CAR_Public/141212.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, December 12, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 247


                             Headlines

455 HOSPITALITY: Banquet Servers Seek to Recover Unpaid OT & Tips
ACXIOM CORPORATION: Parties Reached Settlement in Class Action
ALL STEEL: Faces "Rogel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Hours
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Mechanics Lack Standing to Sue, Court Rules
APPLE INC: iTunes Updates Protects From Hackers, Expert Testifies

AWA SECURITY: Removes "Morales" Suit to Florida District Court
AXA EQUITABLE: New York Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
BLUE BUFFALO: Removes "Cox" Suit to Southern District of Ohio
BODACIOUS FOOD: Sued by Cincinnati Insurance in S.D. Florida
BOREVIEW SERVICES: "Nash" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

CANADA LINE: 200+ Cambrie Street Merchants File Class Action
CHILDRESS DIRECTIONAL: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Nash" Suit Claims
COBALT INT'L: Faces "Neuman" Suit Over Securities Laws Violations
COBALT INT'L: Sued for Bribing Angolan Officials for Oil Rights
COMMUNITY BANK: Reached Settlement in Two Class Actions

COMPUTER CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
CRANE CO: Completes Obligations to Close Class Suit Settlement
CSK AUTO: Uses Consumer Reports for Background Checks, Suit Says
DIODES INCORPORATED: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Class Action
DISH NETWORK: Faces Suit for Failing to Provide Turner Programs

DRESS BARN: Removes "Velasco" Suit to California District Court
ELIMAR HOLDINGS: Accused of Not Paying Proper Overtime Wages
EP FITNESS: Faces Class Suit Over Membership Cancellation Issues
F.N.B. CORP: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed OBA Class Action
FANDUEL INC: Faces "Buzin" Suit Over Misleading Product Ad

FANDUEL INC: Faces "Carroll" Suit Over Misleading Advertising
FAST EVICTION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mogadam" Suit Claims
FIFTH THIRD: Court Denied Motion to Dismiss Complaints
FIFTH THIRD: Supreme Court Remanded Case Back to 6th Circuit
FIREEYE INC: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Class Action

FIRST AMERICAN: Court Refuses to Open WaMu Appraisal Scheme Files
FIT FOODS: Faces False Advertising Class Action
GAF MATERIALS: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Timbers Decking
GAMESTOP INC: Removes "Larkin" Class Action Suit to S.D. Florida
GERBER INC: Court Finds Article III Standing for Class Action

GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Faces "Waters" Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
GOLDMAN SACHS: Labaton Sucharow Files Nationwide Class Action
GOLDMAN SACHS: Modern Settings Sue Over Platinum Price Fixing
GT ADVANCED: Securities Class Action Pending in New Hampshire
GUY A CORP: "Zalucean" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

HEALTHWAYS INC: Junk Fax Suit Removed to California Federal Court
HIRISE ENGINEERING: Accused of Violating RICO Act in New York
HOME DEPOT: Faces Pittsfield Cooperative Suit Over Data Breach
KIMBALL INTERNATIONAL: Has $5 Mil. Pre-Tax Income From Settlement
KNIGHTSBRIDGE PROPERTIES: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT

KONDAUR CAPITAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Accused of Violating FDCPA in Pennsylvania
MINOS CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MOL GLOBAL: Overstated Financial Reports, "Jewel" Action Claims
MUSKEGON, MI: Sued for Violating Civil Rights of Prisoners

NATIONAL WESTERN: Resolves Deferred Annuities Litigation
NYMOX PHARMA: Bernard M. Gross Law Firm Files Class Suit in N.J.
OILTANKING PARTNERS: Faces Suit Over Enterprise Product Merger
ONLINE INFORMATION: Faces Suit in N.J. Over Violations of FDCPA
PAULSON CAPITAL: Andrews & Springer Files Securities Class Action

PC RICHARD: Faces "Steward" Suite Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
PETER UNDERGROUND: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Fails to Provide FDCPA Disclosures, Suit Says
PRINCECO INC: Removes "O'Hara" Suit to Florida District Court
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Inks MOU to Settle Delaware Class Action

RADIOSHACK CORP: Plan Fiduciaries Accused of Breaching Duties
SIRIUS XM: Settles Suit Over Automatic Renewals for $3.8 Million
STAAR SURGICAL: Plaintiff in "Todd" Case Reduced Class Period
STATE FARM: Removes "Burk" Class Suit to Arizona District Court
SUNRISE CREDIT: Sued Over Violations of Fair Debt Collection Act

SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Sued Over Force-Placed Insurance Charges
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Rosenstock" Suit Over Faulty Airbags
TESCO: Bentham Agrees to Fund Shareholder Class Action
TIMEKEEPERS INC: Fails to Pay Guards Overtime, "Montes" Suit Says
TRICO BANCSHARES: Entered Into MOU to Settle Class Action

TWITTER INC: Court Refuses to Junk Text Message Spamming Suit
UNITED RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Settlement Escrow Funded in October 2014
VALHI INC: NL Industries' Appeal in Lead Pigment Case Ongoing
VICTIM SERVICES: Sued for Using DA Letterhead in Collecting Debts

VIVINT SOLAR: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
WHOLE FOODS: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Class Suit Says
WILLIAM A HECHT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
XL FOODS: Enters Into Tentative Beef Recall Settlement


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Paid $632-Mil. to PI Trust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $6.8MM Fibro-related Charges
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Paid $400,000 to PD Trust at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Fibro Suits Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Has $7-Mil. Fibro Suits Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Has $50MM Liability for NY Incident
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Receives 3,641 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Estimates $36MM Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 237 Fibro Tort Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Continues to Defend Fibro Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Had 196 Fibro Cases as of Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,366 PI Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Has 61,736 American Optical PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $591-Mil. Fibro Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Has 402 PI Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Has 42 Fibro Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OK's Global Indemnity Fibro Insurance Deal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 47,922 Fibro Claims at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Hears Reargument in Suit v. Crane Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Suit v. Crane Co. Oral Argument Set for 2015
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Frank Paasch's Claim v. Crane Co. Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Has 1,130 Personal Injuries Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in NJ PI Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Gets Summary Judgment in "McManns" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2d. Cir. Affirms Mazza CERCLA Conviction
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2d. Cir. Flips Ruling in Reinsurance Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Recommends Remand of "Bartel" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. PI Suit Recommended for Remand

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Citron" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: O'Connor's Bid to Dismiss "Norton" Suit OK'd


                            *********


455 HOSPITALITY: Banquet Servers Seek to Recover Unpaid OT & Tips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Ocampo, Igor Morozov, Jorge Villanueva, Amaury Ortiz,
Plinio Retana, Manuel Calderon, and Sutee Monchaitanapat, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. 455
Hospitality LLC, DoubleTree Franchise LLC, DoubleTree Hotel
Systems, Inc., Richard Friedman, David Ribbens, Norma Abdou and
Nurul Haque, Case No. 7:14-cv-09614-KMK (S.D.N.Y., December 4,
2014) is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs, who worked as banquet servers for the Defendants
at DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel located in Tarrytown, New York, seek
to recover unpaid overtime, gratuities and tips pursuant to the
FLSA.

455 Hospitality LLC is a New York limited liability company and is
the owner, operator and manager of DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel
Tarrytown.  455 Hospitality is a franchisee of DoubleTree
Franchise LLC and DoubleTree Hotel Systems, Inc.  The Individual
Defendants are directors or officers of Hotel.

DoubleTree Franchise LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
headquartered in McLean, Virginia.  DoubleTree Hotel Systems,
Inc., is an Arizona corporation also headquartered in McLean.
They granted licenses to franchisees, including 455 Hospitality.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Joseph Malley, Esq.
          SMITH, BUSS & JACOBS, LLP
          733 Yonkers Avenue, Suite 200
          Yonkers, NY 10704
          Telephone: (914) 476-0600
          Facsimile: (914) 476-0614
          E-mail: jmalley@sbjlaw.com

               - and -

          Vincent Volino, Esq.
          VINCENT VOLINO PLLC
          1250 Central Park Avenue
          Yonkers, NY 10704
          Telephone: (914) 423-2023
          Facsimile: (914) 423-8964
          E-mail: vvolino@volinolaw.com


ACXIOM CORPORATION: Parties Reached Settlement in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Acxiom Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the parties in a
class action lawsuit have reached a tentative settlement agreement
and the Company has accrued $3.7 million as its estimate of its
probable loss associated with this matter.

On August 16, 2012, a putative class action styled Henderson, et
al. v. Acxiom Risk Mitigation, Inc., et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
against the Company, Acxiom Information Security Systems, a former
subsidiary of the Company that was sold to another company in
fiscal 2012, and Acxiom Risk Mitigation, Inc. (now known as Acxiom
Identity Solutions, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company), a
subsidiary of the Company.  The action seeks to certify nationwide
classes of persons who requested a consumer file from any Acxiom
entity from 2007 forward; who were the subject of an Acxiom report
sold to a third party that contained information not obtained
directly from a governmental entity and who did not receive a
timely copy of the report; who were the subject of an Acxiom
report and about whom Acxiom adjudicated the hire/no hire decision
on behalf of the employer; who, from 2010 forward,  disputed an
Acxiom report and Acxiom did not complete the investigation within
30 days; or who, from 2007 forward,  were the subject of an Acxiom
report for which no permissible purpose existed. The complaint
alleges various violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and
seeks injunctive relief, an unspecified amount of statutory,
compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

The parties have reached a tentative settlement agreement and the
Company has accrued $3.7 million as its estimate of its probable
loss associated with this matter.  The Company believes the
chances of additional loss are remote.


ALL STEEL: Faces "Rogel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Rogel, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. All Steel Iron Works, Inc., and John Kot,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-09653 (N.D. Ill., December 2,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

All Steel Iron Works, Inc. is a Chicago-area based structural and
miscellaneous steel fabricator and erector.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Mechanics Lack Standing to Sue, Court Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines mechanics unhappy with their employer's contract
with the Transportation Workers Union lack standing to sue,
reports David Lee at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal
court ruling.

Fort Worth-based American merged with US Airways last year after
filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2011.

Mechanics narrowly ratified the TWU contract during the
bankruptcy, defeating a contingent that preferred representation
by the American Mechanics Fraternal Association.  The contract
runs through September 2018 and will not be up for renegotiation
until September 2016.

Gary Peterson and others brought a federal class action in
Washington last year, claiming TWU breached its duty of fair
representation and violated their voting rights under the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.  They claimed that TWU
favored mechanics who work at American's main maintenance base in
Tulsa, Okla., at the expense of company mechanics elsewhere.
American is not a party in the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs claimed the union negotiated to "inflict
disproportionate losses on what it viewed as troublesome
dissenters," and that its leadership was "openly hostile" during
negotiations with leaders of non-Tulsa local unions.

Instead of trying to invalidate the contract or seek monetary
damages, the plaintiffs asked for declaratory judgment and a
permanent injunction stopping TWU from using the alleged unfair
practices in future negotiations.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper tossed the lawsuit on
December 1 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  In addition
to being unripe, the mechanics' suit failed to identify "any
impending injury that could be prevented by the relief they seek,"
Cooper said.

"Given the distinct possibility that the TWU will not be the
exclusive bargaining representative in negotiations over the next
CBA, and the lack of information regarding when and how
negotiations can be expected to unfold, plaintiffs have not
demonstrated a substantial risk that TWU's alleged favoritism
towards the Tulsa mechanics in the last round of system-wide
bargaining will reoccur," the 12-page opinion states.  "This
source of alleged future injury is therefore insufficient to
establish standing."

The mechanics failed to show that the union's proposal for a
joint-negotiation council in the future will nonetheless give TWU
influence detrimental to their interests, according to the ruling.

"Plaintiffs have not alleged who the TWU representatives on the
joint council will be; how the TWU's stance might be adverse to
the plaintiffs' interests; or, even if it proves to be adverse,
whether the TWU representatives would be in a position to compel
the joint council to engage in the types of unfair practices
alleged in the second amended complaint," Cooper wrote.  "Given
these uncertainties, the possibility that the TWU might harm the
Plaintiffs via its influence over any future joint council is too
speculative to satisfy Article III standing requirements."

Cooper also disagreed that the suit is necessary to protect the
mechanics from unfair treatment in the current collective-
bargaining agreement.  The mechanics said continuing negotiations
"on a variety of subjects" exposes them to potential harm.

"Yet the second amended complaint fails even to mention any
specific day-to-day negotiations, let alone allege injuries
stemming from them," Cooper wrote.  "Although the court may
examine evidence outside the complaint to decide a Rule 12(b)(1)
motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs still have not meet their burden to
allege likely injury arising from day-to-day representation."

TWU representatives could not be reached for comment late December
2 evening.  American did not respond to a request for comment.

The case is Gary Peterson, et al. v. Transport Workers Union of
America, AFL-CIO, Case No. 1:13-cv-00170 (CRC), in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.


APPLE INC: iTunes Updates Protects From Hackers, Expert Testifies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An Apple security expert defended a series of iTunes updates as
protection from hackers, as the trial of a class action antitrust
lawsuit against the tech giant continued in an Oakland federal
court on December 3, according to Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News
Service.

At issue is the claim that Apple maintained a music player
monopoly from 2006 to 2009 by releasing updates to its music store
that made it impossible for iPods to play songs from competing
stores.  Plaintiffs say this harmed consumers by making it costly
to switch to other devices, and allowed Apple to charge high
prices.

Augustin Farrugia, a senior director at Apple, told the jury
during the trial's second day that updates were necessary to
bolster security in a system that "had flaws everywhere."

Part of the trial's focus is software by RealNetwork called
Harmony, which allowed songs from Real's music store to be played
on the iPod until iTunes updates prevented that.

Plaintiff's attorneys have argued that the iTunes updates were
directed at competitors like Real.

But Farrugia said Apple plays a "cat and mouse" game with hackers,
and must continuously update its security to stay ahead.  When
questioned by Apple's attorneys, Farrugia also pointed out that
Apple's updates did not prevent songs downloaded from Amazon.com's
mp3 store -- another competitor -- from being played in iTunes or
on iPods.

After Farrugia's testimony, lead plaintiff Mariana Rosen --
representing a class of an estimated eight million consumers and
500 businesses -- took the stand.

Rosen testified that she tried to buy music from a Russian
website, but the music did not play because it wasn't in Apple's
format.  Because much of her music library was purchased through
iTunes, she said she didn't want to get another device.

"In a way, I was a little bit forced to buy a certain product,"
Rosen said.  "Even if I would have chosen Apple in the end, I
would have wanted it to be my own choice."

Video from Steve Jobs' deposition in the nearly decade-old case is
expected to be shown in court during the trial.  It was initially
slated for December 3 or 4, but has been pushed back.


AWA SECURITY: Removes "Morales" Suit to Florida District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Morales v. AWA Security, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 14-028599 CA 01, was removed from the County
Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade
County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-cv-24590-CMA to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings a claim for minimum wage, overtime and
attorneys fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as
well as the Florida Minimum Wage Act.  The Plaintiff also brings a
claim for retaliation under the Florida Whistleblower Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower, Suite 2200
          44 West Flagler Street
          Miami, Fl 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
                  bshulman@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jana M. Leichter, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
          1645 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
          Sabadell Bank Building, 2nd Floor
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 383-9241
          Facsimile: (561) 683-8977
          E-mail: Jana.Leichter@csklegal.com


AXA EQUITABLE: New York Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
denied the Company's motion to dismiss a class action complaint.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York in April 2014, entitled Andrew Yale
on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. AXA Life
Insurance Company F/K/A AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The
lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all persons and
entities who, directly or indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid
premiums on life insurance policies issued by AXA Equitable from
2011 to March 11, 2014 (the "Policies"). The complaint alleges
that the reserves listed in AXA Equitable's New York statutory
annual statement did not disclose that certain reinsurance
transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies were
collateralized using "contractual parental guarantees," and
thereby allegedly misrepresented AXA Equitable's "financial
condition" and its "legal reserve system." The lawsuit seeks
recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of the
equivalent of all premiums paid by the class for the Policies
during that period. In June 2014, AXA Equitable filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, which was denied in October 2014.


BLUE BUFFALO: Removes "Cox" Suit to Southern District of Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Cox v. Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd.,
Case No. 2014 CV 06322, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas
in Montgomery County, Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio (Dayton).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00435-WHR to the proceeding.

Plaintiff Beth Cox alleges that Blue Buffalo's advertising and
marketing practices violated Ohio common law prohibitions on
breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust
enrichment.  She contends that Blue Buffalo also falsely claims
that its Pet Food Products do not contain corn, other grains or
artificial preservatives.

The action is one of several related putative class actions filed
in multiple jurisdictions against Blue Buffalo, the others of
which have all been transferred to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri for "coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
          Daniel Frech, Esq.
          SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
          1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 696-3232
          Facsimile: (216) 696-3924
          E-mail: sscott@spanglaw.com
                  dfrech@spanglaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Tycko, Esq.
          Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          2000 L Street, NW, Suite 808
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: jtycko@tzlegal.com
                  agold@tzlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          D. Jeffrey Ireland, Esq.
          FARUKI IRELAND & COX, P.L.L.
          500 Courthouse Plaza, SW
          10 North Ludlow Street
          Dayton, OH 45402
          Telephone: (937) 227-3710
          Facsimile: (937) 227-3717
          E-mail: djireland@ficlaw.com

               - and -

          Martin Flumenbaum, Esq.
          Robert A. Atkins, Esq.
          Darren W. Johnson, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 757-3990
          E-mail: mflumenbaum@paulweiss.com
                  ratkins@paulweiss.com
                  djohnson@paulweiss.com


BODACIOUS FOOD: Sued by Cincinnati Insurance in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Bodacious Food Company, a
Georgia Corporation, and Linda Dye, as an Individual and
Representative of a Purported Class of Others similarly situated,
Case No. 9:14-cv-81515-BB (S.D. Fla., December 4, 2014) seeks
declaratory judgment relating to insurance-related dispute.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Arthur Glenny, Esq.
          BICE COLE LAW FIRM, P.L.
          1333 SE 25th Loop, Suite 101
          Ocala, FL 34471
          Telephone: (352) 732-2255
          Facsimile: (352) 351-0166
          E-mail: glenny@bicecolelaw.com

               - and -

          Melanie Erica Chung-Tims, Esq.
          BICE COLE LAW FIRM, P.L.
          999 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 710
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 444-1225
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1598
          E-mail: chungtims@bicecolelaw.com


BOREVIEW SERVICES: "Nash" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Nash, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Boreview Services, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-03452 (S.D.
Tex., December 2, 2014), seeks to recover the unpaid overtime
wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Boreview Services, LLC is an oilfield services company based in
the Houston area with significant operations in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet St
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


CANADA LINE: 200+ Cambrie Street Merchants File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Sinoski, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that at the
height of the Canada Line tunnel construction in December 2007,
Leonard Schein's Park Theatre pulled in C$73,000 at the box
office.

Although Canada Line lawyer Sean Hern suggested on that wasn't a
bad haul -- and could have been related to the movies showing at
the time -- Mr. Schein disagreed, saying December is usually a big
month at the Park.

"In December, under C$100,000 we would be doing poorly," Mr.
Schein testified before B.C. Supreme Court Justice Christopher
Grauer on Nov. 25.  "To do so poorly, something is going wrong."

That something -- a cut-and-cover tunnel that ripped up a section
of Cambie Street for three years -- is at the heart of a class-
action lawsuit launched by more than 200 Cambie Street merchants.

The suit, started in B.C. Supreme Court, is seeking compensation
from Canada Line Rapid Transit Inc., contractor SNC-Lavalin,
TransLink and others for the hardship experienced by businesses
along Cambie Street from 2005 to 2009.

Lawyer Paul Bennett, who is representing the class-action members,
argued in his opening statements that SNC-Lavalin and TransLink
should have constructed a bored tunnel along Cambie Street between
6th Avenue and King Edward to lessen the impact on merchants.

"The construction of the Canada Line tunnels using the cut and
cover method of construction transformed Cambie Village into an
intense and extensive construction zone for more than three years
while the Canada Line was constructed," said Bennett, of Hordo
Bennett Mounteer.

This is the second time Cambie Street merchants have appeared in
court over the Canada Line construction.  Susan Heyes, owner of
Hazel & Co., was awarded $600,000 in damages as compensation for
the construction that disrupted her sales from 2005 to 2008.
However, that judgment was overturned by the Court of Appeal in
2011.

Canada Line lawyer Robert McDonnell -- rmcdonell@farris.com -- of
Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy, said his firm will rely on the
Court of Appeal ruling, which dismissed Ms. Heyes' claim for
compensation on the basis that Canada Line construction was
authorized by provincial statutes.

"Canada Line will be asking the court to dismiss these additional
claims on the same basis," Mr. McDonnell said.

However, Bennett argues the Cambie merchants are entitled to claim
damages for nuisance, or alternatively, if the interference was
authorized by statute, for injurious affection.

"This construction significantly restricted the ability of the
public to conveniently access and patronize the businesses
operating in Cambie Village," he said.

Mr. Schein testified on Nov. 25 that contractor SNC-Lavalin had
failed to provide permanent signs to guide traffic, while taking
up merchant and customer blocks parking with no warning to the
Cambie Village Merchants' Association or the City of Vancouver.

"It was like an ongoing battle to have things being done to
minimize the damage," Mr. Schein said, adding radio traffic
announcers were warning people to stay away from Cambie.

"And that was all we were asking for: to minimize the damage."

Mr. Schein said it wasn't until seven months later that the Canada
Line said it would work with the city to make improvements.  And
even then, he said, the contractor failed to carry through on its
promises to provide funding to enhance Cambie Street with better
lamp standards and repaved roads.

However, Hern, who is working with McDonnell, suggested Mr. Schein
benefited from the Canada Line. He noted the Park box office
bounced back after the Canada Line construction was finished,
raking in C$110,000 in December 2009 and C$171,000 in December
2010.

But Mr. Schein argued the King Edward Station is too far away from
the Park for customers, who are mostly women, to walk. "I do not
think we were helped by the Canada Line at all," he said.

Gary Gautam, of the Cambie General Store, said while he "loves the
Canada Line," he was also affected by the construction.  Although
he considers himself one of the "lucky ones" with strong support
from his neighbors and a two-year rent reduction from his
landlord, Mr. Gautam said he was forced to cut his hours and raise
prices to stay afloat.

The hearing continues.


CHILDRESS DIRECTIONAL: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Nash" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Nash, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Childress Directional Drilling, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-
03450 (S.D. Tex., December 2, 2014), seeks to recover the unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Childress Directional Drilling, LLC is a Houston-based oilfield
service company with significant operations in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet St
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


COBALT INT'L: Faces "Neuman" Suit Over Securities Laws Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Neuman, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. Cobalt International Energy, Inc., Joseph H.
Bryant, and John P. Wilkirson, Case No. 4:14-cv-03488 (S.D. Tex.,
December 5, 2014) is a federal securities class action on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons other than the Defendants,
who purchased Cobalt securities between February 21, 2012, and
August 4, 2014, inclusive.

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants'
alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the
Company and certain of its top officials.

Cobalt International Energy, Inc., is engaged in the exploration
and production of oil-focused and below-salt exploration prospects
in the deepwater of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and offshore Angola
and Gabon in West Africa.  During relevant times, Joseph H. Bryant
is the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
of Directors, while John P. Wilkirson is the Company's Chief
Financial Officer and Executive Vice President.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sammy Ford IV, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, WATKINS, NICHOLS, SORRELS, AGOSTO & FRIEND
          800 Commerce Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-7211
          Facsimile: (713) 225-0827
          E-mail: sford@abrahamwatkins.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


COBALT INT'L: Sued for Bribing Angolan Officials for Oil Rights
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford at Courthouse News Service reports that Cobalt
International Energy bribed Angolan officials for oil drilling
rights and its stock price tanked when the SEC took note, costing
investors billions of dollars, according to a class action
lawsuit.

The named plaintiffs are two pension funds: one for St. Lucie
County firefighters in Florida and one for firefighters and police
in San Antonio.

They sued Cobalt, a Houston-based oil drilling firm, its
directors, and several investment firms that controlled the
company, including Goldman Sachs and The Carlyle Group, on
November 28 in Texas Federal Court.

Goldman Sachs and its fellow investment firm Riverstone Holdings
founded Cobalt in 2005 with $500 million in financing, according
to the lawsuit.

"Between 2006 and the company's December 15, 2009 initial public
offering, the investment firms invested more than $1 billion
collectively to capitalize the company," the 72-page complaint
states.

Cobalt also raised billions of dollars from outside investors and
took its fat pockets to Angola to shop for oil wells, the pension
funds claim.

"In February 2010, pursuant to an agreement with the Angolan
government, Cobalt gained access to certain oil exploration
'blocks' in offshore Angola," the lawsuit states.

Cobalt enticed investors by claiming the blocks contained oil
reserves with a "greater than billion barrel potential," according
to the complaint.

But things were not as they seemed at Cobalt, the plaintiffs
claim, which became apparent when the company announced in
February 2012 that the SEC was investigating it under the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act.

Though Cobalt told investors it "strongly refuted any allegations
of wrongdoing," the SEC did not go away, ramping up investigation
in August to include possible securities violations, the
plaintiffs say.

That news broke on Aug. 5 this year via an announcement from
Cobalt.

"Also, on the morning of August 5, 2014, Bloomberg reported that
an anti-corruption organization had determined that Cobalt had
made an apparent bribe to the Angolan government, because Cobalt
had paid the Angolan government millions of dollars to support an
Angolan research center that Cobalt could not confirm actually
exists," the complaint states.

On Nov. 5, Cobalt disclosed that contrary to its previous claims
that one of its Angolan wells was oil-rich, testing revealed the
well contained neither oil nor gas.

Investors were whipsawed with the announcements, as the share
price fell from $15.97 in early August to $8.84 as of December 2
morning.

"As a result of defendants' misconduct, plaintiffs and the class
collectively incurred massive, multibillion-dollar losses on their
investments in Cobalt securities," the complaint states.

The pension funds seek class certification and damages for
Securities Act violations.

The defendants are a who's who of financial service firms,
including Goldman Sachs Group, Riverstone Holdings LLC, The
Carlyle Group, First Reserve Corp., KERN Partners Ltd., Morgan
Stanley & Co., Credit Suisse Securities (USA), Citigroup Global
Markets and JP Morgan Securities.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gerald Drought, Esq.
          MARTIN & DROUGHT, P.C.
          Bank of America Plaza
          300 Convent St., 25th Floor
          San Antonio, TX 78205-3789
          Telephone: (210) 227-7591
          Facsimile: (210) 227-7924
          E-mail: gdrought@mdtlaw.com


COMMUNITY BANK: Reached Settlement in Two Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
Community Bank System, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Community
Bank, N.A. reached a settlement in two class actions pending in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania which were commenced October 30, 2013 and May 29,
2014, respectively.

The first action alleged that notices provided by the Bank in
connection with the repossession of the named plaintiff's
automobile failed to comply with certain requirements of the
Pennsylvania and New York Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and
related statutes.  The plaintiff sought to pursue the action as a
class action on behalf of herself and similarly situated
plaintiffs who had their automobiles repossessed and sought to
recover statutory damages under the UCC. The second action filed
May 29, 2014 contained similar allegations, which the plaintiff
also sought to pursue as a class action for statutory damages. In
both cases, the Bank contested the allegations that the notices
were deficient, asserted various legal defenses and counterclaims,
and opposed class certification in both of the cases.  On
September 30, 2014, the Bank reached an agreement in principle to
settle both actions for $2.8 million in exchange for releases of
all claims.  The settlement is subject to final documentation,
notice to the class members and Court approval. A litigation
settlement charge of $2.8 million with respect to the settlement
of the class actions was recorded in the third quarter.

The Company also said that operating expenses of $58.8 million and
$169.9 for the third quarter and September YTD periods increased
$3.8 million or 6.8% and $5.9 million or 3.6% from the comparable
prior year periods, respectively, reflective of the additional
operating costs associated with operating a larger enterprise.
Included in third quarter 2014 operating expenses is a $2.8
million litigation settlement charge pertaining to class action
lawsuits involving the sufficiency of consumer notice requirements
for certain of the Company's collateral recovery activities.  The
Company contests the allegations and asserted affirmative defenses
to the claims, however, the settlement the Company was able to
achieve was, in its judgment, a superior outcome for the
shareholders when measured against the risks and resources
required for litigation.  The settlement is subject to final court
approval.  Excluding the litigation settlement charge, operating
expenses for the quarter and year-to-date periods were $56.0 and
$167.1, respectively, an increase of $1.0 million or 1.8% from the
third quarter of 2013 and an increase of $3.1 million or 1.9% as
compared to the first nine months of 2013.


COMPUTER CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ari Pfeffer, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Computer Credit, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07090
(E.D.N.Y., December 4, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


CRANE CO: Completes Obligations to Close Class Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company completed all
obligations required of it to complete the settlement of a class
action related to the Roseland Site.

The Roseland Site was operated by Resistoflex Corporation
("Resistoflex"), which became an indirect subsidiary of the
Company in 1985 when the Company acquired Resistoflex's parent
company, UniDynamics Corporation. Resistoflex manufactured
specialty lined pipe and fittings at the site from the 1950s until
it was closed in the mid-1980s. In 2009, at the request of the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ("NJDEP"), the
Company performed certain tests of the indoor air quality of
approximately 40 homes in a residential area surrounding the
Roseland Site to determine if any contaminants (volatile organic
compound vapors from groundwater) from the Roseland Site were
present in those homes. The test results showed that three homes
had volatile organic compound vapors above NJ DEP's recommended
concentration levels, and the Company installed vapor mitigation
equipment in those homes.

On April 15, 2011, those three homeowners, and the tenants in one
of those homes, filed separate suits against the Company seeking
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for their lost
property value and nuisance. In addition, a homeowner in the
testing area, whose home tested negative for the presence of
contaminants, filed a class action suit against the Company on
behalf of himself and 138 other homeowners in the surrounding
area, claiming damages in the nature of loss of value on their
homes due to their proximity to the Roseland Site. The plaintiffs
in these cases amended their complaints to assert claims under New
Jersey's Environmental Rights Act for the Company's alleged
failure to properly report its waste discharge practices in the
late 1960s and early 1970s, and for natural resource damages.

In late December 2013, the plaintiffs moved to have a class of 139
homeowners certified, and the motion was granted in early February
2014. At the same time the Court also entered partial summary
judgment on liability for the three homes where the Company had
installed vapor mitigation equipment. The Company reached an
agreement to settle all current claims with the class and
individual plaintiffs for a one-time payment of $6.5 million. This
agreement was approved by the Court on July 23, 2014 and the
Company completed all obligations required of it to complete the
settlement on October 10, 2014.

The Company undertook an extensive soil remediation effort at the
Roseland Site following its closure, and had been monitoring the
Site's condition in the years that followed. In response to
changes in remediation standards, the Company has conducted
further site characterization and delineation studies. In the
three months ended September 30, 2014, the Company, in
consultation with its advisors, substantially completed its
assessment of soil and groundwater contaminants at the Roseland
Site, and developed an enhanced remediation plan for the site,
which includes further soil removal, groundwater treatment, and
soil vapor extraction, resulting in a charge of $6.8 million for
remediation activities which are expected to be completed by 2017.

Estimates of the Company's environmental liabilities at the
Roseland Site are based on currently available facts, present laws
and regulations and current technology available for remediation,
and are recorded on an undiscounted basis. While actual
remediation cost may be more or less than amounts accrued, the
Company believes it has established adequate reserves for all
probable and reasonably estimable costs.


CSK AUTO: Uses Consumer Reports for Background Checks, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Estrada, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. CSK Auto, Inc. d/b/a O'Reilly
Auto Parts, an Arizona corporation; O'Reilly Auto Enterprises,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and O'Reilly Automotive
Stores, Inc., a Missouri corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-02888-GPC-
NLS (S.D. Cal., December 5, 2014) arises from the Defendants'
alleged acquisition and use of consumer and investigative consumer
reports to conduct background checks on the Plaintiff and other
prospective, current, and former employees.

CSK Auto, Inc., doing business as O'Reilly Auto Parts, is an
Arizona corporation headquartered in Springfield, Missouri, and is
engaged in commercial transactions throughout the county.
O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability
company also headquartered in Springfield.  O'Reilly Automotive
Stores, Inc., is a Missouri corporation headquartered in
Springfield.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raul Perez, Esq.
          Melissa Grant, Esq.
          Arnab Banerjee, Esq.
          Alexandria Witte, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Raul.Perez@Capstonelawyers.com
                  Melissa.Grant@Capstonelawyers.com
                  Arnab.Banerjee@Capstonelawyers.com
                  Alexandria.Witte@Capstonelawyers.com


DIODES INCORPORATED: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diodes Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued on
September 15, 2014, an order regarding the putative securities
class action, entitled Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators and Pavers
Pension Trust Fund v. Diodes, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00247
(E.D. Tex. filed Mar. 15, 2013) (the "Class Action"), granting
defendants' motion to dismiss the Class Action with prejudice.  On
October 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the order
dismissing the Class Action to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.  The defendants intend to continue defend
this action vigorously.

Diodes Incorporated is a global manufacturer and supplier of high-
quality, application specific standard products within the broad
discrete, logic and analog semiconductor markets, serving the
consumer electronics, computing, communications, industrial and
automotive markets throughout Asia, North America and Europe.


DISH NETWORK: Faces Suit for Failing to Provide Turner Programs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action seeks
compensation for Dish Network's failure to provide programming
from (nonparty) Turner Broadcasting from Oct. 21 to Nov. 20 this
year.


DRESS BARN: Removes "Velasco" Suit to California District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Velasco v. The Dress Barn,
Inc., Case No. BC562902, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Los
Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
09399 to the proceeding.

The case alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

The Defendant is represented by:

          David H. Raizman, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-9800
          Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
          E-mail: david.raizman@ogletreedeakins.com


ELIMAR HOLDINGS: Accused of Not Paying Proper Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Rolando Rodriguez, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Elimar Holdings, LLC. d/b/a Sunshine Auto Center, a Florida
Limited Liability company, Elizabeth Jochim, individually, Case
No. 1:14-cv-24615-CMA (S.D. Fla., December 5, 2014) alleges that
during the Plaintiff's employment, he worked around 55 hours of
overtime per week, in which he was not properly compensated.

Elimar Holdings, LLC, doing business as Sunshine Auto Center, is a
Florida profit corporation authorized to conduct business in
Miami-Dade County, Florida, where the Plaintiff worked for the
Defendants.  Elizabeth Jochim is a corporate officer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EP FITNESS: Faces Class Suit Over Membership Cancellation Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
BizNews.com reports that one week after KFOX14 investigated
popular gym EP Fitness' questionable billing and cancellation
policies, a local attorney has informed the news agency he will
file a class action lawsuit against the gym.

As KFOX14 reported, EP Fitness President Mario Durand admitted to
ordering employees to extend the expiration dates on customer
credit cards.  Local attorneys and the El Paso County Sheriff's
Office said that is illegal under Texas Penal Code 32.31.

After the story was posted on the KFOX14 Facebook page, it
received more than 600 comments, a large majority of which were
from people claiming to have experienced numerous billing and
cancellation issues.

Attorney Ricardo Rios of the firm Rios & Parada saw the report and
all of those complaints.

"My initial thought was that finally someone is doing something
about it," he said.  "I cancelled my membership with them more
than a year ago, and they continue to call me saying that I have a
past due balance."

Mr. Rios plans to file the lawsuit using two specific Texas
statutes.

"The Deceptive Trade Practices Act is one of them," he said.  "The
other is the Texas Debt Collection Act, and basically, that
prohibits anyone from trying to collect a debt that isn't
collectible or that isn't owed.  You'd have to calculate the
damages, so there's a dollar amount to whatever was charged that
wasn't owed, then if you can prove it was done intentionally or
knowingly, then you can recover up to three times the dollar
amount."

Because of the sheer amount of people possibly affected by EP
Fitness, Mr. Rios said he will aim for a class action lawsuit.

"Based off what I've seen so far, a lot of people have the exact
same complaints, in order for a class action, you have to show
commonality so that everyone was damaged in the same way, so I
think we can do that," he said.  "For someone to find an attorney
to take the case, it's gonna cost a lot more than recovering that
$20 or $30.  So a lot of the times, nothing is done about it, but
in a case where there's repeated offenses and it's affecting a lot
of people, then it kind of gives everyone leverage, because now
it's worth pursuing and it's not going to cost more than what it's
worth."

Mr. Rios agreed with opinions KFOX14 had received from other
attorneys and law enforcement that the practice of altering
customer credit cards is illegal.

"In this case I think it's pretty clear, especially when you look
at some of the things like they were changing the expiration dates
on the credit cards, the Attorney General would step in and either
assist or take over the case," he said.

"Look at a credit card, can an individual even change the
expiration date on their own? And the answer is no, I mean how do
you go about doing that?" he said.  "They'll renew your credit
card and send you a new one, but it's not something you can do on
your own, the fact you can't do it yourself with your own speaks
wonders about why EP Fitness thinks it's okay to do it."

Mr. Rios said before he can file the case, he has to inform EP
Fitness and allow them a response.

"I think the case will be very strong," he said.  "If anyone is
having similar problems, or any type of problems for that matter,
that are related to this, go ahead and contact our office and
we'll go over this on a case-by-case basis."


F.N.B. CORP: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed OBA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
F.N.B. Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed the OBA Financial Services, Inc. Stockholder
Litigation.

As previously reported in the Corporation's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, on May 7,
2014, a purported shareholder of OBA filed a putative class action
complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland,
captioned Parshall v. OBA Financial Services, Inc., et al., Case
No. 390369V, and naming as defendants OBA, OBA Bank, OBA's board
of directors, the Corporation and FNBPA. The plaintiff alleged
that OBA's board of directors breached its fiduciary duty to OBA's
shareholders by approving a proposed transaction containing
certain so-called "deal protection devices" and, as a result,
OBA's shareholders allegedly would not receive fair value for
their stock. The plaintiff further alleged that OBA, OBA Bank, the
Corporation and FNBPA aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty by the OBA board. On July 3, 2014, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint with additional allegations regarding
certain purported nondisclosures relating to the registration
statement for the proposed transaction.

The plaintiff sought an injunction barring the defendants from
completing the merger; rescission of the merger agreement to the
extent already implemented or, in the alternative, an award of
rescissory damages; an accounting to plaintiff for all damages
caused by the defendants; and an award of the costs and expenses
incurred by the plaintiff in the lawsuit, including a reasonable
allowance for counsel fees and expert fees.

On September 15, 2014, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his
complaint.


FANDUEL INC: Faces "Buzin" Suit Over Misleading Product Ad
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Buzin, and Brian Sigman, individually and on behalf of a
Class and Subclass v. Fanduel, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-09517
(S.D.N.Y., December 2, 2014), against Defendant for false and
misleading advertising in violation of New York General Business
Law.

Fanduel, Inc. is a fantasy sports website that permits individuals
to play one-day fantasy sports games.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David P. Kreizer, Esq.
      FISHER, BYRIALSEN & KREIZER, PLLC
      291 Broadway, Suite 709
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 962-0848
      E-mail: Kreizer@FBKLegal.com


FANDUEL INC: Faces "Carroll" Suit Over Misleading Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class
action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida claims FanDuel Inc. used false or misleading
advertising and caused monetary damages to its users.

The lawsuit, filed Nov. 20, claims that the fantasy sports
website's claim to match a new member's initial deposit of up to
$200 is inaccurate, claiming instead a complicated formula used by
the site "does not match a single dollar."

FanDuel offers consumers an opportunity to pay entry fees to play
one-day fantasy sports games and takes a percentage of each pot as
a fee for hosting the game.  The lawsuit cites television
commercials in which FanDuel uses terms such as "Deposit now, and
we'll match up to 200 bucks, dollar for dollar;" "Double your
deposit with promo code;" and "Deposit is 100% matched."

The lawsuit claims rather than matching the new member deposit,
the website uses a formula that releases four percent of the entry
fee during each contest entered.  Instead of a $200 deposit
resulting in $400 in a member's account, a consumer receives a
bonus of $8 if he or she enters a $200 contest.

A consumer would have to spend $5,000 in contest order fees to
receive a match of its initial $200 investment, the lawsuit
claims.

Plaintiff Joshua Carroll started with a $25 initial deposit to
FanDuel.  When he spent that $25 on contests, FanDuel released $1
of his bonus.

"Carroll must invest an additional $600 with FanDuel before
FanDuel releases its promised $25 bonus," the lawsuit said.

Attorneys Edward H. Zebersky -- ezebersky@zpllp.com -- and Philip
A. Gold are representing the plaintiffs.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida case
number 1:14-cv-24431.


FAST EVICTION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mogadam" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ati Mogadam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fast Eviction Service a/k/a Fast Eviction Services
a/k/a Ma's Fast Eviction Service, Case No. 2:14-cv-09245 (C.D.
Cal., December 2, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
negligently contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Fast Eviction Service operates in California for the purposes of
offering eviction assistance to consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3551
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


FIFTH THIRD: Court Denied Motion to Dismiss Complaints
------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the court in which
all but one of the opt-out federal antitrust lawsuit have been
consolidated denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints.

During April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a
consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed
against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial
institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. The plaintiffs, merchants operating
commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations,
claimed that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks
were unreasonable and sought injunctive relief and unspecified
damages. In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is
also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa and
has also entered into judgment and loss sharing agreements with
Visa, MasterCard and certain other named defendants.

In October 2012, the parties to the litigation entered into a
settlement agreement. The court entered a Class Settlement
Preliminary Approval Order in November 2012. Pursuant to the terms
of the settlement agreement, the Bancorp paid $46 million into a
class settlement escrow account.

Previously, the Bancorp paid an additional $4 million in another
settlement escrow in connection with the settlement of claims from
plaintiffs not included in the class action. More than 7,900
merchants have requested exclusion from the class settlement.
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, 25% of the
funds paid into the class settlement escrow account have been
returned to the control of the defendants through Class Exclusion
Takedown Payments. Approximately 460 of the merchants who
requested exclusion from the class have filed separate federal
lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants
alleging similar antitrust violations. These "opt-out" federal
lawsuits have been transferred to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York. The Bancorp was not named as
a defendant in any of the opt-out federal lawsuits, but may have
obligations pursuant to indemnification arrangements and/or the
judgment or loss sharing agreements noted above. In addition, one
merchant filed a separate state court lawsuit against Visa,
MasterCard and certain other defendants, including the Bancorp,
alleging similar antitrust violations.

On January 14, 2014, the court entered a final order approving the
class settlement. On July 18, 2014, the court in which all but one
of the opt-out federal lawsuits have been consolidated denied
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints. A number of
merchants have filed appeals from that approval.


FIFTH THIRD: Supreme Court Remanded Case Back to 6th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Supreme Court
issued its mandate remanding a class action case back to the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals but no further proceedings have occurred.

In 2008, two cases were filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio against the Bancorp and certain
officers styled Dudenhoeffer v Fifth Third Bancorp et al. Case No.
1:08-cv-538. The complaints alleged violations of ERISA based on
allegations similar to those set forth in the previously reported
securities class action cases. The ERISA actions were dismissed by
the trial court, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the trial court decision. The Bancorp petitioned the United States
Supreme Court to review and reverse the Sixth Circuit decision and
sought a stay of proceedings in the trial court pending appeal.

On December 13, 2013, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and
agreed to hear the appeal. Oral arguments were held on April 2,
2014 and on June 25, 2014 the Supreme Court unanimously vacated
the Sixth Circuit decision and remanded the case for further
proceedings consistent with the standards articulated in its
decision. The Supreme Court issued its mandate remanding the case
back to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals but no further
proceedings have occurred.


FIREEYE INC: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Nov. 25 disclosed
that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of
FireEye, Inc. between January 2, 2014 through November 4, 2014,
inclusive, against the Company and certain of the Company's
officers and directors, alleging securities fraud pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The litigation is styled Collins v. FireEye, Inc. et al, 14-cv-
05204.  A copy of the Complaint filed in this action is available
from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP website at www.whafh.com

On May 6, 2014, FireEye announced its first quarter results,
surprising investors and analysts.  The Company's $24.3 million in
product revenue fell meaningfully short of analysts' estimates of
$31 million and reflected a move away from FireEye's organic
software business and towards service-oriented offerings which
lacked the same potential for profitability.  In reaction to these
disclosures, FireEye closed at $28.65, down $8.48 per share.  This
23% decline represented a market capitalization loss of over $1.25
billion.

The Company's stock continued its precipitous decline, plummeting
to close at a low of $25.76 on October 10, 2014, down 73.1% from
its Class Period high of $95.63 on March 5, 2014. Notwithstanding
the Company's declining product revenue and the marked turn away
from its organic software business, Defendants continuously touted
FireEye's organic and acquired growth as reasons for optimism and
promising future results.  Finally, on November 4, 2014, after the
market closed for trading, the Company released disappointing
third quarter results that missed analysts' expectations, and
further revealed the Company's virtual abandonment of its core
software product business model, resulting in a quarterly loss of
$0.51 per share.

If you purchased FireEye common stock during the Class Period
either in the open market and/or pursuant to the Secondary Public
Offering (SPO) on March 6, 2014, please call Wolf Haldenstein
immediately.

You may move to be appointed as lead plaintiff by January 26,
2015.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Wolf Haldenstein,
or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this
action.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has over 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in
New York, Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of
this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been
repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to
major positions in complex securities multi-district and
consolidated litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please
contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at
(800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our
website at www.whafh.com

All e-mail correspondence should make reference to "FireEye
litigation."

CONTACT: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
         Gregory Nespole, Esq., Thomas Burt, Esq.
         or Gregory Stone
         Email: nespole@whafh.com
                burt@whafh.com
                gstone@whafh.com or
                classmember@whafh.com
         Tel: (800) 575-0735
              (212) 545-4774


FIRST AMERICAN: Court Refuses to Open WaMu Appraisal Scheme Files
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge refused to unseal files related to Washington Mutual Bank's
alleged rigging and steering of appraisals to benefit mortgage
lenders before the market crashed.

The case in Washington, D.C., stems from a 2008 federal class
action that Felton Spears Jr. and Sidney Scholl first brought in
San Jose, Calif., against Washington Mutual Bank, Lender's Service
Inc., and the Santa Ana appraisal-management firm First American
eAppraiseIT.

Spears and Scholl said that back in 2006 WaMu had eAppraiseIT and
Lender's Service provide inflated mortgage-loan appraisals, so
that the bank could sell the aggregated security interests in the
properties at higher prices.

At WaMu's direction, eAppraiseIT and Lender's Service hired former
bank employees as appraisal business managers who could override
the values determined by third-party appraisers, the complaint
alleged.

The court in San Jose, Calif., dismissed all but a claim under the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act against eAppraiseIT in 2009,
and U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte certified the class in April
2012.

In Washington, the plaintiffs served the Office of the Comptroller
of Currency (OCC) with a subpoena for documents that the U.S.
Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) cited in a
2011 report on the 2007-08 financial crisis.

Though the Office of Thrift Supervision, which has since been
succeeded by the comptroller's office, gave the Senate the
documents under seal and without waiver of any privileges, the
comptroller objected to the subpoena, noting that many files may
be privileged.

After the plaintiffs narrowed their search to "15 specific Bates-
stamped documents" months later, the comptroller's office claimed
it could not find them.

The plaintiffs then moved to compel compliance with the subpoena
on Oct. 16, 2013.

Deferring ruling on the motion, a federal judge ordered deposition
of a comptroller's office representative about the agency's
efforts to locate the documents.

Upon retrieving the documents from the Senate, the comptroller
sent the plaintiffs a letter stating that it was withholding three
files based on attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-
product doctrine, and the deliberative-process privilege.

The plaintiffs argue, however, that the Office of Thrift
Supervision waived the privileges when it "voluntarily" gave the
files to the Senate subcommittee.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth denied the motion on Dec. 2,
finding that "documents produced pursuant to a subpoena are not
voluntarily disclosed.

"The OTS provided the documents under seal to the Senate PSI,"
Lamberth wrote, abbreviating Office of Thrift Supervision. "There
is less reason to find waiver when documents have been provided
pursuant to a subpoena, and provided under seal."

The office neither waived the deliberative process privilege,
because the disclosure was not "public," according to the ruling.

There is also no showing that the comptroller failed to adequately
object to the subpoena based on privilege, according to the
ruling.

"The OCC had not obtained the Bates-stamped documents, and
therefore, had no way of knowing exactly which privileges would
apply and for what reasons those privileges would apply," Lamberth
wrote, abbreviating Office of the Comptroller of Currency.

An appraiser filed similar claims against WaMu and eAppraiseIT in
2008, as did a group of shareholders in May 2009.

The case is Felton A. Spears, Jr., et al. v. First American
eAppraiseIT (a/k/a eAppraiseIT, LLC), Case No. 1:13-mc-01167
(RCL), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.


FIT FOODS: Faces False Advertising Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a California man is alleging in a
class action lawsuit that a nutrition company falsely advertised
one of its protein products.

Adrian Canizalez claims in his lawsuit that Fit Foods Ltd. adds a
"cheaper free form amino acid" in order to reduce protein-
manufacturing costs.  This process is often referred to as
protein-spiking.

The suit says the whey protein industry is expected to grow by 62
percent up to $7.8 billion in 2018, but because the cost of
wholesale whey protein is rising companies are protein-spiking
products in order to increase profits.

Fit Foods said there are 44 grams of protein in the product, but
the lawsuit alleges it actually contains about 32.6 grams of
protein.

As a result, the company's product has less whey protein than
represented to consumers, the suit claims.  Mr. Canizalez claims
at least two companies have recommended against protein-spiking,
including General Nutrition Centers, due to the fact that it is
misleading to customers.

The American Herbal Products Association has also condemned
protein-spiking and issued a standard for measuring protein in
products, he says.

Mr. Canizalez filed the lawsuit through attorney Tina Wolfson --
twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- of Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC.

United States District Court for Southern District of California
case number 3:14-cv-02744.


GAF MATERIALS: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Timbers Decking
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that GAF Materials Corp.'s Cross
Timbers Decking cannot stand up to outdoor use as the company
promises, a class action claims in Missouri Federal Court.


GAMESTOP INC: Removes "Larkin" Class Action Suit to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Larkin v. Gamestop, Inc., Case No.
14-27358 CA 40, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit in
Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-24596-DLG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Gerard Lyons, Esq.
          Curtis Jay Mase, Esq.
          Richard David Lara, Esq.
          William Robert Seitz, Esq.
          MASE LARA, PA
          2601 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 377-3770
          Facsimile: (305) 377-0080
          E-mail: clyons@maselara.com
                  cmase@mletrial.com
                  rlara@mltrial.com
                  wseitz@mltrial.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Perazzo, Esq.
          THE PERAZZO LAW FIRM, P.A.
          16666 NE 19th Ave., Suite 112
          North Miami Beach, FL 33162
          Telephone: (855) 737-2996

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel Brandon Rogers, Esq.
          Eric Stephen Boos, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP
          201 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3200
          Miami, FL 33131-4332
          Telephone: (305) 358-5171
          Facsimile: (305) 358-7470
          E-mail: drogers@shb.com
                  eboos@shb.com


GERBER INC: Court Finds Article III Standing for Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Boulos of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that in a consumer-protection class action filed
against Gerber in the District of New Jersey, In re Gerber
Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation, plaintiffs alleged that the
marketing and labeling of Gerber's infant formula and cereal were
deceptive.  Specifically, they claimed that, despite contrary
representations, the products provided no immune system benefits,
and that Gerber's formula was not near equal to breast milk.
Gerber moved to dismiss plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint,
arguing, among other things, that plaintiffs lacked Article III
standing to bring a claim related to Gerber's formula.  Gerber's
motion was denied in part and granted in part.

Article III Standing:  Article III standing requires a plaintiff
to suffer an "injury in fact" that is an invasion of a legally
protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized; and
(b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.  Also,
there must be a causal connection between the injury and the
conduct complained of.  Thus, it must be likely, not merely
speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable
decision.  Gerber argued that plaintiffs lacked Article III
standing to assert claims related to its infant formula products
because no remaining named plaintiff alleged to have purchased the
specific product.  As such, Gerber argued that plaintiffs failed
to allege an injury in-fact.

Citing the Third Circuit's decision in Hass v. Pittsburgh National
Bank and the District of New Jersey's decision in Stewart v. Smart
Balance, the Court explained that a plaintiff has standing to
pursue two closely related claims against the same defendant in a
putative class action, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff
lacks standing to pursue a particular claim.  Stewart involved
plaintiffs who brought a class action related to three products.
Defendants moved to dismiss because the named plaintiffs did not
purchase two of the three products.  The court found dismissal
inappropriate because the basis of the plaintiffs' claims as to
each product was the same, all three products were closely
related, and the defendants were the same.

With this background, the Court concluded that plaintiffs' claim
as to Gerber's formula and cereal was the same.  Plaintiffs
alleged that Gerber falsely promoted both products as having the
same probiotic bacteria that promotes the development of
children's immune systems.  The Court further concluded that the
products were closely related because the formula and cereal are
part of the same product line.  The products also bear the same
trademark, which was allegedly designed to help consumers
recognize Gerber foods with important vitamins and minerals that
support healthy growth as well as nutrients and ingredients that
support a healthy immune system.  Accordingly, the Court found
dismissal of plaintiff's claim inappropriate.

Thus, a plaintiff who lacks Article III standing to bring a claim
related to a particular product may nonetheless bring the claim in
a putative class action when (a) the basis of Plaintiffs' claim as
to another product at-issue was the same (b) the products were
closely related, and (c) the products were manufactured by the
same defendant.


GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Faces "Waters" Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James M. Waters and Michaela Shelton Waters, individually, and on
behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated v. Global
Payments, Inc., Global Payments Direct, Inc., Global Payments
Check Recovery Services, Inc., Global Payments Check Services,
Inc., and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. 5:14-cv-06134-BP
(W.D. Mo., December 5, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organizations Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants use "remotely created
checks" and "remotely created payment orders" to fraudulently
cause additional deductions or debits from the
customers/checkwriters' bank accounts and corresponding payments
to Defendant Global Payments Check Recovery Services, Inc., which
are then shared by the Defendants.

Global Payments, Inc. is a Georgia corporation that provides
electronic transaction and credit card processing, payment
processing, money transfer services, and other payment solutions
for merchants, corporation, financial institutions, schools,
gaming institutions, and government agencies.  Global Payments
Direct, Inc. is a New York corporation.  Direct is a shell
corporation that serves to function as Global's primary operating
entity in the United States.

Global Payments Check Recovery Services, Inc. is a Georgia
corporation.  Recovery is a "debt collector" and is involved in
Global's check processing, re-presentment and recovery services.
Global Payments Check Services, Inc. is an Illinois corporation.
Services is a "debt collector" and is involved in Global's check
processing, re-presentment and recovery services.

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a national bank, with offices in New
York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Frederick Walters, Esq.
          Garrett M. Hodes, Esq.
          WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, P.C.
          2500 City Center Square
          1100 Main Street
          Kansas City, Missouri 64105
          Telephone: (816) 421-6620
          Facsimile: (816) 421-4747
          E-mail: fwalters@wbsvlaw.com
                  ghodes@wbsvlaw.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Labaton Sucharow Files Nationwide Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP on Nov. 25 filed the first nationwide class
action against major platinum and palladium dealers Goldman Sachs,
HSBC, Standard Bank, and BASF, for manipulation of key benchmarks
used to price platinum and palladium, known as the "Platinum and
Palladium Fixings."  These entities meet twice a day by
teleconference in order to establish a global price for these
commodities in the world market.  The prices set during these
"fixings" also determine the prices of platinum- and palladium-
based financial products, such as platinum futures (PL) and
options (PO), as well as palladium futures (PA) and options (PAO),
traded on NYMEX.

"This new case involving price manipulation in the platinum and
palladium markets demonstrates that the global benchmark
manipulation scandals are far from over," says Firm partner and
Antitrust & Competition Litigation Practice co-chair, Gregory
Asciolla -- gasciolla@labaton.com "Businesses and investors were
injured by an eight-year long global conspiracy run by these
commodities dealers."

Since at least 2007, plaintiffs allege that Goldman Sachs, HSBC,
Standard Bank, and BASF used their influence over the Platinum and
Palladium Fixings to manipulate the prices for these metals to
enrich themselves at the expense of other market participants.
The manipulative conduct included front running and "spoofing" of
buy and sell orders.  These entities also allegedly shared and
discussed customer order flows so they could better coordinate
their strategies and increase their own financial gains.
Investors in these commodities and platinum- or palladium-based
financial products, like NYMEX platinum or palladium futures and
options, lost millions of dollars as a result of this conduct.

If you bought or sold platinum or palladium directly from a
wholesaler, refiner, or mining company, or bought or sold
platinum- or palladium-based financial products such as futures
and options on NYMEX, please contact Matthew Perez at
mperez@labaton.com or 888-753-2796 for more information about
potential claims.

                  About Labaton Sucharow LLP

Labaton Sucharow -- http://www.labaton.com-- prosecutes
precedent-setting class actions, recovering billions of dollars on
behalf of defrauded consumers and investors.  With nearly 60 full-
time attorneys, Labaton Sucharow's litigation group is
strengthened by its in-house team of investigators, financial
analysts, and forensic accountants.  The Firm litigates in the
areas of antitrust, consumer protection, and securities law.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Modern Settings Sue Over Platinum Price Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Larson, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Goldman
Sachs Group Inc. and HSBC Holdings Plc were sued in New York over
claims they conspired for eight years to manipulate prices for the
precious metals platinum and palladium in what plaintiffs' lawyers
say is the first class-action lawsuit of its kind in the U.S.

Standard Bank Group Ltd. and a metals unit of BASF SE, the world's
largest chemical company, were also sued.  The four companies used
inside information about client purchases and sale orders to
profit from price movements for the metals used in products
ranging from jewelry to cars, according to a complaint filed on
Nov. 25 in Manhattan federal court.

The lawsuit by Modern Settings LLC, a jeweler that buys precious
metals and derivatives set on their prices, claims the companies
"were privy to and shared confidential, non-public information
about client purchase and sale orders that allowed them to glean
information about the direction" of prices.

Similar lawsuits have been filed this year in Manhattan accusing
banks of rigging the benchmark price for gold. Authorities around
the world are examining the gold market for signs of wrongdoing.

Regulators tightened scrutiny of benchmarks after uncovering
price-rigging in interbank-loan rates and currencies. Silver
became the first precious metal to change its traditional
procedure in August, and Intercontinental Exchange Inc. will run
the replacement for the 95-year-old London gold fixing.  A new
mechanism for platinum and palladium starts Dec. 1.

Catalytic Converters

Michael DuVally, a spokesman for Goldman Sachs, declined to
comment on the lawsuit, as did HSBC spokeswoman Juanita Gutierrez
in New York.

Standard Bank is based in Johannesburg.  A message left at its
Manhattan office wasn't immediately returned on Nov. 25, while
BASF's London-based metals unit couldn't be reached.

The biggest uses of the metals are for jewelry and producing
catalytic converters, which curb harmful emissions from vehicles,
according to the complaint.

Carmakers' use of platinum will climb 7.9 percent to a six- year
high of 3.39 million ounces this year, and there will be "broad-
based growth" next year, auto-catalysts producer Johnson Matthey
Plc estimates.

Palladium auto usage will gain 4.9 percent this year to a record
7.3 million ounces. While demand will rise next year, it will
likely be at a slower pace, the company predicted. Johnson Matthey
makes about one-third of the world's catalytic converters.

Conference Calls

According to the complaint, the four companies participated in
twice-daily conference calls to set global price benchmarks for
platinum and palladium, which also affected derivative products
based on the precious metals.

"This unlawful behavior allowed defendants to reap substantial
profits, while non-insiders, which include plaintiffs and members
of the class, were injured," lawyers for New York-based Modern
Settings said in the filing.

Modern Settings needs a judge's approval before it can represent
other buyers of the metals.

The gross demand for platinum and palladium last year was more
than 8 million ounces and more than 9.6 million ounces,
respectively, according to the complaint.


GT ADVANCED: Securities Class Action Pending in New Hampshire
-------------------------------------------------------------
Smith Segura & Raphael, LLP (SSR) alerts investors that a class
action has been filed against GT Advanced Technologies, Inc.
(NASDAQ GS: GTAT).  The suit is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Hampshire and investors
have until December 8, 2014, to move for lead plaintiff.

The complaint has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired GTAT securities between November 5, 2013 and
October 6, 2014, inclusive.  If your purchases fall in the Class
Period, you may contact SSR partner Brian D. Brooks, who is
leading the firm's investigation, by calling (917) 652-9453 or
emailing bbrooks@ssrllp.com

GTAT produces materials and equipment for the electronics
industry.  On November 4, 2013, GTAT announced a multiyear supply
deal with Apple Inc. to produce sapphire glass material for use in
consumer electronics products.  Under the deal, Apple would
provide GTAT with a prepayment of approximately $578 million paid
in four installments and, starting in 2015, GTAT would reimburse
Apple for the prepayment over a five-year period.

As alleged in the complaint however, after that announcement
Defendants failed to disclose the significant risk that GTAT would
be unable to fulfill the requirements of the supply agreement and
that another company's material might be used in Apple's new
product line.  Additionally, GTAT hid from shareholders the fact
that, as a result of problems with the Apple deal, GTAT was facing
a liquidity crisis.  Because of these factors, Defendants'
statements about GTAT's business, operations, and prospects,
including GTAT's revenue guidance for 2014, were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

When Apple announced the new iPhones did not use GTAT's sapphire
glass, shares of GTAT declined $2.29 per share to close at $14.94
per share on September 9, 2014.  On October 6, 2014, GTAT
announced that it was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy; shares of
GTAT declined $10.25 per share, nearly 93%, to close at $0.80 per
share.

If you suffered a loss from your investment in GTAT securities
between November 5, 2013 and October 6, 2014, please contact
Mr. Brooks at (917) 652-9453 as soon as possible.  No class has
yet been certified in the above action.


GUY A CORP: "Zalucean" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Natalia Zalucean, on her own behalf and on behalf of those
similarly situated v.  GUY A, Corp. d/b/a Blue Engrave, Case No.
6:14-cv-01992 (M.D. Fla., December 2, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

GUY A, Corp. is in the business of providing jewelry and engraving
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kimberly De Arcangelis Woods, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Ste 1600, 20 N Orange Ave, PO Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 420-5956
      E-mail: kwoods@forthepeople.com


HEALTHWAYS INC: Junk Fax Suit Removed to California Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Healthways, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Healthways and its
wholly owned subsidiary, Healthways WholeHealth Networks, Inc.
("HWHN"), were named on September 16, 2014, in a putative class
action law suit filed in the Superior Court for Los Angeles
County, California, seeking damages relating to alleged violations
of the Junk Fax Prevention Act 2005 in connection with fax
communications between HWHN and the members of its network of
complementary and alternative care practitioners.  The complaint
seeks damages in excess of $5,000,000.  The case was removed to
the United States District Court of California, Western Division
on October 16, 2014.

"We deny the claims and intend to vigorously defend the action,"
the Company said.

Founded and incorporated in Delaware in 1981, Healthways, Inc.,
together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries, provides specialized,
comprehensive solutions to help people improve their well-being,
thereby improving their health and productivity and reducing their
health-related costs.


HIRISE ENGINEERING: Accused of Violating RICO Act in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Garry Shlyonsky and Melina Shlyonsky, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. HiRise Engineering PC, Matthew
Pappalardo, United Technical Consultants LLC, Glenn Grogan, ALL
Seasons Adjusting Inc., Richard Crowley and Travelers Insurance
Company d/b/a The Standard Fire Insurance Company, Case No. 1:14-
cv-07136-RJD-MDG (E.D.N.Y., December 5, 2014) alleges violations
of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John S. Mostyn, Esq.
          THE MOSTYN LAW FIRM
          3810 W Alabama Street
          Houston, TX 77027
          Telephone: (713) 861-6616
          Facsimile: (713) 861-8084
          E-mail: easkinner@mostynlaw.com

               - and -

          Denis George Kelly, Esq.
          DENIS G. KELLY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          74 West Park Avenue
          Long Beach, NY 11561
          Telephone: (516) 897-0800
          Facsimile: (516) 897-0812
          E-mail: dgk6494@gmail.com


HOME DEPOT: Faces Pittsfield Cooperative Suit Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pittsfield Cooperative Bank, individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated financial institutions v. The Home Depot,
Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03836 (N.D. Ga., December 2, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate
security and protection for its computer systems containing
customers' financial and personal data.

The Home Depot, Inc. operates a chain of retail stores that sell a
wide variety of merchandise, including tools, home goods, and
construction supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas A. Withers, Esq.
      GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC
      8 East Liberty Street
      Savannah, GA 31412
      Telephone: (912) 447-8400
      Facsimile: (912) 233-6584
      E-mail: twithers@gwllawfirm.com

         - and -

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
      Jamisen Etzel, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
      PNC Park
      115 Federal Street, Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
      E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
              ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
              jetzel@carlsonlynch.com


KIMBALL INTERNATIONAL: Has $5 Mil. Pre-Tax Income From Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimball International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that No Other
General Income was recorded during the first quarter of fiscal
year 2015. Other General Income in the first quarter of fiscal
year 2014 included $5.0 million, of pre-tax income resulting from
settlements received related to two antitrust class action
lawsuits in which Kimball was a class member. The lawsuits alleged
that certain suppliers of the Electronic Manufacturing Services
("EMS") segment 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.

"First quarter fiscal year 2015 consolidated net sales were $348.2
million compared to first quarter fiscal year 2014 net sales of
$317.4 million, a 10% increase, driven by a net sales increase in
the EMS segment of 16% and a net sales increase in the Furniture
segment of 2%.  In the first quarter of fiscal year 2015 we
recorded net income of $8.0 million, or $0.21 per Class B diluted
share, inclusive of $1.5 million, or $0.04 per Class B diluted
share, of incremental after-tax external costs related to the
spin-off of our EMS segment, compared to net income of $9.2
million, or $0.24 per Class B diluted share in the first quarter
of fiscal year 2014, inclusive of $3.0 million, or $0.08 per Class
B diluted share of after-tax distributions resulting from the
settlement of two antitrust class action lawsuits of which the
Company was a class member and $0.2 million, or $0.01 per Class B
share of after-tax restructuring expense," the Company said.


KNIGHTSBRIDGE PROPERTIES: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Barbato and Francisco Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated v. Knightsbridge Properties,
Case No. 2:14-cv-07043-JS-SIL (E.D.N.Y., December 5, 2014) seeks
to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Knightsbridge Properties is a New York corporation headquartered
in Manhasset, New York.  Knightsbridge describes itself as a
privately owned real estate investment, development and management
firms with interests in New York and Europe.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexander Granovsky, Esq.
          GRANOVSKY AND SUNDARESH PLLC
          48 Wall Street, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (646) 524-6001
          Facsimile: (646) 417-5500
          E-mail: ag@g-s-law.com


KONDAUR CAPITAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Taylor, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Kondaur Capital Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00704-
SPC-CM (M.D. Fla., December 4, 2014) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maria Alaimo, Esq.
          VILES & BECKMAN, LLC
          6350 Presidential Ct., Suite A
          Ft. Myers, FL 33919
          Telephone: (239) 334-3933
          Facsimile: (239) 334-7105
          E-mail: maria@vilesandbeckman.com


MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Accused of Violating FDCPA in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Ebner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Merchants & Medical Credit Corporation and Does 1
Through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-06882-ER (E.D. Pa.,
December 4, 2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364-5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


MINOS CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Mizquiri, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. Minos Construction Corp., Georgia Tsismenakis,
and Martin Tsismenakis, Case No. 1:14-cv-07008 (E.D.N.Y., December
2, 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 a New York-based construction
company.

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


MOL GLOBAL: Overstated Financial Reports, "Jewel" Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Jewell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MOL Global, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-09493
(S.D.N.Y., December 2, 2014), alleges that the Defendants had
grossly overstated its financial results in the Registration
Statement in connection with the Company's initial public
offering.

MOL Global, Inc. operates a payments platform, which connects
consumers with digital content providers, telecommunications
service providers, and online merchants through a network of
distribution channels that accept cash and online payment methods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
      ROBBINS, GELLER, RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
              mblasy@:rgrdlaw.com


MUSKEGON, MI: Sued for Violating Civil Rights of Prisoners
----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Semelbauer, Paulette Bosch, Denise Vos, Crisa Brown,
Latrece Baker, Tammy Speers, Londora Kitchens and Stashia Collins,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v.
County of Muskegon, a municipal corporation; Dean Roesler, in his
official capacity as Muskegon County Sheriff; Mark Burns, Lt., in
his official capacity as Jail Administrator; Ivan Morris,
Correctional Officer, in his individual capacity; Unknown Grieves,
Correctional Officer, in his individual capacity; Unknown DeYoung,
Correctional Officer, in his individual capacity; David Gutowski,
Correctional Officer, in his individual capacity; and Unknown
Parties, Correctional Officers, in their individual capacities,
Case No. 1:14-cv-01245-JTN (W.D. Mich., December 4, 2014) is
brought over alleged violations of Prisoner Civil Rights.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Stewart Korobkin, Esq.
          ACLU FUND OF MICHIGAN (DETROIT)
          2966 Woodward Ave.
          Detroit, MI 48201-3035
          Telephone: (313) 578-6824
          Facsimile: (313) 578-6811
          E-mail: dkorobkin@aclumich.org

               - and -

          Marc Sebastian Allen, Esq.
          Miriam J. Aukerman, Esq.
          ACLU OF MICHIGAN
          1514 Wealthy St., SE, Suite 242
          Grand Rapids, MI 49506
          Telephone: (616) 301-0930
          E-mail: mallen@aclumich.org
                  maukerman@aclumich.org


NATIONAL WESTERN: Resolves Deferred Annuities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
National Western Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that the Company resolved a class action lawsuit pending
since June 12, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.

The case is titled In Re National Western Life Insurance Deferred
Annuities Litigation. The complaint asserted claims for RICO
violations, Financial Elder Abuse, Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code 17200, et seq, Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17500, et
seq, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Aiding and Abetting Breach of
Fiduciary Duty, Fraudulent Concealment, Cal. Civ. Code 1710, et
seq, Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and Unjust
Enrichment and Imposition of Constructive Trust.

On July 12, 2010 the Court certified a nationwide class of
policyholders under the RICO allegation and a California class
under all of the remaining causes of action except breach of
fiduciary duty. The parties entered into a Settlement and Release
Agreement in August of 2013 ("Settlement") which was finally
approved by the Court on February 11, 2014. On February 12, 2014,
the Court issued a redacted final approval order granting the
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. The
Settlement became final and non-appealable on April 12, 2014.

The Settlement Agreement and Plaintiffs' Request for Attorneys'
Fees and Costs were approved by the Court, and the Company paid
the Court-approved amount of attorneys' fees and costs in April
2014. The Company also made certain payments to surrendered and
annuitized policyholders in June 2014. In addition, the Company
agreed to provide bonuses on annuitization for active
policyholders who choose a 10-year or a 20-year certain and life
settlement option. The Company had held reserves of $6.5 million
for the matter which approximated the ultimate settlement amounts.

General insurance expenses include legal expenses and amounts
provided for various legal matters and outstanding litigation.
During the second quarter of 2013, the Company accrued $3.5
million pertaining to a class action lawsuit, in which it was the
defendant, that ultimately was settled in the first quarter of
2014. With the resolution of this matter early in 2014, the
Company's legal expenses, excluding the class action lawsuit
accrual, have declined in the first nine months of 2014
approximately $1.2 million compared with the same period in 2013.

The Company provides life insurance products on a global basis for
the savings and protection needs of policyholders and annuity
contracts for the asset accumulation and retirement needs of
contract holders, both domestically and internationally.


NYMOX PHARMA: Bernard M. Gross Law Firm Files Class Suit in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. on Nov. 25 filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, District of New
Jersey, 14-cv-07331, on behalf of purchasers of NYMOX common stock
between January 31, 2011 and November 2, 2014.  This matter is
pending before the Honorable Jose L. Linares.

The lawsuit filed against the Company and Paul Averback, the
president, director and chairman of the Company, alleges
violations of the federal securities laws based on their failure
to disclose material information affecting the Phase 3 clinical
trials for NYMOX's proprietary drug NX-1207 for the treatment of
benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). NYMOX is engaged in the
research and development of therapeutics and diagnostics, with an
emphasis on the products for the unmet needs of the aging
population.  NX-1207 showed positive results for the treatment of
BPH in Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials in the U.S.  The
Company regularly provided positive updates on the Phase 3
clinical trials.  However, in a surprise to the market, and
contrary to the positive statement concerning the NX02-0017 and
NX02-0018 trials, defendants disclosed on November 2, 2014 that
the Company's two Phase 3 U.S. studies of NX-1207 had to be halted
because the drug failed to meets its primary endpoints for
efficacy.  On November 3, 2014, defendants held a conference call
with analysts to explain the failure and on that conference call
disclosed to the market for the first time, among other things,
the difficulties they faced in enrolling men for the trials and
the subjective nature of the measurement of the drug's success.
The market's reaction was immediate and dramatic as the price of
NYMOX common stock fell 82% to close at $.93 on unprecedented
trading volume of 19.6 million shares.  The Company's U.S. BPH
program is currently on hold, pending further evaluation of data.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than January 26, 2015.  Any
member of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead
Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class. To discuss this
action or ask questions concerning this notice or your rights,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, toll-free 866-561-3600 or via
email at debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com
The firm has expertise in prosecuting class actions alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.

To discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
Notice with respect to these matters, PLEASE CONTACT:

     Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
     Susan R. Gross, Esq.
     Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
     Telephone: 866-561-3600 (toll free) or 215-561-3600
     E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or
             debbie@bernardmgross.com
     Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com


OILTANKING PARTNERS: Faces Suit Over Enterprise Product Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Southeast Texas Record reports that an Oklahoma man recently
filed a class action lawsuit seeking to prevent a merger of two
Texas-based oil companies.

Oiltanking Partners and Enterprise Product Partners announced a
plan to merge on Nov. 12 that would result in Enterprise acquiring
all of Oiltanking's outstanding units.

Matthew Ellis, an Oiltanking shareholder, claims the executives at
Oiltanking "breached their fiduciary duties" and that the deal
undervalues Oiltanking.

Enterprise agreed to purchase Oiltanking units for $47.33 per
share for a total value of approximately $1.4 billion.

Mr. Ellis' attorney, Thomas E. Bilek of the Bilek Law Firm, claims
in the lawsuit that the deal represents "a meager 3.6 percent
premium" on the average closing price of Oiltanking shares.

Mr. Ellis claims in the suit that the transaction was "meant to
transfer Oiltanking's assets to Enterprise without paying
Oiltanking's public unitholders a fair price."

The lawsuit also claims the mean price target for Oiltanking units
is $51.44, the median price is $52 and the high price reached $61.
Given that strong performance, the lawsuit alleges the merger deal
is inadequate.

Oiltanking shareholders would own 1.87 percent of the combined
company if the merger were to go through.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas-Houston
Division case number 4:14-cv-3343.


ONLINE INFORMATION: Faces Suit in N.J. Over Violations of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Izabella L. Leblanc, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Online Information Service d/b/a Online Collections
and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:14-cv-07553-JAP-TJB (D.N.J.,
December 4, 2014) is brought under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PAULSON CAPITAL: Andrews & Springer Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law
firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, on Nov. 26
disclosed that it has filed a securities class action lawsuit on
behalf of legacy shareholders of Paulson Capital Corp. (now
referred to as VBI Vaccines, Inc. who held shares on October 11,
2013 and were eligible to vote at the Company's Annual Meeting of
Shareholders held on November 8, 2013.  This lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
Case No. 14-cv-9435.

If you held shares of Paulson Capital Corp. on October 11, 2013
and would like to join the class action, please visit our website
or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from Nov. 26 (no later than January 26, 2015).

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

Paulson Capital Corp. was once a publicly-traded financial
services holding company that operated through its sole subsidiary
Paulson Investment Company.  Established by president Chester L.F.
Paulson in 1970, PIC was one of the largest independent brokerage
firms in the Pacific Northwest.

According to the lawsuit, PCC issued materially false and
misleading information to investors.  On October 18, 2013, the
Company filed a Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and solicited votes
from shareholders necessary to approve a certain restructuring
transaction.  Among other things, the October Proxy Statement
asked PCC shareholders who held shares as of October 11, 2013 to
vote on a transaction that would, among other things, spin off
certain legacy assets of PCC and PIC into a Liquidating Trust for
the benefit of Legacy Shareholders.  The October Proxy Statement
set October 11, 2013 as the Record Date for a shareholder meeting
that was scheduled to take place on November 8, 2013.  PCC
represented to Legacy Shareholders that the Trust Assets included,
among other things, a 25% equity interest in PIC, underwriter
warrants, trading and investment securities, cash, accounts
receivable and an insurance policy on the life of Chester L.F.
Paulson, the founder of PIC.  Collectively, the Trust Assets were
valued at approximately $16.6 million. Legacy Shareholders
overwhelmingly voted in favor of the Restructuring Transaction and
the formation of the Liquidating Trust at the meeting of
shareholders held on November 8, 2013.

Unbeknownst to Legacy Shareholders, PCC did not create the
Liquidating Trust until on or about July 25, 2014, nearly nine
months after issuing the October Proxy Statement.  Finally on
August 8, 2014, PCC's successor, VBI, disclosed in a 10-Q filing
with the SEC that the Liquidating Trust was formed with assets
"valued at approximately $9.8 million."  The August 10-Q filing
not only discloses the creation of the Liquidating Trust but also
discloses the ownership interests in PIC.  Contrary to the
representations in the October Proxy Statement, the Liquidating
Trust's 25% interest in PIC appears to have been completely
eliminated.

As a result of PCC's omissions and misleading statements, a class
action has been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court no later than 60 days from Nov. 26 (no later
than January 26, 2015).

Andrews & Springer -- http://www.andrewsspringer.com-- is a
boutique securities class action law firm representing
shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct.


PC RICHARD: Faces "Steward" Suite Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Steward, Dean Rothman, Constantine Papdopolous, Laurie
Mertens, Ramon Mercado, Matthew Barriga and Domenick Falco,
On behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly situated
v. P.C. Richard & Son, Inc., et al., is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

P.C. Richard & Son, Inc. owns and operates retail stores located
on Long Island and in the New York City Boroughs of Queens and
Brooklyn.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
      Seeger Weiss, LLP
      77 Water Street, 26th Flr.
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 584-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
      E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com


PETER UNDERGROUND: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Perez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Peter Underground Utility LLC, Nelu Cable Inc., Danella Line
Services Company, Inc., Peter Serban, Valentin Serban, and James
Danella, Case No. 2:14-cv-06999 (E.D.N.Y., December 2, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Peter Underground Utility LLC is a bonded freight shipping and
trucking company.

Nelu Cable Inc. is a cable/pay television service company and is
licensed to carry non-hazmat rated materials.

Danella Line Services Company, Inc. provides construction and
engineering services to major gas, electric, water, telephone and
fiber utility companies throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Arcadio Romero, Esq.
      FRANK & ASSOCIATES P.C.
      500 Bi-county Blvd, 112n
      Farmingdale, NY 11735
      Telephone: (631) 756-0400
      Facsimile: (631) 756-0547
      E-mail: promero@laborlaws.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Fails to Provide FDCPA Disclosures, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James E. Wood, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-
03044-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla., December 5, 2014) is a class action
brought pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The case centers on the alleged failure of Portfolio Recovery to
provide certain disclosures required by the FDCPA in initial
written communications to Florida consumers in connection with the
Defendant's collection of consumer debt.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, is a Delaware limited
liability company with principal offices situated in Norfolk,
Virginia.  The Company is an entity that at all relevant times was
engaged, by use of the mails and telephone, in the business of
attempting to collect a "debt" from the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: jdavidson@mgjdlaw.com
                  mgreenwald@mgjdlaw.com
                  aradbil@mgjdlaw.com


PRINCECO INC: Removes "O'Hara" Suit to Florida District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled O'Hara, et al. v. Princeco, Inc.,
Case No. 14-CA-011052, was removed from the 13th Judicial Circuit,
in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-03041-SCB-EAJ to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave
Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian David Rubenstein, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA
          4301 W Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 400
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (813) 864-9324
          Facsimile: (813) 286-2900
          E-mail: brian.rubenstein@csklegal.com


PROTECTIVE LIFE: Inks MOU to Settle Delaware Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Protective Life Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company, each of the members of the Company's Board, Dai-ichi, and
DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (the "MOU") with plaintiffs in the Delaware class
action which sets forth the parties' agreement in principle for a
settlement of the Delaware Action.

On June 3, 2014, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with The Dai-ichi Life Insurance
Company, Limited, a kabushiki kaisha organized under the laws of
Japan ("Dai-ichi") and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc., a Delaware
corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Dai-ichi which provides
for the merger of DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. with and into the
Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a
wholly owned subsidiary of Dai-ichi.

The Company said that, "Since the entry into the Merger Agreement
on June 3, 2014, four lawsuits have been filed against the
Company, our directors, Dai-ichi and DL Investment (Delaware),
Inc. on behalf of alleged Company shareowners. On June 11, 2014, a
putative class action lawsuit styled Edelman, et al. v. Protective
Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-2014-902474.00,
was filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. On
July 30, 2014, the plaintiff in Edelman filed an amended
complaint. Three putative class action lawsuits were filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Martin, et al. v.
Protective Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 9794-CB,
filed June 19, 2014, Leyendecker, et al. v. Protective Life
Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 9931-CB, filed July 22, 2014
and Hilburn, et al. v. Protective Life Corporation, et al., Civil
Action No. 9937-CB, filed July 23, 2014. The Delaware Court of
Chancery consolidated the Martin, Leyendecker and Hilburn actions
under the caption In re Protective Life Corp. Stockholders
Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action No. 9794-CB, designated the
Hilburn complaint as the operative consolidated complaint (the
"Delaware Action") and appointed Charlotte Martin, Samuel J.
Leyendecker, Jr., and Deborah J. Hilburn to serve as co-lead
plaintiffs. These lawsuits alleged that our Board of Directors
breached its fiduciary duties to our shareowners, that the Merger
involves an unfair price, an inadequate sales process, and
unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly preclude
competing offers, and that the preliminary proxy statement filed
with the SEC on July 10, 2014 failed to disclose purportedly
material information. The complaints also alleged that the
Company, Dai-ichi and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. aided and
abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints
seek injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the
Merger, and attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to
other relief. The Delaware Action also seeks an award of
unspecified damages."

"With respect to the Edelman lawsuit, on September 5, 2014, the
court held a hearing to address motions to dismiss the lawsuit
filed on behalf of the Company, the members of the Company's
Board, and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. On September 19, 2014,
the court granted those motions and dismissed the Edelman lawsuit
in its entirety and with prejudice, pending a possible appeal by
the plaintiff.

"With respect to the Delaware Action, on September 24, 2014, the
Company, each of the members of the Company's Board, Dai-ichi, and
DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs in that case, which
sets forth the parties' agreement in principle for a settlement of
the Delaware Action.

"As set forth in the MOU, the Company, the members of the
Company's Board, Dai-ichi, and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc.
agreed to the settlement solely to eliminate the burden, expense,
distraction, and uncertainties inherent in further litigation, and
without admitting any liability or wrongdoing. The MOU
contemplates that the parties will seek to enter into a
stipulation of settlement providing for the certification of a
mandatory non opt-out class, for settlement purposes only, to
include any and all record and beneficial owners of shares
(excluding the members of the Company's Board and their immediate
family members, any entity in which any member of the Company's
Board has a controlling interest, and any successors in interest
thereto) that held shares at any time during the period beginning
on June 3, 2014, through the date of consummation or termination
of the proposed Merger, including any and all of their respective
successors in interest, successors, predecessors in interest,
representatives, trustees, executors, administrators, heirs,
assigns, or transferees, immediate and remote, and any person or
entity acting for or on behalf of, or claiming under, any of them,
together with their predecessors, successors and assigns, and a
global release of claims relating to the Merger as set forth in
the MOU.

"As part of the settlement, the Company agreed to make certain
additional disclosures related to the Merger which are set forth
in the Company's Form 8-K filed on September 25, 2014 and which
supplement the information contained in the Company's definitive
proxy statement filed with the SEC on August 25, 2014, as amended
on August 27, 2014. Nothing in the Form 8-K or any stipulation of
settlement shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or
materiality of any of the disclosures set forth in the Form 8-K.
The claims in the Delaware Action will not be released until the
stipulation of settlement is approved by the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware. The settlement will not affect the
consideration to be received by the Company stockholders in
connection with the Merger."

Protective Life Corporation is a holding company headquartered in
Birmingham, Alabama, with subsidiaries that provide financial
services through the production, distribution, and administration
of insurance and investment products.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Plan Fiduciaries Accused of Breaching Duties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Snyder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Radioshack Corporation, James F. Gooch, Joseph C.
Magnacca, Martin O. Moad, Robert E. Abernathy, Frank J. Berlatti,
Julia A. Dobson, Daniel R. Feehan, H. Eugene Lockhart, Jack L.
Messman, Thomas G. Plaskett, Edwina D. Woodbury, Administrative
Committee of the Radioshack 401(K) Plan, Administrative Committee
of the Radioshack Puerto Rico 1165(E) Plan, Employee Benefits
Committee of the Radioshack 401(K) Plan, Employee Benefits
Committee of the Radioshack Puerto Rico 1165(E) Plan, and Does 1-
10, Case No. 4:14-cv-00978-O (N.D. Tex., December 5, 2014) is a
class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 against the Plans' fiduciaries.

The Plaintiff is a current Participant in the 401(k) Plan and was
a Participant in the Plans during the Class Period, during which
time the Plans held interests in the common stock of RadioShack.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the
Plans, breached their duties owed to the Plans, to him, and to the
other Participants of the Plans by, inter alia, retaining
RadioShack Stock as an investment option in the Plans when a
reasonable fiduciary using the "care, skill, prudence, and
diligence . . . that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and
familiar with such matters would use" would have done otherwise.

RadioShack Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its
principal office located in Fort Worth, Texas.  RadioShack engages
in the retail sale of consumer electronic goods and services
primarily through its chain of stores.  RadioShack is the sponsor
of the Plans and is a fiduciary of the Plans.

The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company, or plan fiduciaries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roger L. Mandel, Esq.
          Bruce E. Bagelman, Esq.
          LACKEY HERSHMAN, LLP
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 777
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 560-2201
          Facsimile: (214) 560-2203
          E-mail: rlm@lhlaw.net
                  beb@lhlaw.net

               - and -

          Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
          Robert J. Gray, Esq.
          CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
          2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 308
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (610) 822-3700
          Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
          E-mail: gwells@cwg-law.com
                  rgray@cwg-law.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Rovner, Esq.
          ROVNER, ALLEN, ROVNER, ZIMMERMAN AND NASH
          175 Bustleton Pike
          Feasterville, PA 19053
          Telephone: (215) 698-1800
          Facsimile: (215) 355-0940
          E-mail: srovner@dail-law.com


SIRIUS XM: Settles Suit Over Automatic Renewals for $3.8 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that some Sirius XM customers, who
were charged for satellite radio service they didn't want, can now
apply for a refund.

Sirius XM has agreed to pay $3.8 million to settle complaints that
it misled customers with its advertising and billing practices.
The money will be split among 46 states and the District of
Columbia.  Those in four states, California, Hawaii, Wyoming and
New York, can't apply for a refund, according to Sirius.

State attorneys general said customers complained that it was
difficult to cancel their Sirius XM contracts, and some said that
Sirius XM automatically renewed contracts without asking.

As part of the settlement, Sirius XM agreed to make several
changes to its business, including improving its cancellation
process and sending notices before automatic renewals.  Sirius XM
said on Dec. 5 in a statement that the changes have already been
made.

Customers who may have been unfairly charged between July 28,
2008, and Dec. 4, 2014, can apply for a refund from their state's
attorney general office or from Sirius XM.

Sirius XM Holdings Inc., based in New York, has about 26.7 million
subscribers.  The company said the settlement will have no
material financial effect on its business.


STAAR SURGICAL: Plaintiff in "Todd" Case Reduced Class Period
-------------------------------------------------------------
Staar Surgical Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a putative
securities class action lawsuit was filed on July 8, 2014, by
Edward Todd against the Company and three officers in federal
court located in Los Angeles, California. The plaintiff claims
that STAAR made misleading statements to and omitted material
information from the Company's investors between February 27, 2013
and June 30, 2014 about alleged regulatory violations at the
Company's Monrovia manufacturing facility. The Company was served
with the Complaint on July 21, 2014. Although the ultimate outcome
of this action cannot be determined with certainty, the Company
believes that the allegations in the Complaint are without merit.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. The
Company intends to file a motion to dismiss the complaint, when
appropriate, in the ongoing proceeding. On October 20, 2014,
plaintiff amended its complaint, dismissed two Company officers,
added one other officer, and reduced the alleged Class Period to
November 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014.

STAAR Surgical Company designs, develops, manufactures and sells
implantable lenses for the eye and injector devices used to
deliver these lenses into the eye through a small incision.


STATE FARM: Removes "Burk" Class Suit to Arizona District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Burk, et al. v. State Farm Fire
and Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. CV2014-095133, was
removed from the Maricopa County Superior Court to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix Division).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-02642-GMS to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts insurance-related claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph William Watkins, Esq.
          JOSEPH W. WATKINS PC
          1661 N Swan Rd., Suite 250
          Tucson, AZ 85715
          Telephone: (520) 882-9115
          Facsimile: (520) 882-7708
          E-mail: joewlaw2@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carrie Marie Francis, Esq.
          Craig Alan Morgan, Esq.
          STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
          1850 N Central Ave., Suite 2100
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-4584
          Telephone: (602) 279-1600
          Facsimile: (602) 240-6925
          E-mail: carrie.francis@stinsonleonard.com
                  craig.morgan@stinsonleonard.com


SUNRISE CREDIT: Sued Over Violations of Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Barbara Pasternak, on behalf of herself individually, in
her capacity as executrix of the estate of Matthew J. Ciosek, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sunrise Credit
Services, Inc., and Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:14-
cv-06884-MMB (E.D. Pa., December 4, 2014) seeks relief over
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364-5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Sued Over Force-Placed Insurance Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Morales, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., Assurant, Inc., and
American Security Insurance Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-24552 (S.D.
Fla., December 2, 2014), is brought in connection with the
requirement to pay for lender-placed or force-placed hazard
insurance policies provided through Assurant, Inc. and its
subsidiaries, which involved the payment of a kickback in the form
of below market-rate portfolio tracking, expense reimbursement, or
any other monetary and nonmonetary remuneration to SunTrust.

Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. offers residential mortgage products
nationally through its retail and correspondent channels.

Assurant, Inc. is a provider of specialty insurance products in
the U.S. and select worldwide markets.

American Security Insurance Company writes force-placed insurance
policies in all fifty states and the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq.
      ARONOVITZ LAW
      One Biscayne Tower
      2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2630
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 372-2772
      Facsimile: (305) 397-1886
      E-mail: ta@aronovitzlaw.com


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Rosenstock" Suit Over Faulty Airbags
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arlene Rosenstock, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-
cv-07004 (E.D.N.Y., December 2, 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:

      Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
      Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
      Diogenes P. Kekatos, Esq.
      Eric H. Jaso, Esq
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      77 Water Street
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone:  (212) 584-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
      E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
              sweiss@seegerweiss.com
              dkekatos@seegerweiss.com
              ejaso@seegerweiss.com


TESCO: Bentham Agrees to Fund Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
John Hyde, writing for The Law Society Gazette, reports that
Australian litigation funder Bentham has made its biggest entry
yet in the European market by agreeing to fund a class action
against supermarket giant Tesco.

The European subsidiary will fund legal action on behalf of
shareholders who are claiming for compensation for losses caused
by Tesco's recent overstated profits announcement.

London firm Stewarts Law will allege breaches of the Financial
Services and Markets Act after the announcement triggered a stock
market collapse and more than GBP2 billion was wiped off the Tesco
share price.

In October, Tesco told the stock market that its previous profit
announcement to investors was overstated by GBP263 million.

The supermarket has denied deliberately misleading shareholders
and has stated that nobody in the company has gained financially
as a result of the overstatement of performance.

The class action is open to all current and former shareholders
who acquired at least 10,000 Tesco shares between April 17, 2013
and October 22, 2014, and who had not sold all their shares by the
time of the market announcements.

The claim will only proceed if a sufficient number of shareholders
join the action.

The investment is expected to run into millions of pounds if the
anticipated number of claimants comes forward.

If the shareholders' case loses, Bentham has said it will pay for
the costs of the claimants in pursuing the case and not recoup
these and also cover any adverse costs orders made against the
claimants.

Lawyers will argue that Tesco has made misleading statements to
the market and omissions in relation to its profits for recent
financial periods.

John Walker, managing director of Bentham Europe, said:
"Shareholders ought to be able to allocate capital on the London
Stock Exchange assuming earnings are not being misstated.

"When there has been a material misallocation of capital due to
misstated earnings, compensation ought to be paid."

Stewarts is already acting for more than 300 shareholders in a
litigation with Royal Bank of Scotland.

The Tesco announcement is already subject to an investigation by
the Financial Conduct Authority and Serious Fraud Office, but the
firm has opted to act immediately.

Partner Sean Upson -- supson@stewartslaw.com -- said: "We expect
to issue proceedings against Tesco in the High Court in London
within six months. We do not intend to wait for the outcome of the
SFO investigation which may take some years."

Bentham Europe founded this year and is a joint venture between
IMF Bentham Limited, a publicly listed company which funds
litigation and arbitration claims in Australia and other
jurisdictions, and subsidiary entities of funds managed by Elliott
Management Corporation, a US-based advisory firm.


TIMEKEEPERS INC: Fails to Pay Guards Overtime, "Montes" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Montes, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Timekeepers, Inc., Tier One Security, Inc., Rabbit Ear
Management, Inc., and Shawn Fluitt, Case No. 5:14-cv-00193 (S.D.
Tex., December 2, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay gate guards and security officers minimum wages and
overtime compensation.

The Defendants are companies that provide security and monitoring
services, primarily to the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
      THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
      115 Travis, Suite 1530
      San Antonio, TX 78205
      Telephone: (210) 225-0811
      Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
      E-mail: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com


TRICO BANCSHARES: Entered Into MOU to Settle Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
On January 24, 2014, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed against TriCo Bancshares, North Valley Bancorp and
certain other defendants in connection with TriCo entering into
the merger agreement with North Valley Bancorp. The lawsuit, which
was filed in the Shasta County, California Superior Court, alleges
that the members of the North Valley Bancorp board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to North Valley Bancorp
shareholders by approving the proposed merger for inadequate
consideration; approving the transaction in order receive benefits
not equally shared by other North Valley Bancorp shareholders;
entering into the merger agreement containing preclusive deal
protection devices; and failing to take steps to maximize the
value to be paid to the North Valley Bancorp shareholders.

The lawsuit alleges claims against TriCo for aiding and abetting
these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The plaintiff seeks,
among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties injunctive relief
prohibiting consummation of the merger, rescission, attorneys' of
the merger agreement, fees and costs, and other and further
relief.

On July 31, 2014 the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of this
lawsuit.

TriCo Bancshares said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in connection with
the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding and
in consideration for the full settlement and release of all
claims, TriCo and North Valley Bancorp agreed to make certain
additional disclosures related to the proposed merger, which are
contained in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by each of the
companies. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the
parties will negotiate in good faith and use their reasonable best
efforts to enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation
of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
court approval following notice to North Valley Bancorp's
shareholders.

In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will
consider the settlement. There can be no assurance that the
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or
that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties
were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may
be terminated.

Neither the Company nor its subsidiaries, are party to any other
material pending legal proceeding, nor is their property the
subject of any material pending legal proceeding, except routine
legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of their
business. None of these proceedings is expected to have a material
adverse impact upon the Company's business, consolidated financial
position or results of operations.


TWITTER INC: Court Refuses to Junk Text Message Spamming Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter must defend its text messaging practices in a class action
case over spam sent to non-users, reports Julie Baker-Dennis at
Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria refused to dismiss a Telephone
Consumer Protection Act class action against Twitter alleging that
the social network sends mass text messages to non-users without
their consent.

Lead plaintiff Beverly Nunes filed her class action against
Twitter this past June, claiming that the company sent text
messages to individuals who use "recycled" cellphone numbers
previously assigned to Twitter users.  While those users may have
given consent to receive the texts, Nunes claims that should have
known that the numbers they were sending the mass text messages to
were recycled and no longer used by their members.

Nunes says she received unwanted promotional text messages from
Twitter several times per day, according to the complaint.  She
attempted to alert Twitter that the texts were not authorized by
replying to the text messages with the company's provided code to
stop the messages, but to no avail.

"Despite her explicit stop requests, plaintiff continues to
receive unauthorized text messages from Twitter, as many as four
to six messages per day, at all hours of the day and night,
including many before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. local
time," Nunes says in her complaint.

Twitter moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Nunes can't back
up her her TCPA claim that the company uses an automatic dialing
system to send the text messages.  The social network said that
its equipment does not meet the definition of an automatic dialing
system since it can't store phone numbers and then dial them using
a random number generator without human intervention.

Chhabria disagreed, citing the Federal Communication Commission's
definition of an automatic dialing system as "any equipment with
the capacity to 'generate numbers and dial them without human
intervention regardless of whether the numbers called are randomly
or sequentially generated or come from calling lists', including
hardware that, when paired with certain software, has the capacity
to store or produce numbers and dial those numbers at random, in
sequential order, or from a database of numbers."

He continued: "Accordingly, Nunes' primary theory for why Twitter
uses an automatic telephone dialing system (namely, that the
equipment as alleged falls within the definition adopted by the
FCC) is correct, and the court declines to consider at this stage
whether the FCC's definition constitutes an unlawful expansion of
the statute."  [Parentheses in ruling.]

As to Nunes' second theory that Twitter's equipment meets the
automatic dialing system requirement because it has the ability to
randomly or sequentially generate numbers, Twitter argued that its
equipment would have to undergo extensive reconfigurations to meet
the Nunes' definition.

But Chhabria said it's too early in the case to buy Twitter's
argument on that front.

"It is an evidentiary matter that cannot be resolved at the
pleading stage," Chhabria wrote in the 4-page ruling.  "Even if
Twitter were correct that Nunes' broader definition of an
automatic telephone dialing system is not supported by the FCC
orders (or that the FCC orders improperly expand the definition),
dismissal of the complaint would not be warranted."

As to whether the consent Twitter obtained from the previous owner
of Nunes' cellphone number counts as consent to besiege Nunes with
spam, Chhabria said that the 7th Circuit has already established
in Soppet v. Enhanced Recovery that only the consent of the person
currently holding the phone number justifies an automated call --
or in this case, text message.

A trial date has not yet been set.

The case is Beverly Nunes v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-
02843-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


UNITED RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Ebner, individually on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. United Recovery Systems, LP and Does 1 Through 10
Inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-06881-RB (E.D. Pa., December 4, 2014)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364-5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Settlement Escrow Funded in October 2014
----------------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a
settlement escrow, pending final court approval, was funded in
October of 2014 related to the class action, Garden City
Employees' Retirement System v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc.
("PSI"), Joey A. Jacobs, Brent Turner and Jack E. Polson.

This is a shareholder class action lawsuit filed in 2009 in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
against PSI and certain of its former officers alleging violations
of federal securities laws.  In September of 2014, a $65 million
settlement agreement was reached in connection with this matter. A
settlement escrow, pending final court approval, was funded in
October of 2014. A pre-tax charge of $49 million was incurred by
us during the first nine months of 2014 in connection with this
settlement which is net of approximately $16 million of commercial
insurance recoveries.


VALHI INC: NL Industries' Appeal in Lead Pigment Case Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valhi Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that NL Industries, Inc. filed a
notice of appeal with the Sixth District Court of Appeal for the
State of California related to the Lead pigment litigation and the
appeal is proceeding with the appellate court.

NL's former operations included the manufacture of lead pigments
for use in paint and lead-based paint.  NL, other former
manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based
paint (together, the "former pigment manufacturers"), and the Lead
Industries Association ("LIA"), which discontinued business
operations in 2002, have been named as defendants in various legal
proceedings seeking damages for personal injury, property damage
and governmental expenditures allegedly caused by the use of lead-
based paints. Certain of these actions have been filed by or on
behalf of states, counties, cities or their public housing
authorities and school districts, and certain others have been
asserted as class actions. These lawsuits seek recovery under a
variety of theories, including public and private nuisance,
negligent product design, negligent failure to warn, strict
liability, breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of action,
aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, market share or risk
contribution liability, intentional tort, fraud and
misrepresentation, violations of state consumer protection
statutes, supplier negligence and similar claims.

The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the
defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health
concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including
damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification
for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for
educational programs. To the extent the plaintiffs seek
compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages
are generally unspecified. In some cases, the damages are
unspecified pursuant to the requirements of applicable state law.
A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or
withdrawn. Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trial
stages. Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary judgment
rulings in favor of either the defendants or the plaintiffs. In
addition, various other cases (in which NL is not a defendant) are
pending that seek recovery for injury allegedly caused by lead
pigment and lead-based paint.  Although NL is not a defendant in
these cases, the outcome of these cases may have an impact on
cases that might be filed against NL in the future.

NL believes that these actions are without merit, and NL intends
to continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing and liability
and to defend against all actions vigorously. NL does not believe
it is probable that it has incurred any liability with respect to
all of the lead pigment litigation cases to which NL is a party,
and liability to us that may result, if any, in this regard cannot
be reasonably estimated, because:

     * NL has never settled any of the market share, intentional
tort, fraud, nuisance, supplier negligence, breach of warranty,
conspiracy, misrepresentation, aiding and abetting, enterprise
liability, or statutory cases,

     * no final, non-appealable adverse verdicts have ever been
entered against NL, and

     * NL has never ultimately been found liable with respect to
any such litigation matters, including over 100 cases over a
twenty-year period for which NL was previously a party and for
which NL has been dismissed without any finding of liability.

Valhi said, "Accordingly, neither we nor NL have accrued any
amounts for any of the pending lead pigment and lead-based paint
litigation cases filed by or on behalf of states, counties, cities
or their public housing authorities and school districts, or those
asserted as class actions. In addition, we have determined that
liability to us which may result, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated because there is no prior history of a loss of this
nature on which an estimate could be made and there is no
substantive information available upon which an estimate could be
based."

In one of these lead pigment cases, in April 2000 NL was served
with a complaint (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield
Company, et al, Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Santa Clara, Case No. 1-00-CV-788657) brought by a number of
California government entities against the former pigment
manufacturers, the LIA and certain paint manufacturers.  The
County of Santa Clara sought to recover compensatory damages for
funds the plaintiffs had expended or would in the future expend
for medical treatment, educational expenses, abatement or other
costs due to exposure to, or potential exposure to, lead paint,
disgorgement of profit, and punitive damages.  In July 2003, the
trial judge granted defendants' motion to dismiss all remaining
claims.  Plaintiffs appealed and the intermediate appellate court
reinstated public nuisance, negligence, strict liability, and
fraud claims in March 2006.  A fourth amended complaint was filed
in March 2011 on behalf of The People of California by the County
Attorneys of Alameda, Ventura, Solano, San Mateo, Los Angeles and
Santa Clara, and the City Attorneys of San Francisco, San Diego
and Oakland.  That complaint alleged that the presence of lead
paint created a public nuisance in each of the prosecuting
jurisdictions and sought its abatement.  In July and August 2013,
the case was tried.  In January 2014, the Court issued a judgment
finding NL, The Sherwin Williams Company and ConAgra jointly and
severally liable for the abatement of lead paint in pre-1980
homes, and ordered the defendants to pay an aggregate $1.15
billion to the people of the State of California to fund such
abatement. In February 2014, NL filed a motion for a new trial,
and in March 2014 the court denied the motion.  Subsequently in
March 2014, NL filed a notice of appeal with the Sixth District
Court of Appeal for the State of California and the appeal is
proceeding with the appellate court.  NL believes that this
judgment is inconsistent with California law and is unsupported by
the evidence, and NL will defend vigorously against all claims.

Valhi said, "The Santa Clara case is unusual in that this is the
second time that an adverse verdict in the lead pigment litigation
has been entered against NL (the first adverse verdict against NL
was ultimately overturned on appeal). We have concluded that the
likelihood of a loss in this case has not reached a standard of
"probable" as contemplated by ASC 450, given (i) the substantive,
substantial and meritorious grounds on which the adverse verdict
in the Santa Clara case will be appealed, (ii) the uniqueness of
the Santa Clara verdict (i.e. no final, non-appealable verdicts
have ever been rendered against NL, or any of the other former
lead pigment manufacturers, based on the public nuisance theory of
liability or otherwise), and (iii) the rejection of the public
nuisance theory of liability as it relates to lead pigment matters
in many other jurisdictions (no jurisdiction in which a plaintiff
has asserted a public nuisance theory of liability has ever
successfully been upheld).  In addition, liability that may
result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated, as NL continues to
have no basis on which an estimate of liability could be made, as
discussed above. However, as with any legal proceeding, there is
no assurance that any appeal would be successful, and it is
reasonably possible, based on the outcome of the appeals process,
that NL may in the future incur some liability resulting in the
recognition of a loss contingency accrual that could have a
material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial
position and liquidity.

"New cases may continue to be filed against NL. We cannot assure
you that we will not incur liability in the future in respect of
any of the pending or possible litigation in view of the inherent
uncertainties involved in court and jury rulings. In the future,
if new information regarding such matters becomes available to us
(such as a final, non-appealable adverse verdict against us or
otherwise ultimately being found liable with respect to such
matters), at that time we would consider such information in
evaluating any remaining cases then-pending against us as to
whether it might then have become probable we have incurred
liability with respect to these matters, and whether such
liability, if any, could have become reasonably estimable. The
resolution of any of these cases could result in the recognition
of a loss contingency accrual that could have a material adverse
impact on our net income for the interim or annual period during
which such liability is recognized and a material adverse impact
on our consolidated financial condition and liquidity."


VICTIM SERVICES: Sued for Using DA Letterhead in Collecting Debts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal class action claims that a California company
unfairly collects debts by paying district attorneys for use of
their seals and letterheads -- disguising private debt collection
as law enforcement.

Lead plaintiff Kevin Breazeale claims that defendant
CorrectiveSolutions does this to "scare consumers into believing
that they are the subject of real criminal proceedings."

What's more, Breazeale says in the lawsuit, "Just a few weeks ago,
moreover, the American Bar Association issued a formal ethics
opinion condemning the practices of companies like
CorrectiveSolutions and concluding that they are engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law ."

Named as defendants are Victim Services Inc. and the National
Corrective Group, both dba CorrectiveSolutions.

"They are paying prosecutors for the permission essentially to
pretend that they're prosecutors," plaintiffs' attorney Paul Arons
told Courthouse News.

"Basically, they're telling prosecutors that they're acting
unethically if they permit this non-lawyer company to pretend
they're the prosecutors," Arons said.

According to the lawsuit, CorrectiveSolutions usually receives
referrals from retailers and private collection agencies, not from
district attorneys.  Their major referral sources include national
retailers such as Target and Safeway, and large debt collection
entities such as Telecheck and Certegy, according to the
complaint.

These sources provide CorrectiveSolutions with consumers' check
information, which the company uses to generate form collection
letters that appear as if they are sent from a district attorney's
office, according to the lawsuit.

Members of the proposed class of consumers may have presented
checks that did not clear, but this is not a crime under
California's Bad Check Diversion Act unless there is probable
cause to believe that the consumer presents the check "willfully,
with intent to defraud," according to the complaint.

The class claims that CorrectiveSolutions informs them,
incorrectly, that they are accused of crimes punishable by up to a
year in prison and that they can avoid it by participating in a
"Bad Check Restitution Program."

CorrectiveSolutions also contacts check writers by email and
telephone, "frequently repeating or amplifying their prosecution
threats," the class claims.

They claim that the "driving force" behind CorrectiveSolutions's
demands is to charge an unlawful fee of $160 or more for a
Financial Accountability Class, which is not required.

CorrectiveSolutions' contract with El Dorado County District
Attorney's Office is attached as an exhibit to the complaint. The
class claims that the contract "reflects the fees
CorrectiveSolutions charges throughout California:"

"Administrative fee: $50

"Diversion seminar fee: $191 with automatic 3% annual increase

"Restitution fee: $15 maximum, based on merchant's bank charge

"Credit/debit card fee: $10

"Payment Plan late fee: $10

"Class rescheduling fee: $25

"Overpayment refund fee: $5

"None of these fees are lawful because defendants' program does
not comply with the Diversion Act's prerequisites," the complaint
states.  (Citation to exhibit omitted.)

The plaintiffs estimate that the proposed class contains more than
100,000 members.

Sources from CorrectiveSolutions could not be reached for comment.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, costs,
statutory damages, and damages for violations of the California
Business and Professions Code and the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul Arons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PAUL ARONS
          685 Spring Street, #104
          Friday Harbor, WA 98250
          Telephone: (360) 378-6496

               - and -

          Beth Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE, PLLC
          936 N. 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: bterrell@tmdwlaw.com


VIVINT SOLAR: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 26 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Vivint Solar, Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased Vivint securities between
October 1, 2014 and November 10, 2014, inclusive.  This class
action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Vivint securities during
the Class Period, you have until January 20, 2015 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Vivint provides distributed solar energy to residential customers
in Arizona, California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, and New York.  It installs and owns solar energy systems
through long-term customer contracts.  The company also offers
photovoltaic installation software products and devices.  As of
June 30, 2014, its solar energy systems had a cumulative capacity
of 129.7 megawatts covering approximately 21,900 homes in 7
states.  The company was formerly known as V Solar Holdings, Inc.
and changed its name to Vivint Solar, Inc. in April 2014.

On or about September 30, 2014, Vivint and the underwriters priced
the IPO, and on October 1, 2014 filed the final Prospectus, which
forms part of the Registration Statement for the IPO, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  The IPO was successful for
the Company and the underwriters, with Vivint issuing and selling
20.6 million new shares of Vivint common stock to the public at
$16 per share, raising approximately $329.6 million in gross
proceeds.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement for the IPO
was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue
statements of material facts or omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading.  According
to the complaint, under the rules and regulations governing the
preparation of the Registration Statement, Vivint was required to
disclose at the time of the IPO that ownership trends in the
residential solar industry had changed from long-term leasing to
financing, that demand for long-term leases had declined, and that
growth in the Company's operating expenses in the third quarter of
2014 had significantly outstripped growth in revenue, resulting in
much weaker sales trends and significantly larger net losses than
the market had been led to expect. The Registration Statement
contained no such disclosures.

On this news, shares of Vivint fell $4.58 per share, or
approximately 28.62%, from the IPO price to close at $11.42 per
share on November 11, 2014.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.


WHOLE FOODS: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Speer, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated
individuals v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-
03035-RAL-TBM (M.D. Fla., December 4, 2014) alleges violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com


WILLIAM A HECHT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Esther Dick, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. William A. Hecht, P.C., Case No. 1:14-cv-07082
(E.D.N.Y., December 4, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


XL FOODS: Enters Into Tentative Beef Recall Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
John Cotter, writing for Global News, reports that lawyers have
brokered a tentative deal to settle part of a class-action lawsuit
filed over an E. coli outbreak and the largest meat recall in
Canadian history.

The lawsuit is against XL Foods Inc., which operated a meat-
packing plant in southern Alberta during the tainted beef recall
in 2012.

Rick Mallett, a lawyer for the Edmonton law firm behind the class
action, said the settlement is to cover refunds to consumers for
products that were recalled.  He said the proposed $1-million
settlement, plus other costs, is to go before a judge early next
year for approval.

"The parties have reached a settlement on beef refund claims
subject to approval of the court," Mr. Mallett said on Nov. 25
following a hearing in Court of Queen's Bench.

"It applies to anyone who purchased recalled beef -- XL beef --
and disposed of it and didn't get a refund."

XL Foods recalled more than 1.8 million kilograms of beef in
Canada and the United States.

In its statement of defense the company has denied liability and
the allegations contained in the class action.  The plant in
Brooks was sold to JBS Canada last year.  In October 2012 Brian
Nilsson, one of the chief executives of XL Foods, apologized to
people who became ill and was quoted in the media as saying that
the company takes full responsibility.

If the court approves the settlement, a public notice will be
published in newspapers in Canada and some U.S. states to let
people know how to submit claims.

Mr. Mallett said the agreement applies to anyone who threw beef
away in response to recall notices, even if they can't identify
whether it was XL beef.

During the outbreak, health officials confirmed that 18 people in
Canada tested positive for a specific strain of E. coli bacteria
linked to meat from the company's plant in Brooks, Alta.  The
proposed deal does not affect the main part of the class-action
lawsuit that involves people who claim they became ill.

Mr. Mallett said that part of the lawsuit could continue for
another 18 to 24 months.  He said the number of people who say
they became ill is much higher than the 18 cases documented in
reports on the XL Foods recall.

"We have been contacted by, at this point, over 200 people
indicating that they suffered illness or injury in various degree
of severity."

At the Nov. 25 hearing, associate chief Justice John Rooke said
any public notice about the proposed settlement must make it clear
that claims are separate from and would not affect any possible
future claims for injury damages.

The statement of claim -- which contains allegations not proven in
court -- says XL Foods knew it had poor quality control and put
its profits above the safety of consumers.

Last fall, the court ruled that the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency is a third-party defendant in the national class action.

Mr. Mallett said the federal food safety watchdog is not part of
the proposed settlement on beef refunds, but remains part of the
injury lawsuit.

"They remain in terms of the liability issues and any other
quantum issues that relate to the bodily injury claims," he said.
"They continue to be a part of the litigation."


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Paid $632-Mil. to PI Trust
----------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. paid $632 million to the asbestos-related
personal injury trust in respect of the Company's deferred payment
obligation pursuant to the Joint Chapter 11 Plan of
Reorganization, 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.

Asbestos personal injury claimants allege adverse health effects
from exposure to asbestos-containing products formerly
manufactured by Grace.

On April 2, 2001, when Grace and 61 of its subsidiaries filed
voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code, 129,191 PI Claims were pending against Grace.
Grace believes that a substantial number of additional PI Claims
would have been received between the Filing Date and the Effective
Date had such PI Claims not been stayed by the Bankruptcy Court.

Under the Joint Plan, all PI Claims were channeled to the PI Trust
for resolution. The PI Trust will use specified trust distribution
procedures to satisfy allowed PI Claims.

On the Effective Date, the PI Trust was funded with:

* $557.7 million in cash from Grace (includes $464.1 million of
cash from Grace and $93.6 million of cash from insurance proceeds
that were held in escrow);

* A warrant to acquire 10 million shares of Company common stock
at an exercise price of $17.00 per share, expiring one year after
the Effective Date (the "PI Warrant") (this obligation is expected
to be settled in cash with the PI Trust);

* Rights to all proceeds under all of Grace's insurance policies
that are available for payment of PI Claims;

* $42.1 million in cash from a subsidiary of Fresenius AG,
pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement resolving
asbestos-related, successor liability and fraudulent transfer
claims against Fresenius; and

* $856.8 million in cash and 18 million shares of Sealed Air
Corporation common stock paid by Cryovac, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Sealed Air, pursuant to the terms of a settlement
agreement resolving asbestos-related, successor liability and
fraudulent transfer claims against Cryovac and Sealed Air.

Under the Joint Plan Grace was also obligated to make deferred
payments to the PI Trust of $110 million per year for 5 years
beginning in 2019, and $100 million per year for 10 years
beginning in 2024, which obligation was secured by the Company's
obligation to issue 77,372,257 shares of Company common stock to
the asbestos trusts in the event of default, subject to customary
anti-dilution provisions. However, in August 2014, Grace and the
PI Trust entered into an agreement to settle the deferred payment
obligation in exchange for a cash payment of $632 million. Grace
made such payment on September 18, 2014, and has no further
obligation to make any additional payments to the PI Trust in
respect of the deferred payment obligation.

The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits generally seek
to have the defendants pay for the cost of removing, containing or
repairing the asbestos-containing materials in commercial and
public buildings. Various factors can affect the merit and value
of PD Claims, including legal defenses, product identification,
the amount and type of product involved, the age, type, size and
use of the building, the legal status of the claimant, the
jurisdictional history of prior cases, the court in which the case
is pending, and the difficulty of asbestos abatement, if
necessary.

Several class action lawsuits also were filed on behalf of
homeowners alleging damage from ZAI. Based on Grace's
investigation of the claims described in these lawsuits, and
testing and analysis of this product by Grace and others, Grace
believes that ZAI was and continues to be safe for its intended
purpose and poses little or no threat to human health. The
plaintiffs in the ZAI lawsuits dispute Grace's position on the
safety of ZAI. In December 2006 the Bankruptcy Court issued an
opinion and order holding that, although ZAI is contaminated with
asbestos and can release asbestos fibers when disturbed, there is
no unreasonable risk of harm from ZAI.

W.R. Grace & Co. (Grace) is engaged in the production and sale of
specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global basis. The
Company operates in three segments: Grace Catalysts Technologies;
Grace Materials Technologies; and Grace Construction Products.
Grace Catalysts Technologies will include catalysts and related
technologies used in refining, petrochemical and other chemical
manufacturing applications. Grace's Advanced Refining Technologies
LLC (ART) joint venture will be managed in this segment. Grace
Materials Technologies will include engineered materials, coatings
and sealants used in industrial, consumer, pharmaceutical and
packaging applications. In December 2013, the Company announced
that it has completed the acquisition of the assets of the
Polypropylene Licensing and Catalysts business of The Dow Chemical
Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $6.8MM Fibro-related Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. had $6.8 million asbestos and bankruptcy-related
charges for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2014, 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 recorded asbestos-related liability as of December 31, 2013,
was $2,092.4 million, and was included in "liabilities subject to
compromise" in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets. The
asbestos-related liability was settled at the recorded amount on
the Effective Date, including payment of cash of $499.5 million at
the Effective Date, issuance of deferred payment obligations of
$594.5 million and the warrant of $490.0 million, and transfer of
all cash and rights with respect to Grace's insurance policies
that provide coverage for asbestos-related claims.

The PI Trust deferred payment obligation of $110 million per year
for 5 years beginning January 2, 2019, and of $100 million per
year for 10 years beginning January 2, 2024, was recorded at fair
value of $567 million on the Effective Date. The value of the
deferred payment obligation was estimated based on (i) interest
rates; (ii) the Company's credit standing and the payment period
of the deferred payments; (iii) restrictive covenants and terms of
the Company's other credit facilities; (iv) assessment of the risk
of a default, which if default were to occur would require Grace
to issue shares of Company common stock; and (v) the subordination
provisions of the deferred payment agreement. In August 2014,
Grace and the PI Trust entered into an agreement to settle the
deferred payment obligation in exchange for a cash payment of $632
million. Grace made such payment on September 18, 2014, and has no
further obligation to make any additional payments to the PI Trust
in respect of the deferred payment obligation.

Grace also recorded a deferred payment obligation of $27.5 million
representing the present value of the $30 million payment due to
the ZAI PD Account on February 3, 2017. This amount is included in
"debt payable after one year" in the Company's September 30, 2014,
Consolidated Balance Sheet.

The warrant to acquire 10 million shares of the Company's common
stock for $17.00 per share was recorded at its estimated value of
$490 million on February 3, 2014 (the "Effective Date") based on
the current trading range of Company common stock, other valuation
factors, and the PI Warrant Settlement.

A copy of the Company's Form 10-Q filing is available at:

                       http://goo.gl/RuiXVs

W.R. Grace & Co. (Grace) is engaged in the production and sale of
specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global basis. The
Company operates in three segments: Grace Catalysts Technologies;
Grace Materials Technologies; and Grace Construction Products.
Grace Catalysts Technologies will include catalysts and related
technologies used in refining, petrochemical and other chemical
manufacturing applications. Grace's Advanced Refining Technologies
LLC (ART) joint venture will be managed in this segment. Grace
Materials Technologies will include engineered materials, coatings
and sealants used in industrial, consumer, pharmaceutical and
packaging applications. In December 2013, the Company announced
that it has completed the acquisition of the assets of the
Polypropylene Licensing and Catalysts business of The Dow Chemical
Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Paid $400,000 to PD Trust at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. paid $0.4 million to the asbestos-related
property damage trust established under the company's Joint
Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization, 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: "The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage
lawsuits generally seek to have the defendants pay for the cost of
removing, containing or repairing the asbestos-containing
materials in commercial and public buildings. Various factors can
affect the merit and value of PD Claims, including legal defenses,
product identification, the amount and type of product involved,
the age, type, size and use of the building, the legal status of
the claimant, the jurisdictional history of prior cases, the court
in which the case is pending, and the difficulty of asbestos
abatement, if necessary.

"Several class action lawsuits also were filed on behalf of
homeowners alleging damage from ZAI. Based on Grace's
investigation of the claims described in these lawsuits, and
testing and analysis of this product by Grace and others, Grace
believes that ZAI was and continues to be safe for its intended
purpose and poses little or no threat to human health. The
plaintiffs in the ZAI lawsuits dispute Grace's position on the
safety of ZAI. In December 2006 the Bankruptcy Court issued an
opinion and order holding that, although ZAI is contaminated with
asbestos and can release asbestos fibers when disturbed, there is
no unreasonable risk of harm from ZAI.

"At Grace's request, in July 2008, the Bankruptcy Court
established a claims bar date for U.S. ZAI PD Claims and approved
a related notice program that required any person with a U.S. ZAI
PD Claim to submit an individual proof of claim no later than
October 31, 2008. Approximately 17,960 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were
filed prior to the October 31, 2008, claims bar date and, as of
the Effective Date, an additional 1,310 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were
filed.

"Under the Joint Plan, all PD Claims have been channeled to the PD
Trust for resolution. The PD Trust contains two accounts, the PD
Account and the ZAI PD Account. U.S. ZAI PD Claims are to be paid
from the ZAI PD Account and non-ZAI PD Claims are to be paid from
the PD Account. Canadian ZAI PD Claims are to be paid by a
separate fund established in Canada. Each account has a separate
trustee and the assets of the accounts may not be commingled.
PD Account

"On the Effective Date, the PD Account of the PD Trust was funded
with $39.9 million in cash from Grace and $111.4 million in cash
from Cryovac and Fresenius to pay allowed non-ZAI PD Claims
settled as of the Effective Date, and CDN$8.6 million in cash from
Grace to fund the Canadian ZAI PD Claims fund.
Following the Effective Date, unresolved non-ZAI PD Claims are to
be litigated in the Bankruptcy Court and any future non-ZAI PD
Claims are to be litigated in a federal district court, in each
case pursuant to procedures to be approved by the Bankruptcy
Court. To the extent any such PD Claims are determined to be
allowed claims, they are to be paid in cash by the PD Trust. Grace
is obligated to make a payment to the PD Trust every six months in
the amount of any non-ZAI PD Claims allowed during the preceding
six months plus interest (if applicable) and, except for the first
six months, the amount of PD Trust expenses for the preceding six
months (the "PD Obligation"). The aggregate amount to be paid
under the PD Obligation is not capped and Grace may be obligated
to make additional payments to the PD Account in respect of the PD
Obligation. Grace has accrued for those unresolved non-ZAI PD
Claims that it believes are probable and estimable. Grace has not
accrued for other unresolved or unasserted non-ZAI PD Claims, as
it does not believe that payment on any such claims is probable.
As of September 30, 2014, Grace paid $0.4 million to the PD Trust
since the Effective Date to fund the payment of two non-ZAI PD
Claims that were filed in the Chapter 11 Cases but not resolved
until after the Effective Date.
On the Effective Date, the PD Trust contributed CDN$8.6 million to
a separate Canadian ZAI PD Claims fund through which Canadian ZAI
PD Claims are to be resolved. Grace has no continuing or
contingent obligations to make additional payments into this fund.

"On the Effective Date, the ZAI PD Account was funded with $34.4
million in cash from Cryovac and Fresenius.

"Grace is obligated to make a payment of $30 million in cash to
the ZAI PD Account on the third anniversary of the Effective Date,
and Grace is obligated to make up to 10 contingent deferred
payments of $8 million per year to the ZAI PD Account during the
20-year period beginning on the fifth anniversary of the Effective
Date, with each such payment due only if the assets of the ZAI PD
Account fall below $10 million during the preceding year. The
amounts that Grace will be obligated to pay to the ZAI PD Account
under the Joint Plan are capped amounts. Grace is not obligated to
make additional payments to the PD Trust in respect of the ZAI PD
Account beyond the payments described.  Grace has accrued for the
$30 million payment due on the third anniversary of the Effective
Date, but has not accrued for the 10 additional payments since
Grace does not currently believe they are probable.

"The PD Trust is to resolve U.S. ZAI PD Claims that qualify for
payment under specified trust distribution procedures by paying
55% of the claimed amount, but in no event is the PD Trust to pay
more per claim than $4,125 (as adjusted for inflation each year
after the fifth anniversary of the Effective Date).
All payments to the PD Trust required after the Effective Date are
secured by the Company's obligation to issue 77,372,257 shares of
Company common stock to the asbestos trusts in the event of
default, subject to customary anti-dilution provisions. Grace has
the right to conduct annual audits of the books, records and claim
processing procedures of the PD Trust."

A copy of the Company's Form 10-Q filing is available at:

                       http://goo.gl/RuiXVs

W.R. Grace & Co. (Grace) is engaged in the production and sale of
specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global basis. The
Company operates in three segments: Grace Catalysts Technologies;
Grace Materials Technologies; and Grace Construction Products.
Grace Catalysts Technologies will include catalysts and related
technologies used in refining, petrochemical and other chemical
manufacturing applications. Grace's Advanced Refining Technologies
LLC (ART) joint venture will be managed in this segment. Grace
Materials Technologies will include engineered materials, coatings
and sealants used in industrial, consumer, pharmaceutical and
packaging applications. In December 2013, the Company announced
that it has completed the acquisition of the assets of the
Polypropylene Licensing and Catalysts business of The Dow Chemical
Company.



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Fibro Suits Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc., has accrued an $8 million liability for
asbestos suits, 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.

Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts
against Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., and Orange
and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (the "Utilities") and many other
defendants, wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large
amounts of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and
injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various
premises of the Utilities. The suits that have been resolved,
which are many, have been resolved without any payment by the
Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the aggregate,
material to them. The amounts specified in all the remaining
thousands of suits total billions of dollars; however, the
Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly exaggerated,
based on the disposition of previous claims. In 2013, Con Edison
and CECONY estimated that their aggregate undiscounted potential
liability for these suits and additional suits that may be brought
over the next 15 years was $8 million and $7 million,
respectively. The estimates were based upon a combination of
modeling, historical data analysis and risk factor assessment. In
addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or are
claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged
disability from exposure to asbestos. Under its current rate
plans, CECONY is permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for
subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos
lawsuits and workers' compensation claims. In the Companies'
estimation, there is not a reasonable possibility that an exposure
to loss exists for the asbestos proceedings that is materially in
excess of the estimated liability accrued.

For Con Edison, the accrued liability for asbestos suits was $8
million and $86 million for workers' compensation proceedings
(including those related to asbestos exposure) at September 30,
2014.

For CECONY , the accrued liability for asbestos suits $7 million
and $81 million workers' compensation proceedings (including those
related to asbestos exposure) and the amounts deferred as
regulatory assets at September 30, 2014.

Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison) is a holding company, which
owns Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), which
delivers electricity, natural gas and steam to customers in New
York City and Westchester County; Orange and Rockland Utilities,
Inc. (O&R) (together with CECONY referred to as the Utilities),
which delivers electricity and natural gas to customers primarily
located in southeastern New York, and northern New Jersey and
northeastern Pennsylvania, and competitive energy businesses,
which provide retail and wholesale electricity supply and energy
services. CECONY's business operations are its regulated electric,
gas and steam delivery businesses. O&R's business operations are
its regulated electric and gas delivery businesses. In July 2012,
Consolidated Edison Development, a wholly owned subsidiary of Con
Edison, and GCL Solar Energy Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
GCL-Poly Energy Holdings Limited, acquired two solar photovoltaic
projects.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Has $7-Mil. Fibro Suits Liability
---------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., has accrued a $7
million liability for asbestos suits, according to Consolidated
Edison, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

For CECONY, the accrued liability for asbestos suits $7 million
and $81 million workers' compensation proceedings (including those
related to asbestos exposure) and the amounts deferred as
regulatory assets at September 30, 2014.

Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison) is a holding company, which
owns Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), which
delivers electricity, natural gas and steam to customers in New
York City and Westchester County; Orange and Rockland Utilities,
Inc. (O&R) (together with CECONY referred to as the Utilities),
which delivers electricity and natural gas to customers primarily
located in southeastern New York, and northern New Jersey and
northeastern Pennsylvania, and competitive energy businesses,
which provide retail and wholesale electricity supply and energy
services. CECONY's business operations are its regulated electric,
gas and steam delivery businesses. O&R's business operations are
its regulated electric and gas delivery businesses. In July 2012,
Consolidated Edison Development, a wholly owned subsidiary of Con
Edison, and GCL Solar Energy Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
GCL-Poly Energy Holdings Limited, acquired two solar photovoltaic
projects.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Has $50MM Liability for NY Incident
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc., has accrued its estimated liability of
$50 million relating to suits due to the rupture of its
subsidiary's steam main in midtown Manhattan, 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 July 2007, a CECONY steam main located in midtown Manhattan
ruptured. It has been reported that one person died and others
were injured as a result of the incident. Several buildings in the
area were damaged. Debris from the incident included dirt and mud
containing asbestos. The response to the incident required the
closing of several buildings and streets for various periods.
Approximately 90 suits are pending against the company seeking
generally unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages, for personal injury, property damage and business
interruption. The company has notified its insurers of the
incident and believes that the policies in force at the time of
the incident will cover the company's costs to satisfy its
liability to others in connection with the suits. In the company's
estimation, there is not a reasonable possibility that an exposure
to loss exists for the suits that is materially in excess of the
estimated liability accrued. At September 30, 2014, the company
had accrued its estimated liability for the suits of $50 million
and an insurance receivable in the same amount.

Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison) is a holding company, which
owns Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), which
delivers electricity, natural gas and steam to customers in New
York City and Westchester County; Orange and Rockland Utilities,
Inc. (O&R) (together with CECONY referred to as the Utilities),
which delivers electricity and natural gas to customers primarily
located in southeastern New York, and northern New Jersey and
northeastern Pennsylvania, and competitive energy businesses,
which provide retail and wholesale electricity supply and energy
services. CECONY's business operations are its regulated electric,
gas and steam delivery businesses. O&R's business operations are
its regulated electric and gas delivery businesses. In July 2012,
Consolidated Edison Development, a wholly owned subsidiary of Con
Edison, and GCL Solar Energy Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
GCL-Poly Energy Holdings Limited, acquired two solar photovoltaic
projects.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Receives 3,641 Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary received approximately 3,641 new
asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

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

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

MLIC received approximately 5,898 asbestos-related claims in 2013.
During the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, MLIC
received approximately 3,641 and 4,256 new asbestos-related
claims, respectively. The number of asbestos cases that may be
brought, the aggregate amount of any liability that MLIC may
incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given year
are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year.

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

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

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

MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from
asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience,
reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience
in the United States, assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos
liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its
asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis.
These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved
in asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the
number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of
new claims filed against it and other defendants and the
jurisdictions in which claims are pending. Based upon its
reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has
updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through
September 30, 2014.

MetLife, Inc. (MetLife) is a provider of insurance, annuities and
employee benefit programs, serving 90 million customers in over 50
countries. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife
operates in the United States, Japan, Latin America, Asia Pacific,
Europe and the Middle East. It is organized into six segments:
Insurance Products, Retirement Products, Corporate Benefit Funding
and Auto & Home (collectively, U.S. Business), and Japan and Other
International Regions (collectively, International). U.S. Business
provides insurance and financial services products, including
life, dental, disability, auto and homeowner insurance. In
September 2013, MetLife Inc and Thayer Lodging Group acquired the
365-room Hilton Los Cabos Beach & Golf Resort in Cabo San Lucas,
Mexico in a joint venture. Effective August 12, 2014, MetLife Inc
acquired The Loop, a Kissimmee-based shopping center.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Estimates $36MM Fibro Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation estimates the potential liability for
asbestos-related claims, as well as the claims expected to be
filed in the next ten years to be approximately $36.0 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's subsidiaries are involved in various unresolved
legal actions, administrative proceedings and claims in the
ordinary course of business involving, among other things, product
liability, commercial, employment, workers' compensation,
intellectual property claims and environmental matters. The
Company establishes accruals in a manner that is consistent with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for
costs associated with such matters when liability is probable and
those costs are capable of being reasonably estimated. Although it
is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these
unresolved legal actions or the range of possible loss or
recovery, based upon current information, management believes the
eventual outcome of these unresolved legal actions, either
individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse
effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash
flows of the Company.

In connection with the Carlyle acquisition in November 2002,
Invensys plc ("Invensys") has provided the Company with
indemnification against certain contingent liabilities, including
certain pre-closing environmental liabilities. The Company
believes that, pursuant to such indemnity obligations, Invensys is
obligated to defend and indemnify the Company with respect to the
matters relating to the Ellsworth Industrial Park Site and to
various asbestos claims. The indemnity obligations relating to the
matters described, together with indemnity obligations relating to
other matters, to an overall dollar cap equal to the purchase
price, which is an amount in excess of $900 million. The following
paragraphs summarize the most significant actions and proceedings:

* In 2002, Rexnord Industries, LLC ("Rexnord Industries") was
named as a potentially responsible party ("PRP"), together with at
least ten other companies, at the Ellsworth Industrial Park Site,
Downers Grove, DuPage County, Illinois (the "Site"), by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA"), and the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA"). Rexnord Industries'
Downers Grove property is situated within the Ellsworth Industrial
Complex. The USEPA and IEPA allege there have been one or more
releases or threatened releases of chlorinated solvents and other
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants, allegedly
including but not limited to a release or threatened release on or
from the Company's property, at the Site. The relief sought by the
USEPA and IEPA includes further investigation and potential
remediation of the Site and reimbursement of USEPA's past costs.
Rexnord Industries' allocated share of past and future costs
related to the Site, including for investigation and/or
remediation, could be significant. All previously pending property
damage and personal injury lawsuits against the Company related to
the Site have been settled or dismissed. Pursuant to its indemnity
obligation, Invensys continues to defend the Company in known
matters related to the Site and

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

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

The following paragraph summarizes the most significant actions
and proceedings for which Hamilton Sundstrand has accepted
responsibility:

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

Certain Water Management subsidiaries are also subject to asbestos
litigation. As of September 30, 2014, Zurn and numerous other
unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 7,000
asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 26,000
claims. Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by
exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly
manufactured by a segment of Zurn. Zurn did not manufacture
asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from
suppliers. These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense
strategy funded by insurers.

As of September 30, 2014, the Company estimates the potential
liability for the asbestos-related claims, as well as the claims
expected to be filed in the next ten years to be approximately
$36.0 million, of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to pay
approximately $29.0 million in the next ten years on such claims,
with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in
subsequent years. The $36.0 million was developed based on an
actuarial study and represents the projected indemnity payout for
claims filed in the next ten years. However, there are inherent
uncertainties involved in estimating the number of future asbestos
claims, future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense
strategies and settlement initiatives. As a result, actual
liability could differ from the estimate described herein.
Further, while this current asbestos liability is based on an
estimate of claims through the next ten years, such liability may
continue beyond that time frame, and such liability could be
substantial.

Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of September 30, 2014, is
approximately $249.2 million, and believes that all current claims
are covered by insurance. However, principally as a result of the
past insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance carriers,
certain coverage gaps will exist if and after the Company's other
carriers have paid the first $173.2 million of aggregate
liabilities.

As of September 30, 2014, the Company had a recorded receivable
from its insurance carriers of $36.0 million, which corresponds to
the amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery. However, there is no assurance that $249.2 million of
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed $249.2 million.
Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available
coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential
disputes with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and
insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 237 Fibro Tort Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Steel Partners Holdings L.P. subsidiary has 237 asbestos-related
toxic-tort claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014.

A then-subsidiary of the BNS Liquidating Trust ("BNS Sub") has
been named as a defendant in 1,307 and 1,234 alleged asbestos-
related toxic-tort claims as of September 30, 2014 and December
31, 2013, respectively. The claims were filed over a period
beginning 1994 through September 30, 2014. In many cases these
claims involved more than 100 defendants. Of the claims filed,
1,070 and 1,023 were dismissed, settled or granted summary
judgment and closed as of September 30, 2014 and December 31,
2013, respectively.  Of the claims settled, the average settlement
was less than $3.  There remained 237 and 211 pending asbestos
claims as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013,
respectively. There can be no assurance that the number of future
claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments
will be consistent with the experience to date of existing claims.

BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims
for years beginning 1974 through 1988 with estimated aggregate
coverage limits of $183,000, with $2,102 and $2,082 at September
30, 2014 and December 31, 2013 in estimated remaining self
insurance retention (deductible). There is secondary evidence of
coverage from 1970 to 1973 although there is no assurance that the
insurers will recognize that the coverage was in place. Policies
issued for BNS Sub beginning in 1989 contained exclusions related
to asbestos. Under certain circumstances, some of the settled
claims may be reopened. Also, there may be a significant delay in
receipt of notification by BNS Sub of the entry of a dismissal or
settlement of a claim or the filing of a new claim. BNS Sub
believes it has significant defenses to any liability for toxic-
tort claims on the merits. None of these toxic-tort claims has
gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that these
defenses will prevail. In addition, there can be no assurance that
the number of future claims and the related costs of defense,
settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to
date of existing claims, and that BNS Sub will not need to
increase significantly its estimated liability for the costs to
settle these claims to an amount that could have a material effect
on the consolidated financial statements.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Continues to Defend Fibro Cases
----------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc., continues to defend itself
against 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.

HII and its predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a
longstanding series of cases that have been and continue to be
filed in various jurisdictions around the country, wherein former
and current employees and various third parties allege exposure to
asbestos containing materials while on or associated with HII
premises or while working on vessels constructed or repaired by
HII. The cases allege various injuries, including those associated
with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma and
other alleged asbestos related conditions. In some cases, several
of HII's former executive officers are also named as defendants.
In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available
to the Company for its liability and that of its former executive
officers. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution of
these cases will not have a material effect on its consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows, it cannot
predict what new or revised claims or litigation might be asserted
or what information might come to light and can, therefore, give
no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related
litigation.

Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) owns and operates two
segments: Ingalls Shipbuilding and Newport News Shipbuilding.
Through the Company's Ingalls segment, it is a supplier and
builder of amphibious assault and expeditionary ships to the
United States Navy, the builder of National Security Cutters for
the United States Coast Guard, and one of the two companies that
builds the United States Navy's fleet of DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-
class destroyers. Through the Company's Newport News segment, it
is an industrial designer, builder, and refueler of nuclear-
powered aircraft carriers, and one of the two companies designing
and building nuclear-powered submarines for the United States
Navy. It conducts all of its business with the United States
Government, principally the Department of Defense (DoD). In
January 2014, HII acquired The S.M. Stoller Corporation. Effective
June 2, 2014, HII acquired UniversalPegasus International Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Had 196 Fibro Cases as of Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------
There were 196 asbestos-related cases pending against CECO
Environmental Corp., 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 subsidiary, Met-Pro, beginning in 2002,
began to be named in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a
large number of industrial companies including, in particular,
those in the pump and fluid handling industries. In management's
opinion, the complaints typically have been vague, general and
speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other
defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and
engaged in other related actions which caused injuries (including
death) and loss to the plaintiffs. Counsel has advised that more
recent cases typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma.
The Company's insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the
Company, are vigorously defending these cases. Many cases have
been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of
exposure to Met-Pro's products. In those cases where evidence has
been produced, the Company's experience has been that the exposure
levels are low and the Company's position has been that its
products were not a cause of death, injury or loss. The Company
has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases.
Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through September 30,
2014 for cases involving asbestos-related claims were $0.7
million, which, together with all legal fees other than corporate
counsel expenses, have been paid by the Company's insurers. The
average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was
approximately $25,000.

"Based upon the most recent information available to the Company
regarding such claims, there were a total of 196 cases pending
against the Company as of September 30, 2014 (with Connecticut,
New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number
of cases), as compared with 173 cases that were pending as of
December 31, 2013. During the nine months ended September 30,
2014, 41 new cases were filed against the Company, and the Company
was dismissed from 18 cases and settled zero cases. Most of the
pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of
discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules leading to,
or are scheduled for trial. The Company believes that its
insurance coverage is adequate for the cases currently pending
against the Company and for the foreseeable future, assuming a
continuation of the current volume, nature of cases and settlement
amounts. However, the Company has no control over the number and
nature of cases that are filed against it, nor as to the financial
health of its insurers or their position as to coverage. The
Company also presently believes that none of the pending cases
will have a material adverse impact upon the Company's results of
operations, liquidity or financial condition."

CECO Environmental Corp. (CECO) is a provider of global, air
pollution control technology. The Company operates as a provider
of air pollution control technology, products and services through
three principal product groups, including Engineered Equipment
Technology and Parts Group, Contracting/Services Group and
Component Parts Group. Its Engineered Equipment Technology and
Parts Group produces various types of air pollution control
technology and equipment. Its Contracting/Services Group, which
produces air pollution control and engineered industrial
ventilation systems and its Component Parts Group, which
manufactures products used by the Company and other air pollution
control companies and air system contractors. In August 2014, the
Company acquired all of the assets of HEE Environmental
Engineering.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,366 PI Claims at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
There are 17,366 pending asbestos personal injury claims filed
against Harsco Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

In the United States, the Company has been named as one of many
defendants (approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal
actions alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne
asbestos over the past several decades. In their suits, the
plaintiffs have named as defendants, among others, many
manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of
equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos.

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

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

As of September 30, 2014, there are 17,366 pending asbestos
personal injury claims filed against the Company. Of these cases,
17,017 are pending in the New York Supreme Court for New York
County in New York State. The other claims, totaling 349, are
filed in various counties in a number of state courts, and in
certain Federal District Courts (including New York), and those
complaints generally assert lesser amounts of damages than the New
York State court cases or do not state any amount claimed.

As of September 30, 2014, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation, or summary judgment prior to trial, in 27,487 cases.
In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation nationwide, the
Company expects to continue to receive additional claims. However,
there have been developments during the past several years, both
by certain state legislatures and by certain state courts, which
could favorably affect the Company's ability to defend these
asbestos claims in those jurisdictions. These developments include
procedural changes, docketing changes, proof of damage
requirements and other changes that require plaintiffs to follow
specific procedures in bringing their claims and to show proof of
damages before they can proceed with their claim. An example is
the action taken by the New York Supreme Court (a trial court),
which is responsible for managing all asbestos cases pending
within New York County in the State of New York. This Court issued
an order in December 2002 that created a Deferred or Inactive
Docket for all pending and future asbestos claims filed by
plaintiffs who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant
condition or discernible physical impairment, and an Active or In
Extremis Docket for plaintiffs who are able to show such medical
condition. As a result of this order, the majority of the asbestos
cases filed against the Company in New York County have been moved
to the Inactive Docket until such time as the plaintiffs can show
that they have incurred a physical impairment. As of September 30,
2014, the Company has been listed as a defendant in 167 Active or
In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County. The Court's Order
has been challenged by some plaintiffs.

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

The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously
defending these claims and cases. It is not possible to predict
the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and
proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury
litigation, and no loss provision has been recorded in the
Company's consolidated financial statements because a loss
contingency is not deemed probable or estimable. Despite this
uncertainty, and although results of operations and cash flows for
a given period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related
lawsuits, claims and proceedings, the Company does not expect that
any costs that are reasonably possible to be incurred by the
Company in connection with asbestos litigation would have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Has 61,736 American Optical PI Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc., reported that there were 61,736 asbestos-related
personal injury claims naming American Optical as one of the
defendants, 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.

Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned American Optical
Corporation, which manufactured and sold respiratory protective
devices and asbestos safety clothing. In connection with the sale
of American Optical in 1982, Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify
the purchaser for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos-
related and other claims. As of September 28, 2014, approximately
61,736 claims naming American Optical and numerous other
defendants were pending in various federal and state courts
seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to
asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials. Warner-Lambert
is actively engaged in the defense of, and will continue to
explore various means to resolve, these claims.

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $591-Mil. Fibro Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation's subsidiary has recognized asbestos-
related reserves of $591 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.

Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for
indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos
exposure. These claims relate to damages for bodily injuries
alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in
connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted
on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of September
30, 2014, there were 61 asserted claims for non-malignant cases
with the cumulative relief sought of up to $13 million, and 23
asserted claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief
sought of up to $7 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas'
experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of
these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed.

Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of
$591 million at September 30, 2014 and $616 million at
December 31, 2013. These reserves are based upon the minimum
amount of the range of loss for current and future asbestos claims
through 2033, are recorded on an undiscounted basis and
incorporate anticipated inflation. In light of the uncertainties
inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe
they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that
might be incurred after 2033 related to such potential claims. It
is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities
in excess of the recorded reserves.

Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an
aggregate self-insured retention of $476 million. Duke Energy
Carolinas' cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance
retention in 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be
reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. The insurance
policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries
indemnification and medical cost claim payments is $864 million in
excess of the self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance
recoveries were $616 million at September 30, 2014, and $649
million at December 31, 2013. These amounts are classified in
Other within Investments and Other Assets and Receivables on the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas is
not aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of
insurance claims. Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance
recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier
continues to have a strong financial strength rating.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc., continues to defend itself againsy
asbestos-related product liability lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

The Company has been named as a defendant in several multi-
defendant asbestos related product liability lawsuits. In certain
instances, the Company is indemnified by a former owner of the
product line in question. In the remaining cases the plaintiff
has, as of September 30, 2014, not been able to establish any
exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's products. The Company
is uninsured with respect to these claims but believes that it
will not incur any material liability with respect to these to
claims.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Has 402 PI Suits at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------
MRC Global Inc., has 402 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 are one of many defendants in lawsuits
that plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries
that exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and their
family members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume
of defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture,
distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos
containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly
caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These plaintiffs
typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of third-
party manufactured products that our McJunkin Red Man Corporation
subsidiary purportedly distributed. As of September 30, 2014, we
are named a defendant in approximately 402  lawsuits involving
approximately 1,047 claims. No asbestos lawsuit has resulted in a
judgment against us to date, with a majority being settled,
dismissed or otherwise resolved. Applicable third-party insurance
has substantially covered these claims, and insurance should
continue to cover a substantial majority of existing and
anticipated future claims. Accordingly, we have recorded a
liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of
asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable. It is not possible to predict the outcome
of these claims and proceedings. However, in our opinion, the
likelihood that the ultimate disposition of any of these claims
and legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial statements is remote."

MRC Global Inc. is a distributor of pipe, valves and fittings and
related products and services to the energy industry. It operates
in two segments: North American segment and International segment.
Its North American segment includes over 180 branch locations, six
distribution centers in the United States, one distribution center
in Canada, 11 valve automation service centers and over 170 pipe
yards located in the oil and natural gas regions in North America.
Its International segment includes over 40 branch locations
throughout Europe, Asia and Australasia with distribution centers
in each of the United Kingdom, Singapore and Australia and 10
automation service centers in Europe and Asia. Effective January
6, 2014, MRC Global Inc a unit of GS Capital Partners LP
subsidiary of Goldman Sachs Group Inc's Goldman Sachs & Co unit,
acquired Stream AS. In May 2014, MRC Transmark Pte. Ltd acquired
MSD Engineering (Pte) Ltd. In June 2014, its MRC Teamtrade
subsidiary acquired Hypteck AS.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Has 42 Fibro Suits at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
Noble Corporation plc has 42 asbestos-related 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 are from time to time a party to various
lawsuits that are incidental to our operations in which the
claimants seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for
personal injury, including injuries purportedly resulting from
exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities.
At September 30, 2014, there were 42 asbestos related lawsuits in
which we are one of many defendants. These lawsuits have been
filed in the United States in the states of Illinois, Louisiana,
Mississippi and Texas. We intend to vigorously defend against the
litigation. We do not believe the ultimate resolution of these
matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."

Noble Corporation plc is an offshore drilling contractor for the
oil and gas industry. The Company performs contract drilling
services through its subsidiaries. In August 2014, the Company
announced that it has completed the spin-off of Paragon Offshore
plc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OK's Global Indemnity Fibro Insurance Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
One of Global Indemnity plc's companies obtained court approval of
a settlement agreement resolving asbestos-related coverage
litigation, 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 2009, one of the Company's insurance companies entered into a
settlement agreement to resolve asbestos-related coverage
litigation related to approximately 3,900 existing asbestos-
related bodily injury claims and future claims. The settlement was
approved by the Court and a final order was issued in September
2014.

Global Indemnity plc (Global Indemnity) is a holding company.
Global Indemnity is a property and casualty insurers in the
industry, provides its insurance products across a distribution
network-binding authority, program, brokerage, and reinsurance.
The Company manages the distribution of these products in two
segments: Insurance Operations and Reinsurance Operations. The
Company offers property and casualty insurance products in the
excess and surplus lines marketplace through its Insurance
Operations and provides third party treaty reinsurance for writers
of excess and surplus and specialty lines of property and casualty
insurance through its Reinsurance Operations. The Company's
subsidiaries include United National Insurance Company, Penn-
America Insurance Company and Penn-Star Insurance Company; Diamond
State Insurance Company and United National Casualty Insurance
Company; United National Specialty Insurance Company and Penn-
Patriot Insurance Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
BNSF Railway Company continues to defend itself against a number
of personal injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

The Company is party to a number of personal injury claims by
employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos.
The heaviest exposure for BNSF Railway employees was due to work
conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines that
were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967. However, other
types of exposures, including exposure from locomotive component
parts and building materials, continued after 1967 until they were
substantially eliminated at BNSF Railway by 1985.

BNSF Railway assesses its unasserted asbestos liability exposure
on an annual basis during the third quarter. BNSF Railway
determines its asbestos liability by estimating its exposed
population, the number of claims likely to be filed, the number of
claims that will likely require payment and the estimated cost per
claim. Estimated filing and dismissal rates and average cost per
claim are determined utilizing recent claim data and trends.

During the third quarters of 2014 and 2013, the Company analyzed
recent filing and payment trends to ensure the assumptions used by
BNSF Railway to estimate its future asbestos liability were
reasonable. In the third quarter of 2014, management recorded a
decrease in expense of $2 million. In the third quarter of 2013,
management determined that the liability remained appropriate and
no change was recorded. The Company plans to update its study
again in the third quarter of 2015.

Throughout the year, BNSF Railway monitors actual experience
against the number of forecasted claims and expected claim
payments and will record adjustments to the Company's estimates as
necessary.

Based on BNSF Railway's estimate of the potentially exposed
employees and related mortality assumptions, it is anticipated
that unasserted asbestos claims will continue to be filed through
the year 2050. The Company recorded an amount for the full
estimated filing period through 2050 because it had a relatively
finite exposed population (former and current employees hired
prior to 1985), which it was able to identify and reasonably
estimate and about which it had obtained reliable demographic data
(including age, hire date and occupation) derived from industry or
BNSF Railway specific data that was the basis for the study. BNSF
Railway projects that approximately 60, 80 and 95 percent of the
future unasserted asbestos claims will be filed within the next
10, 15 and 25 years, respectively.

BNSF Railway Company operates one of the largest railroad networks
in North America. A wholly-owned subsidiary of Burlington Northern
Santa Fe, the company provides freight transportation over a
network of about 32,500 route miles of track across two-thirds of
the western US and two provinces in Canada. About 23,000 miles of
that track are company owned, while the remainder is owned and
permitted by other railroads. BNSF Railway owns or leases a fleet
of about 6,900 locomotives. It also has some 30 intermodal
facilities that help to transport agricultural, consumer, and
industrial products, as well as coal. In addition to major cities
and ports, BNSF Railway serves smaller markets in alliance with
short-line partners.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 47,922 Fibro Claims at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. had 47,922 pending 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.

As of September 30, 2014, the Company was a defendant in cases
filed in numerous state and federal courts alleging injury or
death as a result of exposure to asbestos.

Of the 47,922 pending claims as of September 30, 2014,
approximately 18,700 claims were pending in New York,
approximately 9,600 claims were pending in Texas, approximately
5,100 claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 300
claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which
legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims that
can proceed to trial on the merits.

Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either
dismissed or concluded through settlements. To date, the Company
has paid three judgments arising from adverse jury verdicts in
asbestos matters. The first payment, in the amount of $2.54
million, was made on July 14, 2008, approximately two years after
the adverse verdict in the Joseph Norris matter in California,
after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and appellate
remedies. The second payment, in the amount of $0.02 million, was
made in June 2009 after an adverse verdict in the Earl Haupt case
in Los Angeles, California on April 21, 2009. The third payment,
in the amount of $0.9 million, was made in June 2014,
approximately two years after the adverse verdict in the William
Paulus matter in California, after the Company had exhausted all
post-trial and appellate remedies.

The Company has tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts
by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court. The
Company further has pursued appeals of certain adverse jury
verdicts that have resulted in reversals in favor of the defense.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
industrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid
Handling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two
groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The
Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced
plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised of
two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions for
sensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Company
announced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI Conlux
Holdings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Hears Reargument in Suit v. Crane Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court in Philadelphia heard reargument in the third
quarter of 2014 in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed against Crane
Co., 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 March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court jury
found the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a $14.5
million verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th share
of a $3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim. On February 23,
2011, the court entered judgment on the verdicts in the amount of
$0.2 million against the Company, only, in Bell, and in the amount
of $4.0 million, jointly, against the Company and two other
defendants in Nelson, with additional interest in the amount of
$0.01 million being assessed against the Company, only, in Nelson.
All defendants, including the Company, and the plaintiffs took
timely appeals of certain aspects of those judgments. The Company
resolved the Bell appeal by settlement, which is reflected in the
settled claims for 2012. On
September 5, 2013, a panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, in
a 2-1 decision, vacated the Nelson verdict against all defendants,
reversing and remanding for a new trial. Plaintiffs have requested
a rehearing in the Superior Court, which the defendants, including
the Company, have opposed. By order dated November 18, 2013, the
Superior Court vacated the panel opinion, and granted en banc
reargument, which was heard in the third quarter of 2014.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
industrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid
Handling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two
groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The
Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced
plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised of
two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions for
sensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Company
announced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI Conlux
Holdings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Suit v. Crane Co. Oral Argument Set for 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed against Crane
Co. in New York will be heard in 2015, 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 August 17, 2011, a New York City state court jury found the
Company responsible for a 99% share of a $32 million verdict on
the Ronald Dummitt claim. The Company filed post-trial motions
seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to
reduce the damages, which the Company argued were excessive under
New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic
losses. The Court held oral argument on these motions on
October 18, 2011, and issued a written decision on August 21,
2012, confirming the jury's liability findings but reducing the
award of damages to $8 million. At plaintiffs' request, the Court
entered a judgment in the amount of $4.9 million against the
Company, taking into account settlement offsets and accrued
interest under New York law. The Company appealed, and the
judgment was affirmed in a 3-2 decision and order dated July 3,
2014. The Company has appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
The Court has set a briefing schedule, which will be completed in
the fourth quarter of 2014; oral argument will be heard in 2015.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
industrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid
Handling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two
groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The
Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced
plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised of
two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions for
sensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Company
announced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI Conlux
Holdings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Frank Paasch's Claim v. Crane Co. Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
A Philadelphia court has entered an order dismissing Frank
Paasch's asbestos-related claim against Crane Co., 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 March 9, 2012, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court jury
found the Company responsible for a 1/8th share of a $123,000
verdict in the Frank Paasch claim. The Company and plaintiffs
filed post-trial motions. On May 31, 2012, on plaintiffs' motion,
the Court entered an order dismissing the claim against the
Company, with prejudice, and without any payment.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
industrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid
Handling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two
groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The
Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced
plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised of
two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions for
sensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Company
announced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI Conlux
Holdings.


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

* facts concerning historical operations,
* the rate of new claims,
* the number of claims from which we have been dismissed, and
* our prior experience in the defense of these matters;

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in NJ PI Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Durametallic Corporation,
and Union Carbide Corporation filed separate motions for summary
judgment on all claims asserted against them in the lawsuit
arising out of plaintiff William Patterson's alleged exposure to
asbestos.

In an opinion dated Dec. 5, 2014, Judge Robert B. Kugler of the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the
defendants' motions, after finding that the plaintiffs have not
produced sufficient evidence specifically identifying the
defendants as a manufacturer or distributor of asbestos-containing
products that Patterson was exposed to during the alleged time
period.

The case is WARREN PATTERSON and MARGARET PATTERSON, Plaintiffs,
v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO., et al., Defendants, CIVIL NO. 13-5584
(RBK/JS)(D.N.J.).  A full-text copy of Judge Kugler's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/h2Iv2Zfrom Leagle.com.

WARREN PATTERSON, Plaintiff, represented by JAMES J. PETTIT, LOCKS
LAW FIRM LLC.

MARGARET PATTERSON, (h/w), Plaintiff, represented by JAMES J.
PETTIT, LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC.

A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JOSEPH T.
HANLON, Esq. -- joseph.hanlon@wilsonelser.com -- WILSON ELSER
MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER & SUSAN KARLOVICH, Esq. --
susan.karlovich@wilsonelser.com -- WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ,
EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP.

FOSTER WHEELER, LLC, Defendant, represented by MICHAEL A.
TANENBAUM, Esq. -- michael.tanenbaum@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK
LLP & CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE, Esq. --
christopher.keale@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK LLP.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JOANNE
HAWKINS, SPEZIALI, GREENWALD & HAWKINS P.C., MICHAEL A. TANENBAUM,
SEDGWICK LLP & CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP.

GOULDS PUMPS, INC., Defendant, represented by STEVEN FREDERIK
SATZ, Esq. -- ssatz@hoaglandlongo.com -- HOAGLAND LONGO MORAN
DUNST & DOUKAS.

INGERSOLL-RAND LIMITED, Defendant, represented by LISA PASCARELLA,
PASCARELLA DIVITA LINDENBAUM & TOMASZEWSKI, PLLC.

METROPOLITAN LIFE, Defendant, represented by RICHARD V. JONES, LAW
OFFICES OF ROGER V. JONES, LLP & ROGER V. JONES.

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by MICHAEL
A. TANENBAUM, SEDGWICK LLP & CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Gets Summary Judgment in "McManns" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Pabst Brewing Company, Crane Co., and SB Decking Inc.,
filed separate motions for summary judgment in the asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuit filed by Alan and Donna McMann.

Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Tacoma, in an order dated Dec. 2,
2014, granted in part and denied in part the motions.

The McManns contend that Olympia Brewing Company, as predecessor-
in-interest to Pabst, has a "dual-persona" and the claim can be
maintained under the third-party exception to the  Washington's
Industrial Insurance Act, RCW Title 51 ("IIA").  However, Judge
Settle found that "[t]he immunities conferred by the [IIA] are not
easy to avoid" and the IIA "has always been construed stringently
in eliminating claims against employers."  With no case directly
on point, Judge Settle declined to adopt such an unusual
proposition that, when an indivisible injury is alleged, the
employer is both immune under the IIA and subject to third-party
liability under the IIA.  Therefore, the Court granted Pabst's
motion for summary judgment because the McManns' claims are barred
by the IIA.

With respect to Crane, Judge Settle found that the McManns failed
to submit evidence or direct the Court to evidence in support of
the majority of their claims.  The McManns, however, do argue that
there exist material questions of disputed fact on the issue of
whether Crane is liable for Mr. McMann's exposure to Crane's
asbestos containing the product "Cranite."  Crane concedes that
disputed questions of fact exist on this sole issue.  Therefore,
the Court granted Crane's motion as to all of the McManns' claims
except for Crane's potential liability for exposure to "Cranite."
For that sole exception, the Court denied the motion.

With respect to SB Decking, the McManns failed to submit evidence
or direct the Court to evidence in support of the majority of
their claims.  The failure to submit evidence in support of
essential elements of their claims is fatal to these claims;
therefore, the Court granted SB Decking's motion on the McManns'
claims for civil conspiracy, spoliation, willful or wanton
misconduct, and any other applicable theory of liability.  With
regard to the McManns' claims based on asbestos exposure, the
McManns have met their minimal burden, Judge Settle found.

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

Alan McMann, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett B Naman, THE
NEMEROFF LAW FIRM, Benjamin Robert Couture, WEINSTEIN COUTURE
PLLC, Brian Weinstein, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC & Christopher B
Norris, THE NEMEROFF LAW FIRM.

Donna McMann, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett B Naman, THE
NEMEROFF LAW FIRM, Benjamin Robert Couture, WEINSTEIN COUTURE
PLLC, Brian Weinstein, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC & Christopher B
Norris, THE NEMEROFF LAW FIRM.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barry
Neal Mesher, Esq. -- barry.mesher@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK LLP,
Brian D Zeringer, Esq. -- brian.zeringer@sedgwicklaw.com --
SEDGWICK LLP & Rachel Tallon Reynolds, Esq. --
rachel.reynolds@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK LLP.

AstenJohnson Inc, Defendant, represented by Daniel Ruttenberg,
Esq. -- druttenberg@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD & J.
Scott Wood, Esq. -- swood@foleymansfield.com -- at FOLEY &
MANSFIELD PLLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher S Marks,
Esq. -- chris.marks@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK LLP & R Dirk
Bernhardt, Esq. -- dirk.bernhardt@sedgwicklaw.com -- at SEDGWICK
LLP.

Crane Co, Defendant, represented by G William Shaw, Esq. --
bill.shaw@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by
David D Mordekhov, Esq. -- dmordekhov@gandtlawfirm.com -- GARDNER
TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC & Ronald C Gardner, Esq. --
rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com -- GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

International Paper Company, Defendant, represented by John
Michael Mattingly, Esq. -- mmattingly@rizzopc.com -- at RIZZO
MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

Pacific Construction Systems Inc, Defendant, represented by Jason
H Daywitt, Esq. -- jdaywitt@rizzopc.com -- at RIZZO MATTINGLY
BOSWORTH PC.

Pfizer Inc, Defendant, represented by Marissa Alkhazov, Esq. --
malkhazov@bpmlaw.com -- at BETTS PATTERSON & MINES.

SB Decking Inc, Defendant, represented by John Michael Mattingly,
RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

Thomas Dee Engineering Co, Defendant, represented by D K Yoshida,
Esq. -- dyoshida@omwlaw.com -- at OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2d. Cir. Affirms Mazza CERCLA Conviction
---------------------------------------------------------
Dominick Mazza and Mazza & Sons, Inc., appeal from June 19, 2013,
judgments of conviction entered by the United States District
Court for the Northern District of New York following an Oct. 16,
2012 jury verdict.  The jury found both Mazza defendants guilty
of: (1) conspiracy to, inter alia, violate Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 in
violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 371; (2) a substantive CERCLA
violation under 42 U.S.C. Section 9603(b); and (3) making false
statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1001.  The jury also
found Mazza & Sons guilty of obstruction of justice in violation
of 18 U.S.C. Section 1519.  The Mazza defendants argue that their
convictions should be vacated and a new trial ordered.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated Mazza's
and Mazza & Sons' convictions for conspiracy and false statements
and affirmed Mazza's and Mazza & Sons' convictions for the CERCLA
violation and for obstruction of justice.

The appeals case is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v.
DOMINICK MAZZA, AKA SEALED DEFENDANT #4, MAZZA & SONS, INC., AKA
SEALED DEFENDANT #5, Defendants-Appellants, NOS. 13-2540, 13-2710
(2d. Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Decision dated Dec. 4, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/gZys4Sfrom Leagle.com.

SUSAN C. WOLFE, Esq. -- scwolfe@hpplegal.com -- at Hoffman &
Pollok LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellants.

THEKLA HANSEN-YOUNG (Allen M. Brabender and Todd W. Gleason, on
the brief), for Sam Hirsch, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
Washington, DC, for Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2d. Cir. Flips Ruling in Reinsurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff-Appellant Utica Mutual Insurance Company appeals from an
order of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of New York granting summary judgment to Defendant-
Appellee Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., on Utica's claims for
breach of contract and declaratory judgment.

Munich is Utica's reinsurer under a facultative reinsurance
certificate covering an umbrella policy issued by Utica to Goulds
Pumps Inc. in 1973, under which Utica has been exposed to millions
of dollars in losses arising from asbestos lawsuits against
Goulds.  The Certificate contains a $5 million limit of liability,
and it obligates Munich to reimburse Utica for expense payments in
addition to losses.  Munich has already paid $5 million under the
Certificate, but Utica contends that Munich's liability for
expenses is not subject to the Certificate's liability limit.
Utica filed an action seeking recovery for unpaid expenses and a
declaration that Munich is obligated to continue reimbursing it
for expense payments.  Munich's position is that the Certificate's
$5 million limit includes expenses, and that its liability under
the Certificate has therefore been exhausted.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, having reviewed
Munich's contentions, found them to be without merit.  The Second
Circuit ruled that Munich is not entitled to summary judgment on
the grounds relied upon by the district court.  Accordingly, the
Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court and
remanded the case for further proceedings.

The Second Circuit ruled that the district court did not consider
extrinsic evidence in interpreting the Certificate, and the record
shoes that Munich has not presented any extrinsic evidence in
support of its position, and while Utica has done so, it argued
that further discovery was required.

The appeals case is UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. MUNICH REINSURANCE AMERICA, INC., Defendant-
Appellee, NO. 13-4170-CV (2d. Cir.).  A full-text copy of the
Second Circuit is available at http://is.gd/Fpuizsfrom
Leagle.com.

MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, Esq. -- mvyskocil@stblaw.com -- at Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

BRUCE M. FRIEDMAN, Esq. -- bfriedman@rubinfiorella.com -- at
Rubin, Fiorella & Friedman LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-
Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Recommends Remand of "Bartel" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr., of the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana, recommended the remand of
the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit commenced by William
E. Bartel, as personal representative of the estate of Silas B.
Bishop, to the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, after finding that the Plaintiff's Jones
Act claims are not removable under 28 U.S.C. Section 1445(a) when
removal is based on the general removal statute, Section 1441.

The case is WILLIAM E. BARTEL, as personal representative of the
ESTATE OF SILAS B. BISHOP, v. ALCOA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, ET AL.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-251-JJB-RLB, C/W NO. 14-252-JJB-RLB (M.D.
La.).  A full-text copy of Magistrate Bourgeois' Report and
Recommendations dated Nov. 6, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/MoAt9bfrom Leagle.com.

William E Bartel, as personal representative of the Estate of
Silas B. Bishop, Plaintiff, represented by Cameron Ray Waddell,
Waddell Anderman, LLC, Jeffery R. Nicholson, Nicholson Law Firm,
L.L.C. & Jody E. Anderman, Waddell Anderman, LLC.

Alcoa Steamship Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Esq. -- john.bolles@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar LLP,
Annette N. Peltier, Esq. -- annette.peltier@phelps.com -- Phelps
Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Esq. -- kevin.lavie@phelps.com --
Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Esq. --
meredith.blanque@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier,
Esq. -- robert.barbier@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar.

American President Lines, Ltd., Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar,
Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps
Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

BP Corp. North American, Inc., individually and/or as Successor-
in-Interest American Oil Co. Successor-in-Interest Amoco Shipping
Co., Defendant, represented by Janet Wessler Marshall, Johnson
Johnson Barrios & Yacoubian, Aaron Benjamin Greenbaum, Pusateri
Barrios Guillot & Greenbaum & Salvador Joseph Pusateri, Pusateri
Barrios Guillot & Greenbaum.

Central Gulf Lines, Inc., individually and/or as Successor-in-
Interest Central Gulf Steamship Corporation, Defendant,
represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N.
Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP,
Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps
Dunbar.

Central Gulf Steamship Corporation, Defendant, represented by John
A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar,
Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps
Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

Crowley Marine Services, Inc., as Successor by Merger Delta
Steamshhip Lines, Inc., f/k/a Misissippi Shipping Co., Defendant,
represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N.
Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP,
Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps
Dunbar.

Delta Steamship Lines, Inc., Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar,
Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps
Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

Empire Transport Inc., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles,
Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob
LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar &
Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

Farrell Lines Incorporated, formerly known as American South
African Lines, Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps
Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie,
Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J.
Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

James River Transport Inc., Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar,
Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps
Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

Chas. Kurz & Company, individually and/or as Successor-in-Interest
Keystone Shipping Co. Successor-in-Interest Keystone Tankship
Corp., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar
LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar & Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps
Dunbar LLP.

Chas. Kurz & Company, Defendant, represented by Meredith W.
Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

Marine Navigation Company, Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar,
Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps
Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

Crowley Maritime Corp., individually and/or as Successor-in-
Interest Marine Transport, Lines, Inc., Defendant, represented by
John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps
Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque,
Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

Mathiasen Tanker Ind. Inc., Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar,
Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps
Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

Matson Navigation Co. Inc., Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar,
Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps
Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

National Bulk Carriers, Inc., Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar,
Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps
Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

Ogden Leader Stransport Inc., Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar,
Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps
Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

Pan Atlantic Steamship Co., Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar,
Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps
Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

Sea-Land Service Inc., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles,
Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob
LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar &
Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

Wabash Transport Inc., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles,
Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob
LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar &
Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

Waterman Steamship Corporation, Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar,
Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps
Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

Amerada Hess Corp., Defendant, represented by Brett D. Wise, Esq.
-- bdwise@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Elizabeth S. Wheeler, Esq.
-- ewheeler@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis & Nora Bolling Bilbro,
Esq. -- nbilbro@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis.

Hess Oil & Chem, Corp., Defendant, represented by Brett D. Wise,
Liskow & Lewis- N.O., Elizabeth S. Wheeler, Liskow & Lewis & Nora
Bolling Bilbro, Liskow & Lewis.

Marine Transport Lines, Inc., Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar,
Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps
Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

Keystone Shipping Co., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles,
Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob
LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar &
Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

Central Gulf Lines, Inc., Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.
Farrell Lines, Inc., formerly known as American South African
Lines, Defendant - Consolidated, represented by John A. Bolles,
Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob
LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar &
Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

Chas. Kurz & Co. Inc., Defendant - Consolidated, represented by
John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps
Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP & Meredith W.
Blanque, Phelps Dunbar.

Chas. Kurz & Co. Inc., Individually Successor-in-Interest Keystone
Shipping Co. Successor-in-Interest Keystone Tankship Corp.,
Defendant - Consolidated, represented by Robert J. Barbier, Phelps
Dunbar.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. PI Suit Recommended for Remand
---------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr., of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, recommended the remand
to the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, of the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit
filed by William E. Bartel, personal representative of the estate
of Joseph L. Dennis, after finding that the Plaintiff's Jones Act
claims are not removable under 28 U.S.C. Section 1445(a) when
removal is based on the general removal statute, Section 1441.

The case is WILLIAM E. BARTEL, as personal representative of the
ESTATE OF JOSEPH L. DENNIS, v. AMERICAN EXPORT ISBRANDTSEN, ET
AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-257-JJB-RLB, NO. 14-261-JJB-RLB (M.D.
La.).  A full-text copy of Magistrate Bourgeois' report and
recommendations dated Nov. 6, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/mt1VpAfrom Leagle.com.

William E Bartel, As personal representative on behalf of Estate
of Joseph L. Dennis, Plaintiff, represented by Cameron Ray
Waddell, Waddell Anderman, LLC, Jeffery R. Nicholson, Nicholson
Law Firm, L.L.C. & Jody E. Anderman, Waddell Anderman, LLC.

American Export Isbrandtsen, Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar,
Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps
Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

Farrell Lines Incorporated, Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar,
Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps
Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

American Export Lines, Inc., Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar,
Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps
Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

American President Lines Ltd., Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar,
Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps
Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

American Trading & Production Corporation, Defendant, represented
by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps
Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque,
Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

American Trading Transp. Co., Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar,
Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps
Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

Central Gulf Lines, Inc., Individually and/or Successor-in-
Interest Central Gulf Steamship Corporation, Defendant,
represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N.
Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP,
Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J. Barbier, Phelps
Dunbar.

Chas. Kurz & Company, Individually and/or Successor-in-Interest
Keystone Shipping Co. Successor-in-Interest Keystone Tankship
Corp., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles, Phelps Dunbar
LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps
Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar & Robert J.
Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

Farrell Lines Inc., Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles,
Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob
LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar &
Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.

Hess Oil & Chem Corp., Defendant, represented by Brett D. Wise,
Liskow & Lewis- N.O., Elizabeth S. Wheeler, Liskow & Lewis & Nora
Bolling Bilbro, Liskow & Lewis.

Mathiasen Tanker Ind. Inc., Defendant, represented by John A.
Bolles, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Kevin Jacob LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP,
Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar, Robert J. Barbier, Phelps
Dunbar & Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar.

Trinidad Corporation, Defendant, represented by John A. Bolles,
Phelps Dunbar LLP, Annette N. Peltier, Phelps Dunbar, Kevin Jacob
LaVie, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Meredith W. Blanque, Phelps Dunbar &
Robert J. Barbier, Phelps Dunbar.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Citron" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In an asbestos personal injury action, defendant Trane U.S., Inc.,
f/k/a American Standard, Inc., moves for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint against it on the ground that there is
insufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact whether
plaintiffs' decedent Roslyn Citron was exposed to asbestos from an
American Standard product.

Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
in a decision and order dated Nov. 25, 2014, denied the motion,
holding that pieced together, the collective testimony in the case
would permit the trier of fact to reasonably infer that the Citron
brothers removed asbestos insulation and rope gasketing from the
Defendant's boilers at the Bell Scrap Metal yard, that dust
therefrom landed on their clothing, and that their mother was
exposed to that dust while doing their laundry.  Read in
conjunction with the uncontroverted evidence that the Defendant's
boilers utilized asbestos components, the plaintiffs have
demonstrated a causal nexus between the Defendant's boilers and
the decedent's injuries, Judge Heitler ruled.

The case is STEVE CITRON and MARTIN CITRON, Individually and as
co-administrators for the estate of ROSLYN CITRON, Plaintiffs, v.
A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO.
190069/13, MOTION SEQ. 004 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/ExUS43from
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: O'Connor's Bid to Dismiss "Norton" Suit OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant O'Connor Constructors, Inc. f/k/a/ Thomas O'Connor &
Co., Inc., in an asbestos personal injury action, moves for
summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint and all
cross-claims asserted against it.

In a decision and order dated Nov. 25, 2014, Judge Sherry Klein
Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, granted the
defendant's motion after finding that it is apparent from
testimony presented in the case that the source of plaintiff Kevin
Norton's asbestos exposure was the application of insulation to
the boilers, not the erection of the boilers themselves.  It is
also apparent that the insulation work was not the defendant's
responsibility, Judge Klein ruled, thus, while a reasonable
inference can be drawn that Mr. Norton was exposed to asbestos at
the powerhouses in question, that exposure cannot be attributed to
the defendant.

The case is KEVIN A. NORTON and ADELE NORTON, Plaintiffs, v. A.O.
SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO.
190279/13, MOTION SEQUENCE NO. 003 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy
of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/w94vmr
from Leagle.com.


                              *********

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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Ma. Cristina
Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *