
behalf of themselves, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated,
known and unknown v. Mariani Landscape, Mariani Enterprises, Inc.,
and Frank Mariani, Case No. 1:14-cv-09217(N.D. Ill., November 17,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Mariani Landscape and Mariani Enterprises, Inc. provide
landscaping, maintenance, and snowplowing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan Vanleuwen, Esq.
      FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
      33 N. State Street, Suite 900
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 853-1450
      Facsimile: (312) 853-1459
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org

         - and -

      Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq.
      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      120 S. State Street, Suite 400
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 513-9555
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com
              jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


MISSION BAY: Summary Judgment Bid in Ex-Worker's Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston denied defendants' motion for summary
judgment in the case captioned HORACIO DE VEYRA PALANA,
individually, and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. MISSION BAY INC. and PRINT IT HERE AND
COPY, INC., Defendants, NO. C 13-05235 SI, (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Horacio de Veyra Palana is a former employee of
defendants, Mission Bay Inc. and Print it Here and Copy, Inc.
According to the plaintiff, defendants failed to compensate their
employees at the overtime rate for overtime hours and failed to
provide employees meal and rest breaks, all in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California's Labor Code and
California's Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq.
Plaintiff also alleges defendants violated California Labor Code
sections 203 and 226, by failing to pay employees the amount due
to them and failing to provide accurate wage stubs.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action on November 12, 2013.
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, which motion the Court
denied on March 14, 2014. Defendants then moved for summary
judgment.

According to Judge Illston's November 11, 2014 Order, the Court
denies defendants' motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff's
claims for failure to compensate their employees for overtime and
meal and rest breaks in violation of the FLSA, California Labor
Code, and California Business & Professions Code.  A copy of the
ruling is available at http://is.gd/0U7zpffrom Leagle.com.

Horacio De Veyra Palana, Plaintiff, represented by Phung Hoang
Truong -- phung@jawlawgroup.com -- Justice at Work Law Group,
Tomas Eduardo Margain -- Tomas@jawlawgroup.com -- CASA Legal & Huy
Ngoc Tran -- Huy@JAWLawGroup.com -- Justice at Work Law Group.

Mission Bay Inc., Defendant, represented by Reyna Elena Macias --
rmacias@wfbm.com -- Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins, McCall & Scott A.
Freedman -- sfreedman@wfbm.com -- Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins &
McCall LLP.

Print It Here And Copy, Inc., Defendant, represented by Reyna
Elena Macias, Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins, McCall & Scott A.
Freedman, Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins & McCall LLP.


MONTGOMERY, AL: Court Enters Injunctive Relief in Mitchell Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Myron H. Thompson entered judgment granting final
declaratory and injunctive relief in the case captioned SHARNALLE
MITCHELL, LORENZO BROWN, TITO WILLIAMS, COURTNEY TUBBS, TEQUILA
BALLARD, WILLIE WILLIAMS, THOMAS ELLIS, GAVIN BULLOCK, KENDRICK
MAULL, TAMARA TUDLEY, JERMAINE TYLER, JANET EDWARDS, RISKO
McDANIEL, DEMETRI COLVIN, CARL WILLIAMS, and RAYSHONE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY, HONORABLE LES HAYES, III,
HONORABLE MILTON WESTRY, HONORABLE DARRON HENDLEY, and HONORABLE
LLORIA JAMES, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14CV186-MHT (WO),
(M.D. Ala.).

Judge Thompson's November 17, 2014 judgment, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/F4zS1nfrom Leagle.com, provides that:

(1) The parties' joint motion for entry of final declaratory and
injunctive relief is granted.

(2) The parties to the agreement to settle declaratory and
injunctive claims are to comply with its terms for the periods set
out therein.

(3) The plaintiffs' request for declaratory and injunctive relief
is resolved in full subject only to the further jurisdiction of
the court to enforce the settlement agreement for the periods set
out therein.

(4) The plaintiffs are to notify the court of any material
breaches of the settlement agreement after making full attempts to
resolve the dispute with the parties as set out in the settlement
agreement.

The clerk of the court was directed to enter this document on the
civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

"This case is not closed," Judge Thompson clarified.

Robert D. Segall, Shannon L. Holliday, Attorney for Presiding
Judge Les Hayesr III, Judge Darron Hendley, Judge Lloria James,
and Judge Milton Westry, in their Official, Capacities, and
Defendant City of Montgomery.

Alec Karakatsanis, Matthew Swerdlin, Joseph Mitchell McGuire,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Property Repair Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Hopping and Carolyn Hopping, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Nationwide Mutual Fire
Insurance Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-00140 (E.D. Ark., November 17,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay the
full cost of the labor necessary to repair or replace Plaintiffs'
and the other Class Members' damaged property in the actual cash
value payment.

Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company is a foreign insurance
corporation conducting business in the State of Arkansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tom Thompson, Esq.
      Casey Castleberry, Esq.
      MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD, SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY
      1141 East Main Street, Suite 300, PO Box 2595
      Batesville, AR 72503-2595
      Telephone: (870) 793-3821
      Facsimile: (870) 793-3815
      E-mail: aftomt200l@yahoo.com
              caseycastleberry2003@yahoo.com

         - and -

      Stephen Engstrom, Esq.
      STEPHEN ENGSTROM LAW OFFICE
      200 River Market A venue, Suite 600, PO Box 71
      Little Rock, AR 72203
      Telephone: (501) 375-6453
      Facsimile: (501) 375-5914
      E-mail: stephen@wecc-law.com

         - and -

      Jason E. Roselius, Esq.
      MATTINGLY & ROSELIUS, PLLC
      13190 N. MacArthur Blvd.
      Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73142
      Telephone: (405) 603-2222
      Facsimile: (405) 603-2250
      E-mail: jason@mroklaw.com

         - and -

      Richard E. Norman, Esq.
      R. Martin Weber, Esq.
      CROWLEY NORMAN, LLP
      Three Riverway, Suite 1775
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 651-1771
      Facsimile: (713) 651-1775
      E-mail: rnorman@crowleynorman.com
              mweber@crowleynorman.com

         - and -

      Matthew L. Mustokoff, Esq.
      Richard A. Russo Jr., Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Telephone: (610) 667-7706
      Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
      E-mail: mmustakoff@ktmc.com
              rrusso@ktmc.com


NATURE'S BOUNTY: Wins Dismissal of "Mazzeo" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY MAZZEO, Plaintiff, v. NATURE'S BOUNTY, INC., Defendant,
CASE NO. 14-60580-CIV-BLOOM/VALLE, (S.D. Fla.) is before the Court
on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
for Failure to State a Claim and for Lack of Jurisdiction,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

The Plaintiff filed this class action on March 5, 2014, alleging
that Defendant sells a variety of supplements that make false and
misleading claims that are likely to deceive reasonable consumers.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant misrepresents the true nature
and/or benefits of its "Flush Free Niacin," including because the
label states that the Flush Free Niacin "promotes heart health."

On November 10, 2014, District Judge Beth Bloom granted the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  Count II (Breach of Express
Warranty) is dismissed with prejudice.  All remaining counts are
dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiff is granted leave to
amend these claims.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/k68wz0from
Leagle.com.

Anthony Mazzeo, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Harris Eggnatz --
JEggnatz@EggnatzLaw.com -- The Eggnatz Law Firm, P.A., Michael
James Pascucci -- MPascucci@EggnatzLaw.com -- The Eggnatz Law Firm
& Howard Weil Rubinstein -- howardr@pdq.net -- The Law Offices of
Howard W. Rubinstein, P.A..

Nature's Bounty, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian Michael
Ercole -- bercole@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis, Bockius &
Christopher J. M. Collings -- ccollings@morganlewis.com -- Morgan
Lewis & Bockius.


NEW WHEY: Sued Over Deceptive Labeling of Whey Nutrition Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Daley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. New Whey Nutrition, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-14199 (D.
Mass., November 18, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's deceptive
and misleading labeling of its New Whey Nutrition Multi-Pro Whey.

New Whey Nutrition, LLC develops and supplies health and fitness
drinks throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Erica C. Mirabella, Esq.
      MIRABELLA LAW
      132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 580-8270
      Facsimile: (617) 583-1905
      E-mail: erica@mirabellaLLC.com

         - and -

      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

         - and -

      Nick Suciu III, Esq.
      BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
      434 West Alexandrine #101
      Detroit, MI 48201
      Telephone: (313) 303-3472
      E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

         - and -

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS, LLP
      1515 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 564-1300
      Facsimile: (215) 851


NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Sued for Overcharging Electric Bill
---------------------------------------------------------
Paul T. Edwards, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. North American Power and Gas, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-
01714 (D. Conn., November 18, 2014), alleges that the Defendant
engaged in an unfair and deceptive scheme of charging residential
consumers an extraordinarily high premium rate for electricity
regardless of fluctuations in the underlying market price.

North American Power and Gas, LLC provides electricity supply
services within the State of Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert A. Izard Jr., Esq.
      IZARD NOBEL, LLP-CT
      29 South Main Street, Suite 305
      West Hartford, CT 06107
      Telephone: (860) 493-6295
      Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
      E-mail: rizard@izardnobel.com


OS RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Batista" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Batista, on his own behalf and on behalf similarly situated
v. OS Restaurant Services, LLC d/b/a Carrabba's Italian Grill, a
Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 8:14-cv-02874 (M.D.
Fla., November 18, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

OS Restaurant Services, LLC owns and operates an Italian
restaurant chain throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Ste 1600, 20 N Orange Ave, PO Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 425-8171
      E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


PDC ENERGY: Oral Settlement Agreement Reached in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
PDC Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company and
plaintiffs' counsel in the class action regarding 2010 and 2011
partnership purchases reached an oral settlement agreement.

In December 2011, the Company and its wholly-owned merger
subsidiary were served with an alleged class action on behalf of
unit holders of 12 former limited partnerships, related to its
repurchase of the 12 partnerships, which were formed beginning in
late 2002 through 2005. The mergers were completed in 2010 and
2011. The action was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California and is titled Schulein v. Petroleum
Development Corp. The complaint primarily alleges that the
disclosures in the proxy statements issued in connection with the
mergers were inadequate, and a state law breach of fiduciary duty.
In January 2014, the plaintiffs were certified as a class by the
court.

In October 2014, the Company and plaintiffs' counsel reached an
oral settlement agreement, subject to the contingencies noted
below. Under this agreement the plaintiffs would receive a cash
payment of $37.5 million, of which PDC would pay $31.5 million and
insurers would pay $6 million directly to the plaintiffs. This
all-cash settlement agreement is a different structure than the
initial agreement in principle, which was structured as part up-
front cash and part interests in future wells. The proposed all-
cash settlement remains subject to the satisfaction of various
conditions, including but not limited to the following: execution
of a written settlement agreement; preliminary approval by the
court; payments to plaintiffs by the Company's insurance carriers;
and final court approval following notice to members of the class.
As a result, the Company accrued an additional $7.4 million of
expense during the quarter ended September 30, 2014, which is
included in general and administrative expense in the condensed
consolidated statement of operations. As of September 30, 2014,
the Company has accrued a total liability of $31.5 million related
to this litigation, which is our best estimate of the amount
required to settle the case. The liability is included in other
accrued expenses in the condensed consolidated balance sheet.

Under this settlement agreement, the class action would be
dismissed with prejudice and all claims would be released. If the
matter proceeds to trial, the plaintiffs have indicated that they
will seek damages of approximately $175 million, plus pre-judgment
interest. In such event, we continue to believe we would have good
defenses to both the asserted claims and plaintiffs' damage
calculations.

PDC Energy, Inc. is a domestic independent exploration and
production company that produces, develops, acquires and explores
for crude oil, natural gas and NGLs with primary operations in the
Wattenberg Field in Colorado, the Utica Shale in southeastern Ohio
and, until the fourth quarter of 2014, the Marcellus Shale in
northern West Virginia.


PFIZER INC: Plaintiffs in Celebrex and Bextra Case File Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 28, 2014, that the plaintiffs in the class
action over Celebrex and Bextra appealed a district court's
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Beginning in late 2004, several purported class actions were filed
in federal and state courts alleging that Pfizer and certain
current and former officers of Pfizer violated federal securities
laws by misrepresenting the safety of Celebrex and Bextra. In June
2005, the federal actions were transferred for consolidated pre-
trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Pfizer
Inc. Securities, Derivative and "ERISA" Litigation MDL-1688) in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In
March 2012, the court in the Multi-District Litigation certified a
class consisting of all persons who purchased or acquired Pfizer
stock between October 31, 2000 and October 19, 2005. In May 2014,
the court in the Multi-District Litigation granted Pfizer's motion
to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' loss causation and
damages expert.  The Company subsequently filed a motion for
summary judgment seeking dismissal of the litigation, and the
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to submit an amended report by
their expert. In July 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for leave to submit an amended report, and granted the
Company's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs'
claims in their entirety. In August 2014, the plaintiffs appealed
the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.


PFIZER INC: Bids to Dismiss Effexor XR End-Payor Claims Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 28, 2014, that motions to dismiss
claims of the end-payor plaintiffs relating to Effexor XR remain
pending.

Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions,
were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain
of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants
relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation
of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to
represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its
territories who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic
Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14, 2008 until the
time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased. The
plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of
generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation
of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the
antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain
states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and
improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR, enforcing
certain patents for Effexor XR, and entering into a litigation
settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer with respect
to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for
itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the putative
class in the purported class actions) for alleged price
overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and
its territories since June 14, 2008. All of these actions have
been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

On October 7, 2014, the court dismissed the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement,
but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff
claims. The direct purchaser plaintiffs moved for reconsideration
and for leave to amend their complaint and are also seeking to
appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit. Motions to dismiss the claims of the end-payor
plaintiffs remain pending.


PFIZER INC: To Resolve Consumer Actions Related to Neurontin
------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 28, 2014, that the Company is in the
process of seeking to resolve the pending consumer actions related
to Neurontin, including the purported statewide consumer class
actions in California and Illinois.

A number of lawsuits, including purported class actions, have been
filed against the Company in various federal and state courts
alleging claims arising from the promotion and sale of Neurontin.
The plaintiffs in the purported class actions seek to represent
nationwide and certain statewide classes consisting of persons,
including individuals, health insurers, employee benefit plans and
other third-party payers, who purchased or reimbursed patients for
the purchase of Neurontin that allegedly was used for indications
other than those included in the product labeling approved by the
FDA. In 2004, many of the suits pending in federal courts,
including individual actions as well as purported class actions,
were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a
Multi-District Litigation (In re Neurontin Marketing, Sales
Practices and Product Liability Litigation MDL-1629) in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

In the Multi-District Litigation, the District Court (i) denied
the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class of
all individual consumers and third-party payers who allegedly
purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Neurontin for
off-label uses from 1994 through 2004, and (ii) dismissed actions
by certain proposed class representatives for third-party payers
and for individual consumers. In April 2013, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the decision of the
District Court dismissing the action by the third-party payer
proposed class representatives and remanded that action to the
District Court for further consideration, including
reconsideration of class certification.

In December 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Company's
petition for certiorari seeking review of the First Circuit's
decision reversing the dismissal of the third-party payer
purported class action. In April 2014, the Company and the
attorneys for the proposed class representatives and for the
plaintiffs in various individual actions entered into an
agreement-in-principle to settle the third-party payer purported
class action, subject to court approval, as well as the pending
individual actions by third-party payers, for an aggregate of $325
million. As part of that settlement, the Company also is in the
process of seeking to resolve the pending consumer actions related
to Neurontin, including the purported statewide consumer class
actions in California and Illinois.


PFIZER INC: District Court Dismisses Remaining Lipitor MDL Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 28, 2014, that the District Court has
dismissed the remaining MDL claims related to Lipitor.

Beginning in November 2011, purported class actions relating to
Lipitor were filed in various federal courts against Pfizer,
certain affiliates of Pfizer, and, in most of the actions,
Ranbaxy, among others. The plaintiffs in these various actions
seek to represent nationwide, multi-state or statewide classes
consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased,
indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of
Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) from any
of the defendants from March 2010 until the cessation of the
defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct (the Class Period). The
plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Lipitor, in
violation of federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust,
consumer protection and various other laws, resulting from (i) the
2008 agreement pursuant to which Pfizer and Ranbaxy settled
certain patent litigation involving Lipitor, and Pfizer granted
Ranbaxy a license to sell a generic version of Lipitor in various
markets beginning on varying dates, and (ii) in certain of the
actions, the procurement and/or enforcement of certain patents for
Lipitor. Each of the actions seeks, among other things, treble
damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged price
overcharges for Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic
Lipitor) during the Class Period.

In addition, individual actions have been filed against Pfizer,
Ranbaxy and certain of their affiliates, among others, that assert
claims and seek relief for the plaintiffs that are substantially
similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the
purported class actions. These various actions have been
consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District
Litigation (In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation MDL-2332) in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In September 2014, the District Court dismissed the claims by
direct purchasers. In October 2014, the direct purchaser
plaintiffs: (i) filed a motion to amend the judgment and for leave
to amend their complaint and (ii) appealed the District Court's
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. In October and November 2014, the District Court
dismissed the remaining MDL claims.

Also, in January 2013, the State of West Virginia filed an action
in West Virginia state court against Pfizer and Ranbaxy, among
others, that asserts claims and seeks relief on behalf of the
State of West Virginia and residents of that state that are
substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought
in the purported class actions.


PFIZER INC: Suit by Plaintiffs With Diabetes Consolidated in MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 28, 2014, that a number of individual and
multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against the Company in
various federal and state courts alleging that the plaintiffs
developed type 2 diabetes as the result of the purported ingestion
of Lipitor. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. In
February 2014, the federal actions were transferred for
consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation
(In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices
and Products Liability Litigation (No. II) MDL-2502) in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina.


PFIZER INC: Actions in Quebec, Alberta & British Columbia Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 28, 2014, that beginning in December 2008,
purported class actions were filed against Pfizer in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice (Toronto Region), the Superior Court of
Quebec (District of Montreal), the Court of Queen's Bench of
Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary, and the Superior Court of
British Columbia (Vancouver Registry) on behalf of all individuals
and third-party payers in Canada who have purchased and ingested
Champix or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Champix. Each
of these actions asserts claims under Canadian product liability
law, including with respect to the safety and efficacy of Champix,
and, on behalf of the putative class, seeks monetary relief,
including punitive damages. In June 2012, the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice certified the Ontario proceeding as a class
action, defining the class as consisting of the following: (i) all
persons in Canada who ingested Champix during the period from
April 2, 2007 to May 31, 2010 and who experienced at least one of
a number of specified neuropsychiatric adverse events; (ii) all
persons who are entitled to assert claims in respect of Champix
pursuant to Canadian legislation as the result of their
relationship with a class member; and (iii) all health insurers
who are entitled to assert claims in respect of Champix pursuant
to Canadian legislation. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice
certified the class against Pfizer Canada Inc. only and ruled that
the action against Pfizer Inc. should be stayed until after the
trial of the issues that are common to the class members. The
actions in Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia have been stayed
in favor of the Ontario action, which is proceeding on a national
basis.


PFIZER INC: Faces Class Actions Relating to Celebrex
----------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 28, 2014, that from July through September
2014, purported class actions were filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Pfizer
and certain subsidiaries of Pfizer relating to Celebrex. The
plaintiffs in these various actions seek to represent U.S.
nationwide or multi-state classes consisting of persons or
entities who directly purchased from the defendants, or indirectly
purchased or reimbursed patients for some or all of the purchase
price of, Celebrex or generic Celebrex from May 31, 2014 until the
cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. The
plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Celebrex in
violation of federal antitrust laws or certain state antitrust,
consumer protection and various other laws as a result of Pfizer
fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing a patent on
Celebrex, engaging in sham litigation, and prolonging the impact
of sham litigation through settlement activity that further
delayed generic entry. Each of the actions seeks treble damages on
behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for
Celebrex since May 31, 2014.


PFIZER INC: Provides Update on Actions Relating to Reglan
---------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 28, 2014, provided updates on product liability
suits relating to Reglan.

Reglan is a pro-motility medicine for the treatment of
gastroesophageal reflux disease and diabetic gastroparesis that
was marketed by Wyeth and a predecessor company from 1979 until
the end of 2001, when Wyeth sold the product and transferred the
new drug application to another pharmaceutical company. Generic
versions of Reglan have been sold by other companies since 1985.
Pfizer, as Wyeth's parent company, and certain wholly owned
subsidiaries and limited liability companies, including Wyeth,
along with several other pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been
named as defendants in numerous actions in various federal and
state courts alleging personal injury resulting from the use of
Reglan and/or generic equivalents thereof. Plaintiffs in these
actions seek to hold the defendants, including Pfizer and its
affiliated companies, liable for a variety of personal injuries,
including movement disorders such as Tardive Dyskinesia, allegedly
resulting from the ingestion of Wyeth's product and/or products
sold by other companies. A substantial majority of the claims
involve the ingestion of generic versions of Reglan produced and
sold by other companies. Claims against Pfizer and its affiliated
companies are largely based on the novel theory of innovator
liability under which plaintiffs allege that an innovator
pharmaceutical company can be liable for injuries caused by the
ingestion of generic forms of the product produced and sold by
other companies. This theory of liability has been rejected by
more than 100 federal and state courts, applying the laws of 30
states. However, a small number of courts have adopted the theory,
including the Alabama Supreme Court in August 2014. Actions have
been filed under the laws of those jurisdictions, including
Alabama, and additional actions may be filed in the future.


PFIZER INC: Has Settlement With Opt-Out Direct Purchasers
---------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 28, 2014, that Pfizer, Warner-
Lambert and certain direct purchasers who opted out of the
certified class entered into an agreement-in-principle to settle
two Neurontin Antitrust Actions pending in the District Court of
New Jersey.

In January 2011, in a Multi-District Litigation (In re Neurontin
Antitrust Litigation MDL-1479) that consolidated four actions, the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey certified a
nationwide class consisting of wholesalers and other entities who
purchased Neurontin directly from Pfizer and Warner-Lambert during
the period from December 11, 2002 to August 31, 2008 or who
purchased generic gabapentin after it became available. The
complaints alleged that Pfizer and Warner-Lambert engaged in
anticompetitive conduct in violation of the Sherman Act. In April
2014, the parties entered into an agreement to settle this action
for $190 million. In addition, in July 2014, Pfizer, Warner-
Lambert and certain direct purchasers who opted out of the
certified class entered into an agreement-in-principle to settle
two actions pending in the District Court of New Jersey, that
assert allegations substantially similar to those in the class, on
terms not material to Pfizer.


PFIZER INC: Complaint Relating to Bapineuzumab Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 28, 2014, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's
decision to dismiss the complaint relating to Bapineuzumab and the
plaintiff's time to file a petition for certiorari requesting a
review by the U.S. Supreme Court has expired.

In June 2010, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against Pfizer, as
successor to Wyeth, and several former officers of Wyeth. The
complaint alleged that Wyeth and the individual defendants
violated federal securities laws by making or causing Wyeth to
make false and misleading statements, and by failing to disclose
or causing Wyeth to fail to disclose material information,
concerning the results of a clinical trial involving bapineuzumab,
a product in development for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.
The plaintiff sought to represent a class consisting of all
persons who purchased Wyeth securities from May 21, 2007 through
July 2008 and sought damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of
the putative class.

In February 2012, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint. In December 2012, the court granted the
plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint. In April 2013,
the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. In May 2013, the plaintiff appealed the District
Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

In June 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
affirmed the District Court's decision to dismiss the complaint.
The plaintiff's time to file a petition for certiorari requesting
a review by the U.S. Supreme Court expired in September 2014.


PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Hearing Held to Name Lead Plaintiff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing was scheduled with the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee on November 14, 2014 to
determine which shareholder should be named as Lead Plaintiff in a
class action against Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

On May 27, 2014, Cary Farrah and James H. Harrison, Jr.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the
"Farrah Case"), and on May 29, 2014, each of Paul Jason Chaney,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the
"Chaney Case"), and Jayson Dauphinee, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated (the "Dauphinee Case") (the
plaintiffs in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee
Case collectively referred to as the "Plaintiffs"), each filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee against the Company, H. Craig Dees,
Timothy C. Scott and Peter R. Culpepper (the "Defendants")
alleging violations by the Defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs in each of the Farrah Case, the
Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case allege that the Defendants are
liable for making false statements and failing to disclose adverse
facts known to them about the Company, in connection with the
Company's application to the FDA for Breakthrough Therapy
Designation ("BTD") of the Company's melanoma drug, PV-10, in the
Spring of 2014, and the FDA's subsequent denial of the Company's
application for BTD. The Company intends to defend vigorously
against all claims in these complaints. However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation and the early stage of this
litigation, the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted at this
time. Likewise, the amount of any potential loss cannot be
reasonably estimated.

On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed joint
motions in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case
to consolidate the cases and transfer them to United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. By order
dated July 16, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee entered an order consolidating the
Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case (collectively
and, as consolidated, the "Securities Litigation") and transferred
the Securities Litigation to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Since the consolidation of the three actions, certain shareholders
have filed motions seeking their appointment as the "Lead
Plaintiff" to direct the Securities Litigation. 15 U.S.C. Sec.
78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii) provides a rebuttable presumption that the
most adequate plaintiff to direct a securities class action is the
shareholder who has the largest financial interest in the relief
sought by the class.

Following the motion for appointment filed by Fawwaz Hamati, a
shareholder who allegedly suffered the greatest losses, all but
one of the other prospective Lead Plaintiffs withdrew their
request for appointment as Lead Plaintiff. However, one
prospective Lead Plaintiff, shareholder Trilokie Khemai,
challenged the appointment of Mr. Hamati as a Lead Plaintiff.
According to Mr. Khemai, the timing of Mr. Hamati's purchase of
his stock in the Company could subject him to unique defenses not
shared by the class, which would render him inadequate as the Lead
Plaintiff in the Securities Litigation. A hearing was scheduled
with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee on November 14, 2014 to determine which shareholder
should be named as Lead Plaintiff.

Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a
biopharmaceutical company whose planned principal operations is
focusing on developing minimally invasive products for the
treatment of psoriasis and other topical diseases, and certain
forms of cancer including melanoma, breast cancer, and cancers of
the liver.


RADIAN GROUP: Court Stays "White" Case Pending Riddle Case Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Radian Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania stayed the
litigation White v. PNC Financial Services Group, pending the
outcome of an appeal filed by plaintiffs in Riddle v. Bank of
America et. al.

On December 30, 2011, a putative class action under Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 titled White v. PNC Financial
Services Group was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On September 29, 2012,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On November 26, 2012,
Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims
as barred by the statute of limitations. On June 20, 2013, the
court granted Radian Guaranty's motion and dismissed plaintiffs'
claims, but granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended
complaint. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on July
5, 2013, reasserting a putative claim under RESPA on substantially
the same allegations. Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' second amended complaint on July 22, 2013. The court
denied Radian Guaranty's motion on August 18, 2014, without
prejudice to Radian Guaranty's ability to raise the statute of
limitations bar on a motion for summary judgment. On September 9,
2014, the court stayed this litigation, pending the outcome of an
appeal filed by plaintiffs in Riddle v. Bank of America et. al.
(another punitive class action under RESPA in which Radian
Guaranty is not a party).

On October 15, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued its decision in
the Riddle Case, affirming summary judgment against the plaintiffs
on the basis that their RESPA claims were barred by the statute of
limitations. With respect to each of the putative class actions,
Radian intends to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings in
light of the Court of Appeal's decision in the Riddle Case. With
respect to the putative class action cases, Radian Guaranty
believes that the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against these claims.

"We are not able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range
of loss for these matters because the proceedings are still in a
very preliminary stage and there is uncertainty as to the
likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of a
class," the Company said.

Radian is a credit enhancement company with a primary strategic
focus on domestic, residential mortgage insurance on First-lien
mortgage loans.


RADIAN GROUP: Court Stays " Menichino" Pending Riddle Case Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Radian Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania stayed the
litigation Menichino, et al. v. Citibank, N.A., et al., pending
the outcome of an appeal filed by plaintiffs in the case Riddle v.
Bank of America et. al.

On January 13, 2012, a putative class action under Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 titled Menichino, et al. v.
Citibank, N.A., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania. Radian Guaranty was not
named as a defendant in the original complaint. On December 4,
2012, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add Radian Guaranty as
an additional defendant. On February 4, 2013, Radian Guaranty
filed a motion to dismiss the claims against it as barred by the
statute of limitations. On July 19, 2013, the court granted Radian
Guaranty's motion and dismissed plaintiffs' claims, but granted
plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs
filed their second amended complaint on August 16, 2013,
reasserting a putative claim under RESPA on substantially the same
allegations. Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
second amended complaint on September 17, 2013. The court denied
Radian Guaranty's motion on February 4, 2014, without prejudice to
Radian Guaranty's ability to raise the statute of limitations bar
on a motion for summary judgment. On March 26, 2014, the court
stayed this litigation, pending the outcome of an appeal filed by
plaintiffs in the Riddle Case.

On October 15, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued its decision in
the Riddle Case, affirming summary judgment against the plaintiffs
on the basis that their RESPA claims were barred by the statute of
limitations. With respect to each of the putative class actions,
Radian intends to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings in
light of the Court of Appeal's decision in the Riddle Case. With
respect to the putative class action cases, Radian Guaranty
believes that the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against these claims.

"We are not able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range
of loss for these matters because the proceedings are still in a
very preliminary stage and there is uncertainty as to the
likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of a
class," the Company said.

Radian is a credit enhancement company with a primary strategic
focus on domestic, residential mortgage insurance on First-lien
mortgage loans.


RADIAN GROUP: Court Stays "Manners" Pending Riddle Case Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Radian Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania stayed the
litigation Manners, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank, et al., pending
the outcome of an appeal filed by plaintiffs in Riddle v. Bank of
America et. al.

On April 5, 2012, a putative class action under Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 titled Manners, et al. v. Fifth
Third Bank, et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania. On November 28, 2012, Radian
Guaranty moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims as barred by the
statute of limitations. On July 19, 2013, the court granted Radian
Guaranty's motion and dismissed plaintiffs' claims, but granted
plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs
filed their second amended complaint on August 16, 2013,
reasserting a putative claim under RESPA on substantially the same
allegations. Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
second amended complaint on September 17, 2013. The court denied
Radian Guaranty's motion on February 5, 2014, without prejudice to
Radian Guaranty's ability to raise the statute of limitations bar
on a motion for summary judgment. On March 26, 2014, the court
stayed this litigation, pending the outcome of an appeal filed by
plaintiffs in the Riddle Case.

On October 15, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued its decision in
the Riddle Case, affirming summary judgment against the plaintiffs
on the basis that their RESPA claims were barred by the statute of
limitations. With respect to each of the putative class actions,
Radian intends to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings in
light of the Court of Appeal's decision in the Riddle Case. With
respect to the putative class action cases, Radian Guaranty
believes that the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against these claims.

"We are not able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range
of loss for these matters because the proceedings are still in a
very preliminary stage and there is uncertainty as to the
likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of a
class," the Company said.

Radian is a credit enhancement company with a primary strategic
focus on domestic, residential mortgage insurance on First-lien
mortgage loans.


RICHARD J. DONOVAN: Phillips Has 45 Days to Submit Amended Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz issued an order on
November 12, 2014, in the case captioned IVORY J. PHILLIPS, CDCR
#F-90996, Plaintiff, v. GERALD JANDA; RALPH M. DIAZ; DANIEL
PARAMO; DR. JEFFREY BEARD; C. LIVSEY; R. LORIOS; C. OGBUEHI; G.
PICKETT; E. SIMON; LIEUTENANT R. RONALD DAVIS; SHEILA ANDERSEN;
DeLEON; RODRIGUEZ; PEREZ; NAVARO; and JOHN AND SALLY DOES 1-30,
Defendants, CIVIL NO. 13CV0567 BTM (JLB), (S.D. Cal.)

Ivory Phillips, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (RJD) in San Diego,
California, is proceeding in pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP) in
this civil rights action which he first initiated on March 11,
2013, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

According to Judge Moskowitz's ruling, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/7l6AFOfrom Leagle.com:

1. Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel is
denied.

2. Plaintiff's Motions to Clarify and for Leave to Submit Points &
Authorities are granted.

3. Plaintiff is further granted 45 days leave from the date the
Order is entered into the Court's docket in which to file a Fourth
Amended Complaint which cures all deficiencies of pleading
described in the Court's June 3, 2014 Order as to his retaliation
claims against Defendants Pickett, Espinoza, Perez, Rodriguez,
Navaro and Rodriguez only.

4) The Clerk of Court is directed to provide Plaintiff another
copy of the Court's June 3, 2014 Order, as well as the Court's
form Section 1983 civil rights complaint for his use in amending.
Plaintiff must title his pleading as his Fourth Amended Complaint,
include Civil Case No. 13cv0567 BTM (JLB) in its caption, complete
it without reference to any of his previous pleadings, add no
additional Defendants or causes of action, and comply with
FED.R.CIV.P. 8, S.D. CAL. CIVLR 8.2 (providing that civil rights
actions filed by prisoners must be submitted on the form supplied
by the court, must be signed by the plaintiff, and may not include
more than fifteen (15) attached additional pages), and S.D. CAL.
CIVLR 15.1.

5) Finally, Plaintiff is cautioned that should he fail to file a
Fourth Amended Complaint within the time provided, or file a
Fourth Amended Complaint that fails to state a retaliation claim
or otherwise comply with the Court's June 3, 2014 Order, the Court
will enter a final Order of dismissal of the entire action without
prejudice and without any further leave to amend as frivolous,
malicious, and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) and Section
1915A(b).

Ivory J. Phillips, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss Fully Briefed and Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company's
motion to dismiss a consolidated amended complaint is now fully
briefed and pending.

Purported class action complaints were filed against the Company
and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on January 27, 2014 and January 29,
2014. The complaints were consolidated into a single action
(Corban v. Sarepta, et. al., No. 14-cv-10201) by order of the
court on June 23, 2014, and plaintiffs were afforded 28 days to
file a consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs' consolidated
amended complaint, filed on July 21, 2014, seeks to bring claims
on behalf of themselves and persons or entities that purchased or
acquired securities of the Company between July 10, 2013 and
November 11, 2013. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that
Sarepta and certain of its officers violated the federal
securities laws in connection with disclosures related to
eteplirsen, the Company's lead therapeutic candidate for DMD, and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

Pursuant to the court's June 23, 2014 order, Sarepta filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on August 18,
2014, and the motion to dismiss is now fully briefed and pending.

Given the relatively early stages of the proceedings, at this
time, no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome of these
claims or whether the outcomes would have a material impact on the
Company.


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Derivative Case Seeks Class Suit Declaration
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a derivative
suit seeks class action declaration.

On September 23, 2014, a derivative suit was filed against the
Company's Board of Directors with the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware (Terry McDonald, derivatively on behalf of
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., et. al vs. Goolsbee et. al., No.
10157). The claims allege, among other things, that (i) the
Company's non-employee directors paid themselves excessive
compensation fees for 2013, (ii) that the compensation for the
Company's CEO was also excessive and such fees were the basis for
the CEO not objecting to or stopping the excessive fees for the
non-employee directors and (iii) that the disclosure in the 2013
proxy statement was deficient.  The relief sought, amongst others,
are disgorgement and rescindment of excessive or unfair payments
and equity grants to the CEO and directors, unspecified damages
plus interest, a class action declaration for the suit, declaring
approval of the Company's Amended and Restated 2011 Equity Plan at
the 2013 meeting ineffective and a revote for approved amendments,
correction of misleading disclosures and plaintiff's attorney
fees.

Given the relatively early stages of the proceedings, at this
time, no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome of these
claims or whether the outcomes would have a material impact on the
Company.


SOUTHSIDE BANCSHARES: Settles Litigation Over OmniAmerican Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Southside Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014 that defendants and
the plaintiff in the litigation relating to the merger with
OmniAmerican Bancorp, Inc., entered into a memorandum of
understanding agreeing in principle to settle the Litigation in
exchange for defendants' agreement to make certain supplemental
disclosures.

On June 25, 2014, a purported stockholder of OmniAmerican filed a
lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the
"Court") captioned McDougal v. OmniAmerican Bancorp, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 24-C-14-003920 ( the "Litigation"), naming OmniAmerican,
members of OmniAmerican's board of directors, Southside and Omega
Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Southside ("Merger
Sub"), as defendants. The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf
of a putative class of OmniAmerican's public stockholders and
seeks a declaration that it is properly maintainable as a class
action and a certification of the plaintiff and her counsel as
class representative and class counsel. The lawsuit asserts direct
and derivative claims against OmniAmerican's directors and alleges
that they breached their fiduciary duties and that OmniAmerican,
Southside and Merger Sub aided and abetted those alleged breaches
by, among other things, (a) failing to take steps to maximize
shareholder value for OmniAmerican public stockholders; (b)
failing to properly value OmniAmerican; (c) failing to protect
against conflicts of interest; (d) failing to disclose material
information necessary for OmniAmerican stockholders to make an
informed vote on the merger; and (e) agreeing to deal protection
devices that preclude a fair sales process. Among other relief,
the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the merger.

After filing the Litigation and engaging in certain limited
discovery, plaintiff's counsel indicated to defendants' counsel
that they believed additional disclosures should be made available
to the stockholders of OmniAmerican.

On September 12, 2014, the defendants and the plaintiff in the
Litigation entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU")
agreeing in principle to settle the Litigation in exchange for
defendants' agreement to make certain supplemental disclosures.
The MOU contemplates that the parties will prepare a definitive
stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to Court
approval. If approved by the Court, it is anticipated that the
settlement will result in a release of the defendants from any and
all claims that were or could have been asserted challenging any
aspect of or otherwise relating to the merger, the Merger
Agreement or the disclosures made in connection therewith, and
that the Litigation will be dismissed with prejudice.

Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, OmniAmerican and Southside
agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures regarding the
merger. The supplemental disclosures were contained in a Form 8-K
filed by Southside with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 16, 2014. In return, the plaintiff has
agreed to the dismissal of the Litigation with prejudice and to
withdraw and/or refrain from filing any and all motions seeking to
enjoin the merger. In addition, the MOU contemplates that the
parties will negotiate in good faith to attempt to agree upon an
amount of attorneys' fees and expenses and that plaintiff's
counsel may petition the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses, which if granted by the Court, would be paid by
OmniAmerican or its insurers or successors. Should the parties
fail to reach an agreement on attorneys' fees and expenses, the
defendants may oppose the petition for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately reach agreement on a definitive stipulation of
settlement or that the Court will approve the proposed settlement,
even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation of
settlement. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated
by the MOU may be terminated.

The settlement will not affect the consideration to be paid to
stockholders of OmniAmerican in connection with the proposed
merger.

The defendants have vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously
deny, any wrongdoing or liability with respect to the facts and
claims asserted, or which could have been asserted, in the
Litigation, including that they have committed any violations of
law or breach of fiduciary duty, aided and abetted any violations
of law or breaches of fiduciary duty, acted improperly in any way
or have any liability or owe any damages of any kind to the
plaintiff or to the purported class, and specifically deny that
any further supplemental disclosure is required under any
applicable rule, statute, regulation or law or that the
OmniAmerican directors failed to maximize stockholder value by
entering into the merger agreement with Southside and Merger Sub.

The settlement contemplated by the MOU is not, and should not be
construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any
defendant. However, to avoid the risk of delaying the merger, and
to provide additional information to the stockholders of
OmniAmerican and shareholders of Southside at a time and in a
manner that would not cause any delay of the merger, the
defendants agreed to the settlement.

The parties considered it desirable that the Litigation be settled
to avoid the substantial burden, expense, risk, inconvenience and
distraction of continued litigation and to fully and finally
resolve the Litigation.


SPARTANNASH COMPANY: Class Action Over Merger Now Closed
--------------------------------------------------------
SpartanNash Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended October 4, 2014, that the appeals period in
the class action related to the merger of Nash-Finch Company and
Spartan Stores, Inc. has expired and the matter is now closed.

On or about July 24, 2013, a putative class action complaint (the
"State Court Action") was filed in the District Court for the
Fourth Judicial District, State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin
(the "State Court"), by a stockholder of Nash-Finch Company in
connection with the pending merger with Spartan Stores, Inc. The
State Court Action was styled Greenblatt v. Nash-Finch Co. et al.,
Case No. 27-cv-13-13710. That complaint was amended on August 28,
2013, after Spartan Stores filed a registration statement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission containing a preliminary
version of the joint proxy statement/prospectus. On September 9,
2013, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the State Court
Action.

On or about September 19, 2013, a second putative class action
complaint (the "Federal Court Action" and, together with the State
Court Action, the "Putative Class Actions") was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (the
"Federal Court"), by a stockholder of Nash-Finch. The Federal
Court Action was styled Benson v. Covington et al., Case No. 0:13-
cv-02574.

The Putative Class Actions alleged that the directors of Nash-
Finch breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
approving a merger that provided for inadequate consideration
under circumstances involving certain alleged conflicts of
interest; that the merger agreement included allegedly preclusive
deal protection provisions; and that Nash-Finch and Spartan Stores
allegedly aided and abetted the directors in breaching their
duties to Nash-Finch's stockholders. Both Putative Class Actions
also alleged that the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus
was false and misleading due to the omission of a variety of
allegedly material information. The complaint in the Federal Court
Action also asserted additional claims individually on behalf of
the plaintiff under the federal securities laws. The Putative
Class Actions sought, on behalf of their putative classes, various
remedies, including enjoining the merger from being consummated in
accordance with its agreed-upon terms, damages, and costs and
disbursements relating to the lawsuit.

SpartanNash believed that these lawsuits were without merit;
however, to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties
inherent in such litigation, Nash-Finch and Spartan Stores agreed,
as part of settlement discussions, to make certain supplemental
disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus requested by
the Putative Class Actions in the definitive joint proxy
statement/prospectus.

On October 30, 2013, the defendants entered into the Memorandum of
Understanding regarding the settlement of the Putative Class
Actions. The Memorandum of Understanding outlined the terms of the
parties' agreement in principle to settle and release all claims
which were or could have been asserted in the Putative Class
Actions. In consideration for such settlement and release, Nash-
Finch and Spartan Stores acknowledged that the supplemental
disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus were made in
response to the Putative Class Actions. The Memorandum of
Understanding contemplated that the parties will use their best
efforts to agree upon, execute and present to the State Court for
approval a stipulation of settlement within thirty days after the
later of the date that the Merger is consummated or the date that
plaintiffs and their counsel have confirmed the fairness,
adequacy, and reasonableness of the settlement, and that upon
execution of such stipulation, and as a condition to final
approval of the settlement, the plaintiff in the Federal Action
would withdraw the claims in and cause to be dismissed the Federal
Action, with any individual claims being dismissed with prejudice.
The Memorandum of Understanding provided that Nash-Finch would
pay, on behalf of all defendants, the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
and expenses, subject to approval by the State Court, in an amount
not to exceed $550,000.

On February 11, 2014, the parties executed the Stipulation and
Agreement Compromise, Settlement and Release (the "Stipulation of
Settlement.") to resolve, discharge and settle the Putative Class
Actions. The Stipulation of Settlement was subject to customary
conditions, including approval by the State Court, which will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of such
settlement. On February 18, 2014, the Federal Court entered a
final order dismissing the Federal Court Action with prejudice. On
February 28, 2014, pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation of
Settlement, the plaintiffs in the State Court Action filed an
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement, conditional certification of class, and approval of
notice to be furnished to the class.

On March 7, 2014, the State Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the Settlement Stipulation, subject to a hearing,
scheduled for May 20, 2014. At the hearing on May 20, 2014, the
Settlement Stipulation was approved. On July 21, 2014, the appeals
period expired and the matter is now closed.

SpartanNash Company was formerly known as Spartan Stores, Inc.
which began doing business under the assumed name of "SpartanNash
Company," upon completion of the merger with Nash-Finch Company
("Nash-Finch") on November 19, 2013. The formal name change to
SpartanNash Company was approved and became effective after the
annual shareholders meeting on May 28, 2014.


STEALTH SECURITY: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
G. M. Sign, Inc., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Stealth
Security Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-09249 (N.D. Ill.,
November 18, 2014), seeks to redress Defendant's practice of
sending unsolicited facsimiles in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Stealth Security Systems, Inc.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ross Michael Good, Esq.
      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      ANDERSON & WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Rd, 760
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      E-mail: rgood@andersonwanca.com
              rkelly@andersonwanca.com
              buslit@andersonwanca.com


STUDIO NAILS: "Liu" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Al Ping Liu, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Studio Nails & Spa, Inc., Hartsdale Floris
Spa, and Nails Inc. d/b/as Floris Spa & Nail, Kyung Sil Ahn,
Jennifer Doe, John Does, and Jane Does #1-10, Case No. 7:14-cv-
09128 (S.D.N.Y., November 17, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a spa, beauty and personal care
salon.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Meiser" Suit Over Defective Airbags
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erin K. Meiser, Marjorie Michelle Avery, and Sonya A. (Tipton)
Leonard, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated
v. Takata Corporation, et al., 1:14-cv-00298 (W.D.N.C, November
17, 2014), alleges that the Defective Vehicles contain airbags
manufactured by the Defendant that, instead of protecting vehicle
occupants from bodily injury during accidents, violently explode
and expel vehicle occupants with lethal amounts of metal debris
and shrapnel.

Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,
and sells airbags.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary J. Rickner, Esq.
      Lynwood P. Evans, Esq.
      Caroline B. McLean, Esq.
      WARD AND SMITH, P.A.
      Post Office Box 2020
      Asheville, NC 28802-2020
      Telephone: (828) 348-6005
      Facsimile: (828) 348-6077
      E-mail: gjr@wardandsmith.com
              lpe@wardandsmith.com
              cbmclean@wardandsmith.com


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Rennie" Suit Over Defective Airbags
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Rennie and Richard Lee, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., alleges
that the Defective Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the
Defendant that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from
bodily injury during accidents, violently explode and expel
vehicle occupants with lethal amounts of metal debris and
shrapnel.

Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,
and sells airbags.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sean Domnick, Esq.
      DOMNICK LAW
      11701 Lake Victoria Gardens
      Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
      Telephone: (561) 229-0395
      Facsimile: (561) 229-0396
      E-mail: eservice@domnicklaw.com

         - and -

      W. Daniel ("Dee") Miles III, Esq.
      Archie I. Grubb II, Esq.
      Andrew Brashier, Esq.
      BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES PC
      218 Commerce Street
      Montgomery, AL 36104
      Telephone: (334) 269-2343
      Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
      E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
              archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com
              andrew.brashier@beasleyallen.com

         - and -

      Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
      Todd A. Walburg, Esq.
      Phong-Chau G. Nguyen, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
      E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
              twalburg@lchb.com
              pgnguyen@lchb.com

         - and -

      Robin L. Greenwald, Esq.
      Curt D. Marshall, Esq.
      Christopher B. Dalbey, Esq.
      WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
      700 Broadway
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 558-5500
      Facsimile: (212) 344-5461
      E-mail: rgreenwald@weitzlux.com
              cmarshall@weitzlux.com
              cdalbey@weitzlux.com


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Young" Suit Over Defective Airbags
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Young and Charles Calhoun, Sr., on behalf of themselves and
all those similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case
No. 7:14-cv-00267 (E.D.N.C., November 17, 2014), alleges that the
Defective Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant
that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury
during accidents, violently explode and expel vehicle occupants
with lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel.

Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,
and sells airbags.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      H. Scott Overholt, Esq.
      THE OVERHOLT LAW FIRM, PC
      2505 South College Road
      Wilmington, NC 28412
      Telephone: (910) 798-5900
      Facsimile: (910) 799-8496
      E-mail: Scott@Overholtlaw.com


THORATEC CORPORATION: Court Has Not Ruled on Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thoratec Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2014, that the Court has not
yet ruled on the motion to dismiss a class action complaint.

The Company said, "On January 24, 2014, we and three of our
present and former officers were named as defendants in a
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. The action, entitled Cooper v.
Thoratec Corp., Case No. 4:14-cv-00360, is a putative class action
brought on behalf of purchasers of our securities between April
29, 2010, and November 27, 2013, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
and alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act."

"On April 21, 2014, the Court appointed Bradley Cooper as Lead
Plaintiff ("Plaintiff"). On June 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed an
amended class action complaint ("Complaint"), adding a former
officer of the Company as a defendant. The Complaint alleges that
during the Class Period, Defendants made false or misleading
statements in various SEC filings, press releases, earnings calls,
and healthcare conferences regarding the Company's business and
outlook, focusing primarily on Defendants' alleged failure to
disclose that the HeartMate II Left Ventricular Assist Device had
a purported increased rate of pump thrombosis during the Class
Period. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, among other relief.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on August 19, 2014. The
Court has not yet ruled on the motion.

"Although the results of litigation are inherently uncertain,
based on the information currently available, we do not believe
the ultimate resolution of this action will have a material effect
on our financial position, liquidity or results of operations."

Thoratec Corporation develops, manufactures and markets
proprietary medical devices used for mechanical circulatory
support ("MCS") for the treatment of heart failure ("HF")
patients.


TOTAL SYSTEM: Telexfree Cases Transferred to Massachusetts Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total System Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that ProPay,
Inc. ("ProPay"), a subsidiary of the Company, has been named as
one of a number of defendants (including other merchant
processors) in several purported class action lawsuits relating to
the activities of Telexfree, Inc. and its affiliates and
principals. Telexfree is a former merchant customer of ProPay.

With regard to Telexfree, each purported class action lawsuit
generally alleges that Telexfree engaged in an improper multi-tier
marketing scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone
services. The plaintiffs in each of the purported class action
complaints generally allege that the various merchant processor
defendants, including ProPay, knowingly furthered the improper
activities of Telexfree with knowledge that Telexfree did not have
legitimate business operations. Telexfree filed for bankruptcy
protection in Nevada. The bankruptcy was subsequently transferred
to the Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court.

Specifically, ProPay has been named as one of a number of
defendants (including other merchant processors) in each of the
following purported class action complaints relating to Telexfree:
(i) Waldermara Martin, et al. v. TelexFree, Inc., et al. (Case No.
BK-S-14-12524-ABL) filed on May 3, 2014 in the United States
Bankruptcy Court District of Nevada, (ii) Anthony Cellucci, et al.
v. TelexFree, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 4:14-BK-40987) filed on May
15, 2014 in the United States Bankruptcy Court District of
Massachusetts, (iii) Maduako C. Ferguson Sr., et al. v.
Telexelectric, LLLP, et. al (Case No. 5:14-CV-00316-D) filed on
June 5, 2014 in the United States District Court of North
Carolina, (iv) Todd Cook v. TelexElectric LLLP et al. (Case No.
2:14-CV-00134), filed on June 24, 2014 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, (v) Felicia
Guevara v. James M. Merrill et al., CA No. 1:14-cv-22405-DPG),
filed on June 27, 2014 in the United State District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, and (vi) Reverend Jeremiah Githere,
et al. v. TelexElectric LLLP et al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-12825-GAO),
filed on June 30, 2014 in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (together, the "Actions"). A motion to
consolidate the Actions was filed by one of the plaintiffs.

On October 21, 2014, the Actions were transferred to and
consolidated before the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. ProPay has not yet been required to
respond to any of the complaints filed in the Actions.

After the consolidation motion was filed, an additional class
action complaint was filed on August 20, 2014, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts, Paulo
Eduardo Ferrari et al. v. Telexfree, Inc. et al. (Case No. 14-
04080). The Ferrari action was later transferred to the District
of Massachusetts. To date, ProPay has not been served with the
Ferrari complaint.

ProPay has also received various subpoenas, a seizure warrant and
other inquiries requesting information regarding Telexfree from
(i) the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Securities Division, (ii)
United States Securities and Exchange Commission, (iii) US
Immigration a(vii) Paulo Eduardo Ferrari et al. v. Telexfree, Inc.
et al. (Case No. 14-04080), filed on August 20, 2014 in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts .nd
Customs Enforcement, and (iv) the bankruptcy Trustee of the
Chapter 11 entities of Telexfree, Inc., Telexfree, LLC and
Telexfree Financial, Inc. Pursuant to the seizure warrant served
by the United States Attorney's Office for the District of
Massachusetts, ProPay delivered all funds associated with
Telexfree held for chargeback and other purposes by ProPay to US
Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In addition, ProPay received
a notice of potential claim from the bankruptcy Trustee as a
result of the relationship of ProPay with Telexfree and its
affiliates.

Through the Company's North America Services and International
Services segments, TSYS processes information through its
cardholder systems for financial and nonfinancial institutions
throughout the United States and internationally.


TRINET GROUP: Defendant in Class Actions Related to WSEs
--------------------------------------------------------
TriNet Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company has
been named as a defendant in various class action lawsuits arising
from the nature of its relationship with its worksite employees
(WSEs). Management is currently unable to estimate a possible loss
or range of loss for these class action lawsuits.

"However, at this stage of the lawsuits, management currently
believes that none of the pending legal proceedings or claims is
reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Nevertheless, regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an
adverse impact on us because of defense costs, diversion of
management resources and other factors. In addition, if one or
more of these legal matters were resolved against the Company in a
way contrary to management's expectations, our consolidated
financial statements could be materially adversely affected," the
Company said.

TriNet Group provides a comprehensive human resources solution for
small to medium-sized businesses.


TRUSTMARK CORP: Stanford-Related Lawsuits in Preliminary Stages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Trustmark's
wholly-owned subsidiary, Trustmark National Bank (TNB), has been
named as a defendant in two lawsuits related to the collapse of
the Stanford Financial Group.  Both Stanford-related lawsuits are
in their preliminary stages.

The first is a purported class action complaint that was filed on
August 23, 2009 in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, by
Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven
Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, naming TNB
and four other financial institutions unaffiliated with Trustmark
as defendants.  The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged
fraudulent transfers from each of the defendants in the amount of
fees and other monies received by each defendant from entities
controlled by R. Allen Stanford (collectively, the "Stanford
Financial Group") and (ii) damages allegedly attributable to
alleged conspiracies by one or more of the defendants with the
Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud
on the asserted grounds that defendants knew or should have known
the Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and
fraudulent scheme.  Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial.
Plaintiffs did not quantify damages.

In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.  In May 2010,
all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the
lawsuit, and the motions to dismiss have been fully briefed by all
parties.  The court has not yet ruled on TNB's motion to dismiss.

In August 2010, the court authorized and approved the formation of
an Official Stanford Investors Committee ("OSIC") to represent the
interests of Stanford investors and, under certain circumstances,
to file legal actions for the benefit of Stanford investors.  In
December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to intervene in this
action.  In September 2012, the district court referred the case
to a magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain
pretrial issues.  In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's
motion to intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint
against one of the other defendant financial institutions.

In February 2013, the OSIC filed an additional Intervenor
Complaint that asserts claims against TNB and the remaining
defendant financial institutions.  The OSIC seeks to recover: (i)
alleged fraudulent transfers in the amount of the fees each of the
defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group, the
profits each of the defendants allegedly made from Stanford
Financial Group deposits, and other monies each of the defendants
allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group; (ii) damages
attributable to alleged conspiracies by each of the defendants
with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and
abet fraud and conversion on the asserted grounds that the
defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group
was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme; and (iii)
punitive damages.  The OSIC did not quantify damages.  In July
2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the
OSIC's claims.  The court has not yet ruled on TNB's motion to
dismiss the OSIC's claims.

The second Stanford-related lawsuit was filed on December 14, 2009
in the District Court of Ascension Parish, Louisiana, individually
by Harold Jackson, Paul Blaine, Carolyn Bass Smith, Christine
Nichols, and Ronald and Ramona Hebert naming TNB (misnamed as
Trust National Bank) and other individuals and entities not
affiliated with Trustmark as defendants.  The complaint seeks to
recover the money lost by these individual plaintiffs as a result
of the collapse of  the Stanford Financial Group (in addition to
other damages) under various theories and causes of action,
including negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary
duty, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance,
conspiracy, and violation of Louisiana's uniform fiduciary,
securities, and racketeering laws.  The complaint does not
quantify the amount of money the plaintiffs seek to recover.

In January 2010, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.  On March 29,
2010, the court stayed the case.  TNB filed a motion to lift the
stay, which was denied on February 28, 2012.  In September 2012,
the district court referred the case to a magistrate judge for
hearing and determination of certain pretrial issues.

TNB's relationship with the Stanford Financial Group began as a
result of Trustmark's acquisition of a Houston-based bank in
August 2006, and consisted of correspondent banking and other
traditional banking services in the ordinary course of business.
Both Stanford-related lawsuits are in their preliminary stages and
have been previously disclosed by Trustmark.

Trustmark Corporation is a bank holding company headquartered in
Jackson, Mississippi.  Through its subsidiaries, Trustmark
operates as a financial services organization providing banking
and financial solutions to corporate institutions and individual
customers through 207 offices in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi,
Tennessee and Texas.


TRUSTMARK CORP: Settlement Administrator Begins Fund Distribution
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Trustmark's
wholly-owned subsidiary, Trustmark National Bank (TNB), was the
defendant in two putative class actions challenging TNB's
practices regarding "overdraft" or "non-sufficient funds" fees
charged by TNB in connection with customer use of debit cards,
including TNB's order of processing transactions, notices and
calculations of charges, and calculations of fees.  Both of those
cases have now been dismissed pursuant to a court-approved class
action settlement.  The period has ended in which any party could
appeal the order approving the settlement.

The settlement of $4.0 million, or $2.5 million net of taxes, was
included in other noninterest expense for the quarter ended June
30, 2013.  The Settlement Administrator has begun distributing the
settlement funds.  The settlement resolved potential claims of
more than 100,000 class members.  A total of sixteen customers
excluded themselves from the class action settlement.  None of
those customers have subsequently asserted any claim or made
demands on TNB due to overdraft or non-sufficient funds fees.

Trustmark Corporation is a bank holding company headquartered in
Jackson, Mississippi.  Through its subsidiaries, Trustmark
operates as a financial services organization providing banking
and financial solutions to corporate institutions and individual
customers through 207 offices in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi,
Tennessee and Texas.


TURCO MEDITTERANEAN: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Reyes, on behalf of himself FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class v. Turco Meditteranean Grill Inc. d/b/a Turco, John Doe
Corp. d/b/a Turco, Ala Turk Inc. d/b/a A La Turka, Suleyman Secer,
Huseyin Secer and Serpil Aktas, Case No. 1:14-cv-09184 (S.D.N.Y.,
November 18, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate three Turkish restaurants in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


U.S. BANCORP: $19MM Carrying Amount of Liability Related to Visa
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that at September 30,
2014, the carrying amount of the Company's liability related to
the Visa Litigation matters, net of its share of the escrow
fundings, was $19 million.

The Company's payment services business issues and acquires credit
and debit card transactions through the Visa U.S.A. Inc. card
association or its affiliates (collectively "Visa"). In 2007, Visa
completed a restructuring and issued shares of Visa Inc. common
stock to its financial institution members in contemplation of its
initial public offering ("IPO") completed in the first quarter of
2008 (the "Visa Reorganization"). As a part of the Visa
Reorganization, the Company received its proportionate number of
shares of Visa Inc. common stock, which were subsequently
converted to Class B shares of Visa Inc. ("Class B shares").

Visa U.S.A. Inc. ("Visa U.S.A.") and MasterCard International
(collectively, the "Card Associations") are defendants in
antitrust lawsuits challenging the practices of the Card
Associations (the "Visa Litigation"). Visa U.S.A. member banks
have a contingent obligation to indemnify Visa Inc. under the Visa
U.S.A. bylaws (which were modified at the time of the
restructuring in October 2007) for potential losses arising from
the Visa Litigation. The indemnification by the Visa U.S.A. member
banks has no specific maximum amount.

Using proceeds from its IPO and through reductions to the
conversion ratio applicable to the Class B shares held by Visa
U.S.A. member banks, Visa Inc. has funded an escrow account for
the benefit of member financial institutions to fund their
indemnification obligations associated with the Visa Litigation.
The receivable related to the escrow account is classified in
other liabilities as a direct offset to the related Visa
Litigation contingent liability.

On October 19, 2012, Visa signed a settlement agreement to resolve
class action claims associated with the multi-district interchange
litigation, the largest of the remaining Visa Litigation matters.
The settlement has been approved by the court, but has been
challenged by some class members and is being appealed.  In
addition, a number of class members opted out of the settlement
and have filed actions against the Card Associations.

At September 30, 2014, the carrying amount of the Company's
liability related to the Visa Litigation matters, net of its share
of the escrow fundings, was $19 million.

The Company sold 3.0 million and .4 million of its Class B shares
during the second and third quarters of 2014, respectively. These
sales do not impact the Company's liability for the Visa
Litigation matters or the receivable related to the escrow
account. The remaining 9.2 million Class B shares held by the
Company will be eligible for conversion to Class A shares of Visa
Inc., and thereby become marketable, upon final settlement of the
Visa Litigation.


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Scott and Scott LLP Named as Lead Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
approved Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff, and
Scott and Scott LLP as lead counsel for the plaintiff and the
putative class in the case Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Plan &
Trust v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al.

On May 28, 2014, a purported shareholder class action Local No. 8
IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals
Incorporated, et al. was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain
of the Company's current and former officers and directors as
defendants. The lawsuit alleged that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the
Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through
May 29, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The purported class consists of all persons (excluding
defendants) who purchased the Company's common stock between May
7, 2012 and May 29, 2012. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees as well as disgorgement of the
proceeds from certain individual defendants' sales of the
Company's stock.

On October 8, 2014, the Court approved Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement
Fund as lead plaintiff, and Scott and Scott LLP as lead counsel
for the plaintiff and the putative class.

The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the litigation. As of September 30, 2014, the
Company has not recorded any reserves for this purported class
action.

Vertex Pharmaceuticals is in the business of discovering,
developing, manufacturing and commercializing small molecule
drugs.


WALGREEN COMPANY: Class Cert. Denial in Overtime Case Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
In re WALGREEN COMPANY OVERTIME CASES, NO. B230191 is a class
action about meal breaks at work. Lead plaintiff Darryl Collins
charged that Walgreens violated employees' rights to meal breaks.
The trial court denied Collins's motion for class certification.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One,
on November 13, 2014, held that Collins's motion failed in the
trial court because Collins had no good proof. Collins tried to
support his motion with evidence of three kinds: an expert
opinion, emails, and declarations. This evidence was too weak to
convince the trial court.  Accoringly, the trial court evaluations
were valid and the order denying the motion for class
certification is affirmed.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/zrEaY9from
Leagle.com.

For Plaintiffs and Appellants:

     James A. Krutcik, Esq.
     A. Nicholas Georggin,
     Joo Hee Kershner, Esq.
     Carmine J. Pearl, Esq.
     KRUTCIK & GEORGGIN ATTORNEYS
     26021 Acero
     Mission Viejo, CA 92691
     Telephone: 949-367-8590
     Toll Free: 866-729-2435
     Facsimile: 949-367-8597

              and

     R. Duane Westrup, Esq.
     Phillip R. Poliner, Esq.
     WESTRUP KLICK, LLP
     444 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1614
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Toll Free: (888) 268-6884

Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Diana Tabacopoulos, Ann H. Qushair --
qushairesq@gmail.com -- and James M. Harris for Defendant and
Respondent.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. to Hear Arguments on Bid to Join Ford Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lizzy McLellan, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
when the state Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in Rost v.
Ford, it gave itself the opportunity to consider a unique rule
that requires the consolidation of asbestos-related cases in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

It is the only court in the state that requires consolidation of
asbestos cases, attorneys said, thanks to a rule established when
asbestos filings were at a peak level.

"From a defendant's standpoint, that is extremely prejudicial,"
said John J. Hare -- jjhare@mdwcg.com -- of the appellate
department at Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin.   "These
cases were consolidated with different plaintiffs, different
products, different exposure history, different medical history."

But the practice still serves a purpose, said Stanley Thompson,
director of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Complex
Litigation Center, as more than 200 asbestos cases are filed each
year.

"The fact of the matter is that these cases are still out there,"
said Benjamin P. Shein, an asbestos plaintiffs attorney.  "You
can't bring a program to a screeching halt, or you'll be right
back where you were before consolidation."

Fairness of Consolidation

In Rost, the high court will consider "whether the Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas' mandatory practice of consolidating
unrelated asbestos cases . . . is consistent with the Pennsylvania
Rules of Civil Procedure and due process; whether consolidation in
this case was proper; and whether the Superior Court has the
authority to review a trial court's case-consolidation decisions
in asbestos cases," according to the Supreme Court order granting
allocatur.

Richard Rost's case was consolidated with two others involving
plaintiffs who had mesothelioma, Estate of Wasekanes v. Sears and
Graver v. Foster Wheeler.

A Philadelphia jury awarded $844,800 to Mr. Rost and $150,000 to
his wife, Joyce Rost.  The case faced cross-appeals in the
Superior Court, and the court upheld the verdict.

In its petition to the Supreme Court for allowance of appeal, Ford
said consolidation of these cases caused defendants to suffer
severe prejudice.

"The three cases did not share common defendants, common claims,
common defenses, common facts, common products, common work sites
or common counsel," the defense said in its petition.  "The only
thing they had in common was alleged asbestos exposure and
plaintiffs with mesothelioma."

Ford had raised the same issue in an appeal to the Superior Court.
In response, the court said it did not have authority to address
the procedural issue without a claim of constitutional violation.

"Ford argues that the trial court erred in consolidating the Rost
case with two other cases based upon the grounds that all three
involved plaintiffs suffering from mesothelioma," Superior Court
Judge Jack A. Panella wrote in the court's opinion.  "However, we
note that Ford does not cite to any Pennsylvania appellate
authority to support its argument that consolidation of asbestos
trials by disease constitutes reversible error."

Duane Morris attorney Robert L. Byer -- rlbyer@duanemorris.com --
represented Ford and declined to comment.  Mr. Rost's lawyer,
Robert E. Paul of Paul, Reich & Myers, did not return a call
seeking comment.

Consolidation can be problematic for defendants, said Mr. Hare, if
the cases are not similar enough.

"At the end of the day, the jury is required to segregate the
different cases," he said.  "They hear a blizzard of arguments and
allegations and witnesses. . . . They can't keep track of which
witnesses apply to which cases."

Steven J. Cooperstein -- scooperstein@brbs.com -- of Brookman,
Rosenberg, Brown & Sandler, who represents plaintiffs in asbestos
cases, disagreed.

"The juries can pretty easily distinguish between cases and award
an appropriate verdict," he said.  "I don't see any real downside
from the plaintiffs' standpoint to consolidating."

If cases were not consolidated, Mr. Cooperstein said, plaintiffs
would have to wait longer for their court dates.  Trying the cases
would be more expensive too, he said, because expert witnesses
would have to attend multiple trials, and the costs of resources
could not be split among multiple cases.

Mr. Shein said he agreed with Mr. Cooperstein on the benefits of
consolidation.  However, he said, in some situations the practice
could be unfair for either side.

"I think that the parties need to be charged with the
responsibility of making sure that the cases that are consolidated
make sense from a fairness standpoint," he said.  "I don't think
that's something the Supreme Court can really get involved in."

Cases Remain Plentiful

The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas has a specific set of rules
related to mass torts, and a subset of rules regarding asbestos
litigation in particular.

Asbestos cases are the only type that can be consolidated without
the consent of all parties involved, according to General Court
Regulation No. 2013-01, amended in February 2013.  The regulation
said asbestos cases must be consolidated into groups of eight to
10, based on various criteria including same law, same disease and
same plaintiffs law firm.

From there, a maximum of three cases will be tried, the regulation
said, and the others may be resolved through settlement or
returned to the coordinating judge for regrouping and relisting
for trial.  Immediately before the trial of up to three cases, the
judge is to determine whether they will be tried in a consolidated
manner.

Before the amendment, more than three cases could be tried
together and occasionally were.

When the rule was established in the late 1980s, the court had a
backlog of thousands of asbestos cases, Mr. Thompson said.  The
regulation allowed for that backlog to shrink.

However, the number of cases has remained steady in recent years.
According to the court's inventory breakdown, the court has had a
backlog of between 566 and 762 asbestos cases each quarter since
January 2009.

"I think consolidation works.  It's proven to work for a number of
years.  We've gotten rid of the backlog," Mr. Shein said.  "Is
there such thing as a perfect system? There's not."

The court currently has 633 cases, said Mr. Thompson, 365 of which
are listed for trial, and 260 are to be listed.

Mr. Thompson said he could not address whether the protocols were
up for consideration by the court.  More than 200 asbestos cases
are filed each year, he said, and the goal is to get them all
resolved or to trial within two years of filing.

"In a perfect world, every case would be tried individually," Mr.
Thompson said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Received $17-Mil. Payment from Insurers
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company has received payments of $17 million from settlements
with its insurers, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014.

On January 5, 2007, the Company was served with a declaratory
judgment action filed on behalf of two of its insurers
(Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co. - both part of
the Continental Casualty Group) disclaiming coverage for
respirator mask/asbestos claims. The action, in the District Court
in Ramsey County, Minnesota, sought declaratory judgment regarding
coverage provided by the policies and the allocation of covered
costs among the policies issued by the various insurers. The
action named, in addition to the Company, over 60 of the Company's
insurers. The plaintiffs, Continental Casualty and Continental
Insurance Co., as well as a significant number of the insurer
defendants named in the amended complaint were dismissed because
of settlements they had reached with the Company regarding the
matters at issue in the lawsuit. In July 2013, the Company reached
agreements in principle with the remaining insurers in the
lawsuit. All of the settlement agreements have now been executed.
In June 2014, the Court issued an order dismissing the case.
During the first nine months of 2014, the Company received
payments of $17 million from settlements with insurers. The final
payment of $6 million from the insurers was received in the third
quarter of 2014.

The Company has unresolved coverage with claims-made carriers for
respirator mask claims. The Company is also seeking coverage under
the policies of certain insolvent insurers. Once those claims for
coverage are resolved, the Company will have collected
substantially all of its remaining insurance coverage for
respirator mask/asbestos claims.

3M Company (3M), is a diversified technology company. The Company
operates in six segments: industrial and transportation;
healthcare; consumer and office; safety, security and protection
services; display and graphics, and electro and communications
businesses. 3M products are sold through a number of distribution
channels, including directly to users and through wholesalers,
retailers, jobbers, distributors and dealers in a range of trades
in a number of countries worldwide. In April 2012, it acquired
CodeRyte Inc. On November 28, 2012, the Company acquired Ceradyne,
Inc. In April 2014, the Company acquired Treo Solutions. In
September 2014, 3M Co announced that it acquired, through Sumitomo
3M Ltd., of Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd.'s 25% interest in
Sumitomo 3M Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Recorded $24MM Liability for Aearo Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company recorded an estimated $24 million for product
liabilities and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-
related asbestos and silica-related claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock
of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies
("Aearo"). Aearo manufactured and sold various products, including
personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall
and certain respiratory protection products.

As of September 30, 2014, Aearo and/or other companies that
previously owned and operated Aearo's respirator business
(American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and
Cabot Corporation ("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple
co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in
various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and
respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other
defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to
asbestos, silica-related, or other occupational dusts found in
products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the
workplace.

As of September 30, 2014, the Company, through its Aearo
subsidiary, has recorded $24 million as the best estimate of the
probable liabilities for product liabilities and defense costs
related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-
related claims. Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for
settlements and judgments, is currently shared in an informal
arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a
subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their insurers (the "Payor
Group"). Liability is allocated among the parties based on the
number of years each company sold respiratory products under the
"AO Safety" brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American
Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the
individual plaintiff. Aearo's share of the contingent liability is
further limited by an agreement entered into between Aearo and
Cabot on July 11, 1995. This agreement provides that, so long as
Aearo pays to Cabot a quarterly fee of $100,000, Cabot will retain
responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, any
product liability claims involving exposure to asbestos, silica,
or  silica products for respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995.
Because of the difficulty in determining how long a particular
respirator remains in the stream of commerce after being sold,
Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out
of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos,
silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997. With these
arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is limited to
exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of respirators
involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products on or
after January 1, 1997. As of September 30, 2014, Aearo has elected
to pay the quarterly fee. Aearo could potentially be exposed to
additional claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995 period
covered by its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue
its participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer
able to meet its obligations in these matters.

In March 2012, Cabot CSC Corporation and Cabot Corporation filed a
lawsuit against Aearo in the Superior Court of Suffolk County,
Massachusetts seeking declaratory relief as to the scope of
Cabot's indemnity obligations under the July 11, 1995 agreement,
including whether Cabot has retained liability for coal workers'
pneumoconiosis claims, and seeking damages for breach of contract.
In June 2014, the court granted Aearo's motion for summary
judgment on all claims. Cabot has filed a motion for
reconsideration, and Aearo has filed a motion for clarification of
the court's order granting Aearo summary judgment. In October
2014, the court denied Aearo's motion for clarification. The court
also denied, in part, Cabot's motion for reconsideration and
reaffirmed its ruling that Cabot retained liability for claims
involving exposure to silica in coal mine dust. The court granted
Cabot's motion, in part, ruling that Aearo was not entitled to
summary judgment on Cabot's claim for equitable allocation, and on
whether the 258 underlying claims were Cabot's responsibility.
These two issues remain in the case for further proceedings.

Developments may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo's
liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to:
(i) significant changes in the number of future claims, (ii)
significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims, (iii)
significant changes in the legal costs of defending these claims,
(iv) significant changes in the mix and nature of claims received,
(v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) significant changes in the
law and procedure applicable to these claims, (vii) significant
changes in the liability allocation among the co-defendants,
(viii) the financial viability of members of the Payor Group
including exhaustion of available coverage limits, and/or (ix) a
determination that the interpretation of the contractual
obligations on which Aearo has estimated its share of liability is
inaccurate. The Company cannot determine the impact of these
potential developments on its current estimate of Aearo's share of
liability for these existing and future claims. If any of the
developments described above were to occur, the actual amount of
these liabilities for existing and future claims could be
significantly larger than the amount accrued.

Because of the inherent difficulty in projecting the number of
claims that have not yet been asserted, the complexity of
allocating responsibility for future claims among the Payor Group,
and the several possible developments that may occur that could
affect the estimate of Aearo's liabilities, the Company cannot
estimate the amount or range of amounts by which Aearo's liability
may exceed the accrual the Company has established.

3M Company (3M), is a diversified technology company. The Company
operates in six segments: industrial and transportation;
healthcare; consumer and office; safety, security and protection
services; display and graphics, and electro and communications
businesses. 3M products are sold through a number of distribution
channels, including directly to users and through wholesalers,
retailers, jobbers, distributors and dealers in a range of trades
in a number of countries worldwide. In April 2012, it acquired
CodeRyte Inc. On November 28, 2012, the Company acquired Ceradyne,
Inc. In April 2014, the Company acquired Treo Solutions. In
September 2014, 3M Co announced that it acquired, through Sumitomo
3M Ltd., of Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd.'s 25% interest in
Sumitomo 3M Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Units Continue to Defend Fibro Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two of CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to
defend themselves against asbestos-related product liability
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 28, 2014.

The Company states: "Asbestos-related product liability claims
continue to be filed against two of our subsidiaries Spence
Engineering Company, Inc., the stock of which we acquired in 1984;
and Circor Instrumentation Technologies, Inc. (f/k/a Hoke
Incorporated), the stock of which we acquired in 1998. Due to the
nature of the products supplied by these entities, the markets
they serve and our historical experience in resolving these
claims, we do not believe that these asbestos-related claims will
have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results
of operations or liquidity of Spence or Hoke, or our financial
condition, consolidated results of operations or liquidity of the
Company."

CIRCOR International, Inc. designs , manufactures and markets
valves and other engineered products and sub-systems used in the
energy, aerospace, power generation and other industrial markets.
The Company has a global presence and operates 24 primary
manufacturing facilities that are located in the United States,
Canada, Western Europe, Morocco, India, Brazil and the People's
Republic of China. The Company has three reporting segments:
Energy, Aerospace and flows Technologies. As of December 31, 2012
, the Company's products were sold through over 900 distributors
and the Company serviced more than 7,500 customers in over 100
countries around the world. Within the Company's product groups
The Company develops, manufactures, sells and service a portfolio
of fluid-control products, sub-systems and technologies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Had 68,000 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation had 68,000 pending asbestos claims, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

The Company states: "ITT, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps,
Inc., has been joined as a defendant with numerous other companies
in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to
asbestos exposure. These claims generally allege that certain
products sold by us or our former subsidiaries prior to 1985
contained a part manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket)
which contained asbestos. To the extent these third-party parts
may have contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or
other) material and was non-friable.

"As of September 30, 2014, there were approximately 50 thousand
pending active claims against ITT, including Goulds Pumps, filed
in various state and federal courts alleging injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos. Activity related to these asserted asbestos
claims during the period was as follows:

"For the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company had
68,000 pending claims.

"Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT or Goulds
Pumps product as a source of asbestos exposure. Our experience to
date is that a majority of resolved claims are dismissed without
any payment from the Company. Management believes that a large
majority of the pending claims have little or no value. In
addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed in large groups,
the average cost per resolved claim can fluctuate significantly
from period to period. ITT expects more asbestos-related suits
will be filed in the future, and ITT will continue to aggressively
defend or seek a reasonable resolution, as appropriate.

"Asbestos litigation is a unique form of litigation. Frequently,
the plaintiff sues a large number of defendants and does not state
a specific claim amount. After filing of the complaint, the
plaintiff engages defendants in settlement negotiations to
establish a settlement value based on certain criteria, including
the number of defendants in the case. Rarely do the plaintiffs
seek to collect all damages from one defendant. Rather, they seek
to spread the liability, and thus the payments, among many
defendants. As a result of this and other factors, the Company is
unable to estimate the maximum potential exposure to pending
claims and claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years.

"The Company has negotiated with certain of its insurers to
reimburse the Company for a portion of its indemnity and defense
costs through "coverage-in-place" agreements or long-term policy
buyout agreements. The agreements are designed to facilitate an
orderly resolution and collection of ITT's insurance portfolio and
to mitigate issues that insurers may raise regarding their
responsibility to respond to claims. These agreements, in the
aggregate, represent approximately 55% of the recorded asbestos-
related asset as of September 30, 2014. Under coverage-in-place
agreements, an insurer's policies remain in force and the insurer
undertakes to provide coverage for the Company's pending and
future asbestos claims on specified terms and conditions.
Insurance payments under coverage-in-place agreements are made to
the Company as asbestos claims are settled or adjudicated. The
Company's buyout agreements provide an agreed upon amount of
available coverage for future asbestos claims under the subject
policies to be paid to a Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF) on a
specific schedule as agreed upon by the Company and its insurer.
However, assets in the QSF are only available and distributed when
qualifying asbestos expenditures are submitted for reimbursement
as defined in the QSF agreement. Therefore, recovery of insurance
reimbursements under these types of agreements are dependent on
the timing of the payment of the liability and, consistent with
the asbestos liability, have not been discounted to present value.

"Estimating our exposure to pending asbestos claims and those that
may be filed in the future is subject to significant uncertainty
and risk as there are multiple variables that can affect the
timing, severity, quality, quantity and resolution of claims. Any
predictions with respect to the variables impacting the estimate
of the asbestos liability and related asset are subject to even
greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. In light
of the uncertainties and variables inherent in the long-term
projection of the Company's asbestos exposures, although it is
probable that the Company will incur additional costs for asbestos
claims filed beyond the next 10 years, which additional costs may
be material, we do not believe there is a reasonable basis for
estimating those costs at this time.

"The asbestos liability and related receivables reflect
management's best estimate of future events. However, future
events affecting the key factors and other variables for either
the asbestos liability or the related receivables could cause
actual costs or recoveries to be materially higher or lower than
currently estimated. Due to these uncertainties, as well as our
inability to reasonably estimate any additional asbestos liability
for claims which may be filed beyond the next 10 years, it is not
possible to predict the ultimate cost of resolving all pending and
unasserted asbestos claims. We believe it is possible that future
events affecting the key factors and other variables within the
next 10 years, as well as the cost of asbestos claims filed beyond
the next 10 years, net of expected recoveries, could have a
material adverse effect on our financial statements."

ITT Corporation (ITT) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
critical components and customized technology solutions for
industrial markets. The Company manufactures components that are
integral to the operation of systems and manufacturing processes
in the energy, transportation and industrial markets. Its products
provide enabling functionality for applications where reliability
and performance are critically important to its customers and the
users of their products. Its product and service offerings are
organized in four segments: Industrial Process, Motion
Technologies, Interconnect Solutions (ICS), and Control
Technologies. In November 2012, the Company sold its shape cutting
product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn brands, to Lincoln
Electric Holdings, Inc. In November 2012, the Company sold its
shape cutting product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn
brands, to Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. in 2012, the Company
acquired Bornemann.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Records $10.8-Mil. Fibro Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation recorded a $10.8 million total net asbestos
charges, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

The Company states: "In the third quarter of each year, we conduct
our annual asbestos remeasurement with the assistance of outside
consultants to review and update the underlying assumptions used
in our asbestos liability and related asset estimates. In each
remeasurement, the underlying assumptions are updated based on our
actual experience since our previous annual remeasurement and we
reassess the appropriate reference period used in determining each
assumption and our expectations regarding future conditions,
including inflation.

"Based on the results of this study, in the third quarter of 2014,
we decreased our estimated undiscounted asbestos liability,
including legal fees, by $42.8 million, reflecting a decrease in
costs the company estimates will be incurred to resolve all
pending claims, as well as unasserted claims estimated to be filed
over the next 10 years. The decrease in our estimated liability is
a result of several developments, including an expectation of
lower defense costs relative to indemnities paid over the
projection period and favorable experience in the ratio of
dismissed claims versus settled claims. These favorable factors
were offset in part by an increasing number of cases expected to
be adjudicated. Further, in the third quarter of 2014, the Company
increased its estimated asbestos-related assets by $16.0 million,
principally due to the estimated probable recoveries of certain
liabilities resulting from the annual study.

"In the third quarter of 2013, ITT reached an agreement-in-
principle (Settlement) with an insurer to settle responsibility
for multiple categories of claims, including future claims. Under
the terms of the Settlement, the insurer agreed to a specified
series of payments through 2018 to fully exhaust its primary
policies issued to ITT. The Settlement resulted in a net benefit
of $31.0 million during the quarter ended September 30, 2013, with
a corresponding increase in the asbestos-related asset.

"In addition to the charges associated with our annual
remeasurement, we record a net asbestos charge each quarter to
maintain a rolling 10-year forecast period. The total net asbestos
charges for the nine months ended September 30, 2014, was $10.8
million."

ITT Corporation (ITT) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
critical components and customized technology solutions for
industrial markets. The Company manufactures components that are
integral to the operation of systems and manufacturing processes
in the energy, transportation and industrial markets. Its products
provide enabling functionality for applications where reliability
and performance are critically important to its customers and the
users of their products. Its product and service offerings are
organized in four segments: Industrial Process, Motion
Technologies, Interconnect Solutions (ICS), and Control
Technologies. In November 2012, the Company sold its shape cutting
product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn brands, to Lincoln
Electric Holdings, Inc. In November 2012, the Company sold its
shape cutting product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn
brands, to Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. in 2012, the Company
acquired Bornemann.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Has $727.2MM Estimated Fibro Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation's estimated asbestos exposure, net of expected
recoveries, for the resolution of all pending claims and claims
estimated to be filed in the next 10 years was $727.2 million,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

ITT Corporation (ITT) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
critical components and customized technology solutions for
industrial markets. The Company manufactures components that are
integral to the operation of systems and manufacturing processes
in the energy, transportation and industrial markets. Its products
provide enabling functionality for applications where reliability
and performance are critically important to its customers and the
users of their products. Its product and service offerings are
organized in four segments: Industrial Process, Motion
Technologies, Interconnect Solutions (ICS), and Control
Technologies. In November 2012, the Company sold its shape cutting
product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn brands, to Lincoln
Electric Holdings, Inc. In November 2012, the Company sold its
shape cutting product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn
brands, to Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. in 2012, the Company
acquired Bornemann.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Estimates 41% Insurance Cost Recovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation estimates a 41% recovery of the asbestos indemnity
and defense costs for pending claims from its insurers, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

The Company states: "We estimate that we will be able to recover
41% of the asbestos indemnity and defense costs for pending claims
as well as unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next
10 years from our insurers. Actual insurance reimbursements will
vary from period to period and the anticipated recovery rate is
expected to decline over time due to gaps in our insurance
coverage, reflecting uninsured periods, the insolvency of certain
insurers, prior settlements with our insurers, and our expectation
that certain insurance policies will exhaust within the next 10
years. Certain of our primary coverage-in-place agreements are
expected to exhaust within the next several months, which may
result in higher net cash outflows until excess carriers begin
accepting claims for reimbursement. In the tenth year of our
estimate, our insurance recoveries are currently projected to be
25%. Additionally, future recovery rates may be impacted by other
factors, such as future insurance settlements, insolvencies, and
judicial determinations relevant to our coverage program, which
are difficult to predict and subject to a high degree of
uncertainty.

"Further, there is uncertainty in estimating when cash payments
related to the recorded asbestos liability will be fully expended.
Such cash payments will continue for a number of years beyond the
next 10 years due to the significant proportion of future claims
included in the estimated asbestos liability and the delay between
the date a claim is filed and when it is resolved. Subject to
these inherent uncertainties, it is expected that net cash
payments related to pending claims and claims estimated to be
filed in the next 10 years will extend through approximately 2028.

"Annual net cash outflows, net of tax benefits, are projected to
average $15 to $25 over the next five years, as compared to an
average of $14 over the past three annual periods, and increase to
an average of approximately $40 to $50, over the remainder of the
projection period."

ITT Corporation (ITT) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
critical components and customized technology solutions for
industrial markets. The Company manufactures components that are
integral to the operation of systems and manufacturing processes
in the energy, transportation and industrial markets. Its products
provide enabling functionality for applications where reliability
and performance are critically important to its customers and the
users of their products. Its product and service offerings are
organized in four segments: Industrial Process, Motion
Technologies, Interconnect Solutions (ICS), and Control
Technologies. In November 2012, the Company sold its shape cutting
product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn brands, to Lincoln
Electric Holdings, Inc. In November 2012, the Company sold its
shape cutting product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn
brands, to Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. in 2012, the Company
acquired Bornemann.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACE Continues to Defend NJ Wrongful Death Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic City Electric Company (ACE) continues to defend itself
against an asbestos-related wrongful death lawsuit pending in New
Jersey, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

In September 2011, an asbestos complaint was filed in the New
Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, against Atlantic City
Electric Company (among other defendants) asserting claims under
New Jersey's Wrongful Death and Survival statutes. The complaint,
filed by the estate of a decedent who was the wife of a former
employee of ACE, alleges that the decedent's mesothelioma was
caused by exposure to asbestos brought home by her husband on his
work clothes. New Jersey courts have recognized a cause of action
against a premise owner in a so-called "take home" case if it can
be shown that the harm was foreseeable. In this case, the
complaint seeks recovery of an unspecified amount of damages for,
among other things, the decedent's past medical expenses, loss of
earnings, and pain and suffering between the time of injury and
death, and asserts a punitive damage claim. At September 30, 2014,
ACE has concluded that a loss is probable with respect to this
matter and has recorded an estimated loss contingency liability,
which is included in Pepco Holdings, Inc.'s liability for general
litigation as of September 30, 2014. However, due to the inherent
uncertainty of litigation, ACE is unable to estimate a maximum
amount of possible loss because the damages sought are
indeterminate and the matter involves facts that ACE believes are
distinguishable from the facts of the "take-home" cause of action
recognized by the New Jersey courts.

Delmarva Power & Light (DPL) is engaged in the transmission and
distribution of electricity in Delaware and a portion of Maryland
(the Eastern Shore); it delivers electricity to about 501,000
customers. DPL also provides natural gas (in northern Delaware) to
more than 124,000 customers. DPL is an indirect subsidiary of
Pepco Holdings, which owns two other utilities (Potomac Electric
Power and Atlantic City Electric) as well as competitive energy
generation, marketing, and supply businesses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Davis" Suit v. Tampa Electric Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related wrongful death lawsuit filed by the estate of
Scott Davis against Tampa Electric Company remains pending,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

Thirty six year old Scott Davis died from mesothelioma in March
2014. His estate and his family are suing Tampa Electric as a
result.  Mr. Davis allegedly suffered exposure to asbestos dust
brought home by his father and grandfather, both of whom had been
employed as insulators and worked at various job sites throughout
the Tampa area. Plaintiff's case against Tampa Electric and
nineteen other defendants alleges, among other things, negligence,
strict liability, household exposure, loss of consortium, and
wrongful death.

TEC believes the claim in the pending action without merit and
intends to defend the matter vigorously. The company is unable at
this time to estimate the possible loss or range of loss with
respect to this matter.

TECO Energy, Inc. (TECO Energy) is a holding company for regulated
utilities and other businesses. TECO Energy owns no operating
assets but holds all of the common stock of TEC and, through its
subsidiary TECO Diversified, owns TECO Coal. TEC, a Florida
corporation and TECO Energy's subsidiary, has two business
segments. Its Tampa Electric division provides retail electric
service to more than 687,000 customers in West Central Florida
with a net winter system generating capacity of 4,668 megawatts.
Peoples Gas System (PGS), the gas division of TEC, is engaged in
the purchase, distribution and sale of natural gas for
residential, commercial, industrial and electric power generation
customers in Florida. In September 2014, the Company acquired New
Mexico Gas Intermediate (NMGI), the parent company of New Mexico
Gas Co.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Spence" Suit v. American Vanguard Unit Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related exposure lawsuit filed by Mark Spence against
an American Vanguard Corporation subsidiary was dismissed,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

In Mark Spence v. A.W. Chesterton Company et al. (an asbestos
exposure matter in an Illinois state court in which 46 defendants,
including the Company, are named), after being informed that the
Company has never used asbestos in either its products or
packaging, plaintiff dismissed the matter without prejudice on
September 22, 2014. Thus, this matter is now concluded.

American Vanguard Corporation operates as a holding company. The
Company is primarily a chemical manufacturer that develops and
markets products for agricultural and commercial uses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Badger Meter, Inc., continues to defend itself against numerous
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

Like other companies in recent years, the Company is named as a
defendant in numerous pending multi-claimant/multi-defendant
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos, manufactured by third parties, and integrated into or
sold with a very limited number of the Company's products. The
Company is vigorously defending itself against these claims.
Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
these matters, the Company does not believe the ultimate
resolution of these issues will have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial position or results of operations, either
from a cash flow perspective or on the financial statements as a
whole. This belief is based in part on the fact that no claimant
has proven or substantially demonstrated asbestos exposure caused
by products manufactured or sold by the Company and that a number
of cases have been voluntarily dismissed.

Badger Meter, Inc. is a manufacturer and marketer of products
incorporating flow measurement and control technologies serving
markets globally. The Company's product lines fall into three
categories: sales of water meters and related technologies to
municipal water utilities (municipal water), sales of meters to
various industries for water and other fluids (industrial flow)
and sales of concrete vibrators and gas meter radios to markets
(specialty products). Municipal water includes water meters and
related technologies and services used by water utilities as the
basis for generating water and wastewater revenues. Industrial
flow includes products sold globally to measure and control
materials flowing through a pipe or pipeline, including water,
air, steam, oil, and other liquids and gases. Specialty products
include sales of radio technology to natural gas utilities for
installation on their gas meters, and concrete vibrators.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has 2,200 Fibro Cases at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc., had 2,200 outstanding asbestos-
related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014.

The Company states: "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which
we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation. When we originally acquired this brake
business, we assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the
seller of the acquired brake business. In accordance with the
related purchase agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities
for all new claims filed on or after September 2001. Our ultimate
exposure will depend upon the number of claims filed against us on
or after September 2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and
defense thereof. At September 30, 2014, approximately 2,200 cases
were outstanding for which we may be responsible for any related
liabilities. Since inception in September 2001 through September
30, 2014, the amounts paid for settled claims are approximately
$16.7 million. We acquired limited insurance coverage up to a
fixed amount for defense and indemnity costs associated with
certain asbestos-related claims and have exhausted all insurance
coverage.

"In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have
considered various factors including, among other things, an
actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by
an independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether
there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits
are filed, and the status and results of settlement discussions.
As is our accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial
consultants with experience in assessing asbestos-related
liabilities to estimate our potential claim liability. The
methodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities and costs
in our actuarial study considered: (1) historical data available
from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our recent
claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the future;
(3) an analysis of our currently pending claims; and (4) an
analysis of our settlements to date in order to develop average
settlement values.

"The most recent actuarial study was performed as of August 31,
2014. The updated study has estimated an undiscounted liability
for settlement payments, excluding legal costs and any potential
recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from $36.1 million to
$55.4 million for the period through 2058. The change from the
prior year study was an $11.7 million increase for the low end of
the range and an $18 million increase for the high end of the
range. The increase in the estimated undiscounted liability from
the prior year study at both the low end and high end of the range
reflects historical data and certain assumptions with respect to
events that may occur in the future. Based on the information
contained in the actuarial study and all other available
information considered by us, we have concluded that no amount
within the range of settlement payments was more likely than any
other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos liability we
compare the low end of the range to our recorded liability to
determine if an adjustment is required. Based upon the results of
the August 31, 2014 actuarial study, in September 2014 we
increased our asbestos liability to $36.1 million, the low end of
the range, and recorded an incremental pre-tax provision of $12.8
million in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the
accompanying statement of operations. Legal costs, which are
expensed as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from
discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of
operations, are estimated, according to the updated study, to
range from $43 million to $76.4 million for the period through
2058.

"We plan to perform an annual actuarial evaluation during the
third quarter of each year for the foreseeable future. Given the
uncertainties associated with projecting such matters into the
future and other factors outside our control, we can give no
assurance that additional provisions will not be required. We will
continue to monitor the circumstances surrounding these potential
liabilities in determining whether additional provisions may be
necessary. At the present time, however, we do not believe that
any additional provisions would be reasonably likely to have a
material adverse effect on our liquidity or consolidated financial
position."

Standard Motor Products, Inc. (Standard Motor Products) is an
independent manufacturer and distributor of replacement parts for
motor vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry, with a
focus on the original equipment service market. The Company
operates in two segments: Engine Management Segment and
Temperature Control Segment. The Engine Management Segment
manufactures ignition and emission parts, ignition wires, battery
cables and fuel system parts. The Temperature Control Segment
manufactures and remanufactures air conditioning compressors, air
conditioning and heating parts, engine cooling system parts, power
window accessories, and windshield washer system parts. In January
2014, the Company acquired the assets of Pensacola Fuel Injection,
a privately-held company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Fibro Liability Upped to $36MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc., increased its asbestos liability to
$36.1 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014.

The Company states: "We are responsible for certain future
liabilities relating to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products. In accordance with our accounting policy, our most
recent actuarial study as of August 31, 2014 estimated an
undiscounted liability for settlement payments, excluding legal
costs and any potential recovery from insurance carriers, ranging
from $36.1 million to $55.4 million for the period through 2058.
Based on the information contained in the actuarial study and all
other available information considered by us, we have concluded
that no amount within the range of settlement payments was more
likely than any other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos
liability we compare the low end of the range to our recorded
liability to determine if an adjustment is required. Based upon
the results of the August 31, 2014, actuarial study, in September
2014 we increased our asbestos liability to $36.1 million, the low
end of the range, and recorded an incremental pre-tax provision of
$12.8 million in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in
the accompanying statement of operations. In addition, according
to the updated study, legal costs, which are expensed as incurred
and reported in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations, are
estimated to range from $43 million to $76.4 million during the
same period. We will continue to perform an annual actuarial
analysis during the third quarter of each year for the foreseeable
future. Based on this analysis and all other available
information, we will continue to reassess the recorded liability
and, if deemed necessary, record an adjustment to the reserve,
which will be reflected as a loss or gain from discontinued
operations. The aforementioned estimated settlement payments and
legal costs do not reflect any coverage with insurance carriers
for certain asbestos-related claims that we may obtain in the
future."

Standard Motor Products, Inc. (Standard Motor Products) is an
independent manufacturer and distributor of replacement parts for
motor vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry, with a
focus on the original equipment service market. The Company
operates in two segments: Engine Management Segment and
Temperature Control Segment. The Engine Management Segment
manufactures ignition and emission parts, ignition wires, battery
cables and fuel system parts. The Temperature Control Segment
manufactures and remanufactures air conditioning compressors, air
conditioning and heating parts, engine cooling system parts, power
window accessories, and windshield washer system parts. In January
2014, the Company acquired the assets of Pensacola Fuel Injection,
a privately-held company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Had 118,760 U.S. Fibro Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG had 118,760 open U.S. asbestos claims, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

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

"For the nine months ended September 30, 2014, there were 118,760
open U.S. claims.

"As of September 30, 2014, the Company's total U.S. asbestos-
related liabilities $243,303,000. Total U.S. asbestos-related
liabilities are estimated through the third quarter of 2029.
Although it is likely that claims will continue to be filed after
that date, the uncertainties inherent in any long-term forecast
prevent us from making reliable estimates of the indemnity and
defense costs that might be incurred after that date.

"We have worked with Analysis, Research & Planning Corporation, or
ARPC, nationally recognized consultants in the U.S. with respect
to projecting asbestos liabilities, to estimate the amount of
asbestos-related indemnity and defense costs at each year-end
based on a forecast for the next 15 years. Each year we have
recorded our estimated asbestos liability at a level consistent
with ARPC's reasonable best estimate. Our estimated asbestos
liability decreased during the first nine months of 2014 as a
result of indemnity and defense cost payments totaling
approximately $40,900,000, partially offset by the impact of an
increase in the liability related to our rolling 15-year asbestos-
related liability estimate of approximately $6,000,000. The total
asbestos-related liabilities are comprised of our estimates for
our liability relating to open (outstanding) claims being valued
and our liability for future unasserted claims through the third
quarter of 2029.

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

"Through September 30, 2014, total cumulative indemnity costs
paid, prior to insurance recoveries, were approximately
$851,100,000 and total cumulative defense costs paid were
approximately $425,400,000, or approximately 33% of total defense
and indemnity costs. The overall historic average combined
indemnity and defense cost per resolved claim through September
30, 2014 has been approximately $3.3. The average cost per
resolved claim is increasing and we believe it will continue to
increase in the future.

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Records $21.8MM Fibro Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG's net asbestos-related payments was $21,800,000,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

The Company states: "Our insurance recoveries may be limited by
future insolvencies among our insurers. We have not assumed
recovery in the estimate of our asbestos-related insurance asset
from any of our currently insolvent insurers. We have considered
the financial viability and legal obligations of our subsidiaries'
insurance carriers and believe that the insurers or their
guarantors will continue to reimburse a significant portion of
claims and defense costs relating to asbestos litigation. As of
September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, we have not recorded an
allowance for uncollectible balances against our asbestos-related
insurance assets. We write off receivables from insurers that have
become insolvent; there were no such write-offs during the nine
months ended September 30, 2014 or 2013. Insurers may become
insolvent in the future and our insurers may fail to reimburse
amounts owed to us on a timely basis. If we fail to realize the
expected insurance recoveries, or experience delays in receiving
material amounts from our insurers, our business, financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows could be
materially adversely affected.

"For the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company's
approximate U.S. asbestos-related net cash impact for indemnity
and defense cost payments and collection of insurance proceeds was
$5,173,000.

"The provision for revaluation in each period was the result of
the accrual of our rolling 15-year asbestos liability estimate.

"For the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company's net
asbestos-related payments was $21,800,000.

"We expect to have net cash outflows of $31,700,000 during the
full year 2014 as a result of asbestos liability indemnity and
defense payments in excess of insurance proceeds. This estimate
assumes no settlements with insurance companies and no elections
by us to fund additional payments. As we continue to collect cash
from insurance settlements and assuming no increase in our
asbestos-related insurance liability, the asbestos-related
insurance receivable recorded on our consolidated balance sheet
will continue to decrease.

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

"Based on our December 31, 2013 liability estimate, an increase of
25% in the average per claim indemnity settlement amount would
increase the liability by $40,300,000 and the impact on expense
would be dependent upon available additional insurance recoveries.
Assuming no change to the assumptions currently used to estimate
our insurance asset, this increase would result in a charge on our
consolidated statement of operations of approximately 85% of the
increase in the liability. Long-term cash flows would ultimately
change by the same amount. Should there be an increase in the
estimated liability in excess of 25%, the percentage of that
increase that would be expected to be funded by additional
insurance recoveries will decline."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler's UK Units Had 276 Fibro Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG's UK subsidiaries had 276 open 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
September 30, 2014.

The Company states: "Some of our subsidiaries in the U.K. have
also received claims alleging personal injury arising from
exposure to asbestos. As of September 30, 2014, 1,072 claims have
been brought against our U.K. subsidiaries, of which 276 remained
open as of September 30, 2014. None of the settled claims have
resulted in material costs to us.

"As of September 30, 2014, the Company's total asbestos-related
liabilities for its U.K. subsidiaries based on open (outstanding)
claims and its estimate for future unasserted claims through the
third quarter of 2029 was $30,372.

"The liability estimates are based on a U.K. House of Lords
judgment that pleural plaque claims do not amount to a compensable
injury. If this ruling is reversed by legislation, the total
asbestos liability recorded in the U.K. would increase to
approximately $49,300, with a corresponding increase in the
asbestos-related asset."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

The Company states: "We have been named as a defendant in certain
lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
allegedly contained in our products. We are a co-defendant with
numerous other defendants in these lawsuits and intend to
vigorously defend ourselves against these claims. The claims are
similar to previous asbestos lawsuits that named us as a
defendant. Such previous lawsuits either were dismissed when it
was shown that we had not supplied products to the plaintiffs'
places of work or were settled by us for immaterial amounts.

"As of September 30, 2014, we were subject to the claims, as well
as other legal proceedings and potential claims that have arisen
in the ordinary course of business.

"Although the outcome of the lawsuits to which we are a party
cannot be determined and an estimate of the reasonably possible
loss or range of loss cannot be made, we do not believe that the
outcomes, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a
material effect on our results of operations, financial position
or cash flows."

Graham Corporation (Graham) designs, manufactures and sells
critical equipment for the energy industry which includes the oil
refining, petrochemical, as well as cogeneration, nuclear and
alternative power markets. It design and manufacture custom-
engineered ejectors, pumps, surface condensers and vacuum systems
as well as supplies and components for inside the reactor vessel
and outside the containment vessel of nuclear power facilities.
Its equipments also used in nuclear propulsion power systems for
the defense industry and can be found in other diverse
applications such as metal refining, pulp and paper processing,
water heating, refrigeration, desalination, food processing,
pharmaceutical, heating, ventilating and air conditioning. The
Company's two wholly owned subsidiaries include Graham Vacuum and
Heat transfers Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Inc. Unit Increases Net Reserves by $28MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., disclosed that its subsidiary
AIG Property Casualty increased its net asbestos reserves by $28
million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

The estimation of loss reserves relating to asbestos and
environmental claims on insurance policies written many years ago
is subject to greater uncertainty than other types of claims due
to inconsistent court decisions as well as judicial
interpretations and legislative actions that in some cases have
tended to broaden coverage beyond the original intent of such
policies and in others have expanded theories of liability.

AIG Property Casualty's reserves relating to asbestos and
environmental claims reflect comprehensive ground-up and top-down
analyses performed periodically. In the nine-month period ended
September 30, 2014, AIG Property Casualty increased its gross
asbestos reserves by $29 million and the net asbestos reserves by
$28 million primarily due to minor changes in estimates, accretion
of discount, and anticipated uncollectible reinsurance. For the
same period, AIG Property Casualty increased its gross
environmental reserves by $121 million and its net environmental
reserves by $52 million to reflect the results of a top-down
analysis completed in the second quarter and a minor change in
estimates in the third quarter.

AIG Property Casualty also has asbestos reserves relating to
foreign risks written by non-U.S. entities of $137 million gross
and $110 million net as of September 30, 2014. The asbestos
reserves relating to non-U.S. risks written by non-U.S. entities
were $134 million gross and $108 million net as of December 31,
2013.

American International Group, Inc. (AIG) is a global insurance
company. The Company provides a range of property casualty
insurance, life insurance, retirement products, mortgage insurance
and other financial services to customers in more than 130
countries. It diverse offerings include products and services that
help businesses and individuals protect their assets, manage risks
and provide for retirement security. It earns revenues primarily
from insurance premiums, policy fees from universal life insurance
and investment products, and income from investments. In May 2014,
the Company completed the sale of 100% interest in International
Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC) to AerCap Holdings N.V.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 3,275 PI Cases at Sept. 26
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation had 3,275 asbestos cases, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 26,
2014.

The Company states: "We have been a defendant in asbestos
litigation for over 20 years. Our subsidiaries have been named as
defendants in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in products
manufactured by us. As of September 26, 2014, we were a defendant
in approximately 3,275 cases brought in Federal District Courts
throughout the United States. In the nine months ended September
26, 2014, 81 asbestos cases were brought against us. In the
calendar year 2013, 133 asbestos cases were brought against us. In
the last 20 years, we have had no cases proceed to verdict. In
many of the cases, we were dismissed as a defendant before trial
for lack of product identification. As of September 26, 2014,
47,846 asbestos cases have been dismissed. In the nine months
ended September 26, 2014, 25,913 asbestos cases were dismissed. In
September 2014, upon receipt from the MDL Court of a current
statistical report listing numbers of outstanding cases as well as
a list identifying outstanding Maritime/MARDOC cases by plaintiff
name, General Cable recorded a dismissal of 25,759 cases reducing
its number of pending Maritime/MARDOC cases to 2,679. As of
December 31, 2013, 21,933 cases were dismissed. With regards to
the approximately 3,275 remaining pending cases, we are
aggressively defending these cases based upon either lack of
product identification as to whether we manufactured asbestos-
containing product and/or lack of exposure to asbestos dust from
the use of our product."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 2,679 MARDOC Suits at Sept. 26
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation had 2,679 pending lawsuits brought on
behalf of plaintiffs by a single admiralty law firm (MARDOC) as of
September 26, 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 26, 2014.

The Company states: "As of September 26, 2014, 2,679 pending
lawsuits were brought on behalf of plaintiffs by a single
admiralty law firm ("MARDOC") and seek unspecified damages.
Plaintiffs in the MARDOC cases generally allege that they formerly
worked in the maritime industry and sustained asbestos-related
injuries from products that General Cable ceased manufacturing in
the mid-1970s. The MARDOC cases are managed and supervised by a
federal judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania ("District Court") by reason of a
transfer by the judicial panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL").

"In the MARDOC cases in the MDL, the District Court in May 1996
dismissed all pending cases filed without prejudice and placed
them on an inactive administrative docket. To reinstate a MARDOC
case from the inactive docket, plaintiffs' counsel must show that
the plaintiff not only suffered from a recognized asbestos related
injury, but also must produce specific product identification
evidence to proceed against an individual defendant. During 2010,
the MDL Court ordered Plaintiffs to identify the defendants
against whom they intended to proceed in the Maritime cases.
General Cable was not named as a defendant against whom the
plaintiffs intended to proceed. As such it is now anticipated that
General Cable will be dismissed from all Maritime related
lawsuits.

"For cases outside the MDL as of September 26, 2014, plaintiffs
have asserted monetary damages in 289 cases. In 155 of these
cases, plaintiffs allege only damages in excess of some dollar
amount (about $381 thousand per plaintiff); in these cases there
are no claims for specific dollar amounts requested as to any
defendant. In the 134 other cases pending in state and federal
district courts (outside the MDL), plaintiffs seek approximately
$446 million in damages from as many as 50 defendants. In one
case, plaintiffs have asserted damages related to General Cable in
the amount of $10 million. In addition, in relation to these 289
cases, there are claims of $313 million in punitive damages from
all of the defendants. However, many of the plaintiffs in these
cases allege non-malignant injuries. As of September 26, 2014 and
December 31, 2013, we had accrued, on a gross basis, approximately
$4.8 million and $5.2 million, respectively, and as of September
26, 2014 and December 31, 2013, had recovered approximately $0.5
million of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits. The net amount
of $4.3 million and $4.7 million, as of September 26, 2014 and
December 31, 2013, respectively, represents our best estimate in
order to cover resolution of current and future asbestos-related
claims.

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

"Settlement payments are made, and the asbestos accrual is
relieved, when we receive a fully executed settlement release from
the Plaintiff's counsel. As of September 26, 2014 and September
27, 2013, aggregate settlement costs were $9.4 million and $8.7
million, respectively. For the three months ended September 26,
2014 and September 27, 2013, settlement costs totaled $0.2 million
and $0.0 million, respectively. For the nine months ended
September 26, 2014 and September 27, 2013, settlement costs
totaled $0.6 million and $0.2 million, respectively. As of
September 26, 2014 and September 27, 2013, aggregate litigation
costs were $24.3 million and $22.4 million, respectively. For the
three months ended September 26, 2014 and September 27, 2013,
litigation costs were $0.3 million and $0.4 million, respectively.
For the nine months ended September 26, 2014 and September 27,
2013, litigation costs were $1.2 million and $1.0 million,
respectively.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Had 570 PI Lawsuits as of Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
MeadWestvaco Corporation had 570 asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

As with numerous other large industrial companies, the Company has
been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury
litigation. Typically, these suits also name many other corporate
defendants. To date, the costs resulting from the litigation,
including settlement costs, have not been significant. As of
September 30, 2014, there were about 570 lawsuits. Management
believes that the company has substantial indemnification
protection and insurance coverage, subject to applicable
deductibles and policy limits, with respect to asbestos claims.
Management believes that the company has valid defenses to these
claims and intends to continue to defend them vigorously.
Additionally, based on its historical experience in asbestos cases
and an analysis of the current cases, the company believes that it
has adequate amounts accrued for potential settlements and
judgments in asbestos-related litigation. At September 30, 2014,
the company had recorded litigation liabilities of approximately
$21 million, a significant portion of which relates to asbestos.
Should the volume of litigation grow substantially, it is possible
that the company could incur significant costs resolving these
cases. After consulting with legal counsel and after considering
established liabilities, it is our judgment that the resolution of
pending litigation and proceedings is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the company's consolidated financial
condition or liquidity. In any given period or periods, however,
it is possible such proceedings or matters could have a material
effect on the results of operations.

MeadWestvaco Corporation (MWV) is a global packaging company
providing solutions to the healthcare, beauty and personal care,
food, beverage, home and garden, tobacco, and agricultural
industries. The Company also produces specialty chemicals for the
automotive, energy, and infrastructure industries and maximizes
the value of its land holdings through forestry operations,
property development and land sales. MWV's reporting segments are
Food & Beverage; Industrial; Specialty Chemicals, and Community
Development and Land Management. On December 11, 2012, MWV
acquired the remaining 50% interest in Resitec Industria Quimica,
Ltda. In December 2013, Meadwestvaco Corp completed the sale of
U.S. forestlands to Plum Creek Timber Company. In June, 2014, ASG
acquired the Bydgoszcz, Poland-based beauty and personal care
folding carton business of MeadWestvaco Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Ruling in Take-Home Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wanda L. Beckering appeals a judgment following a grant of summary
judgment in favor of Shell Oil Company in a premises liability
action.  Beckering alleges she developed mesothelioma as a result
of exposure to asbestos used by her late husband's employer,
Shell.  He inadvertently carried home the asbestos fibers on his
work clothing, which she laundered.

In Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 15
(Campbell), the Court of Appeals of California, Second District,
Division Three, applied the Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d
108 (Rowland) factors, as further clarified in Cabral v. Ralphs
Grocery Co. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 764 (Cabral), to hold a "property
owner has no duty to protect family members of workers on its
premises from secondary exposure to asbestos used during the
course of the property owner's business."

Guided by Campbell, the Court of Appeals concluded that based upon
the Rowland public policy factors, a premises owner has no duty to
protect a family member from secondary exposure to asbestos off
the premises arising from her association with a family member who
wore asbestos-contaminated work clothes home.  To hold otherwise
would impose limitless liability on premises owners, the Court of
Appeals said.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
trial court's grant of summary judgment.

The case is WANDA L. BECKERING, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SHELL
OIL COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent, NO. B256407 (Cal. App.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision dated Nov. 21, 2014, is available
at http://is.gd/MjnJCGfrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff and Appellant is represented by:

         H. W. Trey Jones, Esq.
         Stephanie M. Taylor, Esq.
         THE LANIER LAW FIRM
         10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400
         Tel: (310) 277-5100

The Defendant and Respondent is represented by:

         Jennifer A. Kuenster, Esq.
         Ross M. Petty, Esq.
         Aaron M. Brian, Esq.
         NIXON PEABODY LLP
         Gas Company Tower
         555 West Fifth Street, 46th floor
         90013-1010 Los Angeles, CA
         Email: jkuenster@nixonpeabody.com
                rpetty@nixonpeabody.com
                abrian@nixonpeabody.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Granted in La. PI Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lance M. Africk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, in a Nov. 21, 2014 order, granted a motion
for partial summary judgment filed by Albert L. Bossier, Jr., J.
Melton Garrett, OneBeacon America Insurance Company, and
Pennsylvania General Insurance Company, all defendants in a
lawsuit alleging that decedent, Michael Comardelle, was "exposed
to asbestos and asbestos-containing products manufactured,
distributed, and sold" by defendants during the course of his
employment from 1963 through 1979.

According to Judge Africk, the evidence produced by the plaintiffs
in the lawsuit suggests that the Avondale executive officers had
responsibility for their employees' safety, attended meetings
where safety policy was discussed, and knew that asbestos poses a
safety risk.  However, Judge Africk noted, the plaintiffs'
evidence says nothing about the Avondale executive officers'
control of the asbestos material itself.  Accordingly, Judge
Africk granted the motion and the plaintiffs' strict liability
claims against the Avondale executive officers are dismissed with
prejudice.

The case is MICHAEL COMARDELLE, v. PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY ET AL., Section I, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-6555 (E.D. La.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Africk's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/pHGOF6from Leagle.com.

Brenda Perez Comardelle, surviving spouse of Michael Comardelle,
Melissa Comardelle, children of Michael Comardelle, and Pamela
Comardelle, children of Michael Comardelle, Plaintiffs,
represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan
Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel
& Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Albert L Bossier, Jr, Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Third-party
Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles,
LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Darren M.
Guillot, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Scott Minyard,
Barfield & Associates, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner
& Richeson, LLC, Ernest G. Foundas, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Kuchler Polk Schell
Weiner & Richeson, LLC, McGready Lewis Richeson, Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Melissa M. Desormeaux, Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Michael H. Abraham, Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Milele N. St. Julien, Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Perrey S. Lee, Kuchler Polk Schell
Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

Cajun Company Inc., incorrectly named as The Cajun Company,
Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by James L. Pate,
NeunerPate & Jason T. Reed, NeunerPate.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel,
III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H.
Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot
L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C., Rebecca Abbott Zotti,
Frilot L.L.C., Rose Marie Wade, Evert Weathersby Houff & William
Davis Harvard, Evert Weathersby Houff.

CBS Corporation, formerly known as Westinghouse Electric
Corporatioin, Cross Defendant, represented byJohn Joseph Hainkel,
III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H.
Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C.,Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter
R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C., Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot
L.L.C., Rose Marie Wade, Evert Weathersby Houff & William Davis
Harvard, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Chevron Oronite Company LLC, incorrectly named as Chevron Chemical
Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Tim Gray,
Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes,
Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Jason K. Elam, Forman,
Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Troy Nathan Bell, Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Tim Gray, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz &
Tardy, LLP,Forrest Ren Wilkes, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz &
Tardy, LLP, Jason K. Elam, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy,
LLP & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

Eagle Inc, formerly known as Eagle Asbestos & Packing Co., Inc.,
Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented bySusan Beth Kohn,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Louis Oliver Oubre, Simon, Peragine, Smith
& Redfearn, LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, incorrectly named Foster-Wheeler LLC,
Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel,
III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H.
Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot
L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti,
Frilot L.L.C..

General Electric Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M.
Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., Erik Nadolink, Esq. --
nadolink@wtotrial.com -- at Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, James H.
Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., John M. Fitzpatrick, Esq. --
fitzpatrick@wtotrial.com -- at Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell,
LLP, Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot
L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C..

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer &
Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers,
LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers,
LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC
& Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Defendant and Cross Claimant,
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 & Tracy C. Rotharmel, Liskow & Lewis.

J Melton Garrett, Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Third-party
Plaintiff represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles,
LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Darren M.
Guillot, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Scott Minyard,
Barfield & Associates, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, as the insurer of Wayne
Manufacturing Company, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant, and Third-
party Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer &
Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers,
LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC
& Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

McCarty Corporation, successor to McCarty Branton Inc. and
predecessor and successor to McCarty Insulation Sales Inc.,
Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Louis Oliver Oubre, Simon, Peragine, Smith
& Redfearn, LLP.

OneBeacon America Insurance Company, as successor to Commercial
Union Insurance Company and Employers Commercial Union Insurance
Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III,
Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor,
Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC &Angela J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons,
Politz & Duhe, APLC.

P2S LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Lee M.
Rudin, Aaron & Gianna, PLC & Lezly L. Petrovich, Aaron & Gianna,
PLC.

P2S LLC, Successor to Liability of SECO Industries, Inc. formerly
known as Luling Acquisition, LLC, Defendant, represented by John
Dennis Person, Esq. -- jperson@aarongianna.com -- at Aaron &
Gianna, PLC.

Pennsylvania General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented
by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe,
APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC
&Angela J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Pharmacia LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by David
Edmund Redmann, Jr., Bradley, Murchison, Kelly & Shea, LLC
& Kimberly C. Delk, Bradley, Murchison, Kelly & Shea, LLC.
Pharmacia LLC, formerly known as Pharmacia Corporation formerly
known as Monsanto Company, Defendant, represented by Darryl J.
Foster, Bradley, Murchison, Kelly & Shea, LLC.

Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham Fultz &
Cougill, Brandy Gonzales Scurria, Brandy Gonzales Legal Services,
LLC, Diane Sweezer Davis, Esq. -- DDavis@ffllp.com -- at
Funderburk Finderburk Courtois, LLP, Jamie M Zanovec, Willingham,
Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Willingham Fultz &
Cougill & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz & Cougill.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher
Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, David C
Bach, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale LLP, Jevan Smoot
Fleming, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard J.
Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara,
Hall, Larmann & Papale, Anne Elizabeth Medo, Hailey, McNamara,
Hall, Larmann & Papale, David C Bach, Hailey, McNamara, Hall,
Larmann & Papale LLP, Edward J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara,
Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara,
Hall, Larmann & Papale.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by David Mark Bienvenu, Jr., Bienvenu, Bonnecaze,
Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Anthony Joseph Lascaro, Bienvenu,
Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, John Allain Viator,
Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Katie Dampier
Chabert, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Lexi
T. Holinga, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga,
APLLC, Tam Catherine Bourgeois, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator
& Holinga, APLLC, David Mark Bienvenu, Jr., Bienvenu, Bonnecaze,
Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Anthony Joseph Lascaro, Bienvenu,
Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, John Allain Viator,
Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Katie Dampier
Chabert, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Lexi
T. Holinga, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC
& Tam Catherine Bourgeois, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator &
Holinga, APLLC.

Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Forrest Ren Wilkes,
Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP.

Uniroyal, Inc., formerly known as United States Rubber Company,
Inc., Cross Defendant, represented byForrest Ren Wilkes, Forman,
Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trials in 2 NYCAL Suits Stayed
-----------------------------------------------
The stay of trials in the case styled IN RE: NEW YORK CITY
ASBESTOS LITIGATION -- PROCTOR, v. ALCOA, INC. -- MARIO & DiBONO
PLASTERING CO., INC., (And Another Action), MOTION NOS. M-4957, M-
4969 (N.Y. App. Div.), are granted on condition appeals perfected
for the March 2015 Term.  A full-text copy of the Decision of the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, dated Nov. 18, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/fJ7eorfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Ruling in "Izell" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation appeals from a judgment entered in favor
of Plaintiffs Bobbie Izell and Helen Izell on claims for personal
injuries and loss of consortium stemming from Mr. Izell's alleged
exposure to Union Carbide asbestos and subsequent diagnosis with
mesothelioma.  After a four-week trial the jury returned special
verdicts finding Union Carbide 65% comparatively at fault for the
Plaintiffs' injuries and awarding the Plaintiffs $30 million in
compensatory damages plus $18 million in punitive damages against
Union Carbide.  By remittitur, which the Plaintiffs accepted, the
trial court reduced the compensatory damage award to $6 million,
but declined to disturb the punitive damages.

On appeal, Union Carbide contends the evidence was insufficient to
support the liability finding, apportionment of comparative fault,
and the remitted compensatory damage award.  Union Carbide also
challenges the punitive damage award as excessive.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Three, concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the
verdict, as well as the compensatory and punitive damage awards.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed.

The appeals case is BOBBIE IZELL et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents, v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant and
Appellant, NO. B245085 (Cal. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision dated Nov. 21, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/D1gIas
from Leagle.com.

Michele Odorizzi, Esq. -- modorizzi@mayerbrown.com -- at Mayer
Brown LLP; and David K. Schultz, Esq., at McKenna, Long & Aldridge
LLP and for Defendant and Appellant.

John Langdoc, Esq. -- jlangdoc@baronbudd.com -- Denyse Clancy,
Esq. -- dclancy@baronbudd.com -- and Christine Tamer, Esq. --
ctamer@baronbudd.com -- at Baron & Budd, P.C., for Plaintiffs and
Respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Remand "Maguire" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Marie T. Maguire, individually and as executrix for the
estate of Thomas K. Maguire, brought a personal-injury action in
New York state court for injuries arising out of Thomas Maguire's
alleged exposure to asbestos.  Of the many defendants, one, Crane
Co., removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1).  Maguire
now moves to remand the case to New York State Supreme Court,
arguing that Crane's removal was untimely and that the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction.

U.S. District Judge A. Paul Engelmayer denied the remand motion,
but granted Maguire leave (1) to amend the complaint so as to
unambiguously be free of any federal claims or defenses, and
thereafter (2) to move for remand, on the grounds that the Court
should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this matter.

The case is MARIE T. MAGUIRE, as Executrix for the Estate of
THOMAS K. MAGUIRE, and MARIE T. MAGUIRE, Individually, Plaintiff,
v. A.C. & S., INC., et al., Defendants, NO. 14 CIV. 7578
(PAE)(S.D.N.Y.).  A full-text copy of Judge Engelmayer's opinion
and order dated Nov. 21, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/6eTWfK
from Leagle.com.

Marie T. Maguire, as Executrix for the estate of Thomas K.
Maguire, Plaintiff, represented by Gennaro Savastano, Wetiz &
Luxenberg, P.C..

Marie T. Maguire, individually, Plaintiff, represented by David
Joseph Barry, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C..

A.O. Smith Water Products Co., Defendant, represented by Joseph P.
LaSala, Esq. -- jlasala@mdmc-law.com -- at McElroy, Deutsch,
Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Angela Digiglio, Esq. --
angela.digiglio@klgates.com -- at K&L Gates & Tara Lynne Pehush,
Esq. -- tara.pehush@klgates.com -- at K&L Gates LLP.

Burnham LLC, as successor to Burnham Corporation, Defendant,
represented by John C. McGuire, Esq. -- jmcguire@mdmc-law.com --
at McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP.

Certain Teed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Eric David
Statman, Esq. -- estatman@deybllp.com -- at Darger & Errante
Yavitz & Blau LLP.

Cleaver Brooks Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Suzanne M.
Halbardier, Esq. -- SHalbardier@bmmfirm.com -- at Barry, McTiernan
& Moore, LLP.

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Timothy M. McCann, David M. Santoro.

Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Eric David Statman,
Darger & Errante Yavitz & Blau LLP.

DB Riley, Inc., Defendant, represented by Giovanni Regina, Esq. --
gregina@lawwmm.com -- at Waters, McPherson, McNeil, P.C..

Goodyear Canada, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lawrence Gable
Lee, Esq. -- lee@lawlynch.com -- at Lynch Daskal Emery, LLP.

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by
Lawrence Gable Lee, Lynch Daskal Emery, LLP.

H.B. Fuller Company, Defendant, represented by Katrina Helene
Murphy, Esq. -- kmurphy@smsm.com -- at Segal McCambridge Singer &
Mahoney, Ltd..

Kohler Co., Defendant, represented by Jason S. Riemer, Esq. --
jriemer@hoaglandlongo.com -- at Hoagland Longo Moran Dunst &
Doukas.

Premier Refractories, Inc., formerly known as Adience, Inc.
formerly known as BMI, Defendant, represented by James Michael
Skelly, Esq. -- jmskelly@moodklaw.com -- at Marks, O'Neill,
O'Brien & Courtney, P.C..

Treadwell Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kerryann Marie
Cook, Esq. -- kcook@mklaw.us.com -- at McGivney & Kluger.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Rules on Notice Issue in "Andrucki" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of New York, in the case styled IN THE MATTER
OF NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to MARY ANDRUCKI, &
C. ET AL., Appellants, v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA, ET AL.,
Defendants, PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, Respondent,
held that "[a] statute requires anyone who brings a lawsuit
against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey first to
serve a notice stating the nature of the claim.  We hold that
under this statute a notice of a claim for personal injuries is a
sufficient notice of a claim for wrongful death, where the person
injured dies of his injuries between the service of the notice of
claim and the beginning of the lawsuit."

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' Opinion dated Nov. 20,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/crF57Wfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Modifies Ruling in "Berensman" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, ordered that a lower court's decision denying
defendant Georgia-Pacific LLC's motion for summary judgment
dismissing an asbestos-related complaint and all cross claims as
against it, is unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the
motion to the extent of dismissing the plaintiffs' claims related
to the defendant's wallboard products allegedly containing
asbestos.

The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. WILLIAM
BERENSMANN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. 3M COMPANY FORMERLY
KNOWN AS MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO., ET AL., Defendants,
GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC, ETC., Defendant-Appellant, 13566, 190472/12
(N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision dated Nov. 20,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/wnNF22from Leagle.com.

Lynch Daskal Emery LLP, New York (Scott R. Emery, Esq. --
emery@lawlynch.com -- of counsel), for appellant.

Levy Konigsberg LLP, New York (James M. Kramer of counsel), for
respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. App. Affirms Ruling in "Shipley" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Shipley served a citation on defendant C.P. Hall Company, a
defunct asbestos distributor which plaintiff won a $3 million
judgment.  Months later, after C.P. Hall filed for bankruptcy, the
plaintiff filed motions alleging that Stephen Hoke (former
attorney for C.P. Hall), Patrick Shine (president and owner of
C.P. Hall), and Cooney and Conway LLC (a law firm that won
hundreds of judgments against C.P. Hall on behalf of asbestos
plaintiffs), violated the restraining provision of the citation
issued to C.P. Hall.  Citing section 2-1402(f)(1) of the Code of
Civil Procedure, the plaintiff sought a judgment holding Hoke,
Shine, and Cooney jointly and severally liable for the entire $3
million judgment.  In the spring of 2013, the trial court issued
separate orders finding that it lacked (1) subject-matter
jurisdiction over Shine and (2) personal jurisdiction over Hoke
and Cooney.

The Plaintiff appeals, arguing that (1) the termination of
supplementary proceedings did not deprive the trial court of
subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's enforcement
motions, and (2) the plaintiff's failure to issue separate
citations to Hoke, Shine, and Cooney did not deprive the court of
personal jurisdiction over those parties.

The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District, ruled that
although it agrees that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction
over the plaintiff's enforcement motions and personal jurisdiction
over Hoke and Shine, the Appellate Court concluded that Hoke and
Shine properly invoked the termination of supplementary
proceedings as an affirmative defense, precluding the plaintiff's
right to relief under section 2-1402(f)(1) of the Code.

The Appellate Court further concluded that the plaintiff's failure
to issue a separate citation to Cooney deprived the court of
personal jurisdiction over Cooney.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed the court's judgment in
both appeals.

The appeals case is JAMES SHIPLEY, as Independent Executor of the
Estate of Janet Shipley, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STEPHEN
HOKE, PATRICK SHINE, and COONEY & CONWAY, Defendants-Appellees,
and THE C.P. HALL COMPANY, Defendant, NOS. 4-13-0810, 4-13-0837
CONS (Ill. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision dated Nov. 24,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/Ojw7cYfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Limits Reinsurer's Liability
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Utica Mutual Insurance Company commenced a diversity
action against defendant Clearwater Insurance Company, alleging
breach of contract claims and seeking declaratory relief.  Utica
issued a number of primary insurance policies, including general
and commercial general liability insurance policies, to Goulds
Pumps Inc.  Clearwater then agreed to issue facultative
reinsurance certificates to Utica.  In or about March 2003,
Goulds, which had been named as defendant in asbestos claims,
commenced an action against Utica, seeking a declaration as to
Utica's coverage obligation.  Around February 2007, Goulds and
Utica settled the declaratory judgment action, and, thereafter,
Utica began making payments to Goulds, which continue today.  At
some point in 2012, Utica began billing Clearwater.

In the diversity action, Clearwater filed a motion for partial
summary judgment, which Judge Gary L. Sharpe of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of New York granted.  Judge Sharpe
ordered that Clearwater's liability, if any, under the 1978
Certificate and 1979 Certificate cannot exceed $5 million or $2.5
million, and ordered that the parties contact Magistrate Judge
Therese Wiley Dancks to schedule further proceedings in the
matter.

The case is UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v.
CLEARWATER INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, NO. 6:13-CV-
1178.(GLS/TWD)(N.D.N.Y.).  A full-text copy of Judge Sharpe's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/oisHOpfrom Leagle.com.

PHILLIP G. STECK, ESQ., Cooper, Erving Law Firm, Albany, NY, for
the Plaintiff.

WILLIAM M. SNEED, ESQ., -- wsneed@sidley.com -- at Sidley, Austin
Law Firm, Chicago, IL.

DAVID M. RAIM, ESQ., -- draim@chadbourne.com -- at Chadbourne,
Parke Law Firm, Washington, DC, for the Defendant.


                              *********

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 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *